Local Isolation For A/C Internal Units

It would be usual to supply a lockable isolator for the outdoor unit. The inside and outside units together form an appliance. Unless the inside unit needed another local supply, then BS7671 ends at the isolator for the outdoor unit. In terms of placing an isolators between the two halves of the appliance, there could be some interesting liability issues there! 


Regards,


Alan.

Sparkymania:

Sparkingchip:

What is the role of a supervisor?


Andy B.

In the context of this post ensuring that the results of inspection and testing are recorded correctly on the appropriate certificates or reports.

What is the question relating to exactly?

Surely you're not saying the inspectors word is final and the supervisor has no input?

 

I suggest that the supervisor supervises, so where does the buck stop?


Andy Betteridge

What I think Dave Z is saying is that a EICR is periodic report on the installation compared to BS7671.

Therefore if a local isolator is not required by BS7671 then it must be awarded no code.

If such isolator is required by BS7671 then no isolator must be coded appropriately.

The inspector should decide this.

If the QS modifies this inappropriately then why?

Could well be fraudulent.

If any designer or installer or any entity at all wants to exceed BS7671 requirements in order to improve say safety then all well and good and might well be commendable but it is not within the remit of BS7671 EICR but part of another contract therefore a seperate certficate

So does the person undertaking the inspection, testing and preparation of an EICR have to work autonomously without any supervision by their employer or a person appointed by their employer to supervise them?


Andy Betteridge

ebee

Well put but again, no fraud if the client requests that information. Like I said they give the go ahead for the remedials after receiving a detailed report and they are engineers.


OK. Thanks for the responses everybody.


I already thought that local isolation wasn't a requirement of the regs when this issue came up last year. The five other sparks I work with say it is. I think this is a misunderstanding of 464.2 of the regs.

I must admit that I was always under the impression (until recently) that a "local" isolator was required for all types of equipment that could cause injury if energized when repair or maintenance work was being carried out. This may be because of reasoning and nothing to do with the regs. I have checked my 16th ed regs 1992 before amendments and it says nothing about local isolators there either yet I would have sworn blind that that was where I first got it from.


If I was working on that equipment I would feel safer if the isolator was local to the equipment. If it was remote from it, I know you test to make sure it's dead before working on it but what if it was already locked off. You can't test live first, then isolate, then test dead.

Example scenario. 12 rotating machines that would rip your arm off with no warning if energized. 4 are already isolated. 3 have been repaired and have been signed off the go back into service. I'm working on the last one. I test for dead. Someone comes along and turns on the 3 and leaves the one I'm working on isolated. However, all 4 were turned off at the same time and they have been marked up wrongly. I'm working on no 4 and nos 1,2,3 are turned back on. however 3 is really 4 and 4 is really 3. I've lost my arm. If the isolators were local to the equipment I would still have my arm.

I also think there is a psychological aspect of it. I feel safer if the isolator is within sight then if it is remote. That might be what drives the "local isolator" reasoning.

Before anyone comments about my reasoning above doesn't mean it's reportable with a code whatever, I know. I'm only giving some reasoning here as to why have a local isolator not to report that there's no local isolator.


After going onto the A/C forum website I can see that A/C maintenance engineers prefer to have local isolators on internal units. They complain about installers not doing it.

They should get together and lobby for it to be part of a British Standard. Anyway, that's their problem.

Researching into the relevant part of the regs show that isolation is required only but not local isolators.


Now to throw a spanner in the works:

Reading some of the A/C installation manuals on line they also say to put a local isolator on the internal unit.

It is a requirement of the regs to follow manufacturers installation instructions.

Can't remember the reg. Searched for it but can't find it. I know it's there somewhere.

Therefore, if there is no isolator internally is this not non-compliant, not with the isolation part of the regs but with the requirement to follow manufacturers instructions?


By the way. We don't list observations. We sent them in individually by email. Location, description of fault, picture. If it's a code 1, pic before repair and after. When I learned about the fact that the regs don't require "local" isolation last year I mentioned that to the supervisor. He said we must still report it. This must be by arrangement as they have been doing work for them for the past 20 years.  How coded and non coded items are then sent to the client is up to them. All items end up on the same sheet. Most will be coded and some not.


I can't believe it. I was supposed to be relaxing this weekend and not thinking about work.

Sorry I disagree, the report (EICR) is to BS7671 so code or no code as per BS7671 only.

Any additional items by contract agreement is on a diff cert/report or worksheet or whatever but not on the wiring regs report.

This must be made very clear and not muddled.

If you were to note on the EICR "Advice only - as per your agreed practices only - plese see .............. report No XXXX" or similar then I could live with that. In that case not fraudulent I`d say

Have a read of the declaration on the IET model EICR Report and note the box for the QS to authorise the report.

It's all a matter of interpretation. 

OK. I accept what you say and agree. To a point. If the client wants the report to include everything do they not have the right to have that?

However, I don't get involved with preparing the reports. I fill in front pages, test, inspect, record details of installation on schedule and test results.Send in faults by email.

When I first went on the 2391, in about 2002 I think, I was virtually doing the same thing except for the change in technology. Now it's Ipads and Iphones. 

I have rarely completed full EICR off my own back (apart from MWC and EIC). In fact I can't even recall the time that I did it's so long ago. They are competed in the office from the information I send in.

I don't to testing all the time by the way. 75% of the time is installation work. If I had my way I wouldn't do any testing. Boring as hell but no choice.

I recently did an EICR for a house for the son of one of the engineers from the estates office. Again, I send in information. I don't complete the report. There were some items that were of interest but not non-compliant. He had asked for anything that I found to be reported. Now, how that information was set out I don't know.

However, I have just been through a few of the remedials sheets and have noticed that any non code items are at the end of each section referring to a particular DB. Code 2 first. Then Code 3. Then FI. Then no code. So if the client wants the information set out in this way, why can't they have it set out this way?