Looking For A Reg No For An Eicr

[OnOff]

Sounds like you need to pull something out of the hat!

How about 445.1.1 from Protection Against Undervoltage? The restoration process could expose the user to unknown danger (doesn't say it has to be electrically related) en route to resetting................anything really from slips, trips, falls, Beast of Trowbridge etc. The "in between" from exiting the cabin to the main building isn't part of the design which you could pick up in a Risk Assessment. BTW is there emergency lighting on the external route? Thinking if it's dark.

Aided by South African Fairtrade Shiraz the above sounds good to me! Have a drink and you'll see the wisdom of this! The more I drink read it the better it looks!

:coat

 

[Sidewinder]

The external route is on a different supply Onoff.

It is also not the responsibility of my client believe it or not!

 

[OnOff]

The external route is on a different supply Onoff.

It is also not the responsibility of my client believe it or not

Having slept on it I stand by my thoughts. Separating the RCD from the portacabin like this poses an unknown risk, this risk can be demonstrated by quoting the "danger" element IN 445.1.1. My comments on whether there was emergency lighting en route was ref if there isn't and it's dark then the danger is greater. The fact that the external route is outside the control of the client makes it worse. Ditto if the external route supply is not under the control of your client. I'd put it to your client, in writing, on the lines I've quoted, something like "Should the patient be required to reset the supply RCD this will require their exiting the patient environment and crossing an area outside of the responsibility of "the client". The patient may be exposed to unknown risks during this time. An RCD, local to the patient environment would reduce such risk. Regulation 445.1.1 applies". You can only try surely? Put the onus back on them.

 

[wozz]

I'd say 445.1.1 is not applicable in that way and if you want to apply it in that way which I think is not its purpose how do you stand when there is a power cut? Or a fault further upstream moving the rcd won't help then! 

I have never seen a requirement for local resetting of devices. Also shouldn't this be do e by a responsible person rather than who ever is closest. More of a operational / safety requirement that a 7671 thing I think. 

 

[OnOff]

I've never seen a reg either for local resetting that's why I've gone for a different approach. 

Simplify it if you will, 445.1.1 mentions the word "danger" but it doesn't say in what context i.e. electrical. I really don't even think I'm twisting words to suit just making a fair interpretation of 7671. At the end of the day my "take" is a reasonable one. These days clients are scared stiff of comeback. If the OP has nothing else what's the harm in trying this tack, It is a C3 anyway. Once it's in writing followed up by a quite word to back it up I think it will sow the seeds of doubt in their mind and get the OP the result he wants.

I'll say again, by the patient having to go into a separate, less controlled environment they could be placed at unknown risk. 

I think bringing the RCD under local control is a separate issue to any power cut or upstream fault issues.

I remember thinking years back that having the regs would give me all the answers in black white! If I'd have known it was going to be so "grey"............

:lol:

 

[Sharpend]

Forget regs, apply commonsense and then mention the dreaded compensation word. Apply OnOff's logic, should the rcd trip during treatment and the practitioner had to leave the treatment room perhaps in darkness/limited light then there is always the claim of medical negligence that I'm sure some vile solicitor will jump on?

Maybe I'm wrong here but I trust a criminal more than a solicitor in most cases and with the compo culture that we have these days is it worth the cost too move the darn thing?

 

[NozSpark]

Just thinking on this a bit more....

We all know that RCDs are for protection under fault conditions and that in theory they shouldn't nuisance trip

Now lets say that the cables, accessories and equipment have been chosen and installed in a way to almost rule out nuisance tripping... this leaves us with the only possible reason for the RCD to trip is due to a fault.

Obviously these units are for long term (at home) medical care... I'd hazard a guess at dyalasis. ... and that there are quite strict conditions of use which would probably prevent the patient from using any personal electrical equipment.... they may also have instructions which may only allow the appropriate maintenance person to reset the RCD after testing the unit and its supply cable...

Dunno...... just a thought

 

[wozz]

Alot of what is being discussed here is not down to 7671 is the clients responsibility to decide if there is danger walking around the site. Make a recommendations or a note if you think but personally I'd be limiting myself to what I'm being paid for. If you decide there is danger due to power going out you should be looking at ups, generators ect. To my mind you can't have it both ways. 

 

[Sidewinder]

Noz is the closest.

I can't say too much, but the client is an LHB.

The treatment room & the supplies are their responsibilty.

The site is the responsibility of the patient.

Thus my client is not responsible for the patient walking along their own garden path.

The patient has exterior lighting at their property, and this is on a separate supply, as is the rest of the property.

 

[OnOff]

Forget regs, apply commonsense and then mention the dreaded compensation word. Apply OnOff's logic, should the rcd trip during treatment and the practitioner had to leave the treatment room perhaps in darkness/limited light then there is always the claim of medical negligence that I'm sure some vile solicitor will jump on?

Maybe I'm wrong here but I trust a criminal more than a solicitor in most cases and with the compo culture that we have these days is it worth the cost too move the darn thing?

Exactly, though I'd still go with my reg!

- So, Mr Smith having suffered a power failure had to leave his warm/well lit/familiar surroundings and not in the best of health had to walk some distance to reset the power. In doing so slipped on the ice and fell, breaking his hip and then froze to death?

- Yes, that's correct

- And why exactly did Mr Smith have to go outside?

- Because the reset was in another building.............

- Could it have been placed say within the building he came from?

- Yes, it could.......................................................

- And why was it not may I ask?

- Well, I did recommend this on my EICR...........

- So, the loss of voltage necessitated Mr Smith going outside placing him in some danger?

- Yes, that's correct......... 

- So, we have a "danger" and "a loss of voltage" is there a regulation that combines these two elements?

- Yes, Your Honour, ask Onoff!

:lol:

Think I've mentioned before my brother is a lawyer. £250/hr anyone? In my family the conversation goes "Of course there's Allen our eldest, he's a lawyer! And then there's the young thick one who gets his hands dirty!" (That's ME!)

 

[OnOff]

Exactly, though I'd still go with my reg!

- So, Mr Smith having suffered a power failure had to leave his warm/well lit/familiar surroundings and not in the best of health had to walk some distance to reset the power. In doing so slipped on the ice and fell, breaking his hip and then froze to death?

- Yes, that's correct

- And why exactly did Mr Smith have to go outside?

- Because the reset was in another building.............

- Could it have been placed say within the building he came from?

- Yes, it could.......................................................

- And why was it not may I ask?

- Well, I did recommend this on my EICR...........

- So, the loss of voltage necessitated Mr Smith going outside placing him in some danger?

- Yes, that's correct......... 

- So, we have a "danger" and "a loss of voltage" is there a regulation that combines these two elements?

- Yes, Your Honour, ask Onoff!

:lol:

Think I've mentioned before my brother is a lawyer. £250/hr anyone + expenses? In my family the conversation goes "Of course there's Allen our eldest, he's a lawyer! And then there's the young thick one who gets his hands dirty!" (That's ME!)

 

[Sidewinder]

Onoff,

If your scenario is correct then I had better contact my client and tell them to get all these patients back on the wards as it is no longer safe for them to walk up their own garden path in the winter to start their treatment, and back when they finish.

IF the RCD failed then the patient would have to make the self same walk as he did to start his treatment, and the self same one he would have to make at the endd of his treatment.

If this case came to court as you explain in your last post then a lot of people will die because of the common law precedent set.

The whole concept is based on their home & garden being a safe enough place for them to go about their daily lives and thus a safe place for them to go back and fore their treatment room.

As for infirm, many of them are actually working, so they can't be "that" infirm.

I'm not saying that I can't and won't use that reg, but, one needs to understand the scenario, to have treatment at home they HAVE to be in reasonable health and able bodied, or at LEAST have a carer who is both with them at all times.

The treatment they receive whilst life saving does not require them undertaking it daily, they can be as low as twice or three times per week, so if it's icy then they don't actually "have" to go outside.

They also have the option at any time of an ambulance, taxi, getting a lift or taking their car to hospital, for treatment anyway.

There is also the, well why did Mr Smith not put on the exterior lighting to his premises to assist his walk.

Finally what can we do in the event of a total power outage in which case there will be no borrowed light from the highway lighting, it looks like these patients are doomed, there are 35 that are going to have to immediately go back to hospital I know of!

As it is not safe for them to walk their own garden paths back and fore their house from their treatment room or the street to get home!

Then there are the others that could slip on their paths whilst going home from work to undertake their treatment within their properties, that's another 50 I think.

(numbers approximate & related only to my client)

 

[OnOff]

Onoff,

If your scenario is correct then I had better contact my client and tell them to get all these patients back on the wards as it is no longer safe for them to walk up their own garden path in the winter to start their treatment, and back when they finish.

IF the RCD failed then the patient would have to make the self same walk as he did to start his treatment, and the self same one he would have to make at the endd of his treatment.

If this case came to court as you explain in your last post then a lot of people will die because of the common law precedent set.

The whole concept is based on their home & garden being a safe enough place for them to go about their daily lives and thus a safe place for them to go back and fore their treatment room.

As for infirm, many of them are actually working, so they can't be "that" infirm.

I'm not saying that I can't and won't use that reg, but, one needs to understand the scenario, to have treatment at home they HAVE to be in reasonable health and able bodied, or at LEAST have a carer who is both with them at all times.

The treatment they receive whilst life saving does not require them undertaking it daily, they can be as low as twice or three times per week, so if it's icy then they don't actually "have" to go outside.

They also have the option at any time of an ambulance, taxi, getting a lift or taking their car to hospital, for treatment anyway.

There is also the, well why did Mr Smith not put on the exterior lighting to his premises to assist his walk.

Finally what can we do in the event of a total power outage in which case there will be no borrowed light from the highway lighting, it looks like these patients are doomed, there are 35 that are going to have to immediately go back to hospital I know of!

As it is not safe for them to walk their own garden paths back and fore their house from their treatment room or the street to get home!

Then there are the others that could slip on their paths whilst going home from work to undertake their treatment within their properties, that's another 50 I think.

(numbers approximate & related only to my client)

The extra information helps doesn't it - the OP wasn't clear! Wondering why I bothered now as feeling I've been shot at? You're struggling finding a reg & I tried to help. Let us know though what you do go with though.

"Thanks" would have done instead of adding what if's left right and centre. Can their situation be made safer? Yes it can. No harm in subtly pointing out to the client. Put it as a C3, quote my suggested reg and verbally lay it on.

Where's the "I GIVE UP" icon? I know where I'm going...................... Guinness

Oh, and WHO scoobed me? Cheers for the common sense vote!

 

[Sidewinder]

Onoff, did you not see the smiley at the end of the post, it was tongue in cheek!

The reason for the thread was IF I can find a reg, then it is a no brainer, they pretty much "have" to do it.

The rest is more opinion based and the client can use their opinions over mine, well, they can anyway, but, if I had a reg, then it is clearer.

Due to the delicate nature of some of my clients and the work I do, I have to be a little careful what I post.

 

[OnOff]

Onoff, did you not see the smiley at the end of the post, it was tongue in cheek!

The reason for the thread was IF I can find a reg, then it is a no brainer, they pretty much "have" to do it.

The rest is more opinion based and the client can use their opinions over mine, well, they can anyway, but, if I had a reg, then it is clearer.

Due to the delicate nature of some of my clients and the work I do, I have to be a little careful what I post.

Erm............nope didn't see the smiley and bit thinking you hadn't seen mine! Sorry!

Much calmer now I've mixed the dregs of 3 bottles of red Shiraz/Cabernet Shiraz & Merlot. Bad day all round. Not sure if the drink thing is a sign of wider "issues" though. All I've got left is two bottles of Samuel Adams Boston Lager and I find that makes me irritable......................two bottles of homemade 1986 Elderberry on top of the cupboard if I get really desperate I suppose........a half bottle of Vodka from the house move in 98 and a recent bottle of Jacobs Creek fizzy Chardonnay.............

Still just got an email from a lad I help through his 17th with past papers, my books and he's passed. He's one of these new "multi-skilled" apprentices that the big companies are putting through. They end up half way between electrical and mechanical. What has he let himself in for!

 

[kme]

Sorry - missed this altogether.

Snakehips: I DO know the scenarios of which you speak: and I`d have taken the last part of 314.2

 and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device.

As probably the most "help" you`ll get from 7671.

Q - what about MeIGaN? Any use to you in this situation? Not that I`m sure there`s any help there - Greeny might know

 

[Sidewinder]

MEIGan is now pretty much defunct & replaced by 710, however, we need to steer clear of 710, else we will need to issue EDN's for the installs possibly!

Even the Corrigendum version of 710 is well overkill for what is in these locations to be honest IMHO.

I'll look again at the reg you say, but regardless it may as well be a single RCD for the install, it is just the location that concerns me.

I don't think it is valid to take a section of a reg in isolation.

The whole reg is:

 
314.2
Separate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation which need to be separately controlled, in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits, and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device."
 
My bold.
I am not overly considered about the single up front RCD, I "need" 3 "linked" circuits anyway, and those 3 are the only critical ones.
The other 3 are somewhat peripheral, so I can't see an advantage of having more than 1 RCD protecting it.
 
It is simply the pain in the **53 that the location of the RCD remote to the treatment room gives us that I'm unhappy with.
I could put the 3 superfluous circuits on one RCD & the 3 critical on another.
However, nothing would be plugged in once treatment had started, so if the RCD did trip it would be due to a fault developing during the treatment time.
 
 
The more I am thinking about this the less I can justify the requirement to move it.
It has to be changed for other reasons, but, I am beginning to doubt the requirement to move it based on RA & usage.

 

[steptoe]

ok,

the bit Im getting lost at is why is the swa RCD'd at all at the origin?

surely it could be moved off the rcd at origin and rcd'd at point of use?

 

[Sidewinder]

Yes Steps it can, but I need to justify spending your money to do it.

I think I have just thought of one, I'm going to sleep on it & check it out in the morning, I will post tomorrow if the outcome.

Not being clandestine, but, I want to look into it first.

 

[kme]

I`m not looking at the reg as a part, any more than you are ( bold bit).......and I wasn`t suggesting that you use the reg to suggest seperation of circuits is an issue - we know it isn`t, in this respect.

BUT, we appear to be saying that the "consequences of the actions of a single protective device" ( to wit: the RCD in question) could cause nuisance / distress / financial loss / other ( delete as appropriate) - so I am standing by my post.

Its up to you how / if you take anyone`s suggestions or advice.........but you asked for `em; and they`ve been provided.

Thing is, as you are all too aware, 7671 isn`t & wasn`t designed to deal with this type of issue - its down to the designer & client to determine what is "acceptable risk", or "unacceptable nuisance".......

:coat