Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi Guys,
I am wondering if any regs say you must have double isolation on electrical equipment. If so could somebody point me in the right direction please, Irish and English Regs.
Thanks in advance,
Torres
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I can't but one of the 'sparks' might.
I do wonder if you mean double INsulation though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
'Isolation' will be right - this is about "lock out tag out".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes Kate it is lock out tag out, a fitter here wanted to fill out a near miss as the isolator switch at a pump was broke and not allowing him to put on a lock, but our maintenance manager says no its not a near miss but a maintenance job to replace the isolator? This pump was isolated back in the switch room, so wondering if the switch room is enough or should we have double isolation?
Thanks,
Torres
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I tend to agree with the maintenance manager - it's a fault to be corrected. Not being able to isolate something properly isn't a near miss in itself, it's only if you work on something that might not be isolated that you could call it a near miss.
The point of isolating in two places is so that if something goes wrong with one isolation (eg the switches in the switch room are wrongly labelled and you have isolated the wrong thing) the other one will still protect you. And another advantage of local isolation is that the fitter can actually see that the thing is isolated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ah, well in that case.
From what you have described, I don't think that it is a near miss (although it could have resulted in one) and I would say that it is a 'maintenance job' to replace the isolator so that it can be effectively locked off. I would say that as long as the circuit/item CAN be EFFECTIVELY locked off then there is no need for 'double isolation'.
I don't think that there is a requirement to isolate a system twice however, clearly if more than one person/trade are working on a system then each needs to have their own lock in the isolation system to ensure that power cannot be restored until all have finished. There are plenty of 'propriety' systems for this that are simple and effective to use, possibly alongside a permit to work system.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Canopener,
We have a very effective PTW system here, but where i have an issue is that the breaker in the MCC room is not designed to take multiple locks from each individual working on whatever piece of equipment, personally i think the double isolation is a must when dealing with toxic,corrosive, flammable materials etc. So i would call it a near miss as the fitters had no place to put their locks!! And the action would be to replace the isolator?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well it might be a near miss if the fitter did the job anyway - but then it's doing the job without the required isolation (according to your permit procedure) that's the near miss, and the isolator being broken is just a cause of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The MCCB in the switch room can be adequately locked off with multiple locks.
You just need the right kit.
Would never say a near miss, as the SSW identified an issue.
The isolator is just a maintenance job, unless, it is required as a point of emergency isolation of energy.
There is no need for double LOTO isolation.
Even if the isolation is identified incorrectly the equipment must be tested for safe isolation prior to work anyway, so, this would identify the incorrect labelling.
If a workplace is using LOTO, & PTW, then I cannot believe that equipment would be incorrectly labelled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Guys,
Many thanks for the replys.
The spark always calls the main control room to verify the unit is isolated correctly, but we will be sticking with double isolation, anything we theat can have an isolator in the field will have one.
Torres
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Torres, as Paul has pointed out, there are a number of systems (all pretty similar) that allow for multiple lock off originating from an initial single lock off point. These systems are not particularly expensive, they are widely available, in common use and relatively 'fool proof'. Give it a Google and see what you think, they are a relatively modest investment and in my experience easy to use and effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
To be specific, an example of the multiple lock off solutions referred to by Paul and canopener could be whereby a single isolation is placed on the circuit breaker c/w safety padlock, then the key for this padlock is dropped in a Group Lockout Box. Thereafter, any additional worker needing to work on the isolated equipment attaches their personal lock to the Group Lockout Box. If you'd like me to send you images of this arrangement, please drop me a line with your e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Shouldn't the broken isolator be reported as a hazard recognition and reported on such systems with actions placed against it, ie: Put other isolation locations in place ,warn people, action maintenance with a time scale to repair etc....
If the main breaker is not designed to take more than the number of people required to lock off, can you lock off the main breaker and then lock off the keys in a isolation box which would be able to hold the number lock offs required?
I'm just throwing stuff into this to see if it is any use to people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the 'good old days' we used to lock the MEM's and removed the blades for good measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.