Cut out fuse

[JohnW2]

What is a reasonable way of withholding consent?

To offer instead a reasonable alternative to the giving of consent, such as saying that you'll send a trained and authorised person to do it.

That's fair enough, but what about timing/convenience? If a DNO is not able/prepared to say that they will send a trained and authorised person quickly and at a convenient time, but nevertheless withholds consent for you to do it yourself, would that constitute an 'unreasonable withholding of consent'?

Kind Reagrsd, John.

 

[westie101]

True, but it's that ill-defined 'competent' thing again

I would not agree with that, the term competant has been for years well defined within the industry.

Within our terms one is: -
A person recognised by the Electricity Company as having sufficient technical knowledge and/or experience to enable him to avoid Danger and who may be nominated to recieve and clear specified safey documents.

However within our Safety Rules a Competant person cannot work on or near any live equipment. For that you need to be an Authorised Person

An Authorised person is a Competant Person over 18 years of age who has been appointd in writing by the Electricity Company to carry out specified duties which may include authority to issue certain documents.

The EAWR Competant person is pretty much emcompased by the above definitions.

But going back to a cut-out it is Electricity Company property, so you need to be an Electricity Company Authorised person to work on it, which includes removing the fuse!
Any argument that anyone other than the Electricity Company can decide who is competant/authorised is invalid!

The witholding of a connection only refers to when we refuse to make one, generally on safety grounds and not in the terms of this discussion.
Similarly if I disconnect a supply I have to have a good valid reason and follow a pproceedure to do so, otherwise that part of the regs kicks in!

Bear also in mind that we are classed as having a supply available if the bottom side of the cutout is live! So if the wiring cannot or is not connected in a lot of cases it is a customer issue!

(for completeness we also have another level

Senior Authorised Person
An authorised person who has been appointed in writing by the Electricity Company to carryout specified duties including the issue and cancellation of certain safety documents.)

(I am classed as Senior Authorised up to and including 11kV and Authorised at 33kV.)

 

[JohnW2]

I would not agree with that, the term competant has been for years well defined within the industry.

That obviously depends upon your view of 'well defined'. Personally, I would say that a definition which includes "...sufficient technical knowledge and/or experience..." falls far short of a real definition, since it requires an opinion regarding 'sufficient'.

However, regardless of the offcial definitions, I still believe that one could very rapidly train a ('trained') electrician to be adequately 'competent' (everyday use of word) and safe in removing/replacing most cutout fuses and able to recognise type(s) of cutout which they shouldn't touch. I suspect you may disagree!

I wonder, for example, how much time is devoted specifically to the removal/ replacement of cutout fuses in the training of meter operators' personnel?

It seems to me that to include training on the removal and replacement of cutout fuses in the training of an electrician (and then 'allowing' them to do it) would probably be, on balance, a positive thing in terms of safety. I may be wrong, but I have the distinct feeling that many electricians are doing this, anyway (or, worse, working with live tails), even without specific training - so maybe the rules should become more pragmatic and require them to be trained to do this safely?

Changing CUs in installations which don't have pre-CU isolators must be part of a fairly high proportion of the major works undertaken by electricians, and I'd hazrad a guess that hundreds of such CU chages are probably undertaken every day. Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what proportion of these works involve the DNO removing and replacing the cutout fuse? Indeed, it may be a case of "hands up any electrician who has not ever removed a cutout fuse in a non-emergency situation"!

The witholding of a connection only refers to when we refuse to make one, generally on safety grounds and not in the terms of this discussion.

I think you have misunderstood this part of the discussion. It was not about withholding of a supply but, rather, about the 'unreasonable withholding' of permision (to 'outsiders') to remove a cutout fuse.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

Fair points, the training takes about a week....BUT

Each operative has to be issued with a full set of safety rules, a continuingly updated copy of the relevant Codes of Practice to continue to be able to spot those cutouts that are not to be worked on.
Those that we need to know about to have changed

I'm sure that any electrical contractor that is willing to pay to be included would be exceptional.

Of course they would also need the equipment to comply with this lot: -

7. SHROUDING OF LIVE TERMINALS
7.1 When a cut-out fuse carrier is removed the live fixed contact must be shrouded as soon as
possible.
7.2 Wherever possible the shrouding of the live fixed contact should be done using a proprietary shroud. Where a proprietary shroud does not exist it may be possible to manufacture a device by cutting a cut-out fuse carrier in half and blanking the cut end in such a way that when the half carrier is inserted in the live fixed contact the half carrier completely shrouds the live metalwork. This would be acceptable for the majority of cutouts in service.
7.3 Where this is inappropriate the live fixed contact may be shrouded using rubber insulation strip which should be fixed in a secure manner and must completely shroud the live metalwork. This method of shrouding may only be carried out by a suitably trained competent person or craftsman of higher grade and is only to be used on single phase cutouts.
7.4 The temporary shrouding of live metalwork should not be removed unless this is necessary for permitted work on the bottom contact or until immediately before the cut-out fuse
carrier is replaced
7.5 Any metalwork which will be made live when the cut-out fuse is replaced should be permanently covered before the circuit is made live.
7.6 Approved insulated tools must be used.
7.7 When shrouding on three phase cut-outs only one live fixed contact at a time should be exposed and this should be shrouded as quickly as possible. However, this does not
preclude the simultaneous exposure of all three fixed contacts prior to fitting of a proprietary shroud which can only be fitted with all three fuses removed (e.g. fitting of the ncomb type shrouds used for metal clad Lucy cut-outs).
8. POLARITY CHECKING
Whenever a supply is connected or any connections are disturbed at the service termination, the polarity at the cut-out must be checked in accordance with Procedure G16 in CP606.

Not forgetting the PPE (the coveralls are about £150 per pair!)

I would suggest that saying that DNO's are unreasonable in applying both statutory and their own Safty Rules to their property, by not permitting unauthorised persons to withdraw their (the DNO's fuse) would be on a hiding to nothing. I was stating the meaning of those rules in ESQCR and that they did not apply in this case!

Whatever the arguments the rules are there and have not changed for many years. If the electrical contractors are unhappy perhaps their trade bodies need to take this up at the appropriate levels in government.

At present it is simple
The cut-out is DNO property, they decide who works on it and under what conditions.
Trying to say that by carrying out a possibly unsafe act that is in breech of EAWR by exposing live terminals,to make things safer is a poor excuse and in the event of a death/injury would be laughed out of court.

The processes are there with both the DNOs and the Suppliers to withdraw the fuses for CU changes so it is up to electrical contractors to use them and not take the "we know better" attitude.
Frankly, to me, it shows a poor attitude to safety by tryijng to ciircumvent the process FOR WHATEVER REASON!

The decision of competance by the DNO's is made by reference to our internal safety documentation that dictates qualifications, level of experience (how many times has a person carried out this activity in controlled and supervised conditions), amount of training, even the persons demeanour and finally passing a very detailed interview.
All these proceedures are well discussed with the HSE who accept they are as good as can be.
In reality a freshly joined employee un-authorised would not recieve any authorisation for at least 6-9 months until a lot of training and all the above took place
Once initial authorisation is given it has to be held for 6 months until it can be upgraded.
It is not done on a whim and in fact here there are only 4 persons who can reccomend authorisations.

On top of that there is annual refresher training, first aid training requirements, auditing,
need I carry on?

I accept that there are a lot on here who are unaware of what is actually done. But if anyone thinks that to be authorised to work on or near live equipment is easy and can be decided at a whim and without any proceedure or specific training they a far, far wrong!

P.S. and if an individual ets it wrong we lose out authorisation immediately until the matter is investigated. Following that there is then often a period of only being allowed to operate supervised.

 

[JohnW2]

Fair points, the training takes about a week!

Thanks. Even that surprises me. Is there really enough to tell trained electricians about removing/replacing cutout fuses (and when not to do it) that can be spun out to take a whole week?

Of course they would also need the equipment to comply with this lot: -

I would suspect that some of that (and some of the training) could be reduced in relation to people being trained only to remove and replace fuses. 'Working on' the cutout (e.g. changing meter tails) is obviously more complicated, and a lot more potentially hazardous

I would suggest that saying that DNO's are unreasonable in applying both statutory and their own Safty Rules to their property, by not permitting unauthorised persons to withdraw their (the DNO's fuse) would be on a hiding to nothing. I was stating the meaning of those rules in ESQCR and that they did not apply in this case!

This only arose because BAS quoted ESQCR as saying:

No person shall make or alter a connection from a distributor's network to a consumer's installation, a street electrical fixture or to another distributor's network without that distributor's consent, unless such consent has been unreasonably withheld.

I personally doubt that 'make or alter a connection' was ever meant to refer to removal/replacement of fuses but, whatever - it was the last phrase in that quote to which the discussion referred. However, it's not really relevant to what I'm saying - I'm not suggesting that 'untrained' people should be allowed to routinely remove/replace cutout fuses.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

Thanks. Even that surprises me. Is there really enough to tell trained electricians about removing/replacing cutout fuses (and when not to do it) that can be spun out to take a whole week

yes as it includes other related items.
The point is they are not courses someone goes on for a week and then gets a certificate! After the course they undergo a period of supervised on job training before they can even apply for the authorisation!

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks. Even that surprises me. Is there really enough to tell trained electricians about removing/replacing cutout fuses (and when not to do it) that can be spun out to take a whole week

yes as it includes other related items.

That's what I was implying. Would all of those 'other related items' actually be relevent to the training (of already trained electricians) only to remove/replace fuses and recognise the cutouts they shouldn't touch? At risk of being accused of being arrogant, I would think that you could teach me everything I needed to know (in order to remove/replace fuses and know which cutouts not to touch) in just an hour or two, at most.

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

Well, related items might be: -
System appreciation showing why the precautions are needed, recognition of fault conditions, legal issues, use off PPE and why, understanding of the Safety Rules and the limits of authority.
Assesements of safe operating practice prior to going "live"

The initial first aid requirement is at least a one day course.

Face it, if electricians are withdrawing these fuses they have little idea what could go wrong (or ignore it) if the former they need education to the hazards, if the latter they need educating about safety
Any course will be designed to cover all the basics!

I do know there used to be a course for street lighting electricians that was a week!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

At risk of being accused of being arrogant, I would think that you could teach me everything I needed to know (in order to remove/replace fuses and know which cutouts not to touch) in just an hour or two, at most.

How about the risk of being accused of ignoring the possibility of unknown unknowns?

Training costs money - you have to pay the trainee even though he isn't generating any revenue, you have to pay the trainer, you have to pay for the facilities, and so on.

Companies don't do it lightly and they don't spend a week training people if it could be done in a couple of hours.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But none of this alters the fact that, even if we ignore the issue of ESQCR 25(1), for an "ordinary" electrician to cut the seals and pull the fuse is almost certainly a contravention of H&S legislation, and therefore it is illegal for newboy's boss to tell him to do it, and illegal for him to obey.

 

[JohnW2]

Any course will be designed to cover all the basics!

Fine, if one is 'taking people off the street' and training them, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about 'training' trained electricians - if one does a higher degree, one does not start by being taught all the 'basics' that one was taught in one's first degree.

I'm not even really suggesting that trained electricians should 'go on a course' to be trained in relation to fuse-pulling - rather, I'm suggesting that this is something which could (should?) be taught as part of the routine training of electricians (particular given that I suspect many of them go on to do it). I hope and presume that matters of safety and safe practices already feature heavily in such training, so why not this as well?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

At risk of being accused of being arrogant, I would think that you could teach me everything I needed to know (in order to remove/replace fuses and know which cutouts not to touch) in just an hour or two, at most.

How about the risk of being accused of ignoring the possibility of unknown unknowns?

Well, I was suggesting that a competent trainer could very rapidly teach me all I needed to know, hopefully not leaving any significant 'unknown unknowns' - and I'm not even an electrician. You may, of course, (probably do!) disagree!

Training costs money - you have to pay the trainee even though he isn't generating any revenue, you have to pay the trainer, you have to pay for the facilities, and so on. Companies don't do it lightly and they don't spend a week training people if it could be done in a couple of hours.

As I've just written to Westie, it depends upon whom you are training. If they are training people 'from scratch', a reasonable amount of (mainly 'basic') training is obviously required - both for true safety and 'CYA'. However, I contend that it's different with someone already trained in and/or conversant with electrical matters and safety (including all the basics). I'm sure that matters such as isolation and 'testing for dead' (by definition, on posibly live installations - if not, why test?!) are 'beaten in' to electricians during training, and I think this fuse-pulling stuff could just as easily be covered.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

But none of this alters the fact that, even if we ignore the issue of ESQCR 25(1), for an "ordinary" electrician to cut the seals and pull the fuse is almost certainly a contravention of H&S legislation, and therefore it is illegal for newboy's boss to tell him to do it, and illegal for him to obey.

That's probably true, and I certainly haven't suggested that any electrician should do it (although I believe that many do). rather, I'm talking about what I think would be a more reasonable, and safer, 'system' (including rules and laws).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[bernardgreen]

I would expect the risk involved "pulling" the fuse from a modern and properly installed cut out would be fairly small provided all load had been removed. That does not mean I advocate it and a boss should not expect his staff to pull main fuses. That does not apply to bosses in DNOs whose staff are trained and provided with the necessary PPE.

The risk of injury and / or damage from attempting to pull a fuse on an old cut out are significant. I recall fire brigade photos of the damage to a cupboard under the stairs when a main fuse was pulled and the incoming cable went into Roman Candle mode.

I recall a friend having power cut off when the cut out in a neighbour's house "fell apart" when someone attempted pull the fuse. Whether the network "fuse" blew or the power to the street was cut off to enable repair of the cable etc isn't clear.

 

[bernardgreen]

Deleted ( edit not quote )