Pulling Main Fuse E-Petition

[westie101]

And I am adding that they should be specifically trained/tested to ensure they are competent to do this task, just being a member & being inspected is not enough which the SSE document recognises.

DNO/Supplier staff are specifically trained and authorised to do this work, I feel that just because someone is registered and has been inspected that installations are up to spec is not enough

 

[westie101]

On that note it is worth remembering that all the DNOs regularly talk about such issues via the ENA, I'm sure that other DNOs are watching the SSE system

 

[JohnW2]

But why not? Would an electrician do it free gratis?

One imagines so, if it were just part of a significant job such as a CU change - it would just be part of the work involved in the job. I doubt whether many electricians charge specifically for undoing the faceplate screws of accessories, cutting/stripping cable or things like that

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

(as new or replacement equipment)

Ah you didn't put that qualification in your original post1

Not in those words, no,but when I wrote "Would you regard it as acceptable, say, for a piece of industrial machinery to be installed such that...." it did not occur to me that there was any third possibility. If what one installs in neither new nor replacement equipment, then what on earth could it be?

I know what you are saying regarding the concept of the switched cut-out, but face it the industry (not just myself) has seen no need for them so any argument for is a dead end in present circumstances.

You may well be right, but that doesn't make me any less amazed (or shocked). One can think of an almost endless number of situationss in which industries could argue that 'there was no need' for modern safety requirements because they had been 'managing safely' (with appropriate training/PPE/whatever) for decades - but try telling that to the legislators, H&S inspectors or insurers (or courts, if things go wrong)!

As for the hazards any work near live electricity is inherently unsafe but as long as appropriate risk control measures are in place we will continue to do it.

It is, IMO, irrational (some would say irresponsible) to manage a hazard with 'risk control' when it could be eliminated. In some cases, there are good reasons for working live (even if only to minimise supply disruption to customers), but in the case of domestic cutouts, I see no such reasons, and I've yet to hear any argument against the gradual elimination of this hazard by installing switched ones whenever an existing unit has to be replaced, or a new one provided (for a new supply). Just as with BS 7671, the relevant regulations could be revised to include a non-retrospective requirement for switched cutouts.

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

i totally agree that PPE is the worst possibly way of controlling a risk but with the other precautions it does work.

Incidents from removing/replacing cut-out fuses are very rare as we are constantly on the look out for it going wrong (constant risk assessing in our heads as we have been taught).

Whilst I'm sure there are those electricians that could prove competent to do this operation it must not be at the reduction of safety or the "I'm an electrician I'll be OK" attitude

(We see it enough in some DIYers on here and there is no hesitation to pulling them up short, so what's fair for one .....)(yes the same applies to me)!

I know what you are saying regarding the concept of the switched cut-out, but face it the industry (not just myself) has seen no need for them so any argument for is a dead end in present circumstances.

Do you not think that we are constantly looking at what we do, do you not think that the HSE is not constantly looking at what we do. There is no complacency here as we know full well if it goes wrong what could happen (and DNOs have been there).

But, and this is a big one, there have been a number of instances where the HSE has agreed that the way we do things is far better that outside the industry and owing to our very low incident rate allows us to take a different level of precautions than others.

 

[SimonH2]

No. As I said, the practices are inherently unsafe - otherwise there would be no need for specific training, authorisation and PPE in order to mitigate the risks.

Apply a little extension to that argument and we should immediately do away with dangerous lectrickery altogether. After all, part of electrician training is procedures for safe isolation etc - so (near enough) "specific training, authorisation and PPE in order to mitigate the risks".
And for those who've ever worked on a system with fuses in the "fuse board" - when you isolate a circuit, do/did you insist on switching off power to the whole house before removing/inserting a fuse ? Or do/did you do what everyone I know does and just pull/replace the fuse "live" ?


Flipping the argument on it's head ...
So the DNO fits a switch upstream of the cutout fuse. Where's your point of isolation for that switch ? Another switch upstream of it ? Not to mention the fuse required to protect it. Clearly this would be nonsensical.
And each switch is another point of failure.

IMO there is nothing wrong with the DNO approach. The risks are well known, and controllable by working methods and PPE.

But back to the original petition.
Personally I think it's the wrong approach. If it were made a condition on the DNOs that when they do work on a supply that they need to provide a means of isolation available to the end user (or at least a qualified electrician) then that would deal with the issue once and for all within the next meter refresh cycle. Some designs of meter do in fact include an isolator switch accessible once the load side terminal cover is removed - I cannot believe that the inclusion of such a feature would add more than pennies to the cost of a meter in the volumes they will be bought over the next few years.
Such a condition could be imposed by a variation in their supply licence which will set out certain things they are required/allowed to do. it wouldn't require any primary legislation or even a statutory instrument.



A to the remote turn off facility ...
I really, really cannot see this having been removed from the specs. It's always been an integral part of the meter design (don't forget there are facilities in all the meters to operate in pre-payment mode). Given (as pointed out) our impending lack of surplus generating capacity, I reckon it's going to get used in anger before too long. Give it 5 years and I don't think we'll be able to cope with a winter like we had just under 2 years ago. IIRC back then we had a very small margin between capacity and demand - and we've got something like 8GW or nuclear, and 16GW of coal likely to be going off line in the next few years. Hmm, those windmills aren't going to make up for a 20+GW shortfall when there's no wind.

 

[JohnW2]

i totally agree that PPE is the worst possibly way of controlling a risk but with the other precautions it does work.

As I've agreed, it's a totally acceptable way of managing a risk that cannot be eliminated - but, IMO, not a satisfactory alternative to eliminating the risk in a situation in which it can be eliminated.

But, and this is a big one, there have been a number of instances where the HSE has agreed that the way we do things is far better that outside the industry and owing to our very low incident rate allows us to take a different level of precautions than others.

I do not doubt that the DNOs' 'risk management' practices have resulted in a very good safety record. However, I still find it conceptually very strange. Unless I'm missing something, removing the need for live removal/replacement of cutout fuses could only move the safety record in one direction. The only arguments against such an elimination of the risk would appear to be based on cost and logistics, not considerations of safety. As I said, DNOs must be in a fairly unique position amongst industries, in having convinced the HSE etc that it's OK to let a removable hazard persist on the basis that they have systems which enable them to manage that risk pretty well.

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

I do not doubt that the DNOs' 'risk management' practices have resulted in a very good safety record. However, I still find it conceptually very strange. Unless I'm missing something, removing the need for live removal/replacement of cutout fuses could only move the safety record in one direction. The only arguments against such an elimination of the risk would appear to be based on cost and logistics, not considerations of safety. As I said, DNOs must be in a fairly unique position amongst industries, in having convinced the HSE etc that it's OK to let a removable hazard persist on the basis that they have systems which enable them to manage that risk pretty well

I can only suggest it falls into the realms of "Reasonably Practicable" where it is accepted that the high cost of reducing an exceedingly low risk (where risk = hazard x likelihood) is not merited.

 

[RF Lighting]

More waffling from john based on guesswork on a subject he knows f all about.

 

[JohnW2]

No. As I said, the practices are inherently unsafe - otherwise there would be no need for specific training, authorisation and PPE in order to mitigate the risks.

Apply a little extension to that argument and we should immediately do away with dangerous lectrickery altogether. After all, part of electrician training is procedures for safe isolation etc - so (near enough) "specific training, authorisation and PPE in order to mitigate the risks".

Exactly. Anything to do with electricity is potentially unsafe, and requires appropriate practices, procedures, precautions etc. to manage the risks. As you will understand,I was simply responding (by saying effectively that) to westie's statement that handling live fuses is 'safe'.

Flipping the argument on it's head ...
So the DNO fits a switch upstream of the cutout fuse. Where's your point of isolation for that switch ? Another switch upstream of it ? Not to mention the fuse required to protect it. Clearly this would be nonsensical.
And each switch is another point of failure.

Yes, that's true, but it's not really the point. We are talking specifically about the removal/replacement of fuses. In any other point in an electrical installation, one would expect a means of isolation upstream of the fuses (whether people made use of ity or not) - whether in a 'switch-fuse', the main switch of a 'fuse board' or whatever - so I find it hard to understand why we think differently of cutouts. Westie's answer is, of course, that only 'specially trained and authorised people, using PPE' are allowed to remove/replace those fuses - but that's essentially a circular argument. That restriction on who could work on the fuses really only exists because there is no upstream switch.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I can only suggest it falls into the realms of "Reasonably Practicable" where it is accepted that the high cost of reducing an exceedingly low risk (where risk = hazard x likelihood) is not merited.

A very valid approach. However, as I've said, if taken gradually, the cost would be virtually zero, which would totally change the arithmetic.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

More waffling from john based on guesswork on a subject he knows f all about.

I don't expect you to believe me but, FWIW, risk management is a subject about which I know quite a lot.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I've agreed, it's a totally acceptable way of managing a risk that cannot be eliminated - but, IMO, not a satisfactory alternative to eliminating the risk in a situation in which it can be eliminated.

In the context of DNO employees whose job it is to arrange or un-arrange supplies to domestic properties, what risks would be eliminated from their job by the presence of an isolator after the meter?

In the context of DNO employees whose job it is to replace knackered cut-outs in domestic properties, what risks would be eliminated from their job by the presence of an isolator after the meter?

In the context of metering company employees whose job it is to install/remove/replace meters in domestic properties, what risks would be eliminated from their job by the presence of an isolator after the meter?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

More waffling from john based on guesswork on a subject he knows f all about.

Is that you, holmslaw?

 

[JohnW2]

In the context of DNO employees whose job it is to arrange or un-arrange supplies to domestic properties, what risks would be eliminated from their job by the presence of an isolator after the meter?

None.

In the context of DNO employees whose job it is to replace knackered cut-outs in domestic properties, what risks would be eliminated from their job by the presence of an isolator after the meter?

None.

In the context of metering company employees whose job it is to install/remove/replace meters in domestic properties, what risks would be eliminated from their job by the presence of an isolator after the meter?

None ....

...but I was talking about isolation upstream of the cutout fuse, just as with any 'switch fuse'.

Kind Regards, John