IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement
Topic Summary: Defining the scope
Created On: 21 March 2017 08:15 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - jammyc - 21 March 2017 08:15 PM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - mapj1 - 21 March 2017 09:14 PM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - mapj1 - 21 March 2017 09:39 PM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - jammyc - 22 March 2017 10:23 AM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - mapj1 - 22 March 2017 11:02 AM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - jammyc - 23 March 2017 01:59 PM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - OMS - 23 March 2017 02:14 PM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - jammyc - 24 March 2017 02:02 PM  
 §706 - Conducting Locations with Restricted Movement   - OMS - 24 March 2017 06:56 PM  
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 21 March 2017 08:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jammyc

Posts: 30
Joined: 25 November 2009

Hi all,

One of my clients has asked for comments on an installation they operate and I am not sure if it falls within the scope of section 706, and therefore if Obstacles are permitted or not as a measure.

The installation is built into a re-purposed shipping container, with metal floors, walls etc. Most of the volume is occupied by steel-clad equipment, but there is an access corridor at one end which is approx 55cm wide and maybe 1.8m long. It's not a gangway as there's no switchgear or controlgear in there (all the equipment faces outward), but periodic access is required to inspect the MET and visually check for dust, rodents etc the inside of the container... and an exposed busway protected by a partial barrier which does meet the physical and procedural requirements for an Obstacle.

Besides the bars behind an obstacle there are some other LV items which rely on ADS such as fans (overhead), and some ELV control circuits.

Having had a look in there I am inclined to apply §706 as it is cramped to access. For example if you crouch to inspect the MET you are forced against the metal on each side, and when wearing full PPE per site rules you can only exit sideways. Before I do though I'd like to confirm that I'm not being overly conservative, as the scope seems to be open to interpretation and if it does apply rectification works and an expensive outage will be required.

If, by the letter, it doesn't apply, a set of carefully considered RAMS would be needed anyway, but there would be a little bit more latitude on the balance between procedural controls and physical measures. This might well end up at the same requirement, of course, but the discussion would be different (not least regarding finger-pointing at suppliers).

Thanks in advance.
Regards,
James
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..