Printable View
With regard to leak checking/repairing in the F gas regs.
Can anybody tell me what, or who decides what "disproportionate cost" is. Is there any guideline laid down for this?
Surely this wouldn't be left to the customer/operator? :rolleyes:
I know that most of my customers consider any form of preventative expenditure disproportionate!!!!!!!:confused:
thanks,djbe
F Gas Regulation
Would anyone know the full title of the legislation, or Regulation so I can look it up
Thx
Hi Abe,
Try:
www.defra.gov.uk
EC regulation No842/2006 on Certain Flourinated Greenhouse Gases
Regards,djbe
Abe its in Regulation 824 / 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abe
Article 3 Para 1.
“Operators of the following stationary applications: refrigeration,
air conditioning and heat pump equipment, including their
circuits, as well as fire protection systems, which contain
fluorinated greenhouse gases listed in Annex I, shall, using all
measures which are technically feasible and do not entail
disproportionate cost:”
It occurs from time to time in the regulation, usually coupled with the term ‘technically feasible’.
Its precise meaning in this context is obscure.
It is a favourite catch-all term used in Regulations and the like, especially those with an environmental slant. If you search DEFRA, you’ll find paperwork generated by the Water Framework Directive, for example, asking exactly what the term means.
You could try asking the policy unit at DEFRA. But frankly, I defy anyone to get an suitable definition out of them or the European commission.
Ive done a little research on the definition of " disproportionate cost" and to see if some Judge has given it some meaning.
At moment I dont have a clear definition , so at present it has to be taken in its literal sense, weigh up the costs of an action against the remedy.
As an example, it would be foolhardy to spend a great deal of money trying to get an pld piece of machinery mended. Scrapping iy would afford a better solution.
Would Djibe care to offer a real time example with a refrigerant scenario in mind to assess the reasoning behind the concept of what could be disproportionate
I don't have a specific example in mind.
It was more a question of is this a get out clause for a customer who doesn't want to have the required remedial work done?
If you have a leaking system then you are covered by the Evironmental Protection Act so the cost will be that required to recover the refrigerant and disposing of it.
If the customer is not prepared to pay even that cost then you get them to sign a form confirming that they do not want you to make the system safe. You also advise them that you will be reporting them to the Environment Agency as someone who is generating illegal hazardous waste.
That should grab their attention.
DjbeQuote:
Originally Posted by djbe
It certainly will not work as an " opt out clause" . The position we in us that we are not "empowered" to have any equipment we service to be shut down , citing dangerous condition, as is the case with Corgi ( gas)
ASs Brian says, you could mention that Environmental Laws are being breached and a report to the Dept of Environment may ensue.
But thats easier said then done as you will lose favour with that customer pretty rapidly.
Subtle ways to get your point across may work wonders
Red Comment:- Even CORGI guys can't force a customer to stop a gas leak, however what we can and HAVE to do is report the leak to the gas supplier. They will then dispatch someone to make the site safe; this normally means shutting the gas supply off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abe
Blue Comment:- Let's be honest most of our decent customers are aware of their responsibilities and will accept our advice as being genuine.
I have been in the situation where I have found a leak and required the customer to empty part of a cold room to repair it. They refused claiming they were too busy and insisted that I just top it up.
I went to the unit and pumped it down and then isolated it. I then went to the manager and told him had about 4 to 6 hours to empty the room fully or all the stock would be lost. He proptly had me marched off site and phoned my bosses to complain and get me sacked. I was back on site within 2 hours and had full access to the fault.
Stand firm in your descisions and it will come good. There is work out there.
(I made the manager apologise to me infront of all the people who he threatend to get me sacked)
Cheers taz.
I agree that most of our decent customers will do the responsible thing and act on our advice.
I also agree that sometimes we may have to adopt the tactics of taz24.
It's just that "disproportionate cost" seems to be such a "woolly" statement.
The kind of thing a politician says when he wants an escape route in all directions:)
Good for you. With some people you have to stand your ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by taz24
Oh, so true, so true :(Quote:
Originally Posted by djbe
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbe
The term "disproportionate cost" is littered all over the law. Even the Prime Minister uses the term.
The law uses two tests to ascertain what is disproportionaste or not. This is an " objective test and a subjective test"
Objective: The Court will assume it is from a point of a reasonable man, What does your man in the street think, does he with his limited knowledge think its reasonable?
Subjective: Callsa for more specialised knowledge. Would the person with his superior knowledge have acted in a differant manner.
Again, lets have an example, even if we make one up and try and apply this concept.
We can have a court room debate of sorts if you like. We need a claimant, a defendant, a Judge, and the defence teams.
Anybody want to have a go?
Djibe, you can come up with a suitable case.
:)
A cost is never disproportioned by Italian Law if the benefit is for the collectivity and the cost bearing is a private individual or corporation.
The law considers priority all rights of the people against rights of the person.
In these regards, F-gas regulation can't be disproportioned from any side we look at it.
Hence the "proportionality" has to be weighed against the "wider good"
Which in my opinion makes a lot of sense.
It is about time that when faced with a scenario, as was faced by Tazz, then the engineer abides by the Regulation and not the whims of the customer.
How do you do this?
Well for one it must be company policy and if customer complains, then company HQ must back up the engineer.
If the customer says " Dont do the work " and tells the enginneer to get off the premises. Then you leave, but in parting say that a report is being filed with the Dept of Environment.
In the end we all want to have equipment that is not leaking, so these actions cannot be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbe
I do agree with you.
I personaly think that if you can justify the loss then you are ok.
I remember one big customer with a production line of 1000,000 chickens prossesed every 24 hours requireing gas. To stop production would mean the whole production line being dumped, at a cost of £20.000. I think the legal term is resonably pracicable, if you can justify the adding of refrigerant to a leaking system you will be ok.
The truth is though it is a judgment call every time you choose to add gas. One mans justification is anothers law suit.
Cheers taz.
Possibly, if you also have some type of plan to repair the leaks within a reasonable time frame. Your example might not be aceptable, since you are basically saying in effect "we are too busy".Quote:
Originally Posted by taz24
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Iceman
But to keep the plant working untill cost effective repair can be caried out would be justifiable.
My point is,
it is a mine field and one engineers justification is anothers deliberate venting. You skate on thin ice every time.
In my oppinion it is deliberateley wooley so that the industry then police's itself within the guidlines sugested.
Maybe the lawers will be the only winners;)
taz.
That is essentially what I was looking for. When the leaks are noticed, adding refrigerant to maintain the process would be prudent. But as we all know, finding leaks can be something of a challenge (and additional cost) which some people may not find acceptable and try to circumvent.Quote:
Originally Posted by taz24
In these instances, someone has to stand-up and say, yes we can add refrigerant, BUT only we have a short term plane to recify the situation.
Someone might say, just keep adding refrigerant time after time.
Another one of the catch words is reasonable care, or due diligence. Practiable is another one of those.
Some of these wooly words as you call them are just that. They seem to have an undefined meaning, until a lawyer tells you what it means. By that time it's too late.
I think it is in the engineers best interests to have a gameplan on how to work with these problems before he/she find themselves in the middle of a big problem.
In the UK the legal terms we use are:
Duty of care
Strict Duty
Necessity
Public Policy
Mistake
Consent
statutory authority
The customer owes has a duty of care
The tech ensures that duty is observed
The customers duty is Objective
The techs is Subjective
Statutory duty is clear......
However,
Customer can plead Necessity for non compliance
The example where say a poultry line processing 100 000 birds per day.
Well, you cant really shut that operation. it is indeed prudent to add refrigerant until a maintenance can be carried out
Size of plant is therefore crucial
In law one can even plead a Mistake if necessary
There are no hard and fast rules in this area. A duty lies between both contractor and customer to address the issues of refrigerant leakage and work together , maintain records, and slot in appropriate maintenance to show that the company attempts to deal with the issues.
It is an evolving process
From what I have read this issue will be clarified shortly when the rest of the FGAS regs are decided by the powers that be. At the end of the day it is the engineer who will be standing up in court trying to explain why he knowingly released refrigerant. At some point there will be a requirement to register refrigerant charge on each site and then if that site uses more than a percentage of the system content the owner will be fined, then the onous will be on the owner of the plant not the engineer.
Ian
Thats a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooh
As far as I can see at the moment the authorities won't actually know which sites need to comply with the regs. so how will they know who to check to see that they carrying out the correct procedure?
Some sort of required registration for sites using F gases would make it a lot easier for us to convince the customer that they should maintain their plant properly.
I'm not talking about the sites that already have a proper maintenance regime in place but those that only call you when its broken and want the bare minimum done to repair.
If it was made illegal for us to work on a site that wasn't registered they would have to comply and if they didn't we could always shop them.:p