Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1021 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Item 5.7, Regulation 411.3 on EICR on Inspection schedule

M Gilmore
Hi,


Hope you are all well and thanks in advance for your replies.


I came across an issue with the Inspection schedule for an EICR last week. When a measured value of PFC is higher than the protective device KA value installed within the Distribution board, I would flag a C2 observation (I think the classification of the observation is a different post....). I would add this to the C2 to the inspection schedule on item 5.7. My issue is the regulation number highlighted after the text for item 5.7. It is 411.3 which is the section for "Requirements for fault protection" I don't feel this really covers the observation. I would use regulation 434.5.1 which gives clear detail on the requirements for the "characteristics of a fault current protective device". I have had a look in GN3 and section 3.9.1 (Checklist of items that require inspection), this uses regulation 434.5 against the fault protection item.


Now, my question is, would you add the C2 observation to the inspection schedule and use regulation number 411.3 or would you leave the item off the inspection schedule and just record the observation using regulation 434.5.1? Or the final option, which is the one I went for, add the C2 to the inspection schedule but use regulation 434.5.1 on the observation


Hope that makes sense! I just wanted to get a feel for what other Inspectors are doing out in the field.


Cheers

Matt
Parents
  • 0

    I came across an issue with the Inspection schedule for an EICR last week. When a measured value of PFC is higher than the protective device KA value installed within the Distribution board, I would flag a C2 observation (I think the classification of the observation is a different post....). I would add this to the C2 to the inspection schedule on item 5.7. My issue is the regulation number highlighted after the text for item 5.7. It is 411.3 which is the section for "Requirements for fault protection" I don't feel this really covers the observation.



    I'd agree that 5.7 doesn't seem to address a protective device with inadequate breaking capacity (more like an appropriate nominal rating & type for Zs and the required disconnection time).


    On a quick read, there doesn't seem to be an entry for inadequate breaking capcity - but then this form is only a model intended for domestic & similar situations - you're quite at liberty to add another entry if you think it suitable for your situation. In a domestic it's actually rather unlikely to hit this situation since practically all UK consumer units have a conditional 16kA breaking capcity rating - regardless of the breaking capacity of the individual MCBs or fuses within. So you'd be looking at situations where the PFC exceeds 16kA or is fed by something other than a BS 1361* fuse rated 100A or below, or for some reason don't have a standard CU type arrangement.

     

    * or whatever this week's version of the standard is called.


      - Andy.
Reply
  • 0

    I came across an issue with the Inspection schedule for an EICR last week. When a measured value of PFC is higher than the protective device KA value installed within the Distribution board, I would flag a C2 observation (I think the classification of the observation is a different post....). I would add this to the C2 to the inspection schedule on item 5.7. My issue is the regulation number highlighted after the text for item 5.7. It is 411.3 which is the section for "Requirements for fault protection" I don't feel this really covers the observation.



    I'd agree that 5.7 doesn't seem to address a protective device with inadequate breaking capacity (more like an appropriate nominal rating & type for Zs and the required disconnection time).


    On a quick read, there doesn't seem to be an entry for inadequate breaking capcity - but then this form is only a model intended for domestic & similar situations - you're quite at liberty to add another entry if you think it suitable for your situation. In a domestic it's actually rather unlikely to hit this situation since practically all UK consumer units have a conditional 16kA breaking capcity rating - regardless of the breaking capacity of the individual MCBs or fuses within. So you'd be looking at situations where the PFC exceeds 16kA or is fed by something other than a BS 1361* fuse rated 100A or below, or for some reason don't have a standard CU type arrangement.

     

    * or whatever this week's version of the standard is called.


      - Andy.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines