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 51 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4673 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

EWR (1989) - just for thought really on the point of decent Engineering Regs in ref. to Acts/Laws/Statute etc

psychicwarrior
There is no requirement under EWR to work to BS7671  (if that is not true, the following probably is rendered  irrelevant).


Scenario: its 2019 and there is no RCD protection for a socket recently added to an existing circuit. An unfortunate event happens (someone is electrocuted and dies; worst case) whilst using that socket and as a result the person who carried out the work is prosecuted, as it is argued the presence of the RCD would have prevented it happening. It must matter what that someone was doing when using that socket, so perhaps they were using a vac and ran over and already damaged cord (struggling here for a plausible scenario of something that could go wrong with a newly added socket/no RCD combo). Of course if someone was using other pre-existing socket then there is no case.


Under the EWR, how is it possible to prove legally (and reliably) that by working to other 'standards' (if EWR makes no reference to BS7671 - as it arguabky should never) at the time [of design/construction], was  the cause of the event and the person carrying out the work is at fault  ?    Is there ever going to be a case possible due to not having RCD - of course having RCD has additional protection benefits, but so does never ever going outside, so as to not get run over by a bus.


Im just using lack of RCD as an example on working to a standard not being BS7671 ...it could just as easily be someone designed, built and constructed a whole installation to their own standards - how is it legally decided those standards were not 'good' enough under the EWR (if BS7671 is not statutory as argubly it should never be) ?


(this is most likely in the wrong forum, but posted here as current practitioners to BS7671 might like to comment...or not :-)  )

Parents
  • 0
    Hello JP, hope you are keeping well .


    I will put aside the your last para  'question', as the point of the post is not about that, although I did expect some would not be able to not introduce something along those lines :-)   This is not about being precious about BS7671 or arguing it is/is not a good standard. If that makes the questions I ask pointless then so be it... and perhaps it is :-)  


    However, maybe another 'standard' is just as good (e.g. a plagerised BS7671 subset considered more sensible) ...so how would it stand up in the scenario given and how would it be proved that by not using *the* BS7671 standard, that was the cause !


    Right on to the rest (to which I am familiar with, but still) :


    Isnt the only requirement to [legally] meet EWR and where is legally prescribed how to achieve it ?


    Why isnt the BS7671 (arguably proprietory ) a statutory document  then and referenced in the Laws/Acts?


    Why isnt some other standard good enough and who decides (as I asked) which it is or has to be   ?


    My thoughs on this were about balance in safety improvements and things creeping in that may arguably add very little, but cost (not just money) much more when it comes to [primarily minor] works on existing installs .  Of course improvements are good things, but may be arguaby idealistic as apposed to being neccessary for safety etc.


    Taking a minor works for instance, of adding a socket 1 ft away from and existing socket on an installation where RCD was never employed and where disconnection bonding etc all are good and to previous Regs all is bang on.  One ought to be able to do such without having to bring the whole of the installation or circuit up to existing Regs compliance would seem sensibe and balanced under BS7671.  Whereas adding a new circuit (EIC), it may be more appropriate to introduce RCD etc.  Just examples of a balanced approach, depending on ones point of view and where that all sits with EWR and 'standards'.   Then perhaps, comes along AFDD's  ... for minor works  ;-)
Reply
  • 0
    Hello JP, hope you are keeping well .


    I will put aside the your last para  'question', as the point of the post is not about that, although I did expect some would not be able to not introduce something along those lines :-)   This is not about being precious about BS7671 or arguing it is/is not a good standard. If that makes the questions I ask pointless then so be it... and perhaps it is :-)  


    However, maybe another 'standard' is just as good (e.g. a plagerised BS7671 subset considered more sensible) ...so how would it stand up in the scenario given and how would it be proved that by not using *the* BS7671 standard, that was the cause !


    Right on to the rest (to which I am familiar with, but still) :


    Isnt the only requirement to [legally] meet EWR and where is legally prescribed how to achieve it ?


    Why isnt the BS7671 (arguably proprietory ) a statutory document  then and referenced in the Laws/Acts?


    Why isnt some other standard good enough and who decides (as I asked) which it is or has to be   ?


    My thoughs on this were about balance in safety improvements and things creeping in that may arguably add very little, but cost (not just money) much more when it comes to [primarily minor] works on existing installs .  Of course improvements are good things, but may be arguaby idealistic as apposed to being neccessary for safety etc.


    Taking a minor works for instance, of adding a socket 1 ft away from and existing socket on an installation where RCD was never employed and where disconnection bonding etc all are good and to previous Regs all is bang on.  One ought to be able to do such without having to bring the whole of the installation or circuit up to existing Regs compliance would seem sensibe and balanced under BS7671.  Whereas adding a new circuit (EIC), it may be more appropriate to introduce RCD etc.  Just examples of a balanced approach, depending on ones point of view and where that all sits with EWR and 'standards'.   Then perhaps, comes along AFDD's  ... for minor works  ;-)
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines