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
    I would also add that the EAWR 1989 are exactly as described in the title "Electricity at Work" surprised nobody mentioned earlier but there are no definitions of voltage ranges in the document so the regulations would cover any voltage so from a 1.5V handlamp to the 400Kv transmission lines and network so of course BS7671 wont cover many of those voltages but other standards do, so for example Graeme mentioned 60079 standard for haz areas where a voltage of 1.5V depending on other electrical parameters cause an ignition and therefore injuries and fatalities.

    Acts of parliament very seldom mention a standard No, simply because of the constant changes and updates, so they just use a generic term such as "current wiring regulations or standards".

    Under the Scottish building regs any work where a building warrant has been granted the regs state that the electrical work MUST comply with the current edition of BS7671 so in Scotland BS7671 has that statutory application under those circumstances.


    Yes, in some ways like many other regulations, one can do whatever they want, but you must remember your defence which is Reg 29 in the EAWR 1989 is that you equalled or bettered what current standards say, also for a new technolodgy and equipment, current standards may not have covered those items, so again thats where the contractor, engineer etc has to use their experience and knowledge that what they have  done is no less safe than thats required under the EAWR 1989 and existing technical standards and C.O.P's.


    One other consideration, if somebody decided to omit an RCD in the example you gave or didnt follow the detail in BS7671, Do you think that your professional indemnity and public liability insurer would pay out when something went wrong? fire, shock, explosion? I think you will find they will walk away if they felt somebody had ignored deliberatley and not followed current Min standards, I have read the small print of my professional insurance and complying with international, national, local laws, regulations and standards are mentioned


    GTB
Reply
  • 0
    I would also add that the EAWR 1989 are exactly as described in the title "Electricity at Work" surprised nobody mentioned earlier but there are no definitions of voltage ranges in the document so the regulations would cover any voltage so from a 1.5V handlamp to the 400Kv transmission lines and network so of course BS7671 wont cover many of those voltages but other standards do, so for example Graeme mentioned 60079 standard for haz areas where a voltage of 1.5V depending on other electrical parameters cause an ignition and therefore injuries and fatalities.

    Acts of parliament very seldom mention a standard No, simply because of the constant changes and updates, so they just use a generic term such as "current wiring regulations or standards".

    Under the Scottish building regs any work where a building warrant has been granted the regs state that the electrical work MUST comply with the current edition of BS7671 so in Scotland BS7671 has that statutory application under those circumstances.


    Yes, in some ways like many other regulations, one can do whatever they want, but you must remember your defence which is Reg 29 in the EAWR 1989 is that you equalled or bettered what current standards say, also for a new technolodgy and equipment, current standards may not have covered those items, so again thats where the contractor, engineer etc has to use their experience and knowledge that what they have  done is no less safe than thats required under the EAWR 1989 and existing technical standards and C.O.P's.


    One other consideration, if somebody decided to omit an RCD in the example you gave or didnt follow the detail in BS7671, Do you think that your professional indemnity and public liability insurer would pay out when something went wrong? fire, shock, explosion? I think you will find they will walk away if they felt somebody had ignored deliberatley and not followed current Min standards, I have read the small print of my professional insurance and complying with international, national, local laws, regulations and standards are mentioned


    GTB
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines