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

psychicwarrior:

Thanks for the interest and input everyone.  It is difficult to pose such a question without some folks thinking there is some 'cop out' reason, or inexperience at play, or that one does not recognise safety improvements etc (and I am not implying any one has thought thus). My question wording is never the best so I accept if it reads as such and prompts such thinking. I'd rather people start from the premise it is about exploring ideas, catering for reality and that people participating are competent (in their scope) and caring about the work done etc.


Essentially, DaveZ (and Im not implying there is any agreement with me) has got closer to an underlying issue that at least I think is important and why I posed the question. 


Again, I apologise for poor wording but here goes:


If working on an installation built to previous edition Regs and carrying out 'minor works', then it should still be possible to sign off such work as compliant with BS7671 if in the judgement of the engineer it is not less safe than when it was built. There should be scope within design and construction on older systems, at least for 'minor works', acknowledging in the engineers consideration, that implementing some more recent Regs aspect is 'uneccessary'.   EICR approach has a similar view - suggesting aspects could do with improvement to bring up to date etc. One might not condemn (unless other aspects led one to) an installation simply because it lacked RCD, AFDD or any other advancement... but one would suggest improvement (perhaps).  Such work should not result in "its unsafe" claims etc, ... unless it is actually unsafe from the engineering point of view and not for example due to non-addition of AFDD or RCD or whatever else comes along.


If going beyond 'minor works', like adding a new circuit(s) or new [main/sub] board, then it would seem appropriate to design the new circuit to the latest Regs and of course new work. By the way, I wasnt in my question implying domestic or commercial, but just in general.


Along with everyone in the industry and if it needs acknowleding for completeness, if conditions allow (e.g. replacing MCB with an RCBO) then one suspects most electricians would work to the latest, but if it is not possible, why can it still not be signed off to Regs with a note e.g. " complies except for one aspect of no RCD (or AFDD) present but everything else complies leaving the install no less safe then before"  , in the same way one might rarely write a Departure.


I feel BS7671 is loosing some engineering reality in not accepting not everything might be possible and not allowing judgment.  If things are properly recorded, then why not.   As an aside and not wanting to start a new/old  flame off, why has a 'risk assessment crept in the BS7671.


Of course some people might not agree with the above... but is that them just being idealistic... or is the above really unreasonable from a safety and engineering reality point of view.....   !



(proof reader awol...sorry for spelling etc)

Particularly in the case of a workplace, this is a very dangerous assumption. The legal duty is to address the risks. A risk assessment should be reviewed when there are changes in standards, legislation, and working practices ... so reliance on earlier versions of BS 7671 in a place of work is not necessarily a get-out clause.

psychicwarrior:

Thanks for the interest and input everyone.  It is difficult to pose such a question without some folks thinking there is some 'cop out' reason, or inexperience at play, or that one does not recognise safety improvements etc (and I am not implying any one has thought thus). My question wording is never the best so I accept if it reads as such and prompts such thinking. I'd rather people start from the premise it is about exploring ideas, catering for reality and that people participating are competent (in their scope) and caring about the work done etc.


Essentially, DaveZ (and Im not implying there is any agreement with me) has got closer to an underlying issue that at least I think is important and why I posed the question. 


Again, I apologise for poor wording but here goes:


If working on an installation built to previous edition Regs and carrying out 'minor works', then it should still be possible to sign off such work as compliant with BS7671 if in the judgement of the engineer it is not less safe than when it was built. There should be scope within design and construction on older systems, at least for 'minor works', acknowledging in the engineers consideration, that implementing some more recent Regs aspect is 'uneccessary'.   EICR approach has a similar view - suggesting aspects could do with improvement to bring up to date etc. One might not condemn (unless other aspects led one to) an installation simply because it lacked RCD, AFDD or any other advancement... but one would suggest improvement (perhaps).  Such work should not result in "its unsafe" claims etc, ... unless it is actually unsafe from the engineering point of view and not for example due to non-addition of AFDD or RCD or whatever else comes along.


If going beyond 'minor works', like adding a new circuit(s) or new [main/sub] board, then it would seem appropriate to design the new circuit to the latest Regs and of course new work. By the way, I wasnt in my question implying domestic or commercial, but just in general.


Along with everyone in the industry and if it needs acknowleding for completeness, if conditions allow (e.g. replacing MCB with an RCBO) then one suspects most electricians would work to the latest, but if it is not possible, why can it still not be signed off to Regs with a note e.g. " complies except for one aspect of no RCD (or AFDD) present but everything else complies leaving the install no less safe then before"  , in the same way one might rarely write a Departure.


I feel BS7671 is loosing some engineering reality in not accepting not everything might be possible and not allowing judgment.  If things are properly recorded, then why not.   As an aside and not wanting to start a new/old  flame off, why has a 'risk assessment crept in the BS7671.


Of course some people might not agree with the above... but is that them just being idealistic... or is the above really unreasonable from a safety and engineering reality point of view.....   !



(proof reader awol...sorry for spelling etc)

Particularly in the case of a workplace, this is a very dangerous assumption. The legal duty is to address the risks. A risk assessment should be reviewed when there are changes in standards, legislation, and working practices ... so reliance on earlier versions of BS 7671 in a place of work is not necessarily a get-out clause.