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 4843 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 :-)  )

  • 0
    John Peckham:

    ... and Part 5 is the how to do it section . Part 5 is Selection and Erection so tells as what type of RCD is to be selected.


    AJJewsbury:

    Unfortunately BS 7671's layout doesn't make reading it that easy - where an RCD is used for additional protection you also need to comply with 531.3.6 and either 531.3.4.1 or 531.3.4.2 - all of which list the BS types that are acceptable ... and BS 7288 is conspicuous by its absence from all of them.

    John, Andy, thank you for the clarification.


    Well, I have done my best, but there appears to be no use for BS 7288 sockets or indeed, the Standard.


    So I shall have to rip mine out and buy some wee enclosures for separate BS 61008 RCDs. On reflection, perhaps not!
  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    That is a slight reversal of your usual position Graham, if I may say so. I&T is to the current standard, and this does not list a BS7288 as an RCD at all, so you have a newly installed socket without RCD protection. Therefore at a minimum, it must be a C3. I, therefore, suggest it is necessary to comply in the method suggested by JP above. IF BS7288 sockets were included in the BS7671 list as being suitable for local socket protection that would be fine, but until they are there is a problem. The solution is simple and reasonably cheap as long as a type AC RCD is suitable, the trend towards much more expensive types will probably make this suggestion of perhaps £15 in parts equally unviable if it is ever regulated by BS7671.


    I disagree it's a reversal in position. The question moved from new work to EICR. So, I will illustrate how it's not a reversal by asking a question.


    How would you code the use of any of the following devices, that you come across in a serviceable condition, but which do not comply with a current standard in accordance with Regulation 511.1:



    • Fuse to BS 1361 (withdrawn March 2010, and, as a good example, if it' a 15 A fuse, there's no direct read-across whatsoever to BS 88-3) ?

    • RCD to BS 4293 (withdrawn December 2009) ?

    • Socket-outlet that's more than 5 years old (may not comply with BS 1363-2:2016) ?

    • mcb to BS 3871 (withdrawn July 1994) ?


    ... and the list could go on for a very long time of course.
  • 0
    411.3.3 only specifies, "additional protection by means of an RCD with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA".

    Unfortunately BS 7671's layout doesn't make reading it that easy - where an RCD is used for additional protection you also need to comply with 531.3.6 and either 531.3.4.1 or 531.3.4.2 - all of which list the BS types that are acceptable ... and BS 7288 is conspicuous by its absence from all of them.

       - Andy.
  • 0
    That is a slight reversal of your usual position Graham, if I may say so. I&T is to the current standard, and this does not list a BS7288 as an RCD at all, so you have a newly installed socket without RCD protection. Therefore at a minimum, it must be a C3. I, therefore, suggest it is necessary to comply in the method suggested by JP above. IF BS7288 sockets were included in the BS7671 list as being suitable for local socket protection that would be fine, but until they are there is a problem. The solution is simple and reasonably cheap as long as a type AC RCD is suitable, the trend towards much more expensive types will probably make this suggestion of perhaps £15 in parts equally unviable if it is ever regulated by BS7671.
  • 0
    Chris Pearson:



    Let me flip the question around. In the course of I&T, how would you code a BS 7288 socket on the end of a surface mounted circuit without additional protection?




    That depends on when the SRCD was installed. The previous version of BS 7288 did not have the same assumption about protection already being in place upstream, and before 2018, there was no constraint on the standards for RCDs in BS 7671.


    So, you could conclude a coding is unnecessary.


  • 0
    Chris


    I feel sure you would have learned Part 1 sets out the Fundemental Principles, Part 4 sets out the safety rules and Part 5 is the how to do it section . Part 5 is Selection and Erection so tells as what type of RCD is to be selected . The Regulations in respect of the selection of RCDs are a shall not optional.  BS 7671 applies to new installations, alterations and additions. 


    So if we need to fit an additional socket to an existing circuit we can protect the socket locally with a BS EN 61008 device or a  BS EN 61009 device. Alternatively we can pull the ends of the ring or radial from the protective device in the board, install an RCD in an enclosure close to the board and re-connect the circuit to the RCD. 

  • 0
    John Peckham:

    Chris


    How do you certify compliance with BS 7671 after you have installed a BS 7288 socket? 


    The fact that BS7671 does not approve of the use of BS 7288 sockets is not the same as its forbidding their use.


    It would be nonsense to add a new socket without extending the circuit so let's assume that the cable is clipped direct, is in conduit, etc. so does not need RCD protection. Let's keep it simple with a distributor's earth.

    411.3.3 only specifies, "additional protection by means of an RCD with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA".

    BS 7228 1 Scope "SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream of the SRCD." Fault protection is assured by ADS. Additional protection (of the cables) is not required because the cables are not buried in walls.


    What possible reason could there be for having SRCDs (and a standard for them) if they had to have upstream RCD protection of the same rating?


    Let me flip the question around. In the course of I&T, how would you code a BS 7288 socket on the end of a surface mounted circuit without additional protection?


  • 0
    I am not at all sure that is a suitable summary GTB. You seem to me to want the responsibility to make the customer do what the regulations say lie with the electrician. I ask, do you think this is fair or reasonable because I do not. The choice must lie with whoever is paying for whatever service. Once we can make the customer pay for whatever they will lose any trust in us whatsoever (eg Banks).
  • 0
    GTB:

    Looking at the responses, diffrent people have diffrent views or their interpretation of a word/words is diffrent from others.


    Leading engineering technology often and does lead time wise the standard/s for that item and to me ultimately down to the person/s that are defined as the designer, installer and inspector along with the proper defined contract arrangement between the purchaser of that install/inspection and the provider.


    If people believe that the actions they take are appropriate and compliant with the appropriate statute legislation then great, job done.

    If there is a fire, electric shock, explosion then the people involved will then have to demonstrate that their action/s were not a root cause leading to the event or a major contributor.


    Or if its a loss of revenue/service on the purchasers side then a civil claim against those parties would also have to be defended.



    I think this thread is getting to the end of the road, psychicwarrier, why not just do whatever you want and believe to be correct, and if there is ever a incident with your work Im sure you will be able to explain your actions were just and appropriate and didnt cause the fatality or building to burn down.


    GTB 


    Thank you for the assesment of this thread. Others might still wish to contribute. To me you have missed the point, but you may be correct in that it is at an end for the point I was trying to make (not very wellperhaps). :-)


     


  • 0
    Looking at the responses, diffrent people have diffrent views or their interpretation of a word/words is diffrent from others.


    Leading engineering technology often and does lead time wise the standard/s for that item and to me ultimately down to the person/s that are defined as the designer, installer and inspector along with the proper defined contract arrangement between the purchaser of that install/inspection and the provider.


    If people believe that the actions they take are appropriate and compliant with the appropriate statute legislation then great, job done.

    If there is a fire, electric shock, explosion then the people involved will then have to demonstrate that their action/s were not a root cause leading to the event or a major contributor.


    Or if its a loss of revenue/service on the purchasers side then a civil claim against those parties would also have to be defended.


    I mentioned before on this thread, people that make decisions that would be appear to conflict with regulations and sentiment of BS7671 have they spoken with their insurance provider to see what they would think?


    Let me give you an example, Im fortunate? to have a car that tyres are over £300 each, when replacing them for the first time, I was told by tyre fitter only one single manufacturer and tyre size and type could be fitted because of a single letter "M" stamped on the tyre after the speed rating. This meant the tyre was alledgedly designed exactly for that vehichle by both the vehicle manufacturer and tyre manufacturer!! Tyre fitter said they could fit same size and speed rating of tyre for £150 each but I should check with my insurer if I wanted the less expensive ones. I did that and they basically said and actually provided in writing, " You as the owner of the vehicle can do whatever you wish, and fit any tyre that you wish, but if you make a claim and we believe that the tyres, braking distance, suspension was the root cause we will not pay out or provide cover as you did not fit the manufacturers recommended parts".So I had a choice to make..... and I fitted the correct and expensive ones.


    I think this thread is getting to the end of the road, psychicwarrier, why not just do whatever you want and believe to be correct, and if there is ever a incident with your work Im sure you will be able to explain your actions were just and appropriate and didnt cause the fatality or building to burn down.


    GTB

Community Rules & Guidelines