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

If it is a domestic installation then you need to work to BS 7671 to comply wth Approved Document P. 


BS 7671 is the accepted National installation minimum standard for most types of installation. I may be mentioned in a court of law, and I have done that producing pages from BS 7671 as part of my evidence. I even produced my 1939 Edition of the Wiring Regulations when the date for the need for a certificate was disputed .


If if you are meeting the requirements of BS 7671 then it is highly likely you are meeting the requirements of the EAWR 1989 and the HASAWA 1984 .


I have to ask why an earth would anyone not want to carry out installation work and not comply with BS 7671. I would go further and say let BS 7671 be your your friend and defender not a weapon to be used against you!

This is more complicated than the Electricity at Work Regulations alone - the addition of a socket-outlet is construction work as defined in the CDM Regulations 2015.


The person who carried out the design for the extension is a designer under CDM Regulations. One of the designer's duties is to ensure risks are minimized so far as is reasonably practicable to those carrying out maintenance or erection (construction) work, or, in the case of a place of work, users of that place of work.


So, the correct procedure is to:

• Identify the hazards and risks associated with the work you are designing.

• Address the risks in design so far as is reasonably practicable. This may involve discussions with the client, the principal contractor and perhaps the contractor.

• Communicate residual risks to the client (and in the case of installation work, the contractor).

So, in this case, the designer (of the extension to the existing circuit) identifies the hazard of no RCD, and communicates with the client. Together, they determine what is the treatment of the risk:

• Is it reasonably practicable to comply with the relevant standard (i.e. fit RCD).

• It is not reasonably practicable to comply (too expensive is a possible excuse, if the expense is large compared with the overall risk).

At this point, if the client states in writing "I'm not paying for that" or similar, then I guess the designer is sort of off the hook and it's the duty holder's responsibility under EAWR and PUWER (for use of electrical equipment at work from that socket-outlet).


Similarly, it's definitely VERY valid for a situation such as a Data Centre, for the client and designer to agree together that no RCDs will be fitted to socket-outlets for data centre equipment, for example, where:

• ADS is provided by an overcurrent protective device in accordance with BS 7671

• Additional protection is already in place by the extra earthing and bonding to a standard such as BS EN 50310

• Equipment may have high protective conductor currents ("leakage currents") that might cause nuisance tripping of 30 mA RCDs.

• The cost of nuisance-tripping (in terms of service or data loss) would be extremely large

• Only certain instructed persons are coming into contact with the equipment connected to the socket-outlets on an infrequent basis. They are aware of the risk assessments and procedures (and checking) are in place to ensure that portable equipment and tools are not connected to the socket-outlets with RCDs

There are no other standards for an electrical installation in general, but other standards may be applied instead (or in addition) for example:

• BS EN 60204-1 for electrical equipment (including socket-outlets) for machines

• BS EN 60079-series for explosive atmosphere

In court, the relevant standards may be used in evidence (for either side - not just the defence).



So I think this deals with both the issue of relevant legislation, and standards.

I should have mentioned that whilst the EAWR does not mention BS 7671 the HSE Memorandum of Guidance HSR25 to the Regulations does in various places. That guidance from the HSE could be used in court as a very powerful defence given it comes directly from the HSE. The converse applies if an installer has not complied with BS 7671.

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  ;-)

I think the answer is it is the recognised standard in the UK for most LV electrical installations. It is derived from the international IEC standard and the European Harmonised Standard both of which in most places have the same, or near the same, wordings as BS 7671. 


The problem you may have moving away from compliance with BS 7671 would be proving that it has the same or better provenance and efficacy as the recognised standard. What standard were you thinking of?


As for your additional socket example you need to ensure the earthing and bonding are adequate and the installation can take the additional load. Thereafter only the new part of your installation has to comply with BS 7671. If you observe serious deficiencies in the original installation then you should comment on this in the " Observations on existing installation " box.

It is necessary to have some kind of balance here, because "minor works" in particular should not have unexpected consequences for the customer who has to pay (and in some cases may not be capable of doing so). If major work is being considered the situation may be in a different light, but there is a problem with small domestic jobs. Let us say I need to extend a circuit as an example. There is no existing RCD protection, but also no particular risk. As the CU is old I cannot get an RCD or RCBO from the manufacturer, so should I change it, or fit an RCD in the tails? The only route is to ask the customer if they want RCD protection, but getting them to write the answer in a letter might be very difficult.  I have two choices, I can walk away (which probably means a less good DIY job) or I can do as they wish exactly with no RCD, or a possible third choice of the tails RCD at little or no cost. This is an ongoing problem with changes to BS7671, that it could be considered that the current version is the only one that is "safe" by the new definition and anything not complying is therefore "unsafe". Clearly, this is not a satisfactory situation and not one which should be faced by the Electrician. The modified circuit is no less safe than the original and therefore has to be satisfactory for use. However, a Lawyer might well try to argue the opposite, that it is the Electricians duty to make the circuit compliant with the latest edition of BS7671. This must not be allowed to become the case, as the safety cannot be controlled by the Electrician, if nothing else for financial and contractual reasons. The term "Designer" is being applied in a way that is not sustainable, mainly by the CDM regulations, because it implies that ALL the choices for the design are available to him, whereas in the case of Minor Works he has virtually zero choices.

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

Legally, I think this boils down to (a) negligence; (b) criminal offences such as gross negligence manslaughter; and (c) H&S at work.


EAWR 1989, the HSE Memorandum, and CDMR 2015 take care of (c). Essentially, if I employ you as an electrician, I must ensure that safe working practices are in place. I do not think that BS 7671 is particularly relevant. For example, IIRC, it does not describe the techniques of isolation, locking off, and proving dead; but if you do not do them and you (or anybody else) suffer an injury, as your employer, I will probably be liable.


As for negligence, the essentials are a duty of care; a breach of the standard of care; and causation. The duty of care is usually pretty obvious - the electrician who does the work owes a duty to anybody who might foreseeable be affected by it. Causation may be disputed and that is where experts like JP come in. The standard is where BS 7671 comes in. If you have designed and installed (and verified) to the current version of BS 7671, you are unlikely to have been negligent if something goes wrong.


The standard becomes more important at work, because not only may you be negligent, you (or your employer) may also have committed an offence under H&S law.


The grey area is that the current BS 7671 is not an absolute standard.Courts do not expect perfection. Instead, the standard is that of a reasonable body of responsible electricians. Again, that is where experts like JP come in. They will explain not only the standard to the judge, but also the range of opinion that would be considered reasonable.


So if you erected an installation without ADS, most of us would be horrified and if an injury occurred, you would get no support at all. If you erected a complete new installation without additional protection, I am afraid that it is unlikely that the range of opinion of reasonable responsible electricians would include that. However, extending a circuit without additional protection is something that would be considered reasonable. Of course, all the circumstances must be taken into consideration such as how the extension would affect loading and whether the additional expense of adding additional protection is proportionate.


Judges are a pretty fair bunch of people - don't be afraid of them! ?

One might wish to work to the standards of another European country that has regs derived from a similar pedigree (VDE100 perhaps ?) This it can be argued is equivalent.


As another example there are a number of sightly corner case technical areas where the approach recommended by BS7671 is not technically the best. Mostly these relate to  EMC and earthing.


UK legislation is normally either  slightly vague, 'current practice' or very specific, 'bs7671 2016 amd xx'

This is not a mistake,  but ensures that only parliament changes the detailed requirements of the law, and not some BSI committee that is not necessarily open to public scrutiny. In practice the difference is usually moot, as it gets nodded through by MPs many of whom do not know ohms law, but it avoids what the legal folk refer to as 'ambulatory' regulation,  where the something was imposed by statute, and then the meaning changes - no 'moving of the goal posts'

Mike.