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

davezawadi (David Stone):

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.

If it's a place of work (which it must be given the original question - otherwise we are talking about consumer protection legislation instead of EAWR), then this is covered by the "so far as reasonably practicable" I pointed out above ... if it really is a huge cost, that is. In a place of work, this is all balanced against the fact that some fines for H&S breaches are based on company turnover, and executives can also be personally prosecuted.

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.