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
  • Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 42 subscribers
  • Views 387 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Coding and regs in force at time of installation

Newfutile

While we code to the current regulations we seem to make allowances usually a C3 for earlier installations.

for example Arc Fault Detection Device in a high risk residential building, if the building is 20 years old this makes sense, otherwise we would have to upgrade many properties.

how should we code if the building was wired recently when Arc Fault Detection Device is required .

Arc Fault Detection Devices were just picked as an example but could apply to any changed requirements where the installer has not met the regs at the time.

Parents
  • 0

    ideally the inspector would code on the basis of the level of risk rather than the age of the installation. Consider for example you cannot sensibly pass open switchgear as safe in a domestic setting just because it was not prohibited  in 1900, regardless of when it was installed, as the shock hazard is the same old or new. However it might be fine as part of a living museum behind a thick perspex window, not because of when it was installed, but because the risk has been successfully dealt with, just  in a non- standard way.

    Something like a missing arc fault device is tricky, as the true risk is hard to judge, and there is very little evidence to suggest that installations with them have any fewer fires or that they save lives - unlike for example RCDs, where quite a few lives demonstrably have been saved by them and one can decide based on an estimate of shock risk (hence they are less important in a dry building and more important in the garden and on farms etc, as that is where the accident figures lead us)

    However, the inspection should always be a comparison against the latest standard, and so the non compliance should always be reported, the only uncertainty is what to recommend as next steps - which may be as mild as ' this is not wired to current standards' or as severe as 'stop using it today'.  If it is very recent it may be worth asking the designers what process / evidence their decision was based on if they are known.

    Mike.

  • 0 in reply to mapj1
    mapj1 said:
    However, the inspection should always be a comparison against the latest standard, and so the non compliance should always be reported, the

    653.2 only requires the reporting of non-compliances that ‘“may give rise to danger”. That would suggest that  code 3 issues relating to non-compliances are not specifically required to be given.

    However, I think rather than code the absence of an AFDD in a HRRB, I would note it on the report and leave it to others to assess the risk.

  • 0 in reply to lyledunn
    lyledunn said:
    653.2 only requires the reporting of non-compliances that ‘“may give rise to danger”. That would suggest that  code 3 issues relating to non-compliances are not specifically required to be given.

    Would you classify something as C3 if it had no bearing upon the safety of the installation?

Reply
  • 0 in reply to lyledunn
    lyledunn said:
    653.2 only requires the reporting of non-compliances that ‘“may give rise to danger”. That would suggest that  code 3 issues relating to non-compliances are not specifically required to be given.

    Would you classify something as C3 if it had no bearing upon the safety of the installation?

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines