Additions or alterations

[atm84]

Can anyone advise where it is written in BS 7671 where it states that if a circuit is altered or extended then it must meet current regulations.

I want to find it in writing to be able to justify to a client.

 

[happysteve]

I'm not being funny, but have you tried looking for "additions" or "alterations" in the index?

 

[atm84]

Yes and it just refers to section 132 which states that earthing and bonding needs to be adequate. Nothing about the rest of the circuit having to comply with latest edition of regs

 

[happysteve]

It also refers to 610.4, doesn't it?

What does that say?

 

[atm84]

Bingo. cheers. Let's hope the client interprets it in the same way that we do.

 

[happysteve]

Happy to help.

Words of gratitude are one thing. Nothing says "thanks" quite like clicking the "thanks" button, though.

 

[atm84]

Haha. Question is though reg 610.4 says it must comply with the Regulations but it doesn't say which Regulation.

 

[Toonlad]

Its nice to be nice

its always to current regulations

 

[NDG Elecs]

Hell yeah!

 

[andyb]

Haha. Question is though reg 610.4 says it must comply with the Regulations but it doesn't say which Regulation.

I think it's referring to the highway code.

 

[atm84]

Haha well I understand that but I'm thinking the client might interpretate it differently. We will see.

 

[Andy78]

Try "introduction to BS7671" in the first few pages.

"These regulations apply to the design, erection, and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations."

 

[andyb]

Haha well I understand that but I'm thinking the client might interpretate it differently. We will see.

Would you like to give us some background, what's the issue and what is your client saying.
We might be able to give a more specific answer.

 

[atm84]

A socket requires moving and my interpretation has always been that any alteration or addition must comply with current reg. As the existing socket does not have rcd protection and hasn't had for circa 30 years and never been an issue, I was been asked why upgrades to the circuit was req. I wanted to be able to find something robust, and in writing before making recommendations.

 

[Andy78]

A socket requires moving and my interpretation has always been that any alteration or addition must comply with current reg. As the existing socket does not have rcd protection and hasn't had for circa 30 years and never been an issue, I was been asked why upgrades to the circuit was req. I wanted to be able to find something robust, and in writing before making recommendations.

Upgrades to the circuit are not required. Compliance with the regulations for the alteration are required.

 

[atm84]

In this scenario, I would say that protecting the socket outlet with an rcd is an upgrade wouldn't you.

 

[Andy78]

It may help if in this thread, and the other, you outline your exact plans for the alteration and your customer's specific objections to your plans to gain any meaningful help.
You are being very vague about your exact planned methods.

 

[happysteve]

I don't know how to make it any clearer than it's written in 610.4. Maybe some bold or underlining?

610.4: For an addition or alteration to an existing installation, it shall be verified that the addition or alteration complies with the Regulations and does not impair the safety of the existing installation.

Maybe a flowchart?

1. Does my addition or alteration comply with the current Regulations, yes or no?
If NO: stop!
If YES: go to 2.

2. Does my addition or alteration impair the safety of the existing installation (which includes the rest of the circuit, and possibly other circuits too)?
If YES: stop!
If NO: we're good to go!

 

[atm84]

Socket on wall, surface mounted, wired in singles, in trunking. No rcd protection. Socket is being moved onto adjacent wall, which means cables will be shortened (no extension required). That's all. No extra socket on the circuit, no new cabling). None of the sockets currently have rcd protection. I was asked why rcd protection was required now. I wanted to justify my reasoning

 

[Andy78]

Socket on wall, surface mounted, wired in singles, in trunking. No rcd protection. Socket is being moved onto adjacent wall, which means cables will be shortened (no extension required). That's all. No extra socket on the circuit, no new cabling). None of the sockets currently have rcd protection. I was asked why rcd protection was required now. I wanted to justify my reasoning

Then you have been given the answer multiple times with reference to the regulations. What method of compliance with 411.3.3 are you proposing to apply to this alteration ?

 

[davesparks]

Is RCD protection required now? Have you carried out a risk assessment?
Where is it located and what is it normally used for?
Could you justify it as a deviation?
In what is presumably a building full of RCD sockets what realistic improvement would adding RCD protection to one socket provide?

 

[happysteve]

Socket on wall, surface mounted, wired in singles, in trunking. No rcd protection. Socket is being moved onto adjacent wall, which means cables will be shortened (no extension required). That's all. No extra socket on the circuit, no new cabling). None of the sockets currently have rcd protection. I was asked why rcd protection was required now. I wanted to justify my reasoning

How about, "The work involved is an alteration to the installation. Regulation 610.4 states... [blah]. The Regulations currently require that socket-outlets [circumstances] shall be protected by and RCD, as stated in regulation ---.YY.Z [blah]"

Edit: assuming, of course, that the socket-outlet does need RCD protection (as per other posts).

 

[Andy78]

Is RCD protection required now? Have you carried out a risk assessment?
Where is it located and what is it normally used for?
Could you justify it as a deviation?
In what is presumably a building full of RCD sockets what realistic improvement would adding RCD protection to one socket provide?

You must know that trying to apply common sense in a debate about compliance with the regulations is hardly relevant ?

 

[davesparks]

You must know that trying to apply common sense in a debate about compliance with the regulations is hardly relevant ?

Oh yes, it's rarely relevant around here either.

But lighting the blue touch paper and running away is my speciality!

 

[Andy78]

Oh yes, it's rarely relevant around here either.

But lighting the blue touch paper and running away is my speciality!

I feel this is somehow relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSJ5PgUx0Zg

 

[atm84]

Then you have been given the answer multiple times with reference to the regulations. What method of compliance with 411.3.3 are you proposing to apply to this alteration ?

Please can you elaborate

 

[atm84]

Is RCD protection required now? Have you carried out a risk assessment?
Where is it located and what is it normally used for?
Could you justify it as a deviation?
In what is presumably a building full of RCD sockets what realistic improvement would adding RCD protection to one socket provide?

The building does not have any sockets protected by rcd

 

[davesparks]

I feel this is somehow relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSJ5PgUx0Zg

I love it!

 

[Toonlad]

Of course you have altered the characteristic of the circuit,by cutting it down in length, although the test results may not show any difference, as it maybe a foot of cable, so it will be negligible, to show on your meter.

However we must assess,the requirements of the intended use,and apply the regulations.I personally would add a rcbo if possible.not seeing the job I can only second guess at this point.

To be fair this sort of thing is bread and butter to any spark worth his salt, simple belt n braces approach and you never go far wrong.
If the client don't like your safe compliant approach for a single socket I wouldn't get to excited if he says no to the job.

 

[Toonlad]

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...orum/107727-moving-socket-rcd-protection.html

your having my life here, same question 3 hrs ago.

 

[Andy78]

Please can you elaborate

Not really. Not without getting my crayons out or resorting to HappySteve's suggestion of a flowchart.

 

[GMES]

Atm you have 2 threads running with the same question, they are both being closed until you pm me or another member of staffand decide which you want to keep going.
Thread closed.