opinions/ advice on which codes to give on EICR

[phb]

Hi

I was sent to do a EICR on a DB in a commercial kitchen and could do with some opinions on which codes to give. seeing as I haven't done a EICR since the spring and only doing new installation certs I have a fair idea but feel a bit out of confidence with it.

thanks in advance for your input:


1 - cables from the DB not in CMS or sufficiently supported
2 - outer sheath on T&E cables stripped back outside of DB
3 - no blank covers on DB
4 - no busbar cover
5 - no rcd protection on socket outlets
6 - 4 cables terminated into one of the MCBs
7 - different ill fitting MCBs in DB
8 - 20mm holes in DB

thats all i can think of off the top of my head, im sure theres more if i'm back there tomorrow il upload a picture it looks rough!

i'd say

1 - c3
2 - c2
3 - c1
4 - c2
5 - c2
6 - c3/FI
7 - c3
8 - c2

??

 

[Deleted member 26818]

1) Code C2.
2) Code C2.
3) Code C1.
4) Code C2.
5) No code, unless they are intended for unsupervised use by customers, in which case code C3.
6) No code.
7) Code C2.

 

[phb]

The sockets in r5 are on a food prep bench area where they use hand held mixers etc and near to a sink surely they should be 30mA protected?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Sockets for use by 'ordinary' persons intended for general use are required to be RCD protected.....an exception is permitted for sockets under supervision of skilled or instructed persons.....411.3.3.
Debatable whether cooks are skilled or instructed persons when it comes to the safe use of sockets in a potentially wet area.....I would code 3.

 

[phb]

Thanks wirepuller

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Regulation 16 from the EAWR:
"Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury
16. No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."

This requirement from the EAWR means that anyone, whether they be a cook, cleaner, secratary or whatever, must be so experienced, trained, qualified or under such supervision so as to satisfy the BS7671 definition of a 'skilled' or 'instructed' person.
The EAWR is a statutory requirement, if it is not complied with, the law is being broked.
BS7671 does not make Regulations for instances where the law is being broken.
I think the premis is, that if someone is not going to comply with the law of the land, they are hardly going to comply with a non-statutory set of Regulations such as BS7671.

 

[Brightspark2]

And so nearly every person would be classed as a skilled or instructed person and the regulation would be no use...

I dont believe this is the way the regulation is to be interpreted...

The people imo aren't skilled or instructed persons and so requires RCD protection...

The 20mm holes, does this leave access to live parts?...are they empty holes that need blanks?...

Sent from my Xperia S using next doors WIFI

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Obviously, you can interpret the Regulations however you wish.
If you wish to interpret them incorrectly, that is your choice.

The fact remains, that there are a number of statutory requirements that apply to employees, their employers and even the self employed.
There are no statutory requirements that apply to 'ordinary' persons in domestic installations.

The BS7671 definition of a 'skilled' person is: "A person with technical knowledge or sufficient experience to enable him/her to avoid dangers which electricity may create."
In other words, sufficient technical knowledge orsufficient experience to know not to drill or hammer a nail into into a wall just above a socket-outlet without first checking that there are no concealled cables where they are about to drill or hammer a nail.
In other words, sufficient technical knowledge or sufficient experience to know not to use an item of equipment or lead that is damaged.
In other words, straight out of Regulation 16 of the EAWR: "No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience,"

The BS7671 definition of an 'instructed' person is: "A person adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her to avoid dangers which electricity may create."
In other words, adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her not to drill or hammer a nail into a wall above a socket-outlet without first checking that there are no concealled cables where they are about to drill or hammer a nail.
In other words, adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her to know not to use an item of equipment or lead that is damaged.
In other words, straight out of Regulation 16 of the EAWR: "or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."

Now you as the inspector, can decide that the cook, cleaner, secretary or whatever does not have the technical knowledge or experience necessary to prevent danger, or where appropriate, injury.
You can decide that they are not under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work.
You can decide that your client is breaking the law, is in fact a criminal.
You can if you so decide, issue a document defaming your client.
However, I would suggest that before you do so, that you consider the wording of Regulation 16 of the EAWR, the wording of Regulation 411.3 and the wording of the definitions for 'skilled' and 'instructed' persons.

Do not fall foul of the common misconception that a skilled person must a qualified electrician, or that an instructed person must be an electrician's aprentice.
The definitions in BS7671 do not bear out the misconception.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Despite Spins spactacularly comprehensve answer above....:tt1:....the fact that this is a food prep area and may involve water means (IMO) that instructed person or otherwise a hazard exists which warrents RCD protection and hence a code.(3 IMO).
Completely accept though that the whole thing is open to interpretation.

 

[ses]

According to the niceic its someone with electrical training

Id C3 you can sleep easier its up to the customer whether they get remedial work done so the buck passes to them

 

[phb]

Some good helpfull discussion here...

any views on what else I've come accross would be welcome

 

[phb]

As this Kitchen is working all hours of the day I had to minimise disruption during the EICR, annoyingly my boss didnt agree any limitations. all of the breakers have at least two radial circuits some may possibly be rings and everything is completely out of sequence and if you look at the picture of the state of the DB wiring I wasn't going to find corresponding neutrals and CPCs, so the only testing I managed to complete apart from Ze, PFC was live loop testing at the furthest point of a located circuit. No ring continuity, r1r2, IR. Is this acceptable to hand this to the client? What I do have is over 10 C2s and about 5 C1s... To test this fully would take hours and its failed anyway, what is peoples advice on this?

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You don't need to test R1+R2 on radials during a periodic, Zs is sufficient.
As for handing a report to the client without RFC continuity and IR results.
If you were unable to conduct the tests, then you no other choice.
I assume that you have recorded them as requiring further invetigation.
As for the pictures.
In the first picture, I think you're looking at a code C3 for the circuit conductors not being identified, code C2 for the exposed busbar and code C2 for the inner cores being unprotected by sheath or grommets as they enter the CU.
In the second picture, code C2 for the exposed cables and code C2 again for the poorly fixed light fitting.
Third picture, what are those cables which appear to be connected to the MET? Are those loose cables next to the CU live, or is there a chance they could become live?
Fourth picture, I'd go with code C3 for lack of support for the cable.
Fith picture, the same as with the second picture, Code C2 for exposed cables and C2 again for insecure fitting.

 

[Engineer54]

Please don't tell me that a qualified electrician is responsible for this installation!! lol!!

 

[phb]

It was apparently done by a bunch of polish builders for a cheap rate a few years ago. They'll end up paying for it now to get it into a satisfactory state

 

[Engineer54]

It was apparently done by a bunch of polish builders for a cheap rate a few years ago. They'll end up paying for it now to get it into a satisfactory state

You'll be lucky if they pay back a penny!!

 

[netblindpaul]

all of the breakers have at least two radial circuits

NO they don't have 2 radial circuits from the same breaker.
I'm sorry, but I have to question your competence if you consider two cables/wires leaving a CPD going to differing locations in a radial format if you consider these to be separate circuits.
If you ate totally convinced with your opinion, please find another vocation as you are not competent to be an electrician.

 

[phb]

NO they don't have 2 radial circuits from the same breaker.
I'm sorry, but I have to question your competence if you consider two cables/wires leaving a CPD going to differing locations in a radial format if you consider these to be separate circuits.
If you ate totally convinced with your opinion, please find another vocation as you are not competent to be an electrician.

That's a very pedantic reply, but i'll entertain your questioning. what seemed to have happened in the DB is a number of former circuits probably in another DB that was removed had been bunched together and thrown in with other radials in the same protective device. Have a look at the pictures.

And as far as my competence goes I'm a JIB graded site technician having been an approved electrician for the past 5 years, I'm also studying for my electrical/electronic HND

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What Paul means, is that by definition, there can only be one circuit per MCB/RCBO, irrespective of how many conductors there are.
All that guff about competence however, is a bit over the top.
I bit like giving someone a hard time for calling a lamp a bulb.

 

[netblindpaul]

spin,
I agree on the definition bit, but disagree on the competence bit.
Anyone who is competent to undertake a PIR in their own right should not need to ask such questions.
Remembering that EAWR89 & BS7671 both require competence.
Also IIRC there is higher level of competence required for EICR's.
Sufficient familiarity with the current and previous versions of the regulations would be a start as well as a fundamental understanding of circuits would help.
My brain is fried tonight else I would explain more, it comes from trying to cram BS7671:2008+A1:2011 into a class of 22 over the last 2 days ready for 2382-12, we had another tutor for day 1, so I had a lot of pieces to pick up!
I have no time for those who have no grasp of fundamental principles and previous editions of the regulations when they claim to be able to undertake EICR/PIR.
These are the basic competencies required to undertake PIR/EICR.

phb,
I'm not going to comment on your "JIB" status if you are asking such basic questions with such a misunderstanding as it will get me banned from the forum.

I could be REALLY horrible & say what, studying for a HND?





















Good luck and keep at it, the higher qualifications do bring a different perspective.