TT eicr code?

[hoppy]

Hi doing an eicr on a tt system, plastic board, bonding ok! It is a split 16th edition board with 80amp 100m/amp main switch which has the lighting, smokes and boiler on. On the other side is a 63amp 30m/amp rcd protecting sockets, cooker and shower. The Ra is 28 ohms.

anyway my interpretation of the regs is that for the circuits protected only by the main switch rcd that this would still merit a C3 for not be protected to 30m/amp, would you guys agree? Cables buried in walls less than 50mm and not protected via anything!

thanks

craig

 

[Plonker 3]

I would go for a C2, what was the Zs reading on the 100mA RCD protected circuits?

 

[hoppy]

I see what you are saying but even if covered by a 30mA rcd the zs factor is still the same, so circuits protected by a 30m/A rcd would also be a code 2! Haha think I have just answered my own question, C3 it is then!

 

[hoppy]

Zs results were between 4 and 5 ohms for the 100m/A side

 

[Plonker 3]

What is the max permissible Zs reading for a 100mA RCD?

 

[Plonker 3]

Also don't forget the 100mA RCD is for backup to the 30mA RCD should that fail.

 

[Des 56]

Page 15 of this opinion agrees with you http://www.select.org.uk/downloads/BestPracticeGuide4-Issue3.pdf

The installation described appears to be fine for the 16th edition if the 100m/amp is time delayed ?
Comparison with the 17th would indicate a code 3 for the buried cables



100m/amp Rcd 500 ohms

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Interpretation of the Regs. is always a bit of a mine field.
For instance, generally there is no requirement for any circuit, other than those of a location containing a bath or shower to be provided with 30mA RCD protection.
In this particular instance, the requirement is to provide Additional protection for cables concealed in walls, one of the acceptable methods includes the provision of 30mA RCD protection.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

I am not here to argue with you, i haven't seen the job. Does it comply with the requirements in place at the time it was first put into service, if so then you can only recommend C3 for improvements.

Just for info under current regs the usual set up for domestic TT would normally be 100mA RCD Main Switch protecting the whole board, and then 30mA RCD's for final circuits however you choose to configure it using RCD's for banks for MCB's or RCBO's etc. You have to have a maximum of 30mA for additional protection as this ensures that the voltage under fault conditions stays at or below 50V which is the safe touch voltage.

I use the word "Usual" lightly, there are other conditions that may change what i have written.

Cheers…………Howard

 

[D Skelton]

If it's a 100mA type-s up front then for the circuits not protected by the 30mA RCD then its a C2 as they won't meet required disconnection times and a C3 for circuits not having additional protection by 30mA RCD, if its a 100mA up front then it's just a C3 for any circuits that don't have additional protection by 30mA RCD.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

If it's a 100mA type-s up front then for the circuits not protected by the 30mA RCD then its a C2 as they won't meet required disconnection times and a C3 for circuits not having additional protection by 30mA RCD, if its a 100mA up front then it's just a C3 for any circuits that don't have additional protection by 30mA RCD.

Always nice to be enlightened, Cheers.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

As has already been stated, if the installation complied with (and still complies with) the Regulations in force at the time of design. Then there is no justification for a code C2, in this instance.
There is no requirement in the Regulations for existing installations to comply with current Regulations.

 

[D Skelton]

As has already been stated, if the installation complied with (and still complies with) the Regulations in force at the time of design. Then there is no justification for a code C2, in this instance.
There is no requirement in the Regulations for existing installations to comply with current Regulations.

Regardless of whatever regulations it was designed to if the overcurrent protective devices will not disconnect the circuit under fault conditions in the required time then it's a C2. An EICR is always carried out to current regulations.

Would you not code bare live cable not out of reach but in use that was designed to the first edition of the wiring regulations?

 

[hoppy]

Thanks D Skelton, so basically if an upfront 100mA S type is the only rcd protection for the circuits, then your opinion is a C2 as disconnection times wont be met. But if it is a standard 100mA rcd then it is only a C3.
Not questioning you, but if you test the s type rcd and disconnection times are 20ms @ 1 time and 14ms @ 5 times, then surely disconnection times have been met. As BS7671 states a TT disconnection time of 0.2s for final circuits which equates to 200ms.

Anyone any input, i am always looking to learn?

 

[JD6400]

Thanks D Skelton, so basically if an upfront 100mA S type is the only rcd protection for the circuits, then your opinion is a C2 as disconnection times wont be met. But if it is a standard 100mA rcd then it is only a C3.
Not questioning you, but if you test the s type rcd and disconnection times are 20ms @ 1 time and 14ms @ 5 times, then surely disconnection times have been met. As BS7671 states a TT disconnection time of 0.2s for final circuits which equates to 200ms.

Anyone any input, i am always looking to learn?

It is late and I have hit the booze , but firstly why would you x5 a 100mA , let alone an s type and secondly those look like 30mA times and a couple of hundred shy of where I would expect an s type to be ?

Like I say , late in the evening + fire water = possible wrong end of the stick on my part !:svengo:

 

[D Skelton]

Thanks D Skelton, so basically if an upfront 100mA S type is the only rcd protection for the circuits, then your opinion is a C2 as disconnection times wont be met. But if it is a standard 100mA rcd then it is only a C3.
Not questioning you, but if you test the s type rcd and disconnection times are 20ms @ 1 time and 14ms @ 5 times, then surely disconnection times have been met. As BS7671 states a TT disconnection time of 0.2s for final circuits which equates to 200ms.

Anyone any input, i am always looking to learn?

If those are your test results then it isn't a type-s up front. Also, as JD has said, you don't 5x a 100mA, 5x is only for 30mA or less when used as additional protection.

 

[hoppy]

Those results were just for instance, I am just trying to get a point across and learn. I know you don't have to 5 x a 100mA rcd, which is not the point here, I am asking for advice and opinions on whether a C2 or C3 is applicable and in your opinions why?

Like I said if you test 100mA s type rcd @ 1 time and it is less than 200ms (0.2s) then surely disconnection times for a TT system have been met and circuits not protected to 30mA would thus warrant a C3?

Also if the 100mA rcd was not an s tpe would you C3 this, as needs Improving to an type?

Thanks for your replies!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Regardless of whatever regulations it was designed to if the overcurrent protective devices will not disconnect the circuit under fault conditions in the required time then it's a C2. An EICR is always carried out to current regulations.

Would you not code bare live cable not out of reach but in use that was designed to the first edition of the wiring regulations?

Oh dear.
To start with an EICR is a form, how you carry one is not something stipulated in the Regulations (current or otherwise).

A PIR conducted in accordance with BS7671 will identify (among other things) any departures from the requirements of the current Regulations which may give rise to danger.
Two codes are used for this purpose, Code C1 'Danger present' and C2 'Potentially dangerous'.
The code C3 is used to indicate that improvement is required in order for an installation to comply with the current Regulations, but that there is no danger.

Near the beginning of the current Regulations can be found this:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading".

To apply the code C2 (Potentially dangerous) in such circumstances would indicate that the earlier edition of the Regulations are unsafe.
I can assure you that the IET will never state that earlier editions of the Regulations are unsafe.

Use of the code C2 in such circumstances would not be in accordance with BS7671, and signing the declaration on the EICR would either constitute fraud or indicate a lack of knowledge.

I do not have my copy of the First edition to hand, but I doubt that uninsulated live conductors were allowed to be within reach.

 

[D Skelton]

Oh dear.
To start with an EICR is a form, how you carry one is not something stipulated in the Regulations (current or otherwise).

A PIR conducted in accordance with BS7671 will identify (among other things) any departures from the requirements of the current Regulations which may give rise to danger.
Two codes are used for this purpose, Code C1 'Danger present' and C2 'Potentially dangerous'.
The code C3 is used to indicate that improvement is required in order for an installation to comply with the current Regulations, but that there is no danger.

Near the beginning of the current Regulations can be found this:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading".

To apply the code C2 (Potentially dangerous) in such circumstances would indicate that the earlier edition of the Regulations are unsafe.
I can assure you that the IET will never state that earlier editions of the Regulations are unsafe.

Use of the code C2 in such circumstances would not be in accordance with BS7671, and signing the declaration on the EICR would either constitute fraud or indicate a lack of knowledge.

I do not have my copy of the First edition to hand, but I doubt that uninsulated live conductors were allowed to be within reach.

Well thank you Spin for that rather patronising lesson on how to conduct myself whilst inspecting and testing an electrical installation. It might help you to know that I'm well aware how to code something that is potentially dangerous!

I couldn't care less what previous regulations state, I am inspecting the installation to current regulations and a major part of that procedure means determining whether or not the installation complies with the requirements for ADS. An overcurrent protective device not disconnecting a circuit in the required time under fault conditions IS potentially dangerous, and saying so is not tantamount to fraud, nor does it indicate a lack of knowledge?!?!?!? What a load of twoddle!

To use the quote from the current regs; "This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading". There you have it fella. This means that it may not in all cases be unsafe, but in some cases it could be. That is what the use of the words 'does not necessarily' indicate. If the IET would never say that earlier editions of the regulations were 'unsafe', or at least 'less safe' than the current, there'd be no need for them to keep changing them would there?!

I do not have my copy of the First edition to hand, but I doubt that uninsulated live conductors were allowed to be within reach.

I have read it, and nowhere does it say that in all cases a bare live conductor must be insulated whether it is within reach or not.


Finally, I couldn't help but pick out this little gem! Talk about contradiction!

To start with an EICR is a form, how you carry one is not something stipulated in the Regulations (current or otherwise).

A PIR conducted in accordance with BS7671

 

[D Skelton]

Those results were just for instance, I am just trying to get a point across and learn. I know you don't have to 5 x a 100mA rcd, which is not the point here, I am asking for advice and opinions on whether a C2 or C3 is applicable and in your opinions why?

Ok, I didn't know that the results were hypothetical. Still, if they were hypothetical and you already knew that you don't need to 5x a 100mA RCD then why did you include a hypothetical result for a 5x test?

My advice for the codes that would apply depending on the circumstances is in post ten.

Like I said if you test 100mA s type rcd @ 1 time and it is less than 200ms (0.2s) then surely disconnection times for a TT system have been met and circuits not protected to 30mA would thus warrant a C3?

An s-type won't be less that 200ms as a non-adjustable type-s is built with this figure as a time delay. A type-s can never be used to provide fault protection on a circuit where 0.2s is the maximum permissable disconnection time.

Also if the 100mA rcd was not a type-s would you C3 this, as needs Improving to an type?

In this circumstance I'd C3 it only because there would be circuits protected by a 100mA RCD that have no additional protection by way of a 30mA RCD. With the Ra you stated in your OP the requirements for fault protection are met with the 100mA RCD therefore a C2 is not applicable.

 

[hoppy]

Thanks d Skelton, for your view point and constructive info, that's what I was after, just looking for a different view point from the more experienced guys like yourself!

thanks again!

 

[Des 56]

Regardless of whatever regulations it was designed to if the overcurrent protective devices will not disconnect the circuit under fault conditions in the required time then it's a C2. An EICR is always carried out to current regulations.

Would you not code bare live cable not out of reach but in use that was designed to the first edition of the wiring regulations?

Having just read the whole of this thread,I am going to take issue with Damien and support the veiw of Spinlondon

My own understanding is that an eicr is carried out to ascertain whether an installation is safe for continued use,it is not carried out to determine if it meets current regs, rather it is it is compared to current regs for the purpose of the report and any deviations can be coded with that in mind


In the example being discussed,a TT system with a time delay 100m/amp Rcd,it does not meet curent regs for the reasons that have been posted
If it does not meet the current regs,it is then determined if it meets the standards that were in force at the time of installation and in this case it does
Remembering why the eicr is carried out,to determine if it is safe for continued use

Now to take a view contrary to the above and code the installation as potentially dangerous C2
It means there are millions off UK households that have installations that were deemed perfectly safe at the time that are now being considered dangerous,the IET got it wrong,massive rectification is required throughout the land

That is not a situation that would be confined to this forum,it would make national headline news and the electrical institution that governs safety would be in all sorts of bother

I suspect that my own interpretation of why an eicr is carried out and what determines the compliance of the system and to what regs is the only correct conclusion

 

[D Skelton]

Having just read the whole of this thread,I am going to take issue with Damien and support the veiw of Spinlondon

My own understanding is that an eicr is carried out to ascertain whether an installation is safe for continued use,it is not carried out to determine if it meets current regs, rather it is it is compared to current regs for the purpose of the report and any deviations can be coded with that in mind

I never said it is to determine if it meets current regs, I just said that any observations that are made will be in compliance with current regs.

In the example being discussed,a TT system with a time delay 100m/amp Rcd,it does not meet curent regs for the reasons that have been posted
If it does not meet the current regs,it is then determined if it meets the standards that were in force at the time of installation and in this case it does
Remembering why the eicr is carried out,to determine if it is safe for continued use

Like I keep saying, regardless of past standards, if an OCPD will not disconnect in the required time then this is potentially dangerous, therefore the only reasonable code would be a C2.

Now to take a view contrary to the above and code the installation as potentially dangerous C2
It means there are millions off UK households that have installations that were deemed perfectly safe at the time that are now being considered dangerous,the IET got it wrong,massive rectification is required throughout the land

Are there millions of UK households on TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD??? I've never come across one. I've come across plenty protected by a lone 100mA RCD though, in which case the requirements for fault protection (in most cases) will still be met even by todays standards.

I suspect that my own interpretation of why an eicr is carried out and what determines the compliance of the system and to what regs is the only correct conclusion

My conculsion is that there has been a gross misunderstanding of what I've actually said. I have been very clear in my explanation of the difference between a TT system protected by a 100mA type-s and a TT system protected by a normal 100mA and this appears to have been missed.

Edit: Like I said earlier, what if an electrical installation in use today complied with the 1st Edition of the wiring regulations but was unsafe for use today as it was. Would you just C3 that? I wouldn't, and I'd be perfectly comfortable giving the appropriate code by todays standards.

 

[spark 68]

Like Des, I would take issue with applying a C2 to a correctly designed 16th Edition install.

Here are the pages from the relevant 16th amd1 OSG. Sorry I don't have a later version (amd2) of the 16th OSG to compare with.

Bear in mind this type of install could have been carried out up until 2008, possibly later if it was designed prior to the 17th.

Have a read of the text pertaining to the use of RCDs in the 16th.

It would have to be a C3 from me.

 

[Des 56]

Are there millions of UK households on ?? TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD?I've never come across one. I've come across plenty protected by a lone 100mA RCD though, in which case the requirements for fault protection (in most cases) will still be met even by todays standards.


TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD?
I am puzzled by your quote
There are many that are split load with an additional 30m/amp Rcd covered by the whole boards 100m/amp S type

The millions statement might just be a "slight" exaggeration

nevertheless,there are indeed many many many,TT systems both now and in the past that not only employ this set up but are indeed very numerous, even until today

I am very surprised that you have never come across one,your area of the country must be very different to my own,where there is a rich mixture of all sorts and these types were as numerous as any Tnc-s or Tns



Like I keep saying, regardless of past standards, if an OCPD will not disconnect in the required time then this is potentially dangerous, therefore the only reasonable code would be a C2.

That is because you are basing your results on the current requirements and values
If they were based on what was accepted at the time of installation,then there is no problem

Obviously due regard should be taken of what time period that has elapsed since the installation date,but that is the idea of informing the person requesting the report of C3s etc
The changes will be brought to their attention for consideration,but that is much different to making a statement that their recently compliant installation is now unsatisfactory due only to changes that they would not have been aware of at the time it was installed

 

[spark 68]

One exception to the 16th and prior I would C2, is the thermal cut-out on old immersion heaters, as that was a proven defect that could cause fatalities.

It was generally acknowledged (unwritten) that on an EICR you go back one or possibly two editions before other factors start creeping in which would out of necessity would start to require improvements due to the age and purpose of the install (rental etc.), or in other words the further back you go the case becomes more compelling to require to at least update parts of the install. (more C2 than C3)

This rules out the 1st edition of the regs in this context.

The 15th edition now starting to become borderline (VOELCBs etc.), and anything prior starting to become obsolete.

 

[D Skelton]

One exception to the 16th and prior I would C2, is the thermal cut-out on old immersion heaters, as that was a proven defect that could cause fatalities.

It was generally acknowledged (unwritten) that on an EICR you go back one or possibly two editions before other factors start creeping in which would out of necessity would start to require improvements due to the age and purpose of the install (rental etc.), or in other words the further back you go the case becomes more compelling to require to at least update parts of the install. (more C2 than C3)

This rules out the 1st edition of the regs in this context.

The 15th edition now starting to become borderline (VOELCBs etc.), and anything prior starting to become obsolete.

So you consider it to be more of a personal line that dictates how far back you go before you start C2ing things. I guess I'm prepared to cross that line sooner than others when it comes to diconnection times not being met. Does that make me a frauster? Hmmm

Clearly there's nothing written down that goes into this matter, however there is plenty out there that states that periodic inspection and testing should be carried out to current regulations and older versions play no part in whether to code something or not.
I'll say it again, if something is unsafe by todays standards I'll code it appropriately. Previous standards don't come in to it in my mind.

 

[spark 68]

Are there millions of UK households on TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD??? I've never come across one. I've come across plenty protected by a lone 100mA RCD though, in which case the requirements for fault protection (in most cases) will still be met even by todays standards.


The millons statement might just be a "slight" exageration

nevertheless,there are indeed many many many,TT systems both now and in the past that not only employ this set up but are indeed very numerous, even until today

I am very surprised that you have never come across one,your area of the country must be very different to my own,where there is a rich mixture of all sorts and these types were as numerous as any Tnc-s or Tns

I was fitting this type of install in 2006 and 2007 for the local council where I was working at the time, It was the defacto standard set-up for about 16 years, 1992 up to 2008.

 

[D Skelton]

I was fitting this type of install in 2006 and 2007 for the local council where I was working at the time, It was the defacto standard set-up for about 16 years, 1992 up to 2008.

I've never come across one. I've seen plenty of TT systems fitted with a single 100mA RCD protecting a 3036 board but never one with a type-s all on its own.

There ain't that many TT systems round here though, majority of my work is inner city so maybe that plays a part. I only get to play around with rods when I'm out in the sticks, which isn't every day.

 

[spark 68]

Hi D, it boils down to many factors, ie. is it rental where the LA might want their own improvements, or is it private.


You cannot force people to upgrade, nor can you scaremonger, it is basically a technical RA, as I said it was 'tacitly' suggested but unwritten that maybe two editions back was far enough before other factors came into play.

Edit: Have look at the drawings I posted, it was never allowed to have a single 100mA s-type protecting the whole lot, you still needed 30mA for S/Os in the 16th.

The 15th I would have to look up.

 

[D Skelton]

Hi D, it boils down to many factors, ie. is it rental where the LA might want their own improvements, or is it private.


You cannot force people to upgrade, nor can you scaremonger, it is basically a technical RA, as I said it was 'tacitly' suggested but unwritten that maybe two editions back was far enough before other factors came into play.

Is it scaremongering to say that something is unsafe by today's standards? I don't really think so. If I were to carry out an installation on a TT system today and relied on a lone s-type to protect the entire installation my work would be unsafe. Surely the same standard applies to existing installations.

 

[Des 56]

Is it scaremongering to say that something is unsafe by today's standards? I don't really think so. If I were to carry out an installation on a TT system today and relied on a lone s-type to protect the entire installation my work would be unsafe. Surely the same standard applies to existing installations.

Danien
Can you please clarify what you mean by this statement that has been made by yourself a few times
I can play with the words to get it to mean different things


Oops gotta go to watch the match

 

[spark 68]

See edit above, even now S/Os without RCDs may be a C3 (16th ed) if not used for equipment outdoors (16th ed).

As I said it is basically a technical RA, your own personal preference has nothing to do with it, the situation as a whole needs to be taken into account.

 

[D Skelton]

See edit above, even now S/Os without RCDs may be a C3 (15th ed) if not used for equipment outdoors (16th ed).

As I said it is basically a technical RA, your own personal preference has nothing to do with it, the situation as a whole needs to be taken into account.

Ok, personal preference aside. If the OP has come across a TT installation with a 30mA for sockets and a 100mA s-type protecting the rest then if I were him I'd C2 the 100mA s-type. I view this as potentially dangerous because the circuits protected by the s-type would not disconnect in the required time.

I stand by how I would code this situation.

 

[spark 68]

Hi D,

what I was saying 16th ed TT wise, is that you can use 100mA upfront where No outdoor S/O are used, or a 100mA s-type upfront feeding a 30mA half of the board (S/Os) for discrimination purposes, or a 100mA (not TD) and 30mA split, if you look at the drawings I posted it shows this clearly.
In the 16th generally only S/Os and the shower were on the 30mA side.

I also think there is a mistake in the attached text where it says "shock protection" I think it should say Fault protection.
The 100mA providing fault protection, not additional protection as defined in the 17th, hence C3.

 

[D Skelton]

Hi D,

what I was saying 16th ed TT wise, is that you can use 100mA upfront where No outdoor S/O are used, or a 100mA s-type upfront feeding a 30mA half of the board (S/Os) for discrimination purposes, or a 100mA (not TD) and 30mA split, if you look at the drawings I posted it shows this clearly.
In the 16th generally only S/Os and the shower were on the 30mA side.

I also think there is a mistake in the attached text where it says "shock protection" I think it should say Fault protection.
The 100mA providing fault protection, not additional protection as defined in the 17th, hence C3.

Yes, and the s-type would have provided fault protection as under the 16th Edition the maximum permitted disconnection time for general circuits on a TT system was 0.4s. Now it is 0.2s and an s-type wouldn't provide fault protection on a general circuit only on a distribution circuit. C2.

 

[telectrix]

but if that s-type was compliant when installed, i 'd lean towards a C3. can't see it being OK pre 17th and now potentially dangerous.

 

[spark 68]

Sorry, the 0.4 seconds in the 16th (table 41A TN disconnection times in that edition) only applied to S/Os supplying outdoor equipment, it did not apply to other fixed final circuits where a 5 seconds disconnection time was allowed.

 

[D Skelton]

but if that s-type was compliant when installed, i 'd lean towards a C3. can't see it being OK pre 17th and now potentially dangerous.

Working down an asbestos mine without a mask wasn't dangerous pre 17th.

 

[D Skelton]

Sorry, the 0.4 seconds in the 16th (table 41A TN disconnection times in that edition) only applied to S/Os supplying outdoor equipment, it did not apply to other fixed final circuits where a 5 seconds disconnection time was allowed.

Either way, under the 16th an s-type would have provided fault protection for any circuit on a TT. Now it won't. That is my reasoning.

 

[spark 68]

Either way, under the 16th an s-type would have provided fault protection for any circuit on a TT. Now it won't. That is my reasoning.

I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.

 

[D Skelton]

I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.

I know what you and Des are saying and I'm disagreeing with you lol. If a circuit (any circuit whether that be lights, sockets, heating, cooker etc...) has a maximum permitted disconnection time of 0.2s and its sole means of fault protection is by a 100mA s-type then I would C2 it.

 

[telectrix]

but that's calling it potentially dangerous just because the disconnection time limits have been changed in the regs. from 0.4 to 0.2.

 

[D Skelton]

but that's calling it potentially dangerous just because the disconnection time limits have been changed in the regs. from 0.4 to 0.2.

Yep

 

[spark 68]

Okay, lol that is fine.

I would say I don't see how you can fail a fully compliant immediately previous edition install that was current until very recently (2008) ?, by all means recommend an improvement to todays standard (C3) but to fail it just does not make sense.

I worked mainly to the 16th until 2008, I am too young for the 15th (wink).

 

[polo1]

Guys, thanks for an interesting set of posts (and even better, which haven't descended into a pi**ing contest). I find these sorts of discussions really good in helping me decide what I would do in future similar circumstances.

 

[Des 56]

Guys, thanks for an interesting set of posts (and even better, which haven't descended into a pi**ing contest). I find these sorts of discussions really good in helping me decide what I would do in future similar circumstances.

I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated knowing of your interest in the debate

Now the confession
I was blooded in the late 14th Thats just 2 editions later than trev and geordie,tel is obviously of the Charleston era

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well thank you Spin for that rather patronising lesson on how to conduct myself whilst inspecting and testing an electrical installation. It might help you to know that I'm well aware how to code something that is potentially dangerous!

I couldn't care less what previous regulations state, I am inspecting the installation to current regulations and a major part of that procedure means determining whether or not the installation complies with the requirements for ADS. An overcurrent protective device not disconnecting a circuit in the required time under fault conditions IS potentially dangerous, and saying so is not tantamount to fraud, nor does it indicate a lack of knowledge?!?!?!? What a load of twoddle!

To use the quote from the current regs; "This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading". There you have it fella. This means that it may not in all cases be unsafe, but in some cases it could be. That is what the use of the words 'does not necessarily' indicate. If the IET would never say that earlier editions of the regulations were 'unsafe', or at least 'less safe' than the current, there'd be no need for them to keep changing them would there?!




I have read it, and nowhere does it say that in all cases a bare live conductor must be insulated whether it is within reach or not.


Finally, I couldn't help but pick out this little gem! Talk about contradiction!

Sorry, didn't mean to be patronising, just wanted to use the correct terminology rather than the mish mosh that had been used so far in the thread.
One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.

Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions, etc.

There are many reasons why the Regulations are up-dated.
New technologies, cheaper products, public perceptions regarding safety, and in at least one instance, so as to prevent inspectors condemning installations unnecessarily.

A 'bare' conductor is un-insulated.

Is it a contradiction?
The inspection of an existing installation is referred to as a Periodic Inspection. Conducting such an inspection is known as conducting a PIR. Perhaps some time in the future, it will become known as conducting an EICR, but I doubt it. Then again people refer to PAT testing, and MOT tests, so who knows?

At the end of the day, if you want to go around condemning installations just because they are constructed to earlier editions of the Regulations, good luck to you. I hope it brings in lots of work.
Just don't be too surprised when someone calls you out on it.

 

[spark 68]

One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.

Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions

Exactly, that is why I keep older edition reg books to aid in T&I even though I spent longer with the 16th there were a lot of changes in the various amds of that edition, and the fact that you forget things when no longer working to that edition.

The only reason for adding a C2 for the immersion heaters without a thermal cut-out in older edition installs was because a baby got scalded to death, therefore a known dangerous, if not fatal condition.

The second paragraph by spin I have quoted was what I was getting at earlier in the thread where I mentioned "other factors creeping in"

Just because current regs have moved the goal posts doesn't mean that the older install is unsafe for continued use, if that was the case we would be seeing people dropping like flies, Des is right we would be instructed in no uncertain terms to rectify, this is not the case, the newer regs are not retrospective for the most part.

I wonder if part of the problems with incorrect coding are partly due to newer qualified/younger sparks who have only really been taught/trained to 17th standards ?

And no D, that is not a dig at newer sparks before you say. lol (I would have posted a big smiley wink here if I could post smileys) lol

 

[D Skelton]

Sorry, didn't mean to be patronising, just wanted to use the correct terminology rather than the mish mosh that had been used so far in the thread.

What are you, chief examiner? lol

Who cares? We understand each other.

One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.

One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification is that electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can dictate to every other electrician exactly what situation warrants which code without taking into accout that within reason, what I may class as potentially dangerous you may not and vice versa. Although much of what we do is clear cut with regards to inspection and testing, there is still so much out there that is completely subjective.

Just the other day I was discussing on here the application of a C3 for cable run directly on a suspended ceiling. I said that I would not code it as there are no regulations to back up the use of a code whilst others said that they would C3 it. Would I accuse them of being fraudulent and lacking knowledge? No. It is entirely up to them and if they can justify it then that is their call to make.

I do take into consideration earlier regulations, but the extent of which I take these into consideration is up to me and me alone so long as I can justify my decision.

Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions, etc.

No, I am not misconstruding it, it is clear in what it says and I stand by what I said earlier. "This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use" means exactly what it says. It means that it could be unsafe, but not necessarily.

If it meant that an installation to an earlier edition of the regs 'should not' be considered as unsafe then it would say this, but it doesn't.

There are many reasons why the Regulations are up-dated.
New technologies, cheaper products, public perceptions regarding safety, and in at least one instance, so as to prevent inspectors condemning installations unnecessarily.

Another reason is because what was once safe is now considered unsafe.

A 'bare' conductor is un-insulated.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Is it a contradiction?
The inspection of an existing installation is referred to as a Periodic Inspection. Conducting such an inspection is known as conducting a PIR. Perhaps some time in the future, it will become known as conducting an EICR, but I doubt it. Then again people refer to PAT testing, and MOT tests, so who knows?

Well I'll leave you to your terminology, you can have that. Conducting an EICR/carrying out a PIR... Same thing in my book.

At the end of the day, if you want to go around condemning installations just because they are constructed to earlier editions of the Regulations, good luck to you. I hope it brings in lots of work.
Just don't be too surprised when someone calls you out on it.

I don't carry out inspections to bring in further work and the insinuation that this is the case is frankly ridiculous and potentially libellous. You have called me out on it and I have defended my position as is my right. If someone else wants to have a pop let them, I am more than comfortable with my stance on this particular issue. Whilst typing this I am also looking quite comfortably at 621.2 which states; "Periodic inspection comprising a detailed examination of the installation shall be carried out . . . to show that the requirements for disconnection times . . . are complied with to provide for the safety of persons and livestock".

That says to me that if disconnection times are not met then the safety of persons and livestock is not provided for, thus making the installation unsafe.

If disconnection times to current regulations cannot be met it is an automatic C2 in my book. End of. You wanna code it differently, that's your call.