EICR and 3036 fuses

[aes2011]

Doing an EICR on an office block which has 2xsingle phase main boards. Old MEM type boards with 3036 fuses. Now given that there are no RCDs at all for cables concealed in Walls, sockets used by ordinary persons and so on. Does this warrant a C3-improvement recommended?

 

[Strima]

I would C3 it for lack of RCD, C2 if any sockets for outside use etc.

However this would also depend on the installation method and is it a controlled/supervised building?

 

[aes2011]

Circuits run in PVC t&e and building occupied 9-5.
There is no EM lighting in building and the fire alarm panel looks ancient and only has a sounder and call point. Does this get recorded on eicr observations sheet?There are 7 offices on this level of building.

 

[somersetsparks]

Sounds like a list of C3's from what your saying. You could observe the lack of EM lighting and FIRE alarm however, it is outside the scope of you test.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You say that it's an office block.
Who are these ordinary persons who will use the sockets?

 

[SirKit Breaker]

You are assessing the installation against current standards. Therefore no RCD protection for general purpose socket outlets, irrespective of who is plugging stuff in, is a code 3, as is the use of 3036 fuses. It was safe when it was originally designed and constructed, and if no defects other than non compliance with current standards then all is well now, so no defects exist, but you are recommending improvement to both protection of the installation and the users, but improvement is not mandatory.Their hand will be forced as and when they have additional work done in the future.

your concerns with the E lights and alarms are as rightly pointed out, outside of your remit when inspecting and testing the fixed installation, but i agree it is worth a note, not on the EICR, but elsewhere such as on your invoice, and then you have covered your ---.

Cheers.....Howard

 

[Deleted member 26818]

That is not so.
The requirement is to provide RCD protection for socket-outlets that are used by ordinary persons and intended for general use.
If they are not for use by ordinary persons, there is no requirement for RCD protection.
If they are for use by ordinary persons, but not intended for general use, there is again no requirement for RCD protection.
There are two exceptions.
One for if the use by ordinary persons for general use is supervised by a skilled or instructed person.
The other is a bit of a joke.

 

[aes2011]

Basically the offices are occupied by accounts staff. Sockets are used for p.c's, fax, printers etc. So assuming no staff are electrically qualified and that a cleaner can plug her Hoover into any socket outlet she likes, RCD protection would be recommended. Either situation it is still C3.

 

[somersetsparks]

Basically the offices are occupied by accounts staff. Sockets are used for p.c's, fax, printers etc. So assuming no staff are electrically qualified and that a cleaner can plug her Hoover into any socket outlet she likes, RCD protection would be recommended. Either situation it is still C3.

correct, unless there any outside/ used to supply portable equipment outside, then you could maybe code 2 it with a view to fitting an RCD socket

 

[Guest123]

What type of wiring system are the final circuits installed in???

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Basically the offices are occupied by accounts staff. Sockets are used for p.c's, fax, printers etc. So assuming no staff are electrically qualified and that a cleaner can plug her Hoover into any socket outlet she likes, RCD protection would be recommended. Either situation it is still C3.

Unfortunately, BS7671 does not have a code for instances where statutory requirements are not complied with.
It is a statutory requirement that the staff and cleaners should be what BS7671 regards as either skilled or instructed, if they are to use the socket-outlets.
Regulation 16 of the EAWR:
Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury16. 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.
By applying ay code, you are effectively accusing the company of breaking the law.

 

[Risteard]

a code 3, as is the use of 3036 fuses.

How do compliant fuses warrant any observation or coding?

 

[Brightspark2]

Unfortunately, BS7671 does not have a code for instances where statutory requirements are not complied with.
It is a statutory requirement that the staff and cleaners should be what BS7671 regards as either skilled or instructed, if they are to use the socket-outlets.
Regulation 16 of the EAWR:
Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury16. 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.
By applying ay code, you are effectively accusing the company of breaking the law.

I don't believe plugging items or Hoover's in this case into socket outlets is a work activity that requires technical knowledge...

Its a code 3, the sockets are for general use by ordinary persons.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Like I said, if you apply a code C3, you are effectivly calling the client a criminal.
It's a statutory requirement under the health and safety at work act, for any empoyee to be provided with the training required to carry out their work duties in as safe a manner as reasonably practicable.
The EAWR just reinforces that requirement with a specific reference to electricity.
Either the worker is trained or supervised whilst carrying out their work duties, or the employer is breaking the law.
BS7671 does not provide a standard for when the law is not being complied with.
Probably because it is deemed that if someone is willing to break the law, then they are hardly likely to bother with some non-statutory Regulations.

 

[Brightspark2]

Like I said, if you apply a code C3, you are effectivly calling the client a criminal.
It's a statutory requirement under the health and safety at work act, for any empoyee to be provided with the training required to carry out their work duties in as safe a manner as reasonably practicable.
The EAWR just reinforces that requirement with a specific reference to electricity.
Either the worker is trained or supervised whilst carrying out their work duties, or the employer is breaking the law.
BS7671 does not provide a standard for when the law is not being complied with.
Probably because it is deemed that if someone is willing to break the law, then they are hardly likely to bother with some non-statutory Regulations.

I believe they will have the training to carry out there work and duties in a safe manner as is reasonably practical which in my opnion doesn't include electrical training to which they would be classed as a skilled person within BS7671...

To me your argument ( I say that term loosely as I know this isn't an argument) is one of an electrician in court trying to riggle out of a situation by using the grey areas where the british standards or laws may overlap.

By complying with BS7671 you as such comply with the EAWR to which we all work too (hopefully) and within that they are classed as ordinary persons and it warrants a C3. It's just a recommendation after all. The circuit or persons using it would be safer with it protected by an RCD wouldn't they?...

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2