EICR and 3036 fuses

[malcolmsanford]

In total agreement with the Spin here, providing the protection device complies with the 0.4s for the socket circuit then there is no code required.

I would of course in a supporting letter/document advise the client of the advantages of perhaps utilizing RCD protection. But you have to weigh up as this an office with IT equipment and such, would you insisting on providing RCD protection cause more problems than it cures.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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

I really don't know how yo put it any differently.
The law requires that workers be trained or experienced so as to carry out their work in as safe a manner as is reasonably practicable. You apper to accept this.
The law also requires that where electricity fouls be a hazard, that the workers be trained or experienced so as to be aware of the dangers electricity poses and again conduct their work in as safe a manner as is reasonably practicable. You apper to not accept this. Despite the fact that a whole set of Statutory Requirements (the EAWR) has been produced specifically to deal with such situations.
The EAWR are not reall necessary as the requirements of the HSWA deal with all situations irrespective of whether electricity is involved.
The EAWR are there really only for reininforcement of the HSWA.
To summarise: Employers have a legal requirement to ensure employees have the training or experience necessary to carry out their work duties as safely as is reasonably practicable. Including instances where electricity could be a hazard.
As such BS7671 considers all workers who have to use electricity in the course of their employment as meeting the requirements of being either skilled or instructed.
Remember as far as BS7671 is concerned, an instructed person can be someone who contacts a skilled person for advice by telephone. The skilled person doesn't even have to be on site for someone to be considered instructed.

 

[Brightspark2]

I really don't know how yo put it any differently.
The law requires that workers be trained or experienced so as to carry out their work in as safe a manner as is reasonably practicable. You apper to accept this.
The law also requires that where electricity fouls be a hazard, that the workers be trained or experienced so as to be aware of the dangers electricity poses and again conduct their work in as safe a manner as is reasonably practicable. You apper to not accept this. Despite the fact that a whole set of Statutory Requirements (the EAWR) has been produced specifically to deal with such situations.
The EAWR are not reall necessary as the requirements of the HSWA deal with all situations irrespective of whether electricity is involved.
The EAWR are there really only for reininforcement of the HSWA.
To summarise: Employers have a legal requirement to ensure employees have the training or experience necessary to carry out their work duties as safely as is reasonably practicable. Including instances where electricity could be a hazard.
As such BS7671 considers all workers who have to use electricity in the course of their employment as meeting the requirements of being either skilled or instructed.
Remember as far as BS7671 is concerned, an instructed person can be someone who contacts a skilled person for advice by telephone. The skilled person doesn't even have to be on site for someone to be considered instructed.

Yes I know what your saying, so this is where we have a clash

To summarise: Employers have a legal requirement to ensure employees have the training or experience necessary to carry out their work duties as safely as is reasonably practicable. Including instances where electricity could be a hazard

I still dont think this would class them as a skilled or instructed person

Instructed person: A person adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her to avoid the dangers which electricity may create

Skilled person: A person with technical knowledge or suffcient experiance to enable him/her to avoid the dangers that electricity may create

A cleaner hasnt been given training on the dangers that electricity may create.

What the EAWR say

[h=3]Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury[/h]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.

Is cleaning a job where technical knowledge or experiance is necessary to prevent danger? IMO no

Is a cleaner a person adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her to avoid the dangers which electricity may create? IMO no

In reality do cleaners recieve electrical training? no

But lets take your view... If I was given a job to install cleaner sockets would I assume these people had the electrical training to be classed as skilled or instructed persons and then if a problem arrised point the finger and say well they should have been given the required electrical training or would I take on the responsabilty and install the scokets as per BS7671, class them as ordinary persons and charge the £15 more for the RCBO, its the latter everytime. We are not the HSE but electricians installing to regulations.

All modern buildings I have seen/worked on have the cleaners sockets on RCD's, so could the designer be classing them as ordinary persons?

Again hope your not taking this as argument just a friendly debate :seeya:. We just have different interpretations of the regulations.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If cleaning is not a job where technical knowledge or experience is required to prevent danger, then why are you proposing that the lack of RCD protection be given a code?
We are required to record any instance which may give rise to danger.
We are not required to record instances which would not give rise to a danger, and there is no code for such an instance.
You have indicated that you believe the situation warrents a code C3, which must indicate that you percieve there is a potential for danger.
If that is the case if there is a potential danger, then by law the cleaner must be provided with the technical knowlege to prevent the danger, have the experience necessary to prevent the danger, or be adequately supervised to prevent the danger.

With a new installation, the situation is slightly different.
The designer has two options.
Leave out RCD protection, then whomever takes on the installation will have to ensure their employees are trained to use the sockets.
Or provide RCD protection and then anyone will be able to use the sockets with or without training.

 

[Brightspark2]

If cleaning is not a job where technical knowledge or experience is required to prevent danger, then why are you proposing that the lack of RCD protection be given a code?
We are required to record any instance which may give rise to danger.
We are not required to record instances which would not give rise to a danger, and there is no code for such an instance.
You have indicated that you believe the situation warrents a code C3, which must indicate that you percieve there is a potential for danger.
If that is the case if there is a ptential danger, then by law the cleaner must be provided with the technical knowlege to prevent the danger, have the experience necessary to prevent the danger, or be adequately supervised to prevent the danger.

With a new installation, the situation is slightly different.
The designer has two options.
Leave out RCD protection, then whomever takes on the installation will have to ensure their employees are trained to use the sockets.
Or provide RCD protection and then anyone will be able to use the sockets with or without training.

An EICR is not just for reporting the immediate dangers or potential dangers but also to identify any deficiencies for which remedial action would contribute to a significant improvement in the safety of the electrical installation.

Remember it's a C3 your recommending improvement.

CODE 3

This code should be used to indicate that whilst an observed deficiency is not considered to be a source of immediate danger or potential danger, improvement would contribute to a significant enhancement of the safety of the electrical installation.

Sent from my Xperia S using next doors WIFI

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Safety is defined as providing protection against known or percieved dangers.
By improving safety you are improving the protection against known or percieved dangers.
However there is a list of deficiencies that we are required to record in Regulation 634.2 and on the back of the EICR form.
The list is:
"Damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger".....
I'm not aware of a Regulation that requires us to record anything which may not give rise to danger.

At the end of day an RCD is additional protection in the event of an electric shock.
Now if you do not consider that receiving an electric shock is a danger, then end the discussion now.
I and I imagine any right thinking person would consider receiving an electric shock as a danger.
If the cleaner has to use a socket-outlet in the course of their work, then the statutory requirements demand that they are trained, experienced or supervised to be able to conduct there duties with out danger.
i.e That they know to watch for frayed or damaged cables or broken casings on their hoover and to not use the hoover if they discover any.
I don't understand why you believe that they would not have that amount of technical knowlege?

 

[Brightspark2]

Safety is defined as providing protection against known or percieved dangers.
By improving safety you are improving the protection against known or percieved dangers.
However there is a list of deficiencies that we are required to record in Regulation 634.2 and on the back of the EICR form.
The list is:
"Damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger".....
I'm not aware of a Regulation that requires us to record anything which may not give rise to danger.

At the end of day an RCD is additional protection in the event of an electric shock.
Now if you do not consider that receiving an electric shock is a danger, then end the discussion now.
I and I imagine any right thinking person would consider receiving an electric shock as a danger.
If the cleaner has to use a socket-outlet in the course of their work, then the statutory requirements demand that they are trained, experienced or supervised to be able to conduct there duties with out danger.
i.e That they know to watch for frayed or damaged cables or broken casings on their hoover and to not use the hoover if they discover any.
I don't understand why you believe that they would not have that amount of technical knowlege?

We could go round in circles with definations. To leave out the RCD the cleaner would have to be advised or have the technical knowledge to avoid fire, electric shock, burns, arcing and explosion from the use of electrical energy.

i.e That they know to watch for frayed or damaged cables or broken casings on their hoover and to not use the hoover if they discover any.
I don't understand why you believe that they would not have that amount of technical knowlege?

Yes ok but that's sort of general knowledge/common sense. If thats the way we are to interpret it then why bring in the regulation, I mean is that the way the IEE would like us to interpret it?

Where would the regulation actually come into use because what you describe is general knowledge people know not to use equipment if its damaged which you class as technical knowledge. So this would cover domestic, commerical and industrial everyone would be classed as a skilled or instructed person and therefore no need for the regulation, so why would they bring it in?

Although I come across many instances where damaged leads/equipment are still in use so are they actually aware of the dangers?(Defined above). The sort of things you find when PAT and EICR would convince me otherwise.