New EICR codes.

[Mattrod]

Greetings.

Just done a PIR using the new EICR form, and had a few questions regarding the inspection.

The main bonding is in 4mm and the main earth is in 10mm. Is this a code C2 or C3? There was a thread for recommendations for PIR's on here which is pretty good, so I am going to stick to these guidelines.
I take it C1 requires urgent attention, and C2 is not needed to be so urgent but will have to be improved. What is C3? Does not comply to 17th edition? No laballing (ie mixed colours)? It says "improvement recommended" .Just a bit confussed. But, saying that,I find quite alot of ambiguous stuff within the regs and concerning part P and all that....

Any help would be greatly received

Cheers fellow sparks!

 

[malcolmsanford]

The main bonding fails on all fronts to the current regulations, but may have been quite adequate in a previous addition.

I know the ESC warrants this a code 2 anything less that 6mm, or has evidence of damage. I personally do not agree with this if it a TT or a TN-S system, if it's 4mm and there is no evidence of damage, why code it, but if you fly in the face of the ESC/NICEIC and not code it a 2 then you can face problems if anything happens.

We have to remember that Code 3 is not a replacement for a code 4, in fact there is now no need to compare an earlier installation to the 17th edition, which I think is a good move.

We have tons of threads on here about RCD protection, and given codes and such, because the 17th is full of instances where you now require them, and previous editions never. So it enabled an environment to grow of tester literally frightening people by saying it's against the regs, and trying to drum up remedial work

No if you have a deviation to the 17th, and as long as you deem as the inspector it is safe, then there is no code.

Codes 1 and 2 have not changed really, but code 3 really means you feel that there is something that needs investigating, say a low IR reading, or a higher than expected Zs value, but the installation is working and in your opinion safe.

An inspection is not an exercise in finding faults or deviations from the regs on an installation, but to judge it's suitability and safety for continued use

 

[Mattrod]

The installation is quite old (20 years plus) and the board has seen better days, (Old, cracked, 1361 fuses) so will need replacing in my view. As I'm putting a new 17th edition board in, should the main bonding be upgraded to 17th aswell?

The tests on the circuits all came back ok (contins, IR) but did find a the upstairs lighting neutral had been used on the landing light (two way), which was wired back to the downstairs lighting circuit. What is the best way of addressing this when it comes to spliting the two lighting circuits over two RCD's?
I know this is a different question, but if you don't ask.......

Thanks in advance

 

[malcolmsanford]

Reg 132.16 tell you

"Furthermore, the earthing and bonding arrangements if necessary, for the protective device measure applied for the safety of the installation, shall be adequate."

So what earthing system you have will dictate for you what earthing and bonding you need. The 4mm bonding, regardless of what earthing system you have does not come up to the current regs and you need to change that. The main earth for a TT or TN-S system should be fine, but you can prove that via Reg 543.1.1

As for the borrowed Neutral you could simply replace the 2 core strappers with a 3 core T +E