Queries with EICRs to AMD 2

[Dartlec]

I've started to move over to AMD 2 forms for my CU installs, if only because the schedule is so much easier to tick and I can stop sticking labels everywhere...

Just had my NICEIC assessment which was all fine, and during discussion a few things came up where there seems to be a discrepancy between the BBB and Guidance Note 3 (updated)

The NICEIC's view (and mine now I think) is that for EICRs and CU changes on existing wiring, ALL IR testing can now be done L+N->E at 250V

Only on new installation of cabling does 500V IR need to be done, and that before installing any appliances/accessories that might be affected (USB sockets, switches with LEDs, etc)

GN3 seems to support this with the note:

​

BS 7671:2018+A2:2022 permits the test voltage applied to circuits following connection of equipment to be reduced to 250 V DC, provided that cables were tested at 500 V DC prior to connection.

Although it then goes on to say minimum values of 500V as normal - and add that simple installations with no distribution circuits should preferably be tested as a whole.​

The second question I clarified was RCD testing - which the NICEIC assessor (and several sources I've seen) was sure can be done once at 1x, on either 'angle' (0 or 180).

GN3 (updated) still says:

BS EN 61557-6 requires the test current for a tripping test to be applied at the zero-crossing point of the AC wave. Therefore, for each of the tests, readings should be taken with the test waveform starting on both positive and negative half-cycles usually identified ‘0°’ and ‘180°’ on test instruments, and the longer operating time recorded for the 1×I∆n Type AC test.

So which is more correct? The BBB doesn't clarify whether one or two tests at 1x is acceptable....

Finally, the latest triumph in the PRS legislation's many flaws.

As currently enacted, it states clearly:

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);

Which would suggest that until they bother to pass a new law to change it, EICRs for the purpose of PRS MUST be done to 18th Amendment 1 (even if that happens to be after September when AMD 1 is withdrawn??)

Of course a competent legislator would have got round that by saying 'regulations currently in force', or some such legalese, to avoid more work for bill drafters....

Any one else ---- enough to give a ---- about such things and willing to offer their views?

 

[timhoward]

So which is more correct? The BBB doesn't clarify whether one or two tests at 1x is acceptable....

Within the acceptable test result time there is time for many 50hz cycles, many waveforms, so starting testing at 0 or 180 doesn’t make any difference really.
50hz is 0.02 seconds
300ms is 0.3 seconds

I tend to go along the board with the tester set at 1/2 to check they aren’t over sensitive, then go along at x1. Then check test button.

 

[timhoward]

The NICEIC's view (and mine now I think) is that for EICRs and CU changes on existing wiring, ALL IR testing can now be done L+N->E at 250V

Agreed, though I’m not aware of many situations where the same test at 500v would cause any harm.

Which would suggest that until they bother to pass a new law to change it, EICRs for the purpose of PRS MUST be done to 18th Amendment 1 (even if that happens to be after September when AMD 1 is withdrawn??)

I had been wondering about that too!
This makes the EICR game even more messy.

 

[UNG]

Finally, the latest triumph in the PRS legislation's many flaws.​

As currently enacted, it states clearly:

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);

Which would suggest that until they bother to pass a new law to change it, EICRs for the purpose of PRS MUST be done to 18th Amendment 1 (even if that happens to be after September when AMD 1 is withdrawn??)

Of course a competent legislator would have got round that by saying 'regulations currently in force', or some such legalese, to avoid more work for bill drafters....

Any one else ---- enough to give a ---- about such things and willing to offer their views?

My understanding of the PRS legislation is the regs as published in 2018 pre AMD 1 so carrying out EICR's to AMD 1 is technically beyond the scope of the PRS.
I always thought the PRS was a bad piece of legislation at it's draft but we have Emma Clancy the former boss at the NICEIC to thank for it

 

[Dartlec]

My understanding of the PRS legislation is the regs as published in 2018 pre AMD 1 so carrying out EICR's to AMD 1 is technically beyond the scope of the PRS.
I always thought the PRS was a bad piece of legislation at it's draft but we have Emma Clancy the former boss at the NICEIC to thank for it

Yes looks like you are right! Though to be fair, AMD 1 only had EV stuff in it, so probably didn't change anything to do with testing?

Still if they couldn't even update it for that, who knows when it will be updated to AMD2!

Not sure a prosecution under the act would ever get that far for using a more recent amendment to be fair, although since the main teeth is councils fining landlords who knows. Maybe they are planning to wait a few years and then fine every landlord for having the wrong certificate, and fix local authority funding at a stroke!