TT eicr code?

[Badged01]

These debates are good as it allows a good exchange of idea/onfo on a topic! I've often questions what the "tecnicalities" of the PIR process is so the thread has made me re-think my position so I thought I'd add my summized interpretation/view to continue the debate on PIR generally .....

Only guidance BS7671 (17th edn) gives on PIR is that it is conducted to determine :

1) If the installation is 'satisfactory' for continued use (note 'safe' not used )
2) That the requirements for disconnection times set out in BS7671(17th edn) are complied with
3) That departures from these regs BS7671 (17th edn) that may give rise to danger are identified.
4) On completion of the PIR an EICR shall be given to ..... showing any non-compliances to BS7671 (17th edn) that may give rise to danger.

And of course we have the caveat at the beginning of BS7671 (17th edn) that states previous installations may not conform with the requirements of BS7671 (17th edn) but that does not mean they are unsafe for continued use (note 'satisfactory' not used)

BS7671 (17th edn) offers an EICR model form along with guidance on codes to be use for observations raised within the EICR :
C1 -- Danger present (defined as risk of injury to persons/livestock)
C2 -- Potentially dangerous
C3 -- Improvement recommended
[Note : 'Observations' is not defined within BS7671 (17th edn) ]

In support of BS7671 (17th edn) we have documentation issued by the ESC on EICR's which is supported by all the major players in the industry (ECA, NICEIC etc ... ) and of course by the IET who 'own' BS7671 (17th edn). The key points it raises are:

1) The EICR provides an assessment against the requirements of the edition of BS7671 current at the time of the inspection, irrespective of the age of the installation.
2) It describes 'observations' as something which would contribute to a significant improvement in safety of the electrical installation and can be supported by one or more regulations in the edition of BS7671 being current at the time. Observations based solely on personal preference or 'custom and practise' should not be included.
3) The guide then advises that it is entirely a matter for the 'competent' person to decide on the classification code to use but gives specific example of where it believes a code should be applied.

My interpretation of the above means that I conduct EICR's using the model form in BS7671 and do it against the current edition of BS767 (17th edn) and any non-conformance to the 17th edn regulations I record as an observation. My view if is that if it wasnt a safety improvement on previous regs it wouldn't have been updated in the 17th edn. I then code that observation using the ESC guidance. If not covered in there then based on my 'experience' I decide if I consider it dangerous or not.

Bottom line is I believe my 'butt' is covered by following BS7671 (17th edn) and the ESC guidance should there questions/prosecution arising from my PIR. But as a 'competant' inspector there is nothing stopping anyone not following any guidance and conducting a PIR as they see fit and then reporting the results of that inspection in any form they want to ---- until something goes wrong and they are asked for justification. Or more importantly perhaps under the EAWR proving innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt!

In the example contained within this thread Im in agreement with Mr Skelton -- if it doesnt meet disconnection times C2. I'm just reporting my findings to the customer against the current BS7671 and its upto him if he wants to ignore them or do something about them. I can't make him do anything if he doesn't want to.

 

[Engineer54]

That all fine, but giving a fail code to a circuit or whatever, that has proved to have been adequately suitable (fit for purpose) and in working order and hasn't been changed a jot, since installed. The only change being made being a disconnection time change. I think you would need to be able to substantiate giving that situation a fail code!! Code 3 is fine!!

I'm yet to be convinced, that a 0.2 difference in disconnection times is going to make much if any difference in a situation where RCD's are basically mandatory (TT systems) for compliance with earth fault disconnection times!!!

 

[JD6400]

Badged01, I am on the fence on this one all be it leaning slightly towards Damian and your self's view , after this post .
Good argument well put IMO !



Edit ; I say on the fence , but have always gone with a C3 until now .

 

[spark 68]

One last question for those that would C2 a compliant 16th edition install. lol

How are you going to code existing 17th installs once 17th amd3 becomes the new standard with reduced max Zs's and all that this implies ?

Edit: Badged I gave you a like for your very good post, but I don't agree with you wrt 16th, the regs are not retrospective as such, and to fail an immediately previous edition is harsh IMO, I would still C3 it, and make a note that it complied with that previous edition, ie. recommend improvement.

If it was earlier, say 15th with a VOELCB, which are now classed as an ineffective protective measure, then yes a C2 is appropriate.

 

[Badged01]

Ultimately its down to the inspector if he wants C2 or C3. For me the key question you have to answer is if it doesn't comply with the latest 17th edn regs for a new build would you accept it as being satisfactory and sign off the new build paperwork (the installation is safe to go)? If you wouldn't sign it off why not (old installations to 16th edn meet those disconnection times)? If you wouldn't sign it off for those reasons why do you consider an old installation disconnection times acceptable on an EICR?

Code C2 or C3 is a judgement call, mine is a C2 - potentially dangerous. If the old disconnection times were acceptable why did we change them? In reality you can give either as the only time you would need to justify the code would be should an 'accident' happen and my butt is covered

And yes, there will be further issues with installations now designed to specific disconnection time in the 17th edn which may not now comply with new times in the BYB!! At what point do you draw the line in the sand and say any disconnection time from the XXth edition is acceptable ......

 

[spark 68]

This is not about new builds though, where I would agree with you.
We are talking about existing, was the 16th so Dangerous that we are instructed to update to the latest and greatest ? no of course not.

Why then would you think that the immediate previous edition should fail just because the rules have since changed since it was installed ? I am only talking about the immediate previous edition here because if you go back further then other things start becoming C2s.

Fail is the operative word here, recommending improvement is the fairest for this situation.

My question still stands, how are you going to code existing 17th installs when amd3 kicks in with reduced max Zs's and what complies now suddenly doesn't ?

Edit: of course any new work or additions on existing you do has to comply to current regs, which I agree with, but we are talking EICRs here

 

[Badged01]

We are talking about existing, was the 16th so Dangerous that we are instructed to update to the latest and greatest ? no of course not.

Then why not just use the old disconnection times for new builds? What reason would you have for changing disconnection times with an update in regulations -- to make it less safe? I could understand perhaps if they had stated all new builds must meet these new xx times but old builds are permitted to meet these xx disconnection times?

Why then would you think that the immediate previous edition should fail just because the rules have since changed since it was installed?

That is a question only those who decided to give new disconnection times in the 17th edn can answer. I can only assume if they thought the old times were satisfactory/safe they would have left them at that? I just interpret and code as I see in the latest (17th edn) regs, which for me is C2. I have no arguement if you say C3 thats your interpretation.

I am only talking about the immediate previous edition here because if you go back further then other things start becoming C2s.

So who makes the technical/engineering decision as to what is acceptable or not? I dont think thats down to you or me! To play the devils advocate you could say the times in xx regs of 193X were acceptable then --- who's to say they arent now? Again a interpretation of whay you feel the 17th edn means.

My question still stands, how are you going to code existing 17th installs when amd3 kicks in with reduced max Zs's and what complies now suddenly doesn't ?

Good question and until I view the BYB and what it says I cant really answer. But yes, I think there will be issues in that what is an acceptable disconnection time on the last day of the BGB may not acceptable on the first day of the BYB! By your interpretation then, on issue of the BYB do all the 16th edn times become unacceptable as one removed from the previous disconnection times (BGB) or does that only occur at the 18th edn when presumably all the 17th edn times are still OK?

Food for thought, makes for an intersting debate!

 

[spark 68]

OK, let's add a bit of perspective here, as things are seldom black and white.

A fully complaint 16th ed install although not meeting 17th regs, how can you say it is potentially dangerous ? which is what a C2 is.
Fair enough it could maybe do with some improvements, improved safety is always a good thing hence a C3 IMO.


Earlier editions start to become a moot point, it was proven that old VOELCBS became ineffective because they relied on the Voltage of the MET rising to about circa 45-50V to operate, precisely what effective Earthing and bonding was designed to prevent, hence their discontinuation, a verified C2.

The regs have always been about practicality versus safety, which is why we have dual RCD boards which are not fully 17th compliant either.
If you look at the ESC guide it has quite a few "get out clauses" for earlier editions, such as undersized MB, no RCDs on S/O unless for outdoor use (C3), and a "workaround" for no CPCs on lighting etc..etc, the exception being for those things that are since proven to be potentially dangerous, ie. thermal cut-outs on immersions, VOELCBS, using the public water supply as a means of earthing, fused Neutrals etc...etc..

My earlier question about reduced Zs's btw, expect a similar "workaround" of some sort to be issued, because it would cost a massive amount of money if that was retrospectively applied to industrial and commercial buildings.

 

[Guest55]

during a periodic inspection , the condition of an electrical installation is put in comparison to the current regulations at the time of the inspection , not at the time it was constructed.

to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

and how would you absolutely confirm its age anyway , without original documents or an engraved plaque on the wall ?

so does this mean that without understanding of , lets say , the 15th ed. your deemed incompetent to test & inspect ?

how far back do you want to go ?
wheres the timeline drawn between relevent / obsolete ?

does this mean anyone under the age of 45 is probably too young to be deemed suitable / competent to carry out periodics then ..............?

bollox.

 

[spark 68]

during a periodic inspection , the condition of an electrical installation is put in comparison to the current regulations at the time.

to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

so without understanding of , lets say , the 15th ed. your deemed incompetent to test & inspect ?

which means anyone under the age of 45 is unsuitable to carry out periodics then ..............

bollox.

I didn't say that at all, I know we compare to current regs, but you should also be aware of previous requirements too, the issue is coding.

To say that a fully compliant 16th edition is potentially dangerous is also ridiculous, there may be some issues that could be improved, but to fail an install that was installed as late as 2008 ?

A tester is supposed to have above average knowledge and experience of wiring regulations not just the current edition.

If you only needed knowledge of the current edition then the (2394) IV course would be all that is required.

 

[JD6400]

I think this one is going to end up on a perpetual loop !

Spark 68 , I think that was a well levelled response . #83

Although we should all be singing from the same hymn sheet !? I also believe that as Badged01 points out , some aspects of a PIR ( or what ever they deem it to called now ) can be down to personal judgement on the more sketchy points , with in reason ! After all it will be your signature at the end of the day , if the :****: does happen to hit the fan one day !
Take a low IR reading of say around 6 , although it passes , in most instances I would not wish to leave such a latent defect , but I was taught it is a ( now ) C3 !

 

[Guest55]

If you only needed knowledge of the current edition then the (2394) IV course would be all that is required.

how do you work that out ??

the 2395 doesnt teach old versions of regs , it just has a course content with a different bias.

 

[spark 68]

how do you work that out ??

the 2395 doesnt teach old versions of regs , it just has a course content with a different bias.

GN3 states that the tester/inspector should have a sound technical knowledge and experience relevant to the nature of the installation being inspected and tested, and of BS671 and other technical standards.

Read into that what you will, how can you be competent to T&I older installs if you only know about new installs ?

The 2391 and later courses were designed for experienced sparks, until the training providers jumped on the band wagon, why do you think the failure rate is so high ?


Edit: so if you only know the 17th then just fail everything else, is that what you are saying ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There seems to be a distinct lack of common sense it his thread.
Do people really believe that the IET would produce a set of Regulations, that would place themselves in a position where they could face litigation for allowing unsafe installations?

At present, the Regulations allow an installation to be constructed to to an edition of the Regulations for an indefinite time, after that edition has been super superseded.
For example many aspects of the Olympic Village in Stratford were designed while the 16th edition was in force, and were constructed to the 16th edition, right up to 2012, some 4 years after the 17th edition was introduced.
It is conceivable that the modifications to the residences currently underway, are also being constructed to the 16th, although I have no personal knowledge of this.
To my knowledge, none of the Olympic site is TT, and as such the disconnection time of 0.2 secs is not an issue.

However we come back to the ridiculous situation, where according to some an installation can be safe at one minute to Midnight, yet become unsafe at one minute past. Simply because a certain date has been reached.

An Inspector should be using his or her sound judgment and experience to make informed decisions about whether an installation is fit for continued use.
What has been suggested is not sound judgment, and to my mind suggests lack of experience.

 

[spark 68]

Exactly spin,

At least badged gave his technical reasons as to why he would C2, even though I don't agree with him.

Part of the problem I feel is down to lack of experience with the earlier standards, It is not the newer sparks's fault either, but to say if it does not comply to the latest regs is an automatic fail just beggars belief.

I have enjoyed contributing to this thread immensely, it has certainly opened my eyes to prevailing attitudes though.

I have said enough on this topic now, and I will bow out after this post, while it may make me possibly unpopular for saying this, sadly the attitude of newer (and some older) sparks that everything must comply to the latest regs or is potentially unsafe, just shows the lack of training and experience now endemic in our industry as a whole.

I can understand this state of affairs with those sparks who predominately just install new stuff, but really they should not be carrying out EICRs on older properties if the attitude is to just update everything or fail automatically.

I agree that in an ideal world that updating everything would without a doubt improve the safety somewhat, but unfortunately reality rears it's ugly head.

A fascinating thread all the same, and very revealing.