IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Eicr coding
Topic Summary:
Created On: 11 May 2016 09:56 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 11 May 2016 09:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



craig0

Posts: 8
Joined: 11 May 2016

Hi all ,new to this site.I am testing a doctors surgery which is on ground level,has 4 dis boards each of them with no rcd protection. They have about 80 sockets throughout the surgery rooms and some in the waiting area which can be used by the public. How do i code this c3 or c2. Personally i think its c2. Any advice would be appreciated.
Also if i put a label on the socket whats to stop somebody unplugging whats in it & putting there appliance in (which they will).
Thanks
 11 May 2016 10:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 16089
Joined: 13 August 2003

For domestics the usual advise is C3 for sockets unlikely to supply equipment outdoors, C2 otherwise.

As this is non-domestic, there will be a bit more to consider - on one side it's hardly likely that a patient will roll up, plug in an extension lead and start mowing the grass outside like they might do at home. Are there any grounds outside? If there are how are they maintained? (contract gardeners will usually use petrol powered equipment and not be running extension leads through windows), or is it a tiny rural practice where the GP might do a bit of gardening when things get quiet. What are the local policies & H&S rules? - many work places say appliances need to be tested & untested appliances aren't to be brought in and will likely say something about appliances out-of-doors. In the extreme a RA could show no need for RCDs at all - meaning no code.

- Andy.
 12 May 2016 07:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



lyledunn

Posts: 1111
Joined: 13 August 2003

Don't code it! Just make a note in the observations section about the merits of RCD protection for socket outlets. You could paraphrase the non-regulation, 415.1.1 and let the practice manager assess the risk.

-------------------------
Regards,

Lyle Dunn
 12 May 2016 10:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4437
Joined: 21 November 2008

Hello Lyle, I asked this is a previous similar post regarding your idea of not using codes

"Lyle I know from previous that you use you own forms and don't use codes on commercial EICR's. I don't think I would be that brave, although I see your reasoning.

In the Appendix 6, which I know is informative, page 426 "Notes for the person producing the report", items 7, 8 and 9 refer to codes. As does Guidance for recipients on page 427.

I don't mind reworking to an extent, but I don't think I would be happy to totally omit the code structure."

As I said before, although I realise there is a vast difference between domestic and commercial EICR's, I am not sure about omitting codes as they are heavily referred to in BS7671 and GN3. I image my NICEIC or ECA assessor might give me a bit of a grilling for my reasoning for omitting codes. I think the idea of the code is to give a warning of the risk, and many Duty Holders, Practice Managers, etc, have little idea of levels ofthe regarding electrical installations. Perhaps you could expand a little.
 12 May 2016 02:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



spinlondon

Posts: 5494
Joined: 10 December 2004

What you have to ask:
Is it immediately dangerous? Code C1.
Is it potentially dangerous? Code C2.
Is it neither dangerous or potentially dangerous and just doesn't comply with the current Regulations? Code C3.
 12 May 2016 09:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4437
Joined: 21 November 2008

That is how I would see it Spin, but Lyle doesn't always see the value of the codes, and as I have a huge respect for his considered opinions, I would be very interested in reading a further explanation of his reasoning.

I will pester him for a reply!

Edited: 12 May 2016 at 10:00 PM by leckie
 13 May 2016 09:38 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



lyledunn

Posts: 1111
Joined: 13 August 2003

Love that post Leckie! It has the ring of someone in charge of a firing squad who, feeling somewhat sorry for the poor old captive, offers him a few puffs on a soggy Woodbine before ordering the execution!
I mean that to be lighthearted by the way.
I would not for one moment, even if my posts implied it, try to persuade anyone not to use the current coding structure. I use said codes in all domestic EICRs and all other non-domestic installations that might be required by Councils or insurance providers. However, the bulk of my inspection activity is for safety audits in large industrial and commercial concerns. The focus is on statutory compliance and thus the blunt construct of the existing codes is somewhat restrictive. It does not mean that I do not suggest a level of priority, but I do not get tied in knots over whether it is a C1, 2 or 3 nor do I wrestle with whether the installation is satisfactory or not. The point is to arrive at the all important ALARP. To do that the HandS manager has to attend to the issues raised on my report.
For example, what code would most give to circuits mis-labelled on a distribution board? C3 I fancy. What code would you give it if the incorrect circuit designation had contributed to the death of one of our own? Such was the case here a few years ago when a maintenance spark isolated the wrong circuit. The point is, for a safe system of work to be robust, all links in the chain must be sound and faffing around with codes is rather pointless. I set out the defect or non-compliance, explain the possible effect and it is up to the H and S guy to assess the likelihood and severity.

-------------------------
Regards,

Lyle Dunn
 13 May 2016 11:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



IronFreely

Posts: 322
Joined: 06 November 2014

I consider this potentially dangerous under unfortunate circumstances and would possibly code it C2, I might ask myself if cables are deap enough in the walls and how likely they are to end up with nails in them or how likely it is for water to be sloshed around the place, if all the supplementary bonding is in place then maybe a C3.

I gave a similar situation in a vets a c2 because they were using a hose to wash down the room with the kennels in with about 20 sockets all lined up on the wall!
 13 May 2016 10:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 16089
Joined: 13 August 2003

Is it immediately dangerous? Code C1.
Is it potentially dangerous? Code C2.
Is it neither dangerous or potentially dangerous and just doesn't comply with the current Regulations? Code C3.

I've got to disagree with your C3 - your defintion is close to the old code 4 - which has gone, for good reason. We don't want to be coding red & black insulation for instance just because it doesn't comply with the latest regulations.

The C3 shouldn't be thought of as indicating no danger, but lesser danger, not justifying "urgent remedial action required" of C2.

I like the concept based on the common two-faults-to-danger approach we usually take - so:
C1: Both faults have already occurred (e.g missing basic insulation and enclosure)
C2: One fault has already occurred (e.g. missing earthing) - only one fault to go before danger.
C3: Both normal levels of protection are present but further protection offered by current regulations is missing (e.g. no additional protection - e.g. 30mA RCDs for dry internal areas)

- Andy.
 13 May 2016 10:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dustydazzler

Posts: 1501
Joined: 19 January 2016

Do we really need a C3.
Its too subjective like 3 and 4 were on PIRs . Some people with 3 a 4 and some 4 a 3 etc. some code no rcd at the board and some don't etc.
C1 - Danger (must rectify)
C2 - Risk of Danger (rectify as soon as possible)
(I like AJJ definitions)
any thing else subjective could be listed in an 'Observation Sheet' as its safe but not up to the very latest edition of the wiring regs
 14 May 2016 07:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4437
Joined: 21 November 2008

Thanks for that reply Lyle. Now that really is thought provoking. I am now realising what you mean, I think! In some instances, your report would be part of an assessment procedure to arrive at ALARP, to get to an overall safe system of operation and management if the electrical installation. The examples you gave made really good sense.

I am going to give this some serious thought and see how I might have occasion to implement some of that concept. It makes you realise that there is more than one way of arriving to the correct solution. I have often included comments into the summary of my reports regarding consideration for the responsibilities of EAWR, etc, by the DH even though I may have given a C3 for an item observed. In other words I have asked the DH to not look at the coded item in isolation and think how it might specifically apply to their business.

So as a very simple example, a C3 may have been considered applicable for an unprotected group of sockets in a dry internal area based on there usage at that point. However, maybe the use is changed to something else at another point.

I have an small industrial unit with a mezzanine floor with some wall mounted sockets that used to be used for a couple of PC's and had no RCD protection. So an inspector might code that as C3. I then changed the use to a bench I used for all sorts of things including testing power tools and repairs to tools and equipment in a bench. I then installed RCD protection. I also install a contractor to supply the group of sockets and emergency stop button at different places near the bench so that I could isolate the supply pronto if need be. So not all to do with BS7671, but a way of improving the overall safety to what I considered ALARP.
 22 September 2017 12:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



hawkeyeh

Posts: 8
Joined: 30 August 2017

Very informative this thread im doing an EICR at the moment for offices and workstation's now im putting C3 for socket outlets in offices and with no rcd protection and containment down wall's, on circuits near a potential use for outdoors ive been putting a C2 stating a recommendation to fit RCD sockets close to external access. If i went down the route of rcd's reqd for all socket outlets i would be on about upgrading a lot of db's which i dont think would be fair on the consumer or any consumer if i went down that route considering it is an observation.
 22 September 2017 05:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4437
Joined: 21 November 2008

Ah, it's nice when an old thread comes back to life, I was less than 60 when this thread was first posted

Well I agree, it was a thought provoking thread, Lyles consideration of the general suitability of an installation for the user in terms of safety makes you realise that just filling the boxes and dishing out codes is not always the only way, or even a fit and proper way, of giving the client some useful information.

We have debated the issue of lack of RCD protection for sockets in a non domestic situation many times, and there are different opinions. The situation regarding sockets that may be used for external equipment is a thorny one. The users of the installation are in what should be a controlled environment. So we are not in a position to conclude that a socket may be used to supply portable equipment externally unless we know this to be the case. For that reason, in the absence of any risk assessments, I would code as C3, but I would draw attention to the client of the requirement for them to carry out their own risk assessment of the situation. Then it is up to them as the duty holder. If on the other hand you know that the sockets are being used for car washing equipment, etc., you can conclude that the socket in a particular location is being being used to supply the outdoor equipment, so then it might be a C2. Same installation, different use of the installation. Of course others might well disagree!
 22 September 2017 07:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



geoffsd

Posts: 1783
Joined: 15 June 2010

Going solely on the definition of words and that written in the regulations:

BYB page 4: Introduction to BS7671:2008(2015)
Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

If we accept from Appendix 6, under instruction of Chapter 63, that C2 denotes -

"potentially dangerous" - the safety of those using the installation may be at risk and it is recommended that a skilled person competent in electrical installation work undertakes the remedial work as a matter of urgency,

Is this the case in a socket without RCD protection?

I don't see how this can apply to something which was quite acceptable (and indeed all there was) until a few years ago.
The lack of a more modern safety device does not render the previous equipment potentially dangerous.

Note it says potentially dangerous; not less safe.




Is a car without ABS potentially dangerous?
 22 September 2017 09:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4437
Joined: 21 November 2008

Point taken, but what I enjoyed about this post was Lyles contribution.

He wasn't basing his report solely on BS7671, he was looking more at the assessment for a particular client and ALARP.

Looking purely from a BS7671 perspective, my opinion is that there may be several viewpoints to be taken. Any assessment needs to consider the particular circumstances.

So if you look at an installation of a building that is occupied by a workforce and you know that a indoor socket is being used to supply a portable appliance to an external area, say a pressure washer for example, then to me that's it; you know the socket is for outside use, C2. If you have no knowledge of an indoor sockets use, you cannot make that same judgement, so to me a C3. Coding is basically a risk assessment , and risk changes depending on a known hazard. Lyles view is (I think) that the potential hazard should be reported/explained/brought to the attention of the client so that they can carry out their own risk assessment and decide on any action that may be required to mitigate the risk.

So an EICR with a bit more consideration added. That's why I personally might assess something as a C3 but might raise a warning flag to the client that they should carry out a risk assessment in light of the information I have reported.

Just because something is not necessarily unsafe doesn't mean it is safe; situations that were once not considered to be unsafe may have been assessed and the new realisation may be that there is in fact a hazard or potential hazard.

By the way, all of the above is just my take on things, it may or may not be correct in the eyes of others but that's my take on things, it doesn't have to be anyone else's!
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..