IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: ECR - 514.3.1
Topic Summary:
Created On: 23 June 2012 11:04 AM
Status: Post and Reply
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.
 23 June 2012 11:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1875
Joined: 21 November 2008

We are not to code 3 missing sleeving from switch line as it is not considered dangerous - ECA.

So in the box 5.1 on the ECR - identification of conductors - how can you give it a tick if core are not colour identified? If you dont tick it what other option have you got?
 23 June 2012 12:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



RB1981

Posts: 288
Joined: 16 September 2007

If it is not considered dangerous then why does BS 7671 require the conductors to be correctly identified?
 23 June 2012 06:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



GaryMo

Posts: 1210
Joined: 09 May 2007

What's wrong with a C3 (improvement recommended)? Nothing in my mind.
 23 June 2012 09:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MrOther.
MrOther

Posts: 539
Joined: 08 June 2010

Colour identification is only one means of identifying a conductor. The only true means is testing the conductor. Therefore, I would say that it isn't dangerous but would need improvement.

In practical terms if some were to touch it, they wouldn't get a shock (if the systems healthy), but if it were a broken insulation on a live conductor then that's obviously another story. Unsheathed conductors on earths that carry expected current is another story.

If it's just a small house inspection is there any harm just adding the sheathing for piece of mind? I could understand on a bog job where the time consideration would make it unpracticable and unreasonable.
 25 June 2012 10:09 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1875
Joined: 21 November 2008

Thanks for the replies all.

My point in the op was that my information from the ECA, was that a code 3 should not be indicated for the omission of sleeving to identify a core, for a switch line as an example. It used to be a code 4 for a PIR

So if that is the case, what would you put in the box on the ECR? Or is the ECA wrong?
 25 June 2012 11:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for jsa986.
jsa986

Posts: 472
Joined: 08 February 2011

My opinion is YOU are doing the EICR, if you think based on your risk assessment it needs improving then you as the inspector make the call, personally i would code it C3 (improvement recommended) despite what information you have received from the ECA.
They are not carrying out the inspection you are.

-------------------------
www.icertifi.co.uk
Electrical & Gas Certificates on iPhone & iPad
 25 June 2012 11:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



lyledunn

Posts: 633
Joined: 13 August 2003

Leckie has made a good point. There is reason to question the purpose of many of the items on the EICR inspection Schedule. What indeed is the point of having items on a checklist if the advice is not to code them. However, ECA do have a point. The primary purpose of periodic inspection is to ensure that measures are in place to protect persons and livestock against electric shock and burns, property is protected against thermal effects and fire, there are no signs of damage or deterioration and the installation is in compliance with bs7671 such that safety is not impaired. Thus it might be considered reasonable to detail only items that impair safety. That is a judgement best left to the inspector although the ECA might be making a general opinion on such matters. I imagine that we will see some good healthy debate as the EICR settles in. I do like the idea of a simple checklist but I do feel that there are far too many individual items that could otherwise be lumped under a general heading.

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

Lyle Dunn

Edited: 25 June 2012 at 11:48 PM by lyledunn
 26 June 2012 06:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10 December 2004

If the situation warrented an observation and a code prior to the amendment, then it will still require an observation and a code now.
The criteria for making observations has not changed, the wording of Regulation 634.2 is the same: "Any damage, deteioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations which may give rise to danger, together with any significant limitations of the inspection and testing, including their reasons, shall be recorded."
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.