16th PIR Codes

[Pensdown]

You said building 5 years old and PIR done before 30st June 2008 which means tested to BS7671:2001 which was also in force when the building was built which means there can be no Code 4 faults.

Yep, I agree that apart from item 43 there should be no code 4's

So if we said for example.
Code 1 Requires attention
Code 2 Requires improvement with labels earths and locks
Code 3 Unable to test
Code 4 Low priority labels missing

Then it would seem OK (Note dropping of Urgent) but if one was to follow the Electrical Safety Council coding then with so many code 1 faults the building should have been closed down.

I don't agree with the esc's guide to coding nor do I agree with the change in the NIC's guide. The NIC are now taking the view that if an installation has a code 2 it cannot be signed off as satisfactory. Why have a code 2 if it means the same as a code 1?

IMO a 1 code means that what has been tested or inspected is unsafe. It is also likely to start a fire or injure someone/live stock.

A code 2 means that what has been TOI is far from ideal but it is safe to use. It requires improvement ASAP.

A code 3 means requires further investigation ASAP

A code 4 means that the item TOI does not conform to a minor change in in 7671.

To have so many RCBO does not trip in time faults rings alarm bells as I have so many times seen those without their C&G2391 test RCD’s at tripping level rather than 5 x tripping level to measure time and being such a simple job to re-test I would start there to see if it has been done by a skilled or semi-skilled person.

I tend to agree

Also what you show is not really a schedule of test results which would show RCD time in ms etc. I had a similar problem with a hotel and I had to make it very clear that without a copy of the schedule of test results I would need to do the PIR again this is still on going.
Eric

The PIR is very comprehensive and the schedule of test results are about 30mm thick!

There are quite a few obvious typo's but having entered hand written test sheets into Amtech I can relate to them.

 

[ericmark]

You did not say the firm was NIC this of course changes a lot as they must follow NIC's definition of the codes and quite obviously they haven't.
Also the price of remedial work would depend on how they are going to correct. For example a high Zs on a 32 amp circuit could be corrected by replacing cable with thicker one or replace MCB with 25 amp version.
But you did say only just failed and so cable temperature could be a factor although we have the Table 4B1 only with a cold unused building can we be sure of cable temperature as a result is somewhere near the limit I would assume temperatures were slightly out and pass it.
Although except with D type MCB's if the Zs is out of limit volt drop is normally well over limit.
I can't see how a departure in Zs or volt drop unless very bad could warrant a Code 1. The old Loadmaster MCB's were used for years with no magnet trip built in so considering it was tested to 16th Edition then it would have passed on 15th edition except it was was of course never built to that standard in first place but one can hardly give a code 1 to an item which in another building would have been code 4.
Never quite made up my mind as to if when we changed from BS7671:1992 to BS7671:2001 that was an edition change or if 15th to 16th was the edition change when it said previous edition I take the attitude that since nearly everything would pass on 1st edition it means going back one edition to award a Code 4 which has been a problem as I don't have a copy of 15th Edition I only have the guide to 15th edition.
But of course it is very hard to change what someone has already said unless you can show at least some parts were without any argument flawed. Which is why I brought up the RCBO failures. If you can show they were not at fault then you can easy bring into question the rest of the installation results.

I regard a Code 1 as something which the site manager should regard as a reason to isolate supply until the fault is corrected.

I regard a Code 2 as something which should be corrected within approx 3 months unless a note has been put with it.

For items like missing labels normally I include in report but don't code I can't see these really cause danger except for where there are two supplies to one enclosure. Some could in past have Code 4 as they were not in 15th edition but now with 17th Edition makes that no longer an option!

Code 3 normally size of incoming fuse where sealed and any circuits they will not allow me to switch off like supply to server.

Code 4 anything which would have passed with 15th Edition when testing to 16th Edition now anything that would have passed on 16th Edition I suppose since it says Edition I must read it that way! I have in past considered change from BS7671:1992 to BS7671:2001 as an Edition change but with arrival of 17th Edition this it seems was an error on my part.

Eric

 

[Spark123]

I tend to go with the following:
Code 1 : immediatly dangerous - requires urgent attention.
Code 2 : not immediate dangerous but could become dangerous if not rectified.
Code 3 : outside the scope of the PIR and requires further investigation - noted on extent and lims.
Code 4 : Minor things like sleeves on light switch strappers etc.

 

[Spark123]

To have so many RCBO does not trip in time faults rings alarm bells as I have so many times seen those without their C&G2391 test RCD’s at tripping level rather than 5 x tripping level to measure time and being such a simple job to re-test I would start there to see if it has been done by a skilled or semi-skilled person.

Not sure what the reference to C&G2391 is for?
You do test at the rated current to ensure the RCD will trip (within 300mS for a 61009 device) and only carry out a 5x if the device is 30mA or below and being used for supplementary shock protection, for which it must trip within 40ms.