Best option going forward. Install cert.

[EFLImpudence]

No. It says the bonding and earthing shall be adequate.

 

[JohnW2]

No. It says the bonding and earthing shall be adequate.

I know you did. However, a lot of this discussion has arisen from your statement ...

I have long thought that main bonding was one thing that did not fall under "not retrospective" regulations. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Was it perhaps I who was mistaken in thinking that you felt the same about earthing arrangements?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

This will be my last post on this subject.
Either you are being intentionally awkward or you are having difficulty reading what I write.

I know you did.

No, not I, I said it (the regualtion) states bonding and earthing shall be adequate.

Was it perhaps I who was mistaken in thinking that you felt the same about earthing arrangements?

Will it be inadequate after the 18th is introduced?

Does the new regulation state an earth rod must be fitted at the first oportunity when work is done? If not when?
Does the new regulation state that the rod must be fit for sole use as TT including RCDs, If so what resistance must it have? If not, it will just be an extraneous-c-p so back to bonding.


I have admitted I might have been mistaken.

 

[JohnW2]

Will it be inadequate after the 18th is introduced?

As always, one can but assume that those who are (we think) introducing it into the regs feel that there is something 'less adequate' about what has hitherto been required. If not, why on earth would they introduce it?

Does the new regulation state an earth rod must be fitted at the first oportunity when work is done? If not when?

As you know, it doesn't say that. However, nor am I aware of any regulation which says that main bonding must be fitted at the first opportunity when work is done, yet you think that is "not 'non-retrospective".

Does the new regulation state that the rod must be fit for sole use as TT including RCDs, If so what resistance must it have? If not, it will just be an extraneous-c-p so back to bonding.

As you imply, it will certainly introduce some questions about terminology - if/when these earth rods are connected to the MET of a TN installation, are we going to call the connection an "Earthing Conductor" or a "Bonding Conductor", I wonder?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

At the company I worked for last, we were told we could only isolate faulty parts of the installation with the customer's permission. If we did EICR's, we would document everything thoroughly and explain to the customer about any defects and get a signature, but we would reinstate and leave the installation as we found it.
We would not do any installation work (including board changes) without making sure B&E was adequate, but it was OK to carry out maintenance without.

 

[JohnW2]

At the company I worked for last, we were told we could only isolate faulty parts of the installation with the customer's permission. If we did EICR's, we would document everything thoroughly and explain to the customer about any defects and get a signature, but we would reinstate and leave the installation as we found it.

Fair enough - to 'undermine' the installation without the customer's permission would obviously be a bit iffy. However, what about eric's concern/view - if you came across a fault on a circuit which was potentially (or even overtly) dangerous, would you be happy to re-energise that circuit ('leaving the installation as you found it'), if that was what the customer wanted, provided that the problem had been brought to the attention of the customer? If I understand him correctly, I think eric would fear ending up in jail, should anything nasty happen as a result of the defect.

We would not do any installation work (including board changes) without making sure B&E was adequate, but it was OK to carry out maintenance without.

Again, fair enough, but that's just "B&E". Provided "B&E" were OK, would you undertake a board change and re-energise circuits which you had found to be faulty?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

This is going to sound odd, but no. However, if I discovered those faulty circuits on an EICR, then yes.

If I did have to change a board (say due to breakdown), then I personally would not reconnect any faulty circuits.

But it's a bit of an awkward area. I know some who take the attitude "Don't leave the installation any less safe than you found it".

And you could say it would depend on the fault. A broken ring final could be placed on a 20A breaker.

Lead or rubber wiring with a low IR is a different matter. You may be forced to leave it disconnected, as (in the case of one of my colleagues), there was a board change due to burnt-out CU and the rubber wiring was shot and could not be re-energised as the new board had RCD and it would never have held.

Edited with additions.

 

[securespark]

There is a bit in the very beginning of the regs:

"The regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations. 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 necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

 

[JohnW2]

This is going to sound odd, but no.

Which "no" - no, you wouldn't change the board or ... yes, you would change the board but, no, you would no re-energise the faulty circuit(s)?

However, if I discovered those faulty circuits on an EICR, yes.

I suppose that come down to EFLI's point about the meaning of "prior" - i.e. finding the fault the day before a planned CU change might be different from finding it on the day of the planned change.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

There is a bit in the very beginning of the regs: "The regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations. 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 necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

Yes, we know that - it's what people think of as being the "non-retrospective" clause.

However, as you will have seen, EFLI thinks that may not apply to main bonding (although I'm not sure why he has 'singled out' just that one thing).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

This was your question:

Provided "B&E" were OK, would you undertake a board change and re-energise circuits which you had found to be faulty?

And the answer was no.

 

[JohnW2]

This was your question: ... And the answer was no.

Yes, I understand that, but can't you see that it doesn't tell me what you would do? Your answer says that you would not "undertake a board change and re-energise circuits which you had found to be faulty". However, that doesn't tell me whether you would not change the board, or whether you would change the board but not re-energise the circuits you had found to be faulty - hence my follow up question (the answer to which I still don't know ).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I would want to sort the faults before changing the board. But in my previous role as a maintenance spark, I was told to change boards and "make safe" any faulty circuits. As I have said, sometimes this meant downgrading an OC ring final or leaving a low IR circuit disconnected. Usually (in my role as a maintenance spark), these faults would be re-attended at a later date.

 

[JohnW2]

I would want to sort the faults before changing the board. ....

So, ideally, would I ...

... But in my previous role as a maintenance spark, I was told to change boards and "make safe" any faulty circuits.

That's fair enough, when possible. As you go on to say ...

As I have said, sometimes this meant downgrading an OC ring final or leaving a low IR circuit disconnected.

Indeed. As I've been discussing with EFLI, there are some things that cannot really be 'made safe' (without properly remedying them) - like the low IR you mention. A broken CPC somewhere in a radial circuit would be another example. If one could not find and rectify the fault, one would presumably have to at least disconnect some of the sockets.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

EFLI thinks that may not apply to main bonding (although I'm not sure why he has 'singled out' just that one thing).

He hasn't - the regulations have.