Spurs off spurs and the Regulations

[securespark]

When it comes to 'EICR codes', I think that the person creating them has to be at least prepared to cite the specific regulations with which the installation is non compliant.

Does that mean we cannot mark down spurs from spurs on an EICR as they are only advised in an appendix?

 

[JohnW2]

When it comes to 'EICR codes', I think that the person creating them has to be at least prepared to cite the specific regulations with which the installation is non compliant.

Does that mean we cannot mark down spurs from spurs on an EICR as they are only advised in an appendix?

I suppose that's what I'm asking/expecting comments/views about. I have always assumed that implicit in giving a 'code' on an EICR is that there was non-compliance with some BS7671 regulation(s). Given that BS7671 creates the concept of, and forms the basis of, an EICR, it would seem a little odd to say "this is not non-compliant with any regulation in BS7671, but I recommend improvement and therefore give it a C3", wouldn't it?

As for the specific of 'spurs from spurs', as I implied earlier, there are specific regulations (rather than Appendix 15) that one could cite, provided that one does not think that they are 'over-ruled' by 433.1.103 - so that might solve the 'problem' for you.

If your personal view is that it is OK to issue codes on the basis of 'non-requirement' things in Appendices of the regs, how far do you think that concept should be taken? Would you, for example, also expect 'codes' to be issued for 'non-compliance' with the OSG, some bits of which seem a little odd to some of us?

Kind Regards, John

-

 

[mfarrow]

If your personal view is that it is OK to issue codes on the basis of 'non-requirement' things in Appendices of the regs, how far do you think that concept should be taken? Would you, for example, also expect 'codes' to be issued for 'non-compliance' with the OSG, some bits of which seem a little odd to some of us?

I see no reason to go further than the main text.

Foreword

Any reference in this text to... the Regulations(s)... shall be taken to refer to BS 7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations.

634 Periodic Inspection and Testing
634.2

Any damage, deterioration, 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.

 

[JohnW2]

If your personal view is that it is OK to issue codes on the basis of 'non-requirement' things in Appendices of the regs, how far do you think that concept should be taken? Would you, for example, also expect 'codes' to be issued for 'non-compliance' with the OSG, some bits of which seem a little odd to some of us?

I see no reason to go further than the main text.
Foreword Any reference in this text to... the Regulations(s)... shall be taken to refer to BS 7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations.
634.2Any damage, deterioration, 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.

I think you should probably have 'directed' this to securespark, to whom I asked the above-quoted question. As you will realise, I do not disagree with what you say.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Over the years, I have had many a conversation with Paul Cook, now ex-IEE about this kind of dilemma.

The appendices often contain information like "rules of thumb" (for example, the 1/8 rule on spur cable length). This sort of "historic" information has often appeared in previous editions under a regulation number but is now relegated to the appendices. Neither of us understood why the regulations have been written like this, but we came to the agreement that the appendices should be considered part of the regulations and treated as such, despite the fact the information is listed under regulation numbers.

The regulations to me encompass everything within its covers - after all, there are other parts that are not "regulations", but we don't query their validity. Things like the CCC tables, for example.

As for the OSG, I have been told the NIC don't recognise it in terms of the wiring regulations - they only refer to 7671.

 

[mfarrow]

Yes sorry when I said "main text" I meant the BGB as opposed to OSG, EGTTBR, GN1-8 etc. That's what the Preface is suggesting I think, i.e. reference to the whole book.

What's interesting, when looking at Appendix 15, is that there is a statement on the diagram that "an unfused spur should feed one single or double socket only". Leaving aside any discussion of the use of the word should, This makes sense given that 20A is generally agreed (as discussed on here and implied in the 15th) to be the maximum in-service anticipated load for a double or single (with adaptor) socket outlet.

It's important to note, perhaps, that the FCU at the bottom of the diagram carries no such advice. This lack of regulation in the text, suggests to me that 2 or more FCUs with known fixed loads would be allowed by BS 7671, providing you are still ensuring the 20A load figure for the spur and consequentially the ring conductors. That makes sense to me, unless anyone can tell me of anywhere else where this is regulated?

 

[JohnW2]

Over the years, I have had many a conversation with Paul Cook, now ex-IEE about this kind of dilemma. The appendices often contain information like "rules of thumb" (for example, the 1/8 rule on spur cable length). This sort of "historic" information has often appeared in previous editions under a regulation number but is now relegated to the appendices.

That particular 1/8 "rule of thumb" is not even in the Appendices of BS7671 - it exists only in the OSG,of which you go on to say:

As for the OSG, I have been told the NIC don't recognise it in terms of the wiring regulations - they only refer to 7671.

Neither of us understood why the regulations have been written like this, but we came to the agreement that the appendices should be considered part of the regulations and treated as such, despite the fact the information is [i][do I take it that you meant NOT?][/i] listed under regulation numbers.

Since it was a deliberate act, one can but assume that there was a specific reason why things were moved out of the body of the text - and the only reason I can think of is a deliberate increase in 'flexibility/discretion'. Don't forget that the preamble to the Appendices make it very clear that, apart from Apppendix 1, the contents of Appendices of BS7671 are not "requirements" - doesn't that contradict the view which you express above?

The regulations to me encompass everything within its covers - after all, there are other parts that are not "regulations", but we don't query their validity. Things like the CCC tables, for example.

I can't disagree with that. It's actually, IME, a very odd situation for a set of regulations - particularly, as you point out, in teh case of the CCC tables.

As for the OSG, I have been told the NIC don't recognise it in terms of the wiring regulations - they only refer to 7671.

That's all very well but, of course, the OSG is the only source of any 'guidance' at all about many matters which are addressed either only vaguely (e.g. distances between gas pipes and electrical cables/items, cable clipping distances etc.) or not at all (e.g.'diversity') in the regs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

What's interesting, when looking at Appendix 15, is that there is a statement on the diagram that "an unfused spur should feed one single or double socket only". Leaving aside any discussion of the use of the word should, This makes sense given that 20A is generally agreed (as discussed on here and implied in the 15th) to be the maximum in-service anticipated load for a double or single (with adaptor) socket outlet.

Indeed, as you say, that makes sense [I'm not so sure about "(with adapter)" - since, if you are going to include the concept of adapters, a double socket could represent a load considerably in excess of 20A].

It's important to note, perhaps, that the FCU at the bottom of the diagram carries no such advice. This lack of regulation in the text, suggests to me that 2 or more FCUs with known fixed loads would be allowed by BS 7671, providing you are still ensuring the 20A load figure for the spur and consequentially the ring conductors. That makes sense to me, unless anyone can tell me of anywhere else where this is regulated?

As you say, that also makes sense - but it's debatable as to whether that was 'intended', or is merely a manifestation of 'non-exhaustiveness' of what hads been said on these (one page) diagrams. When I have suggested multiple FCUs in the past (not the least because I have some examples in my home!), some people have argued that it would be only too easy for someone in the future to change the loads and/or FCU fuses such as to increase the total load to >20A. However, as always, I do wonder to what extent one can reasonably be expected to design on the basis of what 'wrong' modifications to the intsallation could be implemented in the future!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mfarrow]

I'm not so sure about "(with adapter)"

To me it's about the "point of utilisation". i.e. if someone wants 2x 2kW heaters in the corner of the room, it doesn't matter whether there's a double or single socket, but the double will make things easier for them of course.

some people have argued that it would be only too easy for someone in the future to change the loads and/or FCU fuses such as to increase the total load to >20A. However, as always, I do wonder to what extent one can reasonably be expected to design on the basis of what 'wrong' modifications to the intsallation could be implemented in the future!

You are the designer of the circuit, to me you decide and install what you like to the regulations. The regulations do not expect you to allow for future-proofing or modification by unqualified persons. A permanent label of "10A max" or whatever would go down well probably.

 

[JohnW2]

You are the designer of the circuit, to me you decide and install what you like to the regulations. The regulations do not expect you to allow for future-proofing or modification by unqualified persons. A permanent label of "10A max" or whatever would go down well probably.

I agree totally - but, as I said, there are dissenters from that view. Apart from anything else, since some future clown could do anything crazy to the installation, I don't see that much is gained by making it a bit more difficult for him/her to do a few of them!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[securespark]

Neither of us understood why the regulations have been written like this, but we came to the agreement that the appendices should be considered part of the regulations and treated as such, despite the fact the information is [i][do I take it that you meant NOT?][/i] listed under regulation numbers.

Yes, booboo accepted.