I'd like your opinion on something guys.
Current Regs/Standards here in NZ, require that only newly installed circuits in Domestic places be RCD protected.
Now I've seen in the last week or so, some things that were installed before the Regs changed.
One instance was in a kitchen where two socket-outlets were installed within 2ft of a sink with no RCD on them.
I would argue that that circuit should have been RCD protected regardless of when it was installed.
I've seen a lot of bathroom heaters installed without RCD protection on them too, before the Regs changed, metal body and within arm's reach.
What's your opinion?.
The requirement for RCD protection should be retrospect, IMO, no matter when the installation occured.

I think the Italians have such retroactive requirements.

Sorry Mike, but if you're arguing that the retrofitting of RCDs should be mandatory by law, then I have to disagree.

You can't expect people to have things changed every time a new set of rules comes into force, otherwise they might be rewiring sections of their house every couple of years.

It would be like saying that older cars must be retrofitted with seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, etc.

A much more relaxed approach would be to introduce an insurance condition as follows:

Any wiring must be up to the electric code in effect when the wiring was done. If the wiring is older than 50 years, it must be up to a code that was in effect no more than 50 ago. Wiring should be inspected and tested every 25 years. The cost for this should be covered by the insurance.

This would gradually force the very oldest of wiring to be upgraded. As upgrading means new work, the latest code apply. The periodic inspections will catch the work of handymen/D-I-Y and cowboy electricans that tend to accumulate over the years.

[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 10-07-2005).]

Laudable as the concept is Mike, it flies in the face of one of the cornerstones of our democracies- NO retro-applicable legislation EVER. The insurance method [ coupled with proper safety inspections, of course, to protect the innocent ] route is a good concept- you are free to kill yourself after being informed- but don't expect the rest of us to pay when it all goes arse-up - and expect to be charged as culpable if anyone else gets hurt as a result of your inactions.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan Belson (edited 10-07-2005).]

So basically, I'm supposed to turn a blind eye to anything dangerous, because it was installed in the past, before the Regs changed?.

You can _recommend_ it, but not force it.
In some instances there are instant change requirements though, like the old metal 3ph sockets in Europe. They were only dangerous when seriuosly miswired (ground/phase swap), still they were banned absolutely and have to be replaced immediately.

Trumpy, those socket outlets next to the sink may have been illegal before the Regs change.

As far as "Turning a blind eye" goes: As long as you alert the owner to any dangerous situations then the liability lies entirely with the owner.

Of course this doesn't help us sleep when the owner ignores our warnings.

There's a related discussion along these lines on the IEE forum at the moment:


Retrospective application of regs.



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 10-13-2005).]

We have a parallel problem coming up in France, concerning the famous French fosses septiques or 'septic tanks'. There are some 4.5 million of these in France, and it's reckoned that 3.5 million are defective in some way.
Changes effective 2006, forced by EC directive(s), will mean much stricter rules on the size of the tank, the drains etc. and what happens to the effluent after anaerobic digestion. M. le Maire tells me me he can't force me to upgrade my system, but he can ( and will! )prosecute me if I pollute the environment outside my property, or annoy my neighbors with bad smells. My system is old, but previously complied. If I continue to pollute/annoy, then that's an on-going action not connected with the design or condition of my sewage plant, so the new arrete ( regulation ) applies. This is fair and we have just paid a specialist to design a new system, which hopefully will be installed spring 2006, after getting planning permission. I see no excuse for retaining any system, electrical of water, if it can be shown that a real danger exists to others by its continuing use. Now, are regulations, directives and the like actually 'laws'? - if not, then making updates mandatory is easier, since sidestepping the retro-applicable legislation cornerstone is possible. The French have decided that the directive is a 'law', but other countries may take an opposite view.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan Belson (edited 10-13-2005).]

Ok,
I agree with what you guys are saying and I'd hate to see a lot of draconian laws be re-instated just for small instances like this.
The thing here with Self-Certification, is that if you were the last person who did work in the house in question (and had the sense to certify it) you can more or less expect a phone call if something else in the house goes wrong.
Kiwi,
I was talking to one of the Inspectors at work about this recently.
And he gave me some really good advice that will keep us in the clear.
Simply, all you have to do is write on your CoC, that you have warned the H/Owner of the other things that are non-compliant(that youve seen) and it is up to them to have it corrected.
Put it in writing on a legally binding form like a CoC and you have protection.
Easy eh??.

Hmmm...

EC directives..... Fosse septique.

Best place for them!

Arrete du 6 mai 1996: Only toilet-paper may be disposed of into assainssements non-collectifs. So unless the Directive is printed on 'Bounty' roll, sadly your suggestion is interdit. However, since politicians are mostly indistinguishable from bodily-wastes, it appears you could, ( in theory at least ), legally flush Neil Kinnock down the khazi.

*Or that Leon Britan, or whatever his blinking name is!

* edit for political balance.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan Belson (edited 10-14-2005).]

Alan:



Heck, I may even learn some French hanging out here!

As far as septic systems go,
NZ is sitting on a ticking time-bomb.
A lot of the systems that were installed here in the 1950's and 1960's are now starting to breakdown.
This is over and above the fact that to a certain degree the outflow from these tanks was of extremely poor quality and with the systems of that era that are still in use, they are slowly polluting the aquifers here.
If you want to install a septic tank system, you are limited to a few certain designs these days, these new systems have an outflow of almost pure water (although I wouldn't drink it).
Local councils here are very hot on this sort of thing.
One guy here locally was made to remove his newly installed tank, because he never read the Resource Consent that came with the permit for the septic installation.
Silly Boy!.

Mais Alan, vous êtes en France! On oublie les règles! Elles sont pour les autres, n'est-ce pas?


So what exactly was wrong with the installation?



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 10-16-2005).]

Paul,
Septic tanks here, if they are newly installed, have to have a 5 chamber system with a re-circulating agitator in the middle.
The older system used a 1200 litre 2 chamber system, the newer one is 2400 litre and with a re-circ agitator and an outflow pump.
Mind you, you guys don't like litres, so I've posted it in that.
Get with it!!.

I think there may be some confusion here. What exactly is a septic tank?
A concrete or plastic tank receives wastes and household, ( but not rain), water. It is sized and dimensioned, (volume & length /width/height ratios) to create non-turbulent conditions, such that solid wastes sink to the bottom, & of sufficient volume that a practically clear effluent gently emerges. Weirs are placed at the outfall so that floating debris cannot pass over, and in fact a leather-like layer forms on the surface which acts as a seal against smell. The tank is usually high-level vented. The action in the septic tank is by anaerobic bacteria; these digest a % of the solids in the absence of oxygen, creating methane as a by-product. While in 'septic' conditions, ( ie.denied oxygen ), the sewage remains relatively inoffensive. The effluent, while clear, is still very active and must be subjected to further treatment to reduce its biological oxygen demand ( BOD ). Treatment using aerobic bacteria is required, and these require abundent oxygen to do their job. There are many ways to achieve oxygenation;
* By draining the effluent away through a suitable area of the soil, via perforated pipes. The countless millions of naturally occurring soil bacteria render the effluent harmless. On heavy clay or where shallow aquifers exist close to the surface, or on fissured chalk/limestone/ or where over-porous sandy soils pertain, the solution is sealed quartz sand or other artificial media (coke breeze, zeolite, pozzellani etc.) filters arranged to do the same function.
* By agitation, entraining air into the mix, either with paddles or by air-injection. Aerobes attach themseves to debris in the effluent and circulate constantly. The problem with this, the so called activated sludge method, is the vast amount of solids produced, (ie the bodies of all the bugs); far more than the original solids before settlement, leading to frequent and expensive emptyings.
* The fixed media method, of which several types exist. In the most used type clarified waste effluent is treated by rotating discs, usually of polypropylene, which dip into the liquor. The bacteria live on the discs, and are constantly exposed to fresh liquor and oxygen. This method is called a Bio-disc, ( TRADE NAME).
Solids produced are less, and as the liquor is transmitted across banks of discs by wipers into separate compartments, produces very clean water at outfall.
All systems require periodic emptying, every 3-6 months for activated sludge, 1 year for fixed media, 4 years plain septic settlement.
This 'sludge' consists principally of Glucose, Fats and oils, vegetable fibre and inert earthy solids.

Now, whether you live in the middle of LA or the middle of nowhere, the basic method is the same- settle solids-aerobic treatment-release. While a city-system is fine, the simple home-plant has advantages for us country dwellers. First it can be built to operate soley on gravity, no electical power, and we can use standard WCs and fitments. Or, home-size Bio-disc /activated sludge tanks are avaiable where soil-type or small garden size dictates, and these typically consume perhaps 100W, with the advantage that exit water can be put into a watercourse or ditch. And, when excessive rain falls and a city system can't cope with the flow- they put raw sewage into the river system as a matter of policy. A home based system rarely if ever floods your yard.
Oh, and Mike, you say you wouldn't drink the water out of a treatment system. Mate, you already do. In London, they reckon the water has been through 6 people before it comes out of the faucets! Of course it gets further treatment- storage/ filtration/ chlorination.

Sorry if all this is boring, but it's my pet subject just now.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan Belson (edited 10-16-2005).]

Trumpy, I think that requiring people to retrofit RCDs or GFCIs (depending where you live) to existing circuits would be a bureacratic nightmare, however as a matter of policy, if working on a consumer unit [switch board in your neck of the woods I believe?] I will generally fit one, they're cheap, a lot cheaper than a new life.

Alan, not boring at all, one of the few places on the net you can have a sensible discussion about excrement <grin>.

People here in the UK tend to take city sewers for granted, and dump anything and everything down them, upto and including rubble, hazardous chemicals etc.

As far as the U.K. is concerned, Tony's already burdening us with more than enough extra bureaucracy as it is, so we certainly don't need any more!

Besides, such a retrofit requirement would require absolutely draconian powers to enforce it. There are no official records of what electrical gear is present in houses.

The only way it could be enforced is to give some jumped-up local government bureaucrat powers to demand entry to inspect your wiring, or to require everybody to produce some sort of inspection certificate by a certain date.

We're becoming a police-state quite quickly enough already, without going down that road.


Yep. It's not uncommon to hear pleas such as "Please do not dump old engine oil into the sewers."

In the USA, excessive rainfall causing sewage discharges into waterways is only a problem with those cities that have combined storm and sanitary sewer systems.

Cities that have separate storm and sanitary sewer systems do not have a problem with that.

In fact, they want to keep the rain water out of the sewer system as much as possible because often they are charged by the sewage authority for treating the excess water (called "infiltration and inflow").

Brian,

What sort of proportions are we looking at between cities with combined and separate systems? Is this a regional thing, with separate storm drains in areas which tend to get those short-lasting but intense rainstorms?
Around England there are byelaws (local ordinances) in some areas which do not allow the discharge from gutters etc. to go into your home's main sewer line. Other areas seem to allow it, at least partially.

Seems we're on the subject of water services in general at the moment.
Speaking of storm-water, (Kiwi will bite at the bit about this one) I'm told that digging soak-holes and filling them with stones and other things to effect drainage, under the Resource Management Act is now illegal.
That wouldn't worry most people in town,there is a seperate s/water system that takes it away, but those that live out in the more rural parts of NZ, or are intending to live there, this raises an interesting problem.
After you've complied with the rules and piped it off of your property, where is it supposed to go to?.
Not sure what drugs the RMA people had been smoking when they came up with this little gem.
Majority of folks here will just carry on as before and to be honest, there wouldn't be a Building Inspector here that would stand in thier way.

Huh?

Aren't we talking about water which fell out of the sky and would soak into the ground anyway? If it doesn't go into the sewer, or a soakaway, then what exactly are you supposed to do with it? There are millions of such soakaways here for draining rainwater.

People will just ignore rules when they start to be totally illogical or overly burdensome. Before Part P came along in England there were already parts of the building regulations which required notification for certain works on plumbing which were, and still are, widely ignored. Part P electrical has just joined the list of rules which are there to be broken.

Paul,
Yes we are, but, the RMA is not about logical thinking.
And that is why they are to be circumvented.
My advice to anyone looking to dig a soak-hole is, go right ahead, there is nothing stopping you, you are only completing the water cycle as naturally as what you can.
The RMA here is nothing but a pain in the A^$@.
Views expressed here are only those of myself Mike Trump