Frank Bertie, Chief Technical Officer at NAPIT, explains when to use an intended departure.
When we look at a completed electrical installation or minor works electrical installation certificate, there are several areas where the information may be incorrectly recorded. One of the most common errors is where the βdepartureβ fields have been completed and have details recorded.
Even though the information regarding departures was updated with the introduction of BS 7671:2018 edition, and a minor change under Amendment 2, there still seems to be confusion as to what a departure from the requirements of BS 7671 is.
For some reason, the term βdepartureβ is often regarded as either a βdefectβ, βomissionβ or a βnon-complianceβ. Therefore, a βdepartureβ appears to have different meanings to those completing electrical documentation.
Previously, the lack of a definition in Part 2 of BS 7671 created a great deal of confusion as the term βdepartureβ is mentioned a number of times in BS 7671. Although departure is now included, as is non-compliance, βdefectβ and βomissionβ still remain undefined. The difficulty regarding departures is further compounded by the lack of published guidance.
So, what is a βdepartureβ?
The term, βdepartureβ is used within BS 7671 in Chapter 12 Regulation 120.3 where it is called an βintended departureβ and refers to βthese partsβ. Any βintended departureβ is the consideration of not following any of the technical requirements related to Chapter 13 Fundamental Principles and Parts 3-8, so it has to be a conscious decision taken after full and in-depth consideration.
An intended departure from BS 7671 is where the designer of the electrical installation, after due care and attention, decides to use a method of installation which is not recognised in BS 7671.
The best example of this is where there is a new material or a new invention planning to be utilised as part of the electrical installation, βwhere the use of a new material or invention leads to departures from the Regulationsβ.
Therefore, it is the designerβs responsibility to confirm that the βintended departureβ results in the degree of safety of the installation which shall not be less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations and shall be noted on the electrical installation certification specified in Part 6.
What is the definition of a βdepartureβ?
This definition was introduced in Part 2 of BS 7671:2018, where the wording states: βDeliberate decision not to comply fully with the requirements of BS 7671, for which the designer must declare that the resultant degree of safety is not less than that achievable by full complianceβ.
By clearly laying out the expectations of the departure, the designer should not be taking this lightly.
To meet the full compliance of BS 7671, considerable details would need to be provided, so that those installing, inspecting and testing the electrical installation are also aware of the implications of such a decision.
Additionally, the client would have to be informed of such an undertaking prior to including it as a departure as they would be within their rights to reject such a process unless it can be confirmed that electrical safety is not less than fully compliant.
Incorrect recording of departures
Even though the definition provides a clear description of what this is, thereβs still instances in which the items on electrical certification are incorrectly recorded. These have been included when an addition or alteration has been carried out, and items that have been recorded under βComments on existing installationβ in Electrical Installation Certificates (EIC) or Minor Electrical Installation Work Certificates (MEIWC) are sometimes recorded as βdeparturesβ when they are not actually departures.
Even when periodic inspection and testing is carried out, items are sometimes referred to as βdeparturesβ when they are βobservationsβ, which need to be noted in Section K, Observations of the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) and given a Classification Code β C1, C2, FI or C3.
The following are some examples of items incorrectly listed as departures where:
- Switch lines have not been identified as line conductors at the terminations
- Wiring colours have two versions of BS 7671
- BS 3871 circuit-breakers are installed
- Voltage operated ELCBs are in use within TT systems, which have been proven to operate correctly
- BS 3036 rewireable fuses are in use.
Discussions on the appropriate code to assign to some of these observations on an EICR can be had, but we have to agree that none of them is an βintended departureβ as referred to in Regulation 120.3.
Departures that may give rise to danger
It is possible that a designer, who has included a departure from BS 7671 into their design, may have incorrectly assumed that it is no less safe than would be achieved by compliance with BS 7671; it may even give rise to danger.
As per the changes under BS 7671:2018, previous Regulation 621.2 (iv) listed departures that may give rise to danger was part of the reason for the changes and definitions for βdepartureβ. Regulation 621.2 was replaced with Regulation 651.2, and bullet (vi) now refers to non-compliances which give rise to danger.
The term βnon-complianceβ was also reintroduced into the definitions to clarify the misunderstanding regarding departures.
Under installations designed by others, the installers have a duty to highlight to the designer any aspects of the design which they consider conflicting with BS 7671 and which they believe to be unsafe. There is no legal defence against creating an unsafe installation based on poor and non-compliant instructions.
When carrying out inspection and testing on an existing installation and recording the information on an EICR, there is no provision for recording βintended departuresβ. If any such departures have been recorded on the original EIC or MEIWC, the inspector should have this information to enable them to determine if these would be classed as a non-compliance which could give rise to danger, or be recorded for information in either Section K, Observations, or on a separate sheet appended to the EICR, or both.
βIntended departuresβ must be recorded
In accordance with Regulations 120.3, 133.1.3 and Regulation 133.5, details of any intended departures are required to be recorded on the Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) (see Fig 1), or Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate (MEIWC), as an example of where to list the intended departures.
In each of its three signature sections for design, construction and inspecting and testing, the EIC makes provision for recording departures for Regulations 120.3 and 133.5, with the designer solely responsible for specifying new materials under Regulation 133.1.3.
In larger installations, there may be mutual responsibility for the design.
In domestic and similar installations, where an electrician often takes on all three responsibilities and a single signature EIC may be used, the electrician effectively becomes a designer.
In the case of most installations where there are no departures, the word βNone or N/Aβ should be inserted, rather than leaving the spaces blank.
In the certification model forms prescribed by BS 7671, there is little room for including details of departures; therefore, it is usually necessary for departures from BS 7671 to be declared in other documents, such as specifications and/or operating manuals.
Such documents normally include a description of how the system is to operate and provide sufficient information to enable it to be used safely. Consequently, it would be appropriate to include reference to these intended departures in handover documentation.
Conclusion
A departure is not a βdefectβ, an βomissionβ, an βobservationβ or a βnon-complianceβ. It is, however, an intended design decision taken after special consideration by the designer of the installation. Hopefully this has clarified some of the confusion over what a departure is and what it is not.
For more information on NAPIT scheme registration, click here
