Rule book

EletricMan

...

2011

It’s ET105 you are looking for. Contact the NSAI.

Is there something in particular you want to know ??

2011

EletricMan told me by PM that when he was told that ET105:2011 has been "discontinued" :eek:

By coincidence I was talking to a member of the TC06 committee (formerly ETCI, now NSAI) who was instrumental in writing these rules that this is indeed the case. ET105 has been officially withdrawn. This means that those of us that install and maintain electrical & instrumentation in potentially explosive atmospheres must now refer to EN60079. In reality reality the changes on the ground are minimal but it is an important distinction that not many seem to be aware of.

The most significant change for many will be the cost. ET105 cost around €85, purchasing all of the EN60079 multi-part (there are many parts) will be far more expensive. In addition the EN60079 changes comparatively frequently.

tweek84

Even if ET105 is withdrawn it or ET101 are not legal documents or actual regulations and they can't legally be enforced, that is the problem and that is why they are changing it.
BUT when you complete an installation test it and sign off on the installation you are saying that you have complied with ET101 or ET105 etc this came from a discussion with a NSAI/ETCI inspector.

2011

tweek84 wrote: »

Even if ET105 is withdrawn it or ET101 are not legal documents or actual regulations and they can't legally be enforced

I'm no legal expert but I can tell you that in Ireland someone facing legal proceedings due to substandard electrical work your best defence would be to demonstrate that you complied fully with ET101:2008. If this was an Atex area then the same would apply to ET105:2011 until quite recently. This is very much a legal requirement.

that is the problem and that is why they are changing it.

....where are you getting this information from?
What changes would make them legal?

ET101 is being reissued with a slightly different title soon (possibly April I am told). The reason for this is that it is over 10 years old. The new NSAI TC06 committee are pretty much the same people as the old ETCI TC6 committee so the next revision can be expected to be the same standard with the same legal standing.

tweek84

tweek84 wrote: »

Even if ET105 is withdrawn it or ET101 are not legal documents or actual regulations and they can't legally be enforced, that is the problem and that is why they are changing it.
BUT when you complete an installation test it and sign off on the installation you are saying that you have complied with ET101 or ET105 etc this came from a discussion with a NSAI/ETCI inspector.

@2011 I don't know if you could see the whole lot of my post but all your answers are there in bold. I don't know what changes would make them legal I am only relaying the information I was given.
I expect the new regs with look very similar to the 18th edition 😀

2011

tweek84 wrote: »

I don't know what changes would make them legal I am only relaying the information I was given.

ETCI/NSAI inspectors?
The ETCI doesn’t exist. Do the NSAI have electrical inspectors???
I know RECI do and suppose the CRU can inspect too but I’m not aware of the NSAI ever doing this.

It seems much more plausible that the rules are being revised inline with new developments and technology. Hardly surprising as they were last revised in 2008.

I expect the new regs with look very similar to the 18th edition ��

They are already very similar.
The differences are quite insignificant.

Tuco88

Aka copy and paste.

tweek84

2011 wrote: »

ETCI/NSAI inspectors?
The ETCI doesn’t exist. Do the NSAI have electrical inspectors???
I know RECI do and suppose the CRU can inspect too but I’m not aware of the NSAI ever doing this.

It seems much more plausible that the rules are being revised inline with new developments and technology. Hardly surprising as they were last revised in 2008.



They are already very similar.
The differences are quite insignificant.

If you want to be pedantic on this and try force an argument so be it, but i am not biting.
I have assumed your are an educated person, you know what i was saying from my original post.

2011

tweek84 wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic on this and try force an argument so be it, but i am not biting.
I have assumed your are an educated person, you know what i was saying from my original post.

Apologies not trying to be pedantic. Tone doesn’t always come across when posting.
Do you mean someone from RECI or the CRU?

Steve

2011 wrote: »

The most significant change for many will be the cost. ET105 cost around €85, purchasing all of the EN60079 multi-part (there are many parts) will be far more expensive. In addition the EN60079 changes comparatively frequently.

:eek::eek:

Did some ATEX design work last year, if that's true I won't be doing any more..

It was a minefield then to comply, the new regs would cost me more than the job was worth..

It's really a swizz. Them: "You must comply with the rules". Us: "What are the rules?". Them "We're not telling you :P".

:rolleyes:

2011

Steve wrote: »

:eek::eek:

Did some ATEX design work last year, if that's true I won't be doing any more..

It was a minefield then to comply, the new regs would cost me more than the job was worth..

It's really a swizz. Them: "You must comply with the rules". Us: "What are the rules?". Them "We're not telling you :P".

:rolleyes:

I like to think that I’m quite familiar with the rules in respect with Atex but there is a lot to know and they keep evolving. Every time I do any type of training I find that something else has changed. The goal posts keep moving IMHO.

Steve

2011 wrote: »

I like to think that I’m quite familiar with the rules in respect with Atex but there is a lot to know and they keep evolving. Every time I do any type of training I find that something else has changed. The goal posts keep moving IMHO.

So true.