EICR question, OLD AC RCD- code 3 or no code?

[baldelectrician]

With regards to Regulation 531.3. 3 of BS 7671:2018+A2:2022

Older AC type RCD's are prone to being blinded by dc leakage from other items plugged in to the property. In other words this RCD may fail to operate when other electronic items are plugged in which leak DC in to the mains.
Regulation 531.3. 3 of BS 7671:2018+A2:2022 states that the appropriate RCD shall be selected according to the presence of DC components and AC frequencies. Further, Type AC RCDs shall only be used to serve fixed equipment, where it is known that the load current contains no DC components.

So, do I code the old RCD as a code 3 or no code?

I am thinking of C3 as it complied before but does not comply now in many instances.


Discuss...

 

[Markyd]

No code for me......met the regs at time of install...issues will arise when addition to a circuit or new circuit is added

 

[loz2754]

We assess an installation and it's components according to the current regulations, not the regulations it was installed to previously.
The current regulations take into account changes in the way we use electrical equipment, and the evolving of the design of appliances that we plug in. More and more equipment introduces the potential of DC current leaking into the system. An RCD that potentially will fail to operate due to being blinded by DC current could cause someone to receive a fatal electric shock. Surely that deserves at least a C3.

 

[Markyd]

Still would not code it....just a note on cert that it may need upgrading in future

 

[timhoward]

C3 for me, in general the same as anything else I notice that complied once but doesn’t now.

Out of interest, slightly relating to another thread, would an oven and induction hob be considered fixed loads with no DC components? I suspect not but always worth checking!

 

[bill01803]

Definitely no code, regs are not retrospective.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Another grey area to the already 50 shades of grey coding

Retrospective / not retrospective / was fine at the time of install / is now out dated and needs changing / tests up fine / tests up fine but doesn't meet the latest version of 7671

My opinion when it comes to A/C RCDs on an existing Install , for the purposes of an EICR i would not Code it so long as it tests up fine , functions with the test buttonetc. It was installed, it met the regs at that time and is fine until further notice

 

[Pretty Mouth]

C3, improvement recommended. It doesn't comply with current regs, and doesn't offer the same protection as a type A, but it's at least a couple of fails away from being dangerous.

Incidentally I still frequently carry out minor works on circuits protected with type AC. I test them on both type AC and A settings, and if they pass both at 1X and at (the no longer required) 5X, I'm happy to go ahead.

 

[loz2754]

Another way to look at this might be that if we do not code an item as C3 because it complied at the time of installation, we are taking away the client's choice to make a significant improvement to the safety of the installation. They would be unaware of the improvements made to the wiring regulations, and of changes that are happening in the world of technology that can both contribute to safety, but also to introduce new potential hazards (in this case the DC blinding of older RCDs).
Coding it C3 at least makes the client aware that an improvement to the safety of the installation is actually an option.

 

[loz2754]

Definitely no code, regs are not retrospective.

So would you code a service head that has a fuse in both the line and neutral conductors?
After all, regs are not retrospective.

Guidance note 3 makes it clear that we assess the installation according to the current edition of the regs. The C3 code is an opportunity to make the client aware that things have changed, moved on and improved, and that they can move on with the changes if they want to.

 

[loz2754]

Another grey area to the already 50 shades of grey coding

Retrospective / not retrospective / was fine at the time of install / is now out dated and needs changing / tests up fine / tests up fine but doesn't meet the latest version of 7671

My opinion when it comes to A/C RCDs on an existing Install , for the purposes of an EICR i would not Code it so long as it tests up fine , functions with the test buttonetc. It was installed, it met the regs at that time and is fine until further notice

But did you test the RCD while the washing machine was running and leaking DC into the system? Or the EV charge point? Or some other gizmo?
If we are no longer allowed to install an AC RCD, because of the above, surely if we come across one on an EICR, we should be alerting the client to the potential danger by coding it C3.

 

[Markyd]

Another grey area to the already 50 shades of grey coding

Retrospective / not retrospective / was fine at the time of install / is now out dated and needs changing / tests up fine / tests up fine but doesn't meet the latest version of 7671

My opinion when it comes to A/C RCDs on an existing Install , for the purposes of an EICR i would not Code it so long as it tests up fine , functions with the test buttonetc. It was installed, it met the regs at that time and is fine until further notice

At last someone who knows

 

[baldelectrician]

Another grey area to the already 50 shades of grey coding

Retrospective / not retrospective / was fine at the time of install / is now out dated and needs changing / tests up fine / tests up fine but doesn't meet the latest version of 7671

My opinion when it comes to A/C RCDs on an existing Install , for the purposes of an EICR i would not Code it so long as it tests up fine , functions with the test buttonetc. It was installed, it met the regs at that time and is fine until further notice

Me and my son (who is also an electrician) were having this discussion and he said much the same as you

I then said - in that instance how would you code a voltage operated ELCB- it complied with the regs at the time of the install and you can test it with an RCD tester and the test button works so....

In my opinion we test to the current regs and make a decision to code accordingly

I was on 2 minds on RCDs that are AC type-
1. note on cert and code 3, suggest change (this is what I have been doing till now)

2. note on cert and code 2, suggest change / replacement, EICR unsatisfactory.

Will be getting my SELECT asessment on Friday so will bring it up then, in the meantime I will email NICEIC and SELECT (I am in both) and get an opinion.

 

[nicebutdim]

Me and my son (who is also an electrician) were having this discussion and he said much the same as you

Me and my son (who is also an electrician) were having this discussion and he said much the same as you

I then said - in that instance how would you code a voltage operated ELCB- it complied with the regs at the time of the install and you can test it with an RCD tester and the test button works so....

In my opinion we test to the current regs and make a decision to code accordingly

I was on 2 minds on RCDs that are AC type-
1. note on cert and code 3, suggest change (this is what I have been doing till now)

2. note on cert and code 2, suggest change / replacement, EICR unsatisfactory.

Will be getting my SELECT asessment on Friday so will bring it up then, in the meantime I will email NICEIC and SELECT (I am in both) and get an opinion.

What would be your reasoning behind option #2 in coding this C2?

 

[Dustydazzler]

Me and my son (who is also an electrician) were having this discussion and he said much the same as you

Me and my son (who is also an electrician) were having this discussion and he said much the same as you

I then said - in that instance how would you code a voltage operated ELCB- it complied with the regs at the time of the install and you can test it with an RCD tester and the test button works so....

In my opinion we test to the current regs and make a decision to code accordingly

I was on 2 minds on RCDs that are AC type-
1. note on cert and code 3, suggest change (this is what I have been doing till now)

2. note on cert and code 2, suggest change / replacement, EICR unsatisfactory.

Will be getting my SELECT asessment on Friday so will bring it up then, in the meantime I will email NICEIC and SELECT (I am in both) and get an opinion.

IF we all adopted this approach 99% of installs I come across will fail an EICR

That being said it would generate me a huge amount of business replacing loads of boards

 

[westward10]

Me and my son (who is also an electrician) were having this discussion and he said much the same as you

I then said - in that instance how would you code a voltage operated ELCB- it complied with the regs at the time of the install and you can test it with an RCD tester and the test button works so....

In my opinion we test to the current regs and make a decision to code accordingly

I was on 2 minds on RCDs that are AC type-
1. note on cert and code 3, suggest change (this is what I have been doing till now)

2. note on cert and code 2, suggest change / replacement, EICR unsatisfactory.

Will be getting my SELECT asessment on Friday so will bring it up then, in the meantime I will email NICEIC and SELECT (I am in both) and get an opinion.

Why do you think SELECT or the NICEIC will give a meaningful opinion. You are a competent person use your own judgement.

 

[Dustydazzler]

But should not we all at least have a point of reference where most of us agree what this is what a Code should be for an A/C type RCD

I do an EICR for a rental today and I say worse case RCD is code 3 so satisfactory to leave as is
Change or tenant 6 months later so new EICR
A another sparks does the EICR and Codes the same RCD code 2 needs changing forth with

We all look a bit daft

 

[pc1966]

The latest BPG#4 already has this given as C3 "A Type AC RCD installed where a Type A RCD is required" on page 19

Now we all know that BPG are guidance, not a replacement for the regs or sensible and professional assessment of the situation and real-world risk, but here it makes perfect sense to me. It could and probably should be improved which C3 implies, but equally it is not likely to present a very high risk in the majority of fault situations that C2 merits.

If it were for an EV or PV system not using SWA cable, etc, and against the MI then you might decide for C2.

Same for TT (so OCPD disconnection not likely) and if evidence of the RCD not working as expected, etc. Here the suggestion by @Pretty Mouth for testing using Type A setting on the MFT sounds reasonable, if it fails to trip in required time then C2 would be hard to argue against.

 

[nicebutdim]

C3 doesn't seem unreasonable and it's a code in which I can see logic. It won't result in an unsatisfactory report and raises a potential issue - what's not to like?

 

[westward10]

C3 doesn't seem unreasonable and it's a code in which I can see logic. It won't result in an unsatisfactory report and raises a potential issue - what's not to like?

There is nothing to say a C3 shouldn't warrant an unsatisfactory Report.