Discuss RCD omission risk assessment in the Commercial Electrical Advice area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Hi guys does anybody please have a template risk assessment for the omission of RCD protection? Or does anyone know where I may locate one? Many thanks in advance.
There may be one at one of the electric design companies but there is nothing on here that I could find.
I Suggest you use a simply 5x5 matrix table. You need to specify the relevant Clause No. of BS7671, and state why there is a necessity to depart from the requirement.
Then list the various hazards that an RCD would address and compare how your proposal ensures that you reach the same level of safety or better.

I did start to make one of these up in response to a recent discussion on here but I suffered an stupid accident at home and tore the ligaments in my knee and have been out of work and in pain since, and to be honest I have not felt like doing the RA.

If you like I can send you some worked examples but they will not deal with that subject but will give you an idea.
Email me if you want me to send you anything.
 
As I understand the regs omission RA requires a template from HSE as it is governed by S.I. 19 (off the top of my head would have to look!) and must comply with HSE requirements. This is not a common or garden RA.
 
Those sites are relevant to employees and public risk. The RA to be done here is a CDM designers risk assessment.

Under the EAWR the client cannot do this unless they are suitably competent to understand and identify the risk and propose the remedial action.

In this case the OP is proposing a departure from BS7671 which is permitted as the OP would be deemed to be a competent designer, however a suitable RA needs to be done and attached to the documentation in accordance with BS7671.
 
If the OP undertakes a RA stating additional rcd protection has been omitted then he needs to satisfy the installation is no less safer than if it was provided. It is likely to be a clear departure from BS7671 and I have no idea why someone would leave themselves wide open by doing so.
 
If the OP undertakes a RA stating additional rcd protection has been omitted then he needs to satisfy the installation is no less safer than if it was provided. It is likely to be a clear departure from BS7671 and I have no idea why someone would leave themselves wide open by doing so.

It is not leaving anyone wide open if done competently. We regularly RA out the requirement for RCD protection and I will happily stand in court and back it.
 
It is likely to be a clear departure from BS7671 and I have no idea why someone would leave themselves wide open by doing so.
I, and many others, in the telecoms sector are having big issues with this at the moment.

Our customers don't want RCD protection on their equipment due to the risk of nuisance tripping and the loss of service to their customers. Not a massive problem to knock of 250,000 internet subscribers in one hit however as a lot of networks are now IP based there is a risk that blue light services could be effected at a critical moment.

It has been suggested that we connect their equipment using hard-wiring however they wish to retain the functionality of socket-outlets as you can send a poorly paid FLM engineer to swap a piece of faulty kit rather than a sparky, it all boils down to cost and ease.

Now these socket-outlets aren't just commando sockets under the floor or high level mounted ones, the requirement for additional protection also applies to any power rails, C13, C19 etc, that my also be installed.

It's a massive can of worms and we're currently losing a lot of work as no one is willing to do the risk assessment.

Removing one line has create a massive headache for us, we used to be able to use the following up until the introduction of the 18th:

(b) for a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of equipment.

These are circuits in secure switch rooms with heavily restricted access, no chance of Doris plugging in her curling tongs or lawn mower, these circuits are for dedicated racks that will be there for the next twenty years.
 
I, and many others, in the telecoms sector are having big issues with this at the moment.

Our customers don't want RCD protection on their equipment due to the risk of nuisance tripping and the loss of service to their customers. Not a massive problem to knock of 250,000 internet subscribers in one hit however as a lot of networks are now IP based there is a risk that blue light services could be effected at a critical moment.

It has been suggested that we connect their equipment using hard-wiring however they wish to retain the functionality of socket-outlets as you can send a poorly paid FLM engineer to swap a piece of faulty kit rather than a sparky, it all boils down to cost and ease.

Now these socket-outlets aren't just commando sockets under the floor or high level mounted ones, the requirement for additional protection also applies to any power rails, C13, C19 etc, that my also be installed.

It's a massive can of worms and we're currently losing a lot of work as no one is willing to do the risk assessment.

Removing one line has create a massive headache for us, we used to be able to use the following up until the introduction of the 18th:

(b) for a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of equipment.

These are circuits in secure switch rooms with heavily restricted access, no chance of Doris plugging in her curling tongs or lawn mower, these circuits are for dedicated racks that will be there for the next twenty years.

Why don’t you guys just do the RA? On one hand you have the risk of loosing 999 service coverage for maybe millions of people or the other the ever so slight, if any risk of a contractor being electrocuted?

I would look at possibly installing T Earth sockets with labels on stating these sockets are for ‘x’ equipment only. Maybe even possibly putting a general use socket adjacent, again suitably labelled saying this is for general use and is RCD protected.

To me it is really quite simple or am I missing something????
 
Why don’t you guys just do the RA? On one hand you have the risk of loosing 999 service coverage for maybe millions of people or the other the ever so slight, if any risk of a contractor being electrocuted?

I would look at possibly installing T Earth sockets with labels on stating these sockets are for ‘x’ equipment only. Maybe even possibly putting a general use socket adjacent, again suitably labelled saying this is for general use and is RCD protected.

To me it is really quite simple or am I missing something????
It boils down to our customers stating they don’t want RCD protection but not willing to state that in a documented risk assessment. If we installed RCD protection then technically we’re in breach of contract and liable for any outage costs and fines that can run into the hundreds of thousands per hour.
 
It boils down to our customers stating they don’t want RCD protection but not willing to state that in a documented risk assessment. If we installed RCD protection then technically we’re in breach of contract and liable for any outage costs and fines that can run into the hundreds of thousands per hour.

But surely as the competent people (electrically) only you can do the RA. It needs to have some technical back-up to it and cannot just be at the client’s request but in this instance I can see it being quite simple to RA RCD protection off certain sockets.
 
But surely as the competent people (electrically) only you can do the RA. It needs to have some technical back-up to it and cannot just be at the client’s request but in this instance I can see it being quite simple to RA RCD protection off certain sockets.
This has come from the customers various design and engineering departments, they’re classed as electrically skilled and normal carry out the circuit designs yet expect us to raise and sign the RA. Peeing into the wind is the norm in telecoms.
 
There is another way.
Why not get the Customer to instruct - "confirm" - in writing that they wish RCDs to be excluded for operational purposes.
Your Company then produces a RA that demonstrates that there is no danger created as a result of excluding the RCD. They submit the RA to the client stating that "...in accordance with your Instructions, and in compliance with the requirements of BS7671, we have produced the relevant risk assessment to remove the use of RCDs in the locations/circuits identified by you. Please let us know within xx days, (whatever), if you do not agree with the risk assessment, otherwise we will proceed along as Instructed by you...."

All that the law requires is that :-
* the risk assessment has been carried out using personnel who are competent and aware of the hazards and risks ;
* that the risk associated with the hazards have been assessed against the existing BS7671 requirements and that where necessary suitable and sufficient control measures have been put in place that achieve the same or a better level of safety, and ;
*that the risk assessment has been documented

You have now complied with BS671 in respect of departures from the requirements in proving that this request has not resulted in a reduction in safety.

Remember HSE are NOT looking to second-guess the RA, they want to see that the issue has been recognised and appropriate measures taken. There is no legal requirement to be 100% correct in a risk assessment and HSE would not take enforcement action in the event that a genuine error had occurred - as long as you have followed the principles.
 
I am currently having discussions with a client about a similar matter.
they have several pieces of equipment that are often moved about a factory floor to different machines or locations.

most positions that they would like to plug the equipment in are close to an outside door, most are near large tanks of water, water on the floor is a likely hazard.

equipment involved is mostly single phase but some 3 phase, inverter drives and servo drives in a lot of them.

what they are finding is that the rcd's are tripping when being used.

so customer asks me, can you put in some sockets that are not rcd protected for the equipment we move about?

I say no, it cant be done unless sockets are over 32A, or a documented risk assement is done.

can you do a risk asses for me?

I say, I can but you wont like the result.

they are quite pragmatic about it, end of the day they need to move stuff around to manufacture what they make.

Is the simple answer to provide 32A sockets all over the shop floor to power these pieces of equipment and as such remove the rcd requirement?
p.s. they are probabley 6A single phase or 3A 3 phase requirements.
I understand that the supply cable from plug to machine will need to be made bigger and may well need some over current protection adding to the machine.
 
The regulations around additional protection for sockets may work well in a domestic environment but in commercial and industrial they're starting to prove a little prohibitive in some situations.
 

Reply to RCD omission risk assessment in the Commercial Electrical Advice area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock