RCD Protection for submains

[Bait Account]

When I do EICRs I am not overly interested when it was installed with regard to additional protection it is a statement of fact it is not provided.

Yea bud but that statement of fact has to be coded so 16th would be a C3 and 17th a C2.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

When I do EICRs I am not overly interested when it was installed with regard to additional protection it is a statement of fact it is not provided.

Only difference the date of design/construction would make, would be to the code applied.
If it warranted a code C3 and the client wanted the C3s rectified, then rectify the C3s.

 

[westward10]

Don't get into Code debates anymore.

 

[Ian1981]

Date is never relevant on an EICR.
It’s tested to the current edition and a code given if deemed a safety concern ,whether it complied before to the 14th,15th,16th or 17th,is irrelevant.
Existing installations may not be unsafe in that respect but non compliance’s giving rise to danger must be recorded regardless of age.
Why this keeps coming up for debate is ridiculous.

 

[Upton Sparks]

The basic issue is the sub mains are a pvc cable buried in the fabric of the building and there is no RCD protection to any of the fuse boards within the room and associated circuits or on the the sub main cable.

regardless of when it was built its a Commercial property so health and safety law will Trump over old regs rule, if there is a perceived risk then it need to be acted on.

(Personal I would c2 unless they had the original certificate with as build drawing and as wired. If you don't know where the Sub main cables are buried in the walls then there is a real danger to maintenance staff / general contractors . As it a commercial building .)

If you go for the 30 mil RCBO on the sub main you need to be careful, as a fault on a circuit in the rooms from the fuse board would trip the sub main RCBO first. which mean reg 314 (I think top of my head ) segregation of circuits would apply, and the installation would not conform to that.
you would then need to put 10mil amp RCBO in the fuse board in the room to obtain correct discrimination for the RCBO's
Or replace the sub main to an appropriate cable with mechanical protection and just put 30 mil RCBO's in on the rooms.

There is no cheap way out I'm afraid .

 

[DPG]

You'd still struggle with descrimination if you had a 30mA feeding a 10mA though.

 

[Upton Sparks]

Yeah possibly but your have half a chance and your be compliment with the 18th edition .

Personal I would look at replacing the sub main to an SWA. But that's a significant cost to the customer.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Date is never relevant on an EICR.
It’s tested to the current edition and a code given if deemed a safety concern ,whether it complied before to the 14th,15th,16th or 17th,is irrelevant.
Existing installations may not be unsafe in that respect but non compliance’s giving rise to danger must be recorded regardless of age.
Why this keeps coming up for debate is ridiculous.

Yes it is ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous that people advise testing to the current edition, while at the same time advise ignoring the current edition?
I guess until people stop ignoring the current editions, this debate will continue.

 

[Nigel]

Yea bud but that statement of fact has to be coded so 16th would be a C3 and 17th a C2.

That is a ridiculous comment.

 

[Nigel]

Only difference the date of design/construction would make, would be to the code applied.
If it warranted a code C3 and the client wanted the C3s rectified, then rectify the C3s.

The date of installation bears zero alliance with how safe it is.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The date of installation bears zero alliance with how safe it is.

Exactly.
So why advise that older installations are unsafe?
Take for instance something mentioned today:
RCD sockets and RCD FCUs do not comply with the 18th Edition requirements for additional protection.
Does that mean any installation which has RCD sockets is now unsafe?
Does that mean any of the construction projects started last year are now unsafe if the design specified RCD sockets?

 

[Toneyz]

Exactly.
So why advise that older installations are unsafe?
Take for instance something mentioned today:
RCD sockets and RCD FCUs do not comply with the 18th Edition requirements for additional protection.
Does that mean any installation which has RCD sockets is now unsafe?
Does that mean any of the construction projects started last year are now unsafe if the design specified RCD sockets?

As long as the sub-mains were installed correctly to the previous edition of BS7671 the installation is safe. What has happened over the years is more and more layers of safety have been added. Years ago all was relied upon was a fuse then came RCD's and RCBO's for outdoor equipment then they were introduced into circuits to protect if someone is stupid enough to drill a hole in the wall above a socket.trades and maintenance staff should be aware of cable zones. The risk is that to the person using the sockets in each room.

 

[45140]

I think that there are misconceptions about what BS7671 really requires given conversations I have had with people in the Industry, such as time-served electricians trainers, trainees, etc. I am also surprised at the number of people whom I have met who either do not know about the 18th or more widely have not undertaken any training to update themselves, even to 16th or 17th Editions. Thus in some cases there is a genuine surprise at some of the latest requirements.

I then find that there is a misunderstanding about the need for compliance with changes to BS7671 with some people thinking that just because an installation now does not meet the 18th Edition that somehow it has suddenly become unsafe overnight and everything needs to be changed. Here we go back to the lack of briefing.

I think it would be foolish and quite wrong for anyone to infer that just because BS7671 now requires a specific means or method and type of equipment, that any previous arrangement is now per se unsafe. Modifying an existing installation to meet the 18th will bring about an incremental enhancement in safety but there is NO absolute requirement for this to occur until modifications are made, and then the need is only for the circuits involved to be brought up to the 18th Edition. As I understand it only certain requirements are absolute. This was my training.

 

[DPG]

I think most of us realise that the regs are not retrospective to be fair.

 

[Nigel]

Exactly.
So why advise that older installations are unsafe?
Take for instance something mentioned today:
RCD sockets and RCD FCUs do not comply with the 18th Edition requirements for additional protection.
Does that mean any installation which has RCD sockets is now unsafe?
Does that mean any of the construction projects started last year are now unsafe if the design specified RCD sockets?

If I come across a socket that is likely to feed portable equipment outside without an RCD installed that was installed prior to RCDs being a requirement that will be a C2. End of.

Just as if I come across a fused neutral that was installed when they were allowed.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If I come across a socket that is likely to feed portable equipment outside without an RCD installed that was installed prior to RCDs being a requirement that will be a C2. End of.

Are you saying that it would be a different code, if the socket was not likely to feed portable equipment outside?

 

[Nigel]

Are you saying that it would be a different code, if the socket was not likely to feed portable equipment outside?

Yes. I would code that C3.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes. I would code that C3.

So what, you use a mishmash of 16th and 18th editions when conducting EICRs?

 

[Nigel]

So what, you use a mishmash of 16th and 18th editions when conducting EICRs?

No. I use the current version of BS7671 only. I do not use any other versions when doing EICRs.

 

[Bait Account]

That is a ridiculous comment.

If so then why are you agreeing with it?

Yes. I would code that C3.