Settle when rcd's are required on sockets please

[cobrauk]

Settle when rcd's / rcbos are required on sockets please

I believe the way the regs are now written that they are required on all circuits unless they are risked out even in an industrial situation.

I am told this is not the case in an industrial situation as they are completely installed in steel conduits and trunking.

Your views please

 

[Andy78]

The only thing that has changed regarding RCD protection for socket outlets of no more 20A is that now a written risk assessment has to be produced for omission of RCD protection instead of being able to omit additional protection willy nilly as has been the case.
The method of cable containment has absolutely nothing at all to do with the requirement for additional protection for sockets.

 

[cobrauk]

Thanks Andy so the answer is yes you do need Rcd/rcbo protection regardless which is what what I said to my client

 

[Darkwood]

Rcd's on socket circuits are also to protect the end user with anything they plug in... domestic, commercial and industrial have the same set of rules... if as you say in an industrial setting it is wired through steel conduit then the requirement to have rcd to protect the cables is not needed as would be buried <50mm without mechanical protection but as its a socket circuit then there is still a requirement so you could either in this case have a rcd socket or a front end device.... rcd sockets are more favoured in industrial where cables are mechanically protected so nuisance tripping is only locally effected.

Exemptions do exist but if someone is looking for a way around fitting an rcd then they are not designing their circuits correctly unless we are talking about feeding a socket for a kidney dialysis machine but other measures would also be used to avoid the socket been used for normal use.

 

[cobrauk]

Darkwood and that when the risk asses comes in to allow that

 

[Andy78]

Thanks Andy so the answer is yes you do need Rcd/rcbo protection regardless which is what what I said to my client

Don't take my word for it though. Look it up and quote your customer the reg number along with your reasons for adhering to the regs with regards safety of individuals.

Why is the request coming to omit RCD protection ?

 

[Farmelectrics]

411.3.3 i think

 

[netblindpaul]

Exemptions do exist but if someone is looking for a way around fitting an rcd then they are not designing their circuits correctly unless we are talking about feeding a socket for a kidney dialysis machine but other measures would also be used to avoid the socket been used for normal use.

Actually DW, a Haemodialysis machine requires a 30mA RCD in the supply.
It's in MI's and often the Health Authority spec, you would hope that Fresenius and Gambro are a bit more clued up than your average Far Eastern tat supplier.

I would have to check in MEIGaN and HTM06, mind this is slowly being replaced by Section 710.

A dialysis machine has an inbuilt battery backup, or at least the ones I work with do.
This will ensure that the patient will not loose a circuit, loosing a circuit now and again is not such, an issue, I was with a patient yesterday who lost a circuit on a Fresenius machine.
Not due to the machine though, and in minimal care, he had a blowout.
Even if the machine shuts down, the circuit can be manually pumped back into the patient anyway.

Dialysis whilst life saving, is NOT at such a critical level as life support.
If you look at the changes in section 710 then you will see the change in philosophy.

Whilst in the hospital environment you would probably find that the machine is on the essential supplies.
This is also partly to do with the issue that in the event of a power failure, the care staff can't be sorting out perhaps 40 patients at the same time, not that they are life support.

I am looking at one HHD install tomorrow morning, and I will be putting it on a 30mA RCD at the "origin" of "our" responsibility.

Whether the home has any existing RCD protection or not.

As far as sockets for normal use go, linked to HHD, then it is not an issue requiring anything different to normal really.
The patients are trained and instructed what and what not to do.
OK, Fresenius require EN 60309 socket outlets, but Gambro require BS1363.

In a hospital environment then you have ESS & non ESS so that covers that, however, often both are BS1363.

 

[Leesparkykent]

I've posted this before on similar threads. Might be helpful to the OP.

RCD protection - IET Electrical

 

[Darkwood]

Actually DW, a Haemodialysis machine requires a 30mA RCD in the supply.
It's in MI's and often the Health Authority spec, you would hope that Fresenius and Gambro are a bit more clued up than your average Far Eastern tat supplier.

I would have to check in MEIGaN and HTM06, mind this is slowly being replaced by Section 710.

A dialysis machine has an inbuilt battery backup, or at least the ones I work with do.
This will ensure that the patient will not loose a circuit, loosing a circuit now and again is not such, an issue, I was with a patient yesterday who lost a circuit on a Fresenius machine.
Not due to the machine though, and in minimal care, he had a blowout.
Even if the machine shuts down, the circuit can be manually pumped back into the patient anyway.

Dialysis whilst life saving, is NOT at such a critical level as life support.
If you look at the changes in section 710 then you will see the change in philosophy.

Whilst in the hospital environment you would probably find that the machine is on the essential supplies.
This is also partly to do with the issue that in the event of a power failure, the care staff can't be sorting out perhaps 40 patients at the same time, not that they are life support.

I am looking at one HHD install tomorrow morning, and I will be putting it on a 30mA RCD at the "origin" of "our" responsibility.

Whether the home has any existing RCD protection or not.

As far as sockets for normal use go, linked to HHD, then it is not an issue requiring anything different to normal really.
The patients are trained and instructed what and what not to do.
OK, Fresenius require EN 60309 socket outlets, but Gambro require BS1363.

In a hospital environment then you have ESS & non ESS so that covers that, however, often both are BS1363.

Wasn't thinking of the hospital scenario but still relevent in what you say, It was just picked out of the air as a thinking example but clearly I could have picked a better situe lol..

 

[netblindpaul]

TBH DW, most of my work in this arena is HHD, Home HaemoDialysis, so it is for home patients who dialyse themselves.

 

[cobrauk]

Don't take my word for it though. Look it up and quote your customer the reg number along with your reasons for adhering to the regs with regards safety of individuals.

Why is the request coming to omit RCD protection ?

He was trying to say because its not in a wall that you don't have to rcd the circuit as he is reading the regs different from everyone else, I would have to agree that the regs are confusing the way they are written and it could be stated better but thats the regs for you lol

411.3.3 & 415.1.1

We also had a circuit designed by him that failed the max Zs allowed when tested that he said it was still ok as it had a rcbo in the circuit and the the max Zs didnt matter I disagree as the new circuit should have been design to be correct in the first place, the fitting of a rcd to correct a old circuit that the zs can not be improved maybe and also a TT installation yes but not a new circuit

 

[malcolmsanford]

I must admit I read the amended regulation to mean that in a domestic situation unless the <20 amp socket is specifically labelled then regardless of installation it should be RCD protected.

As Dark as pointed out the old commercial/industrial scenario was always got out of by the skilled or instructed persons. Now we have moved onto a worse case scenario of "Risked Assess"

Not sure how this is going to pan out, but if I were now designing a commercial/industrial installation, would I be willing to "risk assess"? It is OK as you the designer doing it, and even as the installer, but my worry would be 18 months down the road, when Jim from Bodge & Dodge comes in and does some minor works on an existing circuit and doesn't issue certification.

6 months later someone drops dead plugging in a toaster and the only cert is mine and a risk assessment saying that circuit never needed RCD protection.

 

[Darkwood]

Basically its to reduce the abuse of leaving rcd's off for stupid reasons .... now the Electrician doing this will ultimately carry the can if anyone is injured or killed subject to their risk assessment, before they could just say -well that janitor there was told so I'm in the clear.

It was getting abused as a regulation and full of holes as we spent years arguing exactly what was meant by an Instructed person and like whether they had to be onsite at all times etc etc ---now at least the Electrician is always going to push for personal safety as he doesn't want the weight hanging over him/her.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Don't you think though Dark we will have blanket use of RCD protection, I would certainly have to think twice about issuing a Risk Assessment.

I don't have an issue with RCD protection I have an issue of the IET sitting on the fence and putting the onus on the electrician. Why not just say that all sockets to BS 1363 must be RCD protected, come what may.

We have quite sophisticated circuits out here. All my IT racks are put onto BS 60309-2 32 amp sockets and are RCD protected.
Even the BS 1363 sockets in IT infra structures are RCD protected, we just ensure the design is capable of handling any Circuit Protective Currents, but designing a maximum of 4-6 units per circuit. Though I'm personally not convinced about this circuit protective current milarky, I have seen open plan offices where there was in excess of 20+ towers, monitors, printers, etc quite happy on a 32 amp RCBO.

I would just like for once a clear a precise regulation regarding sockets.

 

[andyb]

I must admit I read the amended regulation to mean that in a domestic situation unless the <20 amp socket is specifically labelled then regardless of installation it should be RCD protected.

As Dark as pointed out the old commercial/industrial scenario was always got out of by the skilled or instructed persons. Now we have moved onto a worse case scenario of "Risked Assess"

Not sure how this is going to pan out, but if I were now designing a commercial/industrial installation, would I be willing to "risk assess"? It is OK as you the designer doing it, and even as the installer, but my worry would be 18 months down the road, when Jim from Bodge & Dodge comes in and does some minor works on an existing circuit and doesn't issue certification.

6 months later someone drops dead plugging in a toaster and the only cert is mine and a risk assessment saying that circuit never needed RCD protection.

I read it the same as you Malcolm,
Rcd unless specifically labeled in dwellings.
I'm not sure the risk assessment route is a worse scenario though, I think it makes more sense than the vague skilled/instructed person, other than an electrician I was never really sure what that meant.
As for Jim from Dodge & Bodge, as long as you have the original cert/risk assessment then you're covered.
Your last point is interesting though and leads me to believe that there will be few non rcd sockets. If it's possible to just plug any item into a specific socket then it really should be rcd protected and no risk assessment can say otherwise in my opinion.

 

[cobrauk]

BS7671 Has always been about protecting the persons writing the BS7671 from being sued, rather then just stating you will do this and you will do that, which we as electricians would rather have, they skirt around things so they always have a get out if taken to court, am I right ?

 

[malcolmsanford]

I read it the same as you Malcolm,
Rcd unless specifically labeled in dwellings.
I'm not sure the risk assessment route is a worse scenario though, I think it makes more sense than the vague skilled/instructed person, other than an electrician I was never really sure what that meant.
As for Jim from Dodge & Bodge, as long as you have the original cert/risk assessment then you're covered.
Your last point is interesting though and leads me to believe that there will be few non rcd sockets. If it's possible to just plug any item into a specific socket then it really should be rcd protected and no risk assessment can say otherwise in my opinion.

Valid points Andy and totally agree mate. Though I did have the litigation as paramount when I was referring to Bodge & Dodge, your point takes it another step.

You have risked assess that the circuit was just used for testing equipment so no RCD. Then 18 months extra sockets were added and used for general purposes and the toaster scenario

Though as you said my original certs/RA will cover me, it won't covered the poor person that is electrocuted. I know we can have the same scenario now with the sjkilled and instructed person, but my point was as I posted in #15

Why don't the IET just amend the reg to any BS 1363 socket must be RCD protected, end of discussions etc. Clear and concise

 

[andyb]

Valid points Andy and totally agree mate. Though I did have the litigation as paramount when I was referring to Bodge & Dodge, your point takes it another step.

You have risked assess that the circuit was just used for testing equipment so no RCD. Then 18 months extra sockets were added and used for general purposes and the toaster scenario

Would you R/A a socket purely on what it's used for? I think that there would be an accessibility element to it as well, maybe behind the equipment or out of reach. Also I would say that any modification or change of use would require a new R/A.

Though as you said my original certs/RA will cover me, it won't covered the poor person that is electrocuted. I know we can have the same scenario now with the sjkilled and instructed person, but my point was as I posted in #15

Why don't the IET just amend the reg to any BS 1363 socket must be RCD protected, end of discussions etc. Clear and concise

Would make life easier Malcolm, then if a non rcd socket was required a 60309 socket could be fitted or non standard 13a socket.

 

[Andy78]

I'm not sure where this idea of the need for additional protection for sockets only applies to domestic dwellings is coming from. It has always applied to all sockets 20A or less in both the original edition of the 17th and AMD 1.

It is this misconception that has helped force the inclusion of risk assessments for AMD 3. The common belief was that this reg did not apply in situations other than domestic as anyone working in a commercial or industrial environment must be skilled or instructed by default. Not so, and not what the omission of RCD clause was added for.
Therefore the clause has been made more difficult to use to avoid omission of RCD where it should be applied but to still give the option for designers to omit where needed.

I think it's a sensible move and one that clarifies a previously abused clause in a regulation.