Settle when rcd's are required on sockets please

[malcolmsanford]

Andy78 I was always under the impression that anyone in a work place would be under the EAWR-1989 and therefore would be under that companies H&S and therefore be an "instructed person". Again though that is my interpretation and is not necessarily everyones, but that would be my argument in a court of law, as that is a statutory document.

Love these discussions with sparks, but my bottom line is why can we not get a clear and concise reg as I have mentioned before. AndyB is spot on use a BS 60309-2 socket for anything that you feel does not need RCD protection. It would also start the culture of a sparks/workforce of knowing that a BS 1363 is RCD protected and a BS 60309-2 may not be.

I really would like someone to come on and say why we can't have this reg

 

[andyb]

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.

I've certainly never been under the impression that the need for additional protection for sockets applies to dwellings only. I know the reg applied to commercial & dwellings alike.
However the 3rd amendment precludes dwellings from the risk assessment route.

I too think that it's a sensible route and not just clarifys but gets rid rid of the silly skilled/instructed part.

I also have sympathy with Malcolm's view re 'all 1363 sockets' and would not have a problem with it. But on balance a bit of leeway with a risk assessment from an electrician seems reasonable to me.

I too am enjoying this sensible discussion with fellow sparks, but I suppose I should go & do some work.

 

[Andy78]

Andy78 I was always under the impression that anyone in a work place would be under the EAWR-1989 and therefore would be under that companies H&S and therefore be an "instructed person". Again though that is my interpretation and is not necessarily everyones, but that would be my argument in a court of law, as that is a statutory document.

Love these discussions with sparks, but my bottom line is why can we not get a clear and concise reg as I have mentioned before. AndyB is spot on use a BS 60309-2 socket for anything that you feel does not need RCD protection. It would also start the culture of a sparks/workforce of knowing that a BS 1363 is RCD protected and a BS 60309-2 may not be.

I really would like someone to come on and say why we can't have this reg

Hmmm never thought about it that way, using a blanket H&S policy to cover the categorisation of people. I have always viewed the skilled and instructed persons from the designer and installer's point of view, and made a judgement along with the client a to whether they are deemed skilled or instructed.
I have usually asked the client whether the staff are trained to use equipment safely without additional protection. The answer is always yes. When asked if upon a staff member receiving an electric shock, would it be able to be proved they are skilled or instructed, they always ask for them RCD thingies.

I have always provided RCD protection for 16A commando sockets for general use anyway, and unless specifically labelled for a specific item of equipment will continue to do so.

I have not got my yellow book yet but assume they have left the part in about omission of RCD where a socket is labelled for specific item use, which would still allow a socket of any BS number to be used.

 

[Andy78]

I've certainly never been under the impression that the need for additional protection for sockets applies to dwellings only. I know the reg applied to commercial & dwellings alike.
However the 3rd amendment precludes dwellings from the risk assessment route.

I too think that it's a sensible route and not just clarifys but gets rid rid of the silly skilled/instructed part.

I also have sympathy with Malcolm's view re 'all 1363 sockets' and would not have a problem with it. But on balance a bit of leeway with a risk assessment from an electrician seems reasonable to me.

I too am enjoying this sensible discussion with fellow sparks, but I suppose I should go & do some work.

That's the bit I got confused about then. I suppose I shouldn't comment on details until I get my BYB delivered really.

 

[malcolmsanford]

The labelled socket is still a part of the reg and covers exceptions. Again what was the rationale behind that. Does a socket being labelled make it immune to to the chances of someone getting an electric shock as opposed to a socket not labelled.

So if you labelled a surface run socket in a dwelling for TV use only, that can be omitted from RCD protection.

Then a new owner comes in the label fell off 4 yrs ago and starts to plug anything into it!!!! Where did this one come from

 

[Andy78]

The labelled socket is still a part of the reg and covers exceptions. Again what was the rationale behind that. Does a socket being labelled make it immune to to the chances of someone getting an electric shot as opposed to a socket not labelled.

So if you labelled a surface run socket in a dwelling for TV use only, that can be omitted from RCD protection.

Then a new owner comes in the label fell off 4 yrs ago and starts to plug anything into it!!!! Where did this one come from

I can see the logic for certain fixed equipment that comes pre wired with a plug top. Roller doors, a coffee roaster, a large printer, a pallet wrapper are all examples I have installed labelled 60309-2 sockets for lately and been quite happy to omit RCD protection due to the situation, installed equipment, and users of the equipment.

As I see it the label offers nothing more than instruction to the user, should they choose to heed it, and an arse covering function for the installer.
There are ways of making a label secure if you want to make sure your arse stays covered. The company I used to work for would get all labels engraved or printed onto durable plastic then secured with either M4 bolts or 2 part adhesive.

Obviously it's well open to abuse and I agree, not a very well thought out bit of writing. I'd much rather the options still be there for designers to omit RCD protection though.