Was RCD protection required for cables <50mm in 2007?

[HappyHippyDad]

Hello all..

I have just completed an EICR.
One item that I am unsure about is requirements for RCD protection prior to the 17th.
The consumer unit has RCD protection for sockets but not the lights or cooker. New work was carried out in 2006/7 which included lights/extractor fan in the new bathroom and also cables chased into walls <50mm for the cooker circuit. Should this have been RCD protected under the 16th?

Cheers.

 

[telectrix]

no. that requirement came in 2008 with 17th.

 

[streamer]

I think the bathroom lights should have been rcd protected under 16th edition but not sure. But it doesn't really matter when it was done, an EICR is carried out to current standards is it not? Obviously older installations don't meet the requirements of the 17th edition, and come July nothing will meet the requirements of the 18th edition!

 

[streamer]

And if the cooker circuit has a socket on the outlet it should have rcd protection.

 

[Risteard]

One item that I am unsure about is requirements for RCD protection prior to the 17th.
The consumer unit has RCD protection for sockets but not the lights or cooker. New work was carried out in 2006/7 which included lights/extractor fan in the new bathroom and also cables chased into walls <50mm for the cooker circuit. Should this have been RCD protected under the 16th?

No, there wasn't any requirement under the 16th Edition. However, it should be remembered that you are not assessing against the requirements of the 16th Edition so that is actually irrelevant. You need to make a judgement on the safety of the installation today, bearing in mind that no additional protection (which incidentally was called supplementary protection under the 16th Edition) by a 30mA RCD where now required MUST be given a coded observation.

 

[Risteard]

I think the bathroom lights should have been rcd protected under 16th edition but not sure.

That's not correct. Supplementary bonding was the order of the day.

 

[ipf]

That's not correct. Supplementary bonding was the order of the day.

Yes....and prior to that we had the 15th.....bond everything, unless it moves.

 

[suffolkspark]

code appropriately to todays regs, C3 for cables <50mm in wall with no RCD, imo potentially a C2 for those bathroom bits depending which zone they fall in if any.

 

[telectrix]

code appropriately to todays regs, C3 for cables <50mm in wall with no RCD, imo potentially a C2 for those bathroom bits depending which zone they fall in if any.

if fittings are correctly installed they won't fall in anywhere.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I agree with the majority of you. If RCD protection was not required under the 16th then its a C3 as the regs are not retrospective.

 

[robd]

Socket outlets were on the rcd side of the split load boards and cookers were as well when they had the isolator with socket on it.

 

[AJshep]

Socket outlets were on the rcd side of the split load boards and cookers were as well when they had the isolator with socket on it.

Generally they were, but if I remember correctly under the 16th Edition it stated that RCD protection was required for socket outlets that were reasonably expected to supply outside equipment.
So if you lived in a top floor flat there was no need.

 

[Risteard]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I agree with the majority of you. If RCD protection was not required under the 16th then its a C3 as the regs are not retrospective.

Compliance at the time of installation is not relevant to coding today.

 

[davesparks]

I agree with the majority of you. If RCD protection was not required under the 16th then its a C3 as the regs are not retrospective.

The 16th is irrelevant, you inspect and test to the current regulations.

Complying with a previous edition doesn’t necessarily make something non-compliant (for example old wiring colours) but that does not mean that you change your code dependant on when it was installed.
If it requires RCD protection now then it should be coded accordingly regardless of when it was installed.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

The 16th is irrelevant, you inspect and test to the current regulations.

Complying with a previous edition doesn’t necessarily make something non-compliant (for example old wiring colours) but that does not mean that you change your code dependant on when it was installed.
If it requires RCD protection now then it should be coded accordingly regardless of when it was installed.

Can I make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that as soon as the regs change, then if you carry out an EICR then the codes would be related to the current regulations?

For example, 4.4 on the EICR schedule of inspections relates to fire rating of the CU. Nearly all CU's (because they are plastic) will not meet this regulation so will need to be coded accordingly.

In addition, I guess red/black cable could be classed as not being identified correctly so would need to be coded under 5.1 of the schedule of inspections.

There would be many, many more examples. I'm not sure if this is the point you are trying to get across as you are usually right but in this case it seems you are suggesting older properties which met the regulations at the time will be coded if they do not meet current regulations?

 

[Richard Burns]

I would say that you are assessing for safety of continued operation, the guide to this safety is the current edition of the wiring regulations.
However if you assess something that has red and black cables the mere colour of them (which does not meet current regulations) would not be a significant risk and so would not be coded.
If you consider that a plastic CU would present a risk then that may be coded to a level that you consider appropriate to the situation.

 

[ipf]

I would say that you are assessing for safety of continued operation, the guide to this safety is the current edition of the wiring regulations.
However if you assess something that has red and black cables the mere colour of them (which does not meet current regulations) would not be a significant risk and so would not be coded.
If you consider that a plastic CU would present a risk then that may be coded to a level that you consider appropriate to the situation.

When you think about it, the situation of plastic CU's only came about when fuse carriers were replaced by circuit breakers. No high ranking electrical knob had the slightest idea what was going to happen there, did they?

The situation regarding circuit protection should take into account the state of the existing installation. No sign of any danger and been in place for ages, discounting other factors, where's the problem? Attention advised. C3.

 

[davesparks]

Can I make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that as soon as the regs change, then if you carry out an EICR then the codes would be related to the current regulations?

For example, 4.4 on the EICR schedule of inspections relates to fire rating of the CU. Nearly all CU's (because they are plastic) will not meet this regulation so will need to be coded accordingly.

In addition, I guess red/black cable could be classed as not being identified correctly so would need to be coded under 5.1 of the schedule of inspections.

There would be many, many more examples. I'm not sure if this is the point you are trying to get across as you are usually right but in this case it seems you are suggesting older properties which met the regulations at the time will be coded if they do not meet current regulations?

Yes you inspect and code to the current regulations.
As you already know you only make observations about, and code accordingly, safety related items.

Old colour wiring is not immediately dangerous, is not potentially dangerous, does not attract any recommendation for improvement nor require further investigation therefore no observation is made or code applied.

Yes I am saying that any installation which was installed to previous regulations will have observations made and codes applied to any safety related non-compliance.

The regulations are changed to improve safety and some of the reasons for carrying out an eicr is to ensure its continued safety for use, highlight improvements which could be made in light of advances in technology and regulations and to help bring older installations up to current standards.

Yes this can seem a little over the top in domestic installations, but domestic installations are only a small part of the broad scope of bs7671.

 

[davesparks]

Can I make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that as soon as the regs change, then if you carry out an EICR then the codes would be related to the current regulations?

For example, 4.4 on the EICR schedule of inspections relates to fire rating of the CU. Nearly all CU's (because they are plastic) will not meet this regulation so will need to be coded accordingly.

In addition, I guess red/black cable could be classed as not being identified correctly so would need to be coded under 5.1 of the schedule of inspections.

There would be many, many more examples. I'm not sure if this is the point you are trying to get across as you are usually right but in this case it seems you are suggesting older properties which met the regulations at the time will be coded if they do not meet current regulations?

Yes you inspect and code to the current regulations.
As you already know you only make observations about, and code accordingly, safety related items.

Old colour wiring is not immediately dangerous, is not potentially dangerous, does not attract any recommendation for improvement nor require further investigation therefore no observation is made or code applied.

Yes I am saying that any installation which was installed to previous regulations will have observations made and codes applied to any safety related non-compliance.

The regulations are changed to improve safety and some of the reasons for carrying out an eicr is to ensure its continued safety for use, highlight improvements which could be made in light of advances in technology and regulations and to help bring older installations up to current standards.

Yes this can seem a little over the top in domestic installations, but domestic installations are only a small part of the broad scope of bs7671.

 

[Nigel]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I agree with the majority of you. If RCD protection was not required under the 16th then its a C3 as the regs are not retrospective.

If the socket is likely to feed portable equipment outside then it is a C2.

 

[Teddy Lop]

code appropriately to todays regs, C3 for cables <50mm in wall with no RCD, imo potentially a C2 for those bathroom bits depending which zone they fall in if any.

I'm just thumbing through a copy of "EICR codebreakers", hopefully to see that my old brains understanding is mostly in accord. All was going well until page 38, 5.12.3, I had a jolt:

"No RCD protection PVC/PVC cables in walls : C2"

Also page 37 522.6.202-204 - less than 50mm, no RCD, : C2

This goes completely against my understanding that the regs and reporting are not retro-active (aside from a few specific areas such as RCD protection for bathrooms/exterior accessible sockets,) that older installations not meeting current spec is always C3? The only time you'd C2 it would be if the work were recent enough for it to be a requirement?

 

[radiohead]

I'm just thumbing through a copy of "EICR codebreakers", hopefully to see that my old brains understanding is mostly in accord. All was going well until page 38, 5.12.3, I had a jolt:

"No RCD protection PVC/PVC cables in walls : C2"

Also page 37 522.6.202-204 - less than 50mm, no RCD, : C2

This goes completely against my understanding that the regs and reporting are not retro-active (aside from a few specific areas such as RCD protection for bathrooms/exterior accessible sockets,) that older installations not meeting current spec is always C3? The only time you'd C2 it would be if the work were recent enough for it to be a requirement?

Codebreakers is rubbish, ignore it.
You as the inspector need to judge the potential danger. A switch drop directly above a point hardly warrents a code 2, but I would consider 25mm tails buried, unprotected and unexpected to be potentially dangerous and may apply a code 2. In nearly all cases lack of RCD protection to a buried cable installed in a safe zone is only going to get a code 3. Always bear in mind when coding that it is very hard to justify to a client that their installation freshly wired and compliant just a few years ago is now potentially dangerous.
Whether the work is recent has no bearing on the safety and code applied.

 

[Teddy Lop]

Codebreakers is rubbish, ignore it.
You as the inspector need to judge the potential danger. A switch drop directly above a point hardly warrents a code 2, but I would consider 25mm tails buried, unprotected and unexpected to be potentially dangerous and may apply a code 2. In nearly all cases lack of RCD protection to a buried cable installed in a safe zone is only going to get a code 3. Always bear in mind when coding that it is very hard to justify to a client that their installation freshly wired and compliant just a few years ago is now potentially dangerous.
Whether the work is recent has no bearing on the safety and code applied.

yes, you are correct, thinking about it I'd never C2 it unless out of zone, although on a newer install that requires it theres more scope at least.

TBF theres a few things I take umbridge with in the codebreakers - no downlight fire hood C2? exposed insulation at downlight connectors C2? maybe I'll chuck it back at the wholesalers! Thought I was doing the right thing as I've had a right somewhat of an nic inspector the last few years who seems to go out of his way to snag my certs.

 

[radiohead]

yes, you are correct, thinking about it I'd never C2 it unless out of zone, although on a newer install that requires it theres more scope at least.

TBF theres a few things I take umbridge with in the codebreakers - no downlight fire hood C2? exposed insulation at downlight connectors C2? maybe I'll chuck it back at the wholesalers! Thought I was doing the right thing as I've had a right somewhat of an nic inspector the last few years who seems to go out of his way to snag my certs.

I think your NICEIC guy may just want to discuss your coding in order to make sure you can reasonably justify whatever the code is with technical reasoning.

 

[Risteard]

exposed insulation at downlight connectors C2?

What issue do you have with this? The sheath is there to provide mechanical protection to the cable, and therefore to protect the insulation against mechanical insult. If the sheath has been removed at that point outside of an enclosure then essentially there is no mechanical protection at that point. To me that would justify a C2 observation.

 

[davesparks]

This goes completely against my understanding that the regs and reporting are not retro-active (aside from a few specific areas such as RCD protection for bathrooms/exterior accessible sockets,) that older installations not meeting current spec is always C3? The only time you'd C2 it would be if the work were recent enough for it to be a requirement?

As I said earlier in this thread you carry out an EICR acvo4idng to the current regulations, you do not make exceptions based on the date of installation or the regulations in effect at the time of installation.

You cannot just give a C3 to anything that complied at the time of installation, you'd be giving fused neutrals and green coloured live conductors a C3 if that was the case!

The regulations state that compliance with a previous version of the regulations does not necessarily mean something is unsafe.
The key point is that it says 'not necessarily', this means that it may be unsafe Or it may not be unsafe, further consideration is required to reach a decision.

 

[Risteard]

I think the bathroom lights should have been rcd protected under 16th edition

No requirement under the 16th Edition. Just socket-outlets which might reasonably be used to supply portable equipment outdoors, although many did it for all socket-outlets and electric showers too. (Likely to have stipulated RCD protection in the electric shower manufacturer's instructions.)

Typically a split load DB was used with non-RCD protected ways and RCD protected ways. RCBOs certainly weren't really a thing (and were hugely expensive).

EDIT: That's embarassing - I see I already answered this post a number of years ago!

 

[Pretty Mouth]

What issue do you have with this? The sheath is there to provide mechanical protection to the cable, and therefore to protect the insulation against mechanical insult. If the sheath has been removed at that point outside of an enclosure then essentially there is no mechanical protection at that point. To me that would justify a C2 observation.

Best practice guide 4 suggests a C3 for this, assuming the unsheathed cores are not accessible to touch, or likely to come into contact wit metalwork

 

[radiohead]

Best practice guide 4 suggests a C3 for this, assuming the unsheathed cores are not accessible to touch, or likely to come into contact wit metalwork

Agreed, a typical downlight will have connections not exposed to touch. C3.
Many GU10 downlights have basic insulation only on the lampholder wires, exposed to touch when changing the lamp

 

[Andy78]

Agreed, a typical downlight will have connections not exposed to touch. C3.
Many GU10 downlights have basic insulation only on the lampholder wires, exposed to touch when changing the lamp

That's usually reinforced insulation as far as I know.