Looking For A Reg No For An Eicr

[Sidewinder]

I can't go into too much detail, but suffice to say section 710 is not quite applicable, bearing in mind the recent changes.

I have a patient environment supplied by an SWA sub main from the origin, which will be suitably fused.

Terminology carefully selected.

The sub main is RCD protected within the dwelling.

The patient environment is a "portacabin" type building in the garden of the dwelling.

In the event of the RCD tripping, and it being dark, the "patient" would have to work by emergency light for a little while, go out into the weather, back into the dwelling to reset the RCD.

Then return to the patient environment.

I want to persuade my client to change this to having an RCD in the DB in the "portacabin", however I NEED to put a reg no against it, I can't find one.

I'm not looking for work for works sake, but I believe that it should be done for "patient" convenience.

I don't think I can use 134.1.1, or 510.3, so, struggling to think of one.

I don't like it, but unless I can give a reg no. I can't really code it, or get them to do it, if I can then I can get them to let me sort it when I sort the other issues with the sub mains.

The existing RCD must be changed for other reasons, I just need the reg no to give me the reasons to move it into the CU & replace the CU, replacing the existing RCD with a main switch or terminal block.

To replace or re-work the sub main is a non starter & the RCD is part way down the sub main, so it will not reach its origin without a JB of some sort.

Whilst I know it is not dangerous, I would like to give it a C3, but can't at the moment find a valid reason!

Any suggestions as to suitable reg. no.'s please?

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

I agree with your concerns but don't believe you will find a regulation. How about trying the Health & safety or duty of care route

 

[steptoe]

Inconvenience under fault conditions,?

A bit like just having one front end 30mA for everything.

:C

sorry, thats the best I can come up with, and Im out and dont know the reg off my head.

 

[Sidewinder]

Have kept looking, 132.12 anyone?

It is accessible, just, currently mounted just short of 2.4m FFFL.

 

[NozSpark]

I'd have to agree with Steps,,, especially given the height of the RCD

Could the "end user" be classed as disabled in any way???

 

[Sidewinder]

No end user is able bodied.

Single front end RCD is not an issue.

However, I have to have a reg no.!

Struggling here.

 

[steptoe]

314.1 (i) (iii)

314.2

 

[Sidewinder]

Steps,

I don't believe that the system needs separate RCD's I believe that a single up front unit is acceptable.

314.1 (i) talks about division into separate circuits, this is not the issue, I don't think I can take it there.

314.1 (iii) we have considered, EM lighting is provided.

314.2 again is separation of circuits.

I don't believe I can push this point.

The point I feel I can push is the location of the single RCD & I can;t pin this down to a reg, & I don't think I can spin those or any of the others I have quoted around to say this TBH.

I may just have to write it long hand and explain why I feel it needs moving and let them decide from their standpoint if they agree?

 

[steptoe]

314.1 (i) states minimise inconvenience

thats what i would have went on,

how is it convenient for a less able person to have to go through what you describe simply to reset a remote RCD?

but, I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[NozSpark]

Could it be detrimental to the end users health if the equipment they are using for their treatment stops working?

 

[Sidewinder]

Steps,

That is the reg I searched for originally until I read the wording wrt separate circuits.

Can't find anything else yet!

Noz,

Only for periods over 48 hrs in which case they would go onto the ward anyway.

One of the conditions of their "treatment" at home is that they are basically able bodied, or have an able bodied carer.

 

[steptoe]

see, I read that as each section (x) is a specific part and not part of any other section,

ie, each section on its own must be complied with seperately from any other section,

for me, a front end RCD is perfectly fine, but to add something on to a circuit with a front end RCD then it now becomes non compliant, at the very least a C3

TBH, you could probably class a front end 30mA as a C3 on its own, and if you add on to a front end then you have a deviation, albeit perhaps not dangerous, but still a non compliance.

interpetation, its mad, why do we have regs that even the people that write them now refuse to state what they mean,  :shakehead

 

[Sidewinder]

Dunno Steps,

I'd have a job in justifying condemning an up front RCD as it is what we install now on the minimal jobs that we do covering the same services and function as the cabin.

I would like to go to 2 pole RCBO's, but there are other issues, and I can't discuss them in detail in open forum.

I have done the EICR on the install, and if there is a power failure to the "cabin" then there is EM lighting, if, the RCD was in the room, the patient could carry on with their treatment within a few minutes, as it is in the main property they could not, it would either end their treatment for the night, or, at least for an hour, and the cost in lost treatment materials would be significant.

IF it happened regularly a cost vs cost analysis would be easy, but it rarely happens.

SO another difficult point to justify the move.

Hence why IF I had a reg it would be easy!!!

OK 314.1 & 2 are:

[SIZE=12pt]314 DIVISION OF INSTALLATION[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](i)                 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]avoid danger and minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](ii)               [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]facilitate safe inspection, testing and maintenance (see also Section 537)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](iii)             [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]take account of hazards that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](iv)             [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor (PE) currents not due to a fault[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](v)               [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]mitigate the effects of electromagnetic disturbances (see also Chapter 44)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](vi)             [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]prevent the indirect energizing of a circuit intended to be isolated.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]314.2[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Separate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation which need to be separately controlled, in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits, and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device.[/SIZE]

 

[NozSpark]

There you go then..

314.1.i ...... minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault

314.2 in it's entirity

 

[steptoe]

[SIZE=12pt]314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](i) [/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]  ...minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault[/SIZE]

yer, I pulled it out,

that is probably the best you will get, I think,

dunno what else there is, its obviously not dangerous, so deffo not a C1, and a C2 would be very hard to justify.

C3 at most which is simply recommend improvement.

There you go then..

314.1.i ...... minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault

314.2 in it's entirity

bejaysus,

someone agrees with me,



you OK Noz,?

:slap

 

[NozSpark]

Feeling a little flight headed TBH

 

[Sidewinder]

Guys, I'm not sure that I can apply this to the location of the RCD.

There are only 3 (max) critical circuits and failure of any one would necessitate the treatment stopping anyway, so the fact that they are linked I'm not worried about.

314.1 & 2 relate to division of the installation into circuits.

I'm not sure I can relate this to the location of the RCD.

I could use this to push them down the split board or RCBO scenario, but, not sure that it will get the go ahead.

However, moving the RCD and possibly changing the board for a single RCD unit may get the goahead.

We are only talking about 6 circuits in total, in a single room, not much bigger than a large living room, say 12' square.

If I go down the split load board scenario then I would have to put the related circuits onto a single RCD anyway, as if one fails then the treatment has to stop, so there is nothing to be gained from splitting them across 2 RCD's.

To go to RCBO's will require a long and protracted negotiation with the client along with samples & field trials & a change to the specification.

I will also need to ensure that I can support the boards for circa 10 years with parts.

A lot to think about.

 

[Manator]

I have just this minute picked up on this thread, I take it this is a stand alone treatment room? Also it sounds like a NHS facility.

Off the top of my head there are some guidelines for such NHS utilised buildings which are still relevant.

As always it comes down to risk, and cost.

One thing that I would say is the original design is wrong, any and all isolation and protection should be adjacent to, or within the treatment room.

As far as BS7671 goes I think you would struggle to get a definitive reg number to support your argument, however if you speak to the estates manager you may be able to convince them of the shortfalls of the installation.

 

[Marvo]

Sometimes with situations like this if the cost is relatively low ie it's mostly a matter of reconfiguring existing components into different locations we would just kinda build the cost into the larger scheme of works rather than trying to justify it as an individual exercise. Obviously it depends very much on the entire scope of works.

 

[Sidewinder]

No scope of future works Marvo!