Split load board conforms to 17th...?

[spinlondon]

I did six board changes in a private club and was told by my assessor that they would need to comply with 17th edition so would require total RCD protection. You cannot use supervised reg as you do not know what people are going to do in nursery. Being done by a NICEIC contractor does not surprise me that he did not comply as said in a previous thread a NICEIC contractor who fitted a board at the beginning of this year used a RCD main switch board on a job that I looked at how does that comply.Batty

The only time a board would not have to comply with the 17th, is if the design was done before the 17th came into force. (As in the case with the Olympic Village at Stratford).

There is no requirement for any Distribution Board or Consumer Unit to contain an RCD in BS7671. As such you can conduct a board change, state on the EIC that the work complies with BS7671 and note under Comments on Existing Installation the lack of RCD protection. However, that would not be necessary if the installation was covered by the EAWR.

It does not matter what people are going to do in the nursery.

The regulations allow for RCD protection to be ommited if the installation is under the control of a skilled or instructed person.

By Law an installation must be under the control of a skilled or instructed person, if that installation is in a place considered to be a place of work.

Here is Regulation 16 of the EAWR:

"No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."

 

[Nicky Tesla]

"No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."

Who isn't!! qualified to bang a nail in the wall to put a picture up( and go through a cable)

 

[batty]

The only time a board would not have to comply with the 17th, is if the design was done before the 17th came into force. (As in the case with the Olympic Village at Stratford).There is no requirement for any Distribution Board or Consumer Unit to contain an RCD in BS7671. As such you can conduct a board change, state on the EIC that the work complies with BS7671 and note under Comments on Existing Installation the lack of RCD protection. However, that would not be necessary if the installation was covered by the EAWR.

It does not matter what people are going to do in the nursery.

The regulations allow for RCD protection to be ommited if the installation is under the control of a skilled or instructed person.

By Law an installation must be under the control of a skilled or instructed person, if that installation is in a place considered to be a place of work.

Here is Regulation 16 of the EAWR:

"No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."

So are you saying nursery should be RCD protected or not.

?:|

 

[Andy™]

dont forget about people who do stuff like this

 

[kme]

I`d say it needs to be protected by RCD.

Are YOU going to stand in a court, and argue that "so and so" was an "instructed person"? Or even a "skilled person"? I know for a fact I wouldn`t want to try to do that, in ANY premises. Because, if YOU are stating, on the certificate bearing YOUR signature, that the installation is under the control of only skilled or instructed persons; you`d better be capable of PROVING that!

Just RCD the lot - no mess. No fuss. Job done, and you can sleep easier.

Just my opinion.

KME

 

[spinlondon]

The OP's question, seems to me to be whether the board change complied with the Regulations at the time it was changed, and whether it still complies.

To my mind, the answer is yes to both.

There is no requirement to provide RCD protection in BS7671, if the installation is under the control of a skilled or instructed person.

A designer might well consider that a nursery might require RCD protected sockets, as there could be a chance a child might interfere with a socket (The problem with this, is that a child interfering with a socket is as likely to short out the live and neutral as the live and earth. Placing the sockets out of reach is the prefered option.), or that an ordinary person might use a socket.

RCD protection has already been provided by the provision of a split board.

The OP has been asked to quote for installing sockets in a cellar.

I'd ask these questions:

Can the sockets be used for mobile portable equipment outdoors?

Is it reasonably likely that they will be used for mobile portable equipment outdoors?

Will children be able to reach the sockets?

Will the sockets be used by ordinary persons?

Can the sockets be added to a circuit already RCD protected?

If a new circuit has to be provided, can that new circuit be placed on the RCD protected side of the board?

To answer Batty's question, no a nursery does not require RCD protection.

The children would be better protected by placing the sockets out of reach.

 

[Nicky Tesla]

children can reach sockets in any house or school....not a problem to me.

 

[Mark2spark]

I`d say it needs to be protected by RCD.Are YOU going to stand in a court, and argue that "so and so" was an "instructed person"? Or even a "skilled person"? ...

Because, if YOU are stating, on the certificate bearing YOUR signature, that the installation is under the control of only skilled or instructed persons; you`d better be capable of PROVING that!

KME

If I'm reading the thread right there wouldn't be any standing in court, it's quite clear that these premises, by charging people to look after their kids, is a commercial building, and as such, a place of work, and it then follows that the electrical installation MUST be under the control of a supervisor under the EAWR.

Whether the nursery owners choose to comply with this part of the law or not is NOT the responsibility of the installing electrician.

Because of the Aug 09 installation date, I'd say that there had been a boo boo, although the lighting circuits etc that aren't on the rcd side could be in earthed mettallic conduit or one of the qualifying exclusion methods.

 

[kme]

If I'm reading the thread right there wouldn't be any standing in court, it's quite clear that these premises, by charging people to look after their kids, is a commercial building, and as such, a place of work, and it then follows that the electrical installation MUST be under the control of a supervisor under the EAWR.

Right.

1. IF something WERE to happen at this nursery, which was electrical in origin, and someone was badly injured or killed, you don`t believe you would be in court to prove that you were not responsible? Sorry, that is a very naive attitude, IMO. Everybody wants to pass the blame in this day & age; which is why there is so much more paperwork involved in this job than ever before. We cuss it, but it CAN get us out of liability.

2. I agree it is a commercial premises, and that EAWR`89:16 says:

"No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."

Suppose they argue to you that "putting the kettle on to make a cuppa" WASN`T a "work activity"; and is therefore not under the jurisprudence of EAWR:16?

Or are we going to display a label beside every switch, socket, and item of current-using equipment; specifying that "it must only be used by a suitably supervised or qualified person"?

And what would you answer, IF you were asked in this court (the one you don`t think you`d be in when they try to blame YOU) "Why the socket outlets, which are rated at 20A or less, were not protected by a residual current device"?

I believe that, if you try to use EAWR 16 as your sole defence, you`ll be the one who ends up liable for someone`s death, because of a frayed cable on a portable appliance.

(just my opinion)

KME

 

[Mark2spark]

And what would you answer, IF you were asked in this court (the one you don`t think you`d be in when they try to blame YOU) "Why the socket outlets, which are rated at 20A or less, were not protected by a residual current device"?

I thought the sockets *were* on the RCD side of the board?

I'm not sure that we're on the same wavelength on other matters either. Where is the suggestion that the installer has failed to install to 7671?

(Pat testing issues being another matter of course)

 

[Mark2spark]

...a NICEIC contractor who fitted a board at the beginning of this year used a RCD main switch board on a job that I looked at how does that comply.Batty

By replying, it could look like I'm fishing for an argument... I promise that's not the case!

The 'inconvienience' of all circuits failing is for the installer to decide and put his name to.

What happens on TT installations then?

 

[kme]

Right, okay. Having re-read O/P post, we`ll ignore the sockets.

Lets have a cracked faceplate on a light switch, instead.

In this weather, it is not uncommon for condensation to form the internal skin of external walls.

So lets re-iterate my previous post, except that a member of staff did not get supervision from the responsible person, before operating the light switch. The moisture allows current from the switch to track through the cracked faceplate, and give this person a shock.

How do you defend that? You can`t say it is to 7671; unless these circuits comply in some other way; i.e. earthed conduit, etc. Even so, IMO a building such as a nursery needs the highest protection we can provide within the financial remit; and I`d want a high-integrity board, populated with RCBos.

KME

 

[spinlondon]

Damage that occurs to an installation during the life of that installation is something that whilst a designer should consider, it is not something that could be attributed to either the designer or installer. Unless of course, the installer installed the cracked switch plate.

The fact that the equipment has become damaged, and has not been repaired before causing an injury would fall within the province of the EAWR, not BS7671.

It would also be a consideration, that the person injured by using damaged equipment was in contravention of the EAWR, and was working in an unsafe manner.

 

[Mark2spark]

The moisture allows current from the switch to track through the cracked faceplate, and give this person a shock.

How do you defend that? You can`t say it is to 7671; unless these circuits comply in some other way

The thing is KME, at least half the installations in this country WILL comply with the version of 7671 that they were installed to, and that might well mean no rcd protection against your above (unlikely?) scenario.

Where's the requirement (in law) to bring up to current regs?

As well as that, a good few installations would now have been installed by electricians who are no longer with us, where would the 'defend against that?' stance come into it?

I'm not sure where we're going with this, so :coat

 

[kme]

at least half the installations in this country WILL comply with the version of 7671 that they were installed to,Where's the requirement (in law) to bring up to current regs?

Its only a healthy debate mate - don`t need yr coat.

Of the jobs that I see, I would say that many more than 50% wouldn`t have complied with the reg they were installed to - I`m mainly thinking MBCs here., but that is really beside the point.

What I thought we were discussing, is whether the site mentioned by the O/P, regarding an install to current regs, had complied by installing a split load board?

If that isn`t what we`re querying, I`m confused.

AFAIK, unless the wiring is all surface trunking; or in "earthed metallic conduit" or the like; i.e. NOT T+E buried in the wall, then it could have complied with 17th.

Otherwise, it didn`t. Cables <50mm and all that.

?

 

[Mark2spark]

Its only a healthy debate mate - don`t need yr coat.

Cheers mate!

I've re-read the thread again, sort of thought that we was starting to go round in circles, hence the coat, but post number 9 reveals more to me now on second read.

Basically it appears that the flat upstairs has lighting circuits (which a further assumption would be some sort of bathroom) that aren't RCD'd, so the answer to the OP Q is 'FAIL' because of that (Split load not good enough unless rcbo's/conduit etc)

Guinness

 

[spinlondon]

The Regulations allow for commercial installations to not have 30mA RCD protection on circuits buried in the walls less than 50mm, or for socket outlets, even if the socket outlets can be used for equipment outdoors or they are intended for use by ordinary persons.

This is because, by law all commercial premises where people work, must be under the control of a skilled or instructed person.

 

[kme]

Not doubting you here Spin, which law is that mate?

 

[batty]

The Regulations allow for commercial installations to not have 30mA RCD protection on circuits buried in the walls less than 50mm, or for socket outlets, even if the socket outlets can be used for equipment outdoors or they are intended for use by ordinary persons.This is because, by law all commercial premises where people work, must be under the control of a skilled or instructed person.

Well I was told by my part p provider that the private club I did would need total Rcd protection on consumer unit changes. Now I would class that as commercial. The way I see it is you do not know what some idiot is going to do so RCD protect it your rear is protected. Although personally I think if you choose your circuit breakers correctly and some fool drills through a cable that breaker will trip but we don't right the regulations we just work to them.

Batty

 

[ianmacd]

This is because, by law all commercial premises where people work, must be under the control of a skilled or instructed person.

But in this instance the supply is shared with the dwelling which does require RCD on circuits in bathrooms etc....

Ian.