Split load board conforms to 17th...?

[chris_k]

Thanks for all the replies regarding my original question. Ive been away for a while so havent posted. Its nice to have a cordial debate, unlike the sf forum!

Just to clear a few things up.

The board was installed in august 09. The main intake and board is in the cellar. This board supplys the nursery and a seperate flat above. (currently, and at the time of board change un-occupied).

It is a split load board with all lighting + cooker supply (which includes socket) on non RCD side. All sockets on RCD side.

All bonding good.

I have since talked to the installer. His lads did the board under his instructions using the board he supplied them. His argument was the EAW regs "Instructed persons" one. When i mentioned the upstairs flat he said this was not designated a dwelling by the owner so he didnt treat it as one.

In my quote for the works requested, ive gone for replacing the mcb to rcbo on the lighting circuit ill be working on. Just to satisfy my own concerns.

Onec again thanks for the discussion!

 

[Apache]

I think that's all you can do Chris

 

[ianmacd]

Unless its had its change of use from a dwelling to a com/ind premesis (along with associated planning permission then its still a dwelling whether the owner thinks so or not.

If it was me I would also be notifying BC though your little club as you have changed the protective device on a circuit that can be/is used in a special location or kitchen.

Ian.

 

[kme]

Chris, I`d also pick up on the cooker cct. You don`t say if that is the flat or the nursery; but, AFAIAC it doesn`t matter - it should be on RCD/RCBo.

(ergo: it didn`t comply in the first place,IMO)

Ian - IF the lighting cct is supplying the nursery; then notification is NOT necessary, as its commercial. However, I agree with IanMcD, as regards "change of use"!

KME

 

[spinlondon]

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

The EAWR.

The Regulations for RCD protecting are a bit of a mess.

Under the 16th edition, sockets that could reasonably be used for equipment outdoors had to have RCD protection. This applied to any installation, whether domestic, commercial, agricultural or a construction site. There were also requirements for some equipment and circuits in special locations containing baths and showers.

There are now additional requirements for RCD protection, that cover fixed wiring concealled in walls and virtually all sockets.

These aditional requirements have a get out clause for if the installation is under the control of skilled or instructed persons, or if the sockets are not for use by ordinary persons. This get out clause now also applies to all sockets, even those that can reasonably be used for equipment outdoors.

The get out clause applies mostly to commercial premises, however it can be applied to domestic premises as well. For instance, a caretaker's house at a School or Nurses' accomodation at a Hospital. It can also be applied to guest rooms in Hotels, Residential care homes, Prisons and Barracks.

The skilled or instructed person does not have to be present to be in control of the installation.

A Skilled person is someone with the technical knowledge or sufficient experience to enable him/her to avoid dangers which electricity may create.

An Instructed person is someone adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her to avoid dangers which electricity may

create.

An Ordinary person is neither of the above.

 

[kme]

I`m aware of all that mate, although others may not be.

What, exactly, is the regulation saying that all commercial premises must be under the control of a skilled / instructed person?

 

[spinlondon]

There is no particular Regulation that states the installation must be under the control of a skilled or instructed person.

However as you can see, Regulation 16 requires that workers should not carry out a work activity unless they meet the requirements for skilled or instructed persons.

Regulation 16 of EAWR 1989:

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.

There are other Regulations in EAWR, relating to Duty Holders and their responsibilities. Each place of work should have a Duty Holder.

Interpertation of both BS7671 and EAWR are obviously subjective, however EAWR is a statutory requirement as opposed to BS7671 which is just a standard. Compliance with BS7671 would be considered as meeting the requirements of EAWR.

There is guidance published by the HSE on EWAR, which can be found here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsr25.pdf

 

[kme]

Okay. I`ve just read the whole of Reg 16, and associated guidance.

IMO, the upthrust seems to be that this applies to people working ON or WITH electrical equipment (i.e. you & me). I am aware that EAWR regs affect all workplaces; but I still did not see any reference to "any commercial premises being under the control of a skilled / instructed person".

Sorry to be argumentative mate; I just don`t believe that has any relevance to the argument per se.

KME

p.s. nice link

 

[spinlondon]

The EAWR applies to the employer, all employees, and their work activities, even if that activity is just switching on some lights or a kettle.

Regulation 16 requires that they must have sufficient knowledge or experience to carry out their work activities in a safe manner, or to be supervised.

If they have sufficient knowledge, then they would meet the requirements for a skilled person.

If they do not have sufficient knowledge, then the must be supervised (obviously by someone with sufficient knowledge), and they would then meet the requirements for an instructed person.

 

[kme]

Agreed.

However, is the switching on of the kettle in the staff room considered a "work activity"?

 

[ianmacd]

Ian - IF the lighting cct is supplying the nursery; then notification is NOT necessary, as its commercial. However, I agree with IanMcD, as regards "change of use"!

If its still a dwelling (i.e. no change of use) then, AIUI, the whole supply (when shared) is subject to Part P so even if the lighting cct only supplies the nursery then it may well still need RCD to satisfy other requirements (cable depth, special location etc...).

On the EAWR, I am a bit lost on what is trying to be advised there. If it is there is not a need for putting RCD's on ccts then this would not be the case as Part P still applies and may still require RCD's.

IMHO, its better to over protect than risk someones safety but obviosuly not to the point of introducing regular nusance tripping.

Ian.

 

[kme]

Don`t know "AIUI"? As I understand it, perhaps?

I wouldn`t agree with that, but as for the rest of the post, deffo, IMHO.

With the relatively low cost of RCDs / RBCos, I cannot really see a valid argument against their use, where a "grey area" of legislation exists.

KME

 

[spinlondon]

Agreed.However, is the switching on of the kettle in the staff room considered a "work activity"?

What do you think it is? You would be having your break during work.

The break would I assume be as per your contract of employment.

The Staff room is in a place of work.

Do you really think that EAWR stops when you are having a break?

Do you think that regulations pertaining to noise levels and minimum working temperatures etc. are held in abayance whilst you are on a break?

As for this nonsence about Part P.

One of the accepted ways of meeting building control regulations, is to comply with BS7671. It is Bs7671 that has had a new edition, not Part P.

There are no requirements within Part P for RCD protection.

If a dwelling is under the control of a skilled or instructed person, then RCD protection can be ommited for socket outlets and cables concealed in walls.

You can choose to do what ever you want. Don't moan about other people that are complying with the Regulations.

You may think that speed limits are too high, that doesn't mean that other people can't drive at the speed limits.

 

[Mark2spark]

Clearly, what is best practice and what someone can 'get away with' are two different things.

Is this the place for tut tutting over another's moral judgement?

Each to their (legal) own I say.

In the meantime:

In my quote for the works requested, ive gone for replacing the mcb to rcbo on the lighting circuit ill be working on. Just to satisfy my own concerns.

Let's hear it for Chris Applaud Smiley Applaud Smiley Applaud Smiley

I also think that the owner not designating the flat as a dwelling is a grey area. If it's got a separate front door I think it's a dwelling and I personally would install as if it was IMO.

 

[ianmacd]

As for this nonsence about Part P.One of the accepted ways of meeting building control regulations, is to comply with BS7671. It is Bs7671 that has had a new edition, not Part P.

There are no requirements within Part P for RCD protection.

If a dwelling is under the control of a skilled or instructed person, then RCD protection can be ommited for socket outlets and cables concealed in walls.

You can choose to do what ever you want. Don't moan about other people that are complying with the Regulations.

You may think that speed limits are too high, that doesn't mean that other people can't drive at the speed limits.

How can you possibly justify that a dwelling will always be "under the control of a skilled or instructed person"? You can not therefore you have to RCD protect any socket. In fact 411.3.3 (a) says in commercial or industrial locations which a dwelling is not.

As for "this nonsence about Part P", its clearly not nonsence. Shared meter therefore the whole installation comes under part p so a ccu change is notifiable, as is working on any special location/kitchen cct. Once something is considered a dwelling under part P then EAWR can not be used to omit an RCD that is required under part P.

Ian.

 

[spinlondon]

How can you possibly justify that a dwelling will always be "under the control of a skilled or instructed person"? You can not therefore you have to RCD protect any socket. In fact 411.3.3 (a) says in commercial or industrial locations which a dwelling is not.As for "this nonsence about Part P", its clearly not nonsence. Shared meter therefore the whole installation comes under part p so a ccu change is notifiable, as is working on any special location/kitchen cct. Once something is considered a dwelling under part P then EAWR can not be used to omit an RCD that is required under part P.

Ian.

How can I justify? Do you mean how can I guarantee?

I can't guarantee what will happen in the future, but then I'm not required to.

I don't need to know if a dwelling is always going to be under the control of a skilled or instructed person, just as I don't need to know that commercial premises will always be under the control of skilled or instructed persons.

All I need to know, is to what use the installation I am installing is going to be put to.

Oh please, if you are going to quote Regulations, don't edit them to try to make them say what you want. Where it says e.g. this is an abreviation of exemplī grātiā, which is Latin for "for example."

So 411.3.3 (a) socket-outlets for use under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons, e.g. (for example) in some commercial or industrial locations.

Please note, the exception states "under the supervison of", the person using the socket-outlet, does not in fact themself have to be skilled or instructed.

I don't disagree, that it would come under Part P if there is a shared supply.

What I disagree with is the nonsensical belief that PartP requires RCDs.

There is nothing in Part P requiring an RCD to be used.

I have not suggested EAWR can be used to omit anything.

I have pointed out that BS7671 allows for RCDs to be ommited. I have then pointed out, that EAWR requires anyone carrying out a work activity to be skilled or instructed.

 

[batty]

As far as I am concerned if i had done the job I would not have used a 16th edition board all circuits would have been RCD protected on RCBO's and if owner would not pay for that I would not do the job.

Batty

 

[ianmacd]

Part P applies to all dwellings, I believe we agree on that.

This installation is under part P, which we also agree on so the CCU change should have been notified.

I would also guess that we all agree that any lighting circuit in a special location needs to be RCD protected in a dwelling?

Now the grey area seems to be whether this requirement also extends to the "business unit" (i.e. the nursery in this case) as it also falls under part P.

IMHO it is always better to over protect than risk fire, safely and all the legalities associated with them so if there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Unless there is an overwhelming case for not RCD protecting circuits (dedicated freezer socket etc...), then I would always attempt to fit one. Unless the customer has specifically requested one not fitted in which case I would get a signed waiver from them stating they do not want RCD protected circuits as the users either are or are supervised by a skilled or instructed person(s).

It would be interesting (form an academic viewpoint obviously) to ask all of the little clubs what their views on this are and compare their answers or possibly even a poll on here but I believe we are going a bit off topic now.

So to get back on topic, the argument that the split load board complied with the 16th. This was not a major piece of work. In fact most installers probably would not do much planning for this kind of swap out (not int he magnitude of a year anyway) so that argument has no real merit.

There could be a variety of reasons why it was fitted and I'm sure the original installer could justify it but we are just second guessing that without all the facts and I also think we are stretching to conclusions based on our own experiences, which is not wrong but is probably not what the original installer designed for.

At the end of the day we all have to justify our decisions to ourselves (and hopefully never to a court of law) and as long as we are able to do that then "all is well".

Anyway, I believe this thread has probably run its course now as there is still too much of a grey area there and people will always have different opinions on the grey parts. The only real way this thread will go now is not a good place (in fact probably a Sf place) so I think I will leave it there.

Besides its only one sleep to santa now and I don't want to be a bad boy this late in the year and risk getting no pressies .

Merry Xmas.

Ian.

 

[batty]

This installation has to comply with 7671 so 16th edition consumer unit will not comly unless it has total rcd protection or cables are surface, or in metal earthed conduit although all sockets will need rcd protection unless they are over 20 amps.

Batty

 

[kme]

Agreed - with all the preceeding posts; especially Ian`s r.e. thread having "run its course".

Suggest the thread is either left where we are; or "locked"

Don`t peep at Santa tonight.

Hope all of you have a lovely Christmas, and the weather doesn`t stuff your plans up too much!

KME