RCD or no RCD?

[revjames]

Hi there, I recently did PIRs on 3 industrial units. They were recently vacated and it was council policy to have an inspection done prior to any new commercial tenants moving in.

I put down category 2 for no RCD protection on sockets. Thinking about it, the sockets were wired in steel conduit in the warehouses and surface trunking in the offices. I don't know if they will be accessed by 'ordinary persons' or not.

I have been back and put all socket outlets on RCDs. Is this OTT?

 

[Apache]

Yes

But not going to do any harm is it. If it's surface fixed no requirement AFAIK

 

[Lurch]

I'd have left them, although maybe advised that the warehouse ones be RCD protected due to the fact they are in the warehouse rather than due to any wiring methods.

 

[revjames]

Thanks Patch, I know surface in a house means no RCD required wasnt sure about commercial/industrial situations. I know it matters wether or not the outlets are used by trained or supervised persons or just ordinary. The thing is the units are empty and coukld be occupied by any type of business so thought it best to be on the safe side.

 

[Lurch]

As someone pointed out a while ago to me, notes on the PIR should be deviations from the regs, not personal opinion so if they don;t need an RCD then don;t put it down. I'm going to start doing personal recommendations separately in an appendix, just in case ahyone pulls me up on it.

 

[Andy™]

id say code 4 at worst

 

[revjames]

Hmmm seems to be a lot of differing opinions about this. The boss wasnt sure and some people I work with said yes and others no so in the end went with gut instinct.

 

[ianmacd]

Since there are currently no trained or supervised people on site they should be RCD'd. That may change in the future but you are not a fortune teller.

Ian.

 

[Lurch]

If they're in galv tube there's no need, and the others on the surface aren't required to be RCD protected either, are they?

 

[kme]

As far as "socket outlets" go, the fact that they`re surface doesn`t make an iota of difference. If they`re "standard" socket outlets, they should be on RCD`s for 17th compliance. You are performing your PIR to the 17th; therefore you`d note down that the socket outlets do not comply with reg. x (BRB in van-sorry ). I would prob code 4 it, as andy said - doesn`t comply, but isn`t necessarily unsafe.

KME

 

[Lurch]

Quite right, forgot about that bit.

 

[batty]

I generally would try to RCD sockets but not in offices with computers as others have said should be code 4.

Batty

 

[spinlondon]

I think we've done this before.

Regulation 411.3.3 requires socket-outlets to be RCD protected.

It has as an exception:

"socket-outlets for use under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons, e.g. in some commercial or industrial locations."

Commercial or industrial locations containing special locations, such as saunas, swimming pools and rooms with showers, would require RCD protection to socket-outlets in those special locations.

Regulation 522.6.7 refers to cables conceled in walls in installations, "not intended to be under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person."

As such, this installation complies with BS7671 and there is no requirement for it to have any RCD protection.

There is no reason why personal observations that do not contravene the Regulations cannot be placed on the form.

I often observe that installations could benefit from modernisation. I feel that a number of bedrooms do not have sufficient socket-outlets, especially for teenagers.

Recommendations should be coded, and I would always include the Regulation No. that applied.

 

[kme]

Regulation 411.3.3 requires socket-outlets to be RCD protected.

It has as an exception:

"socket-outlets for use under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons, e.g. in some commercial or industrial locations."

The operative word being "some"! Not ALL.

As such, this installation complies with BS7671 and there is no requirement for it to have any RCD protection.

Depends, IMO, if this particular installation will fall within the exception to 411.3.3 .....

There is no reason why personal observations that do not contravene the Regulations cannot be placed on the form.

Agreed - although NOT under "observations & recommendations". They would be correctly noted under "comments on existing installation"

I often observe that installations could benefit from modernisation. I feel that a number of bedrooms do not have sufficient socket-outlets, especially for teenagers.

As do I, in the correct part of the cert.

Recommendations should be coded, and I would always include the Regulation No. that applied.

Therefore, I would assume that

There is no reason why personal observations that do not contravene the Regulations cannot be placed on the form

means you are in agreeance with the placement for these suggested above?KME

 

[PC Electrics]

Information about "types of person" can be found here:

http://www.theiet.org/publishing/wiring-regulations/mag/2009/33-types-of-person.cfm?type=pdf

IMO this installation is not under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons. In a workshop environment it is likely that many types of portable equipment may be regularly plugged and unplugged by mechanics/technicians. The employer has a duty of care to provide the necessary safety. RCDs are hardly black magic or so cutting edge their benefits are unknown. Quite the contrary, the safety benefits are massive, yet the cost relatively low, so fitting them in this environment is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

I like the analogy that RCDs are the electrical equivalent to the airbags in your car. There to limit injury in the event of an accident (fault).

 

[spinlondon]

Information about "types of person" can be found here:http://www.theiet.org/publishing/wiring-regulations/mag/2009/33-types-of-person.cfm?type=pdf

IMO this installation is not under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons. In a workshop environment it is likely that many types of portable equipment may be regularly plugged and unplugged by mechanics/technicians. The employer has a duty of care to provide the necessary safety. RCDs are hardly black magic or so cutting edge their benefits are unknown. Quite the contrary, the safety benefits are massive, yet the cost relatively low, so fitting them in this environment is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

I like the analogy that RCDs are the electrical equivalent to the airbags in your car. There to limit injury in the event of an accident (fault).

The point is, not that RCDs are a good or bad thing, but whether they are necessaryto meet the requirementss of BS7671.

As the cables are all surface run, the installation being under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons is not an issue.

The exception to Regulation 411.3.3, is if the socket-outlets are for use of skilled or instructed persons.

As you can see from the excerpt from Appendix 5 reproduced in the article from the link. Operatering staff, are considered as instructed persons.

It can also be seen from the article that it is a legal requirement that persons conducting a work activity have technical knowledge or experience necessary to prevent danger or injury.

As such anyone, not just mechanics/technicians plugging or unplugging equipment at work must be skilled or instructed persons.

With regards to the some commercial or industrial locations.

As I pointed out in my post, some locations require RCD protection, irrespective of who is using the socket-outlets by virtue of their being special locations such as saunas, swimming pools etc.

In the OP's case, the industrial unit does not require RCD protected socket-outlets, as it is not a special location, and any one using the socket-outlets must be skilled or instructed.

 

[ianmacd]

How could you confirm that the users are skilled/instructed/under supervision when the place is empty? By the fact its empty implies there are no skilled/instructed/under supervision people on site so 411.3.3 can not apply.

I know its almost pedantic but if something was to happen and they were not RCD protected because you decided it wasn't necessary, I would not like to be on your defence team.

I also do not prescribe to the argument about not RCD'ing computer circuits as RCBO's are available and just make circuits smaller or even use RCD sockets. At the end of the day its not your money so give the client the option and if they decide not to listen to you then get that in writing too.

Ian.

 

[batty]

How could you confirm that the users are skilled/instructed/under supervision when the place is empty? By the fact its empty implies there are no skilled/instructed/under supervision people on site so 411.3.3 can not apply.I know its almost pedantic but if something was to happen and they were not RCD protected because you decided it wasn't necessary, I would not like to be on your defence team.

I also do not prescribe to the argument about not RCD'ing computer circuits as RCBO's are available and just make circuits smaller or even use RCD sockets. At the end of the day its not your money so give the client the option and if they decide not to listen to you then get that in writing too.

Ian.

But you can only put a code 4 in this instance. Why would you want to RCD computer sockets?

 

[spinlondon]

These are industrial units, and if you read the OP, they are being inspected prior to being used commercially.

It is not necessary to confirm whether the users are skilled, instructed or supervised, the users have to be skilled, instructed or supervised in order to comply with the law.

BS7671 does not take into account illegal use of an installation. It was compiled and written with the understanding that people who comply with the Regulations will also be complying with the law. That people who do not comply with the law, are very unlikely to be worried about compliance with non statutory Regulations.

 

[revjames]

Thanks for all the replies guys. The thing that got me worried was the uncertainty of what the units could be used for and who would be using them. At the time of testing the units were vacant (council owned) and no immediate incoming tennants so I erred on the side of caution. My boss agreed with me and the council agreed to the estra work.