Advice on Installation

[Thomas Connolly]

Hi Folks,

If I'm extending a lighting circuit, (adding two pendants and an outside light) from an existing pendant but the board doesn't have any protection (an old BS3036 fuse board) What's the best way to add RCD protection?

The new cable for the switches can't buried more tore than 50mm deep and I don't want to whack an RCD FCU anywhere as they are quite bulky.

What would be the best course of action to take to install this circuit so it complies with the Regs?

Thanks,
T

 

[SparkyChick]

This is the sort of thing where the regs need to be a bit clearer, especially since it is saying that something which was a compliant method before is no longer such.

It's got me thinking now about all the cases where a nice simple job becomes a bigger undertaking that will ultimately mean a higher price and the potential for clients to go for a cheaper option with Dangerous Dave from the pub.

Things like say downlights in a bathroom in older installs where there is no RCD protection at the board. Up until now that's been easy, take the bathroom off the main lighting circuit and supply it via an RCD fused spur secreted in the airing cupboard for example. Yes it can be argued just install an RCD at the origin, but as has been discussed in this thread that brings with it other issues such as borrowed neutrals.

It just smacks of the regs being written by people with a vested interest and/or not having a bloody clue any more because they haven't been on the tools in decades.

 

[45140]

SC maybe you are being a little unfair ?

I know by accident one of the guys who is on the advisory committee and he is a very practical guy, however....

The situation you describe will always occur when one is updating and improving in the light of EU legislation, or as a result of experience or accidents.

We have had this situation in the Railway Industry for 150 odd years with the advent of new equipment or lessons from incidents. Fortunately we are able to use judgement to determine what is the highest risk and then rank locations accordingly. This is something that in the domestic/commercial electrical field would not be easy to implement.

I would imagine the problem with basis compliance on an individual's risk assessment is that (as can be seen on a number of threads) people's perceptions vary widely, and indeed some people do not appear to be fully aware of the new 18th Edition requirements which I do not understand as there are training courses and I believe a requirement for Inspectors (I&T) to have sat and been upgraded in order to retain their Competence ???

I think there has to be a point where it has to be accepted that an installation may result in having to be upgraded far and beyond its existing edition simply because standards have moved on. To me this is just one of the costs of home ownership and maintaining the property in a good condition is a requirement of the mortgage provider as well as the Insurance Company. People unfortunately do not take this into consideration.

The only way to deal with the Dangerous Dave from the pub is to enact Legislation as they have done in Ireland which makes it a criminal offence to work on electrical equipment unless you are a registered electrician. Obviously there are one or two minor jobs that do not require this legal competence.

As a relative newbie to this side of the house, I am surprised at the complete lack of advice given by Government agencies about the changes to electrical regulations and I cannot understand why with something like 8 out of 10 fires being attributed to electrical faults, there is no real impetus to run advertising campaigns nor any action to require DIY shops to restrict the sale of electrical equipment / components to non trained people.

It could be argued that deaths from electrical accidents are far greater than from knife crime for example. It raises the question whether of whether it is for the IET or some other organisation such as a trade body to raise the matter in a much stronger way than might be the case.

 

[GBDamo]

SC maybe you are being a little unfair ?

I know by accident one of the guys who is on the advisory committee and he is a very practical guy, however....

The situation you describe will always occur when one is updating and improving in the light of EU legislation, or as a result of experience or accidents.

We have had this situation in the Railway Industry for 150 odd years with the advent of new equipment or lessons from incidents. Fortunately we are able to use judgement to determine what is the highest risk and then rank locations accordingly. This is something that in the domestic/commercial electrical field would not be easy to implement.

I would imagine the problem with basis compliance on an individual's risk assessment is that (as can be seen on a number of threads) people's perceptions vary widely, and indeed some people do not appear to be fully aware of the new 18th Edition requirements which I do not understand as there are training courses and I believe a requirement for Inspectors (I&T) to have sat and been upgraded in order to retain their Competence ???

I think there has to be a point where it has to be accepted that an installation may result in having to be upgraded far and beyond its existing edition simply because standards have moved on. To me this is just one of the costs of home ownership and maintaining the property in a good condition is a requirement of the mortgage provider as well as the Insurance Company. People unfortunately do not take this into consideration.

The only way to deal with the Dangerous Dave from the pub is to enact Legislation as they have done in Ireland which makes it a criminal offence to work on electrical equipment unless you are a registered electrician. Obviously there are one or two minor jobs that do not require this legal competence.

As a relative newbie to this side of the house, I am surprised at the complete lack of advice given by Government agencies about the changes to electrical regulations and I cannot understand why with something like 8 out of 10 fires being attributed to electrical faults, there is no real impetus to run advertising campaigns nor any action to require DIY shops to restrict the sale of electrical equipment / components to non trained people.

It could be argued that deaths from electrical accidents are far greater than from knife crime for example. It raises the question whether of whether it is for the IET or some other organisation such as a trade body to raise the matter in a much stronger way than might be the case.

Thoughtful and appreciated post.

It's not just us on the coal face guys that find it confusing, as I mentioned earlier my scheme technical helpline specifically said I can continue to use RCD FCUs and sockets, no mention of them not being compliant.

I am not dismissing the input from the experienced folk on here as what they quote seems quite clear.

But the amount of money they charge for their (IET) publications, the time and effort they put into their revisions and amendments yet they constantly fail to give clear guidance.

That is not just unclear to me but to those that are supposed to have the knowledge and understanding to advise on such matters.

I personally am becoming very disheartened.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Don't think an RCD FCU will cut it anymore with the passing of the 18th edition.

The BS number they are constructed under is not recognised by 7671 as offering additional protection.

Edit: This is just what I have heard, I do not yet own a copy of the 18th.

Here is a link to the latest BEAMA RCD handbook.
Supposedly up to date with the 18th:
http://www.beama.org.uk/asset/7062C3E9-70C0-4196-83FE5C315D958BC3/
Make of it what you will.

 

[SparkyChick]

SC maybe you are being a little unfair ?

I know by accident one of the guys who is on the advisory committee and he is a very practical guy, however....

Maybe I am being a little unfair. But it doesn't alter the fact that there are representatives of manufacturers sitting in the committees. How can they present an unbiased opinion on anything when it is in their interests to have new regulations that require the installation of new equipment?

I guess what I'm most curious about is the why.... why is a standard that has been around for years now no longer considered suitable? Or is it a case of this has slipped through the net and is going to be corrected in an amendment or maybe another corrigendum?

This afternoon I've been to see an elderly gentleman about adding a socket in his garage. Yes, one socket outlet plate. The existing installation is a spur on a spur but I have access to a socket on the ring final, so my plan, extend the ring to the end of the run, stitch the additional socket in, job done. Check his fusebox... BS 3036.
6 weeks ago RCD socket outlets were the answer, now I have to either convince him he needs a new consumer unit or install an external 61008 in an enclosure. I don't fancy either of these for a variety of reasons, but suddenly it's a much bigger job and I'm beginning to feel a bit like a bandit robbing this guy. Do I think I'm going to get any work from him? Probably not now no and could he tell people I'm a rip off merchant? Possibly yes based on a lack of understanding.

The situation you describe will always occur when one is updating and improving in the light of EU legislation, or as a result of experience or accidents.

And I can accept that.

I think there has to be a point where it has to be accepted that an installation may result in having to be upgraded far and beyond its existing edition simply because standards have moved on. To me this is just one of the costs of home ownership and maintaining the property in a good condition is a requirement of the mortgage provider as well as the Insurance Company. People unfortunately do not take this into consideration.

Fundamentally I agree, but in the real world, this guy wants one new socket. How can you even begin justifying the expense of a new board for one socket. I started discussing it with him and I got the classic "It's worked and it's been alright for x years, why do I need that?".

The only way to deal with the Dangerous Dave from the pub is to enact Legislation as they have done in Ireland which makes it a criminal offence to work on electrical equipment unless you are a registered electrician. Obviously there are one or two minor jobs that do not require this legal competence.

I agree, but we're not there yet and to be honest, I just don't see that happening any time soon. But is Dangerous Dave the problem or a symptom of the problem? I think Dangerous Dave is a symptom of the fact that the vast majority of people are blissfully unaware of the regs etc. and so when someone rocks up who's going to do a regs compliant job they appear to be overpriced compared to those who don't give a hoot.

As a relative newbie to this side of the house, I am surprised at the complete lack of advice given by Government agencies about the changes to electrical regulations and I cannot understand why with something like 8 out of 10 fires being attributed to electrical faults, there is no real impetus to run advertising campaigns nor any action to require DIY shops to restrict the sale of electrical equipment / components to non trained people.

This is one of my gripes, that there is a lack of effort on the part of the IET to educate the average Joe on the street.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The BEAMA updated handbook seems to think RCD sockets are still ok.

 

[SparkyChick]

The BEAMA updated handbook seems to think RCD sockets are still ok.

I know, but we don't work to that text. BS 7671 suggests otherwise.

 

[45140]

You would not replace the fuse with a plug-in RCD ?

 

[SparkyChick]

I'm not aware of the existence of a plug-in RCD for a Wylex BS 3036 rewireable fuse board, so no.

 

[45140]

OK so is this not one for you to risk assess as a departure from BS7671 ?
The mitigation being that there is no increased risk because the socket is protected by a RCD so the requirement for RCD protection is maintained.
A further mitigation could be the risk of the socket being installed by a non-competent person whose work fails to meet BS7671 and who thus increases the risk.
This could be done in a simple 5x5 matrix

 

[SparkyChick]

Could I argue that a BS 7288 device with the characteristics of 30mA trip current and an operating time of 40ms complies with the tripping characteristics specified for additional protection, yes I could, but could I argue that it a BS 7288 accessory is a satisfactory replacement for a device manufactured to the other standards? I don't think so.

There may be a very valid reason why accessories to BS 7288 are no longer considered acceptable. I don't know enough about BS 7288, BS EN 61008/61009 to argue the ---- and complete a valid risk assessment? No, I don't

 

[45140]

OK so why don't we ask the manufacturers to confirm if the same level of protection is provided ?
I am happy to produce a draft RA based on a 5 x 5 matrix which I would happily circulate for review by more competent peers on this Forum. As a member of the IET I could also circulate there for review as well. I am trained in electrical risk assessment.

The thing to remember about Risk Assessment is that you are not expected to be right every time. HSE accept that an incorrect judgement could be made, however they would not act against a person who has Risk Assessed because you have acted correctly and done a risk assessment. That is what the Law requires, it does NOT require to risk assessment to be totally foolproof or for your judgement to be perfect but simply that you have carried it out in a diligent way and the assessments made are not negligent. The assessment is precisely that, your assessment of the level of risk and if it is tolerable.

I have had to make many specific localised risk assessments against HV flashovers and HMRI accept them on the basis that the situation has been looked at by a Competent person who has made a judgement. If in the future something was to happen then the risk assessment would need to be changed but no liability under HASAWA would accrue because we can all make a mistake in a judgement. That is why a risk assessment is usually but not always reviewed by another person.

As you know a departure from BS7671 is permitted if it has been risk assessed.

 

[45140]

Could I argue that a BS 7288 device with the characteristics of 30mA trip current and an operating time of 40ms complies with the tripping characteristics specified for additional protection, yes I could, but could I argue that it a BS 7288 accessory is a satisfactory replacement for a device manufactured to the other standards? I don't think so.

I do not have the book to hand but I recall that the requirement is for a 30mA RCD protection. It does not if I am correct specify how you achieve this, e.g. by using a specific RCD manufactured to --- ??

That being the case then you are halfway there already

 

[SparkyChick]

I do not have the book to hand but I recall that the requirement is for a 30mA RCD protection. It does not if I am correct specify how you achieve this, e.g. by using a specific RCD manufactured to --- ??

That being the case then you are halfway there already

The 17th edition simply specified the required characteristics... 30mA trip current with an operating time of 40ms or less. The 18th edition specifies specific standards to which devices providing additional protection must be manufactured.

RCD sockets and spurs are manufactured to BS 7288 I believe. This is not one of the standards listed which are BS EN 61008, BS EN 61009 and BS EN 62423.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Unfortunately BS7671 now has a list of 3 standards that RCDs used to provide additional protection must comply with.
RCD sockets and FCUs do not comply with any of the 3 standards.