EICR lighting not on RCD

[TheCodboy]

Hi all, as many of us are probably getting lots of EICR's to do on rental properties, I'm just wondering what you guys are coding non RCD circuits, especially Lighting. As we know,new circuits have to be 30mA covered but the older installs didn't. Personally I'm coding C3 for lighting, Immersion spurs etc. Now, what about cables at less than 50mm without protection etc. If they are in a plasterboard wall, or capped and skimmed over these might not meet the requirements and therefore possibly a C2. We cant really verify whether they are deep enough or mechanically protected. I was always told that you can't make presumptions and assume its worst case. Do you agree with this? Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[radiohead]

Why does an immersion circuit not require an Rcd? Is it because it’s fixed?

It may require RCD fault protection....(ie on a TT)....and may require additional protection if wiring is buried. But there is no specific requirement for additional protection for fixed loads not in a special location.

 

[TheCodboy]

It may require RCD fault protection....(ie on a TT)....and may require additional protection if wiring is buried. But there is no specific requirement for additional protection for fixed loads not in a special location.

I keep falling into the trap that people can see the install as i look at it. I have a habit of leaving off details. The wiring is in plasterboard walls, I always think worst case (as in the circuit not 50mm or mechanically protected) hence my original comment of a C3. I hope you see where I'm coming from.
[automerge]1594985505[/automerge]

It may require RCD fault protection....(ie on a TT)....and may require additional protection if wiring is buried. But there is no specific requirement for additional protection for fixed loads not in a special location.

It's a 16th type board. Basically RFC's and cooker on RCD. Everything else isn't.

 

[radiohead]

I keep falling into the trap that people can see the install as i look at it. I have a habit of leaving off details. The wiring is in plasterboard walls, I always think worst case (as in the circuit not 50mm or mechanically protected) hence my original comment of a C3. I hope you see where I'm coming from.
[automerge]1594985505[/automerge]

It's a 16th type board. Basically RFC's and cooker on RCD. Everything else isn't.

EICR's are one of the more contentious aspects of our jobs. It's a good plan to have a copy of the Electrical Safety Councils 'best practice' guides, follow that and you wont go far wrong. You can add as many recommendations as you want, but anything coded must be shown to be a non-compliance.
16th boards of course usually only RCD protect the socket circuits, there would have been no requirement at the time for the cooker circuit to be protected, unless the cooker panel had a socket. And there still wouldnt be if it was surface wired and had just a DP isolator.

 

[TheCodboy]

EICR's are one of the more contentious aspects of our jobs. It's a good plan to have a copy of the Electrical Safety Councils 'best practice' guides, follow that and you wont go far wrong. You can add as many recommendations as you want, but anything coded must be shown to be a non-compliance.
16th boards of course usually only RCD protect the socket circuits, there would have been no requirement at the time for the cooker circuit to be protected, unless the cooker panel had a socket. And there still wouldnt be if it was surface wired and had just a DP isolator.

Yes i carry a copy of Best Practice (i think its edition 4 or 5 now) and Napit codebreakers. I tend to lean towards caution. As we know, virtually everything now domestic has to be Rcd covered when installed from new. I qualified during early 17th edition, so sometimes its my knee jerk reaction is "where's it rcd!"

 

[westward10]

It is highly unprofessional in my eyes to use the terms 16th, 17th or 18th Ed boards as their is no such thing.

 

[radiohead]

It is highly unprofessional in my eyes to use the terms 16th, 17th or 18th Ed boards as their is no such thing.

There isn't, you are correct. But the term is generally used and a majority of electricians know that when a '16th board' is referred to it is describing a split insulated DB with usually only socket outlet circuits RCD protected. A 17th board usually means an insulated dual RCD board, and an 18th means an all steel enclosure.
Boards are referred to in this way because those DB configurations were/are the most commonly used. No, not correct terminology, but highly unprofessional is a bit OTT.

 

[westward10]

Wholesalers are to blame, same with testers. New edition comes out they are advertising 18th Ed test equipment hoping people will think their previous so called ....Ed testers are no longer up to the job.
I still believe it to be unprofessional especially if you decide to quote it in a technical document.

 

[Markyd]

"unprofessional" Thats funny

 

[radiohead]

I still believe it to be unprofessional especially if you decide to quote it in a technical document.

I know you do, you've said so twice now.

 

[DPG]

The terms can be confusing to people. If you had a metal board fitted, with RCBOs, but it was fitted prior to when the 18th regs came in, would you call it an 18th edition board or a 17th?

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

The terms can be confusing to people. If you had a metal board fitted, with RCBOs, but it was fitted prior to when the 18th regs came in, would you call it an 18th edition board or a 17th?

17th Cause I bet those RCBOs won’t be Type A.

 

[DPG]

17th Cause I bet those RCBOs won’t be Type A.

Mmm, good point!