They definitely will not be used to supply equipment outside, I will have a look at the sample you guys have posted and will try and learn some new office based skills and make a draft.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Discuss RCD omission risk assessment in the Commercial Electrical Advice area at ElectriciansForums.net
Thank you i will see if I can use this.Thanks.
Interesting and useful but not really a risk assessment for justifying omission of RCDs for additional protection.
This unfortunately is the side of the job I’m trying to learn, I’ve spent my entire working life on the tools and not much time on the paperwork side of things, unfortunately also I have no one to turn to in our office for advice and help, hence why ive posted to the forum. Hoping someone would maybe have a suitable scenario that they have been through themselves.Interesting and useful but not really a risk assessment for justifying omission of RCDs for additional protection.
A risk assessment should identify the hazards, who or what is at risk and from what? And then should identify what has been put in place to minimise the danger presented by such hazards.
The format was dictated by city and guilds so I can't really comment beyond that. It justifies omission with appropriate reg numbers, outside of the regs I'm not entirely sure what you'd want on it.Interesting and useful but not really a risk assessment for justifying omission of RCDs for additional protection.
A risk assessment should identify the hazards, who or what is at risk and from what? And then should identify what has been put in place to minimise the danger presented by such hazards.
All I see is a somewhat useful list of where RCDs may or may not be required by BS7671, not a justification where it may be desired or necessary to deliberately omit an RCD in a situation where it would normally be required.The format was dictated by city and guilds so I can't really comment beyond that. It justifies omission with appropriate reg numbers, outside of the regs I'm not entirely sure what you'd want on it.
The point of it is we're justifying omission using the regs to present the argument.
By all means take it up with C&G, I merely offered it as an example, you're welcome to expand on it or devise one to share.All I see is a somewhat useful list of where RCDs may or may not be required by BS7671, not a justification where it may be desired or necessary to deliberately omit an RCD in a situation where it would normally be required.
You're welcomeThank you so much for your help,
Is there a published document listing the reasons that socket outlets require RCDs?Interesting and useful but not really a risk assessment for justifying omission of RCDs for additional protection.
A risk assessment should identify the hazards, who or what is at risk and from what? And then should identify what has been put in place to minimise the danger presented by such hazards.
Tempting as it is, it never really works to think in terms of the regulations themselves when considering the risks.I struggle to see what dangers are introduced by the bit of wire from each machine terminating in a plug+socket instead of fixed connections.
How can some regular bozo be expected to carry out a risk assessment permitting him (or her!) to contravene the laws set by a panel of experts without knowing their reasoning?
Why is a new DB required? Surely this is just a recommendation at worst for that scenario?I'm on an EICR for a bakery with a dozen+ 32a 3ph sockets feeding large fixed floor standing machines of various functions and ages. The place runs 20+ hours a day and the 32a seems to be a standard presumably so they can be swapped out promptly. New DB reauired.
In this sort of scenario I really doubt the lack of RCD protection for those sockets represents anything more than a C3 code, so no need to replace the DB.I'm on an EICR for a bakery with a dozen+ 32a 3ph sockets feeding large fixed floor standing machines of various functions and ages. The place runs 20+ hours a day and the 32a seems to be a standard presumably so they can be swapped out promptly. New DB reauired.
That's a great observation. And once again regulatory obligations and market options diverging.Just a thought ...
Does there exist a plug/socket similar to BS4343 (Commando) but with two earth pins ?
Seems to me that (for this discussion) the primary requirement is as backup for failed earthing. Similar to RFCs where high leakage currents are expected require high integrity earthing, having duplicated earth paths would go a long way to mitigating the risks.
Reply to RCD omission risk assessment in the Commercial Electrical Advice area at ElectriciansForums.net