Settle a small disagreement with me and another sparky

[Baker1988]

Hi just wondered if any one could settle this disagreement me and another sparky I work with are having.

Basically do lighting circuits need rcd protection? The circuits I am on about are already existing (doing eicr?) and it is all surface mounted in pc trunking one of the circuits goes into a bathroom but the bathroom has supplementary bonding and also the main bond to gas and water is in place. It's a tn-s earth.

I basically say it doesn't need a rcbo (board is rcbos with 2 mcb for lighting) and he is saying it does.

Its work for a local council and have been told to rectify any c1 or c2 there and then but can leave c3s

I may be wrong and I'm happy to learn if I am.

 

[The Ghost]

nvm

 

[Leesparkykent]

Is supplementary bonding is in place, gas and water are adequately bonded then it's a C3.

 

[westward10]

This is always open to needless debate on an EICR, you are not there to decide if it needs additional rcd protection but to make a statement of fact it does not have this provision. Deciding on a Code you need to assess whether existing provisions which are or not in place make it safe for continued use.

 

[Leesparkykent]

@westward10 will hate this but show your mate best practise guide 4 page 13

http://www.----------------------------/mediafile/100740439/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4-.pdf

 

[stevethesparks]

Lighting circuits in general, no, but also dependant on installation method. Bathrooms, all circuits serving the location and/or passing through zones 1 & 2 to be rcd protected.
701.411.3.3

 

[Baker1988]

@westward10 will hate this but show your mate best practise guide 4 page 13

http://www.----------------------------/mediafile/100740439/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4-.pdf

Yeah I agree with that and looking at page 15 it's only a C3.

 

[Baker1988]

Lighting circuits in general, no, but also dependant on installation method. Bathrooms, all circuits serving the location and/or passing through zones 1 & 2 to be rcd protected.
701.411.3.3

Is that just on new installs as I would agree they need it but what if they havnt got it. What would you code it?

 

[Leesparkykent]

Yeah I agree with that and looking at page 15 it's only a C3. View attachment 37930

Go and rub his face in it tomorrow

 

[stevethesparks]

Is that just on new installs as I would agree they need it but what if they havnt got it. What would you code it?

C3 - I admit I didn't read the original post fully.

 

[Baker1988]

C3 - I admit I didn't read the original post fully.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking and as it's a C3 they don't want to sort it out just c2 and c1 and I don't want to make work that is not needed.

 

[westward10]

Is that just on new installs as I would agree they need it but what if they havnt got it. What would you code it?

The fact is it does not have it and this is what you state, question is does it affect the safe continued use in its absence or are existing provisions adequate.

 

[Baker1988]

The fact is it does not have it and this is what you state, question is does it affect the safe continued use in its absence or are existing provisions adequate.

I would say the existing is adequate.

 

[Richard Burns]

If it is your professional opinion that the design of the existing installation does not present a significant risk but has the capability to be improved then this would be a C3 on your report, because that is what you are reporting, your assessment of the risk.

With ADS and supplementary bonding in the bathroom the touch voltage in the case of a fault should not present a risk therefore it is not necessary to have 30mA RCD protection, however it it were in place this would be an extra layer of safety and would be in agreement with the current regulations.

 

[Ian1981]

An assessment can be made of the effectiveness of the supplementary bonding which I'm sure as part of the testing process you have done
Basically if the lighting circuit in the bathroom is protected by a 6 amp type b mcb then the formula
50/Ia is used
So 50/30= 1.667 ohms
So as long as your resistance of the pipework is below this figure the supplementary bonding satisfies the regulations
Also worth remembering that all circuits serving the location without rcd protection need to be supplementary bonded together to the extraneous parts

 

[Baker1988]

Sorry lads i forgot to update you all.

basically he agreed with me and we wasnt going to put one in but then the boss came and said basically the niceic have apparently said to him to put any lighting circuit containing a bath or shower on rcd/rcbo so any we find have to be changed to an rcbo so that is what we are doing.

I dont personally beleave the niceic have said this as such a blank statement that they all have to be rcd protected but who am i to argue with the boss.

 

[Octopus]

Sorry lads i forgot to update you all.

basically he agreed with me and we wasnt going to put one in but then the boss came and said basically the niceic have apparently said to him to put any lighting circuit containing a bath or shower on rcd/rcbo so any we find have to be changed to an rcbo so that is what we are doing.

I dont personally beleave the niceic have said this as such a blank statement that they all have to be rcd protected but who am i to argue with the boss.

On the basis the NICEIC don't write the regs, did they offer up any reg to support this?

 

[Ian1981]

Did the existing bathroom have all circuits in the location and all extraneous parts in the location supplementary bonded together?
If so a simple C3 for no rcd protection can be recorded.
Were the NICEIC aware of all the facts before they commented?

 

[Baker1988]

On the basis the NICEIC don't write the regs, did they offer up any reg to support this?

I honestly dont know, probily not though. he just told me that they said to put rcd protection on all lighting circuits that have a bath/shower. i personally dont beleave him i just think he was sticking up for his golden boy and didnt want him to be proven wrong. i didnt argue with him he told me to put them all on rcbo and as it doesnt make it unsafe i just did it like he asked.

 

[Baker1988]

Did the existing bathroom have all circuits in the location and all extraneous parts in the location supplementary bonded together?
If so a simple C3 for no rcd protection can be recorded.
Were the NICEIC aware of all the facts before they commented?

as far as im away the niceic told him this about another job he was on and just made the blanket statement they should all be on rcbo/rcd, which i dont beleave.

also yes the supp bonding was in place and every thing and i did give it a C3 but he still told me to change the mcb for a rcbo

 

[westward10]

What happens if you can't fit a compatible rcbo at the board or you have a board for which rcbos do not exist, like Wylex standards.

 

[ED17]

Sounds like your boss makes his money on the remedial work.

 

[Baker1988]

What happens if you can't fit a compatible rcbo at the board or you have a board for which rcbos do not exist, like Wylex standards.

That has not happened yet so i am not sure i presume he would say it needs a board change. but we dont do the board changes it gets passed back to them and there own guys change it so he would only earn from the test any way so probily would not want that to happen

 

[Baker1988]

Sounds like your boss makes his money on the remedial work.

Yeah i think he does aswell but i honestly dont know as dont know what he is charging for any of it.

 

[Leesparkykent]

I think a lot of us also forget that many of us are businessmen as well as electricians....Im not advocating unnecessary work but I'm all up for improving the safety of an installation.

 

[Octopus]

I think a lot of us also forget that many of us are businessmen as well as electricians....Im not advocating unnecessary work but I'm all up for improving the safety of an installation.

I was asked to review anothers EICR recently - they were recommending a CU change when a MCB to RCBO upgrade would have the same outcome ...... with respect to the report - sure the new CU would catch other C3's - so the landlord had the choice !

 

[Baker1988]

I think a lot of us also forget that many of us are businessmen as well as electricians....Im not advocating unnecessary work but I'm all up for improving the safety of an installation.

Totally agree with you lee

 

[Toneyz]

I feel its aC3 improvement recommended ,I think that your boss has misinterpreted what the NICEIC have said RCD protection may well be required for BS7671 17th Amd. 3 but was not prior to this. I can not see the council giving your boss a blank cheque .Is there ant other circuits in the bathroom ?.

 

[Midwest]

What sort of electrical 'work' is being carried out in the bathroom?

I only ask, as done some for a local council, where the occupier has disability and the bath is being ripped out and replaced with walk in shower (electric). The council provide a spec, which extends to removing existing circuits, installing new with either new small CU or installing new RCBO's, with new circuits, e.g. lighting & shower radial. Supplementary bonding if required.

The whole thing is done, as new install not altering or adding to original. Less cost to the council, without managing the existing install, and some were bad.