Advice on Installation

[GBDamo]

Maybe someone belonging to one of the scams can call their tech help and ask why they are no longer acceptable.

That'll get them confused for sure.

Although I didn't ask the question directly, when I called my scheme yesterday their advice was to continue to use RCD FCUs and sockets.

Specifically I asked them if I had to protect a complete lighting circuit if making an addition.

Their answer was that I could use an RCD FCU from the point of the addition, as I would do with additional sockets.

This was before people raised the issue of them not being listed as an approved device.

Today I'm going to be installing an RCD fused spur to protect some exterior lighting, and earlier in the year I installed an RCD fused spur to protect some new lighting internally at the same property. These changes were designed and quoted for last year and as such have to comply with the 17th edition amendment 3, so I'm pretty happy with my decision to progress as planned.

But given all work designed after 31st December 2018 has to comply with the 18th, using RCD socket outlets and fused spurs to provide additional protection is no longer an option since they are not one of the listed standards.

So... in the event that something bad happened and someone was say injured or killed, how would you defend your decision to ignore the regulations by installing a device which is not listed as suitable for providing additional protection?

Today I'm going to be installing an RCD fused spur to protect some exterior lighting, and earlier in the year I installed an RCD fused spur to protect some new lighting internally at the same property. These changes were designed and quoted for last year and as such have to comply with the 17th edition amendment 3, so I'm pretty happy with my decision to progress as planned.

But given all work designed after 31st December 2018 has to comply with the 18th, using RCD socket outlets and fused spurs to provide additional protection is no longer an option since they are not one of the listed standards.

So... in the event that something bad happened and someone was say injured or killed, how would you defend your decision to ignore the regulations by installing a device which is not listed as suitable for providing additional protection?

I appreciate your stance. You have to do what you feel comfortable with.

Personally I have taken professional, recorded, advise and will continue to use these devices.

I think we both know there is no issue in using them it is simply a case of covering ones rear.

Maybe a call to your scheme will put your mind at rest and make your life a little easier.

 

[SparkyChick]

I'm going to call NAPIT today and ask them the specific question based on standards and see if I can get an email response.

 

[Bobster]

I'm going to call NAPIT today and ask them the specific question based on standards and see if I can get an email response.

I'll bet you a pint they have no idea what to respond with over the phone. Other than, "because it says so in the book".

 

[SparkyChick]

I appreciate your stance. You have to do what you feel comfortable with.

Personally I have no problem using them as they've been used for years and are still on sale.

I think we both know there is no issue in using them it is simply a case of covering ones rear.

And that is exactly my concern. As @spinlondon said, I think it's an error but as it stands using them appears to contravene the regs so absolutely... a$$ armour is needed I feel.

 

[SparkyChick]

I'll bet you a pint they have no idea what to respond with over the phone. Other than, "because it says so in the book".

If you're still in the US, it's a long way for a pint, but I suspect you'll be spot on

 

[DPG]

Be nice to collate the responses from each of the schemes.

 

[sparksburnout]

Today I'm going to be installing an RCD fused spur to protect some exterior lighting, and earlier in the year I installed an RCD fused spur to protect some new lighting internally at the same property. These changes were designed and quoted for last year and as such have to comply with the 17th edition amendment 3, so I'm pretty happy with my decision to progress as planned.

But given all work designed after 31st December 2018 has to comply with the 18th, using RCD socket outlets and fused spurs to provide additional protection is no longer an option since they are not one of the listed standards.

So... in the event that something bad happened and someone was say injured or killed, how would you defend your decision to ignore the regulations by installing a device which is not listed as suitable for providing additional protection?

So how is this "something bad" going to happen then? How is using an RCD socket, which may or may not have a different latching system, going to result in an accident or death any more than using an RCD at the origin in the CU? How much chance do you think there is, of you ending up in court, or even if you did getting prosecuted, really?? It is far more responsible to do the job using an RCD socket, properly tested, than to leave your customer in the clutches of Dodgy Dave, as you call him. I think some people on here must live in a world of perpetual fear of prosecution.

 

[Bobster]

If you're still in the US, it's a long way for a pint, but I suspect you'll be spot on

In Germany currently. There's a good postal service

 

[45140]

OK guys, an update

BG Electrical Tech support agree with my suggestion that a FCU with an RCD is perfectly acceptable.

They have suggested that where the socket could be used for equipment such as lawnmowers that the FCU should have a non-latched RCD. The reason being that if the power drops out momentarily it will not be restored as the relay will trip out and not reset. This will prevent something like a lawnmower suddenly starting up with someone's hand in the cutting area.

The FCU with RCD protection are manufactured in latched or unlatched type. An unlatched needs to be mechanically reset in the event of a power loss, whereas a latched does not trip in the event of a power loss and should be used for freezers, and other equipment that it would be preferable to have this feature.

With regards to 61008 / 61009 they state that this applies to RCDs intended for Consumer Units.

They have confirmed that their units trip in the requisite time and will be happy to supply a manufacturers statement to support a risk assessment as I outlined earlier. I think they would also be prepared to give an opinion on the risk assessment as well.

Unable to contact the IET as they are not in until Friday

SC
You are permitted to install a design that does not comply with all or part of BS7671 provided that the proposed arrangement provides an equal or better level of safety. In determining how to install the circuit effectively you are undertaking a Designer role, albeit primarily following guidelines.
With no offence intended you already know that BS7671 has the same status a an ACOP and thus it is not a legal requirement to comply. The onus as stated above is to demonstrate that your proposed arrangement is no less safe.

In respect of the FCU it will undertake the Requirement of having a 30mA RCD in the cct, in this case within the FCU. The FCU is manufactured to BS EN Standards and so is a compliant fitting.

The fitting of a non-latched RCD completes the circle.

 

[sparksburnout]

"They have suggested that where the socket could be used for equipment such as lawnmowers that the FCU should have a non-latched RCD. The reason being that if the power drops out momentarily it will not be restored as the relay will trip out and not reset. This will prevent something like a lawnmower suddenly starting up with someone's hand in the cutting area." So when the power goes off momentarily due to a DNO problem, and the guy cutting the lawn pokes his hand in, the non-latching but perfectly "acceptable" RCD in the CU remains un-tripped because it is latched and he gets his fingers chopped off. Now, we all know that this won't happen because the lawnmower has it's own safety latch, so what was the point of them saying that? I think they will all disappear up their own butts soon.

 

[DPG]

The latching is an important point. Just the same as a no-volt release for motors.

 

[GBDamo]

Be nice to collate the responses from each of the schemes.

And the various advisors within said schemes.

I'm curious what the NAPIT advise to SC will be when they're asked to put it in writing as I have had verbal approval from NAPIT.

 

[SparkyChick]

I've spoken with NAPIT but I'll post detail later. Basically the same advice as you got @GBDamo .

 

[Bobster]

Be interesting if any of them will commit what they have said to writing.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I’ve asked the IET to clarify.
Might get an answer before the amendment?

 

[DPG]

I’ve asked the IET to clarify.
Might get an answer before the amendment?

Need a 'like' and an 'optimistic' combined icon for that one!

 

[sparksburnout]

The latching is an important point. Just the same as a no-volt release for motors.

Yeah but the DIN mounted 60898's in the CU are latched?

 

[sparksburnout]

The latching is an important point. Just the same as a no-volt release for motors.

Yeah but the DIN mounted 61008&9's in the CU are latched?

 

[SparkyChick]

Be interesting if any of them will commit what they have said to writing.

Wouldn't it just. Last time I checked I hadn't received an email.

The long and short of it is that NAPIT technical still consider RCD spurs and socket outlets to be acceptable but the guy I spoke to would not commit that to writing as 'it is just an interpretation of the regs'.

Here's where I have a problem with his interpretation. He quoted the part I've highlighted in red:-

531.3.6 RCDs for additional protection
The use of RCDs with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA is recognized as additional protection in compliance with Regulation 415.1. These RCDs shall be provided to comply with the requirements of Regulation 411.3.3.

RCDs for additional protection in AC installations shall comply with:
- BS EN 61008 series, or
- BS EN 61009 series, or
- BS EN 62423.

Where installed at the origin of a final circuit or a group of final circuits, an RCD with a rated residual current not exceeding 30 mA may provide fault protection and additional protection simultaneously.

NOTE: Consideration shall be given to the division of the installation (see Regulations 531.3.2 and 314.2).

And how he quoted it was that this specification of standards only applies when the device is to be installed at the origin. My interpretation of that segment means only that it can, in the case of high EFLI be used to provide fault protection when installed at the origin.

I did challenge him on this and basically said I thought he was stretching a bit, but that was his interpretation of the regs.

So, on the phone it's OK to continue using RCD spurs and sockets that are manufactured to BS 7288 but ask them for it in writing and it's a big fat NO!

 

[Bobster]

@SparkyChick

The section you've highlighted in red is precluding to using an RCD as fault protection in situations where the Ze or Ra of an installation means it would be impossible to meet disconnection times otherwise. I.e TT or generator fed installations.

Or that's how I would interpret it.

The section just above that is pretty cut and dry in what is and by means of absence what isn't, suitable for additional protection.