C3 sounds reasonable to me. There would be chaos if changes in BS 7671 gave rise to C2 because under those circumstances, the Regs would have become retrospective to all intents and purposes.

Chris Pearson said:

There would be chaos if changes in BS 7671 gave rise to C2 because under those circumstances, the Regs would have become retrospective

In general ... perhaps ... but this is a place of work, and whilst we might be arguing over what code to give it in terms of the informative (guidance) Appendix 6 to BS 7671, it's important to communicate this properly to the relevant duty holder so that they can review their risk assessment.

In accordance with H&S legislation, risk assessments need to be reviewed regularly, and when anything changes ... which includes changes to standards.

One might ask whether it is now "reasonably practicable" to retrofit RCDs to circuits supplying some, or all, of those socket-outlets? ... that question would certainly be asked if anyone were seriously injured or killed as a result of an electrical fault and an RCD might have operated to prevent or lessen the impact of the injury.

Deadwire68 said:

I was under the impression that all single phase and three phase sockets up to 32amp were required to have RCD'S/RCBO'S or RCD sockets, unless a written Risk Assessment was issued. Is this correct?

That has been true (32 A) since BS 7671:2018 (18th Edition), although prior to that there were requirements for socket-outlets up to 20 A to have RCD protection, which hasn't really changed much since BS 7671:2008 (except tightening up the wording around when risk assessments can say they are not needed, and more recently in 2018 changing to 32 A).

The use of RCDs is not new, (and the costs are definitely not what they were back in the late 1980's / early 1990's).

gkenyon said:

One might ask whether it is now "reasonably practicable" to retrofit RCDs to circuits supplying some, or all, of those socket-outlets?

I can see no reason why it would not be reasonably practicable for RCD sockets to be fitted (like going back to 15th Edn). The cost might be another matter, but I think that it would come into the realms of not reasonably practicable only if it threatened to bankrupt the company.

Chris Pearson said:

The cost might be another matter, but I think that it would come into the realms of not reasonably practicable only if it threatened to bankrupt the company.

Reasonably practicable does take into account cost (as well as time and trouble). The cost has certainly changed over the past 30 years ...

Chris Pearson said:

The cost might be another matter, but I think that it would come into the realms of not reasonably practicable only if it threatened to bankrupt the company.

Reasonably practicable does take into account cost (as well as time and trouble). The cost has certainly changed over the past 30 years ...