Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Suggested Helpful Answer
  • Replies 36 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 36 subscribers
  • Views 3640 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

is a discontinuous CPC, where all accessory points are Zs good, on a RFC, with no RCD protection, potentially dangerous or just needing improvement ?

psychicwarrior

as time moves on and opinions shift - especially via pressure from changes in Regs, H&S, CP Scheme influencers;   what was once safe is now not safe and all that !

e.g some now may consider the lack of RCD additional protection to skts  (even if everything else is ok)  is a potentially dangerous situation, where as previously that may not have been the case; same goes for lack of RCD to lighting circuits and even more so if circuit serve/pass a bathroom .

therefore, to the subject question as written ...  what's the consideration 'today'  please ?

and then, same question but where RCD protection on the RFC is present ?

and best wishes to all for a lovely day

Habs

Parents
  • 0

    BPG4 Issue 6 lists this as C2 (page 17) plain and simple because of the discontinuous cpc.

    Whilst Zs may be OK for disconnection time, you've provided no further information regards csa and type of OCPD, so the thermal effects is still open to question.

    Most importantly,  the discontinuous cpc doesn't meet the requirements for protective conductor of an RFC of Regulation 543.2.9 (except if the RFC in its entirety is enclosed in continuos metallic containment that is also used as the cpc for the RFC ... but then it won't be discontinuous?).

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

     sorry - a reader should not be asked to presume [too much :-)]  ... so ...   'presume' a standard domestic 2.5/1.5 t&e rfc circuit on a 32A B MCB    with and without 30mA RCD with let's say nominal 0.45 end to end L & N

    having said that  Andy has raised some other good points (hidden things and so on).

    interestingly i asked this question many moons ago and at the time it was determined that with all accessible accessories presenting earthed with Zs good etc,   ...    some said that it might/should be only C3   whilst others C2 no doubt   (as in potentially dangerous)    ....      

    regards

  • 0 in reply to psychicwarrior

    At the end of the day, the person undertaking the periodic verification is the only person who has seen that particular installation, and it is up to them to make the assessment based on what they have see in that installation alone.

    The points we raise here (and the point made in guidance) are, to be fair, only points the person undertaking the periodic verification can take into account in making their decision.

    There is no one-size-fits-all answer, experience and attention to detail are key competences for the person undertaking the periodic verification.

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

    of course as acknowledged and is a given.

    with respect though, if that's all a discussion delivered, then it would curtail many a discussion on this forum as rarely is anyone else seeing what someone is posting about.  It's just for sharing and the gifted blessed on here I alway appreciate their experience.  Thank you all.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

    of course as acknowledged and is a given.

    with respect though, if that's all a discussion delivered, then it would curtail many a discussion on this forum as rarely is anyone else seeing what someone is posting about.  It's just for sharing and the gifted blessed on here I alway appreciate their experience.  Thank you all.

Children
  • 0 in reply to psychicwarrior

    Agreed ... we all learn a lot from participating in this Forum. And the statement regards experience was not meant to be directed at you (or anyone else in particular) ... just an important consideration, that no-one ought to be "proclaiming" at us with fixed rules that are immutable for periodic verification.

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon
    gkenyon said:
    Agreed ... we all learn a lot from participating in this Forum. And the statement regards experience was not meant to be directed at you (or anyone else in particular) ... just an important consideration, that no-one ought to be "proclaiming" at us with fixed rules that are immutable for periodic verification.

    Absolutely! Interesting turn of phrase…periodic verification. I don’t believe I have seen it referred to in U.K. before although it is what is used in Chapter 6 clause 6.5 in IS10101 2020. I think the regs in Ireland have tighter connections with the HDs.

    Might GKs phrasing point to a possible future change in the title of chapter 65? 

  • 0 in reply to lyledunn
    lyledunn said:
    Might GKs phrasing point to a possible future change in the title of chapter 65? 

    Not subliminal messaging on my part. Chapter 65 in BS 7671 is titled 'Periodic verification' in the IEC and Harmonized standards.

    And to be honest, it was quicker than typing 'periodic inspection and testing'.


    NOW ... my pedantic mind should really have told me that 'periodic verification' is, well, wrong, given the definition of verification in BS 7671 ... compare with the purpose of periodic inspection and testing in Regulation 651.1, and you'll see why (at least in BS 7671) it's not correct to say 'periodic verification'. ('Satisfactory for continued service' whereas verification is about 'compliance with BS 7671'.)


    Still, people talk about  'Doing an EICR' ... isn't that  'filling out a form' Grinning?

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines