BS7671 - It's A School Day (Every day is a school day)

My perspective on this comes from having (in the past):

• Overall responsibility for the electrical safety of a school in my role as Health and Safety Governor (it's surprising how much Governors are responsible for!)
• Overall responsibility for the electrical safety of an engineering office and, to some extent, a factory in my role as engineering manager / deputy site director
• Overall responsibility for the electrical safety of my house (and I'm still stuck with that one!)

Of the three the school was by far the easiest, and I would say lowest risk. This was because, in my experience at least:

• Schools are very risk averse environments. This leads on to several of the following points.
• Schools contract all electrical work to approved contractors. A school would not dream of doing anything to their own electrical system. Now, it is possible that now that most schools are out of local authority control that they will tend to go for the lowest cost option, but even then they are going to look for some level of competence / registration / insurance etc.
• Schools design themselves to prevent risk. There will be some areas of electrical risk, typically kitchens and (for those that still have them, very sadly many don't) workshops, but these will be risk assessed to the hilt and segregated off. As a really simple example, it'll be surprising if you see an electric kettle in a normal classroom.
• School staff are terrified of children getting hurt, which tends to mean that problems such as faulty wiring / sockets etc tend to get reported very quickly. Not always (and see below), but in my experience I'd say more often than in other environments.

Best summing up for me of how risk averse schools with regards to electricity are was the time I was going in to run a STEM activity at one I hadn't been to before, and when I said I was going to bring in my WorkMate was told that I'd have to get it PAT tested...

I'm not saying it's all a bed of roses, there are a few issues I tended to see (fortunately more in other schools I went into than in the one I was responsible for):

• Risk of physical damage to fittings, using basically domestic fittings in an environment where occasionally wild things happen.
• Poor administration meaning that issues didn't get followed up.
• Lack of budget meaning that issues didn't get followed up.
• And the bugbear of anyone responsible for schools (but the same for offices and factories) - stopping staff sneaking electrical appliances in!!! 

So of course it's a good thought to raise, but overall personally I'd say my children were at much lower risk regarding electrical safety when they were at school than when they were at home or at friend's houses. And I don't remember ever seeing an issue which needed a change in the technical standards to resolve it. The challenge there always was, and unfortunately I suspect has only got worse, is effective administration and sufficient budget to manage and resolve issues when they arise. There are already legal obligations to require that electrical issues are managed, but practically ensuring that they are is another issue. A world which I'm very glad I'm out of now.

I guess one question that could be asked regarding the point about is there more we can do (i.e. is it ALARP) is again more on the admin than the technical side, whether now that many (maybe the majority?) of schools are out of local authority control there should be a periodic level of risk management oversight (not just of electrical issues, but of all risk management)? Maybe Ofsted do it now, I'm not sure. Not that, personally, when we were under local authority control the LA H&S reviewer was of much help whatsoever (I'm being very, very polite there)... 

I'm actually giving a STEM talk next week in the school where I used to be a governor, I think it's the first time I've been in there for about 10 years or maybe more...but I'm not taking any mains powered equipment, and I've done a very full risk assessment (whether they want one or not )

Thanks,

Andy

I think that we can make schools safer for the people inside those buildings.  For the workers and the learners. 

There are certainly more lithium batteries in the average school now then there were 10 to 15 years ago.  Think of Mobile Phones, Tablets, Laptops

In the document called

school_electrical_safety.pdf

They refer to RCD 9 times which I assume means they assume the RCD should be present.

I know what people say about assume. 

There is guidance such as this, but remember many schools are not under the control of the Local Authorities.

www.lbhf.gov.uk/.../school_electrical_safety.pdf

lyledunn said:

You can’t expect people to know that your tongue is in your cheek when you reply to posts!

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Come on Lyle! You can’t expect people to know that your tongue is in your cheek when you reply to posts! Get a grip and use one of those emoji thingies! 

lyledunn said:

So why not recommend 30mA RCD protection across the board.

I can see that ... in one way ... but in the reality of a school setting,  if a 30 mA RCD operates within the electrical installation (e.g. distribution board or consumer unit), who will reset it, or more to the point, investigate for a potential fault, and reset it?

And for distribution circuits or circuits supplied from industrial distribution boards, not all the devices are intended for operation by 'ordinary persons'.

Why 30mA - that value was decided based mostly on the physiology of 95% of adults - wouldn't say 10mA be more sensible precaution for a user population that dominated by children, if you really think there's additional unmitigated risk there and weren't bothered about the cost?

As for the BS 7671 example, what's that old phrase of two wrongs not making a right?

   - Andy.

Sergio has presented a perfectly reasonable case for additional control measures in a situation where he clearly perceives a heightened risk. So why not recommend 30mA RCD protection across the board.
After all, he can take a lead from BS7671 itself. Without any detailed evidence, risk or cost benefit analysis, the doyens mandated the use of AFDDs in certain situations and even had the temerity to “recommend” the things in all other installations!