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

mapj1 said:

There may be parts of a School that have extra risks - cookery classes, various science labs, perhaps the gym, come to mind, but these I think are already handled by the relevant parts of the regs and the fact there is a more general H and S regime, as Graham points out.

I think to an extent many of these are covered in other codes of practice, such as BS 4163

The only reason that I can see for treating schools as a special location would be if either the risk of shock were increased, or the consequences of a risk materializing were graver; or a combination of the two.

I see no reason for more frequent inspection, but the interval is determined by the last inspector based upon the state of the installation, so there is no hard and fast rule.

P.S. I did all sorts of potentially dangerous things at school and if they had existed, RCBOs would have prevented none of them.

I do wonder how this will change when schools start to have EVSE and Solar PV fitted?

It's already happening - the primary school near me had most of its south facing roofs covered in panels over last summer, and I doubt it was the first. What difference would it make though? - as they won't be downstream of other final circuits.

  - Andy.

Hi Andy

My intention there was for Final circuits rather than distribution circuits but I do see your point about unneeded/unwanted disconnections.  I do wonder how this will change when schools start to have EVSE and Solar PV fitted?

Should all circuits in schools be protected by a 30mA RCBO/RCD regardless of their use?  This would apply to new or existing circuits.

Absolutely not - schools are often large and complex electrical installations with many sub-mains/distribution circuits - putting 30mA RCD "protection"  on them would result in many unneeded disconnections and so create extra hazards resulting from the loss of power (everything from lighting to kitchen refrigeration), not to mention loss of teaching time.

   - Andy.

There may be parts of a School that have extra risks - cookery classes, various science labs, perhaps the gym, come to mind, but these I think are already handled by the relevant parts of the regs and the fact there is a more general H and S regime, as Graham points out.

And I think it would  be hard to write in to a BS something that was not either so general as to be useless or so specific as to be unhelpfully restrictive. 
If anyone it should be other authorities that decide that there are local rules for specific establishments, - much as potentially dangerous gas appliances are permitted at colleges that teach gas fitting so that the students have something to measure and  learn from...

Mike.

Sergio Fernandez said:

My opinion on this would differ as there could be 30 - 35 children in the classroon from different families and also children at home will be more familiar with their home enviroment. 

Isn't this countered by the fact that in a School, there is a responsible duty holder?

I can see that the actual design specification for a school ought to take some things into account that are not taken into account in other environments, but that doesn't mean BS 7671 is deficient? Indeed, BS 7671 has external influences BA2 and BA3 for the designer to consider, among a plethora of other external influences?

Sergio Fernandez said:

Think of a parents evening or A summer fair when extention leads are trailled outside to power lights and music. 

BS 7671 has requirements (where applicable) for the parents evening or summer fair in Sections 711 (and possibly 740).

A school or similar environment is subject to Electricity at Work Regulations, and therefore ought to have a duty holder responsible for electrical safety, and has a duty to consider safety at such "events".

Hi Mike

I understand your point of view.  I also help out at Scouts in Watford as my son is in Cubs.  I really enjoy the way Scouts help shape the future of young people by giving them practical skills like Basic First aide encluding CPR and use of AED. 

To be honest I'd go the other way. The aim of education is to prepare for the real world things that are out there, not to be hidden from them - if anything it is better to meet situations in a controlled setting you hopefully never need in real life - such as the majority of first aid training.

As one who deals a lot with teenagers (as an Assistant Scout Leader) I know very well the tricky balance between exposing youngsters to situations that stretch them  a bit, allowing them to enjoy a challenge,  and actually being reckless. It can go wrong very occasionally, as has been reported in the news recently.

However, the risks of electricity are way down the list compared to fires, gas bottles, pen knives, night hikes, food poisoning and general accidents of the 'fell out of a tree he was not meant to have been in in the first place' which are the majority. (And when they learn first aid, in among cuts and broken bones, sunstroke, car accidents and how to call 999 we do also mock up what to do in case of fire or electric shock)

Youngsters when exposed to a real potential danger generally rise to the event. The  ones who are busy drawing genitalia on the white board or throwing bits of paper at the air cadets during church parades are the same ones who are dead keen to learn knots once standing  at the top of a climbing tower, and are the most attentive when we are using power tools or axing firewood.

I'm not sure how adding RCD protection to the hall lights does anything other than add another failure mode  and may take money away from other safety activities like replacing a fraying doormat or changing water heaters to have safety thermostats. The sockets for those outdoor leads you worry about already have it.

M.