I have a client who has a range (gas top, electric oven) currently connected via a 15A S/O above the bench top.
He wants it moved down, out of sight for a splash back and to keep it clean. It will still remain connected via S/O in one of the adjacent cupboard as is common for complying with 4.18
However, the information I have so far is that this original S/O is not RCD protected. Now if I was installing new I believe I could apply exception 3, in 2.6.3.1 but because I'm actually altering an existing circuit and adding a S/O, 2.6.3.4 applies, requiring RCD protection, although there are exceptions under 2.6.3.4, they way they are worded means they don't actually apply to 2.6.3.4 but to 2.6.3.1 and 2.6.3.2, so although I believe the intention was that it's ok for me not to have RCD protection in accordance with 2.6.3.1 I believe the way 2.6.3.4 has my hands tied as there is nothing that changes the fact that a socket outlet added to an existing circuit requires RCD protection
Thoughts or input?
Range Socket Outlet Addition - RCD?
-
gregmcc
- Site Admin
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:45 pm
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 49 times
Re: Range Socket Outlet Addition - RCD?
additional sockets are required to be protected at the source, doesn't matter what the source is.
Re: Range Socket Outlet Addition - RCD?
Not quite correct.
Sockets added are required to be protected by RCD; but not necessarily at "source" (origin of circuit); though that's clearly the best-practice option.
Can simply use an SRCD.
The wording of 2.6.3.4 is that the "sockets" must be protected,. Same wording is used in 2.6.3.2.2 (NZ non-residential).
By contrast, 2.6.3.1 for domestic & residential specifies protection of "subcircuits" supplying various types of points.
JamieP is correct that the Exceptions at end of 2.6.3 are Exceptions to the entirety of 2.6.3; but only affect 2.6.3.1 & 2.6.3.2.
Also correct that for the same socket supplied by a new subcircuit, Exception 3 to 2.6.3.1 would apply : no RCD req'd provided both conditions - position & labelling -are met.
So Yes, there's an anomally here that at first glance looks like RCD required for thus alteration that wouldn't be required for new subcircuit.
However in this case it can be argued that no socket is being "added", as the total number of sockets , (also total number of points on the circuit) will be the same. So since "added" has its normal meaning; none of the subclauses of 2.6.3 apply, and no RCD is required by 2.6.3. for a relocation.
If you trace the history of this clause, from 2000 edition; you'll find it's been tweaked and modified several times - and it becomes clear that even the writers have sometimes been confused as to how these Exceptions-after-4-subclauses should apply. Originally placed at end because they were Exceptions to all of 2.6.3; but inserting more Exceptions after individual subclauses led to these tail-end ones being interpreted as applying only to 2.6.3.4.
2018 edition clarifies by having the Exceptions to each sub-clause after that subclause, and no catch-all Exceptions at the end. This means some of the Exceptions get repeated for different sub-clauses, but much clearer for readers.
Sockets added are required to be protected by RCD; but not necessarily at "source" (origin of circuit); though that's clearly the best-practice option.
Can simply use an SRCD.
The wording of 2.6.3.4 is that the "sockets" must be protected,. Same wording is used in 2.6.3.2.2 (NZ non-residential).
By contrast, 2.6.3.1 for domestic & residential specifies protection of "subcircuits" supplying various types of points.
JamieP is correct that the Exceptions at end of 2.6.3 are Exceptions to the entirety of 2.6.3; but only affect 2.6.3.1 & 2.6.3.2.
Also correct that for the same socket supplied by a new subcircuit, Exception 3 to 2.6.3.1 would apply : no RCD req'd provided both conditions - position & labelling -are met.
So Yes, there's an anomally here that at first glance looks like RCD required for thus alteration that wouldn't be required for new subcircuit.
However in this case it can be argued that no socket is being "added", as the total number of sockets , (also total number of points on the circuit) will be the same. So since "added" has its normal meaning; none of the subclauses of 2.6.3 apply, and no RCD is required by 2.6.3. for a relocation.
If you trace the history of this clause, from 2000 edition; you'll find it's been tweaked and modified several times - and it becomes clear that even the writers have sometimes been confused as to how these Exceptions-after-4-subclauses should apply. Originally placed at end because they were Exceptions to all of 2.6.3; but inserting more Exceptions after individual subclauses led to these tail-end ones being interpreted as applying only to 2.6.3.4.
2018 edition clarifies by having the Exceptions to each sub-clause after that subclause, and no catch-all Exceptions at the end. This means some of the Exceptions get repeated for different sub-clauses, but much clearer for readers.