ESR 24 - is this an error?

Post Reply
User avatar
DougP
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:11 pm
Answers: 3
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 31 times

ESR 24 - is this an error?

Post by DougP »

----
(3) An RCD used to protect against electric shock, and that is either installed as
part of an installation or is a portable RCD, is deemed to be electrically unsafe
if it has a rated residual current exceeding 30 milliamperes and—

(a) it does not interrupt the current in all live conductors within—
(i) 300 milliseconds when passing its rated residual current; or
(ii) 40 milliseconds when passing 5 times its rated residual current; or
----

Should that actually be worded:-
(a) it has a rated residual current exceeding 30 milliamperes; or
(b) it does not interrupt the current in all live conductors within—
(i) 300 milliseconds when passing its rated residual current; or
(ii) 40 milliseconds when passing 5 times its rated residual current; or
(c) etc etc


The same as (5) (a) and (6) (a) ??
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: ESR 24 - is this an error?

Post by AlecK »

Yes, it's an error
PawPatrol
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:42 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: ESR 24 - is this an error?

Post by PawPatrol »

No its not an error. It is only intended to cover RCDs used for compliance with the ESR.

It would not contravene the ESR if someone (PEW and license etc required) installed an RCD that is not Type A or not 30ma so long as it was not for compliance with the ESR.

Look at the first part of the regulation:

ESR 24
(1)
This regulation applies to any standard low voltage RCD that is used in a situation where it is required, by these regulations or any standard, to be used.
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: ESR 24 - is this an error?

Post by AlecK »

True Clause (1) means ESR 24 only applies to RCDs that are required, and not to "extra" RCDs that are not required.

But it's still an error for Clause (3) to say "and".
'And' means that both conditions have to be met.
In this case , to be electrically unsafe, it must have a rated residual current > 30 mA
AND it must also meet at least one of the other conditions listed in (a), (b), & (c).

Therefore any RCd that has a rating not > 30 mA can't be declared electrically unsafe under this clause.
Even if it meets all of those other conditions.

It's simply not believable that that is the intent; because RCDs rated > 30 mA simply are never used for protection against shock.
Therefore the opening condition will NEVER be met
thus leaving no effective mechanism for classifying RCDs used protection against shock as electrically unsafe

A simple grammatical error; that has the unfortunate effect of reversing the intent
Post Reply