Well pump house RCD protection

complicit

Recently moved house and the sunmersible well and socket for water softener and UV treatment are fed by a standard mcb breaker which is not wired to the main rcd switch . Is this standard practice to avoid nuisance trips or should I consider getting an electrician in to change to RCBO ? Other thing I was considering was to leave the breaker as is but change to socket plate for a rcd switched one , this would still leave the submersible pump and switch unprotected . Thoughts ?

meercat

complicit wrote: »

Recently moved house and the sunmersible well and socket for water softener and UV treatment are fed by a standard mcb breaker which is not wired to the main rcd switch . Is this standard practice to avoid nuisance trips or should I consider getting an electrician in to change to RCBO ? Other thing I was considering was to leave the breaker as is but change to socket plate for a rcd switched one , this would still leave the submersible pump and switch unprotected . Thoughts ?

Both the socket and pump should be rcd protected. Yes get a rec to install rcbo and an isolator( fused spur) for pump

2011

meercat wrote: »

Both the socket and pump should be rcd protected. Yes get a rec to install rcbo and an isolator( fused spur) for pump

I agree that a socket should be RCD protected but I can’t see why the submersible pump would require RCD protection.

meercat

2011 wrote: »

I agree that a socket should be RCD protected but I can’t see why the submersible pump would require RCD protection.

I know you’ve said before you don’t think it applies in this situation but here’s the regulation
555.3.2 a circuit supplying auxiliary equipment associated with water services and water systems (eg pumps)shall be protected by an rcd having a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30mA. This requirement does not apply to equipment used for industrial and similar purposes.

2011

meercat wrote: »

I know you’ve said before you don’t think it applies in this situation but here’s the regulation
555.3.2 a circuit supplying auxiliary equipment associated with water services and water systems (eg pumps)shall be protected by an rcd having a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30mA. This requirement does not apply to equipment used for industrial and similar purposes.

Section 555.3 is titled "water-heating appliances" therefore all parts of this section only apply to water appliances. 555.3.2 is a subsection of 555.3

The OP is installing a pump that is not part of a water heating appliance (we know this because it has a UV filter and water softener).

The pump can be wired as a permanently connected appliance and will be immersed in water at the bottom of a well, so it would be quite hard to get a shock from it.

Twister2

A circuit feeding a submersible pump should be RCD protected regardless

Pumps go faulty and misc problems with joints and wiring, I've seen it loads of times

Bruthal

A 300ma rcd would be an idea as fault indicating maybe. But unless there are scuba divers in the well working on the pump live, there would not seem much need for 30ma coverage.

2011

Twister2 wrote: »

A circuit feeding a submersible pump should be RCD protected regardless

Regardless of what? The rules don’t require it in this case.
What do you see as the risk?
Do you think that all LV pumps should be RCD protected?

Pumps go faulty and misc problems with joints and wiring, I've seen it loads of times

That is true.
How would the installation on an RCD help with this?

listermint

2011 wrote: »

Regardless of what?
What do you see as the risk?
Do you think that all LV pumps should be RCD protected?



That is true.
How would the installation on an RCD help with this?

Panacea

Twister2

My understanding was that domestic pumps were covered by this regulation regardless of whether they were part of a heating system-i'm open to correction on that

The other important point is that the final circuit should be protected and not just the pump itself by a remote RCD or an RCD in a control panel- I heard of this issue recently where an inspector failed a pump protected by an RCD in a panel

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

Section 555.3 is titled "water-heating appliances" therefore all parts of this section only apply to water appliances.

Whilst it is true that it has been entitled as such, there is nothing within the scope of Rule 555.3.2 to state (or even suggest) that it actually applies only to water-heating appliances and therefore I must disagree with your assessment.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

Whilst it is true that it has been entitled as such, there is nothing within the scope of Rule 555.3.2 to state (or even suggest) that it actually applies only to water-heating appliances and therefore I must disagree with your assessment.

Serious?
Are you actually suggesting that the title of a section has nothing to do with the text that appears with that section?
What is the point in having a title on the section at all if that is the case?

Do you know that there are entire installations such as waste water treatment plants that have hundreds of pumps that have no RCD protection, are fully compliant with the rules and work safely?

Despite the obvious merits of RCDs in this instance in makes no sense.

For some reason RCDs always seem to cause confusion

Risteard81

It specifically states that industrial and similar installations are precluded, so I'm not sure what your point actually is.

2011

Twister2 wrote: »

My understanding was that domestic pumps were covered by this regulation regardless of whether they were part of a heating system-i'm open to correction on that

Your understanding is not based on what is actually written in the rules. You are applying a rule out of context to a scenario that simply does not apply. What you have actually done is decided to ignore one part of the rules (the section title) so that you can apply another part thy suits your argument. I’m not saying an RCD is not permitted, it’s just pointless.

The other important point is that the final circuit should be protected and not just the pump itself by a remote RCD or an RCD in a control panel- I heard of this issue recently where an inspector failed a pump protected by an RCD in a panel

Don’t make the mistake of assuming that inspectors are infallible
Nobody is.

I think the problem is that most people don’t understand how RCDs work or what they actually bring to the table. Answer me this: In terms of safety what would an RCD actually achieve in this scenario?

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

It specifically states that industrial and similar installations are precluded, so I'm not sure what your point actually is.

My point is that it also states that this applies to “water heating appliances” which you are conveniently ignoring because it doesn’t suit your argument.

Twister2

On re-reading 555.3 it appears to me an RCD is not required unless it's associated with a water heating appliance

I'm not registered atm but surely the inspectors have ruled on this?

I'm thinking contractors are blindly RCD protecting circuits with pumps anyway

Bruthal

Risteard81 wrote: »

Whilst it is true that it has been entitled as such, there is nothing within the scope of Rule 555.3.2 to state (or even suggest) that it actually applies only to water-heating appliances and therefore I must disagree with your assessment.

So a well pump is a water heating appliance now?

2011

Twister2 wrote: »

I'm not registered atm but surely the inspectors have ruled on this?

Inspectors do not have the authority to “rule” on anything no more than you or I do. They are bound by the same regulations as the rest of us. We should all be interpreting ET101 the same way. Some seem to believe that inspectors have a right to insist on whatever they feel the regulations should state rather than what they do state.

I'm thinking contractors are blindly RCD protecting circuits with pumps anyway

As this forum keeps illustrating some of them are blindly following “their version” of the rules, they also get paid for what they install

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

My point is that it also states that this applies to “water heating appliances” which you are conveniently ignoring because it doesn’t suit your argument.

No, I'm sorry - that simply isn't true.

It states clearly that it relates to "circuits supplying auxiliary equipment associated with water services and water systems (e.g. pumps)".

As such I simply cannot agree with your argument.

Risteard81

Bruthal wrote: »

So a well pump is a water heating appliance now?

I didn't say that - but I proved that the Rule clearly doesn't restrict it to them either. So instead of being a smart ass as usual how about a reasoned argument for once?

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

No, I'm sorry - that simply isn't true.

It states clearly that it relates to "circuits supplying auxiliary equipment associated with water services and water systems (e.g. pumps)".

Under a specific heading which you are choosing to ignore.

As such I simply cannot agree with your argument.

My “argument” is that the heading of a section or a subsection is inserted so that the reader knows what the text under the heading applies to.

Your argument is that the heading or title of a section is there for what reason exactly????

Bruthal

Risteard81 wrote: »

I didn't say that - but I proved that the Rule clearly doesn't restrict it to them either. So instead of being a smart ass as usual how about a reasoned argument for once?

All you proved is if answers to questions are not in readable form, you are lost in general.

Anyway, besides your usual snipes, can you explain in detail the risk that an rcd protects against in a well pump. And why the same exposed pump in a factory doesn't need it.

Not withstanding you never answered the RCD fundamental question before, I don't expect one now.

And, do you agree with every rule, or your interpretation of such rules, without question every time?

Risteard81

Despite what you might believe we are in fact obliged to adhere to the Wiring Rules irrespective of what our views on them might be.

Bruthal

Risteard81 wrote: »

Despite what you might believe we are in fact obliged to adhere to the Wiring Rules irrespective of what our views on them might be.

Did I say anything about not doing so?

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

Despite what you might believe we are in fact obliged to adhere to the Wiring Rules irrespective of what our views on them might be.

True to form no technical explanation and no answer to the straight forward question on the interpretation of the rules put to you in my last post. Instead we get a red herring type reply. For clarity nobody is suggesting not complying with the rules.

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

True to form no technical explanation and no answer to the straight forward question on the interpretation of the rules put to you in my last post. Instead we get a red herring type reply. For clarity nobody is suggesting not complying with the rules.

Because your post was deeply flawed.

Whilst the title of the section is as stated, there is nothing within the Rule which restricts it to that. If you believe that the section is poorly named then suggest that to TC2 (although it will be too late for submissions to the upcoming 5th Edition I.S. 10101).

But the wording of the Rule simply does not limit the scope in the way that you suggest.

Bruthal

Risteard81 wrote: »

If you believe that the section is poorly named then suggest that to TC2 (although it will be too late for submissions to the upcoming 5th Edition I.S. 10101).

Maybe he is happy that the heading is accurate. And you are not.

2011

I think this thread has run its course. People can read the rules themselves and make up their own mind on what is required and what the risk from a submerged pump at the bottom of a well really is.

Stoner

Agreed.

Technically there's a couple of bans in here for personal insults. However let's ignore the irony of the situation with the application of the site rules, the users involved behave similarly and again there's a good debate being maintained concurrently.

There is an underlying argument that is a good read.

But there is no point in developing it anymore.