Queensland
Regulatory Impact Statement for SL 2002 No. 180
Electricity Act 1994
ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT REGULATION
(No. 3) 2002
TITLE
Proposed Legislation for Safety Switches in Domestic Dwellings.
BACKGROUND
The “safety switch” is an electrical device that senses electrical current
imbalance between the current flowing in the active and neutral conductors
of a circuit. If a person comes into contact with the active conductor of an
electrical circuit their body can provide a conductive path to earth. The
current flowing through the person’s body can cause injury or death. A
safety switch senses the imbalance in the active and neutral conductors,
causing it to cut off the power. Because safety switches are very sensitive
they operate before the current going through a person is able to reach a
value that is detrimental to the person and protects them from injury or
death due to electrocution.
A safety switch will prevent a person receiving an electric shock in
circumstances such as where—
•
a knife is inserted into a toaster to clear bread accidentally comes
into contact with the live electrical circuit;
•
the power lead of an electric saw is accidentally cut during use;
•
a screw inserted into a wall to hang a picture inadvertently comes
into contact with the power circuit wiring; or
•
a hairdryer is accidentally dropped into a basin of water.
From 1991–92 to December 2000 Queensland has had an average of
4 fatalities per year due to consumer related electrocutions that could have
2
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
been prevented if domestic dwellings were fitted with a safety switch to
protect power circuits. The summary of the statistics of electrical accidents
from the period 1991–92 to December 2000 is included at Attachment 1.
Queensland, on a per million population basis, has a poor record in terms
of the number of fatalities caused by electrical incidents when compared to
other Australian States, refer to Attachment 2. In domestic dwellings,
electrocutions from power circuits (fixed wires) are at least 4 times more
prevalent than those resulting from lighting circuits.
In September 1999, R McGuigan and D Williams were contracted to
investigate public safety and other consumer related issues of Queensland.
In 2000 an Electricity Safety Taskforce was formed to consider ways of
improving the manner in which electrical incidents can be prevented. A key
recommendation from both the McGuigan Williams Report on ‘Public
Safety’ and the findings of the Electricity Safety Taskforce was mandatory
installation of safety switches in all consumer premises with a phasing in
period or at point of sale where they are not already fitted. An Electrical
Safety Switch Working Group was established by the then Minister for
Mines and Energy, the Hon. Tony McGrady MP, to investigate and
implement appropriate measures to achieve this goal.
The Electrical Safety Switch Working Group conducted an in depth
investigation into the implementation of the recommendation to have safety
switches installed in domestic dwellings. The investigation included the
following—
•
assessing and updating the statistics of electrical accidents to
confirm the level of potential benefits associated with the
installation of safety switches;
•
consultation with the Electricity Safety Office in the Department
of Industrial Relations, ENERGEX, Ergon Energy, Department
of State Development, Department of Housing and the National
Electrical Contractors’ Association;
•
consideration of the financial impacts on the community of
mandatory safety switches and mechanisms to reduce those
impacts; and
•
consideration of alternative options to reduce the unacceptable
number of fatalities and injuries as a result of electric shock in
domestic dwellings.
The reports of the Independent Review of the Electrical Safety Office
and the Electrical Safety Taskforce, noted that fixed wiring in domestic
3
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
homes is the third largest contributor to electrical incidents in Queensland
over the last 20 years. This accounts for some 25% of total fatalities over
this period. The reports recommended—
•
the installation of safety switches on a least the power circuits in
domestic dwellings; and
•
an electrical inspection of all domestic dwellings at the point of
sale. The inspection reports of domestic homes provided by the
electrical distributors have identified electrical hazards including
lack of maintenance of electrical equipment, faulty and unsafe
fixed wiring and do-it-yourself electrical work. Point of sale
electrical inspections was identified as one measure that may
minimise the risk of electric shock.
Queensland requires all domestic dwellings constructed since 1992 to
have a safety switch installed. The Electricity Regulation 1994 requires that
electrical installations be wired in accordance with the SAA Wiring Rules
AS/NZS 3000 (“the Wiring Rules”). The Wiring Rules (1991) required
that new houses have a safety switch installed on power circuits. There was
no requirement in the rules for houses built prior to these requirements to
have safety switches installed. As a result, it has been estimated that
approximately 500 000 dwellings in Queensland do not have safety
switches installed to protect any circuit. The estimate of 500 000 dwellings
was arrived using data collated by the Electricity Development Association
of Queensland in their report entitled ‘The Application of Residual Current
Devices in the Minimisation of the Frequency and Severity of Electrical
Accidents in Queensland 1997’, see Attachment 3.
The Wiring Rules were amended on 1 June 2000. This amendment
requires safety switches to be installed on power and lighting circuits on
new houses from 1 June 2000. The 1 June 2000 amendment is a national
standard which also reflects international standards for electrical safety.
AUTHORISING LAW
An objective of the Queensland Electricity Act 1994 is ‘to promote
electricity safety’. This is given effect by the Electricity Regulation 1994,
which aims to ensure the electricity safety of electrical workers, other
workers, customers and the general public, section 3(a).
Section 264 of the Electricity Act 1994 provides the head of power for
the making of a regulation. A regulation may be made about matters
mentioned in schedule 2, section 264(1), which provides technical,
4
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
operational and safety requirements relating to works and installations. For
the purposes of the Act, a domestic dwelling is an electrical installation.
POLICY OBJECTIVE
The objective of the options outlined in this Regulatory Impact
Statement is to prevent fatalities and injuries to the public caused by
electric shock in domestic dwellings. The majority of these fatalities and
injuries occur because domestic dwelling built prior to 1992 are not
required to have safety switches installed on at least power circuits.
The potential for death or injury from electric shocks in domestic
dwellings if a safety switch has not been installed increases substantially.
Over the past 10 years Queensland has had an average of 4 fatalities per
year due to electrocution in domestic premises and a total of 1966 injuries
reported as a result of electrical incidents. Most of these fatalities and
injuries would have been prevented by the installation of a safety switch.
If a decision were made not to mandate the installation of safety
switches in all Queensland domestic dwellings, an estimated 500 000
houses would remain without safety switch protection. Without the added
protection of safety switches on at least power circuits preventable fatalities
will continue to occur.
While other Australian States have only introduced legislation
mandating the installation of safety switches in new domestic dwellings,
Victoria and Western Australia are drafting legislation to make the
installation of safety switches a requirement at ‘point of sale’ of a domestic
dwelling.
HOW THE POLICY OBJECTIVE WILL BE ACHIEVED
The Electrical Safety Switch Working Group identified and assessed
7 options based around the installation of safety switches in all domestic
dwellings to reduce fatalities and injuries caused by electric shocks. Details
on the costings in each of the options is available by contacting the
department on telephone 3006–4086. The 7 options are as follows—
•
option 1—No regulatory intervention. Invoke a public awareness
program on the benefits to be gained from the protection
provided by safety switches installed on electrical circuits;
•
option 2—Introduce the mandatory installation of safety
switches on—
5
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
•
both power and lighting circuits, phased in over a 7 year
period; and
•
power circuits, phased in over a 7 year period
•
option 3—Mandate the installation of safety switches to protect
power circuits, at the point of sale of a domestic dwelling;
•
option 4—Require electricity distributors to install safety
switches in domestic dwellings;
•
option 5—Mandate an immediate requirement for an “electrical
safety check” of a domestic dwelling at the point of sale;
•
option 6—A combination of options 3 and 5. Under this option
as well as installing safety switches at the point of sale of a
domestic dwelling, the home owner will be required to have
electrical safety check at the point of sale of the dwelling.
The advantages and disadvantages of these options are examined in the
Regulatory Impact Statement. In particular, the costs and benefits
associated with the preferred option, option 3, are examined in detail as it
imposes a significant cost on part of the community. However, they are
deemed necessary in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries
due to electrocution, which occur in private dwellings in Queensland.
While the electricity supply distributors have advertised the benefits of
the installation of safety switches, the “take up rate” by existing
homeowners has been poor despite advertising and previous rebate
schemes. It is currently estimated that 500 000 domestic dwellings in
Queensland do not have a safety switch installed. To address the risk of
electric shock and reduce the number of fatalities and injuries in domestic
dwellings, it is proposed to regulate the mandatory fitting of safety
switches to protect power circuits at point of sale of a domestic dwelling.
It is considered not only appropriate but also essential, to set a
mandatory approach by making subordinate legislation requiring the
installation of safety switches on power circuits. Homeowners would also
be encouraged to install safety switches to protect lighting circuits in all
domestic dwellings. A media campaign will be conducted to raise public
awareness of the advantages of having safety switches installed and the
impending legislative requirements.
6
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
CONSISTENCY WITH AUTHORISING LAW AND OTHER
LEGISLATION
The proposed amendment regulation supports the requirements of the
Electricity Act 1994, which has as an objective ‘to promote
electrical safety’, section 3(c).
The proposed amendment also is consistent with the Electricity
Regulation 1994 which has as one of its main purposes to ‘Promote
electrical safety and to ensure the electrical safety of electrical workers,
other workers, customers and the general public’, section 3 (a).
The objective of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 is to prevent
a person’s death, injury or illness being caused by a workplace, workplace
activity or specified high-risk plant. The objective is achieved by
preventing or minimising a person’s exposure to the risk of death, injury or
illness caused by a workplace, workplace activity or specified high-risk
plant. The proposed legislation is no more onerous than the requirements of
the Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 1997, which requires all
equipment used in a workplace to be connected to a safety switch either at
the switchboard or via a lead that must be connected to a portable safety
switch.
The Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and Workplace Health and
Safety Regulation 1997 require industrial and commercial installations to
have safety switches installed or used in conjunction with appliances.
Caravan parks and camping grounds are considered commercial
installations and are covered by these requirements.
The Electricity Regulation 1994 also requires electrical installations to
meet the AS/NZS–AS3000 Wiring Rules.
The proposed legislation extends the requirements in the Wiring Rules to
include protection for those domestic dwellings built before 1992 that were
not previously covered.
Options 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 outline regulatory options that are consistent
with the authorising law.
7
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Option 1—No regulatory intervention—Invoke a public awareness
campaign
Option 1 will maintain the current situation where it is a decision of the
owner of a domestic dwelling built before 1992, whether to install a safety
switch.
Advantages and disadvantages of option 1
An advantage of option 1 is that, while it offers a non-regulatory
approach it ensures increased public awareness of the risks associated with
the use of electricity and the advantages of safety switches in protecting
householders from the risk of electric shock in domestic dwellings.
The main disadvantage of option 1 is that it is not in the interest of the
safety of Queensland householders. Doing nothing would deny the
Queensland householders protection against an average of 4 fatal accidents
per year and many injuries. While advertising and promotion may result in
an increase in the number of safety switches installed, high impact
advertising on television and radio is expensive, and experience to date
would tend to indicate that significant numbers of homeowners are not
influenced to purchase and install safety switches.
The costs associated with a public awareness campaign have been
estimated at $3.85m over a 7 year period.
Option 2(A)—Mandate the installation of safety switches on both
power and lighting circuits
Option 2 is a new regulation that would require the owners of all
domestic dwellings to install a safety switch on all lighting and power
circuits. Homeowners would have 7 years to install the safety switch from
the date the regulation is made.
8
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Advantages and disadvantages of option 2(A)
The main advantages of this option are that it would—
•
significantly reduce the number of fatalities and injuries from
electric shock in the estimated 500 000 domestic dwellings that
do not have safety switches installed; and
•
ensure consistency between existing and new homeowners. From
1 June 2000, the Wiring Rules require safety switches to be
installed on both power and lighting circuits for new houses. The
previous Wiring Rules, which were in place from July 1992
to 2000, required safety switches on power circuits only; and
•
provide time for the market to manage demand for installation of
safety switches through a ‘phase in’ period of 7 years.
The main disadvantage of option 2(A) is the cost to homeowners
installing safety switches on both power and lighting circuits instead of just
power circuits increases from $84.5m to $135m. In addition, as
homeowners will have 7 years to install a safety switch there will be the
potential for fatalities and injuries as a result of electric shocks until such
time as safety switches are installed.
Statistics have shown that electrical incidents occur at least 4 times more
frequently on power circuits than on lighting circuits. The primary reason
for changing the Wiring Rules to require safety switches to be installed on
both power and lighting circuits for new houses was that modern house
construction is increasingly using metal frames, which substantially
increases the chance of lighting circuits developing life threatening faults
by conducting electricity. Older housing tends to have timber frames,
which significantly reduce the risk of life threatening faults from lighting
circuits.
The cost of option 2(A) over a 7 year period would be $135m for
homeowners and $3.85m for the public awareness campaign.
Option 2(B)—Mandate the installation of safety switches on power
circuits
Option 2(B) is a new regulation that would require the owners of all
domestic dwellings to install a safety switch on power circuits within
7 years from the date the regulation was made.
9
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Advantages and disadvantages of option 2(B)
The main advantages of option 2(B) are that it would provide—
•
protection against electric shock in domestic dwellings by
requiring the installation of a safety switch in the estimated
500 000 domestic dwellings that do not have safety switches
installed on the power circuits. Power circuits are 4 times more
likely to be involved in electrical shocks than lighting circuits;
•
a transition period, where the mandatory installation of safety
switches only applies after the 7 year phase in period ensures the
market is in a better position to manage demand for installation
of safety switches.
The disadvantage of this option is that homeowners will have 7 years to
install a safety switch. There will continue to be the potential for fatalities
and injuries as a result of electric shocks from power circuits in domestic
dwellings until such time as safety switches are installed. However, a
public awareness campaign to encourage the installation of safety switches
will be timed to coincide with the making of the proposed regulations.
The cost to the homeowners of installing safety switches on power
circuits is estimated at $84.5m over the 7 year period. The electricity
distributors Energex and Ergon currently allow homeowners to pay off the
installation of a safety switch by instalments as part of their electricity bill,
where they install the safety switch. Energex and Ergon advise that they
intend to continue to provide this service to their customers.
While this option will mandate safety switch protection of power
circuits, homeowners could be encouraged through a promotional
campaign to also install safety switch protection on lighting circuits. The
cost for the public awareness campaign over a 7 year period would
be $3.85m.
Option 3—Mandate installation of safety switches to protect power
circuits, at the point of sale of domestic dwelling
Option 3 is a new regulation that would require the owners of all
domestic dwellings to install a safety switch on power circuits at the point
they sold the house (point of sale).
10
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Advantages and disadvantages of option 3
The main advantages of option 3 are that it would provide—
•
protection against electric shock in domestic dwellings by
requiring the installation of a safety switch in the estimated
500 000 domestic dwellings that do not have safety switches
installed on the power circuits. Power circuits are 4 times more
likely to be involved in electrical shocks than lighting circuits;
•
a transition period, where the mandatory installation of safety
switches only applies at the point of sale of a house ensures the
market is in a better position to manage demand for installation
of safety switches.
The disadvantage of this option is that it is likely to take on average, up
to 15 years to install safety switches in most domestic dwellings built prior
to 1992. There will continue to be the potential for fatalities and injuries as
a result of electric shocks from power circuits in domestic dwellings until
such time as safety switches are installed. However, a media campaign to
encourage the installation of safety switches will be timed to coincide with
the making of the proposed regulations.
The cost to homeowners of installing safety switches on power circuits is
estimated at $69.8m. The electricity distributors Energex and Ergon
currently allow homeowners to pay off the installation of a safety switch by
instalments as part of their electricity bill. Energex and Ergon advise that
they intend to continue to provide this service to their customers, where
they install the safety switch.
While this option will mandate safety switch protection of power
circuits, homeowners could be encouraged through a promotional
campaign to also install safety switch protection on lighting circuits. The
cost for the public awareness campaign over a 7 year period would
be $3.85m.
Option 4—Require electricity distributors to install safety switches
Option 4 is a new regulation that would require the distributors of
electricity to install safety switches on the power circuits of all customers’
domestic dwellings built before 1992, within 7 years from the date the
regulation was made.
11
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Under the Electricity Act 1994 and the Electricity Regulation 1994 the
electricity distributors have responsibility to—
•
check to confirm that the domestic dwelling is not likely to cause
shock or fire;
•
advise the homeowner and the public on electrical safety; and
•
promote electrical safety.
Advantages and disadvantages of option 4
The advantage of option 4 is that the electricity distributors would ensure
the systematic installation of safety switches without the involvement of, or
financial cost to homeowners, thereby ensuring protection against electric
shock in all domestic dwellings that currently do not have a safety switch
installed on the power circuits.
The main disadvantage of this option is that it will impose expenditure
on the electricity distributors of approximately $84.5m, which can only be
raised through increased electricity tariffs. This option would have the
effect of requiring the owners of houses built after 1992 (which have a
safety switch) and those who have voluntarily installed a safety switch to
contribute to the cost of installing safety switches in the estimated 500 000
domestic dwellings without a safety switch.
Option 5—Mandate an immediate requirement for an “electrical
safety check” of a domestic dwelling at the point of sale
Option 5 is a new regulation that would require the owner of a domestic
dwelling to have an electrical safety check (inspection) of the dwelling
prior to sale to determine compliance with the required electrical standards.
Although non-compliance would not prevent the sale of a dwelling, the
purchaser would be aware of any identified deficiencies and may seek to
have these repaired as a condition of the sale.
Advantages and disadvantages of option 5
The advantage of option 5 is that it would identify electrical faults in a
domestic dwelling enabling the purchaser to be in an informed position at
the time of purchase. Inspection reports of domestic homes provided to the
Electrical Safety Taskforce by the electrical distributors reveal a large
number of electrical hazards including lack of maintenance of electrical
12
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
equipment, faulty and unsafe fixed wiring and do-it-yourself electrical
work. Point of sale electrical inspections are one measure that minimises
the potential for electric shocks and they also provide for the independent
verification of the installation of a safety switch.
The disadvantages of this option are as follows—
•
this option would identify domestic dwellings requiring
electrical work at the point of sale. However, it is unlikely to
reduce the number of fatalities in domestic dwellings unless
combined with an option requiring the mandatory installation of
safety switches; and
•
safety checks are not necessary on electrical circuits connected
through a safety switch. A safety switch will shut off the
electricity to a circuit that has a fault or faulty appliance attached
making it inoperable. This will reduce the need for a safety check
of those circuits.
While this is an alternative that could be combined with invoking a
public awareness campaign (option 1) and mandating safety switches at
point of sale (option 3), the costs associated with this option can not be
justified in terms of improved electrical safety performance.
The cost to the homeowners of electrical safety checks at the point of
sale has been estimated at $155 per inspection or $122m over a 7 year
period. This is based on sales of domestic dwellings in Queensland at a cost
of $20.6m per annum.
Option 6—Installing a safety switch and conduct an electrical safety
check at the point of sale of a domestic dwelling
Option 6 is a new regulation that would combine options 3 and 5. Under
this option the owner of a domestic dwelling would have to—
•
install a safety switch on power circuits at the point they sold the
house (point of sale) from the date the regulation was made; and
•
have an electrical safety check of the dwelling undertaken prior
to sale to determine compliance with the required electrical
standards. Although non-compliance would not prevent the sale
of a dwelling, the purchaser would be aware of any identified
deficiencies and may seek to have these repaired as a condition of
the sale.
13
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Advantages and disadvantages of option 6
The advantage of option 6 is that it would identify electrical faults in
domestic dwellings enabling the purchaser to be in an informed position at
the time of purchase, as well as ensuring the purchaser was afforded the
protection of a safety switch to protect against the risk of electrical shock.
Point of sale electrical checks would provide an independent verification of
the installation of a safety switch.
The disadvantage of this option is the cost. In addition to the estimated
cost of $68.9m for the installation of safety switches on power circuits,
vendors also would be faced with the costs of $122m for the electrical
safety checks over a 7 year period. Accordingly, the total cost of this option
over a 7 year period is $210.4m.
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF OPTION 3 (PREFERRED OPTION)
Option 3
Without mandatory installation of safety switches on power circuits in
domestic dwellings, at least 4 lives will be lost per year due to preventable
electrical incidents in the home. Over a 20 year period the installation of
safety switches in domestic dwellings has the potential to save an estimated
80 lives. In addition, there is the potential to reduce costs associated with
non-fatal injuries and to prevent fire damage resulting from electrical
faults. The cost associated with the installation of a safety switch is a once
off cost for the homeowner. Once a safety switch is installed on an
electrical circuit the protection is continuous. Unless subjected to unusual
damage the switch will not deteriorate and only requires occasional testing.
The proposed amendment to the Electricity Regulation 1994 will not
require the immediate installation of safety switches to domestic dwellings.
However, a safety switch will be mandatory at the point of sale of a
dwelling. If it is not installed, the new owner will have to install one within
3 months from the date of purchase. The electricity distributors and/or
contractors will verify the installation of a safety switch when electrical
work is carried out on a dwelling through a sticker system. The contractor
or electricity distributors will place a sticker on the switchboard to alert the
owner/occupant as to whether a safety switch has been installed.
14
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
The electricity distributors and/or contractors will verify installation of a
safety switch when connecting the electricity for new owners. Where a
dwelling has been sold which does not have a safety switch, the electricity
distributor or contractor will be prohibited from undertaking electrical
work on the dwelling other than connecting the power, unless a safety
switch is installed as part of the electrical work.
The Electrical Safety Office in the Department of Industrial Relations
manages complaints about electrical work for the Electrical Workers and
Contractors Board. The Electrical Safety Office will deal with consumer
complaints about the installation of safety switches.
Once the safety switches are installed the benefit of the protection
against electric shocks is ongoing. Once installed and maintained correctly,
the safety switch will continue to provide protection in excess of 20 years.
Loss of life or a hospitalisation due to electric shock could be prevented for
the cost of installing a safety switch. In addition, house fires resulting from
electrical faults would be significantly reduced.
Costs
Since the period 1996–97 to December 1999 the number of domestic
consumers has grown from 1 329 811 to 1 382 747. No data is available to
indicate the number of safety switches installed during the period. It is
estimated that there are at least 500 000 domestic dwellings do not have
safety switch protection on power circuits. The estimate of 500 000
dwellings was arrived at using data collated by the Electricity Development
Association of Queensland in their entitled ‘The Application of Residual
Current Devices in the Minimisation of the Frequency and Severity of
Electrical Accidents in Queensland 1997’.
The cost of installing safety switch protection on a dwelling for power
circuits will depend on the number of circuits installed and whether the
household wishes to isolate particular circuits so if a fault occurs, they will
not lose power from the remaining circuits.
A simple installation would involve a single power circuit. This can be
done by using a single safety switch, or by replacing the existing fuse or
circuit breaker with a miniature circuit breaker/safety switch combination.
The cost for this switchboard modification for protection of a single power
circuit would be approximately $200. Once installed, the safety switch
does not consume any electricity, as it is purely a protective device.
15
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
The provision of safety switch protection for each circuit of a more
complex installation may include 3 phases with multiple power circuits,
resulting in considerable escalation of cost if all circuits are to be
individually protected. The individual protection of power circuits with a
safety switch will not be required by the proposed regulation.
The total cost of upgrading 500 000 dwellings requiring the added safety
switch protection on power circuits is estimated as $69.8m. The electricity
distributors Energex and Ergon currently allow homeowners to pay off the
installation of a safety switch by instalments as part of their electricity bill,
where they install the safety switch. Energex and Ergon advise that they
intend to continue to offer this service to their customers.
The other area of impact will be the requirement for electricity
distributors and contractors who undertake electrical work on a domestic
dwelling to determine if a safety switch has been installed and to place a
sticker on the switchboard.
The REIQ contract will require revision to include a statement about
safety switches. This would be an initial cost to the REIQ and once the
form is standardised the REIQ would not incur any additional cost in
amending their standard contract.
Circuit
Cost
Based on 500 000
dwellings with no
safety switch
protection
Power circuits 1 per household =
$69.8m
Appliances
Costs covered by
and cords
power circuits
Refrigerators Costs covered by
power circuits
Total costs
$69.8m
Benefit
Reduced
fatalities
over 20 years
(number of
fatalities)
Reduced
hospitalisation over
20 years (number of
hospitalisations)
28
52
Reduced
incidents other
than fatal of
required
hospitalisation
over 20 years
(number of
accidents)
2980
48
292
1440
4
30
640
80
372
5060
Source—Office of Energy Queensland Treasury
The costs and benefit statistics shown in the above table are estimates
only but they can be used as a guide for the order of magnitude of the costs
16
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
and benefits likely to result from the implementation of any project to
install safety switches on the electrical circuits.
The estimated cost of a hospital bed is $500 per day plus an additional
$200 medical fee and an average of two days hospitalisation; the estimated
cost saving in hospitalisations is equal to approximately $500 000 over the
20 year period.
Incidents that do not require medical attention also impose a cost on the
community. These costs relate to investigation costs by the Electrical
Safety Office and electricity distributors. A conservative estimate of these
costs is $200 per incident. Over the period of 20 years this will amount to
approximately $1m.
While the direct benefit from the fitting of safety switches is that of
saving people from the effects of electric shock, there is also an indirect
benefit associated with the operation of the safety switch. If left unchecked,
the effects of an electrical fault can result in arcing or overload at the fault
which may result in a fire.
The electrical fault, which often causes a fire, is caused by a defective
electrical termination. Where a sustained arc occurs, the current can in
some instances partly or wholly bypass the neutral return path. In such
cases a safety switch can quickly extinguish the arc and thus prevent a fire
from occurring.
Over the past five years there have been 4035 house fires that have been
caused by electrical faults. This is an average of approximately 800 per
year. Safety switches would not have operated in response to all types of
electrical faults that cause a fire, however, if it is assumed that a safety
switch operating on a tenth of the faults that have caused a fire,
approximately 80 fires per annum could be prevented. Although there is no
data available as to the cost of the fires, it can be seen that even at a very
conservative estimate of $10 000 per fire (without considering loss of life),
the cost is estimated as $800 000 per annum or $16m over 20 year period
(source—Energy Division, Queensland Treasury). This gives an order of
magnitude to the cost of fires that may be prevented by the installation of
safety switches.
In terms of commercial benefits, if safety switches have to be installed
then the safety switch supplier would benefit from the sale. This is a boost
to the suppliers as there would be approximately 500 000 switches
required. All of the necessary equipment can be supplied from Queensland
sources, providing a boost to local industry.
There will be a gain of additional business by contractors and safety
switch suppliers over the period of time when the switches are being
installed. Contractors would be required to install the safety switches. This
would involve labour amounting to approximately 2 million working-hours
17
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
to install the safety switches. This may also provide a temporary boost to
local employment.
CONSISTENCY
PRINCIPLES
WITH
FUNDAMENTAL
LEGISLATIVE
The Legislative Standards Act 1992 outlines fundamental legislative
principles that require legislation to have sufficient regard to the rights and
liberties of individuals and the institution of Parliament. It is considered
that the proposed regulation in option 3 has sufficient regard for these
principles. The drafting of any legislation about the installation of safety
switches would include an assessment of whether the legislation has
sufficient regard for fundamental legislative principles.
NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY
The Queensland Government is party to the Competition Principles
Agreement agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in 1995
(amended in 2000). The guiding principle of this agreement is that
legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated
that—
•
the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole
outweigh the costs; and
•
the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by
restricting competition.
Fundamental to the National Competition Policy analysis is whether any
of the options under consideration can meet the relevant policy
objectives i.e. to protect householders (families) in domestic dwellings
from the risk of death or injury due to electric shock. If more than one
option can do so, which one does so with the least adverse effect on
competition?
As all regulatory options are based around the installation of safety
switches, each option has a similar effect on competition. The proposed
amendment to the regulation does not favour any brand or equipment
manufacturer. Any make of safety switch can be used providing it meets
approved test standards, which certify that it is capable of performing the
required protection function. The installation of the safety switch is not
restricted to any electrical contractor or distributing authority. The only
requirement is that the installer be licensed to carry out electrical work on a
domestic dwelling. The homeowner is free to select any electrical
contractor to carry out the installation of safety switch in their dwelling.
18
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
CONCLUSION
The Electrical Safety Taskforce final report A Review of Industry
Compliance with Electrical Safety Standards and the Investigation of
Serious Electrical Incidents noted that Queensland has the highest fatality
rate from electrocution in Australia by a factor of at least 2. The report went
on to state that a ‘Comparison with some European countries indicate that
Australia overall is proportionally worse. Therefore, Queensland
consistently rates among the worst performers in the western world’.
It is considered that the benefits derived from consumers having safety
switches installed on at least power circuits, greatly outweighs the costs of
the installation of the switches. Therefore, mandating of the installation of
safety switches on at least the power circuits of domestic dwellings is
recommended.
At the present time Queensland does not have electrical safety
legislation that requires the installation of safety switches in domestic
dwellings built before 1991. The Regulatory Impact Statement examines
7 options for achieving a reduction in fatalities and injuries from electric
shock in domestic dwellings and has concluded that—
•
option 1 is not likely to reduce number of fatalities and injuries in
the short to medium term;
•
option 2(A) and (B) will protect householders, but impose
additional costs on the community in comparison to option 3;
•
option 3 imposes significant costs on the community, however, it
is considered the most practical option of reducing the human
and financial cost associated with electric shocks in domestic
dwellings;
•
option 4 will protect householders, however, it imposes costs on
specific sections of the community who have previously installed
safety switches;
•
option 5 is not likely to reduce number of fatalities and injuries in
the short to medium term; and
•
option 6 imposes significant costs on the community that are
additional to option 3. In view of this additional cost, option 6 is
not considered to be the most effective option for reducing the
human and financial cost associated with electric shocks in
domestic dwellings;
The objective of the proposed amendment to the Electricity
Regulation 1994 is to prevent fatalities and injuries to the public caused by
electric shock in domestic dwellings. There is no doubt that safety switches
19
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
provide the ability to significantly reduce the number of fatalities and
injuries caused by electric shock.
20
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
ATTACHMENT 1
ELECTRICAL FATALITIES 1991–1992 TO 2000–2001
Domestic Probably Commercial Probably Industrial Probably
Prevented
Prevented
Prevented
with Safety
with Safety
with Safety
Switch
Switch
Switch
Substations
1
0
Powerlines
9
0
16
0
6
0
Fixed
16
14
12
10
5
5
wiring
Flexible
8
8
3
3
1
1
cords and
cord fittings
Appliances,
17
16
7
5
3
2
handlamps
and tools
Private
1
1
1
1
plant
Total
51
39
38
18
17
9
Source—Electrical Safety Office, Department of Industrial Relations
Fatalities per Million Persons
11.00
1995/96
10.00
1996/97
9.00
1997/98
8.00
1998/99
7.00
6.00
1999/00
2000/01
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00 per Millions
Fatalities
1.00
0.00
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
Region
TAS
VIC
WA
NZ
21
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPARISON OF ELECTRICAL STATISTICS
IN AUSTRALIA
Electrical Accident Fatalities 2000/01
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
Region
Trend of Fatalities
per Million Australian and NZ
3.50
Fa
tali
tie
s
pe
r
Mil
lio
n
3.00
2.50
AUSTRALIA
2.00
NZ
Total
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
Year
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
22
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
ATTACHMENT 3
EDAQ
THE APPLICATION OF RESIDUAL CURRENT
DEVICES IN THE MINIMISATION OF THE
FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF ELECTRICAL
ACCIDENTS IN QUEENSLAND
An Electrical Safety Initiative of the Queensland Government
R Dunstan
EDAQ October 1997
Electrical Development Association of Queensland (Inc.)
23
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Project Brief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Project Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Project Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4.1 Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4.2 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.0 FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Consultative Process Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 Nuisance Tripping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 Heating Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3 Lighting Circuits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.4 Portable Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.5 Power Circuits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.6 All Circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.7 Quasi Domestic Situations . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.8 Non Complying Existing Installations . 11
2.1.9 Performance and Reliability . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.10 How Should RCDs be installed . . . . . .13
2.1.11 AS3000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
2.1.12 Alternative Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . .14
No. 180, 2002
24
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
2.2 Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.2.1 Power Lines and Service Mains . . . . . . .14
2.2.2 Switchboards and Sub Mains . . . . . . . . .15
2.2.3 Final Circuits, Appliances and Cords . . .16
3.0 COSTS AND BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
3.1 Domestic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
3.1.1 Installations pre-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
3.1.2 New installations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
3.2 Commercial and Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
4.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
4.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
No. 180, 2002
25
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
SYNOPSIS
Queensland recorded 20 electrical fatalities for the financial year ending
30 June 1997, while during the 6 year period studied for this report there
were 74 fatalities and 4880 recorded electrical accidents. The focus of this
report is to determine what impact residual current devices (“RCDs”) can
have on reducing the severity and frequency of electrical accidents in
Queensland.
RCDs have been successfully used and are widely accepted as a cost
effective way to provide both personal and property protection from
electrical accidents and faults. They are used world wide in domestic,
commercial and industrial installations.
The currently available RCD’s performance and reliability is excellent.
Their continued improvement has been fostered in part by the
environmental requirements of AS3190. While there were concerns raised
about their performance, generally they were about earlier products that are
no longer available.
The performance of RCDs can be affected by a faulty electrical
installation or external electrical interference which can cause nuisance
tripping. While raised as a reason not to have RCDs installed it does not
seem to present a significant problem.
Although RCDs offer enhanced electrical safety they do not protect in all
situations. The most notable of these are powerlines and service main
accidents which account for approximately 36% of all fatal electrical
accidents in Queensland. However RCDs are most suitable for protection
of sub and final circuits, appliances and cords. Because a switchboard
mounted RCD will provide protection for fixed wiring as well as
equipment connected via plugs and sockets, this group of accidents account
for 62% of all fatalities.
Before July 1992 there was no legal requirement to fit RCDs to domestic
installations. A survey performed for this report found that approximately
45% of dwellings pre-July 1992 do not have a switchboard mounted RCD
installed. These installations are where most of the accidents have occurred
therefore a priority should be to encourage upgrading these older domestic
installations to at least the current requirements of AS3000. A financial
incentive scheme could be an appropriate method to expedite retrofitting
older domestics.
Anomalies in the current requirements for situations where RCDs are to
be installed are also seen as a concern. Loop holes for quasi domestic
situations such as hostels, caravan parks and community areas need to be
26
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
addressed as do the omission of requirements for commercial and
industrial installations. The added safety provided by RCDs should be
afforded in all situations.
The future challenges for those setting standards and promulgating
legislation is how to ensure electrical safety is appropriate for the future
environment. Factors such as changing technologies, cost structures,
building materials and methods, building alterations and additions, public
expectations and legal liabilities, all contribute to a changing environment.
While analysing electrical accidents may give insight into how things
could have been done better, what is required is a proactive approach to
electrical safety. For new installations RCDs should be used to their
maximum potential by protecting the whole installation.
27
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Electrical safety is a subject that should concern everyone, however it is
generally taken for granted until something goes wrong. It is a wonderful
servant but the swiftness with which it can kill deserves great respect.
Residual current devices are one way to tame its killer instincts. This report
explores some of the potential of residual current devices.
1.1 Project brief
The EDAQ was engaged by the Electrical Safety Office of the
Queensland Government Department of Mines and Energy to investigate
the potential to minimise the frequency and severity of electrical accidents
in Queensland by the installation of residual current devices (“RCDs”). In
Australia, RCDs are also known as safety switches and were previously
referred to as earth leakage circuit breakers (“ELCBs”).
1.2 Project background
For the 6 years from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1997 there were 74 fatal
electrical accidents and 4880 recorded electrical accidents in Queensland.
It could reasonably be expected that the number of unrecorded accidents
involving electric shock far exceeds those reported.
During the financial year 1996–97 there were 20 electrical fatalities.
While RCDs were made compulsory on new domestic installations for
General Purpose Outlets (“GPOs”) from July 1992 many other
installations had them fitted voluntarily or as a requirement under other
legislation (e.g. mines). RCDs were recognised as potentially offering a
cost effective way to reduce the incidence and severity of electrical
accidents.
1.3 Project scope
Through public advertising and direct consultation the views of all
stakeholders in the Queensland electricity industry as well as members of
the public who wished to contribute were sought.
Consultation included relevant State Government departments and
agencies, the electrical contracting sector, Queensland electricity
distribution corporations, building industry authorities and associations,
electrical manufacturers, suppliers and associations, trade unions, tertiary
28
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
education, training bodies and learned societies, Standards Australia, State
and Territory regulators.
The project report identifies the benefits and costs to the community of
the mandatory installation of RCDs in situations not yet covered by
Australian Standard AS3000 (“SAA Wiring Rules”) and related
Standards.
This project has been undertaken in the 3 months July to
September 1997.
1.4 Project methodology
The project consisted of 2 key elements—
•
the consultative process; and
•
the analysis phase.
From these, conclusions and recommendations have been drawn.
1.4.1 Consultation
Consultation was necessary to identify the issues and concerns of
stakeholders and the general public.
The consultative process consisted of—
•
advertisements being placed in the major Queensland newspaper
plus key regional newspapers,
•
mail correspondence to the stakeholders and the many potentially
interested parties, 78 were sent in total,
•
follow up contact by phone and visits to key parties, and
•
follow up correspondence reminding those who had not
responded.
The consultative process resulted in 38 written responses being received
plus telephone responses.
An example of the advertisements and letters are included in
Appendix 1.
29
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
1.4.2 Analysis
The analysis phase consisted of an assessment of the recorded electrical
accidents in Queensland for the 6 years, 1991–92 to 1996–97 plus
consideration of interstate and overseas data. The Queensland accidents
were grouped according to the likely impact of an RCD and the current
requirements of AS3000.
While the analysis of electrical accidents and significantly the fatalities
provides insight into where the accidents have occurred in the past and
what can be done to prevent repeat occurrences, it is essentially a reactive
process (i.e. we wait for a fatality, then assess what could be done to
prevent it recurring.)
It can be argued that a proactive approach to electrical safety is
warranted. Those responsible for setting safety standards need to critically
assess the impact that the changing environment is having on what is
considered an acceptable level of risk. Factors that should be considered
include; changes to building materials and techniques, available technology
and public expectations of safety.
Finally, the options for increased application of RCDs have been
considered in the framework of a cost benefit analysis. This included a
professional survey to estimate the number of RCDs installed in houses
built before July 1992 when RCD protection of domestic GPOs was
mandated.
1.5 Limitations
While it is necessary to have an appreciation of the technical
performance and limitations of RCDs and the affects of electric current on
the human body, this project did not undertake a technical review of RCDs
or the affects of electric current on the human body. Rather it builds upon
research and design work carried out by academics, manufacturers and
medical practitioners and seeks to apply it to the benefit of the community
through improved electrical safety.
Very good information is available from manufacturers and suppliers of
RCDs as to their operation and the effects of electric current on the human
body. Some examples are included in Appendix 2 for further reading.
30
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
2.0 FINDINGS
2.1 Consultative process feedback
Through advertising, letters and direct contact, the views of
stakeholders, interested parties and the general public were sought as to the
benefits and costs to the community of installing RCDs in situations not yet
covered by AS3000 and related standards. The letters seeking comments
contained a series of suggested areas that the respondent may wish to
comment on. While many respondents addressed those issues specifically,
some replied in a more ad hoc manner, while phone responses tended to be
more off the cuff.
The issues raised through this process have been tabulated in
Attachment 1 with examples of typical comments. When reviewing the
issues, it should be considered that each issue listed is not mutually
exclusive but that issues overlap and ideas and concepts weave their way
across several issue points.
Some responses are based on electrical accident records, some on
personal experience, while others use logical argument. Whatever the
argument, most respondents considered that it is time to progress electrical
safety initiatives and that RCDs are a product that could and should be used
more widely.
As with all arguments, counter arguments were raised, which are also
included in Attachment 1.
Some issues raised by the respondents deserve special mention and are
discussed below.
2.1.1 Nuisance tripping
Customer satisfaction is often the make or break of a product.
When considering the further application of RCDs, the satisfaction and
acceptance of RCDs by the electricity consumers must not be overlooked.
Nuisance tripping is one factor that can have negative effects on customer
acceptance. None of us like to loose power unnecessarily.
There are 2 types of nuisance tripping, “nuisance tripping” and “pseudo
nuisance tripping”.
Firstly, the genuine nuisance tripping occurs when there is no electrical
fault and therefore no hazardous situation but the RCD trips off the circuit.
31
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
This could possibly be caused by installation contrary to the manufactures
recommendations or electrical interference from an external source. The
current standard for RCDs specifically addresses performance and
reliability issues which are further discussed in section 2.1.9 below.
Secondly, there is the pseudo nuisance tripping. This occurs when there
is a fault or an accumulation of small faults causing sufficient leakage to
earth to cause the RCD to trip. It is referred to as a nuisance trip because
when it occurs, the user is unaware of the fault, because at that instant the
fault is not causing a life threatening situation, e.g. they are not hanging
onto the faulty appliance and receiving an electric shock. It can be argued
that pseudo nuisance trips cause customer dissatisfaction, however, are
these pseudo nuisance tripping a legitimate reason not to fit an RCD to the
circuit? We have a device which is like a safety watch dog saying, ‘There is
a potential hazardous situation developing on this installation—do
something about it!’ and yet they are labelled nuisance tripping.
To some, just the possibility of nuisance tripping is reason enough not to
fit an RCD. However, correct installation practices including thorough
pre-installation tests, training of electricians and adequate maintenance of
electrical equipment will ensure a high level of satisfaction. If there is a
valid case against the performance of RCDs then this should be addressed
through the appropriate design standard. With regard to nuisance tripping,
heating elements deserve special mention and are discussed below.
2.1.2 Heating elements
The issue of heating elements was raised by a number of respondents as
causing nuisance tripping when used on circuits protected by an RCD (hot
water, stoves, dryers, refrigerators, etc.) Tubular heating elements as used
in devices such as dishwashers, clothes dryers, water heaters, stoves and
refrigerators (e.g. defrost elements) are prone to electrical leakage to their
outer sheath.
Tubular heating elements are manufactured by suspending a heating
element in an insulating material inside a metal tube. The insulating
material usually used is magnesium oxide (MgO). MgO is a hydroscopic
material which can absorb moisture which effects its insulating properties.
On lower temperature elements, up to about 450 to 500°C, the ends of the
tube can be hermetically sealed to prevent the ingress of moisture. On
elements operating in excess of about 500°C they need to be able to breath
to prevent the element failing.
32
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
The problem arises when an element is energised after a prolonged
period of no use. Moisture that has been absorbed into the element is driven
out towards the cold ends of the element at which time there may be
sufficient leakage to earth (assuming that the element has a
satisfactory earth) to cause an RCD to trip.
This phenomenon was apparently a problem with clothes dryers and
refrigerators. However, the problem has been virtually eliminated by the
addition of additives to the MgO and/or fitting slow breather seals to the
end of the elements plus the use of ceramic insulating materials.
Hot water elements are usually sealed with an epoxy based resin and are
therefore not a problem. However, as was explained by an element
manufacturer, how they fail is of interest to the RCD debate.
Hot water elements are sheathed in a copper tube which after a period of
time can corrode resulting in holes and subsequent moisture ingress into
the element. The element will eventually break and burn back towards the
terminals with the water completing the conductive path instead of the wire
element. How much the element burns away depends on the conductivity
of the water. In extreme cases the wire can burn back to the point where
arcing at the terminals can occur and either blow the fuse or trip the circuit
breaker as fitted.
During such fault conditions, the installation is maintained in an
electrically safe state by the effectiveness of the earthing system. If there is
not an effective earth, then exposed metal may become energised.
While the significance of having an effective earthing system is
understood by electricians at the time of installation, there are many factors
over the life of the hot water system that can have a detrimental impact on
the effectiveness of the earthing, such as corrosion or alterations by
unqualified persons. The increased use of plastic piping and nylon ferrels in
plumbing has increased the likelihood of having non-contiguous
conductive plumbing which is not effectively earthed.
An RCD on hot water would provide essential backup protection.
This leaves high temperature stove elements. It should be noted that
stove elements are only a problem if left unused for long periods of time
with sufficient humidity to absorb moisture. The minor nature of the
problem can be appreciated by the fact that there are many examples of
older installations where the whole house is on one RCD. The fact that
these are still in operation after a long period of time indicates that they are
not a significant problem. However, it is an area where manufacturers need
time to implement cost effective changes to manufacturing techniques.
33
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
2.1.3 Lighting circuits
Lighting circuits are not required under AS3000 to be protected by an
RCD, however they contributed 17% of domestic electrical fatalities
and 16% of all electrical fatalities in Queensland during the period studied.
(Or 21% of the domestic fatalities that can be influenced by an RCD.)
The arguments against including lighting circuits centre around the
possibility of nuisance (non life threatening) RCD tripping and their
consequences. Older light fittings especially fluorescents with power factor
correction can have leaky electrical components which may cause an RCD
to trip (as it should). It is argued that plunging a premises into darkness
may create a dangerous situation, i.e. someone may fall down the stairs and
injure themselves in the dark, etc.
This is an interesting argument because the electricity supply
corporations can not guarantee 100% supply availability and blackouts do
occur. When blackouts occur people either use torches or have emergency
back up lights if they are deemed necessary.
Clearly emergency lighting is an elegant solution as it provides back up
lighting in all circumstances including fire.
Secondly, if more than one light circuit is used, (as is the case in most
newer installations) the circuits can be protected by separate RCDs
(MCB/RCDs are ideal for this). If there is a trip then only the lights on the
effected circuit will go out.
The argument against putting lights on RCDs seems rather weak when
compared with the potential to save lives.
2.1.4 Portable equipment
When compared with lights, as discussed above, there is little counter
argument against using RCDs for added protection of portable equipment.
The benefits were recognised by Standards Australia
releasing AS3000 in 1991, and subsequently by other legislation.
when
With the benefit of RCD protection for portable equipment being so well
accepted, why then is it not a requirement for commercial and industrial
situations? This issue is discussed further in the sections on commercial
and industrial in the data analysis section.
A total of 32% of all fatalities were associated with appliances and
cords.
34
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
2.1.5 Power circuits
Support to protect all power circuits by RCDs is very strong judging by
the number of respondents that commented on this issue. It was raised
more than any other issue.
Comments specifically identifying and questioning how the loop holes in
the current rules can be justified. The requirements for RCDs should be the
same for all situations—domestic, commercial and industrial with all
power circuits in all situations protected.
Accident records provide strong support for this argument as 16% of all
fatalities were on power circuits and a further 32% were on appliances and
cords which are obviously connected to power points. Therefore,
combining them together accounts for 48% of all fatalities.
2.1.6 All circuits
After considering various situations not currently required to be
protected by RCDs the next logical step is to cover every circuit and this is
what many of the respondents suggest. By the proponents, it is seen as the
next logical step in electrical safety that is overdue. They question the need
for different pieces of legislation to cover different situations ie domestic,
commercial, industrial, caravan parks, mines and construction sites and
would like to see uniformity.
It was also found that the public was under the misapprehension that
their installation was completely protected by their switchboard mounted
RCD which in fact was only covering their GPOs. There is a public
expectation that if the technology is available then all circuits should be
protected.
By not protecting the whole installation, the increased safety afforded by
RCDs is diminished.
2.1.7 Quasi domestic situations (including caravans)
The idea of “loop holes” in the current requirements has already been
noted. However, the quasi domestic situations are the largest concern. This
includes commercial enterprises that are domestic in nature, such as hotels,
motels, caravan parks (new caravan parks are only required to have RCDs
on outlets for caravans), hostels, community areas in units, etc. Due to the
competitive nature of the building industry, RCDs are often omitted from
these areas.
35
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Clearly these quasi domestic situations are as important as the traditional
domestic situations and need to be addressed.
A broader view of the quasi domestic situation includes all areas
accessible to the general public such as, show grounds, community
schools, child care centre, public facilities in parks, public areas in shops,
waiting rooms, etc.
2.1.8 Non-complying existing installations
Comments received on this issue mostly focused on older domestic
installations and bringing them up to the current requirements of AS3000.
However concerns were raised regarding commercial and industrial
installations which are not up to the same standard as required for domestic
installations.
Achieving uniformity in the safety standard across all installations was
considered important for both RCD protection and the overall installation
quality. Deteriorated wiring, ineffective earthing, and rewireable fuses were
some of the issues mentioned.
As a minimum, domestic installations prior to July 1992 when the
changes to AS3000 came into effect in Queensland, should be brought up
to current safety standards with respect to RCDs. The fitting of multiple
RCDs to cover other circuits such as lights which also provides segregation
should tripping occur would be highly recommended.
The process of retro-fitting installations is not something new. Spurred
on by advertising and public awareness campaigns, it has been taking place
ever since RCDs first became available. Market forces have ensured that it
is not a major logistical problem. For older style switchboards with fuses,
surface mounted modules which take standard RCDs are available. For
switchboards with DIN rail mounted circuit breakers or commercial,
industrial boards with Moulded Case Circuit Breakers (“MCCBs”),
RCD units that fit straight in are available. As one electrical contractor put
it: ‘I have never come across a situation where a safety switch could not be
fitted’. The cost effectiveness of retro-fitting is discussed under section 3.0.
However, fitting of RCDs to older installations can have its problems.
Potentially hazardous situations that have been lying dormant may cause
RCD tripping. If correct procedures are not followed, the unscrupulous
installer either disconnects the part of the circuit causing trouble and
therefore compromises safety, or leaves the customer with a frustrating
problem of “nuisance” tripping, rather than finding the fault. There is no
36
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
simple solution to this type of behaviour. Possibly a consumer awareness
program may help.
2.1.9 Performance and reliability
Concerns were raised regarding the reliability and performance
of RCDs.
In 1989 the Electricity Regulatory Services of SECWA conducted a
survey to assess the reliability of RCDs installed in Western Australia. The
survey found an unacceptably high proportion failed to operate under test
conditions 14%. For one particular brand 83% failed. (Note—the brand
with the high failure rate had been approved prior to amendments made
to AS3190 in 1980 and has subsequently been withdrawn from the
market. AS3190 is the Australian Standard for RCD performance.)
While this must have been a disappointing result for those conducting
the survey, they must have been encouraged by the apparent impact
that RCDs had made on electrical safety. Seventy-nine percent of those
surveyed had known their RCD to have operated under various fault
conditions. The Queensland survey conducted for this report found that of
those dwellings constructed before July 1992 with an RCD
installed, 63% had been known to have tripped, with 68% of these for
a known safety reason. The real impact that RCDs have had on electrical
safety can only be imagined.
Concerned with reliability and unwanted tripping, Standards Australia
reviewed and subsequently amended AS3190 in 1990 to reduce the
likelihood of unsafe or unreliable RCDs reaching the market place. The
subsequent mandatory use of RCDs in new domestic installations
and RCDs becoming a prescribed item which must comply with the
relevant Standards, has seen the removal of some products from the market
but has also resulted in an increasing variety of high quality products being
available.
Another survey to determine the in-situ performance
conducted in Tasmania. At the time of printing the
available, however it is understood that one
approximately 250 tested. A result possibly reflecting
in RCDs since the survey conducted in 1989.
of RCDs is being
results were not
had failed in
the improvement
The natural market forces such as the risk of litigation if a fatality
occurred due to a faulty RCD and the subsequent loss of market share from
any bad publicity will continue to exert pressure on RCD manufactures and
37
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
suppliers to develop quality innovative products. However those who set
standards and regulations must ensure that their requirements are socially
and economically responsible and in line with public expectations. The
ability of RCDs to correctly function in the presence of DC and other
external electrical interference was one issue raised by respondents during
the consultative phase of this project.
The RCD of today has improved substantially from the early ELCBs of
the 1960s. It is recognised throughout the world as a reliable device
offering a cost effective way to increase electrical safety and property
protection.
A comment typical of those received on this issue sums it up nicely.
‘High reliability. Few limitations. Can be seen as essential equipment.’
2.1.10 How should RCDs be installed
How the RCD is installed can affect the customer satisfaction. From a
value for money point of view, the aim would be to put as much of the
installation onto one RCD as possible, i.e. maximum protection least cost.
There are however some draw backs in doing this. There is the possibility
that cumulative leakage and capacitive current can cause unwarranted
tripping, and if any tripping occurs then all circuits protected by the
one RCD will be switched off which can adversely affect customer
satisfaction.
A much improved installation arrangement is to have a separate RCD for
each circuit (MCCB/RCD combination being ideal for this) or at least
multiple RCDs covering zones or combinations of circuits. This reduces
the likelihood and impact of an RCD tripping. While it is recognised by
many that improved installation practices would raise customer satisfaction
(see Attachment 1), it was acknowledged that the competitive nature of the
market drives installation practices to the absolute minimum.
However, as the number of circuits protected by RCDs increases, the
necessity to ensure that the installation is fit for the purpose also increases.
While it may be contractual matter, a lead may be necessary in legislation
to encourage multiple RCDs.
2.1.11 AS3000
While some respondents considered the current requirements of AS3000
to be adequate, most considered some change necessary to incorporate
their suggestions. The specific comments that were received mostly centred
38
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
around the need to extend the current requirements to include industrial
and commercial installations. Probably the comment that sums it up best is
that ‘alterations should be made to reflect the changing environment’.
Those setting standards need to consider the shifting environment and
their responsibility to recognise future trends brought about by different
building construction practices, changing; technology, manufacturing,
costs and public expectations.
2.1.12 Alternative approaches
Alternative approaches to electrical safety can not be dismissed just
because an RCD is installed. Good installation practices, maintenance and
common sense should still prevail.
One approach that is sometimes seen as an alternative to fitting RCDs is
to bond ever piece of conductive material to the earthing system. With
modern construction methods and materials, a requirement such as this
would be expensive, time consuming and difficult to enforce.
2.2 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
The approach taken to analysing electrical accidents has been discussed
in the section on project methodology. The following section goes on to
interpret the findings. Attachment 2 contains a tabulated summary of all the
electrical accidents in Queensland for the period 1 July 1991
to 30 June 1997.
The electrical accidents have been grouped into three main categories—
•
power lines and service mains;
•
switchboard and sub-mains;
•
sub circuits, appliances and cords.
These are discussed below.
2.2.1 Powerlines and service mains
These are accidents involving the distribution of electricity up to the point
of connection to the premises. The type of accidents that occur in this
category are not preventable by an RCD. Typical accidents included in this
category are—
39
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
•
contact with overhead power lines, e.g. irrigation or harvesting
equipment, cranes, and boat masts being driven into overhead
power lines;
•
electricity supply system maintenance accidents;
•
contact with fallen power lines, e.g. as a result of a storm or road
accident;
•
contact with service mains and point of entry connections,
e.g. painters painting fascias of buildings contacting damaged
service connections, or plumbers accidentally touching service
lines with conductive material such as roofing iron or guttering.
A sub set of power lines and service mains are incidents involving
service neutrals. Although they have not in the past significantly
contributed to fatalities, they are the single most reported cause of electric
shocks in Queensland. Most electric shocks being received from earthed
plumbing, which due to a faulty service neutral connection has become the
neutral return path to the distribution system.
Powerlines and service mains represent over one-third of all electrical
accidents and accordingly need to be addressed by increased public
awareness and improved performance by the electricity distributors.
2.2.2 Switchboards and sub mains
This category was formed because it represents a group of accidents
which for the purpose of RCD protection are not as clear cut as either
power lines and service mains. In the first instance RCDs are quite
inappropriate where as for sub circuits they can be very effective.
Switchboards and sub mains are the grey areas in between.
At the risk of generalising there are probably two types of situations in
the switchboards and sub circuit group where RCDs may have impact.
Firstly if there was an RCD fitted to the switchboard for the protection of
the sub circuit and the accident happened on the load side of the RCD or
secondly if the whole switchboard or sub mains was protected by an RCD,
then, provided it wasn't a phase to phase or phase to neutral accident,
an RCD could influence the outcome of the accident.
For most of the electrical accidents in this category, it is difficult to
determine the exact situation involved, however a reasonable assessment
has been made for the 2 fatalities involved and it is considered that one
incident would have benefited from an RCD, the other it is uncertain.
Therefore, this group represents accidents that may be assisted by an RCD
40
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
but it is often difficult to determine the exact impact on the information
available.
These are situations where MCB/RCD main switches may have a
significant impact. MCB/RCD main switches were raised by respondents
and are a common requirement overseas providing the increased benefit of
reduced property damage (e.g. caused by fire) should a electrical fault
occur.
QUEENSLANDS' FATAL ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS 1991/92 TO 1996/97
FIXED WIRING
25
20
fridge (where specifically
identified)
15
lights & fans (where specifically
identified)
10
other sub crts & final circuits
5
switch bd & sub mains
-
Incidences
DOMESTIC
Fatal Electrical
Incidences
COMMERCIAL
Fatal Electrical
Incidences
Fatal INDUSTRIAL
Electrical
TOTAL
Incidences
Fatal Electrical
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RCD'S ON QUEENSLANDS' FATAL ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS 1991/92 TO
1996/97
80
70
APPLIANCES & CORDS
60
50
SUB CIRCUITS & FINAL
CIRCUITS
40
30
SWITCH BOARD & SUB
MAINS
20
POWER LINES & SERVICE
MAINS
10
-
TOTAL
installed Incidences
installed Incidences
installed
Incidences
DOMESTIC installed Incidences
INDUSTRIAL
if anbeen
COMMERCIAL
Fatalities
if anbeen
Fatalities
if anbeen
if anbeen
Fatal ElectricalFatalities
RCD had
Fatal Electrical
RCD had
Fatal Electrical
RCD had
Fatal ElectricalFatalities
RCD had
41
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
2.2.3 Final circuits, appliances and cords
This category represents those accidents where an RCD is most likely to
have an impact on the outcome of an electrical accident. They account
for 55% of all reported accidents, 66% of hospitalisations and 62% of
fatalities.
Typical accidents included in this category are—
•
fixed wiring accidents such as penetrations of wiring by a nail or
screw, contact with broken switches, tampering with an
installation with the power still on, faulty and/or incorrect wiring
connections, and
•
accidents involving appliances and cords such as damaged
extension leads and portable equipment, incorrect connection of
extension leads and appliances.
It is interesting to note that in this category, 31% of domestic fatalities
or 18% of all fatalities are caused by unauthorised or work carried out by
untrained persons.
Also in this category the AS3000 Wiring Rules requirement for the
installation of RCDs on domestic GPOs comes into play. This requirement
became effective in Queensland on all new domestic installations
from 1 July 1992. Accordingly, the sub categories within this group have
been chosen to reflect situations not yet required to be protected by RCDs
under AS3000. While it was the intention to isolate all accidents that have
occurred on say refrigerators circuits (refrigerators are not required to be
protected by an RCD under AS3000) it may not have been possible. Many
of the accident records give no specific indication of the circuit. Therefore
there may be some accidents that should have been allocated to a subgroup
but have remained in the general group of final circuits. Accordingly, some
care needs to be exercised in drawing conclusions from the subgroups,
lights and fans, hot water, refrigerator and stove as they may be
understated. Now that the precautionary comments are out of the way, what
can be learnt from the accident records?
Without a doubt this is the area where RCDs really come into play. They
have tremendous potential to reduce the severity and frequency of electrical
accidents here.
Each fatality has been carefully assessed as to the potential impact
an RCD may have had in that specific situation. As shown below RCDs can
have a material impact on the electrical fatalities in Queensland and it is in
this category where the gains are to be made.
42
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
If RCDs are fitted to final circuits (by mounting in the switchboard) they
not only provide protection for accidents occurring on appliances and
cords, but also the fixed wiring accidents which occur on those circuits
protected.
If functional RCDs had been installed on all final sub-circuits, of
the 46 fatal electrical accidents studied under final sub-circuits, appliances
and cords, 42 may have been avoided. (RCDs cannot protect in all
circumstances, accidents occurring on the secondary side of electric
welders are a concern in this regard.)
The significant impact that RCDs offer for electrical safety is obvious. If
the community is serious about reducing unnecessary fatalities then all
final circuits should be RCD protected. However, as shown during
consultation, the area of debate is whether exceptions for certain circuits or
situations should be made including what allowances for older installations
which do not meet current safety standards can be tolerated.
Electrical accident records can be used as a guide for determining which
areas should be addressed. Using the number of electrical fatalities,
hospitalisations or recorded accidents, the priority order is essentially the
same and would be—
1. Appliances and cords;
2. Final sub circuits (power circuits);
3. Lights and fans. (Note, the fans included with lights are ceiling fans
which are often connected onto a light circuit).
However, the order for the smaller groups is a little more volatile
depending on what measure (fatalities, hospitalisation or recorded
accidents) is used.
If an installation is divided into enough small sections then the number
of accidents occurring on any particular section is reduced when compared
with the number of accidents occurring on the aggregate of the sections,
i.e. the most aggregated areas will have the highest number of accidents
although the probability of an accident occurring say per outlet may be the
same. Accordingly, by separating small areas such as fridges, hot water and
stoves from the remaining aggregated power circuits, the number of
accidents must be less due to their relative size. To argue that these areas do
not need RCD protection because there has been insufficient accidents is
like saying that one brand of car is much safer than the others because it
has been involved in less accidents than all the other cars combined. Care
43
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
needs to be exercised when accessing results from different population
sizes.
44
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
3.0 COSTS AND BENEFITS
A policy decision on electrical safety has its greatest impact not on those
making the decision but on others.
One approach to assist the decision makers is to weigh up the benefits
and compare them with the costs of implementing the decisions. While this
sounds straight forward enough, matters concerning the well being of
human society such as electrical safety can be difficult to quantify.
Measuring the social benefits and costs, quantifying human feelings and
expressing the choices of people, makes the process less determinate. An
example is putting a value on the trauma associated with an accident or
valuing life itself. In Australia, transport authorities typically use a value of
about $625 000 for a fatality while a New Zealand study which adds up all
the social costs associated with road accident fatalities estimates it to be
about $2.5m AUS. The legal fraternity often view it differently again,
sometimes awarding huge amounts in damages. A recent case in America
where a baby was killed due to a fault in a car, the judge awarded damages
in the order of $30m.
This report attempts to list and quantify the costs and benefits where
possible. The final decision as to whether this is an appropriate way to
reduce electrical accidents must be left up to the conscience of the decision
maker.
Up to this point, the accidents have mostly been considered on the basis
of domestic, commercial and industrial combined into one group. Because
the three types of electrical installations present different cost structures
and installation logistics, they are now addressed separately. Domestic
accidents representing 49% of fatalities are addressed first followed by
commercial and industrial.
3.1 Domestic
The Census of Population and Housing 1996 revealed that there
were 1.3 million domestic dwellings in Queensland, the majority of them
being constructed prior to July 1992 when it became compulsory to fit
RCDs to GPOs in new domestic installations. To estimate the number of
pre-1992 dwellings with RCDs fitted, a professional survey was
commissioned. From this, it is estimated that there are 0.5 million domestic
dwellings without RCDs fitted to their switchboards. (No attempt was
made to estimate market penetration into commercial or industrial
situations due to the diversity of installation options and configurations).
45
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Referring also to Attachment 2, the current position in Queensland is
shown below.
Queensland domestic situation
Total Queensland dwellings— census data
1996
1 329 811
growth 18.6%, say 3.7%
per annum
1991
1 120 941
Estimated dwellings for analysis
1997
1 379 413
1992
1 162 715
say 1 379 000
say 1 163 000 or 84%
Number of RCDs installed in Queensland dwellings constructed
pre-July 1992—survey data
Survey results
Estimated total dwellings
Assume worst case ie all
“can’t say” are “no”
RCD?
Yes
55%
1 163 000 x 0.55 = 640 000
No
31%
523 000
Can’t say
14%
RCD tripped?
Yes
63%
640 000 x 0.63 = 403 000
No
35%
Can’t say
2%
Tripping safety related?
Safety
68%
403 000 x 0.68 = 274 000
Accidental
27%
Can’t say
5%
46
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Recorded electrical accidents over 6 years— 1991–92 to 1996–97—
Appliances and cords
Circuit
Fatal
10 Amp GPOs (< ‘92) 12
86%
Other
2
14%
Total
14
100%
Hospitalised (prorata)
73
12
85
It can be assumed that the 12 fatalities on GPOs were on dwellings
pre-July 1992 without RCDs, that is approximately 523 000 dwellings. Or
putting it another way, in the 6 year period studied, approximately 1 in
every 44 000 dwellings without RCDs on GPOs had an fatality on an
appliance or cord. Of the other two fatalities one was on a 3-phase outlet
(which could have been prevented had there been an RCD fitted, but is not
compulsory under AS3000) the other was not preventable by an RCD.
Pre-July 1992
Post-July 1992
Total
Sub and final circuits (fixed wiring)
Fatal
Hospitalised
5
13
1
3
6
16
Of the six fatalities, one was on a GPO circuit, which probably makes it
a pre-1992 dwelling. However for the others there is insufficient
information to determine which circuit the accident occurred on. Because
these accidents were caused by fixed wiring faults and not all circuits are
required to be protected under AS3000 there is no way of estimating the
age of the installation and another method is required. Accordingly the
number of Queensland dwellings have been used to pro-rata accidents into
pre and post 1992 installations.
Lights
Pre-July 1992
Post-July 1992
Total
Fatal
5
1
6
Hospitalised
15
3
18
47
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Lights, not being compulsory, have been allocated pro-rata according to
domestic dwelling numbers as per sub and final circuits above.
Refrigerators
Pre-July 1992
Post-July 1992
Total
Hot water
Pre-July 1992
Post-July 1992
Total
Stoves
Pre-July 1992
Post-July 1992
Total
Refrigerators, hot water and stoves
Fatal
Hospitalised
1
4
0
1
1
5
–
–
–
3
1
4
–
–
–
5
1
6
Using the same argument as above, these are allocated according to the
number of dwellings.
Although the numbers are not as large as in the other areas above, as
previously discussed a pertinent question to ask is. Why are small areas of
the installation segregated off as not requiring an RCD?
The strategy for domestic installations must address 2 issues—
•
how to reduce the alarming number of accidents in dwellings
without RCDs constructed before the current requirements
of AS3000 came into effect in July 1992; and
•
how to ensure appropriate safety for new installations in light of
changing building techniques, technology and public
expectations.
Retro-fitting pre-1992 installations is discussed below followed by new
installations.
48
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
3.1.1 Installations pre-July 1992
Expected outcomes
The table below shows the expected outcomes over a 12 year period for
including different circuits (assuming a rapid take up rate for retro fitting).
Although 12 years has been chosen the expected life of a RCD and
therefore benefits far exceeds this. For supply and fit the costs are for the
minimum requirement for 523 000 dwellings to be retro fitted based on an
average installation. Costs used are $150 for power circuits, plus $125 for
any additional RCDs fitted at the same time.
Dwellings constructed pre-July 1992
Circuit
Cost
Benefit
for 523 000
Reduced fatalities Reduced
dwellings
(12 years)
hospitalisations
(12 years)
Final circuits and $39.225m
10
26
power circuits*
Refrigerators** –
2
8
Appliances and $39.225m
24
146
cords*
All dwellings
Circuit
Cost
Benefit
for 1.31 million
Reduced fatalities Reduced
dwellings
(12 years)
hospitalisations
(12 years)
Lights & fans
$120.0m
12
36
Hot water
$120.0m
–
8
Refrigerators** –
2
10
Stoves
$120.0m
–
12
Note—
* Costs are shared equally.
** Connecting a refrigerator onto an existing RCD it is assumed the costs
are not material.
Because there has been a low installation rate for lights, hot water and
stove, it is assumed that 95% of existing dwellings (1.31 million) would
49
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
require retro fitting to include those circuits. For costing it is assumed that
for good installation practice two additional RCDs would be required to
cover the whole installation. (Although it could be done with less.)
Suggested combinations could be either—
•
power and stove or light and power; or
•
light and hot water; or
•
hot water, stove and power.
Present metering requirements by some electricity supply corporations
may necessitate a separate RCD for hot water tariffs.
The costs of extra RCDs have been shared equally across the 3 circuits.
From the above, the best “value for money” can be achieved by bringing
pre-1992 dwellings up to the current requirements of AS3000 with all
power circuits included. It is recommended that this be undertaken with an
appropriate monetary incentive scheme. Every endeavour should be made
to encourage RCDs to be used on other circuits, particularly lights. This
could be included as on aspect of an electrical safety campaign.
Suggested minimum action
Upgrade to all power circuits ie current requirements of AS3000 plus
refrigerators and all socketed outlets.
3.1.2 New installations
Looking forward, what should be done about future installations?
Using the accident records as a precedent, it is clear that lights and all
power circuits (including refrigerators and all other sockets outlets) should
be included in future installations. However as discussed in section 2.2
using the number of occurrences in a small population and then comparing
the number of occurrences from a large population (in this case the
population size is the size and number of selected circuit installation types)
can be misleading. To compare the probability of an accident occurring on
a particular circuit the data should be standardised. However as this is
practically impossible from electrical accident records and installation type
and size, it is left to informed judgement.
On a new installation the cost of extra safety is the incremental cost of
extra RCDs or preferably RCD/MCB combinations. The list price for DIN
50
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
mounted RCDs or RCD/MCBs are similar ranging from about $75 to $110.
(Actual buying prices are much lower than this, down to about $35 each).
To include all circuits using three RCDs on an average house would add
approximately $150 to the installation cost (On a $100 000 house that
is 0.15%). If RCD/MCBs were being used an additional cost of about $300
may be expected. A very small price for the extra protection offered
by RCDs.
When the proven effectiveness of RCDs is taken into account and the
small cost of including them at the time of installation, the question is not
how to justify increasing their application but how can responsible
behaviour exclude certain parts of an installation? All areas are becoming
increasingly at risk with changing building methods and materials plus the
popularity of alterations and additions including such things as extra
cabling for cable television, computers, and security systems.
An alternative and very costly method would be to ensure all conductive
materials used in construction are bonded to the earthing system. This
would have a negative spin off effect for service neutral failures where even
more of a building could become alive and potentially dangerous.
Steps should be taken to encourage total installation protection
by RCDs. Setting it as a requirement may be necessary to create a level
playing field for competitive job quoting.
3.2 Commercial and industrial
There is a perception that the number if commercial and industrial
accidents do not pose as big a problem as domestic installations. After all
they have the benefit of other safety methods such as test and tag programs.
However if they are compared on a similar basis the results look quite
different. (This is the same argument raised in other parts of the report that
the data needs to be standardised to cope with different population sizes.)
One way to compare their performance is to plot the number of accidents
against the number of electricity supply corporation customers in each
class as shown below. As can be seen commercial and industrial customers
do present more than their fair share of electrical fatalities which need to be
addressed. RCD installation presents a one off up front cost to provide
continued protection for many years.
The difficulties arise when allocating costs and benefits to the diverse
size and nature of installations used in commercial and industrial
application. The average installation would not be representative enough to
51
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
truly represent anything. However discussions with manufactures and
suppliers indicates that an average additional cost per switch board pole
would be about $100. Equating this to a building cost it works out similar
to domestic being less than 0.15%
While there may be arguments as to the apparent safety of commercial
and industrial situations, aren’t all people entitled no matter where they are,
to the added safety offered by RCDs?
Power circuits (including sub circuits, appliances and cords) account
for 45% of all commercial and industrial fatalities or 94% of all the
accidents where an RCD could reasonably be expected to have an impact.
Of the fatalities on power circuits 82% could have reasonably been
expected to have been prevented if a functioning RCD had been installed.
It is recommended that as a minimum future power circuits be protected
by RCDs in commercial and industrial situations.
52
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
During 1995 in Queensland there were 43 accidental drownings, 464 fatal
motor vehicle accidents, and 32 fatalities caused by fire. Compared to these
other causes of death, electrocutions are quite few in number. However
electrical fatalities are still significant.
4.1 Conclusion
This report has explored the potential to reduce electrical accidents in
Queensland by the increased application of RCDs. The conclusions are—
•
The use of correctly functioning RCDs provides a cost effective
way to reduce the number and severity of electrical accidents in
Queensland.
•
The performance and reliability of RCDs are generally excellent.
They have improved significantly from early models due in part
to the continuing work of Standards Australia in promulgating
performance and reliability standards.
•
While an effective tool to assist in electrical safety they can not
prevent all electrical accidents. Accidents involving power lines
and service mains can not be prevented by RCDs, similarly for
phase to phase or phase to neutral accidents.
•
Loop holes in the current requirements for RCDs are a concern.
Loop holes identified include—
•
Areas of domestic installations which are not required under
AS3000 to have a safety switch fitted.
•
Quasi domestic situations such as—hotels, motels, hostels,
caravans and parts of caravan parks etc.
•
Public places.
•
Commercial and some industrial situations.
•
The most significant impact on electrical accidents can be
achieved by retrofitting dwellings constructed before July 1992
to the current requirements of AS3000 with all power circuits
included. An incentive scheme would be an effective way to
achieve this.
•
Commercial and industrial installations do contribute to
electrical accidents. RCDs should be used to protect all power
circuits on new installations.
53
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
•
No. 180, 2002
A proactive approach to electrical safety is need by the
regulatory authorities and standard setting bodies to cope with
changing technologies, building and construction trends and
public expectations.
Consultative feedback
As outlined in the report, the consultative process involved advertising
throughout the State in addition to individual letters sent to stakeholders.
These stakehoders included electricity distributors, state electricity
regulators, the Housing Industry Association, electrical equipment
manufacturers, consumer groups, and other interested government
departments including Workplace Health and Safety.
54
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations resulting from this project are—
Domestic installations pre-July 1992
Upgrade to all power circuits ie current requirements of AS3000
including all other socketed outlets.
An incentive scheme as detailed in the appendix should be used to
ensure rapid retrofitting of those dwellings.
Future new domestic installations
The total installation should be protected by RCDs. Preferably multiple
RCDs as required to achieve reasonable fitness for purpose. For stoves a
1 year lead time should be provided for element manufactures to improve
their products.
Quasi domestic situations
The current definition of a domestic installation should be broadened to
include quasi domestic situations regardless of their commercial intent.
Future commercial and industrial installations
RCD protection of all power circuits as per current requirements of
AS3000 for domestic plus all other socketed outlets.
Safety campaign
A public awareness campaign to reinforce electrical safety particularly
regarding overhead powerlines and service mains.
Service neutrals
The electricity supply corporations address the high level of faulty
service neutrals and the resulting electrical accidents.
55
Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002
No. 180, 2002
Uniform legislation
The requirements for the use of RCDs should be simplified and
standardised across all applications.
1.
2.
ENDNOTES
Laid before the Legislative Assembly on . . .
The administering agency is the Department of Industrial Relations.
© State of Queensland 2002