Well - the distribution of purviews amongst different committees is not really relevant.
Either the EN standard for the combustibility of consumer units is good enough, or it is not.
Query regarding Amendment 3, 2015 to the Wiring Regulations (England)
- Thread starter maxantax
- Start date
Either the EN standard for the combustibility of consumer units is good enough, or it is not.
Sponsored Links
Yes - but, as I've said, that only works when regulations are 'tightened'. If, as in the couple of examples I gave (supplementary bonding and warning labels), the regulations are 'relaxed', that 'gap period' results in a situation in which things compliant with current regs are not necessarily compliant with the law - which, IMO, would be 'messy'!
Kind Regards, John
It's very relevant, if you want to do anything about the problem. The title of the relevant subclause is interesting: "Resistance of insulating materials to abnormal heat and fire due to internal electric effects". This implies that 61439-1 and -3 do not consider the resistance to external heat and fire, possibly because external influences are difficult to define by the CU manufacturer. I need to chase the chap who was looking into building standards' use of "non-combustible". Can't do that yet, as my email is down.
Firstly, in how many areas, and for how many standards, would there really be the potential for things to become unacceptable?
Secondly, for those situations, how many would arise without sufficient notice for the government to amend their legislation if they felt strongly enough about it?
Thirdly, please note that the government already does refuse to demand compliance with "standards" it decides are unacceptable, notably in the areas of social welfare and human rights, and sometimes (for example the hours which junior doctors are forced to work) their self-exemption has a negative effect on safety, so I am inclined to say to you, in reply to the above, "bring it on".
Sponsored Links
It is relevant to who JPEL/64, the LFB or the Tufty Club should lobby for changes to address their concerns.
It is not relevant to whether JPEL/64 should stick extra requirements into BS 7671 because they do not think the standard(s) for something are adequate.
And which, at least to me, also begs the question that if the legislators decided that these things were necessary in the first place (by adopting the earlier edition without deleting such requirements), would they want to adopt the new edition with relaxed requirements anyway? If so, then why did they legislate for the tighter requirements in the first place?
I'm not sure there is a way around something being "messy." The U.K. already has a "messy" situation in which BS7671 is the generally recognized electrical installation standard but that all the law demands is "reasonable provision for safety" without defining what that actually means, leaving a lot of room for argument.
Over here, we have legislation which says that new work must comply with the requirements of the stipulated standard, which obviously imposes every last little detail of that standard as a legal requirement but at least doesn't leave room to argue over what "reasonable" means: Either the work violates some provision of the current code or it doesn't (not that it doesn't leave room for argument over the interpretation of certain sections). But if we're taking the country as a whole, it's "messy" in as much as each state does its own thing when it comes to adopting the NEC and amending it. Here in California the current state electrical code is based on the 2011 NEC with amendments, but drive 140 miles north into Oregon and they're already on the 2014 NEC.
Each system has its advantages and disadvantages as I see it.
BAS, would you care to quote which standards (according to the WTO definition) the government has decid are unacceptable?ed
stillp, would you care to note that I wrote '"standards"', not 'standards'?
Here a plastic CU is too dangerous to be used. A half-hour's train ride away the same CU is safe.
It doesn't work like that. If there are no existing standards that meet the intent of the amendment 3 then they are perfectly correct in adding the necessary requirements, including the means of verification, into BS7671. Unfortunately they haven't done that. What has to be done to correct the situation is either: a) BS7671 to be amended to clarify what is meant by "non-combustible" and how it is to be verified, or b) IEC/SC121B to amend IEC 61439-1 and -3 to include requirements for "non combustible" enclosures for DBOs.
No, I believe they are wrong.
Unless I am mistaken, somewhere in the 61439 family there will be something which covers the flammability of enclosures. We aren't talking here of items to be used in hazardous environments, explosive atmospheres, oxygen enriched ones etc, we are talking here of enclosures in people's houses. If professional engineers and professional firefighters have evidence that the standard(s) are inadequate, and that enclosures which comply with the standard(s) are too dangerous to be allowed, then the right and proper thing to do is to get the standard(s) changed. It is right and proper from the POV of that's how standards should work, rather than an anarchic proliferation of parochial requirements, and it is right and proper from a moral POV.
I've just thought of something ironic.
Apart from a few pieces of tri-rated I have all the bits'n'bobs I need to build a DB, including a splendid non-combustible ferrous metal enclosure, so I could tick that box.
But it would not comply with BS EN 61439-3.
Apart from a few pieces of tri-rated I have all the bits'n'bobs I need to build a DB, including a splendid non-combustible ferrous metal enclosure, so I could tick that box.
But it would not comply with BS EN 61439-3.
... and hence would presumably not comply with BS7671, at least in a couple of month's time.
Kind Regards, John
So it would seem.
Of course one could always argue that it was a departure that was just as safe.
Of course one could always argue that it was a departure that was just as safe.
On a more serious note, I wonder if they've thought of the implications for the more custom end of the home automation spectrum?
For once that is a rhetorical Q - I know damn well what the answer is.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
