IET announces new amendment to BS 7671 (IET Wiring Regulations)

Andy


Ask to what standard are their products manufactured? Also get them to state that the products to the 2016 standard are unsuitable to use unless there is already upstream BS EN 60898 or BS EN 61009 RCD protection and is this restriction stated in their data sheets?


You might also ask if they have changed the design of their products from the 2009 standard to a lesser standard to only meet the 2016 standard or have they discovered that the products made to the 2009 standard were found to be un-suitable for additional protection?

I have just had spin through my 18th Edition and I am going to be bold enough to say that SRCDs that comply with either BS 7288: 2009 or BS 7288:2016 cannot be installed as they would not comply with the requirements of BS 7671:2018.


See Regulations 531.3.4.1 , 531.3.4.2 and 531.3.6.


So they cannot be installed and on an EICR they would be a non-compliance so would require recording and coding.


I have just checked my 1st Edition of the 17th (2008) and BS 7288 is not recognised there either. 


They are recognised in the 16th Edition AMD 2 (2004). So how many have been installed in the last 11 years?

The NICEIC, ECA and ELECSA disagree.


When the 17th Edition (BS 7671: 2008) was published, only BS EN 61008-1 and BS EN 61009-1 were still listed (Regulation 411.4.9 refers). However, this does not preclude the use of RCDs to BS 4293, BS 7288 and BS 7071, where appropriate, for fault protection and/or additional protection, provided they meet the relevant operating time requirements.


Andy B.

It is not necessary to code a Non-compliance with 7671 unless the inspector deems it to give rise to danger.

For over twenty years I have had it drummed into me that the Wiring Regulations are not prescriptive, it is not an instruction book that tells you how to do electrical installation work.


So for over twenty years my understanding has been the Wiring Regulations tells you what you should achieve, what is required, but not how to do it.


So for RCDs it told you what level of protection is required, but did not tell you which RCD to use.


Somewhere along the way a decision was made to specifically state in the 17th edition that RCDs to three standards will meet the requirements of BS7671, industry guidance was then published to say that this list was not prescriptive and exclusive, the other types of RCD that have a British Standard and gave the level of protection required to achieve the requirements of the Wiring Regulations are still considered fit for purpose and can be used.


But then a decision was made to rewrite the British Standard 7288, now that adds a whole new issue to consider, in that the new RCDs may not be as well made as the current version, in that there is not a requirement for three millimetres of separation between the contacts when they disconnect; and may not meet an additional requirement for them to provide isolation, though they meet two British Standards and meet the requirements as a socket or fused connection unit which the Wiring Regulations states meets the requirements for isolation, but by being isolated manually rather than automatically. Is there a requirement that isolation is automatic or that is it disconnection that is required to provide the automatic disconnection of the supply, ADS, whilst the isolation is manual?


Hopefully there will be a quick resolution to these issues, with the transition to new BS8277 devices supposedly being in progress and the implementation date of the new BS8277:2016 in a few weeks time in November 2019, hopefully the resolution will come sooner rather than later.


 Andy Betteridge 

" SRCDS are only intended to supplementary protection downstream of the SRCD. SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream upstream of the SRCD".


So these devices can no longer be used for additional protection.

Surely such an interpretation defies common sense? Why on earth would a standard for 30mA RCD sockets intend to demand upstream 30mA RCD protection - it just isn't logical. Isn't it far more likely that the intention was simply to re-enforce the point that the device doesn't provide upstream protection (as would be commonly be needed these days - e.g. for T&E concealed in a wall) and that something got lost in translation from during the committeeitization of the prose?

 

So BS7671, crucially in the "selection and erection" section, removed BS7288 as "accepted devices"

I don't think that BS 7288 has been "removed" as such - before the 18th there wasn't a list of acceptable devices (some devices were mentioned elsewhere and had useful data provided for them, but as far as I can tell there was no implication that other devices couldn't be equally acceptable) - just some very specific performance requirements (e.g. rated ≤30mA and opening within 40ms at 5xI_Δn). Come the 18th the performance requirements disappeared (perhaps because some devices now need 250mA rather than 150mA to open within 40ms) and we just had a list of acceptable devices instead, from which BS 7288 was absent - whether by design or error we still don't know (although I still suspect it was in error).


   - Andy.

That’s the first mention of some new 30 mA RCDs needing to be tested at 250 mA if they fail the the X5 test, it does appear that there has been some fudging of the Wiring Regulations to accommodate this change accepted practice.


Andy B

"So they cannot be installed and on an EICR they would be a non compliance so would require recording and coding"

So let me get this right, I have to remove this wonderful safety device which protects me when I am using my Flymo because its dangerous. (because the wiring regs say so)


Regards, UKPN.