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

You can picture the scenario. Jack (retired) enjoys spending his day in his workshop. He used to have an RCD double socket in his workshop and FCUs. If they tripped it was easy to reset. Then a character comes into his life and writes an EICR. Got to fail the workshop Jack, because my latest copy of Napit/Stroma/NICEIC/ECA "Codebreaker Amendment XXX says so. Jack is handy with DIY so he fits an RCD into his fuseboard in the house.


Jacks workshop is 300 yards from the house.


Regards, UKPN.

And apart from having to walk to the house to reset the RCD if it trips he is left holding an angle grinder in pitch darkness in a workshop where the floor is littered with trip hazards, because the lights went out as well.


Andy B.

Exactly.

Regards, UKPN

The garage/ workshop electrical installation then needs upgrading, it can be done, but will the work make it any safer than it was in the first place?


 Andy Betteridge

I think you are missing the point.  The product standard ( BS 7288) says they are not suitable for providing Additional protection. They were removed from BS 7671 deliberately for this reason. They do not provide isolation as they do not meet the minimum contact clearance. BS 4293 was removed because because it was an obsolete standard just like BS 1361 fuses.


Are you saying that you disagree with the product standard?

If that is correct there should be a recall

I have not seen any of the devices to the new British Standard installed, they are only just coming on the market. 

I don't know why these new devices have been designed as they have or why the new version of the British Standard has been written as it has. 

It all seems to be utter and complete nonsense.




Andy Betteridge

Alcomax:

If that is correct there should be a recall

Should the new devices to the new standard be withheld from sale until there is a definitive explanation of how and when they can be used?


Andy Betteridge

The product standard ( BS 7288) says they are not suitable for providing Additional protection.

It doesn't quite say that. That would put it in the the same category as a BS for chocolate tea pots. I think what's written could equally be read as "the the device doesn't protect the upstream part of the circuit and that additional protection [for that - if any is required] will have to be provided elsewhere".

They do not provide isolation as they do not meet the minimum contact clearance.

Oh yes they do - on a SRCD you just pull the plug out (just like for unswitched BS 1363 sockets). Besides is there actually a requirement for devices providing additional protection only to provide isolation? 531.1.1 only talks about devices providing ADS - additional protection is technically a different beast.


  - Andy.

In some instances it will be possible to install a small EN 61439-3 consumer unit in a airing cupboard instead of an FCURCD to connect an additional piece of equipment in the bathroom to an existing circuit when it is not possible or sensible to try and install RCD protection at the main fuse board.


Cost wise there isn’t much difference, in fact it could actually work out cheaper if there’s a couple of appliances to connect or more.


But it does seem utterly and completely over the top.


Andy Betteridge