Requirements for AFDD's on new installations following amendment 2?

Jblades said:

Following the amendment to Regulation 421.1.7

This now states that AFDD protection for socket outlets and fixed current using equipment is now "required" rather than recommended.

Do you have an advance copy of Amendment 2? As has been said in other threads recently, we can't make assumptions based on what was in the Draft for Public Comment (DPC).

The time to make

Jblades said:

I was wanting to know peoples thoughts on this, as currently an RCBO/AFDD is coming in at around £100 each, meaning cost implications on new consumer units will be huge. The cost doesn't directly affect us as contractors but more the end user. This could possibly put people off the idea of upgrading their consumer unit, no matter how dangerous the existing one currently is.

This point was made at the time of the DPC, in discussion threads on the IET Forum, and elsewhere.

But yes, in my personal opinion, you do have a valid point. The same type of price considerations used to apply to RCDs, and believe it or not, it was a long road to get them accepted in the way they are now - although it's quite difficult to believe that I know.

Well there are still plenty of industrial/commercial sites with no RCD protection as yet, and probably quite a few flats and houses too, as it is not considered reasonable to do works only to add it to existing installations - and despite being someone whose life has probably been saved by one, I am inclined to agree.
The low no of electrocutions per year in the UK  does not justify the cost - even if it prevented every single one there would be literally millions of RCDs .RCBOs installed that would never save a life or prevent a fire in the 20-40 years or so from being  manufactured to scrapped. It may make sense to put them into new installations, but as far as re-work just to add it is concerned, then cost-benefit wise the money is better spend on something else where the no of lives saved per pound is higher, assuming million pounds or so per life lost or saved vs the cost of all the installations.

For AFDD the benefit  is even more tenuous.

Mike.

I assume, if this statement below is correct, all installations will now require AFDD's providing protection for the suppliers terminations?

Jblades said:

now states that AFDD protection for socket outlets and fixed current using equipment is now "required" rather than recommended.

This what the 'Departures' box is for on the certificate. Unlike RCDs, there is no evidence that these things actually work, nor is there any regime in place to monitor their alleged effectiveness or otherwise. Until any of this changes,I shall refuse to the fit things. They stink of snake oil to me.

You may wish to watch this excellent item on the subject.

www.youtube.com/watch

In the DPC AFFDs were only proposed to be compulsory in domestic properties and the final published AMD2 may have taken accounts of comments (as John alluded to). Personally I expect they may only be required in high risk (high rise) flats due to the consequences of a fire rather than the likely-hood of one.

regards, burn

Your likely correct and I agree with your sentiments, however in court you have to ultimately consider yourself as in precarious position against the underwriting elite 

whjohnson said:

This what the 'Departures' box is for on the certificate.

You are already now on the back foot. 'Departures' from BS EN 7671 suggests that you are conforming to another set of regulations.

As an aside, I'm still strugggling with the responsibility of the PIR (EICR) checklist demarkation zone for 'External condition of intake equipment'

Well, since there is no regime set up to determine the actual effectiveness or otherwise of these things, then we'll never know what may or may not have been prevented upon the deliberate omission of said item will we?

Where will the burden of proof fall? How can they claim without reasonable doubt that a AFDD would actually have saved the day somewhere when they are not measuring and recording? It's hard enough getting hold of reliable stats for fires of all courses, let alone the absence of a AFDD

whjohnson said:

Well, since there is no regime set up to determine the actual effectiveness or otherwise of these things, then we'll never know what may or may not have been prevented upon the deliberate omission of said item will we?

Hang on !!! A standard for these devices exists (BS EN 62606).

Comments that the product standard did not "determine the actual effectiveness of these things" could have been submitted in response to the drafts for public comment on that standard.

There has been an opportunity to do so at least 4 times in the UK - the standard was published originally (after DPC) in 2013, Amendment 1 was published (after DPC) in 2017, and the latest DPCs were 2019 and 2021.

Now we have products ... to a product standard published for 8 years ... that are rumoured not to be "effective"?

If an incident is believed to have been caused by a fault that could have been prevented (note, that doesn't even mean it would have been prevented), then it would be very difficult to show that not complying with 7671 was reasonable.

A requirement published in a standard (to use a device that is covered by another standard) would be accepted by a court as being "reasonably practicable best-practice". You would need to be able to demonstrate (by the production of documentary evidence) that what was put in place (or not) was at least as good.