Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 26 replies
  • Subscribers 47 subscribers
  • Views 6378 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

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

Jblades

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. 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.

 

Parents

  • 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.

  • in reply to mapj1

    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

Reply
  • in reply to mapj1

    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

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines