Amendment 3 Non combustable

[Guest125]

I think the manufacturers need to be clear on whether their enclosures are actually defined as "non combustible". As Archy says, most of them just melt in to a blob.

This is why this part has a date of 2016 before it is enforced. To give the manufacturers time.

 

[UNG]

Just install steel distribution boards from now on. Saves a lot of arguements.

And will then throw up another argument when you find the live and neutral tails through different entry holes

 

[spark 68]

I still don't get why this is included in this amd ????

Christ it is down to the manufacturers to ensure the products they sell are fit for purpose and meet all required regulations and product standards, we just buy them off the shelf and fit the sodding things

 

[davesparks]

And will then throw up another argument when you find the live and neutral tails through different entry holes

Well that has been against regulations since time immemorial,
Although it would be too much to hope that half the electricians out there understand it, let alone the 5wws

 

[Engineer54]

SOooooo, where is the EU harmonisation in all this?? Europe uses far, far more plastic enclosures than the UK, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find a metal electrical enclosure. So are the same restrictions going to apply EU wide or are we being led to believe that the rest of Europe are using non-combustable plastic enclosures but UK isn't??

The ETI has yet again been led down the garden path by an outside lobbyist organisation that has put them at odds with just about everybody else, in this case by the fire brigade!!

Anyone ever seen a modern plastic CU burst into flames from an internal fault and stay burning away until it's consumed the lot?? No and you won't, what you'll see is a blob of melted plastic on the floor....

There are plenty of areas within the present BS7671 that need amending some desperately, but no, overall this so-called committee has chosen to fix things that weren't ever broken....

 

[UNG]

I think there must be a warehouse storing a lot of metal consumer units that they need to get rid of

Yet another reg that sends some into a blind panic

 

[Midwest]

I've not fought many fires, so I think we do need to listen too those people that do. Much is made of the of the non-combustible nature of the CU, which the Amd 3 refers to. However, when I've looked at the discussions, non combustibility is used to contain any fire started within a CU. A big blob of melted plastic presumably has the potential to start a fire. I'm sure we've all seen the interview with the London Fire Brigade. They see the change necessary to save lives. Don't think you can argue with that IMO.

I see from the British Electrotechnical & Allied Manufacturing bulletin (sorry not clever enough to paste it here), that; good workmanship and proper materials must be applied by the installer. The cable installation entry method shall, as far as reasonably practicable, maintain the fire containment of the enclosure. Account shall be taken of the manufactures instructions, if any.

So the manufactures don't appear to be considering cable entry is their responsibility, or not rushing to resolve it. A lot of stuff still needs deciding, guess that's why it's been put off till next year.

 

[Midwest]

Plus......some metal clad CU's I've fitted in the past had plastic lids. Metal covers will still need some method of maintaining containment with inner combustible parts, mcb's etc.

 

[Engineer54]

I've not fought many fires, so I think we do need to listen too those people that do. Much is made of the of the non-combustible nature of the CU, which the Amd 3 refers to. However, when I've looked at the discussions, non combustibility is used to contain any fire started within a CU. A big blob of melted plastic presumably has the potential to start a fire. I'm sure we've all seen the interview with the London Fire Brigade. They see the change necessary to save lives. Don't think you can argue with that IMO.

I see from the British Electrotechnical & Allied Manufacturing bulletin (sorry not clever enough to paste it here), that; good workmanship and proper materials must be applied by the installer. The cable installation entry method shall, as far as reasonably practicable, maintain the fire containment of the enclosure. Account shall be taken of the manufactures instructions, if any.

So the manufactures don't appear to be considering cable entry is their responsibility, or not rushing to resolve it. A lot of stuff still needs deciding, guess that's why it's been put off till next year.

I'll ask again WHY does the UK need metal containment for domestic CU's but the rest of Europe doesn't??
Just because the lobby is the LFB doesn't mean they are right and we shouldn't question the basis of their statements. The LFB is part of the same overall organisation that blames the majority of all fires as being electrical fires without any evidence or proof. Eg it's the easy route to take when filling in subsequent fire attendance reports....

The plastic used in the vast majority of CU/DBs conforms to the present EU standards as being fire retardant/resisting which basically means flames are self extinguishing.

 

[spark 68]

I ask again, WTF is this to do with us as mere installers ?, if they want to change product standards fine, the CU manufacturers will have to follow those standards or find their products are banned, the responsibility lies with them, this has no business being in our wiring regs, we are not the designers and have no say in what they are made of or how they achieve compliance.

 

[Engineer54]

I ask again, WTF is this to do with us as mere installers ?, if they want to change product standards fine, the CU manufacturers will have to follow those standards or find their products are banned, the responsibility lies with them, this has no business being in our wiring regs, we are not the designers and have no say in what they are made of or how they achieve compliance.

Basically, you are the far easier fodder to chase, so they are placing a proportion of blame on you as the installer!! lol!!

 

[Midwest]

Sorry I can't do multi quotes. Enginer54, I'm unable to comment on what other countries use, so have to agree with you there.

I can't agree with you on contesting the LFB. In cases of fire death, a coroner will hear evidence from experts, I believe a FB investigator is one of tem.....not one of us. Not sure any organisation would want to go into any court, knowingly to tell untruths.

Again I'm no expert on combustion, but I wouldn't feel safe with a 'big blob of molten plastic' on my hallway carpet.

Anyway, surely these disagreement's are immaterial now that its written in the BYB?

 

[spark 68]

Hi MW,
I am in no way knocking the aims or reasoning behind this change, my argument is that it should be pushed at a higher level, ie. in the standards that cover CUs, we have no say in how these are constructed, we just buy (hopefully) compliant products off of the shelf and fit them,end of.

The manufacturers are the ones responsible for type testing their products to ensure they are safe for their intended use, they are the ones whom are quick to say we cannot fit other makes of MCB/RCBO that comply to the same standard.

If they are inherently unsafe then they should be withdrawn from sale end of, But money comes into it yet again, the IET by not implementing this until 2016 is giving these same manufacturers time to clear all of their existing inventory of (potentially) unsafe products, so much for safety lol

 

[Midwest]

Hi MW,
I am in no way knocking the aims or reasoning behind this change, my argument is that it should be pushed at a higher level, ie. in the standards that cover CUs, we have no say in how these are constructed, we just buy (hopefully) compliant products off of the shelf and fit them,end of.

The manufacturers are the ones responsible for type testing their products to ensure they are safe for their intended use, they are the ones whom are quick to say we cannot fit other makes of MCB/RCBO that comply to the same standard.

If they are inherently unsafe then they should be withdrawn from sale end of, But money comes into it yet again, the IET by not implementing this until 2016 is giving these same manufacturers time to clear all of their existing inventory of (potentially) unsafe products, so much for safety lol

I think.....someone on here will tell you exactly, that there is a BS manufacturers have to comply with. It's just changed. Don't know how manufactures design their products after that point, perhaps they should listen to their customers. The cynical amongst us might agree with you about the implementation date, I also think they are scratching their heads on how to come up with a suitable design for the new standard. Anyway enough said, supposed to be catching up on all my admin today!

 

[Delboybully]

Just had my Big Yellow Book arrive today & this is what it says:


421.1.201 With domestic (household) premises, consumer units & similar switchgear assemblies shall comply with BS EN 61439-3 & shall:

(i) have their enclosure manufactured from non-combustible material, or
(ii) be enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of non-combustible material & complying with Regulation 13.12

Note 1: Ferrous metal, e.g. steel, is deemed to be an example of non-combustible material
Note 2: The implementation date for this regulation is 1st January 2016, but does not preclude compliance with the regulation prior to that date.



Michael

This will makes things interesting for a TT system. So you have to provide some RCD protection (time delayed) for a new metal CU. But the enclosure for the time delayed RCD will need to go into a metal enclosure which you cant put the tails into.

So now we are left with enclosing everything include the head and meter into a metal cabinet. Its going to be fun finding enclosures just the right size for those head/meter/CU in a tight space