The holy grail of BS7671 amendment 3 plastic vs metal c/u's

[baldsparkies]

Consumer units compliant with amendment 3 have to pass some kind of glow test to BSEN61439-3

I like many have seen and read information suggesting that all domestic consumer units will shortly need to be installed constructed of steel rather than plastic as a result of this new wonder ruling.

It would appear that this is not the case.
And looks like another red herring that comes to light every time those bored people sitting around a table want to create some extra cash.

Once again its down to us sparks to try and pick the wood from the trees, so I thought this link might help clear some of the only metal clad rumours.

http://www.doepke.co.uk/catalogue/Cat-pdf/conunits.pdf

 

[trev]

The risk of fire is not eliminated, only reduced. There is still the risk from factors beyond our control such as manufacturing defects in the MCBs.

In that case the manufacturers PLI will be the one involved, not mine.

 

[Plonker 3]

I would have thought we will now be seeing CUs with steel spring loaded hinged lids to cover the MCBs and blanks etc

How many time have we seen the lids "removed" because of the small cupboards they are fitted in wont allow them to be opened if left in situ though?

 

[trev]

It would, as long as you have the balls to go against the requirment of a fire containing enclosure, and sign to that effect, then you need to hope that if something unforeseen happens,your PII insurer is willing to insure you for a design that is not in compliance with BS7671.
Your PLI insurer will not be interested.

So in that case the manufacture of all plastic CUs will have to be stopped. How the hell can something be a fire risk in a house but not in a small shop?
I do see what you're getting at but it's another demonstration of how ridiculous this regulation is.
Surely if you can prove you have complied with the MIs then you're in the clear. I'd like to see this looked at by a lawyer.

 

[davesparks]

In that case the manufacturers PLI will be the one involved, not mine.

Should be, but the installation would still not be in accordance with bs7671 and so leave you open to potential trouble.

 

[netblindpaul]

Dillb,
You have missed totally the requirement and the intent of the reg.
It is the ENCLOSURE, that must be made of the required material.
Which, BEAMA have decreed as steel.
Where the breakers stick out through their enclosing face is irrelevant.
IF some **** takes the cover off, then they become the designer of the equipment and they place the unit on the market under the LVD, thus they are totally responsible formthe design, type testing, manufacture, supply and fitting, so if the unit catches fire and burns the house down, killing people, they WILL be in the dock for manslaughter.

 

[Gavin A]

Not quite, though it is a good point.
The enclosure is required to contain any fire.
Thus you need to show that the enclosure can do this, that is the intent of the reg.

I can't get that from the wording quoted

Have recieved bs7671 amd 3 today.

New regulation 421.1.201 requires that within domestic (household) premisis, consumer units & similar switchgear assemblies shall comply with BS EN 61439-3 & shall:
(i) have their enclosure manufactured from non-combustable material, or
(ii) be enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of non-combustable material & complying with Regulation 132.12

Nothing in there says to me that this must be required to contain a fire, merely that it mustn't provide ready fuel for a fire itself.

If it needed to contain the fire then it would have to be specified as being a fire sealed unit.

 

[trev]

Should be, but the installation would still not be in accordance with bs7671 and so leave you open to potential trouble.

As I say though, if I've complied with the MIs and can prove it then I'm back on easy street.
Look at the Wylex MCB recall a while back. If I'd installed some of their kit and it caught fire then who is going to be liable? As soon as they issued that recall then they're putting their necks on the block.
I honestly think that this regulation is legally very shakey mate.

 

[Plonker 3]

Sorry NBP, maybe I am not explaing myself clearly for which if I haven't I apologise.

But all DBs come with a opening on the front for MCBs to protrude from, now where these are not used they need blanking off, so surely these blanks will also need to "contain the fire" or this reg is as much use a one legged man at a bum kicking party?

 

[Gavin A]

What's Regulation 132.12?

 

[D Skelton]

It seems like the penny is finally dropping, trouble is, there is nothing we can do about it.

The penny dropped a long time ago but there was still nothing we could do about it! As long as five week wonders keep board members at the Electrical Scam Council earning salaries of £400k+, the problems with our industry will remain covered with nothing but sticky plasters, and if we're lucky a little bit of Savlon too.

The one thing we still have is our fingers, and both of my middle ones are raised firmly in the direction of the corporate scumbags at the ESC and the NIC. I'll still be fitting plastic DBs in people's homes (not that I do much work with domestic DBs anyway, but that's besides the point) and if Mr NIC doesn't like it then he can lick the stink nuggets out of my perfectly formed, but sweaty and hairy bum crack!

Ever feel like banging your head against something hard mate?

I do, and regularly! Lol

Edit: My head that is, not yours haha.

 

[netblindpaul]

Sorry NBP, maybe I am not explaing myself clearly for which if I haven't I apologise.

But all DBs come with a opening on the front for MCBs to protrude from, now where these are not used they need blanking off, so surely these blanks will also need to "contain the fire" or this reg is as much use a one legged man at a bum kicking party?

No they don't they come with a back, a front and a cover.
All parts must be of suitable material, and present, thus the cover would sort out where the mcb's protrude through the front.

 

[netblindpaul]

I can't get that from the wording quoted



Nothing in there says to me that this must be required to contain a fire, merely that it mustn't provide ready fuel for a fire itself.

If it needed to contain the fire then it would have to be specified as being a fire sealed unit.

This is where the "intent" of the regulation comes in.

 

[netblindpaul]

The penny dropped a long time ago but there was still nothing we could do about it! As long as five week wonders keep board members at the Electrical Scam Council earning salaries of £400k+, the problems with our industry will remain covered with nothing but sticky plasters, and if we're lucky a little bit of Savlon too.

The one thing we still have is our fingers, and both of my middle ones are raised firmly in the direction of the corporate scumbags at the ESC and the NIC. I'll still be fitting plastic DBs in people's homes (not that I do much work with domestic DBs anyway, but that's besides the point) and if Mr NIC doesn't like it then he can lick the stink nuggets out of my perfectly formed, but sweaty and hairy bum crack!

Ever feel like banging your head against something hard mate?

I do, and regularly! Lol

Remember, I have never said I agreed with it...

 

[davesparks]

As I say though, if I've complied with the MIs and can prove it then I'm back on easy street.
Look at the Wylex MCB recall a while back. If I'd installed some of their kit and it caught fire then who is going to be liable? As soon as they issued that recall then they're putting their necks on the block.
I honestly think that this regulation is legally very shakey mate.

I think the regulation is downright ridiculous. The trouble with complying with the MIs is most tend to include the line 'must be installed in accordance with current regulations' or words to that effect.

But as I have stated before in practice it doesn't bother me, when I was an apprentice we only used metalclad boards and to this day I carry on the same unless it's a TT or another good reason to fit plastic.

The question of TT systems has been raised already, but I think there is (or always used to be) an allowance for metal boards to be used if it is constructed so that it provides additional protection against damage to the tails entering it.

 

[Plonker 3]

No they don't they come with a back, a front and a cover.
All parts must be of suitable material, and present, thus the cover would sort out where the mcb's protrude through the front.

So intermittant strips will now also be fitted to DBs too?

Cant see the cost of these being cheap if they now have to be manufactured from steel with a nice finish coat and all the other bells and whistles needed to compy.