Do Leccy's get fed up of ever-changing regulations?

[Gigagator]

Not being a tradesman myself (I work as an IT engineer), I am curious as to whether the Leccy's here get tired of seemingly silly regulation changes?

Case in point are consumer units.

From a layman's point of view, I understand why we went from wire fuses to MCB's, then adding RCD's to circuits, but traditionally the old fuse boxes were made out of metal.

Then plastic consumer units were all the rage before the regulations were changed again to metal.
Again, I understand the reason - fire resistance if I am not mistaken. But why bother with the plastic consumer units, especially if fuse boxes were already manufactured out of metal?

I would be annoyed as a tradesman if I had gone to the trouble of speccing up a plastic consumer unit to replace a fuse box, only to find it was no longer compliant soon after.

I am sure there are other examples but I'm not clued up on the regulations.

I see a lot of bickering on the forum often related to different interpretations of the regulations and surely, it must be tiring to accept that something has changed when it seemed inherently safe before?

The reason I ask is purely curiosity - the limits of my electrical work at home is purely changing a socket, switch or light fitting. I know my limits and am happy to stick to them.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not being a tradesman myself (I work as an IT engineer), I am curious as to whether the Leccy's here get tired of seemingly silly regulation changes?

Sort of.
For new things obviously it is required but it is the creeping rule changes - things that could have been done earlier but weren't - that I wonder about. It seems like to keep the job it is "what can we do next?".

Case in point are consumer units.
From a layman's point of view, I understand why we went from wire fuses to MCB's, then adding RCD's to circuits, but traditionally the old fuse boxes were made out of metal.

You say that but there is nothing wrong with fuses but I suppose MCBs are more modern.
RCDs are an example of my 'creeping'. First for sockets used for outside equipment - fair enough - then all sockets, now everything. They have cost a fortune for very little benefit.

Then plastic consumer units were all the rage before the regulations were changed again to metal.
Again, I understand the reason - fire resistance if I am not mistaken.

Slightly mistaken, we still don't know why the authorities caved in so readily to the London Fire Brigade when it is not the plastic that was the problem but poor terminal in the CUs causing the fires.

But why bother with the plastic consumer units, especially if fuse boxes were already manufactured out of metal?

Well, you can't get a shock from a plastic one.
However, the new requirement is not that the CU be metal; merely non-combustible. In the regulation it states one such material is stainless steel and since then that has been the only option manufactured.

I would be annoyed as a tradesman if I had gone to the trouble of speccing up a plastic consumer unit to replace a fuse box, only to find it was no longer compliant soon after.

Yes - exactly - a lot of people are now being incorrectly told that their CU must be changed.

I see a lot of bickering on the forum often related to different interpretations of the regulations and surely, it must be tiring to accept that something has changed when it seemed inherently safe before?

I sometimes think they are intentionally made ambiguous for 'wriggle room' should they turn out to be not quite right.

Also, a lot of regulations are not modified when associated regulations are changed.

 

[John Peterhead]

Totally, so much so I walked away and commenced safety engineering on the rigs

 

[JohnW2]

Slightly mistaken, we still don't know why the authorities caved in so readily to the London Fire Brigade when it is not the plastic that was the problem but poor terminal in the CUs causing the fires.

Quite so.

Well, you can't get a shock from a plastic one.

Indeed. As I have said so often, if it hasn't already happened it's only a matter of time before we start hearing of people who have been killed or seriously injured as a result of electric shocks due to metal domestic CUs. A lot of the reductions in electrical risks over many decades has been the progressive move from metal enclosures to ones made out of insulating materials - first Bakelite and then more modern 'plastics'.

However, the new requirement is not that the CU be metal; merely non-combustible. In the regulation it states one such material is stainless steel and since then that has been the only option manufactured.

Indeed - and, quite apart from the fact that (in the absence of a regulations-specific definition') 'non-combustible' is scientific nonsense (even steel is 'combustible'), there is no requirement that the casing of a domestic CU provides any 'fire containment' - so a metal CU covered in fairly large holes (anything up to 12mm, other than on the top, to comply with IP requirements) would comply with the regulation!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

stainless

 

[securespark]

1. We
2. Bird
3. She's

 

[plugwash]

Quite so.
Indeed. As I have said so often, if it hasn't already happened it's only a matter of time before we start hearing of people who have been killed or seriously injured as a result of electric shocks due to metal domestic CUs.

Do we hear of people getting killed or injured due to shocks from metal sockets or white goods?

 

[SUNRAY]

Do we hear of people getting killed or injured due to shocks from metal sockets or white goods?

Yes. Whole houses using plastic PB back boxes with earthwires parked in the back. Change all switches to metal and start feeling the tingles...

First time switched on into a short circuit and the big black burn makes the metal plate proper live...

 

[RF Lighting]

In my opinion metal consumer units are better, and have always been the norm on all non domestic installations. I have not fitted a plastic consumer unit for many years.

People fitted plastic consumer units because they were cheaper.

I personally agree with the majority of new regulations believe they do make installations safer.

A lot of people don’t like change and also so many people will do the bare minimum they are forced to do so by the regs rather than trying to do the best job they can.

 

[JohnW2]

Do we hear of people getting killed or injured due to shocks from metal sockets or white goods?

Very rarely, but nor do we often hear of inexperienced people 'fiddling around' inside such things when there are at least some potentially live parts within them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I personally agree with the majority of new regulations believe they do make installations safer.

Fair enough - but the 'metal CUs' reg we are talking about hasn't got anything to do with 'electrical safety', per se.

One can always think of changes that would make electrical installations (or most other things) fractionally 'safer' - the question which probably does not get considered enough is whether the degree of 'increased safety' really warrants the change (particularly if the 'risk' being reduced is one which is already extremely small).

A lot of people don’t like change and also so many people will do the bare minimum they are forced to do so by the regs rather than trying to do the best job they can.

We could obviously debate about "a lot", but we can agree that there are some. However, I would dare to suggest that DIYers may well not represent the highest proportion of such people.

As for "the best job they can", in the case of a CU I would have thought that would be achieved by ensuring that things were done properly within the CU, such that fires would not start therein, rather than requiring them to be 'no-combustible' in an attempt to reduce harm when fires started because of faulty wiring within them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I find unlearning is hard, I knew the "and others" difference between skilled and competent, then dropped, that one I remember but so many changes I can't remember when it changed or why, and how much was real or Chinese whispers. Was there a limit to lead length on a kettle? Was there a distance from the sink?

So we do an EICR, and we in the main follow the regulations in force at the time of the design, each set of regulations states the date after which designs must comply with it. Since this date is in the regulations technically something designed in 1993 which complied still complies now if nothing has degraded.

There are some dates we remember 1966 and earth wires on lighting circuits for example.

But how does one know when it was designed, and what was required then, which is not required now? I remember earthing going mad, with metal window frames earthed, I remember ELCB-v being used, and being then replaced with ELCB-c but as to date, not a clue, until 1992 when the regulations became BS7671 I hardly ever saw a copy, it was on a shelf in managers office and if you asked to look at it you got what do your want that for, and the query was normally answered by the manager without one ever getting your hands on the book.

1980 I started working abroad, and returned around 1993 and all you heard was 16th edition says xyz. When I left in 1980 all anyone worried about was does it work, at least maintenance wise.

Some of the regulations seem to have over stepped the remit, charging voltage of a caravan battery for example, and how the twin 7 pin sockets should be wired, we had a convention, but not regulation, pin 2 seemed to change what it was used for on a regular basis. And I think the auto electrician who has a copy of BS7671 on his shelf is very rare.

But also the wording, "Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation." that seems to say RCD's form a circuit, but "Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s)." does not seem to be talking about RCD's. Was it so hard to say if RCD's form a circuit or not? Same with other items, it is how some on interprets the regulation. Yes some times it is clarified in the next edition.

Take the "Except for equipment for which an appropriate product standard Specifics requirements, a luminaire shall be kept at an adequate distance from combustible materials. Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, a small spotlight or projector shall be installed at the following minimum distance from combustible materials:
(i) Rating up to 100 W 0.5 m"
What homes have beams over 0.5 meters high, nearly every MR16 lamp I have seen is less than 0.5 meters from the floor boards, we all know with an LED unit there is very little heat, but a 5 watt lamp is still up to 100 watt. OK we use common sense, in the main, I am sure it means in front of the light, but that is not what is says.

 

[JohnW2]

So we do an EICR, and we in the main follow the regulations in force at the time of the design ...

Who is this 'we'? Certainly not those doing these 'landlord EICRs' and, I would imagine, not many others, either.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Who is this 'we'? Certainly not those doing these 'landlord EICRs' and, I would imagine, not many others, either.

Kind Regards, John

OK we should not be looking at BS7671 as code 4 removed, only look at if dangerous or potentially dangerous, but following BS7671 does make it easier in a way, no debate should it fail on that, we use the BS7671 version that relates to the design date. That is the same as using current BS7671 as the current BS7671 tells you the design date it is valid from.

 

[RF Lighting]

Fair enough - but the 'metal CUs' reg we are talking about hasn't got anything to do with 'electrical safety', per se.

Yes it has. It makes the electrical installation safer.

As for "the best job they can", in the case of a CU I would have thought that would be achieved by ensuring that things were done properly within the CU, such that fires would not start therein, rather than requiring them to be 'no-combustible' in an attempt to reduce harm when fires started because of faulty wiring within them.

Remember those electrium breakers from about 15 years ago? I could have wired a CU entirely properly, by the book and it would have still gone on fire. A CU made from combustible material would have been less safe than what is required by today’s regulations. It will at some point undoubtedly save peoples lives. I’d call that progress.