phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002
|
The new numbering system that will be introduced in the 17th edition third amendment will see regs ending in 100 represent CENELEC Harmonization Document reference numbers and 200 numbers represent UK-only regulations. Therefore it is only the UK introducing the fire related change. By inference it is unique to the UK.
BEAMA clearly has a major influence ultimately on the materials that will be used to meet new requirements, but, lots of people jumped on the "metal fuse-board" bandwagon without questioning it. Metal may be non-combustible but there are drawbacks to its use as a fuse-board cabinet, not least of which that temperaturs in an electrical fire can be easily propogated through a thin metal case such that combustible materials on the outside could quite easily catch fire even though the metal case on the fuse-board itself isn't physically burning. The heat generated will in itself cause fire. It is disappointing that the prevalent reference to non-combustible= metal has taken hold. I am sure there are far better non-combustible materials than metal for use in the manufacture of fuse-board cabinets. If BEAMA have led this fiasco then they should be held to task by the IET. It is a very poor choice.
Edited: 17 December 2014 at 10:53 PM by phantom9
|
davezawadi

Posts: 4259
Joined: 26 June 2002
|
Quoting me as Dave C1 is not quite accurate, if an item which is prohibited from use is still in an installation there is no question that it is a C1. Lets be reasonable, knife switches went out with the ark, and are prohibited except in certain very special circumstances, so when you find one in a bathroom do you give it a C3? Of course you don't. These CUs are considered immediately dangerous from a fire point of view, therefore must be a C1. Anything else is nonsense as you (the inspector) is immediately liable for consequential damages if one catches fire and you have issued a EICR saying it simply does not match the current regs, they were changed because of a significant and immediate danger! Any plastic CU from January is a C1. I bet any comers £10 as before, and it will be one of you unsuspecting inspectors who will be done, not the clubs or manufacturers who say "its OK really, we say C3" because they will not back that opinion with real money when the chips are down, they will run like h££l! Take great care, comments on twitter or the like are only quiet chat, not the law unless it's a libel case. Until one issues a press release saying that plastic installations are satisfactory and the new regulation is an over reaction to a minor problem, would I even consider anything but C1, because my PI insurance is the last thing that needs some claim for someone else's mistake. You are into politics now, not engineering.....
The IET will make no judgement, they are weak and probably incapable. The situation should never have got to this point, and the chairman is the IET???
-------------------------
David BSc CEng MIET
|