Amendment 3 DPC

[D Skelton]

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/sites/www.voltimum.co.uk/files/bs7671-amd-3-dcp_0.pdf

Some interesting changes, some are bloody pointless though IMHO.

 

[Jay Sparks]

Thanks for the PDF DS. Just had a quick scan through it but gonna give it a proper read later. When is this new amendment due to come out?

Jay

 

[D Skelton]

1st of Jan 2015, in full effect by 1st of July 2015

Just another bloody regs book really innit, all because a few plebs up at the IET want to correct their spelling mistakes! lol

 

[Silly Sausage]

What's this all about?
(See 411.4 etc.)

Cmin is the minimum voltage factor to take account of voltage variations depending on time and place, changing
of transformer taps and other considerations.
NOTE 1: For a low voltage supply given in accordance with the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations
2002 as amended, Cmin is given the value 0.95.

 

[D Skelton]

Also, have a look at the altered tabulated max Zs values for B, C and D curve 60898s!

What a ball ache, that means the big green book is gonna have to come out every time I fill in a cert now!

 

[spark 68]

This is to take account of the lower end of the range of the tolerances and VD of a nominal 230V/400 supply, if you notice they have also re-calculated the max Zs values (OCPD tables etc.) to take this into account too.

What gets me with this is that they already lowered these once to "harmonise" the 230/400 calcs (from 240/415), this new lowering probably makes some sense if you have a "real" 230/400 supply which we don't (we only changed the tolerance band) unless we are really lowering our supply voltage this time ?

More significantly, the commercial/industrial supervised person "get out clause" for RCDs has all but been removed, unless you are prepared to sign a RA to say otherwise, I cannot see many people wanting to sign that.
This will cause some problems with offices and the like.

Where does all this Bull Shine end ?, yet they do nothing to correct all the other anomalies and poor wording of existing regs, just add more Sh*t on top, was the 17th that bad ?

More money for "the boys", I wish we would tell Europe to P*ss off and fit in with us for a change.

 

[D Skelton]

This is to take account of the lower end of the range of the tolerances and VD of a nominal 230V/400 supply, if you notice they have also re-calculated the max Zs values (OCPD tables etc.) to take this into account too.

What gets me with this is that they already lowered these once to "harmonise" the 230/400 calcs (from 240/415), this new lowering probably makes some sense if you have a "real" 230/400 supply which we don't (we only changed the tolerance band) unless we are really lowering our supply voltage this time ?

More significantly, the commercial/industrial supervised person "get out clause" for RCDs has all but been removed, unless you are prepared to sign a RA to say otherwise, I cannot see many people wanting to sign that.
This will cause some problems with offices and the like.

I bet DI EICs with RAs attached will be flying out of the printer! they do love a get out clause don't they!

 

[Octopus]

Is there ANY justification for this update?? Or is it time to fleece the spark again?

 

[spark 68]

To be honest D I am p*sed off with the whole lot, More books to be replaced, GNs etc. then we will sure to be having the 18th ed next, more costs for exams etc. IET and C&G on a good old money spinner, I know we have always had updates, mostly for the better, I agree with the 17th for RCDs in domestic for example, but this just takes the p*ss.

This is more to fit in with the poxy EU, it is more of a political change IMO, rather than for good Electrical reasons.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Also, have a look at the altered tabulated max Zs values for B, C and D curve 60898s!

What a ball ache, that means the big YELLOW book is gonna have to come out every time I fill in a cert now!

All the Z esses for all (it seems) devices are 5% lower.

 

[thekingiam]

what a great idea another reg book can we also pay for a new course update?

- - - Updated - - -

i never understood the green one anyways.

 

[D Skelton]

All the Z esses for all (it seems) devices are 5% lower.

Screw it, I think I'll just paint the cover of mine yellow then!

- - - Updated - - -

All the Z esses for all (it seems) devices are 5% lower.

Screw it, I think I'll just paint the cover of mine yellow then!

 

[Silly Sausage]

Hahaha...I might start a Regs book re-covering service!
Bargain for £10 a copy!

 

[Robotstar5]

I wish they'd use different colours for the strike through and changes instead of red for both, makes reading/understanding it difficult in places.

Just off to Halfords for a tin of yellow spray paint

 

[Octopus]

I wonder how often the Gas Safe Regs are updated??

 

[Flanders]

Thanks for posting
I like the fact that they have got rid of competent person and replaced with skilled electrically skilled person. I may sound trivial but makes more sense to me

 

[MDJ]

We may laugh but I for one am fed up with buying regs books, at 70 notes an issue it is no joke.

 

[Plonker 3]

Maybe its time the IEE took responsibility of the CPS as after all its there book we have to adhere too, then there would be no discrepancies with technical help as they would be able to clarify exactly what it means, and our annual subs would also include any new revisions being available to us at a heavily discounted rate. Which in turn would surely make everyone sign up to it?

 

[Octopus]

Lets hope the Plain English Society get a look at it, so theres more clarity!

 

[alanl]

Hmm, there is an awful lot of bleating going on here.
£70 for the book, who pays that?
I got the green book and the OSG for £60. Everyone in one of the schemes would also have been offered similar deals.
Then, spread that cost over 2 years, and it is 75p a week, for the best guidebook possible for your profession.
I've got no problem with the new RCD regs. Easily bypassed by writing a 5 line risk assessment if you feel it is not required.
How about 134.1.1?
That's a good change IMO and hasnt been picked up by most.

Why? I put an oven in last week, in the install notes, it said "only to be installed by a 'NIC' approved electrician, and must be supplied by 6mm T+E". Why not 10mm? or the 4mm I put in, for the 5kW oven? I went against manufacturers instructions as they were just plain wrong. But my work is non-compliant, and would have been before I started as I am not with NICEIC, which is what I assume 'NIC' means.

 

[D Skelton]

How about 134.1.1? That's a good change IMO and hasnt been picked up by most.

Good spot! I completely missed that! lol

 

[Deleted member 72666]

I also think 134.1.1 is spot on but totally disagree with this Cmin voltage factor malarky as we're working with fictitious voltages in any case! A bit like the emperor's new clothes syndrome! Not had the time to read much further yet.

 

[spark 68]

Hmm, there is an awful lot of bleating going on here.
£70 for the book, who pays that?
I got the green book and the OSG for £60. Everyone in one of the schemes would also have been offered similar deals.
Then, spread that cost over 2 years, and it is 75p a week, for the best guidebook possible for your profession.
I've got no problem with the new RCD regs. Easily bypassed by writing a 5 line risk assessment if you feel it is not required.
How about 134.1.1?
That's a good change IMO and hasnt been picked up by most.

Why? I put an oven in last week, in the install notes, it said "only to be installed by a 'NIC' approved electrician, and must be supplied by 6mm T+E". Why not 10mm? or the 4mm I put in, for the 5kW oven? I went against manufacturers instructions as they were just plain wrong. But my work is non-compliant, and would have been before I started as I am not with NICEIC, which is what I assume 'NIC' means.

Ha ha , I was just having a good old Whinge mate. lol
It could have been worse, they could have called this the 18th edition, and we would all be booking exams as well.

Of course the timing could have been a bit better too, we are still in recession (despite Gov, assurances lol), and to have more amds at this time looks to be a tad like profiteering by the powers that be. lol

The RCD bit will probably not be too bad on a new build, but may cause problems on EICRs or any alterations to existing, especially the latter point if the existing DB is discontinued/obsolete No RCBOs available for etc... could work out expensive. (talking about offices and the like in Ind. Comm. here) and computer circuits will need a lot more consideration than they currently get.

I was mainly whinging about the pointless Cmin Ballcocks, and the lowering of Zs's lol, I wonder how we will be meant will code this now (when AMD3 is in force), when previously the Zs complied but now doesn't.

There are some good parts to this AMD, the fixing of wiring in escape routes for one, and the section on auxiliary circuits looks informative too.

Actually we get off fairly lightly, as IEC/BS EN 60439 has just been superseded by IEC/BS EN 61439 which is in about a dozen parts or so, each part usually costs more than BS7671! the selfemployed lads on here who need this standard will be paying out quite a bit more than us.

 

[snowhead]

I wonder how often the Gas Safe Regs are updated??

Not very often.

BUT available free online;

Safety in the installation and use of gas systems and appliances

And they are only 90 pages long.

However you won't find the I.G.E (Institute of Gas Engineers) documents, which cover technical aspects, anywhere free and the total cost of these and the British standards documents which are also required exceed the cost of the Electrical regs by about 20 times.

.

 

[Engineer54]

Said it before and i'll say it again, Pass the publication of BS 7671 over to CIBSE. They tend to still be blessed with commonsense and professionalism!! Both of which are sadly lacking these days in the revamped ITE formerly IEE!!

 

[UNG]

Reading between the lines this amendment pre-empts changes that are obviously in the pipeline

My guess would be that eventually we are going to see the second part of EU voltage harmonisation that has been delayed for quite a few years introduced and our nominal voltage will reduce to 220v

The definition change from competent to skilled suggests that changes to the Part P schemes are moving forward and although they are probably not finalised hopefully there is scope now to raise the scheme skill level although some of the definitions wording leaves plenty of room for interpretation IMO

Pity they don't see fit to publish BS7671 and all the associated books in a cheaper electronic format

 

[Knobhead]

My guess would be that eventually we are going to see the second part of EU voltage harmonisation that has been delayed for quite a few years introduced and our nominal voltage will reduce to 220v

Pigs will fly before that happens.
A standard DNO transformer is still 433/250V. Many don’t have tappings.
Due to the use of link boxes between various transformers they would all have to be changed. It’s no fun linking two transformers with a voltage difference.

 

[Deleted member 72666]

They don't seem to have elaborated on the new set of figures for type D breakers,(table 41.3) we now may have 2 sets of figures, one for disconnection times of 0.1 to 3 seconds and a set for 5 seconds (which incidentally are the same figures as the type C breakers!) but they seem to be applicable to fuse ratings less than 32 amps as well! Currently only distribution ccts and ccts >32amps should have an istantaneous disconnection time not exceeding 5 seconds.Have I missed a trick here?

 

[UNG]

Pigs will fly before that happens.
A standard DNO transformer is still 433/250V. Many don’t have tappings.
Due to the use of link boxes between various transformers they would all have to be changed. It’s no fun linking two transformers with a voltage difference.

Tony in some areas I have worked recently the voltages are creeping down so I can only assume that new kit has been installed and shortly we may be seeing pigs fly LOL. Speaking to a DNO engineer a couple of years ago he said they were moving towards the 230v nominal voltage as new kit was installed as the reduction to 220v was back on the table and his thinking was it will happen after all the past delays

 

[silver surfer]

Said it before and i'll say it again, Pass the publication of BS 7671 over to CIBSE. They tend to still be blessed with commonsense and professionalism!! Both of which are sadly lacking these days in the revamped ITE formerly IEE!![/QUOTE]
And at some time or other IET!

 

[Guest55]

FFS , is there any good news in this god forsaken industry ?

dont answer that.

the IET couldnt even get the requirements right first time around for public vehical charging installations so more faffing with Zs values doesnt bode well for sparks having a quiet and easy life.

And theres no fookin way im buying anymore books till the 18th , i'll be working to amd 1 2011 for many years to come :-D

As for the dno's doing anything with the voltage range ? forget that , they cant even guarantee their own tns network without dumping responsibility on the consumer to TT in order to save a few quid on a cable repair.
the bottom line is that they answer to shareholders not the EU.

time to get out of this suckfest profession me thinks.........

 

[Engineer54]

Tony in some areas I have worked recently the voltages are creeping down so I can only assume that new kit has been installed and shortly we may be seeing pigs fly LOL. Speaking to a DNO engineer a couple of years ago he said they were moving towards the 230v nominal voltage as new kit was installed as the reduction to 220v was back on the table and his thinking was it will happen after all the past delays

These are ALL private industries these day's, they are not going to remove from service a perfectly good (for arguments sake) 415/240V distribution TX and replace it with an expensive 400/230V TX.

They may well be installing 400/230V TX's on New Sites and new Housing Estates and the like, but even then, i'm pretty sure they will be making use of any spare/stored 415/240v stock first!!

As for 380/22OV, NOT in your or your childrens lifetime!! lol!! Do you really think they will pay out twice to replace the countries LV distribution TX's?? Very few 1MVA or less TX's come with standard tap changing facilities, and by far the vast majority of LV distribution TX's will come within that range....

Oh, and a tap change facility comes with a pretty big whack on the TX price tag too!!

 

[Gavin A]

That change from 'competent person' to 'electrically skilled person' is potentially a huge change.

Previously you just had to be competent, with this the requirement to have the relevant education is actually written in to the regs, so no more relying on being time served if you didn't get the requisite bit of paper to confirm your knowledge.

Skilled person (electrically). A pPerson with technical knowledge or sufficient relevant education and experience
to enable him/ or her to perceive risks and to avoid dangers hazards which electricity may can create

Who cares about your 20 years industrial electrical experience if you've not got your --- bit of paper you shouldn't be working on electrics unsupervised according to this.


eta - I don't know what the strikethrough code is on this board, so the bits with an around them are the bits being struck out.

 

[Gavin A]

A few changes I've spotted.

Changes for RCD protected sockets for non domestic situations, they'll all need to be on RCD unless for a specific designated bit of equipment or where a documented risk assessment has been done for it, so lots more risk assessment paperwork for those working in those situations.

This is a significant change I think, banning the use of plastic conduit, cable ties and clips in any fire escape routes. Probably fairly sensible tbf, similar to the requirement (practice?) to use metal cable ties every so often to prevent cables on trays from dropping in a fire.

521.200 Wiring systems in escape routes 521.200.1 Wiring systems in escape routes shall be supported such that they will not be liable to premature
collapse in the event of fire. The requirements of Regulation 422.2.1 shall also apply, irrespective of the classification
of the conditions for evacuation in an emergency.
NOTE 1: Non-metallic trunking or other non-metallic means of support can fail when subject to either direct flame or hot
products of combustion. This may lead to wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes such that they hinder
evacuation and firefighting activities.
NOTE 2: This precludes the use of non-metallic cable clips, cable ties or trunking as the sole means of support. For example,
where non-metallic trunking is used, a suitable fire-resistant means of support/retention must be provided to prevent
cables falling out in the event of fire.

Any cables passing through a bathroom will need to be on an RCD even if it's not serving the bathroom. (701.411.3.3).

 

[Gavin A]

Any chance of a mode changing the thread title to 'BS7671 amendment 3 draft' or similar?

I'd not realised what this thread was about until curiosity got the better of me.

 

[Engineer54]

That change from 'competent person' to 'electrically skilled person' is potentially a huge change.

Previously you just had to be competent, with this the requirement to have the relevant education is actually written in to the regs, so no more relying on being time served if you didn't get the requisite bit of paper to confirm your knowledge. Err, where are you reading all this from, what bit of paper are you referring too then??

Skilled person (electrically). A pPerson with technical knowledge that's vague or sufficient relevant education and experience define technical knowledge, sufficient and relevant education??
to enable him/ or her to perceive risks and to avoid dangers hazards which electricity may can create. usual meaningless filling piff...

Who cares about your 20 years industrial electrical experience if you've not got your --- bit of paper you shouldn't be working on electrics unsupervised according to this. Oh dear, you really are reading far too much into a typical cover all statement


eta - I don't know what the strikethrough code is on this board, so the bits with an around them are the bits being struck out.

I don't know what you're getting all excited about here to be honest!! You could drive a double decker bus through that description of a skilled person... It say's absolutely ''Nothing'' about holding any specific qualifications, so if anything, think ''Minimal'' and so think C&G 2382 Lv 3 and you'll be bang on!! lol!!

So although you might think differently, nothing has actually changed, 17 day Whizzers and electrical trainee's will easily conform legally into this definition!! You can bet your last penny the Scams will be reading this exactly as i have.

 

[Gavin A]

I don't know what you're getting all excited about here to be honest!! You could drive a double decker bus through that description of a skilled person... It say's absolutely ''Nothing'' about holding any specific qualifications, so think ''Minimal'' and think C&G 2382 Lv 3 and you'll be bang on!!

So although you might think differently, nothing has actually changed, you can bet your last penny the Scams will be reading this exactly as i have.

you may be right, but in that case why would they change the wording?

IMO the scams will use this to insist on specific certs for operative, eg 2394 for anyone doing inspection and testing.

It certainly gives them more grounds to do so than the previous wording.

When I look at stuff like this, I do so while considering what the intent was likely to be behind the change, and the intent here clearly seems to be to ensure that everyone has what they deem to be the correct level of certification.

Certificates help them with their tick box culture of assessments, less requirement to actually assess the competence / technical knowledge of the people involved themselves (and potentially open themselves up to liability if they get that wrong), as long as they have the right certificate then they can tick that box and move on to something more important like lunch.

We've already got our main electrician on a 2394 course after being told that they now expect it even with an NVQ lvl 3, so I know it's happening already, this is just providing them with the ammunition.

 

[Engineer54]

you may be right, but in that case why would they change the wording?

IMO the scams will use this to insist on specific certs for operative, eg 2394 for anyone doing inspection and testing.

It certainly gives them more grounds to do so than the previous wording.

When I look at stuff like this, I do so while considering what the intent was likely to be behind the change, and the intent here clearly seems to be to ensure that everyone has what they deem to be the correct level of certification.

Certificates help them with their tick box culture of assessments, less requirement to actually assess the competence / technical knowledge of the people involved themselves (and potentially open themselves up to liability if they get that wrong), as long as they have the right certificate then they can tick that box and move on to something more important like lunch.

We've already got our main electrician on a 2394 course after being told that they now expect it even with an NVQ lvl 3, so I know it's happening already, this is just providing them with the ammunition.

No idea, perhaps the ITE are feeling more than a little guilty for saying and doing nothing of the deskilling and decline of the industry it is supposed to support and promote, but i doubt it.

The scams will use anything and everything that will best suit their own financial purposes, no doubt about that...lol!!!!

 

[Marvo]

Any chance of a mode changing the thread title to 'BS7671 amendment 3 draft' or similar?

I'd not realised what this thread was about until curiosity got the better of me.

I can if Mr Skelton is in agreement.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

I can if Mr Skelton is in agreement.

I prefer the latest updates to Damp Proof Courses.