What is going on with SPD's and A3

[Mark1969]

We were all told that SPD's were mandatory under A3 from September last year and even sat through the webinar spelling it out. I work an area with lots of overhead lines, I ran out of the Type 1's I bulk buy online and could not find any local wholesalers who stocked them (type 2 yes but no type 1). It seemed strange that it is now mandatory to fit them but you can't buy them at the wholesalers.

Fast forward a few weeks and I am sitting in an Aico fire alarm training session and I raise this point afterwards with the trainer. His response was that no one stocks the expensive Type 1's because they aren't mandatory, they realised that making it mandatory was a stupid idea and they pulled that amendment.

So what is going on? Did they pull the amendment? Is the amendment still in force but being largely ignored? What's going on with this...

 

[littlespark]

Didn't know aico made SPD's or contributed to the AMD3 discussions about SPD's....

I'd take what the aico trainers say with a pinch of salt.... They only know the rules and regs that pertain to fire detection.


Agree that type 1's are few and far between.... Its always type 2 that are included in new boards... and i suppose a type 2 is better than none at all.

 

[Mark1969]

Didn't know aico made SPD's or contributed to the AMD3 discussions about SPD's....

I'd take what the aico trainers say with a pinch of salt.... They only know the rules and regs that pertain to fire detection.


Agree that type 1's are few and far between.... Its always type 2 that are included in new boards... and i suppose a type 2 is better than none at all.

They did contribute in as much as they raised concerns over mandating SPD's. Mains fire alarms are cheap life saving devices and Aico apparently realised that not being able to fit a £20 mains fire alarm in a home without also fitting SPD's that costs 10 times that was not an entirely clever idea.

Type 1 is purely to arrest lighting strikes and according to the manufacturers type 2 won't do a thing to arrest a spike from lightning. That said the grid are required to have lighting arrestors on the poles every 500 meters so a strike would have to be incredibly close to get to the home. If it was that close would a double width module on a DIN rail really arrest that much energy? I very much doubt it.

I will have to ring Napit on Monday when I get chance but it seems very strange that no one stocks Type 1's in an area that has masses of overhead lines.

 

[loz2754]

What's A3 by the way? I'm confused...

 

[Mark1969]

What's A3 by the way? I'm confused...

Amendment 3 (The brown one LOL)

 

[nicebutdim]

What's A3 by the way? I'm confused...

The amendment no one previously knew about.

 

[nicebutdim]

Amendment 3 (The brown one LOL)

My copy is marked amendment 2

 

[loz2754]

Amendment 3? It's not been published yet.

 

[loz2754]

That aside, what type of premises are you talking about? For domestic premises SPDs are not mandatory. (As the owner can say no thanks I don't need them).

And why are you fitting type 1 SPDs? They are really only required where the installation is connected to a lightning protection system.

 

[timhoward]

Mains fire alarms are cheap life saving devices and Aico apparently realised that not being able to fit a £20 mains fire alarm in a home without also fitting SPD's that costs 10 times that was not an entirely clever idea

I don't know why you think you can't fit smoke alarms without an SPD.
I don't want to cause you to faint but I have added smoke alarms to VIR lighting circuits and lighting circuits with no CPC. In the former case the house was a fire waiting to happen and I felt the family waking up was more important than anything else.

 

[mainline]

Amendment 3? It's not been published yet.

I sell them on ebay, they are exactally the same as the brown book except i mark them up £10 more.

 

[littlespark]

So we’re still on AMD2?

Lots of things are still marketed as amd3 compliant, referencing the 17th Ed…. So what came out in 17 amd 2 that wasn’t so important to warrant mass marketing?

 

[suffolkspark]

We were all told that SPD's were mandatory under A3 from September last year and even sat through the webinar spelling it out. I work an area with lots of overhead lines, I ran out of the Type 1's I bulk buy online and could not find any local wholesalers who stocked them (type 2 yes but no type 1). It seemed strange that it is now mandatory to fit them but you can't buy them at the wholesalers.

Fast forward a few weeks and I am sitting in an Aico fire alarm training session and I raise this point afterwards with the trainer. His response was that no one stocks the expensive Type 1's because they aren't mandatory, they realised that making it mandatory was a stupid idea and they pulled that amendment.

So what is going on? Did they pull the amendment? Is the amendment still in force but being largely ignored? What's going on with this...

There was a little adjustment in the corigendum that came out earlier this year

 

[nicebutdim]

So we’re still on AMD2?

Lots of things are still marketed as amd3 compliant, referencing the 17th Ed…. So what came out in 17 amd 2 that wasn’t so important to warrant mass marketing?

Nothing marketable for manufacturers.

 

[Mark1969]

My apologies, it is A2. It has been a very long week.

@loz2754, Type 1 SPD's are also required for overhead supplies. See How to choose an SPD - Surge Devices - https://www.surgedevices.co.uk/2346-2/

Napit told us very clearly that from A2 the risk assessment was gone and you cannot decide by calculation any more. The single dwellings special dispensation is also gone.

We were walked through the new 443.4.1

Protection against transient overvoltages shall be provided where the consequence caused by overvoltage could:

i. Result in serious injury to, or loss of human life, or
ii. Result in failure of a safety service, as defined in part 2, or
iii. Result in significant financial loss or data loss

We were directed to Page 18 of A2 that clarifies the word ‘shall’ is to be read as a requirement. After making it clear that it was a requirement we were told that mains fire alarms were covered in subsection ii. They rambled on for a bit but made it clear we had no choice but to fit SPD's even in single dwellings

So the advice is clear and there is no way round SPD’s and yet Type 1's are not for sale in any local wholesalers where half the homes have overhead lines. Am I the only 1 changing Consumer Units? (a rhetorical question). Something has changed or the lads are cocking a deaf ear to it. The lad from Aico says it has changed but couldn't reference a document to that effect. Hmm...

 

[Mark1969]

I don't know why you think you can't fit smoke alarms without an SPD.
I don't want to cause you to faint but I have added smoke alarms to VIR lighting circuits and lighting circuits with no CPC. In the former case the house was a fire waiting to happen and I felt the family waking up was more important than anything else.

That would be the new 443.4.1 See above post for how Napit instructed us to interpret it.

 

[pc1966]

The OP is right that the original requirements basically made an SPD mandatory for mains alarm systems, which might have been a sound engineering decision but of course caused a serious issue for most practical situations so they dropped the (ii) section of it in May 2023. You can get the BS 7671:2018+A2:2022 Corrigendum (May 2023) from here for free as a PDF document:

Updates to 18th Edition - BS7671- IET Wiring Regulations

Keep checking our updates page for urgent technical changes or editorial corrections.

tinyurl.com

 

[pc1966]

As well as that, the AM2 dropped the risk assessment for SPD which was introduced in the original 18th, again made practical sense as nobody will know the cable routing feeding a given site in many cases, but personally I would still advise folks to have SPD fitted if they have overhead lines feeding the site due to the greater risk of induced energy and the amount of valuable electronics folks have, even if they don't realise it (such as LED lights, most white goods having electronic controls and always-on, boilers with electronic controls, TV/PC/broadband, etc)

In such cases type 1 are a better choice as they can cope with more energy, but as you say they are not commonly stocked as the majority of installations do not have a Lightning Protection System, not do they have overhead lines feeding them. Yes, in the countryside they do, but that is small compared to the number in town and cities nearby.

Also type 1 are not cheap, both due to less demand and due to the much bigger devices needed to cope (typically 10x the energy in the 10/350us pulse compared to the 8/20us pulse). We got some directly from here:

Mains Products - Kingsmill Industries

MAINS SPDs TO BS:EN 62305 Device selection information where External Lightning Protection is installed SPD PRODUCT SELECTOR Interactive...

kingsmillindustries.com

Early on they only had the double-module type 1+2 at vast expense, but they also now offer single-module ones and slightly less painful prices. An advantage of the double-width ones are the two terminals that makes Kelvin style connections easy and effective.

Even a type 2 SPD are better than nothing, but chances are they would fail after one high energy event and of course nobody ever monitors them, just as nobody ever checks their RCD (other then EICR time, and not even at that sometimes...)

 

[pc1966]

Also what I like about those devices, such as this model for single-phase TT (or TN) supplies:

Type 1+2 Lightning Current and Surge Arrester (KM1+2-12.5-1+1 SC) - Kingsmill Industries

System: 1 Phase TT/2 Pole Nominal Voltage: 230V AC

kingsmillindustries.com

Is they are suitable for use with a 160A supply fuse so no added MCB and they can be put in a small DIN box before the CU so no issues of busbar compatibility. However, the single module terminals won't take 2*25mm for Kelvin style connections so for a DIN box you need to be looking at some other means of connecting to the post-isolator switch tails.

 

[Risteard]

That would be the new 443.4.1 See above either post for how Napit instructed us to interpret it.

They're not infallible. If this was since the Corrigendum then I would suggest that whoever started it is simply incorrect, regardless of which body he represented. Also Type 1 SPDs are only really relevant where there is an LPS, and would still need to cascade down to Type 2 etc.