Non-combustible support for electric cables

[colin todd]

The new requirement within the IET regs (BS 7671) for the above came into force on 1 January (yesterday). A good short summary article can be found here:

http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/electrical-professionals/switched-on/

Autumn 2014 edition. Page 17.

[lyledunn]

Actually the regulation changes will not come into force until July 2015 with the plastic consumer unit debacle given a further 6 months so that the manufacturers can flog off all their soon to be banned stocks!

[lyledunn]

Colin,
This has resulted in heated debate in the various electrical forums. Many electrical inspectors are already advising a code 2 ( potentially dangerous) designation for breaches in existing installations. This effectively results in an overall unsatisfactory designation for the installation. Others take a more cautious approach and seek clarification from IET as to the scope of the new requirements and the severity of the risk where breaches exist.
As I understand it, the requirement will extend to cables and enclosures in escape routes. Many electrical guys are already deeming escape routes to be corridors and stairways only, which of course, is an understandable but incorrect definition of the term. The Intention of the new regulations seems clear and one would hope that any new installations will be erected in a fashion such that firefighters will never again become trapped in a tangle of collapsed cables. It is what comments one should make on existing installations where cables are not supported as required by the new regulations that is the thorny question.
Have you a view?

[kurnal]

Lyle will you forgive me for adding my fourpenneth?

In England and Wales fire fighters carrying out fire fighting operations are not relevant persons so this is not a matter for the Fire Safety Order yet and wont be,  other than as a maintenance issue for wiring installed to the new standard in the future and subject to the Building Regulations.

I dont think the IET regs have applied retrosectively in the past unless new work was carried out.

Its a devil because following a periodic inspection of my own house just before Christmas the electrican recommended the replacement of the consumer unit and appears to have installed one of the soon to be outlawed plastic units, and I havent even received the certificate yet
 

[lyledunn]

Kurnal
You are technically correct that the Regs are not applied retrospectively. However, inspections of existing installations are referenced to the edition current at the time of the inspection. Thus your consumer unit may be given a Code 3 (recommend improvement )in January 2016 only one year after it was installed! Not so bad perhaps for a domestic situation but code 3 issues may have all sorts of ramifications in places of work. That is why I am keen to establish any statutory requirement relating to unsecured cables. What if we lost another firefighter through entanglement in cables where an EICR had recommended improvement but nothing was done by the undertaking. Breach of 7671 in itself could not lead to prosecution so is their any instrument that FRS might have available to pursue the matter in court?

[colin todd]

It may be OTT to go overboard on upgrading existing installations. Depends on risk.  Definition of escape routes should also not be too liberally extended.

[Fishy]

If (as I understand) this stems from examples of cables coming down and affecting fire-fighting and rescue operations (rather than escape by building occupants - which should have been complete by the time you get hot gases at ceiling level in the escape routes), I don't really understand the logic of limiting the requirement to escape routes?

[Mike Buckley]

Too much of a political hot potato if it was extended to all wiring?

[lyledunn]

Does anyone  know of any death of an occupant of a building caused by collapse of wiring systems due to fire?

[wee brian]

Nope, but the Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor thinks it could be a problem....

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6139/1860324.pdf

[colin todd]

Then it must be.

[SamFIRT]

Taken from the rule 43 letter following the INQUEST INTO THE DEATHS OF ALAN BANNON AND JAMES SHEARS

Granted these two gentlemen were fire-fighters. However a member of the public died at Harrow Court along with 2 fire fighters.

It is recommended that all FRSs and social housing providers consider the Rule 43 recommendations made by HM Coroner for Hertfordshire following the inquest into fire-fighter fatalities at Harrow Court in particular
Recommendation 8 made by the FBU which is here repeated for ease of reference: That SBC should remove all the surface mounted plastic trunking/conduit used to protect and support the Fire Alarm and Automatic Fire Detection System in the Common Areas of all their premises, and replace them with a method of cable support which as a minimum conforms to BS 5839- Part 1 : 2002; clause 26.2 (f:);
Methods of cable support should be such that circuit integrity will not be reduced below that afforded by the cable used, and should withstand a similar temperature and duration to that of the cable, while maintaining adequate support. Note 7. In effect, this recommendation precludes the use of plastic cable clips, cable ties or trunking, where these products are the sole means of cable support. 6 It is recommended that Building Regulations are amended to ensure that all cables, not just fire alarm cables, are supported by fire-resistant cable supports. This could be achieved by an amendment to BS 7671 (2008) Institute of Electrical Engineers Wiring Regulations.

[colin todd]

What the FBU and many others never seemed to grasp at the time was that plastic supports did not comply with BS 5839-1:1988.  It was made clear in the 2002 version, granted, but it was never right.

[Fishy]

Prize for the first to find a 2015 installation using steels clips fixed using plastic wall plugs...