Even with all circuits RCD protected, you still can not ensure compliance with some the regs BAS listed.
Replacing Fuse wire with MCBs
- Thread starter dave-lew99
- Start date
Sponsored Links
With a CU swap you probably would fit RCDs as a matter of course - the extra cost is pretty insignificant, and it's sensible future-proofing. What we're really talking about here is the idea that you can't replace 3036s with plug-in MCBs because doing that means you have to add RCD protection.I can imagine a few angry faces if one week I replaced a consumer unit, then the following week they wanted something added which I say I cannot do without RCD protecting the circuit at the consumer unit
But there's nothing to stop you having the conversation with the householder, explain the benefits of residual current devices, tell them that they are now mandated for new installations, stress that they don't have to have them on a CU swap, but not having them now might become a limiting factor in the future, e.g. new bathroom circuits, extra sockets, additional light switches....
And lots I didn't list...
That was silly nitpicking, 30mA RCD protection is the only option to protect an older installation without, unless you want to rip the place apart!
Regards
Sponsored Links
No it isn't silly nit-picking.
RCD protecting an installation would not suddenly make an inaccessible screwed joint (as mentioned in the example BAS gave above) compliant with the current edition of BS7671, so you would still have a non compliant installation.
As you pointed out, the only way to ensure an installation is fully compliant is to rewire it your self.
Why single out the requirements of regulation 522.6.7 and insist that the installation complies with this, yet ingnore (as in the example above) the requirements of 526.3?
RCD protecting an installation would not suddenly make an inaccessible screwed joint (as mentioned in the example BAS gave above) compliant with the current edition of BS7671, so you would still have a non compliant installation.
As you pointed out, the only way to ensure an installation is fully compliant is to rewire it your self.
Why single out the requirements of regulation 522.6.7 and insist that the installation complies with this, yet ingnore (as in the example above) the requirements of 526.3?
Ok folks, if we could keep it on track...
I've just come from the flat, where i've spent literally all day none-stop taking up carpet and floor boards to run data cabling.
I was going to investigate the electrics but i really didn't have the time nor energy once i'd finished.
I did notice that the electric oven has on it's rating sticker 2200W, so more than suitable to be run off a 13A fused switch.
As a side note the contractor who was supposed to fix some issues did a bodge job of fitting the waste pipe for the washing machine (there is now a hole in the floor where there once was a cover for the drain) and didn't even bother doing the lights or front door.
Still, the saga goes on...
I've just come from the flat, where i've spent literally all day none-stop taking up carpet and floor boards to run data cabling.
I was going to investigate the electrics but i really didn't have the time nor energy once i'd finished.
I did notice that the electric oven has on it's rating sticker 2200W, so more than suitable to be run off a 13A fused switch.
As a side note the contractor who was supposed to fix some issues did a bodge job of fitting the waste pipe for the washing machine (there is now a hole in the floor where there once was a cover for the drain) and didn't even bother doing the lights or front door.
Still, the saga goes on...
The original argument revolved around the installation of an RCD to comply with the 17th, if MCB's were used to replace Fuses.
There is no magic wand that will raise the installation to the requirements of the 17th. A PIR is recommended by both NAPIT and the NICEIC prior to carrying out a DB change, this is required to detect existing faults. Replacing fuses with MCB's would require an EIC to be completed, I would treat this as a 17th DB change, requiring separate RCD protection for lighting and power - although poor engineering and more expensive.
I suggest that registrees contact their scheme provider on the merits of now simply replacing fuses with plug-in MCB's, as the protection characteristics would then be altered; and what additional requirements require to be met.
Regards
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,908
- Reaction score
- 2,685
- Country
Re the fuse/MCB debate...
If the RF is wired in 2.5/1.0, does a 3036 comply with regard to disconnection times?
If the RF is wired in 2.5/1.0, does a 3036 comply with regard to disconnection times?
The argument revolves around your insistence that an RCD must be installed so that the installation complies with one of the requirements of the 17th.
Indeed not, so acting on the basis that you cannot do Job X without also doing Job Y because other parts of the installation which were and are nothing to do with you, and which you are not touching, require Job Y to conform to just one particular requirement of the 17th is at best illogical.
So FOR THE FOURTH TIME OF ASKING, why do you insist that additional work must be done in order to bring the rest of the installation into compliance with 522.6.7 but not a single other one of the many regulations with an equal status in BS 7671:2008? What is it that you feel you cannot do unless you make what's already there comply with 522.6.7 but you can do without making what's already there comply with 522.6.5, 522.6.8, 522.6.5, 521.10.1, 526.3, 522.8.10 etc etc etc?
And why?
Which it is, why would you think not, for an alteration to a fuseboard post 17th introduction?
This is the most important change to the 17th RCD - the requirement for whole house protection and a must!
You are required to ensure that any new work that you do, conforms to the regulations, this would involve RCD protection as a minimum. You're not suggesting the installation is ripped apart, to conform to the 17th?
I think you've lost the plot, I have already stated the requirement to protect the existing installation by front end RCD's!
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
So RCDs for Additional Protection is the must have protection for the future is it.
Funny that - the text of 415.1.1 (word for word) was first published in an IEC document in 1982. Its taken us a very long time to get round to implementing this must have essential safety feature.
Funny that - the text of 415.1.1 (word for word) was first published in an IEC document in 1982. Its taken us a very long time to get round to implementing this must have essential safety feature
.I don't think it will, if you work it out with the adiabatic equation for 0.1s up to 0.4s then the required size is always greater than 1mm for a 30A rewirable.
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 1,902
- Reaction score
- 161
- Country
This is the most important change to the 17th RCD - the requirement for whole house protection and a must!
Since when was it a must for RCD protection on every circuit?
Did I say every circuit? Of course there are some exemptions - with provisos. I'll leave it to you to spell them out.Since when was it a must for RCD protection on every circuit?This is the most important change to the 17th RCD - the requirement for whole house protection and a must!
Regards
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
