Metal consumer units

[Gardner]

Now the amendment 3 has a requirement for none combustible consumer units (if I am reading it right), what do you guys think? Was it a smart move? It seems like a trade off between an energized frame for fire resilience.

 

[NDG Elecs]

A lot of the new boards will have clamps on the tails to minimise movement, so the casing becoming live should not be an issue. Also ADS, unless TT, is a factor. Having recently fitted an 'AMD3' board I actually quite like them.

The root issue which is poorly trained installers, has not been addressed at all. But the schemes would not want to address that issue would they. Note the term installer rather than electrician!

 

[Octopus]

The root issues are extremely poorly manufactured products coupled with poorly trained installers or ones that aren't sparks. Nobody wants to address those issues.

edited that for you.

 

[NDG Elecs]

edited that for you.

Yep, that as well Murdoch. Though I will add that none of my installs have gone up in flames thus far!!

And I'm a Lap and Marbo man big time!

That last but is a lie by the way!

 

[Risteard]

Now the amendment 3 has a requirement for none combustible consumer units (if I am reading it right), what do you guys think?

Why do people keep ignoring the fact that there is an alternative method of compliance with that Regulation, namely a non-combustible cabinet housing the distribution board?

 

[drzsta]

Why do people keep ignoring the fact that there is an alternative method of compliance with that Regulation, namely a non-combustible cabinet housing the distribution board?

Possibly due to the fact that if you are going to the hassle of buying a steel enclosure and insulated DB then I would suggest it would be easier and cheaper to just fit a AMD3 DB?

 

[Octopus]

Now the amendment 3 has a requirement for none combustible consumer units (if I am reading it right), what do you guys think? Was it a smart move? It seems like a trade off between an energized frame for fire resilience.

You appear to be in the USA, just wondering why you are interested in this?

 

[GB.Kayak]

Why do people keep ignoring the fact that there is an alternative method of compliance with that Regulation, namely a non-combustible cabinet housing the distribution board?

I imagine that because most 'real' electricians are not in the business of fitting fire proof cupboards or cabinets around their handiwork ... that is mostly the job of a builder or plasterer!

 

[Risteard]

It's irrelevant whose job fitting a cabinet is - the fact remains that this is an alternative means of compliance. And regarding why it would ever be beneficial, an obvious example would be where a plastic distribution board already exists in order to prevent the need for replacement.

 

[Leesparkykent]

It's irrelevant whose job fitting a cabinet is - the fact remains that this is an alternative means of compliance. And regarding why it would ever be beneficial, an obvious example would be where a plastic distribution board already exists in order to prevent the need for replacement.

why would it need to be replaced? If installing a new circuit the CCU doesn't need upgrading to a metal one.

 

[Risteard]

why would it need to be replaced? If installing a new circuit the CCU doesn't need upgrading to a metal one.

I'm not sure how the addition could comply with BS 7671 post January 2016 without meeting one of the options for non-combustibility.

 

[Leesparkykent]

I'm not sure how the addition could comply with BS 7671 post January 2016 without meeting one of the options for non-combustibility.

As long as its rating and condition is adequte for the new circuit then it doesn't need replacing. On the EIC for the new circuit, item 7.4 should be marked as not applicable (N/A) because it is not a newly installed item of equipment. Within the ‘Comments on existing installation’ section a statement should be made that ‘N/A’ has been recorded against item 7.4 of the schedule of inspections because the addition has been made to a consumer unit that was installed to the requirements of an earlier edition of BS 7671 and has been verified to be adequate for continued use.

 

[Risteard]

LOL. I'm not sure how something which is so dangerous that it must be banned by BS 7671 due to the high likelihood of fire can be green-lighted because it was installed prior to the realisation that it was so incredibly dangerous!

It's certainly not an argument I would like to be making. (This does not necessarily mean that I personally consider current dis boards in domestic premises to be dangerous - it is an observation that JPEL/64 believe this to be the case evidenced by the pending requirements.)

But, as I say, there is no requirement that the actual distribution board be made of non-combustible material - there is more than one way to skin this cat!

 

[Octopus]

I'm not sure how the addition could comply with BS 7671 post January 2016 without meeting one of the options for non-combustibility.

Oh great.

Just imagine the conversation - yes madam, I can fit a new circuit to give you a socket next to your fuse board but to do this I need to change the board!

or

The cowboys:

Yes I can replace your light switch, but your fuseboard is illegal as its plastic, so that needs replacing first!

 

[Leesparkykent]

LOL. I'm not sure how something which is so dangerous that it must be banned by BS 7671 due to the high likelihood of fire can be green-lighted because it was installed prior to the realisation that it was so incredibly dangerous!

It's certainly not an argument I would like to be making. (This does not necessarily mean that I personally consider current dis boards in domestic premises to be dangerous - it is an observation that JPEL/64 believe this to be the case evidenced by the pending requirements.)

But, as I say, there is no requirement that the actual distribution board be made of non-combustible material - there is more than one way to skin this cat!

Wiring Regulations - BS 7671 | Electrical Safety First

Q1.105 and Q1.106

 

[GB.Kayak]

It's irrelevant whose job fitting a cabinet is - the fact remains that this is an alternative means of compliance. And regarding why it would ever be beneficial, an obvious example would be where a plastic distribution board already exists in order to prevent the need for replacement.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that enclosure with non-combustible material is an acceptable solution ... the 'how' and 'how much' questions are every bit as valid for this course of action. I have not costed the alternative to installing a new metal enclosure where that is required, but I suspect that there will not be a great deal of difference in price. The other issue is, that if for example one were to use fire rated plasterboard for the enclosure, where would you put the timber framing that is itself combustible ... not on the inside surely? Clearly the whole thing is not well thought through!

 

[Midwest]

I suspect post 1st January 2016, insulated CU's will become as rare rocking horse pooh. As of now, one of my wholesalers no longer intends to stock them, regardless of their use elsewhere (only available to order).