Boiler circuit 16A MCB

[Michaelwgroves]

I'm following a spark who used an existing Panel Heater circuit, for new gas boiler circuit 6 months ago. The panel heaters were removed, so it's now a dedicated boiler circuit. I'm doing an EICR.
I've found a number of faults;
1. No grommet in Consumer unit knock out, used for gas bonding (It's a recessed consumer unit)
2. Stranded cable does not have ferrules
3. Unfused Boiler switch
4. 16A MCB (2.5mm T&E)
5. Gas not bonded, bonding taken to central heating pipe only

Most of these are black and white very poor work. I've had to fix all of these so the EICR is a pass, but I have a dilemma.
#4, the MCB is way too big for a boiler. I now have a switched fuse with 3A fuse, so the boiler is now protected. It's a 2.5mm T&E cable so the 16A MCB is protecting the cable. Nothing is unsafe. If it were a new circuit, I'm sure he would have purchased a 6A MCB, but as it's not he's just used existing 16A. I'm going to need to do 16 EICR's following these guys. I'm sure this will be a theme. Is there a reg I can quote for wrong sized MCB, or is this just poor workmanship ?

 

[Michaelwgroves]

Could not agree more
A painful read that

That would apply to every question on this forum. You mistake the spirit of forums, it's not a place to put others down, to make yourself feel superior. Your comments say more about you. Maybe take a look in the mirror.............
Interestingly, those that criticised, did not put forward any suggestions, just comments of I am holier-than-thou..............
I think Napit & NICEIC are better placed to determine competence.

 

[loz2754]

Napit & NICEIC are better placed to determine competence

One would like to believe so. But there's competence to install, and another level of competence to inspect and test.
Many joined the competent persons schemes solely so they could self certify notifiable works, works that they had installed themselves, not realising that this scheme membership did not cover their competence to do periodic inspection and testing. It was even written into the NICEIC Domestic Installer rules that they would not be allowed to carry out EICRs under the NICEIC banner or use their logo on such EICRs.
It wasn't until the PRS 2020 regulations came into being that the NICEIC started to allow Domestic Installers to do EICRs, but required them to undergo another assessment to determine their competence to do EICRs.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

One would like to believe so. But there's competence to install, and another level of competence to inspect and test.
Many joined the competent persons schemes solely so they could self certify notifiable works, works that they had installed themselves, not realising that this scheme membership did not cover their competence to do periodic inspection and testing. It was even written into the NICEIC Domestic Installer rules that they would not be allowed to carry out EICRs under the NICEIC banner or use their logo on such EICRs.
It wasn't until the PRS 2020 regulations came into being that the NICEIC started to allow Domestic Installers to do EICRs, but required them to undergo another assessment to determine their competence to do EICRs.

I've no experience with NICEIC, I recall Stroma having two competencies, but for sure, my Napit includes EICR's.

 

[ERFspark]

One would like to believe so. But there's competence to install, and another level of competence to inspect and test.
Many joined the competent persons schemes solely so they could self certify notifiable works, works that they had installed themselves, not realising that this scheme membership did not cover their competence to do periodic inspection and testing. It was even written into the NICEIC Domestic Installer rules that they would not be allowed to carry out EICRs under the NICEIC banner or use their logo on such EICRs.
It wasn't until the PRS 2020 regulations came into being that the NICEIC started to allow Domestic Installers to do EICRs, but required them to undergo another assessment to determine their competence to do EICRs.

I don’t do domestic as I’m industrial. Does that mean they don’t have to do the 2391 qualification?

 

[Michaelwgroves]

I don’t do domestic as I’m industrial. Does that mean they don’t have to do the 2391 qualification?

Test & Inspect was required for my CPS with Napit, and previously for Stroma.

 

[loz2754]

I don’t do domestic as I’m industrial. Does that mean they don’t have to do the 2391 qualification?

No, to join the scheme they need a 2391 qualification

 

[ERFspark]

No, to join the scheme they need a 2391 qualification

Excellent

 

[Rockingit]

I would argue it is a requirement from 17th edition.
Guidance Note 4 (17th Edition) - Protection Against Fire advises
3.8.1 Consumer Units & Similar Assemblies in domestic premises
'The Installer must seal all openings into the non-combustible enclosure or cabinet for cables, conduits, trunking or ducting that remain after the installation of cables. Good workmanship and proper materials must be used and account must be taken of the manufacturer's relevant instructions, if any.'

I was pulled up on this by Stroma during an assessment.

I've not had a good reason to get latest Guidance Note 4 until now, so just ordered 18th edition A2. It arrives tomorrow. I'll give a further update once it arrives, unless someone beats me to it.

That's talking about enclosures, not fire compartments in structures. If someone from Stroma was making an argument over it then I'd suggest they may have been misguided.

 

[timhoward]

That's talking about enclosures, not fire compartments in structures. If someone from Stroma was making an argument over it then I'd suggest they may have been misguided.

I think this was originally about a missing grommet in a consumer unit and a suggestion this was a fire safety issue.

Were Stroma talking about the IP rating being compromised or suggesting that the consumer unit has to be a perfectly air-tight enclosure?
Obviously gaping holes are not a good thing but my higher concern on an EICR is "can someone access live parts? (C1)" or "can someone access a single insulated cable (C2)"

 

[Michaelwgroves]

That's talking about enclosures, not fire compartments in structures. If someone from Stroma was making an argument over it then I'd suggest they may have been misguided.

Yes, we are talking about enclosures.
If you make a hole in an enclosure, how do you make that hole comply. In this thread we are talking about 32mm knockout.
In my stroma assessment, it was 6" knockout in back of consumer unit.
However, both holes give open into cavity, which would allow fire to travel through the cavity.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

I think this was originally about a missing grommet in a consumer unit and a suggestion this was a fire safety issue.

Were Stroma talking about the IP rating being compromised or suggesting that the consumer unit has to be a perfectly air-tight enclosure?
Obviously gaping holes are not a good thing but my higher concern on an EICR is "can someone access live parts? (C1)" or "can someone access a single insulated cable (C2)"

It's on the back, so IP is not an issue.
My use of the word 'grommet' was sloppy, sorry for any confusion.
Yes it was a gapping hole in the back Stroma were concerned about. They advised using rockwall or fire foam. I prefer rockwall as it's easy to pull in/out for future maintenance.

 

[timhoward]

It's on the back, so IP is not an issue.

My understanding is that unless the surface behind is part of a specifically designed fire compartment (e.g. a riser in a tall building) and the consumer unit rear entry holes have violated this, there isn't an actually requirement to 'seal' the back.
Good practise and preferences might suggest otherwise of course.

So if it were me, I wouldn't code a bonding conductor coming into the rear of a CU through a large hole, in normal domestic circumstances.
Let's see if anyone disagrees!

 

[Lucien Nunes]

It's on the back, so IP is not an issue.

For fingers, no, but ingress protection also deals with dust and liquid ingress. One of the problems of holes in equipment enclosures / switchgear leading into a void or cavity is that they can cause a draught through the unit that fills it with dust as air leaks through the gaps around the front panel components etc.

You mistake the spirit of forums, it's not a place to put others down

Sometimes people worry, until they get to know a poster better, with only a few paragraphs to hint at what the person at the other end knows. Most people on here are pretty good overall at keeping things in perspective. You might remember a few years ago, actually a bit more than that now, when there was a general policy of watching for any chink in the armour and lunging for it. A thing of the past on here by and large, however still a popular pastime on some other electrical forums it seems.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

I received the latest Guidance Note 4 - Protection Against Fire yesterday.

My first observation is it's the first guidance note I've ever known to have shrunk! 12 pages..........

The wording has been updated, but seems to read largely the same, as per below;

“The intent of Regulation 421.1.201 is, as far as is reasonably practical, to contain any fire within the non-combustible enclosure or cabinet and to minimise the emission of flames to the surroundings. Consequently, irrespective of whether option (a) or (b) is adopted, the non-combustible enclosure or cabinet must provide a complete envelope (for example, a base, cover, door and any components such as hinges, screws and catches), as necessary, to limit the risk of a fire spreading from within the consumer unit. All blanks, circuit-breakers and other devices should be contained within the non-combustible enclosure or cabinet.”

I recall Wylex released their fire-retardant membrane around this time in response to the new regulation. Stroma were hot on this at the time, and I was pulled up on it. This is why I purchased the Guidance Note 4 - Protection Against Fire 17th edition. I wanted to read the full text, so I was fully aware.

To me this is clear, all openings, irrespective of the face, should be sealed against fire.