Consumer Unit 17th Edition?

[billyjackson200]

Hello everyone

I have recently completed my training and ready for my assesment in 3 weeks. I am doing a consumer unit change at my house fwith a dual rcd protected one and need to know if I can reuse the old consumer unit elsewhere as its about 4 years old. It is a 10 way ( 6 way rcd protected ) and (4way not rcd protected)

The reason I ask is throughout my training we had it drummed into us that EVERYTHING has to be RCD proctected but I thought it was only circuits at an increased risk? The course was very intense and focused a lot around new builds.

Would the old consumer unit still be 17th edition compliant , if so i would just put the lights and immersion on the non rcd side when I re-install, if not I could just add some rcbo's - many thanks in advance

 

[topquark]

If you can find suitable RCBO's to complement the one RCD you have, then no reason why not (it probably only has one or two neutral bars so won't be ideal though ). You could always use it to make yourself up a test rig for practice.

Not everything needs to be RCD protected (for example you may not want to RCD protect your smoke alarm circuit). Remember RCD protection is classed as additional protection.

 

[telectrix]

you can replace the non-RCD protected MCBs with RCBOs, no problem. you could also retain 1 or 2 non RCDways for the odd appliance like a freezer, as long as the circuit complied with the conditions for not having RCD and the appliance socket was appropriately labelled.. or to feed a SWA to an outbuilding/garage.

 

[malcolmsanford]

You could if you wished replace the main switch with another RCD/RCCB thus spliting your board, but I would go down the road of my 2 learned friends above and use RCBOs

 

[Octopus]

If you go down the route of changing the MCB's for RCBO's it would be sensible to check if such a change would be acceptable for the scheme provider to use as your assessment.

 

[billyjackson200]

thanks, so if rcd are additional protection then could i just pop the light circuit and immersion on the non rcd and the rest of the circuits on the rcd side and still be compliant? The house I am thinking of using it in only has 6 circuits. If not I will definately get the RCBO's thanks both
cheers

 

[billyjackson200]

sorry last one .... are Proteus rcbo's compatible with any other make? thanks

 

[topquark]

thanks, so if rcd are additional protection then could i just pop the light circuit and immersion on the non rcd and the rest of the circuits on the rcd side and still be compliant? The house I am thinking of using it in only has 6 circuits. If not I will definately get the RCBO's thanks both
cheers

Hmm, not quite. There is a stated minimum of two I think you'll find (hence the 17th ed boards being dual RCD), this is to minimise nuisance tripping.

 

[topquark]

sorry last one .... are Proteus rcbo's compatible with any other make? thanks

Yes. But it will be down to measuring/trying the front apperture part of the RCBO to see what other units it fits. The spec only covers the DIN rail portion measurement wise and not the bit that shows through the front of the CU/DB.

 

[telectrix]

you can't put lights and immersion heater on a non rcd protected circuit if the cables are buried in walls, < 50mm deep without earthed metallic mechanical protection. and malc. if he replaced the main switch with an rcd, surely then he'd have 2 rcd's in nseries on half of the board!

 

[Octopus]

Having re-read your OP you are planning to use an old 16th edition board to replace an older board. If this is correct, you would need to use RCBO's, because if you change a CU and leave any circuits without RCD protection I think the scheme assessor may not be impressed.

Again, I would suggest you call them and see what they say.

Given that you can get a fully loaded 10 way CU for under £100.00 these days, installing anything less than a new 17th edition CU may prove to be a false economy.

 

[malcolmsanford]

I was thinking to be honest Tel that you would split the internal tails, the same as you have on the new 17th board and have the RCDs in parallel then.

It can be a chew agreed, which is why I said that I thought yours and topquark was the best way to go mate.

 

[truckster]

I have found that by messing about trying to adapt a board to comply it's generally quicker and cheaper to just get a compliant board, totally wasteful I know but thats life.

 

[billyjackson200]

new board ordered - easier and probably cheaper in the long run !!!

will rip out mcb's and bin unit

 

[telectrix]

I was thinking to be honest Tel that you would split the internal tails, the same as you have on the new 17th board and have the RCDs in parallel then.

It can be a chew agreed, which is why I said that I thought yours and topquark was the best way to go mate.

sorry mate. misunderstood you.