PIR... 3036 what do you do?

[TPES]

To the point...

Someone asks you to come in and do a PIR on there 3 bed semi.

You walk in and see straight away that they have an old 3036 Re wireable circuit board..

Do you instantly know at the end of this you will be giving an unsatisfactory and saying "You need a new dual RCD board fitting mate"

6mm Mian bonding... is this satisfactory or is this a code 2 and have to upgrade to 10mm?

I hear so many difference of oppinions.. is there no simple straight forward answer?

2 or 4?

 

[kablue2000]

first question about rewireables your only doing a report but if your pfc is over 1ka it has to be changed to new board because rewireables wont take any more than 1ka
2nd question what supply you got Tncs or tns

hope this helps

 

[willosparky]

the board and bonding only need upgrading if you are making a new circuit in to the board. a fuse board change wouldnt be a bad idea and this you can discus with the customer, and explain to them that a new board fitted with rcd's and mcb's would be alot safer and that they are much easier to reset than a bs3036. but to do the PIR you dont need to update the board. If however you do update the board the supply earth should be upgraded to a 16mm and all bonding up to 10mm. if not posable to update bonding then like you said, record it as a code 2.

 

[TPES]

first question about rewireables your only doing a report but if your pfc is over 1ka it has to be changed to new board because rewireables wont take any more than 1ka
2nd question what supply you got Tncs or tns

hope this helps

So if you took your PFC and it was under 1ka then your ok to leave the board in. otherwise it has to be changed?

if rewireables are 1ka max wouldnt these have ever been acceptable as your PFC reading may have always been over 1ka?


What would the difference be with PME & TNS, I was just asking in general..

if not posable to update bonding then like you said, record it as a code 2.

If you record it as code 2 then isnt this "Unsatisfactory" anyway meaning it has to be upgraded some how anyway?

 

[sparky paul]

Im sure i read somewhere that BS 3036 boards are no longer acceptable for domestic properties,will have a dig round,you could remove the rewirables and fit the 60898 mcb`s that fit these boards.

 

[Des 56]

Why all this animosity to 3036 boards
They may have issues with ZS when a 2.5 ring main has 1.0mm cpcs

PFC is provided by the suppliers fuse,so no issue with that
3036 fuse can also have 2 and 4 KA ratings
Installing them as new may not be the wisest move,but why should they not be used ?
The 17th ed standards can be met with a bit of juggle with RCDs and fuse boards
The Zs values are valid and published
Old systems are not unsatisfactory only because they are old

There is rarely much problem with a well installed and maintained wylex board with a single RCD and 6mm earthing,not meeting the 17th perhaps but not instantly unsatisfactory

 

[TPES]

The 17th ed standards can be met with a bit of juggle with RCDs and fuse boards

The Zs values are valid and published

So Des, you would not condem a 3036 board in a PIR and when adding circuits to the board or altering an existing circuit.. You would just RCD the said circuit your working on?

And on a PIR you would just give a 3036 board a code 4, although nothing on the installation is RCD protected

 

[electricAl]

No. Anyone giving a BS3036 any kind of Code on a Periodic, based purely on ignorance or bias, is bad practice and strongly suggests incompetence.

Nothing wrong with suggesting a board change to allow for closer compliance with current requirements, of course. But this should NOT be included in the PIR - do it in a covering letter or suchlike.

And contrary to a previous posters advice, earthing & boding must be proven atleast to be satisfactory before doing ANY work - even on a Minor Works cert.
If it is satisfactory (do an adiabatic) then it`s a Code 4 - not a Code 2

 

[Risteard]

The 17th Edition permits the use of BS3036 fuses, although a correction factor of 0.725 should be applied to the calculations. BS3036 fuses are not non-compliant with BS7671 - in fact it specifically states that they are compliant.

 

[TPES]

Ok, So a 3036 board gets no code at all, even though cables are not RCD protected, which is a requirement in the 17th.. making 3036 fuses no compliant with the 17th.. which would be a code 4...

I'm not arguing against what your saying, Im sure your right, I'm just trying to understand the reasons.

 

[electricAl]

Curt, in those circumstances the installation must indeed receive a Code 4 non-compliance.

But the Code 4 is because the required RCD protection isn`t in place, not because there`s a re-wireable board...

In the same way as a BS EN 60439 without the required RCD coverage would fail.

Sure, BS3036 boards do make 17th Edition compliance more difficult - you can`t re-jig it with dual RCCBs, fire in an RCBO, or even swap the incomer for a 30mA front-ender. But they`re often no less compliant than older breaker boards and they can be supplemented with RCD units where it matters most - S/O ccts.

They`re also weak in offering overload protection - hence the aforementioned 0.725 factor (the max In x1.45 overload factor halved for BS3036 s) But in themselves they`re not a fail.

Hope that makes sense to you

Al

 

[roukel01]

I thought that if the downstairs sockets were not RCD protected, it was a code 2, because there is a chance that these sockets could be used outside.
Whenever I come accross these boards, before I even waste time with the testing, I always explain to the customer the benefits of upgrading to a dual RCD board, 9 time out of 10 providing you're not too expencive they go for it anyway.
Also, as mentioned in other posts, if you have an old 3036 board, chances are the 2.5 rings have 1.0mm earths, which is not allowed, these at minimum require RCD protection. check the Part P document on this.

 

[Mr Mark Sparks]

I thought that if the downstairs sockets were not RCD protected, it was a code 2, because there is a chance that these sockets could be used outside.
Whenever I come accross these boards, before I even waste time with the testing, I always explain to the customer the benefits of upgrading to a dual RCD board, 9 time out of 10 providing you're not too expencive they go for it anyway.
Also, as mentioned in other posts, if you have an old 3036 board, chances are the 2.5 rings have 1.0mm earths, which is not allowed, these at minimum require RCD protection. check the Part P document on this.

can someone show me where any doc says 1.0mm cpcs not allowed surely if the readings are ok then its ok?

 

[roukel01]

can someone show me where any doc says 1.0mm cpcs not allowed surely if the readings are ok then its ok?

I did mean when protected by a semi enclosed fuse


Part P document page 38

"For some years, 2.5mm twin and earth were manufactured with 1.0mm cpc. This was increased to 1.5mm because in certain circumstances the 1.0mm cpc may not always be properly protected against thermal effects in the event of a fault. This is where the cable is protected by a 30A semi-enclosed fuse. in this case (in which this post is) a competant electrician should be consulted about upgrading the cables and/or the consumer unit"

and surley this means code 2 on a PIR

 

[electricAl]

I thought that if the downstairs sockets were not RCD protected, it was a code 2, because there is a chance that these sockets could be used outside.

Quite right too. Any socket-outlets likely to supply mobile or portable equipment outdoors requires 30mA RCD protection & if not provided, then a Code 2 is appropriate.

However, i understood the question related to RCD protection of cables (which i interpreted to mean cables concealed <50mm) which was introduced under the 17th & would be a Code 4 fail - irrespective of what type of board supplied it.

Hope that clarifies...