A contractor has provided the single-phase electrical installation in 12 new, very small, individual commercial units. For whatever reason he provided two 6way distribution boards one appears to be for lighting and the like and the other for power, both with 30mA overall RCD protections both boards have a main switch. The tails for both boards are brought to a set of ISCOs from which he left a short tail connection for the meter. Now 4 of the units have been connected to the supply but apparently connection is being refused to the remaining units as no main switch has been provided. I guess different DNOs, different rules and indeed attitudes but I can find no reference to the need for a main switch in the DNO connection guide other than that the installation has to comply with 7671.
Those isolators always confuse me a little. Is this a new demarcation point, beyond the consumer side of the meter? If so, who owns it. If the customer, then BS7671 applies and it should be non combustible.
If a contractor fits one... does it then become the DNO's property de-facto, or is the contractor in breach of the regs for a combustible switchgear enclosure?
This does need working out.
I understand the reason for insulated enclosures (TT systems, pre RCD....) but surely there could be a non combustible but non conductive enclosure (phenolic anyone?) that bridges the gap?
The NICEIC told me:
In a domestic setting, an RCD in its own enclosure is considered 'similar switchgear' re BS EN 61439-3, so it should be a non-combustible enclosure.
'If' an RCD was installed upstream of a non-combustible CU on a TT installation, the enclosure would have to be non-combustible (even though I argued the RCD offers fault protection to the CU, so would just be shifting the problem of no fault protection to the RCD enclosure, so you'd need an RCD upfront of that, and so on).
An RCD upstream of the metal CU on TT is not needed anyway, so no need to worry about using a metal enclosure for the RCD because it wouldn't be there, and there's no need for the RCD because an insulated gland should be used for the 'double insulated' tails so the tails don't contact the metal enclosure at the point of entry, so won't touch the metal anyway (even though I argued that the RCD would offer fault protection for the metal CU 'if' in a split load board the tails or the single insulated linking conductors to the RCCB's inside the board ever became damaged and contacted the metal CU).
Those isolators always confuse me a little. Is this a new demarcation point, beyond the consumer side of the meter? If so, who owns it. If the customer, then BS7671 applies and it should be non combustible.
If a contractor fits one... does it then become the DNO's property de-facto, or is the contractor in breach of the regs for a combustible switchgear enclosure?
This does need working out.
I understand the reason for insulated enclosures (TT systems, pre RCD....) but surely there could be a non combustible but non conductive enclosure (phenolic anyone?) that bridges the gap?
The NICEIC told me:
In a domestic setting, an RCD in its own enclosure is considered 'similar switchgear' re BS EN 61439-3, so it should be a non-combustible enclosure.
'If' an RCD was installed upstream of a non-combustible CU on a TT installation, the enclosure would have to be non-combustible (even though I argued the RCD offers fault protection to the CU, so would just be shifting the problem of no fault protection to the RCD enclosure, so you'd need an RCD upfront of that, and so on).
An RCD upstream of the metal CU on TT is not needed anyway, so no need to worry about using a metal enclosure for the RCD because it wouldn't be there, and there's no need for the RCD because an insulated gland should be used for the 'double insulated' tails so the tails don't contact the metal enclosure at the point of entry, so won't touch the metal anyway (even though I argued that the RCD would offer fault protection for the metal CU 'if' in a split load board the tails or the single insulated linking conductors to the RCCB's inside the board ever became damaged and contacted the metal CU).
