So if the sleeving was absent in a periodic inspection, how might you code it without understanding it’s purpose? I am aware of one inspector awarding a code 2 to an installation that was erected using T/E where no earth sleeving was used at all. The installation was erected in the U.K. by a Eastern European contractor who may have been unfamiliar with the practice of sleeving. I assume the inspector considered the risk of contact with live parts was unacceptable.

On the other hand, in one of the City and Guilds 2391 modules, the candidate is asked to code the absence of earth sleeving. The exemplar answer is Code 3. 

So if the sleeving was absent in a periodic inspection, how might you code it without understanding it’s purpose? I am aware of one inspector awarding a code 2 to an installation that was erected using T/E where no earth sleeving was used at all. The installation was erected in the U.K. by a Eastern European contractor who may have been unfamiliar with the practice of sleeving. I assume the inspector considered the risk of contact with live parts was unacceptable.

On the other hand, in one of the City and Guilds 2391 modules, the candidate is asked to code the absence of earth sleeving. The exemplar answer is Code 3. 

Surely there will be some about who strive to award lack of sleeving as a code 1, Lyle. 

Hi lyledunn ,

lyledunn said:

So if the sleeving was absent in a periodic inspection, how might you code it without understanding it’s purpose?

Hope you don't mind if I pass on answering that, given the differences of opinion

lyledunn said:

I am aware of one inspector awarding a code 2 to an installation that was erected using T/E where no earth sleeving was used at all.

lyledunn said:

On the other hand, in one of the City and Guilds 2391 modules, the candidate is asked to code the absence of earth sleeving. The exemplar answer is Code 3. 

But regarding points above, just to note that current BPG4-1 (page 16) says it's worthy of a note, but doesn't warrant a classification code.