There’s debate about exposed basic insulation in meter cupboards being satisfactory or not? Industry guidance (WRAG) say it’s satisfactory if the door’s in good shape, what’s people views on this ?
There’s debate about exposed basic insulation in meter cupboards being satisfactory or not? Industry guidance (WRAG) say it’s satisfactory if the door’s in good shape, what’s people views on this ?
Poor practice in my view, but arguably permitted. DNOs or metering contractors are not subject to the same regulations that most of us are.
Single insulated meter tails are in widespread use, and double insulated tails but with the outer sheath cut back, so as to expose the inner insulation are even more common.
It could even be argued that exposed basic insulation within a meter cupboard Is compliant with IET regulations, as access is only possible by use of a key or tool, to open the cupboard..
If the cupboard is not secured, it might be argued that the non compliance is the lack of a secured door, rather than the exposed basic insulation.
It seems absurd to me to have exposed basic insulation where it's fully expected that unskilled unsupervised people will, and indeed by design, should, have access (since they're expected to able to read the meter). In this case the triangular key does nothing to restrict access, since everyone in the household will have access to it. Unlike say sockets or switches that could be opened by a common or garden screwdriver, there isn't even the common sense restriction that it's something not normally to be opened by the unwary.
It's like saying bare conductors are satisfactory in an office, or broom cupboard, if the door needs a key to open it.
Yet by the wording of the regs, both would seem to comply. It's a strange world.
- Andy.
Broadgage and Andy sum it up.
"Key or tool" - the fact that they are readily available hardly meets the intention that access should be restricted to more than ordinary persons.
I am tired, so I am not going to plough through the Big Brown Book, but C3 for me. Poor workmanship!!!
It's like saying bare conductors are satisfactory in an office, or broom cupboard, if the door needs a key to open it.
How so? the conductors are not "bare" in this case.
However, just to be 100 % clear, bare conductors in enclosures of equipment to designated standards, for example, are acceptable ... provided the enclosure provides an appropriate IP rating, and the conductors are appropriately separated, it could well even be sufficient for double or reinforced insulation !
"Key or tool" - the fact that they are readily available hardly meets the intention that access should be restricted to more than ordinary persons.
That's interesting. Where does BS 7671 say that only skilled persons (electrically) or instructed persons (electrically) should have the keys or tools giving access to enclosures?
The concept of "access by key or tool" is a long-standing one in electrical safety standards.
(Although, does this mean it's time for a change?)
Anyone has direct access to live parts ("direct contact" in previous versions of BS 7671) at a GLS lampholder (except in the cases that the lampholder is of the "switched live conductors" type ... which is not mandated in BS 7671).
There is no specific requirement for GLS lampholders to be placed "out of reach" in BS 7671 ... although I would note that Regulation 411.3.4 was introduced in 2018 requires RCD protection for lighting circuits in domestic (household) premises.
No-one has ever complained about that direct access to live parts ... not even IP2X or IPXXB with the lamp removed !
the conductors are not "bare" in this case.
Indeed, but that was just another (if more extreme) example of what's permitted by 'key or tool' access.
No-one has ever complained about that direct access to live parts
Oh yes they have! The time, as a youngster, when we had a BC lampholder on a length of flex to feed the Christmas tree lights (which were connected to a BC plug) and I accidentally put my thumb into the end of the lampholder.... you might not have been close enough to hear but there was certainly a "complaint" uttered. I suspect I'm not the only one. Given a choice any accessible BC lampholders I install now are of the type where the exposed contacts are dead when the lamp is removed.
Certainly there are examples (including domestic toasters) where outdated standard persist, but they're treated as exceptions, not the general rules for everything else. We, in general, don't permit exposed basic insulation even if there's a conventional BC lampholder in the same space.
How small must a room be before we consider a lock on the door to provide protection from electric shock?
The concept of "access by key or tool" is a long-standing one in electrical safety standards.
Many words in electrical standards go back a very long way, yet we still find ways of improving on them quite regularly.
- Andy.
Oh yes they have! The time, as a youngster, when we had a BC lampholder on a length of flex to feed the Christmas tree lights (which were connected to a BC plug) and I accidentally put my thumb into the end of the lampholder.... you might not have been close enough to hear but there was certainly a "complaint" uttered. I suspect I'm not the only one. Given a choice any accessible BC lampholders I install now are of the type where the exposed contacts are dead when the lamp is removed.
Certainly there are examples (including domestic toasters) where outdated standard persist, but they're treated as exceptions, not the general rules for everything else. We, in general, don't permit exposed basic insulation even if there's a conventional BC lampholder in the same space
I have told the story on this Forum, involving ... me ... as a toddler < 2 yrs old, removing a BC22 "bulb" from its holder, switching on the table lamp, and putting my finger between the contacts.
what I mean is, that we have the standard for the lampholder, along with ES-style lampholders, and it persists without "sustained objection" (as we say in standards speak).
We are, however, back to the point of "perceived risk"
Interesting subject ... but relevant here, I think ...
I agree with all of the above re meter boxes. A lot of the installs on new builds are rough, especially the connection in the meter box. Seems things have been relaxed for the bigger builders because they can't design houses so the CU can back on to the meter box. While if I did something like it, it would be picked up on an inspection.NIC BPG4 used to have exposed inner insulation on the tails as a C3, I notice they have bowed to pressure and removed it now. Also Ive never seen a danger 230v label on the outside of a meter box either if this is the way things are going .
Most fixed wiring lamp holders covered by the regs are out of reach, table lamps etc are appliances anyway so are out of scope as far as we are concerned.
Gary
That's interesting. Where does BS 7671 say that only skilled persons (electrically) or instructed persons (electrically) should have the keys or tools giving access to enclosures?
A key (or tool) implies that access should be restricted to a particular person or class of persons. If not ordinary/skilled or instructed, is the distinction between adults and children?
Perhaps the idea of having a key to the meter box, as opposed to a simple knob, is nothing to do with safety, but to deter theft?
Those ghastly white boxes are relatively new. The meter used to be indoors, which presented a problem if the premises were unoccupied when the meter-reader called, so putting them in a box with a key (albeit a simple one) on the front wall made sense. If that was the purpose of meter boxes, they are now obsolete, so please may we get rid of them?
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site