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 ?
as mentioned previously ... page 20 and page 24 of this document offers an opinion, re: 'supply' ... does it help in relation to the OP title or question
www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/.../best_practice-guide-4_issue-7-2.pdf
My engineering judgement in this case is that ESQCR is correct with having double insulation throughout and BS7671 and WRAG, NICEIC are wrong. Thus it would be prudent for the teams at ESQCR, WRAG and NICEIC have a discussion to debate the technical merits of single insulated cable in a meter cupboard/cabinet.
Remember that BS7671 allows deviations from BS 7671 (the IET Wiring Regulations) are called "intended departures" and require a formal declaration by the designer on the electrical certificate, ensuring the installation's safety remains at least as high as if the regulations were fully followed. These departures, justified by special conditions or national requirements, must be documented and not taken lightly, with the responsibility falling on the designer to prove the safety of the modified installation.
Therefore meeting ESQCR requirements for double insulation can trump BS7671 in this instance
Lets hope this was discussed at the recent meeting in
And the subsequent meeting in of the National Federation of Engineers for Electrical Safety conference. That I understand one of the topics was
Verification of electrical installations (covering inspection, testing and certification
So if you come across something like the image below, you shall except this is to BS 7671 standards.
If that setup has become commonplace, I am rather appalled.
I find it difficult to see how the SWA left dangling complies with 134.1.1.
This chimes well with the thread concerning the cable under the car park. One must assume that the DNO is content to protect the SWA from overload and fault current with the fuse in the service head. So, when completing an EICR, how would the electrician know this; and if the DNO is not content, does that merit a C2?
This would be very tricky to rectify. I think that it needs a second cabinet adjacent to this one with some form of ducting for the consumer's tails. It would house a switch-fuse. The real problem, however, might be getting the SWA into the second cabinet.
I would kick it back to the designer and installer as a C2.
BS 7671 Regulation 134.1.1 requires that all electrical installations be carried out by skilled persons using proper materials, with electrical equipment installed according to the manufacturer's instructions to ensure the safety and performance of the installation. This regulation emphasizes the importance of both qualified workmanship and adherence to manufacturer guidance for compliance and safety
Requires proper termination and cable support
might have been better if the SWA had a "pirahna" nut than a banjo, and the inner jacket was longer, rather than relying solely on what I assume is loose sleeving over the cores. then at least it could be P clipped.
However, personally I'd have been happier if the SWA went into some thing like a single metal socket back box for the gland to attach solidly to, and in turn to screw solidly to the board. The single tails from the SWA are a small part of the issues here.
The way the back-board has been replaced without moving bit of the old back board under the company fuse, by the 'snip- around' method is a class act!
It does leave one wondering....
Mike.
The way the back-board has been replaced without moving bit of the old back board under the company fuse, by the 'snip- around' method is a class act!
I suspect it's more of a deliberate technique to cope with the incoming cable running up the surface of the wall (rather than in the cavity as usual) so arriving at the front of the box - and otherwise needing a couple of very sharp 90 degree bends if it were to get to the cut-out mounted on the back board at the usual position. By having a "daughter board" at an angle, the incoming cable only needs a single 45 degree bend.
- Andy.
I am not sure that it would have fitted had the service head been on the vertical board.
Those smart meters seem to be double the size of ordinary ones. It is terribly cramped in there. Surely a bigger enclosure cabinet could have been used!
So if you come across something like the image below, you shall except this is to BS 7671 standards.
The termination of the SWA armour looks a bit ropey.
Otherwise, they have even gone to the trouble of over-sheathing the live and neutral. If I see it correctly, they have used 3 core SWA and used one core as an additional earth.
I agree that one core has been used for the PE, but I can see brown and black, so presumably, grey has been used for N. Doesn't 3-core SWA usually have just the colours for 3 lines?
And ...
If you are going to use heat-shrink sleeving, apply some heat and shrink it!
Doesn't 3-core SWA usually have just the colours for 3 lines?
Depends where you get it from - "single phase colours" versions are available if you know where to look (e.g. https://www.superlecdirect.com/6943x-25mm-3core-bs5467-xlpe-swa-pvc-cable-twin-and-earth-black)
- Andy.
deliberate technique to cope with the incoming cable running up the surface
Maybe, it would explain it though as a technique it's a new one on me . In that case the 'daughter' board would have looked nicer vertical , on proper spacers connected to the back, or even perhaps turned 90 and on the side of the cabinet. Perhaps the incomer cable was cut bit too short for any of these to work.
The whole thing just does not fit well and looks like someone started to install stuff before they planned how it would go together and part way in, realized it was not going to work.
In the past perhaps there would have been long singles into the cavity and meter beside rather than above the service head.
Mike.
Or as observed, this is the 'new normal', and we need to lighten up our approach to match. There are far worse as one travels abroad and very few dead bodies after all.
What we should not do however, is to pretend to ourselves to have high standards we don't apply when it gets hard. (perhaps next week, 'why reverse polarity on sockets is not a serious fault worth fixing'.)
deliberate technique to cope with the incoming cable running up the surface
Maybe, it would explain it though as a technique it's a new one on me . In that case the 'daughter' board would have looked nicer vertical , on proper spacers connected to the back, or even perhaps turned 90 and on the side of the cabinet. Perhaps the incomer cable was cut bit too short for any of these to work.
The whole thing just does not fit well and looks like someone started to install stuff before they planned how it would go together and part way in, realized it was not going to work.
In the past perhaps there would have been long singles into the cavity and meter beside rather than above the service head.
Mike.
Or as observed, this is the 'new normal', and we need to lighten up our approach to match. There are far worse as one travels abroad and very few dead bodies after all.
What we should not do however, is to pretend to ourselves to have high standards we don't apply when it gets hard. (perhaps next week, 'why reverse polarity on sockets is not a serious fault worth fixing'.)
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