Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Helpful Answer
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Helpful Answers 1 Helpful answer
  • Subscribers 38 subscribers
  • Views 333 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Does NSSHOEU cable conforms to a British or harmonised standard?

Damo

  Can anyone tell me if NSSHOEU cable conforms to a British or harmonised standard? I can only find reference to a German standard. I have come across it before for final connection of equipment such as pumps but in this instance it has been used for the connection from the distribution board (consisting o a single MCCB) to the pump panel in the lower reaches of a disused quarry. I’ve no concerns about its ability to do its job but we have done an EICR and I’m trying to see if we need to comment / code it. Installation certificates are not available.

Parents
  • 0
    alanblaby said:
    It seems to be the best cable for the job, and meets the German Standard, so you could make a note that you cannot ascertain if it meets British Standards, but if me, I'd be happy that the current carrying capacity and impact/wear/UV ratings are suitable, which from a quick search would show they are.

    Chris Pearson said:
    Therefore the German (or any other foreign) standard may be used.

    Whilst on the surface, this appears to be the answer, I don't think it is.

    I believe that none of the standards quoted are a constructional standard for the cable as a whole; just like CY, SY and YY cables, the standards quoted by the manufacturer are for the component parts of the cable ... insulation, sheathing, conductor ... and fire testing, but nothing covers the overall makeup of the cable, and type test requirements for the completed cable.

    See NOTE 1 to Regulation 511.1

    So, the approach to using the cable in the first place is probably the same as OSG advice (Section 7.9 of the 2022 version) for non-standard cables such as CY, SY and YY ... designer satisfies themselves that the manufacturer has an appropriate constructional specification for the cable, and the cable has undergone independent testing/approval (e.g. BASEC approval), make statement according to and append details of this, specification and approvals, to EIC or MEIWC (Regulations 511.2 and 133.1.3).

    Damo said:
    I’m trying to see if we need to comment / code it. Installation certificates are not available.

    Is there a potential safety issue? If not, it's probably a "C3" only if it might gives rise to danger?

    It was for the designer to make the appropriate decision and, if necessary, statement according to Regulations 511.2 and 133.1.3, but if you don't have the original EIC or MEIWC, for the installation of this cable, that boat has sailed.

Reply
  • 0
    alanblaby said:
    It seems to be the best cable for the job, and meets the German Standard, so you could make a note that you cannot ascertain if it meets British Standards, but if me, I'd be happy that the current carrying capacity and impact/wear/UV ratings are suitable, which from a quick search would show they are.

    Chris Pearson said:
    Therefore the German (or any other foreign) standard may be used.

    Whilst on the surface, this appears to be the answer, I don't think it is.

    I believe that none of the standards quoted are a constructional standard for the cable as a whole; just like CY, SY and YY cables, the standards quoted by the manufacturer are for the component parts of the cable ... insulation, sheathing, conductor ... and fire testing, but nothing covers the overall makeup of the cable, and type test requirements for the completed cable.

    See NOTE 1 to Regulation 511.1

    So, the approach to using the cable in the first place is probably the same as OSG advice (Section 7.9 of the 2022 version) for non-standard cables such as CY, SY and YY ... designer satisfies themselves that the manufacturer has an appropriate constructional specification for the cable, and the cable has undergone independent testing/approval (e.g. BASEC approval), make statement according to and append details of this, specification and approvals, to EIC or MEIWC (Regulations 511.2 and 133.1.3).

    Damo said:
    I’m trying to see if we need to comment / code it. Installation certificates are not available.

    Is there a potential safety issue? If not, it's probably a "C3" only if it might gives rise to danger?

    It was for the designer to make the appropriate decision and, if necessary, statement according to Regulations 511.2 and 133.1.3, but if you don't have the original EIC or MEIWC, for the installation of this cable, that boat has sailed.

Children
  • 0 in reply to gkenyon
    gkenyon said:

    Whilst on the surface, this appears to be the answer, I don't think it is.

    I believe that none of the standards quoted are a constructional standard for the cable as a whole

    Graham, thank you - I see what you mean.

    gkenyon said:
    if you don't have the original EIC or MEIWC, for the installation of this cable, that boat has sailed.

    So, it seems reasonable to me to make an observation to the effect that compliance with 511 cannot be verified given the loss of the original paperwork.

    I cannot help feeling that C3: it is recommended that the cable be replaced with one which conforms to a British or Harmonized Standard would be unhelpful. Much better would be to specify the recommended Standard, but perhaps no comparable one exists?

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

    I believe that none of the standards quoted are a constructional standard for the cable as a whole

    I guess VDE 0100 would be at least similar to BS 7671 in terms of requiring compliance with appropriate constructional standards ... so I wonder how our German cousins deal with this situation?

       - Andy.

  • +1 in reply to AJJewsbury
    AJJewsbury said:
    I guess VDE 0100 would be at least similar to BS 7671 in terms of requiring compliance with appropriate constructional standards ... so I wonder how our German cousins deal with this situation?

    I'm not sure it has the same notes in their 511 ... but I see what you mean, if it's supposed to be 'harmonized', is should be the same.

    However, the legal frameworks, regulators, and industry bodies operate differently in different countries, and the way something is interpreted, or put  over in guidance, does differ even for the same requirement !

  • +1 in reply to Chris Pearson
    Chris Pearson said:
    I cannot help feeling that C3: it is recommended that the cable be replaced with one which conforms to a British or Harmonized Standard would be unhelpful.

    Agreed, and further 'C3 unsure whether the cable conforms to a suitable constructional standard' would not be appropriate really, if there is no danger.

    BUT ... pedantically, the same perhaps goes for ANY cable that you can't read the marking on the sheath, for example. How can you tell, when all you can see is the insulated cores and a bit of sheath at accessories. Does the cable actually conform, and/or did it when it was installed?

    And similarly, whilst technically correct to the current version of BS 7671, are we going to tag C3 (general non-compliance) any and all products to now-withdrawn standards, because they strictly don't conform to the standards specified in the current version of BS 7671? 

    Strictly, you only have to list 'defects and non-compliances with the relevant parts of BS 7671 that may give rise to danger' (Regulation 651.2).

  • +1 in reply to gkenyon
    gkenyon said:
    Strictly, you only have to list 'defects and non-compliances with the relevant parts of BS 7671 that may give rise to danger' (Regulation 651.2).

    I would 100% agree with 651.2, but then you have got 653.1. The requirement there is that the report “shall” be based on the one in Appendix 6. Whilst it doesn’t need to be exactly the same, it would be hard to justify dropping out code 3. Then, of course, we have Best Practice Guide 4, which seems to add several other possible variants.

    With respect to the OP, if it were my report, I wouldn’t even mention it. 
    As a by the way, too many inspectors have lost sight of the purpose of periodic inspection and note any variation from the requirements of 7671 as an issue, perhaps in an effort to guard their own rears rather than attending to the best interest of the client.

  • 0 in reply to lyledunn

    Thanks for all the advice. I think I’ll just make a note of the cable type on the certificate since I will have to pick other in the wiring type column and leave it at that. 

Community Rules & Guidelines