What Code for this one?

[Gordon]

What code would you attach to this gem, I gave it C2. These terminals are contained within steel trunking but are also part of a live 3 phase cct. See picture. It is installed as a 100 Amp 3 phase ring with these terminals every few metres. Distribution boards are connected from these terminals. est age of installation is >60 years.

 

[telectrix]

i'd hover between a C2 and a C3 as long as the trunking lid was securely fixed.

 

[Gordon]

i'd hover between a C2 and a C3 as long as the trunking lid was securely fixed.

I didn't think "complies with earlier version of 7671" cuts it here. I found it a little scary considering how close terminals are plus pscc in xs of 2k. Just wondered what others thought of this.

 

[telectrix]

a C3 can also be used as improvement recommended. i would be leaning more towards your C2 as some apprentice/trainee may be asked to install additional cables without realising the risks involved.

 

[Strima]

C2 for me, may have been acceptable when installed but so was the use of asbestos and look where that got us.

 

[EddieSparks]

Is that Rubber? Or is it VIR?
I would play on the side of caution with that, and put it as a C2. I would possible put a foot note down explaining my finding and concerns over it,
How is the lid fixed on?
screws or is it that horrible push fit lid?

 

[Gordon]

Is that Rubber? Or is it VIR?
I would play on the side of caution with that, and put it as a C2. I would possible put a foot note down explaining my finding and concerns over it,
How is the lid fixed on?
screws or is it that horrible push fit lid?

The trunking is actually quite good for its age, screw on lid with most screws in place. The final circuits are mainly past it. Longest list of recommendations I've ever done. Never seen this kind of 3 phase before.

 

[davesparks]

Well that's certainly unusual, but I'm struggling to come up with a reason to code it anything more than a C3.

The joints appear to be in good condition, if a little dusty.
The live parts are enclosed within trunking with a lid that cannot be removed without the use of a key or tool. I assume that's enamelled steel trunking?
Joints in trunking are permitted.

To be honest, and whilst I can see it can definately be improved, I'm struggling to think of a Regulation at the moment.
[automerge]1578341876[/automerge]

I didn't think "complies with earlier version of 7671" cuts it here.

That never cuts it, if it does not comply with the current version and it affects safety then it gets coded regardless of when it was installed. This is quite clear in the guidance on completing and EICR in the regulations.

 

[Wilko]

Hi - agree with Dave - if it takes a tool to open, the cable is undamaged, its joints are secure and strain relieved then how is it dangerous?

 

[EddieSparks]

Well that's certainly unusual, but I'm struggling to come up with a reason to code it anything more than a C3.

you are right, just because it is old dose not mean it is passed it. Even if you said the phases aren't marked, again only a C3.
Like Gordon said the lid is fixed on. It’s just a dated install, it would be safer if you upgraded and removed the live screw connectors. You could use the line taps the ones with the orange cap.
I think I have changed my mine, just put it as a C3 with a foot note about your findings.

 

[ipf]

It's a cable route which could be used for extra wiring. Access to live terminals without warning. I think a code 2. Plus the fact that it's not something you'd generally come across....a bit out of the ordinary. Not getting the reg book out, though.

 

[davesparks]

It's a cable route which could be used for extra wiring. Access to live terminals without warning. I think a code 2. Plus the fact that it's not something you'd generally come across....a bit out of the ordinary. Not getting the reg book out, though.

I don't think there is actually a requirement for there to be a warning before accessing live terminals, just a requirement for a key or tool being needed for access.

You can't code things just because they are unusual unfortunately.

It can definately be improved on for safety so a C3 is certainly justified.

 

[David Prosser]

From the HSE. Not about coding just a BIG fine and maybe something to be passed on to the recipiant of your EICR.

Trunking systems and distribution boards contain live parts, and control measures must be taken so that electrical operatives are not subject to the risk of electric shock.

Accidents have arisen through contact with exposed live parts when working in trunking and distribution boards. One fatal occurred in 1999 resulted when a contractor’s employee made direct contact with 40 mm of an uninsulated live cable at an in-line connector joint. He was removing a redundant cable from a trunking. The subsequent HSE prosecution in 2003 resulted in a fine of £220,000 and £30,000 costs to the company ordering the work for (i) not ensuring that the subcontractor was sufficiently competent to perform such work and (ii) not ensuring a safe system of work was in place. The subcontractor who employed the electrician was also fined £25,000 for not ensuring a safe system of work was in place. Another fatal accident occurred when an employee of a lift company working in a hotel knelt down to work inside a control cabinet and came into contact with a live terminal. The power to the lift had been isolated but a signal transformer inside the cabinet remained live. The court fined the lift company £50,000 for a breach of section 2.1 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and the hotel chain was fined £30,000 under regulation 3.1 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. A suitable risk assessment on the lift motor room had not been performed. Regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations (1989) requires that every work activity, including operation, use and maintenance of a system and work near a system shall be carried out in such a manner as not to give rise, so far as is reasonably practicable, to danger.
[automerge]1578352247[/automerge]
Where electrical work is to be performed on a trunking system or distribution board, all conductors should be made dead. This will normally be accomplished by a safe system of work which includes the secure isolation of all conductors, which will subsequently be proven dead. Such work must be carried out by competent persons only. Regulations 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the EAWR are likely to be relevant. Regulation 12 gives requirements for cutting off the supply and for isolation, regulation 13 gives precautions to be taken for work on equipment which has been made dead and regulation 14 deals with work on or near live conductors. Regulation 16 requires persons working on electrical systems to be competent to prevent danger and injury

 

[davesparks]

Where electrical work is to be performed on a trunking system or distribution board, all conductors should be made dead. This will normally be accomplished by a safe system of work which includes the secure isolation of all conductors, which will subsequently be proven dead. Such work must be carried out by competent persons only. Regulations 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the EAWR are likely to be relevant. Regulation 12 gives requirements for cutting off the supply and for isolation, regulation 13 gives precautions to be taken for work on equipment which has been made dead and regulation 14 deals with work on or near live conductors. Regulation 16 requires persons working on electrical systems to be competent to prevent danger and injury

So there's no problem with the OP's situation because all conductors in the trunking should be made dead before any work on the trunking begins?

 

[ipf]

I don't think there is actually a requirement for there to be a warning before accessing live terminals, just a requirement for a key or tool being needed for access.

You can't code things just because they are unusual unfortunately.

It can definately be improved on for safety so a C3 is certainly justified.

I agree, in general. It's just a case of opinions and what you feel is necessary. I know we're talking regulations but I feel that, in some cases, there's a call for making a special case. Say there are loose connectors...they stand out and are, generally, easily spotted. It's the unexpected factor I'm thinking of...and the opinion of a person doing the test. It's not like some of the sometimes stupid code choices we come across.

 

[David Prosser]

So there's no problem with the OP's situation because all conductors in the trunking should be made dead before any work on the trunking begins?

that should be covered in the risk assessment and safe system of work for working in (or near to) the trunking.

Would interesting to know if all conductors were isolated before the lid was removed for the initial inspection.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Agree with much of the above. Opinion varies about how dead the contents of a trunking should be before removing the lid; we all know that it's sometimes difficult to achieve or prove. However if special attention is called to this in the O&M, and the SSOW specifically states it must be proven isolated before the trunking lid is opened, the hazard is mitigated. A sticker at one fastener on each lid length that conceals terminals could help call attention to the setup for those who don't read the RAMS.

Is that Rubber? Or is it VIR?

It's VIR, which is mostly rubber!

 

[DPG]

I like the idea of a warning sticker near by. Best to be on the safe side.

 

[Risteard]

There is definitely a tangible risk here of electric shock or electrocution.

Thankfully the Electro-Technical Council of Ireland's National Rules for Electrical Installations explicitly prohibit joints in trunking to prevent situations like this arising. Perhaps JPEL/64 should consider doing likewise.

 

[Vortigern]

Has the cable tapped off of one of the phases suitable protection for overload and is it within the original design load? I would have thought a C2 personally. But the reasoning for a C3 certainly does not escape me and I could see a C3 as being a significant improvement to safety working as well. After all we are certifying whether the installation is safe to continue to use. Not just the (SADCOWS)The risk of accidental contact presents too high a danger especially when it is relatively simple to reduce that risk by basic protection. I wonder what the original reasoning for those terminations were. Were they test points for phase rotation maybe?? Or tapping point (would not think so)?
[automerge]1578512262[/automerge]

It's VIR

Are you sure? looks like waxed cotton outer maybe VIR inside it? Not quite the black VIR I am sometimes confronted with. Having come across that type of cable before if you poke it around (not live of course!) it seems to break apart like some waxed inner core of something but it does not seem like VIR.