Codebreakers #54

Need help with cracking those EICR codes? The technical team at NAPIT, with the help of the 18th Edition Codebreakers publication, answer your latest coding queries. Click on the photos for a closer look!

CLIVE HAMILTON: I WAS ASKED TO VISIT A SITE WHICH WAS WIP (WORK IN PROGRESS) AND THE SPARK WAS STRUGGLING! BEAR IN MIND THE ‘OTHER’ SPARK WASN’T ON SITE AND THIS WAS LIVE WITH THE COVER NOWHERE TO BE SEEN – NOTHING SURPRISES ME ANYMORE! IT SEEMS THERE ARE FEWER SPARKS TRYING TO FOLLOW GOOD PRACTICE AND THE REGULATIONS THESE DAYS.

Wow, just wow! A work in progress is one thing, but this is pretty astounding.

From the top, the lid being left off and not even in sight to be replaced is leaving this installation dangerous, with access to live parts before we even start. Even though this isn’t strictly an EICR, the Client has called someone in to give an opinion which can be seen to be an EICR of sorts.

The unacceptable cable management is next up and is a pretty easy fix that could have been avoided from the start with some well-placed trunking. I’m not quite sure what the cable connected through the CU front opening is doing, but it will need to be re-routed, as the cover won’t fit with it there!

The state of the cables inside the CU is difficult to see from the photo, so I’ll leave that out of the equation. I will comment on the SWA bottom right, though, as it seems to have a BS 951 clamp on it, with a conductor then entering the metal CU in a different opening to the SWA. This could have eddy current issues with high loadings; I’m not sure why that’s been done, as the SWA gland would have adequately and acceptably transferred any cpc requirements to the CU.

The BS 591 clamp is also not designed to be used in this way, as adequate torque to the armouring cannot be confirmed, and by doing this, there is a risk that the SWA cores can be crushed and damaged.

This is a totally unacceptable and dangerous installation that could easily be rectified by a skilled and competent installer.