New sub board for shed swa advice.

[ferg]

I have a vague memory of a reg somewhere that stated it should be earthed at at least one end and 'preferably' the supply end.

 

[Devonchris]

I know The HASAWA doesn't apply to domestic property or servants, and i thought EAWR was the same. However on searching i found this.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

Appendix
(para 5(5))

Electrical safety and enforcement in domestic premises
1 HSW Act s.3 and EAW Regulations apply to installation, maintenance and repair work in domestic premises. The Consumer Protection Act applies only to the provision of electrical goods or products, eg sockets etc but not to their installation.

2 Therefore, there is a possibility of inspectors becoming involved in questions of electrical safety at domestic premises. Unlike gas safety, however, there are no specific regulations. Inspectors have no powers of entry unless work activity is in progress and there are no requirements to report defects.

It goes on. Here's a link if your interested.
Its in the appendix.

OC 480/2: The electricity at work regulations 1989 - http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/ocs/400-499/480_2.htm#para27

 

[Dave OCD]

What are these occasions then?

Ok, how about a supply to an outside socket or shed where you're coming from an existing socket on a RFC, plasterboard walls so you put in a single dry lining box for a DP switch or SFCU and drill through to outside behind the box, how do you earth the armour at that termination ? Yes I know you could terminate into a box outside but why create another unnecessary connection when you can earth the armour at the other end ? Or you could have an insulated CU to take your SWA from with no space around it for an additional connection box and no way of drilling a 20mm hole into it.

 

[netblindpaul]

The EAWR does not apply to a domestic installation.

Spin, that is incorrect.
Read the requirements of Reg 3, then look at HASAWA, Reg 3, and come back and tell me that EAWR does not apply to domestic work, and explain your defence against these laws.

 

[Octopus]

I have a vague memory of a reg somewhere that stated it should be earthed at at least one end and 'preferably' the supply end.

It’s not in the BYB .... possibly in a guidance note .... but that’s only guidance..... and not many people buy the guidance notes ... in fact I suspect fewer people are buying the big books , and fewer still actually read the incoherent regulations .....

 

[Colin33]

It should a earthed or connected to the same earthing system as used by the protective device protecting the SWA.

Does this statement suggest that it can be connected to whatever earthing arrangement exists at the origin OR alternatively, connected to a separate earthing arrangement at the load end?

 

[netblindpaul]

As you have disagreed Murdoch, and you will not accept that you are wrong.
Please read these quotes, verbatim, straight from the LAW of the land.
EAWR89 & HASAWA74.

EAWR89:
Persons on whom duties are imposed by these Regulations
3.—(1) Except where otherwise expressly provided in these Regulations, it shall be the duty ofevery–
(a)
employer and self-employed person to comply with the provisions of these Regulations inso far as they relate to matters which are within his control; and
(b)
manager of a mine or quarry (within in either case the meaning of section 180 of the Minesand Quarries Act 1954(2)) to ensure that all requirements or prohibitions imposed by orunder these Regulations are complied with in so far as they relate to the mine or quarry orpart of a quarry of which he is the manager and to matters which are within his control.
(2) It shall be the duty of every employee while at work–
(a)
to co-operate with his employer so far as is necessary to enable any duty placed on thatemployer by the provisions of these Regulations to be complied with; and
(b)
to comply with the provisions of these Regulations in so far as they relate to matters which are within his control.

HASAWA74:
3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.


(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(2) It shall be the duty of every self-employed person who conducts an undertaking of a prescribed description to conduct the undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(2a) A description of undertaking included in regulations under subsection (2) may be framed by reference to—

the type of activities carried out by the undertaking, where those activities are carried out or any other feature of the undertaking;

whether persons who may be affected by the conduct of the undertaking, other than the self-employed person (or his employees), may thereby be exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(3) In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Does this statement suggest that it can be connected to whatever earthing arrangement exists at the origin OR alternatively, connected to a separate earthing arrangement at the load end?

If the SWA was feeding a separated TT installation then clearly the conductive part of the SWA would be earthed from the supply (TN) end,and electrically separated from the earthing arrangement at the load end..

 

[Octopus]

As you have disagreed Murdoch, and you will not accept that you are wrong.
Please read these quotes, verbatim, straight from the LAW of the land.
EAWR89 & HASAWA74.

EAWR89:
Persons on whom duties are imposed by these Regulations
3.—(1) Except where otherwise expressly provided in these Regulations, it shall be the duty ofevery–
(a)
employer and self-employed person to comply with the provisions of these Regulations inso far as they relate to matters which are within his control; and
(b)
manager of a mine or quarry (within in either case the meaning of section 180 of the Minesand Quarries Act 1954(2)) to ensure that all requirements or prohibitions imposed by orunder these Regulations are complied with in so far as they relate to the mine or quarry orpart of a quarry of which he is the manager and to matters which are within his control.
(2) It shall be the duty of every employee while at work–
(a)
to co-operate with his employer so far as is necessary to enable any duty placed on thatemployer by the provisions of these Regulations to be complied with; and
(b)
to comply with the provisions of these Regulations in so far as they relate to matters which are within his control.

HASAWA74:
3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.


(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(2) It shall be the duty of every self-employed person who conducts an undertaking of a prescribed description to conduct the undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(2a) A description of undertaking included in regulations under subsection (2) may be framed by reference to—

the type of activities carried out by the undertaking, where those activities are carried out or any other feature of the undertaking;

whether persons who may be affected by the conduct of the undertaking, other than the self-employed person (or his employees), may thereby be exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(3) In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.

Hum .... no where in that lot does it say the earthing must be attached at the supply end .......

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Spin, that is incorrect.
Read the requirements of Reg 3, then look at HASAWA, Reg 3, and come back and tell me that EAWR does not apply to domestic work, and explain your defence against these laws.

I did not say the EAWR does not apply to domestic work.
I said the EAWR does not apply to a domestic installation.

 

[Dave OCD]

Ok this is all very well and could go on for weeks but please quote the exact wording of the exact regulation that clearly states armour must be earthed at the supply end.

Edit - reply to post #57.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Does this statement suggest that it can be connected to whatever earthing arrangement exists at the origin OR alternatively, connected to a separate earthing arrangement at the load end?

It should be connected to the same earthing system as the protective device which protects the SWA cable is connected to.
It should not be connected to a separate earthing system.

 

[netblindpaul]

I did not say the EAWR does not apply to domestic work.
I said the EAWR does not apply to a domestic installation.

It does though, if you, read, the law, the installation is under the control of the installer, thus the installation is under the control of the installer, ergo, EAWR applies.

 

[netblindpaul]

Ok this is all very well and could go on for weeks but please quote the exact wording of the exact regulation that clearly states armour must be earthed at the supply end.

Edit - reply to post #57.

EAWR89:
Earthing or other suitable precautions
8.Precautions shall be taken, either by earthing or by other suitable means, to prevent danger arising when any conductor (other than a circuit conductor) which may reasonably foreseeably become charged as a result of either the use of a system, or a fault in a system, becomes so charged;and, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this regulation, a conductor shall be regarded as earthed when it is connected to the general mass of earth by conductors of sufficient strength and current-carrying capability to discharge electrical energy to earth.

 

[Colin33]

If the SWA was feeding a separated TT installation then clearly the conductive part of the SWA would be earthed from the supply (TN) end,and electrically separated from the earthing arrangement at the load end..

So are you suggesting that the swa would need to be terminated in a separate enclosure before entering a metal consumer unit ( TT earthed) in an outbuilding for example?

 

[Dave OCD]

Which says NOTHING about where the earthing must be carried out, therefore you are wrong. Reply to post #64

 

[Dave OCD]

So are you suggesting that the swa would need to be terminated in a separate enclosure before entering a metal consumer unit ( TT earthed) in an outbuilding for example?

Or you could possibly connect straight in with an alternative gland.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It does though, if you, read, the law, the installation is under the control of the installer, thus the installation is under the control of the installer, ergo, EAWR applies.

No, the installation is under the control of the householder.
The installer bugged off ages ago and is probably installing other installations, or on here wondering where people get such weird ideas from.

 

[netblindpaul]

No, the installation is under the control of the householder.
The installer bugged off ages ago and is probably installing other installations, or on here wondering where people get such weird ideas from.

You are missing the point the doing of the installation is under the control of the "electrician" no matter where they have been since or after, that job was under their control, they were at work, thus, EAWR & HASAWA applied at that time.
Employed or Self-Employed both apply.

 

[Colin33]

It should be connected to the same earthing system as the protective device which protects the SWA cable is connected to.
It should not be connected to a separate earthing system.

So you may end up with a metal consumer unit connected to a TT arrangement with a Zs of up to 1667 ohms for example, fitted adjacent to a metal adaptable box to which the swa is terminated with a Zs of perhaps .35 ohms. Is that right?

 

[Octopus]

You are missing the point the doing of the installation is under the control of the "electrician" no matter where they have been since or after, that job was under their control, they were at work, thus, EAWR & HASAWA applied at that time.
Employed or Self-Employed both apply.

And you are missing the point.

Where is the reg about connecting the SWA at the supply end ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You are missing the point the doing of the installation is under the control of the "electrician" no matter where they have been since or after, that job was under their control, they were at work, thus, EAWR & HASAWA applied at that time.
Employed or Self-Employed both apply.

Sorry you are getting confused about what it is the Regulations apply to.
To put it in simple terms, the ground does not have to comply with HASAWA.
If a worker then digs a hole in the ground, that task must comply with HASAWA.
Electricity does not have to comply with the EAWR.
How you use electricity when conducting a task for work must comply with the EAWR.
An installation in a building which is not used for work purposes does not have to comply with the EAWR.
How you use the electricity provided by that installation when conducting a task for work must comply with the EAWR.
An installation in a building that is a place of work, must comply with the EAWR.
How you use the electricity (irrespective of whether it is for a task of work) provided by the installation, must also comply with the EAWR.
Compliance with the EAWR can in many respects be achieved by compliance with BS7671.

 

[netblindpaul]

Sorry you are getting confused about what it is the Regulations apply to.
To put it in simple terms, the ground does not have to comply with HASAWA.
If a worker then digs a hole in the ground, that task must comply with HASAWA.
Electricity does not have to comply with the EAWR.
How you use electricity when conducting a task for work must comply with the EAWR.
An installation in a building which is not used for work purposes does not have to comply with the EAWR.
How you use the electricity provided by that installation when conducting a task for work must comply with the EAWR.
An installation in a building that is a place of work, must comply with the EAWR.
How you use the electricity (irrespective of whether it is for a task of work) provided by the installation, must also comply with the EAWR.
Compliance with the EAWR can in many respects be achieved by compliance with BS7671.

No, you are wrong, not me.
Look at HASAWA, and this is NOT just my view point.
3
General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.
So how does this NOT apply to householders when the install is crap and endangers them.
The install is done by employers or their employees, thus by the employer, or the self-employed.
The house holder is a person that is someone other than an employee, and the installation does not comply with EAWR, ergo an offence under HASAWA S3.

 

[johnduffell]

there are two threads of conversation - the smaller one is about which earthing system you can connect to. I have pinched the typed up version of the reg but the answer is it has to be the same earthing system as the installation containing the protective device
"542.1.3.3 [...]if the protective conductor forms part of a cable, the protective conductor shall be earthed only in the installation containing the associated protective device."

 

[netblindpaul]

Sorry you are getting confused about what it is the Regulations apply to.
To put it in simple terms, the ground does not have to comply with HASAWA.
If a worker then digs a hole in the ground, that task must comply with HASAWA.
Electricity does not have to comply with the EAWR.
How you use electricity when conducting a task for work must comply with the EAWR.
An installation in a building which is not used for work purposes does not have to comply with the EAWR.
How you use the electricity provided by that installation when conducting a task for work must comply with the EAWR.
An installation in a building that is a place of work, must comply with the EAWR.
How you use the electricity (irrespective of whether it is for a task of work) provided by the installation, must also comply with the EAWR.
Compliance with the EAWR can in many respects be achieved by compliance with BS7671.

So if this is true and the installation does not comply with EAWR, how does the installer comply with HASAWA Reg 3?

 

[Octopus]

there are two threads of conversation - the smaller one is about which earthing system you can connect to. I have pinched the typed up version of the reg but the answer is it has to be the same earthing system as the installation containing the protective device
"542.1.3.3 [...]if the protective conductor forms part of a cable, the protective conductor shall be earthed only in the installation containing the associated protective device."

But it still doesn't say which ends it should be connected ....

 

[Octopus]

there are two threads of conversation - the smaller one is about which earthing system you can connect to. I have pinched the typed up version of the reg but the answer is it has to be the same earthing system as the installation containing the protective device
"542.1.3.3 [...]if the protective conductor forms part of a cable, the protective conductor shall be earthed only in the installation containing the associated protective device."

But it still doesn't say which ends it should be connected ....

 

[telectrix]

there are two threads of conversation - the smaller one is about which earthing system you can connect to. I have pinched the typed up version of the reg but the answer is it has to be the same earthing system as the installation containing the protective device
"542.1.3.3 [...]if the protective conductor forms part of a cable, the protective conductor shall be earthed only in the installation containing the associated protective device."

but the argument is not about earthing the protective conductor, is it? it's about earthing the armour when said armour is not used as cpc.

 

[netblindpaul]

So, EAWR requires that any conductor that may become "inadvertently charged" must be suitably earthed, my wording, the original is earlier in the thread.
If, EAWR does not apply to installations under BS 7671 why is this contained there in?
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) welcomes the publication of BS 7671:2018, Requirements for Electrical Installations, IET Wiring Regulations 18th Edition. BS 7671 and the IET/IEE Wiring Regulations have been extensively referred to in HSE guidance over the years. Installations which conform to the standards laid down in BS 7671:2018 are regarded by HSE as likely to achieve conformity with the relevant parts of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Existing installations may have been designed and installed to conform to the standards set by earlier editions of BS 7671 or the IEE Wiring Regulations. This does not mean that they will fail to achieve conformity with the relevant parts of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So if this is true and the installation does not comply with EAWR, how does the installer comply with HASAWA Reg 3?

What installer?

 

[netblindpaul]

Any installer anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Any installer anywhere.

Right now, I’m sat in my bungalow.
I cannot (unless I look in a mirror) see any installers.
Why would my electrical installation have to comply with EAWR or HASAWA?

 

[netblindpaul]

Right now, I’m sat in my bungalow.
I cannot (unless I look in a mirror) see any installers.
Why would my electrical installation have to comply with EAWR or HASAWA?

Someone installed the work, and if they did this as part of a business, which we are discussing, not DIY, then the installation works and the requirement for compliance with EAWR of the installation was there when it was installed, thus the installer was required to comply with the law of the land as per EAWR & HASAWA.
What happened after that with regard to DIY is not relevant and has not been discussed.
So if you did your own install in your own home that is not relevant, but, if you are employed or self-employed then EAWR and HASAWA applied at the time of the install, and thus the installation must comply with the law.

 

[davesparks]

Ok, how about a supply to an outside socket or shed where you're coming from an existing socket on a RFC, plasterboard walls so you put in a single dry lining box for a DP switch or SFCU and drill through to outside behind the box, how do you earth the armour at that termination ? Yes I know you could terminate into a box outside but why create another unnecessary connection when you can earth the armour at the other end ? Or you could have an insulated CU to take your SWA from with no space around it for an additional connection box and no way of drilling a 20mm hole into it.

But you will still be terminating the SWA with the correct gland so I see no reason not to swap the locknut for an earthing nut.
Or are you suggesting that it’s ok to terminate SWA without a gland?

 

[davesparks]

So you may end up with a metal consumer unit connected to a TT arrangement with a Zs of up to 1667 ohms for example, fitted adjacent to a metal adaptable box to which the swa is terminated with a Zs of perhaps .35 ohms. Is that right?

No you wouldn’t, you can’t have exposed metal connected to two different earthing systems like that. You insulate the armour at the load end of the submain so that it does not introduce another potential.

Also leaving a TT system with such a high Ra is unacceptable.

 

[davesparks]

But it still doesn't say which ends it should be connected ....

No it doesn’t say specifically which end of an SWA cable must be earthed if it is done at only one end, it says what must be achieved by the earthing. These regulations assume that we have enough sense to apply them correctly and don’t need a step by step guide to every little detail.

So the regulation basically says that the armour must be earthed to prevent it becoming charged (either through induction, capacitance or touching something which is live) in normal service or under fault conditions.

In normal service it wouldn’t matter which end is earthed, however under fault conditions such as physical damage it is possible that several armour strands could be broken. This could lead to the armour on the live side of the damage being unearthed if the connection was only made at the load end.

 

[Pete999]

but the argument is not about earthing the protective conductor, is it? it's about earthing the armour when said armour is not used as cpc.

Precisamundo

 

[Deleted member 9648]

No it doesn’t say specifically which end of an SWA cable must be earthed if it is done at only one end, it says what must be achieved by the earthing. These regulations assume that we have enough sense to apply them correctly and don’t need a step by step guide to every little detail.

So the regulation basically says that the armour must be earthed to prevent it becoming charged (either through induction, capacitance or touching something which is live) in normal service or under fault conditions.

In normal service it wouldn’t matter which end is earthed, however under fault conditions such as physical damage it is possible that several armour strands could be broken. This could lead to the armour on the live side of the damage being unearthed if the connection was only made at the load end.

If you are going to use that as an argument for earthing at both ends then you would have to apply the same argument to all radial circuit cpc's as damage may result in partial or complete loss of earth to part of the circuit.
Not all scenario's are sufficiently likely to be worth allowing for.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If you are going to use that as an argument for earthing at both ends then you would have to apply the same argument to all radial circuit cpc's as damage may result in partial or complete loss of earth to part of the circuit.
Not all scenario's are sufficiently likely to be worth allowing for.

Exactly why high integrity earthin requires a second CPC.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Exactly why high integrity earthin requires a second CPC.

Don't think earthing a cables conductive part is classed as requiring high integrity earthing.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Don't think earthing a cables conductive part is classed as requiring high integrity earthing.

My reply was in response to your statement about applying the argument to radials and damaged CPCs.

 

[Dave OCD]

92 posts including this one, but any armour anywhere will have rusted away before NBP admits he's wrong.

 

[sparksburnout]

Ok, how about a supply to an outside socket or shed where you're coming from an existing socket on a RFC, plasterboard walls so you put in a single dry lining box for a DP switch or SFCU and drill through to outside behind the box, how do you earth the armour at that termination ? Yes I know you could terminate into a box outside but why create another unnecessary connection when you can earth the armour at the other end ? Or you could have an insulated CU to take your SWA from with no space around it for an additional connection box and no way of drilling a 20mm hole into it.

I don't understand your argument here to be honest. You have got to gland the SWA to something have you not?? So just earth it at that point. I often use a Wiska box on the outside wall, not forgetting the danger 230V label

 

[sparksburnout]

Ok, how about a supply to an outside socket or shed where you're coming from an existing socket on a RFC, plasterboard walls so you put in a single dry lining box for a DP switch or SFCU and drill through to outside behind the box, how do you earth the armour at that termination ? Yes I know you could terminate into a box outside but why create another unnecessary connection when you can earth the armour at the other end ? Or you could have an insulated CU to take your SWA from with no space around it for an additional connection box and no way of drilling a 20mm hole into it.

I don't understand your argument here to be honest. You have got to gland the SWA to something have you not?? So just earth it at that point. I often use a Wiska box on the outside wall, not forgetting the danger 230V label

 

[netblindpaul]

Going back to basics is needed here so that the requirements can be understood.
I can assure you that I am NOT wrong, (this is NOT just my opinion), if you listen to, read and understand the posts I have made then this can be understood.
Firstly it must be understood that HASAWA applies to all persons when at work, employed or self-employed if people can't understand that then they are beyond help.
Is this understood by all, or are many of you going to disagree and state that you are beyond the law of the land when you are at work, and thus the law does not apply to you because you are some sort of special being?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think your problem is that you are confusing a ‘task of work’ with a ‘domestic installation’.
If no task of work is being conducted, neither the HASAWA or the EAWR applies.
If a task of work is being conducted the HASAWA and EAWR would apply to that task, not to the domestic installation.
It may be that the task of work is to make safe a dangerous condition in the domestic installation.
How would such a task be able to be conducted if the domestic installation must first comply with HASWA and the EAWR?

 

[Colin33]

No you wouldn’t, you can’t have exposed metal connected to two different earthing systems like that. You insulate the armour at the load end of the submain so that it does not introduce another potential.

Also leaving a TT system with such a high Ra is unacceptable.

That's what I thought, so instead of the scenario I suggested you'd use a plastic enclosure for the swa instead of metal, and boot over the swa gland so no exposed metal is left? (lets leave the 1667 ohm TT topic for another day, sometimes it's impossible to achieve below 200 when your installation is on a cliff edge, or on a sandy beach for example ;-))

 

[netblindpaul]

I think your problem is that you are confusing a ‘task of work’ with a ‘domestic installation’.
If no task of work is being conducted, neither the HASAWA or the EAWR applies.
If a task of work is being conducted the HASAWA and EAWR would apply to that task, not to the domestic installation.
It may be that the task of work is to make safe a dangerous condition in the domestic installation.
How would such a task be able to be conducted if the domestic installation must first comply with HASWA and the EAWR?

I am fully understanding the situation, and this is not just my opinion it is that of many others, and other organisations.
The task of work is being done when the domestic electrical installation is being designed, constructed, inspected and tested, or do you not charge for the domestic installations you do Spin?
Do the rest of you do all your domestic installations works as DIY, therefore no money changes hands and nobody gets paid for any domestic installations works?
I know that the domestic installation industry is a race to the bottom, but I don't believe that no one gets paid for domestic installations works.
How do all these domestic electricians and those working for builders doing new builds pay for their food and mortgages of they are not at work and being paid when they are doing the electrical works?

Thus the law does apply to people doing electrical installations works, whether employed or self employed when they are at work doing the work.
Therefore the Health and Safety At Work etc. Act 1974 applies to these people when they are at work, if it doesn't why to all these house building companies make such a bloody massive thing about Health and Safety on their construction sites.

So is every house building company in the country wrong then Spin? Because that is what you are saying. You are saying that HASAWA & EAWR do not apply to domestic works.

 

[Octopus]

How on earth did we go from whether there was a “correct end” to earth SWA to this garbage ......

 

[Dave OCD]

Precisely Murdoch ! That issue seems to have been quietly put to one side.....