Blanks missing from CU in 2 senarios

[ChrisElectrical88]

Not read the whole thread. I will C1 missing blanks as if a Lighting circuit trips out people could be putting there hands though that hole in the dark.

However if the bus bar is correctly shrouded where MCBs are missing it’s a C2.

As Westward said, it’s all about personal judgement

 

[ferg]

An exposed live busbar, potentially protected by nothing other than a cutout fuse.... C1 for me all day every day.

Although to be fair for the 10 seconds and pennies in parts I just deal with it there and then.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Yes a potential danger which is not the standing of a Code 1.

I think with that argument Westward there would never be a C1 as you could argue that a CU with it's cover left off is only 'potentially' dangerous.

 

[Spoon]

Just to add a bit more fuel to the fire. I do remember a thread where there was a discussion about the types of blanking used. Some said that they only use the din rail fixed ones. Ones that need a tool to remove.
So do the blanking plates that just push on need coding? Any small kid could take one off..

 

[westward10]

I think with that argument Westward there would never be a C1 as you could argue that a CU with it's cover left off is only 'potentially' dangerous.

This is my point on the Code definitions. Separate Danger Present and Potentially Dangerous, they walk the same path to a hazard. What is Danger Present, something Potentially Dangerous.

 

[Deleted account]

I would 99.9% of the time code a missing blank as C1 and I rarely give C1's.

It's a great big hole with a big piece of live copper behind it which is easily touchable!

What circumstances would the 0.01% occur?

As mentioned earlier I would NOT C1 it as I would pop some spare blanks on to bring it up to standard. I always carry them and it costs minimal pennies and vertically no time.

However for those lazy penny pitchers who wouldn't do this I think a C1 should apply.

 

[westward10]

A danger present which is potentially dangerous

 

[Deleted account]

I think the Code definitions are poorly defined. Code 1 Danger present,

Isn't C1 classed as "immediately dangerous" rather than danger present.
Self explanatory definition in my opinion.

If an exposed live part does not have suitable basic protection to prevent it being touched. That to me is immediately dangerous.

 

[ferg]

My understanding is that immediately dangerous is something that does not require a second fault to be dangerous.

No earthing c2 exposed live parts c1

 

[Spoon]

EICR audits _________ - https://www.electriciansforums.co.uk/threads/eicr-audits-_________.167487/

Found it...

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

What about plastic blanks in a new metal dist board, surely effects the fire rating?

 

[westward10]

My understanding is that immediately dangerous is something that does not require a second fault to be dangerous.

No earthing c2 exposed live parts c1

Where does it state that.

 

[westward10]

Isn't C1 classed as "immediately dangerous" rather than danger present.
Self explanatory definition in my opinion.

If an exposed live part does not have suitable basic protection to prevent it being touched. That to me is immediately dangerous.

No it initially states Danger Present. Later it explains there is risk of injury. Immediate remedial action required. Strangely it also explains Code 2 as urgent remedial action required. What is the difference?
This is the issue I have with how they are defined. What is Danger Present which overrides Potentially Dangerous.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Merlin Gerin and Schneider boards have sliders to energise each way.
If those sliders are off where there are no MCBs, where’s the exposed live conductive parts?
Similarly old MEM DBs have removable ‘Y’ shaped pieces of metal to connect between the MCBs and the hidden bus bars.
Most CUs have shrouds and bus bars which can be cut to length.
So like I said code C2 for missing blanks and code C1 where there is exposed live conductive parts.

 

[Deleted account]

No it initially states Danger Present. Later it explains there is risk of injury. Immediate remedial action required. .

Quite right westward10.

I stand corrected, just checked in the BBB.

 

[Nigel]

I think with that argument Westward there would never be a C1 as you could argue that a CU with it's cover left off is only 'potentially' dangerous.

Exactly. Hence the reason he is reluctant to back up his stance and give us examples of C1s.

 

[Nigel]

This is my point on the Code definitions. Separate Danger Present and Potentially Dangerous, they walk the same path to a hazard. What is Danger Present, something Potentially Dangerous.

I am not sure if you are being deliberatly obtuse but I will play the game with you.

If you read it literally then everything has the potential to be dangerous. If we use common sense it is very obvious what the intention is.

 

[westward10]

I am playing no games, both Code definitions lead to the same place. I have plenty of common sense.

 

[Nigel]

I am playing no games, both Code definitions lead to the same place. I have plenty of common sense.

So you don’t know the difference between ‘potential’ and ‘present’?

 

[westward10]

Define danger present.

 

[Nigel]

Define danger present.

Where an observation has been given a Classification code C1, the safety of those using the installation is at risk and immediate remedial action is required.

The person responsible for the maintenance of the installation is advised to take action without delay to remedy the observed deficiency in the installation, or to take other appropriate action (such as switching off and isolating the affected part(s) of the installation) to remove the danger.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

At the end of the day a C1 or C2 will fail the report as unsatisfactory. Our judgement on site it to make sure there is nothing that will hurt anyone or cause a fire until the C2s are carried out. I think a blank missing can really fit into either catogory, i explained earlier my reasoning. Its nice to see a decent debate on here.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

At the end of the day a C1 or C2 will fail the report as unsatisfactory. Our judgement on site it to make sure there is nothing that will hurt anyone or cause a fire until the C2s are carried out. I think a blank missing can really fit into either catogory, i explained earlier my reasoning. Its nice to see a decent debate on here.

 

[westward10]

They are at risk from something potentially dangerous.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If I see a sign which says “Danger 415 volts” is it potentially dangerous or immediately dangerous?

 

[Deleted account]

Agree both C1 and C2 are fails, but there is a difference. You cannot re energise a circuit that has a C1. You must isolate or immediately do remedial works to remove the " danger present".
You can re energise a circuit that is a C2.


You will note the correct terminology ( danger present)

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Agree both C1 and C2 are fails, but there is a difference. You cannot re energise a circuit that has a C1. You must isolate or immediately do remedial works to remove the " danger present".
You can re energise a circuit that is a C2.


You will note the correct terminology ( danger present)

Who says you cannot re-energise a circuit with a C1 and who says you can re-energise a circuit with a C2?

 

[Nigel]

If I see a sign which says “Danger 415 volts” is it potentially dangerous or immediately dangerous?

Potentially obvously.

Jesus this is painful.

 

[Nigel]

Who says you cannot re-energise a circuit with a C1 and who says you can re-energise a circuit with a C2?

Anyone with any sense.

 

[Spoon]

Agree both C1 and C2 are fails, but there is a difference. You cannot re energise a circuit that has a C1. You must isolate or immediately do remedial works to remove the " danger present".
You can re energise a circuit that is a C2.

So if a CU has a blank missing and you give it a C1, do you isolate the CU until you fit a blank? What if you haven't any spare or the correct blank for the CU, do you isolate the CU and only energise it when you have fitted the blank? (All friendly questions, as I am curious)
I would be miffed if the CU had to be isolated for a length of time just due to a blank missing. Are all customers that thick that they will stick their finder in somewhere that you have just told them is dangerous?

 

[Deleted account]

Who says you cannot re-energise a circuit with a C1 and who says you can re-energise a circuit with a C2?

Would you energise a circuit you knew to have a danger present?

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

So if a CU has a blank missing and you give it a C1, do you isolate the CU until you fit a blank? What if you haven't any spare or the correct blank for the CU, do you isolate the CU and only energise it when you have fitted the blank? (All friendly questions, as I am curious)
I would be miffed if the CU had to be isolated for a length of time just due to a blank missing. Are all customers that thick that they will stick their finder in somewhere that you have just told them is dangerous?

But is a missing blank a C1 or a C2

 

[Deleted account]

So if a CU has a blank missing and you give it a C1, do you isolate the CU until you fit a blank? What if you haven't any spare or the correct blank for the CU, do you isolate the CU and only energise it when you have fitted the blank? (All friendly questions, as I am curious)
I would be miffed if the CU had to be isolated for a length of time just due to a blank missing. Are all customers that thick that they will stick their finder in somewhere that you have just told them is dangerous?

As I said earlier in this case it's easy. I always carry spare blanks so would fit them there and then so no issue.

If I was on a job and went to the board to isolate I would notice right away that blanks where missing. If I didn't have any on me I would not continue with the job until I rectified this. As I had not started the job I would not have isolated at this stage therefore there would be no onus on me to re energise.

This whole thread is really a bit pointless, but quite interesting, as it's an easy fix. Minimal cost minimal time to sort. No issue.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Would you energise a circuit you knew to have a danger present?

Strangely enough, I did just that a few times yesterday evening.

 

[westward10]

But is a missing blank a C1 or a C2

Don't matter they mean the same thing.

 

[westward10]

I re-energise all the time never a worry.

 

[Nigel]

This thread is just a troll fest now.

 

[Des 56]

Given its been stated a few times
Since when has an electrician had the authority to make a decision to isolate anything

 

[Spoon]

This thread is just a troll fest now.

Mine was in no way meant as a troll and I got a decent answer so I'm happy.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

As we all know the first thing to do when conducting a periodic inspection, is to inspect.
So finding a missing blank or a damaged socket should not involve de-energising any circuits.
So the question is, are you going to de-energise the affected circuit knowing full well that you will not re-energise the circuit before the C1 condition is rectified?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This thread is just a troll fest now.

Not a Troll fest, just some members showing how ludicrous the practice of coding faults really is.

 

[westward10]

Code 1 and 2 should have a more defined separation of meaning.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

To my mind a code C1 is where there is a danger of injury to persons or livestock or of a fire without there needing to be another fault.
A code C2 is as above, but where it would require another fault before injury or a fire could occur.
An exposed live conductor or conductive part would be a code C1.
A broken CPC or lack of earthing, would be a code C2.

 

[westward10]

It is the definitions which fail to keep them apart.

 

[Spoon]

So the question is, are you going to de-energise the affected circuit knowing full well that you will not re-energise the circuit before the C1 condition is rectified?

The problem I see is that unscrupulous electricians could use this to code C1 for things that are not actually C1, thinking they will get extra money to rectify said fault.

 

[Des 56]

Given its been stated a few times
Since when has an electrician had the authority to make a decision to isolate anything

Anyone got the date yet,perhaps which edition would do

 

[Nigel]

Given its been stated a few times
Since when has an electrician had the authority to make a decision to isolate anything

I think there is a difference between isolating and not re-energising.

 

[Nigel]

Not a Troll fest, just some members showing how ludicrous the practice of coding faults really is.

I agree. Especially those that would not C1 a live part readily accessible.

 

[Nigel]

Code 1 and 2 should have a more defined separation of meaning.

They do. One is present one is potential.

 

[Nigel]

The problem I see is that unscrupulous electricians could use this to code C1 for things that are not actually C1, thinking they will get extra money to rectify said fault.

Would you re-energise a circuit that has a fault in which all conductive parts on that corcuit are live?