Do these internally exposed meter tails require mechanical protection?

[timhoward]

and (if you plan to continue using the toolbox as a bench!) up a bit,

That was actually the thing bothering me more than anything else, nothing worse than a socket you can't easily use!
If it's just a spur from the board then a surface mount metal clad with coupler would be an easy addition to the bottom of the board, and be a bit heavier duty for workshop use.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Would have been nice to see those tails inside a bit of black copex

Are you Nick Bundy?

 

[nicebutdim]

It should be remembered that the OP's question pertains to new works, the extent of which I believe to be the additional board, tails and outgoing (what appears to be) tuff-sheath cable. Unless I've missed something, the main board, armoured cable and 2g socket were pre-existing.

Cleating on new cables could be neater, but that's not an issue raised by the OP. While tuff-sheath is certainly tougher than sheathed and insulated tails, it offers little in the way of cut resistance. Yes it will be RCD protected, but I don't think it should be overlooked if damage by power tools is the main concern.

The socket could be better placed, but OP hasn't expressed any concerns about its position and it doesn't appear to be part of the recent works.

What I do find strange is where the tails come trough - perhaps this was the extent of a permali box on the other side, perhaps it was a case of point and drill or perhaps there are other reasons unknown to us. Regardless, it's not an issue in terms of OP's concernsand nor is it from a regulatory perspective.

OP mentions that they raised the issue of potential damage when the job was near completion. The installer could certainly have taken the time to protect the tails in some way, but was it feasible to do so at the time? Was there a nearby wholesaler open and could the job have still been completed on the same day? Was the additional taime required to strip the board, protect tails and re-dress chargeable? I'm not casting aspertions at either the OP or the installer, but simply highlighting a few (of many) considerations that are easy to overlook when levelling criticism from afar.

 

[westward10]

Are you Nick Bundy?

I think even Bundy could spell Kopex.

 

[westward10]

Would have been nice to see those tails inside a bit of black copex

No skilled person would put those into flexible conduit.

 

[drewzh]

It should be remembered that the OP's question pertains to new works, the extent of which I believe to be the additional board, tails and outgoing (what appears to be) tuff-sheath cable. Unless I've missed something, the main board, armoured cable and 2g socket were pre-existing.

Cleating on new cables could be neater, but that's not an issue raised by the OP. While tuff-sheath is certainly tougher than sheathed and insulated tails, it offers little in the way of cut resistance. Yes it will be RCD protected, but I don't think it should be overlooked if damage by power tools is the main concern.

The socket could be better placed, but OP hasn't expressed any concerns about its position and it doesn't appear to be part of the recent works.

What I do find strange is where the tails come trough - perhaps this was the extent of a permali box on the other side, perhaps it was a case of point and drill or perhaps there are other reasons unknown to us. Regardless, it's not an issue in terms of OP's concernsand nor is it from a regulatory perspective.

OP mentions that they raised the issue of potential damage when the job was near completion. The installer could certainly have taken the time to protect the tails in some way, but was it feasible to do so at the time? Was there a nearby wholesaler open and could the job have still been completed on the same day? Was the additional taime required to strip the board, protect tails and re-dress chargeable? I'm not casting aspertions at either the OP or the installer, but simply highlighting a few (of many) considerations that are easy to overlook when levelling criticism from afar.

I can clarify that the new works are the Garo DB for a new EV charger (Tesla Wall Connector Gen3) and the SWA that you see going into a compression gland on the Garo board... I asked for the existing SWA going to shed from the main CU to also be added to the new DB, so that it's also PEN protected, as we're looking to install a hot tub from the shed CU and it would provide some protection for that circuit also...

A side note: It just occurred to me after someone noted further up - it doesn't look like the armour has been earthed if they've used a plastic compression fitting... probably something that also needs addressing I imagine, as I'd prefer if any SWA armour on the property is earthed for obvious reasons.

Correct, sockets are less of an issue honestly, but given that there's now the topic of adding additional protection in the way of conduit or a plywood box - I may actually shift them across and up to make covering the area easier, as currently, it's difficult to do that without blocking the sockets.

The tails come through directly from the very top right corner of the meter box directly on the other side of the wall. It was a bit of a drill and pray situation and the drill luckily came through just to the left of the existing SWA for the shed.

It's a bit of a long story but the guy wasn't very happy that I suggested to him that adding RCD protection to the existing shed SWA at the source (main CU) wasn't actually required (armour is bonded at source already and sub-CU has all RCBOs). He was adamant that all buried SWA had to be RCD protected... anyway, I digress... by the time we got the issue of the exposed tails - it was obvious that he was annoyed at me for second-guessing him, so I just stayed clear of him until he was done. He didn't actually add an RCD in the end, stating that "it's your property, so it's up to you".

Anyway, the plot thickens as I've realised he's reduced my shed feed from 63A to 40A (which gives me zero wiggle room for running my power tools in the shed when the hot tub is running) and I cannot source suitable Garo modules to support the higher rating... so looks like I'm going to get my regular electrician to put the shed SWA back into the main CU and run a new 6mm run to the hottub from the Garo DB. Hands are tied now it seems. I'll sort out moving the socket and adding from boxing to tidy things up.

Thanks very much to everyone that has provided help so far, it's greatly appreciated.

Bonus question... 2x continuous 40amp loads running through a single 40A contactor? Is that right? Sorry, I'm obviously just an amateur but I feel like I'm having to second-guess everything at the moment.

 

[nicebutdim]

I can clarify that the new works are the Garo DB for a new EV charger (Tesla Wall Connector Gen3) and the SWA that you see going into a compression gland on the Garo board...

A side note: It just occurred to me after someone noted further up - it doesn't look like the armour has been earthed if they've used a plastic compression fitting... probably something that also needs addressing I imagine, as I'd prefer if any SWA armour on the property is earthed for obvious reasons.

Do we know for certain that this is SWA and, if so, how is it terminated at the other end? I would have guessed tuff sheath cable due to the compression gland and the likelihood of this cable run on the surface externally.

The tails come through directly from the very top right corner of the meter box directly on the other side of the wall. It was a bit of a drill and pray situation and the drill luckily came through just to the left of the existing SWA for the shed.

This may well be why the tails don't enter from the rear.

It's a bit of a long story but the guy wasn't very happy that I suggested to him that adding RCD protection to the existing shed SWA at the source (main CU) wasn't actually required (armour is bonded at source already and sub-CU has all RCBOs). He was adamant that all buried SWA had to be RCD protected... anyway, I digress... by the time we got the issue of the exposed tails - it was obvious that he was annoyed at me for second-guessing him, so I just stayed clear of him until he was done. He didn't actually add an RCD in the end, stating that "it's your property, so it's up to you".

It's possible that RCD protection is required, although I suspect not. It's most certainly not the case that all buried SWA requires such protection.

Anyway, the plot thickens as I've realised he's reduced my shed feed from 63A to 40A (which gives me zero wiggle room for running my power tools in the shed when the hot tub is running) and I cannot source suitable Garo modules to support the higher rating... so looks like I'm going to get my regular electrician to put the shed SWA back into the main CU and run a new 6mm run to the hottub from the Garo DB. Hands are tied now it seems. I'll sort out moving the socket and adding from boxing to tidy things up.

Although we'd be splitting hairs, outgoing 63A + 40A circuits would exceed main switch rating. I've no idea whether or not he may have had good reason for reducing the shed supply. Depending on cable size, length of run, installation method, voltage drop... there may be valid reason for doing this, but equally there may not.

Bonus question... 2x continuous 40amp loads running through a single 40A contactor? Is that right? Sorry, I'm obviously just an amateur but I feel like I'm having to second-guess everything at the moment.

The rating will be 40A per pole and this is another possible reason why shed supply has beed reduced to 40A.

It's often difficult to ascertain remotely where problems between customer and installer lie, but I can certainly see why you have reservations about the work. Clear answers from the contractor may have put your mind at ease, but equally clear answers can start alarm bells ringing.

 

[ipf]

No skilled person would put those into flexible conduit.

Love the penny washers, though...for a bit of class.

...don't really, Can't stand 'em on cleats........even if they do carry a purpose.
What's wrong with 1/4 washers or similar?

 

[Dustydazzler]

No skilled person would put those into flexible conduit.

In a lot of other countries 'All' soft skin cables must be installed in either a rigid plastic conduit, flexible plastic conduit or other suitable no conductive containment unless they are a special hi-tuff hard walled cable.
I know we have a love hate relationship with Copex style conduit in this country, but on a job like this where it is a work shop and you have single cables like that poking from a wall at worktop height I would have used Copex ( just my preference of course other conduits are available)

 

[Aaron b]

Had you asked for the shed to be supplied from the EV board before he started?
It looks like NYY-J as it's got a slight wave to it, it's generally fine to use in domestic environments.

I generally use RCBO's on everything. They are not very expensive so unless there's an operational constraint (like selectivity is important) I can't see how not having it would be acceptable from a risk, cost, effort perspective.
It's true that armoured cables don't need rcd protection but potentially the cable hasn't been installed to requirements like the depth or with tape. An rcd would further limit risk.

Did you ask for no rcd for the EV too?

 

[nicebutdim]

Had you asked for the shed to be supplied from the EV board before he started?
It looks like NYY-J as it's got a slight wave to it, it's generally fine to use in domestic environments.

I generally use RCBO's on everything. They are not very expensive so unless there's an operational constraint (like selectivity is important) I can't see how not having it would be acceptable from a risk, cost, effort perspective.
It's true that armoured cables don't need rcd protection but potentially the cable hasn't been installed to requirements like the depth or with tape. An rcd would further limit risk.

Did you ask for no rcd for the EV too?

OP states that sub board circuits are all protected by rcbo. Assuming ads is met on distribution circuit, it would be reasonable enough to ask that it not be rcd protected.

I agree that the cable cleated below appears to be tuff sheath, but took it to be EV charge point supply. Perhaps the OP could clarify which it is.

I seem to have missed the latest image, despite responding to the post in which it was added. Lack of rcd protection on both circuits raises more questions.

 

[drewzh]

OP states that sub board circuits are all protected by rcbo. Assuming ads is met on distribution circuit, it would be reasonable enough to ask that it not be rcd protected.

I agree that the cable cleated below appears to be tuff sheath, but took it to be EV charge point supply. Perhaps the OP could clarify which it is.

I seem to have missed the latest image, despite responding to the post in which it was added. Lack of rcd protection on both circuits raises more questions.

From all of the advice, I had up to the point of installation, not having an RCD on the correctly installed SWA with a correctly bonded armouring was a more accepted approach. Hence why he insisted on adding it, it conflicted with everything I'd been told/read up to that point.

The singles are meter tails taking supply from henley blocks in the meter box. The reason it wasn't added in the meter box itself was due to a lack of space for an 8-way DB in there.

There's no RCD on either circuit - the EV charger is a Tesla Wall Connector and contains built-in Type A RCD with DC current leakage and the shed isn't on RCD for the above reasons. The SWA itself is protected by the armour being bonded and the endpoint is protected with RCBOs.

 

[mainline]

I’d like to see a pic of the other side of the wall along with pics of the inside of the cabinet and DB’s.

It may have been possible to have come in the back of the db, it also may have been possible to have followed the tail run that feeds the main Cu.

What comes to mind here is “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

 

[drewzh]

Had you asked for the shed to be supplied from the EV board before he started?
It looks like NYY-J as it's got a slight wave to it, it's generally fine to use in domestic environments.

I generally use RCBO's on everything. They are not very expensive so unless there's an operational constraint (like selectivity is important) I can't see how not having it would be acceptable from a risk, cost, effort perspective.
It's true that armoured cables don't need rcd protection but potentially the cable hasn't been installed to requirements like the depth or with tape. An rcd would further limit risk.

Did you ask for no rcd for the EV too?

Yes, I asked for the existing shed circuit to also be PEN fault/SPD protected... that's all. I wish I had been more specific about the fact they shouldn't drop my shed feed from 63A to 40A, as I can't find any higher current Garo modules to upgrade it now and need to find another solution.

We have RCBOs on the shed CU. They're not required at the source as the SWA is protected by earthing of the armour. The cable has been installed at the correct depths and with the correct tape also... I know because installed it.

The EV charger has an inbuilt Type-A RCD with DC current leakage, so no RCD is required there.

 

[drewzh]

Do we know for certain that this is SWA and, if so, how is it terminated at the other end? I would have guessed tuff sheath cable due to the compression gland and the likelihood of this cable run on the surface externally.



This may well be why the tails don't enter from the rear.



It's possible that RCD protection is required, although I suspect not. It's most certainly not the case that all buried SWA requires such protection.



Although we'd be splitting hairs, outgoing 63A + 40A circuits would exceed main switch rating. I've no idea whether or not he may have had good reason for reducing the shed supply. Depending on cable size, length of run, installation method, voltage drop... there may be valid reason for doing this, but equally there may not.


The rating will be 40A per pole and this is another possible reason why shed supply has beed reduced to 40A.

It's often difficult to ascertain remotely where problems between customer and installer lie, but I can certainly see why you have reservations about the work. Clear answers from the contractor may have put your mind at ease, but equally clear answers can start alarm bells ringing.

Yes definitely why - I guess in my naivety and lack of understanding of what's correct - I just expected that he'd use the cavity or install it in the skin of the building with conduit or something (I don't mind plastering).

RCD is definitely not required and I knew from research that it's more common than not to earth the armour and leave RCD protection off from the source.

Yes, you are right. I've since decided to bypass the PEN/SPD DB with the shed and feed the hot tub directly on the existing 40A instead of with a new 35m run of 6mm SWA. I always regretted not installing 16mm for the shed (rather than 10mm we were recommended to install) and this negates that issue also. I don't think there was any reason for dropping to 40A other than that's the DB he had with the 40A contactor for PEN fault - I really don't think he gave it that much thought.

Yes, exactly - playing devil's advocate on myself - I could have done more research and worked the circuit out myself, but the EV charger company that did the install were somewhat vague with the technicals until they were here doing the work and it's not always easy to understand the implications of things before-hand if you don't know what it is that could go wrong. In my defence though - I didn't expect them to alter the capabilities of my existing circuit without informing me. I only found out after they had left.

 

[nicebutdim]

Yes, I asked for the existing shed circuit to also be PEN fault/SPD protected... that's all. I wish I had been more specific about the fact they shouldn't drop my shed feed from 63A to 40A, as I can't find any higher current Garo modules to upgrade it now and need to find another solution.

We have RCBOs on the shed CU. They're not required at the source as the SWA is protected by earthing of the armour. The cable has been installed at the correct depths and with the correct tape also... I know because installed it.

The EV charger has an inbuilt Type-A RCD with DC current leakage, so no RCD is required there.

I'm unclear on a few points and uncertain about others.

Is the shed fed by the outgoing cable bellow existing board and has it been extended through to new board?

Is charge point fed by outgoing cable from new board and are you certain that it is swa?

I'm not familiar with tesla charge points, so perhaps someone could clarify if rcd protection can be omitted at source.

Edit: second point since clarified.

 

[drewzh]

I’d like to see a pic of the other side of the wall along with pics of the inside of the cabinet and DB’s.

It may have been possible to have come in the back of the db, it also may have been possible to have followed the tail run that feeds the main Cu.

What comes to mind here is “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

I do think with some extra finesse, he definitely could have hidden the cables.

 

[drewzh]

I'm unclear on a few points and uncertain about others.

Is the shed fed by the outgoing cable bellow existing board and has it been extended through to new board?

Correct

Is charge point fed by outgoing cable from new board and are you certain that it is swa?

Yes and yes, definitely SWA - I saw him hacksawing the armour. There's a concern I have about no metallic gland, so I'm assuming the armouring hasn't been earthed.

I'm not familiar with tesla charge points, so perhaps someone could clarify if rcd protection can be omitted at source.

To my knowledge, it can be omitted as the requirements for a EV charger to be Type B protected are covered by the Type A + DC current leakage protection.

Edit: second point since clarified.

 

[Aaron b]

Correct

Yes and yes, definitely SWA - I saw him hacksawing the armour. There's a concern I have about no metallic gland, so I'm assuming the armouring hasn't been earthed.

To my knowledge, it can be omitted as the requirements for a EV charger to be Type B protected are covered by the Type A + DC current leakage protection.

In most cases the rcd within the charger doesn't meet regs so a external one is also provided. Generally because of the rcd-dd only a type A double pole device can be used instead of the type B, that doesn't mean not required though. It sounds as if you took over the design responsibility on this.

 

[drewzh]

In most cases the rcd within the charger doesn't meet regs so a external one is also provided. Generally because of the rcd-dd only a type A double pole device can be used instead of the type B, that doesn't mean not required though. It sounds as if you took over the design responsibility on this.

This was specified not by myself, but by the EV charger installer (it just happened to conform to what I already knew). From research, it does seem that other installers are also following this approach with the Gen3 Tesla charger. I'm certainly not worried about it.