eicr and test help

[bobby101]

hi all i would like some advice if possible, i came across a situation that is annoying me, a small retail outlet a tp&n db fed of 15mtr run of swa which is controlled via a seperate isolator at cable head

1: the db didnt have a, frying pan or a seperate earth from swa to the met, which i would consider to be the main earth bond, should i just highlight this and just state db fed from swa if this is the case how should i rate the catagory in the eicr

2: the main isolator at cable head had trunking between cable head and isolator, the trunkning was missing the lid and main tails were bent in such a way that no lid woud possibly fit the trunking, which was undersized but the area was behind a cuboard door comments please

 

[malcolmsanford]

hi all i would like some advice if possible, i came across a situation that is annoying me, a small retail outlet a tp&n db fed of 15mtr run of swa which is controlled via a seperate isolator at cable head

1: the db didnt have a, frying pan or a seperate earth from swa to the met, which i would consider to be the main earth bond, should i just highlight this and just state db fed from swa if this is the case how should i rate the catagory in the eicr I assumed you meant the banjo tag, but we all call it different things I guess. As the SWA is classed as an exposed conductive part and if it is not earthed then reg 411.4.2 is not being adhered to and so I would code that a 2. Is there a CPC in the SWA, ie a 3rd core? Have you checked for continuity, if the trunking is metal and the DB metal also it might be giving you an earth path, if it is then really you can't code it anything.

2: the main isolator at cable head had trunking between cable head and isolator, the trunkning was missing the lid and main tails were bent in such a way that no lid woud possibly fit the trunking, which was undersized but the area was behind a cuboard door comments pleaseIf the main tails are single insulation ie not the double sheathed then by not being able to fit the lid then they are contravening reg 521.10.1 and again for that I would code it a 2. This is before we even start to use good workmanship etc etc

............................

 

[bobby101]

............................

hi thanks for replying and the supplying the regs nos most userfull i would like to answer your question with relation to the swa question there was no seperate cpc in the swa just tp&n

 

[Dean Williams]

haha frying pan, not heard that term before. made me laugh