Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 22 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 1859 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

"potentially dangerous" or improvement required re: missing covers on conduit inspection fittings

psychicwarrior
Taking in to account the guided definition of "potentially dangerous" and any IP rating compromise (and loss of mechanical protection):


If I proffered that missing covers/lids from a steel conduit inspection fittings was not worthy of being described as potentially dangerous, would you agree, or argue it was ?


Would you be persuaded one way or the other depending on the 'accessibility' factor ?


My take: if its out of the way from fingers etc, then i'd say not potentially dangerous. If it was readily accessible for touch/impact, then I would be thinking otherwise.


Reading back on some [I think] well known guidance regarding periodic inspections, there is a bit regarding where cable sheathing is not taken into an enclosure leaving the basic protected conductors exposed to touch; in some conditions it is considered as not "potentially dangerous" but only requiring "improvement" and from past threads this has provoked some interesting debate and opinions; is there a difference from these situations to the above missing lids question (or even indeed trunking lid missing or unused cable access holes in trunking) ?


Hope you are all keeping well and enjoying the 'new' forum ! :-)

Cheers

Habs
  • 0
    It has been suggested in the past, by one of the un-named, that all things pertaining to life has an element of risk associated with it and by implication could be regarded as potentially dangerous.

    Mentioned in dispatches for improvement by all means but only coded if it could be handled by the young, unwary, careless or stupid.


    Legh

  • 0
    As a personal opinion, and I can't see what you can, so it is still your judgement, to me, there are two tests.


    1) what is actually exposed - flex, basic insulated singles, choc bloc joints, some blob of a twist and tape horror ? from left to right more serious.


    2) is it credible that it can be dangerous ? - something that is within easy reach of small and wandering fingers or scissors and a sharp compass at a school or playgroup is far more serious than the same item 3m up the wall or on the ceiling of a warehouse, also consider if it can get wet or damaged, so outside or near some wet industial or agricultural process would be more of a problem than somewhere dry and indoors, regardless of if the occupants are sensible.


    So depending on what and where, this could be anything from "stop everyone working and make it safe right now" to "no action is really needed any time soon".

    As in many cases, professional judgement of the specific situation is needed.
  • 0
    It's a tricky one. From a common sense point of view all our methods of protecting against electric shock ensure that a fatal shock can't occur should basic insulation fail for whatever reason - so it seems obvious that there would be a shock risk if someone could directly touch basic insulation when that insulation had failed.


    Yet the current regulations require enclosures, trunking, conduit etc to be either IP2X or IPXXB. IP2X makes sense as it stops fingers entering the enclosure - so preventing the basic insulation being touched, but IPXXB allows the test finger to enter the enclosure just as long as it can't touch hazardous parts - so the test passes where the conductor is covered by basic insulation. To me that approach doesn't make much sense when you're trying to protect people from basic insulation failure.


    Ditto for IP4X and IPXXD for accessible upper surfaces of such enclosures - the IPXXD test actually allows holes in the enclosure up to 35mm wide (and a long as you like).


    You could of course call upon placing out of reach instead - but that doesn't really have general application. (Other trades using ladders etc)


       - Andy.
  • 0
    Well i should have clarified that it [conduit] contained insulated singles and all in good order from when originally installed.


    @AJJ, I've been through that thought process too regarding IP.  :-)


    I think 'accessibility' (and then perhaps by who) is the factor that would sway most when looking at similar issues ... all other things being in decent order so to speak.


    Using professional judgement is an interesting one, @mapj; as in line up 10 professionals and see the variety of opinions unless there is some clear issue all agree on.  :-)


    Regards
  • 0

    line up 10 professionals and see the variety of opinions




    Quite so - but the likelhood is that 9/10 of them are various 'right answers'.-  which is sort of my point, I'd expect that we agree on the extremes, and are a bit mixed on the corner cases, where you could toss a coin as to the best recommendation, as it is marginal, so whatever you do, either result is a good outcome, with varying degrees of strictness. The one to avoid is being badly wrong of course.

    Who decides what then depends a bit on personal background - if you mostly have worked in aerospace or on medical kit you may be likely to be less flexible than if you have worked a lot installing farm equipment, or working on installations in the 3rd world, which are not equivalent, but our  varying experiances calibrate the personal sense of 'seriousness' of some departures from the ideal.

    One man's untidy but OK, will be be another's inadequate labelling and segragation for safe isolation.


  • 0
    One informed opinion is from the NAPIT EICR Code breakers book - Section 5.4: There is lid missing exposing single insulated conductors. Code 2. And they reference 521.10.1.


    Personally I would give it a code 3 if it was in the office suspended ceiling for example / out of reach without the use of a ladder.
  • 0
    @tatty - but *why* would 'they'‍ prescribe code 2 do you think; would there be a situation where is not considered "potentially dangerous" I wonder.


    re: countering the ingress protection reference in that Reg: No live parts accessible; insulation in tact; perhaps whole piece out of general reach too; just a piece of mechanical protection gone missing, so just needs lid fitting back on....potentially dangerous....perhaps everything can be that in some situation...even a missing label informing of some potentially harmful experience to the unwary   :-)


    Just goes to show though.  As I say, I think accessibility and perhaps environment makes a difference between potentially dangerous or not. Perhaps NAPIT are just belt an braces and would also deviate on some situations...may be not.


    Thank you though for posting that. Interesting to know.



  • 0

    psychicwarrior:

    If I proffered that missing covers/lids from a steel conduit inspection fittings was not worthy of being described as potentially dangerous, would you agree, or argue it was ?




    I wouldn't be too happy with missing covers from outdoor BESA boxes because water would almost certainly get in and damage the wiring. However, unless (as mapj1 has suggested) there be junctions in the BESA boxes (or other enclosures) I cannot see any immediate threat, so provided that it is indoors, C3 for me.


    If all it requires is lids, remediation is hardly difficult.

  • 0
    But the advice from the likes of NAPIT is intended for use by those who are unsure what to do and need to look it up, and must therefore must be worded as generic advice to cover all possible cases, and that must include the worst - so in all cases what it recommends  will be safe, but sometimes it will be excessively strict. This is the weakness /strength of a back and white "code"  approach - the strength is that it gives consistent results, the price is that it sometimes requires some nugatory work.

  • 0

    mapj1:

    But the advice from the likes of NAPIT ... the price is that it sometimes requires some nugatory work.




    Or you could just find the evidence, compare it with the regulations, and provide an opinion. Alternatively, and put simply, THINK.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines