BS 7671 wording for CPCs

[Softus]

I've just replaced a faulty 45A shower isolator (pull cord), which had been damaged by overheating.

The overheating was caused by poor terminal connections.

I cut back to good insulation (and to good copper) and installed a new switch, so all is lovely again.

A second fault was the CPCs from both supply and load cables weren't connected to anything. On the invoice I want to point out this major failing, so please can someone tell me which part of BS 7671 this contravenes?

Thanks.

 

[2face]

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/index.jsp?universe=home

try these guys .. they have a tech and usually spot on .

 

[ricicle]

Are you saying the CPC was not continuous from the CU to the shower?

 

[Softus]

2face - thanks for the link; much appreciated.

ricicle - that's exactly what I'm saying. I have a suspicion that it was installed by the landlord, and I want to get the words and references right on the invoice.

 

[ricicle]

Then it fails the very first test for that circuit, continuity of CPC (Reg 713-02 ), which for an item of class 1 equipment is dangerous as I'm sure you know.

The above reg no. is in my yellow (1997) book as it's the closet one I have to hand.Might have changed, just check to make sure

 

[Softus]

Then it fails the very first test for that circuit, continuity of CPC (Reg 713-02 ), which for an item of class 1 equipment is dangerous as I'm sure you know.

You betcha - it's knowing that it's dangerous that is leading me to recommend an entire safety inspection; I just needed to know the Regs reference so I can quote it.

Am I right in thinking that an inspection would have discovered this fault (i.e. R2 too high)? If so, what's the correct name for such an inspection?

 

[Spark123]

Section 413, Protection against indirect contact, Earthed Equipotential Bonding and Automatic Disconnection of Supply (EEBADS). Is it a TN type supply?

 

[ricicle]

712-01-03 (i) connection of conductors

(viii) (c) protection against indirect contact:
presence of protective conductors

Yes all picked up on inspection prior to picking up your tester

 

[RF Lighting]

Testing for continuity of CPCs is one of the tests required for initial verification. This should have been carried out before the circuit was energised, and it would have failled the R1+R2 test and the R2 test (you ust do at least one of these), and also the installer would not have been able to get a Zs reading from the circuit.

 

[Softus]

I would have to go back and check the supply type.

The service head and cutout were behind a panel obscured by heavy furniture and piles of stuff. It was enough to fight my way through to the cupboard door to get at the CU and the shower MCB.

Testing for continuity of CPCs is one of the tests required for initial verification. This should have been carried out before the circuit was energised, and it would have failled the R1+R2 test and the R2 test (you ust do at least one of these), and also the installer would not have been able to get a Zs reading from the circuit.

I sort of knew that, hence I wanted to limit my involvement, and instead get the landlord/agent to someone suitably qualified (which I'm not) to perform an inspection, because I don't trust the landlord.

What would be the name of the type of inspection that needs to be done?

 

[Spark123]

I was going to vote for 413-02-06 (TN system), - Each exposed conductive part of the installation shall be connected by a protective conductor to the main earthing terminal of the installation and the that terminal shall be connected to earthed point of the supply source in accordance with regulations 542-01-02, 542-01-03 and 542-01-05, as appropriate.

 

[ricicle]

Periodic inspection report (PIR)

 

[Softus]

I was going to vote for 413-02-06 (TN system), - Each exposed conductive part of the installation shall be connected by a protective conductor to the main earthing terminal of the installation and the that terminal shall be connected to earthed point of the supply source in accordance with regulations 542-01-02, 542-01-03 and 542-01-05, as appropriate.

OK, but is the plastic-cased shower unit an "exposed conductive part"?

Periodic inspection report (PIR)

Thanks ricicle.

 

[Spark123]

The outer casing doesn't really constitue an exposed conductive part if it is plastic, however looking at fault conditions and metal boilers in contact with water (and waters conductance) is where the danger can arise.

 

[Paul Barker]

did he check the pressure?