code 2 or 3

[nvhelectrical]

is standard grey twin and earth cable in direct sunlight (exposed to direct uv light) a code 2 or 3.

see regs note below

5.7 Garden Lighting and power

5.7.2 Fixed cables

PVC cables must be protected against direct exposure to sunlight. Cables must be perminanently fixed in a protected location or mechanically protected or buried.

Later on in the same chapter it states -

Cables need to be shielded against prolonger exposure to direct sunlight, particularly grey and white PVC cables. Cables with a black or rubber sheath are recommended if direct exposure cannot be avioded. Ultraviolet light from the sun will degrad pvc unless shielded will need replacing after 15 years. Black pvc and rubber cables have a resonable life outdoors.
thanks neil

 

[JohnW2]

see regs note below
5.7 Garden Lighting and power
5.7.2 Fixed cables

What 'regs' are you talking about? Those are not BS7671 regulation numbers.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

They are from the Electricians' Guide to the Building Regulations which in these quotes is merely expanding on the Wiring Regulations.

BS7671 522.11 is very short and refers to significant radiation.


It depends on the situation but I would think definitely not Code 2.

 

[Adam_151]

Its up to you to decide whether its

‘Potentially dangerous’ ( and therefore)
Urgent remedial action (is) required

or simply whether

Improvement (would be) recommended

Its your name on the bottom of the sheet as inspector...

If it was my name, I'd perhaps take a view on the current condition of the cable, the number of years its been into get to that condition, the amount of sunlight it is exposed to as well as whether it is at risk of mechanical damage. And come up with a suitable code, recommendation and recommended next test interval

 

[JohnW2]

They are from the Electricians' Guide to the Building Regulations which in these quotes is merely expanding on the Wiring Regulations. BS7671 522.11 is very short and refers to significant radiation.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I thought that the actual reg was very vague.

It depends on the situation but I would think definitely not Code 2.

I would certainly agree with that. In fact, even in terms of the material quoted, if it's been there for less than 15 years, it might well not deserve a code at all, would it? Furthermore, provided that it is well fixed and therefore not at risk of moving/flexing, even PVC cable which has become more brittle due to UV exposure is not much of a hazard - I'm sure that we've all seen outdoor grey PVC which has been there for a very long time!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

it might well not deserve a code at all, would it?

Agreed.

 

[ericmark]

I have always thought that improvement recommended is a little too vague. One could pick out items which are not actually in breach of regulations as needing improvement in fact many do as the regulations are not retrospective so something installed in 2001 which does not comply with 2008 regulations is not actually in breach of the regulations.

So in general we need to use common sense and look at how many items have been listed. Fill a report with code 3's and the recipient is likely to ignore the lot.

I have seen twin and earth outside under the eves so out of direct sun light which has be there 20 years and will likely do another 20 years but also seen it where is clearly needs renewing.

There is noting to stop one entering comments.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, I thought that the actual reg was very vague.

What's very vague about where solar or ultraviolet radiation of consequence is experienced or expected.... ?

 

[JohnW2]

What's very vague about where solar or ultraviolet radiation of consequence is experienced or expected.... ?

I would have thought that was fairly obvious .... "of consequence" (and, to some extent, "expected") hardly represent quantification, hence inevitably leading to people having to make (undoubtedly varying) individual judgements.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

What's very vague about where solar or ultraviolet radiation of consequence is experienced or expected.... ?

That is different than my book.

522.11 states:
Where significant solar radiation (AN2) or ultraviolet radiation is experienced or expected, a wiring system for the conditions shall be selected or adequate shielding shall be provided ...

 

[JohnW2]

What's very vague about where solar or ultraviolet radiation of consequence is experienced or expected.... ?

That is different than my book. 522.11 states: Where significant solar radiation (AN2) or ultraviolet radiation is experienced or expected, a wiring system for the conditions shall be selected or adequate shielding shall be provided ...

So it does (522.11.1) - and it was also the same in the BRB, so I wonder what BAS was quoting from!

In any event, it doesn't alter what I said - "significant" is no more explicit or quantified than "of consequence", so I still class it as 'vague' (requiring individual judgement).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... as the regulations are not retrospective so something installed in 2001 which does not comply with 2008 regulations is not actually in breach of the regulations.

As I've just written in another thread, despite seemingly common belief that they do, the regs do not seem to say that. Unless I'm missing something, they say nothing about 'not retrospective' - but, rather, they say that, if things were compliant with regulations in force when installed, but are not compliant with current regs. this "does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or required upgrading". To my mind, that definitely does not mean that such things are automatically "OK" but, rather, that an expert judgement is required.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So it does (522.11.1) - and it was also the same in the BRB, so I wonder what BAS was quoting from!

I wasn't quoting from anything.

I was rewording the regulation to use the apposite definition of "significant", as you claimed it was very vague.

But then you started claiming that "of consequence", i.e. something which has consequences, was also very vague.

Since you seem determined not to use the English language properly there's probably no wording possible which would satisfy you.

I know what "significant" means, and I'm amazed to discover that you don't.