Do these internally exposed meter tails require mechanical protection?

[drewzh]

Hi,

I was hoping someone with a little more insight might be able to shed some light on a potential issue I have, as I can't seem to find another example online where this specific question that has been answered.

What you can see in the attached photograph is meter tails (single insulated + sheathed), coming in to supply an EV distribution board. It seems from research that most installations are buried with additional conduits for protection, so I'm not sure what the specific rules are around clipped-direct meter tails.

The regs are a little hazy, but should these tails, being situated in a garage workshop, in close proximity to daily tool usage and storage, have further mechanical protection, in the form of metal conduit, or is this perfectly reasonable for a new install?

Many thanks in advance,
Drew

 

[rewireIT]

It's terrible, I would be ashamed to put my name to that.

If we ignore the fact that they're coming through the wall, the only thing wrong with it is the cleats don't line up with each other. What else is wrong with it?

Boards are level, cables are cleated, glands are all done properly. It's not exactly been lashed in.

 

[westward10]

I agree I can't see a problem with it.

 

[mainline]

If we ignore the fact that they're coming through the wall, the only thing wrong with it is the cleats don't line up with each other. What else is wrong with it?

Boards are level, cables are cleated, glands are all done properly.

I didn't say it wasn't compliant, as that's an unknown, not knowing the run of those tails or how they are connected.

That install looks as though there was no planning or pride in their work.

 

[Aaron b]

It looks much better than a lot I see and I agree that boxing it in is a good idea. I suppose it comes down to what was asked for on whether they have provided the correct thing.

The other cable is also not armoured judging by the stuffing gland.

 

[Avo Mk8]

If it was me, I'd give up any hope that the installing electrician could or would make it any better, and tidy it up myself - boxing in all the cables and moving the twin socket to the right and (if you plan to continue using the toolbox as a bench!) up a bit, and put the socket into the front of the boxing in!
At least it will then be accessible with the toolbox in place!

 

[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?