Posted By A Campbell I'Ve noticed that when checking condition of MCB boards and that they are well identified fuse switches. I have noticed that where there is no fuse switch there isn't a blank cover placed over the gap. Is there a requirement to place covers over such gaps or just best practice? many thanks

Posted By A Campbell Thanks David, I was looking at putting it down as quality of workmanship issue

Posted By A Campbell Thanks for the detailed info Paul, I was also thinking upon the same lines regarding the seriousness of the workmanship and this gives plenty of ammunition to proceed with a more direct approach.

Posted By DaGuru Sorry to jump in by I may have a similar situation. I was carrying out a warehouse audit and spotted a fuse box (looks similar to a domestic one found in house) with 5 switches occupied and 9 bays with nothing in them. As you'd find in a house fuse box the only thing protecting the switches is a clear perspex cover. I take it we are talking about the same thing here? Im about to highlight this to the engineering management, but want to be able to point exactly where this requirement is stipulated. Thanks

Posted By Paul Skyrme Peter, As the original poster stated they were checking boards and asking for advice then I surmised that they were an unskilled person, and thus the boards were accessible to unskilled persons. This seemed a reasonable assumption given the nature of the question? I am obviously aware of the boards to which you refer Peter. ;-)) I have some of them in my place and fit them where possible to customers installations because they can be very safe even with the main covers off! The NICEIC area engineer that assesses us said he thinks that a person could work live in these boards blindfold without getting a shock! I did look through the NIC & IET docs last night and kept it as simple as possible. There are other options to secure the board, for example by fixing or locking the front cover closed with locks needing keys or fixings needing tools, however you know that Pete don't you! The point I tried to make was that as it appeared that the boards were accessible to unskilled persons no competent electrical contractor should have left the blanks out. (Full stop.) I have not yet seen a board manuf' that says that blanks are not needed even the ones I refer to earlier. I have to be careful not to breach AUG's so I can't mention products. Pete, there may be something in GN1 or GN5? GN1 has been updated for 17th, but GN5 has not yet, my copy (16th) refers to 16th regs 412-03, 471-05, Pt2, Appx. 1 & BS EN 60439 (don't have this, Peter you probably do?). GN5 states that generally all surfaces must be to IP2x, basically so you cant get a BS finger in or anything bigger than 12.5mm diameter. Yes believe it or not there is a British Standard finger for these things. If the cover over the cb's needs a tool to open (NOT a coin - specifically stated) then with suitable labels I surmise from the info in GN5 that blanks would NOT be needed, otherwise in all situations they would, it appears, regardless of how good the boards are (even if expensive ;-O ) Paul.

Posted By Paul Skyrme DaGuru, I would suggest that if these are as described then they are almost certainly live. If you can take a picture and email it, I will try to identify the board for you. My email is accessible from the forum address. Paul

Posted By Peter Still Paul, Sorry, I missed your post while I was responding to DaGuru. I'd made the same assumption that the origimal poster wasn't an electrically skilled person, hence the apparent confusion between MCBs and fuse switches, but H & S officers often have access to electrical switchrooms so I didn't also assume that the board was accessible to unskilled persons. Clearly it is good practice that unused ways should be blanked off, if that's the way the board in question is designed. However the original question was if there is a requirement to fit blanking plates or if it is just good practice, and the answer can only be "it depends...". The Guidance Notes you refer to are just that - guidance. Also they are not peer reviewed in the same way as a standard would be, so do not carry the degree of consensus that e.g. BS 7671 does. Yes, I have all parts of the BS EN 60439 series, and its intended replacement 61439, but that's only a standard for the product as it leaves the factory, and doesn't deal with the product's use. Peter

Posted By Peter Still Paul, The IET and BSI have a joint committee JPEL/64 which interprets international standards and prduces BS7671, the Wiring 'Regs'. The GNs are prepared by IET staff, and reviewed by an IET panel, but their content is not subject to the same scrutiny and as a result they are sometimes wrong. I agree that 412.6.2.1 Requires IPXXB or IP2X, as you say finger proof. However that applies when the basic protection against contact with live parts depends on the enclosure. In some designs that protection is provided by insulation, or by obstacles, or placing out of reach. Yes, the equipment standards specify instructions for installation and use, and BS7671 refers to the installation of equipment in accordance with the instructions, as mentioned in an earlier post. The issue of H & S officers/advisors enetering electrical operating areas has been discussed before on this forum. I feel they should be competent to know their limitations and not touch anything but should raise any concerns with specialists - whih the original poster has done by asking this forum. Whether they should enter such areas alone is a good question, to which the standard answer is that it depends on a risk assessment. I would say no in most cases. Peter