Dangerous conditions found during CU change.

[Ian1981]

If changing the Cu and you complete a zs test on say a radial circuit that you have connected into the Cu, it turns out that there is no cpc present at the point of test, surely it can’t be suggested that you just connect the circuit anyway and leave a comment on the EIC?
The comments box is for non compliance’s to be noted that do not give rise to potential danger and immediate danger.

 

[Deleted account]

Regs wise I think you are correct teletrix. You shouldn't leave an installation with a potentially dangerous situation after a cu change,

however I think Essex is also correct. I cannot force people to get work done they don't want or cannot afford done.

At the end of the day a new up to date residual current protected board is going to make the whole installation safer under fault conditions that it was before. So in court you can explain that to a judge if nessissary and show your notes on the eir (comments on existing installation).
The potentially dangerous situation is going to be there if you do the work or don't. You haven't made it worst, in fact you've made it safer and made the customer aware.

 

[Nigel]

If changing the Cu and you complete a zs test on say a radial circuit that you have connected into the Cu, it turns out that there is no cpc present at the point of test, surely it can’t be suggested that you just connect the circuit anyway and leave a comment on the EIC?
The comments box is for non compliance’s to be noted that do not give rise to potential danger and immediate danger.

There are two boxes. One for non-conformances and one for comments on the existing installation.

 

[Ian1981]

There are two boxes. One for non-conformances and one for comments on the existing installation.

No, one is for comments on the existing installation and one is for departures which if you as the installer have departed from bs7671 then you must record this on the EIC

 

[Nigel]

No, one is for comments on the existing installation and one is for departures which if you as the installer have departed from bs7671 then you must record this on the EIC

Same thing. You are being silly.

 

[Flanders]

This is why an installation should be checked before blindly going in a changing a board, As it was said early carry out the testing before you do the board change , if there are any issues Like no bonding, low IR , broken ring , damaged accessories contact the boss so he she can explain to the customer the risks and cost .

 

[Ian1981]

Same thing. You are being silly.

No silly is going out now and trick or treating at 36 years old getting dragged along by my 4 year old boy

 

[Deleted account]

No silly is going out now and trick or treating at 36 years old getting dragged along by my 4 year old boy

Get away. It's you doing the trick or treat dragging your boy. Go on admit it.

 

[Ian1981]

Get away. It's you doing the trick or treat dragging your boy. Go on admit it.

Yep I’ll take all the good sweets too

 

[Ian1981]

Going back to the debate
A departure needs to comply with regulations 120.3 , 133.1.3 and 133.5 where as comments on the existing installation in the case of additions or alterations are regulation 644.1.2 ( 18th BBB)
Two completely different things.
Note 644.1.2 says any defect that is revealed during inspection and testing shall be corrected before the certificate is issue during alterations and additions

 

[Ian1981]

Going back to the debate
A departure needs to comply with regulations 120.3 , 133.1.3 and 133.5 where as comments on the existing installation in the case of additions or alterations are regulation 644.1.2 ( 18th BBB)
Two completely different things.
Note 644.1.2 says any defect that is revealed during inspection and testing shall be corrected before the certificate is issued after alterations or additional works and considering a Cu change is an alteration that requires certification, then it would fall into this regulation
See regulation 644 in general

 

[Deleted account]

Must be important to tell us twice!

 

[oracle]

Must be important to tell us twice!

Bang on mate!

 

[Flanders]

Bang on mate!

Sound like that the best way. turn on the electric and see if it goes Bang

 

[Deleted account]

Sound like that the best way. turn on the electric and see if it goes Bang

The bang test. The old fail safe method.

 

[oracle]

The bang test. The old fail safe method.

I know a wetpants shorts out water heater, boiler etc to "isolate" the supply.

 

[Andy78]

You have followed the Regs. The distribution board replacement is what you have done. You aren't responsible for the entire installation.

I was meaning 132.16
No alteration shall be carried out unless it has been ascertained that the rating and condition of any existing equipment will be adequate for the altered circumstances.

I take existing equipment to encompass final circuits and their condition in relation to safety. I wouldn't ignore the other part of that reg (not quoted) regarding earthing and bonding on a DB change so don't see that I can ignore the quoted part.


I also take note of the EAWR....

Regulation 4
(1) All systems shall at all times be of such construction as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.
(2) As may be necessary to prevent danger, all systems shall be maintained so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, such danger.

 

[Risteard]

Note 644.1.2 says any defect that is revealed during inspection and testing shall be corrected before the certificate is issue during alterations and additions

Your certificate does not cover the existing installation, however. Your certificate should very clearly state that it is in respect of the replacement of the distribution board only. Disconnection times obviously need to be verified as part of this (i.e. Zs testing) - this doesn't mean that you have to tear apart existing circuits.

I've found circuits with the sheath not entering enclosures - therefore basic insulation is exposed. This is clearly a C2 defect, however it does not justify me refusing to re-energise the circuit. I simply need to make them aware of the issues, and what they do then is their own business. Obviously if there were exposed live parts or an immediate fire risk (i.e. a C1 issue) then I would not energise it in the interests of safety without addressing that (at least with a sticking plaster).

 

[Ian1981]

I think the moral of the story is a suitable assessment of the existing installation should be taken before you blindly go ahead and change a Cu.
This doesn’t mean necessarily that an eicr should be carried out, but suitable inspection be preformed, this is my opinion anyway.

 

[Ian1981]

Your certificate does not cover the existing installation, however. Your certificate should very clearly state that it is in respect of the replacement of the distribution board only. Disconnection times obviously need to be verified as part of this (i.e. Zs testing) - this doesn't mean that you have to tear apart existing circuits.

I've found circuits with the sheath not entering enclosures - therefore basic insulation is exposed. This is clearly a C2 defect, however it does not justify me refusing to re-energise the circuit. I simply need to make them aware of the issues, and what they do then is their own business. Obviously if there were exposed live parts or an immediate fire risk (i.e. a C1 issue) then I would not energise it in the interests of safety without addressing that (at least with a sticking plaster).

I stand by what I said.
If I did a pre test on say a water heater circuit and found that the cpc was not present due to say a breakage then I would not be energising that circuit