For a switchboard in zone 2 of damp area. Fixed water container (sink) (assuming in cupboard under sink is still in zone)
Switchboard not permitted 3000
Not permitted 3001 2022 for new install or ewof check
But for 3001 2008 ewof check c6/C7 and nothing to not give ewof from what I can see
Part 1 mentions this, quite vauge 1.7.4 Attached
I cant find anything in esr.
Thoughts in regards to ewof and part 1 check.
CI switchboard in damp situation
Re: CI switchboard in damp situation
Further research to add.
It says on sb. Tested to bs7176.
I checked an uk standards have no zones for open water container only baths see link
https://18th-edition.org.uk/bathroom-zones/
So it must comply with bs7176.
I pretty sure I was told at recent ewrb refresher we can comply with recognised standards like uk standards in some situations at put on coc. The example given for this was testing type b rcds with a non type b rcd tester as allowed in bs7176.
Also 3001 2022 gives guidance for import checked.
It says if from UK import checklist to cat 2.( photo attached)
As only part 1 and ewof check required thinking now it may be ok to remain in location.
Note from photo I'm aware other things still need changed.
It says on sb. Tested to bs7176.
I checked an uk standards have no zones for open water container only baths see link
https://18th-edition.org.uk/bathroom-zones/
So it must comply with bs7176.
I pretty sure I was told at recent ewrb refresher we can comply with recognised standards like uk standards in some situations at put on coc. The example given for this was testing type b rcds with a non type b rcd tester as allowed in bs7176.
Also 3001 2022 gives guidance for import checked.
It says if from UK import checklist to cat 2.( photo attached)
As only part 1 and ewof check required thinking now it may be ok to remain in location.
Note from photo I'm aware other things still need changed.
- Attachments
-
Re: CI switchboard in damp situation
Had prepared detailed answer, including WoEF process for imports under new edition
Lost it all when posting, as had been disconnected.
wrote this (shorter) version - locked out again\but this time remembered to copy before submitting
Very frustrating.
Looks like the old bug is back, and site management needs to tweak the settings
-------------------
1 switchboard in zone 2 of damp area.
Correct not part of a WoEF check for NZ-built CI.
But not compliant for new-build, as per ESR 60
Older unit may have complied when installed; so ESR 113 allows to continue in service
So not something to get too hung up about.
2 Fixed water container (sink) (assuming in cupboard under sink is still in zone)
Not in the Zone. Figs are indicative only, definition of Zones os in the relevant clause.
In this case 6.2.2.2(b); where there is not even an implication that the Zone extends back underneath. Therefore it does not.
Perfectly simple, it's about protection from direct splashing, and water doesn't splash around corners.
3 Part 1 mentions this, quite vauge 1.7.4 Attached
There is also 1.5.14. Like 1.7.4, applies at all times and in all places.
Section 6 is additional requirements for some types of damp situation; and applies as well rather than instead.
But as long as the swbd is suitable for location, eg IP rating, not something to fail part 1 assessment.
4 It says on sb. Tested to bs7176.
I checked an uk standards have no zones for open water container only baths see link
https://18th-edition.org.uk/bathroom-zones/
So it must comply with bs7176.
Not necessarily true. The label amounts to a claim of compliance.
Which -when (if?) the new Standard is cited - will affect how the CI will need to be treated for issue of a WoEF.
Until then, not relevant.
5 I pretty sure I was told at recent ewrb refresher we can comply with recognised standards like uk standards in some situations at put on coc. The example given for this was testing type b rcds with a non type b rcd tester as allowed in bs7176.
the statement is - at best - misleadingly incomplete; regardless whether you've remembered correctly what was said.
Unfortunately many things are claimed by people running 'competency" refreshers that are off the mark, some just simply not true .
For equipment; compliance with Standards can be means pf complying with ESR 80: must be electrically safe.
That's a relevant standard listed in Schedule 4.
But doesn't substitute for SDoC needed for DMRAs, not for approval for DHRAs; as there are separate, additional, requirements.
For testing work; the example of testing a Type B RCD is flawed. The required testing is NOT testing of the RCD, but of how the RCD has been installed. The test is exactly the same regardless of Type. The idea that any additional testing is required for Type B (eg of the d.c. sensing functionality) is simply wrong. As I said, some of these people deal with what they think, and not with reality.
When it comes to fault finding; additional / different testing may be useful. But for testing work as per Section 8 - which is what ESRs require - you don't need any sort of special RCD test equipment.
6 3001 2022 gives guidance for import checked.
It says if from UK import checklist to cat 2.
Correct; there's a whole new framework for testing imports that will (?) apply instead of a part 1 assessment.
The process for this example would be
first establish what - if any - Standard the CO is claimed to comply with
Correct that this example would be Cat 2 (claimed to comply with IEC 60364 series; specifically 60364-7-717 (for non-RVs).
The label at swbd amounts to this claim.
next E 4.1.2 requires "documented evidence" of the compliance.
The original test results, or equivalent of a CoC, would be acceptable evidence.
A simple label is not
There isn't any; so on to E4.2 and carry out 'initial verification", following the specified checks 7 tests.
next, assuming all good; issue 'certificate of initial verification' .
Then back to standard WoEF check as per App D (similar to, but NOT the same as,current App C)
If all good; issue WoEF.
Next time around, as long as the 'certificate of initial verification' is with the CI; it counts as the "documented evidence".
7 As only part 1 and ewof check required thinking now it may be ok to remain in location.
Apply Part 1 + AppC.
---------------
BTW good on you for attempting to get your head around this stuff.Too many don't bother.
In my view some of them should not be Inspectors at all.
Can i suggest that joining an inspector-focussed trade org would be a good move?
Eg Electrical Safety NZ; or NZ Assn of electrical inspectors.
You'll still get some BS, but mostly good guidance and peer review
Lost it all when posting, as had been disconnected.
wrote this (shorter) version - locked out again\but this time remembered to copy before submitting
Very frustrating.
Looks like the old bug is back, and site management needs to tweak the settings
-------------------
1 switchboard in zone 2 of damp area.
Correct not part of a WoEF check for NZ-built CI.
But not compliant for new-build, as per ESR 60
Older unit may have complied when installed; so ESR 113 allows to continue in service
So not something to get too hung up about.
2 Fixed water container (sink) (assuming in cupboard under sink is still in zone)
Not in the Zone. Figs are indicative only, definition of Zones os in the relevant clause.
In this case 6.2.2.2(b); where there is not even an implication that the Zone extends back underneath. Therefore it does not.
Perfectly simple, it's about protection from direct splashing, and water doesn't splash around corners.
3 Part 1 mentions this, quite vauge 1.7.4 Attached
There is also 1.5.14. Like 1.7.4, applies at all times and in all places.
Section 6 is additional requirements for some types of damp situation; and applies as well rather than instead.
But as long as the swbd is suitable for location, eg IP rating, not something to fail part 1 assessment.
4 It says on sb. Tested to bs7176.
I checked an uk standards have no zones for open water container only baths see link
https://18th-edition.org.uk/bathroom-zones/
So it must comply with bs7176.
Not necessarily true. The label amounts to a claim of compliance.
Which -when (if?) the new Standard is cited - will affect how the CI will need to be treated for issue of a WoEF.
Until then, not relevant.
5 I pretty sure I was told at recent ewrb refresher we can comply with recognised standards like uk standards in some situations at put on coc. The example given for this was testing type b rcds with a non type b rcd tester as allowed in bs7176.
the statement is - at best - misleadingly incomplete; regardless whether you've remembered correctly what was said.
Unfortunately many things are claimed by people running 'competency" refreshers that are off the mark, some just simply not true .
For equipment; compliance with Standards can be means pf complying with ESR 80: must be electrically safe.
That's a relevant standard listed in Schedule 4.
But doesn't substitute for SDoC needed for DMRAs, not for approval for DHRAs; as there are separate, additional, requirements.
For testing work; the example of testing a Type B RCD is flawed. The required testing is NOT testing of the RCD, but of how the RCD has been installed. The test is exactly the same regardless of Type. The idea that any additional testing is required for Type B (eg of the d.c. sensing functionality) is simply wrong. As I said, some of these people deal with what they think, and not with reality.
When it comes to fault finding; additional / different testing may be useful. But for testing work as per Section 8 - which is what ESRs require - you don't need any sort of special RCD test equipment.
6 3001 2022 gives guidance for import checked.
It says if from UK import checklist to cat 2.
Correct; there's a whole new framework for testing imports that will (?) apply instead of a part 1 assessment.
The process for this example would be
first establish what - if any - Standard the CO is claimed to comply with
Correct that this example would be Cat 2 (claimed to comply with IEC 60364 series; specifically 60364-7-717 (for non-RVs).
The label at swbd amounts to this claim.
next E 4.1.2 requires "documented evidence" of the compliance.
The original test results, or equivalent of a CoC, would be acceptable evidence.
A simple label is not
There isn't any; so on to E4.2 and carry out 'initial verification", following the specified checks 7 tests.
next, assuming all good; issue 'certificate of initial verification' .
Then back to standard WoEF check as per App D (similar to, but NOT the same as,current App C)
If all good; issue WoEF.
Next time around, as long as the 'certificate of initial verification' is with the CI; it counts as the "documented evidence".
7 As only part 1 and ewof check required thinking now it may be ok to remain in location.
Apply Part 1 + AppC.
---------------
BTW good on you for attempting to get your head around this stuff.Too many don't bother.
In my view some of them should not be Inspectors at all.
Can i suggest that joining an inspector-focussed trade org would be a good move?
Eg Electrical Safety NZ; or NZ Assn of electrical inspectors.
You'll still get some BS, but mostly good guidance and peer review