electricalforum.nz

AlecK

The Guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not legally enforceable. 2018 edition of "3000" has clause 7.9 to set requirements for EV charging; but since this edition has yet to be cited these 'requirements" are not legally enforceable either. Unless / until ESR 6A is changed, no EV charging ...

AlecK

Yes, would have to be careful how such a CoC to cover the relocated part(s) of the installation was filled out. and it's not clear that one is definitely needed; was simply pointing out that one could be issued. We have a similar issue when eg a cable is installed for future. The work has to be cert...

AlecK

This issue has been argued backwards & forwards many times. But as far as I know there is no case law; so I'll cover the main points each way and readers can make up their own minds. At one stage ES published an opinion that it was deemed to be the same installation; but unfortunately such opinions ...

AlecK

I suspect that some within MBIE don't see it as a priority.
Perhaps we aren't electrocuting enough people to justify the cost?
But nothing new; we didn't adopt the 2007 edition until 2010.

AlecK

1 Is it acceptable to do so under ESR 59 (3) b because they are both socket outlets? Yes you can potentially apply this; and not restricted to just socket outlets (eg can change a point from socket to PCU and several rules actually relax). "original condition doesn't require everything to remain exa...

AlecK

Not quite correct. Sockets added are required to be protected by RCD; but not necessarily at "source" (origin of circuit); though that's clearly the best-practice option. Can simply use an SRCD. The wording of 2.6.3.4 is that the "sockets" must be protected,. Same wording is used in 2.6.3.2.2 (NZ no...

AlecK

...in those cases 2007 MUST be used. A Standard is listed (by SNZ / SA) as "superseded" as soon as a new edition is published. which simply alerts people to the fact that a later version exists. Standards are only enforceable by being cited in law (Acts & Regulations). For NZ , electrical installati...

AlecK

Welcome to the big wide world where installers have to accept responsibility for what we install as well as for how we install it. How we install is relatively easy; just comply with the ESRs & cited Standards. For what we install we can mitigate our risk by being careful about selection of fittings...

AlecK

Correction: nothing short of a Certified design as per ESR 58 will cover your bum
So if you've got what amounts to a CD, all you have to do is follow it.

AlecK

Nothing you get from them will cover your bum if things go wrong.
You're the one who'll be signing the CoC, and who will therefore be open to come-back from the end-user.

AlecK

While a certifier can rely on an SDoC for a DMRA [ESR 83]; if one doesn't exist there's no alternative that we can rely on. That said, any inverter installed as grid-connected must be installed i.a.w "4777.1"; which in turn requires the inverter to comply with 4777.2 & 4777.3. So you need to be look...

AlecK

Short answer: one for each array. And while 2.1.4 deals with related matters; it isn't directly relevant to the question. There are 2 separate isolation requirements to be considered. Unfortunately "5033" (both versions) is not very well put together. It doesn't follow the normal Standards style. In...

AlecK

There's also 2.9.5.34; which requires the terminals for the MEN to be "legibly and indelibly marked"
Since the MEN is NOT at one extremity if the bar, and the main N is not immediately next to it; the Exception can't apply.
I can't see the required marking, so non-compliant in that regard.

AlecK

Not very good practice; but I believe 'compliant'. In 2018 edition, 5.3.5.1 is amended to require that the MEN must be "located in an accessible position for disconnection and testing purposes". Which emphasises the fact that we have to be able to remove the MEN easily. The links between sections of...

AlecK

It can't be wrong to ask a question; as long as you've had a look at the rule (or at least tried to find it).
Discussion of interpretations is always good

AlecK

3.8.1; first para is bold typeface so is the fundamental requirement. Conductor function must be identified: A, N, or E. Doesn't say anything about distinguishing between conductors of same function. So, assuming colour is the chosen means of function ID, then as per Table 3.4 an Active can be any c...

AlecK

Suggest trying an SPD to divert those spikes to earth.

AlecK

Getting a bit off-topic; but another thing we are not required to check is whether the person who issued the CoC actually has a current PL. EWRB believe that's part of Inspection; and that - along with checking other aspects of the CoC - it comes under the work being done "lawfully and safely". But ...

AlecK

I agree that unless / until dated & signed, it's just a bit of paper and not (officially) any of the forms of certificate. And for ESC (but not CoC or (RoI); the date of issue starts the clock for providing copies - same as the date of connection starts the clock for issuing. According to EWRB; any ...

AlecK

Actually there's nothing to say Inspectors can rely on a CoC. And every reason to believe that the intent is for us to check EVERY aspect of compliance of (newly-installed) high risk PEW The words say we have to undertake "whatever tests, visual inspection or other actions are necessary to satisfy" ...

AlecK

I am aware of a case where the work done would have complied as "additional device for reduction of CCC"; but because the installer used the word "submain" on the CoC, it had to be considered in that light. They then decided that the final configuration didn't comply with requirements for submain to...

AlecK

Yes it's mains. It fully meets that definition. And because it's "mains' installing it is high risk PEW. Which then is required to be Inspected under ESR 70. Basically mains start at Point of supply and end at (for actives) the line terminals of main switch(es) and (for neutral) the main N-bar. The ...

AlecK

If the only change is replacing the main switch; no inspection required. True the work involves disconnecting & re-connecting "mains" @ line terminals of "main switch", but while that's 'mains work" it is NOT "high risk PEW; because ESR 6A (1) says replacement of a fitting is low risk. If the work a...

AlecK

Good point about the lack of protective device(s) meaning it's not a submain In similar way, lack of N conductor & PEC conductor means it's not a submain. And if the supply to an enclosure is not a submain, then clearly the enclosure can't be a separate swbd. But while things like these may lead to ...

AlecK

Good question. If there's any gap between; then how that gap is bridged would be a deciding factor; If it's just Actives, and all the Ns go to a common N-bar along with the Ns from the other cabinet(s); then clearly NOT a submain so must be treated as an additional enclosure of same swbd. If it has ...

AlecK

Yes; meant ESR 113

AlecK

2.3.4.1 (a) requires such outbuildings to be treated as separate installation; which therefore needs one or more "main switch(es). 2.3.4.1 (b) requires outbuildings (with or without switchboards) to have "an isolating switch or switches" that between them isolate everything on the outbuilding. And 2...

AlecK

Nothing says that the MSB has to have all its components in one cabinet / enclosure.. Nor that there can't be any gap between enclosures. So installing new switch in separate enclosure at slightly lower level is an acceptable practice. However you are not "installing a switchboard (clause 2.9); nor ...

AlecK

Poking holes is not a good approach Better to try to understand the principles - and that's exactly what the words give you. The mechanical characteristics of the wiring system must be taken into account when determining whether, in a particular situation, additional mechanical protection is require...

AlecK

AS/NZS 4836 "Safe working on or near LV installations and equipment" includes guidance on PPE in general and arc flash in general.
And ESR 100 says we must follow it when doing PEW unless we are instead following a certified design

AlecK

Yes there's a degree of interpretation needed. It's a high-level statement; and can't deal with the specifics of every possible situation. (the book's long enough now!) But there's no way the double insulation of TPS can be taken as enough, by itself, to cope with being stood on against a hard objec...

AlecK

AlecK

Electrical equipment [1.4.46] includes just about everything. But not all wiring to / from equipment is "equipment wiring". For example; an mcb is "electrical equipment" , and a socket outlet is "electrical equipment", but the wiring between them is "installation wiring". The connection between PCE ...

AlecK

nothing to prohibit that. but equally no requirement for linking, either. The rule[2.3.3.1] is minimum 1 main switch per supply, in particular 1 per safety service plus 1 for general. In domestic there usually won't be any safety services. Then 2.3.3. says keep them to the minimum, and for domestic ...

AlecK

Exactly. And 3.3.2.8 sets the minimum fixing as "so as to minimise damage to cable insulation, sheathing and connections during installation, operation, and maintenance". So for a ceiling space there's no absolute requirement to use any form of fixing at all. eg for runs parallel to joists; laid acr...

AlecK

Every paragraph within Clause 2 of Schedule 1 stands alone; and can be read without reference to any other paragraph. However they have been arranged in groups; each group being given a heading indicates something in common. The section headings are intended to help us find the relevant paragraph. S...

AlecK

It's covered in Schedule 1 of ESRs; which defines what is - and isn't - PEW. Probably time you reviewed this, as it's clear your understanding is well out of date. You mention that not being done for hire / reward might have made the work exempt. Hire / reward is a factor for some types of work, as ...

AlecK

Of course the only real relevance of whether these activities are PEW is that if they were PEW; the EWRB could properly take action for alleged error / non-compliant work. But since these activities are not PEW, EWRB can't take action. Their disciplinary powers are mostly limited to people who do PE...

AlecK

No part of Schedule 1 Clause 1 can be properly interpreted as including assessment for issue of WoEF. In particular, while the assessment involves inspection,testing, and issuing a certificate; the relevant items in Schedule 1 are : "the testing of work described in paragraphs (a) to (d)", "the insp...

AlecK

Earthing the tray would need to be done based on size of largest conductor present. And even so wouldn't necessarily do any good; as the forklift (or whatever) that caused the damage could be livened without bridging to the tray. Our rules are designed around dealing with single-fault situations tha...

AlecK

What the law requires: ESR 74 says that installations, or parts of installations, that have been disconnected or isolated for more than 6 months, then the person doing the re-connection / re-livening must sight a certificate. The certificate must state that the installation / part installation is "s...

AlecK

1: No. Even with so-called "smart" meters, some readings are manual. 2: Yes (for new installations) 3: while "BTS" units are often re-used; each time they are installed is installation PEW and they need to be compliant with current requirements. The idea that they can be treated as an 'existing inst...

AlecK

As per my earlier, there are several possible sources of earth fault current; including lightning, faults in the array wiring & modules, and faults in the inverter which may allow a.c. to be applied to the array wiring. where there a battery in the arrangement, that also needs to be considered as a ...

AlecK

If the source of the fault current is the inverter and / or the rest of the installation, then the protective device(s) in question are those on the output circuit of the inverter supplying LV to the installation. Noting that inverters with transformer can't pass fault current from a.c. back to the ...

AlecK

NZ requirements are based on IEC requirements. The performance requirements for various Types of RCD are set by AS/NZS 61008.1 & 61009.1 (RCCBs & RCBOs); which are based on same-number IEC Standards. They specify parameters for each "letter" type WRT wave-form of the fault current. Also AS/NZS 3190 ...

AlecK

true , pluto, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Normal protective earthing (fault protection by automatic disconnection of supply" sets - PEC size by reference to size of largest relevant active ; and - PEC continuity by reference to the fault current (ie the fault current that will cau...

AlecK

Yes 3.10.1.1 (c) allows for single insulation within enclosures provided such parts are not 'exposed to touch" during normal operations. In this case all the MSB & BTS type operations are external to the meter enclosure; so it can be treated same as a normal meter enclosure. The mcb being there only...

AlecK

Not forgetting 5139, assuming the batteries are lithium type; or 3011 series for lead-acid batteries

AlecK

The rules are that, under the Electricity (Safety) Regulations, ESR 59 requires both low voltage and extra-low voltage parts of installations must comply with AS/NZS 3000. 12 V wiring is in the extra-low voltage category. That means it's not "prescribed electrical work" so no authorisation (licence)...

AlecK

Who carries the can depends on exactly what was done / not done. There are several individuals who can be held to account. For general work, there's the person who does the work, the person who certifies it, and then the person who connects. They may well all be the same person, but the lines of res...

Search found 914 matches