I’ve just been re-reading through clause C6.9, and the only item that seems relevant to such installs is item (a), (b,c & d) are all for caravans.
I was always of the understanding that all final sub circuits must be verified as having RCD protection. However reading through this clause there is no directive to check that RCD protection is fitted in non-caravan CIs when completing a Woef.
Am I understanding this correctly, and was there a time when it was legally accepted to wire such installations without a MEN link and no RCD protection? And can we therefore issue a Woef.
Also, if an electrician wired a non-caravan CI from scratch (under current rules) and didn’t install RCD protection on all final subcircuits, contravening 3001:3.3.2, and then engaged an inspector to complete the Woef (I understood in this example the electrician may issue the initial Woef, but for argument sake say he engages an inspector). Who is responsible for this non-compliance? Can the inspector actually issue the Woef?
It’s probably not a very realistic example, and arguably the most reasonable action would be for the inspector to advise the electrician to repair prior to completing the Woef. I’m just trying to establish where the accountability lies.
Any advice much appreciated.
Yes, there was. But that does not directly affect issuing a WoEF.
You've found C6.9; but whole you're correct that (b), (c) & (d) apply only to caravans, (a) applies to non-caravans.
which has the effect that any older non-caravan CI originally built with a N-E connection has to have it removed for WoEF.
Now move to C6.4; which requires any CI that doesn't have a N-E connection to have current limitation.
Moving to the RCD aspect, C6.9 (d) means that a caravan without N-E link must have RCD protection for all final subcircuits.
But because this item applies to "caravans" only; it doesn't apply to non-caravans
As a result, non-caravans can validly be issued a WoEF despite having one or more subcircuits that have no RCD protection.
Fir the second scenario - where one person installs the CI, and then asks an inspector to issue a WoEF - the Inspector would do exactly the same as fort a renewal, ie check i.a.w. AppC .
There could be no come-back on the Inspector for any non-compliance with other aspects in the main bpody of the standard.
However clearly the relevant CoC would be materially incorrect;
And if anything was found to be actually unsafe, ESR 19 would come onto play.
My thoughts would be that construction site porta coms/CI would only need to comply with 3000+3001. I wouldn’t consider the wiring in the CI as ‘construction wiring’. Clause 220.127.116.11 of 3012 says ‘All final sub-circuits of construction wiring shall be protected...by RCD’
I’m thinking a CI on a construction site would be like on it’s own island.
I could be wrong, but it’s just the way I read it.
AS/NZS 3012:2010 is not cited by ESR.
True complying with "3012" isn't mandatory (construction site installations are listed in ESR 25 as being deemed to be electrically safe IF they comply);
but the 6-monthly mandatory PA [ESR 75} is done i.a.w "3012".
On the other hand, that only affects the socket the CI plugs into, as the CI itself is not part of the "installation".
It does mean that CIs used on construction sites "should" come up to the higher benchmark set by the clause; eg min 2.5 supply lead
But nothing in WoEF requirements currently even suggests that.
It might be argued that each time a CI is plugged in , it has to be fully compliant with "3001;
and that would mean all FSs protected by RCD; as per 3.3.2".
However that goes against firmly established principle of "no mandatory upgrade.
So in my view all that's required for existing CIs is continuing to comply with original rules, not be unsafe, and have current WoEF [ESRs 113 & 76]