My Question is about if this is deemed as low risk OR General Work (Requires ESC or CoC).
Replacing Hi Bay lights in a work shop which involves replacing existing ceiling roses with 10A Surface Sockets so the new Hi-Bays can plug in. On first thought I was assuming Low Risk (ESC), but after reading Clause 6A ESR its not strictly replacement or maintenance is it? I know its not exactly a major issue - if in doubt issue a CoC, but I thought I'd ask to see what everyone thinks
ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
Re: ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
I'd say low risk, you're replacing one fitting with another, sounds like replacement to me
- Rating: 16.67%
Re: ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
Yes, it is replacement.
Replacement of one fitting with another does not require that they be of the same general type, let alone the same brand 7 model number.
When ESRs were first published (2010); the words of then ESR 66 [requirement for CoC]
"This regulation does not apply to... (3)(d) the replacement of any fittingh with a fitting of appropriate size, type, and rating for the electroical circuit".
That made it clear that what matters is that the "new" fitting be suitable for the circuit.
Those words were unfortunately lost in a later re-shuffle; but the principle hasn't changed.
So you can replace a PCU with a socket, or vice versa.
You can replace a SERF with an MCB, or an RCBO.
And you can replace a pendant light with another type, including one with greater load .
(too much if that might cause practical problems, but as long as the cable has overcurrent protection it's compliant)
Or even - as in this case - replace that pendant light with a socket, into which you plug another light.
The fact of it being sockets may change the permitted methods for providing overcurrent protection;
but that's just part of being suitable . Or as the old Reg said "appropriate".
You are not adding any points to the circuit.
You are not extending the length; or even re-routing the cable (which might change the installation conditions, and therefore the CCC of the cable).
There's nothing that significantly alters the electrical characteristics of the circuit in a way that makes it less safe.
In fact the only thing that changes is the type of point - one kind of connection point has been replaced with another kind.
So yes it counts as maintenance of the installation; and ESR 59(3) permits 3 methods for that.
One of which is "in accordance with "3000"
Replacement of one fitting with another does not require that they be of the same general type, let alone the same brand 7 model number.
When ESRs were first published (2010); the words of then ESR 66 [requirement for CoC]
"This regulation does not apply to... (3)(d) the replacement of any fittingh with a fitting of appropriate size, type, and rating for the electroical circuit".
That made it clear that what matters is that the "new" fitting be suitable for the circuit.
Those words were unfortunately lost in a later re-shuffle; but the principle hasn't changed.
So you can replace a PCU with a socket, or vice versa.
You can replace a SERF with an MCB, or an RCBO.
And you can replace a pendant light with another type, including one with greater load .
(too much if that might cause practical problems, but as long as the cable has overcurrent protection it's compliant)
Or even - as in this case - replace that pendant light with a socket, into which you plug another light.
The fact of it being sockets may change the permitted methods for providing overcurrent protection;
but that's just part of being suitable . Or as the old Reg said "appropriate".
You are not adding any points to the circuit.
You are not extending the length; or even re-routing the cable (which might change the installation conditions, and therefore the CCC of the cable).
There's nothing that significantly alters the electrical characteristics of the circuit in a way that makes it less safe.
In fact the only thing that changes is the type of point - one kind of connection point has been replaced with another kind.
So yes it counts as maintenance of the installation; and ESR 59(3) permits 3 methods for that.
One of which is "in accordance with "3000"
- Rating: 16.67%
Re: ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
Thanks guys, I had assumed it was Low Risk, but I started to over-think it as usual. Cheers
Re: ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
Hi Alec, if you replaced a PV grid connected inverter, this would be Hi-Risk?
Re: ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
No.
Replacement - of anything - is maintenance work; not installation work.
ESR 6A (1)says that all maintenance is low risk.
And 6A(2) very carefully says that PEW can only be classed as high risk if 6A(1) hasn't made it low risk.
Then 6A(3) says that anything not covered by (1) & (2) is 'general" PEW.
Replacement - of anything - is maintenance work; not installation work.
ESR 6A (1)says that all maintenance is low risk.
And 6A(2) very carefully says that PEW can only be classed as high risk if 6A(1) hasn't made it low risk.
Then 6A(3) says that anything not covered by (1) & (2) is 'general" PEW.
Re: ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
Fair comments Alec and appreciated, my concerns are that inverter technology hasn't kept up with the PV panel technology, so a lot of inverters are not rated now for the panels in regards to short circuit currents, so by having a third party inspect will hopefully check the inverter specifications, in the likely hood that the installer didn't and just connected a new inverter that they thought would be ok.
Also any new inverter needs have its settings adjusted normally to suit the installation.
Also any new inverter needs have its settings adjusted normally to suit the installation.
Re: ESR 6A - Low Risk Work
Not a field I play in much, but yes the rules are playing catch-up with the technology
and there can be significant mismatch between components
and there can be significant mismatch between components
- Rating: 16.67%