Just curious where the line gets drawn for maintained in original condition and not having to use either MIs or comply with current 3000.
For example I often see the switchboard replacement debate of a main switch being too high. My personal though is because the main switch has simply been replaced it can remain in such a position.
Others say that because you're "changing or upgrading" that it's not original condition.
From what I've seen mentioned here previously original condition seems more about the original condition of the installation and I've seen Alec use a great phrase from a previous edition of Regulations to help in his explanations.
I'm just wondering if there is an easy way or some form of good explanation to help understand when it's original condition vs when this option can no longer be used
ESR59 - Replacement
Re: ESR59 - Replacement
very good question.
There's certainly no definitive ruling to be found in the ESRs.
The answer is up to each of us; we need to be prepared to justify our decisions - and may find that others disagree.
"Original condition" is a matter of interpretation; but it's certainly NOT restricted to being exactly the same in every respect.
A commonly-used term is "like-for like"; but not only does that term not appear anywhere in ESRs or '3000", but it is itself open to widely different interpretations. So it doesn't actually help much.
The phrase Jamie refers to used to be in ESR 66, which defined which forms of PEW required a CoC (and which didn't).
The reason I liked it - and still do - is that it provides excellent guidance as to the intention behind this aspect of ESRs.
That older ESR 66, in clause (3), listed various types of PEW that didn't require CoC; including item (d) : "the replacement of any fitting with a fitting of an appropriate size, type, and rating for the electrical circuit"
Unfortunately we don't get such good guidance for interpretation from the wording used in current ESRs 6A and 59.
Below is how I view a range of common examples; that I'd be prepared to argue before the EWRB.
------------------
In the example of replacing a (main) switchboard, the key is that a 'switchboard" is not a single fitting. It's actually an assembly of fittings.
And each of those fittings has a function - sometimes several.
So while we could view it as 'replacing a switchboard';
for purposes of ESRs 6A & 59 we really need to look at how the functions of the component fittings compare with the functions of the components of the original.
And when we replace the swbd; we may also be adding some new fittings - which can't really be classified as "maintenance" at all, so must be treated as "general PEW".
So (for example) original MSB has 6 serfs, a main switch and a set of N&E bars c/w MEN link, plus interconnecting wiring.
New MSB has 8 mcbs, 2 RCCBs, N&E bars with MEN link, a main switch, plus interconnecting wiring.
Consider each class of fitting separately.
The N&E bars may have more terminals, of different type; but they are serving exactly the same function(s) as the old bars.
So that's simple replacement. Not exactly alike, but similar enough - no change to how any circuit functions.
However if the original was a single , common bar with no link; then you're replacing one bar with 2, and adding an extra link fitting as well.
Introducing changes to the circuit configuration, especially relating to fundamental safety aspects of an installation; has to be treated as more than "maintenance".
Similarly 2 of the mcbs are clearly additions. Even if only added to allow some of the original circuits to be split; that in itself is changing the configuration of those circuits. By splitting subcircuits, we're actually "adding" 2. There used to be 6 and now there will be 8.
The other 6 can be treated as replacement fittings, regardless of whether their ratings are identical to the original serfs.
True an mcb operates differently from a SERF. But basically there was an overcurrent protection device there before; used for overload, short circuit, and fault protection. The new mcbs perform exactly the same functions - they just do it better.
So maintenance / replacement for ESR 6A; but maybe not original condition for ESR 59.
Play safe, and apply the 'comply with "3000" ' option instead.
The RCCBs are new - there was no RCD protection before, and it's clearly being added.
The main switch is equally clearly a replacement. The function of the new one is the same as the one it replaces.
Being DIN-rail mounted, instead of surface mounted, isn't a change to the functioning of the circuit it's part of.
Minor re-location, within the approximate footprint of the original swbd, is covered in ESR 6A(1);
which lets us reposition conductors to facilitate replacement.
So, as a replacement activity, the height rule does not apply.
Obviously better to meet it if we can easily do so; but not a requirement we must comply with.
----------------------
Similarly swapping an existing socket to be a PCU doesn't change the circuit adversely.
However going the other way might trigger RCD requirements.
Changing a 10 A socket to a 15 A one doesn't change the fundamental configuration of the subcircuit. Was a socket, still a socket.
So it's replacement for ESR 6A. But it may adversely affect load-based aspects, such as volt drop;
so could be seen as not maintaining in original condition for ESR 59.
changing a double-insulated light fitting for a luminaire that needs an earth changes an aspect that affects safety.
yes it's replacement, but not original condition - you've increased the chance of contact with exposed conductive parts.
But under older Regs, often lights didn't need to be earthed. In which case swapping in a new one is 'original condition"
- as long as the reasons that allowed it to be non-earthed still apply, as per ESR 113.
Conductors are 'fittings" too.
So replacing a circuit, or part-circuit, using TPS instead of TRS (or even conduit); can be maintaining in original condition
- as long as we follow the same route.
-------------
As long as at least one of the options under ESR 59(3) covers the particular example, it's within what the ESR permits as "maintenance.
In that respect, EST 59(3) is quite user-friendly.
But if you can't get any of them to stretch over what you want to do, best treat it as an alteration.
Generally the only real difference is that if we go beyond "maintenance"; then a CoC is required.
Stretching too far to fit things under a "maintenance" heading doesn't save much time / cost - and brings the risk that officialdom nay disagree with you. Failing to certify general PEW isn't an offence; but connecting without sighting a CoC is.
On the other hand, far from being penalised for certifying low risk PEW; it's specifically allowed for.
There's certainly no definitive ruling to be found in the ESRs.
The answer is up to each of us; we need to be prepared to justify our decisions - and may find that others disagree.
"Original condition" is a matter of interpretation; but it's certainly NOT restricted to being exactly the same in every respect.
A commonly-used term is "like-for like"; but not only does that term not appear anywhere in ESRs or '3000", but it is itself open to widely different interpretations. So it doesn't actually help much.
The phrase Jamie refers to used to be in ESR 66, which defined which forms of PEW required a CoC (and which didn't).
The reason I liked it - and still do - is that it provides excellent guidance as to the intention behind this aspect of ESRs.
That older ESR 66, in clause (3), listed various types of PEW that didn't require CoC; including item (d) : "the replacement of any fitting with a fitting of an appropriate size, type, and rating for the electrical circuit"
Unfortunately we don't get such good guidance for interpretation from the wording used in current ESRs 6A and 59.
Below is how I view a range of common examples; that I'd be prepared to argue before the EWRB.
------------------
In the example of replacing a (main) switchboard, the key is that a 'switchboard" is not a single fitting. It's actually an assembly of fittings.
And each of those fittings has a function - sometimes several.
So while we could view it as 'replacing a switchboard';
for purposes of ESRs 6A & 59 we really need to look at how the functions of the component fittings compare with the functions of the components of the original.
And when we replace the swbd; we may also be adding some new fittings - which can't really be classified as "maintenance" at all, so must be treated as "general PEW".
So (for example) original MSB has 6 serfs, a main switch and a set of N&E bars c/w MEN link, plus interconnecting wiring.
New MSB has 8 mcbs, 2 RCCBs, N&E bars with MEN link, a main switch, plus interconnecting wiring.
Consider each class of fitting separately.
The N&E bars may have more terminals, of different type; but they are serving exactly the same function(s) as the old bars.
So that's simple replacement. Not exactly alike, but similar enough - no change to how any circuit functions.
However if the original was a single , common bar with no link; then you're replacing one bar with 2, and adding an extra link fitting as well.
Introducing changes to the circuit configuration, especially relating to fundamental safety aspects of an installation; has to be treated as more than "maintenance".
Similarly 2 of the mcbs are clearly additions. Even if only added to allow some of the original circuits to be split; that in itself is changing the configuration of those circuits. By splitting subcircuits, we're actually "adding" 2. There used to be 6 and now there will be 8.
The other 6 can be treated as replacement fittings, regardless of whether their ratings are identical to the original serfs.
True an mcb operates differently from a SERF. But basically there was an overcurrent protection device there before; used for overload, short circuit, and fault protection. The new mcbs perform exactly the same functions - they just do it better.
So maintenance / replacement for ESR 6A; but maybe not original condition for ESR 59.
Play safe, and apply the 'comply with "3000" ' option instead.
The RCCBs are new - there was no RCD protection before, and it's clearly being added.
The main switch is equally clearly a replacement. The function of the new one is the same as the one it replaces.
Being DIN-rail mounted, instead of surface mounted, isn't a change to the functioning of the circuit it's part of.
Minor re-location, within the approximate footprint of the original swbd, is covered in ESR 6A(1);
which lets us reposition conductors to facilitate replacement.
So, as a replacement activity, the height rule does not apply.
Obviously better to meet it if we can easily do so; but not a requirement we must comply with.
----------------------
Similarly swapping an existing socket to be a PCU doesn't change the circuit adversely.
However going the other way might trigger RCD requirements.
Changing a 10 A socket to a 15 A one doesn't change the fundamental configuration of the subcircuit. Was a socket, still a socket.
So it's replacement for ESR 6A. But it may adversely affect load-based aspects, such as volt drop;
so could be seen as not maintaining in original condition for ESR 59.
changing a double-insulated light fitting for a luminaire that needs an earth changes an aspect that affects safety.
yes it's replacement, but not original condition - you've increased the chance of contact with exposed conductive parts.
But under older Regs, often lights didn't need to be earthed. In which case swapping in a new one is 'original condition"
- as long as the reasons that allowed it to be non-earthed still apply, as per ESR 113.
Conductors are 'fittings" too.
So replacing a circuit, or part-circuit, using TPS instead of TRS (or even conduit); can be maintaining in original condition
- as long as we follow the same route.
-------------
As long as at least one of the options under ESR 59(3) covers the particular example, it's within what the ESR permits as "maintenance.
In that respect, EST 59(3) is quite user-friendly.
But if you can't get any of them to stretch over what you want to do, best treat it as an alteration.
Generally the only real difference is that if we go beyond "maintenance"; then a CoC is required.
Stretching too far to fit things under a "maintenance" heading doesn't save much time / cost - and brings the risk that officialdom nay disagree with you. Failing to certify general PEW isn't an offence; but connecting without sighting a CoC is.
On the other hand, far from being penalised for certifying low risk PEW; it's specifically allowed for.
- Rating: 16.67%