Main switch upgrade

Post Reply
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Main switch upgrade

Post by Dan L »

The hypothetical scenario is main switch upgrade.
1 phase site being upgrades to 3 phase site on old msb located above 2m. No change just extra phases addec

Main switch is not being replaced it's a new 3 phase main switch so should comply with readily accessible / within 2m.


This seems to divide inspectors.


Unless I'm missing something 2.3..3.3 only gives one exception that needs a few requirements to be met for a main switch not to be located on the main switchboard. ( so installing an enclosure at a lower height just for main switch is not an option as the enclosure would not be on the main switchboard? )

So looks like the only options or ways to view it is to move entire switchboards down to get new main switch to bring readily accessible

Or

The new main switch will stay in same location because it has to go on the main switchboard and the main switchboard is existing.

I may be missing something though.

Thoughts please.
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by 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 are you "installing a main switch" (clause 2.3.3);
you are replacing an existing main switch that was located acceptably when originally installed.
ESR 1213 says it can continue in service.
And ESR 59 says it can be replaced to 'original condition"; ie the rules that applied when installed.

True the new one has 3 poles compared to old having only 1 pole.
But that makes no difference at all - it's still a replacement of a fitting (and is low risk PEW under ESR 6A).


It's certainly no business of the Inspector, whose scope extends only to installation of "mains" ie up to - and NOT beyond - line terminals of main switch.


Even if you opt to move it down; that's only general PEW and therefore NOT something an inspector can decline RoI for
.
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by Dan L »

Thanks mate some interesting points. Just to check "ESR 1213" is that a typo?
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by AlecK »

Yes; meant ESR 113
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by Dan L »

Thanks mate much appreciated
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by Dan L »

OK so say that an installation has a capacity of 63amps and its main switch has a rating of 63amps.

The capabcity is to be increased to 100amps.

Everything apart from the main switch is good for 100 amps capacity.

So it will need to get inspected as the settings have changed and it will need to be inspected to 100amp capacity.

The main switch will need changed to 100 rated main switch.

Will this replacement of the main switch from 63amp to 100amp still be a replacement of a fitting and low risk

And its just the capacity that is being upgraded?
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by 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 also involves replacing of mains conductors, same applies; because those conductors are also 'fittings" and direct replacement of any fitting(s) is low risk.

Capacity upgrades used to be listed on older Regulations as work requiring inspection. But that ceased in 2010 with ESRs coming into force.
That said, some networks still insist on an inspection, due the the risk of polarity and / or phase rotation stuff-ups
- which can't actually be a problem IF the MANDATORY testing is done; so the real problem is failure to test.
Some even have this "requirement" written into their network connection standards; making it a condition of customers' installations being connected to the network.
Others just (ab)use their monopoly status to hold customers to ransom (it's not as if they provide the inspections free!)

But as far as ESRs are concerned; it's low risk PEW and Inspection is not required
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by Dan L »

Interesting I thought it was more needed to see if the existing mains CCC is fit for the new increases capacity and if the EFLI is low enough to operate new short circuit protection with in 5s etc

But maybe that obviously has to be done but its more responsible of person actually putting in the new fuse
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by Dan L »

What about main switch changed to a generator changeover switch is it the same deal. Main switch is just a replacement low risk and the rest of the work for generator supply is general.?
User avatar
gregmcc
Site Admin
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:45 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by gregmcc »

Dan L wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:47 pm
Interesting I thought it was more needed to see if the existing mains CCC is fit for the new increases capacity and if the EFLI is low enough to operate new short circuit protection with in 5s etc

But maybe that obviously has to be done but its more responsible of person actually putting in the new fuse
As far a the CCC goes, that is not part of a high risk inspection, but rather the inspector seeing the CoC from the electrician who done installation which states it is safe to connect, an inspector is allowed to take the coc as true and correct and assume the calculations have been done to correctly size the mains. Inspectors can if they want to run the number themselves, but this would require a maximum demand calculation etc, and by the time that was done this could account to several hours extra work that the inspector would charge for, - who is be willing to pay for that?

As far a the EFLI, you are allowed to liven work for testing purposes, so this could be done before arrival of the inspector to prove protection is correct and then disconnected.
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by 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"
Confirming things like CCC and volt drop would come under 'other actions".

But not confirming operation of SC or fault protection for mains; because that's specifically the responsibility of the network as per ESR 32
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by 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 we're not there to Inspect the PEW of issuing a CoC; we're only there to check high risk PEW.
Certifying the PEW isn't part of the high risk work; as certifying is listed separately in Schedule 1.
And since there's no mention of certifying in ESR 6A(2) issuing a CoC can't be "high risk".
It's "general" PEW - so NOT our job to check any part of the CoC; as long as it identifies the high risk work, the location, and what rules apply (ie whether Part 2, part 1 or other certified design) .
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Main switch upgrade

Post by Dan L »

Thanks good information
Post Reply