Inspectors responsibility or not

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

Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by Dan L »

Often when inspecting and livening installations switchboards just have the bones. Mains and a temp power outlet. No labels, no fire seal, no blanks ( but nothing exposed to be able to be touched). Often danger burried cable sign not installed as Wall not complete

Now it's obvious these things need to be done on completion but it's not very proactive sealing a switchboard to then have to remove to install sub circuits then reseal etc

So you can put on roi " to be Firesealed on completion on switchboard" etc but is that enough to cover an inspector if the electrician never does these things on completion

Technically can an inspector be held accountable for the following as they are not high risk

-fireseal switchboard
- labelling of earth location / main switch
- location of switchboard ( as long as main switch is accessible)
- danger burried cable sign

I know some very knowledgeable inspectors respect both but they have opposite views which has left me in the middle so thought a good subject to bring up.

Views much appreciated
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: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by gregmcc »

IMO, as an inspector when we do an inspection the ROI details exactly what high risk work was inspected, the work inspected is also detailed on the COC issued by the electrician. I have always selected "part installation" when completing the ROI as the high risk work is just that - part of the installation.

If there is no danger buried cable sign and it's not obvious where the cable comes in or marked at the switchboard then it's a fail.
labeling of main earth/main switch, if it's not done then it's a fail.

I've had a few like that but every time the electrician has rectified on the spot.

As far as firesealing goes, this would fall under the general risk and not high risk (unless it was the mains) and wouldn't need to be inspected. Basically if the high risk work isn't done right then don't expect the inspector to issue a passed ROI.
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by Dan L »

Thanks for your reply. Would you really not pass a job if the danger burried sign not up due to wall not completed or painted or would you insist it put up at time of livening still regardless. So they would put it up. Take down to paint wall then put back up?
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: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by gregmcc »

There are some options on this

1) is the POE obvious?
2) if not obvious a label in the switchboard identifying the POE
3) danger tag

if it doesn't meet one of these 3 then it's a fail, how the electrician want's to address that's the electricians problem. it's the inspectors job to check for compliance
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by AlecK »

Have to agree with gregmcc; if it doesn't comply, it's not ready for livening; and the CoC will be a false declaration - as would any RoI issued).

The CoC and the ROI both include legally binding declarations that the work described (all the work for the CoC, and the high risk work for the RoI) has been done 'lawfully and safely". Those two words carry a huge load; but basically means that not only does the work FULLY comply at time of issue, but that the required visual inspection & testing (as per Section 8) has been completed with no fails".

So the CoC would definitely be a false declaration; and you can be prosecuted just for that - even if the deficiencies are corrected later..

The RoI is a bit different; as an inspector only has to do enough inspection & testing to "satisfy" them selves.
Some inspectors may be more easily satisfied than others - it depends how must (extra) risk they want to accept.
But since all it takes to trigger an investigation is a compliant from anyone, best to tread warily.
people have been dragged through the EWRB by third-party complaints,, and found to have breached un-related rules even
a) when the items complained of were never "wrong" in the first place; and
b) when the faults were rectified at some time after CoC issued.
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by Dan L »

Thanks guys, I am a New inspector and want to make sure I am doing things the correct way. I really appreciate all your feed back.
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: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by gregmcc »

The NZEIA recently published a couple of guides on inspections (they were re-printed in may-july20 electolink) which gives a good indication on what to check for.

I have found (since becoming and inspector) that a lot of electricians don't know how to test or if testing what is a good result or not (just simply recording results).

If you need someone to bounce ideas/questions off feel free to PM me.

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

Re: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by Dan L »

Thanks mate I will. Much appreciated
PawPatrol
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:42 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by PawPatrol »

gregmcc wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:56 am
IMO, as an inspector when we do an inspection the ROI details exactly what high risk work was inspected, the work inspected is also detailed on the COC issued by the electrician. I have always selected "part installation" when completing the ROI as the high risk work is just that - part of the installation.

If there is no danger buried cable sign and it's not obvious where the cable comes in or marked at the switchboard then it's a fail.
labeling of main earth/main switch, if it's not done then it's a fail.

I've had a few like that but every time the electrician has rectified on the spot.

As far as firesealing goes, this would fall under the general risk and not high risk (unless it was the mains) and wouldn't need to be inspected. Basically if the high risk work isn't done right then don't expect the inspector to issue a passed ROI.
YES! exactly! - you are inspecting the high risk work - not anything else.

Have a look at the definition of mains work in the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulati ... 63510.html

mains work—
(a) means any of the following:
(i) work on mains (including connecting the conductors of mains at a MEN switchboard):
(ii) work on main earthing systems (including connecting the conductors of main earthing systems at a MEN switchboard):
(iii) work on the connection between earth and neutral made by the removable link within the MEN switchboard closest to the point of supply; but
(b) does not include—
(i) work on fittings that are used or intended for use by any person in, or in connection with, the generation of electricity for that person’s use and not for supply to any other person; or
(ii) work that is limited to removing or replacing the removable link within a MEN switchboard for the purposes of testing; or
(iii) the installation of a revenue meter, but only if the work cannot affect the integrity of the neutral or result in the transposition of the neutral and any active conductor

So that is what you need to inspect!

Have a look at (B)(iii) that identifies one of the things the Regulations is worried about - the transposition of conductors.
TPower
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:53 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by TPower »

Is the actual installation of the mains conductors considered ‘mains work’? I’ve always believed, of course it is. Although I was having a discussion with another electrician the other day who believed installing his supply/mains cable is ‘general’?

I didn’t understand where he was coming from, so had a read through the regs to try get an understanding.

Mains work being...work on mains (including connecting the conductors of mains at a MEN switchboard)...etc

The definition of ‘mains’ is described as... mains means those fittings forming part of an installation that are used for the supply of electricity to the MEN switchboard of the installation that is closest to the point of supply.

The definition of mains is mentioning ‘fittings’ not ‘conductors’.

Is this a warped understanding, and am I getting bogged down in the detail? Or is there some truth in it? It would imply the high risk, inspectable parts would just be the ‘fittings’, supplying the MEN switchboard, including the connection at the switchboard, the main earthing system and work on the MEN link? But not the actual conductors themselves? Or do we just include the conductors as being part of the fittings supplying the MSB.
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Inspectors responsibility or not

Post by AlecK »

Short answer: you're rtight & he's wrong.

Installation of mains conductors is "mains work"; no question.
FTR; the cable is both "fittings" & "conductors"; since conductors are just a type of fitting.
Even though several ESRs are worded such that we could be forgiven for thinking they are two separate classes of "equipment".

But since not all "mains work" is classified as high risk, need to not only look at definitions( including in the Act) ;
but also work through ESR 6A.
Clause 1 specifies what work is classified as low risk - and this can include repairs / replacement of fittings / conductors of mains.
However since "mains work" is listed in clause 2, that makes all installation / alteration of "mains" high risk; while maintenace / repair of such fittings / conductors is low risk.
The ONLY kind of work relating to mains that can be "general" is installation of metering (including load control); which is mostly - and very weirdly - specifically excluded from being "mains work". That's to avoid an Inspector who also happens to be a meter installer from having to get a 2nd Inspector to inspect the installation of the meters. Would have been more logical to exclude it from being 'high risk"; but no-one ever suggested that all Regs have to adopt the most logical method of achieving the outcome.
Post Reply