Hi guys, after some advice please.
I have been asked to inspect a PV install in a Portacom , the PV array is remote to the Portacom, so that the portacom can be transported to remote locations off grid and the PV batteries provide power, to keep the batteries charged a portable generator can also be connected. The design has been certified by an engineer, which I am happy about, my concern is with the existing switchboard, it is mounted on the ceiling of the portacom (appox 2.3m) from the floor so is not ready accessible without a ladder. The RCBO's appear to be from China and type AC. The Main switch has been relocated next to the PV inverter, so thats all good. The current WoEF is dated 20/3/2019 issued by an E registration, so this person may have completed the original certification.
Thoughts on the switchboard location please, the existing RCBO's will need to be replaced for type A.
Cheers Peter
Portacom Inspection
-
gregmcc
- Site Admin
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:45 pm
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 49 times
Re: Portacom Inspection
1) RCD type AC are not allowed
2) I can't see any N or E bars in there, they may be out of sigh in the picture - isn't there a requirement to have N & E bars in a distribution board?
My exp. with Chint MCB's has not been good. I seen multiple failures of these, seen a 3 phase breaker have one phase fail on a number of occasions.
Look at where the capping meets the socket, offset and short of the mount block.
The whole thing is setting off alarm bells - I would be taking a closer look at the wiring, does it meet the NZ standard? does the Portacom use the freezer panel as construction material? if yes is it the right TPS for this?
2) I can't see any N or E bars in there, they may be out of sigh in the picture - isn't there a requirement to have N & E bars in a distribution board?
My exp. with Chint MCB's has not been good. I seen multiple failures of these, seen a 3 phase breaker have one phase fail on a number of occasions.
Look at where the capping meets the socket, offset and short of the mount block.
The whole thing is setting off alarm bells - I would be taking a closer look at the wiring, does it meet the NZ standard? does the Portacom use the freezer panel as construction material? if yes is it the right TPS for this?
Re: Portacom Inspection
Thanks Greg, the more I look at this the more I get concerned, what about the swb at 2.3m above the floor, AS/NZS3000 says no I beleive, AS/NZS 3001 appendix C doesn't mention swb locations. Am I getting concerned about something I shouldn't be?
Should I just inspect what I need to and not worry about the previous WoEF, it just doesn't sit right with me. A clients response will be it, "got a WoEF before so what is the issue".
Should I just inspect what I need to and not worry about the previous WoEF, it just doesn't sit right with me. A clients response will be it, "got a WoEF before so what is the issue".
Re: Portacom Inspection
First up - and perhaps most important - is that issuing a WoEF is a 'standalone' activity.
We can't rely on anything; we can only follow one of the 2 pathways:
- either it's installed i.a.w. NZ rules, or it's an import.
Whether it's ever had a WoEF before is NOT RELEVANT.
If it's an import; ESR 78 says FIRST task is assess for compliance with Part 1.
Assuming it passes Part 1, then we can proceed to Appendix C of '3001.'
NOTHING else matters, nor is relevant.
Brand(s) of fittings is NOT something that can be taken into account.
Swbd minimum height is a Part 2 matter (NOT Part 1); and doesn't come into App C either.
So ignore it!
On the other hand, if the original WoEF was issued by an E-reg, then it MUST have been issued as a "new-build" FULLY compliant with AS/NZS 3001 (NOT as an import).
So FULL compliance with Part 2 and ALL of "3001' is required
In which case the swbd never complied, nor dod the RCDs; and you should lay a complaint with EWRB against the issuer.
(not to mention, do NOT issue woEF)
We can't rely on anything; we can only follow one of the 2 pathways:
- either it's installed i.a.w. NZ rules, or it's an import.
Whether it's ever had a WoEF before is NOT RELEVANT.
If it's an import; ESR 78 says FIRST task is assess for compliance with Part 1.
Assuming it passes Part 1, then we can proceed to Appendix C of '3001.'
NOTHING else matters, nor is relevant.
Brand(s) of fittings is NOT something that can be taken into account.
Swbd minimum height is a Part 2 matter (NOT Part 1); and doesn't come into App C either.
So ignore it!
On the other hand, if the original WoEF was issued by an E-reg, then it MUST have been issued as a "new-build" FULLY compliant with AS/NZS 3001 (NOT as an import).
So FULL compliance with Part 2 and ALL of "3001' is required
In which case the swbd never complied, nor dod the RCDs; and you should lay a complaint with EWRB against the issuer.
(not to mention, do NOT issue woEF)
- Rating: 16.67%
Re: Portacom Inspection
Awesome Alec, just what I was waiting on to confirm, I have searched the E reg and I have the electricians details and photo of the WoEF, even the WoEF doesn't look like it meets the requirements of AS/NZS 3001.
I will explain to the client & electrician the findings, the electrician may want to move the swb and change the RCBO's to type A etc.
Many thanks
I will explain to the client & electrician the findings, the electrician may want to move the swb and change the RCBO's to type A etc.
Many thanks
Re: Portacom Inspection
Hi all,this got me thinking more about this, maybe this portacom came from Australia ( as the com[any is in NZ and Australia), this would explain the type AC RCBO's but not why the swb is located where it is, if it was constructed in Aussie it would still need to comply with AS/NZS3000 and 3001.
Doesn't explain the issuer of the WoEF having an NZ "E" registration though, unless he installed the power outlet below the swb as it is a PDL 695, and PDL are not big in Aussie, he then may have certified the portacom under ESR 2010 reg 78 1(C) but I believe the portacom still doesn't comply.
If a site shed did come form Australia, c/w type AC RCBOs and everything about the electrical installation complied with the standards, eg AS/NZS 3000 and 3001 except for the RCBO's, when it comes time for certification in NZ (I dont believe also that Australia use 3001 Appendix C?), these RCBO's would then need to be replaced to type A correct, but in the mean time type AC RCBO's will be used?
This then started me thinking (dangerous) how many other portacom's are in NZ that have been shipped from Aussie with type AC RCBO's to construction sites around NZ, as there are a lot of large Aussie companies working here and they tend to ship everything over, if the site sheds are "plug and play" the construction staff are more likely to just connect them up, electricians/inspectors dont need to be involved in connecting them. Yes, NZ sparkies would set up the site power but after that they may not know what is getting installed.
Others thoughts would be appreciated gratefully.
Peter
Doesn't explain the issuer of the WoEF having an NZ "E" registration though, unless he installed the power outlet below the swb as it is a PDL 695, and PDL are not big in Aussie, he then may have certified the portacom under ESR 2010 reg 78 1(C) but I believe the portacom still doesn't comply.
If a site shed did come form Australia, c/w type AC RCBOs and everything about the electrical installation complied with the standards, eg AS/NZS 3000 and 3001 except for the RCBO's, when it comes time for certification in NZ (I dont believe also that Australia use 3001 Appendix C?), these RCBO's would then need to be replaced to type A correct, but in the mean time type AC RCBO's will be used?
This then started me thinking (dangerous) how many other portacom's are in NZ that have been shipped from Aussie with type AC RCBO's to construction sites around NZ, as there are a lot of large Aussie companies working here and they tend to ship everything over, if the site sheds are "plug and play" the construction staff are more likely to just connect them up, electricians/inspectors dont need to be involved in connecting them. Yes, NZ sparkies would set up the site power but after that they may not know what is getting installed.
Others thoughts would be appreciated gratefully.
Peter
Re: Portacom Inspection
Thinking may be dangerous; but not usually for the thinker.
You are correct that person holding an E-reg PL can issue a WoEF under ESR 78(1)(c);
but only for "a connectable installation" that they have issued a CoC for.
That means a complete connectable installation, not just adding a socket or doing some other PEW.
The CoC has to cover the entire installation.
This provision is a carry-through of the earlier one that said a new CI didn't need a WoEF for the first 4-year period; as the original CoC was deemed sufficient.
Trouble was that caravan park owners had trouble with that, so from 2010 whoever issues CoC for initial installation can issue woEF.
Also correct that Type AC is OK for Oz; so imported units are likely to have this Type.
And that Oz doesn't have any equivalent to our WoEF system with App C being "NZ-only" accordingly.
That makes no difference WRT RCD type; 'cos that's not an App-C matter .
If the unit was / is Aussie-built, then whether "3000" & "3001" apply depends on which State it was built in.
EG, in Victoria, wiring connectable installations isn't officially (equivalent of ) PEW.
Despite that, for most Aussie-built units, the Type of RCD will be the only significant issue.
Installation work done overseas is not subject to ESRs.
However as an import, whoever issues a WoEF - not just 1st time, but every time - has to assess for compliance with Part 1 of '3000'.
A Type AC RCD can't get through that.
"When it comes time for certification in NZ" is BEFORE it gets plugged in in NZ.
It's an offence to allow a CI to be connected to supply of electricity unless the unit has a current WoEF.
So Type AC is not OK for use for any mandatory RCD in NZ (this isn't in ESRs, but it's in all the applicable standards).
The switchboard location on ceiling suggests to me that this is an example originally sourced from China as a CKD unit.
You mentioned that there's provision for a genset to be connected; yet I can't see a c/o switch in the photo.
An engineer's sign-off is not enough, part of App C WoEF checks is proving that there's full isolation between sources, on all live conductors.
Also for any plug-&-play genset, the inlet N-pin MUST be isolated when system selected to "normal" supply (in this case, the PV / solar).
You are correct that person holding an E-reg PL can issue a WoEF under ESR 78(1)(c);
but only for "a connectable installation" that they have issued a CoC for.
That means a complete connectable installation, not just adding a socket or doing some other PEW.
The CoC has to cover the entire installation.
This provision is a carry-through of the earlier one that said a new CI didn't need a WoEF for the first 4-year period; as the original CoC was deemed sufficient.
Trouble was that caravan park owners had trouble with that, so from 2010 whoever issues CoC for initial installation can issue woEF.
Also correct that Type AC is OK for Oz; so imported units are likely to have this Type.
And that Oz doesn't have any equivalent to our WoEF system with App C being "NZ-only" accordingly.
That makes no difference WRT RCD type; 'cos that's not an App-C matter .
If the unit was / is Aussie-built, then whether "3000" & "3001" apply depends on which State it was built in.
EG, in Victoria, wiring connectable installations isn't officially (equivalent of ) PEW.
Despite that, for most Aussie-built units, the Type of RCD will be the only significant issue.
Installation work done overseas is not subject to ESRs.
However as an import, whoever issues a WoEF - not just 1st time, but every time - has to assess for compliance with Part 1 of '3000'.
A Type AC RCD can't get through that.
"When it comes time for certification in NZ" is BEFORE it gets plugged in in NZ.
It's an offence to allow a CI to be connected to supply of electricity unless the unit has a current WoEF.
So Type AC is not OK for use for any mandatory RCD in NZ (this isn't in ESRs, but it's in all the applicable standards).
The switchboard location on ceiling suggests to me that this is an example originally sourced from China as a CKD unit.
You mentioned that there's provision for a genset to be connected; yet I can't see a c/o switch in the photo.
An engineer's sign-off is not enough, part of App C WoEF checks is proving that there's full isolation between sources, on all live conductors.
Also for any plug-&-play genset, the inlet N-pin MUST be isolated when system selected to "normal" supply (in this case, the PV / solar).
Re: Portacom Inspection
Cheers Alec
The story goes on!
Have found out this company has 30 of these portacoms in NZ, they come from Auckland, not sure if imported but as mentioned already, do have Chinese RCBO's.
So they may be made in Alk, hence the E registration on the WoEF, if this is the case then they never complied with AS/NZS 3000 and 3001 from day one.
The other option is they were imported as a whole portacom, but why would you pay for all that space on ship, or they came as a flat pack and assembled here in NZ, who knows!
The out come is the electrician has now been given the job to relocate the swb and replace the RCBO's with type A, so all good, just means the company has 29 other portacoms out there, plus any other of these portacoms that may have been sold.
With regard to the inverter/gen changeover, a" Sunny Island" controls this with mechanical changeovers, capable of controlling Gen/PV/Wind and MEN supplies.
The story goes on!
Have found out this company has 30 of these portacoms in NZ, they come from Auckland, not sure if imported but as mentioned already, do have Chinese RCBO's.
So they may be made in Alk, hence the E registration on the WoEF, if this is the case then they never complied with AS/NZS 3000 and 3001 from day one.
The other option is they were imported as a whole portacom, but why would you pay for all that space on ship, or they came as a flat pack and assembled here in NZ, who knows!
The out come is the electrician has now been given the job to relocate the swb and replace the RCBO's with type A, so all good, just means the company has 29 other portacoms out there, plus any other of these portacoms that may have been sold.
With regard to the inverter/gen changeover, a" Sunny Island" controls this with mechanical changeovers, capable of controlling Gen/PV/Wind and MEN supplies.