Cheers
VERIFICATION OF MARINE
VERIFICATION OF MARINE
I'm in the process of verification of a marina. Found this which is part of a dry dock, located on the marina. My first thought was how do you isolate this piece of equipment. I found, when I lifted the cover off that it was plugged in to a lead which turned out to be connected to the same RCBO as the outlet which supplies the boat which in my view doesn't comply with 3004.1, 2.4.2.4.4. I am also concerned about the method of connection as per the photo. The cover is not secure and in extreme conditions waves can break over the Pier. As the floating dock is not a boat what rules would apply? Any thoughts appreciated.
Cheers
Cheers
Re: VERIFICATION OF MARINE
Looks nasty; whatever it's meant to be doing.
The question of whether the "floating dock" is a boat or not doesn't really matter; as the fact that it's directly connected to an installation means it comes under the rules for that installation. It's acceptable to directly connect a boat, but doing so means it's no longer a "connectable installation but just equipment connected to a fixed installation.
The wording of that clause means that the overload protection for a marina service pillar socket must be dedicated to that socket; so it's not OK to connect anything else to that device.
While there's a compliance issue in that regard; it's not one that's part of Periodic Assessment for the marina under ESR 75.
That said, clause 4.2 includes several basic safety checks that this lot would fall short on.
And there's absolutely nothing to stop you including mention of additional items; in addition to those listed.
After all - and unlike a WoEF - a PA isn't a "pass/fail" thing; it's simply a report on the state of the installation at a point in time.
So the list of checks and tests that must be carried out is just a minimum list.
True clause 4.2.5 says a CoV can't be issued unless the installation passes the minimum checks & tests.
But ESR 75 doesn't require a "CoV"; it requires an "RoA"; and it requires the RoA to be issued regardless of what state the installation is in. There's nothing in the Reg that allows the assessor to withhold the RoA for any reason; and Energy Safety have repeatedly confirmed that it's an assessment and not a verification. The purpose of PA is stated as being "to determine whether" the installation is electrically safe and compliant with Regs; not to ensure that it actually IS. And that was the same under 1997 Regs; so the change from ensuring the installation reaches a minimum level of safety (as per 1993 Regs), to simply recording an assessment of safety happened more than 20 years ago.
Also if the you feel the problems amount to an "immediate danger to life or property"; you can report it to Worksafe as well.
Not that you have to, because assessing isn't PEW as defined in Schedule 1; but there's nothing to prevent you from reporting things even when you don't have to.
It's relevant that EWRB have ruled that assessing to issue of WoEF is PEW; on grounds that such assessment is part of "maintenance". I completely reject that interpretation. However if WoEF assessments are PEW; then by the same logic PAs under ESR 75 must also be PEW - despite tyhe ract that for three of the six types of PA, assessors don't need any form of PL (just competence). Which clearly indicates that neither kind of assessment was ever intended to be PEW. I believe the Board has made this interpretation solely so they can take disciplinary action against inspectors who make stuff-ups when issuing WoEFs.
The question of whether the "floating dock" is a boat or not doesn't really matter; as the fact that it's directly connected to an installation means it comes under the rules for that installation. It's acceptable to directly connect a boat, but doing so means it's no longer a "connectable installation but just equipment connected to a fixed installation.
The wording of that clause means that the overload protection for a marina service pillar socket must be dedicated to that socket; so it's not OK to connect anything else to that device.
While there's a compliance issue in that regard; it's not one that's part of Periodic Assessment for the marina under ESR 75.
That said, clause 4.2 includes several basic safety checks that this lot would fall short on.
And there's absolutely nothing to stop you including mention of additional items; in addition to those listed.
After all - and unlike a WoEF - a PA isn't a "pass/fail" thing; it's simply a report on the state of the installation at a point in time.
So the list of checks and tests that must be carried out is just a minimum list.
True clause 4.2.5 says a CoV can't be issued unless the installation passes the minimum checks & tests.
But ESR 75 doesn't require a "CoV"; it requires an "RoA"; and it requires the RoA to be issued regardless of what state the installation is in. There's nothing in the Reg that allows the assessor to withhold the RoA for any reason; and Energy Safety have repeatedly confirmed that it's an assessment and not a verification. The purpose of PA is stated as being "to determine whether" the installation is electrically safe and compliant with Regs; not to ensure that it actually IS. And that was the same under 1997 Regs; so the change from ensuring the installation reaches a minimum level of safety (as per 1993 Regs), to simply recording an assessment of safety happened more than 20 years ago.
Also if the you feel the problems amount to an "immediate danger to life or property"; you can report it to Worksafe as well.
Not that you have to, because assessing isn't PEW as defined in Schedule 1; but there's nothing to prevent you from reporting things even when you don't have to.
It's relevant that EWRB have ruled that assessing to issue of WoEF is PEW; on grounds that such assessment is part of "maintenance". I completely reject that interpretation. However if WoEF assessments are PEW; then by the same logic PAs under ESR 75 must also be PEW - despite tyhe ract that for three of the six types of PA, assessors don't need any form of PL (just competence). Which clearly indicates that neither kind of assessment was ever intended to be PEW. I believe the Board has made this interpretation solely so they can take disciplinary action against inspectors who make stuff-ups when issuing WoEFs.
- Rating: 16.67%
Re: VERIFICATION OF MARINE
Cheers Jamie, 3004 has a CoV hence my question, I assume the same thing but different name
Re: VERIFICATION OF MARINE
Not the same thing.
A CoV is a hangover from 1993 Regs.
There's no official, or example, RoA (yet) except in latest (2019 + A1) edition of "3012"
Similar forms coming in current revisions of 3001 & 3004; the only differences being the Standard(s) referred to.
But the basic requirements for an RoA are derived from ESR 75.
First; identify the installation being assessed.
ES want a detailed description; not just a site address.
For a marina or caravan park; that would include the number (and the ID) of all service pillars, plus any other parts of the installation assessed.
They certainly take a dim view of of just an address followed by "all OK"
Second; who assessed ut & when: name, signature,RPL number, date, etc
Third; declaration based on the words of the ESR
- is it electrically safe?
- does it comply with ESRs?
ES also want a list of any deficiencies; which is of course absolutely necessary if we expect the owner to take remedial action
A CoV is a hangover from 1993 Regs.
There's no official, or example, RoA (yet) except in latest (2019 + A1) edition of "3012"
Similar forms coming in current revisions of 3001 & 3004; the only differences being the Standard(s) referred to.
But the basic requirements for an RoA are derived from ESR 75.
First; identify the installation being assessed.
ES want a detailed description; not just a site address.
For a marina or caravan park; that would include the number (and the ID) of all service pillars, plus any other parts of the installation assessed.
They certainly take a dim view of of just an address followed by "all OK"
Second; who assessed ut & when: name, signature,RPL number, date, etc
Third; declaration based on the words of the ESR
- is it electrically safe?
- does it comply with ESRs?
ES also want a list of any deficiencies; which is of course absolutely necessary if we expect the owner to take remedial action
- Rating: 16.67%