cu change eic or pir

[PC Electrics]

He's definitely been reading the 'Specs Guide to Post Writing'

I'm an anorak!

Actually I'm something of a pedant. Which helped me a lot in my career in the automotive industry as a Project Engineer and later Snr PE / almost Project Manager.

Always had to fill in loads of paperwork, everything from Product Change Requests to Supplier Agreements and Assessments and Product Presentations. It's obviously a requirement in these circumstances to be precise and concise, to use careful language. Also all these things have a "process" which has to be followed, which has to be followed correctly or your submission gets rejected or you lose the business.

I've also been involved in understanding many areas of legislative requirements for passenger cars. For example FMVSS208 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208) which is for head impact protection of occupants (I developed the interior of the 2003 Jag XJ to meet this legislation) makes BS7671 look like light bedtime reading.

So you can see that understanding "forms", what they are for and how they should be filled out is second nature to me. Similarly for understanding technical standards (even ones written in 'Legalese')

 

[ADS]

I'm an anorak!Actually I'm something of a pedant. Which helped me a lot in my career in the automotive industry as a Project Engineer and later Snr PE / almost Project Manager.

Always had to fill in loads of paperwork, everything from Product Change Requests to Supplier Agreements and Assessments and Product Presentations. It's obviously a requirement in these circumstances to be precise and concise, to use careful language. Also all these things have a "process" which has to be followed, which has to be followed correctly or your submission gets rejected or you lose the business.

I've also been involved in understanding many areas of legislative requirements for passenger cars. For example FMVSS208 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208) which is for head impact protection of occupants (I developed the interior of the 2003 Jag XJ to meet this legislation) makes BS7671 look like light bedtime reading.

So you can see that understanding "forms", what they are for and how they should be filled out is second nature to me. Similarly for understanding technical standards (even ones written in 'Legalese')

Sounds like you've had an interesting career, PC - I like the highlighted bit :Salute

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Did we find out what Tobo actually wanted to do?

:| ?:|

 

[batty]

I'm an anorak!Actually I'm something of a pedant. Which helped me a lot in my career in the automotive industry as a Project Engineer and later Snr PE / almost Project Manager.

Always had to fill in loads of paperwork, everything from Product Change Requests to Supplier Agreements and Assessments and Product Presentations. It's obviously a requirement in these circumstances to be precise and concise, to use careful language. Also all these things have a "process" which has to be followed, which has to be followed correctly or your submission gets rejected or you lose the business.

I've also been involved in understanding many areas of legislative requirements for passenger cars. For example FMVSS208 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208) which is for head impact protection of occupants (I developed the interior of the 2003 Jag XJ to meet this legislation) makes BS7671 look like light bedtime reading.

So you can see that understanding "forms", what they are for and how they should be filled out is second nature to me. Similarly for understanding technical standards (even ones written in 'Legalese')

PC

Something thats been bugging me I thought you were the female kind well you used to be what happened?

 

[Nicky Tesla]

What i need to know PC apart from the tick boxes, to what extent do you suggest the tests go to? Do we need to do everything or not?

 

[PC Electrics]

What i need to know PC apart from the tick boxes, to what extent do you suggest the tests go to? Do we need to do everything or not?

Guide #6 explains this:

http://www.esc.org.uk/business-and-community/electrical-industry/best-practice-guides.html

 

[tobo]

thanks for the link PC. I was looking into the part p schemes and was wandering how far I could go testing an installation under initial verification if it has a new cu and existing circuits. I have a builder friend, who wants me to get part p and work with him. I think the minimum safety checks will be enough for what he wants. I was thinking if he had to get me to do the initial verification, then pay someone else to do a periodic on the existing circuits, this would be a waste of my time and his money.

 

[initforthemoney]

I have a builder friend, who wants me to get part p and work with him.

Sounds to me like your "builder friend" just wants someone to sign off his installations.

Brave man....

 

[Mark2spark]

if I change a consumer unit and do a part rewire can i put all circuits on eic?I would not be able to confirm routing of existing cables etc. could this be noted down on cert. I have to certify whole installation.

Although PC's link is good, and is what any self respecting sparkie would do, the basics of the above ask still amount to the answer 'you can do nothing if you like'.

As it (replace a cu) is notifiable, as is new circuits, then you could just pay the building notice fee and hand the testing/certifying part over to building control.

 

[initforthemoney]

I would and do.

Im not taking responsibility for someone elses work.

 

[batty]

I would think N/A is more applicable for cu change as you don't have to route cables to connect it surely.

 

[Sidewinder]

You should not need to put either, the description of works box should limit you to the work that you have done, thus, if you have routed to conductors correctly in the bit you've done then tick the box.

You should exclude the cabling in the rest of the property by your description of works.

 

[professional]

It could be argued that stating that "existing installation has been inspected and tested only" in the extent of installation box could negate the use of a separate PIR form BUT the problem appears to be the LIMITATIONS. Since you cannot have limitations on an EIC but may well require them on the existing installation that you are re-connecting to the replacement consumer unit, how do you apply different limitations to different parts of the same installation without using separate forms?

 

[professional]

It could be argued that stating that "existing installation has been inspected and tested only" in the extent of installation box could negate the use of a separate PIR form BUT the problem appears to be the LIMITATIONS. Since you cannot have limitations on an EIC but may well require them on the existing installation that you are re-connecting to the replacement consumer unit, how do you apply different limitations to different parts of the same installation without using separate forms?

 

[Andy™]

the shcedule of tests refers to your work. not the rest of the installation. so you will have either tick or NA. if you have any 'X' or lim, your doing something wrong.

 

[tobo]

Cheers guys

Iv just done the 2392 and hope to do the 2391 this year. Wanted to do the 91 but was told there is a 30% pass rate. Is it really that hard?

All my testing knowledge and bad habbits have been passed on to me by other sparks over the years. Knowing the how but not why. SAFE ISOLATION thought that was locking the van properly. YEE HARR!!

 

[professional]

[quote name='Andy

 

[springcrocus]

I produce my own EIC's, modeled around the standard form, and below the "Notes and Guidance for Recipients" box, I have a "Further Information" box.

The first paragraph of my further information contains the following permanent entry:-

"If the work undertaken is a replacement consumer unit only, then the circuit information supplied on the Schedule of Inspections and the Schedule of Test Results may be incomplete and only reflects the inspections and tests undertaken for the purpose of verifying that the various circuits were safe to reconnect. It does not indicate that the electrician / inspector has altered or added to those circuits, nor does it make the electrician / inspector responsible for any subsequent faults discovered on those circuits.

Whether or not this covers my a**e satisfactorily will only ever be determined in a court of law if a situation ever arises. My scheme assessor seems to approve, though.

Please feel free to copy this verbatim if you feel it may be useful to you.

 

[ADS]

But I am not referring to the Schedule of Test Results - an Inspection Schedule can apply to either an EIC OR a PIR but not both at the same time.My question remains unanswered:

How do you differentiate between the limitations on the existing circuit inspection and the new circuit inspection within the same a single EIC?

If you are certifying a consumer unit with new circuits and reconnecting existing circuits you will need two Inspection Schedules, which will require both a PIR and an EIC.

Professional, if you are not doing a PIR as well as the CU swap, then you are issuing an EIC with a 'Schedule of Inspections' that apply to your CU swap only.

In the box headed : Extent of installation covered by this Certificate - you would write....CU change only.

Anything that doesn't apply to the CU swap gets a N/A in the box.

For example:-

Presence of Earthing Conductor would get a 'tick'

Presence of Supplemetary Bonding Conductors would get a N/A

Selection of conductors for current-carrying capacity and voltage drop would get a N/A.

NOW, if you were also adding two new circuits with your CU swap then, in the box headed : Extent of installation covered by this Certificate , you would write....CU swap and circuits R4 and L6. (or something similar)

So now, Selection of conductors for current-carrying capacity and voltage drop would get a 'tick'

But it only applies to your new circuits!!

Then, testing the existing circuits.

If you are doing a PIR, you are testing the circuits as part of a whole installation - just as you will have 'inspected' said circuits prior to doing your testing.

On a CU change, you are testing the existing circuits because they are connected to your new CU and associated protective devices.

Yes, they are the same tests that you would apply to new circuits - but 'inspection' of the existing installation would be very limited. (unless doing a PIR as well)

The test results for the 'existing' circuits are recorded on the 'Schedule of Test Results' that will accompany the EIC that covers your CU change - because they are relative to your CU change

E.G.

Continuity of Protective Conductors - relative to ensure new protective devices are going to operate.

RFC conductor continuity - relative, as you don't want to connect up a split ring etc.

IR - Obviously relative, but Live conductors connected together to earth will do.

Polarity - at extremity of radials, once again, you want your new protective devices to operate.

Zs - relative to confirm your new protective devices will operate within given times.

RCD - obviously!

Like I said, both inspection and testing are only what's relative to your Extent of installation covered by this Certificate - not the existing installation.

If that makes sense:Blushing

 

[Voltimax]

I produce my own EIC's, modeled around the standard form, and below the "Notes and Guidance for Recipients" box, I have a "Further Information" box.The first paragraph of my further information contains the following permanent entry:-

"If the work undertaken is a replacement consumer unit only, then the circuit information supplied on the Schedule of Inspections and the Schedule of Test Results may be incomplete and only reflects the inspections and tests undertaken for the purpose of verifying that the various circuits were safe to reconnect. It does not indicate that the electrician / inspector has altered or added to those circuits, nor does it make the electrician / inspector responsible for any subsequent faults discovered on those circuits.

Whether or not this covers my a**e satisfactorily will only ever be determined in a court of law if a situation ever arises. My scheme assessor seems to approve, though.

Please feel free to copy this verbatim if you feel it may be useful to you.

Lovely, thank you.

Now can I have the rest of the certificate?

:coat