Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3793 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Board change

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
If a EICR has been carried out recently 4 weeks ago, if you change the board would you be required to carryout testing on all circuits or can you reference the EICR.
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:

    An insulation test certainly - even if it's just a global L+N to PE test on the completed board.




    I agree that an IR test is necessary, but completely messed up by USB sockets which have to be excluded, which is a particular problem in RFCs.

  • 0

    Good grief, the new work is the DB change. The final circuits are not new.



    Sorry, I'm sure we're getting at cross purposes here...


    I'm not trying to suggest that the final circuits are new - quite the contrary. The point I'm trying to make is that the new work does include the first 6 inches (say) of the existing final circuit cabling - where the cables have been removed from the old CU, wiggled about all over the place and re-terminated into the new CU. There is a possibility of introducing faults into the existing circuits during that process - whether it be loosing earthing due to a bad connection to the earth bar (screw biting down on the sleeving rather than the conductor) or the old wires snapping off inside the sleeving, insulation being damaged (or existing unnoticed damage now resulting in an actual fault against the new metal CU case) or even reverse polarity (perhaps where connected to an RCBO) - so the new I&T needs to somehow show (AFARP) that such faults haven't been introduced.


    I'll admit that situation might be confused by the current fashion of dead testing final circuits while they're disconnected from the CU (e.g. by choc blocking L and PE together for a R1+R2 test thus not checking what's probably the most critical single connection - rather than linking L to the earth bar) - at least the 17th onwards insists that insulation tests be done with the c.p.c.s connected to earth. Not helped of course by some RCDs having to be disconnected during insulation tests, nor the lack of emphasis of 'overall' tests on the completed CU (despite the wording of the actual regulations). I'm sure the switch to metal CUs will catch out a number of situations that whet unnoticed with the old insulating CUs.


    So I'm not saying you need to do a full set of tests over the entire existing final circuits - but some testing will be needed. Perhaps a loop test at the first convenient point on each outgoing circuit (to check earth continuity & polarity) - perhaps preceded by a R1 continuity check if you think there's any risk of a live loop test posing a hazard if the c.p.c. wasn't intact.  An insulation test certainly - even if it's just a global L+N to PE test on the completed board.


      - Andy.
  • 0

    Alcomax:




    AJJewsbury:




    No. Initial verification has been and gone. The fixed wiring [ the final circuits, the existing ones ] were installed and certified before you were there....at initial verification of the , then , new installation.



    Humm, not quite. The previous initial verification didn't include your new work did it? And that's the bit you're issuing the certificate to cover. Certificates can't cover existing parts of installations - there are EICRs (reports, not certificates) for that.


    Yes, you have to do some verification when re-energising the circuits by virtue of DB replacement. But enough to demonstrate that things are no less safe than when you started.



    You should be able to show that your new work complies entirely with current standards - and that the existing installation, where non compliant, is no less safe that it was before. You can't really skimp on the I&T of your new work.


       - Andy.

     




    Good grief, the new work is the DB change. The final circuits are not new.

    ​​​​​​Do the applicable parts of the inspection schedule appropriate to the changing of db.

     


     




    LOL.  I was thinking it was just me.


    Gary

  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    No. Initial verification has been and gone. The fixed wiring [ the final circuits, the existing ones ] were installed and certified before you were there....at initial verification of the , then , new installation.



    Humm, not quite. The previous initial verification didn't include your new work did it? And that's the bit you're issuing the certificate to cover. Certificates can't cover existing parts of installations - there are EICRs (reports, not certificates) for that.


    Yes, you have to do some verification when re-energising the circuits by virtue of DB replacement. But enough to demonstrate that things are no less safe than when you started.



    You should be able to show that your new work complies entirely with current standards - and that the existing installation, where non compliant, is no less safe that it was before. You can't really skimp on the I&T of your new work.


       - Andy.

     




    Good grief, the new work is the DB change. The final circuits are not new.

    ​​​​​​Do the applicable parts of the inspection schedule appropriate to the changing of db.

     

  • 0

    No. Initial verification has been and gone. The fixed wiring [ the final circuits, the existing ones ] were installed and certified before you were there....at initial verification of the , then , new installation.



    Humm, not quite. The previous initial verification didn't include your new work did it? And that's the bit you're issuing the certificate to cover. Certificates can't cover existing parts of installations - there are EICRs (reports, not certificates) for that.


    Yes, you have to do some verification when re-energising the circuits by virtue of DB replacement. But enough to demonstrate that things are no less safe than when you started.



    You should be able to show that your new work complies entirely with current standards - and that the existing installation, where non compliant, is no less safe that it was before. You can't really skimp on the I&T of your new work.


       - Andy.
  • 0

    SScho:




    but in the case of just a board replacement, it will not be for the purposes of initial verification.






    I don't think you've quite understood... Where are you getting this information? You need to go over the process of initial verification when you change a board, exactly as you would when you have a brand new installation.


    The Regs state that you shouldn't use a minor works certificate for a board change, and that you should use the Installation Certificate (with the schedule of inspections and schedule of test results.)


     



     



    If a DB change, then on the first section of EIC [ where you have 3 tick box options] you do not tick "new"


    You need to go over the process of initial verification when you change a board, exactly as you would when you have a brand new installation.



    No. Initial verification has been and gone. The fixed wiring [ the final circuits, the existing ones ] were installed and certified before you were there....at initial verification of the , then , new installation.


    Yes, you have to do some verification when re-energising the circuits by virtue of DB replacement. But enough to demonstrate that things are no less safe than when you started.  That can be done in many ways..e.g..you may have an EICR as a point of reference....compare before and after and/or sample live tests before change...then a sample wander R2 dead before energising new DB]. The circuit schedules and inspection schedules [ model forms] are one size fits all. You do not have to fill them all in if some are N/A to what you have installed.


    The EIC is not really a good fit for a DB change, but that is all there is.


    There should be care that you do not take on any responsibility for stuff you did not actually put in [ the cables]. A statement in the extents along the lines of "no new wiring or circuits" will certainly help.
     

    Yes BS7671 makes a presumption that all is perfect in wiring land and that everything was initially new installed to standard and maintained as such throughout its life. But that never really happens, except in more monitored situations, like your Hospital for instance. Even then, some stuff will always be missed and there will always be errors that may or may not be picked up later. You can only do what is practicable under the circumstances.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

     in larger installations that would be impractical so you would almost certainly look for ways to limit the testing beyond what had been worked on




    I agree Andy, but this should be accounted for at the initial pricing of the job and finding either a way to do this in a practical way, either at night or out of hours. The power has to go off anyway for the board to be changed over - I was preparing the bid for a few board changes at a hospital and it became rather complicated and we decided that it'd be wise to start testing things before we rip out the old board and replace with RCBO's so we could find the problems easier to start with and know what we were dealing with and not have to have the power off for longer than necessary. Anything that can't be tested after the installation of the new board should be noted down as a limitation with the details of said limitation recorded on a separate sheet.

    For domestic situations, I'd recommend testing the entire thing as there shouldn't be anything stopping you from doing so. I wouldn't class it as a "new" installation for the entire thing, but under the "Description and extent of the installation" I'd definitely mention that the circuits tested are existing and that the only change is the new board, breakers and characteristics surrounding it.


    - S


  • 0

    You need to go over the process of initial verification when you change a board, exactly as you would when you have a brand new installation.



    You certainly go through the whole I&T process - but (as a minimum) only over the work you've just done (and therefore certifying) - not necessarily the entire installation. For a simple domestic it may well be simpler to just test each of the circuits in their entirety, but in larger installations that would be impractical so you would almost certainly look for ways to limit the testing beyond what had been worked on.


    Having the word "Installation" in our certificates does seem to cause a lot of confusion - Joe Public especially often seems to assume it covers the entire (existing) installation, despite what's written in the 'Extent of installation covered by this certificate' box.


       - Andy.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    but in the case of just a board replacement, it will not be for the purposes of initial verification.






    I don't think you've quite understood... Where are you getting this information? You need to go over the process of initial verification when you change a board, exactly as you would when you have a brand new installation.


    The Regs state that you shouldn't use a minor works certificate for a board change, and that you should use the Installation Certificate (with the schedule of inspections and schedule of test results.)


     


  • 0

    SScho:




    Alcomax:


     


     the circuits have been in use for around 30yrs .... It could be due a full re-wire if the circuits are that sort of age.



    Why at the age of 30 is the wiring suspect enough to be condemned? Is this the "Logan's Run" approach to work generation?


    In my opinion, a board change requires a full test and classed as a new installation



    A distribution board change is a replacement , and does not "renew the installation". A marketing ploy, maybe, for the unscrupulous.

     




    I admit that there are installations that are still to be deemed as "OK", even though they could be 50 odd years old, but as I said, it depends entirely on the condition of the installation and part of the reason why I would want to do a full test on it to make sure nothing has broken down or is on the verge of it - Even though everyone loves going back to site 3 months down the line because the lights keep tripping and it was "your fault"...


    As for my reasoning for a full test on a new DB - BS7671 specifies that a minor works certificate "should not be used for replacement of distribution boards or similar items" (appendix 6, page 466 - 18th Edition). So you're not doing a minor works certificate, and you're not doing a condition report - that whittles down the options a bit. (See Page 464 of BS7671 18th Edition IET Wiring Regulations) -



    ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE
    Notes for the person producing the Certificate:  


    1. The electrical Installation Certificate is to be used only for the initial certification of a new installation or for an addition or alteration to an existing installation where new circuits have been introduced, or the replacement of a consumer unit/distribution board.






    You also need to confirm that the board you're supplying has the appropriate equipment for the supply characteristics and the correct operating and protective factors for the installation provided. Hardly a "marketing ploy" to make sure you're doing something properly.


     



    It could be a marketing ploy if you incorrectly deem the replacement as a "new installation". It is obviously not new, except the box and devices contained inside.


    The electrical installation certificate has many uses as listed above , but in the case of just a board replacement, it will not be for the purposes of initial verification. So not "new installation", but an "alteration" and, if you then add some completely "new" circuits whilst replacing board, an "addition" also.

     

Community Rules & Guidelines