I am a project manager, constructing new waste water treatment works, for a water company. The contractor building the new works has provided a program which has 4 months between part 1 (dead testing) and part 2 (live testing) of the NICIEC certification. In between these dates, the contractor will test and commission of the plant and equipment e.g. pumps, actuated valves, instrumentation, screens etc.
Would it be correct to say, this does not comply with the wiring regulations ?
Hi Derek
There is probably quite a lot that is out of the scope of BS7671. The equipment to be powered is classed as “appliances”, and the wiring between them (eg. a VFD and Motor) is something of a grey area for a number of complex reasons. Whilst BS7671 may cover some of the control wiring, this depends on design features that BS7671 may not cover.
This procedure is very much the Main Contractors problem, you may like to ensure that he is aware of it by asking for details of the overseeing design Engineer and commissioning Engineer, and even a method statement as to how he/they is going to carry out their responsibilities. This will undoubtedly lead to a lot of “snag shifting” and you may well be blamed for raising difficulties that are not your responsibility! Such is life, but the legal responsibility for the process (Under CDM) is the Main Contractor. If anything goes wrong it is his problem. Whilst we have many discussions here about “possible” bad outcomes of many things, this is generally just a reflection of general awareness of H&S and the responsibilities of contractors.
For complex installations BS7671 offers general principles, it is impossible to cover all possibilities. Your principle live test is Earth Loop Impedance testing, but if you have RCD protection everywhere (which is unlikely to be at “additional protection” levels for your type of installation) this may well be relatively easy. It becomes difficult once a VFD is in the final circuit, and the need to have the equipment operating normally. Getting the whole control system into the correct state may be very difficult.
You will see from this that the statement you would like is not possible from anyone, even the IET! You could show interest with the main contractor, but I suggest you need a good reason for that interest, and why you think it may not be done correctly, for your own protection. Such could be for procedures for maintenance and periodic test in the future, that may not have been considered at the design stage.
Regards
David CEng etc.
Hi Derek
There is probably quite a lot that is out of the scope of BS7671. The equipment to be powered is classed as “appliances”, and the wiring between them (eg. a VFD and Motor) is something of a grey area for a number of complex reasons. Whilst BS7671 may cover some of the control wiring, this depends on design features that BS7671 may not cover.
This procedure is very much the Main Contractors problem, you may like to ensure that he is aware of it by asking for details of the overseeing design Engineer and commissioning Engineer, and even a method statement as to how he/they is going to carry out their responsibilities. This will undoubtedly lead to a lot of “snag shifting” and you may well be blamed for raising difficulties that are not your responsibility! Such is life, but the legal responsibility for the process (Under CDM) is the Main Contractor. If anything goes wrong it is his problem. Whilst we have many discussions here about “possible” bad outcomes of many things, this is generally just a reflection of general awareness of H&S and the responsibilities of contractors.
For complex installations BS7671 offers general principles, it is impossible to cover all possibilities. Your principle live test is Earth Loop Impedance testing, but if you have RCD protection everywhere (which is unlikely to be at “additional protection” levels for your type of installation) this may well be relatively easy. It becomes difficult once a VFD is in the final circuit, and the need to have the equipment operating normally. Getting the whole control system into the correct state may be very difficult.
You will see from this that the statement you would like is not possible from anyone, even the IET! You could show interest with the main contractor, but I suggest you need a good reason for that interest, and why you think it may not be done correctly, for your own protection. Such could be for procedures for maintenance and periodic test in the future, that may not have been considered at the design stage.
Regards
David CEng etc.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
