Does a CU swap require a full initial verification on all circuits before it can be energised?

[snowhead]

To explain the situation... it's 4am, The electrician has been working since 8am.

So the Electrician has been working continuously for 20hrs and is then starting or completing a C.U change?

Powering up untested because it's inconvenient / potentially a H&S issue is not a valid reason.
It could be a bigger H&S issue if there was a fault that caused injury or worse.
Just because it had had previous inspections doesn't mean at the end of the CU swop that it doesn't have any faults, especially given how long the Electrician had been working.

There's already a serious H&S issue with the electrican working 20hrs.

 

[BrianM]

The C3 where conduits no longer line up with knockout holes…. Is there a gap now with basic insulation showing between the conduit and the DB?

Could have been solved with a bit of trunking?

Agree. Conduits line up perfectly. There's about a 9-10mm gap. It's boxed in with no stress or strain & no access. Essentially the conduit is rendered null & void?

 

[BrianM]

So the Electrician has been working continuously for 20hrs and is then starting or completing a C.U change?

Powering up untested because it's inconvenient / potentially a H&S issue is not a valid reason.
It could be a bigger H&S issue if there was a fault that caused injury or worse.
Just because it had had previous inspections doesn't mean at the end of the CU swop that it doesn't have any faults, especially given how long the Electrician had been working.

There's already a serious H&S issue with the electrican working 20hrs.

Ok... maximum security prison. Various high risk prisoners topping themselves and stabbing each other... yes planning should have been way way better... but loss of power was a real H&S risk. Refusing to test it or put it back on for 2 days over a C3 fault? The more I think about it the more I think they should have had the guys back and sorted something out.

 

[DPG]

I still don't get how the job ended up going the way it did. Was it badly planned? Were there too few staff doing the job?

What if it had gone wrong due to lack of time/testing?

Edit: I realise it's easy for me to criticise while I'm sat here drinking Old Peculier!

 

[BrianM]

I still don't get how the job ended up going the way it did. Was it badly planned? Were there too few staff doing the job?

What if it had gone wrong due to lack of time/testing?

As far as I can tell mistakes on both sides. Electrician thought 6-8 hours to install and test. Had to put in extra metal conduit for fire alarm because board had to be moved further left to align the conduit. Board supplied had incomer on wrong side and most CPD's supplied were wrong too. True nightmare job. The bosses son organised it and was assisting (office admin/wannabe apprentice) apparently he just sat down and did next to nothing. Didn't even pass tools.

 

[MJPD29]

Terrible planning does not mean you can energise circuits without proper testing, whether that's in your house or in a prison. The location of the circuits is absolutley irrelevant, it should NEVER be energised before proper testing has taken place. Person planning job should be sacked for lack of competence and having a spark working 20 hours van only lead to tiredness and inevitably mistakes. Prisoners topping themselves won't be an issue if they are killed by something electrical due to lack of testing to confirm its safe I'm the worst case scenario.

 

[7029 dave]

I still don't get how the job ended up going the way it did. Was it badly planned? Were there too few staff doing the job?

What if it had gone wrong due to lack of time/testing?

Edit: I realise it's easy for me to criticise while I'm sat here drinking Old Peculier!

Early guzzle Daz

 

[DPG]

Early guzzle Daz

Never too early for a beer!

 

[BrianM]

Terrible planning does not mean you can energise circuits without proper testing, whether that's in your house or in a prison. The location of the circuits is absolutley irrelevant, it should NEVER be energised before proper testing has taken place. Person planning job should be sacked for lack of competence and having a spark working 20 hours van only lead to tiredness and inevitably mistakes. Prisoners topping themselves won't be an issue if they are killed by something electrical due to lack of testing to confirm its safe I'm the worst case scenario.

That's what I'm saying though. It's just a board change. There aren't really any tests that are anything to do with the wiring up of the board itself. A visual could confirm that live, neutral and earth cables were in the correct terminals or if there was damage to cables. Tork screwdriver for the secureness of the terminations, RCD test. That's about it. Even if the neutral or earth conductors weren't in exactly the right/corresponding terminals it's a busbar at the end of the day. There was a legend so CPD ratings could be verified. Sure it should be tested, I don't disagree, but I mean, what is it that we're actually testing?

Am I wrong. Am I missing something?

 

[DPG]

Look, you are obviously concerned youself. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question!

 

[BrianM]

Look, you are obviously concerned youself. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question!

Lol no. Just want people's opinions. I'd have tested it, but failing that I think I would have put on one circuit at a time. Until it was all up. There's nothing definite in the regs. Just wondered what the popular consensus was... while I also have a beer.

 

[MJPD29]

Was there any thorough testing carried out beforehand though? How would you be aware of any faults that were already existing e.g broken ring conductor or high resistance connection on a circuit that an rcbo wouldn't pick up? Every single termination in the board has been remade and there is requirement by regulation for every circuit to be tested. There is no leg to stand on here, every circuit must be tested before re-energising. I'm afraid there is no short cut or other solution here, I agree with the electricians decision not to re-energise until testing has taken place, as if a situation did arise he would take the blame for it, poor planning or not

 

[mainline]

There's nothing definite in the regs.

132.16

 

[BrianM]

Was there any thorough testing carried out beforehand though? How would you be aware of any faults that were already existing e.g broken ring conductor or high resistance connection on a circuit that an rcbo wouldn't pick up? Every single termination in the board has been remade and there is requirement by regulation for every circuit to be tested. There is no leg to stand on here, every circuit must be tested before re-energising. I'm afraid there is no short cut or other solution here, I agree with the electricians decision not to re-energise until testing has taken place, as if a situation did arise he would take the blame for it, poor planning or not

Ah, right. The electrician refused to do the testing based on the C3. Said it failed outright.

Periodic inspection and testing every 12 months.

I admit it's a weird one. Just my own pondering whether the installer could have given permission to energize.

 

[BrianM]

132.16

Surely that is referring to the design process.