lozarus
-
Afternoon all. Bear with me on this one...
Despite having been involved in the electrical industry for many years, I'm only just about to embark on 2391 - its more of a personal endeavour than anything, having been very interested in inspection & test for a long time (I know, not everybody's idea of a good time). I've obviously read the GN back to front and am enjoying the Chris Kitcher literature.
I'm preemptively trying to put this in the context of my employment (I'm a Head of Estates with electrical bias). I've asked a few of the different electrical contractors (who are all really supportive with my learning) we use for large projects and got mixed answers - I'll share these later. My question is as thus:
Like for like replacement of accessories and fittings (I include changing a flourescent for an LED light fitting in this for example). I know in general this is viewed by the industry as "maintenance" and no testing isn't strictly required (I like to do a Zs however to prove a CPC to the point I'm working at and check ring continuity with my MFT).
However when it comes to modifying a circuit - extending an RFC to add additional sockets, providing an FCU as a spur off an RFC, adding lighting to a radial and so on - I'm a bit unsure as to what's expected / what people actually do in the real world regards testing.
The MEIWC suggests: R1 + R2 / R2, RFC Continuity, IR, Polarity and Zs
My understanding is that to complete R1+R2 and your IR would require isolating at the board, disconnection and testing from the source.
My feedback from various people is mixed as to whether all these tests are done on every such job. I note the MEIWC form states "where relevant and practicable". So would it for example be reasonable to omit an R1+R2 and IR if its unreasonable to isolate the board to facilitate this and all other tests prove acceptable (and ideally, results from a previous EICR are available).
I get a feeling the answer is going to be "its up to the policies, procedures and risk assesment of the organisation". Well guess who writes them for my department? Hence wanting to seek some thoughts on this.
Interestingly I spoke to the insurers about this a few months back. After some consulting with the underwriters and technical experts their response was "everything's generally OK as long as you have evidence of your 5 year EICR".
Thoughts appreciated.
Despite having been involved in the electrical industry for many years, I'm only just about to embark on 2391 - its more of a personal endeavour than anything, having been very interested in inspection & test for a long time (I know, not everybody's idea of a good time). I've obviously read the GN back to front and am enjoying the Chris Kitcher literature.
I'm preemptively trying to put this in the context of my employment (I'm a Head of Estates with electrical bias). I've asked a few of the different electrical contractors (who are all really supportive with my learning) we use for large projects and got mixed answers - I'll share these later. My question is as thus:
Like for like replacement of accessories and fittings (I include changing a flourescent for an LED light fitting in this for example). I know in general this is viewed by the industry as "maintenance" and no testing isn't strictly required (I like to do a Zs however to prove a CPC to the point I'm working at and check ring continuity with my MFT).
However when it comes to modifying a circuit - extending an RFC to add additional sockets, providing an FCU as a spur off an RFC, adding lighting to a radial and so on - I'm a bit unsure as to what's expected / what people actually do in the real world regards testing.
The MEIWC suggests: R1 + R2 / R2, RFC Continuity, IR, Polarity and Zs
My understanding is that to complete R1+R2 and your IR would require isolating at the board, disconnection and testing from the source.
My feedback from various people is mixed as to whether all these tests are done on every such job. I note the MEIWC form states "where relevant and practicable". So would it for example be reasonable to omit an R1+R2 and IR if its unreasonable to isolate the board to facilitate this and all other tests prove acceptable (and ideally, results from a previous EICR are available).
I get a feeling the answer is going to be "its up to the policies, procedures and risk assesment of the organisation". Well guess who writes them for my department? Hence wanting to seek some thoughts on this.
Interestingly I spoke to the insurers about this a few months back. After some consulting with the underwriters and technical experts their response was "everything's generally OK as long as you have evidence of your 5 year EICR".
Thoughts appreciated.
