Online assistance for electrical trade people in New Zealand and Australia Login  |  Register  |   Forgot Password
Assistance for electrical trade people
 

 

 

 


Click here to send Ron a pdf document for publication on this Topic

Documents must be less than 200k in pdf format

Posted By Topic: Certificate of Verification

Sarmajor
Mar 03 2014 08:31

I have just received the latest version of the Certificate of Verification and have noticed:

This certificate covers verification of
Existing installation after disconnection / isolation for more than 6 months Reg 74 (ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR). Reg 74 (2)(c) is given by a person authorised to certify mains work.

Electricians can certify mains work they just can\'t inspect it.

Hopefully they will issue yet another amendment to insert the word inspect or inspector where they mean inspect or inspector.
   

AlecK
Mar 03 2014 11:34

not clear who you want to change.

EWRD\'s CoV form has always been wrong in this regard.
These certs used to require an Inspector under previous eg (1997 R 43A).
As long as the relevant reg has been ESR 74, ie since 2010 ESRs came out electricians, engineers, and others have been able o issue a cert under it.
But while it\'s out of date, no-one can get into trouble for using the form (unless they don\'t tick \"section 3). Unlike using their non-compliant CoCs.

Since the cahnge was made, there have been 3 amendments to ESrs, and ES / Minstry are certainly aware that many think it was a wrong move and the certs should still require n nspector. But they have not changed it back. So have to presume the change was deliberate and they think it\'s right as it is.
   

Andrew
Mar 03 2014 11:58

I agree with the current regulation. If a disconnection involved mains work then so will reconnection and an inspector will be required. If the disconnection didn\'t involve mains work and the CoV requires you to verify that the installation has a functioning main earthing system then there\'s nothing that would require an inspector in a brand new or existing installation so why require an inspector in this case?
   

AlecK
Mar 03 2014 13:32

technically what\'s being talked about here is not a CoV at all. Used to be, under previous Regs, but now is a \"certificate issued in accordance wit Section 3 of AS/NZS 3019\"
But CoV is easier, and i suppose no-one will be confused between this and other types of CoV.


\"If a disconnection involved mains work then so will reconnection and an inspector will be required.\"

Not correct, as an inspector is only required for mains work IF that mains work is classified as High Risk.
Disconnection and reconnection are not so classified, they are Low Risk.
Even more clear-cut for the much more common isolation and re-livening, which are not PEW, but this certificate is still required.

\"If the disconnection didn\'t involve mains work and the CoV requires you to verify that the installation has a functioning main earthing system\"

The \"CoV\" requires no such thing. All that it requires is a visual inspection i.a.w Section 3. The only bits relating to the earthing system are:
(b) exposed portions of electrode how no evidence of corrosion, damage, or poor connection; and
(c) that a waterpipe acting as earth electrode has not been replaced with plastic

That isn\'t checking that the system functions, by long chalk.

Maybe you\'re thinking of the pre-connection checks in ESR 73A, which include [(1)(e)iv)] that (for MEN systems) \"there is a main earthing system\".
But that\'s OnLY where EW has been one on the installation, not for re-connection under ESR 74 which is ONLY for installations on which no General or High risk work has been done.

Even if actual disconnection has been done, ESR 74 does not require pre-connection checks as specified in ESR 73A. Most such disconnections are outside of the installation, on works, so don\'t trigger ESR 73A (arguably under current wordings 73A would apply for reconnection of a part-installation)

\"then there\'s nothing that would require an inspector in a brand new or existing installation so why require an inspector in this case?\"

Because apart from Section 3 of AS/NZS 3019, the certificate must state that the installation is \"suitable for continued use\"; and the basis of that is ESR 113.
Ie all the pats of it complied with whatever rules were in force when installed, and still comply with those rules.

That judgement requires a good knowledge of previous sets of Rules, and of what installation practices were prevalent when.

OK, that experience & knowledge isn\'t confined to inspectors, and some inspectors don\'t have it. But there\'s no other way to set a level higher than \"just got registered last week\".

However, as I said before there seems little chance of ES / Ministry going back to requiring an inspector unless / until a coroner makes a recommendation.

Personally I also think the level set should be higher than Section 3, and should include some testing. The main earthing system should be included.
my test list would include some, but not all, of sections 4 & 5.
   

Sarmajor
Mar 03 2014 13:47

Just to clear up who I think should change.
I believe that for the reasons set forth by Aleck the wording of Reg 74 (2)(c) should have the word certify changed to inspect.

   

Andrew
Mar 03 2014 17:22

Sorry, some serious brain fades on my part AlecK. I stand corrected. I hadn\'t picked up on the fact that there may never be testing required alongside the visual checks, and I had assumed disconnection for over 6 months would involve removal of the cable into the switchboard (so general/high risk PEW would be required to make the connection). With assumptions like that it\'s a good thing I don\'t write the rules :)

However, I would say ESR 113 applies to work on a connected installation too, so the \"just registered\" electrician still needs to be aware of older rules (or use forums like this to ask around). I\'m not convinced that inspectors are a must, but agree that there should be testing as well as visual checks.
   

Sarmajor
Mar 03 2014 18:12

The certificate is still called a \"Certificate of Verification\" and the certifier fills in boxes to indicates the purpose of the cert and level of inspection iaw the appropriate standard. 3019, 3001, 3004 etc.

It irks me that the two organisations responsible for overseeing our trade cannot get the use of terminology and standard definitions straight between themselves.
   

Sarmajor
Mar 03 2014 18:16

Oh an by far the majority of disconnection inspections that I do the supply is only isolated by the removal of the pole fuse.
   

zl2aj
Mar 04 2014 09:37

\"ESR73A doesnt apply because the disconnection is done in Works\"

Read ESR38 then - which covers where ESR73A does not. Reconnection of works.
   

Andrew
Mar 04 2014 11:57

Except replacing a fuse isn\'t PEW.
   

Andrew
Mar 04 2014 12:12

Just had a thought here... unlike ESR 73A, ESR 74 doesn\'t define disconnection or connection, so it seems to me that flicking the main switch, removing a fuse, or turning off a circuit breaker (and maybe even turning off an ordinary light-switch) all qualify under 74(1) as disconnecting or isolating a part installation (but not the whole since the consumer mains is still live).
Is that right? If not, why not?
   

zl2aj
Mar 04 2014 14:01

My comment was in regards to where a disconnection (as defined in ESR 73A) was done.

Yes I agree turning a main switch off (and locking it out to make it meet the definition of isolation as opposed to just turning it off) would be considered to be caught by ESR 74 how I read it.

It has come up before (I have asked this) but how does a relay opening in a smart meter meet the criteria for isolation in ESR 74?

Remember - there is a difference between isolation - and turning off.
   

AlecK
Mar 04 2014 14:19

zl2aj

ESR 38 covers Connection OF works, not connection or re-connection of installations.
And certainly not mere re-livening after isolation, neither of which is PEW. And then ONLY is PEW has been done on the Works.

True, the first part of the mains, up to the boundary is works, so ESR 38 applies to that.... but since ESR 38 doesn’t require any checks of earthing there’s no point following that line any further.

So for re-livening an installation, regardless of where / how the isolation was done, ONLY ESR 74 can apply, and only if no General or High Risk PEW has been done.

For re-connection of an installation, we have two ESRs that can apply, depending whether PEW has been done, and if so what sort.
ESR 74 applies if there has been no General or High Risk PEW done on the installation.
ESR 73A applies if ANY PEW has been done on the installation, regardless of Low / General / High.
This used to be an either / or choice, either some PEW had been done or not, but last change means that ESR 74 can’t apply if the PEW done was Low Risk.
With that change, there are now some cases where both apply, ie where some Low Risk work has been done.

But.... if NO PEW AT ALL has been done o the installation, NEITHER of these ESRs can apply.

So in some cases there is a requirement to check existence - but not effectiveness or even just continuity - of the main earthing system. But in most cases, including all cases where installation has been only isolated not disconnected, there is no requirement to even check it’s there’s no such requirement.


For smart meters, it will depend on the exact nature of the relay. Clause 2.3.2.2 does not permit electronic devices to be used for isolation, and any device must (f) be readily available (not just operated remotely by the energy retailer) and must (c) clearly indicate the isolated position.
A relay is a switching device, so would also need to be lockable.

Given all the requirements, I think safe to say smart meter s very unlikely o qualify - so if that’s all that’s been done, no isolation means no re-livening so neither ESR applies.

---------
Andrew
“Except replacing a fuse isn\'t PEW”

Correct. And at the time either of these Regs apply, the fuse has yet to be placed.
Similarly even if there’s going to be a re-connection, at the time these Regs apply, it has not happened yet.


“Just had a thought here... unlike ESR 73A, ESR 74 doesn\'t define disconnection or connection, so it seems to me that flicking the main switch, removing a fuse, or turning off a circuit breaker (and maybe even turning off an ordinary light-switch) all qualify under 74(1) as disconnecting or isolating a part installation (but not the whole since the consumer mains is still live).
Is that right? If not, why not?”

1
ESR 74 doesn’t define “connection”, what it does is specify WHICH of possibly several connections is the one that triggers the rule.
In other words, it dictates which of possibly several people is responsible.
ESRs (no) use “connection” consistently, always for actually physically making connection ( and usually it’s PEW), and never for mere isolation.
Wiring Rules do use “disconnect when they really mean “isolate”, and that can cause confusion. But ESR 4 sorts out what definitions apply in each document.


2
Yes all these things can be isolation (but not if the switch isn’t an isolating switch, so not an ordinary light switch) .
And yes that means if you leave a circuit / motor / whatever turned off for more than 6 months, then ESR 74 applies and you are technically required to get a cert before re-livening.
But unlikely to ever be caught if you don’t; even if there’s a record of when it was isolated.

No sure why they shoved in the words “part installation” (2012 amendment), it’s never made any sense to me because it’s unenforceable. Quite possibly someone was told to go through the book and change every reference to “an installation” so it included part-installations.
Like how they have now changed ESR 75, changing every instance of “inspect” to assess”; so people doing periodic re-verification of caravans, marinas, etc have to be “authorised to assess” instead of “authorised to inspect” - and since the EWRB hasn’t authorised anyone to “assess, nobody can issue a WoEF.
   

Sarmajor
Mar 04 2014 20:35

I wonder why they changed it from inspect to assess?

Perhaps we should all ask of we can assess to issue WOEF etc.
   

AlecK
Mar 06 2014 12:31

My guess:
They were wanting to clarify that all those other references to \"inspect\" and \"inspection\" were not the same as \"inspection\" under ESR 70.

Even though for some of them the qualification needed is the same, ie authorised to inspect.

Pass file to minionm with instruction to change each instance of \"inspect\" to \"assess\"
Minions having no electrical background, probably a (very) junior person.

Minion does as told.
Nobody notices that one of these instances should not be changed because it\'s the \"authorised to injspect\"

When faced with a choice os explanations between conspiracy & cock-up, cock-up is always more likely


   

DougP
Mar 13 2019 12:14

I've just had a property inspected by an insurance risk management specialist. On their report, they are recommending a "visual inspection with limited testing IAW 3019"
-To be carried out by a registered electrical inspector.

Which got me searching these threads for information on where/when the word changed from "inspect" to "certify".

I've had a look back through old versions of the ESRs and 3019, but I can't seem to find where it says "authorised to inspect"?, instead of authorised to certify.

But, this also led me to the EWRBs new form (when they updated a lot of forms in the last couple of years).
The link is below.

But they still have the wrong information on there for disconnection longer than 6 months.......
https://www.ewrb.govt.nz/assets/subsite-ewrb/Documents/forms/certificate-of-verification.pdf
   

AlecK
Mar 13 2019 17:31

It changed with intro of ESRs, from 1 April 2010.
Previously Reg 46 of 1997 Regs specified CoV by electrical inspector; introduced from 1/1/2003.
So there hasn't actually been a CoV, as such, for nearly 10 years.

   

pluto
Mar 13 2019 17:55

The change of "inspect"to "Assess" was done along with some other term changes (isolate and disconnect and some others)at the request of th "Electricty Engineers Association"who claimed that "inspect" "isolate" had been used in the electrical supply industry and it wished to retain their use and not introduce new terms into there operations.

Too bad about the electrical installation industry
   

DougP
Mar 13 2019 23:38

Thanks guys..