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: 3019 Query

Apr 11 2019 21:31

What “legislation” defines what grade of inspection is required?

The appendix refers to form 2 being required for commercial premises therefore is that implying visual and limited testing is the minimum requirement for the grade of inspection for commercial premises?


Apr 12 2019 07:28

ESR 2010 regulation 74 has the details required, for example, in the case of greater than 6 months disconnection for re-connection to the supply.

Apr 14 2019 20:00

What about in the case of a periodic inspection not mandated by regulation 74 or the certain installations outlined in regulation 75. Eg a periodic inspection of a standard commercial office/workshop installation.

I’m trying to clarify when you should conduct just a basic visual inspection or step up to a visual inspection with limited testing? Does it just come down to the requirements of the person requesting the inspection?

Apr 15 2019 08:43

"Does it just come down to the requirements of the person requesting the inspection?"

Pretty much; else what their insurers demand - which could include thermal imaging of all switchboards & control panels.

3019 is under revision, and one of the changes will be to recognise that in its current form it's unworkable, becauseit's designed around the testing for just-completed PEW and takes no account of practicability in a commercial environment. Aas soon as you go past Section 3's visual some of the testing is just not practicable without closing down the site.

You can't have trailing leads running all over for earth testing;that's an H&S issue

You can't turn the power off for IR testing.

hard enough to just do all the RCDs; nobody want's to lose power even for relatively short period.

So send all the staff home, and lose production, for as long as it takes. Which could be more than a day even for a fairly small site.

Can't avoid that for "full" testing, but with a bit of re-adjustment Sections 4 & 5 should become a workable format.

Start with Section 3 visual-without dismantling.
Move to full-visual-with-some-dismantling.
The move to limited, non-disruptive testing.

After that full testing only for those parts that the previous checks indicate may be suspect

That's where the revision is heading; and it's reasonable to follow that approach now. Just that you need to detail what you did, instead of simple "i.a.w section 4"


Apr 16 2019 07:49

AlecK, if the standard was designed around "recently completed PEW", theoretically there wouldn't ever really be grounds to proceed with testing beyond Section 3?

Apr 16 2019 11:28

I didn't mean it that way. It's not that the Standard was intended to cover new work; just that the writers simply grabbed the "new-build" tests and put them into sections for periodic verification without considering practicability for an in-service installation.
That's one of the issues the current revision is intended to address.