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 ?
“So for the installation and testing of the pumps etc, will most of the fixed wiring have already been made live? But no live testing will have been performed on that fixed wiring before allowing pump people etc to make use of it? So for example any RCDs which might protect pump people during their install won't have been tested? Etc?”
Thats what is being proposed.
I presume the IET “Committee” which reviews and updates the wiring regulations, are available to make comment / ruling on issues such as this ?
“It’s a reasonable question. Since CDM likely applies, it is one that should be addressed to the principal designer/principal contractor for outworking in the construction phase plan.”
I think the EAWR could have a part to play here. Never thought of making the Principal Designer aware - thank you.
I presume the IET “Committee” which reviews and updates the wiring regulations, are available to make comment / ruling on issues such as this ?
Not normal to get anything formal or binding - after all the wiring regulations are not law. But if it all goes wrong, having made a decent fist of following them helps justify your actions should it come to that …
On here you will get the combined wisdom (?) of a number of folk who have an interest, some of whom feed into the committee process, others of whom, like me for example, have no formal ‘rank’ but do bring a few years (!) of problem solving to the table.
It is considered very bad for things to be made live and used before they have been tested, and the folk doing the testing and 1st energisation are assumed skilled enough to recognise any malfunction or hazard that an ordinary person may not, and act accordingly (switch off, run away, call fire brigade, that sort of thing with escalating severity..)
There needs to be a clear sequence so that everyone who is working on the part tested bits of the installation realises they are doing so and is suitably competent to handle any matters arising.
Or have some one there to complete the testing concurrently if in advance is not possible.
Mike
Derek Eccles:
“Difficult to see how live tests could be undertaken much before commissioning,”Why ?
OK, you could leave it as long as you like, but once the live tests have been completed, the commissioning can begin. As Mike says, it is inappropriate to start commissioning before the installation has been verified. A functional check is the last element of initial verification.
Even dead testing, especially insulation resistance, should continue until the fixed wiring is complete.
What seems to be proposed is “big bang” testing. If that goes to plan, one might ask, “What is the point of live testing other than to give the contractor some numbers to put on the certificate?”
Simon Barker:
I presume the IET “Committee” which reviews and updates the wiring regulations, are available to make comment / ruling on issues such as this ?
No chance. That would drag them into potential liability if you follow their advice and somebody gets hurt.
Not at all. All they would be doing is re-affirming regulation 641.1.
Chris Pearson:
Derek Eccles:
“Difficult to see how live tests could be undertaken much before commissioning,”Why ?
OK, you could leave it as long as you like, but once the live tests have been completed, the commissioning can begin. As Mike says, it is inappropriate to start commissioning before the installation has been verified. A functional check is the last element of initial verification.
Even dead testing, especially insulation resistance, should continue until the fixed wiring is complete.
What seems to be proposed is “big bang” testing. If that goes to plan, one might ask, “What is the point of live testing other than to give the contractor some numbers to put on the certificate?”
Excuse the pun, but I think we have crossed wires. I believe regulation 641.1 is not being complied with and was hoping the IET would agree with me.
Derek Eccles:
Excuse the pun, but I think we have crossed wires. I believe regulation 641.1 is not being complied with and was hoping the IET would agree with me.
I see. It depends, I suppose, what you mean by, “before being put into service”. To the contractor, that may mean handover.
It is always useful when a contract means what you want it to mean - that's why commercial lawyers exist.
Hmmmm…..
For a couple of years - back in 2005-2007 somewhere - I was involved in the whole waste water treatment plant world as an installer only and a very new QS.
The supplies to MCCs are easy to dead test and live test. No issue there - it’s a conventional supply.
After the MCC, however, it’ll all likely be variable speed drives supplying a row of din rail terminals at the top of the MCC- from there in SWA out to the pits terminal boxes/ isolators and eventually pumps.
There’s almost no conventional way to test the supplies south of a variable speed drive- and all of the flow switches and level sensors etc are all ELV.
Dead testing is obviously essential for each and every cable but live testing will be very limited to the MCC intake supply. earth long lead tests might be a very good check before energising- but this is a dead test too……
I wonder what live tests the contractors are proposing to do?
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
