After bit of advice filling in test certificates please?

[sythai]

Hi There....

Just getting my couple of jobs together for nic assessment in few weeks time.

The first job is a kitchen refurb. New ring, existing cooker circuit: reposition, existing lights: extend. So will be completing green D10 ‘electrical installation certificate’

1. On front of cert can I tick both ‘An addition’ and ‘An alteration’
2. For schedule of inspections for ‘presence of supplementary bonding conductors’ do I just put N/A as circuits I’m altering/adding are not part of bathroom supply?
3. ‘Electrical Separation for one item of current using equipment’ Could someone give me an example of this please?



Second Job is altering some bathroom lighting, taking out 2 x surface fittings and replacing with GU10 down lights. So M10 ‘Minor Works’ for this.

1. Obviously going to check for supplementary bonding, but if none present I am correct in upgrading current MCB to RCBO and this will comply. If so will that mean it won’t be a Minor works cert anymore, but an Installation cert?
2. ‘Protective Measures Against Electric Shock’ as this installation was done to 16th not sure what to put EBBADS or ADS ?



Many Thanks,


Sy

 

[RexT]

Hi Sythai,

Sounds interesting and I will do my best in offering an opinion but their are some really good guys on this forum who have obviously got a great deal of knowledge so I am offering this with view to it being a suggestion etc. Please dont shoot the messenger! I would strongly suggest that you check with what your NIC guy wants prior to works etc. That way you will be correct in their eyes.

I think that you are correct it can be an addition and an alteration, so yes fine no probs.
2. Not really sure but it seems that it revolves around whether the schedule of inspections relates to the circuit only or the installation. Personally I would have a good look at the installation before doing the work, more of a peridoic inspection if possible. N/A is fine if you believe that this is correct but I would personally look at the whole thing as for earthing purposes it is a system and must work as such. It is always best to ensure that any boxes are answered not left blank as this shows you have considered them.
3. Would a transformer offer electrical separation? Povided there was isolation between the operating voltages this should be ok as an example. You would have to be careful not to confuse it with systems that have the earthing running through such as PELV. I think shaver sockets could be a good example for electrical separation.

Second job
1. Again I am not really sure but I would look at what you are actually changing. If you are acting like a designer there is a part of an electrical installation certificate which requires a signature from the designer so that could be you. You seem to be taking out an MCB and putting in an RCBO which is really a combination of MCB and RCD. So in effect you are adding an RCD as addditional protection I guess. Are you changing the protection value of the MCB bit? I.E. changing the value of In? It seems on face value doesnt appear so. I guess you are adding a 30mA level of protection for earth leakage/faults as it is in a special location? It is worth a look at the on site guide as it does help clarify. You could give the provider (NIC) a ring and see what they say. That way you would be complying exactly what they are looking for.
2. If you are testing you are testing to the 17th and seeing if the installation complies with that standard. It is up to you as the competent person to say whether it is safe and EEBADS is merely an addition of EEB to ADS? I would personally check to see if the automatic disconnection of supply of the installation is compliant with BS 7671 and if it does then I cant see any reason why it is ok to say that ADS is the method of protection. I know the purists will say, 'hang on what happened to earthed equipotential bonding' but if we are going down the route of saying that it is not necessary in this installation then we surely dont have to bother mentioning it.

Hope this is of help.

Best wishes

Rex

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Hi There....

Just getting my couple of jobs together for nic assessment in few weeks time.

The first job is a kitchen refurb. New ring, existing cooker circuit: reposition, existing lights: extend. So will be completing green D10 ‘electrical installation certificate’

1. On front of cert can I tick both ‘An addition’ and ‘An alteration’
2. For schedule of inspections for ‘presence of supplementary bonding conductors’ do I just put N/A as circuits I’m altering/adding are not part of bathroom supply?
3. ‘Electrical Separation for one item of current using equipment’ Could someone give me an example of this please?



Second Job is altering some bathroom lighting, taking out 2 x surface fittings and replacing with GU10 down lights. So M10 ‘Minor Works’ for this.

1. Obviously going to check for supplementary bonding, but if none present I am correct in upgrading current MCB to RCBO and this will comply. If so will that mean it won’t be a Minor works cert anymore, but an Installation cert?
2. ‘Protective Measures Against Electric Shock’ as this installation was done to 16th not sure what to put EBBADS or ADS ?



Many Thanks,


Sy

Good post mate, it should get some good answers and opinions, and no doubt cause quite a bit of debate.

Anyway you already have one good reply, but i will chuck my two 'pennoth at it as well if i may.

Job 1
Q1, yes it is both addition and alteration.
Q2, I would also agree with N/A, unless it has a Central Heating boiler and the pipework is cross bonded.
Q3, Shaver point sounds good to me as well.

Job2
Q1. I am working on the assumption that you are replacing 1 light with several GU10 Downlights, therefore you are adding cable to the circuit. This must be RCD protected as it is in a Special Location so replacing the MCB with a device that gives the correct level of protection is a must whether or not supplementary protection is there or not. Also ensure that the lights are correctly IP rated for the zone, and offer the correct fire and acoustic protection. Yes it is an EIC for this work because you are altering the characteristics of the circuit.

Q2. Its got to be EEBADS because you must have bonding to incoming services, even though it may not be in the area you are working in it still does a job. If the main equipotential bonding is not present work cannot begin (dont know the reg no off the top of my head).

If you are doing an EIC for Kitchen work then stick your bathroom on the same cert.

I await assassination,

Cheers......................Howard

 

[Risteard]

Disagree.

It can't be EEBAD because EEBAD no longer exists. It has to be ADS.

The only way EEBAD could be entered on a certificate is if it was legitimately designed under the 16th Edition, in which case it would also be constructed and inspected and tested to the 16th Edition. Needless to say very little installation work happening nowadays could have been legitimately designed to the 16th Edition.

 

[Graeme Harrold]

One question that might pop up as both of these are in "Notifyable" locations/work. Its a bit of a catch 22 situation as you are shelling out cash to register with a scheme, but you may be asked if you notified LABC before you started ?

 

[shane]

Disagree.

It can't be EEBAD because EEBAD no longer exists. It has to be ADS.

The only way EEBAD could be entered on a certificate is if it was legitimately designed under the 16th Edition, in which case it would also be constructed and inspected and tested to the 16th Edition. Needless to say very little installation work happening nowadays could have been legitimately designed to the 16th Edition.

i'm not 100% sure on the exact reg but yes in 17th edition they have changed eebads for ads but there must still be bonding to services,, eebad must still exist my friend as 80% of domestic premises have eebad,it's just in new installations when designing and installing you don't have to supplimentary bond as much as before

 

[Risteard]

eebad must still exist my friend as 80% of domestic premises have eebad

No, they have ADS which in a previous life was known as EEBAD.

 

[mogga]

at the Select course other week the 16th to 17th came up and mention was made (by the teckky guy)of Housing estaes DESIGNED a couple of years ago and put on hold could be wired using the 16th not that this is likley to happen

 

[Risteard]

at the Select course other week the 16th to 17th came up and mention was made (by the teckky guy)of Housing estaes DESIGNED a couple of years ago and put on hold could be wired using the 16th not that this is likley to happen

Indeed, as I stated in an earlier post. So long as they were designed before July 2008 (I think was the cut-off point) then they could legitimately be designed to the 16th Edition, in which case they would be constructed and inspected and tested to the 16th Edition also. In this case they would also be certified to the 16th Edition, and as I stated this would be the only scenario in which "EEBAD" could be entered.

 

[shagg]

Indeed, as I stated in an earlier post. So long as they were designed before July 2008 (I think was the cut-off point) then they could legitimately be designed to the 16th Edition, in which case they would be constructed and inspected and tested to the 16th Edition also. In this case they would also be certified to the 16th Edition, and as I stated this would be the only scenario in which "EEBAD" could be entered.

Correct well said that man

 

[sythai]

Thanks chaps for your replies thats been a great help.......... sorry bit slow getting back there.

Looks like it will right thing to do, to put ADS.

So if carrying a PIR on a property that was designed and installed to 16th would I be correct in saying you would put EBBAD ?

Just another question which you might be able to help on?

For one of the jobs (both a different properties) at the consumer unit in one of the 32a MCB's supplying a ring you also have another circuit stuck in with it, so you have 3 x 2.5's. Obviously this isn't acceptable, but there are no spare ways in DB to install a new MCB and put this extra circuit on it's own 16a. Customer dosent want DB upgrade yet, but at a later date. So would it be acceptable to disconnect this extra circuit (only supplying socket below DB, customer happy with this) make safe and leave at the back of the DB for reconnection at a later date? Just covering my @ss, don't want this NIC chap to find anything to pick me up on if poss..! (If you had this scenario on a PIR would could would you put it as ? 2 maybe.)

Thanks again,

Sy

 

[shagg]

Thanks chaps for your replies thats been a great help.......... sorry bit slow getting back there.

Looks like it will right thing to do, to put ADS.

So if carrying a PIR on a property that was designed and installed to 16th would I be correct in saying you would put EBBAD ?

Just another question which you might be able to help on?

For one of the jobs (both a different properties) at the consumer unit in one of the 32a MCB's supplying a ring you also have another circuit stuck in with it, so you have 3 x 2.5's. Obviously this isn't acceptable, but there are no spare ways in DB to install a new MCB and put this extra circuit on it's own 16a. Customer dosent want DB upgrade yet, but at a later date. So would it be acceptable to disconnect this extra circuit (only supplying socket below DB, customer happy with this) make safe and leave at the back of the DB for reconnection at a later date? Just covering my @ss, don't want this NIC chap to find anything to pick me up on if poss..! (If you had this scenario on a PIR would could would you put it as ? 2 maybe.)

Thanks again,

Sy

If this is a spur of the ring which I thick you are saying this IS ACCEPTABLE, as you can take one spur for any point on the ring, the consumer unit being one of them. And my NICEIC chap likes to see a socket next to the consumer unit for testing purposes anyway. Hope this helps

 

[Risteard]

So if carrying a PIR on a property that was designed and installed to 16th would I be correct in saying you would put EBBAD ?

No, I'd put ADS.

If, for example, an installation today was legitimately designed. constructed and inspected and tested to the 16th Edition I would record EEBAD. If I then I carried out a Periodic Inspection the next day (which is to the 17th Edition) it would revert to ADS.

 

[sythai]

OK thats good, makes it easier.... suppose should have known that in a way, just didnt realise you could actually spur off at the point of the MCB. For some reason thought doubling up on a MCB was bad practice?

Thanks again,

Sy

 

[Risteard]

BS7671 explicitly states that a spur from a ring final circuit can be taken from the distribution board. (Essentially it's no different to spurring from a socket anyway.)

 

[sythai]

Learn something everyday,

Cheers, Sy

 

[netblindpaul]

Disagree.

It can't be EEBAD because EEBAD no longer exists. It has to be ADS.

The only way EEBAD could be entered on a certificate is if it was legitimately designed under the 16th Edition, in which case it would also be constructed and inspected and tested to the 16th Edition. Needless to say very little installation work happening nowadays could have been legitimately designed to the 16th Edition.

As far as I understand all of the Olympic village is 16th, & I have this on quite reliable grounds.

Paul

 

[Guest123]

As far as I understand all of the Olympic village is 16th, & I have this on quite reliable grounds.

Paul

I heard the same....being going on for ages though hasn't it, probably designed in 04-05.

 

[Risteard]

As far as I understand all of the Olympic village is 16th, & I have this on quite reliable grounds.

Paul

As I said that's legitimate if it was DESIGNED under the 16th Edition. You cannot now design to the 16th Edition, but you can install and inspect and test to the 16th Edition if the installation was already designed to the 16th Edition before mid-2008.

 

[jeanlee411]

No, they have ADS which in a previous life was known as EEBAD.

at the Select course other week the 16th to 17th came up and mention was made (by the teckky guy)of Housing estaes DESIGNED a couple of years ago and put on hold could be wired using the 16th not that this is likley to happen

 

[Risteard]

at the Select course other week the 16th to 17th came up and mention was made (by the teckky guy)of Housing estaes DESIGNED a couple of years ago and put on hold could be wired using the 16th not that this is likley to happen

Yes indeed as I have said a couple of times already on this thread. Doesn't have to be housing estates of course - someone else mentioned the Olympic site. The point is that so long as it was designed to the 16th Edition before the 16th Edition ceased to be in operation then it can be installed and inspected and tested to the 16th Edition.

 

[Steve D]

Hi There....

Just getting my couple of jobs together for nic assessment in few weeks time.

The first job is a kitchen refurb. New ring, existing cooker circuit: reposition, existing lights: extend. So will be completing green D10 ‘electrical installation certificate’


Second Job is altering some bathroom lighting, taking out 2 x surface fittings and replacing with GU10 down lights. So M10 ‘Minor Works’ for this.

1st Job - Should really be a EIC covering the new ring, and 2 separate minor works certificates for the work your doing on the cooker circuit and on the lighting circuit.

At least that's how 2391 sees it.

Cheers
Steve

 

[sythai]

I will be altering the characteristics of the lighting and the cooker circuits. So wouldnt that be on the EIC ? correct me if I'm wrong please..?

 

[Steve D]

From GN3

The minor works cert is intended to be used for additions and alterations to an installation that do not extend to the provision of a new circuit. Examples include the addition of a socket outlet or a lighting point to an existing circuit . . .

 

[just add water sparks]

BS7671 explicitly states that a spur from a ring final circuit can be taken from the distribution board. (Essentially it's no different to spurring from a socket anyway.)

looking back at my old 16th Edition study citb study notes shows a diagram of a non fused spur off the distribution board from the 32amp outgoing fuse with the 2 exsisting ends of the ring.So in effect this would be like wiring socket radials from a board which in the regs used to be only allowed(and still is) with a 16amp or 20amp mcb.So if you can run a non fused spur off a dist board why is there this ambiguity.Also i did not think current carrying capacity of 2.5mm does not go as far as 32amps.Which we spur off at not only from dist board but spuring off a ring itself(at the socket or jb)always thought about it but never questioned it.Im not picking faults at any ones comments as it does state it in my old 16th book just being the devils advocate really.

 

[pevvers]

Yes, but an unfused spur is only allowed to supply one double 13A socket, therefore the maximum the cable can carry is 26A...

 

[pevvers]

There is a regulation that allows the omission of overload protection if the characteristics of the supply or load makes overload situations unlikely.