Jump to content

Marina eWof requirements


Recommended Posts

Steve, as I mentioned previously an Isolation transformer is the best way to go, but this is for a fixed installation and you still need RCD's. I have one RCD between the inlet and the primary AC switchboard, then because I have an inverter there has to be another RCD on the outlet side of the inverter.

IT commented about AS 3004 not mentioning EWOF's, these are covered in the NZ Electrical Safety Regulations 2010, see clauses 76,77 & 78

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2010/0036/latest/DLM2763501.html

these seem to be a bit of a moving target with amendments every couple of years

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Bryan Leyland is on the Westhaven Marina Users Association.  I think I am still a member and if not will join again.  It would be interesting to get Bryan's view on this as an electrical engineer.  I will see if I can make contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, as I mentioned previously an Isolation transformer is the best way to go, but this is for a fixed installation and you still need RCD's. I have one RCD between the inlet and the primary AC switchboard, then because I have an inverter there has to be another RCD on the outlet side of the inverter.

IT commented about AS 3004 not mentioning EWOF's, these are covered in the NZ Electrical Safety Regulations 2010, see clauses 76,77 & 78

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2010/0036/latest/DLM2763501.html

these seem to be a bit of a moving target with amendments every couple of years

Yep, read that - dated 2010. This new one, AS/NZS 3004 dated 2014 contradicts it...????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted Westhaven to see if I could get some additional insight... Kevin Lidgard forwarded the attached letter from Worksafe which has a little additional detail. Perhaps the most useful thing is it provides the name of the contact at Worksafe, Peter Morfee, who seems to be driving this (this guy I guess). It might be worth anyone wrestling with this at the moment reaching out to him for any additional clarification.

Peter Morfee (Work Safe Advice).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve, as I mentioned previously an Isolation transformer is the best way to go,

 

That depends.

An Isolating Transformer is designed to isolate the things plugged into it from Earth. Real earth that is. The stuff you are standing on basically. No Earth, no way of you being the circuit from phase to earth. But it's different on a boat, especially a conductive one like Steel or Ally. Because the Earth on the boat is also tied to the DC negative. So if a fault develops on the Boat, then you could once again become that conductor to ground. An RCD monitors for any current that could flow through the Earth and at 30mA. it breaks the live circuit (phase) in a few milliseconds, or in other words, before the voltage has done anything to you.

Galvanic isolators are pretty safe and rugged. If they do fail, which is rare, they fail in a shorted mode so the earth is connected and the supply remains safe. If the boat has been wired correctly, you should not need to isolate Earth, so having it short to always to an always connected circuit should not be a problem.

For small boats that just need a battery charger and some lights, a trx is just fine. But remember that Shore power is a 16A supply. If you are a larger boat with a few extra's, a Tx that is rated for 16A is a sizable sucker and very expensive. Even a small 1KVA tx (10A) is a few Kg and some won't be happy with that either.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see from the Work Safe Advice the "Temporary" part is best practice not a requirement.  In  this case I think best practice is being used as maximum arse covering and not on the basis of a risk or cost benefit analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a standard is not cited somewhere in legislation then its not actually law. Remember SNZ have standards telling you how to set up you work kitchenette propperly.

Exactly ScottiE.

 

Commercial boats are forced to comply with 3004 through MOSS, I have yet to see anything that says pleasure boats must conform also, other than a moss approved electrical engineer who was involved in making 3004 saying the EWOF inspector should be checking on every boat. Obviously the EWOF inspectors here have not seen anything that says its law either.

Any one find where it is made law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Kauri boat so definitely will not be bonding skin fittings etc, however I would just like to run a battery charger occasionally and use some wired in power points when I am on the Marina so was going to go down the track of an ewof and use a galvanic isolator (not already there from the previous 230V wiring). Will that not keep the 12V and 230V separate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one find where it is made law?

 

Here: Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 - http://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2010/0036/latest/whole.html#DLM2763782, Section 60 (1):

 

(1) The following installations or part installations must be installed, tested, inspected, and connected so as to comply with Part 2 of AS/NZS 3000 and also with the standard indicated:

      ...

      (d) a connectable installation or part of a connectable installation in a pleasure vessel: AS/NZS 3004.2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza, make sure you use the anode attached to the engine, after that system went in she was burning through the anodes on the shaft.

 

Smithy, the system on Bazzas boat was put in by Gavin at Marine Electrics....I went down this path as I believe in doing it once only and after listening to Gavin, I figured that they were going to force the max system on people eventually, so thats what I put in....but thats not to say I didnt find it a complete pain in the arse having the lead attached to the boat though.

Thanks for that! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obviously the EWOF inspectors here have not seen anything that says its law either.

Yes absolutely it is law. It is very clear that it is law and thanks MarkMT for posting the section. 

 

 

 

 In  this case I think best practice is being used as maximum arse covering and not on the basis of a risk or cost benefit analysis.

"Best practice" is the minimum level or standard that should be obtained.

  1. commercial or professional procedures that are accepted or prescribed as being correct or most effective.

     

     

     

     

     

     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Wheels.  However, I still consider it max arse covering.  As I stated there does not appear to be any risk analysis or cost benefit analysis.  I will try and find when the law etc was changed and what the risk analysis was.

 

This is a similar issue in my mind to the life jackets when in your dinghy etc.  It is clear people drown, it is also clear that most of them will still drown as they will not carry/wear a life jacket.  The 95% will suffer and obey additional rules but will not benefit i.e. I already have life jackets, EPIRB, VHF, fire extinguishers, flares etc etc.

 

I have yet to see a boat catch fire or someone electrocuted in the Marina.  I don't doubt that it has happened and can happen, but is the cost of compliance greater than the benefit??

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, I still consider it max arse covering.

You are probably right in a way. It's along all this new PC BS, like there is no fail, but Achieved or Not Achieved. Or the biggy all covering "Competent". What happened to qualified?

 

 

there does not appear to be any risk analysis or cost benefit analysis.

I doubt anything was ever considered in regards to that. It's a very much larger scheme of things. The marketing BS used is safety, but it is much more than that. Safety is the means of shutting down argument.

So basically these new Regs were simply copy and pasted across from what was already out there. I doubt that the people involved in gathering the Regs even know anything about lectricity

 

The only instance of electrocution in a Marina that I know of, was one that involved a guy using a power tool and had his feet dangling in the water. It was before the days of RCD's.

I have heard of a story about somebody swimming and becoming incapacitated due to an electrical current in the water and someone else jumoing in to save them and suffering the same fate. But I don't know if it is a true story or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

talking to our electrician on site today ( who is also an inspector) EWofs can be issued by the electrician who does the original wiring when they complete it. After that it needs to be done by a competent inspector. As has been alluded to previously, Electrical inspectors have practice areas, so there may be a limited number who can issue ewofs for boats with 12v systems.

 

I've had dealings with Peter Morfee on a couple of occasions, he is an incredible knowledgable but also practical guy, who basically led the writing of the electrical (safety) regulations. I'm at kind of the other end of the spectrum though developing HV supplies for underground mine sites. The updated regulations, along with the H&S act, approved code of practice and also reference to british standards that we now have to follow has me doing levels of design verification compliance and risk assessment that would drive a few on here to distraction. Ah the joys of trying to improve safety. 

 

Worksafe's view is that if you don't comply with accepted best practice, you have to demonstrate how what you are doing achieves a similar standard of safety. And that's what the Judge will be asking you when you are in court after an accident.

 

It bears repeating that this stuff is law, and I suspect the memo has come from a friendly chat between the marina and worksafe clarifying where worksafe sees the marina obligations with respect to that law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wanted to buy Westhaven I think I'd want the council to push this sh*t thru then I could stand back from the outraged boaters and say 'Wasn't us'. If I was the council I'd take the heat for a wee while knowing shortly it wouldn't be my problem any more, as long as I got a good price.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...