NERS UCP Forum - 06-03-2012 (pdf, 77kb) - Lloyd's Register

Minutes of the NERS UCP ForumLloyds Register EMEA, Coventry on 6 th March 2012Attendees:Mike Cahill (Chair) – Lloyds Register EMEABob Seldon – Lloyds Register EMEALisa Kerford – Aptus UtilitiesRoger Reynolds – R&D Network Design LtdFred Harrington – David Webster LtdEirwyn Thomas – Powersystems (UK) LtdAndy Thomas – SSE ContractingQasm Raja – Clancy DocwraBill Jones – Crown UtilitiesDebbie Edgar – Dragon InfrastructureSteve Bolland – ASLEC/Amey/UMCCGArthur Elson – MatrixApologiesDue to the nature of the open invitation (numbers restricted) only the attendees are identified inthe minutes.1. Review of the Minutes and Actions of the Meeting of theNERS Forum Dated 8 th November 20111.1 Network Connections – Live and Dead TerminationsOn behalf of the NERS Forum the NERSAP had been asked to review the new scopes for jointingand whether there was a need for separate live and dead termination scopes. NERSAP hadasked for clarification of the issue. The Forum’s view was that activities were usually carried outlive or dead as follows.- mains and services – live and dead termination;- link boxes and LV boards – dead terminations;- cable connections to LV overhead lines – live and dead terminationsLR advised that the issue of clarification of existing and new scopes, and options for furtherdevelopment of scopes is to be addressed within a new scopes guidance document.Action: LR to include live and dead terminations jointing in new scopes guidance document.1.2 Civil Engineering Works Carried Out by Non NERS Approved SubContractorsThe NERSAP are giving consideration to the requirements for second tier assessments and thiswill be reviewed further.There is still a concern that the DNOs do not have a consistent approach to the requirements forcivil contractors and this will be raised at the next NERSAP meeting 20 th March 2012.Action: LR to raise further concerns at NERSAP1.3 Variations to Civil Engineering Works for Substations at Voltages of33kV and aboveWith reference to the minutes of the NERSAP meeting dated 10 th January 2012 civil engineeringdesigns for this type of work were not standardised, that UCP designs should be submitted for1

approval and that DNOs should not request variations after design approval. DNOs could notcomment further unless specific examples were made available.Whilst agreeing with the sentiment of the above the Forum members felt that where G81specifications were available then the designs/drawings should be submitted for comment(design approval stage from a process viewpoint) whereas where G81 specifications were notavailable then the designs/drawings should be submitted for formal approval – action closed.1.4 DNO Trade TestingThe concerns about requirements for DNO trade testing had been raised at the NERSAP whereDNO members had identified their requirements in respect to such testing which varied betweenDNOs.Whilst WPD were not at the NERSAP a Forum member mentioned that WPD acceptedauthorisations from other DNOs but would witness he first joints before allowing operatives tocontinue carrying out jointing operations on their network.Forum members advised that they would have preferred a more uniform approach although nofurther specific action was proposed – action closed.1.5 Metered and Unmetered ConnectionsLR will recommend that UCPs accredited for network connections - metered connections will becovered for network connections - unmetered connections, but not vice versa. The new scopesguidance document will provide further clarification and this will be subject to agreement by theNERSAP. Action ongoing and tracked at NERSAP.1.6 Breaking Down of Scopes According to Cable TypeNERSAP had agreed that LR could witness any cable type and that their own authorisationprocesses would check jointer’s knowledge of different cable types. There were some concernsfrom those DNOs who were instructing the UCPs to use their own safety rules. LR had raised thepossibility of adding a note to the NERS website to identify the type of joint witnessed e.g. ‘firstjoint plastic’. NERSAP would be discussing again at the next meeting. Action ongoing andtracked at NERSAP.1.7 Qualifications for Persons Approving DesignsLR had undertaken to review the requirements for persons responsible for approving designs totake into account experience as well as technical qualifications. Revised requirements have beenadded to the latest draft of the NERS Requirements Document which has been circulated toUCPs and will be subject to Approval by the NERSAP – action closed.2. Review of the Minutes and Actions of the NERSAP Meetingdated 10 th January 20122.1 Control and Management and Project ManagementIt was considered that the differences between the scopes of Control and Management andProject Management were not well understood and LR had suggested that as the ProjectManagement scope is broken down it could serve for both purposes and had invited NERSAPmembers to comment. Comments had only been received from one DNO and the proposal is tobe included on the agenda for the next NERSAP. This change has not been made to the currentdraft of the new version of the NERS scheme requirements document.Action LR to raise the issue of integrating the scopes of Control and Management and ProjectManagement at the next NERSAP meeting on 20 th March 2012.2

2.2 Network Connections - Overhead LinesForum members confirmed interest in this activity and supported further discussion at NERSAP.2.3 Network Connections - LV Operational activitiesAs above Forum members confirmed interest in this activity and supported further discussion atNERSAP.The level of interest is not the same as for jointing activities.3. Extension of Contestability – Network ConnectionsThe Extension of Contestability sub group was due to meet on 7 th March 2012. Forum memberswere encouraged to raise issues / suggestions with the MCCG and UMCCG representatives orwith members who were on the group. There was no further update beyond that discussed atNERSAP and ongoing related items already discussed.4. Extension of Contestability – Self-determination of POCMembers advised that this development was still in its early stages and advised that it was duefor consideration at the next meeting 7 th March 2012. As above there was no further updatebeyond that discussed at NERSAP.5. Use of Labour Only Sub Contractors for new ScopesA UCP was using labour-only sub contractor staff to carry out jointing works for the new jointingscopes and had discussed this approach with the DNO/s concerned. LR confirmed that this modeof working should be acceptable providing that UCPs adhered to the requirements for subcontract labour-only in the NERS Requirements Document.6. Revision of the NERS Requirement DocumentLR had developed a draft of the new version of the NERS requirements Document and circulatedthe documents to NERSAP and UCP members for comment. The draft does not make anysignificant changes to the operation of the scheme but incorporates all NERS requirements(including SMS and C&M of national operations) into one document for clarity.The term Network Connections and its relationship to other live jointing scopes is not wellunderstood and members had been invited to suggest alternative terminology for the scope or ameans of promoting its understanding. The scope has now been re-termed as Point ofConnection jointing in the latest draft of the NERS requirements document,UCP members were asked to provide comments on the revised document to LR by 16 th March2012 in time for the next NERSAP to be held on 20 th March.Action - UCP members to provide LR with comments on the revised draft of the NERSRequirements Document by 16 th March 2012.3

7. Any Other Business7.1 Connection ChargesA member advised that a DNO had quoted diversionary charges of between £10,000 and£12,000 in order to avoid running new LV cables in parallel with existing LV cables in a footpath.Note: this item is outside the scope of the NERS forum and was raised for attendees’ informationonly and no further action is required.7.2 Disconnection of cables on Brownfield sitesA member advised that he was waiting long periods of time for disconnections of cables onbrownfield sites and asked whether such disconnections ought to be made contestable. It wasmentioned that this had previously been identified as an area at ECSG and suggested that themember contact Chris Bean, chair of the Metered Customer Connections Group.7.3 POC Jointing – Trials or Business as UsualA member advised that his company had made a request to carry out Network Connectionsjointing for unmetered connections but had received a reply from a DNO to the effect that theywere ‘not allowing trials’ in that area. The UCP required to know when/whether DNOs hadfinished trials and would be considering moving to business as usual. LR advised that this wasbeing monitored by the Extension of Contestability Sub-Group and they may wish to contactSteve Bolland, the Chair of the Unmetered Customer Connection Group (UMCCG), who had leftthe Forum meeting at that stage.7.4 DNO Charges for Witnessing POC Jointing OperationsA member advised that one DNO was not making charges for witnessing the UCP’s initialNetwork Connections jointing operations but was then making charges for additional audits overand above the normal non-contestable charges. The DNO was giving no indication of how manyfurther operations were to be witnessed or how much they would charge for each witnessingoperation which made quoting a fixed price to the customer difficult. LR agreed that they wouldraise this issue at the NERSAP meeting to take place on 20 th March 2012.Action: LR to raise the issue of charges for witnessing POC jointing at the NERSAP on 20 th March2012.7.5 Different approaches to applications for POC jointing applicationswithin the same DNO areaA member advised that new connections applications within one DNO area were beingaddressed in different ways by different depots within the same area and there appeared to beno consistency. Members expressed concern that different approaches to new connectionapplications were being applied within a single DNO area. LR suggested that they contact theDNO’s main Competition in Connections team and discuss the issue.7.6 Professional indemnity InsuranceA member advised that a DNO was asking the UCP to provide professional indemnity insuranceto a level of £15M. UCPs advised that they would not be prepared to increase the insurance tothis level. LR suggested that terms considered unreasonable should in the first instance bediscussed with the DNO concerned and then raised with either the MCCG or UMCCG.4

8. Dates for next MeetingThe next meeting is to take place at LR Coventry offices on Tuesday 3 rd July 2012.Dates for future meeting of the NERSAP and the UCP Forum are:Tuesday 20th March 2012Tuesday 3 rd July 2012Tuesday 17 th July 2012Tuesday 6 th November 2012Tuesday 20 th November 2012- NERSAP- NERS Forum- NERSAP- NERS Forum- NERSAP5