My, non-legal, understanding is that if there is a conflict between the privacy act and HSWA, then HSWA would generally win out, — Craig Marriott

My view from the same stand point, you would need to be convinced that the party requiring the personal information would be taking suitable steps to safe guard it (in compliance with the new version of the privacy act quoted above)

Would it not be considered an insecure load so come under the land transport act, so would not be reportable to worksafe — Don Ramsay

It's the old "all depends" Don, as Matt pointed out in his post, where the truck was (public road vs private loading zone), was it stationary and being unloaded, hurtling down State Highway 1 at full cry.

And judging by this RNZ report WorkSafe: 'Our task is bigger than our available resources' regardless of which agency has jurisdiction, lack of cash may see it slip through the cracks.

SteveH

Use shadow boards which show where tools should be placed after use — Mark Taylor

One tweak that a client of ours introduced to the shadow board concept was to place a photo of the item that showed any guards/safety features highlighted. This also had our tag number on it, which was a handy identifier for any item that didn't have a makers serial number on it, enabling easy Asset control and tracing, along with the oblivious benefit of showing missing items, and more importantly missing guards etc. .

That would be within their guidelines, it would become notifiable if it was an item that exposed workers in the immediate vicinity to risk of injury or illness ie drum of chemicals, gas bottle etc;
https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/notifications/notifiable-event/what-is-a-notifiable-event/

Hi Jono

The hire of tools and equipment is covered by the Heath & Safety at Work Act 2015, see Clause 42 Duty of PCBU who supplies plant, substances, or structures The meaning of supply is covered in clause 21.
For electrical items being hired out see Electrical(Safety) Regulation 15 Using works, installations, fittings, appliances, and associated equipment 1(a) and Regulation 26.

I'm not aware of anything else, so will watch this space with interest

regards
SteveH

but unless we have case law that clarifies that Reg90 intention was that the appliance is to be tagged then we can't really say for sure either way. — MattD2

That's a huge part of the whole issue Matt, we have an Electrical Regulator that isn't fit for purpose, it lacks the resources to get Regulations citing Standards updated to the latest versions, much less investigate instances of non compliance, or provide clear guidance on alternative solutions to safe outcomes that will comply with the various provisions of the regulations that it is responsible for .

We are all agreed that testing & tagging to 3760 isn't mandatory, and no where above has it been argued that it is, the case i am trying to make is for improving the test & tag option. Unit Standards that anyone (Registered Electrical Worker or layman) must complete to test & tag to get to deemed safe under Reg 26 (and the instances in Reg 25 and Reg 80)

I envisage a generic "Test and Tag to 3760 requirements" paper, and a "Test and Tag to 3102" extension paper for building site test and tag, along with pulling in a standard electrical NZQA paper covering basic safety while working with electricity. I see this evolving into a "test and tag" qualification in its own right, able to be completed by anyone, but subject to some external scrutiny (maybe from the EWRB) that would put a stop to the tick and flick brigade by either having to prepare their trainees for an externally assessed competency test, or at least having some external oversight on their training activities. Having two test and tag unit standards that could be pulled into various classes of electrical registration would help lift the qualified folks game. — Steve H

In this thread, I've tried to provide some background information to assist anyone choosing to use the pathway provided by Reg 26, to get the best outcome. Hopefully, anyone in that position will review their situation and take whatever steps needed to improve it.

As I understand it, Reg90 only requires the testing of appliance that has been worked on before releasing the item to another person, no need for tagging it. A — MattD2

Probably an idea to read the standard rather than relying on the view of others Matt, Reg 90 requires the item be tested to AS/NZS 5762, That standard under section 2.5 Action Resulting From Inspection and Testing, in clause 2.5.2 Compliant Equipment, says that a durable, non reusable, non metallic tag or other indicator shall be fitted. As reg 90 states that we have to follow 5762, we have to follow all the mandatory (shall, must etc)parts to comply with that requirement. 5762 provides an example tag which is an informative part, but 2.5 is a normative part, so our "tag"or indicator should have the date of test, the name of the company/person testing and wording to the effect that it has been tested to AS/NZS 5762 (it would be incorrect to use a 3760 tag- unless you altered 3760 to 5762)

Slightly to the left of OPs question, what about Covid 19 Tests, can they be mandated by an Employer on H&S grounds (they can be required by the Minister or Director General of Health)

Are There Any Instances Where Testing And Tagging Is Required?

As it happens, yes, there are two. If a Registered Electrical Worker repairs an appliance,then under E(S)R 90, if that repair could compromise the electrical safety of the item, they must test the item to the requirements of AS/NZS 5762 (in part using the testing methodology in AS/NZS3760) If the item is unsafe, they then must disable it IAW AS/NZS 4701 (this requires that they cut off the items lead where it exits the body of the appliance- so a plug cannot just be fitted to reinstate the device).

The other mandatory requirement to test & tag an item is if a secondhand appliance is offered for sale NZ Electrical (Safety) Regulation 80 requires such electrical items to tested and tagged IAW
AS/NZS 5761. There is quite a bit more assessment required under 5761, so if your "competent person" is testing items in this situation,you really do need to buy them a copy of that standard in addition to 3760

it does not say an appliance without one is is electrically unsafe. — MattD2

It's interesting that Energy Safety's "advice" on Testing and Tagging, doesn't provide for any alternative way to get to "deemed safe" Matt, and discharge the obligation that Reg 15 imposes, and thus far no one else has either, but you are correct, the absence of a tag doesn't make the item "unsafe", but it does mean the "safety" of the item is unknown

However, it's not mandatory. What is legally required is that equipment is electrically safe and maintained in a safe condition. — Craig Marriott

That's quite correct Craig, the same obligation on a PCBU is also put in place by The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

38 Duty of PCBU who manages or controls fixtures, fittings, or plant
at workplaces

(1) A PCBU who manages or controls fixtures, fittings, or plant at a
workplace must, so far as is reasonably practicable, ensure that the
fixtures, fittings, or plant are without risks to the health and safety of
any person.

What is “reasonably practicable” will depend on the degree of risk the worst possible outcome will occur and the resources available, if things have gone pear shaped, and you have a crispy critter decomposing on your workplace floor, following the get out of jail card afforded by following Reg 26 to get to "deemed safe", along with supplying via "electrically safe RCDs" and documented pre use checks by users before they use an item would make a successful Worksafe prosecution pretty unlikely. Of course, I think you would want to have a set of Test Results providing evidence the item had been correctly tested, and a test history of previous testing conducted, rather than just relying on a smudgy dog eared tag as your defence.

It is up to the person conducting the business or undertaking (PCBU) to decide whether to test and tag. They can either get the testing equipment and train up a worker, or hire a third-party to carry out the testing. — Craig Marriott

Absolutely, the thing is, as I've outlined above, remarkably few are trained up comprehensively enough to correctly identify the appliance they are testing, any jurisdictional requirements that apply along with correctly performing the tests outlined in AS/NZS3760 (and 3012 for C&D sites)

After all if the client sees this as purely a compliance cost, why would they engage someone who is just going to increase that cost by making them service/replace some of their equipment? — MattD2

To ensure the electrical safety of appliances connected to their electrical installation as the Electrical Safety Regulations require Matt.

15 Using works, installations, fittings, appliances, and associated equipment

(1) A person who owns or operates works, installations, fittings,or appliances must not use, and must
not allow any other person to use, the works, installations, fittings, or appliances if the works,
installations, fittings, or appliances are electrically unsafe.

There is no provision for mitigation in this regulation, such as supplying an item through a Residual Current Device (RCD).

You are right about a possible disconnect where a company uses a staff member to blindly tag items, or they engage the services of a third party who doesn't know, or is trying to tag as many items as possible, as quickly as they can, or is concerned that if they fail too many things, or mission critical things, they won't be invited back to play.

To try and address this disconnect, I have outlined right at the start of this thread how that might be done.

They are an electrical appliance John, frequently supplying items sourced from an overseas supplier and not fitted with plug pins that comply with Australian/New Zealand requirements. Or they've been damaged and may be unsafe, so I would say yes. But what gets tested, and under some circumstances the frequency of retests, is up to the Responsible Person

Here's a link to how such chargers can be tested

OK I admit it. I don't fully understand it — Peter Bateman

That is the view of the opponents to test & tag Peter, and they'll proclaim that frequently, folk performing test and tag, don't fully understand what what's required, how appliances are constructed, how fuses etc operate and why they are there to protect the installation, not appliances connected to that installation, and that because of those short comings, TnT is a waste of time and money ,

AS/NZS 3760 lays out the body of knowledge "anyone" conducting testing to that standard should possess, it's quite extensive and impossible to adequately cover in a few hours as a part of a TnT Course. Even Electrical workers only briefly cover what's required, but they do have the advantage of a more in depth knowledge of the installation side of things.

So does this mean the view that Test & Tag should be dumped is correct? I don't believe so, I think that there are three essential components to any businesses electrical safety regime.

[(1)] Test & Tag to AS/NZS 3760 by a "competent", fully trained person using appropriate test
equipment that records tests conducted and the values/results of those tests that are retained.

[(2)] Where possible RCDs are fitted to all circuits supplying socket outlets in any wiring installation.

[(3)] Users of electrical appliances perform regular checks of the appliances they use, and
document that this has been done and the result of these checks.

This probably sounds a little OTT, but given there's a fire every week in a New Zealand business, it's justified from that point of view, and while deaths as a result of being zapped by a dodgy appliance are relatively few, as the vast majority of electric shocks that workers receive go unreported, it's likely that any caused as a consequence of getting a zap that isn't immediately fatal aren't either.

So how do we sort this out? My first post in this thread gives you my take on what needs to happen. ..

https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-02-05

If I Have A Portable Appliance Tester, Do I Need A 230v AC Power Supply?

Like so much in this life, it all depends. Some electrical items can be safely tested using the internal power supply (battery) of a PAT, these are items such as extension leads, EPODs/PSOAs, and appliances with mechanical switches that when turned on, expose all internal circuits to the 500V test voltage that a PAT uses to check the item under test Insulation Resistance. However, if an item has some form of electronic switching, or a stop/start button that energizes a contactor, then a Leakage Current test must be performed, which will require the PAT to be connected to an earthed 230v supply, so a "Run" test can be performed and the PAT can measure any current leakage the device under test has and from that, infer the Insulation Resistance of that item.

Note, to test an item with such switching, a Current Leakage Test is mandatory to test in compliance with AS/NZS 3760:2010.

I have used a degree of techno speak above, if you don't understand it, you are not competent to test electrical appliances

Another pet peeve is collecting data via forms - especially handwritten documents - in scanned, PDF or Word documents where you can't do anything with the data in the documents - this creates so much extra handling! — Sheri Greenwell

With you on that one Sheri, yay I get to print off, fill in by hand and then scan and send it back to you, so it can languish in your In Box until you send me a reminder to complete it and I suggest you trawl for it.

Also used to love getting requests for all the hazards that I would be introducing to a clients site, not unreasonable if I was going to dig a hole in the ground, but slightly superfluous when the mission was to test and tag their dodgy electrical gear. For the ones that wanted me to don Lycra and jump through multiple hoops, requesting they provide evidence that their electrical installation and any modifications/extensions to it complied with the requirements in force when it was installed or modified usually prompted a touch of realism in their approach

Hi Michael
Take a look at AS 5732:2015. Electric Vehicle Operations Maintenance and Repair, are you are looking at electric truck/bus maintenance? I spent a number of years servicing and maintaining battery electric forklifts/etc these typically operate at much lower voltages than EVs (24V, -72V versus 600v or more for EVs)
Take a look at this site for some available tools for use on that range of voltage https://electricalfactory.com.au/product-category/ev-maintenance-safety/

Worksafe have produced some guidelines for EV charging which might be of interest too
https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/laws-and-regulations/regulations/electrical-regulations/regulatory-guidance-notes/electric-vehicle-charging-safety-guidelines/

Think Matt is on the money Jo, these style doors can be activated by proximity or motion sensors to react to a person or forklift. I have seen them used in a variety of production/storage situations,

https://www.acedoors.co.nz/project/speedshutter/

https://www.glideaway.co.nz/range/high-speed-doors-industrial-and-commercial

https://www.dynacodoor.com/en/DYNACO-high-speed-door-with-printed-door-curtain-installed-in-supermarket-in-New-Zealand

She's working on the assumption that once someone has been vaccinated, they will not be able to contract the virus and infect co workers or clients I assume. It's not proven yet that any of the vaccines will prevent a vaccinated person from doing that pssst vaccines can't guarantee covid immunity

No doubt getting vaccinated is a good and desirable thing, but it may be that they aren't going to be quite the game changer we're all hoping for.

Bit challenging to eliminate cars from a car park :smile: Better to "engineer" a solution that "isolates" peds from moving cars, tricky in Stuart's situation where the car park is already formed. Judder bars,spaced fairly close together will be easy to do in this location and should slow moving vehicles down so their drivers can react to the unexpected.

It's a heart stopping moment when you see a toddler ditch mum's hand and just take off into a road way in front of you, it's happened to me twice, fortunately no one was harmed either time. As a three year old, living at my Grandad's house, I wasn't so lucky. The classic driveway fail, a back door opening straight onto the driveway, and a hedge obscuring drivers view of door meant that when I heard my Uncle's Bel Air Chev coming home and, I rushed out to see him, I wound up getting run over by a 1600Kg car (broken arm,leg and pelvis- 3 months in hospital so I'm told).