Yep agree - I would expect that the assumption is that it is until the next standard test period, so if you test that equipment on a 6 monthly basis then 6 months is the max.The caveat with that Matt is,only while it is new- so how long does new last? — Steve H
My point was it is the circuit protection that prevents fires, but take your point that it could prevent a faulty piece of equipment from being plugged in and requiring the circuit protection to trip.That is of course, just your opinion Matt, in the UK their test & tag regime was shown to have reduced fires in workplaces by a substantial percentage, in the final analysis, if TnT and Thermal Imaging is what an insurance company asks for, then you comply or risk voiding your insurance cover. — Steve H
yes that was my point, there is an alternative (buy a whole lot more tools and have a electrician spend a whole lot more time doing the testing) it just isn't a financially viable one.What I’m referring to is another method to detect the internal circuit and resistance properties of the appliance
I have spoken to a few electricians and they have said there is no viable alternative which provides the same level of confidence — Mark Taylor
This makes no sense at all - tag and testing to AS/NZS 3670 is going to do nothing to manage the risk of fires from overloading.Also, a few people have told me it is a requirement of their insurance and Argest checks in schools and it could make a claim invalidated if a fire results from overloading — Mark Taylor
If you are meaning for testing to the standard there would be a number of specific tools required; multimeter, megohmmeter, a way to measure leakage current, etc. and you would also need a competent electrician to interpret the test results... which is the reason for a PAT, that it combines those tools into one which is relatively easy to use and provides the test results in form that requires relatively little interpretation, e.g. a simple pass/failDoes anyone have an alternative to portable appliance testing for checking the appliances continuity and resistance
I have asked WorkSafe on numerous occasions but they have never come back to me with a reply? — Mark Taylor
And did adding that risk matrix to your paperwork (I am guessing it was some sort of pre-task anlysis like a JSA) result in;We can talk to the cows come home on risk matrices versions and theories but at the shop floor if you don't have one in your paperwork the clients will pop a vein becasue it appears that you have done something wrong, illegal or some other very bad thing. We were forced several years ago add one in ours to appease clients and prequalifications companies. — Kip Mandeno
Waiting for my invite in the mail... although I do have to reiterate my position that I think risk matrix (in some form) have a purpose when comparing options relative to each other, but definitely not at the "coal-face" for discussing the absolute danger the workforce is about to face.Unfortunately the risk matrix has grown to mythic preportions where alternatives or better options are not acceptable. Perhaps we could have an industry wide matrix burning party one day? — Kip Mandeno
Unless protected by an RCDNew Zealand's version of AS/NZS 3760 recommends testing and tagging before first use — Steve H
Hahahahahaha... never trust the as-builts!!!!and that they measured it because the records required accurate measurements. — Jonathan Godfrey
Has compliance with R26 ever been used as a defense in court? Given that the Electricity Safety Regulations generally require the prevention of the use electrically unsafe equipment (rather than ensuring the provision of electrically safe equipment), and the definition of electrically unsafe is [paraphrasing] any equipment where there is a significant risk that a person may suffer serious harm due to electricity, compliance with R26 practically becomes a moot point the second after the tag is attached.Great advice Robb, of course if it goes pear shaped and you've used an alternative route, you will need to be prepared to defend your alternative. Testing to AS/NZS 3760 and the item having a current pass tag gets you to deemed safe under ESR 26. — Steve H
That's a pretty good starter for ten @Peter Bateman!I was a member of the Auckland University team in the 1988 series of University Challenge, hosted by the late great Pete Sinclair. We came third. — Peter Bateman
I've only have managed to scan the paper quickly, but I have some concerns that (in terms of this threads questions) it deals more with "redesigning the mouse-trap" than "addressing the vermin infestation".Possibly an answer for retaining the risk matrix.
This is an area for NZISM and HASANZ to take the lead for adoption - MDPI — KeithH
This is a clear indication that they are missing the point of the main issue they are trying to addressExecutives or the board may like to be involved with this as they are personal liable for organisational risk appetite. Is it acceptable or not for a certain number of minor harm injuries to occur? — Alignment of the Safety Assessment Method with New Zealand Legislative Responsibilities, Dr. Dirk Pons
Got a problem with what 3760 asks you to do to ensure the safety of electrical appliances used in your workplace- now is your opportunity to have your say. — Steve H
It is scarier that if the situation was as you have implied (an excavator running in a 6m pit with no other ventilation provided) and they had a gas monitor down there and it wasn't constantly going off, there is probably a good chance that that gas monitor isn't actually working!They tell me it's not a problem as "we've got gas detectors mate", thing is, down a six meter hole, with a running excavator, how much warning will they get of a Carbon Monoxide build up? — Steve H
I think you may have misunderstood my point.Doing nothing is not an option. — Dianne Campton
But why does "scoring" the risk need to be part of that conversation?It is however a good starting point for the work team to discuss and agree on the controls they should implement to protect themselves and everyone around them. — Dianne Campton
Why does a replacement need to be proposed to stop using something when it has a detrimental affect - in other words (in some / a lot of cases) doing nothing is better than using a risk matrix.I haven't come across anything else that would work any better. Would be interested to see if there is anything others have come across — Dianne Campton
Which is a problem in itself as I have talked to at least a few teams that had the gas monitor at the top of the pit because "it keeps going off when we're using the compactor if we have it down here"...If my experience of CO detectors is anything to go by, they'll get plenty of warning. The one in our aircraft seems to go off with even the slightest provocation. — Aaron Marshall
That is not the situation that is being covered by the regulation - R41 states:the regulation defines health monitoring in relation to individual (i.e. it is not exposure monitoring) and this doesn't relate to SWI's so far as I can tell.
The situation being covered is if an occ health nurse, during the course of monitoring a worker's health in relation to the risks they were exposed to, informed the boss that the worker had been harmed as a result of those risks or made a recommendat boss changed how work is carried out. — robert p
Therefore R41 only applies to health monitoring reports that the PCBU receives for work that they are required by the regulations to conduct health monitoring for, i.e. work where there is a risk to a workers health due to exposure to a substance that is defined in a SWI as requiring health monitoring - R31A PCBU for whom any worker is carrying out work for which health monitoring is required must, as soon as practicable after obtaining a health monitoring report, ensure that a copy of the report is provided to the regulator if the report contains... — Reg 41
ignition source—
(a)
means any agency or agent (including any item, product, part of a facility structure, or piece of equipment) capable of igniting a flammable gas, vapour, or other form of combustible substance; and
(b)
includes a fire, flame, or spark, or anything capable of producing a fire, flame, or spark — Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017
Just to be clear The Block is on Three, which is owned by Discovery Inc. (recently sold from Mediaworks) and not by TVNZ.It seems like TVNZ are being a little too lax in my opinion. — Stace
the problem is that there already is a "H&S check" within the show as shown by the site supervisor's (Wolfie is it?) rant about having to sign in. The issue is that this seems to still be the reality of H&S within the residential building industry, not actual risk management but superficial actions... however the main cause for this (in my opinion) is a lot of the H&S advice being offered in this industry is of the "we'll take care of H&S for you" type rather than "we'll help you manage your risks" typeIt shouldn't be too much of an issue to have a little H&S reality check in there... — Stace