Online assistance for electrical trade people in New Zealand and Australia Login  |  Register  |   Forgot Password
Assistance for electrical trade people
 

 

 

 


Click here to send Ron a pdf document for publication on this Topic

Documents must be less than 200k in pdf format

Posted By Topic: Manufacture of a one off appliance

NiteShift
Jan 31 2015 18:50

Hi,
We all know the requirement, that the electric lamp we go and buy to put next to our bed requires a declaration of conformity to one of the standards listed in the regs, and that the testing of the appliance is done by an accredited laboratory.

My question relates to a one off appliance, say a 400v 3ph potatoe peeler you custom build for a factory. This is still an appliance. You are still selling it. NZS3000 is just for installations, right? What do we need to do to certify such a job?
   

pluto
Jan 31 2015 19:48

Use as/nzs 3820 unless there is a standard in the as/nzs 60335 series which covera the type of appliance.
Use schedule 4 of Elelctricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 to see if there is a standard if the type you are making.
   

NiteShift
Jan 31 2015 19:55

Right, so I follow 3820, then how do I supply a declaration of conformity? Do I then need to Send the appliance to an accredited laboratory for testing?
   

dlink
Jan 31 2015 21:44

if you follow the standards above, there is no need for a SDOC or test lab.
   

NiteShift
Jan 31 2015 22:16

// dlink
// Jan 31 2015 21:44
// if you follow the standards above, there is no need for // a SDOC or test lab.

Hi dlink,
Can you please reference that comment? I have been searching for such an answer, and would love to know how you know this.
   

dlink
Feb 01 2015 09:29

because as/nzs 3820 & as/nzs 60335 are a means of compliance.
you cant issue a SDOC for your machine because you are not the manufacturer of the electrical components you built the machine from, that said, the components most likely have SDOC\'s from their manufacturers. you are simply assembling the machine from certified products following a standard for its manufacture.
   

NiteShift
Feb 01 2015 10:44

So what your saying is I need to build the appliance in accordance with 3820 or applicable standards, but I\'m not allowed to supply a declaration of conformity to the party I sell it to (essentially a written document saying the appliance complies with those standards).

Seems strange to me since the appliance building is not PEW, hence can be done by anyone- registered or not.

So anyone can build an appliance to 3820, and then sell it to a customer without any certification?


   

pluto
Feb 01 2015 11:43

I strongly recommend that you go to the WorkSafe website (electrical safety service or old ESS part) and read the all of the appliance legislation material, it covers all of the rulings and information what you are looking for, and can be considered to be the offical rulings of the ESR 2010 parts you need to consider.
   

NiteShift
Feb 01 2015 12:38

Thanks Pluto for your comment, I have had a look at energy safety website, and I\'m still unclear on what we should and shouldn\'t be doing regarding compliance/certification if we manufacture a one off appliance (which may be as simple as connecting a 3phase moter to a dol starter and flexible lead)

I will post the question to them and see where it gets me.

It seems regs etc go out of their way to exclude appliance manufacture from an electricians limits of work, but there is many of us out there doing it, and no one I have talked to this far seems to know what we are supposed to do.



   

AlecK
Feb 02 2015 09:06

Haven\'t checked recently, but for a long time there has been an absence of guidance in this area. Noting that the ES website is not always easy to find things in, even when you know they exist.


However at the simplest level such as the motor & starter you suggest, there\'s no need to issue an SDoC.

First you need to stop think that something that plugs in is \"an appliance\". That\'s not how \"appliance\" is defined in the Electricity Act. Though I know it\'s how we all tend to think.



Look at what ESRs actually require. The actual requirement is that it must be electrically safe. If you use standard products from normal suppliers and do a tradesmanlike job, there isn\'t likely to be problem with \"electrically safe\".

Secondly SDoCs are only required for DMRAs.
The motor isn\'t one. The flex you use probably is. So is the plug on the end. The starter isn\'t.
Taken as a complete assemble, there\'s no listing under DMRAs for a \"potato peeler\", so an SDoC is NOT required.

A lot of the DMRAs listed are household appliances, (using the traditional rather than the official sense of \"appliances\"; but if you were building say a \"bread toaster\" you\'d have to look at other documents to see whether what you were building was really a DMRA. most of the DMRA listings use words like \"as defined in AS/NZS 4417.2:2001 including Amendment No. 1 January 2005 Appendix E item E2.6\";
And when you look that up you may well find it\'s limited in some way; eg single phase up to 2.4kW.

as Pluto said, if there\'s an applicable Standard in Schedule 4, you should use it.
If not , use \"3820\"

ESRv 81 says that a test report or sertificate of conformity is \"concusive evidence\" of compliance with ESR 80 (ie that it\'s electrically safe\". That doesn\'t mean you need such a report / certificate. And even if you had one, it stops being any use if there is any \"proof to the contrary\".

Bottom line: unless what you build / assemble is a DMRA, you don\'t need to issue an SDoC so won\'t be forced to get a lab to test it.

And even for DMRAs there may well be a let-out clause for small production runs I\'ve never seen one for electrical, but I understand there is one for gas.
   

dbuckley
Feb 02 2015 09:22

This is yet another example of how the regulations surrounding electrical stuff are a complete and utter mess.

IT Security in New Zealand used to be in entirely the same mess, until the appropriate government department started again, and produced a single volume that has everything you need to know right there in that one volume. Better than that, it not only tells you what you need to know, it tells you why you need to know it.

Ok, its not a short book, at over 500 pages, but it is very well organised into sensible sections.

So there is no longer a need to spend hundreds of dollars on security standards, its all there in one good, free, downloadable book.

Yay for good government.
   

NiteShift
Feb 02 2015 20:43

Aleck, yes we do need to stop and think about what an appliance is. Unfortunately the act has a self referencing, circular definition of \"electrical appliance\".

According to the oxford dictionary (which I believe is used when an act does not define a word) A fire truck is an appliance, and so by the acts definition, a fire truck designed to be plugged into the supply when back at the station is an electrical appliance. Confusing- we know it as a mobile installation as per nzs3001. Is a mobile medical truck an appliance too?


I will seek clarification (if I can find it!) from energy safety tomorrow on:

1) identifying an appliance as per the intent of the act
2) the correct procedure for certifying a one off \"appliance\" built for a customer as safe and compliant with relevant stds.

I will post my findings in due course :) wish me luck

   

AlecK
Feb 03 2015 09:55

I don\'t see the Act\'s definition as circular or self-referencing.
anything that consumes (electrical) energy is an \"electrical appliance\", as opposed to \"works\" or \"installation\". These three are mutually exclusive, so that whatever item you\'re dealing with falls into only one category.
And because \"electrical appliance\" IS defined in the Act, whatever the dictionary says does not apply. Though don\'t overlook the opening bit of Section 2: \"unless the ontext otherwise requires\"

That works in the context of ESRs, but doesn\'t help much when dealing with the things we commonly think of as appliances.

Your example of a fire truck, or many other vehicles with on-board electrics intended to be supplied from external source, can indeed often be treated as an appliance.
Where confusion does come in is that some can also be an \"connectable installation\".
It\'s natural, but wrong, to assume that a \"connectable installation\" is a type of \"installation\".

Energy Safety\'s Senior Technical Advisor has said that installations, connectable installations and appliances (as typically thought of) are all just different sorts of collections of fittings. Which helps in some ways, but not with our immediate problem of somehow certifying the assembly work.

If what you assemble happens to fit within the definition of \"connecable installation\" (basically it has wheels, and takes external supply) you can choose that route, work to \"3001, and use a CoC . But that option doesn\'t really suit vacuum cleaners, etc.

For anything covered by a manufacturing Standard, following that is the way to go.
And if what you assemble is not covered by any Standard, there\'s \"3820\"
Being able to prove you followed a Standard involves (expensive) independent testing not cost-effective for one-off.
But is there any real need to prove it?
Who wants it proved?
If there\'s a legal obligation - as there is for DMRAs - then there appears to be little choice. But if not, why bother?


Assembly isn\'t necessarily PEW, and can be - usually is - done by non-licenced people.
But that does doesn\'t prevent it being done by licenced electrical workers as PEW. You could even follow \"3000\", even though you don\'t have to.
When finished, simply test & tag to \"3760\".

If a \"3760\" tag is good enough for a used item of equipment under ESR 80, it should be good enough for a new item.
   

AngryClient
Feb 03 2015 12:11

\"If there\'s a legal obligation - as there is for DMRAs - then there appears to be little choice. But if not, why bother?\"

Reg 80? New and used fittings and appliances to be electrically safe.
If the appliance in question is supplied or offered for sale how can we deem it electrically safe (assuming Schedule 4 and CCA does not apply). The only option is compliance with AS/NZS3820 is it not?
   

AmonE
Feb 03 2015 13:29

AlecK, in practice, how do you get on when the appliance you build may be subjected to periodic testing by another electrician? I\'ve seen the websites of certain testing companies say that they won\'t certify any appliance that appears to have been \'homemade\', which could include a one-off appliance constructed to the appropriate standard by a registered electrician. I\'m not sure under what grounds they can refuse to tag if the appliance was safely and legally built in the first place, but I can understand their reticence - testing is superficial and doesn\'t involve disassembly, so there\'s no way to know if a major design flaw (an omitted fuse, for instance) could cause a catastrophic event later on.

Mass-producers of cheap goods seem to have an array of ticks and labels available to them and there\'s a general - probably naive - assumption that new goods off the shelf will be safe, even though this is often not the case and the labeling isn\'t worth the plastic its printed on.

I think most of us are capable of building a safe appliance, but how do you assure everyone else that it is so? Affix a label stating the it has been built to AS/NZS 3820 and/or the relevant 60335 standard? Test tags are generally considered temporary - it\'d be good to know if there\'s some generally accepted way of stating that it\'s compliant and fit for testing in the first place.
   

AlecK
Feb 03 2015 14:17

AngryClient:

That\'s a fundamental error of interpretation.

If something is mandatory, the words will be different using wording such as \"shall only\" or \"must\".
We do have lots of those rules.

But then there are many others where a basic obligation is imposed, and one or more options are offered as \"deemed to comply\".

This is one of those \"deemed to comply\" ones.
The ONLY obligation imposed by ESR 80 is that the item be \"electrically safe\".

It gives us three options for new items, and another three for used items.
But crucially, it does not state that these options are the only ways of being deemed safe. So it does NOT require that any of these options be followed.

If you adopt one, then there can be no question that you have fulfilled the obligation imposed by clause 1. That\'s all these options are, a \"means of compliance\" that can\'t be argued with.

Anyone is free to arrive at their own assessment of whether something is \"electrically safe\" (as defined in ESR 5); but such assessments can be challenged. But for these options, there can be no challenge.


Another example to illustrate this crucial concept.
Going back to previous regulations (pre 2010 ESRs) the fundamental obligation [R 69] was that installations had to be constructed so they were electrically safe (same as now).

R69A(2) said that an installation met that obligation if it complied with sections 2 to 5 and 7 of \"3000:2000\".

Then some particular clauses were made mandatory.
Taking RCDs as a prime example, R 69A(3) said installations \"must comply with\" clause 2.5.3.1 & 2.5.3.2 (RCDs for domestic, and for residential) with an exception as per 2.5.3.4 (additions & alterations). So from 1/1/2003 we all started installing RCDs in domestic & residential, i.a.w these clauses.

Looking at non-residential installations, 3000 clause 2.5.3.3 called for RCDs wherever there was increased risk of shock. It even gave examples, including \"workshops\" and anywhere there was \"hand-held tools subject to movement in use\".

But that clause wasn\'t mandated, it was a \"safe if complies\". And we all know how very few RCDs were installed under that rule.


Back to today\'s ESRs, and compare ESRs 60(1), 60(2), & 25.

60(1) mandates Part 2 plus applicable other Standard for particular types of installation. Using words \"must be installed ... so as to comply with xyz\".

But in 60(2), these additional Standards are only mandated IF the installation is installed to comply with Part 2. We have a choice.

Then in ESR 25 we have \"deemed safe if complies with xyz\".

Incidentally this is the ONLY citation of AS/NZS 3012, from which it becomes obvious that following the Standard is NOT mandatory for construction sites. Making the 3-month intervals for T&T, set by \"3012\" and often quoted by DoL / Worksafe jobsworths, just a bit of good advice and NOT a rule that must be complied with.

When dealing with rules, the words are important. Including some that are not actually there, as well as those that are.

----------
AmonE

\"I\'ve seen the websites of certain testing companies say that they won\'t certify any appliance that appears to have been \'homemade\'..... I\'m not sure under what grounds they can refuse to tag if the appliance was safely and legally built in the first place\"

I can see no grounds for such refusal. Tings that look like they came from a factory can be unsafe, and things that look home-made can be perfectly OK.
That\'s what the t&T is about, making judgements based on \"competence\", not just relying on a magic box to run a few tests.

\"but I can understand their reticence - testing is superficial and doesn\'t involve disassembly, so there\'s no way to know if a major design flaw (an omitted fuse, for instance) could cause a catastrophic event later on.\"

I can\'t. To me such reticence is an admission that they lack suitable competence to perform the inspection & testing.
As long as it passes the specifed inspections & tests, it\'s deemed to be safe. Regardless of whether home made or othwerwise. Note ESR 26 is NOT restricted to fittings and appliances made in a factory, or built to a recognised Standard. Sometimes a piece of equipment is a true one-off, custom designed to do a particular job and for which there is no applicable manufacturing Standard.



\"I think most of us are capable of building a safe appliance,\"

I agree; just do it as PEW

\"but how do you assure everyone else that it is so?\"

this could be a problem. Bt for a true one-off, why would the client not accept the word of the licenced electrical worker? If it\'s not for general sale, why would there need to be a label or a bit of paper?


\"it\'d be good to know if there\'s some generally accepted way of stating that it\'s compliant \"

I agree, but at present it seems there isn\'t. But why fret? If you\'ve built it right, and done the tests, it ain\'t gonna bite anyone. so who\'s going to care about the label / certificate.
If the client can\'t accept your word, perhaps you\'re working for the wrong client. and if they REALLY want a bit of paper, any recognised test lab can provide one to \"3820\", as long as they pay.

I\'m all for risk avoidance, but sometimes you just have to grow a pair and put them on the line. We are supposed to know a thing or two about electrical safety, and we can\'t hide behind \"deemed safe\" all the time.

   

AngryClient
Feb 03 2015 14:52

AlecK; good explanation.
I guess I was of the thought that because the mandated requirement is that appliances offered for sale are electrically safe that the next prudent step to take it to apply the rest of the requirements of that clause.

I have a particular example that I am dealing with and the client is very risk averse so ultimately they would prefer a \"bullet-proof\" determination of compliance. AS/NZS3820 will provide that for them. I should note that to date the only information coming from the supplier has been sales literature.
   

AmonE
Feb 03 2015 16:48

Thanks AlecK. That was sort of the conclusion I\'d come to but I thought perhaps there was something I\'d missed.

It came to mind the other day that a retired electrician, instead of working at a wholesaler all day, could make small-run appliances - things that while not unique, might be interesting in some way and have a market for them. I have seen some otherwise well-designed pieces for sale that are electrically dangerous - lamps wired in tru-rip, probably no cord grip, that sort of thing.

I\'ve taken to testing appliances on the side for a charity and there are things that pass electrically speaking which I refuse to tag - things that appear to have had old bakelite plugs put on them at a later date, those ones that rely on a tortuous path and don\'t grip the cable - yes, they might have been put on by an electrician, but knowing the area I live in they were likely put on by someone with as much electrical knowledge as my father in law. Other things which just look like cheap dodgy imports from 20-30 years ago which probably didn\'t meet the standards then. Those assessments are all very subjective, and perhaps some people would pass them, but it\'s my license and other peoples\' lives on the line and the resale value is just not worth the risk. It makes me wonder, though, whether I were to sell or pass on a homemade appliance (not willing to part with the brew fridge just yet, mind) whether someone else would make the same assessment about that.
   

AlecK
Feb 03 2015 17:23

That\'s where \"deemed safe\" helps us. It takes away all that subjective stuff 9or most of it), and gives us a checklist of visual checks and electrical tests. If the item passes those, then it\'s deemed to be electrically safe; and there can be no come-back on the person who filled out the tag.
Sometimes we may come across something we\'d rather not pass, and I suppose we can decline, but for most T&T we\'re not being asked to excercise that sort of judgement, we\'re being asked to apply 3760 , and sometimes also either 5761 or 5762.

Eg there are either exposed conductive parts or there aren\'t, and they are either earthed or they aren\'t.
if not, and in absence of DI symbol, may have to use judgement as to whether the item was originally DI. Not easy to know from looking, and the original label may be damaged.
But mostly it\'s not judgement, it\'s yes / no by the book. Not really our job to decide the book\'s not good enough, and getting into that sort of judgement risks being in breach of contract. tread warily.
   

AmonE
Feb 03 2015 18:52

Yes, but 3760 still requires us to ensure that it complied with the standards at the time and hasn\'t been subjected to recall, or bums are still on the line, aren\'t they? That\'s harder than it sounds once you start dealing with a lot of household junk rather than just standard site equipment, and I\'m not sure how much time should realistically be devoting to that aspect of it.

I find it scary that some of these things \'should\' get a pass against my better judgement, yet an obviously brand new and electrically safe fan heater can\'t, because them\'s the rules.
   

SteveH
Feb 03 2015 21:46

\"Sometimes we may come across something we\'d rather not pass, and I suppose we can decline, but for most T&T we\'re not being asked to excercise that sort of judgement, we\'re being asked to apply 3760 , and sometimes also either 5761 or 5762.\"

One Standard that you\'ve omitted, that is very prescriptive about items that can be tagged, and requirements for testing certain items is AS/NZS 3012- I find lots of items that have been \"passed\" by qualified folk for use on a C&D site (three month tag) that don\'t comply with 3012.

An example or two- power boards/multi outlet boxes, 3012 has a list of requirements they must meet to have a pass tag affixed to them for use on a building site.

Extension leads, again some very prescriptive requirements- down load a copy and have a read, it\'s all there.

Now, manufacturing a one off item for use in a factory where it will be subject to T&T\'ing.
Construct it to any applicable Standards, perform the usual electrical tests to verify it\'s safe. Now the tricky part, get a tally plate made that:
-Lists operating voltage
-Effective current draw
-That it is a Class 2 item (if that\'s the
case)
-The Standard(s) that it conforms to
-The manufacturers name

Screw, bolt, rivet the tally plate to the item. Then anyone T&Ting it later on, will have all the information they need to assess it for T&T and we wouldn\'t want to fall foul of E(S)R 23, would we:
Reg 23 Electrically unsafe appliances

(1) An appliance is deemed to be
electrically unsafe if—

(a) the voltage at which it operates
safely is not appropriately and
adequately marked on the appliance;

   

AlecK
Feb 04 2015 09:00

A tally plate is clearly a good idea, as is keeping on the right side of ESR 23.

That gets us to \"not unsafe\"; but leaves a gap for selling a new item as there appears to be no officially recognised way to \"deemed safe\" short of lab tests.
But if declarations by electrical workers (in the form of coCs and ESCs) are enough for installations, I don\'t see why similar declaration shouldn\'t be enough for a piece of equipment. Should certainly be enough to keep any reasonable client happy.

As far as using the device goes,under ESR 26, T&T gets to \"safe\" for use by an employee, and either T&T or an RCd gets to \"safe for occupiers of premises and for hirers.

If they ever want to sell it, T&T to \"5761\" covers it.
------------
Rules for C&D sites is a bit off-topic, but I went there before so I\'ll follow up.

Yes some things get through \"3012\" and \"3760\" that shouldn\'t. That\'s not judgement, it\'s simple failure to abide by the contract.
While \"3012\" is not mandated, if the site manager has chosen to follow it then anyone doing T&T is bound by contract to also follow it.

Worth looking at what it actually requires.
For \"other equipment\" (ie things that are not construction wiring or transportable structures), in clause 3.6 there are only TWO tests specified, plus \"inspection\" i.a.w. \"3760\".
The two tests are earth continuity, plus either insulation resistance or earth leakage; both to be i.a.w \"3760\".

There are additional requirements for some items, eg generators.

But there is no requirement to check EPODs (powerboards) for compliance with \"3012\".

There\'s not even a requirement to check polarity of extension cords. That\'s a test specified in \"3760\" , but it isn\'t specified by \"3012\" so it doesn\'t have to be done. That said, I can think of no good reason not to. Just making the point that most people think it\'s mandatory, when it\'s not.


Back to EPODs, yes 2.6.12 says they are not to be used. And 2.6.10 specifies the required features of PSOAs.
But that does NOT make ticking those boxes the job of whoever does T&T. It\'s the job of the site manager, who has opted to use \"3012\" as part of their workplace health & safety.
   

SteveH
Feb 04 2015 19:41

\"Worth looking at what it actually requires.
For \"other equipment\" (ie things that are not construction wiring or transportable structures), in clause 3.6 there are only TWO tests specified, plus \"inspection\" i.a.w. \"3760\".
The two tests are earth continuity, plus either insulation resistance or earth leakage; both to be i.a.w \"3760\".\"

Might be \"worth looking\" at the rest of that section, Alec- particularly 3.8.2-kinda catches items mentioned in preceding clauses.
   

AlecK
Feb 04 2015 23:41

3.8.2 doesn\'t \"catch\" anything. It specifically refers to \"the criteria given in this Standard\", which is what I outlined.

And we\'re getting a long way from OP.



   

SteveH
Feb 05 2015 07:01

\"3.8.2 doesn\'t \"catch\" anything. It specifically refers to \"the criteria given in this Standard\", which is what I outlined.\"

3.8.2 catches everything mentioned in the Standard and makes it a part of the visual inspection, if you truly believe it doesn\'t, then I suggest a career change- you seem to like playing with the wording of Standards and Regulations- perhaps you should retrain as a lawyer.

Meanwhile, OP should read AS/NZS 3760, and consider how the equipment he\'s constructing will meet the tests in that- current leakage for example. If it\'s C1, it doesn\'t pass if it has CL of greater than 5mA. Typically VSD\'s have CL of around 12mA.
   

AlecK
Feb 05 2015 08:39

The heading of section 3.8 is \"action resulting from inspection and test\".
That means the inspection & test regime set out in the previous sections, 3.4 to 3.7.

It does NOT open the door to policing any other part of the Standard.

Fact is an EPOD should not be used on a C&D site in the first place, so it it shouldn\'t be presented for on-site T&T.

But enforcing that is NOT part of T&T. that said, no harm in a bit of friendly advice being given.

---------------

application of \"3760\" to to OP\'s machine will depend on whether the Standard is adopted as part of the factory\'s HSE system.
And then only if connected by flexible cord, since \"3760\" excludes hard-wired equipment.

Similarly the VD issue depends on whether the OP\'s machine has one (not stated)

While it\'s true that equipment with VFDs can have more leakage than allowed by Table 1, that doesn\'t make such equipment \"unsafe\".

Since application of \"3760\" is voluntary, and it would clearly be impracticable to remove from service something that can\'t realistically have its leakage level reduced; this would be a prime example of \"all practicable steps\" for HSE not including \"3760\" for this machine.

Also illustrates why ESRs use \"deemed safe if\" clauses, that leave the way open for alternative measures to satisfy the fundamental requirement.
   

SteveH
Feb 05 2015 20:20

\"application of \"3760\" to to OP\'s machine will depend on whether the Standard is adopted as part of the factory\'s HSE system.
And then only if connected by flexible cord, since \"3760\" excludes hard-wired equipment.\"

While the E(S)R\'s certainly don\'t preclude an alternative electrical safety strategy to TnT to 3760- the reality is that it\'s the cheapest and easiest way to conform, so 98% of businesses will sooner or later implement it as part of their H&S plan.

And just to correct an error in your statement above- 3760 does apply to hardwired equipment in certain circumstances, have another read.
   

AngryClient
Feb 05 2015 22:07

SteveH
\"And just to correct an error in your statement above- 3760 does apply to hardwired equipment in certain circumstances, have another read\"

Save us all the trouble and lay it out for us.
1.1 (j)?
   

SteveH
Feb 05 2015 22:47

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you give him an excuse to skive off for days at a time.

1.2.3 Fixed or stationary equipment

Alec is correct if the item meets the criteria in part (a) that it doesn\'t need to be tested & tagged, though arguably if the item is in a \"hostile environment it may.

Part (b) lists the instances where In service testing is required and the two tests that should be carried out.

So sometimes you will see a 3760 pass tag on a fixed item or hard wired item, instead of thinking \"that plonker doesn\'t know what he\'s doing\" or is just a sticker jockey padding out the number of tags- take a look at the item. I have one such item that we routinely test every six months,its a hard wired butt welder, gets moved around to splice the wire used in reinforcing mesh in a de-coiling area

Now our OP\'s spud peeler, may be hard wired and if it has a VSD, whatever CL it has won\'t matter as in this instance a CL test isn\'t required.
   

AlecK
Feb 06 2015 08:43

I\'m generally quite careful in my words.
In this case I used the words from the Standard \"flexible cord\".

And that includes both plug-in and fixed-connected flexible cords. .

Also covered by \"3760\" are items connected by a \"connecting device\" (eg an appliance coupler)

But does NOT include hard wiring eg TPS, conduit, or N/S. Maybe i should have said \"fixed wiring\".
As is spelt out clearly in 1.1.6.

True following \"3760\" is the simplest way of meeting (part of) the obligation to run a safe workplace.
But has to be understood it\'s NOT mandated anywhere, so alternative systems can be used and even where \"3760 is adopted exceptions can be made. There would be nothing wrong with excepting an item containing a VFD from a T&T regime.

------------
Interesting though this side trip through \"3760\" has been; can we get back to the actual issue of how to certify a one-off?


   

NiteShift
Feb 13 2015 08:39

Thanks for your insight aleck on the \'one off\' thread.

I believe those that make the rules would do well to provide some clarification on what is required for one off appliance certification.

It would be lovely to run all the one offs through a test lab, but that is financially unviable. Anyway- from a risk management point of view I would think a one off appliance lovingly built by a NZ regd person would present far less risk of harm than a mass produced appliance made by child labour somewhere.

People have commented on this post that no certification may be required. While I accept this, an issue arises where a company buys a one off appliance, and asks the house sparky to install it. As electricians we are being conditioned to always have some sort of standards conformity documentation: a c tick, a doc etc. All of a sudden they are being asked to install a one off appliance built by the guy down the road that has no paperwork. What do they do? In a lot of cases they refuse to install, and I don\'t blame them at all! Come on regs, clear this up for everyone!!

Until further clarification I have decided to provide my own doc with my appliances. A pretty piece of paper will satisfy the sparky (through ignorance or other), and the install will run smoother. This is the best solution I can think of, in the absence of a better method.

   

AlecK
Feb 13 2015 09:11

I agree the regulatory system could be improved in this area.
No doubt installation / connection will go easier with a bit of paper to keep the sparky happy. And let\'s face it, most wouldn\'t know a compliant SDoC from a raffle ticket.
And after that, no-one is going to question it on electrical grounds unless / until there is something obviously wrong with design or there is an adverse incident.