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

 

 

 


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

Documents must be less than 200k in pdf format

Posted By Topic: test and tagging tools

rarrar
May 29 2017 19:44

I have recollections of reading here that some tradies do not need to have their tools tested and tagged if they are plugged into an RCD, is this correct and if so where states this is the case?
   

AlecK
May 29 2017 20:12

T&T is NOT mandatory for anyone.
It IS recognised in ESR 26 as achieving \"electrically safe\" for equipment used by employees / subbies / people hiring equipment
And it is looked on by Worksafe\" as the primary means of having a safe workplace (electrically); especially for C&D (where they seem to believe it is mandatory, even though there is NO rule anywhere that goes anywhere near making it so).

Using an RTCd gets the same recognition under ESR 26 for equipment used by hirrer or lessee.

And ES have told us they intend to switch that priority, so that RCD gets recognition in all cases - aiming to avoid Ozzy problems of empires being built on half-arsed T&T regimes. But that will need an Amendment to ESRs.
   

ShaneR
May 29 2017 21:27

energy safe
http://www.energysafety.govt.nz/appliances-fittings/electrical-appliances-fittings/operational-safety/test-tag-regime
   

SteveH
May 30 2017 07:10

With views of business opportunities like this, it\'s unsuprising that most sparkies howl over the money they are making, or rather not making.

Bet the plumbers wouldn\'t bitch and carp if they had some regulations that required owners of installations to not be reckless about the safety of their pipework and associated fittings, and then provided some guidance how that duty could be discharged.

No, reckon they\'d provide the service and charge accordingly
   

AlecK
May 30 2017 08:44

Who\'s bitching?
The OP asked a straight question, and got an accurate answer (actually two accurate answers) to that question.
Or perhaps it\'s your view that it\'s OK to lie in order to get work that doesn\'t actually need to be done?
   

rarrar
May 30 2017 09:00

it\'s actually for a builder on a site i\'m working on, i carry tags, just cause they\'re there and he asked be to tag 20 odd tools, and was happy at $5 each, a cool hundy to sit there in the sun too. I said I wasn\'t sure it was compulsary so checked here, and now i\'ve done myself a hundy sadly. What i have also done is earn the respect of another tradie and highly likely a lot of work as he\'s been tired of paying out for something that is a crock.
   

AlecK
May 30 2017 09:29

Your builder\'s opinion might change if / when a Worksafe jobsworth comes calling. The question for workplace managers is whether the hassle & expense of T&T is justified, and that includes comparing the hassle and expense of arguing with Worksafe, as well as the cost of any alternative safety programme they may choose to follow instead.

As for pricing, I\'d suggest $5 is on the light side, being approx $52 / h (+GST)if everything goes right, and less if it doesn\'t.

   

1badwolf
Sep 07 2019 11:18

to add to the confusion - reg 26 uses the word applies (not voluntary).
1A relates to an employer or contractor which is then backed up by (2) - which then DIFFERENTIATES between 1B & 1C which is backed up by section 3.

How do you apply section 3 to 1A? when it clearly states 1B & 1C and not 1A?
   

sneath
Sep 07 2019 12:18

What is being overlooked here is the HSWA 2015
and General Workplace Risk Management Regulations. and use of the term 'Reasonably Practicable'

Yes. we have our Prescriptive Law ESR 2010 (see ESR 5 and 26), but read it in conjunction with the HSWA 210 and GWRM Regs.

House of Lords 1949 .."where a persons life is at stake,introducing a control measure cannot be seen to be unreasonable"

GWRM regulations Control Hierarchy Eliminate - Minimize ( T&T Administration Control).

As we have seen (Electrolink Artical) electrical injury the judge referred to the HSWA 2010 over the ESR 2010.

....also As/NZs 3012 requires T&T to As/Nzs 3760.

Negligence is no longer an excuse.
   

AlecK
Sep 07 2019 12:20

It's not difficult to follow if you go through logically.

In ESR 26, clause (1) sets up three categories of fittings / appliances: (a), (b), and (c).

Clause (2) gives us one method of a category (a) fitting / appliance being deemed safe.

Clause (3) gives us two methods for a category (b) or (c) fitting / appliance being deemed safe.

Looking at those methods; the test tag works for all three categories while the RCD only works for (b) & (c).

Clause (4) introduces a third method, which also only works for (b) & (c). However this method is more than a bit fuzzy; since the cited Standard - AS/NZS 3019 - doesn't have any requirements that a fitting or appliance can comply with. In fact appliances are specifically excluded from ever being part of an installation, by the definition of "electrical installation" in the Act. So on the whole, probably best to avoid using Clause 4.
   

broadsword
Sep 08 2019 16:03

ESR26 provides a mechanism for confirming electrical safety through use of a 3760 tag

however there is nothing that I can see that requires that alone as the demonstration of electrical safety... thats just one simple and clean mechanism of compliance

A fitting or an appliance such as that described in 26(1)(a)can be clearly and simply demonstrated to be electrically safe by other means too... it's up to the person in question to justify the how's and why
   

AlecK
Sep 08 2019 16:57

True AS/NZS 3012 "requires" T&T... but "3012" is not a mandated Standard, it's cited only in ESR 25 as a method of getting the site's permanent installation to "deemed safe; and it's NOT cited anywhere in

ESRs for portable equipment