Electrical Safety Standards in Review

[Andy Ciddor]

The EL-036 standards committee is meeting in Sydney next month to look at revisions of:
AS/NZS 3760:2003 In-service safety inspection and testing of electrical equipment
AS/NZS 5761:2005 In-service safety inspection and testing of electrical equipment-Second-hand electrical equipment prior to sale
AS/NZS 5762:2005 In-service safety inspection and testing of electrical equipment-Repaired electrical equipment.

These standards have been around for a while now, and the test and tag standard in particular (AS/NZS 3760) is still not well understood by far too many in our industry and the many others who use the same gear. There are already agenda items for the meeting, covering the vexed issues of who is a competent person and how that competence should be specified and tested.

As ALIA is directly represented on this committee, now is your opportunity to bring to the committee any problems or suggestions you may have as to improving the operation of these standards.

Please let's begin the discussion by reading these standards to make sure that you understand what they say, not what someone else was told they say by an instructor on a training course who may not have actually read it either. Then, if you have suggestions about what needs to be clarified or changed, let's discuss it here on the forums, or just pass it on to me, as the ALIA representative.
_________________
Andy Ciddor

[Andy Ciddor]

Some further information on the process of reviewing the standards.

The EL-036 committee meets in Sydney on August 31st and September 1st to examine the standards and look at what updates and amendments need to be made.

AS/NZS 3760:2003
The revision will be undertaken by:
* implementing editorial improvements arising from user feedback
* enhancing user safety by adding new information for the testing of three phase RCD's and appliances
* updating to reflect the impact of new technology in appliances
* considering the need for and implementing if thought necessary a means of determining the knowledge and skills of a 'Competent Person'
* Considering the need for and specifying if thought necessary, the testing methods for appliances with special needs, such as welders

AS.NZS 5761 and AS/NZS 5762
The revision will be undertaken by:
* taking the opportunity to make minor editorial corrections.
* applying risk management principles to determine the verification of user safety from hazards such as fire, electric shock, burns and mechanical injury.
* adding material thought necessary
* reflecting the wishes and needs of regulators in both countries

The revised documents will be made available for a period of public comment.
The committee will examine and deal with all public comments to produce final drafts that will then be voted on by the members for approval as the new version of the standards.

The committee includes representatives from:
National Electrical and Communications Association - Australia
Australasian Lighting Industry Association
Housing Industry Assoc - Australia
Consumer Electronics Supplies Association - Australia
Inst of Electrical Inspectors - Australia
Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Assoc
New Zealand Electric Fence Energizer Manufactures' Standards Group
Hire Industry Assoc of New Zealand
Consulting Interests New Zealand
Electro Technical Association Inc New Zealand
Consulting Interests - Australia
Schneider New Zealand
Workcover NSW
JAS-ANZ
Building Services Contractors of New Zealand
Ministry of Economic Development New Zealand
Electrical Regulatory Authorities Council Australia
Hire and Rental Association Australia
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Dept of Commerce NSW
Department of Labour, New Zealand
Energy Safety, Dept of Commerce WA
_________________
Andy Ciddor

[Andy Ciddor]

If you have inputs and comments that may be incorporated into the review and drafting process, please pass them on to me before Monday 24th August.

Please read the current versions of the standards and frame your comments as responses or challenges to the current standard.
Please don't base your comments or submissions on anything other than the existing standard. Many of the comments and complaints I hear about the testing and tagging standard and its implementation are based on hearsay, gossip and rumour about the standard. However the committee is unable to deal with anything other than the standard itself.
Perhaps all of the test and tag mythology circulating in the community needs to be dealt with by more education and better communication about the actual content of the standard. Maybe the committee needs to go further than merely setting the standard, by making its contents better known in the world of equipment users?

Once the drafts of the revised Standards are available for public comment are made available (we'll let you know about it here on the ALIA web site), you should direct your comments to the committee's secretariat for inclusion in the committee's post-comment discussions and revisions.
_________________
Andy Ciddor

[Andy Ciddor]

The EL-036 standards committee meets in just over a week. If you have thoughts about how the test and tag process could be improved, please send me an email to or phone me on 03 6229 1662 to discuss your ideas.
_________________
Andy Ciddor

[RoderickvG]

I must admit I haven't read the 2003 version, only the 2001 version, so apologies if this is old news...

What would be really helpful are some clear definitions on the frequency of testing, recognising the different applications of the equipment, similar to the office equipment in Table 2. I am finding that many people struggle with finding the correct intervals between tests.
I would like to suggest three categories for theatrical equipment:
- Installed, i.e. venue, long running show, etc.
- Touring, where equipment gets moved around a lot but pretty much by the same people and same configuration
- One-off gigs & dry hires

For audio and A/V equipment you could argue for a fourth category, installed in racks, but that may fall outside the ALIA chapter

It will be important to find a reasonable balance between reality and theory. For instance if the touring category would end up recommending full testing before each bump-in, it will be discarded and as such defeat the purpose. If on the other hand it would recommend testing before the tour starts and visual inspection for each bump-in, that would be workable.

My 2c
_________________
Think it is too expensive to hire a professional, wait until you hire an amateur

[Andy Ciddor]

RoderickVG has raised a recurring issue and one that I intend to bring up at the meetings: the ready availability of the Standard for people to read.

I meet with and talk to quite a few testers, almost none of whom have ever read the actual standard. The price is so high that nobody buys one and therefore no-one knows what it says. Instead, they go by the industry folklore about what it says, or they believe what they're told by their trainers, who probably haven't read the standard either, or if they have read it they have totally failed to understand it - I don't know which is worse.
_________________
Andy Ciddor

[Andy Ciddor]

The testing & tagging intervals are actually MUCH simpler than most people believe.

Firstly they are recommendations not mandatory, and that's because you get to chose your own testing intervals, based on a risk assessment process - except in the case of hire, where the minimum testing and tagging is 3 months (with a visual inspection on each hire).

Having said that, the State of Queensland sets down its own MANDATORY minimum test and tag intervals. In every other case, the legal requirement is to provide a safe work environment and whatever you do in that regard may have to be answered before a court of law some day. That's why it's always good (although not always mandatory) to follow a standard.

The testing interval table associated with the standard is a set of recommendations to give you guidelines to make your own decisions about your testing intervals. That way there is no need for highly complex, industry-specific tables of what to do.
eg. if a par 56 is used as an auditorium downlight that just hangs from a fixed position and never gets touched except for re-lamping, then it is considered in the same risk category as an office photocopier that just sits in the corner and never gets moved. The same model of par 56 that does a DJ job in a different venue every night, or even two venues per night, is clearly in the high risk category and should be visually inspected and checked for operation every time it gets used. That's just common sense and a reasonable safety precaution. It's also a practice that I have both recommended and followed since long before there was a standard.
Safety is not about meeting some arbitrary testing interval, it's about making sure that you are SAFE and it usually has the enormous side benefit of making sure that your job goes smoothly with good working gear.
_________________
Andy Ciddor

[RoderickvG]

Ah, but this is were Andy's two last posts meet....
The problem is that because so few people actually fork out the money to buy an Australian Standard, Chinese whispers rule. And because you actually have to read the whole standard, and interpret the information, there is no clear direction. And as a result there are all sorts of wild speculations 'out there'.
As with many safety issues, there is a large dividing range in our industry with on one side people who think it is all bull***t and ignore it, and on the other side powerhungry Nazi's who want to use all sorts of, often made up, regulations to enforce their 'importance'.
And then there is a small, but thankfully growing, group of people who try to find a balance on the often very narrow ridge.
For this last group it would be really helpful to have a concrete 'guideline' which on one hand could push the doubters into action and at the same time silence the over-eager.

And the accessibility to Australian Standards, as they are copyrighted by SAI Global (notice that last bit in their name?), has been a pet hate of mine for years. The amount of money everyone has to fork out just to get the information on how to do their job in accordance with the Standards is ridiculous.
I believe that all Australian Standards should be available, for free, at all libraries in the country, for consultation. This will allow everyone to study the Standards in the library. If you then decide you want to read it in the comfort of your own home, then fork out the several $100's to download the PDF, or more if you want it in print.
But with SAI Global being a private company, don't like the chances much.

Roderick
_________________
Think it is too expensive to hire a professional, wait until you hire an amateur

[JBoer]

Hear Hear

[beatsonic]

hi andy
have just digested the current draft and have 2 thoughts:
1) given that testers are directed to pay greater attention to the enviroment the equipment is located within, there is very little infomation with regards to conducting and documenting a risk assesment. The only reference i found was at the begining of the document when refering to other standards. This, as highlighted many times before, would require the tester to shell out even more money to obtain infomation which they require to do their job satisfactorly.
2) In table 4, subgroup 3, "Environment where the equipment or supply cord is NOT subject to flexing in normal use and is NOT open to abuse and is NOT in a hostile environment" What equipment falls into this subgroup? the example which is given elsewhere in the document is an office enviroment, however I would have thought that this would have been a stretch. Other examples could possibly be a clean room, however chemicals would deem it a hostile enviroment, or a server room, however what server room remains untouched for 5years? Possibly some worked examples would clarify this?
_________________
Craig
craig@illusionlighting.com.au
www.illusionlighting.com.au

[Andy Ciddor]

[JBoer]

Andy

I am actually inpressed by the amount of common sense and simple explanation there is in the draft. It is a good improvement on 2003.

However one question I have had for a while is, why is there and what is the difference between (draft) 2.5.1 (c) a repair register and (d) a record of all faulty equipment showing details of services or corrective actions.

I have been at an organisation where 2 databases have been created to log the faults/repairs and tests with exactly the same information and format to satisfy this requirement. Is this interpretation correct?

Also when is the draft due to be finalised?

Thanks!

[Andy Ciddor]

[f9]

Personal opinion...I am for mandatory testing but not for mandatory tagging of good equipment I am for mandatory tagging of faulty equipment and if it is possible with reddish pink tag.
Tagging is already big business for companies with testing equipment, with printing companies with qualified testers and taggers etc.

[RoderickvG]