Electrical safety - testing and liability

[Jako13!]

I know I’m very health and safety conscious and electrical safety has always got me thinking with various sparks saying different things in regards to what they do and do not do. I also appreciate I am an over thinker on this subject. I will also admit having only been almost 2 years qualified my judgment can be abit OTT where others would just let things go so please forgive me.

My main concern Is where are responsibility lays as an electrician and liability. These are alway points that are brought up on many training courses but when it comes down to actually being on a job I find it hard to distinguish.

As a maintenance electrician we are responsible for carrying out planned maintenance and assessing the condition of equipment. Any install or like for like replacement I always fully test.

My issue comes when there’s a bit of old kit that may be critical to a process this may need something replacing to keep it running we replace that part then realise the circuit we have just altered is potentially dangerous warrants a C2 if carrying an EICR. If it’s not an easy rectification where do we now stand?

Also if we didn’t alter the circuit just disconnect to do some testing then realised the same issue as per above .
Say in both cases we energised the circuits, in both cases would we be liable if something was to happen. Or only in the first case where we have altered the installation. I’m both cases I know you would be best recording everything and reporting.

What do you guys reckon?

 

[James]

What does it say in the company handbook and other documentation?

 

[Lister1987]

How can ypu put something into service and THEN notice it to be potentially dangerous? Smacks of poor process to me. The whole point of EICs or Minor Works (or pre-use checks; PUWER 1998) is that you are satisfying that the installation (your work at least), has been tested and complies with BS7671 (and by extention; EAWR) and is safe to enter service (or if safe for continued use under PUWER 1998 when relating to equipment); Chapter 13 Fundamental principles details this and is thr foundation on which thr rest of thr book builds on, If not then you better get a Regulation 29 defence together sharpish

If you think equipment or process is dangerous thrn refuse to energise thr equipment or undertake the process. It is hard to use peer pressure as a defence if you're deemed to have sufficient skills, knowledge, attributes, training and experience to perceive and understand dangers presented by unsafe electrical equipment/installations

 

[littlespark]

If you find a C2 for example, can you adapt or add to the equipment to make it better? Replacement connection boxes or adding insulating shields etc.

If you can describe the situation, we could maybe suggest solutions short of complete equipment replacement.

You should also think that people using this equipment will be trained in doing so, so they won’t be deemed “ordinary” people or members of the general public that don’t have a clue.

 

[pc1966]

In the C1 cases of "clear and immediate danger" there is a very strong case for leaving a circuit off if no repair (even temporary) is possible at the time. Obviously that should be accompanied by both a written and verbal warning/instructions to those owning and/or those using the installation in case they simply switch on after you leave.

For C2 the usual guidance is the owner should make remedial action in 28 days (at least for landlords, etc) so again they should be given the written and verbal guidance but re-energising the circuit is not unreasonable if the "potential danger" is considered manageable for the situation in the short term. As James says, your company ought to have guidance on how this should be judged and the process for warnings issues and/or labelled at the time.

That also comes down to a bit of judgement about the C2 versus C1 sort of classification on danger, rather than just the examples in the BPG #4 or similar. You could easily make up examples where something like missing RCD or high Zs is C3 through to practically C1 depending on what it feeds, who is likely using it, and the environment they are in.

Also as littlespark says what sort of mitigation is possible? Is it something that can be done easily or is it going to be impractical/expensive and so a real suspicion the site owner will do SFA about the risk?

 

[westward10]

This isn't a case of whether it is a Code 1 or 2 as no EICR is being carried out. This is a case of complying to statutory documents and there is no excuse for not conforming to their absolute requirements.

 

[Vortigern]

The three hurdles for determining liablility are; Is there a duty of care - Was there a breach of that duty - Did harm result from that breach. If yes to all three then you are liable for that harm. This is interesting as unless harm results, there is no liability. So do you have a duty of care? clearly yes. Was there a breach? If you know you have left a dangerous situation then yes you have breached that duty. Has harm resulted? Not yet! But it could and when it does (if it does) you will be prosecuted for failure to rectify a known dangerous (potentially) situation. In conclusion then, you MUST take all reasonable steps to rectify that which is perceived as dangerous.

In the scenario you describe, whether you retrospectively realise a danger or apprehend a danger prior to work guidance note three is my go to. In that where there is a C1 you must stop work and notify the person ordering the work immediately, taking such steps as necessary to mitigate the discovered danger. Most of this is common sense.

I was changing a three phase box in a commercial (offices) situation and may not have been able finish the work by Monday 9 a.m. when the offices opened. The CEO was having a major fit and insisted I turn on the power. As I had not done the requisite tests prior to commissioning (everything else was done) I refused. It was in a locked plant room and I kept the only key so that he could not gain entry and switch on. Not ideal I know but the duty is on me to comply with legislation and regs and test prior to commissioning. I would add I did get it on, on time (just) but it is an instance that maybe illustrates what you may have to do sometimes to comply, i.e. go against the grain and even become unpopular.

 

[Jako13!]

As I’m just maintenance I don’t carry out EICRs just planned maintenance so in the case of disconnect and testing a said ‘poor circuit’ deemed a C2 ideally we would just leave off until sorted. I know a lot of this is a judgment call.

My example would be something like swa used as an earth for outdoors equipment- heavily corroded but still an earth although ADS may be questionable.

I guess I should have a look at any company documents.

Yes that’s right little sparks they should be trained.

How can ypu put something into service and THEN notice it to be potentially dangerous? Smacks of poor process to me. The whole point of EICs or Minor Works (or pre-use checks; PUWER 1998) is that you are satisfying that the installation (your work at least), has been tested and complies with BS7671 (and by extention; EAWR) and is safe to enter service (or if safe for continued use under PUWER 1998 when relating to equipment); Chapter 13 Fundamental principles details this and is thr foundation on which thr rest of thr book builds on, If not then you better get a Regulation 29 defence together sharpish

If you think equipment or process is dangerous thrn refuse to energise thr equipment or undertake the process. It is hard to use peer pressure as a defence if you're deemed to have sufficient skills, knowledge, attributes, training and experience to perceive and understand dangers presented by unsafe electrical equipment/installations

Hi lister1987 I didn’t mean put something into service and then notice it was potentially dangerous. What I mean is there’s kit there that’s ran for years has a fault such as a faulty contactor so you replace that then do a full set of tests R1+R2 ect then realise the earth is corroded or cables undersized.

I hope I make sense, thanks for being kind

 

[UNG]

I'm getting confused by the OP's comments and trying to understand what planned maintainance and what reactive maintainance he is actually doing as the planned maintainance seems to be lacking when it allows equipment to get to the point of being dangerous when reactive maintainance is carried out
Surely any planned maintainance will have an audit trail and will highlight where work is needed to correct developing problems, the person managing the planned maintainance should then be scheduling the necessary work needed to repair any issues found, if the work isn't scheduled then the manager has to have a good reason why it wasn't

 

[DPG]

Wasn't there a previous thread about this exact issue?

 

[snowhead]

Wasn't there a previous thread about this exact issue?

Maintenance responsibility

Hi can someone tell me the clear the legal requirements of someone carrying out maintenance for example changing over like for like. I have been told many different things for example if we change something like for like on a circuit and we notice something not quite right we can carry on with...

www.electriciansforums.net

 

[Jako13!]

So the best thing to do is if In doubt lock it off. I guess you’re right about the peer pressure but ultimately we are liable so unless we can sort it then lock it off. But how does this work when someone carries out an EICR they have to test and if they find something C2 they can only report. They are not liable once they have told the duty holder even if they was the last person touching that circuit. Sorry I am a big overthinker, think I need to get some experience doing EICRs.

 

[westward10]

What is your employers view.

 

[Lister1987]

So the best thing to do is if In doubt lock it off. I guess you’re right about the peer pressure but ultimately we are liable so unless we can sort it then lock it off. But how does this work when someone carries out an EICR they have to test and if they find something C2 they can only report. They are not liable once they have told the duty holder even if they was the last person touching that circuit. Sorry I am a big overthinker, think I need to get some experience doing EICRs.

5 words; Discharge your duty of care.

Lock off/make safe then email the dutyholder. Beyond that isn't on you, your DoC is discharged, if ---- hit the fan, thr curly wig guy will see evidence of your communication and discharging of DoC and you'll be free to go.

If you can't lock off or make safe then get it communicated to a dutyholder, again your DoC has been discharged AFARP.

 

[westward10]

Too much health and safety that's why nothing gets done in this country.

 

[littlespark]

Too much health and safety that's why nothing gets done in this country.

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not.

 

[nicebutdim]

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not.

I very much doubt it

 

[westward10]

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not.

A good part of that is true. I work with someone who worries far too much about health and safety to the point it compromises what he is doing, I am forever saying don't worry about it and truly he doesn't have to.

 

[UNG]

I'm getting confused by the OP's comments and trying to understand what planned maintainance and what reactive maintainance he is actually doing as the planned maintainance seems to be lacking when it allows equipment to get to the point of being dangerous when reactive maintainance is carried out
Surely any planned maintainance will have an audit trail and will highlight where work is needed to correct developing problems, the person managing the planned maintainance should then be scheduling the necessary work needed to repair any issues found, if the work isn't scheduled then the manager has to have a good reason why it wasn't

So the best thing to do is if In doubt lock it off. I guess you’re right about the peer pressure but ultimately we are liable so unless we can sort it then lock it off. But how does this work when someone carries out an EICR they have to test and if they find something C2 they can only report. They are not liable once they have told the duty holder even if they was the last person touching that circuit. Sorry I am a big overthinker, think I need to get some experience doing EICRs.

As I questioned in my previous post regarding planned and reactive maintainance something seems to be lacking in that faults or developing issues are not reported correctly or the necessary repairs are not actioned or carried out correctly and a further report made as to the completion or further work required to resolve the issue at the point it becomes a major issue requiring the equipment to be shut down then something has failed within the planned maintainance process to cause this and the audit trail should indicate where the blame lies

 

[Jako13!]

Thank you guys for all your help!

What is your employers view.

There is very limited guidance on this I’ve have a look through company policies and a lot of our guidance covers basics like maintaining isolations ect.

As I questioned in my previous post regarding planned and reactive maintainance something seems to be lacking in that faults or developing issues are not reported correctly or the necessary repairs are not actioned or carried out correctly and a further report made as to the completion or further work required to resolve the issue at the point it becomes a major issue requiring the equipment to be shut down then something has failed within the planned maintainance process to cause this and the audit trail should indicate where the blame lies

I agree, I’ve only ever been in a maintenance role at my company but not sure what other industrial setting are like? A lot of the problem is for years equipment was just ran till it failed no proper testing was ever done. If equipment failed they would just replace. This is where I struggle as just as I joined the company they were getting hotter on testing. So I still see it alot of the older lads don’t bother with it so would not notice the same things I do (such as lack of earthing and bad ZS). Hence why I decided to reach out on here as It’s not me to turn a blind eye to things but then again I can’t fix the world.

But yeah I think this is where it all stems from lack of testing which now I’m in the position where I’m finding bits that should have been picked up years ago so when I state the problems I get (oh no you can switch that off) or something to that effect.