Electrical safety - testing and liability

[UNG]

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.

What about the company H&S policy as some of what you are saying falls within scope of this and the EAWR

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.

It is not clear from what you have posted how big the company is but there seems to be something lacking in the maintainance process within it, have you asked your foreman / chargehand / maintainance manager for their thoughts / comments on the maintainance process within the company
A good planned maintainance system should minimise how much reactive maintainance needed the fact you mention coding some issues a C2 would infer that the issues are within the fixed wiring system if machinery is involved then for me it is more like ISITEE which if something warrants the C2 you suggest then really you are looking towards locking it off and placing a do not use on it until the necessary repairs are carried out
I think if it was me I would be taking a picture of any maintainance dockets before handing them to your foreman / chargehand so you have your own paper trail just in case an incident occurs and some documentation is convienently "lost" that then puts you in the frame

 

[Jako13!]

What about the company H&S policy as some of what you are saying falls within scope of this and the EAWR

It is not clear from what you have posted how big the company is but there seems to be something lacking in the maintainance process within it, have you asked your foreman / chargehand / maintainance manager for their thoughts / comments on the maintainance process within the company
A good planned maintainance system should minimise how much reactive maintainance needed the fact you mention coding some issues a C2 would infer that the issues are within the fixed wiring system if machinery is involved then for me it is more like ISITEE which if something warrants the C2 you suggest then really you are looking towards locking it off and placing a do not use on it until the necessary repairs are carried out
I think if it was me I would be taking a picture of any maintainance dockets before handing them to your foreman / chargehand so you have your own paper trail just in case an incident occurs and some documentation is convienently "lost" that then puts you in the frame

Thank you I shall have a look into the policies as there must be something. So if it’s a C2 it’s advisable to lock off I’m just thinking of the guys that carry out EIC that record it and as stated by lister discharge there Duty of care to the duty holder?

 

[westward10]

You need to stop thinking along the lines of Codes this has nothing to do with an EICR.

 

[Jako13!]

Sorry westward it’s that Napit code breaker book

 

[Lister1987]

You need to stop thinking along the lines of Codes this has nothing to do with an EICR.

While it can muddy the waters for tht competent and knowledge,it does serve as a good basis for explaining to the layman levels of danger; C1 - Immediately Dangerous; I can see it, I can touch it, it will kill me now, C2 - Potentially dangerous; something has to go wrong for it to kill me and C3; not great but won't kill you - Red, Amber , Green - The RAG system by another approach, thr fact it integrates C1 C2 C3 as we know it I think is a byproduct, I for certainly use the same approach with clients as they're already seeing it in thier EICR paperwork.

And yes, the entire bold section was said in my head in Paul Meenen's voice

 

[Mike Johnson]

Its better in Robby the Robot voice.

 

[GBDamo]

Thank you guys for all your help!


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.


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.

I hate these "Actions" that management implement just to be seen to be doing something.

Just saying we need to test more is a nonsense unless there are proceduralised courses for you to follow when you do find an issue.

I know it's not an EICR but using the coding you can then apply timescales to fault reification.

C1 - immediately shut down and remedy.
C2 - remedy within 14 days.
C3 - remedy at next planned shut down.

You shouldn't be uncertain as to how to react to a scenario, it is a management responsibility to ensure policies and procedures are in place and they should be auditing that they are followed.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Most procedures are written with Health and Safety in mind, if as a semi intelligent operative skilled in your own discipline you can see an improvement to any of the written procedures it is the duty of said operative to suggest that improvement to the Director responsible for the H&S of the company, not sit in the canteen complaining about management.