Testing our own premises? In-house electrician..

[oj2305]

I work to a company in the seafood industry. We have in the teens of different premises. I am employed directly by the company and at the moment I maintain them all electrically and a third party company comes around and does all the inspection and testing work. The only reason for this other company doing the work is that it's a case of 'that's the way it's always been'... Now we are looking into doing our EICR's in house. Is there any reason why we can't do this? Obviously the company is not registered with a scheme but if we are producing reports to the current standard, with the company filled in as the contractor and the client on the reports we produce then I can't see this would be a problem? Anybody see a reason why this could be a problem?

Cheers

 

[Risteard]

Are your insurance company happy with the situation?

 

[oj2305]

Yes they are fine with it. I'm just wondering if it's a normal thing for companies who employ their own electricians to do. I guess it may be similar to a local authority having their own electricians and testing their own premesis ??‍

 

[marconi]

oj2305: Good morning. You might want to clarify on paper what the insurance company is actually 'happy with'; I reckon they mean a full in-house quality controlled, documented and auditable system which includes the people (and their competency), methodology, risk assessment(periodicity), test equipment, planning, reporting and responsible director sign off system.

 

[James]

Been in your situation before.

Company I worked for as in house spark asked me to do the periodic inspections as they were back in the day to save money.

It was a couple of thousand they would save.
I suggested that it would be better to get external contractors to do it,

Most of the work would have to be done out of hours so would mean I was not available to do any repairs to vital equipment during the working day, would lead to a loss in production that would easily outweigh the 2k “saving”

Also, it is considered a far more reliable document if you have a problem in the future (an independent safety report) normally out trumps any in-house report.

 

[barninks]

I think its a good idea as long as insurance is happy.
But as James says, you have got to be prepared to act as independent to the company when producing reports and giving any findings. An in-house inspector could potentially fudge results to keep the boss happy hence the lack of confidence in an in-house report sometimes
You have also got to be prepared to work extra hours - dead tests aren't ideal in the middle of a working day

 

[David Prosser]

What did the other company test? Was it the fixed wiring for distribution and lighting or did it extend to process equipment and the wiring associated with it ?

 

[oj2305]

The other company just tested the fixed wiring basically, as far as the incoming isolators to our process equipments plc cabinets or frequency drives. Some of the equipment is mounted on board barges floating in the sea, run by generators and these require an annual test for insurance/saftey purposes but last time I witnessed them do it they did a 10% test, and ignored all other circuits. I wouldn't mind them doing a 10% inspection but at the very least I'd want insulation resistance etc done on all of the circuits due to the nature of the installation. They won't get away with that again...

I've taken the above comments on board and it may be an idea to try keep it the way it is. It's just an idea that was thrown at me the other day but I hadn't thought of some of the drawbacks listed above. I did used to work to a contractor so I'm familiar with the testing and documentation process but like you said an independent report may be looked upon as more reliable as in house. I usually do act as independent thought when it comes to my work and don't worry too much about upsetting the boss ? when I started a lot of the equipment was in such a poor condition I was in disbelief but I'm slowly getting it all up to scratch.

Because I'm the only electrician in our department it's fine to get other opinions, so thanks for your input

 

[Simon47]

I guess one thing you need to consider these days is ...
If the brown stuff hits the fan, can you justify that a) you are suitably qualified and experienced, and b) you acted in a suitably professional and independent manner. You don't need to have been at fault, it could just be that you are a convenient person to point the finger at when angling for compo. And sadly, in such a situation, you cannot always rely on your employer backing you up - too many seem happy to throw anyone under the bus if it diverts attention from themselves.
Not trying to be negative, but it's not something you can ignore. If the company insurance are happy with it, check the precise wording - and check that it includes liability/legal defence cover for yourself. If not, insist that your employer adds such cover.
Some time ago, a friend of mine worked for a local scrap dealer. One of his duties (as an experienced mechanic) was to maintain the company vehicles, which were exempt from MoT tests. I think he had a little bit of friction with the boss, but insisted on doing things properly or having nothing to do with it - on the basis of not wanting to be on the end of "well you were responsible for maintaining the brakes weren't you ?" sort of questions in court.

 

[Vortigern]

Also bear in mind it is possible to forego EICR altogether. If you have a sufficiently rigorous maintenance program and monitoring of equipment it is acceptable as proof of condition of the installation. Such a program would meet H&S act requirements and EAWR. So for instance when working on the many commercial units contained within a larger commercial premises, doing tests on the installation as I go and proper records kept is as good as an EICR.