Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Connection and Repair
Post Reply
Satobsat
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:49 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Post by Satobsat »

I have been requested by a campsite manager to test and tag a gas water heater, a hard wired gas dryer and two hard wired electric dryers. As far as I know AS/NZS 3760:2010 A1+A2 marks these items as not covered under that standard.
The gas water heater is fixed to a wall, the water pipes and the gas pipe.
The dryers are all on PCUs.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
User avatar
gregmcc
Site Admin
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Post by gregmcc »

3760 - 1.1.6 this standard does not apply to fixed equipment......

so no to the hard wired gas dryer

as far as the hair goes, possible yes, 1.2.3 talks about exclusions and cables that are not flexed in normal use, a hair dryer would be flexed and would seemed to be included, there is a nice diagram 4.5
AlecK
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 280 times

Re: Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Post by AlecK »

I suspect these are clothes dryer; not hair dryers.
If so, then covered by the Exclusion in clause 1.1.6.

However that doesn't mean you can't provide the service wanted.
As a PCBU, the camp manager has a duty under HSWA to take all practicable steps
That includes ensuring that electrical equipment is safe for use.
Especially equipment available for use by his customers.

S/He may have said 'test-&-tag"; but we can't expect them to understand how the relevant Standard(s) are designed to apply
What they really want - and are entitled to get - is an assurance that the equipment is safe.

Which is easy enough to do for someone with an appropriate PL (which normal T&T doesn't require).
Visually inspect.
Disconnect, do the tests - earth continuity, IR, etc; same as if you had done a repair on the appliance.
That means you would be applying '5762" (as per ESR 90).
Which has more guidance on inspection, but refers you back to '3760' for the tests.
Note that "5762" doesn't exclude directly-connected equipment.

Then reconnect; and fill out an ESC for the reconnection.
You could even use a T&T type tag; but probably better to use a "5762" tag / label instead.
Satobsat
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:49 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Post by Satobsat »

Thanks for the advice guys. Yes they are clothes dryers and I have read the bit about equipment that is pulled out for cleaning etc. so the cord is moved, but what about the gas water heater with the standard plug on it? Is it appropriate to affix a tag to it when 3760 declares it not covered under that standard as it is fixed to the wall and piping? Or should I affix a 5762 tag to it after testing. I can already see the blank looks on the faces when i ask for those at the supplier. Would a vinyl label printer do as long as I include my PL No. Date Item ID and 5762 compliance?

I also see that 5762, "Covers the testing and inspection process following the repair of electrical appliances so that when the appliance re-enters service, protection against hazards such as electrical shock, mechanical injury, or electrical fire, is ensured as far as possible."

The above mentioned items are in service and there is no repair involved so is a 5762 tag appropriate?
AlecK
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 280 times

Re: Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Post by AlecK »

The point isn't which - if any - tag you use.

The point is to inspect and test in an appropriate manner in order to provide the PCBU with some assurance that the appliances are safe for use.
There just doesn't happen to be a specific Standard for that.
But the tests as per 3760 remain appropriate, and the (relevant) inspections in 5762 are also appropriate.

Just because a Standard is aimed at a particular circumstance (eg "before sale" for 5761 or "after repair" for 5762), or excludes a range of items as 3760 excludes directly connected equipment); doesn't mean you can't still apply relevant parts of those Standards outside of their intended / declared scope.
Or you can invent your own checklist for the particular task - which is bound to include the exact same tests as those Standards.

Similarly whether you use / adapt a tag that refers to a particular Standard, or just provide an assurance to the owner, doesn't matter.
We're not dealing here with requirements imposed by (electrical) Regulation; we're simply helping the PCBU carry out their obligations under HSWA.

I agree you'll probably not find any "5762" or "5761" tags ready-made - I had my own made up a few years ago.
With digital printing; not a big cost even for a limited run.
If the owner wants some sort of tag, perhaps to provide assurance to his customers - use whatever does the job .
Making this sort of "safe-to-use - or not" - judgement is something we should all be able to do, regardless of what any Standard "excludes".

And if you have inspected and tested in accordance with a Standard, even though the item, and/ or circumstance, is outside of that Standard's scope; it isn't a lie - let alone an offence - to use a tag that reefers to stat Standard.
Satobsat
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:49 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Post by Satobsat »

Hi Aleck, I'm not arguing against the testing of the appliances if requested, I had always visually checked the above mentioned whilst conducting test tagging, I am taking issue with the council deamnding the above appliances be test tagged due to my friends retriring at the expiry of their lease at the end of the month.
The council are littereally just making things up at this point to be a thorn in their side, there are several other things the council have done to these people that I will not go into. But asking for items to be test tagged when that standard does not even apply to these items of equipment is just a further example of test tag lunacy that has swept the nation. This is the only customer I do test tagging for as they are friends and I think it is really just a rort and the majority of people out there doing this testing, even with fancy PAT testers don't test correctly.
I know how to diconnect test reconnect and fill out an ESC, that wasn't the reason for my comment, iy is the fact that the council are asking them to be tagged as tested.
AlecK
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 280 times

Re: Test Tagging Improbable Mission?

Post by AlecK »

I agree T&T done correctly can be expensive ; and that some offering such services don't do a proper job.
Also that requiring a particular Standard to be used, when that Standard clearly states that it isn't intended for that purpose; is inappropriate.
Certainly demonstrates a lack of detailed understanding of the Standard.
On the other hand; whoever expected any customer to have a detailed understanding of such things?

It can't be seen as wrong for the owner of the appliances that are part of leased premises to seek 3rd-party confirmation that they are in safe state to use at end of a lease term. After all they also have HSW obligations, including to the next lessee.
The question then becomes how to satisfy their legitimate need.

One option is to argue about Scope of Standard, and try to educate the owner.
Difficult when working directly for owner, near impossible when working for lessee.
Especially if owner is a bureaucratic organisation.
Your customer is unlikely to appreciate paying for you to educate the Council's employees
I suggest more productive to give them what they want; or near enough equivalent to satisfy them.

The fact that these appliances being technically out-of-Scope for 3760 doesn't mean that the checks and tests specified in 3760 are not appropriate.
You can't be found guilty of any offence if you just do as requested.
Post Reply