I have been asked to do an inspection on a soon to be installed animal stunning unit.
I have asked the following
"Can I be provided with all manufacturers information as per 1.6 of NZS 6116
“(b) A copy of the manufacturers or supplier’s documentation for the appliance which should contain:
(i) A list of major components (and where applicable, the voltage, frequency and current rating);
(ii) Verification that the appliance’s major components meet the requirements of this Standard or legislation applying at the time of manufacture;
(iii) Complete “as built” schematic wiring diagrams and any PLC ladder diagrams;
(iv) The results of commissioning tests;
(v) Maintenance and test instructions; and
(vi) The manufacturer’s operating procedures.”
Proof of compliance with “AS/NZS 3100” as per 3.1.6 and that transformers comply with “AS/NZS 61558.2.4 with no direct earth reference” 2.1.2 is vital." (Both NZS6116 references)
All I have been provided with is the following PDF manual. Most of it seems suitable and I have already seen this manual before but the only proof of compliance I have is the SDoC on the last page.
Am I right in the fact this isn't suitable and I should have a Certificate of Conformity stating compliance with 3100 for the appliance? The transformers supplied in the unit should also have a Certificate of Conformity?
MS305 Small Stock Stunner
Re: MS305 Small Stock Stunner
The SDoC appears to be in the prescribed form
(though I didn't do a detailed check).
However I don't think animal stunning equipment is on the Gazetted list of DMRAs;
which means the SDoC is a voluntary one, as opposed to a required one.
It claims the equipment complies with "6116".
3(b) of ESR 83 lists 4 acceptable claims; but it really comes down to whether "6116" is the "appropriate Standard listed in Schedule 4".
"3100" is certainly cited in "6116" as a Standard appliances "shall" comply with.
But it's a basic equipment Standard; and in any case the clause says "unless otherwise specified".
As per ESR 83; an installer can rely on an SDoC when issuing CoC or ESC; but an Inspector carrying out inspection of HRPEW doesn't have that luxury.
So even if the SDoC claimed compliance with "3100"; it might be a more valid SDoC, but it still wouldn't cover your bum.
It's really up to you whether you accept this claim as a contribution to you deciding that the HRPEW done has been done i.a.w ESRs and will be safe when enlivened [ ESR 70(3)].
Point being that our job as inspectors is more than just checking paperwork.
In fact checking paperwork really isn't part of our job at all (other than to establish the extent & nature of the work to be inspected).
I know EWRB have adopted a different view; but in this case - as so often - their view is not soundly based on what the Act & ESRs actually say.
(though I didn't do a detailed check).
However I don't think animal stunning equipment is on the Gazetted list of DMRAs;
which means the SDoC is a voluntary one, as opposed to a required one.
It claims the equipment complies with "6116".
3(b) of ESR 83 lists 4 acceptable claims; but it really comes down to whether "6116" is the "appropriate Standard listed in Schedule 4".
"3100" is certainly cited in "6116" as a Standard appliances "shall" comply with.
But it's a basic equipment Standard; and in any case the clause says "unless otherwise specified".
As per ESR 83; an installer can rely on an SDoC when issuing CoC or ESC; but an Inspector carrying out inspection of HRPEW doesn't have that luxury.
So even if the SDoC claimed compliance with "3100"; it might be a more valid SDoC, but it still wouldn't cover your bum.
It's really up to you whether you accept this claim as a contribution to you deciding that the HRPEW done has been done i.a.w ESRs and will be safe when enlivened [ ESR 70(3)].
Point being that our job as inspectors is more than just checking paperwork.
In fact checking paperwork really isn't part of our job at all (other than to establish the extent & nature of the work to be inspected).
I know EWRB have adopted a different view; but in this case - as so often - their view is not soundly based on what the Act & ESRs actually say.
Re: MS305 Small Stock Stunner
Is an SDoC worth anything if it's not for a DMRA? Anyhow compliance with 6116 doesn't meet ESR 83 (3)(b) and isnt 6116 an installation standard rather than a product standard. I thought this was the point in Schedule 2 vs Schedule 4
Shouldn't items not medium or high risk articles have certificates of conformity as mentioned in ESR 81
I understand "unless otherwise specified" but the only clause I can link this too is 2.1.1 that gives the alternitive of complying with a standard in AS/NZS 4417.
A certificate of conformity for 3100 seems to tick all the boxes. It meets 3.1.6, it meets 2.1.1, it meets the requirements of AS/NZS 3820 and thus meets the requirements of ESR 80 (2)
Where as SDoC claiming complianace with NZS 6116 meets none?
Shouldn't items not medium or high risk articles have certificates of conformity as mentioned in ESR 81
I understand "unless otherwise specified" but the only clause I can link this too is 2.1.1 that gives the alternitive of complying with a standard in AS/NZS 4417.
A certificate of conformity for 3100 seems to tick all the boxes. It meets 3.1.6, it meets 2.1.1, it meets the requirements of AS/NZS 3820 and thus meets the requirements of ESR 80 (2)
Where as SDoC claiming complianace with NZS 6116 meets none?