ESRs are clear that "work on an installation’s animal stunning appliances or meat conditioning appliances" is high risk and also that such work must also comply with NZS6116 unless a part 1 solution is developed.
NZS6116s scope covers "animal stunning, immobilisation, accelerated conditioning and spinal discharge" and the forward contains more information in regards to these. It also provides definitions of "ACCELERATED CONDITIONER", "IMMOBILISER", "STUNNER" and "SPINAL DISCHARGE UNIT".
Does ESRs consider all the above to be "animal stunning appliances or meat conditioning appliances" or is it just the appliances defined as stunners and conditioners in NZS6116 but not immobilisers or back stiffeners?
High risk - definition of "animal stunning appliances or meat conditioning appliances"
Re: High risk - definition of "animal stunning appliances or meat conditioning appliances"
I believe that all of these devices come within the ESRs' descriptive term "animal stunning or meat conditioning".
This term is not defined in either the Act or ESRs.
It is used with direct reference to the Standard;
and, as per ESR 4(2), it takes the meaning used in the Standard (whether specifically defined in that Standard or not) .
Between the specific terms defined in the Standard, and the Foreword's more general explanations; there's no doubt in my mind that the term used in ESRs covers all types.
Maybe a pedantic argument could be made to exclude some types; but the only benefit of that is it may avoid need for 3rd-party inspection; while the downside is that if the argument was subsequently found to be wrong (EWRB, District Court, Coroner's Court) you'd have committed an offence.
There can be no penalty applied for having an inspection carried out that isn't required; and the cost is insignificant compared to the cost of being a test case.
The safe bet is therefore to treat all such devices that apply electricity an animal (either a live animal or a carcass) as being covered by the term; and therefore PEW on them, other than maintenance / replacement of a fitting, should be regarded as high risk PEW.
This term is not defined in either the Act or ESRs.
It is used with direct reference to the Standard;
and, as per ESR 4(2), it takes the meaning used in the Standard (whether specifically defined in that Standard or not) .
Between the specific terms defined in the Standard, and the Foreword's more general explanations; there's no doubt in my mind that the term used in ESRs covers all types.
Maybe a pedantic argument could be made to exclude some types; but the only benefit of that is it may avoid need for 3rd-party inspection; while the downside is that if the argument was subsequently found to be wrong (EWRB, District Court, Coroner's Court) you'd have committed an offence.
There can be no penalty applied for having an inspection carried out that isn't required; and the cost is insignificant compared to the cost of being a test case.
The safe bet is therefore to treat all such devices that apply electricity an animal (either a live animal or a carcass) as being covered by the term; and therefore PEW on them, other than maintenance / replacement of a fitting, should be regarded as high risk PEW.
- Rating: 16.67%