Page 2 of 2

Re: 4th Edition

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:17 am
by Terry
honeyfree wrote:I have been to a seminar and the risk assessment indicated in the 4Th edition may be a good tool to justify test frequency but it does not give any methodology.

Do you have anything to say or do you only quote?

Re: 4th Edition

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:22 am
by Terry
I guess the lack of response means that I am not the only one that has not seen an industry wide method that would give a consistent results for the same items in the same location.

The missing information that would enable some understanding is the ranking system used. Using the software on a Seaward product does not explain how its done to a technically astute Duty Holder. Not knowing the method does not look professional. Using industry wide software is OK to speed up the process, knowing the mathematical basis of the software would enable an explanation to be give to a Duty Holder and some credibility to us testers.

Can Seawards experts avail us of their knowledge??

Re: 4th Edition

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:11 pm
by Duff1
It has always been the case that the test interval is dependent on some kind of risk assessment process and is not just a standard fixed interval of 12 months or anything else. This edition just spells that out in plane english.

What I find surprising and think is potentially dangerous is the statement: "The date for re-testing should not be marked on the label."

Surely the whole point of testing is to help ensure the safety of the "user(s)." The test date is, has always been, meaningless to a "user." Why should the user check that there is a label with a meaningless date on it??

Example: A workshop with a frequently used appliance. The risk assement concludes the retest interval to be 6 months. A "user" correctly does their checks and goes ahead and uses the appliance. The test date was 11 months ago! So here a user is unkowingly using an appliance after nearly twice the recommended interval. Surely this cannot be right.

A duty holder may have thousands of appliances across many locations, buildings, sites, even with modern software, they are not likely to keep track of every one, its current location and test status.

It doesn't make sense to me that the latest edition entirely contradicts the previous edition. If you have a label with a retest date, as in the 3rd edition, then it is clear to a "user" as well as any kind of responsible person/manager or Health and Safety inspector exactly what the situation is. Or isn't it?

Re: 4th Edition

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:50 pm
by safe + sound
I think the theory is that the Duty Holder does the risk assesment when the new results are known, i.e. after the inspection or inspection and test is completed. So the person testing does not know what the retest frequency will be and cannot produce a label which includes it.

I presume if you use the risk assessment function of the Apollo 600 it will determin the frequency from the information entered and make it available immediately?

I'm happy to be corrected if this is wrong

Re: 4th Edition

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:41 pm
by Duff1
The clear implication of the 4th edition is that us as electricians/testers do not set the test intervals or do the Risk Assessments - we just test and record the date we did it. Unless you are a duty holder who does their own, then the Apollo 600 is pointless!? :!:

Re: 4th Edition

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:41 pm
by Amy Lyons
Hi All
Apologies for not replying sooner.

Duff1, The CoP 4th Ed states that "Any risk based assessments are the responsibility of the duty-holder....A duty-holder may enlist the services of a competent person to assist in this process." The Apollo 600 and PATGuard 3 both have the facility to determine retest periods via risk assessment. This works by taking factors such as equipment type, user, and frequency of use into account to determine whether the appliance is low or high risk and then calculating retest periods for formal visual and full test accordingly using Table 7.1 as a base. This facility can be used by the duty holder, or the competent person they enlist, to determine the retest periods prior to, during or after testing.

Safe+sound, Please see our blog entry at the below link with regards to putting retest periods on labels. This should hopefully answer some of your questions.

Terry, there is no industry standard way to risk assess but there is an ISO standard on Risk Management. This states that "risk management should be tailored to be aligned with the organisations external and internal context and risk profile." In Apollo 600 and PATGuard 3 we have tried to use a method of risk assessment for both electrical appliances and other assets, activities and locations which can be used in accordance with this ideal.

I hope I have answered as much as possible here but please let me know if I have missed anything or if you would like any further information.