Electrical safety - testing and liability

[Jako13!]

I know I’m very health and safety conscious and electrical safety has always got me thinking with various sparks saying different things in regards to what they do and do not do. I also appreciate I am an over thinker on this subject. I will also admit having only been almost 2 years qualified my judgment can be abit OTT where others would just let things go so please forgive me.

My main concern Is where are responsibility lays as an electrician and liability. These are alway points that are brought up on many training courses but when it comes down to actually being on a job I find it hard to distinguish.

As a maintenance electrician we are responsible for carrying out planned maintenance and assessing the condition of equipment. Any install or like for like replacement I always fully test.

My issue comes when there’s a bit of old kit that may be critical to a process this may need something replacing to keep it running we replace that part then realise the circuit we have just altered is potentially dangerous warrants a C2 if carrying an EICR. If it’s not an easy rectification where do we now stand?

Also if we didn’t alter the circuit just disconnect to do some testing then realised the same issue as per above .
Say in both cases we energised the circuits, in both cases would we be liable if something was to happen. Or only in the first case where we have altered the installation. I’m both cases I know you would be best recording everything and reporting.

What do you guys reckon?

 

[littlespark]

Too much health and safety that's why nothing gets done in this country.

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not.

 

[nicebutdim]

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not.

I very much doubt it

 

[westward10]

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not.

A good part of that is true. I work with someone who worries far too much about health and safety to the point it compromises what he is doing, I am forever saying don't worry about it and truly he doesn't have to.

 

[UNG]

I'm getting confused by the OP's comments and trying to understand what planned maintainance and what reactive maintainance he is actually doing as the planned maintainance seems to be lacking when it allows equipment to get to the point of being dangerous when reactive maintainance is carried out
Surely any planned maintainance will have an audit trail and will highlight where work is needed to correct developing problems, the person managing the planned maintainance should then be scheduling the necessary work needed to repair any issues found, if the work isn't scheduled then the manager has to have a good reason why it wasn't

So the best thing to do is if In doubt lock it off. I guess you’re right about the peer pressure but ultimately we are liable so unless we can sort it then lock it off. But how does this work when someone carries out an EICR they have to test and if they find something C2 they can only report. They are not liable once they have told the duty holder even if they was the last person touching that circuit. Sorry I am a big overthinker, think I need to get some experience doing EICRs.

As I questioned in my previous post regarding planned and reactive maintainance something seems to be lacking in that faults or developing issues are not reported correctly or the necessary repairs are not actioned or carried out correctly and a further report made as to the completion or further work required to resolve the issue at the point it becomes a major issue requiring the equipment to be shut down then something has failed within the planned maintainance process to cause this and the audit trail should indicate where the blame lies

 

[Jako13!]

Thank you guys for all your help!

What is your employers view.

There is very limited guidance on this I’ve have a look through company policies and a lot of our guidance covers basics like maintaining isolations ect.

As I questioned in my previous post regarding planned and reactive maintainance something seems to be lacking in that faults or developing issues are not reported correctly or the necessary repairs are not actioned or carried out correctly and a further report made as to the completion or further work required to resolve the issue at the point it becomes a major issue requiring the equipment to be shut down then something has failed within the planned maintainance process to cause this and the audit trail should indicate where the blame lies

I agree, I’ve only ever been in a maintenance role at my company but not sure what other industrial setting are like? A lot of the problem is for years equipment was just ran till it failed no proper testing was ever done. If equipment failed they would just replace. This is where I struggle as just as I joined the company they were getting hotter on testing. So I still see it alot of the older lads don’t bother with it so would not notice the same things I do (such as lack of earthing and bad ZS). Hence why I decided to reach out on here as It’s not me to turn a blind eye to things but then again I can’t fix the world.

But yeah I think this is where it all stems from lack of testing which now I’m in the position where I’m finding bits that should have been picked up years ago so when I state the problems I get (oh no you can switch that off) or something to that effect.

 

[UNG]

There is very limited guidance on this I’ve have a look through company policies and a lot of our guidance covers basics like maintaining isolations ect.

What about the company H&S policy as some of what you are saying falls within scope of this and the EAWR

I agree, I’ve only ever been in a maintenance role at my company but not sure what other industrial setting are like? A lot of the problem is for years equipment was just ran till it failed no proper testing was ever done. If equipment failed they would just replace. This is where I struggle as just as I joined the company they were getting hotter on testing. So I still see it alot of the older lads don’t bother with it so would not notice the same things I do (such as lack of earthing and bad ZS). Hence why I decided to reach out on here as It’s not me to turn a blind eye to things but then again I can’t fix the world.

But yeah I think this is where it all stems from lack of testing which now I’m in the position where I’m finding bits that should have been picked up years ago so when I state the problems I get (oh no you can switch that off) or something to that effect.

It is not clear from what you have posted how big the company is but there seems to be something lacking in the maintainance process within it, have you asked your foreman / chargehand / maintainance manager for their thoughts / comments on the maintainance process within the company
A good planned maintainance system should minimise how much reactive maintainance needed the fact you mention coding some issues a C2 would infer that the issues are within the fixed wiring system if machinery is involved then for me it is more like ISITEE which if something warrants the C2 you suggest then really you are looking towards locking it off and placing a do not use on it until the necessary repairs are carried out
I think if it was me I would be taking a picture of any maintainance dockets before handing them to your foreman / chargehand so you have your own paper trail just in case an incident occurs and some documentation is convienently "lost" that then puts you in the frame

 

[Jako13!]

What about the company H&S policy as some of what you are saying falls within scope of this and the EAWR

It is not clear from what you have posted how big the company is but there seems to be something lacking in the maintainance process within it, have you asked your foreman / chargehand / maintainance manager for their thoughts / comments on the maintainance process within the company
A good planned maintainance system should minimise how much reactive maintainance needed the fact you mention coding some issues a C2 would infer that the issues are within the fixed wiring system if machinery is involved then for me it is more like ISITEE which if something warrants the C2 you suggest then really you are looking towards locking it off and placing a do not use on it until the necessary repairs are carried out
I think if it was me I would be taking a picture of any maintainance dockets before handing them to your foreman / chargehand so you have your own paper trail just in case an incident occurs and some documentation is convienently "lost" that then puts you in the frame

Thank you I shall have a look into the policies as there must be something. So if it’s a C2 it’s advisable to lock off I’m just thinking of the guys that carry out EIC that record it and as stated by lister discharge there Duty of care to the duty holder?

 

[westward10]

You need to stop thinking along the lines of Codes this has nothing to do with an EICR.

 

[Jako13!]

Sorry westward it’s that Napit code breaker book

 

[Lister1987]

You need to stop thinking along the lines of Codes this has nothing to do with an EICR.

While it can muddy the waters for tht competent and knowledge,it does serve as a good basis for explaining to the layman levels of danger; C1 - Immediately Dangerous; I can see it, I can touch it, it will kill me now, C2 - Potentially dangerous; something has to go wrong for it to kill me and C3; not great but won't kill you - Red, Amber , Green - The RAG system by another approach, thr fact it integrates C1 C2 C3 as we know it I think is a byproduct, I for certainly use the same approach with clients as they're already seeing it in thier EICR paperwork.

And yes, the entire bold section was said in my head in Paul Meenen's voice

 

[Mike Johnson]

Its better in Robby the Robot voice.

 

[GBDamo]

Thank you guys for all your help!


There is very limited guidance on this I’ve have a look through company policies and a lot of our guidance covers basics like maintaining isolations ect.


I agree, I’ve only ever been in a maintenance role at my company but not sure what other industrial setting are like? A lot of the problem is for years equipment was just ran till it failed no proper testing was ever done. If equipment failed they would just replace. This is where I struggle as just as I joined the company they were getting hotter on testing. So I still see it alot of the older lads don’t bother with it so would not notice the same things I do (such as lack of earthing and bad ZS). Hence why I decided to reach out on here as It’s not me to turn a blind eye to things but then again I can’t fix the world.

But yeah I think this is where it all stems from lack of testing which now I’m in the position where I’m finding bits that should have been picked up years ago so when I state the problems I get (oh no you can switch that off) or something to that effect.

I hate these "Actions" that management implement just to be seen to be doing something.

Just saying we need to test more is a nonsense unless there are proceduralised courses for you to follow when you do find an issue.

I know it's not an EICR but using the coding you can then apply timescales to fault reification.

C1 - immediately shut down and remedy.
C2 - remedy within 14 days.
C3 - remedy at next planned shut down.

You shouldn't be uncertain as to how to react to a scenario, it is a management responsibility to ensure policies and procedures are in place and they should be auditing that they are followed.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Most procedures are written with Health and Safety in mind, if as a semi intelligent operative skilled in your own discipline you can see an improvement to any of the written procedures it is the duty of said operative to suggest that improvement to the Director responsible for the H&S of the company, not sit in the canteen complaining about management.