[committee] UCC 'test-and-tag'

[Grace Rosario]

Hello SOC,

I'm not sure if this (picture attached) really constitutes a response to
our email, since it didn't get sent to the committee, just to one member,
and used a personal Facebook account to communicate. So I'm pretty sure, at
least, that this is not an official response.

I'm not sure that we were clear enough in our last email, but could
somebody please link us to the safety standards of the guild, which are
apparently separate from the UWA regulations. I have looked on the guild
website and this information is not available to me anywhere that I can see.

The UCC committee would like to view the policy that they are being asked
to comply with.

Best regards,
Grace Rosario
UCC Secretary


[image: image.png]

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 23:47, Timothy Chapman <22483878 at student.uwa.edu.au>
wrote:

> Dear SOC,
>
> Speaking on behalf of the UCC committee, we have recently received your
> request to 'test-and-tag' all of our plugs. We would appreciate it if you
> could please outline why this is *necessary*.
> UCC has (as you would expect) a very large number of electrical devices,
> and so, such a requirement is exceptionally onerous for the club — to the
> tune of several hundred dollars per year.
>
> Examining the UWA Electrical Safety Guidelines
> <http://www.safety.uwa.edu.au/topics/electrical-safety/testing-tagging-guidelines>,
> we were able to identity the section of the requirements this seems to be a
> result of.
>
> *"UWA uses a risk management approach to determine where specific testing
> of electrical equipment is necessary. This is achieved by defining
> workplaces as hostile or non-hostile electrical environments and then
> specifying the required frequency of either Visual Inspections or Testing
> and Tagging"*
>
> While it seems good for the clubs on UWA to follow the UWA safety rules,
> we note that the regulations split environments into two categories:
> Hostile and Non-hostile.
> The requirement of "Testing and Tagging" *exclusively* refers to "hostile
> environments". According to those regulations a *non-*hostile environment
> is defined as follows:
>
> *"This is a workplace that is dry, clean, well organised and free of
> operating conditions that may result in damage to electrical equipment or
> the flexible supply cord."*
>
> We are strongly of the impression that UCC firmly fits into the category
> of *non-hostile*, and as such this requirement seems to be unnecessary.
> From your request, we can only conclude that you have classified UCC as a
> hostile environment.
>
> Would it be possible to get a thorough and well justified explanation for
> why UCC has been singled out and identified? *(see email from Taco
> Shiraishi on May 15)* Since if we were to go ahead with the tagging, UCC
> appears to be expected to pay a significant sum out of pocket for
> superfluous electrical testing.
>
> Looking forward to your reply,
>
> Timothy Chapman
> UCC Ordinary Committee Member
> _______________________________________________
> List Archives: http://lists.ucc.asn.au/pipermail/committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20190523/c4b6132e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 96785 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20190523/c4b6132e/attachment.png>