[committee] Fwd: UCC 'test-and-tag'

[Timothy Chapman]

Hi interested parties,

This reply of mine missed the committee@ cc, so here's it forwarded.

Timothy.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Timothy Chapman <22483878 at student.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019, 12:18 pm
Subject: Re: [committee] UCC 'test-and-tag'
To: SOC <soc at guild.uwa.edu.au>
Cc: Grace Rosario <20483992 at student.uwa.edu.au>, Hinako Shiraishi 19 <
soc-president at guild.uwa.edu.au>


Hi Maja,

Thank you for your reply. It's very helpful to actually see the regulations
you'd like us to comply with. A quick point of clarification that I feel
must be made:
In §3.59 I see the requirement for all electrical equipment to be "tested",
however I fail to see why that must specifically refer to 'test-and-tag'.

If you could elucidate this point it would be much appreciated,

Timothy.

On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 11:45, SOC <soc at guild.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

> Hey UCC,
>
>
> Thank you for taking such a keen interest in our regulations!
>
> Please see attached WA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS –
> REGULATION 3.59 which states that “all electrical installations at the
> workplace are designed, constructed, installed, protected, maintained and
> *tested* so as to minimize the risk of electrical shock or fire”; and
> REGULATION 1.16 which outlines the penalties for this.
>
>
>
> I believe WA Occupational Safety and Health Regulations would supersede
> UWA Electrical Safety Guidelines.
>
>
>
> It is worth noting that in general, the tags last up to 5 years depending
> on the type of equipment, so this cost would not annual. Hope this was of
> help!
>
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
>
> *Maja Maric *
>
> SOC Communications Committee
>
> UWA Student Guild
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Grace Rosario <20483992 at student.uwa.edu.au>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:33 AM
> *To:* Timothy Chapman
> *Cc:* Hinako Shiraishi 19; SOC; committee
> *Subject:* Re: [committee] UCC 'test-and-tag'
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
Yours sincerely,

Timothy Chapman.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20190523/aa9271ef/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/aa9271ef/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-c4hyp4y4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4658 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20190523/aa9271ef/attachment-0001.png>