FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: lyledunn on December 05, 2016, 08:36:53 PM
-
Just about every FRA that I have seen points out the need for PAT. The Action Plan often indicates high priority where it hasn't been done. I remain to be convinced that fire safety is much improved by this blanket approach. If anyone could point me to evidence supporting the claim that PAT reduces fire risk, it would much appreciated. I am cynical but open to persuasion.
-
It is because people think electrical Portable Appliances have to be tested annually which is incorrect.
The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require that any electrical equipment that has the potential to cause injury is maintained in a safe condition. However, the Regulations do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently (ie they don't make inspection or testing of electrical appliances a legal requirement, nor do they make it a legal requirement to undertake this annually).
The frequency of inspection and testing depends upon the type of equipment and the environment it is used in. For example, a power tool used on a construction site should be examined more frequently than a lamp in a hotel bedroom.
Check out http://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/faq-portable-appliance-testing.htm
-
Yes I agree with Tom, the major point is that the frequency of testing should be determined by Risk Assessment and carried out by a competent person. This doesn't have to be a qualified electrician and PAT testing kits can be purchased.
Have a look at:
Indg 236(rev2) 2012 Maintaining portable electrical equipment in low-risk environments (HSE).
HSG 107(3rd ed.) 2013 Maintaining portable electrical equipment (HSE).
-
Competent and thorough in-service inspection should pick up
- dodgy phone/laptop chargers
- tumble dryers with clogged filters or subjected to product recall
- overloaded extension leads / multiplugs
- toasters etc in office kitchens, electric fires brought in from home etc.
Transparent plugs help identify poor connections or miswired plugs without requiring an electrically competent person to open them.
-
I have come across numerous items of faulty electrical equipment that needed to be disposed of whilst carrying out a FRA. These include irons with exposed cables and loose plates, convector heaters with loose feet and so on.
Yes it is true that there are many companies out there fleecing unaware clients and encouraging them to test every portable item every year.
-
I have come across numerous items of faulty electrical equipment that needed to be disposed of whilst carrying out a FRA. These include irons with exposed cables and loose plates, convector heaters with loose feet and so on.
Yes it is true that there are many companies out there fleecing unaware clients and encouraging them to test every portable item every year.
That is the point, Fire Monkey. A simple regime of in-house inspection would be a better approach. I believe fire risk assessors should recognise that insisting on PAT is just an ill-thought out tick box approach that must cost British industry a fortune.
I acknowledge the fire risk from such equipment but responsible persons should be encouraged to think more specifically about the fire risk rather than attending to the broader concept of PAT which often, erroneously, focuses on prevention against electric shock only.
The problem with an assessor recommending PAT is that the enforcer is likely to perpetuate the notion simply because of its high priority on an Action Plan.
-
Portable Appliance Testing is divided into two main types - Visual Inspection & Combined Inspection and Test.
The visual part if done correctly should identify some potential faults with equipment that could be a fire risk.
Therefore PA Testing is a relevant control of ignition sources and should be in an FRA. Not necessarily high risk and not necessarily annually, but it should be done.
In house is probably better as sadly some PAT firms seem to skip the visual (which should include removing plug covers on non moulded plugs) and just quickly bang the plug into a Pass/Fail tester and slap a sticker on. They also treat everything in isolation and happily re-overload a socket by replacing every device after testing - so just PA Testing alone is not enough.
I think of all the appliances I failed over the years only one got as far as the test machine and the rest failed on visual & tactile inspection - damage, incorrectly wired/fused, excessive heat, etc.
PA Testing carried out correctly on a risk based regime, coupled with the electrical checks not included, is worth doing, however it has reached a mythical status of something that you:
a) have to use a contractor for
b) must be every year
c) must include everything including stuff that doesn't require it
d) miss on pain of death.....
I've noticed some large providers have moved away from 12 months for everything and have stickers for 12, 24, 36 months....
-
Anthony, you are correct in all you say, however, my original post was pushing for evidence rather than what might be just a reasonably intuitive consideration that PAT mitigates against the risk of fire. Analysing figures of fires due electrical appliances shows a small but steady decrease year on year. However, this may be more consistent with product improvement, more awareness of the need for electrical equipment to comply with standards, requirements for thermal cut outs, bodies like ESF jumping on product recalls etc rather than PAT. That's the problem, a cost benefit analysis on a UK wide basis may show that the cost of PAT is, from a fire safety perspective, less than worthwhile.
-
Anthony bear in mind that there are two types of electrical appliance Class I and Class II these need different tests.
-
There are also Class 0 (although these have been banned since 1975 - an example was christmas lights, with a single layer of insulation) and Class III (SELV, which don't require testing, but charging leads might)
-
To all contributors to this topic, an interesting and straight to the point thread, no waffle and all posts sticking to the issue raised, thanks.
-
How many of us look at plugs and leads for damage and overloading during the FRA? Just interested.
-
How many of us look at plugs and leads for damage and overloading during the FRA? Just interested.
I do as PAT testing doesn't always pick this up (especially overloads). There are some horrors hidden under the desks in most offices, although you get some funny looks when you keep peeking under peoples desks as you walk through an office....
Actually touching adaptors/plugs for heat sometimes tells a tale as well.
-
To put a contrary argument. The fact that the premises does carry out PAT at regular intervals is a signal that the RP is taking its responsibilities seriously. If PAT is not carried out this is evidence that the RP may be careless in other areas usually fire safety. However having said this the chances of premises that does not take PAT seriously actually bothering to carry out a FRA is questionable.
The other side of PAT is that should something happen due to faulty portable equipment then at least the RP can show due diligence.
A different consideration is the liability of the risk assessor. If the fire risk assessor carries out any examination of any of the cables what liability is the assessor taking on. The answer in Court of "I examined some of the electrical fittings and determined that they were safe" would probably be followed by a question "Are you a qualified electrician so that you can give this answer and did you examine all the fittings in the building in particular this cable where it has been determined that this was the cause of the fire?"
-
In response to Mike I agree with the first paragraph but I don't think the second one about the court is realistic. The assessor's role is more likely to be that "whilst carrying out the FRA I observed the following electrical hazards which were brought to the attention of the RP immediately with a recommendation that all appliances should be checked by a competent person"
As another aside, we should remember that guidance to the EAW Regs places a duty on the user of electrical appliances to satisfy themselves that an appliance is safe to use - i.e. A quick visual check before using. How often does this happen?
-
In response to Mike I agree with the first paragraph but I don't think the second one about the court is realistic. The assessor's role is more likely to be that "whilst carrying out the FRA I observed the following electrical hazards which were brought to the attention of the RP immediately with a recommendation that all appliances should be checked by a competent person"
That's how it's phrased in the Action Plan, nowhere do we say everything is passed as safe. It's lazy not to have a look whilst assessing and negligent not to raise it if you see it.
You don't need to be an electrician to carry out visual or combined inspection and test PAT testing either.