The Guidelines offers no absolute rules on the frequency of the testing and inspection of portable appliances only that 'regular inspection of equipment is an essential part of any preventative maintenance program'.
The reason for this are clearly that different equipment represents more of a risk than others as does the environment it is used. For example a frequently used drill on a construction site will likely offer a higher risk than a PC in an office.
Therefore the duty holder of the building should assess the following factors in deciding frequency:-
1. The environment inspection & quality control agent- equipment installed in a benign environment (e.g. office) will suffer less damage than equipment in an arduous environment (e.g. workshop)
2. Users - if the users report damage as and when it becomes evident, hazards will be avoided. Conversely, if equipment is likely to receive unreported abuse, more frequent inspection and testing is required
3. The equipment construction - the safety of a Class 1 appliance is dependent upon a connection with earth of the electrical installation. If the flexible cable is damaged the connection with earth can be lost.
4. The equipment type - appliances which are hand held (e.g. a drill) are more likely to be damaged than fixed appliances (e.g. a vending machine). If they are Class 1 the risk of danger is increased, as the safety is dependent upon the continuity of the protective conductor from the plug to the appliance.
5. Frequency of use - an appliance used daily is more likely to suffer damages than an appliance used once a fortnight
The reason for this are clearly that different equipment represents more of a risk than others as does the environment it is used. For example a frequently used drill on a construction site will likely offer a higher risk than a PC in an office.
Therefore the duty holder of the building should assess the following factors in deciding frequency:-
1. The environment inspection & quality control agent- equipment installed in a benign environment (e.g. office) will suffer less damage than equipment in an arduous environment (e.g. workshop)
2. Users - if the users report damage as and when it becomes evident, hazards will be avoided. Conversely, if equipment is likely to receive unreported abuse, more frequent inspection and testing is required
3. The equipment construction - the safety of a Class 1 appliance is dependent upon a connection with earth of the electrical installation. If the flexible cable is damaged the connection with earth can be lost.
4. The equipment type - appliances which are hand held (e.g. a drill) are more likely to be damaged than fixed appliances (e.g. a vending machine). If they are Class 1 the risk of danger is increased, as the safety is dependent upon the continuity of the protective conductor from the plug to the appliance.
5. Frequency of use - an appliance used daily is more likely to suffer damages than an appliance used once a fortnight
Adrian Pendle, director of Intersafe Ltd, is a graduate in Economics. After University he worked in Financial Services in London before starting to work in the family firm. Being involved in all aspects of running a company it was in 1995 that he decided to start his own and formed Intersafe Ltd. While buying in PAT Testing services for the family company Adrian felt that the market for these services was not well served so took the decision to offer his own services via Intersafe Ltd. Adrian enjoys spending time with his young family and is a keen tennis player. http://saiinspection.com.cn/
Contact Us
Tel: 0086-25-6809 3658
没有评论:
发表评论