[ Spotlight: Testing ] Facts and figures
Despite the fact that the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 have been in place for well over 20 years, fi re statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government found that:
In 2010/11, faulty appliances and leads were the cause of 4,400 accidental fi res in non-residential buildings.
In 2010/11 faulty appliances and leads were the cause of 25 per cent of all accidental fi res in non- residential buildings.
Between 2000 and 2011 – excluding 2010 for which no breakdown is available – each year faulty appliances and leads were identifi ed as the cause of between 25 per cent and 32 per cent of accidental fi res in non-dwelling type buildings.
According to statistics collated by the Fire Protection Association, between 2000 and 2005, in 346 reported fi res that were electrical in origin in business premises, the reported losses totalled more than £178m, with an average loss per incident of more than £51,000.
Other evidence demonstrating the dangers and hazards associated with the use of unsafe electrical appliances featured strongly at the Electrical Safety Council’s (ESC) Product Safety Conference, where a number of organisations reported on their own experiences:
London Fire Brigade reported 891 fi res caused by large domestic appliances in the period 2008-2011. Statistics from Essex Fire and Rescue
showed that from 2006-2008, there were 438 primary fi res as a result of faulty electrical appliances, causing 75 casualties.
An appliance-testing programme carried out by the trading standards offi ce of Suff olk County Council revealed that 26 per cent of electrical items tested were non- compliant and 45 per cent were unsafe.
A safety campaign carried out by Essex trading standards offi cers revealed that 5.8 per cent of the electrical items tested were found to be faulty. It estimated that if all the faults had led to fi res, the total costs could have been as high as £88m.
As part of a fi re safety campaign run by Bolsover District Council, 120 electrical appliances were tested and 47 faulty items had to be replaced.
could aff ect the continued safe use of electrical appliances, and what steps are required to ensure they remain safe. In particular, it will require that ongoing test frequencies and intervals should be determined by a risk assessment.’ The Code of Practice has always stated that retest
TEST INSTRUMENT CENTRE
Sales, Hire, Repair and Calibration
SOUTHERN
Unit 6 Spectrum Business Estate Bircholt Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9YP
Tel. 01622 690187
south@alpha-electronics.com Fax: 01622 678827
NORTHERN
35 Gibfield Park Avenue Atherton, Manchester M46 0SY
Tel. 01942 886993
north@alpha-electronics.com Fax: 01942 886450
WALES
7 Waterside Court Albany Street, Newport South Wales, NP20 5NT
Tel. 01633 853803
wales@alpha-electronics.com Fax: 01633 853048
Local Knowledge Nationwide
www.alpha-electronics.com
a_MontageAd_2012_A6.indd 1 34 ECA Today November 2012 23/02/2012 12:02
frequencies should be based on risk assessments, but in the past this has often been ignored and fi xed re-test frequencies – typically annual testing – have been used. The new edition is intended to put an end to this practice, and Dave Moore of Megger comments: ‘It is anticipated that re-test intervals for many assets will be longer, and businesses will therefore save money because of their reduced testing requirements. This is not such good news for providers of PAT services.’ The format in which test results are provided to the end user is also set to change. The former Equipment Register is to be replaced by the Equipment Formal Visual and Combined Inspection and Test Record, and has been redesigned to improve usability, and to refl ect industry requirements and practices.
Look ahead Although the 4th Edition of the IET Code of Practice for In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment will bring with it new challenges for those involved in this sector, the future for PAT is positive. While it still represents a signifi cant business opportunity for electrical contractors, it should also be remembered that the periodic in-service inspection and testing of portable electrical equipment has made a signifi cant contribution to improved safety in workplaces of all types.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72