glad you came back with a response AM. I suspect we are in agreement overall, but some explanations are always good. I should point out that, while I can stir at times, it is not to offend or upset, but to keep active discussion going in order that I learn more and test my assumptions. Hopefully others also learn stuff and enjoy the discussion. This thread is drifting a bit off the original topic, but so be it. Any road the point about legislation (as you correctly state) is it can demand more (legislation rarely if ever makes requests). For this reason I need to familiarise myself better with appropriate state and federal legislation applicable to this area. 2.1 clearly states intervals may be varied by a responsible person based on a risk assessment table 4 title is equally clearly labelled 'Indicative testing and inspection intervals for electrical equipment' Further down clause 2.1 we have further confirmation the table is NOT fixed: 'To allow the flexibility to devise a customized solution for particular circumstances, organizations with sufficient expertise and resource may substitute other periods than those indicated in Table 4, after conducting a documented risk assessment, undertaken in accordance with the process specified in AS/NZS ISO 31000, and taking into consideration any relevant legislative requirements or guidelines. The person teaching my course did mention variations to testing schedules and made it clear that a copy of the risk assessment should be taken by the tester or, failing that, a written statement from the responsible person. Clause 2.5.2 states 'Where records are kept, they should be retained for 7 years, or such period as required by the relevant regulator.' So basically whether records are kept or not, is outside the scope of the standard. 2.5.1 does specify what records to keep, if records are kept at all. A bit odd that one, but probably to allow for one or more states/territories NOT requiring records at the time the standard was finalised, when everyone else was in agreement. So yes, back to the other standards and legislation to dig out. The point being that if someone wants me to test and tag their site, I would be wise to RECOMMEND the periods in table 4 in the absence of further guidance, but absolutely MUST request a copy of any and all documented risk assessments they have on file so as to comply with their requirements. I also note that there is no requirement in the standard for the competent person to hold a qualification, but there are guidelines for the responsible person to determine the testers competence. This gets back to another important aspect of the standard - the person testing and tagging is NOT RESPONSIBLE for safety in the workplace, unless of course they are also the responsible person. Asking others to carry out one aspect of safety does not relieve someone of their overall duty of care, especially to ensure those they engage are competent, regardless of what certificates they may hold. Those implementing test/tag programs would be wise to bear this in mind and ask a few simple questions of the supposedly 'competent' persons.
