Hi Chris,

There is a sample hazard ID checklist in the "Safe Use of Machinery" - Best Practice Guideline available from the Worksafe website. This might give you some ideas.

Our workplace has printed signs near tool workstations which act as checklists and work with whiteboard markers. This is for our daily pre-starts.

We find that our Test n Tag regime gives us some coverage as this is a third party who is also checking that guards are in place and undamaged.

I would suggest you might like to combine this documented check with scheduled tool maintenance.

Not exactly what you asked but I hope you find this useful.

Hi Chris
"The checks that I want to carry out at a yet to be determined frequency would be a record that the guards are still in place and are undamaged (this would be in addition to regular pre-use checks that we do not want to keep records of)."

This should be getting done every six months by whoever is testing and tagging your tools, leads and plug in machinery. The equipment and software I use has a visual test check list, when I'm testing an item with safety interlocks/guards etc, I confirm their presence and functionality and note that in the comments section of the test results for each item.

There is no reason why test & tag can't be applied to a hard wired appliance so the guarding/safety interlocks on those items are getting checked also, In fact for such items in an hostile environment are included in AS/NZS 3760 (see 1.2.3 Fixed or stationary equipment b)

Regards
Steve
Port Appliance Test & Tag
https://port-testntag.co.nz/

Thank you both, very much appreciated.

This should be getting done every six months by whoever is testing and tagging your tools, leads and plug in machinery. The equipment and software I use has a visual test check list, when I'm testing an item with safety interlocks/guards etc, I confirm their presence and functionality and note that in the comments section of the test results for each item. — Steve H

I would hesitate to use most "Test and tag" companies to confirm additional guard/interlocks are in place. There are still a lot of providers in this industry who are relatively untrained in anything but the specific tester they are using. Steve you sound like one company that has other skills but I would recommend some good discussion and understanding of what each company is signing up for before outsourcing these types of checks.

I would hesitate to use most "Test and tag" companies to confirm additional guard/interlocks are in place. There are still a lot of providers in this industry who are relatively untrained in anything but the specific tester they are using — MattD2

One of the banes of my life, some procurement officer trying to beat me down on my pricing using as a basis a "quote" from a muppet who has brought a basic PAT off TradeMe and almost knows how to turn it on, so I'd agree some due diligence is required.

but I would recommend some good discussion and understanding of what each company is signing up for before outsourcing these types of checks. — MattD2

This should be getting done for all testing & tagging, whether outsourced to an Electrician/Electrical Contracting Company, or Test & Tag Service, or an inhouse DIY tagger- regardless of who put the sticker on, the person responsible for the site (electrical installation) is responsible for ensuring that the person testing is competent to do the job in accordance with the applicable standards and Regulations.

Regards
Steve Hodgson
Port Appliance Test & Tag
https://port-testntag.co.nz/

The machinery in question is your typical workshop stuff, Drop saws, lathes, grinding wheels etc, and an initial check that guarding is in place has been competed. The checks that I want to carry out at a yet to be determined frequency would be a record that the guards are still in place and are undamaged (this would be in addition to regular pre-use checks that we do not want to keep records of). — Chris Hyndman

I would take one step back and think about the purpose of the regular checks. The daily/pre-start one is easy - checking that the machine is safe to use at the moment it is being used.
So what are we trying to accomplish with the weekly/monthly/annual/etc. check? If it is just to check that the unrecorded daily checks are actually been done and nothing is "missed", there are other failings in the system that need to be address.
If it is to check that our assumptions around the daily checks are correct, then we are getting somewhere towards continual improvement - thus asking questions during this periodic check is more important that just confirm a predetermined checklist of actions is in place - e.g. are the current consumables suitable for the task (brand/quality) or have there been an increase in rejections due to quality (bearings about to fail). Much better to use the effort to understand if there is an issue with how we have setup the work for either success or fail, rather than confirm we are still heading towards success or failure (which without questioning our assumptions we will never know which one it is until we get there).

Thanks for the reply Matt,

My intention is a whole lot simpler than what you allude to. This additional checklist is exclusive of pre-use checks but some "questions" will no doubt overlap. I think it is extremely important to get a level of independence when carrying machinery checks as the user may be a victim of risk creep that sees them normalising issues that have slowly but surely crept up, such as a loose (but present) guard, scratched transparent guard, stiff E Stop, faded signage, increasing noise levels etc.

The list I produce will prompt those conversations with the user and provide guidance on what standards need to be achieved.