Online assistance for electrical trade people in New Zealand and Australia Login  |  Register  |   Forgot Password
Assistance for electrical trade people
 

 

 

 


Click here to send Ron a pdf document for publication on this Topic

Documents must be less than 200k in pdf format

Posted By Topic: High risk work register

gregmcc
Dec 18 2018 19:14

Can anyone tell me about when the high risk work (work that requires inspection) register was required to be used.

At a job today and some obvious non compliant work in a cardiac protected has been discovered, I've had a search of the high risk register and can't find any sign of an inspection been filed, but I'm not sure if the high risk register was in effect when the work was done.

   

Sarmajor
Dec 18 2018 19:44

It would appear that the majority of the regulation changes that created the High Risk Register occurred in 2013 around about July.
The register was most likely started soon after that time.

For what it is worth I have never had much luck searching for installations in the database.
Sometimes I have even struggled to find work that I had submitted personally into the register.


   

AlecK
Dec 19 2018 08:30

The details are right there in the ESRs; there are notes following various regulations detailing all changes since original publication (2010).

ESR 74F, covering the use of the HRWDB, was inserted on 1 July 2013.
It's been amended 3 times since - the last one being simply changing the name - of the body that determines what info needs to be lodged - to "Worksafe".


So Sarmajor is correct, details of high risk work have only had to be lodged since 1 July 2013.

The database also now accepts periodic verifications under ESR 75, and WoEFs under ESR 78; but recording these is voluntary. And for hazardous & medical PVs, can be impossible. The database only accepts input from Inspectors (and their duly-deputised office staff); so a non-Inspector doing a PV simply can't lodge the details to the DB.

Finding records by street / postal address generally works OK; but not so good where other forms of unique ID for "location" have been used.