Posted By Andrew Carr We've a wee conflict going on between ourselves and one of our "contractors" regarding Type 2 Surveys. The "problem" is we provide the necessary asbestos information to our estates as required. We provide a report that may say: "Type 2 Survey carried out, no Asbestos found" They say that's inadequate, and they want a statement to the effect: "Type 2 Survey carried out, no Asbestos found. The wall is of an exposed brick construction" Basically they want a statement added to qualify why we are saying there is no asbestos. First time I've come across a request such as this, and I've looked for guidance to justify their request, but to no avail. Anyone an expert in surveys shed any light or explain for me? Ta. Andy

Posted By Andrew Carr Yeah, understand that, and it does appear fair enough David. New surveys would not cause us much of a problem, the issue is regarding the potential revisiting of hundreds of our surveys across an estate strung across a large geographical area. If we go down this line, then the costs would be pretty high for us, and I can't see the director being that happy about it!

Posted By Robert K Lewis Totally agree with Dave, as usual over ACMs. One proviso I would add is that contractors can not necessarily expect Type 3 destructive testing for ALL work. Major refurbishments and demolition are fine to expect type 3 in the project area. Most management plans will use type 2 plus sampling for the greater part however and destructive sampling could be very localised. Contractors always have a residual duty to manage the asbestos risks for their employees Bob

Posted By Dave Wilson MDHS 100 is also soon to disappear and will be replaced with an HSG ??? Autumn??. Type 1,2 & 3 will also disappear and are going to be replaced with a 'Management Survey'(type 2) and a Refurbishment / Demolition Survey (Type 3. I have a draft copy?

Posted By Dave Wilson Yep! Go along with that!

Posted By Alan Spiers Bob MDHS100 talks about refurbishment and does not use the word major. My understanding is from our asbestos expert is refurbishment = risk assessment Alan

Posted By Robert K Lewis Alan Not in my current copy nor on the HSE website. In any case the effective management approach will look towards what is necessary rather than being fixated to Type 3 style descriptions. These really arose because people were avoiding the real need to assess the scale and type of work when ordering surveys. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Having digested the latest MDHS 100 draft revision document I have to say that I am left rather concerned by some of the ideas and statements in it. For me the reliability of the whole document was brought into question when the authors talk of refurbishment being major if they fall under the CDM07 regs. It is clear that these writers have no competence in construction if they do not know that ALL construction work is subject to CDM07. The idea then moves forward that even in a single wall breakthrough one needs to identify destructively all ACM in the project area, even that which will not be affected by the works is creating an expensive overkill situation. I am not likely to remove vinyl floor tiles if they are not going to be damaged but this document no provides guidance that this should be the case. So yet again the construction industry and clients are going to be subjected to the infamous Policy side of the HSE who have made such a mess of the electronic F10 and its pdf counterpart. The understanding of the regulations and the sector seems to be about as good ie parlously scant. Perhaps this is the final shots of those Rose Court staff who will be leaving the HSC/E when the Bootle move occurs. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Dave Maybe :-) :-) At this stage of the game I rather suspect this document may well be close to the last - been around the HSE folk too long I am afraid. Still does not hurt to fire an early salvo to get some attention. To mix the refurbishment and major refurbishment together and appear to say that the application of CDM07 is the dividing point is a recipe for disaster. Far better to provide detailed guidance for clients with regard to management surveys and their use for work. The F10 change rather coloured my view though on where the HSE is coming from. I would not want this issue to become enmeshed in contract arguments concerning whether a management or a ref/dem survey was right. A proper management assessment should decide what is really necessary for any particular work. The artificial segregation into 2 types actually clouds the need for duty holders to manage and assess. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Dave Now there is a thing - We need to segregate the work from other people therefore we have an area which is no longer part of the normal workplace and thus is now a construction site (See reg 1 definitions CDM07) All construction sites are HSE enforced thus all ACM should be HSE enforced. If however it is construction work in a workplace without segregation then the LA would enforce, however the method of work and RA could be regarded as not suitable and sufficient and prosecution could follow. HMMMM Bob

Posted By Dave Wilson Cool that's that covered then!