Rank: Forum user 
|
Hello all,
I am aware that Management Surveys have replaced the Type 1 & 2 surveys, but does anyone know if there have been any changes in requirements from Type 1&2 to Management Survey?
From reading the Guidance material available, I think they have combined Type 1 & 2 to form the Management survey but I just wanted to check in case I am missing something.
We currently have Type 1 Surveys - undertaken by our in-house Estates team - which form part of the Asbestos Register in our Maintenance Manual, but I wondered if these would still be acceptable or would we need to undertake a fresh survey of the areas we presume have ACMs? Or would it be acceptable to change the wording on the type 1 survey to read Management Survey?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi
The best way of considering this may be to do a gap analysis between what you have and what is in HSG 264.
The first thing is who did the surveys - can they find and record asbestos! The current standard for in house staff would be P402 plus experience at surveying for asb and then there would still need to be some appropriate quality control eg resurvey. if they can find asbestos great - if they can't then you have a basic problem.
There is nothing wrong per se with a type 1 but it could mean that you will have great swathes of buildings classed as being "presumed asbestos" eg any artex and that will be very expensive to manage as you need to consider this any time you have maintenance work carried out.
I would also be surprised if you do not have ongoing maintenance work and I would strongly suggest that you carry out more investigations in advance.
In simple terms - strongly consider resurvey where you are going to alter / repair buildings - and when you are there check the accuracy of some of the rest of the surveys and from that I think the decision will become easy...I would suggest that the standards of survey have changed markedly over the last decade and if the surveys were done for early compliance in 2002, then a resurvey will undoubtedly find more
regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bruce is correct, do a gap analysis.
Part of my remit involves asbestos surveying and management. When HSG 264 was first published I adapted all my type 1 & 2 work (although it was all type 2 really) to 'management' style. This generally meant updating what records I had to the new level and did not need much re-surveying. Having said that I did not have much presumed ACMs to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would aslo suggest if your survey is a type 1 that was done previously and if works into the fabric are intrusive with the potential for asbestos being there a sampling regime is undertaken.
Also depends on how long the type 1 was done and if asbestos is present i.e. management checks to monitor the condition as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can anyone inform me if it's a legal requirement to undertake intrusive/destructive survey prior to any interior refurbishment in an area that has not been indicated as ACM from a previous management survey. Although other areas in the building were identified as strong presumption?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
MB1,
yes a "refurbishment / demolition" is required. This is an intrusive survey, as opposed to the older "management" survey which was not. See paragraph 51 of the HSE publication HSG 264 - Asbestos, the Survey Guide (free to download).
PH2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes, it is a legal requirement to carry out a refurbishment/ demolition survey even though a management survey carried out previously has indicated the area to be asbestos free. Bear in mind that a management survey is not invasive or intrusive and the planned refurbishment may well be, thus previously concealed ACMs could present themselves. A refurb/ demol survey is imperative to enable you to deal with any ACM that may be present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Some management surveys and type 2 surveys do have smapling regimes in place as well and if it is the area sampled you are covered without a refurbishment/demolition i..e opening a wall up for a doorway if it was sampled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The answer to your query lies within Reg 4(4)(a) of CAR 06, the key phrase being "reasonable steps".
If you have a wide property portfolio subject to frequent maintenance, then it would be "reasonable" to expect a management survey to inform your Risk Assessment and Risk Register.
If you are a sole trader operating from single premise subject to very infrequent repair or maintenance, then a presumptive approach would be "reasonable".
Although the L127 ACoP hasn't kept pace with newer guidance, I suggest you let para 46 therein be your guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Aaargh! my fumbling keystrokes have led to me inadvertantly posting my most pet-hate word!!!
"premise" is NEVER used in the singular in relation to property, buildings or land. It is a legal term, ALWAYS used in the plural form "premises".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.