I have a question currently being considered by HSE (email waiting for reply) regarding Survey Type 2 carried out in 2008, if it needs to be replaced by new refurbishment survey before working inside the premises. I'll put on the reply when it comes.

Bob at present I am very interested in the new asbestos regulations and how they apply to premises pre 2000 and Type 2 surveys carried out before April 2012. I am waiting for a reply from HSE by email on that topic but what is your view? We have a construction manager who writes to the PC to the affect that the Type 2 survey is OK but if you intend to work in any areas other than those described ACN free in the Survey a new survey is required?

This seems to me to be bit betwixt and between. On one hand, if the asbestos register has limited information then the query is duly answered. Bring the register up to date with a survey. R&D type given the scenario you describe. If the survey plan was well managed there would not be the start/ stop scenario, would there. You'd be surprised how many people I encounter who think that because a survey has been done (whenever) that everything is dandy. Its not. On the other, having the operative trained accordingly is great. But I would not rely on this a last last line of defence. After all, the duty to manage is not on them, is it? There is a duty to manage but I would put awareness training in hierarchical order (as per PPE, I suppose) and use other controls first. But that is just me. It seems your Client is trying to wriggle out of their duty to manage. Having said all this it may be that the contract devolves the duty to manage to your organisation in which case the buck stops with you. Regarding the query on the survey type, my take would be that a Type 1,2 or 3 should inform an R&D or Management survey. This might not mean that the old type won`t do but...if the survey was then used to infom a management plan , has the ACM actually been managed? The management plan should follow the guidelines of HSG264 and might contain the correct terminology along with current management practices thus bettering the Type 1,2 or 3 actions. But not necessarily replacing it.

The root issue here being that Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 is essentially unworkable? "Identification of the presence of asbestos 5. An employer must not undertake work in demolition, maintenance or any other work which exposes or is liable to expose employees of that employer to asbestos in respect of any premises unless either— (a)that employer has carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to whether asbestos, what type of asbestos, contained in what material and in what condition is present or is liable to be present in those premises; or (b)if there is doubt as to whether asbestos is present in those premises, that employer— (i)assumes that asbestos is present, and that it is not chrysotile alone, and (ii)observes the applicable provisions of these Regulations."

Indeed. I fear we're left with trying to justify our approach via an entirely subjective risk assessment approach in accordance with Regulation 6. There 'might be' asbestos lurking, but we consider it 'unlikely' that (a) we'll find it or (b) we'll disturb it. Until we do.......... Typical examples include random packing pieces in window and door surrounds, sealing plates between kopex and chimney void (back boilers) etc. etc.

This is the reply from HSE, word for word. I am sure they will not mind me spreading their gospel. A type 2 survey was usually carried out to comply with the duty to manage asbestos in buildings they are not sufficient for refurbishment and demolition. You will require a refurbishment survey.

Frustrating stuff to say the least. I recieved the management plan this evening from the client which basically states that a management survey will be carried out in all areas unless project works take place which are fully intrusive. For all over works if stated as 'clear' then proceed cautiously and stop immediately if it comes apparent that asbestos is present behind the non ACM material being worked on.......Not helpful at all.

If a Type 2 survey was relied on for construction work in 2008 it was the wrong survey. If that same survey is being used to rely on now it is still the wrong survey.

Unlike Ron I do not think the regs, particularly reg 5, are unworkable. It is simply that many do not wish to face the realities of maintenance and get the appropriate testing.surveying done. It is many years since I would go ahead with such works without any confidence in the investigation of ACMs, 1983 to be precise. I was still an H&S newbie and sadly misled by my supposedly knowledgeable senior in a LA. The proverbial still resides in my mind. Bob

Ron If windows are coming out then it seems emminently feasible to break the bedding mastic to check - It is an intrusive survey that is required for R&D. If machinery is being maintained then some fairly accurate knowledge should be available by now from previous maintenance. Bob

That is one of the times that training makes sense!!:-)