In what circumstances would a 'management survey' ever be suitable to permit the commencement of work to start on site where refurbishment or demolition works are planned?

Or, to put it another way, have you ever been satisfied with the findings of a management survey to commence the above on site, subject to certain conditions / hold points?

This question is posed with a diversity of projects in mind and I have also deliberately worded the question in this way to understand your experiences / stance.

PS, I have read on a number of occasions HSG264 and CAR2012.

Simon

I agree in principle with James post. However if you have an asbestos management survey for the property, then I think it is safe to use for minor refurb work on the proviso the survey included taking samples of the ceiling, floor tiles, etc and not just by observation. Alternatively you can do an asbestos sampling strategy if you have an archive and the property archetype is the same i.e. block of flats, assuming the findings from the surveys are consistent.

The other option is to strongly presume the (textured ceiling, floor tiles, etc) contain ACMs and carry out the work accordingly. I would only consider this an option for low risk work and in exceptional circumstances. I dare say some practitioners will disagree but sometimes you need to be pragmatic.

Perfectly conceivable that the conclusion of a competent person is that the proposed works are not going to involve disturbance of the building fabric beyond information already held in the management survey. (e.g. extensive decoration works).

Bear in mind too that the Asbestos Risk Register for the premises may have been updated with additional information from previous intrusive surveys over the years. It may well be that this extended Register already has all the information needed?

The pre-construction information would have to contain a clear authenticated statement to this effect though, and the contractor/ PC should have opportunity to scrutinise and challenge that attestation before mobilising the works.

Some interesting feedback!

In my industry (Lifts), often the surveys are programmed to happen 'late in the day' due to needing a lift engineer to support the survey itself (access). ACMs are hidden in many locations in this industry, for example behind architraves, above frames, sandwiched between fire door panels, brake shoes, under motor room slab, debris in the lift pit, boarding throughout the shaft / motor room, within the lift car panels, wrapped within cable conduits etc.

The works more often than not require penetrations (new shaft lighting, guide rails, builders works for new architraves, new penetrations in the motor room slab for ropes etc.). Some of the ACMs are well hidden and not revealed until, for example removal of the landing door architraves.

On this basis, would you insist on destructive testing for ACMs (prior to architrave removal) or, would you have a hold point in the programme and, in a controlled manner remove the architrave(s) carefully in the presence of a competent person to establish and test for any potential ACMs?

HSG264 states: "Where access has not been possible during refurbishment and demolition surveys,
these areas must be clearly located on plans and in the text of the report to allow the refurbishment and demolition processes to be progressive in those areas. Any ACMs must be identified and removed at this time. It is now recognised that even with ‘complete’ access demolition surveys, all ACMs may not be identified and this only becomes apparent during demolition itself."

Would you suggest the above guidance relates to considerably more challenging situations or could you perceive this scenario to be an example in the context of architrave removal?

I'd be interested in your opinions
Simon

Sorry Ray, I wanted the post to be general in consideration to pre construction and management surveys. However, I then wanted to add some context / examples as to why I posed the question.

So, my interpretation of all responses so far and pragmatism would be:

1. Always insist on an R&D survey prior to any intrusive works (except when very minor in nature) or, unless satisfied on the basis of the advice of a 'competent person' (asbestos surveyor);

2. Alternatively, scrutinise existing risk registers that may already contain previous R&D survey information relating to the exact scope of works;

3. If still not satisfied and the client will not budge, procure the survey yourself (as PC);

4. Finally, following intrusive surveys, progress the works with caution in accordance with asbestos awareness training emergency arrangements (e.g. HSE's EM1).

Simon