I note the recent prosecution of an analyst in the HSE info pages, http://press.hse.gov.uk/2017/asbestos-analyst-fined-for-falsifying-documents/ however is anyone else a little disturbed by this. I have some concerns for the following reasons;

1. If that is a photo of the enclosure in question then the Contractor has not done a good job (or for that matter, bothered at all) with his pre clean and carpet is left on the floor,

2. The Analyst was appointed by the contractor so how can the Analyst provide "Independant" services in accordance with HSG 248.

3. Is there about to be the new Analysts guide published and nothing promotes this more than a little publicity.

Am I the only one who thinks this HSE visit may have got the focus wrong and should the focus also have been on the contractors performance and the role played by the client. Afterall CDM espouses this approach. Whilst I have no sympathy for anybody who falsifies this documentation, I can't help but feel as if there has been a bit of a stitch up.

1) We are not informed of the time line of the photo so your comments are unfair - it may have been at point of arrival when the contractor was establishing the containment zone or during the removal works including any contaminated materials such as carpet

2) The analyst is by appointment and therefore not a direct employee = "independent"

The focus seems correct - the contractor engaged the services of a specialist whose report did not present fact putting the contractor, their employees and others in danger.

In the piece it states the client obtained the services of a second specialist (had they proceeded based upon the first report then yes Client/Contractor may have had a case to answer) what it does not say is why this happened - between the lines someone identified issues with the report and raised concern with the HSE.

No stitch up involved.

Thanks Roundtuit. I appreciate photos have a narrative that is not given in these articles and that is very relevant. We also are unaware of the pretext to the works but to me the photo says the area of containment has been created prior to a preclean of the transit route. I also work in a juristiction where the HSE insist that the Analytical company's Client is not the removal contractor. There have been very very good reasons why not as demonstrated by visiting removal contractors. I wish I could find more of the trial and evidence information about this case.

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

The article does not specify how the falsefied report came to light. However the analyst got away with it lightly in my opinion. He should have lost his licence to operate - that would have sent a message out to other would be offenders. 

RayRapp, i may be wrong but i don't believe that analysts/surveyors need a licence (i worked for a fully licenced removal contractor a while back but i can't remember what our analysts/surveyors had, if anything).

And in any event if there was a licene, it would be held by the company rather than the individual. So stripping him of it wouldn't be an option. I definitely think he got off lightly though, knowing first hand the importance of their role.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

1) We are not informed of the time line of the photo so your comments are unfair - it may have been at point of arrival when the contractor was establishing the containment zone or during the removal works including any contaminated materials such as carpet

2) The analyst is by appointment and therefore not a direct employee = "independent"

The focus seems correct - the contractor engaged the services of a specialist whose report did not present fact putting the contractor, their employees and others in danger.

In the piece it states the client obtained the services of a second specialist (had they proceeded based upon the first report then yes Client/Contractor may have had a case to answer) what it does not say is why this happened - between the lines someone identified issues with the report and raised concern with the HSE.

No stitch up involved.

Just to add my two cents:

1) The shot appears to be taken from outside of the enclosure. Proper practice would have meant that the area outside of the enclosure was cleaned and cleared before enclosure construction even started (slips, trips etc). 

2) The reference to the independence of the analyst is to do with who appointed him, not who he worked for. For example, on some occasions the client may appoint the analsyst (independent) whereas on other occasions the removal contractor may use one from their own supply chain (not independent).