I would like the opinion of the forum on the following.... The bulk identification certificate appended to an asbestos survey report includes reference to various sample locations for floor tiles the result of which is "chrysotile to bitumen backing" (for almost all of the locations sampled throughout a 3 storey building). However, within the main bulk of the survey report there is no mention of chryostile to bitumen backing. Instead the report (within the asbestos register and sample reference sections) refers only to Vinyl Floor Tiles or floor tiles. The floor tiles themselves do not contain asbestos, however, the mastic (adhesive) does. To understand this the reader of the report has to cross reference both the asbestos register and the bulk identification certificate and recognise that they are actually different. To avoid misleading the reader shouldn't the asbestos registers mirror the result of the bulk identification certificate? In this case the "description of sample taken" should be floor tile but the "product type" would be bitumen backing to floor tile (not as the current description which is vinyl floor tile) - is this correct? In this example the floor tiles being removed but the bitumen backing remains. A situation that is worse than actually leaving the tiles in-situ in the first place?

Bob, just to clarify the point you made about risk rating. This should never be completed by the surveyor for that very reason. The surveyor will 'risk rate' the material - taking account of its current condition. It is then the duty holders responsibility to take account of the use of the building, likelihood of distrubance from maintenance, number of people using the building and other factors, to assess the risk of the materials - this is called the priority assessment algorithm. Blatchford - you are right to question the vailidity of this report. I would return the report as its not fit for purpose. Is the surveyor UKAS accreditated?

Hiya, if you require any guidance on asbestos survey reports take a look at HSG264 which provides guidance on survey reports. It looks like they have not given you a very comprehensive executive summary. If the company is UKAS accredited to ISO17020 for asbestos surveys you may wish to raise a formal complaint to UKAS if the company does not clarify things with the re-issue of a report.