Rank: Forum user 
|
HSG264 is pretty clear - suitable QA procedures must be in place before a survey organisation can be considered competent. I have been having a discussion with an organisation who has, thus far, failed to demonstrate any QA arrangements, although they have a broad range of experience.
I have been told that the HSE advised a period of two years grace for compliance with HSG 264, however I have no knowledge of this and can find no reference to it online. Has anyone else heard of this?
I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this. Perhaps its rather a black and white view but I am of the opinion that any survey organisation, regardless of size, must have a documented QA procedure. I know that it isn't financially viable for small sole traders to go down the UKAS route, however an in-house procedure which reflects this shouldn't be too difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
M, I don't think that the QA procedures demonstrates competence and I don't see a reference to that in the appendix 6 of 264.
I am not sure about the 2 year grace period, and if there was one I would have thought that this would be detailed within 264; which I can't see. However, previously MDHS100 required the survey company to be able to comply with the standard set out in EN 45004 accreditation for which was available through UKAS, so I am not sure if a grace period would to be appropriate. I would have thought that any reputable company providing the survey service would be 'on the case' and be 'ready' with the necessary QA procedures in place and have the necessary accreditation to to place their business in the right place for gaining work. Sole traders etc can implement a QA system IAW 9001.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
HSG264 may well be clear, but its status is that of guidance. The Regulations are silent on this issue. This is I think a matter for market forces. I seem to recall attempts to create a voluntary register of competent survey companies failed miserably?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Whilst I'm no fan of UKAS and don't for one second imagine that it guarantees good performance, I wouldn't even consider using a non-UKAS organisation for asbestos surveying.
What you do get from a UKAS company is a QA system (which may or may not be followed), correct insurance cover and proof should it ever be required, that you selected a competent consultant as per HSE's recommendations.
Two year grace period is so much special waste, and immediately calls either their competence or honesty into question. UKAS companies were given about 3 months to comply, mainly because HSG264 consists of good practice that everyone should have been doing anyway.
Leave well alone IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Am I right in thinking that UKAS accreditation only relates to laboratory/ analytical side of things? What about the on-site part of surveying? The ABICS scheme did indeed fail miserably although it was pushed by BOHS and HSE at the roadshows in 2009. Nothing on the horizon yet...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Gerry,
No UKAS also offer Inspection Body accreditation to ISO 17020 for asbestos surveying.
UKAS is expensive, especially for the smaller operation, but as the smaller operations didn't buy into ABICS they've rather brought it on themselves. As with so much in life, until it's made mandatory few will choose to take it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.