I'm not sure if UKAS would cover anything like this?

You are doing all the right things...BOHS certification is a lot like NeBOSH it can demonstrate compliance with reg 10 the same as NeBOSH does for R11 Man Regs...UKAS would be more for the lab...so for the training section Cert OH (check for BOHS memebership) and UKAS for mobile testers etc...

Originally Posted by: Svick1984

Originally Posted by: jodieclark1510

I'm not sure if UKAS would cover anything like this?

Thanks Jodie; I thought this too, but my understanding of UKAS is that they 'check the checker'; so in this case, who would they be evaluating to say that 'this particular accrediation body meets the standards'? Or have I misunderstood? Thanks.

Hi all, thanks for your replies. Please can anyone confirm if what I stated before is correct and if so, which accreditation body should I be looking at for the testing side of it?

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Svick

Without a clearer idea of circumstances in your factory it is impossible to say whether you would benefit more from fixed or personal monitoring, or a mixture of both.

Hopefully those quoting are sufficiently competent to explain their proposed methology and the rationale behind it.

Hi Peter, I'm not sure what other details I could give to shed more light on the situation; we just want to be confident that the exposure to - and amount of - silica dust is just as low as possible. I know that fixed sample points do not directly represent employee exposure but it's hard to understand just how many personal and fixed samples that need to be taken to have a good sample size; I can't find anything about the number of samples advised to take, only that a few samples if often not enough to conclude long-term exposure (so as per usual, clear as mud). I know people might state, as you have, that it's mentioned in their proposed methodolgy, but without being an expert in the subject, how is someone to know whether their proposal is correct or not? It would be more helpful if guidance said, certain amout of samples on size of the area being monitored, how many activities are being done that generate the potential exposure etc, just some general guidance to work on (so if this is somewhere, and I've somehow missed it, I'd really appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction). Thanks.

Bump again. We have narrowed down our quotes to two contractors; however, I'm struggling to decide which is the better. One company is doing 4 personal and 4 background checks on total and respirable dust using MDHS 14/4. One company is doing total inhalable & respirable dust in accordance with MDHS 14/4, with respirable crystalline silica collected in accordance with MDHS 101/2. What I am trying to understand is the difference between the latter; does the TI & TR dust refer to measuring whatever dust is in the atmosphere? If so, from their methodology, would it suggest that the company in question is measuring everything, not just specifically from RCS? If so, is this because you can't get a true representation of what RCS there is unless you know what other total dusts there are? Please advise. Thanks.