Hello,
We would like to extend a very warm welcome to you and thank you for taking the time to read our new blog feature.
This exciting new facility will provide our members and visitors with an excellent way of keeping up to date with the industry.
We hope you like our new and improved website and hope it will be of benefit to you. We are particularly impressed with our member search facility – check it out.
Due to the new website just going live it’s normal to expect some ‘teething’ problems, so please contact us if you have any issues and we will get them resolved as soon as possible.
We know posting on a blog may be new to you (it certainly is to us!!) so feel free to reply to this post and dip your toes in. We would love to get feedback from you on our new look site.
We look forward to hearing from you soon!
I would like to start the ball rolling by asking for your thoughts on the new “Surveyors Guide” which will be published this year replacing the old MDHS 100. Has anyone got any strong opinions from the early drafts if it will improve things?
Do you think we need stronger guidelines for surveying? or is it just people bending the rules that are causing the problems?
Peter – my comments as follows
1.7 Fig1. Asbestos: duty to manage overview. I thought this was a very useful flowchart
4.14 Pipe/thermal insulation. I would have though there is enough sampling experience around for this section to be more definitive. For example where a pipe has had an initial limited number of samples that are Non Asbestos then samples would be taken every 3m for first 20m. If samples all Non Asbestos then length between samples could be increased if visual appearance of insulation is identical. If any samples come back as containing Asbestos then further samples needed to confirm extent or treat whole pipe as asbestos.
For a pipe with samples indicating the insulation is asbestos then further sampling adds no value.
4.36 Risk Assessment and management plans. Could do with an algorithm to assist with the Priority Assessment and have Accessibility as Low Med or High. This would categories which defects need to be repaired (P1) and those that need monitoring at an agreed interval (P2 & P3). For example for Material score of 11 & 12 all defects would be P1 and must be repaired.
Happy to discuss further if needed
Norman
Norman,
You are correct to say multiple sampling to prove a pipeline is asbestos is not necessary, if it is reasonable to assume it is positive in any event. This is reflected in the CAR reg 5.
Regarding the inclusion of priority algorithms, this is already covered in another Guidance note called ‘A comprehensive Guide to Managing asbestos in premises’ HSG 227. The information is still relevant regarding ways and means to manage asbestos. However, clarity about ‘High, medium and low’ access would be beneficial. I think the reason priority algorithms are not included in the new Survey Guide is because management is undertaken by the dutyholder, whereas the surveyor undertakes an assessment of the condition of the material alone, and doesn’t always have access to details on buiding use.
regards
Coll
Great read, well-written. The problem I think is that when visitors hover their mouse into your name and see that url directing to a blogger profile in their status bar, its more likely that they won
I have been reading this blog for quite sometime now, and this is my first comment. I would like to tell you that I enjoy reading this blog, and that I love thought provoking articles like this!
I have been reading this blog for quite sometime now, and this is my first comment. I would like to tell you that I enjoy reading this blog, and that I love thought provoking articles like this!