Reply To: Analyst Guide Impact

Home Forums Members Only Forums Consultation Docs Analyst Guide Impact Reply To: Analyst Guide Impact

#3235
Derek
Participant

    I agree – more “responsibilities” are now going to be with the Analysts.

    To allow for this I think it has to be made clear the roles that other parties play in analytical work. Such as the Duty Holder and the LARC’s. All 3 should work together in achieving the desired outcome i.e. safe removal/remediation of ACM’s.

    This is not always the case.

    Sometimes the a duty holder is unaware of their own responsibilities and/or will attempt to pass on their duty to an analyst or LARC.

    Sometimes a LARC will rely on the analyst to “supervise” or “direct” the final clean of an area.

    Education is needed for all parties so they are aware of what role they play – including the analysts.

    I have often wondered why there isn’t a national register of Asbestos Duty holders – it would go some way to reinforce how important a duty holder is. It would also allow the HSE to randomly inspect companies and named persons to check that they are complying with the regulations. A proactive approach may be better – compared to relying on prosecuting people and companies after an incident has occurred. (e.g. maybe a national assessment body to inspect companies/people’s asbestos management plans).

    I believe one way to overcome the issue of analytical companies all working to different standards would be for more HSE random inspections on site. As there are very few visits –  those who choose do the bare minimum or less will be unlikely to be discovered. And those who follow the guidance do not often get recognised for their efforts. UKAS may be able to do the same – arrive unannounced and inspect analytical/surveying companies on the work that is actually happening. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch if UKAS had access to the notification system so could plan on their end for 4SC work.

    2 users thanked author for this post.