asbestos survey for at - wordpress.com · whilst every effort was made to locate the ceiling...

Asbestos Survey forOxford City Council

at

Maylarch CPS

Standingford HouseOxford Enterprise Centre

Cave StreetOxford

Printed: 06/09/2005 By: Maylarch CPS. Using Multibase software.

of 1

Names and Addresses

Maylarch CPS

Client Name:

Oxford City CouncilSt Aldates ChambersSt AldatesOxfordOxonOX1 1DS

Contact:01865 252116Phone: 01865 252773Fax:

Site Full Name:

Standingford HouseOxford Enterprise CentreCave StreetOxford

Contact:Phone: Fax:

Report Author:

Maylarch CPSOakwoodOakfield Industrial EstateStanton Harcourt Road, EynshamOxfordshireOX29 4TH

Robert WyattContact:

01865 883829Phone: 01865 881376Fax:

Managing Surveyor

Instructing Party:

Contact:Phone: Fax:

Page 1 of 106 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Page:


Maylarch CPS

TABLE OF CONTENTSSurvey Objectives1SECTION

Survey Techniques2SECTION

Survey Caveat3SECTION

Survey Notes4SECTION

Survey Recommendations5SECTION

Survey Drawings6SECTION

Survey Summary7SECTION

Material Assessment: Summary by Risk Band8SECTION

Material Assessment (Photo)9SECTION

Priority Assessment (Photo)10SECTION

Excluded Areas11SECTION

Bulk Identification Report12SECTION


SURVEY OBJECTIVES

SECTION ONE

Standingford House. Oxford Enterprise Centre, Cave Street, Oxford, , Page 0 of 1

06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Objectives:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Objectives

Maylarch CPS

Maylarch were instructed to carry out a Type 2 Asbestos Survey on behalf of Oxford City Council to the exterior and common parts of Standingford House in Oxford.

This report is produced in a database format, indicating areas containing identified and suspected asbestos based materials, including photographic records of asbestos occurences where possible.

1

To carry out a survey to ascertain, as far as is reasonably practicable, the presence of asbestos based materials within the scope of the survey area.

2

To include a risk assessment for each individual Sample.3

To carry out works in accordance with the Duty holders responsibility under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002.

4


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Objectives:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


SURVEY TECHNIQUE

SECTION TWO


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Technique:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Technique

Maylarch CPS

Materials of a similar type were only occasionally sampled and it was assumed that other surfaces identical to where the sample was taken, where of a similar composition.

1

Photographs were taken at all of the sample locations (unless otherwise stated).2

Samples were sent to a UKAS accredited laboratory for analysis3

Asbestos Bulk Sample Analysis is conducted by using Polarised Light and Dispersion Staining Techniques. Dispersion Staining is used to describe the colour effects produced when a transparent colourless particle or fibre is immersed in a liquid having a refractive index near to that of the particle or fibre, and is viewed under a microscope using transmitted white light (based on HSE Publication MDHS 77).

4


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Technique:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


SURVEY CAVEAT

SECTION THREE


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Caveat:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Caveat

Maylarch CPS

This report is based upon a non-destructive inspection of an unfamiliar site. During the course of the survey all reasonable efforts were made to identify the physical presence of materials containing asbestos within the areas of the building which are subject to future refurbishment works. It is known that asbestos materials are frequently concealed within the fabric of buildings or within sealed building voids so that it is not possible to regard the findings of any survey as being definitive. It must always remain a possibility that further asbestos containing materials may be found during refurbishment or demolition activities. For reasons set out in this report, the results cannot give an assurance that all asbestos materials have been found and must not be thought to do so. The nature of the survey was a non-destructive inspection at key locations of accessible voids and areas. From the evidence of the inspections and of the sampling and analysis undertaken, it is clear that asbestos containing materials are either present or within or associated with various areas as detailed in the report. We recommend that samples be taken of suspect materials which may be uncovered within the listed areas or within the areas of the site which were not included in this survey.

1

1. Details shown of the extent of any Asbestos materials are visual estimates only and should be considered as an approximate value only.

2. In the case of occupied buildings, false walls, ceilings and other voids would not have been broken through, as the Risk of contamination to the occupants would have been considered to be great. Any destructive inspection of this nature needs to be carried out in un-occupied areas with adequate control measures to reduce the risk of un-controlled fibre release.

3. Maylarch CPS make a provision for safe access to a height of 3.5 metres, in the absence of provisions by others for survey work to be safely undertaken over this height only assumptions & estimates of content can be made.

4. Excluded Areas will be included in this report. It must be presumed that there may be asbestos present in these areas until full access can be gained to prove otherwise.

2


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005


Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Caveat

Maylarch CPS

The following areas or materials were not inspected or assessed during this Type 2 asbestos survey and therefore they must be presumed to have an asbestos content until proven otherwise.

Lift shafts, plant rooms, sub-stations or similar areas which would have required the presence of a specialist engineer to isolate equipment including all mechanical and electrical plant

Concealed Spaces & Voids: Cavity wall voids or concealed spaces in the fabric of the building, where access was not readily available. Suspect Asbestos Materials were not removed to provide access to ceiling voids & roof voids etc.

Furniture / Fixtures / Fittings / Floor Coverings: Areas or surfaces that would have required the removal of fixed furniture, fixtures, fittings and non-asbestos floor coveings to access.

Manhole covers: Manhole covers that were believed to be part of the drainage system.

Service Ducts: Underground and vertical service ducts that were not readily accessible. Asbestos materials were not removed to provide access to service ducts.

Sub-surface material: To minimise damage to the fabric of the building sub-surface examination of permanently fixed non-asbestos materials forming walls, floors and ceilings was not undertaken.

Fixed electrical / gas equipment: Fixed electrical / gas equipment was not dismantled for inspection. Sampling of suspect asbestos materials associated with such equipment was only carried out if it could be done so, safely. In all other cases suspected asbestos materials should be presumed until proven otherwise. Electrical fuse boxes were not opened.

Fixed heating and power plant: Sampling of rope seals or gaskets associated with such equipment was only carried out if it could be done so safely. In all other cases suspected asbestos materials should be presumed until proven otherwise.

Fire Doors: Fire doors which could contain an inner sandwich layer of asbestos. Only doors that were damaged, exposing possible asbestos and doors that had been upgraded using external panels were included in this survey.

Re-insulated pipework and services: Complete removal of non-asbestos pipework insulation was not included as part of this survey. Spot checks were made at accessible points to determine if residual asbestos was present.

Residues: Only obvious areas of residual asbestos were included in this survey.

Loose Equipment: Loose equipment was not included as part of the survey programme.

Excluded materials: Unless identified in this report then the following materials were not inspected for analysis:-

a. All bitumen materials.b. Damp proof courses.c. Paintsd. Masticse. Sealants and putties

3


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005


Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Caveat

Maylarch CPS

These materials should be presumed to contain asbestos until proven otherwise.


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005


Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


SURVEY NOTES

SECTION FOUR


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Notes:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Notes

Maylarch CPS

Whilst every effort was made to locate the ceiling panels, wall partitions and other panels, which may have been constructed from asbestos boarding, none other than those detailed were found. Some may have been missed due to repairs, alterations etc, where false and other finishes have been applied or where different specifications (including a possible mixture of asbestos and non-asbestos) panels have been used in the same area. Only by sampling each panel would the composition of all the materials be known. This was clearly not practical in terms of cost or time.

1

No air monitoring was carried out whilst the survey was undertaken and therefore care was taken not to cause disturbance of fibre or contamination of clean surfaces.

2

This report has been written with reference to the various Guidance Notes etc, issued, and current at the date of this report and describes circumstances at the site on the date the investigation took place.

3

Where similar items exist in the building, only one or two samples have been taken to ascertain the material content. It was assumed that similar products were of the same material. Only random sampling was carried out.

4

Any person undertaking work within the buildings should be told of the presence of asbestos. This briefing also applies to any other person associated with the site, including staff, sub-contractors and others.

5

The diagrams in the report are not to scale and are illustrative only to indicate approximate locations. The descriptions used are for location identification purposes

6

All the recommendations described in this report are based upon assumptions made after consideration of the type of material, condition of the material, its location, analysis result and type of use the area is thought to be subjected to. However, statutory authorities or others, could require amendments based on local knowledge, change in legislation, change in use or indeed, other conditions of criteria.

7

Equipment, machinery, ducting etc were not moved, opened up or examined for the purpose of this investigation except in the odd occasion where hatches were available.

8

There are three (3) separate references used for the location of the inspections carried out in this report. These are as follows:-

(S) reference point: This refers to where we have obtained a sample of a suspected Asbestos Containing Material. This material will be analysed for asbestos content;

(V) reference point: This refers to where a Visual Inspection is made of an area, product or material. In some instances these V numbers will refer to the analysis of a sampled material;

(E) reference point: This refers to any areas that are excluded or require further investgation. All areas shown with an (E) reference point should be presumed to contain asbestos until proven otherwise.

Each type of reference point will follow numerically.

9


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Notes:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION FIVE


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Recommendation:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Recommendations

Maylarch CPS

Material Assessment and Algorithm

The material assessment is an assessment of the condition of the ACM, or the presumed ACM, and the likelihood of it releasing fibres in the event of it being disturbed in some way. This material assessment will give a good initial guide to the priority for management, as it will identify the materials, which will most readily release airborne fibres if disturbed. However, there are other factors to take into account when prioritising action.MDHS100 recommends the use of an algorithm to carry out the material assessment, and contains an example. The algorithm is a numerical way of taking into account several influencing factors, giving each factor considered a score. These scores can then be totaled to give a material assessment score. The use of algorithms is not infallible, but the assessment process is clear for all to see, so if discrepancies arise, it should be possible to track back through the assessment process to find the root of the error. The algorithm shown in MDHS100 considers four parameters that determine the risk from ACM: that is the ability to release fibres if disturbed. These four parameters are:

Product type;Extent of damage;Surface treatment; andAsbestos type

Each of the parameters is scored and added to give a total score between 2 and 12:

Materials with scores of 10 or more should be regarded as high risk with a significant potential to release fibres if disturbed;

Those with a score between 7 and 9 are regarded as medium risk;

Materials with a score between 5 and 6 are low risk; and

Scores of 4 or less are very low risk.

PRIORITY ASSESSMENT AND ALGORITHM

The material assessment identifies the high-risk materials, that is, those which will most readily release airborne fibres if disturbed. It does not automatically follow that those materials assigned the highest score in the material assessment will be the materials that should be given priority for remedial action. Management priority must be determined by carrying out a risk assessment which will also take into account factors such as:

Maintenance activity;Occupant activity;Likelihood of disturbance;Human exposure potential.

THE RISK ASSESSMENT INCLUDES A MATERIAL ASSESSMENT AND A PRIORITY ASSESSMENT.

THE MATERIAL ASSESSMENT LOOKS AT THE TYPE AND CONDITION OF THE ACM AND THE EASE WITH WHICH IT WILL RELEASE FIBRES IF DISTURBED.

THE PRIORITY ASSESSMENT LOOKS AT THE LIKELIHOOD OF SOMEONE DISTURBING THE ACM.

1


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005


Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council



Maylarch CPS

The risk assessment can only be carried out with detailed knowledge of all the above. Although a surveyor may have some of the information which will contribute to the risk assessment and may be part of an assessment team, you, as the duty holder under CAW, are required to make the risk assessment, using the information given in the survey report and your detailed knowledge of the activities carried out within your premises. The risk assessment will form the basis of the management plan, so it is important that it is accurate.

MAINTENANCE ACTIVITYThe first and most important factor which must be taken into consideration is the level of maintenance activity likely to be taking place in an area. Maintenance trades such as plumbers and electricians are the group who the duty to manage is primarily trying to protect. There are two types of maintenance activity, planned and unplanned. Planned work can be assessed and carried out using procedures and controls to reduce exposure to asbestos. Unplanned work requires the situation to be dealt with as found and the controls that can be applied may be more limited. The frequency of maintenance activities also need to be taken into account in deciding what management action is appropriate.

OCCUPANT ACTIVITYThe activities carried out in an area will have an impact on the risk assessment. When carrying out a risk assessment the main type of use of an area and the activities taking place within it should be taken into account. For example a little used storeroom or an attic will rarely be accessed and so any asbestos is unlikely to be disturbed. At the other end of the scale, in a warehouse lined with asbestos insulating board panels, with frequent vehicular movements, the potential for disturbance of ACMs is reasonably high and this would be a significant factor in the risk assessment. As well as the normal everyday activities taking place in an area, any secondary activities will need to be taken into account.

LIKELIHOOD OF DISTURBANCEThe two factors that will determine the likelihood of disturbance are the extent or amount of the ACM and its accessibility/vulnerability. For example, asbestos soffits outdoors are generally inaccessible without the use of ladders or scaffolding, are unlikely to be disturbed. The asbestos cement roof of a hospital ward is also unlikely to be disturbed, but its extent would need to be taken into account in any risk assessment. However if the same ward had asbestos panels on the walls they would be much more likely to be disturbed by trolley/bed movements.

HUMAN EXPOSURE POTENTIALThe human exposure potential depends on three factors: the number of occupants of an area, the frequency of use of the area, and the average time each area is in use. For example, a school boiler room is likely to be unoccupied, but may be visited daily for a few minutes. The potential for exposure is much less than say in a classroom lined with asbestos insulating board panelling, which is occupied daily for six hours by 30 pupils and a teacher.

PRIORITY ASSESSMENT ALGORITHMSTaking all these factors into account in a logical, consistent manner is difficult. Using an algorithm will help you to produce priority assessments that have taken the factors into account in a consistent way. The number of factors relevant at any one site needs to be carefully considered, as the more factors included in an algorithm, the lower the influence of the most important risk factors becomes, and this may produce anomalies. For this reason it is recommended that the number of factors that are scored is limited to four, the same as the number of factors in the material assessment. There is no single set of factors that can be


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005


Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council



Maylarch CPS

recommended that will apply equally to all types of premises. Therefore four general headings have been used and one or more factors can be taken into account and averaged under each heading to suit the circumstances. If you choose to use more than one factor under a general heading, then average the scores under that heading, rounding up where necessary.

The scores from the material assessment (i.e. the condition of the ACM or presumed ACM) are added to the scores of the priority assessment (the likelihood of disturbance), to give the overall risk assessment. Risk assessment scores for different ACMs can then be compared to develop your action plan. In many circumstances the scores will be similar, making decisions more difficult. For example a boiler house with asbestos pipe work insulation in poor condition may get the same or similar risk assessment score to an office with asbestos insulating board in reasonably good condition. This is simply because the ACM in the boiler house received a higher score than the ACM in the office because the ACM in the boiler house was in poor condition. However, the priority assessment for the office will get a higher score than the boiler house since the office is occupied more often. Add the scores together for the material and priority assessments, and you get similar scores. If this is the case then you may decide that the office needs doing first because it is used daily. On the other hand you may decide that the poor condition of the ACM in the boiler house means that it should be done first. If the office was a classroom, the young age of the occupants may be a deciding factor. Algorithms are provided to help you, but they are best guesses and will often require you to make your own additional judgements.


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005


Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


SURVEY DRAWINGS

SECTION SIX

SURVEY SUMMARY

SECTION SEVEN


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Summary:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Survey Summary

Maylarch CPS

For positive identification of asbestos bearing materials please refer to the individual sample data sheets. Please see attached;

1

Asbestos summary by risk band2


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Survey Summary:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


MATERIAL ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY BY RISK BAND

SECTION EIGHT

Printed: 06/09/2005 By: Maylarch CPS. Using Multibase Software. RISK BAND: Page 0 of 4

Risk Band: Low Risk

Location Ref

AsbestosType

Area Comments ActionSampleDate

Room

Site Name: Standingford House

Project Number: 040155/S

Material Assessment: Summary by Risk Band

Product Name

Location ID SurveyType

FloorDrawingReference

Material Risk

Score

Priority Risk

Score

Visual Inspectio

n V14

6Amosite/Chrysotile/Crocidolite

Unit 12 Boxing to Roof Light un-accessible. Take Sample for analysis prior to disturbance. Roof Lights also located in rooms 12 & 16 (units 14 & 10).

Apply Warning Labels and Manage

26/08/2005

Room 14 Boxing9857 T 2First FloorAs location ref

4


Risk Band: Very Low Risk

Location Ref

AsbestosType


Room




Product Name



Material Risk

Score

Priority Risk

Score

Sample S01

3AmositeCommunal/First Floor


26/08/2005

Gents WC Toilet Cistern9842 T 2First FloorAs location ref

4

Visual Inspectio

n V01

0Not ApplicableUnit 6 No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level boxing and ceiling board is non-Asbestos.

No Action Required26/08/2005

Room 3 General View9844 T 2Ground FloorAs location ref

0

Visual Inspectio

n V15

3AmositeCommunal/First Floor

Please refer to sample S01 location ID 9842 for analysis.


26/08/2005

Ladies WC Toilet Cistern9858 T 2First FloorAs location ref

4


Risk Band: NADIS

Location Ref

AsbestosType


Room




Product Name



Material Risk

Score

Priority Risk

Score

Sample S02

0NADISCommunal/First Floor

No Asbestos Detected In Sample ( NADIS ) taken for analysis.


Kitchen Sink Pad9843 T 2First FloorAs location ref

0

Visual Inspectio

n V02

0Not ApplicableUnit 3 No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level boxing and Ceiling Board is non-asbestos.



0

Visual Inspectio

n V03

0Not ApplicableUnit 18 no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level Boxing and Ceiling Board is non-asbestos.



0

Visual Inspectio

n V04

0Not ApplicableUnit 5 no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection.



0

Visual Inspectio

n V05

0Not ApplicableUnit 13 no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Including Ceiling Space.


Room 13 General View9848 T 2First FloorAs location ref

0

Visual Inspectio

n V06

0Not ApplicableUnit 15 no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Includes Roof Void.



0

Visual Inspectio

n V07

0Not ApplicableUnit 7 No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Ceiling Board and under Stairs Boarding are all non-asbestos.



0

Visual Inspectio

n V08

0Not ApplicableUnit 8 no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Includes Ceiling Space.



0


Risk Band: NADIS

Location Ref

AsbestosType


Room




Product Name



Material Risk

Score

Priority Risk

Score

Visual Inspectio

n V09




0

Visual Inspectio

n V10




0

Visual Inspectio

n V11

0Not ApplicableUnit 11 No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection.



0

Visual Inspectio

n V12




0

Visual Inspectio

n V13

0Not ApplicableUnit 4 no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level Boxing and Ceiling Board is non-asbestos.



0


MATERIAL ASSESSMENT (PHOTO)

SECTION NINE

Printed: 06/09/2005 By: Maylarch CPS. Using Multibase Software.

Material Assessment: Page 0 of 17

Sample S01Location Ref:

First FloorFloor:

Gents WCRoom:

YesAsbestos:


Material Risk Score 3

Material Risk Band: Very Low Risk

As location refDrawing Ref:

26 August 2006Next Inspection:

9842Location ID:

Client Name: Oxford City Council


Material Assessment RecordStandingford House. Oxford Enterprise Centre, Cave Street, Oxford, ,

Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

Material Comments:

Communal/First FloorArea:

M CarterSurveyor Name:

Toilet CisternProduct:

Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type: Plastics

Damage: Good condition

Treatment: Reinforced plastics

Asbestos Type: Amosite

Identification: Identified

Quantity: 3 no cisterns

Accessibility: Medium Accessibility

26 August 2005Date:

Priority Risk Score: 4




First FloorFloor:

KitchenRoom:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required


Material Risk Band: NADIS


Next Inspection:

9843Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

No Asbestos Detected In Sample ( NADIS ) taken for analysis.Material Comments:



Sink PadProduct:

Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type: NADIS

Damage: NADIS

Treatment: NADIS

Asbestos Type: NADIS


Quantity: 1 No

Accessibility: Easy Accessibility

26 August 2005Date:




Visual Inspection V01Location Ref:

Ground FloorFloor:

Room 3Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required





9844Location ID:




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level boxing and ceiling board is non-Asbestos.Material Comments:

Unit 6Area:


General ViewProduct:

Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:

Asbestos Type: Not Applicable


Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





Ground FloorFloor:

Room 7Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9845Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level boxing and Ceiling Board is non-asbestos.Material Comments:

Unit 3Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





Ground FloorFloor:

Room 1Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9846Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level Boxing and Ceiling Board is non-asbestos.Material Comments:

Unit 18Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





Ground FloorFloor:

Room 4Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9847Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection.Material Comments:

Unit 5Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 13Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9848Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Including Ceiling Space.Material Comments:

Unit 13Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 11Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9849Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Includes Roof Void.Material Comments:

Unit 15Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





Ground FloorFloor:

Room 2Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9850Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Ceiling Board and under Stairs Boarding are all non-asbestos.Material Comments:

Unit 7Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 18Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9851Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. Includes Ceiling Space.Material Comments:

Unit 8Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 10Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9852Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS


Unit 16Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 9Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9853Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS


Unit 17Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 15Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9854Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

No asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection.Material Comments:

Unit 11Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 17Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9855Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS


Unit 9Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





Ground FloorFloor:

Room 5Room:

NoAsbestos:

No Action Required




Next Inspection:

9856Location ID:

Not Applicable




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

no asbestos containing materials identified on visual inspection. High level Boxing and Ceiling Board is non-asbestos.Material Comments:

Unit 4Area:



Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type:

Damage:

Treatment:



Quantity: N/A


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Room 14Room:

YesAsbestos:



Material Risk Band: Low Risk


25 February 2006Next Inspection:

9857Location ID:




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

Boxing to Roof Light un-accessible. Take Sample for analysis prior to disturbance. Roof Lights also located in rooms 12 & 16 (units 14 & 10).

Material Comments:

Unit 12Area:


BoxingProduct:

Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type: Asbestos Insulating Board


Treatment: AIB painted or encapsulated

Asbestos Type: Amosite/Chrysotile/Crocidolite

Identification: Presumed

Quantity: 3 no Roof Lights 3m2 each


26 August 2005Date:





First FloorFloor:

Ladies WCRoom:

YesAsbestos:






9858Location ID:




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

Please refer to sample S01 location ID 9842 for analysis.Material Comments:




Action:

T 2Survey Type:

Product Type: Plastics


Treatment: Reinforced plastics

Asbestos Type: Amosite

Identification: Strongly Presumed as previous sample

Quantity: 2 no


26 August 2005Date:




PRIORITY ASSESSMENT RECORD

SECTION TEN


Priority Assessment: Page 0 of 3

Maylarch –For a fast flexible and safe solution

Maylarch Environmental Ltd. Directors: N. Williamson. Simon Ward. Registered in Great Britain no:1826227 Registered office: Oakwood, Oakfield Industrial Estate, Stanton Harcourt Rd, Eynsham, Oxon OX29 4TH. Vat no: 410 8186 75

MAYLARCH CPS

Asbestos Consultancy - Project Management – Surveying

RISK ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITY RATING FOR ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS 1.0 – Priority Rating The material assessment risk score found in your Asbestos Survey/Report gives a good initial guide to the priority for a control action as it identifies the high-risk materials. However, a high score in the material assessment may not always require a high priority control action. For example, if no one needs to enter a building or room, or suitable precautions to reduce the risk can be taken on the few occasions it is occupied. A Priority Rating is assigned to each Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) identified on the sites surveyed. Non-asbestos materials are not assigned a priority rating. The priority rating is based on a combined assessment of the likelihood that the ACM will be disturbed (damage potential/accessibility and position) and the amount of human exposure that would occur. 2.0 – Assessment of Damage Potential/Accessibility of Asbestos Materials The damage potential of each asbestos element on site will be assessed. This is important as the damage potential relates to the likelihood or possibility of damage occurring to the asbestos. The potential for impact on asbestos materials must be considered in conjunction with the likely building usage of the area in question. Risk of damage will be more likely in areas of constant use, in comparison with areas of intermittent use of entry for maintenance inspections or observation of equipment.

Category Description Very Low Usually inaccessible or unlikely to be disturbed Low Occasionally likely to be disturbed Medium Easily disturbed High Routinely disturbed 3.0 – Assessment of Position of Asbestos Material The position of the asbestos material will also have an input on the likelihood of disturbance.

Category Description Very Low Outdoors/ External Low Internal, normally unoccupied areas Medium Internal, normally occupied areas High Internal confined spaces

Maylarch –For a fast flexible and safe solution

Maylarch Environmental Ltd. Directors: N. Williamson. Simon Ward. Registered in Great Britain no:1826227 Registered office: Oakwood, Oakfield Industrial Estate, Stanton Harcourt Rd, Eynsham, Oxon OX29 4TH. Vat no: 410 8186 75

MATERIAL AND PRIORITY RISK SCORES COMBINED 18 – 24 High Risk

High Risk - asbestos materials are in a condition or location, which requires urgent attention. Asbestos materials allocated to this rating are usually not suited to any form of containment programme and should be removed or environmentally cleaned up as soon as possible. All fallen asbestos debris and surface contaminating materials will always be assigned a High Priority Risk Score. Any disturbance to a high risk score is liable to expose personnel to elevated levels of airborne respirable asbestos fibres and also is liable to spread the extent of the contamination throughout the rest of the area or building. Recommended action is within 7 days.

13 – 17 Medium Risk Medium Risk - asbestos materials are in a location and/or condition that the required

some remedial action. The action may be minor repairs to damaged surfaces or encapsulation of all exposed asbestos surfaces. Following completion of remedial works the Medium Risk score may be assigned a Low Risk rating. Recommended action is within next few months.

9 – 12 Low Risk Low Risk – asbestos materials are found in a condition and/or location which does not

give rise to a significant health risk, PROVIDED THE MATERIAL REMAINS UNDISTURBED, either by routine maintenance operations or by personnel carrying out their normal daily work activities, which could cause impact or surface damage to the material. Low Risk is only valid if the provision is maintained. Building managers should be aware of any changes in the work activities in areas where Low Risk asbestos materials are located. Low Risk asbestos materials will change to High Risk if, for instance, it is decided to carry out building works which require some disturbance of the asbestos material.

0 – 8 Very Low Risk Very Low Risk – asbestos materials require annual Inspection to check on influencing

factors that may change the Risk score such as the change of use of building or deterioration of the component etc.

Assessment Factor Score Examples of score Variables

Normal Occupant Activity

Main type of activity in area 0 Rare disturbance activity (e.g. little used store room) 1 Low disturbance activities (e.g. office type activity) 2 Periodic disturbance (e.g. industrial or vehicular activity which

may contact ACM's) 3 High levels of disturbance (e.g. fire door with asbestos

insulating board sheet in constant use)

Secondary activities for area As above As above

Likelihood of disturbance

Location 0 Outdoors 1 Large rooms or well-ventilated areas 2 Rooms up to 100 m2 3 Confined spaces

Accessibility 0 Usually inaccessible or unlikely to be disturbed 1 Occasionally likely to be disturbed 2 Easily disturbed 3 Routinely disturbed

Extent Amount 0 Small amounts or items (eg strings, gaskets) 1 <10 m2 or <10 m pipe run 2 >10 m2 to <50 m2 or >10 m to <50 m pipe run 3 >50 m2 or >50 m pipe run

Human exposure potential

Number of occupants 0 None 1 1 to 3 2 4 to 10 3 >10

Frequency of use of area 0 Infrequent 1 Monthly 2 Weekly 3 Daily

Average time area is in use 0 < 1 hour 1 > 1 to < 3 hours 2 > 3 to < 6 hours 3 > 6 hours

Maintenance Activity

Type of maintenance activity 0 Minor disturbance (eg possibility of contact when gaining access)

1 Low Disturbance (eg changing light bulbs in asbestos insulating board ceiling)

2 Medium disturbance (eg lifting one or two asbestos insulating board ceiling tiles to access a valve).

3 High levels of disturbance (eg removing a number of asbestos insulating board ceiling tiles to replace valve or for recabling)

Frequency of maintenance activity 0 ACM unlikely to be disturbed for maintenance

1 < 1 per year 2 > 1 per year 3 > 1 per month


First FloorFloor:

Gents WCRoom:

YesAsbestos:

4


9842Location ID:



Priority Assessment RecordStandingford House. Oxford Enterprise Centre, Cave Street, Oxford, ,

Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

Priority Comments:




Total Priority Assessment Score:

Material Assessment Score (supplied by surveyor):

Total of Material and Priority Assessment Scores:

Normal Occupant Activity:

Main type of activity in area: Low disturbance 1

Secondary activities for area: Low disturbance 1 1

Assessment factor Variable(s) selected Score for each

Overall score

Likelihood Of Disturbance:

Location: Rooms up to 100 m2 2

Accessibility: Inaccessible 0

1Extent/Amount: <=10 m2 or <=10 m pipe run 1

Human Exposure Potential:

Number of occupants: 1 to 3 1

Frequency of use of area: Daily 3

2Average time area is in use: >1 to <3 hours 1

Maintenance Activity:

Type of maintenance activity: Minor disturbance 0

Frequency of maintenance activity Unlikely to be disturbed 0 0

Priority Assessment Algorithm

3Very Low Risk

7

Date: 26 August 2005

average

average

average

average




First FloorFloor:

Room 14Room:

YesAsbestos:

4


9857Location ID:




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

Priority Comments:

Unit 12Area:


BoxingProduct:








Overall score













6Low Risk

10


average

average

average

average




First FloorFloor:

Ladies WCRoom:

YesAsbestos:

4


9858Location ID:




Site Address:

Maylarch CPS

Priority Comments:











Overall score













3Very Low Risk

7


average

average

average

average



EXCLUDED AREAS

SECTION ELEVEN


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Excluded Areas:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


Excluded Areas

Maylarch CPS

At the time of our survey we were unable to gain full access to a few areas throughout the premises. These areas are detailed below. Based on our findings throughout the premises, we have no reason to suspect that there will be any Asbestos Containing Materials in these Excluded Areas, however, we do recommend that for your management you presume all materials to contain Asbestos until proven otherwise.

As location ref;

E01 Ceiling Space - Unable to inspect due to access restrictions.

E02 Ceiling Space - Unable to inspect due to access restrictions.

E03 Unit 1 - Unable to gain access.

E04 Unit 2 - Unable to gain access

E05 Interview Room - Unable to gain access

E06 Store Room - Unable to gain access

2 no Electrical Cupboards located at the bottom of the stairs on Ground Floor were not investigated as they were active.

1


06 September 2005

040155/S26 August 2005

Project Number: Survey Date: Printed On: Excluded Areas:

Client Name:

Site Address:

Oxford City Council


BULK IDENTIFICATION REPORT

SECTION TWELVE

REPORT RAISED BY:

Signed: ……………………………... Print: ……………………………...


2 Nobel Square, Courtauld Road, Burnt Mills Industrial Estate, Basildon, Essex SS13 1LS Tel: 01268 724785 Fax: 01268 724796 Mob: 07765 685132 E-Mail: [email protected]

Company Reg No: 5191390 Reg Address: 164 Fairfax Drive Westcliff-on-Sea Essex SS0 9BE

2707

CERTIFICATE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ASBESTOS FIBRES

Client: MAYLARCH

Address:

OAKWOOD OAKFIELD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE EYNSHAM OXON, OX29 4TH

Analysis Report No. SCO/05/8982

Attention: MR R WYATT Report Date. 02/09/05 Site Address: STANDINGFORD HOUSE Site Ref No. 40155/S

Date sample taken: 26/08/05 Page No: 1 Of 1

Date sample received: 02/09/05 No. of Samples: 2

Date of Analysis: 02/09/05 Obtained: DELIVERED

Samples of material, referenced below, have been examined to determine the presence of asbestos fibres, using Scopes Asbestos Analysis “in house” method of transmitted/polarised light microscopy and centre stop dispersion staining, based on HSE’s ISBN 0 7176 2875 2 (2005). If samples have been DELIVERED the site address and actual sample location is as given by the client at the time of delivery. Scopes Asbestos Analysis Services Limited are not responsible for the accuracy or competence of the sampling by third parties. Under these circumstances Scopes Asbestos Analysis Services Limited cannot be held responsible for the interpretation of the results shown. Samples shown as COLLECTED have been sampled using Scopes Asbestos Analysis Services Limited documented “In-house” method for sampling SCOPES SAMPLE

CLIENT SAMPLE

Sample Location Fibre Type Detected

1 1 TOILET CISTERN-GENTS WC 1ST FLOOR AMOSITE LOW

2 2 SINK PAD-KITCHEN 1ST FLOOR NADIS

KEY: NADIS - No Asbestos Detected in Sample T - Trace (<2% ) L – Low (2 - 15%) M - Medium (15 - 50%) H – High (>50% ) Note: Fibre content levels and material type are a visual indication only, by the analyst, and must not be assumed to be an accredited test. This estimate is

for information purposes only, and falls outside the scope of our UKAS accreditation. All samples will be retained for a minimum of six months.

Authorised signatory: Analysed by: B HOPSON

Print name: B.HOPSON – COMPANY MANAGER

BULK 001-VER 3 30-JUNE-05-QCM

STANDARD

PREMIUM

EMERGENCY

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

asbestos survey for at - wordpress.com · whilst every effort was made to locate the ceiling...

Documents