EDUCATIONAL/STUDENT FACILITIES PARTNERSHIP APPROACH
SOCOTEC has worked with Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge, for nearly three years to help the education provider ensure that it is fully compliant in its management of asbestos. Here, the company talks us through what that entails.
Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, there is a responsibility placed against building owners to manage the risk from asbestos in their premises.
The owner or the person responsible for the maintenance or repair of non-domestic premises has a ‘Duty to Manage’ asbestos risk – colleges are no exception.
At Fitzwilliam, the maintenance manager has been delegated the authority to manage and, as such, is responsible for the management of asbestos on site. With the majority of the College’s buildings having been constructed between 1960 and 2000, before the ban of asbestos use in 1999, the College is required by law to have a record of known or presumed asbestos containing materials, their current condition and a plan for how those materials are managed.
In its three-year relationship with Fitzwilliam College, SOCOTEC’s asbestos consultancy works followed a three- pronged process.
Stage one – The validation and audit of
existing information In line with the College’s continual pursuit of improvement
44 | TOMORROW’S FM
and best practice, SOCOTEC was requested to complete an audit and verification of existing asbestos information, processes and procedures. The information reviewed was in the form of management surveys, refurbishment surveys, asbestos removal certificates and sporadic data ranging from 30 years old to relatively new. The audit involved interviews with key stakeholders to identify roles and responsibilities, the review of old reports against current properties to determine on-going accuracy and the discussion of procedures, knowledge and information.
Stage two – Review of findings and proposals Following completion, reviewing the audit findings with the College meant a proposal could be developed to transition it to a state of full compliance – setting out a realistic timeline based on risk, budget, accessibility and stakeholder requirements. The proposal instigated the redefining of asbestos management processes and procedures.
Stage three – Prioritising activities Upon acceptance of the proposed plan, the highest priority activities were completed first and included: bespoke
twitter.com/TomorrowsFM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66
