FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: bilb27 on May 07, 2014, 10:12:58 AM
-
Morning everyone,
Looking for advice from all sides :). Is it acceptable to complete a FRA using BS9999? And would Enforcing Officers for the Fire Service allow this and give advice based on that document.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Many Thanks.
-
Morning everyone,
Looking for advice from all sides :). Is it acceptable to complete a FRA using BS9999? And would Enforcing Officers for the Fire Service allow this and give advice based on that document.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Many Thanks.
Why would you want to use BS9999 bilb?
-
Bilb 9999 is for the design, construction and use of buildings and can therefore be used to assess an occupied building therefore can be used for the purposes that you describe however its a bit complex to be basing FRAs upon in my opinion - although I do use some of the principles in 9999 when giving advice or in noting my significant findings.
As for giving advice the general consensus is that fire officers are reluctant to give specific advice as it may be misconstrued and there is case history to back this up - but they may give generic advice such as 'use BS9999'!
-
Thanks for replies. I am just looking to see if it can be used. I can't think of a scenario where it would be used but reading the document it seems to indicate it can be used for that purpose.
I am also looking to see if any Fire Service Inspecting Officers have ever come across the situation where it has been used?
I have discussed with existing Fire Officers who have said that training is currently provided that it can be used and that they have given advice based on the guidance give in BS999 following Audits.
-
There are some scenarios where BS9999 could be used as guidance particularly using the Risk Profiles for travel distances particularly if there are sprinklers installed and for minimum standards of fire alarms. The chart for occupancy factors is also a lot more comprehensive than ADB.
However finally it all depends on the assessment of risk.
-
If the building has been designed using BS9999 then the fire risk assessment must take this into account. Otherwise you may struggle to justify the extended travel distance or increased occupancy numbers.
-
It offers a design approach that goes part way towards fire engineering compared to the ADB. However it would be wrong to cherry pick from BS9999 if carrying out an assessment of a building that was not specifically designed the that standard. But it is legit to use it as a benchmark alongside other guidance to inform your decision.
-
There is a whole section on Managing Fire Safety in BS 9999 - Section 9 so I see no reason why it wouldn't be applicable. Why an occupier would wish to use this instead of the Government guidance that's freely available I'm not sure, but I don't see why you shouldn't.
At the end of the day it's potentially acceptable to complete a fire risk assessment referring to whatever you like - so long as you can demonstrate it's suitable and sufficient.
-
It tends to be used by incompetent fire risk assessors to prove black is white or to hit poor unsuspecting fire officers over the head by cherry picking the bits they want. Steer well clear of it.
-
I wonder how many incompetent assessor so use PAS 78?!
-
Lyle They would have to be really incompetent to use PAS78 ! ;)
-
Surely just having a risk assessment that is PAS must 'tick a box'?
-
PAS 78 - commissioning accessible websites, always a good read.
Sorry I googled it to see if it even existed.
-
You might also want to make reference to PAS70 and PAS77 which are both exclusively about the competent use of oversized digits on mini-tablets when making reference to the best general fire risk assessment guidance available!
-
You might also want to make reference to PAS70 and PAS77 which are both exclusively about the competent use of oversized digits on mini-tablets when making reference to the best general fire risk assessment guidance available!
Riveting read Lyle.