Incorporating BS 9999 into FRA's

[Clevelandfire 3]

Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?

My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.

As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.

Yes absolutely. Why not use the relevant guidance in BS9999 when carrying out fire risk assessments on existing buildings? Its really useful to analyse and clarify your thinking on existing buildings. Extending travel distances? Well yes perhaps. Heres a scenario.

Take hotel bedroom corridors as an example. Dead end corridors in bedrooms under the original FP Act red book guidance could be up to 13m long. Many of them are. But under the Fire Safety Order guidance the benchmark is 9m. Thats nearly 50% difference betweeen the two. Both guides covering existing buildings. Now what do we do?
BS9999 is an ideal tool to carry out a gap analysis and determine options for additional risk control measures. It gives us a reliable framework from which to work.

Heres another justification. Take a look at page 41 of the Fire Safety Order guidance for large places of assembly. "This guidance gives only limited advice..........for these types of premises the principles given in the following references should be applied flexibly......... BS5588 part 10........."

I rest my case mLud.

Rest any case you like so long as you agree you must use 9999 in its entiriety and not just part apply it for the bits which make life easy for you as Retty says

[kurnal]

Rest any case you like so long as you agree you must use 9999 in its entiriety and not just part apply it for the bits which make life easy for you as Retty says

I only need to apply those parts that are relevant to the issue in question.

Provided I am diligent in doing so and always recognising that individual recommendations from 9999 applied in isolation may give little or no benefit and may even reduce the level of fire safety.

It is essential to consider all interactions and influences and to record all such considerations. I think we are all in  agreement but there can be a tendancy to put up the shutters and to become very prescriptive.
Hey and lets not forget there are still loads of typos and points open to question in the document.

[hammer1]

Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?

My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.

As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.
Absolutely agree that there shouldn't be "cherry picking" from the standards to get the best solution. Again, if it is done, then the risk assessor should be able to justify it, and more important, the responsible person must be able to understand it, after all, it's normally they who are sat in front of me being asked all the questions!

After all that, I do agree that the management part is relevant!

 

BS 9999:2008 - Fire safety in design, management and use of buildings...........which means existing building 'wow i am so current' oh hang on does it also refer to CDM 2007...............HOW DARE IT


Please forgive me but did i hear management .

god dame you cherry pickers code huggers

[hammer1]

Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?

My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.

As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.

Yes absolutely. Why not use the relevant guidance in BS9999 when carrying out fire risk assessments on existing buildings? Its really useful to analyse and clarify your thinking on existing buildings. Extending travel distances? Well yes perhaps. Heres a scenario.

Take hotel bedroom corridors as an example. Dead end corridors in bedrooms under the original FP Act red book guidance could be up to 13m long. Many of them are. But under the Fire Safety Order guidance the benchmark is 9m. Thats nearly 50% difference betweeen the two. Both guides covering existing buildings. Now what do we do?
BS9999 is an ideal tool to carry out a gap analysis and determine options for additional risk control measures. It gives us a reliable framework from which to work.

Heres another justification. Take a look at page 41 of the Fire Safety Order guidance for large places of assembly. "This guidance gives only limited advice..........for these types of premises the principles given in the following references should be applied flexibly......... BS5588 part 10........."

I rest my case mLud.

Rest any case you like so long as you agree you must use 9999 in its entiriety and not just part apply it for the bits which make life easy for you as Retty says

Being a competent person i hope you can use parts/all/bits of the document to suit the RP in carrying out their duties to comply with Law. To disregard the document is to  code hug and copy and paste.

Surley making life better for RP is a better life for us

BS5499, BS9990.....TAXI

Anyone read ADB lately  ? now thats cherry picking

Regulation 16B..........

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Blimey! I've never been quoted so much in a post! 

I fully accept and agree with the arguments/statements put forward for using BS9999. As my post says .... 'am I being a bit thick' and quite clearly I was having a thick day!

I have no issue with competent risk assessors referring to and quoting extracts from relevant codes/guidance where they will be present at inspection/audit. My concern is where it is used with little or no understanding, which is a situation I have recently come across during a meeting with a 'competent risk assessor' who was using purely to attempt to justify extended travel distances as those quoted in the guides and ADB were 'too short'. The person didn't understand the process and had selected the information that suited his needs without actually looking at all the elements. He was advised not to use at the time and put justification through reasoning in the risk assessments.

It's nice to see a mention of BS5588 pt10 in a CLG guide .... so when will that be amended I wonder?   

[Clevelandfire 3]

Well said Baldyman..  Prime exmple of people cherry picking without looking at all the angles that go with it.

[hammer1]

I can fully understand and appreciate peoples comments on cherry picking, especially on the more technical aspects of the document. But I was really referring solely to the risk profiles and assessing risk section. The Guidance itself describes the section 2 risk profiling as not to satisfy the requirements of the FSO and FRA, HOWEVER it can be used to extend the FRA to include needs fire protection of buildings etc.

So why not expand your FRA and go further to provide more info for the RP??

Saying that it also warns people of a 'pick and mix' approach and if only individual aspects are adopted it may have little or no benefit and might even reduce the level of fire safety. But dare I say it, it might also be of benefit to the RP.

So I suppose it is down to you if you feel doing a 2,3 or 4 day on the document gives you the right and confidence to use all or parts of it.

At the end of the day it is only a guidance document to assist us all in the one and only goal...........preserve life and to a lesser extent property.

I remember many, many old FRA's always referring to BS5588 Part 12 (Management) so why not now.....