Passive Fire Protection in existing buildings

How to cost effectively remediate Passive Fire Protection in an older building?

You can almost guarantee that if you look hard enough at a building aged more than 20 (or even ten!) years old, you'll open a Pandora's box of passive fire defects. In some cases, these defects can cause a serious safety risk to the building's occupants.

IQP's have an essential role to play in identifying passive fire issues within our existing building stock and then working with building owners to improve the safety of their occupants.

However, this can be a very difficult task to carry out when faced with a lack of building information regarding fire separations, as well as a limited time on site for thorough inspections only to find an overwhelming number of defects. Repairing these defects then likely triggers a Building Consent, which in turn can trigger the requirement for further fire safety improvements.

This can seem like a herculean task for IQPs, building owners and tenants alike.

What does 'ANARP' mean and how can it be beneficial?

Clause 112(1) of the Building Act states that: A building consent authority (BCA) must not grant a building consent for the alteration of an existing building, or part of an existing building, unless the BCA is satisfied that, after the alteration, the building will comply as nearly as is reasonably practicable (ANARP) with the provisions of the building code that relate to means of escape from fire.

So what does 'reasonably practicable' mean?

Assessing what remedial work is 'reasonably practicable' requires balancing the severity of risk resulting from a defect against the cost, time, physical difficulty or other sacrifice necessary to eliminate that risk. If the sacrifice to repair a defect is deemed to be 'grossly disproportionate' to the risk presented, then it can be judges as not reasonalby practicable to remedy the defect.

Auckland Council has issued some excellent guidance on this process - AC2226 - Applying the term As Near as Reasonably Practicable.

So how is ANARP beneficial?

A thorough assessment of which remedial work is reasonably practicable and which is not, means you'll get the most 'bang for your buck' only spending money where it is absolutely needed. You don't need to fix every single defect! This risk assessment can also help prioritise work, setting timelines for which work needs doing as soon as possible and which could wait until it is more affordable or accessible.

Who can make this assessment?

Defining what's reasonably practicable requires in-depth knowledge of the project's scope, the risk that non-compliance can pose to the building and its occupants, and the solutions available to be applied. Therefore, a Fire Engineer is your best go-to person for your building projects for a Risk based approach to remediation.

Risk-based approaches to passive fire remediation

Can I simply hire a Passive Fire company?

Passive Fire Protection Companies/Specialists can always advise that passive fire protection is installed as per a tested system. If it has not been, the works will be flagged as a defect and not compliant and therefore, must be rectified. This is the correct approach for any new construction.

For older buildings however, this can prove challenging as most installations would fall into this category. The question is, do we rip it all apart and install it again? It cannot be that "black or white". Isn't there a middle ground to make it more cost-effective?

While Passive Fire Protection installers can help with solutions and buildability, understanding the risk that a non-compliant item poses can be best assessed by a Fire Engineer. If this assessment is not made, typically the default position is to start again or attempt to repair all defects to be fully compliant with current requirements.

But, when someone is capable of providing both Passive Fire and Fire Engineering specialties, a risk-based methodology may be used. This methodology includes working with the Building owner and possibly even the Territorial Authority, to formulate a scope and programme of works that achieves the best possible safety outcomes within a realistic budget.

And so by using a risk assessment approach, one can identify each item to be rectified, consider the accessibility to perform the installation and the cost and balance this against the risk. This helps verify and classify the priority of the installations and can help set the time frame of each item.

In conclusion, this approach makes the building as safe as possible in a quicker timeframe and in the most cost effective manner and can also take into consideration a body corporate or building owner's capacity to pay for the repairs.

---

Nelligan Consulting Engineers has a great Fire Engineering team, including an in-house passive fire protection consultant. We have the expertise and knowledge to assist you with your project at various stages to ensure the installation is appropriately specified, compliant, cost-effective, and with minimal delays.