The Hidden Hazard in PAS 9980: Why Limited Sampling Betrays Building Safety

PAS 9980's limited "strategic" sampling creates a nightmare scenario for external wall assessments: unknown hazards lurking unseen across the cladding scheme. How can any assessor opine confidently on every critical element—cavity barriers, firestops, intumescent seals—when only a fraction is exposed? One missed or defective firebreak turns "tolerable risk" into catastrophe, as it breaches the defense-in-depth layered protections essential to life safety.

Why One Firebreak Matters So Much

Firebreaks form the last line of defense in external walls, designed to compartmentalize fire spread. Missing or failing just one exposes the entire system.

  • System Failure: In defense-in-depth, firebreaks create redundancy—no single point of failure. One gap lets fire bypass controls, spreading unchecked across floors or cavities, as seen in Grenfell's cavity barrier failures.

  • Regulatory Non-Compliance: Codes like Reg 7(2) and the Fire Safety Order demand verified performance of all barriers. PAS 9980's sampling shortcuts risk non-compliance verdicts, fines, and remediation halts—shifting burden to leaseholders.

  • Catastrophic Consequences: Flames, smoke, and toxins race unimpeded, endangering lives, collapsing structures, and erasing assets in minutes.

  • Cascading Failures: Like IT firewalls or process plant isolators, one cladding firebreak lapse triggers total system compromise—data breaches in cyber terms, or mass evacuation failure here.

  • "Just One" Mentality: Dismissing a single defect as negligible prioritizes cost over verification, echoing pre-Grenfell complacency.

From Paper to Peril: The PAS 9980 Trap

PAS 9980 extrapolates from minimal openings to rate whole walls "low/medium," codifying uncertainty as "tolerable." But fire safety isn't probabilistic gambling—it's ALARP: as low as reasonably practicable. Post-Grenfell science demands full exposure where doubt persists, not statistical comfort for dutyholders.

Access the full ICM paper critiquing this structural flaw from the Link below: It lays bare how sampling undermines Reg 7(2) intent, trapping residents in hazardous homes.

Demand Better: Full Verification Now

Leaseholders deserve surgeon-level scrutiny, not bookie's odds. ICM calls for science-led reform—ditch partial sampling, mandate comprehensive openings, and enforce A1-only where practicable. Join the debate at UK-CITF: uk-citf.co.uk.

#BuildingSafety #PAS9980 #GrenfellLegacy #CladdingCrisis #ALARP #FireRisk

https://the-icm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/DJ-Paper-23122025-Final.pdf

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2025 The Institute of Construction Management. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions. Privacy Policy.
.Conflict of Interests Policy Statement.
. Website Design Kent by CARISS

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.