Insights from the plant room

What usually goes wrong, why it happens, and what a thorough audit looks for

When we audit the fire safety side of a building's mechanical services, we rarely find deliberate corner-cutting. More often, we find an installer who didn't fully understand the standard they were working to. The work looks finished; it may even be signed off, but a missed detail can matter a great deal when there's an actual fire.

Those details are easy to overlook because most fire safety systems sit idle for years. A smoke exhaust fan or a stair pressurisation system might only run during testing. So the only real chance to find a problem is a proper inspection by someone who knows what to look for.

Here are the issues we come across most often, and why each one matters.

Mistake 1: Standard Cabling on Life-Safety Equipment

Some systems are designed to keep running during a fire. Smoke exhaust fans are the obvious example. Their job is to pull smoke out of a space such as a shopping centre or car park so people can get out and firefighters can get in.

If the power cable feeding that fan is ordinary cable, the fire can burn through it, and the fan stops. That's the moment it's needed most. Equipment like this needs fire-rated cabling, built to keep working for a set period at extreme temperatures.

From the outside, a fire-rated cable and a standard cable can look similar, and the fan runs perfectly well on either during a routine test. That's why this one so often goes unnoticed until someone traces the cabling back and checks what was actually installed.

Mistake 2: Fan Capacity Not Reassessed After the Building Changed

A building's mechanical design is based on how it was drawn. Plans change during construction and over a building's life. Floors get added, tenancies get reconfigured, and occupancy goes up.

A good example is a stair pressurisation system. If a stairwell was designed for a certain number of levels and a couple more are added later, the fan that pressurises it may no longer be big enough. Nobody necessarily went back to check, because the fan still turns on and still moves air. It just doesn't move enough to keep smoke out of the stairs across the full height of the building.

We see the same pattern with car park and smoke exhaust systems. The equipment is fine. It's simply been asked to do more than it was sized for.

Mistake 3: Penetrations Too Close to Fire Dampers

On a busy construction site, many trades are competing for the same ceiling and wall space. Plumbers, electricians and data installers all need to get through walls, and fire dampers sit inside those same walls.

A pipe or cable tray installed too close to a damper can affect its performance or prevent it from closing properly. It can also happen years after handover, when a new fit-out puts a penetration somewhere it shouldn't be. This is one reason scheduled damper inspections are worth doing properly. Our post on fire damper testing explains how that inspection cycle works.

Mistake 4: The System Doesn't Behave the Way the Fire Strategy Intends

In a fire, a building's fans are meant to respond in a set sequence. Some start to exhaust smoke, others stop, and others pressurise stairs or corridors. The building's fire engineering documentation sets out that sequence.

When we test a building, we sometimes find that the sequence doesn't match what the fire strategy actually needs, even where it matches the paperwork. When that happens, we raise it with the fire engineer so we can bring the documentation and the system back in line.

Why These Issues Happen

Most of these problems come down to knowledge, not intent. Fire safety standards are detailed and they change over time. A tradesperson who mainly does general mechanical work may not encounter these requirements often enough to know them inside and out.

That's also why we think an audit should be constructive. The goal is to find genuine risk and fix it, not to blame whoever installed the system.

Why This Work Is Taken So Seriously

The 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London, which claimed 72 lives, is the best-known recent example of how a building compliance failure can have devastating consequences. That fire involved external cladding, not mechanical services. It still changed how seriously building compliance is treated, including in Australia, where buildings across the country were audited for combustible cladding in the years that followed.

The lesson for building owners is simple. Fire safety systems are only as good as the detail in their installation and upkeep.

What a Thorough Audit Actually Looks For

A proper audit goes beyond switching equipment on and checking that it runs. On our audits, we check:

•  Cabling on life-safety equipment, and whether it's rated for fire conditions.

•  Fan capacity against the building as it stands today, not as it was originally drawn.

•  Clearances and penetrations around fire dampers.

•  Airflows and pressures in stairwells and exhaust zones, measured rather than assumed.

•  Whether the system's fire mode sequence matches the fire engineering strategy.

‍

Afterwards, we sit down with the building owner, go through what we found, and explain which items need attention first. Where a finding is borderline, a fire engineer may be able to assess it through a performance solution rather than full rectification.

If you'd like a second set of eyes on your building's fire safety systems, talk to the team.

Talk to the team about your Mechanical Fire Safety needs.

Where Legionella really comes from, who is most at risk, and why cooling towers are so closely regulated

One of the questions we hear most often is some version of this: can I catch Legionella from my air conditioning? It's an understandable worry, especially after a news story about an outbreak. The short answer is no. Legionella doesn't come out of the vents and grilles in your office, shop or home.

The bacteria linked to most large outbreaks come from cooling towers, a specific piece of plant used on larger commercial buildings. Knowing the difference helps building owners focus on the right risk.

Where Legionella Actually Comes From

Legionella bacteria live naturally in water. They become a problem when they're given the right conditions to multiply, such as warm, still water, sludge and biofilm, and poor water treatment.

A cooling tower can provide exactly those conditions if it isn't looked after. Cooling towers work by evaporating water to reject heat from a building's air conditioning. That process involves warm water and moving air, and it releases fine water droplets into the air around the tower.

Most split systems, ducted residential units, and car air conditioners don't use a cooling tower. They use air to reject heat, not open evaporating water. The air coming out of their vents isn't the source of Legionella, as many people imagine.

How It Actually Spreads

People get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in fine droplets of contaminated water. With a cooling tower, those droplets are released from the top and can be carried by the wind.

That means people most likely to be exposed are often outside the building, nearby or downwind, rather than people inside. It also explains why outbreaks are usually investigated by mapping where affected people had been, then tracing back to towers in that area.

According to NSW Health, Legionnaires' disease is not normally spread from person to person.

Who Is Most at Risk

Most healthy people who come into contact with Legionella won't become seriously unwell. Some may have mild, flu-like symptoms.

The risk is much higher for some groups. NSW Health notes that middle-aged and older adults are most affected, particularly smokers and people with chronic lung disease, along with people whose immune systems are weakened by illness or medication. For them, Legionnaires' disease can cause serious pneumonia.

This is one reason cooling tower management matters so much near hospitals, aged care facilities and other places where vulnerable people live, work or visit.

Why Cooling Towers Are So Heavily Regulated

Because a poorly managed tower can affect people well beyond the building it serves, NSW closely regulates cooling towers. Owners must register each tower with council, have a risk management plan in place, test the water monthly, and have the system independently audited annually.

These rules exist because the risk is real but manageable. When a tower is properly treated, cleaned and tested, the risk of it becoming a source of Legionella is much lower. We cover what happens at each stage of that schedule in our post on monthly, quarterly and annual cooling tower servicing.

What Building Owners Can Do

If your building has a cooling tower, the most useful steps are practical ones:

•  Make sure the tower is registered and has a current risk management plan.

•  Check that monthly testing is happening and that results are being recorded.

•  Ask your contractor to tell you early if results are trending upwards, rather than waiting for a failed test.

•  Keep records organised for the annual audit.

If you don't have a cooling tower, the air conditioning in your building isn't a Legionella source in the way many people fear. Regular servicing still matters for comfort, efficiency and indoor air quality, which are separate issues.

Common Questions

Can I get Legionella from a split system air conditioner?

Split systems don't use open evaporating water the way cooling towers do, so they aren't the kind of system usually linked to Legionnaires' outbreaks.

Are the people inside a building with a cooling tower at risk?

The main exposure risk comes from droplets released from the tower and carried on the wind, so people nearby and downwind are usually the focus. A well-located and well-maintained tower keeps that risk low for everyone.

How often are cooling towers tested in NSW?

Cooling water must be sampled and tested monthly, and each system must be independently audited annually.

What happens if a test comes back high?

The owner must notify council within 24 hours, and the system is treated and retested until results are back within safe limits.

How We Approach It

We manage cooling towers on a planned schedule, with monthly testing, regular cleaning and clear records ready for the annual audit. We also explain results in plain terms, so building owners and facility managers know where they stand and what, if anything, needs to happen next.

If you have questions about your cooling tower, or you're not sure whether your building has one, talk to the team.

Talk to the team about your Chillers & Cooling Towers needs.

A plain-language guide to the cooling tower maintenance year in NSW

If your building has a cooling tower, you're probably paying for a maintenance contract with visits spread across the year. It isn't always clear what happens at each visit, or why some take an hour while others take most of a day.

The short answer is that cooling tower maintenance runs on a yearly schedule. Different work happens at different points in the year, and much of it is tied directly to NSW law. Here's how that schedule usually breaks down.

Why Cooling Towers Are Treated Differently

A cooling tower rejects heat from a building's air conditioning by evaporating water. Warm water, air and sunlight are good conditions for bacteria, including Legionella. If a tower isn't managed properly, that bacteria can grow and be carried away from the building in fine water droplets.

That's why cooling towers in NSW are regulated under the Public Health Regulation 2022, and why so much of the work involves testing and record-keeping, as well as mechanical repairs.

Every Month: Testing and Early Checks

Monthly visits are the backbone of the schedule. NSW requires monthly cooling water sampling and testing for Legionella and heterotrophic colony count, a general measure of bacteria in the water.

On a typical monthly visit, we also:

•  Check water treatment levels and dosing equipment.

•  Look for corrosion, scale, sludge or biofilm building up.

•  Check that fans, pumps and drift eliminators are working as they should.

•  Record what we found so it's ready for the next audit.

If a lab result comes back above the levels set in the regulation, the owner has to notify council within 24 hours, and the system needs to be treated and retested. Catching a rising trend early through regular monthly checks is the best way to avoid reaching that point.

Every Quarter: Deeper Cleaning

Quarterly visits are longer and more hands-on. Depending on the tower and its risk management plan, this is when the tower may be drained down, cleaned out and pressure washed to remove sludge and biofilm that chemical treatment alone won't shift.

Because the tower has to come offline for part of this, we plan these visits with the building manager to keep the impact on cooling to a minimum.

Every Year: The Independent Audit

Each year, an independent auditor must check the cooling water system against its risk management plan and the regulation. The auditor reviews the tower itself and the paperwork: test results, maintenance logs, and any corrective actions taken during the year.

There are a few other annual and ongoing obligations to keep track of:

•  Every cooling tower must be registered with the local council.

•  The tower must display a unique identification number issued by the council.

•  A risk management plan must be in place and reviewed at least every five years, or sooner if something changes.

•  Certificates for the risk management plan and the annual audit must be sent to council within seven days of completion.

NSW Health has more detail on the independent audit requirements.

Why the Records Matter as Much as the Work

Almost everything about cooling tower compliance comes back to proving it. When the auditor or council asks, you need to produce test results, service records and certificates for the whole year. Saying the work has been done isn't enough.

We've seen buildings where the tower itself was in reasonable shape, but the records had gaps. That's a compliance problem in its own right, and it's an easy one to avoid if records are kept as the work happens.

Is a Cooling Tower Still the Right Choice?

For some buildings, it's worth asking whether a cooling tower is still the best option. Alternative heat rejection systems now exist that don't rely on open evaporative cooling. These generally need less testing, less chemical treatment and less ongoing maintenance, which can also help with insurance.

Each option has trade-offs in cost, efficiency, and space, so it's a decision best made with good advice. When a tower is due for major work or replacement, it's a good time to have that conversation.

How We Approach It

We service cooling towers on a planned yearly schedule, with each visit aligned with regulations and your risk management plan. We keep the records organised so the annual audit isn't a scramble, and we tell you early if test results are trending the wrong way.

Where it helps, we also connect cooling tower performance with the rest of the plant, including your chillers and building management system, so we catch problems across the whole system.

If you'd like to review your current cooling tower program, talk to the team.

Talk to the team about your Chillers & Cooling Towers needs.

The accreditation behind fire safety assessments, and what to check before you engage a contractor

Plenty of mechanical contractors can install and service a fan. Far fewer are accredited to assess whether that fan, as part of a building's fire safety system, is performing to the standard the law requires. If you manage a commercial building in NSW, that difference matters every time your Annual Fire Safety Statement comes due.

This post explains what that accreditation involves, why the rules tightened, and what to ask a contractor before you hand them compliance work.

‍

What Changed in NSW

For a long time, the person assessing a building's fire safety measures didn't need any particular accreditation. Over time, the industry found that defects were being signed off and left unrepaired. Some of those buildings later had serious problems.

NSW responded by tightening the rules on who can do this work. Fire safety assessments for annual and supplementary fire safety statements must now be carried out by an accredited practitioner (fire safety). Fire Protection Association Australia approved the Fire Protection Accreditation Scheme for this purpose on 1 July 2020.

In practice, that means the people signing off this work have to prove their competence, sit assessments, and keep their accreditation current as standards change.

‍

Where Mechanical Services Fit Into an AFSS

An Annual Fire Safety Statement covers every essential fire safety measure in a building. That can include sprinklers, alarms, exit signs, fire doors and emergency lighting, as well as the mechanical systems that manage air and smoke.

That's where we usually come in. They include stair pressurisation, smoke exhaust, car park ventilation, air-handling shutdown, and fire dampers. Someone accredited for that category of work must test, measure, and document each one. In larger buildings, a fire services company often handles the wet and electrical measures and brings in a mechanical specialist for the air side.

‍

What It Takes to Hold the Accreditation

Getting accredited isn't a one-off course. Practitioners must demonstrate knowledge of the relevant standards and the specific fire safety measures they assess. They then need to keep up with ongoing professional development and renew their accreditation.

It's also a reading-heavy field. Much of the work involves reviewing standards, fire engineering reports, and building documentation line by line. Anyone who finds that kind of detail tedious tends not to stay long.

‍

Why Fewer People Do This Work Now

Tighter rules improved building safety. They also had a side effect. Some very experienced people in the industry, close to retirement, chose not to go through the new accreditation process. They took a lot of practical knowledge with them.

Add the time and cost of training, assessment, and renewal, plus the risk involved, and it's easy to see why relatively few businesses offer this service in any one region.

‍

The Insurance and Risk Side

Fire safety sign-off carries real responsibility. If a practitioner signs off a measure that later fails in a fire, the consequences can be serious. As a result, this work carries much higher professional indemnity and insurance requirements than general mechanical servicing.

For a building owner, that's a useful signal. A contractor with the right accreditation and cover has knowingly taken on that responsibility and has a strong reason to get the assessment right.

‍

What to Ask a Contractor Before You Engage Them

Before you appoint anyone to assess your building's fire safety measures, it's worth asking a few direct questions:

•  Who will actually carry out the assessment, and are they an accredited practitioner (fire safety)?

•  Which fire safety measures does their accreditation cover? Accreditation is issued for specific categories, so check it covers the systems in your building.

•  Can they show you current evidence of accreditation? FPA Australia publishes a register of accredited practitioners you can check.

•  What will you receive afterwards? You should get a clear report of what was tested, what passed, and what needs attention.

•  How do they handle findings that sit just outside the standard? A good contractor will explain your options, including whether a fire engineer could assess the issue, rather than defaulting to the most expensive fix.

‍

How We Approach It

Our team includes accredited practitioners who carry out mechanical fire safety assessments. That covers air handling, stair pressurisation, smoke exhaust and car park ventilation. We keep our training and accreditation current because standards keep changing, and our clients rely on us to know what's changed.

Sometimes we're engaged directly by building owners. Other times a fire services company brings us in to handle the mechanical testing within a wider AFSS. Either way, we test, report back in plain language, and work with fire engineers where a finding needs their input.

If your Annual Fire Safety Statement is coming up, or you're unsure whether your current assessments meet the requirements, talk to the team. You can also read more about us and how we work.

Talk to the team about your Mechanical Fire Safety needs.

If you've been told part of your building doesn't meet the exact wording of a fire safety standard, it's easy to assume the only fix is expensive structural rectification. For many building owners, that's the first and only option they're offered, and it's often the moment a straightforward compliance issue turns into a costly, stressful project.

That isn't always the case. The National Construction Code (NCC) allows for what's called a performance solution. Instead of meeting the written figure exactly, you show that an alternative still achieves the safety outcome the Code aims for, and the approach is then assessed and approved. Building owners are sometimes wary, but it's a recognised part of how compliance works in Australia. 

‍

Why Standards Aren't Always a Perfect Fit for Every Building

Australian Standards set precise requirements: a clearance distance, a fire rating duration, a specific configuration for a particular type of system. These figures are written to apply broadly, across an enormous range of building types, ages and layouts, which means they can't account for every possible real-world scenario.

In practice, existing or as-built buildings, particularly older ones or those with unusual layouts shaped by decades of renovations and changes of use, can fall just outside those exact figures in ways that don't necessarily affect safety. Requiring full rectification for every minor variance would be disproportionately costly for many building owners, and the building may still be safe and compliant.

‍

What a Performance Solution Actually Is

A performance solution is an alternative approach, developed by a qualified fire safety engineer, that demonstrates a level of safety at least equivalent to strict compliance with the written requirements. Rather than treating every deviation as a hard fail, the fire engineer looks at what the standard is actually trying to achieve, the underlying safety outcome, and assesses whether the alternative delivers that outcome just as effectively, even if it doesn't match the standard word for word.

This might involve additional testing, modelling or documentation to demonstrate the equivalent outcome, and the process is rigorous. It isn't a matter of simply asking for an exception. It's a formal engineering assessment that has to stand up to independent review before it's approved.

‍

Who's Involved and Who Makes the Final Call

A mechanical contractor can't determine this alone, and it shouldn't. In NSW, an accredited fire safety engineer develops a performance solution for fire safety; Fire and Rescue NSW is consulted on the design brief and assesses the final performance solution report, and the certifier must have that report before approving the work. That independent, multi-party review is what gives the outcome its credibility.

Our role, as part of our mechanical fire safety work, is to identify where this pathway may apply, gather the technical evidence needed to support the case, and work directly with a fire engineer to progress it through to an approved outcome. We're not the ones making the final compliance call; we're the ones making sure the right information gets in front of the people who do.

‍

Why This Approach Protects Building Owners

This isn't about avoiding compliance. It's about avoiding disproportionate costs for issues that don't materially affect safety, while still achieving an approved, documented result you can rely on if it's ever questioned down the track.

For a building owner facing a rectification quote that feels out of step with the actual issue, such as major works to correct something that sits only marginally outside the written standard, it's worth asking whether a performance solution could be the more sensible path. In many cases it is, and pursuing it properly can deliver substantial savings without compromising on safety.

‍

How We Approach It‍

We look at every compliance issue on its merits. Where a performance solution makes sense, we'll say so, and work with the right fire engineer to see it through the approval process properly. We won't recommend a costly rectification path where a legitimate, less disruptive alternative exists, and equally, we won't suggest a performance solution where the safety case doesn't support it.

If you've received a compliance recommendation that feels disproportionate to the issue at hand, talk to the team before committing to expensive rectification work. It costs nothing to have the conversation, and it may save you far more than that.

Talk to the team about your Mechanical Fire Safety needs.

‍