Most people in the fire service think code compliance is a simple, straightforward process. Perhaps for some, but not for a guy like me. I’ve been a fire marshal for about 15 years now, and I’m just beginning to feel like I really understand the job. Here’s part of the reason why.
Complying with the fire code–thereby reducing the risk of fire–is the underlying reason for conducting compliance inspections. These inspections come in a number of forms, the most common of which is an “acceptance” inspection that follows the plan-review process for new construction or significant remodeling. Those are the times when many fire departments are actively involved in making sure the buildings comply with the latest building and fire codes–a complicated issue because it requires understanding where the building code stops and the fire code starts.
Generally, the building official has the responsibility for signing off and issuing a certificate of occupancy once a building has met all the codes. However, they would be wise to involve the fire department in making sure that sprinklers, alarms, water supply, fire department access and exiting are adequate before signing off. Part of the complexity is figuring out when to begin fire code enforcement.
What Would You Do?
Now consider the following scenario. The fire department is called to conduct an acceptance inspection of a fire sprinkler system. The inspector arrives only to discover that the general contractor is the one who called–not the fire sprinkler contractor. The general contractor is under an agreement with strict timelines and financial penalties for not meeting deadlines. The contractor has called for the inspection to pressure a sub-contractor to speed up. Maybe the fire inspector can help solve some problems while she’s on site.
In one variation of this scenario, the inspector spends extra time on the job trying to get things done on time. In another, the job is nowhere near completion, and the sub-contractor doesn’t wish to be held responsible for the additional inspection costs that will be required because the original permit allowed for just one of these inspections.
In yet another variation, the inspector arrives to discover that the sub-contractor called for one inspection, but actually wants three inspections. The inspector has many other inspections that day, and although she wants to be service-oriented, she’s faced with not getting her work done that day.
In still another scenario, the inspector finds that the sprinkler system has been installed correctly, and signs off on the system. Later, another sub-contractor (electrical) installs the lighting in the apartment complex, blocking some of the sprinkler heads in the process. When conducting a final inspection on the smoke alarms, the inspector realizes that even though the sprinklers were put in properly and signed off as compliant with the code, a subsequent construction action has made them non-code-compliant.
Now the fight starts over who is responsible for bringing the fire sprinkler system back into compliance. The fire sprinkler contractors maintain that the system was approved and it’s not their problem. The electrical contractor says that any sprinkler fitter knows that the lights always go in the center of the room and should have planned for it. The general contractor shares some responsibility for plans that show both lighting and sprinklers.
There’s more than enough finger-pointing to go around, and no one wants to change their system because it’s an additional expense they hadn’t figured into their bid. Everyone wants the fire marshal to come up with some creative solution from the section of the code that allows alternate materials and methods. And no one wants to pay for the additional inspections required because the fire department already signed off.
Conclusion
To a straightforward person the answer is simple: “Not my problem. Move the lights or the sprinklers, and I’ll be back when you tell me the job is done.” But for those trying to make problem solving part of the code-enforcement process, it becomes a time-consuming morass of trying to find solutions, bill the guilty parties for the extra time and penalize those who repeatedly violate the rules.
It’s anything but simple from my perspective. As issues become more complex, it takes more time and effort to do the job properly. The bottom line: The job almost never goes according to plan.
