This no doubt will be one of the more complex and controversial topics I’ll cover. I don’t want to bite off more than I can chew in a short column but suffice it to say we must reconsider the code-compliance process the scope of the fire code and the reach of related standards. How much can be effectively accomplished? Which of our regulations have the greatest impact on public safety? And finally has the fire code become so complex that the inspection process can’t be managed effectively?
What’s the Code
Let me begin by describing the code enforcement/compliance process for those who are not familiar with how complex it really is.
It’s one measure of understanding for example to recognize that fire sprinklers are required by the building or fire code but quite another to recognize the difference in the type mandated. The accompanying installation standard (NFPA 13) gives enforcers even more responsibility for how they should be installed.
And any requirements placed on installers must be thoroughly understood by inspectors: things like seismic bracing the spacing among the types of stabilizing materials and even the details about what size and type of screws must be used to anchor the braces.
Wait there’s more. Fire safety systems once approved must also be regularly inspected and maintained. Another NFPA standard requires weekly monthly and annual inspection testing and maintenance cycles. In some cases the level of expertise of the people performing the installation testing and maintenance is also mandated. But who makes sure these contractors are meeting requirements and that their work meets standards? It’s unclear.
Case in Point
In my jurisdiction regular reports must be submitted by building owners to the authority having jurisdiction to make sure any problems are identified and fixed. While reviewing these reports one of our lead deputies Dave Smith actually uncovered an inspection-and-maintenance report that indicated smoke alarms in the elevator shaft of this building were working properly. The problem: The building didn’t have elevators. We began to question the accuracy of all reports.
In short we had no authority to regulate the contractor doing the work but we could penalize the unwitting building owner for providing a confidence report that was obviously incorrect. In the end we sought and received authority to hold the contractors responsible.
But even when reporting is honest the responsibility of correcting inadequate systems is not necessarily that of the contractor performing the inspection and maintenance–it’s the responsibility of the fire inspector to ensure corrections take place. These additional testing-and-maintenance reports exist for fire sprinklers alarms commercial cooking vent systems fire extinguishers and some other safety features. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Too Much?
Where will we find the resources to conduct the full code-compliance process from plan review to acceptance inspections to regular maintenance inspections to monitoring confidence reports to keeping accurate enough records to actually tell what is outstanding for hazard abatement? Is this even possible?
If we simply do our best what’s the impact? I often wonder: What three code-compliance regulations matter most? What–gasp–could be thrown out?
These are difficult questions. But we should be examining what fire inspectors add to the fire and building codes. We may consider eliminating aspects of the code found to have little or no value for public safety.
Conclusion
More honest dialogue research and critical thought are needed on this topic. Placing individual inspectors in harm’s way by piling on too much is not a good option: What they might miss under the wrong circumstances could have dire consequences.
It’s up to us as leaders and policymakers to start looking hard at what we are doing and how much is required to do it right. This includes those like fire chiefs and elected officials who have little idea about how the code compliance process actually works. In fact it’s imperative such decision makers come on board–it’s the best way perhaps the only way to address the dire state of our current operations.
