People often refer to inspections in generic terms–and in so doing, get the entire concept of code enforcement mixed up. An inspection is an inspection, right? The answer is no.
For those involved in fire code inspections, the more accurate question is: What’s the difference between inspections for new construction and existing buildings?
The Similarities
Whether in new or old buildings, fire code inspections tend to cover similar territory, at least in broad terms. Both may be governed by aspects of the fire and/or building codes. Typically, that includes things such as fire department access during times of emergency and water supply. Both usually cover fire sprinklers, fire alarms, fire department connections and, to some extent, exiting requirements.
Inspections for new construction–what we generally call “acceptance” inspections–are designed to demonstrate that what’s being constructed in the field matches code requirements and matches what’s on the approved plans. Sometimes what’s approved on the plans doesn’t precisely match the prescriptive code requirements. The section of the code that allows “alternate materials and methods” provides an opportunity to modify the code to deal with the real world.
It’s a variation especially worth noting because acceptance inspections must take into account the fact that two different people may be involved in the process: one reviewing the plans and another conducting the field acceptance inspections. If they’re not communicating, problems may ensue and customers can become angry as a result of the differing messages.
What I call “regular” inspections are those done on existing buildings. But a fire code compliance inspection for existing buildings can fall victim to the same scenario and the related customer dissatisfaction when corrections are erroneously ordered. That’s why as inspectors, we have an obligation to find out what has been approved before ordering corrections, or at least take the time to look up the records when a business owner resists corrections because they think the business is compliant.
In this respect, there is little difference between inspections. How, then, are they significantly different?
The Differences
First, the code changes, and for good reason. We learn each time a disaster occurs how to prevent a similar one; over time, the code incorporates those lessons learned. As a result, existing buildings may be regulated by older codes in which safety requirements were different.
And that is the heart of the difference between “acceptance” and “regular” fire code inspections: We’re regulating buildings in our jurisdictions using variations of the same code. That can get confusing to both field inspectors and our customers.
The second difference is more political. A mistake in communication of either type can create customer-service complaints. But it’s far easier to correct them during the construction process. You can ask for almost anything during construction–even an erroneous change–and you’ll generally get less concern, and maybe even grudging compliance, because it’s easier and less expensive to correct things during the construction process.
Making changes after the building is actually constructed and in use, however, is much more expensive and time-consuming. Even when we find longstanding violations that should have been corrected under codes in existence at the time, we can find ourselves (as regulators) faced with significant practical problems because of the expense of making those corrections.
As a result, we often must consider alternate materials and methods years after the code was developed as they relate to a particular building. And we may have to come up with creative timelines for compliance based on these real-world situations.
In a Nutshell
The main difference in inspections is in HOW we administer both types. Managing field inspections for existing businesses is more of an art than a science, and far more political than a simple process of identifying hazards and correcting them.
