# What can I expect from a Fire Department Annual Inspection?



## Yikes (May 28, 2015)

I started to comment on this in another thread, but I figure it's worth its own discussion.  I have a quasi-municipal California client that runs a convention center consisting of multiple buildings constructed from the 1930's to the 2000s, all of which were plan-checked, built (with inspections), issued certificates of occupancy, and had many subsequent inspections.  Some buildings are also deemed historic.

A recent Fire Dept. annual inspection resulted in dozens of citations for non-compliance with the 2013 California Fire Code. However, they were not citing the minimum provisions of CFC Chapter 11 for existing buildings; rather, the fire inspector was treating all EXISTING structures as if they were subject to the requirements for NEW buildings.  Many of the citations are turning out to be bogus, because upon further research the buildings were in compliance with the code under which they were originally permitted.

When I challenged the inspector on this, he conceded that he did not have access to copies of the older codes, nor did he have the working knowledge of those codes, nor did he refer to the city's records for certificates of occupancy or inspections.  (It should be noted that those records would fill a file cabinet!).  He said that due to lack of time and experience, his approach was to simply write citations based on the 2013 code as if for new buildings, then leave it to the owner and their Design Professionals (me) to respond with research and explanation of the applicable older codes.

I disagree with this approach, even though I get business from helping defend my client.  I think that once a building has obtained C of O, the fire inspector has the responsibility to properly reference the older codes, and NOT shift the burden of proving ongoing compliance back to the owner.  Otherwise, that is like annually plan-checking the old buildings all over again.

What do you think?  Is it reasonable to expect a fire inspector to research and cite the old codes that still apply to the buildings?  Is it reasonable to expect them to access the old C of Os, and to have their own copy of codes going back to the 1930s?  I know they are busy, understaffed, etc., but that shouldn't be my client's problem, right?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 28, 2015)

Is it reasonable to expect a fire inspector to research and cite the old codes that still apply to the buildings? No

 Is it reasonable to expect them to access the old C of Os, and to have their own copy of codes going back to the 1930s? No

I know they are busy, understaffed, etc., but that shouldn't be my client's problem, right? Correct

Under the 2012 IFC he should be using 703, 704 , Chapter 8, 1030 for egress, and Chapter 11 as his references. All other code sections are not applicable unless he finds a significant threat to life or safety,


----------



## JBI (May 28, 2015)

An excellent case for better training for Fire Inspectors...


----------



## cda (May 28, 2015)

Ok don't lump us all in the same compost pile.

Yes that particular fire inspector needs training

Same can be said for "insert" ---------- inspector "of your choice".


----------



## Yikes (May 28, 2015)

mtlogcabin, the example I gave on another thread was that the inspector required a second exit door to be added to a room built in the 1970s, based on the occupant load exceeding 50.  The owner then asked my firm to evaluate the code, prepare a response, and create drawings to submit for plan check.

However, in the 1970 code second exits were only required when occupant load exceeded 100.  This room was already compliant with the code under which it was built.  My client paid my firm to study and respond to this issue because the fire inspector cited the new fire code for new buildings, rather than the appropriate 1970 code.

mtlogcabin, are you saying that he should not have even looked at this at all?


----------



## jdfruit (May 28, 2015)

Yikes;

Fire Inspectors really need to pay attention to ch 11 for existing buildings. In your example the Fire Inspector did not know the required scope for what was being inspected. Here is the section regarding means of egress that shows the code applicable when the building was constructed is applicable.

1104.1 General. Means of egress in existing buildings shall

comply with the minimum egress requirements when specified

in Table 1103.1 as further enumerated in Sections 1104.2

through 1104.24, and the building code that applied at the

time of construction. Where the provisions of this chapter

conflict with the building code that applied at the time of construction,

the most restrictive provision shall apply. Existing

buildings that were not required to comply with a building

code at the time of construction shall comply with the minimum

egress requirements when specified in Table 11 03.1 as

further enumerated in Sections 1104.2 through 1104.24.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 28, 2015)

> mtlogcabin, are you saying that he should not have even looked at this at all?


I am saying he should familiarize himself with the legacy codes used in his jurisdiction and the dates of when some of the major changes where adopted. Create a cheat sheet and carry it with him if needed

The IFC does have some retroactive requirements so your study and response may have some errors if you did not include the IFC

In your 1970 example did you look at common path of travel requirements as outlined in the IFC NOT the IBC?

IFC 1104.1 General.

Means of egress in existing buildings shall comply with the minimum egress requirements when specified in Table 1103.1 as further enumerated in Sections 1104.2 through 1104.24, and the building code that applied at the time of construction. Where the provisions of this chapter conflict with the building code that applied at the time of construction, the most restrictive provision shall apply

1104.19 Common path of egress travel.

The common path of egress travel shall not exceed the distances given in Table 1104.17.2.

A lot of numbers used in the legacy codes have been reduced in the I-Codes. If you do fire inspections you should be familiar with the older codes and the major changes.

I bet he does not call for quick response heads in all Light-Hazard occupancies as defined in NFPA 13 (Section 903.3.2) because he knows they did not exist before a certain date.

He needs training


----------



## RFDACM02 (Jul 30, 2015)

I take it there was no change of use? In my case we utilize the Life Safety Code for fire inspections and would apply the current LSC but utilize the "Existing" occupancy chapter. But, in our city any change of use require the new use to meet the "New" occupancy chapter.


----------

