Thread: Are you performing fire door inspections?

NFPA 80 establishes a mandatory 1-year inspection of all fire rated doors.
The previous code has always stated that the building owner had to maintain fire rated openings in a manner for which they were intended. Fire officials have always tried to enforce this, but now the NFPA (National Fire Prevention Association) has given the officials some power to enforce this by creating a Mandatory Annual Inspection Program of all fire rated openings in a building by a certified party.

I believe fire doors should be inspected every year by trained, qualified property inspectors. These inspections can not be performed by local inspectors (AHJs) and fire marshals; there simply aren't enough of them to inspect the billions of fire doors across the country.

Home inspectors should be doing these fire door inspections. Do you agree?

Similar Threads:

• Fire marshal defends departments - Durham Herald Sun
• Home inspections key to helping buyers make sound decision - Chicago Daily Southtown
• Fire prompts evacuation at Little Promises - Sweet Home New Era
• MYSTERY FIRE KILLS WOMAN - NW Evening Mail
• House fire on Goulais Mission Road - SooToday.com

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

Home inspectors should be doing these fire door inspections. Do you agree?

No.

The fire marshals should be doing that as part of their annual inspection.

What this will come down to is: What is the definition of a fire door inspection and what does the inspection consist of?

Typically, this inspection would be that it self-closes and latches, were required, and that the door is maintained in good condition (i.e., not rusted out, not falling off its jambs, etc.), and the fire marshals already look at fire doors for that stuff anyway (at least the fire marshals I know do).

I would hate to be the home inspector who starts inspecting fire doors and a fire actually happens, and the fire door does not perform as intended ... I doubt that any home inspector carries enough insurance to cover something like that.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

NFPA 80 establishes a mandatory 1-year inspection of all fire rated doors.
The previous code has always stated that the building owner had to maintain fire rated openings in a manner for which they were intended. Fire officials have always tried to enforce this, but now the NFPA (National Fire Prevention Association) has given the officials some power to enforce this by creating a Mandatory Annual Inspection Program of all fire rated openings in a building by a certified party.

I believe fire doors should be inspected every year by trained, qualified property inspectors. These inspections can not be performed by local inspectors (AHJs) and fire marshals; there simply aren't enough of them to inspect the billions of fire doors across the country.

Home inspectors should be doing these fire door inspections. Do you agree?

Is this something that the insurance company will require or each fire station must receve an inspection report by the home owner by June 30 of each year?

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

Is this something that the insurance company will require or each fire station must receve an inspection report by the home owner by June 30 of each year?

Ron,

What "homeowner" has a "fire door" which would need to be inspected?

You will only find "fire doors" on non-residential structures. Even in condo structures the fire doors are not related to the dwelling unit, the fire doors are related to the common structure, thus even then (in condos and apartments) the owner/occupant has no fire door which they would need to have inspected.

20-minute doors are an acceptable option for the home/attached garage separation, yes?


AFAIK, NFPA doesn't have any authority or power to give or grant to local fire officials in their official capacities.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No.

The fire marshals should be doing that as part of their annual inspection.

I thought that fire marshals do not actually do the inspections, and that the AHJ is the one responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation or a procedure (AHJ as defined by NFPA).

Since there are limited number of AHJ and their related inspectors (and even fewer fire marshals), there's a need for trained, qualified individuals to perform these fire-door inspections.

Here's a quote from an article I'm reading about the subject.

Ultimately, the building owner is the party who is responsible for making sure the inspections take place and that the fire-rated door assemblies within the structure are properly maintained. AHJs will confirm the inspections have occurred by reviewing the documentation and verifying that necessary corrective actions were taken to repair assemblies that were found to have deficiencies. The role of the inspector is to simply record and report the condition of the door assemblies to the owner. The owner will have to decide if, when, and what corrective actions will be taken; otherwise, they will run the risk of being cited for violations by the AHJ. Understand, inspectors are not passing or failing door assemblies, nor are they approving them. Only the AHJ has the authority to approve, in this case, the door assemblies and building elements within their jurisdiction. Accordingly, inspectors will not be permitted to threaten to shut down a building as leverage to force compliance. Similarly, inspectors will not be authorized to issue citations or monetary fines when openings with deficiencies are discovered.

Inspection of fire-rated door assemblies: this article will attempt to explain the new inspection requirements and allay these c - Entrepreneur.com

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

20-minute doors are an acceptable option for the home/attached garage separation, yes?

As you so eloquently stated, they are an "option" ... and not a requirement, and they are not in a fire-resistance rated wall, and fire marshals do not (at least not normally, not unless a situation has arisen) inspect residences for compliance to the NFPA fire codes.

Ben,

Also from that article, following along the lines of what I said previously:

"Liability for the maintenance and care of fire-rated door assemblies rests solidly on the shoulders of the building owners and/or their representatives. However, in today's society no one is immune from being sued and an inspector is a possible candidate, especially if problems arise subsequent to an inspection. Proper documentation of the inspections will help to protect the inspectors should legal proceedings be initiated."

Everyone reading this knows that the inspector will be the one placed in the spotlight even though "Ultimately, the building owner is the party who is responsible for making sure the inspections take place and that the fire-rated door assemblies within the structure are properly maintained." because it was "the inspector" who "advised" the building owner on what and which doors needed maintenance, and the owner will carry a very persuasive argument that *if the inspector had stressed that THAT PARTICULAR DOOR needed repair or replacement I WOULD HAVE REPAIRED OR REPLACED that particular door* ... and ... "no one would have died as a result of the door not operating properly". You know, as we all know, that is what will happen, and the owner will be able to afford a much better attorney than the inspector will ...

There are jurisdictions in which fire officials perform certain life safety and occupancy type inspections on otherwise single-family, two-family and townhomes. Local Fire officials are oftentimes an authority having jurisdiction, depends on the organization of State and local government and responsibilities in the locale.

Certain annual events or other events that might trigger such an inspection may include transfer of ownership (some jurisdictions enforce inspections and required documentation prior to a property transfer), rental license inspections (non-owner occupied dwellings), and in-home small family day care licenses.

So we have a sale... Will Real Estate agents get in on the game ? In Calif. They are required to do a Real Estate agent inspection...

Is this another way for the city, County or state to have access to the interior of our homes?

Best

Ron

At least in my home city, the only fire related safety related item required to be inspected in my 2-3 story rental properties are smoke and CO alarms (for location) and the sprinkler system back-flow devices (if present)... they don't need no stinkn' door inspectors.

Maybe we could have GFI inspectors... and smoke alarm inspectors..... and we could change the grease in the deadbolt locks yearly to make sure it works okay....

Is this thread for real or has somebody had one too many 4th of July margaritas?

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

[=2]]Home inspectors should be doing these fire door inspections. Do you agree?[/FONT][/SIZE]

No. There is no national standard for home inspector testing or licensing and no set inspection report form we all have to use either. Placing this inspection responsibility on an unregulated group would not be a good idea. It's not to say we can't look for some of these things in our inspections and recommend upgrades/repairs as needed but we as a profession have no authority to enforce any rules and regs, nor do I think we should.

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

Is this thread for real or has somebody had one too many 4th of July margaritas?

Considering the source, I'm expecting to see a fancy logo, and certified master fire door inspectors pop up in just a few weeks.

Can someone in California confirm the following?

----

California Building Code (CBC)
Effective as of January 1, 2009

Pg 601: Adoption of NFPA 80- 07 Pg 701: Item 8 chapter 35
This supplement becomes enforceable on August 1, 2009 All buildings must be in compliance with the following:

5.2 Inspections

5.2.1 Fire door assemblies shall be inspected and tested not less than annually, and a written record of the inspection shall be signed and kept for inspection by the authority having jurisdiction. (NFPA 80 2007)

5.2.3.1 Functional testing of fire door and window assemblies shall be performed by individuals with knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the type of door being subject to testing. (NFPA 80 2007)

5.2.3.2 Before testing, a visual inspection shall be performed to identify any damaged or missing parts that can create a hazard during testing or affect operation or resetting. (NFPA 80 2007)

5.2.2 Performance-Based Option 5.2.2.1 As an alternate means of compliance with 5.2.1, subject to the AHJ, fire door assemblies shall be permitted to be inspected, tested, and maintained under a written performance based program.

Most (if not all) states have adopted the IBC and IFC building and construction codes. Since both IBC and IFC 2009 editions reference NFPA 80, 2007 edition, each of those states (unless specifically altered by the AHJ) are ready to go with implementation of the annual fire door inspection requirement. Agree?

Check the following link. States that have adopted the codes that reference NFPA 80 and 101.
International Code Adoptions

Looking up your state code (in relation to Fire Door Inspections):

To find out what codes your state has adopted, visit: International Code Adoptions

Click on your state. Read the codes your state has adopted. You can scroll down to your county and read which codes your county has adopted.

Question:

What if the code your state or county has adopted references another code or standard?

Let’s take Colorado, for example.
Using the link above, we find all of the codes the state of Colorado and Boulder county in particular have adopted. They are:

Colorado Statewide:

All State Buildings & Facilities: IBC, IMC, IPC, IFGC, IECC. All Public Schools & Junior Colleges: IBC, IFC, IMC, IPC, IFGC

* 2006 International Building Code
* 2006 International Energy Conservation Code
* 2006 International Fire Code
* 2006 International Fuel Gas Code
* 2006 International Mechanical Code
* 2006 International Plumbing Code
* 2006 International Residential Code
* 2006 International Existing Building Code

Boulder County

* 2006 International Building Code
* 2006 International Energy Conservation Code
* 2006 International Fuel Gas Code
* 2006 International Mechanical Code
* 2006 International Plumbing Code
* 2006 International Residential Code
* 2006 International Urban-Wildland Interface Code

We see that Colorado and Boulder County has adopted the IBC 2006. Let’s see what the IBC 2006 says about referenced code.

Go to the International Building Code (IBC) 2006

It states:

Section 101.4 Reference Codes. The other codes listed in Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.

The sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 reference ICC Electrical Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Plumbing Code, International Property Maintenance Code, International Fire Code, and International Energy Conservation Code.

Chapter 35 of the IBC is titled Referenced Standards and lists the standards that are referenced in various sections of the IBC. These standards are an extension of the IBC code and become law to the extent to which they are referenced. A standard is a published technical document that represents an industry consensus on how a material or assembly is to be designed, manufactured, tested, or installed in order for a specific level of performance to be obtained. Although the code establishes the minimum quality and performance criteria for a material, installation or method of design, the code relies on the reference standards to provide the criteria to determine whether a material or method is in compliance with the code provisions.

Among the referenced standards are NFPA 80 Fire Doors and Fire Windows and NFPA 101 Life Safety Code.

Most important point:

Referenced standards in the IBC are considered part of the code, which allows them to be as enforceable as the code itself.

What is important about NFPA 80?

NFPA 80 now establishes a mandatory 1-year inspection of all fire rated doors.

The previous NFPA 80 code has always stated that the building owner had to maintain fire rated openings in a manner for which they were intended. Fire officials have always tried to enforce this, but now the NFPA (National Fire Prevention Association) has given the officials some power to enforce this, by creating a Mandatory Annual Inspection Program of all fire rated openings in a building by a certified party.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

5.2.3.1 Functional testing of fire door and window assemblies shall be performed by individuals with knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the type of door being subject to testing. (NFPA 80 2007)

And you don't think that "functional testing of" is not taking on a very high amount of liability?

I suspect your idea of "functional testing" and mine must a LOT different.

Here is an example: You have a large building with fire doors which are held open electrically. To do ANY type of "functional testing" one would need to activate the alarm system, verify the door closes with the time frame specified, closes and latches as tightly as specified, and that ALL other aspects of the door serve their functional purpose, and that the door can be opened within the forces allowed for opening a door (maximum 30 pound force to begin to open the door and then maximum 15 pound force anywhere in the doors swing to fully open), and any thing else which is required for a fire door to function properly.

Shucks, one could retire after doing an inspection of all the fire doors in a large hospital.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And you don't think that "functional testing of" is not taking on a very high amount of liability?

I suspect your idea of "functional testing" and mine must a LOT different.

Here is an example: You have a large building with fire doors which are held open electrically. To do ANY type of "functional testing" one would need to activate the alarm system, verify the door closes with the time frame specified, closes and latches as tightly as specified, and that ALL other aspects of the door serve their functional purpose, and that the door can be opened within the forces allowed for opening a door (maximum 30 pound force to begin to open the door and then maximum 15 pound force anywhere in the doors swing to fully open), and any thing else which is required for a fire door to function properly.

Shucks, one could retire after doing an inspection of all the fire doors in a large hospital.

The one thing home inspectors know how to do is test/inspect for functionality.
And we take on liability issues in our work everyday.

So, I'm saying, "Yes." Properly trained property inspectors are more than qualified to perform annual fire door inspections in relation to NFPA 80.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And you don't think that "functional testing of" is not taking on a very high amount of liability?

I suspect your idea of "functional testing" and mine must a LOT different.

Here is an example: You have a large building with fire doors which are held open electrically. To do ANY type of "functional testing" one would need to activate the alarm system, verify the door closes with the time frame specified, closes and latches as tightly as specified, and that ALL other aspects of the door serve their functional purpose, and that the door can be opened within the forces allowed for opening a door (maximum 30 pound force to begin to open the door and then maximum 15 pound force anywhere in the doors swing to fully open), and any thing else which is required for a fire door to function properly.

Shucks, one could retire after doing an inspection of all the fire doors in a large hospital.

The way you have stated this Jerry... Only a Professional door installer and repair mechanic could do this kind of inspection...

How many door companies are there and each one has there own set up...Ive been inspecting homes for a long time and this type of inspection would require me to go back to school and the only after inspecting a few 100 doors would I sign my name to something...

Soulds like one could make a lot of money just inspecting fire doors...

But one problem I see with this new law. We are losing our fire station at like a rate of one a day.. The fire dept has no money to inforce this new law. to the back of the room with this one...

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

The one thing home inspectors know how to do is test/inspect for functionality.

To the contrary, home inspectors are testing/inspecting for things which are NOT functioning and report same, and if the home inspector does not find something to be NOT functioning, they report it as 'functioning acceptably well' (there is all kinds of language for reporting 'functioning/functional'.

That specifically requires testing FOR function, i.e., "functional testing", and that requires an entirely DIFFERENT set of challenges and scope of what is being done.

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

The way you have stated this Jerry... Only a Professional door installer and repair mechanic could do this kind of inspection...

Ron,

That is precisely my point.

Testing/inspecting for functionality, i.e., "functional testing", is a BIG STEP from what home inspectors do when testing/inspecting for NOT functioning conditions/signs/evidence.

Testing/inspecting for NOT functioning is documenting 'what one finds WRONG' - and then write up what one finds WRONG.

Testing/inspecting for functioning is documenting 'that it all works as it was designed and intended to work' - and then certify that it all works as it was designed and intended to work.

BIG difference between the two.

Anyone every tested windows with a garden hose to see it the window leaked? THAT would be testing to find what was NOT functioning.

Anyone ever tested windows with a proper, calibrated, ASTM spray rack with negative pressure chamber on the inside? THAT is testing for functioning as designed and intended. I have done this, it is no simple matter, takes time and people to set up and operate, this is typically a minimum 2 man operation with witnesses from the interested parties watching on, and all readings are documented, with the outcome being documented, and the documented information is compared to the allowable values in the ASTM standard you are testing to, there is no 'Well, I don't see any leaks from the garden hose spraying water on the window so it must be okay.' stuff here. This stuff is REAL, and you had better have your act together and your equipment calibrated.

However, with a window test, a bumbled test might mean a window leaks (which still results in big money to cover the loss you created when you messed the test up), however, a bumbled fire door test might mean people die (and that is going to be a real killer - pun intended - for most home inspectors to try to handle and cover).

Insurance companies sometimes require alarm systems to be tested and certified, especially fire alarms. When I do the testing it is very detailed, and everything is documented. Not only do I test the system, the user must also receive instruction on the operation. The system user (operator) is trained in the proper operation of the system. Then the operator has to demonstrate they can operate the system. Instruction includes how to detect a system fault, and what to do.
It gets pretty involved.

I can see that testing fire exits would require special training and, in depth knowledge of how the fire exit system operates. I did say SYSTEM not component, because it is a system that is being tested. Remember a large part of the system are the operators.

BTW since the certification is required, these jobs pay pretty good.

The role of the fire door inspector is to simply record and report the condition of the door assemblies to the owner. The building owner will have to decide if, when, and what corrective actions will be taken; otherwise, they will run the risk of being cited for violations by the AHJ.

Inspectors are not passing or failing door assemblies, nor are they approving them. Inspectors inspect, record and report the condition. (That's a task that's very familiar to property inspectors.) Only the AHJ has the authority to approve, in this case, the door assemblies and building elements within their jurisdiction.

Liability for the maintenance and care of fire-rated door assemblies rests solidly on the shoulders of the building owners. However, in today’s society no one is immune from being sued and an inspector is a possible candidate, especially if problems arise subsequent to an inspection. Proper documentation of the inspections and proof of proper training will help to protect the inspectors should legal proceedings be initiated.

I think fire door inspections and property inspectors are a perfect match. IMHO 80% of the skill set is already there. Home inspectors just need another 20% of specific knowledge about fire doors.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

The role of the fire door inspector is to simply record and report the condition of the door assemblies to the owner.

That is not what that says.

You are completely missing, or maybe ignoring, what YOU posted and what that REQUIRES.

It does not require a record and report of "the condition of the door assemblies", it requires (from your post on the California Code) "5.2.3.1 Functional testing of".

Ben, it would be beneficial to ALL home inspectors you did not try to sell unworthy activities when specific activities are required. It is not beneficial, even if the price is "free" ... as that simply floods the marketplace with people who have no idea what they should be doing and you will simply be adding more fuel to the fire as to the lack of knowledge and integrity of home inspectors in general.

It is truly a shame that there are people like you and your affiliated association who try to peddle junk marketing for personal/affiliated gain.

Tell Nick that if he really wants something set up that I will help, but that help will not be cheap, there will not be any easy "certifications" and ... wait, I've lost you and him right there with ... "that help will not be cheap" and "will not be any easy "certifications" ".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

... That is not what that says. ...

It says - 5.2.3.1 Functional testing of fire door and window assemblies shall be performed by individuals with knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the type of door being subject to testing.

Anybody can perform this inspection (with the proper training).
The inspection is the responsibility of the owner, “performed by individuals with knowledge and understanding."

NFPA does not require a building owner to bring a third-party in to their facility to inspect the fire doors. The building owner just has to ensure that the inspections are performed.

And performed by individuals with knowledge and understanding; and that written records are maintained. NFPA 80 allows for people on the facility staff to perform this function if they choose.

IMHO. It's no big deal. I believe home inspectors can do fire door inspections. The "functional testing" is fairly straight-forward. It's basically: check for holes, things unsecured, missing, broken, clearances, self-closing, latching, no modifications, gaskets, level, plumb, no blockage, attachment, no interference, lubrication, labels, glazing, etc.

Easy stuff for a properly trained home inspector with fire door knowledge and understanding.

The role of the fire door inspector is to simply record and report the condition of the door assemblies to the owner.
Ben, I feel that you greatly over simplify the role of someone testing a life safety device.

Inspectors are not passing or failing door assemblies, nor are they approving them.
How do you figure that, the whole purpose of an inspection is to identify defects and report them. By reporting that you did or did not find any defects you are in fact certifying that the system either passed or did not pass.

Inspectors inspect, record and report the condition.
BTW I think you should not say "inspect", it should be "test".
They are not the same. An inspector may inspect a roof and report that no leaks were seen, however the inspector does not test the roof for leaks. Fire exits would require testing the device.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

IMHO. It's no big deal.

I understand that is what you think, and that is the problem - it IS a BIG DEAL.

Please refer to NFPA 80 5.2.3 Functional Testing.
It clearly defines what functional testing is and is not.
Have you read NFPA Chapter 5?

I suggest you'll be surprised to find the Standard's language simple and its clarity easy to understand; therefore, within the skill set of properly trained home inspectors.

I have some experience in SOPs and developing training to bring inspectors in compliance with those Standards.

Again, I believe NFPA Chapter 5 and 6 is no big deal. Home inspectors can do it, with the proper training. And that's what I've decided to concentrate my immediate future efforts upon. In doing that, I can help inspectors diversify their services, and stay in business, particularly in these challenging times.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

Please refer to NFPA 80 5.2.3 Functional Testing.
It clearly defines what functional testing is and is not.

5.2.3 Functional Testing.
- 5.2.3.1 Functional testing of fire door and window assemblies shall be performed by individuals with knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the type of door being subject to testing.
- 5.2.3.2 Before testing, a visual inspection shall be performed to identify any damaged or missing parts that can create a hazard during testing or affect operation or resetting.

Let's read through that:
5.2.3 Functional Testing
- - Jerry's comment: This is just the heading of this section.
- 5.2.3.1 Functional testing of fire door and window assemblies shall be performed by individuals with knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the type of door being subject to testing.
- - Jerry's comment: This simply states the general inspector qualifications/knowledge.
- 5.2.3.2 Before testing, a visual inspection shall be performed to identify any damaged or missing parts that can create a hazard during testing or affect operation or resetting.
- - Jerry's comment: This states that BEFORE TESTING, a visual inspection shall be performed. This does not state that *the testing* "is" a visual inspection.

Okay, now show me where "It clearly defines what functional testing is and is not." I am waiting.

You probably are confused with 5.2.5 Horizontally Sliding, Vertically Sliding, and Rolling Doors which defines what the visual inspection is for those doors.

You need to continue down to 5.2.6, that tells you what I told you in my posts above. (bold and underlining are mine)
- 5.2.6 Inspection shall include an operational test for automatic-doors and windows to verify that the assembly will close under fire conditions.

And, of course, you will be required to:
- 5.2.7 Assembly shall be reset after a successful test.
- 5.2.8 Resetting of the release mechanism shall be done in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

Which, again, goes back to my posts above.

However, all of this may be moot for the majority of fire door you are talking about (one would need to check the new NFPA 80-2010 to see what the wording is now, but it is probably similar): (bold and underlining are mine)
- 1.3* Retroactivity.
- - 1.3.1 This standard is based on product and engineering practices recognized as acceptable at the date of issue.
- - 1.3.2 Unless otherwise noted, it is not intended that the provisions of this document be applied to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that were existing or approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of the document.
- - 1.3.3 In those cases where it is determined by the AHJ that the existing situation involves a distinct hazard to life or property, retroactive application of the provisions of this document shall be permitted.

The above means you would need to go back to the NFPA 80 edition in effect at the time the structure was approved for construction and see if the requirement for testing was present in that NFPA 80 edition, or, if one had access to the older editions, go through them and find the edition which first addressed the annual testing of the fire doors, then compare that wording with subsequent editions. I do not have that capability, if you do, please document here what you find.

Like I said, "Easy for home inspectors to do."

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

Like I said, "Easy for home inspectors to do."

Which goes along with on-line "Certification", that is "easy for home inspectors to do" also.

Now you're talking my language!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

...

The above means you would need to go back to the NFPA 80 edition in effect at the time the structure was approved for construction and see if the requirement for testing was present in that NFPA 80 edition, or, if one had access to the older editions, go through them and find the edition which first addressed the annual testing of the fire doors, then compare that wording with subsequent editions. I do not have that capability, if you do, please document here what you find.

I disagree.
Neither I nor any inspector has to do anything like that you have suggested (comparing the editions of codes/standards with one another).

AHJs have the final say as to the interpretation and enforcement of the adopted code and standards (exclusive of the edition/year).

AHJs love empowerment. They are empowered when they are able to enforce code and standards that protect property and lives in their community. Presently, AHJs are not able to enforce code and standards because they are under-staffed and under-paid. AHJs are looking to 3rd-party inspectors (3rd-party, arbitrary, qualified inspectors) to help them to get owners of commercial buildings (new and existing) to comply with their community's current, adopted code. (all imho)

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

I disagree.
Neither I nor any inspector has to do anything like that you have suggested (comparing the editions of codes/standards with one another).

Let me get this straight:

1) You are telling home inspectors to get trained to do fire door inspections.

2) Fire door inspections may not even be required on the majority of buildings.

3) And it is not your, nor their, responsibility to actually determine how many, or which buildings, even need those inspections. Just that you are telling all home inspectors to go out there and do something which may, or may not (depending on when that annual inspection wording came in), even be required.

Did I get that right?

It would seem to me that it would be your first responsibility to KNOW when such a requirement came into being and KNOW (based on when it came in) which buildings and roughly how many buildings would need annual fire door inspections.

Let's say that annual inspection wording came in in 2007 (which seems to be the date where all the activity I found in searching the internet goes to), that would mean that buildings OLDER THAN 2007 DO NOT REQUIRE those annual inspections.

That would be one heck of a lot of buildings which DO NOT require those annual inspections.

To me, it seems that YOU should have that answer embedded into your memory so you could dispel those questions immediately. Or is it that you do know that answer but it does not benefit your cause?

Just curious.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Let's say that annual inspection wording came in in 2007 (which seems to be the date where all the activity I found in searching the internet goes to), that would mean that buildings OLDER THAN 2007 DO NOT REQUIRE those annual inspections.

Incorrect.
It's up to the AHJ to interpret, apply and enforce the code to new and/or existing buildings. That's what the NFPA 80 says.

And just because "something" was built to code back then, doesn't mean it's safe today.

In fact, we've found that most material defects discovered during a residential home inspection are related to items that were once built to code.

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome association"?

Jerry, thank you for your clarity. B. G. appears quite the snake oil salesman, keen on obfuscation and self promotion. What troubles me is that I've been considering joining that organization because many of the online tutorials are quite good, but I've also seen some shameful and misleading salesmanship from a few associates that could end in trouble for members. Reminds me of pyramid schemes.... I've also seen good stuff from them, but it doesn't take many bad apples, or merely morally ambiguous ones, to put a whole organization in question, and anyone else by extension.
Still considering it- I can pick and choose information, and forums such as this are enormously helpful for outing the chafe.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

It's up to the AHJ to interpret, apply and enforce the code to new and/or existing buildings. That's what the NFPA 80 says.

Jeez, Ben, you sounded like an educated fellow who could read, but here, allow me to show you what you are missing (okay, part of what you are missing, it has already taken w-a-y t-o-o l-o-n-g to show you what I've already shown that you are missing):

I will use red, with or without underlining and with or without bold, for highlighting this time:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

However, all of this may be moot for the majority of fire door you are talking about (one would need to check the new NFPA 80-2010 to see what the wording is now, but it is probably similar): (bold and underlining are mine)

- 1.3* Retroactivity.
- - 1.3.1 This standard is based on product and engineering practices recognized as acceptable at the date of issue.
- - 1.3.2 Unless otherwise noted, it is not intended that the provisions of this document be applied to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that were existing or approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of the document.
- - 1.3.3 In those cases where it is determined by the AHJ that the existing situation involves a distinct hazard to life or property, retroactive application of the provisions of this document shall be permitted.

All of that means the AHJ ALREADY HAS INSPECTED AND DETERMINED that the existing situation involves a distinct hazard to life or property BEFORE they apply the new code. That means they are applying the new code for other things than inspections, that has already been done, and that is why they are now applying the new code to the existing building.

What part of that do you not get?

Oh, and remember to go back and re-read (I am presuming you already read, but ignored these sections): 5.2.6, 5.2.7, and 5.2.8 which I posted earlier.

- 5.2.6 Inspection shall include an operational test for automatic-doors and windows to verify that the assembly will close under fire conditions.
- 5.2.7 Assembly shall be reset after a successful test.
- 5.2.8 Resetting of the release mechanism shall be done in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

Granted, if the test is not successful, the assembly does not have to be reset, but that is because it failed to operate and no resetting is necessary.

In reference to NFPA 80:
"In those cases where it is determined by the AHJ that the existing situation involves a distinct hazard to life or property, retroactive application of the provisions of this document shall be permitted."

Exactly. Existing fire doors that are determined by the AHJ to be hazardous can be "made safe" by enforcing the new code (nfpa standard) retroactively.

That means enforcing new code to existing doors, which were once built to an older code, but are now considered hazardous.

And (most importantly), the new code requires (among other things) annual maintenance inspections. And that's where qualified home inspectors (trained in performing fire door inspections) can become valuable to AHJs, and, hence, to our own communities.


BTW. For years, newer fire door assemblies have been manufactured with devices that make operational testing and drop testing easier and easier. On some doors, a drop test is a matter of pushing a button.

Most annual inspection will be of swinging fire doors, which are fairly straight-forward inspections when performed to the NFPA 80 Chapter 5 Standards. There are just 11 things to check.

Originally Posted by Brian Kilpatrick

... B. G. appears quite the snake oil salesman, keen on obfuscation and self promotion. What troubles me is that I've been considering joining that organization because many of the online tutorials are quite good, but ...

Thanks. I've authored most of those courses.

I volunteer at InterNACHI for one reason: It's given back to me so much.
Through membership at InterNACHI, I've been able to diversify my services and be highly successful as a property inspector, particularly in challenging times.

And that's what we're talking about here (exclusive of the nit-picky code stuff).
We're talking about diversifying services - by performing annual fire door maintenance inspections - as it is NOW required in the NFPA 80.

I believe home inspectors (exclusive of association) can perform these inspections and stay in business, and I will do my work heartily towards that end.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

Thanks. I've authored most of those courses.

I volunteer at InterNACHI for one reason: It's given back to me so much.

I believe home inspectors (exclusive of association) can perform these inspections and stay in business, and I will do my work heartily towards that end.

Ben I want to thank you and your brother for all you do.
Keep on convincing the newbys that there are other ways to make money. While they spend their $s and time on getting $50.00 inspections. The inspectors that are committed to performing Professional Home Inspections can continue showing the public they are committed to doing what they do best. Home Inspections.
Keep on convincing the newbys they need to pay you to tell them what they should of known BEFORE they marketed themselves Certified Home Inspectors to the public.

Keep on convincing the newbys they can learn everthing from your on-site training . The more they believe that, the less they learn local marketing tips, local housing issues from me, and others at the local home inspector meetings.

Keep on sucking $s from the newbys for home warranties that are illegal in many states, the more you take from them the less they have to market.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Ben I want to thank you and your brother for all you do.
Keep on convincing the newbys that there are other ways to make money. ...

You're partially correct.
InterNACHI is helping not just home inspectors, but all types of industry-related professionals.
"Newbees" make of a part of the membership.
InterNACHI helps inspectors related to residential home inspection, but ALSO:

• commerical property inspectors - http://www.nachi.org/commercialcourse.htm;
• wind mitigation inspectors - http://www.nachi.org/wind-mitigation...on-course.htm;
• contractors who work with lead paint - http://www.nachi.org/lead-safety-rrp-course.htm;
• chinese drywall inspectors - http://www.nachi.org/chinese-drywall-course.htm;
• stucco/eifs inspectors - http://www.nachi.org/stucco-eifs.htm;
• fire extinguisher inspectors - http://www.nachi.org/portable-fire-e...rs-course.htm;
• etc.

All those courses, and many more, are for home inspectors AND many other professionals alike.

When I volunteer at InterNACHI, I'm essentially working for not just home inspectors (or newbees) but all types of professionals, from over 55 countries.

But enough about me. I'm working towards opening doors for inspectors (and other professionals) to think of the possibilities of performing fire door inspections, using InterNACHI as a spring board for their own work.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

B] I'm working towards opening doors for inspectors (and other professionals) to think of the possibilities of performing fire door inspections, using InterNACHI as a spring board for their own work.

Ben will these InterNACHI courses have input from any of the door Manufacturer companies...

Best

Ron

Ben, sorry for the snake oil bit. I believe you are probably sincere.
My point is that you must be careful not to market an online tutorial as qualifying anyone to inspect or test equipment that requires specific jurisdictional and/or manufacturer's rules, methods and equipment, and/or filings to be legitimate. The liability is way huge, and someone will come after you if you aren't clear about your intent and limitations. Moreover, if someone watching your video is led to believe they are qualified, they may do unintentional harm and the trail still leads back to you.
Not a comfortable position to be in.
Like someone in a certain organization claiming courses appearing to satisfy the new certification for lead revealed as untrue and misleading. I'm sure lotes of people jumped on that one- not having read this blog! "What, we're being fined? How much? But we took that online course!"

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

Ben will these InterNACHI courses have input from any of the door Manufacturer companies...
Best
Ron

Ron,
I don't believe so.
Because NFPA 80 does not refer to specific doors or hardware from any particular manufacturer.
What's is very important is the manufacturer's recommendations to do things such as drop tests. Those recommendations must be followed. We'll try to include some examples from certain manufacturers.

Originally Posted by Brian Kilpatrick

Ben, sorry for the snake oil bit. I believe you are probably sincere.
My point is that you must be careful not to market an online tutorial as qualifying anyone to inspect or test equipment that requires specific jurisdictional and/or manufacturer's rules, methods and equipment, and/or filings to be legitimate.

Like someone in a certain organization claiming courses appearing to satisfy the new certification for lead revealed as untrue and misleading. I'm sure lots of people jumped on that one- not having read this blog! "What, we're being fined? How much? But we took that online course!"

Understood.
There is a course of a free online course that qualifies the student to perform monthly fire extinguisher inspections. Open and free to members. "Inspecting Portable Fire Extinguishers" course. - InterNACHI
This is a perfect example of what InterNACHI can provide - diversification of services is survival.

InterNACHI's free lead course is not yet approved by the EPA, and it states that clearly in bold and red. "Lead Safety for Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP)" course - InterNACHI But it is open right now for anyone to check out.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

BG, though perhaps well meaning, is way off base with this. JP is much closer to the mark. These are not systems to be trifled with by the uninitiated HIs, many of which I have encountered who cannot tell if a door is properly hung, much less if it passes NFPA muster....

Ugh. I've heard that criticism of the competency of home inspectors before - that even with good training they shouldn't "trifle" with complicated things like... doors. Hee hee. Good one.

For example, for years Industrial Hygienists have been saying that home inspectors are not qualified to perform mold inspections. Ha! I've heard that ever since I wrote the IAC2 Mold Inspection Standards Standards of Practice | IAC2 years ago.

Fire doors... no big deal. Properly trained home inspectors can inspect them.

Most fire departments that have a safety/prevention or inspection department do inspect and test the functionality of fire doors. This is part of the annual inspection they do. I talked to our departments prevention/inspection officer to confirm. He even agreed that most commercial business owners are not going to pay for something they already have inspected by the fire department.

Your business model would then hit upon small towns/areas that do not have an inspection/prevention segment of their fire department. Many of those areas would involve cities that are very small in size or population and probably have a very limitied commercial segment anyways.

AHJs have found themselves overwhelmed with the immense responsibility of evaluating the multitude of components of every building in their jurisdiction. They are under-staffed and under-paid.

Given the number of fire door assemblies in any city, country or jurisdiction, it is unrealistic to expect the AHJs to be able to inspect each and every fire door, not to mention all the other components of the buildings. In fact, AHJs and fire marshals typically do not perform the actual inspection.

In my area, the fire marshal comes around and makes sure that the building component (fire door, fire extinguisher, sprinkler system) has already been inspected and has recorded maintenance documents to review. The burden of getting the building inspected and maintained rests upon the building owner or management company.

Building owners and facilities management personnel may not fully understand their role in maintaining the fire door assemblies in their buildings.

I know of a fire marshal that said that if the occupant did not get the fire extinguishers inspected monthly, they could simply buy all new fire extinguishers every year before his next inspection. That marshal is understaffed.

I know of a county in Colorado that has two fire marshals. Two. The county must have thousands of commercial buildings. Their responsibility for ensuring the buildings and structures in their jurisdiction are built and maintained according to applicable codes is enormous.

Two fire marshals and thousands of buildings. The math just doesn't work.

I believe properly trained inspectors can help.

After over 40 years of extensive experience in architecture, construction management and administration, mostly in commercial construction, I got into home inspections as it seemed to be a easy transition "profession" to get into as nothing else in my area was calling for my background and the InterNACHI process seemed to be the least expensive way to get the introduction to the home inspection business while still pursuing other opportunities within my background.
I have probably at least doubled the InterNACHI first year requirements in terms of courses taken and even though the vast majority of the content covered concepts that I had been exposed to over the last 40 years, I considered the material to be extremely well presented and supplies an excellent introduction to the basic principals of the home inspection "profession" though the more accurate word would be process.
I feel Ben should be commended for his contribution to the Home Inspection PROCESS.
What I have really found disturbing is the lack of clearly a defined understanding of the process and the amount of unproductive badgering back and forth between individuals and organizations directly involved in home inspections and the seemingly disinterested or disjointed positions of the real estate and mortgage industries with the biggest culprits being the code/AHJ and the Feds/HUD.
Just my opinion!!!!

Originally Posted by Gary Bottomley

After over 40 years of extensive experience in architecture, construction management and administration, mostly in commercial construction, I got into home inspections as it seemed to be a easy transition "profession" to get into as nothing else in my area was calling for my background and the InterNACHI process seemed to be the least expensive way to get the introduction to the home inspection business while still pursuing other opportunities within my background.
I have probably at least doubled the InterNACHI first year requirements in terms of courses taken and even though the vast majority of the content covered concepts that I had been exposed to over the last 40 years, I considered the material to be extremely well presented and supplies an excellent introduction to the basic principals of the home inspection "profession" though the more accurate word would be process.
I feel Ben should be commended for his contribution to the Home Inspection PROCESS.
What I have really found disturbing is the lack of clearly a defined understanding of the process and the amount of unproductive badgering back and forth between individuals and organizations directly involved in home inspections and the seemingly disinterested or disjointed positions of the real estate and mortgage industries with the biggest culprits being the code/AHJ and the Feds/HUD.
Just my opinion!!!!

Thank you, Mr. Bottomley.

Mr. Bottomsley,

Your next course is free for your comments extolling Ben and nanchi

Top 10 Common Problems at Swinging Fire Doors:

• Painted or missing labels
• Inadequate clearance around the door perimeter when door is closed
• Kick down door holders
• Auxiliary hardware that interferes with the door's function (dead bolts, etc.)
• Blockage keeping the door open
• Area around the door blocked by furniture, equipment, storage, etc.
• Broken, defective or missing hardware of the door assembly
• Fire exit hardware installed on doors that are not rated for use with that type of hardware
• Missing or improper fasteners
• Bottom flush bolts that do not project 1/2 inch into the strikes

Originally Posted by Gary Bottomley

I have probably at least doubled the InterNACHI first year requirements in terms of courses taken and even though the vast majority of the content covered concepts that I had been exposed to over the last 40 years, I considered the material to be extremely well presented and supplies an excellent introduction to the basic principals of the home inspection "profession" though the more accurate word would be process.
I feel Ben should be commended for his contribution to the Home Inspection [
!

If we are marketing ourselves to the public as a Professional Home Inspector I would think we would want something more in our resume than an
" excellent INTRODUCTION to the BASIC principals of the home inspection "profession"

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

If we are marketing ourselves to the public as a Professional Home Inspector I would think we would want something more in our resume than an
" excellent INTRODUCTION to the BASIC principals of the home inspection "profession"

I apologize to Ben and all of the other serious members of this message board that might be interested in the fire door inspection concept by unintentionally perpetuating the unprofessional slamming of others posting on this site.
Brian Hannington, if you are monitoring this site, I would appreciate you moving this thread of the post over to a more appropriate section titled "worthless slamming of others" or something like that. I would think that would be the Professional thing to do.
Thank You

I don't think the replies to this post, while a tad on the sarcastic side, are "Worthless slamming". Each rebuttal has made a valid point, and heated discussion with contrary opinions is not warranting of censorship. Flogging a dead horse at this point, perhaps...

Originally Posted by Brian Kilpatrick

I don't think the replies to this post, while a tad on the sarcastic side, are "Worthless slamming". Each rebuttal has made a valid point, and heated discussion with contrary opinions is not warranting of censorship. Flogging a dead horse at this point, perhaps...

Yes I agree.
Every individual and organization has a different way of exhibiting their "Professional attitude".
Such is the American way!

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

Top 10 Common Problems at Swinging Fire Doors:

• Painted or missing labels
• Inadequate clearance around the door perimeter when door is closed
• Kick down door holders
• Auxiliary hardware that interferes with the door's function (dead bolts, etc.)
• Blockage keeping the door open
• Area around the door blocked by furniture, equipment, storage, etc.
• Broken, defective or missing hardware of the door assembly
• Fire exit hardware installed on doors that are not rated for use with that type of hardware
• Missing or improper fasteners
• Bottom flush bolts that do not project 1/2 inch into the strikes

Ben, there are fire doors that are allowed to be held open. However they are made that way and are to code. They are released electronically when a fire occurs. Just wanted to throw that in there.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Ben, there are fire doors that are allowed to be held open. However they are made that way and are to code. They are released electronically when a fire occurs. Just wanted to throw that in there.

That's correct.
The picture is an example of a fire door that has been improperly held open by tying it to the wall. Fire doors can ONLY be held open by a device that automatically releases when the fire alarm is activated (such as an electromagnetic hold open device).
fire-door-inspections-for-home-inspectors-bengromicko.jpg

Originally Posted by Gary Bottomley

Yes I agree.
Every individual and organization has a different way of exhibiting their "Professional attitude".
Such is the American way!

Gary

I respect your opinion but you might want to read s(the owner of the site) remarks regarding the threads and posts of Ben Gromicko. He is using Brians site to market his business and business endeavors. All other businesses selling goods and training and books and all pay to and cannot flagrantly market for free on this site.

Hen has twisted and turned (or tried to, and you went for it by not understanding the concept of this site) to make it sound like he is one of the boys just on here "having fun.

I am certainly not bashing Brian and I am kind of bashing Ben and rightfully so. If you look into Bens remarks he says he does not work for or have a job with NACHI. He has his own business and is flaunting it as he wishes.

There have been other folks on here from the same organization that used to do the same thing acting as one of the inspector folks and just adding their .75 in and flaunting their advertising as well and should be dropped like a smelly rock.

You are happy with NACHI and many folks are.

Gary. You have just been missing the point . No disrespect intended but you should follow all that goes on with the site before backing them no matter who it is. It matters not what he may contribute as a business in the home inspection field. It matters how he and where he presents himself and that is not on the open forum of the inspectors site. It is in the business section that Brian tries to make a few bucks on for his expenses and livelihood.

Whether it would be ASHI or NACHI or AHIT or any other organization they must follow the rules of the site like everyone else.

At the risk of re-opening this thread, I ran across this today and thought that it might be of interest: IAS eNews

At least this thread has touched on one philosophy; home inspectors should be open to expanding their service offerings *with the proper training*.

There are many different inspection services that could be added to an inspector's business. Commercial inspections is just one example. It is quite different from residential, with a lot more liability, but with *proper training* many HI's are making money at it.

I decided to provide ADA inspections and created a whole business around it. It took a lot of training, and is a highly litigious filed, but it is great work.

NACHI is but one source of information. They have a business model just like any other organization. Nearly all of the HI organizations are in it to make money. They all offer classes, trade shows, certifications, etc. for money. NACHI has proven to be a great starting point for many people in this field. But all inspectors should learn from multiple sources. I think that is why we all read this discussion board - it is a fun place to learn all sorts of new information.

If only these fire doors had a garage door operator attached,then we could get that thread started again on how to inspect a garage door operator................

One very important note regarding these NFPA standards or should I say standars for sale, is that these standards are voluntary standards. NFPA sells or developes a large numbers of standards. Most juristritions adhere to or inforce a small percentage of these standards. Even the fire service picks and chooses which standards they adhere to.

This is a very useful link International Code Adoptions
You can pick any state to see what codes your state has adopted.

For example, The Virginia Uniform Building Code is based on the 2009 I-Codes which became effective on 12/01/2010

• 2009 International Building Code
• 2009 International Energy Conservation Code
• 2009 International Existing Building Code
• 2009 International Fire Code
• 2009 International Fuel Gas Code
• 2009 International Mechanical Code
• 2009 International Plumbing Code
• 2009 International Property Maintenance Code
• 2009 International Residential Code

Several of those ICC codes refer to NFPA Standards. Any referenced standard in the code is considered part of the code, which allows them to be as enforceable as the code itself.