The Fire Code establishes essential standards to safeguard lives and property from fire hazards. But what happens when these minimum requirements are repeatedly ignored? In this blog, we explore the critical role of enforcement in upholding fire safety, illustrated by a real-world example where a key fire safety component was improperly installed—twice within a decade. This case underscores the importance of maintaining and enforcing basic safety measures over time.

The Fire Code and the Role of Prevention Programs

The purpose of the Fire Code is to provide the requirements necessary to establish a reasonable, minimal level of fire and life safety, as well as property protection, from hazards created by fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions. The key to understanding the Fire Code is recognizing that it provides only the required minimum safety level, and any violations should be seen as a symptom of indifference to basic safety.

The Fire Code is a consensus document and is central to any prevention program. It provides guidance for all stakeholders and gives the local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) the authority to enforce its provisions. Owners must initiate strategies for overall risk reduction and code compliance, while the AHJ must enforce the code strongly and clearly to ensure everyone’s safety.

Enforcement

Enforcement begins with education and partnerships that provide guidance and set realistic expectations for owners and their designated representatives. When clear expectations of the owner’s responsibilities are provided, it allows them the opportunity to develop solid prevention protocols. This must include commitments and buy-in from all involved. When it does not, clear, decisive enforcement must be implemented to ensure compliance moving forward. This is a critical moment, as violations must not be repeated once education and initial enforcement measures have been provided. When violations are repeated, it indicates a clear indifference to minimum life safety requirements and should escalate the enforcement action taken by the local AHJ.

When enforcement is weak, misapplied, overused, or worse—when a notice of violation is simply issued repeatedly for the same offense—it creates confusion and undermines the minimum safety requirements found in the Fire Code. The intent must be clearly centered around a prevention program that seeks to provide guidance when needed and enforcement when not followed.

A Case Study: FDC Placement

The Inspection

During an inspection, a building fire department connection (FDC) was found to be installed and accepted despite being clearly located too high and potentially blocked by obstructions. This issue often arises when FDCs are approved, and then post-installation grading changes the height of the connection.

Once an FDC is accepted, it becomes challenging to enforce a correction. However, in this case, after working with building representatives, they agreed to have the FDC extended down to a usable height. With education completed and the minimum requirements met, this issue was resolved through a clear partnership among stakeholders.

10 Years later

So here we are again, back at the beginning with the same unusable FDC, relocated at some point for an unknown reason. This could be due to a new property representative, inappropriate maintenance, or simply a disregard for basic fire and life safety requirements. Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: all involved are lacking the knowledge conveyed years earlier, once again jeopardizing the safety of everyone who enters the building.

The Solution

The solution becomes clear: we must implement more stringent enforcement efforts, as the repeated violation demonstrates a blatant disregard for life safety. While there are different levels of enforcement depending on the nature of the infraction and the level of risk it poses to occupants, more severe action is necessary in cases like this.

For example, when an emergency egress is chained closed or made unusable in a currently occupied building, immediate action must be taken. At a minimum, the exit must be immediately cleared, or the building evacuated. A notice of violation should be issued to document the infraction, and immediate punitive action should be taken for such an egregious offense.

In the case of the FDC, the violation has been repeated and must be subject to higher accountability beyond education and a notice of violation. If not, it will be ignored and repeated again, leading to a cycle of unresolved issues rather than a true solution to the original problem. Elevating the enforcement action for repeated infractions emphasizes the significance of code minimum requirements and is necessary to prevent future violations.

More about the Author:

Terin Hopkins has 34 years of experience in public safety and is currently the Manager of Public Fire Protection for the National Fire Sprinkler Association. He represents NFSA on many NFPA and UL technical committees, including NFPA 1 Fire Code.

Have a Fire Code Question? The NFSA is Your Resource!

The NFSA team, including both members and staff, is heavily involved in developing fire protection codes and standards. We stay ahead by participating in over 250 committees, keeping us on top of the latest industry changes.

Our Expert of the Day service is a major perk for NFSA members, providing answers to even the toughest code and standards questions.