BY PAUL L. DOVE
An article in the February 18, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Sun, “Fire alarm doesn’t mean fire department is coming,” reports on a new policy of the Henderson (NV) Fire Department stating that it will no longer respond to residential fire alarms unless a secondary means of verification is reported (e.g., visible fire) or a water-flow device has been activated.1 Such a policy should not be a total surprise to many fire departments around the country. The Henderson Fire Department is following a growing trend in which many departments are examining data, developing modified response plans, and initiating similar policies. Henderson is not alone in this practice in the metropolitan Las Vegas area. According to the article, the Las Vegas Fire & Rescue Department adopted a similar policy in 2003.
As a fire prevention and investigation specialist, I can fully understand the fire departments’ position. As they study and document false alarm response data, they reconsider their own risk evaluation and the personnel and equipment hours devoted to responding to such calls. Many U.S. departments face a similar degree of difficulty in considering whether to establish similar policies.
I do not defend any one position, since I believe the public has a right to expect the best level of service in a time of need. However, I also believe fire departments have a right to minimize the risk to responding personnel and the public they serve and to reduce the taxpayer monies spent responding to situations where services are not needed. This is especially true in these times of economic shortfalls, station closings, and layoffs.
The difficult question the fire service should ask is, How can we provide the public the service it expects and deserves while minimizing the department’s exposure risks and financial loss?
FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS
Before I address this question further, I should elaborate on fire alarm and detection systems and their historic relationship with residential security systems. Historically, fire alarm and detection devices have been viewed as supplemental attachments to residential security systems. Presently, security systems are unregulated, but separate national standards for security systems and for combination systems with fire alarm warning device attachments are being developed. Although there are currently no national standards for security systems, some jurisdictions have created local ordinances to regulate false alarm conditions.
The standard residential security system will typically incorporate motion detectors; laser beam detectors; and glass break, door/window, and thermal sensors. On combination security/fire alarm systems, there may be a couple of supervised smoke detectors. Does adding a few smoke detectors meet the legal regulations or definitions of a household fire alarm system? I say no.
Unfortunately, most existing combination security/fire alarm system installations do not meet specific fire alarm code requirements for household fire alarm systems. National Fire Protection Association 72, The National Fire Alarm Code®, referenced by all building and fire codes, has specific requirements for household fire alarm equipment installation; such equipment must comply with the code’s installation, operation, testing, service, and maintenance requirements. On occasion, jurisdictions may modify specific code requirements through ordinance development, but the code is still the code. Note the sections I italicized below:
NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code®, 2007 Edition
Chapter 11: Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems
11.3 Basic Requirements.
11.3.1 All devices, combinations of devices, and equipment to be installed in conformity with this chapter shall be approved or listed for the purposes for which they are intended.
11.3.3* The installation of smoke alarms or fire alarm systems or combinations of these shall comply with the requirements of this chapter and shall satisfy the minimum requirements for number and location of smoke alarms or smoke detectors by one of the following arrangements:
- (1) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection devices shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of smoke alarms. The installation of additional smoke alarms shall be permitted. The installation of additional system-based smoke detectors including partial or complete duplication of the smoke alarms satisfying the required minimum shall be permitted.
- (2) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection devices shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of system smoke detectors. The installation of additional smoke detectors shall be permitted. The installation of additional smoke alarms including partial or complete duplication of the smoke detectors satisfying the required minimum shall be permitted.
11.4.3* Equipment. The performance of fire-warning equipment discussed in this chapter shall depend on such equipment being properly selected, installed, operated, tested, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Code and with the manufacturer’s published instructions provided with the equipment.
Author’s Note: Section A.11.3.3 below is found in the NFPA 72 Appendix and is intended as explanatory material for code users. Appendix language is not enforceable unless specifically adopted by a jurisdiction; it only serves as a clarification of the code requirement’s intent.
A.11.3.3 This Code establishes minimum standards for the use of fire-warning equipment. The use of additional alarms or detectors over and above the minimum standard is encouraged. The use of additional devices can result in a combination of equipment (e.g., a combination of single- and multiple-station alarms or a combination of smoke alarms or smoke detectors that are part of a security/fire system and existing multiple-station alarms). Though a combination is allowed, one type of equipment must independently meet the requirements of the Code. Compliance with the requirements of the Code cannot rely on the combination of the following fire-warning equipment:
(1) Single-station alarms
(2) Multiple-station alarms
(3) Household fire alarm system (includes a security/fire system with smoke alarms or smoke detectors)
It is encouraged that the highest level of protection be used where possible. For example, if multiple-station alarms are added to an occupancy with compliant single-station alarms, the multiple-station alarms should be installed to replace all of the single-station alarms. Similarly, if a monitored household fire alarm system is added to a house that has compliant multiple-station alarms, monitored smoke alarms or smoke detectors should be installed to replace the multiple-station alarms or be installed to provide the same required coverage.
11.10 Maintenance and Tests.
Fire-warning equipment shall be maintained and tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s published instructions and per the requirements of Chapter 10.
Typically, security alarm-monitoring facilities monitor combination security and fire alarm systems for alarm device initiation signals. Once received, the standard operating practice is to contact the homeowner first and then contact emergency services. If the facility does not make contact with the homeowner or the secondary contact person, it contacts the appropriate agencythe police department for security alarms, the fire department for fire alarms. Emergency agencies are normally notified through a local central dispatch center or, in some jurisdictions, by a direct call to the emergency agency.
In most false fire alarm responses to locations equipped with combination security/fire alarm systems, responders found that the alarm resulted from nonfire cooking or alarm device errors as a result of poor installation, improper device selection, incorrect placement, or neglect of fire alarm component maintenance. Some unwarranted alarms can be avoided by selecting the appropriate alarm-initiating device for the particular hazard or protected area (e.g., a photoelectric-type smoke detector or heat detector for an area near cooking appliances). Jurisdictions that investigate the causes of false fire alarms thoroughly can develop ordinances that address unwarranted activations and establish standard operating guidelines or procedures for future response based on their findings.
The fire service should rethink and view these combination systems primarily as fire alarm and detection systems with supplemental security device attachments. We should then use the NFPA 72 standard to confirm that the household fire alarm and warning equipment meet the code’s intent for installation, testing, and maintenance. In new construction, we can do this in cooperation with the local building department to achieve compliance prior to occupancy. In existing construction, the fire service should promote or expand public education efforts aimed at problematic occupancies in its jurisdiction.
WHAT’S NEXT?
Where does this leave us in the fire service? Should we give up on residential fire detection technology by developing nonresponse policies to dwelling fire alarms? Again, I say no. Implementing policies that give the public the impression that the fire service will ignore residential fire alarms unless there are other confirming cues showing (i.e., smoke or flame) is counterproductive and further exposes us to risk. Thankfully, not all fire service professionals believe the frequency of residential false alarms is at the point at which response should be compromised.
The fire service should be proactive when encountering numerous false alarms at any location, regardless of occupancy. Thoroughly investigate events to discover why an alarm is false, what/who is responsible, and how to rectify the problem. This is just good customer service. Create public education programs on fire alarm and detection technology and why it’s important to use the fire service’s expertise to ensure that the appropriate devices are properly installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 72.
The fire service and homeowners should not accept security companies’ sales pitches that sell combination systems that include only limited fire coverage. Our department has received complaints from citizens about security and alarm providers who have invited potential customers out for a free dinner while attending the company’s sales training seminar. During the training presentation, some customers signed contracts and purchased fire alarm equipment not necessarily compliant for household installations (e.g., heat detection equipment in lieu of code-required smoke detection or smoke alarm devices). During our investigations, we witnessed questionable high-pressured sales tactics regarding fire protection. Thankfully, not all companies operate this way. Typically, security companies that earn the majority of their profits do so with security equipment and associated sales on security systems. Some companies, although they are familiar with security installation and protection, are not as familiar with fire alarm equipment installation, secondary power, and audible warning and spacing requirements within the codes. The result can be inadequate fire protection.
This gives the homeowner a false sense of security with regard to fire. Use the National Fire Alarm Code as referenced by your building, residential, and fire codes for household fire alarm systems in residential dwellings. In areas where there is limited fire service availability, promote residential self-inspection programs to empower and allow homeowners to partner with the fire service to minimize their exposure and risk of fire. Hold installation contractors accountable for noncompliant installations of fire alarm and detection components, wiring, and power supplies. The fire service could explore the possibility of creating partnerships with other code enforcement agencies or law enforcement to initially investigate residential fire alarm calls before rolling the trucks. If we want to create policies regarding residential alarm response, maybe we should consider initially responding nonemergency to a call with a staff vehicle and step it up if a secondary cue is observed. But only as a last resort should we consider fining homeowners and implementing nonresponse policies when these and other possibilities are exhausted.
Public education, customer service, and using NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, may prove to be successful countermeasures in reducing household false fire alarm calls and ensuring equipment is installed properly in all residences.
Endnote
1. Trask, Mike, “Fire alarm doesn’t mean fire department is coming,” The Las Vegas Sun, February 18, 2008, http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/feb/18/fire-alarm-doesnt-mean-fire-department-coming/.
PAUL L. DOVEis a fire marshal with the Coldwater (MI) Fire Department and a 22-year veteran of the fire service. He is a past president of the Michigan Fire Inspector’s Society and served as Code Committee chairman for 10 years. Dove is a former principal member of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Life Safety Code and Building Code Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features and a former member of the NFPA North Central Fire Code Development Committee. He holds and maintains 18 national and multistate professional certifications, including fire officer, inspector, plan reviewer, and investigator.
