By Ed Ruckriegel
False alarms are a menace to every fire department, a menace that seems to be acceptable. When a department tolerates false calls, the number and frequency of such responses will continue to increase. Conversely, a department that focuses on managing and reducing false alarms can reap rewards.
The cost of false alarms is staggering. At 10 percent to 15 percent of the total call volume, false alarms require considerable resources, may take companies out of their response areas, tie up companies for unnecessary reasons, and may increase response times to real calls. This negative impact does not necessarily need to continue.
Decreasing the number of false alarms requires an arsenal of tools. You have heard and read many times, “It starts at the top.” As with many initiatives to change behaviors and confront problems, the command staff must set the tone and lead the organization. Start by setting goals and objectives, giving the staff the resources to do the job, maintaining the focus, reviewing the data, modifying the plan and regrouping as necessary.
Company officer reports are the primary source of data and information for false alarms. Officers must enter responses in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) correctly. The narrative must be comprehensive and include the who, what, where, when, and how of the alarm.
Fire prevention personnel need the resources to take action against offending property owners. With swift follow-up, false alarms can be abated. Imposition of fines or fees will change behaviors of contractors. Property owners can be directed to replace dirty detectors and repair faulty systems.
Data
Online data from the National Fire Protection Association reports that U.S. fire departments had 26.5 million responses in 2009 and that 8.5 percent of them (2.177 million responses) were for false alarms. An online search for response data for specific communities showed false alarm rates at or above 10 percent for cities like Louisville, Kentucky; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Madison, Wisconsin. One volunteer fire department reported that 64 of its 167 responses in 2008 were false alarms. Data indicate that 10 percent of the work by the fire service is a waste of resources.
Another data search for the risks associated with responses found that 19 percent of firefighter fatalities occur during the response or when returning from a call. When firefighters are in the response or returning phases of any call, they are at risk. It is not necessary to put our crews at risk for false calls.
The negative impact of false alarms goes beyond the doors of the firehouse and into the community. False alarms disrupt business, reduce efficiencies in offices and factories, and disrupt classes in schools. The impact is difficult to quantify, but it is significant. The fire service should engage and prioritize initiatives to combat false alarms.
Management
Specific tasks of the management team or command staff include setting the direction, empowering staff, strengthening local laws and fines to penalize for false alarms, and monitoring progress.
Initially, the chief needs to make the problem known and make it clear that it will not be tolerated. The chief must compose the message in such a way as to motivate staff and help them see the negative impact of false alarms and the benefits of reducing them. Further, the chief and command staff need to keep the initiative in front of them and the department. Success is a product of commitment.
Officers
When size-up of the alarm investigation reveals a false alarm, the company officer needs to transition from officer to investigator. The goal is to find the root cause of the alarm and document the specific reason for it. A good investigation will serve as the foundation for a complete incident report and narrative. The report serves as the action plan for other department staff to follow up.
A good narrative for an unintentional alarm might state:
Met at front door by facility maintenance [name], who reported drywall dust caused the alarm. Proceeded to alarm panel. Panel indicated alarm on second floor. Went to second floor and found staff of XYZ Company sanding drywall. Detector at end of west hall activated. Alarm silenced and reset.
The narrative for a response to an alarm that resulted from testing or maintenance of a fire protection system must include the name of the contractor, the type of fire system, and the name of the alarm company.
When classifying an alarm as a malfunction, the officer must explain how the alarm malfunctioned. An unexplained alarm is not necessarily a malfunction. An alarm panel with trouble or supervisory signals may be a malfunction. State in the report whether the alarm system was left in service or out of service.
Burned popcorn, careless cooking, and “good intent” calls are a few examples of many alarms that are incorrectly reported as false alarms.
Officers must be thorough in the alarm investigation and comprehensive in documenting the cause of the alarm. The officer’s report is the only mechanism the department can use to act to prevent a repeat of the false alarm. A simple report narrative such as “No fire, no problem” is not acceptable.
|
SAMPLE INCIDENT TYPE CODES AND NARRATIVES 735 – Alarm system activation due to malfunction
“Fire alarm control panel indicated smoke detector on third floor at room 303. Panel was in alarm but horns and strobes were not functioning. Trouble indication of ground fault.”
743 – Smoke detector activation (no fire), unintentional.
Includes proper responses to environmental stimuli such as non-hostile smoke.
“Facility maintenance staff using an air compressor to remove dust from light fixtures. The process blew dust into detector in the hallway near the dust collection room. Staff directed to replace detector. Staff reset system.”
INCIDENT TYPES TO AVOID
700 – False alarm or false call, other.
730 – System or detector malfunction, other.
740 – Unintentional transmission of an alarm, other.
These codes are too general. The vague summary of call types such as these make follow-up difficult. If you must use any of them, be prepared to write a comprehensive report narrative.
MISCLASSIFIED INCIDENTS INCORRECTLY INCREASE FALSE ALARMS
Incorrect:
743 – Smoke detector activation, unintentional.
“Burned popcorn set off alarm”
Correct:
113 – Cooking fire involving the contents of a cooking vessel without fire extension beyond the vessel
Incorrect:
700 – False alarm or false call, other.
“Passer-by thought dryer vent was smoke”.
Correct:
652 – Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke
|
Prevention
Fire prevention staff needs to review all false alarm reports and officers’ narratives and take action when appropriate. False alarm reports need to be reviewed daily. Follow-up must be prompt.
It is the fire marshal’s responsibility to make sure the prevention staff has the tools to address false alarms. Local laws and ordinances should include fines or fees for repeat false alarms. Reports and data tracking of the number and cause of false alarms are critical. Documenting and tracking problem contractors and alarm-monitoring companies makes it easier for staff to take action. Moreover, the fire marshal needs to provide company officers with constructive and positive feedback relative to the accuracy and completeness of their incident reports.
Good officer reports make it possible for the prevention staff to issue citations for malicious false alarms. When an incident report documents dust or hot work associated with construction work, the fire inspector should discuss implementation of a work permit process with facilities management at the address.
A work permit process typically includes requirements for contractors to schedule the hot work or dust-producing work with facilities management. When notified, facilities management will take the alarm devices in the work area offline, implement an impairment plan and fire watch, notify the alarm monitoring company, and make occupants aware of the work and alarm outage.
The fire inspector should also write orders for cleaning and calibration or replacement of the detector(s) activated by the work. Dealing with the dirty detector may prevent another false alarm.
False alarm reports with complete narratives will help the prevention staff identify problem fire protection contractors. If ABC Fire Systems is responsible for several false alarms because of fire protection system testing or maintenance, it may be cited or at a minimum receive a “do better” talk from the fire department.
The fire service will always respond to false alarms. However, we can greatly reduce the number of these responses by taking steps to prevent most false alarms from happening in the first place. By setting goals and implementing processes to abate repeat false alarms, the fire service will reduce risks to firefighters, improve response times to other calls, and help businesses avoid unnecessary interruptions.
The City of Madison (WI) Fire Department is currently working to implement a plan as described herein. The department will educate Officers and property owners through 2011. In 2012, the plan transitions to an enforcement and mitigation initiative. The goal is to reduce the number of false alarms in 2013 by 15 percent.
Start with achievable objectives such as six to 12 months of educating officers, contractors, business owners, and facility maintenance staff. Follow the educational objective with the goal of a five percent reduction of false alarms in the second six to 12 months. A 10 percent reduction in false alarms over 12 to 24 months is achievable. Remember: Keep it in front of you. Success is a product of commitment.
ED RUCKRIEGEL has been fire marshal for the Madison (WI) Fire Department since 1994. He became a fire protection engineer for the city in 1990. A 30-year veteran of the fire service, he began his career as a volunteer firefighter. Ruckriegel has a bachelor’s degree in fire and
safety engineering
technology from Eastern Kentucky University.
