NFPA Journal - November/December 2017 - 68

In Compliance
edition of NFPA 70E emphasizes the
importance of performing a solid risk
assessment that examines all aspects
of the hazards to which employees are
exposed, and provides a valuable new
tool to determine how best to mitigate
the potential danger.
Derek Vigstol is an NFPA technical lead, Electrical
Tech Services. NFPA members and AHJs can use the
Technical Questions tab to post queries on NFPA
70E at nfpa.org/70E.

NFPA 72

Fire alarms, signaling and
emergency communication

Why technology alone is
not enough to reduce the
problem of false alarms

designed, installed, and maintained
fire alarm and detection systems
remains unacceptable.
So where do we stand in 2017?
Stakeholders report that they continue to experience an undiminished
number of false alarms. The technical
committee that writes the portion
of NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm
and Signaling Code, that deals with
detection continues to develop
requirements that address this false
alarm issue with minimum requirements for the design, installation,
inspection, testing, maintenance, and
use of all fire alarm systems. These
requirements alone, however, have not
reduced the incidence of false alarms.
Some observers believe that the use
of new technologies can fix the false
alarm problem. Although technology
may help cure some of the design

By Wayne Moore

n 2013, the Fire Protection Research
Foundation released a
report called "Development of a Risk-Based
Decision Support Tool to Assist Fire
Departments in Managing Unwanted
Alarms-Literature Review," which
showed that the number of fire department emergency responses in the
United States more than doubled from
1980 to 2009.
With fire department budgets
unable to keep pace with this rising
workload volume, there has been a
growing concern around the country about the cost of unnecessary
responses. From 1980 to 2009, the
number of emergency responses to
fires fell by more than half, but emergency responses to "false" alarms more
than doubled.
The unwanted alarm issue has
changed over the last three decades
from a problem of malicious false
alarms to an issue of non-fire actuations of automatic detection and alarm
systems. While some of that change is
a result of the increased use of carbon
monoxide detectors, the number
of false alarms caused by poorly

With fire department
budgets unable to keep
pace with this rising
workload volume,
there has been a
growing concern about
the cost of unnecessary
responses. From 1980
to 2009, the number
of emergency
responses to fires fell
by more than half, but
emergency responses
to "false" alarms more
than doubled.

I

faults and mitigate a few of the installation mistakes, technology by itself
cannot solve the problem.
Most of the new fire alarm control
unit technology uses addressable
architecture. This allows first responders, owners, and fire alarm system
technicians to know exactly which
detection device has operated. However, this piece of information is
only useful if someone records the

68 | NFPA JOURNAL * N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 7

information and notes whether the
same device initiates another false
alarm. Assuming that information is
tracked, two false alarms from the
same device should constitute the
maximum number acceptable. Once
the same device initiates a second
false alarm, a technician should
determine why the device operated;
the device should either be changed,
or the installed environment of the
device should be reviewed to determine the existence of any factors that
may have led to the second initiation.
This procedure would enable changes
to the type of detection used or a relocation of a device affected by the local
environment.
Speaking of devices, newer smoke
detectors have built-in algorithms to
help ensure that an initiation occurs
only in the event of a "real" fire. In
some cases, the use of such a multi-criteria smoke detector could negate the
environmental influence. Additionally,
many of the fire alarm control units
contain an optional smoke detector
alarm verification option. This feature,
designed to reduce unwanted alarms,
requires the control unit to receive an
initiation, sound a local signal, reset
the detector, and wait for a second
initiation within a set time period
before sounding a general alarm.
While helpful in some cases, the NFPA
72 technical committee felt that this
feature should only be used as a last
resort.
We should expect fewer false alarms
now and in the future by using new
technology to help reduce the incidence of those false alarms. But new
technology cannot reduce or eliminate false alarms from systems that
are not properly designed, installed,
inspected, tested, maintained, or used.
But if better designs and installations
of these systems are coupled with
improved inspection, testing, and
maintenance programs, we will continue to lower the fire alarm systems'
false alarm rate.
Wayne D. Moore is vice president at Jensen
Hughes. NFPA members and AHJs can use the
Technical Questions tab to post queries on NFPA 72
at nfpa.org/72.
http://www.nfpa.org/70E http://www.nfpa.org/72
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - November/December 2017
