What’s going on with unwanted alarms? - NFPA/media/2033926B4B5A4D95AD7803CCBE2BFD3D.pdfWhat’s...

What’s going on with unwanted alarms?

Presented byMarty Ahrens

Jay HauhnMonica Colby

David KerrTony Apfelbeck

Thomas HammerbergPravinray Gandhi

2016 NFPA Conference & Expo

Our panel

• Marty Ahrens, NFPA, Introduction and Moderator

• Jay Hauhn, Central Station Alarm Association

― It takes a team

• Monica Colby, Rapid City, SD Fire Department

― A localized study on the cause of unwanted alarms

• David Kerr, Plano, Texas Fire Department

― Use of FPRF Risk Management Tool in Plano, TX

• Tony Apfelbeck, Altamonte Springs, FL Public Safety

― Testing two hypotheses to reduce unwanted alarms

• Thomas Hammerberg, Automatic Fire Alarm Association

― Unwanted alarms: what is the real problem?

• Pravinray Gandhi, Underwriters Laboratories

― Unwanted alarms – smoke alarm and detector update

Objectives

• Discuss the impact of the unwanted fire alarm issue on

the fire service and the public

• List at least three strategies that could help mitigate the

problem of unwanted alarms

• Identify competing goals that must be resolved before

finding a more comprehensive solution

• Describe the changes to the UL standard on smoke

detectors related to unwanted alarms

Background

• Unwanted alarms make people less likely to take alarms

seriously

• Impact on fire service― IAFC 2009 Position Statement “Eliminating Unwanted and

Nuisance Fire Alarm Activations”

― IAFC submitted 41 proposals for the 2013 edition of NFPA 72

• USFA, IAFC and NFPA sponsored 2011 smoke alarm

summit

• Fire Protection Research Foundation’s Risk based decision

support in managing unwanted alarms

• NFPA and IAFC’s free Fire service guide to reducing

unwanted fire alarms

http://www.iafc.org/IAFC-position-Eliminating-Unwanted-and-Nuisance-Fire-Alarm-Activations

https://www.iafc.org/files/1FIREPREV/firePrev_NFPA72factSheet.pdf

http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-protection-research-foundation/projects-reports-and-proceedings/detection-and-signaling/fire-alarm-notification/risk-based-decision-support-in-managing-unwanted-alarms

http://catalog.nfpa.org/Fire-Service-Guide-to-Reducing-Unwanted-Fire-Alarms-PDF-P9419.aspx

A real challenge

• Today’s buildings and furnishings burn faster― Delay can be dangerous

• How do we detect a fire in its earliest stages to provide

enough escape time while reducing unwanted alarms?― What level of response (occupant and fire department) is

desirable?

― If the fire service delays or doesn’t respond to activations, will

the public believe that detection is important?

Alarm

malfunction

No hazard

Nuisance

activation

Normal

activities

No hazard

Pre-fire

condition

Useful alert

Maybe

investigation

only

Earliest fire

stage

Useful alert

Maybe

investigation

or defensive

only

Dangerous

fire

Full

immediate

response

required

CPSC’s Greene and Andres -- Fire departments went to

only 3.4% of home fires in 2004-2005

https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/105297/UnreportedResidentialFires.pdf

What have we learned since 2011?

• Panel will tell us

• Project examining NFIRS incident type (Kinsey and

Ahrens) found very little consistency on coding of― Burnt food

― False alarms in general

• Getting at cause of unwanted alarms is difficult

• Repeat offenders are a small part of the problem

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/the-fire-service/administration/nfirs-incident-types

New in NFPA 72,® 2016 edition

Effective January 1, 2019,

• Smoke alarms and smoke detectors used in household

fire alarm systems shall be listed for resistance to

common nuisance sources (Chapter 29.7.3)

• Smoke alarms and smoke detectors used in household

fire alarm systems installed between 6 ft (1.8 m) and

20 ft (6.1 m) … from a stationary or fixed cooking

appliance shall be listed for resistance to common

nuisance sources from cooking (Chapter 29.8.3.4(5))

Public input for the next edition of NFPA 72® closes 6/29/2016

• For more information, see www.nfpa.org/72

http://www.nfpa.org/72

It takes a “TEAM”

Presented by:

Jay Hauhn

Executive Director

Central Station Alarm Association

Retired Chief Technology Officer, ADT


The Central Station Alarm Association (CSAA) is a trade

association that:

• represents companies offering alarm monitoring systems

through a central station

• represents companies that provide services and products

to the industry

• requires member companies monitoring centers to be

certified by a CSAA-approved Nationally Recognized

Testing Laboratory (NRTL)

Such certification assures customers, their insurance companies and their local

emergency service agencies, that CSAA members provide the highest quality and

most reliable burglar and fire alarm service available to their residential and

commercial clients.

Who is the CSAA ?

• 2006-Established a working relationship with IAFC and their Fire

and Life Safety Section to achieve common goals.

• Carbon Monoxide Detectors - No standards for testing, placement,

monitoring. Worked with manufacturers and created an ANSI

standard.

• Residential Fire Alarm systems – Key stakeholders in creating

annual test & inspection requirement in NFPA 72.

• Worked jointly with the Fire and Life Safety Section to maximize the

effectiveness of fire and smoke detection systems. Resulted in the

development of the IAFC Position Paper on nuisance alarms.

• In 2009, established a joint committee to reduce “Unwanted

Alarms.”

CSAA and IAFC (Fire Chiefs)

IAFC request to CSAA

IAFC President – Chief Jeff Johnson

2009 Request to CSAA

“Help IAFC identify false dispatch reduction solutions.”

Joint IAFC – CSAA CommitteeFalse Alarm Dispatch Elimination - Established in 2010

IAFC Members

• Chief Luther Fincher

• Chief Jeff Johnson

• Chief Jack Parow

• Chief Alan Perdue

CSAA Members

• Dr. Shane Clary

• Jay Hauhn (Chair)

• Peter Lowitt

• Rick Simpson

It is a - W I D E - Scope

Joint IAFC – CSAA CommitteeEstablished in 2010

Committee identified seven conceptual

“areas of opportunity”

that led to 33 proposals for

2013 edition of NFPA 72®,

National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code®

The chiefs submitted 10 additional proposals

• Verification – Monitoring center call to protected premises before dispatch

• Chronic falsing – Require maintenance contracts

• Waterflow – Standardize minimum setting

• Keypad fire button – eliminate chronic cause

• Point ID – facilitate data gathering

• Notification – AHJ awareness of faults

• Air handlers – supervisory only

Areas of “Opportunity”

Proposals Rejected Accept Accept in

principle

Verification 4 4 0

Chronic false activation 3 3 0

Waterflow retard 1 1 0

Residential Fire Button 2 1 0 1

Point Identification 15 12 0 3

Air Handler Detection 3 2 0 1

System Maintenance 2 1 0 1

Notice of impairment 3 1 0 2

33 25 0 8

Committee Proposal Results


principle

Verification 4 4 0








33 25 0 8

This is not intended to be an indictment of NFPA 72 Technical Committees.



principle

Verification 4 4 0








33 25 0 8

But…..The results did reveal the challenges that need to be overcome in solving, in a

timely manner, real and documented situations that span multiple committees and

impact all committee member categories !


This is not intended to be an indictment of NFPA 72 Technical Committees.

The challenge(s) !

ANSI standards development is

“Consensus Based” by necessity

• Manufacturer (M)

• User (U)

• Installer/Maintainer (I/M)

• Labor (L)

• Applied Research/Testing Laboratory (R/T)

• Enforcing Authority (E)

• Insurance (I)

• Consumer (C)

• Special Expert (SE)

Committee Makeup

The challenge(s) !

There is no silver bullet

Must “Divide and Conquer”

issue by issue

5% 8%6% 5% 7% 7% 7%

SO

LU

TIO

N 3

SO

LU

TIO

N 1

SO

LU

TIO

N 2

SO

LU

TIO

N 4

SO

LU

TIO

N 5

SO

LU

TIO

N 7

SO

LU

TIO

N 6

SO

LU

TIO

N X

45 %

The challenge(s) !

There is no silver bullet

Must “Divide and Conquer”

issue by issue

5% 8%6% 5% 7% 7% 7%

SO

LU

TIO

N 3

SO

LU

TIO

N 1

SO

LU

TIO

N 2

SO

LU

TIO

N 4

SO

LU

TIO

N 5

SO

LU

TIO

N 7

SO

LU

TIO

N 6

SO

LU

TIO

N X

45 % Reducing that number by >50% is significant

• Fire detection industry focused on early detection— Engines and trucks rolling ASAP saves lives and property

— Quickest possible dispatch versus reducing false dispatches

• Data driven process— Academic level data

— Learned knowledge

• Timing— 3 year code cycle,

— 2-3 cycle process,

— Municipality implementation,

— 10 – 12 years ! (Chiefs asked for help in 2009)

• Lessons learned from Burglar Alarm programs

The challenge(s) !

NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT LIFE SAFETY

• Verification – Monitoring center call to protected premises before dispatch

• Chronic falsing – Require maintenance contracts

• Waterflow – Standardize minimum setting

• Keypad fire button – eliminate chronic cause

• Point ID – facilitate data gathering

• Notification – AHJ awareness of faults

• Air handlers – supervisory only

Areas of “Opportunity”

A localized study on the cause of unwanted alarms


Presented by:

Monica Colby

Fire and Life Safety Specialist

Rapid City Fire Department, SD

Human Behavior

What was studied

Alarm

Fire

False alarm

Cooking fire

Mitigated

Smoke damage or Rescue

False Alarms (700 incident series) and 113 cooking fire with no damage or rescue

Breakdown of Alarm Causes

Unwanted872, 44%

Cooking fire with no damage or rescue

348, 18%

Malfunction286, 14%

Monitoring and Test not used properly

480, 24%


Breakdown of Alarm Causes – Unwanted Category

Unwanted872, 44%


348, 18%

Malfunction286, 14%


480, 24%

Unintentional, 15918% Unwanted

8% Total

Unknown, 26530% Unwanted

13% Total

Nuisance, 42449% Unwanted

21% Total

Malicious, 243% Unwanted

1% Total


Breakdown of Alarm Causes – Unwanted: Unintentional

Unwanted: Unintentional, 159,

18% Unwanted, 8% Total

Damage/Removal, 4528% Unintentional

5% Unwanted2% Total

Pull Station & Emergency Exit, 11472% Unintentional

13% Unwanted6% Total


348, 18%

Malfunction286, 14%


480, 24%

Nuisance, 42449% Unwanted

21% Total


1% Total


13% Total


Breakdown of Alarm Causes – Unwanted: Nuisance


13% Total


1% Total

Unintentional, 15918% Unwanted

8% Total

Unwanted: Nuisance, 424,

49% Unwanted, 21% Total

Cleaning related mistaken identity, 57

13% Nuisance7% Unwanted

3% Total

Construction related mistaken identity, 119


6% Total

General mistaken identity, 214


11% Total

Damage to water lines –domestic & sprinkler, 34


2% Total


348, 18%

Malfunction286, 14%


480, 24%

19%


Incident Reporting Mechanisms

Call to fire station or walk-in,

5, 0%

Radio to Dispatch,3, 0%

Monitored Alarm & on-scene information,

612, 31%

Monitored Alarm,1197, 60%

Call to 911,169, 9%

Structure Fires (111 – 123) excluding 113 cooking fire with no damage or rescue

Incident Reporting Mechanisms

Monitored Alarm & on-scene information,

15, 9%

Monitored Alarm,17, 10%

Call to fire station or walk-in,

4, 3%

Radio to Dispatch,3, 2%

Call to 911,125, 76%

90% Eye-witness account

Fires, Overheating, Hazardous Conditions, and Alarm Activations (100, 200, 400, & 700 incident series)

Primary Actions Taken

Investigation of problem

2285, 72%

Suppress or control fire277, 9%

Rescue, remove from harm163, 5%

Medical, 32, 1%

Assistance, 283, 9%

Investigate, fire out on arrival

130, 4%

Other6, 0%

9%15%

76%

What’s next?

• Change local amendments

• Change response

• Perceived risk

• Similar research

• Shared dictionary of alarm cause

• 700 & 113 consistency

Use of FPRF’s risk management tool in Plano

Presented by

David KerrDeputy Chief/Fire MarshalPlano, Texas Fire Rescue


Unintentional call, 1,165,500,

47%System malfunction,

820,000, 33%

Other false alarm, 341,500,

14%

Malicious or mischevious call, 161,500, 6%2,488,000

False Alarms

Source: Hylton J G. Haynes, Fire Loss in the United States During 2014

318 360 366 397 415 418 496 490 569 605 714 762 713 773 802 838 850 951 983 980 9921062104510801166593 621 623 670 718 738805 817

851 902884 822 793 796 740 746 721

741 765 698 709748 713 757

820

124141 154

171 168 198201 222

227229

230 300299

320 316 310 355295 304 317 324

391314

341342

442458 455

409 365 320315 287

309304

300 274 311301 249 241 194

223 190 183 163

183168

165162

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

In T

ho

usan

ds

Malicious or mischieviousOther false alarmsSystem malfunctionUnintentional call

Source: Karter through 2013, Haynes for 2014

• Major accomplishment from the IAFC and NFPA summit

• The study that produced the tool is based on the 90 second delay proposed by IFAC

• Tool only looked at commercial property

• Compares baseline to three possibilities if verification fails

FPRF’s risk management tool

• 7,174 automatic fire alarm responses over a 5-year period (does not include single family)

• 20 fire situations

• 2 required FD extinguishment

Plano’s story by the numbers

Plano results

• Based on the data— We run a single engine cold on all fire alarm responses

— We run an engine and truck cold on all water flow

— We now have a 90 second delay ordinance incorporating the requirements set forth in NFPA 72

FPRF’s risk management tool

• Converts outcome to dollars for comparison

• Need min 5,000 calls, can span over several years

• Considers— Civilian and fire fighter deaths and injuries

— Direct and indirect property loss for each option

• More research and beta testing needed

Testing two hypotheses to reduce unwanted alarms

Presented by:

Anthony C. Apfelbeck

Fire Marshal/Building Official

City of Altamonte Springs


Background

• Lack of Data on Mitigation Methods and Impact

• Existing ITM System Florida Statewide

• Alarm Contractor Licensing

• Systems Must Have ITM in Accordance with NFPA 72

• Seminole County Eight Jurisdictions with Seven Fire

Departments

• Admitted Confirmation Bias Against Verification and

Toward Prevention Efforts

First hypothesis

• Earlier intervention by fire prevention bureaus and earlier

notification of business owners would result in reduced

automatic alarm responses.

• Ops Crew Notification Direct to Owner

• Direct Owner to Conduct Maintenance

• Serve as a Legal Notice of Code Violation

• Fire Prevention Bureau Notification at First Alarm

Response

ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, CASSELBERRY, LAKE MARY, LONGWOOD, OVIEDO, SANFORD, SEMINOLE COUNTY, WINTER SPRINGS

Fire Alarm Report

_________________________ _________________________ _________________________ DATE TIME OF DISPATCH INCIDENT #

I, ________________________________________________________ AM AWARE THAT THE FIRE ALARM HAS ACTIVATED AT

PRINT NAME

__________________________________________ LOCATED AT ____________________________________________________.

BUSINESS NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS, INCLUDING CITY

ALARM ACTIVATED DUE TO: SYSTEM STATUS AT END OF RESPONSE:

SYSTEM BEING TESTED – NO NOTIFICATION 1 ALARM RESET BY OWNER REPRESENTATIVE

SYSTEM MALFUNCTION 1, 2 UNABLE TO RESET ALARM 2

MALICIOUS ACTIVATION NO RESPONDER ARRIVED/AVAILABLE

EMPLOYEE ERROR 1 TROUBLE ALARM ACTIVE 2

WEATHER 1 SUPERVISORY ALARM ACTIVE 2

OTHER______________________________

____________________________________ ____________________________________ OFFICER IN CHARGE - PRINT OWNER/OCCUPANT – PRINT

____________________________________ ____________________________________ OFFICER IN CHARGE – SIGNATURE OWNER/OCCUPANT - SIGNATURE

1 AS THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR THIS LOCATION, YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDING THAT THIS DOCUMENT SERVES AS A NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 162 FOR SECTION 10.4 OF THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE AND THAT FALSE ALARMS FROM THIS LOCATION MAY RESULT IN FEE CHARGES FOR RESPONSE, CITATIONS OR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION WITH A FINE NOT TO EXCEED $500.00 PER ALARM. 2 SERVICE OF YOUR FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED FIRE ALARM CONTRACTOR ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY. MAINTAIN A COPY OF YOUR SERVICE CALL CONTRACT FOR REVIEW BY THE LOCAL FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU.

TOP COPY-OWNER/TENANT REPRESENTATIVE BOTTOM-FORWARD TO JURISDICTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU

1st Hypothesis results

12 Months Prior

226 Alarms per month

12 Months Post


Result: No impact

2nd Hypothesis

• The implementation of a fee for response to nuisance

alarms would encourage greater levels of ITM.

Therefore, reducing the number of automatic alarm

responses.

• Only Tested in Unincorporated County and Two Cities

Fee schedule

Responses within 365 day rolling period

• First Response: No fee (Warning letter sent)

• Second Response: No Fee (Warning letter sent)

• Third Response: $100.00

• Fourth Response: $200.00

• Fifth Response: $300.00

• Six Response+: $500.00

2nd Hypothesis results

12 Months Prior


12 Months Post


Result: No impact

Last 12 Months: 144 Alarms per month

Unwanted alarms - the fire alarm industry perspective

Presented by:

Thomas P. Hammerberg, SET, CFPS

Technical Director

Automatic Fire Alarm Association


Unwanted alarms – What is the real problem?

The equipment is not the problem

• If properly designed and applied

• If properly installed

• If properly maintained

Problem: Owners need to take more responsibility for their systems

Possible solution:

• Better training of staff

• Better selection of contractors

• Better understanding of their responsibilities

• Less apathy

Problem: Under-qualified designers

Possible solution:

• More training on fire alarm system design

• Better responsibility for design

• Don’t pass it on to the contractor to meet code

• Active participation during installation and testing

Problem: Under-qualified Installers• Low bidder gets the job

Possible Solution:

• Owners should verify contractor qualifications

• Owners should review overall cost, not just installation

• Installers need more training

• Installers should be NICET certified

• ITM Technicians should be NICET certified

Problem: Lack of enforcement

Possible solution:

• AHJ’s should better enforce ITM requirements

• We don’t need more code requirements, we need

better enforcement of the existing codes

• AHJ’s need more training

• AFAA provides free webinars

• AFAA provides free membership to AHJ’s

Problem: Not enough specific information of the root of the alarms

Possible Solution:

• Better reporting of alarms by the Fire Department

• More research?

• Better teamwork between stakeholders

Unwanted Alarms – Smoke Alarm and

Unwanted alarms –smoke alarm and detector update

Presented by:

Pravinray Gandhi on behalf of David Mills,

PDE - Initiating and Indicating Devices

Underwriters Laboratories, LLC


Standard update

• 8th Ed. of UL 217 has over 800 revisions vs 6th Ed.

1. Firmware Updates

2. Surge Immunity

3. End-of-Life Signal

4. Alarm Silence

• UL’s Standard Technical Panel Task Groups

1. One Task Group responsible for PU Foam

requirements

2. Second Task Group responsible to consider

nuisance alarms

Firmware Update (summary)

• Not required, but currently optional

• Allows for software/firmware updates

• Mfg must push software revisions after assessed

• User is also provided with local update feature

• All versions of software are subject to testing

Surge Immunity (summary)

• Combination Wave Test from IEEE C62.41

• Smoke Alarm must comply with:

Normal Operation (no nuisance is allowed) and,

Sensitivity Tests

End of Life Signal (summary)

• As product ages performance can shift

• Product life shall not exceed 10 years

• Required for all smoke alarms

• Required for multi-criteria smoke detectors

Alarm Silencing Feature (summary)

Optional Remote Silence

• Allows alarms less accessible to be hushed

• Smoke alarm silence feature can interface with

smart/remote device

PU Test (summary)

Flaming PU Foam

1. Replaced Flammable Liquid Fire Test with PU Flaming

2. PU Flaming test methods & acceptance criteria added

to ANSI/UL 217 and ANSI/UL 268.

3. PU Flaming Acceptance Criteria is 5% OBS/ft.

Smoldering PU Foam

1. PU Smoldering test methods & acceptance criteria

added to ANSI/UL 217 and ANSI/UL 268.

2. PU Smoldering Acceptance Criteria is 12% OBS/ft.

PU and Cooking Nuisance Test (summary)

• PU Flaming and Smoldering req. did not reach

consensus.

• Ballot comments indicated that:

If increasing performance, Nuisance Alarms could also

increase.

UL initiated a cooking nuisance research project to

compliment:

• Previous NIST work

• Previous CPSC work

• Pending FPRF work

Why Cooking Nuisance? (summary)Common Nuisance Sources

Marty Ahrens March 2014 Report, titled Smoke Alarms in U.S. Home Fires

•Steam Nuisance alarms account for no more than 2% of nuisance alarms (down from 5% in 2004)

•Cooking Nuisance alarms account for 73% of nuisance alarms (up from 69% in 2004)

Cooking Nuisance Test (summary)

Cooking Nuisance Test (summary)

1. Removed Smoldering Smoke Test – Maximum

Obscuration Without Alarm and Replaced with Cooking

Nuisance Tests

2. Cooking nuisance test acceptance criteria is 1.5%

OBS/ft

PU Foam and Cooking Nuisance

1. Although related, cooking nuisance test is

characteristically different than published or proposed

smoldering or flaming tests, ie cause and effect or

correlating performance

NFPA considerations

1. Working Group needs to be created.

2. Installation requirements should reconsider smoke

technology references.

3. AHJ’s and installers need simpler codes.

4. Should distances from cooking appliances be reconsidered?

5. Revisions correlating to cooking nuisance mitigation should

take place during current code cycle.

6. NFPA 72 and 70 committees should consider working

together to reduce multiple station interconnect nuisance

alarms.

Thanks to our presenters

Now, it’s your turn!

Questions for you

1. What other work has been done on this topic?

2. What are the most important research needs?

3. What should NFPA do to help?


• Marty Ahrens, NFPA

[email protected]

• Jay Hauhn, Central Station Alarm Association

[email protected]

• Monica Colby, Rapid City FD

[email protected]

• David Kerr, Plano FD

[email protected]

• Tony Apfelbeck, Altamonte Springs Public Safety

[email protected]

• Thomas Hammerberg, Automatic Fire Alarm Association

[email protected]

• Pravinray Gandhi, Underwriters Laboratories

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







Thank you

CEUs: To receive CEUs for this session, scan yourbadge at the back of the room before leaving.

Evaluation: Complete a session evaluation on the mobile app. (Search app store for ‘NFPA 2016 C&E.’)

Handouts: Handouts will be available via the mobile app and at nfpa.org/conference.

Recordings: For information on audio recordings of Educational Sessions, visit nfpa.org/Xchange.


What’s going on with unwanted alarms? - NFPA/media/2033926B4B5A4D95AD7803CCBE2BFD3D.pdfWhat’s...

Documents

Transcript of What’s going on with unwanted alarms? - NFPA/media/2033926B4B5A4D95AD7803CCBE2BFD3D.pdfWhat’s...