At the University of New Mexico, we have incorporated a variance to NFPA 101 on
alarm activation in our newest dorm (we are still conducting final inspections on
it this week). We have several other dorms on campus in which the pull stations
were removed several years ago by the housing office due to excessive false
alarms. They replaced them with push button call stations. The caller would have
to push and hold the button in to report an emergency. The RAs would then check
out the call and decide weather it was a bonified emergency, then call the
police, fire or medics. This was never approved by the State Fire Marshal back in
1979. It proved to be a near disaster in 1999 when we had a dorm fire in which
the RAs took 10 minutes to decide to evacuate the dorm. We are just finishing a
new 3 story, 4 wing, 104 apartment (400 students) dormitory. I took the old dorm
system design and incorporated NFPA 101 requirements for a pre-action alarm
system with a delay module. I then encorporated networked-single station
detection for all apartments and full sprinkler coverage into the project. The
idea is that a student activates the call station to report an emergency (or a
prank). The RA desk receives the call and a three minute time delay is activated.
The RAs have that time to investigate and either silence the alarm, let it
activate or can manually activate it under the three minutes if necessary. If
they do not confirm a prank or false alarm, or the RAs cannot respond in time,
the alarms will automatically activate. Of course we have an automatic backup
system which is the sprinklers. Activation of a sprinkler will set the alarms off
without delay. The old system has kept false alarms down to nearly zero for
several years. The new systems allows for the same level of false alarm
protection but meets NFPA 1, 101 and 101A requirements. We get around the
exception of not requiring pull stations in a sprinkled building by using the
call stations. We are working to upgrade our other existing dorms to function the
same as our new system.

Automatic digest processor wrote:

> There are 10 messages totalling 506 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. False Fire Alarms (10)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:16:23 -0400
> From:    "Burke, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: False Fire Alarms
>
> At the University of Maryland Baltimore believe we have a false alarm
> problem.  I have been asked to find out what numbers of false alarms other
> Universities are experiencing on an annual basis.  I would also appreciate
> any program information others have implemented in reducing false alarms.
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert Burke
> Fire Marshal
> University of Maryland
> 714 W. Lombard Street
> Baltimore, MD 21201
> 410-706-3490
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:46:08 -0400
> From:    John Basher <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> What do you consider to be a false alarm?
> Malicious, smoke from cooking, steam from a shower, bug in a detector,
> detector malfunction are all false alarms.   Which type of false alarms are
> you interested in.  The size of the University will make a difference as
> well.
>
> John Basher
> Assistant Director of Fire Safety
> Colgate University
> 13 Oak Drive
> Hamilton, NY 13346
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burke, Robert [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:16 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: False Fire Alarms
>
> At the University of Maryland Baltimore believe we have a false alarm
> problem.  I have been asked to find out what numbers of false alarms other
> Universities are experiencing on an annual basis.  I would also appreciate
> any program information others have implemented in reducing false alarms.
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert Burke
> Fire Marshal
> University of Maryland
> 714 W. Lombard Street
> Baltimore, MD 21201
> 410-706-3490
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:11:38 +0000
> From:    Mark Tetreault <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> Bob:
>
> The University of New Hampshire (UNH) has been pretty successful in managing
> false alarms.  Currently we respond to approximately 35 Malicious false
> alarms a year. Of that 14 are on campus.  Malicious false alarms are less
> than 2% of our calls to UNH.  It was not always this way in the 1970's the
> much large percentage of our calls were MFA's.  In order to manage the
> problem we went back to the basics
> Education, Engineering and Enforcement
>
> Education: The hall directors are encouraged to educate their students about
> the false alarms the dangers and the penalties.  Whenever a fire alarm
> activates everyone must evacuate the building.  Very educational when its
> -20 degrees.  It also encourages peer pressure.  We tell the students how
> many drills they can expect a year so they know we don't conduct drills
> every saturday night.
>
> Engineering:  All Fire alarm pull stations are equipped with "stop it"
> covers.  These covers are equipped with local alarms to draw attention to
> the pull station.  Since most students are not interested in evacuating for
> a false alarm whenever these local alarms sound it gets the attention of
> other students .  We also try to minimize false alarms by not over detecting
> the buildings especially those equipped with sprinklers, All new systems are
> equipped with smoke detector verification.  Fire extinguishers are also in
> cabinets and equipped with local alarms.  If we have a particular dormitory
> that is becoming problematic we also have used the red dye on the pull
> station handles.
>
> Enforcement: The University has been very aggressive in prosecuting students
> who pull false alarms or otherwise cause a false alarm.  Hall sports etc...
> Peer pressure helps a great deal here as well.  If a floor is going to be
> charged for a false alarm the other students on that floor will be more
> likely to report the offender.  A false alarm is treated as a crime and not
> just a part of college life.
> Off campus we have a false alarm ordinance that can result in fines up to
> $300.00 per alarm.  This is a significant motivator especially for the Greek
> houses since most fraternities operate on a shoe string budget.
> If you have any questions please give me a call.
> Mark Tetreault, Fire Marshal
> Durham Fire Department
> 51 College Road
> Durham, NH 03824
> (603)862-1426
> FAX 862-1513
> [log in to unmask]
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:22:00 -0400
> From:    "Michael J. Fox" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> Yale University has installed double action pull stations on all fire alarm
> systems. Further, we have installed stopper guards on pull stations that
> have been problematic. To date, we probably only have a dozen stopper
> guards. Our false alarms due to someone maliciously pulling a pull station
> have dropped off dramatically since doing this.
>
> For smoke detector false alarms, we have set all of our multiplex systems
> for alarm verification and also try to use ion detectors to reduce the
> number of false alarms from dust and steam.
>
> MJF
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:29:23 -0400
> From:    Tim Ritchey <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> What are you calling a false alarm?   If a smoke detector goes into alarm
> because of dust , someone smoking or other particulate in the air,  then the
> smoke detector is doing what it is supposed to and occupant behavior must be
> changed.  If you are getting an alarm and no device is activated then you may
> have a problem in the signaling system (i.e. bad wiring)
>
> "Burke, Robert" wrote:
>
> > At the University of Maryland Baltimore believe we have a false alarm
> > problem.  I have been asked to find out what numbers of false alarms other
> > Universities are experiencing on an annual basis.  I would also appreciate
> > any program information others have implemented in reducing false alarms.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Robert Burke
> > Fire Marshal
> > University of Maryland
> > 714 W. Lombard Street
> > Baltimore, MD 21201
> > 410-706-3490
> > [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:40:44 -0400
> From:    "Burke, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> I consider anything which activates the alarm when there is no emergency a
> false alarm.  We then make efforts to mitigate the cause.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ritchey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> What are you calling a false alarm?   If a smoke detector goes into alarm
> because of dust , someone smoking or other particulate in the air,  then the
> smoke detector is doing what it is supposed to and occupant behavior must be
> changed.  If you are getting an alarm and no device is activated then you
> may
> have a problem in the signaling system (i.e. bad wiring)
>
> "Burke, Robert" wrote:
>
> > At the University of Maryland Baltimore believe we have a false alarm
> > problem.  I have been asked to find out what numbers of false alarms other
> > Universities are experiencing on an annual basis.  I would also appreciate
> > any program information others have implemented in reducing false alarms.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Robert Burke
> > Fire Marshal
> > University of Maryland
> > 714 W. Lombard Street
> > Baltimore, MD 21201
> > 410-706-3490
> > [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:39:01 -0500
> From:    Dan Maas <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> Hope this helps, it got a little long.  Feel free to contact me if
> you have questions about our program or want more info.
>
> As several other folks have stated, identifying what type of false
> alarm you are targeting is critical if you want to compare your alarm
> problems with other folks problems.  At Cornell University we have
> had a false fire alarm reduction program in place for over 5 years.
> Since we have emergency responders from Environmental Health & Safety
> on duty 24 hours a day and they respond to all alarms we're able to
> gather very good statistics on the causes of our alarms.  We
> categorize false alarms as accidental (dust, insects, cooking smoke,
> cigarette smoke, workmen, device struck accidentally, water in
> device, steam, sprinkler water surge, etc.), malfunction (malfunction
> of the alarm or sprinkler system caused the alarm), malicious
> (pullbox activated maliciously, device struck by someone throwing
> something (i.e. ball playing in the hallway), smoke/heat detector
> maliciously removed or damaged, maliciously discharged dry chemical
> extinguisher set off smoke detector, etc.) and undetermined
> (separated into categories of: no device found activated, activated
> device found but cause could not be determined and device found but
> could not be accessed to removed it (i.e. too high)).
>
> As part of our alarm reduction program, we analyzed our alarm
> statistics and targeted residence halls and problem academic
> buildings and replaced older 1970's and 1980's era smoke detectors
> with new state of the art detectors (mostly FCI brand fire alarm
> panels where we only had to replace the detector and base and did not
> have to replace the fire alarm panel).  This significantly reduced
> the number of dust, insect and burnt food alarms.  Our emergency
> responders always replace activated smoke detectors with a clean
> ones.  Daily one of our Fire Protection Services staff reviews the
> reports for repeat alarms from the same building or location to
> identify facilities with detectors that need cleaning or places that
> need to have the detection type or location modified.
>
> We currently have about 250 fire alarm systems on the Cornell campus
> and our largest cause of alarms is accidental alarms caused by
> workmen (construction dust, smoke from cutting/soldering, devices
> struck, drilling through wires/conduit, etc.).  We've targeted that
> problem by requiring the shops and contractors to schedule fire
> protection shutdowns through our department but we continue to see
> worker related alarms.
>
> Our stats for the last fiscal year were 405 fire alarm activations
> (both real and false) with 268 of them being accidental and 15 being
> malicious.  To put this in perspective, in the past 5 years we have
> about 300 fewer alarms per year but have doubled the number of alarm
> initiating devices (smoke and heat detectors, pullboxes, flow
> switches, etc.) on campus.  Everyone involved feels the program has
> been a great success but it took a lot of work by EH&S to get it
> going and to get buy in by the administrators outside of EH&S.
> Having EH&S staff responding to all alarms has been critical to
> making the program work.  The data that the responders collect, their
> ability to accurately locate the source and cause of the alarm and
> their ability to immediately replace the device or fix the problem
> have all been important in making our program work.  From discussions
> with folks at other institutions, they don't feel that responders who
> are campus police or off campus fire departments are providing the
> same level of service that we are providing and it hinders the
> efforts to reduce the number of false alarms.
> --
>
> DANIEL MAAS      (607)254-1634     FAX: (607)255-1642
> Emergency Management Coordinator/Event Management Coordinator
> Fire Protection & Emergency Services
> Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety
> EH&S Bldg,  201 Palm Road, Ithaca, NY  14850
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ******************Disclaimer*************************
> The comments and views expressed in this communication are
> strictly my own and are not to be construed to officially represent
> those of my peers, supervisors or Cornell University
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:49:32 -0500
> From:    Charles E Kist <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> Dan, what is the size of your staff dedicated to fire related incidents and
> maintenance? How many buildings are there? I'm trying to increase our staff
> from me to two with a technician.
> Chuck Kist
> Fire Marshal
> University of Texas @ Arlington
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Maas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 12:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> Hope this helps, it got a little long.  Feel free to contact me if
> you have questions about our program or want more info.
>
> As several other folks have stated, identifying what type of false
> alarm you are targeting is critical if you want to compare your alarm
> problems with other folks problems.  At Cornell University we have
> had a false fire alarm reduction program in place for over 5 years.
> Since we have emergency responders from Environmental Health & Safety
> on duty 24 hours a day and they respond to all alarms we're able to
> gather very good statistics on the causes of our alarms.  We
> categorize false alarms as accidental (dust, insects, cooking smoke,
> cigarette smoke, workmen, device struck accidentally, water in
> device, steam, sprinkler water surge, etc.), malfunction (malfunction
> of the alarm or sprinkler system caused the alarm), malicious
> (pullbox activated maliciously, device struck by someone throwing
> something (i.e. ball playing in the hallway), smoke/heat detector
> maliciously removed or damaged, maliciously discharged dry chemical
> extinguisher set off smoke detector, etc.) and undetermined
> (separated into categories of: no device found activated, activated
> device found but cause could not be determined and device found but
> could not be accessed to removed it (i.e. too high)).
>
> As part of our alarm reduction program, we analyzed our alarm
> statistics and targeted residence halls and problem academic
> buildings and replaced older 1970's and 1980's era smoke detectors
> with new state of the art detectors (mostly FCI brand fire alarm
> panels where we only had to replace the detector and base and did not
> have to replace the fire alarm panel).  This significantly reduced
> the number of dust, insect and burnt food alarms.  Our emergency
> responders always replace activated smoke detectors with a clean
> ones.  Daily one of our Fire Protection Services staff reviews the
> reports for repeat alarms from the same building or location to
> identify facilities with detectors that need cleaning or places that
> need to have the detection type or location modified.
>
> We currently have about 250 fire alarm systems on the Cornell campus
> and our largest cause of alarms is accidental alarms caused by
> workmen (construction dust, smoke from cutting/soldering, devices
> struck, drilling through wires/conduit, etc.).  We've targeted that
> problem by requiring the shops and contractors to schedule fire
> protection shutdowns through our department but we continue to see
> worker related alarms.
>
> Our stats for the last fiscal year were 405 fire alarm activations
> (both real and false) with 268 of them being accidental and 15 being
> malicious.  To put this in perspective, in the past 5 years we have
> about 300 fewer alarms per year but have doubled the number of alarm
> initiating devices (smoke and heat detectors, pullboxes, flow
> switches, etc.) on campus.  Everyone involved feels the program has
> been a great success but it took a lot of work by EH&S to get it
> going and to get buy in by the administrators outside of EH&S.
> Having EH&S staff responding to all alarms has been critical to
> making the program work.  The data that the responders collect, their
> ability to accurately locate the source and cause of the alarm and
> their ability to immediately replace the device or fix the problem
> have all been important in making our program work.  From discussions
> with folks at other institutions, they don't feel that responders who
> are campus police or off campus fire departments are providing the
> same level of service that we are providing and it hinders the
> efforts to reduce the number of false alarms.
> --
>
> DANIEL MAAS      (607)254-1634     FAX: (607)255-1642
> Emergency Management Coordinator/Event Management Coordinator
> Fire Protection & Emergency Services
> Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety
> EH&S Bldg,  201 Palm Road, Ithaca, NY  14850
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ******************Disclaimer*************************
> The comments and views expressed in this communication are
> strictly my own and are not to be construed to officially represent
> those of my peers, supervisors or Cornell University
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:54:10 -0500
> From:    "Mitchell, Louis J." <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> We have been working to reduce our false alarms for several years.  We train
> our maintenance and service personnel that false fire alarms create unsafe
> conditions because they help cause building occupants to lose faith in the
> fire alarm.
> Fire Alarms that activate in non-fire conditions is a problem on our campus.
> We are actively working to find ways to reduce them. We have attempted to
> address the problem by upgrading fire alarm equipment and modifying
> behaviors.
> 1.We use alarm verification whenever possible.  This has helped.  We also
> use true alarm smoke detectors in our newer buildings.  These units
> recalibrate themselves as they become dirty so they are less apt to go off
> due to the build-up of dust.
> 2.We are careful where we place smoke detectors so they are less apt to be
> tripped by dust, wind and humidity.
> 3. Behavior wise we are working with our facilities personnel and
> contractors to have smoke detectors covered whenever construction, painting
> or cleaning may create dust.  We are about to install a fine system to
> charge contractors when they are at fault for setting alarms.
> 4.We require complete evacuation of residence hall in the event of an alarm.
>
> 5.Our fire alarm service personnel are trained to prioritize and service
> activities that will reduce false alarms.  They are quick to spot problem
> detectors and service the equipment.
>
> Lou Mitchell, Associate Director
> Environmental Health & Safety
> Iowa State University
> Ames, IA  50011
> Work Phone: 515-294-7668
> Fax: 515-294-9357
> [log in to unmask]
>
> This area
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burke, Robert [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:16 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: False Fire Alarms
>
> At the University of Maryland Baltimore believe we have a false alarm
> problem.  I have been asked to find out what numbers of false alarms other
> Universities are experiencing on an annual basis.  I would also appreciate
> any program information others have implemented in reducing false alarms.
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert Burke
> Fire Marshal
> University of Maryland
> 714 W. Lombard Street
> Baltimore, MD 21201
> 410-706-3490
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:39:39 -0400
> From:    Paul Barton <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: False Fire Alarms
>
> We service and maintain the alarms at the University of New Hampshire in
> Durham.
>
> During our first 18 months on the job the fire department reported a 37%
> drop in the number of calls. This is a direct result of increased
> maintenance, increased awareness by University employees of the charges
> to the University by the town for false alarms, Fire Department outreach
> and an aggressive residence hall anti - false alarm effort.
>
> We clean every smoke detector at least annually and those in dusty areas
> more frequently. Sensitivity testing on each detector is in place and
> those that are outside tolerance following cleaning are replaced. The
> University has been installing Notifier analog addressable systems and
> from those we download monthly sensitivity reports to monitor the
> condition of each detector and track each building to adjust our
> maintenance schedule when necessary. The analog systems are also now
> programmed for verification and maintenance alerts. Systems for which we
> have no programming software are being set for verification by the
> distributors.
>
> We have factory service and program training on several brands and can
> change from smoke to heat detectors when required in those buildings to
> accommodate construction projects.
>
> We provide input to the long range planning team on the age,condition
> and code compliance of their systems to assist in the budgetary process
> and in development of plans and specifications.
>
> To maintain some 170 fire alarms, plus the campus security and process
> monitoring alarms we have myself and two technicians. Emergency response
> on off hours is within 2 hours.
>
> Paul Barton, SET
> Norris, Inc.
> 213 Main Street rm 118
> UNH Transportation Building
> Durham, NH 03824
> (603) 862-2549 FAX (603) 862-4586
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of OHIOFIRE Digest - 4 Aug 2001 to 7 Aug 2001 (#2001-124)
> *************************************************************