False hope? URNs for fire alarm systems

From April of this year, those individuals responsible for safety and security within commercial and industrial buildings have been acclimatising themselves to a new way of working. The introduction of Unique Reference Numbers (URNs) for monitored fire alarms has challenged all practitioners to reduce numbers of false alarms, in turn saving time, money and – most importantly – lives.

There are practical steps every business needs to take when considering the safety of employees. Beyond that, all those involved in new build projects and developments also need to take a fresh look at the way in which they integrate fire and security protection.

False alarms cost the taxpayer a whopping £1 billion every year. They also place lives at risk – both from accidents during a ‘blue light’ attendance or by delayed arrival at a site with a real fire. An estimated 50% of all attended call-outs are found to be false alarms. In other words, something needs to be done.

With false alarms currently at unacceptable levels, the Chief Fire Officers’ Association has taken a lead in developing the Model Agreement for Remotely Monitored Fire Alarm Systems (RMFAS) based on providing URNs similar to those used in the security sector for intruder alarms. All remotely monitored fire alarm systems will eventually need to be registered for a URN. This will allow them to be examined for false alarm performance, with the results determining which level of fire authority response is going to be provided. Those systems performing poorly may well lose fire brigade response and, thus, insurance cover.

In essence, then, the Model Agreement for RMFAS aims to reduce the impact of false alarms on business and commerce while at the same improving the fire safety management of protected premises.

Regulations tightened

Over the next two years, regulations will become much more strict. From 1 April 2007, all monitored fire alarm systems must be maintained by a third party accredited supplier. From March 2008, that requirement will be extended to include the design, installation and commissioning of new systems. The two accreditation schemes deemed acceptable are SP203 and LPS1014.

The scheme means that building owners and the end users of fire alarm systems will need to make some changes. In addition to appointing a reputable company for servicing their systems, a ‘responsible person’ must be identified to carry out a risk assessment.

The Model Agreement for RMFAS is demanding a change in the way that end users approach fire safety. Previously, concerns have focused on evacuating people from burning buildings. Now, occupiers must concentrate on reducing the potential for a fire to start in the first place. The Agreement makes one thing crystal clear – the current level of false alarm activations isn’t acceptable or sustainable.

With the new regulatory structures in place, the fire and security industries must begin to strike at the heart of the matter in addressing the fundamental question: “Why are false alarms on the increase?”

There is no doubt that fire alarm systems have improved, so it makes no sense that the number of false activations should be growing. The number of fire alarms in operation is increasing and, as a result, fire alarms will grow in number – but this cannot be the only reason.

The five types of false alarm

Traditionally, there are five ‘types’ of false alarm: unwanted false alarms (where a system has responded to fire-like phenomena or environmental influence), those due to equipment failure (resulting from a system fault), malicious alarms (generated by a deliberate activation knowing that no fire exists), false alarms with good intent (those raised as a result of a genuine mistake) and those whose causes remain unknown.

Suppliers and businesses can all work to minimise these and, as industries, the fire and security sectors need to be constantly improving and enhancing their products and systems management skills in order to reduce the false alarms risk still further.

Our responsibility doesn’t – or shouldn’t – end there, however. To minimise false alarms we need to address the process by which fire alarms are installed in buildings. The placement of alarms – be they for fire or intruder detection purposes – is a ‘must have’ in commercial buildings, but all-too-often becomes an add-on in the final build stages.

Security and fire solutions providers can offer real value in the building design and construction process if they are involved early on, allowing suggestions for the best products and locations to be made in a bid to minimise false alarms. However, opportunities for such early involvement are few and far between.

The result is that suitable alarms featuring the latest technology may well be fitted, but their effectiveness is frequently compromised due to a lack of true integration with the rest of the building’s design.

The introduction of URNs for fire alarms affords everyone in the industry an opportunity to reassess their roles and establish whether or not current procedures really are good enough. Companies spend thousands and thousands of pounds on making sure that the aesthetics of a building are just right. Occupiers also spend a considerable amount of money on the equipment and technology that sits inside. It’s therefore common sense that fire and security protection be integral and considered in the first stages of any given project. That is the time when the best (and most cost-effective) solutions might be identified.

More thoughtful installation

Fire and security alarm manufacturers and installers have worked hard to improve the quality and reliability of their systems and services. They now need to ensure that old fashioned construction and contracting methods don’t prevent those same products from working effectively and efficiently.

Fire does not discriminate. By the same token, design processes shouldn’t either.