REDUCING NUISANCE COMMERCIAL ALARMS 1

(1)

Reducing Responses to Nuisance Commercial Alarms in Burlington Township Matthew B. Tomaszewski

(2)

Certification Statement

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and the appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed:_____________________________

(3)

Abstract

Over the past fifteen years the Burlington Township Fire Department (BTFD) has seen an increase in the amount of nuisance fire alarm activations. Currently these alarms account for 18.54% to 24.43% of total call volume. The problem identified for this research project was the BTFD has not identified ways to increase the effectiveness of its nuisance alarm administrative system in commercial buildings. The purpose of the research is to identify ways to increase the effectiveness of the nuisance alarm administrative system and reduce unwanted alarms. The descriptive research methodology was used to answer the following questions: (a) what

legislation options can be implemented to reduce nuisance alarms; (b) what education options are available to reduce false alarms; and (c) what engineering controls are available to reduce false alarms? The procedures used to answer the research questions included a comprehensive literature review, interviews and a survey. The results of the research showed that the BTFD needs to implement changes to the Burlington Township False Alarm Municipal Ordinance, fire inspection frequency, false alarm administration program, and develop an alarm system

education program for businesses and firefighters. It was also determined that the fire

departments response to false alarm calls needs to be revised. The recommendations that resulted from the research included updating ordinances, increased planning, implementing a notification system, developing educational courses, and revising fire department responses. Once these recommendations are implemented false or nuisance alarms will be reduced ultimately reducing the risks to citizens and firefighters.

(4)

Introduction

Smoke and fire alarms are the best way to efficiently alert building occupants of a fire emergency ("Working Alarms," 2013, para. 2). They are critical elements of a buildings overall level of safety (Moore, 2003, p. 1). These systems play a vital role in reducing fire deaths and injuries (NFPA, 2013, p. 1). With many electrical components alarm systems do experience problems and transmit false alarms. In 2011 fire departments across the country responded to 2,383,000 false alarms (Karter, 2012, para. 1). False fire alarms create issues that affect the fire department, business owners, 911 dispatch centers, and the general public. They create a sense of complacency for all parties involved and cause loss in profits, employee time, and expend

valuable resources that could be allocated to other emergencies. To change this mindset and monetary expenditure it is imperative that these essential systems are maintained and kept in proper working order so they operate as designed.

The problem is the Burlington Township Fire Department (BTFD) has not identified ways to increase the effectiveness of its nuisance alarm administrative system in commercial buildings. Nuisance alarms account for 18 to 25 percent of all responses by the BTFD

(Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013, p. 2). The purpose of this research is to identify ways to increase the effectiveness of the nuisance alarm administration system and reduce unwanted alarms. The descriptive research method was used for this applied research project (ARP). Research information was obtained through a fire department survey and interviewing state fire code representative, business managers, and fire alarm installation and repair

(7)

1. What legislation options can be implemented to reduce nuisance alarms? 2. What education options are available to reduce false alarms?

3. What engineering controls are available to aide in alarm reduction? Background and Significance

False and unwanted fire alarms are a nationwide issue that fire departments must deal with on a daily basis. According to an NFPA study, in 2009 fire departments across the United States responded to an estimated 2.1 million false alarms and in 2011 responded to 2,383,000 false alarms (Karter, 2012, p. 1). One out of every twelve calls fire departments responded to were false alarms(Karter, 2012, p. 1). Of these calls 45% are due to unintentional activations, 32% due to system malfunctions, 8% were malicious or mischievous false alarms, and 15% were other unclassified false alarms(Karter, 2012, p. 1). On average, calls for false or unwanted alarms account for 18.54% to 24.43% of total call volume for the BTFD over the past 10 years

(Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013, p. 1).

Burlington Township is a 14.2 square mile community located approximately 16 miles north of Philadelphia PA and 57 miles south of New York City (http://www.mapquest.com/). There are 6 municipalities that border Burlington Township. The township started in the 1600's as a rural farming community and over the past 25 years has built up into a commercial/industrial suburb (http://twp.burlington.nj.us/). Currently there are over 500 businesses ranging from retail stores to manufacturing plants (Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013). These consist of 8 major shopping centers to include a covered mall, Movie Theater, Wal-Mart, Target,

supermarkets, and other retail centers. The community has 2 power plants. One is a generating plant that operates gas turbine generators. The other is a tier 1 liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant

(8)

that houses 1 million gallons of natural gas. There are 4 industrial complexes that handle

chemicals, manufacturing and other hazardous substances. These sites include a 1 million square foot federal General Services Administration (GSA) warehouse and a pumping station that supplies aviation fuel from the Fort Dix/McGuire military base. Residential areas consist of single family homes, townhouses, and apartment complexes. There are also 4 large nursing homes in the Township. There are also 7.2 miles of state highway to include Interstate 295, US 130, and the New Jersey Turnpike as well as 19.8 miles of county roads

(http://www.mapquest.com/). Residential areas range in age from new construction to neighborhoods that are well over 65 years old. According to the 2010 census the current population is 22, 594 residents (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34000.html). The 1990 census showed the population was 12,479; this is a 63% population increase

(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34000.html). The next census is projected to show another increase in population to approximately 26,000 and in 20 years the population is estimated to reach 30,000 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34000.html). Due to the extensive amount of businesses the daytime population is well over 100,000 people.

The BTFD is an all volunteer fire department with the exception of 3 office staff. The 3 paid employees are the Director of Fire Services, Fire Official, and district administrative assistant. The Bureau of Fire Prevention utilizes per-diem fire inspectors to enforce the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code. The department has 85 active firefighters on the company roles. Of these members only 30% regularly respond to incidents. The fire department was founded in 1914 with the Independent Fire Company and has grown to cover the town with 3 stations throughout the township (http://www.btfd.org/). The three stations are Independent Fire Co. #1, Beverly Road Fire Co. #2, and Relief Fire Co. #3 (http://www.btfd.org/). In 1990 the Burlington

(9)

Township Fire District #1 was created. The district allowed the department to set a dedicated fire tax to raise needed funds to operate the department. The BTFD operates 12 pieces of fire

apparatus and provides a broad range of services including fire suppression, hazardous material decontamination, ice rescue, water rescue, vehicle extrication, and technical rescue.

Since 1990 the BTFD has seen a large growth in population, commercial and residential construction as well as call volume responding to a little over 400 incidents (Burlington

Township Fire Department, 2013). By 2005 call volume almost tripled at 1024 calls for service (Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013). Call volume consistently stays around 1000 incidents per year. These calls for service are only for fire response as the department does not provide medical services. Call times have even changed over the past years. The majority of the incidents came in between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Recently call volume has changed to over 60% between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M (Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013). The change in call times has hurt response by the volunteers due to the fact the majority of members work during these hours. Increased training requirements have also taxed the volunteers. Yearly mandatory training combined with increased state and federal regulations are a few of the added training requirements. Current economic conditions have also had an effect on BTFD membership. Most members work multiple jobs to get by. These

requirements are causing a day time response issue. Due to the economic downturn Burlington Township is reassessing property taxes. By the end of 2014 the reassessment will be complete, and town officials expect a decrease in revenue. At this time it is unknown how much the decrease will be.

Due to the recent growth in the past 20 to 30 years many of the buildings in Burlington Township are protected by fire alarm and sprinkler systems. The BTFD is fortunate and does not

(10)

have many large fires in life hazard buildings. While these systems are invaluable at protecting life and property they also produce frequent false alarms. Annually false alarms account for 18.54% to 24.43% of the total call volume (Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013, p. 1). Table 1shows the BTFD alarm and yearly call volume for 2003 to 2012.

Table1. BTFD Yearly Call Volume and False Alarms 2003 to 2012. Year Total Calls Alarm Calls % of alarm calls

2012 849 207 24.37% 2011 908 222 24.43% 2010 942 194 20.57% 2009 848 179 21.09% 2008 947 203 21.41% 2007 995 185 18.57% 2006 980 190 19.37% 2005 900 230 24.54% 2004 824 198 24.01% 2003 970 180 18.54%

Since false alarms account for almost ¼ of the BTFD’s annual call volume it is evident that the nuisance alarm administration system needs to be updated and improved to help reduce unwanted call volume. These alarms keep resources tied up when they could be utilized

elsewhere. Firefighters become complacent when responding. They have become accustomed to dealing with incidents where no emergency or need for fire department services is found.

Firefighters are not prepared to deal with the potential hazards they may encounter thinking it is another false incident. They do not fully wear turnout gear and self contained breathing

apparatus (SCBA). This could turn into a serious issue if an alarm activation turns out to be a real emergency. Every time a piece of fire apparatus responds they are at risk of a motor vehicle crash. To change the acceptable risk the BTFD has changed the response procedure to no lights

(11)

and sirens and a single engine for an activated fire alarm. Officers do have the discretion to upgrade the response if needed.

Building occupants have also become complacent towards fire alarm activations. Incident reports have revealed that 80% of commercial properties were not evacuated when the fire department arrived on location (Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013, p. 2). Upon arrival the alarm was found in one of three different situations. First the alarm is actively sounding, the building has not been evacuated, employees still working, and patrons still shopping. Employees also never investigated to make sure there was no smoke or fire present in the building. The next situation is the alarm system has been reset by employees prior to fire department response. The last situation found is the system was silenced and the building was not evacuated. Only 20% of commercial occupancies are evacuated upon arrival (Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013, p. 2). This complacency could turn into a serious disaster in the future.

The problem the BTFD is facing is related to the Executive Fire Officer Program's Executive Analysis of Community Risk Reduction by assessing risks systematically, so coordinated and directed efforts can be applied to reduce community risk. Specifically unit 2 Assessing Community Risk and unit 4 Leading Organizational and Community Change. Unit 2 discussed assessing hazards and causal factors, identifying risks to life and property, establishing priorities, and acceptable levels of risk (National Fire Academy, 2012, p. SM2-1). This unit has helped the BTFD determine causal factors for high false alarm call volume. Unit 4 discussed leadership challenges, change processes, why change fails, role of leaders, and strategy for leading change (National Fire Academy, 2012, p. SM4-1). Implementing organizational and business community changes will require a strong leadership plan to make an alarm reduction program successful.

(12)

The Applied Research Project (ARP) also aligns with the United States Fire Administrations operational goals 1 and 3 (USFA 2013) .

• Reduce risk at the local level through prevention and mitigation.

• Improve the fire and emergency services' capability for response and recovery from all hazards.

By reducing the amount of false alarm responses, the BTFD personnel and apparatus will be available to respond to incidents that require true emergency services response. By reducing the total call volume, volunteers will have more time to complete training and prevention activities. With less apparatus on the roadways there will be less of a chance of accidents. The fire department will save money in vehicle maintenance and repairs, fuel, and equipment break downs. Complacency by firefighters can be reduced to a minimum. Businesses will reduce the risk of having to evacuate due to a false activation. This will also reduce lost profits and lost employee time.

Literature review

The literature Review for this Applied Research Project was obtained through many different resources. Information was used from the Learning Resource Center at the National Fire Academy in the form of Executive Fire Officer applied research projects and journal articles. Information was also gathered from the Burlington County Library System and Burlington Township Fire Department National Fire Incident Reporting System. Various National Fire Protection Association standards where referenced as well as various risk

management books. Additionally the World Wide Web, surveys, and interviews where used to gain valuable information to aid in reducing nuisance fire alarms in Burlington Township.

(13)

Fire alarms play a vital role in society. Even in ancient time people realized that early detection and response to fires could save property and life (Moore, p. 1). According to President Barrack Obama, "smoke alarms are vital detection devises" (Obama, 2010, p. 1). "The primary purpose of automatic fire alarms is to warn building occupants through early detection of fire and the products of combustion. Fire alarm systems warn occupants of fire conditions and alert them to evacuate and call fire suppression forces" (Lobeto, 1996, p. 1).

Fire alarms have been around for thousands of years. In ancient Rome, men were located on streets spaced within yelling distance from each other. These men were called nocturnes and acted as the first fire alarms. When a fire was noticed these men would yell to each other relaying the alarm to the castra or fire station (Workers of the Federal Writers’ Project of the Works Progress Administration State of Oregon, 1941, p. 1). In Colonial America, "firemen" would walk the streets to look for fires (Bixler, 2013, p. 1). To notify people of the fire they would use hand bell ringers, rattles, church bells, or factory whistles. This type of notification was inaccurate and often sent the fire department to the wrong location (Moore, p. 1). This method of notification was used until the 1800's. The next big step in technology was the creation of the telegraph by Samuel F.B. Morse (Moore, p. 1).. This technology allowed for quicker and more accurate responses.

The first municipal fire alarm system was installed in New York City in 1847. This system used telegraph lines to transmit fire alarms to city hall and then to the individual fire stations (Moore, p. 1). The next municipal alarm system was installed in Boston in 1851 by William Channing and Moses Farmer (Bixler, 2013, p. 1). This system used signal boxes placed on streets and a Morse code printing register. The system had 40 signal boxes and 19 bells in churches, schools, and fire stations. This system would transmit electrical impulses from the

(14)

signal box to the Morse code printing register producing dots and dashes on the print out (Moore, p. 2). Channing presented many lectures about the Boston fire alarm system. John Gamewell first heard of this new technology from one of these lectures (Moore, p. 2) . He was impressed with the system and purchased the rights to the system from Channing (Moore, p. 2). Gamewell partnered with his brother-in-law James Gardiner and improved the system. They added a ," noninterference pull" to eliminate interference from other pull stations transmitting at the same time (Moore, p. 2). Other companies such as American District Telegraph (ADT), Holmes Electric Protective, and Rhode Island Protective were created to compete in the fire alarm market. These companies used central stations to provide alarm service. In total there were 36 fire alarm telegraph manufacturing companies. These companies later branched off into burglar systems (Moore, p. 2).

The first electric fire sensor that was used in commercial buildings was designed in the 1870's by William Watkins (Moore, p. 3). This system used electric heat sensors that were remotely monitored (Moore, p. 3). In 1873 Watkins formed the Boston Automatic Fire Alarm Company (AFA) (Moore, p. 3). This detector was activated by heat usually 125 degrees Fahrenheit and could give fire departments the exact location of a fire (Moore, p. 3). The

Watkins thermostat was the precursor of today's self-restoring bi-metallic heat detectors (Moore, p. 3).

The next advance if fire alarm technology was not until the early 1900's when George Smith created the Aero Automatic Fire Alarm. This pneumatic system was the first rate-of-rise detector(Moore, p. 4). The next technological advance in fire and smoke detection was in the 1960's when the battery powered smoke detector was invented(Bixler, 2013, p. 1) . According to Bixler, 2013, p. 1 "an estimated 92 percent of all American homes had smoke detectors by

(15)

1993". Today systems are very advanced, including computers and different types of detection heads. Transmitting alarms have moved from telegraph systems to digital wireless

communicators, cellular transmitters, and private radio systems (Bixler, 2013, p. 2).

With the invention of fire alarm systems also came the issue of unwanted alarms and nuisance alarms. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72, 2013, p.72-32, 3.3.307 defines an unwanted alarm as, "any alarm that occurs that is not the result of a potentially hazardous condition". NFPA 72, 2013, p.72-32, 3.3.307.2 defines a nuisance alarm as, "an unwanted activation of a signaling system or an alarm initiating device in response to a stimulus or condition that is not the result of a potentially hazardous condition". NFPA first addressed fire alarms in 1898 through the committee for Thermo Electric Fire Alarms. Since this time fire alarms have become an important component in residential and commercial buildings. Many are requirements from fire codes, construction codes, and from insurance companies. This

committee later evolved into NFPA 72, "National Fire Alarm Signaling Code, the recognized standard for design, installation, testing, and maintenance of fire alarm systems"(Guide to Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 2).

Unwanted or nuisance fire alarms affect the fire department, business owners, 911 dispatch centers, and the general public. According to an NFPA study, in 2009 fire departments across the United States responded to an estimated 2.1 million false alarms and in 2011

responded to 2,383,000 false alarms (Karter, 2012, p. 1). One out of every 12 calls fire departments responded to were false alarms. Of these calls 45% are due to unintentional activations, 32% due to system malfunctions, 8% were malicious or mischievous false alarms, and 15% were other unclassified false alarms. Since 1990 unintentional activations have been steadily increasing, while system malfunctions and malicious and mischievous false alarms have

(16)

been decreasing (Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. ii). A study by Dubivsky and Bukowski, 1989, showed that 1 real alarm occurred for every 15.8 unwanted alarms, or 1 activation for every 6 detection devices per year (Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. iii). According to the Hampshire Fire and Rescue services a well designed and maintained fire alarm system should produce no more than 1 false alarm per year for every 50 detection devices (Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, 2007, p. 5).

For the fire department unnecessary responses such as false alarms become taxing in terms of personnel costs, fuel, equipment wear, vehicle maintenance, risk of injury, and even death. The average time spent answering a false alarm is 90 minutes of unit time and 25 minutes of staff time (Reece, 2008, p. 71). 95 to 98 percent of all alarm calls are determined to be false (Fairfax County Virginia, 2013, p. 1). Ruckriegels data in a 2011 article shows on average that 10 percent of work done by the fire service is a waste of resources due to false alarms

(Ruckriegel, 2011, p. 1). By responding to multiple false alarms at the same property firefighters fall into the, "Boy who cried wolf syndrome"(Lobeto, 1996, p. 1) , or the, "automatic alarm mindset" (Peeples, 2000, p. 1). With these mindsets firefighters become complacent. They go to calls unprepared expecting another false alarm. According to Brown, most firefighters are frustrated when false alarms occur (Brown, 2008, p. 1). By responding to these calls unprepared firefighters put themselves at serious risk and are lulled into a trap, a false sense of security. What will happen when the alarm call turns out to be an actual fire? Firefighters often neglect to don personal protective equipment. They also neglect to bring necessary equipment with them such as high rise hose kits and other hand tools. These conditions can lead to firefighter injuries, civilian injuries, and even death. Additional property damage can also be a result of the delayed time to initiate suppression operations (Brown, 2008, p. 1). Volunteer fire departments feel the

(17)

effects of false alarms even more than paid departments. Volunteer firefighters respond to calls on their own personal time. Some are allowed to leave work to answer calls. The time it takes to answer a false alarm call detracts from time with their families, friends, and work. According to the NFPA ,(Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. 10) "Volunteer firefighters can grow resentful at being called out for no reason".

According to Chief Hank Clemmensen, "Unwanted alarms are a drain on fire department resources and pose a significant safety hazard to both responders and the public"("Unwanted Fire Alarms," 2012, p. 1) . On the other hand, Nagle views alarms as an excellent opportunity for firefighters to become familiar with the buildings in their response area and for training (Nagle, 2008, p. 1). False alarms divert emergency services away from real fires, rescues, and other emergencies. They also disrupt training, fire prevention activities, and other daily work patterns. 911 centers become overwhelmed dispatching alarm calls while more serious calls are delayed in dispatch. Accidents while responding to a false alarm is another concern. Responding at

emergency speed to alarms increases the risk of accidents and injuries. "In their analysis of firefighter fatalities in 2009, Fahy, LeBlanc, and Molis report that 29 firefighter deaths had resulted from false calls over the past 10 years" (Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. 3). 16.8% of all firefighter injuries are due to motor vehicle crashes (United States Fire Administration, 2013, p. 1).

The community is also impacted by false alarms. Fire department resources can be diverted from serious calls. The University of Washington views theses responses as a negative impact on the ability of emergency workers to service the citizens of their community. Alarms interrupt classes, lab experiments, and building occupants due to evacuations. High alarm

(18)

increased risk in the event of a real emergency(University of Washington, 2009, p. 1) . A study by South Wales Fire and Rescue Service showed that with frequent alarms people become complacent and typically do not evacuate the building (South Wales Fire and Rescue Services, 2010, p. 2). The public is at risk of increased accidents when fire apparatus are responding to unwanted alarms. Business can be impacted in several different ways. They lose money due to downtime costs when facilities are evacuated. This downtown is loss of employee time, loss of revenue from customers leaving due to the alarm, and theft during an evacuation. The

community’s tax monies are wasted by paying increasing cost for fire apparatus to respond. Alarms cost money for all parties involved. Hampshire Fire and Rescue estimated false alarms cost the United Kingdom about 1 billion pounds a year (Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, 2007, p. 3). They also found these alarms cost a medium size business 1200 pounds per alarm and a large business 126,000 pounds (Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, 2007, p. 3). In US dollars that would be $1,532,600,000 per year cost to fire departments. For business's that would be between $1,839 and $193,095 per false alarm. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) schedule of equipment rates show it costs between $70.00 to $150.00 per hour for a fire engine or ladder truck to respond (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2013, p. 6). This figure does not include the cost of the personnel on the apparatus. Iowa City charges $231.00 an hour for a single company to respond to a false alarm (Iowa City Fire Department, 2008, p. 1). For a full structure response to a false alarm they charge $935.00 per hour (Iowa City Fire Department, 2008, p. 2).

There are many causes of false alarms. Some of the common causes are cooking, steam, aerosol sprays, dust, insects, smoking, water, contractors performing work, electromagnetic interference, mechanical damage, electrical storms, humidity, fluctuation in temperatures, water

(19)

pressure surges, high air velocities, needed system upgrades, detector or alarm system equipment faults, and system testing or maintenance (South Wales Fire and Rescue Services, 2010, p. 3). Other causes are poor maintenance, alarm system design, and employees knowledge of the system (South Wales Fire and Rescue Services, 2010, p. 7).

In 2004 the NFPA conducted a study to gain information on alarm system activations. 40% of respondents reported one smoke alarm activation in the last 12 months, 69% had activations due to cooking, 13% were due to battery issues, 5% due to steam, and 4% were due to alarm tests (Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. 7). This study also evaluated people's mindset after the alarm sounded. 24% said food was burned, 11% thought about how to turn off the alarm, 11% were unconcerned because they knew what caused the activation, 8% investigated the cause, 8% thought there was a fire and evacuated, 7% thought it was a bad battery, 7% were annoyed and thought it was a nuisance alarm, 3% noted the smoke alarm works, 3% thought they should have used an exhaust fan, and 2% did not know it was a fire alarm activation and wondered what it was (Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. 8).

Cooking is still one of the leading causes for false alarms. These activations are due to burnt food, unattended cooking, detectors to close or in the same room as cooking operations, cooking in non-permitted areas, ventilation fans not in operation, and steam from cooking (Guide to Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 12). Smoking in buildings or in close proximity of buildings will falsely activate alarms (Guide to Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 12). Construction and vendors cause numerous false alarms. These are caused by creating dust, hot work, fumes, and creating other construction byproducts (Guide to Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 13). After work is complete if detector heads are not cleaned of all construction debris more false activations will be caused (Guide to Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 14). Weather can also affect alarm systems. Devices can

(20)

be triggered by high humidity, wind, high air movement, fluctuations in temperatures, and water ingress (Guide to Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 14). Janitors and other cleaning crews can trip alarms by using aerosols and other cleaning items (South Wales Fire and Rescue Services, 2010, p. 4). Design of the system also contributes to false alarms. Placement of detector heads is just as important as the type and style of detector head used. Placement near heating and ventilation ducts, exterior doorways, linen or laundry areas, bathrooms, and kitchens will build false

activations into the system (Guide to Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 14). Duct detectors will activate if not properly maintained since they are regularly exposed to dust and humidity (Guide to

Unwanted Alarms, 2012, p. 15). Electrical storms and electromagnetic interference can cause false activations, damage, and render a system inoperable. Electrical surges can travel through electric lines, phone lines, and cable lines (Williams, 2002, p. 1). Williams explains that, "putting a surge protector on the AC power does not provide adequate protection" . Any wiring going to a fire alarm panel is a possible entry point for stray voltage that can cause false activations or damage the system. Power fluctuations can reduce a fire alarms life by as much as 30 percent (Williams, 2002, p. 2). A person’s knowledge of the system can also cause unwanted alarms. Most people responsible for a fire alarm system do not know how to properly operate or maintain the system. They are unaware of maintenance procedures and intervals (Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, 2007, p. 7).

All of the above alarm causes can be rectified to reduce the amount of false alarms. This can be accomplished through enforcement, design, maintenance, technology and engineering controls, and education. The first place to start false alarm reduction is in the design stage of a fire alarm system. When planning for installation of a fire alarm system research what type of system suits the business’s needs? Location and type of detection heads should be carefully

(21)

planned out (Country Fire Authority, 2013, p. 1) . The Country Fire Authority Australia (CFA) suggests that most business owners will install the most inexpensive system and not the most appropriate(Country Fire Authority, 2013, p. 2) . In the long run choosing a system that is tailored to the business and does not generate false alarms is more cost effective than going with the lowest cost (Country Fire Authority, 2013, p. 1). Heads should not be installed in areas that will cause false activations. Examples of these are smoke detectors in a kitchen or a heat detector in an area that has high fluctuations in temperature. For existing buildings and alarm systems a risk assessment of potential false alarms should be conducted by an alarm service company. When renovating buildings designers should be consulted to ensure proper alarm coverage. Older alarm system should be upgraded and improved upon (Country Fire Authority, 2013, p. 1).

The next section of alarm reduction is system maintenance. In England a “responsible person” is put in charge of managing the fire alarm system. This person is responsible for ensuring the system is properly maintained. They are also required to have knowledge of laws, codes, and standards that regulate alarm systems. A responsible person should also be trained in how the system works and that faults and failures are repaired quickly and efficiently

(Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, 2007, p. 7) . According to NFPA 72, 2013 chapter 14, alarm systems should be maintained and inspected annually. Some devices and parts of the system need to be inspected monthly while other parts only need to be inspected semiannually. Detector heads should have initial sensitivity testing and then every other year. Paine

recommends regular cleaning of detectors as they become blocked with dust, dirt, insects, water, and oils (Paine, 2013, p. 1). Some fire departments require that notification is made to

(22)

notification gives fire department officials the opportunity to witness testing and explain any ongoing issues with the system (Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, 2007, p. 7).

Even though alarm systems are powered by electricity it can also cause major problems. Power surges and electromagnetic interference are causes of false alarms and at times can damage the system. An article by Williams explains that life safety systems can be rendered inoperable by lightning, power surges, brown outs, blackouts, grid switching, and equipment draws (Williams, 2002, p. 1). To resolve this issue, Crahen's solution has been to enforce NFPA 70 (Williams, 2002, p. 2). Installations of surge protectors on electric lines and alarm wires should reduce false alarms. As alarms become more advanced and technology improves so does the infrastructure. Instead of standard telephone lines alarms now use cable and internet lines for communications. These wires are low voltage but still provide a path for stray electricity that can affect the system. The solution is to install surge protectors on the lines. Burke suggests that surge protectors should be designed for the specific application. Selection should take into account the latest codes. Installing the wrong protection device can also cause false alarms.

Technology changes on a regular basis. Advancements in alarms systems make them more reliable and less prone to break down and false activations. Systems have changed from the standard conventional system to addressable systems that can display what detection heads are dirty or have been activated. Alarm technicians can review history of the system so they can better service and repair the system. This type of alarm panel also allows for alarm system verification. NFPA 72, 2013, 3.3.16 describes verification as, "a feature of automatic fire detection and alarm systems to reduce unwanted alarms wherein smoke detectors report alarm conditions for a minimum period of time, or confirm alarm conditions within a given time period after being reset, in order to be accepted as a valid alarm initiation signal". New detection heads

(23)

such as the IoPhic will greatly reduce alarms ("New Smoke Alarm," 2012, p. 1). According to Roberts, 2012 p.1, "the alarm employs a fire profile analysis that evaluates a variety of factors including the rate-of-rise, particles of combustion, and the concentration and the duration of smoke or steam in order to ensure it responds when a hazard is present but does not activate during a potential nuisance situation”. Another fairly new detector are the video image flame detector and the video image smoke detector. These detectors use automatic analysis of real time video images to detect the presence of smoke or flames (NFPA72, 2013, 3.3.309 and 3.3.269.5). Fire alarm systems can now be controlled, tracked, and managed through personnel desktop computers (Honeywell, 2011, p. 1). Systems like the Silent Knight can tie multiple building systems into one computer.

Engineering controls can be implemented to significantly reduce false alarms. Most of these solutions do not involve work or changes to the alarm system. These solutions involve policies such as moving smoking areas away from a buildings doorways and windows. The NFPA guide to reducing unwanted alarms recommends keeping cooking appliances such as microwaves and coffee pots out of areas containing smoke detectors (Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. 8). While cooking ventilation systems should be utilized to evacuate smoke, steam, and oils away from detection devices. South Wales Fire and Rescue Service recommends making sure that doors and windows fit tight to keep out weather elements that can contribute to false system activations(South Wales Fire and Rescue Services, 2010, p. 3). They also discussed controlling vendors and contractors performing work on the premises. Vendors are required to have work permits (South Wales Fire and Rescue Services, 2010, p. 6). Alarm systems must be isolated from the zone they are working in or the entire system should be placed in test mode. Detector head covers should be used to reduce the amount of dust and dirt ingested into a detector.

(24)

Vendors are also required to clean detector heads when work is completed (South Wales Fire and Rescue Services, 2010, p. 6). Some businesses do not let vendors start work until they are briefed on company policy, procedures, and notification is made to fire officials.

Fire departments also use response and enforcement procedures to combat nuisance alarms. Many departments are reducing speeds of their responses. Fire apparatus will no longer respond with lights and sirens. Other departments ceased response to alarm systems. An article by Dove explains that the Henderson Nevada fire department has a policy not to respond to alarm calls until a secondary means of verification is reported (Dove, 2009, p. 1). The

verification could be an activated water flow device or visible fire. Many departments around the country are following suit and analyzing run statistics, implementing modified response plans, and adopting policies similar to Henderson’s (Dove, 2009, p. 1). In 2003 Las Vegas Fire Department adopted a similar policy(Dove, 2009, p. 1). The Norfolk Fire and Rescue service have adopted a similar response procedure (Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service, 2013, p. 3). Their department no longer responds to alarm calls during the day with in the working week unless it is confirmed to be a fire. Some departments utilize the police department to investigate alarms and decide to call or recall the fire department. In a report by Painter and Correia they suggest that police can respond faster to calls since they are already in their car patrolling assigned zones (Correia & Painter, 2008, p. 2). Police should be given the authority to investigate and determine if fire department response is needed. This can reduce the amount of fire department responses to unwanted alarms.

Some fire departments have not changed responses. To combat false alarms they have turned to charging for their services. Iowa City has implemented a plan to bill for apparatus and personnel that respond to false alarms (Iowa City Fire Department, 2008, p. 1). An article by

(25)

Bryan explains how Rancho Cucamonga uses an alarm response recovery fee (Bryan, 2012, p. 1). This fee is charged to the responsible party that whose actions caused the alarm. The purpose is to recover the cost of apparatus and personnel that respond. It is not a revenue generator but a means to effect a reduction in response costs. The policy is zero tolerance and can be charged to alarm companies, contractors, and the building’s occupants.

Other departments use code enforcement and ordinances to deal with false alarms. Fire prevention personnel and inspectors can be very effective at reducing alarms. Dell’Orfano reported increased business and complaint inspection activity by the South Metro Fire Rescue Authority led to a decrease in false alarm responses to top offenders (Dell’Orfano, 2010, p. 70). Periodic fire inspections need to occur for all business’s and public buildings. Fire inspectors can issue citations or violations mandating a business to have their alarm systems repaired and maintained. If systems are not put back into working order fire inspections have the authority to issue penalties or court actions against the facility. In addition to enforcing the fire code many fire departments have adopted town ordinances to regulate and fine for false alarms (Brown, 2008, p. 2). Fairfax County Virginia police use an ordinance which allows monetary penalties to be assessed after the 2nd false alarm (Fairfax County Virginia, 2013, p. 2). The fine for the 3rd alarm is $100 and can increase to $3,000. Other towns such as Lincoln Nebraska, Pittsfield Illinois, and Amherst Massachusetts are amongst many that have adopted ordinances allowing them to charge for false alarms ("Working Alarms," 2013, p. 2). All of these ordinances vary in the amount they charge and how many alarm responses are free. Some charge $25 and others charge $250 initially. Some ordinances give 3 free alarm responses while others charge after the 1st alarm. Burlington Township false fire alarm ordinance 108 does not charge for the first 3 false alarms. The next alarm has a cost of $50 and up to $250. If a business does not pay the fine

(26)

a tax lien will be assessed against the property (Burlington Township Municipal Ordinance, 1996).

Fire department personnel play a very important role in reducing and resolving nuisance alarm issues. According to Ruckriegel, "when company officers determine an alarm is false they need to transition from officer to investigator" (Ruckriegel, 2011, p. 1). The officers need to determine the root cause of the activation and document it. From there officers need to complete a report and write a good narrative. This report will help fire prevention personnel follow up and resolve the issue. When writing the report officers need to put the alarm into a category from the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). There are three main categories: Malicious, mischievous false alarm, system or detector malfunction, and unintentional system or detector operation (Burlington Township Fire Department, 2013, p. 1). Under each of these categories are more detailed specific codes that categorize each type of alarm response. The National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) puts alarm activations under the 700 section. One problem with coding these calls is officers typically enter the wrong codes. By not entering the proper codes fire inspectors along with the state and FEMA get unreliable information and statistics.

In New Jersey Fire Inspectors utilize the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code for enforcement NJAC 5:70 and the International Fire code 2006, New Jersey Edition. This code is based off of the 2006 International Fire Code and then modified to be New Jersey specific. The Uniform Fire Code is the previous edition of the code that is based off of the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA). This code is still used for administration and retrofit codes, but no longer for enforcement. The 2006 edition does have an enforcement section for alarm systems. Multiple chapters in the code cover the inspection and enforcement of alarm systems. The code also refers inspectors to NFPA 72 for any alarm system items not covered by

(27)

the New Jersey edition. Under the code Inspectors can issue citations and fines for any violation noted. Period inspections are limited to yearly, semi-annually, and quarterly based on the type of occupancy. If a complaint is lodged about a property a fire inspector is bound by code to

investigate within 24 hours. Anyone can make a complaint; it can be the police, fire department, emergency medical services, employees, or the general public.

In emergency situations where an alarm system continually activates or is out of service the code has a provision for a fire watch. The New Jersey 2006 code, pg. 8, defines fire watch as, “a temporary measure intended to ensure continuous and systematic surveillance of a building or portion thereof by one or more qualified individuals for the purposes of identifying and

controlling fire hazards, detecting early signs of unwanted fire, raising an alarm of fire and notifying the fire department". Under a fire watch the alarm system is rendered inoperable and the business must have personnel on site whose sole responsibility is to patrol the building and watch for the occurrence of fire. Frequency and location of checks needs to be documented. The fire watch can be terminated after the alarm system has been placed back into working order.

Under extreme conditions New Jersey Criminal Code has statutes to cover false alarms. New Jersey 2C:33-3 is for false public alarms. In subsection A, a person is guilty of a 3rd degree crime if they initiate or circulate a report or warning of an impending fire, explosion, bombing, crime, catastrophe, or emergency knowing that the warning is false and likely to cause

evacuation of a building. In subsection B a person is guilty of a 2nd degree crime if a facsimile bomb was used to cause the false alarm. Under subsection C a person is guilty of a 2nd degree crime if a person is seriously injured during the false alarm created. Under subsection E a person is guilty of a 4th degree crime if they knowingly call 911 without the purpose of reporting an emergency. This statute can only be issued to an individual and not to a business. The civil

(28)

penalty for this statute is not less than $2,000 or the actual costs incurred by emergency services for response to the false alarm, whichever is higher.

Standard business practices would consider fire alarm systems and the above measures as risk management. Risk is an important part of life, decisions that are made daily can create risk (MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986, p. xi). According to MacCrimmon and Wehrung, 1986, pg. 9, risk can be defined as, exposure to the chance of injury or loss. Keyes, 1985, p. 22 - 24 looks at risk in a different way. The dictionary definition defines risk as, to expose to hazard or danger (Merriam-Webster, 2013, p. 1). This definition does not fit all the aspects of risk. Keyes 1985, p. 22 views risk as a person's sense of fear and danger of possible loss. Fear is what motivates people to make a decision or not to. When an activity or decision is described as risky people really mean it's scary (Keyes, 1985, p. 24). Perrow, 1984 pg. 3 views technology as a risk. We create new technology to solve problems and become safer but there is also a new risk that is built into the system that was never accounted for. It is not realized it is a risk until it's too late. Kunreuther and Slovic, 1996 pg. 11 view risk management as a tradeoff between risk reduction and costs. Only high level items such as death and injury reduction and prevention are worth the monetary tradeoffs. Graham and Rhomberg, 1996 pg. 15, state "that in any particular instance an adverse outcome may or may not occur; causative factors skew the probabilities of different outcomes". Detection and measurement of risk must come from real world instances that have occurred. MacCrimmon and Wehrung, 1986, pg.9 described 3 determinants that are inherent in every risky situation. These are lack of control, lack of information, and lack of time. He also provided the REACT model pg. 30 as a method to manage risk (MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986, p. 30). In this method the acronym stands for recognize, evaluate, adjust, choose, and track.

(29)

Reduction in false and nuisance alarm responses will reduce risk for the fire department, businesses, and community. The fire department will be available to handle more serious calls and save money in the cost of response. Business will save money in the cost of fines and lost profit and lost employee time from building evacuations. Resolutions to false alarm activity include system design, maintenance, knowledge and educations, frequent inspections, code enforcement, and local ordinances. False alarm reduction is an issue that all involved parties need to work on together to resolve.

Procedures

The process used to prepare this ARP started with the proposal. As Burlington Township has built up over the past years, so has the amount of false alarm activations. The BTFD has a nuisance alarm administrative system that was in need of updating to make it more effective at reducing the amount of false alarm calls. False alarm call statistics from the BTFD NFIRS system were analyzed for the time period of 2003 to 2012 (Appendix M). The analysis looked at the number of false alarm calls, percentage of call volume, types of alarm, and the NFIRS coding.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to determine what others have written about the topic of false alarm reduction. The research included reviewing text books, magazine and journal articles, applied research projects, websites, NFPA guides, and other pertinent sources of information. Information was obtained from the Learning Resource Center at the National Fire Academy, the internet, and from the Burlington County New Jersey Public Library system. The literature review was structured to look at all aspects of false alarms and to obtain information to answer the following research questions. What legislation options can be

(30)

implemented to reduce nuisance alarms? What education options are available to reduce false alarms? What engineering controls are available to aide in alarm reduction?

The descriptive research methodology was used as the research model. Multiple interviews and a survey were conducted to gain information and data for the ARP. The survey titled False Alarm Reduction was sent to 100 members of the BTFD (Appendix A). The survey was sent electronically through the Survey Monkey website. It contained 10 questions that were true or false, multiple answer, and essay. As of August 1, 2013 twenty five responses to the survey was collected. The survey was designed to elicit information from BTFD firefighters. The survey gauged the firefighters understanding of false alarms, fines, code enforcement, solutions to responses, and ways to reduce alarm calls. The survey was anonymous and did not require any identifying information. Each question also provided a comments box to account for expansion of answers.

The 1st question identified if the BTFD firefighters perceived alarm system responses to commercial occupancies as an issue. The purpose was to determine if the firefighters felt we responded to too many false alarms. 80% of respondents felt that alarm responses to commercial false alarms were an issue that needs to be addressed.

Question's 2, 3, and 4 looked at the Burlington Township False Alarm Ordinance and fine schedule. The current schedule allows the BTFD to issue a fine after the business has had 3 false alarms in 1 calendar year. The fines start at $50.00 and increase with each alarm activation to a fine not to exceed $250.00. Question 2 determined if the frequency of the fine should change. Should the fine occur sooner than the third false alarm? The 3rd question was designed

(31)

to determine if the current $50.00 fine was adequate. And the 4th question looked at increasing or decreasing the fine amount.

Question 5 polled members to determine if using the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code fire watch provision was an acceptable way to help reduce the amount of false alarms.

Question 6 and 9 were used to determine volunteer firefighter’s responses to false alarms. Question 6 looked specifically at weather BTFD members respond to alarm system calls or more serious nature calls. Question 9 looked at the amount of personnel needed on a piece of apparatus to investigate a false alarm call.

Question 7 and 10 looked at false alarm education. Question 7 was designed to determine if an educational program for business owners on the operation and maintenance of an alarm system would help reduce false alarms. Questions 10 looked at firefighter education with regard to alarm systems. This question was used to determine if firefighters had enough training to deal with a false alarm appropriately.

Question 8 was designed to give firefighters an open essay to express their possible solutions to reduce the amount of false alarms. This question allowed the respondents to give any and all ideas to help determine causes of the false alarm problem.

The next step in the ARP process was analyzing the results. The Survey Monkey analysis section of the website was used to complete this. Questions and answers were tallied and given a percentage for each possible combination of answers. For comments and essay questions

answers were placed into different categories. These categories were fines, education, code enforcement, response, and no answers. The information from the survey was later used to help answer research question 1 (Appendix B).

(32)

Interviews were conducted with the following individuals:

• Lee Cosky, Maintenance Supervisor, Marcella Center. Interview conducted on May 16, 2013 9:00 A.M., at Marcella Center 2305 Rancocas Road, Burlington New Jersey. • Frank Napoli, Senior Plant Operations Manager, Power Back Rehabilitation. Interview

conducted on May 17, 2013 10:00 A.M., at Burlington Woods 115 Sunset Road, Burlington New Jersey.

• Tim Richardson, Director of Emergency Services, Masonic Home. Interview conducted on May 21, 2013 10:00 A.M., at Masonic Home 902 Jacksonville Road, Burlington New Jersey.

• Chris Johnson, Maintenance, Burlington Township School District. Interview conducted on May 23, 2013 9:15 A.M., at Independent Fire Company #1 1601 Burlington Bypass, Burlington New Jersey.

• George Beckett, Fire Code Assistant Representative II, Department of Community Affairs Division of Fire Safety. Interview conducted on May 23, 2013 3:45 P.M., over the phone.

• Kevin Mullen, Battalion Chief, Florence Township Fire Department. Interview conducted on May 23, 2013 5:30 P.M., over the phone.

• Charlene Washington, Assistant Manager, Chuck E. Cheese's. Interview conducted on May 24, 2013 10:30 A.M., at Chuck E. Cheese's 2497 Burlington Mount Holly Road, Burlington New Jersey.

(33)

• Ross Kownatsky, Fire Official, Mount Laurel Fire Department. Interview conducted on May 29, 2013 3:30 P.M., over the phone.

• Henry Tiver, Owner, Protective Services. Interview conducted on June 3, 2013 1:00 P.M., at Independent Fire Company #1 1601 Burlington Bypass, Burlington New Jersey. • Joe Petsch, Owner, Franklin Alarm Company. Interview conducted on June 5, 2013 1:30

P.M., over the phone.

These individuals were chosen for the interview process for numerous reasons. The interviewee's from business settings were selected because they have had or currently have numerous false alarm activations each year. Some of these individuals have been instrumental in making changes to reduce the number of alarms. The alarm company owners were selected because of their expertise in alarm system installation, repair, and maintenance. The fire

department officials were selected because they run very successful programs to keep false alarm calls to a minimum in their jurisdictions. (Appendix C through L for interviews)

After determining the individuals to interview a list of interview questions were

developed. The questions were reviewed and changed accordingly to help facilitate a structured and open interview. The questions were designed to gain key information and data to answer the research questions. For research question 1 George Beckett, Kevin Mullen, and Ross Kownatsky were interviewed. For research question 2 and 3 Chris Johnson, Charlene Washington, Frank Napoli, Henry Tiver, Joe Petsch, Lee Cosky, and Tim Richardson were interviewed. During the interview process the researcher explained the importance and use of the ARP, the research questions, and the purpose of the research. Interviewee's were encouraged to answer questions openly and honestly. They were also encouraged to expand on answers they felt were important

(34)

to the study. Each interview took 1/2 to 1 1/2 hours to complete. Interviews were scheduled and completed at various locations and including over the phone depending on interviewee

availability and convenience.

Interview questions were developed based on each person’s area of expertise. For the business representatives questions were developed to help determine; (a) frequency of false alarms; (b) common causes of false alarm activations; (c) benefits of an alarm system education program for the business; (d) effect of violations and fines on alarm repair and maintenance compliance; and (e) engineering controls that could be implemented to reduce the frequency of false alarms. For the fire department officials questions were developed to determine; (a) what does their fire department do to reduce and deal with false alarm activations; and (b) the effects they have had from using violations and fines for compliance. For the New Jersey State Fire Representative questions were developed to determine; (a) legislative options to help reduce false alarms; (b) common causes of false alarm activations; and (c) benefits of an alarm

maintenance and repair educational program for all businesses. For alarm installation and repair companies questions were developed to determine; (a) common causes of false alarm activations; (b) benefits of an alarm maintenance and repair educational program for all businesses; and (c) what technology is available to help reduce false alarms.

An analysis of the interview responses was conducted. Responses were reviewed for common causes and themes between all parties interviewed. Responses were looked at in terms of possible costs, implementation issues, change management issues, appropriateness, possible results, training issues, and possible acceptance or defiance from all involved parties. The responses were memorialized in the appendices and later used in the results, recommendation, and discussion sections of this ARP.

(35)

The next step of the ARP was an in depth analysis of the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code, Burlington Township False Alarm Ordinance, and the New Jersey Title 2C criminal Code. Each of these legal documents was reviewed for procedures and violations that could be used to reduce nuisance fire alarms. These documents were also examined to determine what enforcing agency is responsible for their administration.

Limitations did exist with this research project. The majority of literature that has been written on alarm system reduction and prevention was from the United Kingdom (UK). There is substantial literature from the United States but most of it was about response issues, code enforcement, ordinances, and fines. The literature from the UK was excellent but discussed laws and codes that only pertain to England.

The research only looked at the BTFD false alarm statistics. The research could have been more comprehensive by surveying departments of like size and demographics to see how their statistics compared to the BTFD. The research could have also investigated more

departments to determine how they respond to and handle false alarms. This study was limited to only commercial buildings. The study could have also included residential false alarm

activations.

The small number of surveys returned could have some statistical impact. The low number of responses only represents a small number of firefighters and may not give an accurate representation of the department’s opinion on the topic. The sample size could have been

increased to include firefighters from surrounding municipalities whose departments respond to Burlington Township for mutual aide. Surveys could have also been created to poll the alarm installation and repair professionals as well as businesses with fire alarm system.

(36)

The final limitation was New Jersey law and codes. Current laws and codes cannot be changed easily. There is a long process to make changes to any of these documents. At the time of this ARP the researcher is bound to the current laws and codes. Changes and or additions to the BTFD nuisance alarm administrative system must follow the current established laws and codes.

Results

The purpose of this research was to determine how to increase the effectiveness of the BTFD nuisance alarm administrative system. Research conducted through this APR was utilized to answer the research questions and develop strategies to reduce fire alarm activation and risk to the residents and firefighters in Burlington Township New Jersey.

The 1st research question to answer was: What legislation options can be implemented to reduce nuisance alarms? The question was researched by an analysis of the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code, Title 2C Criminal Law, and Township False Alarm Ordinance. A survey of BTFD firefighters was conducted and an interview with the State Fire Code Representative was done. The researched showed that the Uniform Fire Code and Burlington Township False Alarm Ordinance are the only legislation that can be used to reduce alarm activations. The interview with George Beckett confirmed these findings (G. Beckett, personal communication, May 23, 2013) . His recommendation was to develop a false alarm ordinance. The municipal legislation will allow the local enforcing agency to assess fines for multiple nuisance and false alarm

activations. The ordinance can cover commercial and residential properties. The other legislation is the use of the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code.

(37)

The current Burlington Township False Alarm Ordinance is chapter 108 of the municipal ordinances. Under the current ordinance the 1st through the 3rd false alarm is penalized through a written letter. The 4th alarm allows for a $50.00 fine. The 5th alarm allows for a $100.00 fine and the 6th and subsequent alarm allows for a $250.00 fine. The survey results showed that 36% of responses were to change the ordinance to fine at the 2nd false alarm and 64% showed to fine at the 3rd alarm. 76% of the respondents felt that a $50 fine is not adequate while 24% felt the fine amount was sufficient. 20% of respondents felt the fine schedule should stay the same, 52% felt the fine should increase to $100, 16% felt the fine should increase to $150, and 12% felt the fine should increase to more than $150.

The New Jersey Uniform Fire Code allows Local Enforcing Agencies to perform periodic inspections in business and other buildings where the public could enter. The inspection

frequency depends on the use of the building and potential for fire and other safety hazards. Most buildings are inspected annually, while other can be inspected quarterly. An analysis of the code found provisions to enforce false alarms. When anyone makes a complaint about a business the local enforcing agency has 24 hours to investigate the complaint. Under this the fire inspector can go to every alarm and investigate the cause and take appropriate steps to correct the

activation. The correction can include writing violations and fines. Chapter 907 of the Fire code covers alarm system requirements, maintenance, and testing. Chapter 907 also refers inspectors to NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signal Code for any items not covered by the New Jersey code. The code also has a provision to place a business on fire watch. Under a fire watch the businesses alarm system is placed out of service. It becomes the businesses responsibility to maintain personnel on location 24 hours a day to watch the building. These personnel are

(38)

discovered it is their responsibility to call 911 so the fire department can be dispatched. The fire watch must continue until the alarm is repaired and properly placed back in service.

Interviews with Ross Kownatsky and Kevin Mullen were conducted to determine how other local fire departments deal with false alarms. Kevin Mullen only used fines and violations as a last resort (K. Mullen, personal communication, May 23, 2013). He tries to reason with the business and make them understand the importance of having the system working properly. He also requires that the fire department is notified when a repair is made. This provides the fire department the opportunity to discuss the alarm issues with the repair company since the businesses are not always knowledgeable about the fire alarm system. Ross Kownatsky uses a different approach (R. Kownatsky, personal communication, May 29, 2013). He requires a fire inspector to witness every alarm test and repair to verify the work is being done. Violations are regularly written after a false alarm requiring a repair service to respond within 2 hours.

Violations and fines are used as the primary way of getting businesses to comply and properly maintain a working fire alarm system.

The analysis of the 2C criminal code resulted in no useful law for enforcing the reduction of false alarms. States 2C:28-4 False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities, Statute 2C:33-3 False Public Alarms, and statute 2C:33-12 Maintaining a Nuisance were examined. These statutes do not pertain to a business. They are only enforceable against individuals.

The fire department survey also showed that volunteer firefighters are less likely to respond to an alarm call versus a more serious call. 100% of respondents agreed with this. 44% feel it is ok to investigate an alarm system with 2 firefighters on an apparatus while 44% feel a full crew of 4 should be required to investigate an alarm call. Through the essay questions the

(39)

firefighters recommended increased education for businesses and firefighters on alarm systems. They also recommended increased fines, violations, and placing businesses on fire watch.

The 2nd research question to answer was: What education options are available to reduce false alarms? The question was researched through interviews and a fire department survey. 80% of firefighters felt that false commercial alarms were an issue in Burlington Township while 20% felt our current false alarm calls were not an issue. The survey also showed that 88% of

respondents felt an educational program should be developed and implemented for business owners. Only 12% felt it was not necessary. 68% felt that the firefighters do not have adequate training to investigate an alarm activation while 32% felt the training was fine. The interview with George Beckett showed that a class should be conducted to educate business owners about fire code requirements, maintaining the system, and operation. The interview with Charlene Washington showed that education would be beneficial (C. Washington, personal

communication, May 24, 2013). As a manager she was unaware that yearly maintenance is required and was unsure of the system requirements. Interviews with Tim Richardson (T. Richardson, personal communication, May 21, 2013), Lee Cosky (L. Cosky, personal

communication, May 16, 2013), Chris Johnson (C. Johnson, personal communication, May 23, 2013), and Frank Napoli (F. Napoli, personal communication, May 17, 2013) also showed that an education program or class would be beneficial for businesses and help reduce false alarms. These individuals also noted that education for their facilities would not help them since they are aware of the requirements for their alarm systems. Joe Petsch agreed that education was

important (J. Petsch, personal communication, June 5, 2013). The program should cover system requirements, maintenance, cleaning, detector head placement, and detector head selection. Henry Tiver agreed education would work but did not recommend a class (H. Tiver, personal

(40)

communication, June 3, 2013). He recommended sending out pamphlets and material explaining the alarms systems, as attendance may be poor and one- on-one training is not feasible due to current staffing.

The 3rd research question to answer was: What engineering controls are available to aide in alarm reduction? The question was researched through interviews. The interview with Henry Tiver showed that new technology can reduce false alarms. Addressable systems allow a business to see faults and run regular reports about the system. They also show when detector heads are dirty and give a percentage of how clogged they are. These systems can also use a verification mode. Another new technology is cellular radios. These new communications are more reliable than previous methods for communication. The use of non-proprietary panels makes it easier for alarm companies to make repairs. This means a faster turnaround time and the alarm will be out of service for less time. The last recommendation by Mr. Tiver was changing the time when test signals are sent. They should be communicated at times when employees are available to deal with them. The interview with Joe Petsch showed a different approach. Petsch explained that alarms can be reduced through proper system design and regular maintenance. There is no difference in reliability between a conventional or addressable system. He also recommends fire department involvement in the repair process and silencing the alarm instead of resetting it so a root cause can be determined and ultimately repaired.

The following interviews all had the same recurring theme of system maintenance. The interview with Charlene Washington showed that a yearly maintenance program would help eliminate false alarms. Frank Napoli recommended a regular maintenance program to include a schedule for cleaning detector heads. He also recommended more frequent cleaning schedule for problem areas like dryer rooms and kitchens. Tim Richardson recommended running a program

(41)

to clean and replace detector heads as needed. He suggested having maintenance trained to do basic alarm system maintenance. Lee Cosky recommended cleaning all detector heads on a monthly basis. Chris Johnson recommended setting up a monthly maintenance schedule.

Additional results were also discovered during the research. An analysis of NFIRS call data from 2003 until 2012 showed that the types of alarms are not being coded properly when entered into the computer system. Officers are entering alarms in as alarm malfunction and unintentional activation. None of the other NFIRS codes are being utilized. Because of this the type and cause of alarm system activation could not be determined from the data.

The interviews also showed other useful data. All of the interviewees agreed that

violations and fines are good way to force a business to repair and maintain their alarm systems. Research was also gathered on the cause of false alarm activations. The common causes noted are dialer issues, weather related, system design, vendors performing work, malicious

activations, system age, maintenance, no battery backups, improper installation, and knowledge of the system.

Discussion

Research has shown that false and nuisance fire alarms are a problem across the country. Response to these calls is an issue that affects all fire departments. As budgets and resources are reduced fire departments are continually asked to maintain the same level of services provided. As an all volunteer department the BTFD realizes that the membership’s time is a valuable resource that should be utilized appropriately. One way to accomplish this task is to reduce the nuisance or false alarms that are regularly dispatched. This is a monumental challenge that most departments face time and time again. By reducing these alarms the fire department will be better prepared to deal with real emergency calls for service.

(42)

The Burlington Townships NFIRS data shows that false alarm call volume from 2003 to 2012 is 18.54% to 24.43% of total annual call volume. According to an NFPA study, in 2009 fire departments across the United States responded to an estimated 2.1 million false alarms and in 2011 responded to 2,383,000 false alarms (Karter, 2012, p. 1). Ahrens & Evarts, 2011, p. ii, one out of every 12 calls fire departments responded to were false alarms. Based these statistics the BTFD is well over the national average by responding to 199 false alarm calls per year. Through the false alarm survey 80% of respondents felt that false alarms are an