Fire technology proves its worth at Fauquier Hospital

May 1, 2000 12:00 PM, ACCESS CONTROL & SECURITY SYSTEMS INTEGRATION STAFF

Fauquier Hospital is an 86-bed nonprofit, private community hospital of trustees. It is the only hospital in Fauquier County, Va., some 40 miles west of Washington, D.C. The present, 169,000-square-foot facility was built in 1956 on an attractive 35-acre site.

There have been tremendous changes in the theory of safety since the Fauquier Hospital was built 43 years ago. Its original fire protection arrangements have been modified, expanded and updated on a regular basis over the years.

One significant upgrade is the extension of sprinkler system to all patient areas, as required by the Builders Official Code Administrators. Another important change is the modification of the fire alarm system which now employs early warning/ pinpointed protection technology. The current system has reduced the danger and distraction of false alarms.

Continuing upgrades In 1991, during the last major renovation, the hospital installed its first intelligent fire alarms system, an MXL system from Siemens Cerberus Division, Florham Park, N.J. The supervision of both analog and conventional detection devices provided by the MXL's multi-processor network design was a good fit for the needs of the hospital.

In the first phase, the MXL control panel with totally addressable MXL smoke detectors was installed in the main lobby area. The intelligent devices covered the lobby as well as outpatient areas, surgical areas, the emergency department and support services.

Most patient areas still employed conventional systems which were linked into the MXL for supervision on a zoned basis.

At the same time, an associated, 111-bed nursing home was protected with a full-facility MXL system with addressable detection devices. The sprinkler system covers all areas of the nursing home.

In 1992, the system was extended to cover all general hospital areas. In 1993, a separate maternity wing was added to the MXL protection network. And in 1998, all remaining components of the old system were removed and replaced with FirePrint Application Specific Detectors from Siemens Cerberus Division.

FirePrint provides addressable technology for heat and smoke detection. By distinguishing signs of true fire from deceptive phenomena, the device reduces false alarms. FirePrint detectors were installed in all patient areas, the administration wing, and most mechanical spaces, including the elevator equipment room.

The main control panel is located at the lower level of the hospital. A graphic annunciator is located at the main lobby and at the switchboard to show respondents exactly where the alarm signal is originating. An RCC device prints out detailed reports.

These graphic annunciators announce the general location area of the alarm but not the specific device in alarm.

In addition to the actual fire detection equipment, a paging module was connected to the main MXL panel in 1998 to notify key staff automatically when the upgraded fire detection system signalled an alarm. The pager responds to the specific detector in alarm, transmitting the exact location of that detector. However, the system was originally set up to provide only eight people with detailed alarm notification.

A fire tests the system In the early evening of June 25, 1999, a fire began in the elevator room above elevator #3. The fire originated in the elevator control panel. Hot embers fell through openings in the bottom of the panel onto a small amount of debris which was on the floor under the panel. The debris then ignited.

At 6:18 p.m. the fire alarm system activated a smoke detector in the elevator equipment room above elevator #3; nine seconds later a second smoke detector activated. None of the fire response or security people on duty that night were programmed into the new paging system. The overhead fire alarm annunciators, however, indicated that the fire alarm was on the lower level receiving area.

On receiving that Code Red, members of the hospital's fire response team rushed to the lower level and tried to find the activated detector. The detector, however, was in the closed-off elevator room, so they saw no evidence of smoke or fire in the corridor and proceeded to the main fire alarm control panel in the main lobby to check for the exact location of the alarm.

Meanwhile, John T. Clark, the director of facilities management, was alerted by pager to alarm activation - including the exact location of the detector - at his home nearby. He arrived at the main-lobby fire alarm control panel at 6:25 p.m., at the same time as the fire response team. Together, they proceeded to the fire-involved room.

They found the door was cool because the fire never became large enough or hot enough to heat the walls or door or to activate heat detectors or sprinklers. On opening the door, they found the room full of thick, black smoke.

Clark used an ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher to put out the fire. The engineering mechanic on duty was sent to the roof of the elevator shaft to remove the vent louvers, and one member of the response team went to meet the fire department and ask them to bring a smoke ejector to mitigate the smoke. Once smoke was removed from the area, the fire alarm system was reset and an "all clear" notification was given at 6:56 p.m.

Conclusions In a report following the fire, it was concluded that the entire fire response team and the security team should be in a position to receive the detailed fire-alarm notification. The paging modules have since been modified so that one number activates the fire alarm response on all 22 pagers needed.

In general, the president of the hospital and the chief operating officer were very pleased with the safe handling of the incident. The recent investment in new technology paid off very well, working exactly as intended and possibly preventing a destructive or even catastrophic escalation of the fire.

Clark, who has been with the hospital for ten years, however, is never completely satisfied.

"I would prefer to just have protection in place and never have an incident. I'm very disappointed that any debris was allowed to remain on the floor. But I am certainly pleased that the system worked the way it should have," says Clark.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Opening Up About Door Closers
• An Enterprise Approach
• The Framework For Open Systems
• On A Higher Plane
• More from April's issue