Page 112 - Security Today, May/June 2019

fire/life safety
sripfoto/Shutterstock.com
nication with the occupants, so they understand what they need to do, so as to not hamper emergency response, and to ensure that they don’t put themselves in harm’s way.
Similarly, security and life safety systems often both use notifica- tion devices of different types to alert occupants to an emergency. Options such as dynamic egress signage that can direct occupants away from a threat from fire or security issue is one such option to marry the notification requirements of both systems in order to maximize the congruity for the maximum protection benefit. Both may also utilize similar, or even identical, technologies in order to detect threats.
While there is not a spot type threat detector similar to a smoke detector available (at least not to my knowledge), video detection is commonly used to detect security threats, and can also be used for fire detection. While this technology may be cost-prohibitive, for cer- tain occupancies it can offer benefits, and when utilized for both security and fire alarm it may be more financially feasible. However, this kind of planning is best incorporated at the design phase to ensure there are no redundancies that drive up costs.
However, there are ample challenges to overcome as well. For example, security often focuses on deterring access, not just with locked doors, but even traffic access via perimeter security such as gates and bollards which may also slow down emergency response. Even considerations such as crowd control during special events, and temporary traffic and parking patterns for occupancy surges (for events such as graduations or athletic events), can impact both secu- rity and fire safety response.
To satisfactorily integrate a complete emergency response plan that incorporates both security and fire safety, it is vital to begin as early in the facility lifecycle as feasible. A step-by-step approach can help to guide decisions and identify opportunities in order to maxi- mize crossover technologies, reduce costs and develop workable solu- tions to overcome conflicts. This step-by-step approach is as follows:
Define threats. What could happen, when and where could it happen?
Investigate infrastructure. What fire and life safety systems do you have in place or are required to be in place (for new facilities), what communication systems are provided or planned, and how do these systems interact?
Planning. The planning must include:
• Life safety plan including fire alarm, evacuation, suppression,
monitoring systems and alerting systems as well as emergency
responder plans.
• Security plan including campus-wide security, surveillance, and
control systems.
• Communication plan including voice, text, and graphical mes-
sages and their delivery method(s).
• Emergency response action plan to define what you want occu-
pants, traffic, and emergency responders to do for each possible scenario.
Implementation. Includes a phased plan with budges, specifica-
tions, timelines, training, and gaining necessary approvals. Operational Readiness. Periodic reviews because your campus
and risks will continue to change
Periodic Testing. Campuses must test their fire and security drills
regularly and with changes in how they operate to keep those in the drill on their toes.
In the future, we expect that there will be some degree of codifica- tion of security requirements, as the code writing bodies begin to fully grasp the vital importance of integration of fire and security systems and emergency response. In addition, as technologies for both advance, there will be future technologies to continue capital- izing on integration of the two features. Similarly, future trends are likely to begin integrating security and fire safety emergency response and oversight duties as the two fields continue to converge.
One emerging technology is the Physical Security Information Management (PSIM) Software which provides a platform and appli- cations created by middleware developers to integrate multiple unconnected security system applications and devices and control through a single comprehensive user interface. We predict the future of this technology will cross over to include fire protection systems, such as alarm and mass notification, as well.
While growth will continue to erase the conflicts between security and fire safety design and planning, the important takeaway is that we begin now. Parkland was just one example of how security and fire safety can be at odds with each other in a real, life-threatening situa- tion. Failure to develop a plan for integration of these two vitally important systems opens the door for intolerable risks. While con- flicts still exist, they are surmountable with proper planning and early planning is always preferable. After all, the old saying about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure still holds true.
April Musser is the Southeast Regional Practice Leader of fire protec- tion engineering for Telgian Engineering and Consulting (TEC).
26
campuslifesecurity.com | MAY/JUNE 2019