Modernizing Site Safety with Temporary Fire Detection Systems

The industry is shifting from traditional fire watches to tech-driven monitoring to mitigate human error and protect high-value construction sites.

• By Aaron Velardi
• Apr 14, 2026

Fire risk on U.S construction and industrial sites remains under intense scrutiny, with 30 large-loss incidents in 2024 causing more than $10 million in damage each. Despite the stakes, many sites continue to rely heavily on fire-watch: a safety measure in which trained individuals continuously patrol a site to identify fire hazards and raise the alarm if needed.

Aaron Velardi, head of North American development at Ramtech North America, argues that the industry must reassess whether traditional approaches alone can meet the demands of today’s complex construction environments, particularly as projects scale in size and pace.

Temporary detection systems offer continuous monitoring and rapid alerts, helping to address gaps that can emerge when relying solely on human oversight.

Fire watch roles have been part of U.S. construction standards for over a century. After large-scale fires in the early 20th century, including the infamous 1910 wildfires, construction practices increasingly required a human presence to monitor sites.

The International Fire Code (IFC) first provided the formal definition for a ‘fire watch’ in its 2009 edition, describing it as a temporary measure involving continuous surveillance to identify and control fire hazards. The 2018 IFC strengthened these rules, requiring a fire watch during construction or demolition activities, often mandated by a fire code official.

Following this, the 2021 IFC continued to mandate a fire watch under specific hazardous conditions, with a notable emphasis on expanding construction site safety provisions. It clarified that for new construction exceeding 40 feet in height, a fire watch may be required during non-working hours at the discretion of the fire code official, reflecting increased concern around unattended sites.

In the U.S., fire watch requirements are not governed by a single regulation, but by evolving codes from OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). State and local rules often build on these frameworks with additional requirements. For example, New York City requires guards to hold a specific FDNY certificate, while cities in Texas, such as Austin, mandate that patrol logs are updated every 30 minutes. In Florida, a 24-hour fire watch is typically required immediately if a life safety system, such as a sprinkler or alarm, becomes impaired.

For health and safety teams, these variations can create challenges in maintaining consistent standards across projects, particularly for organizations operating in multiple states. Acceptance of alternative or supplementary safety measures can depend heavily on local interpretation of the code. They also introduce a degree of ambiguity around what constitutes sufficient coverage, leaving safety professionals to interpret how best to manage risk within differing regulatory expectations.

These discrepancies mean that acceptance and usage of newer solutions can vary widely. In some regions, inspectors readily embrace supplemental systems, while in others, strict adherence to traditional fire watch roles can limit adoption and create additional hurdles for modern safety solutions.

The Dangers of Human Error

Reliance on human monitoring has inherent limitations. Coverage gaps are inevitable when just one or two personnel are responsible for monitoring multiple floors or large areas. Fires can escalate within minutes, particularly in larger buildings or sprawling data center construction sites, where a single floor can be equivalent to several football fields in size.

In such cases, even a brief delay in detection can allow smoke and heat to spread unchecked, increasing the risk to workers on site as well as the potential for significant property damage. Security rotations may take 30 to 40 minutes to cover each area, during which time hazards can go unnoticed.

From a safety management perspective, this raises an important question: whether continuous coverage is truly being achieved in practice, or whether it is assumed based on process rather than real-time visibility.

Maintaining consistent coverage over extended periods can also place considerable strain on teams, particularly on large or fast-moving projects where conditions change daily.

Even with multiple guards, human error is unavoidable. Personnel may arrive late due to traffic or personal commitments, be distracted or experience fatigue during long or overnight shifts. From a health and safety perspective, these human factors introduce variability into what should be a consistently controlled risk.

Real-world scenarios highlight these risks. On large sites, it is common for four personnel to be tasked with covering a 12-storey building. In practice, this can leave several floors without immediate observation at any given moment. Fires do not wait; a small ignition on an uncovered floor can develop into a serious incident before staff can respond. By the time it is identified, conditions may have already deteriorated, increasing the likelihood of harm.

The limitations are further compounded in environments with complex layouts, such as multi-wing commercial buildings, high-ceilinged industrial facilities or interconnected data centers. Long corridors, mezzanine levels and large open spaces make comprehensive patrols slow and inconsistent. Even highly trained staff cannot maintain constant visibility over every area, particularly during quieter periods such as night shifts, leaving potential gaps in protection.

Temporary Systems in Practice

In response to these challenges, many organizations are beginning to explore how technology can complement traditional fire watch approaches, rather than replace them outright.

For those less familiar with construction environments, these systems effectively act as a temporary version of a building’s permanent fire alarm system but are designed to be installed quickly and adapted as the site develops.

In many situations, technology can be used to supplement fire-watch personnel rather than replace them entirely. Even when guards are present, temporary systems can provide an additional layer of oversight, supporting more consistent monitoring across all areas and time periods.

Real-world examples underscore the benefits.

At an Amtrak site in New Carrolton, Maryland, temporary systems provide continuous monitoring without any fire-watch personnel present, demonstrating how technology can fulfil this role in certain conditions. Beyond fire safety, these systems can also support wider health and safety outcomes. In one instance, a worker experiencing a heart attack was identified quickly, enabling immediate response and ultimately saving their life. This demonstrates value beyond fire prevention alone.

Modern systems are highly adaptable. They can be quickly deployed, repositioned as construction progresses and reused across multiple sites. This flexibility is particularly relevant on dynamic sites, where layouts and risk profiles can shift rapidly over the course of a project.

Data-driven monitoring also supports compliance and risk management. Systems log activity, check detector health and alert operators to maintenance issues such as low batteries or damaged equipment. This level of oversight helps ensure that safety measures remain effective at all times, something that is difficult to achieve through manual processes alone.

Overcoming Adoption Barriers

Despite clear benefits, adoption of this technology varies widely across the U.S. Local enforcement and fire codes differ by jurisdiction, influencing attitudes toward new approaches. In San Diego, for example, inspectors are often more open to temporary systems, while New York City marshals may adhere more strictly to codified fire-watch requirements.

For health and safety professionals, this highlights the importance of engagement, education and evidence. Demonstrating system reliability, improved response times and enhanced coverage is key to gaining acceptance, particularly in more conservative regulatory environments.

In many cases, the challenge is not simply technical, but cultural – shifting long-established practices and building confidence in alternative or supplementary approaches.

For those responsible for site safety, decisions must balance innovation with defensibility, ensuring that any changes would stand up to scrutiny in the event of an incident. Early adopters of temporary detection systems report improvements in safety outcomes, risk management and operational efficiency. They provide 24/7 coverage, reduce reliance on human monitoring and improve response times to incidents.

Even partial adoption delivers advantages. Supplementing existing fire-watch personnel with technology ensures continuous coverage, reduces the likelihood of human error and can help prevent significant losses. It allows organizations to strengthen safety without abandoning established practices.

Moving Toward Smarter Fire-Risk Management

Fire-watch personnel remain a vital part of U.S. site safety and are unlikely to disappear entirely. However, relying solely on traditional approaches may not always reflect the realities of modern construction environments.

In this context, supplementary approaches, including temporary fire detection systems, are beginning to play a more prominent role in supporting continuous coverage and earlier intervention. For health and safety professionals, they offer a practical way to strengthen existing controls and move towards a more proactive approach to risk management.

Across construction and industrial sites, real-world experience shows that technology can enhance safety, support compliance and better protect both people and assets. Integrating temporary detection systems into project planning, even alongside trained personnel, helps ensure that risks are identified and managed earlier.

As expectations around site safety continue to rise, the challenge for organizations is not just to meet regulatory requirements, but to ensure that the level of protection in place reflects the realities of how modern construction sites operate – particularly where assumptions about coverage may not always align with real-world conditions.

For more information about Ramtech, please visit www.ramtechglobal.com.