first draft meeting ppt - nfpa...first draft ballot - final results fr-4502, section no. 3.3.443.1,...

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies

FROM: Kelly Carey, Project Administrator

DATE: December 2, 2015

SUBJECT: NFPA 5000 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass

ballot.

27 Members Eligible to Vote

3 Members Not Returned (E. Gleason, R. Horeis, G. Szakats)

20 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: J. Rickard)

4 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (K. Bush, G. Furdell, M. Gencarelli, D.

Schmitt)

0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the

explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an

affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.3.10.1 of the Regulations

Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

Eligible to Vote: 27

Not Returned : 3

Richard M. Horeis,Geza

Szakats,Eric Gleason

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 24

Affirmative with Comment 0

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




FR-4504, Section No. 19.1.1.1.10, See FR-4504

Total Voted : 24

For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 14 and the two-third

affirmative votes needed are 16



FR-4503, New Section after 3.3.567, See FR-4503

NFPA 5000 - TC ON HEALTH CARE OCCUPANCIES

FIRST DRAFT BALLOT - FINAL RESULTS

FR-4502, Section No. 3.3.443.1, See FR-4502

Total Voted : 24

Page 1 of 11

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/5000-2015.ditamap/2/C1441736356274.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl



Affirmative 23


Negative 1

Michael O. Gencarelli I disagree that this statement is confusing. It has helped me to properly classify an

occupancy more times than I remember. If this is removed, how will we determine

the difference between a bed for “sleeping accommodation” from a bed in an

ambulatory occupancy?

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 24



FR-4507, Section No. 19.2.2.2.5.2, See FR-4507


Total Voted : 24

Total Voted : 24



Page 2 of 11




Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3





FR-4511, Sections 19.2.3.2, 19.2.3.3, See FR-4511


Total Voted : 24


Total Voted : 24





Page 3 of 11





Affirmative 23


John A. Rickard The reference in 19.2.3.2(9)(f) should be to 19.2.3.2(9)e), not 19.2.3.2(9)(5).

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 22


John A. Rickard The TC vote on A19.3.6.1(1) included the correction of the spelling of "louvre,"

which should be "louver."

Negative 1



Total Voted : 24



Total Voted : 24



Page 4 of 11



Michael O. Gencarelli This makes no sense – if a space is physically separated from the corridor by walls

and doors why would we consider it “open to the corridor”? If others have issue

with the requirements for corridor doors and walls it should be addressed in other

areas of the code.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 21


Negative 3


Total Voted : 24






Total Voted : 24

Page 5 of 11



Kenneth E. Bush There is still insufficient justification to almost double the permitted size of smoke

compartments in hospitals. As was previously stated, the increased size is based

upon a correlation to travel distance which is measured by a different means than

the measurement of overall area of the smoke compartment. Even though the

hospital design may be configured for single patient room occupancy, there is no

guarantee that hospital operations will limit these rooms to a single patient.

Although not conclusive, the preliminary results of recent studies on evacuation of

larger smoke compartments indicate that the evacuation of these larger

compartments requires increased times, and is dependent upon a number of

factors, such as the time of day; staff to patient ratios; and the number, location,

and capabilities of both patients and staff, which are not clearly defined or

specified by current Code provisions. In addition, the capabilities to evacuate

patients undergoing treatment in non-sleeping areas may require additional

assistance and time commensurate with patients in sleeping areas. There is

likewise, no specification or guarantee of staff to be immediately available for

patient assistance in these areas. Before this provision moves forward, further

study should be completed to provide appropriate justification for the actual

increased sizes of these compartments in order to maintain an acceptable level of

safety of all building occupants.

Dennis L. Schmitt With a proposed increase in Hospital sleeping compartments from 22,500sf to

40,000sf as outlined in 19.3.7.1.3 (2)and having an occupant load of up to 50 or

more persons the area nursing staff will have to cover during an emergency is

excessive. Nursing staff will be required to cover a larger area and may be limited

on visual control of the unit due to this proposed size increase. The sleeping room

smoke compartment should remain at 22,500sf.

Page 6 of 11

Gary Furdell The proposal to increase from 22,500 to 40,000 sq. ft. was previously defeated on

the floor and has returned with some changes in this cycle. As discussed at the first

draft meeting the basis presented is to be in line with the most recent FGI models.

The models presented, illustrated sleeping compartments designed as single

occupancy. The disagreement discussed was based on sleeping compartments.

Although the design would have single occupant rooms, the actual number of

patients is not limited. A straw vote to limit the 40,000 sq. ft. sleeping

compartment to 36 patients failed. If the FGI design is the reason for the 40,000

sq.ft. sleeping compartment then there should not be opposition to limiting the

patient occupants to 36. The argument that fire sprinkler protection and trained

staff limit the need for these barriers does not weigh when factoring the failure of

active fire protection i.e. human factors of the staff, and the fire sprinkler systems

dependence on the municipal water system. This coupled with the compartment

size nearly doubling which will increase the travel distance out of the

compartment of origin, and the amount of time that medically compromised

patients being not capable of self preservation having a longer time exposure to a

hostile environment. Passive fire protection is all that is left when active fire

protection fails. Maintaining the number of barriers does not actually change the

design. The smoke doors are held open with magnetic hold open devices. The only

design change is for Hospital to have less barriers to maintain. The proposal does

not substantiate the need to decrease the level of protection. The sleeping

compartment should remain 22,500 sq.ft. or the smoke compartment be limited in

patient numbers to prevent a higher level of risk to a higher number of patients.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0



FR-4516, Section No. 19.5.1, See FR-4516

Total Voted : 24

Total Voted : 24



Page 7 of 11



Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 24


FR-4520, New Section after 20.2.2.2.4, See FR-4520

Total Voted : 24



Total Voted : 24




Page 8 of 11





Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 22


Negative 2

Kenneth E. Bush There is still insufficient justification to almost double the permitted size of smoke

compartments in these facilities. As was previously stated, the increased size is

based upon a correlation to travel distance which is measured by a different

means than the measurement of the overall area of the smoke compartment.

Although not conclusive, the preliminary results of recent studies on evacuation of

larger smoke compartments indicate that the evacuation of these larger

compartments requires increased times, and is dependent upon a number of

factors, such as the time of day; staff to patient ratios; and the number, location,

and capabilities of both patients and staff, which are not clearly defined or

specified by current Code provisions. In addition, the capabilities to evacuate

patients undergoing treatment may require additional assistance and time. There

is likewise, no specification or guarantee of staff to be immediately available for

patient assistance. Before this provision moves forward, further study should be

completed to provide appropriate justification for the actual increased sizes of

these compartments in order to maintain an acceptable level of safety of all

building occupants.




Total Voted : 24

Page 9 of 11


Gary Furdell The proposal to increase from 22,500 to 40,000 sq. ft. was previously defeated on the floor

and has returned with some changes in this cycle. As discussed at the first draft meeting the

basis presented is to be in line with the most recent FGI models. The models presented,

illustrated sleeping compartments designed as single occupancy. The disagreement

discussed was based on sleeping compartments. Although the design would have single

occupant rooms, the actual number of patients is not limited. A straw vote to limit the

40,000 sq. ft. sleeping compartment to 36 patients failed. If the FGI design is the reason for

the 40,000 sq.ft. sleeping compartment then there should not be opposition to limiting the

patient occupants to 36. The argument that fire sprinkler protection and trained staff limit

the need for these barriers does not weigh when factoring the failure of active fire

protection i.e. human factors of the staff, and the fire sprinkler systems dependence on the

municipal water system. This coupled with the compartment size nearly doubling which will

increase the travel distance out of the compartment of origin, and the amount of time that

medically compromised patients being not capable of self preservation having a longer time

exposure to a hostile environment. Passive fire protection is all that is left when active fire

protection fails. Maintaining the number of barriers does not actually change the design.

The smoke doors are held open with magnetic hold open devices. The only design change is

for Hospital to have less barriers to maintain. The proposal does not substantiate the need

to decrease the level of protection. The sleeping compartment should remain 22,500 sq.ft.

or the smoke compartment be limited in patient numbers to prevent a higher level of risk

to a higher number of patients.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3




Affirmative 23


Negative 1

Michael O. Gencarelli I disagree that this statement is confusing. It has helped me to properly classify an

occupancy more times than I remember. If this is removed, how will we determine

the difference between a bed for “sleeping accommodation” from a bed in an

ambulatory occupancy?

Abstain 0

FR-4524, Section No. A.19.1.3.3, See FR-4524

Total Voted : 24

Total Voted : 24



Page 10 of 11




Page 11 of 11

first draft meeting ppt - nfpa...first draft ballot - final results fr-4502, section no. 3.3.443.1,...

Documents