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
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
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 3
Richard M. Horeis,Geza
Szakats,Eric Gleason
Vote Selection Votes Comments
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
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
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 0
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
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
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
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-4507, Section No. 19.2.2.2.5.2, See FR-4507
FR-4505, Section No. 19.1.4.2, See FR-4505
Total Voted : 24
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
Page 2 of 11
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
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
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 3
Richard M. Horeis,Geza
Szakats,Eric Gleason
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-4511, Sections 19.2.3.2, 19.2.3.3, See FR-4511
FR-4509, Section No. 19.2.2.2.11, See FR-4509
Total Voted : 24
FR-4508, Section No. 19.2.2.2.10, See FR-4508
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
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
Page 3 of 11
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 1
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
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
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 3
Richard M. Horeis,Geza
Szakats,Eric Gleason
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
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
FR-4513, Section No. 19.3.6.1, See FR-4513
FR-4512, Section No. 19.2.4.4, See FR-4512
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
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
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
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
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 3
Richard M. Horeis,Geza
Szakats,Eric Gleason
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 3
FR-4515, Section No. 19.3.7.1.3, See FR-4515
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
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-4514, Section No. 19.3.6.2.1, See FR-4514
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
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
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-4516, Section No. 19.5.1, See FR-4516
Total Voted : 24
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
Page 7 of 11
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
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
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 3
Richard M. Horeis,Geza
Szakats,Eric Gleason
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
FR-4521, Section No. 20.2.4, See FR-4521
FR-4520, New Section after 20.2.2.2.4, See FR-4520
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
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-4518, Section No. 20.1.4.2, See FR-4518
Page 8 of 11
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 3
Richard M. Horeis,Geza
Szakats,Eric Gleason
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
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.
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-4522, Section No. 20.3.7, See FR-4522
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
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 3
Richard M. Horeis,Geza
Szakats,Eric Gleason
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 0
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
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
Page 10 of 11
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
Page 11 of 11