ILSM in Business Occupancies

Q: Is there a code requirement for implementing an Interim Life Safety Measure (ILSM) for occupancies other than healthcare (i.e. business occupancies) if a life safety code deficiency has been identified?

A: Yes… ILSM (also known as Alternative Life Safety Measures) is found in chapter 4 of the 2012 Life Safety Code, specifically section 4.6.10.1 of the 2012 LSC. This describes the need to implement ALSMs when features of Life Safety are impaired. This chapter is part of the ‘core’ chapters and applies to all occupancy chapters, so that means it applies to business occupancies as well.

Most accreditation organizations should be enforcing this in offsite locations, such as business occupancies. Some surveyors fail to ask for this, but it is an enforceable requirement.

Access To Electrical Rooms

Q: Please clarify if electrical closets and /or electrical rooms can be accessible to anyone. The NFPA70 National Electrical Code seems to require warning signs limiting access to authorized personnel only.

A: For many years there has not been any specific standard that says access to electrical control panels has to be restricted to authorized individuals only. But with the new NFPA 99-2012, section 6.3.2.2.1.3 now says access to over-current protective devices (i.e. circuit breakers) serving Category 1 or Category 2 rooms is restricted to authorized individuals only. This standard actually only applies to new construction.

But be aware that for many years accreditation organization have cited healthcare facilities for not securing their circuit breaker panels from unauthorized access, and they base this on their “Safe Environment” standard, or as some people call it the ‘General Duty’ clause.

So, it has been enforced for years by accreditation organizations, and by some state agencies, while there has not been an actual standard that required securing the panels. So, I would suggest you do secure all electrical rooms from unauthorized access.

ASC Waiting Area

Q: I am looking at a hospital facility with an Ambulatory Surgery Center in an existing building that is a Business Occupancy and construction type – II (222). We are working to separate the Ambulatory Surgery Center from the other business in the building with a two-hour fire rated partition. The waiting area, which is adjacent to the lobby/elevator area is enclosed by glass. Can we leave the waiting area out of the Ambulatory Surgery Center and make the separation behind the waiting area? This would be just separating the Ambulatory Surgery rooms and recovery area from the rest of the building (i.e. enclosed by a two-hour fire-rated wall).

A: No… I believe you are not permitted to do that. Actually, the LSC does not address this, but the CMS Conditions for Coverage (CfC) does address this. According to CMS Conditions for Coverage §416.44(a)(2), the ASC must have a separate recovery room and waiting area.

The Interpretive Guidelines for §416.44(a)(2) says this about waiting rooms:

The ASC is required to have both a waiting area and a recovery room, which must be separate from each other as well as other parts of the ASC. They may not be shared with another healthcare facility or physician office. (See the interpretive guidelines for §416.2 concerning sharing of physical space by an ASC and another entity.)

While the CfC does not specially say the waiting area must be inside the fire-barriers surrounding the ASC, if the waiting area was outside of these boundaries the surveyors could conclude that the waiting area is shared with other another healthcare facility or physician office.

I suggest you make sure the waiting area is inside the fire-rated barrier separating the ASC from the other entities.

Triennial Surveys by Accreditation Organizations

Q: I heard a rumor that the accreditation organizations (AO) are going to 18 month visits vs. the 3 years it has been. Is there truth to this?

A: No… None of the AOs are going to an 18-month cycle for survey. They all will be staying at the 36-month cycle, which is allocated by CMS. They would have to double the number of surveyors which would be an added cost to the healthcare facilities that are accredited by them.

There is one accreditation organization (DNV-GL) that does visit their client hospital every year, but they still only survey on behalf of CMS every 3 years. The other two annual visits that DNV performs is a requirement of their ISO process, and they use those visits as educational visits. DNV’s process is very well received and annual visits are appreciated by their client hospitals.

Suites in AHCO

Q: We recently had a surveyor tell us that suites are not allowed in ambulatory healthcare occupancies. Can you help explain this and any code references that support your opinion?

A: Well… that surveyor is mistaken. Suites are definitely permitted in ambulatory health care occupancies (AHCO). Sections 20/21.2.4.3 of the 2012 LSC specifically permit suites and says any site larger than 2500 square feet must have at least two exit access doors remotely located from each other.

The term ‘remotely located’ is defined by section 7.5.1.3.2 which says the two exits must be located at a distance from one another not less than one-half the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the suite, measured in a straight line between the nearest edges of the exits. In a fully sprinklered building, section 7.5.1.3.3 says it is 1/3 the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the suite.

There are no size limitations on suites in AHCO. And they are not prohibited in business occupancies either, even though there is no advantage to having them in business occupancies. I suggest you ask the surveyor (if he/she is still with you) to show you where in the LSC it prohibits suites in AHCO. I also suggest you ask your state and local authorities if they have any restrictions that would prohibit suites in AHCO.

New vs. Existing Construction

Q: How do we classify existing versus new construction? Do we look at the date of adoption of the current Life Safety Code as the cutoff? Anything constructed before that date is considered existing construction? The 2000 LSC required areas of major rehabilitation to be classified as new construction. The 2012 LSC appears to just require those areas be fully sprinklered. On our Life Safety plans all areas of the hospital were constructed prior to the adoption of the 2012 Code. Can the entire hospital now be considered existing and can we remove all notes on the plans referring to new construction?

A: According to the CMS Final Rule on adopting the 2012 Life Safety Code which was released in May, 2016, they identified July 5, 2016 as the threshold date to differentiate between new construction and existing conditions. However, the 2012 Life Safety Code says in section 4.6.12.1 that whenever a feature of life safety is required for compliance, it must be maintained as such for the life of the building. Section 4.6.12.2 continues to say that features of life safety shall not be removed or reduced where such features are required for new construction.

What this means, is you cannot down-grade a feature of life safety that was installed under new construction requirements, to meet existing condition requirements now that it is no longer considered new construction. It is true that something built prior to July 5, 2016 is now considered existing conditions, but you still are not permitted to down-grade the feature to meet existing condition requirements.

Smoke Door Testing?

Q: The Joint Commission standard for annual door testing states “The hospital has written documentation of annual inspection and testing of door assemblies by individuals who can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the door being tested”. The Joint Commission also references NFPA 105 (smoke doors). Would this include all smoke barrier doors?

A: It appears you have an older copy of the Joint Commission standards. In January, 2019, the standard in which you refer has been changed to specifically identify the need to inspect and test fire door assemblies. Their note to this standard says nonrated doors including smoke barrier doors are not subject to the annual inspection and testing requirements of either NFPA 80 or NFPA 105.

It is the position of CMS and all accreditation organizations that non-rated doors in smoke barriers (barriers that separate smoke compartments) do not have to be inspected on an annual basis.

Here is why: Even though section 7.2.1.15.2 of the 2012 LSC says (in part) smoke door assemblies need to be tested, that conflicts with the occupancy chapter for healthcare. Section 4.4.2.3 says when specific requirements in the occupancy chapters differ from the general requirements contained in the core chapters, the occupancy chapter shall govern. Section 19.3.7.8 says doors in smoke barriers shall comply with section 8.5.4. Section 8.5.4.2 says where required by chapters 11 -43 doors in smoke barriers that are required to be smoke leakaged-rated, must comply with section 8.2.2.4 (which requires testing).

Chapters 18 & 19 (healthcare occupancies) do not require smoke doors to be smoke leakaged-rated: Therefore, smoke barrier doors do not have to be tested in healthcare occupancies. Now… you may have an AHJ that believes differently. You may show them this code trail and perhaps they will allow you to not test your smoke doors, but ultimately they are an authority and if they say you have to test smoke doors, then you have to test smoke doors. But it is not required in healthcare occupancies according to the 2012 LSC.

Life Safety Drawings

Q: The hospital where I work is leased, and the landlord is not a healthcare architect and pushes back on everything. My need is to have the life safety plan drawings updated to reflect proper boundaries and identification of the smoke compartments, hazardous areas, door assembly ratings, suites with sleeping or non and size, etc, etc.. Is there a standard or code which prescribes “requirements” or at least the expectation for what types of info should be on the LS plan?

A: Yes…. Every accreditation organization has some sort of standard or requirement that sets expectations regarding Life Safety drawings. Ironically, neither NFPA or CMS has any standard that requires Life Safety drawings yet the state agencies surveying on behalf of CMS will expect that you have an accurate set of Life Safety drawings.

Life Safety drawings are considered operational documents (not unlike a management plan or a policy) and I could see where a landlord is not responsible for providing operational documents for you at no charge. I suggest you contract with your own favorite architect to create these LS drawings, because a reluctant landlord will do you a lousy job at best.

Joint Commission’s standard identifies their minimum requirements for Life Safety drawings:

  • Identify areas of the building that are sprinklered
  • Identify locations of hazardous areas
  • Identify locations of all fire-rated barriers
  • Identify locations of all smoke-barriers
  • Identify the locations of all suites and identify the size of each suite in square footage
  • Identify the location of smoke compartments
  • Identify the locations of all chutes and shafts
  • Identify locations under approved waivers or equivalencies

NFPA 99 Risk Assessment

Q: A question came up concerning the NFPA 99 (2012) Risk Assessment. Does this only pertain to new construction or does it pertain to existing buildings also? Our company has never had an assessment done in the past but it is my understanding that it became a requirement in 2016. The CMS has established compliance requirements (K Tag) for risk assessment and its completion. Who would be the qualified personnel to perform this procedure and create a formal and documented risk assessment?

A: According to members of the Technical Committee who wrote the new Chapter 4 in NFPA 99-2012, the original intent was the risk assessment only applies to new construction. However, the way chapter 4 is written, it is not clear that the risk assessment is only applicable to new construction.

CMS has instructed the accreditation organizations and the state agencies who survey on the behalf of CMS to require all hospitals to have completed their NFPA 99 risk assessment for new as well as existing construction. Therefore, hospitals must conduct the risk assessment for new and existing conditions. These assessments are not difficult to do and only takes a few minutes.

There is no requirement to make a room-by-room assessment, but the intent is to assess the risk of the entire system if it were to fail and there were no back-up systems. It would stand to reason that most hospital systems would be Category 1 or Category 2. Anyone may conduct the assessment, but would have to have knowledge of the risk assessment process and knowledge of the facility.

Hand Washing Sinks

Q: We have a relatively new Infection Control team.  They are performing rounds and having mock surveys with a nurse-consultant that cites issues from the 2014 FGI in areas that are much older.  The issue comes in when we are required to install new sinks (dirty, clean and a hand washing) in existing spaces.  We are a mixed hospital, some new that has to meet 2014 FGI due to new renovations.  What are your thoughts on the older areas that have not been renovated?  I am working with a design professional to see how he would design a space for the number of sinks and what reference he should use.  If it is simple and best practice to install them, I am all for it but some of the renovations come with a significant space or capital impact.  I am not sure if this is something you can help guide with or not.

A: According to Joint Commission’s standard EC.02.06.05, EP 1, the FGI Guidelines (2014 edition) is only used when planning for new, altered, or renovated spaces. Tell the nurse-consultant surveyor she is mistaken. She cannot apply a new guideline to an existing condition.

Now… if there was a requirement to have hand-washing sinks in the room at the time the room was designed or renovated, then she is correct and the sinks need to be installed. But if she plays that card, then she needs to provide evidence that there was a regulation (state, local, or otherwise) that required the sink at the time the room was designed and constructed.