1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    19

    Default NFPA or HOSPITAL COMMISION

    I work on back up power units. Just finished testing a state hospital (Texas). Did the test by NFPA 110 rules. 25%-50%-75%. Now the Hospital Commision (JACO) tells me I have to do them over because I was off 5% on one test. Their rules 30%-50%-75%. Why not have both regs agree so we will only have to worry about one reg to go by. It is only a 15 amp differnce. May not sound like much to some people. But four hours at a load bank in the sun is not fun.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    40

    Default Not the Joint Commisions Fault

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyShafer View Post
    I work on back up power units. Just finished testing a state hospital (Texas). Did the test by NFPA 110 rules. 25%-50%-75%. Now the Hospital Commision (JACO) tells me I have to do them over because I was off 5% on one test.
    I administer and maintain the communications systems for a 250+ bed hospital (telephone,microwave, conventional & trunked radio). The screwup was the HOSPITALS, not The Joint Commision. www.jointcommission.org

    The customer is required to inform the contractor what standard the AHJ (authority having jurisdistion) is utilizing. And as a side note, The Joint commsion is usually a publication cycle behind (NFPA) the the local / state AHJ's

    BTW, there a proposal to do a black start test for hospitals. A load bank test is not a real-world test for the fuel supply, transfer switchs, elevator controllers, and fire pump controllers.

    Martin

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Hospital commissions tend to live in their own little world...

    Who is the authority having jurisdiction there? If it's JACO, you ought to be doing testing to meet their standards. If it's some other organization (local Fire Marshal's, for instance) you ought to test to theirs and tell JACO to take a hike...

    (We had a run in around here several years ago with a hospital commission inspector who insisted that something at the local hospital didn't meet the fire code. The Fire Marshal, OTOH, said that it most certainly did meet the fire code and that the inspector had no jurisdiction to determine whether or not anything met the fire code... In the end the FM won out because he had jurisdiction to rule on fire code issues and the inspector did not.)
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyShafer View Post
    I work on back up power units. Just finished testing a state hospital (Texas). Did the test by NFPA 110 rules. 25%-50%-75%. Now the Hospital Commision (JACO) tells me I have to do them over because I was off 5% on one test.

    Had to go back to my notes:

    As of 01 July, 2007, most hospitals needed to have tested their emergency generators for at least four consecutive hours to meet Joint Commission requirements.

    A provision under EC.7.40 (testing, inspecting, and maintaining emergency power systems) requires the four-hour test every 36 months.
    Below are some further requirements associated with this new test:

    *You must conduct the four-hour tests under dynamic or static loads that are at least 30% of the generator's nameplate rating

    *If the four-hour test fails, you must carry out interim measures to compensate for the lack of back-up power until the hospital completes repairs

    *Following these repairs, you must successfully retest the generator using the standard's provisions.

    Where is the disagreement? Load Ramping or overall test duration?

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Deputy Marshal is right. JACO lives in their own little world, despite their change to a "We're here to help" banner.

    We have seen we have seen major write ups for kick plates on fire doors even though the plate is part of the rated assembly. The inspector was adamant that the screws used to attach the plate destroyed the integrity of the door regardless of the documentation by the manufacturer. We have also seen fire extinguishers written because the inspection date on the card was more that thirty days old. We used to sign the cards with the day, month year of the inspection. Thus an extinguisher inspected on 06-02-07 and then on 07-03-07 was past the thirty day window. We now just put month and year.

    As deputy marshal said, Who is the AHJ? Test to their standards and don't be afraid to ask JACO for the basis of their requirements. You may be surprised how many are based on the personal whim of the inspector.
    We are currently awaiting the review of our most recent inspection. They are approximately sixty days past their own standard for replying to the challenges and the proposed corrective actions of their inspection.

    Stay Safe
    IACOJ

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    19

    Default

    DeputyMarshal That is the problem. For years I have been going by NFPA rules now jaco says that is not good enough. It gets even worse if you try and go by the exhaust temp rules, about as clear as mud.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    40

    Default Rated Doors and our Friends from the Joint Commision

    Quote Originally Posted by Rayr49 View Post
    We have seen we have seen major write ups for kick plates on fire doors even though the plate is part of the rated assembly. The inspector was adamant that the screws used to attach the plate destroyed the integrity of the door regardless of the documentation by the manufacturer.
    Been there done that. Here's the final decision in our case: If the Kick plate is actually part of the assembly (and noted in the original test procedure to UL 10B/10C or NFPA 288), you are fine. If you can't prove it's an OEM part of the assembly, that's where you get hit.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Interesting?
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-2007, 11:44 AM
  2. Purchasing NFPA Standards....
    By PineyFF185 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-02-2004, 05:33 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2003, 11:20 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2003, 11:11 AM
  5. NFPA - IS IT BOGUS?
    By ChiefMcD in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-04-2001, 12:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register