Fire Safety Advocacy & Information

 

 

Update:

September 2009

Board information.

  • Andy Neumann, has left the Bureau of Fire Services as the State Fire Marshall to seek a State Representative position for Alpena. He has been replaced with Ron Farr.
  • Richard Prestage, Schnepp HealthCare will continue as Vice Chairman of the State Fire Safety Board and conduct meetings


Bureau of Fire Services Information

  • Ron Farr was appointed as the State Fire Marshall. Ron was the State Fire Safety Board Chairman and Fire Chief of Kalamazoo Township Michigan. He is a good common sense NFPA savvy and knowledgeable guy and has years of experience working with he State Fire Safety Board and Bureau of Fire Services.
  • The Bureau of Fire Services has relocated to the 4th floor of Constitution Hall 525 Allegan St. Lansing MI.48913
  • Tony Sanfilippo will remain as the Deputy State Fire Marshall
  • Terry Fobbs is the Assistant to the State Fire Marshall.
  • As you may or may not know Dave Guillaume has retired. No one specifically has been identified as his replacement. He will be missed by many.
  • I will be getting a organizational chart or list of Bureau of Fire Services personnel and titles and will post that.


Bureau of Fire Services Business

  • The Bureau has been faced with funding restrictions and furlough days. They were inundated with school projects and have now completed them. Fire alarm submittals are behind and they are working to get caught up.
  • A Bill has been introduced to bring fire sprinkler reviews back under the Bureau and there is talk of UST as well.
  • HealthCare Rules are in effect
  • Adult Foster Care Rules are in the Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs for review.
  • Natural Gas Generators Ruling CMS.

+ As you know you can choose not to comply with CMS, but you will risk your reimbursement
+ The Bureau has submitted numerous wavery letters on behalf of facilities but they are unwilling to accept them.
+ I would not see JCAHO or HFAP enforcing anything less than CMS regarding this issue.
+ 30% or 1,500 N.Gas generators are in use in CMS Region V. ( Chicago)
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin

  • The following letter (Language) was offered as the latest and greatest.

Natural Gas Generator Backup Fuel Source Letter Requirements
We want to pass on to you some clarification related to the backup fuel source for natural gas generators. These clarifications resulted from discussions between Midwest Consortium staff and Jim Merrill and Cindy Graunke of CMS Central Office.

All Nursing homes are required to have an on-site back up power source. If a facility uses a natural gas generator to provide back up power to LSC required systems (i.e., emergency lights, exit lights, fire alarms etc.) the facility may obtain a letter from it's natural gas vendor to demonstrate the fuel source is reliable and to meet the requirements for on-site backup power source. A facility with a natural gas generator may use other means to meet the requirements for an on-site backup power source that do not require a letter from its natural gas vendor.

The letter of reliability from the vendor regarding the fuel supply must contain the following:

  1. A statement of reasonable reliability of the natural gas delivery
  2. A brief description that supports the statement of reliability
  3. A statement that there is a low probability of interruption of the natural gas
  4. A brief description that supports the statement regarding the low probability of interruption
  5. The signature of technical personnel from the natural gas vendor
  • There was some discussion that GTE was working with some folks to come up with the language that might be acceptable. I will ad vise should I hear anything.


General/FYI

  • The Bureau of Fire Services and an AD HOC committee is working on adopting a State Fire Code, a default code for Municipalities that have not adopted any codes to use.
  • Michigan has adopted Safer Cigarette rule.(For fire safety). Enforcement is delayed for 6 months allowing Distributor's and Vendors to comply.
  • Efforts to initiative and require Residential residential sprinklers failed. It was opposed by Habitat For Humanity at the bequest of the Home Builders Association.

November 2008

The fire Safety Board meetings for May and June were canceled.  However, the Rules ADHOC committees continued to meet and to move things forward.  The Healthcare Facilities Fire Safety Rules were updated.  As part of the process a public hearing must be held for public comment.  This was held at the DLEG office on October 28, 2008 from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.

 

PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS:

 

Michigan Assisted Living Association

 

Michigan Center for Assisted living

1.       Alleged no participation from the HFA (Home for Aged) Association - There was in fact was representation

2.       Take exception to the change in the definition of an “im-mobile resident” and it’s inclusion of “patients with mental limitations, i.e., Alzheimer patients” being added to the definition of non-mobile.

3.       Take exception to the FSES (Fire Safety Equivalency System) is not an option for HFA’s.

*    Note: These issues will be reviewed by the ADHOC committee and BFS for resolution and or potential language change or no change.  The outcome may require another public hearing. 

Art Shaw - Noted a reference material error

 

REMAINING PROCESS FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES FIRE SAFETY RULES

 

4D        Written commentary (letters/email/FAX) received from the public during the specified public comment period and hearing testimony will be reviewed.  Requests for modifications will be reviewed to see if the changes should be incorporated into a final version of the draft rules.

 

4E        (MCL 24.245)  If the department makes no changes to the draft rules after the public commentary period, the rules can be sent forward to SOAHR and LSB for formal certification.  If textural changes are made in response to comments received in writing or at the public hearing, they are only allowed if:  

·         They are non-substantive changes ( i.e. minor technical changes),

·         They are non-controversial changes made in response to public commentary received at hearing or submitted within the specified comment time, or

·         The SOAHR requests change so rule does not conflict with current law, rule, or case law.

 

STEP 5 - Formal Certification

 

5A        Once all textual changes have been made, the bureau/agency will prepare matching bold and no bold versions of the new draft rules and submit them to the SOAHR for legal review.

 

5B        The "JCAR Agency Report."  The agency/bureau representative (s), in conjunction with the RAO, prepare the "JCAR Agency Report" to summarize the comments contained in the public hearing record and a description of any changes made to the rules as a result of public commentary.  This report must be forwarded to the SOAHR before the SOAHR will formally certify the rules.  The report verifies publication of three newspaper ads, and that the hearing was announced in the Michigan Register.  The SOAHR will compare the new draft rules against the JCAR Agency Report to account for all changes, and to ensure legality.  [MCL 24.236, 24.245]

 

5C        An electronic copy of the non-bold rules, including textural changes described in Step 4-E, will be submitted to LSB by the SOAHR for formal certification.  [MCL 24.245 (10)]\

 

5D        LSB will forward their legal certificate to the SOAHR.  If the SOAHR believes the rules can be legally certified, SOAHR will post the certified rules on the web.

 

STEP 6 - JCAR Submission and Adoption

 

A          The SOAHR will submit the JCAR package for submission to JCAR (Joint Committee on Administrative Rules).  This package will include:

            A transmittal letter to JCAR

·         One (1) copy of the JCAR Agency Report.

·         One (1) copy of the LSB and SOAHR certificates

·         One (1) copy of the SOAHR Regulatory Impact Statement.

 

The rules package must be delivered to JCAR within one (1) year after the last public hearing.  If not, the rules will be sent back to Step 3 for a subsequent public hearing.  [MCL 24.236, 24.245]

 

B          [MCL 24.245] Once the SOAHR submits the rules package to JCAR, the RAO will work with the agency/bureau to coordinate the signing and submission of the "Certificate of Adoption" (C of A).  The Department Director signs the C of A for all agencies that are not "Type I agencies."

 

C          [MCL 24.245a] After JCAR received the rules package, they7 have 15 sessions days to review the proposed rules.  JCAR may file a "notice of objection" to a proposed rule within that period with the approval of a concurrent majority of its members IF they find any of the following:

·         The agency lacks statutory authority for the rule.

·         The agency is exceeding the scope of its rule-making authority.

·         There exists an emergency relating to the public health, safety, and welfare that would warrant disapproval of the rule.

·         The rule is in conflict with state law.

·         A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since enactment of the law upon which the proposed rule is based.

·         The rule is arbitrary or capricious.

·         The rule is "unduly burdensome" to the public or licensees.

 

D          If JCAR elects to hold a hearing on a proposed rule, they will notify the SOAHR.  The SOAHR will notify the RAO, who should, in turn, ensure that appropriate staff (bureau, agency, etc.) is present at the JCAR hearing to explain and/or defend the rule (s).

 

STEP 7 - JCAR Notice of Objection

 

A          If no "notice of objection" is adopted within the 15-session day period or if JCAR fails to meet within the 15 session days, the SOAHR can file the rules with the Michigan Department of State, office of the Great Seal.  JCAR may also vote to "waive the 15-session day period, which allows the SOAHR to file the rules immediately.  (In either case, skip to Step 8.)

           

If JCAR adopts a "Notice of Objection" within the 15-session day period described in Step 6, bills will be introduced in both chambers (House and Senate) and placed immediately on the calendars.  The bills will propose one of three things:

·         Rescind the rule upon its effective date [Sec. 45a (3) (a)].

·         Repeal the statutory provision under which the rule was authorized [Sec. 45a (3)(b)].

·         Stay the rule's effective date for up to one year [Sec 45a (3) c].

 

B          The notice of objection stays the ability of the SOAHR to file the rule with the Secretary of State until the earlier of the following:

·         Fifteen session days after the "notice of objection" is filed.

·         The date of the rescission of the issuance of the notice of objection, approved by a concurrent majority of JCAR members.

 

If the legislation is passed by both chambers of the legislature and presented to the Governor within the 15-session-day period, the rules do not become effective unless the legislation is vetoed by the Governor, as provided by law.  If the Governor vetoes the legislation (and the veto is not overridden), the SOAHR may file the rules immediately. 

[MCL 24.245a (4)-(6)]

 

C          Rules shall take effect immediately after filing, unless a later date is indicated by the rules.  The filing process is described in Step 8.  [MCL 24.245a (2)-(5)]

 

STEP 8-Rules Filed with the Office of the Great Seal

 

A          If a "notice of objection" is not adopted, or if the legislation described in Step 7 is not enacted within the proper time frames, the SOAHR may file the rules with the Michigan Department of State, Office of the Great Seal.

            Again, rules will become "effective" immediately upon filing, unless a later date is indicated in the rules.

 [MCL 24.245a (2)]

 

If anyone has questions please feel free to contact me;

Tim Tinney

Covenant HealthCare

Saginaw, Michigan 48601

989/5836066

 

 

November 2007 – To all:

  1. Please keep in mind that all of this needs to go through the Legislative process and that this reflects proposed language.  I think it will be approved as stated.  However, the Nursing Home Sprinklering issue is one that will be driven by CMS as it is related to the time line.  I feel the Committee wanted to leave the door open to the Nursing Home Industry with respect to their ability to finance the retrofitting.

 

  1. I think everyone will just be glad to have consistency between agencies as it relates to Alcohol Based Hand Rub.

 

  1. I have also attached the latest and most up to date Michigan Amendments reflecting review to date.

 

  1. Below are segments of E-Mail from Mike Pachulski to the committee with respect to the two above items FYI only.

 

“Greetings fellow (fire safety board) members,

 

I have several items to report.  First, the vote requiring existing nursing homes to be fully sprinklered within 10 years (19.3.5.1) passed unanimously.

 

The second issue deals with alcohol based hand rub (ABHR) dispensers and the conflict with the proposed Michigan amendment.  I contacted Stephen Pelinski, who is the Safety Engineer for CMS Chicago and is the contact person for Michigan.  I was advised that CMS no longer has a distance requirement for ABHR from a source of ignition.  The distance issue has been addressed by the NFPA Technical Committee.  The committee advised “without substantiation, the current text which prohibits placement directly adjacent to an ignition source better serves the Code user.”   Pelinski advises that CMS will determine if an ABHR is too close to an ignition source if “1) The ABHR is above an ignition source, it is deficient and 2) if it is to the side of an ignition source a measured distance shall not be used to determine if it is too close.  We look for evidence of splash from the ABHR on the ignition source to determine if it is too close to the side.”

 

Based on this new information, the BFS policy has been revised.  The new policy (attached) is consistent with the interpretation of NFPA and CMS.  As BFS is no longer more restrictive than the 2006 LSC, the draft amendment has been changed and the ABHR language has been deleted.  I believe that this will address all of the concerns that we discussed at our last meeting.  Note that JCAHO still has a more stringent application in hospitals.  That is a JCAHO enforcement issue that does not reflect on our rules. 

 

The draft minutes from the 10/17/07 meeting are attached.  As the11/13/07 meeting has been cancelled, please review the draft and advise if any changes need to be made to them.

 

Work continues on the Regulatory Impact Statement. 

 

As always, if you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.

 

Mike

 

Bureau of Fire Services-Fire Marshal Division

Michael Pachulski, State Fire Marshal Supervisor”

 

September 2007 - A document that reflects NFPA rules from 1997 through 2006 and compares these to Michigan Amendments for 2008 is in DRAFT form and available for MiSHE Member review.  In order to assist

in the review process, wording is highlighted as follows: all changes and new items are in Red; yellow highlighted areas reflect potential issues for existing facilities; and blue highlighted areas are commentary. To review the document click on Michigan Amendments for 2008 and return any comments to Tim Tinney. It is important that all comments, questions, issues or proposed language changes from MiSHE members be taken back to the ad hoc committee. The next meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2007.

 

Meeting Schedule: October 17, November 13, and December 11, 2007

 

August 2007 – MISC information: Nursing Home, 100% sprinkler requirement will not go away.  A decision on an acceptable time frame i.e. 5/7/10 years to comply will be made.

429 - Nursing Homes in the State of Michigan

222 - Fully Sprinkled

206 - Partially Sprinkled (Hazardous areas by code)

1 - Un-sprinkled

 

 

Background

As an organization, MiSHE is involved with being an advocate for those issues that involve our members. One of these areas is Fire Safety. One of our members, Tim Tinney, is on the Michigan Fire Safety Board. The following information and updates are provided to involve of all of our members in this important area.

 

Letter from the Healthcare Representative to the Michigan Fire Safety Board

 

 

To All Members and those Attending the Member Seminar on April 13, 2007,

 

I am fearful that my request for MISHE members interested in participating created an expectation that several members of our society would be appointed.  In the end that clearly is not he case.  I apologize for creating any such expectation, but was encouraged to do so by the Chair of the Fire Safety Board.  It may be best to chalk this up to State politics.  On this page is a list of members on the Healthcare Ad Hoc Committee. I believe it to be a good cross section.  I am also pleased that Mike Pachulski from the Bureau of Fire Services is the Chair of the committed.  Mike was a State Trooper and I have worked with Mike on another project and find him to be practical and strait forward.  It is also in our interest to have Dave Guillaume on this committee, his record speaks for itself.  The committee will be reviewing the following documents linked on this page: Chapter 12 New Health Care Occupancies; Chapter 13 Existing Health Care Occupancies; and DCIS – 2001 Michigan Amendments from the Department of Consumer and Industry, State Fire Board, Health Care Facilities Fire Safety Division …

 

READ MORE

 

 

Information and Update Links

 

Current Issues and Action Required by MiSHE Members

Issue 1 – Facility owners, managers and operators understand and support the need for they’re to be codes and standards.   We know that NFPA does not address all aspects of healthcare building design, construction and related systems, but NFPA is focused on life preservation.  Other codes regulate and govern the balance of the structure.  Often times these codes overlap and create conflict and ambiguities that make it difficult or impossible to meet regulatory compliance.  In some cases this overlap causes undue financial burden on the healthcare industry and delays service to our customers.  These conflicts and ambiguities lead to designing and specification of excessive or blanket incorporation or inclusion of devices and or equipment that requires ongoing service, and mandated third party testing and certification.  Examples, being smoke damper and detection; and fire dampers.  NFPA 2000 does not require dampers within a 100% sprinklered facility, however the local Authority having jurisdiction may have a mechanical code that requires them to enforce damper compliance. 

  • Action Needed: We urgently need to know the specific code conflicts that you have with NFPA and other codes. This includes specific codes; the name and number of the code; and the NFPA conflict by name and number. You can send this information to Tim Tinney by email and email attachment.