Healthcare Facilities Code

  1. Home
    2. Page 5
Loading
loading...

Healthcare Facilities Code

February 9, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
, , ,
No Comments

“The Doctor”  1891 Sir Luke Fildes

The NFPA 99 Healthcare Facilities Code committee develops a distinct consensus document (i.e. “regulatory product”) that is distinct from National Electrical Code Article 517; though there are overlaps and gaps that are the natural consequence of changing technology and regulations.  It is worthwhile reviewing the scope of each committee:

NFPA 99 Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents that contain criteria for safeguarding patients and health care personnel in the delivery of health care services within health care facilities: a) from fire, explosion, electrical, and related hazards resulting either from the use of anesthetic agents, medical gas equipment, electrical apparatus, and high frequency electricity, or from internal or external incidents that disrupt normal patient care; b) from fire and explosion hazards; c) in connection with the use of hyperbaric and hypobaric facilities for medical purposes; d) through performance, maintenance and testing criteria for electrical systems, both normal and essential; and e) through performance, maintenance and testing, and installation criteria: (1) for vacuum systems for medical or surgical purposes, and (2) for medical gas systems; and f) through performance, maintenance and testing of plumbing, heating, cooling , and ventilating in health care facilities.

NFPA 70 Article 517 Scope:  The provisions of this article shall apply to electrical construction and installation criteria in healthcare facilities that provide services to human beings.  The requirements in Parts II and III not only apply to single-function buildings but are also intended to be individually applied to their respective forms of occupancy within a multi-function building (e.g. a doctor’s examining room located within a limited care facility would be required to meet the provisions of 517.10)   Informational Note: For information concerning performance, maintenance, and testing criteria, refer to the appropriate health care facilities documents.

In short, NFPA 70 Article 517 is intended to focus only on electrical safety issues though electrotechnology complexity and integration in healthcare settings (security, telecommunications, wireless medical devices, fire safety, environmental air control, etc.) usually results in conceptual overlap with other regulatory products such as NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code) and the International Building Code.

Several issues were recently debated by the Article 517 technical committee during the 2023 National Electrical Code Second Draft meetings

  • The conditions under which reconditioned electrical equipment be installed in healthcare settings; contingent on listing and re-certification specifics.
  • Relaxation of the design rules for feeder and branch circuit sizing through the application of demand factors.
  • Application of ground fault circuit interrupters.
  • “Rightsizing” feeder and branch circuit power chains (Demand factors in Section 517.22)
  • Patient care space categories
  • Independence of power sources (517.30)

There are, of course, many others, not the least of which involves emergency management.  For over 20 years our concern has been for the interdependency of water and electrical power supply to university hospitals given that many of them are part of district energy systems.

We need to “touch” this code at least once a month because of its interdependence on other consensus products by other standards developing organizations.  To do this we refer NFPA 99 standards action to the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which meets online four times monthly in European and American time zones.

The transcript of NEC Article 517 Public Input for the 2023 revision of NFPA 70 is linked below.  (You may have to register your interest by setting up a free-access account):

Code-Making Panel 15 (NEC-P15) Public Input Report

Code-Making Panel 15 (NEC-P15) Public Comment Report

Technical committees will meet in June to endorse the 2023 National Electrical Code.

Public consultation on the Second Draft closes May 31st. Landing page for selected sections of the 2024 revision  of NFPA 99 are linked below:

Electrical Systems (HEA-ELS)

Fundamentals (HEA-FUN)

Health Care Emergency Management and Security (HEA-HES)

Second Draft Comments are linked below:

Electrical Systems (HEA-ELS)

Fundamentals (HEA-FUN)

Health Care Emergency Management and Security (HEA-HES)

NITMAM closing date: March 28, 2023

We break down NFPA 70 and NFPA 99 together and keep them on the standing agenda of both our Power and Health colloquia; open to everyone.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting.

"The trained nurse has become one of the great blessings of humanity, taking a place beside the physician and the priest" - William Osler"While we try to teach our children all about life, our children teach us what life is all about" - Angela Schwindt "The true art of pediatrics lies not only in curing diseases but also in preventing them" - Abraham JacobiGermany

Issues: [12-18, [15-97] and [16-101]

Contact: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Robert Arno, Josh Elvove, Joe DeRosier, Larry Spielvogel

NFPA Staff Liaison: Jonathan Hart

Archive / NFPA 99

 

 

 

Abiit sed non oblitus | Houghton County Michigan

February 8, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
, , , ,
No Comments

Michigan Upper Peninsula

One-hundred-twenty-five years ago, hardy and hard-working Finnish Lutheran immigrants founded a school in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Their lives were marked by a gritty quality captured in the Finnish term, sisu – grit and perseverance in the face of adversity.  Citing financial difficulties related to demographic changes, the Board of Trustees announced that the Class of 2023 was Finlandia’s final graduating class.

“The Board of Trustees and University President Timothy Pinnow stated the extremely difficult decision is the result of an intensive analysis of Finlandia’s operations after exploring all potentially feasible strategic alternatives, including the rigorous search for new partnerships and reorganization of the institution’s finances. With financial challenges impacting liberal arts colleges throughout the country, Finlandia is no exception….

The combination of demographic changes, with fewer high school graduates available, a steep decrease in interest in going to college among those graduates, a dwindling endowment, and an unbearable debt load have made Finlandia no longer viable…

…Finlandia University has finalized eight Teach-Out Agreements with Adrian College, Bay College, Michigan Technological University, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, Northern Michigan University, University of Dubuque, Waldorf University, and Wartburg College. Several non-partnering institutions have also made commitments to supporting FinnU students in incredible ways…”

Board of Trustees vote to dissolve University wind up affairs in orderly manner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“History of the Finns in Michigan” 2001 | Armas K. E. Holmio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solar Energy in Cold Climates

February 8, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com

No Comments

Michigan Upper Peninsula

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IEEE Explore: Michigan Regional Test Center


More:

Question: How many households can be supplied with 1 megawatt of power and how large would the solar panel be?

The number of square meters of solar panels required to generate 1 megawatt (MW) of power depends on several factors, including the efficiency of the solar panels, the amount of sunlight available in the location where the solar panels are installed, and the specific technology used.

On average, solar panels have a conversion efficiency of about 15-20%, which means that for every square meter of solar panel area, you can expect to generate between 150 and 200 watts of power in direct sunlight.

So, to generate 1 MW of power, you would need between 5,000 and 6,667 square meters of solar panels (assuming an average efficiency of 17.5%).

There are 2.58999 square meters in one square mile.

To convert 6,667 square meters to square miles, we can divide 6,667 by 2,589.99:

6,667 sq meters / 2,589.99 sq meters/sq mile = 2.572 square miles (rounded to three decimal places).

Answer:  Therefore 2.572 square miles of solar panels are required to supply 9345 household of power for 1 hour.

The number of households that can be supplied by 1 megawatt of power depends on a variety of factors, including the amount of electricity each household consumes, the time of day, and the season.

However, as a rough estimate, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that in 2020, the average US household consumed about 9,369 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, which is equivalent to an average of 0.107 MW of power.

Based on this average, 1 MW of power could supply approximately 9,345 households (1,000,000 watts / 0.107 MW per household) with electricity for one hour, assuming that all households are consuming the average amount of electricity.

Again, this is a rough estimate, and the actual number of households that can be supplied by 1 MW will depend on various factors such as the region, the time of day, and the actual energy consumption of each household.

Discussion: A typical residential lot is one-half acre.  Rounding 9345 households to 10,000 households; the households themselves have a footprint of 7.8125 square miles; with 1/3rd of the 2.572 square miles for 1 megawatt taken up by the panels.

Sports Equipment & Surfaces

February 6, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
,
No Comments

Student Membership | @ASTMStudentFans

“The National Game” 1889 Arthur Streeton

 

 

 

Sport is the bloom and glow of a perfect health.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

Sport programs, facilities and equipment support one of the most visible and emotionally engaging enterprises in the education communities.   These programs are central to the brand identity of the community and last, but not least, physical activity keeps our young people healthy in body and mind.

ASTM International is one of the first names among the 300-odd ANSI accredited standards setting organizations whose due processes discover and promulgate the standard of care for the design, construction, operations and maintenance of the facilities that support these enterprises.   The parent committee is linked below:

ASTM Committee F08 on Sports Equipment, Playing Surfaces, and Facilities

While ASTM bibliography is largely product-oriented, there are many titles that set the standard of care for sport enterprises and the accessories to these enterprises.  To identify a few:

ASTM 1487-17 Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground Equipment for Public Use

ASTM F1774  Standard Specification for Climbing and Mountaineering Carabiners

ASTM F2060-00(2011) Standard Guide for Maintaining Cool Season Turfgrasses on Athletic Fields

ASTM F1703-13 Standard Guide for Skating and Ice Hockey Playing Facilities

ASTM F1953-10 Standard Guide for Construction and Maintenance of Grass Tennis Courts

ASTM F1081-09(2015) Standard Specification for Competition Wrestling Mats

ASTM F2950-14 Standard Safety and Performance Specification for Soccer Goals

ASTM F2461-16e1 Standard Practice for Manufacture, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Aquatic Play Equipment

When the General Requirements of an athletic facility construction project indicates: “Conform to all applicable standards” then, in the case of an sport facility, the ASTM title is likely the document that defines the standard of care from a product standpoint.  Interoperability of the products in a sport setting are quite another matter.

At the international level, we track action in ISO/TC 83 Sports and other recreational facilities and equipment administered globally by the Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.   ASTM International is ANSI’s Technical Advisory Group for  this committee.

University of Maine

The ASTM standards development process depends heavily on face-to-face meetings — typically two times per year – in different parts of the United States.   The benefit of this arrangement lies in the quality of discussion among subject matter experts that results produced from face-to-face discussion.  The price to pay for this quality, however, lies in the cost of attendance for the user-interest in the education industry.   Relatively few subject matter experts directly employed by a school district, college or university who are charged with lowering #TotalCostofOwnership can attend the meetings.   Many of the subject matter experts who are in attendance at the ASTM meetings from the education industry tend to be faculty who are retained by manufacturers, insurance, testing laboratories, conformity and compliance interests.  (See our discussion of Incumbent Interests)

That much said, ASTM welcomes subject matter experts on its technical committees (Click here)  We encourage participation by end users from the education industry — many of them in the middle of athletic facility management organization charts.   The parent committee meets twice a year; after which we usually find public review redlines developed during those meetings to hit our radar.  The link to the schedule of face-to-face meetings appears below:

F08 Meetings

Note that the August 2020 cancelled but the November 2020 meeting still appears on the schedule.  It is likely that much of the committee work will be done online.

We are required to review draft ASTM consensus products with some care — owing to copyright restrictions — so we do it interactively online during teleconferences devoted to Sport.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.

Issue: [7-7] [10-32] [13-165] [20-156] 

Category: Sport, Management, Risk Management

Contact: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, George Reiher, Richard Robben

Synthetic Turf Guidelines

 

Throwing Stones

February 6, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
,
No Comments

Standards Massachusetts | Wintersport

MIT Curling Club

Related:

MIT Chapel,1954

Keeping MIT Weird

Varieties of Innovation

Haystack Observatory

Climate Science: What Does it Say?

Science at the Winter Olympics

February 5, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com

No Comments

Standards Minnesota

Science at the Winter Olympics

Winter Sport

Family Housing

February 5, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
No Comments

“Kindergarten” 1885 Johann Sperl

Today at the usual hour we examine recent case studies of residential building projects that support family formation.

University of Santa Cruz: New child care center, student housing

University of Kentucky: Graduate and Family Housing

University of Utah: Sunnyside Apartments – Family and Graduate Housing

University of Colorado Boulder: Graduate and Family Housing

Student parents, who often face high rates of housing and food insecurity, stable family housing reduces commuting burdens, fosters a supportive community with amenities like childcare access or playgrounds, and significantly improves retention, academic performance, and graduation rates.  For faculty, affordable on-campus options help recruit and retain top scholars in high-cost areas, humanize interactions (e.g., via faculty-in-residence models), and build stronger campus communities.

Construction and maintenance of family-sized units (apartments/houses) are expensive, requiring substantial investment amid limited budgets. Demand often exceeds supply, leading to long waitlists. Units must meet family-specific needs (safety, space, year-round availability), differing from standard dorms, while navigating zoning, liability, and community integration issues.  In tight housing markets, it can strain local resources or face resistance in activist communities college towns are known for.

In some cases reducing the bells and whistles on new sport stadiums could reduce initial cost of operations and maintenance.  Siting them closer to the student health clinic and a large pool of babysitters could help young families and young men and women seeking partners to start families.

Related:

MaternityMetrix

Homophily Michigan

One & Two Family Dwellings

February 5, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
No Comments

Some colleges and universities in the USA (e.g. Stanford, Duke, University of Chicago, University of Michigan) own one- and two-family dwellings (detached single-family homes or duplexes), though this is not common for most institutions and typically occurs on a limited scale rather than as large portfolios. 
These and others sometimes acquire residential parcels for income, tax advantages, or long-term asset management.  Acquiring adjacent residential properties controls development, reduces conflicts (e.g., student overcrowding in single-family areas), or creates future land banks for Town-Gown solutions.
§

§

Risk aggregations distinguishing single-family (IRC) from multi-family (IBC) requirements include:

Occupant load and life safety: Multi-family buildings have more residents per structure, raising the potential for higher casualties in fires or emergencies → stricter egress rules (e.g., often requiring multiple exits/stairways beyond three stories, wider corridors, and more robust exit access).

Fire spread and compartmentation: Shared walls/floors in apartments increase vertical/horizontal fire propagation risk → enhanced fire-resistance ratings for separations (e.g., between units, corridors), fire-rated assemblies, and often mandatory sprinklers using NFPA 13R (higher capacity for simultaneous head activation) versus IRC’s NFPA 13D (lower capacity, no fire department connection required for single-family).

Egress and evacuation complexity: In multi-family settings, unknown layouts, longer travel distances, and more people amplify evacuation challenges → performance-based requirements for means of egress, smoke control, and sometimes additional features like fire alarms or standpipes.

Structural and hazard exposure: Greater building size/height in multi-family increases exposure to wind, seismic, or progressive collapse risks → more engineered design (performance-based) versus IRC’s prescriptive tables for simpler single-family loads.

Sprinkler and suppression differences: IRC allows simpler, lower-flow domestic-style systems for one-/two-family; IBC mandates systems scaled for higher fire loads in R-2 occupancies.

These distinctions reflect the principle that risk scales with density and shared elements—single-family homes pose primarily individual/household-level threats, while multi-family structures aggregate risks across many unrelated occupants, justifying the IBC’s more comprehensive, often stricter provisions for safety.

Detached site condominiums (also called detached condos or site condos) offer a practical solution to the U.S. housing affordability crisis for young families by providing standalone, single-family-style homes at significantly lower costs than traditional detached single-family residences.

These properties look and feel like conventional homes—fully detached with no shared walls, private yards, and often garages—but are legally structured as condominiums. Owners typically own the interior structure (and sometimes the land beneath it, depending on the setup), while sharing common areas, landscaping, and amenities through an HOA.

This model reduces purchase prices substantially: median condo prices (including detached variants) hover around $340,000–$357,000 nationally, compared to $410,000–$420,000+ for detached single-family homes. Builders achieve this by clustering units more densely, lowering per-unit land and development costs, and enabling entry-level homeownership in desirable areas where land is expensive.

For young families, this means easier access to homeownership with lower down payments, more predictable maintenance (HOA handles exteriors and common elements), and family-friendly features like space for kids and pets—without the full financial burden of a traditional house. It bridges the gap between unaffordable single-family homes and denser options like apartments or townhomes, helping families build equity and stability sooner amid rising prices and shortages.

Off-Campus Housing

February 5, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
, ,
No Comments

Brigham Young University Idaho is a private university located in Rexburg, Idaho, United States. It is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is a part of the Church Educational System which recognizes moral absolutes at the foundation of a federal democratic republic that makes their university possible.  It offers a variety of undergraduate degrees in fields such as business, education, health, and the humanities. The university also offers online courses and programs for distance learners.

One unique aspect of BYU-Idaho is its emphasis on the integration of faith and learning. All students, regardless of their religious background, are required to take religion courses as part of their degree program. The university also has a code of conduct that includes standards for dress, grooming, behavior, and academic honesty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standards Idaho

What is Happening to the Family, and Why?

February 5, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com
, , , ,
No Comments

“The family is nature’s masterpiece”

— George Santayana

 

Educated at Yale College, Somerville College, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard Medical School and Columbia Law School, Amy Wax speaks to the Buckley Institute, founded by William F. Buckley (Yale 1950). Links to National Centers at Bowling Green State University, the University of Virginia and the University of Nebraska.

Inside Higher Ed (September 24, 2024): Amy Wax Update

Overcoming the Feminization of Culture


You Might Start by Reducing the Size of Government

In popular culture:

The Anthropology of Karens

People grow up in a web of relationships that is already in place, supporting them as they grow. From the inside out, it includes parents, extended family and clan, neighborhood groups and civic associations, church, local and provincial governments and finally national government.

 

Welcome

Standards Michigan Group, LLC

2723 South State Street | Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA

888-746-3670

DIRECTIONS

icon icon
icon icon
icon icon  
Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
Standards Michigan
error: Content is protected !!
Skip to content