on electrical equipment (hea-ele) (chapter 7, section … · constance bobik, b&e fire safety...

Report of the Committee on Technical Committee on

Health Care Facilities

Technical Correlating Committee (HEA-AAC)

John P. Swope, Chair Derwood, Mr) [SE]

Constance Bobik, B&E Fire Safety Equipment Inc., FL [IM] Jay Crowley, u.s. Dept. of Health and Human Services,

MD [E] Marvin J. Fischer, Jamesburg, NJ [1J] Gary R. Fleming, Royal Insurance, NC [I}

Rep. American Insurance Services Group, Inc. Thomas W. Gardner, Gage-Babcock & A~soc., VA l Ill

Rep. American Health Care Assn. Harlan C. lhleufeldt, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., IL [1] Stanley D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc., CA [IM]

Rep. Nat'l Electrical Contractors Assn. William E. Koffel, Jr., Koffel Assoc., inc., MD [SE] E. J. McCarthy, Hospital for Special Care, CT [I ~]

Rep. NFPA Health C~are Section D. A. McWhinnie, Jr., Mechanical Dynamics Inc., IL [SE] Robert T. Shipley, Fisher Berkeley Corp., CA [M]

Rep. Nat'l Electrical Mfrs. Assn~ Steven Werner, J&H Marsh & McLennan, WI [I] Mayer D. Zimmerman, I LS. Dept. of Health and Human

Services, MD [E]

Alternates

Kenneth Knight, Bethesda Hospiud, OH ILl] (Alt. to E.J. McCarthy)

Thomas A. Salamone, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., NY [I] (Aft. to H. C. lhlenfeldt)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents which contain criteria for ~,'ffeguarding patients and health care personnel in die delivery of health care services widfin health care facilities: a) from fire, explosion, electrical and related hazards resulting eidter from the use of anesdletic agents, medical gas equipment, electrical apparatus and high freqnency electricity, or from internal or external incidents dlat disrupt normal patient care; b) from fire and explosion hazards ,associated with laboratory practices; c) in connection with the use of hyperbaric and hypobaric facilities for medical purposes; d) through performance, maintenance and testing criteria for electrical systems, bodl normal and essential; and e) through performance, maintenance and testing arid installation criteria: 1) for vacuum systems for medical or surgical purposes, and 2) for medical gas systems

Technical Committee on

Administration (HEA-ADM)

(Chapter 1)

Elliott S. Guttman, (:hair Atlantis, FL [I1]

Frank E. Baxter, Eniergency Care Research Inst., PA [RT] Thomas Bulow, University Medical Center, AZ [U] Michael Crowley, RolfJensen & Assoc., Inc., TX [SE] James S° Davidson, Jr., Triad Fire Protection Engr Corp.,

PA [SEI Timothy S. Elder, Mercy Health System, NY [U] William C. McPeck, State of Maine Employee Health & Safety,

ME [El Thomas A. Salamone, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., NY [I}

Committee Scope: Tiffs Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents orport ions of documents on dae scope, application, and in tendeduse of documents under the Health Care Facilities Project, as well as definitions not assigned to other committees in d~e Health Care Facilities Project.

Electrical Equipment (HEA-ELE)

(Chapter 7, Section 9-2, and Annex 1)

Lawrence S. Sandier, Chair IJ.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, ME Ill]

Saul Aronow, Waban, MA [SE] Fred J. Christadore, Fresenins Medical Center, NJ I Mi

Rep. Health Industry Mfrs. Assoc. Yadin David, Texas Childrens Hospital. TX I I l] Albert G. Garlatti, Intertek Testing Services NA hkt., MN I R l'i Alan Lipschultz, The Medical Center of Delaware. DE !SEt - Rep. Assn. for the Advancement of Medical hlstrlnllt~lltatltHb James A. Meyer, Pettis Memorial VA Hospital, (:A [CI

Rep. Americ~l Society of Anesthesiologists Joseph P. Murnane, Underwriters Laboratories h . . N'r [Rll Timothy Peglow, La Porte Hospital. IN [11 I

Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engt Robert T. Shipley, Fisher Berkeley Corp., CA I MI

Rep. Nat'l Electrical Mfrs. Assn.

Alternates

Britton E° Berek, Aznerican Society for Healthcare Engr. IL [UI (Ah. to T. Peglow)

Robert A. Carlson, Hubbell Inc., CT [M] (Alt. to R. T. Shipley)

Todd L. Relyea, Intertek Testing Services NA Inc., NY [RT] (AIt. to A. G. Garlatti)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents covering the maintenance, performance and testing of equipment for die purpose of safeguarding patients and staff within patient care areas of health care facilities from the hazards of fire, explosion, electricity, nonionizing radiation. heat and electrical interference.


Electrical Systems (HEA-ELS)

¢Chapter 3)

Hugh O. Nash, Jr., cluu~ Nash Lipsey Bnrcb, LLC, TN [SEJ

Stephen Benesh, Square D Co., W! [M] Rep. Nat'l Electrical Mfrs. Assn.

D. R. Borden, Jr., Tri-City Electric Co. inc., FL JIM} Rep. Nat'l Electrical Contractors Assn.

A. Dan Chisholm, Motor and Generator Inst, Inc., FL JIM] James L. Crawford, ILS. Dept. of Health & Human Service,

WA [El Albert G. Garlatti, Intertek Testing Services NA lrlc.. MN [RT! JEadmes R. lverson, Onan Corp., MN [M]

ward A. Lobuitz, Tilden Lobnitz & Cooper Inc., FL [SE] Alfred J. Longhltano, Gage-Babcock & Assoc., lnc., NY [I~]

Rep. American Health Care Assn. Gregory A. Mankey, Caterpillar, Inc., IL [M]

Rep. Electrical Generating Systems Assn. Terry G. Mclntyre, Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co./FMRC,

MA [I1 J~aseph P. Murnane, I Inderwriters Laboratories Inc., NY [RT]

vid IL Norton, II.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, MD [E] Ronald M. Smidt, Cztrolinas HealthCare System, NC [lll

Rep. American Society for Health(are Engr Howard Stickley, IJ.S. Army Corps of Engr. DC [U] Raymond J. Swisher, Naval Healtbcare Support Office,

VA [;Jl Walter N. Vernon, IV, Mazzettl & Assoc., Inc.. ( ~ [SE]

127

Alternates

Lawrence A. Bey, Onan Corp., MN [M] (Alt. to J. R. Iverson)

Robert A. Carlson, Hnbbell Inc., CT [M] (/kit. to S. Benesh)

Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare Engr, [L [U ] (Alt. to R. M. Smidt)

Hakim Hasan, Intertek Testing Services, MN [RT] (Alt. to A. G. Garlatti)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents covering performance, maintenance, and testing of electrical systems for die purpose of safeguarding patients, staff, and visitors within healdr care facilities.


Gas Delivery Equipment (HEA-GAS)

(Chapter 8, Section 12-4.1 and 13-4.1, and Annex 2)

Gerald L. Wolf, Chair SIJNY/Hf~SB, Brooklyn, NY [C]

Rep. American Society of Anesdlesiologists

M. Lee Bancroft, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical (;enter, MA [U] JamesJ . Claffey, McPherson Hospital, MI [C]

Re~. American A.~sn. of Nurse Anesthetists Jay t, rowley, I.LS. Dept. of HeMdl /Hnman Services, MD [E) Yadin David, Tex~ls Childrens Hospital, TX [U] , Richard E. Hoffman, Hoffman & Assoc., Inc., K,S [M]

Rep. Compressed Gas Assn. Alan Lipschultz, The Medical Center of Delaware, DE [SEI

Rep. Assn. for die Advancement of Medical Instnmmntation Dwight R. (DAK) Quarles, Inst. of Exercise & Environmental

Medicine, TX [U]

J ay R. Sommers, Kimberly-Clark Corp., GA [M] ohn P. Swope, Derwood, MD [SE] Rep. NFPA Healdl Care Section

Gregory L Welyczko, Ohmeda /BOC Health Care, Inc., W} [M]

Alternate

R•YA•t• Nichols, Jr., Shriners Burn lnsc, TX [C] to G. L. Wolf)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents on the performance, and maintenance criteria for safeguarding patients and ilealth care personnel from fire, explosion, electrical, and related hazards in anesthetizinglocations involving die administration of bodl flammable ,and nonflammable anesdletics, including equipment and facilities ancillary thereto; and the performance, maintenance and testing of patient-related gas equipment for die purpose of s,'ffeguarding patients mad staff within healdl care facilities.


Health Care Emergency Preparednegs and Disaster Planning (HEA-HCE)

(Chapter 11)

Russell Phillips, (;hair Russell Phillips & Assoc., Inc., NY [SE]

Richard T. Byrd, Vanderbilt University, TN [U] Curt Fogel, Phico Insurance Co., ND [1] Joseph J. Gulinello, Integrated Security Solutions, NJ [SE] John P. Jarrett , New Paltz Nursing Home, NY [U]

Rep. NFPA Healdl Care Section Yvonne M. Keafer, SedgwickJames of PA, Inc., PA [I] ames C. Kendlg, Health First, FL [U]

es W. Kerr, M. IL Inc., MD [SE] d J. Kitchln, Milcare, AZ [M]

William C. McPeck, State ot Maine Employee He;dth & S,afety, ME [E]

Thomas A. Salamone, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos. N~ tll W. Thomas Schipper, Kaiser Foundation Hospluds, ( ~ [l;]

Rep. American Society for Healtbcare Engr Michael L. Sinsigalli, Windsor Locks Fire Dept., C'[ [E! Gregory E. Spahr, Loss Prevention Services, lnc., CA [SE! Robert J. Stone, Acordia of Cincinnati, Inc., ()H Ill Clevis T. Svetlik, J&H Marsh & McLennan, OH [I] Steven Vargo, Raritan Bay Medical (;enter, NJ [111 Ronaid Wo Woodfin, TetraTek, Inc., TN [SE]

Alternates

Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healdw~tre Engr. IL [U] (Ait. to W. T. Schipper)

Anthony W. Flacco, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos.. PA [I] (Alt. to T. A. Salamone)

Richard C. Ryan, TetraTek, Inc., TN [SE] (Alt. to R. W. Woodfin)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or port ions of docnments c_overiug the performance of bealdl care facilities under disaster conditions.


Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities (HEA-HYP)

(Chapter 191

Wilbur T. Workman, Chai7 Engineered Medical Systems, Inc., TX [SE]

Harold D. Beer, on, NASA Johnson Space Center, NM [RT] Dave DeAngelis, U.S. Ocean Engr & Construction Pro ()ffice,

DC te l David A. Desautels, St .Joseph's Hospital, FL [U]

Rep. Undersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society William H. L. Dornette, Kensington, MD [SE] Christy Foreman, ILS. Dept. of Healfll & Human Services,

MD [E] William Charles Gearhart, Virginia Sprinkler Co., Inc., MD [IM] Robert W. Hamilton, Hamilton Research Ltd, NY [M] Terry H. Hayes, Naval Facilities Engr Command, DC IU1 Eric P. Kindwall, Medical College of Wisconsin, WI [U] Carolyn Land, Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, AZ [C]

Rep. Baromedical Nurses Assn. Richard A. Leland, Environmental Tectonics Corp., PA [M] Michael D. Martin, Ford Motor Co., MI [U] Dennis J. Murray, KMS-Medical Gas System Consultants Ltd.

M! [U] Rep. American Hospital Assn.

Barry Newton, Wandell Hull & Assoc., NM [SE] Andrew A. Pilmanis, U.S. Air Force Armstrong Labocatorv,

TX [RT] Stephen D. Reimers, Reimers Systems, Inc., VA [M] Thomas A. Salamone, Kemper Nat'l Insu~mce Cos., NY [1] Robert F. Schumacher, Nth Systems Inc., TX [M] Jp. Ronald Sechrist, Sechrist Industries, CA [M1

aul J. Sheffield, Int'l ATMO, Inc., TX Ill I John Steven Wood, Hype,'baric ()xygen. lnc+. TX [SE]

Alternates

Greg Godfrey, Sechrist Industries, Inc., CA [M] (Alt. toJ. R. Sechrist)

Robert B. Sheffield, Stat Healthcare, Inc./Hyperbaric Services, TX IUI (Alt. to P.J. Sheffield)

Ellen C. Smithline, Baystate Medical Center, MA [C] (/kit. to C. Land)

Jsoanna H. Weltershausen, I_I.S. Dept. of Health & Human ervices, MD [E] (Alt. to C. Foreman)

Harry T. Whelan, Medical College of Wisconsin. W} [ll] (Ait. to E. P. Kindwall)

Kenneth H. Willis, Presbyterian Hospital of [}alias, TX [ll] (Air. to D.J. Murray)

Larry L. Wischhoefer, Reimers Systems Inc.. WA [M] (Alt. to S. D. Reimers)

128

Committee Scope: This Comntittee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents covering the construction, installation, testing, performance and maintenance of hyperbaric and hypobaric facilities for safeguarding staff and occupants of chambers.


Laboratories (HEA-LAB)

(Chapter 10, Sections 12-4.2, 13-4.2, 14-4.1, 15-4.1, 16-4.1, and 17-4.1)

Gerald A. Hoel ,tge, Chair Tile Cleveland Clinic Fol~ndation, ()H [U]

Rep, College of American Pathologists

J ames F. Barth, FIREPR(), Inc., MA [SE] ohn Francis Capron, III, The Cleveland Clime Foundation, ()H [Ul

George D. Har|ow, New England Medical (_;enter, MA [ll] Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engr

Harlan C. Ihlenfeldt, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., IL [I] Ulrich M. Linder, Earl Walls Assoc., C,A [SE] Glenn A. MacWalter, Denham Consulting Engr, Inc., AZ [SE] John P. McCabe, Nat'l Insts. of Heald]/Fire Prevention Section,

MD [El Susan B. McLaughlin, Joint Commission on Accreditation of

Healdxcare Organizations, [L [El James O. Wear, -112L .S. Dept. of Veterans Admin. Medical Center,

AR [UI Rep. NFPA Health Care Section

Alternates

Britton E. Berek, American Society for Healthcare Engr, IL [U] (Alt. to G. D. Hariow)

Robert A. Guy, Earl Walls Assoc., CA [SE] (AlL to U. i . Linder)

Thomas A. Salamone, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., NY [i1 (Air. to H. C. lhlenfeldt)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents covering d~e maintenance of equipment and environment for the purpose of safeguarding patients, visitors and staff widfin laboratories in healdl care facilities.


Piping Systems (HEA-PIP)

(Chapter 4)

Dennis J. Murray, Chair KMS-Medical Gas System Consultants Ltd, MI [SE]

Mark W. Allen, Medical Air Pumps, Inc., GA[M] M. Lee Bancroft, Bed1 Israel Deaconess Medical Center, MA [U] David L. Brittain, PROVAC, OH [M] Terry A. Brouwer, Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety, CT [El Sharon Day, Pittsboro, NC [SE] Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healdlcare Engr,

IL [U] Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp., PA [RT] P. L. Fan, American Dental Assn., IL [U] Michael Frankel, Utility Systems Consultants, NJ [SE]

Rep. American Society of Plumbing Engr Gary E. Hess, Hess Mecbanical Corp., MD [IM]

Rep. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Richard E. Hoffman, Hoffman & Assoc., Inc., KS [M]

Rep. Compressed Gas Assn. Henry R. Kaht, Squire-Cogswell Co., IL [M]

David Eric Lees, (;eorgetown l)niversity Medical Center, [)C [C} Rep. American Society of Anesthesiologists

David B. Mohile, Medical Engr Services, hlC., VA [RTI Ron Ridenour, P.I.P.E., CA [L}

Rep. Piping Industry Progress mid Education E. Daniel Shoemaker, Apollo Dental Products, CA [M] Ronald M. Smidt, Carolinas HealdiCare System, N(" [I1]

Rep. NFPA Health Care Section Edward K. Stevenson, Liberty Munml Insurance Co., MA [I]

Rep. The Alliance of American Insurers J. Richard Wagner, Poole & Kent Co.. MD [IM}

Rep. Mechanical Contractors Assn. of America, Inc. F. David Wyrick, Sr., C~ambiare Ltd, NC [M]

Rep. Int'l Analgesia Society

Alternates

Britton E. Berek, American Society lor Heahhcare Engl. II. '} (Alt. to D. S. Erickson)

Dale J. Dumbleton, tMnerwan Medical (;~.~ h~s~. I.A [i.~ (Ah. to R. Ridenour)

David Esherick, Patient Insnunlentamm (,t,[p., PA I RII (Alt. to P. Esherick)

Robert A. Ferdig, Puritan-Betmetw (,orp.. K,'q I M ! (/kit. to R. E. Hoffman)

Michael J. Lynam, Porter h]strument Co)., inc., PA I M) (Ah. to F. D. Wyrick, St.)

James A. Meyer, Pettis Memorial VA Hospital. CA [C] (Alt. to D. E. Lees)

Sharon Stanford, Americari Dental Assn., IL [1)] (Alt. to P. L. Fan)

Christopher P. Swayze, The Sherman Engr Co., PA[M] (Air. to M. W. Allen)

Markus Yakren, Syska and Hennessy Inc, NY [SE] (Voting Alt. to ASoSE Rep.)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents covering theperformance, maintenance, installation, and testing of medical and dental related gas piping systems and medical and dental related vacuum piping systems.

Staff Liaison: Burton IL Klein

These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes tn th; membership may. have occurred. A ke~ to classifications is Jound at the front of this book.

This Report was prepared by the: " Technical Correlating Committee o n Heahb Care Facilines

(HEA-AAC) • Tectmical Committee on Administration (HEA-Pd)M) • Technical Committee on Electrical Systems (HEA-EL,'~) • Technical Committee on (;as Delivery Equipment (HEA-

l;AS ) • Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric

Facilities (HEA-HYP) ° Technical Committee on Laboratories (HEA-LAB) • Tecbnic~d Committee on Piping Systems (HEA-PIP)

This portion of the Technical Committee Report of the Committee on Health Care Systems is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Health Care Facilities and documents its action on die comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 99-1996, Standard for Health Care Facilities, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1998 Fall Meeting.

This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter baUot of file individual Technical Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of arty negative votes, can be found in the report.

This Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of die Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care Facilities which consists of 14 voting members; of whom 12 voted affirmatively, and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Crowley and Fleming).

129

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

(Log #CC 1 ) Commit tee : HEA-PIP

99- I - (Entire d o c u m e n t ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commi t t ee on Piping Systems COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-9, 99-10, 99-21,99-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise sections ,as follows:

1. Revise 4-4 in its entirety to read ,as follo,ds: 4-4 Level 2 Piped Systems. 4-4.1 Piped Gas Systems (Source & Distribution). Level 2

~iped gas systems shall conform to the requ i rements for Level 1 p iped gas systems.

Exception No. 1: Medical ,air compressors shall be permi t ted to be simplex.

Exception No. 2: Dryers, ,'d'tercoolers, filters and regulators, as listed in 4-3.1.1.9(g), shall be pe rmi t t ed to be simp.lex.

Except ion No. 3: A single alarm panel, ,as descr ibed in 4- 3.1.2.1(b)2, shall be m o u n t e d in an area of con t inuous surveillance while the facility is in operat ion.

Except ion No. 4: O n e a larm panel that complies wifl) 4- 3.1.2.1(b)3a, b, c, ,and d. and with 4-3.1.2.1(c)2 and 5, shall be ~erntitted.

Exception No. 5: Pressure switches shall be m o u n t e d at die source with a pressure gauge or r eadou t located at die master a larm panel .

4-4.2 Piped Vacuum Svsteuls (Source a n d Distribution). Level 2 p iped vacuum systems shaU conform to die r eqn i r emen t s for Level 1 p iped vacuum systems.

Exception: Medical vacnum p u m p s shall be permi t ted to be s implex.

4-4.3 Piped WAGD Systems (Source a n d Distr ibut ion) . ' Level 2 p iped WAGD systems shall conform to tile r equ i rements for Level I p iped WAGD systems.

Exception: Medical WAGD p u m p s shall be pernt i t ted to be s implex.

4-4.4 Pe r fo rmance Criteria and Testing. 4-4.4.1 Piped Gas Systems - Level 2. The pe r fo rmance ,'uld

test ing criteria for Level 2 piped gas systems shall conform to tile r equ i r emen t s for Level 1 p iped gas systems.

4-4.4.2 Piped Vac uum Systems - Level 2. Ti le pe r fo rmance :md test ing criteria for Level 2 piped vacuum systems shall conform to the r equ i r emen t s for Level 1 piped vacuum systems.

4-4.4.3 Piped WAG[) Systems - Level 2. T he pe r fo rmance and test ing criteria for Level 2 p iped WAGD systems shall conform to tile r equ i rements for Level 1 p iped WAGD systems.

4-4.5 Adminis t ra t ion - Level 2. 4-4.5.1 Responsibility of Governing Body. (Reserved) 4-4.5.2 Piped Gas Systems Policies - Level 2. T he policies for

Level 2 piped gas systems shall conform to the r equ i rements for Level 1 piped gas systems.

44.5 .3 Piped Vacuum Systems - Level 2. Tile policies for Level 2 p iped wacunm systems shall con fo rm to tile r equ i rements for Level 1 p iped vacuum systems.

4-4.5.4 Piped WAGD Systems - Level 2. T he policies for Leve~ 2 p iped WAGD systems shall conform to die r equ i rements for Level 1 p iped WAGD systems.

2. Revise 12-3.4 to read as follows: 12-3.4 Gas and Vacuum System Requi rements . 12-5.4.1 If installed, pa t ient gas systems shall conform to Level

1 gas systems of Chapte r 40 12-3.4.2 Ex¢eFSv.~: If installed, A- ,.a Level 3 pat ient gas system

of Chapter 4 shall be permi t ted wben no t served by tile hospi ta l ' s central pa t ient gas systems.

12 ~/..2 1 2-3.4.3 If installed, pat ient vacnum systems shall conform to Level 1 vacuum systems of Chapter 4.

12-3.4.4 Exee~6~,~: If installed. A-a Level 3 pat ient vacuum system of Chapter 4 shall be permi t ted when not served by the hospi ta l ' s central pat ient vacnlnYi system.

t2 ~.A.~ 12-3.4.5 If installed, pat ient WAGD systems shall conform to Level 1 WAGD systems of Chapter 4. [NOTE: A public c o m m e n t is being p repared to revise this paragraph to correlate with Proposal 99-218 (Log #179).1

-12 3.~. A, 1 2-3.4.6 If installed, laboratory gas systems shall conform to Level 4 gas systems of Chapter 4.

12 3.~.~ 12-3.4.7 If installed, laboratory vacuum systems shall conform to Level 4 vacuum systems of Chapter 4.

3. Revise Chapter 13 in its entirely to read as follows:

Chapter 13 "Other" healdl care facilities

13-1 General. 13-1.1 Scope. This chapter addresses safety t eq tn re lnems t~)J

facilities, or port ions thereof, that provide d i a g n o s t c ,ttb(l t r ea tmen t services to patienLs in heal th care facilities othem m,uJ hospitals, nurs ing l lomes or limited care facilities as delitled ilJ Chapter 2.

13-2 (`;eneral Responsibilities. 13-2.1 Laboratories. Tile governing boards o1 these tacihues

shall have the responsibility of protect ing tile facilities (tol pane[it care and clinic,at investigation) and tile persormel employed therein.

13-3 General Requirements . 13-3.1 (Reserved) 13-3.2 (Reserved) 13-3.3 Electrical System Requi rements . 13-3.3.1 Normal Electrical Distr ibution System. (Reserved) 13-3.3.2 Essential Electrical Distribution System. Th e essential

electrical distr ibution system shall conform to a Type 3 s ~ t e m ,as descr ibed in Chapter 3.

13-3.3.2.1 If electrical life suppor t e q u i p m e n t is required, the essential electrical dis t r ibut ion system shall conform to a Type I system as descr ibed in Chapter 3,

13-3.3.2.2 If critical care areas are present, the essential electrical dis tr ibut ion system shall conform to a Type I system as

i descr ibed in Chapte r 3. 13-3.4 Gas and Vacuum System Requirements , 13-3.4.1 If installed where patients are provided ulechanical

ventilation or assisted mechanica l ventilation, pat ient g~Ls systems sllall conform to Level 1 p iped gas systems of Chapter 4.

A single alarm par[el, ,as descr ibed in 4-3,1.2.1 (b)2, shall be m o u n t e d in an area of con t inuous surveillance while tile facility is in operat ion.

13-3.4.2 If installed where patients due to rnedical, surgtc:d or diagnostic intervent ion ,are d e p e n d e n t on the p i p e d g a s s,/steru. tile pat ient gas system shall conform to Level 2 p ip ed g ax systems of Chapter 4.

13-3.4.3 If irlstalled where tile [.)atienl populaliott is Ilt)t oll critical life suppor t equ ipment , tile patie[Jt g;LS system shait corltorm to Level 3 piped g,'as systems of Chapter 4.

13-3.4.4 If installed where patients are provided nle('~lalll( aJ ventilatio[] or assisted mechanica l veutilation, patient xg(ll-Illllll sysl:enls shall conforn l tO Level l piped vaclltu]l s'cstel[ts o1 Chapter 4.

13-3.4.5 If installed wllere patients due to medical, surgl(:al ol diagnostic in tervent ion are d e p e n d e n t on the p~ped vacu/mt system, tile pat ient vacuum system shall con torm m Level 2 pipt'd vacuum systems of Chapter 4.

13-3.4.6 If installed where die pat ient populat ion is uot on critical life snppor t equ ipment , the pat ient vacuum system shall conform to Level 3 p iped vacuum systems of Chapter 4.

13-3.4.7 If installed, pa t ient WAGD systems shall conform to Level 1 WAGD systems in Cbapte r 4. [NOTE: A public c o m m e n t is being p repared to revise this paragraph to correlate with Proposal 99-218 (Log #179).]

13-3.4.8 If installed, laboratory gas systems shall conform to Level 4 gas systems of Chapter 4.

1 3-3.4.9 If installed, laboratory vacuum systems shall conform to Level 4 vacuum systems in Chapter 4.

13-3.5 Environmenta l Systems. (Reserved) 13-3.6 Material Requi rements . (Reserved) 13-3.7 Electrical E q u i p m e n t Requirements . 13-3.7.1 Patient Care Areas. If critical care areas are presetlt,

electrical appl iances shall con fo rm to Chapter 7. 13-3.7.2 Laboratories. Equ ipmen t shall conform [o 7-5.2.2

and 7-6. 13-3.8 (.;as Equ ipmen t Requirements . 13-3.8.1 Patient. Gas equ ipmen t shall contorlll to tlle patietli

e q u i p m e n t r equ i rements in Chapter 8. 13-3.9 (Reserved) 1 3-3.10 (Reserved) 13-3.11 Facilities covered by this chapter sltalJ comply with the

provisions of Chapter 1 I for dis:~ster planning , ::is :tpproprl:tte.

4. Delete text of existing Chapter 14, all¢l have (:hal)let" 14 indicated as "(Reserved)."

5. Delete text of existing Chapter 15, and have Ch:tpter 15 indicated as "(Reserved)."

130

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

6. Revise 16-3.4 to r e a d as follows: 16-3.4 Gas a n d V a c u u m System R e q u i r e m e n t s . 16-3.4.1 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e o a t i e n t s ,are Drovided m e c h a n i c a l

ven t i l a t i on or ,assisted m e c h a n i c a l ven t i l a t i on , o a t i e n t ~ systems shMl c o n f o r m to Level 1 d i n e d ~as sys tems of C h a n t e r 4.

A s ing l e a l a r m pane l , as d e s c r i b e d in 4-3.1.2.1 (b)2, sbal l be m o u n t e d in an a r e a of c o n t i n u o u s su rve i l l ance wh i l e d~e faci l i ty is in o p e r a t i o n .

. . . . . [ . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(a) Med ica l a i r c c m p r c z z c r : :!:x!! bc p e r m l t t c ~ t.v bc zlmpJc'x.

f ~ l - - \ . I . - - I I k . . . . :++--A +~ k-- . . ' ~ 1 ~ . .

. . . . . 1 . . , : ~ 1 . A ~ / I c / 1 1 ~ \ o ~ . l K o | . ~ l l k . . . . . . : + * ~ . l a n d d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ t . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . ( d ) P r c = ~ ' a r c ~ ' , ; S t c h c s .~h'-~! b c m o ' - n t e ~ a t t l - c ~ o - : r c c - ' : i t h a

prevost:re g a u g e c r r c a : ! c u : !oca tc~ a t ~-c m ~ t c r ala~-m pa::c!. | 6-3.4.2 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e Dat ients d u e to medica l , su rg ica l or

d i a g n o s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n a re d e p e n d e n t on t h e p i p e d gas system, t i le p a t i e n t .gas sys tem shal l c o n t o r m to Level 2 p i p e d gas .sys tems of C h a n t e r 4.

16-3,4.3 If ins ta l l ed w h e r e the n a t i e n t DOmflation ~s no~ on cr i t ical l ife SUDDOrt e m f i o m e n t , the p a t i e n t gas system shal l c o n f o r m to I~evel 3 Dined ~aS systems of C h a n t e r 4.

|6-3.zt.4 I f i n s t a l l ed w h e r e p a t i e n t s a re p r o v i d e d mechar t i ca l ven t i l a t i on or ass is ted mec laan ica l ven t i l a t i on . Pa t i en t v a c u u m sys tems shal l c o n f o r m to Level 1 p i p e d wacuum systems of ( ' h a p t e r 4.

16-3/t .5 I f i n s t a l l ed w h e r e p a t i e n t s d u e to med ica l , su rg ica l or d i ag l lo s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n are d e o e n d e n t on the p i p e d v a c u u m system, t he n a t i e n t v a c n u m system shal l c o n f o r m to Level 2 n i o e d vacnu l l I svs tems of C h a n t e r 4.

16-3.4.6 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e t he o a t i e n t n o m f l a t i o n is n o t on critical life s u P P o r t e m t i m n e n t , t i le o a t i e n t v a c u u m svstem shal l c o n f o r m to Level 3 n i o e d v a o m m sys tems of C h a n t e r 4.

L ' c ; ' c ! I -~-.c'au:n ~ o t c : m o f C h a p t e r ~.

16 3.4.3 " ~ . . . . . . . . . a " . , . . . . . . . . . . ,

16-3.4.7 If jrlst,alled, p a t i e n t WAGE) svs tems sha l l c o n f o r m to Level 1 WAGD sys tems in C h a n t e r 4. I N O T E : A nub i l e c o m m e n t is b e i n q D r e o a r e d to ' r ev i se th i s D,'waurao'h to c o r r e l a t e v

with p r o p o s a l 99521"8 ('Log #179").1 15 g . l . l 16-3.4.8 L a b o r a t o r y Gas Systems. (Reserved) I'5, 3.~.5 16-3.4.9 L a b o r a t o r y V a c u u m Systems. (Reserved)

7. Revise 17-3.4 to r e a d as follows: 17-3.4 Gas a n d V a c u u m System R e q u i r e m e n t s . 17 ~ A , ,# : . . . . u~a . . . . : . . . . . . z'rr, tcr::z zhall c o n f o r m t~ Lc; 'cl

3 g :~ z)~tcmz c.f C ! ' a F t c r I .

1 . . . . I I . . . . . . . . . . .,f" l r - , I . ~ . ~ .4

Lc;'c! 3 ~.?.c::'.:'::~ s'~=tc:ns c f C'!~aptcr ~.. 17-3.4.1 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e o a t i e n t s a re o r o v i d e d m e c h a n i c a l

v e n t i l a t i o n or ass i s ted m e c h a n i c M ven t i l a t i on , n a t i e n t ~,,us systems shal l c o n f o r m to l .evel 1 Dined mas sys tems of C h a n t e r i .

17-3.4 2 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e Dat'i'ents d u e to med ica l , surg ica l or d i a g n o s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n a re d e n e n d e n t on t he d i n e d ~as system. the p a t i e n t ~as sys tem shal l c o n f o r m to Level 2 n i n e d ~as sys tems of C 'hamer 4.

17-3.'i.3 If ins tMled w h e r e the Dat ient o o o u l a t i o n is no t on critical life suDoor t e m l i n m e n t , the o a t i e n t gas system shal l c o n f o r m to Level 3 Dined ~as sys tems of C h a n t e r 4.

17-3.4.4 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e Pa t i en t s a re p r o v i d e d m e c h a n i c a l vent i la t i0r l or ass is ted m e c h a n i c a l ven t i l a [ ion , p a t i e n t v a c u u m ,systems shal l c o n f o r m to Level 1 p i p e d v a c u u m systems of C h a p t e r 4.

17-3,4,5 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e na t i en t s d u e to medica l , su rg ica l or d i a g n o s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n are d e n e n d e n t on the p i p e d vacu'(m~ i~ystem, the n a t i e n t v a c u u m system sludl c o n f o r m to Level 9- p i p e d w, t cnun l svs term of C h a ~ t e r 4.

]7-3,4.6 If i n s t a l l ed w h e r e the n a t i e n t p o p u l a t i o n is no t on cr i t ica l life s u o o o r t e o u i o m e n t , the o a t i e n t ~ t c n u m system shal l c o n f o r m to Level 3 d i n e d v a c u u m systems of C h a n t e r 4.

17-3.4.7 If ins ta l l ec l . -oa t i en t W A G D sys tems shal l c o n t o r m to Level | WAGD sys tems in C h a n t e r 4. [NOTE: A pub l i c c o m m e n t is b e i n e o r e o a r e d to revise th is n a r a ~ r a o h to co r re la te with p r o p o s a l 99-218 t L o ~ #179L1

173 .4 .3 ,t , . . . . . . . a , 1 7 9 " A ,e, . . . . . . . .~x

. . . . . x . . . . . . . . . /

173.4 .5 m . . . . . . Ax S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To a d d r e s s the 7echnic .~l C o r r e l a t i n g C o m m i t t e e on H e a l t h Care Faci l i t ies d i rec t ive to rev iew Proposa l s 99-9 (Log #1), 99-10 (Log #1a) , 99-21 (Log #259b) , a n d 99-22 (Log #259) on dae sub jec t of de f i n i t i ons a n d levels o f risk. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFI RMATWE: 21 N O T RETURNED: 1 Bancrol.t

I 1,-~4 #*t) ( .,umum*c~' ] tE, \ -AI)M

99- 9 - (1-1): Reject SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, St.. lnt ' l Azmlgesla 5~,< wt~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise t ex t m read a.s lollows.

1-1 Scope+ T h e scope of this d o c u m e n t is to es tabl i sh c r , e r m to m i n i m i z e the haza rds of fire, exp los ion , a n d e lec tne t tv in IteMth care faci l i t ies p r o v i d i n g services to h m n a n be ings a n d to ve t e r i na ry c l in ics or aDimal hoso~tals ( s t and a l o n e ot Dart ol a h u m a n h e a l t h care faci l i tv l . T h e s e cri ter ia . . .e tc .

1-2 App l i ca t i on , Th i s d o c u m e n t shal l app ly to all h e a l t h ,:ale t~tcilities , b o t h h u m a n a n d an ima l . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Refer to 4-5.5.2.3(b) w h e r e ve t e r ina ry cl inics a re cove red by Level 3 wi th s o m e excep t ions . S ince t i le c l inics a re m e n t i o n e d , t hose m a n n f a c t u r e r s a n d s u p p l i e r s have to advise owners of d ie fact C h a p t e r 4, Level 3 sets the c r i te r ia t o t i n s t a l l a t ion of the m e d i c a l gases a n d vacuum.

C o m m e n t : S ince ve t e r i na ry m e d i c i n e is m e n t i o n e d in the d o c u m e n t , t h e r e s h o u l d be a d e f i n i t i o n in C h a p t e r 2, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This p r o p o s e d c h a n g e is ou t s ide the scope of the ex i s t i ng c o m m i t t e e . Th i s issue s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d by d i e T e c h n i c a l C o r r e l a t i n g C c o m m i t t e e for d i scuss ion a n d to d e t e r m i n e if the s c o p e of NFPA 99 n e e d s to be ch , 'mged to a d d r e s s v e t e r i n a r y cl inics or if a new d o c u m e n t n e e d s to be d e v e l o p e d . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 8 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 N O T RETI IRNED: 1 E lde r

( l ,og #148) C o m , / i n e e ' HEA-PIP

99- 3 - (1-1); TCC NOTE" The Technical C o r r e l a t i n g C o m m i t t e e reiect.', the

action on this comment as it effects the s c o p e of m o r e than one project; however, the Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that the level of safety in the use of medical gas should be equivalent in all occupancies . This equivalent of safety falls under the jurisdiction of the Standards Council. S U B M I T T E R : M a r k Allen, Medica l Air P u m p s COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-t RECOMMENDATION: Add to d i e scope t i le s t a t emen t :

'3Nhere p i p e d m e d i c a l g ,~es wid l in a s ing le facil i ty also serves o c c u p a n c i e s ou t s i de t i le scope of th is chap te r , fi le med i ca l gases wi th in those o c c u p a n c i e s will be sub jec t to th is s t a n d a r d for f ire a n d p a t i e n t safety. An e x a m p l e w o u l d be an a m m a l r e sea rch faci l i ty wi th in a hosp i ta l . "

o r

" O c c u p a n c i e s ou t s ide the s c o p e of th is c laapter l oca t ed wi th in faci l i t ies sub jec t to this d o c u m e n t sha l l no t sha re med i ca l g:Ls a I l d v a c u t l f l l systems,"

131

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: Tile Conunittee has rejected the inclusion of veterinary facilities, but in doing so has not addressed a concern raised by the submission about such facilities "allen included in a h'u'ger healdl care facility (i.e., not free standing)° This submission offers two alternate

o~MMlr oach es. TTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise submitter 's recommendat ion to read: '~Where piped medical~ases within a heaRh care facility also

serves occupancies outside tile scope of Chapter 4, tile piped medical ,~ses within tllose occupancies s h a h b e subject to d/is s tandard. ' COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Document applies to health care facilities. Example deleted as it is not good code langnage. Reference changed to Chapter 4 since that is the chapter involved. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft

(Log #95) Couututtee: HEA-PIP

9% 7 - (2-9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick. Patient Instrumentatnon Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%26 RECOMMENDATION: See my comments on Co~niqlent 99-8 (Log #97). SUBSTANTIATION: See nly COnlUlentS Oil Colnnlent 9%~ (Log #97). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Committee Action on Gomment 9%20 (Log #49). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Similar recommendation. Committee Action on 'Comment 99-90 (Log #49) is considered to address the issue raised here. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

(Log #92) Committee: HEA-PIP

9% 4 - (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentat ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%21 RECOMMENDATION: See my comments on Comment 99-19 (Log 091). SUBSTANTIATION: See mv comments on Connment 99-1q (Log #91). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee Action on Comment 9%1 (Log #CCl) is considered to address dais issne. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 8 - (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient lnstrumcrJtation (,n-p. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%24 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Grade Yel- N F. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee ~drt~t(l¥ ,tt ~.c't)lcd N] ~ not H. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Prun:iple

See Committee Action on (~ornment 99-~0 (Log #49j COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Similar rceonllnclldattotl. Committee Action on Comment 9%20 (Log #49) m i.otJsl¢tt-i eO It, address the issue raised here. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: X~.' VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 5 - (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%22 RECOMMENDATION: See my comments on Comment 99-19 (Log #91). SUBSTANTIATION: See my comments on Comment 99-19 (Log #91). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee Action on Comment 99-1 (Log#GG1) is considered to address this issue. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIJRNED: 1 Bancroft


9% 6 - (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-25 RECOMMENDATION: See my comments on Comment 99-8 (Log #07). SUBSTANTIATION: See my comments on Comment 99-8 (Log #97). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Committee Action on Comment 99-20 (Log #49). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Similar recommendat ion. Committee Action on Comment 9%20 (Log #49) is considered to address tile issue raised here. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

(Log ~108) Committee: HEA-PIP

99- 9 - (9-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Patient InstruRlentation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%20 RECOMMENDATION. I disagree wifll the Committee's rejectioo of this proposal. We need some definition of tl~e levels ~-s (1 believe) was originally suggested by Mr. Allen, Mr. Mohile, and myself. ! agree with file definitions of the levels proposed |)y Mr Erickson. SUBSTANTIATION: The idea of die levels was to eliminate confusion associated with types 1, 2, etc. By defining the levels here we should eliminate confusion and make the documetu more "user friendly." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Comntittee Action otl Comment 9%1 (Log#CC1) is considered to address tiffs isstie. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(L-g #109) (.oumutte~" HEA-P[P

9% 10 - (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: [)avid Esherick, Patient lus t rumenutuon CoqL COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%21 RECOMMENDATION: See my comments on Comment 99-9 (Log #108). SUBSTANTIATION: See my comments on Comment 99-9 (Log #108). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee Action on Comment 99-1 (Log#GCl ) is considered to address dlis issue. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 21 NOT RETI JRNED: 1 Bancroft

132

N F P A 9 9 1 F 9 8 R O C

(Log #110) Commit tee : HEA-PIP

9% 11 - (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: ~)-22 RECOMMENDATION: See my c o m m e n t s on C o m m e n t 99-9 (Log #108). SUBSTANTIATION: See nay c o m m e n t s on C o m m e n t 99-9 (Log #108). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 9%1 (Log#CC1) is considered to address dfis issue. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMIT T E E ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 Nt )T RETURNED: l Bancroft

(Log # 111 ) Committee" HEA-PIP

9% 12 - (2-2): Accept in Principle" SUBMITTER: [)avid Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-25 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : See my c o m m e n t s on C o m m e n t ~)-14 (Log #127). SUBSTANTIATION : See my c o m m e n t s on C o m m e n t 99-14 (Log #127). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-20 (Log #49). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Similar r e commenda t i on . Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-20 (Log #49) is cons idered to address dae issue raised here. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITI'EE ACTION:



9% 13 - (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Insuatmenta t ion Corp. C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-26 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : See my c o m m e n t s on C o m m e n t 99-14 (Log #127). SUBSTANTIATION: See tray c o m m e n t s on C o m m e n t 99-14 (Log #127). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-20 (Log #49). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Similar r e commenda t i on . Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 9%20 (Log #49) is cons idered to address the issue raised here. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON C O M M I T T E E ACTION:



99- 14- (2-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%24 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

Grade Jel- NF. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : T he Commi t t ee already accepted NT no t H. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-20 (Log #49). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Comply with Tecimical Correlat ing Commi t t ee on issue. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON C O M M I T T E E ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: I Bancroft

(Log #(x '7) Commit tee : H EA-AA(,

9% 15 - (2-2, 4-4, 12-3.4, Chapter 13, 16-3.4, 17-3.4): TCC NOTE: T h e Technical Correlat ing Commi t t ee directs that

the action on 2-2 be changed to Hold for the af fected Commi t tees to develop a defini t ion for "Level-Gas Systems" and "Type-Electrical Systems" for the next edit ion of the Code. At that t ime, the Technical Correlat ing Commi t t ee also wishes to reorganize the chapters as follows:

Chapter 12 - Hospital Requ i rements Chapter 13 - Nurs ing H o m e Requi rements Chapter 14 Limi ted Care Facihty Requ i rements Chapter 15 - Hyperbaric Chamber s Chapter 16 - O the r See also C o m m e n t 99-1 (Log #CCi ) for changes to Chapters 4.

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. SUBMITTER: Teclmicai Commi t tee on Piping ,Systems C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-9, 9%10, 9%21, ~9-22 RECOMMENDATION:

1. In 2-2, delete the following terms ;rod associated def inmons : Ambula tory heal th care center Clinic Office practice, med ica l /den ta l 2. In 2-2, u n d e r the definit ion of "Critical care area," add utter

"operat ing rooms" the following: "emergency room." The defini t ion would read:

"Critical care ,areas are flaose special care units, intensive care units, coronary care units, ang iography laboratories, cardiac catheter izat ion laboratories, delivery rooms, opera t ing rooms, emergency rooms, and similar areas in which patients are in t ended to be subjected to invasive procedures a n d connec ted to l ine-operated, pa t ient -care-re la ted electrical appliances."

3. In 2-2, u n d e r dae defini t ion of "Critical care area," add the following NOTE:

"NOTE: For the purpose of this s tandard, the use of in t ravenous needles or catheters used to adminis te r fluids m~d/o~ medicat ions , endoscopes , colonoscopes , s igmoidscopes , an d urinary catheters are not considered invasive."

4. Revise 4-4 in its entirety to read as follows: 4-4 Level 2 Piped Systems. 4-4.1 Piped Gas Systems (Source and Distribution). Level

piped gas systems shall conform to the requiremenLg lot Level I p iped gas systems.

Exception No. 1: Medical air compressors shall he permit ted n, be simplex.

Exception No. 2: Dryers, :fftercoolers, filters, and regulators, ,Ls listed in 4-3.1.1.9(g), shall be pe rmi t t ed to be simplex.

Exception No. 3: A single alarm panel, as described in 4- 3.1.2.1(b)2, shall be m o u n t e d in an area of con t im n m s surveillance while flae facility is in operation.

Exception No. 4: One alarm panel that complies with 4- 3.1.2.1(b)3a, b, c, acid d, and widl 4-3.1.2.11c)2 and 5. shall be permit ted.

Exception No. 5: Pressure switches shall be m o u n t e d at the source wida a pressure gauge or readout located at tbe master a larm panel .

4-4.2 Piped Vacuum Systems (Source and Distribution). Level 2 piped vacuum systems shall conform to die requ i rements for Level 1 piped vacuum systems.

Exception: Medical vacuum p u m p s shall be permi t ted to be s implex.

4-4.3 Piped WAGD Systems (Source and Distribution). Level 2 p iped WAGD systems shall conform to dae requ i rements for Level 1 p iped WAGD systems.

Exception: Medical WAGD p u m p s shall be permi t ted to be simplex.

4-4.4 Per formance Criteria and Testing. 4-4.4.1 Piped Gas Systems - Level 2. Tile pe r to rmance aud

testing criteria for Level 2 piped gas systems shall conform to tile r equ i rements for Level 1 p iped gas systems.

4-4.4.2 Piped Vacuunl Systems - Level 2. Tile perfor lnance and testing criteria for Level 2 piped wacunm systems shall conform to the requ i rements for Level 1 piped ~tcuunl systems.

4-4.4.3 Piped WAGD Systems - Level 2. The per formance ,uld testing criteria for Level 2 piped WA(;D systems shall ¢ otff,,rm to tile r equ i rements for Level I piped WA(;D systems.

4-4..5 Adminis t ra t ion - Level 2. 4-4.5.1 Responsibility of Governing Body. (Reserved) 4-4.5.2 Piped Gas Systems Pol ioes - Level 2. The pol ioes b,r

Level 2 piped gas systems shall conform to tile requi rements lor Level 1 p iped gas systems

133

NFPA 99 - - F98 ROC

4-4.5.3 Piped Vacnum Systems - Level 2 The policies for Level 2 piped vacuum systems shall conform to the requirements for Level 1 piped vacuum systems.

44.5.4 Piped WA(;D Systems - Level 2. The policies for Level 2 piped WAG[) systems shall conform to the requirements for Level 1 piped WAGD systems.

5. Revise 12-3.4 to read as follows: 12-3.4 Gas and Vacuum System Requirements. 12-3.4.1 If installed, patient gas systems shall conform to Level 1

gas systems of Chapter 4. . . . . ~ . . . . . . . v . . . . . . :^~" 12-3.4.2 If installed, a A- Level 3 patient gas system of

Chapter 4 shall be permitted when not served by the hospital's central patient gas systems•

12 3.~.2 12-3.4.3 If installed, patient vacnum systems shall conform to Level 1 vacuum systems of Chapter 4.

12-3.4.4 E~cc~'2c:: If installed, aA- Lever 3 patient vacuum system of Chapter 4 shall be permitted when not served by the hospital 's central patient vacuum system°

12 3.~.3 12-3.4.5 ff installed, patient WAGD systems shall conform to Level 1 WAG[) systems of Chapter 4. [NOTE: a public comment is being prepared to revise dtis paragraph to correlate with Proposal 99-218 (Log #179).]

12 3.a,A 12-3.4.6 If installed, laboratory gas systems shall conform to Level 4 gas systems of Chapter 4.

12 3,~..5 15-3.4.7 If installed, laboratory w~cuum systems shall conform to Level 4 vacuum systems of Chapter 4.

6. Insert new Chapter 13 to read as follows:

Chapter 13 'Other ' Healda C~'tre Facilities

13-1o General. 13-1.1 Scope. This chapter addresses sa.fety requirements for

facilities, or port ions d~ereof, that provide diagnostic ,and treatment services to patients in heald~ ~are facilities od~er daan hospitals, nursing homes, limited care facilities, or hyperbaric iacilities ,as defined in Cha~ter 9.

1.9-2. General Responsibdities. 13-2.1 Laboratories. The governing boards of these facilities

shall have dae responsibility of protecting d~e facilities (for patient care and clinical investigation) arid the personnel employed therein.

13-3. General Requirements. 13-3.1 (Reserved) 13-3.2 (Reserved) 13-3.3 Electrical System Requirements. 13-3.3.1 Normal ElectricalDistribution System. (Reserved) 13-3.3.2 Essential Electrical Distribntion System. The essential

electrical distribution system shall conform to a Type 3 system as described in Chapter 3.

13-3.3.2.1 If electrical life support equipment is required, die essential electrical distribution system shall conform to a Type 1 system as described in Chapter 3.

13-3.3.2.2 If critical care areas are present, the essential electrical distribution System shall conform to a Type 1 system as described in Chapter 3.

13-3.4 Gas and Vacunm System Reqnirements. 13-3.4.1 If installed where patients are provided mechanical

ventilation or assisted niechanical ventilation, patient g~s systems shall conform to Level 1 piped gas systems of Chapter 4.

A single alarm panel, as described in 4-3.1.2,1 (b)2, shall be mounted it] an area of cont innous surveillance while the facility is in operation.

13-3.4.2 If installed where patients due to medical, surgical, or diagnostic intervention are dependent on the piped g~s system, the patient gas system shall conform to Level 2 piped gas systems of Chapter 4.

13-3,4.3 If installed where the i/atient population is not on critical life snppor t equipmerit, me patient gas system shall conform to Level 3 piped gas systems of Chapter 4.

13-3A.4 If installed where patients are provided mechanical ventilation or assisted mechanical ventilation, padent vacuum systems shall conform to Level 1 piped vacnnnl systems of ( ;hapter 4.

13-3,4.5 If installed where patients due to medical, surgical, or diagnostic intervention are dependent on the piped vacnum system, the patient vacuum system shall conform to Level 2 piped ~,tcnmn systems of Chapter 4.

13-3.4.6 If installed where the patient population is not on crmcal life suppor t equipment, the patient vacumn system shall conform to Level 3 piped vacuum systems of Chapter 4~

13-3.4.7 If inst~dled, patient WA(;D systems shall cutflornu m Level 1 WAGD systems in Chapter 4. [N()TE; a puhli* comment is being prepared to revise tiffs paragraph ; , coi rehne with Proposal 99-218 (Log #179).}

13-3.4.8 If installed, labo~ttory ga.s systems shall <l~lil<illn i,~ Level 4 g ~ systems of Chapter 4

13-3.4.9 If instilled, laboratory vacuum systems si/all coilt~l m to Level 4 va'cuum systems in Chapter 4.

13-3.5 Environmental Systems. (Reserved) 13-3.6 Material Reqnirementso (Reserved) 13-3.7 Electrical Equipment Reqnirements. 13-3.7.1 Patient Care Areas. If critical care areas are present,

electrical appliances shall contorm to Chapter 7. 13-3.7.2 Laboratories. Eqnipment shall conform to 7-5.2.2 and

7%. 13-3.8 Gas Equipment Requirements. 13-3.8.1 Patient. Gas 'equipment shall conlorm to the patiem

equipment requirements in Chapter 8. 13-3.9 (Reserved) 13-3.10 (Reserved) 13-3.11 Facilities covered by dfis cha[3ter shall comply with the

provisions of Chapter 11 for disaster planning, ,~s appropriate.

7. Delete current Cbapter 13.

8. Delete t¢xt of existing, Chapter 14, and have (;bapter 14 indicated as "(Reserved). '

9. Delete text of existin~ Chapter 15, and have Chapter 15 indicated as "(Reserved).

10. Revise 16-3.4 to read as follows: 16-3.4 Gas arid Vacnum System RequiremenLs. 16-3.4.1 If installed where natients are orovided mechanical

ventilation or assisted mechanical ventilation, plilient ~as svst~:qls shall confornl to Level 1 piped ~ systems of Chapter 4.

A single alm'm panel, as described in 4-3.1.2.1 (b)2, shall Ire mounted in an area of contimlous surveillance while the iacilitv is in operation.

; 'c : : t ] l= ' -an ~r .~°.g!ztc~ mccha~!c~=[ -'c=t'[=t~8:]:

/ . \ f i ~ ~ l . . . . . . . . I . I . - . . . . . I I . . . . . ; ~ l . A @ I q l / k~@~ k

,~, . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y . . . . . . . . . . . 2 L " Z ' 2 ~ ; , . . . . . . . : '

16-3.4.2 I f ins ta l led where nat ients due to medica l , surgical . 9F d iagnost ic i n te rven t i on are d e n e n d e n t on the p iped ~ system, the na t ien t ¢~as system shall c o n f o r m to Level 2 n ined ~as sysl~er0s o f Chan te r z~. " . . . .

16-3.4.3 I f ins ta l led where the na t ien t nonu la t i on is no t on critical life suooor t enuinment, t'he natient-~as system shall conform to Level 3 nioed ~as svster~s of Chanter 4.

16-3.4.4 If installecl where oatients are nrovided mechamcal ventilation or assisted mechanical ventilation, natient ~,qctmm systems shall conform to Level 1 piped vacuum systems of Chanter 4.

16-3.4.5 If installed where patient, s due to medical, surgical or diagnostic intervention are dene[~dent on the p iped w, tcunm system, the natient v'.tcnnn] system shall confoFll ) to Level 9 niDed ~tcuum systems of ChatPter 4.

16-3.4.6 If installed where the natient populatiou is tint ,3it critical life support equipment, the patiet~t ~tcuum S~tem sl/all conform to Level 3 piped vacuum systents of Chapter 4.

L'c;'c] ! v::z=':':m .Wztcm= c,f Ch=p=c:" ~.. H" . . . . . . + ; . . . . . b , A - - A i ~ , l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . i " . . . .

16-3.4.7 If installed, oatient WACD systems shall conlorni to Level 1 WAGD systems'in Chapter 4. [NOTE: a public comment is being prepared to revise this paragraph to correlate with Proposal 9%218 (Log #179).]

] (] 3.~..~ 16-3.4.8 Laboratory Gas S~tcms. (Reserved) . . . . . . . . ~ |6-3.4.9 Laboratory Vacuum Systems, (Reserved)

11. Revise 17-3.4 to read ,as follows: 17-3.4 G,~s and Vacuum System Requirements.

134

NFPA 99 - - F98 ROC

gas :'~:tc:xs ~f f 'haptcr ~. Y 2 . . . . . . + ; . . . . ~ . . . . . + . . . . . . : + 1 . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . I

17 ~.5.2 If "n='.z.[!zd, p;zt';e.nt ".~c-ur'.. s';zzz:r.s shall c-~r;fcr~.. :;; Le"e] 3 ;ncuurn s)~tems of Chapter ~..

17-3.4;.1 If installed where patients are provided ffl,cchanical ventilation or assisted mechanical ventilation, natient ~a.s svstems shall conform to Level 1 piped ..a3ts systems of (~;hapter 4.

17-3.4.2 It" installed wl/ere patients due to q'ledic~, surgical, or diagnostic iutervention are deoendent on the piped gas svstem. tile natient ~as system shall conform to Level 2 piped gas systems of Chanter 4.

17-3.zi.3 If installed where tile oatient populati0li i8 not on critical life suppor t equipment, file patient gas system shall conform to Level 3 piped gas systems of Chanter 4,

17-3.4.4 If installed where natients ,are provide~l iDechanical ventilation or assisted mechanical ventilation, natient vacuum systems shall conform to Level 1 piped vacuum systems of C, hanter 4.

17-3.4.5 If installed wl!~re patients due to medical, surgical, OF diagnost;i¢ intervention a, Fe dependent on file piped vacuum system, tile patient vacut~ln system shall conform to Level 2 piped vacuum svstems of ChanLer 4.

1%3.4.6 If installed where die oatient nonuladon is not on critical life sunnor t eouinment, the natient vacuum system shall conform to Level 3 nioed vacuum systems of Chanter 4.

17-~,.4.8 ff installecl. 'nadent WAGD systems shail gonform to Level 1 WAGD systems in Chanter 4. [NOTE: a public comment is being prepared to revise this paragraph to correlate with Proposal 99-218 (Log #179).]

1 ~ / @ A A I T ) . . . . . . I 1 \ X = . . . . . . . . /

17 ~.~.~ t " . . . . . . .~ x . . . . . . . . . /

SUBSTANTIATION: In meeting die directive of dte Technical Correlating Committee on Healdl Care Facilities to review dlose proposMs in die ROP relating to definitions, risks, ,and levels of care, die Task Group notes dlat changes in tile delivery of healdl care over die past ten years have made d~e current delineation of healdl care facilities in Chapter 12 to 17 not reflective of current practice. Specifically, Chapters 13 to 15 were no longer representative of activities and subject to frequent misinterpretations.

The change and NOTE to "Critical care area" are recommended for correlation with previously existing requirements in Chapters 13 to 15 and new Chapter 13.

Tile Task Groiip notes die need for die Technical Correlating Comntittee to review die scope of new Chapter 13 if die proposal to add a new chapter on free-standing birthing centers is approved.

Technical Committees affected by d~ese recommendations: Technical Committee on Electrical Eqnipment (responsible for

definition of "Critical Care Area"). Technical Committee on Electrical Systems (responsible for

electrical system criteria in new Chapter 13). Tedmical Committee on Piping Systems (responsible for piping

system criteria in 4-4, new Chapter 13). Tedmical Committee on Administration (responsible for

technical issues in Chapter 2, and odler technical matters as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N()T RETURNED: l Bancroft

(Log #10) Committee: H EA-A.DM

99- 16 - (2-2 Ambulatory Heald~ (2tre Center): Reject SUBMITTER: F. [)avid Wyrick, Sr., lnt'l Analgesia Sooetv COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-9 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

A:nb.:la:cry Surgical or Diagnostic Heahh flare (;enter. A building or part of thereof used to provide services or treatment to f.';ur c.r ;;;~r'c patients 4 ~. "2~'.3 ~a:nc if:he and reqnirin~ overntght stay or an extended recovery t ime g~d :nt:cdn K .:.t .... (1) c.r ' ° '

Delete (I) and (2).

SUBSTANTIATION: The current definition is most contnsing for individuals to determine which category nou-hospital based facilities should follow. The w o r d "Ambulatory" is part ol wlae problem. ()nice Practice and Climes are all "AmhulamP¢' facilities, in many past installations, Medical or [)enKlf Practices that should have been installed as Level 3 were required to Iollow Level 1.

Tile nse of 4 or more patients at one time eliminates inant/ medical or dental multi-provider practices from Level 3, atJd tha~ was not the intent of the document.

(1) Tile comment of self-preservation is misleading to most inspectors. I[)oes die document intend to prevent the wheel chair or disabled patients from being treated in a Level 3 facility?

(2) Again we do not have a definition of "General Anesthesia" in the document. There is a current definition available arid would help individuals understan'd the different stages or levels of anesthesia.

Conclusion: As the current definition stands, tile document is only increasing cost of many facilities that are not Level 1 and should be Level 3. Second, manufacturers have supplied information regarding the facts of Dental and Medical facilities buying portable devices and not piping the gases because of the requirements ,and the confusion of "Ambulatm3; and General Anesdlesia."

These changes also effect Chapter 13. NOTE: Support ing material available at NFPA Headquarters.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Changing dfis definition would cause correlation problems witll other Technical Committees widfin NFPA 99 and NFPA 101. Tile Committee also recommends to die Technical Correlating Committee tllat the Task Group on Definitions review and correlate definkions with odler NFPA committees and non-NFPA organizations. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NOT RETURNED: 1 l£1der

(Log #t?A.,9 Committee: H EA-AI3M

99- 17- (2-2 Ambulatory Health Care Center): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Administration COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-9 RECOMMENDATION: Change the existing definitions, change tile term "Ambulatory Healfl~ Care Center" to "Ambulatory Healdl Care Facility." SUBSTANTIATION: This change was made to correlate with tile change made in NFPA 101. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 8 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NOT RETURNED: 1 Elder

(Log #CC4) Con.nit tee: H EA-LAB

99- 18 - (2-2 Laboratory work area): Accept SUBMITTER: Technic~d Correlating Comnt~ttee ou Health (;are Facilities COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-19 RECOMMENDATION: In definition of term, add "research" after tile word "analysis" so that definition reads as follows:

"A room or space for testing. , u l a l y s i s , research, instruction, or similar activities that involve tile use of chemicals. (NFPA 45, Standard on Fire Protection tor Laboratories I lsing Chemicals) ." SUBSTANTIATION: Correlate definition with that in NFPA 45, ,as directed by Technical Correlating Couunittee t o Health (.~tre Facilities. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: l0 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT PET!JRNED: 2 Harlow, McLanghlin

135

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C


99- 19 - (2-2 Levels 1 to 4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-20 RECOMMENDATION: 1 disagree with tbe Commit tee ' s rejection of this proposal. We need some defini t ion of the levels as (I believe) was originally sugges ted by Mr. All, Mr. Mohile, a n d myself. 1 agree with the defini t ions of tile levels p roposed by Mr. Erickson. SUBSTANTIATION : T he idea of tile levels was to el iminate confimion associated with types 1, 2, etc. By def in ing the levels here we shou ld e l iminate confus ion and make tbe d o c m n e n t more "user friendly." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Contmit tee Action on C o m m e n t 99-1 ( L o g # C C 1 ) is cons idered to address this issue. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 20 - (2-2 Nitrogen, OibFree, Dry): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: [),ale D u m b l e t o n , Piping Industry Progress & Edu cation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%24 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text ,as follows:

Nitrogen, Oil-Free, Dry (Nitrogen for Brazin~ and Test ing). Nitrogen complying, a: a m".nL.-=u..'~, with ~ CGA, Inc. Pamph le t C,-10.1, Commodi ty Specification for Nitrogen. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : It was agreed that the lowest grade "B" is being used by tile indust ry and it presents no problems in brazing or testinK. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I evised defini t ion will read as follows: Nitrogen, Oil-Free, Dry (Ni t rogen for Brazing, and Test ing).

Nitro en com lyin at a m i n i m u m , with nitro en NF (PIP)" C O ~ T T E ~ P s ' ~ i E N T : This is the intet~gt of t he 'Commi t t e e and reflects directive of the Technical Correlat ing Commi t t ee to clarify issue o f what type of n i t rogen is to be u s e d as a m i n i m u m . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #11) Commit tee : HEA-ADM

99- 21 - (2-2 Office Practice, and Medica l /Denta l ) : Reject SUBMF'IWER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-10 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Defini t ion r ~ . ~ t~ . . . . :~.. M e ~ ' ~ I / D z n ~ . . and inser t ,as follows (changes are under l ined) .

Dental Care Facility. A heal th care facilitv where patie~ItS are seen on an ambula tory basis and treated for dental procetJures, T r e a t m e n t or surgery mav involve anest|tCsi,3 oF conscious sedation. For nurDoses of this s tandard, facilities that retain oatients for more than 12 hours post p rocedure sha]J oot be considered a dental care facility or Level 3 facility.

Medical Care Facilitv. A heal th care facilitv where oa t iems are seen on an ambula torv basis and treated for m i no r medical and surgical nrocedures . Surgery may involve anestl~esia or conscious sedat ion. For nurt)oses of this s tandard , facilities that retain pat ients for m ore t 'han 12 hour s host p rocedure shall no t be cons idered a medical care facilitv or Level 3 facility. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Tile cu r ren t def ini t ions are confns ing ,as one does not look for "office" when get t ing desired informat ion for a denta l or medical facility. Tlley would look for denta l or medical facility. The re is no reference to Level 3.

This also effects Cbapter 15. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: C hang i ng this defini t ion would cause corre la t ion p rob lems with o the r Technica l Commit tees within NFPA 99 a n d NFPA 101. Tile Commi t t ee also r e c o m m e n d s to the Technical Correlat ing Commi t t ee that the Task Group on Definit ions review and correlate def ini t ions with o ther NFPA commi t t ees and non-NFPA organizations. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 8 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 N O T RETIIRNED: 1 Elder


9% 22 - (2-2 Service Out le t (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: . Peter Esherick, Patient Ins t rumenta t ion ( 'orp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%28 RECOMMENDATION: Proposed wording ot definit ion of a Service Outlet:

Service Out le t - A station out let in tended for use only by hospttal personne l to calibrate equ ipmen t . The service outlet shall not be used for direct pat ient life support ; i.e., the station outlets installed in an anes thes ia workroom would be service outlets.

Note: Service outlets shall have medical gas shu tof f valves per Paragraph 4.3.1.2.2(b)5. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This is a proposed definit ion referred to m the rejection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Cur ren t def in inon is ct ,nsi , telrd sufficient for purposes of documen t . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: "2"2 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Bancrott

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: I disagree with die rejection. A service out let mus t have a better definit ion. The cxisdnt4

defini t ion does N O T make sense. Proposed definition: Service Outlet: A station outlet in tended for use only by hospital

personne l to calibrate equ ipmen t . Tile service outlet shall not be used for direct pat ient life support ; i.e., the station outlets installed in an anes thes ia workroom would be service outlets.

Note: Service outlets shall have medical gas shutof f valves per Paragraph 4-3.1.2.2(b)5.


99- 23 - (2-2 Service Out le t (New)): Reject S U B M r l T E R : David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-28 RECOMMENDATION: Proposed wording of defini t ion of a Service Outlet:

Service Outlet: A station outlet i n t ended for use only by hospital personne l to calibrate equ ipmen t . The service oude t shall not be used for direct pat ient life support ; i.e., the station outlets installed in an anes thes ia workroom would be service outlets.

Note: Service outlets shall have medical gas shutoff valves pet Paragrapb 4-3.1.2.2(b)5. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This is a p roposed defini t ion referred to hi the rejection." COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: ,See Commit tee Actmn on C o m m e n t 99-22 (Log #82). Identical r ecomnmnda t ion . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: ~'2 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: I disagree with the rejection. See my Explanation

of Negative Vote on C o m m e n t 99-22 (Log #82).

(Log #69) Commit tee : H EA-ELS;

99- 24 - (3-3.3.2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, Amer ican Society for Healtlacare Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-61 RECOMMENDATION: Revise testing intervals to read: ..no~ less allan -2~20 days or exceeding 40 days. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The r e c o m m e n d e d 25 days could cont inue to present a p rob lem if the test ing intervals are not spaced jus t right. The revision to 20 days will assist in properly spacing out tests if an organization needs to go to a 40 day interval for some reason. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 N O T RETURNED: 1 Mankey

136

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

(Log #141) Committee: HEA-ELS

9% 25- (3-3.3.2.4): Reject SUBMITTER: John J. Skreenock, Nat'l S:ffetv Technologies, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-39 RECOMMENDATION: Reinstate the requirement for testing the quality of existing g round systems by adding the following paragraph noted (b) to Section 3-3.3.2.4. to read:

(b) ExistingSystems. The impedance (at 60 Hz or at dc) shall be measuredbe tween the reference point and die grounding contact of each receptacle in eachpat ien t care vicinity. The tmpedance measurement shall be dae ratio of tile voltage developed between a point under test and a reference point to a current applied to the point under test. ff die test is performed when the system is in use on a patient, it must not endanger the patient even if dae grounding circuit being tested is faulty. SUBSTANTIATION: The original proposal intended to add a paragraph to die Section 3-3.3.2.4, Impedance Measurements, that is not a snbset of new construction. Therefore, dfis resubmission of new text for dais section. I ask that die committee reconsider die addition of the paragraph.

This request is based on information already submitted in tile

~ roposal phase [Proposal 99-39 (Log #244)] and not repeated ere for brevity. Data fi-om over 56,000 more electrical

receptacles and their associated wiring has been added to our data pool. The data pool now consists of more than 906,000 electrical receptacles and their associated wiring from close to 150 hospitals across the US. The data continues to suggest that grounding is a problem in many health care facilities. ! have included a matrix of percentages of questionable receptacles and or circuits, which was the ba.sis for the Proposal 99-39.

The Model R6000 and Model R6500 perform more tests than those shown above. However, the clara from these other tesLS are not shown clarir¢.

The above &tta was collected ti'om both existing systems and new construction. It is not known which receptacles are hospital grade and which are not. Retrospectively, dmre is no way to determine tiffs from dais past data. We do know that they were all hospital installed receptacles. It is possible to collect this data in the fimlre. Addit ionaldata could be collected and submitted to the committee at a future date. From tile matrix you can see tilat the percentage of receptacles and or associated wiring needing attention to grounding was 8.6 percent in 1996 and )6.2 percent in 1997. The data speaks for itself.

Grounding quality is also important to the manufat;turer ot electrically powered patient care equipment used m hospitals. We are unlikely to predict bow a particular equipment mamffacture is using the ground at die receptacle. It could be for fault currents, EMI shielding, computer chip grounding, etc Should you need further substantiation for testing grounding of receptacles, the section on patient care appliances will be cited n e x L

In NFPA 99, Section %2.2.1, Elimination of Shock Hazards, Section %2.2.1.2 calls for "Adequate grounding for electrical equipment is an important safeguard against fire and electric shock (see 3-3.3.2 and 7-5.1.2.2)." In Section %5.1.2.2, Grounding of Appliances, "All cord-connected electrically powered appliances used in the patient care vminity shall be provided wifll a three-wire power cord and three-pin grounding type plug." Section 7-6.2.1.2(b) requires tllat all appliances used in patient care ,are~ shall be tested for ground quality before being put into service for the first time and ,alter repair or modification. The standard also specifies the interval for retesting and allows for die hospital to use an exception to the requirement interval when previous s,'ffety testing records are available. It is not logical to test each piece of equipment for grounding if you can plug it into a receptacle dmt has tested who knows when, if ever. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Comminee sees inadequate substantiation in comment for applying d~is measuremem to existing systems. Submitter 's data does not indic~tte how data was collected, the types and ages of facilities involved, or whether receptacles were all in dae pauent care area (?,-3.3.2.4 ,tpl~hes only to patient care area.s). N . indicamm fl let eptacles were hospital-grade or not. Subtmrter admits ilOt knowing whelhe~ d a t a w,-l.q f r o n l i l ew OI e x i s t i n g r e c e p t a c l e s , lllllS illakilll~ ' d;tl,l i n c o n c l u s i v e . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFI RMAT IVE: 16 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Mankey

Total Outlets Year Tested 1988 27430 1989 ! 40796 1990 126352 1991 128457 1992 117101 1993 63700 1994 115091 1995 62582 1996 76086 1997 44254 1998 4191

906040

Wiring (OKX) % Bad

2.4 2.9 3.5 3.4 3.9 5.3 3.4" 4.8 3.6 4.6 4.3

to Ground % Bad

0.5 l.l 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.7 0.8 1.8 1.7

to Ground % Bad

5.2 7.9 7.8 7.2 7.2 7.1 6.9

11.2 8.6

16.2 12.5

Total % Bad

9.2 12.7 13.0 12.0 13.6 15.8 11.6 17.5 13.5 22.7 19.5

14.6 3.8 2.4 5.3

1° l 0.5 1.8

8.9 5.2

16.2 9.2

22.7

137

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

(Log #139) Committee: HEA-ELS

99- 26 - (3-3.3.2.4(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: John J. Skreenock, Nat'l &d'ety Technologies, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-38 RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider revised wording f6r Section 3-3.3.4.2(a). Revise to read:

"...the reference point and the grounding contact of I{) pcrcc;~t ot: ,all receptacles in each patient care ;'ic:,n'tlca vicinitv." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The original Proposal 99-39 (Log #244) was to eliminate the requirement for testing only 10 percent of receptacles in new construction. [)ata submitted by NST for the proposal did not identify the percentage of receptacles a n d / o r their associated wiring that failed to meet the NFPA requirements for new construction. Since then, we have analyzed data from a small sample of hospitals where the testing was conducted on new construction in the healtbcare facility and on hospital grade receptacles. Below is a matrix that lists some of the tests that the NST analyzer performs. Other test results are not presented to allow for clarity.

The chart below shows two different conmtctors .who chose, or were required by contract, to use the NST analyzer to check their own work before turning over tile building to the hospital authorities. The testing identified problems that were corrected prior to occupancy. In one facility the testing conducted by Coutractor B identified 23.7 percent of the receptacles as needing attention for a ~triety of reasons. Among those was the grounding impedance of greater than 0.1 obm, the current acceptance criteria for new construction. In the other facility Contractor A found 6.2 percent of the receptacles a n d / o r wiring needing attention. Raw data front the new construction samples also showed that most of the problems with receptacles :u]d wiring were relatively random, wit] the exception it] one patient care area where system grounding was found to be the problem ¢}tllerwise; there is a bigh likelihood that a random sampling of 10 percent of the new receptacles would not find those needing attention.

Back in 1996 when Proposal 99-78 of the 1995 Rf}P was brougln before tire Technical Committee to reduce the testing reqnirement to lO percent there was one negative vote from a {;ommittee member. The member who voted ag;dnst the change stated dmt, " the change places too much confidence in the competence of the installer. At least once, when the new work is accepted by the owner, each and every device should be required to be tested and verified." TIm data above, while a small sample, seeuts to confirm the concerns of the TC member. I am sure the hospital administrators of the above facilities are thankfitl they required the contractors to test and verify that all receptacles were working properly before they took possession of the building.

We now have definitive data on new constructmn, albeit a snaall sample size. To the best of the knowledge of the st, bmitter, this is tbe only data that has been presented to the Technical Committee to a change, either to loosen or tighten the requirements for receptacle and grounding quality. The submitter finds it curious that the Committee lessened tire requirement for testing electrical receptacles and the grounding system they are connected to in tile 1996 edition of NFPA 99 without data to substantiate the reduction, h] tbe publics' interest the burden of proof to reduce requirements should have been on the original Proposal 99-78 of tim 1995 ROP. However, now that data has been submitted to the Committee, this information sbould be considered seriously. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEaMENT" Cbange made in Proposal 99-38 (Log #CP34) was intended to insure eaclt patien't care vicinity (pew) was tested. Testing 10 percent of receptacles in a pcv is considered reasonable and sufficient to detect a poor installation. N U M B E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Mankey

{ Log # l.llJb { ' { u n n u i t e e Ft EA-ILt ,'~

9{}- 27 - (3-3.3.2.4(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: (;. Guy Knickerbocker. E{;RI COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-:¢8 RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the {;ommittee Actiou m the Report on Proposals. Revise the Paragraph 3-3.3.2.4(a) as recommended by the proposer to read:

"...the reference point and the groundin{{ contac~ of ~(.~ pc;co:;: ¢:~c[l receptacles-in patient cm e vicinities. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Section 3-3.3.2 of NFPA 99 contains the prescription for establishing the effectiveness of the grounding system in patient care are~, and Section 3-3.3.3 deals with testing to confirm effectiveness. In 3-3.3.2, the standard definitively establishes that effectiveness is determined by voltage and impedance measurements.

Regarding receptacle testing (Section 3-3.3.3), the Healti~ ta re Facilities Handbook (Sth edition, page 98) advises that testing "is to be performed on ALL (sic) new receptacles in patient care areas.' (Paragraph 3-3.4.2.3(a)1. also calls for receptacle testing to "...he performed after initial installation..,".) Requirement 3- 3.3.3(b) calls for the continuity of tim grounding circuit to be verified. In our opinion, "verifying continuity" is tantamount to saying "verifying effectiveness."

Hence, it follows that all receptacles are to be tested. Receptacles in the patient care vicinity are cerutinly within patient care areas. Paragraph 3-3.3.2.4(a), as presently stated, does not assure that the effectiveness, as mea.sured by impedance testing, and called for above, will be adequately determined The previous requirement that called for all new receptacles to Iw tested should be restored.

Further subsumtiation would not seen] t{} be ue{.essap¢ However, further questmns come t{} mind th:o challeHjZe Hie wisdom of random sampling.

One is: "If the random sampling |~tils to reveal tile true eXlelll t}J problems, can the health Gtre institution be comtortal)le wauu)g, thrmJgh the interval-and the possible expos~lre-tlla~ may el,tpse before their first ronnd of testing fincks the problems m,t uncovered on irfidal testing?" karotber might be: "What is to I}t- done if the 10% random sample turns up a 3% (or 8%. - r eve|~ 13%) failure rate?" (This question is not answered by the present reqtfirement.) Finally, shouldn' t the hospital have at documented record of tile state of their system upon raking occupancy oH which to establish a basis for their ongoing preventive maintenance program? (They have an obligatmn to do an incominginspec t ion on all newly purchased medical equipment that wil lbe used on patients. An incoming inspectmn rate of 10% in this area is not acceptable!)

Whether random sample testing can be justified should be. in part, based on what experience shows the failure rate to be m new constrttction. We have had the opportunity to look at {Lata of the type that die proposer referred to in his original submittal. What we have rewewed recently includes later data tllan was provided at the time the initial proposal was made. Moreover, it

~ ermits some clarification of the type of receputcies likely to have een tested. We see in tire data for the past two years 8.6% (1996) and 16.2%

(1997) failure rates for resistance between receptacle grounding pin and reference ground point (Rgg), conservatively calculated because it is based on a 0.2 ohm criterion for existing construction, not 0.l ohms for new constrnction. These data, likely representing both existing and new structures, reflect the testing of approximately 130,000 outlets. (In tiffs same period. the rate of wiring failures of dte "OKX" ~triety was about 4.5%.)

In a markedly smaller data set from two new construction sites in 1996 and '97, implying a much greater likelihood that hospital grade outlets were tested, a total of about 6600 outlets'were tested. The combined Rgg f~dlure rate was 3.9% ("()KX" wirtmz failure- rate w;L~ 4.6%)

1996 Contractor A

1997 C, omractor B

N e w Construction Only (Two facilities - only Hospital Grade Receptacles tested)

Total outlets tested

5795

534

Wiring (OKX) % bad

4.0%

14.2%

Resistance neutral t o g r o u nd

% bad

0.0%

0,0%

Re.~istance g rmmd to g round

% b a d

2.23%

15.0%

# ( )utleks/w~ ring needing work

{i.4'~

23.9%

Figure 1 New Construction Data - Total percentage of bad receptacles and wiring include failure of other parameters that the NST analyzer tests, but are not shown in the above chart.

138

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

These data shou ld e n h a n c e a concern that more at tent ion needs to be given to more comprehens ive electrical receptacle testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: C o m m e n t is tile same as in C o m m e n t 99-26 (Log #139), and is rejected for die same reason. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 1 Mankey

(Log #GG2) Commit tee: HEA-ELS

99- 28 - (3-3.3.2.4(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technica l Commi t t ee on Health Care Facilities COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-38 RECOMMENDATION: Revise sen tence 2 to read:

"The impedance m e a s u r e m e n t shall be d~e nttJo of voltage d e v e l o p e d ( e i t h e r 60 HZ or de) between die point t inder test arid the reference poin t to die cu r ren t appl ied between these two points." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. Clarify wording. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETIJRNED: 1 Maokey

(Log #CC3) Commit tee: HEA-ELS

99- 29 - (3-3.3.2.4(a) Note): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commi t t ee on Health Care Facilities COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-38 RECOMMENDATION: Add following text to NOTE: "The 10 percen t r a n d o m test ing should include a mixture of both normal and emergency receptacles." SUBSTANTIATION: Commit tee ' s in tent has a.lways been to have each branch of the emergency system that h,'Ls receptacles and die normal system to be r andomly sampled. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 N O T RETURNED: 1 Mankey

(Log #66) Commit tee: HEA-ELS

99- 30 - (3-3.3.2.4(a) a n d Note) : Accept SUBMITTERa Douglas S. Erickson, Amer ican Society for Heal thcare Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-39 RECOMMENDATION: Agree widl Technical Commit tee ' s act ion and substant ia t ion. SUBSTANTIATION: There has been no new evidence p resen ted tha t the compi led database is statistically valid. The au tho r cont inues to make s ta tements which my member sh ip is no t suppor t ing ,and f indings which we are not able to duplicate.

It lnr~i/itlel er ~ n ~ ro~ aotif°c~a t,Par ecsel~'t etdi ogin v t~l ~ TM ~ e oths a°]d ~111 ° ugh] c~ fn toht ebteC s t s ; ' , ' p p • cons idered valid. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 1 MmJkey


99- 31 - (3-3.3.2.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Heal thcare Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-246 RECOMMENDATION: Agree witll Technical Commit tee ' s act ion and substant iat ion. SUBSTANTIATION: The submi t te r has provided no substant ia t ion to reinstate this test ing requ i rement . No new evidence has been b rough t before flae Technical Commi t t ee to justify con t inu ing a test that has not proven to add addi t iomd safety. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: I Mankey

Log # 143~ ( ;o innuneel HEA-E Lq

99- 32- (3-3.3.2.6): Reject SUBMITTER: John J. Skreenock, Nat'l Safety Teclmologws. 1,~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-40 RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider add ing new paragraph l,, sect ion as follows:

(b) Existing Construct ion (1) Imped, 'mce limit shall be 0.2 ohms.

Word ing should be reinst i tuted as listed in Section .3-~J.2.3.2 o1 NFPA 99, 1993 edition. The r equ i r emen t for testing existing g r o u n d quality shou ld be reinstated and this will identify the limH to which e x i s t i n g g r o u n d systems should be tested against. SUBSTANTIATION: Fifty-dlree (53) of dlese hospitals collected data over mult iple years. This da ta does no t show at] incre~Lse nor a decrease in the percentage of defective r ecep tac les / and or circuits related to impedance of the g r o u n d i n g system. The percent degradat ion per year turns out to be on average 0 percent . This means that d /ere is an equal n u m b e r of hospitals where die percentage increases and an equal n u m b e r where it decreases or stays the same. A decrease could reflect idenf i f i ca ton of the quest ionable receptacles /c i rcui ts and a fix to the problem, d l e r e b y r e d u c i n g die n u m b e r dur ing subsequen t surveys. An increase or cons tan t percentage cou ld suggest that identification of ques t ionable receptacles has taken place without the needed follow-up repairs. It does suggest dmt roudne periodic inspect ion of each and every, receptacle cont inues to identify ques t ionable receptacles /c i rcui ts he lp ing safeguard " patients and staff widfin heal th care facilities.

The following matr ix is included to show the data tha t has been collected in hospitals where they have done testing more than four t imes over a span of several years. O the r hospital data is available but for less dlan four different years. While the data canno t be correlated back for historical da ta on specific receptacles or wiring, it does show that rout ine testing does cont inue to find suspect outlets before tiler create a problem. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: [)ata submi t ted ts flawed since it is no t evident that the same receptacles were tested from year t~ year. Conclus ions based on this ,are not valid. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETIJRNED: 1 Mankey

Hospital Designation

Hospitals that had tested receptacles in more than four different years Percentage of outlets not meeting code or recommended requirements

Total Resistance Resistance Outlets Wiring Neutral to Ground to Ground

Year Tested Polarity, Ground Ground Tension 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7

4.8 1.6 3.1

0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6

4.3 1.4 2.4

0.3 0.2 0.9 0.4

0.8 0.2 0.5

0.1 0.5 0.5

1.4 0.8 2.4

Total Needing

Attention 89 1756 92 3897 93 13096 94 4104'

9O 7545 91 6456 93 3466 94 2952

2.1 1.3 7.6 3.9

20.4 8.3

14.6

i

139

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

Hospital Designation Year


89 90 91 92 93

Total Outlets Tested

3368 79O6 4453 3940 3463

Wiring Polarity

2.3 1.7 4.3 3.6 1.7

Resistance Neutral to

Ground 0.4 1.2 3.6 2.5 0.9

Resistance Ground to

Ground 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3

Ground Tension

1.9 0.4 1.9 0.7 1.1

Total Needing

Attention 8.9 5.8

13.4 11.0 10.0

,~.4 I U i l i 1 ,1 .I~i I 1 i l '1~• I l l

0.8 1.3 0.7

7473 L 90 0.2 0.3 0.2

1.5 0.6

91 L L 92

9O8 5892

M 90 1724 5.2 M 93 3465 1.5

1.1 0.6 0.5

0.9 0.5

0.4 0.9 0.7

4.8 1.4

6.3 4.0 7.0

14.4 7.2

, ] l e l l | Jl~4 '..~_ I 1 1 l l i l : [

M1 155 3345

1.9 5.1 5.8 2.9 2.2

0.2 0.7 0.4 0.2

3837 3853 5693

5224 4981

14740 3491

M1 MI M1

89 90 91 93

0.6 5.0 4.2 2.0 2.2

0.1 0.3 0.1

94

89

3.2 5.6

15.0 6.5 4.3

1.0 0.7 0.7 0.3

4.5 7.3 3.0 4.7 1.3

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6

90 91 92

M1

N N N N

56.1 20.8 24.0 15.3 14.8

3.4 3.6 2.1 3.2

] i l l ,71~1 l t l I~1 C~I I E | ,~

~ l d~l 91 N1

N1 92 N1 93 N1 94 N1 95

89 91 92

P P

95

R 89 R 90

91 92 94 95

S 89 S 90 S 91 S 92 S 94

95

3.1 5.7 5.7 4.7 3.1

3.2

0.9 3.5 2.2

5.6 6.9 6.6

4.4 1.9 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.0

2.9 4.5 1.7 8.7 2.5 4'.3

3.2 5.1 5.8 4.8 1.9 4.0

2.3

SI 89 90 s1

S1 91 S1 92

0.6 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.8

1.5 1.2 3.7

11.5

4.3 3.4 2.2 3.9 4.9 1.7

0.4 0.4 0.4 3.5 0.3 1.4

0.1 0.7 0.7 1.4 2.7 0.5

93 94

SI

1244 7427

370 7566 5326

5790 4150 2684

183

7790 2917

89O 1977 2721 2165

3609 2732 2176 3797 4166 4641

822 1767 3740

11047 3005 6767 S1

4.7 5.4

W~

18.2 25.0 13.5 13.7 23.2

10.7 19.5 22.0 52.5

19.2 14.0 7.4

14.5 14.0 13.9

15.7 5.6 2.7

23.3 3.6 7.3

10.3 12.7

3.3 1.3 2.5 1.0

2.0 1.2 5.0 2.1 5.1 3.2 6.6 1.6

3.5 3.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.7 0.5 0.7 0.2

1.8 1.8 4.5 0.4 1.5 0.4 3.7 8.7 0.5 1.7 2.1 3.6

2.9 0 3.6 0.5 2.0 0.1 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.0 1.9 1.2

1.0 1.0 0.2 0.4 1.9 1.2 1.2 0.7 2.4 1.2

11.2 12.9 13.3 11.2

SI 95 4574 4.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 9.3

904 1.4 1.9 1 !. I 89 90 91

$2 $2 $2 $2 $2

92 5307 5319 2"286 93

0.6 3.4 1.7 3.5

0.9 4.9 2.0 4.5

4.3 13.9 4.5

lO.3

140

N F P A 99 - - F98 R O C

Hospital Designation $3 $3 $3 $3 $3

V V V V


Total Resistance Resistance Outlets Wiring Neutral to Ground to Ground Tested Polarity, Ground Ground Tension

1.9 0.7 1.0 3.3 2.2

42.9 6.0 4,4 2.8

1.7 0.6 0.6 1.8 1.3

35.7 4.7 2.2 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.4

7.1 2.6 0.6 0.6

1.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4

1.8 1.0 0.5

Year 90 2873 91 3364 92 . 7253 93 736 94 6144

89 14 91 2301 94 1436 95 2679

Total Needing

Attention 5.5 2.4 3.5 3.8 4.7

42.9 19.7

8.4 10.5

(Log #68) Commit tee: HEA-EL.S

99- 33 - (3-3.4.2.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, A m e r i ~ m Society for Heal thcare Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9tJ~41 RECOMMENDATION: Agree with T e c h n i c ~ Commit tee ' s ac t ion and substant ia t ion. SUBSTANTIATION: There has been no new evidence presen ted tha t the compi led database is statistically valid. The au tho r cont inues to make s ta tements which my m e m b e r s h i p is no t suppor t ing a n d f indings which we are not able to duplicate. I)ntil the informat ion presen ted gives the me thodo logy o f the tests and the m e t h o d of data collection, this proposal should no t be cons idered valid. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #12) Commit tee : HEA-P1P

99- 35 - (4-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Axmlgesia Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-67

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise time following (changes a r e under l ined) :

Note 3 staffing at systems; Sectiotm 4-5 covers Level "~ piped gases vacuum and and WAG[) (add) lalso referred to as Sc~tvengitml systems; Section ....... etc. SUBSTANTIATION: To be consis teut with Level 3 requi rements .

To conform to requ i rements of Level 3, wimere the term WAGD is no t normally used by manufac tu re r s or the Amer ican Dental Association and o ther like associations.

This also effects die following paragraphs: 4-5.3, 4-5.4.4 and 4-5.5.9. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #32) Commit tee : HEA-ELS

99- 34 - (3-4.3.2.2, 3-5.3.2.2 and 3-6.3.1.2): Accept in Part SUBMITrER: Lawrence A. Bey, O n a n Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-51 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new second paragraph in th ree places for Type 1, 2, and 3 systems extracted from NFPA 110, Paragraph 5-12.5, as follows:

"]'All ac-powered suppor t and accessory e q n i p m e n t necessary to the opera t ion of the EPS shall be suppl ied f rom the load side of the au tomat ic t ransfer switch(es), or the ou tpu t te rminals of the EPS, al~ead of the main EPS overcurrent protection, as necessary, to ensure cont inui ty of the EP,~S opera t ion and per formance . (NFPA 110: 5- 12.5) SUBSTANTIATION: The genera to r accessories (louvers, remote vadiator fans) need m be restored ASAP or the genera to r set may shu t down. Putt ing the accessories on time E q u i p m e n t System delays restorat ion beyond i0 seconds. The re shou ld be an option to power these i tems from time genera to r terminals or the Emergency System. All th ree types of EES shou ld be covered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Add new s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h as r e c o m m e n d e d by submi t te r u n d e r 3-4.2.2.2 and3-5.3 .2 .2 . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Type 3 systems are typically not engine-genera tors with these types of accessories. NUMBER OF COMMITFEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 36 - (4-1.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrmnentation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-70 RECOMMENDATION: Include proposal 's new wording ,as a new pa rag raph after A-3.1.1.9(a). SUBSTANTIATION: ff no t applicable due to "Scope Statement," add it u n d e r defini t ion of both medical air and OXy~e n. 0 e n .

C O ~ M I ' F F E E ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add to 4-3.1.1.8, before 4-3.1.1.8(a): Piped oxygen and medical air shall not be t)iped to. or used

for, any purpose except for use in patlellt care ~tpplicatloHs. Add new Appendix A text to read: A-4-3.1.1.8 This should iuclude fuelilig torches, bhlwiiig

down or drying mly equ ipmen t such as lab equipnleil l . endoscopy or o ther scopes, or any otimer purposes . Also prohibi ted is us ing the oxygen or medical air ;o raise, l,,wel ,,~ otherwise operate booms or o the r devices in ()R's or o ther areas. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This subject does not belong unde r scope, bu t unde r requi rements . Commi t tee believes timat there ,are needs beyond direct patient application that can be addressed by l imited use of medical air. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETURNED: I Bancroft

141

N F P A 9 9 1 F 9 8 R O C


99- 37 - (4-1.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient l n s tn imen ta t i on Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-70 RECOMMENDATION: Include proposal 's new wording as a new pa rag raph after A-3.1.1.9(a). S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : If no t applicable due to "Scope" s ta tement . add it u n d e r def ini t ion of both medical air and oxygen. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-36 (Log #83). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Identical public commen t . NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETURNEr): 1 Bancroft


99- 38 - (4-3.1.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71.99-963 RECOMMENDATION: Insert 4-3.1.1.1 as p roposed by 99-71 (Log #CP73) bu t revised as follows, (changes are under l ined) .

Insert 4-5.1.1.1 as p roposed by 99-71 (Log #CP73) and 99-263 (Log #203).

4-5.1.1.1 C)'!'.'~c:'z :La![ co..'np!y ;;'t!~ ~ ~.I.I.1. Cylinders in service and in s torage shall be individually secured a n d located to prevent falling or being knocked over.

(a)* Cylinders or supply cont~dners shall be constructed, tested, and ma in t a ined in accordaz]ce widl tile U.S. Depar tmen t of Transpor ta t ion specifications and regulations.

(h) Cylinder conten ts shall be identif ied by a t tached labels or stencils n a m i n g die c o m p o n e n t s a n d giving tbeir proport ions . Labels mid stencils sball be let tered in accordance widl CGA Pamphle t C,-4, S tandard Method of Marking Portable Compressed (;,as Conta iners to Identify die Material Contained.

(c) Conten ts of cylinders a n d conta iners shall be identif ied by reading the labels pr ior to use. Labels shaU no t be defaced, altered, or removed. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent with Level 3 requ i rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Commi t t ee notes same changes appiy to 4-3.1.1.1 as shown for 4-5.1.1.1. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO.VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 39 - (4-3.1.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, Amer ican SocieW for Heal thcare Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-72 RECOMMENDATION: Accept tile original proposal. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : If this is no t the appropr ia te commit tee , t hen NFPA staff shou ld have forwarded it to the Technical Commi t t ee on {;as Equipment . As my negative hallot states, this is a major p rob lem in heal th care facilities and some relief f rom small cylinders mus t be considered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Insert the following in 4-3.5.2.1 (b)25a: "Individual cylinder storage associated with pat ient care areas

are not requi red to be s tored in enclosures." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Placement in more appropr ia te location in text. NUMBER OF COMMrI=rEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMIT T E E ACTION:


( l,{}g #!}h) { ;omminee: ItEA-PIP

99- 40- (4-3.1.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esberick, Patient lns t r tmmntat ion {;orp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-72 RECOMMENDATION: Accept Proposal 99-72 (Log #275). S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Mr. Emckson is right; any way we can clarify die s tandard to el iminate overzealous en fo rcemen t by inspectors is necessary.

Unfortunately, some inspectors are taking it upon dlemselves to in terpret tile s tandard, and they are not going witb what d~e Commi t t ee envisioned. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t tee Action on C o m m e n t 99-39 (Log #80). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as C o m m e n t 99-39 (Log #80). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


{Log #115) Commit tee : HEA-PIP

99- 41 - (4-3.1.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-72 RECOMMENDATION: Accept Proposal 99-72 (Log #275). S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Mr. Erickson is right; any way we can clarify d~e s tandard to el iminate overzealous e n f o r c e m e m By inspectors is necessary.

Unfortunately, some inspectors are taking it upoll fllemselves i{, in terpret the s tandard, and they are not going with what tile Commi t t ee envisioned. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept iu Prmcq) le

See Commi t tee Action on C, o m m e n t 99-:'V.} (Log #8 0 ) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Salne reo.mlniet ldat ion ,t.x C o m m e n t 99-39 (Log #80). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: i Bancroft


99- 42 - {4-3.1.1.2(a).i0.b): Accept SUBMITTER: Richard E. Hof fman , Compres sed Gas Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-73

i RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: b. Storage facilities tha t are outside, bu t adjacent to a bui lding

wail, shall be !s=z:cJ zuc!; ~;:.t t!~: ~'~a~.'zce =s any ;;'i::Jaw cf :!~e adjacent D,=!!d'ng :.: grea ter ~ ;an 25 ft (7 7 ..'n.} in accordance with NFPA 50. S tandard for Bulk Oxygen Systems at C o n s u m e r Sites. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 99 and NFPA 50 need to have tile same requi rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2"2 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


{L{>R #B{I) { . . n m u n e e : HEA-PI P

99- 43 - {4-3.1.1.2{c) ): Accept SUBMITTER: I)avid B. Mohile, Medical Eng iuee rmg ~er'Vi{ {'s, hv COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9,.)-74 RECOMMENDATION: l suppor t this proposal S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Too often tile staff of Type Ill tacilitics ,trr no t aware of the &angers i nhe ren t with high pressure cylinclers. This addi t ion to the code will provide addit ional automatic safeguards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


142

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

(Log #58) Commi t t ee : HEA-PIP

99- 44 - (4-3.1.1.8(e)): Accept SUBMITTER: Dino Ianiro, Western Enterprises COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L N O : 99-81 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"... f rom all ~-x4ding gas systems, except medical air, or ..." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This change shou ld ,also include all g,-ts systems that could p.roduce an asphyxiat ing env i ronmen t du r ing a relieving scenario (i.e., n i t rogen, argon, carbon dioxide, etc.L A release of an ,asphyxiating gas in an enclosed area could be hazardous to persons inside or a round the immedia te ,area. All gases, except medical air, shou ld be vented to the outside to pGrevent this occurrence.

OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF C O M M I T r E E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O V O T E : 22 V O T E O N C O M M I T T E E ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETURNED: 1 Bancrolt


99- 45 - (Figure 4-3.1.1.9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Craig Williams, Hill R o m / M e d a e s l n c C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 99-92 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : R e c o m m e n d not us ing proposed drawi ng. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Propose us ing old drawing used i l l Figufc 4-3.1.1.9 only modif ied to reflect entire text. Proposed drawiHg is too confus ing to read and will duly c:mse cmdusiot~ to itldivicb,~:.lL~ a t tempt ing to interpret die code. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept m Principle COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Contmit tee has rewsed (Irawmg. See Commt tee Action on C o m m e n t 9~40 (Log #145). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O V O T E : "2'2 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Bancrot~

(Log #145) Commi t tee ' HEA-PIP

99- 46 - (Figaare 4-.3.1.1.9): Accept in Pr inop le SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pvmps COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L N O : 99-92 RECOMMENDATION: Revise figure as follows:

Pressure

, . . Tin'ned Down [ ] ~ • .and Screened .U

Duct o r . .

g3.l.l.9~)l

Note: Arrangements which differ from this schematic are permitted if they include all necessary elements required by the text.

gight

Glass

Compressors

Automatic Drain

Note: see 4-3.1 .I .9(g)

Aftercoolers ' and Ior i

~ Drye~ . ~ 1. o . . . . t i , --

Figure @3. i. 1.9

Indicator

>>- "~l ! - ! & . .d i

Regulator

/ / ~ v ' : " Filter 'Isolation / . / \ .eo, . .y / ~ 4-3.1.1.9(g) /

T T :>,<<< ) ~ ~ ~ 4-3.1.1.9(g),4-3.1.2.2(b), /

4-3.1.2.1

Carbon Monoxide ~ L~cm~ and

Dew Point >> Monitor(s)

I/4 NPT Sample po

143

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : None given. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Revisions to d iagrams (shown below), COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarify mid make d iagram consis tent with text. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMM IT T E E ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: I Bancroft


9% 47 - (4-3.1.1.9; 4-5. i.2.1 (b)3g) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medic,'d Air P umps COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%106, 99-109, 99-125, 9%1"26 RECOMMENDATION: Accept Proposal 99-1')5 (Log #48), wida appropr ia te changes to d~e table in Proposal 99-106 (Log #183). S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : By its act ion on dlese proposals the Commi t tee raises tlae level of concern a t tached to dae CO ,alarm. Giyen tile reality of CO in a properly des igned medical air system, this level of concern is inappropr ia te , specifically:

l. C() is riot genera ted by the ( : .nlpreSs.r ~;ystt'nl ifsclt hm comes {tom the outside air. 2+ There is no th ing a t~cility etigiueer ~ttJ e;L~ilv t . iiiiJ]le(hatel\ do at tile compressor or air t rea tment system which will re, hit t tl~e level of CO. Shut t ing the compressor oft is ill)t ~ul opti,~tL ,L- tile damage and disrupt ion which WOll[d result is [~tr greater thalt any likely hazard from an elevated CO level.

3. The 10 ppm, level is no t absolute (i.e., there is . . kHown hazard which begins at 11 ppm) . Therefore . there is , o critical urgency associated wida the alarm, unless the CO level is greatly elewtted, which mus t be de t e rmined by looking, at the CO readout . The more s imple "Compressor Faul t ' signal will equally effectively warn the is.cility to go chuck. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VO TE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:


-. Turned down I I " '% and screened U Duct or

\ 4-3. ~. ~.9(b)~

Note: An intake filter is required (not shown.)

~ManuaJ J

indicator

; Regulator

alve Filter Isolation valve or chl

Key

Bail valve

N Chock valve

(~ Gauge =,~ Pressure

relief valve

t Demand check

._.~.,. Pressure regulator Filter with change Indicator

Isolation C o m p r e s s o ~

4-3.1.1.9(c)

Note: See 4-3. I. 1.9(g)

Dryers }. D

.o =

. . . . ~ p - !

Carbon and m o n o x i d e ~

dew point :~" monitor(s)

Z\v

Note: Arrangements which differ from this schematic are permitted if they mctude all necessary elements required by the text.

Gauge ~ r'ru'o,~u,~u, ( ~ ) ~ sensorls/

v ve.$ Dem .d ~, ~ ~check

Source valve ~,~3.1.1.9(g), 4-3.1.2,2(b),

4-3.1.2.1 . ~

Figure 4-3.1,1.9

144

N ~ A 9 9 1 F 9 8 R O C

(Log #70) Commit tee" HEA-PIP

9% 48 - (4-3.1.1.9(h)): Reject SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, Ainerican Sociew for Heal thcare Engr COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%105 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : R e c o m m e n d this proposal be rejected. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : T he need to have liquid bydrocarbon tests pe r fo rmed a n d d o c u m e n t e d dally was only for daose compressors which me t die r equ i r emen t s of 4-3.1.1.9(h)(2). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposal 9%105 (Log #178) act ion is correct. Paragraph 2 ("Liquid hydrocarbons . . . ") be longs u n d e r subparagraph 2, the r emainder of text will become subpa rag raph 3. NUMBER OF COMMITFEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETIJRNED: 1 Bancroft


9% 49 - (4-3.1.1.9(h).2): Accept SUBMITTER: Craig Williams, Hill R o m / M e d a e s Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%109 RECOMMENDATION: R e c o m m e n d not accept ing this proposal . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Carbon Monoxide is ,already connec ted to the local alarm, which is wired into bofla u~aster alarms with a single a larm point. By requi r ing this a larm to be directly wired to both master Marms. unnecessa ry extra installation cost will be forced onto the buyer with no addit ional safety value. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: f Bancroft


9% 50 - (4-3.1.1.9(h).2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, Amer ican Society for Healflacare Engr COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-109 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the accepted proposal. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Mr. Mohile, in Iris explanat ion for a negative vote, is correct and dais is an unnecessary new requ i rement . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action on C o m m e n t 99-49 (Log #29). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 51 - (4-3.1.1.9(h).2): Accept in Pr inople SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9'3-106 RECOMMENDATION: Revise table ~ lollows (shown beh,w) S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : None given. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I. Delete existing Table 4-3.4.1.4. 2. Revise submit ter ' s r e commenda t i on to read as indicated

below, and insert as new Table 4-3.4.1.4 (shown on following page) . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Changes made to reflect revised text. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 2-)2 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:


Moni tor ing Compressors per Compressors per Requ i r emen t 4-3.1.1.9(e) 1 (a) 4-3.1.1.9(e) 1 (a)

(non Liquid Ring) (Liquid Ring)

Dew point

Carbon Monoxide

Gaseous H y d r o c a r b o n s

Liquid Hydroca rbons

Backup C o m p r e s s o r Opera t ing

High Water Level in Receiver

High Water Level in Separator

High Discharge Air T e m p e r a t u r e

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

No No

No No

Yes Yes

if water cooled Yes

N o Yes

Yes N o

Compres so r s Medlod Limit Where per 4-3.1.1.9~etllb /

Yes Con t inous 4°C (39°F) Local & Alarm M;~ster J & 2

Con t inous Yes Alarm 10ppm Local

Quarterly Yes Sampling <25 ppm Lab aual'csls

Golori . tetr ic No visible At (h,alesclll R Yes Indicator ( ;hange Fil~er

Yes Con t inuous Activate on Local ~ Alarln 0 peratl O II

if water cooled Con t inuous per design LocaP Alarm

No Con t inuous per design Local I Alarm

Yes C o n t i n u o u s per design LocaP Alarm

qocal Signals mus t be repeated at Master Alarm 1 & 2 ei ther individually or as a single "Medical Air Compressor Fault" signal

145

Table 4-3.4.1.4 REQUIRED AI.ARM SIGNALS

High V,'aler in Receiver 4-3.1.1.9(e)

i Local Alarm Signals

Carbon Monoxide High Backup Compresso~ in Opexation Backup Vacuum Pump in Operation High Watel in Separator

{if so equipped} High Discharge ,~Mr Iemperature

fif so equipped}

4-3.1.1.9(h) t-3.1.1.9(d) 4-.3.2.1.2

t-3.1.1.9(e)

t-3.1,1.9(e)

Master Alarm Signals

manifold Master Signals from Sources

manifold rrvn~

Changeover Liquid Level l.ow Reserve in Use Resep,'e Level Low Reserve Pressure Low Dew Point High Local Alarm

w/o reserve 4-3.1.1.5 (a)

w/reserve 4-3.1.1.6(a)2

4-3.1,1.6(a)3

cryogenic bulk w/cr,vo reserve

4-S.1.1.7(a) 1 4-3.1 1.7(a) 4-3.1.1,7(a) 4-3.1.1,7(b)2 or 3 4-3.1.1.6(b) 3

cryogenic bulk w/cvl reserve

4-3.1.1.7(a)2 4-3.1.1.7(a) 4-3.1 1.7(a)

4-3.1 1.6(b)2

" High Line Pressure Low Line Pressure Low Vacuum

4-3A.2,1 (b) 3e 4-3A.2.1 (b)3e

High Line Pressure (for each gas piped to area) t,ow Line Pressure (for each gas pilded to area) Low Vacuum (if piped) WAGD (if piped t

Master Signals from Pipeline

Area Alarm Signals 4-3.1.2.1 (c)3 4-3.1.2.1 (c)3 4-3.2.2,9(e) 4-3.3.2.4

Air via 4-3.1.1.9(a~ 4-3,1ol.9(h) 4-Kl.l.9(h)

Air via 4-3.1A.9(b~ 4-3.1.1.9(h) 4-3.1.1.9(h)

Air ~ia Liquid ring 4-3.1.1.9(h) 4-3.1.1.9(h)

I Vacuum Pump

4-3.2.1.2

4-3.2.2.8(a)

I O o

f3

N F P A 9 9 1 F 9 8 R O C


99- 52 - (4-3.1.1.9(j)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-110 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : In the recommendation, Mr. Mraulak is talking of CO-Carbon Monoxide; then in Committee's statement they reference CO2-Carbon Dioxide. Which is it? CO or CO2? S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The Committee's statement makes me believe that the Committee was reading a different proposal COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No recommendat ion provided. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 53 - (4-3.1.1.9(D): Reject SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-110 RECOMMENDATION: In the recommendat ion Mr. Mraulak is talking of CO-Carbon Monoxide. Then in Committee's statement they reference CO2-Carbon Dioxide° Which is it? CO or CO2? S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The Committee's statement makes me believe timt the Committee was reading a different proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No recommendat ion provided. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N()T RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 55 - (Figure 4-3.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-112 RECOMMENDATION: Delete change in location of relief valve on emergency 0 2 connection. It was always there. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : No reason to change location. If submitter desires a relief on main bospit:dline, he should presetLt a separate proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: "2"2 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETI.IRNED: 1 Bancroft

(Log #117) (;ommJttee: HEA-PIP

99- 56- (Figure 4-3.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Patient Instrumeutation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%112 RECOMMENDATION: Delete change in iocauon of relie~ valve on emergency 0 2 connector, It was always tllere. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : No reaso[~ to change location. If submitter desires a relief on main hospit~d line, he should present a separate proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comnlent 99-55 (Log #84). NUMBER OF CO MMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #50) Committee: HEA-PI P

99- 54 - (Figure 4-3.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Dale Dumble ton , Piping Industry Progress & Edu cation C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-112 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : To correct the concern of removing the relief valve for testing, service, or replacement I would propose a demand check fitting be installed below every relief valve to facilitate removal for testing, service, or replacement. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Change file location of die relief valve on the emergency low-pressure oxygen connection from upstream to downstream of the other valve on the emergency low-pressure oxygen line. Explanation of negative moving the relief valve downstream of the check places it where it cannot be isolated for service or replacement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Service check valves are not considered necessary for the operation ,and servicing of pressure relief valve. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RET1 ~'RNED: I Bancroft

(Log #.33) Committee: HEA-PI P

99- 57 - (Figure 4-3.1.2 Note 4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner, Medical Contractors Assn. of America COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-112 RECOMMENDATION: a. Indicate dlat the check valve downstream from the main shutoff valve is required only tot oxygen systems having an emergency supply connecuon.

Check valves Isee Note 4) I b. If the relief valve on the emergeucy oxygen connectiotl is

moved to downstream from the check valve in the emergem'~ oxygen line, connect it to the system with a demand check valve' S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : a. To clarity the intent ,,t the Figure

b. To provide a means of isolating, testing, or replacing tht. emergency oxygen relief valve COMMITTEE ACTION: Acce[)e iu Principle.

I 1. Revise Figure 4-3.1.2 ,as follows (shown below): I 2. Add new Figure 4-3.1.1.8(h) :ks follows (shown on following

page ): 3. Add recommendat ion b. as a note on new Figure 4-3.1.1.8(10.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. Clarify Figure 4-3.1.2 for s~tems oti~er ti'lau oxygen.

2. Clarify widl a diagram on configuration of emergency oxygen connector.

3. Accept b. by placing on new figure. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 92 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

_AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft

F Pressure gauge [4-3° 1.2. 1 (e)]

(~~ T Alarmsensor [4-3. 1.2. 1 (b)]

>>®

Main line shutoff 4-3.1.. Figure " 9

147

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

'xeii ilere. Vent to outside ~1-- [ ~ -

Check valves connection point r~ T~

Main line shutoff

~ Pressur i gauge [4-3,1,2.1 (e)]

Alarm sensor(s) [4-3.1.2.1 (b)]

>>®

Figure 4-3.1.1.8(h)


9% 58 - (,4-3.1.2.1(a).6): Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Will iams, Hill R o m / M e d a e s Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-121 RECOMMENDATION: R e c o m m e n d the Commi t t ee recons ider their decis ion on dais proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: It was nay unde r s t and ing tha t the d e m a n d check valves were placed in the 1996 edi t ion for d~e reason of Mlowing m a i n t e n a n c e or test ing of a larm points while the pipel ine system was in use. The re is no more dange r of misplacing switches du r i ng testing allan there was when no d e m a n d check valves were required. Since dte danger is placing a switch or sensor to the wrong gas system, how can one be sure that electrical wiring is no t connec t ed to the wrong gas after repairs to die a la rm system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commi t t ee recons idered Proposal 9%121 (Log #161), and still agrees with action. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON C O M M I T T E E ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

(Log #59) Commit tee : HE/k-PIP

9% 5 9 - (4-3.1.2.1(a).fi): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dino laniro, Western Enterprises COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-121 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"... provide wifll a gas specific d e m a n d check fitting. Manifo lds with r e d u n d a n t characteristics, or dtat allow for isolation of c o m p o n e n t s (i.e.. check valves, regulators, contr0] va[v¢~, etc.) for testin~ Durooses. may be e x e m p t f rom this requi rement ," SUBSTAIq~'IATION: Certain manifolds have built in r edundanc ie s which allow for isolation and testing of die c o m p o n e n t s du r ing no rma l operat ion. For example , manifo lds with service a n d reserve side cylinder banks, can operate on one cylinder bank while isolating and servicing die other. Pressure switches a n d pressure sens ing devices can be isolated a n d removed for test ing widlout a d e m a n d check valve in place, due to dfis type of design. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle.

A m e n d subpa rag raph (a)6 to read: ] "All pressure switches, n ressure ~au~es. and pressure-sensing I devices downs t ream of tl]e source~alve shall be provided widi a | ffas soecifie d e m a n d check fi t t ing to facilitate servicing, testing, or [ rep lacement ."

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Not in t ended drat dais section apply to manifolds. Changes m a d e to clarify this point. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 60 -(4-3.1.2.1 (a).8): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, Amer ican Society for H ealdicare Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%122

I RECOMMENDATION: Reject tire Commi t tee Actiorl and accept the original proposal . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : ASHE agrees with Mr. Nasb and t)elieve~ the Technical Commi t t ee has gone beyond their level ot knowledge. See my explanat ion of negative vote for fur ther justif ication. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: '2"- ) VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: I Bancroti

(Log#149) Commit tee : HEA-PIP

99- Ol - (4-3.1.2.1(a).8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%122 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

As p e r original submiss ion. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Commi t t ee Action is too restrictive ,and does no t allow for al ternate a n d equally effective means of accompl i sh ing die objective of protec t ing tire alarms. C O M M I T T E E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action on C o m m e n t 99-60 (Log #72). NUMBER OF COMMrITEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 62 - (4-3.1.2.1(a)9): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%123 RECOMMENDATION: Do not agree with rejection. This wouht NOT decrease the level of a larm(s) below reasonable levels. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Compute r s have come a long way. We me now using one in commit tee meetings. The re are many levels of safety built into bui ld ing m a n a g e m e n t systems. Proposal states dtat all provisions of 4-3.1.2.1 are compl ied with. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT" Two mas te r a larm panels are still requi red for dae reliability cons idered nece~s,a~. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22

148

N F P A 9 9 1 F 9 8 R O C

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 N O T RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION O¥ NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: I disagree with the rejection. If the c m n p u t e r (or bui ld ing m a n a g e m e n t system) has

appropr ia te s,'ffegnards and complies fnlly widl NFPA 99 Master Alarm Reqnirements ; i.e., have both an audible and non- cancellable signal, there is rio good reason that it canno t be used for one of the master alarm signals. Let's r e m e m h e r tilat we are now approach ing die 21st century where computers are doing great things. Men in a space shut t le docking with the space station, etc.


,9% 63 - (4-3.1.2.1(a).9): Reject SUBMITTERs David Esberick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%123 RECOMMENDATION: Do not agree widl rejection. "l'bis would NOT decrease the level of a larm(s) below reasonable levels. SUBSTANTIATION: Compute r s have come a long way. We are now us ing one in Commi t t ee meetings. The re are many levels of s,'ffety built into bui ld ing m a n a g e m e n t systems. Proposal states flaat all provisions of 4-3.1.2.1 are complied widl. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Two mas te r a larm panels are still requi red for the reliability cons idered necessary. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: I Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: I disagree with the rejection. See my Explanation

of Negative Vote on C o m m e n t 99-62 (Log #85).


9% 6 4 - (4-3.1.2.1(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esberick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%125 RECOMMENDATION: See my c o m m e n t for C o m m e n t 9%52 (Log #98). SUBSTANTIATION: See my c o m m e n t for C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log 098). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log #98). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 65 - (4-3.1.2.1(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-126 RECOMMENDATION: See my c o m m e n t for C o m m e n t 9%52 (Log #98). SUBSTANTIATION: See my c o m m e n t for C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log 098). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log #98). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 66 - (4-3.1.2.1(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Ins t rnment : ' t ion ( ;o rp COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-127 RECOMMENDATION: See my c o m m e n t for C o m m e m 99-5~ (Log #98). SUBSTANTIATION: See nw c o m m e m tot (;Ollllllelll ~1!~ t~,/ (1,O~2 ~98). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same recommeuda t l im ,t.s C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log #98). NUMBER O17 C O M M I T r E E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2"2 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N()T RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroit

(Log #128) C o m m m e e : HEA-PIP

9% 6 7 - (4-3.1.2.1(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion C o r p COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%125 RECOMMENDATION: See my c o m m e n t on C o m m e n t 99-53 (Log #116). SUBSTANTIATION: See my c o m m e n t on C o m m e n t 9%53 (Log #116). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log #98). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


( Log # 129) Commit tee : HEA-PI P

~.1- 68 - (4-3.1.2.1(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Patient Ins t rumenut t ion C,wp COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-126 RECOMMENDATION: See my c o m m e n t on (~omment 99-53 (Log #116). SUBSTANTIATION: See my c o m m e n t ,.m C o m m e n t 99-53 (Log #116). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same reconnnetJdat ion as C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log #98). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2'2 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: I Bancroft


99- 69 - (4-3.1.2.1(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%127 RECOMMENDATION: See my c o m m e n t on C o m m e n t 9%53 (Log #116). SUBSTANTIATION: See my c o m m e n t on C o m m e n t 9%53 (Log #116). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as C o m m e n t 99-52 (Log #98). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 70 - (4-3.1.2.1(e).1): Reject SUBMITTER: T h o m a s J. Mraulak, Metropoli tan Detr , l l P lumbing Industry Tra in ing Ctr. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise tile last senten( e to read ;Lq follows:

"It shall be appropriately labeled and shall be [:c:Mily ~.'~'oib[c ¢ ! x . r s m :~. ~:r :a l r :g ~c~!tier:, ( readable f rom a dis tance of 12 feet.V'

149

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: Reworded f rom original proposal to give commi t t ee m o r e in format ion by establislting a distance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Need for a reference s tandard is necessary since factors such .as l ight level, distance, etc. mus t be considered. Commi t t ee ques t ions need for such factors. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 71 - (4-3.1.2.1(e).2): Reject SUBMITTER: T h o m a s J. Mraulak, Metropol i tan Detroit P lumbing Indus t ry Tra in ing Ctr. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%133 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the last sen tence to read :us follows:

"It shall be appropriate ly labeled a n d shall be (re.".dE7 ;Szi~.e I t e m : : m : : ~ g r . . . . . . . . . . . :.:~x~ (readable f rom a dis tance of 3 feet . l" SUBSTANTIATION: Reworded f rom original proposal to give tile commi t t ee more informat ion by establ ishing a distance. The 3 feet would coincide witla dae 80 decibels at 3 feet required for a rea a la rm panels . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Need for a reference s tandard is necessary since factors such as light level, distance, etc. mus t be considered. Commi t t ee ques t ions n e e d for such factors. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 72- (4-3.1.2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Will iams, Hill R o m / M e d a e s Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%137 RECOMMENDATION: R e c o m m e n d dele t ing this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Aldlough the idea of s tandardiz ing has merit, m:my o ther countr ies use o ther colors when identifying medical gas. These same countr ies would prefer to use d~eir colors and symbols with NFPA 99. It migh t also be hard to find some oI dae lab~els listed in the p roposed table. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Reflect cur ren t U.S. practice. NUMBER OF COMMI'['rEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 73 - (4-3.1.2.2(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, Amer ican Society for Heahhca re Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-139

I RECOMMENDATION: Reject this proposal. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Fire s topping is no t within the scope of this Technical Commit tee . T he new text will no t indicate dae hour ly rating or any th ing else about how to adequate ly fire stop barriers. This is typically never pe r fo rmed by die p ip ing contrac tor and shou ld be left to NFPA 101 for jur isdict ion. By having it here it could jus t build in an addit ional cost that is not justified if tile contractor does not u n d e r s t a n d which walls need fire s topping. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept, NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMM IT T E E ACTION:



99- 74 - (4-3.1.2.2(a), 4-5.1.2.10): Accept in Principle $UBMITI~ER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

4-5.1.2.10" Gas Piping. Insert 4-3.1.2.2(a) as proposed by 99-71 (Log #(',P73) but revtsc

as follows (changes are under l ined) : (a)* Gas Piping. Tile provisions of this sectioiJ apply t . field-

installed piping for die distr ibut ion o! non f l ammab le ntt~di~:.tl p iped gases.

1. Tubes, wfives, fittings, suction outieL~, and t)tber pipnlg c o m p o n e n t s in medical g ~ systems shall have beelt ~de;uled l(J~ oxygen service prior to installation.

2. Piping for non f l ammab le medical gas systems shall be suitable for oxygen service in accorckmce with 4 a..!.2.3(a) / insert the correct oara~raoh n u m b e r ) . Each length of tube shall be pe rmanen t ly labeled and delivered plugged or capped. Fit t ings valves, and o ther devices shall be sea led and marked. Yhe installer shall furnish documen ta t i on certifying tllat all installed piping materials comply with the r equ i rements of this p a r a g r a p h

4-3.1.2.3(a) shown below. 3. Piping shall be hard-drawn seamless medical gas tube, qype

K or L (ASTM B819), and bear one of the following markings: ()XY, MED, OXY/MED, ACR/OXY, or ACR/MED. Mains and b ranches in piping systems shall be not less fllan ! / 2 i::. 3 / 8 in. nomina l size. Ru: ;~u~ t.2 =rca .-2~r:~. v " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~" ~ '~" ~--- pcr~: ' t tcd :~

(al Exceotion: Annea led (soft t emner ) ASTM B88 (Tvoe K o r

L) conner tube dmt has been o rena red for o x w e n service accorclin~z to CGA Pamtlh le t ~-4.i. Cleaninu E~auinment fo~ Oxygen Service. shall be nermi t ted to be used un to 1 /2 in. OD m a x i m u m size.

(b) Tube allowed in 4-5.1.2.10(a) above shall not be used il copper tube is allowed in ~ . . . . . 9 ~ o...,..,..o .... "~ ( insert correc~ para~.rapi~ n u m b e r ) above can be installed ei ther overhead or below flo(Jr level, ff tile installation requires installing in a slab, the pipe shall be in condui t as below.

( l) The condui t shall be of a size to mee( t h e requiremelJ~ .I tile following gases or vacuum it used: ()xygel~. Nitrous ()xl(le Nitrogen, Medical Air, and Level :4 Vacuum.

(2) The [lille for Nonf lammable (;ases shall be a c ( m m n l . u s

run ~roln entry intu the condui t to the exit. There shall be i Jr, brazing within the conduit , iWC condui t ts ,u:ceptabie for Level 3, Wacuunl.

(3) All brazed jo in ts for con t inu ing tile run or corHlectlon ol Station Outlets (Inlets) may be comple ted :d'ter the slab is comple te .

(4) All tests shall be comple ted per 4-5.4.1.2. 4.* Except as provided u n d e r A . . . . . ,2 , .,...~..,~,..,,o and 9 (inser~ correct

paragrapb n u m b e r l . j o i n t s in copper tubes shall be brazed using capillary fittings complying with ANSI B16.22, Wrough t Copper and Copper Alloy Solder-Joint Pressure Fittings, or brazing fittings complying wiO~ MSS SP-73, B~tz ingJoints for Wrough t :tied t~tst Copper Alloy So lde r Jo in t Pressure Fittings. Cast fittings shall no t be used for brazed joints .

Excepdon: Flared connect ions ,AST,~.~ EE~ "~::!3c shall be permi t ted where exposed at s ta tmn outlets and manifold connec t ions .

5. Valves, fittings, and od~er p ip ing componen t s shall be c leaned for oxygen service by tile manu fac tu r e r in accordance with CGA Pamphle t C.-4.1. Gleaning Equ ipmen t for Oxygen .Service, except that fittings shall be permi t ted to be cleaned by a suppl ier or agency o ther than the manufac turer .

6. Piping systems shall be des igned and sized to deliver the requi red flow rates at the utilization pressures.

7. Piping shall be suppor ted from the bui lding s t ructure ~t~ accordance with MSS Standard Practice SP-69, Piping Hangers and Suppor ts Selection and Application. Hangers and supl'),~rts shall comply with MSS Standard Practice SP-58, Pipe Hangers ;u~(t Suppor ts Materials, Design and Manufacture . Hangers for copper tube shall have a copper finish. It) potentially damp Ioc~ttions, copper tube bangers or suppor ts shall I:)e pl:mti(--c,),t~ed or otherwise insulated lr(un tile nli~e. M~-L~CiHIIHII supl~orl Sl,.t, t t~ shall be ,:m follows:

150

N F P A 9 9 ~ F98 R O C

1 / 4 in. (.6:35 cm) nomina l 5 ft. (I .52 m) 3 / 8 in. (.953 cm) nomina l 6 ft. (I .83 m) 1 /2 in. (1.27 cm) nomina l 6 ft. (1.83 m) 3 / 4 in. (1.91 cm) nomina l 7 ft. (2.13 m) 1 in. (2.54 cm) nomina l 8 ft. (2.44 m) 1-1/4 in. (3.175 cm) nomina l 9 ft. (2.74 m) 1-1/2 in. (3.81 cm) nomina l and larger vertieal risers 10 ft. (3.05

m) every floor, bu t no t to exceed 15 ft. (4.57 m) 8 . J ~ ' n = "n mcd:.c^.2 g-~ : '-~c ah ~' ' ~c ~.---zed c'.:ccp: "d:a:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j ............. i ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . . in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ " t " . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . .

Ez:ccpt!on: T h r e a d e d cznncct icn~ for ear c c m F r e ~ c r ze~ e~d de:a.cea a'.=eh .̂.z mz..x".faldz, p ro=a rc . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Listed or approved metallic gas tube fittings that, when made up, provide a p e r m a n e n t j o in t having die mechanical , d lermal , and sealing integrity o f a brazed j o i n t sball be permi t ted to be used in lieu of brazed joints .

10. Turns , offsets, a n d o ther changes in direct ion in piping shall be made with fittings complying wifll ~. 2.1.2.2(a} n. ( insert correct paragraptl n u m b e r L

1 I. Piping shall be protec ted against freezing, corrosiou, and physical dmnageo Buried p ip ing outside of buildings shall be installed below tbe local level of frost peuetra t ion. Buried piping tha t will be subject to surface loads shall no t be buried.

c.f buHd'nga . t . ~ , , ¢ . ^ , ~ : - (n, , . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . , . ^ ~ : ~ : . . . . .

. . . . . . . . I . - - I I k . . . . 1++^`4 +^ I~ . . . . . . ` 4 + - l O . ' ~ / A K ~7 ~ . ~ x . . , I . . . .

c c n d n ' : c u a 5car ' : :g an the Ee.ttam a f d:c a-erich. U n d c r g r a u n d . . . . . t

. . . . . . . . . . . Y . . . . . . . . . . . t " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z ~ " 1~'1 " . . . . . .

. . . . . I . . . . . . . I . ~ 1 1 . I - - - - . I . , : a - - - - + : g , , +1.~ ~ , ' ~ ^ 1 ; ~ - i~ . . . . . . I C . . . . . . . tl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . r ~-~ v 'v . . . . . . . . z ~t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . I A I + I . . . . . . ~." . . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . . . . . . . I . ~ 1 1 k . . . . . . I A ^ . 4 . . k . . . .

. . . . . . I : . . . . . . . . 1 ~ + ^ 1 . . . . . I . ~ i g + l . ^ A - - ~ + l . ^ C k . . . . . ' [ 4 / 1 . . . . . t l , ~ t . , t ~ . . . . . . a t a t . U . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . t - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . .

- ~1 . . . . U ]-- . . . . I - - a + . . . . . . . . + *1 . . . . + . . . . . 4O . . . . . . . 4 . , ~ . _ _ t~ . . . . . . e cl:a . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12o Medical gas risers s h a l / b e permi t ted to be installed in pipe sbiffts if p ro tec ted f rom physical damage , effects of excessive heat, corrosion, or contact with oil.

13. Piping sball no t be installed in ki tchens or electrical switcbgear rooms.

14. Medical gas p ip ing shall be permi t ted to be located in the same service t r ench or t unne l widi fuel gas lines, fuel oil lines, electrical lines, s team lines, and similar utilities provided tbat the space is venti lated (naturally or mecharfically) ,and the ambien t t empera tu re a r o u n d die medical gas p ip ing is l imited to 130°F (54°(]i) m a x i m u m . Medical gas p ip ing shall no t be located where snbject to contact witb oil, ine luding f looding in the case of a major oil leak.

15. Piping exposed in corridors and o ther areas where subject to physical damage f rom tbe n m v e m e n t of carts, stretchers, portable equ ipment , or vehicles shall be suitably protected.

16. Hcaea and f!.e'~'ih!c ccn:;cctcr~, be th ..'nc~.!lic ~::c! . . . . . . . . t . . l | l ~ ~ l . . . l l I . . . . . . I . . . . . . . +I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ d . l . . , l l . . . . .

. . . . . . . . ¢ ~ , + ^ ^ . ~ . . . . . . . . . . I ^ A : . . . . . . I t . . ¢ 1 . . . . . . . I 1 : . . . . . . . . . . + , * . 1 . . . . . .

t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . E~ ° ' ~ " U . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t O , ~ , . . . . . . . . . . . . n . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it

17. Where a system originally used or cons t ruc ted for use at one pressure and for a gas shall no t be is- converted for operat ion at anod~er pressure or for ano t he r gas, all provisions of 4-3.1.2.2(d), 4-3.1.2.3, 4-3.4.1, and the Exception to 4-3.1.2.2(a)3 shall apply ~ if the system were new. Vacuum systems simll never be converted for use ,xs gas systems. (All 4-3 parmzraph mi tmbe~ above corrected to 4-5A

[From 4-3.1.2.2(c) ] (c)* Brazed Joints. I. Brazed tube jo in t s sball be the socket typ% Filler metals shah

bond wid] .and be metallurgically compat ible wid] the base metals being jo ined. Flux shall no t be used except where permi t ted u n d e r A '~ , o , . ~ , ~ x ~ . • . . . . . . . . . , ~ ~,. ( inser t correct pa rag raph number~. Brazing filler metaJs shall comply wifl~ ANS]/AWS A5.8, Specification for Brazing Filler Metal. except that filler metals

having composi t ions no t confo rming to tbe exact ANSI/AWS A5.8 classifications shall be permi t ted wben used according to tile manufac tu re r ' s instructions.

Copper- to-copper jo in t s slaall be brazed us ing a copper- pbospbo rous or copper-phosphorous-s i lver brazing filler metal (BCuP series) widlout flux. Insert ~J-180 (Log 79) but revise as follows (deleted by s t r ikedarough) .

b. Dissimilar metals, such as copper and bronze or brass, shall be brazed us ing an appropr ia te flux wida did:dr a cvFFer

silver (BAg series) brazing filler metal. 2. Joints to be brazed in place shall be accessible for proper

preparat ion, assembly, heat ing, filler application, cooling, cleaning, and inspect ion.

3. Tube ends sball be cut square us ing a sbarp tubing cutter to avoid de fo rming die tube. The cut t ing wheel shall be free f rom grease, oil, or od ler lubricant not suitable for oxygen service. [ Inser t 99-177 (Log #171) as p roposed but revise as tollows (changes are under l ined) ] . Tile cut ends of tube and pipe shall be d¢l?nrred witb a shard clean debur r ing tool. takirm care to orevent chios f rom enter ing the tube or pipe.

4. Tile surfaces to be brazed shall be mechanical ly cleaut~d us ing a d e a n stainless steel wire brush or equiva len t Fbe usv ,,I steel woo[ shall be protlibited due to tile possible preseu~ e -I oil

Mechanical c leaning shall no t resuh in grooving o1 the surlal.es to be jo ined. After mecbanical cleaniug, tile surfaces shall be wiped using a clean, t int4ree white cloth. Dur ing this c leamng, care shall be taken to avoid contamina t ion o1 tbe cleaned item for oxygen internal surfaces of the tube and components . Joints shall be rec leaned if con tamina ted prior to brazing. Joints shall be brazed widfin 1 hou r of being cleaned.

5. Where dissimilar metals, such as copper a n d bronze or brass. are being brazed, flux sball be applied sparingly to minimize con tamina t ion of tile inside of tile tube witb flux. The flux shall be applied and worked over the surfaces to be brazed using a stiff stainless steel bristle brusb to erasure adequate coverage and wetting of tbe surfaces wifl~ flux. Where possible, shor t sections of copper tube shall be brazed to tbe n o n c o p p e r c o m p o n e n t and die interior of tile sub,xssembly shall be cleaned of flux prior to installation in the piping system. Flux-coated brazing rods shall be permi t ted to be used in lieu of the application of flux to die surfaces to be j o i n e d on tube 3 / 4 in. nomina l size a n d smaller.

6. Tube ends shall be inserted fully into the socket of tile fitting. Where flux i spe rmi t t ed , the jo in t shall be hea ted slowly until die flux has liquefied. Once this bas occurred, or where flux is not used, the j o in t shall be hea ted quickly to the brazing tempera ture , taking care not to overheat rite joint . Tec lmiques for hea t ing the joint , applying die brazing filler metal, and making borizontal. vertical, and large-diameter jo ints shall be as stated in sections on "Applying Heat and Brazing" and "Horizontal and Vertical Joints" in file chapter on '~oining and Bending" in tbe CDA Copper T u b e Handbook .

7.* Wlfile being brazed, jo ints shall be cominuous ly purged with oil-free dry ni t rogen to preveut the formation of copper oxide on the inside surface of die joint . The flow of purge ggLs shall be main ta ined until the jo in t is cool to the touch.

Exception: A final connect ion to a U existing pipeline shall be permi t ted to be made without the use of a n i t rogen purge. A~tel final connect ion , tire affected downst ream port ions ot l h t '

pipeline shall be tested in accordance with 4-5.4.1.3 "I ,'~,A.! .?.(c) ..~v n ~ a , .*z:x witl] tile SullFCe g~ks.

8. Dur iug and after mstalhtuon, openings m the p tpmg system shall be kept capped or p lugged to avo idunnecessa ry loss ot purge gas while brazing and to prevent debris or o ther con taminan t s f rom enter ing the system; except that dur ing brazing, a discbarge open ing shall be provided on the opposite side of the jo in t f rom where the purge gas is being introduced. Dur ing brazing, the purge gas flow rate shall be main ta ined at a level that will no t p roduce a positive pressure in the piping sys tem. .Af ter brazing, the discharge open ing shall be plugged ol capped to prevent c o n t a m i n a u o n of the reside of the tube.

9. Al'ler brazing, the ou'~side of all jo ints shall be clemmd b~ washing with water aod a stainless steel wire brush to remove any residue and permi t d e a r visual inspect ion of t h e j o i n t ~Nhere flux has been permit ted, ho t water shall be used.

10. Each brazed jo in t sball be visually examined :d'ter cleaning of the outside of tbe jo in t . Tile lollowing condi t ions shall be cons idered unacceptable:

a, Flux or flux residue. b. Excessive oxidation of the jo int . c. Presence of u n m e h e d filler metal .

151

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

d. Failure of die filler metal to be clearly visible all dre way a r o u n d die jo in t at tire interface between die socket a n d tire tube.

e. Cracks in fire tube or componen t . f. Cracks in dre braze filler metal. g. Failure of die jo in t to hold dre test pressure t inder 4-5.4.1.2 4-

A i o r ~ \ . . . . . . . X ~ I .

11. Brazed joints that ,are f ound to be defective unde r 4- ~} , - / / . ~ 1 f i ~.1 . . . . xw-~ (insert correct naraL, xaoh pumber ) condi t ions a, c,

d, L or g, shall be permitted~ to fie repaired, except that no jo in t shall be repaired more than once ~,;5cc. [Insert 9%179 (Log #81 ) bu t revise as shown above (changes ,are under l ined) . ] Brazed joints d]at are f ound to be defective u n d e r A . . . . . 9 ~ ~ . ~ w :~,°qt ' '~" ( inser t correct nara~ranh n u m b e r l condi t ions b and e, shMl be replaced.

(d)* T h r e a d e d Joints. 1. Threads on pipe and fittings shall be tapered pipe threads

complying with ANSI B1.20.1, Pipe Threads , General Purpose. 2. T h r e a d e d joints in p ip ing systems shall be made up with

polytet~tf luoroethylene (such as Teflon*) tape or otlter th read sealant suitable for oxygen service. Sealants shall be applied to the male flare,ads only.

Insert as p roposed by 99-185 (Log #109) and revise as follows (changes are under l ined) :

(e) Manufac tu red E a u i n m e n t arid C o m n o n e n t Installation.

1. The installation o f individual c o m p o n e n t s shall be made in accordance widr die ins t ruct ions of die mantffacturer . Such ins t ruct ions shall inc lude di rect ions and informat ion d e e m e d by dre manu fac tu r e r to be adequa te for a t ta ining p roper installation, testing, ma in tenance , a n d opera t ion of the medical gas systems. These instruct ions sball be left wifl] die owner.

2. Tbe installation shall be m a d e by qualified, compe ten t technic ians exper i enced in making such installations.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E .~U:V. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .

(b)* Fittings shall be m a n u f a c t u r e d f rom corrosion-resis tant materials suitable for file system pressures [not to exceed 160 psig (1103 kPa) ].

(e) Connec to r s a nd j o i n t s shall be soldered with 95-5 tin an t imony, silver brazed, or dr readed NPT.

[From 4-3.1.2.3(al re fer red bv 4-3.1.2.2/a~2.1 3. General . C o m p o n e n t s in n o n f l a m m a b l e medical gas systems

shall be of materials tha t are suitable for oxygen service. Pipe ( tube), fittings, valves, a n d odrer c o m p o n e n t s shall have been drorougldy c leaned internally to remove oil, grease, and o ther readily oxidizable materials, as if for oxygen service. Such material sball be plugged, capped, or otherwise sealed until installed. Particular care shal l be taken in tbe storage and hand l ing of such material to main ta in its clean condit ion. Immedia te ly before final assembly, such material shall be visually examined internally for contaminat ion . Material tha t has become con tamina ted a n d is no longer suitable for oxygen service shall riot be installed.

(4) Pipe ( tube) , fittings, valves, :rod o ther componer i t s shall be specially c leaned for oxygen service in a facility equ ipped to clean, rinse, and purge d~e material in accor(kmce with the requ i rements of ~ . . . . . ~ ~ o,.,,..,..o~.~= (insert correct nara~ranh~, n u m b e r ) or shall be p repared in accordance with ~ . . . . . . ~ 1 -.--,-,° a t . , ( iosert correct paragraph n u m b e r ) .

2 (5?) On-site Cleaning. a. On-site c leaning of the interior surfaces of tubes, valves,

fittings, and t i l le r c o m p o n e n t s shall be l imited to rec leaning surfaces in the immedia te vicinity of the jo in ts that have become con tamina t ed pr ior to brazing.

b. Wbere on-site c leaning is permit ted , surfaces shall be c leaned by washing in a clean, bo t water /a lka l ine solution, such as sod ium carbonate or t r i sodium phospha t e (1 lb. to 3 gal of potable water). Inter ior surfaces sball be thoroughly sc rubbed and r insed widr clean, hot, potable water. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent witlr Level 3 requirements°

I COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. J 4-5.1.2.10" G,xs Piping. I Insert 4-3.1.2.2(a) as p roposed by Proposal 99-71 (Log #CP73) I f rom die Fall 1998 ROP but revise to read as follows: I (a)* Gas Piping. T h e p r o v i s i o n s of dtis section apply to field- i ins t i l led piping for the distr ibution of nonflzmmlable medical | p iped gases.

1. Tubes, valves, fittings, station oudets , ,'rod o ther piping c o m p o n e n t s in medical gas systems shall have been c leaned for oxygen service pr ior to installation.

2. Piping for nonf lamfnable medical gas systems shall be suitable for oxygen service in accordance witll n 3.1.2.3(z2) (insert the correct oara~rraoh n u m b e r ) . Each length of tube shall be pe rmanen t ly labeled and delivered plugged or capped. Fittings. ~dves, and o ther devices shall be sea led and marked. The installer shall fornish documen ta t i on certifying that all installed piping materials comply with tile requiremenes of tlris paragral>h.

4-3.1.2.3(a) shown below. 3. Piping shall be hard-drawn seamless medical g~Ls tube, i ypc

K or L (ASTM B819), and bear one of the folh)wing, nlarkittgs: ()XY, MED, OXY/MED, ACR/()XY. or ACR/MED. Mares , t .d branci tes it} piping systems sllall tie t}ot less than 3 /8 hi. ()l) ~1 Ui. nomt i ia l ) size. RUnOLILS to area ~tlarul panels shall he per in i t led to be l i 4 in. ( )D t i l l s itl. oomi i ia l ) size.

Except ion: For systems operated at pressures Iletween 7fll, Alld 300 psig ( i 380 and 9070 kPa. respectively), A,STM Blql0. Type K copper shall be used.

(a) Copper tube shall, wherever possible, be installed overhead or below floor level. Only where tile installation requires install ing in a slab, except ions below are permi t ted to apply:

(1) Annea led (soft t emper) ASTM B88 (Type K or L) copper tube that has been p repared for oxygen service according to C(;A Pamphle t (;-4.1, Cleaning Equ ipmen t for Oxygen Service, shall be permi t ted to be used up to 1 /2 in. OD (3 /8 in. nominal ) size.

(2) T h e tube shall be installed in condui t sufficiently large to accept the following gases (if used) O~, NzO, N~, MA, DA, Level 3 v a c u u F i t .

(3) T.be pipe shall be a con t inuous run f rom entry to exit or the conduiL PVC condui t shall be pernri t ted for Level 3 vacuum only.

(4) All station outlets (inlets) may be comple ted ~d~ter the slab is complete .

(5) All tests shall be comple ted per 4-5.4.1.2. 4.* Except as provided u n d e r A E.i.2.2(~.)o m:~ 9 ( insert correct

pa rag raph n u m b e r L jo in t s in copper tubes shall be brazed us ing capillary f i tdngs complying with ANSI BI 6.22, Wrough t Copper and Copper Alloy Solder-Joint Pressure Fittings, or brazing fittings complying widl MSS SP-73, Brazing Joints for Wrough t and Cast Copper Alloy Solder Jo in t Pressure Fittings. Cast fittings shall no t be used for brazed joints.

Exception: Flared connect ions shall be permit ted where exposed at station outlets and manifold connect ions .

5. Valves, fittings, and t i l te r p ip ing componer i t s shall I'w cleaned for oxygen service by the manufac tu re r in ~tCCol'dalltt- with CCA P~mtphlet (;-4.1, Cleaning Equipment for ()xygeii Service, except that fittings shall be permit ted i~, be t-lealled J~ ,I suppl ier or agency other than the lnai lu iact l l l el.

6. Piping systems shall be desiglled and sized nl deliver lilt' requi red flow rates at the utilizatiotJ pressures.

7. Piping shall be suppor ted t rom the building s t ructure m accordance with MSS Standard Practice SP-69, Piping Hangers and Suppor ts Selectiou and Application. Hangers and s u p p . r t s shall comply with MSS S tanda rdPrac t i ce SP-58, Pipe Hangers

a r i d Supports Materials, Design and Mamffacture. Hangers for copper tube sbalI have a copper finisll. In potentially rLamp locations, copper tube hangers or suppor t s shall be plastic- coated or otherwise insulated f rom the tube. Max im u m suppor t spacing shall be as follows:

1 /4 in. (.635 cm) nomina l 5 It. (1.52 m) 3 / 8 in. (.953 cm) nomina l 6 ft. (1.83 m) 1 /2 in. (1.27 cm) nomina l 6 ft. (1.83 m) 3 / 4 in. (1.91 cm) nomina l 7 ft. (2.13 m) 1 in. (2.54 cm) nomina l 8 ft. (2.44 m) 1-1/4 in. (3.175 cm) nomina l 9 ft. (2.74 m) 1-1/2 in. (3.81 cm) nomina l and larger vertical risers 10 ft. (30~

m) every floor, but not to exceed 15 ft. (4.57 m) 8. Joints in medi~-al gas tube shall be brazed except that

memory-meta l coupl ings having t empera tu re and pressure ratings not less than that of a brazed jo in t shall be permitted~ Compress ion- type connec t ions shall be prohibi ted t h ro u g h o u t the piping system, inchid ing connect ions to station outleLs, alarm devices, and odaer componen t s . Unions shall not be permit ted ill the dis t r ibut ion pipel ine system.

Exception: Th readed connect ions for air colnpressor sets alld devices such as manifolds, p r e ~ u r e regulators, reliet valves. )ressore switches, and pressure gauges.

152

NFPA 99 - - F98 ROC

9. Listed or approved metallic g,~ tube fittings dlat, when made up, provide a p e r m a n e n t j o in t having file mechanical , thermal . a n d sealing integrity of a brazed jo in t shall be permi t ted to be used in lieu of brazed joints .

10. Turns , offsets, and o ther changes in direct ion in piping shall be made with fit t ings complying with 4 ~.I.2.2(a)~. ( inser t correct naraffranh n u m b e r ) .

11. Piping shall be protected against freezing, corrosion, and physical damage . Buried p ip ing outside of buildings shall be installed below tile local level of frost penetra t ion. Buried p ip ing tha t will be subject to surface loads shall be bur ied at a sufficient dep th to protect the piping f rom excessive stresses. The m i n i m u m backfilled cover above the top of bur ied piping outside of buildings shall be 36 in. (91.4 cm), except that the m i n i m n m cover shall be permit ted to be reduced to 18 in. (45.7 cm) where physical damage to the p ip ing ts no t likely to occur. T renches shall be excavated so that the pipe has :l firm, substantially con t inuous bear ing on the bo t tom of the trench, l l n d e r g r o u n d piping shall be installed in a con t i rnmus split enclosure to protect the pipe f rom damage while backfilling. Backfill shall be clean and compac ted so as to protect m~d uni formly suppor t the piping. A cont inuous tape or marker placed immediate ly above tbe enclosnre sball clearly identify tile pipeline by specific name. In addit ion, a cont imtous warn ing means shall be provided above the pipeline at approximate ly one-half the dep th of bnry. Where u n d e r g r o u n d piping is installed th rough a wall sleeve, the ends of the sleeve s h a l l b e sealed to prevent tile en t rance of g r o u n d water.

12. Medical gas risers s b a l / b e permi t ted to be installed in pipe shafts if p ro tec ted f rom physical damage , effects of excessive beat, corrosion, or contact with oil.

13. Piping sball no t be installed in ki tchens or electrical switchgear rooms.

14. Medical gas piping shall be permi t ted to be located in the same service t rench or tnnne l with fl~el gas lines, fuel oil lines, electrical lines, s team lines, a n d similar utilities provided that the space is vent i la ted (natural ly or mechanical ly) ,and the ambien t t empera tn re a r o u n d the medical gas p ip ing is l imited to 130°F (54°C) m a x i m u m . Medical gas p ip ing shall no t be located where subject to contact with oil, inc luding f looding in the case of a major oil leak.

15. Piping exposed in corridors and o ther areas where subject to physical damage f rom the m o v e m e n t of carts, stretchers, portable equ ipmen t , or vehicles shall be suitably protected.

16. Where a system originally used or cons t rnc ted for use at one pressure and for a gas is conver ted for operat ion at ano the r pressure or for a n o t h e r gas, ,all provisions of 4-3.1.2.2(d), 4- 3.1.2.3, 4-3.4.1, and the Exception to 4-3.1.2.2(a)3 shall apply as if the system were new. Vacuum systems shall never be converted for use ,as gas systems. (All 4-3 para .~aph n u m b e r s above corrected to zl-5.)

[From 4-3.1.2.2(c) ] (c)* Brazed Joints. I. Brazed tube jo in t s sball be the socket type. Filler metals shall

b o n d with a n d be metallurgically compat ib le with the base metals be ing jo ined . Flux shall no t be used except where permi t ted u n d e r n 2.1.2. ! 3,~c) l ~ (i[lsert correct oara~ranh n u m b e r L Brazing filler metals shall comply wid-] AN~S1/AWS A5.8, Specification for Brazing Filler Metal, except that filler metals having composi t ions not con fo rming to tile exact ANSI/AWS A5.8 classifications shall be permi t ted when used according to the m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s instructions.

a. Copper- to-copper jo in t s shall be brazed us ing a copper- p h o s p h o r o u s or copper-phosphorous-s i lver brazing filler metal (BCuP series) widlout flthx.

b. Dissimilar metals, such as copper and bronze or brass, shall be brazed us ing an appropr ia te flux with a silver (BAg series) brazing filler metal.

9. Joints to be brazed in place shall be accessible for proper prepara t ion, assembly, heat ing, filler application, cooling, cleaning, and inspect ion.

3. Tube ends shall be cut square us ing a sharp tub ing cutter to avoid de fo rming the tube. T he cut t ing wheel shall be free f rom grease, oil, or o ther lubricant not suitable for oxygen service.

4. Tile surfaces to be brazed shall be mechanical ly c leaned us ing a clear} stainless steel wire brusb or equivalenL The use of steel wool shall be prohib i ted due to tile possible presence of oil.

Mechanical c leaning shall no t result in grooving of tile surfaces to be jo ined . After mecbanica l cleaning, the surfaces shall be wiped us ing a clean, lint-free white cloth. Dur ing this cleaning, care shall be taken to avoid con tamina t ion of file c leaned item for oxygen internal surfaces of the tube and components . Joints shall be rec leaned if con tamina ted prior to brazing. Joints shall be brazed within 1 lmur of being cleaned.

5~ Where dissimilar metals, such as copper and bronze or brass, are being brazed, flux shall be applied sparingly to minimize con tamina t ion of the inside of the tube with flux. The flux shall be applied and worked over the surfaces to be brazed using a stiff stainless steel bristle brush to ensure adequate coverage and wetting of the surfaces with flux. Where possible, shor t sections of copper robe shall be brazed to the noncoppe r c o m p o n e n t and the inter ior of the subassembly shall be cleaned of flux prior to installation in the piping system. Flux-coated brazing rods shall be permi t ted to be used in lieu of die application of flux to the surfaces to be j o i n e d on tube 3 /4 in. nominal size and smaller.

6. Tube ends shall be inserted fully into tile socket ot tile fining. Where flnx is permit ted, the jo in t sball be heated slowly tmfil the flnx has liquefied. Once this has occurred, or where flux is ll .f used, tbe jo in t shall be hea ted quickly to the brazitJg tempera ture taking care not to overheat the joint. T e c h m q u e s (or heati~) g tb,' jo int , applying tile brazing filler metal, and makirlg horizontal. vertical, and large-diameter jo ints shall t~e ;~s stated h~ ~e, m~tts ~lt "Applying Heat at~d Brazllig" and "'Horizomal arid Vertical [oHits'" in tile chapter ozl "Joining and Betiding" ill the (;DA ( , , / ,pet Tube Handbook .

7.* While being brazed, jo ints shall be counnuous ly purged with oil-tree dry ni t rogen to prevent the t o rma tmo of copper oxide on the inside surface of the joint . The flow ~f purge g~L~ shall be ma in ta ined mrtil tile jo in t is cool to die touch.

Exception: A final connect iou to an existing pipeline shall be )ermit ted to be made without the use of a n i t rogen purge. After

final connect ion , the affected downs t ream port ions of tile pipeline shall be tested in accordance with 4-5.4.1.3 n . . . . . . . . "~ n ~ ,~t-,~, . . . . a n ~ A ~ .~+:, with the source g,xs.

8. Dur ing and after installation, open ings in the piping system shall be kept capped or p lugged to avoid unnecessary loss of purge gas while brazing and to prevent debris or o ther con taminan t s ti 'om en te r ing tile system; except ti]at dur ing brazing, a discharge open ing shall be provided on the opposite side of d~e jo in t f rom where die purge gas is being introduced. Dur ing brazing, tile purge gas flow rate shall be main ta ined at a level that will no t p roduce a positive pressure in tile piping system. After brazing, the discbarge open ing shall be p lugged or capped to prevent con tamina t ion of the inside of the tube-

9. After brazing, the outside of all jo in ts shall be c leaned by washing with water a n d a stairdess steel wire brush to remove any residue and permi t clear visual inspect ion of tbe j o i n t VVhere flux has been permit ted, bot water sball be used.

10. Each brazed jo in t shall be visually ex:mmled ,alter cleaning of file ontside of tile joint . The following condino[ls shall be cons idered unacceptable :

a. Flux or flux residue. b. Excessive oxidation ot tile joint . c. Presence of unmel t ed filler metal. d. Failure of tile filler metal to be clearly visible all tile wa~

a round tile jo in t at tile interface betweetl tile socket alJd tile robe. e. Cracks in tile tube o r compouen t . f. Cracks in tile braze filler metal. g. F,'filure of the jo in t to bold the test pressure under 4-5.4. J.~, 4-

11. Brazed jo in ts that are found to be defective und e r 4- ~ o ~A~,~ (insert correct naraffranh n u m b e r ) condi t ions a, c,

d, f, or g, shall be permi t ted to be repaired, except that no jo in t shall be repai red more than once. Brazed joints tha t are found to be defective unde r ~ . . . . . ~ ' o,.~,.~,~,.,,r~ (insert correct .°ara~rapb_. n u m b e r ) condi t ions b and e, shall be replaced.

(el)* T h r e a d e d Joints. 1. Threads on pipe and f l tungs shall be tapered pipe threads

complying with ANSI BI.20.1, Pipe Threads, General Purpose. 2. T h r e a d e d joints in piping systems shall be made up wid/

polyte t raf luoroedwlene (such as Teflon*) tape or oilier th read sealant suitable for oxygen service. Sealants shall be applied to the male d~reads only.

Insert as proposed by 9~185 (Log #109) and revise as follows (changes are under l ined) :

(el Manufac tn red Equ ipmen t and C o m p o n e n t Installation. 1. Tbe installation of individual componen t s shall be made in

accordance with the instruct ions of the manufac turer . Such inst ruct ions shall inc lude direct ions and informat ion d e e m e d by tile manufac tu re r to be adequate for a t ta ining proper installation, testing, ma in tenance , and operat ion of die medical gas systems. These ins t ruct ions shall be left with the owner.

2. The installation sball be made by qualified, competen t technic ians exper ienced in making such installations.

(f) Prohibi ted Connect ions . No two medical g ~ pipelines shall be in te rconnec ted at any time. Tile pressure testing ol die

153

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

systems shall be accomplished by individual chmging and measurement .

(b)* Fittings shall be manufactured from metallic corrosion- resistant materials suitable for die system pressures [not to exceed 160 psig (1103 kPa)].

(c) Connectors and joints shall be brazed or threaded NPT, lFrom 4-3.1.2.3(a) referred bv 4-3.1.2.2(a)2.1 3. General. Components in nonflammable medical gas

systems shall be of materials tilat ,are suitable for oxygen service. Pipe (tube), fittings, valves, and other components shall have been dioroughly cleaned internally to remove oil, grease, and other readily oxidizable materials, as if for oxygen service. Sucb material shall be plugged, capped, or otherwise sealed until installed. Particular care shall be taken in the storage and handling of sucb material to maintain its clean condition. Immediately before final assembly, such material shall be visually examined internally for contamination. Material fltat has become contaminated and is no longer suitable for oxygen

!service shall not be installed. i (4) Pipe (tube), fittings, valves, and taller components shall be specially cleaned for oxygen service in a facility equipped to clean, rinse, and purge the material in accordance with the requirements of A ~.I.2.2(a)5 (insert correct paragraph rmmbel') or shall be prepared in accordance with n 2.1.2.~(~) (insert correct Darao'ranb numberL

2 (5?) " On-Tsite Recleaning. a. On-site cleaning of the interior surfaces of tubes, valves,

fittings, and other components shall be limited to recleaning surfaces in the immediate vicinity of the joints that have become contaminated prior to brazing.

b. Where on-site cleaning is permitted, surfaces shall be cleaned by washing in a clean, hot water/alkaline solution, such as sodium carbonate or trisodium phosphate (1 lb. to 3 gal of potable water). Interior surfaces shall be thoroughly scrubbed and rinsed with clean, hot, po tab le water. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Changes were made:

1) to retain same wording in Level 3 systems ,xs in Level 1 systems wherever possible;

2) to incorporate changes made in other comments on d imens ioning of piping sizes. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMI'Iq'EE ACTION:



9% 75 - (4-3.1.2.2(a).3 and 4-3.2.2.2(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner, Medical Contractors Assn. of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9(3-143 RECOMMENDATION: Under 4-3.1.2.2(a)3 revise text ~Ls follows:

3. Piping shall be ...... Main and branches shall be not less than 1/2 in. nominal size. Factory-installed tube on station outlets extending no fitrtber than 8 in. from the outlet body shall be oermitted to be 3 /8 in. nominal size. Connections to tzanges and alarm switches and runouts to alarm nanels shall be nermitted to be 1 /4 in. nominal size. R':~c.::'~ t~ :'.re:: alarm- p.~e!s ~!~a!! be perm.Rtcd t~. be I/A. "~. ~ .m 'na l size.

t inder 4-3.2.2.2(c) revise text as follows: (c) Minimum Sizes. Mains and branches shall be not less

fl~an 3 /4 in. nominal size. Drops to individual vacuum inlets sball be not less than 1/2 in..~.tr~ ~+:~':'~̂ . . . . . . . d,ameter) nominal s i ~ (0.500 in. min imum inside diameter) , except ~)a~ for- the tube attached immediately to the station inlet body and not extending more than 8 in. (20.3 c a ) from die station inlet shall be oermitted to be 3 /8 in. nominal size (0.400 in. min imum inside diameter). Connections to gauges and alarm switches and runouts to alarm panels shall be permitted to be 1/4 in. nominal size.

Change the metric equivalents for nominal sizes to "soft" conversions. Minimum inside diameters are hard conversions. SUBSTANTIATION: To avoid multiple exceptions and to correlate the proposal with Proposal 99-201 (Log #85) on min imum inside dianteters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise submitter 's recommendat iou to read as follows: Under 4-3.1.2.2(a) 3: 3. Piping shall be ...... Main and branches shall be not less

than 1/2 in. nominal size, Factory-installed tube on station

outlets extending no turdler than 8 in. from the outlet b-ely shall be permitted to be 3 /8 in. O.D. (1 /4 in. nommal) size. Connections to gauges ,and alarm .switches and runutlts to alarm panels shall be permitted to be 1/4 in. ().D. ( I / 8 iu. l t ,mhlal) size•

Under 4-3.2.2.2(c) revise text as follows: (c) Miniumm Sizes. Mains and branches shall be tit1 less tbalt

7 /8 in. ().D. (3 /4 in. nominal) size• Drops to individual vacuum inlets shall be not legs than 5 /8 in. ¢).D. ( I / 2 m. nominal) size (0.500 in. minimum inside diameter), except that the tube attached immediately to tile station inlet body and not extending more titan 8 in. (20.3 cm) from tile station inlet shall be permitted to be 1/2 in. O.D. (3 /8 in. nominal) size (0.400 in. minimum inside diameter). Connections to gauges and alarm switcbes and runonts to ,alarm panels shall be permitted to be 1/4 in. O.D. (1 /8 in. nominal) size. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Cbanges made in diameter sizes to be consistent with rest of chapter. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancrott


99- 76 - (4-3.1.2.2(a).3 and 4-3.2.2.2(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMrrTER: Dale Dumble ton , Piping Industry Progregs & Education COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-143 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Exception: Factory installed station outlet tubing shall be permitted to be ~,9/o ... . . . :-" ~;~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,~ 1/4 in. (10 nutO nommal size extending no farther damn 8 in. (20 c a ) from dae outlet body SUBSTANTIATION: The mstalled outlet tubing by all mfg. are 1/4 in. nominal not 3 /8 in. nominal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle

See Committee Action on Comment 99-75 (Log #34). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Similar issue to Commem q9-75 (Log #34). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2~ VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 77 - (4-3.1.2.2(a).15): Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Williams, Hill Rom/Medaes Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-t48 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend revising die proposal to read:

(Pinin~ embedded in concrete flogls ~ a n d walls sh~l] be instal ledin a continuous cond~tiL) SUBSTANTIATION: COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposal allows for embedding in either wall or floor, as necessary. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 78 - (4-3.1.2.2(b)): Reject SUBMITTE~ Thomas J. Mraulak, Metropolitan Detroit Plumbing Industry Training Ctr. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-151 RECOMMENDATION: Add #11 to 4-3.1.2.2(b) to read as follows:

11. Medical eras valves not in boxes. All sbmoff valves that a r e

not in labeled boxes such as in time main line. risers, or above susnended ceilings, shall be identified by means ot" durable rags, name olates, or labels in substa0ce aS follows:} (text to be • enclosed in a box)

C~&UTION- (NAME OF GA~S) VALVE DO NOT CLOSE EXCEPT IN EMERGEN(.N THIS VALVE CONTROLS (NAME OF GAS) TO... SUBSTANTIATION: Why is it important to bare this same statement in section on vacuum (4-3.2.2.4) but not in section on

154

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

positive gases? It should be a consistent suttement in bodl sections. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tile comment would require more wording daan considered necessary. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. In Figure 4-3.1.2, revise "Room zone waive" to "Zone valve" wherever it appears (3 places). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee does not believe new category of "room" valves is necessary. Figure 4-3.1.2 is revised to reflect dais intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: '22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETITRNED: 1 Bancroft


9% 79 - (4-3.1.2.2(b)): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Michael Frankel, American Society of Plumbing Engineers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-150 RECOMMENDATION: Add new valve category: 7. Room Valve.

Station outlets in a single room considered a critical area, vital life support, or anestl/etizing location shall be supplied directly from a t-iser widaout intervening valves except ,xs provided in 4- 3.1.2(b)(6); shall be provided with a room valve so located as to be readily accessible in an emergency. Valves shall be marked m accordance widl 4-3.5.4.2. This valve shall control the flow of medical gas to that room only. A pressure gauge shall be installed downstream of each room valve. This valve shall be readitv operable from a standing position. SUBSTANTIATION: The category of zone valve connotes a g roup of valves or a h'u-ge area with many rooms. Figure 4-3.1.2 labels proposed room valves "room zone valves" which is not defined in the standard, is ambignons, and has led to ntisinterpretation. The inclusion of a room valve will leave no doubt where dais valve is to be installed.

~,1 "~4 #2} (,,,nUnlnCt' ItF A-I'IP

99- 80 - (Table 4-3,1.2.2(d)): Rc~je,'t SUBMITTER: Richard E. Hottinan, t],,ml)re~se, I (,as &~sll COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-137 RECOMMENDATION: Replace Table 4-3. I.L).X(d) with lahlt. 6 from (MMN/CkSA - Z305.1-92 as follows (shown below). SUBSTANTIATION:" Noi'tb America should be harmonized itJ gcaS labeling and not introduce a new svsteln.

OMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 99-160 (Log #56). Committee retains labeling practices in U.S. Accepting would have created conflicts for air mad vacuum outlets. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancrolt

Table 6 g-3.1.2.2~d~ Identification Labels for Pipelines and Terminal Units

Identification and Gas background colour*

Lettering colour* Form

Oxygen White 513-201

Nitrous Oxide Blue 502-204

Hel ium Brown 504-103

Nitrogen Black 512-201

Carbon Dioxide (grey 501-208

Medical air Black 512-201 and wltite 51 3-201

Medical vacuum or Yellow 505-210 suction

Mixtures Combination of colour of each ingredient, checkered

Green 503-226 Solid

Metallic silver 515-101 Solid o r white 513-201

Metallic silver 515-101 Solid or white 513-201

Metallic silver 515-101 Solid or white 513-201

Black 512-201 Solid

White 513-201 and black 512-201 Checkeredt

Metallic silver 515-101 Solid or black 512-201

Contr,asfi ng Checkered

*The numerical designations are dlose in GGSB Standard 1-GP-12c. "l'Half-black background with wltite lettering and half-white background wldt black lettering.

155

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C


99- 81 - (Table 4-3.1.2.2(d) ): Accept SUBMITTERz Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-137

] RECOMMENDATION: Revise table as follows (shown below): SUBSTANTIATION: None given. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 82- (4-3.1.2.2(d).9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-166 RECOMMENDATION: Do not delete this word. SUBSTANTIATION: Although the submitter is correct, this section is not repeated in the vacuum section. Thtts, elimination will result in the deletion of a requirement, which was not the understood intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I nsert new 4-3.9.2.7(g) to read as follows: (g) Inlets intended for die connection of manufactured

assemblies shall D.I.S.S. connector." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Subject of inlets is covered in 4-3.2., not 4-3.10 NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETI 1RNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 83- (4-3.1.2.2(e)la & e): Hold SUBMrrTER: Richard E. Hoffman, Compressed (';~s Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-167 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Relocate flae following text from 4.3.1.').2(e) la to 4-3.1.2.2(d)9: "and shall be oermitted to consist of only a orimarv check.

omitting the secondary check reouired in'4-3.'1.2.2(ci) 1. The station outlet linlet) shall be oermanentlv attached to the oioeline."

Paragraph 4.3.1.2.2(d)9 would then read: "Outlets (inlets) intended for the connection of Mamdactured

Assemblies sbMl be DISS connectors and shall be permitted to ¢onsis~ o~ only a nrimarv check, omittm~ file secondary check required in 4-3.1.2.2(d/1. The station outlet (inlet) shall be permarlelcltlg attached to die pipeline."

The similar words need to be added t~ 4-3.1.~.2(e)1c Pa~graphs a and c would then read:

4-3.1.~.2(e) Manufactured Assemblies 1. Manufactured assemblies employing flexible hoses . i robing

shall: a. be attached to the medical gas pipelines using semi-

permanent connections to station outlets (inlets). e. be provided widl a terminal complying with 4-3.1.2.2(d) 1, 3,

4, and '7 at the point where die user makes connections and disconnection and shall be permitted to consist of only a nrimarv checl<, omitting the secondary check reauired in 4-3.1.2.9(d)1.

Gas Service

Medical Air

Carbon Dioxide

Hel ium

Nitrogen

Nitrous ()xtde

Oxygen

Oxygen /Carhon Dioxide Mixtures

Medical-Surgical Vacuum

Waste Anaesthetic (;as Disposal

Odler Mixtures

Table 4-3.1.2.2(d) Standard Designation Colors and Operating Pressures

( )2 /Cf)~n% /n is % of CO)~t

Non-Medical Air

Non-Medical Vacuum

Laboratory Air

Labora to~ Vacuum

for Medical Gas and Vacuum Systems Colors

Abbreviated Name (Background/Text )

Yellow/Black

CO~ Grey/Black or Grey/White

H e Brown/White

N 2 or HPN~ Black/White

N~( ) Blue/White

Green/White or ( )~ Whi te / ( ; reen

( . reen /Whi te

WAGD

Gas A %/Gas B %

White/Black

Standard Pressure 50 psig +5/-0

"545 kPa +35/-0

50 psig +5/-0 345 kPa +35/-0

50 psig +5/-0 345 kPa +35/-0

160 psig +25,' 4) 1,145 kpa +173/-0

50 pstg +5/a~ 345 kPa +35/-0

50 psig +5/4) 345 kPa ÷35/-0

50 psig +5/-0 345 kPa +35/-0

15" Hg to 30"Hg 380 m m H g to 760 mmHg

Violet/White

Colors as above Major gas for background/

.Minor gas for text

Yellow & White Diagonal Stripe/Black

White & Black Diagonal Stripe/Black Boxed

Yellow and White Checkerboard/Black

White mid Black Checkerboard/Black

Boxed

Varies with system type

None

None

None

None

None

156

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : There seems to he what is perhaps as~ editorial glitch in that 4-3.1.2.2(e) la. asid c., as presendy worded in the 1996 NFPA 99"edition. requires three checks in the gas delivery system used in manufactured assemblies. 1 believe this was not the intent, and most products currently on the market do not meet this requirement, for good reason. Three checks limit flow ,and cause excessivepressure drop, p e r h a p s resuhing in operational problems with medical gas devices requiring high instantaneous flows such as ventilators and demand valves.

In my opinion there are other problems with 4-3.1.2.2(e) and it should be rewritten. Unfortunately, there were no specific public comments or proposals related to this paragraph during the NFPA 99 review period. I am asking the Technical Committee to consider th i sp roposed editorial correction at their next meeting. C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Recommendat ion wonld cover new material that would not be subject to public review. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 84 - (4-3.1.2.3(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare Engr COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-175 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Reject the Accept in Part and Reject die

~ roposal. UBSTANTIATION: The membership of ASHE is perfectly

satisfied with AWS B2.2. It is accessible at most community colleges and tech schools. Brazing of copper pipe is not rocket science. As long as some sort of certification is not forced on the installer, any competent person can pass these tests. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee believes ASME test is more readily available and adequate for tile needs of the medical

~p ing field. UMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 2")

V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 85 - (4-3.1.2.3(b).2): Reject SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare Engr COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-176 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The membership of ASHE is perfectly satisfied with AWS B2.2. It is accessible at most community colleges and tech schools. Braising of copper pipe is not rocket science. As long as some sort of certification is not forced on the installer, any competent person can pass these tests. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Based on Committee Action on Comment 99-84 (Log #74), dais comment has to be rejected as well, for same reasons. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 86 - (4-3.1.2.3(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagaler, Medical Contractors Assn. of America CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-177 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text :~ follows:

The cut ends of tnbe and pipe shall be deburred with a sharp, clean deburr ing tool, taking care to prevent chips from entering the tube or pipe. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Add the missing word "care." (Editorial) COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMrVI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(L,,R #t ) l ) ( . . I n n l m e e HEA-I'IP

99- t57 - (4-3.1.2.3(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: David B. Mohile, Medical Englneerulg ~eivices, Im COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-177 RECOMMENDATIO N: 1 disagree with tile (]t)mmittee Actloll ~tl this proposal and wish to have tile added wording stricke.. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : There are entirely too many potential sources of construction contaminants that i~ave to be remove0 ~rom pipelines prior to their being turned over to the tacility tot use. Since reaming does not ,affect the flow ot gas, according to tile submitter, and since a burr left on a piece of tubing has never been associated with or the canse of bacteria contamlnati(ul, the Committee should remmn mute on the subject and allow the local plnmbing codes to dictate if reaming should be done COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee believes a ~equirement on debur r ing i s necessary. NUMBER OF CO MMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ALLEN: Mr. Mohile is correct. It is inappropriate for NFPA 99

to deal with riffs issue. It is better left to plumbing codes ~md installation practices, where the entire procedure can be fully described. The limited information dial 99 cast provide is likely to do harm as good.

~Log #152) Comnuttee: HEA-PIP

99- 88 - (4-3.1.2.3(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%177 RECOMMENDATION: Add "care" between "...taking" ,uld "to.. ' S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Word nnssing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on C .mmen t 99-86 (Log #35). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: :~ VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



89 - (4-3.1.2.3(e).2): Reject SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner, Medical Contractors Assn. of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-186 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

The installation shall be made by qualified, competent technicians experienced in making such installations. Evidence 0f such nualification shall be certification in accordance with ASSE Standard #6010 - Medical Gas Systems Installers Professional Ouallfications Standard, or the eouivalent. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The ASSE'standard was issued October 6, 1997 and expects ANSI accreditation in April, 1998. Sikandard #6010 is the part of the 6000 Series that applies to installers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee has not had ar~ opportunity to review the document referenced. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 2". ) VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: l Bancroft

(Log #53) Conmuttee: HEA-PIP

99- 90- (4-3.2.2.2): Hold SUBMITTER: S. Karl Sellers, Victaulic C, ompany of America COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-198 RECOMMENDATION: Recently we learned that our proposed revision to NFPA 99 has been rejected hy file Committee. We do

( ( not believe that the reasons put forth in the 1998 Fall Meeting Report on Proposals ,are substantiated and would like to offer the following comments for the Committee's reconside~ttion.

157

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: No. ~ - Temperature withstand: NFPA 99, Chapter 4, Section 4-3.2.2.2, states that ~,,tcmml piping may be joined by soldering, brazing, threading, flanging, or welding. Tire standard does not have a temperature requirement under the vacnum piping section, as it does under tile medical gas section. Furthermore, flanging and threading require some type of sealant such as an elastomeric gasket or thread filler.

In addition, I would like to add that. ULC (Underwriters Laboratories of Canada) conducted tests wherein Victaulic couplings were assembled on pipe and placed in a gas furnace. Each assembly was pressurized widr water to 120 psi and subjected to a temperature of 1000°F for 20 minutes. Tile assemblies were allowed to cool and examined. All were found to have no apparent leakage.

Also, in order to obtain VdS (Verband der Sachversicherer e.V.) Approval, Victaulic couplings were subjected to the following flame test. Each sample was assembled with pipe (without water) and placed into die test stand. A bending moment of 2670 ft-lbs. was applied to a 4 in. assembly. A pan containing one-half liter of methyl alcohol was placed under the coupling and then ignited and allowed to 'burn until all tile fllel was consmned. After allowing tile assembly to cool and while maintaining the applied bending moment , tile assembly was filled with water and hydrostatically tested to 145 psi for two minutes. No visnal signs of leakage was evident. Tile couplings were then dis,assembled and tile gasket examined. There was no visual evidence of degradation.

No. 2 - Distance reauired between piping: All systems require some clearance between pipes. A Victaulic coupling or a Pressfitc00joint require no more than a typical fl,'mge or tile clearance required for die welding or soldering process. Througbon t a typical healdl care facility yon will find many systems installed widl Victaulic couplings such as HVAC piping, domestic hot ,and cold water, mad fire protection for property protection and life safety purposes.

No. 3 - Breakdown characteristics of ~asket materials: material comoatibilitv of ~,,tsketinm Victatflic has many ye,'u-s of experience manufacturing gaskets and formulating the proprietary compounds that are used in the molding of our gaskets. In fact, we maintain a rubber chemist on staff whose job is to maintain and improve upon the formulation of our gaskets. We also can state with confidence that we have extensive experience with common gases such as nitrogen, oxygen, and nitrous oxide and our standard gasketing materials are fully compatible widl materials that will be found in a vacuum system.

No. 4 - Effect on vacuum flow: Again we cite tile NFPA 99 standard which allows flareading, flanging, welding, soldering, or brazing; all of which have some form of interruption in die pipe line affecting the flow. We have conducted flow tests on str~dght vPipes and on pipes that were both cut and roll grooved to accept

ictaulic couplings. Results of that testing showed drat each grooved joint in tile pipe contribnted approximately 0.5 ft of pipe friction loss.

Also I would like to point out thaL prior to the 1996 Edition, NFPA 99 allowed tile use of gasketed couplings to join piping for vacuum systems. To tile best of our knowledge these systems are operational today providing a much needed service in these facilities without a complaint or a cause for concern.

Again, ! would like to offer to come before the Committee and explain our request for allowing mechanical connections or answer any questions that tile Committee may have.

Note: Support ing material available for review at NFPA H eadq uarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee reconsidered this issue very extensively at a May 12, 1998 meeting. Committee concerns include the following:

a) Use with WAGD system; b) Installation integrity of distribution pipeline (e.g., use in

concealed location); c) Tile types of gasketing material allowed in list provided

(some elastomers raised concerns); d) Use of press fit.

N U M B E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 91 - (4-3.2.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%198 RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider action.

This proposal should be held for further study. Tile proposal appears to in fact have validity, but there are undoubted shortcomings in the submission. It would therefore be appropriate at this time to hold this proposal over until the next revision cycle as a study item so the questions can be addressed. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : There are numerous joint ing techniques like this on tile market which may offer considerable cost savings to tile contractor and facility if they could be salelv employed. The submitter is one of the bet e r known of these, ,tnd i l w,mhl be usefid to allow them to fully make their t;ase when Iht ~ committee is less time constrained ~klltl C;~LII IIIIH'e" l ] l J h t 'v; t l l lA| t" the technology. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 21 N()T RETI.IRNED: 1 Bancrott

(Log #37) Contmittee: HEA-PIP

99- 92 - (4-3.2.2.2(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner, Medical Contractors Assn. ol America COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-201 RECOMMENDATIO N: Revise text as follows:

(c) Minimum Sizes. Mains and branches shall be not less than 3 /4 in. nominal size. Drops to individual vacnum inlets shall be not less allan I / 2 in. ID ( ' ~ ' ~ c ~amc :c r ) nominal size (0.500 j~. min imum inside di,'ultctcr), except t~'~ f~e the tube attached immediately co the station inlet body and not extending more than 8 in. (20.3 cm) from the station inlet shall be pernqjtge0 to be 3 /8 in. nominal size (0.400 in. min imum inside diameterl . Connections to gauges and alarm switches and runouts to alarm

~ ariels shall bepe rmi t t ed to be 1/4 in. nominal size. U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Pipe and tube are marked and identified

by the nominal or standard size. There is no visible indication of the inside diameter (I.D.). The inside diameter of 1/2 in. nominal copper tube is 0.5")7 in. for "K" copper and 0.545 in. for "L" copper. The inside diameter of 3 /8 in. nominal copper tube is 0.40") in. for "K" copper and 0.430 in. for "L" copper. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Committee Action on Comment 99-75 (Log #34). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same i.~ue as in CoulnlenI 99-75 (Log #34). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VO TE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFF1RMATWE: ")1 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft

(Log #153) (;ommittee: HEA-PIP

9% 93 - (4-3.2.2.2(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: ~3-201 RECO MMENDATION: Accept proposal in principle, but leave dlis sentence unchanged and ins teadchange tile next sentence from "ID" to "nominal." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The ID sizes of these pipes as documented by the Copper development Association is jus t slightly smallel tban tile absolute ID. For example, a lin. nominal K tube is 0.995 in. ID, a 3 /4 in. nomin,al is 0.745 in. With tile wording in the proposal, inevitably someone will insist that file pipe be

SiZed to attain die "ID" specified, which is not the intent. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Committee Action on Comment 99-75 (Log #34). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Similar issue as in Comment 99-75 (Log #34). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: l Bancroft

158

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C


99- 94 - (4-3.2.2.7(0): "Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-209 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Reword 4-3.2.2.7 to read:

Components of the vacuum station inlet necessary to the maintenance of vacuum specificity shall be legibly marked VACUUM or SUCTION. Components not specific to Vacuum are not required to be marked. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : By eliminating the requirement for marking, an important convenience for the user is lost. Imagine having the components for several different gases laid out on a countertop and not being able to identify any of them except by trial and error. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Revise submitter 's wording to read: (f) Removable Assemblies. Components of" the vacuum station

inlet necessary to the maintenance of vacuum specificity sball be legibly marked to identifv VACIJ1JM or SIJCTION system. Components not specific to Vacuum ,are not required to be marked. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To clarify intent. N U M B E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETI 7RNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 95 - (4-3.3.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-217 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

(a) Valves. WAGD valves or dampers shall be provided where necessary for system balance or convenience of maintenance. Wilere valves are provided.. .(Rem/finder unchanged) S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This is intended to address submitteFs concern. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Revise existing subparagraph (a) as recommended to read as follows:

(a) Valves. WAGD valves or dampers shall be provided where necessary for system balance or convenience of maintenance. Where valves are provided, they shall be labeled by means of durable tags, nameplates, or labels:

CAUTION WASTE ANESTHETIC (;AS DISPOSAL VALVE

DO NOT CLOSE EXCEPT FOR SERVICE THIS VALVE CONTROLS WAGD TO ...

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #28) Committee: HE/k-PIP

99- 96 - (4-3.3.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Williams, Hill Rom/Medaes Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-218 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend not accepting tiffs

~ roposal. U B S T A N T I A T I O N : There will most likely be some confusion

,as to the source of this inlet. WAGD inlets sbouki only be required where WAGD vacuum pump systems are the source. Since NFPA allows surgical vacuum pump systems to be used with waste gas evacuation, these inlets should indic~tte their final source and not state tbat they are WAGD inlets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposed requirements are considered necessary for compliance with NIOSH. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE" 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #157) Committee" HEA-PIP

99- 97- (4-3.3.2.3): Accept SUBMrrTER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-218 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

"WAGD inlets shall be provided in all locations where mtrous oxide or halo~enated anestbetic agents are likely to be administered. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Change per Committee discu.~sion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETI~RNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 98 - (4-3.4.1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Mraulak, Metropolitan Detroit Plumbinl Industry Training Ctr. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-222 RECOMMENDATION: Do not delete: ("and any corrective actions that were performed.") S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The original author of this proposal stated that die installing contractor doesn' t have to list all mistakes that he has already corrected during construction. Perhaps a true statement; but mistakes found during testing should be listed ~nd also die corrective actions taken should be listed and reported. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: As long as mistakes are corrected. there is no need to create a report on them. NUMBER OF COMMrVrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VO TE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:


( L ~ #78) Couunittee: HEA-PIP

99- 99 - (4-3.4.1.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: I')ouglas S. Erickson, American Society lot Healdlcare Engr COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-225 RECOMMENDATION: Revise dae proposed wording as follows: "...inspection and testing sball be confined to only the specific altered zone and components in the immediate zone or area..." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This section is still being misinterpreted by contractors, testing companies, and internal personnel in health care organizations. The additional langnage will assist in addressing exactly that portion of the system which needs testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 2t NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 100 - (4-304.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrum'entauon Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-225 RECOMMENDATION: Disagree with rejection. Agree with Mr. Erickson's ,and Mr. Shoemaker 's comments. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in PMnople.

See Committee Action on ( ;omment 99-99 (Log #78). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Comnlittee has accepted Pr,q,,)s~d 99-225 (Log #280) through action on Comment 99-99 (Log #78). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


159

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C


9% 101 - (4-3.4.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esberick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-225 RECOMMENDATION: The Commi t t ee shou ld readdress this proposal and re th ink their position. Mmay enforcers are in terpret ing this to m e a n i.e., retest ing entire hospital if they change their bulk 0 2 system, This is wastefid of bo th t ime and money° Mr. Erickson spells ou t what nms t be tested. SUBSTANTIATION: Mr. Erickson, in his proposal, spells ou t what mus t be tested when a pipel ine is brea-ched. This will make everything easier for the hospital, installer, and tile cert if ier COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-99 (Log #78). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same reconunenda t ion . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 102 - (4-3.4.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%225 RECOMMENDATION: Disagree with rejection. Agree with Mr. Eriekson a n d Mr. S h o e m a k e r s comments , SUBSTANTIATION: COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-99 (Log #78). COMMITTFJ~ STATEMENT: Same r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 105- (4-3.4.1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Craig Williams, Hill R o m / M e d a e s lnc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%232

I RECOMMENDATION: R e c o m m e n d not accept ing this proposal . SUBSTANTIATION: It is too limiting. As proposed, old}, individuals who are only in the business ot certificat]tms will |w able to certify pipeline systems. This will greatly lirmt tatr compet i t ion by o ther reputable firms wire ode1 pipelilw certifications. Leave tile wording as is, or il the intern is m prevent ilospital depa r tmen t s f rom this work state it :L~ ,;uch COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACT|ON:

AFFIRMATWE: 19 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BRITTAIN: Most of the concern that was raised at tile most

recen t mee t ing of the Commi t t ee on Piping Systems w~as with a certifier having to certify the e q u i p m e n t or services he sold. A conflict of interest may be presenL in which he may certity a facility that doesn ' t mee t requi rements .

The re is ano the r concern: that ot a certifier approv ing a tacihtv on which he was a losing bidde[. Consider a certifier b idding a long with ano the r company on the same project, and tile certifier loses the bid. Later, when the certifier is to certify tile tacility, he refuses to approve the e q u i p m e n t that had been purchased f rom the other company in an a t tempt to "get even" with the winn ing bidder. This is more than jus t hypothetical . 1 have f i rs thand knowledge of dais situation.

In my opinion, a certifier shou ld remain completely i n d e p e n d e n t of the installer or supplier .

ESHERIGK: I disagree with the acceptance. Certification must be done by qualified personnel who have no vested interest in any way with the materials suppl ied or installation of the systems.


9% 103 - (4-3.4.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%225 RECOMMENDATION: The Commi t t ee shou ld readdress this proposal and re th ink thei r position. Many enforcers are in terpre t ing dfis to m e a n i.e., retest ing entire hospital if they change their bulk 0 2 system. This is wastefifl o f bo th t ime and money. Mr. Erickson spells ou t what mus t be tested. SUBSTANTIATION: Mr. Erickson, in his proposed, spells ou t what mus t be tested when a pipel ine is breached. This will make everything easier for the hospital, installer, ,and the certifier. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-99 (Log #78). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same recommenda t ion° NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMrrTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft *


99- 104- (4-3.4.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner , Medical Contractors Assno of Amer ica COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%227 RECOMMENDATION: In the last line of the r ecommenda t ion , char~ge " s t a n d a r d p r e s s n r e test" to "s tanding pressure test." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITFEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 106- (4-3.4.1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: j . Richard Wagner , Medical Contractors Ass, . of Amer ica COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-23"9 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

This testing shall be pe r fo rmed by a party technically ~+Ol+l]petellt and exper ienced in tile field of medical gas and vacuu m pipeline testing. Such testing shall be per formed by a party o ther than tile installing contractor who s h a l / b e i n d e p e n d e n t of the equ ipmen t supplier, installer, or manufac ture r . Evidence 9f technical comne t ence and exoer ience shall be certification in accordance with ASSE Standard #6030 - Medical Gas Systenas Verifiers Professional Oualifications Standard. or the eouivalenc SUBSTANTLi, TION: To establish m i n i m u m qualification s tandards for verifiers in addi t ion to i ndependence f rom suppliers, installers, and manufac ture rs . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Subject of ASSE d o c u m e n t is addressed in C o m m t t e e Action on C o m m e n t 99-89 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 92 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETURNED: l Bancroft


99- 107- (4-3.4.1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner . Medical Contractors Assn. of Amer ica COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%233 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

This testing shall be pe r fo rmed by a party technic~dly competen t and exper ienced in the field of medical gas 4nd vacuum pipeline testing.. Such testing shall be per formed by it party o ther th:uj tile installing contractor who s h a l l b e i ndependen t of thc ec u ipmenl supplier, installer, or manufac t lne r . E v d e n c c ol wclmicai

160

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

comnetence and exnerience shall be certification j~q ac~:orda0¢e with ASSE Standard #6030 - Medical Gas Systems Verifiers Professional Oualifications Standard. or the eouivalent. W~le~ systems have been installed bv in-honse nersonnel, verification shall be oermitted to be oerformed bv nersons of dlat organization who meet tlle renuirements of 4-3.4.1.3. SIJBSTANT1ATION: Section 4-3.4.1 is referenced in Proposal 99-233 (Log #271), bnt it covers testing in general and includes installer performance testing and system verification. Where work is performed by in-house personnel, dley should be qu[dified under the requirements for both installers and verifiers, Proposal 9%233 (Log #27) is under 4-3.4.1.3, which covers verifiers only, Reference to ASSE Standard #6030 establishes minimum

talification criteria for all verifiers. MMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Subject of ASSE document is addressed in Commttee Action on Comment 9%89 (Log #36). N U M B E R OF C O M M I T r E E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON .COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 Nt)T RETIIRNED: I Battcrott


9% 1(}8 - (4-3.4.1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Mraulak, Metropolitan Detroit Phtmbing Industry Training Ctr. C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%233 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete new paragraph that was added ,after the second paragraph:

"..titan die installing contractor. ~.~.2~cr. z)'~:c:z':, l~a;'e bec:~

. . . . . . . . . . . I ~ ¢ * l . . . . . . . . . . 1 ~ . . * ~ . . . . . . 1 . 1 . 1 . . . . * t l . . . . . . . l . . . . . * . ~ " A

mAI,,

SUBSTANTIATION: The oril~nal attthor of tbis proposal states that "many health care organizatiom have highly trmned and experienced st,~uff to. perform...". What about the facility tllat doesn' t have these people? Also, who is to say dtat alley are or aren' t qnalified? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: As noted in submitter 's substantiation, many facilities have trained personnel. It is the responsibility of the facility to make a determination ,as to whether

rsonnel are sufticienfly trained. MBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22

V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETIIRNED: I Bancroft


9% 109 - (4-3.4.1.3): Accept SUBMrVrER: rlouglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healdlcare Engr C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%233

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "...of flint organization ;':!:.:c!z wh9 meet the..."

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Grammatical correction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. N U M B E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


where the use of nitrogen is intpractical, tbe source gas shall be permitted to be used for the tests listed in 4-3.4.1.3(a) 1, (c) 1, (d)2, and paragraph 2 of (e). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are occasions where the use of nitrogen for testing is impractical. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT O N AFFIRMATIVE: ESHERICK: I agree with die Committee's Action but leeJ tllat it

has not gone far enough, If' you can do all the cross connection, flow, purging, :utd other

required tests for a small system with system gas. why cannot it large system also he done widl system gas, thus savtng the cnstomer the cost of an extra testing trip? It w;,Ls done this way h~r years with no known accidents, and thus no endangertt~g . l the patients!

(l .-g # I o'2,) • ( ; -mmlftet ~ HEA-f'II'

9% I l l - (4-3 .4 .1 .3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient lnstruntentatiol~ ( . . rp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%231 RECOMMENDATION: Committee should retllink iLs posifiot~ and see die common sense approach of Mr. Esherick to this

~ roblem. U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This test with N2 is going overboard. We

need to get rid of tiffs extra testing lot the welfare of the hospital and more timely construction schedules. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Committee Action on Comment 99-I 10 (Log #87). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same issue ,as in Comment 99.110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2~ VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


• COMMENT O N AFFIRMATIVE: ESHERICK: See my Comments on Affirmative Ballot on

Comment 9%110 (Log #87).

(Log #120) Committee: HEA-P1P

9% 112-(4-3.4.1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esilerick, Patient Instrtnnentati,~H ('orp, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%231 RECOMMENDATION: l do not agree that existing test ga.s requirements are adequate. They can he used but WHY unakc Ille hospital pay twice? S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Tile h,slfital does I l l l l , < t r r v t w i t i i i s i n , L i l t e

policies for tile same stibject. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept iti Pritnziple COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same i,~sue as in Conunent m~-I I0 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT O N AFFIRMATIVE: ESHERICK: See my Comments on Affirmative Ballot on

Comment 9%110 (Log #87).


9% 110- (4-3o4.1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%231 RECOMMENDATION: ! do not agree that existing test gas requirements are adequate. They can be used, but WHY make tile hospital pay twice? S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The hospital does not carry two insurance policies for file same subject. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Insert before 4-3.4.1.3(a) tile following Exception: 'q~xception: Where permitted by the aufllority having

jurisdiction, for small projects ,affecting a limited number of areas


9% 113 - (4-3.4.1.3(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Williams, Hill Rom/Medaes Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%234 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend reconsidering this

~ roposal. U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This test is worded identical with the

Operational Pressure Test except for the added sentence under (general) dlat states that the Outlet Flow Test nmst be done with oil-free nitrogen. The Operational Pressure Test will provide the correct operational flow and pressure and provide tile outlets a recorded base to be compared with in future pipeline performance testing.

161

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee still agrees widt reason given in response to Proposal 99-234 (Log#192c). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 29 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



9% 114- (4-3.4.1.3(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corpo COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%234 RECOMMENDATION: Do not agree with rejection. SUBSTANTIATION: Document says: "(c)l . General These flow tests shall be performed at file station outlet (inlet) or terminal where the user makes connections and disconnections."

This is not the end of tile hard pipe. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No recommendat ion provided. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETI3RNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: ! disagree with tile rejection. The existing doealment says: "(c) General. These flow tests

shall be performed at tile station outlet (inlet) of terminal where the user makes connections and disconnections."

Tile Committee Statement says: "Tests are conducted at the end of the hard pipe." The two tests are redundant.

Recommend that submitter 's original Proposal 99-234 (Log #192c) be accepted.


9% 115- (4-3.4.1.3(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentat ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-234 RECOMMENDATION: Do not agree with rejection. SUBSTANTIATION: Docnmentsays: "(c)l . General. These flow tests shall be performed at fire station outlet (inlet) or terminal where file user makes connections and disconnections.

This is not the end of the hard pipe. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No recommendat ion provided. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: I disagree witi1 the rejection. See my Explanation

of Negative Vote on Comment 99-114 (Log #88).


99- 116- (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Craig Williams, Hill Rom/Medaes Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%236 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend reconsidering this

g roposal. UBSTANTIATION: The present miniriium 25 percent of zones

provides adequate sampling of very small particulates. The wording should state that if .any of the zones fail, then all zones will be tested at the most remote outlet. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Committee Action on Comment 99-117 (Log #41). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee Action on Comment 9%117 (Log #41) reconsidered action on Proposal 99-236 (Log #35). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT'RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

(Log #41 ) Committee: HEA-PIP

99- 117- (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner, Medical Contractors Assn, of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%236 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

For each positive-pressure gas system, _tlLq cleanliness of piping system shall be verified. A min imum of 35 cu ft (1000 L) of gas shall be filtered dlrough a clean, white 0.45-micron filter at a min imum flow rate of 3.5 SCFM (100 L p m ) . . ~ ! t c r ~hr.2] ::zzruc r~ mcrc d~an 0.I r:.=g of m~.ttcr. Twenty-five percent of the zones shaU be tested at tile oudet most remote from the source. The filter shall accrue no more than 0.1 m~ of matter from any outlet. If .any outlet fails this test. the most remote outlet in every zone shall be tested. The test shall be performed with file use of oil- free, dry nitrogen. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment is offered ~ a compromise between those who feel that testing 25 percent of the zones is adequate and those who feel dlat 100 percent of the zones should be tested. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Primziple COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commiuee Actm. on CommerLt 9%118 (Log #42). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETI_IRNED: 1 Bancrott

( L-g #42) (.~omnu ltee. HEA-PIP

99- 118 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept SUBMITTER: j. Richard Wagner, Medical (;ontraetors A~ss.. of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%237 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text its follows:

For each positive-pressnre gas system, ~ cleanline,~ oI piping system shall be verified. A minimum of 35 c u f t (1000 L) of gas shall he filtered through a clean, white 0.45-micron filter a~

~ ' l ) I I a min imum flow rate of 3.5 SCFM (I00 L p m ) . . ",tcr ~.~=.. =czr'.:c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~, . . . . . . . . . . . Twenty-five percent of tile zones shall be tested at the outlet most remote from tile source. filter shall accrue no more than 0.1 m~ of matter from any outlet. If any oudet fP, ils tiffs test. tile most remote outlet in every zone shall be tested. The test shall be performed with tile use of oil- free, dry nitrogen. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment is offered as a compromise between those who feel that testing 25 percent of the zones is adequate and those who feel that 100 percent of the zones should be tested. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2~ VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 20 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: This series deals with what is sufficient testing, and ~ll~'

result is to require 95 percent. Based on the very limited availabh. dam 25 percent is not demonstrably better than 10 percent, and 1 believe tile entire issue needs to be more completely studied and a more statistically valid way of achieving file desired resuh needs to be devised.

(Log #62) Committee: HEA-P1P

9% 119- (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Reject SUBMI'I 'rER: David B. Mohile, Medical Engineering Services, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-236 RECOMMENDATION: Delete tlte new particulate requirement and change to: "... 10 percent of the zones..." SUBSTANTIATION: This comment adds a zone by zone particulate purge test into a weighed filter. This is an expensive test to perform. The audlor indicates tilat large facilities are usually built on a zone by zone basis. However, when tile facility is completed and final testing and verification is performed, it is on file entire system. Not only do "we have a requirement for the installer to blow down tile system twice under 4-3.4.1.2(a) and

162

N F P A 9 9 1 F 9 8 R O C

4-3.4.1.2(d), bu t we also manda t e that the system verifier blow down dre system u n d e r 4-3.4.1.3(e). Why is it necessary to even test the 25 percen t that is current ly called for? If s o m e o n e is going to cu t corners or cheat, d lere is ample oppor tuni ty to do so built into dte cur ren t code language. The key to not having any prob lems is to follow dte r equ i rements of 4-3.4.1.3, paragraph 2, which states: "This test ing shall be conduc ted by a party technically compe t e n t ,and exper ienced in file field of medical gas pipel ine testing..." Why add addit ional cost to an ,already expensive g roup of tests? If particulate is no ted after the system has been verified, t hen anod le r company shou ld be hi red and the first company no t paid. If a company is going to leave particulate in die pipeline, d ten d]ey are likely to modify the weighed analysis

~ ortion of the purge. OMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-118 (Log #42).

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commi t t ee believes it is no t adequa te to test 10 percen t of a small zone. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ALLEN: This series deals with what is svf f ioeu t testing, and tile

result is to require 25 percent . Based on tile very limited available data 25 percent is not dentonstrably better fllan 10 percent , an'd I believe the ent ire issue needs to be more completely s tudied and a more statistic~ally valid way of achieving tl~e desired result needs m be devised.


99- 120 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S~ Erickson, American Society for Heal thcare Engr COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%230, 9%237 RECOMMENDATION: Reject dtis proposal. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : As stated in my negative ballot, there has been no new sttbstantiation presen ted to require each zone to be tested. By conduc t ing a sampling, it provides the tester with e n o u g h informat ion to de t e rmine if addit ional tests need to be accompl ished. The only th ing a 100 percen t test does is increase the profitability of pe r fo rming testing. Until da ta is p roduced showing tire need to elevate tltis section of the s tandard, ASHE nleinbers see no reason to increase the requi rement . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 99-118 (Log #42). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by Commi t tee Action on C o m m e n t 99-110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 20 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanat ion of Abstent ion on C o m m e n t 9%118

(Log #42).

(Log #104) Commit tee: HEA-PIP

99- 121 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-236 RECOMMENDATION: The Commi t tee should redrink its posit ion of accept ing dfis proposal. Messx's. Erickson, Esherick, Mohile, mid Wagner all give very good reasons for the Commit tee to vote to reject. SUBSTANTIATION: I agree widl the s ta tements of the negative voters on dris proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: AccelSt in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by Commi t tee Action on C o m m e n t 99-110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanat ion of Abstent ion on C o m m e n t 9%118

(Log #42).


9% 122 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%237 RECOMMENDATION: See my response to C o m m e n t 99-121. (Log #104). SUBSTANTIATION: See my response to C o m m e n t 99-121 (Log #104). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by Commi t tee Action on C o m m e n t 9%110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 20 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroit

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanatiorl oI Ahstentnon on ( : o m m e m qq-I I~

(Log #42).

~ , , m m m e , . HEA-PII' 9% 123- (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient lnstrumentatlotJ (.orp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-238 RECOMMENDATION: See my response to Colnllle[l~ !J9-l~] (Log #104). SUBSTANTIATION: See mv response to ( ]omment 99-121 (Lop~ #104). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 'issue is addressed by Commit tee

( Action on C o m m e n t 99-110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO vOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 20 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanat ion of Abstent ion on C o m m e n t 99-118

(Log #42).


9% 124 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%239 RECOMMENDATION: See my response to C o m m e n t 99-121 (Log #104).

.L)-I_l ( SUBSTANTIATION: See my respotJse to Comnlett~ ' t ,J Log #104). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in t 'rinciple COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by (;,winlllnee

t ~ Action on C o m m e n t 9~110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: '22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanat ion of Abstenttott on Conmlen t 09-118

(Log #42).

(Log#121) Commit tee : HEA-PIP

9% 125 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: [)avid Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%236 RECOMMENDATION: The Commi t tee should red]ink its posit ion of accept ing dlis proposal. Messrs. Erickson, Esherick, Mohile, and Wagner all give very good reasons for the Commit tee to vote to reject. SUBSTANTIATION: I agree widl tile s ta tements of tile negative voters on dtis proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept ill P r inop le

163

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by Committee Action on Comment 9%110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE" 20 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanation of Abstention on Comment 99-1 llq

(Log #42)

(Log #122) C;ommittee: HE/k-PIP

9% 126 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-237 RECOMMENDATION: See my response on Comment 99-125 (Log #121). SUBSTANTIATION: See my response on Couxment 99-125 (Log #121). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by Committee Action on Comment 9%110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanation of Abstention on Comment 99-118

(Log #42).


9% 127- (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esberick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%238 RECOMMENDATION: See my response on Comment 9%125 ~Log #121). SUBSTANTIATION: See my response on Comnlent 99-125 (Log #121). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle° COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by Committee Action on Comment 99-110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanation of Abstention on Comment 9%118

(Log #42).


9% 128 - (4-3.4.1.3(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentat ion Corp, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-239 RECOMMENDATION: See my response on Comment 9%125 (Log #121). SUBSTANTIATION: See my response on Comment 9%125 (Log #121). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Issue is addressed by Committee

t Action on Comment 9%110 (Log #87). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBE, RS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: ALLEN: See my Explanation of Abstention on Comment 9%118

(Log #42).

(Log #()3) £,omuuttee HEA-PIP

9% 120- (4-3.4.1.3(0): Accept SUBMITTER: David B. Mobile, Medical Engineering Services, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-941 RECOMMENDATION: I support the (;,)mmittee's ,Iccish,tl *,, reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The audio[ ulakes various ~LSstlnlp|ltlll.% that are not supported. The problem is again tile stgnificantl~ added cost to the end user that must be passed along if this proposal were accepted. Speaking for myself as a verificatmu company we have seen no problems widt dtis test in tile last 5 ot more years since a new standard for copper tubing lot medical gas systems was instituted and adopted by the NFPA. The ollly people that will profit f rom this change are those that work tot laboratories t ha tpe r fo rm dlis type of testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: STEVENSON: I know that tile Committee has wrestled with

providing the best guidance on the minimum number of outlets to test for both sections: 4-3.4.1.3(e), Piping Purge Test, 4- 3.4.1.3(0, Piping Purity Test.

Based on an analysis of over 600 gas and particulate laboratory quality analysis at approximately 135 facilities, we have found tlJe particulate failures occur at a rate of about 5 percent of samples taken, and purity contaminant faihlres occur at a rate ol ,tbout 2 percent of samples taken.

The question we ~L~ a Committee have always wrestled with w~L~ how many samples do we need to collect in order to confidently say we have tested enough to find those worse outlets that should, in fact, fail an installation. ()r. conversely, have we taken enough to confidently say die installation should puss? • In order to apply some measure of performance ~t~ well :LS professional judgment of the tester, either a sLatisticM test tn ,t samplinl~ of outlets are needed, :L~ is tile c;~e for the C~utmiftt'e'~ accepteO acuon on 4-3.4.1.3(e).

As a Coolmittee, I believe statistical tests will luster both professional judgment and statistical walidity t . asstn'e testers h:o,'t' taken enough samples to be confident they have tested a~ t~;tst one outlet that wil /be m the highest results.

( Log #89) Committee: HEA-PIP

99- 130- (4-3.4.1.3(f)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%941 RECOMMENDATION: I do not agree widl rejection. Tile substantiation is very good. The Committee never discussed "intent of tile test" - this was railroaded through in 'q'esting" for tile 1993 standard. SUBSTANTIATION: It is inconceivable to me that we accepted someone 's testing spec. for 1993 because we needed a test spec. widlout fully discussing it widl file proviso: "We can always change it." Now we do not want to change it? COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee believes tile mnnber oi tests in existing test is adequate, and no increase is collsidered necessary. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2~ VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NEGATIVE: '2. NOT RETURNED: I Bancrott

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: I disagree with rejection. As previously statect, we put in someone else's testing spin s , we

could have one with the proviso that it could be changed. We have not been able to change it - WE ARE STI.ICK IN A RI rT~ Let's go wid/ die original proposal.

STEVENSON: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 9%129 (Log #63).

164

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C

( Log #x00) Commit tee : HEA-PIP

99- 131 - (4-3.4.1.3(f)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Esherick, Patient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%242 RECOMMENDATION: See c o m m e n t s on Proposal 99-231 (Log #225), which apply. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : See colnntents on Proposal 99-231 (Log #225). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Would make tests ha rder to

rform titan needed . MBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: See my Explanat ion of Negative Vote on C o m n t e m

99-130 (Log #89).


99- 132- (4-3.4.1.3(0): Reject SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-241 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : I do no t agree with rejection. The substant ia t ion is very good. Tile Commi t t ee never discussed "intent of the test." This was rai l roaded th rough in "Testing" for die 1993 s tandard. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : It is inconceivable to me tha t we accepted someone ' s test ing spec. for 1993 because we needed a test spec. wi thout fully discussing it widl tile proviso: "We can always change it." Now we do not want to change it? COMMrFrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Same r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as C o m m e n t 99-130 (Log #89) , and is rejected for same reason. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NEGATIVE: 2 N O T RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: See my Explanat ion of Negative Vote on C o m m e n t

99-130 (Log 6'89). STEVENSON: See my Explanat ion of Negative Vote on

C o m m e n t 99129 (Log #63).


99- 133 - (4-3.4.1.3(0): Reject SUBMITTER: David Esherick, Pat ient Ins t rumenta t ion Corp. C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-242 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : See c o m m e n t s on Proposal 99231 (Log #225), which apply. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : See c o m m e n t s on Proposal 99-231 (Log #225). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Would make tests ha rder to

rform than needed . MBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ESHERICK: See my Explanat ion of Negative Vote on Gonuneu t

99-130 (Log #89).

(Log #77) 9% 134- (4-3.4.2.2($:)): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, Amer ican Society for Healdlcare Engr COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-258, 99259

[ RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposals.

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Vacuum lines are typic,ally tested with ni t rogen ,tt tile salne tinle ,ts the positive pressure linen "1. remove this and make a s ta tement that these lines h,tvtT, to lm tested unde r a vacuunl will be contusing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: "2"2 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 1 BatJcrott

(Log #~, ( . . m m m e e . HEA-PIP

99- 135- (4-3.5.5): Accept SUBMITTER: F. David Wynck, Sr., lnt'l Analgesia Socmtv COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9971 RECOMMENDATION: Insert 4-3.5.5 its proposed by 99-71 i Log #CP78) bu t revise as follows:

4-5.5.5 Policies for gas system m m s p o r t ~ t d delivery (Level 3). a':a!! camp!y wP, h 4 3.5.5 ( insert new p a r a ~ a p h nu m b er ) .

Ca= STatcm Tranap',;r= and Dcll;'cr 7 Level I. ~.~.5.! ( insert new Dara~r, m h n u m b e r ) . Personnel conce rned

witii use and t ranspor t of e q u i p m e n t shall be t ra ined in proper hand l ing of cylinders, containers , h a n d trucks, supports , and va lvepro tec t ion caps.

*- ~.-=.~.2" ( insert new paragraph numbgr ) , Large cylinders (exceeding size E) and conta iners larger t han 100 lb. (45.4 kg) weight shall be t ranspor ted on a proper hartd truck or cart complying wifll 8-5.2. SUBSTANTIATION: To be consistent with Level :4 requi rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log ~¢1J5 ~ Commit tee : HEA-PI['

9% 136 - (4-5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. Richard Wagner , Mechanical Contractors Assn. of Amer ica CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%262 ti lrough 99-269 RECOMMENDATION: Add die following text:

Where Level 3 p iped systems are instal led in o ther than medical and dental offices u n d e r Chapter 15. the following shall appl~

a. Local, master , ,and area a larms shall be provided m accordance widl 4-3.1.2.1 for Level 1.

b. Gas shu tof f valves shall be provided in accordance with 4-3.1.2.2(b) for Level 1.

c. G ~ pip ing shall be hard-drawn seamless medical gas tube wifll brazed jo in ts in accordance with 4-3.1.2.2(a) for Level 1. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide a h igher level of requ i rements for Level 3 medical gas a n d vacuum systems when installed in nurs ing homes , l imited care facilities, and od]er heal th care facilities. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 9%1 (Log#GC1) includes tire r e commenda t i ons a, b, and c. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 2"-) VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(L,)g #14) ( ;onunit tee: H EA-PII'

99- 137- (4-5.1.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., lnt'l Analgesia ,Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9971

I RECOMMENDATION: Insert 4-3.1.1.2(a)1 th rough 11 [except 4-3.1.1.2(a) l l c ] and 4-3.1.1.2(c) as proposed by 9971 (Log #CP73) but revise ,as follows (changes are under l ined) .

4-5.1.1.2 Storage Reuu i r emen t s (Location. Const ruct ion. Ar rangement ) . " "

Enclosures for supply systems shall be provided with doors or gates. If tile enclosure is outside : rod /or remote from tile single t r ea tment facility, it shall be kept locked. If tile storage area is

165

N F P A 99 - - F 9 8 R O C

within tbe single treatment facility (i.e., is not remote), it shall be ~ermitted to be locked.

(a)* Nonflmnmable Gases (A==).~,~u_r:d W 3000 cu, ft. or less: It]- Storage, Connected, or both).

[ Insert 4-3.1.1.2(c) here] (c) Ac!~Wanal Storage Requirements for Nonflammable Gases

Less dmn 3000 cu ft. (85 m3) . Doors to such locations shall be )rowded with Iouvered openings having a minintum of 72 sq. in. (0.05 sq. m) in total free area. Where die location of the sl]pply system door opens onto an exit access corridor, Iouvered openings shall not be used, m~d fl=c rcqu~re.men:~ of ~ ~.l-:44ktb-~ ,t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . (insert) and a dedicated med~anical ventilation system or by natural ventint{ of a minimuo] of 7~ sq. in. shall be used. {Insert is from 99-71 (Log #10).]

(a) l Sources of heat in storage locations shall be protected or located so that cylinders or compressed gases shall not be heated to tbe activation point of integral safety devices. In no case shall tile temperature of the cylinders exceed 130°F (54°C), Care shall be exercised when bandling cylinders that bare been exposed to freezing temperatures or containers that contain cryogenic liquids to prevent injury to the skin.

(a)2 Enclosures shall be provided for supply systems, cylinder storage or manifold locations for oxidizingagents such ,as oxygen and nitrous oxide. Such enclosures shall b e constructed of an ,assembly of building materials with a fire-resistive ~tting of at least 1 hour and shall not communicate directly with anesthetizing locations. Other nonflammable (inert) medical gases may be stored in due enclosure. Flammable gases shall not be stored with oxidizing agents. Storage of full or empty cylinders is )ermitted. Such enclosures shall serve no other pnrpose,

. . . . . a~ ar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (covered by 99- Log 73 and Log 203)

(a)4 The electric installation in storage locations or manifold enclosures for nonflammable medical gases shall comply with the standards of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, for oi-dinary locations. Electric wall fixtures, switches, and receptacles shall be installed in fixed locations not less titan 152 cm (5 ft.) above the floor as a precaution against their physical damage.

(a)5 Storage locations for oxygen and nitrous oxide shall be kept free of flammable materials [see also : ~.1.I.2(a)7 4- 5.1.1.2(a)71.

(a)6 Cylinders containing compressed gases and containers for volatile liquids shall be kept away from radiators, steam piping, and like sources of heat.

(a)7 Combustible materials, such as as paper, c,'u'dbo:trd, )lastics, and fabrics shall not be stored or kept near supply system

cylinders or manifolds containing oxygen or nitrous oxide. Racks for cylinder storage shall be permitted to be of wooden construction. Wrappers sha l lbe removed prior to sto~tge.

Exception: Shipping crates or storage cartons for cylinders. (a)8 When cylinder valve protection caps are supplied, they

shall be secured tigbtly in place nnless the cylinder is connected for use.

(a)9 Containers shall not be stored in a tightly closed space soch as a closet [see g-2.1.2.3(c)].

(a) l0 Location of Supply Systems.

. . . . . . 4 ~ . . I . . C ~ . + l . : . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . A ~ . J . .

fer t ! : - : p::r~eze :!v:~tee :v!'J.:'r: a t-::Hding :::ed for otlzer

b. Storage facilities that are outside, but adjacent to a building wall. shall be located such dmt the distance to any window of due adjacent building is greater than 25 ft. (7.6 m).

c Locations for supply systems sball not be used for storage porposes otlmr than for containers of nonflammable gases. ' Storage of thll or empty containers shall be permitted. Other nonflammable medical gas supply systems or storage Locations sball be permitted to be in the same location with oxygen or nitrous oxide or both. However, care shall be taken to provide adequate ventilation to dissipate such other gases in order to prevent the development of oxygen-deficient atmospheres in due event of fimctioning of cylinder or m,'mifold pressure-relief devices.

d. Air compressors and ~tcuurn pumps shall be located separately from cylinder patient gas systems or cylinder storage

~ enclosures. Air compressors shall be installed in a designated mecbanical equipment area, adequately ventilated and with required services.

(a) l I. Construction attd Arrangement of Supply System Loca'tions.

. . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . ~ , re.ol. ' de.art, "z:teri.~:" ......... ~'-:~", d;c!-'c.~,

~.LI.2~=)I0.". zl~.".!! ~-c ¢-¢n~tr',:ctcd "~f z.~r.co:nE'.:~.t';t.;k: or li:;::.t~:~[ com~uatible m=cr , al:.

b. Locations for supply systems for oxygeu, i]in'ous oxide, m mixtures of tiaese gases shall not communicate with anestbedzing locations or storage locations for flammable anesthetizin R ;tReuis.

g~:e~ tl;at ca:: hc !ackcd, . : j 4 " ~ . . | : . . . . . . | . . . . . : ~ . . i . . . . . I I ,~ . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::[:all l~

i::~'.=:][e.'! i:: fixed [~c::t:e.~:= ::~t ]e':=. t!:zu: 5 ft. (!.~ a') =!;:}~: the t]t:=r :z: avo~! ~i. ,-: .-i A ........... [covered r)v (a)4 al),)ve ~

e. W'hele enclosures (interior or exterior) fol supply svsrtqu., a r e l o c a t e t - t ( l e a r S O U r c e s (if ileat, s t l c b ,Is f t t r t l , t r e s , i l lCi l l t ' l ;Ll(J lY,

or boiler roolns, they shall I)e ot cotlstructll)t) t ha i Jlll)lt~rlr cylinders.from reaching temperatures exceediog I:~,0"F (54"(,) ( )pen electrical conductors and transformers shall trot be located in close proximity to enclosures. Such enclosures sbaJI trot be located adjacent to storage tanks for flarmoabl¢ ,)r ( omtmstible liquids.

f. Smoking sball be prohibited it] supply system enclosures. g. Heating shall be by steam, hot water, or other indirec~

means. Cylinder temperatures shall not exceed 130°F (54%;). SUBSTANTIATION: To be consistent widt Level 3 requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #04) Committee: HEA-PI P

99- 138- (4-5.1.2.10): Reject SUBMITrERa David B. Mohile, Medical Engineering Services. Im COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-266 RECOMMENDATION: The Committee Action on this proposal should be reversed. SUBSTANTIATION: We repeat our earlier comment: We maintain our position that dental-type facilities should use ~.oppe, tubing dlat has been cleaned for oxygen service for all oxygen and nitrous oxide piping. Since due section of tbe standard referenced (4-5.1.2.10) permits annealed (soft) tubing if it is cleaned for oxygen service, and since no factory provides soft tubing cleaned for oxygen service, contractors typically pur,'h~us,- refrigeration tubing and use that. We do u,,t permit dtis m hospital work; why do we permit it in oxygen service ol ,t d('tllisl office?

Also, since this type of tubing is curremly permitted m Imult'd care facilities which may house ventilator patiet]ts whose lives ,u c directly dependent upon tile quality of the oxygeH and air system., installed, why are we permitting tubing and fittings which would never be permitted in hospitals? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: At this time, requirement is considered adequate for purpose intended. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS EUGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: l Bancroft

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MOHILE: As we have previously stated, due Committee Action

on this proposal should be reversed. We repeat our earlier comment: We maintain our position that

dental-type facilities sbould use copper tubing that has been cleaned for oxygen service for all oxygen and nitrous oxide piping. Since the section of the standard referenced (4-5.1.2.10) permits ,annealed (soft) tubing if it is cleaned for oxygen service, and since no factory provides soft tubing cleaned for oxygen service, contractors typically purchase refrigeration tubing and use ti]at. We do not permit this in hospitalwork: wbv do we permit it in oxygen service in a dentist office?

Also, since this type of tubing is currently permitted in liuuted care facilities which may house ventilator patients whose lives are directly dependent upon the quality of the oxygen and air systems installed, wily are we permitting tubing and fittings whiclt wouhl never be permitted in hospitals?

166

N F P A 9 9 ~ F 9 8 R O C


99- 139- (4-5.1.2.11): Accept SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, St., Int'l Analgesia Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%71 RECOMMENDATION: Insert 4-3.1.2.2(b)4 as proposed by 99-71 (Log #CP73) but revised as follows (changes are under l ined) :

4-5.1.2.11 Gas Shutof f Valves. ,1 T I . . . . . . . . - : ~ : . . . . . g , I ~ 1 q t : ) / l . ~ 4 . I , - - I I . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . ; ~ . * - - I 1 - - * : - - . .

:;'~.t!: ~eere off "2:'c :.~.~':~. ~.!::'c. (b l4 Eacb riser suool ied from the mare line shall be nrovided

with a shutof f valve adjacent to the riser connect ion . Riser wdves shall remain accessible and shall no t be obstructed. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent with Level requ i rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. N U M B E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


{Log #18) ~,Ommltlee" HEA-f'I P

9% 140- (4-5.1.2.12): Accept SUBMITTER: F. [)avid Wvrick, St.. lnt'l /Mmlgesla ,'~.t mt~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Insert 4-3.1.2.2(d) as proposed by Proposals 9%71 (Log #CP73) 99-137 (Log #CP22), and 9%168 (Log #205) from the Fall 1098 ROP, but revise as follows:

4-5.1.2.12 G:rs Station f)utleLs. (See Appendix (~4.2.) ~. .~ , r ' l . . . . . . . . . . : ~ . . . . . c ,~ ~ I 2 ~ I . . H - r t ~ ' r "

(b)* Station outlets shall be located at an appropria te height above d~e floor to prevent piaysical ~ t m a g e to equ ip m en t at tached to the outlet.

Floor m o u n t s for Level 3 gas systems shall no t be recessed and shaU be permi t ted to be m o u n t e d in or on tile denta l . junct ion box, when m o u n t e d to the floor.

(c) Station outlets shall be located to avoid pilysical damage to the valve and a t tached equ ipment .

(d~ | .* Each station out let for medical gases, whe the r thre,~ded or non in t e r changeab l e quick-coupler , shall be gas-specific and shall consist of a pr imary and a secondary valve (or ~sembh , ) . The secondary valve (or unit) shaU close automatical ly to gtop tile flow of medical gas when rite pr imary valve (or unit) is removed. Eacb out let s h a l l b e legibly identif ied widl die name or chemical symbol of tile gas contained. Where chemical symbols are used, tlley shall be in accordance widl the CGA Pamphle t P-2, Characteristics and Safe Handl ing of Medical Gases. Where supp lemen ta ry color identification is used, it shall be in accordance widl CGA Pamphle t C-9, S tandard C, o lor -Marki .g ol Compressed Gas Cylinders In tended for Medical l lse.

Table 4-3.1.2.2(d) Gas Service

Medical Air

Carbon Dioxide

H e l i u m

Nitrogen

Nitrogen Oxide

Oxygen

O x y g e n / C a r b o n Dioxide Mixtures

Medi cal~Su rgi ca] V a c u u m

Waste Anesflletlc Gas Disposal

O the r Mixtures

Dental Air

Dental Vacuum

Laboratory Air

Laboratory Vacuum

Standard Designation Colors and Operating Pressures for Medical Gas and Vacuum Systems Abbreviated Name Colors Standard Pressure

tBackground/Text ) MedAir Yel low/Black 50 psig +5/-0

345 kPa +35/4)

CO~ ( ; rey/Black or 50 psig +5/ .0 Grey/White 345 kPa +35/4)

H e Brown/Whi te 50 psig +5/-0 345 kPa +35/-0

N~ or HPN~ Black/White 160 psig +25/-0 1.145 kPa +173/-0

N~(1) Blue /Whi te 50 psig +5/4> 345 kPa +35/-0

O n Green /Whi t e or 50 psig +5/-0 W h i t e / G r e e n 345 kPa +35/-0

O J C O ~ n % G r e e n / G r e y 50 psig +5/-0 (n is % of CO~) 345 kPa +35/-0

MedVac Whi te /Black 15 in. Hg to 30 in. Hg 380 m m Hg to 760 m m Hg

WAGD Viole t /Whi te Varies witla system type

Gas A % / G a s B % Colors as above None Major gas for b a c k g r o n n d /

Minor gas for text

- - Yellow mad White Diagonal Norie Str ipe/Black

- - White and Black Diagonal N o n e Str ipe/Black Boxed

LabAir ~ Yellow a n d White None Checke rboa rd /B lack

LabVac White and Black None Checkerboard /Black Boxed

Colors used shou ld approx imate s tandard colors such ,as Process Green for Oxygen Green or Process Blue for Nitrous Oxide BIne.

167

NFPA 99 - - F98 ROC

2. T h r e a d e d outlets shall be noninterchar lgeable c o n n e c u o n s complying wid] CGA Pamphle t V-5, Diameter-Index Satety System Q Non-lnterch,angeable Low Pressure Connec t ions for Medical Gas Applications.

3. Each station outlet, inc luding those m o u n t e d in columns, hose reels, ceiling tracks, or o ther special installations, shall be des igned so tlmt parts or componen t s that are requi red to be gas-specific for compl iance with ~ . . . . . ~ ' ~...x~,.°'A'' (Insert correct n u m b e r ) cm]not be in te rchanged between station outlets for different gases.

a. Tbe use of c o m m o n parts snch as springs, O-rings, fasteners, seals, and shu to f f poppet~s shal l be permit ted.

A. ~ t z . d ~ G-.==!c'~s "~ patlc.xt r ccmz z!-.~!! bc l~catc~ at an

eq::~pment zttxc!zed to *d:e c'.:*det. Tl:ey :!:z2] be pe rm ' t t ed to be

i:cemae=.!:ee:z recovery, mter:=:ve ~ r e u:: ' : . , ::::~ corer:at; ' care

• • ~ .... I . . 1 _ . 4 t I o o / k ~ , ~ , h ~ 1 0 0 / A \ K ; ~ c F . ' c ~ : ~ C x c ~ . ~ ~ t" . . . . . . . . . "~n ~

A . i ~ . . ~ . ~ ' l ' l " . - - I . . . . I . ~ l i k ~ I . . . . . . I : . . . . . I : - - . ~ 1 . . . . . . . . i . 4 ..... i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . , 4 . . . . . . . . : + l . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

k2! g :~ ~ : !~ : ' e r ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ : racks, c,o~tr,o! . . . . . . . i . . . . "4---+. k . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I . . . . - | - ~ - e n t l r l . i

"~r:z+..a!!~=]=.~ z!-a!! bc !oc~.tc~ ~o; ' .~z:rcam of "d~ valve. e. A ~!",::off -zlvc :!:a!! bc ~oca:c~ o::tzi~c c a d , =ncz'd:c'-z'r;g

!OC~':'ACZ in Ca.C!~ W..C~'C----! g:'.Z I~ZC, zo Ic.ca:c~ -= t s bc r'.:ad':17

~ha!! 5c ~c :=rr,=ngcd d~a.: ~l;ut'Sng off :!;c . . . . . '" of ga~ - ~ l - ' v " s t o ~ ' ~ ) '

. . . . . . . . . • : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . - . : . : - - i ~ - - ~ : . . . . , : 1 1 ; o : affect tbe ^ + i . . . . l / . i . . . . I . ^ 1 1 k ~ ~c . . . . . . . . . . . "4 1 . . . . . . . . ~ _ . 1 [ n n

: . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F F . . . . . . I F ~ ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"4 . . . . . . . . . I . . . . i.^~l : . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . : * 1 . ,a ,z ~.. , t o

7. W h e n mult iple wall outlets are installed, inc luding those for vacuum, the re mus t be sufficient spacing between outlets to pe rmi t the s imul taneous use of ad jacent outlets with any of file various types of d : c ~ p y (insert) reuui red eou i nmen t .

[Refer to Pronosal 99-168 (Log #2"05).1 [ N u m b e r 8 moved to 4-5.1.2.9(c).] 9. Outlets (inlets) i n t ended for the connec t ion of

m a n u f a c t u r e d assemblies shall be D.I.S.S. connectors . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent with Level 3 requ i rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #1 ) Commit tee : HE/k-PIP

99- 141 - (4-5.1.2.12(a).6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard E. Hof fman , Compres,sed (;as Assn. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-268 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Out le ts (inlets) i n t ended for connec t ion of m a n u f a c t u r e d assemblies shall be ~ISS .cor~cc=or z, non- in te rchangeable , gas- snecific, s e m i - n e r m a n e n t connector~, S'UBSTANTIA, T I O N : As worded, r e q u i r e m e n t is des ign restrictive. CGA does no t specify where DISS connectors are used - some are flow restrictive. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I evise submi t te r ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n to read: "Outlets (inlets) i n t ended for connec t ion o f mamffac tu red

assemblies shall be DISS connectors , or non- in te rchangeable , gas-specific, s e m i - p e r m a n e n t connectors ." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Either connec to r is acceptable. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #19) Commit tee . HEA-PIP

99- 142- (4-5.1.3): Accep t m Principle SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesm Society CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71 RECO MMENDATION: Insert as proposed by Proposal 99-71 (Log #CP73) but revise as follows:

4-5.1.3 Distr ibution for Gas-Powered Devices - Level 3. 4-5.1.3.1 The Drovisions of this section apply to field-installed

piping for the distr ibution of g~ses to power device. (a) Piping shall be Type K or L copper (ltard drawn or

annea led) or brass (schedule 40 or 80). If Level 3 system dynamic gas piping is installed s imul taneously with otber patient

as piping systems, ei ther the Level 3 system piping shall be beled or otberwise identif ied pr ior to installation in order to

prec lude inadver ten t inclusion in a nonf lmnmable medical gas piping system, or the Level 3 system piping shall be cleaned and degreased m accordance with a 3.1.2.3 4-5.4.1.

(b)* Fittings shall be manufac tu red from corrosiou-resistam materials suitable for the system pressures {not to exceed 160 psi~. ( 1 103 kPa) ].

. ) . - D r i l l (c) Connec tors and joints shall be soldered with ~ 5 "- ant imony, silver brazed, or threaded NPT

(d) The provisions of n ~.l .~.2(a) (llls~rt co]leer 4-5 . :

paragraph rmmbeN 7 piping snpport . 11 tmrled piping (,t. corrected) 14 t renching, 15 miscel laneous d a l l l ~ L g e , , n l d I { : ! ; : ; : ; z : : .

shall apply. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To he consistent with Level 3 requ i rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Accept submit ter ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n with the following change to subpa rag raph (c):

(c) Connec to r s and jo in t s shall be brazed, or th readed NPT, COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Reflect cur ren t practice for jo in ing tubing. NUMBER OF COMbl]TTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: l Bancroft


99- 143 - (4-5.1.8.2(d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Society C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71, 99-205 RECO MMENDATION: 1. Transfer existing 4-5 to new 4- 5.1.8.2(d). R e n u m b e r existing 4-5.1.2.8(d) as new 4-5.1.2.8(e),

4-5.1.2.8(d) Pressure Gauges for Gas Systems. A pressure gauge shall be installed in die main line adjacent to the

. . . . . . . . ~v/--xe). It sha l l be ac tua t ing switch. =cq:21=cd "~ A ~ , o , t k x ~ /

appropriately labeled and be readily visible f rom a s tandin~ position. (See G-4.2.14.?)

2. Insert 4-3.1.2.9 ,as proposed hv Proposal 99-71 (Log #(]P7'~) but revise as follows (cbanges a re ' unde r l ined ) :

4-5.1.2.9 A signal shall be indicated senaratelv for each medical gas piping system when the pressure it] the main liue increases 20 perce0~ or decreases g0 percent front the normal ooerat iu~ nressure. The actuat in~ switch for tlaese sigr~als shall be installecl in the main line immediate ly downs t ream ton tile piping distr ibution side) of the main line shutof f valve [Irasert Prooosal 99-119 (Lo~ #74L 99-124 (Log #166) and revised ;1,~ follows) or the source valve if the m a i n l i n e shutoff valve i~ not remtired. (See Aonend ix C,-z LI,)

3~ Insert 4-3.5.4~g as proposed by Proposal 99-71 (Log #('P73) but revise as follows (changes are nnder l ined) .

Pressure ~auges a n d m a n o m e t e r s for medical ~ pipin~ systems shall be identified: (NAME OF GAS) ITSE NO OILI

4. Insert 4-3.1.2.2(d)8 as proposed by Proposal 99-71 (Log #CP73) but revise ,as follows (changes are under l ined) :

(d)8 Pressure ~auges and m a n o m e t e r s for medical gas pipin~ systems sball be c leaned ,and des]eased . (Insert correct pa ragraph number . ) S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent with Level 3 requ i rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Accept submit ter ' s r e commenda t i on , bu t with the following change to subpa rag raph (d)8:

168

NFPA 99 - - F98 ROC

(d)8 Pressure gauges mid m a n o m e t e r s for medical gas piping systems shall be c leaned for oxygen service. ( insert correct pa rag raph n u m b e r ) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To be consistent with Level 1 on cleaning° NUMBER OF COMMrrrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


SUBSTANTIATION: To be consis tent with Level 3 requ i rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 N O T RETIIRNED: 1 Bancroft


99- 144 - (4-5.4.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, St., lnt'l Analgesia Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read ,as follows:

4-5.4.1 Piped Pat ient Gas Systems - Level 3. 4-5.4.1.1 General: Inspect ion a n d test ing sbail be pe r fo rmed on

all new piped gas systems ( inc luding oxygen, ni t rous oxide, ni t rogen, Level 3 compressed air and Level 3 vacuum) , addit ions, renovations, or repai red systems to assure d~e facility tha t all applicable provisions of tiffs d o c u m e n t have been adhe red to and all system integrity has been achieved or mainta ined.

This inspect ion a n d test ing shall include all componen t s of die system or por t ions the reof including, bu t no t l imited to, cylinder r oom equ ipmen t , compressed air source systems, vacunm system, alarms, pipelines, shu tof f valves, station outlets, a n d te rminal service out le ts / inle ts .

Insert 4-1.4 as p roposed by Proposal 99-71 (Log #CP73) but revise as follows:

a l A

An existin~ system that is no t in strict comnl iance with the provisions of dais s t andard shall be permi t ted to be con t inned in ns¢ as long as Ore anthor i ty having jur isdic t ion has de t e rmined t[la~ such use does no t ¢0nstitute a distinc~ hazard to life,

Con t inue with 4-5.4.1.1. All systems tha t are breaci]ed and c o m p o n e n t s tha t are subject

to addit ions, renovations, or r ep lacemen t shall be appropriate ly tested.

Systems shall be d e e m e d breacl]ed at the poin t of pipeline in t rus ion by physical separa t ion or by system c o m p o n e n t removal, rep lacement , or addit ion. The b reached port ions of the systems subject to inspect ion and test ing shall be all tbe new and exisdng c o m p o n e n t s in die immedia te zone or area that is located ups t r eam for vacuum systems and downst ream for pressure gases at the poin t or a rea of intrusion.

The responsible facility author i ty shall review all inspect ion and test ing prior to tbe use of all systems covered by this document . The responsible audmr i ty sball ensure that all f indings arid restflts of the inspect ion and test ing bare been comple ted and all d o c u m e n t a t i o n per ta in ing thereto shall be main ta ined on-site. within the facility. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent with Level .'4 reqn i rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #21 ) Commit tee : HEA-PIP

99- 145 - (4-5.4.1.3): Accept S U B M I T r E R : F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Society COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71 RECOMMENDATION: 4-5.4.1.3 System Verification and F inn Testing.

Insert 4-5.4.1.2(a) ms p roposed by Proposal 99-71 (Log #CP73) bu t revise as follows:

(c) Static Pressure Test. T he pressure of (4 ~.~..I.2{c~ ( inser t correct naca~ranh] shMI be conduc ted at normal operat ing pressure. T[~e test gas sball be the in tended service gas. Tbe test shall remain static for a per iod of 24 hour s with a m a x i m u m ,allowable pressure loss of 5 psig (g5 kPa). Leaks, if any, shall be located, repaired, and retested in accordance witl] dais paragraph.


99- 146 - (4-5.5.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Soc_ietv COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-71 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

4-5.5.2 Gas System Policies - Level 3. 4-5.5.2.1 Policies for gases in cylinders and liquefied Rases m

c o n t a i n e r s f o r L e v e l 3 . " ~ : ' " " ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . n . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . : . , 4 9 ~ . o 1

(Paracrranhs (b~ 1. t l t rough (b~O. remain tile same and i~serted hereA

27. Freestanding cylinders shall be properly cha ined or suppor ted in a proper cylinder s tand or cart and domply with 4- 5.1.1.1.

28. Cylinders shall no t he cha ined to portable or movable appara tus such as 5c~a an~ cxygea t cn~ mobile carts, cabinets, or dental nnits.

29,* Cylinders shall no t be suppor t ed by, a n d ne i tber cylinders nor conta iners shall be placed in proximity of, radiators, s team pipes, or heat ducts.

30. Very cold cylinders or conta iners shall be hand led with care to avoid injury.

31. Cylinders and conta iners shall not be bandied with hands, gloves, or o ther materials con tamina ted with oil or grease.

(c) Making Cylinder and Conta iner Connect ions . 1.* Wrenches used to connec t rcap~ra:sr-," therapy Level 3

e q u i p m e n t sball be manufac tu red of steel or o ther suitable material of adequate s t r e n g t h

2. Cylinder valves shall be opened arid connec ted in accordallce witl] the following procedure:

a. Make certain that appara tus and cylinder valve connection.~ and cylinder wrenches are free of foreign materials.

b. Tu rn tile cylinder valve outlet away from p e r s o n n e l Stand to the side, no t in f ront and not in back. Before connect ing the appara tus to cylinder valve, momentar i ly open cylinder valvc t , e l iminate dust.

c. Make connect ion of appara tus to cvlindel valve. Tighten connec t ion nn t securely witl] an appropr ia te wrench ',:wv a. ~.5.2. I (c) 1 } (insert correct paragi~tph number ) .

d. Release the low-pressure ad jus tment screw o! rite regulat,u completely if adjustable style regulator consuh with instruct ions if a preset stvle remdator.

e. Slowly open cylinder ~tlve to full opetJ tmsi t ion f . .Slowly turn in tile low-pressure ad iusmmnt screw o n t h e -

regulator until the proper working pressure is obtained. (Nee 4- 5.?.d.)

g. ( )pen the valve to the utilization apparatus 9r systent. 3. Connec t ions for conta iners shall be made in accordance with

the conta iner manufac tu re r ' s opera t ing instructions. (d) Care of Safety Mechanisms. !. Personnel us ing cylinders and conta iners and otber

e q u i p m e n t covered in this chapter shall be familiar with the Pin- Index Safety System (see 8-3.1.2) and dae Diameter-Index Safety System (see 8-3.1.3), both des igned to prevent utilization of the wrong gas.

2. Safety relief mechan isms , non in te rchangeab le connectors , and o ther safety features shall no t be removed, altered, or replaced.

I.* Use cf C~ca . C.~.~ ah~'l ~c !~and!c~ an~ uac~ ::'i'd. -cr.rc

indi-~.d'-a!!7 "--~.d in combina t ion wi'd: e,*~er me.tefir2s ;'St!; w!:ie!: . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . - . . / c ~ . . K T ' C " D A A I " I U . . . . . A . . . . 1 " I . . . . . . ; , . . , I t

oe~cti ~ :.lg" -

#crrnJtted in *. 5.1.1.1. C; ' ! inde~ s!:e2! he ~n :.~.cka :;r secure-! i:: ! . . . . . . . . . .

169

N F P A 99 - - F98 R O C

~. Working " - v v . . . . . . . . . . ~ ,o ' - t , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . .

each c;,'!'.=dcr .~ct::a!!;.' co.==cctcd fc.r :::c. ,M! c;,'!indcr; zl~all be ....... .41 1 . . . . U ~ . . ...... ~I 1 . . . . . . . 1--1.+ --~1+1--..

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consistent wiflt Level requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Accept recommen&xtion, I)ut retain subparagrapil (e) at end of recommendat ion. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Laboratories may be present in Level 3 systems. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #6) Committee: HEA-PiP

99- 147- (4-5.5.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Society COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-71 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows:

4-5.5.2.2 Pe!~cie= fvr tlze Storage of Cvlinders and Containers f*~ Level 3. ~:~...4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . t.~,, . . . . . , ..... :.~. A 9 ~ o o

A. 3 .5 .2 .2 S t o r a g e ef C7! 'nde~ and C o n ~ ' a e r : Le-'e! 1. (a)* Facility authorities, in consultation with medical 9£

dent.a] staff and odler trained personnel, shall provide and enforce regulations for die storage and handling of cylinders and containers of oxygen and nitrous oxide in storage rooms of approved construction, and for die safe handling of these agents in imc~t!~etizi'~g trea~lerlt locations. Storage !ocatlon,~ for

....... I.I- i..11-I-*; . . . . . . . . . . +I...+i . . . . . . . . * . . . . +--kl:~l...~l : . . . . .

. . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . c ; l l n d c r s gba l l be

;.~.L~'::..°27".TL~2;.'~.?2L'Z.~F'~:,. 2;-.7.Z7"7;.22.7 Y~Z':;~'e~

(b) Nonflammable Gases 1. Storage shall be planned so that cylinders can be nsed in

tile order in Milch alley are received from d'~e supplier. 2. If stored wiflfin tbe same enclosure, empty cylinders sball

be segregated from full cylinders. Empty cylinders sball be marked to avoid confusion and delay if a full cylinder is needed imrriediy.

3. Cylinders shall no t be stored in file open c.l~'2! to be protected against extremes of weafller .arid f rom tile g round beneafll to prevent rusting . . . . . . . . . t~ . . . . . . . . . ~! . . . . . . . . . . . . c_ ..: - . ~

. , , I ....... + . . . . + . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . ; 1

/ii3ii~a:~ ¥iXa%K." %'~;; ~ . . . . . . . consistent widl Level 3 requirements. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Accept recommendat ion widl dae following chan es" . . g •

1. In subparagraph (a), change medacal or dental staff' to read "facility staff,"

2. Delete subparagraph (b)3. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. To correlate widl structure of document .

2, Subject is not applicable to Level 3. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 22 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


i. Have not more titan 3000 cu it (85 m 3) total capacity oi all gases (excluding nitrogen and medical air in cylinder for

p o w e r e d devices) connected and ira storage at one time, ex(ept : that tl~e total capacity of all gases shall he permitted u, be increased to 5000 cn ft (14'3 m 3) excluditag nitrogen atLd

Inedical air for powered devices) if oxygen is used m a [)~)'I Specification 4L (liquid) cylinder, ,rod

2. Have a listed pressure regulator diiecllv COlmected ~, ¢'mh cylinder, and

3. Supply only a single treatment facility and also as a minimum comply with tile specific requirements o1 4-5.1.'2. h,

o r 4. Supply a maximum oI two adjoining single treatmem

l~cilities :rod also as a mmimtno comply with tile speofic i requ rements of 4-5.1.2.7.

(b) Single tream~ent facilities tot nonbtnnan use of medical gas, such as veterinary medicine, shall not be subject to tile provisions of 4-5.1.2.6 and 4-5.1.2.8(b).

(c) Tl-c pro'.'#.2:=~ of ~. 3.1.1.3 a..;~ ~. 3.5.2.Z(c) apt'~ly. A 3.1.1.3 (c) Material O x w e n Comnatibititv. (a)* Oxygen system components including, but not limited to,

containers, valves, valve seats, lubricants, fittings, gaskets, and interconnecting equipment including boses, shall have adequate compatibility widl oxygen under tile conditions of temperature and pressure to whicb the components may be exposed in the containment and use of oxygen. Easily ignitable materiMs sball be avoided unless they are parts of equipment or systems that are approved, listed, or proved suitable by tests or by p:Lst experience.

(b) Tile provisions of A 3.! .! .3(a) (insert new paragraph number) also apply to nitrous oxide, oxygen-nimms oxide mixtores, arid to other medical gas mixtnres c o n [ a l [ l l [ l ~ IIIt~l t than 23.5 percent oxygen.

(c) Manufactured assemblies in which ,fit- Inlellded lt~ hi' piped alitrous oxide or oxygen shall be (a) coustructed ol metal or (b) tested to pass a ntiatinlunl 200 flame spread latiug ,Uld 200 smoke developed index ira accordauce with NFI'A 255, Standard Metimd of Test of Surface Burniug Characteristics .~ Building Materials, or, if constructed of polymers (pl~Lsm, f i be rg l ass , e t c . ) , a r a t i n g o f 9 4 V O o r b e t t e r .

3.5.2.3(c) (insert new paragraph number. I +c-)- Maintenance programs in accordance with the

manufacturer 's recommendat ions sball be established for ihe medical air compressor supply system ,as connected in each individual installation.

I A \ I . . . . I ~ t . . ~ . . . . I . - - I I k . . : - - ~ - - I I . . A ; . . . . . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . ; * 1 . I . . . . . . I

' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -"~^'~ by ~ 5.5.2.3. (e) MedicM gas systems not specifically provided tot m 4-

5.5.2.3(a), suclt as systems widtin a hospital served by a central supply system, or systems serving fllree or more treatmeut faeilities, ,as might be found in a medical or deotal office building, sball comply in all respects wifll Level 1 systems.

(f) Equipment sil,all be obtained from lind be installed under file supervision of a mantffacturer or supplier familiar with proper practices for its construction ,and use.

(g) Every facility shall establish a procedure for manually turning off file gas supply at file cylinder valves at fl~e end of die work day, or when file facility is not in use. No other 0qt;tllod sucil as Emergency Simtoff Valves or remote actuators [4- 5.1.2.11 (b)l shall be used to turn off tbe gas supply, S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consistent with Level 3 requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept ira Principle.

Accept recommendat ion wit1 file following change: Delete subparagraph 4(b) on n o n h u m a n use.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Reflect scope of NFPA 99. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2"2 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



99- 148 - (4-5.5.2.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: F. David Wyrick, Sr., Int'l Analgesia Society COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 90-71 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Insert 4-3.1.1.3 and 4-3.5.2.3(c) as proposed by 99-71 (Log #CP73) but revise as follows:

4-5.5.2.3 Patient Gas Systems - Level 3. (a)* Level :3 nonflammable medical gas systems cover

installations fllat:

(Log # 1:44) Committee: HEA-GAS

99- 149- (8-0.4.1.4 Note): Accept SUBMITTER: Alan Lipschtfltz, Christiana Care Healdl Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-289 RECOMMENDATION: Do not accept the snbmitter's proposal. Revert to die origlr'nal wording. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Tile Committee has snbmitted no evidence to support the need to mandate the wording of the sign. Tile

170

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

hrase "NO ELECTRI(2~L APPLIANCE, S" conflicts with Section 6.2.4.1.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 1 l VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bancroft, Crowley

(Log #L35) Commit tee : HEA-GAS

99- 150 - (8-6.4.1.4 Exception): Accept TCC NOTE: While the Technical Corre lat ingCommit tee

recognizes tha t an insti tution notifying the public o f the no smok ing s ta tus with a sign at all entrances should be suff ic ient to alleviate the safety o f oxygen adminis t ra t ion and other hazards , the Technical Correlat ing Commi t t ee feels tha t the addit ional s ignage at specific hazard areas such as oxygen adminis t ra t ion and oxygen s torage is advisable as an added-alert. Further, the Committee also recognized that s o m e local jurisdictions do require such signage. SUBMITTER: Alan Lipschultz, Chris t iana Care Health Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-290 RECOMMENDATION: Do no t accept the snbmit ter ' s proposal. Revert to the original wording. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Tile submi t te r suppl ied absolutely no evidence to suppo r t his p roposed change. Is the hazard he describes real or jus t hypothetical? The re are very valid reasons why tile Commi t tee voted to inc lude this except ion with the 1996 edition. Those reasons have not gone away.

W h e n an inst i tut ion puts up "NO SMOKING" signs in a semi- public area such as the corridor outside of a pat ient room, there is :m im~lic.ation that smok ing is permi t ted in o ther areas where you don t see a "NO SMOKING" sign. While it is accurate that in a truly non-smoking insti tution, the re may be surrept i t ious smoking, tha t surrept i t ious smok ing is typically l imited to stairwells, rest rooms, a n d o ther areas where file smoker is no t likely to be observed. An occupied pat ient room is no t such a place.

The snbmi t te r says that the language is ambiguous , i disagree strongly. The except ion makes it qui te clear tha t signs are not requi red in inst i tut ions that are totally non-smoking, ff tile Commi t t ee feels tile l anguage is ,ambiguous, they ough t to clarify the language, no t negate tile exception. The only realistic scenarios in which one would have open f lames in an occupied pat ient r oom are associated with smoking° T he electrical appl iance issue in pat ient rooms where oxygen is in use is dealt witi1 in Sections 7-6.2.4.1 a n d 9-2.1.9.3.

The submit ter says, "Suppose a visitor may enter the b u i l d i n g t h rough a ba semen t or garage en t rance which did not have a n t SMOKING sign (because it was NOT a 'major entrance ' ) ." In reality, any insti tution tha t is go ing to make a reasonable a t tempt to be truly non-smoking is go ing to post signs at all en t rances by which a visitor migh t en ter the bnilding.

If a visitor or pat ient is d e t e r m i n e d to smoke, they will do so in spite of any signs tha t are pos ted outside of the pat ient room. In a truly non-smoking insti tution, the smoke odor will be de tec ted fairly quickly as staff are alert to the fact that all smoking is prohibited. If the secret smoker does light up, keep in m ind that it is still very likely tha t tile cigarette will never cause a fire because tbe concent ra t ion of oxygen in the room is no t any greater fllan normal r oom area except within the "site of intentional expulsion" as def ined in Chapte r 2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 11 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bancroft, Crowley

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WOLF: A NO SMOKING sign at the nse of oxygen will

reinforce the inst i tut ion's policy for no smoking, and r emind those surrept i t ious smokers to absolutely not smoke where oxygen ts in use.

This may be redundan t , but 1 feel that it Is nevertheless necessary.

Lug # 136) Commit tee : HEA-(;AS

99- 151 - (8-6.4.2): Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that

the reference in the Committee Action be revised from 8-6.9.4.2 to 8-6.4.2 as it was incorrect. SUBMITTER: Alan Lipschultz, Chris t iana Care Health Services C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-291 RECOMMENDATIO N: Do no t accept die submi t teds proposal. Revert to the original wording. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The original wording was clearer. Tile

roposed change says the precaut ionary signs should be displayed herever oxygen is in use." Oxygen is in use everywhere in the

world. He may have in t ended to say "wherever supp lementa l oxygen is in use." The original wording very specifically referred to the "Site of Adminis t ra t ion" wh icb is a te rm def ined in Chapter 2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 8-6.2.4.2 to read: "Precaut ionary signs, readable t rom a dis tance of 5 ft (1.Sm), shall be conspicuously displayed wherever supp lementa l oxvgen is in use. and in aisles a n d walk,rays leading to that area." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Technical Commi t tee agrees with submi t te r of c o m m e n t that the in tent of r e commend a t i o n was fin signs to be used only where ' supplementa l ' oxygen was intetlded to be used, no t wherever oxygen was in use (i.e., proposals could have been in te rpre ted to include ambien t air). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: I I VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETIIRNED: 2 Bancroft, Crowley

{Log #1 ?,7) Cmnmit tee : H EA-UA.%

99- 152 - (8-6.4.2): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Alan Lipscbultz, Chris t iana (Lare Health Servic~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-292 RECOMMENDATION: Do no t accept tile submit ter ' s proposal. Revert to the original wording. SUBSTANTIATION: Tbe Commi t t ee has submi t ted no evidence to suppor t tbe need to manda te the wording of tile sign. The phrase "NO ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES" conflicts with Seeuon 7-6.2.4.1.

The submit ter ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n #3 conflicts completely with Sections 7-6.2.4.1 and 9-2.1.9.3. This r e c o m m e n d a t i o n would move the text back to the wording 15 years ago, I was the au thor of tile change 15 years ago to go to the cu r ren t wording based on substantial review of t he l i t e r a tu re and the practice in o ther countries. To my knowledge, the re bare been no incidents in tile in tervening 15 years to show that tile change has created a hazard. Nei ther tile submi t te r nor tile Commi t tee has presented zero evidence to suppor t the change. COMMI'I~rEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

1. Reject i tem 1 in Proposal 9%292 (Log #CP49) as r e c o m m e n d e d by submit ter .

2. Accept i tem 2 in Proposal 99-292 (Log #CP49). 3. Revise i tem 3 in Proposal 9%292 (Log #CP49) to read :L~

follows: "Non-medical appl iances that have hot surfaces or sparking mechan i sms shall no t be permi t ted within oxygen delivery e q u i p m e n t or within the sight' of intent ional expulsiorJ.

4. Reject i tem 4 in Proposal 9%292 (Log #CP49) as r e c o m m e n d e d by submit ter .

5. Accept i tem 5 in Proposal 99-29'.) (Log #CP49) (i.e.. delele text specified). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 2. This r e commenda t i o n is JJ,~ part of submit ter ' s r ecommenda t ions on tile subiecr ot the wording of signs.

3. To be consistent with expected t~xygen-enriched a tmospheres in oxygen delivery, e q u i p m e n t or within site of itltentioHal expulsion, as well as to be consis tent with 7-6-2.4.1.

5. This r e commenda t i on is not part of submit ter ' s r e commenda t i ons on the subject of the wording ot signs. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: l 1 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bancroft, Crowley

171

N F P A 99 1 F 9 8 R O C

(Log #133) Committee: HEA-GAS

9% 153 - (8-6.4.2 Exception): Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that

the same wording be used as in Comment 99-150 (Log #135). SUBMITTER: Alan Lipschultz, Chrisdana Care Health Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%293 RECOMMENDATION: Do not accept the submitter 's proposal. Revert to die original wording. SUBSTANTIATION: The submitter supplied absohltely no evidence to suppor t his proposed change. Is the hazard he describes real or just hypothetical? There are very valid reasons why the Committee voted to include this exception with the 1996 edition. Those reasons have not gone ,away

i havepol led Nurse Mmaagers and Respiratory ]'herapists at my 1000 b e d institution. They have verified that surreptitious smoking is limited to stairwells, rest rooms, patient bathrooms. and other areas where the smoker is not likely to be observed• There are some visitors a n d / o r patients who will totally insist in smoking no matter what the nurses or respiratory therapists have told them. All of these people agreed that signs would make no difference The purpose of a sign is to educate people Verbal~ lace to face talking and explaining is a much more effective form of education, but education only works if the recipient is willing to receive flue education.

The submitter says. "Suppose a visitor may enter the building through a basement or garage entrance which did not have a NO SMOKING sign (because it was NOT a 'major entrance') ." In reality, any institution that is going to make a reasonable attempt to be truly non-smoking is going t o p o s t signs at all entrances by which a visitor might enter the building.

If a visitor or patient is determined to smoke, tlaey will do so in spite of may signs that are posted outside of the patient room. In a truly non-smoking institution, the smoke odor will be detected fairly quickly ,as staff are alert to the fact that all smoking is prohibited. If tire secret smoker does light up, keep in mind that it is still very likely that the cigarette will never cause a fire because the concentration of oxygen in the room is not any greater dlan normal room area except wifltin the "site of intentional expulsion" as defined in Chapter 2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. N U M B E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 11 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bancroft, Crowley

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WOLF'. . A NO . . . . . SMOKING sign at the use of oxygen will

reinforce die insutuuon 's pohcy for no smoking, and remind those surreptitious smokers to absolutely not smoke where oxygen is in use.

This may be redundant, but l feel that it is neverdleless necessary.

(Log #CC8) Committee: HEA-Ar)M

99- 154 - (12-4.1.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Administration COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 99-319

J RECOMMENDATION: In 12-4.1.1.1, delete the third paragraph: "This section covers ambulatory care facilities that are part of a hospital. This section does not apply to anesdletizing locations situated in free s tanding ambulatory care facilities." SUBSTANTIATION: This will eliminate a conflict between 13- 4.1 and 12-4.1.1.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 8 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NOT RETURNED: 1 Eider

(Log #142) Committee: H EA-ELS

9% 155 - (16-3.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas W. Gardner, American Health Care Assn. C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%329 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the proposed new Section 16- 3.3.1 Normal Electrical Distribution System. SUBSTANTIATION: The substantiat iongiven for Proposal 9% 329 is not correct. This is a significant andvery costly change for the design of nursing homes without any valid suhstantiation. The Technical Committee has agreed to make this sigl]ificant

change without requiring any data or substantiation odler than the submitter's opinion. Significant changes to the requirements of NFPA stand,'u-ds should not be done in this manner.

Very few patients in nursing homes are connected to medical equipment such as IV pumps, etc. For the very few facilities that have admitting policies that would allow these types t)t" patieuts ,Jr would provide these types of services the State Licensor requirements would handle this issue.

To require that all nursing llomes comply with the p~ .p,,~ed new Section 16-3.3.1 is tlnreasollable all(ttiol +justified Th, ' ,c ~, no data known to AH(LA or provided bv tht- sul)lniltet ,d Proposal 99-3329 to indicate that patiems ilJ tmrsitlg tlt~lllt'~, tl, being harmed hv not complying with the p~.p~sed ilew %e, ll,~l, 16-3.3.1.

We respectlully request that this prop.sat t)e tejecled. I~l ~h~ llext edition of the Standard, considerati.tl c.uJ be givelt il rhes,' types of medical services are being prowded in uursitkg h -H . ' . and clam is provided 'to substantiate such a malor mid ~ t,Slt~ change to the requirements for these tacilities COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept, NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETITRNED: 1 Mankey

(Log #81) Committee: HEA-HYP

9% 156- (1%2.5): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Stephen D. Reimers, Reimers Systems, Inc. CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 9%343 RECO MMENDATION: 1. In 19-2.5.2.6:

A. Change "per 19-2.5.2.3" to read "per 19-2.5.2.4." B. Add tile following new sentence to the end of tile existing

text: "During initial construction, testing of spray coverage per 1'~-

2.5.2.3 shall be performed at surface pressure, 50% of maxinmn/ operating pressure ,and at maximum operating pressure. The requirements of 1%2.5.2.3 shall be satisfied under all three conditions. A detailed record of the test results si~all be supplied to the purchaser /use r of the system. A copy of tire test results shall also be retained by the system manufacturer for a period ol not less than 5 years following delivery of tire system. Sutxseque,t to initial construction, testing of spray coverage simll be required only once every 5 years or if there is reascm to believe thal the spray coverage pattern may have heen altered."

Improve readability of the sectiou by doing the followiug: • Give Section 2.5.2 a heading: "Deluge System Requiremems"

B. Give Section 2.5.3 a heading: "Handline System Requirements"

C. Give Section 2.5.4 a heading: "Automatic Detectmi~ .System Requirements"

D. Renumber the existing 1%2.5.2.6 as 1%2.5.5 and give mta he',~zling of: "Testing Reqnirements." SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of the "bypass system" dPermitted by 19-2.5.2.6 was to permit facilities to exercise tile

eluge controls and test their deluge systems at fitll flow rate without discharging flae water into the chamber. The current reference to 19-2.5.2.3 as the testing criteria effectively voids tiffs permission by reauirin~r a spray coverage test. Further, the purpose of the annual test is to test the working parts of the system. There is no need to test the spray coverage unless tile nozzle ar rangement has been somehow altered. The Milan accident has very graphically demonstrated the potential cost of omitted maintenance. If maintenance cannot be done without a hea W impact on normal operations, it is often just not done. Requiring tile annual deluge test to test spray coverage accomplishes little other than tile creation of an enormous me.~s in the chamber and a strong incentive to not do the test. By changing the reference from 1%2.5.2.3 to 1%2.5.2.4 the aunua] test requirement is changed from spray coverage to system controls and water flow performance which, I believe, was the original intent of the anmtal testing requirement.

The requirement to provide spray coverage d~tt~t is ueeded lor the owner to be able to properly maintain his s~ tem i~J tile eveut that something does need to be done with the nozzle arrangement. Presently systems are being built and delivere0 "ilJ accordance with NFPA 99" without doing this test since the ( 'ode implies that such a test he done, bur does u . i explicitly require it. That is a risky practice for both matmfacturer and purchaser

172

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

The head ings (Proposal No. 2) are p roposed to t the purpose o1 making die d o c u m e n t easier to unde r s t and and to place the testing requ i rements in a location where they are easier to find, In die p resen t paragraph s tructure, they can be easily overlooked. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

1.A: Accept. I.B: Revise new sen tences to read: "13uring initial construct ion,

or whenever changes are made to dae installed system, testing of spray coverage per 19-2.5.2.3 shall be pe r fo rmed at surface press] re . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . ;~, i~reez'.:'re ,arid at inaXlll]Uln opera t ing pressure. T he requ i rements of 19-2.5.2.3 shall be satisfied u n d e r M4- both condit ions. A detai led record of the test results shall be suppl ied to 3::rzl~::z-.:r/u~cr 8f t!~'.: ~)'~tem fll._.~e authori ty havin~ Jurisdiction and the hyperbaric facility safety director. A - z c F , y "~ .t . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .~ . - i f ~,~_, . . . . . . . ;.,.,a ~,,, ;~.,,

. . . . + . . . . + ; ~ - - + - - + : - - - - ~ ¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . ~ 1 1 k . . . . . . ; - . ~ 1 . . ~ 1 , ,

. . . . . . . . . . ! - " r . . . . . . . , - • . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . ~ r . . . . . . . . . . ++ . . . . . . . . I ..... k . . . . . l+.,o~.~ -

2. Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: I.B: Changes to the system can affect spray criteria. Surface pressure and m a x i m u m opera t ing

ressure are cons idered adequa te for de t e rmin ing spray coverage. fe rences to AHJ a n d safety director ,are more appropr ia te since

they are the persons responsible for s,'ffety of system. Deletion of t ime reference made since records are kept by users. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETI IRNED: 3 Leland, Murray, Pilmanis

(Log #55) Commit tee : HEA-HYP

9% 157- (29-2.7.2.3): Accept SUBMITTER: J im Bell/Bill Gossett, H e n n e p i n County Medical C t r /Hyperba r i c Medicine COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%345, 9%346 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

E~ccpr~c.~ Exception~sl : W hen reserve air tanks or non-electric compressor (~) of stflticient capacity to mainta in pressure and venti lat ion airflow within die chamber and supply air for the c h a m b e r pressurization are provided, the c~.mFrc=~r compre s so r ( s ) and auxiliary e q u i p m e n t need no t have an a l ternate source o fpower , SUBSTANTIATION: In our exper ience emergency genera tors can fail ... ( r ema inde r of text undec ipherab le ) . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NOT RETURNED: 3 Leland, Murray, Pilmanis


9% 158- (19-2.7.3(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: J im Bell/Bill Gossett, H e n n e p i n County Medical C t r /Hyperba r i c Medicine COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%347 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

(a) No e q u i p m e n t or e q u i p m e n t c o m p o n e n t installed in or used in d~e chambe r shall p resent an explosion or implosion hazard u n d e r the condi t ions of hyperbaric use. All equ ipmen t shall be rated, or have d o c u m e n t e d testing, reefed prior to use, for the chambe r working pressure or as otherwise specified below. SUBSTANTIATION: There needs to be documen ta t ion of test ing and records kept of the results. The conce rned depa r tmen t s (bit-electronics, safety, hyperbaric, facilities m a n a g e m e n t ) need to be involved. A connect ion to 19- 2.7.3.12(new)(b) and die addi t ion to A-19.2.7.3.12 (Appendix A), ROP 99-358, needs to be made. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposed wording is unenforcable . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #(;(;6) ,ommiltee" HEA-HYP

9% 159- (1%2.7.3(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Teclmical Commi t t ee on Hyperbaric arid Hypobaric Facilities COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%347 RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sen tence to read: "All e q u i p m e n t shall be rated, or tested and documen te d , fo~ in t ended hyperbaric condi t ions prior to use." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarify documen ta t i on requiremenr~s for e q u i p m e n t for in hyperbaric env i ronmen t COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2X VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Leland, Murray Pilmanis

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: FOREMAN: The s t a t emen t is no t in accordance with

regulat ions for medical devices. While dae agency does not discourage user testing, manufac tu re r s would still need to follow the medical device regulations. Additionally, the s ta tement indicates the device shou ld be tested, yet an identifiable s tandard for testing does not exist. Therefore , without a recognized test medlod , it is no t clear that p roper test ing can be assured.


99- 160- (19-2.7.3.12.2): Reject SUBMITTER: J im B e l l ~ B i l l Gosse t t H e n n e p i , Cou , t~ Medical C t r /Hyperba r i c Medicine COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-358 RECOMMENDATION: C'hange (b) to read ,ts t,~llows:

All cord connec ted devices shall have inert-ga.~ purge ro the electrical port ions of the e q u i p m e n t

r)elete: Exce~tU~on. SUBSTANTIATION: All cord connec ted devices, 120 volts o~ greater, p resent a fire hazard. Chambers equ ipped with receptacles for cord connec t ed e q u i p m e n t shou ld also be equ ipped with inert-gas purge capabilities. This is a s imple and inexpensive way to reduce the fire hazards associated with cord connec t ed devices. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The o ther r equ i rements in this section, a long widl this requ i rement , are considered to provide adequate safeguards for cord-connected equ ipment . Purging is still acceptable, bu t no t manda ted . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Leland, Murray, Pilmanis

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: FOREMAN: Not e n o u g h exper ience to knowledgeably vote on

the issue~

(Log #CC5) Commit tee : HEA-HYP

9% 161 - (19-2.7.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commi t t ee o n H y p e r b a r i c arid Hypobaric Facilities COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-365 RECOMMENDATION: 1. In existing 19-2.8.7.1, last sentence, revise to read: "As a m in imum, the air suppl ied to Class A and B chambers sh~dl meet the requiremenr~s for medical air :~s defitwd in Chapter 2."

2. Revise proposed 19-2.8.7.2 to read: "The use of c . rwemiona l oil-lubricated compressors shall he [:~erinitled provided tl~ev are fitted with air t rea tment packages des igned wo produce medic,d air, and they meet the moni to r ing requ i rements of 19-2.8.7. I. The air t r ea tment packages shall inch,de automat ic safeguards."

3. Delete existing Note 2. SUBSTANTIATION: Commi t t ee clarifies m i n i m u m air quality r equ i rements in hyperbaric chambers without reference to grade of air.

Commi t t ee clarifies d i f ferent air compressor technology that is available in fl~e marketplace for use with hyperbaric facilities. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 N O T RETURNED: 3 Leland, Murray, Pihnanis

173

~ A 9 9 1 F 9 8 R O C


99- 162 - (19-2.8.7.1, 19-2.8.7.2 and 19-2.8.7.3): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Larry L. Wischhoefer , Reimers Systems, Inc. C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-365 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

1) New 19-2.8.7.1: Retain "Grade D." Add r e q u i r e m e n t that, "The water con ten t of the air to pneuma t i c controls shall be restricted to a level tha t does no t impair the operat ion of those controls." Add a r e q u i r e m e n t dtat, "Oil mist shall no t be permi t ted in the air to Class A or Class B chambers ."

2) New 19-2.8.7.2 (19-2.4.2.2): Change first sen tence to read, "Low pressure air compressors (discharge pressures less than 175 psig) shall be of the oil-less or oil-free type." C hange "300" ill the s econd sen tence to "i75." Add sentence , "Oil lubricated compressors shall no t be permi t ted to supply air to ClzLss B chambers . "

I 3) New 19-2.8.7.3 (19-2.4.2.3): Add sentence , "Each compressor shall be suppl ied f rom separate electrical b ranch circuits." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : l) ! have been unable to find ,'uiy suppl iers of air compressor packages ( includes air purification) for hyperbaric who would guaran tee anyth ing better d tan Grade D. ANSI/CGA G-7.1 does no t specify water con ten t for Grades D, E, or N, bu t Note 3 states "the water con ten t of compressed air requi red for ,any part icular quality verification level may vary with tile i n t ended use f rom sa tura ted to very dry...If a specific water limit is required, it shou ld be specified..." If water needs to be kept ou t of p n e u m a t i c controls, a small dryer can be provided on the control air b ranch to dry the relatively small a m o u n t of control air. Oil mist shou ld be kept out of all chambers . If grade E or N is requi red for the mask b rea th ing system, it shou ld be permi t ted to be suppl ied f rom a separate, certifiable, s tored air source while allowing c h a m b e r pressurizat ion air to remain Grade D. I sense daat specifying Grade D or N ,air for chambe r pressurization would likely get us into un i n t ended , unp leasan t consequences ; r e c o m m e n d fu r the r research on the implicat ions of such a change before adopt ion .

2) Better to directly state what kind of compressors are in t ended instead of mak ing file reader look up ano t he r paragraph (which migh t ge t c h a n g e d over t ime) a n d try to figure out what is in tended; I am also uncomfor t ab l e tying in too m u c h with Chapter 4, despi te the addi t ion of p roposed new 19-2.8.7.4 (19- 2.4.2.4). Agree with in ten t o f this proposal, bu t I have f o u n d that oil-less ,and oil free compressors are get t ing very difficult to f ind above the 175 psi range due to marke t changes and i mprovemen t in air "purification" t echnology in recen t years. Only oil-less or oil free compressors shou ld be used for Class B chmnbers ; such a r e q u i r e m e n t can easily be met given the wide selection of small compressors of this type available at reasonable prices in the marketplace.

3) Agree with Mr. Gearhar t ' s comment . Termino logy is NEC definitions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Reject 1 and 2. Accept 3.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commi t tee bas developed a Commi t t ee C o m m e n t , 99-161 (Log #CC5), to address the issue of operat ional pressure characterist ics of compressors , and quality of air for use in hyperbaric chambers . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON C O M M I T T E E ACTION-



99- 163- (19-4.2.4.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J im Bell/Bill Gossett, H e n n e p i n County Medic;d C t r /Hyperba r i e Medicine COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-372 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Dur ing c h a m b e r opera t ions with occupant(s ) in a chamber , th_.~e oDerator shall be nhvsically p resen t and sb:dl mainta in visual

contact with the control panel ~ n d chambe r occupmlt(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : 1. Mishaps have occurred du r i ng chambe r operat ions when tile opera tor was not presenL We feel that die phvsical preserice of the opera tor should riot be compromised°

2. Clear visual and audible contact with c h a m b e r occupants is essential for s,ffetv.

3. Cur ren t t echnology would allow a chambe r to be control led at a remote location. By replacing (or) with the word (and) it allows this t echnology to develop safely. COMMIq['rEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I evise text as follows: Dur ing chambe r opera t ions with occupant (s ) in a chamber , the

operator shall be physically present , , 'mdshal l main ta in visual or audible contact with the control panel or the cham b e r o c c u p a n t ( s ) . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarify in ten t with regard to contact with pa t i en t a n d control panel . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2'2 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NOT RETURNED: :3 Leland, Murray, Pihuauis

COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: HAYES: There is no Section 1~4.2.4.6. This must be ,i iVpl~.

The Commi t t ee discussed this issue and it makes seHse. T h e r e the affirmative.


99- 164 - (A-3-3.4.2.3): Reject S U B M I T T E ~ J o h n J. Skreenock, Nat'l Safety Technologies , hie COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 99-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following note to tile AppeHdix A for Section 3-3.4.2.3:

This r e q u i r e m e n t allows the facility to de t e rnune the interval between test ing all electrical receptacles. Therefore , the facility mus t comple te and d o c u m e n t testing of all receptacles according to Section %3.3.2 and %3.3.3 for several periods, to establish a baseline. This testing will identify tile percentage of receptacles and wiring tllat need servicing. Once this baseline is low enough,

c erhaps <3 percent , t hen the facility can l eng then file interval etween c o n d u c t i n g t e s t s on the receptacles.

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Data has been previously submi t ted with Proposal 99-41 (Log #245) to suggest that there is a potential p rob lem with hosp | ta l installed receptacles arid specifically the

rounding . sys tems of such receptacles. T h e data is rep,e'tted here ~orr convemenceo (Table shown on following page.)

The r equ i r emen t is that addit ional testing sh~dl be per formed al intervals def ined by d o c u m e n t e d per fo rmance da~t. The note addresses this issue by giving guidance to tile facility personnel that have to establish an acceptable level of p rob lem receptacles a n d g round wiring systems.

lu regards to c o m m e n t s by tile Technical (Jommtttee, we ;tglet' that a receptacle does not change polarity once it has heeli connected . However, we have heard of receptacles being changed and not tested, dis tr ibut ion boxes arid tile w~ri.g uJs, le being modified, and g r o u n d i n g lugs uot being r eugh iened ,tltt.i working in the box. Tile rout ine testillg at some specified frequency, established by the heal th care facility according m baseline historical data, will reduce the risk of potential hal m coming to patients or s t i f f members . We have been told, Iw users of our equ ipment , that rotttine testing of outleLs has tound ques t ionable outlets or wiring. These receptacles or wiriug systems have received the needed at tent ion, thereby averting potential disasters. This rout ine test ing mainta ins a s,'de env i ronmen t and a properly f imct ioning utility system.

It is also curious that one of tile major manufac tu re r s of hospital grade receptacles has jus t released a new product wltici/, by their own surveys, is supposed to address the loss of g r o u n d pin tension on hospital g rade receptacles. They found in surveys with hospital eng ineer ing staff and electricians that g r o u n d pins tens ions were falling below tile r e q u i r e m e n t of 8 oz. ,after a couple of years. Also, tile r e q u i r e m e n t to install Hospital (;rade Receptacles in heal th care facilities is now going how mauy yearsr If anything, now would be the tittle to start test ing more for those older outlets to make sure they are providing a safe g ro u n d not losing d~e test requi rements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: A facility has to establish a baseline in order to justify test ing intervals. Such a baseline can be developed in a n u m b e r of ways, however. Commi t t ee does uot wish to r e c o m m e n d how a facility develops its baseline~ NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


174

Year 1988 1989 I990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

N F P A 9 9 - - F 9 8 R O C

Percentage of Receptacles a n d / o r Circuits Not Meeting Resistance Neut ra l

Total Outlets Wiring (OKX) to Ground Tested % Bad % Bad

27430 2.4 14O796 2.9 126352 3.5 128457 3.4 117101 3.9 63700 5.3

115091 3.4 62582 4.8 76086 3.6 44254 4.6

4191 4.3 906040

I I "8 I Min 2.4 Max 5.3

NFPA 99, 1993 Edition Resistance Ground

to Ground Total % Bad % Bad

0.5 5.2 9.2 1.1 7.9 12.7 1.1 7.8 13.0 0.7 7.2 12.0 0.7 7.2 13.6 0.6 7.1 15.8 0.8 6.9 11.6 1.7 11.2 17.5 0.8 8.6 13.5 1.8 16.2 22.7 1.7 12.5 19.5

l01 891 40 I 0.5 5.2 9.2 1.8 16.2 22.7


9% 165- (A-4 and C-4): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Mark Allen, Medical Air Pumps COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%375 99-378, 99-379, 99- 394, 99-397, 9%398 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

1. Move current A-4-3.2.1 through A-4-3.2.2.2(c) to G-4.3. 2. Add an explanatory note in C-4.3: "The following material is included in the standard for the

convenience of the many designers using the material. The user should be aware flint the material has not been reexamined since its initial publication in 1980, and that appropriate caution should be applied in its use."

3. Reinsert Table A-4-7.1.2 from the 1993 standard. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee's justification for deletion, that the material is out of date, is perhaps correct. However, all other materials available for sizing are even older, deriving from the 1960's. The material is in wide arid successfitl use a n d s h o u l d not be deleted.

Please also see Mr. Brittan's commentary in the 1998 Fall Meeting Report on Proposals.

The material is better placed together in one location. At present it is very hard to use because of file division between A~pendix A and C.

he addition of a note would explain to the user that the material is somewhat dated, and should be used with that awareness. This will address the Committee's concern about die age of the material.

The material cannot be effectively used without die old Table A-4-7.1.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #52) Connnittee: HEA-PIP

9% 166 - (A-4-3.4.2.2(c).2): Accept SUBMITTER: David L. Brittain, PROVAC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%381

I RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text:

;=cuum. :z c::cc= c . . . ::=...g. SUBSTANTIATION: The original proposal w ~ rejected because it would be difficult to implement in the field. This was because the volume is often not known. The leakage rate in a vacuum system is specifically dependent upon volume. A ~tcnum package may have a leakage rate (vacuum loss) that results in a loss of 1.5 in. Hg in 1 hour in a large hospital, and be considered "tigbt." The identical package in a small facility (such ~ a surgery center), with very little piping volume, may be considered very "leaky;," therefore, it may be rejected for certification. Since volume in a system is often not known, and, since this reference is in Appendix A, and, as such, is not a code requirement (but is often referred to as such), it is better to eliminate a specific leakage rate. COMMrlTrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 2~ VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETI IRNEI): 1 Bancroft

(L-R #5t) ( ,omm,lev" HEA-PIP

9% 167- (Table G-4-3.1(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: [)avid L. Brittain, PR()VA(, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9%397

J RECOMMENDATION: Delete text in cohmm heading: Type/l_ sage G r o u p ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUBSTANTIATION: Tbe Committee misunderstood tile

~ roposM. it was to delete the text (the reference) to Table A-4- .1.2. This table does not exist; therefore, there can be no

reference to it. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS EUGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


175

on electrical equipment (hea-ele) (chapter 7, section … · constance bobik, b&e fire safety...

Documents