Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 A. Salamone, Healthcare & Life Safety Concepts, Inc., NY [SE] W. Thomas Schipper, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, CA [U] Rep. American

99-1

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99

Report of the Committee on Health Care Facilities (HEA-AAC)

Douglas S. Erickson, ChairAmerican Society for Healthcare Engineering, VI [U]

Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering

Constance Bobik, B&E Fire Safety Equipment Inc., FL [IM] Wayne L. Brannan, Medical University of South Carolina, SC [U] Rep. American Society of Safety Engineers Michael A. Crowley, The RJA Group, Inc., TX [U] Rep. NFPA Health Care Section Richard E. Cutts, US Air Force, TX [E] Joshua W. Elvove, US Department of Veterans Affairs, CO [U] Rep. US Department of Veterans Affairs Marvin J. Fischer, Monroe Township, NJ [SE] Thomas W. Gardner, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, GA [I] James R. Grimm, CDi Engineers, WA [SE] William E. Koffel, Koffel Associates, Inc., MD [SE] George F. Stevens, US Department of Health & Human Services, AZ [E] Rep. US Dept. of Health & Human Services/IHS Mayer D. Zimmerman, US Department of Health & Human Services, MD [E] Rep. US Dept. of Health & Human Services/HCFA

Alternates

Eugene Phillips, Risk Management Resources, AR [U] (Alt. to Wayne L. Brannan) W. Thomas Schipper, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, CA [U] (Alt. to Douglas S. Erickson) Sharon Stone Gilyeat, Koffel Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to William E. Koffel)

Staff Liaison: Richard P. Bielen

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

Report of the Committee on Administration (HEA-ADM)

Michael A. Crowley, ChairThe RJA Group, Inc., TX [SE]

James S. Davidson, Jr., Davidson Associates, DE [SE]August F. DiManno, Jr., Firemanʼs Fund Insurance Company, NY [I]William C. McPeck, State of Maine Employee Health & Safety, ME [E]Mark A. Trudzinski, US Army Medical Command, TX [U]

Alternates

William M. Dorfler, The RJA Group, Inc., IL [SE] (Alt. to Michael A. Crowley)


Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents on the scope, application, and intended use of documents under the Health Care Facilities Project, as well as definitions not assigned to other committees in the Health Care Facilities Project.

Report of the Committee on Electrical Systems (HEA-ELS)

Hugh O. Nash, Jr., ChairNash Lipsey Burch, LLC, TN [SE]

Scott C. Brockman, Post Glover LifeLink, KY [M]Dan Chisholm, Healthcare Engineering Network, FL [IM]James H. Costley, Jr., Newcomb & Boyd, GA [SE] Rep. NFPA Health Care Section Richard E. Cutts, US Air Force, TX [E] Herbert Daugherty, Electric Generating Systems Association, NJ [U] Rep. Electrical Generating Systems Association James R. Iverson, Onan Corporation, MN [M] Larry Lau, US Department of Veterans Affairs, DC [U] Rep. US Department of Veterans Affairs Edward A. Lobnitz, TLC Engineering for Architecture, FL [SE] James E. Meade, US Army Corps of Engineers, MD [U] Joseph P. Murnane, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NY [RT] Ronald M. Smidt, Carolinas HealthCare System, NC [U] Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering Michael Velvikis, High Voltage Maintenance Corporation, WI [IM] Rep. InterNational Electrical Testing Association Inc. Walter N. Vernon, IV, Mazzetti & Associates Inc., CA [SE]

Alternates

Lawrence A. Bey, Cummins West Hawaii Division, HI [M] (Alt. to James R. Iverson) Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare Engineering, VI [U] (Alt. to Ronald M. Smidt) Donald R. Morelli, TLC Engineering for Architecture, FL [SE] (Alt. to Edward A. Lobnitz) Jeffrey L. Steplowski, US Department of Veterans Affairs, DC [U] (Alt. to Larry Lau) Howard Stickley, US Army Corps of Engineers, DC [U] (Alt. to James E. Meade) Herbert V. Whittall, Electrical Generating Systems Association, FL [U] (Alt. to Herbert Daugherty)


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

Report of the Committee on Gas Delivery Equipment (HEA-GAS)

Yadin David, ChairTexas Childrens Hospital, TX [U]

Jay Crowley, US Department of Health & Human Services, MD [E] Richard E. Hoffman, Hoffman & Associates, Inc., KS [M] Rep. Allied Healthcare Products, Inc. Alan Lipschultz, Christiana Care-Health Services, DE [SE] Rep. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation George Mills, MM EC, Ltd., IL [U] Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering Dwight R. (DAK) Quarles, Institute of Exercise & Environmental Medicine, TX [U] Jay R. Sommers, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, GA [M] Robert M. Sutter, BOC Gases, NJ [M] Rep. Compressed Gas Association Gerald L. Wolf, SUNY/HCSB, Brooklyn, NY [C] Rep. American Society of Anesthesiologists


Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents on the performance, and maintenance criteria for safeguarding patients and health care personnel from fire, explosion, electrical, and related hazards in anesthetizing locations involving the administration of both flammable and nonflammable anesthetics, including equipment and facilities ancillary thereto; and the performance, maintenance and testing of patient-related gas equipment for the purpose of safeguarding patients and staff within health care facilities.

99-2

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99

Report of the Committee on Health Care Emergency Management (HEA-HCE)

Russell Phillips, ChairRussell Phillips & Associates, Inc., NY [SE]

Pete Brewster, US Department of Veterans Affairs, IN [U] Rep. US Department of Veterans Affairs Steve Ennis, The Reciprocal Group, VA [I] Curt Fogel, North Dakota Department of Health, ND [E] James C. Kendig, Jr., Health First, FL [U] David J. Kitchin, Milcare, AZ [M] William C. McPeck, State of Maine Employee Health & Safety, ME [E] Thomas A. Salamone, Healthcare & Life Safety Concepts, Inc., NY [SE] W. Thomas Schipper, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, CA [U] Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering Michael L. Sinsigalli, Windsor Locks Fire Department, CT [E] Gregory E. Spahr, Loss Prevention Services, Inc., CA [SE] Steven Vargo, Raritan Bay Medical Center, NJ [U]Ronald W. Woodfin, TetraTek, Inc. Fire Safety Technologies, TX [SE]

AlternatesMonte Engel, North Dakota Department of Health, ND [E] ( (Alt. to Curt Fogel) A. Richard Fasano, Russell Phillips & Associates Inc., CA [SE] (Alt. to Russell Phillips)David M. Hope, TetraTek Inc. Fire Safety Technologies, TN [SE] (Alt. to Ronald W. Woodfin)Robert L. Hutchinson, Jr., US Department of Veterans Affairs, NY [U] (Alt. to Pete Brewster)Susan B. McLaughlin, SBM Consulting, Ltd., IL [U] (Alt. to W. Thomas Schipper)


Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents covering the performance of health care facilities under disaster conditions.

Report of the Committee onHyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities (HEA-HYP)

Wilbur T. Workman, ChairUndersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society, TX [U]

Rep. Undersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society

Peter Atkinson, Hyperbaric Technical & Nurses Association Inc., Australia [U]Richard C. Barry, Diversified Therapy, FL [SE]Harold D. Beeson, US National Aeronautics & Space Administration, NM [RT]William H. L. Dornette, Kensington, MD [SE]Christy Foreman, US Department of Health & Human Services, MD [E]W. T. Gurnée, OxyHeal Health Group, CA [M]Robert W. Hamilton, Hamilton Research Ltd., NY [M]Eric P. Kindwall, Medical College of Wisconsin, WI [U]Michael D. Martin, Ford Motor Company, MI [U]Barry Newton, Wandell Hull & Associates, NM [SE]Russell E. Peterson, Environmental Tectonics Corporation, PA [M]Stephen D. Reimers, Reimers Systems, Inc., VA [M]Eric A. Schinazi, Duke University Medical Center, NC [U]Robert F. Schumacher, Nth Systems Incorporated, NC [M]J. Ronald Sechrist, Sechrist Industries, CA [M]Paul J. Sheffield, International ATMO, Inc., TX [U]Harry G. Vincent, Total Wound Treatment Center, TX [C] Rep. Baromedical Nurses Association

Alternates

Michael W. Allen, Environmental Tectonics Corporation, PA [M] (Alt. to Russell E. Peterson) Glenn J. Butler, Life Support Technologies, Inc., NY [M] (Alt. to Robert W. Hamilton)

Ruben D. Campuzano, Undersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society, CA [U] (Alt. to Wilbur T. Workman)

Greg Godfrey, Sechrist Industries, Inc., CA [M] (Alt. to J. Ronald Sechrist) Robert B. Sheffield, International ATMO, Inc., TX [U] (Alt. to Paul J. Sheffield) Ellen C. Smithline, Baystate Medical Center, MA [C] (Alt. to Harry G. Vincent )Joanna H. Weitershausen, US Department of Health & Human Services, MD [E] (Alt. to Christy Foreman )Harry T. Whelan, Medical College of Wisconsin, WI [U] (Alt. to Eric P. Kindwall) Larry L. Wischhoefer, Reimers Systems Incorporated, WA [M] (Alt. to Stephen D. Reimers)


Committee Scope: This Committee 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.

Report of the Committee on Laboratories (HEA-LAB)

Susan B. McLaughlin, ChairSBM Consulting, Ltd., IL [U]

Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering

James F. Barth, FIREPRO Incorporated, MA [SE]John Francis Capron, III, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH [U]John P. McCabe, US National Institutes of Health, MD [E]Josephine Simmons, US Department of Health & Human Services, MD [E]James O. Wear, US Department of Veterans Affairs, AR [U] Rep. NFPA Health Care Section

Alternates

Carol Jacobson, Ohio State University Medical Center, OH [U] (Alt. to Susan B. McLaughlin) Judith A. Yost, US Department of Health & Human Services, MD [E] (Alt. to Josephine Simmons)


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

Report of the Committee on Piping Systems (HEA-PIP)

David B. Mohile, ChairMedical Engineering Services, Inc., VA [SE]

Mark W. Allen, Beacon Medical, NC [M]Christopher Bernecker, H. T. Lyons, Incorporated, PA [IM]David L. Brittain, PROVAC, OH [M]Richard E. Cutts, US Air Force, TX [E]James S. Davidson, Jr., Davidson Associates, DE [SE]Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare Engineering, VI [U] Rep. American Society for Healthcare EngineeringPeter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corporation, PA [SE]P. L. Fan, American Dental Association, IL [U] Michael Frankel, Utility Systems Consultants, FL [SE] Rep. American Society of Plumbing Engineers Edward D. Golla, TRI/Airtesting, TX [RT] Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein Associates, MA [SE] David Eric Lees, Georgetown University Medical Center, DC [C] Rep. American Society of Anesthesiologists Michael T. Massey, National ITC Corporation, CA [L] Richard L. Miller, Medical Gas Technology Inc., NC [SE] Thomas J. Mraulak, Metro Detroit Plumbing Industry Training Center, MI [L] Rep. American Society of Sanitary Engineering

99-3

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Fred C. Quarnstrom, Seattle, WA [U] Rep. American Dental Association E. Daniel Shoemaker, Matrx, AZ [M] Ronald M. Smidt, Carolinas HealthCare System, NC [U] Rep. NFPA Health Care Section Edward K. Stevenson, Liberty Mutual Property Insurance Company, MA [I] Rep. Alliance of American Insurers Robert M. Sutter, BOC Gases, NJ [M] Rep. Compressed Gas Association J. Richard Wagner, Poole & Kent Company, MD [IM] Rep. Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc. Craig B. Williams, Life Medical Networks Inc., GA [SE]

Alternates

David D. Eastman, Metro Detroit Plumbing Industry Training Center, MI [L] (Alt. to Thomas J. Mraulak)David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corporation, PA [SE] (Alt. to Peter Esherick)Keith Ferrari, Praxair, NC [M] (Alt. to Robert M. Sutter)

James A. Meyer, Pettis Memorial VA Hospital, CA [C] (Alt. to David Eric Lees)Curtis L. Mezzic, National ITC Corporation, LA [L] (Alt. to Michael T. Massey)Daniel N. Miller, Medical Gas Technology Inc., NC [SE] (Alt. to Richard L. Miller)Kenneth J. Muzal, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, MA [I] (Alt. to Edward K. Stevenson)Sharon Stanford, American Dental Association, IL [U] (Alt. to P. L. Fan)Christopher Swayze, The Sherman Engineering Company, PA [M] (Alt. to Mark W. Allen)Dale Woodin, American Society for Healthcare Engineering, IL [U] (Alt. to Douglas S. Erickson)


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

These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document.

The Committee on Health Care Facilities is presenting two Reports for adoption, as follows:

The Reports were prepared by the: • Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care Facilities (HEA-AAC) • Technical Committee on Administration (HEA-ADM) • Technical Committee on Electrical Systems (HEA-ELS) • Technical Committee on Gas Delivery Equipment (HEA-GAS) • Technical Committee on Health Care Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Planning (HEA-HCE) • Technical Committee on Laboratories (HEA-LAB) • Technical Committee on Piping Systems (HEA-PIP)

Report I of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Health Care Facilities, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 99, Standard on Health Care Facilities, 2002 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2004 November Meeting.

NFPA 99 has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical Committee.. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

NFPA 99 has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care Facilities, which consists of 12 voting members; of whom 9 voted affirmatively, 1 abstained (Grimm), and 2 ballots were not returned (Brannan and Elvove). Mr. Grimm abstained stating: I was not present at the meeting.

Report II of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Health Care Facilities, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 99B, Standard on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities, 2002 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2002 November Meeting.

NFPA 99B has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities, which consists of 18 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

NFPA 99B has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care Facilities, which consists of 12 voting members; of whom 9 voted affirmatively, 1 abstained (Grimm), and 2 ballots were not returned (Brannan and Elvove). Mr. Grimm abstained stating: I was not present at the meeting.

99-4

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 _______________________________________________________________99-1 Log #163 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(Entire Document) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-41Recommendation: Include the examples of Level 3 occupancies.Substantiation: See my comment on Comment 99-18 (Log #164).Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-2 Log #168 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(Entire Document) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Rickey Rutherford, Carolina Healthcare SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-322Recommendation: Vacuum exhaust shall be labeled “Caution contaminated air”.Substantiation: The right to know for personnel in the vicinity.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It may not be feasible to label each and every exhaust. OSHA has requirements that address labeling. In addition, the roof access is usually limited to authorized personnel. Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-3 Log #40 HEA-ADM Final Action: Accept in Part(1.1.5.1(2)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-4Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (2) This standard shall not apply to installers of bulk cryogenic liquid oxygen supply. Installers for bulk cryogenic liquid oxygen supplies shall be trained and qualified in accordance with the provisions in CGA M-1 “Guideline for Medical gas systems at Consumer Sites”.Substantiation: This response is in regards to the TCCʼc comments regarding the CGA M-1 document not being available. The M-1 document was published by the CGA in late 2003. Copies of the document have been made available to the members of the Piping Committee. Therefore this proposal should be accepted.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Accept the first sentence only of this recommendation. This new sentence will read: “This standard shall not apply to installers of bulk cryogenic liquid oxygen supply.”Committee Statement: If the standard does not apply to the installers of bulk cryogenic liquid oxygen supply, there is not need to specify how or to what standard they should be certified or trained to. The reference to training and certification more appropriately belongs in the standard that addresses bulk systems.Number Eligible to Vote: 5Ballot Results: Affirmative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 DIMANNO, TRUDZINSKI _______________________________________________________________99-4 Log #17 HEA-ELS Final Action: Reject(2.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-6Recommendation: The TCC would like the TC to review this proposal again and to either use a definition of switchgear that is compatible with manufacturers literature, use the definition from NFPA 70 or use and define the term “switch panel” n place of switchgear. Switchgear may not fit with the use of electrical panels used in the healthcare industry. The TCC feels the ELS committee is better suited to develop a definition than the ADM committee.Substantiation: The proposal went to the wrong Technical Committee.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The definition of “switchgear” does not appear in Article 100 of the NEC. Only “Metal enclosed switchgear” is found. The ELS Committee suggests that the Piping Committee change the term from “switchgear” to “electrical equipment” or other language consistent with NFPA 70. Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14

_______________________________________________________________99-5 Log #148 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mark Allen, Beacon Medical ProductsComment on Proposal No: 99-287Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.x Medical Support Gas. Piped gases such as nitrogen and instrument air that are used to support medical procedures by operating medical-surgical tools, equipment booms, pendants, and similar devices. Medical support gases are not respired as part of any treatment.Substantiation: The proposed wording is awkward and uses the defined term in the definition. The additional sentence helps to frame the definition relative to the definition of patient medical gas which follows.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.x Support Gas. Nitrogen or instrument air that is used to support medical procedures by operating medical-surgical tools, equipment booms, pendants, and similar devices, and are not respired as part of any treatment.Committee Statement: The change differentiated between respired patient medical gas and support gases. Nitrogen and instrument air are the only two gases currently recognized in the standard which fit this category.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-6 Log #76 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.X Medical Surgical Vacuum (New) ) _______________________________________________________________TCC Action: Change the committee action to read: “A method used to provide a source of drainage, aspiration and suction in order to remove body fluids from patients.” TCC reason: Editorial. Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-26Recommendation: I agree with committee meeting action: Accept in Principle. Add a new definition to read as follows: Medical/Surgical Vacuum. Typically used to provide a source of drainage,... pressure.Substantiation: There is no definition of medical/surgical vacuum in the definitions.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Modify the definition to read: “Medical/Surgical Vacuum. Used to provide a source of drainage, aspiration and suction in order to remove body fluids from patients.”Committee Statement: The committee removed the word “typically” as instructed by the TCC. The second sentence was deleted as it was not part of the definition.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-7 Log #18 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.X Medical/Surgical Vacuum (New)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-26Recommendation: The TCC is rejecting this proposal and is asking the TC to reconsider this proposal as a committee comment. The term “Typically” should not be used in a definition.Substantiation: “Typically” should not be used in the definition.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on 99-6 (Log #76).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 99-6 (Log #76).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-8 Log #98 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(3.3.4.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-31Recommendation: Instrument air is NOT a medical gas. See Section 3.3.81.Substantiation: I completely agree with Ericksonʼs Negative explanation.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter did not recommend any specific change.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1

99-5

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: I do not agree with the Committee Action of reject. I agree with Mr. Ericksonʼs Explanation of Negative Vote on this as published in the ROP.

_______________________________________________________________99-9 Log #106 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(3.3.4.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-31Recommendation: Revert to 2002 edition text by removing the inserted text and instrument air (when installed) Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressors, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, vertification, etc., etc.. T HE MANUFACTURERS ON THE TC FREELY ADMIT THAT THERE IS NOT AN instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standards for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design profession als and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-47 (Log #70). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: Based on comments by Doug Erickson, David Esherick, Craig Williams and others, all reference to instrument air should be removed. This code is written for instrument air system which is not currently manufactured and supported with outlets and adapters. Based on the intended usage of this system, all future codes should have little regulation since it is only intended to drive equipment. All specific codes regarding this type of system should be developed in conjunction with the industry as future products and technology develops. However in no case should this type of systems become so overly regulated that it is in the same category as medical air and oxygen systems, otherwise the benefit of this system is negated. ESHERICK: I agree with Mr. Erickson, hence my negative covering this committee rejection. SMIDT: I agree with Major Cutts ̓explanation of his negative vote. Currently as we are proposing it Instrument Air will be too costly a proposition.

_______________________________________________________________99-10 Log #77 HEA-GAS Final Action: Reject(3.3.8 Anesthetic) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-33Recommendation: As recommended: Anesthetic: Remove “ inhalation limitation...” Substantiation: All anesthetization locations shall conform to 5.1.4.8.7 irrespective of type of anesthesia administered. Whether it is an inhalation anesthesia or other (such as: spinal, I.V. rectal, etc.) that patient is dependent for life on the gases or vacuum system(s). Such anesthesia would place patients in imminent danger of morbidity or mortality should the medical gas service be interrupted.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: By deleting the word “inhalation” it effectively expands the definition. This would impose additional requirements which may not be applicable to anesthetizing areas that do not use a gas. Additionally, Chapters 5 and 9 only address hazards of gases.Number Eligible to Vote: 9Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Ballot Not Returned: 3 CROWLEY, MILLS, SOMMERS _______________________________________________________________99-11 Log #78 HEA-GAS Final Action: Reject(3.3.9 Anesthetic) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-34Recommendation: As recommended: Anesthetic: Remove “ inhalation limitation...”

Substantiation: All anesthetization locations shall conform to 5.1.4.8.7 irrespective of type of anesthesia administered. Whether it is an inhalation anesthesia or other (such as: spinal, I.V. rectal, etc.) that patient is dependent for life on the gases or vacuum system(s). Such anesthesia would place patients in imminent danger of morbidity or mortality should the medical gas service be interrupted.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: By deleting the word “inhalation” it effectively expands the definition. This would impose additional requirements which may not be applicable to anesthetizing areas that do not use a gas. Additionally, Chapters 5 and 9 only address hazards of gases.Number Eligible to Vote: 9Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Ballot Not Returned: 3 CROWLEY, MILLS, SOMMERS _______________________________________________________________99-12 Log #129 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(3.3.19) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David B. Mohile, Medical Engineering Services, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-35Recommendation: Reject proposal 99-35 (Log #135).Substantiation: I disagree with the deletion of the amount of oxygen from this statement. This now means that a liquid, cryogenic manifold (dewar), would have to have an emergency oxygen supply connection if it is installed outside of a facility. For instance, nursing homes and surgicenters frequently install dewar manifolds. This would mean that they would now have to have an Emergency Oxygen Supply Connection (5.1.3.4.12), including all the piping, check valves, etc., that this device requires. This is an unnecessary expense, in my opinion, since this type of occupancy seldom would be able to obtain a truck load of oxygen in an emergency.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Bulk systems are defined in the subparagraphs under bulk systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-13 Log #166 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(3.3.43) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-31Recommendation: In section 3.3.43 delete Instrument Air as a medical gas.Substantiation: We are going way overboard on what is necessary here requiring that Instrument Air have all of the “Bells and Whistles” as Medical Air.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-14 Log #107 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(3.3.81) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-38Recommendation: Revert to 2002 edition text by removing the inserted text: 3.3.81 Instrument Air. for the purposes of this standard, instrument air is air intended for the powering of medical devices unrelated to human respiration (e.g., surgical tools, ceiling arms). Medical air and instrument air and distinct systems for mutually exclusive applications. Instrument air is a medical support gas that falls under the general requirements for medical gases. (PIP) Substantiation: Delete the entire definition as there is no reason why the medical air system canʼt be used for this purpose. As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standards for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.

99-6

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Instrument air was accepted in Comment 99-103 (Log #74) and this would create a conflict.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-9 (Log #106). ESHERICK: The committee accepted 99-13 (Log #166). They conflict. 99-13 is correct as is 99-14. SMIDT: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on 99-9 (Log #106) _______________________________________________________________99-15 Log #167 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(3.3.81) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-38Recommendation: Instrument Air should not be required to fall under the general requirements of a medical gas.Substantiation: See my comment on 99-13 (Log #166).Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: There is no specific recommendation from the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on 99-14 (Log #107).

_______________________________________________________________99-16 Log #63 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.90) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeComment on Proposal No: 99-39Recommendation: Reconsider the original proposal and place the text as an annex note.Substantiation: The annex note will meet the submitterʼs intent and will provide clarity to the user of the document.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-17 Log #130 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.90) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David B. Mohile, Medical Engineering Services, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-39Recommendation: Accept proposal as written.Substantiation: I disagree with the TCʼs action on this proposal. There continues to be a great amount of confusion out in the industry regarding what level a facility is. Mr. Wagner is correct that we use examples in several other places in the document. Perhaps we can change the words “an example” to the term “e.g.”. And although we do list wording such as “eminent danger of morbidity or mortality” in the document, this is very difficult for the average engineer or contractor to understand and interpret. This would not be an all inclusive statement, but would merely give an example.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-18 Log #164 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(3.3.90) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-39Recommendation: The committee is wrong in throwing out the proposal. The example given is what this standard needs to make it more user friendly.Substantiation: Examples are needed to make this standard more user friendly.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-16 (Log #63).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

_______________________________________________________________99-19 Log #79 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.90 Level I Medical Piped Gas and Vacuum Systems) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-39Recommendation: I agree with Mr. Mohile.Substantiation: I agree with Mr. Mohile. Further, the committee statement is ridiculous. Anyone who interprets the statement to be “all inclusive” is not thinking very well.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-20 Log #62 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.92) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeComment on Proposal No: 99-402Recommendation: Reconsider the original proposal and place the text as an annex note.Substantiation: The annex note will meet the submitterʼs intent and will provide clarity to the user of the document.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to make all the corrections. This would include reviewing the definitions for all the levels and making the appropriate changes. The committee does not have enough time to make these changes at this time.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-21 Log #131 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.92) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David B. Mohile, Medical Engineering Services, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-40Recommendation: Accept proposal 99-40 (Log #107) as written.Substantiation: I disagree with the TCʼs action on this proposal. I agree with Mr. Wagnerʼs comments. We are merely giving examples and not an all-inclusive list. Confusion between Level 2 and 3 is the biggest problem in the field for engineers, contractors, and end users. We need to give an easier to understand definition other than “manageable risk of morbidity and mortality”. By using terms such as “...but not be limited to.” This would also permit considerable cost savings for construction material for Level 2 facilities since they could go to simplex compressors, dryers, filters, alarms, etc., which are currently permitted by the Standard but frequently overlooked by design engineers due to confusion.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-22 Log #165 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.92) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-40Recommendation: Include the examples listed in proposal.Substantiation: See my comment on 99-18 (Log #164).Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-23 Log #80 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.92 Level II Medical Piped Gas and Vacuum Systems) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-40Recommendation: I agree with Mr. Mohile.Substantiation: I agree with Mr. Mohile. Further, the committee statement is ridiculous. Anyone who interprets the statement to be “all inclusive” is not thinking very well.

99-7

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-24 Log #65 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.94) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeComment on Proposal No: 99-118Recommendation: Reconsider the original proposal and place the text as an annex note.Substantiation: The annex note will meet the submitterʼs intent and will provide clarity to the user of the document.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-25 Log #132 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.94) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David B. Mohile, Medical Engineering Services, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-41Recommendation: Accept proposal 99-41 (Log #106) as written.Substantiation: I disagree with the TCʼs action on this proposal. I agree with Mr. Wagnerʼs comments. We are merely giving examples and not an all-inclusive list. Confusion between Level 2 and 3 is the biggest problem in the field for engineers, contractors, and end users. We need to give an easier to understand definition other than “not place patients at risk of morbidity and mortality”. By using terms such as “...but not be limited to.” There are a lot of Level 3 facilities that should be Level 2 due to the nature of the procedures being performed.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-26 Log #81 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(3.3.94 Level 3 Piped Gas Systems) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-41Recommendation: I agree with Mr. Mohile.Substantiation: I agree with Mr. Mohile. Further, the committee statement is ridiculous. Anyone who interprets the statement to be “all inclusive” is not thinking very well.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the changes to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-27 Log #108 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(3.3.109) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-43Recommendation: Revert to 2002 edition text by removing the inserted text: “...gases, such as oxygen, nitrous oxide, instrument air , compressed air , medical air, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Substantiation: I donʼt believe the committee ever originally intended instrument air to be regulated as a medical gas. As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has not lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standards for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back

flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-103 (Log #74).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-9 (Log #106). ESHERICK: I fully concur with Mr. Ericksonʼs recommendation and substantiation on this comment.

_______________________________________________________________99-28 Log #161 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.109) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-44Recommendation: In section 3.3.109 delete the words instrument air . Substantiation: See my comment on Log #162.

Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete “and nitrogen” and “instrument air”.Committee Statement: The Committee Action on Comment 99-47 (Log #70) made nitrogen a support gas and not a medical gas.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-29 Log #162 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.109) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-Recommendation: In section 3.3.109 delete the words instrument air . Substantiation: I donʼt agree in making instrument air into a medical gas.

Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-28 (Log #161).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-28 (Log #161).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-30 Log #CC400 HEA-GAS Final Action: Accept(3.3.119 Nitrous Oxide) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Delivery EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 99-46Recommendation: Revise 3.3.119 as follows: 3.3.119 Nitrous Oxide. An inorganic compound, one of the oxides of nitrogen. It exists as a gas at atmospheric pressure and temperature, possesses a sweetish smell, and is capable of inducing analgesia when inhaled. The oxygen in the compound will be released under conditions of combustion, creating an oxygen-enriched atmosphere.Substantiation: The reference to “anesthesia” is used by building officials to define any facility using Nitrous Oxide as a Level 1, automatically eliminating level 2 & 3 facilities. Nitrous oxide is typically used as an analgesia and not an anesthesia. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 CROWLEY, MILLS, SOMMERSExplanation of Negative: DAVID: I thought the Committee Action on 99-30 (Log #CC400) was Accept in Principle and not Accept.

_______________________________________________________________99-31 Log #1 HEA-ELS Final Action: Reject(3.3.135.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-18Recommendation: Revise definition of Critical care areas to read as follows: 3.3.135.2* Critical care areas. Those special care units, intensive units, coronary care units, angiography laboratories, cardiac catheterization laboratories, delivery rooms, operating rooms, postanesthesia recovery rooms,

99-8

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 emergency departments, and similar areas in which patients are intended to be subjected to invasive procedures that could result in serious injuries , and connected to line-operated, patient-care-related electrical appliances that, if power is interrupted, could result in a high risk of morbidity. Substantiation: 1. Committee action wording could be interpreted to mean that serious injury and morbidity were only associated with use of electrical appliances. But committee wording is also considered to have helped clarify which invasive procedures make a patient care area a critical care area, and when loss of electric power makes a patient care area a critical care area. 2. It is those “invasive procedures” that could result in serious injuries that differentiate patient care areas. Invasive procedures can range from looking inside the outer ear to looking down a throat, to injecting a drug into an arm, to taking a biopsy through a colonscope, to making an incision to repair a kidney. 3. Line-operated, patient-care related electrical appliances can be used in any patient care area. However, it is only in critical care areas that the loss of power to these appliances should become life-threatening matter. 4. The use of the word “intended” thus takes on greater importance in defining term, and thus is retained.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 99-32 (Log #140). The Committee determined that the commenterʼs language (the underlined words) is vague and unenforcable.Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-32 Log #140 HEA-ELS Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.135.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Hugh O. Nash, Jr., Nash Lipsey BurchComment on Proposal No: 99-18Recommendation: Change the Committee Action from Accept in Principle to Accept or Reject.Substantiation: The Committee Action, which adds to the definition of Critical Care Area, does not achieve the intent of the proposal, as opined in the Committee Statement. In addition, the Committee Action actually adds an additional level of vagueness to the definition of Critical Care. With the definition proposed by the Committee, the AHJ would be required to decide what is invasive, and he or she would be required to decide what types of invasiveness could result in serious injury and under what circumstances a power interruption could result in a high risk of morbidity. The intent of the proposal was to simply define “invasive procedure”.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revised the proposed definition of invasive procedure: Any procedure that penetrates the protective surfaces of a patientʼs body (i.e., skin,mucous membrane, cornea) and that is performed with an aseptic field (procedural site). [Not included in this category are placement of peripheral intravenous needles or catheters used to administer fluids and/medications, gastrointestinal endoscopies (i.e., sigmoidoscopies), insertion of urethral catheters, and other similar procedures.]Committee Statement: The Committee has reconsidered Proposal 99-18 and further modified the text to strengthen the definition of invasive procedure. Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-33 Log #104 HEA-ELS Final Action: Reject(3.3.135.2 Critical Care Areas) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jim Cocke, Carolinas Health Care SystemComment on Proposal No: 99-18Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The committeeʼs addition to the definition of critical care areas does not, at all, achieve the intent of the proposal. Health Care facilities must have clarification of which areas do not need inclusion in critical care area requirements- Mr. Nashʼs proposal is a good start.Substantiation: Reduce unnecessary expenses for capital equipment and maintenance for isolated power systems in general care patient areas in which patient may receive care comprised of I.V., scopes, uninary catheters but not more invasive and risky procedures.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The comment does not provide any language or proposed action. See the committee action and statement on Comment 99-32 (Log #140). This accomplishes the commenterʼs request. Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-34 Log #2 HEA-ADM Final Action: Reject(3.3.179) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-50Recommendation: Accept recommendation No. 3: Change title of term from “Wet location” to “Wet procedure location”.Substantiation: 1. There is a need to distinguish a wet location with respect to health care activities and a wet location with respect to ordinary activities. In health care facilities, not only is there the presence of liquids and electric

shock, but there is also some procedure being done that further increases the risk to the person and staff (e.g., patient could be anesthetized, medicated, etc.) 2. The term “Wet location” is used in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. There is a Standards Council directive to correlate all definitions in NFPA documents so that no term is defined differently in different documents. Proposal to add “procedure” to term would meet this directive.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The committee can not accept this comment as it would cause a conflict with proposal 99-49 which has modified the definition for wet location. If Chapters 4 and 13 are changed to “wet procedure location”, there would be no definition for this term.Number Eligible to Vote: 5Ballot Results: Affirmative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 DIMANNO, TRUDZINSKI _______________________________________________________________99-35 Log #134 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(4.3.1.1.3 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ron Smiot, Carolinas Health Care SystemComment on Proposal No: 99-55Recommendation: Reconsider and reject proposal.Substantiation: Proposal appears to require redundant vaporizors on the bulk cryogenic system. Proper sizing of one vaporizor should be sufficient in most parts of the country.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Comment 99-92 (Log #47).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-36 Log #19 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(4.3.1.2.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-303Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to provide a better statement as to why bending the tube is not an appropriate method to change direction.Substantiation: Needs a better substantiation.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The pigtails on most medical gas outlets and inlets are approximately 8 inches in length, which is too short to be fitted into a mechanical tubing bender (lever or gear operated). There is risk of damaging the brazed joint where the pigtail is attached to the body of the outlet or inlet if bending is attempted in such limited space. Also the Copper Development Association, recommends that only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed, to insure the highest level of quality control for field-installed medical gas and vacuum piping. It should be noted that ASTM B819 copper tube is not manufactured in annealed temper since there is no allowance for any temper other than hard-drawn temper described in the standard.Committee Statement: The committee revised the committee statement for the rejection, as the TCC required.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: All deal with bending either on site or offsite. The European Union “EU” has been bending hard drawn copper for many years without problems. The TCC should be concerned with the quality of the installation not with the way it is accomplished. The code should be performance based i.e. no crimps or restrictions are allowed which reduce the size of the tubing. The installers and verifiers are responsible for the performance and quality of the installation. Current code should allow for bending of tubing. ESHERICK: The committee is addressing the 8 in. copper tubing pigtail. What about bending tubing by a mechanical tube bender? The Copper Development Association allows bends in drawn Type K and L up to 3/4 in., 1/2 in., and 3/8 in. Type K, L and M. ”The Copper Tube Handbook” 2002. Note Supporting Material available for review at NFPA headquarters. SMIDT: If European standards allow bending of hard drawn tubing then the technology in the field must exist. We need to state that bending of tubing will not reduce interior free cross-sectional area. Using performance criteria.

_______________________________________________________________99-37 Log #118 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(4.3.1.2.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-58Recommendation: Accept the rejected proposal.Substantiation: The bending of pipe for pigtails for station outlets has been recommended as a justifiable method of installation.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The pigtails on most medical gas outlets and inlets are approximately 8 inches in length, which is too short to be fitted into a

99-9

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 mechanical tubing bender (lever or gear operated). There is risk of damaging the brazed joint where the pigtail is attached to the body of the outlet or inlet if bending is attempted in such limited space. Also the Copper Development Association, recommends that only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed, to insure the highest level of quality control for field-installed medical gas and vacuum piping. It should be noted that ASTM B819 copper tube is not manufactured in annealed temper since there is no allowance for any temper other than hard-drawn temper described in the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-36 (Log #19). ESHERICK: See my comments on 99-36 (Log #19).

_______________________________________________________________99-38 Log #66 HEA-ELS Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(4.3.2.2.4.2, 4.3.2.6.1.1, 4.4.2.1.3 and 4.4.2.1.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeComment on Proposal No: 99-411Recommendation: Reconsider the original proposal and accept. 4.3.2.2.4.2* If used, ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) shall be listed and approved for the purpose. 4.3.2.6.1.1 The isolation transformer shall be listed and approved for the purpose. 4.4.2.1.3 Automatic Transfer Switch Classification. Each automatic transfer switch shall be listed and approved for emergency electrical service (see NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Section 700.3) as a complete assembly. 4.4.2.1.5 Nonautomatic Transfer Device Classification. Nonautomatic transfer devices shall be listed and approved.Substantiation: We agree with the negative comments by Mr. Murnane. The electrical equipment must be listed for its use and approval must be given for its use.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Revise the text to read as follows: 4.4.2.1.3 Automatic Transfer Switch Classification. Each automatic transfer switch 600 volts or below shall be listed for the purpose and approved for emergency electrical service (see NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Section 700.3) as a complete assembly. 4.4.2.1.5 Nonautomatic Transfer Device Classification. Nonautomatic transfer devices 600 volts or below shall be listed for the purpose and approved.The Committee accepts the remainder of Comment 99-38 (Log #66).Committee Statement: The Committee revised the commenterʼs language to further clarify the use and application of transfer equipment both automatic and nonautomatic. The addition of the 600 volt limitation is in concert with UL 1008 for Transfer Switches. There is no listing for transfer switches above 600 volt. Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: COSTLEY: Article 700.3 as referenced in the original proposal states that “All equipment shall be approved for use on emergency systems.” This allows use of listed automatic and non-automatic transfer equipment. Adding the requirement that this equipment be “listed for the purpose” in NFPA 99 takes out of the hands of the authority having jurisdiction the use of other acceptable non-listed equipment in health care facilities. Although the final wording limiting the listing requirement to equipment rated 600V and below will make compliance easier, some system design options in larger complex systems will be eliminated. In the interests of eliminating possible inconsistencies in code application by AHJs, this change extends the requirements for transfer switch listing in health care facilities beyond that included in the NEC Emergency Systems Article 700. There appears to be little difference between the proposed addition of these new listing requirement and the proposals for listing of the EPS which have been rejected to date.

_______________________________________________________________99-39 Log #3 HEA-ELS Final Action: Reject(4.3.2.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-71Recommendation: In new 4.3.2.5.1, change “apply to hospitals and other buildings housing” to read “apply to healthcare facilities housing”.Substantiation: Editorial. Chapters 4 to 11 are facility-independent, re: NFPA 99 structure.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee did not consider the change as editorial and continues to accept the language in the original proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 14

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-40 Log #13 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(4.5.1.2.10(b)6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Walter J. Sperko, Brazing Dimpler CorporationComment on Proposal No: noneRecommendation: Revise first sentence to read: “Tube ends shall be inserted into the socket either fully or to a mechanically controlled stop depth that is not less than the minimum depth (overlap) specified by the Brazing Procedure Specification.”Substantiation: Extensive testing by CDA and ACS and industry experience show that deep sockets typical of fittings designed for soldering make it unnecessarily difficult for brazers to make quality brazed joints. See www.brazingdimpler.com for supporting reports. Simple devices are available that allow forming a positive tube stop (dimple) in the fitting that limits the depth of insertion. This makes it easier to make quality brazed joints, yet the stops provide positive control over the depth of insertion. Such devices should be permitted. The minimum depth of insertion is established in the brazing procedure qualification process.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is new material and the submitter did not reference any specific proposal for change.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: The submitter referenced specifics in his specification.

_______________________________________________________________99-41 Log #99 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-92Recommendation: See my Recommendation in 99-31 (Log #353).Substantiation: See my Substantiation in 99-31 (Log #353).Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter does not recommend any specific change.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: See my negative comment on 99-8 (Log #99) Proposal 99-31.

_______________________________________________________________99-42 Log #100 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-93Recommendation: See my Recommendation in 99-31 (Log #353).Substantiation: See my Substantiation in 99-31 (Log #353).Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter does not recommend any specific change.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: See my comment on 99-41 (Log #99).

_______________________________________________________________99-43 Log #110 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-93Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “Wherever the terms medical gas or vacuum occur,...oxygen, nitrous oxide, instrument air, medical air, carbon dioxide,...” Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has not lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standard for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a

99-10

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete both terms “instrument air” as proposed and “nitrogen”.Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-47 (Log #70). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-44 Log #111 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-94Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.1.2* Wherever the terms medical gas or vacuum occur the provisions shall apply to all piped systems for oxygen, nitrous oxide, medical air, carbon dioxide, helium, nitrogen, instrument air , medical surgical vacuum, waste anesthetic gas disposal, and mixtures thereof. Wherever the name of a specific gas or vacuum service occurs, the provision shall apply only to that gas. Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standard for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-43 (Log #110). Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-43 (Log #110). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-45 Log #160 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-94Recommendation: In section 5.1.1.2 delete the words instrument air . Substantiation: Instrument air is not a medical gas.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-43 (Log #110).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-43 (Log #110).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-46 Log #101 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.1.12) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-94Recommendation: See my Recommendation in 99-31 (Log #353).Substantiation: See my Substantiation in 99-31 (Log #353).Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter did not give any specific recommendation for change.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

_______________________________________________________________99-47 Log #70 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.2.5.12.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mark Allen, Beacon Medical ProductsComment on Proposal No: 99-28, 99-31, 99-32, 99-38, 99-44, 99-92, 99-93, 99-94, 99-99, 99-124, 99-125, 99-127Recommendation: Add a special section on Medical Support Gases. 5.1.14 Level 1 Medical Support Gases. 5.1.14.1 Applicability. Medical Support gases are gases which are not used for respiration, but are used primarily for powering pneumatic devices related to patient care such as medical-surgical tools, equipment booms, pendants, and similar medical support applications. 5.1.14.2 Nature of Hazards. Medical Support Gas systems are subject to the same hazards as are present in any piped medical gas system with the additional hazard of operating at higher pressures. 5.1.14.3 Sources. Requirements for Medical Support Gas sources are found in 5.1.3. 5.1.14.4 Valves. Requirements for Medical Support Gas valving are found in 5.1.4. 5.1.14.5 Outlets. Requirements for Medical Support Gas outlets are found in 5.1.5. 5.1.14.6 Manufactured Assemblies. Requirements for Medical Support Gases in Manufactured Assemblies are found in 5.1.6. 5.1.14.7 Pressure Indicators. Requirements for Medical Support Gas pressure indicators are found in 5.1.8. 5.1.14.8 Warning Systems. Requirements for Medical Support Gas warning systems are found in 5.1.9. 5.1.14.9 Distribution. Requirements for Medical Support Gas piping are found n 5.1.10 with the following exceptions: 5.1.14.9.1 Tubes shall be permitted to be ASTM B819 or ASTM B-88 type K, L, or M, degreased. 5.1.14.10 Labeling an identification. Requirements for Medical Support Gas labeling are found in 5.1.11. 5.1.14.11 Performance Testing. Requirements for Medical Support Gas performance testing are found in 5.1.12 with the following exceptions: 5.1.14.11.1 The piping purity test (5.1.12.3.8) shall be permitted to be omitted. 5.1.14.11.2 The medical gas concentration test (5.1.12.3.11) shall be permitted to be omitted.Substantiation: These comments are all tending to make instrument air and Nitrogen exactly the same as other medical gases, where that is not absolutely necessary. This proposal offers a frame work to clarify exactly what differences are acceptable.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add a special section on Support Gases. 5.1.14 Level 1 Support Gases. 5.1.14.1 Applicability. Support gases (nitrogen & instrument air) shall be gases that are not used for respiration, but are used for powering pneumatic devices (medical-surgical tools, equipment booms, pendants) related to patient care. 5.1.14.2 Nature of Hazards. Support Gas systems are subject to the same hazards as are present in any piped medical gas system with the additional hazard of operating at higher pressures. 5.1.14.3 Sources. Requirements for support gas sources shall be in accordance with the following: (1) 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.2, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.4 for nitrogen (2) 5.1.3.8 for instrument air. 5.1.14.4 Valves. Requirements for support gas shall be in accordance with 5.1.4.1, 5.1.4.2, 5.1.4.3, 5.1.4.4, 5.1.4.5, 5.1.4.6, 5.1.4.7, 5.1.4.8, 5.1.4.9 and 5.1.4.10. 5.1.14.5 Outlets. (A) Requirements for nitrogen support gas outlets shall be in accordance with 5.1.5.1, 5.1.5.2, 5.1.5.4, 5.1.5.5, 5.1.5.6, 5.1.5.7, 5.1.5.8, 5.1.5.11, 5.1.5.13, 5.1.5.14, and 5.1.5.15. (B) Requirements for other support gas outlets shall be in accordance with 5.1.5.1, 5.1.5.2, 5.1.5.4, 5.1.5.5, 5.1.5.7, 5.1.5.8, 5.1.5.11, 5.1.5.13, 5.1.5.14, and 5.1.5.15. 5.1.14.6 Manufactured Assemblies. Requirements for support gases in manufactured assemblies shall be in accordance with 5.1.6.1, 5.1.6.2, 5.1.6.3, 5.1.6.4, 5.1.6.5, 5.1.6.6, 5.1.6.7, 5.1.6.8 and 5.1.6.9. 5.1.14.7 Pressure Indicators. Requirements for support gas pressure indicators shall be in accordance with 5.1.8.1.1, 5.1.8.1.2, 5.1.8.1.3, 5.1.8.1.4, 5.1.8.1.6 and 5.1.8.1.7, and 5.1.8.2. 5.1.14.8 Warning Systems. 5.1.14.8.1 General requirements for support gas warning systems shall be in accordance with 5.1.9.1. 5.1.14.8.2 Master Alarm requirements for support gas shall be in accordance with 5.1.9.2. 5.1.14.8.3 Area Alarm requirements for support gas shall be in accordance with 5.1.9.3. 5.1.14.8.4 Local Alarm requirements for support gas shall be in accordance with 5.1.9.4. 5.1.14.9 Distribution. Requirements for support gas piping shall be in accordance with 5.1.10.1, 5.1.10.3, 5.1.10.4, 5.1.10.5.1, 5.1.10.5.2, 5.1.10.5.3,

99-11

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 5.1.10.5.4, 5.1.10.5.5, 5.1.10.5.6, 5.1.10.5.7, 5.1.10.5.8(1), 5.1.10.5.8(2) and 5.1.10.5.8(3), and 5.1.10.6. 5.1.14.10 Labeling and Identification. Requirements for support gas labeling shall be in accordance with 5.1.11.1, 5.1.11.2, 5.1.11.3, and 5.1.11.4. 5.1.14.11 Performance Testing. Requirements for support gas performance testing shall be in accordance with 5.1.12 with the following exceptions:(1) The piping purity test (5.1.12.3.8) shall be permitted to be omitted.(2) The medical gas concentration test (5.1.12.3.11) shall be permitted to be omitted. Following changes in Chapter 5 for support gas required: 5.1.1.2 - delete nitrogen from list of medical gases 5.1.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.3.1.5 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.3.2.3 - delete “medical” 5.1.3.2.4 - delete “medical” 5.1.3.3.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.3.3.3.1 - delete “medical” 5.1.3.3.3.1(b) & (d) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.3.3.4.1 - delete “medical” 5.1.3.4.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.4.2.3 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.4.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.8.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2.1(1) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2.1(2) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2.4(1) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2.4(3) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2.4(5) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.2.4(6) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.3 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.3.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.9.4.3 - add instrument air compressors 5.1.10.1.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.4 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.5.9 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.5.5.11 - delete “medical” 5.1.10.6.3.3 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.6.3.4 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.6.4.6 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.6.8.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.6.10.1 - delete “medical” 5.1.10.6.11.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.6.11.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.10.6.11.4 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.11.2.1(1) - delete “medical” 5.1.11.3.1 - delete “medical” 5.1.11.3.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.2.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.2.3.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.2.4 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.2.4.4 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.2.4.5 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.2.6 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.3.1.3 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.3.3.1(a), (b) and (f) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.3.3.2(a), (b) and (e) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.3.4 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.3.5.1(a) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.3.5.2(a) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.12.3.5.3 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.13.1.3(3) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.13.1.3(4) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.13.1.3(5) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.13.7.1 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.13.8.2 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.1.13.8.3 - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas” 5.2.3.8 - change “instrument air” to “support gas”Chapter 1313.3.5.1 - change “instrument air” to “support gas”13.3.5.1(2) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas”Chapter 1414.3.5.1 - change “instrument air” to “support gas”14.3.5.1(2) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas”Chapter 1717.3.5.1 - change “instrument air” to “support gas”17.3.5.1(2) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas”Chapter 1818.3.5.1 - change “instrument air” to “support gas”18.3.5.1(2) - change “medical gas” to “positive pressure gas”

Committee Statement: The piping material section was modified to require cleaniness of the pipe.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Abstain: 1Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Abstention: ERICKSON: While I applaud the work of the Technical Committee in converting the instrument air to support gas and all of the other modifications on its installation and testing, I am still of the opinion that a medical gas system in a smaller facility could be successfully used to raise and lower equipment booms, pendants, and similar medical support applications. This system is severely underutilized in most institutions that the extra use would assist in maintaining the system rather than reducing the time between overhaul.

_______________________________________________________________99-48 Log #71 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.2.5.12.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mark Allen, Beacon Medical ProductsComment on Proposal No: 99-205Recommendation: Add the following: Vacuum: Add to 5.1.3.6.6.3(6) “Automatic restart function such that pump(s) will restart after power interruption without manual intervention.” Medical Air: Add to 5.1.3.5.12.3(6) “Automatic restart function such that compressor(s) will restart after power interruption without manual intervention.” WAGD: Add to 5.1.3.7.4.3(6) “Automatic restart function such that pump(s) will restart after power interruption without manual intervention.” Instrument Air: Add to Log #39 “Automatic restart function such that compressor(s) will restart after power interruption without manual intervention.”Substantiation: Source systems that do not restart automatically are a threat to patient safety. The proposal only addresses one of several source systems where this is an issue, this submission attempts to complete the list.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-49 Log #82 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-95Recommendation: Under the Substantiation the 11th line, delete: “ It is almost impossible for a user to open a high pressure valve slowly enough to prevent the rapid pressurization causing heat of compression in oxygen connections. ” Substantiation: Mr. Rosentrater should practice opening a high-pressure oxygen cylinder valve slowly. In 1953, my employer, The Linde Air Products Co. taught me how to open such a valve slowly. Railroads and coal mine men did this all the time. Once in a while they would make a mistake and our service department would get an oxygen regulator that looked like a giant firecracker had been in the inlet nipple.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The recommendation to change the substantiation is not valid. Changes to the proposal are correct, but not to the substantiation.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-50 Log #112 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.1.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-99Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.1.5 Locations containing medical gases other than oxygen, and medical air, and instrument air shall have their door(s) labeled substantially as follows: Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standard for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical

99-12

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-51 Log #159 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.1.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-99Recommendation: In section 5.1.3.1.5 delete the words and instrument air . Substantiation: Instrument air is not a medical gas.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-52 Log #113 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.1.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-100Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.1.6 Locations containing central supply systems or cylinders containing only oxygen, or medical air, or instrument air shall have their door(s) labeled as follows: Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standard for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-53 Log #158 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.1.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-100Recommendation: In section 5.1.3.1.6 delete the words or instrument air . Substantiation: Instrument air is not a medical gas.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-54 Log #135 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ron Smiot, Carolinas Health Care SystemComment on Proposal No: 99-101Recommendation: Modify 5.1.3.2.13 as follows: Delete words “such as a closet”.Substantiation: As noted in Ericksonʼs negative vote, the committee should not use the name of the space.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

_______________________________________________________________99-55 Log #20 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.2.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-102Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to provide a better statement as to why the committee feels this is not a safe practice.Substantiation: Needs a better Committee Statement explaining the reasons for a rejection.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The CGA has issued Safety Bulletin 23-2000 regarding additional risks incurred from this practice. The CGA does not support the practice of withdrawing liquid oxygen from the primary or reserve tanks of a bulk cryogenic liquid supply system located at a health care facility. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Statement: The committee provided more details as requested by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-56 Log #41 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.2.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-102Recommendation: This comment is in response the the TCCʼs request for additional information why the Technical Committee feels this is not a safe practice. Revise committee statement to read as follows: The CGA has issued Safety Bulletin 23-2000 regarding additional risks incurred from this practice. The CGA does not support the practice of withdrawing liquid oxygen from the primary or reserve tanks of a bulk cryogenic liquid supply system located at a health care facility.Substantiation: The CGA has issued Safety Bulletin 23-2000 regarding additional risks incurred from this practice. The CGA does not support the practice of withdrawing liquid oxygen from the primary or reserve tanks of a bulk cryogenic liquid supply system located at a health care facility. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: The revised Committee Statement is more specific as required by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-57 Log #83 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.2.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-102Recommendation: Follow recommendation in the proposal.Substantiation: I do not agree with the committee that this is not a safe practice. If “Personnel Trans filling liquid oxygen from bulk supply shall be certified to do so.” What more does the TCC require of the personnel?Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The CGA has issued Safety Bulletin 23-2000 regarding additional risks incurred from this practice. The CGA̓ s does not support the practice of withdrawing liquid oxygen from the primary or reserve tanks of a bulk cryogenic liquid supply system located at a health care facility. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-58 Log #119 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.2.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-102Recommendation: Accept the rejected proposal.Substantiation: The TC did not spend time to discuss this but as evidenced by the committee statement dismissed it because of feelings and not empirical data, common practice or historical data. This TC is known for its feelings and not for researching new methodoligics and common practice in health care facilities. Committee Meeting Action: Reject

99-13

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Statement: The CGA has issued Safety Bulletin 23-2000 regarding additional risks incurred from this practice. The CGA does not support the practice of withdrawing liquid oxygen from the primary or reserve tanks of a bulk cryogenic liquid supply system located at a health care facility. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-59 Log #117 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.2.13) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-101Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.2.13 Containers shall not be stored in a tightly cosed space such as a closet. Substantiation: New section 5.1.3.2.13 makes the statement that containers shall not be stored in tightly closed spaces which I agree with, however, the reference to closets is inappropriate as a closet can be a large enough area to have containers stored. Letʼs not fall in a trap of classifying an area based on a name versus whether it is appropriate or not. The last thing we need are the verifiers and enforcers writing us up because of the what we call a space versus whether it is or is not appropriate.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-54 (Log #135). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-60 Log #120 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.3.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-103Recommendation: Delete the following text: (5) any other compressor, vacuum pump, or electrically powered machinery. Substantiation: The separation of medical air compressors, vacuum pumps, and all other electrically powered machinery is ridiculous. The submitter makes the statement that we need to protect this equipment in the event of a fire so we donʼt compromise systems. Hospitals for decades have been putting this equipment in mechanical spaces with a host of other equipment. I have seen vacuum pumps and medical gas compressors side by side in the majority of our hospitals and this has not been a problem. It is easier for the maintenance and engineering staff to see problems with these units if out in the open in these mechanical spaces. We see no advantage in placing each individual pump or compressor in a separate room. Where is the justification and cost benefit analysis on this proposed change?Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This requirement in the proposal is less restrictive. Acceptance of the comment would be more restrictive and in conflict with the submitters substantiation. The proposal allows more electrical equipment to be located in the same room.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: All these comments have to do with the confusion of what electrically motorized equipment is allowed to be in the same room as the medical air/surgical vacuum and WAGD systems, Since there are multiple comments there is an identified problem with the current wording. The TCC should clearly state and not put limits on what can be collocated with these medical systems as others suggest in their comments. ERICKSON: The committeeʼs substantiation for rejecting this comment does not match the original submitters substantiation. The whole purpose for adding this language was to eliminate having electrically operated machinery from being in a room with those devices or cylinders that contain or produce source gas such as medical air and vacuum. This is going to severely chop up our mechanical spaces and potentially hide problems that can be easily detected by a walk through. The original accepted substantiation is clarity. Proposal Substantiation: If the purpose of the following paragraph (5.1.3.3.1.4) is to prevent medical air compressors and medical vacuum pumps from being in the same room as manifolds and tanks of gas in storage is to limit the compromising of the manifolds in the event of fire would not the same problem be present with any air compressor or vacuum pump being in the same room? By adding the new wording, we are saying that we do not want any electrically operated machinery from being in the same room as source gas equipment. SMIDT: Based on Mr. Ericksonʼs negative explanation. I am changing my vote to negative on this comment. Based on what was said in DC and what I now read it appears that we would be as Mr. Erickson states “This will severely chop up or mechanical spaces”. This will make routine operations more difficult and will not yield additional safety.

_______________________________________________________________99-61 Log #141 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.3.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein Associates

Comment on Proposal No: 99-103Recommendation: Reject Proposal 99-103 (Log #334).Substantiation: I think submitter and negative voter are considering different scenarios. I donʼt think submitterʼs wording was intended the way negative voter interprets it. Since I canʼt think of how wording should read, I can only recommend rejecting proposal, thereby giving Technical Committee opportunity to revise wording to reconcile submitterʼs wording with negative voterʼs interpretation.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-60 (Log #120).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-60 (Log #120).

_______________________________________________________________99-62 Log #152 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.3.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Craig B. Williams, Life Medical NetworksComment on Proposal No: 99-103Recommendation: Delete the following text: (5) any other compressor, vacuum pump, or electrically powered machinery. Substantiation: This proposal is confusing. The proposal, as written, would allow for other machinery to be placed along with medical air, medical-surgical vacuum, WAGD and instrument air systems in the same room. However, the submitter states in the substantiation that it is his intent to prevent the medical has equipment, stated in the first sentence, in the same room with other electrically powered machinery. If this is the case, then I think it is important for the committee to review the possible complications this proposal, as is the intent of the submitter, would impose on construction of healthcare facilities, then explain why the facilityʼs sprinkler pumps are less important than an instrument air system. If it were the intent of the submitter to include the powered equipment, state in the first sentence, then it would seem the added texts is unnecessary since it is obviously not a problem with installers to understand.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-60 (Log #120).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-60 (Log #120)._______________________________________________________________99-63 Log #114 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.3.1.3(4)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-100Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.1.6 Locations containing cetral supply systems or cylinders containing only oxygen, or medical air, or instrument air shall have their door(s) labeled as follows: Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standard for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.

99-14

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-64 Log #157 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.3.1.3(4)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-104Recommendation: In section 5.1.3.3.1.3(4) delete Instument air compressor. Substantiation: Instrument air is not a medical gas.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-103 (Log #74).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-9 (Log #106).

_______________________________________________________________99-65 Log #69 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.3.1.3(b)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Scott Humphreys, Eastern Main Medical CenterComment on Proposal No: 99-462Recommendation: Delete text as follows: (5) any other compressor, vacuum pump, or electrically powered machinery. Substantiation: I propose to delete this line because this revision would create an undesirable location for the medical gas compressors and vacuum pumps by excluding them from penthouse mechanical rooms where their air intakes and exhaust locations can be optimized, free cooling is easily utilized, and room is available for safe maintenance practices. There does not seem to be documentation for the revision that supports the dramatic effect this will have on existing facilities when so many benefits support not including it.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See the Committee Action on Comment 99-60 (Log #120).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-60 (Log #120).

_______________________________________________________________99-66 Log #21 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.3.1.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-107Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement, as it does not support the changes the committee made in the committee action.Substantiation: The Committee Statement does not match the proposal.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The reference to 5.1.3.8.5 was substituted for 5.1.3.4.13 as a more accurate reference. The committee also added 5.1.3.3.1.7 as a temperature limitation for the enclosure.Committee Statement: The committee revised the committee statement per the direction of the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-67 Log #42 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.3.1.13) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Delete the following text: Central supply systems for nitrogen with a total capacity connected and in storage of 566,335L (20,000) or more at standard temperature and pressure (STP) shall comply with P 18 “Standard for Bulk Inert Gas Systems at Consumer Sites”. Substantiation: Delete Section 5.1.3.3.1.13. The CGA document is P-18 is not applicable to installations at health care facilities.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

_______________________________________________________________99-68 Log #50 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.3.2(1)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-115Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Be constructed with access to move cylinders and equipment and so forth, in and out of the location on hand trucks complying with Section 9.5.3.1.1 . Substantiation: Proposed text is missing from Proposal 99-110 (Log #CP313).Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-69 Log #64 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.3.3.1(b)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeRecommendation: Reconsider the original proposal and accept.Substantiation: We agree with the negative ballot of Mr. Wagner. Mechanical systems need make up air to function properly. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committe Action on Comment 99-71 (Log #153).Committee Statement: See Committe Action on Comment 99-71 (Log #153).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-70 Log #147 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.3.3.1(b)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mark Allen, Beacon Medical ProductsComment on Proposal No: 99-118Recommendation: Recommend Mr. Wagnerʼs wording be utilized.Substantiation: The committee action does not address the issue in the original proposal, Mr. Wagner does so.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-71 (Log #153 ).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-71 (Log # 153).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-71 Log #153 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.3.3.1(b)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Craig B. Williams, Life Medical NetworksComment on Proposal No: 99-118Recommendation: Where the total of medical gases connected and in storage is greater than 84,950 (3000 ft 3 ) at STP, indoor supply locations shall be with dedicated mechanical ventilation systems that draw air from within 300 mm (1ft) of the floor and operate continuously with a means to provide makeup air. Substantiation: The submitterʼs intent was not to allow for wrongful locations of louvered opening but to address the need for installers to ensure proper ventilation by requiring a means to replace the air that is required to be drawn from the room.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: Where the total of medical gases connected and in storage is greater than 84,950 L (3000 ft 3 ) at STP, indoor supply locations shall be provided with dedicated mechanical ventilation systems that draw air from within 300 mm (1ft) of the floor and operate continuously. A means of makeup air shall be provided. Committee Statement: Editorial correction.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-72 Log #22 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.3.4.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-120Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement as it is confusing and does not specify what changes were reconciled.Substantiation: Confusing Committee Statement.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The changes made by the Technical Committee clarified the intent that instrument air, not necessarily medical air, be permitted to be stored in the same room as instrument air compressors.

99-15

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Statement: The committee modified the committee statement per the direction of the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-73 Log #23 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-122Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain why the requirement is too restrictive.Substantiation: Needs a better explanation for why it is too restrictive.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-74 (Log #CC100).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-74 (Log #CC100).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-74 Log #CC100 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-122Recommendation: Revise 5.1.3.4.1 as follows: Central supply systems shall be obtained from a supplier or manufacturer familiar with their proper construction and use, and installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.Substantiation: The committee recognized the TCC was correct and the paragraph was unclear.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-75 Log #4 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.4.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-127Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.4.2 Central supply systems for oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, instrument air, and all other patient medical gases shall not be piped to, or used for, any purpose except patient care application. 5.1.3.4.3 Central supply systems for nitrogen, instrument air, and all other medical support gases shall not be piped to, or used for, any purpose except medical support application. Renumber rest of 5.1.3.4.2 accordingly. Substantiation: Recommendation in Proposal 99-127 could be interpreted to permit medical air to be used for medical support application, and worse, instrument air to be used for patient care application. Separating into two requirements will eliminate this possibility, as well as correlate with proposals 99-28 and 99-29, which create and define the terms “medical support gas” and “patient medical gas.”Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.4.2 Central supply systems for oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, instrument air, and all other patient medical gases shall not be piped to, or used for, any purpose except patient care application. 5.1.3.4.3 Central supply systems for support gases shall not be piped to, or used for, any purpose except medical support application. Renumber rest of 5.1.3.4.2 accordingly. Committee Statement: Correlates with a previous action. Support gases are not used for medical respiration.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-76 Log #84 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.4.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-127Recommendation: Delete: “... instrument air ... medical support ...” Substantiation: Instrument air is not a medical gas and should not be lumped into medical gases. It should be treated separately for its purpose, use, piping and compressors, alarm, and valving.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-47 (Log #70). Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-47 (Log #70).

Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-77 Log #146 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(5.1.3.4.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-127Recommendation: Delete Proposal 99-124 (Log #142) and 99-127(Log #CP333).Substantiation: 1. Proposal 99-127(Log #CP333) creates a conflict with Proposal 99-124(Log #142). 2. I have submitted a separate proposal just on Proposal 99-127 (Log #CP333). If that proposal is accepted then the TC needs to reject Proposal 99-124 (Log #142) as well. This comment is for correlation purposes only.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Reject Proposal 99-124 (Log #142). See Committee Action on Comment 99-75 (Log #4).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-75 (Log #4).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-78 Log #109 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.4.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-124Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.4.2 Central supply systems for oxygen, medical air , nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and all other medical gases shall not be piped to, or used for, any other purpose except patient care applications. 5.1.3.4.2.1 Central supply systems for nitrogen and instrument air or medical air shall be permitted t be used for medical patient support roles such as operation of ceiling pendants and columns, drying applications for instrument and equipment used during patient procedures. Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has not lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standards for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-75 (Log #4). Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-75 (Log #4). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-79 Log #24 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.3(1)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-128Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement, as it is very confusing.Substantiation: Confusing Committee Statement.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The orifice described in the proposal may be too flow restrictive to permit the necessary flow rates in medical use, but no data was given. The proposal was vague as to whether the orifice should be placed at the cylinder or manifold end and how one makes sure it is placed at the correct end. Committee Statement: The committee revised the Committee Statement per the direction of the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

99-16

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 _______________________________________________________________99-80 Log #75 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Dennis Huffman, Western EnterprisesComment on Proposal No: 99-129Recommendation: Revise text as follows: All positive pressure central supply systems shall be provided with (a balanced design) duplex final line pressure regulators, installed in parallel with isolation valves before each regulator, and an isolation or check valve after each regulator permitting service to either regulator without interruption of the supply. Substantiation: The specification currently lists performance requirements for the regulators; flow and pressure. As long as the regulator meets the flow and pressure requirements, it should be acceptable, regardless of the regulator design. There may also be other eligible methods of designing a regulator that provide similar or even better performance. This change would not allow them to be used. If this “balanced design” requirement is added, the committee will need to specify additional information. A definition for “balanced design” needs to be added to the specification. The exact performance requirements of what constitutes a balanced regulator will also need to be defined (i.e., pressure regulation, flow, pressure drop, lockup.) This criterion needs to be defined because, with this change, the committee has indicated that the current performance requirements are not adequate. What if there is a “non-balanced” regulator that meets your newly identified performance requirements, can it be used? This change is very restrictive, and would prevent the use of regulators that have been used successfully for years. If someone wants to use this style regulator, they can, but there is no need to make it mandatory. In fact, our experience has been, that these balanced regulator, fail more often than standard regulator. Making this change may actually create more problems than it will prevent.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-81 Log #CC112 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-137Recommendation: Change the action on Proposal 99-137 (Log #304) from Accept in Principle to Reject.Substantiation: Based upon the action in proposal 99-131 (Log #CP312) the action was reversed as it was in conflict.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-82 Log #133 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Part(5.1.3.4.5.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David B. Mohile, Medical Engineering Services, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-140Recommendation: Reject Proposal 99-140 (Log #127) and Proposal 99-131 (Log #CP312).Substantiation: I disagree with the proposal. The reason for running relief lines in ASTM B819 oxygen cleaned tubing is that if a piece of tubing is used for a relief line that has been contaminated with oil and a manifold for oxygen or nitrous oxide vents, a very high pressure burst of oxidizing gas could impinge upon the oil, possible causing friction and a fire or explosion. This is why we mandate that all tubing for medical gases is cleaned and degreased to ASTM B819 standards. This is not a very high cost item and the safety afforded the facility is great.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Accept the recommendation to reject Proposal 99-140 (Log #127). Do not accept the recommendation to reject 99-131 (Log #CP312).Committee Statement: There was a conflict between the two proposals.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-83 Log #CC101 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.8(10), Figure A.5.1.2.4.8(a)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-145Recommendation: Add new 5.1.3.4.8(10) as follows: Vent valves, if fitted on a header, shall be vented outside of the building per 5.1.3.4.5.1(5-9) and 5.1.3.4.5.2. Revise figure A.5.1.2.4.8(a) to include a vent valve.

Substantiation: This vent valve will relieve the high pressure in the header, which is a safety concern to anyone working on the header.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: Both comments deal with required venting outside when an optional vent valve is used. This does not pass the common sense test. The added expense of venting outside will keep contractors from using the optional valve in the first place which will negate the safety concerns of venting with a venting valve. If venting is allowed by indoors without a venting valve, why require it to be vented outdoors if one is used? Remove the requirement for venting outside when an optional vent valve is used. DAVIDSON: Materials used for vent valve and vent piping should withstand maximum pressure in the header (2100-2300 PSI). If the cylinder(s) valve(s) are not closed, total volume of cylinder(s) would vent thru header vent valve. Would the vent valve need to be slow opening to prevent rapid release of an oxidizer? We cannot regulate stupidity.

_______________________________________________________________99-84 Log #25 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.4.8(8) and Figure A.5.1.2.4.8(a)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-148Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain why the proposes requirement would create a greater hazard than it would fix.Substantiation: Needs to explain why it would create a greater hazard.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-83 (Log #CC101).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-83 (Log #CC101).. The cc addresses the submitters concern about trapped gases in headers.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: DAVIDSON: See my Explanation of Negative on Comment 99-83 (Log #CC101).

_______________________________________________________________99-85 Log #CC102 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.9.4, Figure A.5.1.3.4.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-149Recommendation: Add new 5.1.3.4.9.4(3) as follows: Vent valves, if fitted on a header, shall be vented outside of the building per 5.1.3.4.5.1(5-9) and 5.1.3.4.5.2. Revise figure A.5.1.3.4.9 to include a vent valve.

Substantiation: This vent valve will relieve the high pressure in the header, which is a safety concern to anyone working on the header.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-83 (Log #CC101). DAVIDSON: See my Explanation of Negative on Comment 99-83 (Log #CC101)._______________________________________________________________99-86 Log #26 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.4.9.4(1) and Figure A.5.1.3.4.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-149Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain why the proposed requirement would create a greater hazard than it would fix.Substantiation: Needs to explain why it would create a greater hazard.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-85 (Log #CC102).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-85 (Log #CC102). The new Committee Comment addresses relief of pressure in the header.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: DAVIDSON: See my Explanation of Negative on Comment 99-83 (Log #CC101).

99-17

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 _______________________________________________________________99-87 Log #5 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.11.1(4)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-167Recommendation: 1. Revise text to read: In compliance with CGA M-1, Guide for Medical Gas Installations at Consumer Sites. 2. Add citation in 2.3.6 CGA Publications as follows: “Pamphlet M-1, Medical Gas Installations at Consumer Sites, 2003.”Substantiation: 1. This is the title as listed in the CGA website. 2. Conform to NFPA Style Manual for the listing of required references. (While this document is included in the 2002 edition of NFPA 99, it was not listed in Referenced publication.) 3. Correlate with Committee Action on Proposal 99-167, which rejected a proposal to delete reference to this document.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-88 Log #45 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.11.6(2)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: “...änd a pressure switch monitoring the pressure in the cyinder header (if provided).”Substantiation: Adding the word “and” clarifies the intent of 5.1.3.4.11.6(5).Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-89 Log #44 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.11.6(3)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: “...änd a contents gauge monitoring liquid level in the reserve cryogenic liquid vessel (if provided).”Substantiation: Adding the word “and” clarifies the intent of 5.1.3.4.11.6(3).Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-90 Log #43 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.11.6(5)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: “...änd an actuating switch/sensor monitoring internal pressure of the reserve cryogenic liquid vessel (if provided).”Substantiation: Adding the word “and” clarifies the intent of 5.1.3.4.11.6(2).Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-91 Log #46 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.11.7(2)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A means to seal cap and secure the fill connection. Substantiation: The use of the word seal can lead to confusion as to the method of protecting the fill connection.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-92 Log #47 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.4.11.10(3)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (3) Have piping and manual/automatic valving configured in such a manner

that operating vaporizer(s) or sections of the vaporizer can be switched to non-operating vaporizer or section of the vaporizer to de-ice through a valving configuration that assures continuous flow to the facility through either/and or both vaporizers and or sections of the vaporizer if valving switchover partially hangs up or fails. Substantiation: Reworded to respond to a negative vote (99-55 (Log #3)) and to clarify allowance of a single vaporizer that has multiple circuits. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: (3) Have piping and manual/automatic valving configured in such a manner that operating vaporizer(s) or sections of the vaporizer can be switched to non-operating vaporizer or section of the vaporizer to de-ice through a valving configuration that assures continuous flow to the facility through either /and or both vaporizers and or sections of the vaporizer if valving switchover partially hangs up or fails. Committee Statement: Editorially changed “either/and or” to “either or”.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-93 Log #48 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.4.11.11) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Where a vaporizer requires an external thermal source the flow from the source of supply shall be unaffected by the loss of the thermal source through provisions of either of the following . Substantiation: Current wording required both (1) and (2). Revised wording allows a choice of either option.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-94 Log #27 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-185Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to review the action on this proposal again as a committee comment as the reference to log #307 does not address after-coolers.Substantiation: The reference does not match the proposal.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-98 (Log #CC103).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-98 (Log #CC103). The committee comment corrected the paragraph number.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-95 Log #85 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.5.3.2(6)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-188Recommendation: Add: The medical air shall meet USP Standards. Substantiation: The medical air should meet USP Standards since it is also dispensed as a dry and thus should meet todayʼs drug (USP) Standards.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is already required in 5.1.3.5.1(2).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-96 Log #72 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3.5.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Craig B. Williams, Life Medical NetworksComment on Proposal No: 99-190Recommendation: Revise text to read: 5.1.3.5.4 Compressors for Medical Air. 5.1.3.5.4.1* Compressor for medical air shall be designed to prevent the introduction of contaminants or liquid into the pipeline by either of the following methods: (1) Elimination of oil anywhere in the compressor (e.g., liquid ring and permanently sealed bearing compressors) (2) Reciprocating compressors provided with a separation of the oil-containing section from the compression chamber by at least two seals creating an area open to atmosphere that allows the following:

99-18

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 (a) Direct and unobstructed visual inspection of the interconnecting shaft through vent and inspection openings no smaller than 1.4 shaft diameters in size (b) The facility operators to confirm proper seal operation by direct visual inspection through the above-shaft opening, without disassembly of the compressor (e.g., extended head compressors with an atmospheric vent between the compressor chamber and crankcase) (3) Rotary-screw compressors provided with a separation of the oil-containing section from the compression chamber by at least two seals separated by a barrier ring having atmospheric vents on each side with the vent closest to the oil containing section supplied with a gravity drain allowing the following: (a) Visual indication of oil migration without disassembly of the compressor (b) Additional protection of oil migration to the compression section by centrifugal force created by high rotary shaft surface speed in excess of 550 meters per minute (1805 feet per minute). 5.1.3.5.8.1 Compressors complying with 5.1.3.5.4.1(2) and (3) shall be provided with the following: (1) Coalescing filters with element change indicators (2) Charcoal absorbers with colorimetric hydrocarbon indicators 5.1.3.5.14.4 Where compressors compliant with 5.1.3.5.4.1(2) and (3) are used, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The air temperature at the immediate outlet of each compression chamber shall be monitored by a high temperature sensor that shuts down that compressor and activates a local alarm indicator. [See 5.1.9.4.4(9).] The temperature setting shall be as recommended by the compressor manufacturer. (2) Coalescing filters with element change indicator shall be provided. (3) Charcoal filters with colorimetric hydrocarbon indicator shall be provided. (4) Liquid hydrocarbons shall be monitored on a continuous basis by pigment indicator or other type of instrument permanently installed downstream of each compressor and shall be inspected and documented daily. (5) Gases hydrocarbons shall be monitored on a quarterly basis. A.5.1.3.5.4.1 Examples of 5.1.3.5.4.1(1) are liquid ring and permanently sealed bearing compressors. An example of 5.1.3.5.4(2) is an extended head reciprocating compressor with an atmospheric vent between the compression chamber and crankcase. An example of 5.1.3.5.4.1(3) is a rotary compressor, having provided a shaft located at the location of the seals, that operates at a surface speed in excess of 550 meters per minute (1805 feet per minute) and provided with at least two shaft seals separated by a barrier ring that provides an atmospheric vent on both sides. Additional technical data, installed base and references. Substantiation: I wish the technical committee to take another look at this proposal. This type of compressor has been used in the pharmaceutical industry, which requires much greater purity of air than medical air used for respiratory purposes, for many years. The original proposal (Log #13) provided a large amount of compressor data from the manufacturer and installed customer references. Some of these systems where installed as long ago as 1986 and continuously provided safe, clean, oil-free air, proving their reliability. This style of rotary-screw compressor provides all the same safeguards as the reciprocating compressors with vented separation between the oil and compression chambers except for the visual inspection port. This compressor uses a shaft that turns at very high speeds that causes any oil on the shaft to fly off due to centrifugal force. We currently allow compressors with a separation between the oil section and compression chamber. This type of compressor uses a piston rod that moves up and down through the oil section, allowing for a much greater chance for the migration of oil. It is my opinion that rejection of this proposal will limit other proven technologies to the end users. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.3.5.4 Compressors for Medical Air 5.1.3.5.4.1* Compressor for medical air shall be designed to prevent the introduction of contaminants or liquid into the pipeline by any of the following methods: (1) Elimination of oil anywhere in the compressor (e.g., liquid ring and permanently sealed bearing compressors). (2) Reciprocating compressors provided with a separation of the oil-containing section from the compression chamber by at least two seals creating an area open to atmosphere that allows the following: (a) Direct and unobstructed visual inspection of the interconnecting shaft through vent and inspection openings no smaller than 1.5 shaft diameters in size (b) The facility operators to confirm proper seal operation by direct visual inspection through the above-shaft opening, without disassembly of the compressor (e.g., extended head compressors with an atmospheric vent between the compressor chamber and crankcase) (3) Rotating element compressors provided with a compression chamber free of oil that provides the following: (a) Separation of each oil-containing section from the compression chamber by at least one seal having atmospheric vents on each side with the vent closest to the oil containing section supplied with a gravity drain to atmosphere.

(b) Unobstructed visualization of the atmospheric vent(s), closest to each oil containing section, which is accessible for inspection without disassembling the compressor. (c) Entry of the rotating shaft into each compression chamber at a point that is above atmospheric pressure. (d) The facility operators to confirm proper seal operation by direct visual inspection of the atmospheric vents. 5.1.3.5.8.1 Compressors complying with 5.1.3.5.4.1 (2) & (3) shall be provided with the following: (1) Coalescing filters with element change indicators (2) Charcoal absorbers with colorimetric hydrocarbon indicators5.1.3.5.14.4 Where compressors compliant with 5.1.3.5.4.1 (2) & (3) are used, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The air temperature at the immediate outlet of each compression chamber shall be monitored by a high temperature sensor that shuts down that compressor and activates a local alarm indicator. [See 5.1.9.4.4(9).] The temperature setting shall be as recommended by the compressor manufacturer. (2) Coalescing filters with element change indicator shall be provided. (3) Charcoal filters with colorimetric hydrocarbon indicator shall be provided. (4) Liquid hydrocarbons shall be monitored on a continuous basis by pigment indictor or other type of instrument permanently installed downstream of each compressor and shall be inspected and documented daily. (5) Gases hydrocarbons shall be monitored on a quarterly basis. A.5.1.3.5.4.1 Examples of 5.1.3.5.4.1(1) are liquid ring and permanently sealed bearing compressors. An example of 5.1.3.5.4.1(2) is an extended head reciprocating compressor with an atmospheric vent between the compression chamber and crankcase. An example of 5.1.3.5.4.1(3) is a rotating element compressor with the compression chamber being non-lubricated and separated from the lubricated gears by at least one shaft seal with an atmospheric vent on both sides. The vent on the lubricated side is provided with a gravity drain to atmosphere.Committee Statement: The revisions were made to make it less restrictive to allow more types of equipment to be used. The elements specified are intended to provide for a level of safety equivalent to previously permitted technology.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ALLEN: This change is of very great consequence and is an exceptionally broad change to make in the comment period without any public opportunity to comment. I believe it should be held for a cycle to allow more persons to review before entering the standard.

_______________________________________________________________99-97 Log #73 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.5.4.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Craig B. Williams, Life Medical NetworksComment on Proposal No: 99-191Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: For liquid-ring compressors, service and seal water of a quality recommended by the compressor manufacturer and free of any possible contaminates (e.g., Chlorine, Fluoride). Substantiation: It is not the intent of this proposal to eliminate the use of this technology, but to ensure that this technology meets the requirements stated within this standard for Compressors for Medical Air. Paragraph 5.1.3.5.4.1 states that compressors for medical air shall be designed to prevent the introduction of contaminants or liquid into the pipeline. Since this technology uses a water seal as part of the compressor it is important that it also meets this requirement. The intent of this proposal is to prevent the use of water that would contain contaminates such as Chlorine, Fluoride and other chemicals commonly used by water utilities or worse yet, the use of chemically treated water used for the facilityʼs HVAC system or other internal purposes.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is not possible to remove any or all contaminants. Current wording which requires adherence to the manufacturers recommendations is sufficient.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-98 Log #CC103 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.5.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-185Recommendation: Accept Proposal 99-185(Log #317) but change the referenced paragraph to 5.1.3.5.5.1.Substantiation: The submitters original proposal was correct but the reference was incorrect.

99-19

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-99 Log #28 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.5.7(1)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-195Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain why the proposed requirement didnʼt add any apparent value.Substantiation: Need to explain why the proposal didnʼt add apparant value.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The location of the dew point monitor defines the pressure at which the dew point should be measured.Committee Statement: The committee revised the committee statement as directed by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-100 Log #150 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.5.7(1)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Craig B. Williams, Life Medical NetworksComment on Proposal No: 99-195Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Be designed or configured within the medial air system, to provide air at a maximum dew point that is below the frost point [0°C (32°F)] when expanded to the systemʼs final delivery pressure at any level of demand. Substantiation: The submitterʼs intent is ensure that other technologies, currently in use, are measured at the appropriate location. The 2002 edition of NFPA 99 could easily be interpreted to mean the dew point reading at the immediate dryerʼs output at the medical air systemʼs operating pressure. The dew point reading is measured at the delivery pressure, which is usually half of the systemʼs operating pressure and would therefor have a much lower dew point. This proposal would allow for technologies that are currently used throughout the United States to continue as part of medical air systems by ensuring their performance is measured at the proper location.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-99 (Log #28).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-101 Log #122 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.5.13.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Corky Bishop, Medical Gas Management, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-138Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “Compressor intake piping shall be hard-drawn seamless copper, either ASTM B-819 Medical gas tube. ASTM B-88 Water tube (Type K or L) or ASTM B-280 ACR tube.”Substantiation: The purpose of this is to eliminate any reference to vacuum. Often people interpreted it to mean that joining methods for vacuum were accepted for medical air intake piping. Many intakes were piped with galvanized steel in the past based on misinterpretation of this paragraph.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: Since medical air systems are required to have extensive filtration who cares what materials compose the air intakes. Remove the restrictions from the required materials which are allowable for air intakes. Again The TCC should be developing performance based codes._______________________________________________________________99-102 Log #56 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-226Recommendation: In proposed new wording, change “from vacuum outlet” to “from any vacuum inlet” so text reads: “If WAGD is joined to vacuum piping, it shall be connected a minimum distance of 5 ft from any vacuum inlet.”Substantiation: 1. Editorial. Vacuum systems have station ʻinletsʼ. 2. Make sure connection is not made within 5 ft of any inlet.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

_______________________________________________________________99-103 Log #74 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Craig B. Williams, Life Medical NetworksComment on Proposal No: 99-230Recommendation: Delete entire section, 5.1.3.8 Instrument Air Supply.Substantiation: There is no indication that there will be a proper gas specific outlet and adapter for Instrument Air anytime in the near future. It is the intent of this proposal to eliminate this entire section until all peripheral components are available for its proper use. The use of Nitrogen outlets and adapters for the purpose of delivery Instrument Air is not acceptable and the use of Shrader AIR connectors and adapters are dangerous since they are rated for pressures under 100 psi.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Instrument air is currently being used. The provisions of the standard guide a facility who chooses to use it in safe practices. It is not the responsibility of the committee to select or specify sources for the components.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-9 (Log #106).

_______________________________________________________________99-104 Log #156 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-230Recommendation: I agree with submitter of the original proposal. Delete “Instrument Air Supply System”.Substantiation: Instrument Air is not a medical gas.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-103 (Log #74).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-9 (Log #106).

_______________________________________________________________99-105 Log #CC104 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.5.3, 5.1.5.4, 5.1.6.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-247Recommendation: Change 5.1.5.3 to read: Each station inlet shall consist of a primary valve (or assembly) and shall be permitted to include a secondary valve (or assembly). Change 5.1.5.4 to read: The secondary valve (or assembly) shall close automatically to stop the flow of gas (or vacuum, if provided) when the primary valve (or assembly) is removed. Change 5.1.6.7 to read: (1) be DISS connectors (2) In pressure gases be permitted to omit the secondary valve (or assembly) required in 5.1.5.2. (3) In vacuum and WAGD, be permitted to omit both primary and secondary valves (or assemblies) for minimum restriction to flow. (4) Be provided with a second terminal at which the user connects and disconnects complying with 5.1.5.Substantiation: The submitter of ROC Comments 99-132 (Log #15) and 99-106 (Log #16) raises the point that the language between these two paragraphs is not consistent. This committee comment corrects this problem. The submitter also raises in 99-106 (Log #16) that the requirements are not consistent, specifically in that action in proposals 99-247 and 245 leave an opening for misinterpretation. This comment addresses these point.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-106 Log #16 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.5.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ronald D. Walston, Berchtold CorporationComment on Proposal No: 99-247Recommendation: Accept Proposal 99-247 as submitted.Substantiation: 1) Action on Proposal 99-245 clarifies station inlet valve requirements for piped vacuum systems. 2) Action on Proposal 99-251 clarifies

99-20

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 vacuum inlet requirements for manufactured assemblies. 3) The Committee Action on Proposal 99-247, with wording “(or vacuum, if provided)”, leaves open the possibility of misinterpretation when manufactured assemblies are connected to the piped vacuum system. The wording of submitted is sufficient.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-105 (CC #104).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-105 (CC #104).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-107 Log #29 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.6.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-250Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain why and how the proposed requirement will reduce the safeguards. The TC should quantify their statement as much as possible.Substantiation: Need to explain how and why it will reduce safeguards.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The submitter did not provide any additional data that a reduced pressure hose will also provide for other safety requirements such as fire resistance, abrasion resistance, resistance to kinking, etc.Committee Statement: The committee revised its Committee Statement as directed by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-108 Log #15 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.6.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ronald D. Walston, Berchtold CorporationComment on Proposal No: 99-251Recommendation: Add after the word “check” the word “valve” in two places.Substantiation: 1) Editorial. 2) Avoid confusion in the field over the use of the term “check”.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-105 (CC #104).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-105 (CC #104).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-109 Log #30 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.6.7, 5.1.6.8, and 5.1.5.12) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-252Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain why the proposed requirement does not offer patient safety.Substantiation: Need to explain why it does not offer patient safety.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The tubing is a restriction for itʼs entire length so the comparisons to the orifice is not relevant. The larger tubing is also more resistant to occlusion in vacuum service.Committee Statement: The committee revised the Committee Statement as directed by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-110 Log #11 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.9.2.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-257Recommendation: Revise 5.1.9.2.2 to read: “A centralized computer system shall be allowed to be substitued for any of the panels required in 5.1.9.2.1.”Substantiation: 1. Paragraph 5.1.9.2.2 addresses only the issue of computer systems substituting for a “traditional” master alarm panel, not the issue of “continuous surveillance” addressed in 5.1.9.2.1(2). 2. The Technical Committeeʼs substantiation can just as readily be applicable to 5.1.9.2.1(2) as to 5.1.9.2.1(1) because it (the proposal) is addressing the monitoring system, not the level of surveillance of the system (or panel) monitoring the piped gas and vacuum systems. The level of surveillance required in 5.1.9.2.1(2) would remain the same whether a computer or panel was monitoring alarms.Committee Meeting Action: Reject

Committee Statement: This comment should only be valid for one of the required master alarm panel and not any.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-111 Log #86 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.9.2.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-257Recommendation: Add to 5.1.9.2.2: A centralized computer shall be allowed to be substituted for one of the panels required in 5.1.9.2.1(1). Substantiation: It is believed that the word “one” was inadvertently left out of the TC submission.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-112 (Log #149). Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-112 (Log #149). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-112 Log #149 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.9.2.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mark Allen, Beacon Medical ProductsComment on Proposal No: 99-257Recommendation: Alter the proposal to read: 5.1.9.2.2 A centralized computer shall be permitted to substitute for either of the master alarms required in 5.1.9.2.1. if the computer complies with 5.1.9.4. Add new 5.1.9.4. to read: 5.1.9.4 Computers Used as Substitute Master Alarms. When computers are used as substitutes for master alarm panels, they shall have the mechanical and electrical characteristics described in 5.1.9.4.1 and the programming characteristics described in 5.1.9.4.2. 5.1.9.4.1. Computers used to substitute for alarms shall have the following mechanical and electrical characteristics: (1) The computer shall be in continuous uninterrupted operation and provided with power supplies as needed to ensure such reliability. (2) The computer shall be continuously attended by responsible individuals or shall provide remote signaling of responsible parties (e.g. through pagers, telephone autodialers, or other such means). (3) Where computers rely on signal interface devices (e.g. electronic interfaces, other alarm panels, 4-20 mA cards, etc.) such interfaces shall be supervised such that failure of the device(s) shall initiate (an) alarm(s). (4) If the computer does not power the signaling switches/sensors from the same power supply required in 5.1.9.4.1(1), The power supply for the signaling switches/sensors shall be powered from the life safety branch of the emergency electrical system as described in Chapter 4, Electrical Systems. (4) Computers shall be permitted to connect directly to the sensors/switches in 5.1.9.2.3 in the same manner as an alarm panel if operation of other alarm panel(s) is not impaired. (5) Wiring from the computer to the signaling switches or sensors shall comply with 5.1.9.1(10). (6) Computers shall be provided with an audio alert per 5.1.9.1(3) except the audio alert shall be permitted to be only as loud as needed to alert the system operator. (7) The facility shall assure compliance with 5.1.9.1(11) 5.1.9.4.2 The operating program(s) for computers used to substitute for alarms shall include the following: (1) Medical gas alarms shall be allocated the highest priority of any signal monitored by the computer. (2) A medical gas alarm signal shall interrupt any other activity of the computer to run the alarm algorithm(s). (3) The alarm algorithm shall include activation of an audible alert, activation of any remote signaling protocol and display of the specific condition in alarm. (4) The alarm algorithm shall provide for compliance with 5.1.9.1(1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (8). Add new 5.1.12.3.5.1(G) Where computers have been used as substitutes for a required alarm panel as allowed under 5.1.9.2.2, the computer shall be included in the alarm tests as modified in 5.1.9.4.Substantiation: The proposal leaves the user with no direction as to how a computer used this way ought to operate. The submission seeks to fill this oversight.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Alter the proposal to read: 5.1.9.2.2 A centralized computer system shall be permitted to substitute for one of the master alarms required in 5.1.9.2.1, if the computer system complies with 5.1.9.4. Add new 5.1.9.4. to read: 5.1.9.4 Computer systems used as substitute master alarms as required by 5.1.9.2.1(2), shall have the mechanical and electrical characteristics described

99-21

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 in 5.1.9.4.1 and the programming characteristics described in 5.1.9.4.2. 5.1.9.4.1 Computer systems used to substitute for alarms shall have the following mechanical and electrical characteristics: (1) The computer system shall be in continuous uninterrupted operation and provided with power supplies as needed to ensure such reliability. (2) The computer system shall be continuously attended by responsible individuals or shall provide remote signaling of responsible parties (e.g. through pagers, telephone autodialers, or other such means). (3) Where computer systems rely on signal interface devices (e.g. electronic interfaces, other alarm panels, 4-20 mA cards, etc.) such interfaces shall be supervised such that failure of the device(s) shall initiate (an) alarm(s). (4) If the computer system does not power the signaling switches/sensors from the same power supply required in 5.1.9.4.1(1), the power supply for the signaling switches/sensors shall be powered from the life safety branch of the emergency electrical system as described in Chapter 4, Electrical Systems. (5) Computer systems shall be permitted to connect directly to the sensors/switches in 5.1.9.2.3 in the same manner as an alarm panel if operation of other alarm panel(s) is not impaired. (6) Wiring from the computer system to the signaling switches or sensors shall comply with 5.1.9.1(10). (7) Computer systems shall be provided with an audio alert per 5.1.9.1(3) except the audio alert shall be permitted to be only as loud as needed to alert the system operator. (8) The facility shall assure compliance with 5.1.9.1(11) 5.1.9.4.2 The operating program(s) for computer systems used to substitute for alarms shall include the following: (1) Medical gas alarms shall be allocated the priority of a life safety signal. (2) A medical gas alarm signal shall interrupt any other activity of a lesser priority to run the alarm algorithm(s). (3) The alarm algorithm shall include activation of an audible alert, activation of any remote signaling protocol and display of the specific condition in alarm. (4) The alarm algorithm shall provide for compliance with 5.1.9.1(1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (8). Add new 5.1.12.3.5.1(G) Where computer systems are used as substitutes for a required alarm panel as allowed under 5.1.9.2.2, the computer system shall be included in the alarm tests as modified in 5.1.9.4.Committee Statement: The changes were made to be more compliant with NFPA 70. Other changes reflected a committee experienced with implementations similar to that described and improve the readability and usability of the proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMComment on Affirmative WAGNER: The existing text could be misinterpreted in two ways. (1) 5.1.9.2.1(2) requires substitute master alarms. It does not. Strikethrough “ as required by 5.1.9.1.(2) ” (2) Only the second master alarm can be a computer system. 5.1.9.2.2 permits either master alarm to be a computer system.

_______________________________________________________________99-113 Log #151 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.9.2.4(9)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Craig B. Williams, Life Medical NetworksComment on Proposal No: 99-262Recommendation: Delete the following text: Leave the dew point alarm as shown in the 2002 edition of NFPA 99 (+4°C(32°F)).Substantiation: The setpoint for the alarm of the dew point monitor has always been (+4°C (32°F)). Although the operating dew point for dryers was dropped from (+3°C (35°F)) to (+0°C (32°F)) in the 2002 edition, there is no evidence that the current required setpoint of the dew point monitor needs or should be reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: When the operational dew point of the dryer was reduced, the alarm point should be lowered also.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-114 Log #102 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.10.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-277Recommendation: Reject the deletion of ASTM B88 M etc. Substantiation: I agree with Wagner, CDA Copper Tube Handbook does not prohibit brazing Type M. However, why does vacuum piping require Brazing?Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

_______________________________________________________________99-115 Log #136 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.10.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ron Smiot, Carolinas Health Care SystemComment on Proposal No: 99-277Recommendation: Restore materials allowed for rvacuum systems to those allowed in 99-1999 4-3.2.2 seemless copper water tube (ASTM B88, Types K, L, M), copper ACR tube (ASTM B280) copper medical gas tube (ASTM) B819), stainless steel tube, or galvanized steel pipe (1 1/2 in minimum size) ASTM A53.Substantiation: The committee threw out useful materials for vacuum systems in the 2002 document. Based on cost issues. Cost is irrelevent , the ability of the material to perform is. The non brased systems are adequate for vacuum.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 5.1.10.2.1 to read Piping for Vacuum systems shall be constructed of any of the following: (1) Hard drawn seamless Copper tube (ASTM B88, Types K, L, M,), Copper ACR tube(ASTM B280), Copper ASTM B819 Medical Gas Tubing (Type K or L). (2) Stainless steel tubeCommittee Statement: Complies with the manual of style to make it a requirement. Galvanized pipe was deleted as there presently is no approved way to join this pipe.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMComment on Affirmative WAGNER: The Committee Statement says that there is no approved way to join galvanized steel pipe. Threaded joints are the most common way, followed by grooved joints. Galvanized pipe was deleted from NFPA 99 because it was not commonly used and it provides no benefits over copper tube.

_______________________________________________________________99-116 Log #14 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Walter J. Sperko, Brazing Dimpler CorporationComment on Proposal No: noneRecommendation: Question 1: Is it permissible to mechanically shorten the cup depth of a solder joint fitting made to B16.22 to the depth shown in MSS-SP-73 by trimming off the excess cup material? Proposed Reply 1: Yes, provided the trimming process does not result in joint clearances outside that specified by the qualified brazing procedure. Question 2: Is it permissible to mechanically shorten the effective cup depth of a solder joint fitting made to B16.22 to the depth shown in MSS-SP-73 by mechanically deforming the cup to provide a mechanical stop for the tube? Proposed Reply 2: Yes, provided the deformation process does not result in joint clearances outside that specified by the qualified brazing procedure. Question 3: May the depth of the cup in solder joint fittings made to B16.22 be reduced by either of the above methods to the minimum depth specified in the qualified brazing procedure specification? Reply 3: Yes Substantiation: Solder joint fittings are unnecessarily difficult to braze due to their deep cups. Paragraph 5.1.10.3.1 permits shallow cup depth for fittings made to MSS-SP-73, but these fittings are not readily available. There is no reason that fittings designed and made for soldering should not be permitted to be trimmed to the same cup depth as braze joint fittings. A simpler, cleaner alternative to trimming the excess socket off a solder joint fitting is to externally deform the cup to stop the tube at the same depth as if the fitting were an MSS-SP-73 fitting. Taking that concept one step further. Extensive testing has shown that a cup depth that is twice the thickness of the thinner member in copper joints brazed with B cup or bag fillers is sufficient to cause failure outside the joint in a tensile test specimen. MSS-SP-73 fittings are designed for heavy-wall pipe which would require greater overlap than is normally found in Med Gas piping, so the socket depth is deeper than necessary. Cup depth does not have to exceed 2t for a full-strength joint to develop.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The proposer did not offer reference any specific proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: This proposal should be accepted. The recommendation is well thought out and presented. The committee is incorrect. The proposer offered two good references.

99-22

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 _______________________________________________________________99-117 Log #123 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.10.5.2.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Corky Bishop, Medical Gas Management, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-182Recommendation: Do not change the existing paragraph.Substantiation: Deburring has always been included in any quality procedure to remove the copper burrs from inside the joints. A deburring tool produces a long shaving similar to peeling an apple rather thn the dust produced by a reamer. Any material left in the pipeline should be removed during the blowdown process. These burrs will continually flake off during the lifetime of the piping if not removed during installation. This procedure is required by ASSE 6010, 2001; 10-4.6.3. The submitter of the proposal used ASSE 6010 to support his proposal requiring the use of an oxygen analyzer in 99-292.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: Deburring should not be required since there is no evidence to suggest it is required, yet there is evidence to suggest it containments the tubing. Change the code to reflect this. SMIDT: Based on evidence given to us over the last several years it would appear that deburring could increase contamination of the pipeline. I agree with Major Cuttʼs negative vote.

_______________________________________________________________99-118 Log #51 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.10.5.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-293Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: When using the autogenes orbital welding process, joints shall be continuously purged inside and outside with a mixture of 75 percent helium and 25 percent argon. This is to assure a quality joint and to prevent the formation of copper oxide on the inside and outside surfaces of the joint. Substantiation: Using the mix proportion is too prescriptive. The mix gases should be described but the welding procedure should dictate the actual mix requirement.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 5.1.10.5.5 text to read as follows: When using the autogenes orbital welding process, joints shall be continuously purged inside and outside with inert gas(es) in accordance with the qualified welding procedure. A.5.1.10.5.5 This is to assure a quality joint and to prevent the formation of copper oxide on the inside and outside surfaces of the joint.Committee Statement: The change is more generic and allows other types of gases to be used if itʼs in compliance with the qualification.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-119 Log #12 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.5.6.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Walter J. Sperko, Brazing Dimpler CorporationComment on Proposal No: N/ARecommendation: Revise to read: “Tube ends shall be inserted into the socket either fully or to a mechanically controlled stop depth that is not less than the minimum depth (overlap) specified by the Brazing Procedure Specification”.Substantiation: Extensive testing by CDA and ACS and industry experience show that deep sockets typical of fittings designed for soldering make it unnecessarily difficult for brazers to make quality brazed joints. See www.brazingdimpler.com for supporting reports. Simple devices are available that allow forming a positive tube stop (dimple) in the fitting that limits the depth of insertion. This makes is easier to make quality brazed joints, yet the dimples provide positive control over the depth of insertion. Such devices should be permitted. The minimum depth of insertion is established in the brazing procedure qualification process.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter did not specify a specific proposal to modify.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: This proposal should be accepted. See my comments on 99-116.

_______________________________________________________________99-120 Log #31 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.10.5.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-304Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain why bending is not allowed. What are the hazards or problems associated with bending?Substantiation: Need to explain the hazards of bending.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The Copper Development Association, recommends that only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed, to insure the highest level of quality control for field-installed medical gas and vacuum piping. It should be noted that ASTM B819 copper tube is not manufactured in annealed temper since there is no allowance for any temper other than hard-drawn temper described in the standard.Committee Statement: The committee modified the Committee Statement as directed by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-36 (Log #19). ESHERICK: I agree with the acceptance of this recommendation. However, in the Committee Meeting Action statement there is a error: The committee states that ...only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed. See my comment on 99-37 and supporting material.

_______________________________________________________________99-121 Log #87 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.5.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-301Recommendation: Add: Prefabricated or on site bends (confirming to CDA — Copper Development Association — “The Copper Tube Handbook” Section IV “Bending”) shall be allowed Substantiation: CDA illustrates how to bend Copper Tubes (Fig. 10) and Table 13 “Bending Guide for Copper Tube shows the minimum bend radius, in. issuing mechanical equipment, for both hard drawn and annealed Tube. The prohibition against bending on site is that the mechanic who bends to tubing by hand-that flatten the tube and may kink it. Therefore, Accept.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Copper Development Association, recommends that only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed, to insure the highest level of quality control for field-installed medical gas and vacuum piping. It should be noted that ASTM B819 copper tube is not manufactured in annealed temper since there is no allowance for any temper other than hard-drawn temper described in the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-36 (Log #19). ESHERICK: This proposal should be accepted. See my comment on 99-120.

_______________________________________________________________99-122 Log #88 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.5.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-304Recommendation: Add: Prefabricated or on site bends (confirming to CDA — Copper Development Association — “The Copper Tube Handbook” Section IV “Bending”) shall be allowed Substantiation: CDA illustrates how to bend Copper Tubes (Fig. 10) and Table 13 “Bending Guide for Copper Tube shows the minimum bend radius, in. issuing mechanical equipment, for both hard drawn and annealed Tube. The prohibition against bending on site is that the mechanic who bends to tubing by hand-that flatten the tube and may kink it. Therefore, Accept.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Copper Development Association, recommends that only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed, to insure the highest level of quality control for field-installed medical gas and vacuum piping. It should be noted that ASTM B819 copper tube is not manufactured in annealed temper since there is no allowance for any temper other than hard-drawn temper described in the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 23

99-23

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-36 (Log #19). ESHERICK: This item should be accepted. See my comments on 99-120.

_______________________________________________________________99-123 Log #121 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.5.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-301Recommendation: Accept the rejected proposal.Substantiation: The use of prefabricated bends appears to be an acceptable practice in many applications and should be permitted for medical gas systems with operating psi pressures of 55 or less. The TC-s rationale for rejecting this is because fittings are available but no justification is given for prohibiting prefabricated bends. The deletion of an acceptable practice out-of-hand just because another method is available is not a justifiable reason for rejection.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Copper Development Association, recommends that only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed, to insure the highest level of quality control for field-installed medical gas and vacuum piping. It should be noted that ASTM B819 copper tube is not manufactured in annealed temper since there is no allowance for any temper other than hard-drawn temper described in the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-36 (Log #19). ESHERICK: This item should be accepted. See my comments on 99-120.

_______________________________________________________________99-124 Log #137 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.5.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ron Smiot, Carolinas Health Care SystemComment on Proposal No: 99-302Recommendation: Restore text deleted by proposal to wording in 2002 document.Substantiation: The committee should not limit user seletivity on systems to join pipe. The loss of one or two gaskets in a main run of vacuum pipe will not prevent the system from maintaining vacuum!Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The fittings have O-rings and the couplings have resilient gaskets that do not provide the thermal integrity of a brazed joint, as required by 5.1.10.5.8(2). Some mechanically pressed fittings are not rated for steam and are only rated up to 180° F. Grade “E” EPDM gaskets, which Victaulic recommended for roll-grooved couplings on medical vacuum service, are only rated for 230 deg. F. The seals will be damaged by exposure to fire or other elevated temperatures, such as brazing joints in adjacent medical gas piping.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: I agree with Ron Smiot comment to not limit the type of systems to join pipes for vacuum pipe. There is no evidence or reason to suggest that vacuum tubing needs to survive the high temperatures of a fire certainly nothing else would survive in a fire including a vacuum pumps. Allow use of crimp fittings for vacuum applications. ESHERICK: This item should be accepted. The loss of an O ring or gasket will not cause the loss of vacuum on the system.

_______________________________________________________________99-125 Log #142 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.5.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-304Recommendation: Revise new text to read: (8) Pre-manufactured bends or prefabricated bends or on-site bending of ASTM B819 seamless copper tubes...(rest the same). Substantiation: 1. Agree with Mr. Ericksonʼs comments. 2. Comment submitted on the premise that premanufactured bends and prefabricated bends are acceptable. TC has stated on many occasions that field or on-site bending of tubing weakens walls of tubing, and are not acceptable. 3. These 2 proposals are identical. So both need to be addressed.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Copper Development Association, recommends that only annealed “bending temper” copper tubing be used where bending is performed, to insure the highest level of quality control for field-installed

medical gas and vacuum piping. It should be noted that ASTM B819 copper tube is not manufactured in annealed temper since there is no allowance for any temper other than hard-drawn temper described in the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-36 (Log #19). ESHERICK: This item should be accepted. See my comments on 99-120.

_______________________________________________________________99-126 Log #127 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.10.5.8(1)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Corky Bishop, Medical Gas Management, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-216Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.10.5.8.1 Live or hot taps into existing, active, medical gas and vacuum pipelines shall not be permitted. Substantiation: Vacuum systems can be modified without a shutdown very successfully as long as soft solder is not used. Larger pipes often require a shutdown for safety considerations for the installer and widespread interruption of service.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-127 Log #138 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.5.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ron Smiot, Carolinas Health Care SystemComment on Proposal No: 99-308Recommendation: Revise text in proposal 99-308 (Log #421) to 5.1.10.5.9(3): The use of pipe crimping tools to temporarily stop the flow of medical gas and vacuum shall be allowed in emergency situations. The crimped area will be restored with new piping and joiner methods allowed by this section.Substantiation: I agree with Mr. Koppenberger contribution that crimping destroy the integrity of pipe. We should not preclude this from use as an emergency measure. This proposal restores the pipe if crimped in an emergency.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Nothing is prohibited in the standard in the event of an emergency.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-128 Log #145 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.10.6.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-60Recommendation: Revise 5.1.10.6.3.2 to read: Piping shall not be installed in kitchens, electrical switchgear rooms, elevator shafts, and areas with open flames.” Substantiation: 1. The National Electrical Code® does not use the term ʻelectrical switchgear room.” 2. NFPA 99 can limit where medical gas piping can traverse, but should not commonly used terms to identify.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 5.1.10.6.3.2 to read: Piping shall not be installed in kitchens, elevator shafts, elevator machine rooms, areas with open flames, electrical service equipment over 600 volts and areas prohibited under NFPA 70.Committee Statement: Following the TCCʼs instructions no definition for switchgear existed and the ELS committee elected to not create one. Therefore the relevant sections of NFPA 70 were consulted and the major points included instead of the switchgear term. The reference to NFPA 70 was from Article 110.34.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMComment on Affirmative WAGNER: It is not likely that medical gas piping will be installed inside of electrical service equipment over 600 volts. NFPA 70 does not list areas where medical gas piping is specifically prohibited.

99-24

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 _______________________________________________________________99-129 Log #89 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.6.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-310Recommendation: I vote negative.Substantiation: I agree with Ericksonʼs Explanation of Negative.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter does not offer any specific recommended change.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: I vote negative on this proposal. Same as Mr. Ericksonʼs explanation.

_______________________________________________________________99-130 Log #32 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.10.6.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-313Recommendation: The TCC is rejecting this proposal and is asking the TC to reconsider this proposal as a committee comment. Because the proposal uses the term “ such as” it is unclear if only nitrogen and instrument air are the only gases that can be used as medical support gas or if other gases are also allowed.Substantiation: The proposal is unclear as to the gases it addresses.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comment 99-5 (Log #148).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-5 (Log #148).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-131 Log #90 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-320Recommendation: I vote negative.Substantiation: I agree with Ericksonʼs Explanation of Negative.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter did not offer any specific recommendation for change.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: This proposal should be rejected. Read Ericksonʼs “Explanation of Negative”.

_______________________________________________________________99-132 Log #105 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-320Recommendation: Reject the accepted proposal.Substantiation: The TC is now going to require WAGD systems to be piped in the same material that is required for vacuum system piping. Where is the justification for this increase in installation techniques for a system that is going to operate at just above 5 in. of HgV? This committee is slowly increasing the installation of all piping systems to brazed type K or L copper.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The proposal allows for alternative materials at low vacuums and maintains the status quo for high vacuums. Given that there are all the same hazards as vacuum systems in addition to the unique hazards of WAGD in these systems, the committee believes it is appropriate to maintain the same materials and methods in the high vacuum WAGD.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: This committee should be concerned with performance of the its systems and should not be specifying types of materials that must be used. Hence no materials should be restricted which work especially for systems like WAGD and Vacuum. Modify codes to be performance based and hold installers/verifiers and engineers accountable for systems which do not meet the performance requirements. ESHERICK: Reject the accepted proposal. The Technical Committee is now going to require WAGD systems to be piped in the same material that is required for vacuum system piping. There is no need to require such restrictions on a low vacuum system- WAGD. Where is the justification for this

increased in installation techniques for a system that is going to operate at just above 5 in. of HgV? It is not necessary to require the use of a much more expensive system. SMIDT: WAGD at Medical vacuum costs. As Major Cutts and Mr. Esherick point out in their negative votes this is an unnecessary change for these systems to perform.

_______________________________________________________________99-133 Log #143 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.10.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-320Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Reinclude text: “5.1.10.2.2 Vacuum piping shall be permitted to be constructed of alternate materials when joined using methods as required in 5.1.10.6”Substantiation: 1. TC stated it only corrected references. This text was not included in TC wording. 2. Text in question was not underlined, though it should have been underlined. 3. If TC does not want to include the 5.1.10.2.2 proposed, it needs to provide a technical reason for so doing.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-115 (Log #136).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-132 (Log #105).

_______________________________________________________________99-134 Log #144 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.11.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein Associates

Comment on Proposal No: 99-325Recommendation: Revise 5.1.11.1.1 to reads: “Piping shall be labeled by stenciling or adhesive markers that identify the patient medical gas, the medical support gas or vacuum system. Substantiation: 1. Since TC has created 3 new definitions, it would help users of the document to know which piping needed to be labeled (basically-all piping should be labeled). 2. It is presumed that the TC includes WAGD on a type of vacuum system.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 5.1.11.1.1 to read as follows: “Piping shall be labeled by stenciling or adhesive markers that identify the patient medical gas, the support gas or vacuum system. Committee Statement: Medical was deleted to correlate with actions we took on other comments.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-135 Log #33 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.12.2.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-330Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain what is meant by “too subjective”.Substantiation: Need to provide a better Committee Statement as it is not informative.Committee Meeting Action: Accept There is no practical way of performing odor analysis other than in a laboratory setting using specially trained evaluations. Committee Statement: The committee revised the Committee Statement as directed.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-136 Log #34 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.12.3.1.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-337Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain specifically why the existing text is adequate.Substantiation: The Committee Statement is not informative.Committee Meeting Action: Accept

99-25

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Statement: It is the committeeʼs intent that any party qualified to meet ASSE 6030, other than the installing contractor, can verify the system. Verification of the system is needed in order to provide an additional review of the installation. This will help minimize errors made by the installer. Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-137 Log #155 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.12.3.1.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-337Recommendation: I agree with submitterʼs proposal.Substantiation: Committee is wrong, there is not adequate protection with the current wording. New wording would strengthen.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter did not provide any specific recommended changes.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: I do not agree with the committeeʼs rejection of the comment. I cannot find the Proposal 99-337 that agrees with sections.

_______________________________________________________________99-138 Log #139 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.12.3.1.14) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Ron Smiot, Carolinas Health Care SystemComment on Proposal No: 99-269Recommendation: Reconsider and accept the original proposal.Substantiation: In a document dedicated to checks and balances this eliminates one more conflict of interest.Committee Meeting Action: Reject The correct reference is 5.1.12.3.1.4Committee Statement: It is the committees intent that any party qualified to meet ASSE 6030, other than the installing contractor, can verify the system. Verification of the system is needed in order to provide an additional review of the installation. This will help minimize errors made by the installer. Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: ESHERICK: Accept original proposal. This eliminates another possible conflict of interest. SMIDT: FYI, I believe this comment referenced back to Proposal 99-337 which refers to a proposed addition of wording in paragraph 5.1.12.3.1.4 ( The committee action recognized this and showed the correct paragraph) that would not allow equipment suppliers to provide system verification. It is still my opinion that we need to provide with in the document an additional elimination of a conflict of interest. We currently do not allow the installing contractors to verify a system and I donʼt see a difference in providing the same distance for equipment suppliers. The committee statement referring to ASSE 6000 as a way to provide that distance is weak at best. I have every faith in some suppliers that I know who also provide verification, but not all individuals have the same ethical construct.

_______________________________________________________________99-139 Log #35 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.12.3.7(C)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-340Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and specifically explain why the existing safeguards are adequate.Substantiation: The Committee Statement is not informative.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The most probable content of the debris we would find in a pipeline is copper. Since the TLV for copper is 0.2 mg/cubic meter for an 8 hour day, the committee feels it is unjustified to raise the allowable limit.Committee Statement: The Committee Statement was revised as directed by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-140 Log #91 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.12.3.7(c)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-340Recommendation: Accept this proposal.Substantiation: I am glad that the TCC wants an explanation as to why “The

existing safeguards are adequate”.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The most probable content of the debris we would find in a pipeline is copper. Since the TLV for copper is 0.2 mg/cubic meter for an 8 hour day, the committee feels it is unjustified to raise the allowable limit.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-141 Log #36 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.12.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-343Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain what is meant by subjective and cannot be enforced.Substantiation: The Committee Statement is not informative.Committee Meeting Action: Accept There is no practical way of performing odor analysis other than in a laboratory setting using specially trained evaluations. Committee Statement: The committee revised the committee statement as directed by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-142 Log #57 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.12.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-345Recommendation: Change “for each positive pressure medical gas system...” to read: “For each patient medical gas system, ...” [change underlined] Substantiation: Agree with comment by Mr. Wagner. Is it necessary to test purity of piping of medical support gas systems?Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-143 Log #92 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.12.3.8(E)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-348Recommendation: Delete 5.1.12.3.8(E) in its entirety.Substantiation: Dewpoint has nothing to do with purity.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Water in a pipeline is a contaminant. Dew point is the standard test used to find this.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-144 Log #93 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.12.3.8(E)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-349Recommendation: Delete 5.1.12.3.8(E) in its entirety.Substantiation: Dewpoint has nothing to do with purity.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Water in a pipeline is a contaminant. Dew point is the standard test used to find this.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-145 Log #58 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.12.3.10.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-353Recommendation: In proposed wording, delete “and instrument air” so text reads: “Nitrogen outlets shall deliver...” (rest remains the same)Substantiation: Proposal addressed the issue of SI units. No reason for adding instrument air was given. If Technical Committee desires instrument air to meet this requirement, it needs to so state it.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Both nitrogen and instrument air outlets should flow at this rate since they are both support gases. See 99-47 (Log #70).

99-26

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMExplanation of Negative: CUTTS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 99-9 (Log #106).

_______________________________________________________________99-146 Log #115 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.12.3.10.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-353Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.12.3.10.3 Nitrogen and instrument air outlets shall deliver 140 NI/min SLPM (5.0 SCFM) with a pressure drop of no more than 35 kPa (5 psi) gage and static pressure of 1100 to 1275 kPa (160 to 185 psi) gage. Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standard for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.12.3.10.3 Support gas outlets shall deliver 140 NI/min SLPM (5.0 SCFM) with a pressure drop of no more than 35 kPa (5 psi) gage and static pressure of 1100 to 1275 kPa (160 to 185 psi) gage.Committee Statement: This correlates to a previous change that defined support gas. See Committee Action on Comment 99-47 (Log #70). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMComment on Affirmative WAGNER: Delete “Nl/min” in one place. This was an error in NFPA 99-2002 that has been corrected in this revision cycle by using “SLPM”.

_______________________________________________________________99-147 Log #53 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.12.3.11) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-339Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:

Substantiation: Instrument Air is not recognized as a medical gas in the USP/NF Official Compendia of Standards therefore it should not be included in this list.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: Table 5.1.12.3.11 Oxygen, ≥99% Oxygen Nitrous Oxide, ≥99% Nitrous Oxide Medical Air, 19.5% - 23.5% Oxygen Other Medical Gases, Concentration as specified by ±1% unless otherwise specified.

Committee Statement: Support gases are not required to be purity tested nor tested for concentration. See 99-47 (Log #70).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-148 Log #116 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.1.12.3.11) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare EngrComment on Proposal No: 99-358Recommendation: Delete the Table modification to add instrument air.Substantiation: As the readers of the ROP will notice the TC has now lumped instrument air into the same classification as any other medical gas and therefore will need to have all of the safeguards as an oxygen, medical air, nitrous oxide, and vacuum system. These safeguards include: a separate room for the instrument air compressor, piping (brazed) equivalent to oxygen, alarms - both area and master, verification, etc., etc. The manufacturers on the TC freely admit that there is not an instrument air compressor available yet but it is coming and we need to make sure there are standard for it in 99. While I agree that some standards are necessary the industry cannot tolerate the increased level of installation, testing, and verification. There has to be some risk assumed by the installing organization and design professionals and we CANʼT REGULATE STUPIDITY although it certainly seems as if we are writing a standard to do exactly that. What is wrong with the use of a medical air system that can have regulators, and back flow preventers to drive the medical equipment in the ORʼs and other locations in the hospitals? The use of medical air is becoming less and less in our hospitals and these systems should be available for use. Think about the cost savings: another separate room eliminated, another compressor deleted from having to be maintained, piping eliminated from the source to the room where the equipment is being used, verification services cut, engineering design simplified and alarm systems reduced.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 99-147 (Log #53). Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-149 Log #37 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(Table 5.1.12.3.11) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-357Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to revise its committee statement and explain specifically what existing requirements cover the proposed change. Substantiation: The Committee Statement is not informative.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The reference to 19-23 percent is derived from both USP and CGA commodity specifications. As these documents are used throughout the chapter it is believed to be more consistent to retain those values.Committee Statement: The committee revised the Committee Statement as directed by the TCC.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-150 Log #52 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(Table 5.1.12.3.11) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-356Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:

Substantiation: Since these are regulated drugs the testing requirements for the piping system should reflect at a minimum the product quality requirements found in the USP/NF Official Compendia of Standards. Accepting a piping system that would allow a drug product to fail these minimum requirements would not only adulterate the product in the eyes of the FDA and USP/NF but would also lead to mislabeling of the product. The USP/NF has specific outlet labeling requirements for some of these gases when they are piped to the point of use.

Table 5.1.12.3.11 Gas ConcentrationsMedical Gas Concentration

Oxygen ≥ 99% OxygenNitrous oxide ≥ 99% Nitrous oxideNitrogen ≤1% Oxygen or

≥ 99% NitrogenMedical air 19.5 – 23.5% OxygenOther gases Concentration as specified by

±1% unless otherwise specified.Table 5.1.12.3.11 Gas Concentrations

Medical Gas ConcentrationOxygen ≥ 99% OxygenNitrous oxide ≥ 99% Nitrous oxideNitrogen ≤1% Oxygen or

≥ 99% NitrogenMedical air 19.5 – 23.5% OxygenOther gases Concentration as specified by

±1% unless otherwise specified.

99-27

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-151 Log #49 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.13.1.2(4)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-110Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Annual training on the operation of the bulk cryogenic system when provided . Substantiation: Clarifies the intent to require training only when a bulk cryogenic system is installed at the health care facility.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add text to read as follows: Annual training by the supplier on the operation when a bulk cryogenic system is provided.Committee Statement: The changes correct the grammar.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-152 Log #94 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.1.13.8.5(1)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-366Recommendation: Accept this proposal.Substantiation: Committee action on 99-122 (Log #305) has nothing to do with 99-366 (Log #409).Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Joint Commission requires the hospitals to have a utilities plan which includes an evaluation of all elements relative to maintenance and periodic testing. These elements are included in that requirement.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-153 Log #95 HEA-PIP Final Action: Reject(5.3.1.12) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-400Recommendation: This proposal should be rejected.Substantiation: See Allenʼs Explanation of Negative on 99-374 (Log #18). Note Allenʼs Explanation is on 99-371 (Log #18) which is correct: 99-374 or 99-371.Committee Meeting Action: Reject See Comittee Action on Comment 99-154 (Log #CC105), 99-155 (Log #CC106), 99-156 (Log #CC107), 99-157 (Log #CC109), 99-158 (Log #CC110), 99-159 (Log #CC111), 99-160 (Log #CC113), 99-161 (Log #CC114), 99-162 (Log #CC115), 99-163 (Log #CC116), 99-164 (Log #CC117), 99-165 (Log #CC118), 99-166 (Log #CC119), 99-168 (Log #CC120), 99-169 (Log #CC121), 99-172 (Log #CC122), 99-173 (Log #CC123), 99-174 (Log #CC124), 99-175 (Log #CC125) and 99-176 (Log #CC126). Committee Statement: See Comittee Action on Comment 99-154 (Log #CC105), 99-155 (Log #CC106), 99-156 (Log #CC107), 99-157 (Log #CC109), 99-158 (Log #CC110), 99-159 (Log #CC111), 99-160 (Log #CC113), 99-161 (Log #CC114), 99-162 (Log #CC115), 99-163 (Log #CC116), 99-164 (Log #CC117), 99-165 (Log #CC118), 99-166 (Log #CC119), 99-168 (Log #CC120), 99-169 (Log #CC121), 99-172 (Log #CC122), 99-173 (Log #CC123), 99-174 (Log #CC124), 99-175 (Log #CC125) and 99-176 (Log #CC126). The committee revised Level 3 requirements to make it more clear.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-154 Log #CC105 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.3.4.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-320Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.3.4.4* Supply systems supplying only a single treatment facility shall contain the following: at minimum of Two banks of cylinders of oxygen and a minimum of two cylinders of nitrous oxide (if used). each containing the greater of either at least an average dayʼs supply. or one of the following: (1) When storage is not remote, two cylinders of oxygen and one cylinder of nitrous oxide (if used) (2) When storage is remote, two cylinders of oxygen, minimum, and two cylinders of nitrous oxide. minimum. (if used)

In addition, change “bank” to “cylinder” in 5.3.3.4.4 (B)Substantiation: This modification corrects an error between the two ROP meetings.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-155 Log #CC106 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.3.4.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-376Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.3.4.5 Supply systems supplying multiple treatment facilities shall contain the following: Two banks of cylinders each containing at least the greater of an average dayʼs supply or at least two cylinders of oxygen and two cylinders of nitrous oxide (if used). (a) The cylinders for each gas service shall be manifolded so that the cylinders can alternately supply the piping system. (b) When the primary bank cylinder(s) are unable to supply the system, the secondary cylinder(s) shall automatically operate to supply the piping system.Substantiation: This modification corrects an error between the two ROP meetings.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-156 Log #CC107 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.3.6.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-378Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.3.6.3 Drains. None of the following provisions are intended to supersede provisions of local codes.Substantiation: Neither the building code nor the building code covers this issue.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMComment on Affirmative WAGNER: The given substantiation is why Comments 99-157 and 158 were accepted, deleting Proposals 99-379 and 99-380. The proper substantiation for Comment 99-156 should read that “Some building codes and plumbing codes address how to drain Level 3 vacuum systems”.

_______________________________________________________________99-157 Log #CC109 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.3.6.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-379Recommendation: Delete Proposal 99-379.Substantiation: Neither the building code nor plumbing code address this issue.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-158 Log #CC110 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.3.6.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-380Recommendation: Delete Proposal 99-380.Substantiation: Neither the building code nor plumbing code address this issue.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-159 Log #CC111 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.9.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-382Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.9.1 Warning systems for medical gases (e.g., oxygen and nitrous oxide) in Level 3 facilities shall conform to the following: alarm functions of a Level 1 facility as required in 5.1.9, except as follows:

99-28

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 (5) When automatic changeover of source gases is required, changeover the alarm shall have a secondary indicator feature to suit the arrangement of the source equipment. shall be provided. Refer A.5.3.3.2 Substantiation: Editorial corrections and correction to references.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-160 Log #CC113 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-384Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.10.1.1 Piping for Medical Gases. Piping for Level 3 positive-pressure nonflammable medical gases (e.g., oxygen and nitrous oxide) shall meet the requirements in 5.3.10.1.1(A) through ( B E). Substantiation: Editorial.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-161 Log #CC114 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-385Recommendation: Revise as follows: (2) Have tapered threads complying with ANSI ASME B1.10.1, Pipe Threads, General Purpose.Substantiation: This document is not an ANSI document.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-162 Log #CC115 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-387Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.10.9(3) Axially swaged, elastic strain preload fittings providing metal to metal seal having pressure and temperature ratings not less than that of a brazed joint and when complete are permanent and non separable. Substantiation: This corrected an error in the ROP where some wording was inadvertantly omitted.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-163 Log #CC116 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-388Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.10.10.3* Minimum Pipe Sizes.A.5.3.10.10.3 One of the major concerns is the cross-connection of piping systems of different gases. The reason for different sizes is to prevent cross connections, not for capacity concerns. The problem of cross connection of oxygen and other gases such as air, and nitrogen can readily be recognized/prevented by the use of different sizes of tubing. It is recommended that piping and manifolds for oxygen service to be a different size from the piping intended for other gas services. The piping for other than oxygen can be of a smaller size. Generally, oxygen is installed in 1/2 in. O.D. tube size and other gases with 3/8 in. O.D. tube size. Substantiation: This eliminates the conflict of tube sizing in the code.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-164 Log #CC117 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-389Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.10.10.3.1 Mains, branches, and drops to individual service outlets in Level 3 oxygen piping systems shall be not less than DN10 (NPS 3/8”) (1/2 in.

O.D.) size., but at least one size larger than the piping for Nitrous Oxide. 5.3.10.10.3.2 Mains, branches, and drops to individual service outlets in Level 3 Nitrous Oxide and inlets in the following piping systems shall be not less than DN8 (NPS 1/4 in) (3/8 in. O.D.) size. (1) Level 3 medical gases other than oxygen (e.g., nitrous oxide) (2) Gas-powered devices (3) Level 3 vacuum 5.3.10.10.3.3 Mains, branches, and drops to individual service outlets/inlets in Level 3 piping systems for gas powered devices and vacuum shall not be the same as the sizes used for Oxygen and Nitrous Oxide. 5.3.10.10.3.4 Runouts to alarm panels and connecting tubing for pressure/vacuum indicators and alarm devices shall be permitted to be DN8 (NPS 1/4”) (3/8 in. O.D.) (NPS 1/8 in.) (1/4 in. O.D.) size.Substantiation: 3/8 in. O.D. tubing for the alarm panels could be cross connected with the Nitrous Oxide and was therefore deleted.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-165 Log #CC118 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.4.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-390Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: 5.3.10.10.4.2 Tubing for Level 3, Medical Gas (i.e. Oxygen and Nitrous Oxide) Tubing that is underground within buildings or embedded in concrete floors or walls shall be installed in a continuous conduit.Substantiation: Tubing is the correct term for gas pipe.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-166 Log #CC119 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-391Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: 5.3.10.10.5.1 Piping for Level 3 medical gases (i.e. Oxygen and Nitrous Oxide), and Level 3 gas-powered devices, and Level 3 vacuum systems shall be located in accordance with 5.3.10.10.5.1 (A) through (C): (A) Piping shall be permitted to be installed overhead wherever possible. (B) Piping shall not be installed in electrical switchgear rooms, elevator shafts, and areas having open flames. (C) Medical gas piping (i.e., oxygen and nitrous oxide) shall not be located where subject to contact with oil. Substantiation: Vacuum and gas powered devices were deleted as overhead piping can cause problems with fluid accumulation in low spots. It should be a sloped gravity feed system.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-167 Log #10 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.3.10.10.5.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-392Recommendation: Correlate the action on this proposal with that in Proposal 99-393.Substantiation: Proposal 99-392 includes 2 Exceptions, while Proposal 99-393 does not. Not clear what final wording will read.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Comments 99-168 (Log #CC120 ) and 99-169 (Log #CC121).Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comments 99-168 (Log #CC120 ) and 99-169 (Log #CC121).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-168 Log #CC120 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.5.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-392Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: 5.3.10.10.5.2 (A) Piping shall be permitted to be installed: 1) under floor or under ground 2) underground within buildings

99-29

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 3) above ground, within walls, within ceilings Substantiation: Piping is not just limited to underground applications. It is permitted to be installed above ground, and in walls and ceilings.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-169 Log #CC121 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.5.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-393Recommendation: Delete Proposal 99-393. See Committee Action on Comment 99-168 (Log #CC120).Substantiation: This was a duplicate proposal and was deleted.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-170 Log #124 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.3.10.10.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Corky Bishop, Medical Gas Management, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-419Recommendation: Change title to “level 3 Gas-powered Device and Vacuum Piping Within Floor Slabs and Underground Within Buildings.”Substantiation: The medical gas piping is required to be hard-drawn ASTM 819 medical gas tube. Only gas-powered devices and vacuum have the exception for soft annealed temper in Section 5.3.10.1.2 and 5.3.10.2.2.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action onComment 99-166 (Log #CC119 ).Committee Statement: See Committee Action onComment 99-166 (Log #CC119 ).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-171 Log #125 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.3.10.10.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Corky Bishop, Medical Gas Management, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-421Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.3.10.10.7.1 Tubes shall be permitted to be annealed, soft-temper, seamless ASTM B280 ACR copper tube up to DN20 (NPS 3/4) (7/8 in. O.D.) maximum size. 5.3 10.10.7.2 Tubes shall have been cleaned for oxygen service in accordance with CGA Pamphlet G.4.1, Cleaning Equipment for Oxygen Services. Substantiation: Dental air and vacuum piping are not required to be cleaned for oxygen service. There is no logical reason to limit the size of dental air and vacuum piping to a maximum of 3/8 in. nominal pipe size. Proposal 99-389 (Log #CP305) requires that they must be a different size than the 1/4-3/8 in. N 2 O and 3/8 - 1/2 in. O 2 piping (typical). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action onComment 99-173 (Log #CC123).Committee Statement: See Committee Action onComment 99-173 (Log #CC123).Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-172 Log #CC122 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-394Recommendation: Delete the following: 5.3.10.10.7 Level 3 Gas-Powered Devices and Level 3 Vacuum Piping Within Floor Slabs And Underground Within Buildings. The flowing conditions shall be permitted only when piping must be installed within a floor slab or underground within a building in order to reach the service outlets or inlets. 1) Tubes shall be permitted to be annealed, soft-temper, seamless ASTM ACR copper tube according to 5.3.10.10.3 Substantiation: This section is redundant to sections 5.3.10.1.2 and 5.3.10.2.2Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

_______________________________________________________________99-173 Log #CC123 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-395Recommendation: Delete Section 5.3.10.10.7.2.Substantiation: Delete section 5.3.10.10.7.2 as follows:5.3.10.10.7.2 Tubes shall have been cleaned for oxygen service in accordance with CGA Pamphlet G-4.1, Cleaning Equipment for Oxygen Service. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-174 Log #CC124 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-396Recommendation: Revise as follows: 5.3.10.10.8 Underground Piping Outside of Buildings. 5.3.10.10.8.1 Buried piping outside of buildings shall be installed below the local level of frost penetration. 5.3.10.10.8.2 Underground piping shall be installed in a continuous enclosure to protect the pipe during backfilling. The installation procedure for underground piping shall protect the piping from physical damage while being backfilled. 5.3.10.10.8.3 The continuous enclosure shall be split or otherwise provide access at the joints during visual inspection and leak testing. If underground piping is protected by a conduit, cover, or other enclosure, the following requirements shall be met: (1) Access during construction shall be provided at the joints for visual inspection and leak testing. (2) The conduit, cover, or enclosure shall be self-draining and not retain ground water in prolonged contact with the pipe. 5.3.10.10.8.4 Buried piping that will be subject to surface loads shall be buried at a depth that will protect the piping and or its enclosure from excessive stresses. 5.3.10.10.8.5 The minimum backfilled cover above the top of the pipe or its enclosure for buried piping outside of buildings shall be 900 mm (36 in.), except that the minimum cover shall be permitted to be reduced to 450 mm (18 in.) where physical damage is otherwise prevented. 5.3.10.10.8.6 Trenches shall be excavated so that the pipe or its enclosure has firm, substantially continuous bearing on the bottom of the trench. 5.3.10.10.8.7 Backfill shall be clean and compacted so as to protect and uniformly support the pipe or its enclosure. 5.3.10.10.8.8 A continuous tape or marker placed immediately above the pipe or its enclosure shall clearly identify the pipeline by specific name. 5.3.10.10.8.9 A continuous warning means shall also be provided above the pipeline at approximately one-half the depth of bury. 5.3.10.10.8.10 Where underground piping is installed through a wall sleeve, the ends of the sleeve shall be sealed to prevent the entrance of ground water into the building.Substantiation: It is not always possible to provide the continuous enclosure. The important point is access to the joints before backfilling is done.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-175 Log #CC125 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-328Recommendation: Revise as follows: Runouts from horizontal piping for medical gas (i.e. oxygen or nitrous oxide) shall be taken off above the centerline of the main or branch pipe and rise vertically at an angle of not less more than 45 degrees from vertical.Substantiation: This clarifies how to install runouts from horizontal piping.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-176 Log #CC126 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.10.10.15.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-399Recommendation: Revise as follows: The brazing procedure specification qualification record and the record of brazer performance qualification shall document filler metal used, cleaning, joint clearance, overlap, internal purge gas and flow rate during brazing of the

99-30

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 coupon, and the absence of internal oxidation in the completed coupon. Substantiation: Editorial.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-177 Log #96 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.3.12.2.7 and 5.3.12.2.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-401Recommendation: This proposal should be rejected.Substantiation: See Allenʼs Explanation of Negative on 99-374 (Log #18). Note Allenʼs Explanation is on 99-371 (Log #18) which is correct: 99-374 or 99-371.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Comittee Action on Comment 99-154 (Log #CC105), 99-155 (Log #CC106), 99-156 (Log #CC107), 99-157 (Log #CC109), 99-158 (Log #CC110), 99-159 (Log #CC111), 99-160 (Log #CC113), 99-161 (Log #CC114), 99-162 (Log #CC115), 99-163 (Log #CC116), 99-164 (Log #CC117), 99-165 (Log #CC118), 99-166 (Log #CC119), 99-168 (Log #CC120), 99-169 (Log #CC121), 99-172 (Log #CC122), 99-173 (Log #CC123), 99-174 (Log #CC124), 99-175 (Log #CC125) and 99-176 (Log #CC126). Committee Statement: See Comittee Action on Comment 99-154 (Log #CC105), 99-155 (Log #CC106), 99-156 (Log #CC107), 99-157 (Log #CC109), 99-158 (Log #CC110), 99-159 (Log #CC111), 99-160 (Log #CC113), 99-161 (Log #CC114), 99-162 (Log #CC115), 99-163 (Log #CC116), 99-164 (Log #CC117), 99-165 (Log #CC118), 99-166 (Log #CC119), 99-168 (Log #CC120), 99-169 (Log #CC121), 99-172 (Log #CC122), 99-173 (Log #CC123), 99-174 (Log #CC124), 99-175 (Log #CC125) and 99-176 (Log #CC126). The committee revised Level 3 requirements to make it more clear.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-178 Log #97 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(5.3.12.3 and 5.3.12.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Peter Esherick, Patient Instrumentation Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 99-402Recommendation: This proposal should be rejected.Substantiation: See Allenʼs Explanation of Negative on 99-374 (Log #18). Note Allenʼs Explanation is on 99-371 (Log #18) which is correct: 99-374 or 99-371.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-179 Log #54 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.3.12.3.10(3)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-400Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Allowable concentration shall be as follows: (a) Oxygen ≥99% Oxygen (b) (b) Nitrous Oxide ≥99% Nitrous OxideSubstantiation: Greater than (>) is the wrong term to use. The correct term is greater than or equal to (≥). A product meeting the USP requirement of 99% would not be acceptable using the previous symbol adding the “or equal” to the symbol corrects this mistake.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: Allowable concentration shall be as follows: (a) Oxygen ≥ greater than or equal to 99% Oxygen (b) Nitrous Oxide ≥ (greater than or equal to) 99% Nitrous Oxide Add annex material as follows: A.5.3.12.3.10(3) The committee recognizes that current clinical practice is to use analyzers that may not be able to analyze oxygen to current U.S.P. requirements of 99%, and that these analyzers frequently have an error of up to 3 percent.Committee Statement: An explanation was given to explain the limitations of oxygen analyzers.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM

Comment on Affirmative WAGNER: The phrase normally used is “equal to or greater than” , not “greater than or equal to” . The minimum requirement is “equal to,” followed by “greater than.” The symbol for the phrase is not displayed in the text. In the Committee Meeting Action, it is not clear whether the symbol is to be used in the text. Also, the phrase used in (b) is in parentheses, but in (a) it is is not.

_______________________________________________________________99-180 Log #68 HEA-GAS Final Action: Reject(9.3) _______________________________________________________________Note: Note: The Ballot on this Comment did not receive the required two-thirds affirmative vote of the Committee, but the comment is still rejectedSubmitter: Eldon P. Rosentrater, Allied Healthcare Products Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-429Recommendation: This proposal, when submitted, stated that “Cylinders shall be fitted with valves that include a means to slow the initial, opening pressurization time to allow the heat of compression to safely dissipate.” (Emphasis added.) The Committee Meeting Action was to modify the proposal to read “Cylinders shall be permitted to be fitted with valves that include a means to slow the initial opening pressurization.” (Emphasis added.) Substantiation: I submit that changing the proposal from a stance that mandates cylinders to have valves that slow the initial opening pressurization to a stance in which it is merely permissible for such valves to be installed, surely falls short of the NFPA mission statement (as publicized on the NFPA web site) to advocate fire safety. I respectfully request that the Technical Committee adopt the following wording, as compromise between the initial proposal and as the proposal now standards: “It is recommended that cylinder be fitted with valves that include a means to slow the initial opening pressurization.” Certainly you would agree that valves that include a means to slow the initial opening pressurization are inherently more safe than are valves that do not include such a means — all other factors being equal — and therefore deserve the advocacy of the NFPA. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise to read as follows: 9.3.7 After an effective date of January 31, 2008, cylinder valves shall include a means to slow the initial , opening pressurization time to allow the heat of compression to safely dissipate.Committee Statement: This will allow manufacturers time to comply with the requirements. This requirement has merits and will improve fire safety.Number Eligible to Vote: 9Ballot Results: Affirmative: 4 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 3 CROWLEY, MILLS, SOMMERSExplanation of Negative: LIPSCHULTZ: When discussing this comment, we were assuming compressed oxygen. The submitter failed to make a case of improved safety when applied to all the other gases that come in compressed form. The original Committee Action taken during the proposal stage is referable. SUTTER: When we discussed this proposal during the ROP cycle the committee chose the words “shall be permitted” instead of “shall be fitted”. The submitters proposal as accepted in the ROC will require the use of a cylinder valve that will slow the initial opening pressurization time to allow the heat of compression to safely dissipate in all medical gas cylinders not just oxygen. This includes helium USP, carbon dioxide USP, medical air USP, nitrogen NF and various mixtures of gases that are currently used in a healthcare facility. At the current time the only valve that meets these requirements is a valve manufactured by the submitters employer and is only available as a post style valve for small oxygen cylinders. In order to meet the requirements in this proposed standard, valves would need to be designed, tested and installed in the cylinders for these other gases. From years of experience in the medical gas industry when the industry would convert to the new valve designs it would be done gradually. The medical gas suppliers would only convert their cylinders to the new valve design as the cylinders reached their ten year retest period. This will result in shortages of cylinders and increased costs to the healthcare facilities. Accepting the committees action on the ROC would result in increased costs to the healthcare facility with out an increase in patient safety. A risk analysis of the proposed valve design may actually show an increased risk to the patient or personnel handling the cylinder due to the design of a toggle style valve assembly and accidental operation of the valve.

_______________________________________________________________99-181 Log #61 HEA-GAS Final Action: Reject(9.4.3 & 9.4.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: George L Scott, Scott Associates LLCComment on Proposal No: 99-432Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 9.4.2 Except as allowed in 9.4.3 storage nonflammable gases... 9.4.3 Storage for nonflammable gases with a total volume compressed equal to or less than 8.5 m 3 (300 ft 3 ) or equal to or less than 17 m 3 (600 ft 3 ) for emergency preparedness supply for medical gas systems ̓planned and unplanned shutdowns shall comply...

99-31

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 9.4.3.1 When gas cylinders are stored for emergency preparedness purposes as described in 9.4.3, these cylinders shall also comply with the following: (1) Shall be used only for a failure of the piped medical gas system within the vicinity of the stored area (2) Shall be used in accordance with the facilityʼs emergency policies and procedures, as defined in 5.1.13.1.3 (3) Shall be clearly identified as being part of the facilityʼs emergency preparedness plan and used for this purpose only (4) Shall be no more than two large cylinders present in any one location (5) Shall not be stored with other gases (6) Shall be stored on a hand truck complying with the requirements of 9.5.3.1 (7) Cylinders shall be handled in accordance with 5.1.13.2 (8) Storage of small cylinders (A, B, D or E), regardless of intended purpose, shall not exceed 8.5 m 3 (300 ft 3 ) Substantiation: See substantiation submitted with my original proposal. The two large cylinders (<600 ft 3 ) are required to backfeed a critical care zone when multiple ventilator dependent patients are present. This cannot be done with smaller cylinders. This procedure has been used by many hospitals to restore life support gases to critical patients during the first few minutes of an emergency. These first minutes are when most emergency response plans fail. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Emergency preparedness is not defined and it would be vague as to when to implement these requirements. Additionally, emergency preparedness is not addressed in this chapter.Number Eligible to Vote: 9Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 CROWLEY, MILLS, SOMMERSExplanation of Negative: SUTTER: The submitters intent was not to increase the currently allowable volume of 8.5 m 3 (300 ft 3 ) for normal usage or require a facility to maintain cylinders for emergency response but to allow the placement of cylinders for emergency response use if it the facility wanted this as a part of their emergency plan. The submitter has extensive experience working with the major healthcare facilities located in the New York City metropolitan area and has first hand experience in helping these facilities respond to medical gas system emergencies. As the submitter pointed out in his substantiation when a facility has a medical gas emergency the first few minutes are critical. This proposal agreed with the need to limit the amount of nonflammable gas storage for everyday use. However the proposal recognized the emergency response need and was offering methods that would allow for the safe storage of nonflammable medical gas for emergency needs without the facility needing to worry about problems with local inspectors or JCAHO auditors. Rejecting the committeeʼs action on the ROC would allow the healthcare facility to have a greater flexibility in developing their emergency plan and in turn would lead to greater patient safety.Comment on Affirmative LIPSCHULTZ: The two large cylinders described by the submitter are allowed for the purpose described by the submitter as long as the requirements of 9.4.2 are followed. Substantiation from submitter doesnʼt indicate why this is an unreasonably onerous so that a change is warranted.

_______________________________________________________________99-182 Log #55 HEA-GAS Final Action: Accept(9.6.1.3.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert M. Sutter, BOC GasesComment on Proposal No: 99-434Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Equipment shall only be serviced by qualified personnel only trained in the maintenance and operation of the equipment. Substantiation: Reworded to comply with the TCCʼs request regarding the definition of “qualified” and to correct misidentification of the applicable section. The Proposal 99-434 shows the section as being 8.5.5.3 and it should be a new Section 9.6.2.1.3.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Ballot Not Returned: 3 CROWLEY, MILLS, SOMMERS _______________________________________________________________99-183 Log #103 HEA-GAS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.6.2.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Hopple, Simplex/GrinnellComment on Proposal No: 99-435Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 9.6.22 Transferring Liquid Oxygen. Transferring of liquid oxygen from one container to another shall be accomplished at a location specifically designated for the transferring that is as complies with one of the following: 1. Transfer to reservoirs or portable units over 50 psi: a. Separated from any portion of a facility wherein patients are housed, examined, or treated by a separation of a fire barrier of 1 hour fire-resistive construction; and b. The area is mechanically ventilated, is sprinklered, and has ceramic or

concrete flooring; and c. The area is posted with signs indicating that transferring is occurring, and that smoking in the immediate area is not permitted. 2. Transfer to portable containers at 50 psi and under: a. The area is well-ventilated, and has non-combustible flooring; and b. The area is posted with signs indicating that smoking in the area is not allowed; and c. The area has no sources of ignition within 10 ft. (3.3m) of the transfilling station; and d.* Transfilling occurs a minimum of 5 ft. (1.7m) away from electrical appliances; and e. The individual filling the portable has been properly trained in the filling procedure; and e. The guidelines of CGA P-2.6 and P-2.7 are met. *A.9.6.2.2 2.d - Examples of electrical appliances include electric wheelchairs, television sets, radio and stereo equipment, air conditioners, fans, electric razors, and hair dryers. Substantiation: All oxygen systems present some inherent risk, and appropriate safeguards and precautions should be used regardless of the oxygen delivery system selected. Small, portable liquid oxygen systems have been used by home oxygen patients over the last 20 years in less controlled environments than health care facilities. In addition, recent technological advancements have increased overall safety features for liquid oxygen units, making them even more favorable for bedside use in the home as well as in health care facilities. These units compare favorably to other modalities such as oxygen concentrators and cylinder gas systems. The specific safety features of liquid systems that transfill at 50 psi or less include: 1. The operating pressure of 22 psi is very low, similar to a bicycle tire. This compares favorably to high-pressure gas cylinders currently used in many health care facilities. At an operating pressure of 2000-2200 psi, cylinder failure can result in significant damage. Lower operating pressure mitigates failure risk. 2. The small portable units have a very small filling volume and filling time required. For instance, a filling volume of 0.9 to 3.1 lbs. of liquid oxygen can be contained in a volume the size of a soda can, with a filling time between 40 and 70 seconds. The small volume and time to fill greatly limits any risk in filling the portable units. 3. Small portable units are connected to the reservoir with an integrated fill port and connector that eliminate the risk of tubing failure and limit the venting of oxygen into the atmosphere. These portable units have a metal filling port that fits directly on to a metal filling connector that is integrated into the reservoir. Given this solid connection and the small amount of liquid oxygen being transferred, very little oxygen is vented into the atmosphere. 4. Positioning and abuse tests of one such small portable liquid oxygen system showed it would operate without leakage if placed on its back, or after being dropped from a four-foot countertop onto a concrete floor. High pressure “E” cylinders must be secured upright because a fall may result in damage to the regulator, and consequent high pressure venting of gaseous oxygen form the cylinder. 5. Small, portable liquid oxygen systems use a simple, time-tested transfilling system. The filling mechanism is a valve, and the portable unit is pushed onto the valve. Transfilling is accomplished at low filling pressures (< 50 psi) compared to some older liquid systems, which reached transfilling pressures of >50 psi. Transfilling is accomplished with a direct connection (no hoses, no series of connections) and fills a small volume over a short period of time (typically less than 40 seconds), which limits venting into the atmosphere. 6. Because there are no electrical components to the small portable liquid oxygen systems, there is no opportunity for an electrical “spark” to ignite oxygen vapors. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 9.6.2.2 Transferring Liquid Oxygen. Transferring of liquid oxygen from one container to another shall comply with one of the following: 1. Transfer to reservoirs or portable units over 50 psi: a. A designated area separated from any portion of a facility wherein patients are housed, examined, or treated by a separation of a fire barrier of 1 hour fire-resistive construction; and b. The area is mechanically ventilated, is sprinklered, and has ceramic or concrete flooring; and c. The area is posted with signs indicating that transferring is occurring, and that smoking in the immediate area is not permitted. d. The individual has been properly trained in the filling procedures. 2. Transfer to portable containers at 50 psi and under: a. The area is well-ventilated, and has noncombustible flooring; and b. The area is posted with signs indicating that smoking in the area is not allowed; and c. The individual filling the portable has been properly trained in the filling procedure; and d. The guidelines of CGA Pamphlet P-2.6, Transfilling of Low-Pressure Liquid Oxygen to be Used for Respiration,and CGA Pamphlet P-2.7, Guide for the Safe Storage, Handling and Use of Portable Liquid Oxygen Systems in Health Care Facilities, are met.

99-32

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 Committee Statement: For transfilling over 50 psi, a designated area must be specified to separate the hazards and training of the individual must also apply. The clearance to ignition sources was deleted as no substantiation was given as to the adequacy of the numbers.Number Eligible to Vote: 9Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 CROWLEY, MILLS, SOMMERSExplanation of Negative: SUTTER: The proposal as written in the ROC places less restrictions on the transfer of liquid oxygen on systems that operate at pressures that are over 50 psi than it does for systems that operate at 50 psi and under. The requirements to comply with CGA P-2.6 and P-2.7 found in the 2002 edition of the 99 standard adequately address the safety issues presented by the submitter. The substantiationʼs given do not support the changes that have been recommended. Accepting the committees action on the ROC would lead to confusion and implement requirements that are not as restrictive as currently written in the 2002 edition.Comment on Affirmative LIPSCHULTZ: The committee wanted to provide for reduced requirements if pressure <50 psi. We did that, but what we missed is that the existing 9.6.2.2.1 and 9.6.2.2 require CGA P-2.6 and P-2.7 for all systems (>50 psi and <50 psi). Our proposed action on the comment reads that P-2.6 and P-2.7 only apply <50 psi. If this ballot ballot passes, we need to modify. The new Section 9.6.2.2 (2d) should be repeated as a new 9.6.2.2 (1e). Iʼm voting affirmative because the overall intention of providing for lower restrictions for <50 psi is more important. Few people will notice or be affected by the inadvertent change for >50 psi.

_______________________________________________________________99-184 Log #38 HEA-LAB Final Action: Accept(Chapter 11) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-437Recommendation: The TCC needs more information from the TC as to why Chapter 11 is still needed. The TCC would like to see what areas of Chapter 11 are unique to hospital laboratories and which areas are covered by other standards.Substantiation: The TCC is still unclear about the need for Chapter 11 and would like further justification.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: NFPA 45 is a broad based standard which focuses on chemical usage. Itʼs requirements are too stringent for clinical laboratories. Chapter 11 of NFPA 99 is more specific for health care occupancies and focus on life safety requirements, and address the Clinical Laboratory Emprovement Act (CLEA). Chapter 11 also focuses on safety and emergency procedures, training issues, equipment employing flammable liquids and the use of flammable and combustible liquids and gases.Number Eligible to Vote: 6Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Ballot Not Returned: 1 SIMMONS _______________________________________________________________99-185 Log #39 HEA-HCE Final Action: Accept(Chapter 12 & 1.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Health Care FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-441Recommendation: The TCC is requesting the TC to provide a better committee statement, which explains what is critical for healthcare emergency management. The TCC would also like to know what is unique in NFPA 99, Chapter 12 that is not covered in NFPA 1600.Substantiation: The TCC is still unclear about the need for Chapter 12 and would like further justification.Committee Meeting Action: Accept The committee feels that a specific health care emergency management is important and is critical for the industry. NFPA 1600 is very broad and geared towards general industry and has value. However NFPA 1600 may be too stringent and may not be appropriate for the health care industry. In the future the committee will consider restructuring NFPA 99, chapter 12 with the same program elements as NFPA 1600. The following is a comparison of NFPA 1600 and NFPA 99, Chapter 12: Scope Both document have the same basic scope in setting minimal criteria for an Emergency Management Plan (EMP). Purpose Both documents have the same purpose of providing a framework to assess, mitigate, prepare, respond to and recover from a disaster. Program Management Both documents follow the same concept of developing procedures, test-ing procedures, overseeing, and monitoring procedures. ** In 99/12, there is a requirement that the Emergency Management Plan (EMP) be based on the Incident Command System (ICS), which has nationwide recognition. Following this system generally makes it easier for the healthcare industry

to communicate with each other and emergency authorities. For example, a Mutual Aid Plan is recommended in the appendices of 99/12. A Mutual Aid Plan makes it possible for one hospital to depend upon other community hospitals in the event of a disaster-forced evacuation. Common job titles and responsibilities, as laid out in the Incident Command System (ICS), become critical for effective interaction between facilities. Law and Authorities Both documents have the same requirements; basically that EMPs must com-ply with requirements. ** 99/12 requires that the authority having jurisdiction know the uniqueness of the healthcare industry compared to any other busi-nesses. In healthcare facilities, continued operations throughout the disaster is imperative. Healthcare has a different philosophy from any other business in that they fight to stay operational and in the building versus shutting down and evacuating the premises. Required Elements of Emergency Management Plans: 1. Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Both documents cover this area. ** In fact, 99/12 states that a Risk Assessment is important to decide which disasters a facility should prepare for, and mitigate their impact, when possible. 99/12 references 1600 as it relates to mitigation. 2. Resource Management Both documents have the same requirements. However, in 99/12 guidelines are given which are specific to healthcare in resource management. ** For example, under the required element of Logistics, we talk about the important resources of pharmaceuticals, food and linen. These resources would not be important in any other kind of business. 3. Planning Both documents have the same requirement. ** 1600 is very general in this area. 99/12, however, gives development guidelines for building an EMP, specific to healthcare. For example, it addresses identification of healthcare staff to enable them to pass through police roadblocks during disasters. It also addresses the identification of staff within the ICS to facilitate better interac-tion with emergency authorities on scene. 99/12 recognizes that, because of patients and their acuity levels, there will need to be a reliance upon healthcare staff by emergency authorities. 4. Direction Control and Coordination Both documents address the issue. ** 99/12 notes that it is imperative for the emergency authority on scene to work with healthcare staff to ensure that life support functions continue for the patients during a disaster. 5. Communication and Warning Both documents address this issue. ** 99/12 recognizes the need for a healthcare facility to have back-up systems in place, and numerous practical examples are given. In this area, the document also recognizes that the health-care facility may need to communicate with the community, such as the needs demonstrated during the anthrax situations in October of 2001, and the SARS outbreak in Toronto of 2003. 6. Operations and Procedures Both documents address this issue. ** The appendices of 99/12 give sug-gested staff procedure guidelines for different types of disasters. Procedure guidelines are also given for patient management. While 1600 is able to provide general procedure guidelines for other business, this would not be sufficient for healthcare facilities, because patients cannot take self-preser-vation actions as in any other occupancy. 7. Logistics and Facilities Both documents address this issue. ** 99/12 recognizes that the healthcare facility is a protect-in-place (whenever possible) industry. Continuity of essen-tial building systems is vital to life support. Therefore, unlike general occupan-cies addressed in 1600, healthcare must have back-up systems for power, water, and medical gases. The appendices gives examples of this. 8. Training Both documents address this issue, but healthcare gives guidelines which are specific to its industry. SUMMARY As this analysis progressed it became clear that both documents address simi-lar areas. The BIG difference is that specific healthcare examples are given to the user of the document which will help them comply with their requirements. The committee does not believe that the healthcare membership would be well served if they only and to use, and they lost all of the great healthcare guide-lines contained in 99/12. ** Indicates areas where 99/12 is different, or offers more insight to health-care, than does 1600.Committee Statement: The committee has provided more details regarding the committee statement.Number Eligible to Vote: 13Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Ballot Not Returned: 1 VARGO

99-33

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 _______________________________________________________________99-186 Log #60 HEA-HCE Final Action: Reject(Chapter 12, 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Thomas T. Bulow, Tom Bulow & AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-441Recommendation: Delete all of Chapter 12. Add a new Section 1.1.1.1 to read as follows: 1.1.1.1 Disaster both internal and external shall be considered and planned for under the guidance of NFPA 1600 (Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs) 2004 edition. This shall include integrated planning and drills to measure effectiveness of the program and its required plans. Results of drills shall be documented and used to adjust the program to meet most current needs. 1.1.1.2 Planning, mitigation of hazards, warning and information flow, staff training and response to emergencies, procurement and financial planning, defined lines of succession and identified of the level of recovery which deter-mines the point of recovery shall all be a part of the program. Substantiation: Chapter 12 as proposed is vague and does not provide the ele-ments needed to accomplish the broad scope of a disaster/emergency manage-ment program. It is simply written in an internal policy format lacking direc-tion and specific areas of staff responsibility. The Technical Committee Statement clearly defines the isolated expectation of Chapter 12 and its lack of continuity with other entities likely to be affected by a single incident. The Chapter does not provide a method of mitigation existing hazard condi-tions to minimize the impact of probable emergencies. Neither does it provide plans for possible relocation of part or all of a facility in an emergency of such result. It also lacks provisions for overcoming interruptions in supply sources suffering similar emergency incidents. It also lacks plans for providing means of financial needs required for abnormal acquisition of supplies during an emergency. Emergency staff training and public information processes are only men-tioned in passing in Chapter 12. Testing of elements of such a program is not covered and certainly no process for amending program elements is visible in the Chapter. Accordingly, documentation of drills is less than clearly defined along with the need to extract information for needed program change over time. Flexibility and repeated testing of such a program is key to its success. As needs or legislation takes us in new directions such programs must be flexible and adjust to meet the new challenges. Finally, planning for a disaster/emergency that will severely affect a facility directly must also address lines of succession. Chapter 12 is written in a vacu-um with the assumption that staff and leadership are invincible. Incident Command structuring must take into consideration the fact that key elements of the leadership of the entity may be absent or victims of the event. Chapter 12 does not address this reality. Emergency Preparedness is global, not occupancy specific. A policy should be considered only a part of a plan, and a plan is only one element of a program.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 99-187 (Log #59).Number Eligible to Vote: 13Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Ballot Not Returned: 1 VARGO _______________________________________________________________99-187 Log #59 HEA-HCE Final Action: Reject(12.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Thomas T. Bulow, Tom Bulow & AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-444Recommendation: After existing words, (management planning in health care facilities) add the following: “...with direction to conform to the requirements of NFPA 1600 including, but not limited to planning, assessing hazards, response to, mitigation of, and recovery from disaster/emergencies both internal and external to the facility. Integrate these elements with local, state, federal, and private agencies involved with public safety and security. Then remove Section 12.2 through 12.3.3.10. Substantiation: Chapter 12 as proposed is vague and does not provide the ele-ments needed to accomplish the broad scope of a disaster/emergency manage-ment program. It is simply written in an internal policy format lacking direc-tion and specific areas of staff responsibility. Adding detail to the Annex of NFPA 99 as suggested in the Committee Statement will not fulfill the needs for sound program elements of emergency preparedness. Chapter 12 lacks the real-ity that no entity (occupancy) lives in a vacuum. It also seems to miss the point that no occupancy is exempt from being the victim in disasters/emergencies. The Chapter does not provide a method of mitigating existing hazard condi-tions to reduce probable exposure to interruption. Also absent, are any plans for possible relocation of part or all of a facility affected in an emergency. Chapter 12 also lacks provisions for overcoming interruptions in supply sources or means of providing financial needs required for abnormal acquisitions during a disaster/emergency. Emergency staff training and public information processes are only men-tioned in passing. Even the most basic core elements are not defined for staff and public information and training. Staff testing of specific responsibility dur-ing emergency operations is absent from the text of Chapter 12. No process for amending program elements is visible in Chapter 12.

Accordingly, documentation of drills is less than clearly defined along with the need to extract information for needed change of program elements over time. Flexibility and repeated testing of such a program is key to its success. As needs or legislation takes us in new directions, such programs must be flexible and adjust to meet the new requirements of the time. Finally, planning for a disaster/emergency that will severely affect a facility directly must also address lines of succession. Chapter 12 is written in a vacu-um with the assumption that staff and leadership are invincible. Incident Command structuring must take into consideration the fact that key elements of the leadership may be absent or victims of the event. Chapter 12 does not address this reality. Adding text to the Annex of NFPA 99 will add little to solving the lack of required elements absent in this document proposal. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter lists nine different concerns or areas where our document is different. It appears his intention is to eliminate 99/12, and offer only 1600. The committee has addressed the nine different concerns: 1. The submitter states that the chapter does not address basic elements of planning for disasters, assessing hazards, responding to disasters, mitigating disasters, and recovering from disasters. The committee does address the need of the user of our document to address these elements in 12.1.2, and give examples to do so throughout. 2. The submitter states that there is a lack of direction and specific areas of staff responsibility. NFPA 99, chapter 12, like 1600 is intended to provide a framework that the user can follow to build their facility-specific EMP. The chapter lists what important areas need to be addressed, and give many health-care-specific examples throughout the appendices. 3. The submitter feels that chapter 12 assumes that healthcare would never be a victim. The whole chapter of 99/12 assumes that healthcare could be a vic-tim, and gives guidelines on steps to be taken in the event of a disaster. 4. The submitter feels that chapter 12 does not address the fact that a health-care facility may need to relocate during a disaster. In the appendices, a disser-tation takes place on Mutual Aid Plans, which are different healthcare facilities working together in the event that one facility needs to evacuate their building. 5. The submitter feels that chapter 12 lacks provisions for overcoming inter-ruption of supply sources. It is important to remember that the scope, like 1600, is a guideline, not a complete textbook. Also, chapter 12 does not address important supplies under the Logistics Section. 6. The submitter feels that chapter 12 lacks provisions for providing financial needs. Chapter 12 only lightly references finances in the section on Incident Command Systems. 7. The submitter feels that chapter 12 does not address staff testing in specif-ic responsibilities. The committee agrees that chapter 12 does not provide a lot of guidelines on this, but does list training as a requirement. 8. The submitter feels that chapter 12 has no process in place for amending Emergency Management Plans. The document addresses this and leaves it to the committee with the responsibility to oversee the facilityʼs EMP. 9. The submitter feels that chapter 12 does not address lines of succession in the event that leadership may be absent during an event. The Incident Command System addresses this issue.Number Eligible to Vote: 13Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Ballot Not Returned: 1 VARGO _______________________________________________________________99-188 Log #7 HEA-HCE Final Action: Reject(12.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Emergency Management and Business ContinuityComment on Proposal No: 99-442Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 12.1.3 This chapter establishes minimum criteria for health care facility emergency management in the development of a program for effective disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. It provides detailed guidance specific to hospitals. Emergency management plans shall be developed in accordance with NFPA 1600, Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs. This standard establishes a common set of criteria for disaster management, emergency management, and business conti-nuity programs.Substantiation: The scope of NFPA 99, Chapter 12 (Health Care Emergency Management), and its Annex sections A & C have multiple paragraphs that par-allel the NFPA 1600 standard. It is our recommendation that the following sec-ond sentence be added to the scope to directly reference the NFPA 1600 stan-dard.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The recommendation is mandating that hospital emer-gency plans be in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 1600 and some elements of NFPA 1600 should not be mandated and are not applicable to the health care industry. Most of the elements are applicable, but should not be mandated.Number Eligible to Vote: 13Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 1 VARGOExplanation of Negative: SCHIPPER: The direction of NFPA 1600 should form the foundation for all industry activities in this arena including those of Healthcare. Chapter 12

99-34

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 should not seek to separate itself from the work of NFPA 1600, but build on its foundation. This building includes both the enhancements and exceptions to NFPA 1600 that make it fit to the unique nature of Healthcare.

_______________________________________________________________99-189 Log #9 HEA-ELS Final Action: Accept in Principle(13.4.1.2.5.1(E)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-453Recommendation: 1. Change numbering of text in recommendation from 7.9.3 to 4.3.4.2. 2. Renumber existing 4.3.4.2 to 4.3.4.3. 3. In 13.4.1.2.6.1(E), add the following: “Testing shall be in accordance with 4.3.4.2.”Substantiation: 1. Paragraph numbering proposed (7.9.3) refers to Chapter 7, which covers ʻmaterialʼ. Placing this testing requirement in Chapter 4 and the section on testing electrical system (4.3.4) is the closest appropriate section for this material. Chapter 8 is not appropriate either since Chapter 8 covers “equip-ment” that is not part of the electrical distribution system. While emergency lighting units are technically not part of the electrical distribution system, their functioning is dependent on the electrical distribution system. Section 4.3.4 covers testing of the electrical distribution system. 2. Renumbering is necessary if this new text is inserted. 3. Adding of reference for testing is for reader and knowing where to find testing requirements for these emergency lighting units.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise the text to read as follows: In Section 13.4.1.2.6.1(E) and 14.3.4.2.1.1(E), add the following: “Testing shall be in accordance with 4.3.4.2.”Committee Statement: This agrees with the submitters intent and further clar-ifies the need in Chapter 14 which has anesthetizing locations. Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-190 Log #126 HEA-PIP Final Action: Hold(13.5.1(2)(b)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Corky Bishop, Medical Gas Management, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-452Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Patients served by the system(s) are not dependent on mechanical ventilation or assisted mechanical ventilation at any time, including during administration of anesthesia. Substantiation: Was the purpose of this requirement to elevate all facilities with an anesthesia machine to a Level 1 facility? The best example of a Level 2 system is an outpatient surgery center. The current wording would force any facility with anesthesia machines in use to be elevated to Level 1 requirements. This also applies to Chapters 14, 17, and 18.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee needs more time to review the chang-es to the definitions.Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-191 Log #154 HEA-ELS Final Action: Accept(14.3.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Joseph Mona, Lawrence General HospitalComment on Proposal No: 99-454Recommendation: Add a sentence, to 14.3.4.1: These requirements shall apply to new construction. Existing installations shall not need to be modified, provided that they meet the operational safety requirements in 4.3.3.2 and 4.3.3.3 (see section 1.3.2). Substantiation: This proposed added sentence comes from the current NFPA 99 section 13.3.4 (electrical system requirements - hospitals). This action would alleviate a large part of our concerns based on experiences where AHJs have required upgrade of existing systems back to the source when renovating Ambulatory Health Care areas. We believe this, plus the reference to see sec-tion 1.3.2, would more readily allow AHJs the judgement that application of new standards within an exiting building would be impractical.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-192 Log #6 HEA-ELS Final Action: Accept(14.3.4.2.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-455Recommendation: Accept Proposal 99-455.Substantiation: Substantiation inadvertently left out. Should have read as fol-lows:

Section 14.3.4.2.1.1 applies just to anesthetizing locations. Section 14.4.1 covers just anesthetizing location requirements. Therefore, this text should be relocated as recommended in Proposal 99-455 for ease of readers in finding all anesthetizing location requirements.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-193 Log #8 HEA-ELS Final Action: Accept(14.3.4.2.1.1(E)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Burton R. Klein, Burton Klein AssociatesComment on Proposal No: 99-456Recommendation: 1. Delete recommended new text. 2. Add the following text in 14.3.4.2.1(E): “Testing shall be in accordance with 4.3.4.2.”Substantiation: Correlate with my public comment on Proposal 99-453. Reasons are the same.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See the Committe Action on Comment 99-189 (Log #9). Number Eligible to Vote: 14Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 _______________________________________________________________99-194 Log #128 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(14.3.5.1(3)a) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Corky Bishop, Medical Gas Management, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 99-457Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Subparagraphs 14.3.5.1(1)a and b and 14.3.5.1(2) a b are true. Substantiation: This was corrected by Errata 99-02-1.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROM _______________________________________________________________99-195 Log #CC200 HEA-HYP Final Action: Accept(20.2.4.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-465Recommendation: Revise 20.2.4.4.1 to read as follows: 20.2.4.4.1* The minimum ventilation rate for a Class B chamber shall be 0.028 3 (1 actual cubic foot) per minute. A.20.2.4.4.1 Ventilation can be provided by closed or open circuit systems. 20.2.4.4.2 Class B chambers not designed for 100 percent oxygen environ-ment shall comply with the monitoring requirements of 20.2.8.4. Substantiation: This change clarifies that if the chamber is not designed for 100 percent oxygen, then monitoring is required.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 18Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 ATKINSON, BEESON, FOREMAN, SCHUMACHER, VINCENTExplanation of Negative: BARRY: I am voting negative on the above proposal for the following rea-sons: Lowering the ventilation rate may affect the amount of carbon dioxide build up, or pooling, within a Class B chamber compressed with 100% oxygen, fur-thermore the amount of time it takes for a chamber occupant to actually breath 100% oxygen would possibly be increased thereby not delivering adequate therapy. The references cited are 2 different subjects that require separate consider-ations: 1. Class B chamber ventilation rate 2. Class B gas monitoring requirements. This change could lower the effectiveness of a hyperbaric treatment, does not improve safety and does not address carbon dioxide build up. SECHRIST: I suggest the following sentence be added. Class B chambers designed for 100 percent oxygen environments (pressur-ized with air or oxygen) shall not be required to meet the monitoring require-ments of 20.2.8.4. Substantiation: This additional sentence clarifies the monitoring requirements weather using air or oxygen to pressurize a Class B chamber designed to be compatible with 100 percent oxygen.

_______________________________________________________________99-196 Log #CC202 HEA-HYP Final Action: Accept(20.2.7.2.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-470Recommendation: Revise to read as follows:

99-35

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 20.2.7.2.1.1 All hyperbaric facilities for human occupancies shall contain an electrical service that is supplied from two independent sources of electric power. Keep Section 20.2.7.2.1.2 as proposed. Note Section 20.2.7.2.1.2 was modi-fied, and not 20.2.7.2.2.Substantiation: This is not applicable to chambers intended for animal use.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 18Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Ballot Not Returned: 5 ATKINSON, BEESON, FOREMAN, SCHUMACHER, VINCENT _______________________________________________________________99-197 Log #CC204 HEA-HYP Final Action: Accept(20.3.1.5.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-476Recommendation: Revise 20.3.1.5.1.1(4) by deleting “Ultraviolet sources”.Substantiation: Ultraviolet sources are not ignition sources.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 18Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Ballot Not Returned: 5 ATKINSON, BEESON, FOREMAN, SCHUMACHER, VINCENT _______________________________________________________________99-198 Log #CC205 HEA-HYP Final Action: Accept(20.3.1.5.2.2(5)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-477Recommendation: Reject this proposal.Substantiation: This would require both the patient and the caregiver to wear antistatic straps to ground. This is unreasonable.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 18Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Ballot Not Returned: 5 ATKINSON, BEESON, FOREMAN, SCHUMACHER, VINCENT _______________________________________________________________99-199 Log #CC108 HEA-PIP Final Action: Accept(A.5.1.12.2.11) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Piping SystemsComment on Proposal No: 99-356Recommendation: Add new text as follows: A.5.1.12.2.11 Table The committee recognizes that current clinical practice is to use analyzers that may not be able to analyze oxygen to current USP requirements of 99 per-cent, and that these analyzers frequently have an error of up to 3 percent.Substantiation: The committee recognizes that the clinical application of the instruments may not meet the application of the USP standard.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 23Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 1 QUARNSTROMComment on Affirmative WAGNER: Where is Table A.5.1.12.2.11? What is being changed?

_______________________________________________________________99-200 Log #67 HEA-HCE Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.12.2.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev.Comment on Proposal No: 99-64Recommendation: Revise the current annex language to reflect the current national incident management system developed and implemented by the US Department of Homeland Security in February 2004.Substantiation: The US Department of Homeland Security has established and implemented a national incident management system. This system should be the one included in the annex as the acceptable and model incident com-mand system.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The committee has referenced this document in Annex F.Committee Statement: The committee has referenced this document in Annex F. The submitter did not provide specific recommended wording, but the committee feels the reference to the document provides the information for the users.Number Eligible to Vote: 13Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Ballot Not Returned: 1 VARGO _______________________________________________________________99-201 Log #CC201 HEA-HYP Final Action: Accept(A.20.2.7.3.17) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-498Recommendation: Reject this proposal.Substantiation: This material needs more study and a task group will be formed to examine this material further.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 18Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Ballot Not Returned: 5 ATKINSON, BEESON, FOREMAN, SCHUMACHER, VINCENT _______________________________________________________________99-202 Log #CC203 HEA-HYP Final Action: Accept(A.20.2.8.6.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric FacilitiesComment on Proposal No: 99-472Recommendation: Add annex material as follows: A.20.2.8.6.2 CGA Grade D permits quantities of hydrocarbons and water in air. In piping systems where air and oxygen might be used interchangeably, hydrocarbon buildup can occur and increase the risk of fire when oxygen is used. There is also a concern about pneumatic components being fouled and functionally impaired by hydrocarbons or water from compressed air. Ideally, there should be no condensed hydrocarbons in an oxygen system and no liquid water in pneumatic control systems.Substantiation: This gives the users more information on the grade of air. The users can use a better air if they desire.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 18Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 ATKINSON, BEESON, FOREMAN, SCHUMACHER, VINCENTExplanation of Negative: HAMILTON: Although this Addendum does address this issue, it is not suffi-cient protection for the situation where air is to be mixed with high-pressure oxygen, nor for the piping and components that might be used for that purpose. Since the CGA standards do not deal with this situation explicitly, NFPA should be specific and include an appropriate and attainable limit for condens-able hydrocarbons that can be documented rather than to incorporate the unat-tainable CGA limit of “no condensable hydrocarbons.” I recommend, as I did for the last such ballot, that the Addendum cite the community standard for Air to be Mixed with Oxygen, which calls for a limit of 0.1 mg of condensable hydrocarbon per M 3 of air. The air used for pressurizing a chamber may not need to be so clean, since its piping should not be used with high-pressure oxygen. PETERSON: I concur with the comment and recommendtion made by Dr. R. W. Hamilton on his initial ballot.

Documents

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 99 A. Salamone, Healthcare & Life Safety Concepts, Inc., NY [SE] W. Thomas Schipper, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, CA [U] Rep. American