View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
National Fire Protection Association
1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471
Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
M E M O R A N D U M
To: NFPA Technical Committee on Piping Systems
From: Elena Carroll, Project Administrator
Date: December 2, 2015
Subject: NFPA 99 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2017 Cycle)
According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot with
the exception of FRs 654, 655, 656, and 657, as noted on the attached report.
28 Members Eligible to Vote 1 Not Returned (D. McIlroy)
7 Affirmative on All Revisions (M. Allen, K. Ferrari, A. Lowe, J. McBride, D. Mohile, J. Wagner, J.
Willard, A. Volz, w/ comment) 16 Negative on one or more Revisions (M. Allen, C. Beebe, B. Brown, D. Colombo, S. Hamilton, A. Lowe,
J. Lucas, J. Maurer, J. McBride, D. Mohile, S. Schwartzkopf, R. Schwipps, R. Smidt, J. Wagner, J. Willard, A.
Volz)
4 Abstentions (K. Ferrari, A. Lowe, S. Schwartzkopf, J. Wagner)
The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of
the vote for each first revision.
There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3
vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.
(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes
are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)
(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not
return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample
calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )
As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride Agree
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree
Negative 2
Anthony Lowe Category 1 includes other areas then Critical Care
J. Richard Wagner
If the term "critical care area" is changed to "Category 1 space", it will lose its identity. Every space in a
Category 1 facility is a "Category 1 space". Section 5.1.4.6.8 requires that zone valves be located
immediately outside of each vital life support area, critical care area, and anesthetizing location. These are
all "Category 1 spaces". Section 5.1.4.6.8 would be useless if all of its locations were called "Category 1
space". Zone valves are not required outside of every "Category 1 space". There is a similar situation in
5.1.9.4 for the required locations of area alarm panels. "Critical care area" is clearly defined in 3.3.28.
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-604, Global Input, See FR-604
Results by Revision
TRUE
FR-601, Global Input, See FR-601
Page 1 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Keith Ferrari okay
Negative 4
Anthony Lowe
Not a code item no need for definition and the language is too vague. It can allow unknown methods of
unacceptable connections
J. Richard Wagner
The definition of "non-separable connection" does not clearly define a permanent pipe connection.
Soldered and brazed joints can be considered as "non-separable" but they can be disconnected with heat
and reconnected. Whether a particular connection is "non-separable" requires an analysis of the design of
the connection, installation tests, and its use in a particular piping system.
Jeffery F. McBride I do not agree.
Jonathan C. Willard Not in favor of allowing corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems.
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-658, New Section after 3.3.116, See FR-658
TRUE
FR-602, New Section after 3.3.29, See FR-602
Page 2 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
J. Richard Wagner Is this definition necessary? "Producer" is a very general term. How is the term used in NFPA 99?
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-606, Section No. 5.1.3.3.1.1, See FR-606
TRUE
FR-603, New Section after 3.3.135, See FR-603
Page 3 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner In 5.1.3.3.1.2(4), 5.1.13.3.5.6 should be changed to 5.1.13.3.5.7.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-608, Section No. 5.1.3.3.1.3, See FR-608
TRUE
FR-607, Section No. 5.1.3.3.1.2, See FR-607
Page 4 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-612, Section No. 5.1.3.5 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-612
TRUE
FR-611, Section No. 5.1.3.3.3.1, See FR-611
Page 5 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 1
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe
Unnecessary risk to the medical gas system. Other stand alone of simulation gases can be utilized for this
purpose
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
TRUE
FR-609, New Section after 5.1.3.5.10, See FR-609
TRUE
FR-613, Section No. 5.1.3.5.2, See FR-613
Page 6 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree if table is correct
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-616, New Section after 5.1.3.5.11.2, See FR-616
TRUE
FR-615, Section No. 5.1.3.5.11.1, See FR-615
Page 7 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
TRUE
FR-618, Section No. 5.1.3.5.12.4, See FR-618
TRUE
FR-617, Section No. 5.1.3.5.12.1, See FR-617
Page 8 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe Separation of the two system is more defined
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe Separation of the two system is more defined
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-626, Section No. 5.1.3.5.14, See FR-626
TRUE
FR-627, Section No. 5.1.3.5.13, See FR-627
Page 9 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
Mark W. Allen
The wording in D is not sufficiently precise to prevent misreading. Propose the following rewording D)
(1)Built-in disconnect means shall be included to allow appropriate operation of central supply systems
with multiple compressors and protect service personnel from exposure to live voltages.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe
this is redundant to "Lag Alarm" already in code. The language provided does not provide more clear
language. Capacity is too difficult to measure... The VSD would exceed the existing language of the code
and doesnt require a change in langauge
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-621, Section No. 5.1.3.6.3.12(F), See FR-621
TRUE
FR-620, Section No. 5.1.3.6.3.10, See FR-620
Page 10 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 2
Anthony Lowe
New studies show that the vacuum and copper will kill living cells and that risk to the work is simply not
present.
James L. Lucas
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper provides
antimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on source
equipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 3
J. Richard Wagner Has existing 5.1.3.7.4 - Piping Arrangements and Redundancies been changed to 5.1.3.7.5?
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 2
Anthony Lowe
New studies show that the vacuum and copper will kill living cells and that risk to the work is simply not
present.
James L. Lucas
There is no evidence to support that this will provide additional protection or that germs reach the vacuum
pump. This adds expense without justification.
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-651, New Section after 5.1.3.7.3, See FR-651
TRUE
FR-652, Section No. 5.1.3.7.1.2, See FR-652
Page 11 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 5
Anthony Lowe agree
Mark W. Allen
The wording in D is not sufficiently precise to prevent misreading. Propose the following rewording (D)
(2)Controls shall be provided with built-in disconnect means to allow appropriate operation of central
supply systems with multiple pumps and protect service personnel from exposure to live voltages.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
J. Richard Wagner Has existing 5.1.3.7.5 - Electrical Power and Control been changed to 5.1.3.7.6?
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
J. Richard Wagner
Has existing 5.1.3.7.6 - Medical-Surgical Vacuum Source Exhaust been changed to 5.1.3.7.7? Has existing
5.1.3.7.7 - Operating Alarms been changed to 5.1.3.7.8
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe capacity is unable to be measured
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-623, Section No. 5.1.3.7.7, See FR-623
TRUE
FR-622, Section No. 5.1.3.7.5, See FR-622
Page 12 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe capacity is unable to be measured
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
Mark W. Allen
The wording in D is not sufficiently precise to prevent misreading. Propose the following rewording D)
(2)Controls shall be provided with built in disconnect means to allow appropriate operation of central
supply systems with multiple producers and protect service personnel from exposure to live voltages.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-625, Section No. 5.1.3.8.4.3, See FR-625
TRUE
FR-624, Section No. 5.1.3.8.3.2, See FR-624
Page 13 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner The title of Table 5.1.4.1.6(b) includes (b) twice.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-650, Section No. 5.1.4.1.6, See FR-650
TRUE
FR-640, New Section after 5.1.3.8.5, See FR-640
Page 14 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 2
J. Richard Wagner What is the required time duration of the pressure tests?
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 2
Anthony Lowe the author is changing the requirements of testing that are unable to be tested by the installer.
James L. Lucas No time duration has been included in this test. I feel committee input 646 provides a better alternative.
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner Is 5.1.6.5 the correct section number for this addition? There are existing sections 5.1.6.1 though 5.1.6.9.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-644, New Section after 5.1.6.4, See FR-644
TRUE
FR-642, Section No. 5.1.6.2, See FR-642
Page 15 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Anthony Lowe lack of knowledge of the UL listing
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
TRUE
FR-641, Section No. 5.1.9.2.4, See FR-641
TRUE
FR-676, Section No. 5.1.6.5, See FR-676
Page 16 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner Is 5.1.9.4.5 the correct section number for this item. There is an existing 5.1.9.4.5.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 1
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe capacity can not be measured in the method described
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
TRUE
FR-630, Section No. 5.1.9.5.4, See FR-630
TRUE
FR-629, New Section after 5.1.9.4.4, See FR-629
Page 17 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 14
Affirmative with Comment 1
David B. Mohile
I do not believe corrugated stainless steel tubing is appropriate for medical gas piping. Anti microbial effects
of copper
Negative 11
Allan D. Volz
I continue to have significant concerns with moisture in any system and how it will react. Copper has some
ability to limit microbiological growth that stainless steel does not. When utilized in a medical vacuum
system, the corrurgations will be a location where water accumulation will occur. In any system, cleaning of
a corrugated tube will be impossibile.
Dana A. Colombo
The reason for the use of copper in the installation of med-gas systems is the longevity of the tubing, that
has been proven for the past 100 years, the antimicrobial properties of copper, the fact that the joint once
brazed cannot be separated without damaging the system, the fact that the corrugated stainless-steel must
be joined by using a mechanical joint possibly placed in a closed in wall or pipe chase this has never been
allowed in this document. The fitting used to connect this system are a modified version of a flared
compression mechanical joint that would require the installer to another certification to do the installation,
more cost for the craftsperson.
Anthony Lowe there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
Scott Hamilton
Stainless Steel does not contain antimicrobial properties. The corrugated design is also a negative for pipe
cleanliness which is the most important factor in the system. It will also allow mechanical joints within walls
and there is no mention of an installer certification.
Sean Schwartzkopf More review required
FALSE
FR-654, Section No. 5.1.10.1.4, See FR-654
Page 18 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
J. Richard Wagner
There is presently only one CSMT manufacturer. There is no industry standard to which CSMT could be
"listed" as complying with. The submitted data for CSMT is not adequate, compared to ASTM B819 for
copper tube for medical gas systems. ASTM A240 for CSMT is simply stainless steel plate, sheet, and strip,
not corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems. There are no standard dimensions for
corrugated stainless steel tubing. They vary depending on pressure rating and method of fabrication. Tubing
and fittings by different manufacturers would not be interchangeable like copper tubing. Bending CSMT is
not adequate for making close-coupled connections. CSMT has a limited number of basic fittings. The
submitted data does not include specific requirements for support spacing for CSMT. Where is continuous
support required? The submitted opinion by Hoffman Engineering on the safety factor for CSMT is based on
it being concealed in walls and partitions and not exposed to contact by personnel. Can CSMT be used in
equipment rooms for connections to source equipment and regulators? Is CSMT rated for 300 psi? Is 300 a
typographical error? CSMT is fabricated from 300 series stainless steel. The installation requirements for
CSMT are different than copper tubing. Mixing the installation requirements for CSMT with the existing
NFPA 99 requirements for copper tubing in 5.1.10 will confuse the requirements for both. The proposed
changes for CSMT include no requirements for the fittings and joints. The joints should be equivalent to
brazed copper and subject to approval. CSMT does not appear to be an acceptable alternate to brazed
copper tubing in NFPA 99 for medical gas piping in health care facilities. There are no known existing CSMT
medical gas installations in health care facilities. There are no complete specifications for the installation of
CSMT. NFPA 99 should not be used for a pilot installation of CSMT.
Barry E. Brown
• Mechanical joints should not be allowed in sealed walls for installation and failure reasons. • Corrugations
can trap particulates. • Possible failure of the corrugations either due to installation damage, support
clamps, or over time. • Potential for nose or harmonic vibration due to improper sizing or flow rates.
Jeffery F. McBride I do not agree.
Jonathan C. Willard Not in favor of allowing corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems.
Ronald J. Schwipps
Still concerns with cleaning of corrurgations / water accumulation. Also concerns with required use of
mechanical joints with this material.
James L. Lucas
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper provides
antimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on source
equipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Page 19 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 14
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 12
Allan D. Volz
I continue to have significant concerns with moisture in any system and how it will react. Copper has some
ability to limit microbiological growth that stainless steel does not. When utilized in a medical vacuum
system, the corrurgations will be a location where water accumulation will occur. In any system, cleaning of
a corrugated tube will be impossibile.
Dana A. Colombo this would not be required with the use of copper tubing.
David B. Mohile See comments for FR-654, above
Anthony Lowe there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
Scott Hamilton
Added smoke and flame in a fire is another negative for this product. Copper does not require these added
requirements and is a safer product in fire situations.
Sean Schwartzkopf More information needed
Barry E. Brown
Corrugated stainless tubing (CSMT) has the potential to create hazards due to mechanical failures other
than flame spread index or smoke index.
Jeffery F. McBride I do not agree.
Jonathan C. Willard Not in favor of allowing corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems.
Ronald J. Schwipps Not in favor of use of corrugated stainless steel tubing for this application.
James L. Lucas
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper provides
antimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on source
equipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
J. Richard Wagner
Is CSMT subject to pin-hole leaks by induced voltage from lightning? Does CSMT need to be electrically
grounded? CSST for fuel gas piping in NFPA 54 needs to be grounded. Is 5.1.10.1 the proper place for the
flame spread and smoke density index of CSMT? Is 5.1.10.1.6 the proper section number for CSMT? There
is an existing 5.1.10.1.6.
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
FALSE
FR-655, New Section after 5.1.10.1.5, See FR-655
Page 20 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Negative 3
Mark W. Allen
I remain unpersuaded that these tubes should be permitted in positive pressure medical gas service. We are
not shown that they can be kept clean, that they are suited to oxygen service, and we are sacrificing the
clear benefit of copper as an antimicrobial agent.
Jeffery F. McBride I do not agree.
James L. Lucas
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper provides
antimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on source
equipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-632, Section No. 5.1.10.2.2.2, See FR-632
Page 21 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 14
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 11
Allan D. Volz
I continue to have significant concerns with moisture in any system and how it will react. Copper has some
ability to limit microbiological growth that stainless steel does not. When utilized in a medical vacuum
system, the corrurgations will be a location where water accumulation will occur. In any system, cleaning of
a corrugated tube will be impossibile.
Dana A. Colombo
The use of corrugated stainless tubing would make it impossible to do the blow down test to remove any
debris left in the system. The amount of pressure that would be required to blow the system down and the
fact that if you were to run thousands of feet of tubing with millions of little groves manufactured in the
tubing that will collect any and all debris, this will take more time than it would to braze the copper joints.
The fact that it would require more hangers to keep the tubing level so as to not trap any contaminants in
the system would drive up the cost of the medical-gas system as well.
Mark W. Allen I am satisfied that such tubing could be used for support gases and for vacuum, but not for patient gases.
David B. Mohile
I do not agree with bending tubing. If we permit bending stainless steel tubing we will probably see
installers bending copper tubing which we do not permit.
Anthony Lowe there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
Scott Hamilton
Bending of the corrugated material will lead to even tighter smaller pockets which will enable debris and/or
growth within the system. Blown down tests will be ineffective. The bending and use of this material will
also require proper hanging to ensure no sags in the system. No installer requirements have been stated.
Barry E. Brown
• Mechanical joints should not be allowed in sealed walls for installation and failure reasons. • Bending
should not be allowed. • Possible failure of the corrugations either due to installation damage, improper
bending.•
Jeffery F. McBride I do not agree.
Ronald J. Schwipps Not in favor of use of corrugated stainless steel tubing for this application.
James L. Lucas
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper provides
antimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on source
equipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
FALSE
FR-657, New Section after 5.1.10.3.1, See FR-657
Page 22 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
J. Richard Wagner
The bends in CSMT are too tight to make close-coupled connections. There are a limited number of basic
fittings for CSMT. Are CSMT fittings considered to comply with 5.1.10.9.1? Nothing has been submitted. In
5.1.10.10(4), non-removable push-fit fittings that employ a quick assembly push fit connector are
prohibited throughout medical gas distribution pipeline systems. Does this apply to CSMT?
Abstain 2
Sean Schwartzkopf More review required
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 15
Affirmative with Comment 1
Jeffery F. McBride I agree with the exception of corrugated Stainless Steel
Negative 9
Dana A. Colombo
Because of the flexible nature of corrugated stainless tubing, there is more of a risk that the system will
have more traps for debris to accumulate. the tubing is made of little corrugates (groves), there is no way
that you can blow this system clean.
Anthony Lowe there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
David B. Mohile
Please see my comments on FR 654. If we allow corrugated tubing we will permit moisture and other
vacuumed material a place to rest and eventually occlude flow of vacuum.
Barry E. Brown
For positive gas systems: Mechanical joints should not be allowed in sealed walls for installation and failure
reasons. • Corrugations can trap particulates. • Possible failure of the corrugations either due to installation
damage, support clamps, or over time. • Potential for nose or harmonic vibration due to improper sizing or
flow rates.
Scott Hamilton
Bending of the corrugated material will lead to even tighter smaller pockets which will enable debris and/or
growth within the system. Blown down tests will be ineffective. The bending and use of this material will
also require proper hanging to ensure no sags in the system. No installer requirements have been stated.
FALSE
FR-656, Section No. 5.1.10.3.1, See FR-656
Total Voted : 27
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes needed are 18
Page 23 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
J. Richard Wagner
CSMT is not proposed for vacuum systems and WAGD systems. FR-656 should be deleted if CSMT is not
approved for NFPA 99.
Jonathan C. Willard Not in favor of allowing corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems.
Ronald J. Schwipps Not in favor of use of corrugated stainless steel tubing for this application.
James L. Lucas
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper provides
antimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on source
equipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
Abstain 2
Sean Schwartzkopf More review required
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner
The CDA Copper Tube Handbook recommends that copper fitting cups be cleaned with abrasive cloth,
abrasive pads, or a properly sized fitting brush. Most fitting brushes have high-carbon steel bristles.
Stainless steel and brass bristles are available from some manufacturers.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
TRUE
FR-634, Section No. 5.1.10.11.3.2, See FR-634
TRUE
FR-633, Section No. 5.1.10.4.3.4, See FR-633
Page 24 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe responsibility of ASSE 6000
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Allan D. Volz
The identification of individual rooms, by specific reference, is preferable to lumping a number of rooms
togeather.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
TRUE
FR-677, Section No. 5.1.11.2.7, See FR-677
TRUE
FR-635, Section No. 5.1.10.11.11.4, See FR-635
Page 25 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe
The label is too restrictive for a minimum code and a burden on the installer to ensure the rooms numbers
are properly named
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 3
Anthony Lowe field installers can not accurate measure
Ronald J. Schwipps Only disagree with 0.5% leak rate. Agree that it should be 1.0% from committee input 646
James L. Lucas
I only disagree with the 0.5% allowable leak rate. I feel it should be 1.0% to be consistent with committee
input 646
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-643, Section No. 5.1.12.2.6.5, See FR-643
TRUE
FR-636, New Section after 5.1.11.4, See FR-636
Page 26 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Negative 2
J. Richard Wagner
There are AHJs for every aspect of a construction project. Who would the ASSE 6020 inspector or ASSE
6035 verifier work for? The installer who performs the installer-performed tests must provide forms
indicating that the 24-hour standing pressure tests on each positive pressure medical gas piping system
have been performed and witnessed before they can be verified. The installer must assure that every test is
witnessed or acceptable by the AHJ without witnessing before it can be submitted. What is Section
5.1.12.4? Where is it?
Jeffery F. McBride An ASSE 6030 should be the verifier of this section.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
TRUE
FR-639, Section No. 5.1.12.3.1.3, See FR-639
TRUE
FR-637, Section No. 5.1.12.2.6.7, See FR-637
Page 27 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
J. Richard Wagner
Is this 5.1.12.4.1.3 as indicated or should it be 5.1.12.3.1.3 for System Verification. What is Section
5.1.12.4? Where is 5.1.12.4.1.4?
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
J. Richard Wagner What is Section 5.1.12.4?
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
J. Richard Wagner What is Section 5.1.12.4?
TRUE
FR-659, Section No. 5.1.12.3.10, See FR-659
TRUE
FR-653, Section No. 5.1.12.3.8.2, See FR-653
Page 28 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 2
J. Richard Wagner What is Section 5.1.12.4?
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 2
J. Richard Wagner What is Section 5.1.12.4? What is 5.1.12.4.14?
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
TRUE
FR-662, Section No. 5.1.12.3.14.3(A), See FR-662
TRUE
FR-661, New Section after 5.1.12.3.14.3, See FR-661
TRUE
FR-660, Section No. 5.1.12.3.11, See FR-660
Page 29 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe Do not want to remove Lag in lieu of Capacity. Capacity is not accurate and difficult to measure
Abstain 1
J. Richard Wagner Is this 5.1.12.3 or 5.1.12.4? What is Section 5.1.12.4?
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
J. Richard Wagner
Support gases include nitrogen, which is not within the scope of Chapter 8 - Plumbing. There should be no
references to either Chapter 8 or 9. Neither deal with the application of medical support gases.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
TRUE
FR-665, Section No. 5.1.13.3.5.3, See FR-665
TRUE
FR-664, Section No. 5.1.13.1.2, See FR-664
Page 30 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner
change "nedeeded" to "needed" ....intended line pressure "in accordance with" Table 5.1.11, and of ......
Where 5.1.13.3.5.5 was deleted, have existing 5.1.13.3.5.6 through 5.1.13.3.5.13 been reduced by "1"?
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
TRUE
FR-668, Section No. 5.1.13.3.5.6, See FR-668
TRUE
FR-666, Section No. 5.1.13.3.5.5, See FR-666
Page 31 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
Mark W. Allen
The wording in D is not sufficiently precise to prevent misreading. Propose the following rewording (D)
(1)Built-in disconnect means to allow appropriate operation of central supply systems with multiple
compressor systems and protect service personnel from exposure to live voltages
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner Line pressure control for instrument air should be added under 5.1.13.3.5, not as 5.1.13.8.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-670, New Section after 5.1.13.7, See FR-670
TRUE
FR-683, Section No. 5.1.13.3.5.13, See FR-683
Page 32 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner
Where oxygen central supply "systems" using .... (add the "s") Should the section number be 5.1.14.4.10?
What is 5.1.14.5?
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
TRUE
FR-673, New Section after 5.2.3.5, See FR-673
TRUE
FR-672, New Section after 5.1.14.4.9, See FR-672
TRUE
FR-671, Section No. 5.1.14.4.7, See FR-671
Page 33 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner Oxygen "central" supply "systems" using ...... Is 5.2.3.6 the correct section number?
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
TRUE
FR-682, Section No. A.5.1.9.5, See FR-682
TRUE
FR-681, Section No. A.5.1.3.3, See FR-681
Page 34 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
J. Richard Wagner The existing section numbers in Table A.5.1.9.5 are not aligned with the revised alarm conditions.
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe DO not agree with Capacity in place of Lag
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe do not agree with Bulk gases in one definition
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-903, Sections 5.1.3.3.1.6, 5.1.3.3.1.7, 5.1.3.3.1.8, 5.1.3.3.1.9..., See FR-903
TRUE
FR-904, Section No. 5.1.1.5, See FR-904
Page 35 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
Jonathan C. Willard
Add an (3) that states or as required by OSHA for confined space entry. A handheld monitor could be an
option as well.
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 4
Anthony Lowe
Having reconsidered, standards have been created for proper ventilation, the monitor would be an option
for a minimum or single fault code/standard
John Maurer
The proposed changes imply that central supply locations are permit-required confined spaces (29 CFR
1910.146) where oxygen deficient or oxygen enriched atmospheres may be present. There is no evidence
to suggest that central supply locations require the equivalent level of monitoring prior to entering the
room. This proposal should not pass.
Chad E. Beebe
There is no documented evidence that shows that an oxygen monitor is needed. There was no evidence
provided showing a rise of worker injuries or deaths that would suddenly require oxygen monitors. There
are literately thousands of existing installations in healthcare facilities around the country. Before a change
like this gets included there needs to be some justification to support this as a solution to a known safety
hazard. There is nothing in the code that prohibits the installation of oxygen monitors right now - so
facilities that are concerned can install monitors now.
Ronald J. Schwipps Further justifcation needed to warrant requirement.
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
TRUE
FR-610, Section No. 5.1.3.3.2, See FR-610
TRUE
FR-901, New Section after 5.1.3.3.1.10, See FR-901
Page 36 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner
The change to A.5.1.3.3.2(8) should be A.5.1.3.3.2(9). There is no existing A.5.1.3.3.2(8). A.5.1.3.3.2(9) is all
new.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe
Pressure regulators are a known device to control line pressure. It appears the author wants to regulate line
pressure from the compressor controls and this is a horrible idea
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
TRUE
FR-649, Section No. 5.1.4.6.2, See FR-649
TRUE
FR-614, Section No. 5.1.3.5.5, See FR-614
Page 37 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
J. Richard Wagner
What is the reach of an average height individual? Why not require that zone valves be readily operable at
a maximum mounting height of 6 feet? (5'-6")? Specify one mounting height for everyone.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner
Should A.5.1.5 in Appendix A be changed to A.5.1.5.13? Section 5.1.5.13 is the only section of 5.1.5 that has
requirements for the protection of outlets/inlets from damage. In the proposed change to existing A.5.1.5,
are the minimum number of station outlets/inlets for each system NFPA 99 requirements? They are design
requirements for a health care facility but not a requirement for its construction contractors. The required
number of station outlets/inlets should be shown on the design plans. The number of station outlets/inlets
in a facility dictate the layout and sizing of the piping systems and the capacity of the source equipment,
which are all design requirements. FGI Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Outpatient
Facilities are referenced in 2.3.11 under FGI Publications, but what are its specific requirements in NFPA 99?
Keith Ferrari yes
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
TRUE
FR-647, Section No. 5.1.6.1, See FR-647
TRUE
FR-628, Section No. 5.1.5, See FR-628
Page 38 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
J. Richard Wagner
Having all manufactured assemblies tested for gas flow rates by the manufacturer would significantly
increase their production cost. Why do manufactured assemblies fail the operational pressure flow tests?
What are the problems? What has to be corrected? Do there need to be design changes for manufactured
assemblies? Section 5.1.6 should require that manufactured assemblies be designed to provide the flow
capacities required for the operational pressure tests in 5.1.12.3.10 for the outlets and inlets. If flow tests
by the manufacturer are required, why shouldn't the test gas be oil-free, dry nitrogen NF? The
manufacturer should have nitrogen for brazing. What is 5.1.12.4? What is 5.1.12.4.10? Where are they?
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner There is an existing 5.1.6.9.
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
Keith Ferrari review required
TRUE
FR-645, New Section after 5.1.6.7, See FR-645
Page 39 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 6
Allan D. Volz
There should be no distinguishion between flexible connectors and flexible joints. Neither should be
allowed to be concealed in walls, floors, ceilings, or partitions.
Anthony Lowe
all flexible connectors should NOT be in walls or partitions. Those connectors should be in a place they can
be checked
Jeffery F. McBride I do not agree.
Ronald J. Schwipps These type of connections should be in a location that allows them to be checked.
James L. Lucas
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper provides
antimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on source
equipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
Ronald M. Smidt
I am changing my vote after reading the negative vote of Chad Beebe. There is no documented evidence
that shows that an oxygen monitor is needed. There was no evidence provided showing a rise of worker
injuries or deaths that would suddenly require oxygen monitors. There are literately thousands of existing
installations in healthcare facilities around the country. Before a change like this gets included there needs
to be some justification to support this as a solution to a known safety hazard. There is nothing in the code
that prohibits the installation of oxygen monitors right now - so facilities that are concerned can install
monitors now.
Abstain 2
J. Richard Wagner
What is the difference between metallic flexible joints, metallic hose, and flexible connectors? In
5.1.10.11.6.3, metallic flexible joints include expansion joints, seismic protection, thermal expansion, and
vibration control. What cannot be concealed? What if access for replacement is provided?
Keith Ferrari review required
Eligible to Vote: 28
TRUE
FR-679, Section No. 5.1.12.1.1, See FR-679
TRUE
FR-902, New Section after 5.1.10.11.6.3, See FR-902
Page 40 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe The Term Medical removes Support gases from testing
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 1
Anthony Lowe
The facility will not have the information required to make an accurate determination of the system to
authorize its use
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 2
Anthony Lowe agree
TRUE
FR-631, New Section after 5.1.12.2, See FR-631
TRUE
FR-680, Section No. 5.1.12.1.11, See FR-680
Page 41 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Keith Ferrari okay
Negative 2
J. Richard Wagner
Existing 5.1.12.3 is System Verification. The purpose of the proposed section for system inspections is not
clear. It is not coordinated with the existing requirements of 5.1.12. The systems are inspected normally
during construction and for final acceptance. Work must be inspected and approved before it can be
concealed. Existing 5.1.12.1 calls for inspection and testing of all piped gas systems. System inspection is
done by the system installer to determine that the systems are ready for testing. System inspection is also
performed by the general contractor or the owner to determine that the system installation is complete for
acceptance and payment. Testing is done by the installer-performed tests (5.1.12.2) and system verification
(5.1.12.3). Are the inspections required by FR-631 in addition to the normal inspections done by the
contractors, the designers, and the owner? The requirements of proposed 5.1.12.3.1.5 are not clear.
Inspections are "permitted"? By what organization? Proposed 5.1.12.3.2.1 under Inspections only requires
that the initial pressure tests be witnessed. Existing 5.1.12.2.1.1 already requires that all installer-performed
tests be performed and documented. Proposed 5.1.12.3.2.2 requires that all labeling and valve tagging be
inspected. Isn't that already done, along with inspecting everything else? Is this an added cost to the
project?
Jeffery F. McBride I do not agree. An ASSE 6030 should be performing these tests.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Anthony Lowe Agree with ASSE 6035 but do not agree with the definition of Cryogenic Fluid System
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
TRUE
FR-638, New Section after 5.1.12.3.1.3, See FR-638
Page 42 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
J. Richard Wagner
What and where is Section 5.1.12.4? The title of CGA M-1 is not correct as stated. The title is Guide for
Medical Gas Supply Systems at Consumer Sites. The Techstreet Full Description of CGA M-1 says that it does
not apply to the piped distribution system. That's NFPA 99 - Chapter 5.
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner 5.1.12.3.14.3(E) was 24 hours in 2005. It was changed to 12 hours in 2012.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner Should 5.1.13.3.5.10 be changed to 5.1.13.3.5.9?
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-667, Section No. 5.1.13.3.5.10, See FR-667
TRUE
FR-663, Section No. 5.1.12.3.14.3(H), See FR-663
Page 43 of 44
NFPA 99 (HEA-PIP) First Draft Ballot A2017
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 1
Donald R. McIlroy
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Anthony Lowe agree
J. Richard Wagner Change 5.1.14.4 to 5.1.14.5 Source Equipment Labeling. 5.1.14.4 is existing.
Keith Ferrari okay
Jeffery F. McBride I agree.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
TRUE
FR-678, New Section after 5.1.14.3.4, See FR-678
Page 44 of 44
Committee Input No. 654-NFPA 99-2015 [ Section No. 5.1.10.1.4 ]
This was a First Revision that failed ballot.
5.1.10.1.4*
Tubes shall be one of the following:
(1) hard-drawn seamless copper in accordance with ASTM B 819, Standard Specification for SeamlessCopper Tube for Medical Gas Systems , medical gas tube, Type L, except Type K shall be usedwhere operating pressures are above a gauge pressure of 1275 kPa (185 psi) and the pipe sizes are
larger than DN80 [NPS 3 (3 1 ⁄ 8 in. O.D.)].
(2) Listed Corrugated Stainless Medical Tubing (CSMT) manufactured from ASTM A240 stainless steel with a maximum allowable working pressure at least 300 PSIG with a pressure safety factor of 3.5 forall medical gases except medical air compressed on site.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: HEA-PIP
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Aug 12 08:05:56 EDT 2015
Committee Statement
CommitteeStatement:
This revision permits an additional material for medical gas tubing. This will need a listing to be usedas written. There are several other revisions related to the use of this new material. It is understoodthat a listing for this purpose will include Leakage Test, Hydrostatic Strength, Impact, Axial Tension,Torsion, Elevated Temperature, Flame, Compression, Bending, Effectiveness of Striker Plates,Electrical Resistance, Resistance to Installation Damage, Jacket Burning Characteristics,Mechanical Fitting Performance, Mechanical Fittings Resistance to Removal or Re-Assembly.
This tubing is being limited to use in systems other than medical air systems which produce the airon site. There are concerns with how water accumulation will be affected by corrugations in thepiping and also with how the stainless steel will react where subject to water accumulation in thetubing.
ResponseMessage:
Public Input No. 268-NFPA 99-2015 [Section No. 5.1.10.1.4]
Public Input No. 269-NFPA 99-2015 [Section No. 5.1.10.1.4]
Ballot Results
This item has failed ballot
28 Eligible Voters
1 Not Returned
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
4 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
11 Negative with Comments
14 Affirmative All
1 Affirmative with Comments
1 Abstention
Not Returned
McIlroy, Donald R.
Negative with Comment
Brown, Barry E.
• Mechanical joints should not be allowed in sealed walls for installation and failure reasons. • Corrugations cantrap particulates. • Possible failure of the corrugations either due to installation damage, support clamps, or overtime. • Potential for nose or harmonic vibration due to improper sizing or flow rates.
Colombo, Dana A.
The reason for the use of copper in the installation of med-gas systems is the longevity of the tubing, that hasbeen proven for the past 100 years, the antimicrobial properties of copper, the fact that the joint once brazedcannot be separated without damaging the system, the fact that the corrugated stainless-steel must be joined byusing a mechanical joint possibly placed in a closed in wall or pipe chase this has never been allowed in thisdocument. The fitting used to connect this system are a modified version of a flared compression mechanical jointthat would require the installer to another certification to do the installation, more cost for the craftsperson.
Hamilton, Scott
Stainless Steel does not contain antimicrobial properties. The corrugated design is also a negative for pipecleanliness which is the most important factor in the system. It will also allow mechanical joints within walls andthere is no mention of an installer certification.
Lowe, Anthony
there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
Lucas, James L.
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper providesantimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on sourceequipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
McBride, Jeffery F.
I do not agree.
Schwartzkopf, Sean
More review required
Schwipps, Ronald J.
Still concerns with cleaning of corrurgations / water accumulation. Also concerns with required use of mechanicaljoints with this material.
Volz, Allan D.
I continue to have significant concerns with moisture in any system and how it will react. Copper has some abilityto limit microbiological growth that stainless steel does not. When utilized in a medical vacuum system, thecorrurgations will be a location where water accumulation will occur. In any system, cleaning of a corrugated tubewill be impossibile.
Wagner, J. Richard
There is presently only one CSMT manufacturer. There is no industry standard to which CSMT could be "listed"as complying with. The submitted data for CSMT is not adequate, compared to ASTM B819 for copper tube formedical gas systems. ASTM A240 for CSMT is simply stainless steel plate, sheet, and strip, not corrugatedstainless steel tubing for medical gas systems. There are no standard dimensions for corrugated stainless steeltubing. They vary depending on pressure rating and method of fabrication. Tubing and fittings by different
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
5 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
manufacturers would not be interchangeable like copper tubing. Bending CSMT is not adequate for making close-coupled connections. CSMT has a limited number of basic fittings. The submitted data does not include specificrequirements for support spacing for CSMT. Where is continuous support required? The submitted opinion byHoffman Engineering on the safety factor for CSMT is based on it being concealed in walls and partitions and notexposed to contact by personnel. Can CSMT be used in equipment rooms for connections to source equipmentand regulators? Is CSMT rated for 300 psi? Is 300 a typographical error? CSMT is fabricated from 300 seriesstainless steel. The installation requirements for CSMT are different than copper tubing. Mixing the installationrequirements for CSMT with the existing NFPA 99 requirements for copper tubing in 5.1.10 will confuse therequirements for both. The proposed changes for CSMT include no requirements for the fittings and joints. Thejoints should be equivalent to brazed copper and subject to approval. CSMT does not appear to be an acceptablealternate to brazed copper tubing in NFPA 99 for medical gas piping in health care facilities. There are no knownexisting CSMT medical gas installations in health care facilities. There are no complete specifications for theinstallation of CSMT. NFPA 99 should not be used for a pilot installation of CSMT.
Willard, Jonathan C.
Not in favor of allowing corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems.
Affirmative All
Allen, Mark W.
Anderson, Grant A.
Beebe, Chad E.
Frankel, Michael
Golla, Ed
Gregory, John C.
Kelly, Daniel Patrick
Lathrop, James K.
Loeb, Robert G.
Maurer, John
Megremis, Spiro
Mraulak, Thomas J.
Shoemaker, E. Daniel
Smidt, Ronald M.
Affirmative with Comment
Mohile, David B.
I do not believe corrugated stainless steel tubing is appropriate for medical gas piping. Anti microbial effects ofcopper
Abstention
Ferrari, Keith
review required
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
6 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Committee Input No. 655-NFPA 99-2015 [ New Section after 5.1.10.1.5 ]
This was a First Revision that failed ballot.
5.1.10.1.6
Corrugated stainless steel medical tubing jacket shall have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and smokedensity index of 50 or less as determined by the Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, ASTM E84.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: HEA-PIP
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Aug 12 08:24:00 EDT 2015
Committee Statement
CommitteeStatement:
This new section is added to provide a minimum flame spread index and smoke developed index forthe plastic jacket of the CSMT using ASTM E84, which is widely used for these measurements. Thevalues are identical to those used for Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing used for fuel gas service.These values are compliant with the flame and smoke indices for Class A interior finishes in NFPA101, Life Safety Code®. Class A is the most stringent class of interior finish materials in the LifeSafety Code®
ResponseMessage:
Public Input No. 270-NFPA 99-2015 [New Section after 5.1.10.1.5]
Ballot Results
This item has failed ballot
28 Eligible Voters
1 Not Returned
12 Negative with Comments
14 Affirmative All
0 Affirmative with Comments
1 Abstention
Not Returned
McIlroy, Donald R.
Negative with Comment
Brown, Barry E.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
7 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Corrugated stainless tubing (CSMT) has the potential to create hazards due to mechanical failures other thanflame spread index or smoke index.
Colombo, Dana A.
this would not be required with the use of copper tubing.
Hamilton, Scott
Added smoke and flame in a fire is another negative for this product. Copper does not require these addedrequirements and is a safer product in fire situations.
Lowe, Anthony
there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
Lucas, James L.
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper providesantimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on sourceequipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
McBride, Jeffery F.
I do not agree.
Mohile, David B.
See comments for FR-654, above
Schwartzkopf, Sean
More information needed
Schwipps, Ronald J.
Not in favor of use of corrugated stainless steel tubing for this application.
Volz, Allan D.
I continue to have significant concerns with moisture in any system and how it will react. Copper has some abilityto limit microbiological growth that stainless steel does not. When utilized in a medical vacuum system, thecorrurgations will be a location where water accumulation will occur. In any system, cleaning of a corrugated tubewill be impossibile.
Wagner, J. Richard
Is CSMT subject to pin-hole leaks by induced voltage from lightning? Does CSMT need to be electricallygrounded? CSST for fuel gas piping in NFPA 54 needs to be grounded. Is 5.1.10.1 the proper place for the flamespread and smoke density index of CSMT? Is 5.1.10.1.6 the proper section number for CSMT? There is anexisting 5.1.10.1.6.
Willard, Jonathan C.
Not in favor of allowing corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems.
Affirmative All
Allen, Mark W.
Anderson, Grant A.
Beebe, Chad E.
Frankel, Michael
Golla, Ed
Gregory, John C.
Kelly, Daniel Patrick
Lathrop, James K.
Loeb, Robert G.
Maurer, John
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
8 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Megremis, Spiro
Mraulak, Thomas J.
Shoemaker, E. Daniel
Smidt, Ronald M.
Abstention
Ferrari, Keith
review required
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
9 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Committee Input No. 657-NFPA 99-2015 [ New Section after 5.1.10.3.1 ]
This was a First Revision that failed ballot.
5.1.10.3.2
Positive pressure patient gas systems and medical support gas systems fabricated from listed corrugatedstainless steel medical tubing shall have all turns, offsets, and other changes in direction made by bendingthe tubing up to its minimum bend radius or with listed Corrugated Stainless Steel Medical tubing fittings inaccordance with 5.1.10.9.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: HEA-PIP
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Aug 12 08:47:26 EDT 2015
Committee Statement
CommitteeStatement:
A new paragraph 5.1.10.3.2 is proposed to recognize CSMT fitting and to reference theirinstallation requirements.
ResponseMessage:
Public Input No. 272-NFPA 99-2015 [New Section after 5.1.10.3.1]
Ballot Results
This item has failed ballot
28 Eligible Voters
1 Not Returned
11 Negative with Comments
14 Affirmative All
0 Affirmative with Comments
2 Abstention
Not Returned
McIlroy, Donald R.
Negative with Comment
Allen, Mark W.
I am satisfied that such tubing could be used for support gases and for vacuum, but not for patient gases.
Brown, Barry E.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
10 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
• Mechanical joints should not be allowed in sealed walls for installation and failure reasons. • Bending should notbe allowed. • Possible failure of the corrugations either due to installation damage, improper bending.•
Colombo, Dana A.
The use of corrugated stainless tubing would make it impossible to do the blow down test to remove any debrisleft in the system. The amount of pressure that would be required to blow the system down and the fact that if youwere to run thousands of feet of tubing with millions of little groves manufactured in the tubing that will collect anyand all debris, this will take more time than it would to braze the copper joints. The fact that it would require morehangers to keep the tubing level so as to not trap any contaminants in the system would drive up the cost of themedical-gas system as well.
Hamilton, Scott
Bending of the corrugated material will lead to even tighter smaller pockets which will enable debris and/or growthwithin the system. Blown down tests will be ineffective. The bending and use of this material will also requireproper hanging to ensure no sags in the system. No installer requirements have been stated.
Lowe, Anthony
there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
Lucas, James L.
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper providesantimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on sourceequipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
McBride, Jeffery F.
I do not agree.
Mohile, David B.
I do not agree with bending tubing. If we permit bending stainless steel tubing we will probably see installersbending copper tubing which we do not permit.
Schwipps, Ronald J.
Not in favor of use of corrugated stainless steel tubing for this application.
Volz, Allan D.
I continue to have significant concerns with moisture in any system and how it will react. Copper has some abilityto limit microbiological growth that stainless steel does not. When utilized in a medical vacuum system, thecorrurgations will be a location where water accumulation will occur. In any system, cleaning of a corrugated tubewill be impossibile.
Wagner, J. Richard
The bends in CSMT are too tight to make close-coupled connections. There are a limited number of basic fittingsfor CSMT. Are CSMT fittings considered to comply with 5.1.10.9.1? Nothing has been submitted. In 5.1.10.10(4),non-removable push-fit fittings that employ a quick assembly push fit connector are prohibited throughout medicalgas distribution pipeline systems. Does this apply to CSMT?
Affirmative All
Anderson, Grant A.
Beebe, Chad E.
Frankel, Michael
Golla, Ed
Gregory, John C.
Kelly, Daniel Patrick
Lathrop, James K.
Loeb, Robert G.
Maurer, John
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
11 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Megremis, Spiro
Mraulak, Thomas J.
Shoemaker, E. Daniel
Smidt, Ronald M.
Willard, Jonathan C.
Abstention
Ferrari, Keith
review required
Schwartzkopf, Sean
More review required
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
12 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Committee Input No. 656-NFPA 99-2015 [ Section No. 5.1.10.3.1 ]
This was a First Revision that failed ballot.
5.1.10.3.1*
Positive pressure patient gas systems, medical support gas systems, vacuum systems, and WAGDsystems fabricated from other than corrugated stainless steel medical tubing shall have all turns, offsets,and other changes in direction made using fittings or techniques appropriate to any of the followingacceptable joining methods:
(1) Brazing, as described in 5.1.10.4
(2) Welding, as described in 5.1.10.5
(3) Memory metal fittings, as described in 5.1.10.6
(4) Axially swaged, elastic preload fittings, as described in 5.1.10.7
(5) Threaded, as described under 5.1.10.8
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: HEA-PIP
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Aug 12 08:29:48 EDT 2015
Committee Statement
CommitteeStatement:
This section has been revised to limit the current joining methods to piping materials other thanCSMT, as the joining methods are not appropriate for CSMT.
Public Input No. 271-NFPA 99-2015 [Section No. 5.1.10.3.1]
Ballot Results
This item has failed ballot
28 Eligible Voters
1 Not Returned
9 Negative with Comments
15 Affirmative All
1 Affirmative with Comments
2 Abstention
Not Returned
McIlroy, Donald R.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
13 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Negative with Comment
Brown, Barry E.
For positive gas systems: Mechanical joints should not be allowed in sealed walls for installation and failurereasons. • Corrugations can trap particulates. • Possible failure of the corrugations either due to installationdamage, support clamps, or over time. • Potential for nose or harmonic vibration due to improper sizing or flowrates.
Colombo, Dana A.
Because of the flexible nature of corrugated stainless tubing, there is more of a risk that the system will havemore traps for debris to accumulate. the tubing is made of little corrugates (groves), there is no way that you canblow this system clean.
Hamilton, Scott
Bending of the corrugated material will lead to even tighter smaller pockets which will enable debris and/or growthwithin the system. Blown down tests will be ineffective. The bending and use of this material will also requireproper hanging to ensure no sags in the system. No installer requirements have been stated.
Lowe, Anthony
there is not enough information regarding stainless steel with positive pressure gases
Lucas, James L.
The corrugation would make removal of chips, debri and possible moisture impossible. Copper providesantimicrobial benefits which stainless does not. I am OK with using this for exhaust and vent lines on sourceequipment - but not on the compressor inlets or patient side pipelines.
Mohile, David B.
Please see my comments on FR 654. If we allow corrugated tubing we will permit moisture and other vacuumedmaterial a place to rest and eventually occlude flow of vacuum.
Schwipps, Ronald J.
Not in favor of use of corrugated stainless steel tubing for this application.
Wagner, J. Richard
CSMT is not proposed for vacuum systems and WAGD systems. FR-656 should be deleted if CSMT is notapproved for NFPA 99.
Willard, Jonathan C.
Not in favor of allowing corrugated stainless steel tubing for medical gas systems.
Affirmative All
Allen, Mark W.
Anderson, Grant A.
Beebe, Chad E.
Frankel, Michael
Golla, Ed
Gregory, John C.
Kelly, Daniel Patrick
Lathrop, James K.
Loeb, Robert G.
Maurer, John
Megremis, Spiro
Mraulak, Thomas J.
Shoemaker, E. Daniel
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
14 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Smidt, Ronald M.
Volz, Allan D.
Affirmative with Comment
McBride, Jeffery F.
I agree with the exception of corrugated Stainless Steel
Abstention
Ferrari, Keith
review required
Schwartzkopf, Sean
More review required
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
15 of 56 12/2/2015 8:09 AM
Recommended