Are there any NFPA code references for temporary back-feed systems used for supplying a hospital with vacuum and medical air temporarily while the source systems are being replaced?

Also, can a simplex vacuum system be used as a backup to a fully code compliant system? The hospital maintains that a simplex back-up system would be better than no back-up should the main system go down. I'm having trouble finding an NFPA code reference that addresses these issues and wondering if anyone has come across this before.

While I always appreciate Al's opinions and his commitment to the industry, I have to respectfully disagree with this interpretation.

The way I interpret the code requirements with regard to "temporary" systems, is that they have to meet the same requirements as "permanent" systems.  This should not be confused with "emergency operations," which allow the health care organization to do what is necessary to keep patients safe regardless of the code requirements.  This would only occur under emergency operational status.

For temporary systems, which would be used during a planned shutdown of the existing systems, the same level of patient protection, system redundancy, and monitoring must be maintained during operation.  There are a few indicators in the code that help validate this interpretation.

The first being that the code simply states that piped medical gas systems must meet the requirements of the code.  There is no distinction in the code requirements between permanent and temporary systems.

The second can be found in the Performance Criteria and Testing requirements found in 5.1.12 of the code.  It states in the very first paragraph of the general section the following.

5.1.12.1.1 

Inspection and testing shall be performed on all new piped medical gas and vacuum systems, additions, renovations, temporary installations, or repaired systems to ensure, by a documented process and procedure, that all applicable provisions of this document have been adhered to and system integrity has been achieved or maintained.

This to me is a clear indication that we expect the temporary systems to follow the exact same code requirements as any other system.  As a verifier, I would expect the systems to be subjected to the same testing, inspection, and verification requirements as a brand new system, and my code requirement checklists and testing procedures would remain the same as any other verification.

I’ve been holding off to chime in. I agree with both thoughts that have been expressed. If we want to get technical Jonathan is correct. That does not make him right. Lately I don’t think of NFPA 99 as being a National Fire Protection Association book. It seems to have turned in to a patient safety book.

With that said a properly installed emergency temporary backup system (with a notification that the back up system has been activated) (not necessarily meeting the full code compliance ) is readily available to the facility should either for safe maintenance or should there be a major failure on the main supply system just makes patient safety sense.

The 2012 edition went through a major revision. NFPA 99 was changed from a standard to a code to reflect how the document was used and adopted and to indicate how health care is delivered. The risk to the patient does not change for a given procedure; if the procedure is performed in a doctor’s office versus a hospital, the risk remains the same. Therefore, NFPA 99 eliminated the occupancy chapters and transitioned to a risk-based approach. The new Chapter 4 outlined the parameters for this approach. The code reflected the risk to the patient in defined categories of risk.

1.3.3.1 The health care organization shall ensure that policies are established and maintained that permit the attending medical professional to supersede the requirements of this code in order to satisfy the emergency needs of any patient.

1.3.3.2 Each application of the provisions of 1.3.3.1, where this code's requirements are superseded to satisfy the emergency needs of a patient, shall be clearly documented and reviewed with the intent of meeting similar future needs within the requirements of this code.

Through a risk assessment do whatever it takes to keep the patient safe.

So as a verifier document what you see and remind them that they must do a risk assessment on the systems that they have stalled either permanently or temporary, or temporary permanent. If they have a system that is in full compliance and have installed a back up system not in full compliance for emergencies I do not have an issue with this.

This is a personal opinion based on real life experience.

The biggest issue I see is exactly what is the definition of "temporary" ?

Is it for a few hours during a scheduled shutdown or do they expect to see the "temporary system" in place for months ?  Customers lie constantly.

We always require temporary systems to meet the current code.

If they don't,  we write it up as a deficiency and throw the ball back into their court.

We've seen too many "temporary, but not really temporary" systems through the years that don't come close to being code compliant.