Medical Gas Professional Healthcare Organization

Leading through education, we save lives

Does the Code Permit Interconnections for Like Sources or Not?

  • Thursday, December 03, 2015 1:06 PM
    Message # 3673154
    Kyle Jussel (Administrator)

    Has anyone ever come across an AHJ who has had a problem with multiple vacuum sources being piped together with a valve separating the area(s) served?


    NFP 99 2012 code states: Prohibited System Interconnections. Two or more medical gas or vacuum piping systems shall not be interconnected for installation, testing, or any other reason.


    By definition Medical/Surgical Vacuum System does not specifically call out the term "system", but rather central vacuum-producing equipment:

    3.3.111 Medical–Surgical Vacuum System. An assembly of central vacuum–producing equipment and a network of piping for patient suction in medical, medical–surgical, and waste anesthetic gas disposal (WAGD) applications. (PIP)


    I imagine that the intent of the code is to prevent different gases and different source technologies from interconnecting (e.g. dedicated WAGD & vacuum), but in some cases it is certainly more practical to connect multiple sources for the same application with a valve separating areas served. 


    Does the code permit interconnections for like sources or not?


    Last modified: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:15 PM | Anonymous
  • Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:47 PM
    Reply # 3673620 on 3673154

    The 2015 edition addresses this issue:

  Medical gas and vacuum systems with the same contents shall be permitted to be interconnected with an inline valve installed between the systems.





    Last modified: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:47 PM | Corky Bishop
  • Friday, December 04, 2015 8:50 AM
    Reply # 3674891 on 3673154
    Kyle Jussel (Administrator)

    That's exactly what I needed.  Thanks.  

  • Sunday, December 06, 2015 7:42 PM
    Reply # 3677774 on 3673154
    Al Moon (Administrator)

    So the fun starts. CMS and The Joint Commission will soon adopt the 2012 Edition of NFPA 99 only. We find one of many bad or poorly written statements within NFPA 2012 that were clearly corrected in the 2015 Edition. Do we believe that the above mentioned groups will reference both documents?

    Last modified: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:18 PM | Anonymous
  • Monday, December 07, 2015 8:15 AM
    Reply # 3685944 on 3673154

    The Joint Commission regularly cites facilities for not individually securing cylinders in Category 1 systems.  This requirement was accidently copied into Level 1 in the 2002 edition and removed in the 2005 edition, but they are still looking to enforce it. 


    Did they ever endorse the 2002 edition in the first place? 

    Last modified: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:18 PM | Anonymous
  • Wednesday, December 09, 2015 4:33 PM
    Reply # 3690719 on 3673154
    Kyle Jussel (Administrator)


    That's where categorical waivers come into play.  If The Joint Commission or CMS cites a deficiency per their interpretation of the 2012 code that is not a deficiency in the 2015 code due to further clarification (such as the previous examples), the facility must submit an application for a categorical waiver for acceptance of the condition in question.   

    Last modified: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:10 PM | Kyle Jussel (Administrator)

16339 Kranker Drive, Stilwell, KS 66085