517.13 vs 517.16

[cadpoint]

Isolate the device, Bond the metal! Head Ache = Medicate...

 

[roger]

250.114, 422.45, 422.51, 440.65.


Really take a look at 422.45, I can't believe that is in the electrical code.

And once again, I say what's beyond the device is not our concern.

To add to your list, see 210.21(B)(2) for stupidity, how is that going to be enforced? :wink:

Roger

 

[M. D.]

M.D. where is the wording in 517.16 that gives permission to ignore the requirements (note the word requirement) of 517.13(A) and (B)?

I would think that if pains were taken to provide two exceptions to 517.13(B) for switch plates and luminaires above 7.5 feet, that there would certainly be an exception in 517.13(A) for an item like 517.16.

Roger

I'm not sure the requirement in 517.13 has been ignored ,.. there still needs to be a redundant ground in the wiring method..
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/06_b/johnston.html

Isolated Grounding Receptacles in Patient Care Locations
Another important consideration for isolated (insulated) equipment grounding conductor installations is where they are installed in patient care locations. In these branch circuits two equipment grounding conductor paths are required by 517.13(A) and (B). If an IG receptacle or circuit with an isolated (insulated) equipment grounding conductor is desired in the design for a patient care location, then an additional equipment grounding conductor path will be required for the branch circuit. This results in three equipment grounding conductor paths (photo 5).

the exceptions excuse the requirement for an insulated grounding conductor

 

[M. D.]

I can't help but ask.


How many EGC are in the cord from the receptacle to the utilization equipment?

I'll leave now........:grin:

In case you come back,... If this guy has his way it just might be two

15-16 Log #2724 NEC-P15
(517-12)

Final Action: Reject

Submitter: Frank Martucci Fort Lee, NJ

Recommendation:

After existing material add:
(A) Equipment connected by cord and plug. Exposed noncurrent carrying metal parts of cord and plug connected equipment likely to
become energized shall be redundantly grounded.
(a) Two grounding conductors shall be installed in cord, and cord sets, with the branch circuit conductors supplying the unfixed
equipment in all areas.
(b) Component grounding poles. Cord connectors and attachment plugs shall be provided with two separate wiring sites at the
existing grounding pole. Cord female connectors, and male attachment plugs shall be designed so that only the grounding pole can be
wired with two conductors.
(c) Hospital grade components shall be used on all cords and cordsets.

​

​

 

[frizbeedog]

After I read your thread I now understad your delima better.

I read Mr. Holt's "Author's Comment" on 517.16 (2005 version)

Patient Care Areas--

EMT Or Type AC cable with two insulated equipment grounding (bonding) conductors can be used to supply an isolated ground receptacle in a patient care area. One equipment grounding (bonding) conductor sreves the isolated ground receptacle and the other grounds (bonds) the box to the effective ground-fault current path in accordance with 517.13 (B).

The more I think about this and the way these sections are written, it seems to be written to ensure redundancy as you put it, as in preventing an installer from using the EMT, etc. as the only fault path.

I can't seem to figure how an isolated ground receptacle is not allowed in a patient care area. I must have missed some wording there in the code, if they are indeed not allowed.

Mr. Holt seems to think it's OK. At least he did in 2005, but as we know his comments have been scrutinized before.

Wondering what your final solution to this will be?

Damn codebook!

 

[roger]

After I read your thread I now understad your delima better.

I read Mr. Holt's "Author's Comment" on 517.16 (2005 version)



The more I think about this and the way these sections are written, it seems to be written to ensure redundancy as you put it, as in preventing an installer from using the EMT, etc. as the only fault path.

I can't seem to figure how an isolated ground receptacle is not allowed in a patient care area. I must have missed some wording there in the code, if they are indeed not allowed.

Mr. Holt seems to think it's OK. At least he did in 2005, but as we know his comments have been scrutinized before.

Wondering what your final solution to this will be?

Damn codebook!

Well, FWIW, I don't agree with Mike's opinion on this issue.

Roger

 

[frizbeedog]

Well, FWIW, I don't agree with Mike's opinion on this issue.

Roger

I kinda figured that. Which is why I brought it up. Not the only reason, but one of them.

I just got to thinking about it and well.....opinoins are varried. I'm not sure I have a firm opinion on this yet. Just providing food for thought, and getting it on record.