NEC 517-17

[tomgreen1000]

I am currently designing 4 story building with 8 tenants. It will have a 1200 amp 480/277 service, thus requiring GFPE on the service disconnect per 230-95. The intended use of this building is strictly doctors offices. It is not an ambulatory care center, it has no critical branch or emergency branch, it has no generator, there is no anesthesia, there is no dialysis, there is no surgery - just doctors offices. Portions of each tenant are exempt from 517 Part B per 517-10(b)(1). But the exam rooms are required to meet 517 Part B per 517-10(a).

So my question is, does 517-17 apply? My gut says yes. However, the building is classified as UBC occupancy class B (business) and not occupancy class I (healthcare). I checked with my local AHJ and they would NOT require 517-17 based on the occupancy rating. Usually this AHJ is very strict so I was a bit surprised. This job is not in my local AHJ and for a few reasons it is a bit sticky to contact the resident AHJ for the job location at this stage. Eventually I will contact the resident AHJ and it will be his/her final call, but in the meantime, please give me your opinion.

Thank you. Tom

 

[benaround]

Re: NEC 517-17

Tom,

Why no just figure it at the max. Kind of like the GEC theory.

frank

 

[roger]

Re: NEC 517-17

Tom, (I'm using the 99 NEC for reference also) since part B of 517 (517-10 through 517-21)
is only dealing with patient care areas of health care facilities, I agree with your AHJ that 517-17 does not apply.


Roger

[ July 21, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[tomgreen1000]

Re: NEC 517-17

Frank, if we were providing full engineering for this project, I would definitely figure at the max, because I have no doubt that a clinic/dialysis center/outpatient surgery will be added to this building in the future. But we doing this project for a very cost conscious client. With the GEC we are talking about a wire upsize and maybe a bit of labor to deal with the larger gauge. Here we are talking about a whole lot of money.

Roger, I am referring to 99 code. Are most on this forum using 02? Would you consider the exam rooms to be patient care areas of health care facilities? I was treating them this way.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Tom

[ July 21, 2005, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: tomgreen1000 ]

 

[steve66]

Re: NEC 517-17

Yes, exam rooms are health care areas and it looks to me like 517-17 does apply. I don't know why the extra level of GFI would be required for exam rooms, but reading the 2002 code, it looks like it is required.

I don't have a clue why this would require a "wire upsize". That sounds like bunk.

Steve

[ July 22, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: steve66 ]

 

[rick hart]

Re: NEC 517-17

You cannot engineer a building for what might be installed in the future- dialysis, lab and path, outpatient surgery, etc. It could be a telephone solicitor, data center, law office or welding shop in the future; you don't engineer your job for those contingencies either. Since the building is planned as a business office, even though the business are health care professionals, it is still only a business and not a health care facility. And it makes no sense at all to provide coordinated ground fault protection to downstream distribution systems, the purpose of which is to keep ground faults from shutting down the entire system, instead of the offending feeder.
Examination and patient care are not necessarily the same- if the patient can walk in to an office for an exam under their own power, they can walk out also. Being admitted to a health care facility, where the patient places his safety in the hands of the facility and the treatment can alter the patient' mental, physical and conscious condition, is obviously different. There we have redundant systems that are intended to stay in operation during a local fault, such as the requirements of 517.

 

[derf48]

Re: NEC 517-17

The 2005 NEC attempts to make it clear when 517.17 applies. If any part of that building were to have critical care or utilizing electrical life support then separate levels of GFPE would be required.

If your client actually anticipates future critical care areas, make him aware that all feeders to the different tenants at that time would have to be GFPE and selectively coordinated. This was the number one code change according to some IAEI instructors.

Fred

 

[tomgreen1000]

Re: NEC 517-17

Fred, thank you for the information. Sounds like 2005 makes it clear that an extra level of GFPE would not be required since I do not any critical or emergency branches. I have informed the client of the requirement, if they make changes such that some areas become critical care.


Steve, the wire upsize was from a different conversation, that the above poster carried over to this conversation.


Rick hart, my E&O insurance, my liability insurance, and the ethics code (under which my license can be revoked or suspended) does in fact require me to design for what I know will be installed. So when the client tells me it is a doctors office, but as soon as they get a permit, they change it into something else, I am the one who is caught in the middle. Although it is not my fault, the process to separate myself from the shenanigans is time consuming and costly. In this case, I don't know for sure that they will convert one of the tenants to critical care, but the odds are probably 60/40 that they will. Maybe not enough reason to go to the extra levels of GFPE, but enough for me to be suspicious of this client and their motives, and to document that I informed the client of this additional requirement.

Tom

 

[rick hart]

Re: NEC 517-17

Tom,
If there were to be a case where these kinds of procedures were anticipated then you already are in the middle by not providing the Essential Electrical Supply. If a tenant provided health care that would move the electrical requirements into 517, other accreditation bodies- CAP, JACHO, OSHA and FDA- would likely find the building lacking in areas other than electrical.

I appreciate that there are some out there that will move the target on you and in the future finagle more than the scope of the building called for. My point was that there is a reason why there are "professional buildings" in close proximity to an actual hospital- they are not intended to serve the same clientele.
I see your point though with this building being 4 stories. Keep up the good work with these people and you could design the "clinical addition" to this building.

 

[tomgreen1000]

Re: NEC 517-17

Rick hart, I agree that we cannot plan for all contingencies. A good point about other agencies, OSHPD (here in California) would definitely have some issues with this building if a portion of it were converted to critical care.

Thanks for the help. Tom