Article 517 requires redundant grounding in patient care areas. I have no issues with this. Why did my inspector ( who is using a Mike Holt book for inspections ) not allow MC as a fixture whip. The fixtures are above 7 1/2 feet. The ground wire was attached to the fixture and to the group grounds in the j-box above the ceiling. One chief electrical inspector in one county told me that exception #2 eliminates the redundant ground for this application, i.e. the ground wire, and that the primary ground is required, i.e. using flex (under 6 ft) with listed fittings. Another chief in another county told me that was not accurate and that mc was fine. My company has done dozens of health care facilities and this is the first time this has come up. I discussed it with my inspector and told him my interpretation but he said he is just following what M.H. wrote. He said if I found out differently, he would listen. It seems odd that a piece of spiral wrapped steel has less resistance that a piece of copper wire (We still put ground wires in all our conduits anyway even though they are not required. Its a safety thing with me). Anybody have some thoughts on this? Mike, if you read this can you respond, please.
patient care area grounding
- Thread starter QPEgeorge
- Start date
- Status
Standard MC is not listed as an EGC in 250.118 so it can not satisfy 517.13(A), this would mean that even if you attached an insulated EGC to the fixtures the reqirement of the sheath being an EGC is not met, so Ex #2 of 517.13(B) doesn't come into play.
The inspector that red tagged the installation is correct.
Roger
The inspector that red tagged the installation is correct.
Roger
Last edited:
patient care grounding
patient care grounding
Roger, As you state, the sheath of mc is not considered a viable ground, although I do not see the difference in the spiral wrap of mc versus the spiral wrap of flex. My actual confusion comes from the fact that a copper conductor is not considered a viable ground. How can this be? What electrician, enginneer or inspector, in their right mind, would choose steel over copper? I hear what you are saying, I just don't accept it. Is this just an oversight from the code writing committee? Thank you for taking the time to respond.
patient care grounding
Roger, As you state, the sheath of mc is not considered a viable ground, although I do not see the difference in the spiral wrap of mc versus the spiral wrap of flex. My actual confusion comes from the fact that a copper conductor is not considered a viable ground. How can this be? What electrician, enginneer or inspector, in their right mind, would choose steel over copper? I hear what you are saying, I just don't accept it. Is this just an oversight from the code writing committee? Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I was told by the engineer at a similar installation we are required to use hosptial grade mc to make a clean ground(less resistence) to device ground terminations instead of using the dirty"ground wire" basically an isolated ground installation without the seperate ground system at the panel.
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
I think what QPE is referencing is this:
517.2 Patient Vicinity
517.13(B)ex 2
Luninaires more tha 7 1/2 feet above the floor and switches located of the patient vicinity shall not be required to be grounded by an insulated equipment conductor.
I believe this ex relieves one of the redundant grounding in the above posted location.
517.2 Patient Vicinity
517.13(B)ex 2
Luninaires more tha 7 1/2 feet above the floor and switches located of the patient vicinity shall not be required to be grounded by an insulated equipment conductor.
I believe this ex relieves one of the redundant grounding in the above posted location.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Pierre C Belarge said:
It does, but it does not allow standard MC, you could use regular AC cable.
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
iwire said:
Are you basing this on 517.13(A)?
- Location
- Massachusetts
Pierre C Belarge said:
Yes. :smile:
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
I asked, so I could provide a more stable platform to an idea I am alway espousing.
The idea is about people who are "causal" readers of the NEC. The person who does not spend much time with or is new to the NEC have a hard time discerning some code requirements, due to the fact that the requirements do not always stare one in the face, but are a cumulation of or/and have to be construed from other reading of different areas of the NEC. (wow, that is some run on sentence...
)
There are some who say the NEC should be easier to read/follow. In order for that to occur, the book would have to be so large, that we would need a tractor trailer to carry it around with us - those of us who do carry it with us. Like any other experise, it will take time/effort/working with others to be a person who is adept at using the NEC.
The idea is about people who are "causal" readers of the NEC. The person who does not spend much time with or is new to the NEC have a hard time discerning some code requirements, due to the fact that the requirements do not always stare one in the face, but are a cumulation of or/and have to be construed from other reading of different areas of the NEC. (wow, that is some run on sentence...
)There are some who say the NEC should be easier to read/follow. In order for that to occur, the book would have to be so large, that we would need a tractor trailer to carry it around with us - those of us who do carry it with us. Like any other experise, it will take time/effort/working with others to be a person who is adept at using the NEC.
brian john
Senior Member
- Location
- Leesburg, VA
Pierre that was not a run on sentence, that was poetry to my ears...OK so it was a run on sentence, but my statement stands.
Cavie
Senior Member
- Location
- SW Florida
QPEgeorge said:
Has you state adopted the NEC or Mike Holts book????
- Status