Providing power to a boom in an Endoscopy Suite

[mshields]

I believe it's a gastroenterology endoscopy suite (I'm awaiting confirmation on that). So if it is, then clearly by the definitions of Invasive procedures, this suite does not perform them. As such, can this be done in an MOB. I.e. Is any EES power required?

What we're actually doing is replacing an existing boom with a new one. They do have critical power to the existing boom and certainly I would be inclined to keep those circuits. But I need more circuits for these newer, more sophisticated booms and I'm wondering what the requirements are.

Also, if selected critical branch receptacles were to be required, I see that the exact quantity is up to the user. I thought they defined a minimum number somewhere. OR am I thinking of OR's?

Thanks

Mike

 

[ron]

Where is invasive procedure defined in the code? I searched and didn't find it defined.

Wikipedia says "A medical procedure is defined as non-invasive when no break in the skin is created and there is no contact with the mucosa, or skin break, or internal body cavity beyond a natural or artificial body orifice. For example, deep palpation and percussion are non-invasive but a rectal examination is invasive." and endoscopy is similar to a rectal exam except the other end.

 

[GoldDigger]

I also vote invasive, since it extends into a body cavity, contacting mucosa in the process.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[K8MHZ]

I vote for invasive as well.

 

[mshields]

Invasive is defined in the definition section of 517

Invasive is defined in the definition section of 517

It's got an N next to it in the 2017 NEC. So if you searched your 2014 you wouldn't find it. I've copied it and attached it herein.

Also, it is "extraction text", taken from NFPA 99:3.3.81. So that would be, I believe, the 2015 version of that document.

I think you'll agree once you see it, that a gastrointestinal endoscopy, though if you've ever had one done you might disagree, is not per code anyway, an Invasive Procedure.

Appreciate the input as always,

Mike