The commentary after 517.13(A)
reads "the second component in this approach is the separate insulated grounding conductor required by 517.13 (B. therefore, the metal raceway or metal cable or sheath must qualify as an equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 250.118, INDEPENDENT of any separate wire-type equipment grounding conductor."
Shouldn't it read "in addition to?" The way it reads seems to require the insulated conductor to be isolated back to the the panel and not bonded in the box as a parallel grounding method.

Point made & taken. Perhaps a 'bad' use of the word 'independent'.

Logic, is an insulated EGC and an approved metalic wiring method.

Thanks for the affirmation John.

It would be interesting to see if we get any other responses. Maybe George? Greg?

Doesn't 250.48 Cover that??Since its not referred to as an
isolated ground as in 250.146(D)
Yoopersup

Should be 250.148 Not 250.48 Opps

Thanks Yoop
Yes,It's standard procedure to crimp the grounds together and land them in the box that contains a non I.G. device or a splice. In using the dictionary definition below, the wording in the NEC commentary is correct. Both systems can still be referred to as functionally independent even though they are connected. I now know that independent does not necessarily mean separate. Live and learn huh!!


Independent: Not dependent on anything else for function, validity, etc.; separate two independent units make up this sofa