In responding to your questions concerning Art. 517, I had (have) no intentions of getting into an argument, as Art. 517 has a multitude of requirements to contend with. However, you are right by stating that I had not read (or re-read) the definitions in this article. In your original post you stated your disagreement with the inspector and your reasons. I merely stated that I would be inclined to agree with the inspector.
If I had been the designer of the facility, I would have been looking more closely at the entire Scope of the project. Having that Scope in hand may cause me to be more inclined to agree with you.
In looking at the definitions (as you suggested)under Patient Care Areas, it says the governing body of the facility designates the uses of these areas for the anticipated patient care. The engineer should have consulted the governing body to clarify the use of these areas. Otherwise,in the design of these type areas, if I have to error, I would rather error on the safe side than on an unsafe one. If I were the installer, I would have also asked the question of usage with a proposal in hand to save the owner money by installing spec. grade in lieu of hospital grade (depending on quantity, of course, and if in fact there would be a savings).
Would you consider ER a general care area or a critical care area? It, in fact, serves as both, and would require the most stringent of hospital grade equipment. Some of the areas you are questioning may serve as both and may in fact require a more stringent approach, depending on the governing body of the facility. That may be what your inspector is thinking. And if he thinks safety is an issue, then that could be his reasoning for requiring hospital rated devices.
When it comes to safety, I will never knowingly compromise personal or personnel safety for convenience or cost in any of my design work, as I am sure you will not do so in your work.
I appreciate your thought provoking question and your responses.
