Handbook vs NEC Code Book

Status
Not open for further replies.
Little Bill

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
I hear it all the time here and elsewhere stating that the handbook commentary is just an opinion and not code. While I know and realize that, I think most of the comments, especially the handbook that is published by NFPA, are written by very knowledgeable people. Some may even be CMP members. But I don't know that.

Something to think about is the very same comments are in different years/code cycles.
You would think that if they are wrong, someone would challenge them on it and corrections/retractions would be made in later versions.

What troubles me most is some that constantly point out that the handbook commentary is only an opinion usually only do that when someone's opinion doesn't line up with theirs. And the other person's opinion happens to line up with one of the handbook's authors.

Here is my challenge/inquiry to any here. Can anyone show me an example of a handbook comment/opinion that is definitely wrong? Not something like a "gray area" or highly debatable, but something that is flat out wrong!

Edit: I'm not necessarily defending anything in the book, just looking for examples that might make some doubt the book.
 
Last edited:
I was involved in a lawsuit where the opposing party submitted a code handbook into evidence and provided testimony based upon its content. Everything was going well for the opposing party until I was asked to confirm that the handbook was code. When I pointed out to the judge that that handbook is just an interpretation of code he blew up. He hollered out in court that only his interpretation mattered in his court.
 
Bill you are correct that the writers of the book are very educated on the code and on the cmp. The problem with interpretation is that no one person wrote the code so it is impossible to know every bit of it. I doubt you will find anything absolutely wrong but I am sure there are things in there that others don't agree with. Doesn't mean they are right or wrong.

An inspector may very well look at some areas differently then they do. The point of saying that it is therir opinion just means that their word is not the final word.
 
mkgrady said:
I was involved in a lawsuit where the opposing party submitted a code handbook into evidence and provided testimony based upon its content. Everything was going well for the opposing party until I was asked to confirm that the handbook was code. When I pointed out to the judge that that handbook is just an interpretation of code he blew up. He hollered out in court that only his interpretation mattered in his court.
Click to expand...
Only the commentary in the handbook and the annexes are not part of the "electrical code" and can not be enforced by the AHJ.
IMO, the comments in the book are from well respected and knowledgeable individuals. Otherwise they would not be in the handbook.
 
There are a few cases (wish I could remember them) where code was updated but the corresponding informational notes or the corresponding handbook commentary remained unchanged.
 
If I recall in the 2014 handbook it is dead wrong about GFCI protection for dishwashers. I belive the handbook says only cord and plug connected dishwashers need GFCI protection when all DWs do.
 
mkgrady said:
I was involved in a lawsuit where the opposing party submitted a code handbook into evidence and provided testimony based upon its content. Everything was going well for the opposing party until I was asked to confirm that the handbook was code. When I pointed out to the judge that that handbook is just an interpretation of code he blew up. He hollered out in court that only his interpretation mattered in his court.
Click to expand...


Looks like the judge is interpreting your opinion more than the handbook:happysad: No offence to you though, just I think the judge could have handled it better. The Handbook is based on code IMO. I don't always buy into when people say its just one person's opinion.


To be honest, I think the code is intentionally written as obscure (requiring a PHD in English to interpret:lol:) so AHJ can spin it how they like. I disagree with that method of putting forward code, as it just confuses people on what was the actual intent is but its the politics of it all.
 
Someone like Mike Holt could easily publish something equivalent to what is the hand book - just so happens NFPA is involved with the handbook so copyright laws etc. allow for them to incorporate the actual code within the handbook much easier then it would be for Mike Holt. But the commentary parts is just the opinion of whoever wrote them, just like it would be in a similar publication by Mike Holt.

Those people that write such things do so for a living, and have some credibility behind what they do, but they are human and can be wrong at times, and when it comes to certain sections of the NEC that are not all that clear, you can have two entirely different opinions of what something may be saying and neither one is necessarily wrong. Ultimately when you translate a problem to a particular installation you also have an AHJ that has to agree with one interpretation or the other.
 
I always thought it was people from the CMPs who wrote the handbook commentary for their own sections.
 
mkgrady said:
I was involved in a lawsuit where the opposing party submitted a code handbook into evidence and provided testimony based upon its content. Everything was going well for the opposing party until I was asked to confirm that the handbook was code. When I pointed out to the judge that that handbook is just an interpretation of code he blew up. He hollered out in court that only his interpretation mattered in his court.
Click to expand...

Tht handbook has the same code and FPN as a non handbook type. Commentary is a helpful guide and is not enforceable code. There must have been a certain way the opposing party submitted the handbook into evidence to get it thrown out. Could have been your statement - the handbook is not just interpretation as your statement insinuates in reality the comments are the only interpretation in the handbook and that is the only diffefence between it and the straight NFPA 70.
 
mbrooke said:
Looks like the judge is interpreting your opinion more than the handbook:happysad: No offence to you though, just I think the judge could have handled it better. The Handbook is based on code IMO. I don't always buy into when people say its just one person's opinion.


To be honest, I think the code is intentionally written as obscure (requiring a PHD in English to interpret:lol:) so AHJ can spin it how they like. I disagree with that method of putting forward code, as it just confuses people on what was the actual intent is but its the politics of it all.
Click to expand...

I don't think the NEC is written to confuse people. The need to put forth huge amounts of information and the desire to have some continuity from cycle to cycle is bound to cause some confusion. I think the only thing that really irritates me is when I look at the index and it says, " see lightning rods" or some such when it would be shorter to write "page 77":)
 
mbrooke said:
Looks like the judge is interpreting your opinion more than the handbook:happysad: No offence to you though, just I think the judge could have handled it better. The Handbook is based on code IMO. I don't always buy into when people say its just one person's opinion. ...
Click to expand...
The following is from the handbook itself:
The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not a part of the NFPA Document and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA (which can be obtained only through requests processed by the responsible technical committees in accordance with the published procedures of the NFPA). The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore, solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees.
Click to expand...
 
I don't own a handbook, never have, might take one as a gift, but I doubt it. The other problem with the handbook is the illustrations. Trying to boil down a rule to a simple picture or drawing is often fraught with error. The words in some cases would require "a thousand pictures".
 
Strathead said:
.................... I think the only thing that really irritates me is when I look at the index and it says, " see lightning rods" or some such when it would be shorter to write "page 77":)
Click to expand...

So in the next edition, when all the pages referred to are changed (lighting rods are on page 79 then), are you going to volunteer to change all the specific page references throughout the handbook, proofread and guarantee the results?

This is why you memorize code references, not page numbers. If you memorize page numbers, you have to re-memorize everything every 3 years.
 
fmtjfw said:
I don't own a handbook, never have, might take one as a gift, but I doubt it. The other problem with the handbook is the illustrations. Trying to boil down a rule to a simple picture or drawing is often fraught with error. The words in some cases would require "a thousand pictures".
Click to expand...
Do you ever look at Mike Holt's or other similar published material? NAEI is another organization that comes to mind that publishes a lot of training material, with graphics many times. Some of that material is often posted on this site to answer a question.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
An inspector may very well look at some areas differently then they do. The point of saying that it is therir opinion just means that their word is not the final word.
Click to expand...

That is my complaint with the code book. An inspector in Chicago does not have an opinion. He is the AHJ.
There may well be a way to challange it, but your out of your mind to do that.

IMO the code should be written so there is very little interperting going on. The big shots here on this web site don't always agree, and you all seem to be experts.


It's also plane stupid to be able to install something like it is shown in the hand book and fail an inspection. It never happened to me, but I've read about it.
Thanks
Mike
 
mike1061 said:
That is my complaint with the code book. An inspector in Chicago does not have an opinion. He is the AHJ.
There may well be a way to challange it, but your out of your mind to do that.

IMO the code should be written so there is very little interperting going on. The big shots here on this web site don't always agree, and you all seem to be experts.


It's also plane stupid to be able to install something like it is shown in the hand book and fail an inspection. It never happened to me, but I've read about it.
Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...
Inspectors are representatives of the AHJ. They are human, they do make mistakes. Some people never challenge an inspector - they just do as he asks - whether right or not that just happens.

Any rule book for anything will always have challenges to what the intention of the rules are, or to what the written words actually mean, happens all the time and is part of why we do have the opportunity to change what is written every three years.
 
I've seen where guys challanged or shall I questioned to inspector for failing the job. You get every inspector and is cousin at your job. Your job is shut down until you do the correction. Then you have to do all the other corrections the other inspectors cite you for. I've never herd of anybody even having a meeting to discuss an opinion.

The city does seem to have changed, these are old stories.
I don't consider myself smart enough to try to go over anybody's head. I always say, please explain where in the code it says this is wrong. I need to understand, so I don't do it again. I've always recived good answers that way.

The one time I did a job using Black, Red & Blue for the hot conductors, and got failed for the blue one, got re-inspected by a different inspector and passed.
Thanks
Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top