Handbook vs NEC Code Book

[kwired]

I didn't finish my thought. I don't believe I have been on a job where the incoming water line was copper in at least 10 years. And that includes gold plated spec. government jobs. I believe (just my opinion) that a water pipe could be an optional supplemental ground, but not a, or the primary ground means. In reality I don't really think that, because any plumber who comes in to repair it can replace it with PVC without an electrician being the wiser. Because of that, I believe a water pipe should be treated no differently than a gas pipe. 'bonded where it may become energized.'

IMO the NEC is written to account for the fact that the water pipe may or may not be metallic.

250.50 starts with "All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present"

If it is not present - it doesn't need to be used as an electrode.

250.52(A)(1) is metal underground water piping and it describes what requirements are necessary before it is considered an electrode. If those requirements are not met - you don't have a qualifying electrode and you don't have to use it as an electrode.

There is requirement to supplement a water pipe electrode with another electrode - this IMO is because the CMP that wrote that knows that there is a good chance that electrode is likely to be removed, modified, or whatever and will compromise the grounding electrode system if the water pipe is the only electrode present. No other electrodes are required to be supplemented outside of ensuring a driven rod falls below 25 ohms but that is entirely different reasoning for supplementation. Resistance of a water pipe to ground is normally too low to just disregard it compared to many made electrodes.

 

[mbrooke]

That's ridiculous. It's suppose that there my be some deep logic there, but it's really silly. All of electricty is based on that same math.
Thanks
Mike

I agree. An equation is reality, the rest is just fantasy guided by our own desires and interpretation of the world.


"Politics are for today, an equation is for eternity"

 

[ASG]

We have these insurance seminars once every year or so. If something goes wrong, courts decide negligence based on how the reasonable average engineer would have designed it. I would think you would be in the clear if you go by how the Handbook shows the code to be interpreted. If you decide instead to go by your own interpretation, IMO, you are opening yourself up for possible trouble.

 

[Strathead]

IMO the NEC is written to account for the fact that the water pipe may or may not be metallic.

250.50 starts with "All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present"

If it is not present - it doesn't need to be used as an electrode.

250.52(A)(1) is metal underground water piping and it describes what requirements are necessary before it is considered an electrode. If those requirements are not met - you don't have a qualifying electrode and you don't have to use it as an electrode.

There is requirement to supplement a water pipe electrode with another electrode - this IMO is because the CMP that wrote that knows that there is a good chance that electrode is likely to be removed, modified, or whatever and will compromise the grounding electrode system if the water pipe is the only electrode present. No other electrodes are required to be supplemented outside of ensuring a driven rod falls below 25 ohms but that is entirely different reasoning for supplementation. Resistance of a water pipe to ground is normally too low to just disregard it compared to many made electrodes.

I don't disagree with the things you wrote, my opinion is that it should no longer be that way. Other than allowing for legacy systems, any water pipe should be treated like any other metal component of construction. Bonded by a conductor sized to carry any current that may be present. The UFER ground and building steel should be the ones that gets the full sized 250.66 grounding electrode conductor.

Like many things in the code, I am not saying I am right, I am saying this is my opinion.

 

[Little Bill]

Well it seems most posts here are saying what I already stated. "I know the handbook is not code"! I've only read one post that actually mentioned something that was clearly wrong in the handbook. I haven't verified that as I don't have a 2014 handbook. But at least was an offering to my question. Which was, "can anyone show an example of where the handbook is clearly wrong vs the actual code"?

Also it seems the thread has gone the way of 99% of the threads. Way around the hill, through the tunnel, and out to another subject!
Close enough that you can still see the original subject but still not touching it.

 

[iwire]

I've only read one post that actually mentioned something that was clearly wrong in the handbook. I haven't verified that as I don't have a 2014 handbook.

Neither do I, and I have not verified it either. I read about that error on this forum so I was hoping someone could check it out.

e thread has gone the way of 99% of the threads. Way around the hill, through the tunnel, and out to another subject!
Close enough that you can still see the original subject but still not touching it.

So back to the subject. What is it that bothers you about saying the Handbook is just an opinion?

Because bottom line it is just opinion and not an official interpretation It is no more official than a Mike Holt book or Tom Henry's books, my own book or Little Bills future code reference books.

 

[Strathead]

Well it seems most posts here are saying what I already stated. "I know the handbook is not code"! I've only read one post that actually mentioned something that was clearly wrong in the handbook. I haven't verified that as I don't have a 2014 handbook. But at least was an offering to my question. Which was, "can anyone show an example of where the handbook is clearly wrong vs the actual code"?

Also it seems the thread has gone the way of 99% of the threads. Way around the hill, through the tunnel, and out to another subject!
Close enough that you can still see the original subject but still not touching it.

My opinion on your direct question is this. The clarification that the handbook isn't code is more of a protection for the little guy against the tyrannical inspector, no the other way around. Many of the examples in the handbook are one of potentially many ways of accomplishing a given code requirement. I don't think I have ever seen one that is wrong but I don't, in fairness own a handbook or reference it much. I usually go to the bosses office and look at his.

 

[Little Bill]

So back to the subject. What is it that bothers you about saying the Handbook is just an opinion?

Because bottom line it is just opinion and not an official interpretation It is no more official than a Mike Holt book or Tom Henry's books, my own book or Little Bills future code reference books.

What bothers me the most is the "it's just an opinion" card is usually played only when person "A" points out something the handbook says. When the handbook doesn't line up with person "B's" opinion, person "B" plays the "handbook is just an opinion card" and usually doesn't have much else to back up what their opinion is.

 

[GoldDigger]

I also have seen (and played) the "Well the Handbook agrees with me completely, too bad it is not authoritative. :weeping:" card from time to time.

 

[iwire]

What bothers me the most is the "it's just an opinion" card is usually played only when person "A" points out something the handbook says. When the handbook doesn't line up with person "B's" opinion, person "B" plays the "handbook is just an opinion card" and usually doesn't have much else to back up what their opinion is.

Well maybe the problem is that the person relying on the handbook doesn't have much else to back up what their opinion is. That is just as possible as your spin on it.

It is simply a case of the handbook is great when it agrees with me and it stinks when it doesn't. You know .... human nature ....... everyone driving faster than me is an idiot and everyone driving slower than me is a moron.

 

[GoldDigger]

Well maybe the problem is that the person relying on the handbook doesn't have much else to back up what their opinion is. That is just as possible as your spin on it.

It is simply a case of the handbook is great when it agrees with me and it stinks when it doesn't. You know .... human nature ....... everyone driving faster than me is an idiot and everyone driving slower than me is a moron.

And anyone driving the same speed as me is just trying to be annoying.

 

[iwire]

And anyone driving the same speed as me is just trying to be annoying.

:lol:

You are right, I hate those folks as well.

 

[kwired]

When it was brought up earlier about commentary from handbook being brought up during litigation - it is just like having an expert witness testify - but without actually appearing. Referencing the NEC in litigation is nothing more then referencing industry standard - unless the NEC is adopted as the law, then it becomes a legal reference, but those things that are not so black and white can still be challenged like any other law when you can raise a valid question of what the law may mean. Our Constitution gives us the right to question laws, though there are proper ways of doing so.

 

[GoldDigger]

A very good point. And in general that sort of commentary carries no weight whatsoever unless either the author or a qualified expert witness in the field is available to introduce it and to respond to cross examination.

It is unlikely, but possible, that both sides stipulate that they accept the authoritativeness of a particular document which is not adopted code.

 

[kwired]

A very good point. And in general that sort of commentary carries no weight whatsoever unless either the author or a qualified expert witness in the field is available to introduce it and to respond to cross examination.

It is unlikely, but possible, that both sides stipulate that they accept the authoritativeness of a particular document which is not adopted code.

I'm no legal expert so I can't say how such a document would hold up in a court of law, but my intent was to say the handbook or Mike Holt or others that publish professional materials on similar topics are regarded as experts in the field, kind of like calling an "expert witness" to a court of law, but in a court of law questions asked of an actual person would be more specific where with published material one would need to ask the question and then see if there is any related topic in the publication but even then you are limited to what is published and not necessarily a specific answer to a specific question.

What an actual witness says can be held to some high regard - but at same time can still be questioned by other "expert witnesses". If you end up with three "experts" with three different opinions on a particular topic the judge or jury will still need to make a decision, maybe about something they don't know much about but if you have thee "experts" that have same thing to say about a particular topic, the judge or jury kind of has to assume they are accurate with their assessment.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Neither do I, and I have not verified it either. I read about that error on this forum so I was hoping someone could check it out. ...

From the 2014 handbook:

Receptacles installed for disposals, dishwashers, and trash compactors are not required to be protected by GFCIs. A
receptacle(s) installed behind a refrigerator is installed to supply that appliance, not the countertop, and is not covered by this
GFCI requirement ...

 

[mbrooke]

I don't disagree with the things you wrote, my opinion is that it should no longer be that way. Other than allowing for legacy systems, any water pipe should be treated like any other metal component of construction. Bonded by a conductor sized to carry any current that may be present. The UFER ground and building steel should be the ones that gets the full sized 250.66 grounding electrode conductor.

Like many things in the code, I am not saying I am right, I am saying this is my opinion.

I feel the same way. Anything that might be in contact with a person should be connected to the bonding/grounding system. Article 250 is more about creating an equal potential cage around the persons environment then anything else.

 

[iwire]

The UFER ground and building steel should be the ones that gets the full sized 250.66 grounding electrode conductor.

There is no electrical need for that in either case. Just like there is no need for more than 6 AWG to a rod.

 

[mbrooke]

There is no electrical need for that in either case. Just like there is no need for more than 6 AWG to a rod.

Why so? Explain

 

[iwire]

Why so? Explain

I am sure you know as well as I do that neither a CEE or structural steel can 'connect' to the earth well enough to overload those size conductors in the time they are expected to carry current.

On the other hand, a metal underground water distribution system may have many other connections to the same electrical distribution system and therefore the GEC could be subjected to as much current at the power company can supply via the service conductors.

In other words with a metal water pipe the current could have a complete path to flow without using the earth (dirt) for part of the circuit. Having dirt in the circuit greatly reduces the possible current flow.