Lake Goers be Warned - Dangers of Electric Shock Drowning

Mike, Some, such as Ed Lethert in his excellent article in your newsletter last month entitled "Marina Ground Fault Leakage Current and the NEC®", have expressed a concern about the impracticality of the 2017 NEC 555.3 regarding GFI requirements: The 2017 555.3 requires the overcurrent protection device(s) that supply marinas, boatyards, and commercial and noncommercial docking facilities must have ground-fault protection not exceeding 30 mA. Has there been any hint, formal or informal, that this is to be interpreted so that the 30 mA maximum applies to the "final" device, e.g, the pedestal or panel directly feeding the shore to craft cord? Otherwise, I wonder (I can only wonder since I am not a lawyer) whether or not 555.3 is legally unenforceable due its "impracticability". I reference the common law impracticability defense described here at www.definitions.uslegal.com/i/impracticability : "Impracticability means the excuse in performance of a duty. Under the common law of contract, impracticability is a defense that can be relied on when the duty to be performed becomes unfeasibly difficult or expensive for a party who was to perform. The doctrine of impracticability arises out of the occurrence of a condition which prevents him/her from fulfilling the contract." Surely this will be corrected in 2020, but those jurisdictions which adopt the 2017 code my be without a reasonable or enforceable 555.3 for years to come unless this is officially "interpreted" or corrected such as with a 90.6 Formal Interpretation. Just wondering ..."

I have a second home on a large lake in northern Arkansas. It is a reservoir lake and can move 65 lake level max, 30-40 frequently. Most of the private docks on this lake are wired improperly in a variety of ways, especially lack of EGC. Wires are regularly left hanging in the water and the people here have all been conditioned over the years that this is acceptable. Typically triplex wire. And because there have been no well publicized accidents most believe that all is well.

I hate to admit it but I was not aware of 555.24. Thanks, Mike.

How does one physically identify or locate the various water related elevations from which the electrical datum plane is determined? If the owner doesn't do it properly, they could be in trouble.

Since we may be talking about liability issues here arising from implementing the NEC: ex: owner's transformer caused an electric shock - was it below the electrical datum plane?; I suggest that a licensed land surveyor be hired (especially for commercial operations) to identify and locate the appropriate water level (s) from which to determine the electrical datum plane.

I might also suggest that accepted water level terms be used for discussions (see various NOAA publications). I submit that if the NEC may not be using the correct term, the appropriate NEC panel be queried as to what is really meant and how to derive it.

One thing to remember, if a person gets electrocuted in the water and drowns, there will more than likely be a law suit and the finger pointing will begin. And the location of the electrical datum plane may play a big roll in determining who is at fault.

A licensed professional surveyor would be a big asset to answer the judge's question - where was the electrical datum plane and who located it and how?