Outlet abandonment

[handy10]

In NEC '08, article 374.7 states that the conductors supplying an outlet must be removed from the raceway if the outlet is abandoned. This is in the context of a cellular metal floor raceway. Here is the first question: is there difference between an outlet that is abandoned and one that is merely unused? That is, can the conductors be left in place (properly capped) if the outlet might be used at a later time? The second question is: are there rules of abandonment for other types of raceways?

 

[Buck Parrish]

IMO... 374.7 seems pretty clear. I don't know how you could explain that it will be used again. This seems to be to prevent years and years of different electricians not knowing and just adding more wires.
In other wiring types unused wiring must be removed unless in a box with cover and labled "future"
This doesn't mean k&T can be labled future when all the rest is new wiring

 

[LarryFine]

... can the conductors be left in place (properly capped) if the outlet might be used at a later time? The second question is: are there rules of abandonment for other types of raceways?

The concern is that no connections, i.e., splices, or even stripped sections (as might be done for looped wires) ever be below the floor level.

In other words, if you're removing floor receptacle "G", you have to run a new, intact conductor from outlet "F" to outlet "H".


And, no, I don't believe so.

 

[handy10]

Let me say that I am very much a junior member who is trying to learn and not be a pest. However, I have questions about both Buck and Larry replies.

Buck: you seem to say that unused wires must be removed from all raceways. In fact, it seems quite common to put an extra wire in emt that goes to a ceiling box. The purpose is for a future fan with light. Is such a practice a code violation or is it a bad idea? If it is a code violation, I would like to know the reference.

Larry: you mention removal of a receptacle; however, the code says outlet. Since I don't even know what a cellular metal floor raceway is, I have no trouble envisioning some device other than a receptacle. I also do not see what is wrong with splices in a box even if it is a floor box.

 

[Buck Parrish]

I was thinking more on the lines of NM and ends of circuits such as in 378.58. And conduit 376.58.
What you have described is for "future"

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If you read article 374.6 it states that splices shall only be made in the header access unit or jb. Thus you can loop the wire going from outlet to outlet without splice.

When you remove the device you would think that you could just tape the wire at the loop. However article 347.7 specifically addresses this issue.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

In other words, if you're removing floor receptacle "G", you have to run a new, intact conductor from outlet "F" to outlet "H".

Larry my understanding is that you would have to remove the entire circuit so that no joint, even at the recep. could be made.

 

[handy10]

Would someone comment on whether 374.7 is to be applied to any and all raceways or only to the specific raceways addressed in art.374. If a statement like the one in 374.7 is to be applied everywhere, then there will be many similar places in the code where seemingly specific statements could be applied in a far wider context.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe this requirement only applies to the cellular floor raceway. You would have to read the requirements for each wireway type, etc

 

[Buck Parrish]

Would someone comment on whether 374.7 is to be applied to any and all raceways or only to the specific raceways addressed in art.374. If a statement like the one in 374.7 is to be applied everywhere, then there will be many similar places in the code where seemingly specific statements could be applied in a far wider context.

The title of 374 "Cellular metal floor raceways"