Code requirement for abandoned service feeders

Status
Not open for further replies.

wrobotronic

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
A new service installed and the old FPE has been made into a jbox. Pretty standard I suspect. But do I need to remove the old feeders from the old FPE? If so, is there a code reference for this requirement?

TYIA,
WROBO
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
There are no rules in the NEC about removing conductors, only about how to install them.

You would think that.

Underfloor raceways like walker duct have a requirement to remove abandon conductors but if you label them they are not abandoned. So it's a rule without a purpose.
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
My concern is that an HO will come along and energize them or think that they can be used for something. I think I will just cut them off then. Thank you very much.

On abandoned branch circuits I require all conductors be tied together so that if energized the OCPD with trip making the circuit disabled.
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
How do you require this?

It's not required by the NEC.

no its not -- but is a sensible & easy way to disable cable branch circuits from harming individuals without removing. a branch circuit terminated in concealed spaces can be cut anywhere it is placed & if disabled from being energized a life safety factor has been implemented. Commercial work in conduit can be handled many different ways.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
no its not -- but is a sensible & easy way to disable cable branch circuits from harming individuals without removing. a branch circuit terminated in concealed spaces can be cut anywhere it is placed & if disabled from being energized a life safety factor has been implemented. Commercial work in conduit can be handled many different ways.

Certainly violating some ethics, rules or laws requiring things not in the NEC.

If you can break the rules why can't the contractors?

You should be removed or otherwise sanctioned by your AHJ.
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
Certainly violating some ethics, rules or laws requiring things not in the NEC.

If you can break the rules why can't the contractors?

You should be removed or otherwise sanctioned by your AHJ.


Do you even read what you write?? What a stupid comment are you some sort of god moderator???
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
On abandoned branch circuits I require all conductors be tied together so that if energized the OCPD with trip making the circuit disabled.
Let me say that this is a very, very bad idea :thumbsdown: :happysad: , for several reasons:

  1. The arc may happen remotely from the location of the breaker that is being closed. The person closing the breaker won't know what happened or why, and may try more than once before figuring anything out. That runs the risk of starting a fire.
  2. The arc may happen in the vicinity of a person other than the one trying to close the breaker. The surprise, the flash, and perhaps the (admittedly short duration) electric shock might cause the person to react in a way that injures themselves.
  3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, you are intentionally forcing a safety feature to do its job. I was taught in the Navy that that is something you never, never do. Reasons include that doing so runs the risk that it might not do its job, in which case you will definitely have a fire on your hands. Or perhaps it will do its job this time, but you have weakened it just that much, so that might fail earlier than it otherwise would have done.

 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
no its not -- but is a sensible & easy way to disable cable branch circuits from harming individuals without removing. a branch circuit terminated in concealed spaces can be cut anywhere it is placed & if disabled from being energized a life safety factor has been implemented. Commercial work in conduit can be handled many different ways.

Thanks for proving once again why most electricians I know (myself included) avoid permits and inspections wherever possible. :thumbsup:
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
You said you were an inspector requiring things you know the NEC does not.

Is that what an inspector should be doing?
Then abide by 300.15 in which a listed type of device, enclosure, fitting, or box is required
300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings — Where Required
A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring. Fittings and connectors shall be used only with the specific wiring methods for which they are designed and listed. Where the wiring method is conduit, tubing, Type AC cable, Type MC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic-sheathed cable, or other cables, a box or conduit body shall be installed at each conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction point, termination point, or pull point, unless otherwise permitted in 300.15(A) through (L).
(A)Wiring Methods with Interior Access. A box or conduit body shall not be required for each splice, junction, switch, pull, termination, or outlet points in wiring methods with removable covers, such as wireways, multioutlet assemblies, auxiliary gutters, and surface raceways. The covers shall be accessible after installation.
(E) Integral Enclosure. A wiring device with integral enclosure identified f or the use, having brackets that securely fasten the device to walls or ceilings of conventional on-site frame construction, for use with nonmetallic-sheathed cable, shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body.
(F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.
(H) Insulated Devices. As permitted in 334.40(B), a box or conduit body shall not be required for insulated devices supplied by nonmetallic-sheathed cable.
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
Let me say that this is a very, very bad idea :thumbsdown: :happysad: , for several reasons:
  1. The arc may happen remotely from the location of the breaker that is being closed. The person closing the breaker won't know what happened or why, and may try more than once before figuring anything out. That runs the risk of starting a fire. so having a live wire non junctioned in a concealed space is not a safety hazard, have you ever accidently touch a live wire that was supposed to be abaondoned? Knock me of a 10' ladder when one inavertantly touch my elbow in a steel framed joist system as an apprentice.
  2. The arc may happen in the vicinity of a person other than the one trying to close the breaker. The surprise, the flash, and perhaps the (admittedly short duration) electric shock might cause the person to react in a way that injures themselves. Why would you allow the wiring to have the ability to be energized in the first place & not cut it on both sides
  3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, you are intentionally forcing a safety feature to do its job. I was taught in the Navy that that is something you never, never do. Reasons include that doing so runs the risk that it might not do its job, in which case you will definitely have a fire on your hands. Or perhaps it will do its job this time, but you have weakened it just that much, so that might fail earlier than it otherwise would have done. Repeating the same thing over and over again hoping for a change in results has a definition.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top