abandoned wire & cable
- Thread starter wch
- Start date
- Status
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
As far as I know - 300.21 has not changed - but some other code may have???
mcclary's electrical
Senior Member
- Location
- VA
- Location
- Logan, Utah
New to the 2008 are sections:
640.6(C)&(D) (Audio distribution cables)
645.5(F)(G) (IT equipment)
725.25 (Class2 & Class3)
760.25 (Fire alarm cables)
770.25 (Fiber optic cables)
800.25 (Communications Cables)
820.25 (CATV Cables)
830.25 (Network-powered Broadband Communications Cables)
Chris
640.6(C)&(D) (Audio distribution cables)
645.5(F)(G) (IT equipment)
725.25 (Class2 & Class3)
760.25 (Fire alarm cables)
770.25 (Fiber optic cables)
800.25 (Communications Cables)
820.25 (CATV Cables)
830.25 (Network-powered Broadband Communications Cables)
Chris
- Location
- Logan, Utah
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
All of which directly or indirectly refferance 300.21 - which if an inspector wanted to stretch the specific wording could apply it to just about anything... IMO... Recently I had to remove abandoned EMT...
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
Requirement for abandoned cable removal was added to 02 NEC. One could make argument that only cable installed since 02 has to be removed if abandoned.
- Location
- Logan, Utah
All of which directly or indirectly refferance 300.21 - which if an inspector wanted to stretch the specific wording could apply it to just about anything... IMO... Recently I had to remove abandoned EMT...
No they don't.
There have been some additions in the articles that address the spread of fire and products of combustion and actually reference 300.21, but they are not part of the XXX.25 sections.
The removal of abandoned cables and the requirements in 300.21 do not apply to each other they are separate issues.
300.21 is dealing with fire stopping penetrations through fire rated assemblies and has nothing to do with removing abandoned wiring IMHO.
Chris
rt66electric
Senior Member
- Location
- Oklahoma
whats the diff?
whats the diff?
Why can't you call it a spare circuit for future USE ???
as long as it is capped off in a box w/cover as opposed to cut the pipe and leaving copper visable.......and the pipe dangling at a precarious angle.
WAIT Are we talkin about low voltage wiring or line voltage ???
whats the diff?
Why can't you call it a spare circuit for future USE ???
as long as it is capped off in a box w/cover as opposed to cut the pipe and leaving copper visable.......and the pipe dangling at a precarious angle.
WAIT Are we talkin about low voltage wiring or line voltage ???
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Low voltage.
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
I sell happiness Bob - happy inspectors - even if they are full of it - are happy customers - and happy customers pay.They might try but they would be wrong.
No, IMO you chose to.
Anyway to be clear this was an abandoned - and empty trapeze through a fire wall and he was well within his rights ask it be removed - even if in the event I got the TI there in the furure - it would have been nice to have... But then again - I got paid to remove it - and someone may be paid to put it back some day soon.
What I said was... "All of which directly or indirectly refferance 300.21"
Also - You'll have to excuse me - I swap between the '05 - which I actually use - and the '08 which I often discuss here - which in this instance represents a change I'm glad to know about - there is no XXX.25 in the '05... Abandoned cables are addressed as such in the previous cycle...
So what I said - was previously true...
and 300.21 was not written with a bruch or roller - Jackson Pollack wrote it would seem.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
Which only helped to point out the difference the OP was looking for in this case. Previously all of the sections of cable type methods in chapter 7&8 had wording in XXX.03 or nearby with various wording refferencing 300.21, and then some wording about removal of abandoned cable. Now they are in XXX.25, and wording mirroring 300.21 as XXX.26.
- Location
- Massachusetts
No, he was not, it is not his property to throw out.
Please show me a code section that requires this to be removed.
So what I said - was previously true...
and 300.21 was not written with a bruch or roller
Nothing in 300.21 requires anything to be removed.
You are starting to make code up faster than a rogue inspector.:roll:
Last edited:
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
To be clear Bob it was the inspectors 'stretch' - not my own. But it was difficult to argue that it was not a dozen or so 1"-2" holes in a fire wall that served, and may never serve a purpose* - especially since the man has yet to put the pen on the job card....No, he was not, it is not his property to throw out.
Please show me a code section that requires this to be removed.
Nothing in 300.21 requires anything to be removed.
You are starting to make code up faster than a rogue inspector.:roll:
So your alternative is what? (Pull out your sword?) *panels had been replaced, and the unit they served was gutted - so these were just stubs through the wall 2-4' long supported on strut on both sides.
Right on.
Thanks for all the replies
- Status