Abandoned Cable

[John Adams]

Need advice/opinions from the forum. Removal of abandoned telecomm cables. The code seems to change dramatically on this subject. To me it was simple before. If the cable was terminated on both ends, it was considered abandoned. At one point , if it wasn't terminated you could simply place a "for future use" tag on both ends". That's really when my inspections got tough. If the cables were "accessible" all a contractor had to do was put the tag around the whole bundle (done deal). That's a cop out in my opinion. In my opinion, the contractor must get the customer to OK tagging the cable but they don't because the customer doesn't know any better. To me, removing all abandoned cable does two great things: 1. Aids in the circulation of air between the ceiling tiles and the upper floor 2. Removes unnecessary fuel for a fire
your thoughts? Also, now that you're helping me, why don't we get the busbar listed in 250.94 so we can run a conductor from our busbar to that busbar?

 

[zbang]

If a cable is terminated, it's hard to consider it abandoned.
If the customer "doesn't know any better" how are they going to approve something - you're the professional here.
Much no-longer-in-use cable is left in place because the customer isn't going to pay for removal.
Not all "abandoned cable" is in drop ceilings, and that which is may be plenum-rated so the fuel load is smaller. and unless there's a lot of cable, it's not going to affect the airflow (which shouldn't be much unless it's a plenum).

 

[petersonra]

It is not up to the inspector to determine whether it is appropriate or not to remove unused cables or call them spares.

IMO however, if they are terminated they are not abandoned. It used to be real common to see punchdown blocks for telephone lines in office buildings that had a crap load of conductors unused.

 

[hbiss]

It is not up to the inspector to determine whether it is appropriate or not to remove unused cables or call them spares.

Then whose responsibility is it? Owner isn't going to pay for removal so contractor isn't going to do it.
It's not unusual to find generations and generations of unused cable above a dropped ceiling. In new build outs I remember filling a 10 yd dumpster with the cable we pulled out. Once there were bundles that I had to cut with a sawzall.

The only way to deal with this is for the lease to require any wiring that the tenant installs must be removed when they move out. If this is done each time then there won't be a build up years down the road.

For the Code simply to say they must be removed or tagged and no one taking responsibility for it getting done isn't working.

IMO however, if they are terminated they are not abandoned. It used to be real common to see punchdown blocks for telephone lines in office buildings that had a crap load of conductors unused.

Usually, the area or room with the punchdown blocks is demolished.

-Hal

 

[petersonra]

For the Code simply to say they must be removed or tagged and no one taking responsibility for it getting done isn't working.

The code does not require removal. So on what basis could an inspector possibly have any authority to require it be removed short of some local amendment?

If you don't like what the code actually requires and what the inspector is thus required to inspect to, suggest some kind of change to the code to suit how you think things should be.

Personally, I think it is perfectly reasonable to leave it in place. It is not harming anyone and the spares are real handy sometimes.

Now I have seen some installations that are doubtful that they met code in the first place, like laying the cables above a suspended ceiling on top of the tiles to the point the tiles can't even be raised. But that is a problem with someone not following the code, not the code requirements.

I intensely dislike the idea of inspectors substituting what they think the code should be for what it actually is.

 

[hbiss]

The code does not require removal. So on what basis could an inspector possibly have any authority to require it be removed short of some local amendment?

725.25 Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned
Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC cables shall be removed.

Seems clear to me.

-Hal

 

[don_resqcapt19]

725.25 Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned
Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC cables shall be removed.

Seems clear to me.

-Hal

You have to apply the definition.

Abandoned Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC Cable.
Installed Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC cable that is not terminated at equipment and not identified for future use with a tag.

It is only abandoned if the cable it not terminated and there is no tag for future use. There is no requirement as what the tag has to say, so simply the word "future" on the tag would permit you to leave the unterminated cable in place.

 

[hbiss]

It is only abandoned if the cable it not terminated and there is no tag for future use. There is no requirement as what the tag has to say, so simply the word "future" on the tag would permit you to leave the unterminated cable in place.

I do know that. Rarely, if ever will you see any tags. And, like I said above, even if cables are left terminated on blocks the contractor comes along and demolishes the room or wall leaving the cables hanging there.

Maybe the inspector needs to poke his head up into the space above the ceiling once and awhile.

-Hal

 

[petersonra]

I do know that. Rarely, if ever will you see any tags. And, like I said above, even if cables are left terminated on blocks the contractor comes along and demolishes the room or wall leaving the cables hanging there.

Maybe the inspector needs to poke his head up into the space above the ceiling once and awhile.

-Hal

This seems like a badly written contract. If the demolition contractor is not required to remove the cables as part of his contract, why should he?