Abandoned Telecom cable

Status
Not open for further replies.

electricalperson

Senior Member
Location
massachusetts
ive seen so much cat5e piled on celing tiles that were being used that they would fall out and could cause problems for fire fighters if the building was ever to burndown. i think electricians should worry about supporting cat5e properly and less about removing abandoned cables. if the cables are labeled as "spare" you never know what will happen in the future and they might want more network or phone jacks
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
And who makes that contract ........... the building owner which is just the person who IMO has the authority to do so.

Via the lease, yes. The reason building owners require you to remove your cable is because THEY don't want to get stuck with the bill or want the liability should something fire related happen. Ultimately the AHJ has the authority and doesn't care who removes it, just as long as it's removed. The building owner is just covering his ass.

If it really was about protection life and property it would not have the exception that permits you to tag it and leave it.

If a cable is tagged or in use it's not abandoned is it? Abandoned means serving no useful purpose so there is no reason for it to be there. Cables in use certainly do add to the fire and smoke load but they are needed, abandoned cables are not.

When a landlord has a vacant space do building codes require all unused carpet and furniture be removed because they also add to the smoke load?

No, because like being tagged they may continue to be used and are useful items. It's extremely unlikely that a bundle of CAT3 that has been cut short during demo is going to be good for anything.


I hate a rats nest in a ceiling as much as the next guy but I am just guest in the building not the owner.

In all fairness, if a tenant vacates a space that is cluttered with generations of cable from previous tenants they need to get the building owner to share the cost for removal. This is exactly why building owners require that you remove all your cable. If every tenant did that this wouldn't happen.

-Hal
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
If it really was about protection life and property it would not have the exception that permits you to tag it and leave it.

If a cable is tagged or in use it's not abandoned is it? Abandoned means serving no useful purpose so there is no reason for it to be there. Cables in use certainly do add to the fire and smoke load but they are needed, abandoned cables are not.

-Hal
Needed or not the safety hazard is the same. The CMP can't have it both ways. Either it is safe and both in use and abandoned cables can stay, or it is a hazard and open cables need to be prohibited.
 

chris kennedy

Senior Member
Location
Miami Fla.
Occupation
60 yr old tool twisting electrician
FWIW, here are some pictures from the 3rd floor today. Please bear in mind that the new owner is paying for this demo.

800.21?

80025001.jpg


Previous owner takes the servers and walks away.

80025003.jpg


800.24?

80025004.jpg
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
Needed or not the safety hazard is the same. The CMP can't have it both ways. Either it is safe and both in use and abandoned cables can stay, or it is a hazard and open cables need to be prohibited.

You want to think a little about that? It's a little like the saying two wrongs make a right. The safety hazard is not the same. If you already have 200 cables in the ceiling and you add another 200 the hazard increases twofold. If all 400 are in use then it's something that has to be accepted but if 200 are abandoned then that twofold increase represents a needless risk.

-Hal
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Needed or not the safety hazard is the same. The CMP can't have it both ways. Either it is safe and both in use and abandoned cables can stay, or it is a hazard and open cables need to be prohibited.

You want to think a little about that? It's a little like the saying two wrongs make a right. The safety hazard is not the same. If you already have 200 cables in the ceiling and you add another 200 the hazard increases twofold. If all 400 are in use then it's something that has to be accepted but if 200 are abandoned then that twofold increase represents a needless risk.

-Hal
I see no difference in the hazard from x number of cables. The usage does not change the hazard. Of course the hazard increases with the number of cables, but not with the cable usage. I see no reason why a "known hazard" has to be accepted because someone wants to use the cables.
I could have 50 abandoned cables that I have to remove, but have the same building with 500 active cables and they can stay. If the 50 unused cables are a real hazard, then the 500 in use cables is ten times the hazard. Either the cables are safe to install or they are not safe to install. If they are not safe to install, then require a new type of cable or place them in metallic raceways.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
Either the cables are safe to install or they are not safe to install. If they are not safe to install, then require a new type of cable or place them in metallic raceways.

This is a case of advantages outweighing the risks. The cost for "completely safe" cables or putting them all in metallic raceways would be prohibitive. The second best option is to minimize their use as much as possible and that's what the requirement to remove unused and unneeded cables seeks to address.

I agree that 1, 2 or even 50 abandoned cables among hundreds in use isn't going to matter very much but the Code can't address every possible situation. As a practical matter in such situations the abandoned cables probably won't get removed although they should. The real intent of this requirement is to addresss the generational buildup of abandoned wiring that occurs when tenant after tenant leaves their cabling behind.

-Hal
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
Abandoned cables need to be removed. period. I do not like the NEC exception re: tagging abandoned cables for "future use", but I don't have to like it. Leaving in existing cabling that has no real future use is, but marking it so, borderline negligence in my opinion. Now, who's responsible for pulling the abandonded cable is a matter for another discussion.

If the 50 unused cables are a real hazard, then the 500 in use cables is ten times the hazard.

May I ask a question? If you had to, by code, install 100 GFCIs, would you only install 90 of them? After all, we're talking about the same 10% increase in hazard. Or only use firestop on 90% of the penetrations you create in fire-rated assemblies?

Like Hal alluded to, I have been in buildings where 3 or 4 generations of phone and data cabling were installed, and none of the old, obsolete, abandonded cabling was removed. Aside from being typically nightmarish to work on, there have been a few cases where new cabling could not be installed until the old was removed.

My own thought is that if a fire ever reaches v/d/v cabling, the building and its occupants are already in serious trouble. In a fire, the carpet, furniture, and other combustibles are far more likely to kill a building's occupants than smoke given off from burning PVC catx jackets.

What I think matters not. Removing abandoned cabling is good practice. And it's code.

Looking at Chris's photos, the only tool one needs for that awful install is a pair of wire cutters. None of the cabling is "neat and workmanlike" (save what's left of the data rack). 800.21 doesn't apply: presumably, the ceiling tiles could be removed, though local codes here prevent any v/d/v cable from even touching the grid or tiles.

I would have to disagree with Hal in that cabling in conduit can *usually* be removed w/o damaging the structure of the building. If I'm wrong on that point, please feel free to correct me by citing the appropriate section(s) of the NEC or building codes that say otherwise.
 

TOOL_5150

Senior Member
Location
bay area, ca
FWIW, here are some pictures from the 3rd floor today. Please bear in mind that the new owner is paying for this demo.

800.21?

80025001.jpg


Previous owner takes the servers and walks away.

80025003.jpg


800.24?

80025004.jpg

If I lived in FL I would come and take it out for free... those cable management panels are worth more than they look.

~Matt
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
This is a case of advantages outweighing the risks. The cost for "completely safe" cables or putting them all in metallic raceways would be prohibitive. The second best option is to minimize their use as much as possible and that's what the requirement to remove unused and unneeded cables seeks to address.
-Hal
So you want to use a cost benefit approach to code life safety rules...I fully agree, but I really got hammered when I suggested such an approach to the AFCI rule.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
If the 50 unused cables are a real hazard, then the 500 in use cables is ten times the hazard.

May I ask a question? If you had to, by code, install 100 GFCIs, would you only install 90 of them? After all, we're talking about the same 10% increase in hazard. Or only use firestop on 90% of the penetrations you create in fire-rated assemblies?
I am saying that I would install all of the required GFCIs and that the code should be changed to prohibit a wiring method that is so dangerous that the abandoned cables have to be removed to make the building safe. There is zero logic in a code rule that says x number of cables not in use is a hazard so great that these cables must be removed, but x number of the same cables that are in use is not any type of hazard.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
I would have to disagree with Hal in that cabling in conduit can *usually* be removed w/o damaging the structure of the building. If I'm wrong on that point, please feel free to correct me by citing the appropriate section(s) of the NEC or building codes that say otherwise.

800.25. The cables are considered conceiled and not accessable.

-Hal
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
There is zero logic in a code rule that says x number of cables not in use is a hazard so great that these cables must be removed, but x number of the same cables that are in use is not any type of hazard.


I agree with you to a point: 400 abandoned cables have the same potential fire hazard as 400 in-use cables. And 4000 cables represents 10x the fuel load. The problem, which Hal pointed out, is that generations of cables often pile up, so the initial 400 cables becomes 800, 1200, and so on. If there is 1 abandonded cable among 400 in-use, no big deal. If there are 1600, then it's a much bigger problem.

No building can be 100% safe, but all buildings can be safer. Removing abandoned cables goes toward the latter.
 

hockd

Member
Abandoned Low Voltage Cable

Abandoned Low Voltage Cable

Thank you all for the feedback. The building is currently owned by us so there really isn't a lease issue, although as I said we are looking to donate it to Goodwill Industries. As we are facing very tough times due to the downturn and the bays we use typically run about $750 each installed on ground isolation kits etc, I was looking to reclaim them for a future job / addition somewhere else in the network.

Looks like in the phone room almost all my cable will have the typical 25 pair Amphenol connector and be terminated about 15 feet away on the MDF so I am feeling OK about leaving it.

Thank you for the consideration and taking time to answer my question.

Dennis Hock
 

nhfire77

Senior Member
Location
NH
Furthermore, if this was such an issue, why are PEX, CPVC, PVC, ABS, Corzan plumbing sytems and CPVC sprinkler pipe permitted to be used in commercial occupancies in many states?

I don't buy the "smoke load" argument either. I never have and I never will. :)

The smoke load is a something tangible they can point to, and it does not truly matter when the building is on fire. If, the wiring is cooking, no one is going to survive breathing the air in there, so you are right, Peter

However, when the drop ceiling falls down and the cable comes with it and gets all tangled up on top of the firefighter and he is stuck, now its a problem.

If the cable is independently supported (not just laying up on the tiles as a lot of existing is) then leave it!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top