Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

[joe tedesco]

Please download the NEC
Comment Form here:

http://joetedesco.com/nec/NEC05Comment.pdf

If you agree please use
these words and send the
comment to the address
provided:

110.12(D). Unused Defective, Discontinued and Abandoned Electrical Equipment: Unused defective, discontinued and abandoned electrical equipment shall be permanently tagged and identified at all terminations and junction points as being a potential electrical shock hazard.

If required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, unused defective and abandoned electrical equipment shall be removed from all readily accessible areas, or shall be insulated from contact.

Alternate Comment

http://electrical-contractor.net/jt/11012D.jpg

[ September 13, 2003, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: joe tedesco ]

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

Here is the SUBSTANTIATION:

The reasons in the 2005 NEC ROP Proposal 1-145 are very clear: The NFPA National Fire Codes already covers this situation. See similar requirements here.

See NFPA 76 and 914 identified below.

NFPA 76, 9.10.2 Where practical, unused or dead cable should be mined (removed) and discarded.

Care should be taken during the removal process so as to protect the existing live cables from damage. All cables that have been cut and abandoned in place should be capped.

A.1.3.2 Alterations or new installations in existing facilities should not diminish the level of protection below that which existed prior
to the alteration except that protection features in excess of those features recommended in this document can be left in service, removed, or abandoned in place. If abandoned in place, such systems should be clearly identified as no longer being in service.

NFPA 914, 9.7.4

Permanent wiring abandoned in place shall be tagged or otherwise identified at its termination and junction points as ?Abandoned in Place,? or it shall be removed from all accessible areas and insulated from contact with other live electrical wiring or devices.

The proposal was not a "Flimsy Argument" and there was a great deal of justification presented in the original proposal 1-145 for this new rule in the NEC, and it cannot be ignored considering its impact to the safety of those who may be subjected to hazards in many public places!

 

[bennie]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

Do you have any statistics of the hazards created by abandonded wiring and material?

Do you believe abandoned, de energized conductors are in the scope of the electrical code?

Abandoned material is considered to be in the trade jurisdiction of the laborers in union agreements. Laborers can demolish unused electrical material, wiring, fixtures, and panels.

This activity will not be awarded to electricians, so it is a moot subject to be in a code requirement.

[ September 13, 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: bennie ]

 

[Guest]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

IMHO everybody should make
a good faith effort to strip out unused
wiring-- or put it to use. If it's practical to remove it: Remove it.

I am reminded of the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act). They use the term "reasonable" accommodations.

I like the idea of removing unused electrical equipment unless removal would cause an economic hardship. The default would be to remove, but the AHJ could decide that you don't have to. Make it a policy but have an escape clause for special circumstances. It's not all black & white. It can't be written in stone. I support the concept, but I don't know how to write it.

[ September 13, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[curt swartz]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

Wayne

The large text in Joe's post is actually a .jpg image.
http://electrical-contractor.net/jt/11012D.jpg

 

[Guest]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

Got it. Thanks. That explains it.

../Wayne C.

[ September 13, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

Joe,
I don't understand. An abandoned untagged cable is a hazard of some type, but the same cable tagged "Abandoned in Place" is not a hazard!!!!!
Don

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

First this is nonsense. Second why leave it up to the AHJ to decide if it must be removed or not? Either spell it out in the code or don't. Why create another "gray area"?

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

OK, so the last two poster's have issues with the idea, so we should just leave this alone and let the hazards keep building up without any rule to enforce!

I am only trying to get something into the NEC that is going to settle the problem.

Please don't tell me there are no problems.

I expect to see a lot of support in the form of public comments to get this so called flimsy argument settled. What would the words look like if you chose to write the rule. Make so good use of your time. The comment period ends October 31, 2003.

I am really looking for qualifed replies by those who really understand the issues.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

Ok please help me understand the issue then. I agree with Don and Bennie but am open minded enough to hear of actual problems that this causes. Also I have a huge problem with any NEC rule that has this wording "If required by the AHJ..." Why even bother. It is either a requirement or it isn't. I thought the NEC was to be interpreted and enforced by the AHJ. This gives them the authority to make their own code as they wish. Knowing some of these inspectors it is only asking for trouble.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

Joe,
Help me understand. If the accumulation of cables is really a hazard, how does the application of a tag to the cable end mitigate the hazard?
Don

 

[russellroberts]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

I can see instances where old wires and equipment might cause some confusion. But not sure about a hazard.

I also would be leery of leaving it to the inspector's disgression. That could mean that no 2 inspectors in a row would see it the same.

Tear it all out or don't do anything.

Russell

 

[bennie]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

If the building owner wants to collect all kinds of cable in the attic he should be able to do it.

The more rules, the less permits and inspections. Owners will do remodel without permits.

There is a name for over regulating the public, it is called violation of constitutional rights.

I know there is a sufficient number of qualified individuals, on this forum, with adaquate experience to make a logical call on this issue.

 

[cselectric]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

I'm afraid I too need some clarification on this issue. To a certain point I understand, but it would seem that your wording may go beyond a resonable level by way of it's general nature.

If we look at NFPA 914 9.7.4 we find the following " and insulated from contact with other live electrical wiring or devices." As far as it goes, this concept makes sense. An abandoned circuit, especially a damaged one, that has been disconnected from it's CB but coul;d be reconnected because the wiring is simply coiled up in the panel, could be construed as a hazard.

However, the statement "it shall be removed from all accessible areas " found both in the 914 text and your proposal leads us into an entirely different stretch of road. I would take that to mean that any wiring not in use, located anywhere that can be readily accessed must be removed or tagged. To that I ask; what is the inherant danger of a piece of electrical equipment, not connected in any way to a power source, nor readily connectable to same? is a pipe or cable run, dead on both ends and isolated by distance form any power sources intinsically dangerous? If so, how?

Sure, it can be a nuisance to have to weed through years of cable and pipe above a ceiling all of which is essentially garbage. Certainly the abandoned equipment at ground level, as shown in many of your photos, is an eyesore. But how is it an immediate danger, and who makes that decision? By the wording of your proposal, the AHJ would be the decision maker. Is it likely that an inspector is going to research a system to decide if it poses a risk? Or is it more likely that the AHJ will stick with a blanket ruling, play it safe and require everythig to be removed every time, thus creating a wealth of unecessary work?

If this were to hit code, I'd prefer to see wording along the lines of "all defective or permanently abandoned electrical equipment shall be adequately guarded from being reenrgized"

(yes I know I've landed a lot of vague, undefined terminology on that plate. But, that on came from the hip. Think of it more as a starting point than a final work. I'll put some serious thought into it and revise accordingly.)

 

[bennie]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

This would be an unenforcable issue. A building owner would only have to indicate the cables are for future use. There would be no credible, or legal argument otherwise.

As far as an identification, the cable identifies itself by its construction. Anyone who can not determine the status or purpose of cables and wires, should get off the ladder and get a night job.

 

[russ]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

I agree with Joe!
There should be some code to keep contractors from piling cable systems on top of cable systems, especially the systems installed without permits, that aren't anchored properly, and are scattered all over like spaghetti.

If needed to get it passed, make it black and white. You could wright it like it is in the 2000 Chicago Code.

All raceways,cables, boxes, and equipment abandoned as a result of new work shall be removed in dwelling and commercial occupancies.

This may leave it up to the AHJ to decide whether the cables in question are truly abandoned or not. Scary thought to some.

Russ

 

[david]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

110.12(D). Unused Defective, Discontinued and Abandoned Electrical Equipment: Unused defective, discontinued and abandoned electrical equipment shall be removed and insulated from the source of electric supply.

 

[bennie]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

David: What code book are you quoting?

 

[cselectric]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

I think he was making a suggestion Bennie. FWIW it sounds a lot more reasonable than the original text tendered by Joe. If nothing else, the concept of isolation from electrical sources could be argued as a safety issue within the scope of the NEC. The initial concept of mining all electrical equipment, regardless of the potential for reenrgizing wold seem to land outside of the NEC's scope.

 

[hurk27]

Re: Comment for 2005 NEC in the Interest of Safety

After a mishap about ten years ago I now cut the ends of the wire off as to not let any one be able to re-hook them up we did a rewire of an old farm house and we were done but a bulb must of went bad in a light in a upstairs hall and the home owner who was a cantankerous person decided to go and look in the attic thinking we must of left something unhooked he found a j-box that had a few extra wires in it and decided to wire them in to the circuit that was in this box. about an hour later he was calling the fire department to extinguish the fire in his attic one of these wires was an old ground going to a water pipe and was a old dry rotted lamp cord that was used as a ground. he had hooked it to a switch leg going to the light and because of the length of the wire it didn't trip the breaker it just sat up there and smoldered. So I don't even second guess it. Just make it unusable