unused/abandonned equipment

[RichB]

Hi again all,

Time for you folks to save me again:ashamed:.

Here is the situation;

On our plan sheets, mechanical drawings, it says to remove a piece of equipment ad all associated equipment.

It does NOT specify what associated equipment is nor do the plans specifically mention the conduit and wiring.

The contractor has removed the equipment and all the mechanical operators/indicators, leaving all the conduit wiring, safety switches, etc., in place arguing that nowhere does it say to remove the electrical equipment.

Our project office and I are saying that is covered by the "associated equipment" note, and needs to be removed back to at least the first used junction box.

I can't find anything in the NEC that mentions this, however I do remember, possibly incorrectly, somewhere it does or at least talks about unused openings?

Thanks for all the help!!

Rich

73 N7NEC

 

[jumper]

I can't find anything in the NEC that mentions this, however I do remember, possibly incorrectly, somewhere it does or at least talks about unused openings?

That would be 110.12(A), but it is for plugging unused openings in boxes, cabinets and such. No help for what you are trying to do.

Except for some chapter 7 wiring, the NEC does not care if unused equipment is left in place.

 

[Smart $]

Doesn't matter what the NEC says. What is important is what the contract says. If the only location where it says removed all associated equipment is on the mechanical drawings, then only mechanically associated equipment is covered. To remove all associated electrical equipment would require such being noted in the contract, or in specifications or electrical drawing incorporated by reference in the contract.

 

[petersonra]

I don't see how you can expect a contractor to demo stuff that is not in the contract. i would not see conduit and such things as part of the equipment either. Although I would be inclined to ask about it.

 

[Jraef]

Doesn't matter what the NEC says. What is important is what the contract says. If the only location where it says removed all associated equipment is on the mechanical drawings, then only mechanically associated equipment is covered. To remove all associated electrical equipment would require such being noted in the contract, or in specifications or electrical drawing incorporated by reference in the contract.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: I think any decent contract lawyer would interpret "associated equipment" to include anything related to that machinery or equipment that serves no other purpose. So if the circuits don't go to anything else, that makes them "associated".

That said, there is also wording in several places in the NEC about the need to remove abandoned circuit conductors, albeit they tend to be specific to types of circuits involved. For example:
374.7 Discontinued Outlets. When an outlet is abandoned,
discontinued, or removed, the sections of circuit
conductors supplying the outlet shall be removed from the
raceway.

 

[jumper]

That said, there is also wording in several places in the NEC about the need to remove abandoned circuit conductors, albeit they tend to be specific to types of circuits involved. For example:
374.7 Discontinued Outlets. When an outlet is abandoned,
discontinued, or removed, the sections of circuit
conductors supplying the outlet shall be removed from the
raceway.

Shoot, I forgot about those in floor cellular raceways.:slaphead:

 

[petersonra]

:thumbsup::thumbsup: I think any decent contract lawyer would interpret "associated equipment" to include anything related to that machinery or equipment that serves no other purpose. So if the circuits don't go to anything else, that makes them "associated".

That said, there is also wording in several places in the NEC about the need to remove abandoned circuit conductors, albeit they tend to be specific to types of circuits involved. For example:
374.7 Discontinued Outlets. When an outlet is abandoned,
discontinued, or removed, the sections of circuit
conductors supplying the outlet shall be removed from the
raceway.

I think if the OP cannot resolve this otherwise he will need to consult with a decent contract attorney. I think he may find that since he wrote the contract, disputes over wording that is ambiguous are generally going to be resolved in favor of the other party.

 

[RichB]

Thanks for the replies!!

That is what I think is going to happen--our outside designers and the project administrators are reading it as Jraef has suggested--which is how I did it when I was still working with the tools--but I worked for a company and we did everything in house--

and I think the final resolution is going to be as petersonra says--this is also how it traditionally turns out for us--just wanted to see if I was missing a reference somewhe110.12A was all I could find--

Thanks again!!!

Rich 73 N7NEC