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.
[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 08-10-2003).]
Please review this revised version of Proposal 1-145 and make suggestions or comments in favor, or not in favor!
Thanks for your consideration. The comment closing date is October 31, 2003
Mr. Tedesco:
Perhaps the permanently tagged an identified equipment should include the date taken out of service and specific reason why (defective, abandoned, discontinued, etc.)?
Do you feel there would be a need to test (using a Megger) electrical equipment that has been discontinued for a certain amount of time before being placed back into use?
OK, Thanks How Does this sound??
110.12(D) Defective Discontinued Electrical Equipment
(1) Where accessible, unused defective and damaged, or obsolete electrical equipment, shall be removed from service and discarded.
(2) Discontinued electrical equipment shall be permanently tagged as being discontinued at all terminations and junction points. All discontinued conductors shall be removed from their terminations, and all free ends of conductors shall be covered with an insulation equivalent to that of the conductors.
FPN: Obsolete Equipment is equipment that does not meet current electrical testing standards or the requirements of this Code.
This is a bit of a grey area. I hope that proposals are carefully considered by code officials. “Life extension” is becoming a larger part of the electrical business these days. Case in point—ANSI/IEEE Std C37.59–2002 Standard Requirements for Conversion of Power Switchgear Equipment allows for and outlines rework of switchgear with related ‘design verification’ and documentation of the process.
What should be considered as ‘discontinued’—energized but with no load, or does it have to be deenergized? How should ‘obsolete’ be defined? Why ‘discarded’ and not rebuilt? Reinstallation and reuse of rebuilt electrical components seem to be at an all-time high given the current less-than-rosy state of business.
The idea behind publications like C37.59 is to formally attempt to cover the bases to allow gear to be returned to service given careful modifcation and evaluation of reinstalled gear, where wholesale replacement is not practical or economically possible.
I am not totally against the proposed changes, but possibly a few issues should be more carefully addressed.
Joe,
I just don't understand. It appears that the substantiation for the rule in NFPA 1 must say that the existence of the abandoned cable is a hazard. If so how is this hazard abated by placing a tag on the conductors that says "abandoned in place"? Does this tag prevent the production of toxic smoke in the event of a fire? How does the existence of a tag improve safety?
Don
Nice jihad Joe but i just can't see focusing on something inactive when the better half of what is active goes without due process.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/jt/11012D.jpg)