# abandoned conduit



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Not in my opinion. Although they may want a cover on the box.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

stillirnin said:


> If you have conduit left in place with no conductors in it 1 end attached to a box the other end open, would this be a violation ?


I say it is.



> 110.12 (A) Unused Openings. Unused openings, other than those
> intended for the operation of equipment, those intended for
> mounting purposes, or those permitted as part of the design
> for listed equipment, shall be closed to afford protection substantially
> ...


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> I say it is.



That applies to panels and equipment.....:whistling2:

He said conduit and box......never mentioned it being connected to a panel....


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> That applies to panels


I does not say panels in the article.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

The end should terminate in a box or be capped, cause bugs, mice, etc will get in it (and follow it to the gear or panel). I'm pretty sure its a violation.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> I does not say panels in the article.



It says equipment. Since when is a piece of conduit or a box equipment? Not only that but with a piece of conduit installed in a panel there is no "opening" that needs to be closed.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

wildleg said:


> The end should terminate in a box or be capped, cause bugs, mice, etc will get in it (and follow it to the gear or panel). I'm pretty sure its a violation.



He never said the conduit was connected to a panel.....


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

so it's connected to a box, and the box is connected to nothing ? oK, then you have conduit decorations; sure, no violation with that. Decorating with conduit is not covered under the NEC.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

jwjrw said:


> It says equipment. Since when is a piece of conduit or a box equipment? Not only that but with a piece of conduit installed in a panel there is no "opening" that needs to be closed.


Buy a code book. open it . start reading. start with ART 100 definitions . Slowly read definition of equipment. Then return .:thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> It says equipment. Since when is a piece of conduit or a box equipment? Not only that but with a piece of conduit installed in a panel there is no "opening" that needs to be closed.


Lets say that you have a 2" emt coming out of a panel to hit another panel 1' away now you remove that panel but you leave the pipe now you have a pipe coming out of that panel 1' and one end is open would that not be an unused opening?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> Buy a code book. open it . start reading. syart with ART 100 definitions . Slowlu read definition of equipment. Then return .:thumbsup:








Equipment in the context of the article Harry posted is specific.It even says walls of the enclosure in it.... Equipment as defined in article 100 is a general term. You are the biggest douche I have ever met. I take back what I said about being glad you are doing well. I hope your wife dumps you for your helper....


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Lets say that you have a 2" emt coming out of a panel to hit another panel 1' away now you remove that panel but you leave the pipe now you have a pipe coming out of that panel 1' and one end is open would that not be an unused opening?




No the opening refers to the EQUIPMENT. Read the article you posted Harry.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

jwjrw said:


> Equipment in the context of the article Harry posted is specific.It even says walls of the enclosure in it.... Equipment as defined in article 100 is a general term. You are the biggest douche I have ever met. I take back what I said about being glad you are doing well. I hope your wife dumps you for your helper....


Daddys boy you are so off base Harry posted the code reference for the OPs question you being the summers eve that you are tried to show how smart ass you were and said something stupid . Now you get upset when your stupidity is pointed out No wonder you couldn't start out on your own:whistling2:


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

jwjrw said:


> That applies to panels and equipment.....:whistling2:
> 
> He said conduit and box......never mentioned it being in a panel....


 Harry code reference applies to the OP


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

jwjrw said:


> That applies to panels and equipment.....:whistling2:
> 
> He said conduit and box......never mentioned it being in a panel....


 what do you think 'equipment "is look at the def in art 100 it covers boxes:no:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> Harry code reference applies to the OP



:no:

I can hang emt all over my building with unused openings all day long. Not a violation.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> what do you think 'equipment "is look at the def in art 100 it covers boxes:no:




The box has conduit in it. It is no longer an unused opening MORON.....:whistling2: I stated a cover might be required.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> Daddys boy you are so off base Harry posted the code reference for the OPs question you being the summers eve that you are tried to show how smart ass you were and said something stupid . Now you get upset when your stupidity is pointed out No wonder you couldn't start out on your own:whistling2:





Daddys boy? What you jealous I actually have a daddy that claims me?

Again douche bag the OP never said the conduit entered a panel. What harry posted says......* shall be closed to afford protection substantially
equivalent to the wall of the equipment.
*


Wall OF THE EQUIPMENT your an idiot.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> Daddys boy you are so off base Harry posted the code reference for the OPs question you being the summers eve that you are tried to show how smart ass you were and said something stupid . Now you get upset when your stupidity is pointed out No wonder you couldn't start out on your own:whistling2:


Cant you make your point without all the BS.


IMO JW has a good point as well and i think we can carry on the discussion without the personal "BS":furious:


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

jwjrw said:


> :no:
> 
> I can hang emt all over my building with unused openings all day long. Not a violation.


 so now you are deflecting Troll move:thumbsup:


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Cant you make your point without all the BS.
> 
> 
> IMO JW has a good point as well and i think we can carry on the discussion without the personal "BS":furious:


 sorry if i get a little pissed when someone calls me a duche .


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> so now you are deflecting Troll move:thumbsup:



Whatever. Fact remains if conduit is installed in a box or panel than the "opening" is closed. If you can't understand that then that gas station clerk job is still open. And again I am saying the op never stated the conduit was installed into an enclosure. *If it was then a box cover would make it legal.*


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> sorry if i get a little pissed when someone calls me a duche .




Sometimes the truth hurts......:whistling2: :thumbsup:


----------



## stillirnin (Jan 24, 2008)

Sorry I may have been to vague just been going through cleaning things up missing box covers,KO fillers,unterminated conductors etc. and there is some conduit left from various moves just thought could come into use again so why pull it down.So some are connected to a j-box with junctions going elswhere but no conductors in abandoned conduit and other end is open so wondered if it would need a box and cover still put on it or is ok due to no conductors.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

stillirnin said:


> If you have conduit left in place with no conductors in it 1 end attached to a box the other end open, would this be a violation ?


Here is the OP.

And here is my point

Lets say you have a 4" box with a KO missing.

Does the opening not need to be close by approved means..?

How does having a pipe regardless of length with one end open effectively close the opening in the box ?.

And if that is considered closed the you could just install a chase nipple and call it closed as well...Right???


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

stillirnin said:


> Sorry I may have been to vague just been going through cleaning things up missing box covers,KO fillers,unterminated conductors etc. and there is some conduit left from various moves just thought could come into use again so why pull it down.So some are connected to a j-box with junctions going elswhere but no conductors in abandoned conduit and other end is open so wondered if it would need a box and cover still put on it or is ok due to no conductors.


Ahj or fire dept here would want a box and cover if one end was in a panel.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Here is the OP.
> 
> And here is my point
> 
> ...


We are talking about 2 different situations. One conduit and box not connected. Legal no violation.Two connected to box no wire open conduit. Needs a box and cover


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> We are talking about 2 different situations. One conduit and box not connected. Legal no violation.Two connected to box no wire open conduit. Needs a box and cover


I agree if it is a box and a pipe that is not connected Electrically then it is no longer part of the Electrical system.

In that case we just racked up all these posts just for fun...:laughing::laughing::thumbup:


----------



## stillirnin (Jan 24, 2008)

which article covers this, thanx for feed back:thumbsup:


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

stillirnin said:


> If you have conduit left in place with no conductors in it 1 end attached to a box the other end open, would this be a violation ?


 Yes it would be a violation. See 110.12 (A) this section deals with unused openings. It states "shall be closed" Shall means you have to do it. The end of the conduit is an unused opening .


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I will say I've often seen open 3" and 4" stubs in electrical rooms that go back to energized gear/boxes for future.

It _might _violate 300.12, but I think that's a stretch. I don't think 110.12(A) applies. "Equipment" does not seem like it includes raceways.

Unless an inspector was breaking my balls about this, I honestly wouldn't give it two thoughts.

-John


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

Big John said:


> I will say I've often seen open 3" and 4" stubs in electrical rooms that go back to energized gear/boxes for future.
> 
> It _might _violate 300.12, but I think that's a stretch. I don't think 110.12(A) applies. "Equipment" does not seem like it includes raceways.
> 
> ...


 Art 100 definitions gives "equipment" a broad range to include "material". If i were doing a job to "code" then I would close the conduits. Now would an inspector pass or fail that would be up to the inspector. But if they failed it art 110.12 would be the cited code.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> Art 100 definitions gives "equipment" a broad range to include "material"...


 It's true "equipment" is not well defined, but that definition doesn't include the word "material."


> *Equipment.* A general term, including fittings, devices, appliances,
> luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like used as a
> part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.


 And if you look at how "equipment" is used throughout the code, it doesn't appear to describe raceways. Articles 344 and 358 only use the word "equipment" when describing something the conduit connects to.

I just don't think 110.12(A) is meant to apply to open conduit.

-John


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

Big John said:


> It's true "equipment" is not well defined, but that definition doesn't include the word "material." And if you look at how "equipment" is used throughout the code, it doesn't appear to describe raceways. Articles 344 and 358 only use the word "equipment" when describing something the conduit connects to.
> 
> I just don't think 110.12(A) is meant to apply to open conduit.
> 
> -John


 08 code book still used the word material. I don't view the code from a 'what I think " standpoint but from a what does it say. i remember when AFCI breakers became a requirement some said the didn't think smokes need to be put on the but when you read the article and went to the definition of "outlet" it was pretty clear.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> ...I don't view the code from a 'what I think " standpoint but from a what does it say....


 We _all _view the code from a "what I think" standpoint because we're trying to interpret something we didn't write. My interpretation isn't the same as yours, but that doesn't make it less valid. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

-John


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Big John said:


> We _all _view the code from a "what I think" standpoint because we're trying to interpret something we didn't write. My interpretation isn't the same as yours, but that doesn't make it less valid. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> -John


No it does.....or it doesn't .. but it could...:laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Big John said:


> It's true "equipment" is not well defined, but that definition doesn't include the word "material." And if you look at how "equipment" is used throughout the code, it doesn't appear to describe raceways. Articles 344 and 358 only use the word "equipment" when describing something the conduit connects to.


IMO almost everything we install is equipment.



> I just don't think 110.12(A) is meant to apply to open conduit.


I agree.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> I don't view the code from a 'what I think " standpoint but from a what does it say.


Who reads it to you?


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Who reads it to you?


 your boyfriend.:whistling2:


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

Here in MS, we are on the 2008 code cycle. The def. here is "A general term, including material, fittings, devices, appliances, luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation." Most jobs I have been on have required a covered box, or at the very least a cap or plug on the end of the abandoned run, or any conduits entering either panels or switchgear earmarked for "future use".

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> your boyfriend.:whistling2:


:no:


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

BTW, that very definition is in the 2005 and 2011 NEC. Just had to check for myself! Y'all have a good one...

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

BBQ said:


> IMO almost everything we install is equipment....


 Some of the CMP might agree with you. I found this interesting:


> *Recommendation:* Revise text to read as follows:
> _Equipment._ A general term, including conductors, cables, raceways, boxes, fittings, devices, appliances, luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like used as part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.
> *Substantiation:* By removing the word “material” and replacing it with “conductors, cables, raceways, boxes”, we now have a solid definition of what material is. This is just one step in my attempt to change the definition of equipment into something that is clearly understood and defined by other terms in Article 100. Please see my additional changes for this definition.
> *Panel Meeting Action:* Reject
> ...


 So, maybe almost everything is "equipment." But looking for examples, it never seems to apply to conductors or raceways, so I'm still on the fence.

-John


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

So a fitting, like an EMT coupling is equipment but the raceway it couples is not?:jester:




> *Equipment.* A general term, including material, fittings,
> devices, appliances, luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and
> the like used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical
> installation.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

BBQ said:


> So a fitting, like an EMT coupling is equipment but the raceway it couples is not?:jester:


 Stupid fittings! This takes me back to one of my very first posts here! I posted this picture:








...Trying to figure out if it's technically legal. The conduit does terminate in "fittings" so it may be. If "fittings" are also technically equipment, then I can't disagree with you, conduit would be, too.

-John


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

Am fairly new on here, John... Is this a three phase service going into switchgear? Looks to me like they could have flexed on into the cabinet if they were short on space and needed a little flexibility!

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

Put some duct tape over the other end.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

jmsmith said:


> Am fairly new on here, John... Is this a three phase service going into switchgear? Looks to me like they could have flexed on into the cabinet if they were short on space and needed a little flexibility!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


Depending on where this was located, it might be legal


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

Yeah, I can see that. Even though art. 300 states that conduit is to be run as a "complete system", I saw there was an exception even to this. My bad!
- Jim

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## joethemechanic (Sep 21, 2011)

Hook a hose to it and tell him it's for fire supression


----------



## rogimor (Nov 15, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> It says equipment. Since when is a piece of conduit or a box equipment? Not only that but with a piece of conduit installed in a panel there is no "opening" that needs to be closed.


wow! I am not sure If I am the only apprentice here. :huh:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

rogimor said:


> wow! I am not sure If I am the only apprentice here. :huh:


You obvisouly are. As I stated I don't think this article was meant to apply to conduit. My Ahj agrees with me. That's all I care about.......also I stated equipment is a general term (yes by definition it includes "materials") and I stated the op never said the conduit was terminated in a panel. I said a box and cover would be required if it did.


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

jwjrw said:


> You obvisouly are. As I stated I don't think this article was meant to apply to conduit. My Ahj agrees with me. That's all I care about.......also I stated equipment is a general term (yes by definition it includes "materials") and I stated the op never said the conduit was terminated in a panel. I said a box and cover would be required if it did.


IMO, you would be right on this. IF THE CONDUIT ENTERS A LIVE PANEL, it is to be either boxed or capped-off. This would would be the same as using a knockout plug in the panel if the empty conduit is removed. NO DUCT TAPE, especially if it not a residential job... If AHJ doesn't get you on this, OSHA definitely might if they come in on a site inspection.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## electricgregoryo (Oct 17, 2011)

110.12 (a) does not mention panels but it does state permitted as part oof the design for listed equipment, SHALL be closed to afford protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment.


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

A panel usually falls under "listed equipment" (at least that is what I was taught). As for the openings you are referring to, these are for mounting or others designed for equipment ventilation. These openings are the only ones DO NOT fall under 110.12(A).


----------



## MarkyMark (Jan 31, 2009)

I can't count the number of times I've stubbed extra empty conduits out of a panel to above the drop ceiling. 

If this was a violation, you would think an inspector would have written it up at least once out of the hundreds of times I've done it.


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

MarkyMark said:


> I can't count the number of times I've stubbed extra empty conduits out of a panel to above the drop ceiling.
> 
> If this was a violation, you would think an inspector would have written it up at least once out of the hundreds of times I've done it.


I am not saying that it is a violation to stub-up spares from a panel... It has just been my experiences (on some jobs) with either AHJ or OSHA having me to add this to my punch list before final job inspections.


----------

