7

The question pretty much sums it up. I nailed through a live wire in my ceiling. Rather than splice it and install a jbox, I ran a new run to the outlet. However, I took a slightly different route that did not require any additional cuts into the drywall.

I will be leaving the dead run in the ceiling. Are there any guidelines or code I need to follow to still be within compliance? For example, do a cut the wire ends clean? Tape them up and label them? Also, do I need to remove the dead wire from the outlet box or can that be cut and/or taped up?

Tester101
  • 130,386
  • 77
  • 314
  • 605
SBerg413
  • 519
  • 8
  • 14
  • 22

2 Answers2

8

There's nothing in National Electrical Code about removing abandoned electrical cable. If it's communication, television, radio, etc. cable, you have to remove the accessible portion of the cables. If it's wire in a raceway (conduit, cables trays, etc.), you do have to remove it.

Connecting the ungrounded (hot), grounded (neutral), and grounding conductors together is a common practice (one which I've recommended before). However, it relies on the breaker functioning properly, in the event the line is ever energized in the future. The safer practice is to cap each wire separately, and label the wires as abandoned at both ends.

Tester101
  • 130,386
  • 77
  • 314
  • 605
7

It's acceptable to leave wire in the walls. The only thing you need to do is leave the ends exposed in boxes and wire nut and tape the to legs together. That will indicate to an electrician what's going on, and if someone does try to tie into them in the future it will just pop the breaker.

  • Can you cite a source for the procedure you describe? – Tester101 Sep 06 '14 at 19:42
  • NEC 300.15 would be appropriate. –  Sep 06 '14 at 21:40
  • @benrudgers If the wiring is abandoned, it's no longer covered by NEC. It's not an outlet, switch point, splice, junction, termination, or pull point. – Tester101 Sep 06 '14 at 22:43
  • 2
    NFPA 70 [NEC] `Article 90-2(a) Covered This code covers the following. (1) Installation of electric conductors and equipment...`. Abandoned work is not among the items in `(b) Not Covered`. Note also that like any other construction component, conductors in the walls are also covered by the model building codes (e.g. IRC). Keep in mind that one person's "abandoned conductors" are another person's future conductors. This is undoubtedly why the NEC does not exempt [either of] them. –  Sep 07 '14 at 03:53
  • @benrudgers What I'm saying, is that there are no clearly defined guidelines as to how to handle this situation. To say "*The only thing you **need** to do*" is incorrect, because the only thing you **need** to do is nothing. – Tester101 Sep 08 '14 at 11:53
  • @Tester101 What I am saying is that anything involving `conductors` is covered by NEC `90-1(a)` unless listed in `90-2(b)`. For example, the NEC covers conductors while they are sitting on a spool in a warehouse in regard to diameter, labeling, listing, etc. Furthermore, the Building Code covers every thing in the wall [and then delegates some of the requirements to the NEC and other codes and standards]. This is why filling a wall with grass clippings or monkey poop would not meet code despite "grass clippings" and "monkey poop" not appearing in the index. –  Sep 08 '14 at 14:53
  • 2
    @benrudgers My pots and pans are "conductors", hell I'm a "conductor". Does the NEC cover me, and my pots and pans? There's nothing in the NEC that says what to do with abandoned electrical cable. – Tester101 Sep 08 '14 at 15:15
  • @Tester101 As I recommended to the person asking the question, it is a good idea to talk with the electrical inspector responsible for approving the permitted work. The codes are written for professionals and even then are complex enough that they may be difficult to understand. The unlikelihood of a non-professional understanding the codes more technical aspects is why all US states and similar jurisdictions license design professionals in the building trade and limit the scope of what can be designed by non-professionals. –  Sep 08 '14 at 15:45
  • @Tester101 Re: pots and pans. If you are connecting pots and pans to your electrical system, let me know; copper is really expensive, so I'd like to learn from your experience. But seriously, like any regulatory document, there are elements of reasonableness baked in. And ultimately, lawyers, judges, & arbitrators have the authority to interpret these things, and they aspire to be reasonable. :) From what I've read, NEC's definition of conductor is/was not explicitly defined, but if you have something that conducts electricity in your walls, it is reasonably fair game to call it a conductor. – David J. Mar 03 '23 at 18:31