|
Feature Article*
February 5, 2004
CLEAN-UP TIME: New National Electric Code Requires
the Removal of Abandoned Cabling
contributed by
Stephen Huss, Vertical Management and Garrett Burke, Esq.
The 2002 version of
the National Electrical Code (the “NEC”) now requires building
owners to remove dead and unused cable and wiring from the building’s
risers,
raceways, and air handling ducts. Building owners that do not do this
run the risk
of non-compliance. Given the length of lease terms, landlords
should begin to anticipate
the requirements of these new regulations, even where the 2002 NEC has
not yet been
adopted.
How do the new NEC changes on riser
cabling affect building owners and managers? It depends. The NEC is
advisory in nature. Each state or local jurisdiction acts locally to
adopt changes to the NEC or their local equivalents. A building owner
or manager will want to check the local code enforcement office to see
whether the 2002 changes have been adopted. For example, in Georgia,
the 2002 NEC was implemented as the Georgia Electrical Code as of
January 1, 2003. Dozens of buildings in the Atlanta area have already
been cited for NEC violations. The 2002 NEC is also the current code in
Colorado, New Jersey, and Indianapolis… to name a few.
The NEC governs equipment installed
within or on public and private buildings or other structures. It also
covers the conductors that connect the installations to a supply of
electricity, and other equipment on the premises, such as optical fiber
cable and telecommunications cables.
(Continued from Newsletter...)
Article 770 of the 2002 NEC now provides
that abandoned cable shall not be permitted to remain in
the building’s risers. “Abandoned cable” is defined as “installed
communications cable that is not terminated at both ends at a connector
or other equipment and not identified ‘For Future Use’ with a tag.”
Violation of these requirements can
result in non-compliance with applicable codes. The consequences of
being out of compliance will depend on the local jurisdiction and the
circumstances under which the non-compliance occurs. At the least, the
building owner runs the risk of being sanctioned. Worse, in the event
of a fire, burning material that should have been cleaned out may
contribute to property damage, personal injury, or death -- leaving the
parties that could have prevented the additional damage potentially
liable to the victims. In addition, the building’s lease obligations to
tenants, loan covenants to lenders, and insurance coverage itself may be
adversely affected by non-compliance with new NEC.
As an example of how one locality
intends to enforce the new requirements, we recently informally spoke
with officials of the City of Atlanta’s Bureau of Buildings Electrical
Division (BBED). It appears that the electrical inspectors will address
NEC Article 770 as part of other tasks, and not as a separate inspection
protocol. In other words, they do not intend to go looking for the
problem, but will address it as it is discovered in the process of
performing other inspections. Mr. Leon Dover, Chief Electrical
Inspector for the City of Atlanta made it clear that the department
considers leaving unused cabling in a building to be a fire hazard and
“toxic fuel loading.” Mr. Dover went on to state that the “BBED policy
is that it is code and a fire hazard and they (the building
owners/managers) need to remove it.”
Building owners and managers should
promptly attend to this dead cable situation if it existsand do what
ever is reasonably possible to bring their building up to the code or
they could be cited, fined or possibly held legally liable responsible
should a fire occur in the building. Even if the local code does not
require a cleanup, it may be prudent to begin addressing the matter as
tenants and telecommunications and other users of the risers seek to
install yet more runs of wiring or cable.
How big
is the problem? Vertical Management recently surveyed buildings in
Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Orlando and Indianapolis. The survey revealed
hundreds of thousands of abandoned wires and cables. Almost all of the
cable installations observed were unlabeled. Even a trained observer
could not readily determine who installed them, where they led, and even
whether they were still functioning. Often, the tenant that installed
the cable had long since left the building. In older buildings, wiring
and cable paths were often created on an ad hoc basis, since the
original building design never contemplated the vast array of
communications systems that now course through the typical office
building.
Building owners are now faced with the daunting task of cleaning out the
risers and raceways and taking firmer control of them in the future. It
is no longer simply a question whether there is enough room in the
plenum in which to stuff yet another run of cable.
Unfortunately, the building owners/managers are likely to be stuck with
the cost of removing the dead cables. As discussed in previous articles
(CRE Partners Newsletter, October 2003) and in a September 10, 2003
article in the New York Times Commercial Real Estate Section (“Landlords
and Tenants Wrestle with Wiring”), even if the owner has dealt with
riser use with some tenants (in the tenant’s lease) and in the “right of
entry” agreement with some of the telecommunications carriers, the
building is likely chock full of inactive cabling. In many cases, there
will be few enforceable tools to make someone other than the landlord
remove it. It may be possible to negotiate with a new user to clean up
some of the old wiring as a condition of installing new wiring, but the
owner may not have the leverage or, where the new Article 770 is in
effect, the luxury, of waiting until a new user comes along.
The amount of cable that may have to be removed can be massive. In one
building alone, a 25-year old, 500,000 square foot tower in Atlanta,
Georgia, the contractor removed over 20,000 pounds of abandoned
cable. And, it is critical to be sure that the abatement crew is
cutting the correct cables, out of the thousands of feet being removed.
If the wrong cable or fiber line is cut, the result to the affected
tenants could be lost days of communications capability and thousands
(or millions) of dollars in lost revenue.
The recommended course of action is to take action. Survey the risers
and get the abandoned cables out of there. This may seem complicated
and expensive, but it is better done now. Otherwise, the problem is
simply made worse by allowing more carriers to to install cabling
throughout the building’s telecommunications spaces.
Building owners
and managers should work with experienced contractors that specialize in
the identification and removal of dead and abandoned cable. You want to
be sure to know which cables are “hot” and which are “not” before
you break out the wire cutters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 Garrett C. Burke and Stephen M. Huss. All rights reserved. Mr.
Burke practices law in Alexandria, Virginia,
www.garrettcburke.com. He is licensed in
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Mr. Huss is
Co-Founder and President of
Vertical Management, LLC, a
riser audit, abatement, and management company based in Marietta,
Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other CRE Partners Articles on This Topic:
CRE
Partners Launches NEC Educational Series
"NEC Requires Removal of Abandoned Cable,
But Who Pays?"
By Nelson Migdal and Michael Beckwith, Holland & Knight
"Changes in National Electric Code Regarding
Abandoned Cabling"
By
Gerard L. Lederer, Esq., Miller & Van Eaton
"The Big Disconnect:
Who's Responsible for Abandoned Cabling
in Your Building? "
By
Manuel Fishman, Esq.
*CRE Partners is not responsible for the content, validity,
technical accuracy or other claims or information contained in this
article. Feature Articles are often authored by outside sources
and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of CRE Partners.
Further, publication of articles in the CRE Partners Newsletter and/or
web site is not meant to represent, promote, or endorse any company,
brand, product or solution.
|
