# IMC Abandoned equipment?



## steveray (May 6, 2015)

Any requirements that anyone knows of for removing abandoned HVAC equipment? Didn't see anything in the 2003 IMC. I have a commercial building completely replacing their heating and cooling systems and they are leaving the existing air handlers and boilers in place...I don't have a big issue with it, just seems odd....Thanks!


----------



## fatboy (May 6, 2015)

None that I know of!


----------



## JBI (May 6, 2015)

Have you checked the Fire or Property Maintenance Codes?


----------



## north star (May 6, 2015)

*= % = % =*



From the `12 IPMC,  *Section 603.1 - Mechanical appliances:*

*"All"* mechanical appliances, fireplaces,  solid fuel-burning appliances, cooking

appliances and water heating appliances  shall be properly installed and

maintained in a safe working condition, and  shall be capable of performing

the intended function." 

There is no Exception for abandoned equipment.



I guess that you could [ try to  ] play hard ball with them and have them

properly maintained or thoroughly removed.   :devil

*= % = % =*


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 6, 2015)

A] 108.7 Unsafe mechanical systems.

A mechanical system that is unsafe, constitutes a fire or health hazard, or is otherwise dangerous to human life, as regulated by this code, is hereby declared as an unsafe mechanical system. Use of a mechanical system regulated by this code constituting a hazard to health, safety or welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, fire hazard, disaster, damage or abandonment is hereby declared an unsafe use. Such unsafe equipment and appliances are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal.

It might be a stretch but if it needs to be taken out of service it is probably unsafe and beyond repair so demo the equipment so it cannot be put back in service or remove it. Now some older boilers are the size of a small locomotive engine and may even weigh more so it may be a case by case on how far you want to push it. Just make sure it can't be put back in service.


----------



## ICE (May 6, 2015)

owner or tenant?


----------



## Builder Bob (May 7, 2015)

additional dead load to structure.......... firefighters enemy


----------



## JBI (May 7, 2015)

*308.1 Accumulation of rubbish or garbage.  *

All _exterior property _and _premises, _and the interior of every structure, shall be free from any accumulation of _rubbish _or garbage.

Abandoned equipment is *rubbish*.


----------



## steveray (May 7, 2015)

No PMC, I haven't checked the fire code yet.....

MT, which code is that from?

ICE....I believe it is owner and tenant.....


----------



## mark handler (May 7, 2015)

Another  streach define it as defective

301.14Repair.*Defective material or parts shall be replaced or repaired in such a manner so as to preserve the original approval or listing.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 7, 2015)

> MT, which code is that from?


2006, 2009 and 2012 IMC

Here is something from the IFC. May not help with this specific post but may be used for other situations

3304.2 Waste disposal.

Combustible debris shall not be accumulated within buildings. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall not be disposed of by burning on the site unless approved.


----------



## mark handler (May 7, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2006, 2009 and 2012 IMCHere is something from the IFC. May not help with this specific post but may be used for other situations
> 
> 3304.2 Waste disposal.
> 
> Combustible debris shall not be accumulated within buildings. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall not be disposed of by burning on the site unless approved.


Hard to claim a heat pump. a Combustible


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 7, 2015)

Mark

I agree with the equipment part which is what the OP was asking. However flex duct, duct board, romex wiring, pvc and a number of other items that get abandonded during remodels could be considered.


----------



## mark handler (May 7, 2015)

But is that defined as equipment


----------



## steveray (May 7, 2015)

Not looking to stretch to get anything removed, but I can see it getting ugly at some point with people wanting to spend as little as possible....


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 7, 2015)

mark handler said:
			
		

> But is that defined as equipment


We also do the fire prevention and use the fire code in our building department. If there is construction activity then combustible debris cannot be left within the building.

IFC

_3304.2 Waste disposal._

_Combustible debris shall not be accumulated within buildings. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall not be disposed of by burning on the site unless approved._


----------



## north star (May 8, 2015)

*& ~ ~ & ~ ~ &*







> I have a commercial building completely replacing their heating and  cooling systems and they are leaving the existing air handlers and  boilers in place... "


So I'm guessing that any recycle profits will be less than the costto remove the pieces of equipment  ?

Also, ...if they are installing new equipment, are there any clearance

issues involved to the abandoned equipment or other building

features ?

*& ~ ~ & ~ ~ &*


----------



## FM William Burns (May 8, 2015)

If these are not roof top abandoned pieces of large volume HVAC equipment and there were no access issues or obstructions to other mechanical or fire protection equipment, we would most likely allow it to remain using the cost v. effect and the choosing battles risk analysis approach.


----------



## Mark K (May 17, 2015)

Nothing prevents the owner of the building from classifying the abandoned equipment as artwork.  It is no longer equipment.  So unless there is a problem with hazardous waste or inadequate clearances there is no problem.


----------



## ICE (May 17, 2015)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Nothing prevents the owner of the building from classifying the abandoned equipment as artwork.  It is no longer equipment.  So unless there is a problem with hazardous waste or inadequate clearances there is no problem.


That argument pops up now and then.  It is ridiculous.


----------



## Paul Sweet (May 18, 2015)

I have seen very few mechanical rooms that have enough space to add new equipment without removing the existing.  I suppose it can remain if the room is big enough and they can provide necessary service access and clearances, but the maintenance people will becussing them out forever!


----------

