Code violation ?

[djohns6]

Is it a violation to block access to an unused receptacle by placing a file cabinet in front of it ? This is a commercial property ( office building ) .

 

[al hildenbrand]

Is it a violation to block access to an unused receptacle by placing a file cabinet in front of it ? This is a commercial property ( office building ) .

It's not a NEC violation. The receptacle and its outlet box are accessible without removing part of the structure, and the file cabinet, though heavy, can certainly have its drawers taken out to slide it out of the way.

 

[djohns6]

Thanks for the reply Al . I'm having a little disagreement with our safety department over a file room . They made us remove all of the file cabinets because they were against the wall and covering up the receptacles . Said it was against the NEC . The receptacles were not used btw . Wouldn't be the first time Safety got it wrong .

 

[Hendrix]

Thanks for the reply Al . I'm having a little disagreement with our safety department over a file room . They made us remove all of the file cabinets because they were against the wall and covering up the receptacles . Said it was against the NEC . The receptacles were not used btw . Wouldn't be the first time Safety got it wrong .

:?:? So........every office has the file cabs. in the middle of the room?

 

[djohns6]

Most of the file cabinets are in areas that were specifically designated for them so there were no receptacles on those walls . This room was wired with receptacles like a normal office space . I know it's a minor thing but the " Safety Department " carries a big stick as you can imagine . Hard to win an arguement with them .

 

[petersonra]

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.

110.26 (A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating
at 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to
require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance
while energized shall comply with the dimensions of
110.26(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted
elsewhere in this Code.

is a receptacle equipment as defined by the code?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Ask the inspector if he would fail a receptacle that is placed behind the refrig.

 

[petersonra]

Ask the inspector if he would fail a receptacle that is placed behind the refrig.

how does it become a non-violation by asking the inspector? it either is or is not a violation.

In any case, I am not convinced that anything that gets moved in front of equipment after the fact is a violation of the NEC.

if it is a workplace, it might well be an OSHA issue.

 

[charlie b]

I would say that a receptacle is not "equipment," in the context of the NEC definition, and it is certainly not likely to require maintenance while energized. So 110.26 is not a player.

I agree with Al. 314.29 allows this installation.

 

[petersonra]

I would say that a receptacle is not "equipment," in the context of the NEC definition, and it is certainly not likely to require maintenance while energized. So 110.26 is not a player.

I agree with Al. 314.29 allows this installation.

Not to be a PITA, but if fittings and devices are equipment how is a receptacle not equipment?

I agree 314.29 allows the installation in the wall.

I don't see how 314.29 has anything to do whatsoever with working space.

As for required to be worked on while energized, I think a good argument can be made that virtually anything can be deenergized to work on it. However, as I understand the rules, it is considered energized work to test to see if a circuit is deenergized, so how would you ever be able to work on anything deenergized since the process of deenergizing it requires you to work on it energized first?

 

[al hildenbrand]

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Not to be a PITA, but if fittings and devices are equipment how is a receptacle not equipment?

I agree 314.29 allows the installation in the wall.

I don't see how 314.29 has anything to do whatsoever with working space.

As for required to be worked on while energized, I think a good argument can be made that virtually anything can be deenergized to work on it. However, as I understand the rules, it is considered energized work to test to see if a circuit is deenergized, so how would you ever be able to work on anything deenergized since the process of deenergizing it requires you to work on it energized first?

If "Safety" is going to invoke 110.26 Working Space for a receptacle outlet behind a file cabinet, then it must be enforced for a receptacle outlet at any desk, a receptacle outlet at a workbench, a receptacle outlet at the break time countertop, a receptacle outlet for a refrigerator, drinking fountain, etc.

The simple observational proof of all the commercial and industrial receptacle outlets installed in North America are the incontrovertible evidence that 110.26 does not apply to receptacle outlets.

 

[charlie b]

Just to keep this on track, the original question was not about working space. It was about blocking access. If there were an item (e.g., a branch circuit panel) that required working space, then blocking access to the panel by putting a file cabinet in front of it would be a violation. Receptacles are not among the things that require working clearance. So blocking access with a file cabinet would not violate 110.26. This is also not a violation of 314.29, since the owner or tenant can gain access without having to remove part of the building.

 

[charlie b]

Not to be a PITA, but if fittings and devices are equipment how is a receptacle not equipment?

I think I have to give you that one. The definition of equipment includes "devices," and I would call a receptacle a device. But I will stand by my assertion that it is not likely to require maintenance while energized.

 

[petersonra]

Just to keep this on track, the original question was not about working space. It was about blocking access. If there were an item (e.g., a branch circuit panel) that required working space, then blocking access to the panel by putting a file cabinet in front of it would be a violation. Receptacles are not among the things that require working clearance. So blocking access with a file cabinet would not violate 110.26. This is also not a violation of 314.29, since the owner or tenant can gain access without having to remove part of the building.

110.26 does not use the work "panel" when discussing what requires working space. it says equipment.

the definition of equipment appears to include receptacles to me.

I agree it is a bit absurd, but there is no rule in the NEC that says you can ignore any absurd requirements found there.

 

[GoldDigger]

I agree it is a bit absurd, but there is no rule in the NEC that says you can ignore any absurd requirements found there.

That would have to be a local amendment.
But usually they go in the opposite direction.

 

[jim dungar]

110.26 does not use the work "panel" when discussing what requires working space. it says equipment.

the definition of equipment appears to include receptacles to me.

I agree it is a bit absurd, but there is no rule in the NEC that says you can ignore any absurd requirements found there.

Then all counter top receptacles mounted in the back splash are in violation.
Not to mention those behind stoves as well as the previously mentioned refrigerator ones.

 

[GoldDigger]

Then all counter top receptacles mounted in the back splash are in violation.
Not to mention those behind stoves as well as the previously mentioned refrigerator ones.

I once made the big mistake of putting a bookcase in front of a GFCI receptacle that fed another, accessible, receptacle downstream. (Old house, GFCI for ungrounded circuits.)
Had to get out the MultiTool to make a hole in the back of the bookcase. (Too heavy to move comfortably)

 

[petersonra]

Then all counter top receptacles mounted in the back splash are in violation.
Not to mention those behind stoves as well as the previously mentioned refrigerator ones.

so the problem is the definition of equipment which needs to be revised to exclude receptacles.

 

[KWH]

Would they accept removing the outlets and blanking off considering there not required by code.

 

[petersonra]

Would they accept removing the outlets and blanking off considering there not required by code.

I think the point is we all think it is silly to require working space around a receptacle.

However, I at least, think it is (arguably) required by the code. I think there are far worse things in most places to worry about safety wise.