Cord Reel Use / Fire Code Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim Jim Jim

Member
Location
CA
A local retail store has several processing tables in center of the back room. They needed a receptacle outlet there. The configuration of tables is flexible - they get moved around. Floor is concrete slab.

My solution was to extend a GFCI protected circuit via 1/2" EMT to a 4S box mounted to the ceiling joists above the center of the tables' location. I wired a duplex receptacle there and mounted a retractable cord reel next to the box, cord and plug attached.

Everyone was happy until the store's safety manager objected. He has taken a photo of the install and sent it to the local fire marshall asking if the "extension cord" is permitted.

The cord reel is a listed product and I believe it is being used correctly. Before I made this change, the store staff would string a real extension cord across the floor to the grouped tables.

The fire marshall responded as follows:
The temporary extension cord located at your facility is not compliant with the fire code.

605.5.1 defines that an extension cord with one receptacle shall be used to only power one portable appliance.

605.9 defines temporary wiring for electrical power and lighting installations is allowed for a period not to exceed 90 days.

The above citations are California Fire Code, not NEC sections. 605.5 does say "Extension cords AND FLEXIBLE CORDS shall not be a substitute for permanent wiring". (my emphasis).

The cord reel was taken down and now the store staff is again stringing extension cords across the floor.

My current thought was that if we can't use the cord reel (which I consider an appliance), then I can install a pendant outlet from the 4S box using a strain relief fitting and a flexible cord. That certainly can't be considered an extension cord. But I may still run afoul of the language in the fire code that states "FLEXIBLE CORDS shall not be a substitute for permanent wiring".

I can't run floor to ceiling unistrut and mount a box at table height because of the way the tables get pushed around. I haven't yet spoken to either the safety manager or the fire marshall. Do you guys have any potential alternative designs?

Thanks,
Jim x 3
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Jim, welcome to the forum.

I took the liberty of adding a more descriptive title.

This is really not a fire code question it is an NEC question.

I disagree that a cord reel is an appliance, however I would call it an adjustable pendent and those are allowed per 400.7(A)(1).
 

Jim Jim Jim

Member
Location
CA
Thank you (and for the help with the title) - I've been lurking for a while.

This does seem to be a Fire Code question. The building inspector had no issue with the cord reel against the 2013 CA electrical code (based upon 2011 NEC).

Yes, I was reluctant to deem the cord reel an appliance since it doesn't actually utilize electric power, but instead supplies an outlet to the true appliance.

Jim x 3
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
One thing to watch out for is that some reel systems ventilate the spooled cord well while others cannot carry full amps unless the cord is fully extended.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
...This is really not a fire code question it is an NEC question.

I disagree that a cord reel is an appliance, however I would call it an adjustable pendent and those are allowed per 400.7(A)(1).
Commenting on your post but the bulk is intended for the Jim (ditto on the welcome).

IMO both fire code and NEC (CA's version) and application of both should not be in conflict with the other.

OP made reference to, but I don't think the marshall's reference was implying the cord reel was an appliance, but rather it's an extension cord and worker's are plugging in more than one piece of utilization equipment at a time, perhaps using a power strip or such (I'm assuming the pictures sent by manager support that conclusion).

I agree a pendant is permitted under NEC 400.7(A)(1), but being cord-and-plug connected, it isn't under NEC purview. Essentially it's just a retractable extension cord. That said, there are cord reels manufactured and listed which are intended to be hard-wired to its supply, i.e. permanently connected, and firmly under NEC purview.... same as the proposed non-retractable pendant.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
OP made reference to, but I don't think the marshall's reference was implying the cord reel was an appliance,

The OP felt it was an appliance.

but rather it's an extension cord and worker's are plugging in more than one piece of utilization equipment at a time, perhaps using a power strip or such

I agree, that is what the FD had stated.



I agree a pendant is permitted under NEC 400.7(A)(1), but being cord-and-plug connected, it isn't under NEC purview.

I disagree that a cord and plug changes what the NEC applies too.

The NEC applies to cord and plug connected disposals, dishwashers, vent hoods, pool pumps .....
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
...
I disagree that a cord and plug changes what the NEC applies too.

The NEC applies to cord and plug connected disposals, dishwashers, vent hoods, pool pumps .....
Okay, let me retract that remark. But as I mentioned, fire code and the NEC do not conflict. The requirements of both apply, and where one is more restrictive than the other, that one supersedes the other.
 
Last edited:

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Okay, let me retract that remark. But as I mentioned, fire code and the NEC do not conflict. The requirements of both apply, and where one is more restrictive than the other, that one supersedes the other.

What fire code are you talking about?

It looks to me like the FD was citing an older NEC version.
 

templdl

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
One thing to watch out for is that some reel systems ventilate the spooled cord well while others cannot carry full amps unless the cord is fully extended.

This is imperative!!! A common spooled real of wire has no ability to dicipate heat and will over heat creating a hazard. My son was ASN example of that when he plugged in my heat gun without fully extended the cord reel. After it had cooled he found that the cord melted itself together and no longer could be extended. Lucky there was no fire.
 

Jim Jim Jim

Member
Location
CA
To further clarify:

Ampacity and heat dissipation are not at issue. 12AWG with reel 1/2 deployed and 1 small appliance at a time connected for test - generally less than 300W. No resistive heating is ever attached. This function is (previously and again) now being performed with a 16AWG extension cord strung across the floor. (Also an issue for the store's safety manager but he hasn't caught the staff yet).

I did refer to the cord reel as an appliance - I don't think that's particularly important. The store safety manager referred to it as an extension cord. FM made no direct reference.

Section 605 citations from the FM in my original post are from 2013 California Fire Code.

IMO both fire code and NEC (CA's version) and application of both should not be in conflict with the other.

This is my concern. I agree the CEC does allow pendant outlets via flexible cord. CA Fire Code may be more restrictive. 605.5 states "Extension cords AND FLEXIBLE CORDS shall not be a substitute for permanent wiring". (my emphasis). Does this preclude pendant outlets in California?

I just checked, and section 605 in the 2013 CA Fire Code is identical to the ICC 2012 Fire Code. So does this preclude pendant outlets via flexible cord country-wide?

Do you guys have any potential alternative designs?

Thanks,
Jim x 3
 
Last edited:

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
...
This is my concern. I agree the CEC does allow pendant outlets via flexible cord. CA Fire Code may be more restrictive. 605.5 states "Extension cords AND FLEXIBLE CORDS shall not be a substitute for permanent wiring". (my emphasis). Does this preclude pendant outlets in California?

I just checked, and section 605 in the 2013 CA Fire Code is identical to the ICC 2012 Fire Code. So does this preclude pendant outlets via flexible cord country-wide?

Do you guys have any potential alternative designs?
JMO, but I say no, and no. Using the listed cord-and-plug reel is not a violation as long as it is used within listing requirements.

As to [not required IMO] alternative designs, use a hard-wired reel or pendant. This would render extension cord and temporary wiring issues moot.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
The ultimate recourse would be to install a power pole/raceway all the way to the floor next to one or more tables, with receptacles above the table height.
Zero flexibility, but definitely permanent wiring.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Only if the inspector is not dead set against flexible cord.
If you mean to use any other type of cable, how will you protect it from physical damage?
A [permanent-wired] cord pendant is IMO self protected simply because it is flexible. :D

However, for strain relief I suggest using a kellum's grip just in case someone wants to play Tarzan. :p
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
A [permanent-wired] cord pendant is IMO self protected simply because it is flexible. :D

However, for strain relief I suggest using a kellum's grip just in case someone wants to play Tarzan.
All of the cord pendants I have seen use type Sxxx flexible cord. This does not deal with the concern about flexible cord (not just "extension cords" being used in place of fixed wiring.
I do not agree with the inspector's interpretation, but it may be hard to change it!
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
All of the cord pendants I have seen use type Sxxx flexible cord. This does not deal with the concern about flexible cord (not just "extension cords" being used in place of fixed wiring.
I do not agree with the inspector's interpretation, but it may be hard to change it!
I didn't get that the FM objected to flexible cord... only that the reel can be considered an extension cord, and thus considered temporary. OP brought up flexible cord being use in lieu of permanent wiring... but a hard-wired flexible cord pendant receptacle is a permanent wiring method permitted by NEC 400.7(A)(1) & (6), perhaps (3).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top