Cubicle walls -

[richxtlc]

We recently received a violation from the fire marshal because some cubicles had extension cords running between cubicles. The fire marshal said it was a violation of the NEC to run portable cords through walls. My problem is that these walls are constantly be reconfigured and are therefore temporary. I couldn't find anything about temp walls, any help?

 

[xformer]

We recently received a violation from the fire marshal because some cubicles had extension cords running between cubicles. The fire marshal said it was a violation of the NEC to run portable cords through walls. My problem is that these walls are constantly be reconfigured and are therefore temporary. I couldn't find anything about temp walls, any help?

Does 605.4 help?

 

[Hendrix]

We recently received a violation from the fire marshal because some cubicles had extension cords running between cubicles. The fire marshal said it was a violation of the NEC to run portable cords through walls. My problem is that these walls are constantly be reconfigured and are therefore temporary. I couldn't find anything about temp walls, any help?

You shouldn't need extension cords going between cubicles if they are wired properly.

 

[WorkSafe]

Even if temporary, OSHA says you can't run them through walls. That's what I gathered reading this Interp:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25369

Using extension cords for cubicle power is not a good practice in my opinion. Employees like to plug in coffee pots, microwaves, etc, that could easily be a violation of the manufacturers instructions.

Question: Does 1910.305(g)(1)(iii) suggest that flexible wiring and cables cannot be run through walls, ceilings, floors, doorways, windows, or similar openings when used in temporary service applications? Or, does this section only prohibit the practice when used as a substitute wiring method in permanent applications?

Response: In accordance with 1910.305(g)(1)(iii), flexible cords may not be used in permanent installations as specified in (A) through (E) below:
(A) As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure;
(B) Where run through holes in walls, ceilings, or floors;
(C) Where run through doorways, windows, or similar openings;
(D) Where attached to building surfaces; or
(E) Where concealed behind building walls, ceilings, or floors.
When these cords (including extension cords) are used in temporary wiring installations, 1910.305(a)(2)(iii)(G), allows them to run through doorways or other pinch points, such as windows or other similar openings, provided they are protected from damage. This provision does not, however, except them from the other four prohibitions, (A), (B), (D), and (E) above.

In other words, flexible cords when used in temporary wiring may be run through doorways, windows, or similar openings provided they are protected from damage, but cannot be used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure; run through holes in walls, ceilings, or floors; attached to building surfaces; or concealed behind building walls, ceilings, or floors.

 

[charlie b]

Does 605.4 help?

I think not, since it is addressing the "semi-permanent" (meaning it will stay in place until the next reconfiguration) wires from wall section to wall section.

On the other hand, I think 605.1 does help. It gives a name to these "thingys that separate one cubicle dweller from another," and the name is not "wall." The name is "relocatable wired partitions." If I sound like I am making fun of the situation, I apologize. But I am serious. We all speak at least two languages. One is the language of our profession, and the NEC is written in that language. The other I like to call "conversational English." I think the fire marshal is confusing the two languages. The NEC forbids running flexible cord through walls. But the thing that divides one cubicle from another is not a wall, in the context of NEC article 400.8. We commonly call it a "cubicle wall," but that is a phrase spoken in "conversational English," not in code language. 400.8 does not forbid running flexible cord through the gap that separates "relocatable wired partitions" from the floor. Nor need it. Nor should it.

So my answer is that the temporary nature of cubicle arrangements is not relevant. The absence of walls in the construction of cubicles is all that matters.

 

[John Deere Man]

Inspector

Inspector

Art,400.7/400.8 - Talks about uses permit & Not permited. Cords are not to be used as permanent wiring method & Art,210.50 - Talks about receptacles are to be installed where needed as to prevent the use of cords. Most cubicles that I've seen have permanent receptacles installed in them with a seal tight whip that is hard wired into a J-box so there is receptacles where needed & cords are not.

 

[xformer]

I think not, since it is addressing the "semi-permanent" (meaning it will stay in place until the next reconfiguration) wires from wall section to wall section.

On the other hand, I think 605.1 does help. It gives a name to these "thingys that separate one cubicle dweller from another," and the name is not "wall." The name is "relocatable wired partitions." If I sound like I am making fun of the situation, I apologize. But I am serious. We all speak at least two languages. One is the language of our profession, and the NEC is written in that language. The other I like to call "conversational English." I think the fire marshal is confusing the two languages. The NEC forbids running flexible cord through walls. But the thing that divides one cubicle from another is not a wall, in the context of NEC article 400.8. We commonly call it a "cubicle wall," but that is a phrase spoken in "conversational English," not in code language. 400.8 does not forbid running flexible cord through the gap that separates "relocatable wired partitions" from the floor. Nor need it. Nor should it.

So my answer is that the temporary nature of cubicle arrangements is not relevant. The absence of walls in the construction of cubicles is all that matters.

I do not think your making fun of the situation. I know exactly what you mean.

 

[steve66]

I think not, since it is addressing the "semi-permanent" (meaning it will stay in place until the next reconfiguration) wires from wall section to wall section.

On the other hand, I think 605.1 does help. It gives a name to these "thingys that separate one cubicle dweller from another," and the name is not "wall." The name is "relocatable wired partitions." If I sound like I am making fun of the situation, I apologize. But I am serious. We all speak at least two languages. One is the language of our profession, and the NEC is written in that language. The other I like to call "conversational English." I think the fire marshal is confusing the two languages. The NEC forbids running flexible cord through walls. But the thing that divides one cubicle from another is not a wall, in the context of NEC article 400.8. We commonly call it a "cubicle wall," but that is a phrase spoken in "conversational English," not in code language. 400.8 does not forbid running flexible cord through the gap that separates "relocatable wired partitions" from the floor. Nor need it. Nor should it.

So my answer is that the temporary nature of cubicle arrangements is not relevant. The absence of walls in the construction of cubicles is all that matters.

Well put, Charlie. I agree 100%. Cubicle partitions are not a permenant part of the structure like walls are.

However, I think its a much finer line trying to decide if these cords are a substitute for permenant wiring.

 

[charlie b]

Most cubicles that I've seen have permanent receptacles installed in them . . . .

Mine does not. One of my walls backs up to a hard-walled office. There is a receptacle in that wall to serve my cubicle. The other side of my cubicle has a partition with no wiring, no receptacles, and no way to bring wiring to it. So if I want to use a light on the opposite desk surface, I need to run an extension cord along the floor. Good layout? No. Code violation? No.

 

[LarryFine]

However, I think its a much finer line trying to decide if these cords are a substitute for permenant wiring.

Uh-oh. Is there an inlet involved?

 

[richxtlc]

Thanks for the info, in some areas we have added power poles to eliminate the piggy backed extension cords that some of our computer people used to connect their equipment in each cubicle. I am trying to find additional whips to clear up some of the others.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

We recently received a violation from the fire marshal because some cubicles had extension cords running between cubicles. The fire marshal said it was a violation of the NEC to run portable cords through walls. My problem is that these walls are constantly be reconfigured and are therefore temporary. I couldn't find anything about temp walls, any help?

As been said they are not walls. However from working in Tampa I have learned it best not to argue with a fire marshal. He will win in the end. I do agree with him that it is a fire hazard. I have seen them not find things they should have found and pick on little stupid stuff. Had a job on 301 that had live thhn wires (no conduit) above ceiling, exit signs with no outlet box, ezstention cord ran down the wall to water fountain and across ceiling and back down ti IT room and into strip. But while moving in new tenant he had fit cause a breaker filler was missing. They only see when they want to.