tamper-resistant receptacles

[Bukowski]

Tamper Resistant Exempt Locations

I just wanted to know which ones don't have to be tamper-restantant since it does not say allreceptacles. I hope they change the wording in the next code to make sense.

Tamper Resistant receptacles are required for all areas listed in E3901.2 through

E3901.11. These areas include:

1. General purpose receptacles in "every kitchen, family room, dining room, living room, parlor, library, den, sun room, bedroom, recreation room, or similar room or area of dwelling units"

2. Small appliance receptacles

3. Countertop receptacles

4. Appliance receptacles

5. Bathroom receptacles

6. Outdoor receptacles

7. Laundry receptacles

8. Basement and garage receptacles

9. Hallway receptacles

10. HVAC outlet receptacles

The exceptions to these required locations where tamper resistant receptacles are not required are:

1. Receptacles part of a luminaire or appliance

2. Receptacles located in cabinets or cupboards

3. Receptacles controlled by a wall switch

4. Receptacles located over 66" above the floor (5ft 6")

Area where tamper resistant receptacles are also not required would include:

-Receptacles for microwaves, garbage disposals, or dishwashers located in cabinets

-Receptacles for door openers in garage ceilings

-Receptacles in crawlspaces

-Receptacles attics

-Receptacles in utility rooms, mechanical rooms, shops or similar rooms

-Receptacles in closets

-Receptacles in other areas or rooms not specifically listed in E3901.2 through E3901.11 and that might include:

-boathouse recpetacles

-swimming pool receptacles

 

[Bukowski]

Disagree

Agreed, the IRC electrical section does not include anything in regards to communications systems either.The IRC electrical section is so watered down that there are a huge chuck of homes that fall outside what that section contains.

For example I had a home the other day that had an electric drinking fountain installed, if I am on the IRC does the drinking fountain require GFCI protection? The 2008 NEC requires it to be but that requirement is not in the IRC.

Chris

Disagree.

IRC Electrical provisions already address this.

E3401.1 states:

"Other wiring methods, materials and subject matter covered in the NFPA 70 are also allowed by this (sic 2009 IRC) code."

This means that all these items like residential elevators, solar PV systems, communication wiring and so forth are addressed by the IRC electric code by permitting the NFPA 70 to be used for them.

There is no reason to redundantly reprint the contents of this referenced standard for inclusion in the IRC than it is to reprint the contents of any other referenced standard.

-------------

By the way, Pennsylvania does not adopt the NEC electrical code at all.

It is only adopted by reference through the Itn'l Building Code...and at one time was only adopted by reference through the IBC and by way of the International Code Council Electric Code.

-------------------------

Where conflicts arise between the IRC electric provisions and the NEC, the IRC electrical provisions take legal precedent:

R102.4 "Where differences occur between provisions of this code (sic IRC 2009) and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code (IRC 2009) shall apply."

The NEC is not a 'superior' electrical code. It is simply another electrical code equal in value to any other.

 

[jar546]

The issue here is that the testing required for the Residential Electrical Inspector does not require you to even open up the NEC as ALL questions are directly from the IRC. Sure you can use the NEC under 3401.1 but if you were not trained, nor had to understand other applicable sections of the NEC then you are already behind.

I see lots of residential electrical inspectors have a commercial electrical inspector come out to inspect the systems not in the IRC. Not all but some. I know because we get called out by them just for this reason.

 

[peach]

how did any of us survive childhood?

This sounds all day to me like a special interest writing something into the code .. AGAIN

 

[Bukowski]

Agree

how did any of us survive childhood?This sounds all day to me like a special interest writing something into the code .. AGAIN

I agree.

Tamper-resistant receptacles is one of the more absurd code requirements.

It is based on a reported 1600-2400 annual trips by children to the emergency room each year who insert foreign objects into standard receptacles.

It also doesn't seriously take into account the 55,000,000 senior citizens and disabled in the nation who are hampered from using them by their design.

(Remember a similar problem with prescription bottles? They were redesigned to keep chikdren out and ended up not being able to be opened by the infirm and disabled who needed the pills)

I'm a senior and I find them very difficult to use.

(I also remember as a child of about 4 or 5 finding one of my mother's bobby pins on the floor and inserting it into a receptacle. I learned very quickly never to do that again.)

That said, it is hard to take code changes like this seriously when they do not extend to more practical areas: like day care centers.

Like many things in the code, requirements for such things as TR receptacles should be optional, not mandatory.

I for one would like to see the code section requiring TR receptacles removed entirely.

 

[jar546]

how did any of us survive childhood?This sounds all day to me like a special interest writing something into the code .. AGAIN

Bukowski is correct Peach, you are a bit cynical on this one.

The CPSC provided documentation showing 25,000 documented Emergency Room visits by children 8 years of age and younger in a 10 year period due to electrical shock from placing objects into receptacle outlets.

Things are not always as people think. I make a point to let electricians know about this after they whine about the $40- $60 average cost for a new home using TR receptacles.

 

[jumper]

I agree.That said, it is hard to take code changes like this seriously when they do not extend to more practical areas: like day care centers.

2011 NEC

406.14 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Child Care Facilities.

In all child care facilities, all nonlocking-type,

125-volt, 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall be listed

tamper-resistant receptacles.

 

[Jobsaver]

One reason is that The Cow is in the publishing business and it would cut in to their revenue stream.The IRC has to ' appear ' to be a comprehensive code book. Why bother with actual wording & applications, ...a derivative will sell just as well!

Don't forget the testing, certification, and CEU businesses they would miss out on.

I think it important to know what references the electricians in one's ahj are training on and referencing.

 

[Bukowski]

Bukowski is correct Peach, you are a bit cynical on this one.The CPSC provided documentation showing 25,000 documented Emergency Room visits by children 8 years of age and younger in a 10 year period due to electrical shock from placing objects into receptacle outlets.

Things are not always as people think. I make a point to let electricians know about this after they whine about the $40- $60 average cost for a new home using TR receptacles.

Huh?

I am in full agreement with Peach and believe tamper-resistant receptacles to be one of the more absurd requirements in the code.

That 1600-2400 kids go to the ER every year with 'boo-boos' and now the code has to regulate 'boo-boos' is ridiculous.

3000-4000 children DIE every year in the US from handguns...and the same government that regulates boo-boos protects the gun lobby that ends up killing kids.

Go figure.

How did we baby-boomers make it through childhood without all these new-fangled regulations?

That the 2011 NEC prescribes TR receptacles in Day-Care centers only goes to prove once such silliness is written into any code it tends to expand into greater silliness...and getting rid of the silliness becomes nearly impossible.

I think there might still be time to alter the the 2014 code.

If so, VOTE to REMOVE TR receptacles altogether from the electric code or permit an exception for the 55,000,000 elderly and infirm who cannot properly use them.

Since TR receptacles require 'pinching', 'tight grasping' and even 'twisting' to use them...how can these receptacles be used in "Accessible", "Type A" and "Type B" dwelling units without violating ANSI A117.1 and ADADG guidelines?

IMHO, they can't....and should not be approved for use where accessibility is required....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Here in PA you don't need to know the NEC to be a certified residential inspector/plan reviewer only the IRC. This makes it easyer to pass the test and a residental inspector usually doesn't see anything that is not in the IRC.

 

[raider1]

If so, VOTE to REMOVE TR receptacles altogether from the electric code or permit an exception for the 55,000,000 elderly and infirm who cannot properly use them.Since TR receptacles require 'pinching', 'tight grasping' and even 'twisting' to use them...how can these receptacles be used in "Accessible", "Type A" and "Type B" dwelling units without violating ANSI A117.1 and ADADG guidelines?

IMHO, they can't....and should not be approved for use where accessibility is required....

You obviously have never even used a tamper resistant receptacle.

There is no special "Pinching" "Tight Grasping" or "Twisting" required to insert a cord end into a tamper resistant receptacle. The insertion force required for these receptacles meets the same UL requirement for a standard receptacle.

Why don't we go back to using non-grounding receptacles, it was good enough for people in the 30's 40's and 50's so why change?

Chris

 

[480sparky]

...............Why don't we go back to using non-grounding receptacles, it was good enough for people in the 30's 40's and 50's so why change?

Chris

Nah....let's go back to Edison-based outlets.

 

[Jobsaver]

There is no special "Pinching" "Tight Grasping" or "Twisting" required to insert a cord end into a tamper resistant receptacle. The insertion force required for these receptacles meets the same UL requirement for a standard receptacle.

I disagree based on my experience testing receptacles with a polarity tester. The tamper resistant receptacles are on whole more difficult to "plug into".

 

[480sparky]

I've never had an issue. I've heard Leviton & Cooper have problems, but I use P&S.

 

[georgia plans exam]

Here is a link showing how they work.

GPE

http://www.leviton.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=23899&minisite=10021

 

[raider1]

I disagree based on my experience testing receptacles with a polarity tester. The tamper resistant receptacles are on whole more difficult to "plug into".

That has not been my experience.

I've never had an issue. I've heard Leviton & Cooper have problems, but I use P&S.

I agree, the P&S ones that I use and that are installed in the majority of the homes that I have inspected have no insertion issues.

Chris

 

[cboboggs]

I happen to agree with peach and bukowski, the TR receptacles are ridiculous, as a matter of fact, we actually took one of the local HBA's suggestion and amended that section out.

 

[jar546]

ridiculous

 

[Jobsaver]

receptaculous.

 

[cboboggs]

Yeah sorry, we were discussing something else here in the office while I was typing.