1 members (Scott35),
235
guests, and
27
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
The proposal came from NEMA, not any particular manufacturer. In the comments, one member of the NEC panel stated they supported it only if the proposed solution added less than 50 cents to the cost of each receptacle. They had a slew of other reservations in there, too- this is bound to be a controversial topic that will undoubtedly be discussed again before NEC 2008 is released. Personally, I feel this is long overdue- the increased safety outweighs the inconvenience and cost factor, but if y'all want to continue to kill children to save a few bucks, feel free to put in your own comments to NFPA. You can gripe about nanny states all you want, but when code specifically REQUIRES receptacles to be placed all over the home, it's impossible to keep children away from them. FYI, it's on page 418; I copy/pasted the full discussion from the PDF so you can all read the NEC panel's comments regarding this: ________ 18-40 Log #1944 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept (406.11 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles.
Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Panel Statement: The panel is concerned about the possible increased insertion force required for our aging population. The panel requests data concerning the amount of force necessary to insert a plug into the shutter and the amount of force necessary to fully insert a plug into a tamper-resistant receptacle.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative: WALL, C.: The submitter of the proposal has provided much data to identify an issue with small children in dwellings and a proposed cost to implement a solution. However, the submitter of the proposal has not provided sufficient technical substantiation to mandate or justify the installation and use of tamper resistant receptacles throughout all dwellings for all cases and in all circumstances. Many dwellings do not contain small children and may only be inhabited by adults, older children, the elderly or adults with physical impediments. Also, there was no evidence provided that the operation of these devices will not or cannot be circumvented by small children. The submitter has not provided a fact-finding report showing the potential reductions of the injuries with the implementation of the proposed solution of having all dwelling unit receptacles as tamper resistant. The submitter’s proposal will also mandate future installations of GFCIs and AFCIs as tamper resistant. The submitter provided no evidence that the use of the current protective devices such as GFCIs and AFCIs has proven totally unreliable in all cases and where they may have been historically installed or used. The submitter did present some anecdotal evidence that receptacle caps could be removed by small children. However, this evidence does not discount the use or effectiveness of receptacle caps in dwellings with small children. We support the equipment device manufacturers producing tamper resistant receptacles with only a $0.50 premium over standard receptacles. We believe this first step by the device manufacturers to reduce the cost will be a giant step in the use of those devices for future occupancies. However, each dwelling owner needs to have the ability to decide if these devices are appropriate for their circumstances and provide their desired protection. But, there is no justification for such a broad, all encompassing mandate of tamper resistant devices in all dwelling occupancies.
Comment on Affirmative: COSTELLO, P.: This proposal addresses a long recognized problem in dwelling units. While concerns may come up as to the need for installing tamper resistant receptacles on areas such as fixed appliances, refrigerators, sump pumps and washers, the additional safety that would be there when these plugs are not in use would outweigh the advantages of allowing for exceptions not requiring them.
KEMPEL, K.: The Panel Statement does not reflect the fact that the Panel considered limiting the locations where tamper resistant receptacles are required. It considered locations such as the receptacle for the refrigerator, above stove for a microwave, above kitchen counters, in garages and outdoor locations. Limitations were not included to avoid potential installation errors and the minimal cost difference (based on the info in the substantiation).
LARSON, S.: The panel’s deliberation of this issue would benefit from an accurate cost comparison between the standard and tamper-resistant type receptacles manufactured for home use. Also, the panel should clarify that this provision is invoked for new home construction only, and is not intended to be applicable to new work in existing homes, nor to existing homes put on the market for resale. If this is not the case, the panel should make this clarification.
OWENS, T.: The concern that I have with this proposal is the availability of tamper resistant GFCI receptacles. My understanding is that there are none currently available and it is not known whether they will become available prior to adoption of the Code. In most cases, this requirement can be met using GFCI circuit breakers. However, in receptacle replacement conditions, a circuit breaker may not be workable (i.e., a multi-wire branch circuit). This would create a possible conflict within the Code where a receptacle may be required to be both GFCI protected and tamper resistant. I think that this proposal needs to be revisited during the comment stage to ensure that no conflicts or unworkable.
[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 08-05-2006).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
Another solution in search of a problem. I see these like trigger locks. All you have done is give the inquizative kid a puzzle. If my arthritic father in law can get a plug cap in there a kid can get something in there. If nothing else, a plug cap and a finger.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
OP
Member
|
PROBLEM SOLVED ! Having spent some time considering this Code change and the reason for it I have concluded that the problem can be solved using the existing Code with no additional expense or special material. There is no reason to place receptacle outlets where small children can reach them except for habit and personal preference. Install all receptacle outlets in dwelling units high enough on the wall to get them out of the reach of the little Rug----Darlings. Before you revolt think of the receptacles in the kitchen and bathroom that are not near the floor. All those switches that are not near the floor. Why do we try to hide the outlets ? We should be proud of our work. Instead of mandating tamper proof recptacles the Code should establish a minimum height for receptacles. (Note: maximum height is set at 5 1/2 Ft. 1.7 meters) This would also make them more accessable for seniors and people with diabilities. This is a design consideration and does not need a product to solve it, and I don't believe it belongs in the Code. Alan--
Alan-- If it was easy, anyone could do it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
I am thinking more along the lines of large 'bubble covers' with locks that only qualified adult personal have the key for.
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
Alan, I agree with the spirit if your post, and was thinking the same thing when I first read there were no exceptions- that even if the code DOES require receptacles to all be childproof/child resistant (what's up with this "tamperproof" stuff? There's nothing "tamper proof" about those designs!), that there should be exceptions to receptacles that are inaccessible to a child- EG, at least 60" off the ground, or located behind large appliances, such as refrigerators or washers.
This will impact the 12' rule, though, if people start using this to skirt the tamperproof claus- if the receptacles are 5' above the floorline, that could be no further than 6' apart for a 6' cord to reach one from any point along the floor.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
This whole issue comes back to my "sustainability" question. The industry has said this might only add 50 cents to the price of a device but that is going to double the cost for bottom feeding contractorts who install the cheapest ones they can find. It also brings up the question, if you can make the cheapest tamperproof device for 50 cents extra, how much extra is a "good one" going to cost? How long is the cheap one going to last before it binds up and won't open at all? What will the customer be presented with when they pry the "tamper proof" device off with a butter knife? If this ends up being the regular 5-15 after that, no harm, no foul but if it is just the bare contacts you have created a worse scenario. You know a large percentage of end users will keep using it if the plug still fits and the light comes on.
I am really mad at the whole mindset of the inspector/code making community that it was fine the last time it was inspected and they don't care what happens a week later.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
ECM had an article on children's deaths in 2002: Electrocution is the fifth leading cause of accidental death in the United States, according to the National Electrical Safety Foundation (NESF). According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), one person is electrocuted in the home every 24 hours. Electrocution, however, is not limited to children, as evidenced by OSHA statistics that demonstrate one person is electrocuted in the workplace every 36 hours. If childproofing fixtures costs the US $2 billion/year (just throwing that number out, I have no supporting figures for it) and cuts the number of electrocuted children by half, that's roughly $10 million per life saved.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 49
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
These are meaningless statistics unless you can say these child electrocutions were caused by putting foreign objects into a receptacle. Frayed cords, defective equipment and sticking a finger in a lamp holder don't count, nor would a baby putting an extension cord in their mouth. I think NFPA needs hard facts before they ram this down our throat.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
I can't even get close to a statistic on receptacle related child electrocutions but US CPSC says 53 people (all ages) died from "installed household wiring" all causes in 1995. http://cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/shock95.pdf When you try to look at death by domestic accidents electrocution does not even rate a category, much less any detailed breakdown. I will try to get something from CDC who tracks childhood mortality but nothing is apparent so far on the web site
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
Posts: 57
Joined: August 2003
|
|
|
|