Reviewing the "Report on Proposals," the committee has accepted a number of proposals that expand their required use to any commercial / institutional area used by children.

For the most part, these proposals seem to copy already existing requirements (in other codes) that schools, day care centers, etc., have the receptacles.

The committee seems to still consider it perfectly reasonable to require the receptacle on the ceiling of the garage, for the door opener, to be tamper resistant.

I don't understand the resistance to TR receptacles. They are simple mechanical devices that prevent inadvertent insertion of a single object (wire, screwdriver blade, whatever) into a hot slot. Mass produced, they cost very little, hardly more to be of consequence. True, they are not 'needed' in the strictest sense, but in the broader, statistical sense they certainly will help to reduce shock hazards. What's the big deal anyway?

Bigplanz,


If you have children, I can really see having tamper proof receptacles. I had 2 children and every one of my receptacles had childproof caps in them while the kids were growing up. If you are just 2 adults living in a house, why would you need TR receptacles? How much more do they cost than regular receptacles? It this time of recession, the HO is fighting for every dollar they have. They don't want to spend an extra $5 on anything. The new 2008 NEC now requires TR receptacles everywhere that 210.52 states. Does that mean garage door receptacles need TR receptacles? Don't get me wrong, I am all about safety. It is just getting out of hand. I believe that manufactures are taking over the code making boards of the NEC. Isn't this a conflict of interest? They changed the bonding grid around the pool (AGAIN) in this code. So what did the 3' grid around the pool prove. It made the manufacture of that copper 1' X 1' grid a lot of money. I will get off my soap box now. ( Sorry)

I'd like to observe that, prior to the NEC gettint involved in this matter, 'tamper resistant' trceptacles were addressed by other codes, other agencies, typically requiring them in day care centers and such.

Even then, the rules typically specified a distance (within reach of the little ones), restricted the requirement to areas used by the children, and perhaps removed the requirement if the circuit was FCI protected.

Most of the proposals submitted to the NEC panel restate these requirement, extending the NEC requirement into commercial locations.

The 2008 requirement was resisted primarily, I believe, because it took everyone by surprise. We can add to that a general cynicism (if it can break, it will), and concerns about servicing receptacles.

After all, just how do you test a receptacle. Now the things are specifically designed to keep your meter probes and ticker out!

There was also the broad scope of the 2008 requirement. No matter how inaccessible, or out of reach of children, the code requires the receptacles to be tamper resistant.

I started these threads - and there will be more - to encourage discussion and comment upon these, and other, proposals to the NEC. If you don't like a proposal, now is the time to speak up.

I wonder if a ticker can read current with the little screen in the way? Good point though. Hadn't thought of that one. My receptacle tester (plug in type) will work, but probably not the ticker.

I think a meter probe could work if you stuck both probes into the slots simultaneously.

With some fussing about,you just might be able to get your probes into both slots at once.

Yet, I'm at a loss to see how I can check for reverse polarity, or a bad ground, witout having but one probe in a 'slot,' while the other is in the ground prong opening.

The truth finally comes out, this is a plot by Ideal to sell SureTests

I'll bet the ticker will read through the shutters in the TR receptacles. They read through a heavy duty cord cap and they are much more insulated then those little shutters in the receptacle.

I just checked the Lowes web site, and a 10 pack of TR receptacles goes for $12. To me the 'it costs more issue' is a non-starter. The cost difference between TR and non-TR receptacles is negligible in regard to new construction or renovation. In regard to children v. non-children in the house, the concern is that houses change hands. What can be a 'child free house' can quickly become a 'full of children house' when property changes ownership/tenancy. I think TR receptacles should be required for all receptacles, the same as three-prong, grounded receptacles are required. I am sure the cost issue/government meddling issue came up when the three prong, grounded receptacles were required too.

TR receptacles are going to be problem for some adults but probably very few. I am concerned that kids smart enough to use 2 metal objects to find out where the electricity is will result in the fatalities we so far have not seen. apparently i never learned about not sticking thins into receptacles as I am told I used a tweezer the first time and a butter knife the second time and scissors the third time. I never touched the stove top as I knew what hot is. Some mom is going to believe their kid can't get hurt because they have TR receptacles installed and not watch for the kid that tries a tweezer with 2 prongs or two screw drivers or 2 paper clips, etc.
I can't recall if there were any fatalities listed as justification for the rule change but the injury severity will rise of kids start probing with 2 tools instead of just 1.

According to the info I've read, approximately 24,000 ER visits for electric shock/burn injuries occur each year from receptacles being probed, poked or similarly prodded with metallic objects.

Most of these injuries are in children less than 4 years old. I didn't see any statistics on fatalities. Given the number of children in close proximity to electrical outlets, this is a pretty small number, but TR receptacles will lower it considerably (or so the thinking goes).

The TR safety curtain can be defeated, but not without some foresight and planning on the child or person who is attempting to do so. Sure, some kids will probably get shocked from a TR receptacle they have succeeded in defeating, but the toddlers and young children who try to stick a key or bobby pin in a hot socket will hopefully be saved from a shock or burn. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Bigplanz,

I can see how at Lowes a box of 10 Tr receptacles are not expensive. However what happens if you don't have these big box stores nearby? The local supply houses can mark up those TR receptacles a lot and then the cost to install might be an issue.

As for when a house becomes full of children, shouldn't the parents of those children take responsibility for the well being of their own children? I know I had tons of those little plastic plugs in the receptacles when my children were growing up.

When are these kids going to learn about danger?
The world is a dangerous place but we are isolating our kids from it to the point that they have to go create danger, hence "extreme sports".
What ever happened to "don't do that". For some reason "no" has become a taboo word.

Of course parents are responsible for their children's safety. I say, "no" to my two-year old daughter 1,000 times a day, so believe me, I am aware of that issue.

A TR receptacle is a 'passive' device that is 'on' 24/7. It will deter/prevent/reduce the likelihood of a small child getting shocked/burned. The risk isn't 100% eliminated, but it is reduced significantly. To me, the cost/benefit ratio is well over on the 'benefit' side. When my daughter moved from her crib to her 'big girl bed' there was an standard outlet right next to her bed. I took it out, and put a blank face plate on it. When I replace it, at some point (no real need to now) I'll put a TR receptacle in.

You can't keep your child forever in a risk free environment. You can protect them from preventable injury, however, while at the same time rigorously teach them about the dangers around them.

Now if we could just make the tamper resistant toaster.

I suppose the T/R lamp socket will be next.

There is much to be said for a contray approach ...

Rather than try to make things 'kid proof,' would we not be better served making our kids 'house proof?'

It sure goes a long way toward being "Big Cruel World Proof"

One of the interesting issues that arise from improved (from a safety perspective) products or devices is the legal implication of NOT installing them. If, for example, an electrician were to install a standard receptacle instead of a TR, even though it was not required to install a TR by any code, and a child or other person was shocked or injured by pushing a key or screwdriver into the hot slot, that electrician could face legal action for knowingly installing a device that was 'less safe' that a similar device widely available and comparatively priced.

The court action/legal question he or she would have to face would be: "Why did you install a receptacle that you KNEW had been supplanted by a safer one that would have prevented this VERY injury?"

Good luck answering that one, fellows, if some child is dead. Answer: "Well, the TR isn't required, and, you know, costs 30 cents more, so, why bother?" Yeah, good luck with that one.

Chevy just got sued because they didn't install an emergency latch on the inside of the trunk of a Malibu. It's an 'option' on that car. Two kids got killed trapped in the trunk of a Malibu, now Chevy is trying to explain why a device that is on the market, that saves lived from EXACTLY this problem, is an 'option.'

They will lose their rear end, of course, and so would our hypothetical electrician in the scenario above.

That is a lawyer problem, not a safety problem.

It's your problem, if you happen to be the electrician who gets sued.

"See, your honor, there really isn't a safety issue. Yeah, the kid got burned, but, you know, parents need to be more responsible. Society is taking this 'safety' thing too far. They only require these TR gadgets in the NEC because, you know, the influence of companies who make these things. There really isn't a safety issue, per se. It was just, you know, one of those things, the kid getting burned. You should be putting the parents on trial, not me."

I tell folks that theu are free to sue me for all I have, it won't take long!

It's no accident Chavy got sued, and not, say, Joe's body shop or Yugo Motors. Simply put: the lawyer saw a chance of making money with little work.

Safety is not a simple matter of installing the latest gee-gaw. Nor have we any obligation to do more than what is required, or agreed to. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Is there a lawyer problem? Perhaps. When McDonalds is getting sued for having coffee both too hot, and not hot enough .... it's amazing anyone sells coffee anymore!

Few things as 'safety' are as fraught with unintended consequences. A good example is a product called "saw stop." The inventor saw a need to reduce table saw injuries, with the intent of licensing it to saw makers. His money expectations were never an issue; rather, every maker had the idea nixed by the legal department, often using reasoning like what was seen in the above example.

That is, the company was legally 'safer' if they did not offer or use the invention.

A true believer, the inventor is now in the saw manufacturing business. He has yet to receive permission to make retro-fit kits from other manufacturers. So - as so well demonstrated a few months back by a neighbor - fingers continue to be lost, and hands mangled.

If you make all your decisions based on the chance of being sued you must have been using GFCI protection everywhere for the last quarter century.

Gentlemen:

We have to live with TR devices in resi, in 'all' locations, under the '08, and into the forseeable future; like it or not.

The 'intent' of the OP for this thread is the proposed requirements into comm/industrial for '11 ROP's.

Without reading the ROP, sounds like the 'in-plant' day care area?: or ?? for ind.

THe 'comm' could range from retail stores? to offices? and what about bring your son/daughter to work day?

Perhaps we should think about sometime in the forceeable future the only devices we could purchase and install are TR's.

I suspect that you are right about non-TR devices. Sort of like trying to buy a 1-15R. You can still find them but they cost more than the 5-15.
Once these really hit the mainstream they will probably be 50 cents but I worry about the quality. I have a couple of those P&S devices on the promo card with the adapter you can try them with. They work fine but I wonder what happens when they start shopping for a cheaper vendor to hit a lower price point.

Greg:
I've seen 'offshore' items (with UL tags) GFI's, block devices, etc, that are IMHO quality trash. The pricing on these items is attractive to the EC's, bought direct, not thru a supplier.

The issue of callbacks for 'device failure' should be factored into the 'bargain pricing'.

With the TR devices, failure is going to be less evident, and the protection the design intent was to provide will be 'false safety'.

The NEC is sort of heading in that direction. I wouldn't be surprised to see that as a requirement for all circuits in residential construction within the next 10 years.

Edit to add: I saw a demonstration of Saw Stop. Wow! That is an impressive device. It really worked.

John the failure won't be evident if they fail "open" but I bet TRs will get stuck closed and it will become very apparent. I wonder what the effect is if you do force a plug in. My guess is it destroys the device.
How long does an EC warranty an installed device?

Greg:
I see device failure at final inspection, and occasionally I have a HO call after CO.

The Ec's warranty is thru the builder, the 'big' builders have a warranty dept, neither of which I have any involvement with.

My above comments are based on failures at finals, which may or may not be swapped out while I'm there.

John,

How many times have you seen a GFI receptacle not work on a final inspection? I always get the same answer when I inspect on a final. The answer goes something like this, " The GFI was working yesterday! I guess some one used it today and blew it out. I will replace it tomorrow. Are you going to pass the job today?" Another time I got an answer like this. "It was from that bad batch from X country!" (This was a very large job, 10 buildings 5 stories each, 23 apt. per floor.) The EC bought 2 large batches of GFI's one group of GFI's were manufactured in oriental country, and one batch was made in a South American country. It seems that the one country had all of the bad GFI's and the second country didn't.

I didn't care which country it came from, the job failed until the GFI worked.

i've been using TP now for a while

seems one gets one'struck stocked up with a certian brand widget, and simply uses them on all jobs & serv calls

i really don't have a prob with the TP devices

what i do have a problem with is how our trade (or perhaps i should say the manufacturing masters of it) quantify any new safety device.

there exists no unbiased gauge for this, all i hear is anecdotal testimonial and fluff.

all the trade mags are also primarilly owned by the manufactures (which is why we get them for free) , as well as all the writers obviuously being too intimidated to opine in the negative

so yeah, i'll try to be compliant, that's my job

(anyone else have trouble stuffing 24 afci's in a 40 cir panel, and keeping it neat here?)

but don't try and sell me safety based on $$$ in some ceo's back pocket

sorry, that dog don't hunt....

~S~

Greg,

Just the other day I was doing a final on a house and the EC put some TR receptacles in there. They were very stiff to plug in the tester and the first thing I thought of, what happens when the homeowner paints the room. You know that they will paint the receptacles to match the walls. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

If they paint the recptacles to match the walls they void the UL listing on them and have to replace them anyway.

If we start worrying about making every installation idiot-resistant based on what someone might do after we leave...we'll end up with the old Chicago Code, where battery lights needed to be rated for 2 hours instead of 90 minutes "because nobody maintains these".

Ghost,

I realize that we can't worry about "WHAT IF" syndrome. I get AHJ's say for example, "Well WHAT IF they decide to finished this room off, shouldn't there be receptacles to code. The answer would be YES, they do need receptacles, but I can't make them install it now if the room is unfinished at this moment. I like your "Chicago Code", that since no one maintains them, lets make them 2 hours. Why not 3 or 4 hours? that would be eve better!

Seriously, you and I know that if they get paint on the receptacles, they are suppose to replace the device. But how many do you really think will replace them. Most likely, not many.

Just a note,
Our socket-outlets over here, have had safety shutters in them for some time.(since the late 1980's, by memory)
You have to be able to have a pin fully inserted into the neutral aperture before the phase aperture will open enough to get the pin in.

Sure, it may be a nuisance to those that regularly require to get test equipment probes into sockets, but hey, if it saves some kids life, it's no more than a small inconvenience.

Started to post- then thought better of it.

Stupid idea. TR- Education is the route-
From a VERY EARLY AGE.
Worked for us.

Under current legislation, I believe that access to bare, live contacts, must not be possible without the use of a tool.
Maybe things are different over there in the US?

n still unscrew a lamp and put your finger in the hole

I still don't figure how you can 'Legislate' common sense.
Or personal responsibility.
Seems the more 'THEY' try, the dumber the population gets.

(Sorry (again) off topic)

leland...I remember a line in a sci fi book that fits nicely.

The total amount of intelligence in the society is a constant; but the population is increasing.

actually you've a point leland

and i'm an example too, i stuck one of my mom's hairpins in a receptacle in (iirc) 1961 or 2....

i'm told i've gained a little eductaion since then...

~S~

I'll remember that!!

But seriously-with out getting into sociology.

My early education were grown adults.

I equate it to antibiotics. Yes they are good and beneficial...But too many and we lose what ever basic immunities we have.

I don't like TRs'- for the most part.

Greg,
Funny you should mention that.
HPM down here makes a bayonet cap light fitting that has a spring loaded insulator that prevents contact with live parts without a bulb in the socket.
This socket has been on the market for 10-12 years.

Mike:

You happen to have a picture of that light fitting???

Sure do,
This is from a catalouge by HPM from 1994:



There is also an earth terminal over the back (not shown) that all light fittings are required to have here regardless of wether they are metallic or not.
I mean to say, it must have an earth conductor supplying it.

I just go back to my Uncle.

"You MUST know more than the dog,If you want to teach him something."

A lot of truth to that!
And I'll stand by it!
Because it worked for me. As the LEARNER.

Made me smarter-(in my eye). After years of observation.....
Something to it for sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trumpy:
Thank you, my friend!!!
Take care & stay safe!!!

All that means is if you stick your finger in the hole, don't push down.

Why even bother.

I guess you don't have kids.
It is an innovative design but if the intent is to make your little brother jump, it is just a puzzle. I really feel the same way about the TR receptacle. They will stop the 3 year old but be a challenge to a 6 year old.

No Greg,
I don't have kids.(It's not through want of trying though)
Bear in mind these are installed up on a ceiling, as in 8ft above the floor, pointing downwards.
You think we install these things on the floor over here?

Also bear in mind that these light fittings use 230V, not the 120V that they do in the US.
We also have RCD protection on our lighting circuits in domestic installations.

Mike, funny you should mention that ....

Fixtures with bases like the ones in the artwork (so-called "keyless" lampholders) are often in utility rooms, etc., where they are mounted on the wall, at about head height. Easy reaching distance. Likewise, they're used in attics and crawl spaces.

More to the point, we find light sockets within reach of any kid in the table lamp next to our favorite chair.

When I was a kid most of my experimentation was with C-7 lamps like nightlights and Christmas lights. For some reason parents don't see those as dangerous as a regular Edison base lamp.
The availability of discarded hardware around this time of year made them irresistible.
You did find out pretty fast that the old "series" C-4 bulbs didn't last very long at 120v.
"Somebody taking pictures"?

Trumpy,


RCD protection? Did I miss something in a post? Or is it just too early on a monday morning and I am not awake yet?

Well I just can't wait for all the trouble TR will cause once it gets adopted here (soon).

I did a small device changeout job for one of my nicest older customers recently. He picked up the stuff at the box store and I came over to put it in. One of the problems with letting them get their own stuff is that invariably something shows up that is the wrong type or color or both. Both in this case, some light almond mixed with the ivory and a few TR receptacles. I hadn't noticed the TR until I put a couple in and he said just leave them. The next day he called and said with his arthritis he couldn't plug anything into them and could I stop by and replace them.

This is the same kind of "one size fits all" solution that has elderly people leaving the caps off of their medication once they get them off the first time. Bad idea.

I have already have people ask me if they can remove the TR receptacles. Of course I said no, but what they do after I inspect??????? Some of our senior citizens do not like them, but again ??? We shall have to see.