The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
230 or 345 kV transmission lines?
by Vlado
09/24/16 09:33 AM
breaker meltdown
by crselectric
09/24/16 12:42 AM
Electrical mast flashing product
by ThomasWinfrey
09/22/16 12:14 AM
What estimating software do you recommend?
by sparky
09/21/16 07:20 PM
"Dry Run" Inspection goes awry
by HotLine1
09/20/16 07:39 PM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm≤ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
HotLine1 15
sparky 9
gfretwell 8
sparky66wv 8
Vlado 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 262 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#205332 - 02/11/12 04:41 PM TR Power Strips
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 763
Loc: MA, USA
Does anyone actually make TR power strips or multi outlet adapters? With all the fuss about TR receptacle outlets for dwellings over the last two code cycles, Iím just wondering why the TR requirement hasnít been extended to these power strips and adapters, which seem to be everywhere in every home these days, including kids rooms. Allowing manufacture and use of these would seem to undo all the protection that was mandated because of the apparent shock hazard to children.
I'm guessing maybe this would be a NEMA issue more so than an NEC issue, since these are usually post-construction add on accessories.

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#205334 - 02/11/12 10:32 PM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: KJay]
pdh Offline
Member

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 354
Maybe more of a CPSC issue.

Top
#205335 - 02/12/12 12:18 AM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: KJay]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9012
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
If they did that they would also have to TR every 99 cent zip wire extension cord.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#205336 - 02/12/12 11:53 AM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: gfretwell]
sparkyinak Online   content
Member

Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1286
Loc: Alaska
Power strips are not covered be the NEC
_________________________
"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa

Top
#205337 - 02/12/12 12:38 PM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: sparkyinak]
sparkyinak Online   content
Member

Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1286
Loc: Alaska
Fat chance CPSC will do anything. They bulked on FPE breakers
_________________________
"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa

Top
#205338 - 02/12/12 12:44 PM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: KJay]
pdh Offline
Member

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 354
While looking around for more info on this, I ran across this:

http://jpaa-en.apc.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1372

"Surge protectors filter the power for surges and offer EMI/RFI filtering but do not efficiently distribute the power, meaning that some equipment may be deprived of the necessary amperage it requires to run properly causing your attached equipment (computer, monitor, etc) to shutdown or reboot."

Huh? I've never, ever, seen a surge strip do that (unless I operate the switch on it). Are they saying something like I can't get more than a couple amps from the last outlet? Of course they want you to buy their overpriced PDUs so they can get a few hundred dollars more out of you.

"Plugging your UPS into a surge protector may cause the UPS to go to battery often when it normally should remain online. This is because other, more powerful equipment may draw necessary voltage away from the UPS which it requires to remain online."

I have no idea what they are talking about, unless it is stuff like a big air conditioner, which I suppose would cause problems on a little UPS.

This all comes from a company that told me their 208 volts commercial UPSes are not grounded and don't need to be grounded. Apparently they are not grounded. Other manufacturers (Tripp-Lite, Eaton) do ground theirs. I no longer buy APC products (as of a few years ago).

Top
#205339 - 02/12/12 02:53 PM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: gfretwell]
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 763
Loc: MA, USA
I donít know, Iím kind of thinking that might not be such a bad idea. Maybe also make the minimum conductor size for all extension cords #16 CU wire.

I found this related document posted on another site. It uses the term electrical receptacle throughout, but makes no differentiation as to what type of electrical receptacle. I would think that in 5 or so years from now, if the rate of these incidents hasnít declined after implementing the TR requirement in the NEC, the safety experts will then have to address the issue of these power strips and multi-outlet adapters, since you normally see the power strips face up on the floor under a computer desk or TV stand and easily accessible by small children. The multi-outlet adapters that plug into the wall receptacle defeat the TR receptacles and these are often located in areas that are also easily accessible by small children.


Pediatric Burns:
During a 10-year period, from 1991 to 2001 , over 24 000 children in the United States were injured when they inserted foreign objects into electrical receptacles. Every year an average of at least 2 400 children are injured when tampering with electrical receptacles.
Attached is a summary of electrical burn and shock incidents occurring to children under the age of 10. This information is taken from the National Electronic Injury Surveilance System (NEISS) for the years 1991 to 2001 (www.cpsc. govllbrary/neiss.html). The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission s (CPSC) National Electronic Injury Surveilance System (NEISS) is a national probabilty sample of hospitals in the u.s. and its territories.
Patient information is collected from each NEISS hospital for every emergency visit involving an injury associated with consumer products. From this sample, the total number of product-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms nationwide can be estimated. NEISS collects data from a statistically valid sample of hospitals nationwide. NEISS calculates historic estimates based on these samples using statistical tools (weights, sampling error, trend data, adjustment for changes in sampling frame.. .). NEISS provides at least 2 numbers for each query conducted on their web site: The first number is the actual sample for monitored hospitals. These are actual cases that were
communicated to NEISS.
The second number is the historic estimate calculated by NEISS as explained above.
For example, the attached 2002 NEISS report shows a sample count of 129 and a historical estimate of 3277.
For the purpose of this analysis, we calculated a ratio, based on 10 years of data, between sample and historic estimate (we queried outlet related incidents concerning children ages 1 month to 10 years old). We then applied this ratio to our analysis. The intent is not to provide exact values but to attribute weight to major topics (age type of injury, objects used... These estimates have been calculated to identify the major issues associated with
children tampering with electrical receptacles.
Analysis of the NEISS information shows that at least 71% of all incidents occur at home , making dwelling units the prime location for receptacle related pediatric electric burns. The vast majority of injured children are under age 6. Victims age 2 and under represent 39% of cases, while those age 3 to 6 represent 50% of all cases.
The incidents occurred as the result of the child inserting an object into a receptacle. The following is a breakdown of the percent of incidents in which a child inserted a specific type of object into a receptacle:
Hairpin 32%
Key 17%
Wire 7%
Plug and cord 11 %
Pin/needle/screw/nail 5%
Paper clip/staple 5%
Tweezers/fie/tool/knife 3%
Jewelry/belt buckle 1%
Body part(finger) 12%
Open outlet 1%
Unknown 6%Many of these objects are not perceived as dangerous by parents, perhaps explaining young children s easy accessto them and frequent rate of insertion.
The results of these incidents are very rarely fatal, but will result in electric shocks and mild to severe burns.
Most incidents are relatively superficial first or second-degree burns, where children are treated for reddened skin or blisters and released from the Emergency Room with topical treatment. Yet 8.7% - that is over 200 children per year - need to be hospitalized. 2% of all burns are 3 degree. These are burns so severe that they result in deeply charred skin and can require a skin graft if the burn is over 1 inch in size. Chidren are more susceptible to electric burns due to their tender skin and the frequent presence of liquid (saliva, juice, mil).
These burns can leave permanent, visible scars.
It is important to note that the NEISS report also includes the following four fatalities:
1991 - 2 year old male, Shawnee, OK, child placed key in electric receptacle
1994 - 23 month old male, Traverse City, MI , child stuck keys in electric receptacle
1995 - 3 year old female, Great Falls, MT, contact with electric receptacle , cardio respiratory arrest 1998 - 2 year old female, Springfield, MO, stuck unknown object into 1l0V receptacle In addition to the 1991-2001 reports, the 2002 National Electronic Injury Surveilance System (NEISS) report is included. The 2002 report states that there were 129 reported incidents, which indicates that there were an estimated total of 3 277 incidents in 2002 alone. The 2002 data covers all electrical outlet and receptacle
incidents occurring in dwellings and is the most recent information available. The 2002 data contains more detailed information than the NEISS reports for previous years and may be used to provide a better understanding of the reported incidents.
A study conducted by Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) reported similar data. For example: almost 80% of the Canadian incidents occurred in the home (compared with 71% in the US), 40% were 3-6 years of age (compared with 50% in the US). A recent presentation of the CHIRPP data concludes
that "legislated standards for the manufacture and use of child safe outlets along with education for parents and children" was called for. Attached is the CHIRPP raw data for electrical injuries to children aged 9 or less for 1996 - 2003.
Preventative Measures:
Parents, teachers , baby-sitters, grandparents and other caregivers are usually well aware of the dangers related to electricity and to receptacles in particular. Children are often taught to stay away from electric appliances and devices. Public health organizations such as hospitals, maternity wards and the CPSC provide adults with warnings and advice to "child-proof' their homes. There are several preventative measures available.
One option is to provide children with 24/7 permanent surveilance. No research is required to understand that this is an impossible request for the vast majority of parents or caregivers managing multiple chidren and tasks at any time.
Another commonly used solution is the "plastic receptacle cap . This small cap usually has 2 plastic blades that insert into the receptacle openings and block access to the live electrical contacts. Yet these caps can be poor protective systems. In 1997 , the Biokinetics Lab at Temple University in Philadelphia studied 4 different receptacle caps. They tested these caps with 47 children aged 2 to 4 years old. One type of cap was removed by 100% of the 2 year-olds in less than 10 seconds. Other caps were removed in less than a minute by most other chidren.
Since that test, UL has provided the industry with strict product guidelines, but this does not deal with existing older caps, and some caps stil remain un-listed. Also caps can only provide protection when they are inserted.
When they have been removed to plug in an appliance there is no longer any protection. When a child puls out a lamp cord there is no longer any protection. Receptacle caps provide protection only when they are in place.
Unfortunately, this can only be ensured by constant vigilance to be certain that the cap has not been removed.
There are also receptacle cover plates available in the market that are intended to provide increased protection for children. However, there is no standardized test program to evaluate these plates for tamper resistance and they are typically not UL listed as they can unintentionally introduce a hazard by restricting the full insertion of a plug. These "chid proof' plates must also be considered a temporary solution, as it is common practice for
homeowners to swap out cover plates for more decorative models from the huge selection at the local hardware store.
Listed Tamper Resistant receptacles provide the most effective means of preventing children from inserting foreign objects into receptacles. Tamper Resistant receptacles have the advantage of being passive protective devices. Once the Tamper Resistant receptacle is installed, a plug may be inserted and withdrawn for normal everyday operation, and the tamper resistant feature of the receptacle remains unaffected. The tamper resistant receptacle continuously provides protection without any user intervention. Decorative cover plates can be installed without affecting the protection. Tamper Resistant receptacles are a proven technology. Tamper Resistant receptacles have been used in hospitals for many years. Section 517. 18(C) of the National Electric Code
(NEC) recognizes the hazard of chidren inserting foreign objects into a receptacle and requires Tamper Resistance in Pediatric Locations. UL has established rigorous testing and evaluation requiements in UL498 for Tamper Resistant receptacles to insure that an object inserted into one of the plug blade openings cannot come into contact with a live part in the receptacle.
Tamper Resistant receptacles are permanently installed ... and forgotten, while providing the best child safety available.
NEMA Business Information Services Department estimates that the average increase in "retail" cost for tamper resistant receptacles wil be 50 cents each and that the average new home built in 2004 had 75 receptacles. This translates into $37. 50 increased cost for the average new home.
Tamper Resistant receptacles may not have prevented all the incidents in the NEISS reports but they undoubtedly would have provided a significant reduction in the injuries to children. Since most of the incidents occurred in homes, adopting an NEC requirement for Tamper Resistant receptacles in dwelling unit rooms where children are likely to come into contact with receptacles will substantially reduce the type of child injuries described in the NEISS reports.

Top
#205342 - 02/12/12 06:57 PM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: KJay]
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5299
Loc: Blue Collar Country
I've seen a number of power strips on the market that appear to be 'tamper resistant.' Indeed, I'm no longer able to find my favorite one ("the squid") at the usual places.

IMO, the TR requirements do NOT extend to the power strips. Yet, there's nothing to prevent a manufacturer from changing his product line.

Top
#205347 - 02/12/12 09:13 PM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: KJay]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9012
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
I think the little zip cord extensions with the triple tap on the end are a lot more dangerous. The tap will fit in a baby's mouth.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#205350 - 02/12/12 11:54 PM Re: TR Power Strips [Re: gfretwell]
pdh Offline
Member

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 354
Originally Posted By: gfretwell
I think the little zip cord extensions with the triple tap on the end are a lot more dangerous. The tap will fit in a baby's mouth.

Even for small children, yes, I would agree. The ones I have with the twist cover over the outlet are loose enough that saliva would get in there. Power strips at least don't have this risk.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals