ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Tamper resistant: 406.11

Okay, I found a supplier who carries the P&S Tamper Resistant GFCI receptacles. I will be using a lot of these, as they are only around $20.00 for a 20A, which is still a lot cheaper than a GFCI CB. They also have the added convenience of local testing and resetting as mentioned by SteveFehr.

I don’t see any Tamper Resistant 15A and 20A/125V single receptacles yet though, which I will assume be necessary for cord and plug connected dishwashers, over the range microwaves, etc.

I don't think these are on the required list.

Hi leland,
That would be great if that happens to be the case.

I don’t have my actual 2008 code book yet, it’s still on order, but I don’t see any exception to 406.11 in my Mike Holt’s 2008 Code Changes book or in the MA Amendments that you sent me a while back. [Thanks again for that by the way!]
There is an “Authors Comment” in Mike Holt’s book stating that even outlets behind appliances, like a refrigerator, have to comply with this requirement.

Absurd…WTF?!! [We need a new icon for mentally challenged]

Why would you need a "single" receptacle for a microwave or dish washer? Fl IAEI just had this discussion and found no way to cite this as a requirement. The closest they came was the single for a fridge on a 15a circuit and even then you could plug a clock in that circuit. The 2008 has eliminated the exception for dedicated appliance receptacles that don't need GFCI in unfinished spaces so I am not sure where you need a single receptacle now.

Maybe a decade ago, a friend of mine opened a day care in his home. He was surprised to find he was required to make every receptacle in the 'day care' area of the house either one with shutters, or GFCI protected. Simply putting those plastic 'plug fillers' in was not enough.

That was then ... and now we seem to find such a requirement for all of us. I call this "code creep." It's sort of like the camel's nose ... let it in just a bit, in one carefully defined area - and, before long, you've got the entire camel stomping around.

Naturally, the idea that maybe we allow those 'risky' areas to simply not have any receptacles was never considered. We're trying to address a risk we created in the first place. Oops.

So, now we're stuck with this -and other- blanket provisions that, IMO, are overly intrusive and absolutely unnecessary. Heaven only knows what insanity they will try next.
Maybe equipotential planes for the bathroom? Heck, if it's good for cattle, isn't it good enough for us? Or, maybe we'll follow the Carnegie Hall model, and require folks to call an electrician whenever they want something plugged in.

So, where are we going with all this- and what can be done?

First of all, you need to get involved in the next code cycle. Bury the committees under proposals to remove these provisions. make the committees say 'no' to each and every other one of us.

Secondly, perhaps this is the reason we are set up like Switzerland, and not France. It's your local government that has the final say - work to keep them from adopting these requirements.

Finally ... resist the temptation to answer every problem with "there ought to be a law ..." Otherwise, all this kvetching is like peeing in a dark suit ... it might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but no one notices

Hi Greg,
There was a big discussion on Mike Holt’s website, probably four web pages, of knowledgeable guys going back and forth about NEC 2005, 210.21[B],[1] and 210.21[B],[2] regarding the use of single and duplex receptacles on dedicated branch circuits and the maximum cord-and-plug connected load on receptacles.

When I decide to follow the equipment manufactures recommendations and run a dedicated, individual branch circuit, I don’t want to allow someone to plug anything else in that circuit by using a duplex receptacle.
NEC 210.21[B] seems to require a single receptacle with the same rating as the branch circuit, meaning a 15A single receptacle for 15amp circuit, 20A single receptacle for 20A circuit. So if I do decide to install a single receptacle under a sink for a cord and plug connected disposal, dishwasher or in a cabinet for an over the range microwave, as I normally would, seems that it would still have to comply with 406.11.
I don’t see any exception to the new 406.11, “In dwelling units, all 15A and 20A, 125V receptacles shall be listed as tamper resistant.” but as I said, I haven’t received my new 2008 code book yet.

I could probably argue either side of this argument but the IAEI guys came down on the side that there was no specific requirement for a dedicated circuit for a disposal, dish washer or microwave. Without actually seeing the nameplate and installation manual, you can't really apply 210.21.
It is certainly the right design choice but that alone will not limit you to a single receptacle.

Personally I think we have gone too far in the direction of overbuilding the electrical system in homes. I certainly don't want to go back to the bad old days of 60a services and 4 15a fuses but I also question 400a services in homes with $150 electric bills. When I was trying to decide what I needed in my new panel I turned on everything I would normally use with a house full of people (stove, A/C and water heater too) I had to turn on my 11kw spa heater to get over 100a, then it was 150 or so. I suppose my welder might have added another 25a or so but I couldn't see my Fluke with the mask on

Originally Posted By: KJay

I don’t see any Tamper Resistant 15A and 20A/125V single receptacles yet though, which I will assume be necessary for cord and plug connected dishwashers, over the range microwaves, etc.




I don't think these are on the required list.




How would you read 210.52-C(5)? this refers you back to C-1.

But the last sentence,".. or appliances occupying dedicated space shall not be considerd as these required outlets."

That I read as, rec in cabinets and other such areas and gas range rec etc. would not need TR rec.

Except for the few exceptions, a circuit can have any combination of loads on it providing is it sized to carry 100% of the not continious loads plus 125% of the continious loads. In theory and I have even seen homeowner workshops having all of their equipment on only one circuit and it meets code.

I think that this is the problem with table 210.21[B],[2].
It seems that it is based on 80% load regardless of the rating of the branch circuit.
It indicates the TOTAL cord and plug-connected load of two or more receptacles connected to a branch circuit, so according to that table, whether you connect one piece or twenty pieces of equipment at the same time, the total continuous or non-continuous load not can’t be more than specified there.
This seems not to coincide with the 80% load for continuous use, whether the conductors are sized at 125% or not.
Very strange because most cord and plug connected equipment that I know of is usually non-continuous, which should allow for using these receptacles at 100%.