ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
NEC 2017_392.22(B)(1)(b)
_What's the smallest width

by HotLine1 - 09/19/19 01:34 PM
Kichler Lighting Recalls Pendant Lights
by Admin - 09/18/19 08:47 PM
Does a 'normal 3ph-AC motor' include capacitors?
by gfretwell - 09/18/19 01:20 AM
Another weird NEC code question on Feeder Taps
by gfretwell - 09/18/19 01:14 AM
NEC Question_Cord-&-Plug EGC shorter then Neutral
by pcsailor - 09/16/19 05:26 AM
New in the Gallery:
What is this for?
Plug terminals
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (HotLine1), 8 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 14
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: harold endean] #174902 02/16/08 07:39 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,112
HotLine1 Online Content
Member
Harold:
This was one of the 'hot' topics at the 10 hr CEU course I participated in with NJEIA last month.

Panel directory was another...but..

An amendment to delete the TP would have to start at the DCA, IMHO. The lobbiests for the State Builders Assoc/League would also have to get involved to have any clout.



John
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: harold endean] #174925 02/17/08 01:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
A
Alan Nadon Offline
Member
I am not a fan of the TR receptacles.
However having declared that, I will admit that the new lines of TRs are user friendly. They even include GFI and combination devices. No more insert/turn and then push in the rest of the way. Resistance to putting in a plug is almost the same as a regular device. They are designed to provent anything going into only one opening of the device.
The biggest problem I see with how 406.11 is written is that it applies to all receptacles in the AREAs listed in 210.52. That means the receptacle in the cupboard behind the microwave has to be tamper-resistant. It is going to be hard to explain to the customer the extra (minimum)cost for that recptacle.
210.52 excludes receptacles in cupboards / luminaires & appliances and those over 5 1/2 feet above the floor. 406.11 as written does not include those exceptions. I feel that the exceptions need to be included in 406.11 to put some logic into the arguement for using the TRs.
Switched receptacles are also excluded in 210.52 but, because they may be accessable to the inquisitive little darlings they should be included in the TR requirement.
As an inspector I hate being an enforcer for greedy merchants.



Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: Alan Nadon] #174935 02/17/08 06:00 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,392
G
gfretwell Online Content
Member
"Switched receptacles" seems to be a strange exclusion. If you have kids that will probably be the one that gets you. Kid A says "see it is OK, watch me", then when kid B sticks the fingernail file in kid A flips the switch. Great fun huh?
If you don't get it you have never had boys.


Greg Fretwell
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: gfretwell] #174968 02/18/08 05:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
E
Electricmanscott Offline
Member
Are you guys for real? Is this that big of a deal. I don't think so.

Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: gfretwell] #174989 02/19/08 07:56 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
leland Offline OP
Member
Originally Posted by gfretwell
"Switched receptacles" seems to be a strange exclusion. If you don't get it you have never had boys.

Oh I get the boy thing smile

I don't see any exclusion for sw. rec though.

406.11 states "ALL" in 210.52. 210.52(2), is included.
If you refer ,210.52.(B)(1) ex. 1.,
This reads as permision to install a sw rec from ANOTHER ckt in a kitchen,per 210.70.(A)(1). I don't see an exclusion.

I may be reading it wrong, tried it several times.

Last edited by leland; 02/19/08 07:57 AM. Reason: (1)
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: leland] #174997 02/19/08 11:47 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
A
Alan Nadon Offline
Member
Didn't mean to confuse anyone.
Section 210.52, before (A), (B) etc. has receptacles that are not considered as being any of the required receptacles covered by 210.52. Those are the ones above 5 1/2 feet; in cupboards; part of a fixture, etc. The switched receptacle in (2) goes to 210.70(A)(1)exception..."in other than kitchens and bathrooms one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch...instead of lighting outlets." Those should be covered by 406.11. For the reasons that Greg mentions above.
The ones over 5 1/2 feet; in cupboards; etc. should not be covered by 406.11.


Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: Alan Nadon] #175021 02/19/08 08:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
E
Electricmanscott Offline
Member
I disagree Alan. The requirement says "In all areas specified in 210.52.....ALL receptacles....."

It does not say all receptacles required by 210.52.

In my opinion if it is in those areas, which basically covers the entire house, they shall be TR receptacles.

I still don't know why the big uproar about this anyway.

Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: Electricmanscott] #175024 02/19/08 09:51 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member
Codes, like all laws, ultimately depend upon the good will of the governed to be effective. When the rules begin to wander .... they start losing their impact.

I suspect that the 'uproar' has its' source in two things:

1) Many - certainly I - feel they were blind-sided by this requirement ... it seemed to pop up as a done deal out of nowhere. I don't like surprises; and,

2) Many - including myself - consider this an unwarranted extension of the code, well beyond the 'minimum safety' the code espouses.

We're not sheep, expected to quietly accept whatever is handed down to us. It is for the rules to satisfy us ... and this requirement is but one more reason to NOT accept the 08 NEC. Another term for "uproar" in this case might be 'citizen participation.'

Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: renosteinke] #175030 02/20/08 01:48 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,392
G
gfretwell Online Content
Member
The real uproar won't show up until people actually start getting these and have problems with them.


Greg Fretwell
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: gfretwell] #175036 02/20/08 12:05 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
harold endean Offline
Member
Greg,

At least the EC's in NJ will have a chance to make their opinion heard.(I believe) The state will go look into the new NEC in the next few months in order to see which sections of the NEC they will remove. For example here in NJ the state does not use AFCI's yet. Maybe they will omit the section on TP receptacles. You can go to the State of NJ website under the Dept. of Community Affairs, (DCA) and they should have the dates when we can write it in and make our opinion heard.

Page 4 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 14

Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2017 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2017 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
mersadrad
mersadrad
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 28
Joined: March 2011
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 7
Popular Topics(Views)
258,697 Are you busy
194,264 Re: Forum
183,725 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3