Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/28/11 10:58 PM
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/28/11 11:32 PM
Thank you Sparkyinak!
A side note on the outlet covers. I was/am under the impression that most, if not all of these type covers had lost the UL blessing a few years back, something which lead to the TR receptacles.
What I heard as a reason was the slot covers were preventing the full engagement of the cord cap into the receptacles. I have not seen any documentation, this was a discussion item at an association meeting.
A side note on the outlet covers. I was/am under the impression that most, if not all of these type covers had lost the UL blessing a few years back, something which lead to the TR receptacles.
What I heard as a reason was the slot covers were preventing the full engagement of the cord cap into the receptacles. I have not seen any documentation, this was a discussion item at an association meeting.
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/28/11 11:57 PM
Good to know on the listing thing. Like thats gonna stop them from making junk
Anything electrical items I can buy at the local quickie mart should be an automatic red flag
Anything electrical items I can buy at the local quickie mart should be an automatic red flag
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/29/11 06:07 PM
As best I know, the varions "old style" tamper / child resistant covers are still perfectly fine, and UL continues to list them- as ordinary covers. Let's not confuse the recall of one product with any form of 'lost listing' rumor.
The advent of the new 'tamper resistant' standards did not do anything to ban previous versions; it's just clear from the NEC text that such covers and inserts will not meet the NEC requirements for 'tamper resistant.'
So, where might one be able to "legally" use such covers and inserts? Simply put: in existing installations, or to fulfill requirements from some source other than the NEC.
An example that comes to mind is for meeting the county requirements for home-based child-care businesses.
Here's a little UL humor: UL is very generous in distributing all manner of "swag." That is, things like pens, notebooks, flashlights, etc., with the UL logo on them. Some years ago, they were distributing very nice inserts (plastic things to stick in receptacles so that kiddies couldn't poke a paperclip in) with the UL logo. Much to the chagrin of UL, it turned out that the inserts were NOT made of any material that UL had evaluated for such a purpose. Imagine: UL was actually distributing 'counterfeit' products itself! OOPS.
The advent of the new 'tamper resistant' standards did not do anything to ban previous versions; it's just clear from the NEC text that such covers and inserts will not meet the NEC requirements for 'tamper resistant.'
So, where might one be able to "legally" use such covers and inserts? Simply put: in existing installations, or to fulfill requirements from some source other than the NEC.
An example that comes to mind is for meeting the county requirements for home-based child-care businesses.
Here's a little UL humor: UL is very generous in distributing all manner of "swag." That is, things like pens, notebooks, flashlights, etc., with the UL logo on them. Some years ago, they were distributing very nice inserts (plastic things to stick in receptacles so that kiddies couldn't poke a paperclip in) with the UL logo. Much to the chagrin of UL, it turned out that the inserts were NOT made of any material that UL had evaluated for such a purpose. Imagine: UL was actually distributing 'counterfeit' products itself! OOPS.
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/29/11 06:48 PM
Reno:
You may care to read this:
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/...cle_517_Tamper_Resistant_Receptacles.pdf
I only 'added' my comment as an FYI. We all know that the 'stuff' that is available, mostly for DIYs may not be the same 'stuff' that the professionals install.
You may care to read this:
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/...
I only 'added' my comment as an FYI. We all know that the 'stuff' that is available, mostly for DIYs may not be the same 'stuff' that the professionals install.
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/29/11 08:27 PM
That UL statement is technically correct. It is also incomplete enough to be misleading, even dishonest. There are no, and never have been, UL-listed "tamper resistant" cover plates, as defined by the NEC, and marked with the "TR."
However, there are a variety of devices, cover plates, and inserts that were previously used - long before the NEC addressed the topic - to protect little kids from themselves. These items are still made, still listed - but not listed under that particular category. If you visit any 'box' store and examing the products, you will see that they do not have that "TR" marking.
Prior to the recent code change, there was no UL standard that addressed 'tamper resistance' for electrical devices or their covers. Keep in mind that any standard is no more than its' own particular requirements, and cannot address features beyond the scope of the standard.
However, there are a variety of devices, cover plates, and inserts that were previously used - long before the NEC addressed the topic - to protect little kids from themselves. These items are still made, still listed - but not listed under that particular category. If you visit any 'box' store and examing the products, you will see that they do not have that "TR" marking.
Prior to the recent code change, there was no UL standard that addressed 'tamper resistance' for electrical devices or their covers. Keep in mind that any standard is no more than its' own particular requirements, and cannot address features beyond the scope of the standard.
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/29/11 09:41 PM
Reno:
The term TR is and was used to define straight blade receptacles, 120 volt, 15 & 20 amp. Prior to the mandate to require TR in resi, they were required in 517 and some child care facilities, either by design or some local 'code'. TR devices were 'spec grade' and pricey.
The types of covers within this thread may be better referred to as 'child resistant' or hopefully not offending anyone, 'idiot resistant'.
As I was trying to allude above, the covers & inserts are not electrician items, but ems a homeowner would buy & install.
The covers, as alluded to in the UL link had an issue with cord caps properly seating & possible fire situations as a worse case scenario.
The term TR is and was used to define straight blade receptacles, 120 volt, 15 & 20 amp. Prior to the mandate to require TR in resi, they were required in 517 and some child care facilities, either by design or some local 'code'. TR devices were 'spec grade' and pricey.
The types of covers within this thread may be better referred to as 'child resistant' or hopefully not offending anyone, 'idiot resistant'.
As I was trying to allude above, the covers & inserts are not electrician items, but ems a homeowner would buy & install.
The covers, as alluded to in the UL link had an issue with cord caps properly seating & possible fire situations as a worse case scenario.
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/29/11 10:58 PM
TR = toddler resistant ? = training required ? = tamper resistant ?
Which is it?
Which is it?
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/30/11 02:32 AM
Maybe...all three!
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/30/11 03:02 PM
HotLine, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the 'history' of TR devices.
Prior to the NEC requirement, so-called 'safety' devices were not marked "TR,' and there were no industry specs regarding just what such a thing was.
Child care regulators had their own ideas, and enforced their own rules. Often they wanted to see either the twist-type faces (which are made in both device and cover plate versions) or plastic caps inserted into every accessible receptacle. Yet, these gizmos were strictly marketing options- there was no standard or certification relied upon.
The same situation, oddly enough, applies to the various claims regarding 'commercial grade' and 'specification grade' devices; the words are legally meaningless, and completely unenforceable.
Let these examples remind us all of just how well the market can work- IF we let it!
Prior to the NEC requirement, so-called 'safety' devices were not marked "TR,' and there were no industry specs regarding just what such a thing was.
Child care regulators had their own ideas, and enforced their own rules. Often they wanted to see either the twist-type faces (which are made in both device and cover plate versions) or plastic caps inserted into every accessible receptacle. Yet, these gizmos were strictly marketing options- there was no standard or certification relied upon.
The same situation, oddly enough, applies to the various claims regarding 'commercial grade' and 'specification grade' devices; the words are legally meaningless, and completely unenforceable.
Let these examples remind us all of just how well the market can work- IF we let it!
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/30/11 06:49 PM
That's too funny!
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/31/11 01:12 AM
Reno:
I was going to use your line of not beating a dead horse on this, but.....
Hubbell duplex receptacles, with an internal shutter over the slots, have been around for a long time. I do not have any factual info with dates, but I haven't slipped into dementia just yet.
As to if they were marked 'tamper resistant', or TR you possibly have a home run with that. They were special ordered thru a Hubbell distributor when they were specified on my jobs.I know I never referred to these devices as 'so called 'safety' devices'.
As to you stating "unenforceable" the 'spec/comm'grade designations are specifications called out by the design professional, and on many jobs the 'design professional' has been known to check devices for compliance.
As to the terms being 'meaningless' are you saying that ALL 'spec' grade devices are not equal? Or are you saying that 'spec' grade is non-existant.
I was going to use your line of not beating a dead horse on this, but.....
Hubbell duplex receptacles, with an internal shutter over the slots, have been around for a long time. I do not have any factual info with dates, but I haven't slipped into dementia just yet.
As to if they were marked 'tamper resistant', or TR you possibly have a home run with that. They were special ordered thru a Hubbell distributor when they were specified on my jobs.I know I never referred to these devices as 'so called 'safety' devices'.
As to you stating "unenforceable" the 'spec/comm'grade designations are specifications called out by the design professional, and on many jobs the 'design professional' has been known to check devices for compliance.
As to the terms being 'meaningless' are you saying that ALL 'spec' grade devices are not equal? Or are you saying that 'spec' grade is non-existant.
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/31/11 05:54 PM
I am well aware that various devices have been around for decades; there was simply no code reason to require them, nor was there any standard that they were held to. Every firm was free to follow it's own desire.
None of the devices fulfil the current code requirements, as they lack the "TR" marking.
Building plans require many things- the vast portion of which are not enforceable by the inspector. There's no law that says you must paint the bedroom walls pink, to cite one recent job I was on. The customer is free to purchase (specify) what he wants. As indicated by the various types of receptacles - there must be hundreds of ordinary duplex 5/15's available- customers want all manner of things not required by code.
As for "spec" grade .... or any other 'grade,' for that matter .... the terms mean whatever each manufacturer says they mean. While there has been SOME uniformity in the use of "spec" to refer to a particular Federal specification, one must read the fine print to be sure. Other terms - 'commercial' and 'industrial' are two that come to mind- don't have even that hook to hang from.
Go ahead, beat that dead horse .... that's what neigh-bors are for!
None of the devices fulfil the current code requirements, as they lack the "TR" marking.
Building plans require many things- the vast portion of which are not enforceable by the inspector. There's no law that says you must paint the bedroom walls pink, to cite one recent job I was on. The customer is free to purchase (specify) what he wants. As indicated by the various types of receptacles - there must be hundreds of ordinary duplex 5/15's available- customers want all manner of things not required by code.
As for "spec" grade .... or any other 'grade,' for that matter .... the terms mean whatever each manufacturer says they mean. While there has been SOME uniformity in the use of "spec" to refer to a particular Federal specification, one must read the fine print to be sure. Other terms - 'commercial' and 'industrial' are two that come to mind- don't have even that hook to hang from.
Go ahead, beat that dead horse .... that's what neigh-bors are for!
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 07/31/11 06:42 PM
While I agree that those plates being recalled are crap, the NEC only requires that the receptacle be marked as TR, not the wall plates. So, with that being said, I don’t see why those crappy plates couldn’t be used in an existing building, if you weren’t going to be replacing the actual receptacles, but simply replacing the receptacle wall plates.
If you replaced the receptacles, then of course, they should be brought up to current code with TR receptacles, at least if you’re under the 2011 NEC anyway.
If you replaced the receptacles, then of course, they should be brought up to current code with TR receptacles, at least if you’re under the 2011 NEC anyway.
Re: Recall of interest - safety recept faceplates - 08/01/11 02:20 AM
Kjay:
The installation of the'safety' plates as 'replacements' would not be an 'inspection' situation here, as there would be no permit required. (Rehab Codes)
As I mentioned, the issue was that the male cord caps were not fully seating, causing/resulting in overheating issues.
The installation of the'safety' plates as 'replacements' would not be an 'inspection' situation here, as there would be no permit required. (Rehab Codes)
As I mentioned, the issue was that the male cord caps were not fully seating, causing/resulting in overheating issues.