Will the shutterd covers cover this requirement?
Or as stated else where, will we need the GFCI brkrs for kitchen and bath.

I still think... What the Hell are they thinking?
My house does not have toddlers, and if it did, I would like to think I would be there to raise them.
I made it 46 yrs, never stuck anything in a rec. been in the trade for 22, and still have never stuck anything in a rec..aside from test equipment..(12ga jumper etc.).
What gives? Are we that stupid as a society that we need this!!!?
If we are then we don't need this. Natural selection will take its course....AS IT SHOULD!.

Unforteally IMO the code some case getting out of the hand but this matter i feel kinda it cross the line a little over the portion on this sisuation and yeah i have 3 daughers in my house and they made it thru without any issue with the repectales..

to use the tamper resistant repcales in new construction i know it will be enforeced in the code but i think some states will override this one. [ i havent got any info on my state code yet but once it printed in the " ink " i will know for sure what it will take a effect with it ]

Merci, Marc

Well, In Massachusetts Its' in there.
And they most certainly know whats best for us.
I'm about to digress, but I won't, thats for a different forum.

So My question is for the inspectors out there, I know we have a few....

Are the shutterd covers acceptable?
Wording clearly states...."Tamper resisitant receptacles".

By The way, I pulled 3 permits today and am planning at least 2 for next week.

any thoughts?

Florida is skipping the 2008 as far as I know. I certainly haven't heard any hue and cry to cherry pick this and the expansion of AFCI out to add to the Florida building code like they did for the softening of the paver grid in a pool.

Thats good, Maybe, I'm not sure.
But since this Marilyn woman started posting me (wich is very nice and helpfull)I have never noticed how many States don't even consider the new code untill the next one is due.
Here, (MA) Almost like we write our own then adapt it to the NEC.
We're already in print and ready for Jan-1-2008 (effective date).
(my understanding and exp).
Spose' that aint' a bad thing, Limited guessing on what they want.

Well...I suppose we will just have to wait....by the 2014 code cycle all receptacles will be gfci/afci/tamper resistant protected. Of course the price of a home service will have risen to about $10,000.00 but everyone will be happy because they are so safe right??? :P

Well maybe not the home owners but the electrical manufacturers association and the contractors who don't care about raping thier clients sure will be.

I'm sorry but in this case the NFPA has gone way beyond it's mandate and has given in to lobbying. It must be nice to have a tame quasi-government/insurance/AHJ agency that can tell millions of people they have to buy your completely worthless product.

Two years ago everyone said this would never happen...it was far too obvious an excursion of NEMA power on the code making process...opps, I guess someone forgot to mention that to NEMA.

So now that we can obviously see who is making the code for this country and why without any doubts, are you willing to take it back from them?

The process is open to anyone....get involved and stop the madness.

start stock piling GFCI brkrs. You won't need the rec anymore.

Local GFCI recs are still convenient, so you don't have to go the whole way to the garage/basement every time you trip it. I can see homeowners demanding them, even if GFCI breakers end up with a slight price advantage.

Hi SteveFehr,
Where can I find those those tamper resistant GFCI receptacles?
I can’t find anything but standard duplex.

TKX

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%.

Receptacles and the lack of control what the user will plug in explains 240.4(D)

Greg, I think that makes perfect sense too, but 210.21[B],[2] seems to refer to the load on the actual receptacles themselves, not the branch circuit.

I think that 210.21[B],[2] and Table 210.21[B],[2] should be rewritten so that they coincide with the requirements for branch circuit ratings.

JMHO

It is always hard to reconcile what someone will plug into a receptacle with a code article, especially as long as cube taps exist. Just a quick peek around at this time of year confirms that.

Many folks are not aware of recept ratings are rated based on non-continious loads. This is why when a single receptacle is on a dedicated circuit, the amperage rating has to match the breaker. A common problem in colder climates is the misuse of portable space heaters. Too many times a 1500 Watt heater is pluged into a 15 amp receptacle. These heaters are not design or built to run continously (3 hours or more). Yet may times like under houses, they run 24/7 when it is cold out. At 15 amps, that recept and plug are rated at 1800 Watts. However as a continious load, their rating is only 1440 Watts. I have seen and replaced outlets that melted like marshmellows because of this.

To the average home owner, if the plug fits the outlet, they think there is going to be no problem. (If it doesn't fit, some will make it fit. ) Too many possibilities are out there that can be used on GP recepts. This is why there are several limitiations on recepts and their circuits. If a recept is installed for the a specific application, just like everything else, it has to be sized accordingly.

That is why I do not use off brand recepts and dicourage the use of residential grade receptacles. Cheap is not always the best way to go. Even in a competitve market. I get my all my critical electical parts though reputable vendors, not the local hardware store. If you have been in the trade long enough, you know who the homeowner will blame for an electrical fire that results from improper use.

WOW, we have really strayed from the OP’s topic with this. It’s good to have guys here interested enough to turn it inside out though.
I guess this could go around and around depending on the persons point of view and how they interpret the NEC.

I would agree about the rating of receptacles except that when you have more than one single receptacle, such as a duplex, which counts as two receptacles, 210.21[B],[3] allows the use of 15A receptacles on a 20A circuit with a maximum cord and plug connected load of 16A, as per Table 210[B,[2]
That would exceed the 15A receptacles 80%, 12A rating even when used as a single receptacle as per 210.21[B],[1] and is also above the 100% maximum rating of the receptacle itself, which appears to be what 210.21[B],[2] is supposed to prevent and is apparently it’s whole reason for being. This in itself would indicate that receptacles must be designed for use at 100% of their rated capacity.
The 80% limitation in Table 210.21[B],[2] is on the receptacles themselves, not the branch circuit. It doesn’t differentiate between continuous or non-continuous use. It only allows you to use the receptacle to the maximum cord and plug connected rating of Table 210.21[B],[2] with no exception except for receptacles for arc welders, and electric discharge lighting.
The guys on Mike Holt’s site determined that listed receptacles are rated for 100% of their capacity.
That would bring us around full circle.
Since receptacles are rated for 100% of their capacity, there should be no hazard in allowing them to be used at 100% of their rating for non-continuous loads and 80% for continuous. Others have also made the determination that the 90 degree C rated 15A and 20A branch circuit conductors we use are already rated for 125% for continuous loads per 310.16, being 25A for #12, and 25A and for #14. They are protected at 80% of the max conductor rating at 60 degree C, that being 20A for #12 and 15A for #14 with 40 Degree C rated circuit breakers rated for use at 100% of their capacity.

Anyway, I still think it’s time to modify Table 210.21[B][2].

After re-reading my last post, I can see that I probably should of have phrased this a little differently. The point I was struggling to make was that by allowing 15A receptacles on a 20A circuit, you couldn’t possibly expect to have any control over whether the user will connect a 12A or 16A load. Even beyond that, I just don’t see the need for the 80% limitation for a receptacle that is only being used for non-continuous cord and plug connected loads
I need to condense my thoughts into one paragraph or less from now on!!

What makes this no 'real big deal' is the fact that if you take apart a 15 and 20 amp duplex of the same grade and maker you will find the internal parts are interchangeable.

The only difference between the same grade and make of 15 & 20 amp duplex receptacles is the plastic face plate.

Keep in mind UL requires 15 amp duplex's to be able to handle 20 amp feed thru.

The fact the NEC even tries to control the load that may be plugged into a receptacle is just plain ridiculous.

If the powers that be really want to improve something it would be to tighten up the standard for receptacles a bit so it would get closer to the spec grade. I fear it will end up going the other way as manufacturers try to hit a price point with the TP receptacle. The actual contact part might be made cheaper than the 43c ones we have now ... if that is possible.

FYI Gentlemen:

A full line of TR devices is available from P&S
total of 24 items....and single recept's.

Found all of it at P&S website yesterday....

Here in NJ we haven't adopted the 2008 NEC yet. It is coming up for adoption I think in April. I am telling all the EC's here in NJ to flood the state website and demand that the state strikes the tamper proof receptacles from our code. It looks like the manufactures are just trying to push their products down our throats again. It think it is very wrong, and don't think or aging seniors will be able to deal with the new tamper proof plugs. (What if you have a 2 prong radio? Will it open some of the tamper proof types of receptacles?) I will now get off my soap box.

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.

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.

"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.

Are you guys for real? Is this that big of a deal. I don't think so.

Oh I get the boy thing

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.

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.

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.

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.'

The real uproar won't show up until people actually start getting these and have problems with them.

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.

So what other products are we rebelling against today? Airbags, seatbelts, bicycle helmets? I'd rather die than let the government tell me I have to buy these products!

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I am not for safety. We are all for safety around this board, it is just the fact that governing agencies are trying too hard to keep us safe. What ever happened to responsibility? I bought all of those little plastic plug protectors when my kids were small. Now they are all ground up. So if I put a new addition on my house and there is a bedroom in the addition, I still need TP receptacles?

That's the question I'm constantly asking. Maine electricians: where does ME stand on this new code? I'd like to go on record with the proper authorities that I oppose this change. Thanks!

The NEC is no longer a minimum standard, it is a manufacturer's standard...

Has anyone had a chance to play with these yet? I did yesterday with some P&S ones and found out they really don't work as I expected. If you put an object in one side, you can't push it in far enough to touch the contact as expected. However if you hold the object in the first side and insert a second object in the other side, the shutters open and both objects will be able to touch the contacts.
We also tried plugging some cords in and had no problem with the cords on a couple of power tools, but the cord end on an imported portable electric heater could not be inserted into the receptacle. It looked like the blades on that plug were thicker than the ones on the other plugs. This could be a big issue if the homeowner cannot plug things in.
Don

Don,

I have yet to see one, at my supply house. I was told that a sales rep ( for one of the manufactures) came strolling into the supply and started boasting, " Well you had better stock up on my brand of TP receptacles, after all it is in the code now!" Whereas the supply house threw him out and said, "We will buy them once we are told to!" Right now in NJ we are still under the 2005 NEC and the 2008 will be up for adoption in March. ( I believe ) We will have to see if NJ keeps the TP recp. in the code or takes it out.

i for one disagree with the tamper issue,
how is using a few thousand items going to fix the world of its many millions of pre existing conditions?

If the tamper resistant is such a problem solver, then we should be required to visit all existing locations and upgrade the entire country, and seeing thats not going to happen, then the tr is definately a manufacturer trying to sell product.
same with the arc fault rule,using such a safety device on a new and already safe installl, but yet when we do service cahnges or panel upgrades, and we are not required to use the afci , defeating a purpose here?

We can't really apply new rules to existing conditions ... suffice it to say that such attempts in the past led to such injustice that out very Constitution specifically forbids 'ex poste facto' laws.

Perhaps it is believed that time, and attrition, will eventually see all the bad old stuff replaced. Or, it is felt that there is sufficient growth in our future that the percentage of old stuff will dramatically decline.

Maybe, even, some code wonk went on a British holiday, and was inspired by their use of these receptacles - and just couldn't wait to bring the idea home with him.

Whether the manufacturers were behind the proposal or not, you can be sure that the prospect of replacing their sales of 50 cent devices with 5 dollar ones did not cause them to cry out in despair!

Personally, I believe that the NEC departed from the 'minimum' standard long ago, and has adopted a proactive 'if it saves one life' approach. That such an approach is patently self-contradictory is besides the point .... critical thinking and honest discussion seem to be endangered species these days.

Just keep your eye on the ball: this, and other changes, have no effect until adopted by your local AHJ. Much as the NFPA would like you to believe that the NEC is the 'bedrock' of our codes, the actual fact is that hardly any jurisdiction adopts the NEC without some modification. Now is the time to act - if you want to stop this rule.

A clever Scot I know once told me something. He said, "Rules... They're for the guidance of wise people.. and the control of fools.."

Not to beat this thing to death, but here in NJ we ( as contractors and inspectors) will have a chance to be heard about adopting the new NEC. In May (last time I asked) the state will put up on it's website new rules which they will adopt. The 2008 NEC being one of them. At that time, th general public will have time to make comment to the Dept. Of Community Affairs (DCA) and tell them what we think of the new codes. I for one will ask them to delete the part where TP receptacles will be required. They do have a proper place when they should be used and I believe they should be used then. I just get tired of manufactures pushing their products and getting it mandated by the NEC.

Harold:
Please let me know where you obtained the above information.
I have an NJEIA Meeting coming up and would like to add a powerpoint slide on this subject.

Stay safe

I replied to you with an e-mail, but I will also reply here. I was told by the Dept. Of Community Affairs here in NJ that when new codes are up for adoption, the public has a say about what we/the state should keep or change in the code book. I am not sure how true it is yet, but I have a lot to say about the 2008 NEC.

Today I took my 'encouraged' update class. The speaker asserted that NECA (or Nema) has a study that concluded that the additional cost for using these receptacles in your 'typical' house id only $39. He also asserted that the "TR" receptacles will cost only $0.27 more than the $0.75 we pay now for residential grade devices.

When I replied with the prices I had received from the parts houses, he insisted I was asking the wrong people, and that the parts houses were misleading me.

I report - you decide

I thought this guy had to be nuts, but take a look at this Levion CR! $1.19 each!

I know, it's hard to believe ... but this is one of those times I'd like to be wrong!

I can't wait to take that web page with me to the supply house Monday

Mass production should bring the price down even further; there's no reason it should add more than a few cents. I'd expect the $.39 special will rise to $.45 or so. And that there will be a sharp increase in calls to come and replace them when they break

I have seen on several other sites where some states are refusing to adopt the 2008 NEC. Some states are stopping with the 2005 NEC, and other states are putting amendments to not use the TP receptacles. It looks like some people are getting fed up with too many rules and regs that are set up because of manufactures suggestions.

It now appears the state Florida will NOT be adopting the 2008 NEC anytime in the near future. The FBC is indicating they may wait until the next code cycle in 2010.

I think we are overdue for a moratorium on all code changes for 10 years except for fixing language and inconsistencies. There is so much churn in these codes that the building officials are as baffled as the contractors about what the codes really say.

Greg,

You should know me better than anyone on this board. We have been friends for many years. You know that I don't get excited about a lot of subjects and that I stop in here now and then for many years. However this new code change is getting very out of hand. The code making panels keep changing things year after year. I understand fully that we are trying to make our world safe, but at what cost? When is enough too much? Trying to push TP receptacles is now getting a little out of hand. ( In my opinion) Let's try to keep the focus on safety and new equipment to help keep us safe, but let's not jam this stuff down our throats. My state hasn't enforced the AFCI's yet, so I don't even know if they are worth it yet or not. My state has a lot of old houses with a lot of old wiring. Knob and tube (K&T) was the norm, back 100 years ago. Many EC's don't even know what K&T is and how to work with it. As for pool wiring, sec. 680 of the NEC keeps changing from code cycle to code cycle.

Greg,

I didn't get a chance to finish the above post. I must have hit the wrong button. I was going to add to that post, sorry for the ranting, but I just had to rant and rave somewhere! I am seeing a lot of negative post about the new 2008 NEC and I haven't even gotten through the whole thing yet.

The federal government recently adopted ICC (and NEC) as the official federal building code for DoD, NASA and a few other agencies, wheras they always had their own special codes before. Many of the code changes in 2008 seem to have been driven by experts in government agencies that never really cared before, but often have unique requirements that weren't adequately addressed, or lessons learned that apply just as well to the commercial world. Article 708, for example.

That, and the internet is making it easier and easier to collaborate- we all saw and discussed the proposed changes to 2008. How many of us saw the same for 2005? I bet it's WAY more than reviewed 2002 or 1999 or 1975. More collaboration = more feedback = more changes.

Taken from a FAQ ragarding TR receptacles on the Leviton web site....
"Q. What do I need to tell my customers about TR receptacles to minimize callbacks?
A. Tell them they may have difficulty inserting some plugs into the receptacles. Prongs have to be perfectly straight to work with TR
receptacles. Inexpensive adapters are available as a solution. In some cases, frayed or damaged plugs may have to be replaced; if
other damage exists, the appliance should be replaced."

I sure hope that the adapters are TR also....if not it sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it? It would be even funnier if they were talking about the good old ungrounded adapter.

Harold: (& anyone else interested)
'08 may be coming...soon, heard from a reliable source 'mid-summer' & usual 6 months.

Also, it sounds like AFCI time will be upon us, along with the TP/WR receptacles.

We (NJEIA) did the 9 hr of Code changes in Jan, and will be doing it again in Oct. TP/WR was a hot subject. I have lit & samples from P&S that I used in Jan. P&S rep mentioned 'slight cost increase factor' & indicated now costs will drop as demand dictates.

Don't rant to much.

John,

I just got a P&S sample of TR receptacle, I mean it looks OK but all the extra cost! Plus the cost of AFCI! I don't think anyone will be getting permits anymore. The "Handymen" will be doing all of the work without permits and the Lic. EC's won't be able to compete with their prices. What will we do on old houses and the Arc faults? Some of the old wiring is multi-branch, So I guess we will have to use a 2 pole Arc Fault at $(How much?, $75? $150? $250?) I don't know what the price of those are. I wish the state didn't adopted the 2008 with out some modifications. I guess we will just have to see.

Actually, regarding multi-wire branch circuits ...

I have a letter, purporting to be from NEMA, saying in essence "too bad if you can't AFCI a MWBC." There may not be a way to AFCI, or combination AFCI, such a circuit. I just don't know - and I have my doubts about that "document."

Did you all get your free demo from Pass and Seymore. They have a TR receptacle on a card with a plug (2>3 prong adapter) and a paper clip. It is to demonstrate a paper clip will not go in but the plug will. As long as you line the plug up straight it works pretty well, but so does the paper clip if you unfold and make a "V" out of it.

This way, only the cleverest kids are able to electrocute themselves.

The report on injuries to children inserting things in to receptacles and getting injured cited burn injuries. This would mean that they had to have two conductive objects. The design of the TR receptacle that I played with does not prevent the insertion of two objects. When this was proposed I thought that if you did not insert something in each slot at the same time the shutters would not open. That appears not to be the case. You can put an object in one slot and the shutter will not open, but when you put a second object in the other slot, both shutters open. If we are going to have to have these things, then the shutter design should require that you push against both shutters at the same time.

And a failsafe, that pushing against one shutter before the other foils the device. Without something like that, this is rather pointless.

Gonna make plugging in that clock radio to the outlet behind the bed rather difficult.

Incidents also include children putting their fingers in the outlet. Only way that can happen is if the outlet is broken, or without a cover and the side wiring is exposed.
I just put the information out there and let the market decide if they want them.
The numbers also jump between 50 cents and two dollars an outlet depending on the source listed in the information from electrical safety institute.
Good products don't need a hard sell.

Gentlemen:
FWIW, in the weekend advertisements, one of the BIG box stores (Blue or Orange) had TP devices featured!! The pricing was not 'outrageous', but more than the .35 cent cheapo's. I'll look in the recycle pile for the ad tonite.

Home Depot only had them in Decora today They were new and not priced on the shelf.

OK, How many people out there have a surge suppressor plug strip? Now what happens to the TR receptacle? I am not against safety, I am just tired of manufactures shoving their products down our throats.

The obvious solution is TR surge supressors! Just wait, I'm sure they're coming.

Harold has a good point.

Not only is the TR idea completely irrelevant once a power strip is plugged in - ever pause to count how many you have in your home? - but some power strip designs do not lend themselves to easy modification.

Take this style, for example:



Naturally, this unique design came about as a way to address the many plug-in transformers we have.

This is what happens when we get into design work.

As pointed out in a recent column in "Electrical Contractor," the TR requirement applies to nearly every receptacle in a home - it looks like they may have overlooked the attic. Whether the receptacle is inaccessible (behind the dishwasher), well out of reach (garage door opener), or otherwise protected (outdoor with a bubble cover) does not matter.

Well, I can now say with confidence that it’s official… TR receptacles for residential installations…BLOW!

How can it be that when they designed TR receptacles, it seems that no one took into account the use of polarized two-prong cord caps?
So far, all three brands of TR receptacles that I have installed, Cooper, Leviton and P&S, have had a problem with allowing these polarized caps to be inserted. You have to wiggle the cord cap up and down while jiggling it side to side and pushing like you don’t care if you break it to get them to go in. I have actually cracked several thermoset wall plates from pushing so hard against the receptacles yoke. From now on, I will only use the unbreakable nylon plates with TR receptacles.
I really feel bad for the elderly, handicapped and even the ordinary individuals who I am forced to make use this trash.
This is even more ridiculous when considering that almost every table and floor lamp, as well as most portable counter top appliances use polarized two-prong caps.
I suppose we will be told that in the future, this situation will be addressed. Just like the cost of these receptacles is going to eventually drop to pre-TR prices. All I can say is that it seems that we have all been played, again.

I have a P&S right here on my desk and have played with a Leviton and have had no issues with the polarized plugs. I did find a fan made in China where the prongs were too thick to work with the TR receps, but would work with standard ones. I expect that the thickness of the prongs was outside the NEMA standard for plugs.

I am going to make a prediction that injuries will increase with the use of TR receptacles. The kids will just try harder and instead of just poking 1 wire they will have to get 2 at least. Just imagine the result of a kid with 2 metal object, 1 in each hand and they get them both in at the same moment. Current accross the chest. I for 1 am a kid that poked things into sockets. I became an electrician. I guess i enjoyed the experience. This rule change has been proposed for the Canadian Electrical code.

Yeah I poked a bobby pin into one when i was about 5 years old a spark, a crack , and black stuff on outlet

My "when I was about 5 years old" story is that I got a blade of a pair of "safety" children's craft scissors across a plug that was plugged into an extension cord. I don't actually remember the event, but I remember my parents rushing into my room, greatly concerned (I think I must have blown a fuse), and I remember the black hole in the edge of my scissors forever after that.

I don't recall being injured, or even being aware that anything significant had happened.

I note that tamper-resistant receptacles would have made absolutely no difference.

I had been bit a lot by the time I was 6 or 7 and I was allowed to wire anything I wanted on my Loinell transformer. By 8 they would let me wire up Christmas tree lamps and such and plug them in. I am not sure why my parents thought a C-7 was safer than a toaster.

Has anyone attempted use a wiggy or voltage tester on one of these things?

Not to change topic, but I understand that the NEC people put the verbage in for the AFC circuit breakers before the combo units have been designed. The combo units are supposed to work on the multi-wire circuits.

They keep making new codes and here in Pa we have no lisence requirments, would it not be safer to have a minimum standard for installers than make the codes and products restrictive. Just a thought.
We can then have anual electrical inspections, like car insections or physicals. I see $$$$$ and the state can collect some $$$ and the Township and then inspectors checking the repairs and while there, they can inforce all the other violations, like house #s to small, wrong kind of locks, extention cords, clearances, etc.

Ob

Though I'm not advocating it- I think one of the main reasons I respect electricity today is the fact I got bit several times as a kid. My dad never seemed to care at all if I was messin' around with line-voltage stuff... Can't figure it out but something just ain't quite right with that picture...

Following, is just my opinion.

I think the tamper-resistant receptacles are a good idea in child nurseries, et cetera where the little troglodytes can get into too much mischief, but they are NOT needed EVERYWHERE! If it were me I would exempt them where not readily accessible or greater than 32 inches AFF. Is the NEC now trying to protect people from themselves (much like modern highway transportation safety enhancements)?

Just my opinion and nothing more...

I agree with Air Arcsalot, but that is not what the 2008 NEC says. If you read it, I believe it means anywhere there is a required outlet, (as per 210.52) you would need a tamper proof receptacle. I think that is not a realistict requirement. Also since a lot of the people are becoming senior citizens, I think it might not help them. The TP receptacle that I saw, needed an extra push to get the plug in. I think that too many manufactures are sitting on the code making panels and they are pushing for their own products.

Harold:
THe points made by Sir Arcsalot are basically what I heard when I gave the Article 400 section of the '08 Changes CEU. I have sample TR devices and I see no difference in the required effort to insert a male plug. (P&S brand) I have noticed that some 'resi-grade' devices going into developements are tough to get the 'bug-eye' tester into, and they are not TR. (Offshore products, no doubt).

This (TR) was a hot topic back in January, and it probably will be 'hot' again at the next CEU Changes course.

Hopefully, everyone here (NJ) will not be complaciant, and vent their opinions to DCA.

John,

I had the 11 hour course this weekend. I kept on Suzanne to not push for Arc Fault and TP recp. but she keeps saying that the NJ EC's have to write an E-mail to the state. I told several EC's but no one has been writing. They talked about the AF breaker and she said that if we have a multi branch circuit, then we don't have to use AF breakers because they don't have a Combo AF breaker out yet. SO all of the EC's at class stated that they will all run 3 wire branch circuits from now on. they said it would be cheaper to run the 14-3 and not use the red leg (Or just put 1-5 things on the red leg) than it would to use an AF breaker. Go figure!

Harold:
I read what you posted above, and now I HAVE to read the AFCI article/requirements. I don't seem to remember an exception/exemption for MWBC in what I read....
Is that a Suzanne opinion? Or is it in fact in the 'good book'?

I think ... and this is just a guess ... that some might be taking the approach of "there's no code compliant device available, so the rule ought not be enforced." There is some justice in theat argument.

The 2008 code also placed sundry restrictions on the use of MWBC's. It's almost as if they wanted to ban the practice - without saying so. If so, they are being dishonest .... and KNOW they've exceeded their mandate.

November is fast approaching. Get those proposals in!

John,

Suzanne just said, "There are no combo arc fault 2 pole breakers out right now" so therefore you can not meet the 2008 NEC requirement for AF breakers with MWBC's. So the guys in class all started to say that they would run the 3 wire circuit in order to get around that code section. The key was "COMBO AF breakers", the breakers that detect both series and parallel AF circuits.

Will this also apply to the 240 volt outlets for my computers, and the heavy duty appliances in the kitchen, and big tools in the shop? NEMA 6-15R and 6-20R.

There still seems to be some confusion about what "combo" means. The last time I heard it defined it meant it could find parallel faults on the load side of the plug in addition to the line side, having to do with sensitivity. A fault in a fixture wire will not draw as much current as in branch wiring.

Reading thru mfg info (Sq D & Siemens, so far) the combo detects series and parallel arcs, as I understand it.

Keep in mind that here in NJ AFCI will not be mandatory until the '08 is adopted. Comments to DCA are due before 12/16/2008, and adoption will be 6 months after it is entered into the UCC.

I noticed in the big box store that Sq D * Siemens AFCI CB's are marked down; approx 50% to the $15-$20 range. I venture a guess that the ones on the shelf are NOT combo rated, and are the 'old' type. Only if I know how to distinguish between the 2 without a catalog!

PS: Sq D & Siemens have a lot of info thru there websites.

EDIT:
I just noticed this is the TP thread....ooops! Harold are you starting a thread jack??

Sorry guys

John, the "combo" afci's are marked as such. I have seen the older ones at the Depot and lowes marked way down. Not sure who's buying them as they can't be used legally.

I looked at the packaging, and saw nothing indicating 'type'. For my info, where/how is it marked?

Thanks

Square D's numbering is QO120AFI for the old type and QO120CAFI for the combo. The "C" being the identifier for QO and HOM styles.

Thank you!

I have seen the term "combo" used for AFCI to mean it included GFCI protection. Was this an incorrect usage of the term?

The way I remember this was the first generation AFCI only detected in the wall parallel faults. Then the next "combo" picked up cord parallel faults, then the next combo picked up series faults, but I am not sure those are actually out in general availability. The GFCI/AFCI combo (nothing more than a AFCI with 5ma GF protection instead of 30) is yet another thing and I think CH is the only one with it right now.

All of this does point out the mistake NFPA made in rushing these things into the code too soon. Now we have 2 generations of obsolete AFCIs installed that were put in at the point of a government "gun". How do you explain to your customer that to be really safe they should take out those old AFCIs you sold them as the best thing since sliced bread and put in the new improved ones. Do you really think they will believe you the next time you sell them something?
I really think the manufacturers should be forced to swap out any old style with a new one for free since they were the ones who forced these things into the code a decade before they actually had one that did what they said they were going to do.

If your customers are computer geeks, you can call the new ones "AFCI v2.0"

Guys:
Thanks for the info!

Greg:
Perhaps NJ did something 'right' for a change by waiting for AFCI till now!

As to the 'combo' terminology, I have a few guys that think it means AFCI/GFCI in one unit. Last comment from DCA was that there are 'none available'!

http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/Marke...ypeArcFaultCircuitInterrupters/index.htm

It looks like Eaton (Cutler-Hammer) deleted GFCI protection when they put together their combination-type AFCI. They also haven't put out a 2-pole model (which does exist in the non-combination variety).

so when to the afci main breakers hit the market...?

~S~

John,

No I don't mean to start any jack except with the new NEC. LOL I am still waiting patiently to see if the 2008 NEC was adopted yet.

Florida is still haggling about adopting the 2008.

Guess it's 'any day now'.......

Don't get me started on this subject again. Sorry, I feel the code is run by too many manufactures and they are pushing their products down our throat. I had 2 children plus I am the middle child of 3 boys. I know what it is like to get in trouble. I watched my children for years when they grew up and I made sure that they didn't put paper clips in the receptacles. I also had the plastic plugs. Here in NJ the 2008 hasn't been adopted yet, but when it is, I will have to enforce the code as it is written, not as it should be.

Regular readers know I am in favor of a 5 or even 10 year code cycle and products should prove themselves in the marketplace before they are advanced at the point of a government gun.

Greg,

I agree with you buddy. Every 3 years might be too small a time span. I also agree that products should prove their reliability before being enforced in the code. There was also the point of cost to a new house, the experts say that the extra cost won't be much, however not everyone shops at the large box stores. Some of the small mom/pop supply houses might have to charge more than the big stores for the new required devices.

well, we've adopted the '08, guess i gotta use 'em now

~S~

John,


Now that we have adopted the '08 NEC, I asked people what they heard about doing additions to the house. A EC said that the DCA stated, if you extend a circuit from the old house into the new addition, you own that circuit and it will have to meet the '08 code.

Such a view would, it seems to me, go against the '60% rule' rule regarding remodels. That is, the idea that the value of the remodel (or part thereof) has to be at least 60% the cost of a complete re-do for the new codes to apply.

I even think this rule is spelled out in the UBC.

Perhaps it's one of creation's never-ending battles, like the one of 'good vs. evil,' but I see a contstant attempt by various governmental minions to extend their reach - despite our having a starting point (the Constitution) that makes clear that government is to be quite limited in scope.

While it's bad enough when someone feels government no longer needs limitations when THEY'RE the ones in charge, what's truly horrifying are those who consider themselves on some holy mission.

If I haven't said this before, I'll say it now: "Model" codes have expanded way beyond the 'basic minimum required for safety,' and ought not be automatically adopted, in full, at the publishers' discretion.

Don't simply 'hop on the bandwagon.' NECA recently asserted that Ohio was the only state that had not adopted the NEC. This is not correct. Nevada has not, as a state, adopted ANY version of the NEC; such matters are determined locally. More to the point, NECA and the NFPA were most certainly NOT pointing out in early 2008 that 'no one had adopted it - and therefore you should avoid the 2008.'

Another argument is that 'we have to justify why we are not accepting the national industry-wide standard.' Balderdash! None of those national groups are the AHJ- you are! It is they who need to justify themselves to you - not the other way around.

Now, if someone can explain just how safety is advanced by requiring the ceiling-mounted receptacle for the garage door opener to be tamper resistant, I'm all ears.

Harold:
From SB (verbal) re: AFCI:
Additions & new construction; AFCI
Utilize an existing circuit, extend an existing circuit, use an existing "spare", it will be AFCI & 'sparky' owns the whole thing. Basically, this type of situation is left up to our (AHJ's) discression on "extend" & "existing".

The EC's I spoke to seem to have a grip on it, but time will tell.

Reno:
NJ has it's own version of the IBC (2006 NJ Version). But, we have the NJ Uniform Construction Code, within that is the Rehabilitation Subcode. The 'rehab' code is what is used to determine the 'extent' of job-scope. I do not know all the specifics offhand, I would have to consult the book. There is latitude within the rehab code except for life-safety items.

John,

What are we going to have to do now when we inspect. Trip the AFCI and see which outlets go off? Is there a tester out there right now that can actually check an AFCI breaker? Also how do we know if the EC "extended" a old circuit? (Unless it is out in the new addition.)

They have to call AFCI testers "indicators" because there is so much smoke and mirrors in AFCI technology they can't guarantee a "tester" will actually test one.

Yes I would agree, an inspection of an addition would require that you trip the AFCI and see which outlets go off.

I assume any receptacle in the new addition would have to be AFCI if you are 2008. I bet the best practice these days is to run a sub panel for any sizable addition since device type AFCIs have to be near the panel. You can't extend a circuit and drop a device type at the extension point.
You could put the whole circuit you are extending on an AFCI, either by breaker if it is available or with a device type next to the existing panel.

Greg:
Have you seen a device type AFCI??
If so, a little info please.

Harold:
Last info I have is the test button is the only method.
There are/were a few devices on the market, pricey, and may or may not be compatable with all brands.

SQD & SEimens reccomend the test button only.

DCA said any circuit that is 'extended'...the EC owns the whole circuit. This is where the 'truth-in-installation' (trust) comes to play. Anything within the existing structure could fall into rehab. Guess a case by case situation to start.

I have never seen a device type AFCI but the code thinks they are there. Sort of like the AFCI that detects series arcs.

... don't get me started

John,


As far as most EC will go, they never touched the old circuit. Everything they did is new. We will just have to wait and see now. Also the ground grid around above ground pools whether they are on dirt, pavers, cement, etc. this rule will be tough to explain to homeowners.

Harold:
Don't go there with 680.26....it took a long, long time to get the 3' issues straight!

Greg:
Thank you, I thought you may have found one (AFCI device)

At this time it appears that Indiana will adopt the 2008 Code WITHOUT AFCI and tamper resistant receptacles.
Home Builders Association 1 NEMA 0

Has anyone seen TR GFI receptacle yet? How much to they cost? They will be required under the 2008 NEC right?

They are required, as are "WR" ones for certain locations. I believe the box stores already carry them.

I just saw an ad this weekend for one of the big box stores selling TR-GFI receptacles.

The big orange box has TR-GFCIs for about $3 more than the non-TRs.($15.49 vs $12.59).

The samples of the TRs all had the "TR" features broken, 1 shutter was open. As to how many of the TRs will break in the field .. only time will tell.

California is still on the 2007 CEC, derived from the 2005 NEC and I pray they get the bugs worked out of the TRs before we adopt the 2008 NEC.

As with most technology these days, it will be perfected after it is deployed.
I still haven't been able to find out how many of the square D defective AFCIs actually got replaced in the recall.

I did an inspection the other day and I was testing receptacles. I pulled out one of those little air freshener in order to check the receptacle. I had a heck of a time trying to get that bugger back into the receptacle. I found out it was a TR receptacle and the homeowner said, "Don't worry. I will put it back in. It is tricky and I will get it after awhile."

I was thinking that these TR's are going to be a pain to use and maintain.

Plus if you install a GFI receptacle outside, it has to be Tamper AND Weather resistant GFI receptacle. OK, now a show of hands, has anybody found these yet? How much are they?

Yes Harold they do exist. I have samples from P&S that were supplied when I did a Code update ('08) seminar with the association.

Every config of device is available in TR, and WR, including GFI's. The GFI was in the big box ad for >$18.00 a few weeks back. A TR/WR duplex is in the $2 range.

"Every config of device is available in TR, and WR, including GFI's" is correct. But, not in every grade (the WR rating is hard to find in the higher grade devices with TR). At least that is my experience and may have changed lately.

FWIW, I did propose that the TR requirement be dropped because of the difficulty this presents to someone testing a receptacle with their meter probes.

The committee did not consider that to be an issue, and rejected the proposal.

As for the "WR" requirement, one might, just maybe, argue that there has always been a requirement that devices be appropriate for their environment, and more corrosion-resistant devices have been available for some time. There have been industry-standard exposure tests for at least 50 years.

Of course, things are never that simple. The first question is: how good is good enough? Do we want the device to last 100 years or 1? I've replaced falling-apart economy devices that had managed to hold together for 25 years; I can't really fault the device after all that time. So deciding where the $20 devices were to be used has been a judgement call, usually reserved for industrial settings. The code change removes some of the discretion from the matter. To be fair, the devices are now (amazingly) available for a much more reasonable price.

The other matter is: How can you tell a corrosion-resistant device from an ordinary one? Well, that's what the marking is for.

Is "WR" the same as what was marketed as 'corrosion resistant?" I don't know; it's possible that there is a less demanding test. It should also be noted that the $20 devices were only a bit more expensive than the 'non rated' spec-grade devices they were based upon. The new "WR" devices are most certainly not spec-grade! Indeed, the industrial devices are NOT marked, and would not meet the code requirement - regardless that they are certainly up to the task.

Going back to the "TR" devices, the same issue applies. All previous tamper-resistant devices are meaningless without that "TR" marking. It matters not that you can actually see the protective mechanism.

Manufacturer driven? Inspector driven? More critical to me is that these requirements are another example of the code changing path. No longer does the code tell you WHAT you must accomplish; it tries to specify HOW the job will be done.

Such a trend really bothers me. That approach turns our entire context inside-out; the code will necessairily expand from one big book to something akin to the tax code, and (like the tax code) be chock full of confusing, contradictory requirements. Instead of order, chaos will result.

A certain road, paved with good intentions, comes to mind.

Reno, if you want an example of the "how...not what" philosophy of Code writing, pick up a copy of the Chicago Electrical Code.

Article 700/701/702 not only tells you what Emergency power to use, but exactly how to do it...down to telling you what points to connect to for your power.

Usually that does nothing for safety and reliability, but it sure runs the price up on every job.

Reno:

FWIW, talking to a mfg rep, the 'WR' designation refers to the 'plastic' that the device is made from. I don't know the tech features or descriptions, but the 'plastic' is supposed to be basically UV resistant.

Keep in mind I'm not a chemist,only a sparky & inspector, and this is what I was told.

The GFI protected, TR-WR receptacle living within the 'bubble cover'; how much more can we protect it.

If you really want to protect the receptacle, chuck that bubble cover when it breaks and put a set of snap covers on it.
I think the NFPA took a giant step backward when they removed the "unattended" language from this rule. Bubble make sense if you are plugging in a landscape timer or something else that will stay there but the convenience outlets around the house are darned inconvenient when there is a huge wasp nest in there. (dirt daubbers laying eggs in the ground pin hole etc) They also do a lousy job of keeping driving rain out. That is probably why they had to come out with the WR receptacle.

Sure, Greg ... let's go off an a tangent, and open another can of worms

I think the 'bubble mania' was the first foray the NFPA took into design issues - and it's too bad it wasn't stopped right there.

John, I hope the rep was wrong. I've never had a device fail because of sunlight harming the plastic; I've had plenty corrode into a mush of electric rust, though. If these new ones continue to corrode their mounting screws to the Bell boxes, I have to wonder if we've improved anything at all.

Reno:
I doubt that WR will help the internal corrosion, but...after the upcoming holiday I'll reach out for the rep & see what he knows.

THe screws & the bell boxes is another can of worms. Heck, I used to figure a box replacement when it was an os receptacle, back in the days of flip covers.

This is related to the "screws" thread but I won't use anything but stainless screws on outside boxes these days if I know I am the next guy who will have to get into them.

John,

Did you see the new Code Communicator(CC)? There is a story in there about the Rehab Code. Now a friend of mine who sits on the IAEI in North NJ talked to Suzanne. There is a mistake with the article. Suzanne was out of state when the CC was published. Now if we read the CC and go by what Suz B. says, we are all in a mixed up state. We will not be sure which code to follow the '08 for new and the '05 for rehab or maybe the '08 for rehab? I have a call in for Ms. Suz B. Let see what she has to say.

Happy New Year to all out there! Let's all hope for a Happy and Healthy one!