Thread: Tamper Resistant Receptacles

I know we discussed this in another thread recently, But I have recently come across the facts from the expert who helped write the section of code being discussed. I wanted to pass this information along so we all can continue to learn

There seems to be some confusion as to where tamper resistant receptacles are required bt the NEC.

Some are under the impression that tamper resistant receptacles are not required in cabinets , like those for microwaves, dishwasher, and disposals,
and they are not required on receptacles over 5 1/2' off the floor like the garage door operator outlet.

In this months IAEI ( International Association of Electrical Inspectors) magazine this topic is discussed in the "Focus on the Code" section. A person wrote in asking about Tamper Resistant receptacles in a soffit, in cabinets and garage door openers.

This is the abridged version,( I will scan it and post the article later this week) The Bold print is direct quotes from the article's writer, underlining is mine.

Tamper Resistant receptacles are required in All areas specified in article 210.52. " This language clearly indicates that all receptacles in the areas specified in 210.52 are required to be tamper resistant.This includes those receptacles specifically required by 210.52 as well as any other receptacles installed in those areas "

This includes those installed in cabinets and those over 5 1/2' off the floor. Article 210.52 address's AREAS of the home not specific receptacles. "Garbage disposals, microwaves, and diswashers are in a kitchen which are mentioned in article 210.52(B) must be tamper resistant."

"soffits are covered by 210.52(E) Outdoors or by 210.52(A) General

"Garages are covered under 210.52 (G) so the garage door opener receptacleis required to be tamper resistant as are other receptacles installed in the garage"

"The only receptacles that could possibly be a non-Tamper Resistant are those installed in dedicated mechanical rooms or attics as these rooms are areas not covered by 210.52 unless they are also considered to be habitable rooms of the types listed in 210.52 (A)"

The person who wrote the article and who I directly quoted is:
Tim Owens. Mr Owens sits on Code Making Panel 18. Code making Panel 18
is the Panel that wrote article 406 .

So there we have it from the "horses Mouth", the expert who Knows the intent of the code making panel and where tamper resistant receptacles are to be installed. The issue of " not required in a cabinet, or over 5 1/2' off the floor" is wrong as they ARE required in those locations.

Similar Threads:

• burst resistant hoses at heater
• Garage Receptacles
• fire resistant vinyl siding?
• green dot on receptacles
• 2008 - receptacles around pools

Originally Posted by ken horak

I know we discussed this in another thread recently, But I have recently come across the facts from the expert who helped write the section of code being discussed. I wanted to pass this information along so we all can continue to learn

There seems to be some confusion as to where tamper resistant receptacles are required bt the NEC.

Some are under the impression that tamper resistant receptacles are not required in cabinets , like those for microwaves, dishwasher, and disposals,
and they are not required on receptacles over 5 1/2' off the floor like the garage door operator outlet.

In this months IAEI ( International Association of Electrical Inspectors) magazine this topic is discussed in the "Focus on the Code" section. A person wrote in asking about Tamper Resistant receptacles in a soffit, in cabinets and garage door openers.

This is the abridged version,( I will scan it and post the article later this week) The Bold print is direct quotes from the article's writer, underlining is mine.

Tamper Resistant receptacles are required in All areas specified in article 210.52. " This language clearly indicates that all receptacles in the areas specified in 210.52 are required to be tamper resistant.This includes those receptacles specifically required by 210.52 as well as any other receptacles installed in those areas "

This includes those installed in cabinets and those over 5 1/2' off the floor. Article 210.52 address's AREAS of the home not specific receptacles. "Garbage disposals, microwaves, and diswashers are in a kitchen which are mentioned in article 210.52(B) must be tamper resistant."

"soffits are covered by 210.52(E) Outdoors or by 210.52(A) General

"Garages are covered under 210.52 (G) so the garage door opener receptacleis required to be tamper resistant as are other receptacles installed in the garage"

"The only receptacles that could possibly be a non-Tamper Resistant are those installed in dedicated mechanical rooms or attics as these rooms are areas not covered by 210.52 unless they are also considered to be habitable rooms of the types listed in 210.52 (A)"

The person who wrote the article and who I directly quoted is:
Tim Owens. Mr Owens sits on Code Making Panel 18. Code making Panel 18
is the Panel that wrote 210.52.

So there we have it from the "horses Mouth", the expert who Knows the intent of the code making panel and where tamper resistant receptacles are to be installed. The issue of " not required in a cabinet, or over 5 1/2' off the floor" is wrong as they ARE required in those locations.

Well, I guess the horses mouth must know.

I am still trying to guess at what might be next at protecting the public and the publics children from themselves.

Tamper resistant everywhere in a home. I think it is something that the home owners with children can be and should be responsible for. Yes it is a good idea but really ??

I keep reading and wondering when humans will be responsible for themselves and the rest of the world stop with the protection of man kind. Yeah yeah, kids don't know if dad is protecting them until they stick an open safety pin or what ever into a receptacle.

Yes I understand. I am not a blind heartless fool but seriously where does one think it will ever end.

I thought it pretty foolish that a home inspector has to tell a home buyer that there are torn or missing screens or you get a spanking. I think it is the clients that need the spanking. If the client never went to the home even though he was buying it then he deserves the fool award anyway and should buy his own screens. Some say that there clients were out of town when the inspection took place .... welllllll .. they must have gone to the home to decide to buy it. If it is an investor you think he would be a bit more conscious when buying a home.

That's my rant for everyone having to protect everyone on the planet from and for everything.

I am still trying to guess at what might be next at protecting the public and the publics children from themselves.

TM: No matter how wildly you surmise you will not come close.

I keep reading and wondering when humans will be responsible for themselves

TM: Not until they become aware that they, and not some invisible other, are the cause of everything that "happens" to them.

Yes I understand. I am not a blind heartless fool

TM: Nobody ever said you were heartless.

I think it is the clients that need the spanking.

TM: Didn't know you were into that sort of thing . . .

KH: By the way, good post. Thanks.

The language in 210.52 is ambiguous as to receptacles mounted in cabinets, among the other "questioned" areas. It doesn't matter to me what the intent of the NEC is/was in the article, what matters is what they wrote. And, they didn't write that all 125 volt 15 and 20 AMP used in any residential applications shall be tamper resistant types.

What they wrote is that receptacles specified by 210.52 are in addition to those that are:

(1) Part of a luminaire or appliance, or
(2) Controlled by a wall switch in accordance with
210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, or
(3) Located within cabinets or cupboards, or
(4) Located more than 1.7 m (51⁄2 ft) above the floor

You can look at the wisdom of requiring TR receptacles in a garage ceiling for a door opener or a cabinet over a range and wonder what someone was thinking. On the other hand simply requiring resi receptacles to be TR removes all ambiguity in the matter. Unfortunately, that's not what they wrote. And, they didn't enlighten anyone as to the intent with the language involved.

they didn't enlighten anyone as to the intent with the language involved

BK: I suppose the reason being that all sparkys are already enlightened?

I suspect that reasonable people (and that probably leaves AD out of the picture) might suspect the intent. But, it's all in the wording. And, there's no mandate here.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

I suspect that reasonable people (and that probably leaves AD out of the picture) might suspect the intent. But, it's all in the wording. And, there's no mandate here.

BK: Be happy that you are not situated in my service area, else you would see just how reasonable I can be with imbued electricians.

They did write that ALL 125 volt 15 and 20 ampere receptacles shall be tamper resistant.
(Bold and underscored are mine)
Article 406.11 states: In all AREAS specified in 210.52, ALL 125 volt 15 and 20 ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.

Now 210.52 Says:
This section provides requirements for 125 volt, 15 and 20 ampere receptacle outlets. The receptacles required by this section shall be in addition to any receptacle that is:
(1) part of a luminaire or appliance or
(2) controlled bt a wall switch in accordance with 210.70(A) (1), Exception No. 1 or
(3) Located within cabinets or cupboards, or
(4) Located more then 1.7 m ( 5 1/2 ft) above the floor

Now that section is saying that the required receptacle outlets are in addition to those in the list. This simply means that the ones in the list can not count Toward the required receptacles that are called for by section 210.52. It has zero to do excluding them from the TR requirement.
210.52 is referenced to by 406.11 as a list of AREAS that require tamper resistant receptacles, not each specific receptacle location.
The word addition means to "add to the sum" or "Plus (+)"
It does not mean "except for".

Switch controlled receptacles are in the list so....
By what your saying an electrician will not need to install a tamper proof receptacle, for the lighting outlet, in bedrooms , living rooms, dens, family rooms,nursery's, that utilize switch controlled receptacles for the lighting?

If this list was an exception to the Tramper resistant rule , way are the code making panels considering a change to allow standard receptacles on garage ceiling for the door opener? Why are they looking at proposals to add "over 5 1/2 ft above the floor" as an exception to the rule?
Look into the Report on Proposals ( ROP) for the 2011 NEC you will see these items.

Now I know some folks will insist on saying the sky is green and the grass is blue even if they are incorrect,...............

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Well, I guess the horses mouth must know.

I am still trying to guess at what might be next at protecting the public and the publics children from themselves.

Tamper resistant everywhere in a home. I something that the home owners with children can be and should be responsible for. Yes it is a good idea but really ??

I keep reading and wondering when humans will be responsible for themselves and the rest of the world stop with the protection of man kind. Yeah yeah, kids don't know if dad is protecting them until they stick an open safety pin or what ever into a receptacle.

.

I agree I am a firm believer in house proof your children not child proof your house. That way you can actually take them to other houses and they will survive

Originally Posted by Chuck Lambert

I agree I am a firm believer in house proof your children not child proof your house. That way you can actually take them to other houses and they will survive

The tamper resistant receptacles are counter productive. They defeat the natural selection process. The less intelligent child will be protected from inserting a bobby pin in the hot side of the receptacle. The intelligent child will use two bobby pins, (one in each hand) .

AD, Just say "BOO!" Simpler, and it bothers me just as much. I've handed more than one ersatz inspector their backside.

Now I know some folks will insist on saying the sky is green and the grass is blue even if they are incorrect,...............

KH: That, of course, depends upon what one is smoking on that particular day.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

AD, Just say "BOO!" Simpler, and it bothers me just as much. I've handed more than one ersatz inspector their backside.

BK: FO

HEY ALL

just spoke to the chief master electrical inspector for the city of Denver, he is my go to guy when i have a question. and this is what he sent me for this subject matter.

Denver is currently using NEC 2008 406.11 for all new construction, and/ or remodels.

check out this web site

thanks

charlie

Figures AD. You love to give everybody in the trades a bad time but when the shoe's on the other foot........

I've not had any trouble understanding the text .... whether I agree with it is another matter. Like Ken said, except for the attic, TR is mandated. If outdoors, it has to be both TR and WR.

I use TR everywhere in resi applications because it's easier than stocking two kinds of receptacles. And, I think they're a good idea that should have come around a long time ago. I just disagree on the language in the NEC mandating them some places. Exceptions in the 2011 edition are meaningless until the edition hits the streets and is adopted.

Hey Charlie, have you ever asked what it is that has Golden and Lakewood taking the positions on the 2008 NEC that they have?

BILL

no i haven't. please let me know why and save me some research time. as you know every city.town,village,in Colorado goes by their own code, which to me is stupid and a night mare for all home inspectors. thats why we dont do code,but stay on top of whats new in the construction world. like cabon monoxide detectors. i have been telling not recommendeing all my clients to install them for seven years now. all of a sudden there are six co related deaths in colorado last year, and now government puts it to law.
we are a changing world everyday and we all need to stay on top of that change. our jobs get harder everyday, wish they got easier.

thanks

charlie

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

Figures AD. You love to give everybody in the trades a bad time but when the shoe's on the other foot........

BK: I do not discriminate against tradesmen exclusively; just against electricians habitually. I may have hired and fired better electricians than you will ever become.

Seriously though, that is just how it is. There is no need for you to take it to heart.

You flatter me AD - I mean to think I take anything you say seriously.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

You flatter me AD - I mean to think I take anything you say seriously.

BK: I mean this with the greatest sincerety, seriously now, are you serious?

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

The tamper resistant receptacles are counter productive. They defeat the natural selection process. The less intelligent child will be protected from inserting a bobby pin in the hot side of the receptacle. The intelligent child will use two bobby pins, (one in each hand) .

When I was in the fourth grade I learned (without knowing it) that there is no effect gained by inserting a bobby pin into the hot side unless you are grounded. But, if you bend it into a precision shape (I ended up as a manufacturing engineer.) that would fit into both slots of the receptacle, you got spectacular results - and the precision shape of the bobby pin burned into the skin of your fingers for about a week. No, neither the school janitor (he was really mad), or the teacher ever found out who it was that blew the power on the second floor that morning, and I hid those burnt fingers from my parents until they healed up. By the way, that also taught me to not do anything that stupid anymore.

Originally Posted by Michael Chambers

By the way, that also taught me to not do anything that stupid anymore.

Jeez, I did that too but never learned that!

I STILL do "stupid" things.

Maybe I am just a slow learner?

'Course, I don't KNOW they are "stupid" things until afterward.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

'Course, I don't KNOW they are "stupid" things until afterward.

And, therein lies the problem for us!