TR replacement Newsletter Opinions Please!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
It is not relaxed at all. 210.12 does not apply to receptacles it applies to circuits.

If we replaced a circuit or extended a circuit with new wiring in an existing home we would have to comply with 210.12.

How about replacing a receptacle on a BR circuit?:grin:
If afci is available how can we not use it?
Tom
 

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
210.12 does not apply at all to receptacles.





Because we are not required to, 210.12 applies to the circuits, replace the circuit, lengthen the circuit and 210.12 applies.


And 406.3(D) applies to Replacement receptacles.

Tom
 

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
If this clears it up for you ,.. thats great,.. this language reminds me of a dog and his tail ,.. or is it a monkey and a football ?? ,..


I am aware of the one about a bunch of monkeys and a football my DI used it to describe our ability to march in formation every day :)

Actually I think the Draft and ROP posting are extreamly clear regarding the intent of the panel. But then again it is my opinion.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Is that in the NEC 2008? Last time I checked We still used the 2008 here. If the State of MA wants to release a bulletin on the subject using those terms then so be it. Until that is in the 2011 and approved by the State legislature or Board of Electricians it is moot. Many things are changed/clarified from one code cycle to the next but are not legally enforceable until adopted.IMO

Tom

No offense meant although the comments about monkeys and footballs is uncalled for. BTW I use that line very often while watching some people work.:grin:

sorry if the monkey playing with a football offended you,.. thatwonderful code language is from the ROP for the 2011 code .. not enforceable and I did not bring it up ,.. I just thought the language was confusing and not warranted
 

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
sorry if the monkey playing with a football offended you,.. thatwonderful code language is from the ROP for the 2011 code .. not enforceable and I did not bring it up ,.. I just thought the language was confusing and not warranted


No offense taken, while I agree the code(cmp) leaves many things to be desired, it is written by Humans to be interpreted by Humans.:grin:

Tom
 

M. D.

Senior Member
I am aware of the one about a bunch of monkeys and a football my DI used it to describe our ability to march in formation every day :)

Actually I think the Draft and ROP posting are extreamly clear regarding the intent of the panel. But then again it is my opinion.

and the intent is what ,..in your opinion??
 

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
and the intent is what ,..in your opinion??

FWIW I believe that TR are required as replacements according to that statement. But that only backs me up that they see a fault in the current wording. BTW I onlt had to fight this fight 3 times and have since decided to upsell the TR's.:D Safety is very important. I had already installed regular receptacles in a few old rehabs and was called on it early in '08. Thankfully I was good enough in my argument to let them be.

Tom:wink:
 

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
Please show me an section in the NEC that relaxes a requirement found elsewhere in the NEC without saying anything about it. :smile:

310.15 B 6

Nowhere does it say you can ignore the rules of 338.10 B 4.

As for the TR debate. I made the same argument as Charlie a while ago. I probably picked the idea up in his class!
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Regarding replacements, I personally don't see how replacing one or two receptacles with TR's while the rest of the house remains non-TR is going to minimize any hazard unless total replacement with TR is required.

My guess is that the thought process is that eventually all receptacles will need replacement, so gradually over time they will all be TR in dwelling units. However, in the interim, that will leave many dwelling units with a combination of TR and non-TR as they are replaced piece meal over time, which does not negate any hazard.

This appears to be a gray area as far as safety is concerned, but since the code cannot mandate "ex post facto" changes, this is the best they can do.
 

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
and the intent is what ,..in your opinion??

IMO The CMP senced thatthe language of 406.11, needed to be referenced in 406.3, to ensure that replaced receptacles are replaced with a TR's where indicated per 406.11 and 210.52.

I never thought the language in the 08 hit the mark. It appears as if the 2011 will clearthis up.

Keep in mind if this goes to interpertation I think it can swing either way, someone with knowlege of CMP 18 and it's actions for the new edition can make an argument that the lack of direction in 406.3 to use a TR in the 08 indicates exactly that, no need to use a tR for repalcement. Now the other argument on 406.11 has already been made.
 

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
Yes it does, but it does not change the other requirements.

No one is saying anything about 410.18(B) huh?

I pulled out the 05 and see it now, I get what you are saying. The way that 406 11 is just jammed at the end of the Article like an afterthought makes it tough to tie into 406.3(D).IMO

It seems in 2011 there will be no discussion but until then....

Tom
 

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
Regarding replacements, I personally don't see how replacing one or two receptacles with TR's while the rest of the house remains non-TR is going to minimize any hazard unless total replacement with TR is required.

My guess is that the thought process is that eventually all receptacles will need replacement, so gradually over time they will all be TR in dwelling units. However, in the interim, that will leave many dwelling units with a combination of TR and non-TR as they are replaced piece meal over time, which does not negate any hazard.

This appears to be a gray area as far as safety is concerned, but since the code cannot mandate "ex post facto" changes, this is the best they can do.


By just replacing the receptacles in many cases it is 1000% safer! Never mind adding TR into the mix.LOL I love the exposed tangs(plastic gone) on the lower half of a duplex while the tenant is using the upper half.

Tom
 

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
I looked at them and do not see what you are getting at, which rule changes the other? :-?

That might be an argument for a SERpost and possibly a wast of time seeing we are within 18 months of adopting the 2011.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
IMO The CMP senced thatthe language of 406.11, needed to be referenced in 406.3, to ensure that replaced receptacles are replaced with a TR's where indicated per 406.11 and 210.52.

I never thought the language in the 08 hit the mark. It appears as if the 2011 will clearthis up.......


So,... this is clear?? The elsewhere in this code is 406.11 correct ? IMO this says what is already said

(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamperresistant
receptacles shall be provided where replacements
are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be
tamper-resistant elsewhere in this Code.[ROP 18-24]
 

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
I looked at them and do not see what you are getting at, which rule changes the other? :-?

I don't want to threadjack because this has been discussed at length here recently but 310.15 B 6 determines feeder ampacity but does not specify for what type of wiring methods or what locations they apply. SE cable for interior installations has specific requirements regarding ampacity and I still am not sure how we are allowed to ignore them.

Just to add Bob.. You asked for an article that relaxes another requirement without saying anything about it. That is how I see the two that I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top