to those who have used tamper resistant receptacles...

Status
Not open for further replies.

malachi constant

Senior Member
Location
Minneapolis
I'm auditing an apartment building that is for the elderly (NOT a nursing home/assisted living etc). The receptacles are of course not tamper resistant. As they do basic maintenance (swapping out old receptacles with new) it is my understanding that code requires tamper resistant receptacles to be installed.

The Owner brought up two practical points for consideration:
* One, these folks do watch a lot of their grandkids and great-grandkids. So safety/liability is a legitimate concern.
* Two, these folks have arthritis, bad eyes, weak hands. Many may struggle to plug in a device through the T-R shutters. Could result in a lot of frustrations and complaints.

I lean towards recommending the T-Rs, but have not ever used one myself. I've heard rumor of complaints. What is your experience? Do you think the elderly tenants will adapt, or will they struggle?

Thanks!
 

malachi constant

Senior Member
Location
Minneapolis
If safety is an issue why not just GFCI protect?

That brings up an interesting aspect though. None of these have a ground wire pulled to them. The Owner has been replacing them with what he calls a "self-grounding" receptacle, whatever that is (I believe these are plastic boxes fed with romex). My thinking is the options are:
1) Have them provide a tamper-resistant GFCI upstream, with standard tamper resistant receptacles downstream, labeled "no equipment ground" per 406.4(D)(2)(c). I think this meets the letter of the code, but the question remains how an arthitic elderly tenant will handle the tamper resistance.
2) Replace the ungrounded three-wire plug with a two-wire non-tamper-resistant plug. Is it legal to replace a 2-wire non-tamper plug with similar? That is essentially what they'd be doing. This is the least costly, least safe option, but if it is legal it takes care of the tamper-resistance problem. I don't like it, but throwing it out there in case they are adamantly against tamper resistance.
3) Leaving the realm of legal options, they could do a standard GFCI upstream, with ungrounded, labeled, 3-wire NON T-R plus downstream. Pretty much what jxofaltrds suggested. pretty sure it does not meet code (see NEC 2011 406.12) but might be the way to go if feedback on T-R is very unfavorable.

I'm pretty sure I will end up recommending Option 1, with an off record conversation that should they have serious problems with the functionality of T-Rs they could talk to the electrical inspector about #3. Any feedback?
 

Microwatt

Senior Member
Location
North Dakota
The self grounding receptacles are the ones with the additional "clip" I'll call them, on the yoke that acts as sort of a retainer for one of the 6/32 mounting screws and is there to ensure continuity between the yoke, the screw, and the box. I'm sure someone can explain it better or include a picture. However, I don't think they are self-grounding to NM boxes.
 

malachi constant

Senior Member
Location
Minneapolis
The self grounding receptacles are the ones with the additional "clip" I'll call them, on the yoke that acts as sort of a retainer for one of the 6/32 mounting screws and is there to ensure continuity between the yoke, the screw, and the box. I'm sure someone can explain it better or include a picture. However, I don't think they are self-grounding to NM boxes.

There is the possibility these are metal boxes connected with MC cable. If that was the case then the self-grounding would work, right? (The maintenance guy said they were plastic boxes, but he may be mistaken - this is a high rise, albeit 30 years old - good chance it is metal & MC cable.)

In MN we are on the 2011 code cycle.
 

Microwatt

Senior Member
Location
North Dakota
There is the possibility these are metal boxes connected with MC cable. If that was the case then the self-grounding would work, right? (The maintenance guy said they were plastic boxes, but he may be mistaken - this is a high rise, albeit 30 years old - good chance it is metal & MC cable.)

In MN we are on the 2011 code cycle.

I think for these receptacles to be considered grounded the MC cable would have to comply with 250.118 (10) but I'm not 100% sure.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
There is the possibility these are metal boxes connected with MC cable. If that was the case then the self-grounding would work, right? (The maintenance guy said they were plastic boxes, but he may be mistaken - this is a high rise, albeit 30 years old - good chance it is metal & MC cable.)

In MN we are on the 2011 code cycle.
"Self grounding" is the metal clip that ensures good contact between the screw and yoke, and the screw is grounded from being threaded into a grounded metal box. If the screw is not threaded into a grounded metal box it is not going to automatically self ground otherwise.

I have not had trouble inserting plugs into TR receptacles. In fact I have seen non tamper resistant spec grade or better that are harder to insert the plug into than a residential grade TR.

As far as NEC goes, if these are dwelling units I see no way around the TR requirement for new installations or replacements if you are under 2008 or 2011 NEC. There is so few exceptions in a dwelling to where TR is not requierd that my rule is that all 15 and 20 amp 125 volt receptacles are TR.
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
Comments on the TR requirement were that the insertion force was an additional 10%. If you put them in and didn't say they were different (TR) no one would say anything. If you said they may be hard to use, then be ready for complaints
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top