poopypants
Member
Every residence will require child proof recepts? That is going to cost a pretty penny--one that can't be swallowed. I guess it will be passed on, but what about GFI receptacles? What about the cost? my supply house sells tamper resistant receptacles at around $3 a pop. That is much more than $.42 for a spec grade P&S receptacle. Where does NEMA get data that the cost is +$.50. Is my supply house out of whack for pricing?
It really should be left as an option to the HO.
Good scheme by the manufacturers to sell a higher cost product under the rouse of a mandatory code requirement--I mean concern for child safety. Of course corporations care for safety, not profit! Give me a break. That's as full of holes as their AFCI scam. If the manufacturers cared for safety, they would have the AFCIs monitor series faults, not just the easier line to line or line to ground scenario.
This is a good idea, provided they can sell them for as cheap as a standard receptacle is in today's market, but something tells me they won't if the change goes through.
***
________________________________________________________________
18-40 Log #1944 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept
(406.11 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified
in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper
resistant receptacles.
Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles
shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: The panel is concerned about the possible increased
insertion force required for our aging population. The panel requests data
concerning the amount of force necessary to insert a plug into the shutter and
the amount of force necessary to fully insert a plug into a tamper-resistant
receptacle.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative:
WALL, C.: The submitter of the proposal has provided much data to identify
an issue with small children in dwellings and a proposed cost to implement a
solution. However, the submitter of the proposal has not provided sufficient
technical substantiation to mandate or justify the installation and use of
tamper resistant receptacles throughout all dwellings for all cases and in all
circumstances. Many dwellings do not contain small children and may only
be inhabited by adults, older children, the elderly or adults with physical
impediments. Also, there was no evidence provided that the operation of these
devices will not or cannot be circumvented by small children. The submitter
has not provided a fact-finding report showing the potential reductions of
the injuries with the implementation of the proposed solution of having all
dwelling unit receptacles as tamper resistant.
The submitter’s proposal will also mandate future installations of GFCIs and
AFCIs as tamper resistant. The submitter provided no evidence that the use
of the current protective devices such as GFCIs and AFCIs has proven totally
unreliable in all cases and where they may have been historically installed or
used. The submitter did present some anecdotal evidence that receptacle caps
could be removed by small children. However, this evidence does not discount
the use or effectiveness of receptacle caps in dwellings with small children.
We support the equipment device manufacturers producing tamper resistant
receptacles with only a $0.50 premium over standard receptacles. We believe
this first step by the device manufacturers to reduce the cost will be a giant
step in the use of those devices for future occupancies. However, each dwelling
owner needs to have the ability to decide if these devices are appropriate
for their circumstances and provide their desired protection. But, there is no
justification for such a broad, all encompassing mandate of tamper resistant
devices in all dwelling occupancies.
Comment on Affirmative:
COSTELLO, P.: This proposal addresses a long recognized problem in
dwelling units. While concerns may come up as to the need for installing
tamper resistant receptacles on areas such as fixed appliances, refrigerators,
sump pumps and washers, the additional safety that would be there when these
plugs are not in use would outweigh the advantages of allowing for exceptions
not requiring them.
KEMPEL, K.: The Panel Statement does not reflect the fact that the Panel
considered limiting the locations where tamper resistant receptacles are
required. It considered locations such as the receptacle for the refrigerator,
above stove for a microwave, above kitchen counters, in garages and outdoor
locations. Limitations were not included to avoid potential installation errors
and the minimal cost difference (based on the info in the substantiation).
LARSON, S.: The panel’s deliberation of this issue would benefit from
an accurate cost comparison between the standard and tamper-resistant type
receptacles manufactured for home use. Also, the panel should clarify that
this provision is invoked for new home construction only, and is not intended
to be applicable to new work in existing homes, nor to existing homes put
on the market for resale. If this is not the case, the panel should make this
clarification.
OWENS, T.: The concern that I have with this proposal is the availability
of tamper resistant GFCI receptacles. My understanding is that there are none
currently available and it is not known whether they will become available
prior to adoption of the Code. In most cases, this requirement can be met using
GFCI circuit breakers. However, in receptacle replacement conditions, a circuit
breaker may not be workable (i.e., a multi-wire branch circuit). This would
create a possible conflict within the Code where a receptacle may be required
to be both GFCI protected and tamper resistant. I think that this proposal
needs to be revisited during the comment stage to ensure that no conflicts or
unworkable situations are created.
It really should be left as an option to the HO.
Good scheme by the manufacturers to sell a higher cost product under the rouse of a mandatory code requirement--I mean concern for child safety. Of course corporations care for safety, not profit! Give me a break. That's as full of holes as their AFCI scam. If the manufacturers cared for safety, they would have the AFCIs monitor series faults, not just the easier line to line or line to ground scenario.
This is a good idea, provided they can sell them for as cheap as a standard receptacle is in today's market, but something tells me they won't if the change goes through.
***
________________________________________________________________
18-40 Log #1944 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept
(406.11 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified
in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper
resistant receptacles.
Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles
shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: The panel is concerned about the possible increased
insertion force required for our aging population. The panel requests data
concerning the amount of force necessary to insert a plug into the shutter and
the amount of force necessary to fully insert a plug into a tamper-resistant
receptacle.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative:
WALL, C.: The submitter of the proposal has provided much data to identify
an issue with small children in dwellings and a proposed cost to implement a
solution. However, the submitter of the proposal has not provided sufficient
technical substantiation to mandate or justify the installation and use of
tamper resistant receptacles throughout all dwellings for all cases and in all
circumstances. Many dwellings do not contain small children and may only
be inhabited by adults, older children, the elderly or adults with physical
impediments. Also, there was no evidence provided that the operation of these
devices will not or cannot be circumvented by small children. The submitter
has not provided a fact-finding report showing the potential reductions of
the injuries with the implementation of the proposed solution of having all
dwelling unit receptacles as tamper resistant.
The submitter’s proposal will also mandate future installations of GFCIs and
AFCIs as tamper resistant. The submitter provided no evidence that the use
of the current protective devices such as GFCIs and AFCIs has proven totally
unreliable in all cases and where they may have been historically installed or
used. The submitter did present some anecdotal evidence that receptacle caps
could be removed by small children. However, this evidence does not discount
the use or effectiveness of receptacle caps in dwellings with small children.
We support the equipment device manufacturers producing tamper resistant
receptacles with only a $0.50 premium over standard receptacles. We believe
this first step by the device manufacturers to reduce the cost will be a giant
step in the use of those devices for future occupancies. However, each dwelling
owner needs to have the ability to decide if these devices are appropriate
for their circumstances and provide their desired protection. But, there is no
justification for such a broad, all encompassing mandate of tamper resistant
devices in all dwelling occupancies.
Comment on Affirmative:
COSTELLO, P.: This proposal addresses a long recognized problem in
dwelling units. While concerns may come up as to the need for installing
tamper resistant receptacles on areas such as fixed appliances, refrigerators,
sump pumps and washers, the additional safety that would be there when these
plugs are not in use would outweigh the advantages of allowing for exceptions
not requiring them.
KEMPEL, K.: The Panel Statement does not reflect the fact that the Panel
considered limiting the locations where tamper resistant receptacles are
required. It considered locations such as the receptacle for the refrigerator,
above stove for a microwave, above kitchen counters, in garages and outdoor
locations. Limitations were not included to avoid potential installation errors
and the minimal cost difference (based on the info in the substantiation).
LARSON, S.: The panel’s deliberation of this issue would benefit from
an accurate cost comparison between the standard and tamper-resistant type
receptacles manufactured for home use. Also, the panel should clarify that
this provision is invoked for new home construction only, and is not intended
to be applicable to new work in existing homes, nor to existing homes put
on the market for resale. If this is not the case, the panel should make this
clarification.
OWENS, T.: The concern that I have with this proposal is the availability
of tamper resistant GFCI receptacles. My understanding is that there are none
currently available and it is not known whether they will become available
prior to adoption of the Code. In most cases, this requirement can be met using
GFCI circuit breakers. However, in receptacle replacement conditions, a circuit
breaker may not be workable (i.e., a multi-wire branch circuit). This would
create a possible conflict within the Code where a receptacle may be required
to be both GFCI protected and tamper resistant. I think that this proposal
needs to be revisited during the comment stage to ensure that no conflicts or
unworkable situations are created.
Last edited:
