TR replacement Newsletter Opinions Please!!

[brother]

What do you think/opinion of the statement below?? Even though I like the way they enforce it, as a 'technicality' I do not believe the statement I put in red is actually 'legal' according to the 2008 NEC. I believe EVEN if there is no grounding means (using non grounding type receptacles) you are STILL required to have the TR receptacle when replacing them, which means you would have to get a TR gfci with a label of 'no equipment ground' since to my knowledge no one makes a TR non grounding receptacle. Their 'Exception' is not valid.

 New/Replaced Receptacles On An Existing Residential Branch Circuit Must Be Tamper-Resistant
NEC 406.11 requires all dwelling unit 125 volt 15 and 20 ampere receptacles to be tamper-resistant. If an existing branch circuit is extended to allow for the addition of a new receptacle(s), the newly installed receptacle(s) must be tamper-resistant. Except when using a non-grounding type receptacle, receptacles that are replaced in an existing circuit must also be tamper-resistant.

 

[iwire]

I see no exceptions for TRs.

Who is the Newsletter from?

 

[brother]

I see no exceptions for TRs.

Who is the Newsletter from?

Its from Washington state, heres a link.

http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/Electrical/files/currents/elc0906.pdf

 

[M. D.]

Its from Washington state, heres a link.

http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/Electrical/files/currents/elc0906.pdf

I like that Newsletter ,..but unless they ammended 406.11 they are reading what is not there.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree there are no exceptions and there is no TR 2 wire receptacles that I know about. This means GFCI TR recep. to replace a 2 wire unit . Of course you may be able to use a TR GFCI and then use 3 wire TR receptacles downstream.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I find this exception (by local ordinance) an interesting thing.

. . . Except when using a non-grounding type receptacle . . .

I had a conversation with the Leviton customer service department a few weeks back, and they went out of their way to assure me that Leviton had absolutely no plans to make a TR non-grounding type receptacle.

Has anybody sourced a TR non-grounding type receptacle?

 

[benaround]

Maybe a good time to invent the " TR Cover Plate " fits over existing recpts. !!

 

[cpal]

thats fine for a local ordanace, but the NEC does not require Tr for replacements

 

[M. D.]

thats fine for a local ordanace, but the NEC does not require Tr for replacements

Could you elaborate please??

 

[cpal]

Could you elaborate please??

are you requiring a TR if one receptacal is replaced?

 

[Davis9]

thats fine for a local ordanace, but the NEC does not require Tr for replacements

That's the way I read it and have successfully argued it against local inspectors.

Tom

 

[M. D.]

Not me,.. the NEC .. and yes for the most part,.. any receptacle in the areas specified in 210.52 are required to be TR.

 

[cpal]

Not me,.. the NEC .. and yes for the most part,.. any receptacle in the areas specified in 210.52 are required to be TR.

I guess its interpertation, I don't see it that way (sorrry!!)

 

[Davis9]

There is a specific Article 406.3(D)(1)(2)(3) dealing with Replacement receptacles, it is very specific and it does not mention any other requirements to follow.

Tom

 

[cpal]

There is a specific Article 406.3(D)(1)(2)(3) dealing with Replacement receptacles, it is very specific and it does not mention any other requirements to follow.

Tom

thanks you see my point

 

[iwire]

thats fine for a local ordanace, but the NEC does not require Tr for replacements

IMO the NEC clearly requires TRs, there are no exceptions listed in 406.11 referencing 406.3(D). 406.3(D) does not have anything to do with TR requirements only grounding issues.

Would you say that 406.3(D) also eliminates WP requirements if the replacement is outside?

 

[M. D.]

I guess its interpertation, I don't see it that way (sorrry!!)

In all areas specified in 210.52 all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.

And here I thought this was one of the most straightforward requirements ever written

 

[iwire]

There is a specific Article 406.3(D)(1)(2)(3) dealing with Replacement receptacles, it is very specific and it does not mention any other requirements to follow.

I agree it is very specific and it does not mention any other code sections to ignore which is the standard practice of the NEC.

For example there is a specific exception listed in 406.3(A) that allows 406.3(D) to happen.

 

[cpal]

IMO the NEC clearly requires TRs, there are no exceptions listed in 406.11 referencing 406.3(D). 406.3(D) does not have anything to do with TR requirements only grounding issues.

Would you say that 406.3(D) also eliminates WP requirements if the replacement is outside?

I'm saying the Code is not retroactive, replacing an existing item with a lke item does not make an existing installation worse than it was before you started.


Just my opinion

But you do have a good point regarding WP

 

[Davis9]

IMO the NEC clearly requires TRs, there are no exceptions listed in 406.11 referencing 406.3(D). 406.3(D) does not have anything to do with TR requirements only grounding issues.

Would you say that 406.3(D) also eliminates WP requirements if the replacement is outside?

It tells us to make it GFCI protected that's all. IMHO if TR was to be required retro as GFCI then it would have been mentioned in this article.

Tom