TR replacement Newsletter Opinions Please!!

[M. D.]

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.

Not only do we not get to magnify an existing violation we are not allowed to create one either .. in other words the work I perform today has to meet current code and that code requires that all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.

 

[cpal]

The CMP also thought this issue was vague the following is from the 2011 Draft 406.3

(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]

 

[Davis9]

The CMP also thought this issue was vague the following is from the 2011 Draft 406.3

(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]

This would clear it up in 2011 but until then all bets are off. Unless MA makes a ruling one way or another in itself it is an interpretation and debatable. I have been able to convince a few local inspectors that--

406.3(D)Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (D)(2), and (D)(3) as applicable.--says what it says and nothing else.

Tom

 

[iwire]

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

Tom where in the NEC does something else like this happen?

Your saying 406.3(D) changes 406.11 even though neither section says one thing about the other?


Did you look at the exception I mentioned?

Do you have an answer about WPs?


Would it make any sense at all to allow non-TRs for the receptacles we are talking about when TR plates or GFCI protected TR 3 wire outlets can be used in those locations?

 

[cpal]

Not only do we not get to magnify an existing violation we are not allowed to create one either .. in other words the work I perform today has to meet current code and that code requires that all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.

Also (406.3(D)(5))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bill McGovern, City of Plano
Recommendation: Add new text as follows:
(4) Weather-Resistant Receptacles. Weather-resistant receptacles shall be
provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are required to
be so protected elsewhere in the Code.
Substantiation: Without the requirement for weather-resistant receptacles to be
installed at the time of replacement, ordinary receptacles will be installed and
subjected to the same failures as the receptacles they were replacing in the first
place.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
________________________________

I think we all agree that the language of the Code is not always understood by all.

apparently the CMP agrees, or at least I can make that assumption reading the history that I have posted. I do not disagree that a replaced receptacle should be TR or WP I just don't think that the current language. (08) is that clear. Keep in mind that you might be replaceing a broken device with a TR in a jurisdiction that has adopted the 08 , and ignore that language in an area that has not adopted the current edition.

I don't get to excited about replacements most installers only have the TR's in the van. (in my area).

Note that this proposal was accepted without modification.

 

[cpal]

This would clear it up in 2011 but until then all bets are off. Unless MA makes a ruling one way or another in itself it is an interpretation and debatable. I have been able to convince a few local inspectors that--

406.3(D)Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (D)(2), and (D)(3) as applicable.--says what it says and nothing else.

Tom

Tom there have been discussions in MA at IAEI meetings and I am of the opinion that most inspectors are in agreement with you.

 

[Davis9]

Tom where in the NEC does something else like this happen?

Your saying 406.3(D) changes 406.11 even though neither section says one thing about the other?


Did you look at the exception I mentioned?

Do you have an answer about WPs?


Would it make any sense at all to allow non-TRs for the receptacles we are talking about when TR plates or GFCI protected TR 3 wire outlets can be used in those locations?

There are many places in the NEC where other articles are mentioned to require additional requirements, just not here. Many in 680 for example where it references parts I and III.

We must allow it if it isn't specifically required for replacements, IMHO why have the Replacement section if we have to bring it up to current code?

Tom

Just debating is all, cpal's link clears it up a bit but the way it sits now it is up to interpretation and how good you are at making the argument.

I always say, what does the book say, don't add anything else. 406 11 references 210 52 which is required receptacles, IMO existing receptacles are not being added to comply with 210 52 they are existing, in many cases there are 1 or 2 receptacles, are we then required to add all the devices required in 210 52? Would we also have to AFCI existing circuits once we enter a dwelling? According to 210 12 (B) we are required too.

Sorry for the jibberish, I wasn't an English major in College.LOL

 

[cpal]

Sorry for the jibberish, I wasn't an English major in College.LOL

Nice job, I think you make a sound argument.

 

[iwire]

Tom there have been discussions in MA at IAEI meetings and I am of the opinion that most inspectors are in agreement with you.

Well inspectors have been know to be wrong. :grin:

Let me run this buy you and I ask you to consider it with an open mind.:smile:

Take a buzz over to 410.18(B). That section deals with installing light fixtures where no grounding means exists, obviously this is talking about lighting fixture replacements so it parallels 406.3(D) pretty closely.

That section says more or less, 'lighting fixtures installed where no grounding means exist shall be of insulating material and have no exposed conductive parts. Thats it no other requirements.

So I ask you does that now mean I can ignore 410.5?

How about 410.23?

410.18(B) is a specific code section and does not say a replacement fixture installed at a location without grounding means has to comply with those other sections.

 

[M. D.]

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 ?? ,..

(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]

 

[iwire]

There are many places in the NEC where other articles are mentioned to require additional requirements, just not here. Many in 680 for example where it references parts I and III.

Please show me an section in the NEC that relaxes a requirement found elsewhere in the NEC without saying anything about it. :smile:

 

[Davis9]

410 18 deals with cove lighting.2008NEC:grin:

Tom

 

[cpal]

Bob
What edition are you citing I don't see a 410.18(B) in the 08???

 

[iwire]

Bob
What edition are you citing I don't see a 410.18(B) in the 08???

Sorry, I am using 2005, my 08 is in the truck. I should have said so before.

 

[Davis9]

Please show me an section in the NEC that relaxes a requirement found elsewhere in the NEC without saying anything about it. :smile:

So we must AFCI all 120V outlets in dwelling units once we walk in. There are no exceptions in the book, by using that analogy if we work in a house it must be AFCI'd. Read 210.12 and let me know where it is relaxed. Same as 406.11 imo.

Tom

 

[iwire]

So we must AFCI all 120V outlets in dwelling units once we walk in. There are no exceptions in the book, by using that analogy if we work in a house it must be AFCI'd. Read 210.12 and let me know where it is relaxed.

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.

 

[M. D.]

I always say, what does the book say, don't add anything else. 406 11 references 210 52 which is required receptacles, IMO existing receptacles are not being added to comply with 210 52 they are existing.......

The reference is to the areas specified in 210.52 if the receptacle is installed in one of those areas it must be listed TR.
It does not mention the requirements of 210.52 just the areas specified.

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

 

[Davis9]

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 ?? ,..

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:

 

[Davis9]

The reference is to the areas specified in 210.52 if the receptacle is installed in one of those areas it must be listed TR.
It does not mention the requirements of 210.52 just the areas specified.

It isn't being installed it is being replaced, installed would be new location.(stretching here)

Tom

 

[cpal]

Sorry, I am using 2005, my 08 is in the truck. I should have said so before.

Bob, you can also make an argument that 410.18 (B) actually makes provisions for replacement lighting fixtures that require grounding.