TR replacement Newsletter Opinions Please!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M. D.

M. D.

Senior Member
Well I kinda look at it this way,.. if I am required to pull a permit to install new receptacle outlets in a dwelling, which in Mass I am ,.. then I must follow the code in effect ,.. the word "all" in 406.11 means just that ,.and it covers the ones found in 406.3(d) 1-3 because all means ;: the whole number or sum of whatever it is we are talking about ,. and the what it is ,.is...

.... all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles. if they are in an area specified in 210.52.
 
B

benaround

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
I would think that you would want to show your customer that you are an Elelectrician

or EC that is on top of their game and is concerned with the customers saftey. They may

really like the TR's and have you replace all the recpts. in the house. But then that may

cut into your true fate as a Lawyer. jmso.
 
Davis9

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
M. D. said:
Well I kinda look at it this way,.. if I am required to pull a permit to install new receptacle outlets in a dwelling, which in Mass I am ,.. then I must follow the code in effect ,.. the word "all" in 406.11 means just that ,.and it covers the ones found in 406.3(d) 1-3 because all means ;: the whole number or sum of whatever it is we are talking about ,. and the what it is ,.is...

.... all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles. if they are in an area specified in 210.52.
Click to expand...


It is not a new receptacle outlet, it is a replacement receptacle.

Tom
 
M. D.

M. D.

Senior Member
You know I have read a fair amount of the rop and the roc in regard to this replacement issue ,.. they seemed very well aware that TR would be required upon the replacement of a worn out receptacle. In fact there was quite a stink about the fact,. that at the time , there were no TR gfci receptacles . so now there are no two wire TR ,... that does not change the requirement .
 
Davis9

Davis9

Senior Member
Location
MA,NH
M. D. said:
You know I have read a fair amount of the rop and the roc in regard to this replacement issue ,.. they seemed very well aware that TR would be required upon the replacement of a worn out receptacle. In fact there was quite a stink about the fact,. that at the time , there were no TR gfci receptacles . so now there are no two wire TR ,... that does not change the requirement .
Click to expand...

Someday I'll read all that stuff, until then I'll read the code book.LOL

I think that it is meant to be required but the way the actual book is laid out leads to interpretation issues.

Tom:wink:
 
G

gndrod

Senior Member
Location
Ca and Wa
WAC Newsletter

WAC Newsletter

M. D. said:
I like that Newsletter ,..but unless they ammended 406.11 they are reading what is not there.
Click to expand...

Hi M.D., I think you win the prize. According to the LNI editor who I contacted when this months WA State 'Electrical Currents' newsletter was issued, the statement only paraphrased Article [406.11] with the intent to clarify "extended branch circuits" be added to the State adopted code as a difference from the NEC existing new installations statement. "All" and replacing receptacles was not part of the intent except for the noted changeout exception.

Hopefully, the 2011 NEC will also clarify the intent of the 2008 statement (Paraphrased) "...15, 20 Amp, 125V receptacles in all areas specified in [210.52], shall be Listed Tamper Resistant." The 2008 [210.52] does not cover all receptacles installed in a residence for a total TR installation in a house or any other structure. rbj
 
Last edited:
pfalcon

pfalcon

Senior Member
Location
Indiana
Just to maintain my "Antibureaucratic Hysteric Tradition": Indiana needs to say 2008NEC w/o exception. Then send a hunting party down to NFPA to protest if they don't like the direction them committees are taking.

Or you can just move the OPs house to IN and skip the TR problem entirely.

IN Proposal for Public Confusion:
One or Two family residential: Remain on 2005NEC
All other: 2008NEC w/o AFCI or TR
 
M. D.

M. D.

Senior Member
gndrod said:
Hi M.D., I think you win the prize. According to the LNI editor who I contacted when this months WA State 'Electrical Currents' newsletter was issued, the statement only paraphrased Article [406.11] with the intent to clarify "extended branch circuits" be added to the State adopted code as a difference from the NEC existing new installations statement. "All" and replacing receptacles was not part of the intent except for the noted changeout exception.

Hopefully, the 2011 NEC will also clarify the intent of the 2008 statement (Paraphrased) "...15, 20 Amp, 125V receptacles in all areas specified in [210.52], shall be Listed Tamper Resistant." The 2008 [210.52] does not cover all receptacles installed in a residence for a total TR installation in a house or any other structure. rbj
Click to expand...

:confused:I'm not sure I understand this ,... now,.. what is that prize :)
 
C

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
Here is another way of looking at it

406.3, covers General Installation Requirements, it states that receptacle outlets shall be located in branch circuits in accordance with Part III of Article 210, (note located). For general installation requirements this section uses the mandatory language ?shall be in accordance with 406.3(A) through (F)?.

Now the OP was talking about replacements, I go to sub-part (D) Replacements, (and it uses the term ?shall? also) Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (D)(2), and (D)(3) as applicable. This section gives specific language as to how to replace a 2- wire receptacle, a 3- wire receptacle and also when to use GFCI. . There is no mention in the 08 referencing 406.11.

Also Bob mentioned 406.8, I don?t see anything in 406.3 mentioning replacement of outdoor receptacles either. If you follow the above reasoning then there is a case to make to not use a WP on replacements.

Now don?t read anything into this typed message I do not wish to convey a tone. I simply enjoy the process of reasoning out a conflict of opinion regarding the language in the Code. Frankly it?s how I form opinions.

Thanks
 
G

gndrod

Senior Member
Location
Ca and Wa
Prize

Prize

M. D. said:
:confused:I'm not sure I understand this ,... now,.. what is that prize :)
Click to expand...

That was a figurative comment. I did not mean to get any hopes up on winning a new Tesla electric sports car. Sorry.....But I was commenting on your spot on perception about the newsletter going nowhere on amendments. tx rbj
 
O

Oldindianrider

New member
Location
Lincoln, NE & Minnesota
TR's not required for non-grounding type receptacles.

TR's not required for non-grounding type receptacles.

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.(Note the 'Exception') ... " Except when using a non-grounding type receptacle, receptacles that are replaced in an existing circuit must also be tamper-resistant."

If you are using a two wire (non-grounded) receptacle, TR is not required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top