tamperproof duplexes in detached garages

[ngd4130]

Are tamperproof duplexes required in detached garages?? NEC 406.11

states all duplexes in NEC 250.52 are to be tamperproof, but 250.52

refers to dwelling units. Is a detached garage a part of a

dwelling unit??

 

[augie47]

Interesting question.
To me, the answer is "yes, TR is required.
On one hand, if the detached garage is fed by the house service, it is part of the dwelling, IMO.

Secondly, and I think wiring methods of detached garages has been discussed here previously, but I have not yet found the thread.
I mention that as many jurisdictions allow Romex to be installed in detached garages in the same manner as a attached garage. IMO, if "residential" wiring methods are allowed, "residential" rules such as TR are required.

Again, it is obviously just an opinion, but the only way I would not require TR would be if
the detached garage was separately metered from the residence and wired as a "non-residential' structure.

Let the discussion begin I'm interested as to how others approach this.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I would agree with Gus. Nothing is going to keep kids out of the garage, unless of course you asked them to go clean it.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I would argue it before the 2011 code but now the 2011 has made it clear. All accessory buildings of the dwelling shall comply with TR. Why is this an issue anyway-- TR is all we use now- forget the standard ones.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I would argue it before the 2011 code but now the 2011 has made it clear. All accessory buildings of the dwelling shall comply with TR. Why is this an issue anyway-- TR is all we use now- forget the standard ones.

'

I would agree, just buy 'em by the case and then you never have to worry about what goes where.:happyno:

 

[raider1]

I would argue it before the 2011 code but now the 2011 has made it clear. All accessory buildings of the dwelling shall comply with TR. Why is this an issue anyway-- TR is all we use now- forget the standard ones.

The 2008 NEC section 210.52(G) references garages so I feel that even under the 2008 NEC if it were a detached garage tamper resistance receptacles would be required.

Now the 2011 expanded 210.52(G) to include accessory buildings so that it would include sheds, shops and storage buildings as well as detached garages.

Chris

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Looks like no one has disagreed with you and nor will I. I've always thought the associated out buildings were considered part of the dwelling by the NEC.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Looks like no one has disagreed with you and nor will I. I've always thought the associated out buildings were considered part of the dwelling by the NEC.

Associated buildings came into play in the 2011 NEC not 2008. The detached garage would fall under the 2008 but a shed would not. I have seen others argue that a detached garage is not part of the dwelling and therefore not needed, and if that were a detached garage as part of a business someone could argue the need for TR.

If it is on residential property where kids have access I think the NEC wants TR. The cost difference is nothing in terms of the cost of the building so why not use TR. Again IMO, this is totally clarified in the 2011 but can be sketchy in the 2008.

BTW, I have never argued that a detached garage was not included in the 2008. I have always used TR. Not sure I own any recep. that aren't TR.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Just a note to state that P&S does make single receptacles that are TR--- Many suppliers don't carry them but they are made. P&S [h=1]TR5351W[/h]

 

[acrwc10]

Does anyone have any statistics on injuries caused by "NON-TR" style receptacles? I have wondered what the reasoning for making this code section was, other then, "seemed like a good idea".

 

[iwire]

Does anyone have any statistics on injuries caused by "NON-TR" style receptacles? I have wondered what the reasoning for making this code section was, other then, "seemed like a good idea".

I may dig for it but it is what changed my mind from 'what a stupid new rule' to 'wow, this should have been done long ago'

If I recall correctly it was seven emergency room trips per day accredited to receptacle shocks and burns to kids.

 

[iwire]

It will be in two posts



Here is the original substantiation:

Pediatric Burns:
During a 10-year period, from 1991 to 2001 , over 24 000 children in the United States were injured when they inserted foreign objects into electrical receptacles. Every year an average of at least 2 400 children are injured when tampering with electrical receptacles.
Attached is a summary of electrical burn and shock incidents occurring to children under the age of 10. This information is taken from the National Electronic Injury Surveilance System (NEISS) for the years 1991 to 2001 (www.cpsc. govllbrary/neiss.html). The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission s (CPSC) National Electronic Injury Surveilance System (NEISS) is a national probabilty sample of hospitals in the u.s. and its territories.
Patient information is collected from each NEISS hospital for every emergency visit involving an injury associated with consumer products. From this sample, the total number of product-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms nationwide can be estimated. NEISS collects data from a statistically valid sample of hospitals nationwide. NEISS calculates historic estimates based on these samples using statistical tools (weights, sampling error, trend data, adjustment for changes in sampling frame.. .). NEISS provides at least 2 numbers for each query conducted on their web site: The first number is the actual sample for monitored hospitals. These are actual cases that were
communicated to NEISS.
The second number is the historic estimate calculated by NEISS as explained above.
For example, the attached 2002 NEISS report shows a sample count of 129 and a historical estimate of 3277.
For the purpose of this analysis, we calculated a ratio, based on 10 years of data, between sample and historic estimate (we queried outlet related incidents concerning children ages 1 month to 10 years old). We then applied this ratio to our analysis. The intent is not to provide exact values but to attribute weight to major topics (age type of injury, objects used... These estimates have been calculated to identify the major issues associated with
children tampering with electrical receptacles.
Analysis of the NEISS information shows that at least 71% of all incidents occur at home , making dwelling units the prime location for receptacle related pediatric electric burns. The vast majority of injured children are under age 6. Victims age 2 and under represent 39% of cases, while those age 3 to 6 represent 50% of all cases.
The incidents occurred as the result of the child inserting an object into a receptacle. The following is a breakdown of the percent of incidents in which a child inserted a specific type of object into a receptacle:
Hairpin 32%
Key 17%
Wire 7%
Plug and cord 11 %
Pin/needle/screw/nail 5%
Paper clip/staple 5%
Tweezers/fie/tool/knife 3%
Jewelry/belt buckle 1%
Body part(finger) 12%
Open outlet 1%
Unknown 6%Many of these objects are not perceived as dangerous by parents, perhaps explaining young children s easy accessto them and frequent rate of insertion.
The results of these incidents are very rarely fatal, but will result in electric shocks and mild to severe burns.
Most incidents are relatively superficial first or second-degree burns, where children are treated for reddened skin or blisters and released from the Emergency Room with topical treatment. Yet 8.7% - that is over 200 children per year - need to be hospitalized. 2% of all burns are 3 degree. These are burns so severe that they result in deeply charred skin and can require a skin graft if the burn is over 1 inch in size. Chidren are more susceptible to electric burns due to their tender skin and the frequent presence of liquid (saliva, juice, mil).
These burns can leave permanent, visible scars.
It is important to note that the NEISS report also includes the following four fatalities:
1991 - 2 year old male, Shawnee, OK, child placed key in electric receptacle
1994 - 23 month old male, Traverse City, MI , child stuck keys in electric receptacle
1995 - 3 year old female, Great Falls, MT, contact with electric receptacle , cardio respiratory arrest 1998 - 2 year old female, Springfield, MO, stuck unknown object into 1l0V receptacle In addition to the 1991-2001 reports, the 2002 National Electronic Injury Surveilance System (NEISS) report is included. The 2002 report states that there were 129 reported incidents, which indicates that there were an estimated total of 3 277 incidents in 2002 alone. The 2002 data covers all electrical outlet and receptacle
incidents occurring in dwellings and is the most recent information available. The 2002 data contains more detailed information than the NEISS reports for previous years and may be used to provide a better understanding of the reported incidents.
A study conducted by Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) reported similar data. For example: almost 80% of the Canadian incidents occurred in the home (compared with 71% in the US), 40% were 3-6 years of age (compared with 50% in the US). A recent presentation of the CHIRPP data concludes
that "legislated standards for the manufacture and use of child safe outlets along with education for parents and children" was called for. Attached is the CHIRPP raw data for electrical injuries to children aged 9 or less for 1996 - 2003.
Preventative Measures:
Parents, teachers , baby-sitters, grandparents and other caregivers are usually well aware of the dangers related to electricity and to receptacles in particular. Children are often taught to stay away from electric appliances and devices. Public health organizations such as hospitals, maternity wards and the CPSC provide adults with warnings and advice to "child-proof' their homes. There are several preventative measures available.
One option is to provide children with 24/7 permanent surveilance. No research is required to understand that this is an impossible request for the vast majority of parents or caregivers managing multiple chidren and tasks at any time.
Another commonly used solution is the "plastic receptacle cap . This small cap usually has 2 plastic blades that insert into the receptacle openings and block access to the live electrical contacts. Yet these caps can be poor protective systems. In 1997 , the Biokinetics Lab at Temple University in Philadelphia studied 4 different receptacle caps. They tested these caps with 47 children aged 2 to 4 years old. One type of cap was removed by 100% of the 2 year-olds in less than 10 seconds. Other caps were removed in less than a minute by most other chidren.
Since that test, UL has provided the industry with strict product guidelines, but this does not deal with existing older caps, and some caps stil remain un-listed. Also caps can only provide protection when they are inserted.
When they have been removed to plug in an appliance there is no longer any protection. When a child puls out a lamp cord there is no longer any protection. Receptacle caps provide protection only when they are in place.
Unfortunately, this can only be ensured by constant vigilance to be certain that the cap has not been removed.
There are also receptacle cover plates available in the market that are intended to provide increased protection for children. However, there is no standardized test program to evaluate these plates for tamper resistance and they are typically not UL listed as they can unintentionally introduce a hazard by restricting the full insertion of a plug. These "chid proof' plates must also be considered a temporary solution, as it is common practice for
homeowners to swap out cover plates for more decorative models from the huge selection at the local hardware store.
Listed Tamper Resistant receptacles provide the most effective means of preventing children from inserting foreign objects into receptacles. Tamper Resistant receptacles have the advantage of being passive protective devices. Once the Tamper Resistant receptacle is installed, a plug may be inserted and withdrawn for normal everyday operation, and the tamper resistant feature of the receptacle remains unaffected. The tamper resistant receptacle continuously provides protection without any user intervention. Decorative cover plates can be installed without affecting the protection. Tamper Resistant receptacles are a proven technology. Tamper Resistant receptacles have been used in hospitals for many years. Section 517. 18(C) of the National Electric Code
(NEC) recognizes the hazard of chidren inserting foreign objects into a receptacle and requires Tamper Resistance in Pediatric Locations. UL has established rigorous testing and evaluation requiements in UL498 for Tamper Resistant receptacles to insure that an object inserted into one of the plug blade openings cannot come into contact with a live part in the receptacle.
Tamper Resistant receptacles are permanently installed ... and forgotten, while providing the best child safety available.
NEMA Business Information Services Department estimates that the average increase in "retail" cost for tamper resistant receptacles wil be 50 cents each and that the average new home built in 2004 had 75 receptacles. This translates into $37. 50 increased cost for the average new home.
Tamper Resistant receptacles may not have prevented all the incidents in the NEISS reports but they undoubtedly would have provided a significant reduction in the injuries to children. Since most of the incidents occurred in homes, adopting an NEC requirement for Tamper Resistant receptacles in dwelling unit rooms where children are likely to come into contact with receptacles will substantially reduce the type of child injuries described in the NEISS reports.

 

[iwire]

Here?s the panel statement confirming the proposal and comment:

Panel Statement: The panel agrees with the substantiation provided with this comment. The documentation provided with the proposal is very thorough and comprehensive. The substantiation clearly addresses the concerns raised in the comments included with the voting during the ROP process. An identified safety hazard will be mitigated with the
installation of tamper- resistant receptacles.
The panel recognizes that not all receptacles listed within 210.52 are subject to child access. Yet, the overall material cost should outweigh the mind set of providing two different type of receptacles to the electricians in hopes that they would not accidentally install a standard receptacle in a location requiring the tamper-resistant type. This type of
mistake could cost as much to correct, as would the amount of the savings.
The panel disagrees with the conclusions reached by most of the remaining submitters of comments to 406. 11.
Tamper-resistant receptacle costs cited in the substantiation provided with several comments are based on today limited demand and does not take into account the reduction that an increased demand with corresponding increase in supply. This would be similar to the difference in cost of GFCI receptacles today over when they first were required.
Pediatric areas already require listed tamper-resistant receptacles.
Finally, GFCI's and AFCI's are not intended to prevent the type of burn incidences resulting from inserting conductive foreign objects into a receptacle. GFCI' s provide protection from electrocution resulting from low level ground faults and AFCls provide protection against fires resulting from arcing type faults.

Here?s the panel statement rejecting comments to reject the original proposal:

Panel Statement: The Panel has reviewed all comments and concludes that requiring tamper-resistant receptacles will effectively reduce child burns and electrocution. Specific responses to comments are as follows.
(1) Test data presented to the panel indicates insertion and withdrawal forces will not be a problem for the aged or physically challenged. Insertion forces necessary to open the shutter at 20-25% those necessary to insert a plug into a receptacle and once the shutters are cleared no additional force is required to engage the plug into the receptacle contacts.
(2) The safety justification is compelling. CPSC and CHIRPP use highly sophisticated statistical models that allow accurate estimates of the total universe. The fact that CPSC data was remarkable similar to a totally different study in Canada corroborates both sets of data.
(3) The plastic safety caps mentioned in some substantiations have been available during the entire time of the hospital emergency room data collection in both the US and Canada and did not mitigate thousands of burn incidents each year.
(4) The ULIANSI standard has requirements and tests that attempt to defeat the shutters. UL fully tests with a probe to try to manipulate opening. Similar products have been in use for over 20 years in pediatric areas with no evidence of them being defeated. Shutters are commonly used in European electrical receptacle devices.
(5) The NEMA cost estimate was based on the cost adder for residential type tamper resistant receptacles produced in the volumes this requirement would result in. Cost estimates based on hospital or specification grade products are based on today s market size and do not provide a valid comparison.
(6) The panel considered limiting the requirements. The hazard exists on vanity and kitchen countertops on which children are placed and which have easily accessed receptacles. Given the very few receptacles that would , under all circumstances , not be accessible and the modest cost of the receptacles , it was decided that a clear, ambiguous
requirement would be easier to follow and enforce.
(7) Neither AFCI nor GFCI eliminate the faults that result in the child burns. Neither product is intended to protect against the type of burn incidents on which this requirement is based.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I am curious as to what the results are now. Either way I have no problem with TR- if it saves one kid an emergency room trip I am happy to do it.

 

[iwire]

I am curious as to what the results are now.

Without a doubt a good question and one that I would like to see the answer to but I think it will be many years before we will see a noticeable change as the number of existing non-TRs is very high.

 

[acrwc10]

Thanks for the information, that is an amazingly high number of injuries, I would have never guessed such high numbers.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Thanks for the information, that is an amazingly high number of injuries, I would have never guessed such high numbers.

Hmm. reading through it those numbers are somewhat complicated calculations based on much lower actual study numbers. Maybe they do it like the FCC, if two people call and complain about seeing a nipple during the superbowl that actually translated to 20 billion people actually enraged about it.