child proof recepts being required!?

Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
ron said:
if the code change happens, the receptacle manufacturers will have the opportunity to make the stuff cheaper without the same "hospital" characteristics.

I am pretty certain Leviton has released a cheaper tamper resistant receptacle.

BTW that brings up another point, they are not tamper proof they are tamper resistant

Current TR products are expensive due to the application ... hospitals.

Yes, all the tamper resistant receptacles I have installed where Hubbell hospital grade versions. I was told they ran $15 to $20 each

They have internal switches that only complete the circuit when prongs are inserted in both holes at the same time.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Here are some details of the ones I have installed.

sg63h_diagram.jpg



sg62_illustration.gif


These are as large or larger than GFCIs and do not have any screw connections, they pigtail to the branch circuit.

Box fill is a real issue with this particular unit.

That said it is high quality and it does work as intended.

I will see if I can find some info on the Leviton version.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Does anyone know how this tamper proof receptacle stops a child from sticking a knife or nail in it. I have seen those where the face rotates to an angle to prevent the child from plugging in but how are these designed to stop that. Are we going to get service calls to help the elderly plug in there hair dryer every day????:smile: :-?
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
iwire said:
Levitons site stinks IMO

I agree, I have tried to use their site a few times in the past with nothing but frustration. It is set up so that you see what they want you to see not what your are trying to see.

Another one lacking in user friendliness is Seimens, or at least in my experience it is

Roger
 

renosteinke

Senior Member
Location
NE Arkansas
Child proof receps being required?

Child proof receps being required?

I think the code is losing focus.

It is supposed to be a MINIMUM standard, not an "ideal."

Such rules have unintended consequences .... such as, say, folks getting hurt trying to replace thngs that break. Electricians getting hurt, as they are no longer able to test a receptacle with a meter or ticker. Accidents happening, as there are fewer receptacles installed.

Many is the time I've seen something with proven value .. like a GFI ... being reccomended. These shuttered receptacles have been available for decades, and I have yet to hear anyone reccomend them. his tells me that they are not "proven" by the market.

It's, at best, a "nanny state" proposition that ought to get dropped.
 

brian john

Senior Member
Location
Leesburg, VA
1. Typically when items are mandated and mass produced their cost should come down.
2. Then when the elcheapo child proff recpts fail their will be a recall, more work for the residential contractors.
3. Many code changes are driven by manufactures IMO, and the main reason IMO is to drive profits not safety, though some manufactures tie the two together quite nicely (profit and safety) to the benefit of the consumer market.
4. If you look at the code making panels and IEEE Standards Working Groups you will see manufactures representatives, these representatives are paid to do one thing protect their company's interest.
 

mshields

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
Wow - I certainly got a rise out of some of you

Wow - I certainly got a rise out of some of you

But look - This is not a tax as one of you asserted, any more than any other code requirement is a tax. As for proof that children have been injured or worse by sticking forks and what have you into receptacles; Admittedly I don't have it. But I'm willing to bet that the pediatricians and other child advocate groups who have been underscoring the importance of plastic protectors in receptacles for so many years could provide the proof you seek.

As for children being hurt by broken glass, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

Finally, I agree that my statement was perhaps too broad about the residential market. My experience is primarily with multi dwelling condo's where the end owner is not calling the shots on such things; a developer is. As for households without children, can you show me a home where children will never be?

Lastly, yes, someone will profit. Somebody always does. But $200 dollars a home is peanuts in any market and well worth it for even a modest increase in child safety.


Mike
 

mshields

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
disregard

disregard

somehow posted the above message twice. Edited this second one since I can't figure out how to delete it.
 
Last edited:

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Just so everyone has the facts? Its a lot to read both gives the whole story.

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.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Part 2

Part 2

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.
 

brian john

Senior Member
Location
Leesburg, VA
Me I would install them if I had thought about it when I built my house. I built to minimize EMF and put all outlets on GFI (Arc Flash were not availale at the time). Hey there my kids and then I still loved them. (STILL DO, they just cost alot more now college, cars, Ipods, Xboxes ect....)
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
The substantiation provided by NEMA is undeniable. What is questionable is whether the real problem is from a lack of parental supervision or possibly a hazardous or easily compromised device.

Edison was one of the first electrical equipment manufacturers to recognize the need for the three basic methods for protecting people against electrical hazards. The first is isolation. Separating the person for the hazard is the easiest and most assured way of preventing contact with energized parts. This is accomplished by concealing energized parts in enclosures or out of reach by elevation or other festive means. In order for persons to utilize electricity practically, some contact is unavoidable. In these cases, insulated or dielectric materials can be used as the protective barrier. In the event isolation and insulation fail, some sort of protective device provides the third method of protection. Circuit breakers, fuses, gfci's, afci's, ect.. are all examples of equipment that may limit or prevent the hazard present when isolation and insulation are compromised?

So the question is this. Does a typical receptacle outlet provide all three methods of protection? 1. Receptacles are definitely in reach of children. As a matter of fact, they are typically installed within the line of sight of young children. 2. Though the exposed surfaces of typical receptacles are insulated, this insulation is easily compromised by the insertion of a common paper clip. 3. Even gfci protected, it is possible for a small child to not have adequate protection from the exposure to the energized parts contacted by an inserted objected. Based on this, the receptacles fail the basic logic.

The electrical industry has followed a path much like the automobile industry. I happen to own a 1913 Ford Model T pickup and a 2003 Ford F250 pickup. There is nearly one hundred years of safety progress between these two vehicles. For its day, the Model T had everything that could be considered essential for safe use. It goes forward and backward, it has breaks (even one for parking), it turns, has bumpers, and even has headlights and windshield wipers. The lights and windshield were accessories of the day.

Now compare that to my 2003 Ford truck. Is it reasonable to suggest my air bags, seatbelts, 4 wheel antilock disc breaks, ect. are all unnecessary for today’s driving?

I am not saying I am ready to throw my wholehearted support behind this likely code change. All I am saying is that the harnessing and use of electricity is unnatural and inherently dangerous. And perhaps the line we draw at safety and design may need to be shifted one way or the other when it is undeniable that doing so will save lives.

I have never lost a family member or friend to a car accident, fire, or electrocution. But for those that have, I am certain things like air bags, fire sprinklers, and perhaps now tamper-resistant receptacles would appear to be such a small expense made compared to lost felt for their loved ones.

Just one perspective...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top