Tamper resistant outlets

Status
Not open for further replies.
mgookin said:
Ihave
I have not read up on the '17 code but the '14 code requires GFCI WR, TR with Extra Duty in-use cover.
Click to expand...

Is the 5' overhang exception still in play to not have bubble covers? or do all outside receptacles require those now regardless of where they are located? VA is not on the 14 NEC so I dont have it
 
bluecollar84 said:
Do the gfi outlets outside my house need to be tamper resistant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

mgookin said:
It depends on the code edition in your area at time of installation.
Click to expand...

bluecollar84 said:
I'm talking about current nec code


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And if you are on the 2014......

user 100 said:
406.12 (A) from the 2014 says in all the areas specified by 210.52, so yes they do.
Click to expand...

and........

mgookin said:
.... the '14 code requires GFCI WR, TR with Extra Duty in-use cover.
Click to expand...

...pretty much sums it up.:happyyes:

peter d said:
Technically yes, practically no.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately with tr the practicality and common sense ship has sailed with manufacturers and lobbyists at the helm.:thumbsdown:
 
JFletcher said:
Is the 5' overhang exception still in play to not have bubble covers? or do all outside receptacles require those now regardless of where they are located? VA is not on the 14 NEC so I dont have it
Click to expand...
406.9 says receptacles in areas protected from weather or damp locations are exempt from space helmet covers. That often translates to down on the front porches and up in the eves.
 
user 100 said:
And if you are on the 2014......



and........



...pretty much sums it up.:happyyes:



Unfortunately with tr the practicality and common sense ship has sailed with manufacturers and lobbyists at the helm.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

We are not really still whining about TR receptacles are we?:D

Once I saw the numbers used for the substantiation for TR I changed my view and support the requirement.
 
iwire said:
We are not really still whining about TR receptacles are we?:D
Click to expand...

No- just about the extreme to which it has been applied and I believe that if someone doesn't want them in their own home, they should not be required to have them......So yeah, whining:lol:

I do believe they should absolutely be required per 517.18 and 406.12 for pediatric areas, daycare/childcare facilities etc.



But whats done is done- the requirement is here, has been for a while, and isn't going anywhere so install we shall.:)
 
user 100 said:
No- just about the extreme to which it has been applied and I believe that if someone doesn't want them in their own home, they should not be required to have them......So yeah, whining:lol:
Click to expand...

:D

So no need to require cover on boxes either? :p


The numbers were huge, if I recall something like 7,000+ emergency room visits a year due to shocks from outlets.

Now I am always suspect of numbers and studies, always wondering who funded them and what the goal was but if I was on a CMP of an electrical safety code it would be tough to justify not doing something.

I really don't see this code change as a money generator for the manufacturers. Now if the code change required electronics and motorized shutters then they could make some money. :p
 
iwire said:
:D

So no need to require cover on boxes either? :p


The numbers were huge, if I recall something like 7,000+ emergency room visits a year due to shocks from outlets.

Now I am always suspect of numbers and studies, always wondering who funded them and what the goal was but if I was on a CMP of an electrical safety code it would be tough to justify not doing something.

I really don't see this code change as a money generator for the manufacturers. Now if the code change required electronics and motorized shutters then they could make some money. :p
Click to expand...

I am not against safety. Selfishly, I don't like TR's because they are a PITA to insert test probes into.

But, out of curiosity, do you know how much the 7,000+ ER visits have dropped since TR receptacles have been required?
 
K8MHZ said:
I am not against safety. Selfishly, I don't like TR's because they are a PITA to insert test probes into.

But, out of curiosity, do you know how much the 7,000+ ER visits have dropped since TR receptacles have been required?
Click to expand...

I'd rather know the ratio of visits attributable to non TR's vs. TR's.
 
jumper said:
What "5' overhang exception" are you referring to?

VA does not have such an exception/amendment to the IRC in its USBC/VCC.

Electrical amendments to the IRC start at page 70.

http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/images/SBC/CodeBooks/2012 Virginia Construction Code.pdf
Click to expand...

that receptacles mounted outdoors but with at least 5' of overhang didnt need bubble covers (like on a porch), but those mounted directly to the side of the house or with less than 5' protection did need bubble covers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top