Tamper resistant receptacles

[FionaZuppa]

anyone else noticing that these tamper resistant receptacles dont engage the plug side as good as a std receptacle (std US 120v dual outlet types).

 

[steve66]

I would expect them to be just like anything else - you can probably get low cost TR receptacles, or you can probably get quality ones.

I say this because I know they make hospital grade TR receptacles. Since they are hospital grade, they have to pass a test that the plug won't pull out before some certain amount of force is applied.

 

[junkhound]

One thing for sure about the low end TR outlets, it is much harder to get the plug into the outlet!

Too bad the NEC boards are so saturated with mfg reps and 'chicken littles' ?

 

[MasterTheNEC]

One thing for sure about the low end TR outlets, it is much harder to get the plug into the outlet!

Too bad the NEC boards are so saturated with mfg reps and 'chicken littles' ?

That last statement shows IGNORANCE to how the process actually works.........I am willing to bet 100% you never visited or taken part in such a process. If you want to blame someone you can blame the NFPA and their study on child deaths or accidents which was published and helped prompt the change. The manufacturers did not drive this initiative but I guess they are the EASY targets for most people who again are clueless on the process.

It would NOT be Capitalism at it's finest if Manufacturers did not have a stake in the process but when things are purely added for safety reasons...I hardly would blame Manufacturing.

Bash back if you must.....BUT a Spade is a Spade.

Read It...Learn It.....and Soak it in....http://www.nfpa.org/safety-informat...rical/tamper-resistant-electrical-receptacles......nothing to do with NEC Boards or Manufacturers. You can thank GOD that manufacturers come to the call when innovation is needed and if they make money on it...why not....don't you charge to do electrical work?

 

[FionaZuppa]

the reasoning why i am not questioning, i just notice that the TR Leviton 15A does not engage the plug prongs as well as the non-TR outlets do. seems like the design allows for the plastic to fold in which takes up engagement room. and once the plug is in it doesnt seem to hold a tight as it does in std outlet.

but still need to ask, why does the N side need to be TR'd ?? what's the probability of the N side becoming and issue (the gnd is still available, etc).

 

[MasterTheNEC]

the reasoning why i am not questioning, i just notice that the TR Leviton 15A does not engage the plug prongs as well as the non-TR outlets do. seems like the design allows for the plastic to fold in which takes up engagement room. and once the plug is in it doesnt seem to hold a tight as it does in std outlet.

but still need to ask, why does the N side need to be TR'd ?? what's the probability of the N side becoming and issue (the gnd is still available, etc).

No worries fella as my response was not geared at your original question. It was towards the poster referenced.

It may be in the listing as such as I have not researched the listings. However, we do know that the neutral in your example is a current carrying conductor so....the potential for getting shocked (and we can't explain how it may happen as children do the darnedest things)...it does help reduce the risk which is the intent.

 

[Sierrasparky]

That last statement shows IGNORANCE to how the process actually works.........I am willing to bet 100% you never visited or taken part in such a process. If you want to blame someone you can blame the NFPA and their study on child deaths or accidents which was published and helped prompt the change. The manufacturers did not drive this initiative but I guess they are the EASY targets for most people who again are clueless on the process.

It would NOT be Capitalism at it's finest if Manufacturers did not have a stake in the process but when things are purely added for safety reasons...I hardly would blame Manufacturing.

Bash back if you must.....BUT a Spade is a Spade.

Read It...Learn It.....and Soak it in....http://www.nfpa.org/safety-informat...rical/tamper-resistant-electrical-receptacles......nothing to do with NEC Boards or Manufacturers. You can thank GOD that manufacturers come to the call when innovation is needed and if they make money on it...why not....don't you charge to do electrical work?

Keep drinking the koolaide. Did you author that article,no .. Then you have no idea who influenced the words on that document. Not all risks deserve a manufactured solution.

the reasoning why i am not questioning, i just notice that the TR Leviton 15A does not engage the plug prongs as well as the non-TR outlets do. seems like the design allows for the plastic to fold in which takes up engagement room. and once the plug is in it doesnt seem to hold a tight as it does in std outlet.

but still need to ask, why does the N side need to be TR'd ?? what's the probability of the N side becoming and issue (the gnd is still available, etc).

I agree

 

[electricguy61]

Keep drinking the koolaide. Did you author that article,no .. Then you have no idea who influenced the words on that document. Not all risks deserve a manufactured solution.




I agree

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Sierrasparky]

Many / Much code decisions are political. The proponents use things like public safety as a tool to obtain the desired results. " One life is too many"

The code making panel could have easily made every outlet GFCI protected. To me that would have cured the issue not a so called tamper proof receptacle. Give a child some time they will figure it out.

 

[steve66]

but still need to ask, why does the N side need to be TR'd ?? what's the probability of the N side becoming and issue (the gnd is still available, etc).

The whole point of TR is to require pressure on both the hot and neutral slots when inserting a plug.

If they didn't have the mechanism on the neutral slot, the hot slot wouldn't be TR either, since any simple tool (like a butter knife) would open the hot shutter.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Keep drinking the koolaide. Did you author that article,no .. Then you have no idea who influenced the words on that document. Not all risks deserve a manufactured solution.




I agree

Plan on it.....Sippin it as i read your bloated post......I know exactly who presented it...lol.......
________________________________________________________________
18-40 Log #1944 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept
(406.11 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified
in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper
resistant receptacles.
Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles
shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: The panel is concerned about the possible increased
insertion force required for our aging population. The panel requests data
concerning the amount of force necessary to insert a plug into the shutter and
the amount of force necessary to fully insert a plug into a tamper-resistant
receptacle.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1

or even the ROP substantiation and resulting comments from the committee....Sure is ALOT of kool-aid going around....

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 UL/ANSI 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, unambiguous 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.


Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 3

Oh but wait...I represent a Manufacturer....ahhh...now I get it

 

[Sierrasparky]

Plan on it.....Sippin it as i read your bloated post......I know exactly who presented it...lol.......
________________________________________________________________
18-40 Log #1944 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept
(406.11 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified
in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper
resistant receptacles.
Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles
shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: The panel is concerned about the possible increased
insertion force required for our aging population. The panel requests data
concerning the amount of force necessary to insert a plug into the shutter and
the amount of force necessary to fully insert a plug into a tamper-resistant
receptacle.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1

or even the ROP substantiation and resulting comments from the committee....Sure is ALOT of kool-aid going around....

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 UL/ANSI 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, unambiguous 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.


Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 3

Oh but wait...I represent a Manufacturer....ahhh...now I get it

I guess I am missing something here.
This was presented by National Electrical Manufacturers Association .
That is my point.
My other point is do we design and require something to fix every single thing that may affect or harm someone.
Where do we stop! Where do we balance this.



In My opinion we are way out of balance.

 

[fisherelectric]

I believe the figures quoted regarding the number of childhood deaths come from the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

 

[PetrosA]

As much as I'm against AFCI circuits, I'm totally for using TR receptacles. I don't carry anything except them on my truck other than a few older commercial and spec grade devices I keep around.

I use PNS and Hubbell and haven't had more than 3-4 faulty ones over the last 8-10 years with them. Some customers had older appliances or lamps that had beat up cord ends that didn't play nicely with TR recepts, but that wasn't my fault.

 

[Sierrasparky]

As much as I'm against AFCI circuits, I'm totally for using TR receptacles. I don't carry anything except them on my truck other than a few older commercial and spec grade devices I keep around.

I use PNS and Hubbell and haven't had more than 3-4 faulty ones over the last 8-10 years with them. Some customers had older appliances or lamps that had beat up cord ends that didn't play nicely with TR recepts, but that wasn't my fault.

I'm not so against AFCI because they have found wiring issues were they were added to existing circuits. I have issue of the cost and time to locate the problems. It is always difficult to explain to the customer.

I too carry mostly TR recepts on the trucks.

 

[FionaZuppa]

well, a debate indeed.

i am back to the design. argument was made that the N is a CCC, but so is the gnd if thats the other side of the child who so happens to stick a metal object in the hot side. i do not recall NEC saying every outlet that should be TR's must be GFI'd, or did i miss that?

i just dont understand why the design TR's the N side and they dont TR the gnd.

that said though, i am not 100% sure of the pitfalls of TR outlet if the plug side doesnt engage or hold like it did on a std outlet. to me, a loose or partially inserted plug is more risk because kids like to grab things and their small fingers can easily grip to grab both the hot and N prongs of a loose plug, etc. UL doesnt look at the design, they just test to see if the item is compliant per UL test std, etc.

I believe the figures quoted regarding the number of childhood deaths come from the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

sure, but what are the actual #'s. from a report i see out of Colorado the CPSC lumps outlet deaths into the "house wiring" category, and in that 2003 report is says the 1994 stats show 18% of the deaths were in the "house wiring" category, but it could have been just one related to outlet. anyone have actual #'s?

is a TR face plate compliant to NEC rule? the covers seem to be a tad less $$ than a TR outlet.

 

[winnie]

The whole point of the NEC is 'practical safeguarding', not 'perfect safeguarding'. Each and every safety improvement has to be considered in terms of the cost of that improvement and the benefit that it will provide. Some safeguards are simply _not_ appropriate, or at least not appropriate given the current evolution of technology.

The manufacturers have a stake in this, of course, but so do consumers and installers.

IMHO TR receptacles make good sense. The cost adder is small and the number of ER visits high. I _still_ remember trying to 'start the house' when I was less than 2 years old. Luckily only a small burn on the palm of my hand and a melted key.

IMHO AFCI systems are a good comparison in this discussion, of what _not_ to do. AFCIs are an expensive system which as implemented costs more than the benefits provided.

-Jon