Tamproof receptacles for all dwellings

[ryan_618]

Propsal 18-40 will require a tamproof receptacle to be installed for all receptacles covered by 210.52. The propsal requires the tamper resistance to be the receptacle itself, not the cover. Panel 18 accepted the proposal.

 

[iwire]

The CMP has gone crazy.

 

[iwire]

Was that proposal put forward by a device manufacturer?

What about GFCIs?

Last time I checked there where no tamper resistant GFCI receptacles.

 

[peter d]

Bob, I'm too lazy right now to post a link, but I know P&S makes them as I've seen them in the new paper catalog.

 

[peter d]

BTW, I agree with you. These proposals are getting out of hand. But what would you expect in America where we do everything to protect idiots from themselves? :roll:

 

[iwire]

Bob, I'm too lazy right now to post a link, but I know P&S makes them as I've seen them in the new paper catalog.

I checked, you are correct P&S makes a GFCI version.

Still think this should be a design choice not a code rule.

 

[celtic]

By TP, you mean like child proofed?

 

[iwire]

By TP, you mean like child proofed?

Yes, they are required in some health care pediatric locations. We have a customer that asks for them where plugs are exposed to the public.

They are not cheap and pushing a plug into them will be difficult for old folks.

They are a good idea I just don't think that they are needed for every 210.52 location.

http://www.hubbellcatalog.com/wiring/section-i-datasheet.asp?FAM=HProducts&PN=HBL8200SGA

 

[bphgravity]

NEMA Proposal 18-40 Section 406.11(New)
Panel Action: Accept Vote: 10-1-1

Commentary: NEMA proposal 18-40 would require the use of tamper resistant receptacles throughout dwellings. The overwhelming consensus was to accept this proposal, but a considerable amount of time was spent debating whether the requirement for tamper resistant receptacles should be limited to only those that are easily accessible to children. For instance, it was questioned whether the receptacles behind refrigerators, or on walls behind counter tops, should need to comply. Panel members also questioned the ease with which attachment plugs could be inserted into tamper resistant receptacles, resulting in the writing of the following 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?.

The panel finally agreed to accept the proposal without any location restrictions to see what comments were generated during the public review phase. The IAEI representative voted against the proposal. The IEC representative abstained from the voting.

 

[celtic]

By TP, you mean like child proofed?

Yes, they are required in some health care pediatric locations. We have a customer that asks for them where plugs are exposed to the public.

They are not cheap and pushing a plug into them will be difficult for old folks.

They are a good idea I just don't think that they are needed for every 210.52 location.

http://www.hubbellcatalog.com/wiring/section-i-datasheet.asp?FAM=HProducts&PN=HBL8200SGA

Thanks Bob.

I agree...good in someplaces, but not all (210.52).

It amazes me that we survived this long...but now we need to saved from ourselves?

What's wrong with these things:

 

[roger]

Okay, this is proof that LSD is still being used by "some", and some of these "some" may even be in CMP 18.

This is stupid!!!

Of course if it is even across the board, it's just more profit for us, so after further thought, thank goodness for good drugs. :wink:

Roger

 

[celtic]

I propose that a tamproof receptacle to be installed for all receptacles covered by 210.52. The propsal requires the tamper resistance to be the receptacle itself, not the cover.

...and so the powers that be convened over nachos, wings and beers....

Proposal 18-40 was sent to a vote....

 

[bphgravity]

Not only this, but check out 18-28:

Proposals 18-28, 18-33 and 18-35 Sections 406.8(A), 406.8(B)(1) and (2)
Panel Actions: Accept in Principle Vote: 12-0

Commentary: These proposals add requirements for a receptacle in Damp and/or Wet Locations to be a ?Listed weather-resistant? type. This will require the creation of a new listing category, and potentially will require the design and development of new products. The panel added an effective date of January 1, 2011 to allow time for this development.

 

[ryan_618]

This isn't a panel 2 decision, it is from panel 18.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

When we have to start installing receptacles in the entire dwelling for this type of requirement, it now becomes absurd. They did make a statement saying they are waiting for comment, and I believe during the comment stage this will be shot down.
There are no young children in my household and if there were, they would be my concern, not CMP 18s concern.

I am seeing a trend here for going all out in dwelling unit requirements...it seems AFCIs are also possibly going to be universal, although I think that will not make it past the comment stage either.



If our wiring installations are so dangerous, why not eliminate electrical installations from dwellings?????