# Tamper Proof Outlets



## Alias (Mar 8, 2012)

Had a local electrician ask me about these today.  I will tell you that I have never heard of such an item.  He intimated that the county jurisdiction is requiring them.  So, for those of you who are electrical gurus, my questions are:

If required, what code section?

Where are they required?

Is it just a CA requirement?

TIA


----------



## Codegeek (Mar 8, 2012)

It's in the 2011 NEC for sure, not sure on the 2008.  I don't recall the code section and I don't have an NEC handy.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 8, 2012)

NEC 406.12.  New provision


----------



## Gregg Harris (Mar 8, 2012)

Look at NEC 406.12


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 8, 2012)

2008 NEC 406.11 Tamper-resistant receptacles in dwelling units.

We deleted it.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 8, 2012)

2008 - We kept them.  Sometimes I have to tamper with them for about 2-3 minutes before I get the plug to go in...but I feel much more relaxed now when I see my son running around the house with cutlery or screwdrivers.


----------



## globe trekker (Mar 8, 2012)

2006 IRC - Not required!

2009 IRC - Section E4002.14

2012 IRC - Section E4002.14

2008 NEC - Article 406.11

2011 NEC - Article 406.12

.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 8, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> 2008 - We kept them.  Sometimes I have to tamper with them for about 2-3 minutes before I get the plug to go in...but I feel much more relaxed now when I see my son running around the house with cutlery or screwdrivers.


It was discussed heavily by our code review groups and it was decided that the technology was not good enough. They broke too easily and could give a false sense of security to a parent just like yourself.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Mar 8, 2012)

Nec 2008 required all outlets listed in 210.52 to be tamper resistant, 2011 made exceptions to not require receptacles above above 5 feet above floor.

As part of a luminaire or appliance.

Receptacles in dedicated space for appliances not easily relocated.

Non grounding receptacles used for replacements as permitted in 406.4(D)(2)(A)

Also 406.13 guest rooms and suites

406.14 in child care facilities.


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 8, 2012)

Greetings

The problem I've had with them in the past was that it was too hard to get the plug inserted and even harder to get them out. That said, the ones I've seen recently seem to be improved. Someone like my 92 year old aunt who lives alone could have problems with the things. I'll never forget my mom freaking out when she caught my little brother sticking a hair pin into an outlet and that's been 50 years ago.

BS


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 8, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> It was discussed heavily by our code review groups and it was decided that the technology was not good enough. They broke too easily and could give a false sense of security to a parent just like yourself.


I don't really feel relaxed or secure...with a 6 year old, almost anything is possible.


----------



## ICE (Mar 8, 2012)

Even the GFCI at the garage ceiling is required to be TR.  I've heard that the next code version will not require TR beyond a given minimum height or behind an appliance.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 8, 2012)

Tamper-resistant electrical receptacles

 •Download a printable version of this fact sheet. (PDF, 33 KB)

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Fact%20sheets/TamperResistant.pdf

What are tamper-resistant electrical receptacles and what is the new requirement?

 The 2008 National Electrical Code®(NEC®) will require new and renovated dwellings to have tamper-resistant (TR) receptacles. These receptacles have spring-loaded shutters that close off the contact openings, or slots, of the receptacles. When a plug is inserted into the receptacle, both springs are compressed and the shutters then open, allowing for the metal prongs to make contact to create an electrical circuit. Because both springs must be compressed at the same time, the shutters do not open when a child attempts to insert an object into only one contact opening, and there is no contact with electricity. Tamper- resistant receptacles are an important next step to making the home a safer place for children.


----------



## Alias (Mar 8, 2012)

Thanks for the good info.

I remember getting shocked (and a burned finger) plugging a kiddy record player into an outlet when I was about 5.  These look like a very good idea but I will still keep an eye on the kids who visit.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 8, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> GreetingsThe problem I've had with them in the past was that it was too hard to get the plug inserted and even harder to get them out. That said, the ones I've seen recently seem to be improved. Someone like my 92 year old aunt who lives alone could have problems with the things. I'll never forget my mom freaking out when she caught my little brother sticking a hair pin into an outlet and that's been 50 years ago.
> 
> BS


If your mom and aunt are in their 90's then they grew up not long after the current wars, no doubt they were very afraid of electricity:

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

Current wars[edit] Edison's publicity campaign Edison carried out a campaign to discourage the use[18] of alternating current, including spreading disinformation on fatal AC accidents, publicly killing animals, and lobbying against the use of AC in state legislatures. Edison directed his technicians, primarily Arthur Kennelly and Harold P. Brown,[19] to preside over several AC-driven killings of animals, primarily stray cats and dogs but also unwanted cattle and horses. [20] Acting on these directives, they were to demonstrate to the press that alternating current was more dangerous than Edison's system of direct current.[21] He also tried to popularize the term for being electrocuted as being "Westinghoused". Years after DC had lost the "war of the currents," in 1903, his film crew made a movie of the electrocution with high voltage AC, supervised by Edison employees, of Topsy, a Coney Island circus elephant which had recently killed three men.[22]

Edison opposed capital punishment, but his desire to disparage the system of alternating current led to the invention of the electric chair. Harold P. Brown, who was being secretly paid by Edison, built the first electric chair for the state of New York to promote the idea that alternating current was deadlier than DC.[23]

When the chair was first used, on August 6, 1890, the technicians on hand misjudged the voltage needed to kill the condemned prisoner, William Kemmler. The first jolt of electricity was not enough to kill Kemmler, and only left him badly injured. The procedure had to be repeated and a reporter on hand described it as "an awful spectacle, far worse than hanging." George Westinghouse commented: "They would have done better using an axe."[24]


----------



## Dennis (Mar 8, 2012)

Here is what the 2011 requires and all the exceptions are new.  Remember 210.52 does not require oulets above 5.5'



> 406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units.In all areas specified in 210.52, all nonlocking-type 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.
> 
> Exception: Receptacles in the following locations shall not be required to be tamper-resistant:
> 
> ...


----------



## ICE (Mar 8, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> Here is what the 2011 requires and all the exceptions are new.  Remember 210.52 does not require oulets above 5.5'


We are always 3 to 6 years behind in adopting codes.


----------



## Dennis (Mar 8, 2012)

Well here is what the 2008 states.  The non-locking type was added to the first part of the 2011 so delete it and you get this.



> _406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units.__In all areas specified in 210.52, all 125volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles._


----------



## Dennis (Mar 8, 2012)

I guess the argument would be whether the 2008 required TR in all areas of the house.  For me it is just easier to install TR everywhere as I don't have to carry both types of receptacles.  So few are above 5.5' that it really doesn't matter.


----------



## pwood (Mar 8, 2012)

would adding 1 receptacle to an existing circuit require the new receptacle to be tr based on the code language?  do replacement receptacles have to be tr based on code language?


----------



## Gregg Harris (Mar 8, 2012)

pwood said:
			
		

> would adding 1 receptacle to an existing circuit require the new receptacle to be tr based on the code language?  do replacement receptacles have to be tr based on code language?


yes any replacement outlet needs to be replaced with a tamper resistant unless it meets the exceptions that I posted earlier.


----------



## Dennis (Mar 8, 2012)

pwood said:
			
		

> would adding 1 receptacle to an existing circuit require the new receptacle to be tr based on the code language?  do replacement receptacles have to be tr based on code language?


Yes, if you are talking about the 2011



> 406.4(D) Replacements(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamper-resistant receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be tamper-resistant elsewhere in this Code.


----------



## ICE (Mar 8, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> Yes, if you are talking about the 2011


That indicates that 2008 would not but I believe that 2008 code requires TR for replacements.


----------



## pwood (Mar 8, 2012)

i'm talking 2008 here, thanks.


----------



## Dennis (Mar 8, 2012)

Gregg Harris said:
			
		

> yes any replacement outlet needs to be replaced with a tamper resistant unless it meets the exceptions that I posted earlier.





			
				ICE said:
			
		

> That indicates that 2008 would not but I believe that 2008 code requires TR for replacements.


I think that was arguable in the 2008 hence the completely new section in 2011 which clarifies the intent of 2008.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 8, 2012)

2011  NEC: 406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles for Dwelling Units







Figure 1. Exceptions proposed for tamper-resistant receptacle requirements

Three new exceptions were proposed to be added to the requirements for tamper-resistant receptacles in dwelling units. The requirement for tamper-resistant receptacles in all areas of a dwelling specified by 210.52 was added in the 2008 NEC process. This requirement applied to the majority of receptacles installed in dwelling units. Exception No.1 will exempt receptacles in areas specified in 210.52 that are installed more than 1.7 m (5½ ft) above the floor. Exception No. 2 would exempt receptacles in these areas that are part of a luminaire or appliance, and Exception No. 3 would exempt receptacles in areas specified in 210.52 that are behind a cord- and plug-connected appliance. Required spacing of receptacles in 210.52 must be installed at a height below 1.7 m (5½ ft.) to be considered as meeting the requirements for wall spacing. Receptacles installed above 1.7 m (5½ ft.) are not accessible and well out of reach of small children. Allowing the exception for a single receptacle or duplex receptacle located within dedicated space will eliminate the need for tamper-resistant receptacles to be installed behind dishwashers, refrigerators, washing machines and in other areas that are not typically accessible to children.


----------



## PaulAbernathy (Mar 14, 2012)

It is my opinion (and my own personal opinion and no one else) beginning with the 2008 NEC the answer would be yes on the newly added receptacle. In regards to the replacement requirement for existing receptacles and TR Replacements, this is not provided for in the 2008 NEC but is addressed and required in the 2011 NEC so second part Yes [406.4(D)] if using the 2011 NEC for your project.


----------

