# tamper-resistant receptacles



## Rick18071 (Jan 12, 2011)

I noticed that tamper-resistant receptacles are not required everywhere. E4002.14 requires  tamper-resistant receptacles in areas specified in Section E3901.1

So if they are not required everywhere I am trying to figure out where they are not required.

E3901.1 General. Outlets for receptacles.....shall be provided in accordance with E3901.2 to E3901.11

So these receptacles are specified so they must be  tamper-resistant, but any extra receptacles (extra wall, counter, outside, etc.) that are not required do not need to be tamper-resistant?

Also section E3901.1 specifies receptacles that are

1. Part of a luminaire or appliance

2. Located within cabinets or cupboards

3. controlled by a wall switch in accordance with section E3903.2 exception 1; or

4. Located over 5.5 feet above floor

So since 1 to 4 is specified they need to be tamper-resistant?


----------



## fatboy (Jan 12, 2011)

There are no "extra" receptacles, if they are installed in any of those locations specified in E3901, how many doesn't matter, they must be tamper-resistant.


----------



## north star (Jan 12, 2011)

** * * ** 

fatboy,

What's a " receptacler "?     



** * * **


----------



## fatboy (Jan 12, 2011)

a relative of a receptacle............smart-aleck.........


----------



## jar546 (Jan 12, 2011)

There are no "extra" receptacles that would be exempt.

Sounds like you had another PA electrician try to convince you otherwise.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 13, 2011)

A receptacle is not required for wall space in a bathroom besides the sink one. If they put one in there is no requirement for it to be tamper-resistant since it is not specifed in section E3901.1, right? If the code wanted all receptacles tamper resistant it would have said so.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 13, 2011)

If you want to split hairs, fine. Obviously the requirement is for safety, and the intent is that general use receptacle outlets are protected. Little Johnny will have no idea that the one "extra" receptacle in the bathroom isn't tamper-resistant, when he jams the bobby pin in it. The code pretty much nails down all the locations, but sure, you can find some that aren't specified. Using your logic, any receptacle outlet installed in excess of code minimums doesn't have to be be tamper-resistant? Really? I'd call it, let you argue it with my BOA.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 13, 2011)

north star said:
			
		

> ** * * ** fatboy, What's a " receptacler "?      ** * * **





			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> a relative of a receptacle............smart-aleck.........



View attachment 340


This is a receptacler!
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 340


/monthly_2011_01/stock-photo-hazardous-overloaded-electrical-power-outlet-24254680.jpg.343614779c43cdf85ba0466410794e54.jpg


----------



## raider1 (Jan 13, 2011)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> A receptacle is not required for wall space in a bathroom besides the sink one. If they put one in there is no requirement for it to be tamper-resistant since it is not specifed in section E3901.1, right? If the code wanted all receptacles tamper resistant it would have said so.


E4002.13 states is *AREAS* specified in Section E3901.1, 125-volt, 15 and 20 amp receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant.

That section is not talking about the required receptacles but the areas specified in E3901.1.

So E3901.1 requires receptacle outlets to be installed in accordance with Sections E3901.2 though E3901.11.

E3901.6 discusses the requirement for receptacles in Bathrooms, so bathrooms are an *AREA* that is specified in E3901.1.

Chris


----------



## Forest (Jan 13, 2011)

The Code being a minimum requirement does not exempt any additional receptacles added as to not meet the intent of the code.As for the bathroom it reads"At least one" so as to say there could be more added that would have to meet E3901.6.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 13, 2011)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> A receptacle is not required for wall space in a bathroom besides the sink one. If they put one in there is no requirement for it to be tamper-resistant since it is not specifed in section E3901.1, right? If the code wanted all receptacles tamper resistant it would have said so.


You are incorrect Sir.  All receptacles OTHER THAN THOSE that are 1-4 listed.  It is poorly worded.  If they qualify under 1-4 then they do not have to be tamper resistant.  Again, there is different wording in the NEC that was lost in translation.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 13, 2011)

If you mount that extra bathroom receptacle > 5-1/2' AFF then you don't have to tamper resistant it


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 13, 2011)

I just wanted to know which ones don't have to be tamper-restantant since it does not say allreceptacles. I hope they change the wording in the next code to make sense.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 13, 2011)

numbers 1 through 4 do not have to be tamper resistant


----------



## raider1 (Jan 14, 2011)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> I just wanted to know which ones don't have to be tamper-restantant since it does not say allreceptacles. I hope they change the wording in the next code to make sense.


Here is the wording in the 2011 NEC with the new exceptions.



> 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
> 
> ...


Chris


----------



## jar546 (Jan 14, 2011)

Although the intent is to be exactly the same, this is another issue with poorly RE-worded text in the IRC.  Since I know the NEC pretty well, it helps me to understand some of the poorly worded sections of the IRC.

Why not just eliminate the electrical section of the IRC?


----------



## raider1 (Jan 14, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Although the intent is to be exactly the same, this is another issue with poorly RE-worded text in the IRC.  Since I know the NEC pretty well, it helps me to understand some of the poorly worded sections of the IRC.Why not just eliminate the electrical section of the IRC?


I agree as well. My experience has always been with the NEC. As an electrician I was taught the NEC and have always used the NEC.

There are sections of the IRC that are not in the NEC.

For example IRC Section E3404.3 while trying to mirror 110.3(B) inadvertently requires all electrical material, components, devices, fixtures and equipment to be listed. There is no NEC requirement that all electrical equipment be listed. For example the NEC does not require securing and supporting means for most wiring methods to be listed.

I can use an unlisted staple to secure NM cable. The NEC only requires the supporting means to be approved not listed.

I am all for removing the electrical portions of the IRC.

Chris


----------



## globe trekker (Jan 14, 2011)

> Why not just eliminate the electrical section of the IRC?


One reason is that The Cow is in the publishing business and it would cut in to their revenue stream.The IRC has to ' appear ' to be a comprehensive code book. Why bother with actual wording & applications,  ...a derivative will sell just as well!

.


----------



## Mule (Jan 14, 2011)

In our area, DFW metroplex, we have a regional committee that goes over all of the codes and recommends amendments. One of the amendments is to delete the entire section on electrical in the IRC and refer to the NEC.


----------



## pwood (Jan 14, 2011)

california uses the nec,umc,and upc still, thank god!


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 14, 2011)

Here in PA to be a certified residental inspector you don't need to know the NEC only the IRC.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Jan 14, 2011)

Georgia has also eliminated the electrical portion of the IRC by amendment and replaced it with the NEC.

GPE


----------



## jar546 (Jan 14, 2011)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> Here in PA to be a certified residental inspector you don't need to know the NEC only the IRC.


Which has been my complaint for years.  Now the single family residence installs a Standby Generator or PV system.  Now how does that Residential Electrical Certification help you?  Maybe they install a residential elevator?  Need to know NEC 430 for that.  Now what?  In my opinion, electrical should be out of the NEC for residential or commercial.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 14, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Which has been my complaint for years.  Now the single family residence installs a Standby Generator or PV system.  Now how does that Residential Electrical Certification help you?  Maybe they install a residential elevator?  Need to know NEC 430 for that.  Now what?  In my opinion, electrical should be out of the NEC for residential or commercial.


Agreed, the IRC electrical section does not include anything in regards to communications systems either.

The IRC electrical section is so watered down that there are a huge chuck of homes that fall outside what that section contains.

For example I had a home the other day that had an electric drinking fountain installed, if I am on the IRC does the drinking fountain require GFCI protection? The 2008 NEC requires it to be but that requirement is not in the IRC.

Chris


----------



## Bukowski (Jan 15, 2011)

Tamper Resistant Exempt Locations



			
				Rick18071 said:
			
		

> I just wanted to know which ones don't have to be tamper-restantant since it does not say allreceptacles. I hope they change the wording in the next code to make sense.


Tamper Resistant receptacles are required for all areas listed in E3901.2 through

E3901.11. These areas include:

1. General purpose receptacles in "every kitchen, family room, dining room, living room, parlor, library, den, sun room, bedroom, recreation room, or similar room or area of dwelling units"

2. Small appliance receptacles

3. Countertop receptacles

4. Appliance receptacles

5. Bathroom receptacles

6. Outdoor receptacles

7. Laundry receptacles

8. Basement and garage receptacles

9. Hallway receptacles

10. HVAC outlet receptacles

The exceptions to these required locations where tamper resistant receptacles are not required are:

1. Receptacles part of a luminaire or appliance

2. Receptacles located in cabinets or cupboards

3. Receptacles controlled by a wall switch

4. Receptacles located over 66" above the floor (5ft 6")

Area where tamper resistant receptacles are also not required would include:

-Receptacles for microwaves, garbage disposals, or dishwashers located in cabinets

-Receptacles for door openers in garage ceilings

-Receptacles in crawlspaces

-Receptacles attics

-Receptacles in utility rooms, mechanical rooms, shops or similar rooms

-Receptacles in closets

-Receptacles in other areas or rooms not specifically listed in E3901.2 through E3901.11  and that might include:

   -boathouse recpetacles

   -swimming pool receptacles


----------



## Bukowski (Jan 15, 2011)

Disagree



			
				raider1 said:
			
		

> Agreed, the IRC electrical section does not include anything in regards to communications systems either.The IRC electrical section is so watered down that there are a huge chuck of homes that fall outside what that section contains.
> 
> For example I had a home the other day that had an electric drinking fountain installed, if I am on the IRC does the drinking fountain require GFCI protection? The 2008 NEC requires it to be but that requirement is not in the IRC.
> 
> Chris


Disagree.

IRC Electrical provisions already address this.

E3401.1 states:

"Other wiring methods, materials and subject matter covered in the NFPA 70 are also allowed by this (sic 2009 IRC) code."

This means that all these items like residential elevators, solar PV systems, communication wiring and so forth are addressed by the IRC electric code by permitting the NFPA 70 to be used for them.

 There is no reason to redundantly reprint the contents of this referenced standard for inclusion in the IRC than it is to reprint the contents of any other referenced standard.

-------------

By the way, Pennsylvania does not adopt the NEC electrical code at all.

It is only adopted by reference through the Itn'l Building Code...and at one time was only adopted by reference through the IBC and by way of the International Code Council Electric Code.

-------------------------

Where conflicts arise between the IRC electric provisions and the NEC, the IRC electrical provisions take legal precedent:

R102.4 "Where differences occur between provisions of this code (sic IRC 2009) and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code (IRC 2009) shall apply."

The NEC is not a 'superior' electrical code. It is simply another electrical code equal in value to any other.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 15, 2011)

The issue here is that the testing required for the Residential Electrical Inspector does not require you to even open up the NEC as ALL questions are directly from the IRC.  Sure you can use the NEC under 3401.1 but if you were not trained, nor had to understand other applicable sections of the NEC then you are already behind.

I see lots of residential electrical inspectors have a commercial electrical inspector come out to inspect the systems not in the IRC.  Not all but some.  I know because we get called out by them just for this reason.


----------



## peach (Jan 15, 2011)

how did any of us survive childhood?

This sounds all day to me like a special interest writing something into the code .. AGAIN


----------



## Bukowski (Jan 15, 2011)

Agree



			
				peach said:
			
		

> how did any of us survive childhood?This sounds all day to me like a special interest writing something into the code .. AGAIN


I agree.

Tamper-resistant receptacles is one of the more absurd code requirements.

It is based on a reported 1600-2400 annual trips by children to the emergency room each year who insert foreign objects into standard receptacles.

It also doesn't seriously take into account the 55,000,000 senior citizens and disabled in the nation who are hampered from using them by their design.

(Remember a similar problem with prescription bottles? They were redesigned to keep chikdren out and ended up not being able to be opened by the infirm and disabled who needed the pills)

I'm a senior and I find them very difficult to use.

(I also remember as a child of about 4 or 5 finding one of my mother's bobby pins on the floor and inserting it into a receptacle. I learned very quickly never to do that again.)

That said, it is hard to take code changes like this seriously when they do not extend to more practical areas: like day care centers.

Like many things in the code, requirements for such things as TR receptacles should be optional, not mandatory.

I for one would like to see the code section requiring TR receptacles removed entirely.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 15, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> how did any of us survive childhood?This sounds all day to me like a special interest writing something into the code .. AGAIN


Bukowski is correct Peach, you are a bit cynical on this one.

The CPSC provided documentation showing 25,000 documented Emergency Room visits by children 8 years of age and younger in a 10 year period due to electrical shock from placing objects into receptacle outlets.

Things are not always as people think.  I make a point to let electricians know about this after they whine about the $40- $60 average cost for a new home using TR receptacles.


----------



## jumper (Jan 15, 2011)

Bukowski said:
			
		

> I agree.That said, it is hard to take code changes like this seriously when they do not extend to more practical areas: like day care centers.


2011 NEC

406.14 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Child Care Facilities.

In all child care facilities, all nonlocking-type,

125-volt, 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall be listed

tamper-resistant receptacles.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 15, 2011)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> One reason is that The Cow is in the publishing business and it would cut in to their revenue stream.The IRC has to ' appear ' to be a comprehensive code book. Why bother with actual wording & applications,  ...a derivative will sell just as well!


Don't forget the testing, certification, and CEU businesses they would miss out on.

I think it important to know what references the electricians in one's ahj are training on and referencing.


----------



## Bukowski (Jan 18, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Bukowski is correct Peach, you are a bit cynical on this one.The CPSC provided documentation showing 25,000 documented Emergency Room visits by children 8 years of age and younger in a 10 year period due to electrical shock from placing objects into receptacle outlets.
> 
> Things are not always as people think.  I make a point to let electricians know about this after they whine about the $40- $60 average cost for a new home using TR receptacles.


Huh?

I am in full agreement with Peach and believe tamper-resistant receptacles to be one of the more absurd requirements in the code.

That 1600-2400 kids go to the ER every year with 'boo-boos' and now the code has to regulate 'boo-boos' is ridiculous.

3000-4000 children *DIE* every year in the US from handguns...and the same government that regulates boo-boos protects the gun lobby that ends up killing kids.

Go figure.

How did we baby-boomers make it through childhood without all these new-fangled regulations?

That the 2011 NEC prescribes TR receptacles in Day-Care centers only goes to prove once such silliness is written into any code it tends to expand into greater silliness...and getting rid of the silliness becomes nearly impossible.

I think there might still be time to alter the the 2014 code.

If so, VOTE to *REMOVE* TR receptacles altogether from the electric code or permit an exception for the 55,000,000 elderly and infirm who cannot properly use them.

Since TR receptacles require 'pinching', 'tight grasping' and even 'twisting' to use them...how can these receptacles be used in "Accessible", "Type A" and "Type B" dwelling units without violating ANSI A117.1 and ADADG guidelines?

IMHO, they can't....and should not be approved for use where accessibility is required....


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 19, 2011)

Here in PA you don't need to know the NEC to be a certified residential inspector/plan reviewer only the IRC. This makes it easyer to pass the test and a residental inspector usually doesn't see anything that is not in the IRC.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 19, 2011)

> If so, VOTE to REMOVE TR receptacles altogether from the electric code or permit an exception for the 55,000,000 elderly and infirm who cannot properly use them.Since TR receptacles require 'pinching', 'tight grasping' and even 'twisting' to use them...how can these receptacles be used in "Accessible", "Type A" and "Type B" dwelling units without violating ANSI A117.1 and ADADG guidelines?
> 
> IMHO, they can't....and should not be approved for use where accessibility is required....


You obviously have never even used a tamper resistant receptacle.

There is no special "Pinching" "Tight Grasping" or "Twisting" required to insert a cord end into a tamper resistant receptacle. The insertion force required for these receptacles meets the same UL requirement for a standard receptacle.

Why don't we go back to using non-grounding receptacles, it was good enough for people in the 30's 40's and 50's so why change?

Chris


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2011)

raider1 said:
			
		

> ...............Why don't we go back to using non-grounding receptacles, it was good enough for people in the 30's 40's and 50's so why change?
> 
> Chris


Nah....let's go back to _Edison-based_ outlets.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 19, 2011)

raider1 said:
			
		

> There is no special "Pinching" "Tight Grasping" or "Twisting" required to insert a cord end into a tamper resistant receptacle. The insertion force required for these receptacles meets the same UL requirement for a standard receptacle.


I disagree based on my experience testing receptacles with a polarity tester. The tamper resistant receptacles are on whole more difficult to "plug into".


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2011)

I've never had an issue.  I've heard Leviton & Cooper have problems, but I use P&S.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Jan 20, 2011)

Here is a link showing how they work.

GPE

http://www.leviton.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=23899&minisite=10021


----------



## raider1 (Jan 20, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> I disagree based on my experience testing receptacles with a polarity tester. The tamper resistant receptacles are on whole more difficult to "plug into".


That has not been my experience.



			
				480sparky said:
			
		

> I've never had an issue.  I've heard Leviton & Cooper have problems, but I use P&S.


I agree, the P&S ones that I use and that are installed in the majority of the homes that I have inspected have no insertion issues.

Chris


----------



## cboboggs (Jan 20, 2011)

I happen to agree with peach and bukowski, the TR receptacles are ridiculous, as a matter of fact, we actually took one of the local HBA's suggestion and amended that section out.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 20, 2011)

ridiculous


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 20, 2011)

receptaculous.


----------



## cboboggs (Jan 20, 2011)

Yeah sorry, we were discussing something else here in the office while I was typing.


----------

