NEC 2008 Receptacles in Garages, Dwellings - Page 2 - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum

william1978 · 10-29-2009, 10:49 PM

There is no price tag you can put on a life.

william1978 · 10-29-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 480sparky

Then you need to feed your kids better.

Black4Truck · 10-29-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow

What about the garage, bath receptacles & lighting, outside lighting and receptacles.

On the other hand, if your washing machine is in a closet, it would have to be AFCI protected. Unless I missed an exemption.

Good point

idontknow · 10-29-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by william1978

The AFCI will take it out then.

This cord happens to be in the kitchen, where the hungry children are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 480sparky

Then you need to feed your kids better.

They're her kids and I shouldn't have to support the little runts. Bad enough they can't live with their own dad. She gets child support but that barely covers her cigarette habit.

EBFD6 · 10-29-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow

But if the child gnaws on a 2 wire cord, the GFI won't protect them either.

Why not? Are you saying the GFI won't trip because it is two wire (no equipment ground conductor)?

If that is what you're saying, that is incorrect. GFI's do not require an equipment ground to trip.

The child would experience a shock for a short period, but the GFI would trip.

Joe71 · 10-29-2009, 11:21 PM

If the child is NOT touching a ground and simply bites into a 2 wire cord, then a GFCI device will offer no protection. If the child IS in contact with a ground and is able to conduct about 6ma to ground from the ungrounded conductor, then the GFCI will open.

GFCIs are protection ONLY against leakage currents to ground and do not protect against all hazards. In any case, the TR feature of the GFCI would offer zero additional protection in this instance.

EBFD6 · 10-29-2009, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe71

If the child is NOT touching a ground and simply bites into a 2 wire cord, then a GFCI device will offer no protection. If the child IS in contact with a ground and is able to conduct about 6ma to ground from the ungrounded conductor, then the GFCI will open.

GFCIs are protection ONLY against leakage currents to ground and do not protect against all hazards. In any case, the TR feature of the GFCI would offer zero additional protection in this instance.

False!

GFCI's measure current imbalance between the hot and neutral conductors.

Read Here

480sparky · 10-29-2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EBFD6

Why not? Are you saying the GFI won't trip because it is two wire (no equipment ground conductor)?

If that is what you're saying, that is incorrect. GFI's do not require an equipment ground to trip.

The child would experience a shock for a short period, but the GFI would trip.

Not if the shock is line-to-neutral. That is simply a load, the line and neutral will be balanced, and the GFI does not react.

Joe71 · 10-29-2009, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EBFD6

False!

GFCI's measure current imbalance between the hot and neutral conductors.

Read Here

By definition, currents flowing to GROUND by some other means other than the Neutral ARE current imbalances detected and acted upon by a GFCI device. That is indeed the current which will/can trip a GFCI as in my example.

busymnky · 10-31-2009, 11:28 AM

Available. I used P&S and the device was only face marked WR, but the package also read TR and the device had gates. The inspector didn't argue, he did insist that the garage door opener recep on the cieling be TR and GFI protected. I understand not wanting toddlers to climb on the SUV with paperclip in hand, and I don't mind the easy service call on the GFI, seemed like over enforcement to me though.

rlc3854 · 10-31-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe71

But exactly HOW MUCH are you willing to pay to save one life? One Million $, Five Million $?? If we implement a safety regulation that costs more $ (and all do) then we must do a $ trade off on cost effectiveness. Otherwise, we can come up with some VERY undesirable (but effective) "safety changes".

I just maintain that some of the more recent changes do not offer any reasonable payback in human lives saved vs cost. Since I cannot find even ONE life extingushed by a faulty GFCI unit, I suggest that adding TR protection to something already about 100% effective is simply costly, frivolous and not productive of added safety to people.

Try looking outside your narrow box for what the code process brings over a period of time. After all some back in the day counldn't understand the need to change knob and tube wiring, why add a grounding conductor to the circuit and the list goes on. As in any safety practice all it takes is one accident and a lawsuit to start practice that seems to make no sense. I was always taught to use gloves when using a 535 threading machine yet now the safety guys tell you no.

manchestersparky · 11-01-2009, 07:58 PM

[quote=480sparky;136305]To answer 1).:

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.

210.52(A) General Provisions. In every kitchen, family room, dining room, living room, parlor, library, den, sunroom, bedroom, recreation room, or similar room or area of dwelling units, receptacle outlets shall be installed in accordance with the general provisions specified in 210.52(A)(1) through (A)(3).

(B) Small Appliances.

(C) Countertops

(D) Bathrooms.

(E) Outdoor Outlets.

(F) Laundry Areas.

(G) Basements and Garages. For a one-family dwelling, the following provisions shall apply:
(1) At least one receptacle outlet, in addition to those for specific equipment, shall be installed in each basement, in each attached garage, and in each detached garage with electric power.
(2) Where a portion of the basement is finished into one or more habitable rooms, each separate unfinished portion shall have a receptacle outlet installed in accordance with this section.

(H) Hallways.

OK 480-
Lets play devils advocate here -
What about those outlets above 5 1/2 feet off the floor, or inside cabnets? Some will say that according to the very beginning of 210.52 these are excluded???

william1978 · 11-01-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manchestersparky

OK 480-
Lets play devils advocate here -
What about those outlets above 5 1/2 feet off the floor, or inside cabnets? Some will say that according to the very beginning of 210.52 these are excluded???

Those would not need to be TR. If you put a rec. every 6' then every other one would need to be TR.

Bob Badger · 11-01-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by william1978

Those would not need to be TR. If you put a rec. every 6' then every other one would need to be TR.

I disagree, 210.12 does not say all receptacles required by 210.52 it says all areas specified by 210.52

william1978 · 11-01-2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Badger

I disagree, 210.12 does not say all receptacles required by 210.52 it says all areas specified by 210.52

I disagree 210.12 is for AFCI's we are talking about 406.11.

Bob Badger · 11-01-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by william1978

I disagree 210.12 is for AFCI's we are talking about 406.11.

Brain fart, I was talking AFCIs a few minutes ago.

Oh well apply what I said to 406.11

william1978 · 11-01-2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Badger

Brain fart, I was talking AFCIs a few minutes ago.

Oh well apply what I said to 406.11

210.52 requires a rec every 12' and if you got one every 6' feet than only every other one would need to be TR. I would not install it that way but just saying.

Bob Badger · 11-01-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by william1978

210.52 requires a rec every 12' and if you got one every 6' feet than only every other one would need to be TR. I would not install it that way but just saying.

No, everyone of them installed in that area will have to be TR.

Here is the wording

Quote:

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.

Notice it does not say all receptacles required, it says all areas specified, that is the difference.

Here is Mike Holt's take on it from EC&M Mag.

Quote:

406.11 — TAMPER-RESISTANT RECEPTACLES IN DWELLING UNITS

Requirements for tamper-resistant receptacles were added to the 2008 NEC.

In dwelling units, all 15A and 20A, 125V receptacles shall be listed as tamper resistant.

Author's comment: This rule applies to receptacles installed behind appliances, above countertops, and other locations out of the reach of children.

This new section requires the use of listed tamper-resistant receptacles for all 15A and 20A, 125V receptacles installed in dwelling units.

william1978 · 11-01-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Badger

Notice it does not say all receptacles required, it says all areas specified, that is the difference.

Well damn I had a brain fart also.

Bob Badger · 11-01-2009, 09:38 PM

It looks like they might loosen it up a little for 2011 by adding some exceptions.

Here is a draft of the 2011 but it could change.

Quote:

406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles for 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. [ROP 18-62, 18-68]

Exception No. 1: Receptacles located more than 1.7 m
(51⁄2 ft) above the floor. [ROP 18-71]

Exception No. 2: Receptacles that are part of a luminaire
or appliance. [ROP 18-71]

Exception No. 3: A single receptacle or a duplex receptacle
for two appliances located within dedicated space for
each appliance that in normal use is not easily moved from
one place to another and that is cord-and-plug connected
in accordance with 400.7(A)(6), (A)(7), or (A)(8). [ROP
18-71]
Exception No. 4: Nongrounding receptacles used for replacements
as permitted in 406.4(D)(2)(a). [ROP 18-82]