# NEC 2008 Receptacles in Garages, Dwellings



## Joe71 (Oct 28, 2009)

As I read the 2008 code:
1) Now "all" receptacles in a dwelling must be "tamper resistant".
2) This even applies to GFCI receptacles. (Isn't the GFCI a "tamper resistant" receptacle by definition?!)
3) An exception is the ceiling mounted receptacle for a garage door.

The code seems to allow an exception for ceiling mounted receptacles for such things as fluorescent lights, smoke detectors, etc. Is this correct?

4) All breakers must be of the "arc sensing" type. This even though some panels at my jobber (and home depot/Lowes) come with a few of the non-arc sensing breakers installed. Why is this discrepancy?

5) My jobber says that the GFCI breakers ARE NOT "arc sensing". Are they an exception to the rule or are GFCI arc sensing breakers just not available as yet?

Thanks.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Not all rec's have to be tamper resistant.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

210.63 that rec doesn't have to be TR if it is not the same rec that is being used for your rec at grade level.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

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.*


*-----------------------*

To answer 2).:

No they are not. GFCI receptacles are Ground-Fault Circuit Interruptors. TR GFCIs are Tamper Resisitant Ground-Fault Circuit Interruptors. Two different animals.

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

To answer 3).:

I see no exception for the door operator recep.

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

To answer 4).:

Not all breakers.

*210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.*
*(A) Definition: Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI).* A device intended to provide protection from the effects of arc faults by recognizing characteristics unique to arcing and by functioning to de-energize the circuit when an arc fault is detected.
*(B) Dwelling Units.* All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.


----------



## Joe71 (Oct 28, 2009)

Thanks for the good answers.. 

Ref: Item 2. What I mean here is:
A GFCI is a device for preventing a human from getting injured.
A Tamper Proof Outlet is another device for preventing humans from being injured.

It seems to me that a) the GFCI is a far superior method and b) the TPR feature added to a GFCI receptacle is simply "guilding the lily".


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Joe71 said:


> Thanks for the good answers..
> 
> Ref: Item 2. What I mean here is:
> A GFCI is a device for preventing a human from getting injured.
> A Tamper Proof Outlet is another device for preventing humans from being injured.


Anti-lock brakes on your truck is a safety device. So are seat belts. But seat belts have nothing to do with your brakes. The brakes are designed to stop the vehicle, hopefully before a crash. The seat belts are designed for what occurs if you don't stop in time.



Joe71 said:


> It seems to me that a) the GFCI is a far superior method and b) the TPR feature added to a GFCI receptacle is simply "guilding the lily".


Wouldn't you rather prevent a child from sticking a paper clip into a receptacle to begin with, rather than rely on electronics to turn the power off after the child has received a shock?


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

What about a WR TR GFI?


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Wouldn't you rather prevent a child from sticking a paper clip into a receptacle to begin with, rather than rely on electronics to turn the power off after the child has received a shock?


No then the kid would look like your old avatar.:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

william1978 said:


> What about a WR TR GFI?


They're for "guilding the lily" outside. :whistling2:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

480sparky said:


> They're for "guilding the lily" outside. :whistling2:


 :laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Not all breakers.
> 
> *210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.*
> *(A) Definition: Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI).* A device intended to provide protection from the effects of arc faults by recognizing characteristics unique to arcing and by functioning to de-energize the circuit when an arc fault is detected.
> *(B) Dwelling Units.* All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.


 
So only the (2) SABC in kitchen and washing machine circuit don't need AFCI :no:

They will say EVERY 120V CIRCUIT in the next code change I bet

The manufactures of these AFCI breakers must be very happy


----------



## Joe71 (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Shall I depend on a GFCI or would I rather have a TR GFCI. Well.. 1) There is no "Absolutely Safe" protection against ANY hazard. and 2) I feel the GFCI is extremely reliable proven technology to which adding the TR feature adds little except making someone "feel good" that it is "safer". In the big scheme, the TR feature may add 0.01% additional safety but at what is going to be overall, a very substantial cost to the nation. Is it worth it if it saves just one human life? No. At present, I know of no GFCI failure that is blamed for a death so the whole principle of adding TR to a GFCI seems unnecessary.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Joe71 said:


> Is it worth it if it saves just one human life? No.


 I disagree with you.


----------



## Joe71 (Oct 28, 2009)

Then Williams1978, I recommend you a) stop driving motor vehicles (very dangerous), stop using electricity and inflammable gasses (very dangerous), stop leaving your home (very dangerous) and anything else you can think of. Why? Because all of these is more dangerous than that incremental danger posed by any GFCI without TR!

But you are most welcome to your opinion! Thanks for it.


----------



## idontknow (Jul 18, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Wouldn't you rather prevent a child from sticking a paper clip into a receptacle to begin with, rather than rely on electronics to turn the power off after the child has received a shock?


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


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Joe71 said:


> Then Williams1978, I recommend you a) stop driving motor vehicles (very dangerous), stop using electricity and inflammable gasses (very dangerous), stop leaving your home (very dangerous) and anything else you can think of. Why? Because all of these is more dangerous than that incremental danger posed by any GFCI without TR!
> 
> But you are most welcome to your opinion! Thanks for it.


 What I'm saying is. If it save just on life the I think it is worth every penny.


----------



## idontknow (Jul 18, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> So only the (2) SABC in kitchen and washing machine circuit don't need AFCI :no:
> 
> They will say EVERY 120V CIRCUIT in the next code change I bet
> 
> The manufactures of these AFCI breakers must be very happy


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.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

idontknow said:


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


 The AFCI will take it out then.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

idontknow said:


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


Then you need to feed your kids better.:whistling2:


----------



## Joe71 (Oct 28, 2009)

william1978 said:


> What I'm saying is. If it save just one life then I think it is worth every penny.


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.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

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


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Then you need to feed your kids better.:whistling2:


 :laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

idontknow said:


> 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 :thumbsup:


----------



## idontknow (Jul 18, 2009)

william1978 said:


> The AFCI will take it out then.


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



480sparky said:


> Then you need to feed your kids better.:whistling2:


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 (Aug 17, 2008)

idontknow said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2009)

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 (Aug 17, 2008)

Joe71 said:


> 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 (Sep 20, 2007)

EBFD6 said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2009)

EBFD6 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Dec 30, 2007)

Joe71 said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2007)

480sparky said:


> 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.
> ...


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

manchestersparky said:


> *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 (Apr 19, 2009)

william1978 said:


> 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 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2009)

william1978 said:


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


:laughing:

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

Oh well apply what I said to 406.11


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> :laughing:
> 
> 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 (Apr 19, 2009)

william1978 said:


> 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




> 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.





> 406.11 — TAMPER-RESISTANT RECEPTACLES IN DWELLING UNITS
> 
> Requirements for tamper-resistant receptacles were added to the 2008 NEC.
> 
> ...


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2009)

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.



> *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]
> ...


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Are you on a code making panel Bob?


----------



## ElectricBill (Aug 14, 2009)

Joe71 said:


> As I read the 2008 code:
> 1) Now "all" receptacles in a dwelling must be "tamper resistant".
> 2) This even applies to GFCI receptacles. (Isn't the GFCI a "tamper resistant" receptacle by definition?!)
> 3) An exception is the ceiling mounted receptacle for a garage door.
> ...


While 210.12 B has some very weak wording "or similar rooms or areas" which an inspector might get caught up on, my understanding is that Kitchen, laundry, bathroom, garage, unfinished basement and outdoor circuits are excluded from AFCI requirement. A local inspector also allows exceptions for circuits with low voltage lighting due to nuisance tripping issues.


----------



## I Conduit (May 4, 2009)

Joe71 said:


> Is it worth it if it saves just one human life? No.


How about if that one life was yours?


----------



## idontknow (Jul 18, 2009)

ElectricBill said:


> While 210.12 B has some very weak wording "or similar rooms or areas" which an inspector might get caught up on, my understanding is that Kitchen, laundry, bathroom, garage, unfinished basement and outdoor circuits are excluded from AFCI requirement. A local inspector also allows exceptions for circuits with low voltage lighting due to nuisance tripping issues.


Unless the washing machine was in a closet. 

De-ja-vu


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

william1978 said:


> Are you on a code making panel Bob?


No .... I am just a code geek with too much time on his hands.

The NFPA web site sucks but with some searching you can find all kinds of stuff, the entire 2011 NEC draft copy is here.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/ROP/70-A2010-ROPDraft.pdf


You can also find the ROPs (Report on Proposals) and ROCs (Report on Changes) for the 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2011 NEC online.

In those boring pages you find out the real reasons why the rules where changed and see who is asking for the changes.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> No .... I am just a code geek with too much time on his hands.
> 
> The NFPA web site sucks but with some searching you can find all kinds of stuff, the entire 2011 NEC draft copy is here.
> 
> ...


 Thanks, cool link.:thumbsup:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

I Conduit said:


> How about if that one life was yours?


 I think he would still argue with the cost of the rec. that just saved his life.:whistling2:


----------

