Can someone tell me,
Your addition requires the electrical to be in compliance with the currently enforced edition of the NEC with any local amendments. In most jurisdictions, simply replacing an outlet or switch does not require upgrades. With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if some people simply change the outlets after the final inspection.
A business can sale anything, legally that can be sold.
As far as use, that is another story.
Like plastic gasoline tanks, some cities do not allow thier use, but they are still sold within that city.
OHHH I am not an engineer, so you can discount my reply if you want, and I cannot do math.
I think that tamper resistant electrical outlets would encourage the use of wall multi-plug adapters. You can purchase at your local hardware store for as little as $6.
I also wanted to add the requirement by the inspector may have discriminated your right to accessibility to buildings and facilities by individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to operate the electrical plug outlet by the residents in your home. ADA is federal law that has supremacy over any state or local building codes and regulations.
Excerpt from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities:
4.27.4 Operation. Controls and operating mechanisms shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate controls shall be no greater than 5 lbf.
In addition, the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Section 309.4 Operation. Operable parts shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate operable parts shall be 5 pounds (22.2 N) maximum. The only exception is electrical or communication receptacles serving a dedicated use shall not be required to comply with 309.
Article that supports this requirement:
accessibility - Do Tamper resistant receptacles violate ADA barrier-free requirements? - Home Improvement Stack Exchange
I agree as well...tell the inspector that you will report this to the doj...most code departments done want the doj coming in!
Doj ? Dept of Justice??
That is a new one
Not sure if doj knows what a building code is and after they get done laughing will say more than likely,,,
Not their problem and jurisdiction
I've seen the Department of Justice shut down in the entire University football stadium over failing ada... my state follows Department of Justice guidelines for Ada as far as the building code goes!
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Fair enough building code pundits.
This is what the Department of Justice knows about the building codes. Chapter 1 - United States Access Board
The ANSI A117.1 standard is referenced by the International Building Code and various state codes, among others. While ADAAG requirements derive in large part from an earlier version of the ANSI standard, there are considerable differences between them.
About the ADA Standards. ... The Access Board is responsible for developing and updating design guidelines known as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). These guidelines are used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) in setting enforceable standards that the public must follow.
So why would an electrical inspection not see a conflict with the IBC?
It appears to me according the provisions of Section 1102.1 and 102.4 of the IBC would apply when if conflicts with NFPA 70, NEC referenced in 2701.1.
The big box stores still sell these receptacles because they are still listed devices, and it is up to the installer to verify that what materials being installed are code compliant.
The issue of the post is clear that a resident with a disability may not be able to use the non-dedicated electrical receptacle with a tamper resistant feature. The electrical codes "control and demand" language is not the argument. It is which law takes precedence federal law or state/local law. It appears to me the homeowners have the legal right by the federal law to have the non-dedicated electrical receptacles usable for the disabled. Are there any listed tamper resistant electrical receptacle that meet the ADA operable parts requirements?
Milton Werner stated, in part:
It appears to me the homeowners have the legal right by the federal law to have the non-dedicated electrical receptacles usable for the disabled.
Maybe a homeowner can REQUEST an interpretation for waiver or variance from the detailed TR requirements of the state-enacted NEC for a private residence, but it's not clear that there is any sort of "precedence" of the federal law, in the form of the ADA, that grant such "a legal right". The ADA doesn't typically apply to a private residence. One might consult state laws that fill in the gaps (e.g., such as would apply to all private residences not covered in the ADA).
Under the laws of NH, for instance, RSA 155:39 et seq. define "place of public accommodation", for purpose of "equal access for the physically disabled", to specifically exclude any private residence where the owner lives and rents lodgings in 5 or fewer rooms. In effect, what is not restricted is thus permitted, as a sort of "right" to which Mr. Werner alludes.
(While RSA 155:39 pertains primarily to provision of accessible walks, ramps, doors and restrooms, the point is that state laws may apply where federal laws do not.)
In any case, the AHJ may certainly interpret the rules and determine whether something is in compliance with "the code", by state law, or may grant various waivers or variances (to the extent permitted by laws, regulations and rules).
The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules. By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code...
The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code...
The general fact that any store, but particularly those big-box stores that cater to Do-It-Yourselfer's, sell products that do not meet code is a constant problem for consumers and code officials. This issue is not limited to electrical, we see issues with improper installation of smoke alarms as nothing explains code requirements or State law at the point of purchase. I know our Code office constantly has issues with "illegal" trap installations as people go the local Big-Box and buy the cheapest set of components to fix their issue.
It would be great if Lowes and Home Depot would post local code compliance information in the areas of their products so consumers could purchase with better knowledge.
People are fairly ignorant about the local regulations when they purchase at any home improvement center
Maybe a signs in the center and printed on the receipt the website or facebook address to access local building regulations.
Electrical devices, appliances and plumbing must installed in accordance with buildingdept.com requirements. Our staff cannot advise you of the proper local code installation requirements.
If the violations are a major issue, maybe the AHJ can provide some lunch break training to the employees at home improvement centers.
I like the idea of educating the Home Depot staff and other stores locally. I think I'll propose that as a follow up to this week's Fire Prevention program. I think it may be harder to convince corporate big box stores to put up signs that could harm the sales of some of their products, but at least making sure their staff is giving accurate and responsible advice would be a start. Plus, from there the employees may have some ideas how to improve this "issue". Typically the annual Fire Prevention Campaign targets a younger audience, but the people who are responsible for maintaining those lessons at home and throughout life seem to lose important pieces as time goes by.
There seems to be a perception in this chain that non-TR receptacles do not meet code. I am not a code expert yet am aware that there are exceptions that allow installation of non-TR devices even in new construction:
While that does limit their applicability, these exceptions and replacement purposes are reasons that they are still available for purchase.
I empathize with the desire for non-TR in this case, yet realize that inspectors are not charged with determining when exceptions make sense - they are charged with assuring that the installation meets the requirements for the current and any future owners. Putting any legal or insurance worries aside for a moment, one caveat I would highlight on a homeowner swapping the units after inspection would be the highly probable need to swap them back in order to pass a home inspection when selling the dwelling.
First, I would like to answer the question:
"...why are home depot and lowes allowed to sell outlets that aren't TR?"
The practical answer:
Because not every application requires tamper-resistant receptacles - receptacles in a warehouse, for example, do not need to be tamper-proof.
The (other) practical answer:
Because anyone can sell anything.
As far as ADA, ...I'm going to have to disagree with Milt on this one. The section being quoted is applicable to "controls" and "operating mechanisms." We usually apply this section to door knobs and handles, perhaps in an ADA toilet stall. I've never seen or heard of that section being applied to receptacles. A receptacle is a passive electrical device, not a "control" or "operating mechanism." I think in an effort to help, some of us are grasping here (no pun intended).
I would be interested to see additional data on this subject. But from everything I can pull up so far, tamper-resistant receptacles do not undergo any additional testing beyond the standard receptacle with regard to insertion forces.
In addition, I would have to agree that ADA does not apply to a private residence. It would only apply to newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and certain commercial facilities. ADA may be applicable to multifamily dwellings but even then, only common areas would be subject to ADA provisions. Fair Housing Act however, would apply. But even then, it would apply to the location of the receptacle and not the actual receptacle itself.
For more information on this, please see: https://www.fairhousingfirst.org/
For more information on this, please see: fairhousingfirst DOT ORG
ADA may be applicable to multifamily dwellings but even then, only common areas would be subject to ADA provisions. Fair Housing Act however, would apply.
Just to be clear, "FHA would apply" to a multi-family dwelling but not to
"(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner... " or "(2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence."
... assuming the single-family house is owned by a private individual with no ownership or beneficial interests in more than three such homes, and other provisions necessary to continue to qualify for such exemption. 42 USC § 3603.
So you seem to agree with me then, upnorth, that FHA would apply to a multifamily dwelling but not to a single family dwelling. As far as this one:
"(2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence."
... assuming the single-family house is owned by a private individual with no ownership or beneficial interests in more than three such homes, and other provisions necessary to continue to qualify for such exemption"
That seems about as clear as Boston Harbor. Can you please translate?
I thought they had "cleaned up" Boston Harbor. Anyway:
Yes, my (2d) point for the exemptions was a superficial and selective summary of a very complicated statute with numerous overlapping provisos and didn't even mention the potential federal nexus (jurisdiction) arising from public advertising, how often the landlord sells, and other things. Note that in the relatively rare case that FHA would NOT apply, there may be gap-filling statutes at the state level that do (i.e., bringing private dwellings within their own standards for FHA if not also ADA compliance.
Bottom line, you're better off looking at this on a case-by-case basis to "check the box" on whether ANY of the possible FHA exemptions might apply, then consulting the local statutes for what those might also cover.
All this hoopla (excitement surrounding an event or situation, especially when considered to be unnecessary fuss) over electrical safety could be or maybe should be blamed on the late 19th century where Nikola Tesla defeated Thomas Edison in the AC/DC battle of electric current. Would either of these two men realize the conundrums (a confusing and difficult problem or question) in building safety regulations. Is it necessary to operate the today's appliances in our houses by high voltage AC current?
"AC distribution of electricity has reigned supreme for more than 100 years. But a quiet insurrection is taking place in our midst. Our computers, machines, LEDs and electric cars all run on DC. And at the extremes of high power – distributing electricity thousands of miles from one region to the other – engineers have discovered that the losses from a million-volt transmission line are lower if it carries DC current rather than AC current."
Taken from Tesla vs Edison: the AC/DC current wars make a comeback by Alan Finkel.
Be advised National Electrical Code, 2017 ed, Article 210.8 [D] requires GFCI protection be provided for outlets supplying dishwashers installed in dwelling unit locations.
I hope this helps
Harvey Peel, PE
Leviton makes a hospital grade, isolated ground outlet. 100% illegal in a patient care area, which is the only place a hospital grade outlet is required. Why do they make it(much less why does HD sell it)? Bc as long as the unknowledgable keep buying it, they'll keep making and selling them. They are under no obligation to abide by the code. For your issue, TR isn't requred everywhere, so it wouldn't make sense for HD to sell it exclusively.
Knowing is half the power
Temper resistant receptacles are required in locations where children might be. ie; homes, pediatric clinics, day care centers, doctors offices, hospitals, and schools.
in other places, commercial buildings, stores, factories they are not required.
Approximately 24,000 children end up in the emergency room every year from sticking things in receptacles.
Although the receptacles are very stiff when they are new, they do get easier to use after they are used a few times.
As for the isolated ground receptacles, I don’t know how that got in this discussion they are expressly prohibited in patient care areas.
Receptacles in patient care areas require redundant grounding, that’s why isolated ground receptacles are prohibited.
Retrieving data ...