GFCI for refrigerator

Status
Not open for further replies.

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
M. D. said:
It took a long time to find that ROP...
And thanks for going through all the effort! The last two are easily searchable in pdf form, I bet it takes a lot more effort to track down a paper copy in your house and then hunt through it to find the proposal in question.

Thanks for doing that. :)
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
iwire said:
But we have to be careful here as many items are meant to work hand in hand with each other but are IMO more than one piece of utilization equipment.

For example my home entertainment center consists of 5 separate units each with it's own cord but some units can not work without each other.

Is it one piece of utilization equipment or 5?

The receiver and sub woofer came together in the box each with their own cord.

One unit or two?

Bob

"but some units can not work without each other"
That's what I see as the key

When looking at an installation with multiple cords, I would count the number of pieces of utilization equipment by determining if there are any pieces that can function independently. I don't believe a subwoofer has any stand alone function unless it is connected to another piece of equipment. So I would look at the reciever / subwoofer combo as one unit.

So to with the sump. The battery backup electronic board has no independent function unless connected to the sump. So I would look at the sump / backup combo as one unit.

If there were two pieces that had complimentary features but had stand alone functions, I would count those as two units. A audio system might be interconnected with a TV, both using the same speakers, but the stereo has a music function independent of the TV. And the TV displays the broadcast stations independent of the Stereo.

David
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
The panel has attempted to be reasonable with the exception and not require a single receptacle be used. The panel notes that the exception permits an additional circuit to supply the refrigerator. It is recognized that frequently the receptacle is indeed located behind the refrigerator making the single receptacle requirement overly burdensome.

You know what I get out of this statement? I get that it was their intent that only one thing be plugged in. I get that a "simplex receptacle" is what they would have wanted to require, but they conceded that it would be overly burdensome to impose that requirement. I get that a second receptacle added to the same circuit would clearly be in conflict with their intent.

As I said earlier, Bob, I concede that the wording, as written, allows more than one receptacle in this circumstance. But I have been reinforced in my opinion that their intent was to limit the receptacles to one, and to a simplex receptacle at that.

To steal (no, I mean "borrow") your analogy from a separate thread, I believe the CMP members would view the installation of a duplex receptacle, and no other receptacle, on a 15 amp branch circuit serving the fridge, would constitute a "violation of their intent" equivalent to going 35.1 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. I further believe that installing a second receptacle on the same outlet would constitute a "violation of the NEC" equivalent to going 47 MPH in 35 MPH zone.

And I thought it was only in the political arena that both sides of an argument can read the final resolution and conclude that they had won. ;) :)
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Now that we have two recptacles do we have to follow 210.21 / 210.23

If your answer is yes, ask yourself why?

If your answer is no ,why not? There are two receptacles.

If I ever install a 15 amp IBC to a fridge it will be supplied by a single receptacle outlet unless the equipment requires more. I don't want the homeowner , who knows nothing of this , to create a violation by doing what is only expected to be done to a receptacle,..... that is to plug something in.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
M. D. said:
Now that we have two recptacles do we have to follow 210.21 / 210.23

If your answer is yes, ask yourself why?

If your answer is no ,why not? There are two receptacles.

If I ever install a 15 amp IBC to a fridge it will be supplied by a single receptacle outlet unless the equipment requires more. I don't want the homeowner , who knows nothing of this , to create a violation by doing what is only expected to be done to a receptacle,..... that is to plug something in.


But if we have established that a duplex for the fridge on a 15 circuit is not a violation than what do you see as a violation?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I don't know Charlie, I love ya but I think your ignoring the obvious. ;) :)

An inspector can not fail a job based only on multiple receptacles on a individual branch circuit.

I have read your thoughts and I ask that you try to read mine with an open mind.

I used to work as a maintenance man, in our shops we had multiple 50 amp receptacles around the shops to serve a welder. These receptacles where all suppled by the same branch circuit.

We would roll the welder to where we needed it and plug it in.

This to me, this was, and is, an individual branch circuit for exclusive use of the welder.

As is any multi-receptacle outlet circuit supplying one piece of utilization equipment.

We have to also ask ourselves how many places in the code other than the already mentioned refrigerator scenario is an individual branch circuit for cord and plug connected required?

Not many I suspect so as it is not required it is also not a big deal if someone plugs an extra piece of utilization equipment into what was intended to be a individual branch circuit.

Anyway if you want to leave it as we both 'won' thats fine I have made my point. :)

I have enjoyed this exchange and have at least one or two threads to start as spin offs of this one.:cool:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
M. D. said:
I get your point, it will only be in violation when something else is plugged in.

Pretty much, but it is sort of a moot point.

Other than the refrigerator 15 amp circuit where does the NEC require an individual branch circuit for cord and plug connected equipment?

Generally the NEC only requires a circuit with a enough capacity for the load to be supplied.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
dnem said:
When looking at an installation with multiple cords, I would count the number of pieces of utilization equipment by determining if there are any pieces that can function independently.

David I had a bunch of driving to do today so I was thinking about this particular part of the thread.

IMO (which certainly could be wrong) the decision should be based on the UL listing.

If you have two components under one encompassing UL listing IMO they would be one piece of utilization equipment.

A 'packaged' boiler would be an example of that, it was assembled of multiple parts but as a unit it is listed under one classification.

If you have a sump pump under a 'pump' listing and a charger under a 'charger' listing but no listing as combined IMO that would be two pieces of utilization equipment.

But admittedly it will be up to the AHJ to decide. :)
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
Generally the NEC only requires a circuit with a enough capacity for the load to be supplied.

IMO it would be more accurate to say the anticipated load to be supplied. When it comes to a lot of the branch circuits there is no way to know what the load will be.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
dlhoule said:
IMO it would be more accurate to say the anticipated load to be supplied. When it comes to a lot of the branch circuits there is no way to know what the load will be.

I hear you but I don't think the NEC does.

Consider 210.20(A) or Table 210.21(B)(2). Some large hair dryers will violate Table 210.21(B)(2).

It is worded like there is control over what may be plugged in.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Larry, isn't that why an individual branch circuit with a single Receptacle can supply any load for which it is rated?
And in general, a branch circuit with more than one receptacle is somewhat limited.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
I used to work as a maintenance man, in our shops we had multiple 50 amp receptacles around the shops to serve a welder. These receptacles where all supplied by the same branch circuit. We would roll the welder to where we needed it and plug it in. This to me, this was, and is, an individual branch circuit for exclusive use of the welder.

Bob, I believe you are extending the example of your welding machine one level too far. It is not common for homeowners to have several places that they might want the fridge to be. We don't roll the fridge to a different location several times during the day, and thus we don't need more than one place to plug it in.

So if you install one duplex receptacle on a 15 amp circuit, and put it in the space that is obviously designed for the fridge, and if you then install a second receptacle outlet elsewhere in the kitchen or in some other room, then I think you will have violated the "individual branch circuit" part of the rule.

On the other hand, if you put a dozen receptacles in the space behind the fridge, such that none can be reached once the fridge is in place, I can accept your viewpoint that that would not be a violation.

iwire said:
Other than the refrigerator 15 amp circuit where does the NEC require an individual branch circuit for cord and plug connected equipment?

The only reason this exception exists is to permit a 15 amp circuit to be used to supply a load that is located in the kitchen. It gets us out of the rules for "SA circuits." Where else is there a rule that requires 20 amp circuits, but includes an exception to allow a 15 amp circuit?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
charlie b said:
So if you install one duplex receptacle on a 15 amp circuit, and put it in the space that is obviously designed for the fridge, and if you then install a second receptacle outlet elsewhere in the kitchen or in some other room, then I think you will have violated the "individual branch circuit" part of the rule.


IMO you are convinced that you know what the CMP was thinking when they drafted the definition of individual branch circuit even though your view does not match the words they chose, the panel statement of another CMP or your own 'rules'.

On the other hand my view of 'what they where thinking' does match all three of those items.:)

I find it inconceivable to believe that a CMP would chose the words 'utilization equipment' if they really meant outlets. Come on, they don't just 'wing it' do they? ;)

The only reason this exception exists is to permit a 15 amp circuit to be used to supply a load that is located in the kitchen. It gets us out of the rules for "SA circuits." Where else is there a rule that requires 20 amp circuits, but includes an exception to allow a 15 amp circuit?

Correct but the definition of individual branch circuit was not likely drafted for this exception.

Even if I leave you unconvinced I know I have made many here think hard on this one so I can be happy with that. :)

Bob
 

M. D.

Senior Member
charlie b said:




[FONT=[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
On the other hand, if you put a dozen receptacles in the space behind the fridge, such that none can be reached once the fridge is in place, I can accept your viewpoint that that would not be a violation.
SIZE][/FONT]


There is nothing saying the receptacles have to be behind anything or that they have to be in one box for that matter , they can also be over the countertop, as long as the cord can reach them put 365 one for each day of the year .
Nice exception .
 

M. D.

Senior Member
What I want to know is can you plug a 13 amp rated fridge into this duplex receptacle or does 210.21 (b) (2) come into play.

If it does isn't it because the powers that be , expect something to be attached to the remaining receptacle outlet???
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
It amazes me. All this great discussion on something that comes up maybe 1 or 2% of the time.

You guys are great in terms of making one think a little bit!
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
dlhoule said:
It amazes me. All this great discussion on something that comes up maybe 1 or 2% of the time.

I have not wired a dwelling unit in years....this question has never come up for me in the field.:D
 

wireman3736

Senior Member
Location
Vermont/Mass.
mcasas said:
The refrigerator is approx. 3' from the kitchen sink it is plugged in to a duplex recpt. that is not readily accessible, is the recpt. required to be a GFCI?

I mentioned earlier that the local AHJ in some areas have made us either install a single receptacle or gfci protect a duplex behind the fridge, I was just looking at the 2008 draft and see that one of the proposals requires receptacles within 6' of a sink to be gfci, it doesn't breakdown the type of sink like the 2005 did so I think this would require at least the duplex and maybe even the single receptacle to be gfci protected as i see at this point there are no exceptions. Others opinions.
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
wireman3736 said:
I mentioned earlier that the local AHJ in some areas have made us either install a single receptacle or gfci protect a duplex behind the fridge, I was just looking at the 2008 draft and see that one of the proposals requires receptacles within 6' of a sink to be gfci, it doesn't breakdown the type of sink like the 2005 did so I think this would require at least the duplex and maybe even the single receptacle to be gfci protected as i see at this point there are no exceptions. Others opinions.

Everybody has one, but many are incorrect.:p

If you are using GFCI, you may as well have it be a SA branch circuit.
It doesn't change anything if you are not within 6' of the sink.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top