GFCI for refrigerator

Status
Not open for further replies.
charlie b said:
Bob, I can't disagree with your interpretation of the words in the NEC, especially since I'm the one who wrote "Charlie's Rule" in the first place.
Click to expand...



That is an odd position you agree but would take violation with no section to back it.

I think it is odd that so many think they know the intent of the CMP and just assume the CMP did not word it correctly.

Perhaps the intent is exactly what I have been saying it is.

I believe that a homeowner can never, NEVER create a code violation by virtue of using electrical appliances and equipment
Click to expand...


I would like to agree with you here but.....

Look at the new 2005 requirement that holiday lights be listed.

Who is that aimed at?
 
Bob is just receptacal outlets that are unlimited ?

could I then add some additional lighting outlets in the t.v. room through a switch and then say . "as long as no one throws the switch there is no violation"?

A receptacal outlet is a point at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment through an attachment plug. If the frige doesn't require more than one receptacal outlet one is all that is allowed . If the equipment needs two fine , We don't get to decide the number of outlets, receptacal or otherwise that are allowed , the equipment does.
 
Charlie,

What you describe is a design standard IMHO, and a good one to try to follow. However, I have always said and I still say it, 'You can never wire a building that is 100% homeowner proof and you'll never complete the job if you try to make it homeowner proof.'

If there's a way to screw something up, it will be a homeowner who finds it.

Now, as to the subject at hand, I have often put in single recepts where I don't want anything else plugged into it. Although I have never put one in for a fridgerator in a residence, I have done it for a freezers in a garage and labeled them as such.
 
I admit what Charlie mentioned make sense on function or idea. But it is different from the NEC. If you have NEC 2005 handbook, you can check Exhibit 210.25 on page 90, it clearly shows a duplex receptacle for the refrigerator with 15-A individual branch circuit. The symbols for duplex receptacle and simplex receptacle are different. So I will not say it is a code issue if you install a duplex receptacle for a refrigerator in an individual branch circuit.

David
 
All I am saying, Bob, is that if there are two or more receptacles on a 15 amp circuit, including the one behind the fridge, and if the others are in plain view and easy for the homeowner to plug something into, then we really can't say the circuit has only one utilization equipment. It will have two, as soon as the second item is plugged in. Does a non-violation become a violation at that point? I would have to have called it a violation when the second receptacle was installed, because nothing will stop the homeowner from using the second receptacle.

In this respect, I would not be accepting a violation without a code article to back it up. I would be accepting the AHJ's interpretation of 210.52(B)(1), when the Inspector cites that article as the basis of the violation.
 
charlie b said:
My understanding of the item David described is that the pump and the battery backup are mounted on a common "skid" (if that word might be applied here). In other words, you cannot pick up one without also picking up the other.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the commonly chosen sump with battery backup unit installed in my area. There is a bracket on the pipes coming up from the recessed sump motor where the battery, battery case, and backup "brains" are mounted.

I believe the reason for two cords is to allow service on the battery or backup electronic board while the sump is still connected and able to work. While the battery itself probably has a separate UL listing, I would be surprised if the electronics are listed separated from the sump pump.

I stand behind my conclusion the reason for the wording in 210.52(B)(1)x2 was to allow a duplex if there was more than one cord for the one utilization equipment. If the panel wished to be more specific, they could have duplicated their own wording in 210.8(A)(2)x2 and (5)x2: "A single or a duplex receptacle for two appliances located within dedicated space for each appliance ..." which allows this exception to be used for equipment that's not limited to one utilization equipment on an individual branch circuit.

iwire said:
That being the case you can have an individual branch circuit that has an infinite number of receptacles as long as it supplies only one Utilization Equipment at any given time.
Click to expand...

I would call that sentence an interpretation and think that it is the wrong interpretation. As MD said on this thread, what if you had more than one piece of equipment plugged in but they were all on switches. Would it be code compliant at the time of inspection if every switch was turned off except one ?

M. D. said:
could I then add some additional lighting outlets in the t.v. room through a switch and then say . "as long as no one throws the switch there is no violation"?
Click to expand...

If you have an infinite number of receptacles you don't have an individual branch circuit.

charlie b said:
Speaking philosophically, and for the moment discounting the possibility of DIY work, I believe that a homeowner can never, NEVER create a code violation by virtue of using electrical appliances and equipment. ..... My reasoning is that 90.2(A) says that the NEC covers the installation of "electrical stuff," but it says nothing about the homeowner's use of the installation. If a violation is present, it means that the error was made by the designer, or the installer, or the inspector, or all of us. ..... Lets talk about a 15 amp circuit supplying the fridge. As the code is written and as you have pointed out, you could put any number of duplex receptacles on that circuit, plug only one item in, and call it an "individual branch circuit." But then Jane Homeowner plugs in a second item, and now you have a violation. That should not be possible.
Click to expand...

I agree

David
 
I guess if I were the AHJ I would ask why, if the equipment only requires one recetacle outlet, did "you" provide an outlet for another piece utilization equipment.
The only purpose for a receptacle outlet is to provide a connection for utilization equipment. If the fridge only requires one then what would be the purpose of another ? I could only conclude that the installer intends for another piece of equipment to be connected other than that for which the circuit is intended to supply.If not I can't imagine why it would have been installed.
 
And that is precisely the reasoning that I had alluded to earlier, the reasoning that an Inspector could cite as the basis for a violation, and the reasoning for which I would have no viable counter-argument.
 
I have never seen a simplex receptacle on the IBC for a fridge in indiana. We always install a duplex. I don't see a violation, I wouldn't install multiple receptacles on an IBC but I agree with Bob it is not an interpretation it is how the code is written so until it states receptacle instead of UE I am installing duplex receptacles.
 
M. D. said:
I guess if I were the AHJ I would ask why, if the equipment only requires one recetacle outlet, did "you" provide an outlet for another piece utilization equipment.
The only purpose for a receptacle outlet is to provide a connection for utilization equipment. If the fridge only requires one then what would be the purpose of another ? I could only conclude that the installer intends for another piece of equipment to be connected other than that for which the circuit is intended to supply.If not I can't imagine why it would have been installed.
Click to expand...

I would reply. " if nothing is pluged into this receptacle is that still a violation? It was installed to have one UE if it has none it must be in violation. If he asks me why a duplex I will tell him it is allowed by code and the duplex is less expencive.
 
bikeindy said:
...... We always install a duplex. I don't see a violation, I wouldn't install multiple receptacles on an IBC......
Click to expand...

What do you call a duplex receptacle????

If it is the equipment that is being served by an IBC and that equipment has only one attachment plug then one receptacle outlet is all that is allowed.

It is the equipment that determines the number of outlets receptacle or otherwise.

Would you hard wire a piece of equipment on an IBC and then install a receptacle on the same circuit and say there is no violation??

It is the same thing.
 
iwire said:
IMO there is no NEC requirement that the inspector could cite to force the use of a single receptacle in a kitchen.

This includes a refrigerator supplied with a 15 amp individual branch circuit.
Click to expand...

When I said that inspectors were requiring a single receptacle for the fridge I didn't add the info I should have, just for clarification this had nothing to do with a dedicated circuit. If a duplex is used be it off of the small appliance circuit or a so called dedicated circuit (thats another argument) for the fridge it must be gfci protected or a single receptacle must be used. The reason for the ahj making this judgement is because even though it's behind the fridge it is still accessible to be used on the countertop as most fridges are on wheels. If not to serve the counter top then what else would the extra receptacle on this duplex be used for? There's probably not one electrician out there that hasn't gone into an apt. and seen where the tenants had a small appliance, tv or lamp sitting on the counter top plugged into this extra outlet. So I believe this is the reason that some inspectors are making that call, and now that I wrote this I guess I agree with them:)
 
M. D. said:
What do you call a duplex receptacle????

If it is the equipment that is being served by an IBC and that equipment has only one attachment plug then one receptacle outlet is all that is allowed.

It is the equipment that determines the number of outlets receptacle or otherwise.

Would you hard wire a piece of equipment on an IBC and then install a receptacle on the same circuit and say there is no violation??

It is the same thing.
Click to expand...

we are talking about fridges here and I haven't seen too many residential units that are hardwired. One UE is all that is allowed but not just one outlet. I'll give you a perfect example. I did a kitchen remodel a month ago and the HO wasn't sure which model fridge they would go with, one unit had to have a receptacle in the upper right hand corner to be pluged in. the other required it to be in the lower left. should I wait to finish the rough in for them to deside or just install in both locations. I guess you know what I did. and this was passed by the inspector when I explained the circumstance. or maybe at some later date the new HO would change models and need the receptacle moved. I avoided this and as Bob has stated it is allowed by code by the definition of IBC and UE. The space where the receptacles are is only space enough for the fridge. I think in these type cases the code is written well.
 
Last edited:
What you describe is an Appliacne Branch circuit.

" A branch circuit that supplies energy to one or more outlets to which appliances are to be connected and that has no permanently connected luminaires that are not part of the appliance."
 
What we are talking about is an Individual branch circuit which supplies one utilization equipment. It can have more than one outlet but only if it is to serve the one piece of equipment.
 
M. D. said:
What you describe is an Appliacne Branch circuit.

" A branch circuit that supplies energy to one or more outlets to which appliances are to be connected and that has no permanently connected luminaires that are not part of the appliance."
Click to expand...

no sorry that is not what I was describing about please read post # 6,7,8.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top