GFCI for refrigerator

[Mike03a3]

Well, I'll see your cartidge and raise you 210.52 (B) (2) exception 2.

How does that apply to an Individual Branch Circuit installed under 210.52 (B) (1) exception 2, which has become the topic of this thread?

 

[iwire]

You all are taking a simple thing and making it way to difficult.

First off this is not a safety issue.

If an item was intended to run on an individual branch circuit and it ends up sharing a circuit the worst case is a tripped breaker.

A tripped breaker can happen on any multi outlet circuit.

Next is you have to stop thinking that individual branch circuit has anything to do with the number of receptacles on a circuit.

Also keep in mind that the definition of individual branch circuit was not written only for dwelling units, there are many other flavors of receptacles other than 15 and 20 amp 125 volt receptacles.

 

[tallgirl]

How does that apply to an Individual Branch Circuit installed under 210.52 (B) (1) exception 2, which has become the topic of this thread?

Simple -- 210.52 (B) (2) exception 2 says I can have an extra outlet, inspite of 210.52 (B) (1) saying I can't.

Okay, I put in a duplex. Inspector Dude says "No", I say "210.52 (B) (2), exception 1 -- the second outlet is for a clock the owner may wish to put on top of the fridge."

Where's the whole in my argument?

(Urph -- I meant exception 1, not 2. Sorry -- busy acquiring pizza ...)

 

[George Stolz]

Well, I'll see your cartidge and raise you 210.52 (B) (2) exception 2.

I'm not making the connection on two counts:

1. I don't get the code reference, and
2. Are we playing cards or shooting long dead horses?

 

[George Stolz]

This thread's, humming along, didn't see this page!

Where's the hole in my argument?

The individual branch circuit for the fridge in the exception to (B)(1) is not a SABC.

When you add the clock, it becomes an SABC.

 

[Mike03a3]

You all are taking a simple thing and making it way to difficult.

First off this is not a safety issue.

Nobody suggested it was.

If an item was intended to run on an individual branch circuit and it ends up sharing a circuit the worst case is a tripped breaker.

Ah, but it's a CODE issue. That's what we're discussing here

A tripped breaker can happen on any multi outlet circuit.

Next is you have to stop thinking that individual branch circuit has anything to do with the number of receptacles on a circuit.

Also keep in mind that the definition of individual branch circuit was not written only for dwelling units, there are many other flavors of receptacles other than 15 and 20 amp 125 volt receptacles.

I agree with most of what you've said - especially the reminder that the definition of individual branch circuit isn't limited to dwellings. I'm confident that's exactly why the panel declined to limit the definition to a single receptacle. The range of possible uses must allow for many ways to attach the single permitted utilization equipment.

However, I'm also confident that in the specific case of a dwelling, and the use of the exception allowing an individual branch circuit in lieu of supplying a refrigerator with one of the small appliance circuits, an inspector is on solid ground rejecting a duplex receptacle. The inclusion of a second, unused, receptacle, not required for the single permitted utilization equipment (refrigerator), makes it a General-Purpose branch circuit by definition and thus not allowed under the exception.

 

[tallgirl]

I'm not making the connection on two counts:

1. I don't get the code reference, and
2. Are we playing cards or shooting long dead horses?

Code reference was off by one exception. It should have been exception #1 instead of #2.

The exception says that a clock doesn't count against the "only one outlet" requirement. Which says, to me, that an IBC for a fridge can have an extra outlet for a clock and still be an IBC.

And the answer to #2 is apparently a little of both.

 

[iwire]

I'm also confident that in the specific case of a dwelling, and the use of the exception allowing an individual branch circuit in lieu of supplying a refrigerator with one of the small appliance circuits, an inspector is on solid ground rejecting a duplex receptacle. The inclusion of a second, unused, receptacle, not required for the single permitted utilization equipment (refrigerator), makes it a General-Purpose branch circuit by definition and thus not allowed under the exception.

No, he is on no ground at all.

You call it logical I call it going beyond the NEC.

 

[iwire]

Which says, to me, that an IBC for a fridge can have an extra outlet for a clock and still be an IBC.

(Bob slamming head against wall) An IBC does not need an exception for more outlets, it only needs an exception for more equipment!!

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

(Bob slamming head against wall) An IBC does not need an exception for more outlets, it only needs an exception for more equipment!!

Try a block wall.If its a duplex it cant be a dedicted single outlet.Duplex is 2 outlets and thats a branch.

 

[Mike03a3]

Code reference was off by one exception. It should have been exception #1 instead of #2.

The exception says that a clock doesn't count against the "only one outlet" requirement. Which says, to me, that an IBC for a fridge can have an extra outlet for a clock and still be an IBC.

And the answer to #2 is apparently a little of both.

The exception still doesn't work - it applies to the Small Appliance circuits. Since the IBC for the fridge is itself an exception, it is by definition not an SA circuit.

On a side note, I'm not really clear exactly why the clock exception exists. Since the SA circuits must supply all the receptacles in specified rooms, why do we need an exception for that particular receptacle? There's nothing in the general provisions for receptacles that prevent one from being placed anywhere you might want a clock.

 

[scwirenut]

what if you did actually install a single recept. behind the fridge, (or anywhere for that matter). along comes mr homeowner needing to plug something else up. Will he A: say "oh no, I guess I cant plug up anything else"
or B: get a 3 to 1 adapter and continue plugging away, and if he fills that he will get a multi-strip, and so on and so on. single recepts are a waste of time and money.

 

[George Stolz]

Since the SA circuits must supply all the receptacles in specified rooms, why do we need an exception for that particular receptacle? There's nothing in the general provisions for receptacles that prevent one from being placed anywhere you might want a clock.

Yes, there is. 210.52(B)(1) requires all wall, counter, and refrigeration receptacles to be served by the SABCs. (B)(2) prevents anything else.

A receptacle behind a range for a clock is not any of these. It doesn't serve wall space, or counter space, or a fridge.

Neither is a receptacle for a disposal, or a dishwasher, or any other receptacle inside a cabinet.

Since they are not serving wall space and all that, then they are "other outlets."

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

what if you did actually install a single recept. behind the fridge, (or anywhere for that matter). along comes mr homeowner needing to plug something else up. Will he A: say "oh no, I guess I cant plug up anything else"
or B: get a 3 to 1 adapter and continue plugging away, and if he fills that he will get a multi-strip, and so on and so on. single recepts are a waste of time and money.

We can not protect a fool,call mr T

 

[Mike03a3]

what if you did actually install a single recept. behind the fridge, (or anywhere for that matter). along comes mr homeowner needing to plug something else up. Will he A: say "oh no, I guess I cant plug up anything else"
or B: get a 3 to 1 adapter and continue plugging away, and if he fills that he will get a multi-strip, and so on and so on. single recepts are a waste of time and money.

I'm not really concerned with preventing the HO from overloading everything in sight after the fact. I've seen way too many six-way adapters mounted on duplexes to have any real expectation that HO's won't keeping pluging things in until the CB pops or the wires melt. I do think that design professionals has an obligation to consider the likely loading of the various rooms in a modern home and plan accordingly. But that's not the point of this discussion at the moment.

My local inspector will allow a duplex behind the refrigerator if it's on one of the SA circuits. If we wish to take advantage of the exception and put the fridge on a 15 amp IBC he will only allow a single recepticle. You can put a duplex if it's a 20 amp IBC, at which point he counts it a just another SA. Those are the choices that will pass inspection. After all the discussion, I do not disagree with him.

 

[scwirenut]

my local inspector disaggrees with about 21 things I do at every new home, but after sitting at the round table and in some instances a trip to state board and having all of his half backed interpretations (such as this)over ruled ,he has learned is opinion means squat. defend our code

 

[tallgirl]

(Bob slamming head against wall) An IBC does not need an exception for more outlets, it only needs an exception for more equipment!!

YES, BUT THIS IS THE "CAN I HAVE MORE THAN ONE OUTLET" THREAD.

 

[LarryFine]

However, I'm also confident that in the specific case of a dwelling, and the use of the exception allowing an individual branch circuit in lieu of supplying a refrigerator with one of the small appliance circuits, an inspector is on solid ground rejecting a duplex receptacle. The inclusion of a second, unused, receptacle, not required for the single permitted utilization equipment (refrigerator), makes it a General-Purpose branch circuit by definition and thus not allowed under the exception.

I can't agree. Look at the definition again:

"Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment."

Nowhere is there either a requirement for a receptacle nor a requirement that it be a single, as opposed to a duplex, receptacle. It's the act of plugging in a second piece of equipment that changes the characteristics of the outlet.

If its a duplex it cant be a dedicted single outlet.Duplex is 2 outlets and thats a branch.

Not true: A duplex receptacle is two receptacles mounted on one yoke and mounted in one outlet. Remember, a receptacle is only one of several kinds of devices which may be mounted in an outlet.

 

[iwire]

YES, BUT THIS IS THE "CAN I HAVE MORE THAN ONE OUTLET" THREAD.

If it is than the issue of an IBC should not enter in to it as an IBC has nothing to do with outlets or receptacles.

I guess what we have here is "A Failure to Communicate"

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I can't agree. Look at the definition again:

"Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment."

Nowhere is there either a requirement for a receptacle nor a requirement that it be a single, as opposed to a duplex, receptacle. It's the act of plugging in a second piece of equipment that changes the characteristics of the outlet.

Not true: A duplex receptacle is two receptacles mounted on one yoke and mounted in one outlet. Remember, a receptacle is only one of several kinds of devices which may be mounted in an outlet.

Are we not talking about receptacles here ? A duplex receptacle outlet is 2 receptacles is it not.When we install one on a circuit even if it has no other outlets it is a circuit with 2 receptacles.Is that not a branch circuit ?