Refrigerator on GFCI circuit

[Phillip Stojanik]

I did a new construction townhouse inspection today and noticed the electrical receptacle outlet installed for the refrigerator niche in the kitchen was downstream of one of the kitchen countertop GFCI devices.

Everything I can find in the code says this is "OK" but it sure "feels" wrong to me. The only thing I can come up with at the moment is a potential for inadvertent shutdown of the refrigerator and possible food spoilage.

I checked the owner's manual of my own side-by-side GE. No real help there. They "recommend" a dedicated circuit but stopped short of specifying one and GFCI protection is not mentioned at all as being good or bad.

Maybe I am stuck on stupid but I just don't like the idea of a high induction motor load on a GFCI but I can't find anything to concretely back up that dislike.

Anyone have any suggestions?


Similar Threads:

• Sewage ejection pump-GFCI?
• Testing GFCI Outlets
• Kitchen area GFCI
• Receptacle for refrigerator
• From the old board, Circuit Breaker Short Circuit Fault Rating

[John Arnold]

If you search the forum using "nuisance gfci" you'll see posts, especially by J.P. about this.

[Jim Luttrall]

The only thing I can come up with at the moment is a potential for inadvertent shutdown of the refrigerator and possible food spoilage.

The potential for loss due to food spoilage is enough for me... but you might have a tough time convincing the builder to change. It is more of an issue for the garage outlet and a freezer. I have come across several of these when testing outdoor outlets and find the freezer is off (and usually blocking the reset).
I think your only recourse is common sense on this one.

[Randy Aldering]

Just explain it to your client the way you explained it here, that there may be a problem with nuisance tripping, which could lead to spoiled food. For some reason, we have been conditioned to have some kind of specific answer for builders or real estate agents. It seems, more and more, that the best explanation might just be "because it's stupid". Practicality seems lost these days, and as one client recently lamented (an attorney by training) "there is no reason any more", meaning that people seem incapable of reasoning things out any more. Well Mr. Builder or Mrs. Realtor, how would you feel about your builder or real estate agent if you came home from a week in Georgia to find your refrigerator stinking worse than the sewer plant? Uh huh, well then it makes sense to change it, doesn't it? You have a point. Thank you.

[Philip Desmarais]

According to the 2005 NEC the only receptacles requiring GFCI protection in the kitchen are "where the receptacles are installed to serve the countertop surfaces". There are no exceptions noted in the NEC.

[Jerry Peck]

According to the 2005 NEC the only receptacles requiring GFCI protection in the kitchen are "where the receptacles are installed to serve the countertop surfaces". There are no exceptions noted in the NEC.

But ...

That also does not 'prohibit' installing GFCI protection on the refrigerator circuit.

[Trent Tarter]

I recommend not having refrigerator receptacles on GFCI protected receptacles. Due to possible nuisance tripping and food spoilage. I do not refer to any code it just makes common sense.

[John Steinke]

I think we are getting away from 'inspection' and into 'design.'

The NEC does not require refrigerators to be on a GFI. Nor is the practice prohibited.

There are several methods where you could have a non-GFI protected receptacle for the fridge, and still comply with the NEC. Ditto for the garbage disposal and the dishwasher.

From an academic standpoint, there have been many changes on GFI design over the years; the fears of nuisance tripping seem to have been addressed.

From a maintenance standpoint, it seems that - believe it or not - that sometimes the fridge trips the GFI because the fridge is faulty, and the GFI is actually doing it's job.

Whatever the case, it has no bearing on the inspection. It would be improper to let 'design' enter into your inspection.

[Jerry Peck]

The NEC does not require refrigerators to be on a GFI. Nor is the practice prohibited.

Glad to see we agree there.

From an academic standpoint, there have been many changes on GFI design over the years; the fears of nuisance tripping seem to have been addressed.

From a maintenance standpoint, it seems that - believe it or not - that sometimes the fridge trips the GFI because the fridge is faulty, and the GFI is actually doing it's job.

What has mainly been addressed is the allowable level of ground fault current within the appliances themselves - it has been lowered significantly, such that they no longer trip GFCIs, unless there is a problem with the appliance.

Which, as you stated, means the GFCI is doing what it is intended to do.

It would be improper to let 'design' enter into your inspection.

"Design" is not entering into the inspections, inquiring into what is required, what is allowed, and what is not allowed is necessary for proper inspections.

[Richard Stanley]

Any thoughts on the refrig being on an AFCI circuit post 2008??

[Jerry Peck]

Any thoughts on the refrig being on an AFCI circuit post 2008??

Should not be a problem.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

As was previously stated, only those receptacles serving the counter top are required to be GFCI protected in a dwelling unit.

Also stated, Code does not prohibit the use of GFCI protection for the refrigerator receptacle.

When refrigerators utilized the frame as a neutral in the past, there was a high probability that such an arrangement would indeed “trip” the GFCI, however, improvements made to the design of both appliances and GFCI receptacles should ameliorate these so called “nuisance” trips.

I have always apprised electricians to install the refrigerator receptacle on a dedicated circuit. I know this is not code and we are not supposed to design installations, however; if you consider the size of refrigerators going into new houses today, it only makes sense to install these appliances on a dedicated circuit.

Additionally, consider the fact that all 15- & 20-Amp, 125 volt receptacles in non-dwelling type kitchens are required to be GFCI protected. This means that refrigerator units which may contain several thousand dollars worth of perishable food will be connected to such a $20 device.

I receive more complaints from electricians having to fulfill that requirement than all others combined.

Design professionals often miss this code requirement as well.

So I am compelled to believe that given such a requirement, the data must reflect that GFCI receptacles manufactured recently must not have “false or nuisance” trips. :@)

Anyone able to provide data to the contrary would be welcome, however; I am unable to ascertain that such a requirement is potentially hazardous.

[John Kogel]

99% of the houses I inspect have a fridge parked in front of the receptacle. We don't want to risk a scratch to the flooring, so we can't test the outlet.
In the US, you could trip all the kitchen GFCI's and see if the fridge goes off. Would it be important info? Well, I'd want to know if my food was going to rot.

(The Canadian EC requires the fridge to be on its own circuit, so that is what we see in any house built after about 1965.)

[brian schmitt]

common practice here is a dedicated circuit or fridge is first receptacle on a small appliance circuit and the next receptacle down the line gets the gfi device.

[Eric Barker]

Ok - I'll raise some neck hairs here (which I'm proficient at) but will try to do it gently. You guys who harp on / live by what "code" says are stuck on minimalist standards. Kinda like getting a D- in school but still graduating. Putting a fridg, or even a sump pump for that matter, on a GFI is outright stupid - I don't care what any code says or doesn't say. How can you provide your client with top drawer reporting when you rely on paltry, or just plain wrong, guidelines?
Gentle enough?

[Jerry Peck]

You guys who harp on / live by what "code" says are stuck on minimalist standards. Kinda like getting a D- in school but still graduating.

Yeppers ... code is the minimum standard ... the crappiest one is legally allowed to build the structure.

What do you call a doctor who graduated at the bottom of his class? Doctor.

MOST of us who reference codes do so to establish the a MINIMUM STANDARD ... a NOT-ALLOWED-TO-DO-WORSE standard ... none of us promote code as 'good-better-best'.

[Jim Port]

Putting a fridg, or even a sump pump for that matter, on a GFI is outright stupid

Considering that life safety is the intent of the code I would hardly consider it stupid to try and save a life.

GFI protection is also now required for receptacles in unfinished basement and crawlspaces. I would hardly consider complying with a Code requirement to be stupid. Commercial kitchens have required GFI protection for refrigerators for years.

[Jerry Peck]

Putting a fridg, or even a sump pump for that matter, on a GFI is outright stupid - I don't care what any code says or doesn't say. How can you provide your client with top drawer reporting when you rely on paltry, or just plain wrong, guidelines?
Gentle enough?

To follow-up on what Jim pointed out, and trying to see if this is "gentle enough", it would be not only stupid but making a arse of oneself to think that NOT MEETING MINIMUM CODE is somehow 'better' than meeting code.

Eric said it similarly to Richard Fornataro, who said "This means that refrigerator units which may contain several thousand dollars worth of perishable food will be connected to such a $20 device."

I guess the two of you would rather lose a life than "several thousand dollars worth of perishable food"? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Rollie Meyers]

If said fridge receptacle protected by a GFCI trips, the issue is likely the fridge,& it would just be doing the intended job, this was said earlier & the fact that ALL commercial kitchen 15 & 20A, 120V receptacles / cord & plug connected equipment has to be GFCI protected w/ NO exceptions.....

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Please do not interpret my words for other than what they imply. You should save that for your arch nemesis.

My point in elucidating such was that regardless of what the circumstances may be to justify an installation not being code-compliant, the code still dictates that such a requirement is to be followed.

Whether or not I personally agree is inconsequential. Code is code.

We won't even discuss the various reasons why electricians believe that they should not have to install arc-faults!

The saving of one life cannot be diminished by the inconvenience of even a thousand people.

I didn't write the code but my paycheck is conditioned upon the enforcement of such.

[Bill Kriegh]

As was previously stated, only those receptacles serving the counter top are required to be GFCI protected in a dwelling unit.

How about bathrooms, garages, unfinished basements, outside, utility room, etc.

Keep in mind that the 2008 NEC mandates an AFCI on dining room circuits and this isn't an uncommon place to find a fridge - and most AFCIs have a GFCI built in that while not as sensitive as a standard GFCI still trip at a fairly small amount of leakage

Also stated, Code does not prohibit the use of GFCI protection for the refrigerator receptacle.

When refrigerators utilized the frame as a neutral in the past, there was a high probability that such an arrangement would indeed “trip” the GFCI, however, improvements made to the design of both appliances and GFCI receptacles should ameliorate these so called “nuisance” trips.

I've seen a lot of refrigerators over the years and don't recall any that had a neutral grounded frame. Stoves and dryers maybe. I'm not going to do a lot of looking to find out how long this would have been illegal but it would have been a very, very long time.

As a former motor rewinder/repairer I can attest to the fact many old motors had a lot of "leakage" to ground and would certainly have tripped a GFCI had they been around "back in the day" There were (and probably still are) a number of products that were used to try and limit marginal insulation leakage to ground to extend motor life. This and irrigation pumps may be one of the factors in requiring outside receptacles to be GFCI protected. Even if the refrigerator frame was tied to neutral there would be no reason for a GFCI to trip unless there was another ground path. I've seen homeowners that have figured this out and cut off ground pins on refrig plugs to "eliminate" GFCI tripping on faulty units. Crappy motors and "iffy" insulation have been an issue with appliances in the past and GFCIs and AFCIs have kicked these people (manufacturers) into the modern age screaming all the while.

I have always apprised electricians to install the refrigerator receptacle on a dedicated circuit. I know this is not code and we are not supposed to design installations, however; if you consider the size of refrigerators going into new houses today, it only makes sense to install these appliances on a dedicated circuit.

Additionally, consider the fact that all 15- & 20-Amp, 125 volt receptacles in non-dwelling type kitchens are required to be GFCI protected. This means that refrigerator units which may contain several thousand dollars worth of perishable food will be connected to such a $20 device.

I receive more complaints from electricians having to fulfill that requirement than all others combined.

Design professionals often miss this code requirement as well.

So I am compelled to believe that given such a requirement, the data must reflect that GFCI receptacles manufactured recently must not have “false or nuisance” trips. :@)

The old ones work just fine, the new ones are better especially for other reasons. The appliances were junk. I've never been able to get a GFCI to nuisance trip, there's always been a reason. AFCIs are another matter.

Anyone able to provide data to the contrary would be welcome, however; I am unable to ascertain that such a requirement is potentially hazardous.

Not sure what your point is. Bad appliances trip GFCIs, and while I have seen GFCIs fried by surges, tripping for no reason is very uncommon in my experience even with the older units. Plenty around 30+ years old that work just fine.

[Ted Menelly]

Though tripping is uncommon the fact that I find countless GFCI receptacles that just stop tripping at all ... every other week. In busy times I find them every week. Tge reliance on these safety items is out of control. How many of you actually write that GFCIs go bad and don't trip.

That being said, the reliance of a GFCI to counter a breaker tripping when the frig has a heart attack is pretty useless as far as I am concerned.

Someone plugging in a cord with a bad cut in it and getting fried is one thing. All counter top, and as far as I am concerned, all outlets in a kitchen not dedicated to an appliance like a frig should be on a GFCI. There is water, there should be GFCIs with the exception of dedicated appliances (in the home, not in the garage or rear patio.)

As far as not writing this up or that up. I write up anything I find to be a concern, either way. I write up a frig on a GFCI and the possibilities of food going bad but also write in the same paragraph that a frig on a GFCI can in fact be a safety measure they may wish to adhere to.

I am not sure why so many folks are worried about writing something up even with a full explanation as to why. Who is your concern? The Realtor and not getting more work from them. The buyer suing you because they did not like the explanations. The seller because he thought he lost a deal because he did not want to replace a GFCI. Common folks. Get over all that. You are a home inspector that is suppose to be bringing all his experience and years of knowledge to the inspection

You are there for the buyer. To be a dam robot and only write this or that up because the SOPs say so or it is not code so why be an alarmist etc etc etc

I may rant a lot but these are all the reasons I do. When you go to work tomorrow try not being a robot and be there as another human being that actually has some knowledge to share with a client or experience (if you have any). Why do you draw such mundane lines. Oh, I know, it is so you keep getting those referrals from that Realtor.

Is it code to have a frig in the kitchen on a GFCI? No, so what. It has its good points and its bad points. Let the client decide. Tell them why someone may have put it on there and what the outcome can be from leaving it the way it is or changing it out.

Old wiring in a home. My recommendation is to change it out for mechanicals and appliances and electronics at the least. Get to the rest when you can afford it. Did I just tell them. No, I recommended it because it is wise to do so even if it is not THE LAW. Oh my. I might have just lost that Realtor ....... that is for another topic!

[Eric Barker]

My understanding is that upcoming revisions to the NEC will include sump pumps be on GFI protected circuits. I suppose some of you will begin encouraging that practice too.

GFIs are not the Godsend that people think. Ever place a GFI "protected" hairdryer in water and see what happens?

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Does the wife have to be in the tub to test that GFCI hair dryer?

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Ever place a GFI "protected" hairdryer in water and see what happens?

Voluntary UL Standard 859 has called for Immersion Protection for hand held hair dryers in both the on and off switch positions for production or listing of products effective date since January 1991.

That Immersion Shock Protection for Persons, is covered in the Construction Section, Chapter 5 of the Standard "Hair Dryer Immersion Protection"; Chapter 20 covers Immersion-Detection Circuit-Interrupters (IDCIs).

Some devices utilize detection circuitry and cord set devices including
Appliance Leakage Current Interrupters (ALCIs)
Immersion Detection Circuit Interrupters (IDCIs) and
Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCIs)


ALCIs and IDCIs are NOT GFCIs.

More than one type of protection circuit interrupter may be present.

I don't know of a single household hair dryer that relies soley upon GFCI for immersion shock protection of persons.

I am aware of some commercial (UL 1727) devices that provide more than one form of protection including GFCI that also detects and interrupts leakage N-G, not just H-G like a household combination GFCI receptacle does.

The testing includes tests out of the box as well as conditioned. One set of tests includes a metal tub full of conductive water - with the device plugged in and the switch positions both "on" and "off" thrown in said conductive water - and checking for leakage current in excess of 5 mA.

Before January 1991, the testing only required the device's switch being in the "off" position during the test. This led some mfg's to simply incorporate a waterproof switch - and pass the test - yet afford no immersion shock protection for persons. These devices were listed and may have indicated protection - but not so in the event the product was immersed while switch in ON position - and was or becomes energized.

These older devices (7th edition effective date of the standard and prior) are unsafe and should be discarded. only those mfg'd and listed to the 8th edition standard's effective date (after January 1, 1991) have been tested to provide immersion shock protection should the device be plugged in and its switch in either the ON or OFF position.

Note the testing didn't and AFAIK still does not incorporate a partial or half-way between on and off position on the switch. or AFAIK, multi position testing for those dryers which have multiple position switches (on - low-med-high).

To answer your question, yes.

To conter with one of my own; you do realize for a valid test one must test the interrupter first via its self-test, and even if same operates (tests, resets) as expected, no such device is fail-safe nor immune from failure, right?

[Jerry Peck]

My understanding is that upcoming revisions to the NEC will include sump pumps be on GFI protected circuits.

Sump pumps already *are* required to haver GFCI protection, and have had for some time now.

I suppose some of you will begin encouraging that practice too.

Why would you *not* encourage the installation of GFCI protection for sump pumps?

Is this another one of those save-the-house-and-contents-but-allow-the-occupant-to-be-killed reasonings? You know, kind of like those who do not want to see GFCI protection for the refrigerator because a couple of thousand dollars of food could be lost ... but killing the occupants with a bad appliance is okay????

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I do not understand the stubborn resistance to modern GFCI residential protection.

If an appliance such as a refrigerator or freezer trips a GFCI itis because there is leakage current in excess of modern safety standards for the device. It is not nusiance tripping - it is an indication of a PROBLEM with the appliance.

These days many, if not most refrigerators are hooked up to water supply. All produce condensation, some collecting in a pan to be evaporated, some requiring upon occasion manual dumping. It is an almost assured event that at some time there will be a failure in the water line itself, a connection to the refrigerator/freezer, the internal works, a valve, a float switch, a cut switch. When where does that water go? especially for those in the door dispensers? to an overflow cup, which spills over when flooded. Putting that refrigerator with its case, the internal works of the door panel, complete with switches, etc. in a pool of water, which you may or may NOT see in front. Worse yet if the water is in the back or sides.

The user is likely to be in contact with some aspect of conductive parts when opening, accessing, or near a refrigerator in a kitchen. These other surfaces may or may not be at the same potential. (for example a toaster), a fan, a clock, a wet floor, a battery operated device such as a lap top running off batteries, an electronic thermometer, etc.

The arguments are without merit, Protection of Persons is a safety issue. Devices must be tested to verify they are functioning - this is why we are not allowed to "hide" combination GFCI receptacles behind furniture, refrigerators, etc. any longer.

If you're worried about your food stores, get an alarm. If you're worried about your sump pump get a battery back-up with an alarm.

If the POCO power cuts out you're in the same dang boat.

Anyone who has lost a loved one or had one suffer permanent injury due to an electroshock event would tell you - the food savings or the little bit of water clean up effort savings wasn't worth the death or anoxic injury to their loved one.

[Roger Frazee]

Ok - I'll raise some neck hairs here (which I'm proficient at) but will try to do it gently. You guys who harp on / live by what "code" says are stuck on minimalist standards. Kinda like getting a D- in school but still graduating. Putting a fridg, or even a sump pump for that matter, on a GFI is outright stupid - I don't care what any code says or doesn't say. How can you provide your client with top drawer reporting when you rely on paltry, or just plain wrong, guidelines?
Gentle enough?

There is a lot of individuals both professional and otherwise that believe it is foolish to place sump pumps and refrigerators on gfci. Both appliances are perfect examples of the intent of why gfci would be a smart choice if design safety is considered over material safety. If you bother to investigate you will find that gfci protected branch circuits would have saved the lives of approximately 300 people last year. But getting back to the sump pump and refrigerator ... the refrigerator is likely one of the (if not the largest) metal framed appliance in your home. It would be very hard to not have your hand on a conductive surface when touching a fridge. Same with a kitchen aid mixer plugged into a counter top recepatcle. The only difference is the purpose of the appliance. In your logic it is ok to gfci the countertop on a motor operated mixer but not ok to gfci the refrigerator ... and I assume your reasoning is because you might have food spoilage if the gfci trips. You also know that the refrigerator is being touched far more times than the mixer over time. It is also apparent that you believe gfci's nuisance trip on motor/compressor operated applainces. Again with that logic you would believe if you came home after vacation and found the fridge gfci tripped and your your food spoiled your would call it a nuisance trip and remove the gfci protection never considering that gfci may be trying to tell you that you have a electrical fault that just might kill you if you don't investigate further. Same logic with the sump pump.

I would suggest that you come back from the dark ages and bring yourself up to speed on modern appliances and gfci. I say this because of your statements .. specifically about immersing a hair dryer in water. Hg made an excellent post to help get you thinking. You only have to spend a bit of time researching home electrocutions as a result of people operating an appliance with dangerous current leakage to the metal frame to start getting interested in protecting your family and not so much interested in keeping the appliance operating.

Now having said that it is also well known that there are many thousand more sump pumps and refrigerators operating on non-gfci branch circuits than gfci ones. None the less that trend will go the way of neutral grounded frames on dryers and ranges. Under present code for 120 volt branch circuits you would be hard pressed to find any branch circuit not protected by afci or gfci.

As for me I live in a 1970's home ..I have placed my washer and fridge and chest freezer on gfci protected circuits. I do not have a sump pump. These have been that way for 11 years now without a nuisance trip caused be the appliance. Food vs a life seems rather a no brianer to me.

This belief of yours that gfci doesn't work even on non motor operated appliances tells me your a rumor and conspiracy believer and not someone that bothers to educate yourself to actual facts.

I would ask you at minimum to consider the human safety benefits over worrying about the remote possibility that a gfci will nuisance trip if your operating a sump pump or refrigerator.

GFCI is without debate, it is proven to save lives for many many years now ... I would hate to advise a client to not use gfci on a sump pump or any metal cased non double insulated appliance ... that to me is STUPID.

[Stuart Brooks]

I've had a freezer and fridge on a 1989 GFCI receptacle for about 10 years - no nuisance trips. I also have a shop air compressor on a GFCI circuit for 8 years - no nuisance trips. That's my experience but I'm sure there are a lot of others who have had just the opposite. The only nuisance trips is from the 2 outside receptacles that blow the GFCI cicuit for them and the bathrooms whenever we get a hard rain. I've already planned to update the installation.

[Jerry Peck]

As for me I live in a 1970's home ..I have placed my washer and fridge and chest freezer on gfci protected circuits. I do not have a sump pump. These have been that way for 11 years now without a nuisance trip caused be the appliance. Food vs a life seems rather a no brianer to me.

We've been in this house since July of 2006 with a refrigerator plugged into a GFCI receptacle outlet, and, yes, the refrigerator shut off and the food spoiled ... but ... it was the computer circuitry in the old refrigerator which shut the refrigerator down, NOT the GFCI.

The new refrigerator has been on that same GFCI the past year or two.

By the way, our house is a 1978 house and I had GFCI receptacle devices installed at every receptacle outlet in the garage and around the exterior - there was NO GFCI protection previously.

It's not the GFCI devices which are the problem, it's the appliances which are the problem.

[Roger Frazee]

Jerry

Not having the past code books handy I was wondering when the exception was removed from the NEC in 210.8A5 for an individual branch circuit with single receptacle serving only a specific appliance not requiring gfci. I don't see it in 2008 but don't have 2005.

[Jerry Peck]

Roger,

Construction and Litigation Consultants

http://www.constructionlitigationcon..._page-2011.pdf

http://www.constructionlitigationcon..._page-2011.pdf

[Roger Frazee]

Thanks Jerry

I certainly got my moneys worth with that question ...