Bathroom GFI question.Can I tap off of it for a shower hi-hat?

[Mikepier]

As previously metioned in other posts,I am renovating a bathroom. I am installing a hi-hat in the tub/shower area and I would like this to be GFI protected, even though I've heard conflicting advice on whether I need it or not.

My question is can I tap off the GFI outlet by the sink to do this? This outlet is on its own, and it will only feed this 1 light.

By the way, the hi-hat is a HALO H7ICT, and it says its approved for wet locations,so I don't really know if I need a GFI, but I figure just to be safe I want to do it.

[gfretwell]

As long as that circuit only feeds that bathroom and it is 20a it can feed anything in that bathroom.

[RBM]

Yes, following gfretwell's advice, that outlet can be tapped for the shower light. Regarding the recessed fixture: if you use a non metallic trim, it wouldn't require gfci protection

[John Grabowski]

*I am afraid that I will have to disagree with the other guys. Article 210.11(C)(3) Exception states: Where the 20 ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom, outlets for other equipment within the same bathroom shall be permitted to be supplied in accordance with 210.23(A)(1) and (A)(2).

Article 210.23(A) Exception states: The small appliance branch circuits, laundry circuits, and bathroom branch circuits required in a dwelling unit by 210.11(C)(1), (C)(2) and (C)(3) shall supply only the receptacle outlets specified in that section.

Based on that I would have to say that you cannot have the receptacle GFI protect the ceiling light. I would not put the shower light on a GFI because I think you will have more nuisance tripping than safety issues. How easy will it be for someone standing in the tub to touch the 8' ceiling? Just install a non-metallic shower trim.

[bud--]

Well ain't that interesting? It is a direct conflict between the 2 code sections.

I would argue that 210.11-C-3-exception, which is specifically about bathroom circuits, and explicitly allows "other equipment" for a single bathroom, applies.

I would argue that 210.23-A-exception is an unintended conflict.

It is up to the dreaded AHJ.

[hrhofmann]

My reservation would be putting all the lights and all the outlets in the bathroom on one GFCI, makes it hard to plug in a spare light when you have to replace a ceiling light. I have that situation, and it is a pain when the GFCI trips, for whatever reason.

[RBM]

Damn John, I think you've uncovered one of those Nec anomalies. It does seem strange to give permission to do something, then take it away. It also seems like it would be more direct to just state, up front, that the circuit can only be used for receptacle outlets.

[gfretwell]

It is convoluted logic but the way it is written 210.11(C)(3) exception is an exception to 210.23(A) exception.

That is one reason why they are trying to eliminate exceptions and write everything in positive language. Unfortunately they always end up with exceptions to that rule.

[John Grabowski]

*Roy when I found this I must have reread it a dozen times thinking that I was missing something. I agree that it could be written better so that even an electrician could understand it :-)

[Mikepier]

Can someone decipher what all this means? Am I allowed to do this or not?

[RBM]

Ain't that the truth, who do they think is reading this, rocket scientists?

[trader4]

It would appear the answer to that is the code is contradictory. If it were me, I'd do it because there is no safety issue, it's perfectly safe. In fact, it's safer than not having a GFCI on the shower light, which is allowed if it has a non-metalic trim. So, I'd do it on the theory that the inspector isn't gonna care. In fact, the inspectors I've dealt with around here would almost certainly not even notice which specific circuit it's on when they do the inspection.

[John Grabowski]

No. Lighting outlets must be on a separate circuit from receptacle outlets in the bathroom.

[Mikepier]

The shower hi-hat is on a seperate circuit than the vanity light and 2 other hi-hats in the bathroom.So even if the GFI did trip, there would still be light in the bathroom.

[gfretwell]

You better hear that from your l.ocal AHJ because most think

210.11(C)(3) exception applies. I have heard it in dozens of code classes and virtually everywhere it was discussed online. As long as it only serves one bathroom the 20a circuits can serve all the loads in that bathroom. This idea that 210.11(C)(3) exception is not also an exception to 210.23(A) exception has only come up here in my experience.

The language in 210.11(C)(3) exception is very specific

"Exception: Where the 20-ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom, outlets for other equipment within the same bathroom shall be permitted to be supplied in accordance with 210.23(A)(1) and (A)(2)."

[John Grabowski]

*It seems to be common knowledge around here as well. They should clarify receptacle outlets and lighting outlets. Looking at the definition of "Equipment", it does specify luminares. One of these exceptions has to go!

[gfretwell]

I haven't looked at the ROP but I bet NFPA will say 210.23(A) ex references 210.11 A requirements so that 210.11 exception alters the language in 210.23(A)ex.

I suppose I could look it up but this has been unaltered in several cycles. If I get a minute I will take a peek.

[bud--]

I think was an 'unanticipated consequence' and nobody saw the conflict. Nice catch John.

[John Grabowski]

*I'm wondering how many inspectors have picked up on this conflict?

[bud--]

gfretwell seems pretty well connected to the inspector mafia... er.. community. If inspectors had found it there would have been a code change.

You may become famous.