Bathroom Branch Circuits

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

muhandas

Senior Member
2002 NEC. The exception to 210.11(C)(3) allows outlets for other equipment such as an exhaust fan and lights in a bathroom if the 20A branch circuit supplies only a single bathroom, provided the circuit complies with 210.23(A). However, the exception to 210.23(A) indicates that for the bathrooms specified in 210.11 only receptacle outlets are permitted to be supplied. Thus, these two requirements seem to contradict one another. The 2005 NEC seems to realize this and has resolved the situation by making the exception of 210.11(C)(3) reference 210.23(A) (1) and (2).
I believe that the NEC 2002 does allow a 20A branch circuit supplying a single bathroom to supply both the receptacle outlets as well as other equipment provided it complies with the other provisions of 210.23(A).
Am I correct?
Heinz R.
 
Re: Bathroom Branch Circuits

muhandas said:
Thus, these two requirements seem to contradict one another.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say they contradict each other. It's a circular reference, but not contradictory, IMO.

I believe that the NEC 2002 does allow a 20A branch circuit supplying a single bathroom to supply both the receptacle outlets as well as other equipment provided it complies with the other provisions of 210.23(A).
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I meant "contradictory" in the sense that the Exception to 210.11(C)(3) allows you to do it and then the exception to 210.23(A) says you can't.
Appreciate your response.
Heinz R.
 
It is a bit of circular confusion. But I think it can be worked through, and you will find that its meaning is relatively clear.

210.11 is all about which circuits you need to have, and 210.23 is all about how much load you can put on each circuit. When 210.11 refers you to 210.23, it is talking about the limit on loading. 210.23 starts by saying it's OK to put lights and other stuff on the same circuit, but acknowledges that other articles might limit you to receptacles only.
 
We have discussed this a few times on this Forum. I have concluded that even though the code has this "circular reference" (good description George), I feel the intent was to permit the allowance based on the exception of 210.11 in compliance with the main body of 210.23. The exception to 210.23 wasn't intended to supersede the exception to 210.11 though it reads that way,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top