Bathroom Lighting on GFCI Circuit Breaker

[chris1971]

To me the analogy when the gfi trips you will be left in the dark is a poor one. We put lights on arc fault devices and when they trip you will also be left in the dark.

An over regulation by the state of Massachusetts.

 

[peter d]

An over regulation by the state of Massachusetts.

Not really, I think it's perfectly reasonable considering Mass. relaxes quite a few NEC rules.

 

[kwired]

Not really, I think it's perfectly reasonable considering Mass. relaxes quite a few NEC rules.

They have their own rule that for every NEC rule they lessen they must add more to another one to achieve a balance?

 

[jeff48356]

A requirement like that would open a whole can of worms. Separate circuits for lighting and receptacles? Lighting split between more than one circuit in an area?

-Hal

I never wire lights and receptacles on the same circuits in the first place. I would have wired the receptacle to a separate 20A circuit, then the lighting as part of one of the 15A lighting circuits in the house.

 

[user 100]

I was flagged at final inspection of a bathroom because the lighting tripped along with the receptacle GFCI test. The entire bathroom is on a 20A GFCI circuit breaker. This is the first time I've had an inspection fail, and I'm looking for advice on how to negotiate/argue/debate with the inspector, as I am 99% certain that my installation is code-compliant. Here is my analysis:

​

210.8(A) - Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel in Dwelling Units: All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles installed in [...] (1) Bathrooms [...] shall have ground-fault circuit-interruptor protection for personnel. ​

​

Compliant. All bathroom receptacles are on a branch circuit protected by a GFCI breaker.​

​

​

​

210.11(C)(3) - Branch Circuits Required in Dwelling Units, Bathroom Branch Circuits: In addition to the number of branch circuits required by other parts of this section, at least one 120-volt, 20-ampere branch circuit shall be provided to supply a bathroom receptacle outlet(s). Such circuits shall have no other outlets. 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).​

210.23(A)(1) - Cord-and-Plug-Connected Equipment Not Fastened In Place: N/A​

210.23(A)(2) - Utilization Equipment Fastened in Place: N/A​

​

Compliant. The lighting is permitted to be on the same 20-ampere branch circuit as the required branch circuit for bathroom receptacles because the circuit at no point leaves the bathroom.​

​

​

​

210.70(A)(1) - Lighting Outlets Required in Dwelling Unit Habitable Rooms: At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in every habitable room and bathroom.​

​

Compliant. There is a vanity light controlled by a wall switch.​

​

​

​

Massachusetts, for example, has amendment "210.70(D): GFCI Protection of Lighting Outlets in All Occupancies: The operation of a single GFCI device shall not deenergize all lighting outlets in a given area."

Neither the village, county, nor state of my installation have such an amendment. The AHJ has adopted the 2011 NEC.​

The inspector could quote no code prohibiting the bathroom lighting from being GFCI protected, only referencing the (understandable and logical) inconvenience of being in a dark bathroom should the receptacle be tripped. Do I suck it up and change my installation, or can you provide tips based off experience on how to convince the inspector to pass the install?

Thank you.

It's allowed by code but I don't consider it good design.

It isn't.

For the bath, as mentioned above just do the lights off of the line of the bath gfci and to the op, try and forget gfci for any thing having to with lighting in a house. Although, if you ever do the 406 exception for receptacle replacement in a house, it can be an issue.
With strung out mixed receptacle and lighting cts, one tripped afci/gfci replacement receptacle or breaker can put much of the house in the dark-again, try to run your lighting off of line for these receptacles if possible.

 

[user 100]

To me the analogy when the gfi trips you will be left in the dark is a poor one. We put lights on arc fault devices and when they trip you will also be left in the dark.

But why needlessly another introduce way for darkness due to a single device tripping?

 

[kwired]

But why needlessly another introduce way for darkness due to a single device tripping?

Single device tripping at the POCO substation can leave not just the bathroom but the whole house dark, and all the neighbors as well.

 

[peter d]

Single device tripping at the POCO substation can leave not just the bathroom but the whole house dark, and all the neighbors as well.

I trust poco reliability for more than junky AFCI breakers. :thumbsup:

 

[kwired]

I trust poco reliability for more than junky AFCI breakers. :thumbsup:

Me too, but it is a design issue and not an NEC issue as far as what will leave a room in total darkness. Only a limited number of spaces have emergency lighting requirements, and the bulk of those only require enough illumination for egress purposes. Beyond that you are welcome to install emergency lights all over your house if you don't want to be left in the dark. Then when power fails you will find your batteries in your emergency lights needed replaced and you are in the dark anyhow:happyyes:

 

[peter d]

It isn't.

You can tell Mass. how wrong they are then.

 

[user 100]

You can tell Mass. how wrong they are then.

You are misunderstanding.....

Not disagreeing w/ Massachusetts at all- Actually to the contrary, I believe that amendment is a good idea. Some could argue that the amendment veers off a little into design issues, but so what. Its a local amendment, and AHJs are free (as they certainly should be) to make amendments as they see fit.

When I said "it isn't", I was agreeing w/ you that the ops scheme isn't a good design.

 

[peter d]

You are misunderstanding.....

Not disagreeing w/ Massachusetts at all- Actually to the contrary, I believe that amendment is a good idea. Some could argue that the amendment veers off a little into design issues, but so what. Its a local amendment, and AHJs are free (as they certainly should be) to make amendments as they see fit.

When I said "it isn't", I was agreeing w/ you that the ops scheme isn't a good design.

I see. In most cases I think going above the NEC is a bad idea but this one is very minor.