Thread: GFCI in bath light

You know how you always see an outlet in the light fixture of a bathroom and cringe.

I saw this the other day. It was integral with the fixture and not an add on.
Is it legal to have the GFCI device in in the light and on the same circuit?

Similar Threads:

• Sewage ejection pump-GFCI?
• Light switch location
• Light switch position.
• light bulb beats pvc
• From the old board, light bulbs incessantly burning out

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

You know how you always see an outlet in the light fixture of a bathroom and cringe.

I saw this the other day. It was integral with the fixture and not an add on.
Is it legal to have the GFCI device in in the light and on the same circuit?

Looks like an add-on feature! Short of the fixture not being designed for a GFCI outlet, I really don't see much wrong with it. I can't tell you if that fixture was made like that at the factory or if it is a handy homeowner special.

The light fixture looks old so I'd be skeptical of the fixture having been designed to accept the receptacle. But like Scott said "I can't tell you if that fixture was made like that at the factory or if it is a handy homeowner special."

Only if the fixture was listed and labeled for installation of that device, otherwise, no. If he wanted to put the GFCI on the ceiling that is OK but not in a fixture that is not rated for that application.

Many older bathroom lights were made with receptacles in them ... *single* snap-in type receptacles (I sold hundreds of them before GFCI's came into the bathroom).

I've never seen a "regular" receptacle (GFCI or otherwise) in any light fixture, albeit I have been out of the lighting business 30 years and not paid a lot of attention to what is now being made.

As Jeff said, if it was not listed and labeled for that receptacle - not allowed.

All the above said, all of the older fluorescents like that did not have that deep of a base, you would never have been able to installed that type of receptacle in those older lights.

The AHJ has the authority to approve it..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

The AHJ has the authority to approve it..

While they do, it is unlikely they would.

(underlining is mine)
- 90.4 Enforcement.
- - This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
- - By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety.
- - This Code may require new products, constructions, or materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction.

And ...

Special Permission. The written consent of the authority having jurisdiction.

They would need to put it in writing.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

The AHJ has the authority to approve it..

I thought if the manufacture does not have the fixture listed or approved for such, the labeling on the fixture supercedes any thing the AHJ may approve.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

I thought if the manufacture does not have the fixture listed or approved for such, the labeling on the fixture supercedes any thing the AHJ may approve.

.

Roland is always posting that.

I guess he thinks it is easy and a given that it will be done.

While the AHJ does have that permission, given in the code, it is rare that they will give that letter *IN WRITING* because then *THEY* (the AHJ) has now taken the liability for approving it, and, if something should happen, it is easily shown that the person at the AHJ who wrote that letter of acceptance *stepped outside their bounds*, making them *PERSONALLY LIABLE* for whatever happened.

you guys are all nuts... you worry only about litigation and not inspection... and something working...

goofy group of folks for sure....

Not one of you would make it in the days of caves and spears.
aj

Originally Posted by adkjac

you guys are all nuts... you worry only about litigation and not inspection... and something working...

goofy group of folks for sure....

Not one of you would make it in the days of caves and spears.
aj

.

Sounds like you would, so why not go back to your cave? Might want to gather some nuts on the way, it's going to be a cold winter in there.

See, we have advanced out of our caves into the technological world. It appears you have not.

I think I have some sticks in my back yard I can throw your way so you can rub them together for ... what's that new fangled thing called anyway? ... oh, yeah ... FIRE!

jerry.. I worked all day installing tile... and putting siding on a new sunroom. What do you do... just hover around this website 24/7!!!!??????

yaa need a girl friend buddy... send out for a blow up one at least...

your Northern buddy aj in his cave with a warm honey.

smiles right back at yaa pal

Originally Posted by adkjac

your Northern buddy aj in his cave

Did you find those sticks I throw up there for you? Hope they were dry enough to rub together.

In the best interests of the forum

We all want to know, which do you really prefer. The blow up doll or the warm honey.

I once met a "kid" that made light fixtures out of antlers and wagon wheels. He sold them to a restaurant that I was inspecting. Being young and stupid myself, I told him they had to be UL approved. So he sent one off to UL to be evaluated. After several months he got it back with a UL label and a bill for $800. Nothing was different except he had a label and had to charge $800 more for each one to put the label on..

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Did you find those sticks I throw up there for you? Hope they were dry enough to rub together.

cry me a river dude...

did yaa pop your doll?

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I once met a "kid" that made light fixtures out of antlers and wagon wheels. He sold them to a restaurant that I was inspecting. Being young and stupid myself, I told him they had to be UL approved. So he sent one off to UL to be evaluated. After several months he got it back with a UL label and a bill for $800. Nothing was different except he had a label and had to charge $800 more for each one to put the label on..

I'm with you Roland... right on.
aj

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

We all want to know, which do you really prefer. The blow up doll or the warm honey.

together might be best!
aj

The fixture was made that way and it is a new fixture. That's the reason for the deep base, so it can accept the outlet. Also you may have noticed the UL approval next to the rear of the GFCI outlet. (barely showing)

My questions though are this:

1. Does the code require a separate circuit for the GFCI outlet?
2. Can you have the bathroom GFCI outlet shared by the light fixture?

Thanks

Originally Posted by adkjac

... send out for a blow up one ...

your Northern buddy aj in his cave with a warm honey.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

We all want to know, which do you really prefer. The blow up doll or the warm honey.

.
.....
.

Depending on which edition of the NEC you are under--If only one 20 circuit is pulled to the bathroom then the fixture and other things (not to exceed 50% loading) may be on it. Or there may be a separate 20 circuit feeding another receptacle, then the fixture and receptacle could be together.

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

1. Does the code require a separate circuit for the GFCI outlet?

No, presuming this is an existing older home.

Newer homes (since 1996 I think it was) would require a separate circuit for the receptacle - unless only that bathroom is on that one circuit.

2. Can you have the bathroom GFCI outlet shared by the light fixture?

Yes - see above condition for homes built 1996 or later.

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

The fixture was made that way and it is a new fixture. That's the reason for the deep base, so it can accept the outlet. Also you may have noticed the UL approval next to the rear of the GFCI outlet. (barely showing)

My questions though are this:

1. Does the code require a separate circuit for the GFCI outlet?
2. Can you have the bathroom GFCI outlet shared by the light fixture?

Thanks

1 gfci 20 amp outlet within 12 inches of the vanity is what we do. But... what you have is fine in my opinion as there is an outlet and it is protected.... write it up in some manner like that or jusy fo get bout it. There is no added danger worse than code.
aj

Deleted by poster because I was out of line.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

Roland,

I don't know what planet you live on or what thought process they programmed into your head but you are so far off base it is actually funny to read your posts.

You are an antagonist, a rebel and an extremist with a tunnel visioned agenda.

I would love to see one of your home inspection reports. I am sure the realtors love you.

spank me if you want brian.

Jeff... Rolands's post is the cats ass.. and right as far as where I work. aj

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I once met a "kid" that made light fixtures out of antlers and wagon wheels. He sold them to a restaurant that I was inspecting. Being young and stupid myself, I told him they had to be UL approved. So he sent one off to UL to be evaluated. After several months he got it back with a UL label and a bill for $800. Nothing was different except he had a label and had to charge $800 more for each one to put the label on..

What he got was a tested piece of equipment that proved it had met the minimum criteria of the UL standard. There are plenty of products out there that did not get UL approval and were fire hazards. Apparently he did a great job building it because it was approved. Many are not.

What was the point of you doing inspections if the electrician did his job? You made a career out of it inspecting the work of others just like the UL does for products in our country. Pot / Kettle, ....both black in color.

Originally Posted by adkjac

Jeff... Rolands's post is the cats ass.. and right as far as where I work. aj

There's another guy who doesn't get his work inspected.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

There's another guy who doesn't get his work inspected.

actually just was inspected... just chatted with my electric and county inspectors today and will be getting two inspections next Tuesday and Wednesday. And like I said elswhere... found way more concerning problems at a home recently privately inspected right in front of me...and now have a copy of the hundred page checkbox nonsense report.
aj

Following a good example

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Jeff-- I know this list was for AHJs but would you please pick a number which most closely describes you so I can respond properly..

1-They are afraid
2-They don't have the expertise that goes with being an AHJ
3-They only learned it out of a book, took an exam and passed it.
4-They have been brainwashed by UL
5-They are incompetent.
6-No one ever approved anything they did out of the ordinary, but ingenious...
7-They got away with it but no one else will.
8-Theirs is bigger then yours.
9-All of the above.

.

10-They know better than to accept it because they know they have the expertise, having learned it in the field and backed it up with an exam, following that up with continuing education and keeping up with things, such as UL because they are truly competent, knowing that ingenious ways of doing things does not make them safe or correct, and they try to stop fools and persons like you from getting away with it, with full understanding that any idiot can self-proclaim their way is the only way as you are and do so without any back up or code or other knowledge, and rest assured that your actions and words speak loudly and clearly that 9 fits you spot on.

not valuable content

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I get it--Jerry --you used to be on TV with the kids and stuff. You were funnier then.....

Glad it's not funny, not meant to be funny, meant to show you for what you are, or, should I say, for what your posts show you are.

Didn't like looking in the mirror at yourself, did you?

Actually I know what I am and what I stand for and what I won't stand for. you have completely missed one of life's most precious gifts. Common Sense... It is not learned out of any book..

Jerry wouldn't agree

Roland, please don't forget that you work for and are representing an educational institution and your views and opinions reflect that of the institution in which you are employed. I don't think this is the type of attitude or behavior that great men such as Bruce Hoffman would appreciate.

Keep your side of the street clean mr miller. Keep your opinions consistant with the code book and not fueling your agenda blasting the very profession that put you where you are today.

That is some very profound advise. Especially after some of the statements you made here. You don't seem to be open to ideas that are not tucked away neatly in your little box. And you take great liberties with your personal insults...

I deleted my derogatory posts, however I cannot delete the ones where someone had quoted me.

I was wrong to be vindictive and I apologize,

I also apologize to both you and Jerry. I think this can be a really great forum.

Please stop worrying about what I teach my students. I am not teaching lawlessness. I do want each and every one of them to question the world around them and think outside the box.. And above all, not to let someone impress their opinions upon them without substantiation.. I do this by giving them the correct information as well as differing points of view, whether I believe they are valid or not. The ability to question "the way things have always been around here" leads to new and hopefully better ways of doing things.

It is easy for a Building Department to take the human element out of their everyday dealings and rely on codes and procedures as a way of doing business. Often they are hiding their incompetence behind all of this. Common sense lets someone determine (on their own--without UL and the codes) that something is just as good. Now I know we all are afraid of lawyers but that is not the issue. Doing the right thing is the issue--not screwing someone over with policy and procedure...

Thanks

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

you have completely missed one of life's most precious gifts. Common Sense...

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Jerry wouldn't agree

Jerry does agree that common sense trumps many things, however, common sense does not trump MINIMUM requirements - and that is what code is ... "minimum requirements".

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I also apologize to both you and Jerry.

And I apologize for disparaging comments toward you.

Often they are hiding their incompetence behind all of this.

Most are not hiding behind their incompetence, they are following what has been proven to be the best MINIMUM standards available.

Common sense lets someone determine (on their own--without UL and the codes) that something is just as good.

However, what you have prescribed on many posts was allowing something which was not "just as good", meaning no back up testing, no evaluating, nothing which is necessary to make sure that it is "just as good". You want to rely on "It looks good to me.", which is insufficient and inadequate, and certainly has nothing to support the statement that it is "just as good".

Now I know you all are afraid of lawyers

There you go continuing making those disparaging remarks, and, not, we are not afraid of lawyers, we are smart enough to know that lawyers exist and that they have clients who will try to take un-earned money from others whenever they can, and knowing that allows one to keep the upper hand and stay away from the shark teeth, while at the same time providing what is needed in accordance with established and recognized MINIMUM standards, and that all just ... well, it just "makes common sense".