Does the NEC define "basement"

[Bronco9588]

I have a split foyer with a walk out "basement." The front elevation is about 3 feet below grade. The back is obviously walk out. I am above the flood plane and do not have a sump pump. Does the NEC define basement? I am asking for the purposes of GFCI outlet protection.

 

[kwired]

I have a split foyer with a walk out "basement." The front elevation is about 3 feet below grade. The back is obviously walk out. I am above the flood plane and do not have a sump pump. Does the NEC define basement? I am asking for the purposes of GFCI outlet protection.

Unfortunately no definition of what is a basement. 2020 changed the rules on GFCI's and it is no longer just unfinished basements that require GFCI protection but the entire basement, and would include any receptacle that is not over 150 volts to ground as well. IMO slab on grade houses are not any more or less of a hazard - I think they really need to define what it is that they want - though I suspect it won't be long and basement definition will be irrelevant as they probably will want GFCI everywhere in the dwelling, cause that is probably what they really want.

 

[Bronco9588]

Unfortunately no definition of what is a basement. 2020 changed the rules on GFCI's and it is no longer just unfinished basements that require GFCI protection but the entire basement, and would include any receptacle that is not over 150 volts to ground as well. IMO slab on grade houses are not any more or less of a hazard - I think they really need to define what it is that they want - though I suspect it won't be long and basement definition will be irrelevant as they probably will want GFCI everywhere in the dwelling, cause that is probably what they really want.

Yea... I'm scratching my head at the various requirements between rooms, particularly with AFCI.

I think probably what they really want is 40 breakers with AFCI and GFCI in a house that all cost 50 dollars each with surge protection. The cost to install a circuit breaker has gone up by 10X in a very short period of time.

 

[480sparky]

....... - I think they really need to define what it is that they want - .......

The NEC doesn't write the codes. The industry as a whole does. That's what proposals are for.

 

[retirede]

There was a thread on here recently that had the definition of basement from a building code. Basically, if the floor of the second level is more than 6’ above average grade, the lower level is not a basement. It also included how average grade is defined.

 

[AC\DC]

There was a thread on here recently that had the definition of basement from a building code. Basically, if the floor of the second level is more than 6’ above average grade, the lower level is not a basement. It also included how average grade is defined.

What if the house is built on a slope half of the room
“Basement” could be in the ground with the other half exposed. All while second floor is a above 6”. Wondering cause I need to know for a job lol.

 

[retirede]

What if the house is built on a slope half of the room
“Basement” could be in the ground with the other half exposed. All while second floor is a above 6”. Wondering cause I need to know for a job lol.

The thread I mentioned has a diagram on how to find the reference grade to use in such cases.

 

[AC\DC]

Sorry was being lazy should of looked at it. Is this the one you were talking about

Defining Basement

Then that’s not a basement according to the original post. See the figure on the left. My ceiling is not greater than 6' from grade plane

forums.mikeholt.com

"Edit"
Must be answered my question thanks

 

[LarryFine]

Bronco, I suggest calling whomever will be doing the inspecting.

 

[retirede]

Sorry was being lazy should of looked at it. Is this the one you were talking about

Defining Basement

Then that’s not a basement according to the original post. See the figure on the left. My ceiling is not greater than 6' from grade plane

forums.mikeholt.com

"Edit"
Must be answered my question thanks

That’s it.

I understand. I was too lazy to look it up as well!

 

[kwired]

There was a thread on here recently that had the definition of basement from a building code. Basically, if the floor of the second level is more than 6’ above average grade, the lower level is not a basement. It also included how average grade is defined.

That maybe works in places where there is other codes enforced. Most of my work there is electrical inspections but no other trades are being inspected. Only thing that EI is enforcing is what is in the lawbooks - whichever edition of NEC we are currently on. It doesn't define basement- AHJ kind of gets to make that call with no definite reference as a basis. We aren't on 2020 yet, but I can see there is not likely to be any wiggle room. If it is on a slab and any of that slab is below grade, it likely is a basement regardless of what building codes say, because they are not legally referenced in any of the AHJ rules. Even more likely if there is other levels above the one in question.

I'm convinced any PI is pointless, the CMP seems to be heading toward GFCI everything, and it would likely be difficult to lessen any existing GFCI requirements already in place. If you could convince them slab on grade isn't any more or less of a hazard - instead of reducing GFCI requirements in the basement they will just include all slab on grade situations in the GFCI requirements.

I am not against GFCI, but think they pushed some of the requirements to far with little to no justification as to why it is necessary.

Remember looking up comments when they started adding some GFCI requirements for three phase circuits - about only justification I found was "we now have the ability to do so" or something very similar to that. Not that there is any evidence of increased shock incidents or electrocutions in those applications.

 

[Bronco9588]

That maybe works in places where there is other codes enforced. Most of my work there is electrical inspections but no other trades are being inspected. Only thing that EI is enforcing is what is in the lawbooks - whichever edition of NEC we are currently on. It doesn't define basement- AHJ kind of gets to make that call with no definite reference as a basis. We aren't on 2020 yet, but I can see there is not likely to be any wiggle room. If it is on a slab and any of that slab is below grade, it likely is a basement regardless of what building codes say, because they are not legally referenced in any of the AHJ rules. Even more likely if there is other levels above the one in question.

I'm convinced any PI is pointless, the CMP seems to be heading toward GFCI everything, and it would likely be difficult to lessen any existing GFCI requirements already in place. If you could convince them slab on grade isn't any more or less of a hazard - instead of reducing GFCI requirements in the basement they will just include all slab on grade situations in the GFCI requirements.

I am not against GFCI, but think they pushed some of the requirements to far with little to no justification as to why it is necessary.

Remember looking up comments when they started adding some GFCI requirements for three phase circuits - about only justification I found was "we now have the ability to do so" or something very similar to that. Not that there is any evidence of increased shock incidents or electrocutions in those applications.

I think we can all acknowledge that GFCI and AFCI are safer than the absence of GFCI and AFCI. Maybe more nuisance trips, but has the potential to save lives. I therefore think that it is suitable to approach safer housing and increase the safety of the construction with reasonable limitations. We could all make 1,000,000 dollar safety bubbles that will be safer than the current standard, but people simply cannot afford it. GFCI on a dryer is probably the most ridiculous. As if I had another appliance that uses the plug... Okay, rant over.

 

[retirede]

I think we can all acknowledge that GFCI and AFCI are safer than the absence of GFCI and AFCI.

GFCI, yes.
The effectiveness of AFCIs has been hotly debated on here. There are clearly those who believe AFCIs do not measurably enhance safety.

 

[kwired]

I think we can all acknowledge that GFCI and AFCI are safer than the absence of GFCI and AFCI. Maybe more nuisance trips, but has the potential to save lives. I therefore think that it is suitable to approach safer housing and increase the safety of the construction with reasonable limitations. We could all make 1,000,000 dollar safety bubbles that will be safer than the current standard, but people simply cannot afford it. GFCI on a dryer is probably the most ridiculous. As if I had another appliance that uses the plug... Okay, rant over.

Agree with retirede. Why you say what you said then think dryer is riduculous. There have been many recent GFCI changes just as ridiculous.

Potentially missing EGC (on 5-15 and 5-20) plugs is sort of what seemed to be a common denominator for years in places that the user has better chance of being grounded and GFCI protection was required on those receptacles. Now they are including it on many items that almost never have such missing EGC, and probably don't even have much history of shock/electrocution incidents. Why? probably manufacturers convincing CMP it is a need. No it sort of can't hurt much, but is still not right IMO. And guess who has to deal with all the "nuisance trips" possibly at their own expense at times? Thats right the EC that sold and installed it. If there is a real ground fault, no problem, I can figure it out. Those unknown trips are what is a PITA, yet client expects it to be trouble free and it is on us if it isn't.

When the residential dishwasher was added (cord and plug or not) it was potential fire hazard that should have been taken care of with product recalls instead of with a GFCI requirement.

Now they want outdoor AC units GFCI protected - most normally direct wired but don't matter. All because one incident reported that was missing or had ineffective EGC - which in itself was a code violation anyway.

I see little need to GFCI protect anything "direct wired" other than maybe art 680 or 682 applications.

Don't get me wrong I thing GFCI is a great thing, but is not for everything either.

GFCI, yes.
The effectiveness of AFCIs has been hotly debated on here. There are clearly those who believe AFCIs do not measurably enhance safety.

 

[Bronco9588]

Agree with retirede. Why you say what you said then think dryer is riduculous. There have been many recent GFCI changes just as ridiculous.

Potentially missing EGC (on 5-15 and 5-20) plugs is sort of what seemed to be a common denominator for years in places that the user has better chance of being grounded and GFCI protection was required on those receptacles. Now they are including it on many items that almost never have such missing EGC, and probably don't even have much history of shock/electrocution incidents. Why? probably manufacturers convincing CMP it is a need. No it sort of can't hurt much, but is still not right IMO. And guess who has to deal with all the "nuisance trips" possibly at their own expense at times? Thats right the EC that sold and installed it. If there is a real ground fault, no problem, I can figure it out. Those unknown trips are what is a PITA, yet client expects it to be trouble free and it is on us if it isn't.

When the residential dishwasher was added (cord and plug or not) it was potential fire hazard that should have been taken care of with product recalls instead of with a GFCI requirement.

Now they want outdoor AC units GFCI protected - most normally direct wired but don't matter. All because one incident reported that was missing or had ineffective EGC - which in itself was a code violation anyway.

I see little need to GFCI protect anything "direct wired" other than maybe art 680 or 682 applications.

Don't get me wrong I thing GFCI is a great thing, but is not for everything either.

I very much agree with you. My point is that extra safety measures don't make something more unsafe (until intersected by behavior). My point is that we can all live a safer life, but there should be some level of a "reasonable" expense to safety. I would add art 555 to your GFCI list.

 

[kwired]

I very much agree with you. My point is that extra safety measures don't make something more unsafe (until intersected by behavior). My point is that we can all live a safer life, but there should be some level of a "reasonable" expense to safety. I would add art 555 to your GFCI list.

555 applications, GFCI is needed, but at same time they won't protect from a voltage rise on the EGC - which does happen a lot. But it is impractical to install an equipotential bonding system in large bodies of water where it is quite easy to do in swimming pools and such.