Spare Breakers and spaces in new Main/sub panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dengineer

Member
Location
new york
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
Hello All,

I am working on a project where I have a 12 pole subpanel fed from a main panel in a hospital. Now this 12-pole panel feeds an OR room and originally at the start of construction I had 4 spares available, but now going into the end of construction with some new added equipment I have maxed out the spares and used all 12 breakers spaces. The electrician is coming back to me and telling me this is now not code compliant and I don't have provisions for future expansion. Is he correct in stating that? I feel that I actually have more spares in the main panel that feeds the OR room subpanel and that should be enough. I understand that it would have been more ideal to have spares in my subpanel, but throughout construction more equipment was added. Would love some insight into this.
 
The NEC does not care if there are no spaces, as that is a design issue.
Other codes may require them, but most likely not.

After always seeing boilerplate language in specifications many electricians think codes must be behind the requirements.
 
To answer just that one question, there is no code rule against having a full panel.

Who should or would pay for a larger panel, if that's what the discussion is about?
 
LarryFine said:
To answer just that one question, there is no code rule against having a full panel.

Who should or would pay for a larger panel, if that's what the discussion is about?
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply. The main issue isn't that no one wants to pay for a larger panel with more breakers, but that the electrician is telling me that I need spare breakers for future expansion and the current design is not code compliant for that reason. We added this design much later into construction and for that reason we needed a very cost efficient design to the penny. This client is very cheap and adding anything beyond the minimum would have caused a lot of issues.
 
Dengineer said:
The main issue isn't that no one wants to pay for a larger panel with more breakers, but that the electrician is telling me that I need spare breakers for future expansion and the current design is not code compliant for that reason.
Click to expand...
Ask him which code article he thinks requires spare spaces.

If the panel accepts tandem breakers, you're covered anyway.
 
As as matter of fact the introduction to the NEC (article 90) says that the code is not very concerned with future expansion, read the last 16 words of 90.1(B)
 
Could have something to do with another regulatory authority. In CA we have HCAI (formerly OSHPD) and they have a whole set of additional requirements specific to projects that fall under their scope. Off the top of my head there are specific circuits required to be on standby power, specific outlet required not to be GFCI or AFCI protected, no plastic materials (specifically required RMC), specific illumination requirements, ventilation, etc...
 
Joe.B said:
Could have something to do with another regulatory authority. In CA we have HCAI (formerly OSHPD) and they have a whole set of additional requirements specific to projects that fall under their scope. Off the top of my head there are specific circuits required to be on standby power, specific outlet required not to be GFCI or AFCI protected, no plastic materials (specifically required RMC), specific illumination requirements, ventilation, etc...
Click to expand...
If spaces are a "code" requirement, at what point would you ever be allowed to use them?
 
jim dungar said:
If spaces are a "code" requirement, at what point would you ever be allowed to allowed to use them?
Click to expand...
I would assume that if that is indeed a regulation by some other agency or code the intent is to make sure there is room for expansion at the time it is built. Obviously if that is the intent then that space is there to be used. But as others have pointed out, if there is indeed a code requirement to do so it should be provided by the AHJ.
 
roger said:
As as matter of fact the introduction to the NEC (article 90) says that the code is not very concerned with future expansion, read the last 16 words of 90.1(B)
Click to expand...
👍

90.8 (A) {2017} is titled "Future Expansion and Convenience," and is merely a definition, not a requirement. When I have heard an electrician claim that NEC requires spares in panels, I always wonder if he read the title only and not what comes after.
 
Especially in this day and age, no spares is a bad idea. In residential, moving to a tandem is a whole lot less doable these days if you have to have GFCI and/or AFCI. For a hospital, I'd think it is even worse. They will only have more and more stuff as time goes on.
 
I think your guy is confusing a common practice with code requirements, which is not unusual. People tend to think that the reasons things are done in a particular way is some kind of code requirement but often that is not the case.

You might want to run it past the end user and just tell them that you ended up using all their spare space and that it will be very expensive if it has to be changed in the future. The money side of it is always up to the guy footing the bills.
 
In hospitals it is simply a designers plan, not a code issue. As stated earlier, if you were required to have a space you would never be allowed to use this last space. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top