jlescobedo
New member
Is there any article in the NEC that requires a certain percentage of spares for a new panel installation?
spares
- Thread starter jlescobedo
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Logan, Utah
I agree with Gus. I have had AHJ's use 90.8 to require spare room in panelboards.
I have also seem many specs that require a 10% future space requirement for panelboards.
Chris
bluesmoke...oops
Senior Member
- Location
- Tri-Cities, Washington
I've had a couple jobs that required 25% spare breakers.
bluesmoke...oops
Senior Member
- Location
- Tri-Cities, Washington
I know. I was going with the spec post raider made. my bad for not being clear about that.
- Location
- Massachusetts
I don't see how they can 'legally' do that.
What if the inspector decided I need to have an extra 50 amps available on a 100 amp service?
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Does the AHJ change the rules for new panels vs additions to exisiting? If not these required spares can never be used.
I too would question the "legality" of such a call, but, as has been mentioned here, sometimes it's easier to comply than "fight".
Memory does not allow to to be specific. My intent was simply to warn the OP that there are those who feel the answer to his question is "Yes"
- Location
- Logan, Utah
I wasn't clear that it is not my opinion that 90.8(A) can be used "Legally" to require spares in a panel just that in the past I have had to deal with AHJ's that would use that section for justification for such requirements.
IMHO 90.8 serves no useful purpose in the NEC and should be removed so it is not misconstrued in the manner mentioned above.
Chris
Was that an engineering requirement or AHJ? If it's the engineer, hey I want a panel with 50% capacity and I'm willing to pay for it. If it's AHJ there's really no code to enforce that.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
If I put a 200AMP service in when only a 100AMP was required would that meet 90.8? No vacant space for additional breakers.
IMHO that is impossible to enforce. 90.8 does not meet 90.5(A).
What is widely misunderstood is that Article 90 is only the introduction to the code which is comprised of 9 chapters and article 90 is in none of those 9 chapters, IOW's article 90 is not part of the actual code rules and is no more than a glorified FPN.
Roger
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Roger
Help me. I thought IF you wanted to enforce article 90 it had to be seperately codified. Is that correct?
That was true of article 80 which is now an Annex H, article 90 has always been the introduction.
Roger
Excellent point since there are no SHALL or SHALL NOT in 90.8
Further 90.8(A) implies that it is good to plan for expansion while 90.8(B) implies it's bad to add extra circuits.
What makes you believe article 90 is not part of the code? The introduction in 90.3 states what belongs and what doesn't. And it states the code is comprised of the introduction and nine chapters not just nine chapters. I guess I have to disagree that 90 is not code.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Read the second sentence, it makes no mention of Chapter '0'.
And I agree Bob, but I will explain my post a little better
I didn't say it was not part of the code, what I said was, it is not part of the code "rules" and is basically a glorified FPN, IOW's it is for information on using the chapters containing the actual code rules. It sets up the story line, no different than any books introduction. It does not contain "mandatory" rules nor does 90.8 require anything, it is simply a statement.
Article 90 also doesn't give an inspector any permission to make up his/her own rules in lieu of those spelled out in chapters 1 through 9, it does make a "statement" that, "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" the "statement does not include "shall" it uses the word "may".
My point was that many people think article 90 contains rules which it does not.
Roger
Bob,
It doesn't have to mention a chapter 0. The first sentence of 90.3 says the introduction is part of the code as a self-standing entity outside the chapters. That they don't mention it again does not permit it to be excluded.
Roger,
As they said in "Pirates of the Carribean": They're more like guidelines.
E'en so, article 90 is a necessary part of the code.
90.3 defines which parts of the NEC are considered code and which are not.
90.9 defines the system of measurement complete with shalls and shall nots which does mean there are at least a couple mandatory rules in article 90.
90.4 defines certain limits of authority for the AHJ.
In the end. I don't believe Bob (iwire), Roger, or I think 90.8 provides anything more than non-mandatory commentary or as Roger said "a glorified FPN". I think Chris (raider1) is on target - 90.8 should be removed.
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
I can see 10% but 25 % , some one will have to come off the pocket book :grin::grin:
- Status