Disagreement W/ Inspector - Ethics

[Gshell82]

I have a situation where I did the electrical design for an apt. bldg. with a generator.

The owner is putting in a generator large enough to power the entire building so the main house panel is going to be on the generator.

My design has a separate transfer switch / panel for the emergency/egress lights since they are considered life safety and the main house panel on the generator has other loads which can't be considered emergency.


The inspector said you don't need the second transfer switch and I am sure this is wrong. Obv. I know it will work but do I submit the design without the 2nd transfer switch (even though I know this is wrong) or lose a client/give back his money?


Thank You

 

[petersonra]

presumably the emergency lights are currently battery backed. I don't see how the feeder for them would be considered a life safety circuit. If the circuit shuts off they still work.

 

[Gshell82]

presumably the emergency lights are currently battery backed. I don't see how the feeder for them would be considered a life safety circuit. If the circuit shuts off they still work.

They are not battery backed. Just regular lights that are also being fed by emergency generator. It is essentially this scenario:

Essentially they want everything powered by one panel, including emergency/egress lights, basically like shown on the option on the right from one panel and one ATS only.

 

[petersonra]

If they are just regular lights and they have no backup power source at present, how can they be considered life safety circuits?

Just adding a generator to the building does not change them to life safety circuits.

 

[Gshell82]

Emergency/egress lights are allowed to be provided power by an emergency power source. IE, emergency generator. Not just battery backup.

Those same lights classify as life safety as far as I understand.

 

[petersonra]

Emergency/egress lights are allowed to be provided power by an emergency power source. IE, emergency generator. Not just battery backup.

Those same lights classify as life safety as far as I understand.

My point is this. They are there now with no battery and no generator power. So that implies strongly they are not life safety circuits now.

How does adding a generator to the building turn them into life safety circuits?

 

[Gshell82]

My point is this. They are there now with no battery and no generator power. So that implies strongly they are not life safety circuits now.

How does adding a generator to the building turn them into life safety circuits?

I'm sorry I didn't provide enough information.

This is a brand new building with new fixtures and a new generator.

 

[infinity]

Is this a new building?

 

[Gshell82]

Is this a new building?

Yes

 

[infinity]

Yes

I think that's where the confusion is, since it's being designed as a new building there is no battery backup fixtures in the design but there is emergency circuits from the generator.

 

[charlie b]

I am not sure I understand the whole situation. Or perhaps I just haven't seen enough information. So let's go back to basics.

• Let's agree to stop using the phrase "life safety." That phrase is in NEC 517, not in NEC 700.
• NEC 700 says an "emergency" load is one that a governmental agency or some other code says has to be on emergency.
• Generally, egress lights are required by building code to be on an emergency source.
• NEC 700 also says that circuits that serve emergency loads cannot run in common conduits or share an ATS with loads that are not emergency.
• Your choices for the egress lighting are to either show a separate ATS , call for individual batteries for each egress light, or include a central inverter system in your design.

 

[infinity]

If you use only one transfer switch then IMO all of the circuits on the generator would become emergency circuits.

 

[texie]

I am not sure I understand the whole situation. Or perhaps I just haven't seen enough information. So let's go back to basics.

• Let's agree to stop using the phrase "life safety." That phrase is in NEC 517, not in NEC 700.
• NEC 700 says an "emergency" load is one that a governmental agency or some other code says has to be on emergency.
• Generally, egress lights are required by building code to be on an emergency source.
• NEC 700 also says that circuits that serve emergency loads cannot run in common conduits or share an ATS with loads that are not emergency.
• Your choices for the egress lighting are to either show a separate ATS , call for individual batteries for each egress light, or include a central inverter system in your design.

Well said.

 

[texie]

I have a situation where I did the electrical design for an apt. bldg. with a generator.

The owner is putting in a generator large enough to power the entire building so the main house panel is going to be on the generator.

My design has a separate transfer switch / panel for the emergency/egress lights since they are considered life safety and the main house panel on the generator has other loads which can't be considered emergency.


The inspector said you don't need the second transfer switch and I am sure this is wrong. Obv. I know it will work but do I submit the design without the 2nd transfer switch (even though I know this is wrong) or lose a client/give back his money?


Thank You

The inspector is wrong. You can share the same emergency power source. You cannot have "normal" loads and emergency loads on the same ATS and wiring downstream from it. (it's clear you already know this.)

 

[petersonra]

If you use only one transfer switch then IMO all of the circuits on the generator would become emergency circuits.

Emergency Systems. Those systems legally required and
classed as emergency by municipal, state, federal, or other
codes, or by any governmental agency having jurisdiction.

I don't see how that can be given the definition found in article 700.

700.5 Transfer Equipment.
(D) Use. Transfer equipment shall supply only emergency loads.

 

[infinity]

I don't see how that can be given the definition found in article 700.

Maybe I didn't convey it properly but that was kind of my point. With the inspector eliminating the second transfer switch everything connected would have to comply with the requirements for emergency circuits.

 

[gadfly56]

Maybe I didn't convey it properly but that was kind of my point. With the inspector eliminating the second transfer switch everything connected would have to comply with the requirements for emergency circuits.

That would be impossible, because they are not, in fact, emergency loads. Putting the ice cream freezer on an emergency ATS does not magically transform it into an emergency load. It has to be an emergency load, by definition, before you draw the one-line.

 

[texie]

That would be impossible, because they are not, in fact, emergency loads. Putting the ice cream freezer on an emergency ATS does not magically transform it into an emergency load. It has to be an emergency load, by definition, before you draw the one-line.

I would agree as I stated in my previous post but the way I read his post I think infinity meant that as well. Perhaps if he would have said emergency circuits AND EMERGENCY LOADS the statement would be correct. More specifically, 700.5(D).

 

[infinity]

That would be impossible, because they are not, in fact, emergency loads. Putting the ice cream freezer on an emergency ATS does not magically transform it into an emergency load. It has to be an emergency load, by definition, before you draw the one-line.

I did say "would have to comply with the requirements for emergency circuits" which would include what you've posted.

 

[gadfly56]

I did say "would have to comply with the requirements for emergency circuits" which would include what you've posted.

Ahh. I took your post to do more with the installation methods and such. My bad.