Disagreement W/ Inspector - Ethics

[infinity]

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

No problem. My wordsmanship is somewhat lacking today.

 

[Little Bill]

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.

What world are you from?
An "ice cream freezer" is an "Emergency" need!!!

 

[packersparky]

What world are you from?
An "ice cream freezer" is an "Emergency" need!!!

As is the beer fridge.

 

[gadfly56]

What world are you from?
An "ice cream freezer" is an "Emergency" need!!!

I knew someone would make that claim, just not who exactly. Thank's for proving me right! :thumbsup:

 

[Gshell82]

So we pretty much are in agreement that a 2nd ATS is needed for the emergency/egress lighting.

So going back to the question... what do I do? Design it with a known code violation or go back to the builder and say no way I cannot do it as the building inspector is suggesting?


It seems I go with the second route.


Thanks for all the help.

 

[infinity]

So we pretty much are in agreement that a 2nd ATS is needed for the emergency/egress lighting.

So going back to the question... what do I do? Design it with a known code violation or go back to the builder and say no way I cannot do it as the building inspector is suggesting?


It seems I go with the second route.


Thanks for all the help.

IMO your design should be code compliant. Inspectors make mistakes just like engineers and electricians. At the end of the day your code complaint design is what customer is paying for.

 

[ggunn]

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.

Maybe it is. In the case of a power outage you gotta have your ice cream!

 

[Adamjamma]

What world are you from?
An "ice cream freezer" is an "Emergency" need!!!

I totally agree, especially in Jamaica!

 

[ron]

So we pretty much are in agreement that a 2nd ATS is needed for the emergency/egress lighting.

So going back to the question... what do I do? Design it with a known code violation or go back to the builder and say no way I cannot do it as the building inspector is suggesting?


It seems I go with the second route.


Thanks for all the help.

You know the right thing to do. Have you talked with the inspector to be sure they realize that the lighting doesn't have internal batteries? It is possible they don't understand.

 

[kwired]

What world are you from?
An "ice cream freezer" is an "Emergency" need!!!

Especially at a plant that makes ice cream

 

[jaggedben]

..
At the end of the day your code complaint design is what customer is paying for.

Sounds like the customer doesn't want to pay for it though.

 

[tkb]

So we pretty much are in agreement that a 2nd ATS is needed for the emergency/egress lighting.

So going back to the question... what do I do? Design it with a known code violation or go back to the builder and say no way I cannot do it as the building inspector is suggesting?


It seems I go with the second route.


Thanks for all the help.

In MA you need a separate ATS for life safety, and the life safety equipment must be located in its own 2hr fire rated room.

 

[Gshell82]

In MA you need a separate ATS for life safety, and the life safety equipment must be located in its own 2hr fire rated room.

I agree with the first part but I don't agree with the second part that it needs it's own 2hr rated room.

This may be true for certain occupancy types such as healthcare or nursing homes but for Type R-2 specifically (which I'm dealing with), that is nowhere required in the Mass Building Code.

If I am wrong, please provide where this is required.

Thank You

 

[Andy Delle]

So we pretty much are in agreement that a 2nd ATS is needed for the emergency/egress lighting.

So going back to the question... what do I do? Design it with a known code violation or go back to the builder and say no way I cannot do it as the building inspector is suggesting?


It seems I go with the second route.


Thanks for all the help.

I don't fully understand the issue. Is the inspector saying you simply don't need a 2nd ATS or is he saying using a 2nd ATS is a violation?

Some inspectors/plan checker will often point out unnecessary items but that doesn't mean they are a violation. We all know we can exceed the code if desired.

 

[Gshell82]

The inspector is saying you don't need the 2nd ATS for Emergency Lights.

Clearly that's a code violation and I decided I am willing to lose the client and just do the design per code.

 

[gadfly56]

The inspector is saying you don't need the 2nd ATS for Emergency Lights.

Clearly that's a code violation and I decided I am willing to lose the client and just do the design per code.

When (not if) the customer asks you why you decided on the more expensive design, you should already be prepared to present him a little narrative based on the relevant code sections as to why you think the inspector is not correct. Maybe a couple of illustrations from Mike's site here, if they're available on a fair use basis.

 

[Andy Delle]

The inspector is saying you don't need the 2nd ATS for Emergency Lights.

Clearly that's a code violation and I decided I am willing to lose the client and just do the design per code.

So you want to install two ATS units per your code interpretation but the inspector says it's not required and the customer doesn't want two switches siding with the inspector?

Otherwise if the customer is OK with the added expense of two ATS's what's the problem? The inspector doesn't seem to be saying you can't do it, he just doesn't think it's required?

 

[gadfly56]

So you want to install two ATS units per your code interpretation but the inspector says it's not required and the customer doesn't want two switches siding with the inspector?

Otherwise if the customer is OK with the added expense of two ATS's what's the problem? The inspector doesn't seem to be saying you can't do it, he just doesn't think it's required?

I believe the OP is trying to short stop any customer concerns that may rise up if the inspector tells the customer only one ATS is required but two show up on the one-line. If I were a customer unfamiliar with the code I'd want to know why as well.

 

[lielec11]

I agree with Andy's comment above. I don't see the issue with going above and beyond what the inspector is looking for. In this case "above and beyond" is simply code compliant but who is he/she to tell you that you can't over design something? Inspector is definitely wrong here but like I said, if you want want two ATS why can't you use two ATS if everything is code compliant?

 

[Gshell82]

I agree with Andy's comment above. I don't see the issue with going above and beyond what the inspector is looking for. In this case "above and beyond" is simply code compliant but who is he/she to tell you that you can't over design something? Inspector is definitely wrong here but like I said, if you want want two ATS why can't you use two ATS if everything is code compliant?

Because the GC doesn't want to pay for 2 ATS. The inspector didn't say you can't have two he just said you don't need two.