| Date |
Text |
| 2006-05-08 00:00:00 | ***********UNSAT 3RD REVIEW ********* |
| | |
| | ** PLEASE SEE PLANS CONTAIN NOTES FROM |
| | PREVIOUS REVIEWS WHICH STILL NEED TO BE |
| | ADDRESSED ALONG WITH NEW COMMENTS AS |
| | PLANS HAVE HAD CHANGES ONCE AGAIN. |
| | |
| | ** PLEASE ALSO SEE PLANS ARE CONTAIN |
| | REVISIONS TO MECHANICAL AND BUILDING |
| | WHICH WILL REQUIRE NEW REVIEWS OF THOSE |
| | SAID PLANS. |
| | |
| | ** PLEASE SEE NOTES BELOW AS NOTES ARE |
| | TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW. |
| | PLEASE SEE NEW NOTES AT THE BOTTTOM OF |
| | REVIEW. |
| | |
| | ******** UNSAT 2ND REVIEW ********* |
| | |
| | PLEASE SEE NOTES FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW |
| | WHICH ARE STILL NEEDING TO BE ADDRESSED |
| | AND NEW COMMENTS TO CHNAGES IN PLANS |
| | FROM PREVIOUS PLANS SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | * PLEASE SEE NOTES BELOW ARE TAKEN |
| | DIRECTLY FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW AND NEW |
| | NOTES ARE ADDED TO THE END OF FIRST |
| | REVIEW NOTES. |
| | |
| | ************ UNSAT ************ |
| | |
| | |
| | 1)NOTE: NOTE #1, NO.SEE NOTES WITH |
| | RESPECT TO THE FBC CHAPTER 13. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS REVIEW ** |
| | NOTE #1 NO, PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS |
| | NOTE AS PLANS ORIGINALLY CAME IN |
| | DESIGNED UNDER THE 2001 FBC WHEN THE |
| | CODE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME WAS THE |
| | 2004. PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS NOTE MENTIONED |
| | TO PLEASE MAKE ALL CHANGES IN DESIGN TO |
| | THE 2004 FBC. |
| | PLEASE SEE NEW NOTES BELOW. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE SEE PLANS STATE THE 2001 |
| | FBC, HOWEVER AS OF OCT. 1ST, 2005 THE |
| | CODE HAS CHANGED TO THE 2004 FBC AND ALL |
| | OTHER RELEVANT CODES. |
| | PLEASE SEE PERMIT WAS NOT APPLIED FOR |
| | UNTIL NOV. 21ST, 2005 |
| | PLEASE ADJUST ALL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 2)NOTE: NOTE #2 OK. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | |
| | PLEASE SEE ALL SHEETS IN BOTH SETS ARE |
| | SEALED PHOTOCOPIES OF SIGNED PLANS. |
| | PLEASE SEE FS 481.221 AND FAC |
| | 61G1-16.003 WHICH REQUIRE THE PLANS TO |
| | HAVE AN "ORIGINAL WET SIGNATURE AND |
| | DATE". |
| | ** PLEASE KNOW THIS IS REQUIRED FOR ALL |
| | TRADES AND FOR ALL SHEETS WHETHER OR NOT |
| | COMMENT IS MADE BY OTHER REVIEWER(S). |
| | ONE SET MAY BE RETAINED. |
| | |
| | 3)NOTE: NOTE #3 OK. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | NOTE #3 OK, HOWEVER SEE NEW |
| | NOTES FOR HAND DRAWN ITEMS ON SIGNED AND |
| | SEALED PLANS. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE SEE ELECTRICAL SHEETS |
| | CONTAIN A TITLE BLOCK FOR AN ENGINEER. |
| | PLEASE KNOW, IF THIS ENGINEER IS |
| | RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN OR ELECTRICAL |
| | WORK ON SAID PLANS, THEN PLANS MUST BE |
| | SIGNED DATED AND SEALED BY SAID |
| | ENGINEER. |
| | FS 471.025 |
| | PLEASE ALSO SEE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE |
| | CODE 61G15-23.002 WHICH REQUIRES THE |
| | TITLE BLOCK FOR ENGINEER TO BE COMPLETE |
| | WITH ALL INFORMATION AS SET-FORTH IN THE |
| | LISTED FAC. |
| | |
| | 4)NOTE:NOTE #4 OK. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE SEE 600.5 FOR MISSING |
| | REQUIRED SIGN CIRCUIT. |
| | |
| | 5)NOTE:NOTE #5 NO, PLEASE SEE A |
| | CIRCUIT AND LOAD IS BEING ADDED TO PANEL |
| | "B" CIRCUIT #10. PLEASE SEE RECEPT IS |
| | STILL NOT BEING SHOWN ABOVE THE WINDOW |
| | AND HOW LOADS WERE DERIVED FOR THIS CAN |
| | NOT BE VERIFIED AS NOW ONLY A LOAD OF |
| | 1.6KW IS SHOWN. IS THIS AT 200VA PER FT? |
| | THIS IS NOT SHOWN IN CALCUALTIONS. |
| | AS STATED IN BOTH PREVIOUS REVIEWS, |
| | PLEASE SEE 210.62,220.12A. |
| | |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE**NOTE #5 OK, HOWEVER |
| | PLEASE SEE THESE ARE NOW ADDED, BUT TO |
| | THE GENERAL |
| | RECEPTS IN DINING AREA. PLEASE KNOW, |
| | THESE SHOULD BE DEDICATED PER LOADS. |
| | PLEASE SEE210.62,220.12A,220.3(B)(7) |
| | CODE COMMENTARY FOLLOWING IN THE 2002 |
| | NEC HANDBOOK. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE SEE MISSING REQUIRED |
| | WINDOW OUTLETS ABOVESTORE FRONT. |
| | 210.62. |
| | PLEASE SEE MIN KVA TO BE FIGURED PER |
| | 220.12A |
| | THIS IS TO DISCOURAGE FLOOR RECEPTACLES |
| | AND UNSIGHTLY EXTENSION CORDS USED FOR |
| | SIGNAGE, DIPLAYS ETC WHICH ARE LIKELY TO |
| | CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY, RECEPTACLES MUST |
| | BE INSTALLED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE WINDOW. |
| | |
| | 6)NOTE:NOTE #6 OK, NOW SHOWN CIRCUITED |
| | TO LOCAL LIGHTING. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | NOTE #6 NO, PLEASE SEE THESE ARE |
| | STILLNOT SHOWN CIRCUITED TO THE LOCAL |
| | BRANCH CIRCUIT AS REQUIRED PER 700.12E. |
| | PLEASE SEE CIRCUITING AS SHOWN AND |
| | "LOCK-OFF" DEVICE LISTED ON PANEL |
| | SCHEDULE DOES NOT MEET THE "EXCEPTION" |
| | AS NOTED. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE SEE 700.12E WHICH |
| | REQUIRES THE BRANCH CIRCUIT FEEDING THE |
| | UNIT EQUIPMENT SHALL BE THE SAME BRANCH |
| | CIRCUIT AS THAT SERVING THE NORMAL |
| | LIGHTING IN THE AREA AND CONNECTED AHEAD |
| | OF ANY LOCAL SWITCHES. |
| | PLEASE ADJUST CIRCUITING SHOWN ON PLANS. |
| | |
| | 7)NOTE: NOTE #7 OK. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE COMPLETE SWITCH |
| | LEGS.SWITCH BANK ON PLANS. |
| | CAN NOT VERIFY AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | 8)NOTE: NOTE #8 OK. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | NOTE #8 OK, HOWEVER SEE NEW |
| | NOTE FOR HAND-DRAWN ITEMS ON SIGNED AND |
| | SEALED PLANS. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW ** |
| | PLEASE SEE 2002 NEC 210.8B3 |
| | WHICH REQUIRES ALL 15- AND 20-AMPERE, |
| | 125-VOLT RECEPTACLES IN NONDWELLING-TYPE |
| | KITCHENS TO BE GFCI PROTECTED. THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY |
| | 15- AND 20-AMPERE, 125-VOLT KITCHEN |
| | RECEPTACLE, WHETHER OR NOT THE |
| | RECEPTACLE SERVES COUNTERTOP APPLIANCES. |
| | |
| | |
| | 9)NOTE: NOTE #9 NO, NEW LOADS SUBMITTED |
| | HOWEVER PLEASE SEE COMMENTS AS LOADS |
| | FROM E-1 AND E-2 DO NOT CORRELATE. |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT IS NOW BEING SHOWN |
| | AS 85% POWER FACTOR? WHAT IS THIS? |
| | PLEASE SEE AS STATED ON PREVIOUS |
| | REVIEWS, SUBMIT EITHER COMPLETE LOAD |
| | CALCULATIONS, OR A 12 MONTH READING FROM |
| | FPL,WITH NEW LOADS ADDED AT 125%. |
| | PLEASE SEE NEC 220.35 |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | NOTE # 9 NO. NONE SUBMITTED. |
| | PLEASE SEE NEW SERVICE AS SHOWN COMES |
| | FROM AN EXISTING SERVICE ON MAIN |
| | BUILDING AND ADDED LOAD TO THE EXISTING |
| | SERVICE MUST BE VERIFIED. |
| | PLEASE SEE NEW COMMENTS FOR MANY CHANGES |
| | ON RISER. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETE LOAD |
| | CALCULATION ON EXISTING SERVICE WHICH |
| | THIS SERVICE IS BEING TIED INTO. |
| | IT IS KNOWN TO THIS OFFICE THAT THE |
| | SERVICE AT THIS LOCATION CONTAINS LOADS |
| | ON SOME OF THE MAIN SERVICES WHICH ARE |
| | CLOSE TO EXCEEDING RATED LOADS. |
| | 215.5,220 |
| | |
| | 10)NOTE: NOTE #10, OK, HOWEVER PLEAS |
| | KNOW, THE AVAILABLE FAULT CURRENT IS |
| | STILL SHOWN AS 37,880 AND AIC RATINGS |
| | FOR MAINS AND BRANCH BRKRS ARE BEING |
| | SHOWN AT 100,000. PLEASE KNOW, THIS IS |
| | PERMITTED AND COMMENT HAS BEEN |
| | ADDRESSED. IT IS BEING NOTED AS THE 100K |
| | RATTING SEEMS VERY HIGH. IF SHOWN ON |
| | PLANS, THEN THIS IS WHAT WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | NOTE #10 NO?? PLEASE SEE A NOTE |
| | WAS ADDED FOR "DOWN SYSTEM BREAKER |
| | SERIES". THIS IS UNCLEAR AS AN AVAILABLE |
| | FAULT CURRENT IS NOTED AS 37,880 FROM |
| | FPL, YET THE SERIES RATINGS ARE NOW |
| | SHOWING 100K?? |
| | PLEASE KNOW, AIC RATINGS SHALL BE STATED |
| | FOR NEW MAINS, NEW PANELS AND SERIES |
| | RATING ON BRANCH BRKRS. |
| | 110.9,215.5 |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW **PLEASE SUBMIT AIC |
| | RATINGS FOR ALL NEW SERVICE EQUIPMENT |
| | BEING INSTALL-ED. MAINS/BRKRS AND PANELS |
| | ARE ALL TO BE RATED FOR THE AVAILABLE |
| | FAULT CURRENT. |
| | PER 110.9/215.5 |
| | |
| | 11)NOTE: NOTE #11 OK, PLEASE SEE NO MAIN |
| | IS BEING SHOWN ON THE LINE SIDE OF |
| | SERVICE MAINS. |
| | PLEASE SEE NEW COMMENT FOR THE NUMBER OF |
| | MAINS. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE **NOTE: 11 NO, PLEASE |
| | SEE THE |
| | "EQUIPMENT GROUNDING CONDUCTOR" IS NOW |
| | REMOVED, HOWEVER MAY BE REQUIRED AS THE |
| | "SERVICE MAIN" IS STILL NOT SHOWN OR |
| | INDICATED ON PLANS. |
| | PLEASE KNOW, IF THE "SERVICE MAIN" FOR |
| | BUILDING IS LOCATED AHEAD OF GUTTER |
| | SHOWN, THE NEUTRAL AND EQUIPMENT |
| | GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL NOT BE BONDED |
| | AFTER THE FIRST MEANS OF DICSCONNECT.A |
| | "FLOATING NEUTRAL" WILL BE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE SEE 250.6 , 250.24, IT |
| | IS NOT SHOWN IF THERE IS A "MAIN" ON THE |
| | LINE SIDE OF THE GUTTER SHOWN. |
| | THEREFORE, THE 'EQUIPMENT GROUND" SHOWN |
| | FROM GUTTER TO METER AND METER TO MAIN |
| | SHOWN, MAY BE PARALLING THE NEUTRAL.?? |
| | CAN NOT VERIFY AT THIS TIME? |
| | |
| | 12)NOTE: NOTE #12, OK. SEE NEW NOTES FOR |
| | OTHER CHANGES. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | NOTE#12 NO, PLEASE SEE NEW |
| | COMMENTS AS RISER DIAGRAM HAS COMPLETELY |
| | CHANGED FROM PREVIOUS PLANS AND MANY |
| | CHANGES TO SERVICE WERE MADE. |
| | |
| | **PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE CORRELATE RISER WITH |
| | PANELS. PLEASE SEE PANEL "B" IS SHOWN AS |
| | MLO ON SCHEDULE, HOWEVER RISER SHOWS |
| | MCB. |
| | |
| | 13)NOTE:NOTE #13 OK. |
| | |
| | **PRE-REVIEW** |
| | PLEASE SEE CONTINUOUS LOADS ARE |
| | SHOWN AT 125%, HOWEVER PLEASE ALSO |
| | INDICATE ANY LARGEST MOTORS LOADS ALSO |
| | @125%. |
| | 215.3, 230.42 ETC. |
| | |
| | 14)NOTE: NOTE #14 OK. |
| | |
| | ** PRE-REVIEW** PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL |
| | FOR MEANS |
| | OF SHUT DOWN OF ALL ELECTRICAL FOR HOOD. |
| | NFPA-96 |
| | |
| | |
| | *************************************** |
| | ******* NEW COMMENTS "2ND REVIEW"****** |
| | |
| | 15) NOTE: NOTE: OK. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | PLEASE KNOW, THESE PLANS ARE |
| | SIGNED DATED AND SEALED PLANS BY AN |
| | ENGINEER UNDER FLORIDA STATUES 471. |
| | PLEASE KNOW, HAND DRAWN CHANGES TO |
| | PLANS, FOR CIRCUITING, DESIGN, NOTES ETC |
| | ARE NOT PERMITTED UNDER FS 471. |
| | PLEASE KNOW, AN ENGINEER MAY MAKE |
| | CHANGES TO SAID PLANS, HOWEVER EACH AND |
| | EVERY ITEM IS REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED AND |
| | DATED AND "WHITE-OUT" ON PLANS IS NOT |
| | PERMITTED. |
| | PLEASE SEE PLANS CONATIN MANY AREAS |
| | WHERE CHANGES WERE MADE , SOME AREAS |
| | WHERE "WHITE-OUT WAS USED AND AREA WHERE |
| | CORRECTIONS WERE "PASTED" OVER PLANS. |
| | PLANS SHALL BE RE-PRINTED WITH ALL |
| | CORRECTIONS, SIGNED, DATED AND SEALED BY |
| | SAID ENGINEER OF RECORD. |
| | PLEASE SEE COMMENT BELOW AS COPIES OF |
| | PLANS ARE BEING RETAINED. |
| | |
| | 16)NOTE: NOTE #16 NO, PLEASE SEE MANY |
| | LOADS DO NOT MATCH. |
| | PLEASE SEE LOADS HAVE DECREASED ON PANEL |
| | |
| | SCHEDULES ON CALCS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE |
| | PANEL SCHEDULES, HOWEVER THE LOADS WERE |
| | INCREASED. PLEASE SEE ALL LOADS ON |
| | PANELS "A" AND "B". PLEASE SEE PANEL "A" |
| | WHICH WENT FROM 41.5KVA WHICH INDICATED |
| | 120A'S TO 38.8 KVA AND IS NOW 132A'S?? |
| | THE LOAD DECREASED DUE TO CHANGES, |
| | HOWEVER LOAD AT PANEL INCREASED?? |
| | PLEASE SEE IN EITHER CASE THE FINAL |
| | AMPERAGE FROM THE KVA'S SHOWN ARE NOT |
| | ACCUARATE. |
| | PLEASE SEE "C" PHASE LOAD INCREASED, YET |
| | NO LOADS ON PANEL SCHEDULE INCREASED?? |
| | |
| | PLEASE ALSO SEE THE SAME FOR PANEL "B", |
| | WHICH SHOWS A SMALL INCREASE DUE TO THE |
| | ADDITION OF THE SHOW WINDOW KVA, HOWEVER |
| | PLEASE SEE LOAD CALCULATIONS STILL DO |
| | NOT CORRELATE. PLEASE SEE KVA IS SHOWN |
| | @33.9KVA WHICH AT 120/208 3-PHASE IS NOT |
| | 102A'S. |
| | PLEASE SEE E-2 NOW MENTIONS FOR SERVICE |
| | TO BE A 250A, YET RISER SHOWS 225A? |
| | PLEASE SEE LOAD ON E-1 IS NOW THE SAME |
| | AS THE LOAD ON E-2 FOR SERVICE. |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE THESE EXTRA LOADS |
| | ARE COMING FROM? |
| | PLEASE SEE NEW NOTES FOR A/C LOADS WHICH |
| | HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | PLEASE CORRELATE ALL PANELS ON |
| | RISER, PANEL SCHEDULES AND SEE NOTES AS |
| | CODE VIOLATIONS ARE SHOWN FOR NEW |
| | REVISIONS. |
| | A)PLEASE SEE RISER NOW SHOWS PANELS AS |
| | 200A BEING FED FROM A 400A DISCONNECT |
| | AND 400A OCP.?? ORIG RISER SHOWED 400A |
| | PANELS. |
| | B)PLEASE SEE BOTH PANELS ARE NOW LISTED |
| | AS 200A ON RISER AND 225A ON PANEL |
| | SCHEDULES.??? ORIG PLANS INDICATED |
| | PANELS ON SCHEDULES AS 400A, ONLY PANEL |
| | "B" WAS SHOWN AS 400A MCB ON RISER, YET |
| | 400A MLO ON SCHEDULE. |
| | PLEASE SEE FEEDER TO PANEL "A" STILL |
| | SHOWN AS 500 MCM'S WHICH ARE RATED AT |
| | 400A'S> |
| | C) PLEASE SEE LOAD CALCULATIONS MENTIONS |
| | 300A SERVICE.? PLEASE CORRELATE. |
| | 215.5, 2002 NEC. |
| | |
| | 17) NOTE: NOTE#17 NO? PLEASE SEE NOTHING |
| | WAS SUBMITTED FOR ANY LIGHTING CONTROLS. |
| | PLEASE SEE NO RESPONSE WAS NOTED FROM |
| | DESIGNER TO INDICATE COMPLIANCE FOR |
| | LIGHTING CONTROLS. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS REVIEW |
| | REQUESTED DESIGN TO MEET 2004 FBC AS |
| | PLANS WERE SUBMITTED AFTER 1ST OCT, 2005 |
| | WHEN THE CODE CHANGED. |
| | PLEASE SEE FBC CHAPTER 13, |
| | 13-415.1.ABC.1.1FOR NEW LIGHTING |
| | CONTROLS REQUIRED. PLEASE SUBMIT A |
| | METHOD, AND TIME OF DAY SCHEDULING. |
| | PLEASE ALSO SEE 13-415.1.ABC.1.2 |
| | |
| | 18) NOTE: NOTE #18 NO, PLEASE SEE A |
| | NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO BE SURE "ALL" |
| | COMMENTS FOR CODE COMPLIANCE WAS |
| | ADDRESSED. PLEASE KNOW THE ENGINEER OF |
| | RECORD TO DATE HAS NOT CONTACTED THIS |
| | OFFICE WITH ANY QUESTIONS, OR COMMENTS. |
| | PLEASE KNOW, THE CONTACT WHICH WERE MADE |
| | WERE DONE BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD. |
| | PLEASE SEE A FEE HAS NOW BEEN ASSESSED. |
| | THIS IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE |
| | DEISGNER OF RECORD AND IS NOT ASSESSED |
| | TO THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR. |
| | PLEASE SEE THE AMOUNT OF $2,520 HAS BEEN |
| | ATTACHED AND IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID |
| | BEFORE RESUBMITTING PLANS. |
| | PLEASE KNOW, IT IT STRONGLY RECOMMENDED |
| | A MEETING BE HELD WITH PARTIES OF |
| | RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS PROJECT TO HELP |
| | ALLEAVIATE ANY FURTHER DELAYS IN |
| | ISSUANCE OF THIS PROJECT. |
| | |
| | |
| | ** PLEASE KNOW, ONE SET OFELECTRICAL |
| | PLANS HAVE BEEN RETAINED FOR FILE. |
| | PLEASE KNOW, PLANS WILL ALSO BE FORWARD |
| | TO THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL |
| | ENGINEERS FOR REVIEW. |
| | |
| | ** PREVIOUS NOTE ** |
| | PLEASE SEE COPY OF FLORIDA |
| | STATUES 553.80(2)(B) WITH RESPECT TO |
| | DESIGN PROFESSIONALS AND REPEAT COMMENTS |
| | FOR CODE COMPLIANCE. PLEASE KNOW, IF ANY |
| | OF THE SAME COMMENTS FROM THE FIRST TWO |
| | REVIEWS ARE NOT ADDRESSED FOR THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW, THIS OFFICE WILL HAVE NO CHOICE |
| | BUT TO ASSESS A 4X FEE FOR THE PLAN |
| | REVIEW PORTION OF THE PERMIT FEE. (30% |
| | OF BASE FEE X4). |
| | PLEASE KNOW, TO DATE THIS OFFICE HAS NOT |
| | BEEN CONTACTED FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | |
| | ************ NEW NOTES 3RD REVIEW ***** |
| | DUE TO CHANGES IN PLANS , PLEASE SEE |
| | NOTES BELOW. |
| | |
| | 1) NOTE: PLEASE SEE MECHANICAL LOADS |
| | HAVE BEEN NOTED AS BEING 7.8 KW, |
| | ALTHOUGH LOADS ON THE PANEL SCHEDULE |
| | ITSELF REMAIN THE SAME AS THE PERVISOU |
| | TWO SETS?? |
| | PLEASE SEE THE LOADS AHVE NOW DECREASED, |
| | YET THE OCP FOR ONE HAS INCREASED AND |
| | THE OTHER HAS REMAINED THE SAME AS |
| | BEFORE. |
| | PLEASE SEE THIS DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH |
| | MECHANICAL PLANS,AS THE MECHANICAL PLANS |
| | NOW INDICATE THE KW RATINGS LESS THAN |
| | HALF OF THE PREVIOUS PLANS. |
| | PLEASE SEE MECHANICAL PLANS, AS THE OCP |
| | IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE MAX OCP ON THE |
| | ELECTRICAL PLANS. |
| | PLEASE CORRELATE, PLEASE ADJUST LOADS, |
| | PLEASE ADJUST OCP. |
| | 215.5. |
| | |
| | 2) NOTE: PLEASE SEE AN ELECTRICAL |
| | SERVICE ELEVATION IS NOW BEING SHOWN. |
| | PLEASE VERIFY NO MORE THAN 6 MEANS OF |
| | DISCONNECT FOR SERVICE. |
| | 230.70,230.71,230.72 |
| | PLEAS KNOW, IT HAS BECOME THE |
| | DETERMINATION OF THIS OFFICE TO VISIT |
| | SITE TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION SHOWN. |
| | |
| | ** PLEASE KNOW, ONE SET OF EACH OF THE |
| | PLANS SUBMITTED HAVE NOW BEEN RETAINED |
| | FOR FILE INCLUDING ORIGINAL PLANS. |
| | |
| | ** PLEASE BE SURE TO SEE ANY COMMENTS |
| | FROM OTHER TRADES WHICH MAY AFFECT |
| | ELECTRICAL PLANS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE SUBMIT THE ABOVE INFORMATION FOR |
| | REVIEW. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, |
| | PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE IN CONTACTING |
| | THIS OFFICE. |
| | |
| | DEWEY PALMER |
| | ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW |
| | 561-805-6717 |
| | [email protected] |
