| Date |
Text |
| 2009-09-20 12:25:46 | |
| | |
| | ** DENIED ** |
| | |
| | ** NOTES FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW ARE STILL IN NEED OF |
| | REVISING. |
| | |
| | 1) NOTE: SEE COMMENT #2 FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW. NO ACCESS |
| | CONTROL SYSTEM PERMIT AND PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO |
| | DATE. IF A SYSTEM HAS BEEN INSTALLED IT WAS DONE |
| | WITHOUT REVIEW FOR CODE COMPLIANCE AND PERMIT. |
| | PLANS DO NOT SHOW COMPLIANCE FOR ANY SUCH SYSTEM ONLY |
| | NOTES FOR FUTURE. |
| | **ON PREVIOUS REVIEW IT WAS NOTED THAT REVIEW FOR |
| | NFPA-101 CHAPTER 7 AND OTHER APPLICABLE CODES HAVE NOT |
| | BEEN DONE. |
| | ONE EXAMPLE OF NON-CODE COMPLIANCE IS THE FACT THAT A |
| | JUNCTION BOX FOR FUTURE SYSTEM IS SHOWN IN STAIRS WHICH |
| | IS NOT PERMITTED PER FBC 1019.1.2 |
| | ACCESS CONTROLS INSIDE STAIRS IS NOT PART OF THE |
| | STAIRS. PLEASE ADDRESS WITH BUILDING REVIEWER AND FIRE |
| | MARSHAL CHIEF CARSILLO. |
| | |
| | 2) NOTE: IT WAS REQUESTED ON PREVIOUS REVIEW TO SUBMIT |
| | A COMPLETE REVISED PLAN WITH ALL CIRCUITING ON PLANS TO |
| | BE REVISED AND COORDINATED WITH REVISED SUBMITTED PANEL |
| | SCHEDULES. SOME REVISED PLANS WERE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH |
| | RESPONSE SHEETS FROM DESIGN TEAM. THE RESPONSE SHEETS |
| | DO NOT ACTUALLY RESPOND TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS THEY ONLY |
| | STATE CHANGES WHICH WERE MADE ON SPECIFIC SHEETS. THE |
| | RESPONSE ONLY INDICATES CHANGES TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | SHEETS: |
| | E001, |
| | E102, |
| | E105, |
| | E401, |
| | E402, |
| | E501, |
| | E504, AND 504A |
| | |
| | ** IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SOME OF THE PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENTS WERE NOT ACTUALLY RESPONDED TO BY DESIGN TEAM |
| | AND PLANS WERE NOT REVISED/CORRECTED EITHER. PLEASE SEE |
| | PREVIOUS NOTES #16 AND #18 FOR EXAMPLE; SEE NOTES |
| | BELOW. |
| | |
| | |
| | WHAT ABOUT SHEETS E103, E 411, 412 ?? |
| | PREVIOUS NOTES MENTIONED TO REVISE PLANS FOR ALL |
| | CIRCUITING. REVIEW FOR LOAD CALCULATIONS FOR EXAMPLE |
| | CAN NOT BE DONE UNTIL ALL CIRCUITING IS REVISED AND |
| | COORDINATED WITH PLANS SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | A) SEE LATEST REVISED SHEET E-103 WHICH WAS NOT |
| | SUBMITTED OR IN NOTED IN LETTER FROM DESIGN TEAM. THIS |
| | SHEET HOWEVER IS ON FILE. |
| | PLANS INDICATE CIRCUIT R-151 SHOWN FOR CORRIDOR |
| | LIGHTING HOWEVER REVISED PANEL SCHEDULE FOR PANEL R1 |
| | INDICATES CIRCUIT 151 AS THE BREAK ROOM RECEPTACLE. |
| | REVISED SHEET 401 DOES INDICATE THIS HOWEVER BASED ON |
| | E103, THIS CIRCUIT IS SHOWN FOR BOTH LOCATIONS. THIS IS |
| | NOT POSSIBLE. |
| | |
| | B) SEE LATEST REVISED SHEET E-103 WHICH WAS NOT |
| | SUBMITTED OR IN NOTED IN LETTER FROM DESIGN TEAM. THIS |
| | SHEET HOWEVER IS ON FILE. |
| | PLEASE SEE CIRCUIT R1-149 WHICH PER E103 INDICATES THIS |
| | AS LIGHTING FOR STAIRS. HOWEVER BASED ON REVISED R1 |
| | PANEL SCHEDULE R149 IS SHOWN FOR DISPOSAL. |
| | |
| | C) SEE LATEST REVISED SHEET E-103 WHICH WAS NOT |
| | SUBMITTED OR IN NOTED IN LETTER FROM DESIGN TEAM. THIS |
| | SHEET HOWEVER IS ON FILE. PLEASE SEE CIRCUIT M1-48 |
| | SHOWN ON PLANS AS EXTERIOR LIGHTS. AS NOTED ON PREVIOUS |
| | REVIEW PANEL M1 IS A 42 CIRCUIT PANEL AND THERE ARE NO |
| | CIRCUITS ABOVE 42 LISTED. |
| | |
| | D) PLEASE REVISE THE LATEST ROOM PLANS FOR ALL |
| | RECEPTACLES AND LOCATIONS. REVISED CIRCUITING FOR |
| | ELECTRICAL NEEDS BE REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE. IT |
| | SHOULD BE NOTED THAT CIRCUITS SUCH AS R*147 ON LATEST |
| | REVISED FILE SET OF PLANS ON SHEET E104 IS FOR CORRIDOR |
| | LIGHTS ON MULTIPLE FLOORS HOWEVER PER LATEST REVISED R* |
| | SCHEDULES, THIS IS ACTUALLY NOTED FOR ROOM MICROWAVES. |
| | |
| | E) PLEASE SEE LATEST REVISED PANELS R* R1-R5 INDICATE |
| | CIRCUIT R*164 AS MULTIPLE DIFFERENT CIRCUITS YET THE |
| | LATEST REVISED PLANS ON FILE FOR SHEET E104 INDICATES |
| | ALL R* 164 BEING TYPICAL TO ELEVATOR LOBBY LIGHTS. |
| | OTHERS LISTED ARE * VENDING MACHINE*, EXERCISE ROOM |
| | RECEPTACLES*, * HALL RECEPTACLE, * ENG/MAIN RECEPTACLE. |
| | ETC. |
| | |
| | *** BASED ON NO REVISED SHEETS SUBMITTED FOR THE ABOVE |
| | LISTED, REVIEW FOR MINIMUM CODE COMPLIANCE FOR MANY |
| | OTHER CIRCUITS, LOAD CALCULATIONS, PANELS BEING ETC CAN |
| | NOT BE DONE AT THIS TIME. PLEASE SUBMIT A COMPLETE SET |
| | OF REVISED PLANS SO THAT REVISED PLANS CAN BE REVIEWED. |
| | THE ABOVE ARE SOME EXAMPLES AND ARE NOT ALL AS PLANS ON |
| | FILE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM REVISED PANELS |
| | AND LOAD CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | ** 408.4, 220 UNDER 2002 NEC 220.3, 220.11, 220.12, |
| | 220.14 ETC |
| | |
| | 3) NOTE: NEW COMMENT EVEN THOUGH FBC CHAPTER 11 WAS |
| | NOTED ON ORIGINAL REVIEWS. ALL AREAS WHICH ARE ADA |
| | ACCESSIBLE NEED TO MEET FBC 11-4.27.4 FOR CONTROL |
| | DEVICES. THE ORIGINAL PLANS MENTION TWIST TIMERS IN |
| | GUEST LAUNDRY ROOMS. ARE ALL OF THESE ROOMS ADA? |
| | GUEST LAUNDRY AREAS WHICH ARE ADA NEED TO MEET SECTION |
| | ABOVE. IT SHOULD BE VERIFIED AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY |
| | THIS REVIEWER, WHAT IS SHOWN ON PLANS AND INSTALLED MAY |
| | NOT MEET SECTION. TYPE OF DEVICE AND ACCESSIBILITY IS |
| | KEY TO MEETING MINIMUM COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 4) NOTE: PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT #16. NO |
| | RESPONSE FROM DESIGN TEAM AND RISER SHEET WAS NOT |
| | REVISED. |
| | PLEASE REVISE VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATIONS TO COORDINATE |
| | WITH THE REVISED FEEDERS FOR ALL PANELS. SEVERAL WERE |
| | REVISED TO ALUMINUM YET THE CALCULATIONS STILL INDICATE |
| | 12.9 FOR CONSTANT IN CALCULATIONS. |
| | ANOTHER WOULD BE FEEDER SIZES. EXAMPLE WOULD BE M-5. |
| | PER MDP THE CONDUCTORS ARE 4/0 ALUMINUM YET THE VOLTAGE |
| | DROP CALCULATIONS INDICATE 1/0 COPPER. |
| | ANOTHER WOULD BE PANEL H-5 AS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON |
| | PREVIOUS REVIEW. MDP STILL INDICATES 300MCM ALUMINUM |
| | YET CALCULATIONS CLEARLY STILL INDICATE 500MCM COPPER. |
| | 13-413.1ABC.1,13-413.1.ABC.1.1,13-413.1.ABC.1.2, NEC |
| | 310.16, TABLES IN CHAPTER 9 |
| | |
| | 5) NOTE: PLEASE SEE THAT NO RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW |
| | COMMENT #18 WAS SUBMITTED AND NO REVISED SHEET E503 WAS |
| | SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 6) NOTE: PLEASE SEE THAT NO RESPONSE WAS MADE TO |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT #17. SOME SHEETS WERE SUBMITTED AND |
| | REVISED HOWEVER BASED ON COMMENTS ABOVE THIS WAS NOT |
| | ADDRESSED. HOUSE LOADS ON PANEL SCHEDULES CAN NOT BE |
| | CONFIRMED AS MEETING MINIMUM CODE IF THE PLANS DO NOT |
| | COORDINATE. |
| | PLEASE RESPOND, REVISE AND SUBMIT COMPLETED PLANS. |
| | 220,310,240, 408.4ETC |
| | |
| | 7) NOTE: AS STATED IN PREVIOUS REVIEW, SHEET E501 |
| | STATES HOUSE PANEL M1 HAS *0* AS THE LOAD FOR LIGHTING. |
| | THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WHEN THE LIGHTING PLANS SUCH AS |
| | E103 STILL INDICATE HOUSE LIGHTING CIRCUITS TO M1 |
| | PANEL. |
| | |
| | |
| | IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS; OR IF COMMENTS ARE NOT |
| | TYPED IN A CLEAR MANNER PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO |
| | CONTACT THIS REVIEWER. |
| | |
| | DEWEY PALMER |
| | ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW II |
| | CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | 561-805-6717 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
