| Date |
Text |
| 2018-10-12 09:05:08 | CODES IN EFFECT: |
| | FBC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2017 6TH EDITION |
| | WPB FBC = WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA |
| | BUILDING CODE 2017 6TH ED. |
| | FBC EC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ENERGY CONSERVATION 2017 |
| | 6TH EDITION |
| | FBC RE = FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2017 6TH EDITION |
| | NEC = NFPA 70 2014 EDITION, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE |
| | FS = FLORIDA STATUTES |
| | |
| | ELECTRICAL REVIEW STATUS: DENIED, SEE COMMENTS BELOW. |
| | |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED |
| | SATISFACTORILY ARE MARKED AS CORRECTED. PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED SATISFACTORILY |
| | HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN PARENTHESES. ANY NEW |
| | COMMENTS WILL BE LISTED AFTER PREVIOUS COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | 1. CORRECTED. |
| | 2. CORRECTED. |
| | 3. CORRECTED. |
| | 4. CORRECTED. |
| | 5. CORRECTED. |
| | 6. CORRECTED. A CLASS L FUSE WILL ACCOMPLISH THIS |
| | REDUCTION IN FUSE SIZE. FYI, A FUSE REDUCER OF THIS |
| | SIZE DOES NOT EXIST. |
| | 7. CORRECTED. |
| | 8. PROVIDE ACCURATE LOAD BREAKDOWN. THE CURRENT |
| | EXPLANATION SHOWS THE NEW NORMAL LOAD TO BE 116 KW AND |
| | THE EMERGENCY LOAD TO BE 113 KW, BUT THE TOTAL PEAK |
| | DEMAND OF ONLY 113 KW. WHAT ARE THE LOADS FOR THE |
| | INDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS AND IS THE TOTAL CAPABLE OF BEING |
| | SUPPORTED BY THE NEW GENERATOR? PROVIDE CLARIFICATION. |
| | NEC 517.41(C) (AN ACCURATE LOAD CALCULATION, OR |
| | EQUIVALENT, WAS NOT PROVIDED. A FUTURE RECORDING IS NOT |
| | ACCEPTABLE. THIS INSTALLATION CANNOT BE APPROVED UNTIL |
| | ONE OF THE METHODS FOR LOAD DETERMINATION IS PROVIDED. |
| | IF NEC 220.87 IS INTENDED, A CERTIFIED RECORDING FOR 30 |
| | DAYS WILL BE REQUIRED, OR DEMAND LOAD FOR A ONE YEAR |
| | PERIOD. ALL 3 ITEMS IN 220.87 ARE REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL |
| | UNDER THIS SECTION.)(3RD REVIEW: RESPONSE LETTER STATED |
| | THAT PROOF IN THE FORM OF AN EMAIL FROM FPL WAS TO BE |
| | PROVIDED. THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. PROVIDE |
| | AS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED.) |
| | 9. PROVIDE DETAIL OF SEPARATION OF THE LIFE SAFETY |
| | BRANCH THE CRITICAL BRANCH. NEC 517.41(D) (BASED ON |
| | LOAD PROVIDED IN COMMENT 8, THIS MAY NOT BE NECESSARY |
| | IF LESS THAN 150 KW OF TOTAL LOAD.)(3RD REVIEW: |
| | CONFIRMATION OF LOAD NOT PROVIDED.) |
| | 10. CORRECTED. |
| | 11) WITH THE NEW DESIGN, PANEL MSB HAS BECOME A |
| | DOWNSTREAM PANEL AND IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE GROUNDS |
| | AND NEUTRALS SEPARATED, AS WELL AS AN EGC INSTALLED IN |
| | THE EXISTING CONDUITS. THE GROUNDING ELECTRODE SYSTEM |
| | IS REQUIRED TO BE TIED IN AT THE MAIN SERVICE. PROVIDE |
| | CORRECTION. NEC 250.6, 250.24, 250.28, 250.30, 250.110, |
| | 250.142(B)(3RD REVIEW: CORRECTION NOT PROVIDED ON PLAN |
| | FOR EXISTING WIRING TO MSB AND TO TRANSFER SWITCH THAT |
| | FEEDS PANEL E. BOTH OF THESE CONDUITS SHOW THE EXISTING |
| | FEED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT GROUNDING |
| | CONDUCTOR, SIZED PER CODE. PROVIDE CORRECTION AS |
| | PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED.) |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | 12. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT SOME OF THESE COMMENTS HAVE |
| | NOT BEEN ADDRESSED FOR TWO REVIEWS. IF UPON THE NEXT |
| | REVIEW, IF IT IS NECESSARY TO REJECT THE SUBMITTED PLAN |
| | AGAIN FOR THE SAME REASONS, AN ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW |
| | IS REQUIRED. FLORIDA STATUTES STATE: WITH RESPECT TO |
| | EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS DOCUMENTS, IF A |
| | LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO |
| | ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND |
| | ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY |
| | THE CODE THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR FAILURE TO CORRECT A |
| | CODE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY NOTED IN |
| | EACH REJECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EGRESS, |
| | FIRE PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, |
| | ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, |
| | MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS SYSTEMS, OR OTHER |
| | REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL |
| | GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION, |
| | A FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPORTION OF THE |
| | PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS REVIEW. FS 553.80(2)(B) |
| | FYI, FOR THIS PROJECT, THE ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW FEE |
| | WILL BE $3,550.00 BASED ON THE JOB VALUE OF $200,000. |
| | 13. VALUE FOR WORK STATED ON PERMIT APPLICATION APPEARS |
| | LOW. PROVIDE COPY OF SIGNED CONTRACT WITH SCOPE AND |
| | VALUE OF WORK, TO INCLUDE ALL MATERIALS AND LABOR. THIS |
| | IS FOR TOTAL PROJECT, NOT JUST ELECTRICAL. FBC 109.3 |
| | |
| | END OF COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE: SUBMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL AND/OR REVISED |
| | MATERIALS MAY RESULT IN NEW PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS. WHEN |
| | RESUBMITTING, IT IS HELPFUL TO PROVIDE A RESPONSE |
| | LETTER ADDRESSING EACH ITEM ALONG WITH THE CITY |
| | RESUBMITTAL FORM. ADDITIONALLY, INSERT CORRECTED PAGES |
| | INTO THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL AND REMOVE OR VOID THE |
| | PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SHEETS. |
| | |
| | SINCERELY, |
| | |
| | JOHN PEARSON |
| | ELECTRICAL PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6746 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
