| Date |
Text |
| 2016-08-15 10:59:50 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY PETER LEDUC, |
| | FIRE MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS PROVISO: |
| | |
| | THESE PROVISO COMMENTS WILL BE VERIFIED AND CONFIRMED |
| | AT THE TIME OF FIRE INSPECTION. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE |
| | PROVISO COMMENTS WILL RESULT IN A FAILED FIRE |
| | INSPECTION. |
| | |
| | |
| | 1) FACE SHEET FOR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS BLDG. "C" |
| | NORTH - PAGE 1 0F 1 INDICATES AN AREA OF 3000FT2; |
| | HOWEVER, THE HYDRAULIC OVERVIEW SHEET AND PLAN SHEET |
| | INDICATES 2000FT2. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A REVISION FOR CORRECTION. |
| | |
| | |
| | 2) THE FIRST SHEET INDICATES A SCALE OF 1" TO 500' |
| | APPEARS TO BE INACCURATE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A REVISION FOR CORRECTION. |
| | |
| | |
| | 3) THE PLAN SHEETS ARE NOT NUMBERED OR IDENTIFIED. I |
| | HAVE INSERTED TEMPORARY NUMBERS I.E. 1 OF 8, ETC. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROIVDE A REVISION FOR CORRECTION. |
| | |
| | |
| | 4) THE SECOND SHEETS PUMP SECTION VIEWS DO NOT CLEARLY |
| | INDICATE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE SUCTION TO THE |
| | ELBOW. |
| | |
| | 4.14.6.3 ELBOWS AND TEES. |
| | 4.14.6.3.1 UNLESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 4.14.6.3.2 ARE |
| | MET, ELBOWS AND TEES WITH A CENTERLINE PLANE PARALLEL |
| | TO A HORIZONTAL SPLIT-CASE PUMP SHAFT SHALL NOT BE |
| | PERMITTED. (SEE FIGURE A.4.14.6.) |
| | 4.14.6.3.2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF 4.14.6.3.1 SHALL NOT |
| | APPLY TO ELBOWS AND TEES WITH A CENTERLINE PLANE |
| | PARALLEL TO A HORIZONTAL SPLIT-CASE PUMP SHAFT WHERE |
| | THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FLANGES OF THE PUMP SUCTION |
| | INTAKE AND THE ELBOW AND TEE IS GREATER THAN 10 TIMES |
| | THE SUCTION PIPE DIAMETER. |
| | 4.14.6.3.3 ELBOWS WITH A CENTERLINE PLANE PERPENDICULAR |
| | TO THE HORIZONTAL SPLIT-CASE PUMP SHAFT SHALL BE |
| | PERMITTED AT ANY LOCATION IN THE PUMP SUCTION INTAKE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION OR CLEARLY INDICATE ON |
| | REVISION THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM 10 TIMES THE |
| | SUCTION PIPE DIAMETER. |
| | |
| | |
| | 5) THE FIFTH SHEET IN THE HYDRAULIC INFOMATION TABLE |
| | AND THE HYDRAULIC CALCULATION PACKAGE INDICATES AN |
| | ACTUAL AREA OF 4866.67FT2. THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED DOES |
| | NOT MATCH THAT TOTAL. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION OR CLEARLY INDICATE |
| | CORRECTION ON REVISION SHEET. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONALLY, IF JUSTIFIED, PLEASE PROVIDE A REVIEW FOR |
| | THE CHANGEAND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AS |
| | THIS WOULD EXCEED PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION'S. |
| | |
| | |
| | 6) THERE IS NO "VALUE" INDICATED ON THE PERMIT |
| | SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE AN ACCURATE "VALUE" OR A COPY OF THE |
| | CONTRACT AMOUNT. |
| | |
| | |
| | PETER LEDUC |
| | FIRE MARSHAL |
| | 561-804-4709 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
