Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-REVISION/OTHER
Permit Number - T03CM02796
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-REVISION/OTHER
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/26/2003 | STANTEC | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this review covers electrical for Wings G and H only. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittal provided. All portions of the project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions and concerns before permit approval. The project was reviewed under the City of Tucson's local amendments to UBC Chapter 11. All accessibility requirements must be identified and detailed on the plans according to those rules and guidelines. GENERAL: q None of the electrical sheets for wings G and H were signed or dated by the engineer of record. By exception, the review of this set was conducted anyway. Any future submittals that are not signed and dated by the engineer of record will be returned and not reviewed, but will be counted as the first submittal for that drawing set. q The mechanical equipment names on the electrical plans are different than the mechanical equipment names on the mechanical plans. This makes plan check coordination between the mechanical and electrical disciplines much more difficult. q Some plans or partial plans do not show building grid lines. This makes plan check coordination more difficult. q The comments below are typical for the previously reviewed wings A,B,C,D,E. Care needs to be taken to ensure that feeder conductor sizes match the overcurrent protective device and that the conductors shown on the one line diagram match the conductor sizes used in the fault current calculations. The load summaries and calculations need to capture all of the panelboard loads, particularly the panelboards connected in series through feed-through lugs. Please review and revise all components of the one line diagram, fault current calculations and panelboards loads and summaries. q Kitchen equipment power designs were not reviewed per previous understanding that will be a separate review in the future. ELECTRICAL: q On Sheet E2.19B, define panel "NACPS" in the legend sheet. Typical for all sheets showing panels labeled as "NACPS". q On Sheet E2.19B, review the need for separate circuits for elevator pits ELP5 and ELP6 with respect to NEC 620-24. q On Sheet E2.19B, comply with NEC 620-24 for elevator pit ELS4. q On Sheet E3.2, why does circuit 4004 not have a ground conductor for service between the utility transformer and SES - 2? How is the utility transformer grounded? q On Sheet E3.2, circuit 224 is not defined. q On Sheet E3.2, circuit conductor feeding panel GPHA is not properly protected by the feeder circuit breaker in panel G4HA. q On Sheet E3.2, confirm AIC ratings of all automatic transfer switches. q On Sheet E3.2, show sheet continuation information for the connections from the automatic transfer switches and the generator. q On Sheet E3.2, the fuse sizes shown for elevators EL-P5, EL-P6, EL-S4 and EL-SPA8 exceed the maximum fuse size allowed in NEC table 430-152. q On Sheet E3.6, confirm and coordinate the information shown on the fault current calculations and one line diagram. Revise the fault calculations accordingly. Cable size shown for fault points 6, 7, and 12 do not match cable size shown on the one line diagram on sheet E3.2.Please verify that all fault current calculation cable sizes are consistent with the one line diagram information shown on E3.2. q On panelboard schedule sheets, revise all panel schedules and load summaries to be consistent with the load calculations shown at the bottom of the sheet. q On Sheet E4.6, load calculation for panel G4PA contains the incorrect number of suites, given that G4PA is series connected with G4PB and G4PC via feed-through lugs. q On Sheet E4.6, panel G4PB panelboard schedule does not show feed through lugs. Is that the correct configuration? -End of Review- |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/25/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |