Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T05CM01570
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/26/2006 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/27/2006 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | needs to permit on-site private sewer. needs DEQ review/approval of on site private sewer. |
| 01/31/2006 | RAUL PALMA | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | |
| 02/14/2006 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the water demand calculation to account for the different fixture units required for public versus private use (see the definitions of "private or private use" and "public or public use" in Section 202.0, UPC 1994). Include all of the fixtures in the calculation (e.g. there are 5 hose bibbs shown on the first floor and one hose bibb on the second floor). Also, a hose bibb is 5 fixture units, not 2.5 (Tables 6-3, UPC, 1994). 2. The submitted drawings are the same as those submitted previously, with no evident changes. Clarify how the condensate from the independent air conditioning systems for the elevator machine rooms is being collected. Provide a riser diagram for the indirect waste receptor in room 129. Show how the condensate from the air conditioner for room 135 is being collected. Reference Sections 804.1 and 807.1, UPC 1994. |
| 02/17/2006 | LINDA BUCZYNSKI | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | TRANSMIT ORIGINAL DRAWINGS WITH NEXT SUBMITTAL. PLEASE CALL AT 791-5550 X1106 OR EMAIL AT Linda.Buczynski@tucsonaz.gov IF YOU CARE TO DISCUSS. 1. Panel L2, which had changes in volt-ampere loading, was re-checked. Electrical Plans Examiner results were 69904 VA, or 194A. These figures were arrived at because no deduction was taken for receptacle loading: the 50% deduction per NEC 220.13 may only be taken for receptacle loads computed at not more than 180VA per outlet, and it appears that several of such receptacle loads computed at greater than 180VA were still used toward the deduction. Additionally, several VA counts were found to be higher than those on this panel schedule: Circuit 10 appears to have 230VA, not 102; circuits for AHU-2B, AHU-4B, and AHU-1C were found to be 5590, 5062, and 3708 VA per phase, not 3500, 3500, and 3500 VA, respectively. Although the 225A feeder has the capacity for the corrected loads, a more accurate total will leave the Owner with better documentation as to spare capacity. 2. Please note that the values calculated for the AHUs were based on totals for the fan and electric heat. Since the MCA and MOCP values as coordinated with the electrical drawings, the following needs to be pointed out: For AHU-1, AHU-1A, AHU-1B, and AHU-1C, the 7 KW electric heat would draw 33A, exceeding the MOCP; for AHU-3, AHU-4A, and AHU-4B, the 9.6 KW electric heat would draw 46.2A, which, when added to the ¾ HP motor exceeds the MOCP; for AHU-4, the 9.6 KW electric heat would draw 46.2A, which, when added to the 1/2 HP motor exceeds the MOCP. This applies to all panel schedules, whether they triggered electrical review comments or not. 3. Phases A and B on Panel C1 appear to be overloaded for the 225A feeder. Demand factors receptacle loads, per NEC 220.13, may only be taken for outlets computed at not more than 180 VA. Reference Comment #2 above, values for AHU-3 were computed at 5590, not 5000VA; values for AHU-2 were computed at 5062, not 6000VA; values for AHU-1B were computed at 3708, not 3500VA; values for AHU-1 were computed at 3916, not 3500VA. 4. Panel P1 Section 1 was re-checked after changes in VA loading. Results were over 150A for Phases B and C, which would exceed the capacity of the 150A circuit. Note that the same issues regarding the proper application of NEC 220.13 for Panel L2 above were encountered here as well. Phase A appears to be loaded to less than 135A, so it may be useful to simply rebalance the loads. Or simply provide a 175A CB and increase the feeder to 2/0. 5. Main #4 at MDP is rated for 1200A, which exceeds load calculation on Sheet E-8 (1254A). Please correct as necessary, and update service load calculations per the comments above. 6. Available fault current at Meter Center #3 is 20,000A according to the fault calculations. AFC of 14,000A is listed on the Electrical Riser Diagram. Please note the correct value, otherwise a future contractor could install the incorrect rated devices in a future project. Electrical Plans Examiner arrived at a slightly higher value than 20,000A. Please recheck reading of the chart. 7. Available fault current at Panel P1Section 1 and Panel L1 was checked using a value of 60', not 75'. This was measured according to the way the conduits were drawn on Sheet E-4, which may be realistic for a new facility. It appears that there are over 13,000 AFC following the methodology used in the submitted fault calculations. 8. Available fault current at Panel P1 Section 2 and Panel C1 was checked using a value of 60', not 75'. This was measured according to the way the conduits were drawn on Sheet E-4, which may be realistic for a new facility. Also note that Sheet E-8 and Sheet E-9 calls it 350 MCM, not 4/0 for the Panel P1 Section 2 feeder. It appears that there are over 21,000 AFC following the methodology used in the submitted fault calculations. Please note the correct value, otherwise a future contractor could install the incorrect rated devices in a future project. 9. AFC is 14,000A at Panel P1 Section 2 on the Riser Diagram. This does not correspond to the fault calculations. 10. AFC was checked to Panel L2 using 65', not 100'. It appears that there are aprox. 18,000 AFC, not 13,500. Please note the correct value, otherwise a future contractor could install the incorrect rated devices in a future project. 11. On Sheet E-4, please change panel/circuit designation L1 (77,79) to read "P1 (77,79)" for CU-4A. 12. On Sheet E-7, please provide the disconnecting means for the motor indicated by Ckt P1(26) (Motorized Door). 13. Circuit designation L1(20) is used twice on Sheet E-1. Total load does not correspond to that on the panel schedule. Please clarify. 14. On Sheet E-9, SLD, please specify 90°C terminations for the service equipment, since the corresponding ampacity is evidently the intent. 15. "Conduit and conductor specifications on Electrical Load Summary are not consistent with those on the Electrical Riser Diagram, and a third instruction is specified on the First Floor Electrical Power Plan." THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE THREE PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS. Meter Centers #1 and #3 are to have #4 GND per Sheet E-4, and #3 GND per Sheet E-9. Note that #4 is too small for this application per NEC Table 250.122. 16. "Conduit and conductor specifications on Electrical Load Summary are not consistent with those on the Electrical Riser Diagram, and a third instruction is specified on the First Floor Electrical Power Plan." THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE THREE PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS. Elevators #1 and #3 are to have #4 GND per Sheet E-4, and #6 GND per Sheet E-9. Please clarify. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/21/2006 | AOLIVO1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/21/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |