Given others the benefit of the doubt

[egr]

I have been hired to check the electrical drawings developed by somebody else...I am trying to figure where the line is between being conscious and being a pain in the neck.
For instance if you find a conduit filled at 42, 43, or 45% in a 40% allowable fill, would you ask the designer to change it?

 

[Terrynistler]

Of course thats why they had you double check them. Would look pretty funny if two people looked the plans over and then failed inspection.

 

[charlie b]

. . . where the line is between being conscious and being a pain in the neck.

I don?t normally comment on word choice, but this is too funny to let go by. I think you meant to say, ?conscientious.?

In answer to your question, your role is not to ask (or tell) the designer to change anything. Your role is to report your observations, and leave the choice of corrective actions to the person who hired you. If you find a 42% conduit fill, then you say that you found a 42% conduit fill. I would go one step further, and suggest citing an NEC article for any violation that you find.

 

[egr]

Thank you for the input... specially for the correction on the word chioce. One of these days I will learn the language...:smile:
I have failed to mention that part of my job description is to determine what needs to be change and how it needs to be change. Obviously every change has a potential monetary implication, since some of the work has already been bidded...?
Thanks again

 

[George Stolz]

If you didn't initiate the timing problem, I wouldn't worry about it. Do the job you were asked to do, and if someone wants to pick it apart, let them. Have the wisdom to do what you can control and not worry about the things you can't. (That's probably a sloppy theft of an old adage.)

I agree with Charlie B, be sure to provide code references as you go for the various suggested corrections.

 

[egr]

In this same set of drawings the design calls for the secondary of the station transformer to be grounded (15kV/480 V, Delat/Y), the main disconnect switch is not shown to be grounded. The generator is shown to be grounded at the generator location, with a ground wire run to the ATS (3 Ploe ATS). Effectively solidly connecting the generator ground with the plant ground. The first thing tha come to mind is NEC 250.6 (objectionalbe ground currents), the provisons of SDS not being met, etc.
I see two possible corrections: Run the generator neutral to the main service disconnect and gound it (bond it there). Or use a 4 pole ATS and make the geenrator a true SDS and bond it athe generator location without thinking twice about it...
Any body cares to comment on either correction, or any other I may have missed???