Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication- PermitA Job Address GARFB LD COUNTY I3I3ILDING, SANITATION and PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8th, Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601(970) 945.8212 Nature of Work Building Permit N. 8621 CJ23tq �le. Use of Building Owner mprpsSnr tan Contractor � ah cLr) Amount of Permit$ i tmS.r 135 Date Clerk GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Garfield County (Glenwood Springs) Colorado Teiephone•IL(970)945-8242 Inspection tine: (970) 384-5003 Pumba Compressor StaticBsrrm# Parcel fSchedule Oi Zwt-SW-t "Oes^ 9S1 dabAddresa:N1/2NE1/4 of Sect.10:T7S, R93 West of 6th P.I. L 1. Lot 1k Black #: SubdivislonrExemption: 2. Owner: EnCAna Add(otx792 Buckhorn Rif1et WkP''97g-625--42.-) Contractor. Eta a. J. Vaughan AL= 1038 CR323Rifle m970-625-9050 Aro1jc11Enrlinoer:Wilbank s Address: 1600StoutSte1200 nver ,1-1"' 30071 Sq Ft of Scildieff. 10200 sq FL ar tot: 3.99 Ac HS1 1k• 24 e . h . II of Floors: 1 . U6eorBuildin9: Compressor building 09sc0bewark: preen • ineered stee _ b . 4 • 8. Class of Work: i Nov CI Addition a Alteration 0 Novep © ROmave J. Garage: I:3 S1ng1e 0 Doable Carport: 0 Single 0 Double 10. 0 Driveway Permit 0 On Site Sewage Disposal (Septic) E3 Ste Plan Valuation orworks:228, 326.00 AdiustedVonuitian$: 9.,go (5.0. al Special Conditions: Group F, Division 1 A5EAARATEELECiiUCAL OF This 1$NOT SUBPP. ISCO18MENCED, 1UMW THE TYPE THEGRANTINGQFTHEPEH14f1TD1 VIOLATE REGULATING NOTICE PEROT IS REDIAREDAND MUST BE 15SUEDAYTIESTAIE COLORADO. PERM' SECOMESMILL AND VOIDIFWORK ORcoNStRUGTIONALI HOR ED CAMMENc 0 Mimi180DAYS, ORIFCONSTRUCT1ONONWORN iS NDEOORABANDONED FORA PERI000F UluDAYS ATANY1WEAFTER WORK CERTIFY THAT 1HAVE READANDMANNED THsAPPUCATK]NA18 KNOW SAME TO BE TRUE MO CORRECT.. ALL FROIA iONSOFLAYVSGOVERININGTHIS OFYYDIiMVNLl.BECr 1IAr.1TEmwrruviiienieRSPECIF1EUirei raNti1RNOT SNOTPRES1it11ETOGMAUTHOIRITYTO DRCANC3LTr PROVISIONS OFANY OTHER STATE ORLOCAL Lltvl CONSSTTRUCr1ON OR THE PERFORIMNCEOF CONSTRUCTION. Y11 -7;—____.--..,• -c 3Y' E_ eEe: 4 l. p� Coeds F1 : r Pear& 1)5 FE 1 0 • _. 7a(8l F Q Date Permit Issued: �c '' f J ConatruciienType: \).. NI Zoning: _ • Oxner,COrrsacklrorAuUlarixtd osvlSetbaclrs: 4!:_.. vrar,AwA -. f x�6 . 'P Manufactured Home: _ AppnwAlraakt IP-' = .IF� ISMS # & Fee:: AGREEMENT PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT AS OWNER, CONTRACTOR ANOIOR THE AGENT OF THE CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE AS DETAILED ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWER BY DEPARTMENT, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT; THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN IN 30.20.201 CRS AS AMENDED. FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAM ORDINANCES An NOT FULLY COMPLIED WITH IN TIME LOCATION. AND USE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE. THE PERMIT MAY THEN BE. REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM THE ANTI TWFRG IT AH411 PF elkLIF N1111 AMrI VnITl THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS. SPECIVICATIONS AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT TI -IE THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN SAID PLANS, SPECI1 ICATIONSAND OTHER DATA OR BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN 111 VIOLATION OF THIS CODE OR ANY OTHER (1F TI -15A 1ttRIRf11(!TICIN THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAFTER DOES ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RE$PONSIBILIT1E$ OR LIABILITIES BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR RESPONSIBIUVf FOR THESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMENTATION DURiNO CONSTRUCTION REST SPECIFICALLY INIT'H,THE nt111 oto man AUn cta f`61.AUICallo AQC n{TCAInCFf Th dC nroaccotrATn1C A1311 las CI1DCnOT f1C 13,M nUnaCCC' IMTCAGCT Gatlorrm.003 1 HERERYACKNOSYLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENT ABo� t1NITiAL)�\ CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO THE BUILDING BUILDING CODES AND LAND THE S1GNER ERECTION. CONSTRUCTION COUNTY AND THAT THEN BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM FROM PREVENTING ORDINANCE OR REGULATION NOT CONSTITUTE AN DISCREPANCIES.TOE, __- ARCHITECT. DESIGN R, \\ kncl Sl9�iPiv THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE REQUIRED BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR A FINAL INSPECTION: 1.) A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector; 2.) Permanent address assigned by Garfield County Building Department posted where readily visible from access road; 3.) A finished roof, a lockable house, complete exterior siding, exterior doors and windows installed, a complete kitchen with cabinets, a sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent kitchen floorcoverings, countertops and finished wails, ready for stove and refrigerator, all necessary plumbing; 4.) A complete bathroom, with wash bowl, tub or shower, toilet stool, hot and cold running water, non-absorbent floors and was finished and a privacy door, 5.) All steps outside or inside over three (3) steps must have handrails, guard rails on balconies or decks over 3Q" high constructed to all 1994 UBC requirements; B.) Outside grading done to where water will detour away from the building; 7.) Exceptions to the outside steps, decks and grading may be made upon the demonstration of extenuating circumstances, i.e. weather, but a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all the required items are completed and a final inspection made. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IMLL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE ITEM ► HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O.) IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATION OF PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET. I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE ABOVE CONDITIONS FOR OCCUPANCY, USE AND THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE DWELLING UNDER BUILDING PERMIT # Signature: 'C�s � � , Date: t-L�`�.a\oma { r PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST Applicant „,01,jzA — (AM 13f} Date 1- 3- 03 Building c% Engineered Foundation 7sia7Driveway Permit ✓Surveyed Site Plan. Mg..Septic Permit and Setbacks -Grade/Topography 30% -lan review -File Notes /, A Attach_ Residential Plan Review List /Minimum Application Questionnaire 4 ifirt Subdivision Plat Notes AM Fire Department Review aluation Determination/Fees 'Red Line Plans/Stamps/Sticker c./ Attach Conditions Application Signed Plan Reviewer To Sign Application Parcel/Schedule No. _ 40# Snowload Letter- Ma.n£ Hms. GENERAL NOTES: 4, 0 x 170' /0/200 /o, zoo x 2 3 - 2 6-S ,0620 Plan g/Zoning P,r,erty Line Setbacks 30ft Stream Setbacks Flood Building Height +Hing Sign -off Subdivision Plat Notes Road Impact Fees HOA/DRC Approval Grade/Topography 40% Planning Issues ?44j/ Vti rifflE4) 6 224) . 70 ?fm,7 1,gS1 , /5 3i0g.,s F anchor bolts, pressure treated plates, floor joists, wall studs and spacing, insulation, sheeting, house -rap, (which is required), siding or any approved building material. A window schedule. A door schedule. A floor framing plan, a roofing framing plan, roof must be designed to withstand a 40 pound per square foot. up to 7,409 feet in elevation, an 80 M.P.H. windshear, wind exposure B, windload of 15 pounds per square foot and a 36 inch frost depth. All sheets to be Identified by number and indexed. All of the above requirements must be met or your plans wits be returned. All plans submitted must be incompliance with the 1997 USC, UMC and 1997 UPC. Applicants are required to Indicate appropriately -and to submit completed checklistat lime of application for a permit: 1. is a site plan included that identifies the location of the proposed structure, additions or other buildings, setback easements, and utility easements showing distances to the property lines from each comer of the proposed structure prepared by a licensed surveyor and has the surveyors signature and professional stamp on the drawing? Scopes of 40% or more on propert' s must be show on site plan. Yes_ .. 2. Does the site plan when applicable include the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) and distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property and adjacent properties), streams or water courses? This information must be certified by a licensed surveyor with their signature and professional stampjon the design. Yes No Not necessary for this project '/ 3. Are the plans submitted for application construction drawings and not drawings that are stamped or marked identifying them as "Not for construction, for permit issuance only", "Approval drawings only", "For permit issuance only" or similar language? Yes Noy � Not necessary for this project ___ 4. Is the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) designed, stamped and signed by a Colorado Registered Engineer? Yes. No Not necessary for this project NJ 5. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the State, County or private road accesing the property? Yes . 6. Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all reinforcing steel in accordance with the uniform building code or per stamped engineered design? Yes --1 No ..�,_._ Not necessary for this project,,._. 7. if the building is a pre-engineered structure, is there a stamped, signed engineered 2 • found tion plan for this building? Yes No Not necessary for this project , 3. Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the clearances required between wood andarch? Yes No Not necessary for project., 9. Do the plans indicate the size and location of the ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and soffits? Yes J No Not necessary for this project 10. Do the pians include design loads as required under the Uniform Building Code for roof snowlo ds, (a minimum of 40 pounds per square foot in Garfield County)? Yes . J No_ Not necessary for this project 11. Do the pians include design loads as required for floor loads under the Uniform Building Code Chapter 16 and Tables 16A, 16B and 16C? Yes No Not necessary for this project 12. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor, and roof c9nstruction? Yes J' No Not necessary for this project 13. is the yvind speed and exposure design included in the plan? Yes -4 -- No ., ... Not necessary for this project 14. Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceilin joists, roof rafters or joists or trusses? YeNo Not necessary for this project______ 15. Does the building section drawing or other detail Include the method of positive connection of all columns and beams? Yes j No Not necessary for this project_ 16. Does the pian indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the highest point of the building or addition measured at mid span between the ridge and the eave down o existing grade contours? Yes No Not necessary for this project 17. Does the pian include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including make and model and Colorado Phase 9 certifications or Phase 11 BPA certification? - Yes No Not necessary for this project./ 18. Doss the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace section indicating design to comply with the Uniform Building Code Chapter 31? p Yes No . Not necessary for this project J 3 r 19. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows from sleeping rooms andfor basements comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code? Yes ... __. No .. Not necessary for this projec 20. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? Yes No Not necessary for this project J 21. Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glass doors, glazing immediately adjacent to such doom; glazing adjacent to any surface normally used as a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosures and specify safety glazing for these areas? Yeses No Not necessary for this project 22. Do the plans include a complete design for all mechanical systems planned for installation in this building? YesNo ,._ Not necessary for this project 23. Have all areas in the building been accurately identified for the intended use? (Occupancy as identified in the Uniform Building Code Table 5-A) Yes . _ No Not necessary for this project 24. Does the plan indicate the quantity, form, use and storage of any hazardous materials that may be in use in this building? 1 Yes Nom Not necessary for this project 25. Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated on the plan? Yes No Not necessary for this project ^( 26, Do the pians indicate the location and dimension of restroom facilities and if more than four employees and both sexes are employed, facilities for both sexes? Yes NoNot necessary for this project. ,J 27. Do the plans indicate that restrooms and access to the building are handicapped accessible? Yes No Not necessary for this project 28. Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the appli tion? Yes No... 29. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code requirements? Yes f No Not necessary for this project 4 30. Does the pian accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection by the Garfield County Building Department? Yes./ No 31. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior to the implementation of these changes? Yes.J No 32. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Pian Review" fee from you at the time of application and that you will be required to pay the "Permit" fee as well as any "Septic System" or "Road Impact' fees required, at the time you pick up your building pe;? Yes, No 33. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the Uniform Building Code including approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occupancy of the building? Yeses No_� 34. Are you aware that the person signing the Permit Application whether the "Owner", "Agent of the Owner", "General Contractor", "Contractor' or otherwise, signing the application is the party responsible for the project complying with the Uniform Codes? Yes.J No 35. Are you aware that twenty --four (24) hour notice is required for all inspections? Inspections will be made from Battlement Mesa to West Glenwood in the mornings and from Glenwood Springs to Carbondale, in the afternoon. Morning inspections must be called In by 12:00 p.m. the day before; afternoon inspections must be called in by 4:00 p.m. the day before. Failure to give twenty-four (24) hour notice for inspections will delay your inspection one (1) day. Inspections are to be called in to 384-5003. 444 36. Are you aware that prior to issuance of a building permit you are required to show proof of a driveway access permit or obtain a statement from the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department stating one is not necessary? You can contact the Road & Bridge Department at 625-360+1. Yes_ J No 37. Do you understand that you will be required to hire a State of Colorado Licensed Electrician and Plumber to perform installations and hookups? The license number will be required at time of inspection. Yves4- . __No 38. Are you aware, that on the front of the building permit application you will need to fill hi the Parcel! Schedule Number for the lot you are applying for this permit on prior to issuance of the building permit? Your attention in this is appreciated. Yes4_...No 5 I hereby acknowledge that i have read, understand, and answered these questions to the beet of my ability. Signature Phone \--)b",1-5-- rt.(days); (evenings) Project Name: IRIvrcf, 1 a or S ori Project Address: Date \\\\e3 If you answered "No" on any of these questions you may be required to provide this information at the request of the Building Official prior to beginning the plan review process. belays in issuing the permit are to be expected. Work may not proceed without the issuance of the permit, if you have answered "Not necessary for this project" on any of the questions and it is determined by the Building Official that the informatton is necessary to review the application and plans to determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, please expect the following: A. The application may be placed behind more recant applications for building permits in the review process and not reviewed until required information has been provided and the application rotates again to first position for review. B. Delay in issuance of the permit. C. Delay in proceeding with construction, *If you answered "No" to this question the circumstances described In the question could result in a "Stop Work Order" being issued or a "Certificate of Occupancy" not being issued. Bpcomm 04/02 6 Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 970.945.8212 Fax 970.384.3470 Plan analysis based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code Project Number: Date: January 3, 2003 Project Naze: EnCana- Pumba Compressor Bldg. Address: County Rd. 319 Occupancy: FI Construction: V -N Contractor: Architect: Campana Engineer: Thebeau Report By: Andy Schwaller NOTE: The code items listed in this report are not intended to be a complete listing of all possible code requirements in the 1997 UBC. It is a guide to selected sections of the code. Report created using Plan Analyst software by b w & a. (719 599-5622 Portions of the material contained in this program are reproduced from the Uniform Building Code with the permission of the International Conference of Building Officials. SEPARATION DIRECTION BOUNDARY AREA INCREASE FIRE PROTECTION NORTH Property line 300-.0 Feet 300.0 Feet EAST Property line 140.0 Feet 140.0 Feet SOUTH Property line 44.0 Feet 44.0 Feet WEST Property line 96.0 Feet 96.0 Feet Allowable area increased 100.6 for open area on 4 sides. --- Sec. 505.1 FL NAME OCC MAX FLR AREA ALLOWED RATIO STATUS 1 Compressor Bldg. F1 ok 10200 16000 0.64 ok TOTAL FOR FLOOR 10200 16000 0.64 ok BUILDING TOTAL 10200 16000 0.64 ok --- Sec. 504 and Table 5--B The actual height of this building is 24. feet. The maximum height of the building is . feet. -- Tab-1-e----5�3 Page # 2 Code review .for: Project Id.: EnCana- Pumba Compressor Bldg, Address: County Rd. 319 EXTERIOR WALL FIRE RATINGS AND OPENING PROTECTION Table 5-A NORTH For Bearing Non -Bearing Occupancy Wall Wall Fl 0 hour 0 hour EAST For Bearing Non -Bearing Occupancy Wall Wall F1 0 hour 0 hour SOUTH For Bearing Non -Bearing Occupancy Wall Wall Fl 0 hour 0 hour WEST For Bearing Non -Bearing Occupancy Wall Wall F1 0 hour 0 hour None 3/4 hour Not Allowed Opening Construction Protection Material None Any Opening Construction Protection Material None Any Opening Construction Protection Material None Any Opening Construction Protection Material None Any Parapet Required No Parapet Required No Parapet Required No Parapet Required No No .fire protection requirements for openings. Openings are to be protected with 3/4 hr fire assemblies. 50% of the area of the wall maximum. -- Table 5-A, Footnote 5 & Sec. 503.2.2 Maximum single window size is 84 sq.ft. with no dimension greater than 12 feet. -- Sec. 713.8 Openings are not permitted in this wall. OTHER BUILDING ELEMENTS MATERIAL Any Any Any Any Any Any Any ELEMENT Interior Bearing wall Interior nonbrg wall Structural Frazee Exterior Struct Frame Floor/Ceiling Assembly Roof/Ceiling Assembly Stairs Table RATING 0 hr 0 hr O hr 0 hr 0 hr 0 hr None 6-A NOTES See footnote #1 FOOTNOTES: 1) Elements in an exterior wall located where openings are not permitted or where protection of openings is required, shall be protected against external fire exposure as required for exterior bearing wails or the structural frame, whichever is greater. -- Table 6-A, footnote 1 s , Code review for: Project Id.: EnCana- Pumba Compressor Bldg. Address: County Rd. 319 EXIT REQUIREMENTS: FL NAME Page # 3 NUMB M N MIN PANIC HALLWAY/ D OR NOTES OCC EXITS WIDTH HDWR CORRIDOR SWING 1 Compressor Bldg. TOTAL 102 2 20.4 No N/A Out , 102 2 20.4 No N/A Out In areas where 2 exits are required, the minimum separation is 1/2 of the maximum diagonal of the area or floor. -- Sec. 1004.2.4 When 2 exits are required, exits must be arranged so that it is possible to go in either direction from any point in a corridor or hallway to a separate exit, except for dead ends not exceeding 20 feet in length. -- Sec. 1004.2.6 ,.....,,' Exit signs are required from all areas where 2 or exits are required. -- Sec. 1003.2.8.2, Exception 2 No point to be more than 100 feet from an exit sign. Main exterior exit doors which obviously and clearly are identifiable as exits need not be signed when approved. -- Sec. 1003.2.8.2, Exception 1 Door swing is based on Sec. 1003.3.1.5 except as noted. Occupant load factor is based on Table 10-A, Number of exits is based on Table 10-A except as noted. Exit width is in inches and based on Sec. 1003.2.3 and Table 10--B Exit width is to be divided approximately equally among exits. -- Sec. 1003.2.3.2 Width shown for all areas is based on other egress components. Width shown for 1st floor is based on other egress components. Width shown for other floors & basements is based on stairways. -- Table 10-B For the minimum width of doors, see Sec. 1003.3.1.3 For the minimum width of hallways, see Sec. 1004.3.3.2 For the minimum width of corridors, see Sec. 1004.3.4.2 For the minimum width of stairways, see Sec. 1003.3.3.2 FOOTNOTES: FLUSH AND SURFACE BOLTS: Manually operated edge- or surface -mounted flush bolts and surface bolts or any other type of device that may be used to close or restrain the the door other than by operation of the locking device shall not be used. When automatic flush bolts are used, the door leaf having the automatic flush bolt shall not have a door knob or surface -mounted hardware. The unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one operation. -- Sec. 1003.3.1.8 Page # 4 Code review for: Project Id.: EnCana- Pumba Compressor Bldg. Address: County Rd. 319 d_ LOCKS AND LATCHES: Regardless of the occupant load served, exit doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. -- Sec. 1003.3.1.8 Key -locking hardware may be used on the main exit when the main exit consists of a single door or pair of doors if there is a sign stating THIS DOOR MUST REMAIN UNLOCKED DURING BUSINESS HOURS. When unlocked, door(s) must swing without operation of any latching device. --- exc. LANDINGS AT DOORS: 1) A floor or landing shall be provided on each side of doors. When access for persons with disabilities is required. the floor or landing shall not be more than 1/2 inch lower than the threshold. When access isnotrequired, the maximum is 1 inch. -- Sec. 1003.3.1.6 2) Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the stairway or width of the doorway, whichever is the greater. Where a landing serves an occupant load of 50 or more, doors in any position shall not reduce the landing dimension to less than one half it required width. The minimum length in the direction of exit travel is 44 inches. -- Sec. 1003.3.1.7 TRAVEL DISTANCE: (distance to an exit) The maximum travel distance in this building is 200 feet. -- Sec. 1004.2.5. The travel distance for the major occupancy may be 300 feet. -- Sec. 1004.2.5.2.5 Travel distance shall not be limited within an exit enclosure or exit passageway. -- Sec. 1005.2.2 BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY: ROOFING REQUIREMENTS: 1) The roofing on this building is required to be Class C. --- Table 15-A "-"FP2) See section 1504 and ICBO research reports for requirements. VENTILATION: All areas customarily occupied by humans shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of openable exterior openings with an area of not less than 1/20 of the total floor area or shall be provided with a mechanically operated ventilation system. Such system shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 15 cubic feet per minute of outside air per occupant. -- Sec. 1202.2.1 Code review for: Project Id.: EnCana- Purnba Compressor Bldg. Address: County Rd. 319 Page # 5 INSULATION NOTES: 1) All insulation material including facings are required to have a flame -spread rating of 25 or less and a maximum smoke density of 450 unless it is in a concealed space and the facing is in contact with a wall or ceiling. -- Sec. 707.3 exc.2 2) Foam plastic insulations are required to be protected. -- Sec. 2602 GLAZING REQUIREMENTS -�7 All glazing in hazardous locations is required to be of safety glazing material. -- Sec. 2406.3 & 2406.4 Locations: 1) Glazing in ingress and egress doors except jalousies. 2) Glazing in fixed and sliding panels of sliding door assemblies and panels in swinging doors other than wardrobe doors. 3) Glazing in storm doors. 4) Glazing in all unframed swinging doors. 5) Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any portion of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above a standing surface and drain inlet. 6) Glazing in fixed or operable panels adjacent to a door where the nearest exposed edge of the glazing is within a 24 -inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position and where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above the walking surface. 7) Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel, other than those locations described in items 5 and 6 above, than meets all of the following conditions: A. Exposed area of an individual pane greater than 9 square feet. B. Exposed bottom edge less than 18 inches above the floor. C. Exposed top edge greater than 36 inches above the floor. D. One or more walking surfaces within 36 inches horizontally of the plane of the glazing. 8) Glazing in railings regardless of height above a walking surface. Included are structural baluster panels and nonstructural in -fill panels. 9) Glazing in walls and fences used as the barrier for indoor and outdoor swimming pools and spas when the bottom edges is less than 60 inches above the pool side and the glazing is within 5 feet of the pool or spa water's edge. 10) Glazing in walls enclosing stairway landings or within 5 feet of then bottom and top of stairways where the bottom edge is less than 60 inches above the walking surface. Dec, 20. 2002 3:32P1 WILBANKS ENGINEERING w1.I KS E i NRFAINc; COMPANY 111=1311E =San A 9usmwuty OF WILBANKs COOPORATION December 20, 2002 Garfield County Building & Planning Department Attn: ChiefBuilding Official Mt. Andy Schwaller 108 el Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Schwaller No, 1154 P. 2/3 i600 Stout Street, Suite 1200 Dower, Catorado 130202-3345 D3•893•1000 1.800-324-3345 Fax 303443.4344 Attached are the following building drawings for your review and approval prepared by Wilbanks Engineering Company on the behalf of EnCana for their proposed Puma and Hunter Mesa Compressor Stations. As a Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Colorado, (Registration # 30071), I have review and stamped each of the follow drawings. Two sets of PE Stamped originals of each of these drawings are being mailed to your office for delivery on Thursday, December 26, 2002_ PUMBA STATION Drawing # 332-C-0200 332-C-0201 332-C-0202 332-C-0203 332-C-0204 332-C-0205 332-C-0206 332-C-0207 332-C-0208 332-C-0210 332-C-0212 332-C-0213 332-C-0214 332-C-0215 332-C-0217 332-C-0218 332-C-0275 332-C-0276 332-C-0277 332-C-0278 332-C-0279 332-C-0280 Drawing Title Pumba Compressor Station Foundation Layout Pumba CAT 3608 Compressor Foundation Putnba CAT 3608 Compressor Foundation Pomba CAT 3608 Compressor Mat Plan & Section Pumba CAT 3608 Compressor Mat Elevations & Sections Pumba CAT 3608 Cooler Skid Foundation Compressor Building Building Structure Assembly Compressor Building Compressor Building & Foundation General Dotes Compressor Building FND. Section @ Column — Sect B -B Compressor Building Platform Steel Details 3612 Cooler Foundation Plan 3612 Cooler Foundation Detail Compressor BLD FND Section B Compressor BLDG Elevations & Schedule Permit Drawing # 4: Building Elevations Permit Drawing # 1: Building Foundation Plan Permit Drawing # 3: Building Plan Permit Drawing # 5: Building Structure Permit Drawing # 2: Foundation Typical Sections Compressor Bldg. FND. SECT. @ 3408 Mat - SECT C -C De•c.20. 2002 3 33P11 1ILBANKS ENGINEERING Mr. Andy Schwalter EnCana 13ui ding Permit Drawviugs December 20, 2002 Page 2 HUNTER MESA STATION Drawing # Drawin Title 333-C-0200 Compressor Building Floor PIan 333-C-0201 Compressor Building Foundation Plan 333-C-0202 Compressor Bld. Fnd. Sect.® Stem. Wall -Sect. A -A 333-C-0203 Compressor Bldg. Fnd. Sect.. r17 Column -Sect. B -.B 333-C-0204 Compressor Bldg. Fnd. Sect. ® 3608 Mat -Sect C -C 333-C-0205 Compressor Building Fdn. Sections B 333-C-0206 3612 Compressor Mat Foundation Plan 333-C-0207 3612 Compressor Mat Elevations & Sections 333-C-0208 3612 Cooler Foundation Plan & Typical Section 333-C-0209 Cooler 1, 2, 3Foundation Details 333-C-0210 Compressor Building & Foundation General Notes 333-C-0212 Corepressor Building Platform Steel Details 333-C-0213 Compressor Building Foundation Plan Details 333-C-0275 Permit Drawing #4:Building Elevations 333-C-0276 Compressor Building Foundation Plan 333-C-0277 Compressor Building Floor Plan 333-C-0278 Compressor Bld. Fnd. Sect.® Stem. Wall -Sect. A -A 333-0-0279 Compressor Bldg. Fnd. Sect. ® Column -Sect, B -B No, 1154 P. 3/3 Please contact the EnCana Representative, Phil Vaughan, or myself, if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, WILBANKS ENGINEERING COMPANY aigeAeetr4;32:71, Dennis J. Thebeau, Vice President - Engineering PE # 30071 C; Phil Vaughan '1'1 • 3111i. RECEDED JAN 0 f 2003 Project Information Project # 146.6-02 Arch. Project # Title Address tF1ELD COUNTY BUILDING &P s << 0 Enoana-.Hunter Mesa/Pumba Compressor Stations City, State, Zip Rifle, CO 81650 Country USA 'From Contact Company Address City, State, Zip Country Phone Fax Philip Vaughan Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 USA 970-625-5350 970-625-4522 Transmittal Transmittal # 00577 Issue Date 01/06/2003 Subject Hunter Mesa & Pumba Compressor Stations To Contact Company Address City, State, Zip Country Phone Fax Andy Schwaller Garfield County Building Department 108 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 USA 970-945-8212 970-384-3470 Copes and Remarks Submit Resubmit Return Copies For Distribution Sender Copies For Approval Remarks Corrected Prints Hand Andy, please call me with questions. Thanks, Phil Transmittal Items Item Description Quantity 1 Transmitted For As Requested Min. apps. Req. questionnaire for Pumba and Hunter Mesa Oddo Eng. 11/12/02 Report on Hunter Mesa 1 As Requested L.Oddo Eng, 9110102 Report on Pumba 1 As Requested Oddo Eng. 9/18/02 Report on Hunter Mesa 1 As Requested Oddo Eng. 9/26/02 Report on Pumba 1 As Requested Monday, January OS, 2003 Pape I of I ODD° ENGINEERING, INC MEMORANDUM TO: Philip Vaughan — Vaughan Construction Management From: Landon Anderson, Oddo Engineering, Inc. Job: Pomba Compressor Station Project No.: 2220-04 Date: September 10, 2002 oridol engineerin j On September 10, 2002 Oddo Engineering was asked to visit the site and inspect forming and reinforcing bar placement for the Model 3616 Compressor foundation prior to pouring; concrete. Design documents prepared by Willhanks Engineering Co. were presented for the design of an adjacent compressor Model 3608. No detailed drawings were available for the Model 3616 compressor. The construction clew noted that d similar reinforcing bar schedule had been adopted for the compressor. Rased on this information an inspection of the reinforcing noted the following; I. Lap splices for several #6 bars located in the top & bottom mat did not meet She 30 dia. requirement as shown on the drawings. Add'i bars should he placed to lap existing bars. 2. The original rebar cage was apparently fabricated toxo short in the short direction. Additional side bars were: lapped on the side of the cage to increase its' width. Add'l #6 bars should be spliced to extend the top & bottom mat. 3. Corner bars were missing or leg lengths were not fabricated as detailed. Add'i bars should be installed or spliced us required. 4. Anchor holt assemblies were noted to have a 4" extension alcove the sleeve but only 3" t►f thread (in lieu of 4" as detailed). This should be acceptable assuming 1 r/a" of ,grout is installed per the drawings, The bolts were fabricated flush with bottom retaining nut and welded to the nut. The bolts appeared to fully engage the nut however no extension was provided as per the design drawings. Oddo Engineering has not verified the adequacy of the foundation design and does not warrant it'S suitability to this application. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Sincerely, Landon Anderson, P.E. Oddo Engineering trc1c'tiu4.l punts t.riot: :102 Eighth Street, Suite 325 • P.O. Drawer MO • Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 (970)945•(006 • Furl (970) 945-2977 • E -Mail into( oddogws.ccm Ncsv-=la—az 08:14A ODDO ENGINEERING, INC. MEMORANDUM 970 945-2977 P.02 TO: Ray Hayden Encana From: Landon Anderson, P.E. Oddo Engineering, Inc. Job: Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Project No.: 2220-04 Date: November12, 2002 oddo I engineering On November 12r 2002 Oddo Engineering was called upon by Phil Vaughan of Phil Vaughan Construction Management to inspect thereinforcing placement and forming for an extension of the compressor building / pipe alley foundation.1 had previously inspected the reinforcing for the first pour on September 17, 2002. We refer to our memorandum dated September 18, 2002 for additional background information. Design drawings were available for a similar design used at the Pumba Compressor Staticin (prepared iiy Willbanks Engineering Co. and dated August 15, 2002). Oddo Engineering is not the design engineer and is only acting on behalf of Phil Vaughan to verify that the rebar was placed per the design engineer. Upon inspection we, found formwork in place for a 12" thick slab reinforced with #5 bars @ 12" o.c. top & bottom. Wall nein€orc;ement consisted of two layers of #5 dowels @ 12" o.c. Pilaster reinforcement consisted of 10-#5 dowels equally spaced in a 24" x 27" pilaster. No design was available for the pilasters. A thickened edge was provided in the slab and measured approximately 18" x 18" wI 2-#5 bars continuous. No design was available for the thickened edge. 'Thickened pad footings were provided under tlic pedestals. They measured approximately 8'-O" square by 18" deep. They were reinforced with #5 bars @ 12" o.c. top & bottom. No design was available for the thickened pacts. Oddo Engineering is not responsible for the capacity of the pilasters or thickened slabs and is only acting as an observer. In general the reinforcing for the slab and walls was consistent with the design drawings except as noted above where no design was available. The following discrepancies were noted; 1. (2) Additional dowels were rccinnmcnded to be added at pilasters in order to he consistent with existing pilasters. 2. :p" dia. pipe sleeves were not installed in the slab per tate plans. We understand an alternate design for the grating support will be designed_ 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 • P.O. Drawer 160 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-100(i ♦ Fax (970) 945-2977 • E-I1iail info®cddogws.com Nov -13-02 '08:I5A a 970 945-2977 P.03 1 Joints at PVC watcrstops were lapped approximately 48" and joined together with construction adhesive. These: splices dog not meet manufacturers suggested guidelines. it is recommended to butt splice the v aterstops and join them by heat welding. The manufacturer should he consulted for additional guidelines which when followed would ensure a watertight seal. AH an additional safety measure it may be possible to use compressible or swcllahle type waterstop prior to pouring the walls. The manufacturer should be consulted to determine compatibility of such products for hydrocarbon containment. Prior to the inspection the excavation and reinforcing were covered adequately for frost protection. if the pour will be delayed further, then similar safeguards should he used as well as ensuring that the ground temperature is maintained at a temperature greater than 32 deg. F. Oddo Engineering has not verified the adequacy of the foundation design and docs not warrant it's suitability to this application. Please do not hesitate w call with any questions. Sincerely, • Landon 1'Cndcrson, Oddo Engineering Cc: Phil Vaughan nO SAMI: hunRt �ttuxa?,dta 3112 Highth Street. Suite 325 • P.U. Drawer MO • Glenwood Springs, (0 R l(iO} (97O) 945-1OlJ6 • Fax (970) 945-2977 • E -Mail iafo@oddogws.cuin . ODDO ENGINEERING, INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Ray Ulayden - Encana From: Landon Anderson, P.E. Oddto Engineering, Inc. Job: Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Project No.: 2220-04 Date: September 18, 2002 oddo engineering Regarding the foundation construction for the cotnpacssor building, we would like to point out the following observations and recommendations. On September 17, 20021 was called upon to inspect the reinforcing placement and forming for the compressor building / pipe alley foundation. Prior to this date Dsldo Engineering provided a proposal with Phil Vaughan Construction Management to provide a complete foundation design package for this building. We understood that a portion ofthe foundation would be based on a design provided by another engineering firm. At the time of the. inspection no drawings were available for the subject foundation. The forming and ac. infercement layout was based on a similar design used at the Pomba Compressor Station. The construction was modified to accommodate 4'-0" high walls (in lieu of 8'-0" walls per design) and a different building structure. Upon inspection we found formwork in place for a 12" thick slab reinforced with #5 bars OP 12" o.c. top & bottom. Wall reinforcement consisted of two layers of #5 dowels (C? 12" co.c. Pilaster reinforcement consisted of 8-#5 dowels equally spaced in a 24" x 27" pilaster. No design was available for the pilasters. A thickened edge was provided in the slab and measured approximately 18" x 18" w/ 2-#5 bars continuous. No design was available for the thickened edge. Two sumps were formed in close proximity to pilaster locations and measured approximately 4'-0" square x 42" deep. No design was available for the sumps. During the inspection we discovered that building dimensions would require revision including bay spacing and cave height (for crane clearance)_ Both of these changes will have the effect of increasing design loads to the foundation. In the interest of maintaining the pour schedule, I made several on site recommendations including; 1, addition or relocation of #5 dowels to extend to the slab bottom mat at the wails and splicing of dowels to achieve proper lap splice lengths in the walls. 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 • P.U. Drawer 160* Glenwood Springs, C() 81601 (970) 945-1006 • Fax (970)945-2977 • E -Mail info{Vaddogws.com 2. addition of #5 dowels at pilasters for additional strength and to empty with code tie requirements. 3. cutting hack of bars to comply with code clearance requirements. 4. addition of 3, #5 bars top & bottom to form strengthened beam at sump locations. Subsequent to the inspection l investigated the; adequacy of the slab for the anticipated loads, While no geotechnical recommendations were ;available at the bine 1 used conservative assumptions based on our experience in the area. Based on our assumptions we found the system to be marginally adequate. This leaves two options for consideration. The pour could continue as is and the; as built structure evaluated again at such time that final building reactions and soils information is available. Any :shortcomings in the design would he retrofitted. Those would likely be in the form of excavation and additional concrete construction behind the pilaster locations. Alternatively, we can conservatively design and pour additional pad concrete now that will satisfy future requirements. We recommend this alternative as the most cost effective solution (see attached sketches). In summary. Oddo Engineering is comfortable that recommendations given on wall and pilaster designs are adequate. We have some reservation about the transfer of building column loads from the stab to the soil and could not warranty the existing slab design for that purpose. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Sincerely, Landon Anderson, P.E. Oddo Engineering UOCSV ..nnuik41t OO t.�fi 302 Eighth Street. Suite 325 • PD. Drawer 160 • Glenwood Springs. CO R1601 (970){945-]ti06 • Fax (970) 945-2977 a P. -Mail info®oddogws.conr ODDO ENGINEERING, INC. 302 Eighth Street, Suite 326 P.O. Drawer MO Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 945-1004 Fax 945-2977 dab TWO 6nitArt, — NST R AdithiA Job No by 414 dale 9'a d dby _ date Subject pago of •P• .441 -ti o� ; ••• , -rmig..mr;Eo • owpcic r --r • d • ............_ ... ODDO ENGINEERING, INC. 302 Eighth Street Suite 325 P.O. Drawer 160 Gt9nwood Springs. CO 81602 X970)945-1006 Fax 945-2977 Job Tide LNL4N/1... ot/ A JAISA- Jab tta: by 14044. data P" 13 - "" ekd by date Sutsject 1?-_uviavy: 'a : u • - t P... • • rkie 43-a-6 kt„.wxc,A_o_aLIOAQ.2__ 4:441 Spcd 4)r-1.49, 3. Lyimp7pa.9 -40MAtir.LOA41-1-r- or ere-, • i 0,741p -A 44- g42.1 WEST SLOPE TESTING & INSPECTION 3177 Glendam Dr Grand Junction, CO 81504 Phone: 970-434-6988 Cello 970-260-2844 3-10-03 Andrew Schwaller Building Official 108 8th st., suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED MAR 11 21103 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Please find enclosed inspection report for last weeks inspections of the high strength bolting at the Pumba compressor station building. Thank You; Doug Young • t .� w West Slope Testing & Inspection 3177 Glendam Dr. Grand Junction, CO 81504 Phone: 970-434-6988 Cell: 970-260-2844 Daily Inspection Report Report #2 Page 1 of 1 34g-03 Date: 3-10-03 $6> Client: Phil Vaughan Construction Project: Encana-Pumba/Compressor Station General Contractor: Phil Vaughan Construction Contractor that Performed Work: Phil Vaughan Construction Inspection of shop fabrication or field work at job site: Field Report: Observed the pre engineered columns that had been erected along the perimeter of the building. The columns appeared to be fitting the anchor bolts as required. Observed some of the pre engineered rafters being bolted together at the center connection. This was being done on the ground before the rafter assemblies were placed on top of the columns. The mud was being cleaned from the connection surfaces as required, and the holes appeared to be in alignment for proper bolting. Inspector/Technician: Douglas E Young )) e. • r ) 0 West Slope Testing & Inspection Report #3 3177 Glendam Dr. Grand Junction, CO 81504 Page 1 of 1 Phone: 970-434-6988 Cell: 970-260-2844 Daily Inspection Report Date: 3-20-03 Client: Phil Vaughan Construction Project: Encana-Pumba/Compressor Station General Contractor: Phil Vaughan Construction Contractor that Performed Work: Phil Vaughan Construction Inspection of shop fabrication or field work at job site: Field Report: Observed some of the high strength bolts in the process of being tightened at the pre engineered column to rafter connections along grid Iine A. The bolt/nut assemblies were being snug tightened, then the bolts & nuts were match marked, and the nuts were turned 1/3 of a turn as required per table 8.2 of the AISC specification for A325/A490 bolts. Visually inspected the remainder of the high strength bolts were the tightening had not been observed at the pre engineered column to rafter connections along grid line A. The high strength bolting observed & inspected above appeared to be as shown on the drawings, and was in compliance with the AISC specification for structural joints using ASTM A325 or A490 bolts. Inspector/Technician: Douglas E Young MVS DOUGLAS967013QU116 cap West Slope Testing & Inspection 3177 Glendam Dr. Grand Junction, CO 81504 Phone: 970-434-6988 Cell: 970-260-2844 1 Daily Inspection Report Report #4 Page 1 of 1 Date: 3-25-03 Client: Phil Vaughan Construction Project: Encana-PumbalCompressor Station General Contractor: Phil Vaughan Construction Contractor that Performed Work: Phil Vaughan Construction Inspection of shop fabrication or field work at job site: Field Report: Visually inspected the high strength bolting at the main frame pre engineered column to rafter connections (along grid line D), the main frame rafter to rafter connections, and at the crane beams to rafter connections. The high strength bolting inspected above appeared to be as shown on the drawings, and was in compliance with the AISC specification for structural joints using ASTM A325 or A490 bolts (except for two bolts that were missing at a crane beam to rafter connection). The welding of the crane beam to crane beam butt welds had been started by Encana's certified welder. Approximately half of the welds had been completed, and the welds that had been completed were of acceptable quality. Inspector/Technician: Douglas E Young AVIS QC \ 9 Oki E. Y6UN6 6O71it3i i West Slope Testing & Inspection 3177 Glendam Dr. Grand Junction, CO 81504 Phone: 970-434-6988 Cell: 970-260-2844 6(0z1 _ .nY Final Inspection Report Report #5 Page 1 of 1 Date: 4-16-03 Client: Phil Vaughan Construction Project: Encana-Pumba/Compressor Station General Contractor: Phil Vaughan Construction Contractor that Performed Work: Phil Vaughan Construction Inspection of shop fabrication or Meld work at job site: Field Report: Visually inspected the remainder of the crane beam to crane beam butt welds (that had not been inspected at an earlier date). Verified that the two bolts that were missing at the crane beam to rafter connection (see report #4) had been installed & tightened. Visually inspected the structural welding at the Chemical Storage building. To the best of my knowledge this completes the inspection of the high strength bolting & structural welding of the above building structures. To the best of my knowledge the high strength bolting & structural welding appeared to be as shown on the drawings, and met the quality requirements of the U.B.C., AWS D1.1 structural welding code, and the AISC specification for structural joints using ASTM A325 or A490 bolts. Inspector/Technician: Douglas E Young 4 { tr q 41 1 • rl c4 n � o g trx 0 22:80 £0c 61 d35 zed 6£4. II 1 71 1 lq 511 tisfl SUS 046 TO 3]i 9E9GS 90ZS 2'd 22Str--S29-DGS uegartef dI i Tqd '8 astuaq euT = T T CO Si day (914. (O+tl f i tsl� S621 ..._ .f3.st�f _. __.'?n.4ru.Q� ,_.g9 -.._fir ��c_ �- ......_ us.614--- k274-71.03 _OF25S-A4g0—A-C--.Reczy tto (1144 ( `r-";uz) No Reo Job Address Owne Contracto Setbacks: Front eaci BUILDING PER T CARD Assessor's Parcel N9Z1 Date I.9"'a3 Rear Soils Test Footing ea/� 3 ASIVI, a -moo a3s - Foundation 9-03 s'.. ?a" 'n3 Grout Underground Plumbing Rough Plumbing Framing4-16.03 insulation Roofing Drywall Gas Piping AddresOCRBUtALlActsrrt hi ne # Address S 3 Bhone # S 3 RH LH INSPECTIONS AI. sa) NOTES Zoning Weatherproofing Mechanical Electr'cal Rough (State) Electr aiFinal �(State) ?—Ja-03 Final - /Checklist Completed/ Certificate Occupancy # Date Septic System # .. Date Final Other (continue on back) ODDO ENGLNEERING, INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Phil Vaughan -- Phil Vaughan Construction Management From: Landon Anderson, Oddo Engineering, Inc. Job: Pumba Compressor Station Project No.: 2220-04 Date: September 26, 2002 oddo ro engineering BEST COPY On September 26, 2002 Oddo Engineering was asked to visit the site and inspect forming and reinforcing bar placement for the pipe alley way slab and integral compressor building foundation. Oddo Engineering is not the design engineer and is only acting on behalf of Phil Vaughan to verify that the rebar was placed per the design engineer. Design documents prepared by Willbanks Engineering Co. and dated August 15, 2002 were presented for the design. These drawings indicated reinforcement requirements for the slab and retaining walls only. The design for the building column pilasters and pads were shown to be on hold (pending design). Based on this information an inspection of the reinforcing noted the following; 1. Slab mat reinforcing was installed per plans consisting of #5 bars @ 12" o.c, ea. way in the top, #5 bars @ 12" o.c. in the bottom running the long direction, and #4 bars @ 12" o.c. in the bottom running the short direction. The placing and splices of these bars were in accordance with design details. 2. Wall reinforcement consisted of #5 dowels @ 12" o.c. ea. face. The wall height was apparently revised from 9'-3" as shown on the drawings to approximately 5'-0". The placement of these bars was in accordance with design drawings. 3. A thickened slab was formed at the building column locations. They were approximately 18" deep with reinforcing to match the slab reinforcement. No design was available for these thickened slabs. Oddo Engineering is not responsible for the capacity of the thickened slab and is only acting as an observer. 4. Reinforcing for pilasters was installed consisting of (8) # 5 bars vertical and #4 ties at 12" o.c. Formwork was not in place but bar placement indicated a final concrete dimension of approximately 12" x 24",Corner columns had (2) additional #5 bars vertical. Bar placement indicated a final concrete dimension of approximately 24" x 24". No design drawings were available for these pilasters. Oddo Engineering is not responsible for the capacity of the pilasters and is only acting as an observer. It was noted that some of the vertical bars were located outside of the tie bars. Typical installation would have the vertical bars enclosed by the ties. Construction personnel had begun the relocation of the dowels at the time of the inspection. 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 ♦ P.O. Drawer 160 + Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (Q7fn 9,1.5.100,6 Raw (Q7(11 Q.1'.. 077 4 P-Tifaii inftahrvlrincrtuc eqvrri 5. A sump was being formed at the Northeast comer of the slab. This measured approximately 4"-0" square X 4'-0" deep. Walls were approximately 18" thick with #5 bars @ 12" o.c. ea direction on each face. A mat below the sump consisted of #5 bars @ 12" o.c. No design was available for the sump. Oddo Engineering is not responsible for the capacity of the sump and is only acting as an observer. At the time of the inspection no keyway was formed at the base of the walls. Design drawings indicated a 4" keyway requirement. 6. PVC waterstop was installed around the perimeter of the walls. It was noted that the waterstop was spliced in several locations with a 36" lap. Construction personnel were advised that typical splices in waterstops should be made by heat welding the material to form a continuous piece. They were advised to consult the manufacturer for recommendations. Oddo Engineering had not verified the adequacy of the foundation design and does not warrant it's suitability to this application. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Sincerely, Landon Anderson EST C {/IY� DOCSMkalpumba2.doc 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 4. P.O. Drawer 160 + Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (13'7r11 CM 1,1n4. w Rev mom cmc 'fn'7'l - i r 1 West Slope Testing & Inspection 3177 Gl endam Dr. Grand Junction, CO 81504 Phone: 970-434-6988 Cell: 970-260-2844 Report #1 Page 1 of 1 Daily Inspection Report Date: 3-3-03 Client: Phil Vaughan Construction Project: Encana-Pumba/Compressor Station General Contractor: Phil Vaughan Construction Contractor that Performed Work: Phil Vaughan Construction Inspection of shop fabrication or field work at job site: Field Report: Visited the job site for a preliminary inspection of the pre engineered steel building members, and to receive some samples of the high strength bolts & nuts that were to be used on the project for testing. The steel erector had not yet started erection. Visually inspected the holes that were to receive the high strength bolts at the main pre engineered steel connections. The hole sizes were of the correct diameter for the bolts that were to be used in these connections. There were no excessive burrs noted at the faying surfaces. However 1 did notice some mud at some of the faying surfaces of the main frame column & rafter connections. The steel erector was reminded to make sure they removed the mud before bolting these members together. Tested three of the 1"x2-3/4", 718"x2-114", and 314"x2-1/2" A325 bolts that were to be used in the main frame & crane beam to rafter - connections in a Wilhelm Skidmore bolt tension testing device. The results of the testing indicated A1SC specification compliance. Inspector/Technician: Douglas E Young 494 itt