InspectMind AI logo InspectMind

Wastewater Lift Station: 372 Issues Flagged

Reconcile available fault current, equipment ratings, and motor voltages across electrical diagrams before equipment release.

Anonymized review · Published 2026-09-16

Free check on up to 10 drawing pages. Enterprise and volume pricing

Potential findings
372
Discipline
1
Published examples
3
Critical or high examples shown
3

About this review

InspectMind ran an AI plan review on this infrastructure set and returned 372 potential findings across Electrical. The selected examples below show the document conflict, why it matters, and a suggested next step.

Project type
Infrastructure
Disciplines
Electrical
Potential findings
372
Published examples
3
Published
2026-09-16
Evidence status
Selected findings marked useful in the source review record

What this review documents

Reconcile available fault current, equipment ratings, and motor voltages across electrical diagrams before equipment release.

The documented result is a set of review findings. This case study does not establish that corrections were completed or that savings were realized. The examples below were marked useful in the source review record; they have been paraphrased to remove identifying details.

Key findings

  1. Service interrupting rating is below listed fault current

    Electrical

    Critical

    A meter/main is labeled 10 kAIC while the listed available fault current is 22,506 amperes.

    Next step: Have the electrical engineer verify the fault-current study and applicable equipment or system rating.

  2. Pump supply voltage changes between diagrams

    Electrical

    Critical

    The one-line describes a 120/208-volt switchboard and 240-volt pump loads, while the drive control diagram shows a 480-volt supply from that switchboard.

    Next step: Reconcile the utility supply, switchboard, drives, and motor utilization voltage.

  3. Main switchboard rating needs reconciliation

    Electrical

    Critical

    A second equipment callout lists 22 kAIC against the same 22,506-ampere available fault current.

    Next step: Check the complete protective arrangement and revise the rating or fault-current value as appropriate.

Checkers used

Issue categories

Electrical
Electrical findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

Service interrupting rating is below listed fault current

Electrical

Critical

Summary: A meter/main is labeled 10 kAIC while the listed available fault current is 22,506 amperes.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Have the electrical engineer verify the fault-current study and applicable equipment or system rating.

RFI draft: Have the electrical engineer verify the fault-current study and applicable equipment or system rating.

Pump supply voltage changes between diagrams

Electrical

Critical

Summary: The one-line describes a 120/208-volt switchboard and 240-volt pump loads, while the drive control diagram shows a 480-volt supply from that switchboard.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Reconcile the utility supply, switchboard, drives, and motor utilization voltage.

RFI draft: Reconcile the utility supply, switchboard, drives, and motor utilization voltage.

Main switchboard rating needs reconciliation

Electrical

Critical

Summary: A second equipment callout lists 22 kAIC against the same 22,506-ampere available fault current.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Check the complete protective arrangement and revise the rating or fault-current value as appropriate.

RFI draft: Check the complete protective arrangement and revise the rating or fault-current value as appropriate.

Anonymized, paraphrased excerpts from a completed project review. These three examples were marked “good catch” in the source review record; that label is feedback, not independent validation. The project total excludes duplicate-group members, dismissed findings, wrong finds, and insufficient-reference findings. Only selected excerpts are published. Customer identity, project address, source identifiers, and private drawings are omitted. Corrections, permit outcomes, and financial savings have not been independently verified. A qualified professional should assess each finding against the complete project documents.

Similar AI plan review results by project type and discipline.

Browse all case studies