List the systems the issued Section 23 25 00 still treats (condenser water, chilled water, low and medium or high temperature hot water, steam), then find each treatment item on the drawings: chemical feed pumps and tanks, injection assemblies, makeup water meters, the bleed line and its drain, shot feeders, softeners, the control panel, and corrosion testers. Then compare the glycol requirements, power to the feed equipment, and the testing schedule with the mechanical, plumbing, and electrical sheets.
Assemble the review package
Gather the mechanical equipment and piping plans for the central plant, the chilled water, condenser water, and heating water schematics, the cooling tower and boiler schedules, the plumbing drawings for makeup water and drains, the electrical plans and panel schedules feeding treatment equipment, the controls drawings, the makeup water analysis if one was provided, and the issued Section 23 25 00 with the boiler, chiller, and piping sections it serves. Review one system from makeup water to blowdown before assuming the others are drawn the same way.
WBDG publishes UFGS 23 25 00: Chemical Treatment of Water for Mechanical Systems as a public guide-specification reference (accessed October 21, 2026). Use your project’s issued specification and amendments for the actual comparison; the guide specification does not automatically govern your project. The checklist below is an original suggested review workflow, not a reproduction of the UFGS requirements.
Eight checks to run against the issued set
Use one record per location or system. The CSV contains the same eight prompts plus fields for source revisions, observed evidence, the review owner, the decision, and closure references.
| Check | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Systems in scope | Summary and Components articles + mechanical schematics | Does the edited section keep treatment for exactly the systems the drawings show, with no paragraphs left for a steam or high temperature system the project does not have? |
| Makeup water analysis | Water Analysis article + design data | Has the makeup water analysis the section asks for been entered, rather than left as blanks that the treatment design depends on? |
| Condenser water feed equipment | Chemical Feed Pumps and Tanks, Chemical Injection Assembly, and Water Meter articles + cooling tower piping plan | Are the feed pumps, tanks, injection points, and makeup water meter drawn where the section says they are indicated, and does the small or large system treatment kept match the tower capacity scheduled? |
| Bleed line and drain | Bleed (Blowdown) Line article + condenser piping plan + plumbing drawings | Is the bleed line connection drawn where the section places it relative to the pumps and injection point, and is it carried to a drain the plumbing drawings show? |
| Control panel and power | Control Panel and Electrical Work articles + electrical plans + panel schedules | Is the treatment control panel located on the drawings, and do the electrical drawings provide circuits for the feed pumps, timers, and panel, as the section’s note asks the mechanical designer to coordinate? |
| Hot water and steam boiler treatment | Chemical Feeder, Water Softening System, and Boiler Blowdown articles + boiler room plan + Section 23 52 00 | Are shot feeders, softeners, and blowdown connections shown on the boiler piping, and does the treatment kept agree with the boiler type in the boiler schedule? |
| Glycol systems | Glycol Solution and Requirements for Glycol Solution articles + schedules | If glycol is retained for freeze protection, do the coil, chiller, and pump schedules reflect a glycol solution, and is propylene glycol used where the note calls for it? |
| Corrosion testers and testing | Corrosion Testers and Field Quality Control articles + piping plans + commissioning plan | Are corrosion coupon racks drawn on the loops the section lists, and are the routine and quality assurance tests in the testing schedule and commissioning plan? |
Worked example: a bleed line with nowhere to go
Illustrative example: the issued Section 23 25 00 keeps automatic chemical feed and a conductivity-controlled bleed line for the cooling tower. The mechanical plant plan shows the chemical feed pumps and a bleed solenoid valve on the condenser water piping, but the plumbing drawings show no floor drain or indirect waste near the tower, and the electrical drawings have no circuit for the treatment control panel.
Ask the mechanical engineer to show the bleed line route to a drain and to confirm its connection point on the condenser loop, then coordinate the drain with the plumbing engineer and the panel circuit with the electrical engineer. Recheck the makeup water meter and timer wiring at the same time, since they share the control panel.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 23 64 26 and Section 23 52 00 can carry their own water treatment paragraphs. Before calling an item missing, check which section the project uses for each system, so the same feeder is not specified twice or dropped from both.
When requirements disagree, follow the project’s document-control and clarification process. Do not assume that drawings always override specifications, or the reverse. Identify the exact sources and request an authorized decision.
Close the issue across the affected documents
Record the location or tag, drawing and specification references, issue dates, observed difference, and the decision needed. Assign an owner and keep the item open until the response identifies the governing requirement. Check the revised drawings and specification references together; a response email alone may leave the issued package inconsistent.
For the overall process, use the guide to drawing and specification conflicts. Mark an inapplicable checklist row with a reason, and distinguish a verified correction from a question that still needs design information.
Where Groundbook fits
Groundbook’s drawing and specification review helps investigate potential disagreements in the documents you supply. Include the relevant specification sections and drawing references, then verify the cited evidence with the responsible reviewers before acting on a finding.