Underground supply from the tee in the crawl space and the backflow preventor are the incorrect size.

Overhead piping inspected only. Tenting passed. Dave was to tent the riser piping that penatrates the garage ceiling. One additional pendant added in the den and the pendant under the stairs has been changed to a sidewall type. No resubmittal needed per Bill Alexander.

called told jon ###-#### to pick up permit, review failed

1. Design verification for duel head operation calcs with two nodes addressed with the same number, which has affected design operation. Reference node #14 to 22 and 12 to 22. Length, size and elevations changes are also wrong. Bonus room elevation was not included. Verify, correct and resubmit duel head and bonus room head calcs for correction verification.

2. The domestic control shown was relocated, but now calculcations do not include it and requested and required. Revise and resubmit.

Re-Submittals Of The Following Items Are Required:
1. Any room or separated area where a single head is operating, spacing may be allowed up to 10'-0" off any wall or obstruction. Where 2 sprinklers may operate, the allowed spacing will be limited to 18'-0". Correct sprinkler spacing in the Great Room (west and east walls), Kitchen (the north head to the east wall), Master Bedroom (northeast corner),

2. Plans and calcs do not correlate. Length for 1¼" poly from the meter into the house does not correlate. Calcs use 70'-0" and plans show 90'-0"? Submittal/approval is acceptable for 70'-0 from the meter to the riser takeoff. Verify conflict. If exceeding 70'-0", calculations correction required.

3. Verify single head operating is the most demanding. Provide calculation verification to the "Bonus Room."

4. Plans are incomplete. All doorways shown in this structure give not indication of separation, except the Den, Dining, M. Bath and Bonus Room. All doorways shall be drawn or addressed as separated and if not drawn or addressed as open. Clarify construction throughout this resident indicating that doorways are separated (reference minimum requirements addressed in 4.1.2. Include the west bedroom common toilet water closets are separated per NFPA 13D requirements. (NFPA 13D 4.1.2, 8.6.2)

5. Protection is lacking (or plan is incorrect). Provide or full and correct protection of the stairs to the Bonus Room.

6. Sprinkler data submittals are obsolete. Manufacturer data submittals submitted for the Q.R. Dry HSW sprinklers is obsolete. The latest revision is "E", not "B".

7. Supply from the United Water tap did not include a "T" in the calculations addressing fitting friction losses.

8. The domestic control shown is located in an unapproved location. It shall be connected/located upstream of the fire sprinkler take-off, and included in the calcs (no exceptions). (NFPA 13D:A.6.2[a], A.6.3[a]).

Areas of Concern:
9. Plans and data submittals are conflicting. Plans address either a Watts or an Ames 200B backflow. Submitted is a Watts 1½" 007M2QT. If another is to be installed, data submittals shall include that device installed.

10. Plans provided show no terrain elevations. A 3'-0" lift was found in the calculations, from the meter to the sprinkler takeoff tee in the house. Field Fire/Life Safety Inspector shall verify. (BMC 7-01-50, IFC 901.2, IFC 105.4.2)

11. Plans are lacking in detail. No light fixtures or fan location, etc. provided on the plans. These items clearly interfere with correct sprinkler density distribution with residential sprinkler installations. Fire testing has indicated the need to wet walls in the area protected by residential sprinklers at a level closer to the ceiling than that accomplished by standard sprinkler distribution. Where beams, light fixtures, sloped ceilings, and other obstructions occur, additional residential sprinklers are necessary to achieve proper response and distribution. In addition, for sloped ceilings, higher flow rates could be needed. Guidance should be obtained from the manufacturer. Reference NFPA 13D-8.2.4*. IFC Inspector will verify obstruction to head installation locations.

12. Plans are lacking in detail. This review is addressing horizontal ceilings throughout (a ceiling with a slope not exceeding 2 in 12).

13. Plans conflict and lack (correct information). "General Notes", item #7 addresses piping. No information provided for riser piping which is 1 ½" on the plan, yet not identified as to type in the General notes. The only information available is through discerning through the calculations between nodes 3 to 6 and 6 to 7 which has a C-factor of 120, implying steel pipe? If CPVC is to be exposed, special listed installation requirements will be employed. IFC Inspector to verify.