Friends:
Below is an e-mail I sent to this group 5/15/08. I include it here in case
there might be some information of value. I predicted long ago that this
will become a huge issue for commercial and residential installations.
When this issue first reared it's ugly head I did a quick analysis of the
residential installations we completed in the previous 6 months and I
recall that approximately 85% of those jobs would be rendered impractical
by the new regulations.
While I agree that quick release is not an ideal solution, it might allow
jobs to proceed that otherwise would not. I developed some ideas and
approached one well known manufacturer and received zero indication of
interest. I figure additional market pressure will change this. My small
firm does not have the wherewithal to develop yet another patent
application and to provide product liability for this product, but I
believe quick release can work.
On a related note, about 1.5 years ago I attended a seminar held by some
alphabet soup inspector's organization (AEAEI?) locally. There was a
presentation by a plan checker from a southern California community and
this guy really p***ed me off. He had such a holier-than-thou attitude
that I instantly felt sorry for any installer in his jurisdiction. This
man would not listen to reason and had no power of logical deduction. Our
AHJs have been very reasonable until recently, but I have had some mighty
p***ing contests lately. I don't know what is the root cause other than PV
might have been under the radar but it is now open season on PV permit
applications.
I sincerely wish you good luck in working out this problem. I'd be happy to
discuss it with our personally. I might suggest that you request to be
shown where this new standard was published in an official document
available to the public. If it has not been published, it must be in order
to be applied equally to all applicants. This may allow you to finish the
job pending before the requirements become official.
William Miller
5-15-08 message below:
I appreciate the valuable dialog here. This forum has been a wealth of
knowledge-- indispensable. I have learned a few things in the last 24
hours (some opinions expressed as well):
Venting: Letting the smoke out is only one function of cutting a hole in
the roof. If the fire is in the kitchen, they want to cut a hole right
over the kitchen and also dump water in. So if the kitchen is on the south
side of the house, cutting a hole in the north roof pitch is less effective.
Attics: If the purpose of cutting the hole were only for venting, cutting
a hole in the north pitch would help only if there was an attic connecting
all sections of the home. If any cathedral or vaulted ceilings exist, the
need is to cut multiple holes.
Standards: They are just now being developed. I really prefer the Cal
Fire setbacks. Losing the short edge of a roof is far less of an impact on
PV than losing the long edge. The Cal Fire standards allow you to install
right up to the lower eave and only require 3 foot clearance to the ridge
and gable eaves.
Quick disconnects: They are mentioned in the LA Fire Department standards
for both hardware and connectors but not really explained. They are not
mentioned in the Cal Fire. In San Luis Obispo, the fire marshal is willing
to let us install in the setback area if there is some means to quickly
remove or "flop over" rows of modules at a maximum of 4 modules per
move. This is a great precedent and one I hope we can encourage. This
means the industry can develop hardware to allow us to use the precious
roof space we need (and the customer needs). I encourage each of you to
promote this to your local fire marshal. I also encourage entrepreneurs to
develop hardware and connectors to allow us to install PV in the disputed
zones and still allow fire fighters to clear them from the roof with utmost
expediency. This is a market opportunity, folks.
PV modules starting fires/fire fighter safety: One poster here supposed
this was about PV systems starting fires. It is not. This is about
allowing fire fighters to do their dangerous work without further
impediments. Fire fighters should not be expected to walk on the slippery
surface of PV modules nor should they be expected to cut or break through
energized modules. Depending on which module you break, you might achieve
contact with up to 600 VDC.
Politics: In my opinion, we must avoid any perception that we do not care
about the safety of fire fighters. I tell my crew, "I'll give the money
back to my clients before I'll see one of you hurt on the job." We must
have the same empathy with fire fighters. With some negotiation and
technical advances, we can accommodate their needs and ours.
Roof top disconnects: Nowhere do I see any provisions to protect fire
fighters from cutting into conduits with high voltage DC. It seems to me
this is also a hazard. I hesitate to bring this up, but why not get this
all solved at once? I think that firefighters use demolition saws to cut
through roofs and these saws can cut through EMT like butter. My opinion:
The 200 5 NEC standard for metal conduit is almost enough. I would
add: No aluminum conduit and, conduits must not run under
rafters. Instead, conduits should leave roof surfaces at 90 degrees and
stay a minimum of 18" away from the underside of a roof.
Thanks again for all of your thoughts and support. I really think we can
get a good solution that may coast a few dollars more but will not reduce
system size.
William Miller
PS: LAFD and Cal Fire standards are now on our web
site: www.mpandc.com/resources/resources.html
At 09:08 PM 7/29/2009, you wrote:
Chula Vista has been difficult on a number of fronts for the past few years.
I'm not sure what is behind it. This is a reference from an old Los Angeles
Fire Department regulation. It was invented by a person at LA who still
thinks it's a good idea. I don't doubt that it could not be developed. My
first roof bracket had a quick-release feature for servicing panels in the
array. It is a bad mandate and was rejected by the group who developed the
guidelines for PV installation with the California Fire Marshal's office.
There is no state support for the idea.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
