[RE-wrenches] "Quick Release" PV System

[William Miller]

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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20090729/c74b1d6c/attachment-0003.html>