[RE-wrenches] Serviceable equipment on a roof

[Jason Szumlanski]

We went through something similar with regards to permanent ladder access
for PV panels on a low slope commercial roof (1:12). The argument that was
successful in our favor is that PV panels are not "mechanical equipment."
Find out what code section they are citing. I bet it has to do with
mechanical. If that is the case, argue that PV panels are solid state
electrical equipment, and the section does not apply.

If you need some evidence, the International Mechanical Code Chapter 14
applies to solar thermal systems only:

1401.1 Scope. This chapter shall govern the design, construction,
installation, alteration and repair of systems, equipment
and appliances intended to utilize solar energy for space heating
or cooling, domestic hot water heating, swimming pool
heating or process heating.


Jason Szumlanski


On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Daniel Young <dyoung at dovetailsolar.com>
wrote:

> We have a job going in on  1 ¼”:12 standing seam commercial roof. When we
> tried to walk the drawings through the permit department, we were told that
> we had to keep the solar modules 10’ from the roof edge because they are
> serviceable equipment.
>
>
>
> We’ve run into this before, and have been successful arguing that the
> solar modules are not installed as serviceable equipment (they require
> service intervals closer to the roof membrane on flat roofs [little to no
> attention for 20+yrs], rather than the roof top AC unit as an example). We
> install all pass-thru boxes or other similar enclosures at least 10’ from
> the roof edge as well to make it clear the most likely parts to be
> inspected/serviced would be safe. We also pointed out the International
> Fire codes rules on keeping the array 4’ from the edge of the roof (smaller
> commercial building, so we are in the 4’ setback category, rather than the
> 6’ setback). To all this he said “you can’t tell me that no one will ever
> service those solar modules. If someone falls off the roof and dies, I
> wanna be able to say I did my job…”
>
>
>
> So, I think my only option is to point to a well backed definition for
> serviceable equipment to show him that the solar modules do not qualify.
> Does anyone have any good source to help with this issue? Or would the
> majority of you say that 10’ is the right call anyway?
>
>
>
> I know I might just be up against a hard ^%$# inspector and have to just
> go with it, but I also do not want to set precedent within my states
> default commercial code agency if I don’t have to.
>
>
>
> With Regards,
>
>
>
> Daniel Young,
>
> NABCEP Certified PV Installation ProfessionalTM: Cert #031508-90
>
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out or update participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20150813/6cef4e78/attachment-0002.html>