[RE-wrenches] Access pathways

[Dan Fink]

Rebecca;
Look into the Boulder, CO and Golden, CO Fire Marshal compromises on IFC
setbacks, and also Oregon. These all put some common sense "intent of the
code" perspective into the setback situation with a realistic look at what
firefighters actually want.
I do have these documents available. And also a powerpoint on IFC2012 and
firefighter access that I presented at last year's NABCEP CE conference. If
you or anyone else would like these documents, please contact me off list

Dan Fink
Adjunct Professor of Solar Energy Technology, Ecotech Institute
IREC Certified Instructor™ for:
~ PV Installation Professional
~ Small Wind Installer
Executive Director, Buckville Energy
NABCEP Registered Continuing Education Providers™
970.672.4342



On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Rebecca Lundberg <
rebecca.lundberg at powerfullygreen.com> wrote:

> Dear Solar Colleagues,
>
> I know the building code language regarding PV installations providing 3'
> access pathways was proposed and adopted in several states a few years ago.
>
> "*3113.1.2.1 Residential buildings with hip roof layouts.* Panels or
> modules installed on residential buildings with hip roof layouts shall be
> located in a manner that provides a 3-foot-wide (914 mm) clear access
> pathway from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where panels/modules
> are located. The access pathway shall be located at a location on the
> building capable of supporting the live load of firefighters accessing the
> roof." (this is just a partial quote from here
> https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1305.3113)
>
> This is a newly adopted code addition in MN, and there was absolutely no
> discussion with the solar industry. In MN we install solar on the
> south-facing roof as optimal, with perhaps the SE, SW, or even the east- or
> west-facing roof as possible options, but we almost without exception NEVER
> would mount solar panels on any roof with an azimuth 270 - 90 degrees (i.e.
> north of west or north of east). The requirement to leave a 3' walkway on
> all surfaces will in many cases diminish the amount of available roof
> surface for a residential solar PV installation to about 40% of previous
> designs.
>
> I see how this safety requirement may be necessary in a state where
> mounting solar panels on all roof surfaces is an option, but in MN since we
> can really only mount on the south-facing roof I don't understand how
> safety for fire fighters is a primary concern with this code addition. My
> understanding is that if there is another roof surface available, fire
> fighters would not choose to vent a roof with solar panels even if a 3'
> walkway is available -- so for what purpose are we avoiding that roof space
> for a solar installation?
>
> Our local folks at the state level either don't understand these details
> or feel that there must be an overriding reason that this building code
> language has been adopted in other states. Can any of you give me input,
> comments, thoughts on this topic that I could contribute here on a local
> level?
>
> Thank you in advance for your comments.
>
> Sincerely,
> Rebecca Lundberg
> NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer ®
> *Powerfully Green*®
> 763.438.1976
>
> Powered by the Sun!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20160326/93033cd0/attachment-0002.html>