<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Friends:<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
William Miller<br><br>
<br>
5-15-08 message below:<br><br>
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):<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
William Miller<br><br>
PS: LAFD and Cal Fire standards are now on our web site:
<a href="http://www.mpandc.com/resources/resources.html" eudora="autourl">www.mpandc.com/resources/resources.html<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</a>At 09:08 PM 7/29/2009, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Chula Vista has been difficult on a
number of fronts for the past few years.<br>
I'm not sure what is behind it. This is a reference from an old Los
Angeles<br>
Fire Department regulation. It was invented by a person at LA who
still<br>
thinks it's a good idea. I don't doubt that it could not be developed.
My<br>
first roof bracket had a quick-release feature for servicing panels in
the<br>
array. It is a bad mandate and was rejected by the group who developed
the<br>
guidelines for PV installation with the California Fire Marshal's
office.<br>
There is no state support for the idea.<br><br>
<br><br>
Bill.<br><br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>