Resource for a list of Solar Fires?

[jaggedben]

I still can't believe I am being stonewalled so badly from this person, and that he openly said they were just, "making it up as they went along".
...

At some point it might be worth going political. By which I mean reaching out, very politely, to an elected official who represents the constituents of the official's jurisdiction. Any fire department official anywhere ultimately has an obligation to justify their decisions according to code.

 

[Anode]

At some point it might be worth going political. By which I mean reaching out, very politely, to an elected official who represents the constituents of the official's jurisdiction. Any fire department official anywhere ultimately has an obligation to justify their decisions according to code.

It has crossed my mind. Right now it is a delicate game of chess.

Initial phone call with him was rigid. Although he was kind enough to detail and elaborate after that by following up by email. To which I asked for clarification and guidance to aid in the code complaint design of this project. To which he immediately started to be passive aggressive, and not helpful.

It has crossed my mind, but we are trying to take the most diplomatic, and most efficient project timeline approach. But this is an option, as are others that have been recommended here.

 

[c_picard]

Minimum 9"?

Minimum 9"?

No such code exists, and by making it up as he goes he could very well be making things worse. A racking system that has a fire rating needs to be installed as tested. I would provide a summary of the test report and a letter of attestation, also information on the roof buildup and fire rating if possible.

The U.S. Fire Administration compiles data on root causes, but there is not much granularity to the data. Any speculation on the number of fires caused by PV is just that. The U.S. has over a million systems installed, to say that there are a lot of fires is inaccurate and irresponsible. ALL electrical fires only account for 6-11% in the last decade or so.

We should really require foam systems to be installed along with those box store turkey fryers.

 

[ggunn]

At some point it might be worth going political. By which I mean reaching out, very politely, to an elected official who represents the constituents of the official's jurisdiction. Any fire department official anywhere ultimately has an obligation to justify their decisions according to code.

As others have said, it's a delicate game. If you go over the inspector's head and get him overruled in this case, and you intend to install more systems within his jurisdictional area, you may be in for a bumpy ride.

 

[SolarPro]

Sure, but if the AHJ is making up requirements that effectively rule out rooftop solar, there's not much to lose by pushing back. It basically sounds like the AHJ just doesn't know what codes and standards apply to the situation at hand. The answer to that knowledge gap should never be: "Well, I'll make something up." Consensus codes and standards are in place because they have been vetted by stakeholders on all sides of an issue. Follow these best practices, and you are covered in the event that shit hits the fan. Deviate from these best practices and you are exposed to all kinds of liability if something goes wrong.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Sure, but if the AHJ is making up requirements that effectively rule out rooftop solar, there's not much to lose by pushing back.

If you are a local contractor doing other work in that jurisdiction you could have a lot to lose. The inspector may nit-pic your future jobs....very few jobs are 100% compliant with the codes.

basically sounds like the AHJ just doesn't know what codes and standards apply to the situation at hand. The answer to that knowledge gap should never be: "Well, I'll make something up."

Very true and if the rules being pushed have not been legally adopted, there is liability on the AHJ for enforcing rules that don't exist.

Consensus codes and standards are in place because they have been vetted by stakeholders on all sides of an issue. Follow these best practices, and you are covered in the event that shit hits the fan. Deviate from these best practices and you are exposed to all kinds of liability if something goes wrong.

If the AHJ has adopted rules that are more stringent than the consensus codes, there is no liability on the AHJ...the key is that the rules must be legally adopted...not just made up.

 

[ggunn]

...very few jobs are 100% compliant with the codes.

Why do you say that?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Why do you say that?

In my opinion unless the project is very small there will be some type of code violation ...

 

[ggunn]

In my opinion unless the project is very small there will be some type of code violation ...

You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree with it, and I design a lot of PV systems. For the most part the code is not that hard to adhere to. We just finished installing a 812kW system; you are welcome to inspect it and if you find a code violation I will buy you a beer.

 

[SolarPro]

You will owe the man a beer. The vast majority of deployed electrical systems will have some type of Code violation. Hopefully, these deficiencies aren't life threatening, but fall under the category of failure to dot your i's and cross you t's.

As an example, see if you can spot the Code violation in the photo below. [Hint, in an ungrounded system there are no "normally grounded conductors;" see 690.35(F).] It's a pretty minor thing. But it's a Code violation in a system that passed inspection.

You might even find the same labeling at your 812 kW system. :slaphead:

 

[GoldDigger]

How about "all conductors" or maybe for next cycle "all conductors, including functionally grounded conductors"?

 

[SolarPro]

(Yes, the CMP was able to eliminate all of 690.35 from NEC 2017 by introducing the functional grounded definition. As a result, there will be one unified design standard—for disconnects, fusing and labeling—regardless of inverter topology, rather than separate design standards for "grounded" or "ungrounded" PV systems.)

 

[ggunn]

...see if you can spot the Code violation in the photo below. [Hint, in an ungrounded system there are no "normally grounded conductors;" see 690.35(F).] It's a pretty minor thing. But it's a Code violation in a system that passed inspection.

Actually, I don't think it is a violation. 690.5(C) says that all utility-interactive inverters must have this label, and it does not differentiate between grounded and ungrounded inverters. The warning sign says that normally grounded conductors may be ungrounded and energized in the event of a ground fault, but it doesn't say that any of the conductors are normally grounded, and it only says that if there are, they may be ungrounded and energized. The label may be inaccurate and/or unnecessary for ungrounded systems because there are no normally grounded DC conductors, but it is compliant to the code as it is written.

 

[SolarPro]

Did you read 690.35(F)?

The label required for ungrounded PV power systems is not installed. That certainly is a Code violation.

I suppose a politician or lawyer crafted in the dark arts of massaging the truth might be able to make the case that nothing in the Code says that you can't also install the 690.5 label. But logic suggests that the 690.35(F) label is intended to replace the 690.5 label where non-isolated inverters are fielded.

 

[ggunn]

Did you read 690.35(F)?

The label required for ungrounded PV power systems is not installed. That certainly is a Code violation.

I suppose a politician or lawyer crafted in the dark arts of massaging the truth might be able to make the case that nothing in the Code says that you can't also install the 690.5 label. But logic suggests that the 690.35(F) label is intended to replace the 690.5 label where non-isolated inverters are fielded.

Thanks; I will look into it.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You will owe the man a beer. The vast majority of deployed electrical systems will have some type of Code violation. Hopefully, these deficiencies aren't life threatening, but fall under the category of failure to dot your i's and cross you t's.

...

Exactly....small issues that don't really matter for the operation and safety but are technical violations of the code rules.

 

[ggunn]

Exactly....small issues that don't really matter for the operation and safety but are technical violations of the code rules.

Nevertheless, I am on a continual search and destroy mission for those infractions, however small. They are not acceptable.

 

[Carultch]

You will owe the man a beer. The vast majority of deployed electrical systems will have some type of Code violation. Hopefully, these deficiencies aren't life threatening, but fall under the category of failure to dot your i's and cross you t's.

As an example, see if you can spot the Code violation in the photo below. [Hint, in an ungrounded system there are no "normally grounded conductors;" see 690.35(F).] It's a pretty minor thing. But it's a Code violation in a system that passed inspection.

You might even find the same labeling at your 812 kW system. :slaphead:

In that particular example, 690.35(F) calls for a label that says an analogous statement for ungrounded systems. "Warning! Electric Shock Hazard. The DC Conductors of this photovoltaic system are ungrounded and may be energized."

However, 690.5(C) appears to call for a label that doesn't make sense, in the case of ungrounded systems. This label that reads "If a ground fault is indicated, normally grounded conductors may be ungrounded and energized". Does it still call for this label in the case of ungrounded systems? Or am I missing part of 690.5, that would make it only apply to systems with normally grounded conductors?

 

[iwire]

Exactly....small issues that don't really matter for the operation and safety but are technical violations of the code rules.

As you know we run a lot of cable, an easy place for the inspector to find violations if they have a reason too is by pulling out a tape measure and checking the securing / supporting spacing.

 

[SolarPro]

Right. That was a deficiency I had to fix on our PV system before the inspector arrived. The master electrician (not a helper) took a little holiday and forgot to install a conduit strap at the proper interval. No big deal. The inspector might have missed it, but it was a pretty obvious oversight. Even if every strap is where it is supposed to be, a persistent inspector can usually find a loose fitting or similar.