New building permit requirement - Class A fire rating?

[czhp01]

I called the city again and they have no new information. The issue is still being worked on. The person I spoke with made it sound like they were trying to get approvals to simply roll back to the regulations that were in effect in 2013 which would be good news since that means no change in equipment would be needed. She also mentioned that a lot of people are in the same boat as me so they are trying to resolve this asap (for whatever that is worth).

Funny that I have yet to see any news story on this whole debacle. No solar permits have been issued in Irvine now for a whole month and no one is talking about it!

I got new info from one of vendor I was seeking installation, he said there is 180 day delay in implementing the new fire code. Here is the quote from his email:

"We have a resolution for the fire code issue in Irvine. The state fire marshal issued a letter recommending that a stay of 180 days be put in place to give the module manufacturers a chance to catch up with the changes in the code."

Michael,

[inetdog]

I got new info from one of vendor I was seeking installation, he said there is 180 day delay in implementing the new fire code. Here is the quote from his email:

"We have a resolution for the fire code issue in Irvine. The state fire marshal issued a letter recommending that a stay of 180 days be put in place to give the module manufacturers a chance to catch up with the changes in the code."

Michael,

Better than nothing, but six months is a short time to just get the testing done, let alone do re-engineering.
And then there is the fact that the UL standard they will be tested to is still not final either.

[J.P.M.]

Better than nothing, but six months is a short time to just get the testing done, let alone do re-engineering.
And then there is the fact that the UL standard they will be tested to is still not final either.

From a vendor huh ? If it was me, I'd wait to see the letter.

[OvertheSun]

Better than nothing, but six months is a short time to just get the testing done, let alone do re-engineering.
And then there is the fact that the UL standard they will be tested to is still not final either.

But at least it demonstrates a willingness to make reasonable accommodations to enable the manufacturers to comply and a tacit acknowledgment that the regs cannot currently be met by existing equipment.

If 6 months isn't enough, it could always be extended either on a state level or for an individual who wishes to put in specific panels that are in the process of UL testing. And hopefully that letter from the state Fire Marshal says something about the reason for the current delay that would make it clear whether an extension is warranted.

[inetdog]

First one to actually get a copy of the letter, please post it.

[J.P.M.]

first one to actually get a copy of the letter, please post it.

amen !

[russ]

"We have a resolution for the fire code issue in Irvine. The state fire marshal issued a letter recommending that a stay of 180 days be put in place to give the module manufacturers a chance to catch up with the changes in the code."

Michael,

Michael - What are the chances he is being imaginative in order to help his sale? No one else has heard this but him?

[ocdave]

Michael - What are the chances he is being imaginative in order to help his sale? No one else has heard this but him?

My contractor informed me last Friday that she contacted the State Fire Marshall's office directly and they told her that they are working on the official letter and it will be ready in about 10 days. I have no reason to doubt her. They have been pretty up-front with me when this whole thing originally blew up that they had no idea how long it would take to resolve ...and they already have my deposit so no sale to be made

[J.P.M.]

My contractor informed me last Friday that she contacted the State Fire Marshall's office directly and they told her that they are working on the official letter and it will be ready in about 10 days. I have no reason to doubt her. They have been pretty up-front with me when this whole thing originally blew up that they had no idea how long it would take to resolve ...and they already have my deposit so no sale to be made

Like the Great Communicator once said: "Trust but verify."

[it's solar]

UL1703 fire test for PV panels has been changed

Yes, only "glass to glass" (frame-less) module can pass Class A fire test for previous UL standard. Most of frame type panels are Class C rated such as Kyocera and LG..

Based on New UL1703 fire test, the use of module types (type 1, 2 ,3) is optional because the revised test is for the system. There is a benefit of type testing. If the PV module is found to be one of the defined types, then the module can be used without retesting by mounting system manufacturers to comply with the Fire Classification that was obtained during the rack manufacturer’s UL 1703 fire classification testing of the system as long as the test was conducted with a PV module of the same type.

UL1703

For example, Kyocera, LG..etc only class C UL1703C

Most of panel manufactures have UL1703 certified, but not A

[it's solar]

CA Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 14-002

My contractor informed me last Friday that she contacted the State Fire Marshall's office directly and they told her that they are working on the official letter and it will be ready in about 10 days. I have no reason to doubt her. They have been pretty up-front with me when this whole thing originally blew up that they had no idea how long it would take to resolve ...and they already have my deposit so no sale to be made

The Office of the State Fire Marshal recommends that local authority having jurisdiction accept photovoltaic panels and modules having a Class C rating under the previous version of UL 1703 (2002
edition with revisions through April 2008) or UL 790 (2004 edition with revisions through October 2008).This proposed rulemaking is anticipated to be before the California Building Standards Commission for action at its scheduled April 22, 2014 meeting.

Here are the CA Fire IB

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/informationbulletin/pdf/2014/IB14002PVFireClassification.pdf

[ocdave]

The Office of the State Fire Marshal recommends that local authority having jurisdiction accept photovoltaic panels and modules having a Class C rating under the previous version of UL 1703 (2002
edition with revisions through April 2008) or UL 790 (2004 edition with revisions through October 2008).This proposed rulemaking is anticipated to be before the California Building Standards Commission for action at its scheduled April 22, 2014 meeting.

Here are the CA Fire IB
http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/informationb...sification.pdf

Great. Thanks for posting.

Now that that's done, I'm trying to fight another battle regarding the setbacks for roof installations. Apparently another rule that went into effect is the Cal Fire setback guideline. My installation is not 3' from the ridgeline. However, there are several alternate access paths to the ridge from the other roof slopes since panels will cover less than 50% of my roof. I am trying to get an exception to this rule from the city. Can anyone out there recommend how I/my contractror should proceed?

[sensij]

I thought this would be worth reviving now that 2015 has come around and the stay granted last year is no more. The permit application my installer put in may have hit a snag because the fire rating wasn't clearly addressed, but fortunately, my panels and rack combo seems to be OK. SolarWorld has a bulletin in which they clearly declare that their Class C modules are OK on a Class A mounting system, but I haven't been able to find something equivalent for LG, whose panels also seem to be popular around here.

There is an argument that once a specific model of mounting system is tested with a particular type of panel and passes testing as a Class A system, any panel of a similar type can be used with that same mounting system and be rated Class A. More discussion here. Just another differentiator for the IronRidge and Unirac's of the world, I guess.

Edit: IronRidge only provides documentation declaring the Class A system rating is met with Type 1 or Type 2 classified panels (Canadian Solar is Type 1). How a Class C panel like LG's would be accepted isn't clear.

Anyone in a Fire Class A area (like San Diego) apply for a permit with LG (or some other Class C) panels yet this year? How did it go?

[ericf1]

Anyone in a Fire Class A area (like San Diego) apply for a permit with LG (or some other Class C) panels yet this year? How did it go?

I just ran into the same issue. About 10 days ago, my plans were returned to the installer due to insufficient detail on fire code with IronRidge XR100 racking/LG300N1C-B3 panels. The installer added the required info and the revised plan was approved yesterday. I should have more details on the specific info required next week when I get the plans.

[foo1bar]

Can anyone out there recommend how I/my contractror should proceed?

I met with the fire dept.
I showed them my plans (An aerial photo w/ panels drawn in and a drawing of the roof with measurements)
I answered their questions about where the kitchen was and what was under the roof areas with not as good of access.
They looked at it and said it was fine "If we need to, we can carry a ladder to the backyard and get up there that way" and signed it.