Qualified person

[ICE]

690.4 (E)Wiring and Connections.

The equipment and systems in 690.4 (A) through (D) and all associated wiring and interconnections shall be installed only by qualified persons.

Qualified Person. One who has skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of the electrical equipment and installations and has received safety training to recognize and avoid the hazards involved.FPN: Refer to NFPA 70E®-2004, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, for electrical safety training requirements.

What if anything are others doing about this? Why is PV singled out? What would be acceptable evidence that a person is qualified?

 

[conarb]

It's a safety thing.

Only qualified persons can install and wire the PV system electrical components [690.4(E)]. Keep in mind that the NEC uses the OSHA definition of "qualified" and it has a specific legal meaning. See Article 100 for this definition. In the case of PV systems, the most pertinent part is the installer "has received safety training to recognize and avoid the hazards involved." That means training specific to this type of installation.¹

¹ http://www.codebookcity.com/codearticles/nec/necarticle690-2.htm

 

[ICE]

What about:

"One who has skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of the electrical equipment and installations."

That's more than just safety training. Skills is using the tools and knowledge is knowing what to do with the tools.

Here is a case of a guy with skills who lacked knowledge.

 

[ICE]

Nothing being said here.

PV has become a big deal.

There will be failures.

How serious that turns out to be is anybody's guess.

It might not be prudent to ignore this code section.

 

[gfretwell]

The fire department is afraid of solar, more than other electrical systems because they don't have an easy way to turn them off. If light is still hitting the collector, power is there.

 

[George McGerd]

My jurisdiction require a disconnect for the array to be mounted in a 'visible and accessible location' on the exterior of the building or PV structure. The disconnect has to be in front of the connection to the base building electrical system. This is for safety reason for emergency personnel, utility company, etc. Does anyone know if this requirement has made it into the national codes or is it a local thing? Thanx

 

[gfretwell]

The disconnect may keep the solar power out of the building but if you are trying to fight a fire on the roof, the solar cells themselves are still hot and it is hard for a fireman to know what is hot and what is beyond a disconnect.

I expect that some day there will be a requirement that each collector have a built in shunt trip type disconnect.

 

[JBI]

The 2012 I-Codes begin to address the issues with solar PV panel systems, I would expect more in the 2015.

Little things like clear areas on roofs for cutting vent holes, pathways at edges and in some cases in the middle of the roof plane, disconnects and markings for them.

Of course a more restrictive local law is always an option in most cases...

On the OP... Many areas already have licensing requirements for Electrical Contractors (and this is not the only Code Section that requires 'qualified' personnel either), the PV systems may be slipping through the cracks in the regulatory sidewalk due to their newness on the market.

If your jurisdiction has a licensing program for Electrical Contractors then the PV installers may (should...) be regulated there as well.

If your jurisdiction does not have an Electrical Licensing program currently... What are you waiting for?

 

[conarb]

My old City of Piedmont has been making a case with the press on solar panel safety, when I was on the Design Review Commission there it would have been a cold day in Hell before they ever got those ugly things approved on a roof, we called them "Hippie Glass" because the Hippies used them to grow their marijuana indoors.

 

[Frank]

My old City of Piedmont has been making a case with the press on solar panel safety, when I was on the Design Review Commission there it would have been a cold day in Hell before they ever got those ugly things approved on a roof, we called them "Hippie Glass" because the Hippies used them to grow their marijuana indoors.

Rooftop solar panels are expected to result in more deaths per TWH of power than the Chernoble Nuclear Power plant did.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

 

[pyrguy]

Yet I know of cities that exempt solar PV from permitting requirements.

No permits, no inspections, no problems. opcorn

 

[north star]

= + = +

"Rooftop solar panels are expected to result in more deaths per TWH of power than the Chernoble Nuclear Power plant did."

Maybe !.....Chernobel; like F u k i s h i m a, will be a problemfor thousands of years to come, or until someone comes up

with a viable solution to mitigate the toxic, nuclear wastes.

Covering the sites in concrete is not a long term solution,

but rather a short term band-aid.



= + = +

 

[Uncle Bob]

If "Qualified Person" is the subject, then the State and local governments make that determination; not the code books.

 

[Architect1281]

Agree with Unc B the Labor and Licensing laws of the governing body determine qualifications with the minor exception that in RI we allow any Owner Occupant to determine that they can kill themselves if they can hold a tool.

The 2014 NEC 70 will require DC power to be terminated as it leaves the individual panel. Here in RI we have been requesting a relayed shutoff at the combiner box nearest to paels to limit the DC power from running around the structure, Also suggesting a return to automatic smok / heat vents on large roof coverage arrays to limit the necessity for rooftop intervention.. Again those are requests, not something we can demand..

 

[Mr. Inspector]

That doen't help PA where there is no licensing laws.

 

[Mark K]

If Qualified person is defined in context of federal regulations then the state does not have authority unless state has an OSHA program coordinated with OSHA. Feds have preempted the regulation of workmen safety.

Not clear what is the concern regarding the "DC running around the structure". If you have an inverter at each panel there should be no DC on the output of the inverter thus no DC to run around the structure.

 

[JBI]

Architect1281 - "... with the minor exception that in RI we allow any Owner Occupant to determine that they can kill themselves if they can hold a tool." Not as unique as you might think. Most rural areas in NYS also have homeowner exemptions from electrical licensing laws. ops

 

[fatboy]

Architect1281 - "... with the minor exception that in RI we allow any Owner Occupant to determine that they can kill themselves if they can hold a tool." Not as unique as you might think. Most rural areas in NYS also have homeowner exemptions from electrical licensing laws. ops

I think that is pretty common throughout the US. The State of CO Electrical Board adopts the most current edition of the NEC in the year published, unadopted. State rules allow homeowners to do work on any part of their primary residence. As UB eluded to, they also regulate who might be considered "qualified".

 

[Uncle Bob]

Agree with Unc B the Labor and Licensing laws of the governing body determine qualifications with the minor exception that in RI we allow any Owner Occupant to determine that they can kill themselves if they can hold a tool. The 2014 NEC 70 will require DC power to be terminated as it leaves the individual panel. Here in RI we have been requesting a relayed shutoff at the combiner box nearest to paels to limit the DC power from running around the structure, Also suggesting a return to automatic smok / heat vents on large roof coverage arrays to limit the necessity for rooftop intervention.. Again those are requests, not something we can demand..

Most states; including Texas and Oklahoma allow homeowners to do all work/construction on thier own homes; including within city limits.

Also OSHA has no jurisdiction over companies with less than 11 employees.

 

[mjesse]

Also OSHA has no jurisdiction over companies with less than 11 employees.

You sure 'bout that?

I think the 11 and up only pertains to record keeping.

mj

 

[Uncle Bob]

Jesse, I used to have the section of the act (unless there has been an amendment); but OSHA has it buried so deep nowdays I can't find it. You are correct about the record keeping; but it goes farther than that. I had a case where there were injuries and because of the minimum number of employees (7) the office informed me not within OSHA jurisdiction. the OSHA office sent me a copy; which I don't now have. My consern is that employees might assume they are protected by OSHA when they really are not; and could lose thier job if they made a complaint. In the case I am refering to; OSHA sent a copy to the employer and several people lost their jobs. Heck, I might be wrong and there may be a Santa Clause; I hope so.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

That was supposed to be a text message, not a post.

 

[mjesse]

In my 25 years of hammer swingin' I'd never been visited by OSHA.

But I've only worked for, and hired crews of less than 10.

I just thought I was lucky

 

[Dennis]

In my 25 years of hammer swingin' I'd never been visited by OSHA. But I've only worked for, and hired crews of less than 10.

I just thought I was lucky

I don't think the size of the crew matters as my boss in NYS had a crew of 4 men and osha came on the job. We happened to be at lunch- got back and picked up and left before they came back. They don't tend to come on residential jobs although they can. I have never seen them on single family dwellings but I suppose a multi family dwelling would be somewhere they may show up.