NBSIR 79-1957

Analysis of Code Related

Responses From the Solar

Demonstration Program

Joseph Greenberg

Building Economics and Regulatory Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

January 1980

Prepared for; Department of Energy

Office of Conservation and Solar Applications

Washington, D.C. 20234

and

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

Washington, D.C. 20410
i

i
NBSIR 79-1957

ANALYSIS OF CODE RELATED

RESPONSES FROM THE SOLAR

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Joseph Greenberg

Building Economics and Regulatory Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

January 1980

Prepared for: Department of Energy

Office of Conservation and Solar Applications

Washington, D.C. 20234

and

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

Washington, D.C. 20410

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
i .i»»roEfiie)«».W 4|«^r« 33I^SMMOO^’lVi:;^ S '^^A<

'** vitwiKi ,.tC' .H

tfU«^un^!3«T brMi viA .t

^ ;m#'«^aAOViATft^O uA3ffU#JAi^H>fr^
FOREWORD

The objective of this project is the analysis of data collected for the

HUD Solar Residential Demonstration Program to provide an insight into

those aspects of the building regulatory process that inhibit, impede,

or otherwise adversely affect the installation and use of solar hot water

and space heating and/or cooling systems. The regulatory data used for

this report were collected by HUD contractor personnel as part of an overall effort in documenting a broad base of technical and institutional

information. The HUD contractor—designed questionnaires were used as basic data and pertinent regulatory responses were identified and analyzed by NBS in preparing this report. Information is compiled which

should provide useful input to appropriate standards generating committees, building code promulgating organizations, regulatory jurisdictions,

and the building community in general in stimulating the acceptance of

the use of solar hot water systems and space heating and/or cooling

systems.

This project was designed to provide:

(a) An analysis of the response by the participants in the demonstration

program as to real or perceived regulatory problems encountered

dtii-ing the conduct of the program.

(b) An analysis of the adverse impacts, if any, resulting from differences in various regulatory statutes.

(c) A recommended course of action, as articulated by the participants

in the demonstration program, regarding current and future

regulatory needs.

(d) An assessment of the documentation and training needed to assure

an orderly and efficient system for the evaluation and acceptance

of solar systems.

This report is limited to data from the HUD Solar Residential Demonstration Program. Although an attempt was made to also include data from the

DoE Commercial Demonstration Program, a search of the available information indicates that very little regulatory data have been collected.

The HUD Demonstration Program is structured in cycles; each takes place

sequentially in a different time frame with various projects awarded for

each cycle. Although the HUD Solar Residential Demonstration Program is

expected to have a total of five cycles, this report is limited to data

gathered during the first three cycles and includes data collected from

late 1975 to September 30, 1978—the cutoff date of this report.

The information is generally presented on a cycle-by-cycle basis, using

site specific regulatory and other related data collected during the

conduct of the HUD Solar Residential Program. Where appropriate, the

effects of the varying cyclical time frames are considered in analyzing

and determining any regulatory impacts and trends.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Ms. Sandra A. Berry for

her efforts in reviewing, editing, and organizing this report and to

Ms. Laurie Watkins for preparing and typing the text and various tables

presented herein.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword iii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v Abstract vii

Executive Summary viii

PART I - DESCRIPTION OF DATA SOURCES AND INFORMATION USED

AS THE BASIS FOR THE STUDY 1

1. DATA SOURCES 1

1.0 General 1

1.1 Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC) 1

Figure 1 - Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program

Residential Building Regulatory Data 2 1.2 American Institute of Architects Research Corporation (AIA/RC

(AIA/RC) 3

1.3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Boeing

(HUD/Boeing) 4 2. SITE IDENTIFICATION AND STATUS OF DATA AVAILABILITY 5

PART II - AN ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDER'S REACTION TO THE

REGULATORY ASPECTS OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

AND THE RESPONSES OF COMPARATIVE BUILDERS 6

3. RESPONSES BY BUILDERS /DEVELOPERS AND COMPARATIVE

BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS 6

3.0 General. 6

3.1 The Question . . 6

3.2 Sample Size 7 3.3 Analysis of the Data 7 Figure 2 - Availability of Builder/Developer Data 8

Figure 3 - Summary of Builder/Developer Responses 9

Figure 4 - Approval Difficulties Reported by Builder/

Developer 10

' 3.'4 Conclusions 11

PART III - AN ANALYSIS OF THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL'S

RESPONSES TO THE REGULATORY ASPECTS OF THE SOLAR

RESIDENTIAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AND OTHER RELATED

MATTERS 12

4. RESPONSES BY LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIALS 12

4.0 General 12

4.1 The Questions 12

4.2 Sample Size 13

4.3 Presentation of Data . 13

Figure 5 - Summary of Local Building Code Official

Responses 13

5. PROFILE OF BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION 16

5.1 Conclusions 24

Figure 6 - Profile of Building Code Administration 25

V

I
6. EXPERIENCE WITH DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 26

6.1 Conclusions 39

Figure 7 - Experience with Demonstration Program 40

7. BUILDING CODE AND SOLAR SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS IN GENERAL. . . 41

7.1 Conclusions 50

7.1.1 Non-Demonstration Assessments 50

Figure 8 - Building Code and Solar Systems Applications

in General 51

7.1.2 Comparison of Solar Demonstration and Non-Demonstration

Data 52

Figure 9 - Comparison of Non-Solar and Solar Demonstration

Data 53

7.1.3 The Solar Demonstration/Non-Demonstration Approval

Process 54

Figure 10 - Positive Responses Related to the Processing

of Solar Demonstration and Non-Demonstration

Installations 54

8. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS' IMPACT ON BUILDING CODES 56

8.1 Conclusions 69

Figure 11 - Solar Energy Systems Impact on Building Code . . 71

9. BUILDING CODE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 73

9.1 Conclusions 78

Figure 12 - Building Code and Energy Conservation 79

10. KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES RE: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS 80

Figure 13 - Local Building Code Official Knowledge,

Educational Background, and Source of

Information 83

Figure 14 - Ranking of Information Sources Used by

Local Building Code Official 90

10.1 Conclusions 91

Figure 15 - Knowledge and Attitudes re: Solar Energy

Systems 92

PART IV - ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES

11. DATA RELATED TO REGULATORY INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES

PARTICIPATING IN SOLAR RESIDENTIAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM . . 93

11.1 General 93

11.2 American Institute of Architects' Research Corporation

(AIA/RC) 93

Appendix I - Data Availability Summary 95

Appendix II - Data Collection Instruments 109

Appendix III - Summary of Applicable Codes as Reported in

Grantee Reports 139

vi
ABSTRACT

This report was prepared jointly for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) and the Department of Energy (DoE) under activities

carried out by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) relative to the

Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program. Regulatory information

is abstracted from HUD contractor developed questionnaires and analyzed

to determine perceived regulatory constraints which might inhibit, impede,

or otherwise adversely affect the installation and use of solar hot water

and space and/or cooling systems. The report documents and analyzes

building regulatory Information gathered by HUD Contractor personnel

during the course of the Solar Residential Demonstration Program—from

inception of the program (late 1975) through September 30, 1978.

Although not all builders and local code officials participating in the

demonstration program were interviewed for this study, the total number

of participants interviewed was of sufficient size to postulate trends

and draw reasonable conclusions regarding the building regulatory aspects

of the program. The report concludes that existing codes do not present

a barrier to the installation and acceptance of solar systems; however,

code officials need additional training and better back-up material to

properly evaluate solar systems.

vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is prepared jointly for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) and the Department of Energy (DoE) . It documents and

analyzes the building regulatory information gathered during the course

of the Solar Residential Demonstration Program. The report is based

on data collected by HUD contractor personnel and Includes data collected

from late 1975 through September 30, 1978.

The major findings documented in this report are discussed below.

A. Constraints/Technical Issues

1. Approximately eighty percent (80%) of the local building code

officials indicated that there are no major barriers in building

codes at present which would impede the installation of solar

energy systems in their jurisdictions, while a smaller percentage (approximately 64%) foresaw no future problems. Those

officials identifying current problems specified administrative

difficulties as the most frequent reason for these problems.

Anticipated new code requirements and structural concerns were

identified by those officials who expected future problems.

2. Some local building code officials reported that the codes used

in their jurisdictions contain provisions for solar systems.

There was no indication that the processing and acceptance of

solar energy installations was either affected adversely or advantageously by a jurisdiction’s adoption or lack of adoption

of solar energy provisions.

3. Approximately one-quarter of the local building code officials

indicated that their departments had studied the question of

potential impact of solar energy systems on building codes and

of these, one- third indicated a need for standards for solar

systems and components.

B. Approval and Inspection of Solar Systems

1. The solar demonstration builder/developer faces no greater or lesser difficulty than that routinely faced by non-solar builders in obtaining approval from building inspectors during the

planning and construction phases of their projects. From the

builder/developer perspective, it appears that regulatory issues

have not impeded the acceptance of solar systems on the Solar

Residential Demonstration Program.

viii
2. Approximately one-quarter of the local building code officials

indicated that solar applications presently require additional

processing time and approximately one-half of these local

building code officials expect that the need for this increased

processing time will continue.

3. The number of waivers requested for solar installation is low.

However, if a waiver is requested, the chance of having the

waiver granted is excellent. In addition, approximately one- quarter of the local building code officials required design

changes to be made on solar systems installed in their

jurisdictions.

4. System approvals and site inspections normally were handled in

a routine manner; however, approximately one-quarter of the

local building code officials reported that additional site inspections were required for them to become familiar with the

solar installations or to run plumbing or other physical tests.

5. The greatest concern of the local building code officials

identifying problems with solar systems meeting code requirements are the toxic fluids used in these systems.

6. Approximately two-thirds of the local building code officials

indicated building code problems in the installation of a solar system in an older structure; citing an overwhelming con- cern with structural adequacy of the buildings. In addition,

approximately one-quarter of the local building code officials

indicated that multi-family solar installations would entail

unique considerations from an approval point of view because of

the inherent complexity of these larger installations.

7. Certification of solar equipment, with approved testing con- ducted by any qualified testing institution, was desired by

one-third of the local building code officials prior to their

issuing a building permit.

C. Code Official Training and Technical Support

1. Generally, the knowledge and educational background of the

local building code official and the sources of solar energy

information available to him varied greatly from jurisdiction

to jurisdiction. If the processing of solar applications is

to be accomplished more effectively, the code official’s knowledge of solar energy systems must be upgraded by education,

training and actual experience.

ix
2. Areas of assistance identified by the local building code

official include: the training of evaluators and inspectors;

the development of manuals of accepted practice and inspection

guidelines; development of feasibility data; development of

efficiency data for different solar systems; certification of

equipment and systems; and, need for standards.

3. The sources most often used by the local building code official

for information related to solar energy are trade publications,

manufacturer's data, national and local associations, and government agencies. Other important sources are universities and

independent agencies. Developers and financial institutions

were rated low as sources for solar information.

X
PART I - DESCRIPTION OF DATA SOURCES AND INFORMATION USED AS THE BASIS

FOR THE STUDY

1. DATA SOURCES

1.0 General

To assure an orderly and systematic method of identifying and collecting

the pertinent data associated with the regulatory aspects of the HUD

Solar Residential Demonstration Program, each organization having

responsibility for the collection of data was identified. The data

collection instruments (questionnaires and reports) were collected and

a review made of each document to assess its value as a data source

for regulatory information. Those valuable to this project were then

singled out for study and the appropriate mechanisms established to

collect the data; either through the NBS Solar Data Base or through

direct contact with the custodial organization. To facilitate the

handling and analysis of the information, special computer print-outs

were developed using the information stored in the NBS Solar Data Base.

A presentation of organizations collecting data for the Solar Residential Demonstration Program, the data collection instruments, and the

applicable building requlatory questions are shown in Figure 1.

In addition, a reference code has been assigned to each selected

questionnaire (data collection instrument) and this reference code is

used to identify these data sources throughout this report. (The

selected building regulatory data collection instruments are included

in Appendix II.) A description of each data source is given below.

1. 1 Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC)

The upper portion of Figure 1 indicates the three volume data instruments prepared by the Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC) for use

in the Solar Residential Demonstration Program. These volumes, dated

January 1977, are non-technical in scope and are intended to document

responses to questions oriented toward the marketing, consumer, and

institutional sectors.

As part of RERC’s approach, some questionnaires were supplemented with

visits to other construction sites to obtain the views of organizations

that are not directly involved in the Solar Residential Demonstration

Program. For example, a solar demonstration builder may be asked if

he has had any trouble in processing his plans and specifications

through a particular code approval process. The reactions of other

builders regarding their experiences with the same code officials on non-solar related activities are also obtained, and comparisons of

this nature are included in this report. This provides the mechanism

to analyze the perceived differences in reactions by the different

organizations to a similar situation. Although not all sites were

vis ted, the questionnaires were generally answered in sets and data are

1
HEATING & COOLING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REGULATORY DATA

• Question 2te

• Question 19e

ENTIRE QUESTIONAIRE

156 QUESTIONSI

• PAGE A-2

PAGE C-11 QUESTION 19

DATA COLLECTOR DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

PAGE 3 QUESTION Qd

APPLICABLE

BUILDING REGULATORY

QUESTIONS

A1

A2

A3

A4

AS

B1

B2

Cl

Figure 1

2
gathered for all In rormutioii lUMtlnent lt> a slLt*. I'o llluatrate, 11 a particular site is to be visited at all, the builder, comparative

builder, code official, tax assessor, etc. , generally all are contacted

and the respective questionnaires completed.

Klgiiri' I i I 1 list I at es not only tht> throe volumes to In* used but also the

(jiiivst f onna 1 ri'.s In imcIi volume. Volume 1 Is a plan and contains no questions. There £ire separate questionnaires (in Volume II) containing

numerous questions oriented toward "The Purchaser," "The Comparative

Purchaser," "The Prospective Purchaser," etc. Four of the 14 questionnaires in Volume II are directly relevant to codes and standards.

Furthermore, only one question within each of those four questionnaires

relates to regulatory concerns. In Volume III, only one of eight

questionnaires is of interest. However, this 56-part questionnaire,

"Local Building Code Official," is of interest in its entirety. Section A of Appendix II consists of the pages of the RERC interview guide

which contain all the questions applicable to this study.

The RERC data are by far the most pertinent to this study and are used

to generate most of the conclusions and trends presented. The broad

scope of the questions asked and the variety of respondents (demonstration builders, non-demonstration comparative builders, and local

building code officials) allow for cross-correlations to be included

in this report.

The data collected by RERC were coded and included in the NBS Solar

Data Base. The bulk of the data used for this report came directly

from this source. Where possible, unclear responses, anomalies, and

ambiguities identified during the course of this study were investigated

for possible resolution using the original source data maintained by

RERC.

1.2 American Institute of Architects Research Corporation (AIA/RC)

Another organization collecting data for the Solar Residential Demonstration Program is the American Institute of Architects Research

Corporation (AIA/RC) . This organization developed a Design Integration

Monitor’s Handbook, dated March 3, 1977. The handbook is divided into

four sections (see Figure 1) and is oriented toward collecting a major

portion of the technical data for the Solar Residential Demonstration

Program. Information collected by AIA/RC using these forms is limited

to those sites which have been fully instrumented; hence, the data is

mostly technical in nature. Much of the data collected were coded by

AIA/RC and the coded sheets sent for input into the NBS Solar Data Base.

As noted in Figure 1, only two sections of the four in the Design Integration Monitor's Handbook are applicable to this study and each of the

questionnaires contains only one pertinent question. Section B of

Appendix II shows these questions.

3
Of these two questions, the second (Reference B2) was of greater interest

to this study. However, responses to these questions were neven enteted

into the NBS Solar Data Base and a search of the AIA/RC files revealed

only a small number of responses available. For completeness, these

responses are included in Section 11. These responses had little impact

on this study.

1 . 3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development /Boeing (HUD/Boeing)

I’hc Grantee Reports (see Figure 1) which were administered by Boeing

for tlie U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contain

only one question (in Report No. 3 - Construction Report) of interest

to this study.

Although some of the information contained in these reports appear in

other questionnaires, the regulatory data extracted represent nearly

a 100% response, since each grantee must provide this data. The other

related reports which contain regulatory data have this data only for

those sites which were visited on a selected basis for the purpose of

obtaining broader information. For example, the AIA/RC questionnaires

included this data only for the relatively few sites which were instrumented, while RERC collected regulatory data on the larger number of

sites selected for the collection of marketing, consumer and

institutional Information.

4
2 . SITE IDENTIFICATION AND STATUS OF DATA AVAILABILITY

2.0 General

Efforts were made to collect and organize all available data as of the

cutoff point of this report—September 30, 1978. The availability of

these data are shown in Appendix I, which also contains information that

chacterizes the housing units and solar systems installed. Sample

sizes are presented individually in the sections of this report that

analyze specific areas of response.

*! To organize the data in a mode which maintains time as a variable, the

information in Appendix I is presented on a cycle-by-cycle basis. The

division of data in this cyclical manner i's maintained throughout this

report and, where appropriate, time dependent observations are presented.

2.1 Site Identification and Data Availability

The site information pertinent to the Solar Residential Demonstration

Program is presented in Appendix I. The tables are organized by State,

and city within the State, and highlight some of the characteristics

of the site and the solar units. The site information pertains to

active sites (as of September 30, 1978) and is derived from the NBS

Solar Data Base. The information is tabulated by data source and the

applicable reference number (see Figure 1) indicated. As discussed

previously, the information collected by RERC is the primary resource

for this report. The AIA/RC regulatory data are limited and no con- clusions are drawn. These data are included herein for completeness.

The HUD/Boeing regulatory data from the Grantee Reports represents the

most complete group of data available; although the data is not 100%

complete

In a few cases, data inconsistencies exist. For example, multi-family

questionnaires are shown to have been completed at sites where single

family units are the housing type indicated. No attempt has been made

to resolve these differences, since the major thrust of this report is the

identification and analysis of overall regulatory issues, concerns,

and trends and the relatively minor problems with data concerning

specific sites do not affect the conclusions presented.

5
PART II - AN ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDER'S REACTION TO THE REGULATORY

ASPECTS OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AND THE RESPONSES OF

COMPARATIVE BUILDERS

3. RESPONSES BY BUILDERS /DEVELOPERS AND COMPARATIVE BUILDERS/

DEVELOPERS

3.0 General

Tills section addresses the reactions of the solar builder/developer

toward the local regulatory environment existing during the demonstration program. It also probes at determining if the solar builder was

treated differently, from other builders in the area, by asking similar

questions to non-demonstration, non-solar (comparative) builders. An

analysis is made to determine if there are differences and the extent

of these differences. Comments presented by each builder responding

negatively were recorded and tabulated. This section addresses the

responses to the RERC questionnaire for:

(a) Single Family Builder/Developer

(b) Comparative Single Family Builder/Developer

(c) Multi-Family Builder/Developer

(d) Comparative Multi-Family Builder/Developer

(Reference Al)

(Reference A2)

(Reference A3)

(Reference A4)

Wlnen appropriate, the builder's views toward the regulatory environment

are compared with the local building code official's comments in

Part III of this report.

3. 1 The Question

in effect, only a single question of a regulatory nature in the RERC

package of questionnaires was addressed to both the solar demonstration

builder and the non-solar, non-demonstration (comparative) builder

(see Figure 1). The question was:

"Did you have any problems obtaining approval from building

inspectors during the planning and construction phase- of the

project?

For Development?

For Solar Houses/Apts.?

If yes, please explain."

(See Appendix II for sample questionnaire form.)

This question was posed to: (1) the single family solar builder/

developer, to respond both for the development and for the solar

houses; (2) the comparative single family builder/developer , to

respond only to problems for the development since no solar units were

involved; (3) the multi-family builder developer, also to respond

6
both to the development and the solar apartments; and, (4) the comparative multi-family builder, to respond only to problems with the

development

Although a single regulatory question was asked of these builders, it

is an important question. It is broad in scope, covering the period

"during the planning and construction phase," and gives the opportunity

for any perceived problems to be aired.

3. 2 Sample Size

The detailed information in Appendix 1 are summarized in Figure 2 to

indicate the baseline data for this study. As can be seen, the regulatory question detailed in section 3.1 was asked by RERC of approximately

fifty percent (50%) of the single family builder/developers engaged in

constructing solar equipped demonstration houses, hut only of 9.7

percent of the multi-family builders/developers. In addition, RERC

interviewed non-demonstration, non-solar comparative single family

builders at approximately fifty percent (50%) of the locational areas where solar demonstration programs are being conducted and comparative

multi-family builders at 6.5 percent of these locational areas. The

demonstration builder data, both single family and multi-family,

approximately reflects the number of site locations visited; the usual

scheme is to generally interview only a single demonstration builder/

developer per location. However, the number of comparative builders

varied from one to four.

3. 3 Analysis of the Data

To gain an overview of the information analyzed, the builder/developer

responses are summarized in Figure 3. The number of overall responses

are a good proportion of the population studied, although, as noted

in section 3.2, the number of responses from multi-family builders is

somewhat lacking.

figure 3 illustrates that for the three cycles studied, demonstration

builder/developer responses were received from 115 of the 272 possible

sites (approximately 42%) . This Includes both single family and

multi-family builders/developers. In addition, 221 responses were

obtained from comparative non-demonstration, non-solar builders/

developers; also both single family and multi-family.

Thirteen (13), or approximately twelve percent (12%) of the builders/

developers interviewed, expressed difficulty in obtaining approval from

their building inspectors for solar houses /apartments . One solar

demonstration builder/developer reported difficulty in obtaining approval for his development. As a comparison, sixteen (16) of the 221

comparative non-demonstration, non-solar builders (approximately 7%)

reported difficulty with their local building inspectors in obtaining

approval for their developments.

7
AVAILABILITY OF BUILDER/DEVELOPER DATA

SOLAR

SINGLE

FAMILY

BUILDER/DEVELOPER

(INCLUDES

SINGLE

FAMILY

DETACHED

AND

ATTACHED)

NONSOLAR

(COMPARATIVE)

SINGLE

FAMILY

BU

ILDER/

DEVELOPER

SOLAR

MULTI-FAMILY

BUILDER/DEVELOPER

NON-SOLAR

(COMPARATIVE)

MULTI-FAMILY

BUILDER/DEVELOPER

REFERENCE A1 REFERENCE A2 REFERENCE A3 REFERENCE A4

BUILDER BUILDER BUILDER BUILDER BUILDER BUILDER BUILDER BUILDER

DATA DATA NOT DATA DATA NOT DATA , DATA NOT DATA DATA NOT

available AVAILABLE AVAILABLE AVAILABLE Available AVAILABLE AVAILABLE AVAILABLE

CYCLE 1 27^ 17 27 17 ii 5 0 6

CYCLE 2 31 28 32 27 2 14 2 14

CYCLE 3 48 60 47 61 3 37 2 38

TOTAL 106^ 105 106 105 6l 56 4 58

TOTAL RESPONSES POSSIBLE

(ALL

CYCLES)

211 211 62 62

PERCENT RESPONSES AVAILABLE

(AIX

CYCLES)

50.2 50.2 9.7 6.5

solar demonstration builder at one site responded to both the single family and multifamily questiormaire.

Figure 2

8

J

-H**.
SUMMARY OF BUILDER/DEVELOPER RESPONSES

LEGEND

§

TOTAL NUMBER OF DEMONSTRATION SITES NUMBER OF DEMONSTRATION SITES SURVEYED NUMBER OF DEMONSTRATION SITES REPORTING DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR SOLAR HOUSES ® NUMBER OF DEMONSTRATION SITES REPORTING DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM BUILDING INSPECTOR-FOR DEVELOPMENT 0 NUMBER OF COMPARATIVE NON-SOLAR SITES 0 NUMBER OF COMPARATIVE NON SOLAR SITES REPORTING DIFFICULTY

IN OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM BUILDING INSPECTOR-FOR DEVELOPMENT

CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3

49

27

.55 2727

70

.26

.00 64

5

.08

75

34

.45 30

33

2

1

.07

.03 70

3

.04

148 54

.36 50

50

4

0

.08 .00 87

8

.09

Figure 3

TOTAL-CYCLE 1,2,3

272

115 42

'

107 110

13 _J

.12

_^01 221 I 16

.07

9
'I'tiu rc|)<)rLecl r(i;isons for ItavLnj; clLfflcuJLy ohLalnlng approvals are tabulated in Figure 4. The difficulties reported—"inspector Not

Knowledgeable of Solar," "Need Better Wiring," etc. —are in the short

summary form provided by RERC as coded input to the NBS Solar Data Base.

A spot clieck of the completed questionnaires on file with RERC confirmed

that tlio sliort summaries generally reflected the gist of the longer,

narrative responses provided by the builder/developer

.

Difficulties Reported in Obtaining Approval by

Solar Demonstration Builder/Developer for Solar House/Apt.

INSPECTOR

NOT

KNOWLEDGEABLE

OF

SOLAR NEED

BETTER

WIRING STRICT

HEATING

CODE NEED

SYSTEM

DEVELOPMENT

NO

REASON

GIVEN TOTAL

CYCLE 1 5 2 7

CYCLE 2 2l 2

CYCLE 3 1 1 1 1 4

TOTAL 8 2 1 1 1 13

single builder/developer reported difficulty in obtaining approval "for development" as well as "for solar house/apt."

Difficulties Reported in Obtaining Approval by

Comparative Builder /Developer for His Development

iJ<

M

Oi u o U > M H H

ai < z o O oS o

H H U H < c/5 H U O D <

O W W < M O u z

M pH Ph w O 0^ qd U <d

p£ cn CO oi Ui Ph > H

H Z z ^ Cu Oi O M O

C/5 M M CQ CO < z o H

TOTAL 10 3 1 2 16

Figure 4

The reason most cited occurs in eight (8) of the thirteen (13) cases (approximately 62%) where the solar demonstration builder felt that

the fnspc'ctc'r was "Not Knowledgeable of Solar." It also should be

noted that the numlu'r of solar demonstration builders reporting that

the Inspect or was "Not Kiu)w I edgeab Ic of Solar," becomes smaller in each

succeeding cycle. This could be interpreted, in a positive sense, that

the building inspectors are i)ecoming more knowledgeable of solar with

the passage of time; or pessimistically, that the builder/developer10
building inspector interplay has not yet caused the builder to comment

adversely about the inspector. No investigation was made to determine

the construction phase of each site in relation to the time frame of

the interview with the builder/developer. An analysis of the local

building code official’s assessment of his own knowledge about solar

is included in Part III of this report.

Other difficulties in obtaining approval stated by solar demonstration

builders/developers are small in number, scattered, and vary by cycle.

Little meaning is attributed to these data in that they may reflect

operational problems associated with any nomal builder/inspector

interface. However, in California, Colorado and Connecticut—States

with very active solar programs —there are a greater number of builder/

developers reporting difficulties with the local building code official.

I Figure 4 also tabulates the difficulties reported by the comparative

non-demonstration, non-solar builder/developers. Thirteen (13) of the

sixteen (16) comparative builder/developers (approximately 81%) reported

that the difficulties experienced were due to a "Strict or Very

Bureaucratic" inspector. At two sites, the solar demonstration bjuilder/

developer and the comparative non-demonstration, non-solar buildejf/

developer both reported difficulty in obtaining approval from thetb

ing inspector. At another site, the two comparative non-demons trjat

non-solar builder/developers indicated problems with a "Strict Inspector," yet the solar demonstration builder/developer at the same location reported no problem in obtaining approvals.

uildion.

As a final observation, all thirteen (13) of the solar demonstration

builder/developers reporting difficulty in obtaining approvals were

constructing new units (as opposed to retrofitting existing units)

,

although nine percent (9%) of the two hundred seventy-two (272)

demonstration sites were retrofit sites. Additionally, only one multifamily solar demonstration builder-developer (of the thirteen) reported

difficulty in obtaining approval. All of the solar demonstration

builder/developers reporting difficulty are involved with active

(vs. passive) systems with no particular type (heating/cooling, hot

water) predominating.

3.4 Conclusions

The solar demonstration builder/developer faces no greater or lesser

difficulty than that routinely faced by a non-solar builder in obtaining approval from building inspectors during the planning and construction phases of a project. A small percentage of all builders (solar

and non-solar alike) face the occupational hazard of difficult dealings

with building inspectors and this study indicates that the new

technology—solar energy-—is no exception. It appears, from the

builders /developers perspective, that regulatory issues have not impeded the development of solar, at least on the demonstration program.

11
PART III - AN ANALYSIS OF THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL'S RESPONSES

TO THE REGULATORY ASPECTS OF THE SOLAR RESIDENTIAL

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS

4. RESPONSES BY LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIALS

4.0 General

Part III addresses the viewpoint of the local building code official

his attitudes, preferences, opinions, etc. —regarding the Solar

Residential Demonstration Program and other aspects of the regulatory

environment related to solar energy. It also gives a brief profile of

the building inspector, characterizes his knowledge of solar systems,

and touches slightly on his energy conservation attitudes in general.

Part III forms the bulk of this study, as it includes the responses to

fifty-six (56) questions asked of the local building code official by

the Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC) . (See Reference A5;

Figure 1.) Each question is analyzed and the results presented individ

ually. Where appropriate, questions are cross-tabulated and the findings and conclusions resulting from these correlations presented.

4 . 1 The Questions

Responses to the fifty-six (56) questions comprising the Local Building

Code Official's questionnaire would be difficult to manage unless

broken down into smaller, easily handled groups. Fortunately, RERC has

made such a manageable division in developing its questionnaire and

this division is followed here. The groupings are as follows:

QUESTIONS REPORT SECTION

1 through 8 5. Profile of Building Code Administration

9 through 20 6

.

Experience with Demonstration Program

21 through 30 7. Building Code and Solar Systems' Applications

in General

31 through 44 8. Solar Energy Systems' Impact on Building Code

45 through 48 9. Building Code and Energy Conservation

49 through 56 10. Knowledge and Attitudes Re: Solar Energy

Systems

The specific questions asked in the RERC document are included in the

appropriate section of this report, along with a tabulation of the

responses received. Observations and comments are presented with each

question, as well as a summary of findings and conclusions at the end

of each section. A sample of the questionnaire used by RERC is

included in Appendix 2.

12
4.2 Sample Size

The data availability listings in Appendix 1 (under RERC, Reference A5) are summarized in Figure 5. Responses were received from eighty-seven

(87) local building code officials, which represents responses from

approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of the two hundred seventy-two

(272) site locations. This percentage appears smaller than the sample

available for the solar demonstration builder/developer and comparative

builder /developer study in Part II. However, if duplicate sites are eliminated from the tabulation under the assumption that a single interview with the local building code official is sufficient at each site

location, then the total number of interviews possible for all three (3)

cycles reduces to two hundred four (204). The eighty-seven (87) re- sponses then become approximately a forty- three percent (43%) sample,

comparable to the forty- two percent (42%) sample achieved for the solar

demonstration builder/developer

.

Although responses to the RERC questionnaire were received from eightyseven (87) local building code officials, not all questions were

answered by each official. This is apparent when reviewing the responses

to the individual questions as the total responses will generally be

less than eighty-seven (87). In addition, responses which were unintellibable due to poor handwriting, errors in computer coding, or other

reasons sre also not tallied.

4. 3 Presentation of Data

The format used to present the data in the following sections was chosen to provide maximum visibility toward understanding the questions

asked and the responses received. The thrust of this report is not

oriented toward the individual responses tabulated, but rather on the

conclusions drawn from the aggregation of responses.

The responses are grouped by cycle. This allows an analysis of timedependent trends given the sequential nature of the cycles. Responses

to certain questions are also cross-tabulated to reinforce conclusions

or give another perspective to the perceived regulatory environment.

Where responses given by the responding local building code official

were other than "yes" or "no," the responses shown in this report

basically reflect the information stored in the NBS Solar Data Base.

These responses were coded by RERC in a short summary form to reflect

the gist of the thought articulated by the local building code official.

No attempt was made by NBS to verify that RERC captured the essence of

the thought expressed or that responses coded in the same abbreviated

way generally reflected similar opinions or beliefs. However, where the

sliort summary statement was considered unclear by NBS, contacts were

established with RERC in an effort to clarify these statements.

13
There are some responses to questions contained herein that apparently

lead to no conclusion in that the responses are scattered, varied, and

present no significant pattern. This lack of order, in itself is

valuable in concluding that perhaps there is no consensus on that

subject by local building code officials.

14
SUMMARY OF LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL RESPONSES

LEGEND

0 TOTAL ::u‘ OER OF DEtTOr^STPATION SITES

® K'J':''3ER OF LOCAL BUILDliiG CODE UFFlCiALS

RESPOTHIKG

CYCIE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCIE 3 TOTAL-CYCIE 1.2.3

,49 75 1‘'.3 272

22 24 41 87

®/® .45 .32 :28 .32

Figure 5

15
5. PROFILE OF BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION

This section deals with the first eight questions of the RERC report

oriented toward the Local Building Code Official (Reference A5

,

Figure 1). These data are not solar specific and are general in nature

but they provide broad information concerning the local building code

official. These data are useful in characterizing the "typical" local

building code official and demonstrating the diversity and autonomy

associated with building code administration.

Responses are tabulated relative to the organizational location and

reporting level of the building enforcement department within the

structure of the local government, the number of inspectors in the

department, and data concerning the building code used by the jurisd let ion

.

16
QUESTION 1: "Where is your department located within the government's

organizational structure?"

QUESTION 2: "This department is part of what level of government?"

RESPONSES

Question 1

H HZ

H

s

Pu, H

P g

§ E-) o 2:

hJ H u H

M S w s > O Ph 2: ^ pH H M 2 u

5 C H M Q 5^ O Q o 5 c/3 s p 5? Eb H H w P w 25 Pi CJ P Z 2 g

hJ Q z > H pH < W 3 M O o

PQ K < w tZ H a o 3 P M 5- u

M >i c W M o 3 w « H o g H w H

O O § z z o o CJ M M Pi 25 M ea 25 pc t-! B M Z u pH P >i w H

Pi < o o M P^ £ M H 2 H CL, u <3

Pi C/3 35 S 2: P Z C/3 H >

a M cn o 3 P Ck Pi o a o § o P ss <J M

Z Q W H o o S u u 5 o « O M H 2

H S H « Pi Pi CJ CJ C/3 2

CYCLE 1 6 2 2 1 2 0 0 5 0 1 0

CYCLE 2 6 5 5 1 3 1 1 2 0 0 0

CYCLE 3 6 7 3 0 3 0 2 8 2 1 1

18 14 10 2 8 1 3 15 2 2 1

Question 2

CITY TOWN

/VILLAGE

CITY

/COUNTY

STATE

GOVERNMENT

PRIVATE

COMPANY

CYCLE 1 10 2 9 0 0

CYCLE 2 14 3 7 0 0

CYCLE 3 21 0 12 1 1

45 5 28 1 1 80

17
Observations and Comment

The answers given by the local building code officials regarding the

location of their departments within the governments' organizational

structure and the supervising level of government are tabulated under

"Responses.” Unsurprisingly, the summary of responses highlight the

autonomy such organizations have within the overall structure of

government, the level rarely reaching above the county level. A cross- tabulation of the responses to Questions 1 and 2 is shown below.

CROSS TABULATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2

^fliere department

located ^^Ithin Govtb

organ. Level \structure

of Govt. SuDervlaing\^

Department

INDEPENDENT

DEPARTMENT

RESPONSIBLE

TO

CITY

TOWN

BOARD HOUSING

AND

URBAN

REHAB

/DEVEL.

DEPARTMENT

OF

COMMUNITY

DEVEL.

PLANNING

AND

ZONING

DEPT.

PUBLIC WORKS

COUNTY

EXECUTIVE

BOARD

1

COUNTY

BLDG.

AND

INSPEC.

DEPT.

STATE

GOVERNMENT

PRIVATE

COMPANY

UNSPECIFIED

CITY 13 12 5 2 7 1 1 1 ' 1

TOWN/VILLAGE 4 1

CITY /COUNTY 5 2 1 1 2 14 2 3

STATE GOVERNMENT 1

PRIVATE COMPANY 1

18 14 10 2 8 1 3 15 2 2 1 4

43

5

30

1

1

80

The highest frequency of the correlated data shown above indicates

that the departments of fourteen (14) local building code officials

are within the county executive board and that the supervising department is the city/county. Although tabulated above, this information

is of questionable value for any meaningful detailed analysis in

defining the local building code official/level of government /organizational structure in that the answers provided are not precise.

Definitions are not provided to differentiate between "Town/Village"

and "City;" is "Responsible to City" the same as "Independent Department?"; etc., etc. Nevertheless, this lack of order could characterize, in an overall sense, the local governmental environment in which

the building code official operates. Words like autcnomous, fragmented,

diversified and independent seem appropriate.

18
QUESTION 3. "How many inspectors do you have in the department?"

RESPONSES

0

to

9

10

to

19

20

to

29

30

to

39

40

to

49

50

to

39

bO

to

^9

70

to

79

80

to

89

90

to

99

100

CYCLE 1 14 3 1 1 1 1

CYCLE 2 14 5 2 2 1

CYCLE 3 24 6 1 5 2 1

52 14 482111 1

Observations and Comment

The answers given by the local building code officials regarding the

number of inspectors in their departments are summarized in the table

under "Responses." These responses also are graphically represented

in Figure 6. It should be noted that the highest frequency is one building inspector reported by seventeen (17) respondents. This

represents approximately twenty percent (.20%) of the jurisdictions

covered by this survey. In addition, approximately sixty-two percent

(b2%) reported nine (9) or fewer inspectors. The median number of

inspectors is between four (4) and five (.5)

.

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INSPECTORS

JURISDICTIONS RESPONDING TO SOLAR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

WJMBER OF INSPECTORS

Figure 6

19
QUESTION 4. "Does your department have an established building code?"

QUESTION 5. "What is the name of the code?"

QUESTION 6. "On what code is it modeled?"

QUESTION 7. "How closely does your code conform to the model code?"

QUESTION 8. "If not, how are buildings and structures evaluated with regard to public health and safety?" (Note: This question relates to question 4.)

RESPONSES

Question 4

YES NO

CYCLE 1 17 1

CYCLE 2 22 2

CYCLE 3 40 0

79 3

Question 5 Question 8

HEALTH

DEPARTMENT

AND

ZONING

MINIMUM

LOT

SIZE/FLOOR

AREA

1 0

1 1

0 0

20
Responses to Questions 4-8 (.cont'd.)

__ Question 6

Question 7

21
Observations and Comment

Seventy-nine (79) of the eighty-two (82) local building code officials

responding (approximately 9b%) indicated that their departments had an

('Stahl ished building code. Not surprising, is that two (.2) of the

t hrc'e (']) jurisdictions which did not have an established building

(•(xlt' also have no Inspectors in their organization. One, of course,

wonders who participated In the local building code official's interview if the Jurisdictions nave no codes or inspectors.

The names of the codes vary and are tabulated under "Responses" to

Question 5. Thirty-seven (37) of the local building code officials

(approximately 47%) indicated that their building codes were based

on the Uniform Building Code. In addition, forty-one (41) of the

seventy-six (76) local building code officials (approximately 54%)

said that their codes were a variation of a model code; seventeen (17)^

approximately twenty-two percent (22%), indicated that the model code

was mandatory in their jurisdictions, and nine (9), approximately

twelve percent (12%) , said that the model was a mandatory/minimum

requirement. A cross-tabulation matrix of these parameters as shown

below in "CODE BASIS AND CONFORMITY TO MODEL," indicates the most

prevalent condition existing in the reporting jurisdictions to be the

Uniform Building Code, modified by some variation (approximately 24%).

The responses to question seven, "How closely does your code conform to

the model coae?" require further examination. The responses in some cases such as, "Model with Some Variation," and, "More Stringent,"

rightly refer to a comparison of the code used in the jurisdiction as evaluated against the provisions found in the model code. Answers

given, however, such as "Mandatory" and "Mandatory/Minimum" refer to

the administration or enforcement of the code rather than to a com- parison of provisions.

Fur example, the local building code officials in two jurisdictions

reported that their codes are based after the "Basic Building Code"

and that it is a "Mandatory /Minimum. " It could be implied from this answer that the code used is the Basic Building Code with no variation

and this code is enforced as a "Mandatory/Minlmum. " Or, in fact, the

code used might be modeled after the Basic Building Code "with some variations" and that the modified code is enforced as a "Mandatory/

Minimum" code. The responses give no clue as to the real answer to

the question asked.

22

j
Question

Questions 4-8 (cont'd.)

CODE BASIS AND CONFORMITY TO MODEL

Question 6

STANDARD

BUILDING

CODE

BASIC

BUILDING

CODE

UNIFORM

BUILDING

CODE

NATIONAL

BUILDING

CODE

UNIFORM

PLUMBING

CODE

NFPA-NEC

AND

LIFE

SAFETY

CODE

FOLLOWS

STATE

CODE

COMBINATION

OF

ABOVE

NOT

ANSWERED

MODEL WITH SOME VARIATION 6 10 19 1 1 4

MANDATORY /MINIMUM 2 6 1

MANDATORY 3 3 8 1 1 1

DO NOT KNOW 2

RECOMMENDED MINIMUM 1

CONFORM TOTALLY 1 1

SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS ADDED 1

ENERGY CODE 1

BASIC MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING 1

MORE STRINGENT 1

NOT ANSWERED 1 2 1

9 16 37 1 21 5 7 2

41

9

17

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

80

23
5.1 Conclusions

The individual results listed under each question are depicted in

graphical form In Figure 5. In summary, the "Profile of Building Code

Administration" can be characterized as follows:

The "typical" local building code official operates in a governmental

environment that focuses around city or pernaps county government and

is directly responsible to a higher echelon of tnat government. The

group is not large, with perhaps four to five inspectors in the department. Most jurisdictions base their local codes after some nationallyrecognized model code "with some variation" to meet the specific needs

of the jurisdiction.

24
vO

25

Figure
I

6. EXPERIENCE WITH DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Questions 9 through 20 relate to the local building code official's

experience with the Residential Solar Demonstration Program, Questions

are included regarding his familiarity with the demonstration program;

waivers requested and granted; requirements for design changes and

approvals; special training; site inspections; and, approval processing

times. In addition, the influence of the Federal government on the

process used for systems approval for the demonstration program is

queried.

In Section 7, these questions are compared with similar questions con- cerning the system used in processing and approving non -demonstration

solar applications.

26
QUESTION 9: "Are you familiar with the solar house(s) /apartment (s)

that was (were) built with a Federal grant in your

jurisdiction?"

RESPONSES

YES NO

CYCLE 1 21 1

CYCLE 2 24 0

CYCLE 3 37 4

82 5

Observations and Comment

Five of the eighty-seven (87) local building code officials Interviewed

(approximately 6%) were not familiar with the solar units built in

their jurisdictions under the demonstration program. At these five

sites, none of the solar builders reported difficulty in obtaining approval from the building inspectors. This question, however, is

unclear in its meaning and the responses, therefore, may not be answering the intended question. In effect, the respondents could have

meant that they were not aware of the demonstration program being

conducted in their jurisdiction; or, that they were aware of the demonstration program but were not familiar with the specific solar units

that were built there.

27
QUESTION 10: "Were any waivers requested to accommodate the solar system?.'!

QUESTION 11: "Were these waivers granted?"

RESPONSES Question 10

NO YES

CYCLE 1 20 0

CYCLE 2 23 0

CYCLE 3 34 4

77 4

WAIVER REQUEST

For Wood Stove Back-up

Eilriiinate Roofing Undercoat

Conform to New Code

Windows Too Small

Question 11

WERE

Waivers

GRANTED REASON

No System Considered Inadequate

Yes -

Yes Used New CodeNo -

Observations and Comment

Four (4) of the eighty-one (81) local building code ofricials interviewed (approximately 5%) reported receiving waiver requests to accom- modate the solar systems. Waivers were granted to two of the four

builders requesting them. It is interesting to note that the builder/

developer who was denied a waiver for a wood stove back-up reported

difficulty in obtaining approval from the building inspector ana indicated (in the builder/developer questionnaire) that the jurisdiction

had a "Strict Heating Code."

28
QUESTION 12: "Were any design changes required prior to approval?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 13 7

CYCLE 2 19 3

CYCLE 3 32 6

64 16

Observations and Comment ‘

Sixteen (16) of the eighty (80) local building code officials interviewed (20%) required design changes prior to approval. These changes

are grouped by frequency of response and by building element.

RESPONSES BY FREQUENCY

N / Additional Roof Support 4

(2) Ventilation System 4

(3) Wall Construction 3

(4) Additional Windows 2

(5) Wiring Changes for Safety 1

(6) Valves Required 1

(7) Separate Tanks for Potable Water 1

16

RESPONSES BY BUILDING ELEMENT

Structural (1,3) 7

Ventilation (2,4) 6

Plumbing (6,7) 2

Electrical (5) 1

16

29
The highest number of design changes (approximately 81%) concern themselves with structural and ventilation requirements; changes only

peripherally associated with the functioning of solar systems. The

smaller number of plumbing and electrical changes seem directly associated

witli the solar systems installed.

At tliree (3) of the sixteen (16) sites where design changes were required,

the builder/developer indicated that he had difficulty with the local

building code official.

1

30
QUESTION 13: "Were system approvals handled in the normal manner by

regulatory personnel or did special considerations prevail?

Please explain."

RESPONSES

NORMAL

MANNER OTHER

CYCLE 1 17 2

CYCLE 2 21 2

CYCLE 3 33 5

71 9

Observations and Comment

Nine (9) of the eighty (80) local building code officials interviewed

(approximately 11%) indicated that system approvals were handled in a special manner. Approximately fifty-five percent (55%) of those

responding that special handling occured identified the collector as receiving special attention. Nevertheless, none of the nine (9) solar

builders/developers whose sites were handled in a special manner

reported difficulty in obtaining approval from the local building code

official

31
QUESTION 14:

KESl’ONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 18 2

CYCLE 2 20 3

CYCLE 3 33 4

71 9

( ) I )j5_Gr_y_i 1 Ll()ns and Commen L

Nine (9) 1)1 Lhe eighty (80) local building code officials interviewed

(a|)|)rox linaLe 1 y 117.) reported chat special training was needed for

regulatory staff or field inspectors

"Was special training needed for regulatory staff or field inspectors?"

32
QUESTION 15: "Were job site inspections handled in a normal way or by

special personnel? Please explain."

RESPONSES

NORMAL OTHER

CYCLE 1 19 1

CYCLE 2 24 0

CYCLE 3 36 2

79 3

Observations and Comment

Three (3) of the eighty-two (82) local building code officials interviewed (approximately 4%) handled job site inspections in a special

way. Two (2) reported that site inspections were handled in a more

impersonal and thorough manner and the other reported that site inspections were handled by specially trained personnel.

33
QUESTION 16: "Were additional job site inspections necessary?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 12 6

CYCLE 2 17 5

CYCLE 3 26 9

55 20

Observations and Coinment

Twenty (2) of the seventy-five (75) local building code officials

Interviewed (approximately 27%) indicated that additional job site

inspections were necessary. The reasons are tabulated by frequency.

To Understand System Operation 6

Water Test/Structural Inspection 4

Electrical and Plumbing 4

Unspecified 4

Storage and Structural 2

34
QUESTION 17: "Did it take longer to process the solar application than

it would have for conventional property?"

QUESTION 18: "If the time factor was increased, would this hold true for

future residential applications using solar energy systems?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 18 2

CYCLE 2 16 8

CYCLE 3 30 7

64 17

Observations and Comment

Seventeen (17) of the eighty-one (81) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 21%) indicated that it took longer to process

the solar demonstration applications than it would have for conventional

property. The reasons cited by frequency are:

Formal Plan Check 5

To Understand System 4

Stringent Mechanical Review 4

Non-Convent ional Plumbing 2

Non-Convent ional Framing System 1

Check Structural Adequacy 1

17

In response to Question 18 regarding the increased time factor for

processing future applications for solar systems, sixteen (16) of the

local building code officials responding "Yes" to Question 17 answered

as follows:

Variety of Construction

and Technology

4

7

EXPECT TIME DELAYS TO

CONTISL'E Plumbing Inspection Necessary 2

Ves - No Reason 1

Okay After System Established 6

9

EXPECT TIME DELAYS TO DIMINISH

Not Caused by Solar 2

Not that SlgTiiflcant 1

35
In erfect, seven (7) of ll>e e I iJ,lity-one (HI) io«*al biiiidiii^ code,

officials interviewed (approximately 9%) believe that there wiil be

delays encountered in the future for processing solar energy applications, while nine (9) local building code officials (approximately 11%)

expect the time delays to diirdnish. It should be noted that three solar

builders at sites currently taking longer to process solar applications

indicated difficulty in obtaining approval from building inspectors and

cited "inspector Not Knowledgeable of Solar" as the reason.

36
QUESTION 19: "Did the fact that the solar unit(s) was (were) funded by

a Federal grant impact the approval process?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 19 1

CYCLE 2 23 1

CYCLE 3 37 0

79 2

Observations and Comment

Seventy-nine (79) of the eighty-one (81) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 98%) indicated that the Federal presence in

the demonstration program did not impact the approval process. This is

discussed in detail in Section 7 where the views of the local building

code official are analyzed regarding his handling of solar systems

submitted by non-demonstration solar builder/developers

.

37
(QUESTION 20: "Would the process have differed for a solar unit built

outside of the demonstration project?"

RESI’ONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 19 1

CYCLE 2 23 1

CYCLE 3 36 1

78 3

Observations and Comment

Seventy-eight (78) of the eighty-one (81) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 96%) Indicated that the approval process would

not have differed for solar units built outside of the demonstration

project. Two (2) of the three (3) who indicated that the process would

have been different cited that certified approval would have been re- quired for non-demonstration solar units built in their jurisdictions.

This is discussed in detail in Section 7 where the views of the local

building code official are analyzed regarding his handling of solar

systems submitted by non-demonstration solar builder/developers.

38
6.1 Conclusions

The individual results listed under each question are shown in

graphical form in Figure 6. The local building code official’s observations toward his "Experience with the Demonstration Program" can be

summarized as follows.

1. During the demonstration program very few waivers were requested.

However, if requested, the chance of approval was 50/50. This

small number of waivers could be the result of a more thorough

design effort required by the local building code official or because of the Federal government's role in the demonstration

program.

2. Local building code officials required design changes to be made

in approximately twenty percent (20%) of the systems. The majority

of the design changes appear to be non-solar system related and not

directly applicable to the operation of the solar system. The

required design changes seem to originate because of structural

and ventilation concerns—requirements which the local building

code official addresses on* a routine basis.

3. For the most part, the system approvals were handled normally.

However, several local building code officials required a special

review of the solar collectors.

4. A relatively large number of local building code officials reported

the necessity of additional site inspections to review the solar

equipment. Some of the inspections were necessary to understand

the system operations, while others were necessary to inspect the

adequacy of the installation regarding structural, plumbing, or electrical concerns. In addition, several inspectors required

additional field training to perform these inspections and a small

number handled inspections in a special way.

5. Approximately twenty-one percent (21%) indicated that it took longer

to process the demonstration application and the opinion was almost

split on whether the process time would continue to be longer than

normal or would gradually diminish to a normal, routine time frame once a mechanism has been established to process these systems.

6. The vast majority of local building code officials reported that

the approval process was not influenced by the Federal presence on

the demonstration program and that the process would not differ

for non-demonstration sites. This is discussed in greater detail

in Section 7.

39
EXPERIENCE

WITH

DEMONSTRATION

PROGRAM

0

40

Figure
7. BUILDING CODE AND SOLAR SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS IN GENERAL

This Section, Questions 21 through 30, documents the responses of the

local building code official regarding the administration of nondemonstration solar installations. The questions address waivers

requested and granted, design changes required, the approval system

used and process time required, training, site inspection, etc. These

questions for the most part repeat the questions asked of the local

building official concerning his reactions to the Residential Solar

Demonstration Program (Section 6, Questions 10 through 20). Because

of this, a comparison is possible to determine differences, if any,

between the local building code official's administration of the solar

demonstration project and other non-demonstration solar projects in his

jurisdiction.

Not all local building code officials represented jurisdictions that

had processed non-demonstration solar applications. In fact, the

responses to Question 21 indicate that approximately sixty-four percent

(64%) of the local building code officials have had experience with

non-demonstration solar units in their jurisdictions in addition to the

demonstration program. This, of course, reduces the sample size since

only the local code officials who have processed non-demonstration solar

units could respond to the specific questions asked. This sample size

of fift-yfour (54) is still adequate to gain some insight on how these

non-demonstration solar sites were handled.

41
QUESTION 21: "Has your office/agency reviewed or processed any applications for building permits for other solar units in this

jurisdiction?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 9 12

CYCLE 2 6 17

CYCLE 3 15 25

30 54

Observations and Comment

Fifty-four (54) of the eighty-four (84) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 64%) indicated that they had processed

applications for building permits for other solar units in their jurisdictions. Of the thirteen (13) demonstration builder/developers who

indicated problems in obtaining approval from the local building code

officials (see Section 3), six (6) were located in jurisdictions in

which the local building code official had not processed solar applications for non-demonstration solar units and five (5) of these six (6)

demonstration builder /developers had the comment, "Inspector Not Knowledgeable of Solar." The other seven (7) builder/developers who cited

problems in obtaining approval from the local building code official

were located in jurisdictions in which the local building code official

had processed solar applications for non-demonstration units. Three

(3) of these builder/developers also had the comment, "Inspector Not

Knowledgeable of Solar."

The types and/or number of non-demonstration solar projects as reported

by the local building code official are as follows:

Unspecified 17

Single Family and Multi-Family 11

All Types 11

Active/Passive/Pools 5

Over 10 - A Variety of Systems 4

Hybrid Systems 2

Air Collectors 2

12 Projects 1

One Retrofit 1

54

42
QUESTION 22: "Were any waivers requested to accommodate the solar

systems?"

QUESTION 23: "Were these waivers granted?"

RESPONSES

Question 22

NO YES

CYCLE 1 10 2

CYCLE 2 15 1

CYCLE 3 22 0

47 3

Question 23

NO YES

CYCLE 1 0 2

CYCLE 2 0 1

CYCLE 3 0 0

0 3

Observations and Comment

Three (3) of the fifty (50) local building code officials interviewed

(6%) indicated that they had had requests for waivers from nondemonstration solar builders and that these waivers were granted.

43
QUESTION 24: "Were any design changes required prior to approval?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 10 2

CYCLE 2 10 6

CYCLE 3 16 6

36 14

4

i%

Observations and Comment

Fourteen (14) of the fifty (50) local building code officials responding

(28%) indicated that they required design changes prior to approval on non-demonstration solar projects. These are tabulated below by

frequency:

Historical Design Requirement 3

Styrofoam Insulation 2

Separate Water Tanks 2

Roof Structure 2

Tank Capacity 1

Additional Ventilation 1

Unspecified 3

14

One solar demonstration builder /developer reported difficulty in obtaining approval from the building inspector and commented, ""Inspector Not

Knowledgeable of Solar." Yet, the inspector required separate water

tanks on non-demonstration solar projects, indicating an awareness

of potential solar-related difficulties.

44
QUESTION 25: "Were system approvals handled in the normal manner by

regulatory personnel or did special considerations prevail?

Please explain."

RESPONSES

NORMAL OTHER

CYCLE 1 11 1

CYCLE 2 16 0

CYCLE 3 21 3

48 4

Observations and Comment

Four (4) of the fifty-two (52) local building code officials interviewed

(8%) indicated that non-demonstration solar approvals were handled in a special way. Two local building code officials reported extra reviews

and discussions were needed with the builder /developer ; one local building code official required the contractor to be bonded; and one official

turned the review over to a "Mechanics' Department" (details unspecified).

45
QUESTION 26: "Was special training needed for regulatory staff or field

inspectors?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 11 1

CYCLE 2 16 1

CYCLE 3 18 5

45 7

Observations and Comment

Seven (7) of the fifty-two (52) local building code officials interviewed

(approximately 13%) Indicated that special training was needed. The

majority of the reasons cited was to obtain general familiarity with

solar systems. This perceived need increased substantially during

the interviews conducted during the Cycle 3 time frame, perhaps indicating that as the local building code official becomes more involved

with solar systems he recognizes a need to be better informed. Four

(4) local building code officials indicating no special training required

for non-demonstration solar sites, reported that training was needed for

the solar demonstration sites (Question 14)

.

46
QUESTION 27: "Were job inspections handled in a normal way or by

special personnel? Please explain."

RESPONSES

NORMAL OTHER

CYCLE 1 12 0

CYCLE 2 14 0

CYCLE 3 23 1 ,

49 1

Observations and Comment

l'"orty-nine (49) of the fifty (50) local building code officials interviewed (98%) indicated that the non-demonstration solar sites were

handled normally.

47
QUESTION 28: "Were any additional job site inspections necessary?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 11 1

CYCLE 2 13 3

CYCLE 3 13 9

37 13

( ) hs erva

L

i ons and Comment

I'liirteen (13) of the fifty (50) local building code officials interviewed

(26%) indicated that additional job site inspections were necessary on non-demonstration solar sites. Eight (8) of the thirteen (13) responded

similarly for the solar demonstration program (Question 12). However,

twelve (12) local building code officials who indicated that no additional site inspections were necessary for non-deirionstration solar

installations responded that additional site inspections were required

for the solar demonstration projects.

'L'lie reasons cited for additional non-demonstration site inspections are Labulated by frequency:

Water Test 6

Unfamiliarity with System 3

Problems with Supporting Structure 2

Storage and Structural 1

Unspecified 1

13

48
QUESTION 29: "Did it take longer to process the solar application than

it would have for conventional property?"

QUESTION 30: "If the time factor was increased, would this hold true

for future residential applications using solar energy

systems?"

RESPONSES

Question 29

NO YES

CYCLE 1 11 I

CYCLE 2 13 4

CYCLE 3 15 8

39 13

Observations and Comment

Question 30

NO YES NO RESPONSE

CYCLE 1 1 0 0

CYCLE 2 0 3 1

CYCLE 3 3 4 1

4 7 2

Thirteen (13) of the fifty-two (52) local building code officials re- sponding (25%) indicated that it takes longer to process solar applications than to process applications for conventional property. In

addition, seven (7) of these local building code officials responded

that the increased processing time is expected to continue. The reasons

cited for longer process times for solar applications are as follows:

Initial Solar Installations

Require Close Inspections 8

Extra Plumbing Inspection 2

Need to Ascertain Performance

Levels

1

Need to See Plan 1

Unspecified 1

13

49
7.1 Conclusions

7.1.1 Non -Demonstration Assessments

Till' ri'sullrs for each question in this Section are summarized graphically

in l'’i)>ure 8 and discussed lielow.

1. Approximately sixty-four percent (64%) of the local building

code officials interviewed indicated that they also had processed permits for non-demonstration solar units in their

jurisdictions. Builders/developers involved in the solar

demonstration program, however, cited problems in obtaining

approvals from the local building code official in jurisdictions that had never processed a solar application before, as well as with local building code officials that had experience

with non-demonstration solar installations in their jurisdictions.

/ 2. A small number of local building code officials reported

waivers being requested by non-demonstration solar builders/

developers and these waivers were granted.

3. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the local building code officials

indicated that design changes were required of non-demonstration

solar builders/developers in their jurisdictions. These design

change requirements imply an interplay between the builder/

developer and the local building code official and may account

for the relatively few waivers requested by non-demonstration

solar builders/developers.

4. System approvals for non-demonstration solar Installations

were generally handled in a normal manner, although some review

and discussion was held with the builder/developer

.

5. Specific training , ^basically to obtain general familiarity with

, solar systems, was reported by approximately thirteen percent

(13%) of the local building code officials.

6. For non-demonstration solar installations, the local building

code official reported that with few exceptions, site inspections were handled in a normal manner. However, twenty-six

percent (26%) of these local building code officials also

acknowledged that additional site inspections were necessary

to become more familiar with the solar systems and to run additional tests.

7. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the local building code officials

indicated that it took longer to process solar applications and over one-half of these officials had the apinion that the process time for solar applications would continue to be longer

than for conventional units because of the checking and testing

of additional equipment involved in solar systems.

50
BUtLOING

CODE

AND

SOLAR

SYSTEMS

APPLICATIONS

IN

GENERAL

51

Figure
7.1.2 Comparison of Solar Demonstration and Non-Demonstration Data

The Rl'.RC ques t J onnaire askc'd identical questions of the loi'al building

eodi' ol iit ial legardiug his views relative Lo "I^xpericnce with Deiiion-

^UraLi^)n Program” (Set’Lion b. Questions 10 tlirough L8) and "building

(iode an^l Solar Systems Applications in General” (Section 7, Questions

22 through 30). These paired questions, in effect, allow a comparison

to be made that is more meaningful than each of the individual re- sponses separately.

The results of the comparison is indicated in Figure 9 and plotted in

percentage form to normalize the data. In reviewing Figure 9, the

following observations are offered:

1. The percentage of site locations where waivers were requested

is comparable for solar demonstration and non-demonstration

solar sites and this percentage is low (5-6%) . If a waiver

is requested, it appears that the chances of having the waiver

granted is excellent. However, note that the percentages

shown for granted waivers are based on a very small sample size.

2. The percentage of local building code officials requiring

design changes varied from twenty percent (20%) for solar

demonstration site locations to twenty-eight percent (28%) for

non-demonstration solar site locations. The lower percentage

for solar demonstration sites may be due to the Federal pre- sence on the demonstration program which may have inherently

selected better designed systems during the preliminary evaluation and review process. On the other hand, these differences

simply may be caused by variations in the sample sizes.

3. The number of local building code officials indicating special

handling of system approvals was in the range of ten percent

(10%) ; both for the solar demonstration and non-demonstration

solar installations.

4. The handling of site inspections was very similar for solar

demonstration sites and non-demonstration solar sites. A very

small percentage of local building code officials handled

these site inspections in a special manner; however, approximately one-quarter of the local building code officials

reported additional site inspections required. In several

cases, the reason given for these additional site inspections

was the need to become familiar with the solar installations,

while in other cases the additional site inspections were

conducted for the purpose of running plumbing or other physical

tests.

5. Approximately one-quarter of the local building code officials

responding indicated that for both the solar demonstration and

the non-demonstration solar installation, the solar application

52
«r

•Ia

3

* S

I -

o

‘ O

tin

.

,

( ‘ >

; a:o kL. S O S

sc ®

c'J &;

-- :5 ce<o,3E a

o z

<

oCO

oe o

» o

aiUJO

cs3

I?

«C

re<j

7C

55

CO

toS

&

<o

«0oui

oe

</>

to

r> ifi

CLto

oyj&to

o S

a! ^

3O(O

-S

to

UJO

oUi

a.X

CD

o>

53

Figure
rc(|Lilred additional procoss lug L i mo ; and approx I mat i> I y ono-liail

of the local building code officials liav Lug tliis view expect

that this process time will continue to take longer than normal.

7.1.3 The Solar Demonstration/Non-Deraonstration Approval Process

Questions 19 and 20 indicate that the vast majority of local building

code officials felt that the approval process was not influenced by the

Federal presence on the demonstration program, and that the process used

would not differ for non-demonstration solar sites. Because of the

identical questions asked of the local building code officials for the

demonstration sites (Questions 12 through 17) and non-demonstration

solar installations (Questions 24 through 29) , this perception of equal

treatment can be tested.

The methodology used is to select only the responses for those local

building code officials who had experience processing both demonstration

and non-demonstration solar applications in their jurisdictions. A

comparison is then possible by reviewing the procedures used in processing solar demonstration applications as opposed to non-demonstration

solar applications.

In order to make this comparison, the responses are organized in matrix

form in Figure 10, and the paired questions listed along with a short

description of the question. The number of the local building code

officials responding positively to the question is tabulated. Local

building code officials indicating that they processed both demonstration

and non-demonstration solar units in a similar manner are tabulated in

the center (outlined) column.

POSITIVE RESPONSES RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF

SOLAR DEMONSTRATION AND NON-DEMONSTRATION INSTALLATIONS

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATION

SITES ONLY

IbOTH DEMONSTRATION

|aND NON-DEMONSTRATION

IsiTES

NON-DEMONSTRATION

SITES ONLY

12/24 DESIGN CHANGES REQUIRED 4

1 ^ 9

, SYSTEM APPROVAL HANDLED

IN SPECIAL MANNER

7

1 ^ 3

14/26 SPECIAL TRAINING NEEDED 3

f ^ 2

. SITE INSPECTION HANDLED

IN SPECIAL WAY

2 1 1 0

, ADDITIONAL SITE INSPECTIONS NECESSARY

4 8 4

TOOK LONGER TO PROCESS

SOLAR APPLICATIONS

5 7 5

Figure 10

54
If the local building code official really treated the solar demonstration sites the same way he treated non-demOnstration solar installations,

the responses would all fall under the column "BOTH DEMONSTRATION AND

NON-DEMONSTRATION SITES." Since the responses are almost divided into

thirds, one might: conclude:

1. Approximately one-third of the local building code officials

having both demonstration and non-demonstration solar installations processed both in a similar manner.

2. Approximately one-third of the local building code officials

having both demonstration and non-demonstration solar installations required more emphasis and effort with the solar

demonstration sites.

3. Approximately one- third of the local building code officials

having both demonstration and non-demonstration solar installations required more emphasis and effort with the non- demonstration solar installation.

55
8 . SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS' IMPACT ON BUILDING CODES

This Sect ion contains rcs)K)nses centered on the local building code

ollicial's general attitude toward solar energy and building codes.

II I'lieompasses (hicstions 31 through 44 of the RERC questionnaire.

The Section queries the local building code official about any studies

that were made in his jurisdiction relative to the impact of solar

systems on building codes; elicits the results of these studies; and,

the usefulness of studies of this type in general. In addition, it

attempts to determine if any code provisions for solar systems are contained in the jurisdiction's existing codes. The local building

code official's attitude is solicited concerning organizations which

could certify solar systems from a product approval point-of-view,

including the need for such certification and the candidate organizations which could provide this service.

Questions also are asked to determine what kinds of solar systems

would have problems meeting the code requirements; the specific problems

encountered with solar system installation in existing buildings; and,

any unique considerations associated with multi-family solar installations as compared to single family units. And finally, responses are provided concerning compliance with the Federal Housing AdministrationMinimum Property Standards (FHA-MPS), building code approvals, enabling

legislation, and administrative rules.

I

r

56
QUESTION 31: "Does your code contain provisions for solar system

installations?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 16 5

CYCLE 2 19 4

CYCLE 3 34 7

69 16

Observations and Comment

Sixteen (16) of the eighty-five (85) local building code officials re- sponding (approximately 19%) reported that their jurisdictional codes

contained provisions for solar system installations. These are tabulated by frequency;

Sections of Uniform Building Code 8

Solar Not Precluded 1

Basic Plumbing 1

Plumbing Requirement 1

Government Regulations 1

Part of State Code 1

Chapter of Energy Conservation Laws 1

No Explanation Provided 2

16

A cross-correlation with builders/developers expressing difficulty in

obtaining approval from the building inspectors during the planning and

construction phase (see Section 3) Indicated that three (3) of these

demonstration builders/developers were in the sixteen (16) jurisdictions

that had solar provisions in their codes.

In reviewing the responses of the local building code officials who

required design changes prior to approval (Question 12), approximately

nineteen percent (19%) were officials in jurisdictions that had provis it>ns for Kt)lar systems and a like' percentage were in jurisdictions

lliat iiad no solar provisions in their local codes.

57
QUESTION 32: "Has your department studied the question of the potential

impact of solar energy systems on the building codes?"

(QUESTION 33: "What were the conclusions of the study?"

(JUKSTION 34: "As a resuJ t of this study, have procedures or regulations

Ik on mod if Led or changed to facilitate the installation

ol solar energy systems in residential developments?"

Rl'iS PONSES Question 32

NO YES

CYCLE 1 18 2

CYCLE 2 17 6

CYCLE 3 27 11

62 19

Observations and Comment

Nineteen (19) of the eighty-one (81) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 23%) responded that their departments

studied the question of potential impact of solar energy systems on building codes. The conclusions of the study are tabulated below by

frequency

Need Standards Established 6

No Conclusion 6

No Impact 3

Impact of Costs 1

Greater Roof Bearing 1

No Response 2

19

As a result of these studies, four (4) jurisdictions of the nineteen

(19) responding positively to Question 32 (approximately 21%) have

modified their procedures to facilitate the installation of solar

energy systems

58
QUESTION 35: "Would such a study be useful?"

RESPONSES

YES NO

CYCLE 1 9 5

CYCLE 2 12 4

CYCLE 3 16 10

37 19

Observations and Comment

Of the local building code officials who replied that their jurisdictions had not studied the impact of solar systems on building codes,

thirty-seven (37) of fifty-six (56) (approximately 66%) indicated that

such a study would be useful.

59
QUESTION 36: "Are you seeking organizational certification (product

approval) of a solar energy system as a prerequisite to

issuing a building permit?"

()III':STI()N 37: "To whicli organ! zation(s) would you look for product

approval?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 16 5

CYCLE 2 16 7

CYCLE 3 36 15

58 27

Observations and Comment

Twenty-seven (27) of the eighty-five (85) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 32%) indicated that they are seeking organizational certification as a prerequisite to issuing a building permit

for solar systems and commented on the type of approval desired. These

local building code officials also indicated the organization they

would look to for this certification. In addition, five (5) local

building code officials not seeking organizational certification indicated their preference if they were to seek such certification. These

data are summarized on the next page by type of approval and approving

organization.

From the matrix, it can be noted that fourteen (14) of the thirty-two

(32) local building code officials (approximately 44%) preferred

some type of approved testing as a prerequisite to issuing a building

permit. Organizations most supported for product approval are "Any

Testing Institute" (approximately 31%) and "lAPMO" (25%). No clear

combination of type of approval and approval organization is dominant,

with the highest combination (approximately 16%) being "Approved Testing by Any Testing Institute."

60
SUMMARY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CERTIFICATION DESIRED

I

ARE

YOU

SEEKING

ORGANIZATIONAL

1

CERTIFICATION?

WHAT TYPE OF APPROVAL

IS NECESSARY?

WHAT ORGAiaZATION WOULD

YOU LOOK TO FOR PRODUCT

APPROVAL?

ASHRAE

Any

Testing

Institute

ICBO

State

Solar

Energy

Center

Underwriters'

Laboratories

lAPMO

Unspecified

I

1 YES

Approved Testing i 2 5 - 1 3 2 1 14

Building Code Approval - 2 - - 1 1 - 4

lAPMO Product Listing - - - - 3 - 3

National Minimum Standards 2 1 — - - - - 3

Knowledge of System : - - 2 - - - - 2

Unspecified - — - — - 1 — 1

NO - - 2 1 - 1 - 5

4 10 3 2 4 8

61
QUESTION 38: "What kinds of solar energy systems would have problems

meeting code requirements? Why?"

RESPONSES

DON’T KNOW NONE OTHER

CYCLE 1 6 8 7

CYCLE 2 7 7 8

CYCLE 3 16 18 6

29 33 21

Observations and Comment ,, .. —. . . .. , i i Twenty-one (21) of the eighty-three (83) local building code officials

(approximately 25%) indicated that certain types of solar systems would

have problems meeting local code requirements. In addition, thirtythree (33) of the eighty-three (83) officials (approximately 40%) said

that solar systems would not have problems meeting code requirements in

their jurisdictions. The problems identified by twenty-one (21)

officials are tabulated by frequency.

Toxic Carriers 5 8

Hydro Systems Using Antifreeze 3

Unworkable Systems 5

Plastic Tubing 3

Liquid Systems 2

Roof Systems - Structural 1

Free Standing Systems 1

Less than 70% Efficient 1

21

Eight (8) of the twenty-one (21) local building code officials are con- cerned with contamination of the potable water supply with some toxic

substance—a typical safety concern by a local building code official.

On the other hand, five (5) of the local building code officials are concerned with the working or efficiency of the system—a role which

may be beyond the normal scope of the local building code official.

62
QUESTION 39: "Does this jurisdiction require compliance with FHA-MPS?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 14 4

CYCLE 2 16 6

CYCLE 3 30 6

60 16

Observations and Comment

Sixteen (16) of the seventy-six (76) local building code officials interviewed (approximately 21%) indicated that their jurisdictions required FHA-MPS.* compliance with the * The significance of this question and the

responses indicated are of unknown value, but since this question was included in the RERC questionnaire the results are tabulated here for

completeness

.

*Federal Housing Administration - Minimum Property Standards

63
QUESTION 40: "Would there be building code problems in retrofitting a solar system in an older structure?"

KI'.SI’ONSI'IS

NO YES

CYCLE 1 10 11

CYCLE 2 8 12

CYCLE 3 12 24

30 47

Observations and Comment

Forty-seven (47) of the seventy-seven (77) local building code officials

Interviewed (approximately 61%) indicated building code problems could

arise with installation of solar systems in older structures. The

ri-asons offered are tabulated by frequency.

Structural Adequacy 38

Financial Hardship to Connect 2

Need New Water Lines 1

Roof Structure, Storage Placement 1

Unspecified 5

47

By far, structural adequacy is the largest concern of the local building

code official in the installation of solar systems in older structures.

A review of Question 12, which queries the local building code official

about design changes needed prior to approval, indicates that approximately one-half of the design changes required were due to concern

with structural adequacy; however, the units involved with design

changes were new and not retrofitted units.

64
QUESTION 41: "Apart from normal differences, would any unique considerations prevail for a multi-family vs. single family solar

residence?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 14 4

CYCLE 2 14 7

CYCLE 3 30 4

58 15

Observations and Comment

Fifteen (15) of the seventy-three (73) local building

interviewed (approximately 21%) indicated that unique

would prevail for a multi-family versus single family

These considerations are tabulated by frequency,

code officials

considerations

solar residence.

Problems Multiplied in Multi-Family 4

Central vs. Individual Heating 3

Storage Capacity vs. Use 3

Temp/Heating Adequate 2

Living Area Requirement 1

Fire Hazard 1

Unspecified 1

15

Although multi-family solar residences often involve unique considerations

as compared to single family solar residences, only six percent (6%)

of the required design changes needed prior to approval applied to multifamily solar installations, while multi-family Installations (garden

apartment low-rise, multi-family medium rise, and multi-family highrise) comprised twenty-three percent (23%) of the site locations for the

three cycles studied in this report. Of course, because of the greater

complexity associated with multi-family installations, a more comprehensive engineering effort may have been required in the design of these

units, thus, requiring fewer design changes by the local building code

official. 65
QUESTION 42: "About how long does it take to get a major building code

change approved? Please explain,"

QUESTION 43: "Is enabling legislation necessary in order to amend or modify the building code?"

RESPONSES

Question 42

Less Than

1 Month

3 Months for

Local Action

Up to 1 Year Usually1 to 3 Years Lengthy State Procedure Variable

CYCLE 1 0 10 3 2 3 0

CYCLE 2 0 6 7 7 2 0

CYCLE 3 2 14 8 6 5 4

2 30 18 15 10 4

Question 43

YES NO

CYCLE 1 8 10

CYCLE 2 15 7

CYCLE 3 20 17

43 34

Observations and Comment

The seventy nine (79) responses regarding the time frame required to

get a major building code change approved and the seventy-seven (77)

responses concerning enabling legislation are tabulated below;

Code Officials Enabling

Approval Time Responding Legislation

Less Than Yes 2

1 Month No 0

3 Months for Yes 13 Local Action No 17

Up Co 1 Year Yes 10 Usually No 6

1 to 3 Yes 11 Years No 4

Lengthy State Yes 6 Procedure No L

Variable Yes 1 No 3

*2 local building code officials did not respond

regarding enabling

legislation.

66
These data are graphically illustrated below:

LESS 3 UP TO 1 TO LENGTHY VARIABLE

THAN MONTHS 1 YEAR 3 STATE

1 FOR USUALLY YEARS PROCEDURE

MONTH LOCAL

ACTION

The highest frequency (mode) for the approval time is the range "3

Months for Local Action" (approximately 38%) and approximately

fifty-six percent (56%) of the total jurisdictions responding indicated that enabling legislation is required to amend or modify the

building code.

Although these data have been tabulated and cross-correlated, few

meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the results. Question 42

addressed "major building code change approvals" but does not define

"major." The length of time specified does not signify, "from when."

Does enabling legislation have to be re-enacted, is it a one-time

occurrence or does it take place each time the jurisdiction wishes

to amend the building code?

f

67
QUESTION 44: "Are there administrative rules and regulations which

could impede the widespread acceptance of solar energy

systems in residential development?"

RESPONSES

NO YES

CYCLE 1 21 0

CYCLE 2 22 0

CYCLE 3 36 1

79 1

Observations and Comment

Seventy-nine (79) of the eighty (80) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 99%) indicated that there are no administrative rules which could impede the widespread acceptance of solar

energy systems in residential development. However, this is in conflict with the responses to Question 52 where seven (7) of the eightyfour (84) local building code officials responding (approximately 8%)

indicated "Administrative Difficulties" as a major barrier which may

impede the installation of solar energy systems in their jurisdictions.

68
8.1 Conclusions

The individual responses to Questions 31 through 44 are summarized in

Figure 11. The following observations and comments pertain to these

responses

.

1. Although some local building code officials reported that the code

used in their jurisdictions contains provisions for solar systems,

the majority (over 80%) indicated no solar provisions in their

local codes. There was no indication that jurisdictions that had

adopted such provisions, or jurisdictions that had not adopted such

provisions, offered any barriers or advantages to the acceptance

of solar installations.

2. Approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the local building code

officials indicated that their departments had studied the question

of potential impact of solar energy systems on building codes, and

of the remaining seventy-five percent (75%) , approximately twothirds thought such a study would be useful.

3. Approximately one-third of the local building code officials whose

departments studied the question of potential impact of solar energy

systems on building codes indicated a need for standards. Processing procedures in approximately one-quarter of the jurisdictions

have been changed as a result of the solar study.

4. Approximately one-third of the local building code officials indicated that they are seeking organizational certification of solar

systems prior to issuing a building permit. Ten (10) of the

thirty-two (32) local building code officials responding (approximately 31%) indicated that this certification could be administered

by any testing laboratory and showed no organizational preference.

However, eight (8) preferred lAPMO; four (4) ASHRAE; four (4)

Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc.; three (3) ICBO; and two (2) a State Solqr Energy Center.

5. The greatest concern of the local building code officials identifying problems with solar systems meeting cpde requirements lies

in the area of toxic fluids used in these systems. A secondary

concern is one with systems which do not work well. This could

be an area of controversy since system efficiency is not considered

by some to be the purview of the local building code official.

6. Approximately two-thirds of the local building code officials

Indicated potential building code problems with installing solar

systems in older structures; the overwhelming concern being the

structural adequacy of the buildings. In addition, approximately

twenty-one percent (21%) of the local building code officials

69
indicated that multi-family solar installations would entail unique

considerations from an approval point-of-view, because of the inherent complexity of these larger installations.

The amount of time necessary to make a major change to the local

building code varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,

as well as the need for enabling legislation. However, there was

a large consensus that there are no present administrative rules

and regulations which would impede the widespread acceptance of

solar energy systems in residential development.
71

Figure

11
72

Figure

11
9. BUILDING CODE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION

Questions 45 through 48 include the local building code official's

observations relative to the jurisdiction's building code and energy

conservation. The local building code official's views are presented

regarding the effectiveness of the existing building codes in encouraging or discouraging energy conservation. In addition, other questions

address the existence of energy conservation programs within the building department and within other organizations of the city/county

government

.

73
QUESTION 45: "Would you say that the existing building code tends

to encourage or discourage conservation?"

QUESTION 46: "In what way does the code encourage (or discourage)

energy conservation?"

RESPONSES

ENCOURAGE DISCOURAGE NO IMPACT

CYCLE 1 8 1 11

CYCLE 2 10 2 10

CYCLE 3 22 4 16

40 7 37

Observations and Comment

Forty (40) of the eighty-four ; (84) local building code officials responding (approximately 48%) indicated that their existing building codes

tend to encourage energy conservation. Moreover, seven (7) of the re- sponding building code officials (8%) indicated that their existing

building codes tend to discourage conservation, while thirty-seven (37) or approximately forty-four percent (44%) indicated that their building

codes have no impact on energy conservation. The reasons cited are tabulated by frequency.

ENCOURAGES ENERGY CONSERVATION DISCOURAGES ENERGY CONSERVATION

One (1) of the local building code officials responding that the code

discourages energy conservation cited "Demands Insulation Factor" as the reason. Thirty-four (34) other local building code officials

cited the same reason as encouraging energy conservation.

Demands Insulation Factor 34

National Requirements 1

Insulation and Plastic 1

No Reason Given 4

40

No Insulation Requirements 4

No Financial Incentives for Solar 1

Requires Windows/Heat Loss 1

Demands Insulation Factor 1

7

74
The responses to this question along with the responses to Question 6,

the basis for the code used. in the jurisdiction, provide an opportunity

to determine if any of the code bases particularly encourage or discourage energy conservation. This comparison is presented in the

matrix below.

CODK ENCOURAGES DISCOURAGES

BASIS ENERGY ENERGY NO

(EROM QUESTION 6) CONSERVATION CONSERVATION IMPACT

BOCA 10 - 6

A 1 nA - - 1

SBCC 5 - 4

ICBO 18 4 13

lAPMO 1 1 2

NFPA - - 1

NEC - - -

STATE 3 - 2

COMBINATION 2 2 3

It can be seen that there are divided perceptions in the local building

code official's responses. The same code basis sometimes encourages

energy conservation; sometimes discourages energy conservation; and some- times has no impact. The reasons for these differences could be many-^

the local jurisdictions may have unilaterally modified the model code

to obtain a different effect on energy conservation; the local jurisdictions may not have adopted all the changes of the model code

addressing energy conservation; etc. This study does not go into

this depth to determine the differences.

75
(QUESTION 47: "Does the building department have an established energy

conservation program that it promotes among builders in

t lu' area?"

(JUI'IST 1 ON 4H: "Does an energy conservation program exist wLtliLn the city/

county government?"

RESPONSES

Question 47 Question 48

YES NO

CYCLE 1 4 16

CYCLE 2 6 17

CYCLE 3 4 37

14 70

YES NO

CYCLE 1 8 13

CYCLE 2 7 16

CYCLE 3 19 19

34 48

Observations and Comment

Fourteen (14) of the eighty-four (84) local building code officials

interviewed (approximately 17%) indicated that their building departments have established energy conservation programs that are promoted

among builders in the area. Thirty-four (34) of the eighty-two (82)

local building code officials interviewed (approximately 41%) indicated

that an energy conservation program exists within the city /county

government. The comments made by these local building code officials

are cross- tabulated below.

ENERGY CONSERVATION N^progfam exists within

CITY /COUNTY GOVERNMENT

BUILDING

DI-PARTMENT HAS

AN ESTABLISHED X.

ENERGY CONSERVATION N.

PROGRAM

a

Ao

H2K

S3

S O

SEASONM

HV.AC

CUTBACK

STATE

PROGRAM

COMPITERTZED

LOAD

SYSTEM

SOLAR

ENCOURAGED

FOR

MUNICIPAL

FACILITIES

ONLY

CUTBACKS,

CITY

GOVERNMENT

OFFICES

INSULATION

REQUIRED

3Y

SAVING

AND

LOAN

UNSPECIFIED

NO

PROGRAM

STATE I.AW FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION

2

DEMANDS INSULATION FACTOR 1

‘ 1 2

CITY ENERGY GONSKHVA- nON OKDIHANCE 1

‘ 1

NATIONAL AS.SOCIATION CODE,

L(x:ai. coals

1

ENERGY AUDITS AND INSULATION

1

WATER CONSERVATION

1

UNSPECIFIED 1 1

m PROGRAM 7 2 • 1 2 2 2 2

10 J 0 1 i

76
The number of responses within the outlined rectangle indicates that

eight (8) jurisdictions (20%) have energy conservation programs in

both their building department and somewhere else within the city/

county government.

77
9.1 Conclusions

I'Mj^urc 12 summarizt'S the responses for each question in Section 9.

1'Ik‘ loc.il Iniilclin); codt* official's observations toward his building

1 ode .iihI ciu'fgy i()iiscrva( ion I'.in he stated as follows:

1, Approximately one-hall t)f the Local huLiding code ol'fLcLals Indicated that their local codes encourage energy conservation and the

overwhelming reason is the insulation provisions of the code.

Approximately eight percent (8%) of the remaining officials indicated that their local codes tend to discourage energy conservation.

The remainder indicated that their jurisdictional codes had no impact on the matter. No particular model code was identified as superior in encouraging or discouraging energy conservation.

2. Only seventeen percent (17%) of the local building code officials

reported that their building departments had established an energy

conservation program that it promotes among builders in the area. The existence of an energy conservation program within the city/

county government was reported by forty-one percent (41%) of the

local building code officials responding.

78
BUILDING

CODE

AND

ENERGY

CONSERVATION

79

Figure

12
10. KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES RE: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS

This Section, consisting of Questions 49 through 56, summarizes the

response of the local building code official concerning his knowledge

and attitude toward solar energy systems.

Addressed is the degree of knowledge that the local building code official

and other members of his department have concerning solar energy systems;

the educational background and training of personnel available to process applications dealing with solar energy systems; and the information

sources used to gain solar energy knowledge. In addition, data are presented regarding the identification of current and future barriers in

building codes which might impede the application of solar energy for use

in residences. Questions are also asked concerning specific areas where

assistance is needed by the local building code official; the kinds of

information needed by the local building code official to intelligently

process solar applications; and, the organizations relied upon by the

local building code official for building code issues related to solar.

These final questions complete the RERC questionnaire concerning the

local building code official's responses to the regulatory aspects of the

Residential Solar Demonstration Program and other related topics

(Reference A5)

.

80
QUESTION 49. "How knowlegeable are you and others in your department/

agency about residential solar energy systems?"

QUESTION 50. "What is the educational background and training of the

staff available to process applications dealing with solar

energy systems in residential development?"

QUESTION 51. "Where did you learn about solar energy systems?"

RESPONSES

Questlcxi 49

u

SOMEWHAT

KNOWLEDGEABLE

SLIGHTLY

KNOWLEDGEABLE

NOT

AT

ALL

KNOWLEDGEABLE

DO

NOT

KNOW

CYCLE 1 4 7 6 3 1

CYCLE 2 5 9 5 4 0

CYCLE 3 4 16 13 7 1

13 32 24 14 2

Question 50

Question 51

NEWSPAPERS

POPULAR

MAGAZINE

TRADE

PUBLICATIONS

PROFESSIONAL

JOURNALS

TELEVISION

RADIO LOCAL

EXPERTS

LOCAL

SCHOOLS/SEMINARS

ALL

OF

THE

ABOVE

j

THROUGH

CONSTRUCTION

COMBINATION

OF

ABOVE

EXHIBITIONS

BUILDING

CODE

MEETINGS

HUD

GRANT

HOUSE

j

CYCLE 1 2 1 4 3 0 0 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 CYCLE 2 3 1 5 2 0 0 5 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 CYCLE 3 3 4 7 2 1

1 0 3 5 6 1 1 2 1 2

8 6 16 7 1 0 12 11 11 2 1 2 2 2

81
Observations and Comment

Only thirteen (13) of the eighty-five (85) local building code officials

(approximately J5%) consider themselves "Very Knowledgeable," while

approximately the same number of officials admit to being "Not at All

Knowledgeable" about solar energy systems. The remainder fall somewhere

in-between. From the wording of the question, "How knowledgeable are

you and others. . . ," it is unclear if the responses apply directly to

the local code official interviewed, or if, indeed, the responses represent an overall characterization of the combined solar knowledge of his

department

.

Concerning the educational background and training of the staff available

to process applications dealing with solar energy systems in residential

development, the highest frequency of response was "No Special Requirement" (approximately 31%) with "General Experience" (approximately 26%)

next. Only twenty-two percent (22%) of the local building code officials

interviewed (those that answered "Conference Trained" and "State CertiI'Lcation") could, perhaps, be considered to have some formal knowledge

of soLar tlirougli training or completion of requirements imposed by the

state

.

Varied are the sources used by the local building code official to obtain

his knowledge of solar energy systems (Question 51). Only eleven (11)

of the eighty-two (82) officials (13%) indicated that they had attended

local schools/seminars, and an additional eleven (11) indicated "All of

the Above," which included local schools/seminars . This brings the total

who had specialized training in solar systems to twenty-six percent (26%).

Yet, in Question 49, only fifteen percent (15%) of the local building

code officials indicated "Very Knowledgeable" as a response. The differences might be explained in that Question 51, "Where did you learn about

solar systems," and Question 49 was worded, "How knowledgeable are you

and others ..." Or, the condition could exist that just attending a local school/seminar does not make one very knowledgeable about solar

systems

.

The responses to these three questions are cross- tabulated in Figure 13.

The knowledge, educational background and training, and information

as applied to local building code inspectors, is varied. Additional

training would certainly be desirable to bring the local building code

officials up to the "Very Knowledgeable" level, regardless of the sources

used to obtain this expertise. The characteristics of the local building

code inspector, as determined from the highest frequency in the matrix

(although only a frequency of four (4)) is "he is somewhat knowledgeable,

lias no special educational background and training, and he learned about

solar systems through trade publications."

82
LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL KNOWLEDGE,

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION

VERY SOMEWHAT SLIGHTLY NOT AT ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE KNOWLEDGEABLE KNOWLEDGEABLE KNOWLEDGEABLE DON'T KNOW

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE Trade Publics- Newspapers 1 Newspapers 1 tlons 1 Popular Magazlnes 1

~r 1 T

NO SPECIAL REQUIRE- Not Specified 1 Local Schools/ Local Experts 2 Newspapers 2 Local Schools/ MENT Seminars !• Trade Publica- Trade Publica- Seminars 1 Newspapers 1 tions 2 tions 1 Television 1 Trade Publica- Professional Not Specified 1 tions 4 Journals 1 Professional Newspapers 1 Journals 1 HUD Grant House 1 All of the Above 2 All of the Above 1 Not Specified 1 _ r 1 9 9 4 2

CONFERENCE TRAINED Local Schools/ All of the Above 2 Popular MagaSeminars 1 Local Schools/ zlnes 1 Seminars 1 Local Experts 1 T 1 2

STATE Local Experts 1 Local Experts 3 Professional Local Experts 1 CERTIFICATION All of the Above 1 Trade Publica- Journal 1 Professional

tions 2 Local Schools/

Seminars Popular Maga1 Journals 1

zlnes 1 All of the Above 1

~2 *5 ~2

COLLEGE DEGREE Trade Publics- Professional Trade Publica- Popular Magations 1 Journals 1 tions 1 zlnes 1 Local Schools/ Newspapers 1 Local Schools/ Local Schools/ Seminars 1 Through Con- Seminars 1 Seminars 1 struction 1 Local Experts 1 Exhibitions 1 ~ “ “2 ~2

GENERAL EXPERIENCE Local Experts 2 All of the Above 1 Building Code Trade Publica- 1

'J Local Schools/ Through Con- Meetings 1 tions 1 Seminars 1 struction 1 Popular Maga- Popular MagaTrade Publica- zlnes r zlnes 1 tions 1 Combination of HUD Grant House 1 Professional Above 1 All of the Above 1 Journals 2 Trade Publica- Exhibitions 1 Local Experts Local Schools/

1 tions 2

Seminars

Not Specified

1

1 I

1 "3 T

MECHANICAL INSPEC- Building Code TION WITH HEATING Meetings 1 EXPERIENCE T

GENERAL EXPERIENCE Trade PublicaAND OUTSIDE tions 1 CONSULTANTS T

Figure 13

83
In reviewing the sites where the solar builder /developer commented

"Inspector Not Knowledgeable of Solar," the inspector at one such site

reported he "was not at all knowledgeable, there was no special requirement regarding the educational background of the staff available to process solar applications, and he learned about solar systems through

newspapers." At another site location, the official indicated that he

was "somewhat knowledgeable of solar systems, had general building

experience and learned about solar through newspapers, popular magazines,

trade publications, professional journals, local experts, local schools/

seminars, etc." It could be concluded that contradicting perceptions by

the builder/developer can be alleviated if all concerned with solar

installations strive to attain, a "Very Knowledgeable" posture, so that

decisions could be made as a result of a sound technical background.

One might also wonder whether experience with processing solar systems

increases the perceived knowledge level of the local building code

official. Tabulated below are the data for Question 49 regarding, "How

knowledgeable are you and others in your department /agency ?" The data

have been separated by those jurisdictions whose local building code

officials processed only solar demonstration units (DEMO ONLY) and those

wliose local building code officials processed both solar demonstration

and non-demonstration solar units (DEMO AND OTHER SOLAR UNITS).

VERY

j

KNOWLEDGEABLE

|

SOMEWHAT

KNOWLEDGEABLE

SLIGHTLY

KNOWLEDGEABLE

NOT

AT

ALL

KNOWLEDGEABLE

DO

NOT

KNOW

DEMO ONLY 3 7 11 10 -

DEMO AND OTHER

SOLAR UNITS

10 25 13 4 2

13 32 24 14 2

As can be noted, the local building code officials whose jurisdiction has

processed only solar demonstration units seem to have a lower overall

knowledge level of solar systems than those local building code officials

who processed both solar demonstration units and non-demonstration solar

units

.

84
QUESTION 52: "In your position, what major barriers do you see today

regarding building codes which may impede the installation

of solar energy systems in your jurisdiction?"

RESPONSES

ADMINISTRATIVE

DIFFICULTIES

HISTORIC

PRESERVATION

ORDINANCES

NONE NEED

RESEARCH

AND

DEVELOPMENT

DIMINISHED

LOT

SIZE

SOLAR

RIGHTS

ISSUES COST

OF

STRUCTURAL

IMPROVEMENT

CYCLE 1 2 1 17 0 1 0 0

CYCLE 2

' 0 1 20 1 0 0 0

CYCLE 3 5 30 2 1 1 2

7 2 67 3 2 1 2

Observations and Comment

Sixty-seven (67) of the eighty-four (84) local building code officials

(approximately 80%) indicated that presently there are no major barriers

which would impede the installation of solar energy systems in their

jurisdictions. Seven (7) officials (approximately 8%) indicated a con- cern with administrative difficulties; however, in Question 44, only a single local building code official acknowledged that there are "administrative rules and regulations which could impede the widespread

acceptance of solar energy systems in residential developments."

85

/
QUESTION 53: "What problems do you foresee regarding bulling codes for

future application of residential solar energy systems

in this jurisdiction?"

KKSI’ONSES

NONE DO

NOT

KNOW

HEIGHT

LIMITATICWS

ROOF

SUPPORTS

NEW

UNIFORM

CODE

REQUIREMENTS

STRUCTURAL TOWNHOUSE

DEVELOPMENT

CW

0

LOT

LINE

PRODUCT

CERTIFICATION

SUN

RIGHTS

LACK

OF

TRAINING

CTCLE 1 11 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0

CYCLE 2 13 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0

CYCLE 3 28 5 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 1

52 61394 1 221

Ob servations and Comment

Fifty-two (52) of the eighty-one (81) local building code officials

(approximately 64%) indicated that they did not foresee problems in the

future with building codes. This may be compared to the approximately

eighty percent (80%) who do not have problems with their current codes

with regard to solar applications (see Question 52). Of those local

building code officials who anticipated problems v?ith building codes for

future application of residential solar energy systems, nine (9) officials

(approximately 11%) anticipated problems with new Uniform Code Requirements and this is Interpreted to mean new provisions developed by a central organization such as a model code group with subsequent adoption

by the local jurisdictions. In addition, approximately seven percent (7%)

of the local officials did not know if there would be problems or, if there

there were problems, what these would be. The rest of the problems

identified were miscellaneous in nature.

Seven (7) local building code officials who responded that they are currently having problems also expect problems in the future. Ten (10)

local building code officials who are currently having problems apparently expect them to be resolved, while sixteen (16) local building code

officials who do not report problems, anticipated problems in the future.

86
QUESTION 54: "Please identify specific areas where assistance to the

building official might be required for solar application."

RESPONSES

TRAINING

EVALUATORS/

INSPECTORS

MANUALS

OF

ACCEPTED

PRACTICE

INSPECTION

GUIDELINES

CERTIFICATION

TECHNICAL

SUPPORT/

ADDITIONAL

STAFF

MODEL

CODE

/ORDINANCES

ALL

OF

THE

ABOVE

NONE

NEEDED

|

TRAINING

AND

MANUALS j

1

INSPECTION

GUIDELINES

AND

PRODUCT

CERTIFICATION

ALL

EXCEPT

TECHNICAL

SUPPORT

ALL

EXCEPT

TRAINING/

TECHNICAL

SUPPORT

MORE

DETAILED

SUBMISSION

BY

BUILDER

CYCLE 1 2 6 2 2 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 1 0

CYCLE 2 5 1 1 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

CYCLE 3 4 2 3 4 0 2 16 1 1 1 4 2 1

11 9 6 6 1 3 33 1 I 1 5 3 1

Observations and Comment

One (1) of the eighty-one (81) local building code officials reported

that no assistance is required to the building code official for solar

applications. The types of assistance required of the other eighty (80)

local building code officials are tabulated under "Responses." Of these

local building code officials who indicated that assistance might be

required, forty-one percent (41%) responded, "All of the Above," meaning

help is needed with training of evaluators/inspectors, manuals of

accepted practice, inspection guidelines, certification, and technical

support/additional staff. Other local building code officials not

interested in the "package" approach singled out such items as manuals

of accepted practice (11%) ; Inspection guidelines and certification

(both 7%); and, others as tabulated above.

87
QUESTION 55: "What specific kinds of information do you need to make a better decision regarding solar systems application in

residential development?"

RESI'ONSES

TECHNICAL

DATA

ON

FEASIBILITY

MANUALS

FOR

DIFFERENT

SYSTEMS

EFFICIENCY

OF

SOLAR

SYSTEMS

PRODUCT

CERTIFICATION

AND

STANDARDS

NONE

NEEDED

KEEP

ABREAST

OF

DEVELOPMENTS

WEIGHT

OF

MATERIALS

PRODUCT

SAFETY

MODEL

CODES,

INSPECTION

GUIDES,

ACCEPTED

PRACTICES

CYCLE 1 il 5 1 3

' *0 0

' 6 0 0

CYCLE 2 7 2 5 A 0 0 0 0 0

CYCLE 3 6 13 3 6 5 5 1 1 1

2A 20 9 13 5 5 1 1 1

Observations and Comment

The specific Information needed by the local building code official is

tabulated under "Responses," above. The most frequent responses;

"Technical Data on Feasibility" (approximately 30%) ; "Manuals for Different Systems" (approximately 25%); and, "Efficiency of Solar Systems"

(approximately 11%) ; in general, relate to a technical knowledge of the

operation of solar systems. Taken together, this indicates that approximately two-thirds of the local building code officials recognize the

overall complexit}’ and configuration variations possible with solar

systems, and apparently would welcome reliable solar system information.

In addition, approximately sixteen percent (16%) of the local building

code officials identified a need for "Product Certification and Standards"

to make better decisions in processing solar systems. This may be

compared to the response in Question 36, which indicated that thirtytwo percent (32%) of the local building code officials are seeking product certification as a prerequisite to Issuing a building permit.

88
QUESTION 56: "To which of the following sources would you normally look

for building code issues related to solar energy systems?

Please rank them by order of importance."

RESPONSES

>UBL

IRADI tCAT

8IONS SANKS DEVELOPERS MANUFACTURERS

RANK - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CYCLE 1 6 2 2 2 1 “ -

1 1

- - -

2 3 1 1 1

-

1 3 1 4 5 2

- - -

1 CYCLE 2 7 6 3 2 1 1 - -

1

- - -

2 9

-

2 4 1

-

5 1 2 7 2 6 1

- - CYCLE 3 5 6 3 5 2 1 - -

4

- - -

1 10 5 2 2 2 3 3 1 7 8 4 5 4 - -

18 14 8 9 4 2 0 1 6 0 0 0 5 22 6 5 7 3 4 11 3 13 20 8 11 5 0 1

NATIONAL/ LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS

UNIVERSITIES AND INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS GOVERNMENT

AGENCIES

RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OTHER

CYCLE 1 2 2 5 1 1 - -4 3 1 3 2 - -4 5 1 1 1 - -

1

CYCLE 2 2 2 3 A 4 - -3

- 4 1 4 3

-

7 3 2 L 1 2 1 0

CYCLE 3 13 8 2 2 1 2 -

4 10 3 5 2 1 -8 3 5 4 1 3 -

3

17 12 10 7 f, 2 0 11 13 8 9 8 4 0 19 13 8 6 3 5 1 4

Observations and Comment

The data presented under "Responses" have been summarized in Figure 14-

to give an integrated view of the sources of information identified.

An average rank has been determine by cycle. in addition to an overall . average rank for each source. The most popular sources used by the

local building code official are Trade Publications, Manufacturers,

National/Local Associations and Government Agencies, with Universities/

Independent Organizations slightly less favored. If reviewed on a cyclical basis. Trade Publications, Government Agencies, and possibly

Manufacturers, have lost some influence in later cycles, while National/

Local Associations have increased in rank.

89
RANKING OF INFORMATION SOURCES USED BY

LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIALS

^ Highcct Lowest

RANK I 2

3 4 5 6 7

TRADE PUBLICATIONS

CYCLE 1 1 TTCYCLE 2 1 aCLE 3

TOTAL

1

!

BANKS

CYCLE 1

1 CYCLE 2 1 1 aCLE 3

!

1

i

1

TOTAL

i

i 1lI.

DBVKL0PU8

CYCLE 1 T CYCLE 2 Ju

1

i CYCLE 3

1 *

i TOTAL

'! 1

i

i

i i

i

MANUrACTUIERS

CYCLE 1

1 ! .

1

CYCLE 2

1 CTCLE 3 ij i; 1

TOTAL lili'

1

j

NATIONAL/

LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS

CYCLE 1 1 n 1

;

CYCLE 2 ihii;'

CYCLE 3

1 - - 4- M

' T

TOTAL T

UNIVERSITIES # A INDEPENDENT OtCANIZATIONS

CYCLE 1 1 __L M r CYCLE 2 rn i

- CYCLE 3 r 1 •: ’jr ~~r

TOTAL 1

. ii

rTnrrn

i 1 1 !

1

' 1 "T~

1

!

T"1

1

GOVERNMENT

AGENCIES

CYCLE 1

1

i 1 CYCLE 2 1 CYCLE 3 r

1 iJ

TOTAL L m

Figure lA

90
10.1 Conclusions

The individual responses related to each question are shown graphically

in Figure 15. A summary of the observations and comments follow:

1. Generally, the knowledge and educational background of the local

building code official and the sources of solar energy information

available to him vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

If the processing of solar applications is to be accomplished more

effectively, the code official’s knowledge of solar energy systems

must be upgraded by education, training, and actual experience.

2. Approximately eighty percent (80%) of the local building code

officials indicated that there are no major barriers in building

codes at present which would Impede the installation of solar

energy systems in their jurisdictions, while a smaller percentage

(approximately 64%) saw no future problems. Those identifying

current problems specified administrative difficulties most frequently as the reason for these problems, while anticipated new

code requirements and structural concerns were identified by those

who expect future problems.

3. Areas of assistance required for processing solar applications

include: training of evaluators and inspectors, manuals of accpeted

practice, inspection guidelines and certification of equipment and

systems

.

4. The local building code official identified a variety of technical

information needed by him to make better decisions regarding

solar systems applications in residential development. These

include: technical data and manuals for different systems; solar

system efficiency information, and product certification and

standards

.

5. The sources most depended upon by the local building code official

for issues related to solar energy are: trade publications;

manufacturer’s data; national and local associations; and government agencies. Other important sources are universities and independent agencies. Developers and banks were rated low as a source

for solar information.

91
92

Figure

15
PART IV - ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES

II. DATA RELATED TO REGULATORY INFORMATION FROM OTIII'IR SOURCES

PARTICIPATING IN SOLAR RESIDENTIAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

11. 1 General

This Section addresses the data not previously covered. The collection

of these data was identified at the start of the program as a possible

source of information for this regulatory study. Included in this

list are:

(a) Building and Site Description - AIA/RC (Reference Bl)

(b) Design Process Data - AIA/RC (Reference B2)

(c) Report #3 - Construction Report - HUD (Reference Cl)

Each of these data sources are treated individually.

11.2 American Institute of Architects* Research Corporation (AIA/RC)

Data retrieved from the Design Integration Monitor's Handbook, Rev. II,

dated March 3, 1977, which was prepared by the American Institute of

Architects' Research Corporation (AIA/RC) was to be included in this

report (See Figure 1). Although the Design Integration Monitor's

Handbook is oriented primarily to collect technical data and applies

only to the instrumented solar demonstration sites, two (2) regulatory

questions were identified as beipg of possible Interest to this stud>

.

The first question of interest (Reference Bl) is oriented toward the

regulatory codes used at these instrumented soler demonstration sites.

The second question (Reference B2) asked, "Did the governing building

code or other regulations affecting the design of the building specifically relate to the use of solar energy?"

This information, unlike the data presented in the previous Sections, was not Included in the NBS Solar Data Base, but rather was retrieved

from an examination of the AIA/RC files. As can be noted from the

Appendix 1 under the AIA/RC columns (References Bl and B2) , the volume

of information from this source is generally smaller than the RERC

data presented in this report. In effect, the data concerning the regulatory codes (Reference Bl) correlate closely to the data shown in

Questions 5 and 6 of the RERC questionnaire and the data gathered from

the HUD Grantee Reports (discussed in Section 11.3). To avoid redundancy, these data are omitted from this report.

The responses to the other question of interest in the AIA/RC 's data

collection instrument (Reference B2) are shown below; however, the

number of responses are rather small to develop any meaningful con- clusions. Only four (4) of the twenty-five (25) grantees (16%)

reported that the governing building code or other regulations affected

the design of the building relative to the use of solar energy. These

are tabulated below. The wording of the question, however, is rather

ambiguous and the grantee's responses unclear.

93
SOLAR KNLRCY USI- AND lUlILmNC DKSICN

"Did the governing building code or other regulations

affect the design of the building specifically relate

to the use of solar energy?"

NO YES

CYCLE 1 5 0 —

CYCLE 2 Roof loading psf increased to carry weight of panels

Detailing and appearance of collectors

16 4

FHA Minimum Property Standards and Section 8

No increased insulation

CYCI.E 3 0 0 —

21 4

I 1 . 3 Grantee Reports

The only question of Interest identified in the Grantee Reports

(Reference Cl) relates to the identification of building codes used in

the solar demonstration jurisdictions and the national code basis for

these local codes. Although all grantees were required to provide

these data, Appendix I indicates an availability of approximately

sixty-one percent (51%) , the remainder not being included in the NBS

Solar Data Base. Tabulations concerning these data are included in

Appendix III.

94
APPENDIX I

DATA AVAILABILITY SUMMARY

95
APPENDIX I

The tables in this appendix present site specific information relative

to the Solar Residential Demonstration Program, including availability

of regulatory data. The general information tabulated Includes:

1. Project Location

State

C i.ty

2. Grantee

3. Housing Type

SFD - Single Family Detached

SFA - Single Family Attached

GAL - Garden Apartment Low Rise

MI’M - Multi-Family Medium Rise

MIHl - Multi-Family Higli Rise

4. Gonst ruction Type » New / Retrofit ^Aa 5. Number of Units ^

6. System Type

H - Heating

H/C - Heating and Cooling

W - Hot Water

7. Kind of System

A - Active

P - Passive

8. Status of Availability of Codes and Standards Data

Some sites are listed more than once. This occurs within a specific

cycle and also between cycles where questions were asked of more than

one builder or local code official at a specific location.

The first two columns (References A1 and A2) under availability of

data, represent responses from the solar builder/developer of single

family units and responses from comparative single family builders/

developers in the same jurisdictions, respectively.

96
The next two columns (References A3 and A4) represent another set or data

pair relative to the multi-family builder /developer and the comparative

multi-family builder/developer . The number of data pairs are smaller

than those in References A1 and A2. However, this is to be expected

because of the smaller number of multi-family sites compared to single

family sites in the Solar Residential Demonstration Program.

The final column under the RERC heading (Reference A5) represents those

sites where the local building code official was interviewed and consists

of responses to fifty-six (56) questions. These responses would be of

most value if either References A1 and A2 or References A3 and A4 are also

paired with responses from the local building code official (Reference

A5) . In effect, the combintation Al, A2 and A5 and combination A3, A4, and

A5 would give the greatest potential for the correlation of building

regulatory issues. This condition occurs in a sufficiently large number

of cases, and correlations using these data are presented throughout

this report, when appropriate.

The AIA/RC regulatory data are shown in References B1 and B2 . These

data are limited at best, with no data available for Cycle 3.

The HUD/i3oej.ng regulatory data from the Grantee Reports (Reference Cl)

list the titles of the local building codes and the national model

code bases, if applicable. Although each site would be expected to

have a report showing this information, the computer run which was used

to present these data was not 100% complete. A summary of the list of

applicable codes as reported in the Grantee Reports is shown in

Appendix III.

97
RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM

-

REGULATORY

DATA

SITMMARY

CYCLE

2 LJ X

~T

X X X X X X X -X X X X X 1 X X X X X X

C Q AIA p

rvi X X X

CQ X X X X

U.Q

Oi?.

'5 t/1 H uj pS

-3. - X X - — X X X X X X X X X <

-r. —

r 1 <

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

<

X

r X X X X X X X X X X X X ! X

u. —

O

Cu X X

<c X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

SYSTEM TYPE

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X u

X X X X

nr X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

NO. OF UNITS rH '<r in CO CM f—

H

m 00 CM

rH

r-4 m CM i-H cn r-H rH <r CO - I/' CM

SONSTRUCriON TYPE

RETRO X

1

X X

5. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

nous

INC

TYPE

MRl e

i

X X X

SFA X X X

SFD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J

m

LU

U-. 1

u

Bobrick

Construction

Co.

Leisure

Tech,

of

CA.

Mission

Viejo

Co.

City

of

Santa

Clara

Self

Help

Enterprises

Waverly

Homes,

Inc.

Perl-Mack

Enterprises

Co.

Mission

Viejo

Co.

Stonbraker

Investments

City

of

Colorado

Springs

Solar

Engineering

Const.

Co.

ECO-ERA,

Inc.

City

of

Pueblo

Waverly

Homes,

Inc.

Babcock

Company

City

of

St.

Petersburg

Winford

Lindsay

Christopher

David

Assoc.,

Inc.

Peachtree

Homes

A

Frame

Industries

Jnited

Development

Co.

Saddle

Hill

Trust

4arvin

H.

Anderson

Const.

Co.

The

Blackfeet

Tribe

(orman

Corp.

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY

Tucson

Camarillo

ylission

Viejo

Santa

Clara

Seliiia Arvada Aurora Aurora

Boulder

—

Colorado

Springs

Fort

Collins

Fort

Collins

Pueblo

Westminster

Coral

Gables

St.

Petersburg

Dacula

Marietta

Shenandoah

Honolulu

Vernon

Hills

Needham

Bloomington

Browning

Blackwood

STATE EE r1 E1 E E E LE

hJM EkEEJ

98
§

rHLJ

1 X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 X X X X X X

'-0 <

<

rsj

i X X

CQ X X

si

H LU 5§

RERC

1

t? X X X

-

— X X X X X X X X

< —

rO<

X

rvj <X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

LU ^ ^ U4

a. X

In 2&5 < X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

yi X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

SYSTB TYPE u X

X

X X X

n: X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

NO. OF UNITS vO rH i-H rH rH rH CM m t-H rH *—

t

<r rH CM fH CO >H rH rH fH iH iH CM

rH

1 g^ UJ 1^'

•nu

P.ETRO X X X X

5. X X X X X >• X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

UJC

(.n

"S)

%

X —

t

X

SFA X X X — SFU X X X X X X X X X X X, X X X X X X

GRANTEE

Newark

Housing

Authority

Jespa

Enterprises

Wayne

Nichols

Communico

—

—

-j

Innovative

Building

Systems

—

1

Solar

Structures,

Inc.

D.C.

Winslow

Constr.

Co.

Davidson-Phillips

,

Inc.

Creeknation

Hsg.

Auth.

Vincent

L.

Oredson

University

of

PA

Drexel

University

Church

Community

Corp.

Cambridge

Dev.

Group,

Inc.

i

Helio

Thermics,

Inc.

W.

Brown

Custom

Builders

Gordon

Deering

San

Antonio

Ranch,

LTD.

Terracor

Utah

Ritter

Buildings,

Inc.

The

Yeonas

Company

Sir

Galahad,

Co.

University

of

Wisconsin

Friedman,

Rosen

&

Zien

1

Puerto

Rico

Urban

Renewal

1

Coro.

o>-H

u

9

cZ

CITY

Newark

Old

Bridge

Santa

Fe

Buffalo

Lagrangeville

Cleveland Columbus Okmulgee

Ashland

Philadelphia Philadelphia

Newport

Columbia

Greenville

Dallas

Lubbock

San

Antonio

Salt

Lake

City

Berryville

Vienna

CJ

to

<u (n

cu H

c

•H&0u

•H>

Milwaukee

Summit

Rio

Pedras

STATE 2

X

2

2

O

1 X

o I

OR <cu M

Pd CJ

C/D m

t3 M

:2 1j

PR

99
RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM

-

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY

CYCLE

1

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 X X X X X X

L, Q

-9

<

<

rsj X X X X

1 X

X X X X X

STATUS

OF

AVAILVB

coots

AND

STANUAJ

’d

LO X X X X X X X X X

< X X

tn<

X X

<

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

LU ^ O. X

i < X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

tu P pu

GO p

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

u

X

X — X X — X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X

NO. OF UNITS fH oi-H vO o

vO 10

rHm

CM m

ON mro

rH CO

rH

Csi m

CM

rH orH

sO

rH rH CM CM

•-H cn 80 m ON

rH

\r\ in m

-J Du

(/I aU

RETRO X X X X X X X X X

S’ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

UJ

DCD

ID3

MITl X

1

MFM X X

GAL X X X X

jsFA X X X X X X

SFD x: X X X X X X X X X X X

UJ

•jj 1

Chester

West,

Inc.

Corbett,

Michael

N.

Blue-Skies

Radiant

Homes

Colorado

Park

Housing

Corp.

San

Bemadino

West

Side

C.nmm

.

Dpv

.

Co

.

Facilities

Development

Co.

Naumann,

Robert

C.

University

of

Colorado

Wonderland

Hill

Devel.

Co.

Bell,

Ervin

J.

1

Colorado

Rural

Hsg

.

Dev.

Corp.

Brothers

Redevelopment,

Inc.

Perl-Mack

Enterprises,

Co.

David

L.

Vickerman,

Inc.

J.

Capone

Construction

Co.

Town

Council,

City

of

Gretna

Florida

Gas

Co.

F.E.

Fortenberry

&

Sons,

Inc.

Dalton

Housing

Authority

Fairview

Bldrs/Winf

ord

Lindse;

Kenilworth

Manor,

Inc.

Unified

Develooment.

Inc.

Hawaii

Housing

Authority

c03

•H

cd 3

•H

01 X

Oo

X

u

•H

) -t

di X

d)uC

nJC

•iH

PRO.JtCl

LOCATION j

CITY

j

Huntsville

Davis Hemet Palo

Alto

San

Bernadino

San

Diego

Boulder Boulder Boulder Boulder

Brighton

1

Denver Denver

Evergreen

New

Haven

Gretna Winter

Park

Clarkston

Dalton

d) rH

rH

•H>

0)a

c

0)u

5

CQ

Macon

c

p

. c

1 1

*r3

ts

Honolulu

2

r-S

f-c

cc

3:

Honolulu

STATE TV1

<

CJ o

CJ j

CT rJ

pH VO

1

1

1

h100
101


RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM

-

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY

CYCLE

§ f-H

c

;

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

J ^

l|

VIY

rg

B1

1

si

u.° ^ '-0 Q

I-J o

in ^

RERC

1

X

- -- -- - X X X X X X

< X

rO<

X

r'l <X X X X X X

TV X X X X X X X X

U. ^ o- i < X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

pj UJ H cu

3; X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

D/Hj

H X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

oX. o

UNITS •<r 186 00 tn

eg 00 o LTi 00

160 rH rsi CN

rH rH 00 rH rH rH - tn rH

CONSTRUCT

ION

TYPE

S

X X X X X X X X

§

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

UJt

P.LOS

MTU

ta X X X

GAL X X X X —

X

SFA X X

SFD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GRANTEH

Bestfield

Builders

Embry-Riddle

Aero

Univ.

Matt

D.

Cannon

Univ.

of

Florida

Hialeah

Housing

Auth.

Kissimmee

Court

Apts.

Harbor

Oaks

Apartments

Diamond

Head

Alii

Corp.

—

Glenwood

Hsg.,

Inc.

Idaho

State

University

Cascade

Construction,

Ltd.

Found.

For

the

Handicapped

Robert

M.

Roloson,

Arch.

Graber

Homes,

Inc.

Steinkamp

and

Co.

"I

Trica

Corporation

o

cM

03U

0) 'O

T—•H3

PQ

pc

pc

Ron

Smith

Custom

Bldr.,

Inc.

Historic

Landmarks

Foundation

of

TN

Miles-Richmond

,

Inc.

W.J.

Leffel

Construction

Vernon

0.

Freeman

is

tan

Peebles

&

Co.

Ed

Thomas

6

Associates

t

[Whitman

&

Associates,

Inc.

PROJECl

LOCATION

CIFY

”7

Wilmington

|

Daytona

Beach

Gainsville Gainsville

Hialeah

Kissimmee

Decatur

Honolulu Glenwood

Pocatello

Rexburg

11

Addison

Highland

Park

Auburn

Batesville

Chandler

Cumberland Greenwood

!

Indianapolis >U

u

Q) P•H

c

o

r^

><d

s:

1

1

1 u

•(Hd

1 ^

Terra

Haute

Louisburg

Lexington

STATE Uia

-3

J

<

o

H-l <M

PM M

5ZM

j

COX

>** X

lOA
1

r—

C ) X X X X X X X X

^9

AIA

|l

(NJ CQ

B1 1

STATUS

OF

AVAILM;

CODES

.AND

STANDA AS T

— — — X X X

-i

K)<

rsj <

X X X X X X

:2 X X X X X

LU —

O-i; X X X X X X

9 lo < X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

pj LU

</) p

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

H/C

(n X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

.NO. OF UNITS <N On

vO

CM r—H r-H ON

in

On

•<r CM

fH CM CMON

CM

v£> CM CM vO

CO miH

fH fH rH rH

r*^ H iH fH CM fH

O

U UJ 3 fL

•ri '6U

RETRO X X X X

i'

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

LUt

cn

Z3Q

MFH !

MFM X X X X

X X X X

SFA X

X X X X

SFD X X X X X X X X X X X X

1

GRANTEE

Philip

Sims

Friends'

Community

Devel.

Barratt

Mountain

Sundman

Reality

Co.

Oak

Street

Associates

Laura

L.

Baker

Gloucester

Hsg.

Auth.

John

M.

Corcoran

&

Co.

R.L.

Seaberg

Assoc.

Corcoran,

Mullins,

Jennison,

Inc.

Hancock

House

Realty

Trust

Raynham

Housing

Auth.

Landgraf

Associates,

Inc.

Joseph

Real

Estate

&

Dev.

Co.

Worcester

Poly

tech.

Inst.

Centenial

Dev.

&

Bldg.

Corp.

Duerbeck

Building

Corp.

Aidco

Maine

Corp.

Pleasant

Point

Hsg.

Auth.

Iwillowcreek

II,

Ltd.

Isatn

Eyde

Const.

Co.

Isanford

&

Son,

Builders

Hobmar

Homes,

Inc.

Gridley

Const.

Inc.

oo

u

(0c

o0

01 •H§

.u

1c

o

CO fH

0)

PROJECr

LOCATION

CITY

Lexington

c

ou

a(c

•H

r-^u

<d

Boston Bourne

Chestnut

Hill

Falmouth

Gloucester

Milton

Norwell Quincy

1

Quincy

Raynham

'O

fH

0) •H

M-lU

c

•HU&

CO

West

Springfield

.

Worcester Baltimore

.Tarrettsville

Orr's

Island

Perry 1

E.

Lansing

Lansing Union

Pier

Minneapolis

New

Brighton

!

Scandia

STATE MA

1 MD r

IME ImT

1 L §

105
RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM

-

REGLT^TORY

DATA

SUM>LARY

CYCLE

c

Q

{ 3 X X

' X X X X X X X X X X

<

<

rg n

ii

si<^ u,Q

> Q

tn ^

RERC

1

AS

1

X X X X —

X X X X

<

rg<

X X X X X X X X

rH<

i X X X X X X X X

lU — o- X X

< X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

CO >-

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

u

j: X X

X

I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

NO. OF UNITS 1—

m

f—l o

r-H LA r—

m 1—1 rH rH CS

rH

00 iH NO rg CN

rH

rH meg

rH iH rH 00 <r orH 303 o

U tu

:5 CL

'/)

RETRO X X X X X X

S' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

HOUSI.V;

TYPE

MFH X

MFM X X

GAL X X X X

X

SFA X X X — SFD X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

GRANTEE

Parkton

Dev.

Co.

Bond

Construction

Co.

I

Pantheon

Corp.

Blackfeet

Indian

Tribe

Fort

Belknap

Indian

Comm.

Sun

Spec

Northern

Cheyenne

Ind.

Hsg.

Auth.

Habitat

2000,

Inc. —

11

L&O

Investments,

Inc.

Page

Associates,

Inc.

rH

(V>

<u Q

CO

<u 4J

CCJ U

cn

Cx9X

U

u

(U x>

•H

hJ

Callaway

Housing

Corp.

Peterson

Const.

Co.

Quadro,

Inc.

Stylecraft

Homes,

Inc.

Forest

Park

Village,

Inc.

Ferry

Street

Group

NJ

Sch.

of

Arch.

Public

Serv.

Co.

of

NJ

Sandia

Homes,

Inc.

Stanley

Associates

Schepps

Const.

Co.

1—

—

is.

Bronx

Comm.

Hsg.

Corp.

Sunset

Park

Redev.

Comm.

Tnc.

Bedford

Stuyvesant

Restor.

Corn

Lefrak

Org.,

Inc.

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY

Barnhart

Gladstone

1

St.

Louis

Browning Harlem

rH

(U0

09

r~X

Lame

Deer

Belmont

Fayetteville

Pinehurst

Grand

Forks

Callaway !j

Lincoln

Plattsmouth

Keene

>

nj>

aooXJp

cz

Newark

Albuquerque Albuquerque 1

Santa

Fe

Santa

Fe

— 1

Bronx

cX

iH0ou

PQ

Brooklyn

Forest

‘Hills

STATE o

X o

z i

u

z

X

z

A i z

106
1 CJ X X X X X X X X X X

AIA

|i

(N1 X

r—

H

CQ X —

RERC

1

X X X ——

X X X X

-i —

fO<

rg<

X X X X X X X X X X X

TV X X X X X X X X X X

KIND

OF

SYSTtM

a.

< X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

^ LU

r-*

C/) ^

Is X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

u

I

X

Cri X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

NO. OF UNITS 188 172 00

vO

i-H r-^ CS fO rH t-H fH iH m CM CM

150

CJN rH rH rH CO CM c^

1

CONSTRUCTION TTPE

RETRO X X X X

i' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

hdusim;

type

\

MFH X X

g X X X

%

'w'

SFA X X

SFD j

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

UJLU1

u

Mount

Batten

Jefferson

Adams

Rehab.

Co.

92A

West

End

Avenue,

Inc.

Pomona

Heights,

Inc.

Alpha

Const.

Co.

Davidson

Phillips,

Inc.

Universal

Home

Builders,

Inc.

Boyle

&

Schey

Builders

Sims

Brothers

Builders,

Inc.

First

Piqua

Corp.

Caprice

Builders,

Inc.

Volpini

&

Sorice,

Bldrs.

Found.

.

Inc.

Moore-Norman

Vo.

-Tech.

Conners

Const.

Co.

,

Inc.

Landura

Corp.

jWiiliam

Felton,

Inc,

Regent

Valley

Builders,

Inc.

junited

Meth.

Homes

for

Aging

jrhe

Fumo-Manf

redi

Partnership

Walnut

Ridge,

Inc.

Christopher

Shipp

ProdM.

F.

Smith

Associates

Batesville

Prop.

Assoc.

1

Everett

A.

Knight

Agency

o i O 1 ^ 1 <D

1 B

a

k4

0)d

\ £

r !

I Xjj •H < O !

i

\i> !

I ^

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY New

York

New

York.

i

New

York

Spring

Valley

Canton

Columbus

Fairfield

Findlay

Marietta

Piqua Troy

Youngstown

Norman Tulsa

Woodburn 1

Gladwyne

i

Lansdale

Mechanicsburg

cd *H

4=

Cu rH

0) -d

Cd rH

•H4=

Cu 1

Washington 1

West

Grove 0

4J

cr

'u

t- i

Greenville

OJ

*t^?

ar

lia

CO

STATE >-z

HO Xo OR PA

h”

QC CJ .lii

107
RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM

-

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY

CYGLE

3
APPENDIX II

SECTION A

Selected Questions from RERC Data Collection

Instruments Relative to Codes and Standards

Appendix

Reference Volume II

II-AI Single Family Builder/Developer Question 21e

II-A2 Comparative Single Family Builder/Developer Question 17e

II-A3 Multi-family Builder/Developer Question 20e

II-A4 Comparative Multi-family Builder/Developer Question 19e

II-A5

Volume III

Local Building Code Official Entire Questionnaire

(56 Questions)

109
21 . Did you have any problerrs with the fcMowlng during the plonning on;

construction phose of the project?

Yes ^

o. Getting construction loons

for development 1 2

for solar houses 1 2

If yes, please explain

b. Getting permonent finoncing

fc development 1 for solar houses 1

If yes, please explain

C. Getting zoning oporovo!

for development 1 2

for solar houses 1 2

If yes, please exploin

d. Getting sire picru opproved

fo' development

for solor houses

If yes , please explain

C=C>

e

.

Obrolning opprovol from, budding inspecto’s

for developrmenf 1 for solar houses 1

If yes, please explain

2

2

f. Getting solor equipm.ent

If yes, pleose exploin

Appendix II-Al ~ Single Family Builder/Developer

110
II. PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT

A. Construct ioTi Phose

Now, I'd like to ask you o few questions obouf the construction phase of the development and the houses;

17. Did you hove ony problems with the construction phose of the project?

o. Geftlno construction loons

for development

1: yes, pluoss; ev.plcir.

b. Getting permanent financing

for development 1 2

If yes, pleose exploin

following during the planning end

Yes K:

1 2

Getting zoning opprovo!

for development 1 2

If yes, please exploin

Getting site plans opproved

for development

If yes, please explain

‘=0

e. Obfoining opproval from building inspectors

for development 1

If yes, pleose exploin

Appendix II-A2 - Comparative Single Family Builder/Developer

111
^0. b. Gttting permanent finonclng

for development

for »olor oc‘

.

If Y*^i plecse explain

Yei Nc

1 2

1 2

C. Getting zoning opp'ovo!

for developmen* I 2

for iolar opt . 1 2

!f ye>, pleose exploin

d. GeMing lite p'oni approved

for development 1 2

for solo' oc* . 1 2

If yei, pleoie explcir

'=C>

C. Ootolning opprovol from building in»pe:?0'i

for developmen* I 2

for Kslor op*. 1 2

If yei, pleoie explolr.

f. Getting iolor equipment

If yei, plecie explain

g. Securing lervlclng for the lola: onltt

If yei, please exploin

h. Securing worronfeei for the solor syitemi 1

If yei, plecse exploin

Appendix II-A3 - Multi-Family Builder/Developer

112
II. PHASE OF DEVELCPf/ENT

A. Cors^ruction Phcse

Now, I'd like to Oik you o few questions cboj* the corsrrjcf ion phase o‘ t^e development and the rental units;

19. Did you hove any problems w:th the fol!ov>ing during fne p.:nr>ing o :'0

c :.~srr jcf ior pi-.ose of the profecr? Vos r^r a. Ge'tinn c onsti ucr « .>"' loons

f 01 ueve ' oprr.er ' 1 2

K yes, please e\pi air. —’— - - — —T“— _ ... '

b. Getting pe r.mcne n* financing

fo' cevelop.ment I 2

If yes, please exolcir'

c. Geiti^g zo.ninc opp’Ovol

lo' developniert 1 2

If yes, pleose explain

d. Getting site plans app'oved

for development 1 2

If yes, please explain

e

Obtaining approval from bqildirss inspectors

for development 1 2

If yes, pleose explain

Appendix II-A4 - Comparative Multi-Family Builder/Developer

113
/

(Cyc

ident .)

_/

e (6ront

ident.)

/ /.

(Jurveyee

ident .)

(Doto

Source)

Respondent ID^ (Circle one)

Participating Construction Lender BA Alternative Utility BF

Participating Permanent Lender BB Local Planning/Zoning

Non-Participating Lender BC Official BG

Participating Insurance Co/Agency BD Local Building Code BH

Auxiliary Utility BE Official

Local Tax Assessor BJ

HUD GRANT NO.

LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

NAME OF RESPONDENT

TITLE NAME OF AGENCY/DEPARTMENT

JURISDICTION

ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

DATE OF INTERVIEW

NAME OF INTERVIEWER

(Detach after completing Interview)

Appendix II-A5 - Local Building Code Official

114
—J /___v /.

Real Estate Research Corporation

TW 17TH STUn, N.W. • WASHINGTON, D.C X036

LCXAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Real Estate Research Corporation is conducting a study of market acceptance of solar energy in residential dwelling units for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. This research effort is part of a national demonstration program for

rcr'd<?rtial solar heating and cooling. Part of our research is focused on the role of

institutions which may or may not be involved in the development of solar energy in residential construction. In order to assess institutional response to solar energy we

are talking to representatives of banks, savings and loans, planning and zoning officials, tax assessors, utility companies, and others. Essentially, we are interested in finding out what these institutions think about solar, what impact, if any, solar development

would have on the institution, and whether their existing or projected policies would

have a material impact on the development of solar.

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official
LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

I. PROFILE OF BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION

1 . Where is your department located within the government's organizational

structure ?

2. This department is part of what level of government?

City

City/County

Regional

Other; specify

2

3

3.

How many inspectors do you have in the department?

I5<7CT

4.

Does your department have (on) established building code(s)?

Yes No 2 (skip to Q . 8) 3 (skip to Q. 8) 4 (skip to Q . 8)

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

5.

What is (are) the name(s) of the code(s)?

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

116
6 . On >Mhat code(s) is (ore) It (they) modeled?

BOCA — Basic 1 AlA — National 2 SBCC — Southern 3

ICBO — Uniform 4

lAPMO — Uniform Plumbing 5 NFPA — NEC and life safety 6

ANSI 7 FHA-MPS 8

Other; specify Don't Icnow/not applicable 7

7. How closely does (do) your code(s) conform to the model code(s)?

Modeled with some variations Mandatory minimum

Mandatory

Don't know

Does not apply

Other, specify

1 (skip to Q. 9) 2 (skip to Q. 9) 3 (skip to Q . 9) 4 (skip to Q . 9) 5 (skip to Q. 9)

6. If not, how ore buildings and structures evaluated with regard to public health and safety?

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

117
Append Ix

II. EXPERIENCE WITH DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Recently, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provided a

local builder with a grant to install o solar system in one (or more) of his residential units.

9.

Are you familiar with the solar house($)/opartment(s) that was (were) built with a federal grant in your jurisdiction?

Yes 1 No 2 (skip to Q. 21)

10.

Were any waivers requested to accommodate the solar system?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other; specify

If yes, please explain

12 (skip to Q. 12) 3 (skip to Q. 12) 4 (skip to Q. 12) 11.

Were these waivers granted?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

Please explain

12. Were any design changes required prior to approval?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not appliccble 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

II-A5 (Continued) -- Local Building Code Official

118
13 . Were system approvals handled in the normal manner by regulatory

personnel or did special considerations prevail? Please explain.

14« Was special training needed for regulatory staff or field inspectors?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't icnow/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

15. Were job site inspections handled in a normal way or by special personnel?

Please explain.

16. Were any additional job site inspections necessary?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't Icnow/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

119
17. Did it take longer to process the solar application than it would have

for conventional property?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other, specify

If "yes", please explain

12 (skip to Q. 19) 3 (skip to Q. 19) 4 (skip to Q. 19)

18. If the time foctor was increased, would this hold true for future residential applications using solar energy systems?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

Please explain

19. Did the fact that the solar unit(s) was (were) funded by a federal grant

impact the approval process?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official
20. Would the process hove differed for a solar unit built outside of the demonstration project?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

121
III. BUILDING CODE AND SOLAR SYSTEMS APPLICATION IN GENERAL

21

.

Has your office/agency reviewed or processed any applications for building

permits for other solar units in this jurisdiction?

Yes 1 No 2 (skip to Q. 31) Don't know/not applicable 3 (skip to Q. 31)

Did not answer 4 (skiptoQ.31)

If "yes", how many ond what type of units were they? 22.

Were any waivers requested to accommodate the solar system(s)?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

12 (skip to Q. 24)

3 (skip to Q . 24)

4 (skip to Q. 24) 23.

Were these waivers granted?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

Please explain

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

122
24.

Were any design changes required prior to approval ?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

25. If "yes", please explain

Were system approvals handled in the normal manner by regulatory

personnel or did special considerations prevail? Please explain.

26.

Was special training needed for regulatory staff or field inspectors?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

27.

Were job inspections handled in a normal way or by special personnel?

Please explain.

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

123
28. Were any additional job site inspections necessary?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes”/ please explain 29.

Did it take longer to process the solar application than it would have

for conventional property?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other; specify

12 (skip to Q.31)

3 (skip to Q.31)

4 (skip to Q .31)

If "yes", please explain

30.

If the time factor was increased, would this hold true for future

residential applications using solar energy systems?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

Please explain

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official
IV. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS IMPACT ON BUILDING CODE

31.

Does your code contain provisions for solar systems installation?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain these provisions. (Interviewer obtain copies).

32. Has your department studies the question of the potential impact of solar energy systems on the building code?

Yes 1 No 2 (skip to Q. 35) Don't know/not applicable 3 (skip toQ.35)

Did not answer 4 (skip to Q.35)

Other; specify

33. What were the conclusions of the study? (Interviewer try to obtain copy of study).

34.

As a result of this study, have procedures or regulations been modified

or changed to facilitate the installation of solar energy systems in residential developments?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other; specify

Please explain

1 (skip to Q. 36) 2 (skip to Q. 36) 3 (skip to Q . 36)

4 (skip to Q. 36)

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

125
35. Would such a study be useful ?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

36. Other; specify

Are you seeking organizational certification (product approval) of a

tolar energy system as a prerequisite to issuing a building permit?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other; specify

12 (skip to Q. 38) 3 (skip to Q . 38)

4 (skip to Q. 38)

If "yes", please explain what type of approval would be necessary: 37.

To which organ izat ion (s) would you look for product approvol?

38.

What kinds of solar energy systems would have problems nrteeting code

requirements? Why?

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

126
39.

Does this jurisdiction require compliance with FHA-MPS?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specif/

40.

Would there by building code problems in retrofitting a solar system

in on older structure ?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

41.

Apart from normal differences, would any unique considerations prevail

for a multifamily vs. single-family solar residence?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

42.

About how long does it take to get a major building code change approved?

Please explain.

Appendix II-A5 (Continued - Local Building Code Official

127
43. U enabling legislation necessary in order to amend or modify the building code?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain the nature of this legislation and the administrative process

44. Are there administrative rules and regulations which could impede the widespread acceptance of solar energy systems in residential development?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

128
V. BUILDING CODE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION

45.

Would you soy that the existing building code tends to encourage

or discourage energy conservation?

Encourage

Discourage

No impact Don't know/not applicable

12

3 (skip to Q. 47)

4 (skip to Q. 47)

46.

In what way does the code encourage (or discourage) energy conservation?

47.

Does the building department have an established energy conservation program that it promotes among builders in the area?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please describe the program:

48.

Does an energy conservation program exist within the city/county

government?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specif

y^ ____

If "yes", please describe the program and its relation to the building

department :

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

129
VI. KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES RE; SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS

A9. How knowledgeable ore you and the others In yoor department/agency

about residential solar energy systems?

Very knowledgeable 1 Somewhat knowledgeable 2

Slightly knowledgeable 3 Not at all knowledgeable 4

Don't know 5 Did not answer 6

Other; specify

50.

What is the educational background and training of the staff available

to process applications dealing with solar energy systems in residential development?

51

Where did you learn about solar energy systems?

Nevt'spaper 1 Popular magazines 2 Trade publications 3

Professional journals 4

Television 5 Radio 6

Other; specify

52.

In. your position, what major barriers do you see today regarding building

codes vrhich may impede the installation of solar energy systems in your

jurisdiction?

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official
53. What problems do you foresee regarding building codes for the future application of residential solar energy systems in this jurisdiction?

54. Please identify specific areas where assistance to the building official might be required for solar applications:

(Note to interviewer: cite these as examples)

Check

Training of Evaluators/Inspectors 1 Manuals of Accepted Practice 2

Inspection Guidelines 3

Certification 4

Technical Support/Additional Staff 5 Model Codes/Ordinances 6

Others; please explain

55. What specific kinds of information do you need to make a better decision regarding solar systems applications in residentiol development?

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

131
56. To which of the following sources would you normally look for building

code issues related to solar energy systems? Please rank them by order

of importonce.

Rank

Trade Publications Banks Developers

Manufacturers

National/Locol Associations

Universities & Independent Organizations

Government Agencies

Other; specify

Note to Interviewer: Obtain copies of all building code regulations and related materio!» applicable for solar energy systems in residential development.

END OF INTERVIEW

Time elapsed

Comments

Appendix II-A5 (Continued) - Local Building Code Official

132
APPENDIX II

Append ix

Reference

II-Bl

II-B2

SECTION B

Selected Questions from AIA/RC Data Collection

Instruments Relative to Codes and Standards

Building and Site Description

Design Process Data

Page A-2

Page C-11;

Question 19

133
TYPE OF SOLAR SYSTEAw' INlECRATlj\

. . Thf desio'' is:

( ) o rtf'^ des'rg'i

( ) O'* oda~lo1 (O'! o* 0"^ eyirting desio^

{ ) o relrof i1, original b-'ild.ng completed, 15 REGULATORY CODES

. The op; '-ca'jie codes ore:

( ) stole

( ) loro

( } otne- (specif ./

NAN'.E OF STATE OR LOCAL CODE/REGU-ATIO',;

Edition (Yeo')

. Building

. Mechonico!

. Electrical

. Piurnbing ^ "

. Ofntr

hf.ODZu CODES WHICH ARE THE BASIS FOR

NOTE: Use obb'eviations froT' belcv.

. Buildmr

regulations

Ed tio'' Oec-;

. Mechanico'

. Electrico'

. Plumbing

. Other (specify)

Abbrevlot ions

ICBO - UniforrTi BOCA - Basic Building Code

SBCC - SoutTiero Building Code

AlA - fJot ionol Bui Idinq Code

HUD - N'.inimum Properly Standords

NOl -I - None

OTH - Other (specify)

A - 2 poge 2 of c

Appendix II-Bl - Building and Site Description

134
Appendix II-B2 Design Process Data

135
• •y" \' r'r> (.'».' - •/',, ' ' ' -K.

, r 'i

. :

vy#»£ 5" **'

'

I

~-zc, «

» . '.

’ ’i

'

-vs -»:(lf ‘ i;p: *Hu •%• ti.CJ' ^l'

•>: )',?» ^3»«^ »'*» ilrv ( )

? ?*s . * -wj-t-v ^ . 1 ^ <01 >Q, ' 4^>. 0»»- i

““ r’T^iir

•fOH

L_

>-j !> ,‘t,-a.;. » ^-. •’-•i -o. *fcCTi .

. -i , ‘aZ j. ,

''i-'

“.••.'j*l-'ir * •fll. ii*w .•».'<* ) ’(-*. i. » <• .* *

i » . ... ^ 1 — _ _ H-

*S K»

I "'/'• » .. - ^ *# m IIIIH aHi < I » I

I • 1 1,1 ^III I

1 . 11^1 J » TM IB I

' '-‘ '“ "»<*«*>>’»'•'? if3#'l.5* tn-is* • '-' i-j :*;•; is-.a y|;

•; Aj

' •CWi-'O-

’ T - -K •

ID' I **.•. .“.yf

;»«-. t 35f V-’ ' *-V- ' < K

i ; it.. _*a '". J ';‘i. 4i,,-i;i:*''^ 3fl 5 •• r«» •*.... V-, '» •*•4 * *;»*' *VA- A^.V'- *iiM<:- j'wi*'

f. «PQsy<^ 'ro.

,

iCIti^ yy 4 \ ; y,

'

'

.

’ ' '

;

I

.

•

' \iL' ‘ ‘- ‘’ jjriw: ,i.»X ( >

«u B»d:>o,if^ flgia^a - Sff-p xibn

, \ » ',li‘.

' ' '‘vy.v ^^yi'/Vv

'Ay

„ V» .

136

f ii- ^ ill!
APPENDIX II

SECTION C

Selected Questions from HUD/Boeing Data Collection

Instruments Relative to Codes and Standards

Append ix

Reference

II-Cl Report N. 3, Construction Report Page 3;

Question Qd

137
B^ct.-up syster ene’^cy usec. Na-e & AcP'^ess

- IZS -ZJ ' 5

''

c. Ga; _

t . r. e : : 1 c '

c . F ue’ C T

c. Ct.'ier ( )

" foa a

e: :

,

Fats Strutt j’'S ret^sttsc

3' Rate St''uctj'"e crartec:

4, Ci.'Tent Cost oC Fue' C''l or ot’‘e'';

5, LAterience (mcludi'"; pro:ie~s, :* a"..' :r cttair-.r; :a;*--r

energy;

Appendix II-Cl - Report No. 3, Construction Report

138
APPENDIX III

LIST OF APPLICABLE CODES

AS REPORTED IN

GRANTEE REPORT #3

139
LIST OF APPLICABLE CODES

AS REPORTED IN

GRANTEE REPORT #3

Locat ion Local Code National Code BasisIII Huntsville, AL Huntsville City Code UBC

Prescott, AZ UBC, UPC UBC, UPC

Camarillo, CA UBC UBC '73

Davis , CA UBC UBC

Helmet, CA UBC UBC

Irvine, CA UBC ’76 UBC

Monterey, CA UBC UBC

Palo Alto, CA UBC UBC

Ramona , CA UBC UBC

San Bernadino, CA Residential and Commercial

Building Code

EP&S Codes

San Diego, CA UBC UBC

Santa Clara, CA UBC, NEL, UPC UBC, NEL, UPC

Aurora, CO UBC UBC

Boulder, CO UBC UBC

Brighton, CO UBC UBC

Colorado Springs, CO Regional Building Code UBC

Denver, CO Denver Building Code UBC

Evergreen, CO UBC UBC

Fort Collins, CO UBC UBC

Granby, CO UBC UBC

Littleton, CO UBC UBC

Pueblo, CO UBC UBC

Salida, CO UBC UBC

Westminster, CO UBC UBC

New Haven, CT State of Connecticut

Basic Building Code

BBC

Unionville, CT State of Connecticut

Basic Building Code

BBC

Vernon, CT Seate of Connecticut

Basic Building Code

BBC

Washington, DC BBC BBC

Coral Gables, FL South Florida Building Code None

Daytona Beach, FL SBC SBC

Gainsville, FL SBC SBC

Hialeah, FL South Florida Building Code UBC, NBC, SBC

140
Location Local Code National Code Basis

Kissimmee, FL SBC None

St. Petersburg, FL SPC, NEL NEL ’75

Winter Park, FL SBC SBC

Clarkston, GA 1&2 Family Dwelling Code UBC, SBC, NBS

Dacula, GA SBC SBC

Decatur, GA National Model Code ’67 National Model Code ’67

Macon, GA SBC SBC

Shenandoah, GA Coweta County & Shenandoah

South Bldg. Code

None

Swainsboro, GA SBC SBC

Honolulu, HI UBC UBC

West Des Moines, lA UBC UBC

Pocatello, ID UBC UBC

Highland Park, IL Lake Forest BBC

Vernon Hills, IL BBC BBC

Auburn, IN City-County Building Code 1&2 Family Dwelling Code

Batesville, IN City of Batesville 1&2 Family Dwelling Code

Chandler, IN UBC UBC

Cumberland, IN Shelby County Code None

Greenwood, IN 1&2 Family Dwelling Code UBC, SBC, NBC

Indianapolis, IN Division of Building

Dept, of Metro Govt.

None

Liberty, IN UBC UBC

Overland Park, KS BBC BBC

Shawnee Mission, KS None None

Glouster, MA MA State Building Code BBC

Needham, MA MA State Building Code BBC

Quincy, MA MA State Building Code BBC

Springfield, MA MA State Building Code BBC

West Springfield, MA Town of West Springfield

Building Code

None

Columbia, MD BBC BBC

Jarretsville , MD BBC BBC ’75

Battle Creek, MI BBC BBC

Union Pier, MI Bainbridge Township Building

Code

UBC
Location Local Code National Code Basis

Apple Valley, MN UBC UBC

Bloomington, MN MN State Building Code BBC

New Brighton, MN MN State Building Code UBC

Scandia, MN Village of Osceloa None

Barnhart , MO BBC BBC

Gladstone, MO City of Gladstone UBC

Poplar Bluff, MO BBC BBC

Big Fo rk , MT None None

KaLlspell, MT Ml’ State Building Code UBC '76, NEL

Fayetteville, NC NC Building Code None

Pinehurst, NC NC Building Code BBC, SBC

Winston-Salem, NC None None

Lincoln, NE UBC UBC

East Derry, NH BBC BBC '70

Harrisvllle, NH None None

Keene, NH BBC BBC

Blackwood, NJ BBC BBC

Dover, NJ BBC BBC

Newark, NJ BBC BBC

Old Bridge, NJ BBC BBC

Albuquerque, NM City of Albuquerque UBC

Santa Fe, NM UBC UBC

Bronx, NY New York City Building Code None

Buffalo, NY NY State Building Code None

Chester, NY NY State Building Code None

Clifton Park, NY NY State Building Code None

Forest Hills, NY New York City Building Code None

Lagrangeville , NY NY State Building Code None

New York, NY New York City Building Code None

Smithtown, NY NY State Building Code None

Canton, OH Stark County None

Cincinnati, OH Hamilton County Building Code None

Fairfield, OH City of Fairfield Building None

Code

Marietta, OH Participating H.O.W. Builder FHA

Troy, OH None None

Youngstown, OH Mahoning County Building Code None

142
Location Local Code National Code Basis

Norir.an, OK NBC NBC

Ashland, OR UBC UBC

North Bend, OR UBC UBC

Bryn Mawr , PA BBC BBC

Murrysville, PA Shelby County Code None

Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia Building Code * 79 BBC

West Grove, PA BBC BBC

Newport , RI BBC BBC

Columbia, SC Lexington County Building

Code

SBC

Greenville, SC SBC SBC

Hilton Head Isle, SC SBC SBC

Memphis , TN City of Memphis BBC

Austin, TX City of Austin and Lakeway

Municipal Water District

SBC

Corsicana, TX SBC SBC

Dallas, TX UBC UBC

Lubbock, TX City of Lubbock UBC

San Antonio, TX UBC UBC

Salt Lake City, UT UBC UBC

Berryville, VA BBC BBC

Lynchburg, VA BBC BBC

Vienna, VA 1&2 Family Dwelling Code BBC

Virginia Beach, VA BBC BBC

Waitsfield, VT None None

Seattle, WA UBC '70 UBC

Baraboo, WI City of Baraboo Building

Code

None

Birchwood, WI None None

Eldorado, WI Applicable WI Codes None

Milwaukee , WI Milwaukee Code of Ordinances None

Sheboygan, WI WI Uniform Building Code None

Summit , WI SE Wisconsin Uniform

Building Code

None

143

MBS.1UA IREVU.s. DEPT. OF COMM.

bibliographic data

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO

NBSIR 79-1957

4. title and subtitle

Analysis of Code Related Responses From the Solar

Demonstration Program

7. AUTHOR(S)

Joseph Greenberg

9. performing organization name and address

national bureau of standards

department of commerce

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fsrreot, city, sute, ziP) U.S. Department of Housing U.S. Department of Energy

and Urban Development 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

451 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20545

Washington, D.C. 20410

5. Publication Date January 1980

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or teat tactual summary of moat algniflcant Irt formation. If document Includes a alinitlennt btbtloilravhy or “

lllerelure survey, mention It here.) This report was prepared jointly for the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(IILID) and the Department of Energy (DoE) under activities carried out by the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) relative to the National Solar Heating and Cooling

Demonstration Programs. This report documents and analyzes the building regulatory

information gathered during the course of the Residential Solar Demonstration Program

from inception of the program through September 30, 1978. The report is based primarily on data collected by HUD contractoi- personnel and are data which have been

transmitted to NBS for inclusion in the NBS Solar Data Base. Although not all

builders and local code officials participating in the demonstration program were

interviewed for this study, the total number of participants interviewed was of

sufficient size to postulate trends and draw reasonable conclusions regarding the

building regulatory aspects of the program. The report concludes that existing

codes do not present a barrier to the installation and acceptance of solar systems;

however, code officials need additional training and better back-up material to

properly evaluate solar systems.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

liuildiiig code; code official; demonstration program; institutional constraints;

uolar bui] der/dev('loper ; solar energy.

IB. AVAILABILITY Unlimited

[Ij For Official Distribution. Do Hot Release to NTIS

of l^oc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

^ CJ Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, — VA. 221fil

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

153

22. Price

$11.00

USCOMM-DC
X’H T«<mn to iiot^

R' Hi9m

^4,', ata 6 ::>n|>tA)

4-4^ ntXoe tfW itcnl ao«flo<^«g

® ^Wk^JlrOTi laol jr"

— • * I ; -VI s

• - -a

tv«tv*9 h»«4i 4 r««t«t i« *t|T M

ainr.QA <m mm >*0!r*xt

<aiiAaMATi no uaih ^ f3»9MM03 10

,„#7

.• rAS

4mm

^

4»«4*vZ83)IOaA;I^/lM03 OVIA aMAH MOTTAIgHACCti < lo ^rMciirroqta »3.U ^lau^ Id St»»mu

.W.ii^^, turu>YA t^au/ioaaytiM^ O^ ^ ^n<Mi^l«y#Q rmi

f>ItK)S ,3.a

),d r

' ._ t-«ii«4' II , ;ffuu(i^X9>yt»Q nnxJ^J frttr snXi|iioH Jq ;Hn9mS*taq»Q art* ooTl yi#nl:o{; t»'ij^'^q[ jyd igo belanoo tal^'lViJjui •»9bnt/ (SoQ) ^ ^SOllooO„bfW w »»f!X «y|Oiil!»Ti,.(a^)

n grtibi£wd 5rti^ stsylvn* bat »:i<rtHmo<>b 9ldT noi t^ twt»^ lo’ saTuod iildr g^iXicut i>«i«d^iK9

-yi'ttji t>««*d tl d'3tb<;d*t J0|irT *8TQi »p£ 'itdaMcfqoS djjwo'irfd irursj^lfci oir0 Tuo' tiot^ ^

rtjod >viid wtB loJa^-t^noa OUn, yd bd^odXto

iCo dod 38M wlJ nl no/wiliont 'ipY

>c?’?»'i9W «atiaori<| ooiJ^Tynncxtab adtf nl ol^aldi'ilQ

^ Jko njiw bStvAivnta^irti aJO«qjy>Xiir’it<| la itdtojn Latloi odd «ybu^iija4djl ’^<^1 b

g

9iUr jplb-ioatr: otKitavL^mo •Id^^ bad

f, jwtflpnq li»- tdo»»q««'

(dme;ryit» T*f4;ib4 lo abTvs^s^bd brm fK>lrd*|l*d®fif »rid od itlWd %4n<M»irdq ;» od qu-ilOAtd *d 1^ Itaoidibbn b*a« a I oio Itl^O

»a«dJayg. TjB/d« 9i%^»ias^[

"

ii> lllllWu^wZ!il^ »<*lilll!l ^l>A »»a| '»!»''

rUtdpitUaitcwj' laa»X;iui#id4rtX"' ?««' “ , . ' "$ ’j,T- nckl^^«*idHrfapo{> ^ioiatllo

? 'TAJba^; w*ybVi of»H

j

iilfc

QTM ot MMmi IdtVoQ *Aoiludt«fff<| ^ <1 .'V : '. "'%

io w