{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/FSEC/SPD/issues/93","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/FSEC/SPD","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/FSEC/SPD/issues/93/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/FSEC/SPD/issues/93/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/FSEC/SPD/issues/93/events","html_url":"https://github.com/FSEC/SPD/issues/93","id":153442993,"number":93,"title":"Review comments from a plans examiner","user":{"login":"kshowalter","id":4062195,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4062195?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter","html_url":"https://github.com/kshowalter","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kshowalter/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2016-05-06T12:44:06Z","updated_at":"2016-05-06T12:44:06Z","closed_at":null,"body":"\"Here are my comments on the structural portion:\r\nThe documents  do not list the engineer who developed the program or the third party engineer who peer reviewed it.\r\nOn page 3, the roof slope is noted as 7:12 or 30.26 degrees.\r\nOn page 6, note 7 says the roof slope shall not exceed 6:12 or 27 dgrees.\r\nThe system should not have allowed the applicant to proceed.\r\n\r\nPage 7, notes 39, 40, 42, and 43 reference roof zones.\r\nThe roof zones are not defined, nor are they automatically dimensioned on the diagram on Page 4.\r\nASCE 7-10 does not have a simple answer for the dimensions of roof zones, but it is very probably more than the 10 inches listed in note 32.\r\n\r\nHere are our Electrical Plans Examiner's comments on the electrical portion:\r\nRemove all references to the 2014 NEC and replace with 2011.\r\nIn the area with the heading, System Design Requirements, a note reads, AHJs verify compliance with 110.3 (B) ..... , the note should start, All work shall comply with 110.3 (B) .....\r\nA note reads, All electrical terminals in dc circuits rated for 90°C. I know there are no terminals in alternating current (ac) that are 90 degree Celsius rated. I have not been able to confirm that there are dc terminals so rated.\r\n\r\nThe following are notes addressing issues in the area, PV SYSTEM LABELS, MARKINGS AND IDENTIFICATION.\r\nCode references found to be incorrect.\r\nThere is no 110.21 (A) or (B) it is just 110.21. Also the reference that is made to 110.21 for some of the label comments should apply to all.\r\nEquipment markings, 690.4 (D) applies to equipment marking not 690.4(B).\r\nIdentification and Grouping, is 690.31. 690.31 (B) is in the 2014 NEC.\r\nPV Disconnecting Means, is 690.13, there is no 690.13 (B), also remove 2014 ref.\r\nDisconnect type: interrupting rating, is 690.17, no 690.17 (E).\r\nDirect-current photovoltaic ..., 690.31 and 690.31 (E)(3), no 690.31 (G)(3).\r\nInverter Output Connection, 705.12 (D) (2) and (3) there is no (b).\r\nDistribution equipment supplied by multiple sources, 705.12 (D)(4) and 690.64, not 705.12 (D)(3).\""}}