Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 21 replies
  • Subscribers 47 subscribers
  • Views 1170 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Solar PV Installations & EICR's

Gordon Routledge

I'd be interested to hear how others are handling solar PV installations as part of an EICR, especially the DC side.

The AC connection to the inverter is relatively straightforward to include, but the DC wiring, roof array, connectors and DC isolators are more challenging, particularly where access is limited or the inspector does not have specific PV competence.

The question was prompted by recent press reports of a school fire where the solar installation was reported as a possible cause. The system was said to have been installed around 10 to 12 years earlier, so in theory may have been through more than one periodic inspection cycle.

So, in practice:

Do you include the PV DC side within the EICR, or limit the inspection to the AC supply circuit and inverter connection?

If excluded, how do you word the limitation?

Would visible PV defects still be coded if outside the agreed scope?

Where roof access is not available, do you recommend a separate specialist PV inspection?

And more broadly, should PV systems have their own defined periodic inspection regime, especially on schools, commercial buildings and higher-risk sites?

I’m interested in how this is being handled in the real world, because there seems to be a possible gap between a building having an EICR and the PV system being meaningfully inspected.

Parents

  • In response to your vital questions the following are my suggestions;

    •  Ideally, it should be included in the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) so long as electricity is involved in this case direct current (DC).
    • Where it is excluded, the perceived limitation cannot override its importance and safety, in other words, your question/concern should be duly addressed by the regulatory bodies/authorities in this case.
    • Where the physical defects are reasonably outside the agreed scope then there should be a separate remark further explaining the associated hazards in line with the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and standard operational guidelines pending an inclusive amendment/review by the concerned regulatory body.
    • In a case of uneasy access to the PV installation, then the 'incorporated' monitoring software if any in this case should be routinely queried via the log report for comprehensive operational feedback, or possibly as suggested drones are alternatively deployed to inspect the physical installations on top of the roof or elevated points in difficult circumstances. Note that, this can be likened but not limited to fixed or stationary satellites in the space that does not need frequent physical checks due to the location but can be remotely controlled and monitored. But more serious concerns should be given to PV installations mounted on habitable rooftops due to the safety of human lives in any eventuality such as fire outbreak as mentioned.
    • It depends on the type of PV installation regarding the size, say larger projects should be given utmost priority. 

    However, these are my suggestions but subject to review.

    Many thanks for this challenging, interesting and vital concerns raised, I sincerely appreciate it!

Reply

  • In response to your vital questions the following are my suggestions;

    •  Ideally, it should be included in the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) so long as electricity is involved in this case direct current (DC).
    • Where it is excluded, the perceived limitation cannot override its importance and safety, in other words, your question/concern should be duly addressed by the regulatory bodies/authorities in this case.
    • Where the physical defects are reasonably outside the agreed scope then there should be a separate remark further explaining the associated hazards in line with the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and standard operational guidelines pending an inclusive amendment/review by the concerned regulatory body.
    • In a case of uneasy access to the PV installation, then the 'incorporated' monitoring software if any in this case should be routinely queried via the log report for comprehensive operational feedback, or possibly as suggested drones are alternatively deployed to inspect the physical installations on top of the roof or elevated points in difficult circumstances. Note that, this can be likened but not limited to fixed or stationary satellites in the space that does not need frequent physical checks due to the location but can be remotely controlled and monitored. But more serious concerns should be given to PV installations mounted on habitable rooftops due to the safety of human lives in any eventuality such as fire outbreak as mentioned.
    • It depends on the type of PV installation regarding the size, say larger projects should be given utmost priority. 

    However, these are my suggestions but subject to review.

    Many thanks for this challenging, interesting and vital concerns raised, I sincerely appreciate it!

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines