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 1173 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.

  • in reply to gkenyon

    526.3 (f) might apply: see manufacturer's instructions.

  • in reply to lyledunn

    How does Electrician+ fit in with MCS certification please?

  • in reply to Chris Pearson
    Chris Pearson said:
    526.3 (f) might apply: see manufacturer's instructions.

    Highly unlikely. MC4s are not to BS 5733, but to BS EN 62548. As far as I'm aware, there is no indiciation of 'maintenance free' in the product standard, and MC4s do not carry the 'MF' (in a circle) symbol.

  • This hypothetical ideal  is not really the current state,  and even if it was, all that  regular inspection will go out the window with plug in systems - where everything beyond the plug is product, and arguably more or less temporary - and even if strictly it is not it probably will be treated as if it is.

    That is of course partly the intent - part of making it some sort of installations possible at all  at the cheap end is indeed by removing the overheads - registered installers, inspections and connectors accessible etc,  from the equation.

    Risk of accident is of course slightly increased, but probably not to an unacceptable level, for a product. It will be plugged in, and if it goes bang at some point, well it goes *** bang, just like any other cheap junk consumer electronic thing, and will be replaced with another one. 

    There is a less flippant point , and that is to point out that not doing  also costs. It seems there were a few thousand excess deaths associated with recent heatwaves in the last month alone, that can be causally linked to our collective use of fossil fuel and general profligacy with energy.

    Assuming predictions are broadly right, then this will mount to some hundreds of thousands of lives lost over the life of any installations going in right now. In one sense we all have blood on our hands from inaction already so any apparent extra risk needs to be offset  against that kind of calculation.
    Dark, perhaps, but is it actually wrong?

    regards
    Mike.  

  • in reply to mapj1

    Dark, perhaps, but is it actually wrong?

    Not wrong at all. The obvious conclusion being that allowing "a few" deaths directly down to plug-in solar could result in significantly fewer deaths overall. You can argue about details - e.g. hastening the death of someone who was in such poor health that they'd be dead in a year anyway isn't quite the same as the death of healthy child who happened to put their fingers in the wrong place - but overall the weightings and general principles likely still holds.

    It's not a new debate. It's long been observed that the enviable safety record of modern railways (10-100x safer than the roads) is a bad thing overall - as all the safety comes with significant costs - which comes through in ticket prices (and to some extent with delays and cancellations) which discourages rail use. Whereas lower safety standards might mean cheaper tickets and so many more people choosing it as a means of transport - result some extra deaths on the rails but far fewer overall. Which is best?

      - Andy.

  • I'm not going to regurgitate the standards already listed by others. Thought I would look at it from the Duty Holders perspective and what Statute Regulation indicates. So would apply to retail, commercial and industrial properties and social landlords and local authorities that own and rent houses and other dwelling properties.

    Reg 4(2) of the EAWR 1989 clearly indicates that if you have electrical equipment and installation/s then your must "Maintain" that equipment or installation. Maintenance of course being a regular period of test/inspections and records kept of results of those and who the competent person was that carried out the inspection/testing. So much as a EICR regime must be implemented for main LV electrical installation, then what is the "Regime" the Duty Holder has or should have in place for the PV installation in particular from each panel, array to the inverters etc.

    I suspect the Duty Holder may think its part of the EICR? was the exclusion on PV install or part thereof agreed contractually? Or does the PV installation just simply fall below the radar and not part of any documented maintenance regime? I suspect the latter.

    Regards GTB

  • in reply to Chris Pearson

    Good question Chris, really not sure, but the OP didn’t limit his question to small scale PV. Many of our inspections would be for clients who may have hundreds of Kw, multiple inverters, complex gateway and usage controls. 
    I think GTB has summed up my approach in terms of the statutory considerations. Of course, those statutory requirements also demand that operatives need to be competent. An aspect of competence is knowing one’s limitations. Pulling it all together is why we make it explicit in the extent and limitations section of the EICR that no part of the PV system falls within scope. 
    The client will need to exercise his statutory duty in relation to the PV system by employing an enterprise that has appropriate expertise in that area.

  • Of course, there may be other reasons to expressly exclude solar PV from periodic inspection;

  • I think there does need to be some more inspection, though physically inspecting PV panels is going to be expensive. 

    the AC side should always be included in the EICR because it's part of the building's electrical installation. The DC side is different. If the inspector isn't qualified to assess PV systems or safe access isn't available, it should be clearly excluded and noted as a limitation in the report.

    Any visible defects, such as damaged cables, loose connectors, or signs of overheating, should still be recorded even if the full PV inspection is outside the agreed scope.

    For commercial buildings, schools, or older PV systems, I'd recommend a separate inspection by someone with PV experience. That provides a more complete assessment and reduces the chance of hidden issues being missed.

  • in reply to Michael Carter
    Michael Carter said:
    the AC side should always be included in the EICR because it's part of the building's electrical installation. The DC side is different. If the inspector isn't qualified to assess PV systems or safe access isn't available, it should be clearly excluded and noted as a limitation in the report.

    Will that work for the Landlord's EICR though? Suspect not, because it's part of BS 7671 and the installation. Still leaves the landlord needing the work done.

    Similarly, if the EICR is required for change of occupancy, or when a house is placed on the market?

Community Rules & Guidelines