Roof Leak Discovered After Array Installation Response SOP

Purpose

A leak reported after an array goes up is not just a repair call. Handled wrong it becomes one of three expensive outcomes: the shop pays for a roof problem the install never caused, an unauthorized repair voids the homeowner's separate roofing warranty on ground solar never touched, or slow containment turns a small penetration failure into a soaked attic and a mold bill. This procedure fixes the sequence: contain the interior first, isolate the array before anyone works near it, get a written cause finding before deciding who fixes what, and clear the roof's own warranty holder before cutting into anything permanent.

Scope

Covers the shop's response from first report of an interior leak on a roof carrying an array the shop installed or services, through interim containment, cause determination, repair authorization and close-out.

Does not cover the physical method for isolating the leak's source among mount flashing, a disturbed shingle, a conduit penetration, a pre-existing condition or an ice-dam effect; that isolation procedure and its remediation instructions belong to the roof leak flashing vs mount vs shingle decision tree, called into at step 4 and not repeated here. Does not cover the pre-install roof survey, owned by the roof condition assessment SOP. Does not cover module damage from the same event; route that to the module damage and warranty claim SOP if any module shows impact or water intrusion.

Roles and responsibilities

Procedure

Step 1 - Take the call, commit to a response window, and screen for the hazard combination that outranks scheduling: water finding electrical. Ask whether the drip is near an outlet, a light fixture, a panel or any wiring, and whether a breaker has already tripped. Acceptance: a response window committed under 24 hours for an active interior drip, with the electrical screening questions asked and answered. Wrong looks like booking the leak onto next week's roofing queue because nothing sounds urgent over the phone; a slow leak is still active water finding a live circuit. Stop rule: where water is reported at or above an outlet, switch or fixture, the phone instruction is to shut that circuit off at the panel if it can be reached safely, or to leave the area and call an electrician immediately if not, not to "make it safe" at the fixture. Hazard: this is a phone call, so the exposure is whatever happens between now and arrival if left as an open question.

Step 2 - On arrival, protect the interior before touching the roof. Place containment under any active drip, at the interior surface and in the attic if accessible, and photograph the stain, drip point and attic moisture before it dries. Acceptance: containment placed and evidence photographed within the first few minutes on site. Wrong looks like heading straight for the roof while a stain spreads below; that evidence is what a warranty holder or insurer asks for later, and it degrades by the hour. Hazard: standing water near a ceiling fixture or outlet gets the phone screening's same treatment, re-checked in person since a fixture that read dry on the call may be wet by arrival.

Step 3 - Make the array safe before any exterior work, because a hose test or a roof walk near a damaged penetration means working around live conductors. Open the AC disconnect first, then the DC, and confirm near-zero current with a clamp meter before de-mating anything, since PV connectors are generally not load-break rated; rig the fall protection the job's plan specifies before stepping onto the roof plane, under 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M at 6 feet for construction-classified work or 29 CFR 1910.28 at 4 feet for general-industry service work, the split following the activity rather than the building. Acceptance: disconnects open, near-zero current confirmed, fall protection rigged before the first step onto the plane. Wrong looks like a tech walking the roof edge untied to eyeball a flashing because it is "just a quick look." Stop rule: a wet roof or standing water at the suspect penetration adds a slip hazard on top of the fall hazard; postpone to a dry window unless active interior damage makes the delay the greater harm.

Step 4 - Hand the cause off to the isolation procedure, and do not proceed without its written finding. Work the roof leak decision tree in full, including its own hose test, and record its confirming evidence. Acceptance: one of five named causes, mount flashing, shingle disturbance, conduit penetration, pre-existing condition or ice-dam effect, written down with that evidence attached. Wrong looks like eyeballing a flashing and skipping the hose test; a guessed source is the most common reason this file reopens. Hazard: the hose test sprays water at a roof edge near an open string; keep the disconnects open through the whole test, the condition step 7 re-checks before power returns.

Step 5 - Route liability and repair authorization from the named cause, and write the reason down. Mount flashing and conduit faults are the shop's own workmanship and get scheduled without a payer conversation; shingle disturbance from foot traffic is also the shop's responsibility; a pre-existing or ice-dam condition is not solar's cause and gets referred to a roofer with the finding shared plainly. Acceptance: one route named, the tree's cause cited as the reason. Wrong looks like defaulting every claim to "pre-existing" because the mounts test dry; a conduit boot or a foot-traffic scuff can be dry at the mount and still be the shop's fault. Hazard: none at this step, it is a decision drawn from the tree's finding, not a fresh diagnosis.

Step 6 - Clear the repair through the roof's own warranty holder before cutting into anything permanent, unless active damage makes waiting the greater harm. Where the roof carries a workmanship warranty, notify the holder of the planned repair and give them a stated window to inspect first; an unauthorized outside repair is a common warranty-voiding event. Acceptance: written notice sent with a stated response deadline, and either an approval or the deadline's non-response recorded. Wrong looks like a repair finished the same week with no notice sent, because the crew was already on site. Stop rule: where interior damage is actively spreading, documented containment and dry-in proceed without waiting, but the permanent repair still waits for the stated window; the file records that the holder was notified and given the chance to respond first.

Step 7 - Execute the repair, then restore and verify both the roof and the string before the job is called closed. Complete the repair per the tree's guidance for the confirmed cause, then hose-test with the homeowner present and photograph the dry result. Before closing any disconnect, confirm no water reached inside a junction box or conduit run at the repair; a wet enclosure does not get re-energized on a dry roof surface alone. Acceptance: hose test dry with the homeowner watching, and a confirmed-dry enclosure closed with the string restored to normal reporting, or a wet enclosure dried and insulation-checked before restoration. Wrong looks like re-energizing without opening the one enclosure nearest the old leak path. Hazard: this is the resume step for what step 3 opened, and it carries its own stop rule, not just a sign-off: low insulation resistance or visible moisture in any opened enclosure keeps the string open until it is dry and re-tested, regardless of how the roof looks.

Step 8 - Close the file in writing and reconcile everything the response opened. Send a written finding naming the cause, evidence, repair and warranty-holder notice; remove interim containment once the repair is confirmed dry; feed a shop-workmanship cause back to the install team the same week. Acceptance: written close-out sent, containment removed and noted, feedback logged where the shop was at fault. Wrong looks like a verbal "all good" with nothing in writing; that is the state a later mold or warranty question arrives into. Hazard: naming a cause the shop owns is a workmanship record, not a legal admission; the letter states the observed cause and repair, and any question about what it concedes to a roofer, insurer or manufacturer routes to the shop's own attorney.

The record this produces

One leak-response record per event: the response window and electrical screening; interior containment photographs and timestamps; the isolation tree's named cause with its evidence; the liability route and reasoning; the warranty-holder notice, deadline and reply or non-reply; the repair with any enclosure moisture finding; the hose-test result with the homeowner present; and the close-out letter.

On a contested claim, the warranty-holder notice and deadline prove the repair was not unauthorized; on a shop-fault claim, the tree's evidence proves the cause rather than the shop's own say-so.

Worked pass

A homeowner reports a ceiling stain two rooms from the array's uphill corner, three weeks after permission to operate, following two days of wind-driven rain.

Step 1: no wet fixtures reported, response window committed for the next business day. Step 2: on arrival, a bucket goes under the drip and the attic underside is photographed while still wet, showing a line under the array's uphill row. Step 3: the array is opened at AC then DC, near-zero current confirmed, fall protection rigged; the roof is dry enough to work.

Step 4 runs the isolation tree. The hose test on the uphill mount reproduces the drip inside four minutes, the attic observer confirming water entry at the same rafter bay photographed in step 2: mount flashing fault, the hose test as confirming evidence.

Step 5 routes it as the shop's own workmanship, cited to the confirmed mount flashing fault.

Step 6 stops. The roof carries a 15-year workmanship warranty from the original roofing contractor, whose stated response window for a notified repair is five business days. Containment is holding and the stain is not visibly spreading day to day, so the stop rule runs as written: no permanent repair yet. Written notice goes to the roofer the same day, with the five-day window stated in the file. The roofer does not respond within the window; the file records the notice, the deadline and the non-response, and on day six the repair proceeds, since the roof stays exposed to the next storm otherwise.

Step 7 replaces the mount flashing per the tree's guidance, counter-flashes the upper edge, and before closing the DC disconnect opens the adjacent conduit boot to check for water; it is dry. The hose test at the repaired mount comes back dry after four minutes with the homeowner watching, and the string reports within its normal range the next clear day.

Step 8 sends the written close-out naming the flashing fault, the roofer's notice and non-response, and the repair; the bucket comes out the same visit; and the finding is logged for the install team, since this racking model's flashing detail has now shown up twice this quarter.

References

• 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M and 29 CFR 1910.28 for fall protection, applied by activity classification.
• NFPA 70E-2021, 120.5 for live-dead-live verification and 29 CFR 1910.333(b)(2) for electrical work practices (29 CFR 1926.417 in construction).
• The roof's own workmanship warranty documentation, manufacturer or contractor, for its specific notice and response requirements.
• Your own attorney on what a signed finding or repair record proves or concedes to a third party.
• See related: the roof leak flashing vs mount vs shingle decision tree for cause isolation, the roof condition assessment SOP for the pre-install survey, and the module damage and warranty claim SOP where a module shows impact from the same event.