I have a Client that will not provide a Risk Assessment to omit an RCD Commando Socket for a Data Cabinet. He wishes to employ a local isolator for the Cabinet, however he is concerned that the PDU Strip that arrived on site from the factory and pre-fitted within the data cabinet would still need an RCD. It is my opinion that the Factory built Data Rack is classed as a piece of equipment and as such does not form part of the Contractor's installation. If the Rack had arrived on site without the PDU strip fitted and it was installed by the Contractor then this would form part of the installation and therefore would require an RCD. Any advice/assistance would be appreciated.
There is a serious problem with the standards making process, and that is that interactions between various ones from differing sources lead to foolish and unnecessary outcomes. The most obvious one is electric cars (chargers) not being class 2 because someone didn't see that they could not safely be earthed in the external environment, which we all know and have a lot of regulations to reduce risks to presumably acceptable levels. However street furniture using PME is considered entirely satisfactory and does not cause a significant number of accidents. We need to be consistent on the basis of real risk only, not on "what if" scenarios.
EV charging equipment and EVs are made for the global market, and are not limited to the UK. It seems that we in the UK are less happy with the problems that PME might bring ... However, is all this mis-placed? They are having a rough time with PME-related serious occurrences in Australia, not that I'm trying to draw direct parallels as Australia don't quite do things the way we do either.
But let's be very clear that legislation is the driver here for considering PME risks in the UK, NOT standards. It's the ESQCR (and its predecessors) that highlight the risk of PME in relevant circumstances, so that can't be ignored. There's not much difference between a caravan and an EV on charge, to be quite blunt; that is, if you ignore the fact that the caravan might have metal legs from the earthed chassis in contact with the ground, but an EV on charge won't !
The other difference between general street furniture and EV charging equipment, in the main, is that of power rating. This is made quite plain in ENA ER G12/4.
There is a serious problem with the standards making process, and that is that interactions between various ones from differing sources lead to foolish and unnecessary outcomes. The most obvious one is electric cars (chargers) not being class 2 because someone didn't see that they could not safely be earthed in the external environment, which we all know and have a lot of regulations to reduce risks to presumably acceptable levels. However street furniture using PME is considered entirely satisfactory and does not cause a significant number of accidents. We need to be consistent on the basis of real risk only, not on "what if" scenarios.
EV charging equipment and EVs are made for the global market, and are not limited to the UK. It seems that we in the UK are less happy with the problems that PME might bring ... However, is all this mis-placed? They are having a rough time with PME-related serious occurrences in Australia, not that I'm trying to draw direct parallels as Australia don't quite do things the way we do either.
But let's be very clear that legislation is the driver here for considering PME risks in the UK, NOT standards. It's the ESQCR (and its predecessors) that highlight the risk of PME in relevant circumstances, so that can't be ignored. There's not much difference between a caravan and an EV on charge, to be quite blunt; that is, if you ignore the fact that the caravan might have metal legs from the earthed chassis in contact with the ground, but an EV on charge won't !
The other difference between general street furniture and EV charging equipment, in the main, is that of power rating. This is made quite plain in ENA ER G12/4.
