This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

I am hearing from my network of contractors, that have actually read the new 722, that they have been asking charging equipment manufactures for documentary proof to comply with Note 5 of 722.411.4.


They are getting knocked back for asking or in one case a Declaration that says the particular device complies with BS 7671. I think that is wrong to declare that as BS 7671 is an installation safety standard and not a product standard. I believe that as a minimum the equipment must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and be CE marked. I also believe that manufacturers have to issue a Declaration of Conformity. 


BS 7671 722 has numerous references to the various standards required such as BS EN 61851 that the equipment must comply with. I am thinking it may be illegal to offer the sale of equipment that does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and is not CE marked?


I am hoping the countries top man of equipment safety standards, Paul Skyrme , sees this post and will come on and give us his expert view?


Has any forum member asked for a Declaration of Conformity from EV charging equipment manufacturers and received one?
Parents
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Yes, I could remove it (and wedge a piece of plastic between the door frame and the gas pipe). My point was more that there are hundreds of these in this estate, and vast numbers of similar situations, many as Lyle points out dating from the "bond everything" era and others an inevitable consequence of normal earthing and bonding practices. There is a logical inconsistency here where we seem to worry deeply about EVs, feel a bit uncomfortable about outside taps and outdoor use of class I appliances, and then proceed to ignore all other TNC-S connected outdoor metalwork. Light switches, gas meters and pipes, electric gates and bollards, garage doors connected via door openers or any other means, most of the caravans on domestic driveways, block heaters, fences with light fittings, etc. The risks are clearly comparable in many cases so either there is a real problem that extends wider than electric cars (and therefore needs dealing with), or the risk associated with EVs is a trivial increase on that which already exists and has been long considered acceptable.


    Perhaps the truth lies between the two, possibly lost neutrals occur rather more often than we are really comfortable with and no-one has really considered the extent of the TNC-S connected outdoor metalwork that exists until prompted by just one more item. Perhaps the whole safety case for TNC-S was too reliant on the rapidly disappearing metallic gas and water mains and assumptions about what equipotential zones could reasonably be created, together with last-century's attitude to risk. One thing stands out though, we don't have a general regulation for not connecting a TNC-S earth to large outdoor lumps of touchable metal, only specific ones for specific lumps of metal that are car or boat shaped. The connection to the garage door is not required, but nor is it prohibited.
Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Yes, I could remove it (and wedge a piece of plastic between the door frame and the gas pipe). My point was more that there are hundreds of these in this estate, and vast numbers of similar situations, many as Lyle points out dating from the "bond everything" era and others an inevitable consequence of normal earthing and bonding practices. There is a logical inconsistency here where we seem to worry deeply about EVs, feel a bit uncomfortable about outside taps and outdoor use of class I appliances, and then proceed to ignore all other TNC-S connected outdoor metalwork. Light switches, gas meters and pipes, electric gates and bollards, garage doors connected via door openers or any other means, most of the caravans on domestic driveways, block heaters, fences with light fittings, etc. The risks are clearly comparable in many cases so either there is a real problem that extends wider than electric cars (and therefore needs dealing with), or the risk associated with EVs is a trivial increase on that which already exists and has been long considered acceptable.


    Perhaps the truth lies between the two, possibly lost neutrals occur rather more often than we are really comfortable with and no-one has really considered the extent of the TNC-S connected outdoor metalwork that exists until prompted by just one more item. Perhaps the whole safety case for TNC-S was too reliant on the rapidly disappearing metallic gas and water mains and assumptions about what equipotential zones could reasonably be created, together with last-century's attitude to risk. One thing stands out though, we don't have a general regulation for not connecting a TNC-S earth to large outdoor lumps of touchable metal, only specific ones for specific lumps of metal that are car or boat shaped. The connection to the garage door is not required, but nor is it prohibited.
Children
No Data