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

0 Chris Pearson over 4 years ago

davezawadi:

For reasons which I completely fail to understand, some risks are treated in entirely different ways to others.

Possibly because most people have no idea what it means so the science becomes secondary to emotions and politics. There is also an element of wishful thinking, which is, for example, essential to combatants - "my comrades may be hit, but I shall be the lucky one".

People may be afraid of ionising radiation (and even non-ionising radiation) to the extent of worrying about having a scan when the risk of death on the road to and from the hospital is greater (unless you live next door).

Would you have your child's tonsils removed if the surgeon told you that there is a 1:20,000 risk of bleeding to death afterwards? Or actually, would a few days of sore throats be a better option if you think it through logically?

So perhaps we should be given an estimate of the risk of electrocution by an EV due to a lost neutral and then be allowed as competent adults to choose how much to pay for the various options of EVCP?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Chris Pearson over 4 years ago

davezawadi:

For reasons which I completely fail to understand, some risks are treated in entirely different ways to others.

Possibly because most people have no idea what it means so the science becomes secondary to emotions and politics. There is also an element of wishful thinking, which is, for example, essential to combatants - "my comrades may be hit, but I shall be the lucky one".

People may be afraid of ionising radiation (and even non-ionising radiation) to the extent of worrying about having a scan when the risk of death on the road to and from the hospital is greater (unless you live next door).

Would you have your child's tonsils removed if the surgeon told you that there is a 1:20,000 risk of bleeding to death afterwards? Or actually, would a few days of sore throats be a better option if you think it through logically?

So perhaps we should be given an estimate of the risk of electrocution by an EV due to a lost neutral and then be allowed as competent adults to choose how much to pay for the various options of EVCP?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

Community Rules & Guidelines