Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 53 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3320 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

NON COMPLIANT NEW EV INSTALLATIONS

John Peckham
I was sent some information from the ECA concerning an audit undertaken by the Office of Low Emission Vehicles.


The sites inspected were those installed by "qualified" and "registered" installers claiming the OLEV subsidy.


0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3). That makes 46% of new EV installations by qualified and registered persons to be non-compliant.


Am I the only person who thinks this is an utter disgrace?





  • 0
    Going back to the original post - about the audit on EV chargers - I suspect that this shows something is fundamentally wrong with the regulations around this topic.

    Maybe the people writing the regs were so preoccupied about getting "perfect" safety that they introduced so many hoops that the installation ended up more dangerous than a far simpler system would be, even it it was not "perfect".

    OK, there is a possibility of an earth fault on the EV charger at the same time as a loss of neutral on the supply and someone touching a lamppost and the car at the same time, but this applies whether it is an EV charger or my vacuum cleaner while I'm cleaning the car.

    A fundamental principle of safety regulation is that you take the risk into consideration and the likelihood of three concurrent rare events is very rare indeed. We now have the proof that incorrect installation is not a rare event and perhaps the regulations need to take this into account as well and be made a lot simpler.
  • 0
    The problem is Harry, is that there are too many cooks. The procedure for any additional load/alteration is you consult with the local DNO. I have seen over the last 10 years or so everybody and his dog give their two pennith. The wiring regs are always years behind, as seen when the 16th ed came out, perfectly normal installations became "special" The avalanche of guide books, City and Guilds courses, trade associations, the list is endless. My company connect a greater part of the 4000 installations every month of the DNOs, working to their strategy which has evolved over many years. John Peckham hasn't got the detailed info, all we have is these meaningless "codes" set by yet another outfit, "The office of low Emission Vehicles" I would want to see the evidence to make a decision. 

    Regards, UKPNZap
  • 0
    0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3).

    I guess that begs two questions - not only the capability of the installers, but also the capability of the inspectors. I guess we've all come across claims of C1s for BS 3036 fuses or lack of bonding to a plastic service pipe and C2s for things that 'I wouldn't have done like that' but when you dig into the details are perfectly compliant or insulation resistance on long pyro cables that's a tad under 1MΩ. What reassurance do we have that the inspectors weren't fishing for remedial work for instance?

     
    OK, there is a possibility of an earth fault on the EV charger at the same time as a loss of neutral on the supply and someone touching a lamppost and the car at the same time, but this applies whether it is an EV charger or my vacuum cleaner while I'm cleaning the car.

     

    The shock risk from a broken PEN isn't quite as remote as that - it only needs a broken PEN and to be touching a metallic part of the car while stood on the ground (wearing something less than well insulating footwear) - as the PEN is connected directly to the car body via the installation's earthing conductor no Earth fault is needed. As for vacuum cleaners - along with almost every hand-held appliance intended for outdoor use they're almost universally double-insulated (or at least, like some garden shredders, have any exposed-conductive-parts beyond normal reach) - so avoiding the problem completely.


    I do take the point about making perfection the enemy of the good however - I've had a long standing argument that making a TT electrode avoid any PME influence is pointless if the ground under the car is subject to that same influence - hence a simple TT system with the electrode in close proximity to the vehicle is likely to be quite adequate.


       - Andy.
  • 0
    Harry and UKPN


    A couple of issues with your posts.


    1. Harry you do not need a concurrent earth fault on a vehicle charge point with the loss of the supply neutral. With a loss of the supply neutral the vehicles bodywork will rise up  to a voltage possibly approaching 400V. A person grasping the door handle or a child reaching under the vehicle to retrieve a ball could receive a fatal shock.


    2. UKPN the agreed procedure with the ENA/DNOs is if the EV extra load does not exceed 13.8kW MD then the installer must inform the ENA within 1 month. The ENA has an on line facility to do this. They then inform the DNO. If the MD will exceed 13.8kW then the installer must inform the DNO before work commences for consent. You will of course know that as UKPN is a member of the ENA?


    3. I know that the IET has done a lot of research on this subject and has involved a lot of input from industry experts including the HSE and ENA so glib remarks about the the IET are at best ill informed. I was involved with giving presentations on this subject with the IET at Elex shows. We did 2 at Ali Palli and Manchester before the lock down. I have posted on the forum about the free Webinars coming soon, you may find it useful to watch the first one as the topic of MD and EV are covered by the counties leading expert on the subject.


    4. I used to think I knew it all when I was a highly trained Technical Officer in the Post Office now I realise how little I know and every day is a school day!


  • 0
    I am currently making my way through the COP for EV charging equipment. I commend it as a good addition to anyone’s technical library and would praise the lead author, Mr Graham Kenyon for a well presented document. I don’t regard myself as any kind of electrical expert but I guess that I can be given some credit for 30 years as a tutor and add another 8 as a contractor. There is plenty in the code that, well let’s say, stretches my technical understanding (I am sure that I will be posting some queries on that very topic in due course). Anyway, trying not to patronise and apologies if that seems the case, the vast majority of electrical contractors will not be up for wading through the intricacies of many aspects of the COP, especially the issues surrounding PME. At least for the domestic sector, they will want to go to the wholesalers and buy the cheapest and easiest bit of kit that fully complies. They will not want to be banging in electrodes or calculating or measuring their resistance. If they have to pay a wee bit more for a simple install then I reckon that is the road that will be taken.
  • 0
    John Peckham:


    With a loss of the supply neutral the vehicles bodywork will rise up  to a voltage possibly approaching 400V


     


    Just to reinforce this ... it's not as simple as considering that the Neutral downstream of the broken PEN conductor can only "float" up to the highest phase to earth voltage.


    If one phase is lightly loaded, and the other two phases have roughly equal loads, but opposing power factors, the voltage can rise above the phase to Earth voltage - the worst-case being nearly 1.4U, where U represents the actual supply voltage to Earth. Worth remembering that the worst-case value of U may not be 253 V for many LV transformers in the UK, but 264 V.


  • 0
    Am I the only person who thinks this is an utter disgrace?

    You will be John until you pass us the evidence. 

    C1, C2, C3, Apparently Another code of practice, let's see the evidence, John. Most likely DNO PME fails, because if the installs were simple TT, there would be no problem. 


    For Mr Jewsbury. For underground pipes, etc, we work on "reasonable risk"As the likelyhood is unknown. 

    Regards, UKPN
  • 0
    I am happy to be corrected on the lack of the need for a fault in the charging equipment but it seems abundantly clear that, should the neutral be lost in a PME supply, then this needs tackling at source, i.e. detected and isolated at the incomer as it can cause all sorts of other dangers, not least the danger that I am on a lightly loaded phase and my neighbours on a heavily loaded phase so the voltage at my house heads up towards 400V.

    And if vacuum cleaners, electric strimmers, lawnmowers, and the like can be class 2, why can't EV chargers be as well and the problem would go away.
  • 0
    UKPN:

    Am I the only person who thinks this is an utter disgrace?

    You will be John until you pass us the evidence. 

    C1, C2, C3, Apparently Another code of practice, let's see the evidence, John. Most likely DNO PME fails, because if the installs were simple TT, there would be no problem. 


    Here is a press release from ECA.


    It seems that the whole EVCP installation from service head to the charge point itself was audited. It also accepts that there were some false "positives". What we are not told is where the inadequacies were.

    132.16 and 644.1.2 should ensure that the installation is inspected and tested all the way from the service head to the EVCP, but I suspect that in reality it starts from the garage CU in plenty of cases.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Harry Macdonald:


    And if vacuum cleaners, electric strimmers, lawnmowers, and the like can be class 2, why can't EV chargers be as well and the problem would go away.


    Hi Harry, well said, I have often wondered that myself ?


Community Rules & Guidelines