Rich Mc said:

Thanks Graham, appreciate your input. 

Risk is still there but managed and with correct labelling  

I did not say it required (or could be managed with) labelling. I said it's now considered not an issue because the risks associated with this particular hazard (simultaneous contact with live conductors of two phases in separate pieces of equipment at once) have to be managed in other ways. There's no requirement in BS 7671 to put a voltage warning label on a 400 V 3-phase AC charging point either (but of course it may be provided if a risk assessment says otherwise).

Providing a label indicating a potential danger or hazard would be a Warning Notice (this is reflected in BS 7671:2018+A2:2022) ... Warning Notices are, certainly in places of work, governed by the Health & Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations, and therefore, except in cases where required by BS 7671 or another applicable standard, should only be applied as a result of a risk assessment, and then only where the Hierarchy of Controls has been applied to the relevant hazards. Safety signs are a last resort, and not a "catch all".

I would also note that warning 'ordinary persons' of the presence of 400 V AC, particularly without the relevant symbol (BS EN ISO 7010-W012 on a safety sign or IEC 60417-6042 where the manufacturer applies to equipment) without some further accompanying informative text, may well be pretty meaningless to most people.

Rich Mc said:

514 refers. 

Well, I disagree. Regulation 514.10 clearly identifies a "warning notice" for "voltage", but only on equipment or an enclosure within which the nominal voltage to earth exceeds 230 V, and even then only where the voltage would not be expected. In a three-phase 400 V system, the nominal voltage to earth does not exceed 230 V (it is 230 V).

If you put a notice on a single-phase charging point, that 400 V exists within it, that would not be true in any case ...

The Regulation is clearly not there to identify the fact that in an area, it's possible to simultaneously touch equipment on two phases!

lyledunn said:

Surprising the number of folk in the industry that don’t know that. I still see it on specifications, although I suppose designers are quite at liberty to go above and beyond 7671 requirements. 

Agreed ... but would also point out the safety legislation aspect of this, and also the potential uselessness where used to advise ordinary persons.

Turning this on its head, presence of a voltage warning notice in this type of installation accessible to ordinary persons would make me ask whether there's another issue to be investigated, and perhaps look harder for "the problem" (sometimes safety signs are used when someone knows something's not right, as a "stop-gap" that becomes a "permanent feature").

Rich Mc said:

Thanks Graham, appreciate your input. 

Risk is still there but managed and with correct labelling  

I did not say it required (or could be managed with) labelling. I said it's now considered not an issue because the risks associated with this particular hazard (simultaneous contact with live conductors of two phases in separate pieces of equipment at once) have to be managed in other ways. There's no requirement in BS 7671 to put a voltage warning label on a 400 V 3-phase AC charging point either (but of course it may be provided if a risk assessment says otherwise).

Providing a label indicating a potential danger or hazard would be a Warning Notice (this is reflected in BS 7671:2018+A2:2022) ... Warning Notices are, certainly in places of work, governed by the Health & Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations, and therefore, except in cases where required by BS 7671 or another applicable standard, should only be applied as a result of a risk assessment, and then only where the Hierarchy of Controls has been applied to the relevant hazards. Safety signs are a last resort, and not a "catch all".

I would also note that warning 'ordinary persons' of the presence of 400 V AC, particularly without the relevant symbol (BS EN ISO 7010-W012 on a safety sign or IEC 60417-6042 where the manufacturer applies to equipment) without some further accompanying informative text, may well be pretty meaningless to most people.

Rich Mc said:

514 refers. 

Well, I disagree. Regulation 514.10 clearly identifies a "warning notice" for "voltage", but only on equipment or an enclosure within which the nominal voltage to earth exceeds 230 V, and even then only where the voltage would not be expected. In a three-phase 400 V system, the nominal voltage to earth does not exceed 230 V (it is 230 V).

If you put a notice on a single-phase charging point, that 400 V exists within it, that would not be true in any case ...

The Regulation is clearly not there to identify the fact that in an area, it's possible to simultaneously touch equipment on two phases!

lyledunn said:

Surprising the number of folk in the industry that don’t know that. I still see it on specifications, although I suppose designers are quite at liberty to go above and beyond 7671 requirements. 

Agreed ... but would also point out the safety legislation aspect of this, and also the potential uselessness where used to advise ordinary persons.

Turning this on its head, presence of a voltage warning notice in this type of installation accessible to ordinary persons would make me ask whether there's another issue to be investigated, and perhaps look harder for "the problem" (sometimes safety signs are used when someone knows something's not right, as a "stop-gap" that becomes a "permanent feature").

And I did not mention warning notices!!

However in terms of that, whether a requirement or not I would always err to avoid any confusion which is what the regulation requires. 

In terms of labeling in my comment and what was intended, perhaps i should have been more specific. Call me old fashioned but I would much prefer to attend to an installation whether to inspect or maintain that was labelled correctly using functional labelling clearly and permanently fixed on all switchgear and equipment. Enhances safety, saves time, and avoids confusion.

This whole labeling debate regarding warning notices, whilst useful and informative was not what was intended and it seems has been jumped on by various persons joining the post!! 

Rich Mc said:

For me it is good practice, the chargers are remote from main switch-gear. 514 refers. 

Hopefully that clarifies. 

gkenyon said:

I would also note that warning 'ordinary persons' of the presence of 400 V AC, particularly without the relevant symbol (BS EN ISO 7010-W012 on a safety sign or IEC 60417-6042 where the manufacturer applies to equipment) without some further accompanying informative text, may well be pretty meaningless to most people.

I venture to suggest that it may be counter-productive. As an ordinary person, would you prefer the EVCP with the notice or the one without? Surely, the one without appears to be safer.

gkenyon said:

Turning this on its head, presence of a voltage warning notice in this type of installation accessible to ordinary persons would make me ask whether there's another issue to be investigated, and perhaps look harder for "the problem" (sometimes safety signs are used when someone knows something's not right, as a "stop-gap" that becomes a "permanent feature").

Maybe like this.

no retaining screws

in a commercial kitchen of a large social club.

Apologies to OP, I don’t mean to jump on the kernel of your post. 

lyledunn said:

Maybe like this.

Absolutely. We now have specific standards for 'Distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons (DBO)' and only those should be accessible to ordinary persons without the use of a tool ... or potentially a key in an environment such as many workplaces, where access can be limited to skilled and instructed persons (electrically) by a key.

Rich Mc said:

This whole labeling debate regarding warning notices, whilst useful and informative was not what was intended and it seems has been jumped on by various persons joining the post!! 

 Rich Mc 

I disagree that I'm 'jumping' on it and apologies if it appears that way ... I'm providing a view based on legislation and HSE guidance, i.e. taking a step back from BS 7671 and looking at the problem from first principles.

Rich Mc said:

In terms of labeling in my comment and what was intended, perhaps i should have been more specific. Call me old fashioned but I would much prefer to attend to an installation whether to inspect or maintain that was labelled correctly using functional labelling clearly and permanently fixed on all switchgear and equipment. Enhances safety, saves time, and avoids confusion.

Unfortunately, I see all to often in my day-to-day work, things done "because it's my experience we've always done it that way" or similar. And sometimes what is clear to one person, is confusing to another. In other cases "the way we always did it" is now considered dangerous (although of course, providing safety signs is often not dangerous - but occasionally can be if someone takes it the wrong way and does the opposite of what is safe).

Labelling where there is no hazard does NOT enhance safety. If an ordinary person has access to live parts of two separate pieces of equipment, something has gone very wrong.

Similarly, if a skilled person (electrically) or instructed person (electrically) has access to live parts of two separate pieces of equipment simultaneously, then Regulation 14 of the Electricity at Work Regulations has been breached TWICE. I accept that equipment can be damaged (but in EV charging installations, RCDs are used to provide additional protection, which includes protecting against such damage). And BS 7671 and product standards also have IK ratings to consider vandalism. Monitoring systems can also be used (as well as CCTV) and skilled and/or instructed persons can be available to isolate equipment if damage occurs (rather than poke fingers in).

The use of warning signs (which voltage warning notices actually are) is a last resort in the hierarchy of control for H&S management (and H&S in design - electrical installation design is, after all, covered by CDM Regulations, and the Designer has some duties regards safety that apply even in non-workplaces - even dwellings where there is a duty to consider design for safe maintenance).

If you put a sign "warning 400 V" on a single-phase 230 V panel, that would not be true from the maintainer's perspective, so we need to be careful where we would put a general voltage warning notice.

There's nothing wrong at all with a "Warning 400 V" sign with the lightning bolt symbol on the GRP enclosure for a three-phase feeder pillar, for example. Some of the notices and signs may be required by equipment standards, but otherwise it's not considered necessary unless you have a specific issue to address (in which case that should be in a CDM risk register or other design risk register).

And finally, we all know that if you ask 3 engineers the same question, you are likely to get 3 different answers (or at least 3 different spins on the same answer)