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) 

That all went well then! Labelling is not required and may unnecessaraly worry persons. Mental health is a big issue nowadays.

Indeed, especially perhaps on this forum (!) 

Joking aside, I stand by my original answer - there is nothing for the original poster to worry about, 3 phase supplies are not especially more dangerous - actually most single phase supplies are derived from one. Far more important for EV charging are the earthing arrangements.

M.

David Stone said:

That all went well then! Labelling is not required and may unnecessaraly worry persons.

Apologies, what nonsense!

'Labelling' of this nature (a safety sign) is provided for very good Health & Safety reasons, according to the Hierarchy of Controls, or otherwise as required when applying a British or Harmonized [or Designated] Standard. The requirements for and usage of safety signs is governed by the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations.

The long-established HSE guidance on the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations says that signs (with the exception of fire safety signs, see para 17) should only be used where 'there is a significant residual risk' and (see para 15 and 16).

No Graham, you are wrong. There is no perceptable safety risk in this situation, so signs are completely unnecessary to say anything. Did you not undersatnd your own post? :

The long-established HSE guidance on the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations says that signs (with the exception of fire safety signs, see para 17) should only be used where 'there is a significant residual risk' and (see para 15 and 16).

Perhaps you would care to list the risidual risk in this case, there is none! Which user is going to dismantle the equipment? Is vandalism covered by HSE guidance on the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations? No. I have no objection to signs stating that charging Li Batteries is dangerous and may cause fire, which is very difficult to extinguish and may cause serious structural damage to surrounding building structures.

No Graham, you are wrong.

I think there's been a bit of mis-reading both ways here. My reading was that Graham's reply was referring to labels in general (as your original reply could also have been read) rather than to the specific situation of 400V labels not being required in the OP's particular situation. I think Graham's point was that where labels are required, they shouldn't be omitted on the basis that they might worry people.

   - Andy.

David Stone said:

No Graham, you are wrong. There is no perceptable safety risk in this situation, so signs are completely unnecessary to say anything. Did you not undersatnd your own post? :

Sorry David, I'm not "wrong". I agree with the safety risk issue (not sure what 'perceptible' does as a qualifier) but what I didn't get was:

David Stone said:

That all went well then! Labelling is not required and may unnecessaraly worry persons. Mental health is a big issue nowadays.

In fact, I found the statement regarding mental health a  little abrasive and perhaps insensitive (although perhaps a poor turn of phrase and not an intention) ... but that's of course not part of the technical discussion.

AJJewsbury said:

My reading was that Graham's reply was referring to labels in general (as your original reply could also have been read) rather than to the specific situation of 400V labels not being required in the OP's particular situation.

Yes, as I said earlier, I don't agree that there is a risk (unless legislation has been broken at least twice) of accessing live conductors at the same time, in independent but simultaneously-accessible equipment fed from 2 phases, and therefore a safety sign ("warning notice" in BS 7671 speak) is not required, and the HSE guidance on the H&S(S&S) Regulations would back that up.

AJJewsbury said:

I think Graham's point was that where labels are required, they shouldn't be omitted on the basis that they might worry people

That ... and sadly comment regarding mental health and "worrying people" being a little too abrasive for my liking, perhaps bordering on offensive (although I'm sure that wasn't David's intention).