Main switch readily accessible exception

[Dan L]

In regards to this question I have tried to find the answer in previous posts but have not found but if iv missed it I apologise.

Iv seen situations where main switches are not readily accessible for example

a switchboard in a classroom needs key to access main switch

A multi unit complex where a panel lock key/tool is needed to access main switch and mcb

in 3000 the exception pasted below

"Exception: A main switch need not be located on a switchboard, or be
readily accessible, where unauthorized operation may impair safety and the
electrical installation is—
(a) located on public land; and
(b) associated with telephone cabinets, traffic control signals and street
furniture, such as bus shelters and the like; and
(c) otherwise controlled and protected, in accordance with the
requirements of this Standard."

The exception seems very specific using the word" and" instead of “or“

Just off this exception would make my 2 examples not comply but I know the reason why the main switch is not accessible in the examples is limit the unauthorized operation

So is there another reg or standard I'm missing that is more info on this?

Much appreciated

[JamieP]

Unless it meets all 3 of those requirements then main switches must be readily accessable

But before jumping into that are you sure they are actually main switches and not simply isolating switches? Just by your classroom example I would assume it's more likely to be a distribution board and not a main switchboard but I could be assuming wrong

[Dan L]

They are both main switchboard and main switch. I asked an inspector at the time about switchboard in a classroom with children and he Said if it's lockable it's OK but never thought much of it at the time but now I'm trying find out.

It's only the other day I worked on a main switchboard central supply that was located outside and was locked for obvious reasons but it doesn't comply with all requirements?

[Dan L]

And is use of a key the same as use of a tool? Maybe that's the difference?

As use of a tool for access is not readily accessible

But, maybe a use of key is readily accessible to a person who is authorised to access?

[AlecK]

In this context, a key is a form of tool.

And you are correct that the 'and' in the Exception means that both conditions must be met before the exception can apply.
In other words risk of unauthorised operation by itself is not enough; the installation must also meet all three of the listed points.
Which is a very narrow combination of circumstances.

So if, as you say, these examples were MSBs rather than DBs, then they do not comply with current requirements [2.3.3.3].
But they may have been installed before compliance with this particular requirement became mandatory
(probably 1/4/201; but would have to research previous Regulations to be certain)

One of the 2 reasons we have main switches is so that installations can be easily isolated in an emergency [2.3.3 (a)]; including by unqualified persons.
That's also why the location of MSB has to be labelled at the entrance of the building, so the fire brigade etc can find it.
Reducing accessibility defeats the purpose.

[Dan L]

I thought possibly in some situations there may be some standards that will over rule this that I'm not aware off.

Like a builders temp for example the switchboard shall have the facilitie to be locked so it is not readily accessible or compliant with the exception mentioned.

3012

2 3.2.1
(e) Where provided with a door or lid to maintain a degree of protection, the door or lid
shall—
(i) require the use of a tool for removal;
(ii) be fitted with a facility for locking;

I thought there could be some similar rule for switchboards located outside or in public or communal area where u would not want anyone to be able access

How about a pump shed is it non compliant to have msb locked but OK to have msb with no lock but a lock on pumps shed door?
Same with switch room being locked or just the enclosure to the switchboard locked surely it's the same effect.

If there was a msb installed outside in public area then would you as an inspector want it to be readily accessible, with protection enclosure able to be opened with out key or tool.?

I'm not trying to poke holes I'm just trying to get a deeper understanding.

Thanks

[AlecK]

the whole point of the 'companion' Standards is that they can add to or otherwise modify the "universal" requirements of "3000".
So yes, "3012" sets a requirement for locking the swbd door; which in effect switches off (part of) the general requirements for accessibility of main switches. But it only has this effect for building sites, and can't be used to excuse locking access to main switches otherwise.


Your other examples could arguably be non-compliant; but far from uncommon.
For a pump shed, there's unlikely to be any person in the shed while the door is locked.
So the need to secure the property over-rides the need for accessible - whenever there's anyone there who could need to turn off the main switch; the shed is unlocked.

For many commercial buildings; rooms containing switchboards are locked, so that only authorised persons have access. Technically, locking the door of the switchroom containing the MSB violates the rule requiring "readily accessible"[2.3.3.3]; but in practice most people seem to accept "readily accessible to people within the room" or "readily accessible once the cupboard is open" as being good enough.

[Dan L]

I didn't mean the builders temp rule could be used for other situations but maybe there were other standards with exceptions relating to other environments.

But thanks for your time you have examined thingd very clearly.

[AlecK]

There may be other particular standards that alter the "readily accessible" requirement for particular types of switchboard; but I can't think of any off-hand. But there's certainly no general Exception.

Readily accessible [1.4.2] doesn't specifically refer to keys / tools; but it does exclude the need to remove any "obstruction".
So I suppose it comes down to whether a locked door of a room (for example) is an obstruction - and I can't see how it wouldn't be.

I suspect this is a case where longstanding established practice hasn't caught up with the current rules - though would need to research when "readily accessible" became a mandatory requirement for main switches. I suspect only enforceable from 2010, under ESRs.
1976 R 36 required MSB to be "readily accessible to the consumer"; which is slightly different.

[JamieP]

Just further curious about this as we have been discussing it at work in regards to main switches needing to be readily accessable

In our situation it's a MSB with doors directly in front (I guess essentially a cupboard) but said doors are always locked

But in our discussion it got me thinking about where you draw the line, the main switches need to be readily accessable but as you say, readily accessable from what point

I'd say a switchboard door that's locked is definitely non-compliant if the MS can't be switched external to it, as in through a hole in the door etc

A switchboard room? Also feels like it shouldn't be locked but almost always are

What about taking it further, if the purpose is as you say, for access in an emergency for quick isolation of power to the installation then if we applied the same logic to the switchboard room, what about all doors in the way from outside (where the emergency services arrive) through to the MSB and MS? At night most buildings are probably locked and even the same applies for a domestic premisis

I guess what I'm getting at is where the line should be drawn and where the demacation point is, it's a really interesting subject. The definition of readily accessable doesn't say where it has to.be readily accessable from

[AlecK]

The exception to 2.9.1 provides guidance.
Also note the2.9.2.3 requirement for MSB to be "within easy access of an entrance".
Also 2.9.2.4 requirements for door to MSB to be clearly marked; and for location of MSB to be indicated conspicuously at each entrance.

It comes down to balancing the safety risks arising from inability to easily isolate; vs those from power being switched off by unauthorised persons


And every sparky knows that unlocked switchrooms soon become storage places for cleaner's equipment and all the other junk that building designers fail to make proper provision for.

[PawPatrol]

In regards to this question I have tried to find the answer in previous posts but have not found but if iv missed it I apologise.

Iv seen situations where main switches are not readily accessible for example

a switchboard in a classroom needs key to access main switch

A multi unit complex where a panel lock key/tool is needed to access main switch and mcb

in 3000 the exception pasted below

"Exception: A main switch need not be located on a switchboard, or be
readily accessible, where unauthorized operation may impair safety and the
electrical installation is—
(a) located on public land; and
(b) associated with telephone cabinets, traffic control signals and street
furniture, such as bus shelters and the like; and
(c) otherwise controlled and protected, in accordance with the
requirements of this Standard."

The exception seems very specific using the word" and" instead of “or“

Just off this exception would make my 2 examples not comply but I know the reason why the main switch is not accessible in the examples is limit the unauthorized operation

So is there another reg or standard I'm missing that is more info on this?

Much appreciated

Hi,

First off go back to the beginning. How does 3000 apply to an existing installation? - now this doesn't excuse non-compliant work, it should have been done properly in the first place, however it is good for the next person that comes along.

The simple answer is that it doesn't! 3000 applies when carrying out work as required by the ESR, and only to the work that you are carrying out, not the existing stuff.

The other question that you could consider if you are interested is when was the switch fitted? It should have complied with what ever standard was in force at the time. Did that standard require that the switch was accessible (likely). The next question is that did someone put a cover over the switch following the installation - not PEW so doesn't have to comply with 3000. The building Act may apply however, but lets not go there.

If you don't know then don't worry about trying to fit 3000 to it - go back to the ESR - they apply at all times.

The only thing that you need to consider is is it unsafe? yes - do something about it - no - ignore it!

If it is immediately dangerous then report it to Energy Safety.

The owner should be made aware of the issue - if there is an issue due to their requirements under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. But the consideration for them to apply is does the main switch need access to be able to be switched off quickly? that's up to their business to decide.