Could it be argued that 463.1.3 requires a separate switch for items like an oven, hob, refrigerator or washing machine etc. where the appliance has no means of external isolation/control except those on itself? Or are functional controls on the appliances adequate and sufficient?
Z.
An functional/isolation switch that is "adjacent to the associated equipment" is a good idea.
So, we go down that road and require a device for on-load isolation (which could be a plug and socket-outlet rated up to 20 A) - great for domestic, except for the discussion of what "adjacent" means, and the differing opinions but that can come later in the process.
What we now need to do is understand circumstances where it may not be needed, or will cause issues:
- Launderettes and malicious use.
- Commercial laundries and kitchens where the appliance is supplied from a system controlled by emergency switching arrangement.
Any others?
That'll be the "adjacent" of 462.3.
I'll go with, "next to."
Z.
OK, so that won't work in most domestic kitchens, because adjacent to the dishwasher is a cupboard (under the sink) ... unless you're saying put it in the door of the cupboard under the sink in that case?
Or are you being more pedantic than that? In which case, the appliance can't be installed in accordance with the instructions from the manufacturer which require a certain distance gap all round the appliance (ruling out "adjoining" meaning of adjacent).
Again, I'm not being picky for the sake of it ... I have been involved in standardization for nearly 20 years now, and I am very familiar with the discussions. However, we do need to make sure the requirements can be verified. Hence one person's "adjacent to" could well be "a few feet away", "close by in the room" etc, whilst another person's might be "adjoining".
Case in point, in AMD2:2022, Regulation 710.511.1, the term "immediately adjacent to' is used ... Is this "nearer than adjacent to" ? Consider the discussions that must have gone on over the wording of that revision (compare with 710.511.1 in BS 7671:2018 and you'll see what I mean).
That'll be the "adjacent" of 462.3.
People are happier with that, because of the guidance available such that "adjacent to" means it may not need locking off as the person performing the isolation may be able to be in control of it at all times? I'm not defending a position, just openly discussing the sorts of things that influence the wording used for requirements in BS 7671.
Hence one person's "adjacent to" could well be "a few feet away", "close by in the room" etc, whilst another person's might be "adjoining".
The Judge's weasel words would be that the meaning of "adjacent to" is the ordinary meaning of the words.
surely you mean 'within reach' or 'rapidly and safely accessible', rather than a distance spec like less than 1m and not less than 150mm or something - being too specific will find all the impractical corner cases and invites ridicule. - after all 30cm away but on the other side of the wall is not so useful as 1m away but within reach of where you would actually stand.
But , if the CU is in the same room, why not the MCB ?
I really see no need to add a new requirement at all.
Mike.
This is why the issue of "interpreting standards" is very complex, and, I believe this has been mentioned in the Forum recently, one of the reasons why the IET Technical Helpline web-page has the disclaimer and other statements it does.
The Judge's weasel words would be that the meaning of "adjacent to" is the ordinary meaning of the words.
So how would Their Honour or Their Lordship / Their Ladyship deal with "immediately adjacent to" ? (And of course, is "immediately" a redundant word in the phrase "immediately adjacent to" ?)
I am going to ask the obvious question, that is a serious consideration for new regulations: "how often is "emergency switching off" actually required in a domestic kitchen?". How many have ever had to do this? How many "floods" are not caused by plumbing failures? How many dishwashers catch fire? This idea was tried in a number of large housing projects that ended up with grid switches with loads of 2.5 and 4mm cables which were very difficult to wire and screw closed. They tend to develop loose connections. I doubt that anyone ever used the switches and as they were not labelled so they were "switch everything off" panels anyway. The question really is why add this (significant) cost to all jobs in future, and even some people giving this a C2 if missing. The next idea will be to put a small CU in the kitchen in a convenient place, so that there is a "master switch" that is accessible.
I think all this is a design issue, not a regulation issue. If the customer wants it OK., otherwise make everyone pay for it, no chance.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
