Switchboard access changes due to AS/NZS 3000-2018 Amendment 2
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:23 pm
Hi All,
My question is posed to those that may have insight into the reason for this amendment.
Is the change in amendment 2 of AS/NZS 3000-2018 now stipulating a 600mm clearance is required around the open door (i.e. in any position) of a domestic switchboard an oversight or an intentional change?
Background to the question: (sorry for using earlier Australian standards as references)
Since a change was introduced in the 1986 version of AS 3000 (1981 version was different) there has not been a requirement to provide a 600mm clearance around the open door of a domestic switchboard (as these generally don’t have doors in excess of an old 900mm-length dimension rule) Clause 2.21.2.1 from the 1986 and 1991 versions which is sort of carried through via clause 2.9.10 from the combined AS/NZS 3000 fit for purpose 2000 version.
Confusion came with the introduction of the 2007 version, when it combined the access and emergency exit facilities clauses.
Within the 2007 and 2018 versions, essentially it has been an interpretation as to which statements are for access and which were for emergency exits. While the reintroduction the of the 1 meter access (600mm domestic) requirement from the face of the enclosure is beneficial, the requirement for a 600mm clearance around the open door (i.e. in any position), apparently has been a little grey as to whether this was for access or an emergency exit facility. Due to previous mentioned standards, I’ve always stated this 600 mm clearance was to enable a safe emergency exit thus the exemption at the bottom of the clause ensured it wasn’t a requirement for a domestic switchboard. Additional reasoning for this justification was that the risk of personal injury due to an arc from these boards is very low thus not needing the same level of emergency exit facilities.
Reason for the question:
With the forever reducing land size, suitable switchboard locations are becoming difficult. When placed down the side of a premises, most times obtaining a 600mm to 1m clearance between the face of the switchboard and a fence/ retaining wall is achievable and provides sufficient access to safely work on the board. But if the entities where to enforce the new 600mm clearance from the open door most times the side wall of a premises would be deemed unsuitable.
Any information you can provide on this amendment would be appreciated and if it was an intentional change, do we have a recourse for requesting consultation with regards to changing?
My question is posed to those that may have insight into the reason for this amendment.
Is the change in amendment 2 of AS/NZS 3000-2018 now stipulating a 600mm clearance is required around the open door (i.e. in any position) of a domestic switchboard an oversight or an intentional change?
Background to the question: (sorry for using earlier Australian standards as references)
Since a change was introduced in the 1986 version of AS 3000 (1981 version was different) there has not been a requirement to provide a 600mm clearance around the open door of a domestic switchboard (as these generally don’t have doors in excess of an old 900mm-length dimension rule) Clause 2.21.2.1 from the 1986 and 1991 versions which is sort of carried through via clause 2.9.10 from the combined AS/NZS 3000 fit for purpose 2000 version.
Confusion came with the introduction of the 2007 version, when it combined the access and emergency exit facilities clauses.
Within the 2007 and 2018 versions, essentially it has been an interpretation as to which statements are for access and which were for emergency exits. While the reintroduction the of the 1 meter access (600mm domestic) requirement from the face of the enclosure is beneficial, the requirement for a 600mm clearance around the open door (i.e. in any position), apparently has been a little grey as to whether this was for access or an emergency exit facility. Due to previous mentioned standards, I’ve always stated this 600 mm clearance was to enable a safe emergency exit thus the exemption at the bottom of the clause ensured it wasn’t a requirement for a domestic switchboard. Additional reasoning for this justification was that the risk of personal injury due to an arc from these boards is very low thus not needing the same level of emergency exit facilities.
Reason for the question:
With the forever reducing land size, suitable switchboard locations are becoming difficult. When placed down the side of a premises, most times obtaining a 600mm to 1m clearance between the face of the switchboard and a fence/ retaining wall is achievable and provides sufficient access to safely work on the board. But if the entities where to enforce the new 600mm clearance from the open door most times the side wall of a premises would be deemed unsuitable.
Any information you can provide on this amendment would be appreciated and if it was an intentional change, do we have a recourse for requesting consultation with regards to changing?