![as nzs 3000 2000 as nzs 3000 2000](https://www.elcometer.com/media/3000-motorised-intro-image.jpg)
![as nzs 3000 2000 as nzs 3000 2000](https://ia801604.us.archive.org/20/items/as-nzs.3500.5.2000/as-nzs.3500.5.2000/as-nzs.3500.5.2000_001_01.jpg)
With the forever reducing land size, suitable switchboard locations are becoming difficult. 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. 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. in any position), apparently has been a little grey as to whether this was for access or an emergency exit facility. 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. Within the 20 versions, essentially it has been an interpretation as to which statements are for access and which were for emergency exits. 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 19 versions which is sort of carried through via clause 2.9.10 from the combined AS/NZS 3000 fit for purpose 2000 version.Ĭonfusion came with the introduction of the 2007 version, when it combined the access and emergency exit facilities clauses. in any position) of a domestic switchboard an oversight or an intentional change?īackground to the question: (sorry for using earlier Australian standards as references) Is the change in amendment 2 of AS/NZS 3000-2018 now stipulating a 600mm clearance is required around the open door (i.e. My question is posed to those that may have insight into the reason for this amendment.