Shock Hazard and AF Hazard for 120V

[jacknife76]

As I understand it, no arc flash analysis is needed below 240V in accordance with 130.3 Exception 1.

Now, I assume that to mean the following:

The AFB is 4ft [following 130.3(A)(1)]
The shock hazard should be assessed per task according to Table 130.7(C)(9) and proper PPE used

Is this correct?

If someone is stabbing a breaker into a 120V lighting panel, they must wear rubber gloves and leather covers and a face shield? (category 1 according to table)

Please advise.
Thanks!

Addendum: What is the difference between:
heading: 600V switchgear
"work on cc's with energized electrical conductors and ckt parts below 120, exposed" -- category 0

heading: panel boards or other equip rated 240V and below
"work on energized electrical conductors and ckt parts, including v testing" -- category 1

the control circuit part or the voltage testing? why is on higher than the other?

Thanks

 

[zog]

As I understand it, no arc flash analysis is needed below 240V in accordance with 130.3 Exception 1.

Depends on the size of the transformer. And not requiring an arc flash analysis does nto mean there is not an arc flash hazard. But it seems you understand that.

Now, I assume that to mean the following:

The AFB is 4ft [following 130.3(A)(1)]

Yes assuming you do not exceed the limits of the assumptions.

The shock hazard should be assessed per task according to Table 130.7(C)(9) and proper PPE used

Is this correct?

Yup

If someone is stabbing a breaker into a 120V lighting panel, they must wear rubber gloves and leather covers and a face shield? (category 1 according to table)

Well yes, it would be HRC 1 but you should not do this energized with out justification and an EEWP.

Addendum: What is the difference between:
heading: 600V switchgear
"work on cc's with energized electrical conductors and ckt parts below 120, exposed" -- category 0

heading: panel boards or other equip rated 240V and below
"work on energized electrical conductors and ckt parts, including v testing" -- category 1

the control circuit part or the voltage testing? why is on higher than the other?

Thanks

The control circuits, assumed to but lower energy as they are only supplied by a small CPT.

 

[jacknife76]

Thank you. (yes, I assume all conditions per the text and that there is still a risk -- just referenced the section, because I didn't want to type it all out).

One more question -- or confirmation, rather.

In your opinion, if one is using insulated, voltage-rated tools, are rubber/leather gloves necessary? From Table 130.7(C)(9), it would seem so. But I have heard some say otherwise (one or the other).

 

[zog]

Thank you. (yes, I assume all conditions per the text and that there is still a risk -- just referenced the section, because I didn't want to type it all out).

One more question -- or confirmation, rather.

In your opinion, if one is using insulated, voltage-rated tools, are rubber/leather gloves necessary? From Table 130.7(C)(9), it would seem so. But I have heard some say otherwise (one or the other).

Yes, tools are not required to be tested so may not be used as a primary means of shock protection. The exception to this is hot sticks or shotguns, which are required to be tested every 2 years IF they are to be used as the primary means of shock protection. IF you test them every 2 years they can be used as primary shock protection and the gloves are not required, but I would still recommend using them because I see how hot sticks get treated in the field.

 

[jacknife76]

Gotcha.

Thanks again.