Here is a summary of the major changes to NFPA 70E for 2012 that I wrote. It was recently published in Electrical Contractor Magazine

[url="http://www.ecmag.com/?fa=article&articleID=12696"]2012 NFPA 70E Changes[/url]

Also, they are having a webinar about the changes on June 23, 2011. You might know the presenter.

[url="https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&eventid=318329&sessionid=1&key=83BF50059C44A2C54DB35B19AAB3CFBC&sourcepage=register"]2012 NFPA 70E Webinar[/url]

Thanks for the heads up on the webinar. I've signed up for it. I had to cancel my golf outing with the president, but I'm sure it will be worth it.

Thanks for the link to the 2012 changes and the webinar. The 130.3, Exception 1 has been a pain.

Jim,

As I read the 130.1(A) changes it sounds like the equipment must be deenergized prior to someone walking through the AFB with no interaction. Is this really the case? If so, what was the justification?

I can see how it might be interpreted that way but “arc flash hazard� and “energized / exposed� are also tied into this NPFA 70E article. In the magazine, I was very constrained on space and could not list each 70E article in its entirety but even when you read the full draft of the 2012 edition, it can have you doing a double take.

Bottom line:

Energized / Exposed = rule applies
Arc Flash Hazard = rule applies

“Energized electrical conductors and circuit parts to which an employee might be exposed shall be put into an electrically safe work condition if any of the following
conditions exist:

[INDENT](1) The employee is within the Limited Approach Boundary.[/INDENT][INDENT](2) The employee is within the Arc Flash Boundary.[/INDENT]
[INDENT](3) The employee interacts with equipment where conductors or circuit parts are not exposed, but an increased risk of arc flash hazard exists. [/INDENT]
Informational Note: See definition of arc flash hazard in Article 100.“

I think the 2012 edition will clear up a lot of things but I am pretty sure we will begin finding areas where we will all have suggestions for the next edition ...which is just a few years away!

“Energized electrical conductors and circuit parts to which an employee might be exposed shall be put into an electrically safe work condition if any of the following conditions exist:

(1) The employee is within the Limited Approach Boundary.
(2) The employee is within the Arc Flash Boundary.
(3) The employee interacts with equipment where conductors or circuit parts are not exposed, but an increased risk of arc flash hazard exists.

Informational Note: See definition of arc flash hazard in Article 100.“

OK, so let's say for instance that I have a bus off of a very large transformer where the AFB calculated by IEEE 1584 standards is 3000 feet. I'm not even going to comment on why it's that way...suffice to say that these days, we'd never put anything in that large in a single unit.

If I parse this out, then the first part says "might be exposed". So if I'm not interacting with the equipment in any way in which I might be exposed, I can ignore the 3 conditions.

However, condition 3 seems to contradict the first paragraph because it talks about "not exposed" conditions and leaves a vague "increased risk of arc flash hazard" line. Under what conditions would there be an "increased risk of arc flash hazard"? Does this tie into the paragraphs saying that if you don't do proper maintenance, all bets are off? Or something else entirely? I don't get it.

The fact is that the first clause was certainly heading in the right direction. The first two conditions are even better because it finally lays to rest the idea that arc flash boundaries only apply if shock boundaries do, too. But the third condition...what?

PaulEngr,
What is the reference of your quote? It doesn't match either NFPA 70E-2012 130.2 or NFPA 70E-2009 130.1.

The quote is from Brainfiller's article linked at the top of this thread.

I guess I should have scrolled up! I'm guessing from the date of the previous post that it is from the 2012 draft.

It was from the draft. There were actually quite a few changes from the draft to the final edition.

2012 edition

Correct me if I am wrong but, my take on the 70e-2012 edition, page 26 says a Arc Flash analysis is not necessarily a requirement.
130.5 (b) "Where it has been determined that work will be performed within the arc flash boundary one of the following methods shall be used
1 - Incident energy Analysis
2 - Hazard / Risk categories the charts can be used for selection of
PPE and other protective equipment

Providing it is field labeled with the 3 things that they have meantioned. It states that "... method of calculating and data to support the information shall be documented "
My Question is......Can the charts be used as a method of calculation and data collection?

The tables can be used as a basis for the HRC category and arc flash boundary on the labels if the short circuit current an clearing times in the tables are not exceeded. The tables are not a method of calculation - if you use the tables, you don't do incident energy and arc flash boundary calculations. You document the short circuit and clearing time at each piece of equipment, the method of calculating it, and the data used in the calculations.