ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Commercial Garage Handlamps

George,

That could indeed be what the insurance report said. I honestly don’t want to minimize what happened to your friend though, especially since I don’t know the details.

From NFPA 497:


In the cases cited so far the ignitible material has actually been the result of a “catastrophic” failure rather than an “abnormal” condition. An “Abnormal” condition generally comes from simple wear and tear. “Catastrophic” failure is a result of accidental damage, an inherent dormant mechanical equipment material flaw (rupture) or misoperation, human or mechanical.

Under standard 497 analysis techniques, a garage floor would not be a classified location unless gasoline was spilled so routinely that the EPA would cite the installation as an air pollution source.

I did not say I want to see class 1 Dev 1 lamps in auto shops. I'm just saying a-bulb drop lights have there problems. I have and use both florescent and a-bulb type. Just as a tec should when and where to to have flames, sparks, and smokes they need to be carefull when using a a-lamp.

Controling a spill sounds like a conterdiction of terms. Like controling a fall. Fuel pressure can be in the 45 PSI range with the car off. Cracking open any line squerts fuel every where.

Tom

Seems like I've stirred up quite a hornets nest with this one.

rbalex... welcome to ECN. Thanks for the posts.

I followed the logic of your first post about the appropriateness of the classification logic. However, your second post where you referenced NFPA 497 throws me off. I don't see the applicability of this NFPA standard to this location. 497 can only be applied to Chemical Processing facilities, it has nothing to do with automotive repair garages. It is always important to use the appropriate document for classification. The NEC as we all know does not classify locations, and in this circumstance the appropriate documents for classification are NFPA 30 and 30A. Both of these documents are the source of this NEC reference. There is no way to use 497 to classify the garage floor.

Active1, I have the same concerns as you about this equipment... I don't think you need to back down from saying that a handlamp approved for an "ordinary" location may present a hazard. That squirting/leaking of fuel is actually a very common occurence. Also, while some handlamps are "plugged in" after the electrician leaves... other times I have seen this equipment speced with a new garage. Right along with the air hoses and everything else hanging down from the ceiling. The most common way to buy the approved devices is actually without a cord, so, (in therory at least) a "qualified" person should be installing the equipment.

"Reno"... I agree and disagree with your points. It is unlikely that someone will pay the big bucks for this equipment. That's what concerns me, I don't see a reason that there can't be a reasonably priced alternative. I just can't seem to find one to recommend. Also, you are right, I rarely see creepers used, that's why my first recommendation is to "rig" a lamp so that it cannot be used within 18" of the floor. That would in my estimation solve the violation. Or... better yet, don't turn off the ventilation and keep it a 4 air changes an hour. BTW... fire is the hazard that would be controlled by the use of a sealed lamp.

Tom and George... It's nice to actually hear from someone that personally knows a person that has been hurt from this hazard. Most people say something like, "I heard once about a guy..." Purely anecdotal and while sad, it is nice to have someone with some first hand knowledge of an account(s). It does help to make the message clearer.

Bob... I agree with your premise. Welding and cutting would also create a hazard. Actually, that's why it is prohibited by the OSHA regulations to weld or cut in any area with flammable or combustible materials present... that would include a garage. There should always be a designated welding area in a buildin or a "hot-work" permit should be issued after a supervisor has verified that all potential fire hazards have been controlled.

I'm still hoping someone might be able to point me toward a reasonably priced handlamp that would meet the Code requirements. I've Googled it... no luck. I can find the expensive models but nothing under $400.

I would conclude that if the area is classified as Class I Div. 1 or 2 I am duty bound to approve lighting equipment that is so listed. If I go beyond that I'm on my own. So guess what I will do???

If someone wants to grab a protable handheld light plug it in to a receptacle-- go for it.

There's a saying "You can protect the fool but you can't protect the damn fool"

I wanted to make this point. I have enforced this requirement numerous times over the years.

However, I am working with a fairly large government employer that has over 100 garages and at least 6 handlamps in each garage. You can see where I'm going with this... In order for this employer to comply they are going to have to spend $250,000 of taxpayer money just to buy handlamps.

I'm not sure that they won't fight this based on the premise of a cost-benefit analysis. I believe we both want a safe work place, just don't want this to end up being an excessive compliance burden.

iwire Moderator posted 02-16-2005 05:10 PM Bob
The Classified location is not the whole room just the first eighteen inches up from the floor. I've never seen a grinder fastened to the floor or to the bottom shelf of a work bench. As for the welding that can be mitigated by increasing ventilation during that operation. Simply saying that it is too expensive to comply leaves the mechanics in an impossible situation. They have to get the work done but they are not provided with the tools to work safely.
--
Tom H

Look guys I do care about safety, I do not want anyone to think otherwise.

I do want to add a few things.

It was mentioned that fuel spills are inevitable because of things like the fuel systems being pressurized.

Very true, what is also true is that these modern fuel injected cars have bleeder valves to release the pressure before servicing.

This comes down to proper training of the mechanics.

It was also brought up that the cutting and grinding does not take place on the floor.

Again I agree, but when welding or cutting with a car on a lift the 'hot stuff' hit's the floor.

One last point, when accidents have happened the cause of the accident can most likely be traced to improper fuel handling. As the was the case in the above mentioned incidents.

As much as we may like to think the code can always protect us I do not believe it can. There always has to be a compromise between practicality and results.

Our own NEC lets us know that right away in 90.1(B)

"essentially free from hazard"

Now not once have I said not to enforce the code as it stands only that I do not agree with it.

Everyone have a great day and work safe.

Bob

The hazards that concern me with the A-bulb drop are
-burns
-flamibles contacting the hot bulb shattering the glass igniting
-the light is droped onto an area of flamibles

I can't say much about what location areas are classified as.

I can say there should be a middle area between the old drop lights and a hazordous location work light.

Here is a hazardous drop light: http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/item...0&store=snapon-store&dir=catalog

Does your work light need to have non sparking gaurds? If you take it to that level then you need non sparking tools. Would that light fit in tight areas or even be used?

The reality is the A-bulb burns too hot. You use a enclosed florescent and you would be fine. To take is a step more here is an LED work lights:
http://www.matcotools.com/Catalog/search.jsp?search=all&query=drop+light

I seen a manufactured drop light once that looked like it was made from 12" of rope light. Was small, durable, & not hot. The tec loved it. But he showed how indestructable it was one time too many.

The scrader valve can be used to release the fuel pressure if the vehic has one. Another way I see fuel spills is removing a tank or pump. Getting fuel out of a tank with a bad pump can be difficult. They have check balls if the filler tubes to keep the fuel in during a roll over. They almost never have a drain plug or tube.

On time I seen a tec removing a pump/float that was in the upper side of a tank. The a-bulb drop light was hooked near by. He poped the ring loose holding the float in. That opens a 5" hole in the tank. There was much more fuel than expected cause the float was stuck so it read empty. Fuel poared out onto somthing that deverted it both ways around the light. I yelled at him & unpluged the light. He managed to get it away from the fuel and drain pan.

We are talking all about fuel and forgetting about cleaners and solvants which have a much lower flash point.

Creapers are used when it is a quick fix. Fuel and solvents are not always just on the floor. They can be in a tank, on the bench, on a dissasembled auto.

I have not tried this but I would bet if you took a florescent drop light (with the wall wart transformer) or some other enclosed low voltage work light it would not light up a puddel of gasoline if you threw it down. You could probibly grab it by the cord and beat it into the fuel covered cement a few times.

Tom

Safetygem,

Thank you for you kind welcome.

Actually, I’m fairly familiar with most of those Standards and virtually any facility is easily within the scope of NFPA 497:

Unfortunately it’s only a Recommended Practice so it’s often preempted by other NFPA Standards. [See Section 1.3]

NFPA 497 is the only NFPA Standard that truly approaches electrical area classification any where near analytically; the other cited Standards are generally prescriptive. It makes them easier to enforce but, in my opinion, many of the requirements of those other Standards are overkill. Thus leaving you with the situation you’re in - not really wanting to pay the cost of full compliance because you know you really don’t need to technically – only legally.

Like Iwire I’d still never recommend non-compliance. I’m professionally bound not to. I just believe the prescriptive Standards were created and are now monitored by those not fully cognizant of the cost of fully complying with them. It’s not entirely their fault either. They started with Classification definitions that were too broad and general. Taken to their most conservative interpretation the entire world is, at least, Division 2. That butane lighter in your pocket COULD leak.

Nearly 25 years ago, my employer, a large consulting company, decided that area classification was the job of our Process Engineers; who better knew the potential dangers than they? I must admit, some of them were very good; in fact, I believe they had a better handle on IEC area classification concepts than many of our EEs. The IEC methods are much more analytical and those EEs wanted NAR – no analysis required – they just wanted to point at a picture. Nevertheless, the tendency was gross overkill and our clients simply wouldn’t put up with the costs. Ultimately the process was returned to EEs with “consultation” from the Process Department.

[This message has been edited by rbalex (edited 02-17-2005).]

I still agree with Bob's first comment about grinding and welding. In both cases live sparks and slag will be dropping on the floor. On the other hand the gasoline will be starting it's trip to the floor from well above the magic 18", no doubt accumulating in the auto chassis to some degree.
Simply keeping your hand lamp 18" above the floor is no gurantee of safety.