Filling up fuel containers on the back of a ute, at servo's ?

Hi Disco,...Its a issue that needs to be addressed across the board, because its all over the place at the moment, ..Yeah petrol a bit different , but you know what! back on the farm the fuel supplier would throw a 44 of petrol off the side of the truck no worrys....thinking back...chiiiiiit!!.


Axle.

Axle
Petrol isn't a bit different to diesel, it is a lot different.
Normal static charge won't light diesel but as you know with petrol, no worries.
If you touch the item and the pump, gotta be close, at the same time then there should be no static after you jump.

Mobile phone radiation makes a user charged and that alters things if dealing with petrol at the same time.

The worst is, going back into the vehicle, clothes sliding on the seats and you come out charged and then touch the fuel fill area.

Apparently there are statistics on the number of women who have been burnt as a result of getting the money out of the car mid fill and then placing the nozzle back on the pump.
Men have money on their person, women have it in a bag on the other seat. Just the way it happens.

Dropping 44's onto a tyre was common wasn't it. All good though.

'Mobile phone radiation makes a user charged and that alters things if dealing with petrol at the same time.'

Some time ago, I had heard that there has never been a fire related to the use of mobile phones in a service station (or other location), and did some internet searching for a confirmation.
While the internet should not be the be all and end all, it appears there are plenty of sources showing issues with static electricity as mentioned, mostly from ladies retrieving payment while filling up, and wearing synthetic clothing . . .

But never from a mobile apparently.

The servo crews can be pretty anal about this, and probably just get it drilled into them by the fuel companies concerned.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/q-and-a/should-you-never-use-your-mobile-phone-at-a-petrol-station/

http://truthandmyth.blogspot.com.au/2006/03/facts-about-cell-phones-and-fires-at.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/30/1799366.htm

Just a few links found again today, and none that show any negative aspects of mobiles and fueling.

A mobile phone may give you cancer but it won't give you a static charge.

You can even use a mobile phone on the internal roads at the Shell Refineries. The only concern they have is that you can't talk on a phone while driving lol. Oh and that you don't remove the battery which CAN make a spark.

The only charge you'll get from a mobile phone is at the end of the month in the mail. That charge can be a shocker.

Boobook,
love your reply, I had a good laugh.

Finally found a photo of Boobook:

I must have just got off the phone.

Bob! How were you going to handle them after filling them? Michael

Hi Michael. They were for my son in law's ski boat so I only had to deliver them. I was just the gopher as FIL's usually are. lol

My answers haven't gone down real well either Bob, ..But I can see that rules are going to be rules, or keep drivin around..lol.


Cheers Axle.

Bob! I think 20 litre Jerry cans are problematic for everyone. They are awkward to empty into vehicles also, you cant put weight onto the spout so you just have to hold the weight till it lightens as it empties. I think 10 litre are more practical but take up more floor space unfortunately. I saw a 15 litre plastic jerry can at a market a few months ago, narrow but full height, quality looking item, I should have noted the brand. Michael

Our local Shell servo requires that ALL fuel containers be placed on the ground. Petrol or Diesel.

Petrol is considered to be a "Flammable Liquid" whereas diesel is a "Combustible Liquid"

The "incident" at this Shell servo was that someone tried to fill a jerry can/container on a roof rack with the HiFlow nozzle. Ended up giving 3-4 other cars a good shower of diesel.

Thats fine Lyn "Our local Shell servo requires that ALL fuel containers be placed on the ground. Petrol or Diesel. "

But what do the actual OH&S or Workplace Safety documents say?

I will just follow the leader, so to speak, and fill mine on the ground but it would be nice to know what the actual written law or regulation states.

Thanks

Phil

Phil,
Here is the Work Place Safety Doc for Vic, I would presume it is similar for all states. Interpret as you see fit as to whether it covers Diesel or not.

Safety Document

Here is what the Shell website has:

Filling Containers

Fill only properly labelled containers which have been stamped to say they are approved to carry flammable liquids.
Filling non-approved or incorrectly labelled containers from dispensing pumps is illegal.
Do not fill containers on the back of a truck deck, trailer, ute, in car boots, etc.
When filling a portable container, manually control the nozzle valve and fill slowly throughout the process to reduce the chance of static electricity build-up and minimize splattering / spilling.

Thanks Lyn. That'l do me. I prefer to read the official document. We have too many people who think that they can interpret it better than the legal profession. Then you see look at their post and see thrie idea of the written word. I makes me laugh at times.

I would say that it covers any fluid that fits within the interpretation of the word "fuel". And diesel is a fuel. Thus what I have been doing is correct. I'm happy with that.

Catchya

Phil

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the primary concern is fuel spillage.

In the eyes of the safety professionals and the regulators any sort of fuel spillage is a major hazard in its self.

If that fuel is spilled on or into a vehicle, it makes that spill very much harder to deal with....regardless of the fuel type.

It is quite concieveable that if a significant quantity of fuel was spilled into or onto a vehicle.....the fuel station operator may feel obloged to declare that vacinity of the vehicle a dangerous situation, stop all products, evacuate the area, close down the fuel station and not allow the vehicle to be moved untill the fuel spill has been handled and declared safe by someone qualified to do so...meaning a fire brigade call.

This small spill may end up costing all parties in the thousands of dollars once emergency service attendance, clean up and loss of trade is accounted for.

A small fuel spill on the ground may be handled with the fuel spill kit all petrol stations now have on hand or by other simple means.

Besides when filling on the ground a spill is less likely.

Static and potential ignition is a secondary hazard....which again is made worse when the spill is in or on a vehicle...because the vehicle presents multiple potential sources of ignition.


NOW remember...if the regulators have made a ruling on the matter and the fuel companies have made their polocy clear and they have made reasonable attempts to prevent people from attempting non compliant filling.

Should the spill occur and the senario outlined above play out...the whole thing will be placed in the hands of the fuel stations insurer....who will no doubt seek reimbursement of their costs from the offender.....that is you.

that will certainly be way more than the fine levied by the government.

So..are you feeling lucky.

cheers

So where does the priorities lie here. Twice only the word "hazard" appears. All the rest is about financial implications.

It's not you Bantam. That post is typical of the way things are these days.

Years ago it would be all about spilling and getting burnt. And then who pays for the hospital.

Phil

I see you got the idea Phill.

Its the way things are these days....and for some it is the only way they understand....so pretty well every time the words "risk" and "responsibility" appear they will be expressed as a cost in dollars at some point.

I think it is unfortunate that almost avery situation involving regulation and risk, the matter is delt with in terms of what happens when something goes wrong, the cost involved and who will pay.

The emphasis has changed from inspectors making sure things are done right to being enforcement staff that has the majority of their activity when things go wrong.

For so many thing we have a low probability of getting caught doing the wrong thing, but huge penalties for even minor breaches.


Much of the occupational and business licencing has changed from....yeh ya realy need a licence to do this stuff because you need to know stuff and be able to prove it...to you need a licence to do this stuff because you need to have insurance (so the bill can be paid) and we need to be able to prove you should have known better.

cheers

G/Day Mike, it does make you think! I've done it for years

Bit like the frog crossing the road everyday..lol.


Axle.

Axle! I have many a time in wet weather, in my younger days when the frogs are on the road, aimed for them! I get your point! Michael

Good question Allan - why are Jerry cans in the tray any more prone to static charge than the main vehicle itself??? And are plastic containers prone to this ??

Get back to the main issue being the spill, ignition is the secondary risk.

Jerries in the tray are more prone to static discharge because they may be insulated both by the tyres( arguable) or by whatever they or the tray may be sitting on

Any container on the ground will tend to have any static charge disipated by sitting on the ground.

BUT remember putting the container on the ground is a total package risk reduction.

As well as managing the static issue.....which in the total outlook is relativly minor.

It ensures that the container is on the ground in open space, that alone reduces multiple risks.

Having the container out of the vehicle means it can be seen for what it is.....if the container is a non compliant vessel....the service station operator and those around could identify it as such and stop the filling.

A service ststion operator is not suposed to enable the pump till they see what is being filled, by whom and that there is a reasonable chance that it is being done in a safe manner.

If the container has to be lifted out of the vehicle its is far less likely that the container will be over the 25 litre limit...on the basis of weight.

cheers

Allan, I'm not sure about your 1.5Mohm on your troopy but clothing rubbing on seats is just one source of static electricity in a vehicle. Another is dry air passing over the body of the vehicle. You would generally experience this in low humidity conditions.

You can get a static shock just touching a car that recently stopped without ever opening the door. The sticks pointing backwards from aircraft wings are there to discharge this air generated static in a managed way without causing sparks and radio interference. They provide a similar role to those straps you used to see on cars.

OH and remember this polocy is not framed specifically for utes and trailers, it is framed for all vehicles.

I have actually seen people filling containers IN the back seat foot well or in the back of station waggons....where there may be carpets and other absorbent materials....and those carpets and fabrics may be the source of static discharge.


The straight forward polocy that all portable containers must be out of the vehicle and rest on the ground to be filled is sensible and covers a vide variety of situations.

Cheers

I'd be more worried about people wandering around in rubber soled shoes and nylon jumpers....

Boobook,

You may not be sure about my Troopie's 1.5 Megohm tyre resistance, but I certainly am.
For a quick test I used my DVM but had I used my 1kv insulation tester I would expect an even lower resistance, however it has flat batteries at the moment.

The conductivity of motor tyres comes from the tyre compound formulation containing carbon black for physical reasons however it creates a bonus of electrical conductivity. (Cred. I have experience in the industry) You may find this reference of interest, and there are others to be found by search.

Although having driven many, many thousand of kilometres in hot dry conditions, I have never experienced static discharge shock from a vehicle. I have however often been the victim of shock from sliding off the seat then touching the bodywork.

The discharge wicks on aircraft facilitate the reduction of static buildup by corona effect but with a resistance of several hundred Megohms are only effective at higher voltages. They do provide continual discharge which eliminates even higher voltage buildup with resulting periodic discharge sparks affecting radio and instrumentation. They do actually produce some emissions in the radio frequency range but it is at lower energy level and in the form of white-noise which is manageable.
These discharge wicks do not bring the aircraft static voltage down to Terra firma potential which becomes the role of the conductive aircraft tyres.

The "straps you used to see" on cars for supposedly eliminating static charge and hence motion sickness were nothing more than a commercial deceit. For the most part they "flew" in the air without touching the road and in any case, the conductive tyres performed the discharge duty adequately. Many years ago I actually tested several of these straps and found negligible conductivity probably because they were manufactured from rubber not containing significant quantity of carbon black. Their small cross-sectional area would not have helped either. Like most commercial hoaxes, they disappeared after a time.

Those car sickness straps most certainly have not disapeared....I have seen them on sale recently, made of plastic with a pair of orange stripes on them......the orange stripes probably improve digital performance. ;)

My father informed me that they where a joke way back in the 60's..as soon as I was young enough to ask why they where there.

He knew a thing or two about motion sickness...he was a shipright and served in the navy during the war.......people got motion sick on boats & ships....certainly not a static issue.

Even when stationary I doubt thet they could make adequate contact with the ground even if there was a problem and if they where sufficiently conductive.

As far as sources of ignition in cars...while there are some obscure cases of static.....the hot metal and electrical contact arcs that abound in vehicles are more likely sources.

cheers

Still around eh? With digital performance even? LOL

Back in the 60's there were those who swore it cured car sickness. Possibly the placebo effect?

As you say Bantam, the minimal ground contact wouldn't help.

I actually shortened one on a rellies car so that it cleared the ground without the passengers getting sick! I viewed that as some sort of scientific experiment and proof of claptrap.

As for ignition of vapours at servos and the exhortations to not use even a mobile phone, I have long wondered about the starter motor hanging nicely in the possible vapour field and producing violent sparking on its commutator. The motor enclosure is hardly Zone 1 classification yet I have never heard of anyone disappearing at the press of the starter button.

I remember when fuel tankers had a length of chain dragging on the road. I suppose the 'mind over matter' straps were an improvement on chains.