Posted By Steve Conway Diane, I became aware of these "incidents" back in June and searched the Shell website. The only relevant item I came across makes interesting reading. Steve "Battery powered equipment such as mobile phones, pagers, and cameras represent a potential ignition source. Shell takes the safety of its customers and retail staff very seriously. For this reason, although the risk associated with mobile phone use at retail sites is very low, Shell was the first in the oil industry in Malaysia to put up notices at pump islands to request motorists to switch OFF their mobile phones when refuelling at the station. There is a sticker to this effect at every pump island and it also advises customers to switch OFF your car engine and to refrain from smoking for similar reasons. We understand that there is an email, purportedly official Shell communication, circulating which describes various incidents that are supposed to have occured as a result of mobile phones ringing while at a retail station. Please be advised that the email in question does NOT originate from Shell Malaysia and we are unable to confirm any of the incidents quoted. Should you have any further enquiries on this subject, please email Pak Man via the following email address: pak.p.man@smt.shell.com.my"

Posted By Diane Warne Adrian, I completely agree with you, but the reason I posted this was that it was published by the PCS union and originated from HSE, i.e. the source is reliable. There is an HSE contact name and phone number at the bottom so it can be readily checked. I would never post anything from an unrreliable source on this forum. Regards Diane

Posted By peter gotch I spoke to HSE contact given in August 2002 H&S Newsletter for Local Authorities, (downloadable from HSE website) on Tuesday. He was surprised how quickly internal guidance to HSE Inspectors had escalated into the big bad world - I was obviously not the first person to ring him. Says the three incidents referred to by Diane are fictional, but petrol companies still insisting there is a risk - whether this if genuine or egg on face damage limitation is perhaps a moot point. Peter

Posted By John Webster Petrol stations are effectively at the end of a very tightly regulated supply chain where, from the drilling rig to the pump nozzle, safety is paramount. Up to this point, it is generally accepted that there is always a risk of escape of flammable vapours, and therefore the emphasis is on eliminating sources of ignition. So, amongst other measures, all metalwork is earthed and all electrical equipment must either be enclosed in special casings (flame/explosion proof or purged), or be of so low energy as to be incapable of generating a spark even under fault conditions (intrinsically safe). These rules will apply, as minimum, to ALL equipment within a specified radius of the potential source of vapour emission. To comply with the safety culture of the petroleum industry, filling stations would have to use systems more like those seen in F1 pits - car driven over metal earthing strips, attendant (yes-we would have to bring back a person competent to fill the car) in firefroof overalls with respirator against benzene exposure, sealed, non-spill nozzle with vapour extraction and recovery etc. Alternatively, cars would have to be driven in and filled under a hot-work permit!! So with their fire safety background it is not surprising when the supply companies get twitchy when yet another new, uncontrolled ignition source is introduced. Yet, as I pointed out on a previous occasion when this was raised, we, the fuel buying public, are required to take none of these precautions. We drive up in cars with basic electrical systems, with a high voltage spark ignition system, often right up to the car infront which is already filling up. We get out and discharge our nylon shirt onto the door handle. But despite this, fire and explosion in normal use is exceedingly rare. The use of any equipment with ignition potential at filling stations has to be looked at in the context of what is already tolerated. If we were to ban mobiles, we really would have to ban the cars and 'untrained' customers in unsuitable clothing as well! Reasonably practicable? I think not. Or is the real danger from mobiles of interfering with the telemetry system which tells the cashier how much you need to pay? But at least the notices will serve as a new reminder to people that petrol IS hazardous, with the risk of ignition, however small, always present.

Posted By Dave Daniel Some years ago I was involved in investigating incidents of electrostatic ignition of low flashpoint thinners-soaked rags being pulled from a bucket as part of a vehicle painting job. There was a risk and it was solved, but we tested the flammable atmosphere with an explosimeter. Interestingly, you had to get the explosimeter nearly to a pool of liquid's surface to register an explosive atmomsphere in a well ventilated internal room (paint shop). Quite how close you had to get was a surprise to all of the people involved. I cannot believe on this basis that you could actually get ignition on a forecourt without say dropping a fag into the filler hole, or spraying petrol all over your clothes. All the same, I advocate the current cautionary signs.

Posted By John Murphy I recently received this from Steve Sumner at the Employers Organisation who asjked for it to be shared with others. "Since the article on mobile phone use was published in the August 2002 edition of the LAU newsletter, HSE has established that the three Shell incidents referred to in this article are bogus. The offending article has now been removed from the newsletter on the LAU website, and there will be a reference to this in the next newsletter which will be out early in October. However the advice which should be given on this issue remains the same: i.e. that it is good practice to switch off mobile phones before entering any hazardous areas (i.e. dispensing and tanker unloading areas) at petrol filling stations. LAU = Local Authority unit