Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Hazardous locations Class 2 Division 2 (?)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1

    Hazardous locations Class 2 Division 2 (?)

    I have a client who wants to add a 120 volt convenience outlet connection point in a room with what I believe are slightly volatile fumes from a machine that sprays urathane type coatings on wood. It's also the drying room (through air ventilation fan) for the product after it's sprayed.

    The client claims the particulate fumes are not volatile but I doubt that, Anyway re the classification, Am I correct in assuming this should be Class 2 Div. 2 location ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    16,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Juiceman1 View Post
    I have a client who wants to add a 120 volt convenience outlet connection point in a room with what I believe are slightly volatile fumes from a machine that sprays urathane type coatings on wood. It's also the drying room (through air ventilation fan) for the product after it's sprayed.

    The client claims the particulate fumes are not volatile but I doubt that, Anyway re the classification, Am I correct in assuming this should be Class 2 Div. 2 location ?
    I have seen several machines that spray polyurethane coatings on wood and did not see any evidence of a classified area.
    Bob

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    North of the 65 parallel
    Posts
    2,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Juiceman1 View Post
    I have a client who wants to add a 120 volt convenience outlet connection point in a room with what I believe are slightly volatile fumes from a machine that sprays urathane type coatings on wood. It's also the drying room (through air ventilation fan) for the product after it's sprayed.

    The client claims the particulate fumes are not volatile but I doubt that, Anyway re the classification, Am I correct in assuming this should be Class 2 Div. 2 location ?
    Call the mfg, ask for an MSDS.
    Probably a typo - I'm guessing you meant "Class 1".
    Without data you’re just another person with an opinion – Edwards Deming

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,246
    Quote Originally Posted by iceworm View Post
    Call the mfg, ask for an MSDS.
    Probably a typo - I'm guessing you meant "Class 1".
    A few comments:
    1. An MSDS should already be onsite since it is an CalOSHA requirement.
    2. I think you meant Class I or II (Poly)urethane is usually considered a dust spray.
    3. Area classification would be per Article 516/NFPA 33 if it turns out the MSDS indicates the (poly)urethane spray constitutes a hazard. (Not too likely) See NFPA 497 and 499 also.
    4. IF a hazard is indicated, it’s likely to be Division 1, not 2.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    North of the 65 parallel
    Posts
    2,031
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    A few comments:
    1. An MSDS should already be onsite since it is an CalOSHA requirement.
    2. I think you meant Class I or II (Poly)urethane is usually considered a dust spray.
    3. Area classification would be per Article 516/NFPA 33 if it turns out the MSDS indicates the (poly)urethane spray constitutes a hazard. (Not too likely) See NFPA 497 and 499 also.
    4. IF a hazard is indicated, it’s likely to be Division 1, not 2.
    When I was writing that, I could feel you replying with your usual "No, it's 'eye' not 'one'" And I thought about noting, "Yes Bob, I hear you, you're correct." But I still wanted to keep it in line with the OP. And how could I deprive you of your signature slap.
    Without data you’re just another person with an opinion – Edwards Deming

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,246
    Quote Originally Posted by iceworm View Post
    When I was writing that, I could feel you replying with your usual "No, it's 'eye' not 'one'" And I thought about noting, "Yes Bob, I hear you, you're correct." But I still wanted to keep it in line with the OP. And how could I deprive you of your signature slap.
    I didn’t mean to poke you in the eye. I do believe if you’re going to correct someone though, you need to correct them correctly.

    However, my original intent was to endorse your statement about securing an MSDS, but I got carried away; I apologize.

    I haven’t worked with either urethane or polyurethane so I did do some checking with a few online MSDSs and with the NFPA Standards I mentioned. I came to the conclusion that it was unlikely the particular coating system in question would create a hazardous location. It is remotely possible that the transfer propellant is flammable but it wasn’t mentioned in the OP.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    North of the 65 parallel
    Posts
    2,031
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    I didn’t mean to poke you in the eye. ...
    Hopefully that was an intentional pun - it's good.

    As for the rest, you are correct.
    Always best to use the correct terminology
    I didn't think about the dried overspray dust being flammable. I plead target fixation on the word "fumes".

    Let the apology be light weight - I'm fine
    Without data you’re just another person with an opinion – Edwards Deming

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    16,980
    these days most such sprays are water based so the "fumes" are not real offensive.
    Bob

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •