UL Approved Camera's?

Hey folks... i have a potential job at an oil refinery, and they want to know if my camera gear is UL approved.. unfortunately its CE approved..

Turning the job down is not really an option..

I emailed Canon and doesnt seem they do UL camera's..

I should also point out this is video related in a sense and was planning to use eith a 7D or 60D

I know of no UL approved Cameras but you should check their website.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/search/

This is typical of the oil companies with their litany of regulations. It is a problem that I as an engineering contractor have encountered many times in the past. "UL approved tape measure" lol
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt

Interesting, I was just googling CE certificate for another reason.
http://www.cemarking.net/
Little ways down page under "Take Control" I read -

"In 90% of the cases, CE may be self-certified. Do the CE certification yourself."

Do you know, is this what it is, some kind of marketing gimmick?
Kind of like a mail order Law Degree?

FWIW, In USA we have UL as mentioned, also ANSI, IEEE and ANSI/IEEE for products.

cary

Was there a specific reason given for this UL requirement? The 810F specifications would seem to be more important. The problem with consumer electronics is that they can cause a hazardous condition in a sensitive environment. Explaining this problem to most companies can get stares of confusion. If in doubt, one thing that you can do is to put the 7D camera inside a waterproof case, which should satisfy the 810F requirements for entry into the facility.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug.html

Neither UL nor CE "approves" anything. The only term you see is "listed by", which means the device is certified to meet certain requirements.

Secondly, the certification you need is with regard to use in an explosive atmosphere, which can range from flammable vapors to hydrogen (the highest listing), any of which can exist in a petroleum plant.

Waterproof does not constitute explosion resistance. You need a container strong enough to withstand an internal explosion with a long enough escape path for subsequent hot gases to cool below the ignition temperature. XP enclosures are seldom waterproof because there must be an escape path.

Another means to satisfy requirements is to keep energy levels below about that required to ignite the gases in the event of a short. Cameras certainly don't quality because of the energy in the battery (potentially hundreds of amps).

Your choices are limited. The best is to have the area cleared and monitored with an explosimeter. You could also have a pipefitter rig up a listed enclosure with a suitable window and XP switches to operate the shutter. Another is to have an enclosure continuously purged with nitrogen as to exclude explosive gases or vapors. The plant safety officer will have the authority and knowledge to assist you in this endeavor.

Be understanding of exactly what they are saying, there is UL Recognized, and then there's UL Listed.

UL Recognized means the parts meet UL standards.

UL Listed means the entire product went in for testing in the lab.

Don Gio said:

Hey folks... i have a potential job at an oil refinery, and they want to know if my camera gear is UL approved.. unfortunately its CE approved..

Click to expand...

Since the camera is not AC powered, it's not submitted for UL listing. You will find though that in most cases your charger is UL listed.

Ask them if it's required for battery operated devices...I can understand if you're using line power for the camera and any line powered lights you use for shooting...but as you're using batteries you have no connection to the mains.

Otherwise tell them battery operated cameras aren't typically UL listed, but the charger that you have is (assuming it is, if you intend to use the charger). The battery operated flash also isn't UL listed for the same reasons.

CCTV cameras are listed only because they get their power from the mains.

What about a full manual film camera that operates on just a small watch battery? Would that pass requirements for devices not to give off much of a magnetic field or electricity use?
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com

The only reason to have a UL listing or approval is for the battery charger, and that would be approved if the XFMR input is approved.
--
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception.

The guys who mentioned certification for use in potentially explosive atmospheres are the ones on the right track. The UL requirement requested was a small error on the the part of the person who gave that request to you.

I doubt if any pro-camera is certifed for use in the hazardousa area classifications that would exist around various parts of the refinery.

You need to find out who the refinery safety officer is and discuss with them what you have been asked to do, which areas you are likely to be working in (get this from the person who is contracting you) and what your camera has on board (or flashes if you plan on taking them). If you have a capacitor packing a couple of thousand volts then this is likely to be hugh problem.

On the other hand I was in a petrochemical plant on Tuesday in the UK, but they are in the middle of a three week shut down and therefore where I was working was deemed a 'safe area' for the duration of the shoot. (they still took my phone off me at security though). Like wise as mentioned before, it might be deemed by the safety officer that someone shadowing you with a hand held gas detector will be sufficient.

Oh and if you do get on site be prepared for having to wear PPE, i.e. safety helmet, safety boots, overalls etc. I had to wear my helmet back to front because of the peak on the front of it fouling my 430Ex flash.
Also anything from a 15 minute to 2hour safety briefing would be expected.

Hope that helps.

Martin

I suppose a steel-bodied tape measure dropped on a steel floor can create as much of a spark as anything else?

mache1966 said:

Oh and if you do get on site be prepared for having to wear PPE, i.e. safety helmet, safety boots, overalls etc. I had to wear my helmet back to front because of the peak on the front of it fouling my 430Ex flash.

Click to expand...

I knew old-school industrial photographers and PJs who always kept safety boots and a hardhat in the trunks of their cars. That way (especially for PJs) they got in a whole lot faster than waiting for the company to rustle up safety gear.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Hi,

I dont know if this helps, but Nikon did an article in their pro magazien about how they got the d2x approved for use inside of RAF aircraft for a promo shoot. They made a big deal out of how the camera passed tests for ignition and sparks.

This sounds like the kinda thing the oil company would be after. Likewise, the nikons are sent into space by NASA, and apparently normal retail versions. Id this is true I'd assume that its a hell of a lot more of a 'health and safety issue' to have a camera in a space station than an oil rig.

I'd call Nikon services up and see what they can say.

--
===============================
url : http://www.al-overdrive.com
rss : tiny.cc/pngnG
Twitter : http://twitter.com/AlOverdrive

The only explosive compounds in the spacecraft would be methane and it needs to be 21 to 24 % in the air to explode. I am sure the bean and cabbage supply would be cut off to avoid this.
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt

lol - if only the article had that as the closing paragraph.

Mentor_1 said:

The only explosive compounds in the spacecraft would be methane and it needs to be 21 to 24 % in the air to explode. I am sure the bean and cabbage supply would be cut off to avoid this.
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt

Click to expand...

--
===============================
url : http://www.al-overdrive.com
rss : tiny.cc/pngnG
Twitter : http://twitter.com/AlOverdrive

They're on a high-protein, low-residue diet.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Apparently I'm the only one with actual experience working in potentially explosive atmospheres. As an engineer, I designed and installed equipment and control systems used in the presence of alcohol and acetone vapors.

To reiterate, the best (and only practical) solution is to have the area cleared of vapors, monitored with an explosimeter, all under the supervision of the plant safety officer.

A camera cannot be certified as intrinsically safe - the energy levels are simply too high. A NEMA 7 enclosure would probably weigh 70 pounds, with little ability to operate the controls. A purged (N2) enclosure requires pressure monitors and timers, again too heavy and bulky for practicality, and necessarily tethered to a nitrogen source.

I have been in the industry for 45 year and have never heard of a UL standard..

CE is a EU electrical standard, everything that comes in to the EU has to be stamped with the CE logo.
No I think they are playing around with you

wo, dude, relax !

No one here was ignoring you, or saying you dont know what you are on about..... I'm sure the OP had the sense to follow your advise and consult the plant safey officer. Whom I imagine would be more than happy to ensure the photogprahic equipment didnt cause his plant any risk.

I, for one, was only suggesting that if the Air force approved the nikon's for use in their aircraft (see joe mcnally books for more info on this one), as not a risk in an explosive atmosphere, then it is an avenue worth considering once the safety officer has made their criteria for approval clear. I was tryingto offer hope rather than suggest I knew more than you.

Ed Ingold said:

Apparently I'm the only one with actual experience working in potentially explosive atmospheres. As an engineer, I designed and installed equipment and control systems used in the presence of alcohol and acetone vapors.

To reiterate, the best (and only practical) solution is to have the area cleared of vapors, monitored with an explosimeter, all under the supervision of the plant safety officer.

A camera cannot be certified as intrinsically safe - the energy levels are simply too high. A NEMA 7 enclosure would probably weigh 70 pounds, with little ability to operate the controls. A purged (N2) enclosure requires pressure monitors and timers, again too heavy and bulky for practicality, and necessarily tethered to a nitrogen source.

Click to expand...

--
===============================
url : http://www.al-overdrive.com
rss : tiny.cc/pngnG
Twitter : http://twitter.com/AlOverdrive

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/standards/?set-cookie=true

I doubt they are playing with him.

You can see UL stamps on items as insignificant as residential door hardware.