Warnings Are Not Enough to Ensure User Safety from Generator Fires, Shocks, and Carbon Monoxide

Appears in Print As: Berke on Safety: Warning Labels Do Not Generate Safety. CO Still Kills.

July 21, 2009

Underwriters Laboratories recently published UL 2201, a Standard for Portable Engine-Generator Assemblies. UL Director of Standards Don Snyder explained the rationale behind the standard.

He pointed out that almost 370 generator-related deaths occurred between 1990 and 2005, many of them after a hurricane or major storm. He also said most of the reported incidents involved carbon-monoxide (CO) poisoning, which is why UL thinks it is critical for manufacturers to place prominent warning labels advising consumers where they can safely use portable generators.

Most of the warnings are common sense. For example, Snyder says, “Never use a generator indoors, in an attached garage, or where it can be exposed to rain or snow. Always read the instructions. And never plug an electric portable generator into a regular household outlet. Use a heavy, outdoor- rated cord for the generator, and have an electrician hook the standby electrical system to household wiring, if needed.”

Finally, warning labels or markings must give consumers critical safe-usage instructions, including a heads-up about the risk of CO poisoning.

Warning labels are admirable, but in the case of CO, you have to ask whether warnings are enough. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has identified CO poisoning, electrical shock, and fire as the three major safety issues associated with portable generators. But the new UL standard does not address them in any way other than with warnings posted on the products.

The technology presently exists for systems that will sense hazardous levels of CO. A system that shuts down the generator and sounds an alarm when the CO level reaches a predetermined limit would not be difficult or costly to implement.

I have investigated many serious incidents of CO poisoning associated with portable generators. In every case, the victim had taken action he thought would meet the instructions and warnings regarding proper ventilation. And in every case, he had guessed wrong. A safe design would have protected them.

People used to be electrocuted when they used hair dryers in bathrooms, but I have not heard of a single electrical-related death involving hair dryers with built-in ground-fault-circuit interrupters. Hair-dryer manufacturers addressed this hazard, so why couldn’t portable-generator manufacturers? Again, this would not be a difficult or costly modification.

Every portable-generator-related fire I have investigated was the result of someone spilling gasoline while filling the gas tank. A label can warn the operator of this danger, but with some help from designers hazardous spills could be made less likely.

Instead of papering over deadly problems with warning labels, the UL standard should require that hazards (1) be designed out, (2) be guarded against, and as a last resort, (3) be warned about. It is my opinion that this standard does not go far enough.

Lanny Berke is a registered professional engineer and Certified Safety Professional involved in forensic engineering since 1972. Got a question about safety? You can reach Lanny at lannyb@comcast.net.

Edited by Jessica Shapiro

Comments

You can't fix stupid

On July 28th, 2009 Jessica Shapiro says:

Reader Jim Munroe sent the following email:

"You speak about warning labels in your article not able to generate safety. This is probably true. But tell me did all those generators come with instructions? Yes. Instructions that were not read by the operator? Yes. You say in CO cases the operator guessed wrong about the CO. Was the unit outside the window where the cord came into the home? In the garage with the door open? On the back porch outside the slider?

"Come on. If you have a thought in your head you put it away from the house so the exhaust goes away. Filling with gas while machine is hot or still running is stupid. Plain and simple. If you think the manufacturer can make the unit safe from gas spills, the next thing the

owner will try to do is submerge the generator in fuel to fill because is should be safe.

"There is a reason the strong survive. We need to stop holding people's hands and make them responsible for what they do. If you don’t know what you are doing, you should get some help, find instructions, or leave it alone. The manufacturer can’t fix stupid."

reply

Re: You can't fix stupid

On July 28th, 2009 Jessica Shapiro says:

Lanny Berke replied:

"What you are saying is true regarding where to locate the generator and the mistakes people make when reading the instructions. Unless I am wrong, you are a person with a technical background. Now consider the response for a person without a technical background and the mistakes that they can make. Some can be deadly.

"If you are not from an area like Florida and are playing golf, if you hit the ball into the rough you will likely chase after the ball to retrieve it. I know I would. That is, I would until I saw all those signs that say 'keep out of the rough; snake habitat.'

"If a person is working outside on a 16-foot ladder and using an electric drill that is protected by a GFCI, they might think that they are properly protected by the GFCI. The problem with being protected by a GFCI is that if there is a short and the person gets a shock, the GFCI allows the person to get the full impact from the shock, but the time duration of the shock is limited so that the heart does not go into fibrillation. The shock will not kill the person but the 16-foot fall might. An electrically trained person might look at the situation and say 'you can't protect this person; how do you fix stupid?'

"If the compressor manufacturers performed a proper hazard analysis, and properly responded to the results of the hazard analysis, we would not be having this discussion."