Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Frank Hallett  
#1 Posted : 25 September 2013 12:02:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Given that Lithium batteries appear to be the most dangerous items on the planet right now – if one believes all the Haz Goods services & goods delivery providers; I am seeking credible, definitive, and accredited evidence of any event [fire, explosion, leakage, etc] where lithium batteries of any type [other than the Dreamliner events] that have been unequivocally identified as the source [not simply present or affected] of the event from any jurisdiction, not just UK or EU. Please don't bother with unattributable anecdotal stories. Yes, I know about ADR, DSEAR etc. I look forward to an informed response & debate!! Frank Hallett
colinreeves  
#2 Posted : 25 September 2013 14:02:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
colinreeves

Frank, apologies that I cannot contribute directly, but not so sure about lithium batteries being the most dangerous on the planet, maybe Sodium/suphur are? http://www.shetlandtimes...s-sse-to-halt-connection http://www.shetlandtimes...rmant-and-may-have-to-go
Frank Hallett  
#3 Posted : 25 September 2013 14:15:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Thank you for the response Colin - I do not deny that your suggestion is a worthy contestant if this was really about "what is the most dangerous item on the planet" [after us that is]. However, my comment re most dangerous item on the planet was exclusively referring to the way that perceived hazards of lithium batteries are being pushed by the HazMat service providers & also avoided by blanket bans by the regular parcel & packet delivery organisations. My interest is to attempt to establish exactly what the real level of the problem is. Thanks Frank Hallett
Andrew W Walker  
#4 Posted : 25 September 2013 16:14:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

Frank Hallett  
#5 Posted : 25 September 2013 17:00:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

very interesting and most helpful Motorhead. I'll take some time to separate & categorise those on the US FAA list Now, do we have a UK or EU equivalent of that list out there somewhere; and is there a collated list that identifies road, rail & sea cargo incidents please? Frank Hallett
colinreeves  
#6 Posted : 26 September 2013 13:36:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
colinreeves

As far as the marine side is concerned the opposite appears true as the MCA put in place an exemption from carriage requirements (now expired) on domestic vessels. http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/e001-10.pdf
A Kurdziel  
#7 Posted : 26 September 2013 13:53:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I have one report from a government agency which describes a small fire in a bin which seemed to have been caused by (old)lithium batteries being stored there. The batteries were loose and terminals seem to have come into contact with each other.
Frank Hallett  
#8 Posted : 26 September 2013 14:57:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Many thanks to Colin Reeves & A Kurdziel for the additional info. Unless anyone can save me the trouble, I'll have to find out what the current situation is folowing the MCA exemption expiry 2 yrs ago. A Kurdziel - do you have additional specific info on the event that you mention please? I had hoped for rather more feedback on this - maybe this is a reflection of the real state of affairs? Whether the lack of current info is related to the way in which carriers treat the batteries remains to be tested - coincidence does not mean causation links! I've not given up on this yet. Frank Hallett
walker  
#9 Posted : 26 September 2013 15:06:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

I can't help much Frank, but I know the cost of spare camera batteries tripled in the new year. Royal Mail won't handle them now, in case delivery involved aircraft at some stage.
Frank Hallett  
#10 Posted : 26 September 2013 16:00:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Thank you Walker - very useful. Although the "in case it involves aircraft at some stage appears to be a very weak approach to "reasonably practicable"!! Does anyone know what the Royal Mail RA for the transport of lithium batteries actually says? Or just what data it's based upon - the data should be in the public domain I would expect. Thank you in anticipation Frank Hallett
mssy  
#11 Posted : 26 September 2013 16:54:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

I am aware of some ongoing scientific research that is investigation the safety of lithium metal and lithium ion batteries. The research is cloaked in commercial confidentiality but has made some initial findings that are useful. I am not a scientist but am aware of some of the work done but I cant go into any detail. I can say that the findings point to amazingly reliable manufacturing quality with a minuscule failure rate that many industries would love to achieve. It's clear that whilst the batteries don't like being mishandled, it is defects during installation of devices, overcharging and mechanical abuse, such as sawing and drilling through them which is far more of an issue than their transportation (statistically wise). One area for consideration and further research is making batteries accessible for firefighting. For example, those used in certain aviation applications are inaccessible if they become overheated. Redesigning the environment where they are sited to allow easy access for use of FFE or other intervention by air crew is considered by some as the only way forward as lithium batteries are here to stay. I also understand that research is underway looking a new less volatile electrolytes used in lithium ion cells - I am sure they would sell like hot cakes and be very profitable My employer uses a large number of such batteries for scientific & medical research:- some standard packs and others are quite large. We have some which are stored in bulk. We have strict handling and storage procedures to reduce the risk of fire which include as a baseline, a strategyof separation and containment. We store the batteries in minimal quantities in various locations. For the larger batteries with hold them within metal or graphite filled containers, and again in minimal quantities separated by 3hr fire compartments. We also have graphite DP extinguishers available http://www.chubb.co.uk/u...5%26siteId%3D403,00.html Batteries for recycling (of all sizes) are placed in individual bags with the terminals insulated for collection by specialist contractors If you think that lithium batteries can create special issues in fire, how about the next generation of cells which have up to a million times the energy of lithium - nuclear batteries - http://phys.org/news/201...lear-battery-closer.html
johnmurray  
#12 Posted : 27 September 2013 08:27:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

"Batteries - lithium ion/polymer batteries contained in equipment Each package must contain no more than four cells or two batteries installed in equipment. The maximum net quantity of cells or batteries is 5kg per package. Watt-hour rating must not exceed 20Wh per cell or 100Wh per battery. Each cell and battery must be of a type proven to meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, section 38.3. Batteries are subject to these tests irrespective of whether the cells of which they are composed have been so tested. Cells and batteries must be manufactured under a quality management programme as specified in the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. Cells or batteries that are defective for safety reasons, or that have been damaged, are forbidden. Any person preparing or offering cells or batteries with or in equipment for transport must receive adequate instruction on the requirements commensurate with their responsibilities. Cells and batteries must be protected against short circuit. The equipment containing cells or batteries must be packed in strong rigid packaging and must be secured against movement within the outer packaging and packed to prevent accidental activation. The sender’s name and return address must be clearly visible on the outer packaging. Lithium ion/polymer batteries sent in isolation or sent with but not contained in equipment are prohibited. Please see www.royalmail.com/internationalprohibitedgoods "
phargreaves04  
#13 Posted : 27 September 2013 10:38:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
phargreaves04

Frank Hallett  
#14 Posted : 27 September 2013 10:40:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Many thanks for the enlightenment John - really most helpful! Would it be possible for anyone to point us to the RM Policy on internal UK transit of lithium batteries by road please? Before anyone jumps on the RM connection, this is absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the carriage of litium batteries by any carrier - it just so happens that RM is the first specific carrier name provided. Frank Hallett
phargreaves04  
#15 Posted : 27 September 2013 10:49:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
phargreaves04

Not sure what you mean by policy, but CDG Regs 2009 would be the statutory provision. And of course ADR as well (as you previously mention)
Frank Hallett  
#16 Posted : 27 September 2013 11:23:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Sorry phargreaves - we posted at about the same time & I missed yours. Thanks for the interest and the content of your posts; but I'm trying to determine what the real relationship is between perception and genuine events that have actually been caused by lithium batteries. By "Policy", I was referring to any independent organisations internal process for managing this particular risk - the transport of litium batteries! Except for the US FAA list provided earlier, and a couple of others, so far there has been a considerable paucity of objective evidence on such incidents. I am now starting to consider that it would appear that the policies of carriers are not necessarily based upon the CDG, ADR, IMDG, IATA, etc rules but upon individual organisations perceptions of the level and type of risk from the transport - which is a bit circular 'cos my original intent was to determine the match/mismatch between objective & apocryphal evidence - hence my questions for objective evidence as this is what I would expect to inform a commercial business risk management policy. Sorry for the somewhat pedantic presentation, but I'm trying to remain as objective as possible myself. Frank Hallett
johnmurray  
#17 Posted : 27 September 2013 11:24:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

That was RM internal post policy Frank. Try also: www.royalmail.com/prohibitedgoods/business
Frank Hallett  
#18 Posted : 27 September 2013 11:45:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Sorry John- I'll try to read and write more efficiently in future! I misunderstood the relevance of the document title "international prohibited goods" and omission of CDG from your post. I also failed in identifying that by "internal", I meant within the UK as opposed to outside the UK. Frank Hallett
johnmurray  
#19 Posted : 27 September 2013 13:01:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

My fault probably, I should have added "see also" to the url. Most, if not all, problems occur with puncture of the cell/s, or faulty charge routines.
Andrew W Walker  
#20 Posted : 27 September 2013 13:08:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

Frank Hallett  
#21 Posted : 27 September 2013 20:12:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Thanks to both John & motorhead John, your latest post indicates a knowledge of actual events relevant to my initial post - can you either share them here or we d me a personal email please. Frank Hallett
johnmurray  
#22 Posted : 29 September 2013 15:14:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

http://www.ntsb.gov/news...0-%20Battery%20Forum.pdf http://batteryuniversity...hium_ion_safety_concerns Personal knowledge ? I punctured one once. A healthy respect for lithium-ion cells has since been developed. Note that most modern consumer IT (tablets/mobiles) contain the above, and most are GLUED into the device. Owner maintenance should be discouraged, as peeling the battery off the adhesive is likely to lead to rather dramatic events! The Li battery in your mobile looks rather cute, but a short-circuit can allow currents of 40A or higher to flow.....most, however, have internal protection now.
Frank Hallett  
#23 Posted : 29 September 2013 17:12:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Thanks for getting back on that John - whilst one personal experience is worth a thousand anonymous anecdotes I regret that it doesn't really take me much further. Despite the apparent levels of concern generated by commercial carriers, judging from the feedback so far, it appears that there really isn't that much to substantiate this - other than the incidents recorded in the US related to the use of airplanes. Still, let's see what next week brings. Frank Hallett
JohnWhyte  
#24 Posted : 29 September 2013 17:16:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JohnWhyte

It wasn't Royal Mails decision to restrict the carriage of lithium batteries they were instructed by the CAA. Either put measures in place to stop them, and other items, getting onto the flights or lose the permit to fly at all.
Frank Hallett  
#25 Posted : 29 September 2013 18:09:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Many thanks for that useful info John. However, my original, and continued, interest is in incidents occurring by road/rail and what the evidence base is that is used by so many to refuse to carry lithium batteries. As an offshoot though, it would be interesting to know what evidence base was used by the CAA to institute the ban that you refer to - any info on that please? Frank Hallett
mssy  
#26 Posted : 29 September 2013 19:42:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

Frank The CAA have pages of stuff about lithium batteries on their site. Go fish! http://caa.searchimprove...w=lithium&swtype=all
Frank Hallett  
#27 Posted : 29 September 2013 19:57:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

Many thanks MSSY, useful for the future - but I really don't need the "rules" for carriage by air, or even CDG [was in my original post] - I'm looking for definitive data about real events involving carriage of lithium batteries by Road or Rail within the EU or UK that can be substantiated. Frank Hallett
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.