UN panel agrees to ban battery shipments on airliners

[webfact]

UN panel agrees to ban battery shipments on airliners
By JOAN LOWY

WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.N. panel approved on Monday a temporary ban on cargo shipments of rechargeable lithium batteries on passenger planes because they can create intense fires capable of destroying an aircraft.

The decision by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization's top-level governing council isn't binding, but most countries follow the agency's standards. The ban is effective on April 1.

"This interim prohibition will continue to be in force as separate work continues through ICAO on a new lithium battery packaging performance standard, currently expected by 2018," said Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, the ICAO council's president.

Namrata Kolachalam, a Transportation Department spokeswoman, called the ban "a necessary action to protect passengers, crews, and aircraft from the current risk to aviation safety."

Lithium-ion batteries are used in a vast array of products from cellphones and laptops to some electric cars. About 5.4 billion lithium-ion cells were manufactured worldwide in 2014. A battery is made up of two or more cells. A majority of batteries are transported on cargo ships, but about 30 percent are shipped by air.

Airlines flying to and from the U.S. that accept lithium battery shipments carry 26 million passengers a year, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates.

Aviation authorities have long known that the batteries can self-ignite, creating fires that are hotter than 1,100 degrees. That's near the melting point of aluminum, which is used in aircraft construction.

Safety concerns increased after FAA tests showed gases emitted by overheated batteries can build up in cargo containers, leading to explosions capable of disabling aircraft fire suppression systems and allowing fires to rage unchecked. As a result of the tests, an organization representing aircraft manufacturers — including the world's two largest, Boeing and Airbus — said last year that airliners aren't designed to withstand lithium battery fires and that continuing to accept battery shipments is "an unacceptable risk."

More than other types of batteries, li-ion batteries are susceptible to short-circuit if they are damaged, exposed to extreme temperatures, overcharged, packed too close to together or contain manufacturing defects. When they short-circuit, the batteries can experience uncontrolled temperature increases known as "thermal runaway." That, in turn, can spread short-circuiting to nearby batteries until an entire shipment is overheating and emitting explosive gases.

It's not unusual for tens of thousands of batteries to be shipped in a single cargo container.

Three cargo jets have been destroyed and four pilots killed in in-flight fires since 2006 that accident investigators say where either started by batteries or made more severe by their proximity. The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations lobbied the ICAO council unsuccessfully to extend the ban to cargo carriers.

"This has been a long time coming, and is justified by the risk these batteries pose in transportation," said Mark Rogers of the Air Line Pilots Association in North America. "We now call on ICAO to recognize that the same risk is present on cargo aircraft and to extend the prohibition to all aircraft, until safe methods of transport can be implemented."

Besides the ban on shipments on passenger planes, the ICAO also approved a requirement that batteries shipped on cargo planes be no more than 30 percent charged, and imposed new limits on small packages of batteries.

Dozens of airlines have already voluntarily stopped accepting battery shipments, but others oppose a ban. KLM, the royal Dutch airline, made a presentation to a lower-level ICAO panel arguing against a ban, according to an aviation official familiar with the presentation. KLM and Air France are owned by a Franco-Dutch holding company. Representatives from the Netherlands and France on the dangerous goods panel voted last fall against a ban.

The official wasn't authorized to speak publicly and spoke on the condition that he not be named.

KLM officials didn't respond to requests for comment.

The battery industry and manufacturers of consumer electronics that rely on the batteries also opposed the ban. The ban doesn't apply to batteries packaged inside equipment like a laptop with a battery inside, for example.

Battery industry officials had no immediate comment.

ICAO's decision frees the Transportation Department to begin work on regulations to impose a ban. A law passed by Congress in 2012 at the behest of industry prohibits the department from issuing any regulations regarding air shipments of lithium batteries that are more stringent than ICAO standards unless there is a crash that can be shown to have been started by batteries. Since most evidence in crashes is destroyed by fire, that's virtually impossible to do, critics of the provision say.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who authored the provision, has said that since batteries are an international industry there should be a single, international standard because it would be too confusing for shippers to follow multiple rules.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-23

[Kerryd]

I am a qualified "Dangerous Goods by Air" shipper (Cat 6) and batteries are always a contentious item. People forget that even a single battery, in a cell phone or laptop, can explode (apparently spontaneously). Having a large quantity of them in a confined space is a concern. When a single battery can create a fire that exceeds 1,100 degrees, there isn't much in the way of any packaging that would prevent that fire from spreading to the rest of the shipment.

Literally everything that is shipped on an aircraft is subject to IATA/ICAO regulations, even the perfume and alcohol carried for sale on the plane (or brought on by passengers). While it's true that a disastrous fire will often destroy the evidence, not all fires are that disastrous and even ones that are, often leave clues. The DG manual we use is about 8cm (3") thick and 900+ pages and covers pretty much every hazardous substance (that has a UN ID number, as well as many that don't, and even shows how to determine an item's classification based on various test data).

The ultimate decision about whether or not to carry an item rests with the airline (assuming the country that airline is from allows it). For example, the USA could say "Hey ! Ship all the lithium batteries, all the time and to hell with the consequences !" but the airlines themselves can still decline to do so. However if, for example, the UK prohibits lithium batteries being carried as cargo on passenger airlines, then no (passenger) airline could enter UK airspace if it was carrying lithium batteries as cargo. The "industry" can cry all they like, that isn't going to change anytime soon as the liability would still rest with the carrier in the event anything happened (and they would be quick to try and pin it on the shipper and whoever the DG person was if they thought someone screwed up).

Having one international standard that most countries/airlines agree too is the best way to go. Individual countries/airlines can add proviso's to the regulations (i.e. the DG manual may show that up to 100kgs of lithium batteries can be shipped safely in a single shipment but Germany may limit that to 50kgs, while Lufthansa may further limit it to only 25 kgs, but as the destination is London, the UK may have a proviso that disallows shipments larger than 10kgs). Shipping companies (DHL, FedEx, etc) may also have their own provisions in addition to what is in the DG manual. For example, DHL would ship dangerous goods from Australia to Afghanistan, but not from Afghanistan to Australia, even if it was the same item they had just delivered ! FedEx however would ship DG both ways (but they had a bad tendency of either not informing the customer that a shipment had arrived, or letting 3rd parties take shipments that didn't belong to them).

This is a process which is constantly evolving as new technologies come into play and new hazards are discovered. The DG manual is updated every year and you have to have the latest edition ("or else !") because of how rapidly things change.

Hehehehe - if you only knew what was also in the cargo compartment of almost every plane you flew on you'd probably need to change your underwear every time there was a bit of turbulence ! (Not really, the really bad stuff, in quantities large enough to be really dangerous, are restricted to cargo flights only, normally, if everyone is doing their job properly. Have a nice flight !)

[sanukjim]

I am a qualified "Dangerous Goods by Air" shipper (Cat 6) and batteries are always a contentious item. People forget that even a single battery, in a cell phone or laptop, can explode (apparently spontaneously). Having a large quantity of them in a confined space is a concern. When a single battery can create a fire that exceeds 1,100 degrees, there isn't much in the way of any packaging that would prevent that fire from spreading to the rest of the shipment.

Literally everything that is shipped on an aircraft is subject to IATA/ICAO regulations, even the perfume and alcohol carried for sale on the plane (or brought on by passengers). While it's true that a disastrous fire will often destroy the evidence, not all fires are that disastrous and even ones that are, often leave clues. The DG manual we use is about 8cm (3") thick and 900+ pages and covers pretty much every hazardous substance (that has a UN ID number, as well as many that don't, and even shows how to determine an item's classification based on various test data).

The ultimate decision about whether or not to carry an item rests with the airline (assuming the country that airline is from allows it). For example, the USA could say "Hey ! Ship all the lithium batteries, all the time and to hell with the consequences !" but the airlines themselves can still decline to do so. However if, for example, the UK prohibits lithium batteries being carried as cargo on passenger airlines, then no (passenger) airline could enter UK airspace if it was carrying lithium batteries as cargo. The "industry" can cry all they like, that isn't going to change anytime soon as the liability would still rest with the carrier in the event anything happened (and they would be quick to try and pin it on the shipper and whoever the DG person was if they thought someone screwed up).

Having one international standard that most countries/airlines agree too is the best way to go. Individual countries/airlines can add proviso's to the regulations (i.e. the DG manual may show that up to 100kgs of lithium batteries can be shipped safely in a single shipment but Germany may limit that to 50kgs, while Lufthansa may further limit it to only 25 kgs, but as the destination is London, the UK may have a proviso that disallows shipments larger than 10kgs). Shipping companies (DHL, FedEx, etc) may also have their own provisions in addition to what is in the DG manual. For example, DHL would ship dangerous goods from Australia to Afghanistan, but not from Afghanistan to Australia, even if it was the same item they had just delivered ! FedEx however would ship DG both ways (but they had a bad tendency of either not informing the customer that a shipment had arrived, or letting 3rd parties take shipments that didn't belong to them).

This is a process which is constantly evolving as new technologies come into play and new hazards are discovered. The DG manual is updated every year and you have to have the latest edition ("or else !") because of how rapidly things change.

Hehehehe - if you only knew what was also in the cargo compartment of almost every plane you flew on you'd probably need to change your underwear every time there was a bit of turbulence ! (Not really, the really bad stuff, in quantities large enough to be really dangerous, are restricted to cargo flights only, normally, if everyone is doing their job properly. Have a nice flight !)

15 years with American Airlines and I know what you speak about.Thank you for the info to inform others.

[NanLaew]

My understanding based on the US DoT HAZMAT certification I earned about 15 years ago was that the final approval to carry lithium batteries as part of a cargo consignment on a commercial, passenger plane came from the Captain of that flight. We routinely shipped lithium battery packs globally and along with our shipping agent, we learned which carriers blanket prohibited carriage and those that allowed it. On a few occasions, KLM (our go-to 'lithium friendly' carrier) would refuse to carry it as scheduled. When this was investigated with our agent, the Captains ultimate approval came to light. Ultimately the refused shipment would be on KLM's flight the following day.

Extending this ban to cargo-only flights will be a headache for companies in the oil and gas exploration business that routinely use high volumes of lithium batteries. Ironically enough, when I was ordering replacement Class-D lithium fire extinguishers for delivery to a ship in Vietnam a few years back, they were apparently prohibited from being consigned as air cargo too and ended up coming as sea-freight from Singapore.

[chainarong]

From what I can gather in the OZ press, it is for cargo on passenger planes , the battery with your note book is not included , as it is cabin luggage or should be................................... ...

[Johnny_Aloha]

THAILAND MORE RESTRICTIVE ON SPARE LITHIUM BATTERIES ON AIRCRAFT THAT IATA - (ONLY 32 Wh compared to 160 Wh) BEWARE!!

Well, having had two 30 Kh lithium ion Powerbank recently confiscated at the Bangkok International Airport, this more restrictive ban (only 32 Whs permitted) is now in place here in Thailand. IATA Guidelines state no more than 160Kh worth of lithium batteries are permitted in hand carried baggage (I have just had this confirmed in writing from IATA's Asst. Director Cargo Safety & Standards). Here is what was written

"The passenger allowances for lithium batteries are for the personal use of the passenger. Not for the carriage of large numbers of lithium batteries that could be considered as commercial quantities. There is also a limit of two spare lithium ion batteries where the battery has a Watt-hour rating in excess of 100Wh up to a maximum of 160 Wh. Lithium ion batteries with a Watt-hour rating in excess of 160 Wh are not permitted to be carried by passengers.

As of 1 April, lithium ion batteries shipped as cargo will be restricted to cargo aircraft. They will be forbidden as cargo on passenger aircraft. This prohibition does not apply where the lithium ion batteries are packed with the equipment that they will power or where the lithium ion batteries are installed in equipment.

Regards, DB, Asst. Director Cargo Safety & Standards"

Thailand regulations are no more than 32 Wh, NOT 160Wh so DON'T bring in professional camera batteries or any kind of lithium batteries whose total is in excess of 32Wh, the WILL be confiscated and based on the clear bin behind the Security desk, there were hundreds of Power Banks in the bin most certainly that will make their way back to the street markets of Thailand as their value is in the millions of Baht!!

In researching this, it appears to come from THAI AIRLINES who made the restriction on their aircraft so my recommendation is to BOYCOTT Thai Airways flights until they start following IATA Guidelines. (Copy attached- See Section 2.3.3.2)

seccion-2-3-en.pdf

[Johnny_Aloha]

My apologies, I miscalculated, I thought one maH was equal to 1000 Wh, it is not, you need to take the voltage into consideration so the formula is 160 WH (IATA guidelines) = 32,000 maH x 5v (votlage of most Power banks)/1000 so the Thai government follows the IATA guidelines, i.e. only 32,000 worth of spare lithium batteries allowed. Apologies, Thailand, John