Fines up to $50,000 for shipping lithium ion batteries!

[E-BikeKit.com]

Taken from an email from Dr. Morgan Giddings, CTO, Cycle 9, LLC

Dear electric vehicle sellers and enthusiasts:

The US Department of Transportation can levy fines up to $50,000 fine per infraction for shipping any type of lithium ion battery, which includes LiFePO4, without packaging it and marking it as "class 9 hazardous material," and having the full UN testing regimen for each and every battery pack type you sell (which is a destructive test of at least 5-10 complete battery packs of each type). Each of your employees shipping such batteries must be trained and certified as hazardous materials shippers. If an end-user of a lithium pack ever has problems with it and needs to send it back, they will be in non-compliance with this law, and could also be fined $50k per infraction.

Folks, this is no joke. At least one person I know has already encountered this issue, with fines yet to be determined.

The DOT are serious about enforcing it. It seems to apply to road, air, and public waterway transportation in the US. All rechargeable lithium ion batteries with above 25g (that's grams) of lithium are classified this way. That threshold is the equivalent of a 24 volt 10 amp hour pack. If you ship any type of lithium battery in quantities larger than that, this DOT rule applies to you (and me). Smaller batteries can be excepted in some circumstances, but few e-bike or EV batteries are smaller than that.

See the message below that I received today from George Kirshner of the "portable battery manufacturer's association." In that message he goes so far as to suggest that people could make anonymous tips about people shipping li-ion batteries in non-compliance. He makes no distinction among battery types, he and his organization, in dealing with DOT, treat all li-ion batteries the same. There is no exception for electric vehicles, or LiFePO4.

Most importantly, they do not acknowledge the inherent safety differences between a chemistry like LiCoO2 (which I would never put on my bike) versus LiFePO4 (which I gladly use on my bike). In my own experience, we've had more concerns over problems with NiCd and NiMH packs, than with LiFePO4. Yet for the purposes of DOT, LiFePO4 is a Class 9 Hazardous material, whereas the Nickel batteries are not. I think this is because people like George represent laptop and cell phone manufacturers, and those are the folks who have the clout (so far) with the DOT. They mostly deal with LiCoO2 because of its higher energy density (but also worse safety). The needs of a laptop or cell phone are quite different than an EV or LEV. We need to get the DOT on the right page here.

Some of you may think that it is easy to slip under the radar. But if there is ever an incident involving one of your batteries, the fines can increase to $100k per infraction (and they can charge for multiple infractions per incident). It is real.

And it gets worse.

Today, i realized that all of us who use a light electric vehicle with lithium batteries are carrying those batteries on public roads. That means we fall under the auspices of DOT. Technically, we are each therefore transporting "Class 9 hazardous materials" on our bikes or EV's by "motorized vehicle". Do you carry your battery pack at all times packed and labeled as a "Class 9 hazardous material," along with all the UN testing paperwork? Me neither. Maybe they won't enforce it, but do you want to be the one to find out that's not the case? I don't have $50,000 in spare change lying around. If the DOT ever decides to enforce the letter of this law, it would shut down what all of us are doing.

Folks, I believe need to do something about this, and we will be far more effective if we work together. As a first step, please respond to me whether you are willing to be involved in doing something about this, at minimum by including your name on a letter we may compose to the DOT. And please forward this message to others you know in the industry. I will compile a master list of all folks willing to sign on to an effort to respond to this, unless the LEV association and/or the EAA wants to take this on (and I will gladly join them in doing so).

The DOT contact I have listed for this issue is Charles Ke, phone 202-366-4495, 202-366-3753, and email Charles.Ke@dot.gov.

For more reading, look here:
http://www.prba.org/laws_and_regulation ... fault.ashx

Depending on the willingness (or lack thereof) of the DOT to respond to this issue, we may need to try to get some of our congressional representatives onboard with a change in the law about this. I look forward to hearing from you.


Sincerely,
Dr. Morgan Giddings
CTO, Cycle 9, LLC
http://www.cycle9.com

[gogo]

And it gets worse.

Today, i realized that all of us who use a light electric vehicle with lithium batteries are carrying those batteries on public roads. That means we fall under the auspices of DOT. Technically, we are each therefore transporting "Class 9 hazardous materials" on our bikes or EV's by "motorized vehicle". Do you carry your battery pack at all times packed and labeled as a "Class 9 hazardous material," along with all the UN testing paperwork? Me neither. Maybe they won't enforce it, but do you want to be the one to find out that's not the case? I don't have $50,000 in spare change lying around. If the DOT ever decides to enforce the letter of this law, it would shut down what all of us are doing.

Regulations for shipping don't apply to final use/installed situations.

And 25g equivalency is 300 Wh per battery, not 24V 10Ah (Which would be 240 Wh).

[cycle9]

Gogo stated:
>Regulations for shipping don't apply to final use/installed situations.

Based on what? I would like to see where this is spelled out in the regulations.

> And its 300 Wh per battery, not 24V 10Ah (Which would be 240 Wh).

What you say applies to carry-on batteries for laptops, etc.

But the regulation I read specifically states that it is "25 grams" for li-ion rechargables, with grams being calculated as 0.3 times the capacity rating. So, let's see: 0.3 * 10 ah * 8 cells = 24g. Add one more 10Ah cell, and it is over the limit. How are you doing your calculation? Let's see the math, please.

But regardless of whether it is 240wh or 300wh, what is your point? No 36 volt 10ah battery or above would qualify.

Morgan

[TylerDurden]

As a first step, please respond to me whether you are willing to be involved in doing something about this, at minimum by including your name on a letter we may compose to the DOT.

What would/should be the primary talking-points of the proposed letter?
i.e.

Whereas:
Modern lifepo4/limno4/limnco battery chemistries present a safe advance over previous formulae
Modern lifepo4/limno4/limnco battery chemistries are safer than liquid-fuels currently carried in trucks and autos
Modern lifepo4/limno4/limnco battery chemistries are as safe as nickel chemistry. Nickel chemistry cells and batteries are shipped and used in EVs nationwide & worldwide
Safe lithium cells and batteries are already shipped and used in portable devices & powertools nationally & worldwide
Safe lithium cells and batteries are in domestic production currently; providing jobs and revenue for industrial and economic revitalization

Therefore:
Transportation and use of cells and batteries produced with safe lithium chemistries should be exempted from USDOT regulations which were enacted for older, less safe lithium cells and batteries.

Technical/scientific/expert references for above points ?

[gogo]

I'm just trying to clarify the regulations. This might mean that industry would want to package the batteries as 30V 10AH or as modules <300Wh to be hooked together after transportation.

How many cars carrying gasoline have the same placards that tanker trucks do?

[John in CR]

At what point during manufacture do the lithium batteries have to be charged? Is that a potential way around the overall problem by shipping them in an uncharged state like nicad? DOT's rules about shipping make a lot of sense considering the amount of energy contained in our lithium packs.

In the meantime, I sure am glad that I'm outside of the states.

John

[TylerDurden]

What action is PRBA taking on this issue?

The comments submitted to the DOT do not seem to address this issue.

PHMSA-2008-0005-0017.1.pdf

(236.92 KiB) Downloaded 23 times

re:
http://www.prba.org/publications/batter ... fault.ashx

[spinningmagnets]

I've never been one to entertain conspiracy theories, but a convincing argument has been made for Texaco buying a controlling interest in Cobasys, and suddenly Cobasys stopped selling large format NiMH battery packs. They "claimed" they would only sell them existing contracts and to new to volume producers, but during price negotiations Cobasys always quoted higher prices and larger volumes that they already knew the purchaser would never be willing to contract for.

The Teslas battery is made from several thousand cells that are slightly larger than an AA cell. Regardless of what Tesla says, using small cells would also have the side effect of ensuring their ability to make battery packs.

The premise for the new DOT legal concerns "might" be LiPo fires, but even if you could convince DOT brass that LiPo fires are from overcharging and LiFePO4 is different, it wouldn't matter to bureaucrats. Perhaps oil concerns are searching for ways to slow the adoption of the most promising battery technologies. Not so much E-bikes, but E-motorcycles and light EVs have gained lots of awareness recently.

I understand legitimate concerns. 4X4 Off-roaders use batteries as an emergency welder, 24V for thin metal, 36V for thicker. 48V or 72V with enough amps behind it can melt metal hot enough to create plasma (the EV drag racer "Plasma Boy" got its name from a battery accident with a wrench)

Not that it matters, but what battery chemistry can be shipped "dead" the best, and charged up by the customer?

[cycle9]

Tyler,
Yes, something like this is what I was thinking. We do need evidence to back it up.

One method I was thinking of was to take a Youtube video of what happens to a laptop battery under a short-circuit, versus what happens to a Lifepo4 battery in the same condition.

That would be pretty powerful evidence (assuming the outcome is what I think it will be).

As for scientific data, I doubt it exists, and it would be very expensive to obtain. I doubt any of the present folks in the industry could afford to do that, though an industry-wide organization like LEVA might be able to.

Thanks
Morgan

As a first step, please respond to me whether you are willing to be involved in doing something about this, at minimum by including your name on a letter we may compose to the DOT.

What would/should be the primary talking-points of the proposed letter?
i.e.

Whereas:
Modern lifepo4/limno4/limnco battery chemistries present a safe advance over previous formulae
Modern lifepo4/limno4/limnco battery chemistries are safer than liquid-fuels currently carried in trucks and autos
Modern lifepo4/limno4/limnco battery chemistries are as safe as nickel chemistry. Nickel chemistry cells and batteries are shipped and used in EVs nationwide & worldwide
Safe lithium cells and batteries are already shipped and used in portable devices & powertools nationally & worldwide
Safe lithium cells and batteries are in domestic production currently; providing jobs and revenue for industrial and economic revitalization

Therefore:
Transportation and use of cells and batteries produced with safe lithium chemistries should be exempted from USDOT regulations which were enacted for older, less safe lithium cells and batteries.

Technical/scientific/expert references for above points ?

[cycle9]

At what point during manufacture do the lithium batteries have to be charged? Is that a potential way around the overall problem by shipping them in an uncharged state like nicad? DOT's rules about shipping make a lot of sense considering the amount of energy contained in our lithium packs.

In the meantime, I sure am glad that I'm outside of the states.

John

John,
This is a great idea, but unfortunately I think it is DOA. There are two issues:
1) If you fully discharge a brand new LiFEPO4 cell, it is likely to shorten its lifespan
2) The concerns over lithium batteries are based on runaway lithium fires, which are particularly bad in the non-rechargeable "lithium metal" batteries. Those fires are intense enough that they can't be suppressed by halon. It doesn't matter much whether charged or discharged, the lithium is still there. Now, I am not an expert battery chemist, but my understanding is that in stable chemistries like LiFePO4, both the lithium and the oxygen are bound up, so that they cannot recombine with free oxygen into a lower-energy state (i.e. combust). This is not true for LiCoO2 batteries commonly used in laptops and cell phones. Apparently when they catch on fire, both lithium and oxygen can be liberated (at least in small quantities), and those make a very small fire into a very big fire.

Want some company in CR?

[cycle9]

I'm just trying to clarify the regulations. This might mean that industry would want to package the batteries as 30V 10AH or as modules <300Wh to be hooked together after transportation.

How many cars carrying gasoline have the same placards that tanker trucks do?

Hi
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I had thought of this idea - packaging and shipping smaller batteries separately, that can be chained together series or parallel.

However, this would present many logistical difficulties for both sellers and end-consumers, particularly if things don't work right. And technically, even these smaller batteries will have to start complying with the UN testing rules as of October 1st, 2009. So this might be a small way around it, but not a big one.

I am not sure yet about the "end user" issue. I would love to be proven wrong. But I've seen nothing in my reading so far that specifically says it only applies to commercial shipping. If it does only apply to commercial shipping, then I think we might see "non profit" tanker trucks hauling all sorts of nasty chemicals around "for free". But this is just speculation.

I agree that autos don't have to have the placards that tanker trucks do, but as far as I know (and I'm speaking a bit out of my depth here), this is solely due to the quantity of gas. A tanker holds enough gas to start a whole neighborhood on fire, whereas an individual auto does not.

And this is what the rules seem to imply with lithium batteries. They classify them as small, medium, or large. All the batteries above the 25g limit I mentioned are classified as "large". Because they are large, they automatically fall in the "tanker truck" category of batteries.

It is silly, and I don't like it, and I think it should be changed. But that is what the rule seems to be saying.

[lcyclist]

And it gets worse.

If the DOT ever decides to enforce the letter of this law, it would shut down what all of us are doing.

Why the sound of panic? DOT is classifying these so called "hazardous materials" for shipping. In the US, we already classify materials considered hazardous/flammable/poisonous, etc by an appropriate label for shipping.

For example, merchants ship hazardous materials to my house via FEDEX all the time. These hazardous materials are small arms ammunition (rifle and handgun cartridges). The shipping container must be labeled ORM-D and that the shipper must be trained and certified to ship these hazardous material, that's all. Of course it is not illegal to ship ammo but merchants/sellers must abide by the rule (training, certification and proper label/classification). And DOT enforces these rules; violate them and risk fines.

As an end user, I don't have to classify my ammo as ORM-D when I bring my ammo to the shooting range and it is not illegal, at least in Arizona, to carry my ammo in my vehicle for transportation.

[Ypedal]

It's the cost involved in UN certification that makes it prohibitive to any small time vendor or startup business...

I've been working at Purolator Courier ( biggest carrier in canada ) for 13 years or so, i've heard it all.. one of the best was live aquarium fish in a plastic bag !!! ( imagine that on a conveyor belt ! )

When things are packaged correctly, most things can be safely shipped, unfortunetaly, it's rarely the case and you get very bad packaging practices with incorrect descriptions being shipped all the time.. when ( not if ) one of these gets crushed in transport, shit hits the fan. If you are certified, hazmat, UN, DG declared, etc.. you file a claim , if not you get handed a fine.

Doing things by the book is hellavalot costly.....

[Reid Welch]

Dear E-bikeKit.com, and all concerned respondents and readers: all people of the e-future:

HERE WE GO AGAIN.
WE ARE all are acting in this important thread, properly, sanely, logically, patriotically
(as in toward the common wheal of the world, not the USA-flag-wavering of Jingoists).

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11216
(The Big Brotherism Thread)

Carry on? You doers are ALL heroic;
it is the Orwellian hacks in power who idiotically ruin this earth of ours.

r.

__________________

edit after edit to get the username's spelling correct. I am "stufu", and call me just that.

[Lapwing]

So there goes the legal import of Thubdersky/Sky Energy type cells of 40AH and above.

One way to kill competition.

There is no way they will cost < $1.05 AH if they have to subject to UN certification.

Then again maybe not...........

http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5079

[cycle9]

Hi,
The intended tone was of panic because that original letter was written to a group of other e-bike dealers and battery sellers I know. They tend to be an individualistic lot who don't like working together towards any common goal. But tackling the issue is going to take concerted effort.

The first half of my letter (about shipping batteries) I'm quite sure about; I know of someone who is being fined for this.

The second half is a logical extension of the "rule." While I totally agree with you that end users should be able to use these devices without getting in trouble, I've yet to see anywhere that it is written such that a battery classified as a "large li-ion" battery by DOT standards, is in any way exempt, even if installed in the end-user device. Do I think DOT is going to be knocking on all our doors tomorrow? No. But I point this out because it shows the lunacy of this ruling. Basically, the DOT has decided that any quantity of lithium above 25g is a hazardous substance akin to a tanker truck - not akin to the ORM-D. Regardless of type, configuration, etc. Please show me where the ruling says I'm wrong - I seriously want to be wrong.

The last thing I want is to be dealing with this. In fact, just for raising the issue, I've caught quite a bit of flack already from people who "don't believe me" or tell me "I am being manipulated" or that it is a "government conspiracy" or a "large battery manufacturer conspiracy."

However, I think it is much simpler than that. There have been serious lithium fires (mostly LiCoO2). The large manufacturers of those banded together and got themselves a lobbyist to represent them, so that they didn't get shut down completely. Therefore, when the rules were made, their interests were represented.

But since us ebike folks are way too independent and libertarian and "government conspiracy" oriented, nobody got together. The end result is our interests were not represented in the rule making. And so the rule completely ignores our needs and interests as sellers and users of ebikes.

My goal with all of this is to get some folks riled up so we can actually get something done about it. Because, you may laugh at the example I gave above, but here's the reality. There are likely to be more battery incidents as these get more popular. It doesn't matter whether those incidents are big lithium fires (as the case with LiCoO2 or Lithium metal batteries), or little short-circuit type incidents like the one that got someone I know fined (with a LiFePO4). As of right now, the DOT treats them all as the same thing: evidence that lithium ion batteries are "dangerous." The more such "evidence" accumulates, without the DOT hearing from people like us, the more likely that the rules will get even more strict in the future. That will affect all of us, as both sellers and users of these technologies (I am both). If nothing else, these are going to increase costs for everyone. I already know of several manufacturers that are starting to get the testing done, and you can believe me that they will pass the costs on to you (and me). It is not cheap.

That's why I'm riled up about it.

And it gets worse.

If the DOT ever decides to enforce the letter of this law, it would shut down what all of us are doing.

Why the sound of panic? DOT is classifying these so called "hazardous materials" for shipping. In the US, we already classify materials considered hazardous/flammable/poisonous, etc by an appropriate label for shipping.

For example, merchants ship hazardous materials to my house via FEDEX all the time. These hazardous materials are small arms ammunition (rifle and handgun cartridges). The shipping container must be labeled ORM-D and that the shipper must be trained and certified to ship these hazardous material, that's all. Of course it is not illegal to ship ammo but merchants/sellers must abide by the rule (training, certification and proper label/classification). And DOT enforces these rules; violate them and risk fines.

As an end user, I don't have to classify my ammo as ORM-D when I bring my ammo to the shooting range and it is not illegal, at least in Arizona, to carry my ammo in my vehicle for transportation.

[John in CR]

Send a pair of e-bikes to Big O with the attached message "We thought you and the First Lady would like to try firsthand the most efficient form of transportation known to man. PS the DOT is implementing some rules related to batteries that may effectively shut down our movement. "

John

[TylerDurden]

The PRBA already has a relationship with the DOT. As secondary-cell suppliers, they have as much (or more) at stake than we do, plus they have much deeper pockets (which are getting help from the DOE & DOD). The lithium ion program could be extended to ground transport and mobile applications.

EV enterprises don't have nearly the clout that the members of the PRBA have. EV enterprises could form a working group that is a PBRA member.

http://www.prba.org/membership/membership_directory/Default.ashx

[dragonfire]

Try and get Patmont Motor Werks involved, they allready sued and lost against the state of commifornia for pollution issues and legal state of 2-strokers on street usage and sued and won in order to get close to 200% tax on chinese collapsible motor scooter imports; as the company sees the electric future as a bright one they may know how to help and get lobbies involved on the matter.

[E-BikeKit.com]

Deleted. Thank you to all at ES.

[Zoot Katz]

Lithium batteries have downed how many planes, sunk how many ships, blown up how many trucks and derailed how many trains?
How many more homes have burned due to lithium batteries? How many lives have been lost compared to lithium taken internally?

What a bunch of legalistic bulldada!

[gogo]

What I'm hearing is that someone needs to engineer battery packs that bear the "some assembly required" description. If the cells have already been certified, maybe jumpers in between the cells so that the pack enclosure becomes a shipping container for legal purposes?

[frodus]

this
fuckin
sucks.

[nutsandvolts]

.

[nutsandvolts]

.