A frame grab of a video that made its way into mainstream media worldwide shows a test conducted at the U.S.A. FAA technical center in Atlantic City, N.J., last April, where a cargo container packed with 5,000 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries simulated a single battery experiencing uncontrolled overheating.
     Forty-four minutes into the test, a build-up of flammable gases inside the container caused an explosion that blew open the container’s door and sent boxes flying.
     The container was soon fully engulfed in flames.
     As new Lithium metal regulations take hold next month, U.S. and international officials have been slow to adopt safety restrictions that might affect both powerful industries that depend on the batteries and the airlines that profit from shipping them.

     By now many FT readers should be familiar with the acronym PRBA (the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association), as the actions and voiced opinions of this learned association have at numerous occasions been a focal point of FT reports relating to the always questioned and at times-contentious issue of shipping Lithium batteries.
     While PRBA responded to the ICAO DGP’s decision on the outright ban of the transport of Lithium metal batteries aboard passenger carrying aircraft that goes into effect January 1st, 2015, including claims that they have always supported safety initiatives, it looks like airlines, regulators, and other stakeholders no longer believe the assurances made by PRBA and NEMA that Lithium batteries are perfectly safe.
     At least a large number of cargo-focused airlines who have filed variations imposing additional measures pertinent to the shipping of Lithium batteries, among them Federal Express (FX), Cathay Pacific (CX), Cargolux (CV), and others seem to think otherwise.
     If this wasn’t enough, regulators are starting to reconsider their approach to the issues at hand:
     While the ICAO DGP in their decision to outlaw Lithium metal batteries on passenger aircraft earlier this year still outlined that they consider “the vast majority of shippers (of Lithium batteries) to be law abiding and compliant,” recent regulatory investigations paint a different picture.
     A recent presentation delivered by Miranda Labbè, co-chair of the TC Lithium Batteries Working Group from Transport Canada, the Canadian DG regulator, found that despite industry outreach and efforts:
          •   Awareness is very poor in general
          •   Regardless of shipping mode and size of company
          •   Very low level of awareness of ICAO requirements by those shipping by air
          •    Very low awareness of the dangers associated with lithium batteries
          •   A surprising number of companies shipped damaged, defective, and waste batteries by air in the past year
          •   78 percent of companies who ship batteries by air were not declaring their shipments properly.
     A 78 percent non-compliance rate by shippers is an absolutely alarming number.
     It is reasonable at this point to conclude that the outreach attempts of PRBA aimed at raising awareness have either fallen short of the mark or failed altogether.
     One might even be allowed to wonder if the PRBA net result in all of this delayed what is eventually coming—tighter regulations aiming at particularly risky cargo.
     US DOT-PHMSA published “PHMSA-2009-0095 (HM-224F) Final Rule” in August this year, and although the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012’’ enacted by President Obama prohibits DOT from issuing or enforcing any regulation or other requirement regarding the air transportation of lithium cells or batteries if the requirement is more stringent than the requirements of the ICAO Technical Instructions, the tests undertaken in February this year at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center were sufficiently illustrative— not to say drastic—that a majority of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel members lean in favor of stricter regulations.
     While for the time being only Lithium Metal batteries (UN 3090) as such have been banned from transport aboard passenger aircraft effective January 1st, 2015 , and this ban does not cover Lithium metal cells and batteries either packed with or installed in equipment (UN3091), the ICAO “International Multidisciplinary Lithium Battery Transport Coordination Meeting” during its 2nd meeting taking place from September 9th to September 11th in Cologne, Germany, made a number of noteworthy recommendations.
     The UPS 006 crash in DXB in 2010, the UPS 1307 accident in PHL in 2006, and the loss of OZ 991 in 2011 were clearly cited as evidence, something PRBA always considered unproven and denied vociferously.
     DOT-PHMSA’s final rule however does include some opinions from PRBA (which have been duly rebuffed by PHMSA) that “PHMSA’s permission for shippers to utilize the lithium battery handling label is misguided and will cause greater confusion (…) and result in greater non-compliance.”
     In their petition to PHMSA, PRBA goes on to say that “there is no reasonable basis to limit the number of lithium ion or metal battery packages in a single aircraft cargo compartment, ULD, or Overpack.”
     Regulators and airlines seem to think otherwise, since the recent and well-publicized tests of a thermal runaway of one battery or cell (no matter if shipped in a compliant manner or not) spread to other cells or batteries in its proximity.
     Furthermore, the presentation indicated that current aircraft cargo holds are not designed to contain Lithium battery fires.
     Added to the internationally reported episode of U.S. FAA tests conducted last April that pictured an aircraft cargo container exploding into a lithium battery-driven fireball is the U.S. NTSB’s recently published report on the Lithium battery fire aboard a parked Japan Airlines (JL) 787 in BOS on January 7th, 2013, as well as the UK AAIB report on a Lithium battery ELT (Emergency Location Transmitter) fire aboard a parked Ethiopian Airlines (ET) 787 in London (LHR) on July 12th, 2013.
In that case, while Boeing and its subcontractors Thales and Yuasa estimated one thermal runaway per aircraft battery cell in 10 million flight hours, it turned out to be three in about 54,000, which led to that embarrassing, widely reported temporary global grounding of the entire B 787 fleet in service.
     A report covering the results of the 2nd session of the ICAO Multidisciplinary Lithium Battery Transport Coordination Meeting makes several recommendations.
          1. Continue exceptions for so-called “Section II Excepted batteries” but prohibit consolidation of such “excepted packages” by means of Overpacks.
          2. Develop a performance-based provision to limit the probability of a propagation of thermal runaway between cells.
          3. Limit charge levels of Lithium-ion and Lithium-polymer cells and batteries to 30 percent.
          4. Carriage of Lithium Ion batteries in the aircraft compartment with the greatest fire suppression capability aboard passenger aircraft.
          5. Carriage of Lithium Ion batteries in the aircraft compartment with the greatest fire suppression capability aboard all-cargo aircraft or load in a manner accessible to flight crew during the flight.
          6. Re-assessment of current ULD and fire detection/suppression technologies.
          7. Use of enhanced containers and fire containment covers in class C cargo compartments.
          8. Performance-based packaging of Lithium batteries, such as with gel packs.
          9. Look into future replacement for the currently used Halon 1301 fire extinguishing agent.
          10. Publishing industry best practices regarding the shipping of Lithium batteries under the auspice of IATA.
          11. Research and sharing of information concerning the management of risks associated with the carriage of Lithium batteries.
          12. New aircraft type designs.
          13. Aircraft manufacturers to characterize the tolerance of their aircraft to conditions such as under Lithium battery fire conditions.
          14. Establishing methods to distinguish Lithium-metal button cells from other types of Lithium batteries.
     Looking ahead on the ICAO DGP’s agenda comes yet another PRBA proposal to permit the air transport of damaged or recalled Lithium batteries— although the chances of such a proposal finding support seems slim to virtually none at best.
Jens