lithium shipping hazmat fees

Batteries, Chargers, and Battery Management Systems.
User avatar
Andje   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Aug 25 2010 11:03am

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Andje » Dec 06 2010 9:08pm

you know what would settle it? send jeremy a battery and let him put it in a fire :O. or upload those vids of equivalent testing you were talking about. All facetiousness aside, id be interested to see them even without this... misunderstanding. Just link it to us through youtube, never can have too many battery testing vids on youtube...
Norco 125 Dirt Jumper
100v 15ah Lipo Backpack
lyens 18 fet, 100v 100 amps, R12 Regen
x5304- 95km/h
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewto ... =3&t=24594
Norco A-Line Park 2009
144v Kelly 300amp
5403/ future HS60
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewto ... =6&t=35652

User avatar
Alan B   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7576
Joined: Sep 11 2010 7:43am
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, USA
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Alan B » Dec 07 2010 12:36am

I just did some searching and found no indication that UPS hazmat fees are required. I sent an email to the shipper requesting an explanation.

User avatar
oldpiper   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 425
Joined: Oct 27 2010 5:07pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by oldpiper » Dec 07 2010 1:05am

BMI wrote:
Jeremy Harris wrote: The regs currently require shippers to give an 'equivalent metallic lithium' content, I believe, and they base the risk assessment on that, using an assumption that the lithium content will become metallic in the event of a fire.

Jeremy
Please explain how a LiFeTech LiFePO4 battery which has "ZERO GRAMS EQUIVALENT LITHIUM" metal can catch on fire??
I have attached the MSDS as proof.

To use your own words- " using an assumption that the lithium content will become metallic in the event of a fire".
I am looking forward to your explanation of how a battery which CANNOT produce free lithium metal EVEN IN A FIRE can catch on fire due to free lithium being released due to the heat of a fire.
Material Safety Data.tif
Because the MSDS is vendor-supplied information, and there is an explicit trust that the vendor has supplied accurate information in the form. In this case, due either to gross mistranslation or simple dishonesty, the information on the MSDS is patently false. With an energy density of about 90 Whr/kg LiFePO4 (Wikipedia, but referenced) and the MSDS stating that the amount of LiFePO4 (in the battery?) is 3.6 mg/m^3, then a battery would have to have a volume of about 30 m^3 (a little over 3 m on a side) in order to have even 1 Whr stored. That leads to some pretty big batteries.

Again, as I said before, any energy stored in an LiFePO4 battery is stored as elemental lithium. I don't care whether or not the lithium atoms are adjacent, making a piece of "metal" or not, they are still metallic and will react as such. There's no getting around basic chemistry. Whether you believe them or not, facts are facts.

Cameron
Schwinn StingRay OCC XL, front AmpedBikes DD hubmotor, 37V, 10 Ah Lipo

"If it jams-force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway."
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

User avatar
johnrobholmes   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3948
Joined: Jul 07 2008 2:19pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by johnrobholmes » Dec 07 2010 1:08am

BMI wrote: Please explain how a LiFeTech LiFePO4 battery which has "ZERO GRAMS EQUIVALENT LITHIUM" metal can catch on fire??
I have attached the MSDS as proof.

To use your own words- " using an assumption that the lithium content will become metallic in the event of a fire".
I am looking forward to your explanation of how a battery which CANNOT produce free lithium metal EVEN IN A FIRE can catch on fire due to free lithium being released due to the heat of a fire.
Reading that data sheet, it lists the equivalent Lithium as under two grams (which is not zero). Lithium metal is listed as zero as there is no "free" metal lithium present since it is tied up in the compound form. If the cells indeed have no lithium content, then they cannot be lithium iron. I am very interested in how your LiFe is not able to produce any lithium, as the original discovery at UT showed that LiFePO4 can be converted into free lithium and FePO4 and vice versa. Otherwise, we couldn't recycle it.

User avatar
Gordo   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: May 23 2010 4:46pm
Location: THE COLD WHITE NORTHWEST, EH?

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Gordo » Dec 07 2010 1:21am

oldpiper wrote:
BMI wrote:
Jeremy Harris wrote: The regs currently require shippers to give an 'equivalent metallic lithium' content, I believe, and they base the risk assessment on that, using an assumption that the lithium content will become metallic in the event of a fire.

Jeremy
Please explain how a LiFeTech LiFePO4 battery which has "ZERO GRAMS EQUIVALENT LITHIUM" metal can catch on fire??
I have attached the MSDS as proof.

To use your own words- " using an assumption that the lithium content will become metallic in the event of a fire".
I am looking forward to your explanation of how a battery which CANNOT produce free lithium metal EVEN IN A FIRE can catch on fire due to free lithium being released due to the heat of a fire.
Material Safety Data.tif
Because the MSDS is vendor-supplied information, and there is an explicit trust that the vendor has supplied accurate information in the form. In this case, due either to gross mistranslation or simple dishonesty, the information on the MSDS is patently false. With an energy density of about 90 Whr/kg LiFePO4 (Wikipedia, but referenced) and the MSDS stating that the amount of LiFePO4 (in the battery?) is 3.6 mg/m^3, then a battery would have to have a volume of about 30 m^3 (a little over 3 m on a side) in order to have even 1 Whr stored. That leads to some pretty big batteries.

Again, as I said before, any energy stored in an LiFePO4 battery is stored as elemental lithium. I don't care whether or not the lithium atoms are adjacent, making a piece of "metal" or not, they are still metallic and will react as such. There's no getting around basic chemistry. Whether you believe them or not, facts are facts.

Cameron
EXACTLY! Lifetech is a fraud and a fool to think we would not understand his bullshit. I hope this is the end of the stupidity and Jeremy does not bother to waste one more second answering this thread.
I am thrilled by the "gas gauge" and all the rest of ES. I am sorry I spent my time reading this drivel.
X-treme 3KW Scooter...OFF ROAD ONLY....Giant 1KW 48V 24" Hubmotor....E-Apex 1KW 48V 26" Hubmotor, built 2012-05-26
Thanks Justin, for saving ES. May Grin Tech grow and prosper.

User avatar
Jeremy Harris   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4208
Joined: Oct 23 2007 4:15pm
Location: Salisbury, UK

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Jeremy Harris » Dec 07 2010 2:44am

BMI wrote:
Jeremy Harris wrote: The regs currently require shippers to give an 'equivalent metallic lithium' content, I believe, and they base the risk assessment on that, using an assumption that the lithium content will become metallic in the event of a fire.

Jeremy
Please explain how a LiFeTech LiFePO4 battery which has "ZERO GRAMS EQUIVALENT LITHIUM" metal can catch on fire??
I have attached the MSDS as proof.

To use your own words- " using an assumption that the lithium content will become metallic in the event of a fire".
I am looking forward to your explanation of how a battery which CANNOT produce free lithium metal EVEN IN A FIRE can catch on fire due to free lithium being released due to the heat of a fire.
Material Safety Data.tif
Armin,

Are you now telling us that the cells you are supplying do not contain enough lithium to be a potential fire hazard, even when sent as typical EV size shipments?

You do understand the reversible nature of chemical reactions, don't you? I mean, you can't be foolish enough to think that lithium locked up in LiFePO4 won't revert to metallic lithium under the right conditions, can you?

I know that you're probably not a chemist, but that chemical formula you use to describe your cells, and which forms a stylised form of your company name, LiFePO4, is for Lithium Ferrous Phosphate. It tells us very clearly that the four elements in the cell are lithium, iron, phosphorus and oxygen. Very specifically it tells us that the cathode composition of these cells is a compound that contains lithium, specifically a polyanion if you want to get technical.

Are the manufacturers trying to hoodwink the shipping companies to get around the air freight HAZMAT regulations by being a little disingenuous on the paperwork?

I think you've just shot yourself in the foot, here, with your invasion of this thread as another attempted sales pitch. All it's done is reveal that you don't properly understand the nature of the product you're selling.

Jeremy
Please ask questions on the forum, rather than by PM, as it helps others and you'll get a better range of answers.

User avatar
BMI   100 W

100 W
Posts: 270
Joined: Apr 10 2009 4:07am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by BMI » Dec 07 2010 8:11am

oldpiper wrote:
Again, as I said before, any energy stored in an LiFePO4 battery is stored as elemental lithium. I don't care whether or not the lithium atoms are adjacent, making a piece of "metal" or not, they are still metallic and will react as such. There's no getting around basic chemistry. Whether you believe them or not, facts are facts.

Cameron
Yes there is no getting around basic chemistry..... To use your argument sodium metal (like lithium metal) will react violently and burst into flames if put into a container of water. Normal everyday table salt is sodium chloride and contains sodium. So going by your argument since salt has sodium in it then it should react violently if mixed with water.... and of course it doesn't and is very safe (just as our LiFePO4 batteries are equally safe and won't catch on fire since the LiFePO4 is extremely stable and does not pose the same hazard as LiPo batteries do).

User avatar
BMI   100 W

100 W
Posts: 270
Joined: Apr 10 2009 4:07am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by BMI » Dec 07 2010 8:35am

Jeremy Harris wrote: Are you now telling us that the cells you are supplying do not contain enough lithium to be a potential fire hazard, even when sent as typical EV size shipments?
Jeremy
I am telling you that our LiFePO4 batteries have passed the most stringent testing and will not catch on fire even if the batteries are damaged, pierced etc. (whether you want to believe this or not I don't really care because it is fact). This is why we performed crash lab testing, passed CE certification and are now having our batteries UL tested due to the requirements of a large US multi-national corporation which will be ordering large quantities of our batteries in 2011. More than 95% of our batteries are shipped by air due to the safety of our batteries. Try to ship similar large EV quantities of Li-Po batteries by airfreight as we do and you won't have a chance in hell of getting them on the plane (for good reason).
Factory QC.pdf
(359.26 KiB) Downloaded 86 times

User avatar
Jeremy Harris   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4208
Joined: Oct 23 2007 4:15pm
Location: Salisbury, UK

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Jeremy Harris » Dec 07 2010 8:53am

BMI wrote: Yes there is no getting around basic chemistry..... To use your argument sodium metal (like lithium metal) will react violently and burst into flames if put into a container of water. Normal everyday table salt is sodium chloride and contains sodium. So going by your argument since salt has sodium in it then it should react violently if mixed with water.... and of course it doesn't and is very safe (just as our LiFePO4 batteries are equally safe and won't catch on fire since the LiFePO4 is extremely stable and does not pose the same hazard as LiPo batteries do).
Armin,

You're still trying to confuse two separate issues and chuck some advertising into this thread that's misleading and off topic.

No one is going to argue with you over LiFePO4 chemistry being inherently safer than LiCoO2 from the standpoint of the user, that's not at all what some of us have been taking you to task over. We all accept that LiFePO4 is less likely to suffer catastrophic failure from misuse or physical abuse than LiCoO2, but this thread is specifically about the extra charges levied for the carriage of LiFePO4 cells, a situation where they are unlikely to be charged, discharged or subjected to severe mechanical abuse.

This discussion is about HAZMAT, specifically charges levied for the paperwork associated with the carriage of HAZMAT materials. I apologise if it seems that I'm talking down to you, but this needs putting into very simple language for the avoidance of any further doubt,

In this instance, HAZMAT is primarily concerned with the consequences of misfortune occurring to cargo, specifically air cargo. There isn't a HAZMAT category for electrical safety, or the ability of things to withstand mechanical abuse, the categories are there to help avoid incidents, but also to help people, particularly the emergency services, deal with the consequences of an accident or fire and to ensure that the correct safety procedures and systems are used.

Any material that is flammable can potentially fall into a HAZMAT category, but flammable materials don't cause fires on their own. A can of liquid fuel, for example, cannot actually CAUSE a fire, a fire needs a source of ignition and to be fed with oxygen, neither of which are present in the can of fuel, so it's safe. That doesn't stop liquid fuels being put into a HAZMAT category though, as HAZMAT is primarily concerned with the precautions needed to minimise exposure to initiating events and the consequences of a mishap to the cargo.

In the case of ANY battery containing lithium, the lithium can and will become flammable lithium metal under the right conditions. No one is saying that those conditions can occur spontaneously in any particular cell, all we've been saying to you repeatedly is that when those conditions are present the lithium metal does present a potential problem for fire suppressant systems. This is the primary reason that air transport authorities get so vexed over the carriage of large quantities of cells containing lithium, of any flavour.

There isn't any doubt whatsoever that the lithium in your, or any other, LiFePO4 cell can become flammable and present a potential hazard, that's just basic chemistry. Minimising the amount of lithium in the cell, providing robust packaging and ensuring that the overheat safety vents are reliable all help to reduce the risk of a lithium fire, but that risk cannot be eliminated. The main issue is, as I have said before, the fact that aircraft fire suppressant systems cannot put out a lithium fire. Metal fires are bloody difficult to extinguish and normally need special powder fire extinguisher materials, but these are incompatible with use on aircraft.

You do yourself no favours by constantly jumping on any battery thread here that takes your fancy to try and push your particular brand. Much of the time it's seen by many as being pushy and off putting, some of the time it just shows that you've not taken the time to read and understand the topic. If you don't understand the chemistry of your product (and there's no real need to as a salesman) don't try arguing with those who do, as it only makes you look foolish. I don't expect salespeople to have in-depth technical knowledge, but I also don't expect to be fed misleading information by them to cover up their lack of it. Far better to stay quiet, seek advice from someone who does have the required knowledge and then relay it truthfully and honestly.

Jeremy

I've edited this, in the light of the cross post from you above, written at the time I was posting.

The issue isn't to do with cells being mechanically damaged and becoming hazardous at all. It's no good just providing QC stuff you've got from your manufacturer that's not relevant to this particular topic, as it doesn't support your argument one jot and just looks like more advertising hype by you on someone else's thread.

HAZMAT is a US regulation that applies to all US registered aircraft, which is being increasingly adopted by other air carriers around the world. Here in Europe most air cargo is carried by US companies, often in US registered aircraft, so we have to work with it as well. You may be lucky in your part of the world, maybe the HAZMAT rules haven't hit you yet. When they do then you will find that large shipments of your cells, as defined in the MSDS you have provided, will be treated as HAZMAT, probably category 9. Take advantage of the fact that you're getting away without the hassle and charges for now, but please don't assume that your situation is universal. I understand that Hobby King are similarly using a way around the HAZMAT issue by shipping using non-US registered couriers. Whether that situation lasts for long is uncertain.
Please ask questions on the forum, rather than by PM, as it helps others and you'll get a better range of answers.

User avatar
oldpiper   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 425
Joined: Oct 27 2010 5:07pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by oldpiper » Dec 07 2010 9:32am

BMI wrote:
oldpiper wrote:
Again, as I said before, any energy stored in an LiFePO4 battery is stored as elemental lithium. I don't care whether or not the lithium atoms are adjacent, making a piece of "metal" or not, they are still metallic and will react as such. There's no getting around basic chemistry. Whether you believe them or not, facts are facts.

Cameron
Yes there is no getting around basic chemistry..... To use your argument sodium metal (like lithium metal) will react violently and burst into flames if put into a container of water. Normal everyday table salt is sodium chloride and contains sodium. So going by your argument since salt has sodium in it then it should react violently if mixed with water.... and of course it doesn't and is very safe (just as our LiFePO4 batteries are equally safe and won't catch on fire since the LiFePO4 is extremely stable and does not pose the same hazard as LiPo batteries do).
I never said that elemental lithium "will react violently and burst into flames if put into a container of water." I said that if the lithium is exposed to water or air, it would "react with oxygen or water vapor in the air (or liquid water) ... fizzing, heating things up a bit, and producing a caustic crud where the insides have escaped the battery." No mention of fire there. Have you ever put lithium metal in water? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHNoorANkAs An internal short circuit could release sufficient energy to cause a fire. If you are going to quote me, get your quote right.

As for elemental sodium, yes, it reacts exactly like lithium, and a little more energetically. I find it hard to believe that you, supposedly knowing something about batteries, do not know the difference between elemental sodium (atoms) and sodium chloride (ions). If that is the case, then your ignorance of electrochemistry is so thorough and you are showing here that your contempt of learning so vast, that it serves no purpose carrying on this conversation with you. I challenge you to prove me wrong here - learn something, then come back and tell us what you learned.

Cameron
Schwinn StingRay OCC XL, front AmpedBikes DD hubmotor, 37V, 10 Ah Lipo

"If it jams-force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway."
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

User avatar
Alan B   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7576
Joined: Sep 11 2010 7:43am
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, USA
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Alan B » Dec 07 2010 9:46am

I got a reply from the vendor very quickly, even though it was after work hours at their location.

They updated their website immediately to indicate the new UPS regulations for hazmat fees on ground shipments.

They removed the fee on my shipment since it was not documented on the website.

They still say on their website that they can ship lithium batteries by air.

I would expect to find UPS announcements of these new shipping requirements. I did some searching and did not find them. The vendor claims that this was from UPS training they obtained. Perhaps an overzealous UPS trainer??????

User avatar
pdf   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 591
Joined: Aug 20 2009 11:31am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by pdf » Dec 07 2010 10:13am

Well, all I can say is I shipped UPS Monday from their main distribution center in my city. They indicated it could not be shipped air and there was no hazmat fee. Maybe there is a change that is working its way through the system. I'm pretty sure if they stand to make more money, they will!
-------------
Jamis Commuter 1.0/Xtracycle Stokemonkey 36V LiFePO4, 15 ahr
Giant Boulder 9C 8x8, 48v, 10 Ahr LiMn from ebikes.ca

User avatar
pdf   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 591
Joined: Aug 20 2009 11:31am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by pdf » Dec 07 2010 11:50am

By the way, the definition of equivalent lithium is not the obvious one. From:
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles ... ries#p-297

"Equivalent lithium content means, for a lithium-ion cell, the product of the rated capacity, in ampere-hours, of a lithium-ion cell times 0.3, with the result expressed in grams. The equivalent lithium content of a battery equals the sum of the grams of equivalent lithium content contained in the component cells of the battery"

As far as I can tell from numerous definitions I've read, a lithium iron phosphate cell is included in the definition of a lithium-ion cell. It appears this term is used to differentiante batteries with "free" lithium metal as opposed to those in which lithium is present in an "intercalated lithium compound" in the electrode.

Crazy units, huh?

My 15Ahr 36V lithium iron phosphate battery contains, if I am correct, 15 x 12 cells, each of which is a (nominally) 3v, 1 Ahr cell. The exact Ahr/cell will presumably differ from vendor to vendor.

Anywho, the regulations for shipping via USPS, based on their website (which I think I cited earlier) is a limit of 8 g of "equivalent lithium" for a battery. In my case, there appears to be 15 x 12 x 0.3 = 54 grams of "equivalent lithium" and so my take is that the USPS will not ship it.

My personal experience is that UPS did on Monday and they did not charge me a surcharge. They took the battery out of the box (I purposely did not seal it, anticipating some uncertainly on their part), examined it, and called someone in an office somewhere. They chatted for about 2 minutes, after which I was told I needed to have a particular label on the box if the value was over $100 (I have no idea why this was relevant except for purchasing insurance). I told the individual I was going to claim a value of $99, after which he said it was fine as it was. He sealed the box and off it went. I had packed the beezeesus out of it and even if they punt it off the truck on the interstate, it will be fine.

As to whether or not it is legitimate to restrict shipment of this battery in the US, I have no idea. I assume someone somewhere is being paid a government wage to validate this or perhaps someone is funding someone else's re-election campaign to get the regulation changed to their advantage. It's the American Way!

Lastly, my earlier intent in suggesting that an experiment would be better than theory in this case (of which someone correctly stated I used the term "theory" in the venacular and not "scientific method" sense), I was stating my experience as, primarily, an experimentalist. I understand the chemistry but also know that the mechanism proposed includes assumptions that may or may not be present in a particular situation. It is possible that the activation energy for the generation of lithium metal is never reached due to the heat capacity of non-combustable materials in the battery, even though the reaction mechanism is pausible. Of course on the other hand, perhaps it is. It seems a bit odd that the mechanism would require a reducing environment to create the metal and then an oxiding one to burn it, but again, I'm no chemist. It could certainly happen that way.

People often fear a new technology as "unsafe" based on a hypothesis about what CAN possibly happen. To cite an example from everyday life that we can all appreciate, I work with a person who has been a consultant to several Asian countries in the area of the adoption of electric bikes. The government of one particular, very large country was considering banning ebikes. They funded my co-worker to study the impact of such a ban, assuming people who were riding ebikes would distribute themselves among over various transporation options if ebikes were outlawed. The thought of the government was that the proliferation of ebikes was unsafe, based primarily on conventional wisdom and the observation that there were a lot of accidents involving them. To distill a several hundred page document, basically he found that while ebikes do have some negative consequences (for example, more coal is burned to generate the electricity which contains mercury which will increase mercury-related health problems, and also, if you get hit by a car on an ebike, the bike rider is more likely to be killed than if they are in another car), the overall population effect was to reduce deaths. So they did not ban ebikes.

I understand that lithium batteries have been implicated in ACTUAL fires (not theoretical ones) but as there are several different types of lithium-based batteries, I am not sure that people are differentiating between the different types.

Sorry for the verbosity. Being concise is not one of my strong points. Anyway, the above is how I see it. It didn't cost you anything and isn't worth much either. No warrantee expressed or implied!
-------------
Jamis Commuter 1.0/Xtracycle Stokemonkey 36V LiFePO4, 15 ahr
Giant Boulder 9C 8x8, 48v, 10 Ahr LiMn from ebikes.ca

User avatar
oldpiper   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 425
Joined: Oct 27 2010 5:07pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by oldpiper » Dec 07 2010 12:15pm

If I seem to come down hard on people for not being strictly proper with their terminology when we're dealing with these batteries, I apologize. I am an analytical chemist, so being a bit AR comes with the territory, and I also am teaching two freshman-level college chem courses this term, so I am in the habit of jumping on them to be precise in what they say. I just get irritated when I see someone intentionally (or ignorantly) repeating nonsense or trying to claim a (sounds good but doesn't really exist) loophole to bolster a claim that X ALWAYS happens or Y NEVER happens, when it's just not true.

BTW, I am an experimentalist by far, the only exception being when the experiment looks way too dangerous to perform. Then I assign it to a student, instead :lol: .
Schwinn StingRay OCC XL, front AmpedBikes DD hubmotor, 37V, 10 Ah Lipo

"If it jams-force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway."
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

User avatar
Ypedal   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 12522
Joined: Dec 27 2006 12:55pm
Location: Moncton NB, Canada
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Ypedal » Dec 07 2010 12:23pm

Been working at a shipping company for alot of years, tech support so i have nothing to do with operations or deliveries but i'm front line support for customers who call in all the time to complain..

Basically, hazmat declaration is all about keeping the people who transport your stuff safe, and to help those who respond to an incident determine how best to deal with an accident should one happen.

This extra paperwork, logistical etc costs a shipping company extra money ( some is non-conveyable and must be moved by hand/trolly ) instead of moving on a belt along with 1000's of other packages at a very fast pace.

Some people are idiots, happens in all industries, some drivers are overworked and underpaid and act like dummies with parcels, they should be reported and fired accordingly.

All that being said, if you pack it right, a driver doing almost his worst should not be able to destroy it.. always fill a box with no empty space so stuff cant move around.. double box if you have to.

I think " think " that most postal workers are not hazmat certified, but courrier drivers are.. if you ship something DG declared to a rural area where the courrier will use the post as an agent ( for places that get a box every 5 months.. middle of nowhere ) the DG option is not available because the post man is not certified in most cases to carry it.

3 categories offered on the purolator website, " Limited Quantities = Free " .. " 500kg exemption = 25$ " and " Fully Regulated= 25 $ "

Ship a bic lighter, declare it Limited Quantity and it's no big deal.. ship a 5 gal of butane and pay up sucker...

Lithim metal or not.. any and all batteries when fully charged have the potential to release enough heat to burn surrounding cardboard boxes etc... the larger the pack the bigger the heat potential..

Vendors of lithium packs should ship DG ... ( Dangerous Goods ) declared.. individuals will keep on doing what they do and it's inevitable... and some lives will be lost because of it at some point in time.

c'est la vie.
ES site status page:
http://www.ypedal.com/ES/ES.htm
----------------
http://www.ypedal.com

User avatar
Jeremy Harris   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4208
Joined: Oct 23 2007 4:15pm
Location: Salisbury, UK

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Jeremy Harris » Dec 07 2010 12:29pm

oldpiper wrote:If I seem to come down hard on people for not being strictly proper with their terminology when we're dealing with these batteries, I apologize. I am an analytical chemist, so being a bit AR comes with the territory, and I also am teaching two freshman-level college chem courses this term, so I am in the habit of jumping on them to be precise in what they say. I just get irritated when I see someone intentionally (or ignorantly) repeating nonsense or trying to claim a (sounds good but doesn't really exist) loophole to bolster a claim that X ALWAYS happens or Y NEVER happens, when it's just not true.

BTW, I am an experimentalist by far, the only exception being when the experiment looks way too dangerous to perform. Then I assign it to a student, instead :lol: .
You and I share the same feelings over imprecise terminology. I was a scientist before I retired, a Senior Principal Scientist working in defence research. My career grade when I first started work back in 1972 was actually Assistant Experimental Officer, so I guess that pretty much fixes me firmly in the experimentalist camp. I spent about 20 odd years in flight test, which is always fairly experimental and modestly dangerous, with the disadvantage that I couldn't send students up to do the experiment..............

Jeremy
Please ask questions on the forum, rather than by PM, as it helps others and you'll get a better range of answers.

User avatar
docnjoj   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sep 29 2007 5:26pm
Location: Fairhope AL

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by docnjoj » Dec 08 2010 11:55am

Roger that on precise terminology! Also accurate calculations, especially for medical dosages! I still teach Physiology and Pharmacology even though "retired" and accurate use of terms (like don't mistake "left" and "right" in a surgical procedure) :oops: is rather important. With regard to shipping dangerous stuff, batteries certainly qualify, and powerful batteries are even more dangerous. We, as usual, need to balance the "risk" with the reward. If there is a cut off or slow down in shipping then we the consumer suffer. Sorry for the obvious rant.
otherDoc
E-bike stable at our house

Steintrike Mad Max full suspension trike rear Cute 100H going on: Whoops, Cute wheel broke but I fixed it.
Sun USX delta trike EbikeKit small geared front wheel sort of front suspension for wife

Agniusm/A123 AMP 20 36 volts on the Steini has been taken off.
2x16000 Multisport from HK now gone as they died after 2 years
New Luna 10S bottle battery 13.6AH now on mine
Relatively New 10S4Px2 for wife's bike giving 20ah @ 40 volts home made Panasonic from Tumich. BMS's rule.

User avatar
Gordo   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: May 23 2010 4:46pm
Location: THE COLD WHITE NORTHWEST, EH?

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Gordo » Dec 08 2010 8:46pm

Ypedal wrote:Been working at a shipping company for alot of years, tech support so i have nothing to do with operations or deliveries but i'm front line support for customers who call in all the time to complain..

Basically, hazmat declaration is all about keeping the people who transport your stuff safe, and to help those who respond to an incident determine how best to deal with an accident should one happen.

This extra paperwork, logistical etc costs a shipping company extra money ( some is non-conveyable and must be moved by hand/trolly ) instead of moving on a belt along with 1000's of other packages at a very fast pace.

Some people are idiots, happens in all industries, some drivers are overworked and underpaid and act like dummies with parcels, they should be reported and fired accordingly.

All that being said, if you pack it right, a driver doing almost his worst should not be able to destroy it.. always fill a box with no empty space so stuff cant move around.. double box if you have to.

I think " think " that most postal workers are not hazmat certified, but courrier drivers are.. if you ship something DG declared to a rural area where the courrier will use the post as an agent ( for places that get a box every 5 months.. middle of nowhere ) the DG option is not available because the post man is not certified in most cases to carry it.

3 categories offered on the purolator website, " Limited Quantities = Free " .. " 500kg exemption = 25$ " and " Fully Regulated= 25 $ "

Ship a bic lighter, declare it Limited Quantity and it's no big deal.. ship a 5 gal of butane and pay up sucker...

Lithim metal or not.. any and all batteries when fully charged have the potential to release enough heat to burn surrounding cardboard boxes etc... the larger the pack the bigger the heat potential..

Vendors of lithium packs should ship DG ... ( Dangerous Goods ) declared.. individuals will keep on doing what they do and it's inevitable... and some lives will be lost because of it at some point in time.

c'est la vie.
No offense, but after having multiple shipments damaged, I took the time to visit both the Greyhound and Purolator Depots in Vancouver. Until you do that, you will never believe what I saw. I received a desktop computer properly packed in double cartons with foam suspension that was destroyed. A forklift operator had driven 2 lengths of 1" water pipe through the carton long ways and nailed the hard drive dead center. Purolator depot sorting is 95% automated, but stuff still falls to the floor and gets bumped and kicked around. At Greyhound I saw a fellow on the end of the elevated conveyor, who had the final 4 sorts, leave to answer the phone. ALL OF THE SHIPMENTS went off the end, and dropped 6 feet to the concrete floor. Even those he had been sorting, were fired down a sloping ramp into bins. The really stupid part is they allowed me to take pictures, which I promptly pulled out on my next visit to the claims department. All of my claims were paid in full with no more argument. I decided it was more cost/time effective to visit suppliers every week to 10 days and move my own freight. Dealing with damaged goods is a loosing proposition. Your customer is pissed, you are pissed and at best, you get your bare cost back.
X-treme 3KW Scooter...OFF ROAD ONLY....Giant 1KW 48V 24" Hubmotor....E-Apex 1KW 48V 26" Hubmotor, built 2012-05-26
Thanks Justin, for saving ES. May Grin Tech grow and prosper.

User avatar
Alan B   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7576
Joined: Sep 11 2010 7:43am
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, USA
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Alan B » Dec 09 2010 12:57am

I received the cells today that this thread is about.

Eight headway cells. Well packed in a foam tray in one box with 2" of empty boxes all around them in a double corrugated outer box. Really well packed.

Plus hazmat stickers and papers all over the outside. Various signatures, etc. So they definitely shipped as hazmat.

They appear to be very serious about labelling and about packing them well.

But is the hazmat actually required?

Why is it that NO other vendor is doing this?

This vendor promised to send me a reference to the regulation requiring this. That has not happened yet. I sent them another email requesting that this evening.

User avatar
Lessss   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2301
Joined: Nov 18 2006 11:27pm
Location: Saint John N.B. Canada, Sol 3

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Lessss » Dec 09 2010 2:59am

Ask them again and give a time limit at which you will be contacting the FBI re Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63 mail fraud.
Give me nuclear batteries I say!! Ripped off by Joshua Goldberg to the tune of almost $900 re headway groupbuy for batteries, no $ no batteries
------------
http://www.openoffice.org/ or https://www.libreoffice.org/
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

User avatar
Alan B   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7576
Joined: Sep 11 2010 7:43am
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, USA
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Alan B » Dec 09 2010 5:25pm

Lessss wrote:Ask them again and give a time limit at which you will be contacting the FBI re Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63 mail fraud.
They did not charge me for the hazmat fee. They did pay it, the box clearly shows it (and it was not shipped by mail). They clearly believe the hazmat fee is required, and they are paying the fee, so I don't think fraud is the issue.

I would like to see the requirement for it. I am hoping that there is not a requirement and that this fee is not correct.

frodus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 802
Joined: Mar 03 2008 2:24pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by frodus » Dec 16 2010 2:29pm

Its really nothing new, its been required for most of 2010, but there are only two suppliers that I know of that are shipping according to regulations (Manzanita and CurrentEVTech). They are both shipping Hazmat as we were told by UPS. Our shipping department at Manzanita Micro and several employees have been hazmat certified for shipping these batteries. There is an extra fee that we are required to pay for each shipment. I'm not sure when this started, but we were told by one of our contacts at UPS that an additional fee started this year.

Read up a bit here:
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resour ... tions.html

and here:
http://www.iata.org/SiteCollectionDocum ... t_2010.pdf

and here:
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resour ... eries.html

Code: Select all

Shipments requiring hazardous materials shipping papers are accepted from contract hazmat shippers only, and certain lithium batteries may not qualify for UPS service.
Travis

User avatar
liveforphysics   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 14134
Joined: Oct 29 2008 1:48am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by liveforphysics » Dec 16 2010 2:37pm

Lessss wrote:Ask them again and give a time limit at which you will be contacting the FBI re Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63 mail fraud.

...


Could this be your most dumb post ever?

Do you strive for setting the bar higher? And how?
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

User avatar
Alan B   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7576
Joined: Sep 11 2010 7:43am
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, USA
Contact:

Re: lithium shipping hazmat fees

Post by Alan B » Dec 17 2010 1:25pm

frodus wrote:Its really nothing new, its been required for most of 2010, but there are only two suppliers that I know of that are shipping according to regulations (Manzanita and CurrentEVTech). They are both shipping Hazmat as we were told by UPS. Our shipping department at Manzanita Micro and several employees have been hazmat certified for shipping these batteries. There is an extra fee that we are required to pay for each shipment. I'm not sure when this started, but we were told by one of our contacts at UPS that an additional fee started this year.

Read up a bit here:
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resour ... tions.html

and here:
http://www.iata.org/SiteCollectionDocum ... t_2010.pdf

and here:
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resour ... eries.html

Code: Select all

Shipments requiring hazardous materials shipping papers are accepted from contract hazmat shippers only, and certain lithium batteries may not qualify for UPS service.
Thanks for providing references. Very unfortunate fee structure for end users.

Post Reply