I was thinking earlier about another example of difficult to protect product. 
Detached storage buildings are defined and used for isolation and storage of 
some oxidizers.

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 15:36, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Call me a Conservative, but perhaps until otherwise specified just exchange
> 'lithium battery' with FIREWORKS on the subject line :)
>> On Feb 26, 2016 5:20 PM, "Brad Casterline" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Don't anybody be packing any Hoover Boards too tightly, especially in
>> combustible containers.
>>> On Feb 26, 2016 5:05 PM, "Pat Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would agree with Bruce's assessment, NFPA 484 applies to combustible
>>> metals. Among these metals are some scary things like lithium, sodium,
>>> potassium, and magnesium. This standard does not address lithium used in
>>> energy storage cells (aka batteries) or the storage of them.
>>> 
>>> Please allow me to chime in with a peeve that I've developed that stems
>>> from this topic (speaking in general, not specific to this forum). I would
>>> caution anyone in the discussion to be aware of the difference between
>>> lithium-ion batteries and lithium batteries. These are in fact quite
>>> different animals and I've often seen discussion over the issue of 'lithium
>>> batteries' when in fact the topic is actually lithium-ion. Here's a quick
>>> comparison:
>>> 
>>> Lithium-ion battery: rechargeable, uses salts of lithium (not lithium in
>>> its elemental state), very common as consumer battery (cell phones,
>>> laptops, tablets, portable power tools, the list goes on....)
>>> 
>>> Lithium battery: lithium is present in its elemental metal state, not
>>> rechargeable, less common as consumer battery (typically a replacement for
>>> conventional alkaline batteries - your C, D, AAA, AA cells but with more
>>> kick)
>>> 
>>> The jury is still out on how to deal with these challenging products,
>>> both of which are rapidly becoming ubiquitous in our modern world. I'm no
>>> chemist but from what I've gleaned in reading is that the biggest issue
>>> with the lithium-ion battery fire is not the presence of lithium but the
>>> tremendous energy storage that these cells are capable of. Thermal runaway
>>> can occur when stored in tight proximity in packaging, be it in a warehouse
>>> or when being transported.
>>> 
>>> For fire with lithium-ion batteries the consensus is cooling, i.e. water
>>> - and lots of it. What this translates to in density I have no idea - this
>>> is what FM, FAA and the aerospace industry, and many others are trying to
>>> nail down.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Pat Thompson
>>> ATS Alaska
>>> Direct: 907-375-4176
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei
>>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:13 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: Lithium battery storage
>>> 
>>> Using NFPA 484 would be similar to using aluminum storage standards for
>>> bringing a B-747-8 in a building.
>>> 
>>> The lithium battery industry needs to address this in a reasonable manner.
>>> 
>>> The aerosol industry did this. Maybe the lithium battery industry hasn't
>>> done this because they can see what the answers are likely to be. Lots of
>>> water. In-rack sprinklers. Vertical barriers every X lineal feet in racks.
>>> Minimum aisle widths. Maximum pile sizes for non-rack storage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:17, Brad Casterline <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Storing lithium in a battery is probably different.
>>>> Anyone see the guy on the news in a convinience store a few days ago
>>>> whose e-cigarette went haywire in his front jeans pocket?
>>>> It looked like a blowtorch!
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2016 12:08 PM, "michael G" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would the lithium battery storage fall under the requirements of
>>>>> storage in NFPA 484? This does address lithium storage, but not
>>>>> lithium battery storage.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michael Goodis
>>>>> Estimator, Project Manager
>>>>> IL#000635   NICET#135586
>>>>> Key Fire Protection Enterprises LLC
>>>>> 3200 Mike Padgett HWY
>>>>> Augusta, GA 30906
>>>>> Office- (706)790-3473
>>>>> Cell- (706) 220-8822
>>>>> Fax: (706) 738-2119
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>>>>> [email protected]]
>>>>> On Behalf Of David Blackwell
>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:32 AM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lithium battery storage
>>>>> 
>>>>> FYI - In case some of you were not aware, the term has changed to SDS
>>>>> and the requirements for the forms being produced now have changed.
>>>>> See the OSHA website at
>>>>> https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/effectivedates.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> The following section of text was extracted [in part] from a document
>>>>> linked from the main OSHA HCS page at
>>>>> https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Hazard Communication standard (HCS) has been revised to align
>>>>> with the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification
>>>>> and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS Revision 3, 2009). This includes
>>>>> updates to the requirements for labeling and for safety data sheets
>>> (SDSs).
>>>>> [...]changes in enforcement due to the release of the revised HCS
>>>>> published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2012. The revised
>>>>> standard changes "hazard determination" to the specific requirements
>>>>> for hazard classification of chemicals, standardizes label elements
>>>>> for containers of hazardous\ chemicals, and specifies the format and
>>>>> required content for SDSs. [...] Chemicals must be evaluated in
>>>>> accordance with specific guidance outlined in Appendices A and B of
>>>>> the standard. The hazard classification will result in the
>>>>> specification of pictograms, signal word, hazard statements, and
>>>>> precautionary statements which must be included on the labels.
>>>>> Specifications for these label elements are provided in Appendix C of
>>>>> the standard. The SDSs will have a standardized 16-section format
>>>>> (see Appendix D of the standard) and includes the information from
>>>>> the hazard classification (e.g., hazard class, pictogram).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Blackwell
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Blackwell, P.E.
>>>>> Chief Engineer
>>>>> (803)896-9833
>>>>> 
>>>>> Office of State Fire Marshal
>>>>> 141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203
>>>>> http://scfiremarshal.llronline.com/
>>>>> (803)896-9800
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>>>>> [email protected]]
>>>>> On Behalf Of [email protected]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:57 AM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lithium battery storage
>>>>> 
>>>>> *** SCDLLR NOTICE *** This email is from an external email address.
>>>>> Please use caution when deciding whether to open any attachments or
>>>>> when clicking links inside the email.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have to look at a consensus amongst data, not just one MSDS or
>>>>> not just one study.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In this particular case there are no absolutes, no guarantees of any
>>>>> results.  Take the info provided and use that to make your best case
>>>>> for a methodology.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Craig L. Prahl
>>>>> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
>>>>> CH2MHILL
>>>>> Lockwood Greene
>>>>> 1500 International Drive
>>>>> Spartanburg, SC  29303
>>>>> Direct - 864.599.4102
>>>>> Fax - 864.599.8439
>>>>> CH2MHILL Extension  74102
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>>>>> [email protected]]
>>>>> On Behalf Of å... ....
>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:52 AM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Lithium battery storage
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do we realize who writes those MSDS ?   Although MSDS content has
>>> gotten
>>>>> better over the years... just saying think about the quality of
>>>>> analyses in some of those MSDS's.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This commodity is non-standardized territory.
>>>>> If ecological considerations are a factor, then dump loads of water
>>>>> warrants a second look.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We might be able to guarantee control of a Li-battery fire with lots
>>>>> of water, but until we get *LOTS* of water, we can't guarantee
>>>>> extinguishment using water only, either.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The engineers at Boeing probably have some experience with suppressing
>>>>> Li-battery fires.   Even though 'in safety there should be no
>>> secrets...'
>>>>> tell that to the economists.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scot Deal
>>>>> Excelsior Risk/Fire Engineering
>>>>> Scot Deal
>>>>> Excelsior Risk/Fire En
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>>>> ler.org _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>>>> ler.org _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>>>> ler.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>>>> ler.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>>>> er.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> 
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> 
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to