IWA press release about LFP Guidance Note

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

There is an insurance claim?!

I'm not sure it really matters. Under the terms of their insurance, ABC are presumably required to notify their insurers of any potential claim, whether or not they actually submit one. And anyway the incident has been well publicised so the insurers will be aware.

It's possible that the insurers will view the accident as caused by the negligence of ABC as installers of the system, and so any claim by the hire boat side against the insurers will be matched by a claim from the insurers against the installer side, so no payout to ABC.

And whether or not they pay out for this particular incident, all insurers will surely be considering the possibility of something similar happening again.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I'm not sure it really matters. Under the terms of their insurance, ABC are presumably required to notify their insurers of any potential claim, whether or not they actually submit one. And anyway the incident has been well publicised so the insurers will be aware.

It's possible that the insurers will view the accident as caused by the negligence of ABC as installers of the system, and so any claim by the hire boat side against the insurers will be matched by a claim from the insurers against the installer side, so no payout to ABC.

And whether or not they pay out for this particular incident, all insurers will surely be considering the possibility of something similar happening again.

 

And if there is a claim, quite a lot supporting evidence will need to be submitted to the insurers including an explanation of what happened and how. So the chances of this leaking out get ever higher. 

 

 

But I suspect there won't be a claim, for the reasons you set out so clearly. 

 

 

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I'm not sure it really matters. Under the terms of their insurance, ABC are presumably required to notify their insurers of any potential claim, whether or not they actually submit one. And anyway the incident has been well publicised so the insurers will be aware.

It's possible that the insurers will view the accident as caused by the negligence of ABC as installers of the system, and so any claim by the hire boat side against the insurers will be matched by a claim from the insurers against the installer side, so no payout to ABC.

And whether or not they pay out for this particular incident, all insurers will surely be considering the possibility of something similar happening again.

Given the state of the boat after the explosion it might be impossible to prove that ABC were deliberately negligent, because that involves knowing there's something wrong and deliberately ignoring it -- not making a mistake (or more than one...) which is far more likely to be what happened. Otherwise almost all insurance claims would be refused (boat, motoring, house, personal...) because in the end the root cause is usually some kind of human error or misjudgment.

 

The last part will certainly be true, but any risk assessor (which is what insurers are stuffed with) will consider not only what happened in this case but what *could* happen if it happened again. Given that if you look at boat fires from all causes -- LFP is just another cause, though explosions are rarer -- these often seem to involve more than one boat (how often? -- that's the risk assessor/s job) or kill people (ditto), I don't think there's any doubt that the assessment would be that the statistical risk/cost from an LFP explosion (if it happens) will be considerably bigger than actually happened on the ABC one.

 

Then they have to assess the probability of it happening again, and that's the difficult bit because there has only been one such incident -- the next one could come tomorrow, or next year, or in ten years -- again, that's the job of the risk assessor. I for one have no idea what they might come up with -- I've been involved in product failure/risk analysis many times over the years, and it's almost impossible if you've only had one "event" because of the way statistics work -- even if the actual probability is that something only happens once every 10 years, there's a (very small) chance it happens on Day 1, and a (small) chance it happens in the first year (go and look up Poisson process if you want to know more).

 

And no number of posts on CWDF or published Guidance Notes is likely to change that -- the only thing that would do that is if evidence could be found to show what happened to the ABC boat and that some simple precautions could just plain stop this ever happening again. Over to ABC... 😉 

Edited August 21 by IanD

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

1 hour ago, EventualBoater said:

I meant the inside piece. 

The insurers are looking into their LFP rules (lets ignore the whole 'but they might not have' argument), would they not have looked into the inside storage as part of their assessment?

You mean this question?

 Has there been any major assessment’s done into Lithium batteries by insurance companies? You seem to think so. As I say is the percentage risk say 1/3000 0.0333% too low for insurance companies to start major assessments in regards to Lithium installs?

 In all these posts no one has given any evidence of investigations/risk assessments into the future of Lithium installs on boats carried out by appointed insurance investigators, on behalf of underwriters from what I’ve seen. Unless someone knows different and can factually prove it.

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And if there is a claim, quite a lot supporting evidence will need to be submitted to the insurers including an explanation of what happened and how. So the chances of this leaking out get ever higher. 

 

But I suspect there won't be a claim, for the reasons you set out so clearly. 

 

We know there were discussions between all the parties involved (ABC, battery manufacturer, battery supplier) and their respective insurers, presumably arguing about whose fault it was and who should pay up. That means there must have been a claim. Why wouldn't ABC do this, when it would be likely to succeed unless deliberate negligence could be proved, which seems very unlikely?

Edited August 21 by IanD

[David Mack]

34 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

 

 In all these posts no one has given any evidence of investigations/risk assessments into the future of Lithium installs on boats carried out by appointed insurance investigators, on behalf of underwriters from what I’ve seen. Unless someone knows different and can factually prove it.

Is that surprising? Until some reasonably robust conclusion as to the risk is reached, I'm not surprised that the insurers are keeping their cards close to their chests. In the meantime they try to cover themselves by adding simple clauses banning unattended lithium battery charging and having suitable fire extinguishers (whether or not such measures are either practical or have much impact on the risk).

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Is that surprising? Until some reasonably robust conclusion as to the risk is reached, I'm not surprised that the insurers are keeping their cards close to their chests. In the meantime they try to cover themselves by adding simple clauses banning unattended lithium battery charging and having suitable fire extinguishers (whether or not such measures are either practical or have much impact on the risk).

Agreed -- but the problem is that to get a reasonable estimate of the statistical risk, you need more LFP fire/explosions... ;-( 

 

The "lithium fire extinguisher" measure is a perfect example of what happens when insurers don't understand the technology/risk -- adding one will not only make no difference to the chance of putting out a domestic battery fire (zero), but positively *increase* risk to life because it's likely to encourage boaters to stay on board and try and fight the fire instead of doing what the fire brigade advise and getting off the boat as quickly as possible.

 

Whether it could help with portable appliance fires is debatable, but if this is the intent the condition should apply to all boats (and houses!) not just ones with domestic LFP installed... 😉 

 

Hopefully the Guidance Note can be used to try and convince insurers of these facts, either via discussions with the JWG or by boaters using it to push back against unreasonable conditions -- like unattended charging (no solar panels?).

Edited August 21 by IanD

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Agreed -- but the problem is that to get a reasonable estimate of the statistical risk, you need more LFP fire/explosions... ;-( 

And in the virtual absence of hard incident data, isn't it more likely that insurers will be consulting experts to assess the risk from a theoretical perspective?

[EventualBoater]

55 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

You mean this question?

 Has there been any major assessment’s done into Lithium batteries by insurance companies? You seem to think so. As I say is the percentage risk say 1/3000 0.0333% too low for insurance companies to start major assessments in regards to Lithium installs?

 In all these posts no one has given any evidence of investigations/risk assessments into the future of Lithium installs on boats carried out by appointed insurance investigators, on behalf of underwriters from what I’ve seen. Unless someone knows different and can factually prove it.

At no point did i say they had. 

It's hypothetical. IF they were going to look into it what would they look for?

 

I have said I dont know. That's why I'm also asking questions. 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

17 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Is that surprising? Until some reasonably robust conclusion as to the risk is reached, I'm not surprised that the insurers are keeping their cards close to their chests. In the meantime they try to cover themselves by adding simple clauses banning unattended lithium battery charging and having suitable fire extinguishers (whether or not such measures are either practical or have much impact on the risk).

But do you think one incident with no fatalities or major damage to other boats, will have massive repercussions in regards to Lithium installs on boats? 
We can all say what if this and what if that and it could of, but it didn’t so we’ll have to wait and see if anything happens.
 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And in the virtual absence of hard incident data, isn't it more likely that insurers will be consulting experts to assess the risk from a theoretical perspective?

Yes, but there is no way to calculate such data without things like MTTF figures for every component, which simply don't exist -- or are at best guesstimates based in similarity to other "similar" things, which often turn out to be no better than complete guesswork (especially if they're not as "similar" as you think).

 

It's one reason why companies like to get lots of stuff out there into the field for testing/evaluation (or product sales), because this can be the only way to find out and fix unexpected things which cause occasional but sometimes catastrophic failures. It's also why making any new "bright idea" change to a product is risky, because it might throw up problems you've never seen before and didn't expect. DAMHIK... 😞 

 

I've been here many times with field failure returns, which sometimes show up problems you *never* found in testing no matter how hard you tried -- and sometimes because a customer has done something you never thought of... 😞 

Edited August 21 by IanD

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

28 minutes ago, EventualBoater said:

At no point did i say they had. 

It's hypothetical. IF they were going to look into it what would they look for?

 

I have said I dont know. That's why I'm also asking questions. 

We can all raise hypothetical questions and what if’s and if the’s. But all pointless on this Thread. As the Guidelines have already been sent out so and I doubt the’ll be changed through any input by anyone on here.

 

[EventualBoater]

2 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

We can all raise hypothetical questions and what if’s and if the’s. But all pointless on this Thread. As the Guidelines have already been sent out so and I doubt the’ll be changed through any input by anyone on here.

 

Im sorry. But if people think that after the incident that the insurance companies haven't been scrabbling to look into this further. They're deluded.

People have mentioned that things are in place around Lithium (all stupid by what I'm hearing). I also dont know when these rules came into play. 

They will be looking at this to try and reduce their risk of having to pay out if something happens. Let's be fair insurers love a loophole and a bit of small text.

So I dont think it's stupid to think hypothetically about what they may look at, what they may deemed as unsafe. 

 

The not keeping the batteries in living spaces makes sense to me as they need to vent BUT as i also mentioned i dont know what they vent, when why etc. (It's why I asked the question first time).

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

We can all raise hypothetical questions and what if’s and if the’s. But all pointless on this Thread. As the Guidelines have already been sent out so and I doubt the’ll be changed through any input by anyone on here.

 

You mean, in spite of me just saying exactly the opposite? 😉 

 

2 hours ago, IanD said:

I published the document on here in the hope of getting useful feedback about the content of the document, because this is what matters to the target audience -- is the information correct, is it understandable, are there things missing? The level of knowledge on CWDF is certainly a lot higher than the general public (the "ordinary boater"), so it should have been possible to improve the document based on this feedback. And in fact most of the feedback about the document contents has been positive -- there have been a couple of useful suggestions which will be taken into account at the next revision.

Edited August 21 by IanD

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

You mean, in spite of me just saying exactly the opposite? 😉 

 What changes are those then? As I’ve missed where you’ve stated the guidelines are going to be amended/changed.

 

9 minutes ago, EventualBoater said:

Im sorry. But if people think that after the incident that the insurance companies haven't been scrabbling to look into this further. They're deluded.

People have mentioned that things are in place around Lithium (all stupid by what I'm hearing). I also dont know when these rules came into play. 

They will be looking at this to try and reduce their risk of having to pay out if something happens. Let's be fair insurers love a loophole and a bit of small text.

So I dont think it's stupid to think hypothetically about what they may look at, what they may deemed as unsafe. 

 

The not keeping the batteries in living spaces makes sense to me as they need to vent BUT as i also mentioned i dont know what they vent, when why etc. (It's why I asked the question first time).

So why are recognised electric boat builders putting batteries in what could be classed as living space. The same also goes for professional Lithium installers doing post build installs.

 

 

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, EventualBoater said:

Im sorry. But if people think that after the incident that the insurance companies haven't been scrabbling to look into this further. They're deluded.

People have mentioned that things are in place around Lithium (all stupid by what I'm hearing). I also dont know when these rules came into play. 

They will be looking at this to try and reduce their risk of having to pay out if something happens. Let's be fair insurers love a loophole and a bit of small text.

So I dont think it's stupid to think hypothetically about what they may look at, what they may deemed as unsafe. 

 

The not keeping the batteries in living spaces makes sense to me as they need to vent BUT as i also mentioned i dont know what they vent, when why etc. (It's why I asked the question first time).

They vent a mixture of gases including flammable/explosive (e.g. hydrogen), poisonous/toxic/corrosive (e.g. CO, HF), and a mix of various other not-especially pleasant things. Google is your friend -- the first search result gave this:

 

AI Overview

 

When LFP (lithium iron phosphate) cells are overcharged or damaged, they vent a mixture of flammable and toxic gases caused by electrolyte solvent breakdown and high-voltage chemical reactions. Hydrogen typically makes up the largest volume (often 40% to 55%), alongside carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and vaporized organic carbonates. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Primary Emitted Gases

• Hydrogen (\(\text{H}_{2}\)): Lighter-than-air gas; frequently comprises nearly half of the total vented volume. [1, 2]

• Carbon Dioxide (\(\text{CO}_{2}\)): Formed during the oxidative decomposition of carbonate solvents. [1]

• Carbon Monoxide (\(\text{CO}\)): A toxic, flammable gas resulting from incomplete breakdown. [1, 2, 3]

• Light Hydrocarbons (Alkanes/Alkenes): Gases like methane (\(\text{CH}_{4}\)), ethane (\(\text{C}_2\text{H}_6\)), ethylene (\(\text{C}_2\text{H}_4\)), and propane (\(\text{C}_3\text{H}_8\)). [1, 2]

• Vaporized Electrolytes: Heavier-than-air organic carbonate solvents (such as EMC, DMC, EC) that create a dense, visible white vapor cloud. [1, 2]

• Hydrogen Fluoride (\(\text{HF}\)): Highly toxic and corrosive trace gas released when the fluorine-containing electrolyte salts react with moisture or heat. [1, 2]

Edited August 21 by IanD

[nicknorman]

The main issue I would take with the document is the decision to regard Li batteries installed in living space as unacceptable. This is solely based on the one incident and thus statistically insignificant.

 

Actual risk from Li batteries is much more about charging small devices with LiPo etc batteries, especially those bought from ebay, Amazon etc. Yes there is less volume of gas to be produced, but still an intense fire that is well able to ignite a boat.
 

And yes as has been mentioned, stoves setting fire to boats is much more probable cause of a total loss insurance claim and has the potential to set adjacent boats on fire, and yet double skinned flues are not mandatory.

 

In summary, the rejection of domestic LiFePO4 batteries in living space is ill thought through and erroneous. And no  this is not a personal attack nor “Ad Hominem”. It is simply my opinion of the work done.

 

If you come back all defensive or “attack is the best form of defence” instead of listening, then you will be due a personal Ad Hominem attack for being unable to receive polite and constructive criticism.

Edited August 21 by nicknorman

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

 What changes are those then? As I’ve missed where you’ve stated the guidelines are going to be amended/changed.

 

So why are recognised electric boat builders putting batteries in what could be classed as living space. The same also goes for professional Lithium installers doing post build installs.

 

If you'd actually read what I've posted on this and the other thread, I've said exactly that numerous times, including a couple of posts ago.

 

The answer to the second one is -- because that's what they've been doing in the past (and today), they probably haven't dug deep into the ISO regulations or been on the BM Lithium Battery training course, and nobody so far has told them it's a bad idea.

 

Given that installing LFP batteries which can vent where people can breathe in the gases (or they can build up and explode) is specifically ruled out in ISO23625 -- which currently has no legal force in the UK, but will undoubtedly be used to form the basis of regulations like BSS/RCR and presumably conditions imposed by insurers, just like has happened in the USA (ABYC there and insurers are at least a couple of years ahead of BSS and insurers in the UK) -- it is definitely *not* a good idea to install LFP openly in the living space of boats, even if people are still doing it.

 

Which is why the Guidance Note says exactly that, it's *advice* not rules/regulations. Doesn't mean you can't still do it, there are currently no legal rules against it -- but this is unlikely to stay that way in the longer-term, and at some point this is going to be painful/expensive for the owner -- very likely at BSS inspection time (a few years), quite possibly at insurance renewal time (could be a few months).

 

But anyone who want to ignore all this and just worry about today is completely free to do so, nobody is forcing them to do anything.

 

Well, not yet... 😉 

13 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The main issue I would take with the document is the decision to regard Li batteries installed in living space as unacceptable. This is solely based on the one incident and thus statistically insignificant.

 

Actual risk from Li batteries is much more about charging small devices with LiPo etc batteries, especially those bought from ebay, Amazon etc. Yes there is less volume of gas to be produced, but still an intense fire that is well able to ignite a boat.
 

And yes as has been mentioned, stoves setting fire to boats is much more probable cause of a total loss insurance claim and has the potential to set adjacent boats on fire, and yet double skinned flues are not mandatory.

 

In summary, the rejection of domestic LiFePO4 batteries in living space is ill thought through and erroneous. And no  this is not a personal attack nor “Ad Hominem”. It is simply my opinion of the work done.

 

If you come back all defensive or “attack is the best form of defence” instead of listening, then you will be due a personal Ad Hominem attack for being unable to receive polite and constructive criticism.

No. it's based on ISO23625, and other documents/training material which all say the same thing. The gassing risk has always been there (and in the standards), but before the ABC fire it was almost completely ignored.

 

Your second point is opinion not fact -- and I partly agree with it. Unfortunately unless you're going to somehow persuade ISO that they're wrong, and the insurers and BSS who base what they do on ISO (like ABYC told us they did, and insurers in the US say they do) are also wrong, and BM who write the RCR rules are wrong, it's pretty much certain that this rule (LFP batteries must vent outside the boat and not inside where people can breathe in the gases) will be adopted in the UK by both regulators and insurers.

 

I don't like this either, but I'm afraid there's nothing you or the JWG or anyone else can do about it... 😞 

Edited August 21 by IanD

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

If you'd actually read what I've posted on this and the other thread, I've said exactly that numerous times, including a couple of posts ago

 So can you state what recommendations, from the posts you have taken on board and will be in the guidelines, as have read your last couple of long posts and you haven’t actually said anything like “that’s a perfectly valid and relevant point which we’ll put into the guidelines, thanks for that”

 

Edited August 21 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[nicknorman]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

. it's based on ISO23625, and other documents/training material which all say the same thing. The gassing risk has always been there (and in the standards), but before the ABC fire it was almost completely ignored.

 

 

 

Which version of the ISO23625 are you referring to? The first edition published 2025-03, or is there a later version? The version I mention does not require battery ventilation, in fact it specifically mentions that it is not necessary.

Edited August 21 by nicknorman

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

Which version of the ISO23625 are you referring to? The first edition published 2025-03, or is there a later version? The version I mention does not require battery ventilation, in fact it specifically mentions that it is not necessary.

 

 

Given that venting *has* to be allowed for, that the emitted gases from cell venting are both toxic, flammable and corrosive, and 7.4 says that these *must* not endanger persons onboard, and that breathing these gases is dangerous, the only logical conclusion -- though not stated explicitly -- is that the gases must be vented overboard, and not enter the living space where people are.

 

Unless you can come up with another solution that meets these requirements?

Edited August 21 by IanD

[EventualBoater]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

They vent a mixture of gases including flammable/explosive (e.g. hydrogen), poisonous/toxic/corrosive (e.g. CO, HF), and a mix of various other not-especially pleasant things. Google is your friend -- the first search result gave this:

 

AI Overview

 

When LFP (lithium iron phosphate) cells are overcharged or damaged, they vent a mixture of flammable and toxic gases caused by electrolyte solvent breakdown and high-voltage chemical reactions. Hydrogen typically makes up the largest volume (often 40% to 55%), alongside carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and vaporized organic carbonates. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Primary Emitted Gases

• Hydrogen (\(\text{H}_{2}\)): Lighter-than-air gas; frequently comprises nearly half of the total vented volume. [1, 2]

• Carbon Dioxide (\(\text{CO}_{2}\)): Formed during the oxidative decomposition of carbonate solvents. [1]

• Carbon Monoxide (\(\text{CO}\)): A toxic, flammable gas resulting from incomplete breakdown. [1, 2, 3]

• Light Hydrocarbons (Alkanes/Alkenes): Gases like methane (\(\text{CH}_{4}\)), ethane (\(\text{C}_2\text{H}_6\)), ethylene (\(\text{C}_2\text{H}_4\)), and propane (\(\text{C}_3\text{H}_8\)). [1, 2]

• Vaporized Electrolytes: Heavier-than-air organic carbonate solvents (such as EMC, DMC, EC) that create a dense, visible white vapor cloud. [1, 2]

• Hydrogen Fluoride (\(\text{HF}\)): Highly toxic and corrosive trace gas released when the fluorine-containing electrolyte salts react with moisture or heat. [1, 2]

An answer to my question. Thank you @IanD.

Ill be honest some of those gases should be a concern if they are being vented i to living spaces? ( @BoatingLifeUpNorth2 see how this question was answered and I then asked a following question. Trying to understand what's going on better. @IanD seeing that me knowing more helps a conversation) 

41 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

 

So why are recognised electric boat builders putting batteries in what could be classed as living space. The same also goes for professional Lithium installers doing post build installs.

 

 

This doesn't help answer a question.  It's pure dismissal. 

 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

1 minute ago, EventualBoater said:

An answer to my question. Thank you @IanD.

Ill be honest some of those gases should be a concern if they are being vented i to living spaces? ( @BoatingLifeUpNorth2 see how this question was answered and I then asked a following question. Trying to understand what's going on better. @IanD seeing that me knowing more helps a conversation) 

This doesn't help answer a question.  It's pure dismissal. 

 

Well I’m asking you a question, can you answer it?

[nicknorman]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

This is confusing because on the ISO website it seems that the 2025 edition is the current one. And I also found a pdf of the 2025-03 version which is different from the one you have just posted an extract from. I know that the ISO from 2021 has been superseded but I don't understand why you are seeing a different version to me if they are both 2025. Has the version you posted from actually been officially published?

 

Edit: my version ends at 7.1 so perhaps it is not a complete version. But it does have:

4.1 Lithium-ion batteries and their systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of
ISO 13297.
NOTE Lithium-ion batteries are not subject to routine electrolyte leakage or routine release of gas, therefore
requirements regarding electrolyte containment and routine gas ventilation cannot apply to lithium-ion battery
installations.

Edited August 21 by nicknorman

[IanD]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

 

This is confusing because on the ISO website it seems that the 2025 edition is the current one. And I also found a pdf of the 2025-03 version which is different from the one you have just posted an extract from. I know that the ISO from 2021 has been superseded but I don't understand why you are seeing a different version to me if they are both 2025. Has the version you posted from actually been officially published?

Yes, it was officially purchased by the IWA, cost something over £300 IIRC.