A nuanced and comprehensive appraisal of the potential risks of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) can help developers and local authorities make more informed planning decisions. Annie Danskin, Associate Director at ITPEnergised, part of SLR, writes.

As the renewable energy sector continues to grow rapidly, the implementation of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) has become increasingly important. These systems play a crucial role in addressing the sector’s ongoing challenge of storing and distributing clean energy. However, they also present unique safety challenges that the industry must address proactively. There is an obvious need to develop an innovative approach to BESS fire risk assessment that goes beyond current regulatory requirements, aiming to inform emergency response plans, enhance safety, build community trust and support the sustainable growth of renewable energy projects.

Public perception and safety concerns
The current planning processes for renewable energy sites such as solar, wind, BESS or hydrogen facilities often focus heavily on risk prevention strategies. While prevention is undoubtedly critical, there is a notable gap in addressing what the potential impacts would be for local communities and the environment if a fire does occur. Fires at BESS sites are now rare due to advancements in guidance, technology and numerous fundamental design and engineering improvements made in recent years. However, public perception of safety often lags behind these advancements. Local communities have expressed concerns about BESS installations and lodged objections to planning applications, citing past incidents of fires involving older battery technologies. Objections can lead to project delays or even cancellations, hindering the broader adoption of renewable energy solutions.

There is therefore a real need to ensure the planning application system provides planning officers, developers, emergency responders and local communities access to a robust risk assessment to contextualise the risks if a fire does occur.

Challenges for fire and rescue teams
An additional concern that has been raised by some fire and rescue teams consulted on planning applications for BESS developments is the number of available entry points to a site in the event of a fire. Thick, smoky plumes can significantly impede visibility, making it challenging for teams to access the site quickly and safely. Due to this, there is a need for clear and concise advice regarding the potential buffer zones where visibility could be impeded around areas where a fire could take place, as this may result in the requirement for additional access points. The plume visibility assessment can inform the Emergency Response Plan of the probability that local road closures would be temporarily required for safety reasons due to poor visibility. The assessment can also indicate areas that may need to be evacuated to protect the public from smoke and other emissions. Potential impact areas are highly dependable on the varying weather and terrain conditions of each site, and each assessment needs to be bespoke depending on its location and surrounding topography.

As well as this, the prediction of the likely mix and concentrations of contaminants in the plume can assist the fire and rescue services to ensure their personnel are provided with the appropriate personal protective equipment, to protect them against exposure to hazardous gases that may be present.

The development of a comprehensive risk assessment methodology that includes dispersion modelling of BESS fires goes beyond standard safety protocols to provide a more thorough understanding of potential risks and their impacts.
Financial Implications for Developers

This nuanced and comprehensive understanding of potential risks enables developers to understand wider constraints that could influence the layout of the site and cause financial, and programme impacts. Knowing how a potential fire is likely to disperse in prevailing meteorological conditions could influence the number of access points required, leading to potential development changes. For example, if a certain area of developable land is planned to accommodate 200 containers with a capacity of 400 megawatts, the need for additional access points might reduce the usable land area, impacting the overall feasibility of the development plan.

The key here is for developers to consider these potential constraints early in the planning process, saving money and time and avoiding additional costs and delays in construction at a later date. By conducting a thorough and robust risk assessment, developers can limit design iterations and demonstrate that due consideration has been given to fire risk to aid in the development of a site-specific emergency response plan.
Improved Decision-Making

Overall, developers and local authorities can make more informed decisions about BESS siting, design and operational procedures, based on a clearer understanding of potential risks. Transparent communication of thorough risk assessments can help address community concerns and build trust in renewable energy projects. Detailed risk assessments provide valuable support for developers during public consultations and planning applications, potentially streamlining the approval process. Additionally, local fire departments and other emergency responders gain access to site-specific information that can improve their response strategies and protect public safety.

Looking towards the future, the renewable energy sector will continue to evolve and grow, and with this, the approach to safety and risk management must also advance. Although enhanced BESS fire risk assessment is not currently a regulatory requirement, it is considered to represent best practice that the industry should embrace and meets the recommendations of the National Fire Chiefs Council. With a robust approach grounded in test data and the use of industry-standard atmospheric dispersion modelling that incorporates local topography and weather conditions, an assessment is typically deliverable within 6-8 weeks.

By taking a proactive stance on safety, we can protect communities and first responders while building the public trust necessary for the continued growth of renewable energy. The renewable energy revolution is well underway and with the right approach to risk assessment and management, we can ensure it proceeds safely and with the full support of communities. As we work towards a cleaner, more sustainable future, we must ensure that safety remains at the forefront of our innovations. By doing so, we can accelerate the adoption of renewable energy technologies while maintaining the highest standards of public safety and the environmental protection we need.

Waste operators who repeatedly ignored Environment Agency advice that their sites posed a persistent fire risk – before fires broke out that burned for days – have been sentenced, according to a 21 May press release.

Sentencing included prison sentences spanning 6.5 years and fines totalling more than £103,000.

Six defendants appeared in court for sentencing at Teesside Crown Court on Monday 20 May for multiple environmental offences spanning across three sites:

• Greenology (Liverton) Ltd at Liverton, near Loftus: involving its director Laura Hepburn, 44, of Stonebridgegate, Ripon, and manager Jonathan Guy Brudenell, 54, of no fixed address. Waste storage issues at this site culminated in a fire which happened in April 2020. Selective Environmental Solutions Ltd (SESL) and its director Jonathan Waldron, 42, of Winton in Northallerton, operated on this site with Brudenell prior to Greenology taking over, and also illegally deposited waste at a farm near Whitby.
• Old Eldon Brickworks in Eldon, Bishop Auckland: involving Waldron – as a director of Falcons Two Ltd – who failed to comply with an enforcement notice and kept waste in a manner likely to cause pollution. This led to a major fire at the site in August 2020.
• Greenology (Teesside) Ltd at Sotheby Road, Skippers Lane Industrial Estate in Middlesbrough: Hepburn, as director of this separate company, was sentenced for offences in 2021 and 2022 relating to the illegal storage of waste tyres.

The court heard the defendants repeatedly ignored Environment Agency advice about the storage and management of waste and the significant fire risk posed by all three sites.

Also, in an apparent attempt to preserve the reputation of the Greenology name, when notified in 2021 of the prosecution for the Liverton site, Laura Hepburn changed the company name to LM South Yorkshire Ltd.

Gary Wallace, Area Environment manager for the Environment Agency in the North East, said:

“All of those sentenced have shown a complete disregard for environmental laws, which are there to protect people and the environment.

“They could have been in no doubt that the sites were operating illegally and posed a significant fire risk, but repeatedly ignored our officers’ warnings about bringing the sites back into compliance and making them safe.

“The walls of waste resulted in two major fires, impacting on the environment and causing misery for local residents.

“Waste criminals cause distress to our communities and can destroy the environment and this case demonstrates that we’ll do everything in our power to ensure they are brought to justice for their crimes.”

The defendants were sentenced as follows:

• Brudenell was jailed for two years and 10 months.
• Hepburn was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two years, with 150 hours of unpaid work in the community.
• Waldron was sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for two years with requirements of probation supervision, rehabilitation and 150 hours of unpaid work in the community. He was also ordered to pay £9,000 in costs.
• Greenology (Liverton) was fined £69,000.
• Greenology (Teesside) was fined £20,000.
• SESL was fined £14,666.66.

The court was told that SESL first operated at the Liverton site between December 2018 and February 2019 with Waldron as director, Brudenell in a managerial role and Hepburn also involved. SESL registered several waste exemptions – which allow low level waste activity which does not require an environmental permit.

In January 2019, the Environment Agency started investigating SESL as it was immediately in breach of its waste exemption storage limit of 500 tonnes.

But after a fall out between the defendants, Hepburn set up Greenology (Liverton) Ltd, which took over the site in February 2019. Throughout this period Brudenell continued in a management role, all the time using the false name Guy Barker, a fact known by Hepburn.

Waste on site continued to increase, with the Environment Agency warning about the amount of waste and the fire risk it posed, and taking subsequent enforcement action to have waste cleared from the site. Whilst the site was largely cleared, by late 2019 it had quickly been refilled with waste plastic.

On 5 April 2020, a major fire broke out which quickly spread through the baled plastic waste and the building and destroyed the site. The fire burned for nine days, hugely impacting local residents who couldn’t be evacuated because of the Covid-19 national lockdown.

By helping to run both SESL and Greenology (Liverton), Brudenell was breaching a bankruptcy restriction order which prohibited him from running a company and had been imposed as a result of multiple fraud offences.

Hepburn was also director of Greenology (Teesside) Ltd which she set up in February 2020, and dealt mainly with waste tyres. An Environment Agency inspection in June 2021 revealed the number of tyres exceeded the limit of the site’s waste exemption and posed a significant fire risk.

She repeatedly claimed that the business was going to build a pyrolysis plant – for recycling end of life tyres – and had obtained a permit from Middlesbrough Borough Council for this. But despite obtaining large sums from business partners no pyrolysis plant was ever built, and the site continually handled excessive volumes of waste tyres which threatened to damage the environment.

In a separate case, in February 2020 Falcons Two Ltd took over the operation of the Old Brickworks at Eldon, Bishop Auckland, with Waldron as one of its directors and the person with waste management knowledge.

But the site was never in compliance with its environmental permit and was continually storing excessive volumes of waste causing a major fire risk.

Following inspections of the site the Environment Agency told Waldron to take remedial action to bring the site back into compliance given the risk of a significant environmental incident due to multiple failures of the site’s fire prevention plan.

It also issued an enforcement notice requiring the site to remove waste and create fire breaks, which was breached on 17 August, just before the major fire broke out in August 2020. This fire also burned for many days and was challenging for the fire service due to the sheer volume of waste involved.

Noise camera technology is ready to be deployed for monitoring urban traffic, according to a number of firms developing it. Envirotec looks at how different groups propose to do it.

While modern cars may be all too easily modified to produce ear-splitting bangs, pops and other eruptions, a growing hazard for the modern city dweller (at least if they value being able to sleep or concentrate on a task), the technology to pinpoint such vehicles, for law enforcement purposes, is not-so-trivial.

The public appetite for enforcement is said to be strong,¹ and very noisy vehicles are clearly a commonplace of modern life, despite being illegal (see “Noise limits”, at the bottom of this article).

The technological solution so far explored by municipal authorities worldwide seems to be the use of noise cameras, tending to comprise some combination of a microphone (or microphone array), video camera, speed radar and Automatic Number Plate Reader. These are all fairly well-established sub-systems, and developers are also building on the lessons learned from the deployment of roadside speed and red-light cameras over the past two decades.

But most reports from developers of roadside noise cameras seem to append a long list of limitations and “areas in need of further development”.

The UK’s Department for Transport (DfT) has been exploring it since 2019 via its “Roadside Vehicle Noise Measurement project”. Real-world trials were conducted in a few UK urban locations in 2022 and 2023. It commissioned a joint venture formed by engineering firms Atkins & Jacob to conduct the project, which published its latest report in March.³

Where has it been tried?
Much of the initiative seems to have been taken at local level, especially by localities dealing with a heavy burden of noise complaints. London”s borough of Kensington and Chelsea was the first in the UK to trial noise cameras, in 2020. Over a three-month period it handed out 163 £100 fines and 69 warnings, to noisy drivers. This amounts to £16,300 gross revenue, to be weighed against the £74,340 paid for the camera when estimating ROI.⁴ Since then, another two cameras have been installed in the borough, in 2021, and public support is said to be strong.⁵

Results reported so far have tended to show the system struggling to distinguish between noisy vehicles operating illegally and those operating within the law, such as emergency services and lorries, and this accounts for the relatively small number of penalties issued (163 fines) out of 1,948 reported activations of the camera.

Fines aren’t being issued automatically, instead relying on a human operator to make the final call. The relevant UK legal instruments seem to require this. The situation is different in the US.

Reuben Peckham, director of Intelligent Instruments, a firm that provided the noise equipment used in the Kensington trial, said in a December 2022 interview: “In the UK it’s all about a human being reviewing the video, listening to the audio and determining whether that individual has driven aggressively – [or is] driving inappropriately, over-revving – and taking a judgement on it.”⁷

New York City piloted noise cameras at four locations between June 2021 and June 2022, which were triggered on 2,071 occasions, but technology limitations and other problems seem to have produced a modest appraisal of its usefulness. Video footage was too blurry to read license plates in 38% of cases, and false positives were generated by street parties. One camera had to be moved for fear of potential vandalism, after its location was posted online.⁸

What’s the trigger level?
The chosen threshold noise level seems to vary too, with Kensington having plumped for 75 db(A) (about the volume of a vacuum cleaner, in some estimations),⁹ while New York’s cameras triggered at 85 dB.

In the DfT trials conducted by the Atkins Jacobs Joint Venture (AJJV), a somewhat higher level was recommended, as a way of avoiding false positives from irrelevant vehicle types, and diminishing the need for a human operator. It recommended 95 dB LAmax at 7.5 metres as an objective and subjective evidence base. This would allow penalties to be issued for “excessively noisy vehicles on roads with speed limits of 50mph or less.” But that would fail to penalize vehicles considered “noisy but not excessively noisy” for which the authors recommended considering a lower noise level. The report seemed to anticipate that AI will make it easier to screen out false positives in the future, minimising the need for human input.¹⁰

Winnowing out human input
One system using AI is a European Horizon-funded project, “Noise and Emissions Monitoring and Radical Mitigation (NEMO)”, which is claimed to offer real-time monitoring of both noise and GHG emissions from exhausts, correlating the data from remote sensors with a classification system of different vehicle types using a neural network.¹¹

NEMO uses two microphones for noise measurement. The AJJV project ruled it out as a candidate for real-world UK trials, in its own evaluation in 2022, deeming it “not yet a ‘product’” and that its installation “could be difficult in urban areas”. The latter report also suggested more development was needed to avoid triggering due to false positives from emergency vehicles and so on.

Weight of equipment is also an issue in the UK, since a camera needs to be light enough to be able to be mounted at height, on lighting columns and CCTV masts.

Cameras compared
The latest AJJV project report provides a (pre-2022) evaluation of several noise cameras on the market. The system from Intelligent Instruments (a firm also known as “24 Acoustics”), the one used in the Kensington pilot study, was said to be “the most developed product”.

AJJV opted to test a few products, includng in UK roadside trials, a list that was whittled down to four camera systems, namely products from Intelligent Instruments, Bruitparif, ACOEM and MicrodB – the latter three being French systems also undergoing roadside trials in France.

Bruitparif’s ‘Hydra’ noise camera uses its own proprietary acoustic system, ‘Medusa’, which employs four Class 2 microphones. Hydra also uses a wide-angle (180º) camera, and cameras for automatic number plate recognition (two in total – for recognition from both front and rear). The whole system is packaged within a metal enclosure, which also contains processing and data transmission. AJJV notes that it uses AI and “screens out some false positives”.

It has also been tested in a two-year trial running from January 2022, in localities in Paris, Nice, Toulouse and elsewhere.

ACOEM’s Noise Radar product uses CUBE, a 4G smart noise monitoring terminal that conforms to IEC 61672 Class 1. It incorporates a four-microphone array, wide-angle camera, meteorological sensors and offers scope to incorporate third-party video and ANPR products.

MicrodB’s ‘dBFlash’ noise camera is described as using a unique noise measurement system based on a directional microphone antenna coupled with video monitoring. It uses “high-resolution acoustic processing” to isolate vehicle noise from other types of noise.

The roadside trials were conducted between October 2022 and February 2023, at four locations: Keighley, Bristol, Great Yarmouth, and Rubery, Birmingham.

False positives
Reflecting on the results of these trials, the report noted that there were no false positives triggered by HGVs, but they occurred in other situations. For example, when an emergency vehicle was travelling on the opposite side of a dual carriageway to a standard vehicle, and its noise emissions were wrongly attributed to the latter. Or when noise emissions from nearby construction works were erroneously assigned to a passing vehicle.

In a 2022 interview,¹² Reuben Peckham of Intelligent Instruments, spoke to the question of multiple vehicles passing the camera at once. Is the technology able to decide who gets a ticket? He emphasised the Class 1 accuracy of his firm’s microphones, but otherwise – addressing the UK situation – he suggested humans inspecting video footage will clarify the matter, adding that, “very often you’ll see a car which may be a performance car, and the other two are perhaps more modest cars.” He said: “We can also slow down the video and look at it frame by frame to determine which is the offender.” A new technology his firm was developing at the time, “uses a microphone array to determine the dominant source, and that will be overlayed on our video with a marker to point out the dominant car.”

The AJJV trials also reviewed the quality of the “evidence package” – the bundle of data that will be collected when the camera is activated by an offending vehicle, comprising audio and video clips, noise level data, still images of the top and rear of the vehicle, and number plate information (from an ANPR camera).

“Sometimes images were blurry,” concluded the report, “but the overall quality of the evidence package allowed for vehicle types and the excessively noisy vehicle to be identifiable.” Similarly, the audio files were deemed high enough quality to determine “which vehicle activated the noise camera”, and “what vehicle noise characteristics are present”.

An important next step will be conducting live enforcement trials, to give enforcement officers practice in using the noise cameras, and to integrate the evidence package with back-office systems.

The cost-benefit picture has yet to become clear also, and the AJJV report noted a break-even point only occuring where at least two vehicles per day cause a camera activation that results in a fine – a requirement not satisfied at three of the UK trial sites.

Outlier approaches
Technologies deemed interesting but which did not make it into the AJJV’s roadside trials, although mentioned in the report, included a system developed by Japan’s National Traffic Safety and Environment Laboratory, which uses 31 microphones and AI to distinguish vehicles that have been fitted with illegal exhaust products.

Another system, from California- and UK-based start-up firm General Noise, doesn’t use microphones at all, instead employing RADAR/LIDAR. It “could be considered a disruptive technology” said the report, although it didn’t appear to be at the right stage of development for selection in the 2022 trials.

A 2021 blog post from General Noise opts to label extant approaches “first-generation noise cameras”, adding that “they struggle to identify an offender in dense, noisy traffic”, which limits them “to quieter roads where they struggle to generate enough revenue to cover their costs.” The post attributes the limitations to a lack of directional accuracy of microphones. However, improvements with microphone systems appear to be ongoing, and the post may not reflect the latest results.

General Noise is offering a proprietary approach, SoundShot, that it says, “overcomes the limitations of microphone-based noise cameras, specifically sound contamination from nearby vehicles.” And compared to the 10-second gap between vehicles that some noise cameras require, SoundShot says it “can acquire and measure a target in milliseconds”.
The only easy win for the technology so far seems to have been with securing public approval.

[ SIDE PANEL – Noise limits ]

The level of noise cars are permitted to make has come down continually over the years, at least in the UK. In 1978, it was 82 decibels (dB (A)), and the current limit of 72 dB (A), was enforced in 2016 with the adoption of EU Regulation No 540/2014. This legislation mandates an ongoing tightening of the noise limit, which will go down to 68 dB by 2026.²

While automotive makers stay within these constraints – and the cars driving out of modern showrooms are generally designed to keep noise to a minimum – an apparently growing vogue for altering cars with aftermarket equipment seems to have driven a coach and horses (or, well, a souped-up BMW) through such niceties.

Police and local authorities have powers to take action against modified vehicles, but collecting enough evidence for enforcement seems to be a challenge. November saw one conviction brought by the DVSA (Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency) against a West Yorkshire firm that was advertising and fitting illegal exhaust modifications.⁶

This was for work performed on a car to remove its catalytic converter and modify some of its software to increase exhaust noise levels – a so-called “Pop and Bang Remap Software Upgrade”, alterations that render the vehicle illegal for road use, for which the firm received a conviction and a £7,234 fine.

Notes
[1] ” Acoustic cameras reinstalled to monitor noisy drivers”, https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/newsroom/acoustic-cameras-reinstalled-monitor-noisy-drivers. [2] Vehicle Certification Agency website. https://www.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/fuel-consumption-co2/fuel-consumption-guide/cars-and-noise/. [3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/noise-camera-technology-roadside-trial [4] https://www.generalnoise.co.uk/post/vehicle-noise-cameras-quietly-on-their-way-to-a-1bn-market. [5] https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/newsroom/acoustic-cameras-reinstalled-monitor-noisy-drivers. [6] https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/consumer-news/361602/uk-firm-fitting-pop-bang-aftermarket-exhausts-fined-landmark-court-case. [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHV8V1ATr7s [8] See item 4. [9] https://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/decibel-level-chart.pdf. [10] See item 3. [11] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10250205 [12] See item 7.

Traffic noise is disrupting the daily lives of Britons with 81% able to hear road noises around their property and one in seven (17%) UK adults completely unable to escape the sound, according to a poll commissioned by GRIDSERVE, a firm with a focus on sustainable energy technology.¹

The research also found that one in five (20%) of those affected by the noise say it has a negative impact on their life.

More than a third (34%) of those people reported that they’re losing sleep because of the loud noises at night and over a fifth (22%) said it impacts their mental health. And 16% of those negatively affected have reported that road noises can even make their house shake.

As a result of this, two in 10 (23%) appear to be turning to remedial measures to deal with road noises by double- or triple-glazing windows, and 7% are constantly drowning it out by playing music. A further 17% of people have to keep all of their windows and doors closed to reduce the level of noise and almost one in 10 (8%) are having to resort to drastic measures such as using earplugs or defenders, said the survey.

A Freedom of Information request, issued by GRIDSERVE, revealed that some have complained to their local council. Of the councils that were able to supply data, the London Boroughs of Sutton and Kingston Upon Thames were among the worst affected – having each received over 115 road noise complaints in 2023 alone.²

One possible reason for optimism might be the growth of electric vehicles, and GRIDSERVE said a quarter (27%) of respondents cited electric cars as a remedy. Battery electric vehicles are estimated to be around 10 dB quieter than petrol or diesel equivalents, so at low speeds each ICE vehicle is roughly as loud as 10 electric vehicles, making a significant impact in urban residential areas.³

Rob Buckland, Chief Leasing Officer said: “Noise pollution in residential areas is impacting millions. The incessant hum of idling engines and loud traffic not only disrupts the tranquillity of our surroundings but also poses a serious threat to public health and well-being.

“At GRIDSERVE, we are committed to driving positive change in the transportation sector. Our focus on sustainable and innovative solutions, such as electric vehicle charging infrastructure and the development of eco-friendly transport alternatives, aims to mitigate the adverse effects of noise pollution.

“By embracing cleaner and quieter modes of transportation, we can contribute to creating more peaceful and liveable urban environments.”

Notes
[1] GRIDSERVE commissioned One Poll to interview 2,000 UK adults between 25 October and 1 November 2023.
[2] GRIDSERVE submitted Freedom of Information requests to 422 councils. 140 of the 422 councils supplied data on road noise in their borough, and an additional 98 councils did not hold the data.
[3] European Environment Agency, Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives, TERM 2018: Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) report

Photoionisation detection (PID) sensors are able to detect potential problems before they occur in the manufacture and use of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, and the enormous variety of devices that use rechargeable batteries.

The safe utilisation of Li-ion batteries is a key concern for the developers of equipment such as electric vehicles, e-bikes, mobile phones and laptops. The risks posed by Li-ion batteries have been highlighted by a number of high-profile incidents. In 2006 and 2007, for example, millions of laptops and mobile phones were recalled due to safety fears relating to their Li-ion batteries, and in 2013, a Boeing 787 was grounded following electrical issues with the Li-ion battery in the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit.

Famously, in 2016, around 2.5 million mobile phones had to be recalled after complaints of overheating and exploding batteries. Extensive investigations revealed insufficient insulation material within the batteries and a design that did not provide sufficient space to safely accommodate the batteries’ electrodes, resulting in thermal runaway, which occurs when temperatures are raised by thermal or mechanical failure, short circuiting, or electrical abuse. In more recent news, there has been a 60% increase in e-bike fires in London in 2023 compared to 2022, and this number will continue to rise. As a result of the magnitude of this problem, and the global publicity which ensues, demand is growing for sensing technology that can detect faulty Li-ion batteries, during both production and operation.

The main safety hazards associated with failing Li-ion batteries are the ignition of the battery cell and/or the emissions of toxic gases. These gases include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), meaning sensitive VOC sensors can be used to check the condition of these batteries – either within portable detectors or in process/plant monitoring equipment.

The anode in rechargeable Li-ion batteries is typically graphite, the cathode is a metal ox-ide, and the electrolyte is usually a lithium salt in a (flammable) organic solvent. This elec-trolyte includes compounds such as ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) which is known to be among the gases emitted by a faulty Li-ion battery. Conveniently, EMC can be detected by ION Science’s PID, so the developers of monitoring systems and equipment are able to design technologies that utilise ION’s MiniPID sensors.

The Response Factors for VOCs commonly used in Li-ion battery electrolytes are pre-sented in Table 1: Evaluation of chemicals used in lithium-ion batteries.

Due to their specificity, PID sensors are the most commonly employed technology for the detection of VOCs, and ION’s MiniPID range includes the most sensitive PID sensor in the world, which makes it ideal for the detection of trace leaks from faulty Li-ion batteries.

Summarising, Peter Morris from ION Science says: “Prospective customers for our PID sensors in Li-ion battery applications include the developers of portable instruments, as well as the designers of monitoring systems for processes within battery manufacturing, as well as in the manufacture of EVs, e-bikes, laptops, tablets, phones and many others.”
(words: ION Science)

References:
Nedjalkov, A.et Al. Toxic Gas Emissions from Damaged Lithium Ion Batteries—Analysis and Safety Enhancement Solution. Batteries 2016, 2, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries2010005

https://news.samsung.com/global/infographic-galaxy-note7-what-we-discovered

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-battery-issues/

A study commissioned by the Water Jetting Association into the management of high pressure fluid injection injuries has become one of the important research papers on the topic in the world, says the group.

It has been accessed online more than 10,000 times since it was published in 2019, and has been cited in five specialist medical papers over the same period.

Now, a water jetting injury treatment guide developed from the research, has been extensively redesigned to make it easier to use.

Water jetting is essential for a huge range of tasks, including pressure washing, cleaning tubes and chambers in oil and gas, petrochemicals and energy plants, de-fouling marine structures, hydrodemolition of concrete, sewer and tank cleaning, and precision materials cutting.

The WJA water jetting injury treatment algorithm gives step-by-step best practical guidance on the treatment of water jetting injuries from first response through to definitive hospital care.

It has been praised as a game-changer in aiding effective responses to water jetting injuries which, if not treated correctly, can result in life changing, and sometimes fatal, consequences.

The WJA-funded research was led by Dr Sancho Rodriguez-Villar, an intensive care consultant at Kings College Hospital, London, and Dr Robert Charles Kennedy (PhD), the WJA’s clinical research and development advisor.
The new A4 digital and print injury treatment algorithm is easier to view, with colour-coded sections for different steps in a patient’s journey through a treatment pathway. Robert Kennedy said: “Correct treatment of water jet injuries is essential. The study makes clear it’s essential to observe the WJA’s algorithm.”
www.waterjetting.org.uk

Noise can have a significant impact on health, beyond just being annoying or disturbing sleep, according to results reported in June from a study by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). It looked at traffic noise, in a bid to better understand how it affects health.

This study is seemingly the first detailed assessment of its kind, assessing the health impact of transport noise in every local authority in England. It builds on long-established evidence that living in an area with higher noise levels from traffic can lead to stress and sleep disturbance, and more recent research shows that this can lead to an increase in an individuals’ risk of developing more serious health problems such as heart disease or diabetes. In 2018, the World Health Organization also published noise guidelines to highlight these issues.

Measuring the disease burden
To measure the impact of noise on health, the researchers used a standard internationally recognised metric called Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). One DALY represents the loss of one year of good health.
The team’s findings show that in 2018, around 100,000 DALYs were lost in England due to road traffic noise. A further 13,000 were lost from railway noise and 17,000 from aircraft noise. Most of these losses were due to chronic annoyance and sleep disturbance, followed by stroke, ischemic heart disease and diabetes.

In studies like this, “noise annoyance” has a specific meaning: it refers to people who are very bothered or disturbed by noise over a long period of time. This can have a direct impact on their wellbeing and quality of life. It can also increase the risk of developing serious health problems like depression, anxiety, and heart disease.

The impact of noise on health varied across regions and local authority districts: these disparities can be attributed to variations in noise levels, population density and local disease burden, said the authors.
For example, London, the Southeast and Northwest regions had the highest number of DALYs lost from road-traffic noise. London also had the most DALYs attributable to aircraft noise. It’s important to note that these estimates may be conservative because the study only included roads with high traffic volumes and excluded people exposed to lower levels of traffic noise.

The study found that 40% of all adults in England were exposed to long-term averaged road-traffic noise levels exceeding 50 decibels (dB), but the percentages varied across different areas. Health effects are more likely to be detected if people are exposed to noise levels exceeding 50 dB Lden, which is around the level of noise seen on a quiet street. Around 5% of the population in England experienced aircraft noise above 50 dB, with higher concentrations in and around London. Approximately 5% were exposed to railway noise exceeding 50 dB, with less variations across local authorities than for road and aircraft noise.

As this is the first assessment of its kind in England, the study can be considered as a baseline on which future studies will be built. Comparing trends over the years both within England and between countries is difficult due to different approaches to noise measurement methods.

The results point to the need to consider noise in the decision-making process for new transport infrastructure and urban planning.

[side panel – Noise camera ]

Trials of a road camera designed to identify and track drivers who break the law by revving engines and using modified exhausts began in a small number of locations in October 2022, as part of a trial to clampdown on antisocial driving.

Bradford, South Gloucestershire, Great Yarmouth and Birmingham were chosen to host the new ‘noise camera’ following a government-backed competition to tackle noise pollution.

The technology uses a video camera in conjunction with a number of microphones to accurately pinpoint excessively noisy vehicles as they pass by. This means that if drivers break the law by revving their engines unnecessarily or using illegal exhausts, they will be automatically detected. The camera takes a picture of the vehicle and records the noise level to create a digital package of evidence which can be used by local police to fine drivers.

Atkins-Jacobs Joint Venture is acting as a technical consultant for the trials, providing acoustics expertise, design, modelling and asset management. The noise camera is designed and developed by MicrodB.
Atkins Jacobs Joint Venture Practice Director Andrew Pearce said: “We are fully expecting the trial in these four chosen locations to confirm what we have seen in testing, which is a highly targeted use of technology to ensure only those motorists making excessive noise will be subject to enforcement.”

National Gas has approved AUMA Actuators Limited’s explosion-proof range of high-performance electric actuators with the Gas Industry Standard VA2/2020 certification.

Gas Industry Standard (GIS)/VA2/2020 specifies the requirements for electric-powered actuators, for use with two-position (open/closed) quarter-turn valves manufactured to the requirements of GIS/V6. AUMA’s range of SAEX and SAREX actuators, with the combination of ACEX Controls, are GIS/VA2/2020-compliant.

Paul Hopkins is AUMA’s managing director. He says: “Explosion-proof devices must be used in plants where potentially combustible atmospheres may occur. AUMA’s comprehensive range of VA2 approved devices is designed so that they will not act as an ignition source. Each is designed and manufactured to exacting specifications to prevent the occurrence of ignition sparks or hot surfaces.

“AUMA’s actuators meet and exceed the critical performance requirements of the gas industry, receiving international certification in explosion protection, high Safety Integrity Level (SIL) capability, and perfect reliability in particularly harsh and arduous climatic conditions.”

Actuators manufactured to VA2/2020 are suitable for use in areas in which an explosive gas atmosphere is likely to occur in normal operation; with atmospheres containing propane, or gases and vapours of equivalent hazard, compliant with the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) and Atmospheres Explosible (ATEX) regulations.

AUMA’s new TIGRON actuators are also designed to meet the exacting requirements of the global gas industry, combining the highest level of explosion protection, robust design, outstanding ease of operation, and the latest trends in digitalisation. The versatile all-rounder provides safe and reliable valve automation across all application sectors, including oil and gas production, pipelines, tank farms and refineries.

TIGRON actuators are ATEX and IECEx certified for the highest gas group IIC, which includes highly flammable hydrogen. Actuators are designed to withstand the harshest environmental conditions, covering a particularly wide temperature range from –65 °C to +75 °C.

AUMA’s ATEX approved PROFOX for butterfly, ball/plug and globe valves is a compact actuator that features a range of intelligent functions for tailored automation solutions. Each ATEX approved PROFOX is equipped with a centrally located LED: The FOX-EYE. It provides clearly visible information about the actuator and valve status. The FOX-EYE display scheme can be configured by the user as required.

For further information visit www.auma.co.uk

A study of 14 astronauts suggests that while space travel depletes red blood cells and bone, the body can eventually replenish them back on Earth with the help of fat stored in the bone marrow. The study, published in Nature Communications, has important implications for health in space and on Earth.

“We found that astronauts had significantly less fat in their bone marrow about a month after returning to Earth,” said senior study author Dr. Guy Trudel, a rehabilitation physician and researcher at The Ottawa Hospital and professor at the University of Ottawa. “We think the body is using this fat to help replace red blood cells and rebuild bone that has been lost during space travel.”

This study builds on Dr. Trudel’s previous research which showed that during space travel, astronauts’ bodies destroyed 54 percent more red blood cells than they normally would on Earth, resulting in what is known as “space anemia.” This research is part of MARROW, a made-in-Ottawa experiment looking at bone marrow health and blood production in space, with funding from the Canadian Space Agency.

“Thankfully, anemia isn’t a problem in space when your body is weightless, but when landing on Earth and potentially on other planets or moons with gravity, anemia would affect energy, endurance, and strength and could threaten mission objectives,” said Dr. Trudel. “If we can find out exactly what’s controlling this anemia, we might be able to improve prevention and treatment.”

The new study involved MRI scans of the astronauts’ bone marrow at multiple time points before and after a six-month mission at the International Space Station. The researchers found a 4.2 percent decrease in bone marrow fat about a month after returning to Earth. This gradually returned to normal levels and was closely associated with increased production of red blood cells and restoration of bone.

“Since red blood cells are made in the bone marrow and bone cells surround the bone marrow, it makes sense that the body would use up the local bone marrow fat as a source of energy to fuel red blood cell and bone production,” said Dr. Trudel. “We look forward to investigating this further in various clinical conditions on Earth.”

The research also suggests that younger astronauts may have an increased ability to harness the energy from bone marrow fat, and that female astronauts’ bone marrow fat increased more than expected after a year.

As a rehabilitation physician, most of Dr. Trudel’s patients are anemic and have lost muscle and bone mass after being ill for a long time with limited mobility. Anemia hinders their ability to exercise and recover muscle and bone mass. “I’m hopeful that this research will help people recover from immobility on Earth as well as in space,” said Dr. Trudel. “Our research could also shed light on diseases such as osteoporosis, metabolic syndrome, aging and cancer, which are associated with increases in bone marrow fat.”

Dr. Trudel recently received the 2023 Compelling Results Award for Human Health in Space for his research on space anemia, jointly presented by NASA, the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space and the American Astronautical Society.

Unite claims ExxonMobil and contractors failing in ‘legal duty’ to protect and pay workers

Around 200 members of Unite the union had withdrawn their labour over health and safety concerns at ExxonMobil’s petrochemical plant in Mossmorran, the union reported on 17 August.

Unite said workers downed tools on Tuesday (15 August) over health and safety warning signals and procedures not being in full working operation across the plant and the workforce not being informed of this, or any procedures put in place to protect them.

The trade union said it had received reports from workers citing repeated examples over a year that alarm systems are not working in areas at the petrochemical plant and workers not being notified. This is legally required in the event of any leakages, blasts or exposure to hazardous materials and chemicals at the plant.

Unite’s members had therefore withdrawn their labour under the terms of UK legislation, Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 44 and 100. The legislation states that workers have the ‘right’ to withdraw from, and to refuse to return to a workplace that is unsafe, without being subject to any detriment including the loss of wages.

“ExxonMobil and the contractors are to date, refusing to pay the workers following the withdrawal of labour under the legislation’s terms.”

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “Unite will robustly defend the legal right of our members to withdraw their labour over health and safety concerns at ExxonMobil’s Mossmorran plant. It is completely unacceptable that the company and the various contractors on site are refusing to pay our members their wages. This is a legal duty and not open to interpretation. Our members will be receiving their union’s unflinching support.”

Unite’s members at ExxonMobil’s plant are employed on construction engineering maintenance contracts and they are split between different contractors at the plant: Altrad, Bilfinger, and Kaefer.

The trade union was further calling on the Health and Safety Executive to immediately investigate. There have been various recorded incidents at the plant over safety, the risk of pollution and environmental damage.

Bob MacGregor, Unite industrial officer, added: “Unite’s members working for Altrad, Bilfinger, and Kaefer at the Mossmorran plant are rightly furious at potentially being exposed to dangerous chemicals due to failings in the plant’s safety procedures.”

“To add insult to injury, ExxonMobil and the contractors are refusing to pay the wages of the workers following the withdrawal of labour on health and safety grounds. This is not an isolated incident, these safety breaches and failings have been ongoing for around a year and nothing to date has been resolved.”

“That’s why Unite is calling for the Health and Safety Executive to urgently intervene due to the seriousness of the claims, and the chequered history of the plant.”