My first time at ABYC Standards Week revealed a lot about how standards are crafted, and about my own need to do more.
The American Boat & Yacht Council published its first lithium-ion battery standard in summer 2022. At the time, I expressed some concerns about what I felt were missing requirements, as well as a strong reliance on manufacturers’ documentation and specifications. My first paragraph began: “I’m not an expert on the many intricacies involved in getting a standard ratified…”
Attending this year’s ABYC Standards Week provided me with a deeper understanding of the process that leads to the final language, as well as to revisions. I learned a lot.
If you ask 100 kids what they want to do when they grow up, few will say, “I want to develop standards for the safe installation of electrical systems aboard recreational boats.” Those who do are the types who end up in the room on an ABYC project technical team. These are my people. They sweat the details and speak in jargon.
I attended the electrical PTC meetings focused primarily on revisions to E-13, the lithium-ion battery standard. In the room, I found a group of about 50 participants, including electrical component manufacturers, marine electricians, boatbuilders, engine manufacturers, surveyors, casualty investigators, boat owners and government employees. Experts represented nearly every facet of marine electrical work, with a few industry legends thrown in for good measure.
The primary work is reviewing information submitted during a public comment period. The ABYC’s process requires each commentor to explain a problem with the current standard and propose a solution. The PTC then reviews, discusses and votes. Typically with a suggestion, the course of action is to accept, accept in principle, reject or table it.
Comments range from grammatical and editorial changes to suggestions for entirely new requirements within the standard. Not surprisingly, the editorial comments tended to be less controversial. Some of the most spirited debates turned on word selection such as “should” versus “shall.” One is recommending something, while the other is mandating it. Typically, “shoulds” end up in notes while “shalls” go into the standard itself.
There were regular reminders from the ABYC staff and committee leadership that these are safety standards, not best-practice or quality-installation guides. The ABYC clearly states that standards must reduce hazards identified from actual accidents or those that have a high probability of occurring. This requirement pulled the committee out of several rabbit holes.
In my reviews of lithium-ion batteries, I have been frustrated by the documentation included with most of them and the amount of information that goes undisclosed.
The current revision of E-13 requires battery manufacturers to provide information on how to install and operate the battery safely. On a regular basis, information required in the standard goes undisclosed. It is troubling to me to see this because, I believe, these requirements are among the easiest to meet. Compliance simply requires documentation with critical information clearly spelled out.
I was encouraged to see the committee’s awareness of compliance with E-13 as it is currently written. The committee collectively understood that simply adding a requirement to the standard won’t ensure compliance. In fact, there was concern that if requirements are raised too high, the already spotty attention to the standard might worsen.
One reason I attended Standards Week is my concern over full charge protections employed by an increasing number of lithium-ion battery management systems. Full charge protections, typically found in self-contained (often misnamed “drop-in”) batteries, disable charging when the battery reaches full charge to protect the cells from potential damage.
There are applications where this behavior is appropriate and desirable. However, there are also systems where this behavior can lead to scenarios including a full disconnection of the batteries. My feeling is that this behavior must be disclosed when it is present in the battery management system. No conclusions have been reached about if or how the standard will handle it, but I’m glad I had the opportunity to raise the issue.
By the end of our E-13 review, quite a few decisions had been made, but a lot of work had also been pushed to the E-13 subcommittee. I have participated in a few of the subcommittee meetings and know those tasks are in good hands, but I also know there’s a lot of work to resolve all the concerns and issues that were raised.
Overall, I was impressed by the process and enjoyed my limited participation. I also feel better about the finished product now. I will surely be back for future events and, hopefully, be better prepared and able to make more targeted contributions.
Standards are made better when people who work with the subject matter on a daily basis take the time to participate. Large companies in our industry take part in the process, but smaller companies and individual boat owners are scarcely represented. To get involved, join the mailing list for a project technical committee at abycinc.org/standards/standards-development.
Please, join me in helping to improve the standards that govern our industry.
