Battery rooms

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

srmoran

Member
We have a battery charger and batteries in a battery room that has a exhaust fan for ventilation. The batteries is for the substation switchgear.

May I know whether is it mandatory to interlock the battery charger with the exhaust fan.

My concern is if the ventilation fails it will shut down the charger and it may drain the batteries and will affect the substation operation.
 
Why not have the fan run all the time?

I am not aware of a requirement for interlocking the two. 480.9(A) is what applies in this situation (I believe) and makes no comment about interlocking, simply requiring ventilation.
 
There is no requirement to interlock the battery charger with the exhaust fan.
1st If you were to calculate the time it takes to generate enough hydrogen from charging some station batteries to make the room dangerous, and pretend that the room is air tight, it would be a very long time.
2nd The code requires you to keep the hydrogen level below hazardous amounts. You could install two fans if your worried.
3rd You could install an audible alarm that activates upon hydrogen detection.

Don't take the risk of interlocking anything with the charger. One bad relay and the batteries quickly become useless.
 
Last edited:
srmoran,

I have interlocked the EF with the battery chargers many times, and always

have been off of engineered prints, so there must be something to it!

FYI, The locations have been in open type "box" stores, and they don't

spend any more than is required.
 
I have designed hundreds if not housands of battery plants for multiple telephone companies and one POCO early in my career.

Fact is all of the companies forbid the EF to be interlocked to the rectifiers. In fact most will not even allow disconnects or OCPD on the batteries. We go to great extents to keep rectifiers and batteries on-line 100% of the time including dedicated generators to the battery plants on dual POCO services.
 
dereckbc said:
I have designed hundreds if not housands of battery plants for multiple telephone companies and one POCO early in my career.

Fact is all of the companies forbid the EF to be interlocked to the rectifiers. In fact most will not even allow disconnects or OCPD on the batteries. We go to great extents to keep rectifiers and batteries on-line 100% of the time including dedicated generators to the battery plants on dual POCO services.
Click to expand...

Mr. dereckbc,

The question was not what the companies are actually doing, but whether or not there is a mandatory requirement to interlock the battery charger with the exhaust fan. There are many companies that are operating illegally and in unsafe situations. Also, please direct us to your source of information relating to your "factual" statement that "all of the companies forbid the EF to be interlocked".
 
You know, if you use maintenance free, non-venting, gel cell batteries you don't need a a separate battery room, or safety eye wash, or even a curb around the batteries. They are a little more tempermental when it comes to conditioned space though.
 
John,
The question has already been answered. There is no requirement to use interlocks in any standard or code. OSHA 1917.157, 1926.441, and NFPA 76 cover battery installation and ventilation requirements. No where is it required to interlock the EF with rectifiers.

There are ventilation requirements, but it is not even necessary to use a ventilation fan under certain conditions like using VRLA batteries or where the HVAC system performs 6 fresh-air exchanges per hour.

The reason I stated most companies forbid an interlock was to reinforce SRMORAN suspensions: It is a horrible design philosophy just asking for trouble. However since you asked for standards I will be happy to quote a couple, but beware they are not available to the public for free, they cost big bucks and are proprietary information.

Belcore GR-643 Generic Requirement for Battery Plants.
Verizon ENG 2001-197-001 Engineering and Installation standard for DC Power System.
 
dereckbc said:
The reason I stated most companies forbid an interlock was to reinforce SRMORAN suspensions: It is a horrible design philosophy just asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

Now you are changing your original "fact" from "all" companies to "most" companies.

Neither of the documents you mentioned "forbid the EF to be interlocked". You should know this if you designed "hundereds if not thousands" of battery plants. "Thousands"?????
 
John,
Dereck surely doesn't need much backup, but I've seen his resume and talked with him for a while, and I wouldn't doubt that he's done a lot of battery rooms, maybe thousands. Just think, a typical telco central office has a 1/2 dozen without blinking an eye.
 
John Vasquez said:
Neither of the documents you mentioned "forbid the EF to be interlocked". You should know this if you designed "hundereds if not thousands" of battery plants. "Thousands"?????
Click to expand...
Beg your pardon, but I authored the Verizon document, along with MCI, and Alltel.

I will say I changed from all to most. By "all" I mean large capTelephone companies, by most I will let you figure it out.
 
Mr. dereckbc,

If what you say is true, then my company (Verizon) is in violation, for our EF's are interlocked. So, you can see my interest in the subject. I have searched the Belcore and Verizon docs and cannot find anywhere that interlocked EF's are not allowed. Please point me to the section you are speaking of. Perhaps the documents have changed since you authored them. Perhaps I am overlooking the section. If you could point me to the section, I would greatly appreciate it. From my research, I we are not in violation and there is not any requirement forbidding this configuration.
 
I believe the original question was to determine if their was a code requirement to interlock the fan with the rectifiers, and that was answered.

Certainly, any company or individual can develop a standard that dictates specific requirements. The merits of those choices may be based on experience or simply personal preference. Regardless, whether one company has adhered to those practices or not is probably better suited for private discussions.

Just my $0.02 worth.
 
John -

Welcome to the authoritive arrogance wall. My recommendation is to:
1. Do your homework;
2. Cite your references;
3. Don't get personal.
4. Above all, listen, There may well be something to learn. And any day you learn is a good day.

One other thing, it helps to laugh at them a little.

For what its worth, IMO, dereck is generally worth listening to, but as with all of us, not infallible.

carl
 
sr -

Look for OSHA codes or fire codes. There may well be other regulations requiring ventilation.

For example, fire codes require an active smoke detector when the quanity of electrolyte exceeds 50 gallons. This one is not is the NEC.

carl
 
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

coulter said:
John -

One other thing, it helps to laugh at them a little.

carl
Click to expand...

Mr. Coulter,

I agree with your statement about laughing at them. It is quite obvious dereck cannot back up his statements and is clearly just spouting off, probably feeling comfortable that no one will follow up. Judging from his other posts on this site, this is not the first time. Also, I seriously doubt his credentials are even correct (this business can be a small world and word gets around).

Also, I agree with your statement about doing your homework. I urge others to do their homework, especially when listening to crackpots like dereck.

Judging from other posts on this site I expect dereck will have me booted.

However, if he doesn't, I look forward to the other sources on here, like yourself, who are straight shooters.

Have a nice day.
 
John Vasquez said:
Judging from other posts on this site I expect dereck will have me booted
Click to expand...

Would you care to explain that statement?

You not likely to get much help here when you come across as angry in you third posting.
 
John what is the problem? You just joined the forum, have a total of four posts, all attacking me. Is that accurate?

Look for an engineering standard number STD-023-000-R1. It is a legacy WorldCom engineering standard. Keep in mind engineering practices are just that. They are not enforceable by any jurisdiction other than internal processes.

If you really are in the business, then you know darn good and well we do everything possible to prevent a battery plant from dropping off-line. Just imagine how stupid a company would look if they were to drop some place like Wall Street, D.O.D., or some other national security interest because of an interlocked breaker to a ventilation fan. Maybe Verizon did it in the past, I don’t know, it may still in the future, but that is not my problem anymore. I don’t care anymore what happens to Verizon.

I assume from your hostility you are a legacy Verizon employee and resent former MCI-WorldCom engineering from coming in and taking over Technical Facility Engineering and Construction. That is no skin from my teeth as I left sometime ago to pursue other ventures b/c of BS and politics like this.

As for getting you booted, never done it before, have no intentions of starting now. But I promise if you keep the name calling and other non-professional conduct up, someone else will do it.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is that in working as a contractor in GTE and then Verizon NW buildings for the last 14 years, I have never wired, nor seen, an interlocked fan in the battery rooms. As a matter of fact, the fans are controlled by the HVAC control systems (Andover) with a timer switch over-ride. The rectifiers and/or battery breakers are not to be shut down via an interlock. The two are completely independent of one another. The COPE team would come absolutely unglued if you attempted to interlock the them.
 
The whole trial is out of order (I'm dating myself, I know)

The whole trial is out of order (I'm dating myself, I know)

Ok, ok, lighten up. Man, I didn't know we were going to be so sensitive in here. Going forward, I'll put little smiley's after my "jokes". :) Hey, I get enough flack from my wife. I'm sorry for offending you dereck, and whoever else might have gotten upset. I tend to forget that text messages are the worst way to inject a bit of sarcasm into the mix.

As for the interlocked ef's, coulter's comment probably makes the most sense,
"Look for OSHA codes or fire codes. There may well be other regulations requiring ventilation.".
Ef's are commonly interlocked during the dump of a fire suppression agent, else you are defeating your purpose. You don't want to ventilate all that expense (non-halon) agent now, do you? Now, as has happened and will happen again (however, we may not hear of it as all efforts will be made to keep this quiet), it is possible that the charging system does not get turned back on. Yes, you guessed it, the batteries will run down and thus, dereck's statement is validated:

"...imagine how stupid you would look if you were to drop some place like Wall Street, D.O.D., or some other national security interest because of an interlocked breaker to a ventilation fan."
Don't think for a second this hasn't happened.

If anyone can quote me the statement and document number forbidding interlocks on ef's in battery rooms, I'll gladly eat my hat. Grilled fedora is especially delectable :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top