Narrative:

One of the fulltime receiving inspectors; notified me that the new emergency battery pack; part number abs-D717-xx-XXX; that I had received the previous morning had been off charge for more than 7 days. Per mpm section 25-xx-xx 'shelf life storage of aircraft emergency battery packs'; I should not have received the battery pack and the pack should have been rejected by the material specialist. After researching the part and speaking with the maintenance lead; I have found out the battery pack was for aircraft XXX; rh aft emergency exit door. The paperwork that came with the part was correct. I checked all of the rii notes and the listed shelf life. It showed 180 days shelf life. The vendor was verified as correct and valid. The battery pack was in new condition from the vendor (date). It appeared to be in perfect condition. The battery pack was installed and the problem corrected. The rii notes did not reflect the mpm [maintenance procedures manual] requirements. After further research; it appears that the rii notes for the B717 have been changed to reflect the mpm requirements; (but not for the company B717). It also appears that we have only 7 days from the date of manufacture of the battery to have the battery shipped to us; pass through the materials specialists and go through receiving inspection; at which time it must go on charge. The fulltime receiving inspector stated that he was in the process of rejecting the other 8 batteries at the receiving station at our warehouse. I sincerely regret having missed the mpm requirement. Have the rii notes in the receiving inspection secton for emergency battery packs updated to reflect the mpm requirements for the B717.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Maintenance Inspector reports receiving emergency exit light batteries and installing them in an aircraft. He is later informed that the batteries should not have been accepted due to the MPM requirement that the batteries not be off charge for more than seven days; which they were. The RII inspection notes did not contain this requirement.

Narrative: One of the fulltime receiving Inspectors; notified me that the new emergency battery pack; part number ABS-D717-XX-XXX; that I had received the previous morning had been off charge for more than 7 days. Per MPM section 25-XX-XX 'Shelf Life Storage of Aircraft Emergency Battery Packs'; I should not have received the battery pack and the pack should have been rejected by the Material Specialist. After researching the part and speaking with the Maintenance Lead; I have found out the battery pack was for ACFT XXX; RH aft emergency exit door. The paperwork that came with the part was correct. I checked all of the RII notes and the listed shelf life. It showed 180 days shelf life. The vendor was verified as correct and valid. The battery pack was in new condition from the vendor (date). It appeared to be in perfect condition. The battery pack was installed and the problem corrected. The RII notes did not reflect the MPM [Maintenance Procedures Manual] requirements. After further research; it appears that the RII notes for the B717 have been changed to reflect the MPM requirements; (but not for the Company B717). It also appears that we have only 7 days from the date of manufacture of the battery to have the battery shipped to us; pass through the Materials Specialists and go through receiving inspection; at which time it must go on charge. The fulltime Receiving Inspector stated that he was in the process of rejecting the other 8 batteries at the receiving station at our warehouse. I sincerely regret having missed the MPM requirement. Have the RII notes in the receiving inspection secton for emergency battery packs updated to reflect the MPM requirements for the B717.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.