Although it is encouraging to see EVs playing an increasingly important role in achieving governments' net zero mandates for sustainable transportation, the speed with which their presence is growing represents a steep learning curve for supply chain participants – especially shipping companies, both in understanding the risk of li- ion batteries and how to manage fire incidents specifically.
Li-ion batteries are the preferred technology for EVs due to their high energy density and efficiency. However, such batteries are inherently volatile and can catch fire or explode under certain conditions. The characteristics of fires caused by li-ion batteries are complex, and the shipping industry is making continuous efforts to understand effective ways to mitigate them. When incidents do occur, the threat to crew, vessels, cargo, and the environment is profound.
The main characterization of a lithium battery fire is the creation of an extremely hot thermal runaway, a primary risk where the battery’s internal temperature rapidly increases, leading to a fire or explosion. A li-ion battery fire will sustain itself, meaning that rather than lasting minutes or hours, a fire can continue for days. Such an event can be triggered by physical damage, manufacturing defects, as well as exposure to extreme temperatures.
Although the number of such incidents on vessels that have been found to originate from EVs in recent years is assumed to be low, they are increasing and there have been several recent high-profile incidents where the presence of li-ion batteries has complicated firefighting efforts. In 2022, the Cargo Incident Notification System (CINS) – which was established by a group of container shipping lines and advisory organizations to share data on cargo-related incidents – reported 65 fires on board container vessels, more than double the 31 reported in both 2020 and 2021. These situations have required large-scale emergency assistance and the use of external salvage and firefighting resources, which are not always readily available. Such incidents have led to both fatalities and significant financial loss.
Despite the nature of the risk being the same, the implications of transporting EVs via both car carriers as well as in containers are different, and each comes with its own individual sets of risks. It is a legal requirement that EVs are declared as dangerous goods (DG) when transported in containers. However, the current DG regulations contain no specific restrictions related to stowage and segregation. This lack of stowage and segregation restrictions means that EVs on container ships can be stored near cargoes or operations where fires could originate, or near cargoes with corrosive
properties. Furthermore, there are currently no declaration requirements for EVs being transported on vehicle carriers (PCC’s, Ro-Paxes, etc). Although these vessels are designed with additional fire safety measures, this lack of information makes it difficult to plan where EVs should be loaded to reduce exposure to any fire risks. It also makes it difficult to contain fires that EVs could be exposed to.
The continued growth of the EV market, coupled with the seeming increase in regularity of fire incidents onboard, means that the industry must act quickly and decisively to mitigate the growing risk. However, shipping companies cannot manage the fire risk of li-ion batteries alone. This is a complex, interconnected issue that requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders throughout supply chains, starting with equipment manufacturers and in developing associated regulations.
Recent examples of such collaboration are encouraging. From a PCC perspective, the Vehicle Carrier Safety Forum recently published its first good practice guidelines on ‘Common guidance on the loading and presentation of vehicles,’ which was based on shared best practice between shipping companies, the International Group of P&I Clubs (IG), the International Chamber of Commerce, and the TT Club. In 2023, the IG also co-sponsored the CINS’s ‘Lithium Batteries in Containers Guidelines.’ This is encouraging progress across both shipping sectors, but guidance on issues such as EV identification and segregation will only be effective if there is alignment with freight forwarders’ and terminal operators’ processes.
Rising EV volumes are reshaping the risk profile of managing hazardous cargoes, and this is going to increase as the market grows. Ultimately, the key to taking control of such a potentially volatile presence on board is proactive defence and risk mitigation. Through effective crew training, ship owners and operators are able to establish a robust line of defence against li-ion battery fires on their vessels. This requires a reassessment in current approaches both in terms of fire detection, firefighting equipment, and in firefighting strategy. Managing fires caused by li-ion batteries requires a ‘Fixed Fire Extinguishing System First’ defensive strategy focused on early detection and containment.
Although this is a multifaceted issue, with many contributing elements across the EV supply chain, adapting and strengthening training will make a marked difference in equipping vessel operators and crews with suitable guidance to better understand the challenges they face. An industrywide standardization in crew training will create greater confidence in managing the immediate risks while building a strong foundation for change.
THE REPORT | DEC 2024 | ISSUE 110 | 113
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
