Standards, products, strategies: In-water cleaning of ship hulls in ports is gaining more and more attention. A lot of things to discuss during the third expert conference PortPIC, which will be held in Hamburg in September. By Volker Bertram[ds_preview]
IMO is set to cut the carbon footprint of shipping. The Big Zero is the long-term goal for the second half of the century, but as in football, the next opponent is always the hardest. And next one up is EEXI and CII, mandatory as of 1.1.2023. The EEXI is the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship (Design) Index, akin to the EEDI for newbuildings, expressing the theoretically achievable energy efficiency for the ship as designed, in prime condition as in initial sea trials. The recent poll among stakeholders at the HullPIC conference showed that the shipping community is rather zen about the EEXI. The CII causes greater concern.
The CII is the Carbon Intensity Indicator, calculated based on IMO’s fuel oil DCS (Data Collection Scheme), where the requirement to just monitor is now enhanced by grading the performance each year from A to E. Poor operational performance (E once or three consecutive years D) will entail mandatory action to improve performance, planned, documented, tracked, and audited in an enhanced Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan.
Over time, the thresholds for CII grades will become gradually stricter. Continuing business as usual will then slowly but surely relegate you to the bottom of the class. But IMO’s version of limbo dancing with the lowering of the CII bar is only one side of the equation. The other side is fouling which accumulates on the ship hull, appendages, and propellers. Progressive fouling and hull roughness typically causes on increase in required power and fuel consumption for given speed of 7–10% per year. Within 5 years between docking, a ship may then move from an A to E.
Cleaning restores the performance at least partially again. But the currently most popular self-polishing copolymer (SPC) antifouling coatings degrade rapidly with conventional cleaning, reducing the lifespan of coatings with increased cleaning frequencies, as pointed out by Alessio Di Fino (Endures) and Liz Haslbeck (US Navy).
Another problem is that cleaning of SPC coatings removes biofouling, and to some extent also paint particles containing biocides. Unless properly captured, the biofouling may contribute to the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) and the biocidal paint particles will contaminate the soil in ports, making disposal after dredging a costly burden for ports. It is thus not surprising that we have seen over the past decade more and more ports banning in-water cleaning.
In addition, several regions require »clean hulls« and de facto compliance with IMO’s recently revised Biofouling guideline when entering their ports (but do not permit cleaning in these same ports). There is general agreement that hull cleaning is necessary, both for carbon footprint considerations and prevention of AIS spreading. The NIMBY (»Not in my backyard«) mindset of more and more ports frustrates the shipping community, but has good arguments on its side – at least when we look at the common cleaning practice of the past. The dilemma is nicely summed up by Kristina Kern-Nielsen of Litehauz: To Clean or Not to Clean. The good news: As we are increasingly aware of the dilemma, we see also solutions, from ideas to prototypes, shaping up.
The upcoming 3rd PortPIC conference brings together all relevant stakeholders to discuss the state of the art, where we need to go from here and how we will best get there, with experts from ship operators, antifouling technology suppliers, robotic and diver in-water cleaning companies, port managers, regulators, and academia. The state of the art is summarised by Aron F. Sørensen (BIMCO) in his »Survey on Biofouling Management and Anti-fouling Systems«: In September 2021, BIMCO conducted a biofouling survey to gain insights into how shipowners are managing biofouling, in-water cleaning and particularly to learn about their experience with systems in use. Responses from 53 companies representing 5668 ships were analyzed.
Key topics and trends discussed at PortPIC 2022:
Trying to square the circle – Emerging cleaning solutions without contaminating ports or having to accept premature drydock stays.
Avoiding regulation creep – We need regulations, but do we need that many groups and panels working largely uncoordinated on related issues that overlap? Transparency and information exchange will hopefully lead to streamlining the current multitude of parallel initiatives.
Resistance is futile – Robotic cleaning solution are advancing worldwide, and the community tries to keep up to date on limitations and capabilities of our little mechanical helpers.
John Polglaze (PGM Environment) sums up the challenges and realities of comprehensive in-water hull cleaning and inspection, comparing it to »cleaning Swiss cheese«. Fear not. The expression may sound like mission impossible, but the Australians are ahead of the game and Polglaze gives a nice overview of standards, equipment and techniques that should be considered to fully and verifiably remove biofouling by in-water methods, based on years of experience in the land down under.
It’s complicated
Nobody denies the challenges involved in sustainable hull management; in fact, the community is increasingly aware that the challenges are bigger than most of us thought a decade ago. But just lamenting the state of the world from one’s individual perspective has never been a convincing strategy. Nor has been trying to sit things out, hoping that somehow the problems will just go away. Tor Østervold (ECOsubsea), robotic cleaning pioneer from Norway, sends a clear warning: »Shipping is heading for a biofouling Catch 22. We, as an industry, need to do something about this. Otherwise we will stumble ahead and in 2027 sit there with a much bigger environmental problem than today and wish we could go back to 2022 and make it all right to start with.«
Østervold is not alone in urging action. This will involve moving from comfortable business as usual with known procedures and technologies to exploring some Terra Incognita, probably not only on technical issues, but also in stakeholder relations, contractual and regulatory frameworks. Some of the presenters at PortPIC seem to have set sails already for the future, even if the course is not yet clearly charted to the final destination. Ports will play a key role and it is encouraging that some are actively seeking for solutions outside the NIMBY mindset. A consortium of Belgian ports (Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Bruges) reports of lessons learned and challenges for the future that were realized during the first exploration phase, where new candidates for in-water cleaning were tested. Among the challenges for individual port authorities is the lack of international standards for in-water cleaning, the difficulties of creating a level playing field for competing cleaning service providers, and the development of port regulations for pro-active cleaning. Besides these challenges, port authorities need to develop competence in hull management technology, including new developments, such as new coatings, robotic inspection and cleaning technology, and ultrasonic biofouling protection. Port managers, like most superintendents in shipping, are not at home in these fields and there are information hurdles to overcome – PortPIC helps in this respect.
Too much of a good thing
Lack of standards and guidelines has been a recurrent lament at the PortPIC conference over the past three years. Having a common terminology and approach, e.g. in how fouling is assessed and documented in reports, is a good thing. Having a multitude of similar, but not same, »standards« and guidelines it too much of a good thing. IMO, EU, shipping associations like BIMCO, AMPP (ex-NACE) in the USA, NGOs like Bellona in Norway striving for a new ISO standard, national round tables, individual ports, and companies like Jotun work in parallel on different aspects of in-water cleaning and inspection. More information exchange and cooperation between the many working groups will hopefully lead to consolidation and aligned recommendations and requirements for the industry.
As different stakeholders have different interests, it is not surprising that initial proposals for regulations differ also in how lenient or strict the recommended procedures are. Practicalities in shipping and high environmental expectations lead to many square-the-circle scenarios in the detailed discussion. It will take a while to find suitable compromises and implement upcoming guidelines and standards, but at least the process has started.
Resistance is futile
In-water cleaning and inspection will become an increasing important topic for the shipping world, fueled by the renewed focus on energy efficiency in operation through the tightening CII screw. The field of robotics will be a game changer in this process. Robotic assistance to human divers in cleaning large areas has been around for decades, but now the robots become increasingly autonomous, and are used also for in-water inspection tasks. With the trend towards »Grooming«, i.e. proactive and frequent cleaning, robots will be employed more and more. Another case of exponential growth.
Simon Doran (HullWiper) is representative, speaking from the experience of the global market leader, but not resting on his laurels. He describes assorted aspects of evolving inspection and cleaning technology. Recent developments for HullWiper include complete 3D mapping of vessels utilising specialised camera software, underwater wireless communication for the robots and improved battery technology, which allows removing the use of the umbilical cords. Stefan Harries (Friendship Systems) coauthors a paper on such 3D mapping, be it by scanning (in dock or under water) or by recreation through advanced CAD methods.
And more is waiting in the wings. At the University of Berkeley, researchers around Alexandre Immas work on making in-water robots for hull inspection team capable. Swarms of small robots can then share the job, using underwater wireless communication. This is not a vision; field tests in 2022 demonstrated the feasibility of automated ship hull inspection with a (small) swarm of unmanned underwater vehicles.
Another innovative idea comes from Israel: Aviv Melman (NakAI Robotics) will introduce an in-transit autonomous hull cleaning robotic platform. The basic idea is charming: if the ship is cleaning in transit, any removed biofouling would end up in the oceans, not causing concerns with AIS spread. But the devil lurks often in the detail. Only time will tell whether this solution will thrive in the market or be a historical side note. Field test this year are a good start – and may the best ideas win. We all would benefit. â–
