EV Ferry Fire Risk Divides Shipping Community
Major safety fears are emerging over the fire risk from electric vehicles on board Scottish operator Caledonian MacBrayne ferries, amid increasing awareness of the dangers among the international shipping community
Caledonian MacBrayne (CalMac), operates 27 routes across the west coast of Scotland.
A number of companies, including a Norwegian ferry company, have banned electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles from their decks amid growing concerns of the risks from the lithium-ion batteries, which can make an electric vehicle fire extremely difficult to contain.
Questions over the safety of electric vehicles on board ferries have increased since Norwegian operator Havila Kystruten announced it was banning them due to “increased fire danger”.
Meanwhile, a US shipping company announced a similar ban, following the sinking off a cargo ship off Alaska. Electric vehicles were implicated in that, with media reports claiming smoke was first reported near a car deck carrying electric vehicles.
This week, a former operations director who spent decades overseeing safety on oil rigs spoke to the Gazette about his concerns over EVs on board ferries. The former operations director, who spoke out on condition of anonymity, has raised his concerns with CalMac and did not feel reassured by the ferry operator’s response.
He believes the risk posed by electric vehicles to ferries was “much higher” than the risks he used to manage on offshore installations, after Piper Alpha.
The issue is particularly acute, he said, on ferries with enclosed car decks such as the Loch Seaforth and he called on CalMac to show what risk assessments have been done, how they would deal with an EV fire, and how they have mitigated the risk.
The risk stems from their lithium-ion batteries – similar to those in electric toothbrushes which have to be carried in hand luggage on planes, such is the potential fire risk.
While he accepted the risk of an EV going on fire on a ferry would be low, given the numbers of EVs on the road and the low rates of them going on fire in the first place, the consequences of such an event, though unlikely, could be catastrophic.
As well as the potential danger to life, there are risks from the toxic fumes and also risks to a lifeline service, should a ferry have to go for repairs due to smoke damage. He called the risk “substantial” and described CalMac’s response to his inquiries as “woolly”.
“I think, safety-wise, CalMac haven’t done their homework. I don’t think they’re doing proper risk assessments and that’s all I would ask them to do. I just don’t feel they’re being honest with themselves and or Joe Public.”
In addition, he pointed out that CalMac ask drivers to declare if their EV has been involved in any impacts that might have damaged their batteries. He said this proved the risks were known but would be difficult to manage as drivers of hire cars would be unlikely to know the answer and car owners may not want to give an honest answer, for fear of the implications for travel.
He did not want to “ban things for banning them” but said we should not have to “wait for a serious incident or worse” before action was taken.
“I don’t think CalMac, honestly, or any other ferry company can demonstrate that it’s low enough to not have to do something more than they’re doing,” he said. “I think they’re putting us – passengers and equipment – to high enough risk that hasn’t been justified and hasn’t been explained.”
He believes the issue is difficult to address because of the narrative around EVs being part of the ‘green’ solution and believes “the problems are being hidden because there’s a political agenda to try and get us all to buy one”.
A spokesman for CalMac said:
“CalMac has developed procedures for safe carriage of electric vehicles through risk assessments and extensive participation in industry steering groups with representation including the MCA, fire service, academics and other operators. Our position to carry EVs is aligned to the MCA and to InterFerry, the global ferry industry organisation.
This work assessed the risks of carriage, including stowage areas onboard, and found that an insistence on open deck stowage would be a disproportionate measure. Segregation was considered by the industry working group but not deemed necessary.”
They added:
“In terms of fires, generally, EV fires are dealt with through tactical ventilation to remove gases and deluging via portable and deck fixed fire fighting systems and equipment.
We also carry out emergency drills with crews to deal with different risks and types of fires, including EVs. Our vessels are fitted with drencher systems that provide a continuous supply of water to control any type of fire on vehicle decks.”
They said that “fires can be contained using fixed and portable firefighting equipment to allow the ship to return to a place of safety where persons can be disembarked and specialist advice sought”.
The spokesman said damaged EVs “may have suffered damage to batteries and their management systems, potentially increasing the risk of carriage” and the mitigation for this was for “such vehicles to be certified by an accredited technician before being permitted to travel”.
The car would be shipped “as Dangerous Goods, subject to requirements of the IMDG Code”.
Charging had been banned because it presented a higher risk of battery or system malfunction but also because “charging an EV in this way uses fossil fuel through the ships generators, which defeats the purpose of using lower carbon technology”.
See more here stornowaygazette.co.uk
Header image: Stornoway Gazette
Bold emphasis added
Tom
| #
The unintended consequences of engaging with a silly technology that has not been properly studied and tested.
Reply