Operational Guide · Registers & Logbooks

# Next-Generation Coating: Planning the Dry Dock Choice

A biocide-free coating with a lifecycle of up to 10 years changes the economic calculation for the next dry dock entry: the choice of antifouling system is no longer just an environmental question, but a maintenance cycle planning one.

antifouling biocide-free coating dry dock planning PSPC

## Operational Explanation

The antifouling coatings sector is undergoing a transition toward biocide-free and silicone-based fouling-release technologies, offering longer coating lifecycles (up to 10 years according to manufacturers) than traditional biocidal systems, together with reduced hull frictional resistance. This trend responds both to growing regulatory pressure on traditional biocidal systems and to the search for operational energy savings consistent with IMO GHG emission reduction targets.

For dry dock planning, the choice of coating system is no longer just an isolated technical decision: a longer coating lifecycle changes the economic calculation of intervals between one dry dock entry and the next, with direct implications for long-term hull maintenance scheduling under the PSPC (Performance Standard for Protective Coatings).

## Regulatory Reference

The PSPC (IMO Resolution MSC.215(82) and subsequent) governs surface preparation and application requirements for protective coatings; biocide-free antifouling technologies are not yet the subject of a single dedicated IMO standard, but fit within growing regulatory pressure on traditional biocidal systems observed internationally and in various national jurisdictions.

## Scope of Application

Every ship planning a dry dock entry involving renewal of the antifouling system, with a comparative assessment between traditional biocidal systems and next-generation biocide-free/fouling-release technologies.

## Procedure / How to Complete It

1. Assess, during dry dock planning, the expected lifecycle of the chosen coating system relative to the planned date of the next dry dock entry.
2. Compare total lifecycle costs (application cost, duration, expected energy savings) between traditional biocidal systems and next-generation biocide-free/fouling-release technologies.
3. Verify the compatibility of the chosen coating system with applicable PSPC requirements and with the condition of the existing hull coating.
4. Coordinate with the shipyard the specific surface preparation required by next-generation systems, often different from that for traditional biocidal systems.
5. Document the coating system choice and the technical-economic rationale in the repair specification, for reference in subsequent dock cycles.

## Practical Example

Example: during planning of a five-year dry dock entry, the Superintendent evaluates a biocide-free fouling-release coating system with an expected 10-year lifecycle, comparing its total cost with that of two successive renewals of a traditional biocidal system with a 5-year lifecycle, including in the assessment the expected energy savings from reduced frictional resistance.

## Real Cases

Growing regulatory pressure on traditional biocidal antifouling systems, combined with the search for operational energy savings in line with the sector's decarbonization goals, is pushing a growing number of Companies to re-evaluate coating system choice as an integral part of hull maintenance cycle planning, no longer as an isolated decision at a single dry dock entry.

## Common Mistakes Mistake Library

Mistake | Consequence | How to avoid it
--- | --- | ---
Coating system choice based only on immediate application cost, without considering total lifecycle | Higher total lifecycle cost in the long run, with more frequent dry dock entries than necessary | Always evaluate total lifecycle cost, not just the immediate application cost of the coating
Specific surface preparation required by next-generation systems not coordinated in time with the shipyard | Delays or non-compliance in applying the new coating system | Coordinate with the shipyard the specific surface preparation required, verifying it before dry dock entry
Rationale for the coating system choice not documented in the repair specification | Loss of useful information for comparative assessment in subsequent dock cycles | Always document the technical-economic rationale for the coating choice for future reference

## PSC Observations

The choice of coating system is not typically subject to direct PSC verification; PSCOs may verify the validity of the International Anti-fouling System Certificate and its consistency with the system actually applied, regardless of the specific technology chosen.

## Operational Tips

- Always evaluate the total lifecycle cost of the coating system, not just the immediate application cost at the single dry dock entry.
- Coordinate with the shipyard the specific surface preparation required by next-generation systems, often different from traditional ones.
- Document the rationale for the coating choice in the repair specification, for a more informed comparative assessment in subsequent cycles.

## Checklist

- Expected lifecycle of the coating system assessed relative to the next planned dry dock entry
- Total lifecycle cost compared between traditional biocidal systems and next-generation technologies
- Compatibility of the chosen system with PSPC requirements and existing coating condition verified
- Specific surface preparation coordinated in time with the shipyard
- Rationale for the choice documented in the repair specification for future reference

## FAQ

What distinguishes a biocide-free coating from a traditional antifouling system?
Biocide-free systems (often silicone-based, fouling-release) do not release biocidal substances into the marine environment, typically offering longer lifecycles and reduced hull frictional resistance, unlike traditional biocidal systems.
Why does coating choice affect dry dock planning?
Because a longer coating lifecycle changes the economically advantageous intervals between one dry dock entry and the next, a factor to consider in long-term hull maintenance planning.
Do next-generation systems require different surface preparation?
Often yes: it is important to coordinate with the shipyard the specific surface preparation requirements of the chosen system, which may differ from those of traditional biocidal systems.
🎬 Additional photos, videos and interactive diagrams for this topic will be available in a future version of the platform.

## Related Topics

Shipyard Waste Management Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS Convention)

### Leave feedback

Help us improve the platform during the beta -- it takes thirty seconds.

How useful do you find the platform so far?
Comment (optional)
Sign me up for the newsletter
Role