Dropped Objects Awareness

A lot of discussions and queries raised recently in regards to the issue of "dropped objects" resulting in the injury of personnel, both ashore and on board.
The issue is addressed in details in latest Marine Safety Forum and results of the conference may be viewed at,

http://www.marinesafetyforum.org/images/msf-safety-alert-16.19.pdf

http://www.dropsonline.org/assets/DROPS%20Intro.pdf

Working over the side is a high risk activity

AMSA has published the fourth issue of its Maritime Safety Awareness Bulletin entitled ”Shaping Shipping for People”, which focuses on the safety issues and risks associated with working over the side.

Shipboard tasks such as mooring/unmooring, surveys, cleaning, maintenance and rigging (e.g. an accommodation ladder or pilot ladder) may require seafarers and other persons to work or access over the side of the ship. Working over the side is a high risk operation and must be treated accordingly.

Unfortunately these tasks when undertaken in an unsafe manner, have resulted in serious accidents with five fatalities reported over a period of 5 years in Australian waters. Specifically, in the period between 2011 and 2015, AMSA received a total of 20 working over the side incidents but 5 fatalities had occurred.

AMSA suggests always to conduct a risk assessment, which is critical for shipboard activities involving working over the side. An effective risk assessment for working over the side must firstly be treated as working at height and must consider falling overboard. The hierarchy of controls provides risk control options at various levels, with ‘elimination of the hazard’ being the most reliable and safest option.

Controlling the risks of working over the side

The hierarchy of controls should be used to eliminate high risk tasks whenever practicable. The following should be considered:

Level 1: Elimination
• use of drones or remote cameras for inspection over the side
• use of water gauges (manometer) for calculating draughts on the outboard side.

Level 2: Substitution
• use of a boat instead of ladder for over the side tasks.

Level 3: Administrative measures
• implement effective procedures for working over the side. The procedures should incorporate the same rigour and control measures as for providing safe access to the ship. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Circular MSC.1/Circ.1331 provides requirements on this, in particular ensuring:

– adequate lighting
– safe access location away from working hazards
– lifebuoy equipped with a self-activating light  and a separate lifeline available for immediate use.

• use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including fall prevention equipment and inflatable lifevest
• when using personnel baskets, they should be fitted with a secondary means of securing to the crane and people inside should be wearing harnesses which are attached to life lines
• conduct regular man overboard and recovery drills and rectify identified deficiencies
• do not work alone. Keep the master and/or supervisor informed and ensure the task is actively monitored at all times from the vessel
• ensure equipment and PPE are appropriately maintained and suitable for the task at hand.

AMSA highlights that an effective safety culture promotes the understanding to all shipboard crew that the goals of the company will be achieved through accepted safety procedures, practices and behaviors [1, 4]. This in effect leads to seafarers being committed, not just because of rules and regulations but through individual choice, to safe actions and behaviors at all times. 

Further details may be found by reading the Marine Safety Bulletin below,

https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/Publications/AMSA282-MSA4.pdf

Bunker Quality Disputes

When a vessel has been provided with off-specification bunkers the consequences can be severe, possibly leading to the breakdown of the vessel’s machinery. Even if off-specification bunkers do not result in a breakdown, the loss of time and expenses incurred if it is necessary to de-bunker or deviate to stem fresh bunkers can be significant.

Off-specification bunkers can potentially give rise to claims under an owner’s hull and machinery insurance as well as under Club cover, whether as a FD&D claim against time charterers or bunker suppliers or a P&I claim such as for delay in delivery of cargo if that causes the cargo to deteriorate. There may also be a charterer’s liability to owners for providing off-specification bunkers.

In a pair of new publications, a Loss Prevention Bulletin "Bunker Quality Disputes Part 1: Practical and Technical Measures" deals with the actions and steps that should be considered in order to avoid off-specification bunker disputes, and a Claims Guide “Bunker Quality Disputes Part 2: Legal and Claims Handling Considerations” sets out the legal and claims handling steps that should be taken in the event of an off-specification bunker claim arising.

Both publications/ News Letters may be downloaded at,

http://www.westpandi.com/globalassets/loss-prevention/loss-prevention-bulletins/west-of-england---loss-prevention-bulletin---bunker-quality-disputes-part-1.pdf

http://www.westpandi.com/globalassets/about-us/claims/claims-guides/west-of-england---claims-guide---bunker-quality-disputes-part-2.pdf

USCG BWTS Type Approvals - The Rush Begins

The US Coast Guard (USCG) has confirmed that Norwegian ballast water treatment (BWT) manufacturer Optimarin has become the first supplier to submit an application for US type approval.

John Mauger, Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Center (MSC), described the move as “a milestone” in the fight to protect marine biodiversity in US waters.

Optimarin’s application was submitted this week by DNV GL after its Optimarin Ballast System (OBS) satisfied the USCG’s stringent testing criteria for fresh, brackish and marine water.

MSC has claimed that it will review and reply to submittals within 30 days, after which successful suppliers will receive their approval certification.

In a statement from MSC, Mauger hailed the development, commenting: “The receipt of the first application for a Coast Guard type-approved ballast water management system represents an important milestone for the future of protecting our nation’s waterways from the spread of invasive species.”

Optimarin CEO, Tore Andersen, responded: “We have invested a huge amount of time and money in developing a reliable, simple, effective, environmentally friendly and powerful BWT system. This final step towards approval is reward for that, positioning us at the forefront of the market for any shipowner that wants the ultimate in compliance, fleet flexibility and proven BWT success.

“We believe we’re now the clear choice within our chosen segments and are delighted to be acknowledged by USCG as a key player in the fight against this pressing environmental problem,” he said.

Optimarin has received orders for around 500 OBS systems, which use a combination of filtration and powerful 35 kW UV lamps to treat ballast water without the need for chemicals. Of these, 280 have been installed worldwide, with close to 100 retrofits, fitted in tandem with global engineering partners Goltens and Zeppelin.

As well as satisfying all IMO and USCG requirements, OBS is certified by a range of class societies, including DNV GL, LR, BV, MLIT Japan and ABS.

Meanwhile, Alfa Laval has also filed its type approval application with the USCG for its PureBallast 3 family.

This follows the successful completion of land-based tests with marine, brackish and fresh water – all using the current BWTS design. A test report package for PureBallast has now been finalised by the independent lab DNV GL.  

As expected, the company completed all tests of PureBallast during the summer of this year. These were performed using the CMFDA/FDA (staining) method approved by the USCG and were conducted at DHI in Denmark.

It is significant to note that the testing involved the same hardware, power consumption and flow as the already IMO-approved version of the PureBallast 3 family, the company said.

“We were confident that PureBallast would deliver high-performance results without any change to its components or system design,” said Anders Lindmark, General Manager, Business Centre, PureBallast. “Test results have now been submitted and they conclusively demonstrate that PureBallast provides reliable biological disinfection at full flow in all water salinities. The system has also met the rigorous mechanical and electrical testing verification schemes required by the USCG and IMO.”

Meanwhile, Alfa Laval said that it continued to support the efforts to validate the ‘Most Probable Number’ (MPN) method, which the company sees as a preferable alternative to the CMFDA/FDA method for UV treatment systems.

Alfa Laval’s decision to proceed with CMFDA/FDA testing was based on the importance of providing customers discharging in US waters with a type-approved solution as quickly as possible.

***ABS has updated its ‘Guide for Ballast Water Treatment’ .

“As vessel owners and operators prepare for the implementation of the recently ratified IMO Ballast Water Management Convention, they need guidance from a trusted advisor like ABS. Our team of technical specialists is ready to assist them with addressing this compliance in support of their unique operational challenges,” said ABS Executive Vice President for Global Marine, Kirsi Tikka. “The update to the Guide comes just as industry is addressing the technical challenges brought about by this Convention.”

In addition to providing guidance on the new IMO requirements, the latest revision includes changes that:
• Clarify requirements for hazardous area installations and safety practices.
• Recognise USCG Type Approvals.
• Delineate additional verification requirements for administration type approval certification.

Court of Appeals rules that arbitration clauses apply to cargo insurers

An insurer recently filed a redress lawsuit against a ship owner, seeking reimbursement for the amount paid to the insured after the latter was required to fund additional freight.

Background

The insured's cargo was shipped in January 2013 from the Shanghai port to the Paranagua port.

However, in March 2013 the vessel's main engine failed 80 nautical miles northwest of Sumatra and it had to be towed to the closest port of Jurong in Singapore.

General average was declared after it was ascertained that the repairs would take several months. For this reason, the insurer executed a new sea carriage contract to ship the cargo to Paranagua.

Facts

After the insurer reimbursed the additional freight paid for by the insured, subrogating itself to the insured's rights, it filed a redress lawsuit against the ship owner seeking compensation for the additional freight. The lawsuit was assigned to the Sao Paulo Fourth Civil Court.

In its defence, the ship owner invoked the jurisdiction clause stipulated in the bill of lading, which provided that any dispute arising from the carriage should be submitted to arbitration in London.

The ship owner further argued that, as the insurer was subrogated in the insured's legal position – as if it was the contracting party of the maritime carriage – it should consequently be subject to the contractual rules agreed to by the insured.

The insurer denied its agreement to the arbitration clause, holding that:

·         the insurer was not party to the carriage contract; and

·         the jurisdiction clause therefore did not apply.

Rather, the insurer argued that the Brazilian courts – where the insurer and defendant were domiciled – had jurisdiction.

Decision

In April 2016 the court ruled that – under Brazilian civil law – when paying indemnity to an insured, the insurer subrogates itself to the insured's rights and obligations, within the limits of the subjacent contract by which the insurer assumed the insured's legal position.

For this reason, the claim of Brazilian jurisdiction was dismissed by the first-instance court in view of the arbitration clause included in the bill of lading.

On appeal, the decision was upheld. The 38th Chamber of the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals (second instance) ruled that, by virtue of subrogation, the insurer was subject to all of the insured's ancillary rights and obligations, including the carriage contract's arbitration clause.

Comment

The decision sets an important precedent, particularly as it shows the effectiveness of the new Code of Civil Procedure, which prioritizes judicial precedents. The decision also reinforces the need for insurers to assess all aspects and limits of an underlying carriage contract entered into by the insured before issuing insurance cover.

Getting To Grips With Lifeboats

The UK P&I Club  highlighted the potential dangers of lifeboat drills, following an incident during a lifeboat drill, which has left one crewmember dead, and four injured.

A study in 2014 by a UK safety group using accumulated data over a ten-year period indicated that incidents involving lifeboats and their launching systems had caused nearly 16% of the total lives lost by merchant mariners. Even more survived lifeboat incidents but suffered severe injuries of the spine and lower extremities. All of these accidents occurred during training exercises or drills, supervised by qualified, experienced seafarers.

As the design of lifeboats has progressed, the requirement to understand the mechanics of launching operations has become more complicated. In Captain Velankar’s , UK Club Loss Prevention Risk Assessor, view,  merchant ships such as tankers and bulk carriers,  are progressively losing touch with the maintenance of wires and ropes due to lack of routine. The release mechanism are often very poorly understood on ships today and this is leading to increasing detentions and delays for shipowners.Sometimes the design of the launching system is itself flawed.

The UK Club has previously dealt with an incident involving a release mechanism of a safety hook which opened without any physical action by the crew. The boat fell over eight meters to the water causing three crew members to sustain fractures to their ankles, legs and spine. The investigation discovered that when the hoisting wire became kinked on the drum, the mass force of that action caused the hook to release without any contact by a crew member. The recommendation was to replace such safety hooks with a modified version which included a safety lock pin.

Some lifeboat incidents occur which cannot be explained by the experts. For example, a lifeboat drill injury recently occurred when a boat was being raised by a winch to within a foot or two of being in the fully stowed position. The winch was automatically programmed to stop at this point, as the rest of the stowing was done by use of a hand crank on deck. All mechanisms were working properly but when a crew member inserted the hand crank to fully stow the boat, the hand crank suddenly began to rotate and whipped around and struck the crew member in the head causing injury and hearing loss. There was no brake malfunction and the incident could not be duplicated in further testing. There was corrosion on the electrical panel and some improper fuses in place, but the investigation was inconclusive as to the cause of the hand crank failure.

Lessons learned from the prior incidents

• The entire crew should be capable of operating lifeboat systems and understanding the mechanics and procedures even with minimum training or experience.
• Communication between the crew during drills must be clear, with confirmed completion of each step throughout the exercise.
• When the design of the lifeboat launch system and its components are complicated, Members should consistently train on the operation, repair and maintenance of the entire lifeboat system. If necessary, require that the manufacturer supply easy to understand instructions and diagrams to explain the proper operation or create a common operating procedure safety manual independent of the manufacturer instructions.

The remedy for lack of familiarity with lifeboats among crewmembers and human error is through the continuous training of staff and sufficient risk assessment procedures. The most effective training for the seafarers is for them to know why something is done in a particular way, to better understand the procedures – not just remember them. As a result, their understanding should give crewmembers more confidence in the systems.

Training should specifically address the launching of lifeboats and the correct maintenance and handling procedures to enable seafarers to safely use and maintain the equipment under all conditions.

Drills must be reliable and safe with minimum risk to those participating. The IMO amended SOLAS in 2006 and 2008 to address conditions under which lifeboat drills are conducted, introduce changes to the maintenance and inspection requirements, and drills without  requiring crew members to be onboard the boat.

The review and studies included guidance for the launch of free-fall lifeboats during drills, and the servicing of launching systems and on-load/off-load release mechanisms. The intent is to prevent accidents and instil confidence in the crew members during abandon-ship drills.

Hazard, threats and consequences:

In the centre of the diagram, Hazardous Activities is identified as the ‘hazard’, while blue squares to the left identify a range of ‘threats’, which, if not controlled, could cause a serious incident involving P&I claims and other consequences which can be seen in the red shape on the far right of the diagram.

Controls:

Between these extremities can be seen the ‘controls’ which, if they work properly, will prevent the accident happening and on the right hand side of the diagram, controls which will mitigate the consequences.Thus taking as an example the threat of Lifeboat Launching (left hand side), controls which should be in place to prevent this include machinery guards, inspection and planned maintenance, lifeboat release hook testing, good system maintenance and for exercises to be conducted in calm conditions.

Consequences:

The consequences of an accident (right hand side) will be mitigated by the capability of the crew to deal with an incident, good record keeping, emergency reporting and communication procedures, systems and procedures to maintain steering, emergency drills, clear abort procedures and recovery measures implemented by well-trained crew.

Skangas completes first ship-to-ship LNG bunkering on Gothenburg roads

Delivery Signals Beginning of New Era to Use Bunker Vessels to Serve the Shipping Market.

Skangas, a leading supplier of LNG to the Nordic markets, announced that it successfullybunkered the product tanker Ternsund on Gothenburg roads, Sweden on September 3^rd. The bunkering operation is a significant milestone for Skangas, as it represents several historic firsts.  Not only is it the first Ship-to-ship LNG bunkering to the vessel Ternsund, it is the first Ship-to-ship bunkering to be executed by companies Skangas and Anthony Veder, and the first to take place in the Gothenburg area.

New era: bunker vessels serve shipping market

Known for its in-depth experience in delivering LNG to the marine market in Northern Europe, the delivery by Skangas to the Ternsund marks the start of a new era: using bunker vessels to serve the shipping market. Until now, deliveries were made using trucks and onshore terminals.

Skangas will start operating a new bunker vessel in early 2017, which will enable swift, safe and efficient bunkering of LNG. Until then, Skangas is delivering LNG to customers, such as NEOT (North European Oil Trading), using the Coral Energy, Anthony Veders’ small scale LNG carrier. The 15,600 cbm LNG carrier is normally used to feed LNG to distribution terminals in Europe. By using the Coral Energy, Skangas provides LNG bunkering to ship owners throughout Northern Europe. The bunkering in Gothenburg was performed in close cooperation between Skangas, ship owners Terntank and Anthony Veder, the Port of Gothenburg, and the company NEOT.

Easy access to clean fuel a reality

“We are very proud to be one of the first in the world to bunker LNG Ship-to-ship. We strongly believe that LNG will rapidly become the fuel solution for forward-thinking ship owners”, says Tor Morten Osmundsen, CEO of Skangas. “We have developed an LNG infrastructure to serve the Nordic Industrial and Marine sectors, and make LNG available for customers who are willing to switch to a much cleaner fuel than traditionally used. The bunkering operation in Gothenburg clearly indicates that the market is developing and that our efforts to make LNG readily available are paying off.”

The new Skangas bunker vessel M/T Coralius will have a capacity of 5,800 cbm. It will provide both Ship-to-ship bunkering and feed LNG terminals throughout Europe.

Read the article at,

http://www.gasum.com/Corporate_info/News/2016/bunkering2016/