Seaways - December 2006

World cargo - November 2004

See below:

Seaways - December 2006 - Hazardous cargoes

 Two excellent articles in the October - Seaways did get me at the key board.

The Mike Compton (ICHCA) article, shows that much work is undertaken to ensure the safe shipping of hazardous cargo. Why it doesn’t always work out can be seen when we read the article on "Why ships really collide" where Capt. Lloyd refers to the CAA approach and its regulations and compares this to the shipping industry.

The airline industry has the cloud of prestige with its shiny international airports and its glamour. The movie industry uses this for all its effects and the public perceives it accordingly.

Airline crews go through security and customs with little problem having spend half a day in their flying machines, coming from wherever, while ship's crews might not be allowed ashore after spending days / weeks at sea. In shipping, we miss the glamour and are treated accordingly. Most of the ships referred to in the ICHCA article did not make it into the general daily newspapers. When a Cessna with two passengers comes down in the country, or hits a building it is front-page news.

The above is reflected in the regulations governing both industries. Every one in the street outside can be asked to pack a shipping container and it will be shipped through security zones internationally. While I have my master mariner’s ticket, and I do run training courses for the industry on how to pack and unpack shipping containers, I am not allowed to pack an airline container as I haven't got a certificate proving I know what I am on about. The shipping industry has guidelines and recommendations on how to pack shipping containers, while the airline industry has regulations.

From: IMO/ILO/UN/ECE Guidelines

Quote

7.4.1.1:”Every person should receive training on the safe transport and packing of cargoes, commensurate with his duties. The training should be designed to provide an appreciation of the consequences of badly packed and secured cargoes in CTUs, the legal requirements, the magnitude of forces, which may act on cargoes, during road, rail and sea transport, as well as, basic principles of cargo packing and securing in CTUs.

Unquote

In these guidelines, it is stated that every one “ Should receive training”. There are no regulations enforcing this. In contrast the CAA has been able to issue regulations.

Following 9/11, the IMO was able to introduce security regulations in record time. When we add the physical and financial cost of accidents at sea related to packed containers, hazardous or non-hazardous, I am sure that 9/11 can be compared to the losses experienced at sea. However because this is spread over some time and does not involve highly payed executives in a building like the World Trade Centre there seems to be no urgency in Government ranks to regulate.

In a previous life, I did get the regulators and operators around the one table to discuss hazardous cargo and ships, this in an endeavour to overcome some of the pitfalls experienced by us. Here we had together those in charge from the different regulatory government departments, federal and state as well as ship, port and stevedore operators. It turned out, they knew where they stood themselves and what they were responsible for, but they did not necessarily know where the other’s responsibilities did lie. Most had introduced regulations with commendable objections, but what was lacking was the all-overriding regulation covering the country, the states, the ports etc. Until the industries cargo movements are regulated like the airline industry, we will continue to experience disasters at sea as described in the ICHCA article by Mike Compton.

Those responsible for packing cargo in shipping containers work with guidelines and should be trained.

Maybe the N.I., with its links to the different Government regulators can have a position in this. It are the lives of those on board that are at stake when something goes wrong.

 

World cargo - November 2004 - "The price of unsafe seafreight"

The following "interview" by Dale Crisp with Chris de Jong appeared in the November 2004 issue of World cargo

"US$25 billion of containerised cargo is handled worldwide every day of the year. The expectation is for this cargo to arrive at its destination incident-free and in its original condition. Why then is so little invested in the training of those that pack containers?

According to the estimates of Sydney-based freight consultant Chris de Jong, every day one million TEU moves are recorded the world over. At a probably conservative valuation of cargo and container at US$25,000 this is an average daily value of US$25 billion handled world-wide; some US$9 trillion of goods a year. As trade increases by 9% a year world-wide, this value rises every day by US$2 billion.

In general, governments demand training of those involved in activities that can affect others, such as driving a car. In the airline industry, to ‘ship’ an airfreight container on an aircraft, the packer needs to be trained and certified. Under IATA rules, the airline is not to lift the cargo if it is not packed at certificated premises.

Yet, when packing a seafreight container and sending it on its way, no such preparation is required, de Jong notes. Anyone can do it and anyone is doing it, potentially putting lives and limbs at risk of those associated with or near the cargo while it is on its way from the shipper’s yard to the consignee’s premises. “The exposure is there while the container is in the yard, on the highway, in the port, on board the ship on the high seas and the sequence is repeated in reverse when the container is landed in the destination port,” he says. “At each stage of its travels it will be near people who handle it, or just pass by while involved with their own activities in their daily life.

“What has been done by governments and industry to have the anomaly between air and seafreight addressed? Who and what safeguards the cargo and the individuals along the way when seafreight containers are transported?”

De Jong believes the differences in the way airfreight and seafreight safety is regulated says a lot about public perception of risk. Air-cargoes, in general, are high-value commodities carried in smaller, lighter containers. These are often packed close to or at airports and are transported beneath the floor holding 400 passengers, served by some 12 crew. Seafreight is shipped in greater volume containers, packed away from the ports and destined for consignees away from the ports.

“Flying is very much part of our daily life … and if anything goes wrong, the impact is newsworthy. But while we see ships in port or on the horizon, there is little connection with those on board and the cargo they transport. If something goes wrong with a ship and its crew it doesn’t necessarily make the evening news. While not taking away anything from the tragedy of an aircraft accident, most accidents at sea – as long as they don’t affect beaches - go unreported .”

Seafreight doesn’t have the public glamour nor the voting power of the airline industry, and that’s why safety standards diverge so worryingly. Worldwide some 540,000 claims, associated with container transport, are lodged each year. How do governments and industry work on improving this figure and the safety standards for the transport of seafreight containers? What support do they receive and what is achieved?

There have been a number of national and international government and semi-government bodies that have taken action by providing guidelines. The following are some of the most important ones, as they affect the Australian market:

• IMO/ILO/UN/ECE GUIDELINES FOR PACKING OF CARGO TRANSPORT UNITS (CTUs): Annex 3

7.1: The regulatory authority should establish minimum requirements for training and where appropriate, qualifications for each person involved, directly or indirectly, in the packing of cargo in (CTUs), particularly in relation to dangerous cargoes

7.4.1.1: Every person should receive training on the safe transport and packing of cargoes, commensurate with his duties. The training should be designed to provide an appreciation of the consequences of badly packed and secured cargoes in CTUs, the legal requirements, the magnitude of forces which may act on cargoes, during road, rail and sea transport, as well as, basic principles of cargo packing and securing in CTUs.

• The Victorian Government’s Work Safe Drafted guidance in June 2003

WorkSafe’s guidance material is published to assist employers and others to understand their duties and, in many cases, to provide specific guidance on how hazards and risks may be controlled.

• Australian Maritime Safety Authority hazardous goods regulations, which refer to IMO regulations, Marine Orders Part 41, 4.2:

The packing of dangerous goods into cargo transport units must be supervised by a competent person with a knowledge of the requirements of the Code and of the IMO/ILO/UN ECE Guidelines for Packing of Cargo Transport Units. The competent person is described in the notes thus: It is highly desirable that the supervisor has at least undertaken the training specified in Chapter 1.3 of the IMDG Code.

• Many insurance companies provide videos, written material and informative websites, or a combination of these. These include TT Club (he largest cargo insurance company, insuring some 70% of world trade) and Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft in Germany
• Many of international shipping lines offer advice on how to load their containers.

But when it comes to training, as opposed to passive advice through published official regulations or guidelines, there is not that much available. The Australian Federation of International Forwarders offers two courses: “How to pack and unpack airline containers” in line with the IATA requirements and “How to pack and unpack shipping containers”. And in Melbourne Watson Curro Burke Menta P/L has written and compiled a training manual ‘Street smart guide to international trade & transportation’, aimed at the export industry, and providing detailed information for those who want to learn about it, or are in the industry. There are currently no courses available at educational or technical institutions in Australia .

De Jong says there is an indisputable need for the proper stowage and packing of shipping containers ‘by people who know how to ensure the safe transport of the goods under their control’. Lacking, however, is the urgency for compulsory training, leading to the question: Why don’t governments transfer guidelines and recommendations into law and ensure that trained staff work in the industry?

He observes that the new ISPS Code has been implemented in record time, following the 11 September 2001 World Trade Centre disaster when 2,975 people died and 4,430 reported personal injuries, totalling 7,405 persons. The insurance cost for the catastrophe is estimated to be US40.2 billion. Of that amount, $4.7 billion or 12% was for life insurance and worker compensation claims, representing US$635,000 for every person who died or got injured that day.

“Transport casualties involving seafreight containers, in general, involve small numbers of people, often from less sophisticated places than America ,” de Jong says. “Do we need a wake-up call like 11 September to consider the out-turn of the cargo, the safety of seafarers, the transport industry and the general public living and working along the way from the shipper’s yard to the consignee’s premises?”

He cites the explosions and fires on the 4000 TEU Hanjin Pennsylvania, 80 miles off the Sri Lankan coast on 11 November 2002 . “News of this made the shipping industry publications, but those not involved in transport might have seen the spectacular [exploding fireworks] photos and that was all. Yet this accident cost the lives of two seafarers, total loss of 1,750 containers and their contents, the ship was declared a total loss at US$60 million, while the cargo loss was US$175 million.”

De Jong has found information about the total number of persons killed and injured in any one year as a result of container-related accidents is difficult, if not impossible to come by. If NSW Work Cover figures can be used as a basis for extrapolation, a total of 3,405 transport and storage claims were made in the financial year 2000 – 2001, and of these 392 were in the storage, non-grain industry. Further detailed breakdowns are unfortunately not available, but de Jong believes attributing half of these claims to container-related incidents would be ‘close to the mark’.

Taking as a base an estimate of 145 incidents in one year in a relatively well-educated and organised working environment, in a state that handled one million containers through its ports as a base, then worldwide ‘we are looking at some 53,000 worker compensation claims a year. That is one thousand families per week who lose their breadwinner for a period of time or in the worst case scenario, forever,’ de Jong claims.

“The majority of these one thousand accidents, giving cause to workers compensation claims, occur far away from our shores, where workers compensation is something people might dream about, but is not necessarily available. Is this a reason not to be concerned?”

While it is difficult enough to find the number of personal injury claims, it is just as hard to obtain information about how many containers are damaged. Not all cargo and container damage is reported by consignees, de Jong notes. Based on available data from some large international shipping lines, the ratio between the number of container claims and the number of containers handled seems to be some 0.15%. Currently some 360 million containers are handled; we may then assume this to result in 540,000 claims a year. As a result there are 540,000 clients who have to take corrective action.

The 540,000 cargo claims plus 53,000 personal injuries gives a total of 593,000 claims a year world-wide. Every week, one thousand people get injured and 10,000 shipping container claims are handled in an industry that works only with guidelines and recommendations.

If the current trend of 9% growth in the number of containers handled is maintained, there will be an extra 1,200 incidents per week where people look for compensation. Reason enough, surely, to require proper, government and industry-mandated, training. "