North - Signals 29 - October 1997

Port state control - new video released
Zero tolerance on Karnal Bunt
Malaysia tightens immigration rules
Hantavirus hits Chile
Brazil steps up port health inspections
Crew contracts
Stowaways in Australia
Reefer cargoes - pre-cooling holds and checking cargo temperatures on loading
US steel claims - a heavy burden on owners
Tanker retention clauses - the owner's view
The Millennium - check your clocks!
Detention in Venezuela
Defining risk management
Distance learning record
Deck cargo - uninsured risks
Port state inspections - detailed/expanded inspections
Safe access poster published
New loss prevention guide
Fire-fighting conference
Greek training course
1998 residential course
Hellenic Chamber of Shipping seminar
Welcome aboard

Port state control - new video released

Very shortly all Members will be sent a copy of a new training video which explores many issues involved in port state control inspections. Distribution of the video is intended to complement the series of articles which are being run in 'Signals' on the subject.

The 24 minute video has been produced by Maritime Training Services, Inc of Seattle, Washington, USA and has been made in conjunction with the US Coast Guard.

The video focuses upon the role of port state inspections as interpreted by the US Coast Guard, since these are generally regarded to be the highest standards which a shipowner or master could be expected to meet. If US standards can be satisfied then shipowners and masters should have little difficulty in meeting the requirements of most other port state control authorities in the world.

The video is appropriately titled 'Shipshape and inspection ready'. The producers describe the objectives and contents of the video as follows.

"I. Why port state control?

The purpose of port state control is to protect our ports, preserve the environment, and ensure the safety of ships at sea and their crews.

II. The inspection

This 24-minute video training programme covers the US Coast Guard inspection process, follows a team of inspectors through a typical boarding, and offers Coast Guard commentary on the best way to prepare ships and crews for inspection.

III. Staying shipshape

US port state control provides many tips, illustrations and examples of how to prepare for a successful port state inspection."

With the imminent implementation of the safety management systems required by the ISM Code, shipowners must appreciate that port state control inspectors will not only be looking at the 'hardware'. Inspections are now likely to start to include the safety management system itself, to make sure that it is functioning adequately and in accordance with the documented procedures.

It is important to understand that the port state control inspector is not only interested in seeing that the Document of Compliance and Safety Management Certificate are in order and that the manuals containing the written procedures are in place. Much more importantly, he or she will want to see evidence that the system itself is in place and working. The most obvious way in which this could be checked is by an audit of the system.

In the video, the Coast Guard officer points out that if the ship and shipowners are complying with the various rules and regulations - including flag state requirements as well as port state requirements - then those shipowners have nothing to fear in trading their ships to the US. If they are non-compliant then they can expect problems.

What would be even worse, and the Coast Guard officer makes this point very clearly, is if the ship enters a US port with known defects and attempts to conceal the problems. The master and shipowner can then anticipate very severe consequences indeed. The Coast Guard insists that if there are problems then the master should disclose these and the Coast Guard will then endeavour to assist and work with the master to remedy the defects.

The video is very well produced and communicates an extremely important message regarding port state inspections in an effective and concise way. The Association strongly advises Members to arrange for it to be seen by all senior shore-based and sea-going personnel.

Members can obtain additional copies of the video direct from

Maritime Training Services, Inc
1326 5th Avenue
Suite 632
Seattle
Washington 98101
USA

Tel: +1 206-467-8458
Fax: +1 206-467-0128

Please mention that you are Members of North of England P&I Association when making contact with Maritime Training Services.

Zero tolerance on Karnal Bunt

In recent years there have been incidents where cargoes have been refused entry to certain countries owing to the presence or even suspicion of the possible presence of Karnal Bunt, a relatively new wheat disease.

The disease is as yet confined to a small number of wheat producing areas in the world. It is the intended containment of any further spread of the disease that prompts such refusals.

Karnal Bunt affects wheat cargoes but it is not only wheat cargoes which are being rejected. If a ship arrives with any cargo which it is suspected may contain even a few grains of a previous wheat cargo from a possibly infected area, some countries - for example Australia - have indicated that they will not take any risks and will not allow the cargo ashore.

A detailed article on Karnal Bunt has been prepared for the Association by Godfrey Curtis of CWA Consultants Ltd. Any Member who would like to receive a copy of this article should contact the Loss Prevention Department.

Malaysia tightens immigration rules

The Malaysian Government is now so concerned about the level of illegal immigration in the country that it has substantially widened the powers of its Immigration Department.

Previously the Immigration Department had only been able to stop and search ships of less than 75 GT. However, recent changes to the applicable Immigration Act include the lifting of this weight restriction such that enforcement officers are now empowered to search any kind of ship.

The amendments have also given the Immigration Director-General the power to offer rewards leading to the arrest of those bringing in illegal immigrants. It is believed that some people obtain work on appropriate ships simply to reach Malaysia where they will then enter the country illegally to search for shore based jobs. Shipowners with ships trading to Malaysia should thus exercise extreme caution in the employment of their crew and alert their masters to the possibility of such ship searches.

Hantavirus hits Chile

Hantavirus, a highly contagious and infectious disease, has been detected in the port of Arica, Chile. The disease is normally transmitted by rodents but can be passed directly between humans. The mortality rate can be as high as 50%.

The Chilean health authorities have declared a national state of alert and Peruvian health authorities are also taking appropriate steps to protect their own population in respect of ships which have arrived from Chile.

Owners must thus be prepared for potential delays in both Chilean and Peruvian ports until ships are cleared of any suspicion of carrying the disease.

Brazil steps up port health inspections

Port health inspectors in Brazil are becoming increasingly vigorous in respect of vaccination of crew and the general sanitary condition of ships trading to their country.

Crew vaccination

ships arriving at Rio, Parangua, Santos and Vitoria from Angola, Cameroon, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Stern and Zaire in Africa; from Columbia, Ecuador and Peru in South America; from Malaysia and from any other areas which are known to suffer from epidemics of infectious diseases such as Ebola, will be subject to strict health inspections and possibly fumigation of the ship.

All crew will be asked to produce valid vaccination certificates, particularly for yellow fever. If this is not complied with, the ship may be delayed for six to ten days for quarantine and a fine of up to US$2,000 will be imposed on each crew member who has been unable to show that he or she has been properly vaccinated.

Sanitary checks

In other Brazilian ports, including Itajai, Manaus, Rio Grande and Sao Franciso Do Sul, the port health inspectors appear more concerned with matters of general cleanliness and certain preventative measures. Members are thus advised to ensure that the following points are observed.

The yellow flag to be left hoisted until the ship has been visited.
Rat guards to be put in place immediately upon berthing and to be kept in position during the ship's stay alongside.
The safety net to be in place as soon as the gangway is lowered.
The cabin allocated for the authorities to be clean and well aired.
The medicine chest to be clean, tidy and, most importantly, all medicines to be within the validity date.
Ship's galley to be clean, with no food lying about. The fridge must also be clean with no food left in open cans, etc. All refuse to be in plastic bags in a container with the lid on. The meat board must be clean.
Health authorities may request to view crew cabins which must be clean, free of food lying about, and any rubbish in a bin with a lid on.
Ear plugs to be readily available in the engine room.

We understand that a whole range of fines can be applied if the above points are not adhered to, for example food kept beyond the expiry date will result in a fine of approximately US$850 per item found.

Required information

The following information will be requested from ships prior to arrival in Brazilian ports. This should serve as a reminder of details to be logged by the ship and action that must be taken on board.

1. ship's name.
2. ship's type.
3. ship's flag.
4. Master's name.
5. How many officers and crew members on board.
6. Name and sailing date of ship's last five ports of call.
7. Details of any deaths that have occurred on board during the present voyage.
8. Details of any crew members on board that are ill.
9. Number of dead rats found on board during present voyage.
10. Details of any medicines consumed during present voyage.
11. Quantity of fresh water on board.
12. The name of last port where fresh water taken.
13. Quantity of ballast water on board.
14. The name of last port where ballast water taken.
15. Assessment of possibility of leakage of sanitary residues without treatment during ship's stay in port.
16. Description of the sanitary treatment system on board ship.
17. Quantity of sanitary residues in tank and tank capacity.
18. Quantity of disinfection material on board.
19. Confirmation that residue tanks will be emptied twelve miles from the Brazilian coast, and immediately closed and sealed - seal number to be advised.
20. Confirmation that no garbage produced on board during ship's stay in port will be thrown into the water.
21. Confirmation of no infestation of insects, rats or beetles on board.
22. Confirmation there has been no accident on board with the cargo that could put public health or local environment at risk.

Crew contracts

Members are reminded that if they are presented with a new crew employment contract, the Association would be happy to review it and comment on the benefits provided in comparison to existing crew contracts.

Clauses in employment contracts now frequently provide for levels of compensation far greater than would be considered standard in the relevant jurisdiction.

It should be noted by Members that, under the Association's rules, the contents of crew employment contracts are only covered where the contract has been submitted and approved by the Association in advance.

Stowaways in Australia

As Members are no doubts aware, there are now very few countries which offer any real assistance when the subject of stowaways arises. Australia is no exception.

When a ship first arrives at an Australian port with a stowaway on board, it is necessary for the ship to have already advised the authorities of the stowaway's presence. Usually a representative of the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will attend on board to perform various interviews. Various statutory notices will then be issued to the master requiring the detention of the stowaway on board and that the stowaway will be taken from Australia with the ship upon its departure.

Immigration will only allow the stowaway to leave the ship under the following conditions:

if the stowaway applies for refugee status
if there are real concerns about the ship's security arrangements
if Immigration is persuaded that repatriation from Australia by air is both appropriate and feasible.

The arrival of a ship in Australian waters with a stowaway on board highlights two main liability considerations. Firstly, there is the liability to repatriate the stowaway and to compensate the Australian Government for any detention costs. Secondly, there is liability for a potential breach of Australian Immigration laws.

Under section 262 of the Australian Migration Act the ship's master, owner, charterer and agent are jointly and severally liable to compensate Immigration for any expenses incurred in respect of detention and/or repatriation of the stowaway. At present detention costs are Aus $139 per day. Immigration will however only consider repatriation by air where it is persuaded that there is 'good reason for this' and, in this respect, the following factors will be considered:

extreme inconvenience to the operation, accommodation or the provisioning arrangements of the ship
the ship's unsuitability for securing the stowaway, due to its design
the threat of physical violence to the ship's passengers or crew
the owner's inability otherwise to repatriate the stowaway due to the ship's scheduled or intended voyage.

Further, the owner must satisfy Immigration that the stowaway will be accepted back by the nominated country of destination, and thus must obtain conclusive travel documentation for the stowaway and arrange a foolproof repatriation itinerary.

If, however, the stowaway applies for asylum or refugee status, he or she will be removed from the ship and placed into Immigration detention pending consideration of their claim, a process which may take several months. If the refugee application is granted, the stowaway will be granted permanent residence and the owner will not be liable for repatriation or accrued Immigration detention costs. If the application is unsuccessful, the owner would be liable to arrange and pay for the following:

repatriation by air, including escort and other associated costs
the cost of Immigration detention between the date of rejection of the refugee application and the stowaway's eventual repatriation. The owner will not however be liable to compensate the Government for the cost of Immigration detention during the consideration of the claim.

If a stowaway is found on board a ship prior to arrival in Australia, the master should arrange to contact the local P&I correspondent as soon as possible to minimise the risk of incurring financial penalties under the Act and to maximise the level of co-operation that is likely from Immigration. Members should also advise the Club as soon as possible once any stowaway is discovered.

Reefer cargoes - pre-cooling holds and checking cargo temperatures on loading

The purpose of pre-cooling ship's holds is two fold. It gives the opportunity to examine the refrigeration plant in working condition and to check the proper operation of the machinery and temperature recording. The cargo will benefit from careful pre-cooling of the ship's structure and insulation material.

For the above reasons pre-cooling should always be carried out. The actual pre-cooling temperature will depend on the terms of the charterparty, shipper's instructions and/or company rules.

Pre-loading temperatures are to be recorded, especially in case there is no pre-loading survey carried out by an independent surveyor.

Before loading, the master must be advised about the carriage temperatures for the intended cargo(es). These instructions should be discussed with the officers who will be caring for the cargo and operating the refrigeration machinery during the loading and the voyage. The instructions should then be provided in written form. In case the instructions are not clear, further details should be obtained from the shipper or the agent.

Enquiries should be made about the origin of the cargo, the distance from the production area or the previous (cold) storage and the mode of transport to the loading berth.

It is not uncommon for stevedores to protest against continued cooling during loading, especially when the fans are running at full speed. This matter should be thoroughly discussed between the ship's staff and stevedores with emphasis on continued cooling during the loading. As a matter of compromise the fans could run at low speed.During meal breaks and stoppages the holds should of course be closed with the cooling set at the required temperature.

Frozen cargoes are always pre-cooled. A drill or pin and hammer may be needed to reach the core of the frozen product with a thermometer. The cargo has to be checked visually for signs of thawing or whether the cargo has been thawed and refrozen. This may be recognised by wet or dry stains, excessive ice formation or deformed cartons and/or contents.

The temperature of frozen juice in drums may be verified visually by exterior frost formation or contact measuring without damaging the plastic bag containing the juice.

Cargoes of chilled meat are also always pre-cooled. Chilled meat is very sensitive to changes in temperature and should be checked carefully. However, since it is usually vacuum packed, spear temperatures will cause damage to the tested pack. The shipper should be asked to replace random checked cartons/packages.

Fruit and vegetables are not always pre-cooled. They are usually sensitive to too high and/or too low temperatures.

The pre-loading transport and storage conditions may effect the temperature of the goods as well as the quality. The effect of the pre-loading handling on the quality of the fruit will usually not be apparent at the time of loading but may appear at discharge as a deviating quality, decay and/or prematurely ripened fruit.

For example, pears which are usually pre-cooled to 0ºC may have a relatively high pulp temperature upon loading although in an apparent sound condition. Cooling these pears during the voyage may be problematic and the pears may show signs of ripening upon discharge. The allegation that the cargo was not properly cooled is easily made.

The ship's defence is weakened when it cannot be proven, on the basis of detailed pulp temperatures taken upon loading, that the pre-loading condition caused the ripened condition of the pears.

Upon loading, the pulp temperatures have to be checked extensively and recorded in detail. Due to the variety in products, shippers and circumstances in the load ports, the master should ask the agents, shippers or stevedores to be provided with a detailed loading list and in which hold/compartment the various parcels are to be loaded.

Pulp temperatures may be taken in the ship's holds but also ashore, such as from the cargo in trucks or in warehouses.

Temperatures are to be taken

at the beginning, half way and at the end of the loading of each compartment
from each commodity separately
separately from parcels delivered by various shippers
from parcels which appear deviating.
This article was submitted by KF Menting of CWA Menting Marine

US steel claims - a heavy burden on owners

During the past few years, substantial quantities of steel manufactured in the former Soviet states, referred to as 'Russian steel', has been exported from Baltic Sea and Black Sea ports to the US.

The steel is manufactured at inland mills and is transported several hundred miles by rail car to various sea ports. Hot-rolled products are stored in the open - exposed to rain, snow and freezing temperatures - whereas cold-rolled steel coils are purportedly stored in wharf warehouses. However, many of the warehouses have large side openings which expose the cold-rolled steel to the same atmospheric conditions as the hot-rolled steel.

Although the steel is represented by US importers to be prime steel, indications are that Russian mill specifications are lax. Thickness is not always exactly as represented and mill scale, which can act as a protective coating, is frequently loose, irregular or missing.

When the steel is loaded aboard ships during the winter months, mates' receipts and bills of lading are frequently claused with such exceptions as 'rusty', 'partly rust stained', 'wet before shipment', 'snow covered', 'some bands broken'. In addition, reference may be made to specific coils with covers torn or dented and plate bent. Shipowners assume that placing exceptions on the bills of lading will protect them with respect to claims for this type of damage at the port of discharge.

However, major importers in the US routinely have discharge surveys where a solution of silver nitrate is applied to areas of rust, particularly that observed on the top tiers of steel. If there is any positive reaction for presence of chlorides, substantial suits are brought claiming that all or most of the rust and pitting damage is due to 'seawater' wetting. The issue then arises as to the quantity of steel actually effected by seawater as distinguished from preshipment rust.

The Hague Rules and the US Carriage of Goods By Sea Act (COGSA) exonerate the ocean carrier from liability with respect to various causes of damage, including 'damage arising from inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods', 'insufficiency of packing' and 'any other cause arising without the actual fault and privity of the carrier'. The carrier certainly should not be liable for preshipment exceptions or damages if noted on the bills of lading.

Unfortunately, US courts have held that in the case of two causes of damage, one for which the carrier is exonerated from liability under COGSA, and the other for which the carrier is liable, the carrier has the burden of producing evidence to segregate clearly the two types of damage, failing which the carrier is liable for the entire loss from both causes.

In a 1994 Second Circuit Division Thyssen Inc V the SS Eurounity, the bills of lading had been claused 'rust stained', 'partly rust stained' and 'wet before shipment'. The court nevertheless held that proof of seawater entry into the holds was sufficient to hold the ocean carrier liable for the entire loss notwithstanding the bills of lading exceptions. The court relied on testimony of a surveyor at the load port that such exceptions of rust stain and wet before shipment were 'standardised notations (and) referred to non-damaging atmospheric rust that does not effect the value of the steel'.

The court also held that heavy weather with Beaufort scale winds force 10-11 and waves between 10 and 11.5 m in chaotic cross seas did not constitute a peril of the sea defence and did not excuse the shipowner of liability for seawater entry through the hatches. The court held that such weather during a winter North Atlantic crossing was expectable, stating that the sea peril defence is only available where conditions 'are of an extraordinary nature or arise from irresistible force or overwhelming power, which cannot be guarded against by the ordinary exertions of human skill and prudence'.

In light of the stance taken by the US courts, if evidence of seawater is found in the holds at discharge, it will be very difficult for a carrier to escape liability for all damage claims under US jurisprudence if there is evidence of grooved and hardened or piecemeal hatch cover gaskets, missing or broken hatch cover cleats, wasted hatch covers, or evidence of sea water drip down on the coamings and cargo surfaces.

This article was prepared by Robert B Dean, General Partner in the firm of Chaffe McCall Phillips Toler and Sarpy.

Tanker retention clauses - the owner's view

The duty to pay freight without deduction in voyage charter cases has always been a galling one for tanker charterers.

The refusal of the English Common Law to give a right of set-off against freight for cargo loss or damage claims has meant that an owner is generally entitled to receive all freight. Any recovery by the charterer will need to be by way of an action in court with the obvious cash-flow implications. Owners will want to ensure this happy situation is preserved.

Danger has arisen, however, in the shape of contractual 'remaining on board (ROB) clauses' giving charterers a recognised right to deduct tanker freight - and in some cases to keep it. Accordingly owners should be vigilant, both in contractual negotiations and at the discharge port, to see that the rights given to charterers are as limited and specifically defined as commercial considerations allow and that any concessions granted to charterers are strictly in accordance with those rights.

The basic features of ROB clauses (to take the Amoco cargo retention clause as an example) usually include:

a right to deduct the value of any cargo remaining on board at the discharge port from the total freight due on the carriage
a proviso that the quantity remaining on board will be determined by an independent surveyor
a further proviso requiring that surveyor to make certain objective determinations about the nature of the cargo and the ship's ability to discharge it
an indication of whether the right to deduct is to be final and conclusive or whether it is to be a right of security alone, with the owner remaining free to pursue the freight in subsequent legal proceedings.

As ROB clauses present the charterer with an exception from his common law duty to pay freight without deduction, courts have been strict in their construction. Justice Parker stated in Lakeport Navigation Company Panama SA v Anonima Petroli Italiana Spa ("The Olympic Brilliance")[1981] 2 LLR:

"What the charterer has to do is to prove the matters which the clause in question requires him to prove in order to succeed in the deduction".

Owners should bear this in mind. The burden of proof is on charterers in respect of each item within the ROB clause. When negotiating a fixture, owners should look to impose as many as the market permits.

The cases have shown that even common requirements like that of a determination as to 'pumpability' of cargo may prove insuperably difficult for charterers in practice. The more hurdles owners place in the charterer's path to a contractual deduction, the more likely the latter are to fall by the wayside.

Voyage charterers in the petroleum trade also often seek to trade on standard clauses and have standard testing and documentation practices at discharge ports. Minor amendments to their standard clauses inserted on fixing may impose further requirements with fatal effect on the right to deduct.

Owners will want to ensure that retention clauses agreed to by them take into account the peculiarities of their ships and any cargoes permitted to be carried under the charterparty. Petroleum cargoes take many forms. If an owner fears a deduction will be made where semi-congealed cargo lies outside the reach of his ship's stripping system, the owner will do well to demand the insertion of a clause requiring a determining surveyor to certify that ROB cargo is reachable (as occurred in a recent commercial court hearing).

Whether an ROB Clause will allow a final deduction or simply a security deduction while the parties' rights are decided in court or by negotiations will be a matter of construction of each individual clause. The clause used in "The Olympic Brilliance" was found to allow a final determination. In either case the court showed itself determined to apply the plain meaning of the words used to the facts in hand.

Owners should thus be vigilant to ensure they do not inadvertently agree to an ROB clause giving charterers a final right to deduct from hire even where owners are not in breach or would be protected by charterparty exceptions on a claim for short-delivery.

Except where an ROB clause does give a charterer the right to make a final deduction, the charterer will still have to establish its right to withhold the sum in question. This will mean court or arbitration proceedings must be brought within the relevant limitation period which, in cases where Hague Rules apply by contract or statute, will be one year from the time the ROB should have been discharged. If the charterer does not commence proceedings within this time its claim will be extinguished and it will have no defence to the owner's claim for the withheld freight.

Having set out some general considerations for owners when dealing with ROB clauses, it may be useful to consider the treatment of some common expressions in recent cases in the commercial court.

"An independent surveyor" - In a recent case the judge held that this expression contemplated a joint appointment by the parties where the surveyor was to have the additional right to make a 'final and binding determination' of the amount and condition of the cargo and the ship's ability to extract it. The determination of a well-known firm of surveyors acting independently of either party (in that case for third-party receivers) would not satisfy the clause. In a normal situation there might be several 'independent surveyors' of the latter type. As these might reach different conclusions it could not be said that the parties had intended the findings of any single one to bind them.
"Determines" - The London Arbitration appearing in LMLN as 28/91 rejected the proposition that a surveyor's certificate describing cargo as "liquid" and "commonly referred to as "pumpable" by the industry" satisfied this requirement. The words were "wholly inappropriate to a determination". The judge saw "considerable force" in that view. It should be pointed out that it is the content rather than the form of a "determination" that matters and a verbal determination can suffice where sustained by evidence. This would follow from the reasoning of Mr Justice Diamond in Exmar v Veba Oil Limited (1991)(unreported).
"Pumpable" - The judge was not required to define this term due to the charterers' failure to establish any "determination" on the matter. The prevailing view in US arbitrations is that this is for charterers to prove and will involve the surveyor inspecting the ship's pumping gear and concluding that the cargo could be pumped by that gear if working correctly. The US arbitrations have not treated "pumpable" as meaning also "reachable". The words "and reachable by the ship's pumps" were added to a standard amended version of the Amoco clause in this case. Standard documents proffered by the charterer in support of its deduction made no mention of the cargo's "reachability" and this was enough to dispose of the case in the owner's favour, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of a manuscript amendment to the standard terms of an unwary oil trader.
"Any action or lack of action in accordance with this provision shall be without prejudice to any rights or obligations of the parties." In the "Exmar" case referred to above, the judge confirmed that this provision (from the Amoco clause) meant that that clause properly allowed for a security deduction rather than conclusive determination of the parties' rights. Owners should beware amendments to this clause which may, if clearly expressed, convert it to one of the latter type.

Charterers, having inserted an ROB clause in their charterparties, often appear to behave as if entitled to make a deduction in every case where cargo is certified by their appointed surveyor to remain on board. This is not the case and owners may do well to check their files for cases where deductions have been made in the past without adherence to the requirements of the ROB clause in question. The right to freight may well have outlived the cross-claim for short-delivery.

For the future, owners granting an ROB concession should give serious thought both to its definition and, in practice, the burdens of proof imposed on the charterer.

The Association wishes to thank solicitor, Stephen Mann of Rayfield Mills for contributing this article.

The Millennium - check your clocks!

The year 2000 is two years away but Members are advised to check any of their software systems which incorporate any sort of an electronic dating facility.

Many computer systems use two figures to represent the year element of the date, for example 01.10.97. For the first year of the Millennium the year would become '00'. In some computer systems this could cause errors or unexpected results.

Advice from the manufacturers of the equipment or software should be sought where necessary.

Detention in Venezuela

"We have heard from some of our fellow shipowners that there are problems in Venezuela regarding authority detentions resulting in many weeks of arrest at Venezuelan ports. We are considering taking a charter into Pto Cabello and are concerned that we could be caught up in this so would appreciate your help."

You are quite right to be concerned about trading to Venezuela. Basically two problems have arisen in the past year or so - firstly you will have seen the extensive press coverage of a large number of groundings which have occurred in the Maracaibo Channel as a result of the failure by the authorities to dredge the Channel properly. Intertanko as well as the P&I Clubs involved in the various groundings and oil spills that have occurred have been putting pressure on the authorities to improve the dredging of the Maracaibo Channel.

The second problem which has arisen is that the Venezuelan authorities have so far not understood how the CLC 1969 and the Fund Convention 1971 operate and in one oil pollution case, the ship was detained for over three months after the CLC Limitation Fund had been established by way of a bank guarantee from the P&I Club concerned. In that particular case, lawyers acting for the Fishermen's Union and other claimants have obtained arrest orders in different courts for sums over US$300 million. It was only after intervention at the highest political level that the ship was freed without security above the CLC Limitation Fund being provided. Clearly it is in the interests of all owners that the Clubs refuse to put up security for extortionate claims which are otherwise governed by CLC 1969 which Venezuela has ratified, but is effectively ignoring.

Venezuela is not alone in refusing to abide by the Convention. There are several other countries where the resolve to face up to national responsibilities wavers when confronted with local pressure groups, usually fishermen who may believe they can become overnight millionaires due to the total destruction of stocks and nets.

This problem is being looked at by the International Group with a view to resolving it as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, we suggest that if you take up the fixture to Venezuela you ensure that you do not spill any oil!

Defining risk management

"As the Fleet Safety Manager of a shipping company with ships entered in your Association, I wonder if you can shed some light on a subject which I seem to hear more and more about: risk management. It would help greatly if you could offer a definition as risk management seems to mean different things to different people".

Like yourself, we are hearing more and more about risk management and we concur that it does seem to mean different things to different people. A definition which describes the subject aptly is to be found in the Chartered Insurance Institute publication 'Risk Management', which identifies risk as "the unfortunate things which may happen in the future".

It goes on to state "risk management is about recognising what these events are and how severe they may be and how they can be controlled". Risk management is then defined as "The identification, analysis and economic control of those risks which can threaten the assets or earning capacity of an enterprise".

In our opinion this is a good definition and explains what is meant by risk management. By way of further information we would also offer the following. "Risk is the likelihood of an incident combined with the severity of the accompanying loss. A risk-based safety management system produces a list of tasks and risks in priority order. The assessment of risk is very subjective and varies depending upon the assessor".

Distance learning record

The first student to complete the new distance learning course in P&I insurance and loss prevention has sailed through in record-breaking time.

Captain A Bar-Tor, of Zim Israel Navigation, started the course in late June 1997 and had submitted the last of his 14 tutor-marked assignments before the end of August. That was an outstanding achievement in itself but Captain Bar-Tor also scored an average 91% pass mark!

The Association would like to extend its warmest congratulations to Captain Bar-Tor and wish him well for the future.

Deck cargo - uninsured risks

"At charterer's request, our ship loaded a cargo, which is normally carried under-deck, on deck with under-deck bills being issued. As such action normally prejudices Club cover, we obtained shipowner's liability cover from the market to stand in place of Club cover. The ship encountered heavy weather on passage resulting in a loss of some deck cargo and a serious shift of the remaining deck cargo. Our master diverted to a port of refuge for restowing. Who is responsible for restowage costs?"

In these circumstances, such costs are unlikely to be recoverable under general average (presuming GA has been declared) as they may not be deemed to be necessary for the safe prosecution of the voyage as a whole. Nor would such costs be recoverable under the shipowner's SOL policy - this being limited to claims by third parties and it is unlikely that in these circumstances costs would be recoverable from the Club, cover having already been prejudiced.

Accordingly, costs would have to be met directly by the shipowner in the first instance.

Port state inspections - detailed/expanded inspections

If after a preliminary inspection, as detailed in the last issue of 'Signals', there are "clear grounds" for believing that the condition of a ship or its equipment does not comply with the requirements of the convention, a port state control officer (PSCO) can initiate a detailed/expanded inspection.

"Clear grounds" for a detailed inspection to be initiated might include one or more of the following.

Ships flying the flag of a state appearing in the three year rolling average tables published by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) indicating that the flag state in question has an above average number of detentions.
Ships that have been given permission to sail from one member state on the proviso that noted deficiencies must be rectified within a specified time frame.
Ships which have been reported as having deficiencies which may prejudice its safe navigation, by pilots or port authorities.
Ships which have certificates for safety equipment or safety construction which have been issued by an organisation not recognised by the MOU.
Ships which are in categories which require expanded inspections (see below).
Ships which have been suspended by class for safety reasons in the previous six months.
A ship which has been reported by another member state.
A ship which has been reported by the master, a crew member, or any other person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safety or operation of the ship.
Any ship which has been involved in a collision on passage to the port in question.
Any ship which has not maintained the oil record book.
A ship which has violated international discharge regulations.
Any ship where deficiencies have been discovered in documentation or certification.
Any ship where the crew do not comply with minimum training standards.
A ship where there is evidence of on board operations being conducted in an unsafe manner, or in a way which does not comply with IMO guidelines.
A tanker where the master cannot produce records showing evidence of compliance with international oil pollution regulations during her last ballast voyage.
A ship which does not have an up-to-date muster list or when crew members are unaware of their responsibilities in the event of fire or when the master orders abandon ship.

However, for some ship types, an expanded inspection is required as detailed under the MOU requirements. Ship types subject to expanded inspections include the following categories.

Oil tankers, five years or less from the date of phasing out in accordance with MARPOL 73/78, Annex 1, regulation 13G.
Bulk carriers older than 12 years as determined in the ship's safety certificate.
Passenger ships.
Gas and chemical tankers older than ten years as indicated in the ship's safety certificate.

Once the ship is the subject of a detailed/expanded inspection, there is often much confusion about what this inspection will entail. The following items may be inspected but the list forms a non-mandatory guideline for such inspections. Under the terms of the regulations, all ship types listed above are subject to the following tests during a detailed inspection.

Black out and start of emergency generator.
Inspection of emergency lighting.
Operation of emergency fire pump with two fire hoses connected to the fire main line.
Operation of bilge pumps.
Closing of watertight doors.
Lowering of one sea-side lifeboat to the water.
Testing of remote emergency stops, for example boilers, ventilation and fuel pumps.
Testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear.
Inspection of emergency source of power to radio installations.
Inspections, and to the extent possible, test of engine room oil water separators.

Additional tests detailed in the requirements are ship-specific and are to be found under the following ship type categories

oil tankers
bulk carriers
gas and chemical tankers
passenger ships.

The additional requirements of a detailed inspection for these ship types are given below.

Oil tankers

Fixed deck foam systems.
Fire fighting equipment in general.
Inspection of fire dampers to engine room, pump room and accommodation.
Control of pressure of inert gas and the oxygen content of inert gas.
Check of survey report files to identify possible suspect areas which may require further inspection.

Bulk carriers

Possible corrosion of deck machinery foundations.
Possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers.
Possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulk heads.
Access to cargo holds.
Check of survey reports to identify possible suspect areas which may require further inspection.

Gas and chemical tankers

Cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating to temperature, pressure and ullages.
Oxygen analysing and explosive meter devices, including the calibration of such equipment. The availability of chemical detection equipment (bellows with appropriate number of suitable gas detection tubes) for the specific cargoes that might be carried on board should be checked.
Cabin escape sets giving suitable respiratory and eye protection for every person on board (if required by the products listed on the international certificate of fitness for the carriage of dangerous chemicals in bulk or liquefied gasses in bulk as applicable).
Check that the product being carried is listed in the international certificate of fitness.
The fixed fire fighting installations on deck whether they be foam or dry chemical or other as required by the product carried.

Passenger ships

Testing of fire detection and alarm systems.
Testing of proper closing of fire doors.
Testing of public address systems.
Fire drills where, as a minimum, all sets of firemen's outfits must be demonstrated and part of the catering crew must join in.
Demonstration showing that key crew members are acquainted with a damage control plan.

If deemed appropriate and when permission is obtained from the ship master or shipowner, inspectors may carry out such inspections whilst the ship is on passage. However, at no time should the inspection obstruct the operation of the ship or cause a situation which may endanger the ship, the officers, crew or passengers.

As a result of a detailed/expanded port state inspection, it may be that the ship is detained or a follow-up inspection is ordered. These subjects will be the topics covered in the next issue of 'Signals'.

Safe access poster published

The latest in North of England's safe work accident prevention poster (SWAPP) series depicts the rights and wrongs of providing a safe access to and from a ship.

Maritime administrations place an obligation on shipowners (and their shipboard representative - the master) to provide a safe means of access to and from their ships. This is usually complied with by using an accommodation ladder.

It is imperative that the accommodation ladder or gangway is correctly rigged, adjusted to suit the prevailing conditions, well lit and easily accessible. A safety net, correctly adjusted, should always be fitted.

From the moment any person sets foot on a ship's accommodation ladder they should be aware that they are entering a potentially hazardous area. This message should be clearly indicated at the bottom of the gangway and personal protective equipment requirements, smoking regulations and restricted access information clearly displayed.

A copy of SWAPP 7 is enclosed with this issue of 'Signals'. Members can obtain further copies from the Loss Prevention Department of the Association.

New loss prevention guide

The Association is pleased to announce the imminent publication of the latest addition to its highly popular series of loss prevention guides.

Entitled 'Hatch Cover Maintenance and Operation - A Guide to Good Practice' the guide offers vital information on how to prevent hatch covers becoming a potential source of cargo claims.

Around one third of all P&I claims are for damaged or lost cargo and account for some US$700 million each year. Of these, approximately 75% of cargo-worthiness defects in the dry cargo ships involved are related to hatch covers.

There are only a few books on hatch covers but they tend to be highly technical, being written primarily for naval architects. The new loss prevention guide provides practical, easy-to-follow advice for shipowners and sea staff on the maintenance and operation of most types of steel hatch covers currently in use.

The book is written by David Byrne who is an ex sea-farer, a naval architect and managing director of UK hatch cover design consultancy Transmarine. He is widely regarded as a leading authority on the subject of hatch covers and has given several papers on the subject in recent years.

'Hatch Cover Maintenance and Operation' is designed to offer useful information to shipowners, managers and operators on looking after hatch covers. It focuses on the key elements of hatch cover design with particular reference to weather tightness, seals, sealing arrangements, cleats, restraints and drainage.

Guidance is also provided on maintenance regimes as well as the critical aspects of safe operation. The book concludes with a hatch cover maintenance check list and six case studies which focus on examples of claims handled by the Association which relate to hatch cover operation, maintenance and leakage.

All procedures recommended in the guide are easily implemented and will go a long way to reducing claims and maritime losses.

'Hatch Cover Maintenance and Operation' is the sixth in the Association's series of loss prevention guides and is being distributed to Members of the Association around the end of October. Additional copies will be available to Members from the Loss Prevention Department. Non-Members can obtain copies from the commercial publishers: Anchorage Press, 9 Hartington Road, Twickenham, TW1 3EL, UK at a price of £25 including postage.

Fire-fighting conference

In May 1998 North of England P&I and our sister company, Marine Shipping Mutual (MSMI) will be acting as co-sponsors of a major maritime safety conference being organised in conjunction with the professional body for fire fighters worldwide - The Institution of Fire Engineers. The two day event will be held on board the Scandinavian Seaways ship "Admiral" on a round voyage from Newcastle to Ijmuiden and back.

Fires and other emergency incidents involving ships and offshore installations, either in port or at sea but within reach of shore-based fire brigades, can present particular problems from the command point of view. This conference will explore the latest research on command decision making and its application to the international and inter-cultural environment found on board ships. It will also consider the views of fire brigades, ships' captains and harbour masters in respect of the chain of command and who should hold the overall authority for managing such incidents.

A number of delegate places have been made available to North of England Members. The delegate cost has not been confirmed at the time of this issue of 'Signals' going to press but will not exceed an all inclusive price of £300 with single berth cabin.

Any Member wishing to secure a provisional reservation at this important conference is asked to advise the Loss Prevention Department at the Association as soon as possible.

Greek training course

The Association will be holding a five day training course in P&I insurance and loss prevention between 17 & 21 November 1997 at the Athens Chandris Hotel, Greece.

The course will provide an excellent foundation in a wide range of P&I related subjects including underwriting and claims. It will also introduce loss prevention ideas to enable delegates to identify ways in which they can help prevent claims arising in the first place.

Each topic will be covered by a series of lectures by experts drawn from Association staff, the shipping industry and the legal profession.

An important feature of the course is that each series of lectures is reinforced by a practical workshop. By solving realistic and practical problems within the workshop sessions the delegates will more readily understand and absorb the information presented in the lectures.

Delegate numbers will be restricted to 30 on the course to achieve maximum value from the workshop sessions. Because of this restriction potential delegates are advised to register as soon as possible.

For full details and a registration form please contact the Loss Prevention Department of the Association as soon as possible.

1998 residential course

The five-day residential training course held at Lumley Castle near Newcastle in June 1997 was heavily oversubscribed. Comments from those who made it onto the course by registering early included the following.

"...thank you for the tremendous week...I learnt a lot, made some good friends, and had probably the most enjoyable week out of the office in living memory!"

"Many thanks for a very informative and enjoyable course."

"I write to thank you for a fantastic week... The seminar was truly of great value..."

"The course was excellently run and presented."

"I would not like to miss this opportunity to thank you for a very educational but at the same time also most enjoyable week..."

"I found the whole week interesting and informative and it has given me a much more detailed insight into this class of business."

"I felt that I had to write to thank you, your colleagues from NEPIA and those from South Tyneside College for making what was a truly memorable course."

"Congratulations on an excellent course in all aspects. Hopefully I have learnt a great deal throughout the course which was thoroughly enjoyable."

"I enjoyed every bit of the course and found it worthwhile."

Next year's residential course will again be held at Lumley Castle Hotel and the dates have now been fixed for the week commencing Monday, 1 June 1998.

The course will be formally advertised in January 1998 but provisional registrations are being taken now.

If you would like to secure a place on next year's residential course - or would like more information - please contact the Loss Prevention Department of the Association.

Hellenic Chamber of Shipping seminar

North of England was recently honoured when it was asked to address a seminar hosted by the Hellenic Chamber of Shipping in Piraeus, Greece. The seminar in technical and legal issues relating to marine fuels was attended by some 70 delegates. The papers presented by Richard Bracken, Jane Greenshields and Thya Kathiravel will form the basis of a special edition of 'Signals' which is expected to be issued later in 1997.

Welcome aboard

The Association would like to extend a warm welcome to five new members of staff who have joined since the last issue of 'Signals'.

Thomas Brown

Commenced career at sea in 1983 with the P&O Group. Sailed on a wide range of ships, taking 3 years out to complete a BSc (Hons) in Marine Technology and Maritime Law at Plymouth University, prior to returning to sea and completing his Master Mariner's Certificate of Competency in 1997.

Stephen Rebair

Stephen joined the Association in September 1997 and is primarily concerned with personal injury claims. Stephen obtained a law degree from the University of East Anglia in Norwich before qualifying as a solicitor in 1995 with Norwich solicitors Rogers & Norton where he specialised in personal injury litigation.

Karen Sackfield

Karen is originally from Leeds but moved to Newcastle in 1993 to study for the LLB (Honours) Exempting Degree in Law at the University of Northumbria. During this time she also worked as an auxiliary nurse. She graduated with a 2.1 in July of this year.

Andrea Skeoch

Andrea joined the FD&D Department in August, 1997 from Cameron Markby Hewitt, a firm of solicitors in London. She has an LLB in English and French law from the University of Essex and a Diplôme Des Etudes Juridiques Fransçaises from the University of Strasbourg, France.

Paul Watson

Paul obtained a First Class LLB (Hons) degree from Manchester University. He then spent two years with Hull based solicitors, Andrew M Jackson & Co, including nine months working in their Admiralty and Shipping Department.