PART ONE

Container ships are cargo vessels that carry their payload in truck-sized boxes which
makes them easy to ship as well as unload and transport once in port. These ships are
designed so that no amount of space is wasted.
"Container revolution is a term which is often and increasingly heard of today.
Simplified, it just stands for a box of freight delivered from one place to the other. A
container has created a dramatic change in earlier systems for the movement of cargo
by ocean. The prospects for further changes are manifold. At the same time containers
have raised a myriad of problems that also need to be tackled. As a result of this many
new regulations and codes have been now incorporated to ensure the safe carriage of
cargo.
Lets us first have a look at the various advantages and disadvantages of
containerization.
Advantages
O Flexibility of usage: The type of cargo carried in containers is unlimited. Raw
materials (coal, wheat), manufactured goods, cars, frozen products ,Liquids (oil
and chemical products) and reefers(50% of all refrigerated cargo) are just a few
examples of the versatile nature of container ships.
O Costs Low transport costs: The transport costs of containers are also very less
as compared to other cargo types. They cost 20 times less than bulk transport.
O Speed: Transshipment operations are minimal and rapid. Port turnaround times
reduced from 3 weeks to about 24 hours. Containerships are faster than regular
freighter ships.
O Stopping pilferage: Contents of the container are unknown to shippers; they can
only be opened at the origin, at customs and at the destination. Reduces
spoilage and losses due to pilferage.

Disadvantages:
O Management logistics: requires management and tracking of every container.
Recording, (re)positioning and ordering of containers.
O Empty movements: Many containers are moved empty (20% of all flows)
either full or empty, a container takes the same amount of space.
O llicit trade: Common instrument used in the illicit trade of drug and weapons, as
well as for illegal immigration. Worries about the usage of containers for
terrorism.

Now in view of the above Iet us examine a few accidents and see as to how they
impacted changes in various reguIations
1) Cosco Busan : On November 08, 2007 Cosco Busan crashed into the base of a
tower of the Bay Bridge's western span in heavy fog spilling 58,000 gallons of fuel
into San Francisco Bay. n the ensuing USCG investigations it was proved that the
accident was a combined result of incompetence and human error. The vessel
whilst navigating in heavy fog did not adhere to safe speed & misinterpreting the
information given by the ECDS. The operator was fined 10 million USD. This
accident resulted in USCG making the following new regulation.
"
Members trading ships to and from the US will be interested in a new Coast
Guard requirement for non tank ships to submit a response plan. Operators of
tankers trading to US waters will already be familiar with the requirement to lodge
an oil spill response plan with the US Coast Guard.
"

(ref. //www.ukpandi.com/)


2) M/V Hyundai Fortune/Hanjin Pennslyvannia :These two vessels had explosions
onboard from containers carrying dangerous goods. The UK P& club took initiative
in focusing on the mis-stowed and mis-declared dangerous goods in freight
containers and also varying standards of competence of shore personnel involved
in consigning and packing containers. Following these accidents the UK P& club
made the following recommendations .

"
t was in response to this dangerous trend that the Club launched four related
guidebooks with supporting training material on the workings of the nternational
Maritime Dangerous Goods (MDG) Code under the thematic title Book it Right and
Pack it Tight.

"
(ref www.ukpandi.com, MDG code)
3) MSC Napoli : the vessel suffered a major hull failure through engine room in
rough seas when she was transiting the English channel. The ensuing MAB
investigation stated a number of key factors in the hull failure one of which was the
incorrect declaration of weights in the containers with upto 20% of them declared
wrong. Also 7% of the containers were mis-stowed. Also the design of the vessel
was found to be suspect. A number of recommendations were made by the MAB
to the following.

The nternational Association of Classification Societies
The nternational Chamber of Shipping
Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd ( operators of the vessel)

n the annex a copy of the regulations is attached.

(ref. www.maib.gov.uk\msc napoli).


n view of the above accident, MO and other major organization stressed upon MDG
code, nternational convention for Safe Containers, 1972(CSC) and Code of Safe
Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing to be followed strictly.
Now we will have a look into the above codes ;
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR SAFE CONTAINERS (CSC), 1972
"
The 1972 Convention for Safe Containers has two goals.
One is to maintain a high level of safety of human life in the transport and handling of
containers by providing generally acceptable test procedures and related strength
requirements.
The other is to facilitate the international transport of containers by providing uniform
international safety regulations, equally applicable to all modes of surface transport. n
this way, proliferation of divergent national safety regulations can be avoided.
"
(ref http://www.imo.org/conventions)

To summarize:
The main aim of the CSC 1972 was to formalize structural requirement to ensure safety
in handling, stacking and transportation in course of normal day to day operations.
The CSC 1972 has 2 annexes
Annex I includes Regulations for the testing, inspection, approval and maintenance of
containers.
Annex II covers structural safety requirements and tests, including details of test
procedures.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME DANGEROUS GOODS CODE
MDG code was adopted in the fourth assembly of MO in 1965. This code has special
relevance for dangerous cargoes carried in containers. The MDG Code is the official
legal document of the maritime transport of dangerous goods and marine pollutants,
which sets out the rules and requirements. Amendments to SOLAS chapter V
(Carriage of Dangerous Goods) adopted in May 2002 make the MDG Code mandatory
from 1 January 2004.
"
The Code lays down basic principles; detailed recommendations for individual
substances, materials and articles, and a number of recommendations for good
operational practice including advice on terminology, packing, labelling, stowage,
segregation and handling, and emergency response action.
"(ref www.imo.org)

ARGO SE&RING MAN&AL (SOLAS REQ&IREMENT)
The cargo securing manual is a booklet containing all the securing equipment onboard
and the detailed use of all of them. t gives the dimensions and weight as well as the
procedure of using the equipment as well as their limitations. A cargo securing manual
has to be ship specific covering the entire equipment of the ship.
For a vessel carrying freight containers the following are suggested:
- CSM should not be too complex.

- Lashing arrangements should not be given without the necessary portable
and fixed equipment being available on board.


- Restrict the number of stowage and securing arrangements to the practical
operation of the vessel

n view of the above a lot of regulations have been formed resulting from accidents.
However due to the fast pace of the trade, accidents still take place. Sometimes
commercial restraints take over the consideration for safety. However it is the endeavor
of every person to make the trade as safe as possible.
As the trade expanded the vessels could not be expected to make the cargo plan as a
lot of management and logistical issues came into it. As a result the cargo planning is
now done on the shore side and the ship has to rely on the shore to give it accurate
cargo quantity. Here in lies the problem as sometimes inaccurate data with regards to
the cargo, as already mentioned above in accidents, can spell immense trouble for the
ship & her crew.

PART TWO


n the course of maritime history a number of oil pollution disasters have taken place.
These have impacted the regulations for carriage of petroleum products by sea is a big
way. The potential for oil to pollute the marine environment was recognized by the
nternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 (OLPOL
1954) .
Oil pollution is the biggest concern as it damages the marine environment to a great
extent. There were many incidents which acted as a wake up call for the shipping
fraternity due to oil pollution.
The most profound of which are :
1) Torrey Canyon disaster
2) Exxon Valdez disaster
3) Erika disaster
4) Prestige disaster

Let us briefly see as to how each of these disasters brought about a change in the
regulations regarding Oil tanker vessels.





TORREY ANYON DISASTER

n 1967 the Torrey anyon ran aground while entering the English Channel and
spilled her entire cargo of 120,000 tons of crude oil into the sea. This resulted in the
biggest oil pollution incident ever recorded up to that time.
Upon this disaster the erstwhile OLPOL 1954 was in need of an immediate change
incorporating new regulations for the control of oil pollution. n view of the same, in
1971 MO adopted amendments to OLPOL 1954, which limited the size of cargo tanks
ordered after 1972 to limit the amount of oil entering the sea in case of a hull breach.

n 1973 the first convention regarding oil pollution was held. This was the convention
which today is known as the 1973 InternationaI onvention for the Prevention of
PoIIution from Ships or simply MARPOL 73. Annex incorporated the entire OLPOL
54 and also put forward new regulations, while other annexes covered chemicals,
harmful substances carried in packaged form, sewage and garbage.

"
Annex expanded and improved on OLPOL in several ways. t specified requirements
for continuous monitoring of oily water discharges and included the requirement for
Governments to provide shore reception and treatment facilities at oil terminals and
ports. t also established a number of Special Areas in which more stringent discharge
standards were applicable, including the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Gulf, and Baltic
Seas. These special areas would be implemented when the littoral States concerned
had provided adequate reception facilities for dirty ballast and other oily residues.
An important regulation of Annex was Regulation 13 which required
segregated ballast tanks on new tankers over 70,000 deadweight tonnes. The aim was
to ensure that ballast water (taken on board to maintain stability, such as when a tanker
is sailing empty to pick up cargo) is never going to be contaminated by oil carried as
cargo or fuel.
"
(ref. www.imo.org)
n 1978 Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention was held. This further
made some amendments to MARPOL 73 making a protocol to the existing MARPOL.
This Protocol:
O Expanded the requirements for segregated ballast tanks for all new crude oil
tankers greater than 20,000 DWT and all product tankers to 30,000 DWT. Also
the location of the tanks was mentioned.
O New crude oil tankers greater than 20,000 dwt should be fitted with a crude oil
washing systems.
O The Protocol also called for existing tankers over 40,000 dwt to be fitted with
either segregated ballast tanks or crude oil washing systems.
The above came to be know by the MAPOL 73/78 and was ratified by October 1982.

THE EXXON VALDEZ DISASTER
n 1989 , Exxon Valdez, loaded with 1,264,155 barrels of crude oil, ran aground in the
northeastern portion of Prince William Sound, spilling about one-fifth of its cargo. This
accident gained massive media coverage and changed the entire way the world looked
at oil tankers making some of the most important changes in Annex of MARPOL to
date. The United States introduced its Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), making it
mandatory for all tankers calling at U.S. ports to have double hulls. The MO followed
suit introducing the double hull amendment in Annex .
n 1992, the double hull amendment was adopted and came into force in 1993. The
following are the extraxts :
"
Regulation 13F applies to new tankers - defined as delivered on or after 6 July 1996 -
while existing tankers must comply with the requirements of 13F not later than 30 years
after their date of delivery.
Tankers of 5,000 dwt and above must be fitted with double bottoms and wing tanks
extending the full depth of the ship's side. The regulation allows mid-deck height
tankers with double-sided hulls as an alternative to double hull construction.
The MEPC also adopted Regulation 13G, concerned with existing tankers,
which makes provision for an enhanced programme of inspections to be implemented,
particularly for tankers more than five years old.
"
(ref. www.imo.org)
European Union member states all together stood up and adopted regulation EU Reg
2978/94 to deal with the double hull and the segregated ballast tank which came into
force on 1
st
Jan 1999.

ERIKA DISASTER
On 12 December 1999 the 37,238-dwt tanker Erika broke in two in heavy seas off the
coast of Brittany, France, while carrying approximately 30,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil.
Although the crew was saved, some 14,000 tonnes of oil were spilled and more than
100 miles of Atlantic coastline were polluted.
As a result of the Erika disaster, proposals were submitted to the MEPC to accelerate
the phase-out of single-hull tankers contained in the 1992 MARPOL amendments.
"
The amendments to Regulation 13G in Annex of MARPOL 73/78 were adopted by the
MEPC's 46
th
session in April 2001.
"
(ref. www.imo.org)
European union members adopted the new EU regulation 417/2002 which was
enforced on 18
th
Feb 2002 which reflected the amendments to the Regulation 13G
MARPOL 73/78. The objective of EU 417/2002 was the fast elimination of single hull
tankers within the European ports.

THE PRESTIGE DISASTER
The Prestige tanker incident of 2002 led to calls for further changes to MARPOL 73/78.
The MPEC in its 49
th
session in July 2003 considered adoption for faster phase out of
single hulled tankers and also an extended Condition assessment scheme according to
MARPOL 13G.
"
n light of above, EU Reg 417/2002 was amended to EU Reg 1726/2003 on 22
nd
July
2003.MO came up with a new Regulation 13H - Prevention of oil pollution when
carrying Heavy Grade Oil. t is similar to the EU Regulation 1726/2003
"
(ref. www.imo.org , www. eur-lex.europa.eu )