“Surely the only desire of the dry bulk terminal operator is to cause as much damage to a bulk carrier as possible! To do this he employs a formidable arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” (as stated at a recent conference in London) comprising high speed loaders, heavyweight grab unloaders not to mention bulldozers and other devices in the hold.” So why are terminal operators interested in bulk carrier design. What are their concerns? Are they valid? Are they reasonable? And could their so-called safety concerns have an impact on the traditional operational relationship between ship and shore?

A recent issue of DNV’s Classification News introduced the aims and focus of the International Dry Bulk Terminals Contact Group (DBTG) and its observations on the double side skin debate*. The introduction above, as well as the following article, have been prepared for this issue of DNV’s “Bulk Carrier Update” by Richard Peckham, the DBTG’s Executive Director.

Co-operation not confrontation
Bulk carrier design is one of the key issues affecting safe and efficient operation of any dry bulk terminal. For different reasons prevailing design raises concerns for both owners and terminals at the cargo handling interface. And these conflicting concerns are a source of potential discord at a moment when ship and terminal personnel should be operating safely and efficiently, in harmony.
For the shipowner, as well as the classification society, the main focus is seaworthiness and structural security of the vessel while the terminal operator must be concerned about the safety of his personnel as well as the fabric and equipment of the facility itself.
What is clear, of course, is that bulk terminals and bulk carriers are completely interdependent. They share many mutual concerns in terms of safety and efficiency at the interface and there appears to be a growing acknowledgement that adversarial attitudes must be consigned to the past.
There is a need to improve mutual knowledge and appreciation of problems and priorities and a need to improve communication between key ship and shore personnel. To do this co-operation, not confrontation, is the key; enhanced safety of life both the goal and the reward.
The DBTG was formally established at end 1998/early 1999 and its early efforts were concentrated upon gaining a voice for the terminals, where none previously existed, in the dry bulk industry chain. Since its formation it has been consistent in two messages:

• The challenges faced at the ship/shore interface must be addressed by all industry elements working together – not to different agendas – to achieve safe, efficient and practical solutions.
• The safety of terminals and their personnel is as important as the safety of ships and seafarers.

The latter is true not only from the moral standpoint. By nature the general operating and cargo handling environment can be dirty and “hostile”. As might be expected terminals are subject to increasingly stringent requirements from national health and safety bodies and in many regions these bodies are the “competent authority” at the ship shore interface, especially in terms of cargo handling “risk”.
This will be referred to again below.

Safety and efficiency
Looking at the design of the traditional single skin bulk carrier, areas such as hatch coamings, tank tops, web frames and side shell are of concern to both shipowners/Masters and the terminal operator … but for different reasons.
What shipowners see as vulnerable areas subject to persistent damage are seen by terminal operators – especially at discharge – as vulnerable design impediments affecting safe and efficient handling.
DBTG has addressed its concerns in a series of submissions to the International Maritime Organisation, the co-ordinators of the Formal Safety Assessment on Bulk Carriers as well as to the Joint Shipping Industry/IACS Working Group on bulk carrier design.
An essential observation is that IMO’s Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers (the BLU Code) states that ships should be suited to their operational environment. But this is not always the case and while this might be seen as a matter of design it is also a matter of ship/cargo compatibility.
Handling ease and safety have rarely been a factor in bulk carrier design – until now – even though the prevailing handling techniques and speeds at the vast majority of terminals worldwide pre-date the entire trading fleet. At the same time not all cargoes are free flowing and easy to handle and the matter of ship/cargo compatibility is also a matter requiring greater understanding on the part of charterers and brokers.
Here a new complication arises in the form of the EU Directive on Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers that comes into force in March next year (2004). This piece of legislation makes the recommendations of the BLU Code mandatory in EU member states but also contains a requirement for a terminal to check the suitability of a vessel to its facilities before it arrives.
Such a requirement implies considerable liability and while it remains to be seen how consistently it will be interpreted and enforced throughout the EU, there are suggestions that terminals at least may need to use available vetting tools such as Equasis, RightShip and so on prior to accepting a nomination.

Design concerns and preferences
So, looking at design specifics, a terminal operator hopes that arriving vessels are of optimum configuration for safe and efficient handling.

General Access
Ladders and platforms should be well designed to ensure safe and easy access to holds and preferably located at regular intervals (some terminals are now asking ships to notify hold access/ladder configuration details in advance).
Ladders should be positioned strategically to reduce/eliminate collision damage risk and to dramatically reduce/eliminate the retention of cargo, especially non-free flowing material.
Conditions on-board are frequently slippery underfoot due to the spillage of oil, fuel, cargo etc. Design should therefore accommodate the strategic positioning of guard rail devices and stanchions, especially on hatch covers and around hatch openings.
Installed on-board lighting should be adequate for all operational needs. In many instances shipboard lighting is cursory and has to be supplemented by the ship or the terminal in the interest of safety.

Loading
The ballasting/deballasting capacity of a vessel is critical for the control of hull stresses, to meet various draught restrictions and so on at both load and discharge terminals.
Such capacity has been of particular concern at loading terminals where ship capabilites lag far behind the capability of terminals to meet commercially agreed loading rates.
DBTG poses the question as to whether bulk carrier design should provide a minimum ballasting performance set against well established and future anticipated loading rates?

Loading Accuracy
Overloading of cargo holds occurs from time to time. Loading terminals are rarely equipped to remove surplus cargo. Overloading is understood to reduce the margin of strength that a vessel may have at sea.
Clearly there are a number of issues here, not least the importance of interface procedures.
On the design side, DBTG asks if it is desirable for vessels to have an additional margin of strength to limit the negative impact of overloading, for whatever reason. At the same time DBTG sees this as an interface matter.
Using modern technology it should be possible for terminal and bulk carrier operators to develop a standard, integrated system for measurement and communication to monitor and control loading volumes precisely. Here DBTG is more than willing to explore initiatives with industry partners such as DNV.

Discharging Conventional Holds
By “conventional” we understand single skin, exposed web frames, corrugated bulkheads, exposed ladders, etc. Indeed bulk carrier hold configuration is an area of great concern.
For the unloading terminal, the conventional hold presents many obstacles to primary discharge equipment (both grabs and Continuous Ship Unloaders) as well as secondary equipment, such as front loading shovels, bulldozers, vibrating equipment and so on.
As mentioned, not all cargo is free flowing and conventional hold configuration conspires to trap cargo in awkward and dangerous locations.
Cleaning these holds is a difficult and dangerous job and terminals state that these tasks are subject to the increasingly stringent requirements of national health and safety bodies. And remember that in many areas they are the “competent authority” at the cargo handling interface.
Discharge of this residual material risks damage to equipment, injury to workers, impacts on vessels’ waiting times and associated costs and requires the use of unpopular vibrating equipment and similar devices.
It used to be true to say that “what goes in must come out”. However, this will not be the same in the future as more terminals advise ships and shippers that residual ‘hung’ cargo will have to remain in the ship.
Determined by concerns over health and safety, as well as over vessel structure, this is reality already; not some vague hypothesis.

Double Side Skin Holds
In the earlier mentioned issue of Classification News, DBTG expressed its support for the new IMO requirements for double hull newbuildings. Holds with a secondary internal skin covering web frames, brackets and other impediments such as horizontal stringers would serve to overcome, from the discharge terminals viewpoint, many of the problems presented by conventional holds.
It was with some alarm, then, that DBTG has learned that efforts are to be made to reverse IMO’s recent decisions.
On the face of it such a “campaign” would seem to completely disregard the evidence of extensive research – including an extended and comprehensive FSA – since the early 1990s on bulk carrier casualties and losses resulting from structural failure. Indeed DBTG asks if such a move is motivated more by commercial concerns over residual values and feared restriction of market opportunities for single skin vessels than by matters of safety?
Prior to the IMO decision, statistics from DBTG terminals indicated that the average daily discharge rate for coal from a double side skinned vessel was fully 10 per cent higher than all other ships with conventional hold configuration. Furthermore, with fewer hold impediments, the amount of damage per tonne discharged from one particular ship was six times lower than the average for all other ships.
These apparent discharge rate and damage reduction advantages were confirmed by an operator of double side skin ships at a DBTG meeting earlier this year. Of further benefits, he pointed to charterer preference and an increased annual voyage potential.
All this seems to suggest significant cost benefits over life for the owner/ operator of a double-skinned ship. Combined with perceived advantages for the discharge terminal operator, this points to a win scenario for all concerned.

Interface Guidelines
Much of the above addresses bulk carrier design but, as evidenced, design and operation frequently intertwine. In this regard DBTG has worked positively on interface matters at IMO. At the recent meeting of the DSC Sub Committee it was agreed that its draft Guidelines for Terminal Representatives at the Ship/Shore Interface should provide the foundation for the further development of a Bulk Loading and Unloading Manual. This is due for completion in September of next year (2004).
Briefly the DBTG format sets practical guidelines alongside the requirements of the BLU Code. As such it will provide a template for harmonisation of procedures between terminals as well as a basis for standard industry training.
Also, it is possible that the document could assist in the essential training requirements for any proposed “Bulk Carrier Endorsement” certification for shipboard personnel.
Now there’s a progressive thought – ship and shoreside personnel studying interface matters together!

Richard Peckham, Executive Director, DBTG

Date: 12 February 2008