Repeat after me

Heard the one about the totally avoidable crane collision? Or the van that was crushed by an RTG? Or the crane that collapsed because of major structural failure? The answer is, you’ve probably heard all of these, several times.

When you talk to Peregrine Storrs-Fox, risk management director at the TT Club, he apologises for bringing up the ‘same old’ issues but says that the key risks at most ports remain largely the same as ever – in the areas of safety of people, cargo management and equipment management.  

Safety of people tops the list, according to Mr Storrs-Fox: “We are continually picking this up on the claims side and are involved in a lot of prevention action. What we have observed on a far too regular basis is an issue with the mixture of people on the terminal. Essentially, our argument is that people and equipment don’t mix very well and that impacts on the way the whole management of a terminal is set out.

“It is all about management, employees and contractors, ship’s crews, third party truckers, regular visitors, and ad hoc visitors. Our general advice is try to minimise the people on the terminal entirely and find a way to separate them.”

Earlier this year, a stevedore lost both legs after being run over by a reachstacker at a west coast US port. In this case, says Mr Storrs-Fox, the terminal plan had machinery moving through the same gate as pedestrians. The stevedore was clocking off and the accident happened as she walked out of the gate.

“Pedestrian and private vehicles really need to be kept off the terminal as far as possible and when dealing with people who legitimately need to get into the terminal – truckers, shipagents, contractors, surveyors, stevedores, etc., - you need procedures in place,” he says. “This should include a map of where they can and can’t go, and induction procedures.

“There should also be refresher training. A trucker may be going in and out of the port on a fairly regular basis and gets to the point where he thinks he knows where he is going. But the reality is, something might have changed or, as happens so often, he decides to take a short cut.”

Based on analysis and experience relating to general traffic management and terminal layout, the TT Club concluded that one-way traffic flows are best, where they can be achieved. Walkways should be marked and there should be clear signs – these need to be visual and clear, recognising that not everybody is going to be speaking the local language.

For visitors or ship’s crew, the safe option is a terminal transfer minibus or other vehicle, equipped with flashing lights, which should avoid the problem of people walking around the terminal and ending up in a dangerous situation.

“There is also technology around,” says Mr Storrs-Fox. “For example, a microwave chip in the safety helmet can act as an electronic beacon to alert equipment operators. But broadly, we would say make sure you keep people out of the terminal or stacking area as much as possible.”

Stevedores have long faced the dangers of lashing on board ships with minimal safety measures. The IMO is now moving ahead with regulations to increase lashing platforms onboard ships from a minimum 600 mm to 750 mm, something the TT Club welcomes as an important safety initiative. However, while ships that don’t require structural alterations have to comply by May (2011), where structural changes are required the ships have until 2015 to meet the requirements.

Cranes continue to top the list of TT’s concerns. There still are, says Mr Storrs-Fox, a disturbing number of incidents involving not only cargo cranes but also stores and other cranes, where the equipment has been ‘maintained in an appalling fashion’ and fallen away when put under strain.

Apart from this obvious bad practice in terms of poor maintenance, there is the continuing issue of the structural integrity of cranes and crane extensions. “We have seen over the past four to five years as we have delved more into claims that there are too many instances of major structural failures in cranes,” says Mr Storrs-Fox. “Sometimes the reasons are just not clear – it is possible that some are poor quality welding or a design defect. Sometimes operators are not sure but just get a gut-feeling that something is wrong.”

Regulations require thorough inspection of cranes but with cost-cutting there is a temptation for that inspection to be not quite as thorough as it should be, he says. “A really thorough inspection would check the quality of welding and other elements that might be on the way to failing.

“Over the last four to five years we have seen quite a lot of incidents of cranes extended in height or outreach for perfectly good operational reasons but that just compounds any inherent or structural weakness,” he warns.

“Add another five metres of boom length and that will have quite a massive effect on the A-frame structure. We say, be aware of the risk. Use qualified structural engineers to check these things out and ensure a proper inspection is carried out at least on an annual basis.”

Load sensing technology already on the market enables the weight and stress of each load moved by crane, RTG or reachstacker to be measured and recorded, so that the operator can have an awareness of the ongoing load on the equipment and components, and a more accurate idea of when parts need to be maintained or replaced.

“Last year we heard of a case where a crane had been used way beyond its lifecycle and failed. A load sensing system can identify when equipment needs to be replaced. It answers a lot of issues from the safety and maintenance perspective.”

Finally, there are boom collisions, which Mr Storrs-Fox describes as ‘hugely frustrating and totally preventable’. “We have spoken about this so many times. Last week there was another incident where a crane whacked a ship.”

And it isn’t cheap, he emphasises – more likely than not, a collision will knock out communications equipment, put the crane out of action with a bent boom, and also damage the ship, causing expensive delays. “And all this is wholly preventable by fitting automated sensors, either radar or laser.

"Yes, you are talking about $10,000-$20,000 per crane for the sensors, but in terms of what the crane is worth, you are talking about £5m plus – and while it is not usually a total loss from a boom collision, you may well be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars of claims from the ship, and the cost of repairing the boom.”