Courting danger

There have inevitably been differing assessments of the impact of the explosions at Tianjin in August last year, but a sound and thorough analysis has been provided within a Swiss Re ‘sigma’ report.

It states that Tianjin was the biggest insured loss of 2015. Property loss is estimated at between $2.5bn and $3.5bn and there were approaching 200 fatalities. The official Chinese report speaks of the destruction of over 12,000 vehicles and 7,500 freight containers, together with significant further damage up to 5 km away.

However tragic and costly, TT Club argues that these blasts should be seen as a spectacular example of why those operating ports should examine their work practices and risk procedures thoroughly.

While Tianjin was undoubtedly a substantial incident, a key issue that needs to be understood in the context of both maritime and land-based transport is that cargo-related fires and explosions are all too common in the containerised supply chain. Port based incidents over the last year include those at Vancouver, Canada, and Santos, Brazil, while there has been an increase in container ship explosions and fires in recent years.

The nature of most of these cargo-related fires demonstrates what TT Club describes as ‘adjacency’. This is a risk that can arise from one single package within a transport unit which is stored in an area with other units. Where such a package is or becomes dangerous, whether or not accurately packaged, declared and packed in a container, the proximity to other types of cargo may lead to catastrophic consequences.

It is clear that cocktails of chemicals can be extremely potent, individually and in combination; it is equally true that many inert cargoes are capable of burning fiercely. Thus, while the ignition, intensity and longevity of a fire may be directly influenced by the type of cargo concerned, the totality of the devastation and consequent economic loss, in risk assessment terms, needs to take account of the uncertainties inherent in the unit load industry.

Huge benefits have been derived, particularly in containerisation, through the concept of utilising standard sized units to enclose diverse cargoes and move them in close proximity to one another. However, the contents of any given box and their current condition can be largely a matter of speculation.

Concerns mounting

The opportunity for non-compliance with dangerous goods regulations in the different modes of the international supply chain remains concerning. However, in the port area there may be even less clarity; risk assessment surveys at ports over the last 12-18 months have found worryingly limited best practice in relation to dangerous goods.

As with the well-established rules for transport by each mode, there is relevant guidance for activity within the port area. At an international level, this is provided in the International Maritime Organization’s document ‘Recommendations on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Cargoes & Related Activities in Port Areas’ (MSC.1/Circ.1216 (2007)). In reality, implementation and enforcement of such international law is reliant on processes and controls at individual, corporate and national levels.

Thus, let the explosions at Tianjin be a rallying call. There is urgent need for international and national attention to ensure that appropriate and consistent measures in relation to dangerous goods, fully interfacing with the modal regulations, are implemented and enforced in ports globally. Improved practices in cargo handling, which result in the safety of workers and third parties, as well as maintaining the integrity of cargo and transport infrastructure must be a primary aim.