The inland shipping industry operates as a service-oriented sector, ensuring the seamless transport of goods from point A to point B under all weather conditions, around the clock, and in strict adherence to agreed schedules. However, the service-oriented nature of the industry has arguably overreached in certain areas of operation.
Despite the clear provisions and delineated responsibilities set forth in transport and environmental legislation, the industry often assumes tasks that rightfully belong to third parties. For instance, container shipping operators have taken on container stacking, dry cargo crews clean holds after unloading, and tanker shipping crews are responsible for connecting and disconnecting loading arms/hoses and vapor return lines.
While these practices have developed over time, they are not immutable. A reevaluation of these roles is essential to realign responsibilities with the appropriate parties and enhance safety and accountability.
The Risks of (De-)Connecting Loading Arms/Hoses and Vapor Return Hoses
The act of connecting and disconnecting loading arms/hoses and/or vapor return hoses are inherently risky. The Platform Zero Incidents database documents various hazards to which ship crews are routinely exposed.
- Manual Handling Injuries: Incidents involving the tightening or loosening of bolts and nuts are relatively rare but can result in painful injuries such as sprains or strains from wrenches slipping or twisting motions. The physical demands of lifting, pushing, and pulling heavy loading arms and hoses sometimes lead to muscle injuries.
- Falling Equipment: A particularly concerning hazard arises when a loading arm or hose unexpectedly falls onto the deck. While such occurrences are frequently classified as near misses, severe accidents of this nature have been reported in the past.
- Exposure to Hazardous Substances: One of the most persistent and dangerous risks is the failure to fully empty loading arms/hoses and/or vapor return hoses and ensure they are pressure-free before connection or disconnection. This can result in crew members being exposed to hazardous substances, occasionally causing injuries or in a documented case even a fire. This risk, normalized over time, is a critical oversight, as exposure to dangerous substances should always be avoided.
Responsibility for Equipment Operation
The current practice of requiring ship crews to connect and disconnect loading equipment raises serious questions. While transport regulations do not explicitly mandate this responsibility for ship personnel, it has become common practice. From both safety and operational perspectives, it is worth questioning whether this arrangement is appropriate.
Author: Maurits van der Linde, Member of the IWTP Safety and Environment Committee
Shore Facility Responsibilities
Loading arms/hoses and vapor return hoses are part of the shore facility’s equipment and fall under its management. This grants the facility the authority to:
- Specify requirements during the procurement of equipment.
- Fulfill legal obligations for preventive and corrective maintenance, inspections, and certifications.
Furthermore, facilities are legally required to provide clear, accessible instructions for all equipment. Facility operators should ensure their personnel, including those not directly operating the equipment, receive documented training on associated risks.
Limited Control for Ship Crews
Ship crews are exposed to risks they cannot control. The loading arm/hose and vapor return hose are part of a larger system that may have operational or structural issues outside the crew’s influence, such as unplanned start/stop manipulations or defective components like leaking valves.
For ship crews, the shore facility is effectively a “black box.” They should trust that the equipment is reliable and safe and that the facility’s management systems are robust enough to prevent hazardous incidents, such as the unintended release of dangerous substances during routine operations.
Eliminating Outsourced Risks
Given the well-documented risks, it is questionable whether ship operators can reasonably entrust their crews’ safety to the shore facility’s management systems. Both legal and ethical considerations support transferring the task of connecting and disconnecting equipment back to shore personnel.
From a rational perspective, delegating the operation of third-party equipment to ship crews is counterproductive. Each piece of equipment is unique, with location-specific risks and operational requirements. Comprehensive training for ship crews to address all potential scenarios is impractical.
This issue necessitates a paradigm shift. Risk management responsibilities should remain with the party best equipped to handle them—the shore facility. This approach aligns with standard safety strategies, where high-risk tasks are performed by specialists with expertise and familiarity with their equipment. Such expertise is lacking when these tasks are outsourced to ship crews.
