I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIP DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT 46th session Agenda item 12

DE 46/INF.3 29 November 2002 ENGLISH ONLY

ANCHORING, MOORING AND TOWING EQUIPMENT

Mooring lines and bitts � Safety of personnel

Submitted by IHMA and IAPH

SUMMARY Executive summary:

This document provides information on accidents that have occurred as a result of apparent failure of mooring lines or associated ship equipment.

Action to be taken:

Paragraph 4

Related documents:

Nil

Background 1 The International Harbour Masters� Association (IHMA) and the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH) have both become aware of a worrying number of incidents in which mooring lines or associated ships� equipment have failed and where, as a consequence, personnel have been injured or vessels put at risk. 2 Noting that mooring lines are not specifically identified within the SOLAS Convention, and as a consequence, are rarely subject to inspection, IHMA and IAPH believe that serious consideration must be given to regulating this aspect of ships� equipment. Furthermore, the poor condition of associated deck fittings also needs to be addressed if the risk of serious accident is to be reduced. The repeated failure of mooring equipment not only puts lives at risk, it also risks damage to vessels and to port infrastructure. Details of the information paper 3 The IHMA and IAPH have conducted a joint survey of their members. The questions that were asked are documented at annex 1 to this paper. The resultant responses to the survey are tabled at annexes 2 and 3 respectively. In summary, 48 ports have reported over 170 significant incidents that have occurred within the last five years. In 15 cases, a fatality or serious injury was involved. Given that the experiences of the 48 responding ports can only be considered as being illustrative of the full world-wide situation, IHMA and IAPH take the view that in reality the number of serious incidents is probably far greater.

DE 46/INF.3 - 2 -

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Action requested of the Sub-Committee 4 With the evidence from these two surveys now available, IHMA and IAPH consider that the safety of ships crews and port personnel are being put at risk in part because mooring ropes and associated ship equipment are not subject to a comprehensive regulatory framework. Accordingly, IHMA and IAPH invite the DE Sub-Committee to note the information attached in the annexes to this paper and to identify measures to address the problem. Noting that in several of the reported incidents, navigational safety was additionally put at risk, and that the NAV Sub-Committee also has this topic on its current work programme, IHMA and IAPH intend to table a similar paper at NAV 48.

***

DE 46/INF.3

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

ANNEX 1

QUESTIONNAIRE ON SAFETY ISSUES MOORING LINES AND MOORING EQUIPMENT

1. Have you had any incidents over the last 5 yeas as a result of mooring lines breaking or

unravelling that have resulted in

Death of wharf person and / or ships crew and / or tug crew YES / NO Injury to wharf person and / or ships crew and / or tug crew YES / NO Damage to wharves / port infrastructure YES / NO Damage to ships YES / NO Damage to ships equipment YES / NO Actual serious incident due to the failure of ship mooring line(s) after all fast at berth

YES / NO

Potentially serious incident due to the parting of ship mooring line(s) YES / NO Potentially serious incident due to parting of ships line to tug YES / NO

If so, please advise how many incidents and give brief details of each event if possible, outlining causes and the effects. 2. Have you had any incidents over the last 5 years as a result of ships mooring equipment

such as ships bollards, winches, anchors etc. that have failed or been unsafe and have resulted in :

Death of wharf personnel and / or ships crew and / or tug crew YES / NO Injury to wharf personnel and / or ships crew and / or tug crew YES / NO Damage to wharves or other port facilities YES / NO Damage to ships YES / NO Damage to ships equipment YES / NO An incident that could have resulted in any of the incidents listed above YES / NO

If so, please advise how many incidents and give brief details of each event if possible, outlining causes and the effects.

3. Do you have any legal provisions at State and/or at port levels that provide for inspection of

ships mooring equipment including mooring lines?

If so, please give a short summary of the legal provisions and also how they are implemented.

4. Do you believe the issue of safety, in relation to ships mooring equipment and mooring lines, to be of a level of concern that the IMO Secretariat and Members should be requested to give a high priority to its consideration and that recommendations be made by the appropriate committee within 12 months.

Please rank your level of concern on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest level of concern.

***

DE 46/INF.3

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

ANNEX 2

QUESTIONNAIRE ON SAFETY ISSUES MOORING LINES AND MOORING EQUIPMENT

INTERNATIONAL HARBOUR MASTERS� ASSOCIATION

9 September 2001 QUESTIONNAIRE ON SAFETY ISSUES MOORING LINES AND MOORING EQUIPMENT Question 1 Name Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 1 Weiss Haifa N N N N N Y N N Two container ships, at the container berth, parted mooring ropes in bad weather and approached

dangerously close 2 Kristiansen Abenraa N N N N N N N N - 3 Bremner Cape Town Y N N N N Y N N One fatal accident occurred when a vessel�s backspring parted during undocking resulting in the death of a

ship�s crew member. An oil rig broke her moorings during a gale, causing serious damage to various vessels during her passage through the dock.

4 Inbal Hadera N N N N N N N N - 5 Jensen Kolding N N N N N N N N - 6 Bale Scrabster N N N N N N N N -

The Secretary, IHMAP.O. Box 314

FarehamHampshirePO17 5XZ

UK

www.harbourmaster.org

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2 Page 2

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 7 Tcheng Nantes N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Tug�s line is always used 8 Gupta Mumbai N Y Y N N N Y Y Due to breaking of mooring lines at times, mooring crew has suffered injuries on the wharf. However,

there has been no serious casualty or deaths. Due to parting of mooring lines, tankers at the berth have moved, which could have had serious consequences. However, due to timely action no incident took place. When ship�s line(s) are used by the tug for towing which parted, has resulted in the ship running into serious danger. This could have resulted in the grounding of large container ships. However, due to quick action by pilots no incident has occurred, so far.

9 Schardt Cuxhaven N N N N N N N N - 10 Follin Bordeaux N Y Y Y Y Y Y N 1 or 2 / year; due to :

bad weather conditions other vessels passing too close current with slack mooring lines

11 Calvente La Teja N N N N N N Y N One incident. Due to the breaking of mooring lines for strong winds. Results: a LPG/C vessel fully loaded cast off in a dock of inflammable products, under bad weather, strong winds and electric storm.

12 Black Launceston N N N N N N Y N One incident : As a result of line breakage vessel drifted 30 metres off wharf in strong tide. Tugs and pilot required to resecure.

13 Williams Dammam N N Y N N N N Y 10 incidents recorded of line to tug breaking. These were:- 5/4/1996 m.v. �Martina�.10/8/1997; m.v �Ahmed Al Fateh. 24/10/1997; m.v. �Freshwater Bay�.17/10/1998 m.v. �Pu Glory�; 29/12/1998 m.v. �Sea King�; 11/1/1998 m.v. �Maersk Taiki�; 22/3/1999 m.v. �Northern Delight�; 10/1/2000 m.v. �Wester Muhlen�; 15/1/2000 m.v. �Argentine Reefer�; 24/1/2001 m.v. �Gulf Connector�. Note. on 29th. January 1994 an AB on the tug (Dammam 25) assisting a vessel (m.v Freshwater Bay) was killed when a tow rope broke). 4 incidents of bollards breaking due to ropes being too taut. 21/5/1997 �Ibn Malik�; 22 March 1998 �Alessia R�; 24/2/1999 �Ibn Asakir�; 1/10/1999 �River Pheonix�.

14 Chernyshev Tuapse N N N N N N N N - 15 Czerwinski Gdynia N N N N N N N N - 16 Nielsen Esbjerg N N Y Y N Y N N Port of Esbjerg has had one incident that was related to ship�s mooring lines in the past 5 years. A barge

loaded with a gantry crane broke its moorings due to very strong wind. The barge drifted into another ship and the quayside. The ship was damaged and a crane ashore was damaged too. The reason for the broken mooring lines was that the lines were put on a bollard too close to the barge so that they had insufficient length to absorb the pressure from the strong wind.

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2

Page 3

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 17 Bubb Felixstowe N N N N N N Y Y Painting of lines approx twice per year. This allows you to range on berth, which could dislodge gangway

or load on crane, causing injury to those close to. Now standard practice to use tugs� lines to minimise risk to tug due to line whipping back.

18 Atkinson Fremantle N Y N N N N Y Y See annex 1 19 Friboulet Sete N N N N N N N N No incidents involving ship�s mooring lines or mooring equipment in the past 2 years 20 Evans Southampton N Y Y Y N N Y N 2 incidents

1 when a ship�s mooring line parted whilst berthing. This resulted in injury to one of the linesman and caused another linesman to be thrown into the water. Other incident occurred when a ship�s mooring line parted as a large ship passed the berth. Resulted in damage to a gangway � no injuries.

21 Farnan Cork N N N N N N N N - 22 Maat Dordrecht N Y Y U U N Y Y Injury of persons; one time man with a broken leg

Any breaking can result in a serious incident, by bad communication, material and/or insufficient skill. 23 Grytbakk Oslo N N N N N N N N - 24 Briche Ajaccio N N N N N N N N - 25 Booth Poole N Y N N N N N N SEEROSE II, April 2000. Wire forespring parted while berthing alongside. Astern power not effective in

slowing ship. Seaman lost both his legs above the knee as a result. Vessel later abandoned by owners after detaining order served by UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

26 Barton Guernsey N N N N N N N N - 27 Pryce Wellington N N N U U Y Y N 2 incidents in each case. Cause : High winds / self tensioning winches failing.

Effect : Breaking off berth or laying off the berth.

28 Van Wijngaarden

Picton N N N N N N Y N 2 incidents of breaking line on berthing due to inoperation of bow thruster. 1 incident of breaking line on berthing due to faulty winch.

29 McPetrie Auckland N N N Y Y N N Y One incident. Tug�s line was made fast to a capstan on the fore deck and the whole unit was torn off the vessel. Class society Lloyds.

30 Goodman Belledune N N N N N N Y Y 1 or 2 incidents of ship mooring line parting due to strain caused by port exposure from easterly gales. Additional lines ordered by port in advance of forecast bad weather, however likely due to poor condition of hawser caused it to part. No injuries or damages either to structures/personnel shoreside and/or shipboard structures/personnel. All persons alert and not in area during times of increased strain and tension at time of line parting. Also 1 or 2 incidents of parting hawser during strain on ship�s forward spring applied when manoeuvring vessel alongside in heavy ice conditions. Fortunately no injuries or damages as per previous weather-related causes. Both shoreside and shipboard personnel very alert to potential of hawser parting under increased strain. 1 or 2 incidents of ship line parting to tug(s) (especially when ship lines being used for towing process and under strain). Fortunately no damages of injuries as indicated above. Solution here is to have tug use its own line and maintain in first-class condition at all times.

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2 Page 4

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 31 Vionnet Rouen N Y N N N N N N One boatman injured on a wharf by rope whiplash. 32 Al Basti Dubai N N N N N N N N - 33 Donnelly Drogheda N N N N N N Y N Occasional parting of lines while swinging vessels on quay wall, vessels typically 100-110 metres LOA 34 Dickinson Tauranga N N N N N N N N - 35 Dickins London N N Y Y N N Y N a. Moored vessel struck by another departing vessel at adjacent berth, slight damage to berth.

Moorings parted. (1cx2 & 1dx2) b. Vessel engines surged ahead after making fast. Moorings broken damage to vessels on berth.(1d

& 1gx2)) c. Vessel moorings parted due to inadequate shore arrangements. Vessel swung to tide. (1gx2)

36 Plaksin Berdyansk N N N N N N N N - 37 Pollmann Hamburg N N N N N N N N In Hamburg we have no records about such incidents and there are none known to us. The tugs use their

own lines and so we do not have the problem of unsafe towing lines 38 Parker Aberdeen N N N N N N N N The only incidents involving mooring lines failing in the last five years are due to interaction with passing

vessels and moorings not being properly attended. There have been no injuries involved and no serious consequences experienced.

39 Nielsen Frederica N N N N N N N Y We have experienced a few incidents, where parting of a ships line to a tug has resulted in potentially serious damage to quay and installations but where swift action from pilots has prevented this. The situation here today will normally be that the tug (Svitzer Towage) supplies the towing line. Doing so, the personnel involved know the capacity and condition of the gear (line).

40 Sutherland Sullom Voe N N N N N N Y N Total of 10 (ten) incidents. 6 � cause � failure to properly tend moorings 3 � cause � failure of rope tails 1 � cause � failure of winch clutch

41 Carter Dun Laoghaire N N N N N N N N No accidents to report. The daily commercial activity is concerned with HSS, which is �mooring lines� free.

42 Lems Rotterdam Y Y N N N N Y Y See additional remrks 43 SMS Melbourne N N U U U N Y U SMS = Skilled Maritime Services

In the last 5years there have been at least 4 reported incidents of mooring lines breaking or parting which had the potential to cause serious injury or death * eye of line parted whilst winching caused line to whip around the bollard just missing the legs of the linesmen. Appeared that the line had been incorrectly spliced * Line on departing car carrier whilst singled up snapped at the ships end. Line had been previously repaired * A coastal vessel snapped a line whilst mooring hitting the side of the ship with force * Passenger Liner snapped line during arrival. Had the potential to injure linesmen, sightseers and passengers on deck. No obvious reason for failure

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2

Page 5

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 44 MMS Melbourne N N N N N N N N MMS = Melbourne Mooring Services 45 Andrews Milford Haven N N N N N N Y N One incident involving parting of rope preventer to wire mooring rope whilst berthing 40,000 tonne tanker

to oil jetty. No injury resulted. Cause � defective rope tail and lack of co-ordination by vessel�s crew in conducting mooring operation.

46 White Medway Ports N Y Y Y Y N Y Y At least 3 crew of tugs, line boats or shore gang have been injured by breaking lines. Several instances of damage to vessels or wharf.

47 Wallroth Goteborg N N N N N N N N - 48 Coghlan Shannon / Foynes N N N N N Y Y Y On three occasions during the last five years there have been incidents of mooring line failure in extreme

spring ebb tides (up to 5 knots) where lines have parted and/or rendered on the bitts to the extent that ships (Panamax) have stood off jetties and required prompt tug attendance to rescure. Fifteen years ago we had two large vessels break their moorings in similar conditions and break away from jetties; one going aground.

49 Hoogendoorn Port Kembla N N Y N Y Y Y Y Ships moored in the Outer Harbour are sometimes subject to surge (swell) and when lines are of a poor nature or when lines are not evenly tensioned they part well before they should. This causes us to have to move these vessels to the Inner Harbour (which is calmer). This occurs about once per year on average (1/year).There was an incident recently where a small but intense squall hit the port. Only one (1) vessel was blown off the berth after four (4) of the six (6) mooring lines parted. All parted lines did so at the shore eye splice. Damage to vessel�s gangway, four mooring lines, damage to a shore lighting pole and security fencing. Prior to making the use of tug supplied towage lines compulsory, there were frequent incidents with ship�s lines parting, it also meant that the tugs were not often used on higher power as the tug skipper�s were concerned about the quality of ship provided lines. Now we have better control of the vessels in port areas � a jump in operational efficiency and port safety.

50 Mai Bremerhaven N N N N N N N N - 51a Dublin 1 N N N N N N N Y Sailing of bulker BABYLON in ballast to sea. Ship�s mooring line through the centre lead fairlead to tug

CLUAIN TARBH, in order to check the ship�s swing towards the jetty, weight was applied to the mooring/towing line. Considerable stretch was observed on the line in the region of the tug�s A-frame. However, the line parted at the ship�s fairlead. The rope lashed back towards the deck of the tug. No damage to tug�s equipment or crew and rope end subsequently retrieved by ship�s crew.

51b Dublin 2 N N N N N N N Y In using a ship�s line (polyprop 72mm) swinging a product carrier of 18-20000 GR, the line parted although in a reasonable condition. Weather was fine and nothing sudden or harsh attempted. Would say line too small a gauge for vessel that size and polyprop not suitable for towing. Tug�s winch out of order on the occasion.

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2 Page 6

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 51c Dublin 3 N Y Y Y Y N N N One instance of crewman hurt when spring parted during berthing operation. Vessel was going ahead on

engines with port helm applied to bring stern to quay when this occurred. Vessel had instructed tug to stay clear. A few bollards broken by vessels which overhang the berth. With the exception of car carriers and liners, ship�s ropes are generally not in good enough condition to be considered for tug use.

Key. Y = YES N = NO N* = NOT RECORDED U = UNKNOWN Note. Items 51a � 51c have been provided by tugs in the port of Dublin.

Question 2 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Remarks 1 Weiss Haifa N N N N Y - Two incidents of anchor chain parting due to bad weather 2 Kristiansen Abenraa N N N N N N - 3 Bremner Cape Town N N N N N N - 4 Inbal Hadera N N N N N N - 5 Jensen Kolding N N N N N N - 6 Bale Scrabster N N N N N N - 7 Tcheng Nantes - - - - - - - 8 Gupta Mumbai N N N N N N - 9 Schardt Cuxhaven N N Y Y Y N Only a few, subject to special and/or too big ships at quays not originally designed and built for these ships, either

from the kind or from the size of a special shipping. Sometimes quay construction, fender- and/or bollard-systems have to be improved according to the needs of special ships. For the safety system �vessel at quay� in my view both must be adequate; the design and equipment of a distinct vessel and the design and equipment of that distinct quay. In few cases excelling anchors damage quay edges, if heights of anchor and quay-level are (nearly) the same.

10 Follin Bordeaux N Y Y Y Y Y At the change of current, a tanker vessel didn't stay alongside his pier, because his mooring lines was on winches and not turned on ship's bollards. He took with him all the fuel connecting system. It results pollution and big damage for the vessel and the pier.

11 Calvente La Teja N N Y N N Y One incident. The effects of the propellers of a tug boat pushing another Ship in a nearby pier, caused the breaking of mooring lines in a previously moored tanker, loaded with gasoline. Damage in shore pipe lines, breaking of hoses and high risk of fire.

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2

Page 7

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Remarks 12 Black Launceston N N N N N Y 2 incidents where ship�s winches have insufficient power to heave vessel alongside following drift off the wharf in a

tidal stream. 13 Williams Dammam N N N N* N* N By regulations, the Master of any vessel is obliged to inform the Port Management of all damage caused to his

vessel. 14 Chernyshev Tuapse N N N N N N - 15 Czerwinski Gdynia N N N N N N - 16 Nielsen Esbjerg N N N N N N - 17 Bubb Felixstowe N N N N N Y About 2 times per year a tension winch will render, allowing movement. On one occasion several winches gave,

ship moved. Luckily no injury or damage resulted. 18 Atkinson Fremantle Y Y Y Y Y Y See annex 1 19 Friboulet Sete N N N N N N As a former seaman I give high priority to the issue of safety in relation to line handling operations. I agree with the

need to consider this matter urgently. 20 Evans Southampton N N N N N N - 21 Farnan Cork N N N N N N - 22 Maat Dordrecht N N Y U U U - 23 Grytbakk Oslo N N N N N N - 24 Briche Ajaccio N Y N N N N 3 persons were injured by a line unrigged due to the small size of the bollard. 2 lines were on it, from 2 different

ships. 25 Booth Poole N N N N N N - 26 Barton Guernsey N N N N N N - 27 Pryce Wellington N N N N N N - 28 Van

Wijngaarden Picton N N N N N Y One incident (as in Q1). Pre-tension valves on port forward winch incorrectly set after maintenance.

29 McPetrie Auckland N N N Y Y Y A capstan on the foredeck of a port tug was torn out of its mounting and the whole unit went over the side and into the sea.

30 Goodman Belledune N N N N N N Comment: Recall newly delivered chemical tanker on 1st/2nd voyage lost starboard anchor during transit in St. Lawrence River. Spare anchor connected up while at our port. Additional precautions taken during berthing of vessel (additional tug forward, pilot extra cautious in vessel approach while coming alongside light ship etc.). Otherwise no other incidents that we are aware of.

31 Vionnet Rouen N N N N N N - 32 Al Basti Dubai N N N N N N - 33 Donnelly Drogheda N N N N N N - 34 Dickinson Tauranga N N N N N N - 35 Dickins London N N N N N Y 1 Windlass failure whilst under way in confined waters resulted in near loss of port anchor and cable. Sheer

corrected by prompt action of pilot.

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2 Page 8

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Remarks 36 Plaksin Berdyansk N N N N N N Our NO response is due, it is believed, to the fact that the tug capacity is only 1500 HP 37 Pollmann Hamburg Y Y N N Y N During the mooring of a 270m container vessel a roller fairlead parted. One person was killed and one seriously

injured. The windlass was damaged. 38 Parker Aberdeen N N N N N N - 39 Nielsen Frederica N N N N N Y 1 incident, where a ship�s bollard was broken by using it for a tug line during moderate harbour manoeuvres. No

other damage occurred. 40 Sutherland Sullom Voe N N N N N N - 41 Carter Dun Laoghaire N N N N N N - 42 Lems Rotterdam N N N N N Y See additional remarks 43 SMS Melbourne N N U U U U - 44 MMS Melbourne N N N N N N 45 Andrews Milford Haven N N N N N N - 46 White Medway Ports N Y N N N - 2 incidents of bitts pulling from deck, after instances of winches rendering under tension. 47 Wallroth Goteborg N N N N N N - 48 Coghlan Shannon / Foynes N N N N N Y Two occasions in the last five years ships have been unable to use their anchors approaching berths because they

reported that they would be unable to retrieve it due to poor windlass condition etc. 49 Hoogendoorn Port Kembla N N N N N Y Vessels anchored off the port, at times loose anchors. It cannot be identified if there is a problem with the equipment

and so cannot comment upon the reasons for all the failures (some get snagged on rocks). As a result of loosing an anchor, vessels often drag and can find themselves on a lee shore quickly.

50 Mai Bremerhaven Y N N N Y N 1 person hit to death by parting mooring line. The line was brand new � as the ship � only 4 days in service. The good state of the mooring line caused the line to part in the fairlead during an unmooring process in which the crew was not able to slacken the line. Investigations revealed that the mooring winch did not operate but the real reason for this could not be uncovered. An incident had been reported where a bollard on a ship was torn off from the fundament due to forces from a tug line. There were no further injuries but the manoeuvre of the vessel was endangered.

51a Dublin 1 N N N N N N - 51b Dublin 2 N N N N N Y In lifting the stern of a car carrier, while departing, the tug�s winch walked back, due to failure of brake-hold. On

inspection, brake-hold found to be worn thin. No damage or injuries and luckily weather was fine. Regular watch of any wear on pads is kept.

51c Dublin 3 N N N N N N - Key. Y = YES N = NO N* = NOT RECORDED U = UNKNOWN

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2

Page 9

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Questions 3 & 4 Name Port 3a Remarks 4a 4b 1 Weiss Haifa N _ Y 5 2 Kristiansen Abenraa N - - 4 3 Bremner Cape Town N A serious concern for me is the high level of arrested and abandoned vessels that require constant attention to prevent them

parting lines, drifting clear and causing serious damage to other vessels. Y 5

4 Inbal Hadera N - Y 4 5 Jensen Kolding N - - 4 6 Bale Scrabster N - - 5 7 Tcheng Nantes - - - - 8 Gupta Mumbai N There is no legal provision in our country for inspection of ships� mooring equipment / mooring lines, to the best of my

knowledge. We often find that lines are sub-standard and frayed.

Y 5

9 Schardt Cuxhaven Y Yes, in our port-by-laws. ! Paragraph 19 �Mooring� �...vessels have to be firmly and safely moored. Ships� managements are allowed to moor their vessels only at those berths which have been approved by the competent Port Authority. The P.A. then is able to demand from ships� managements to correct their mooring devices, mooring systems and hawsers in order to fulfil the port�s safety regulations.

- 4

10 Follin Bordeaux N - - 4 11 Calvente La Teja N - - 5 12 Black Launceston N - Y 4 13 Williams Dammam Y The Sea Ports of Saudi Arabia (SEAPA) is legally responsible for the implementation of the Port State Control under the Ministry

of Communications. SEAPA has instructed the Harbour Master and Port State Inspector to report on the Adherence of vessels to the Rules and Regulations for Sea Ports for the Co-operation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. Any person contravening these Rules is guilty of an offence and is liable to a penalty. Specifically Part 1 Section 4.3.1 which states � a vessel being towed must provide good towing lines of adequate length and strength for the proposed towing operation�� Section 5.2.2 which states :� the Master of a vessel shall at all times keep the vessel properly and effectively moored to the satisfaction of the Port management. The mooring must be kept taut and adjusted from time to time to allow for the change of draught and rise and fall of the tide�.� The vessel is held responsible for any loss or damage caused to the property of the Port Management. Further, under the Saudi Labour Laws, an offender is liable to provide compensation to the injured party or in the case of death to the deceased parties family.

Y 4

14 Chernyshev Tuapse N - Y 5 15 Czerwinski Gdynia - Port State Control, Flag State Control & occasional inspections by Port Officers Y 3

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2 Page 10

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 3a Remarks 4a 4b 16 Nielsen Esbjerg N - - 2 17 Bubb Felixstowe Y Local Bye Law (36a) requires masters to berth �in such a manner as directed�. Harbour Master is also enabled to board and

inspect vessel. - 3

18 Atkinson Fremantle N However this answer is a reserved answer in respect to the powers of the Harbour Master under the Western Australian Port Authorities Act of 1999 which states. Principal and other Functions (1) The principal functions of a Harbour Master are �

(a) to control the movement and mooring of vessels in the port; (b) to ensure the port is kept free of obstructions or possible obstructions to vessels using the port (c) to ensure the safety of people and property in the port is not endangered by vessels or dangerous things; and (d) to ensure that the operations of the port in relation to vessels are conducted safely and efficiently.

Directions to masters etc (1) For the purposes of performing his or her principal functions a harbour master may direct the owner, master, or person in

charge of a vessel to do any or all of the following � (a) to ensure that the vessel does not enter port; (b) to navigate the vessel in a specified manner while it is in the port; (c) to moor the vessel in the port at a specified place and in a specified manner (d) to move the vessel out of the port or to another place in it; (e) to take any action specified by the harbour master in relation to the means by which the vessel is moored in the

port

- -

19 Friboulet Sete - - Y 5 20 Evans Southampton - Normal Port State Control checks by the MCA.

Please note that I have recently obtained assurances from the MCA that they would include the inspection of ships� fairleads as part of the inspection routines. This followed investigation of the parting of tugs� lines in the port which was attributed to excessive abrasion at the fairlead location on the ship.

- 4

21 Farnan Cork N - - 3 22 Maat Dordrecht - Dutch Shipping Inspectorate, looking after the MSC code as well

Labour Inspectorate N 2

23 Grytbakk Oslo Y The Port Authority have inspectors who follow up when arriving/departing the port. The inspection includes mooring lines.

- 4

24 Briche Ajaccio N - Y 4 25 Booth Poole N - - 3 26 Barton Guernsey N However the Harbour Ordinance 1988 does require �The Master of a vessel berthing or lying at any quay shall, to the

satisfaction of the Harbour Master, at all time keep his vessel properly and effectively moored.� N 2

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2

Page 11

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 3a Remarks 4a 4b 27 Pryce Wellington Y In the New Zealand 'Local Government Act', section 650c 'General powers of harbourmasters and enforcement

officers'; a. 650 c. 3 states 'for the purpose of ensuring navigational safety, a harbourmaster or enforcement officer

may give directions relating -' b. 650 c. 3 b the position, mooring, unmooring, placing removing, securing or unsecuring of any ship within

those waters It could be argued that if a harbourmaster or enforcement officer is not satisfied with the condition of the mooring lines because the vessel may break away from her berth and become a danger to navigational safety then he may give directions to replace those moorings.

- 2

28 Van Wijngaarden

Picton N - - 5

29 McPetrie Auckland N - - 1 30 Goodman Belledune N Response: No, to the best of our knowledge there are no special legal provisions at either the State or port level that

provide for inspection of ships mooring equipment including mooring lines. Matters of mooring line condition and the potential to cause injury to workers shoreside and aboard Canadian-registered vessels will involve Canadian Labour Code laws as administered by Transport Canada Marine Safety (aboard ship) or Labour Canada (shoreside). However, the regulations are not normally applied in the case of foreign-registered ships visiting Canadian ports. As for mooring equipment in general, the department responsible for Port State Control in Canada is again the Transport Canada�s Marine Safety Inspectorate and they have a certain legislated ability to deal with mooring equipment aboard ships (under general safety). However, they do not inspect mooring lines as a rule, nor do they have any rules specific to mooring lines. Their point is that the Master/Owner take responsibility for sake of ship safety and preservation of lives, property and environment. At the port level other than for a local �Code of Practices and Procedures�, each port relies upon its individual code and newly declared Canada Marine Act for guidance in these and other matters.

- 4

31 Vionnet Rouen N Only port officers� experience can help. - - 32 Al Basti Dubai N - - - 33 Donnelly Drogheda Y Under the Irish Harbours Act 1996, a Harbour Master may enter on board and inspect a vessel�s equipment. - 2/3 34 Dickinson Tauranga N To my knowledge, no provision exists at Sate level for the inspection of mooring lines. At the port level there is a

requirement for vessels to be securely moored. No inspection provision exists however. Due to the low level of incidents we have experienced, I do not have a high level of concern in this regard.

N 1

35 Dickins London Y Port State Control of sea-going ships implemented by notification by the Harbour Master, following incident or pilot�s report. Inspection by Port�s Surveyor of Port-based craft under Port Craft registration Byelaws.

Y 3

36 Plaksin Berdyansk N We do not have any legal provisions at State and / or port levels that provide for inspection of ship�s mooring equipment, including mooring lines.

Y 5

37 Pollmann Hamburg N There are not such legal provisions at hand or planned to be set in force. Y 3

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 2 Page 12

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Name Port 3a Remarks 4a 4b 38 Parker Aberdeen - The MCA are the UK�s inspection agency Y 3 39 Nielsen Frederica N - - 3 40 Sutherland Sullom Voe Y Provision made in Harbour General Byelaws. Sullom Voe handles virtually nothing but large crude oil tankers and

LPG carriers using winch controlled wire mooring systems. Each vessel is inspected twice daily by Harbour Authority Personnel to ensure that all port requirements � which include mooring arrangements - are being observed. In addition every vessel is subject to a detailed mooring audit on first arrival and is subsequently always moored in accordance with the optimum arrangement for that vessel.

Y 5

41 Carter Dun Laoghaire Y Under the Irish Harbours Act 1996, a Harbour Master may enter on board and inspect a vessel�s equipment. N 1 42 Lems Rotterdam N The Dutch shipping inspectorate only refers to the norms used by the Classification Societies. - 2/3 43 SMS Melbourne - - - 5 44 MMS Melbourne - - - 4/5 45 Andrews Milford Haven N - Y 4 46 White Medway Ports N Other than anchors and cables which fall under state control for safety, the only regulation we can apply is that the

vessel must be moored or anchored safely � to the satisfaction of the Harbour Master. Unless reported as deficient or faulty state do not carry out regular inspections.

- 3

47 Wallroth Goteborg - - - - 48 Coghlan Shannon / Foynes Y Harbours Act 1996 and Local Bye-Laws require vessels to be secured to the Harbourmaster's satisfaction, which of course puts

the onus on the HM & Staff. We implement locally by attendance at all river berths upon the arrival of vessels to act as Berthing and Mooring superintendents. Vessels that do not moor to our satisfaction are refused permission to commence cargo work, or are threatened with the cost of maintaining a tug alongside for twenty-four hours. This generally produces results.

Y 4

49 Hoogendoorn Port Kembla N No port inspection of lines is provided by the (Federal) State, the local State or the Port Authority. Y 3/4 50 Mai Bremerhaven Y State Level � The professional / trade organisation has rules and regulations for mooring lines as well as equipment.

These regulations are only valid for ships flying the German flag. The regulations are based on common sense, i.e. lines used have to have a certificate. Port level � No specific regulations. Bye laws state that the responsibility for mooring rests with the Master. Supervision of mooring is done by port officers during regular inspections.

- 2/3

51a Dublin 1 - - - - 51b Dublin 2 - - - - 51c Dublin 3 - - - - Key. Y = YES N = NO N* = NOT RECORDED U = UNKNOWN

***

DE 46/INF.3

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

ANNEX 3

IAPH QUESTIONNAIRE ON SAFETY ISSUES MOORING LINES AND MOORING EQUIPMENT 2001 Question 1

Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 1 Saudi Ports Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 Karachi N N N N N N N N There has never been any accident of such nature 3 Marseille N N N N N N N N 4 Sabah ports N N Y Y Y Y Y Y From 1997 - 2001: 20 incidents; causes: engine failure, human error, strong wind; Effects: wharf fender damage, wharf

fender torn Including Under deck part/pile; ship damage 5 Westgate N N N N N N N N 6 Guangzhou N Y N N N N N N 7 Trinidad N N N N N N N N 8 Conakry N Y Y Y N N N N 1 injured man; 1 damaged buoy 9 Larnaca N N N N N N N N

10 Makassar N N N N N N N N 11 Jawaharlal

Nehru N Y Y N N N Y Y 1X injured men; 2x near accidents with ships

12 Sept-îles N N N N N N N N 13 Constanza N N N N N N Y N Several times, 2X ship unmanned, no mooring equipment, bad weather 14 ENA port N Y N N N N N Y 2 injured wharf persons 15 Riga N N N N N N N N 1x damaged shore 16 Sudan N N Y Y Y N N Y 17 Antwerpen N Y N Y Y Y Several times mooring lines broke, also during piloting; 1x injured man 18 Gladstone N N N N N N N N 19 Fraser port N N Y N N N N N Numeroous hard contact ship and fendering systems 20 Nantes

St Nazaire N N Y N Y Y N N 2x breaking all mooring lines, rsult: 1x fender damage, 1 x no damage

21 Houston N N N N N N Y N Few incidents due to passing deep draft vessel surge 22 Luimneach N N N N N Y Y N 5x in last 3 years 23 Bintulu N N N N N N N N 24 Tallina Sadam N N N N N N N N

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 3 Page 2

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Port 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h Remarks 25 Long Beach N N N N N N Y N Tugs use their own lines, not ship's 26 Mardep N Y N N N N Y Y 8X minor injury, 1x injury 27 Napier N N Y Y Y Y Y N 1X 28 Devonport N N N N N N N N 29 Cork N N N N N N N N 30 Auckland N N N N N N N N 31 Stockton N N N N N N N N 32 Pelabuhan

Kelang N N N N N N N N

33 Tomakomai N N N N N N N N 34 Yokkaichi N N N N N N N N 35 Aarhus N N Y Y N N N N 36 Klang port N N N N N N N N 37 Brisbane N N N N N N N N 38 Townsville N N N N N N Y N 1x during cyclone 39 Nagoya N N N N N N Y N 40 Fraser River N N N N N N N N 41 Bankok N Y N N N N N Y 1x injured person 42 Redwood N N N N N N N N 43 Helsinki N Y N N N Y Y Y 1a: 1x; 1b: 1x; 1c: several times; 1d: several times 44 Kenya N N Y Y N N N N 1X: damage to bollard on berth 45 Qaboos N N N N N N N N 46 Nantes

St.Nazaire N N Y N Y Y N N 1996 All mooring lines breaking, the ship on frift in the river; two fender pile damage 2000 All mooring lines breaking, the

ship on frift in the river, no damage Question 2 Port 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Remarks

1 Saudi Ports Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 Karachi Y Y Y Y Y Y 3 Marseille N N N N N N 4 Sabah N Y Y Y Y Y

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 3

Page 3

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Port 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Remarks 5 Westgate N N N N N N 6 Guangzhou N N N N N N 7 Trinidad Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 Conakry N N Y Y Y Y 1x collision with ship damage, sinking of ship and damag infrasturcture 9 Cyprus N N N N N N

10 Makassar N N N N Y N 1x as a consequence of imbalance cargo weight and deviation angle 11 Jawaharlal

Nehru N N N N N N

12 Sept îles N N N N N N 13 Constanza Y N N N N N 1x 27 crewmembers died 14 ENA port N N N N N N 15 Riga N N N N N N 16 Sudan N N N N N N 17 Antwerpen 18 Gladstone N N N N N N 19 Fraser port N N Y N N N 1x wharf damage 20 Nantes St

Nazaire N N N N Y N 1x damage to ship equipment

21 Houston N N N N N N 22 Luimneach N N N N N Y 1x failure ship's anchor 23 Pelabuhan

Bintulu N N N N N N

24 Tallinna Sadam

N N N N N N

25 Long Beach N N N N N N 26 Mardep Y Y N N N Y 4x dead persons; 1x injury 27 Napier N Y N N N Y 1x injured crewman 28 Devonport N N N N N N 29 Cork N N N N N N 30 Auckland N N N N N Y 1X by fractured bollard 31 Stockton N N N N N N 32 Pelabuhan

Kelang N N N N N N

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 3 Page 4

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Port 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Remarks 33 Tomakomai N N N N N N 34 Yokkaichi N N N N N N 35 Aarhuis N Y N N Y Y 36 Klang Port N N N N N N 37 Brisbane N N N N N N 38 Townsville N N N N N N 39 Nagoya N N N N N N 40 Fraser river N N N N N N 41 Bankok N N N N N N 42 Redwood N N N N N N 43 Helsinki N N N N N N 44 Kenya N N N Y N N Few incidents 45 Qabooes N N N N N N 46 Nantes

St.Nazaire

Question 3 & 4 Port 3a Remarks 4a 4b 1 Saudi Ports N 1 2 Karachi Y Periodical checks by harbour master 1 3 Marseille N 2 4 Sabah N 5 5 Westgate N 5 6 Guangzhou N 4 7 Trinidad Y 5 8 Conakry Y Forms, describing cause of damage, legal provisions are applied 9 Cyprus N 4 10 Makassar N 1 11 Jawaharlal

Neru N 5

12 Sept-îles N 3

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 3

Page 5

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Port 3a Remarks 4a 4b 13 Constanza Y Governmental ordinance no: 42/1997, oct, ' 95, no: 38/2000; port state control procedures; IMO RES.A.787AS

amendes by RES.A882(21), codes 1300,1310,1320,1330. 5

14 Enaport N 4 15 Riga Y State control safety inspector inspect all vessels 3 16 Sudan N 5 17 Antwerpen N 3 18 Gladstone N 4 19 Fraser N 4 20 Nantes Saint

Nazaire Y 1998, procedure A.M.D.E.C., analyse des modes de défaillances, de leurs effets et de leur criticité. Ship is asked

after mooring means, mooring plas + mooring instructions 3

21 Houston N 2 22 Luimneach Y Harbaihs act 1996 4 23 Pelabuhan

Bintulu Y Second schedule of Bintulu Port by-laws 1983, in safety checklist 4

24 Tallinna Sadam

N 4

25 Long Beach N 2 26 Mardep N 3 27 Napier Y Port control inspections 3 28 Devonport N 5 29 Cork N 3 30 Auckland N 1 31 Stockton N 2 32 Pelabuhan

Kelang N 3

33 Tomakomai N 3 34 Yokkaichi N 4 35 Aarhus N 2 36 Klang port Y Regulairy body - Klang Port Authority 4 37 Brisbane N 4 38 Townsville Y Australian Maritim Safety Authoruty, port state control program 2 39 Nagoya N 4 40 Fraser River N 2

DE 46/INF.3 ANNEX 3 Page 6

I:\DE\46\INF-3.DOC

Port 3a Remarks 4a 4b 41 Bankok N Not specially for mooring lines, but Lloyd's Register for mooring equipment applied 3 42 Redwood N 3 43 Helsiki N 3 44 Kenya Y Harbour regulations, Merchant Shipping Act 5 45 Qaboos Y There are port regulations 5 46 Nantes

St.Nazaire

__________