Survitec revolutionises ship safety with integrated fire defence system

by Featured NewsPorts & Maritime

Global Survival Technology provider, Survitec, has unveiled a state-of-the-art safety management solution aimed at significantly enhancing onboard ship safety. This revolutionary solution, dubbed Safety Management and Rapid Response Technology Interface (SMARR-TI), boasts an interactive graphical monitoring interface that seamlessly integrates fire detection and suppression systems.

Conceived in collaboration with Turkish shipyard, Tersan, and Norwegian firm, Havila Voyages, SMARR-TI has already been implemented on two 15,500gt passenger ships.

Enabling swift action

Rafal Kolodziejski, Head of Product Support and Development at Survitec, said: “SMARR-TI is unique in that it can integrate both fire detection and fire suppression systems within one easy-to-use solution; there is currently no other digitised safety monitoring solution like this. What sets it apart is that it is interactive. The aim is to give early warning of changes in a quick and effective way, and then to enable swift action to prevent a fire from happening.”

Exceeding the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requirements, SMARR-TI provides an interactive digital representation of the entire ship’s fire defence mechanisms, including fire prevention, detection, and suppression.

The system’s functionality is optimised via a 27-inch touchscreen monitor located in the control room and bridge. Through this interface, the crew can effortlessly monitor the ship’s fire defences, receiving real-time status alerts regarding temperature fluctuations or the presence of smoke or flame. In such an event, SMARR-TI activates automatically, triggering a series of responsive actions including sounding the alarm, shutting down ventilation, activating CCTV cameras, and sending signals to the alarm monitoring system, SMS interface, and public announcement system.

Digital graphical monitoring

Vassilis Georgossopoulos, Sales Manager, Newbuild, Survitec, revealed: “The idea for a digital graphical monitoring system was already being developed by our engineers when we won the contract for the first Havila vessel. We realised that the ship’s profile fitted perfectly with the concept. The yard and owner agreed, and we started developing this as part of the project.”

As part of the agreement, Survitec provided Tersan with a comprehensive fire safety package for two new Havila Voyages’ ships, Havila Capella and Havila Castor. Notably, Havila Capella features the world’s largest battery pack installed on a passenger ship and was the recipient of the prestigious Next Generation Ship Award at Nor-Shipping 2022.

“Survitec’s proposal was exactly what we required for the Havila ships,” said Adnan Barış Arda, Project Manager, Tersan. “SMARR-TI acts as a ‘vessel monitoring brain’. Building new systems is a tough process, especially on a prototype vessel, and an open dialogue is the key to success.”

Future installations

Following the successful collaboration, Survitec has received additional orders, with further plans for installation on the Havila Polaris and Havila Pollux, set for delivery by summer 2023.

The company has also secured contracts with Turkey’s Cemre shipyard, with plans to offer SMARR-TI as an additional option in their safety packages installed on a Norwegian fishing vessel and a Danish passenger ferry.

Survitec will be showcasing SMARR-TI at the upcoming Nor-shipping trade fair, held in Lillestrøm, Norway, from the 6th to the 9th of June, in Hall C on Stand C02-46.

Survitec introduces pre-inspection dry dock safety service

by Featured NewsPorts & Maritime

Survival Technology solutions provider Survitec has introduced a new, formalised pre-inspection solution as part of its dry dock safety service to help ship owners and managers optimise and expedite dry docking schedules.

As part of Survitec’s fully managed, “safety-first” dry docking solution, the pre-inspection service is designed to support the servicing and inspection of all onboard safety and lifesaving equipment.

Full certification

A qualified service technician boards the ship during normal port operations to assess and verify the scope of work, with the added benefit of helping to ensure dry dockings do not overrun and ships leave on time, fully certified and within budget.

“It smooths the entire dry docking process,” commented Survitec Technical Sales Manager, Jan-Oskar Lid. “Advance planning pays dividends in terms of efficiency and transparency for owners and operators to plan and budget accordingly with a full scope of work planned and ready before the vessel enters dry dock. 

“A pre-inspection does not have to take place in the same yard or location where the dry dock will take place. This is the advantage of our global service station network.”

Regulatory requirements

As part of the service, Survitec teams review and set out a schedule of works in line with regulatory requirements. This includes collating and reviewing the necessary safety certificates and documentation and liaising with the shipyard and suppliers to expedite parts, procurement and equipment servicing.

An additional benefit is that it can also reduce the risk of any unexpected work cropping up during dry docking that could lead to unplanned delays, additional cost and lost revenue.

Operational delays

“The value of a pre-inspection call or visit has been demonstrated time and again over our many years’ experience of safety servicing,” explained Lid.

“Our trained technicians can identify issues that the ship owner or manager may not have yet recognised or may have been misdiagnosed. For example, one customer ordered a gas top-up for a CO2 low pressure system. During a preparatory call, we were able to identify an underlying issue with the tank and arrange the necessary repairs. If this issue had not been identified until the time of service, the vessel could have been left off hire for longer, causing costly delays to their operating schedule.”

Flexibility is a key benefit of the Survitec dry dock safety service. Referring to one project where LNG vessels were initially scheduled to dry dock in Qatar, Lid said: “At the last minute, the customer notified us that two of the vessels would be shifted to Singapore. This was not a problem for us as we have the network and resources to accommodate the change of plan.”

Standardised procedure

As Finn Lende-Harung, Commercial Director – Fire, explained: “With 100+ years’ experience as an OEM, we are fully conversant with IMO, Flag, Class and brand requirements for the different equipment and service intervals. We also have a global servicing network and the reach to service at all the major dry dock locations worldwide, in line with a vessel’s operational profile.”

“All our technicians follow standardised procedures to ensure the level of service, quality and professionalism are the same irrespective of location. From the customer’s point of view, they are dealing with a single solution provider, one trusted supplier that solves all the issues.”

“Dry dockings are highly complex projects,” added Lende-Harung. “There can never be any cast-iron guarantees that everything will go completely to plan, but our service affords ship owners and managers confidence of compliance, cost transparency and greater certainty that vessels will complete on schedule and with a clean certificate without any unnecessary down-time or drain on resources.”

Airport firefighting: Too hot to handle?

by AviationFeatured News

Mike Willson, firefighting foam and foam systems specialist, investigates whether airport firefighting foams fit is for purpose under increasingly hot summers

The world is experiencing more frequent and severe summer heat waves, impacting our safety.  Soaring 40-47oC temperatures across much of Europe, North America, India and Pakistan across to China, Korea, Australia and Japan were experienced during summers 2021 and 2022. Usually restricted to Saharan Africa, Middle East, Mexico, even Central Asia, July 2022 saw Arctic Norway glow in 30.8oC, while London’s Heathrow sizzled in record breaking 40.2oC. Heat stress and increased fire volatility are both outcomes facing firefighters.

We rely heavily on firefighting foam fire test approvals like ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) and European Norm EN1568-3 to verify acceptable fire performance under all major credible event conditions being faced during fire emergencies, including hot summers. Such fire testing is routinely conducted in cool 15±5oC conditions. US MilSpecrequires 23±5oC but most choose the lower temperatures, gaining a cooling advantage – never elevated around realistic ≥40oC.levels. Do all foams still work under such elevated conditions? How do we know? It is becoming a significant life safety issue.

Ignitable vapours hover above pooled fuel when Jet A1’s 38oC flashpoint is exceeded. These vapours are easily lit by burning embers or incandescent materials, potentially causing rapid re-escalation. Rising temperatures increase extinguishment difficulty, with fuel vapours more easily penetrating foam blankets, reducing effectiveness and causing premature collapse, particularly when fuel repelling or vapour sealing additives are absent. Where does this leave passenger safety?

Foam quality

Foundation research by US FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) established that Fluorine-free or PFAS-free foams (F3s) (i.e. without aqueous film formation) showed: “The predominant factor defining firefighting effectiveness is foam quality, which is indicated to rapidly deteriorate through the loss of liquid as it drains from the foam body at elevated solution temperatures.” It concluded: “As the foam viscosity increases, the fluidity decreases, and the foam may become more difficult and time-consuming to distribute uniformly over a burning fuel surface. Therefore, excessively high or low water temperatures are to be avoided.”

Investigations by US Naval Research laboratory in 2015 confirmed that: “Fuel surface cooling by the foam and the resulting reduction in fuel vapor pressure, which depends exponentially on the surface temperature. … the interface cools because the two layers are at different temperatures”. Consequently, higher foam solution temperatures have an exponentially reduced ‘cooling’ effect, making fires harder and slower to control and extinguish. Maximising rapid cooling could be delivering ‘easier approval passes’ – but how does this affect hot summer performances?

NRL extended their work in 2017 finding: “As the fuel temperature is raised, there is a higher concentration of fuel vapours beneath the foam than at lower temperatures. This increased concentration at the foam interface can increase the amount of fuel transport through the foam, increasing the rate of foam degradation … For all experiments F3 degraded much faster than AFFF. …The effect of surfactant formulation is a close second relative to the temperature effect.”

2012 FAA research cautioned against the impact of aircraft composite materials like carbon fibre: “There is also potential for re-ignition of a fuel fire from smouldering fuselage composites.” It referenced US Military graphite/epoxy/carbon fibre composite testing, finding that: “This composite would self-sustain combustion in as little as 2.5 minutes of exposure to an external pool-type fire. … The pool fire was easily extinguished in all tests. However, extinguishment of the composite combustion was not as easy. The surface flames were readily extinguished, but smouldering composite combustion was already established. To extinguish … fire fighters applied a continuous stream of AFFF directly on the composite material. After applying AFFF for 3 minutes or more, the smouldering composite combustion was extinguished.” Do such re-ignition sources further expose F3 vulnerabilities, without vapour sealing additives?

Protocol deficiencies

These findings highlight potential deficiencies in our existing fire test protocols. FAA’s Oct. 2021 Cert Alert raised public safety concerns with Fluorine Free Foams (F3s) due to delayed extinguishment times; failure to maintain fire suppression; incompatibilities with dry chemical and other foam agents, plus firefighter training strategies. FAA’s rigorous testing of nineteen F3s (nine commercially available, ten developmental) at room temperature (around 20oC) concluded: “Approximately 400 fire tests have been conducted; none passed MilSpec or ICAO Level C”.

Consequently, FAA: “Conducted ICAO Level C tests both outside and inside because of test results.” All F3s tested failed ICAO Level C and MilSpec fire tests indoors (~20oC) in FAA’s latest USD $5 million ‘state-of-the-art’ fire test facility. They also all failed ICAO Level C protocol when re-tested outdoors under similar conditions. Surprisingly analysis showed these leading F3s had Fluorine levels from 10-87ppm, which could exceed some residual PFAS expectations. 

62% of F3s also failed to extinguish within Level C’s 2-minute requirement, with two failing to extinguish completely. Burn back testing was also failed by 66% F3s tested. All F3s similarly failed MilSpec’s 30sec extinguishment outdoors, only one achieving 38secs, the rest up to 2mins 23secs (also ~20oC). FAA concluded: “Overall, none of the tested FFF candidates can be considered a direct replacement for AFFF without compromising the efficacy of fire extinguishment.”

FAA and NRL are undergoing extensive scientific research and rigorous fire testing to find adequately effective F3 alternatives to meet these demands, but so far unsuccessfully. So, what happens during hot summers, when conditions make fires even harder to extinguish?

ICAO requires Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Services (ARFFS) to operationally use 5.5L/min/square metrewhen firefighting with AFFFs, delivering adequate safety under wide ranging operational conditions during credible major fire events, based on a safety factor double the Level B fire application rate of 2.5L/min/square metre(1.56L/min/sq metre for tougher Level C).Is this safety factor adequate for F3s without fuel-repelling or vapour-sealing additives? Reluctance to conduct realistic high temperature F3 competency testing to ICAO Level B, means we still don’t know, potentially placing travellers’ lives under increased risks.

Unnecessary risks

This safety factor covers a range of practical ‘contingencies’ across often unforeseen, diverse prevailing conditions associated with major credible aircraft fires, including: Foam destruction factors like wind, rain, snow, ice, high/low temperatures, updrafts/vortexing; Fuel re-exposure by wind increasing re-ignition risk and sudden flashbacks; Some foam blankets (particularly PFAS-free) are attacked by co-incident dry chemical powder usage; Premature reduction in foam blanket fluidity/effectiveness from low humidity; longer pre-burn times increasing fire intensity; and lower foam blanket quality and greater plunging effects (from non-aspirating/lower expansion nozzles), potentially exacerbated by pressure fluctuations.

Additionally: Temperatures exceeding fuel flashpoints increase vapourisation rates, fire intensity, particularly when pooled on hot concrete runways or tarmac; Under or over-rich proportioning with resultant under-performance (‘too watery’ or ‘over-stiff’ if rich), potentially reducing foam quality or duration; Poor mixing of viscous concentrates, forming inadequately dissolved ‘globules’; Reduced effectiveness from delayed foam activation/response and composite materials; Stability changing with water quality (hard/soft/bore/seawater); and insufficient/inadequate training on foam type; operator errors; exposing foam vulnerabilities (not strengths), eroding effectiveness when insufficiently conservative tactics used.

Shouldn’t these safety considerations be incorporated into ICAO Level B/C fire tests? US MilSpec (2020) includes most considerations, which now risk exclusion in the draft land forces alternative F3 MilSpec, seemingly with ‘watered down’ performance levels potentially exposing not safeguarding lives – it’s key objective. Worrying evidence from a 2016 Dubai Boeing 777 crash in 48oC conditions, saw the aircraft ‘burned out’ after 16 hours, despite several failed attempts to extinguish using F3s.

So our Regulators, EPA’s, Standard approvals, FAA, Defense ARFFS and the travelling public are left with a major dilemma: Either we ‘force through’ weaker F3 specifications, without providing equivalent current fire protections to save lives in future major fire incidents, or we continue using proven, effective, life protections even when severe conditions prevail (eg. Syria, Afghanistan) or like civilian heat waves of 2021-22, by continue using high purity, short-chain C6AFFFs.

Evidence suggests it’s time for a re-think before exposing many lives to unacceptably increased risk of harm – or do we choose to continue risking the loss of plane-loads of precious lives unnecessarily? The real question that needs to be asked: it that even ethical?

About the author

Mike Willson BSc Hons, MCIM, is a firefighting foam and foam systems specialist with over 35 years’ experience of developing, testing, comparing and reviewing fire performance and environmental impacts of both fluorinated and fluorine free foams, their delivery devices and integrated fixed systems performances. An active member of Fire Protection Association Australia’s Special Hazards Technical Advisory Committee, he provides technical advice to a diverse range of stakeholders to better protect Class B flammable liquids with potentially suitable C6 and PFAS-free (F3) alternatives.

This article was originally published in the January edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Chemical plant catches fire in Illinois

by Featured NewsIndustrial

A chemical plant in northern Illinois went up in flames on Wednesday (11 January) morning causing officials to advise nearby residents to shelter in place as emergency crews responded to the blaze, according to Reuters.

The fire broke out at the Carus Chemical Company complex in LaSalle, a city of less than 10,000 residents located about 100 miles southwest of Chicago. The chemical company produces an oxidant used to treat drinking and waste water, phosphates for corrosion control, and carbon capture products used for air purification.

Fire crews were called to the scene at 9am following an explosion at the plant. The subsequent blaze caused significant damage before it was contained, LaSalle Fire Chief Jerry Janick said at a news conference. Additional equipment was ordered to fully extinguish the fire and start an investigation.

A spokesperson for the family-owned company said that all workers were evacuated and accounted for with no injuries. A shelter order remained in place for residents north and west of the incident, Fire Chief Janick said.

LaSalle police alerted the public that a green-coloured oxidizer was released in the area and warned residents against touching the substance. LaSalle Police Chief Mike Smudzinski said: “Hats off to the fire department because I think a good portion of this blaze was knocked down within a good hour.”

IFSJ Exlclusive: The Nuclear Challenge

by Breaking NewsIndustry Sectors

Sinclair Duffie, Chief Fire Officer, Nawah Energy Company, examines the role of firefighting in a nuclear setting

As one of many thousands of firefighting professionals throughout the world I have developed my skills through regular practice at the many incidents I have attended in various roles. Over time we tend to develop a broad categorisation of the type of incident that faces us, and we are able to dig into our subconscious and pull out some experience gained previously to help us formulate a plan and achieve the results we desire.

We can add multiple variables into this basic formula which make each one different but essentially, they follow a similar pattern or template with which we base all our firefighting learning and development on. It is a truly valuable asset a firefighter has in their armoury and gives them a level of perspective when facing a situation knowing their outcomes and expectations are developed from some previous experience and can help form the basis of a successful approach to what they are about to do.

This opinion leads me to look at the approach to firefighting in traditional terms which includes mobilising, or getting to the incident, using visual cues gained at the point of arrival, accessing the scene, choosing the appropriate extinguishing method, assessing the life risk, determining the fire spread characteristics and a myriad of other critical considerations to allow the response to be coordinated, effective but most of all to mitigate the risk to those involved and to the firefighters themselves.

This long-standing philosophy was challenged when I undertook the fire response lead role at a developing Nuclear Power Plant in the UAE. This is where my lifelong formed outlook on how I approached my fire response duties was challenged due to this new environment I was now exposed to.

New challenges

Nuclear, as is common in many industries, regards fire as a combination of threat to the workforce and disruption to the business process and the appropriate assessment of that threat is included in the overall risk management process. In many instances this threat is generally restricted to within the physical boundaries of the business but as has been witnessed on numerous occasions, those barriers can be breeched with the rapid escalation of fires due to reasons where control is not able to be effectively applied.

In that respect the nuclear power industry is no different to other industries in terms of physical barriers, with the exception of radiological containment, the buildings and infrastructure are designed along similar lines to gas or other types of fossil fuel generating facilities with some subtle differences particular to the process.

However, the nuclear power industry differs from the others, clearly by virtue of the fuel used in the process of that power generation. The health physics associated with the industry provides the greatest hazard to the workforce but also the effect on the population and environment should there be an uncontrolled release which is widely documented and been the subject of great debate for years by the lobbies both opposed and in support of nuclear power generation.

The process of safety engineering in a nuclear power station is carried out relative to the risk and the measures which are supplied and maintained to assure fire protection is calculated and provided on a beyond design basis. Part of this includes the provision of a capability for manual fire suppression which is in the form of a fire response facility either locally based and within reach of the establishment or as is the case at my location, an in-house, full-time fire brigade.

The challenges faced at a nuclear power generating facility throw up many dilemmas to the responding firefighter and incident commander. Traditional values of primarily saving life then assessing property and environmental concerns in a moral, hierarchal methodology become less routine.

This immediately puts the fire response team in a position where they must prioritise protecting the process first whilst simultaneously deal with any immediate threat to life. Conventional processes of a non-nuclear nature are unlikely to produce such a radical rethink of strategy and planning as there are also significant hazards created by fire in those types of locations.

Access issues

Access to affected areas within the plant can prove problematic as the design of the structure strongly leans towards an enclosure which does not encourage free movement air in order to control and contain the accidental release of contaminants.

The responding team must rely on accurate information from the pre-fire plan, the fire alarm system or someone on scene to direct them to the location which may be obscured by multiple doors and a range of access corridors.

Restrictions in air movement invariably can cause respiratory issues as HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Condition) systems are under the control of the supervisor in charge of the Main Control Room. They are unable to forcibly ventilate areas requested by the Fire Officer until strict radiological monitoring is carried out which adds time to the duration locations are classified as IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health) which is another consideration for determining a safe position for occupants, firefighters, and evacuees.

Traditional methods of deploying hose and equipment from staging areas to the fire scene must be adjusted due the practicalities of having the equipment in a safe and quickly retrievable location. Multiple floor levels encapsulated in concrete boxes with a mixture of radiologically sensitive areas alongside equipment with high pressure steam and high voltage apparatus makes the assignment of staging areas difficult due to access and exit, distance from the scene of operations, limited visibility, and many other variables which have to be taken into consideration.

Plan of action

A fire responder arriving at a fire in a nuclear power generating facility has to consider dealing with a set of objectives which may have to focus more on plant protection in the longer term sense of people protection than of immediate life risk, they have to contend with being unable to see a fire location within the building due to the nature of construction and no natural light apertures, be faced with a potential delay in access to the scene due to a combination of extensive corridors, multiple doors many of which are security barriers and require special permissions for opening and confrontation with an extended IDLH due to restrictions and control of ventilation in areas considered radiologically sensitive.

Plant design, extensive safety systems, high quality management and an exceptional safety culture have driven nuclear power generation into a position today where the lessons learned of past experiences are used to provide a platform for promoting excellence in everything that is done to safely generate electricity.

Firefighters within the nuclear industry must be familiar with the process to understand the fundamentals of operation and appreciate the consequences of their actions during firefighting. Control of the process under normal operating conditions is absolute within the Main Control Room which has highly qualified, dedicated staff who are ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the plant but more importantly able to safely shut down the reactor where conditions exist that compromise its effective and safe operation.

Firefighting affects that level of control applied to the process and must be carried out with full consultation and approval of the Main Control Room stepping away from convention where the fire Incident Commander knows best in terms of where to deploy resources, which area of the fire to concentrate on and more controversially, where priorities lie when it comes to life risk.

To date, fires in nuclear plants across the world have had minimal impact on the communities that surround them with very few experiencing the potential for radiological release. Most fires were generally recorded as being extinguished within fifteen minutes, some burned for over an hour. Those which burned longer were identified as being in less critical locations and did not pose a threat to the fuel used in the reactor.

This observation supports that whilst nuclear plants do report fires, similar to many other industries, there is a healthy respect for fire prevention which keeps numbers low and a similarly healthy respect for intervention which quickly extinguishes those fires and takes effective measures to prevent spread and increased risk by having trained, qualified and experienced fire response members available and ready for deployment.

This article was originally published in the January edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Merchant Shipping Fire Protection Regulations update proposed

by Featured NewsPorts & Maritime

A draft of the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023 were published (22 November 2022) published as a draft, along with an accompanying draft explanatory memorandum.

The draft regulations are being published for 28 days. Following the conclusion of this period, and once any observations on the draft regulations have been taken into account, they will be laid for approval by each House of Parliament.

The draft regulations revoke and replace the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection: Large Ships) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1012) (‘the 1998 regulations’), the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2950) (‘the 2003 regulations’) and makes other consequential amendments to implement the most up to date requirements of chapter II-2 in the annex to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (‘the convention’), relating to safety measures for fire protection on ships.

The draft regulations implement requirements for fire protection on ships in chapter II-2 of the annex to the convention, including previously unimplemented requirements to improve fire detection and suppression on cabin balconies for tanker ships to carry an oxygen measuring meter and portable gas detector and other measures.

The updated measures in chapter II are in force internationally, but the measures must also be incorporated into our national legislation to enable them to be enforced effectively, most notably to discourage non-compliance by non-UK flagged ships in UK waters, which would be detrimental to the safety of shipping in UK coastal areas.

The draft regulations will also ensure that UK law includes increased safety standards for fire protection on both UK flagged ships and non-UK flagged ships within the scope of the convention operating in UK waters, as well as including an ambulatory reference provision to ensure that future amendments to chapter II-2 referred to in the draft regulations will automatically become UK law when they enter into force internationally.

TT Club urges vigilance to prevent container ship fires

by Featured NewsPorts & MaritimeSafety

The freight transport and logistics insurance specialist insurer, TT Club has urged supply chain professionals and enforcement agencies to recognise the responsibility for mitigating container ship fires is shared by numerous entities involved from end to end of the entire global supply chain. 

With its estimated sixty-day average occurrence of serious fires being maintained by the Zim Charleston fire in August and the TSS Pearl in the Red Sea in early October, TT is once more calling for a more comprehensive approach to arresting the trend.

TT’s Peregrine Storrs-Fox explained: “There were significant lessons coming from the sad incident on the MSC Flaminia, which cost the lives of three seafarers, particularly from the subsequent legal proceedings that adjudged the shipper and NVOC responsible for root cause errors.

“Despite the biennial updates to the IMDG Code, including multiple arising from this particular incident, the judge’s assessment that the regulations merely set the ‘baseline’ for good practice remains utterly true today.”

The insurance provider advised that ensuring compliance with the latest mandatorily applicable version of the IMDG Code is essential as a minimum standard for all those shipping dangerous goods by sea. But the liability judgment in the MSC Flaminia case made it clear that regulations merely set the baseline. 

“This is an important statement to which any entity inclined to rely solely on the letter of the law when consigning dangerous goods, would do very well to pay heed,” said Storrs-Fox.

The firm is advocating for a comprehensive approach, striving to bring an understanding of all the factors contributing to these fires to everyone involved in the movement of cargo in containers and therefore underlining their responsibilities for safety, pointing out that Errors, misunderstandings, mis-declarations and inadequate packing and securing lie at the heart of many significant incidents, both at sea and in storage facilities.

TT said that the movement of cargo is initiated in the trading of goods – sellers and buyers – who instruct packers and whoever becomes the shipper, and that they have a duty of care as much as the packers, warehouse operators, forwarders, logistics companies, carriers of all modal types, cargo handlers and terminal operators.

The firm’s efforts to disseminate such awareness and knowledge have been long-standing and remain prolific.  Along with its sister insurer, the UK P&I Club it has recently up-dated its guideline publication, ‘Book it Right, Pack it Tight’, which provides key insights for all involved in dangerous goods’ shipments, including a clear exposé of the more technical aspects of the IMDG Code. Its aim is to influence higher standards of compliance by assisting all involved to understand their own duties and the duties of their contractual partners.

In addition, closely related to the issues specific to dangerous goods are the broader aspects of packing cargo in general. While the IMO/ILO/UNECE Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU Code) remains non-mandatory international law, it is clearly referenced from the IMDG Code. Through its participation in the Cargo Integrity Group, TT has contributed to work on the ‘CTU Code – a quick guide’. Once more this has been recently updated and assists those responsible for packing containers, accurately declaring details of their contents in order to access the guidance contained in the voluminous CTU Code itself more easily.  There is also a useful Checklist of actions required, which along with the Quick Guide is available in multiple languages.

“The complexities of the global container trades increase rather than diminish,” added Storrs-Fox.  “No one entity can surmount the dangers of these horrific fires, as a consequence it is essential that the entirety of the risk faced should be embraced by all involved through the supply chain if they are to be successfully reduced.”

Read International Fire and Safety Journal’s recent article in partnership with Survitec on fire suppression systems on ships.

More robust and comprehensive safety training for oil and gas companies needed says UL

by Featured NewsIndustrial

Several issues drive the need for more robust and comprehensive safety training for oil and gas companies, according to UL Solutions.

The safety company said that many oil and gas producers are experiencing significant staffing challenges as labour markets remain tight and many firms are hiring more employees with little to no experience in oil and gas exploration or production activities. These higher numbers of inexperienced staff exacerbate the need for employers to implement more comprehensive safety training measures.

It said that effective training programs support safer work environments and help reduce safety incidents for full-time employees as well as temporary and contract workers.

Such programs must, it said, target safety hazards, including risks of falls and injuries, explosions and fires, and high-pressure lines that can pose serious dangers to workers.

Another important factor driving the need for more comprehensive safety training programs at oil and gas companies, said UL, involves insurance and financial risks.

It pointed out that a producer’s safety incidents and reports can directly impact the rates they pay for workers’ compensation and other insurance; without this insurance, many companies cannot fully cover costs arising  from employee injuries or other incidents. 

To support oil and gas companies and augment the depth of their internal training processes, UL Solutions has developed industry-specific environmental health and safety (EHS) training courses. These courses target risks specific to upstream oil and gas operators, such as confined space operations, heavy machinery, and combustible and flammable materials. 

Accessible at any time online and on demand, UL EHS e-learning courses for oil and gas safety help companies move beyond minimal compliance with standards and regulations to instilling leading safety practices that  improve job performance and workplace safety.

Europe sees three of its worst fire seasons in the last six years

by Breaking NewsWildland Fire

The European Commission has revealed the latest European Forest Fire report which found that three of the worst fire seasons on record in Europe took place in the last six years.

The Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) published the latest edition of its Annual Report on Forest Fires in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa in 2021 and concludes that last year’s fire season was the second worst in the EU territory in terms of burnt area (since records began in 2006), after 2017 when over 10,000 km² had burnt.

More than 5,500 km² of land burnt in 2021 – more than twice the size of Luxembourg – with over 1,000 km² burnt within protected Natura 2000 areas, the EU’s reservoir of biodiversity.

The report does not yet cover this year’s fires, which have been even more destructive than the ones in 2021. 2022 is looking even worse, confirming the trend of recent years with an area covering 8,600 km² already burnt this year. 

Whilst the area burnt by wildfires has been remarkably extensive in 2022, the number of human casualties has been contained as a result of prevention measures implemented by EU Member States and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM).

In 2021, the EU strengthened this mechanism’s capacity by increasing aerial firefighting means to assist countries during that fire season – support which was extensively used during the fires that hit the Mediterranean region in 2021 and in 2022.

The full report can be found here.

California to drive down insurance costs with wildfire safety regulations

by Featured NewsWildland Fire

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is set to enforce a new insurance pricing regulation recognising and rewarding wildfire safety and mitigation efforts made by homeowners and businesses.

Commissioner Lara’s regulation is the first in the nation requiring insurance companies to provide discounts to consumers under the Safer from Wildfires framework created by the California Department of Insurance in partnership with state emergency preparedness agencies. The regulation is now state law and enshrined in the California Code of Regulations.

The regulation requires insurance companies to submit new rate filings incorporating wildfire safety standards created by the Department, and to establish a process for releasing wildfire risk determinations to residents and businesses within 180 days. Transparency is an important benefit of this regulation, by requiring insurance companies to provide consumers with their property’s “wildfire risk score” and creating a right to appeal that score.

This regulation is part of a comprehensive solution that Commissioner Lara initiated after taking office to protect consumers from climate change-intensified wildfires. When Commissioner Lara took office in 2019, insurance companies representing 7 percent of the residential market provided insurance discounts and, under his leadership, that figure has grown to 40 percent. When this regulation is fully implemented, it will be 100 percent of the residential and commercial market aligned with the Safer from Wildfires framework.

“Protecting Californians from deadly wildfires means everyone doing their part, including insurance companies by rewarding consumers for being safer from wildfires,” said Commissioner Lara.

“The reality of climate change is driving my determination to help communities better prepare, help our firefighters save lives, and help more Californians find insurance they can afford. My Department will work diligently to increase discounts to reward the hard work that California consumers do to protect their families, homes, businesses, and communities.”

Commissioner Lara directed the Department to write the regulation to protect consumers and improve market competition after hearing first-hand from consumers and business owners about their frustration with insurance companies that did not consider mitigation in their rating plans. During town hall meetings in more than 38 counties and an extensive Department investigatory wildfire hearing in 2020, many consumers testified that their homes and businesses were subject to “wildfire risk scores” that many did not know existed and had no right to appeal if inaccurate.

“Home Hardening retrofits, along with Defensible Space significantly increase a home’s chance of surviving a wildfire,” said Chief Daniel Berlant, CAL FIRE Deputy Director of Community Wildfire Preparedness & Mitigation. “Using the latest fire science and recent wildfire data, these retrofits and landscaping requirements provide a strong path to structure survivability. CAL FIRE is currently funding over three hundred million dollars in local wildfire prevention projects to prepare communities against wildfire, but we know it will take every resident doing their part to ensure California is fully protected.”

“I applaud and welcome the new insurance pricing regulation developed by Commissioner Lara,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents approximately 2 million residents, including many who own properties in the county’s wildland urban interface. “Over the years, I’ve met with many wildfire survivors who were underinsured and, as a result, were financially ruined – left with a home that’s uninhabitable, that they can’t afford to repair, yet still liable for meeting their mortgage payments. The discounts offered to property owners who harden their homes and take action to mitigate wildfire threats are a financial reward that I believe will be embraced by many. This is a big step forward towards promoting community-driven preparedness and resilience.” 

“Communities have been engaging in wildfire risk reduction through the national Firewise USA program for two decades,” said Michele Steinberg, wildfire division director for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). “The Firewise USA process requires annual preparedness work across neighbourhoods, and a long-term commitment. This ongoing effort has proven to reduce property losses from wildfire and should factor into risk evaluations and insurance rates.”