200261 Bulk or Packaged Dangerous Goods

Bulk or Packaged Dangerous Goods
Report No. 200261

While discharging a cargo of grain in Egypt we received orders that our vessel should sail to a port in Africa to load a cargo of Ammonium Nitrate (raw material for mining explosives) for Australia. No other details were forthcoming from any source in spite of several queries. Meanwhile Lloyd's Register had been appointed by the vessel's managers to carry out a Preliminary Survey in order to provide the vessel with a Document of Compliance for Carriage of Dangerous Cargo.

According to a Lloyd's Circular, certification depended on the type of packaging. Also the density of the contents determined whether a bagged cargo would be considered as bulk or bagged. Based on this scanty information, it was assumed and hoped that the cargo would be considered as bulk, although it eventually transpired to being shipped in bags. In any case, the details of the bags were not known at the commencement of the Preliminary Survey. Nevertheless the process of certification was commenced. Granting a certificate depended upon the vessel being provided with extra safety equipment such as breathing apparatus, chemical protective suits, extra fire extinguishers and fire hoses. The local ship chandler (with great difficulty and after rejecting several sets) managed to procure imported breathing apparatus and extinguishers just before our departure. The Lloyd's surveyor then issued an Interim Certificate with the outstanding items mentioned therein.

Orders were placed for these outstanding items at the loading port through a local ship chandler who had them ready on arrival. This enabled the local Lloyd's Surveyor to complete the survey and issue a Document of Compliance for Carriage of Dangerous Goods in Bulk. The agents had, even prior to our arrival, assured us that all the necessary documents would be provided to the vessel and that the local Maritime Safety Agency (MSA) would be involved in inspection prior to loading, during loading and before departure of the vessel from that port.

After arrival I had asked the Supercargo arranged by the Charterers (an experienced ex-Master Mariner himself) and the Agents to provide me with a Shipper's Declaration and Certificate of Test for the cargo as per the Bulk Code requirements. In spite of several requests, these were not forthcoming, even after commencement of loading. In fact they had expressed their total disapproval of this "nagging" Master and went on to comment that never in the history of loading Ammonium Nitrate at the port had any Master asked them for such documentation and that millions of tonnes of this product was being shipped from this port without any problems. The Supercargo went on to say that the IMDG code applied only to ships and not industries ashore. I could not believe my ears when I heard such an ignorant statement, especially from an ex-mariner. Little did he realise that information in the Code is directed at the mariner and shore services from the manufacturer through to the consumer.

A paradoxical situation was that Lloyd's considered this shipment as bulk and applied Regulation 54 Ch II - 2 set of rules based on SOLAS for issuing a Document of Compliance but the shippers and local MSA considered this shipment as packaged form for which they applied IMDG code and local regulations. If Lloyd's had applied the rules for shipment of dangerous goods in packaged form, the vessel would not have complied, especially regarding installation of the fire detection system and forced ventilation system for cargo holds. In fact I only had an idea of the packaging after I first saw the cargo while coming alongside the loading berth on board railway wagons lined up along the wharf in IBC's weighing about 1.2mt. Only after delving into the IMDG code did I find out that the bags were IBC 08 classed as 13H3 (Flexible woven plastics with liner) marked as per requirements.

Eventually, only after raising much hue and cry, just prior to departure I received a Shipper's Declaration and a Certificate of Inspection and this was supplied only after contacting the local MSA and requesting them to board vessel for discussions and clarification. According to the MSA and the shippers, a Certificate of Test (for the cargo viz. resistance to detonation) was not required to be provided for this packaged form of shipment. The Code also specifies that IBC's should be manufactured and tested under a quality assurance programme which should then be certified and mark issued.

Though the vessel had loaded and discharged the cargo safely I fail to understand the following:

1. Why does Lloyd's Register and MSA treat this cargo packaging differently?
2. Why cannot relevant documentation, be it Shipper's Declaration, Certificate of Test of cargo or packaging or dangerous goods manifest, be provided as per requirements be it BC code or SOLAS or IMDG code? Why are they not forthcoming automatically without the Master's begging and pleading.
3. In this day and age, why cannot the parties concerned provide vessel with complete details of the cargo prior to loading?

This report was initiated by reading MARS 200219 (Unmarked Dangerous Goods). Own vessel was a handymax bulk carrier. The cargo was about 9,000mt of Ammonium Nitrate in IBCs (IMO 5.1 UN No: 1942); Appendix B ( BC code )

Graham Evans, a Dangerous Goods expert, writes: This poor Master is right to be concerned. It is possible for a cargo to be brought to the ship as bagged cargo and shipped as bulk, it usually entails bleeding of the bags, so density is the factor, but density within the ship not density within the bags. In this case the cargo, whether bagged or bulk, is not packed into containers, the ship is the only containment, so there is no packing certificate for someone else to take the blame, the master is doing the packing. He is right to ask his questions.

My own view from a distance, without knowing the details, is that IBCs are packages and this was a packaged cargo. I would then be concerned as to whether the ship had a valid certificate of compliance. It is worth remembering that this cargo caused the loss of thousands of lives in Hamburg in the 1930s when one ship blew up and another blew up twelve hours later. A similar incident happened in Texas City in 1947 and there was a large explosion in France last year. Normally it is only considered to be explosive if mixed with organic material but can explode on its own if strongly confined and heated.

In 2004 the IMDG Code becomes compulsory but some bits remain recommendatory, such as the requirement for training for all those involved in sending dangerous goods to sea, the one thing that would have made a difference. The IMDG Code still relies on legislation and enforcement in different countries and it is difficult for a Master who is from a country or is sailing to a country that enforces the requirements but loading in one that is lax in its application.

I had an expert witness job once of a cargo with similar properties which blew up and did $2m worth of damage to tobacco in adjacent containers, we managed to establish that the ship was not to blame. In that case, the real blame lay in the fact that the cargo was not properly packaged. Without a shipper's declaration this blame would have had to be accepted by the ship.