USCG won't conform with SOLAS on container weights?


#81

If it is impossible to meet the VGM requirements currently then that is the CG’s problem because they have the authority to go to congress to get additional powers or have other agencies get involved.

However it seems a little odd that everyone is just discovering the problem now and that the discovery coincides with Thomas’ remarks.

Another possibility is the CG is correct when they claim that valid VGM docs can be produced without further regs.


#82

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180678]That is language from the World Shipping Council letter to the Coast Guard seeking clarification, dated March 3rd, and comes after the Admiral FAQ of March 2.

Think about this situation like this. SOLAS requires the vessel’s flag to approve liferaft servicing stations. SOLAS additionally promulgates requirements on what an approved station does, and how it services rafts, specifications, tools, standards for such tools and calibrations and so on. So to give effect to these SOLAS provisions, the Coast Guard needs to regulate servicing shops, prescribe the standard, approve the shops. So, applied to this situation, the coast guard is simply going to assume the stations (shippers and terminals) are doing it right (despite not identifying approved methods that have force of law) and won’t audit or otherwise approve them. So the coast guard won’t approve the station or the servicing procedures, but the vessel will be required to have rafts that receive proper service by a Coast Guard approved station.[/QUOTE]

Excuse me. I must have been pecking away while you were posting this. I see more where you are coming from now. However still think the USCG is sort of trapped jurisdictionally. Yes a life raft goes on a ship and a container goes on a ship but the industries involved are pretty different.

Wonder why USCG hasn’t tried harder to elaborate, then again they may just make it worse.

      • Updated - - -

NYK letting their valued customers know.

https://www2.nykline.com/help/imo_requirement_for_container_gross_weight_verification.html


#83

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180681]

However it seems a little odd that everyone is just discovering the problem now and that the discover coincides with Thomas’ remarks.[/QUOTE]

Very odd. I think they should consider putting a different face in front of this. Go back and read the start of this thread though. I have as many or as few issues with the USCG as the next guy but I don’t believe they plotted to risk seamans lives by ignoring the new ammendments or that the US is somehow actively contravening the intent of SOLAS in general. That was my original point - that there was a bit more to this story, that they may actually have reasons other than evil intent (heresy I know).


#84

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180681]If it is impossible to meet the VGM requirements currently then that is the CG’s problem because they have the authority to go to congress to get additional powers or have other agencies get involved.

However it seems a little odd that everyone is just discovering the problem now and that the discovery coincides with Thomas’ remarks.

Another possibility is the CG is correct when they claim that valid VGM docs can be produced without further regs.[/QUOTE]

It seems odd to the WSC, as well, and that’s the reason for the letter they sent. the letter from the WSC is a lengthy story of how they feel betrayed by the Coast Guard, given the lengthy support and active participation in the IMO rule making and statements explicitly endorsing the regulation. As they challenge the Coast Guard, if the Coast Guard doesn’t believe anything is required, why didn’t they say so earlier, and contradict their public pronouncements. The ‘discovery’ is more like the coast guard pulled the rug out from under the WSC despite assurances that they were in lockstep agreement. And it isn’t that the Coast Guard suddenly realized anything, it seems clear they are backtracking due to political pressure.


#85

[QUOTE=KPChief;180682]Excuse me. I must have been pecking away while you were posting this. I see more where you are coming from now. However still think the USCG is sort of trapped jurisdictionally. Yes a life raft goes on a ship and a container goes on a ship but the industries involved are pretty different.

Wonder why USCG hasn’t tried harder to elaborate, then again they may just make it worse.

      • Updated - - -

NYK letting their valued customers know.

https://www2.nykline.com/help/imo_requirement_for_container_gross_weight_verification.html[/QUOTE]

Yes they are different and this underscores the CG’s problem. It’s not hard to say, hey US flag ships, get liferaft servicing at CG approved service facilities. Ok, that’s manageable, how many US ships? How many rafts? Need x number of servicing stations to meet need to service y number of rafts. Businesses will spring up and seek the appropriate CG certification. And since the ships have a year to get service, it is a manageable affair. To continue the metaphor for containers—pretend they are all liferafts, and you must only load containers ‘serviced’ by CG approved stations. You don’t have a year to do it, and the liferafts are coming from everywhere. Different story. Challenging for everyone, even the way the Brits are doing it (I posted this earlier).

the challenge of the shoreside enforcement (shippers and terminals) is the problem, partly jurisdictional, partly a case of management. but that’s the problem the CG has. At IMO everyone agreed, and has the obligation to go home and make it happen. In this case, it means passing a new regulation to regulate terminals and shippers. The coast guard can do so, it did for ISPS, another SOLAS requirement that places requirements beyond just the vessel. It was obligated to do the same, but the coast guard has ‘challenges’ actually implementing regs generally and solas ones specifically–see the ongoing regulation project for SOLAS approved cargo securing manuals–15 years and not done.


#86

[QUOTE=KPChief;180684]Very odd. I think they should consider putting a different face in front of this. Go back and read the start of this thread though. I have as many or as few issues with the USCG as the next guy but I don’t believe they plotted to risk seamans lives by ignoring the new ammendments or that the US is somehow actively contravening the intent of SOLAS in general. That was my original point - that there was a bit more to this story, that they may actually have reasons other than evil intent (heresy I know).[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the CG is saying that shippers already have existing methods of confirming weights that are in place and in use. What is being said here is they are not in place. You’d think that this problem would have come up before Thomas made his speech on libertarianism.


#87

I can see several possible business ideas evolving here;

  • USCG approve 3rd part Surveyors to verify that exporters and forwarders etc. actually comply with the requirements per method #2 This will probably involve a fee to USGC to approve the Surveying company, and/or individual Surveyors, as well as an annual audit to verify that the guidelines are still being followed.

  • For other companies who only occasionally ship containers, the same USCG approved Surveyors can verify compliance for each shipment.

  • If terminal operators are not willing to operate weigh bridges at their terminals, 3rd party may do so close by and obtain USCG approval to issue the necessary documentation.

Since it has been stated here that there are very little being exported from the US this may not be a big business, but at least it could create jobs for a few hundred persons laid off from other industries.

By the way, don’t US trucks and trailers have to have their tare weight stated somewhere? In our day an age somebody could make a data register where that can be obtained by the click of a mouse.


#88

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180641]Why do you still feel this is the case when you’ve been shown the USCG’s method is allowed under the new rules?[/QUOTE]

I’m obviously not the only one that wonder about how this will be handled, not only in the US but worldwide.
There are other IMO rules coming into force soon where it appears that the industry is not ready to comply on the day.


#89

[QUOTE=ombugge;180694]

By the way, don’t US trucks and trailers have to have their tare weight stated somewhere? In our day an age somebody could make a data register where that can be obtained by the click of a mouse.[/QUOTE]

Yes, there is currently a system in place to determine the tare weight of a container which the IMO considers acceptable in meeting the VGM requirements. There has been no requiremnt to set up a completely new and different infrastructure to determine container tare weights.

The Coast Guard is saying that there also is already a system in place for shipping containers in the United States which meets IMO requirements for container weights.

From JOC

The U.S. Coast Guard and WSC argue that shippers have been required to provide gross mass information since 1994, and the SOLAS amendment only introduces the term “Verified Gross Mass” and specifies how that can be determined — by weighing the packed container in its entirety, or by calculating the weight of the goods, packaging, dunnage, securing materials and container.


#90

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180697]Yes, there is currently a system in place to determine the tare weight of a container which the IMO considers acceptable in meeting the VGM requirements. There has been no requiremnt to set up a completely new and different infrastructure to determine container tare weights.

The Coast Guard is saying that there also is already a system in place for shipping containers in the United States which meets IMO requirements for container weights.

From JOC[/QUOTE]

and the WSC is saying they’re wrong. They’re right, no verification system, otherwise there would be no questions or press releases from the US terminal operators about what to do on July 1.

Tare weight marking of containers are required by the international convention for safe containers. One of the parties pushing back to CG on the terminal and shipper issues stated that they have evidence such stamped weights are often incorrect.


#91

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180697]Yes, there is currently a system in place to determine the tare weight of a container which the IMO considers acceptable in meeting the VGM requirements. There has been no requiremnt to set up a completely new and different infrastructure to determine container tare weights.

The Coast Guard is saying that there also is already a system in place for shipping containers in the United States which meets IMO requirements for container weights.[/QUOTE]

I did not refer to the tare weight of containers, which is clearly marked on all standard container, but the tare weight of the truck and trailer which bring the container(s) to the weigh bridge?

In Singapore tare and max. loaded weight is marked on the vehicle itself as well as available on electronic data bases.


#92

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180701]and the WSC is saying they’re wrong. They’re right, no verification system, otherwise there would be no questions or press releases from the US terminal operators about what to do on July 1.

Tare weight marking of containers are required by the international convention for safe containers. One of the parties pushing back to CG on the terminal and shipper issues nstated that they have evidence such stamped weights are often incorrect.[/QUOTE]

I guess it boils down to a question of if the USCG is a credible source on this issue or or not. Queston and a press conference don’t indicate one way or the other. Shippers and termnals are going to wonder about what will happen to boxes without proper documentaion regardless.

As far as the tare weight being wrong, the issue is if the current method of determing tare weight meets IMO requirements.


#93

Just in case somebody is interested in how this is handled at PSA’s Singapore Container Terminals, here is a link showing the flow for containers arriving at the three existing terminal; Tg. Pagar, Brani and Pasir Panjang: https://www.singaporepsa.com/our-commitment/innovation
Container are automatically weighed and registered at the gate in 25 sec. The system has been in place since 1997.

Here is a picture of Tg. Pagar Terminal Gate 1 taken two days ago:

The Container Scanning Station, set up to scan containers for export to USA:


#94

Oh my God man will you stop we get it Norway and Singapore are the greatest maritime nations ever. IMO rules are sacrosanct and SOLAS/STCW are the most well thought out and implemented rules of all time. Our Coast Guard sucks and ABS are inept ding dongs.


#95

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;180729]Oh my God man will you stop we get it Norway and Singapore are the greatest maritime nations ever. IMO rules are sacrosanct and SOLAS/STCW are the most well thought out and implemented rules of all time. Our Coast Guard sucks and ABS are inept ding dongs.[/QUOTE]

Your words, not mine.


#96

[QUOTE=ombugge;180730]Your words, not mine.[/QUOTE]
Singapore does have high tech ports, much more advanced than the USA. On the other hand they have some really creative bunker agents. I wish they’d employ some of their high tech to those crooks.


#97

[QUOTE=tengineer1;180734]Singapore does have high tech ports, much more advanced than the USA. On the other hand they have some really creative bunker agents. I wish they’d employ some of their high tech to those crooks.[/QUOTE]

True, type “cappuccino bunker” in google and “Singapore” autofills.


#98

[QUOTE=tengineer1;180734]Singapore does have high tech ports, much more advanced than the USA. On the other hand they have some really creative bunker agents. I wish they’d employ some of their high tech to those crooks.[/QUOTE]

Yes Singapore, as one of the main bunkering ports in the world, has had their fair shear of crooks and is dealing with it: http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/singapore-launches-mass-flow-metering-standard
Will this cure the problem? Left to be seen, but MPA and other Singapore Authorities are doing their best to stop whatever dirty tricks that is still there.
Exxon Mobile is among the first to implement it, even before it becomes compulsory: https://www.exxonmobil.com/MarineLubes-En/performance-and-reliability_mass-flow-metering-system.aspx

This was a major problem for an international oil & gas company operating in Indonesia. I was engaged to try to teach their Marine Inspectors how to recognize the trickses used to beat the metering system and manual soundings. After I had given my lecture I asked if anybody knew of any trickses I had not mentioned.
One person held up his hand. He was a former Captain on one of the bunkering barges in the company, but was not willing to shear his knowledge in that forum. (Wise man)


#99

A little OT here, but Singapore is also the only nation accounting for the CO2 emission from power stations supplying the power to electric cars: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/un-body-on-tesla/2589878.html

FYI all power stations in Singapore are powered by natural gas, not coal. If the same standard was applied in the US, Tesla and others el-cars producers would be out of business. (Unless it is only a status symbol to own one?)

PS> Not sure if this is an accurate report, or just hog wash.


#100

[QUOTE=ombugge;180759]A little OT here, but Singapore is also the only nation accounting for the CO2 emission from power stations supplying the power to electric cars: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/un-body-on-tesla/2589878.html

FYI all power stations in Singapore are powered by natural gas, not coal. If the same standard was applied in the US, Tesla and others el-cars producers would be out of business. (Unless it is only a status symbol to own one?)

PS> Not sure if this is an accurate report, or just hog wash.[/QUOTE]

  1. your anti US posts are really getting obnoxious

  2. the people in this country with any sense realize this. Just like hydrogen fuel cells that require more energy to make than they save by replacing gasoline, electric cars aren’t all they’re cracked up to be yet. But as electric cars get more energy efficient and electricity gets greener that will reverse.