Industry Guidance OCIMF: Mooring Equipment Guidelines.
Four th Edition 2018 (MEG4) 6.3.4.1 Brake holding load OCIMF recommends that the primary brake should be set to hold 60% of the ship design MBL on the first layer.
Split drum winches should not have more than one layer of mooring line on the tension section of the drum because it can reduce the brake holding capacity of the mooring winch. 6.4.5.1 Effect of layers of mooring line on brake holding load Undivided drum winch For undivided winch drums, it is recommended to ask the manufacturer for guidance on maintaining the OCIMF recommended value for brake rendering.
This may require ship operational experience to identify the normal layer in use for most mooring operations. 6.4.6 Winch brake testing 6.4.6.4 Supervision of testing Winch testing should be carried out under the supervision or in the presence of a responsible person familiar with the operation of the winches, the test procedure and the ship’s safety management system.
This may be a person designated by the Master, Chief Engineer or a repair s uperintendent.
Page 378 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) 6.4.6.5 Method of testing Once the brakes are tested and calibrated, the torque setting should be recorded.
For conventional screw brakes, a tag should be attached stating the torque value.
For spring applied brakes the spring compression distance should be recorded and the mechanism secured with a seal.
A stopper arrangement, e.g. locking nut on the threaded end, should not be used on the tightening screw.
Stopper arrangements can impede the brake setting and reduce the brake holding load.
TMSA KPI 6A.1.2 requires that maintenance, testing and routine inspections of mooring and anchoring equipment is included in the planned maintenance system.
The planned maintenance system covers all mooring equipment.
This equipment may include: • Winches and windlasses.
Winch and windlass brake testing is conducted according to industry guidelines or local regulations.
IMO: ISM Code 10.1 The Company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the Company.
IMO: SOLAS Chapter II -1 Regulation 3-8 Towing and Mooring Equipment 1 This regulation applies to ships constructed on or after 1 January 2007 but does not apply to emergency towing arrangements provided in accordance with regulation 3-4. 2 Ships shall be provided with arrangements, equipment and fittings of sufficient safe working load to enable the safe conduct of all towing and mooring operations associated with the normal operation of the ship. 3 Arrangements, equipment and fittings provided in accordance with paragraph 2 shall meet the appropriate requirements of the Administration or an organization recognized by the Administration under regulation I/6*. 4 Each fitting or item of equipment provided under this regulation shall be clearly marked with any restrictions associated with its safe operation, taking into account the strength of its attachment to the ship’s structure.
Inspection Guidance The vessel operator should have developed mooring procedures which are in alignment with MEG4 and the information recommended for inclusion within the Mooring System Management Plan (MSMP).
The procedures should provide guidance on: • The frequency of winch brake testing (MEG4 6.4.6.1). • The method of winch brake testing (MEG4 6.4.6.2). • The method of ensuring the correct torque is applied (MEG4 6.4.6.5). • The primary brake holding load – adjusted to 60% of the Ship Design MBL (MEG4 6.3.4.1). • The use o f split drum winches – not more than one layer of mooring line on the tension side (MEG4 6.3.4.1), and/or • The use of undivided drum winches (6.4.5.1) Page 379 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) • The reeling of lines onto drums – band brakes are designed to work effectively in only one direction (MEG4 6.3.4.2).
It is recognised that the testing of mooring winch brakes is often completed by engineer officers or shore-based contractors.
The intent of the question is to establish that the Master and deck officers are familiar with the requirement for brake testing, the operation of the mooring winch brake systems and, the indicators during operation when maintenance and further testing is required.
The vessel operator should have uploaded one photograph relating to the brake mechanism for a representative mooring winch to the document portal prior to the inspection.
This will be linked to this question within the inspection editor.
Suggested Inspector Actions • Sight, and where necessary review, the company procedure for the testing and operation of the vessel’s mooring winch brakes. • Review the Mooring System Management Plan and verify that it contained the mooring winch brake testing records or, where records were integrated within the ships document control system, that the location of the mooring winch brake testing records was identified. • Review the mooring winch brake testing records and verify that the brakes had been tested and adjusted to render at 60% of the ship’s design MBL at least annually and after completion of any modification or maintenance, or where there had been evidence of premature brake slippage or related malfunctions. • During the physical inspection of the vessel verify that winches were marked with: o The correct reeling direction (MEG4 6.3.4.2). o The date of the last brake t est ((MEG 6.4.6.1). o The primary brake holding load value as set (MEG4 6.3.6). o The torque setting value where a brake is set with a torque wrench (MEG4 6.4.6.5). o The pressure gauge setting value where a brake is initially applied by a hydraulic assist (MEG4 6.4.6.5). o Where applicable, an indicator to show that a brake was set to the correct value. • During the physical inspection of the vessel verify that: o The lines were reeled on the winch drums in the correct direction (MEG4 6.3.4.2). o Where winches were provided with split drums, that there was no more than a single layer of line on the tension side of a drum (MEG4 6.3.4.1). o Where winches were provided with split drums, that the number of turns of mooring line on the tension side of a drum were at least the minimum number as indicated within the Line Management Plan (MEG4 6.3.3.1). o The winch brakes were set in accordance with any instructions or indicators provided. o The winch drum brake assemblies including brake lining material and brake drum surface were in apparent good order and well maintained. o The brake test equipment was safely stored as per manufacturer’s instructions, if kept onboard. • Where safe to do so and the appropriate personnel are available during the physical inspection, observe the adjustment of a mooring line.
Expected Evidence • The company mooring procedures which included the use and testing of mooring winches fitted to the vessel. • The Mooring System Management Plan, where provided. • The Line Management Plan. • The mooring winch brake tes ting records. • The calibration test certificate for the brake testing equipment pressure gauge where testing equipment carried. • The winch manufacturer’s instructions for the testing of the mooring winch brakes.
Page 380 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) • Mooring winch maintenance records since the last annual winch test where repairs or component replacement had been performed on any part of a winch drum brake assembly or mechanism.
Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation • There was no company procedure which provided instructions for the use and testing of the mooring winches brakes fitted to the vessel. • The vessel was not provided with a Mooring System Management Plan (MSMP) which was in alignment with MEG4. • The accompanying deck officer was not familiar with the company procedures for the oper ation, setting and testing of the mooring winch brakes. • The accompanying deck officer or observed crew were not familiar with the operation and setting of the mooring winch brakes. • The brake testing equipment was not maintained in good condition, or the hydraulic jack pressure gauge had not been calibrated before use where brake testing equipment was carried. • The mooring winch brakes had not been periodically tested in accordance with the company procedure or the Mooring System Management Plan requirements. • The mooring winch brakes had not been tested on completion of any repairs or maintenance which affected the mooring winch brake mechanism assembly. • The mooring winch brakes had not been retested where there had been evidence of premature brake slippage or related malfunctions. • The mooring winch drums were not marked with the date of the previous test, the primary brake load capacity, the reeling direction or the brake setting torque or hydraulic brake assist setting pressure (as applicable to the brake typ e). • The brake on any single mooring drum in active mooring service was observed to be incorrectly set. • A stopper arrangement, e.g. a locking nut on the threaded end, was used on the tightening screw of the brake to set the brake torque. • A mooring line was reeled onto a mooring drum in the wrong direction for the correct operation of the brake mechanism. • Where the vessel was provided with split drums there was more than one layer of line on the tension side of a drum. • Where the vessel was provided with s plit drums there were insufficient turns of line, as determined by the company procedure or MSMP, on the tension side of the drum. • The mooring winch drum brake mechanisms, brake drums or brake band linings were apparently defective on any mooring winch.
This would include where brake drums had more than a light layer of superficial surface rust.
Page 381 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)
['Sight, and where necessary review, the company procedure for the testing and operation of the vessel’s mooring winch brakes.', 'Review the Mooring System Management Plan and verify that it contained the mooring winch brake testing records or, where records were integrated within the ships document control system, that the location of the mooring winch brake testing records was identified.', 'Review the mooring winch brake testing records and verify that the brakes had been tested and adjusted to render at 60% of the ship’s design MBL at least annually and after completion of any modification or maintenance, or where there had been evidence of premature brake slippage or related malfunctions.', 'During the physical inspection of the vessel verify that winches were marked with: o The correct reeling direction (MEG4 6.3.4.2). o The date of the last brake t est ((MEG 6.4.6.1). o The primary brake holding load value as set (MEG4 6.3.6). o The torque setting value where a brake is set with a torque wrench (MEG4 6.4.6.5). o The pressure gauge setting value where a brake is initially applied by a hydraulic assist (MEG4 6.4.6.5). o Where applicable, an indicator to show that a brake was set to the correct value.', 'During the physical inspection of the vessel verify that: o The lines were reeled on the winch drums in the correct direction (MEG4 6.3.4.2). o Where winches were provided with split drums, that there was no more than a single layer of line on the tension side of a drum (MEG4 6.3.4.1). o Where winches were provided with split drums, that the number of turns of mooring line on the tension side of a drum were at least the minimum number as indicated within the Line Management Plan (MEG4 6.3.3.1). o The winch brakes were set in accordance with any instructions or indicators provided. o The winch drum brake assemblies including brake lining material and brake drum surface were in apparent good order and well maintained. o The brake test equipment was safely stored as per manufacturer’s instructions, if kept onboard.', 'Where safe to do so and the appropriate personnel are available during the physical inspection, observe the adjustment of a mooring line.
Expected Evidence', 'The company mooring procedures which included the use and testing of mooring winches fitted to the vessel.', 'The Mooring System Management Plan, where provided.', 'The Line Management Plan.', 'The mooring winch brake tes ting records.', 'The calibration test certificate for the brake testing equipment pressure gauge where testing equipment carried.', 'The winch manufacturer’s instructions for the testing of the mooring winch brakes.
Page 380 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)', 'Mooring winch maintenance records since the last annual winch test where repairs or component replacement had been performed on any part of a winch drum brake assembly or mechanism.
Potential Grounds for a']
Fourth Edition 2018 (MEG4) Section 1.9.2 Mooring System Management Plan Structure.
Part B – Mooring equipment design philosophy • 5.
Assumptions on the standard mooring pattern and considerations for redundancy pr ovisions, including sub-optimal line distribution to cover unpredicted events (e.g. storm surges, shore mooring hooks out of service). • 8.
Alternate mooring patterns to meet the standard environmental criteria assessment and designed-in options when the optimal mooring pattern is unachievable in some real -world scenarios (e.g. hooks, dolphins or mooring winches out of service, breast lines not in an optimal perpendicular lead, etc.).
TMSA KPI 6A.2.1 requires that detailed procedures address each different ty pe of mooring operation likely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures have been developed following risk assessments for each type of mooring operation, which may include; • Conventional berths. • Conventional buoy moorings. • Double- banking at berths.
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks sh ould be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
Page 382 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) The vessel operator should have developed the Mooring System Management Plan to include optimal, sub- optimal and alternate mooring patterns permissible to assist vessel staff in evaluating a terminal’s published or proposed mooring plan prior to mooring.
The mooring patterns should identify: • The minimum number of lines that must be deployed in each service (spring, breast, head and stern) to meet the design mooring constraint requirement for the standard environmental criteria at a conventional tanker jetty. • The minimum number of lines that must be deployed in each service (breast, quarter and stern) to meet the design mooring constraint requirement for the standard environmental criteria at a conventional buoy mooring (multi -buoy mooring). • Environmental conditions where additional mooring lines are required to be utilised and in what service. • The permissible alternative mooring configurations where shore hooks or bollards are not in the optimal position or are out of service. • The horizontal angles of lines to the perpendicular of the ship’s fore and aft axis and vertical angles of lines (in true elevation) with the vessel in the least favourable load state that are permitted for mooring lines in each service in the standard or alternative mooring patterns.
The vessel operator should have developed a procedure for evaluating proposed mooring configurations which do not conform to, or modify, the criteria upon which the Mooring System Management Plan was developed.
This should include double banking operations at a berth.
['Review the Mooring System Management Plan and identify the permissible mooring configurations that may be used by the vessel to meet optimal, sub', 'optimal and alternate mooring arrangements.', 'Review the published terminal mooring plans for recent terminal visits and verify that there was a process to confirm that the vessel could comply with both the terminal mooring layout and t he mooring patterns permitted by the Mooring System Management Plan.', 'Where the vessel was moored at the time of the inspection, verify that the mooring pattern employed was in accordance with both the mooring plan published by the terminal and the Mooring System Management Plan. (Where the number of mooring lines required to be utilised between the terminal and vessel mooring plans was different, the plan requiring the higher number of lines should be followed.)', 'Where the terminal mooring plan required the use of swamp lines or other shore', 'lines to supplement the vessel’s mooring system, verify that these lines had been utilised.', 'Verify that the vessel’s mooring lines were deployed within the permitted horizontal angles to the perpendicular of ships fore and aft axis and vertical angles of lines as documented within the Mooring System Management Plan.', 'Where the vessel was required to undertake a mooring analysis as part of the terminal acceptance process, verify that the vessel had moored in accordance with the mooring analysis provided to the vessel.', 'Where the vessel was involved in a double banking operation* verify that; o A mooring analysis was available to confirm that both the inside and outside vessel were provided with adequate restraint, o That the inside vessel was not bearing the load of both vessels on its own moorings unless the mooring analysis determined that the moorings deployed were sufficient for the forces of both vessels, o That both the inside and outside vessels were moored in accordance with the agreed mooring plan.
The mooring of a bunker barge or small coastal tanker to the outboard side does not constitute a double banking operation*.
Expected Evidence', 'The Mooring System Management Plan.', 'The terminal mooring plan, showing the positioning of a similar sized vessel in relationship to the terminal mooring fittings, published in either the terminal handbook or an industry standard publication.
Page 383 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)', 'The passage plan, pilot card, cargo plan or risk assessment which showed the specific mooring layout that was used at the terminal or berth.', 'Where the vessel was required to be subject to a terminal compatibility assessment prior to berthing, the mooring plan determined during the mooring assessment.', 'Where the vessel was engaged in a double', 'banking alongside a berth, the agreed mooring plan for both the inside and outside vessels.
Potential Grounds for a']
['Sight, and where necessary review, company procedures that address the carriage of inhibited cargoes.', 'Review cargo operation log books and records, inhibited cargo certificates of protection and contingency plans in the event of uncontrolled polymerisation.', 'During the course of the inspection, note if any parts of the venting system are blocked by solid polymers.', 'Interview the responsible officer to verify their familiarity with company procedures that address the carriage of inhibited cargoes Page 30 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) Where the vessel had not carried any inhibited cargoes during the previous six months, make a comment in the Process response tool noting the last occasion an inhibited cargo was carried.
Focus on the balance of the human and procedural aspects of the guidance.
Expected Evidence', 'Company procedures that address the carriage of inhibited cargoes.', 'Inhibited cargo certificates of protection.', 'Inert gas logs relevant to the carriage of inhibited cargoes.', 'Bridge and Cargo Log Books.', 'Cargo tank temperature records relevant to the carriage of inhibited cargoes.', 'Cargo load and discharge plans relevant to the carriage of inhibited cargoes.', 'Contingency plans in the event of uncontrolled polymerisation of an inhibited cargo.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance OCIMF: Mooring Equipment Guidelines.
Fourth Edition 2018 (MEG4) Chapter 5.2 – Mooring system design and line selection TMSA KPI 6A.2.4 requires that procedures are in place for the inspection, maintenance and replacement of wires, ropes, tails and ancillary equip ment.
IMO: ISM Code 10.1 The Company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the Company.
The vessel operator should have provided the vessel with a Mooring System Management Plan (MEG4 1.9) which consisted of the following: • Part A – General ship particulars • Part B -Mooring equipment design philosophy (MEG4 1.9.2.2). o 4.
Design loads, safety factors and strength for required mooring lines and fixed equipment. • Part C – Detailed list of mooring equipment (MEG4 1.9.2.3). o 3.
Loose equipment (mooring lines, tails, pennants, joining shackles etc.). • Part D – Inspection, maintenance and retirement strategies/principles.(MEG4 1.9.2.4) o 4.
A Mooring Line Management Plan covering all mooring ropes and wires in use including joining shackles. • Part E – Risk and change management, safety of personnel and human factors • Part F – Records and doc umentation • Part G – Mooring System Management Plan Register Mooring lines shall have a Line Design Break Force (LDBF) of 100- 105% of the Ship Design MBL (MEG4 5.2.1).
Synthetic mooring tails shall have a Tail Design Break Force (TDBF) of 125-130% of the Ship Design MBL (MEG4 5.8.2).
Page 389 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) The LDBF for nylon (polyamide) mooring lines should be specified as break tested wet, because nylon lines change strength characteristics once exposed to water and generally do not fully dry to their original construction stat e.
Connection devices (joining shackles) should have a safety factor of three, i.e. the breaking load is three times the safe working load (SWL).
The safe working load of the joining shackle should always be equal to, or greater than, the working load limit (WLL) of the lines in the mooring system. (MEG4 5.8.4.1).
['Review the Mooring System Management Plan and identify the values for Ship Design MBL and the working load limit (WLL) of the lines.', 'Review the detailed list of mooring equipment and loose equipment and verify that; o The mooring lines had a Line Design Break Force (LDBF) in the range of 100', '105% of the Ship Design MBL. o The mooring tails, where provided, had a Tail Design Break Force (TDBF) in the range 125', '130% of the Ship Design MBL. o The joining shackles, where provided, had a Safe Working Load (SWL) equal to, or greater than, the working load limit (WLL) of the mooring lines in the system. (it is not expected that the SWL and WLL exactly match).', 'Where the vessel had a summary list of all mooring system loose equipment with the values of LDBF and TDBF tabulated, verify that the values for the components were accurate by spot', 'checking the values against several manufacturer’s product certificates.
Expected Evidence', 'The Mooring System Management Plan.', 'The list of loose equipment (mooring lines, mooring tails and joining shackles)', 'The file of manufacturer product certificates for all mooring lines, mooring tails and joining shackles.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance IMO: MSC.1/Circ.1255 Guidelines for Owners/Operators on Preparing Emergency Towing Procedures. 4.1 The Emergency Towing Booklet (ETB) should be ship specific and be presented in a clear, concise and ready -to- use format (booklet, plan, poster, etc.). 4.6 A minimum of three copies should be kept on board and located in: 1. the bridge; 2. a forecastle space; and 3. the ship’s office or cargo control room.
TMSA KPI 11.1.1 requires that detailed vessel emergency response plans include initial notification procedures and cover all credible emergency scenarios.
IMO: ISM Code 8.1 The Company should identify potential emergency shipboard situations and establish procedures to respond to them.
IMO: SOLAS Chapter II – I Regulation 3-4 1 Emergency towing arrangements on tankers. 1.1 Emergency towing arrangements shall be fitted at both ends on every tanker of not less than 20,000 tonnes deadweight. 2 Emergency towing procedures on ships.
Page 391 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) 2.2 ships shall be provided with a ship- specific emergency towing procedure.
Such a procedure shall be carried onboard the ship for use in emergency situations and shall be based on existing arrangements and equipment available on board the ship.
Inspection Gu idance The vessel operator should have provided the vessel with an emergency towing procedure in the form of an Emergency Towing Booklet (ETB) in accordance with SOLAS regulation and supporting IMO Marine Safety Circulars.
Suggested Inspector Actions • Review the vessel specific emergency towing procedure (Emergency Towing Booklet - ETB). • Verify a copy of the ETB was available on the bridge, in the ship’s office or cargo control room and in the forecastle space. • Where fitted, inspect the emergenc y towing arrangements fitted to the vessel and verify that the emergency towing procedure (ETB) is aligned with the equipment provided. • Inspect the physical condition of the emergency towing equipment and confirm that all visible and accessible parts are f unctional with evidence of recent maintenance. • Verify, by sampling, that the ancillary equipment listed in the emergency towing procedure (ETB) is present in the correct location. • Interview the accompanying officer to verify they understand how to deploy the emergency towing equipment.
Expected Evidence • Vessel specific emergency towing procedure (Emergency Towing Booklet - ETB).
Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation • The emergency towing procedure (ETB) was not based on the existing arrangements and equipment fitted on board. • The accompanying officer was unfamiliar with the vessel specific emergency towing procedure (ETB). • The accompanying officer was unfamiliar with the emergency towing equipment fitted to the vessel. • The accompanying officer was unfamiliar with the process of deploying the emergency towing equipment fitted to the vessel. • The emergency towing procedure (ETB) was not available on the bridge, in the ship’s office or cargo control room and in the forecastle space. • The emergency towing arrangements were defective in any respect. • The ancillary equipment listed in the emergency towing procedure (ETB) was missing, in the wrong location or defective in any way. • The emergency towing equipment was not ready for immediate use in any respect.
Page 392 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) 9.3.
Mooring and Anchoring Procedures
['Review the vessel specific emergency towing procedure (Emergency Towing Booklet', 'ETB).', 'Verify a copy of the ETB was available on the bridge, in the ship’s office or cargo control room and in the forecastle space.', 'Where fitted, inspect the emergenc y towing arrangements fitted to the vessel and verify that the emergency towing procedure (ETB) is aligned with the equipment provided.', 'Inspect the physical condition of the emergency towing equipment and confirm that all visible and accessible parts are f unctional with evidence of recent maintenance.', 'Verify, by sampling, that the ancillary equipment listed in the emergency towing procedure (ETB) is present in the correct location.', 'Interview the accompanying officer to verify they understand how to deploy the emergency towing equipment.
Expected Evidence', 'Vessel specific emergency towing procedure (Emergency Towing Booklet', 'ETB).
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance Intertanko: Anchoring Guidelines: A Risk -Based Approach v.3 June 2020 Appendix 2 Planning of the anchoring operation There are procedures for: • Selection of anchoring position • Planning including toolbox talk • Methods of anchoring • Equipment design limitations and characteristics • Emergency anchoring • Roles and responsibilities • Requirements for risk assessments for anchoring • Use of main engine (and thrusters if fitted) Anchoring There are procedures for: • Anchoring in extreme depths (beyond 82.5 metres) • Anchoring in deep waters • Anchoring methods Page 393 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) • Protection of personnel and safe operation of equipment At anchor There are procedures for: • Anchor watches, including actions to be taken when dragging or action to be taken when bad weather is expected Heaving up the anchor There are procedures for: • Emergency departure from an anchorage • Heaving up anchor in extreme depth • Protection of personnel and safe operation of equipment ICS: Bridge Procedures Guide.
Fifth Edition. 2.4.10 Planning an anchorage Checklist B12 Anchoring and Anchor Watch.
OCIMF: Anchoring Systems and Procedures 2010 edition 3.1.3 Limitations of the Anchoring System.
Typically, a windlass is required to heave in the weight of an anchor and chain from a depth of between 82.5 and 100m, depending upon individual Class requirements.
The windlass is not designed to break out the anchor from the seabed and may not be designed to lift chain lengths in excess of Class minimum requirements.
The weakest component in most anchoring systems is the windlass motor.
The two main failure modes of motors are associated with heaving when there is too much weight on the cable and walking out the cable with excessive way on the vessel.
When attempting to recover anchors in extreme conditions, the windlass will heave until its pulling force is exceeded by the tension in the chain.
At this time, the windlass may start to render and such rendering may lead to damage to the motor’s components.
This could lead to catastrophic failure and the associated risk of personal injury. 5.1 Anchoring Procedures It is recommended that the procedures used for anchoring operations are developed by shore and vessel management using risk assessment methodology and that these are included within the SMS.
As a minimum, the procedures should: • Include the use of checklists to ensure that all bridge and forecastle preparations are correctly made. • Identify any precautions to be taken with a particular vessel and describe the distinctive features of the equipment fitted. • Prescribe the use of appropriate PPE by the anchor party.
Page 394 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) TMSA KPI 6A.2.2 requires that procedures address all aspects of anchoring operations likely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures for anchoring operations have been developed, following risk assessments, which address: • Selection of anchoring position. • Methods of anchoring. • Equipment design limitations and characteristics. • Emergency anchoring. • Anchor watches, including actions to be taken when dragging or at onset of bad weather. • Emergency departure from an anchorage.
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
IACS Unified Requirements A: Requirements Concerning Mooring IACS: UR A3 Anchor Windlass Design and Testing Note 1.
This UR is to be uniformly implemented by IACS Societies: i) when an application for certification of an anchor windlass is dated on or after 1 July 2018; or ii) installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 July 2018. 6.
Marking Windlass shall be permanently marked with the following information: (a) Nominal size of chain (e.g. 100/3/45 means chain dia./grade/breaking load) (b) Maximum anchorage depth, in metres.
Inspection Guida nce The vessel operator should have developed anchoring procedures and supporting checklists in alignment with • TMSA KPI 6A.2.2 and its best practice guidance. • OCIMF Anchoring Systems and Procedures First Edition 2010: o 5.1 Anchoring Procedures. o 5.1.1 General. o 5.1.2 Preparations for anchoring. o 5.1.3 Methods of anchoring. o 5.1.4 Commonly used anchoring procedures. o 5.2.1 Watchkeeping Responsibilities. o 5.2.2 Securing the Cable at Anchor.
The procedures should provide specific guidance on the environmental l imits for: Page 395 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) • Safe anchoring operations as determined by company risk assessment processes. • Remaining at anchor. • Recovering the anchor and proceeding to sea.
Suggested Inspector Actions • Review the company procedures for anchoring operations. • Verify that the anchoring procedures gave guidance relating to: o The maximum depth of water for normal anchoring operations. o The maximum recommended wind strength and wave height for anchoring. o The weather conditions when the company requires the vessel to depart an anchorage. o The required level of supervision for the anchoring party. o The minimum composition of the anchoring party. o The required checks on the windlass, anchors, stoppers and power systems prior to use. • Review a recent anchoring operation to: o Verify that the necessary appraisal and planning checklists were completed prior to the operation. o Verify that checks on the windlass, anchor, stopper and power systems had been completed prior to the operation. o Verify that the weather conditions during th e time at anchor were within the company guidelines for remaining at anchor. o Verify that the depth of water at the anchoring location was within the limits provided by the company.
During the physical inspection: • Inspect the windlass, anchors, chain and stoppers and verify that they were in satisfactory condition. • Verify that the accompanying officer was familiar with the anchor brake adjustment setting and other checks on equipment required to be completed prior to and after anchoring. • Verify that the anchors were free to be used in an emergency – anchor chain not hard up against the stopper bar when in port or at sea. • Verify that, when the vessel was in port, the anchor lashings were removed unless specifically required to be in place in accordance with terminal regulations.
Expected Evidence • The company procedures for anchoring operations. • Records and checklists for recent anchoring operations. • Recent checklist and/or maintenance record to demonstrate that the windlass brake setting had been checked. • Bridg e Log Book and bell book.
Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation • There were no company procedures with supporting checklists which covered the process of anchoring and included: o The selection of an anchorage taking into account the proximity and density of other vessels at anchor, the quality of the seabed and the proximity of navigational dangers. o The maximum depth of water permitted for normal anchoring operations. o The required level of supervision of the anchoring party. o The minimum composition of the anchoring party. o The maximum environmental conditions permitted for anchoring. o The environmental conditions at which the vessel would be expected to have departed an anchorage. o The checks required to be carried out for the anchoring e quipment and power system prior to, and upon completion of, anchoring operations.
Page 396 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) • The accompanying officer was unfamiliar with the company procedures for anchoring operations. • The vessel had anchored, or remained at anchor, with environmental conditions in excess of the limits provided by the company. • The vessel had anchored in a water depth that exceeded the limit set by the company. • The maximum anchorage depth in metres was not either marked on the windlass or posted on the bridge. • The checks required to be completed prior to and during anchoring operations had not been completed as required. • The anchoring systems (windlass, anchor, chain, stoppers, power system) were defective in any respect. • The accompanying officer was unable to demonstrate how to verify that the windlass brake was correctly adjusted. • When in coastal waters and port the anchors were not free to use in an emergency – the chain was resting against the stopper bar preventing it being lifted without the use of the windlass.
Page 397 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) 9.4.
Moo ring and Anchoring Team Management
['Review the company procedures for anchoring operations.', 'Verify that the anchoring procedures gave guidance relating to: o The maximum depth of water for normal anchoring operations. o The maximum recommended wind strength and wave height for anchoring. o The weather conditions when the company requires the vessel to depart an anchorage. o The required level of supervision for the anchoring party. o The minimum composition of the anchoring party. o The required checks on the windlass, anchors, stoppers and power systems prior to use.', 'Review a recent anchoring operation to: o Verify that the necessary appraisal and planning checklists were completed prior to the operation. o Verify that checks on the windlass, anchor, stopper and power systems had been completed prior to the operation. o Verify that the weather conditions during th e time at anchor were within the company guidelines for remaining at anchor. o Verify that the depth of water at the anchoring location was within the limits provided by the company.
During the physical inspection:', 'Inspect the windlass, anchors, chain and stoppers and verify that they were in satisfactory condition.', 'Verify that the accompanying officer was familiar with the anchor brake adjustment setting and other checks on equipment required to be completed prior to and after anchoring.', 'Verify that the anchors were free to be used in an emergency – anchor chain not hard up against the stopper bar when in port or at sea.', 'Verify that, when the vessel was in port, the anchor lashings were removed unless specifically required to be in place in accordance with terminal regulations.
Expected Evidence', 'The company procedures for anchoring operations.', 'Records and checklists for recent anchoring operations.', 'Recent checklist and/or maintenance record to demonstrate that the windlass brake setting had been checked.', 'Bridg e Log Book and bell book.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance OCIMF: Mooring Equipment Guidelines.
Fourth Edition 2018 (MEG4) 1.9 Mooring System Management Plan 1.9.2.5 Part E – Risk and change management, safety of personnel and human factors E.3 Manning and Training • Safe manning levels including minimum required by Class, Flag and/or the ship’s SMS. • Manufacturer’s instructions and standard operating procedures. • Outline competency requirements for undertaking mooring operations and operating mooring machinery operator and/or industry). • Induction, familiarisation and training requirements necessary before personnel undertake mooring operations, including any ship- specific requirements and periodic refresher training.
E.5 Mooring operations plans and procedures • Risk-based mooring operations plans and procedures should be detailed and include pre- arrival briefings, ship/shore mooring arrangements, safety and occupational health issues and required crew resources. • Contingency plans for mooring operations with appropriate control measures and operational procedures. • Requirements for operations supervision at each mooring work space and overall control of mooring operations (e.g. Master/Pilot) are to be detailed. • Communications methods both primary and secondary should form a part of the operations plans.
Page 398 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) OCIMF: Effective Mooring.
Four th Edition 2019.
Chapter 2.5 Common risks and hazards (list not complete) • Lack of communications and planning. • No risk assessment before mooring operations. • Not enough crew. • Ineffective training on the hazards of the job. • Inadequate information or unclear instructions. • Poor supervision.
OCIMF Anchoring Systems and Procedures 2010 edition 5.1.2 Preparation for Anchoring It is recommended that a certificated/licensed deck officer supervises anchoring operations and that only experienced crew members are assigned to anchor work.
Intertanko: Anchoring Guidelines: A Risk -Based Approach v.3 June 2020 Appendix 3- Worked example on risk -based approach – Hazid technique Description of Identified Hazards – Inadequate supervision / communication Possible Consequences – Personnel injury, equipment damage Control Measures to Protect: Personnel – Environment – Company – Asset from Harm 1.
Anchoring operations shall be planned, co-ordinated and supervised by the Master. 2.
A responsible and qualified Officer should be in charge of the anchor party. 3.
Efficient communication between the Bridge and the anchoring team should be tested before the operation and a backup system (i.e. availability of a second UHF, talk -back system) should be ensured.
Communications procedures should be familiar to all personnel that will participate in the task (Working channels and reporting methods).
TMSA KPI 6A.3.1 requires that procedures identify requirements for personnel involved in mooring operations.
The requirements may include: • Design ated person in charge at each location. • Minimum numbers of people required at each station. • Toolbox talk prior to mooring operations. • Minimum training and experience requirements. • Supervision of third-party personnel.
IMO: ISM Code 6.2 The Company should ensure that each ship is: Page 399 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) 1. manned with qualified, certificated and medically fit seafarers in accordance with national and international requirements; and 2. appropriately manned in order to encompass all aspects of maintaining safe operations on board.
IMO: STCW Code Table A -II/1 – Specification of minimum standards of competence for officers in charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more. • Function - Navigation at the operational level • Competence - Manoeuvre the ship • Knowledge, understanding and proficiency - Ship manoeuvring and handling - .5 proper procedures for anchoring and mooring. • Function - Controlling the operation of the ship and care for persons on board at operational level. • Competence - Application of teamworking and leadership skills • Knowledge, understanding and proficiency - Knowledge and ability to apply effective resource management.
Table A -II/5 – Specification of minimum standards of competence of ratings as able seafarer deck • Function - Navigation at the support level • Competence - Contribute to berthing, anchoring and other mooring operations • Knowledge, understanding and proficiency - Working knowledge of the mooring system and related procedures…
The vessel operator should have developed procedures aligned with the Mooring System Management Plan (MSMP) which described: • The onboard roles permitted to supervise mooring and anchoring teams. • Where the identified supervisor was not a licenced officer, the additional training and competency evaluations that an individual must have undertaken prior to undertaking a supervisory role. • The minimum number of ratings that must form part of the mooring team(s) for the various types of mooring and anchoring activities expected to be conducted onboard the vessel. • The roles and responsibilities of the mooring and anchoring team members. • How the mooring team will be informed of expectations around the mooring or anchoring operation, for example, though the use of toolbox talks or risk assessment review.
['Sight, and where necessary review, the company procedure which defined the supervision and composition of mooring and anchoring teams.', 'Review the sections of MSMP relating to Manning and Training, and Mooring Operations Plans and Procedures and verify that they had been developed to include detail of the mooring team composition and workspace supervisor.', 'Where the company procedure required the review of a risk assessment prior to a mooring or anchoring operati on, review the risk assessment for a recent operation and verify that it reflected the operation undertaken.
Page 400 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)', 'Interview one deck officer and one rating involved in mooring operations to understand who supervised mooring and anchoring operations during recent operations and whether there was a clear understanding of the company expectations around mooring team composition, supervision and toolbox talks prior to each operation.', 'While conducting the review of hours of rest records, consider the required mooring and anchoring team composition and verify that vessel records gave an accurate representation of the vessel complement involvement in mooring and anchoring operations.
Expected Evidence', 'The company procedure which defined the mooring and anchoring team composition and workspace supervision expectations.', 'The hours of rest records for the previous full month.', 'The vessel’s Mooring System Management Plan sections: o Manning and Training – Safe manning levels required by the ship’s SM S, o Mooring Operations Plans and Procedures', 'Requirements for operations supervision at each mooring workspace.', 'Where an unlicenced crewmember was nominated as an acceptable mooring or anchoring workspace supervisor, the records of the training courses and competency assessment required by the relevant sections of the MSMP.', 'Where required to be reviewed prior to an operation by company procedures, the risk assessments for recent mooring and anchoring operations.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance: OCIMF: Effective Mooring.
Fourth Edition 2019.
Section two- General mooring safety practices.
Section three- Mooring lines 3.5 Stoppers for wires not mounted on winch drums 3.6 Stoppers for synthetic fibre mooring lines 3.7 Snap-back.
Section four - Mooring winches 4.7 Winch safety reminders.
TMSA KPI 6A.1.1 requires that procedures for mooring and anchoring operations are in place for all vessel types within the fleet which include: • Roles and responsibilities. • Planning including toolbox talk. • Requirements for risk assessments. • Mooring arrangement and layout.
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
Page 402 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) The vessel operator should have developed mooring procedures which include: • The role of the supervisor and their responsibilities. • The role of the supporting ratings and their responsibilities. • The hand signals that should be used during mooring operations. • The requirement for a toolbox talk or risk assessment review prior to commencing mooring operations. • The areas that should be considered as hazardous due to potential snap- back from parted mooring lines. • The safety features of a mooring winch that must be tested prior to use and be consistently used during winch operation. • Where stoppers are to be used, the correct type and application for the lines in use.
Procedures may reference industry guidance such as OCIMF: Effective Mooring.
['Sight, and where necessary review, the mooring procedure which included operational safety during mooring operations and in areas where mooring lines were under tension.
During the physical inspection verify that:', 'The winch drums were out of gear and pins were available to lock the clutch in position while engaged and disengaged.', 'The mooring winch control levers were free to move and returned to the neutral position when released.', 'The mooring winch control levers were clearly marked with the direction of heave and slack.', 'That there was no evidence that the mooring winch controls had been tied or secured to permit unmanned operation.', 'The winch controls were mounted to give the operator a clear sight of the operational working area and other mooring team members.', 'The working platforms around the winches gave uninterrupted safe access to mooring drums and winch controls.', 'The winch controls were sited to make sure that the operator was not at risk from moving parts.', 'Stoppers in use were appropriate for the types of mooring line in service and were of sufficient strength.', 'Warning signs and barriers were in place to warn personnel of the dangers posed by mooring operations and mooring lines under tension.', 'Interview one deck officer and one rating who had been involved in mooring operations to establish how they had been informed of the dangers of snap', 'back and how to keep safe during mooring operations.
Expected Evidence', 'The company mooring procedure which defined operational safety during mooring operations or in areas where mooring lines were under tension.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance OCIMF: Ship to Ship Transfer Guide for Petroleum, Chemicals and Liquefied Gases.
First Edition. * "At sea" Indicates offshore waters or partially sheltered waters where transfers may be undertaken between vessels underway or at anchor. "In Port" Used to indicate where STS operations are conducted under the jurisdiction of a port or harbour authority and includes operations that may involve berthing alongside a Discharging ship or Mother ship at anchor or alongside a terminal. 3.4 Use of checklists Checklists are an important risk management tool aimed at ensuring that operations are conducted in a safe manner.
They are essential reminders of the principal safety factors to be considered, but they should be supplemented by continuous vigilance throughout the whole operation.
It should be noted that the checklists have been developed to specifically address factors that are relevant to the STS operation and the questions are supplementary to those contained in standard pre-transfer checklists, such as the International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT) Ship/Shore Safety Checklist.
Appendix E: Operational/safety checklists • At sea ship to ship operations: o Checklist 1 - Pre-fixture information (for each ship) o Checklist 2 - Before operations commence o Checklist 3 - Before run- in and mooring o Checklist 4 - Before cargo transfer o Checklist 5 - Before unmooring • In port STS operations: o Checklist 6 – An example of a Pre-transfer checklist o Checklist 6A – An example of Checks during transfer Page 405 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) Appendix G: Example checklist for transfers involving vapour balancing Appendix L: Example liquefied natural gas ship to ship transfer compatibility questionnaire * a joint publication by OCIMF, CDI, ICS & SIGTTO.
TMSA KPI 6A.2.1 requires that detailed procedures address each different type of mooring operation lik ely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures have been developed following risk assessments for each type of mooring operation which may include: • STS operations (including reverse STS).
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
The vessel operator should have developed procedures to requiring: • Checklists identified by the OCIMF* STS Transfer Guide for “at sea” or “in port” cargo specific operations are completed before, during and after each relevant STS operation and, as required by an individual checklist. • Checklists are retained onboard along with other STS related records applicable to the type of STS operation, which may include; o The JPO (Joint Plan of Operations) as provided by the service provider. o Risk assessment as submitted by the Service Provider. o Detailed Mooring Plan of participating vessels. o Copies of certificates of fenders and hoses. o Notification to coastal authorities. o Details of Drills associated with the specific STS Operation. o Records of Crew Experience. o Post operation feedback/ assessment by the Master.
['Sight, and where necessary review, the company procedures which required the vessel to use the checklists identified by the OCIMF* STS Transfer Guide.', 'Where the vessel was involved in an STS operation, review the STS checklists completed during the operation thus far and verify that the correct checklists, including a standard pre', 'transfer checklist, had been utilised and that they had been completed appropriately.', 'Where the vessel had conducted STS operations during the previous twelve months, select the records for an STS operation at random and verify that the following records were available as applicable to the operation: o The JPO (Joint Plan of operations) as provided by the service provider, o Risk assessment as submitted by the Service Provider, o Detailed Mooring Plan of participating vessels. o Copies of certificates of fenders and hoses, o Notification to coastal authorities, o Details of Drills associa ted with the specific STS Operation, o Records of Crew Experience, o Post operation feedback/ assessment by the Master.
Expected Evidence Page 406 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)', 'The company procedure which required the vessel to use the checklists identified by the OCIMF* STS Transfer Guide.', 'The company procedure which required the retention of STS checklists and records.', 'Where the vessel was undertaking an STS operation at the time of the inspection, the STS checklists, standard pre', 'transfer checklist and, vapour balancing checklist where this wa s taking place.', 'The records for STS operations completed during the previous twelve months or, where numerous operations had been undertaken, records for the previous six operations.
Potential Grounds for a']
First Edition. "At sea" indicates offshore waters or partially sheltered waters where transfers may be undertaken between vessels underway or at anchor. "Joint plan of operation (JPO)" An operation-specific plan that includes, as appropriate, reference to ship compatibility, manoeuvring, approach, mooring and transfer and, if applicable, references the ship- specific STS operations plans. 3.10.4 Electrical isolation It is n ecessary to ensure that electrical isolation in maintained between the ships involved in STS operations during transfer line connection/disconnection and cargo transfer operations.
This is to reduce the risk of high energy sparks being produced due to the electrical potential difference between the hulls.
To eliminate the potential for incendive arcing between the two ships, when presenting the hose string for connection one of the following arrangements should be used: • A single insulating flange fitted at the manifold of one ship or within each hose string and all hoses in the string electrically continuous; or • A single length of electrically discontinuous hose fitted in each hose string; or • Hoses that are specially constructed to prevent static build up and limit electrical conductance to an inherently safe level. 5.2 Joint Plan of Operation Prior to commencement of any STS operation a Joint Plan of Operation (JPO) should be developed to ensure that all parties involved, including the STS service provider, are in alignment with regard to how the operation is to be conducted.
Page 408 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) In all cases the person in overall advisory control (POAC), STS Superintendent or transfer organizer should establish agreement and consensus between all parties.
The JPO should include a compilation of information from various sources.
For a particular location, a generic template may be used.
Information may include the following: • Details regarding rendezvous location and designated lightering area, including relevant risk assessment(s) . • Brief description regarding how the STS operation will be conducted, for example approach and mooring underway or with one vessel at anchor, transfer at anchor or underway, unmooring with one vessel at anchor or while underway. • Details regarding any local or government regulatory requirements and mandatory notifications. • Communication protocols. • Security requirements. • Procedures associated with any personnel transfers. • Details regarding any service craft and launches. • Environmental operating parameters/limits for each stage of the STS operation.
These should include environmental and operational limits that would trigger suspension of the transfer operation and disconnection and unmooring of the vessels. • Fender configuration and rigging arrangements. • Mooring plans and arrangements and sequence of running lines, including use of any specialist mooring equipment. • Details of transfer and associated equipment, including the number, type and dimensions of cargo (and where applicable vapour) hoses and method of rigging/support. • Maximum and minimum draught and freeboard anticipated during operations, including details of the stage of operations they relate to. • Emergency and spill containment procedures. • Sequence of actions in case of spillage of cargo. • Co-ordination of plans for cargo hose connection, draining, purging and disconnection, as appropriate. • Detailed unmooring sequence. • For double banking operations, the suitability of the berth and strength of mooring points should be confirmed.
In addition, the JPO should include details of the cargo transfer plan(s) or make reference to their content.
OCIMF* a joint publication by OCIMF, CDI, ICS & SIGTTO.
TMSA KPI 6A.2.1 requires that detailed procedures address each different type of mooring oper ation likely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures have been developed following risk assessments for each type of mooring operation which may include: • STS operations (including reverse STS).
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
The vessel operator should have developed procedures which required that a JPO is developed, available onboard and reviewed by vessel staff prior to an STS operation commencing.
Page 409 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)
['Review the Joint Plan of Operations for the STS operation and verify that: o The plan contained all information required by the OCIMF* guidance. o The risk assessment(s) had been developed to address the risks of the specific location and type of STS operatio n being undertaken. o The means for eliminating the potential for incendive sparking between the two ships had been addressed. o There was evidence that any mandatory notifications to comply with local or government requirements had been made. o That the vessel had been moored in accordance with the agreed mooring plan. o That the vessel was complying with any environmental operating parameters. o The unmooring sequence was documented.', 'Interview one deck officer and one deck rating to gauge their level of understanding of the Joint Plan of Operation for the STS operation being undertaken.
Expected Evidence', 'The company procedures which required the development of a Joint Plan of Operation for every STS operation.', 'The vessel’s STS Operations Plan.', 'The Joint Plan of Operation for the STS operation, developed by the STS service provider, the STS organiser, the STS Superintendent or the Person in overall advisory control (POAC) depending on the circumstances of the operation.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance OCIMF*: Ship to Ship Transfer Guide for Petroleum, Chemicals and Liquefied Gases.
First Edition. 1.1 Introduction The requirements of MARPOL Annex I, chapter 8, The Prevention of Pollution During Transfer of Oil Cargo Between Oil Tankers at Sea, should be adhered to for all applicable operations involving oil cargoes.
The requirement for vessels to be provided with an STS operations plan should be considered for adoption by vessels involved in the STS transfer of other cargoes as recommended best practice. 7.2 Responsibility for cargo operations Where applicable, a copy of the ship’s approved STS operations plan should also be available on the bridge, CCR and ECR.
OCIMF* a joint publication by OCIMF, CDI, ICS & SIGTTO.
TMSA KPI 6A.2.1 requires that detailed procedures address each different type of mooring operation likely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures have been developed following risk assessments for each type of mooring operation which may include: • STS operations (including reverse STS).
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
IMO: MARPOL Page 411 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) Annex 1 Chapter 8 – Prevention of pollution during transfer of oil cargo between tankers at sea.
Regulation 40 1. the regulation contained in this chapter apply to oil tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above engaged in the transfer of oil cargo between oil tankers at sea (STS operations). 2. the regulations contained in this chapter shall not apply to oil transfer operations associated with FPSOs used for the offshore production and storage of oil and FSUs used for the offshore storage of produced oil. 3. the regulations in this chapter shall not apply to bunkering operations.
The vessel Operator should have developed an STS Operations Plan as follows: • For vessels involv ed in transfer of MARPOL Annex 1 cargo – Administration approved. • For vessels involved in transfers of all other liquid cargoes – As recommended best practice.
Copies should be available in the following locations: • Bridge. • Cargo transfer control station. • Engine Room.
And should contain the following information: • A step -by-step description of the entire STS operation. • A description of the mooring and unmooring procedures and arrangements, including diagrams where necessary, and procedures for tending the oil tankers’ moorings during the transfer of cargo. • A description of the cargo and ballast transfer procedures, including those used while underway or anchored and procedures for connecting and testing the integrity of cargo hoses and hose to manifold interf ace, topping off cargo tanks and disconnecting cargo hoses. • The titles, locations and duties of all persons involved in the STS operation. • Procedures for operating the emergency shutdown and communication systems and for rapid breakaway. • A description of the drip trays and procedures for emptying them. • Procedures for reporting spillages of oil into the water. • An approved contingency plan. • A cargo and ballast plan.
The Master should ensure that the STS Operations Plan on board is current and should require all personnel on board to follow the procedures in the plan.
['Review the STS Operations Plan and verify that: o A copy of the STS Operations Plan is located on the bridge, in the cargo transfer station and in the Engine room. o Where the vessel carries MARPOL Annex 1 cargo, the STS Operations plan has been approved by the administration. o Where the vessel did not carry MARPOL Annex 1 cargo, the STS Operations Plan was developed in alignment with Annex A of the OCIMF* Ship to Ship Transfer Guide. o Where the vessel was involved in an STS operation, that the STS Operations Plan had been updated with: \uf0a7 The mooring plan for the current operation.
Page 412 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) \uf0a7 The cargo plan for the current operation.', 'Where the vessel was involved in an STS operation during the inspection or had conducted an STS operation within the previous two months, interview one rating and gauge their familiarity with the location and content of the STS Operations Plan.
Expected Evidence', 'The vessel’s STS Operations Plan.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance OCIMF/CDI: Recommendations for Oil and Chemical Tanker Manifolds and Associated Equipment Section five Hose support at ship’s side A means of adequately supporting hoses in way of the ship’s side abreast of the manifolds should be provided.
Section nine Deck fittings to facilitate hose handling at buoy moorings Vessels likely to conduct operations at buoy moorings (SPM, CBM and tandem berthing) should follow the guidance in this section, which is on the design o f deck fittings in way of the manifold for use when hoisting and hanging-off hoses.
Details of all deck fittings in way of the manifold should be included in the vessel’s mooring arrangement plan.
TMSA KPI 6A.2.1 requires that detailed procedures address each different type of mooring operation likely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures have been developed following risk assessments for each type of mooring operation, which may include: • Conventional buoy mooring, Single Point Moorings. • Tandem moor ing to F(P)SO.
IMO: ISM Code 10.1 The Company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the Com pany.
Page 414 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)
For vapour collection system manifolds on vessels likely to conduct operations at buoy moorings (SPM, CBM and tandem berthing): • The vapour manifolds should be supported to the same strength as the cargo manifolds. • The hose rails should be of the same strength and construction throughout their length, extend beyond the vapour manifolds to permit use at buoy moorings and be fitted with stopper plates at both the forward and aft ends of the hose rails. • A closed chock should be fitted at the ship's side in line with the vapour manifolds. • A cruciform bollard should be fitted in line, or nearly in line with the vapour manifolds to allow securing of the vapour hose hang- off chain. • Two deck pad-eyes of a size sufficient to secure a 16- inch floating hose should be provided, one to either side of the line from the closed chocks to the vapour manifolds. • Fittings for securing the vapour hose should be permanently marked with their safe working load (SWL). • Means to thoroughly drain the vapour manifold should be provided at the lowest point in the vapour collection system line to avoid risk of liquid carry -over into the floating hose.
['Inspect the vapour collection system manifolds and verify that the required fittings are in place.
Expected Evidence', 'The vessel’s mooring arrangement plan.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance OCIMF Guidelines for Offshore Tanker Operations.
First Edition 2018. 5.3.2 Bow mooring equipment overview OCIMF has published recommendations for conventional tanker bow mooring equipment in a range of earlier publications and the current recommendations are repeated in this section… …Conventional tankers that are likely to trade to F(P)SOs and SPM buoys should be equipped with bow chain stopper s designed to accept 76mm chafe chain in accordance with figure 5.2.
Technical operators of conventional tankers that are expected to trade to F(P)SOs or SPM buoy terminals are recommended to fit bow chain stoppers in accordance with table 5.1 5.3.3 Bow ch ain stoppers Bow chain stoppers, foundations and supporting structure should be adequate for the expected loads.
The tanker should hold a copy of the manufacturer’s type approval certificate for the bow chain stoppers.
The certificate should confirm that the bow chain stoppers are constructed in strict compliance with a recognised standard that specifies SWL, yield strength and safety factors.
The tanker should also hold a certificate confirming the strength of the bow chain stopper foundations and supporting structure, substantiated by detailed engineering analysis or calculations and an inspection of the structure.
An independent authority, such as a Classification Society, should issue both certificates.
Bow chain stoppers, foundations and supporting structures should be kept in good order and surveyed at least once every five years.
Bow chain stoppers should be permanently marked with the SWL and appropriate serial numbers, so that the certificates can be easily cross -referenced.
Bow chain stopper m anufacturers should provide basic operating, maintenance and inspection instructions, which should be followed without modification.
For example, wedges should not be used between the pin and tongue of bow chain stoppers.
Where appropriate, manufacturers s hould also provide guidance on maximum component wear limits.
SMIT type towing bracket fittings should not be used as bow chain stoppers. 5.3.4 Bow fairleads Bow fairleads should be of at least equivalent SWL to the bow chain stoppers.
Page 416 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) Bow fairleads, foundations and supporting structure should be adequate for the expected loads.
The tanker should hold a copy of the manufacturer’s type approval certificate for the bow fairleads confirming the bow fairleads are constructed in strict compliance with a recognis ed standard that specifies SWL and safety factor.
The tanker should also hold a certificate confirming the strength of the bow fairlead foundations and associated supporting structure, substantiated by detailed engineering analysis or calculations and an inspection of the structure.
An independent authority, such as a Classification Society, should issue both certificates.
Bow fairleads, foundations and supporting structure should be kept in good order and surveyed at least once every five years. 5.3.5 Position of winch stowage drums and possible pedestal rollers There should be no obstructions or fittings (e.g. a hatch with securing dogs) close to the route of the pick -up line or chain, to ensure that if the line is allowed to run free during letting go, it is unlikely to snag on any such structure.
On all conventional tankers, winch stowage drums used to stow the pick -up line should be capable of lifting at least 15 tonnes and be of sufficient size to accommodate 150m of 80mm diameter rope.
Using winch warping drums to handle pick -up lines is considered unsafe and should be avoided.
This is because the combined weight of the pick -up line and buoys can lead to the line slipping and jerking on the drum end if not effectively handled.
TMSA KPI 6a.2.1 requires that detailed procedures address each different type of mooring operation likely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures have been developed following risk assessments for each type of mooring operation, which may include: • SPMs • Tandem mooring to Floating, (Production), Storage and Offloading (F(P)SO).
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks involved should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
The vessel operator should have developed procedures for mooring at SPM or F(P)SO terminals that included: • Preparations for moorin g at SPM or F(P)SO terminals. • Instructions for safe mooring at SPM or F(P)SO terminals. • Inspection and maintenance of the bow stoppers.
The vessel operator should have confirmed via the HVPQ 10.6 whether the ship meets the latest OCIMF recommendations for equipment employed in the bow mooring of conventional tankers at single point moorings, and supplied the following details: • Single Point Mooring (SPM) Equipment o Details of the bow chain stoppers. o Details of the closed bow fairleads. o Distance between bow fairleads. o Distance between the bow fairlead and the bow stopper. o Distance from the bow stopper to the roller lead or winch drum. o The lead from the bow stopper to the winch drum. o The capacity of the winch drum. • Bow Mooring Arrangement Diagram.
This question will only be assigned to vessels where HVPQ question 10.6.2 (are bow chain stoppers fitted) is answered affirmatively.
Page 417 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)
['Sight, and where necessary review, the company procedures for mooring at SPM or F(P)SO terminal s.', 'Sight, and where necessary review, the certificates for the bow stoppers and closed bow fairleads, particularly if these have been modified or retro', 'fitted.', 'Sight, and where necessary review, the records of inspection and maintenance of the bow stoppers', 'Inspect the arrangements at the bow for mooring to an SPM or F(P)SO terminal.', 'During the inspection verify, as far as practicable, that the HVPQ accurately describes the arrangements for mooring at an SPM or F(P)SO terminal.', 'Interview the accompanying officer to verify their familiarity with the company procedures for mooring at SPM or F(P)SO terminals.
Expected Evidence', 'The company procedures for mooring at SPM or F(P)SO terminals.', 'Mooring arrangement plan(s).', 'Certificates, issued by an independent authority, such as a Classification Society, for the: o Bow stopper(s) and/or foundations and supporting structure. o Closed bow fairlead(s) and/or foundations and supporting structure.', 'Records of inspection and maintenance of the bow stoppers, which may form part of the maintenance plan.
Potential Grounds for a']
Industry Guidance OCIMF Guidelines for Offshore Tanker Operations 5.4.1 Bow mooring equipment overview A typical mooring system for bow loading tankers consists of the following: • Hydraulic power -pack. • Traction winch. • Stowage drum, fitted with guide rollers, for messenger line and pick -up line (may be a rope bin). • Chain stopper (for securing the chafe chain), with on-load releasable pawl. • Chain stopper load cell (for sensing hawser loads). • Bow fairlead (for the mooring hawser). • Indicators for hawser load and hydraulic oil pressure at the cargo control station. • Maintenance crane.
The principal mooring equipment on the bow loading tanker consists of the chain stopper, (which typ ically has an SWL of between 250 and 500 tonnes depending on yield factor used), and the traction winch.
The traction winch may be used not only for retrieving the mooring but also to haul the cargo hose into close proximity to the coupler.
For safe mooring operations, the chafe chain (usually 76mm diameter stud link chain) must match the size of the chain stopper on the bow loading tanker and the traction winch must be able to safely accommodate the expected loads.
DP bow loading tankers are normally fitted with a single fairlead with slightly different shape and dimensions to conventional tankers.
The single fairlead is mounted on a raised platform at the bow and can sometimes be moved forward and aft on hydraulic rams.
Bow loading tankers with bow mooring systems are fitted with specialised hydraulic bow chain stoppers.
The mooring equipment should be linked electronically and mechanically to the ESD system, with appropriate interlocks integral to the BLS and the green line system. 5.4.1.1 Fairlead Page 419 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) The fairlead should be fitted with a roller complete with roller bearings in the bottom of the fairlead.
The roller and all parts in contact with the chafing chain should be covered with stainless steel material (non - sparking).
The structural strength of the fair lead and its supporting structure should be based on a safety factor of 1.0 against the yield criterion when applying a load equal to MBL (typical 500 tonnes) of the corresponding chafing chain’s weak link.
The design force should be established at an angle of 90 degrees off the ship’s centreline in the horizontal plane and ± 30 degrees in the vertical plane.
The foundation should be designed to support and guide the lower part of the Offshore Loading System (OLS) messenger line in the transverse direction during the connection of the hose.
The internal opening in the fairlead should be minimum 500mm x 500mm.
A spark -free cladding should cover the substructure of the fairlead openings (forecastle platform deck, foundations etc.), which may be hit by the chafing chain during an ESD2 release.
To allow consideration for the widest possible range of terminals, operators of these tankers may wish to assess the suitability of these specialised bow chain stoppers for use at conventional terminals and provide engineering interlocks incorporated into the control systems to ensure the chafe chain cannot be accidentally released.
Procedures and crew training to prevent accidental release of the chafe chain should also be addressed.
On all bow mooring tankers, winch stowage drums used to stow the pick -up line should be capable of lifting at least 15 tonnes and be of sufficient size to accommodate 150m of 80mm diameter rope, in addition to any small messenger line.
Remotely operated winch stowage drums may give some additio nal snap- back injury protection to the winch operator.
Norwegian Oil and Gas recommended guidelines for offshore loading shuttle tankers Guideline No. 140 A.2 Operation The mooring and coupling operation should be performed as per the relevant Field Offloading Manual.
A.5.1 Fairlead A spark -free cladding should cover the substructure of the fairlead- openings (forecastle platform deck, foundations etc.) which may be hit by the chafing chain during an ESD 2 release.
A.5.2 Hardwood protection on deck The deck area between the chain stopper and the fairlead should be protected by 75 mm thick hardwood.
The width of the hardwood layer should be twice the width of the fairlead, i.e., 1m.
The hardwood should be fixed to the deck by recessed stud bolts/nuts, and a hardwood plug should cover the top.
A.5.3 Chain stopper The chain stopper should be of the self -locking type, remote operated and designed for 84 mm chain (range 76 - 89 mm).
The closing/opening time of the chain stopper should not exceed 30 sec.
The structural strength of the chain stopper including the release mechanism and its supporting structure should be based on a safety factor of 1.0 against the yield criterion when applying a load equal to MBL of 500 tonnes.
A tension meter with a minimum range 0- 350 tonnes should be installed to measure the tension in the hawser during the loading operation.
Either the fairlead or the chain stopper should have the possibility to adjust the hose handling wire/rope relative to the loading manifold to enable the SPM-auto function.
A.5.4 Guide roller Page 420 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) A guide roller with ( Working Load Limit ) WLL 900 kN and equipped with a 0-100 T tension meter should be installed in front of the traction winch.
The load cell should read the mooring forces during winch operations.
A.5.5 Traction winch The traction winch should be of the twin drum type designed for 25-120 mm synthetic fibre rope.
The winch should be designed for bridge and local control.
The winch should be equipped with a failsafe disc brake system suitable for emergency release of the OLS, which requires an automatic release speed adjustable between 1 and 2 m/s.
The static weight of the OLS hose should be as per field operator requirements.
The “Loading Permitted” signal should not be obtained unless the dog- clutch on the traction winch has been disengaged in OLS -mode, i.e., interlocked (i.e., chain stopper is open).
A manual brake release should be supplied to release the failsafe brake in the event of a power failure.
This should be placed in a safe area, which protects the operator for any possible debris during the release of the brake.
Winch capacity requirements: Pulling force: minimum 700 kN WLL • Speeds: minimum 2 steps; approx. 0-8 m/min. and 0-50 m/min. • High speed, minimum: 50 m/min. • Brake capacity, minimum : 900 kN WLL. • Brake disc to be of stainless -steel material (NB/CC). • Rendering function according to field specific requirements or typically, 120% of maximum dynamic hose tension (NB/CC).
The static capacity of the foundations should be in accordance with the capacity of the traction winch.
The winch should have a bolted cover to protect the brakes.
Motors, cables, valves and pipes should be properly protected from mechanical impact.
Any hydraulic piping for the traction winch motor should have a flexible configuration to reduce stress in the pipes during pressure shock.
Such pipes should have an “expansion loop” between the deck and the hydraulic motor.
Necessary guide rollers between the traction winch and the rope pulling unit for correct entering of the rope into the rope pulling unit should be installed.
A.5.6 Rope pulling unit A rope pulling unit should be installed to ensure that the rope enters directly to a stowing arrangement.
The rope pulling unit should provide necessary back tension for the traction winch.
The back tension should be adjustable from 0 to 4 kN.
For air driven rope pulling units dry and clean air should be provided as well as lubrication pan and water trap.
For rotating stowage arrangements, the control panel should include control of the rotation.
The following operational requirements should be fulfilled: • The operator should be protected from accidental contact with the rotating reels and the rope. • The operator should have a free view to the stowing tank, and it should be possible to see the entire bottom of the tank from the operating position. • It should be easy for the operator to reach all the controls from the operating position. • The rope pulling may be automatically controlled via the traction winch and with the possibility of manual/local control.
Page 421 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) A.5.8 Service crane A service crane should be installed on the platform deck.
The crane should be designed and installed for general lifting operations and maintenance of the BLS equipment located on the platform deck.
It should be installed as far forward as possible, but still being able to service the rope pulling unit and all the other equipment installed on the platform deck.
The crane should fulfil the following requirements: • WLL 50 kN at 10m working radius. • Slewing sect or of 360° (continuous). • Self-contained type (electro/hydraulic).
G.3 Messenger line cutter The ( Offshore Loading Shuttle Tanker ) OLST should have a messenger line cutter device designed to enable cutting the line if sucked into the thruster(s) / propeller (s).
TMSA KPI 6A.2.1 requires that detailed procedures address each different type of mooring operation likely to be undertaken by fleet vessels.
Procedures have been developed following risk assessments for each type of mooring operation, which may includ e: • Tandem mooring to F(P)SO. • DP operations.
IMO: ISM Code 7.
The Company should establish procedures, plans and instructions, including checklists as appropriate, for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment.
The various tasks involved should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
The vessel operator should have developed procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals.
These procedures may be incorporated in Field Operations Manuals and the vessel’s maintenance plan.
In addition to routine operation, inspection, testing and maintenance, they should also give guidance on: • Measures to pre vent accidental release of the chafe chain from the bow stopper. • Use of the traction winch manual brake release in the event of a power failure. • Use of the messenger line cutter device designed to enable cutting the line if sucked into the thruster(s)/propeller(s).
['Sight, and where necessary review, the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals.', 'Review the records of inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals.', 'During the physical inspection of the vessel inspect the bow mooring system for offshore terminals including: o Bow fairlead. o Hardwood deck protection. o Chain stopper. o Guide roller. o Tractio n winch. o Manual brake release. o Rope pulling unit. o Service crane.
Page 422 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022) o Hydraulic power', 'pack. o Messenger line cutter.', 'Where necessary, compare the observed condition with the records of inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore ter minals.', 'Interview the accompanying officer to verify their familiarity with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals including: o Measures to prevent accidental release of the chafe chain from the bow stopper. o Use of the traction winch manual brake release in the event of a power failure. o Use of the messenger line cutter device designed to enable cutting the line if sucked into the thruster(s) / propeller(s).
Expected Evidence', 'The company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals.', 'Records of inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals.
Potential Grounds for a']