DBI: Crew needs to have the right tools available to properly address a fire incident onboard

The CARGOSAFE is a study commissioned by EMSA in December 2021 to investigate cost-efficient technical solutions that effectively mitigate the risk of fires on container ships. The study suggests that while the ignition probability per container may remain constant, the overall likelihood of a fire occurring correlates directly with the ship’s capacity.

SAFETY4SEA: What are currently the key challenges for container ships from your perspective? How does CARGOSAFE aim to address the challenges posed by cargo fires on containerships?

The ships have gotten significantly larger, with a continuous rise in total cargo capacity – while at the same time maintaining minimum crew and abiding the same SOLAS regulation as the older much smaller vessels. There is an inherent uncertainty about what is in the container and how it is packaged. This makes firefighting efforts incredibly difficult. Seafarers simply cannot be sure of what is in the container, how it behaves when burning, and how it will react to the extinguishing agents e.g. water. The number of crew is quite limited and suited for daily tasks. Which means that when adverse situations and emergencies happen, there are few human resources available to tackle the situation. Limited technical solutions to assist in detection and firefighting. Fundamentally, CARGOSAFE is a so-called FSA (Formal Safety Assessment). The study analyzed a number of risk control measures on two parameters, firstly on how effective they would be in terms of controlling or extinguishing the fire at certain stages in the development of the scenario. This could be enhanced detection, new means of firefighting, or passive controls to better contain the fire. Secondly, these risk control measures were analyzed in terms of cost and compared with the aforementioned effectiveness. This is a standard way of assessing ship safety and potential risk control options at the IMO level.

S4S: According to the CARGOSAFE study, commissioned by EMSA, what factors have contributed to the increasing visibility of fires on containerships, particularly those originating in containers?

In recent years, the escalating incidents of fires on containerships, particularly those originating within containers, have raised significant safety concerns. These occurrences have become more visible primarily due to the increased size and capacity of modern ships. Despite the number of ships not increasing at the same rate, the ships themselves are larger and carry more containers, thereby enhancing the overall risk potential. From 1997 to 2018, the CARGOSAFE study identifies a marked increase in ship capacity, which corresponds with a rise in the frequency and visibility of container fires. The study suggests that while the ignition probability per container may remain constant , the overall likelihood of a fire occurring correlates directly with the ship’s capacity.

S4S: Have you noticed any critical issues with regards to the existing fire fighting systemsin cargo holds ?

The existing systems meant for handling fires in the cargo holds (smoke detection system and CO2 system) suffer some critical shortages.  Firstly, the smoke extraction system fundamentally relies on smoke venting out of the container on fire and reaching the extraction system in the hold, and finally travelling to the detector. So, the system does not encourage swift detection by design. In addition, the smoke gets quite diluted due to the large volumes of air in the hold and in some cases, the smoke extraction system draws air from all holds at the same time. These factors lead to a relatively long detection time, which is, in addition, also quite imprecise in terms of locating the seat of the fire. So, in terms of detection in the hold, there is quite a bit of room for technical improvement, both in terms of location accuracy and time to detect. Implementing new forms of detectors could be an interesting way forward, e.g. various forms of detection looking at the rise of temperature in a much more precise grid. This can enhance both detection time and location accuracy.

Likewise, the current extinguishing system CO2, also suffers from a few shortages.  The quantity of CO2 is limited, making it a one-shot solution, albeit a solution which is rarely capable of extinguishing the fire.  Holds are not airtight. For CO2 systems to work, they should be used in spaces which can be completely sealed off. However, the cargo holds are nowhere near airtight. Even if the crew manages to close the manual ventilation hatches (which can be difficult and dangerous to do when the fire is raging), it might not be sufficient to choke the fire due to the CO2 leaking out rather quickly. In addition, the CO2 does not necessarily get into the container(s) on fire. Which means, you are likely to see the fire re-ignite once oxygen is back in the hold.

S4S: Why may the crew be hesitant in using the CO2 system available onboard?

We see that sometimes the crew can be hesitant in using the CO2 system. There can be several reasons for this, but one could point to the limited quantity. It’s seen as a silver bullet, and one can be hesitant in using the CO2 system, knowing that once that is done, you’re out of options. It should also be noted that the CO2 system is needed for other types of fires, such as fires in the engine room.  There are no rules for commissioning tests of CO2 systems. Unfortunately, we see quite a few errors once the systems are tested, inspected, or needed in an emergency.

S4S: Have you identified any major issues with regards to the current fire fighting strategi on deck ?

On deck, we are seeing a whole other range of issues.  Here we have no technical detection system. This means that all detection is reliant of crew seeing or smelling smoke at some stage in the scenario. While they most certainly will detect the fire at some point, it cannot be guaranteed to be particularly early, which means the fire might be beyond control by the time it is detected.   So, a technical system to assist the crew with early detection of on-deck fires at all times of day and in all weather conditions would be critical. This would be a fundamental change for on-deck fires. There are several options which might be interesting, but the designs and geometry of the vessels makes it quite challenging to get acceptable coverage. In terms of firefighting, the systems on deck are more manual than in the holds and completely reliant on crew. The crew has the option to breach a container with fire inside it, given that it is detected early enough. However, the prescribed tools in SOLAS have proven to be inadequate in most cases, and regardless, still rely on very early detection and the container being reachable. So much so, that many container carriers now carry other means of breaching containers, sometimes in the form of designated tools, and sometimes just standard electrical power tools to assist with breaching. Beyond this measure, the crew has access to fire hoses and a number of monitors (depending on the build year of the vessel). These are, however, unlikely to extinguish a fire, but rather prevent it from spreading if applied early and correctly. These tools do require crew to operate them, and if we are discussing boundary cooling, this is an effort which can last for many days. Putting an incredible strain on an already limited crew, while exposing them to a potentially hazardous environment.

S4S: Have you noticed any trend(s) during the last years and a possible alarming trend(s) for the years to come with respect to cargo handling?

We see quite a large number of containers falling due to adverse weather and less than ideal lashing. These incidents can, besides being a safety and environmental hazard on their own, also lead to fire accidents.  New cargo types should be evaluated, and the tools and crew onboard should reflect what is carried and how it is carried. In general, cargo commodities and routes change, following consumer patterns. This can be seen in new types of cargo being carried. Regulations such as the international code for maritime transport of dangerous goods (IMDG Code), and Code of practice for stowage and securing, and for packing of Cargo Transport units must updated and relevant.

S4S: What are some potential outcomes or recommendations that may arise from the study? How can these be integrated into relevant discussions at IMO?

The CARGOSAFE study found a number of risk control options, which were proposed to be further investigated for regulation change in the IMO. DBI participated in the working group for fire at this year’s SSE10 meeting. Here we discussed potential solutions and changes to SOLAS. It is expected that these discussions will continue in the correspondence group and in the SSE meetings to come.

S4S: What is your wish list for the industry and/or regulators and all parties involved with respect to container ship safety?

The issue of fires originating in containers is not a new one. We wish to see the issue acknowledged, and a unified solution proposed to tackle this problem globally. Here, there are some fundamentals which must be acknowledged by the stakeholders. Such as the enormous, inflated ships we see being built today, cannot be equated safety wise to a small feeder or the container ship from 70 years ago.

S4S: How can we create the right mindset, engage our people and reinforce the right behaviors for strengthening safety culture onboard container ships?

It must be understood that ship crew are not professional fire fighters. They are professional sailors and have to deal with a whole range of different job tasks. However, for them to have confidence in their ability to properly address a fire incident, they need to have the right tools available. And the task must be manageable. When we look back in retrospect to see what has been required in terms of human resources and equipment from onshore to tackle container fires, it is not currently reasonable to assume that ship crew can feasibly tackle fires onboard container ships.

S4S: If you could change one thing that would have either an immediate or profound impact on performance of the containership market, what would it be and why?

• Differentiated regulation based on the size of the vessel. One size will not fit all.
• Requirement for enhanced detection and suppression means in the cargo hold.
• Requirement for enhanced detection on deck.
• Requirement for more suitable breaching tools.
• Requirement for solutions which can boundary cool the fire with minimum crew involvement.

S4S:What is your message to industry stakeholders for enhancing safety performance onboard containerships?

You can go beyond the current regulation (SOLAS) and enhance the safety of your crew and vessels. The process of changing SOLAS can be lengthy. So, this is necessary while we wait for the regulation to catch up.

The views presented are only those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of SAFETY4SEA and are for information sharing and discussion purposes only.