Looking Out for Seafarers—Part 2

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine. Click here for Part I.


In the summer of 2008, Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston staff worked with the Apostleship of the Sea to aid a mariner. Excerpts from the e-mail correspondence follow.


5/25/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Coast Guard, Please help. My husband is aboard a vessel which is travels (sic)
on the high seas between the United States, Europe, and Trinidad. He is very
sick with the flu and the symptoms are causing him to slowly lose his hearing.
He is not able to see a qualified doctor because such doctors are not available
onboard the vessel or in Trinidad.

Now that the vessel has returned to the Gulf Coast of the United States, immigration personnel are unable to sign the referral form before the vessel leaves for the high seas. I do not know what to do because he will not be able to continue his work as a
seafarer with a loss of hearing, and my family of three children greatly needs his full health and support. Please help me and my husband.

—Signed … Wife of foreign crewmember aboard a foreign-flagged chemical carrier calling on the port of Houston in May 2008.


5/28/08 Coast Guard to seafarer’s spouse

Ma’am, we have inspected the vessel aboard which your husband works. During our
crew interviews and competency assessments, we found that he is able to perform
the tasks of his license and watchstanding duties, which are those of a third
engineer. Your husband’s medical needs are presently being taken care of by
doctors here in Houston.

—Signed … Chief, Inspections Division, Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston.


5/28/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Thank you for your great help. Thank you very much because the medical attention
needed by my husband requires constant oversight.

6/3/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Coast Guard, I am sorry if I interrupted you again but my husband has been
diagnosed by the doctor with a perforated eardrum. He is diagnosed as being fit
for work but is suffering through a lot of pain.

Can you help us to have my husband sent home and have the company provide medical assistance? The ship will be in the United States again on June 10. I am very sorry for my interruption but I do not know where to seek assistance. I hope you understand.

6/3/08 Coast Guard to seafarer’s spouse

Ma’am, researching the Notices of Arrival supplied to the Coast Guard by the
master, I see that the vessel trades regularly in the United States. May I
direct you to seafarer representatives, who will be able to provide you with
options of how to handle such requests? ...

... At the end of our correspondence, I have included a website that lists the people who minister to the needs of seafarers like your husband. I routinely work with two of the Texas port chaplains listed on this page. If you are not able to establish
communication with a port chaplain, please let me know.

6/3/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Thank you very much. Indeed the information you gave me will give a lot of help
for us. Thank you and God bless.

6/4/08 Coast Guard to the president of the Apostleship of the Sea in the United States

Good morning. Late yesterday, I responded to an e-mail provided to me from the
wife of the third engineer aboard a foreign-flagged chemical carrier. The Coast
Guard has been in contact with the engineer and with the wife and there are some
areas of concern that are outside of Coast Guard jurisdiction.

I bring this to your attention in order to alert you of this ongoing situation, and of the reference I made to your good organization.

—Signed ... Chief, Inspections Division, Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston.

6/4/08 Apostleship of the Sea in the United States to Coast Guard

I will keep an eye out for the vessel. Thanks for thinking about us. I will try
to visit the ship when she comes into our port.

I will also pass the word along to other seafarer welfare organizations that might be able to help while the vessel is visiting another country.

—Signed ... president of the Apostleship of the Sea in the United States.

6/25/08 Resolution
Vessel arrives in Vancouver, Wash. Through the efforts of the Coast Guard, the Apostleship of the Sea, the owner of the vessel, and shipping agents, the third engineer of concern is removed and provided the necessary medical treatment in his country of origin.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Looking Out for Seafarers—Part 1

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by LCDR Norbert John Pail, Jr., U.S. Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston; and Father Sinclair Oubre, J.C.L., President, Apostleship of the Sea of the United States of America.


Seafarer Welfare Organizations
Seafarer welfare organizations, faith-based or secular, welcome journeyers into ports throughout the United States, offering hospitality to mariners who may not have seen land for weeks. In the first picture, Sinclair Oubre and Doreen Badeaux welcome a vessel’s master to port.

Resources include access to transportation and conveniences such as high-speed Internet and pre-paid phone cards. Many seafarer centers also have big screen televisions with international channels. In the second picture, ship crewmembers use the resources at one of the nation’s seafarer centers.

The relations between the local Coast Guard and seafarer centers keep the needs of the seafarer at the top of the list of port priorities.

Seafarer Access and Living Conditions
With the advent of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), critical facilities must outline how access is restricted to secure areas. Coast Guard requirements outline that owners of these facilities ensure coordination occurs to provide for the needs of crewmembers and the vessel.

Additionally, living conditions on a vessel are determined by the economic health of the operator and the cultural traditions of the crew. What is “clean” for one crew may be considered unhealthy or substandard by another.

Without specific international standards for living and working conditions, port stakeholders are left asking questions such as: Do problems exist when vessels do not meet the hyper-clean standards Americans are used to? Is there sufficient quantity and variety of food, or are the dietary needs of the crews being put at risk?

It is much easier to determine whether the lifeboat davits work than to know if the vessel provides adequate accommodations.

Help Is on the Way
The Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 is expected to standardize the living and working conditions for mariners while at sea. These regulations are the first attempt to set minimum requirements for seafarers, including conditions of employment, hours of work and rest, accommodations, recreational facilities, food, health protection, medical care, welfare, and social security protection.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Improving Coast Guard SAR Capability—The Next Challenge

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine.


Despite the successful deployment of new direction-finding equipment, there are still some problems with the 406-MHz EPIRB—most notably, false alarms.

For example:

• Since 2004, more than 96% of 406-MHz EPIRB activations in the United States were from false or unknown causes.
• Since 2004, 45% of 406-MHz EPIRB activations were from either unregistered EPIRBs or from EPIRBs with obsolete registration information, which delays Coast Guard response.
• The Coast Guard spends 20 to 50 aircraft hours monthly (costing $200,000 to $700,000 dollars) on sorties for false EPIRB activations.

The design of some 406-MHz EPIRBs contributes to a high number of false activations. For example, one model is manufactured so that it can be installed backwards. If installed incorrectly, the model activates upon getting wet. Also, some EPIRBs are manufactured with loose bracket straps that allow moisture to unintentionally activate the EPIRB.

While some poorly designed EPIRBs are slowly being phased out of service, the remaining 406-MHz EPIRBs in the field (over 220,000 U.S.-registered) will continue to waste Coast Guard time and effort until they are properly installed and registered with current contact information.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Improving Coast Guard SAR Capability—New Technology Supports Rapid Response

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LT Myles Greenway, Chief, Investigations Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston.


The Coast Guard received disturbing news following the rescue of the captain of the F/V Still Crazy V, which sank off the coast of South Carolina in 1999. The captain reported that although he held his emergency position-indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and saw Coast Guard helicopters, they couldn’t locate him.

Troubled by what the master told him, Greg Johnson, Sector Charleston’s commercial fishing vessel safety examiner, promised to look into the matter.

Mixed Signals
Following this incident, Johnson analyzed data from EPIRB activations and aircraft sorties and identified more than 100 instances in which Coast Guard aircraft detected an EPIRB’s 121.5-MHz homing signal, but were not equipped to detect the stronger 406-MHz signal.

Testing EPIRBs and Coast Guard Equipment
In 2001, the Seventh Coast Guard District forwarded Johnson’s findings to USCG headquarters. Personnel tested 406-MHz EPIRBs and the current Coast Guard aircraft direction-finding equipment.

Testing indicated that signal strength could be affected when the device is held close to a mariner’s body. Additional testing indicated that, under ideal weather conditions, a Coast Guard HH-65 helicopter equipped with the existing direction-finding equipment could locate an unencumbered EPIRB 20 nautical miles away at an elevation of 3,000 feet.

Meanwhile, Back at Sector Charleston
While testing continued, Johnson consulted with Coast Guard aviators and foreign exchange pilots and learned that the Canadian Air Force had begun installing new direction-finding equipment on their C-130s. He also discovered that the Coast Guard Aviation Logistics Center was considering the same equipment that provided 360-degree scanning capability and minimized false bearing indications.

Johnson shared his research with the Aviation Logistics Center. Buoyed by his data, the center installed the prototype aboard a Coast Guard C-130, tail number 1504, and tested off the coast of Charleston. The flight data proved the new equipment performed as designed—it locked onto an EPIRB’s 406-MHz signal at nearly twice the distance as compared to the existing equipment for the 121.5-MHz frequency.

On Scene
On June 10, 2005, the sport fisher Extractor capsized while evading tropical storm Arlene. Coast Guard aircraft searched more than 13,000 square miles of ocean for the two crewmembers with negative results. Before running out of daylight, District Seven requested Coast Guard C-130, tail number 1504.

While transiting to the search area, the prototype unit locked onto the EPIRB’s 406-MHz signal from more than 90 nautical miles away at an elevation of 17,000 feet. C-130 personnel successfully vectored a Coast Guard helicopter to the crew, who had been hanging onto the capsized vessel for more than 26 hours.

Success
As of March 2009, the Coast Guard equipped all of its fixed-wing aircraft with the new direction finders. More significantly, the equipment has assisted Coast Guard in the successful rescue of more than 50 mariners to date.

Pictured: Greg Johnson receives the DHS Secretary’s Award for Excellence for his research.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Understanding Chlorine

This "Chemical of the Quarter" excerpt is from the U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine, by Ms. Suzanne Chang, Chemical Engineer, U.S. Coast Guard Hazardous Materials Standards Division.

Chlorine

What is it?
Chlorine (CLX) is highly reactive and most commonly found combined with other elements, i.e. sodium chloride (table salt), sodium hypochlorite (bleach), and calcium hypochlorite (swimming pool chlorinator).

It is also one of the most essential chemical building blocks in manufacturing many household goods, such as polyvinyl chloride plastics, insecticide, refrigerants, sandwich wrap, carpeting, paints, and house siding.

How is it shipped?
Bulk chlorine is typically shipped as a compressed liquefied gas in tank cars, tank motor vehicles, and barge tanks.

For transporting by barge, the design of the barge is dependent upon whether it is used for inland river routes or for oceangoing routes.

Why should I care?
Shipping concerns. Since chlorine is shipped under pressure, one concern is maintaining cargo pressure. Depending on the capacity of the tanks aboard a barge, at least two pressure relief devices are installed into each cargo tank to prevent any over-pressurization.

Normally, dry chlorine does not corrode steel. However, wet chlorine is highly corrosive because it forms hydrochloric acid, so precautions need to be taken to keep the chlorine and equipment dry and atmospheric moisture out.

Health concerns. Chlorine gas is primarily a respiratory irritant and is highly corrosive when in contact with moist tissues such as the eyes and skin. The extent of damage caused by chlorine depends on the amount a person is exposed to, how the exposure occurred, and the duration of the exposure.

Chlorine can be detected by its odor (it smells like household bleach) at levels of 0.002 parts chlorine per million parts air (ppm). At 1.0 ppm, chlorine is a perceptible irritant. A level of 10 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health—a person exposed to that level should seek protection at once. Continued exposure at that level could result in permanent damage or even death within as little as 30 minutes.

Fire or explosion concerns. Chlorine is not flammable or explosive. However, it is capable of supporting the combustion of certain substances, similar to oxygen. Also, chlorine may react readily with organic chemicals, sometimes violently and with the generation of heat.

What's the Coast Guard doing about it?
The U.S. Coast Guard enforces chlorine barge regulations and inspection standards under the regulations in 46 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations part 151.3.

The Coast Guard is also working with other federal agencies and local authorities to develop measures to protect people, property, and the environment in areas where chlorine barges transit.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

CG Inspectors Help Bring Waterfront Facility Into Compliance—Part III

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine. Click here for Part I and Part II.


Part III—The Results

The incident commander’s goals were developed in cooperation with the facility representative. The goals stressed:

• safety of nearby populations and response personnel,
• environmental protection,
• teamwork,
• regulatory compliance,
• a safe return to commercial operations.

Follow Up, Follow Through
Improvements were noted each day. Inspectors briefed the facility owner, his representative, and the tenants on progress, which helped increase their cooperation. Other agencies were often present to discuss the facility’s progress and become familiar with its new, safer operations.

The team provided continuous guidance and helped with various tasks to maintain the project’s progress. The facility representative and tenants became excited to show the visiting inspectors their progress, especially when they went above and beyond what was required for the next operational period.

The Results
After 40 days of intense work, more than 25,000 pounds of debris and over 500 drums and totes totaling more than 25,000 gallons of hazardous and flammable liquid waste were removed.

The firefighting system was repaired and fully operational, proper signage and markings were put up around the building, and a cargo stowage plan was implemented for each floor of the warehouse. The basement no longer flooded, the roof was repaired, and waste was no longer stored on the premises.

In completing these improvements, the facility met all requirements to the satisfaction of the captain of the port. Best of all, the clean-up operations were conducted without injury to any personnel or damage to the environment.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

CG Inspectors Help Bring Waterfront Facility Into Compliance—Part II

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine. Click here for Part I.

Part II—The Challenges

To avoid a potentially catastrophic fire, the warehouse had to be completely ridden of rubbish, waste, and hazardous material. The facility also needed to provide adequate fire extinguishing capability, and the structural integrity of the building had to be certified.

This situation was made more complex because the facility had five tenants, each involved in independent, uncoordinated hazardous material handling operations.

It Gets Worse Before It Gets Better
Tenants were using different sections of the same floor to mix flammables and other materials that were not compatible with each other. Packing and distribution materials were haphazardly stored, creating a fire hazard and blocking egress and response routes.

The operations varied in size and occupancy space, and there was no way to distinguish between operations. Even the tenants were unclear where one leased space ended and the next began.

The tenants were not familiar with federal hazardous materials regulations, and this was their first interaction with the Coast Guard. All of them were very concerned about going out of business. At first, some tenants did not want to comply.

The Work Begins
Because of this initial resistance and since each operation was so different, Coast Guard members and facility representatives met with each tenant individually. Most of these meetings took place in the warehouse, where inspectors could point out and explain the dangers within each tenant’s area. This allowed the tenants to propose solutions that could be evaluated and, in many cases, approved on the spot.

This approach allowed the tenants to see that the Coast Guard was in support of keeping them in operation, and that the incident management team viewed them as part of the solution. Following the one-on-one meetings, the tenants took ownership of the safety requirements and the response picked up momentum.

In part III, we look at the results.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

CG Inspectors Help Bring Waterfront Facility Into Compliance—Part I

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LT Tiffany Johnson, Chief, Shoreside Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York.


Part I—The Problem

New Operations Trigger Coast Guard Involvement
When facility managers of a waterfront warehouse notified the Coast Guard that it would be receiving barges for biofuel marine transfers after a 13-year hiatus, Coast Guard inspectors were dispatched to conduct a safety and security inspection and found numerous structural, safety, and security problems.

The warehouse contained undocumented and improperly stored hazardous substances, corrosive materials, and flammable liquids. The basement, filled with unlabeled drums and packages, flooded after heavy rainstorms. The roof above the fifth floor was dilapidated, providing little protection to the hazardous materials stored there, and the building’s sprinkler system did not work.

And It Gets Worse
To top it all off, the building was just yards from the Passaic River and one block from a residential area and shopping center. Since the facility was not in a safe condition, it received a captain of the port order to suspend all hazmat and oil transfer activities.

The story could have ended here. Coast Guard inspectors had done their jobs. They identified a hazardous situation and took action to protect the workers within the facility, the many citizens that lived or shopped nearby, and other workers in the area.

Keep the Businesses in Business
But Coast Guard involvement continued. During the initial meeting with the owner/operator, the incident commander explained that the Coast Guard’s intention was to help his facility stay in operation, and an incident management team was created to oversee the clean up.

In part II we will examine the challenges.


For More Information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Coast Guard Partnerships and the Federal Advisory Committee Act

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. Rich Walter, Attorney Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Regulatory and Administrative Law.


FACA Facts
The Federal Advisory Committee Act was enacted as a way of controlling the many advisory committees established to provide federal agencies with access to the views and recommendations of industry, consumer groups, and other outside experts.

FACA’s aims are simple:

• Provide ground rules for establishing, managing, and overseeing advisory committees.
• Provide fair compensation of non-federal government advisory committee members.
• Open committee meetings to public scrutiny.
• Reduce costs by terminating unnecessary committees.

We want to ensure that all Coast Guard partnerships with people outside the federal government are constructed with this act in mind.

How Do I Tell?
Whether or not the partnership is called an “advisory committee” is irrelevant—any group that involves non-federal government personnel and that gives advice or makes recommendations to the Coast Guard might be a FACA advisory committee, no matter what it calls itself.

Is the Group Established or Utilized by the Coast Guard?
If we fund the group’s activities, determine its composition, or set its agenda, the group may need to follow FACA procedures.

Trade associations generally fall outside the act, and if we meet with an association’s representatives to hear their views on an issue, we can do so without “implicating” FACA. However, if we bring representatives of several trade associations together, we need to ask more questions before determining whether that group will be covered by FACA.

Is the Group Meant to Provide Advice or Recommendations to the Coast Guard?
We often meet with groups of citizens to discuss port safety and security measures, possible new regulations, and the like. If these meetings are called to provide information or exchange individual views, FACA is not implicated. The key is whether we meant for the group to advise us as a group.

Suppose we call a meeting with local industry leaders, environmentalists, and concerned citizens to discuss a proposed regulation. At first, some citizens say they might be agreeable to the proposal, while others say they are firmly opposed. Gradually, the tide swings in favor of the opposition, and by the end of the meeting everyone is telling us the proposal is a bad idea.

Consensus? Group recommendation? Yes, but FACA is unlikely to apply because we called the meeting to hear individual viewpoints, and did nothing to manage the meeting in such a way that attendees felt any need to agree on a single point of view.

Does the Group Fall Within a Recognized FACA Exemption?
The Coast Guard generally can meet with groups of state officials or local civic groups without triggering FACA. Also, if Congress tells the Coast Guard to use private sector committees to help implement certain measures, those committees are also likely to fall outside FACA.

To Be Sure
The Coast Guard’s Office of Regulations and Administrative Law is the office responsible for determining when a collaborative effort should—or should not—be handled under FACA. Coast Guard units should involve this office as they seek to extend stakeholder partnerships.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

What’s the Coast Guard Done for Me Lately?

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine.


In the next series of blog posts, we will highlight various “grassroots efforts” where the Coast Guard works with other agencies and local mariners and maritime companies to make life better on the waterfront.

We have intentionally focused on the “What’s in it for me?” quotient when framing content. Our goals are to better inform maritime stakeholders about these programs and to stimulate further efforts.

Upcoming in Proceedings

OUT NOW! Fall 2010: Recreational Boating Safety (RBS)
• RBS program synopsis
• State RBS involvement
• RBS partners
• Manufacturing standards
• USCG Auxiliary
• Small vessel security
• Lessons Learned: Barkald/Essence: A routine passage turns tragic.

Winter 2010-11: Fishing Vessel Safety
• Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Program synopsis
• Mitigating risk
• Training and outreach
• Collaborative efforts
• Lessons Learned: Lady Luck: A small fishing trawler suddenly sinks and disappears.

Spring 2011: Waterways and Maritime Transportation Systems Management
• Domestic waterways management
• International work and initiatives

Summer 2011: Committee on the Marine Transportation System


Your Opinion
• What do you want to read in Proceedings?
• What area under the Coast Guard’s marine safety, security, and environmental protection missions affects you most?
• What do you want to know more about?

Post a comment here or send us an e-mail at HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.