MEC&F Expert Engineers : 05/16/15

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Time-Lapse – Building the ‘World’s Greenest Containership’



United Arab Shipping Company (UASC) has hailed its new ultra-large container vessel (ULCV) ‘Barzan’ as the world’s greenest containership.

The MV Barzan was built at Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries (HSHI), Mokpo South Korea and is the lead ship in a new series of six LNG-ready, 18,800 TEU vessels that are said to set new standards for fuel and energy efficiency.

According to UASC, preliminary calculations indicate an EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) value that is close to 50% below the 2025 limit set by IMO. On a CO2 output per TEU basis, the MV Barzan is more than 60% below a 13,500 TEU vessels delivered just three years ago, UASC says.


Screen Shot 2015-05-15 at 8.46.53 AM

“We understand that providing environmentally friendly transport solutions and recognizing environmental initiatives around the globe are no longer a choice; they are a necessity for both our organization and our customers”, said Jørn Hinge, President and Chief Executive Officer of UASC.

“M.V. ‘Barzan’ and the 18,800 TEU fleet will complement the 15,000 TEU fleet, being gradually delivered since November 2014 and operating on the Asia-Europe trades as part of the Ocean 3 services. There, Barzan will deliver the industry’s lowest per-container levels of CO2 output.”

UASC’s orderbook includes eleven 15,000 TEU and six of the 18,800 TEU vessels all scheduled to be fully delivered by 2016. In 2015, UASC will receive a total of 10 new vessels.

In addition to energy saving technologies previously used, MV Barzan also includes ship-to-shore power supply solution for zero emissions at berth; an energy efficient integrated system to monitor and optimize propulsion systems, machinery operations and navigation; and a Waste Heat Recovery System that converts thermal energy from the exhaust gas from the main engines into electrical power.

The vessel is also the first to receive DNV GL’s new GAS READY notation, meaning that the vessel is in compliance with the gas fueled notation rules, that structural reinforcements to support fuel containment system (LNG tank) have been verified (S), that the main engines installed can be converted to dual fuel (MEc) and that the auxiliary engines installed can be operated on gas (AEi).

Full DNV GL class notations include: 1A1 Container Carrier DG-P Shore Power E0 NAUT-OC HMON (A1,C1,G4) CLEAN BWM-T BIS TMON NAUTICUS (Newbuilding) GAS READY (D, S, MEc, AEi).

International Maritime Organization Adopts Landmark ‘Polar Code’ MARPOL Rules

arctic shipping ice icebreaking
Image (c) Maksim Rumiantcev/shutterstock.com

The International Maritime Organization this week adopted the pollution prevention provisions of the long-awaited ‘Polar Code’, setting the first-ever international environmental and safety standards for ships trading in the world’s polar regions.

The environmental portion of the International Code for ships operating in polar waters (Polar Code) and associated MARPOL amendments were adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) during its 68th session held from May 11 to 15 at IMO Headquarters in London.

The Polar Code is the first mandatory blanket legislation for ships that specifically addresses potential hazards unique to arctic and antarctic environments, such as ice, remoteness and rapidly changing and severe weather conditions, covering the full range of design, construction, equipment, operational, training, search and rescue and environmental protection matters. 

Because it contains both safety and environment related provisions, the Polar Code will be mandatory under both International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).


The environmental provisions include amendments that will help prevent pollution from ships by prohibiting the discharge of oil and noxious liquid substances into the sea, and regulating the discharge of sewage and garbage.

The adoption into MARPOL follows the adoption by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) in December 2014  of safety-related (SOLAS) requirements of the Code. (See Also: IMO Adopts Polar Code SOLAS Requirements)
While the adoption of the Polar Code is considered by many as a major step forward for shipping in the arctic, critics argue that the Code will fail to protect the Arctic and Antarctic environments because it does not fully prevent the discharge of raw sewage into the sea, require new practices to protect against invasive species, or adequately equip ships and crews to deal with minor spills.

The complete Polar Code is expected to enter into force on January 1, 2017 and will apply to new ships constructed on or after January 1, 2017. Ships constructed before that date will be required to meet the relevant requirements by the first intermediate or renewal survey before January 1, 2018. ?

Polar Code Environmental Bullet Points:
  • Prevention of pollution by oil: discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures from any ship is prohibited. Oil fuel tanks must be separated from outer shell;
  • Prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances: discharge into the sea of noxious liquid substances, or mixtures containing such substances is prohibited;
  • Prevention of pollution by sewage; discharge of sewage is prohibited unless performed in line with MARPOL Annex IV and requirements in the Polar Code; and
  • Prevention of pollution by garbage: discharge of garbage is restricted and only permitted in accordance with MARPOL Annex V and requirements in the Polar Code

 //------------------------------//
The International Maritime Organization has fully the landmark “Polar Code”, the first mandatory blanket legislation for the improved safety of ships operating in the world’s polar regions. The new Code specifically addresses potential hazards unique to arctic and antarctic environments, such as ice, remoteness and rapidly changing and severe weather conditions.

But what exactly does the new Polar Code mean for ship safety? This infographic explains it:

IMO Polar Code InfographicC

The Polar Code will be mandatory under both SOLAS and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

The date of entry into force of the Polar Code and related SOLAS amendments is 1 January 2017 for new ships constructed after that date. Ships constructed before 1 January 2017 will be required to meet the relevant requirements of the Polar Code by the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after 1 January 2018.

You can read more about the Polar Code’s SOLAS amendments HERE and MARPOL amendments HERE.

Ship Incident Rate Steady Despite New Technology – Why?

Difficult choices of a businessman
“Difficult choices of a businessman” via Shutterstock, Copyright: alphaspirit
“Of all the systems on board a vessel, a human being is the most complex, and perhaps the most difficult one to integrate into a system of safer transportation.” -Tracy Murrell, Director, Office of Marine Safety, National Transportation Safety Board.
For the last few decades, the maritime industry has greatly improved the reliability and user interface design of ship systems with the goal of reducing ship casualties and increase operational efficiency.

Improvements in hull design, integrated systems, propulsion, and vastly more effective navigational equipment. Today’s ship systems are technologically advanced and highly reliable. Yet, the maritime casualty rate is still high.

With these improvements, WHY have we not significantly reduced the risk of accidents?

Maritime Error Management eBook
Maritime Error Management: Discussing and Remediating Factors Contributory to Maritime Casualties – October 28, 2011
by Geoffrey W. Gill

According to Geoff Gill, author of the book Maritime Error Management, the answer is people.

In a speech at this week’s Nautical Institute Command Seminar, Gill said the aviation industry has been in the forefront of human factor investigation and training and the maritime community must integrate human factors knowledge if the goal is to reduce the number and significance of incidents at sea. 

According to Gill, our goal as an industry must be the moving target of continuous improvement focused on the strengths and weakness of our people.

“Simply put, we are not applying available new lessons from maritime casualties we are only relearning old lessons that we have failed to apply meaningfully,” commented Gill.
“Much has been learned about WHAT is involved in maritime casualties and HOW those casualties occur. Now the crucial issue is WHY? The answer may show us the way in which shipowner orders and crew training are put into practice aboard ships.” – MAIB, CP VALOUR GROUNDING REPORT
What Are These “Human Elements?” 

Human element studies can be thought of in two categories. The first, System I, involves thought processes of the individual, including cognitive processes, decision making and situational awareness. The second, System II, addresses interpersonal aspects and group dynamics, such as within a bridge team.

System I quickly and automatically operates with little or no effort on our part and with no sense of voluntary control. Included may be heuristics and biases. 

By analogy, if you are taught the effects of different foods upon health, then will obtain the tools required to make better dietary choices.

System II involves a higher order of thinking called “CRITICAL THINKING” and results in decisions and action which, in this context, may be defined as “thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed, taking into account that all available relevant information was considered objectively before acting upon any decision.” In other words, “critical thinking” is a process whereby a person, trained in cognitive skills, critiques the thinking process, in real-time, with an awareness of his own biases.
“When you are at sea, you have to be able to think, and you can’t think with your nose buried in a book of written procedures.” – Geoff Gill
Why Is This Important?

“Our objective as an industry must always be to develop the most competent, capable and confident officer attainable. I advocate critical thinking and human factor management because they are the next step towards reaching this goal,” added Gill.

DRIVER CITED AFTER BUS CARRYING CAROLINA MUDCATS FLIPS; 8 INJURED






MAY 12, 2015

COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC (WECT)

A bus carrying the Carolina Mudcats baseball team flipped onto its side in Columbus County Tuesday morning while heading to Myrtle Beach for a game Tuesday night.

According to Kay Worley, the Columbus County Emergency Services Director, the bus, from Abbott Bus Lines, Inc. out of Roanoke, Virginia, crashed around 3:45 a.m. on Clarendon Chadbourn Road.

Worley says 33 members of the team were on board the bus. Eight of those, including seven players and one trainer, were taken to the hospital to be treated for non-life-threatening injuries. All eight have since been released.

Those not injured in the accident were taken to the Columbus County Emergency Operations Center. The bus was pulled upright shortly after 6 a.m.
Greg Young, the director of broadcasting and media relations for the Mudcats, was on the bus and was tweeting throughout the morning. 

"Can't put into words right how grateful I am to have not been injured tonight. Please keep the injured players in your thoughts & prayers," Young tweeted, followed by posting a photo of the overturned bus.

Young said he had dozed off when he heard the driver become frantic and yelling before he lost control. The bus flipped over and skidded down the road while everyone fell to one side of the bus. According to State Highway Patrol, the driver, Janice Coffman from Virginia, was cited for exceeding safe speeds.

"Some of the players held on to their seatmates so they wouldn't be harmed any further," Young explained. "Everyone kind of huddle up and when the bus stopped everybody got up as fast as they could. Everyone checked on each other to see if there were any major injuries."

— Greg Young (@GregYoungJr) May 12, 2015

Young said it was "weird" to figure out which way the bus had flipped.
"We ended up going to the top [of the bus], so we went through the hatch," Young said explaining everyone kept checking to make sure the players and staff were all okay before getting off the bus.

Young didn't want to comment on the number of people taken to the hospital or speculate on the types of injuries. 

"There are a lot of parents who are not near their sons right now, and very concerned," Young said. 

Young tweeted around 11 a.m. Tuesday the team was back together and heading to Myrtle Beach as planned, but according to a statement released by the Myrtle Beach Pelicans Wednesday morning, the three-game series between the two teams has been canceled.

The Mudcats, instead, have returned to Zebulon where players and staff will continue to be medically evaluated. A decision to reschedule the series will be made at a later time.

Anyone with tickets or vouchers for any of the three games can exchange them for a ticket of equal or lesser value to any 2015 Pelicans regular season game and beyond, subject to availability.

HAIL CLAIMS ADD UP DURING APRIL, TEXAS LEADS THE WAY
















MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015

We’re reading about the economic and insurance impact of severe thunderstorms in the United States in April 2015, as reported by Aon Benfield’s latest Global Catastrophe Recap report.

Five separate thunderstorm events in central and eastern parts of the U.S. caused expected insured losses of $2 billion, including more than $750 million from one event alone.

What was the $750 million event?

A widespread multi-day severe weather outbreak that hit central and eastern parts of the U.S. from April 7-10, leaving at least 3 dead and dozens injured.
Major damage was noted across the Plains, Midwest and the Mississippi Valley following 25 confirmed tornado touchdowns, grapefruit-sized hail, damaging straight-line winds, and flooding rains, according to Aon.

The April 9 EF4 tornado that devastated the communities of Fairdale and Rochelle, Illinois, is part of this event.

Total economic losses were estimated at $1 billion, while insurers put losses beyond $750 million.

Interestingly, Aon notes that much of the insured losses in this severe weather event were driven by claims resulting from hail.

The Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) has some useful facts and statistics on hail here.

It cites ISO figures that indicate events involving wind, hail or flood accounted for $16.1 billion in insured catastrophe losses in 2013 dollars from 1994 to 2013 (not including payouts from the National Flood Insurance Program).

The I.I.I. also notes that there were 5,536 major hail storms in 2014, per statistics culled from NOAA’s Severe Storm database. Nebraska had the largest number of severe hail events in 2014, followed by Texas, Kansas, Iowa and Missouri.

Over the 14 years from 2000 to 2013, U.S. insurers paid almost 9 million claims for hail losses, totaling more than $54 billion, according to a recent report by Verisk Insurance Solutions. That’s a hail of an impact.

10 REASONS WHY INSURANCE COMPANIES MAY HAVE UNDERPAID SANDY VICTIMS








MAY 11, 2015

Theories abound in the absence of clear information about just what went on behind the scenes in the aftermath of disastrous storm

In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, many insurance policyholders were denied coverage after engineering reports determined that their damage supposedly pre-existed the storm or was due to natural earth movement rather than raging floodwaters. 

Other storm victims say their insurance companies failed to include coverage for sales tax and that their adjuster estimates vastly undercounted how much it would actually cost them to rebuild their homes.

Now the unfolding scandal and the complaints of those Sandy victims have led to a growing number of lawsuits and congressional hearings, forced FEMA to conduct an internal investigation, and sparked calls for substantial reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program. 

But this mystery remains: Exactly why would insurance adjusters and engineers intentionally go out of their way to shortchange and deny policyholders coverage? 

The confusion revolves around the fact that most flood-insurance claims -- unlike other types of insurance – are paid using federal taxpayer money, so private companies processing the claims would have little financial incentive to underpay their customers.

As federal inquiries continue, more information is likely to come out over the coming months detailing just what happened and why. In the meantime, experts interviewed for this article have floated a number of theories and partial explanations for what may have transpired behind the scenes.

1. Unbalanced penalty structure

Since private companies process flood insurance claims on behalf of FEMA -- issuing payouts from federal coffers -- they’re on the hook for repaying any excess money if government auditors later find those payments were issued in error. But critics point out that they don’t face equally severe penalties for underpaying policyholder claims.

“The only thing that motivates these guys is fear of pain,” said David Charles, who’s worked as an adjuster for close to four decades, and now represents homeowners and business owners fighting their insurance companies.

Charles and others speculate that this unbalanced penalty structure has led to insurers, in the aftermath of Sandy, systematically rejecting legitimate claims and otherwise paying less than they should.

A federal task force is currently examining how to balance the sanctions in the future, so insurers would be penalized equally, whether they pay out too much or too little.

2. Business as usual

“Originally, the notion was that insurance companies paid what they owed. No more, no less,” said Jay Feinman, who teaches insurance law at Rutgers. But over the past few decades, companies have brought in management consultants who’ve dramatically changed the economics of the industry.

“We’ve seen a transformation where claims become a profit center. There’s an attempt to reduce costs by paying less and delaying payment of claims,” he said.

To be clear, these changes apply to claims for homeowners’ coverage -- which companies pay out of their own pockets -- but not to federal flood-insurance policies, where they have no similar profit motive.

Still, notes David Charles, many of the same adjusters and engineers handle both types of claims. He thinks that if it’s their standard operating procedure to deny homeowner claims, they’ll likely reject many valid flood claims as well.

3. Giving insurance companies what they want

When homeowners filed 74,000 flood claims in New Jersey -- including some 16,000 that required engineering inspections -- insurance companies were overwhelmed, and the scale of the disaster strained their resources. So they brought in teams of outside engineers -- hired guns who travel around the country from disaster to disaster to assist with damage inspections.

Following up on the previous theory, many of these engineers are used to dealing with homeowners’ insurance claims, where they’re under pressure from their firms to write reports that make the insurance carriers -- their clients -- happy, said Chip Merlin, an attorney representing hundreds of Sandy victims in the state.

“If the insurance companies get reports from these engineers that side with the policyholder and they have to pay more money, those honest engineers get de-listed because the engineering firm wants to keep business with the insurance carrier,” he said. “So you end up only with those that write what I would say are conservative reports that help the insurance company pay less on claims. That’s a big problem in the industry.”

4. Quantity over quality when it comes to inspections

Merlin thinks that many of the current problems stem from how adjusters and engineers are paid in the first place.

“We don’t pay them to get an accurate estimate. They get paid on a percentage basis of the amount of claims that they do. So they try to write not just one home a day. They’ll try to do about eight of them,” he explained.

“We’re incentivizing the adjusters to go out there and write massive amounts of estimates very quick, way too shoddy, not with the outlook of them fully getting all the money to the policyholder, but in a system of compensation to the adjusters that prohibits that.”

He recommends reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program that would allow adjusters and engineers to spend as long as they need to do a thorough job, so all homeowners get the consideration they deserve.

5. Inspectors were overtaxed and exhausted

Many storm victims have complained that engineers deemed their homes not substantially damaged or concluded that their damage was caused by long-term settlement of the earth – even though those inspectors never even looked in their crawlspaces. 

While the financial incentive to rush through and move onto the next house was probably a significant factor, there was also the human element, suggests Amy Bach with United Policyholders, a national insurance consumer advocacy group.

“With Sandy, the damage was so widespread and so awful,” she said. “Going into houses that are wet and smelly and soggy and dark, most people want to get in and get out. It’s not like you want to spend time looking at every nook and cranny. So some of the underestimating of Sandy damage was unintentional.”

6. Possibly unqualified or poorly trained inspectors

When contractor Larry Steimel observed an insurance adjuster inspecting the home of one of his clients who had experienced flooding during Sandy, he was taken aback by what he saw.

“To me, it seemed like she was very inexperienced,” he said. “If I remember right, there were some things that she didn’t even know what they were, some building components that she really wasn’t aware of.”

As if that’s not concerning enough, lack of construction expertise is just the tip of the iceberg, said Amy Bach.

“The National Flood Insurance Program policy is very specific. It’s got a lot of nit-picky rules. And some of these adjusters are just not that experienced with it,” she said. “Then there were some that weren’t adjusted properly because the adjusters were using Xactimate or a similar software program for estimating the repair costs, and the accuracy of the estimates these software programs produce is only as good as the training that the individual adjuster had in using the software.”

7. Valid policy exclusions and denials

It’s worth noting that one reason policyholders may have received less than they were expecting isn’t necessarily because they were shortchanged – some were legitimately denied.

Insurance industry representatives say some people were confused about whether certain damage was caused by wind or water, and thus whether they should be reimbursed by their homeowners’ insurance or their flood policy. 

Others may have been underinsured to begin with, or they never bothered to read the fine print when they purchased their policy to fully understand the various exclusions that wouldn’t be covered. Some exterior structures such as decks, sheds and landscaping probably wouldn’t have been covered, for instance, but many policyholders weren’t necessarily aware of that -- nor did they realize that the contents of their homes would only be covered at a depreciated rate.

8. Insurance reimbursement rates are too low

Private insurance adjusters processing flood claims on behalf of the federal government use standardized price lists to determine how much to reimburse homeowners for their losses. But some observers, like attorney Chip Merlin, fear that the figures used are unrealistically low in some cases.

“We think it will come out in some of the congressional investigations that the database far underestimates the cost of estimates, especially in the barrier island coastal areas,” he said. “Right after the storm for the first year, it was very difficult for the community to get logistic supplies and enough repairmen out there, and the prices charged by contractors were quite a bit higher as a result of it. It’s just a very expensive place to do rebuilding. You have a very short construction cycle because in the wintertime, it’s nearly impossible to put roofs back together and things like that. In the summertime, you have an inundation of people, so it costs more to build on the shore. And a lot of the pricing isn’t geographically accurate enough to reflect that.”

9. Attorneys profit from increased litigation

It’s not a widely held theory, but some have suggested that there was a sort of conspiracy among the lawyers representing insurance companies to advise them to do whatever they could to avoid overpaying Sandy claims, even if it meant paying far less than they should. After all, lawyers are the one class of individuals -- so the thinking goes -- who benefit from the resulting lawsuits. And since these are federal flood-insurance policies, it’s not the private insurance companies that get stuck with the legal bills, but rather the government -- and by extension, taxpayers.

10. Honest mistakes

Jay Feinman -- the Rutgers law professor -- has thoroughly researched the multitude of problems policyholders have faced following previous disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. A few years ago, he even wrote a book called “Delay Deny Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.”

He calls the current issues storm victims are facing puzzling and mysterious, but he thinks much of the explanation may ultimately be less intriguing that some others have speculated.

“My observation about this industry is it tends to be less often about people meeting behind closed doors coming up with vast conspiracies,” he said. 

“Mistakes are made, particularly when companies have to handle tens of thousands of claims all at once. And there are going to be mistakes that often will run in one direction. So I think when FEMA starts reviewing these claims, we’re going to see all kinds of issues. And fraud may not be the largest part of it.”

Source: http://www.njspotlight.com