MarEx 15 by Maritime Executive Magazine

VOLUM E 15

SECOND QUARTER 2 0 0 4

Interview With THE Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard:

Thomas Admiral

Collins Features: Washington Insider Marine Transportation Manpower & Training MARITIME SECURITY

Announcing MITAGS/PMIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s New Port Facility, Company, and Ship Security Officer Training Program. Since September 11th 2001, the maritime industry has come under increased pressure to improve security awareness and develop security measures appropriate to the threat level. International and national regulations and guidance are in place, but your company, ship, or port facility may not be ready to meet these important requirements. In an effort to help port authorities, facility managers, and shipping companies develop and implement their security plans, MITAGS/PMI now includes the Port Facility, Company, and Ship Security elements in our successful 3-day training program. We tailored this course to provide a practical, comprehensive, and effective approach to solving your maritime security challenges. Companion Courses Available: Contingency Planning (CONT-PLNG) - 1 day, Media Response Workshop (MEDIA-RSP-WKSH) - 1 day, Damage Control (MSC-DC) - 2 days, Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Training (MSC-CBRD-1) - 1 day, Basic Maritime Tactical Training for Law Enforcement - 5 days, Security Guard Training, Facility Security Officer, Security Awareness for Port Staff, and Security Awareness for Port Managers.

2004 Dates â&#x20AC;&#x201C; (log onto our websites at www.mitags.org or www.mates.org for the most current information on dates and times). July 26 - 28 Aug 2 - 4

MITAGS PMI

Baltimore Seattle

Aug 30 - Sept 1 MITAGS Aug 30 - Sept 1 PMI

Baltimore Seattle

Oct

11 - 13 Oct 11 - 13 Nov 1 - 3 Nov 30 - Dec 2

MITAGS PMI

Baltimore Seattle

MITAGS PMI

Baltimore Seattle

Dec

MITAGS

Baltimore

6 - 8

Special Rates for Hotel Accomodations

For more information, please contact: MITAGS: Admissions Toll Free: (866) 656-5568 E-mail: admissions@mitags.org Web: www.mitags.org

PMI: Dee Dee Lazik Toll Free: (888) 893-7829 E-mail: admin@mates.org Web: www.mates.org

The Leaders in Maritime Training

MITAGS/PMI the leaders in STCW-95 training offer 40 USCG approved courses including: Electronic Navigation, Chief Mate/Master Upgrade, Fast Rescue Boat, Bridge Resource Management & Shiphandling, Medical Person in Charge, Basic Safety Training, Basic & Advanced Firefighting, Tankerman Person in Charge, Crowd and Crisis Management, Heavy Weather Avoidance, Global Maritime Distress & Safety Systems

MITAGS is internationally certified as a Maritime Simulation & Training Center by Det Norske Veritas

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The most productive meeting facility in the Mid-Atlantic region!â&#x20AC;?

What are the conference center advantages over a hotel? n Specifically designed and equipped meeting rooms n Onsite audio & visual technology systems and support n All-inclusive meeting packages n 24-hour use of meeting rooms without additional charges n Continuous refreshment breaks

The Conference Center at the Maritime Institute (CCMIT) is set on a serene, wooded, eighty-acre campus, located between Baltimore and Washington D.C. and just minutes from the BWI Airport and AMTRAK. CCMIT was designed specifically by meeting professionals. The facility includes 100,000 square feet of meeting space, a computer lab, an auditorium, and your choice of forty-five other meeting rooms to accommodate groups from 10 to 350 attendees. Other amenities include 232 newly renovated guest rooms and our onsite dining room, which provides breakfast, lunch, and dinner. As a member of the International Association of Conference Centers (IACC), you can be assured that your guests will enjoy the same high quality service and accommodations expected by meeting professionals.

n Breakfast, lunch, and dinner served daily in our dining room n Dining facility that accommodates groups from 10 to 500 n Free high-speed internet access in all guest rooms n Meeting price guarantee and simplified billing

692 Maritime Boulevard Linthicum Heights, MD 21090 Toll Free: (866) 629-3196 Website: www.ccmit.org

Second Quarter 2004

EDITOR & PUBLISHER

Tony Munoz ART DIRECTION

Volume 15

Contents ARTICLES

MARITIME SECURITY by Alan Hicks, Director Business Development and Governmental Policy, P&O Nedlloyd, North America

INTEGRATED SECURITY: A NEW APPROACH FOR ENSURING THE SECURITY AND SAFETY OF PORTS AND VESSELS by Jim Ligotti, Vice President, Maritime Solutions, Ingersoll-Rand

MARITIME TRAINING AND MANPOWER

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

TAKING IT FROM THE TOP: INTERVIEW WITH ADMIRAL THOMAS COLLINS COMMANDANT UNITED STATES COAST GUARD by Joseph Keefe

AMERICA HONORS THE MERCHANT MARINE OF WORLD WAR II by Tony Munoz

Evan Naylor EDITORS

Paul Smith Hugh Jardon CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Joseph A. Keefe SENIOR COPY EDITOR

Bill Greenthal COUNSEL

Timothy C. Cronin CIRCULATION

TM Marketing TO SUBSCRIBE:

call: 866 884 9034 or go to our website: www.maritime-executive.com or e-mail: tony@tmmarket.com ADVERTISING/SALES:

DEPARTMENTS

Tony Munoz 866 884 9034

EDITORIAL

WASHINGTON INSIDER

EXECUTIVE ACHIEVEMENT

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

(ISSN 1096-2751) is published by The Maritime Executive Corp., 2125 SE 10th Ave, Ste 1019 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 e: tony@tmmarket.com 866 884 9034 :tel 954 524 9750 :fax

Second Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 1

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 1

7/13/04 5:18:48 PM

The First True Business Journal for Maritime Executives Strategies & solutions through case studies, interviews and articles that address the most critical issues in the maritime industry today. Only The Maritime Executive provides such depth of insight into the decision making process of leaders throughout the maritime world. The Maritime Executive is the only vehicle so sharply focused to deliver essential information from maritime decision-makers to other maritime decisionmakersâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;an indispensable weapon in your arsenal for further business success.

Robert F. Dorn, John E. Giles, Michael J. Siragusa, James Weakley Jerome K. Welsch, Jr.

Craig Philip

President & CEO, Ingram Marine Group Nashville, TN

President, MSRC, Marine Spill Response Corp. Herndon, VA

Glen Paine

Gerhard Kurz

Thomas Crowley, Jr.

Executive Director, MITAGS/PMI Linthicum Heights, ML

President & CEO, Seabulk International, Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Steve Benz

Chairman, President & CEO, Crowley Maritime Corporation Oakland, CA

Invest in your companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future: subscribe now. Subscription rate for one year, four issues is $36. Special: Two years $48. Save $24. Call 866 884 9034 now to subscribe. Visa & Mastercard accepted.

Or send check or money order to: The Maritime Executive 2125 SE 10th Ave, Ste 1019 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 e: tony@tmmarket.com

We are the web at www.maritime-executive.com Download and read previous articles. Subscribe online.

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 2

7/13/04 5:19:05 PM

Editorial US MERCHANT MARINE HONORED AT MITAGS

n May 28, 2004, the Maritime Institute of Technology & Graduate Studies (MITAGS) and the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots sponsored a dinner-dance honoring the veterans of the merchant marine of WW II at MITAGS’ campus in Linthicum Heights, Maryland. Over 300 veterans, their families, honored guests, and MMP members attended joined the celebratory event. Bus loads of WW II merchant marine veterans from around the Eastern seaboard, and as far away as Michigan, arrived at the Linthicum Heights campus for the World War II Memorial Dedication ceremonies in Washington, D.C. on May 29, 2004. In addition to the dance and the ceremonies in Washington, D.C., the veterans were given a tour of MITAGS, cabaret night in the MITAGS’ deck lounge on Saturday night, and a visit to the museum Liberty Ship SS John W. Brown. President George W. Bush, Senators Kay

Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Congressman Frank A. Lobiondo (R-NJ) sent official messages of congratulations to the merchant marine veterans for their contributions. During the spectacular and heartfelt event, Officials of the MM&P addressed the veterans and offered the memberships’ congratulations and gratitude for a job well done. Glen Paine, Executive Director of MITAGS, was the master of ceremonies for the event and introduced all of the guest speakers, which included the Honorable Helen Delich Bentley, former Member of the House of Representatives, Frank Dooley, President Elect of the American Merchant Marine Veterans of WW II, John Pitts, President of the Merchant Marine Veterans Memorial Statue Committee, George Murphy, noted maritime author and merchant marine veteran of WW II, and Vice Admiral Gordon S. Holder, Director of Logistics

by Tony Munoz for the United States Navy at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. “It was an honor to host these merchant marine veterans that met every challenge imaginable during a time when this nation fought for its very freedom to exist,” said Glen Paine. “They sailed the Atlantic and Pacific oceans supplying America’s military forces, and they did so with great endeavor and at great peril. On behalf of the IOMMP and MITAGS, we thank them for letting our organizations be a small part of their celebration in the dedication of the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.” The evening benediction was given by Reverend Monsignor John L. FitzGerald, Ph.D., and the evening music was provided by the 1940s style big band, the Radio King Orchestra. For more information on the event, please visit the “News” section of the MITAGS website at www.mitags.org Pictures of the event are available on CD at no charge.

�

��

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 3

��

7/13/04 5:19:22 PM

Washington

Insider

GHOST FLEET DISPOSAL UPDATE:

Domestic Path of Least Resistance May Eventually Triumph Over the Export of Ill Will As the spring thaw of 2004 approached, it is likely that no one was more anxious for that event to occur than the U.S. Maritime Administration. The first earnest and large scale effort to export the decaying merchant and naval ships located at various Federal anchorages around the country, since before the Clinton Administration, has been less than a smooth evolution. Although environmentalists on both sides of the pond were unsuccessful in their efforts to prevent the first four of a planned fifteen ship deal from sailing for England, their delaying tactics forced a suspension of the delivery of nine others, and in the process, created a public relations nightmare for MARAD which has taken the form of a complicated legal battle. The fate of the balance of the ships involved in the export disposal plan now rests in the hands of the US District Court in Washington. Beyond that, resumption of towing operations cannot begin until weather conditions in North Atlantic sufficiently abate, but it now appears that the case has been further delayed until mid-summer, which will possibly prevent the vessels from sailing during calendar year 2004. Meanwhile, there is no guarantee that a favorable court ruling in the United States will hold any water with British authorities, who have not yet decided that the disposal permits for these vessels in the UK are valid. For their part, MARAD remains adamant that the plan is legal and technically sound. For Maritime Administrator William Schubert, the hassle of reviving viable means with which to dispose of the environmental time bombs dubbed simply as “The Ghost Fleet” has made the reauthoriza4

tion of MSP and funding of the Title XI Loan Guarantees look like a walk in the park. Environmentalists are not the only ones interested in the final fate of these ships. With an eye towards a worst-case scenario where the UK export deal collapses entirely, the linchpin vessels BENJAMIN ISHERWOOD (AO 191) and HENRY ECKFORD (AO 192) may ultimately be up for grabs again. PRDA responder Spiro Vassilopoulos still wants the two ships, this time for conversion to Jones Act CNG carriers for his Pacific Northwest energy ventures. The viability of his plan is still subject to further scrutiny, and the chances of him obtaining both hulls are unlikely under current circumstances. MARAD Spokesperson Robyn Boerstling was adamant that “MARAD would not speculate in hypotheticals.” She went on to say that “The UK contracts are still valid and contain no technical deficiencies.” In the interim, MARAD has had very good success in disposing of a number of these aging hulls in the domestic scrapping market. A total of nine vessels have already been contracted for domestic disposal, with five alone going to the VA-based Bay Bridge facility. The reality of the situation is that as the battle to export these vessels rages, domestic solutions are being found that employ US workers and resources. It is now clear that at least five viable venues for domestic dismantling of these hulls do exist, and if MARAD is sincere about fostering a vibrant, domestic maritime industry, this may be one way to do it. If Spiro Vassilopoulos has his way, new life for some of these hulls in the form of LNG or CNG (compressed natural gas) carriers would also be another domestic solution. This alone ought to make the current administration happy in a time where the drain of jobs to overseas markets is weighing heavily on the efforts to re-elect President Bush. MARAD Chief Bill Schubert’s effort to fund the disposal program is showing moderate success, with appropriations of $11.1 million (plus $20 million from DOD) in FY-03, $16.1 million in FY-04, and a further $19.6 million asked for in the pending FY-05 budget. When it is all said and done, a foreign solution to the Ghost

Ship dilemma may not be worth the rancor and international ill will generated by the export of US hulls (and money) overseas. Meanwhile, the sidebar battle between Texas and Florida to obtain the rights to sink the retired aircraft carrier USS ORISKANY to create an artificial reef has provided new life to another potential avenue of ship disposal for MARAD. It would not be unreasonable to see MARAD revive a proposal to provide any number of hulls for just this purpose. We can only hope that the advance “spin” for any future artificial reefing plan will be better orchestrated than was the last proposal, floated to (and immediately rejected by) the state of Louisiana in late 2002.

The Port of Houston Authority Steamrolls into 2004: The Winning Streak Continues… The Port of Houston Authority’s WEB site proudly trumpets its long list of successes during calendar year 2003 (http://www.portofhouston.com/pdf/pubaffairs/KornegayRecordYear. pdf). And, why not? As predicted in our MAREX First Quarter 2003 feature article, “Making Way in Turbulent Waters,” the PHA has, at least for the time being, achieved an impressive strings of victories goals during that time span, not the least of which was a record $120 million in operating revenues, eclipsing the previous mark by more than $13 million. Total tonnage moved, including container and bulk traffic also recorded new highs. The gobs of Port Security Grant money received from Washington is the icing on the cake, and it all adds up to a very good year. All of this, however, pales in comparison to three landmark decisions, all of which ruled in favor of the Port. Two of the three decisions were handed down by Federal authorities; all promise a huge windfall for the port, if allowed to stand. The (January 30) decision handed down by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 4

7/13/04 5:19:29 PM

WashingtonInsider effectively reversed a lower court ruling which had sided with pipeline owners who claimed that they should not be responsible for costs (estimated by some to be $100 million) related to pipeline relocation costs necessitated by the dredging of the Houston Ship Channel. In a statement released immediately in the wake of the court ruling by Dennis Calabrese, spokesperson for the pipeline companies, he indicated that “the pipeline companies are disappointed by the judge’s ruling…and are currently reviewing all of their legal options.” Later, Calabrese released another statement confirming the motion for rehearing en banc on behalf of more than 20 pipeline companies, regarding the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. The scorecard now shows that one court has ruled for the port and one for the pipeline owners. It is certainly no time for gloating on the part of the POHA, but this round goes to the PHA, however, with another decision sure to come in the near future. Whatever the outcome of the battle in Circuit Court, the likelihood of this dispute moving to the high court is very good. In early January, the port also announced the settlement of an environmental lawsuit against several participants in the ownership and / or operation of a chemical plant on Greens Bayou. The terms of the settlement could fatten the coffers of the PHA by as much as $100 million, and protects the port authority from future losses associated with the chemical plant, according to a press release issued by the port itself. Beyond this, the goodwill generated by the remediation of soils and groundwater in the vicinity of the plant is a welcome relief to the port, which has found itself constantly defending its environmental practices to a myriad of public interests. In late March, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national environmental advocacy group, issued a report which showed the Port of Houston to have received the lowest grade of any of the nation’s top 10 ports. The Port Authority immediately responded by questioning the timing of the report, and characterizing it as thinly veiled effort to stop the Bayport Terminal project from moving forward. In a hastily arranged March 24 press conference in Houston, the PHA made best efforts to refute the NRDC’s report, reiterating a host of environmental improvements and parading the endorsements of a number of government and industry interests.

In an unrelated but equally significant development, the PHA has signed the Federal Permit for the Bayport Container / Cruise Terminal, paving the way for taking the project to the next step. Before that can happen, however, the pending Federal Court lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has to be settled. Although not named in the suit, the port has since intervened in the dispute. As MAREX went to press, the U.S. District Court in Houston ruled that the Federal Court will hear the Bayport case in a fast-track process that will likely end with a decision handed down in early May. The port has agreed to stop construction of the controversial terminal until the ruling is issued. Clearly, and despite the less-than-flattering NRDC environmental scorecard, it has been a good run for the PHA. Although the issue is still very much in doubt, the port stands a very good chance of being allowed to move forward with the Bayport Terminal. The PHA has already made a number of concessions in its effort to build the terminal, and arguably, they have done the best they can to address and mollify environmental concerns. Whether this is enough remains to be seen. Houston environmental attorney, Jim Blackburn, representing the plaintiffs in the case, says that the Bayport battle is far from over. Reached for comment after the latest court hearing, Blackburn stated, “We are fighting this thing tooth and nail – in both Federal and State courts. Frankly, we have them right where we want them to be – they’re not building the terminal.” He went on to add that plaintiffs have other avenues for remedy if they are unsuccessful in May, and that they would not hesitate to continue the fight down the road. Finally, while the port is clearly pleased over the return of cruise ships to Houston, the recent closure of Southwest Pass in Louisiana – which stranded and otherwise delayed thousands of cruise passengers – should be a quiet reminder that this type of business could evaporate as quickly as it arrives, especially with the omnipresent threat of collisions, oil spills, and other maritime disasters in the Ship Channel.

St. Lawrence Seaway Study Funding in Peril: Senator Clinton’s (D–NY) Letter Puts Important Work on Invasive Species in Jeopardy

Senator Hillary Clinton’s recent call for termination of funding to the Great Lakes Navigation System Review (GLNS) is causing heartburn for industry professionals who are trying to improve the system. Not coincidentally, the problem of merchant vessels introducing any number of invasive, non-native species to American waters through ballast water discharge is a big part of their efforts. Clinton’s concerns with the GLNS are rooted in her belief that the purpose of the study will be to eventually expand the scope and size of the St. Lawrence Seaway, thereby increasing the size and number of vessels which transit this body of water. Industry observers, including this writer, wonder as to her true motives, since while the Seaway certainly passes by the northern shores of New York, the state is not a major receiver of cargo from its commerce. Meanwhile, the IMO has adopted new Ballast Water Rules which, among other things, require vessels to carry a Ballast Water and Sediment Plan and a Water Ballast Water Record. Of course, like any IMO directive, the plan includes certain caveats and phase-in exceptions. Back in Cleveland, OH, James Weakley, the President of the Great Lakes Carrier’s Association, reports little or no effect on its operations because of the new rules. The Great Lakes, he says, “are far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of these types of regulations.” For his part, he and his colleagues would like the GLNS to go forward because, “Done properly, the GNLS will be an important part of the solution to the problem of Invasive Species. Certainly, it is premature to judge the end result of such an effort.” Weakley adds that “the size of the vessel has nothing to do with invasive species.” Industry efforts to solve the problem of invasive species are being hampered by a lack of criteria from various government agencies. Once these parameters are established, Weakley says (and the GLNS potentially could be an important part of establishing a baseline) the important work of ultimately providing an economical and practical solution can go forward. The symbolic burying of our heads in the sand – which is exactly what the result of abandoning this important study would be – clearly would not a helpful development. Hopefully, the current administration feels the same way. MarEx Second Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 5

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 5

7/13/04 5:19:34 PM

EXECUTIVE

ACHIEVEMENT

Jim Van der Veen Awarded the 2003 Thomas Crowley Trophy Crowley Maritime Corporation’s Highest Honor Jim Van der Veen, director of contract services for Crowley’s energy and marine services group, was awarded the 2003 Thomas Crowley Trophy, Crowley Maritime Corporation’s highest honor, at ceremonies held this week at the company’s Pier 17 location in Seattle. Created more than a decade ago, the Thomas Crowley Trophy award honors employees with outstanding performance, whose dedication, leadership, initiative and productivity most clearly reflect those of the company’s founder. The trophy, a limited edition, bronze sculpture depicting young Thomas Crowley as he ferried goods to and from ships on San Francisco Bay in the early 1890s, is a tribute to the founder of the company as well as the winners of the award. Tom Crowley, Jr., chairman, president and CEO, presented the award at the ceremony, which was attended by Seattle employees and several members of the management team. Also included in the group were previous Thomas Crowley Trophy recipients: Sandy Teng, 6

IT director of product development, and Lee Egland, director of labor relations. “Jim has been a major contributor to the company’s success for a number of years,” said Crowley. “He is not a flashy guy who gets a lot of attention. Rather, he works tirelessly in the background to make sure tasks that need to be done are done accurately and timely so that our operations run smoothly and our customers are satisfied and happy with our service. He fosters a positive and motivated team effort in dealing with both operational and administrative staffs.” Van der Veen is widely credited with facilitating Crowley’s services to the oil industry in the Russian Far East. He has been working there the past two years over five- to six-month periods. His knowledge, experience and high degree of customer interaction and service has helped Crowley establish new business as well as maintain existing relationships. “I know what this trophy stands for and what it means to all who have received it,”

said Van der Veen. “I am very honored for the recognition, but realize that this is not something you achieve by yourself. There are many outstanding individuals working here together as a team that all had a hand in this. So I thank them very much.” Van der Veen joined Crowley in 1978 as California operations manager for Crowley’s former Hawaiian Marine Lines’ common carrier service. He joined the marine operations group as manager of marine operations in 1981 and relocated to Alaska two years later where he served as general manager. During Van der Veen’s career, he has also held positions as general manager of oil industry services in Alaska and general manager of the company’s fuel and cargo transportation business in Alaska. In 1985, he moved back to the Puget Sound area and has been a key player in Crowley’s commercial and cargo operations business both as director of cargo operations and director of contract services. Prior to joining Crowley, Van der Veen worked in shoreside positions for Kerr Steamship Co., Bakke Steamship Co. and as a second/third officer for American Mail Line, Ltd. He holds a B.S. in Nautical Science from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Ed Fleming, president of Atlantic Marine's ship repair division since 1989, assumed additional responsibilities as president of the company's new construction operation. Fleming has been with Atlantic Marine for over 25 years and replaces Ed Doherty who retired after serving in the position for the past 15 years. Ron McAlear has been named president of Atlantic Marine's new construction and ship repair operations at the Port of Mobile. McAlear was formerly with Kvaerner Philadelphia Shipyard and Avondale Industries of New Orleans. MarEx

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 6

7/13/04 5:20:45 PM

“From technical expertise to budget and schedule consciousness, Crowley met or exceeded our expectations.” ~ Fred H. Van Etten • Project Manager • Chevron Overseas Petroleum

To install five massive energy platforms at Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, Crowley put its knowledge of complex marine engineering strategies to work. As lead logistics provider for Chevron, we professionally handled all aspects of transportation and installation, adapted new lift technologies and conducted engineering, safety, environmental and budget analyses to meet Chevron’s goals. People who know Crowley know many industries value our logistical know-how. Whether we’re solving major installation challenges for energy suppliers, helping to manage supply chains for automotive manufacturers or swiftly moving goods for apparel companies between countries, Crowley has the same goal for every project: exceed customer expectations. For more information, call 1-800-CROWLEY or visit us on the Web at www.crowley.com.

• Liner Shipping • Worldwide Logistics • Energy Support • Project Management • Ocean Towing & Transportation • Petroleum & Chemical Transportation • Alaska Fuel Sales & Distribution • Ship Assist & Escort • Salvage & Emergency Response

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 7

7/13/04 5:22:05 PM

MARITIMESECURITY

s with all aspects of life since September 11, 2001, the container carrier industry has had to cope with the potential threat of terrorist activity - in our case the potential involvement of container ships and/or cargo in a terrorist incident. The immediate result was the pendulum stretching to one extreme as international intermodal cargo was (and sometimes still is) labeled the “Trojan Horse” of homeland security with calls for extreme measures to reduce the risk. Within the hyperbole, however, there was (and again still is) a recognition that whatever threat reduction mechanisms were envisioned, the freight absolutely had to keep moving or we risked severe economic impact. Invisible as our industry may be to the person on the street, the public would very soon feel the impact of slowed containership arrivals at US ports. In the immediate aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there was no lack of problem identifiers, though practical suggestions to reduce risk were sorely lacking – not surprising given the enormity of what had taken place. US Customs (now the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection) came out of the gate quickly with the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and Container Security Initiative (CSI) programs. While C-TPAT and CSI were both sold to the trade as voluntary, it was clear from the outset that participation in these programs was a real world necessity. C-TPAT in particular, bought large numbers of import trade supply chain participants into the security effort – with accompanying paperwork in the form of security questionnaires, and security profile submissions. With well over 5000 C-TPAT members it is evident CBP was successful in raising security visibility among trade participants. Our industry, channeling through the World Shipping Council, was, and continues to be directly engaged in the evolution of the C-TPAT program (as well as other CBP initiatives). In adding some teeth to the program, CBP has begun a validation process to ensure the C-TPAT members are performing in accordance with the security profiles they submitted as a function of the CTPAT enrollment process. The US Coast Guard also became quickly involved in the effort to enhance maritime security. Recognizing the international aspect of container shipping, the Coast Guard correctly chose to initiate and progress these enhancements through the International Maritime Organization. The effort resulted in changes to the IMO’s Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention and the design of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code which must be implemented on July 1, 2004. These changes, to a great extent mirror requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The establishment of the Department of Homeland

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 8

MARITIME SECURITY: By Alan Hicks, Director, Business Development and Governmental Policy P&O Nedlloyd, North America

INTERNATIONAL INTERMODAL CARGO WAS LABELED THE “TROJAN HORSE” OF HOMELAND SECURITY WITH CALLS FOR EXTREME MEASURES TO REDUCE THE RISK. WITHIN THE HYPERBOLE, HOWEVER, THERE WAS A RECOGNITION THAT WHATEVER THREAT REDUCTION MECHANISMS WERE ENVISIONED, THE FREIGHT ABSOLUTELY HAD TO KEEP MOVING OR WE RISKED SEVERE ECONOMIC IMPACT. Security represented a massive reorganization in the US government structure. Such a change would be expected to experience some teething problems and this one did. Of late, however, there are signals that reorganization is coming together and a number of thorny issues, in-transit container security and vessel/crew arrival procedures among them, seem to be better defined. This is encouraging. Other activity was also taking place in Washington DC. The New York Times, in a July 2003 editorial noted the huge growth in DC lobbying aimed at selling the government homeland security products and services, with potential vendors “salivating” over the Department of Homeland Security’s massive budget. The container industry was not immune from this push as through us, or around us, technology oriented industries marketed solutions to sometimes undefined problems. The industry, again through the World Shipping Council, produced two Continued on page 10

7/13/04 5:22:14 PM

Sign-up now for your FREE on-line newsletter

MarEx Insider Newsletter at: www.maritime-executive.com The MarEx Insider Newsletter is one of your most valuable assets for keeping pace with legislative and the maritime industry's port and vessel security progress, as well as other events that shape our new world. With your FREE subscription to the MarEx Insider Newsletter, you will receive a bi-monthly update of news and events taking place throughout the maritime industry and on Capitol Hill. Being the largest maritime business journal in the United States, we are an outlet for government and corporations. These sources of information understand that we have a unique capability to reach a tremendous audience that is not otherwise available to them. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t miss your FREE subscription, sign-up now.

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 9

7/13/04 5:22:20 PM

MARITIMESECURITY Continued from page 8

white papers that attempted to bring the issue into real world perspective. These were generally well received and showed that the industry was prepared and eager to work towards the universally acknowledged goals of improved security and continued expeditious treatment of cargo flows. As a result, some realism has been injected into the technology debate as actual supply chain partners review alternatives at the working level. The industry involvement has also grown through the active participation in ISO standards development committees (one ignores such deliberations at one’s peril!). Throughout the post 9/11 formulation of government dictated measures, voluntary or otherwise, P&O Nedlloyd has taken a number of steps on its own initiative. Initially these included controlling access to ships and facilities and the appointment of company and ship security officers. Subsequently a global security organization was established with nominated security focal points in each corporate function and each geographic region. Security training is being provided at all levels of the company and we are well on track to comply fully with the July 1, 2004 implementation of SOLAS and ISPS changes. As a result of the activity that has taken place over the last two years, the pendulum, which early on had swung to one extreme, now appears to be edging back to a more moderate position. Legislative proposals calling for blast proof containers and boarding inbound vessels at sea have not progressed. The Democratic Party, calling for 100% inspection of inbound containers in their rebuttal to President Bush’s State of the Union Address, have now clarified their statement to reflect “screening” as opposed to “inspection.” The container security issue is still visible, however, and politically active. As recently as the February 29, 2004 televised debate among Democratic presidential aspirants, Senator John Edwards called for significantly increased container inspections in order to present a credible deterrent. We can fully expect to hear more as Democrats home in on this perceived weakness in the current administration’s homeland security effort. With some of the fog surrounding government activity clearing, and with an ongoing dialogue between public and private partners, ocean carriers are better placed to move in a direction consistent with government efforts and with less fear of future massive course changes. At P&O Nedlloyd, we have looked to combine security generated changes with improvements in operating efficiencies. The 24 hour inbound advance manifest rule is a good example. As compliance with this rule was mandatory, everyone participated, and the documentation process, long overdue for an overhaul, very quickly improved in both accuracy and timeliness. The difficulty in implementing this huge shift in the business process should not 10

be underestimated, and there was a definite cost associated with complying. There were positive results, however, and supply chain efficiency has improved. Similarly, implementation of the US export rules for cargo information, now scheduled for later this year, will improve that process – again long overdue. Container in-transit integrity, the icon of which is the high security bolt seal, will come under increased scrutiny as we improve the process of monitoring the seal as it moves from partner to partner in the supply chain. We’re in the 21st century and current manual methods of checking seals are ripe for automation. This as well will be at a cost, offset to some degree by streamlining the process. P&O Nedlloyd, as well as some other carriers, has instituted a “known shipper” procedure in order to screen new customers, and inspect first time containers at origin points. There will a cost attached to this effort, but history indicates the cost will be compensated for by fewer instances of fraudulent shipments which can leave some containers tied up for years by customs administration “holds” in receiving nations. These savings, combined with the obvious security benefit, say the program is a positive step from all aspects. The conclusion is obvious: in a threat environment of uncertain risk, the industry can enthusiastically embrace security enhancements by looking for, and achieving operational efficiencies in adopted process changes. Also clear is the need for government regulatory agencies to continue to include industry partners in the design, development, and implementation of security enhancements. Given this dialogue, security “best practices” can be developed and put in place quickly, without risking the taken for granted efficiency that has developed over the years. In the end, with all of the security developments put into place or likely to be installed, since that tragic Tuesday, the key to it all may be awareness. Simply stated, this means building up a culture within each supply chain partner company that encourages staff to look at their work from the perspective of what does, or does not “look right,” and bringing anomalies to the attention of supervisors. At P&O Nedlloyd we have tried to accomplish this by raising the awareness of the security problem through presentations and training. We have achieved some degree of success as staff has questioned apparent inconsistencies; new shippers, returned empty containers that appeared to have been tampered with, or seal integrity that may have been violated. Thus far, none have given rise to serious concerns. We hope they never will, but we are continuing to imbed a security culture, while looking as well for operational improvements that can and should be a natural by-product. MarEx

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 10

7/13/04 5:22:21 PM

NEW LEADERSHIP. NEW COMMITMENT.

ATLANTIC MARINE'S NEW TOP EXECUTIVES. Ron McAlear (left) is president of Atlantic Marine's new construction and ship repair facilities at Mobile, Ala., and Ed Fleming now heads up both new construction as well as ship repair at the Jacksonville, Fla. shipyard.

Full Service Shipyards New Construction Repair and Conversions Atlantic Marine, Inc. Atlantic Dry Dock Corp. 8500 Heckscher Drive Jacksonville, FL 32226 (904) 251-1545 Atlantic Marine, Inc. Alabama Shipyard Post Office Box 3202 Mobile, AL 36652 (251) 690-7100

www.atlanticmarine.com

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 11

Over the past 40 years, Atlantic Marine has worked hard to build a reputation for quality workmanship, customer-friendly service, and ontime delivery in both new construction and ship repair. Now, our company has acquired new leadership that is eminently qualified and deeply committed to helping us achieve those goals on a consistent basis at both our Jacksonville and Mobile shipyards. This is a giant step forward for our company that we take with pride and enthusiasm. Ron J. McAlear is now president of both our repair facility and new construction yard in Mobile. Ron is a former president and CEO of Kvaerner Philadelphia Shipyard. He served in various management positions for Avondale Industries from 1988 to 2000 and has been involved in shipyard operations for 30 years. In Jacksonville, Ed Fleming has been promoted to president of our new construction yard. Ed has been president of our Jacksonville repair yard since 1989 and has been with Atlantic Marine for over 25 years. We have made other changes in our management team to include highly-qualified individuals who share our determination to giving you the best products and service in the industry. We cordially invite you to give us the opportunity to show our renewed commitment to excellence.

7/13/04 5:22:26 PM

MARITIMESECURITY INTRODUCTION

The statistics are astounding: ■ The worldwide fleet of marine containers — a transportation cargo unit that can hold up to 500 computer monitors — is nearly 11 million.1 ■ The European Union, which is the main trading partner for two thirds of the world, in 2001 exported EUR 981 billion and imported EUR 1,027 billion.2 ■ The global ocean-liner shipping industry owns approximately $155 billion in vessels, containers, marine terminals and other direct operating assets now in service around the world.3 ■ Almost 16 million Americans work in port-related jobs, producing $210 billion in federal, state and local taxes annually.4

learly, the maritime industry is one of the most powerful drivers of international commerce and economic vitality in the world today. Yet only recently, with the introduction of a new body of international regulations called the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities (ISPS) have port and vessel companies and agencies been compelled to implement security and safety measures on a comprehensive, international scale. Now, these companies and agencies are struggling to implement security and safety measures that are both reliable and cost effective. Many are finding that conventional approaches to security and safety possess too many limitations to fulfill both of these goals. Fortunately, there is a better approach for securing ports and vessels – one that can enhance the effectiveness of technologies such as electronic-access control, timeand-attendance, and closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring while also improving business efficiencies. It can help operators of ports and vessels save money while protecting their most vital assets. The leading provider of this innovative approach – which focuses on integrating security and safety throughout a facility – is Ingersoll-Rand, a $10 billion diversified-industrial firm. Through its Interflex, Recognition Systems, Schlage, Geoffrey and several other market-leading businesses and brands, Ingersoll-Rand is one of the only companies in the world today whose security and safety solutions incorporate electro-mechanical, electronic, biometric, and integration technologies. Leveraging this broad range of capability, Ingersoll-Rand has devised a unique strategy that has enabled AT&T, Morgan Stanley, the U.S. Department of Defense and many other organizations to reduce costs and increase security. Through its Maritime Solutions group, Ingersoll-Rand now is bringing this pioneering strategy and expertise to ports and vessels around the globe.

INTEGRATED SECURITY: A

NEW APPROACH FOR ENSURING THE SECURITY AND SAFETY OF PORTS AND VESSELS by Jim Ligotti, Vice President, Maritime Solutions, Ingersoll-Rand

In this paper, we’ll describe the elements of this innovative approach and explain why it will be able to help port and vessel operators reduce costs while protecting their employees and facilities. We will also describe: ■ the new regulatory environment created by the ISPS and the impact it is having on port and vessel agencies and companies; ■ why conventional security approaches are poorly suited for maritime applications; and ■ how our methodology, which focuses on facility-wide security integration, will prove to be the only logical, cost-effective approach for companies and agencies that hope to fulfill their legal obligations as defined by the ISPS, U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act, and other recently enacted legislation. ABOUT THE ISPS

Two months after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the 162-member countries of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) unanimously agreed to develop “new measures” for enhancing the security and safety of ships and ports.5 By December 2002, the IMO had defined and ratified its comprehensive approach as the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities (ISPS). The ISPS code’s primary objectives are to establish a

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 12

7/13/04 5:22:33 PM

MARITIMESECURITY

framework for the IMO’s “contracting” governments to cooperate in taking preventive measures against security and safety threats that could affect the maritime industry. The ISPS code also outlines a methodology for ports and vessel operators to assess their particular levels of security risk and describes mandates they must fulfill to comply with the code. As required by the ISPS, contracting IMO governments have begun to pass legislation that mirrors the requirements and deadlines for compliance outlined by the new code. The 2002 U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act, for instance, required the 300 coastal and interwaterway ports of the U.S., and the thousands of vessels that dock at them each year, to define their security plans by December 31, 2003.6 It also requires operators to implement security measures outlined in the Act by the same deadline provided under the ISPS: July 1, 2004. In the U.S., the Coast Guard, working with government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for monitoring compliance at ports and vessels. WHAT THE ISPS MEANS FOR PORTS AND VESSELS

Few can deny that new security and safety measures are a necessary response to the rising threat of terrorism, drug and arms smuggling, and other criminal acts. Yet, the

ISPS requires companies and agencies involved in maritime trade to implement an unprecedented range of security and safety measures. For many port and vessel operators, the process of installing security systems that comply with the new requirements will continue to be a daunting task for the foreseeable future. Some of the concerns that industry now faces include: ■ The high costs of compliance.7 Although contracting governments are obligated to help fund the costs of added security in their country, the financial burden of installing new equipment, training people and managing new security systems ultimately resides with port and vessel operators. For many operators, the question of how they will fund the high costs of compliance — an ongoing operational cost — the single biggest concern they have with the new legal requirements. ■ Best efforts may not be not good enough. Never before have port and vessel operators been required to comprehensively assess their security needs and implement a plan for reliably reducing security and safety risks. For these operators, the process of outlining and implementing an effective plan that both meets regulatory requirements and stays within the limits of their operational cost structure may be a challenge they are unable to fulfill, despite their best efforts. ■ Minimal compliance (or none at all). It is likely that many ports and vessels will try their luck, waiting to see what actions enforcement agencies take with others who are noncompliant before deciding to make a full commitment to security and safety. While some may slip through the cracks for a time, most who fail to comply face stiff fines and lost business opportunities from boycotts by other ships and ports. ■ Increasing legislation. The ISPS is divided into two sections: Section A, which describes currently mandated security measures, and Section B, which outlines additional steps ports and vessels may decide to take to enhance security and safety based on their individual level of risk. Some companies already have begun to implement elements of Section B both as a “best practice” and in anticipation that the measures it describes will eventually reflect required practice.8 ABOUT CONVENTIONAL SECURITY AND SAFETY SYSTEMS

The face of security and safety has changed little during the last century. Although new state-of-the-art technologies such as CCTV monitoring and digital-video recording (DVR) are rapidly replacing or supplementing mechanical lock-based solutions, almost all conventional security and safety systems available today continue to be built around the same four fundamental characteristics that such systems have shared for decades. Typically, Second Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 13

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 13

7/13/04 5:22:34 PM

MARITIMESECURITY these characteristics result in systems that are unreliable at promoting security and safety and are difficult and costly for the average business and government agency to implement and manage. THESE FOUR CHARACTERISTICS ARE: ■ Security specific. Most conventional security and safety

systems work in a vacuum, divorced from other business processes. These conventional systems in no way help to enhance business productivity or otherwise assist managers in running a stronger, more efficient business. ■ Paper based. Conventional security systems typically rely on paper forms of identification (I.D.), such as drivers’ licenses and social security cards, to verify the identity of individuals looking to access secure areas of a facility. Paper forms of I.D. —which colleagues can share and criminals can steal or forge — are inherently unreliable when used to verify identity.9 The process of screening paper-based I.D. typically requires recording data, such as a driver’s license or Social Security number, by writing it down or making photo copies – a time consuming process that risks infringing on privacy rights. ■ People driven. In order to screen paper forms of I.D. and track the movement of individuals throughout a facility, an organization needs to employ security personnel. Security personnel are often difficult to train, costly to hire, and undependable. ■ Point oriented. Conventional security systems are designed to secure specific points, or areas of concern, at a facility. Specific points include cargo, entrances to a vessel, and equipment. Because conventional approaches focus on specific points, one facility may have several disparate security systems serviced by different vendors. For instance, a CCTV system installed by one vendor for monitoring cargo may work independently of an access-control system installed by another vendor for granting access to truckers who transport cargo. A facility that relies on point-based solutions is invariably inefficient, poorly accommodates change and growth in security needs, and can quickly become unmanageable. WHY CONVENTIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS WON’T WORK FOR MARITIME APPLICATIONS

For certain applications, conventional security systems that use decentralized paper- and people-based systems may be a reasonably effective, if not optimal, approach for promoting reliable security and business efficiency. The manager of a small corporate office with a couple dozen employees and a handful of daily visitors, for instance, may determine that hiring a security guard or two to 14

screen building badges suffices for the company’s security needs. But in the complex world of maritime trade — where hundreds or even thousands of crew members, drivers, maintenance workers, administrators and longshoremen, employed by unaffiliated companies and agencies, work together to move goods in and out of a port — a system of security that relies on paper and people to track, manage and monitor vulnerable assets is both inefficient and undependable. In addition to being unable to accommodate the high volume of people that moves through a typical port, conventional approaches to security and safety possess other limitations that make them poorly suited for a maritime environment. These limitations include: ■ Too unreliable to secure many entrances at risk. From a ship’s cargo area to a port’s entrance gate, ports and vessels possess dozens of vulnerable areas through which unauthorized personnel can conceivably gain access. Protecting these entrances and assets is a critical element in securing a maritime environment that conventional people- and paper-based approaches are simply too costly and inefficient to fulfill.

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 14

7/13/04 5:22:35 PM

MARITIMESECURITY tively protect waterways and the cities and populations that reside alongside them. OUR PHILOSOPHY, OUR SOLUTION

■ Unable to accommodate the increasing use of informa-

tion technologies. Even before the ISPS was adopted, governments around the world had begun to require ports and vessels to implement security measures that rely on information technologies.10 A business or agency that fails to take steps now to build an infrastructure capable of accommodating the growing use of technology will find it difficult to change and grow as fast as its technology-proficient competitors. ■ Inflexible in response to additional legislation. It is likely that the mandates described in the ISPS represent first efforts by the IMO and its contracting governments to produce legislation that will reduce the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack. Ports and vessels must work now to create a foundation that will be able to provide for additional security measures in the future – a requirement that point-oriented solutions, which drive up operational costs and lead times, are simply too inefficient and unmanageable to fulfill. Conventional approaches are no match against the security and safety considerations unique to maritime applications. Companies and agencies will need to adopt a new approach to security and safety if they are to effec-

The good news is that a solution does exist that meets the challenges of securing assets and people in a maritime environment. At Ingersoll-Rand, we have developed an approach that both improves security and safety while also enabling our customers to reduce costs and improve productivity. It’s a process we call Integrated Security (IS) and we expect it will help our maritime customers improve their operating efficiencies as it has for the dozens of Fortune 500 companies and government agencies that comprise our mainland customers. At the heart of IS is the process of integrating the security and safety requirements for every element of, and activity that takes place, at a facility. These elements and activities may be categorized as people, openings, and assets. For instance, a ship’s “openings” include the engine control room, electrical control/equipment room, cargo storage area, bridge, and steering gear room. A port’s “people” include longshoremen, crew, administrators, maintenance workers, and truck drivers. Assets for both a port and vessel may include the vessels themselves, equipment, vehicles, containers and cargo. Integrated Security connects people, openings and assets together through a connected information-technology infrastructure based on an expandable, open architecture. Data is generated through the power of electronics — access cards with electronic codes or biometric identifiers replace paper forms of I.D. and significantly reduce the number of security personnel required for security screening. Because the architecture is open, the system easily accommodates the addition of new security applications (i.e., a remote-monitoring system) as modules to a shared database. The result is a highly reliable system that coordinates remote-monitoring, access-control, time-andattendance, CCTV surveillance and other technologies and processes designed to secure a facility’s assets. (See Table 1. on the next page for specific differences between IS and conventional systems.) A crucial difference between conventional approaches and Integrated Security is the focus that IS places on improving efficiencies. Conventional security and safety systems are designed as an answer to the question, how can I improve security and safety? Integrated Security supplies the answer to this question and one other: How can I run a better, more productive business? It helps businesses operate more efficiently in four fundamental ways: ■ IS improves the management of information. Integrated Security facilitates the collection and exchange of data between security and non-security related technology systems. It therefore acts as a tool Second Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 15

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 15

7/13/04 5:22:36 PM

MARITIMESECURITY that improves the effectiveness of various business processes. For instance, human resources managers can use data from a time-and-attendance system to track levels of tardiness. A CCTV application may produce data that can be used in connection with an inventorytracking program. ■ IS increases cost efficiencies. Because every system involved in Integrated Security is connected through a shared technology infrastructure, IS can be used to detect, investigate and resolve security violations far more quickly and with fewer security personnel and other resources than unconnected technologies. Resolving security breaches is therefore far more cost efficient as well as reliable using IS. ■ IS saves time. Integrated Security is designed specifically to facilitate the seamless movement of people, cargo and equipment through entrances and other security points. Rather than requiring authorized individuals to endure the process of giving sensitive or even personal information, such as a Social Security card, to security personnel, IS relies on electronic-access cards coded with an electronic code or biometric identifier. For pre-screened employees, vendors and other individuals, the result is fast, hassle-free access, when and where they need it. ■ IS becomes more efficient and reliable as it expands. Perhaps the most significant difference between conventional approaches and Integrated Security is that IS becomes more effective as a security and business tool as it evolves. With each new opportunity to collect and leverage data, IS becomes better able to manage the people, openings and assets involved in a facility’s operations. For instance, a new time-and-attendance application may generate data on employees that facilitates faster and more dependable verification of identity for authorized employees by means of an existing access-control system. INTEGRATED SECURITY AT WORK IN A MARITIME ENVIRONMENT

Although Integrated Security provides clear benefits compared to conventional approaches for many industries, its advantages are especially pronounced in maritime applications. Examples of how IS can help a typical port and vessel enhance security and safety while also promoting efficiencies include: ■ Track crew at ports of call. Under the ISPS, vessels must maintain and manage records showing the last five ports each member of its crew last visited. While a conventional security system using paper-based tracking systems would be hard pressed to fulfill this challenge, Integrated Security combines time-and-attendance with access-control technologies to generate 16

Table 1. Comparison between conventional security Conventional Security

Focus on restricting access at particular entrances and assets.

Uses people and paper to govern specific openings and assets.

Limits access by unauthorized people at specific openings and assets – cumbersome and time consuming. Relies on people screening paper forms of I.D. that can be lost, stolen or forged – unreliable, inefficient and difficult to change. Relies heavily on the expertise, judgment and inclinations of security personnel. Subjects each person to a similar security screening process regardless of her or his level of authorization.

Tracks assets and personnel using disparate, unconnected systems.

Security systems are point-based – they each have their own procedures and processes. Relies on several vendors working on different applications – no single point of accountability.

As systems grow, they become more decentralized and less manageable.

Point-based security systems are never fully integrated into other business operations.

easily the required information when required. ■ Improve productivity of truckers. Truck drivers typi-

cally have no way of systematically alerting a vessel’s crew of their arrival time at a port. When they arrive, drivers must wait for crew to prepare cargo for transport – a poor use of time that likely adds up to millions of dollars in lost productivity for a typical shipping company. Using IS, registered drivers can electronically signal their scheduled time of arrival in advance so that when they arrive, cargo is ready for departure. ■ Automated response to different security levels. If an emergency or threat to security arises, IS can quickly adopt different levels of access control, such as might be defined according to different MARSEC levels, for authorized and unauthorized individuals. For instance, in an emergency that requires people to exit a vessel quickly, through IS, all major exits can open rapidly

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 16

7/13/04 5:22:37 PM

MARITIMESECURITY systems and IS Integrated Security

Focus on engineering facility-wide security systems.

Uses integrated information technologies managed at a central location. Facilitates seamless movement of authorized people throughout a facility when and where they need it – efficient and hassle free. Uses access cards with electronic codes or biometric identifiers that would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to replicate – fast, efficient and reliable. Relies on trustworthy, rule-based systems.

Access granted for each employee’s individual authorization level, as recorded in an access card, and by the facility’s MARSEC level.

Tracks assets and personnel using a single, connected database.

Systems are fully integrated to promote greater reliability and efficiency.

Employs a limited number of vendors partnering to achieve a common strategy. Easily accommodates expansion. As systems grow, they become better able to promote efficiencies and dependability. Security systems are integrated with other business operations. They become a tool for promoting innovation and enhancing overall business efficiency.

and automatically. For another threat, a IS system may close certain exits or allow only individuals with a specific authorization to pass through them. ■ Minimize costs for damage claims. Although many port managers contend that their facilities are responsible for no more than one third of the total cost they pay annually to settle damage claims for damaged containers, they traditionally have not had a mechanism for proving their innocence. By facilitating the generation of easy-to-navigate reports and video clips that demonstrate at what time and location a particular container was harmed, Integrated Security helps to minimize costs associated from unfair claims. ■ Identification Cards. The IMO has called upon contracting governments to issue “seafarer” identification cards that can be used to verify an individual’s identity to all personnel involved in the maritime transportation industry. In similar fashion, the U.S. is finalizing

plans for a prototype phase of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), an electronic “smart card” that contains coded information, such as biometric identifiers and bar codes, for the 15 million transportation workers in the U.S. who need access to secure areas of airports, seaports and land border crossings. As an approach that relies on electronics and biometrics to verify identify, IS can readily accommodate the seafarers, TWIC and other identification card requirements. CONCLUSION

Conventional security and safety approaches are inadequate for the unique demands of a maritime environment. A new methodology, Integrated Security, is a solution that can overcome the limitations of traditional point-oriented approaches by replacing them with facility-wide integration. In the process, IS can optimize the reliability and value of today’s CCTV, electronic-access control and other security and safety technologies while enhancing business efficiencies for companies and agencies involved in maritime trade. Through Integrated Security, port and vessel operators will be able to meet the challenges of complying with the ISPS and other recently enacted regulations. Equally important, IS, far better than conventional approaches, can act as a foundation for accommodating a growing body of legislation and the industry’s increasing reliance on technology. Integrated Security will help operators save costs now and in the future while also ensuring that a facility’s people, openings and assets are secure – a solution that, more than any other, fulfills what today’s maritime industry needs most. MarEx Footnotes 1 Source: World Shipping Council. 2 Source: Commission of the European Communities. 3 Source: World Shipping Council. 4 Source: American Association of Port Authorities. 5 An industry organization formed by the United Nations in 1948 that facilitates cooperation between contracting countries with respect to maritime trade issues, such as security and pollution. 6 Source: Kiplinger 2003. 7 The congressional General Accounting Office estimates that implementing the new security requirements will cost $7 billion during the next 10 years in the U.S. 8 Maersk, for example. 9 According to an August 2001 report by the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, with the exception of physical characteristics, identification methods (such as name, Social Security number or other account number) are “…inherently unreliable in the criminal justice context.” 10 For instance, vessels moving cargo into the U.S. are required to forward a description of their contents electronically to relevant agencies before they are allowed to dock at a port.

Second Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 17

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 17

7/13/04 5:22:37 PM

MARITIME TRAINING

[

MARITIME TRAINING & MANPOWER

MERCHANT OFFICER TRAINING: WHO’S MINDING THE HELM? AND WHY?

With the angst over the International Competency Standards known as STCW safely in the rearview mirror for most American mariners, American flag ship operators might be tempted to relax a little and stop worrying about mariner training and competency issues. But, that’s probably not a good idea, especially since a potentially bigger crisis is brewing in the institutions of higher learning which are dedicated to turning out merchant marine officers for the U.S. merchant fleet. On the heels of the well-publicized (and failed) attempt by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to spin off and otherwise (semi) privatize the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, the State University of New York (SUNY) has evicted the SUNY Maritime College (Fort Schuyler) Alumni Association from its campus offices. And, about every five years or so, someone, somewhere, takes a shot at shutting down King’s Point (USMMA). While all of these events are sown from different seeds, none of it augers well for the future of quality education for mariners who will be needed to maintain a strong merchant marine, shoreside maritime infrastructure, and a network of national defense. In a letter dated January 30, 2004 by SUNY counsel, the SUNY Maritime Collage Alumni Association was not only summarily evicted from their Maritime College offices, but also ordered to turn over assets to The Maritime College and cease and desist any sort of representation that the Alumni Association might have with and / or on behalf of the Maritime College. New SUNY regulations require Alumni Associations of the various SUNY Universities to come under the power and direction of SUNY, although there are provisions for “grandfathering” previously existing associations. Such an option was denied to the SUNY Maritime College Alumni, and subsequently, 96% of their membership voted not to adhere to the new policies. At stake are issues such as scholarship 18

]

money for cadets, alumni participation in the preservation of the mission of the Maritime College, and the future of nautical education in New York itself. For its part, SUNY Maritime College denies wanting to seize the several million dollars in assets now held by the Alumni Association, or to compromise the independence of the Alumni by silencing the board of directors. According to SUNY Maritime WEB postings, they have even offered employment to key members of the Alumni Association had they opted to agree to the new SUNY Alumni rules. Arguably, however, putting Alumni Association officials on SUNY’s payroll would severely curtail any discordant opinions from the alumni leadership. It is a fact that the Alumni Association has raised an impressive amount of money and contributed generously to student scholarship programs in the past. It is an effective, functioning organization which takes an active – if not welcome – role in trying to shape the future of the Bronx-based campus. At times, it has been a thorn in the side of SUNY administrators when the question of the future of the Cadet Regiment and the direction of nautical education at SUNY is at issue. And, while SUNY offi-

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 18

7/13/04 5:23:04 PM

MARITIME TRAINING

AT FORT SCHUYLER, ONE OF THE BETTER MARITIME PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY STILL EXISTS. BUT, DON’T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. JUST ASK THE FACULTY AND MIDSHIPMEN AT KING’S POINT, WHERE UPWARDS OF FIFTEEN SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE GRADUATES ARE NOW TEACHING WHAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST OF OUR FUTURE MERCHANT MARINERS. June 2003 cials are adamant that they have no plans ~ > 200,000 to change the mission of the school or its 63% / 33% quasi-military makeup, many alumni have 43% their doubts. Maritime Academy (College) graduates 92% / 71% are a unique bunch. Within the maritime 77% / 67% industry as a whole, they make up a large 78,921 percentage of the executives at various 18,394 shipping companies and marine oriented 60,527 businesses. They also have a unusually 5,275 high stake in making sure that the next 1,796 generation of maritime professionals make 3,479 the grade, and similarly, ensuring that the schools tasked with training these individuals remain open, and more importantly, do a good job at it. Some of these Alumni actually think that are better qualified to decide how and why to do things on the six campuses which make up the five state and one federally operated maritime academies. They may well be right. At Fort Schuyler, one of the better maritime programs in the country still exists. But, don’t take our word for it. Just ask the faculty and midshipmen at King’s Point, where upwards of fifteen SUNY Maritime College Graduates are now teaching what are supposed to be the best and brightest of our future merchant mariners. In Massachusetts, a strong independent Alumni Association was instrumental in the preservation of a 113 year old maritime tradition, and it is likely that the OLD SUNY Maritime College Alumni Association will continue to do the same for their school. The availability of a quality nautical education in the United States is far more important than STCW requirements will ever be, and essential to national defense and the preservation of an American Merchant Marine. Sadly, it is quietly under fire from various points of pressure. It would be nice, but unlikely, if the State University of New York recognized that maritime education might best be served with meaningful input from the professionals they helped to educate, and NOT in the hands of career bureaucrats.

CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS: ANALYZING THE RESULTS OF MARAD’S SECOND MARINER SURVEY

MARAD issued the results of the Second (2002) Mariner Survey in June of 2003, with the main purpose

Aug. 2001

Survey Category (Culled From Mariner Surveys)

~ > 210,000

MMLD System Numbers (1)

55% / 29% 40% 45% / 29% 68% / 66%

Completion Rate (% Licensed / % Unlicensed) Total Respondents / Percentage Response STCW Holders (% Licensed / % Unlicensed) PCT Willing to Serve in Nat’l Defense Crisis (LIC / UNL)

104,170

Total Mariner Pool (2)

20,157

Unlimited License Pool

84,013

Unlicensed Mariners

10,000

TOTAL Final Sample Group Numbers (3)

4,550

Final Sample Group (Unlimited Licensed Mariners) (3)

5,450

Final Sample Group (Unlicensed Mariners) (3)

of updating and expanding information on readiness and training matters. The Survey was conducted using lessons learned from the results of the first Mariner Survey, adhering primarily to the same criteria previously used. In our Second Quarter 2002 Issue (THE BLAME GAME /U.S. Merchant Mariner Crisis: Fact or Fiction?), we analyzed the results of the first Mariner Survey, and used U.S. Coast Guard data to validate those numbers and to show inconsistencies, where applicable. The latest survey revealed one startling trend in U.S. Mariner demographics, although there were areas where encouraging results were recorded. (1) The U.S. Coast Guard’s Licensing and Documentation System. (2) All mariners with active documents, having renewed their documents within the last six years, based on a five-year renewal cycle. (3) Sample sizes large enough to ensure sufficient numbers from each group to maintain 95% confidence intervals for subgroups (sailing status or specialty). The 2001 Survey deliberately over-sampled unlicensed mariners to ensure sufficient response numbers. The most striking trend exhibited by the survey was the marked reduction in the total mariner pool in less than two years. Active document holders decreased by a whopping 24 percent, consistent with Maritime Administrator’s recent claims that “We are losing 1,000 licensed mariners a year.” Certainly, the number of available sea-going billets has not decreased by this amount, Second Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 19

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 19

7/13/04 5:23:09 PM

FPO HALF PAGE AD HERE

and once again, it’s a very good time to catch a ship. The class of 2004 at the various maritime academies has reason to be optimistic as to their chances of netting a seagoing position, but the chances of manning every US flag commercial and military asset in time of war are decidedly worse because of it. It is a trend well worth watching, and there is every reason to be concerned. The second Mariner Survey also showed a marginal increase in the actual number of mariners who bothered to respond (up 3%), and an encouraging increase in the percentage of mariners who would be willing to respond in time of national crisis. Unfortunately, because the numbers of active licensed and unlicensed mariners decreased by sizable margins, the increase in officers available and / or willing to serve in times of crisis only increased slightly, and the actual number of unlicensed ratings actually decreased. Predictably, compliance with STCW requirements is virtually universal for all active mariners, and most of those who did not possess full STCW qualifications intended to achieve this plateau in the near term. As a minimum, MARAD is slowly refining the survey process, improving the quality of its data, and ultimately getting a better handle on the locations, numbers, and quality of certificated mariners available in America today. This is a good thing. Now, the only thing left to do is to find a magic potion for keeping, economically training, 20

and finding jobs for all 78,921 remaining mariners in the database. We’ll get back to you on that one. RAMPING UP THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR MARITIME ACADEMY GRADUATES

It turns out, he wasn’t kidding, when MARAD Administrator Bill Schubert declared, in the spring of 2002, that “I am very serious about that (USNR / commercial shipping) obligation, and I am going to make sure that everyone complies…It’s only right.” Alumni of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and graduates of state maritime academies who receive Student Incentive Payments (SIP) must now file a report on March 31 following graduation and for six consecutive years thereafter. And, while the new interim rule change only aligns MARAD’s reporting with that of the USNR reporting obligations, it does represent a clear trend in MARAD’s desire to more closely track mariner, and manpower for potential use in times of national emergency. The days of checking in at irregular three year intervals to find out if you’ve actually been honorably discharged are apparently over, and those shiny new Naval Reserve bars are going to come at a price; yet to be determined by the United States Government. MarEx

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 20

7/13/04 5:23:10 PM

RITIME S E MA

MSE

O XP

RITY CU

Maritime Security Expo 2004 3rd Annual Expo & Conference (Ship - Port - Rail - Truck)

September 14-15, 2004 Jacob Javits Convention Center New York City

www.maritimesecurityexpo.com The 3rd Annual Presentation of Americas Largest and Most Successful International Exhibition and Conference on Protecting Ports, Harbors, Bridges, Cargo, Containers, Power Plants, Oil Rigs, Railroads, Trucks, Cargo & Passenger Ships.

Over 3500 Attendees, 200 Exhibiting Companies and 46 Countries Represented Organized By:

In Association With:

Official Publication:

The US Merchant Marine Academy Hudson Institute Homeland Security Industries Association

Journal of Commerce

Sponsored By: The John Jay College of Criminal Justice National Biometric Security Project

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 21

Media Partner: Security Technology & Design The Maritime Executive Two Tigers Online Maritime Reporter Cargo Security International The McGraw Hill Companies Homeland Security & Defense

For more information on exhibiting or attending, please call George DeBakey or Lindsey Field at 301-493-5500.

7/13/04 5:59:53 PM

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

MARINE TRANSPORTATION SINGLE HULL PHASE-OUTS: THE PANIC FAILS TO OBSCURE THE LOSS OF PRESTIGE…

Even as the international maritime community anguished over the best way to address the ERIKA disaster off the coast of France in December of 1999, an event which preceded the sinking of the PRESTIGE in November of 2002, U.S. authorities watched and waited quietly with a subdued, if not detached sense of interest. After all, it had been thirteen years since their own EXXON VALDEZ disaster, which spawned the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90), a formidable mandate in its own right. And, it had been just a couple of years since Europeans declined to adopt the OPA-90 time tables in the immediate wake of the ERIKA. When the handwringing and rush to action finally was over, with the horse long since gone since closing the gate, it is clear that the American standards, imperfect as they may be, are still just that: The Standard. Industry watchers predicted a glut of displaced, “substandard” tonnage entering the U.S. trades as the result of

unilateral IMO and / or EU (take your pick) accelerated phase-out schedules for single hull tankers. In fact, this has not, and will not occur. The concept of comparing “applesto-oranges” is, however, an apt description of the differences between the new IMO standards and that represented by OPA-90. The IMO phase-out schedules, for example, are based on DWT tonnage, whereas U.S. regulations use gross tonnage as a yardstick. Simply stated, and in all but a few cases, the U.S. mandated OPA-90 schedules exceed that of the new IMO standards, and OPA-90 phase-out dates for different levels of tonnage happen sooner than do their corresponding international documents. There are exceptions to all rules, of course. OPA-90, for example, allows single hull tankers to call at LOOP (offshore Louisiana) and at offshore US designated lightering areas until 2015. An overview of the new IMO Regulations (13G & 13H) establishes that EU rules will now become International requirements, with significant exceptions. Joe Angelo, Director of Standards for the U.S. Coast Guard, reports that “New IMO Regs 13G and 13H

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 22

7/13/04 6:00:06 PM

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AND NOW, WITH THE TASK OF ERADICATING SINGLE HULL TANKERS BEHIND THEM, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY NOW TACKLES THE THORNIER ISSUES OF OIL SPILL LIABILITY AND RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS. allow the flag state to extend the life of a single hull tanker beyond the dates specified in 13G and 13H under certain conditions, and the port state would still have the right to deny entry of single hull tankers that have had their life extended by the flag state.” The lack of teeth in such IMO regulations, in the face of such far-reaching exceptions, is obvious. Angelo adds that it is extremely unlikely the US will become a party to IMO new regulations 13G & 13H. The new regulations, as confusing and far reaching as they may be, are regrettably off target when it comes to solving the problem of ensuring the safest possible transport of toxic substances on tank vessels. The accelerated elimination of single hull tankers is not going to prevent the next PRESTIGE, ERIKA, or EXXON VALDEZ. Indeed, it is only a matter of time before another marine disaster of epic proportions occurs, and it will probably happen to a double hull tanker. Count on it. Further, the obsession with the single hull has managed to almost completely obscure the dangers fraught by a generation of ocean going, double hull tankers which are now approaching, and, in some cases, exceeding twenty years of age. The classification societies such as ABS and DNV are certainly aware of it, and regularly preach the virtues of an aggressive maintenance and inspection regimen. And given the variety of “vetting” schemes now in use in the world today, the question of determining which vessel represents suitable tonnage, and which does not, is still largely a subjective task. In a perfect world, solutions will not be the result of a knee-jerk reaction to any particular event; rather, a balanced approach will serve best. Arguably, the single most effective way to prevent accidents will be the proper training of mariners to the highest standards possible. Almost every marine accident is a function of human error. International mandates have gone a long way to improving mariner competency, through programs such as STCW and others. More needs to be done in that regard, and quickly. It has only been fourteen years since the International maritime community derided the United States for unilaterally enacting OPA-90 as the law of the land. Ironically, the EU and IMO have since then acted unilaterally on more than one occasion themselves. It is a good bet that the new IMO regulations will have a much harsher impact on the tanker market and marine transportation dynamics than did OPA-90, simply by virtue of the longer lead time given by OPA-90 for tanker owners to comply. This time, the luxury of looking ten to fifteen years into the future will not be present. The future is now, and coun-

tries and/or operators like Brazil, with a tanker fleet of 47 aging tankers, are clearly concerned. When the United States enacted OPA-90, it did so with an eye towards many aspects of ocean transportation, not just the tunnel-visioned elimination of the double hull tanker. The U.S. Coast Guard’s Joe Angelo was candid in his defense of OPA-90, which, he says, “addresses the control of safety, response, and liability.” He cited the stringent U.S. requirements for certificates of financial responsibility (COFR’s) to be carried by all tankers operating in U.S. waters, and calls them a principal reason why there will likely be no exodus of sub-standard tonnage from Europe into the US market following the acceleration single hull tanker phase-outs mandated by IMO and the EU. And now, with the task of eradicating single hull tankers behind them, the international community now tackles the thornier issues of oil spill liability and response requirements. Once again, looking eastward across the pond, US authorities watch and wait quietly with a subdued, if not detached sense of interest. The urge to smirk and whisper, “I told you so,” must be overpowering. DISSECTING THE MSP REAUTHORIZATION

It’s old news now, but no less important to mention here, even in passing. The $400 million MSP Reauthorization has been passed by the Senate and signed into law. MARAD’s Administrator, William Schubert, is more than pleased with the increase in subsidy amounts, total vessels, and the early nature of this action. In short, the program commences on October 1, 2005 with a fleet of 60 ships, up from the previous number of 47, and MSP operators will receive initial annual subsidies of $2.6 million in 2006 and 2007, with those figures escalating in future years. The defense oriented program, designed to ensure adequate sealift capabilities in time of conflict, is partially justified, according to MARAD, due to the inequities of cost differentials between U.S. and foreign flag tonnage. Schubert says that, according to MARAD studies, the differential is as much as $4 million per year. Certainly, U.S. operators can use the money. The Pentagon is somewhat happier knowing that the next sealift operation will be (in theory) competently carried out, and U.S. merchant seamen can use the work. Whether or not this money is well spent is another question. In our next issue, MarEx analyzes the potential good which can come of MSP, and other places where the money might, with proper internal controls, be better spent. Stay tuned. MarEx Second Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 23

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 23

7/13/04 6:00:11 PM

EXECUTIVE INTERVIEW United States Coast Guard

TAKING IT FROM THE TOP

by Joseph Keefe

ADMIRAL THOMAS COLLINS DIRECTS THE COAST GUARD’S KEY ROLE IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Nobody likes change. Nobody. Change, however, is the one constant which has come to define U.S. maritime policy as it relates to the full-blown terrorist threat to every ship, pot of call, and every inch of the 95,000 miles of American coastline, and far beyond. Within this complicated equation, the United States Coast Guard is continuing to respond to old challenges, providing backbone and enforcement to a host of new policy directives, and taking a key role in what the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard describes as “the most sweeping overhaul of the U.S. Government in the last sixty years.” It is a fact that real, meaningful change has come directly from the top of any organization, and fortunately, Admiral Thomas Collins has take this business adage to heart. The last overhaul of defense policy – specifically the creation of the Department of Defense – started in 1947, and continues today as an imperfect, evolving project. With arguably no immediate threat to the dominance of the United States as the world’s only superpower in the post- WW II era, planners then had the luxury of trial-and-error implementation, and no real, pressing need for immediate dividends. Clearly, these are different times, and Collins is firm in his belief that “The Coast Guard has to work with a sense of urgency. – we don’t have sixty years to do it.” How to do that is yet another story, and the U.S. Coast Guard forms only one, if not the most significant part of the fledgling Department of Homeland Security. Which is further comprised of twenty-two different agencies and 180,000 people. Admiral Collins likes to borrow the Naval phraseology and philosophy of “One Team/One Fight.” But what does that mean? In Collins’ Coast Guard, it means integrating the new set of players, defining the requirements, imple24

menting new policy and then changing the process to achieve those goals. In terms of this challenge within the new DHS, Collins cautions that “We are clearly dealing with a different set of players in a brand new environment – 22 agencies with different cultures and different needs.” Despite this daunting task, Collins maintains the new department is standing up very quickly, with key elements already in place.” When the MarEx caught up with the Chief Executive of the Coast Guard, he was directing USCG efforts in the developing crisis in Haiti, Aristide’s departure from the island, and the variables created by that reality. As always, the Coast Guard’s involvement took the shape of many potential roles: search and rescue, interdiction of fleeing refugees, law enforcement, and the natural bi-product of all of this: Homeland Security from the maritime perspective. For Collins, the day was the embodiment of the new Coast Guard with the new DHS: managing the old and traditional tasks, taking on new responsibilities, and in the process, coordinating all roles with

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 24

7/13/04 6:00:41 PM

EXECUTIVE INTERVIEW United unitedStates statesCoast coastGuard guard ing that all of his team players rise above any of that sort of a new set of players. Within the guise of a post-9/11 world and the structure of thinking. It’s a lot to ask of an 18 year old recruit, but Collins the DHS, today’s Coast Guard needs to rapidly develop new clearly isn’t asking. capabilities, while Policies, proceTHE NEW COAST GUARD GOES FORWARD WITH A (PROmaintaining and keepdures, and organiing (most) of the old POSED) FY-05 OPERATING BUDGET WHICH REPRESENTS zational charts will domain. Collins calls A CUMULATIVE, INCREASE OF 51%, A 10.3% INCREASE IN only take you so FORCE STRUCTURE (PERSONNEL), AND FINALLY, AT LONG the new operating far. Underneath all climate, “Our perfect LAST, A SEAT AT THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING TABLE. of the minutia and storm of transformapaperwork, there tion.” As it hones has to be hardware and personnel who new skills in a new knows who to use it. hierarchy, the entire At the heart of it all Coast Guard has to will be the nascent, operate in a security twenty-year projenvironment which ect known simply has changed markedly. Says Collins, as “Deepwater;” fostered to a large “The new threat is extent by Collins, as usually unknown, as he climbed his way opposed to previously through the chain of focused and convencommand. Instead tional threats.” In the of providing design past, this bag of tricks specifications to would have been outside industry and assigned and accomdictating how and plished with the old what should be built, Coast Guard motto the Coast Guard, of “Doing More with instead, defined Less.” No longer is the desired perforthis the case. The new mance, and then Coast Guard goes forward with a (prodirected the potenposed) FY-05 operattial vendor(s) to ing budget which design and provide that vehicle. The unique method of procurement, designed to represents a cumulative, whopping increase of 51%, a 10.3% tie in all aspects of future Coast Guard equipment to provide increase in force structure (personnel), and finally, at long the ideal “multi-mission platforms,” will ultimately make or last, a seat at the Intelligence Briefing table. And, although the break the Coast Guard as they phase out their legacy (stovetask(s) may now be twice as difficult, the increased resources come with high expectations. As it should be, the old excuses pipe procured) equipment. In Collins’ words, “Deepwater will won’t play out anymore. transform the total organization by providing multi-mission According to Collins, the “Commandant’s Directions” platforms based on operational priorities. The capabilities will convey the structure and the message of the plan. These writallow us to work in real time, tied to common resources – or, if ten objectives are formulated, in part, by the Senior Leadership you will, off of the same sheet of music.” Even with the promise of Deepwater capabilities to come, Council, a group of Three Star Admirals. They meet frethe challenges are more than problematic. The Coast Guard is quently, and within the scope of these meetings, Collins says candid in its new assessment that the scope of decay curve for “The strategic intent for every mission of the Coast Guard “is current equipment is much steeper than that which was premapped out, through planning, budgetary, and implementadicted in 1998. Much of that issue is related to increase opertion benchmarks. “It’s all about having a plan and distributing leadership,” insists Collins. “All elements must be contributing ating hours because of the increased terrorist threat, and the leadership, from the bottom.” And, while any enlisted rating challenges presented in the immediate shadow of 9/11. Collins who’s worth his salt will tell you that bad behavior can only be cites their 110 foot patrol boats and certain types of helicopenabled by those at the top of the food chain, Collins is insistters are a prime example of this problem. The sense of urgency Second First Quarter 2004 - THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 25

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 25

7/13/04 6:01:02 PM

EXECUTIVE INTERVIEW United States Coast Guard new Homeland Security for both pieces of equipment FOR COLLINS, THE DAY WAS THE EMBODIMENT Department begins to has prompted the decision OF THE NEW COAST GUARD WITH THE NEW DHS: define itself, its most flexfor accelerated replacement MANAGING THE OLD AND TRADITIONAL TASKS, ible component also conschedules. The spring of 2004 finds TAKING ON NEW RESPONSIBILITIES, AND IN THE tinues to evolve as well. It is PROCESS, COORDINATING ALL ROLES WITH A NEW a time for a steady hand, a a larger, newly configured Coast Guard in a brand new SET OF PLAYERS. stern taskmaster, an eye for department of the government; and tasked with any number of new missions. Smart money says that the increased manpower; inflated budget, and ultramodern work platforms will enable it to make the adjustments necessary to get the job done, and done well. The big question on the minds of many is whether or not there will also be room on the plate for the traditional roles for which most of America has come to know and depend on the Coast Guard. Collins, however, is adamant that “Yes. The traditional missions will continue. We are not stepping away from these roles on iota.” Even as the Coast Guard cedes the lead investigation role for certain marine accidents (witness the capsizing of the commuter water taxi in Baltimore) to the NTSB –move, says Collins which was made in concert with the NTSB and not in an adversarial way – he assured MarEx that icebreaking, aids to navigation, and searchand-rescue will always be in the domain of the United States the future, and one for the past. Admiral Collins firmly, howCoast Guard. He went on to explain that most of these misever politely, ends the interview with an apology for having to sions require driving a boat or flying an aircraft of some type. run to yet another meeting but finishes by saying, “There will always be room for our traditional missions. The emphasis of “Migrating or replicating these duties to another department new duties brought to the front burner will not detract from will be both costly and inefficient.” these enduring areas, which will always be part of our mission The leadership necessary to properly guide an organizaset. “You get the distinct feeling that he means it, and that he’s tion which, at the height of the war in Iraq, had approximately just the guy to make it happen. So far, so good. 1,200 men and women on the front lines, but was also performing such mundane (but critically important) tasks as MarEx the tracking and licensing of merchant seamen, is clearly in place at Coast Guard headquarters in Washington D.C. As the 26

THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE - Second Quarter 2004

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 26

7/13/04 6:01:09 PM

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯

AMERICAN

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯

MERCHANT MARINE OF WW II

America Honors the Merchant Marine of World War II ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 27

7/13/04 6:01:29 PM

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE OF WW II M E M O R I A L

D I N N E R

D A N C E

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 28

7/13/04 6:02:29 PM

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE OF WW II M E M O R I A L

D I N N E R

S TAT E M E N T

D A N C E

FROM

Captain Timothy Brown

President, IOMM&P

n behalf of the Masters, Mates and Pilots officials and membership, we wish to salute all of the veterans of World War II for their undying loyalty and bravery in the defeat of an enemy that planned to enslave, not only America, but the World as well. The Veterans of World War II were clearly the greatest Generation. We are in your debt.

S TAT E M E N T

FROM

Glen Paine

Executive Director, MITAGS/PMI Dear Merchant Marine Veterans:

he Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies (MITAGS) thanks you for your service. The freedom and lifestyle we enjoy today were made possible by men and women answering the “call to duty.”

Although technically considered civilians, the Merchant Marine was involved “in the fight” from the beginning. Their ships sailed unabated, even during vicious submarine and air attacks. We are happy to report that these values live on in the men and women that pass through our doors. Leadership and a sense of duty are as crucial to the safe operation of a vessel today as it was in the darkest hours of World War II. Again, thank you for your courage. We promise to do our part to pass these values on to succeeding generations of merchant mariners.

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 29

7/13/04 6:03:16 PM

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE OF WW II M E M O R I A L

D I N N E R

D A N C E

REMEMBERING

The Valor of the Merchant Marine

of WorldWar II

Early in 1943, the U-boats sophisticated coding device known as the “Enigma” had been deciphered, and almost immediately the tide of the war quickly turned. From May 1943 until the end of the war, the allies sunk over 493 U-boats. By the end of 1943, the convoys of supply ships enjoyed relatively safe conditions until the end of the war. The U.S. Merchant Marine played a significant role in the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Approximately, 2,700 merchant ships were involved in the first wave of the invasion of D-Day, landing troops and munitions under heavy fire. During the next year, at great risk, about 150 merchant marine ships shuttled 2.5 million troops, 17 million tons of munitions and supplies, and half a million trucks and tanks from England to France.

n this special Memorial Day, America honors one of its greatest generations: a generation thrust into war, and forced to fight with other free peoples for the right to live among their neighbors in freedom, in common decency, and without fear of assault. Every single man, woman, and child became partners in the greatest undertaking in American history. They accepted the bad news, the good news, the defeats, the victories, and the changing fortunes of war. Every citizen in every walk of life shared this responsibility. And, each and every one of them understood the obligation and was determined to prevail. Long before the United States entered the war, the U.S. Merchant Marine sailed the Atlantic Ocean bringing supplies to our besieged Allies on the European Continent and England. From 1939 to December 7, 1941, the U.S. Merchant Marine lost 146 ships and 169 merchant seamen were killed. (Source: www.usmm.org) When the United States entered the war on December 7, 1941, five U-boats were deployed to U.S. waters in an operation code-named “Drum Roll.” Unfortunately, the United States had not enforced the blackout of its coastal cities at night. The U-boats lay on the bottom of the ocean during daylight hours, and then surfaced at night to sink the merchant ships that were silhouetted against the glow of city lights. It is estimated that 400 Allied ships were destroyed in the first six months ending in July, 1942 in the western-Atlantic, and only one U-boat was destroyed. The U-boat captains of operation Drum Roll were so successful that they called the operation the “American turkey shoot.” It is estimated that approximately 5,000 American, British, Norwegian, and other seamen perished during the operation. The battle of the Atlantic for control over the shipping lanes lasted from September 1939 to May 1945. The U-boats sank merchant ships faster than the Allies could build them. In the winter of 1943, conditions in the North Atlantic were some of the worst ever recorded, and the endless lines of merchant ships were attacked with a vengeance by the U-boats.

WAR IN THE PACIFIC:

On December 7, 1941, the cargo ship SS Cynthia Olson was the first U.S. flag ship torpedoed by a Japanese submarine in the Pacific. The ship and all aboard were lost 1,200 miles west of the Pacific Coast. The tanker SS Emidio was also sunk by a Japanese sub just 18 miles off Crescent City, California on December 20, 1941. In October 1944, the merchant marine delivered 30,000 troops and 500,000 tons of supplies to Leyte during the invasion of the Philippines. They shot down 107 Japanese planes during the almost continuous air attack. In the Mindoro invasion of the Philippines, more U.S. Merchant Mariners lost their lives than did members of all the other armed services combined. During the invasion of Okinawa, merchant ships came under attack by 2,000 kamikazes and conventional aircraft. At the same time, they delivered many of the 180,000 troops and over 1 million tons of supplies necessary for the invasion. 44 merchant ships were sunk, while the U.S. Merchant Marine took part in every invasion from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima. The United States Armed Forces suffered 300,000 battle casualties in the Pacific up to July 1, 1945. Following the end of hostilities, the Merchant Marine was given the job of transporting the surrendered troops back to Japan, returning U.S. troops back home, and bringing in replacement troops and sup30

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 30

7/13/04 6:03:48 PM

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE OF WW II M E M O R I A L

D I N N E R

D A N C E

had a three-cylinder, reciprocating steam engine, fed by two oil-burning boilers producing 2,500 hp and a speed of 11 knots. The Liberty’s five holds could carry over 9,000 tons of cargo; including airplanes, tanks, and locomotives lashed to its decks. The ship could also carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition.

plies for the occupation. Arms and munitions were also returned to the U.S. In December 1945, the U.S. War Shipping Administration listed 1,200 sailings, 400 more than the busiest month of the previous four years. Tragically, 25 more U.S. merchant ships were sunk after V-J Day. “THE AMERICAN UGLY DUCKLINGS”:

THE VICTORY SHIPS:

In 1941, as the conflict in Europe and Asia intensified, President Roosevelt initiated a new emergency shipbuilding program, which called for the mass production of merchant ships that would be “built by the mile and chopped off in the yard.” As Roosevelt announced his emergency program to build 200 ships, he could hardly hide his distaste for their design and spoke of them as “dreadful looking objects,” which inspired the press to anoint them the “American ugly ducklings.” Admiral Emory S. Land, Director of the U.S. Maritime Commission (MarComm), understood that the program needed an image boost from the name “EC2” type ships and decided to call them “Liberty Ships.” On September 27, 1941, the first Liberty ship was launched, and Mrs. Land christened it the “SS Patrick Henry.” A total of 3,148 Liberty ships were allocated to be built. However, only 2,751 were actually constructed between 1941 and 1945. The Liberty was 441-feet long and 56-feet wide. It

The first of 534 Victory ships, the “SS United Victory,” was launched on February 28, 1944. The next 34 Victory ships were named for each of the Allied nations. The subsequent 218 ships were named after American cities. The next 150 were named after educational institutions and the remaining received miscellaneous names. The Victory ship (officially called VC2) was 455feet long and 62-feet wide. Its cross-compound steam turbine engine with double reduction gears developed 6,000 (AP2 Type) or 8,500 (AP3 Type) horsepower. One diesel Victory, the “Emory Victory” (VC2M-AP4), was also built. The VC2-S-AP5 was the designation given to Attack Transports built for the Navy (Haskell Class). The three AP7 types were laid as AP3 or AP5, which were cancelled after VJ Day. Three Victory ships (Logan, Hobbs, and Canada) were sunk during the invasion of Okinawa by kamikazes. These Victory ships carried a total of 24,000 31

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 31

7/13/04 6:04:19 PM

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE OF WW II M E M O R I A L

D I N N E R

D A N C E

ing effort to do everything in their power to hasten the day of Victory.

tons of ammunition, including the majority of 81 mm mortar available in the United States. The loss severely hampered the invasion.

FLEET ADMIRAL CHESTER W. NIMITZ, U.S. NAVY, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS:

A HERO’S WELCOME:

On the morning of June 6, 1994, the SS Jeremiah O’Brien, a conspicuous remnant of the once great fleet of 6,000 ships that made up the 1944 D-Day invasion armada, sat anchored off Point de Hoc. This icon of American heritage; this symbol of an era when a nation was baptized in the blood of its sons and daughters in the greatest global conflict for freedom, was the only 1944 Normandy ship to return for the Commemorative Ceremonies.

Excerpt from Address to Joint Session of Congress, October 5, 1945 [New York Times, Oct 6, 1945] “Our operations would not have been possible without the strong support of our Merchant Marine. These gallant officers and men maintained a bridge of ships across the Pacific, and bore their share of the Japanese attacks while unloading on distant islands where the struggle was still intense and the issue not yet decided.”

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT:

GENERAL DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER:

Today in the face of this newest and greatest challenge of them all, we of the United Nations have cleared our decks and taken on battle stations. It is the will of the people that America shall deliver the goods. It can never be doubted that the goods will be delivered by this nation, which believes in the tradition of damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead!

“Every man in this Allied command is quick to express his admiration for the loyalty, courage, and fortitude of the officers and men of the Merchant Marine. We count upon their efficiency and their utter devotion to duty as we do our own; they have never failed us yet, and in all the struggles to come, we know that they will never be deterred by any danger, hardship, or privation. When final victory is ours, there is no organization that will share the credit more deservedly than the U.S. Merchant Marine.”

HARRY S. TRUMAN:

During the black years of War, the men of the Merchant Marine did their job with boldness and daring. Six thousand were killed or missing in carrying out their duties. In memory of those men, and in the interest of our Nation, the United States must carry out the bold and daring plan of Franklin D. Roosevelt for a Merchant Marine of the best designed and equipped passenger and cargo ships, manned by the best trained men in the world.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR:

“I wish to commend the valor of the merchant seamen participating with us in the liberation of the Philippines. With us, they shared the heaviest enemy fire. On this island, I ordered them off their ships and into foxholes when their ships became untenable targets of attack. At our side, they suffered in bloodshed and in death. The caliber of efficiency and courage they displayed in their part of the invasion of the Philippines marked their conduct throughout the entire campaign in the southwest Pacific area. They have contributed tremendously to our success. I hold no branch in higher esteem than the U.S. Merchant Marine.” MarEx

GEORGE C. MARSHALL, GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF:

The men and women who build the ships, and the men who sail them, are making it possible to transport fighting men and supplies wherever they are needed to defeat the enemy. The Army is deeply indebted to these men and women for their unceas32

MarEx 15 Collins 2.indd 32

7/13/04 6:04:36 PM

Building Value New vessels

Seabulk Africa

S e a b u l k As i a SEABULK OFFSHORE

S e a b u l k B a d a m ya r

S e a b u l k I pa n e m a

Seabulk Nilar S E A B U L K TA N K E R S

S e a b u l k S o u t h At l a n t i c

Seabulk Reliant

Seabulk Trust SEABULK TOWING