WELLINGTON HARBOUR PORT AND HARBOUR MARINE SAFETY CODE NAVIGATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT Prepared For : Greater Wellington Regional Council and CentrePort Ltd Report Number : 05NZ104 Issue : 1.1 : February 2006 MARICO Marine NZ Limited Report No: 05NZ104 WELLINGTON HARBOUR Issue: Issue 1.1 Operational Risk Assessment WELLINGTON HARBOUR PORT AND HARBOUR MARINE SAFETY CODE NAVIGATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Greater Wellington Regional Council PO Box 11646 142 Wakefield Street Wellington CentrePort Ltd CentrePort House Hinemoa Street Wellington Authors: Will Lins and John Riding Checked By: Gordon Wood/Antony Dingle MARICO Marine NZ Limited 56 Kents Road Reikorangi Waikane February 2006 05NZ104_Issue1-1 Page: i Report No: 05NZ104 WELLINGTON HARBOUR Issue: Issue 1.1 Operational Risk Assessment CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 1.2 PREVIOUS RISK ASSESSMENTS OF RELEVANCE 2 2 METHODOLOGY 3 2.1 INTERVIEWS AND FAMILIARISATION TRIPS 3 2.2 INCIDENT DATA AND DOCUMENT REVIEW 4 2.3 HAZID MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS 5 2.4 RISK ASSESSMENT SCORING 5 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF RISK CONTROL MEASURES 6 2.6 RISK MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE UTILISED 6 3 CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT 7 3.1 RISK MANAGEMENT DEFINITIONS 7 3.2 RISK MITIGATION ACTION CRITERIA 9 4 WELLINGTON HARBOUR - OVERVIEW AND TRAFFIC PROFILE 12 4.1 HARBOUR LIMITS AND PILOTAGE DISTRICT 14 4.2 WELLINGTON HARBOUR – CLIMATOLOGY 16 4.3 SEISMIC AND WAVE CONSIDERATIONS – TSUNAMI, SEICHES AND LONG WAVES 17 4.4 WELLINGTON TRAFFIC PROFILE 17 4.5 OTHER VESSEL TRENDS OF RELEVANCE TO THIS RISK ASSESSMENT 21 5 WELLINGTON HARBOUR - RISK ASSESSMENT AREAS 23 5.1 WELLINGTON’S PINCH POINTS AND TRAFFIC CONFLICT 23 5.2 AREA A - APPROACHES 25 5.3 AREA B - ENTRANCE 29 5.4 AREA C - MAIN HARBOUR 36 5.5 AREA D - LAMBTON HARBOUR 39 5.6 AREA E - EVANS BAY 42 6 ANCHORAGES IN THE HARBOUR 45 7 HARBOUR NAVIGATION – SMALL VESSELS AND CRAFT 46 7.1 FISHING ACTIVITIES 46 7.2 CHARTER VESSELS AND CRAFT 46 7.3 SMALL COMMERCIAL - NON PASSENGER 47 7.4 LEISURE USE 47 8 PILOTAGE 51 8.1 INTRODUCTION 51 8.2 JURISDICTION AND REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY 51 8.3 BOARDING AREAS 51 8.4 PASSAGE PLANNING 54 8.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT PILOTAGE JURISDICTION 54 8.6 PILOT TRAINING AND SYSTEM 55 9 CENTREPORT MARINE SERVICES 59 9.1 Pilot VESSELS 59 9.2 TUGS 60 9.3 LIMITATION OF TUGS 62 05NZ104_Issue1-1 Page: ii Report No: 05NZ104 WELLINGTON HARBOUR Issue: Issue 1.1 Operational Risk Assessment 10 KEY RISKS - THE RISK PROFILE FOR WELLINGTON 65 10.1 KEY RISKS – INTERPRETING THE RISK ASSESSMENT 65 11 STATUS OF PRESENT RISK CONTROL SYSTEM 70 11.1 RISK MANAGEMENT PROVIDED BY THE HARBOUR MASTER SYSTEM 70 11.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND PASSAGE GUIDANCE 73 11.3 UNDERKEEL CLEARANCE AT THE ENTRANCE 74 11.4 WIND AND FOG LIMITATIONS 74 11.5 RISK CONTROL FROM AIDS TO NAVIGATION 75 11.6 HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY OF CHANNELS AND BERTH SOUNDINGS 77 12 NEW RISK CONTROL OPTIONS 79 12.1 INTRODUCTION 79 12.2 AIDS TO NAVIGATION 79 12.3 NAVIGATIONAL CHART MODIFICATIONS AND HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY 80 12.4 BEACON HILL SIGNAL STATION 80 12.5 PILOTAGE SYSTEM 81 12.6 TUG CAPABILITY 81 12.7 BERTH CAPACITY 82 12.8 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA MONITORING 82 12.9 TRANSIT OF ENTRANCE OR BERTHING – LIMITING PARAMETERS 82 12.10 RECOMMENDED TRACKS FOR TRANSIT OF THE HARBOUR 83 12.11 CERTIFICATE OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE FOR <500GT 83 12.12 USE OF CONSTRAINED BY DRAUGHT SIGNALS 83 12.13 RADIO REPORTING PROCEDURE - HARBOUR ENTRANCE 83 13 DISCUSSION 85 13.1 INTRODUCTION 85 13.2 CENTREPORT ORGANISATION 85 13.3 TUGS 88 13.4 SEARCH AND RESCUE 92 13.5 PILOTAGE 92 13.6 PASSAGE PLANNING AND RECOMMENDED TRACKS 95 13.7 HARBOURMASTER SYSTEM 97 14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100 ANNEX A – RISK ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ANNEX B – KEY STAKEHOLDER CONSULTEES ANNEX C – CENTREPORT PASSAGE PLANNING CHARTLET ANNEX D – WELLINGTON’S PINCHPOINTS BERTHS AND WHARVES ANNEX E – RANKED HAZARD LIST ANNEX F – RISK CONTROL MAPPING : EXISTING CONTROLS ANNEX G – COLLISION RISK MITIGATION 05NZ104_Issue1-1 Page: iii Report No: 05NZ104 WELLINGTON HARBOUR Issue: Issue 1.1 Operational Risk Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document reports the findings of a navigational risk assessment for Wellington Harbour in accordance with the requirements of the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code. It is intended to be a comprehensive document allowing stakeholders to understand the risks and reasoning behind risk control recommendations. It can also be used to construct the Harbour Safety Plan as required by the Code and develop the Harbour Safety Management System for the future. A total of 78 navigational hazards were identified at overview level, using; the domain expertise of Marico Marine; the local experience of the Harbourmaster and staff; the expertise of the CentrePort Pilotage Service and finally by input from consultation with numerous Wellington Harbour Stakeholders. The identified hazards were ranked according to risk using expert judgement informed by incident records maintained by the Wellington Harbourmaster. The risk assessment has used a risk scale of 1 to 10 in accordance with national guidelines, and set risk management criteria against that scale (see section 3.2). The greatest risks identified remain associated with the passenger and freight RoRo services (which dominate the vessel movement profile) and difficulty being encountered by a vessel at Wellington Harbour entrance features highly in the rankings. These scenarios provided a score of 6.8 (out of 10), being at the upper limit of the As Low As Reasonably Practical (ALARP) criteria set for the study. This study recognises the safety management strides being made by RoRo ferry operators, but also recognises that the harbour system can assist considerably. Risk control recommendations are mostly presented in sections 12 and 13, with recommendations made in other areas to encourage use of the whole report. Full conclusions are made at page 100. Key recommendations are summarised here:- a) Tug power is due for upgrade in Wellington as available bollard pull is no longer sufficient without environmental limitations being considered. b) A strong conclusion by Authors from this risk assessment is that the future role of Beacon Hill Signal Station needs to be defined, its equipment improved, its skill base functionally described, trained where necessary and brought into the 21st Century. The capability of its role to assist pilots in poor visibility, manage entry transit, recommend sequencing when needed, as well as providing the focus of contact for those transiting towards Wellington, will remain Greater Wellington Regional Council/ CentrePort Ltd Executive Summary Report No: 05NZ104 WELLINGTON HARBOUR Issue: Issue 1.1 Operational Risk Assessment immature until the future Safety Management System obtains stakeholder buy-in to its role and necessary upgrade. A Service Level Agreement between the two key organisations involved in running the harbour could be one way to facilitate a professional link between the pilotage service of CentrePort and movement management by the Harbourmaster system. c) CentrePort and the Beacon Hill traffic management system have a common purpose with respect to the movement of piloted vessels. Closer liaison between pilots and an upgraded Beacon Hill are recommended to both use new technology and commence a move towards Vessel Traffic Management by information service. Electronic integration of radar and AIS data between Beacon Hill and the pilotage service would provide benefit. d) The pilotage jurisdiction requires redesigning and a system of Pilotage Directions is strongly recommended to define requirements for the Wellington Harbour System. As Maritime Rule Part 90 is MNZ jurisdiction, such a system would need setting-up under Part 90 and Pilotage Directions therefore approved by MNZ. The approval link would retain the MNZ control link established following incidents involving vessels in other New Zealand pilotage waters. This represents a change to the approach being used by Maritime Rules and may be applicable to other harbours in New Zealand. e) From Section 13.5.1, MNZ is encouraged to consider making the setting of Pilotage Criteria, including minimum size to take pilots a matter for Pilotage Directions as referenced in Section 13.5 Note 2. That would remove the difficulty that is inherent in changing Maritime Rules. Pilotage criteria in general should be reviewed every three years against the traffic profile of the harbour. f) Recommended Tracks require formalising for use by all and referred in Harbour Bylaws. g) Improvements in the present frequency of Hydrographic survey and the use of risk-based techniques to develop a dredge programme based on known accretion rates are recommended. h) The implementation of wind, tide and wave measuring equipment on the Front Lead, measuring the environment at the most critical part of a deep draft vessel's transit is encouraged. With this in place data Greater Wellington Regional Council/ CentrePort Ltd Executive Summary Report No: 05NZ104 WELLINGTON HARBOUR Issue: Issue 1.1 Operational Risk Assessment interpolation between this and measurements made by the offshore buoy would allow conditions anywhere in the entrance to be determined. CentrePort and the Beacon Hill traffic management system have a common purpose with respect to the movement of piloted vessels. Closer liaison between pilots and an upgraded Beacon Hill Signal Station are recommended to both use new technology and commence a move towards Vessel Traffic Management by information service. Electronic integration of radar and AIS data between Beacon Hill and the pilotage service would provide benefit, especially in reduced visibility conditions. Greater Wellington Regional Council/ CentrePort Ltd Executive Summary Report No: 05NZ104 WELLINGTON HARBOUR Issue: Issue 1.1 Operational Risk Assessment 1 INTRODUCTION This document provides the initiating report for introduction of a navigational safety management system to Wellington Harbour, as part of the introduction of the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code (the Code).