The regulations appear to do what is needed - i.e. engross this Directive into UK maritime legislation, just as the HSE will be doing for ashore. Equally, it is recognised that, at certain levels, AOR can present a risk (of varying degrees) to mariners. So it would appear that the job is done.

However this subject is - as presented in the material - extremely technical and specialist.There is no "get out" clause of conducting a risk assessment and such an assessment really ought to be properly informed, if it is to comply.

It was not intended that this should be seen as an extremely technical and specialised subject except in the case of very specialised equipment, where professional advice might be required, possibly from the manufacturer.   In most instances a risk assessment should be relatively straightforward for an employer to carry out using the guidance contained in the Marine Guidance Note and the EC "Non-Binding Guide to the Artificial Optical Radiation Directive.

Furthermore:

• The risk assessment, as stated as required by the SI, is a very comprehensive requirement. Gathering all the data demanded will, in the majority of cases, simply not be possible without access to very specialist optical measuring devices and technical knowledge. A very expensive activity, imposed upon mariners/marine operators, cost of which is totally ignored in the impact assessment.

See preceding comment. The Marine Guidance Note and the EC "Non-Binding Guide to the Artificial Optical Radiation Directive” are both intended to make it easier for employers to undertake risk assessments where commonly occurring optical radiation emitting equipment is present on a ship.    

• Expecting mere mortals to then make any sense of the strings of interdependent and very complex equations, all depending upon a firm grasp of higher-level integral calculus, simply so that they can do the risk assessment to which they are bound, is going to be well beyond the capability of the average mariner - be she/he an Engineer (remember the majority of UK Merchant Navy engineers are not graduates, so may have never touched this stuff) or a Deck Officer (well beyond average comprehension, I would have thought - they "peak out" at trigonometry).

The equations have now been removed from the Marine Guidance Note as they were considered to confuse what would otherwise be a relatively straightforward subject in most cases.

• Seeking (and paying for, if it can be found) the very specialist advice needed to fight through the equations, just to see what risk the overhead lights or, perhaps, a red LED on a control console present to a crew member, really is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Reference to the Marine Guidance Note, now amended to remove the equations referred to, and the EC "Non-Binding Guide to the Artificial Optical Radiation Directive” should indicate to an employer where risks are most likely to occur and where, subject to correct operation, equipment emitting optical radiation will not create any risks. Normal overhead lighting and LEDs on consoles will generally fall into the latter category.   

I fear that the end result will be that compliance with the Directive (and MS Regulations) will therefore be at an extremely low level. Now the MCA could offer ever-increasing direnesses of threat, for failure to comply, but pointing more clearly to your provision (at Annex 3) of simple guidance - i.e. sufficient to identify whether a 40W bulb presents a problem (it shouldn't), might be a far better way of helping rather than condemning the confused recipient mariner?

Paragraph 2.5 of the latest draft of the Marine Guidance Note makes it quite clear that  examples of AOR sources which:-

• are only likely to produce insignificant exposures, which can be considered “safe”;
• are not likely to present a health risk under specific circumstances; or,
• may present a health risk under specific circumstances

can be found in Annex 1 (Annex 3 has been renumbered to Annex 1 following deletion of the previous Annexes 1 and 2).

As presented, one sees the requirement for doing all the complicated stuff but doesn't see - hidden away in paragraph 2.5 - the pointer to the guidance as to what is likely to be trivial and where more investigation into circumstances might be needed. Also, there is no simple guidance as to what sort of source or circumstance might present a real risk to people, so that the reader might understand how the scale of things might work?

See preceding comment. It should however be borne in mind that even equipment which produces insignificant exposure levels can produce significant exposure levels if used incorrectly or if broken. e.g. lighting equipment with a broken or missing diffuser.

I know that fuller "worked examples" are available in the Guidance to the Directive and that you offer copies of that document in the MGN by writing to the MCA. But most mariners (or their Marine Superintendents) only get (if they bother to do that!) MCA publications, so they won't have access to the worked examples - it will all go into the "too difficult" bin. The Directive and MS Regulations will therefore have failed - in their attempt to prevent harm to people. And we'll all be in trouble because we won't have done our meaningful risk assessments.

See previous comment. However as explained previously, the MGN does now contain more examples of AOR sources which:-

• are only likely to produce insignificant exposures, which can be considered “safe”;
• are not likely to present a health risk under specific circumstances; or,
• may present a health risk under specific circumstances

Also, please make it very much clearer in the text of the MGN, that guidance on triviality is available at Annex 3 - and add some "these can hurt people" examples.

See previous comments

Thank you for allowing a second review of the proposed MGN on the forthcoming regulations on Artificial Optical Radiation. I have read through your revised draft and would agree that this now forms a far better guide into the regulations, especially for those mariners not familiar with the concept.  On reflection, I would agree that cross referring to the EC guide is probably the best way to ensure consistency of guidance.  If the readers of the MGN read section 2 carefully, then they should certainly get the pointer that you give.  Perhaps, at Annex 2, you could make sure that the EC guide is somehow highlighted - maybe with words such as: “A really useful guide to this subject is available at:  ... " or something similar, just to highlight this particularly useful document amongst the other stuff.

It is considered that the reference to this “Guide” in paragraph 2.2 of the draft MGN is sufficient.

It also might be helpful, if you highlight a pointer to the useful source/risk information that you give at Annex 1  (thanks for that addition) in the text of your MGN, so that the reader can skip forwards, to get an immediate idea of what is likely to be harmless/potentially a hazard/most likely a hazard.  Annex 1 is a really useful guide (accepting that it is a first step and for the marine manager to assess his own situation), so it is well worth flagging up, early on in your MGN.  I would suggest putting the following words into your section 2.3 - after the last sentence:

"To assist the non-specialist with identifying which sources of radiation should be relatively harmless, those where risks may occur and those where control measures are likely to be required, to prevent harm to people, guidance on a variety of sources commonly found in ships is given at Annex 1."

The "health warning" about not covering every situation, at your section 2.4 would then cover all of the above, leaving the marine manager to do his assessment properly and thoroughly but with a good chance of knowing where to start

The "health warning" about not covering every situation, at your section 2.4 would then cover all of the above, leaving the marine manager to do his assessment properly and thoroughly but with a good chance of knowing where to start.

In your list, at Annex 1, I would add into the "sources not likely to present a health risk under specific circumstances" the following: "Source: Deck or other high intensity lights" and "Circumstance for safe use: Safe if extended direct intra-beam viewing is avoided".  

That takes the example of car headlights (OK so the mariner might come across these on a ferry or car carrier) and cross-applies it to other ships' or boats' lights.

General Comments

Nautilus welcomes this further set of Regulations which are part of a more comprehensive suite of Regulations applying to all workers.  Nautilus believes that there should be no exemptions with respect to either merchant shipping or fishing vessels to any Regulations that are made consistent with EC Directive 2006/25/EC since seafarers are potentially exposed to the same health and safety risks as workers ashore.

Noted - See comments below re exemptions for seafarers receiving training on sail training vessels. So far as the other exemptions - for vessels  undertaking public service or civil protection activities where because of characteristics peculiar to the activity being undertaken, full compliance with the Regulations is not possible - are concerned these are standard exemptions contained in all MS & FV Health and Safety Regulations and were provided for in the EC Framework Directive.

DRAFT REGULATIONS

Referring to Section 3 Meaning of “worker” – Nautilus does not believe that these exemptions are valid or desirable as drafted in the context of these Regulations.  In particular these Regulations should apply to those engaged in instruction with no special exemption for either sail training vessels or large commercial yachts.

Referring to Section 12 – Offences and Penalties – While it is clear and specific with respect to the penalties that may be imposed upon a ‘person’ and a ‘worker’ there is no specific reference to the maximum fine that may be imposed upon a ‘body corporate’.  Clearly this should be more substantial than that imposed against an individual.

The exemption in Regulation 3 does not apply to any “workers” employed on a ship. The purpose of the exemption is to exempt only persons who are receiving training on board sail training vessels as these are not workers employed on board and will instead normally have paid to be on board for the purpose of experiencing life on a sailing vessel.   

It is understood that the penalties applicable to a “body corporate” will be the same as those for an individual who commits an offence under the Regulations.  However, in addition, “where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under these Regulations and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, that person as well as the body corporate is guilty of that offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly” (regulation 12(6))

Referring to Section 4 – Application – It is noted that these regulations apply to United Kingdom ships wherever they may be.

The Regulations apply to all workers on board a UK ship irrespective of where it might operate in the world

Specific Comments – Marine Guidance Note (MGN)

It is noted that this MGN appears to be somewhat lengthy and one must question its practicability and its effectiveness with respect to application.

Comment noted. It has now been reduced in size by 12 pages as a result of the deletion of the formulae which were considered unnecessary except in special circumstances in which event they can be referred to in the Directive.

See comment above re exemptions in response to similar point raised in relation to the SI.  

Referring to Section 5 – Application – For clarity with respect to what are considered to be government ships.  It is noted that ferries whether operated by a public body or not are not covered by “the public service activities” derogation.  It would be useful if further clarity was given with respect to vessels owned and operated by the National Environmental Research Council and the British Antarctic Survey.  

It is not considered necessary to cover NERC and BAS vessels as all Government ships come under these Regulations. They are also not included in the description of what constitutes vessels undertaking “public service activities". These vessels will therefore only be subject to the same exemptions as ordinary vessels.

Annex 1 & 2 – One must question the usefulness of such detail within an MGN that could be contained within other documentation such as a Code of Practice.  However, Nautilus believes such information should be readily available.

These annexes have now been removed from the MGN.  

The text of both the Statutory Instrument and the MGN are acceptable and no further changes should be made with the intention of reducing the application of these Regulations to both merchant shipping and fishing vessels.

Noted. No comment required

DRAFT MARINE GUIDANCE NOTE

We feel that the draft MGN does not meet its objective of providing guidance on how the regulations should be applied and would benefit from further consideration.

The only activities that are of relevance to ships in respect of optical radiation are exposure resulting from welding operations, the use of ultra violet light in ballast water treatment and the use of radar and lasers.  A statement to this effect at, or close to, the beginning of the text would be appreciated, as it would put the guidance into its proper context.   

In actual fact optical radiation can emanate from a variety of items of work equipment that can be found both in offices ashore  and on board ship. In addition to ultra violet light resulting from welding/ballast water treatment and the use of lasers and radar displays, the following are also likely to occur on ships, albeit not necessarily in a harmful way if used properly:-

• Entertainment, where performers may be directly illuminated by spotlights, effect lighting, flashlamps etc. Also workers in an audience area, such as in discos, may be affected by general or effect lighting or even ultra-violet lighting being used for a performance;
• Non-destructive testing using ultraviolet radiation to reveal fluorescent dyes;
• Medical treatment, where practitioners and patients may be exposed to operating theatre spot lighting and to therapeutic use of optical radiation;
• Storage areas, holds etc where large areas are illuminated by powerful area lights;
• Medical treatment areas, where ultraviolet sterilisation may be in use;
• lighting on vehicles being driven on to ferries or vehicle carriers;
• warning lights/LEDs on electrical panels or control consoles;
• photocopiers;
• electronic (UV) insect killers.
• Flash Photography , and
• even normal lighting used for illumination in crew and passenger areas of ships.

It would be useful to state, by way of guidance, that ballast water treatment equipment should only be used with its cover on, in order to avoid exposure to ultra-violet light.  It could also recommend that signs be placed on pieces of equipment stating that it is not to be used without its cover.

It is questionable whether this would always be feasible e.g. during maintenance or repair of the equipment. It is considered therefore that this is a matter to be determined by the employer in the light of the results of his risk assessment.

Annex 1 contains several complicated mathematical formulae, which have been copied directly from the directive, without any explanation as to their meaning.  It is doubtful whether non-mathematicians would be able to understand the formulae.  This is a good example of where clear guidance is needed that will be read and understood by shore-side management and shipboard staff.  Repeating annexes from the directive is unnecessary as people who are interested in the information can find it in the directive.

However, Annex 3, which lists items that do not need to be included in an optical radiation risk assessment, is useful and should be given a higher profile in the MGN.

This is now Annex 1 and attention is drawn to it in paragraph 2.5 of the MGN

We could also comment that the draft European Commission-funded guide, produced by the Health Protection Agency, appears to have been prepared with the office environment in mind.  Hence its relevance to shipping is limited at best.