π§½ “Intermediate Hold Cleaning Clause: Who Pays, Who Cleans — and Who's Liable?”
❓Three Yes/No Questions to Spark
Curiosity
- Are
you confident about who bears the cost and risk during hold cleaning
between cargoes?
- Do
you know what happens if your crew cleans the holds — and the inspection
still fails?
- Have
you ever had cleaning tools or chemical requirements derail a voyage?
π Clause Breakdown: More
Than Just a Muck Job
The Intermediate Hold Cleaning Clause is often
overlooked — until it triggers disputes. This clause outlines who’s
responsible for hold cleaning between cargoes, how it must be done,
who pays, and crucially, who’s accountable if the inspection fails.
Let’s break it down:
π What the Clause Says
(Simplified):
- If Charterers
require hold cleaning between cargoes, the vessel’s crew will assist
— if safe and allowed by shore authorities/unions.
- Charterers
pay USD 700 per hold cleaned — even if it's only sweeping.
- Fresh
water for washing must be supplied by Charterers.
- If crew
cleans the holds:
- NO
guarantee the holds will pass inspection.
- Owners
are not liable for failure.
- If shore
labor is needed, it’s:
- To
be arranged and paid by Charterers
- Cleaning
done on Charterers' time
- Chemical
tools, detergents, pumps, etc. are not part of vessel’s standard
equipment — Charterers must provide them.
- Charterers
bear all costs/time/deviation for disposal of residues and wash
water, as per MARPOL Annex V and other laws.
⚠️ Implications, Pitfalls &
Real-World Scenarios
⚠️ Implications:
- Financial
Responsibility: Cleaning = Charterers' cost and time.
- Operational
Risks: If crew cleans and fails, Owners can't be blamed.
- Environmental
Compliance: MARPOL Annex V obligations must be met, especially for
residues/disposal.
❌ Common Pitfalls:
- Assuming
the vessel comes with all tools and chemicals needed.
- Blaming
Owners for hold inspection failures after crew cleaning.
- Forgetting
that disposal of wash water may involve port charges,
regulation, and even voyage deviation.
πΌ Practical Example:
A charterer arranges for intermediate cleaning using
vessel’s crew. Holds are swept and washed, but a subsequent surveyor rejects
the holds for grain loading. The Charterer blames the Owner. Per this clause,
the Owner is not liable — because:
- Cleaning
was crew-assisted (no guarantee),
- The
cleaning tools and chemicals were insufficient (not Owner’s obligation),
- The
survey rejection lies outside Owner’s accountability.
π ️ Actionable Steps for
Shipping Stakeholders
⚓ For Operators:
- Keep
documentation of shore authority/unions' restrictions that prevent
crew cleaning.
- Monitor
that crew involvement remains safe and compliant with labor rules.
πΌ For Charterers:
- Budget
and plan for shore labor if cleanliness standards are high.
- Always
supply the required tools, detergents, and water.
- Never
assume crew cleaning equals inspection-ready holds — plan
accordingly.
- Be
aware of port waste management regulations and MARPOL compliance.
π³️ For Owners:
- Train
crew to provide customary assistance only, not guaranteed cleaning
outcomes.
- Clearly
communicate limitations of vessel cleaning capacity and tools.
π§πΌ For Managers:
- Prepare
templates or SOPs for intermediate cleaning clauses.
- Clarify
in pre-fixture discussions who handles disposal logistics and costs.
π Conclusion: Clear Holds
Require Clear Terms
Intermediate hold cleaning is more than a wash — it's a cost
center, a legal minefield, and a potential delay risk. The charter party
clause makes it crystal clear: Crew help, Charterers pay, Owners aren’t
liable for failed inspections.
Plan ahead, communicate early, and never assume
responsibility unless it’s written.
π£ Did this blog
clarify your understanding of the intermediate cleaning clause?
π¬
Share your experience in the comments — ever had a cleaning dispute escalate
mid-charter?
π Like, π
share, and π§ follow ShipOpsInsights with Dattaram
for sharper, smarter takes on charter party clauses and maritime operations.
⚖️ Disclaimer:
This blog is intended for educational and informational
purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Stakeholders should consult
with maritime legal professionals or chartering experts before relying on any
clause interpretation for decision-making.
No comments:
Post a Comment