The “Death Trap” in Maritime Dangerous Goods Declaration: How Omitting EMS Codes Leads to Entire Vessel Detention

Among the various links in maritime dangerous goods declaration, the EMS Code (Emergency Schedules Code) is often overlooked due to its seemingly “insignificant” nature, yet it harbors fatal risks sufficient to trigger “entire vessel detention”. As the core coding of the emergency response system under the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), the EMS Code is directly linked to the rescue direction and personnel safety in emergency incidents such as dangerous goods leakage, combustion, and explosion. However, according to 2024 global maritime regulatory data, violations caused by omitting or filling in incorrect EMS Codes account for 27% of declaration irregularities, with 12% of cases leading to cargo detention and 3% escalating to entire vessel detention. This article will dissect the operational logic and avoidance path of this declaration “death trap” from five dimensions: the core value of EMS Codes, the chain hazards of omissions, reviews of typical accidents, rigid regulatory constraints, and declaration control strategies.

1. EMS Code: The “Life Code” for Dangerous Goods Emergency Response

The EMS Code is not a dispensable additional item in declarations but an “emergency command center” throughout the entire maritime transportation chain of dangerous goods. Its essence is to convert complex hazardous properties and response plans into standardized codes, providing a “one-click query” rescue guide for crew members, port emergency personnel, and maritime regulatory authorities.

(1) Composition and Core Functions of EMS Codes

The Emergency Procedures for Ships Carrying Dangerous Goods (EMP), a supplement to the IMDG Code, divides EMS Codes into two parts: “main codes” and “sub-codes”:

1. Main Codes (2-digit numbers): Corresponding to core emergency scenarios of dangerous goods, such as “01” for “fire emergency”, “02” for “leakage emergency”, “03” for “personnel contact emergency”, covering 12 core risk scenarios including fire, leakage, poisoning, and radiation.
2. Sub-codes (1-2 letters/numbers): Detailing specific response measures. For example, under main code “01”, sub-code “A” means “use water spray for fire extinguishing”, “B” means “use dry powder fire extinguisher”, and “C” means “water prohibition for fire fighting”.

Its core functions are reflected in three aspects: first, rapid positioning of response plans—emergency personnel can obtain key instructions through codes without flipping through thick manuals (e.g., “EMS 01C” directly indicates “no water for fire fighting”); second, unified rescue language—resolving differences in response standards among emergency teams from different countries; third, avoidance of secondary harm—clearly marking “prohibited operations” (e.g., “no container cutting”, “avoid skin contact”).

(2) Strong Correlation Between EMS Codes and Declaration Elements

EMS Codes do not exist in isolation but form a rigid correspondence with dangerous goods’ UN numbers, hazard classes, and packaging types. For example: UN1203 (gasoline, Class 3 flammable liquid) corresponds to the standard EMS Code “01A+02B”, where “01A” means “cool containers with water spray and extinguish fire” and “02B” means “cover with absorbent cotton and recover in case of leakage”; UN1789 (sulfuric acid, Class 8 corrosive substance) has the EMS Code “01C+03D”, with “01C” clearly stating “no direct water spraying for fire fighting” and “03D” requiring “immediate flushing with plenty of water for 15 minutes after personnel contact”.

This correspondence is calibrated by the IMO through massive experiments and accident data. Each set of codes carries response experience “verified by lives”—changes to the EMS Code for a specific UN number often stem from new accident lessons (e.g., the upgrade of lithium battery EMS Code from “01A” to “01F”, adding the requirement of “cooling surrounding containers”, which originated from a lithium battery fire spread accident on a ship in 2022).

2. The “Butterfly Effect” of Omitting EMS Codes: Five-Stage Chain Reaction from Declaration Error to Entire Vessel Detention

The hazard of omitting EMS Codes is by no means a trivial matter that can be “remedied by supplementary filling”. Instead, it triggers a five-stage chain reaction: “declaration violation → safety hazard identification → cargo detention → entire vessel risk assessment → detention disposal”, ultimately escalating a single cargo declaration error into an entire vessel operation crisis.

(1) Stage 1: Loss of Declaration Document Validity, Triggering Regulatory Alerts

Maritime regulatory systems automatically screen declarations through the “declaration element integrity verification” module. As a mandatory field, the EMS Code, once omitted, immediately triggers a “red alert” in the system, and the declaration is directly marked as “invalid”. At this point, cargo loading is suspended, and port inspection personnel must conduct “manual review”, which typically takes 24-72 hours, directly delaying the shipment schedule.

For example, in 2024, a freight forwarder declared a batch of UN1482 (potassium permanganate, Class 5.1 oxidizing substance) but omitted the EMS Code “01B+02A” due to operator negligence. The declaration immediately triggered an alert upon submission. Port inspection authorities intervened in the review, not only requiring the enterprise to re-submit the declaration but also conducting extended inspections on other cargoes in the same batch. As a result, the cargo was loaded four days later than scheduled, incurring container detention fees and demurrage totaling 120,000 yuan.

(2) Stage 2: Missing Emergency Information, Determination of “Major Safety Hazard”

According to Chapter 5.4 of the IMDG Code, “dangerous goods without EMS Codes shall be deemed as ‘unknown emergency response information’ with major safety hazards”. Maritime authorities will determine that the cargo “does not meet safe transportation conditions” and take “on-site detention” measures. During detention, the cargo must be transferred to a dedicated dangerous goods isolation area at the port, with the enterprise bearing storage, security, and other costs, which can reach thousands of yuan per day.

More dangerously, if the cargo has been partially loaded, maritime authorities will require “suspension of all vessel loading” and conduct “emergency information traceability” on the loaded cargo. In 2023, when a vessel at Shanghai Port was loading UN2031 (concentrated nitric acid, Class 8 + Class 5.1), it was discovered that the EMS Code “01D+03E” had been omitted from the declaration. Maritime authorities immediately halted loading operations and conducted individual inspections on 12 loaded containers, causing an 18-hour delay for the entire vessel and disrupting berthing plans at three subsequent ports.

(3) Stage 3: Triggering “Entire Vessel Risk Assessment”, Sharp Rise in Detention Risk

When the cargo with omitted EMS Codes involves high-risk classes (e.g., Class 1 explosives, Class 2.3 toxic gases, Class 4.3 substances emitting flammable gases in contact with water), maritime authorities will initiate an “entire vessel risk assessment”—the core judgment being “whether the missing emergency information of the cargo may cause uncontrollable safety risks for the entire vessel”. Assessment contents include: the stowage position of the cargo in the hold, segregation distance from other cargoes, and whether the vessel’s emergency facilities match unknown risks.

Once the assessment concludes that “uncontrollable risks exist”, the entire vessel will be subject to “detention disposal”. In 2022, when a vessel at Singapore Port was loading UN0081 (TNT, Class 1.1 explosive), the declaration omitted the EMS Code “01G+02H” (corresponding to “use inert gas for fire fighting” and “no movement in case of leakage”). Maritime authorities assessed that “missing emergency response information for explosives may trigger full-vessel detonation” and directly detained the vessel for 72 hours, delaying over 300 containers on board and causing the shipping company to bear container detention fees and cargo storage costs exceeding 5 million US dollars.

(4) Stage 4: Downgrade of Enterprise Credit Rating, Restriction of Operational Rights

Omitting EMS Codes constitutes a “serious declaration violation”. In accordance with the Provisions on the Conditions for Maritime Administrative Licensing of the People’s Republic of China and the IMO’s “Port State Control (PSC) Procedures”, the involved enterprise will be included in the “maritime dishonesty list”:

• Freight forwarders: Suspension of dangerous goods declaration qualification for 3 months, requiring re-passage of IMDG Code specialized training and assessment;
• Shipping companies: Increased vessel inspection frequency from once per quarter to once per month for 6 months, increasing operational costs;
• Shippers: Required to submit additional “third-party compliance audit reports” for dangerous goods exports within 1 year, extending the declaration process by 5 working days.

In 2023, a domestic chemical export enterprise was downgraded to a “Class C credit enterprise” by maritime authorities due to two consecutive EMS Code omissions. As a result, its exports of UN2814 (potassium cyanide, Class 6.1 highly toxic substance) were subject to key inspections at three consecutive ports, with the declaration pass rate dropping from 98% to 65% and order loss rate increasing by 30%.

(5) Stage 5: Derived Legal Liability and Economic Compensation

If the cargo with omitted EMS Codes encounters an emergency during transportation, and the lack of basis for emergency response leads to expanded losses, the involved parties shall bear civil compensation or even criminal liability:

• Civil liability: Shipping companies may claim compensation from declarants for vessel repair costs, cargo losses, demurrage, etc.; in case of environmental pollution, ecological restoration costs shall also be borne (e.g., delayed response to sulfuric acid leakage due to missing EMS Codes polluted 0.5 square kilometers of sea area, with the declarant compensating 2.8 million yuan for environmental protection);
• Criminal liability: In accordance with Article 136 of the Criminal Law (“crime of causing accidents involving dangerous articles”), if declaration errors lead to major accidents (1 or more deaths, 3 or more injuries, or direct losses exceeding 500,000 yuan), relevant responsible persons shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years; for especially serious circumstances, the sentence may be 3-7 years.

3. Review of Typical Accidents: “Entire Vessel Detention” Tragedies Caused by Omitting EMS Codes

Two industry-shocking “entire vessel detention” accidents intuitively demonstrate the evolution of EMS Code omission from “minor error” to “major disaster”, confirming its nature as a “death trap”.

(1) 2021 Detention Incident of MV “Dongfang XX” in the Indian Ocean

Accident Process: MV “Dongfang XX”, owned by a domestic shipping company, loaded 286 containers departing from Tianjin Port to Dubai, including 12 containers of UN1869 (metallic magnesium powder, Class 4.1 flammable solid). During declaration, the freight forwarder omitted the EMS Code “01C+02D” (“01C” for “no water for fire fighting”, “02D” for “cover with dry sand in case of leakage”) due to operator negligence. While the vessel was sailing in the Indian Ocean, packaging of one magnesium powder container was damaged by vibration, causing powder leakage which ignited spontaneously upon contact with condensed water. Crew members, relying on conventional flammable solid response experience, used water hoses to extinguish the fire. However, water reacted with burning magnesium powder: Mg + 2H₂O = Mg(OH)₂ + H₂↑, causing an immediate hydrogen explosion and rapid fire spread to three adjacent containers.

Disposal Consequences: The captain urgently sent a distress signal, and emergency vessels from a nearby port were dispatched for rescue. Without EMS Codes in the declaration, emergency personnel could not quickly obtain correct response plans, delaying rescue by 2 hours. Although the fire was eventually extinguished, the vessel’s deck was severely damaged, and 12 containers were burned. Upon arrival at Dubai Port, maritime authorities detained the vessel for 48 hours on the grounds that “missing key emergency information in the declaration caused accident escalation”, fining the involved freight forwarder and shipping company 150,000 US dollars and 200,000 US dollars respectively. Meanwhile, the vessel’s berthing plans for the subsequent 12 voyages were fully adjusted, resulting in direct economic losses exceeding 8 million US dollars.

(2) 2023 Detention Incident of MV “Mediterranean XX” at Rotterdam Port

Accident Process: MV “Mediterranean XX”, owned by a Greek shipping company, arrived at Rotterdam Port with 350 containers, including 8 containers of UN1782 (hydrochloric acid, Class 8 corrosive substance). The declaration omitted the EMS Code “03B+02A” (“03B” for “neutralize with weak alkaline solution after personnel contact”, “02A” for “absorb with calcium hydroxide in case of leakage”). Port PSC inspectors discovered the issue and immediately initiated an “entire vessel risk assessment”. The assessment concluded that as a strong corrosive substance, hydrochloric acid leakage could lead emergency personnel to mistakenly use water flushing (which would exacerbate hydrochloric acid spread) without EMS Code guidance, posing risks of “endangering port personnel safety”.

Disposal Consequences: Rotterdam Port maritime authorities immediately detained the vessel for 72 hours, requiring the involved enterprise to supplement the EMS Code and provide a “cargo safety assessment report”. During detention, the port arranged 24-hour dedicated personnel to guard the vessel, incurring 50,000 euros in security costs. Meanwhile, 342 other containers on board could not be unloaded, and shippers filed numerous compensation claims. Eventually, the involved enterprise spent 10 days completing rectification, bearing total fines, demurrage, and compensation fees of 3.2 million euros, and was included in the “key supervision list” by EU maritime authorities.

4. Rigid Regulatory Constraints: “Uncrossable Red Line” for EMS Code Declaration

The severe consequences of omitting EMS Codes stem from their “dual rigid constraints” under the IMDG Code and national laws/regulations of various countries, with regulatory enforcement showing a “zero-tolerance” stance.

(1) Mandatory Requirements of the IMDG Code

Article 5.4.2.1 of the IMDG Code clearly stipulates: “All dangerous goods declarations must include corresponding EMS Codes, which shall be accurately selected from the Emergency Procedures Manual and must not be fabricated or omitted”. Meanwhile, the Guidelines for Completing Dangerous Goods Declarations (an annex to the Code) further emphasizes: “EMS Codes, together with UN numbers, proper shipping names, and hazard classes, constitute the ‘four core declaration elements’—none of which can be missing”.

The IMO ensures rule implementation through the “Port State Control (PSC)” mechanism. PSC inspectors of various countries have the right to conduct random inspections of declarations. In case of missing or incorrect EMS Codes, they may directly take mandatory measures such as “cargo detention”, “vessel detention”, and “fines”. According to the 2024 IMO Annual Report, the rectification rate requirement for EMS Code-related defects in global PSC inspections reaches 100%, with no room for negotiation.

(2) Enhanced Regulatory Measures of Major Maritime Countries

Based on the IMDG Code, various countries have further refined EMS Code declaration requirements, forming “localized” strict constraints:

1. China: Article 11 of the Regulations on the Administration of Maritime Dangerous Goods Declaration requires EMS Codes to be manually verified and signed by “personnel with dangerous goods declaration qualifications”. The declaration system is equipped with a “code-UN number matching verification” function, and submissions cannot be made if there is a mismatch;
2. EU: The EU Implementing Rules for the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code requires high-risk goods (Class 1, Class 2.3, Class 6.1 highly toxic) to provide additional “EU Emergency Response Center certification documents” for their EMS Codes, otherwise declarations are invalid;
3. United States: The Coast Guard (USCG) stipulates that cargo with missing EMS Codes shall be deemed “illegal transportation”, resulting in not only cargo detention but also fines of 20%-50% of the cargo value imposed on importers;
4. Singapore: Implements a “lifelong accountability system for EMS Code declaration”. Even if cargo has arrived at its destination, liability of involved parties can still be traced within 3 years if declaration omissions are discovered later.

5. Declaration Control: How to Build a “Safety Defense Line” for EMS Codes

To avoid the risk of omitting EMS Codes, a full-process control system of “pre-verification, in-process audit, and post-traceability” must be established, transforming code declaration from “passive compliance” to “proactive prevention and control”.

(1) Pre-Declaration: Establishing an Accurate “Code-Cargo” Matching Database

1. Dynamically updating code lists: Assign dedicated personnel to track updates to the IMDG Code and national implementing rules (the IMDG Code is updated every two years, with frequent EMS Code adjustments). For example, the 2024 edition added the EMS Code “01F+02C” for UN3536 (hydrogen fuel cells), which must be incorporated into the enterprise database immediately;
2. Building an associated matching system: Link EMS Codes with UN numbers, hazard classes, packaging types, transportation methods, and other elements to form a “one-click query” database. For example, entering UN1203 (gasoline) automatically pops up the corresponding “EMS 01A+02B” and application notes (“supplementary sub-code X required for deck-only transportation”);