1.Answer the questions.

1. What type of ship was the narrator currently serving?

2. What kind of cargo is the vessel currently on passage to the Far East?

3. What command have the Master of the tanker?

4. What is tank cleaning?

5. Who is responsible for this sometimes an arduous and prolonged task that can go around the clock?

6. Why is a newer chemical tanker, built to the IBC Codes required to follow strict gas freeing procedures if built after 1994?

7. Why isn't direct washing considered to be a problem due to the small size of tanks involved?

8. What is the reason of explosions that occur at sea?

9. What are sources of ignition?

10. Why does the Master also feel that there is a lack of training and awareness of potential problems?

11. Why would inerting tanks save a lot of problems?

12. What is another interesting problem facing chemical tanker owners?

13. What does it mean?

14. How could a major part of the problem be solved?

2.Choose the factors which could become reasons of chemical tanker explosions.

1. Gas freeing in non- inerted cargo tanks.

2. Source of ignition.

3. Electrostatic generation from impinging water jets.

4. A lack of training and awareness.

5. a lack of chemical knowledge of chemical tanker operators.

3.Explain the following expressions.

1. Coated tanks.

2. Tank cleaning.

3. To go on around the clock.

4. To follow strict gas freeing procedures.

5. To be well coated

6. Non-inerted cargo tanks.

7. To have a low flash point.

8. Flue gas.

9. The risk of slight soot discolouration.

10. Inter tank cracking.

4.Desipher the following abbreviations.

1. IGG

2. CPP

3. PV

5.Decide whether the statements are true (T) or false (F). Correct the wrong ones.

1. The narration is currently serving in a Type 2/3 chemical/ product tanker built in 1981.

2. Tank cleaning is sometimes an arduous and prolonged task.

3. The Boatswain is responsible for tank cleaning on board tankers.

4.The tanks normally gas free very rapidly during the washing process.

5. Venting at the end is more for drying than for gas freeing.

6. Chemical tankers have not much smaller tanks than crude oil tankers.

7. Inerting tanks would save a lot of problems.

8. When carrying CPP cargoes the IGG system should not be used.

22

Master under pressure to enter port

In giving evidence to an investigation into a grounding in the approaches to a port in New Zealand, the Master and Officers stated that two days before arrival, the Master had sent an email asking if the Pilots had any limitations on swell height for entering as the forecast was for a swell height of 4.5m. The answer received on board was that the maximum wind speed for entering was 40 knots and if the Master and Pilot agreed that the swell was dangerously increasing the vessel's draft, the approach would be aborted.

The Master and Officers then undertook a safety evaluation of the port and approaches and identified hazards including shallow patches, fishing boats and swell. The Master was still concerned on the day of arrival as the forecast was still predicting a swell of up to 4 m. During the early hours of the morning he therefore arranged to undertake a "dry run" in the approaches. The rolling became severe and the Master aborted the approach to the Pilot Station. The Pilot was already underway to meet the vessel but the master said that he had aborted the entry and would try again at 1600.

During the day some discussion took place between the ship and the Marine Manager (of the service provider of tugs and pilots) who maintained that the vessel should have continued into the harbour that morning. The Master stated that, in his professional judgement, it would have been unsafe to enter.

At 1600 the vessel again commenced the approach. The swell was by now reduced and the vessel was rolling about 2 degrees to port and starboard. At 1728 the vessel reached the agreed boarding point and two pilots boarded. Due to the Master's concerns, the Pilots suggested a "dry run" with a break off point 1 mile from the fairway buoy. When the ship reached this point a slow round turn to starboard was taken and the Master agreed to continue entry into port.

Shortly after passing the Fairway buoy the ship started yawing some 6 degrees to starboard and 9 degrees to port with the bow pitching 1.5 m. The Master and Pilot agreed that the swell height was 3m and occasionally up to 4 m. The vessel began rolling about 5 degrees to port and starboard. The Pilot stated to the investigating team that the vessel was not rolling or heaving but yawing.

At 1816, the vessel shuddered as she pitched bow down, rolled and came in to contact with the seabed midway between the fairway Buoy and Nos. 1 and 2 buoys. Five seconds later the vessel touched bottom again.

I find it of concern that a responsible Master was pressurised to proceed with a port approach which he was not comfortable with - a critical point that appears to have been overlooked in the findings of the investigation into the grounding. We can only be thankful that the country concerned did not follow a recent precedent and arrest the Master and Officers.