of chemical and product tankers that entered UK and European ports did not meet damage stability regulations. These findings will be presented to the SLF meeting in January by the MCA. In addition it transpired that masters
believed that by using the intact stability and loading programmes on computers this would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the damage stability regulations too. In fact, as Mr Coley, explains the
“Some people in the industry are shifting the responsibility for designing ships to be inherently safe onto the naval architects, but it is the operators that must load the ships in the appropriate manner and in accordance with the vessel’s loading manual”
behaviour of a damaged chemical or product tanker can be very different and in some cases quite unpredictable, depending on the combination of chemicals and their specific gravity that are being transported at any one time. Ef fectively the behaviour of a
damaged chemical tanker, unlike other vessel types that are more predictable, can vary widely. For example if a chemical tanker is loaded with cargo that has a higher specific gravity than water then when the damaged tanks lose their cargo and that is replaced by the lighter seawater then the ship will
The Naval Architect November 2009
The chemical tanker Ece sank in the channel following a collision that caused a a small amount of damage. Fortunately the vessel was loaded with a non-stick cargo.
list away from the side that is damaged. However, if the chemicals have a lower specific gravity than seawater then the weight of the water will cause the vessel to list towards the damage. These effects can, in some cases,
cause a vessel to sink more readily with a minimum of damage with the potential to cause devastating environmental damage depending on the cargo onboard. However, with proper loading the risks can be minimised. “Fortunately, the accident rate of
chemical tankers is already very low, probably because of the high risk of these vessels and that they are usually run by a well trained crew, so they’re not often involved in groundings or collisions,” explained Mr Coley. He continued to say that the point
is that if these ships were to have a “relatively minor dink” they should not sink and a major pollution incident should be avoided. “We have had a warning when the
chemical tanker Ece was in collision with another vessel near the Channel Islands, the ship listed heavily and then suddenly turned over and sank,” said Mr Coley. “It was a near miss that had the potential to be a disaster through what was a comparatively small amount of damage. We have a chance to act now and avoid an environmental disaster in the future”.
Severe heel toward damage. Even the MCA’s detractors believe
that the probability of an accident remains low and to rush through enforcement rules that could affect the ability of some vessels to trade may well prove to be a mistake. NA
49
Empty tanks.
Feature 2
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68