into separate shore tanks, but there was not enough capacity for all the affected cargo. Onboard filtering of the particulate was rejected by the receivers, who took the view that the cargo was no longer fit for purpose. They therefore sold the contaminated cargo to a salvage buyer at a significantly reduced price.


Expert investigation and sample analysis established that the particulate matter had most likely been formed by the heated chemical combination of carbon from the heat exchangers and residues of the previous cargo, which was then circulated in the caustic soda cargo. Moreover, it appeared that the heat exchangers may not have been fully cleaned prior to loading.


The receiver’s claim ran into millions of US dollars and included loss of market value, additional freight and storage costs, shore tank cleaning costs and other related expenses.


Claims impact


While a certain degree of compromise was achieved during negotiations with cargo interests, the claim settlements and costs in the above cases left a significant blemish on the loss records for the Members concerned. The Members also incurred additional uninsured losses and potentially damaged relations with their customers.


Lessons learned


After cleaning the cargo system between cargoes in the above cases, surveyors for charterers/shippers attended the vessels at the load ports and passed the tanks fit to load. Moreover, first foot samples were taken at the start of loading and did not reveal any visual indications of cargo contamination at that time. The crew should be aware that inspections by third parties are not a reliable indication that the vessel’s complete cargo system is free of


contaminants, even after cleaning to required standards.


When cleaning tanks and lines after carrying high melting point cargoes, such as vegetable/edible oils, hot water washing will often be required and the crew should ensure that the water is sufficiently warm. The time between discharge and cleaning as well as the ambient air temperatures experienced may be relevant factors.


Whatever the charterers instructions are with regard to cleaning, owners should make sure that it will be effective in removing previous cargo residues. Holding charterers responsible for a subsequent problem is far from straight-forward and owners will usually have a non- delegable duty to cargo interests to provide a cargo-worthy vessel.


There should be a vessel-specific line cleaning procedure for each stage of washing (e.g. cold-water wash, hot-water wash and chemical recirculation) as well as inspection procedures to ensure all relevant parts of the cargo system are properly inspected and cleaned. Vessel-specific procedures were found to be lacking in one of the above cases.


The crew should also be fully familiar with what is required for proper cleaning and inspection of the cargo system. In one of the above cases the crew had newly joined and were unfamiliar with the system. A written record of the cleaning performed should be kept. Even after thorough cleaning, it remains important to perform a close-up inspection of tanks and lines to ensure no residues remain (always after following safe tank entry procedures).


It is possible that solidified/frozen residues will remain near the bends/ elbows in lines, as well as in manifolds and crossovers. When cargo filtering was performed in the first case above, previous cargo residues were found in the manifold crossovers. Lines in these areas should be closely examined and opened up where possible to aid


inspection. Other parts of the system, such as the heat exchangers in the second case, should also be sufficiently inspected. Checklists may help for conducting inspections, but whatever is used, a written record should be kept of inspections performed.


Cargo residues can exist as a film along the inner walls of pipelines, which may be difficult to spot in wet conditions. In dry conditions after ventilating for a couple of hours, the solid film should be more visible to the naked eye. Ideally, the inspection should be carried out during daylight for better visibility.


Photographic evidence of tanks/lines after cleaning can assist in defending a claim and protecting the member’s interests in the event of dispute.


Lines that will not be used for cargo operations should be properly isolated.


It is extremely important that the crew collect and retain samples during loading, including from the vessel’s manifolds after flushing through the sampling point, and from the cargo tanks at first-foot stages, as well as after completion of loading. This will provide evidence of the cargo’s condition throughout the loading operation. See this Gard Insight for further details on the importance of sampling liquid cargoes.


If any visible contamination of samples is noted during loading, operations should be suspended for investigation. If the cargo system does contain a contaminant, the quantity of cargo already loaded will be much less than for a full tank. The first indication of a problem from the shore side will usually be the vessel manifold samples and these should be taken at regular intervals during loading if there are any concerns with the quality of cargo. High melting point cargo residues can remain in sampling points which may contaminate the samples of cargoes next loaded. The crew should ensure that sampling points are thoroughly flushed through before collecting samples of the next loaded cargo.


THE REPORT | MAR 2024 | ISSUE 107 | 97


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  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132