1. Answer the questions. F. Valve
7. Carry out G. Operations
8. Rectify H. Tank
3. Complete the table. Mind the grammar. DO and DON’T to prevent oil spill.
4th Engineer
HAS DONE
some actions to prevent oil spillChief Engineer/2nd Engineer
MUST HAVE DONE
some actions to prevent oil spille.g. He has tried to contact the barge.e.g. He must have communicated with the barge.
4. Complete an incident report (see annex) including the following items.
1. Description of the situation;
2. Direct, root causes of the situation;
3. Remedial actions and recommendations.
Case study – 2. Paint Pollution
(harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form)
During cargo operations at Corpus Christi, one of our vessels took a 3 month supply of paint stores from the dock by means of a shore crane. The paint was stacked on wooden pallets in 25-liter cans and lifted using a shore crane as the vessel’s crane could not be deployed. Four cans fell from one of the lifts into the dock. While the crew were recovering the drums from the water using a line with a hook on the end, one drum burst open and sank. Paint spread over the surface of the water to an area of approx 15-20 m.
|
The terminal advised the agent of the pollution and the agent advised the USCG and Texas General Land Office. The agent then initiated deploying a clean-up operation with Corpus Christi Area Oil Spill Control Association (C |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
CAOSCA) independently of the vessel. Meanwhile, the Master advised the ship’s Superintendent who in turn called a Qualified Individual (QI) for the vessel. The vessel’s crew commenced their own clean-up using absorbent pads and booms and recovered the majority of the paint.
The
QI took over co-ordination of the clean-up operation and stood down
the CCAOSCA team initiated by the agent, while
arranging to use their
own designated
clean-up company. The QI also
advised the USCG and P&I of the situation. After 1 hour,
the alternate team had not been
deployed so the QI reverted to the original clean-up
Cargo operations had been suspended by the terminal when the paint was released but were resumed after the clean up had been completed after 21 hours. However, the terminal staff were concerned about the paint can, which had sunk releasing more paint so a diver was hired to recover it before the ship departed. While the diver was recovering the can, more paint was released. This was contained and cleaned up by the crew and CCAOSCA. The USCG was satisfied by the vessel’s responses to the spill and no charges were brought against the vessel.
Lessons learnt
These incidents show how, even a minor spill of paint, has to be met with an immediate and comprehensive response. Before the vessel arrives at any port, Masters must ensure that the SMPEP is completed and up to date (including local P&I) and for the US, the QI information is required. This also helps create a good sense of ‘preparedness’ when being inspected by any shore agency. Crew members taking or landing stores should be made aware how apparently harmless substances can be viewed by shore authorities and agents as a potential pollution incident and consequently treated with extra care.
All lifts are to be prepared carefully to ensure nothing falls out. This includes lifts prepared by shore personnel. If a pallet is not properly stowed then you are to refuse to lift it until it is rectified. Pallets should be lifted within a cargo net. SWL of gear used must never be exceeded. Once a pollution incident has occurred, it is vital that the relevant parties are informed as soon as possible and a complete log is kept of these contacts. Where possible a photo log of the incident would be very useful to complement the records.
1. Answer the questions.
1.What kind of cargo did one of vessels take from the dock at Corpus Christie?
2. Where was the paint stacked?
3. How many cans fell from one of the lifts into the dock ?
4. What was the reason for the paint to spread over the surface of the water?
5. What kind of operation did the agent initiate?
6. What relevant parties were informed by the terminal about the pollution incident?
7. How did the Master act in this situation?
8. Why did the ship’ s superintendent call a qualified Individual for the vessel?
9. How did the vessel’s crew manage to recover the majority of the paint?
10. What actions did the QI take over coordination of the clean-up operation?
11. When were cargo operations been suspended?
12. Why was a diver hired in this area?
13. Why were no charges brought against the vessel?
14. What does this pollution incident show?
15. What is your opinion of the incident?
2. Decide whether the statements are true (T) or false ( F). Correct the wrong ones.
1. During cargo operations at Corpus Christi, one of the vessels took a three month supply of paint stores by means of the vessel’s derrick._____________________________________
2. The paint was stacked on steel pallets in 25-liter cans.__________________________________
3. While the crew were recovering the drums from the water using a line with a hook on the end, one drum burst open and sank._______________________________________________________
4. The agent then initiated deploying a clean-up operation with Corpus Christi Area Oil Spill Control Association independently of the vessel.________________________________________
5. The Master advised the ship’s Superintendent who in turn called a pilot for the vessel.__________________________________________________________________________
6. The vessel’s crew commenced their own clean-up using absorbed pads and booms and recovered the majority of the paint.___________________________________________________
7. After 2 hours , the alternate team had not been deployed so the QI reverted to the original clean-up organisation ( CCAOSCA) to complete the operation using a boat with 2 people.
________________________________________________________________________________
8. Cargo operations had been suspended by the vessel when the paint was realised but were resumed after the clean-up had been completed after 21 hours.______________________________
9. While the diver was recovering the can, more paint was released._________________________
10. The USCG was satisfied by the vessel’s responce to the spill and no charges were brought against the vessel._________________________________________________________________
3. Decipher the following abbreviations.
1. CCAOSCA__________________________________________________________________
2. QI_________________________________________________________________________
3. USCA_____________________________________________________________________
4. P&I______________________________________________________________________
5. SWL______________________________________________________________________
4. Choose the reasons of the pollution incident.
1. the weight of 25-liter cans;
2. incapability of the the vessel’s crane to lift such 25-liter cans of paint;
3. sinking of one open drum ;
4. damage of all vessel’s lifts;
5. improper stowage of logs on wooden pallets
5. Complete an incident report (see annex) including the following items.
1. Description of the situation;
2. Direct, root causes of the situation;
3. Remedial actions and recommendations.
Case study – 3.
A ULCC built in 1977 and without fully segregated ballast, was loading in an Arabian Guld port. As required by local regulations, the vessel was loading and discharging simultaneously. The ballast consisted of clean sea water loaded into cargo tanks, which was segregated from the incoming oil by at least 2 valve separation. However, cargo lines containing oil passed through the tanks containing water.
Despite MARPOL recommendations, no ballast reception facilities existed at this port, and all ballast was discharged to the sea. When the ballast tanks were getting close to empty, sheen of oil was seen on the surface of the sea. This rapidly worsened, and deballasting was stopped.
Lessons learnt:
At the time of the pollution incident, it was impossible to ascertain the cause of the pollution. 6 weeks later, after discharging in the US Gulf, it was possible to enter the tanks for an inspection. It was found that a hole had developed in one of the lines loading oil, allowing oil to contaminate the ballast. This line had been pressure tested during the previous ballast voyage, and found to be tight. Unfortunately, due to the age of the vessel, this kind of material failure is always going to be a risk.
This type can take place even on the most modern of tankers. It’s one in which evidence in mitigation is very difficult to obtain at the time of the incident and is blamed on the ship’s staff. The ship was fined $25,000 plus clean-up costs.
1. Answer the questions.
1. What was the region of the ULCC’s navigation?
2. What were the local requirements?
3. How was the deballasting operation carried out?
4. Were there any appropriate conditions for the deballasting operations?
5. What was the reason of the deballasting termination?
6. What was the result of the inspection carried out in the port of the US Gulf?
7. What are the risks with the cargo lines on the aged vessels?
8. Is such situation possible on modern tankers?
9. What was the penalty for this incident?
10. Were there any additional charges to penalty expenses?
2. Read the text and find a word or phrase in the text which means the following.
1. ballast water introduced into a tank permanently allocated to the carriage of ballast;
2. a place that international shipping ports must provide to collect residues, oily mixtures, and garbage generated from an ocean-going vessel;
3. a thin, glistening layer of oil on the surface of water;
4. to pollute the water carried in ships’ ballast tanks to improve stability, balance and trim;
5. to penalize.
3. Decide whether the statements are true (T) or false (F). Correct the wrong ones.
1. A ULCC built in 1977 and without fully segregated ballast, was loading in Persian Gulf port.
_____________________________________________________________________________
2. The ballast consisted of cool sea water loaded into ballast tanks, which was segregated from the incoming oil by at least 2 valve separations._______________________________________
3. Despite MARPOL recommendations, ballast reception facilities existed at this port, and all ballast was discharged to the sea.__________________________________________________
4. 6 weeks later, after discharging in the US Gulf, it was still impossible to enter the tanks for an inspection.____________________________________________________________________
5. It was found a hole had developed in one of the lines loading oil, allowing oil to contaminate the ballast. ___________________________________________________________________
6. Due to the age of the vessel, this kind of material failure is always going to be a risk.
_____________________________________________________________________________
7. The ship was fined $25,000 plus clean-up costs.____________________________________
4.. Complete an incident report (see annex) including the following items.
1. Description of the situation;
2. Direct, root causes of the situation;
3. Remedial actions and recommendations.
Case study–4. Garbage
Fines totaling $97,500 were handed down today in the Sydney Magistrates Court against the owners of a Hong Kong registered chemical tanker for garbage pollution in waters off New South Wales.
A member of the public found a large plastic bag bearing an Australian Quarantine Inspection Service seal floating in Hastings River in January 2003.
It was one of four bags used by AQIS officers to seal meat products found aboard the chemical tanker during an inspection in December 2002.
Each bag was sealed with a numbered plastic tie, which was used by officers from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, assisted by AQIS, to identify the vessel.
The owners pleaded guilty to the offences under the Commonwealth Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Polution from Ships) Act 1983. The maximum fine for these offences is $110,000 for the shipowner and $22,000 for the ship’s master.
1. Answer the questions.
1. What was the amount of fines handed down in the Sydney Magistrates Court?
2. Where was the chemical tanker registered?
3. What was the reason of fines?
4. What was the region where the garbage pollution happened?
5. What was found in Hastings River?
6. When was the finding discovered?
7. What was in the large plastic bag?
8. What organization used such plastic bags?
9. Was that plastic bag sealed?
10. When did the inspection take place?
11. Due to what was the vessel identified?
12. According to what regulation were the owners pleaded guilty?
13. What was the maximum fine for such case?
14. Was the ship's master fined?
15. What was the amount of ship's master fine?
2. Explain the expressions in bold using English equivalents.
1. fine________________________________________________________________________
2. garbage pollution_____________________________________________________________
3. seal________________________________________________________________________
4. a numbered plastic tie__________________________________________________________
5. pleaded guilty_________________________________________________________________
3. Decide whether the statements are true (T) or false (F). Correct the wrong ones.
1. Fines totaling $997,500 were handed down today in the Sydney Magistrates Court against the owners of a Hong Kong registered chemical tanker._______________________________________
2. Fines were handed down in the Sydney Magistrates Court for oil pollution in waters off New South Wales._____________________________________________________________________
3. It was one of fourty bags used by AQIS officers to seal meat products found aboard the chemical tanker.__________________________________________________________________________
4. The inspection took place in December 2002._________________________________________
5. Each bag was sealed with a numbered plastic tie, which was used by officers from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.__________________________________________________________
6. A numbered plastic tie, which was used by officers from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, assisted to identify the AQIS officer.__________________________________________
7. The owners were acquitted of the charge to the offences under the Commonwealth Protection of the Sea Act 1983.__________________________________________________________________
8. The maximum fine for these offenses is $110,000 for the shipowner and $22,000 for the ship’s master.__________________________________________________________________________
4. Read the text and find a word or phrase in the text which means.
1. to render a decision;
2. ordinary citizen;
3. a ship constructed or adapted for carrying in bulk any liquid product;
4. to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing;
5. Australian government agency responsible for enforcing Australian quarantine laws.
5.Complete an incident report (see annex) including the following items.
1. Description of the situation;
2. Direct, root causes of the situation;
3. Remedial actions and recommendations.
CHEMIKALIEN SEETRANSPORT GMBHHSSEQ Improvement Note- NEAR MISS REPORT -
1. vessel
GREEN POINT2. place (e.g. at sea / in port)
IMMINGHAM3. number (will be assigned by DPA/QM)
06/10
4. description (describe WHAT happened and HOW it occurred) (documents attached: YES , number of pages 1 ], NO)
Deck cadet was ordered to tighten up some bolths on the manifold. Using force and
Unadequate wrench/spanner he failed from the platform. He did not wear the protective Helmet. Fortunately, no mayor accident happened.
reported by (name/function):
2/O V KOROLEV
date / signature:
02.10.2010
5. immediate corrective action
Stop any action .
responsible person (name / function)
C/O O SHUVALOVtarget date / date executed / signature
02.10.2010
6. root cause (determine WHY it did go wrong)
Not adequate hand tool wrench /spanner was used to do the job.
identified by (name / function):
C/O O SHUVALOVdate / signature
02.10.2010
7. corrective action (action taken / to be taken to prevent re-occ
|
urrence of the ROOT CAUSE)
Chief off. ordered only experienced persons to do |
|
|
|
|
|
such jobs where adequate knowledge an Absolutely must in order to do the job. Also, no persons to be on deck wea |
|
|
|---|
r
|
9. follow-up action statustarget date / date executed / signatureing no Protective gear (helmets, boiler suits, gloves etc.) FORMCHECKBO FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ YES (if YES, specify WHEN, and by WHOM) FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NO
Immediate. Discussed Monthly PEC meeting . 8. verification of the implementation corrective and preventive action 02.10.2010
|
|
responsible person (name / function) C/O O SHUVALOV |
X
|
date / signaturedate / signaturename / signature ﾧ cleared FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NOT cleared 02.10.2010 C/O O SHUVALOV |
|
|
name / function C/O O SHUVALOV |
|
|
3. number (will be assigned by DPA/QM)2. place (e.g. at sea / in port)- NEAR MISS REPORT -CHEMIKALIEN SEETRANSPORT GMBH 4. de 07/10 AT SEA 1. vessel GREEN POINT |
|
HSSEQ Improvement Note |
s
|
cription (describe WHAT happened and HOW it occurred) (documents attached: YES , number of pages 1 ], NO)
At the about 2235 hrs LT, 3 officer on the bridge watch discovered vessel going Off course. At the same time Off Course alarm sounded. Steering switched over To second system and vessel proceeding without any problem. Next day first system Switched ON in order to check on it, and found all working well & without prob |
|
|
l
|
responsible person (name / R .IGNATYEVte executed / signatureems. 6. root cause (determine WHY it did go wrong)
In the standing orders inserting rule „Check 06.10.2010 5. immediate cormmediatly Call to Master , Duty Eng., Ch.o emergency steering .
|
|
|
|
date / signature:reported by (name/function): 06.10.2010 3/O V ZOIDZE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a
|
nd compare all compases frequently“ If doing so, any malfunction could be di |
|
|
|
|
s
|
covered well on time, even prior OFF course Alarm is signaling.
|
|
identified by (name / function): MASTER R |
.
|
9. follow-up action statustarget date / date executed / signatureresponsible person (name / function)IGNATYEV FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ YES (if YES, specify WH 8. verification of the implementation corrective and preventive action 06.10.2010 MASTER R .IGNATYEV 7. corrective action (action taken / to be taken to prevent re-occurrence of the ROOT CAUSE)
Same as described above. Systems to be frequently checked/controled, and in next drydock System to be serviced by shore technician. |
|
date / signature 06.10.2010 |
E
|
name / signaturedate / signaturename / functionN, and by WHOM) FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NO
06.10.2010 MASTER R .IGNATYEV
Immediate. Discussed Monthly PEC meeting . |
|
FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ cleared FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NOT cleared |
M
|
3. number (will be assigned by DPA/QM)2. place (e.g. at sea / in port)HSSEQ Improvement Note- NEAR MISS REPORT -ASTER R .IGNATYEV 08/10 ROTTERDAM 1. vessel GREEN POINT CHEMIKALIEN SEETRANSPORT GMBH |
|
|
date / signature 06.10.2010 |
4. description (describe WHAT happened and HOW it occurred) (documents attached |
:
|
date / signature: YES , number of pages 1 ], NO)
12.10.2010
Before departure ordered deck crew to remove vessel portable gangway from shore to her position .For this operation are used vessel crane ( on the middle ). Observed that one A.B. and one O.S do not wear protective helmets. |
|
reported by (name/function): 3/O V ZOIDZE
|
5
|
identified by (name / function):. immediate corrective action
Stopped lifting vessel gangway.When A.B & O.S wear protective helmet vessel gangway. |
|
|
|
responsible person (name O. SHUVALOVtarget date / date executed / signatur root cause did go wrong)
In case off wrong manouvre with crane, or broke gangway sling serious accident is possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C
|
/0 O. SHUVALOV 7. corrective action (action ta |
|
date / signature 12.10.2010 |
|
|
k
|
en / to be taken to prevent re-occurrence of the ROOT CAUSE)
For all persons when leave accommodation ( on therm |
|
|
|---|
i
|
9. follow-up action statustarget date / date executed / signaturenals ,during cargo operations,bunkering ) must wearing protective gear (helmets, boiler suits, gloves etc.) FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ YES (if YES, specify WHEN, and by WHOM) FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NO
Immediate. 8. verification of the implementation corrective and preventive action 12.10.2010
|
|
responsible person (name / function) C/0 O. SHUVALOV |
D
|
date / signaturename / signaturedate / signaturename / functioniscussed Monthly PEC meeting . CHEMIKALIEN SEETRANSPORT 12.10.2010 C/0 O. SHUVALOV 12.10.2010 C/0 O. SHUVALOV |
|
FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ cleared FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NOT cleared |
G
|
3. number (will be assigned by DPA/QM)2. place (e.g. at sea / in port)- NEAR MISS REPORT -MBH 4. description (describe WHAT happened and HOW it occurr 09/10 AT SEA 1. vessel GREEN POINT |
|
HSSEQ Improvement Note |
e
|
d) (documents attached: YES , number of pages 1 ], NO)
In the morning the boatswain was ordered to remove the rust from the Radar mast.He did all preparations and he wore a safety belt but he forgot to attach it to the mast.While he was removing rust he suddenly slipped but he mannaged to grab the mast ladder step and no major accident occured. |
|
reported by (nam |
e
|
responsible person (C/0 O. SHUVALOVtarget date / date executed / sign/function): 6. root caY it did go wrong)
Unadequate check of all safety equipment before starting work on Heights and arranging one person to assist man on hei 3/O V ZOIDZE
|
date / signature: 30.10.2010 |
|
|
5. immediate corrective action
Stop anorking on the mast . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
g
|
date / sht at all times.
|
|
identified by (name / function): C/0 O. SHUVALOV |
|
|
i
|
gnature 30.10.2010 |
|
7. corrective action (action taken / to be taken to prevent re-occurrence of the ROOT CAU |
S
|
9. follow-up action statustarget date / date executed / signatureE) FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ YES (if YES, specify WHEN, and by WHOM) FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NO
Immediate. Discus 8. verification of the implementation corrective and preventive action 30.10.2010
In the future no such jobs will be done before checking safety equipment by man who uses it and the man who assists.Also all protective gear should be worn at all times. |
|
responsible person (name / function) C/0 O. SHUVALOV |
s
|
datename / signaturedate / signaturename / functioned Monthly PEC meeting . C/0 O. SHUVALOV 30.10.2010 C/0 O. SHUVALOV |
|
FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ cleared FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NOT cleared |
|
3. number (will be assigned by DPA/QM)2. place (e.g. at sea / in port)HSSEQ Improvement Note- NEAR MISS REPORT -/ signature 4. description (describe WHAT happened and HOW it occurred) (documents att
1. vessel
30.10.2010 |
|
CHEMIKALIEN SEETRANSPORT GMBH |
a
|
date / signatureidentified by (name / function):target date / date executed / signatureresponsible person (name / function)date / signature:ched: YES , number of pages 1 ], NO) 7. corrective action (action taken / to be taken to prevent re
6. root cause (determine WHY it did go wrong)
5. immediate corrective action
|
|
reported by (name/function):
|
-
|
name / fun9. follow-up action statusoccurrence of the ROOT CAUSE) FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ cleared FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NOT cleared FORMCHECKBO specify WHE FORMCHECKBOX ﾧ NO
Immediate. Discussed Monthly PEC meeting .
|
|
|
|
target date / date executed /verification of the implementation correcte actionresponsible person (name / function)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c
|
date / signaturetion
NEAR ACCIDENT
|
|
name / signaturedate / signature
|
|
|
R
|
EPORT
Vessel: |
|
|
|---|
|
Report No.: Description of incident/situation:
Date: 04.07. 2008 Place: CHIBA(JAPAN) –-- |
|
|
-
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
Description: during discharging cargo North West Shelf Condensate cargo operations was suspended 04.0 |
|
|
7
|
.2008 at 16.18 LT Due IG Plant was not able to maintain IG positive pressure in cargo tanks. Vessel has to stop discharging to avoid vacumisation in cargo tanks. Cargo operatio |
|
|
n
|
resumed 04.07.08 at 16.48 LT. –----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possiblet/situation and possible consequences:
As a resulte verge of racceptance by Japanese terminal in case of longer delay –---------------------------- |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which preventive measures have been taken (or proposal for preventive measure):
Date: 23.07.08 Place: at sea Name: C/E ______________________
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master's decision/ plan for further handling of above accident:
As per attached C/E______________ technical descriptions
Date: 23.07.08 Place: at sea Master's signature__________________________
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company's decision/ plan for further handling of above accident:
Date:______________ Place:_______________________
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow up control:
Remarks:
Preventive measures have been taken in accordance with the above:
Date:_______________ Place_________________________
FLEET CIRCULAR
1. What type of bunker was loaded in the tanks?
2. Who was in charge of the bunkering?
3. Was there any communication with the barge?
4. Did the situation seem risky and why?
5. Do you think that suspension of the bunker operation would have been the right decision? Why?
6. Why should extra measures be taken?
7. Did everyone on board the vessel follow their duties? If they didn’t, identify the errors.
8. What are the human errors made by the crewmembers?
2. Match the words from column A with the appropriate words from column B to form the collocations and use them in sentences of your own.
A B
1. Suspend A. Vessel
2. Contaminate B. Precautions
3. Throttle C. Audit
4. Detain D. Conformities
5. Overflow E. Water
6. Take
2. Answer the questions.
1. What are the mooring parties involved in the procedure?
2. What orders were diven by the Master and the 2nd officer?
3. What mooring procedure is normal? Was it violated by the AB?