6,

We are disappointed gives scant attention to
tanker size. 3 this only Once, in 17.2.2
States,

ir-ieed, common
S are involved, the
but this is not the situation in
Surely it is 6: ter te control a 45,000.
ed two 45,0000 dwt inkers) than a 90,000 dwt
The larger vessel Obviously of::rg a larger surface for
the current to WOKK on. The Qreater fr: ce being exerted on the
Ship demands a gre@a- *< Corrective force should an obstacle be
encountered. tthe ve L's momenta is -¢ater. Manoeuvres are
tricker. When we a 7OnSiderin. a Sh.9 nearly 800 feet long ©
moving through Secor, Narrows, a channel only 800 feet Wide, the
increased potential for accident seems SQ a@pparent that we are
baffled by the authors of the report's Seemingly contrary:
conclusion,

We continue to believe that the Size of.tankers using the
ancouver may be one of the most important factors
‘ermining the likelihood of a Spill. We have yet to see
evidence that this has been s The authors of
e Risk An j i ion Model
ide "realistic
ows",

We, however, are concerned that the caorrF study may itself
be unrealistic. On what has it ba ns about tug
c Capabilities? About Currents? We fear that
aed the study has been underta:: | one of these
pan factors have been Without this

information,
will bias the

ts,

’ aS proposed, the simulator ig used to train Pilots,
the pilots could he the recipients of inaccurate training which
could increase rather: than diminish the risk of a spill.)

Several years ago we asked Allard Ages, a senior hydraulic
research engineer at the Institute of Ocean Studies, what
information was needed to determine an appropriate size limit for
tankers transiting Second Narrows. After detailing the areas that
needed research he remarked, "It would definitely take several
Years to do it right. Otherwise you are asking for a disaster,"

We are Concerned’ that this important study may still not be
“done right",

ITEM | PAGE

bl