真知灼见
在多米诺骨牌系列中，一枚骨牌被碰倒了，则将发生连锁反应，其余所有骨牌相继被碰倒。
如果移去中间的一枚骨牌，则连锁被破坏，骨牌依次碰倒的过程被中止。事故的发生往往是由于人的不安全行为，机械、物质等各种不安全状态，管理的缺陷，以及环境的不安全因素等诸多原因同时存在缺陷造成的。
如果消除或避免其中任何一个因素的存在，中断事故连锁的进程，就能避免事故的发生。
在安全生产管理中，就是要采取一切措施，想方设法，消除一个又一个隐患。
其中以控制人的不安全行为和提高人的安全意识是投入相对节省的途径，企业应不定期组织各种形式的安全培训工作，开展多种形式的安全教育活动，并以取得的效果进行评价分析，在每个隐患消除的过程中，就消除了事故链中的某一个因素，可能就避免了一个重大事故的发生。
Chapter 2. Certification and documentation
Certification:
2.1 Are all the statutory certificates listed below, where applicable, valid and have the annual and intermediate surveys been carried out within the required range dates?
1The ship owner was not the member of ITOPF.
2Voc management plan was not class approved.
Safety management and the operator’s procedures manuals:
2.3 Does the operator's representative visit the vessel at least, bi-annually?
1Last superintendent visit record was dated 27 July 2009.
2.4 Is a recent operator’s audit report available and is a close-out system in place for dealing with non-conformities?
1THE OPERATOR’S INTERNAL AUDIT ONCE A YEAR IN ACCORANCE WITH OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS, BUT LAST INTERNAL AUDIT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 6/APR/09, MORE THAN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE INSPCTION
2.5 Does the master review the safety management system and report to the operator on any deficiencies?
1The master has reported one Non-conformities report (NCR) and seven deficiencies to operator in last master's review of SMS 30 Oct 2009, however there were no evidence to indicate that the NCR has been closed and operator has provided any feedback to master's suggestions at the time of the inspection.
2The last master review dated 08 November 2009 raised five comments/ recommendations, but the operator’s response was not noted onboard.
3The latest Master review conducted on 03 Mar 2010 and sent to company simultaneously, then confirmed by company Safety and Quality department on 10 Mar 2010; But approved by Company Designated Person on 08 Mar 2010. This actual process did not meet with Company SMS related procedure.
Class documentation and surveys:
2.14 Are class survey reports adequately filed?
1The vessel had not received the Class Status Report issued by the vessel's classification society.
2.15 Is the vessel free of conditions of class or significant recommendations, memoranda or notations?
1One Statutory Memorand[n with reference to COW was recorded in the Class Status Report dated 6 October 2009 as follow's: No.SMG001- Issued at Huludao-JobN o. QH064015-Issued Date-2008-09-06
The effectiveness of the COW system should be confirmed in accordance with Regulation and paragraph 4.2.10 of the Revised COW Specifications <Res.A.497(X11> within one year after the tanker was first engaged in the trade of canying crude oil or by the end of the third voyage carrying crude oil suitable for crude oil washing whichever occurs later.
2Class survey report issued on 31 Jan 2010 was stated as follows: “Exhaust gas economizer various water tubes found leakage or removed from the inlet header, and the exhaust gas economizer water tubes were isolated the inlet and outlet headers.
To be permanently repaired and dealt with, to the satisfaction of the attending surveyor, not later than 05 Jan 2012, or upon arrival of arranged repairs facility, which comes first.”
3As per Class survey status dated on 27 Sept 2009 demonstrated: Due to vessel’s damage, RA.SH09SS13071 for more details, the vessel was granted to voyage from anchorage of Xiazhimen, Ningbo to Daxie, Ningbo for unloading partly cargo oil, and then returned to anchorage of Ningbo for unloading all cargo oil, and then to shipyard of Xinya, Zhoushan for permanent repaired, these repairs should be achieved as soon as possible. But there was no closed Class survey conducted accordingly on board after repairing from 03 Oct 2009 to 13 Oct 2009 which attested that this vessel was seaworthy or not.
2.16 Are procedures in place to carry out regular inspections of cargo and ballast tanks, void spaces, trunks and cofferdams by the vessel’s personnel and are records maintained?
1The operator's tank inspection requirements stated that tank inspection interval for cargo oil tanks was 24 to 36 months and ballast tanks was 12 to 24 months.
2As per procedures, the inspection of cargo tanks was to be conducted once every 30 months however, the last inspection was conducted during the last docking in September 2007(about 30 months)
3There was lack of some inspection details as per the inspection record for cargo tanks and ballast tanks, which included cargo/ballast handling
4Even though Cargo tanks should be inspected every six months according to company procedure, also there were entry permits on board for cargo tanks, there was no inspection record conducted accordingly.
5Ballast tanks were inspected 6 monthly. No record of extent of sediment build up till date.
Enhanced Survey Programme:
2.17 If the vessel is subject to the Enhanced Survey Programme, is the report file adequately maintained?
1No ESP survey file nor condition evaluation report on board. Vessels last special survey was on 08 May 2010.
Publications:
2.24 Are the publications listed in the table below, as applicable to the vessel, available?
1SOLAS 2009 edition was not available.IMDG Code was also an old edition.
Chapter 3. Crew management Crew management:
3.1 Does the manning level meet or exceed that required by the Minimum Safe Manning Document?
12/O, 4/E WAS NOT POSSESSION ON LICENSE THERE LICENCE WAS UNDER APPLICATION AND EVEIDENCE OF LETTER ON WAS VALIDITY 3 MONTHS, BUT ALREADY EXIPIRED 15/DEC/09(2/O) AND 27/NOV/09(4/E)
3.3 Do all personnel maintain hours of rest records and are the hours of rest in compliance with STCW requirements?
1The work/rest hour was recorded by department heads and random check indicated some error against the related record.
2Random check indicated some error against the related record, the chief officer attended the whole tank cleaning process as per record from 0800 to 1600 LT on 10.04.2010, but the C/O was ecorded work from 0400 to 0800 and 1300 to 1700LT on the same day
3.8 If the vessel is equipped with a fully approved ECDIS, have all the deck officers attended appropriate training course?
1The vessel was fitted with non-approved ECDIS, the chief and second Mates had no proof of having attended formal training for operation of the system.
2The vessel was fitted with no-approved ECDIS, the 2nd.Mate(B) had no proof of having attending formal training for operation of the equipment.
3The vessel was fitted with non-approved ECDIS, the Second and two Third Mates had no proof of having attended formal training for the use of the system.
4Vessel was fitted with a single ECDIS. Master and 2/O had no certificate of ECDIS training.
Crew qualifications:
3.10 Are the officers and crew suitably qualified and is their training and experience adequate?
1The chief officer was not in possession of crude oil washing certificate, the master and second officer were in possession of crude oil washing certificates, this ship did not carry crude oil since delivery.
2As per the Master's certificate of competency, it was indicated that it was 'Valid only on Chinese greater coastal, coastal and near coastal voyages', there was no documented evidence to indicate what the countries the trading area covered and it was noted that the vessel had traded to Japan, South Korea and Eastern Russia.
Drug and alcohol policy:
3.16 Record the date of the last unannounced drug and alcohol test undertaken by an external agency:
1There was no record of random drug and alchol test carried out by external agency.
Chapter 4. Navigation
Policies, procedures and documentation:
4.2 Does the operator provide guidance on minimum under keel clearance and squat?
1Company UKC police posted in the wheel house was of old edition. (rectified during this inspection)
2THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ABORT LINE AND CONTENGENCY ANCHORAGE POSTION BEFORE ENTRY THROUGH A NARROW CHANNEL, ALSO USEFULL NO GO AREA
4.3 Are deck log books and engine movement (bell) books correctly maintained and is an adequate record being kept of all the navigational activities, both at sea and under pilotage?
1Effectiveness of the radar performance at every watch was only being recorded as “OK” with no numerical values having been recorded till date.
2Radar performance records indicated testing for transmission only, no mention of test of receiving equipment
4.11 Are regular gyro and magnetic compass errors being taken and are they being recorded?
1Compass Error Book was completed as the gyro and magnetic compass errors were being obtained on a regular basis by celestial alculations. But relevant tables for celestial calculations were not noted onboard.
Charts and publications:
4.13 Has a system been established to ensure that nautical publications and charts are on board and current?
1Some of Chinese charts published by MSA China in the chart folios were of old edition. The chart numbers of those charts had been changed, the list of the charts being replaced by MSA China was not maintained.
2The Chinese chart 40413 for the previous voyage approaching to Wusongkou was of old edition. This chart was withdrawn and a new chart was published in December 2009.
3The BA charts 3482 and 4042 used for previous voyage were torn and in poor condition.
4.14 Are all paper and where applicable electronic charts, fully provided and corrected for the intended voyage?
1The annual summary (Year of 2009) of Chinese NTM (T&P notice) was not on board at the time of the inspection.
The last voyage Chinese edition charts were not corrected for the T&P notices affected which dated before the year of 2009.
2The latest NTM received onboard and corrected to was No. 4/2010 (dated 28 January 2010) which was more than two months.
3One BA charts No.1602 used for previous voyage was not well corrected up to date during inspection, which included one Temporary and Preliminary Notices No.937 in the year of 2010 missing, another No.6876/2009 was not cancelled accordingly although this Temporary Notice already cancelled as per summary dated on 27 Feb 2010. ----rectified before inspection completed.
4Chart correction log (NP 133A) was an old edition.
5It was observed the exact status of chart corrections outside the trading area was not known. NP133 , chart correction log was not being maintained correctly and there was no clear indication which were the outstanding corrections. Some of the P & T correction numbers were not entered in the log.
4.16 Are Lists of Lights, Tide Tables, Sailing Directions, the Nautical Almanac, the Annual Summary of Notices to Mariners and the Chart Catalogue the current editions and have they been maintained up to date where required?
1The Annual Summary of Notices to Mariners (247 1&2) and Cumulative List of Admiralty Notices to Mariners were of the 2009 and June 2009 edtions respectively.
2The BA navigation charts were auto supplied, however, the chart catalogue of 2010 Edition was not fully corrected.
3BA catalogue was not well corrected from No.40 to No.50 week in the year of 2009 after the first correction as per printed on the preface of BA catalogue; One Chinese list of light G102 used for previous voyage correction from No. 30 to 47 week in the year of 2009 was not conducted accordingly after publication. ----rectified before inspection completed.
Navigation:
4.20 Was a comprehensive passage plan available for the previous voyage and did it cover the full voyage from berth to berth?
1The bridge watch levels defined in passage planning for current voyage from Dalian to Taicang via Zhoushan were not in line with operator's navigational procedures, they appeared lower than the requirements. During passages of arrival to and departure from the berth, defined watch level was 1, instead of highest watch level 3 with master conning at bridge, however master confirmed actual watch level implemented was 3.
2Previous passage plan was not corrected up to date, although parts of charts used already changed and also not including anchorage accordingly.
4.21 Was position fixing satisfactory throughout the previous voyage and the frequency of plotted fixes in accordance with the passage plan?
1As per previous passage plan from Jinzhou to Ningbo, the position fixing method used from Latitude 33 Degree 20 Minutes North to 32 Degree 20 minutes North was only by GPS and implemented by duty Officer accordingly.
2Inspection of charts used during previous voyage revealed that visual bearings had not been regularly used for position fixing where feasible.
3No record of celestial observations till date.
4Inspection of charts used recently revealed that visual bearings had not been regularly used for position fixing, the use of the radars and GPS had been used.
4.22 Was radar parallel indexing used to monitor the position of the vessel?
1It was noted that no parallel indexing was used to monitor vessel position on chart JP135 and on radars
4.25 Is there an adequate system for dealing with navigation warnings and are they being charted?
1The T&P No.4517 was not proper on marked on voyage chart JP1061
2Not all EGC navigational warnings for Navarea Ⅷ and IX were available
Navigation equipment:
4.26 Is navigation equipment appropriate for the size of the vessel and in good order?
1The vessel was fitted with Voyage Data Recorder (VDR), it was last inspected by shore on 19 November 2008 (more than one year).
2The anemometer in the wheel house was out of order. One portable anemometer was utilised instead, but this was not able to indicate wind direction.
3The reading of the gyro repeater in the steering gear room was not correct. (The reading of this was of 030, while the reading of the main gyro compass was of 314.)
4The vessel was fitted with Voyage Data Recorder, it was last inspected/serviced by shore on 5 January 2009 (more than one year).
5THE GYRO REPEATOR WAS FITTED IN THE STEERING ROOM, BUT IT WAS NOT CLEARLY VISIBLE CONDITION ABOUT 2-3 METERS AWAY FROM EMERGENCY STEERING POSITION
6The checks of the effectiveness of the radars by the performance monitors were stated to have been conducted however, records of the checks were not available for inspection.
4.27 Are navigation lights in good order?
1One anchor light was not working.
Chapter 5. Safety managementSafety management:
5.1 Has a safety officer been designated and trained to under take this role?
1The role of Safety Officer was assigned to the Chief Mate, he stated that he had attended formal training for this role however, his certificate of training was not available for inspection.
5.6 Is there a procedure for the reporting, investigation and close-out of accidents, incidents, nonconformities and near misses?
1LAST NEAR MISS REPORT WAS DATED 09 JAN 2009.
2One “Near Miss” has been raised in 2010, however, it was kind of Machinery failure.
3PSC deficiencies from inspection in Feb.2009 were not recorded as non-conformities.
4No evidence of closing out from company for the Non Conformity raised by Master on 16 April 2010.
5.7 Is a completed ISGOTT Ship/Shore Safety Check List (SSSCL) available and are its provisions being complied with?
1Some of the 'A’ items in the SSSCL for current cargo operation were noted without written agreement in the 'remark’ column,
for example the 'Emergency signal & shutdown procedure to be used by the ship and shore.
2There was a bonding cable attached to the hose rest boom railing in way of the port manifold near the loading arm connected to ship’s No.3 manifold, contrary to ISGOTT recommendations.
5.9 Are all required external doors, ports and windows kept closed in port?
1The external water-tight door, located on the poop deck starboard side for access to accommodation, was hooked open during the cargo operation; however a single door (not gas tight type) was kept close at all times.This was rectified at the time of the inspection.
2The outer door of the accommodation starboard access was observed open during cargo operation while the light between the two doors was not Ex rated.
5.11 Is all loose gear on deck, in stores and in internal spaces properly secured?
1Numerous 200 Ltrs lube oil drums stowed on poop deck were only secured with a small diameter rope lashing.
Enclosed space, pump room and Volatile Organic Compound compartment entry procedures:
5.24 Are enclosed space entry procedures in accordance with the recommendations of ISGOTT?
1ENCLOSED SPACE ENTRY PERMIT PROCEDURES WAS AVAILABLE, BUT CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING FOR ENCLOSED SPACES OF O2 OF THE ALTMOSPHERE AND HC GAS/TOXIC VAPOUR (IF APPROPRIATE) WAS NOT CHECKED DURING ENCLOSED JOB
2There were records stated the emergency fire pump was tested weekly. The pump located in the enclosed space in the forecastle, but the operator’ enclose space entry procedures had not been implemented.
3There was no evidence that ventilation was provided during work in an enclosed space.
4Enclosed space entry procedures not being followed. Single enclosed space permit issued for two set of tanks(1S and 2S/3S and 4S) dated 10 April 2009. Gas checks were not done separately for each tank.
5.25 Are pump room entry procedures being complied with?
1Flow failure alarm was being activated on the control panel of the fixed pump room gas detector in the cargo control room.
2Calibration of ODME was recorded as being tested/calibrated on 05 March and 12 April, however it was observed that the enclosed space entry permits had not been issued.
5.26 Are pump room spaces adequately ventilated?
1It was observed that only 1 of the 2 pumproom fans could be used in the extraction mode. Both were in use in this port.
5.28 Are permanent arrangements provided for lifting an incapacitated person from the cargo and, if applicable, the ballast pumproom, including provision of a suitable stretcher or harness and is the equipment in good order?
1The emergency fire pump was located in a compartment which could be accessed via a narrow vertical descending ladder approx. 20 m. deep and there was no arrangement provided for lifting an incapacitated person from within the compartment.
Monitoring non-cargo spaces:
5.29 Are spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, including pipe ducts, regularly monitored for accumulations of gas?
1There was no evidence indicating that spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, including pipe ducts and ballast tanks were regularly monitored for accumulations of gas.
2Even though spaces adjacent to cargo tanks should be regularly monitored for accumulation gas every day as per company requirement, there was no evidence that these spaces was monitored accordingly in the past voyage commenced on 21 Mar and 12 Apr separately.
5.30 Where a fixed system to monitor flammable atmospheres in non-cargo spaces is fitted, are recorders and alarms in order?
1Fixed system used to monitor flammable atmospheres in non-cargo spaces was not carried out calibration by shore side and ship crew till inspection.
2The vessel was equipped with a fixed HC/O2 monitoring system to monitor WBT and void spaces;It was recommended in the manufactures' operational manual that the oxygen sensor cartridge should be replaced every 12 months of operation. The system was installed Dec. 2018 and there were no evidence to indicate the oxygen sensor has been renewed till date.
Gas analysing equipment:
5.31 Are portable gas and oxygen analysers appropriate to the cargoes being carried and are they in good order?
1The vessel carried only one set portable gas meter 'RI 415’ which was capable of measuring HC and oxygen. And there was no span gas for the calibration of the portable gas meter RI415
2Personal gas meters H2S alarms were at 10PPM instead of 5PPM recommended in ISGOTT
5.32 Are officers familiar with use and calibration of portable oxygen and hydrocarbon analysers?
1Duty officer was not familiar with the calibration procedures of the Tankscope.
5.33 Is there a record of regular testing and calibration of portable analysers?
1There was no record of regular calibration of portable gas meters.
5.34 Is sufficient span calibration gas available for the types of fixed and portable analysers on board?
1There was no span gas for calibration of one tankscope(RK RX-415) on board
2Span gas on board for calibration H2S sensor was dedicated as 10 PPM, but as per calibration on site by Chief Officer, the display was only 1.5 PPM
3There was no designated span gas on board for calibration tankscopes used in an oxygen deficient atmosphere on board till inspection.
5.35 On vessels fitted with an inert gas system, are instruments capable of measuring hydrocarbon content in an oxygen deficient atmosphere available, if required and in good order?
1The vessel was fitted with the inert gas system. But there was only one set of HC detector cable of measuring hydrocarbon content in an inert atmosphere. (The another HC detector was out of order)
5.36 Where toxic gases may be encountered, are appropriate toxic gas detection analysers available and in good order?
1H2S toxic gas analyser tubes expired in November 2019.
2There were no toxic gas detection analyzer and hand pump on board for detecting Benzene might be met with during bunker operation
3Toxic tubes supplied on board used for detecting H2S and Benzene was not marked with validity date accordingly.
Hot work procedures:
5.37 Are hot work procedures in accordance with the recommendations of ISGOTT Section 9.4?
1Welding curtain is not provided in way of hot work area in workshop
5.41 Are flashback arrestors fitted at the cylinders and at the workstation and are they in good order?
1Flashback arresters were not fitted to the piping located at the workstation (engine work-shop).
2Flash back arrester was not fitted to the oxygen cylinder located in the storage on the poop deck.
Life-saving equipment:
5.43 Are ship-specific life-saving equipment training manuals available?
1The forward liferaft embarkation ladders launching arrangements were not fitted with safety hand hold railings . Personnel were required to hold onto the boundary coamings (fish plates) in order to disembark. No emergency embarkation lights fitted either.
5.47 Are lifeboats, including their equipment and launching mechanisms, in good order?
1Lifeboats tops lights shades were opaque.
2Port lifeboat light shade was opaque.
5.50 Are liferafts in good order?
1Embarkation ladder not in place for the forward liferaft kept on starboard side.
5.51 Are hydrostatic releases, where fitted, correctly attached and in good order?
1Weak links of the hydrostatic release units were not connected. (rectified during this inspection)
5.53 Are lifebuoys, lights, buoyant lines, quick release mechanisms and self-activating smoke floats in good order?
1Weak links of hydrostatic release units of liferafts were not correctly connected.(rectified during this inspection.)
5.55 Are immersion suits in a satisfactory condition?
1Immersion suits certificateed 16 Jan 2016. There was no annual pressure test record.
2Immersion suits were manufactured in October 2016 and last serviced on 03 May 2020. No record of 3 yearly pressure test.
5.57 Are the locations of life saving appliances marked with IMO symbols?
1Fireman’s outfit placed in deck store on starboard boat deck was not marked with IMO symbol. Rectified during inspection.
Fire fighting equipment:
5.61 Are records available to show that samples of foam compound have been tested at regular intervals?
1The foam compound was last analysed by shore on 6 Jan.2019(more than one year)
2Even though the sample of foam compound had been tested on 04 Aug 2019, the named foam compound between product certificate issued by Class of CCS and sample test report was different.
3Foam used as fixed fire fighting system on board was named as 'Univex 3%’ as per certificate endorsed by Classification, it was named as 'YEK-3’ as per the latest analysis report dated on 14 Dec 2019.
4The deck fire fighting foam was produced in Mar 2017 as per the certificate, however, there was no analysis conducted when it’s age was over 3 years
5.66 Are fixed fire detection and alarm systems in good order and tested regularly?
1The latest function test for fixed fire detection and alarm system was conducted on 03 Feb 2020 and frequency was more than half year as per record, even though this system should be conducted every three months as per planned maintenance system.
2There was no designated equipment on board for regularly test thermal fire detectors.
3The test kit of the thermal detector was actived by burning materials which was not suitable to be used for engine room.
4'Common Fault’ was being activated on the control panel of the fire detection system located in the wheel house at the time of this inspection.
5.67 Are the main deck, pump room, engine room and other fixed fire extinguishing systems, where fitted, in good order and are clear operating instructions posted?
1Cargo oil tank No.1 wings was partially under the shelter of the forecastle deck, the deck foam could not fully cover the cargo area of forward of No.1 cargo tanks.
2CO2 fire extinguishing systems for paint locker and chemical store locker was marked in English only, on duty crew interviewed was unaware of correct release handle for paint locker.
3Cargo oil tank No.1 wings was partially under the shelter of the forecastle deck which was extended afterward, the fixed deck foam could not fully cover the cargo area of forward of No.1 cargo tanks under the shelter.
5.71 Are breathing apparatus sets fitted with fully pressurised air cylinders?
1Only seven Air cylinders of SCBA were conducted hydrostatical pressure test on 02 Sept 2019, there was no evidence that other air cylinders ever done hydrostatical pressure every 5 years period.
2The vessel was provided with one air compressor for recharging air bottles on board, however there was no evidence to indicate the air quality has been checked since delivery.
5.72 Are emergency escape breathing devices (EEBD’s) in the accommodation, pump room and engine room in good order and ready for immediate use?
1One EEBD in the engine control room was not fully pressurised.
Access:
5.79 Are safe access to the bow arrangements satisfactory?
1The gratings for the safe access from the bridge front to the bow was of a synthetic material, the certificate indicating the fire resistant of the material was not available for inspection.
5.80 If a helicopter landing or winching area is provided, is it Aviation Authority approved, or if not does it meet ICS guidelines?
1Vessel was provided the helicopter landing areas on main deck forward port side and was not marked the ship’s name on the helicopter landing area.
Chapter 6. Pollution preventionOil Record Books:
6.1 Are the Engine Room (Part I) and Cargo (Part II) Oil Record Books (ORBs) correctly completed?
1Oil Record Book (Part I) was not correctly recorded. There were entries recorded in the ORB (Part I) stated that incineration of oil residues were carried out regularly. However, quantities of oil residues incinerated as recorded in the ORB were always over the capacity of the incinerator as recorded in the IOPP certificate. (The capacity of the incinerator was of 52L/Hr, but the quantities of oil residues incinerated were always recorded as about 900 Ltrs with the incineration duration of about 10-11 hours).
2Oil Record Book (Part II) was not correctly recorded. The quantities of tank washing retained in the starboard Slop tank after tank cleaning as recorded in the ORB did not agree with the quantities retained in the same tank after tank cleaning and discharging through the ODME always. The differences were always about 30 – 50 cubic meters.
(eg. There was entry made in the ORB on 08 June 2019 stated that the quantity of tank washing in the starboard Slop tank was 420 M3. There was another entry made on 25 June 2019 stated 330 M3 of slops was disposed through the ODME. And there was another entry made on 08 July 2019 stated that 85 M3 of slops was collected to the same tank after tank cleaning. But the total quantities of slops retained in the same tank as recorded in the ORB on 08 July 2019 was 225 M3, while the correct quantity should be 175 M3.)
3AA) The print out form ODME indicated ANNEX I cargo washings were discharged overboard via ODME 17 Jan 2020 with the rate of discharge was manually set, reportedly the flow meter has failed for a quite long time, and the same was still out of order at the time of the inspection;
BB) Entries in ORB part II indicated the ANNEX I cargo washings have been discharged overboard through ODME 17 Jan 2020 and 29 Oct 2019, however the facts were not correctly recorded.
The discharging rate was recorded as 176 cum/hr, from 0226 to 0308 GMT on 17 Jan 2020, however the discharged quantity was 126 cum, exceeded the recorded discharging rate.
The discharging rate was recorded as 189.5 cum/hr, from 0742 to 0858 GMT on 29 Oct 2019, however the discharged quantity was 253 cum, exceeded the recorded discharging rate.
4ENGINE DEPT. OIL RECORD BOOK WAS NOT CORRECTED UNDER CODE”C”
5Oil Record Book (part 1) was not correctly recorded. There were entries made into Oil Record Book (part 1) on 23 April 2020 stated 3.26M3 of oily water was discharged to shore facility, but this disposal was recorded together with the disposal of oil sludge under code 12 & 12.1 instead of 13, 14 & 15.2.
6There was service report stated that the 15ppm alarm unit had been repaired on 14 January and 28 February 2020 respectively , but the failure of the 15ppm alarm unit had not been recorded in the Oil Record Book (part 1).
7Entries in the last 3 ORB’s Part-I were a continuation from the previous entries. The codes and item nos had not been entered to reflect a continuity.
6.4 Have disposals of slops and dirty ballast been adequately recorded and were they in accordance with MARPOL?
1There were entries made into the oil record book(part 2) on 17 january 2020 stated that 126 M3 of slops was disposed through the ODME system from 0226 GMT to 0308 GMT with a discharging rate of 181 M3/Hr. However, it was observed that: the print out of the ODME indicated that the discharge rate was manually input as 200 M3/Hr instead of automatically input by the flow meter of the ODME system. There were another entries made into the oil record book(part 2) on 29 October 2019 stated that 253 M3 of slops was disposed through the ODME system from 0742 GMT to 0858 GMT with a discharging rate of 199.7 M3/Hr. However, it was observed that: the print out of the ODME indicated that the discharge rate was manually input as 200 M3/Hr instead of automatically input by the flow meter of the ODME system from 0828 GMT to 0858 GMT
Cargo operations and deck area pollution prevention:
6.14 Are means readily available for dealing with small oil spills?
1The fixed wilden pump (starboard) was not operational, a portable spill pump was placed at the aft end of starboard main deck before the inspector left ship.
6.15 Is the vessel free from any visible bulkhead, valve or pipeline leakage liable to cause pollution?
1Both the ballast overboard lines and the ODME overboard were passing through the HFO tanks P/S. No means were available to verify the integrity of these systems passing via the bunker tanks
6.20 Are oil spill containers and gratings in place under the cargo manifolds and are they in good order?
1The gratings for the two oil spill containers under the cargo manfolds were lashed by wires which were considered to be not adequate.
6.22 Are unused cargo and bunker pipeline manifolds fully bolted and are all drains and vents and unused gauge stems, suitably blanked or capped?
1The drain lines of bunker manifolds located at the mid manifold port/starboard side were fitted with valves and were not fitted with suitable individual drains plugs or caps or blanking arrangements.
2It was observed there were no caps or plugs fitted at the drain lines at all cargo and bunker lines at the manifolds. 2 valves were,fitted at each drain line.
Pump rooms and oil discharge monitors:
6.28 If an oil discharge monitoring system is fitted, is it in good order and is there evidence of recent testing?
1The vessel was fitted with ODME with digital display and memory system. Has facility of transfer to computer with specific USB. However USB not available on board
6.29 If the ODME has not been operational, was the fact recorded in the Oil Record Book?
1Reportedly the flow meter has failed for a quite long time and the same was still out of order at the time of the inspection,however the fact was not recorded in the ORB part II.
Ballast water management:
6.30 Does the operator have a ballast water and sediments management plan and are records being maintained of all ballast water exchanges?
1Ballast Water Management Plan not being followed. The format in use for the Ballast Water handling log not same as given in the Ballast Water Management Plan.
6.31 Can the vessel check or sample segregated ballast prior to deballasting?
1The Fore Peak Tank was served by large manholes located in the forecastle store, they were each closed by a cover which was secured in place by many bolts hence, its opening was not easily achieved for inspection of the ballast in the compartment prior to de-ballasting
2The only means for a sample of the ballast tanks to be visually checked for oil contamination on each occasion before being
discharged was to remove 8 nuts & bolts from the sighting port.
3#5 WBT (P/S) SUITABLE FACILITIES WERE NOT FITTED, AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO VISUALLY OF MANY BOLTED PLATE (8 BOLTED MANHOLE PLATE WAS FITTED ON THE LARGE MANHOLE PLATE)
4The Fore Peak Tank was served by two large man-holes located in the fore-castle store, their covers were secured in place by many bolts hence, their opening was not easily achieved for inspection/checking of the ballast in the tank prior to de-ballasting.
5The Fore Peak Tank was served by two large man-holes located in the fore-castle store, their covers were secured in place by many bolts hence, their opening was not easily achieved for inspection/checking of the ballast in the tank prior to de-ballasting.
Engine and steering compartments:
6.39 Are the arrangements for the disposal of steering compartment oily bilge water adequate?
1The steering gear space was not fitted with any fixed piping arrangement or drainage arrangement for the bilge contents. A small portable hand pump with flexible hose was kept near the bilge well.
Garbage management:
6.41 Has the Garbage Record Book been correctly completed?
1Garbage Record Book was not correctly recorded as the start and stop time of incineration operation were not recorded. (Only one time was recorded in the Garbage Record Book).
Chapter 7. Structural condition
7.2 Are weather decks free from visible structural defects that warrant further investigation?
1The emergency light and post (about 2.5m length) for 6 person liferaft disembarkation was broken out on the main deck forward port side near hand rail and No.1 WBT(P) due to heavy weather.
Chapter 8. Cargo and ballast systems - petroleum
Stability and cargo loading limitations:
8.7 Are there records indicating that the operational accuracy of the load computer is tested regularly?
1Even though random check for comparison of loading computer program and found result in normal condition, regularly comparison conducted by Chief Officer did not base on Classical condition approved by Class before inspection.
Cargo operations and related safety management:
8.18 Are Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on board for all the products being handled and are all officers familiar with their use?
1The material safety data sheets for the cargo handled at this terminal was not issued by the cargo supplied but that of the operator.
Cargo and ballast handling and monitoring equipment:
8.21 Are the following, where fitted, in good order and is there recorded evidence of regular testing?
1The reading of the pressure sensor for cargo tank No.3P was not correct. (The reading of this sensor was 10 mbar, while the reading of other pressure sensors were about 30mbar)
2One pressure sensor of Cargo tank No.1S was seen in malfunction during inspection.
3All the pressure gauges fitted on the main deck for the local readouts on the deep well Frahmo pumps were working well but their glass was opaque and the gauge was difficult to read.
4eventhough deep well pumps used on board,purging was not well conducted according to manufacturer recommendation and the latest purging was done on 23rd-feb.-2020,there was no evidence purging carried out during this voyage.
5SCF Ground Failure' alarm was being activated on the monitor of the fixed level gauge system in the cargo control room.(spare parts was on order)
6The Crude oil Washing machine of cargo tank 5C was out of order at the time of inspection.
Ullaging, sampling and closed operations:
8.26 If the vessel is handling volatile or toxic cargoes, is it operating in a closed condition?
1It was observed while boarding the vessel that the 2 Port cargo tank p/v valve had lifted while the vessel was alongside and had been so for a considerable period of time until the same had been pointed out by the inspector. Starboard door and ventilators to accommodation leading to the main deck were observed to be open and no evidence of any request / permission from the terminal was available. Vessel was carrying a cargo of Girassoil Crude with approx 12 ppm and heating cargo.
Venting arrangements:
8.31 If stop valves are fitted which permit isolation of individual tanks from the common venting system, are they provided with positive locking arrangements and are the keys under the control of the person in overall charge of the cargo transfer?
1IGS isolation valves for each cargo tank were provided with positive locking arrangements, however many of them were noted to be unlocked, and the key was hanged at cargo control room wall.
2Keys to the padlocks of the IG isolation valves leading into the cargo tanks were observed to be with the duty rating ( AB) and not in the custody of the C/O
8.33 Are flame screens easily accessible and removable, in good order and inspected and cleaned as part of a regular maintenance routine and are there records available?
1The flame screen on the vacuum valves of the P/V at cargo hold No.4S and No.6S were broken.
Inert gas system:
8.35 Was the inert gas system in use and operating satisfactorily at the time of the inspection?
1The IGS and cargo pumps interlock was noted to be overridden, this was corrected during the inspection.
8.39 Is the inert gas system including instrumentation, alarms, trips and pressure and oxygen recorders, in good order?
1Oxygen content recorder for the Inert Gas printer was not working in the cargo control room.Digital readout for the oxygen content was displayed on the printer panel but same was not being recorded on the chart paper.
8.46 Does the P/V breaker appear to be in good order?
1Gauge Glass of the PV Breaker was dirty, unable to see the liquid level.
8.47 Can double hull spaces be inerted?
1Inerting of double hull spaces was by way of a fixed line on deck from the IG main to the bottom ballast line located within 4P/S WBT’s. No means of direct inerting fitted/ provided.
2It was observed the only method of inerting the ballast tanks was by using the I.G to Ballast bottom filling line connection.
Crude oil washing 8.59 Are records maintained of previous COW operations?
1No records of previous COW operations could be located on board.
Manifold arrangements:
8.69 Are the manifolds in satisfactory condition?
1THE BOTH SIDE CARGO M/F PLATFORM HAD NOT SUITABLE RAIL TO PROTECT FROM FALLING DOWN FOR WORKING PERSONS CARGO LINE CONNECTION, THE PLATFORM HEIGHT FROM MANID DECK WAS MORE THAN 1 METERS
8.70 Are manifold pressure gauges fitted outboard of the manifold valves on both sides of the vessel and are they in good order?
1There were about 10 pcs manifold gauges on the port &stbd manifolds which were reported to be working but there glass was opaque and the gauge was difficult to read.
8.74 If the vessel is fitted with vapour return manifolds, are they in good order?
1The vapour return manifolds were not marked as per the recommendation of ISGOTT.
Pump rooms:
8.79 Is the cargo pump room gas monitoring system in good order and regularly checked?
1The 3 bottom CH gas detectors were fitted approx 5.5m above the bottom shell adjacent to the aft bulkhead such that it would not be effective in the event of accumulation of gas at the bottom.
8.81 Are the pump room bilges free of cargo product?
1A significant amount of cargo ( Girassol Crude) with an approx H2S of 12ppm was observed to have accumulated in the savealls under stripping pump within the cargo pump room.
Cargo lifting equipment:
8.84 Are all cargo derricks, cranes and other lifting equipment properly marked and has periodical testing and inspection been arried out?
1The vessel was fitted with one SWL 15 tonnes hydraulically operated crane for hose handling, it was last tested 23 December 2017 and annually inspected on 19 November 2018 (more than one year).
2The vessel was fitted with one SWL 10 tonnes hydraulically operated crane for shore handling, it was last tested on 14 Jan.2019 but had not been annually examined.
Ship to ship transfer operations - petroleum
8.87 Have senior deck officers had open-water ship to ship transfer experience within the last 12 months?
1It was stated by master that senior deck officers did not have open-water ship to ship transfer experience within last 12 months.
2Senior deck officers did not have open-water ship to ship transfer experience within the last 12 months.
3It was reported by Master that senior deck officers did not have open-water ship to ship transfer experience within last 12 months.
Chapter 9. Mooring
Mooring equipment documentation:
9.3 If one or more bow stoppers are fitted, is a certificate attesting to the safe working load provided?
1The vessel was fitted with one SWL 200 tonnes tongue type bow stopper, its serial numbers were stenciled on the equipment but had not been permanently marked (bead welding) and in addition, it had not been subjected to periodical survey (once every five years).
2The vessel was fitted with one SWL 200 tonnes tongue type bow stopper, its serial numbers had not been permanently marked on the equipment and there was no record to indicate that it had been subjected to periodical survey (once every five years)
3The vessel was fitted with one SWL 200 tonnes tongue type bow stoper, the serial numbers had been stenciled but not permanently marked on the equipment and in addition it had not been subjected to any periodical survey(once every five years)
4The bow chain stopper was permanently marked with a number. A part of the number was located on the bow stopper certificate as cast number, without the prefixes. The certificate could not be easily cross referenced.
5The vessel was fitted with two SWL 200 tonnes tongue type bow stoppers, theor serial number were stenciled but not permanently marked on the equipment.
6There was no certificate attesting to the strength of the bow chain stopper(s) foundations and associated ship supporting structure substantiated by detailed engineering analysis or calculation every 5 years period.
7The vessel was fitted with one SWL 200 tonnes tongue type bow stopper, its SWL and serial numbers had not been permanently marked on the equipment and in addition, it had not been subjected to periodical survey (at least once every five years).
8The identification number mentioned on the bow stopper certificate were not permanently marked. A small sticker with the number had been temporarily stuck on.
9One SWL 200 tonnes tongue type bow stopper was fitted onboard, its serial numbers were stencilled on the equipment but had not been permanently marked (bead welding) and in addition, it had not been subjected to periodical survey (once every five years).
9.4 Are there records of the inspection and maintenance of mooring ropes, wires and equipment?
1Mooring ropes onboard to be tagged to be identified against certificate.
9.5 Is there a policy in place for the testing of winch brakes and are the results recorded?
1Specifications were not available on the winch drums forward and aft to show the torque applied to achieve the required design holding capacity. However it appeared from the certificate for rendering test, that the same torque had been applied for all winches.
Mooring procedures:
9.6 Are moorings satisfactorily deployed and tended?
1One mooring rope used for heading line was seen one strand broken during inspection.
Mooring equipment:
9.19 Are mooring wires, ropes and synthetic tails in good order?
1The surface strands of one head line and one stern line had wasted for approximately 5%.
9.21 Is mooring equipment marked with its SWL?
1The SWL of all roller leads had not been clearly marked by bead weld.
2SWL of the mooring equipments were marked by bead weld in Kn.
3The mooring equipemnt was marked by weld bead outline with its SWL expressed in KN and not expressed in tonnes(t).
Single point moorings:
9.26 Is single point mooring (SPM) and associated equipment fitted to OCIMF recommendations?
1The vessel was fitted with two tongue type bow stoppers, the SWL of each stopper was 200 tones (required SWL was 350 tones as the vessel was delivered in January 2019
2The SWL (200T) of two SPMs where had fitted on Fcle deck were not met the OCIMF recommendations SWL (350T). The vessel was delivered from news ship builder on 06 Jan 2019.
3Bow chain stopper certificate only in Chinese.
9.27 If the vessel is equipped for mooring at single point moorings, does it meet the recommendations as applicable, contained in Mooring Equipment Guidelines (3rd Edition)?
1The lead of the pick-up hawser from each stopper to the winch drum on its respective side was not direct but via one pedestal type roller, the angle of the lead at the roller was about 150 degrees.
2SPM pick up rope could only be lead on to mooring winch drum by passing through two Pedestal Rollers forming an angle of almost 90 degrees and passing behind the mooring winch operator.
3The lead of the pick-up hawser from the stopper was not direct to the starboard winch drum but via one pedestal type roller, the angle of the lead at the roller was about 120 degrees.
4The lead of the pick-up hawser from the stopper was not direct to the starboard winch drum but via one pedestal type roller, the angle of the lead at the roller was about 120 degrees.
5The vessel was fitted with one SWL 200 tonnes tongue type bow stopper, the lead of the pick-up hawser was not direct to the starboard but via one pedestal type roller, the angle of the lead at the roller was about 120 degrees.
Emergency towing-off pennants:
9.31 Are the Emergency towing-off pennants (fire wires) of appropriate size and do they conform to OCIMF recommendations?
1MBL of all three fire wires provided on board was 507KN, less than 55 tons as recommended, the SWL of the bitts that fore and aft fire wires attached to was 500KN.
2MBL of both fire wires were 700 Kn which were in excess of the SWL of 62 ts to which they were attached.
9.32 Are the emergency towing-off pennants (fire wires) properly rigged to meet terminal requirements?
1The forward and aft fire wires had approx. 15 m. slack on deck between the twin bollards and the ship’s side fair-lead, coiled up neatly in a bight and tied up with a weak link.
Chapter 10. Communications
Communications procedures:
10.9 Is the Radio Log being maintained correctly?
1Maintenance details related to radio batteries were not recorded in the Radio Log Book accordingly, including on-load and off-load daily test and monthly security connection check for batteries.
10.11 Is there a maintenance programme in place to ensure availability of the radio equipment?
1GMDSS Shore Based Maintenance Certificate expired on 21 January 2020.
Communications equipment:
10.12 Is the communications equipment in good order?
1Inmarsat-C was seen 'DTE did not communicate to IME, confirmed the connection between IME’ on the display, although the service engineer already on board and it was not solved before inspection completed.
10.16 Is the vessel equipped with sufficient intrinsically safe portable radios for use on deck?
1The insulation rubber of the antennas of walkie-talkies used on deck were broken and antenna wires were exposed.
Chapter 11. Engine and steering compartments
Policies, procedures and documentation:
11.1 Is the vessel provided with adequate operator’s instructions and procedures?
1ALMOST ALL RECORD,INSTRUCTIONS（EMERGENCY FIRE PUMP,EMERGENCY GENERATOR, EMERGENCY STEERING ETC） AND CHECK LIST WERE WRITTEN IN CHINESE
11.3 If the machinery space is certified for unmanned operation is it being operated in that mode?
1The vessel's machinery space was classed 'Unmanned' but was operated in the 'Manned' mode, the Master and Chief Engineer stated that this was done as per Operator's instructions and for safety reason.
2The machinery was certified for UMS, however, the Engine room was manned all the time as per the company policy.
3The machinery space was certified for unmanned operation, actually the engine room had not been operated unmanned since delivery. It was reported that the operator required the machinery space to be manned all times.
4The engine room was certified for UMS operation, whereas as per C/E and Master vessel was being operated in the manned mode as per operator’s instructions for safety purpose.
5Even though the machinery space was certified for unmanned operation, it was still manned as per record and unmanned operation mode was not operated without company agreement on board till inspection completed.
6The vessel's machinery space was classed 'Unmanned' but was operated in the 'Manned' mode, the Master and Chief Engineer stated that this was done as per operator's instructions as the vessel was fairly new and for safety reason until such time when all alarms were verified.
7The vessel's machinery space was classed 'Unmanned' but was operated in the 'Manned' mode, the Master and Chief Engineer stated that this was done as the instructions from operator as the vessel was fairly new and for safety reason.
8The machinery space was certified for unmanned operation; however it was operated manned since delivery. Reportedly operator has planned to operate machinery space in UMS mode but not commenced yet.
11.7 Are there adequate procedures to prevent uncontrolled entry into the engine room?
1As per rest hour record kept on board, there was only one oiler on watch in the engine room during anchorage period and there was no record attested that effective contact with bridge been done accordingly.
11.11 Does the operator subscribe to a fuel, lubricating and hydraulic oil testing programme?
1Although lubricating oil analysis programme was in progress,as the latest analysis report dated on 18th feb 2020 that the 1st last sample was on 7th nov 2019;the 1st analysis report kept on board showed that the sample date was on 01 oct 2019 instead.
2Company procedures –'INM0610’ regarding bunker operation stated fuel oil sample to be landed and tested ashore upon the completion of bunkering operation. As per the operator’s procedures, hydraulic oil samples to be tested every 6 months. However the latest fuel oil analysis report onboard dated 09 July 2019, the latest hydraulic oil analysis report dated in June 2019 which was almost 11 moths ago.
11.12 Are detailed bunker transfer instructions available?
1Ship/shore safety check list for lube oil bunkering on 13.03.2020 did not address all items marked 'A'.
Planned maintenance:
11.13 Is a planned maintenance system being followed and is it up to date?
1PMS was not approved by Classification Society accordingly even though this vessel was involved in Continuous Survey Machinery system from Class of CCS
2PMS WAS MANUAL (PAPER BASE) BUT THIS PMS CLASS APPROVAL WAS NOT OBTAINED
Safety management:
11.16 Are emergency escape routes clearly marked, unobstructed and adequately lit?
1EMERGENCY ESCAPE ROUTE LEADING TO EMERGENCY ESCAPE TRUNK AND EXIT IN E/R WERE NOT BOLDLY MAKRED
11.29 Are self-closing sounding devices to double bottom tanks in good order and closed?
1Some self-closing sounding devices to double bottom tanks in engine room were stuck in open position. Rectified during inspection
11.32 Are records maintained for the regular inspection and testing of lifting devices?
1The engine-room was fitted with a SWL 5 tonnes over-head crane, it was last tested on 23 December 2017 but had not been annually inspected.
11.33 Is an inspection and maintenance programme in place for other lifting equipment such as wire slings?
1A SWL 5 tonnes over-head crane was fitted in the engine room, it was last tested on 14 Jan.2019 but hand not been annually examined
2Lifting equipment, wire slings, were not identified by any marking
11.36 Are machinery spaces and steering compartments clean and free from obvious leaks and is the overall standard of housekeeping and fabric maintenance satisfactory?
1The safety notice and signs were not displayed in electrician work shop in the engine room. Rectified during the inspection.
11.39 Are seawater pumps, sea chests and associated pipework in a satisfactory condition and free of hard rust and temporary repairs, particularly outboard of the ship-side valves?
1The IG Sea Water and Main Sea Water Pump No. 3 which was in use during this inspection were leaking slightly in way of the mechanical seals, the Chief Engineer stated that this was caused by sediments from the sea water (which was very sandy), the Chief Engineer stated that the pumps could be cleaned on departure from this port. The vessel was fitted with two other sea water pumps.
Machinery status:
11.40 Are the following, where applicable, all in good order and do they appear to be well maintained?
1The steam pipe at the forward superstructure bulkhead starboard to the pump room was temporally repaired with sealant.
2Both No.1 and No.2 blower smoke density monitors were out of order.
3The MDO purifier control unit in the purifier room was out of order.
4Vessel was available to operate the emergency generator by method of the battery starting system and hydraulic starting system, but the hydraulic starting system could not operate to start the emergency generator at the time due to leaking of the O-ring between the hydraulic cylinder and cylinder cover during the pumping up hydraulic pressure.
5The alarm printer could not be tested during this inspection, it was found that the equipment could not be connected to the alarm monitor.
6The control unit for the No.2 auxiliary generator display could not be in auto mode during inspection, manned control instead and service engineer already on board.
7Main engine lubricating oil main line obvious visible a bucket placed at pipeline joint and contained with small amount of oil.
8No.3 Aux. engine cooling water pressure gauge was defective.
Chapter 12. General appearance and condition
Hull, superstructure and external weather decks:
12.4 Is the general condition, visual appearance and cleanliness of the weather decks satisfactory?
1Approximately 15% of the hydraulic pipe covers on the forward section of the deck had substantially wasted and holed at places.
12.5 Do decks in working areas have clearly identified non-slip surfaces?
1The working area on the forward mooring area were not treated for non slip.
2The forward and after mooring decks did not have non slip surfaces and they were not clearly identified or marked by a border. Non slip surface was provided only around the mooring bitts.
3The main deck area forward and aft of the ship’s accomodation ladder, in way of the manifold areas port and starboard and towards the accomodation block, non-slip areas had not been identified with non-slip surfaces.
12.6 Is the general condition of service pipework satisfactory and is it free from significant corrosion and pitting and soft patches or other temporary repairs?
1BOLTS AND NUTS OF CARGO,IG,CABLE CONDUIT OBSERVED WITH HEAVY RUST AT SCATTERED LOCATIONS.
2Main steam line, eapansion joint on the main deck in way of 2 starboard cargo tank was leaking.
3Section of steam line was leaking.
4Tank cleaning line U-bolts observed to be rusted. IG deck seal filling and drain line observed with hard rust. Underside of cable conduits observed with hard rust.
12.7 Are pipe stands, clamps, supports and expansion arrangements satisfactory?
1Bolts,nuts,U-clamps og IG, cargo, fire lines, stripping lines observed to be rusted at scattered locations.(It was observed that renewal was in progress)
2Approximately 20% of the covers serving the deck hydraulic pipes were corroded on the edges or were not secured to deck.
12.8 Are all deck openings, including watertight doors and portholes, in a satisfactory condition and capable of being properly secured?
1AIR CONDITIONER INTAKE VENT COVERS EDGES WERE CORRODED.
12.9 Are fuel, ballast and other space vents and air pipes in a satisfactory condition and does visual evidence indicate regular maintenance?
1The ventilation suction of bosun store was located on the ceiling of the bosun store but was in doubt of its effectiveness.
2The ventilation suction of the bosun store was on top of the ceiling and it’s in doubt of ventilation effectiveness.
12.10 Are all vents and air pipes clearly marked to indicate the spaces they serve?
12 Nos. Vents on funnel deck port siade were not marked for their identities.
Electrical equipment:
12.12 Is deck lighting adequate?
112.12 Although inspection of deck was conducted during daylight, it was noticed at the time of leaving the vessel, deck was significantly dark near midship area below cargo lines.
12.14 Are light fittings in gas-hazardous areas Ex 'd' rated and in a satisfactory condition?
1A fluorescent light fitted at engineroom housing external bulkhead port side obvious visible accumulated with free water inside light cover.
Accommodation areas:
12.19 Are public spaces, including smoke rooms, mess rooms, sanitary areas, food storerooms, food handling spaces, refrigerated spaces, galleys and pantries clean, tidy and in a hygienically satisfactory condition?
1Galley exhaust trunking was leaking from the flanges between the accommodation and the Engine room block passage way and also fatty deposits were dripping down from the flange.Flange was noted to be covered with plastic and rags.
