EUPEN

Electrical installations should be such as to minimize the risk of fire and explosion from flammable products. Multiple electrical panels, light fixatures and other electrical components inside the cargo compressor room and cargo deck areas were found improperly sealed. Specifically, the cable glands were missing or inadequate. Vessel is to rectify prior to cargo operations to the satisfaction of the RO and Coast Guard. 74SOLAS(14)VII/13.1, IGC 10.1.2

The company should ensure that the master is fully conversant with the company's safety management system [6.1.2]. The company should ensure that all personnel involved in the company's safety management system have an adequate understanding of relevant rules, regulations, codes and guidelines [6.4]. The company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity witht he provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the company [10.1]. In meeting these requirements, the company should ensure that: inspections are held at appropriate intervals [10.2.1]; any non-conformity is reported, with it's possible cause, if known [10.2.2]; and appropriate corrective action is taken [10.2.3]. A set of pre-arrival tests and checks shall be performed not more than 1 day before arrival in port (or monthly if more than one calls per month) [Ship Operations-Cargo/CARG-030 page 1/6]. Pre-arrival checks are to be carried out as per ship specific checklist and, where necessary, as per terminal requirements. This includes, but is not limited to: readiness of the water spray system [Ship Operations-Cargo/CARG-001 page 2/4]. A set of pre-arrival tests and checks shall be performed not more than 1 day before arrival tests and checks shall be performed not more than 1 day before arrival in port (or monthly if more than one calls per month).At a minimum, the following equipment will be tested: emergency shutdown system and closing time of ESD valves (result to be recorded). [Ship Operations-Cargo/CARG-030 page 1/6]. As delineated in deficiencies 2-4, the company failed to ensure that the master was fully conversant with the SMS procedures. Additionally, the company failed to ensure that all personnel, involved in the company's SMS had an adequate understanding of the relevant rules regulations, codes, and guidelines. Lastly, the objective evidence provided in the proceeding deficiencies attests to the company failing to ensure that inspections of the relevant systems were tested at regular intervals, with any non-conformities being reported, and subsequent action taken. An additional external verification of the vessels SMS, focusing on company procedures regarding resources, personnel, and maintenance of the ship is required. 74SOLAS(14) IX/3.1 Ref ISM Code 6.1.2 ISM Code 6.4 ISM Code 10.1 ISM Code 10.2

Electrical installations should be such as to minimize the risk of fire and explosion from flammable products. All of the electrical panels, light fixtures, and other electrical components inside the cargo compressor room, above and around all of the cargo tank domes were found improperly sealed. Specifically, the cable glands were missing or inadequate. As a result, the wires were loose enough to be pushed easily in and out of the fittings. Over 90% were found loose and sealed improperly with caulk. This is objective evidence that the electrical fixtures and/or enclosures are no longer in conformity with the standards of certified safe equipment. 74SOLAS(14) VII/13.1 Ref IGC(93) 10.1.2

On ships carrying flammable or toxic products or both, a water-spray system for cooling, fire prevention and crew protection should be installed to cover: exposed cargo tank domes and any exposed parts of cargo tanks; exposed on-deck storage vessels for flammable or toxic products; [and,] cargo liquid and vapour discharge and loading manifolds and the area of their control valves and any other areas where essential control valves are situated and which should be at least equal to the area of the drip trays provided. During a test of the Deck Water Spray, less than 50% coverage was observed on the No. 1 and No. 2 tank tops and less than 10% was observed on the port side manifold. Five nozzles were missing from different locations of the deck water spray. Also, the flange at the termination of the port side manifolds water spray was loose and water was observed spraying out from the gasket of the flange. As a result, the deck water spray was not providing the required coverage area. 74SOLAS(14) VII/13.1 Ref IGC(93) 11.3.1

Emergency shutdown valves in liquid piping should fully close under all service conditions within 30 s of actuation. Information about the closing time of the valves and their operating characteristics should be available on board and the closing time should be verifiable and reproducible. The emergency shutdown did not work the first time it was tested on the starboard manifold. On a subsequent test of the emergency shutdown on the starboard manifold, one valve did not shut and the other took more than two minutes to close. During the test of the port manifold ESD, one valve took over a minute to close. 74SOLAS(14) VII/13.1 Ref IGC(93) 5.6.4

The control system for emergency shutdown valves should also be provided with fusible elements between 98degC and 104degC. All fusible plugs on the cargo deck were covered in rust, which could compromise the systems ability and to activate as required by the Code. 74SOLAS(14) VII/13.1 Ref IGC 5.6.4 17bc

Means shall be provided to close all openings which may admit air or allow gas to escape from a protected space. The door that connects the cargo control room to the cargo motor room does not properly seal. Two of the three latch bolts are not making contact with the strike plate of the door. The top latch bolt is permanently stuck in the recessed position. The cargo motor room is protected by high pressure carbon dioxide, a fixed gas extinguishing system. 74SOLAS(97)II-2/5.1.4 17bc

Pressure relief valves should be set and sealed by a competent authority acceptable to the Administration [and a record of this action should be retained aboard the ship]. Relief valves on the port and starboard deck tanks were missing seals. 74SOLAS(14)VII/13.1 Ref IGC 8.2.5 17bc

The system should be capable of covering all areas mentioned in 11.3.1 with a uniformly distributed water-spray of at least 101/m2 per minute for horizontal projected surfaces and 41/m2 per minute for vertical surfaces. For structures having no clearly defined horizontal or vertical surfaces, the capacity of the water-spray system should be the greater of the following: projected horizontal surface multiplied by 101/m2 per minute; or actual surface multiplied by 41/m2 per minute. The deck water spray is configured in a spray rail around the equator of the deck tank. Review of the calculations in drawing numberFZ1-UH0001F found that the spray nozzles were designed to spray a 120degree conical spray perpendicular to the tank at the hemisphere. The actual nozzles were found redirected pointing at approximately 30 degrees off of the perpendicular upwards. At this angle some of the 60l/min flow rate of the valve sprays directly up, reducing the coverage volume. The calculations shown in drawing number FZ1-ZA0001F, and the design are in misalignment and do not appear to clearly result in uniformly covering the very top of the tank with 10l/min/m2 of projected area or 4l/min/m2 per the entire surface calculation. 74SOLAS(14)VII/13.1 Ref IGC 11.3.2 40bc