Local

Questions on commercial vessel inspection program again surface in El Faro hearing

El Faro engineering exhibits These photos of engineering components on El Faro were introduced as an exhibit during the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation Hearing on El Faro's sinking. TOTE says these photos- which include a turbine, the engine room, and more- were taken around 2012, but a former Chief Engineer says it accurately represents El Faro dating through a few weeks ahead of the sinking.

Questions around the special inspection protocol which El Faro was under again became the central focus of the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation hearing on the ship's sinking.

The El Faro- and many other commercial vessels- are under the “Alternate Compliance Program”, which allows Class Societies to perform inspections under Coast Guard guidelines and authority. The American Bureau of Shipping does a large amount of this survey work, including on the El Faro.

During the first CGMBI session, investigators questioned the effectiveness of the program, including whether the Coast Guard has enough oversight to ensure everything is being done right. Now, two more concerns- whether all elements are being surveyed properly and if surveyors have enough time to prepare.

Broadly speaking, there are two levels of surveys that take place under ACP- an annual and a five year. During the annual inspection, ABS says the engine plant overall is evaluated and all of the ship's "vital" systems are checked. Each individual engine component must also be checked every five years. Rather than doing the entire inspection at once, a vessel can enroll in "continuous machinery", which targets checking about 20% of the individual components each year- totaling everything over five years.

A company can further opt- but is not required- to use “condition monitoring”, where certified companies measure things like vibration on specific engine components. That paperwork can then be used to credit the component for five years, rather than the surveyor having to run the system.

One key question for investigators has become whether all of the components that should be fully inspected- and not condition monitoring- were properly handled.

On a survey performed June 2015, items like the El Faro’s fire pumps were marked as condition monitoring, but ABS Senior Surveyor Mark Larose says they shouldn’t have been. He says when he performed that survey, he still did a separate inspection as if they weren’t condition monitoring, but he couldn’t say whether other surveyors would know to do the same. In fact, he says he didn’t initially notice the fire pumps were marked for condition monitoring, and didn’t know at this time whether that had been changed since.

If a vessel uses condition monitoring, they’re required to enter a preventive monitoring program as well. El Faro did use condition monitoring, but Larose says he is not aware of any preventive maintenance program. In fact, the only one he knew about was entered around 2005.  Larose says he further didn’t access the system the ship’s owner uses to track their preventive maintenance.

The second key question that arose- whether surveyors have enough time to fully prepare for their work.

According to the Board, a ship’s owner is required to make a survey request 14 days ahead of time. Larose says that’s often not the case, and they generally operate on a few days or less.

In regards to the June 2015 survey, TOTE actually made the request June 8th for a surveyor to come out on June 9th. Ultimately, that was postponed because TOTE says a maintenance project ran late and they wanted to give the crew some time to rest. It was rescheduled for June 16, but Larose himself was only told about it the day before.

Despite that, he says he had adequate time to prepare- and would feel comfortable with even less time. He says generally, they look for advanced notice because of scheduling restrictions, not because of desired prep time.  Larose further says that Coast Guard gets notified any time they’re going on to a ship, but he almost never gets a response from that notification. Whether the Coast Guard arrives for the survey itself depends on what exactly is being worked on, in Larose’s experience.

Oversight- both by the Coast Guard and ABS- were previously questioned in relation to ACP. During the last hearing session, investigators learned El Faro underwent work on the lifeboat winches the same day she left on what would become her final voyage. Neither ABS nor the Coast Guard were notified about the work.

Ultimately, Larose says he didn't find any issues during the June survey on El Faro. He did not examine the boilers, which we have heard from previous testimony have deterioration and other problems. Larose further says he was never told by any of the crew while on board about any of the boiler survey work that had been done.

He was followed by another Surveyor who did have experience with a boiler component, and fielded a lot of questions about that.

ABS Senior Surveyor Jamie D'Addieco has several trips on El Faro, but her September 8th visit to survey work done on the port boiler economizers drew much of the focus.

TOTE officials notified ABS that there would be repair work done on the economizers in late August, but ABS wasn't able to be there for the work itself. D'Addieco was able to survey the repairs September 8th, after El Faro had already made several trips on the repairs. She says the boiler was running at 800 PSI when she got there, and based on that pressure test and other factors, she signed off.

“Since they had sailed on it for a week already at whatever their operating conditions were, they [the crew] didn’t indicate any signs of leakage or anything else, I considered 800 to be satisfactory at the time of my survey,” D’Addieco says.

Investigators found the maximum working pressure to be higher than that test, though, and they wanted to know why the pressure wasn’t pushed higher to fully scope the repairs.

D’Addieco says, based on ABS rules, it’s the surveyors discretion what pressure to test to.

“Was this the first time that you pressure tested anything in a boiler,” asked CGMBI Technical Advisor Lieutenant Commander Mike Venturella.

“Yes,” responded D’Addieco.

She then took it further.

“New equipment that hasn’t been in service for over 40 years, a test pressure in excess of operating would be satisfactory. But for a vessel that’s been operating, a boiler that’s been operating over 40 years, in my opinion, it could lead to an unsafe situation,” D’Addieco says.

When asked by investigators if there was a blanket policy to test older equipment to a lighter standard, she said only that the test was her discretion.

Another component that was worked on- super heater tubes- were not surveyed by ABS because they weren’t notified. D’Addieco says if they had been alerted, they would have had to sign on to the work.

WOKV will continue to follow the CGMBI. Get instant updates on Twitter.

0
Comments on this article
0

mobile apps

Everything you love about wokv.com and more! Tap on any of the buttons below to download our app.

amazon alexa

Enable our Skill today to listen live at home on your Alexa Devices!