Page 26 - Layout 1

5 Cargo

Wet damage case study 1Wet damage case study 2

The Chief Oficer decided to carry out a routine ballast tank The container vessel was in port discharging cargo and the

inspection for several tanks. The Chief Oficer completed a vessel carried out ballast operations. The Second Oficer

permit for entry into conined/enclosed spaces and also an came on watch at midnight, and during a routine inspection
initial risk assessment for entry into enclosed spaces. The saw that there was water in one of the cargo holds. No bilge

company had a requirement for carrying out detailed risk alarm was reported in the engine control room or bridge. He

assessments but no speciic requirement as to when this told the able seaman (AB) on watch to investigate. The AB
should be done. In this case, the oficers did not think it found that there was 15 cm of water in the cargo hold. The

was necessary.Second Oficer pumped out the water using the bilge pump.

The following day the vessel berthed and cargo operation
commenced. The vessel carried out a normal ballast Causes:

operation and sailed for the next port in the evening.After discharge was complete water was found leaking out

About 24 hours after the ballast operation had been of one of the manholes leading to a ballast tank. The nuts
completed, the Chief Oficer discovered that one of the were found to be slack. It was also found that maintenance

cargo holds had been looded with more than one metre of of the bilge sensors had not been completed as per the PMS.

water. Prior to this there had been scheduled inspections but This was because the Chief Engineer could not ind any
they had failed to discover any water.manuals, so had checked the jobs off as complete when they

had, in fact, not been completed.
Causes:

It was found that a gasket for the manhole was missing

allowing water to enter the cargo hold. According to the Wet damage case study 3

company’s SMS it was the Chief Oficer’s responsibilityThe crew washed the deck with ire hoses, and as the ire line
to verify that the hatch is properly secured when work is was used for the wash down, both ire pumps in the engine

completed. The vessel was itted with both cargo hold bilge room were activated. The crew closed all valves delivering

alarms and high-level alarms. These alarms did not work and seawater to the anchors in order to get higher water
no alarm was received on the bridge.pressure. These valves are usually left permanently open.

The bilge sensor was broken and heavily corroded. It had When they interrupted washing they left the valves closed

been inspected a couple of days previously and found to be and the ire pumps working.
in good condition. The inspection had not been completed The vessel arrived in the port in the evening and cargo

correctly. After departure an ocular inspection had been operations commenced in the morning. After a while

carried out but no water had been found.stevedores noted water in one of the cargo holds. The crew
investigated and found 20cm of water in the cargo hold.

www.swedishclub.com24