防火分隔未铺设防火材料缺陷
发表于 2014-12-31 17:20
一、基本情况
船名 |
*** |
呼号 |
*** |
|
国籍 |
THAILAND |
IMO编号 |
*** |
|
种类 |
GAS CARRIER |
总吨 |
3516 |
|
建造日期 |
1995 |
船级社 |
|
二、检查情况
2014年1月,某港港口国监督(PSC)检查员对上述船舶进行了PSC检查,共发现11项缺陷。船方按PSC的要求对缺陷进行了整改,船舶顺利开航。2月,船东却对下述缺陷提出复议:
07101 FIRE INTEGRITY OF BULKHEAD BETWEEN EMERGENCY GENERATOR ROOM AND CREW CABIN NOT BE INSULATED WITH A-60 REQUIREMENT.
ACTION TAKEN: 30后改成了99(RECTIFY WITHIN ONE MONTH)
关于该缺陷,PSCO和船东都没有提供检查现场的照片以及防火控制图的照片。
三、复议方诉求
Dear Sir,
Our vessel, MT ***IMO no ** operated by Seamanship Co.Ltd was detained at ** PORT by PSCO about no.5 code 07101 “FIRE INTEGRITY OF BULKHEAD BETWEEN EMERGENCY GENERATOR ROOM AND CREW CABIN NOT BE INSULATED WITH A-60”
We was consulted by NK Class that he advised me as this message below.
With reference to your inquiry, please be advised that;-
As per SOLAS Reg.9/2.3.3 “Fire integrity of bulkheads and decks” for cargo ships except tankers, the bulkhead between emergency generato room (control station category 1) and accommodation spaces (category 3) are to be A-60 class standard.
However, this item is applicable for ship constructed on and after 1 July 2002 and is not retroactive requirement.
Therefore, the mentioned vessel is not required to comply this requirement because she was keel laid on 10 May 1995.
Anyhow, you may check the Fire Control Plan to confirm “A60” insulation whether fitted on bulkhead inside 3/O cabin or not, due to insulation normally fitted on bulkhead with stiffeners.
Your understanding on this matter is very appreciated.
Best regards,
(Staff in charge: Pairush A.)
Buchsalert R.
Manager of ClassNK Bangkok Office
After checking was found our vessel had insulation fitted on the bulkhead inside 3/O cabin. So we would like you reconsider about this matter because of sensitive for our ship’s history that was strict by terminal.
Thank you very much for your kindness.
四、采集证据和各方意见
该轮是1995年5月10日安放龙骨的液货船(GAS CARRIER),适用1974年SOLAS公约1981修正案第II-2章第58条规定,根据表58.1的要求:control station (1) 和 accommodation spaces(2)之间应符合A-60防火分隔标准。根据SOLAS的相关内容,应急发电机间毫无疑问属于控制站,三副房间属于生活处所,二者之间的舱壁需要满足A-60防火分隔的要求,船东提出复议的缺陷正是这么一种情况,显然不符合公约的要求。
船东提出复议的依据是NK发给船东的邮件。在NK的邮件中,NK引用了SOLAS2000修正案相关条款,并认为该轮应急发电机间与船员房间之间的舱壁不需要防火分隔。该轮建造于1995年,即使按照SOLAS2000AMEND/II-2/R9.2.4的要求,二者之间舱壁也是需要满足A-60的防火分隔的要求。
尽管检查员确认该缺陷的存在,并且让船长、船员对缺陷进行了现场的确认,但是检查员没有搜集任何有效的证据如:录音、录像、缺陷照片等。由于缺失相关的证据,港口国监督分委会复议专家组分别于2月10日、2月13日、2月14通过邮件要求船公司提供该轮在三副房间一侧敷设了防火隔热材料且符合A-60标准的有效证据,船公司其两次回复均未能提供相应证据,反而表示其已经安排修理该缺陷,即在应急发电机的一侧敷设防火隔热材料。且回复邮件中未表达证据正在搜集,会稍后提供的意思。此后再无联系。
五、评议公约依据
S74-1/CII-2/R58
1. In lieu of Regulation 44 and in addition to complying with the specific provisions for fire integrity of bulkheads and decks mentioned elsewhere in this Part the minimum fire integrity of bulkheads and decks shall be asprescribed in tables 58.1 and 58.2.
TABLE 58.1 - FIRE INTEGRITY OF BULKHEADS SEPARATING ADJACENT SPACES
六、复议评议结论及建议
鉴于该船公司不能提供相关证据,且回复邮件中未表达证据正在搜集,会稍后提供的意思。我们认为该项缺陷成立,应予以保留,该复议案件到此结束。同时,应提醒PSCO在进行PSC检查时,注意缺陷特别是可滞留缺陷的相关证据的搜集,以有效防范复议申诉风险。
七、问题思考
1.对于该缺陷,公约依据方面,你的意见是什么?
2.你对PSCO现场未能取证的事情怎么看?
3.如果你来处理这个复议案件,该怎么回复对方?
评论 (0人参与)