asbestos survey Hidden Benefits
of a shipboard
Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) surveys, when carried out correctly, can have a range of unexpected benefits for ship owners. A recent experience not only highlights the value to ship owners of having an approved inventory for their vessels, but also reaffirms the need to ensure that surveys are undertaken correctly.
BY JOHN CHILLINGWORTH
Hazardous materials consultancy Lucion Marine was recently appointed to assist a major cruise line with work on a 2008-built cruise vessel. In this particular case a shipyard, on a pre-refit visit, claimed that an area where a new scrubber installation was planned contained asbestos in the bulkhead fire insulation.
At the request of the ship’s technical manager, Lucion Marine met the shipyard and its asbestos surveyor on board the ship in Jamaica. Following discussions, we then took mutual testing in three on-board locations where the shipyard claimed asbestos was present. In addition, over the course
of six hours, we took an additional 90 samples throughout the uptakes and rushed the samples back to our laboratory for analysis.
Within two days of leaving the ship and completing our testing, we were able to confirm to the vessel owner that no asbestos was present. In our opinion, we believe that the situation was caused through the initial use of an inexperienced company involved in the first assessment; in fact we have learned that it was the surveyor’s first time on a ship.
We also suspect that some of the sampling equipment used in the initial ship survey may
have been contaminated from a previous job and subsequently contaminated the samples taken from the cruise liner.
In the end, this may appear to be a satisfactory outcome for the cruise liner, with work on the refit being able to proceed unhindered, but that does not take into account the extra costs and working disruption involved. For example, there is the lost time and additional surveying costs incurred, as well as the travel expenses involved in sending specialist surveyors to the shipyard, not to mention the lost management and working time after the shipyard first mentioned their concerns.
The Report • September 2018 • Issue 85 | 61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
