The objective of the audit activity was to verify that the quality of compliance measurements of technical and management-related issues were satisfactory, and to verify that the facility was in accordance with applicable requirements in the petroleum regulations following the implemented modifications.
A number of matters had been registered as scheduled for improvement prior to the stay in the shipyard. Some of these matters represented nonconformities in relation to the petroleum regulations. Improvement work had been initiated in a number of areas within electrical and safety systems. One example of this is the replacement of some emergency equipment without explosion-proofing with Ex equipment. In addition, some modifications were made to the living quarters' ventilation system and new fire-fighting equipment was installed in connection with the new helicopter deck. The company stated that for some systems there were plans for full or partial new commissioning of systems for fire fighting for the helicopter deck, emergency shut-down, fire and gas detection and parts of the ventilation systems.
New nonconformities were identified in connection with both the emergency generator room and the main generator room. It was also noted that there was no automatic disconnection of ignition sources upon gas detection on the facility. For a full overview of recorded nonconformities and improvement items within the discipline, see Item 5.1 of the report.
As regards maintenance management, verifications were carried out of equipment critical to safety and parts of the company's maintenance system SAP/ SIRIUS. Conditions related to training in the company's maintenance system as well as history for commissioned equipment were also verified. It was stated that 10862 equipment units were tagged on the verification date, of which 3353 were equipment units critical to safety, and the figure was expected to reach about 15000 upon commissioning as scheduled on 6 June 2011. The verification on board and in the maintenance management system showed that most of the equipment was physically tagged and could be found in the company's maintenance management system. Review of certificates, recertification/ calibration and formal reporting routines were also subjected to verifications.
The audit identified new nonconformities and general comments that Maersk had not identified in connection with its own reviews/conformity measurements. We would like to remark that the PSA's verifications are only random checks and that the company must evaluate whether these findings are of a nature and scope to necessitate own activities to ensure that the regulatory requirements are met. Our findings were related to deficiencies as regards procedures for preservation, formal handling of nonconformities/ reporting of backlog, maintenance not performed on safety-critical equipment and safety-critical equipment/history not being recorded in the company's maintenance system.