PSC Inspection: OWS Bypass, Oil Record Book Gaps and Rest-Hour Breaches
During a port state control inspection of a 2012-built oil tanker, the inspector finds the oily-water separator's 15 ppm alarm bypassed by a flexible hose and a manually operated valve. The oil record book Part I has no entries for three overboard discharges recorded in the engine log two weeks earlier. The bilge holding tank contains oily water, and the OWS is tagged as 'not in use'. The inspector also reviews rest-hour records and finds the junior engineer received only 6 hours of rest in a 24-hour period on five consecutive days. The chief engineer tells you the bypass was 'only for testing' and asks you not to volunteer information to the inspector. You are the second engineer. What are the breaches, and what should you do?
1. Identify the breaches and their convention basis, and explain why detention is likely.
Read the worked answer
The OWS bypass is a serious breach of MARPOL Annex I oil-filtering-equipment and discharge-control requirements: the 15 ppm alarm and automatic stopping device must be operational, and a flexible hose and manual valve arranged to bypass them are not acceptable. The missing ORB Part I entries breach the MARPOL Annex I Oil Record Book requirements; discharges and operations must be recorded truthfully and without delay. The combination of a bypass, missing entries and oily water in the bilge holding tank suggests possible illegal discharge and false records, not merely a testing defect.
The rest-hour record showing 6 hours in 24 on five consecutive days breaches MLC 2006 Standard A2.3, which requires at least 10 hours of rest in any 24-hour period and 77 hours in any 7-day period, and corresponding STCW rest-hour requirements. The ISM Code is also engaged because the company's procedures, training and internal audits failed to prevent the bypass and the record-keeping failure. Detention is likely because the OWS bypass and ORB deficiencies are critical pollution-prevention and record-integrity issues; the vessel should not be released until they are rectified and the rest-hour situation is corrected.
2. State your immediate actions on board and what you should tell the PSC inspector.
Read the worked answer
I would not lie, conceal evidence or alter records. I would tell the chief engineer that I cannot agree to withhold information, and I would inform the master immediately. The bypass should be made safe, the OWS stopped and tagged out, and the hose and valve preserved as evidence rather than removed. The ORB and engine log should be secured, and the missing entries should not be back-dated; a factual statement of what was found and what records exist should be prepared.
The master should notify the designated person ashore, the technical manager, the flag state and class as required, and the company's insurer or legal adviser if there is a pollution or criminal exposure. The inspector should be given cooperation and facts, not speculation. The vessel should request an approved repair and calibration of the OWS, arrange shore disposal of the oily water, and correct the watch schedule so the junior engineer receives compliant rest. Statements should be factual and consistent, and the crew should be briefed not to destroy or fabricate evidence.
3. Recommend company-level corrective actions and explain the ISM and MLC implications.
Read the worked answer
The company should carry out a root-cause investigation: why the bypass was fitted, whether spares or technical support were lacking, whether schedules pressured the crew, whether internal audits missed it, and whether the ORB was supervised. Corrective actions should include repair and independent testing of the OWS alarm and stopping device, ORB training and supervision, a clear anti-bypass policy, and disciplinary or contractual action where appropriate. The SMS should be revised to require periodic OWS operational tests and record audits, and the internal audit programme should be strengthened.
Under the ISM Code this is a nonconformity requiring corrective action and possibly a major nonconformity if the company's system allowed the bypass. Under MLC 2006 the rest-hour breach requires a fatigue-management review, adequate crew complement and watch scheduling, and correction of records. The company should expect PSC follow-up, possible flag-state and class action, and in a pollution case possible administrative or criminal liability. The objective is not only to clear the detention but to remove the conditions that made the bypass seem acceptable.