CHAPTER 9

CLASSIFICATION INSPECTIONS, STATUTORY
INSPECTIONS AND PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTIONS

 

9.1
Classification Society Inspections

Bureau Veritas inspected the vessel for compliance with the class requirements in accordance with their rules and standards. The main inspection period was five years and the 1500 items to be inspected were divided into approximately 300 items to be inspected each year according to the Continuous Survey Programme of Bureau Veritas. The bow area under this programme was inspected in 1983, 1988 and in 1993. No discrepancies were recorded during any of these inspections. The question remains why the severe deficiencies of the visor and the bow ramp which clearly existed already in 1993 were not recorded.

Based on the available documentation it has to be assumed that the two B.V. people responsible for the ESTONIA, both from a classification and statutory point of view, Hans Olsson, manager of BV-Sweden, and Anders Wirstam, staff surveyor of the BV-Stockholm office and exclusively involved with ESTONIA, were not interrogated by Joint Accident Investigation Commission and there is no recorded evidence in the files of the Swedish part of this Commission about their interrogations by the police and the prosecutor.

In a memo found in the files of the prosecutor the following is, however, stated:

»On 12.10.1994 at 12.10 hours I had contact with the manager of B.V. in Gothenburg, Hans Olsson, Tel. (031) 17 14 15.
The subject was which surveys they had done on the "Estonia". All the relevant documentation was with them; Olsson stated that he could not submit any documents without the respective authority. In case he should have to do so, he would need the approval partly from N&T, partly from the Estonian Government.
Olsson even wishes to inform the lawyer Bengt-Åke Johnsson by telephone (08) 665 90 70. This lawyer protects them legally.
Olsson also advised that Olof Forssberg from the Commission had already given the same explanation as the police now give. Forssberg raised the same questions which the police are now asking. Olsson knew that Forssberg had been in contact with the owners in this matter, N&T had been in contact with Olsson and they will send a letter with what Forssberg wants to know.
The documentation concerning "Estonia" consists of a large number of A4 folders.
Olsson requires a written statement from the police with the documents they are demanding. Before this the police have to contact N&T - S.M. (Sven Malmroos).
In the course of the further development I managed to contact sometimes the prosecutor and sometimes Forssberg.
Some co-ordination has to be found. / S.M. (Sven Malmroos).«

This indicates that B.V. apparently enjoyed some special treatment as did N&T and ESCO, which continued throughout the investigation up-to-date. Reportedly Hans Olsson left B.V. in the summer of 1998 and might thus be willing to give some explanations now.

The files of the prosecutor reveal that Hans Olsson and Anders Wirstam were interrogated together for the first time on 21.11.1994 by the criminal inspectors L.E. Andersson and S.A. Wranding. On 02.06.1997 Hans Olsson was questioned alone by the criminal inspector Bo Wide and thereafter Anders Wirstam was questioned again and alone on 22.01.1998 also by Bo Wide and Tomas Lindstrand.

In summary both made the following statements:

a) On 21.11.1994 - see Enclosure 9.1.130:

- the B.V. organisation worldwide and in Sweden was explained;
- education and experience of the B.V. inspectors
- the contract with E.N.M.B;
- Load Line, SOLAS, etc.;
- they had nothing to do with the crew;
- summary of surveys was handed over;
- the last detailed inspection on 23.-25.08.1994, hull & machinery, automatic controls - no remarks, also the visor and bow ramp were inspected without remarks. During the inspection of visor and bow ramp the weathertightness, signal system and strength were also controlled. Also the cylinders which activate the visor and bow ramp were checked. On the bridge and car deck it was indicated whether the lock bolts were closed or open. Actually the control of the indicator lights is part of the statutory inspection according to SOLAS which was done in January 1994. Since the visor had to be inspected in August anyway, they did the check of the signal system again.

According to Wirstam the bow area including the visor was inspected in accordance with in three different rules resp. regulation requirements, viz. on behalf of

- Hull and Load Line Surveys were due in August 1994 and the statutory inspections according to SOLAS in January 1994.
- the inspection in August 1994 took three days without any remarks.
- because of the interim nature of the certificates, the surveys had to be carried out four times per annum.
- the Continuous Survey Class System was explained - 20% of the items per annum.
- in addition to this were the Maritime Administration controls: MARPOL, etc.
- the "Stability Booklet" was explained and the reason why it had not been accepted - the list of changes to be made was handed over to N&T:

- within 6 months
- within 12 months.

Note: Nowhere is it stated whether all the requirements were rectified on 27 September 1994.

- all certificates and inspections had to be renewed after the flag change.

- cargo lashings and securings are not subject to inspections, there are allegedly no rules for lashing points, lashings, etc.

Note:

According to the JAIC the overall guidance for the lashing of cargo, given in the IMO Resolution A 581 (14) "Guidelines for Securing Arrangements for the Transport of Road Vehicles on Ro-Ro Ships" and in the IMO Resolution A 714 (17), had been applied. The vessel also carried a Cargo Securing Manual issued by Estline which, however, had not been available during the inspection by the two Swedish Sjöfartsverket inspectors and their trainees some hours before the last departure - see Chapter 15. The Cargo Securing Manual has to be approved by the National Maritime Administration, i.e. to be approved by B.V. on behalf of E.N.M.B., and Wirstam - according to his own statement - knew nothing about it, although it was part of his "statutory inspection job".

- the cargo had to be distributed according to the load cases in the Stability Booklet.
- proceeding in heavy weather was discussed in the light of SOLAS.
- no items affecting the seaworthiness was found and reported to B.V.
- visor and bow ramp have to be weathertight, i.e. they have to be tight against splashing water
- weathertight- watertight explained.
- ice cylinder explained.
- between 15.01.93 and 27.09.94 ESTONIA passed all the hull and machinery and statutory inspections without any remark whatsoever.

b) Hans Olsson on 02.06.1997 (born 16.12.44)

- See Enclosure 9.1.131:
- has been with Sjöfartsverket for 13 years.
- explained SOLAS / IMO / certificates, etc
. - they did not check the bow ramp location because there was no Exemption Certificate.
- explained the DIANA II incident from the B.V. point of view.
- was confronted with the German findings but pretended to know nothing about it.

c) Anders Wirstam on 22.01.1998 (born 08.08.42) - Enclosure 9.1.132:

interrogated by public prosecutor Tomas Lindstrand and the police inspector Bo Wide in the presence of lawyer Olof Rågmark of Johnsson & Johnson:

- 28 years experience as marine engineer.
- first contact when vessel was still WASA KING.
- had also known DIANA II very well for a long time. - he did not know that the ramp was in wrong place according to SOLAS
- no measurements in this respect had been made, neither at time of flag change nor newbuilding.
- regarding the "short international voyage" he is of the opinion that the vessel must not be more than 100 nm from land, which was not the case with ESTONIA.
- discussion of the 100 nm limit - the lawyer stated that nowhere in the Baltic could you be more than 100 nm from land.
- upon being questioned about the 20 nm limit Wirstam stated that he could not answer the question. - What checks did he perform before signing the PSSC? Safety equipment/radio equipment, etc. The inspection took three weeks including visor, bow ramp, locking devices.


- T. Lindstrand asked, whether he wanted to say anything in this respect?
Wirstam: "No, I did not concentrate on visor and bow ramp very much."
Lindstrand asked again, whether there was anything in respect of visor and bow ramp that was noteworthy or strange?
Wirstam: "No."
- Lindstrand: Did you see the Finnish PSSC?
Wirstam: "Yes."
- Lindstrand: What did you do in 3 weeks? Did you look at drawings, did you check whether anything was changed?
Wirstam: "One sees how the vessel is built. One asks the crew. If nobody says that the vessel had been modified, one takes it that it has not been.
- Lindstrand concludes that the check is just made by looking at the vessel and asking questions to people who are believed to have knowledge about the vessel.
- Lindstrand: Did DIANA II sail in sheltered waters between Rostock/ Trelleborg?
Wirstam: "Well within 100 nm, I don't know whether within 20 nm."
- Lindstrand: What importance did the ramp position have for the cause of the casualty?
Wirstam: "No importance. This is difficult to answer. It is outside my scope of evaluation. Do you mean that it should be further aft?"

- Lindstrand: Yes, and also if it had been constructed differently without the ramp extending into the ramp house?

Wirstam: "This has now fortunately been forbidden and therefore the conclusion has to be drawn that it cannot have been that good. But there are still many ferries which have the ramp built in into the visor."
- Lindstrand: Do you consider the ramp to be the upper extension of the collision bulkhead in accordance with SOLAS?
Wirstam: "Yes, this was the case."
- Lindstrand: B.V. carried out the Flag State Control?
Wirstam: "Yes."
- Lindstrand: Refers again in detail to the distance between ramp / f.p.p. What did you do? Why didn't you know?
Wirstam: "No."
- Lindstrand: Was it normal not to care about this?
Wirstam: "Yes, we trusted the previous administration."
- Lindstrand: Did you assume that the vessel had been correctly built at the beginning?
Wirstam: "This is part of my job. On the other hand, I was not alone. There was also Hans Olsson.
 Wirstam: "I was from 1966-1969 with Sjöfartsverket, Stockholm.
- Lindstrand draws attention to the German findings of the visor's misalignment. Was this checked?
Wirstam: "When an inspection is carried out it is expected that the vessel is in a certain condition. If this would have been the case, it should have been visible. During inspection you look at the opening and closing of the visor. If nothing is visible, it is o.k."

Note: Åke Sjöblom and Gunnar Zahlée noted upon their inspection with open visor that there was a misalignment of the visor.

- Lindstrand: What about the rubber packings?
Wirstam: "Nobody during my time told me that any were missing."
- Lindstrand: You should have controlled this.
Wirstam: "Such inspection normally starts with the certificates. To check whether all certificates are there. That's where it starts.
- Lindstrand: When did you inspect what, and if you found a deviation, did you go into detail?
Wirstam: "That is correct."

A list with all surveys carried out by B.V. is attached as Enclosure 9.1.133 and the statement of the previous chief surveyor of the B.V. Stockholm office, Lars-Olof Ålander taken on 03.02.98 by Bo Wide and Tomas Lindstrand is attached as Enclosure 9.1.134.
The "Marine Surveyor Certificate" issued by B.V. for Anders Wirstam is attached as Enclosure 9.1.135.
Finally attention has to be drawn to the remark made by Olsson during the first interrogation on 21.11.94 (Enclosure 9.1.130), viz. that B.V. had handed over to N&T a list of items to be prepared for inspection after 6 months respectively 12 months which is not mentioned anymore any where. Olsson also gave a substantial memo to the police, the pages of which are referred to in this statement. He also stated that this memo had been given to the JAIC. It could neither be found in the files of the public prosecutor nor in the files of the Swedish and Finnish Commissions.

 

9.2
Statutory Inspections

As mentioned before, B.V. also carried out statutory inspections to fulfil the obligations of the National Maritime Administration of the flag state Estonia in accordance with the

As far as the visor and bow ramp, their locking devices and indicator lights were concerned the weathertightness had to be checked according to the Load Line Convention, while the functioning of the indicator lights of the locking devices had to be checked according to SOLAS. The last SOLAS inspections had been carried out in January 1994 and the last Load Line Inspection only on 9 September, only 18 days before commencement of the last voyage and, of course, without remarks.
Also the control of the substantial lifesaving and fire-fighting equipment had been carried out according to SOLAS, always without remarks. For further details reference is made to the protocol of the joint statement of Hans Olsson and Anders Wirstam taken on 21.11.94 - see Enclosure 9.1.130 - and also to the statement of Sten-Christer Forsberg made during the interview with Erik Ridderstolpe on 17.12.97: "The poor, overaged safety equipment was accepted by Sjöfartsverket (Note: and by B.V. on behalf of E.N.M.B.). Otherwise we would have renewed it."

 

9.3
Port State Control Inspections

The situation as to the allegedly performed Port State Control (PSC) inspection is confusing:

(a) According to a memo by Sven Malmroos, investigating police inspector during the early days, he was advised on 12.10.1994 by Eva Lindström from the Sjöfartsverket head office that two operative controls had been carried out by them, one at the beginning of 1993 (during take-over) and another one at the beginning of 1994, which is unknown unless they mean the RITS exercise on 01.02.1994, which was actually a bomb exercise and not an operative control. The memo of Sven Malmroos is attached as Enclosure 9.3.137.

(b) According to the JAIC there had been four inspections: the take-over inspection, which had to be considered a Port State Control (PSC) inspection, - see Subchapter 6.5.2 - and three further PSC inspections during the following 20 months. One was supposed to have been carried out in connection with an oil spill caused by leaking stern-tube seals already in April 1993, another one was supposed to have been in December 1993 and the final one was said to have been in March 1994 which allegedly did not give rise to any remark. See the JAIC Report - Subchapter 3.2.10. The JAIC reports further in Subchapter 5.3: "During the last day in Tallinn the vessel was used in a training programme for Estonian Maritime Administration surveyors in the conducting of a Port State Control in compliance with the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (see about Paris MOU in 9.1). The trainees made a thorough Port State Control inspection of the ESTONIA and were supervised and instructed by two senior inspectors from the Swedish Maritime Administration. The exercise was documented in protocol, set up in a form according to the Paris MOU. A copy of this protocol is included in the Supplement.
The Swedish inspectors leading the exercise have been interrogated by the Commission and have stated that the vessel was in good condition and very well maintained. They found no deficiencies that would have caused detention or other serious remark, if the inspection had been a regular Port State Control."

(c) The Independent Fact Group (IFG), Stockholm searched the archives of the Shipinspec Stockholm office in autumn 1998 and found protocols about PSC inspections performed on the following days:

01.02.1993
02.04.1993
06.04.1993
16.12.1993
02.03.1994

These dates include the take-over in Tallinn on 01.02.93, followed by two oil spills on 02.04.93 and 06.04.93, and another two in December 1993 and in March 1994 which are unknown. The RITS Exercise is not included. Actually Ulf Beijner, then the head of the Sjöfartsverket's Shipinspec office in Stockholm, confirmed to a member of this 'Group of Experts' and the safety inspector, Peter Hoffsten, confirmed to Tommy Lindström, who investigated the matter on behalf of the relatives organisation SEA, that they had never carried out a real PSC inspection. The report of Tommy Lindström is attached in English as Enclosure 9.3.136 and in Swedish as Enclosure 9.3.136.1.