Suggested routing should include CO, XO, department heads, division officers,
CMC, CPO mess, petty officers' lounge, work-center supervisors, and crew's mess.
Blanks provided for initials following review:





















































Post Safety Survey
Reporting Requirements
Correction

By CDR Eric Covington
Naval Safety Center


A
fter the completion of
the safety survey, the
command is responsible
for reporting the status
of their significant
discrepancies to their
ISIC within 30 days. Paragraph A0305
(b) of OPNAVINST 5100.19E, Navy
Safety and Occupational Health Program
Manual for Forces Afloat, states, The
survey report shall be provided to the
ship, including a relative standing for
safety performance among the ship class.
Within 30 days of the completion of the
survey, commanding officers shall
provide their ISIC, in writing, the status
of the significant discrepancies
identified during the survey and indicate
those that have been corrected, those on
the CSMP (including job sequence
number (JSN)), and those beyond
capability of the command to correct
without outside assistance. When
sending the post safety-survey report to
the ISIC, ensure you include
COMNAVSAFECEN in the INFO
block. We will correct paragraphs
A0202 (e)(5) and A0203 (b)(9) in the
next revision to the instruction.

A

NavSafeCen Points of Contact:
(757) 444-3520 ext. 7834 (DSN 564)
E-mail:
Safe-Code34@navy.mil



Poor Life Raft PMS Has
Repeat Offenders

By BMCS(SW) Charles Gum
Naval Safety Center



day at sea could start
out really bad if you are
called to the bridge
because your ship just
lost a life raft. A few of
the questions that will
be asked by the chain of command could
be: Why was the raft lost? Could it have
been prevented? Who last performed
maintenance on them; and how can this
be prevented in the future?

There are numerous causes that can be
attributed to the loss; but, most of them
will point to improper or neglected PMS.
The MRC contains step-by-step
procedures on how to secure a life raft in
its cradle.
During recent safety surveys, I
regularly found the following
discrepancies with life raft PMS:


COMMANDER, NAVAL SAFETY CENTER, 375 A St. NORFOLK, VA 23511-4399
This professional flyer is approved for official distribution to the surface force and to their appropriate staffs, schools and
2

Sea painters were not terminated to
the ships structure according to
PMS.
Rafts were not stowed in racks with
the seam of the upper and lower
halves positioned approximately
parallel to the base line of the ship.
In the correct position, the drain
holes will be at the lowest point of
the container and thus allow water to
drain from the container and not
accumulate.
Hydrostatic-release devices installed
backward or upside down.
Securing harnesses with cracked
rubber coatings; and CRES material
not utilized to secure the harnesses.
Incorrect type of lashing between
hydrostatic-release devices and
securing harnesses.
Lashing on release devices not
terminated according to PMS.

I could list more problems; but, I
think you get the picture. Remember,
the life raft will take care of you only if
you take care of it. LCPOs and LPOs
must know what requirements are
contained in the MRC and then get out
and inspect their life-saving gear.
Remember to expect what you inspect.

NavSafeCen Points of Contact:
(757) 444-3520 ext. 7834 (DSN 564)
E-mail:
Safe-Code34@navy.mil








Rotating Machinery
Guards - Dont Let
Your Guard Down!


By MMCM (SW) Robert Borowski,
Naval Safety Center


any of you dont
know that red is
the standard for color
coding your rotating
machinery guards.
Your guidance is in
paragraph C0104 of OPNAVINST
5100.19E. The paragraph, Safety
Color Code and Signs for Marking
Physical Hazards, states:
M

a. DANGER. Red is the basic
color for the identification of dangerous
equipment or situations:
(4) Guards or barriers
enclosing rotating machinery, shafts,
or moving parts which could cause
death or severe injury, if removed.

One of the biggest problems Ive
encountered is that Sailors try to spray
paint the guards in place. Sounds easy,
doesnt it? Thirty seconds elapsed time
and your guard is now in compliance.
What they fail to realize is that they have
now, through the magic of over spray,
coated a coupling, a shaft, some seals,
and whatever else is in close proximity
to the guard in the process. The extra
work and damage you can cause to your
equipment is not worth the quick-fix
spray. Take the time it takes to tag out
your equipment properly before
removing the guard, then take it to a safe
place to spray. You just might even find
yourself timing this evolution perfectly
with some PMS that calls for the
removal of the guard anyway.
Pay attention to your rotating
machinery guards. Belt guards, chain
guards, and coupling guards all fall into
this category. Dont forget the remote
locations too, e.g., laundry and galley
other organizations. The information is designed to advise Department of the Navy personnel of current and emerging
safety concerns to enhance their professional development and improve operational readiness. This bulletin should not in
itself be used as an authoritative document. However, it will cite the appropriate reference when available.

equipment. Remember, safety doesnt
happen by accident.

NavSafeCen Points of Contact:
(757) 444-3520 ext. 7834 (DSN 564)
E-mail: Safe-Code34@navy.mil


How Effective is Your
Tag-Out Program?

By EMC(SW) James Simpson,
Naval Safety Center



COMMANDER, NAVAL SAFETY CENTER, 375 A St. NORFOLK, VA 23511-4399
This professional flyer is approved for official distribution to the surface force and to their appropriate staffs, schools and
3

he tag-out program is
designed to protect
personnel and to
prevent damage to
equipment and the ship
by preventing improper
operation when a component,
equipment, system or portion of a
system is isolated or in an abnormal
condition. Bi-weekly or more frequent
audits of active tag outs is a highly
effective method of ensuring tag outs
were performed correctly.

During recent afloat safety surveys,
surveyors have noted numerous
discrepancies with the ships tag-out
programs. Many of these discrepancies
were noted on tag outs that have been
audited numerous times. Some examples
of the most frequent discrepancies are:

*Tags being hung without an
authorizing officers approval signature
in block 9 of the TORS (Tag-Out Record
Sheet) or in block 6 of danger/caution
tags.

-

Tags being hung without a first or
second person signature in blocks
7 and 8 of the TORS or blocks 5
and 6 of danger/caution tags.
-

TORS missing repair activity
approval signature in block 10 of
the TORS and initials in block
18a/b for tag verification.
-

TORS have duplicate tag-out
index numbers
-

Caution tag outs have an actual
tagged position/condition listed in
block 16 vice SAI (see
amplifying instructions).
-

Line outs on danger and caution
tags. No line outs are authorized.
-

TORS and tags have missing or
incomplete system/component ID
listed in block 15 of TORS and
block 2 of danger/caution tags.
-

Applicable documentation missing
from block 4 of the TORS. Block
4 should include reason for tag,
WAF (Work Authorization Form)
numbers, and the documentation
used to isolate the equipment to
include drawing numbers, Ships
Information Book, EOSS/CSOSS
diagrams, etc.
T
-

Tag cleared from original line
items with no new line item being
generated to re-establish barrier
isolation criteria.

Additionally, shipboard personnel
sometimes isolate a piece of equipment
and commence repairs without danger
tagging out the gear. This is a violation
of the shipboard tag-out program yet
personnel continue to place themselves
in danger to save time.

An aggressive tag out training
program, including initial and periodic
training of procedures set forth in the
TUM (Tag out Users Manual) along
with periodic audits by senior personnel,
is the most effective tool in the reduction
and prevention of these common
discrepancies. Not following proper tag
out procedures can place you, a
shipmate, equipment, and even your ship
in danger.

NavSafeCen Points of Contact:
(757) 444-3520 ext. 7834 (DSN 564)
E-mail:
Safe-Code34@navy.mil


other organizations. The information is designed to advise Department of the Navy personnel of current and emerging
safety concerns to enhance their professional development and improve operational readiness. This bulletin should not in
itself be used as an authoritative document. However, it will cite the appropriate reference when available.

Planned Maintenance
System (PMS)!

By DCC(SW) Joseph Barrois
Naval Safety Center


amage control safety
surveys throughout the
fleet, highlight a single
common denominator.
The most common
problem that we are
having is that preventive maintenance is
not conducted in accordance with
(IAW) PMS.


COMMANDER, NAVAL SAFETY CENTER, 375 A St. NORFOLK, VA 23511-4399
This professional flyer is approved for official distribution to the surface force and to their appropriate staffs, schools and
4
D

Ships force could have avoided
approximately 95% of all discrepancies
we found just by taking the time to read
the PMS card. A few of the items found
while on surveys are:



Steps not followed on PMS card.