PORT STATE CONTROL Arş.Gör. Veysel GÖKÇEK

What is Port State Control? A SYSTEM A SYSTEM designed to: ensure foreign ships comply with international safety, security and environmental standards (SOLAS 74/88, MARPOL 73/78, ISM/ISPS, STCW, TONNAGE 69 ) And prevent substandard ships from sailing (i.e. detain)substandard

The substandard ship defined as: “A ship whose hull, machinery, equipment, or operational safety is substantially below the standards required by the relevant convention (e.g. SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, etc.) orSOLASMARPOLSTCW whose crew is NOT in conformance with the safe manning document.” (Text taken from IMO Procedures for PSC 2000 Edition.)

HISTORY In 1978, The 'Hague Memorandum’ between a number of maritime authorities in Western Europe was developed. It dealt mainly with enforcement of shipboard living and working conditions as required by ILO Convention no. However just as the memorandum was about to come into effect in March 1978 a massive oil spill occurred off the coast of Brittany (France) as a result of the grounding of the VLCC ‘Amoco Cadiz’.

HISTORY This incident caused a strong political and public outcry in Europe for far more stringent regulations with regard to the safety of shipping. This pressure resulted in a more comprehensive memorandum which covered: safety of life at sea prevention of pollution by ships, and living and working conditions on board ships

HISTORY Subsequently a new Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control was signed in January 1982 by fourteen European countries at a Ministerial Conference held in Paris, France. It entered into operation on 1 July Since that date, the Paris Memorandum has been amended several times to accommodate new safety and marine environment requirements stemming from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and requirements related to working and living conditions of seafarers. The organization expanded to twenty-seven member States over the past years.

HISTORY Following on the foundation built by the Paris MOU, several other regional MOUs have been signed, including; The Tokyo MOU (Pacific Ocean) Acuerdo Latino or Acuerdo de Viña del Mar (South and Central America) The Caribbean MOU the Mediterranean MOU The Indian Ocean MOU The Abuja MOU (West and Central Atlantic Africa) the Black Sea MOU The Riyadh MOU (Persian Gulf)

HISTORY The United States Coast Guard verifies that all foreign vessels operating in United States waters are in substantial compliance with international conventions, as well as all applicable U.S. laws, regulations and treaties. The U.S. is not a member of any Port State Control MOU.United States Coast GuardUnited States

PSC is guided by: IMO RES A.787(19) ‘Procedures for port State control’ as amended by A.882(21), These procedures include provisions for the conduct of Port State Control Inspections including: guidance for grounds of detentions, competence and training requirements of PSC officers safety pollution prevention manning requirements.

What PSCOs are guided to look for: IMO Resolution 787(19) A well maintained ship with … – certificates in order – log books filled in correctly – navigational charts up to date – lifesaving appliances as required – fire fighting equipment as required – Marpol related items as required – ISM & ISPS issues as required

If all is well……. The PSCOs will probably go elsewhere…. They probably have : “CLEAR GROUNDS” for a “MORE DETAILED INSPECTION” If not !!!….

Paris MOU “ Mandatory Expanded Inspections” Introduced by the EU Directive (Obligatory to EU countries from ) Mandatory to all “high risk” vessels within Paris MOU every12 months High Risk vessels: – Bulk Carriers more than 12 years old, – Tankers more than 15years old and 3000 GT, – Gas and Chemical Carriers more than 10years old, – Passenger Ships more than 15years old Failure to notify the PSC may raise a deficiency against section 10 of ISM code (maintenance, reporting of technical deficiencies, etc.)

Concentrated Inspections Campaigns (CIC) Designed by several MOU members to alert owners visiting their ports in order to promote specific compliance with a convention. The previous ISM campaigns in 1998 and 2002 were mainly carried out to verify if a SMS was established on board. The recent ISM campaign focussed on the effective implementation of the SMS on board.

Concentrated Inspections Campaigns (CIC) Concentrated inspection campaigns focus on specific areas where high levels of deficiencies have been encountered by PSCOs, or where new convention requirements have recently entered into force. Campaings take place yearly over a period of 3 months (September - November) and are combined with a regular inspection. Over the years the following topics have been the focus of a CIC: 2013 Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 2012 Fire Safety Systems 2011 Structural safety and Load Lines 2010 Tanker damage stability 2009 Lifesavings: Lifeboat launching arrangements 2008 Safety of Navigation: Solas chapter V 2007 Implementation of the International Safety Management Code (ISM-Code) 2006 MARPOL 73/78 Annex I 2005 Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS) 2004 Labour and live circumstances: Working and living conditions 2003 Operational Compliance on board passenger ships 2002 International Safety Management Code (ISM-Code).

Concentrated Inspections Campaigns (CIC) Paris MoU, Tokyo MoU, Mediterranean MoU, Black Sea MoU and Indian Ocean MoU have announced that a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) will be conducted during the period of 1 September to 30 November The focus area during this campaign will be Hours of Rest and will involve both ISM (through STCW) and MLC, The minimum requirements for hours of rest between the two conventions are now aligned.

QUESTIONNAIRE CIC ON ISM IMPLEMENTATION 2007 Port state control officers (PSCOs) used a standard checklist/questionnaire. The following 10 deficiencies were considered as major non-conformities under the CIC: 1. ISM Certificates not on board 2.Safety Management documentation not on board 3.Senior officers unable to identify the designated person responsible for the ship 4.No procedures to contact the company in emergency situations 5.Stand by equipment or critical equipment not included in the maintenance routine or tested 6.Relevant safety management information not in a working language or a language understood by crew members 7.Drills have not been carried out according to programme 8.All detainable deficiencies related to hull, structure or equipment 9.Crew members are not familiar with their duties within the SMS 10. Crew members cannot communicate with each other

15100 Paris MOU Codes ISM related deficiencies safety and environmental policy company responsibility and authority designated person(s) masters responsibility and authority resources and personnel development of plans for shipboard operations emergency preparedness reports and analysis of non-conformities maintenance of the ship and equipment documentation company verification, review and evaluation certification, verification and control ISM other (ISM)

Paris MOU Codes for deficiency actions taken Rectified (code 10) To be rectified at next port (code 15) To be rectified within 14 days (code 16) To be rectified before departure (code 17) Internal safety audit and corrective action is required within 3 months (code 18) Safety management audit by the Administration is required before departure of the ship (code 19)

Follow-up Actions Correction (Immediate Action) can be defined as “action to eliminate a detected non-conformity” (ISO 9000:2000) Corrective action can be defined as “action to eliminate the cause of a detected nonconformity”, taking into account that there can be more than one cause for a non-conformity. (ISO 9000:2000) Preventive action can be defined as “action to eliminate the cause of a potential nonconformity”, taking into account that there can be more than one cause for a potential non-conformity. (ISO 9000:2000)

EXAMPLE: A lifeboat engine does not start properly during a PSC drill. This is corrected immediately by repair and this is the correction. The cause of the event could be any of the following: lack of maintenance, faulty fitting, faulty design, faulty preparation, lack of training etc. Let us suppose in this instance that the operator was inexperienced, and that in fact there was no mechanical fault. Identified cause of non-conformity - lack of training. Corrective action - ensure practical lifeboat engine training. Possible Preventive Action could be to introduce a programme of on-board lifeboat training for seafarers for all vessels managed by the company and monitor this through internal audits etc.

0700/Fire Safety (19% in “Top-ten detainable” group)

2500/ISM-related deficiencies (15% in “Top-ten detainable” group)

0600 Life-Saving Appliances (13% in “Top-ten detainable” group)

1400 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery (13% in “Top-ten detainable” group)

Words of advice No one should expect to benefit from a Substandard ship, so all parties involved should endeavor to either remedy its condition or restrict its operation PSCOs are NOT “the enemy”. Their tasks are mandated by the International Conventions and law. Not all ships are “suspect” by default. In general, co-operative attitudes are of benefit to all. Class timely involvement at PSC inspections helpful to all

T hank You For Your Attention...

SOURCES Synopsis Of Frequent Findings And Detention Items (Dnv Servıng The Marıtıme Industry January 2012 Edition) Port State Control & Ism Complıance - 10 Years After The Inıtıal Implementatıon 10 December 2008 – Σ.Δ.Ν.Μ.Ε. ( Lloyd's Regıster Emea) Procedures For Port State Control (Resolutıon A.787(19) Adopted On 23 November 1995) Amendments To The Procedures For Port State Control (Resolutıon A.787(19)) Guidance On Detention And Actıon Taken (Paris MoU) campaign campaign Black Sea MoU: Paris MoU: Mediterranean MoU: