BIMCO USCG PSC Inspection Guidelines Explanatory Notes November 2006

1

Your BIMCO guide toport state control in the USAIn co-operation with the United States Coast

Guard BIMCO has prepared a guide to seafarers

on Port State Control Inspections in the USA. This

article describes the background for the guide.

The guide is available for download on www.

bimco.org and it is hoped that members will make

it available not only to those who receive this bul-

letin, but also to those tasked with preparing ships

for PSC in the USA, namely seafarers.

In 2005, a total of 7,850 ships called at US ports.

Of these, 127 were detained for safety and envi-

ronmental deficiencies. This is down from 176

detentions amongst 7,241 ships in 2004.

In 2005, Flag State performance improved, se-

curity performance improved and the number of

class and ISM related detentions was reduced.

With these facts in mind one might be tempted

to rejoice and relax - evidently the shipping

industry is continuing on the track of consistent

and continuous improvement set out by the ISM

code a decade ago. Quality shipping prospers

while sub-standard shipping is becoming a ghost

of the past.

Why, then, make another guide on port state

control in the USA? Most class societies and

shipowners have made guidelines, checklists,

instructions and courses to ensure that ships are

fit to pass a PSC inspection at any time - and these

initiatives have evidently been effective!

The reason for this guide stems from the inves-

tigation into the criminalisation of seafarers un-

dertaken by BIMCO. This study revealed that the

US PSC focus on MARPOL Annex I compliance

resulted in numerous seafarers and ships being

prosecuted for Oily Water Separator violations.

The data showed that one of the root causes for

this was inadequate crew knowledge about the

particular circumstances in the USA.

Besides the legal implications for seafarers and

responsible corporate officers, the department of

Justice has since 1998 issued criminal fines total-

ling in excess of USD 145,000,000.

BIMCO US PORT INSPECTION GUIDE

YOUR BIMCO GUIDE

TO PREPARE FOR

PORT STATE

CONTROL

INSPECTIONS

IN THE U.S.A.

2

Purpose of the guide

The overarching aim of the guide is to protect

seafarers from unnecessary problems in con-

nection with port state control inspections in the

United States.

Although all port state control regimes around the

world are inspecting ships under the same inter-

national regulations, the different priorities in the

different regimes and the different national legis-

lation contribute to distinct differences between

how the inspections are handled and executed.

In the USA, port state control has been targeted

at two issues. Firstly, security inspections have

been prioritised following the entry into force of

the ISPS code. While a number of inspections in

2004 and 2005 showed shortcomings in relation

to ISPS requirements, the tendency appears to

be that these types of deficiencies are abating, as

both ships and ports become accustomed to the

new security regimes.

The other subject targeted in the US PSC in-

spections is the verification of compliance with

MARPOL Annex I.

BIMCO study on criminalisation of seafarers

In 2006, BIMCO conducted a study of cases

involving the international practice of using

criminal sanctions against seafarers. The study

sought to identify cases in which seafarers were

detained, prosecuted or punished, to identify the

national, regional and international instruments

that apply to such cases and the initiatives that

have been taken at all levels aimed at the protec-

tion of seafarers’ rights.

The first observation is that the majority of cases

identified concerned incidents in the USA. Eight-

een of the cases involved deliberate acts such as

wrong or false entries in oil record books, false

witness statements to US Authorities and circum-

vention of oily water separators. The punishment

for these offences was often severe, including

imprisonment of seafarers and corporate fines of

up to USD 25 million.

BIMCO hopes to increase the awareness that

violating the environmental requirements is a

bad idea - not only from an environmental point

of view, but also from a corporate one, as well as

from a seafarer’s point of view.


This guide has been prepared to protect YOU – the

crew – from unnecessary problems during Port

State Control inspections when calling at US ports.

This guide is not meant to help the bad guys avoid

getting caught, but rather to help you perform

your duties in a way that complies with regulations.

When rules are broken you may face fines and

possibly jail time.

This guide will provide general advice. Detailed

guidelines and instructions are available in the

Safety Management System (SMS) and Ship

Security Plan (SSP).

REMEMBER, ONE MISTAKE

CAN JEOPARDIZE THE FUTURE

FOR YOU AND YOUR COMPANY

Introduction 2

*

3

What is port state control?

It is an obligation of countries that are signato-

ries to SOLAS and MARPOL to carry out PSC

inspections. The aim is to identify and eliminate

sub-standard ships.

International regulations are enforced by being in-

cluded in national legislation. That means that in

addition to the internationally agreed conventions

- most notably SOLAS and MARPOL - ships

must comply with other relevant legislation, not

only that of the flag state, but also the regulations

applicable in the countries visited.

For crews, it can be difficult to remain up to date

on the particular flag state rules and laws appli-

cable in addition to the international conventions.

With respect to the laws that are in force in the

countries visited, it is almost impossible to be up

to date on all of them.

On the other hand, it is equally important to be

aware that despite the impression one may get

from the media, it really is the exception that

a ship is detained following a PSC inspection.

This is evidenced by the recent data from the

USCG - only one inspection in a hundred results

in detention in the USA.

The USA represents one coherent “PSC Area”,

while in the rest of the world, PSC inspections

are co-ordinated through a number of Memoranda

Of Understanding - “MOU’s”, which ensure that

inspections within a region are co-ordinated and

aligned. Each MOU may have different proce-

dures, priorities and target factors. The below list

of MOU’s covers most of the maritime world:

Europe and the North Atlantic - Paris MOU

Asia and the Pacific - Tokyo MOU

Latin America - Acuerdo de Viña del Mar

Caribbean - Caribbean MOU

West and Central Africa - Abuja MOU

Black Sea region - Black Sea MOU

Mediterranean - Mediterranean MOU

Indian Ocean - Indian Ocean MOU

Arab States of the Gulf - GCC MOU/Riyadh

MOU.

Port State Control (PSC) is part of an international

effort to identify and eliminate substandard ships.

It is a process by which a country enforces interna-

tional rules relating to safety, security and the

environment over foreign ships in its waters

In addition a country may have its own laws and

regulations for any ship trading in its waters.

Countries have the rights to verify that ships operating

in their waters comply with SOLAS and MARPOL,

and to take action to bring these ships into compli-

ance if they do not.

The US Coast Guard will take action against ships

that do not in comply with laws or regulations.

THE GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY

AND ELIMINATE SUBSTANDARD

SHIPS FROM U.S. WATERS

What is Port

State Control? 3

*


4

The facts

The annual report of the USCG from 2005 shows

that despite the large number of security related

deficiencies noted, safety and environmental

deficiencies still account for the vast majority

of defects.

The large number of security defects is caused

partly by the PSC inspections focusing on this

area, and partly by the code still being relatively

new to the industry in 2005. We expect to see a

sharp decline in this type of defects in the com-

ing years.

Fire Fighting & Safety 36 %

ISPS related 28%

Marine pollution 16%

ISM Related 16%

Crew 10%

Propulsion and Machinery 10%

SOLAS 7%

Hull / Load Lines 6%

Cargo 2%

Radio 1%

Documentation 1%

In 2005, 7,850 ships from 76 different countries

made 62,818 calls at US ports.

USCG conducted 10,430 PSC safety examinations.

127 ships were detained as a result of problems

found.

In other words, 99% of inspections found ships to

be safely operated!

Problems found

The reasons that ships get into trouble vary over

the years as the USCG focuses on current problems.

The Top-Three reasons are usually:

1. Safety

2. Machinery

3. Pollution

THE POLLUTION

OFFENCES MAY GET

CREW IN PRISON

The Facts 4

*


5

Consequences

Traditional PSC inspections have been focused

on the hardware rather than on compliance with

regulations and procedures. Most MOUs have

specifically excluded actual audits from the scope

of inspections.

In cases where observations have indicated that

ISM requirements are not complied with, ships

have been required to contact the certifying body

that has certified the Safety Management System

of the ship.

The environmental focus of inspections in the

USA has introduced a very different - and for the

seafarer much more significant - potential conse-

quence of non compliance, namely the criminal

prosecution of individuals.

By focusing on Oil Record Book offences, the

USCG is sending a very powerful signal to the

industry and to seafarers that environmental viola-

tions will not be accepted.

It is important to understand that the offence for

which most seafarers are being prosecuted is that

of lying to an official, which carries a criminal

penalty in the USA.

This lying can either be in the form of presenting

logs or records which are known to be incorrect,

or by lying verbally. The circumvention of the

oily water separator in international waters may

not be a criminal offence in the USA, but failing

to mention it in the Oil Record Book makes the

ORB a falsification.

Falsified records may be in the shape of official

logs, but they may also be checklists, scrap logs,

personal notes or commonly used records, such

as sounding books.

It is hoped that this guide can reduce the instances

where crew get into trouble simply because they

are unaware of the requirements to be meticu-

lously correct and accurate with the entries in

various logs or records.

If serious defects are found during an inspection

an expanded examination will be carried out.

For crew such inspections may result in investiga-

tions of violations of US laws, some of which carry

criminal sanctions for the crew.

Lying to officials, for instance by presenting log

books, Oil Record Books or records with false or

incorrect entries, carries severe criminal penalties

in the USA.

The penalties for safety, security or environmental

violations can be less severe.

LYING TO OFFICIALS

IS A CRIME IN USA

Consequences 5

*


6

PSC target - stay clear!

Port state control inspections are mandated in the

SOLAS Convention Chapter I/19. This regulation

states inter alia:

“(a)Every ship … is subject to control by officers

duly authorized (by the government) in so far as

this control is directed towards verifying that the

certificates issued… are valid.

(b) Such certificates, if valid, shall be accepted

unless there are clear grounds for believing that

the condition of the ship… .”

Therefore, port state control inspections start with

a review of the ship’s certificates, followed by a

walk-through inspection of the ship. During the

walk-through inspection, it will be determined

whether, in the opinion of the inspector, there are

“clear grounds” for a more detailed inspection.

The PSC authorities set priorities for the inspec-

tions. PSC inspectors may investigate these

priority areas in greater depth. Often the priority

areas are newly introduced regulations, as is the

case with security-focused inspections, or they

are areas known to create problems, such as the

situation with the oily water cases in the USA.

The USCG has prepared very detailed checklists

for different ship-types to help and guide the

boarding officers. These checklists do not intend

to limit the inspection to the listed areas. However,

they are good reference material for those wishing

to prepare for an inspection.

Many operators have developed their own pre-ar-

rival guidelines to help ships prepare for calling at

US ports, in particular with regard to the special

requirements contained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), which are not applicable

elsewhere.

The overall aim is to ensure that a simple omission

or procedural lapse does not result in the boarding

officer concluding that clear grounds for a more

detailed inspection exists.

A typical PSC Inspection sequence could include:

1. Inspecting the ship’s certificates

2. Looking at the ship’s condition, equipment and

the crew at work

3. Looking at any target areas that the PSC

Officers prioritise, such as security or pollution.

IF SOMETHING LOOKS

WRONG – EXPECT TO

BE INVESTIGATED!

What are they looking for? 6

*


7

First impressions

The first impression of people is determined

within the first seconds or minutes of an encoun-

ter. It can be very difficult to change such an

impression subsequently.

The first impression that a visitor will get of a

ship is the visual appearance of the vessel while

approaching it. The second impression is that of

the crew - and hence the management - when

visitors are being greeted at the gangway.

It is a strong possibility that these first impressions

will bias the visitor to a ship to be particularly

focused on observations that confirm this first

impression.

If that first impression is of a dirty gangway and a

sloppy watchman, then the ship will have an uphill

struggle to convince the PSC boarding officer that

the ship is of well managed.

As mentioned before, the aim of this guide is to

assist high-quality operators in trouble free PSC

inspections. The fact that first impressions matter

is nothing new, and many company checklists

cover issues regarding the appearance of the

ship to visitors. It is, however, recommended

that the company procedures explicitly state that

the first impression is important and should be

prioritised.

Imagine a PSC Officer being met at the ship by:

• a dirty or oily gangway

• a daydreaming watchman

• sloppy ISPS procedures

• a messy deck and accommodation

• crew in doubt of their assigned duties

an unnecessary bad start on what could otherwise

have been a trouble free PSC!

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

HAVE AN IMPACT!

Good work wasted! 7

*


8

Inspecting certificatesand documentsThe central part of a PSC inspection is the review

of the certificates. Although the certificate review

is often followed by a walk-through inspection,

the PSC provisions of SOLAS and MARPOL

require clear grounds to carry out inspections

beyond verifying that the certificates are valid.

The boarding officers may also have very wide in-

terpretations of what constitutes clear grounds.

The certificate review may well be extended to

include a detailed perusal of the “forms” attached

to some certificates. These forms include details

of the equipment on board that has been inspected

to ensure compliance with the certificate. As the

USCG focuses on verifying that environmental

regulations are complied with, it is natural that

the IOPP certificate and Form A or B, for tank-

ers and non-tankers respectively, is perused with

interest.

Recent experience indicates that it is not infre-

quent that there are inconsistencies between the

equipment listed in IOPP Form A or B, and what

is actually found on board. There can be many

reasons for these discrepancies, such as equip-

ment being replaced or the use of certain tanks

being changed, but in any event, such discrepan-

cies may constitute clear grounds and be a cause

of suspicion.

Discrepancies may exist between the capacities

of equipment listed on Form A or B as appropri-

ate and the capacity listed in the user manual for

the equipment.

Repetitive entries in an oil record book may in-

dicate that the entries are made when convenient

rather than when the action is actually carried out.

Although this is not in itself a discrepancy, it will

raise a warning flag with the inspectors.

Masters are well advised to review the docu-

mentation available on board and as a minimum,

ensure that they are aware of any discrepancies.

It is also recommended that the Master rigidly

enforces the rule that all relevant entries are made

in the Oil Record Book immediately when the

operations are carried out - also if that signifi-

cantly increases the number of required entries

in the ORB.

Once on board, PSC Officers start by checking the

ship’s certificates.

They will want to make sure that the ship has the

required certificates, and that they are valid.

Some certificates, such as the IOPP attachments

will tell the PSC Officer what equipment is on

board, and what related procedures are required.

The inspector will focus on such equipment and

procedures during his inspections.

SMS procedures may also be checked.

Have all documents ready before the PSC Officer

arrives!

MAKE SURE THAT

PROCEDURES ARE

BEING FOLLOWED!

In the Master’s Office 8

*


9

Evidence of compliance

Port state control is about ascertaining that ships

comply with the international regulations. The

first step in this process is the verification that

the flag state has inspected the ship and issued

certificates verifying compliance. If a ship carries

valid certificates, the PSC inspector must limit

the inspection to the certificates, unless there are

clear grounds for believing that the ship does not

comply with the provisions of the certificates.

If PSC inspectors start investigating documents

in more detail, they will look for consistency in

the documentation trail. Unfortunately, there are

indications that the documentation in respect of

pollution prevention in particular is inconsistent.

The IOPP certificate will have either a Form

A or B appended. This form contains details

regarding the pollution prevention installations

on board, including information on the capacity

of the oil filtering equipment and the incinerator,

and description of holding tanks used for bilge

water and sludge.

The oil record book has information on the daily

operation of equipment, the maintenance work

carried out and the collection and disposal of oil

residues, including information on the quantities

handled. The PSC inspectors will be looking

for consistency in the documentation, the docu-

mented procedures and actual observations on

board. Investigations will be made to see whether

the actual equipment carried on board is reflected

in the IOPP certificate.

Investigations will also be made to see whether

the actual actions taken on board are properly

reflected in the oil record book(s), and whether

the recorded actions are probable. A common

habit amongst the officers responsible for filling

in the oil record book is to complete the entries

whenever convenient, rather than when the ac-

tions are taken. This often leads to ORBs with

repetitive entries, which in addition to arousing

suspicion, often contain incorrect information

about what has actually taken place.

Cases have been found where the ORB entries

indicate quantities far in excess of the Oily Water

Separator’s capacity. Obviously there are also the

cases where there are inexplicable differences

between the amount of oil recorded on board, and

the amount of oil actually sounded in the tanks.

In respect of oily water and sludge, it will be

investigated whether the quantities reportedly

produced are in accordance with what is observed

on board, the length of the preceding voyage and

the amounts that, based on empirical data, are to

be expected for any given engine or vessel size.

The information on the supplement to the IOPP

certificate relates to;

• SOPEP,

• the Safety Management System, and

• machinery spaces.

If there are differences between the information

on these documents and what is found on board

you should inform the PSC Officer and not wait for

him to find out himself!

Prepare documentation to show that procedures are

being followed. Unofficial logs and records, such as

sounding books, are treated as official documents.

• records of drills and exercises

• Oil Record Book (ORB), including

• waste delivery receipts

REMEMBER -

CONSISTENCY COUNTS!

Evidence of Compliance 9

*


10

On the bridge

The preparation of a bridge for PSC inspections is

described in the Safety Management System.

The US CFR requires that any malfunctioning

equipment is reported to the USCG prior to entry,

and in reality, it is the exception that well run ships

run into problems with respect to the operation

of equipment.

The human factor may, however, also give rise to

problems on the bridge.

Missing or incorrect hart corrections, outdated

publications (for whatever reason) and missing

posters are common observations made during

PSC inspections.

There are certain requirements which are unique

to the USA. These include the pre-arrival steer-

ing gear tests. While IMO prescribes such tests

to be carried out prior to departure, the CFR also

requires these tests to be carried out within 24

hours of calling at a US port.

The CFR also requires that an entry in the deck

log is made when this test is made.

Although not specifically targeted by the USCG

as yet, ship’s officers are well advised to ensure

that these log entries are in fact correct and made

when the test is actually done.

It may be hard to explain that the deck log entry

states that a rudder hard over test was made at

12.00 hours, if the course recorder shows the

rudders being put hard over at 13.00 hours.

Likewise, if the full astern test of the engines is

only made when the pilot is on board, then the

log entry to that effect can not indicate it done at

a different time.

Ship’s officers are well advised to remember that

any falsified log presented to an officer of the US

Authorities may constitute a criminal offence.

Bridge inspections usually focus on:

• Operational equipment

• Nautical publications, charts and posted

information

• English speaking operator of the

radio equipment

• Officers familiar with the equipment and

publications, procedures and requirements

in respect of log and record keeping

Equipment can break down or need servicing. Tell

the PSC Officer!

Ensure that the logs do not contain incorrect

entries.

IT IS A CRIME TO PRESENT A

FALSIFIED LOG IN THE USA!

On the Bridge 10

*


11

On deck

The actual inspections that are part of all PSC

inspections will take the inspector around the

ship. The USCG make use of a guiding checklist,

and most company safety management systems

will have specific instructions on how to prepare

for and deal with PSC inspections. In addition

to this, the major class societies have all made

specific checklists, which give recommendations

on items that may be overlooked in daily opera-

tion, but which may alert PSC officers to expand

the inspections.

These checklists can be very helpful for the crew

when preparing for inspections. This guide does

not aim to add to the multiple checklists that are

available for this purpose.

The drawback of checklists is that they tend to

limit the responsibility for the item checked to

the person completing the checklist. Other crew

may be tempted to ignore obvious defects in

the belief that they will be acted upon by others

when the check is completed. This may well be

the case; however, the cornerstone of a safe ship

is a safety culture, which requires that all take

responsibility for safety.

By highlighting the overall objectives of the in-

spection, namely the presence of the equipment,

the condition of the equipment and the proficiency

of the crew, the guide aim to contribute to this

objective.

It may be argued that the structural condition of

the ship is a very important issue for PSC inspec-

tions, and that this has been left out of the guide.

The reason behind this omission is that this guide

is aimed at assisting high quality owners in avoid-

ing PSC problems, and that structural issues are

covered better elsewhere.

The final - but not least important - message on

this page of the guide is a caution to the crew

completing the checklists. If such checklists are

requested presented by the USCG officer, they’d

better be correctly and truthfully completed. If

the list has been ticked off without the checks

actually being conducted, the checklist may be

interpreted as lying to an official, with the severe

consequences mentioned elsewhere.

In 2005, 25% of deficiencies involved problems with

Fire Fighting equipment and Life Saving Appliances.

Other problems related to security arrangements –

improper access controls was a frequent issue.

What is the PSC Officer looking for?

The presence of required equipment

The condition of the required equipment

The knowledge of the crew in respect of the

maintenance and operation of safety equipment

and their own duties.

Evidence that effective safety management systems

and security procedures are in place on board.

Checklists can be found in the ship’s Safety

Management System – USE THEM, and remember

that it is a crime to present a falsified checklist

to an official.

IT IS THE CHECKS – NOT

THE TICKS THAT COUNT

On Deck 11

*


12

Accommodation

Not many ships are detained in Port State Control

inspections due to the condition of the accommo-

dation. Nor are there many deficiencies reported

under this headline in the reports of the US and

other port state control regimes.

Despite these circumstances, the accommodation

is highlighted in the PSC guide for three reasons.

Firstly, the condition of the accommodation is

a very powerful indicator for the quality of the

management on board.

It is frequently reported that human error accounts

for a significant part of the accidents that hap-

pen at sea. A management system that takes this

into account must reflect an attitude to Human

Resource (HR) management. The level of HR

focus of a management system is very difficult

to determine during a PSC inspection. However,

the quality of the living quarters are, as previously

mentioned, a strong indicator of the company’s

commitment.

Secondly, with the expected coming into force

of the new ILO Maritime Labour Convention

2006, it can be expected that in future, much

PSC attention will be directed towards the living

and working conditions on board ships. Seafarer

fatigue is a matter that receives a great deal of

attention from legislators, and one contributory

factor is the condition of the living quarters.

Thirdly, poor living conditions are a serious de-

motivator for seafarers. Motivated and committed

seafarers are a prerequisite for safe, secure and

efficient ships to be operated in an environmen-

tally-conscious manner.

The accommodation, including the galley, may not

be important from a safety and environmental

protection point of view, but the appearance of

the accommodation and galley is important, as it is

often considered representative for the condition

of the ship and the quality of the management on

board.

Make sure that fire doors are not forced open by

unauthorized means – not even temporarily.

HOUSEKEEPING COUNTS!

MAKE A GOOD IMPRESSION!

Accommodation 12

*


13

Machinery spaces

The walk-through inspection in the machinery

spaces are part of most PSC inspections. In the

USA, this part of the inspection is often coupled

to the environmental compliance inspection.

However, the two types of inspections are fun-

damentally different.

The inspection of the machinery spaces is, like

the inspection of the remainder of the ship, an

inspection where the officers are looking for

obvious defects. In the absence of defects, the

ship is deemed satisfactory.

Environmental compliance inspections are differ-

ent in that the inspector is looking for evidence

of compliance. If that evidence cannot be found,

then the ship may very well be in trouble.

The machinery space inspections are basically

not very different from deck inspections, and the

comments made in relation to deck inspections

also apply to engine room inspections.

However, there may be more focus on testing

equipment and verifying the crew familiarity

with safety management system duties, in par-

ticular tests of emergency steering, operation of

various emergency equipment and confirmation

of pre-arrival check procedures as prescribed by

the CFR.

The key issues when inspecting machinery spaces

are confirmation that they are safe working areas,

that safety procedures are adhered to and that es-

sential equipment is operational and operable by

the designated crew.

The inspection of machinery spaces concentrates

on identifying fire, personal injury, electrical and

environmental hazards.

The PSC Officer will focus on the awareness of and

compliance with the SMS procedures, and the

familiarity of the crew with the operation of

equipment such as Oily Water Separator (OWS),

emergency fire pump and emergency steering.

Emergency exits must be unobstructed and well

marked and lit – and they must not be locked, e.g.

for security purposes, if that prevents their use.

ENSURE THE ENGINE ROOM

IS A SAFE AREA

Machinery spaces 13

*


14

Focus area -environmental complianceIn the background notes to the guidelines for

the enforcement of MARPOL Annex I during

port state control inspections to the USCG PSC

inspectors, it is stated that “Recent MARPOL An-

nex I violation investigations have demonstrated

that related ship owners and crews conceal acci-

dental or deliberate discharges of oily waste and

sludge, usually caused by malfunctioning equip-

ment, poorly managed maintenance programs or

as an effort to reduce operational costs.”

With this assumption in mind and considering

that ships generate oily waste, it can be said that

the part of PSC inspections that focuses on envi-

ronmental compliance is looking for confirmation

of compliance, whereas the other parts of a PSC

inspection - safety and equipment - are looking

for actual defects.

The effect is that in respect to defects to the ship

and equipment, the PSC inspector must find and

prove the existence of these defects. In respect to

environmental compliance, the ship must prove

that it has complied with the requirements, and

that wastes have been properly disposed of.

From a practical point of view, a difference in

preparing for environmental inspections as op-

posed to safety and condition focused inspections

is that the ship’s crew must be proactive in imple-

menting and documenting sound environmental

practises.

The BIMCO PSC guide points to some issues

where sloppy procedures and record keeping

may have severe consequences. These are first

of all to ensure that the ORB entries are genuine

as opposed to routine repetitive entries which do

not reflect the actual events, and which cannot

be supported by statements from the crew. There

must be consistency between what is recorded,

how it is recorded and what is done.

Inspections are focused on identifying the inten-

tional discharges of oil, and on checking if the

crew try to hide violations.

When inspecting ships for environmental compliance

the PSC Officer often looks for:

Genuine entries in the logs and Oil Record Book.

Entries in the ORB in line with statements from the

crew regarding actual procedures followed

Records of operations, maintenance works and

malfunctions of the pollution prevention equip-

ment

The crew are familiar with their duties in respect of

operation of pollution prevention equipment

under the SMS

Signs of tampering with the piping or the electrical

controls on the OWS

YOU MUST

PROVE THAT

YOU COMPLY!

PSC Focus on

Environmental

compliance14

*


15

Tests of environmentalprotection equipmentGuidelines for USCG PSC officers on operational

tests are included in the general guidance docu-

ment on the enforcement of MARPOL Annex I

during PSC inspections (G-PCV Policy Letter

06-01). We quote below from this guidance on

operational tests of the oily water separator:

“(i) The PSCO should identify crewmembers

responsible for the operation of the OWS based

on the safety management system or by asking

the chief engineer. During the operational test, the

PSCO should observe and determine the crew’s

competency with the equipment and associated

piping. Crewmember inability to successfully

operate pollution prevention may indicate that the

equipment is not routinely used. If the equipment

is not functioning correctly, examine the ORB for

entries that indicate when the system failed.”

Furthermore, the USCG guide has the following

regarding the availability of spares on board:

“Note: If the OWS equipment uses consumable

filter elements coalescing media, recording paper,

etc., verify that reasonable quantities of these

consumables are onboard. In addition, the OWS

manufacturer’s recommended spare parts should

also be on board.”

Similar detailed guidance is given for the op-

erational tests or inspections of sludge tanks,

incinerator and the standard discharge connection

used for discharges to reception facilities.

PSC Officer may ask for an operational test of the

Oily Water Separator.

The tests will seek to confirm the performance of

both the OWS and the engineers operating the OWS.

All engineers assigned with operation of the OWS

should be prepared to conduct such tests.

Close inspection of Oil Content Monitors should be

expected. NEVER tamper with this equipment as the

PSC Officer will be looking for signs of tampering.

Equipment performance may also be tested.

Tank levels may be checked to confirm that they

are in accordance with ORB entries.

PSC Officers may also check incinerators and the

standard discharge connection to verify regular use.

Any connections, hoses and fittings that can be

used to discharge directly overboard will give rise

to suspicion.

PROVE THAT YOU

USE THE EQUIPMENT –

THE RIGHT WAY!

Environmental

equipment tests 15

*


16

Preparing for inspections

Preparing for a PSC inspection should not be nec-

essary for the well operated ship, just as it should

not be required to prepare for an audit of a man-

agement system. The reality is that all systems

need to be looked after. The frequency of reviews

is one important factor in ensuring compliance

with the requirements and procedures.

Preparing for a PSC inspection is as good a reason

as any for reviewing the relevant parts of systems

and procedures.

The target of eliminating sub-standard ships

through port state control has proved to be effec-

tive, as is documented in the statistics. The recent

USCG targeting of environmental compliance

has, however, resulted in a number of ships not

normally associated with sub-standard operations

being found in violation of regulations.

Despite internal and external ISM audits suppos-

edly having looked at procedures and the docu-

ment trails on board ships, there are indications

that a high number of discrepancies exist among

compliance procedures as well as in respect of

consistency of documentation.

Ensuring that the requirements for operations

and record keeping in respect of environmentally

mandated regulations are complied with will not

only reduce the risk of ships being detained or

delayed but also result in an increased awareness

from the crew on the necessity of complying with

the MARPOL regulations.

It is recommended that in on board training pro-

grammes on the safety management system, the

aspects of possible incrimination are included.

Few seafarers are aware that by falsifying an entry

in a log book or on a checklist, they not only cheat

their employer or superiors, they risk committing

a criminal offence!

Ensure that all are familiar with their environmental

SMS duties.

Make sure repairs, adjustments and maintenance

can not be read as “tampering” - and record it in

the ORB immediately.

If dismantling of equipment is required to carry

out tests, then label it accordingly. That will reduce

the risk of being suspected of tampering.

If ship’s equipment such as a hose is used for discharge

to reception facilities then record it – do not hide it.

Keep the spare parts inventory up to date. Do not

cause unnecessary suspicion by being unable to

locate the spare parts.

COOPERATE WITH

THE PSC OFFICER –

DO NOT HIDE FACTS

Preparing for inspections: 16

*


17

When things go wrong…

If the PSC Officer finds clear grounds for a

more detailed inspection - in the USA the term

Expanded Exam is used - of an area of the ship,

such an inspection may be detailed, time consum-

ing, and involve close scrutiny of procedures and

equipment.

Clear grounds are defined by the IMO. These

are when the ship, the equipment or the crew do

not correspond substantially with the convention

requirements, or when crew are not familiar with

shipboard procedures.

When defects are suspected, areas relating to the

defect will be inspected. If, for instance, a piece

of equipment is defective, other equipment or the

maintenance procedures including e.g. checklists

may be scrutinised.

If a lack of environmental regulation compliance

is suspected, the Expanded Exam may include the

opening up of equipment. A very close review

and comparison between Safety Management

System, equipment manuals, piping diagrams,

maintenance etc. should also be expected.

Detailed and isolated interviews with selected

crew members may be conducted to verify com-

pliance with the procedures as described in the

safety management system.

If crew are interviewed, it is important to be aware

that almost anything that may have been done

by a crewmember in the course of work and the

execution of his or her duties will be less severely

punished than lying to an official. Likewise,

encouraging others to lie to officials is a severe

criminal offence in the USA.

Depending on what is observed during an Ex-

panded Exam, the scope of the inspection may

widen even further. It may also widen in relation

to which of the US agencies become involved

in the investigation. If that is the case, then the

scope of the investigation will often have ceased

to be primarily focused on compliance with

international maritime conventions. It may be

primarily focused on possible or suspected viola-

tions of US Law.

In such cases it may be advisable to seek profes-

sional assistance.

If the PSC Officer finds a problem on your ship, you

should expect that he will take a closer look at

everything.

As a result, he may decide to:

Order that repairs are made to correct the problem

(sometimes before the ship will be allowed to sail).

If the crew can repair or correct the problem quickly,

then the risk of delays and possible fines may be

reduced.

For severe problems, if the PSC Officer thinks that US

laws have been broken, a criminal investigation could

be started. A criminal investigation could aim at both

the Company and the crew on board.

LYING TO INVESTIGATORS IN

A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

RESULTS WITH PUNISHMENT FAR

WORSE THAN THE PUNISHMENT

FOR VIOLATIONS OF SAFETY

AND SECURITY REGULATIONS

When things go wrong… 17

*


18

Conclusions

PSC inspectors traditionally focused on ships with

concrete, tangible defects. The environmental

compliance cases have, however, added a dif-

ferent group of ships to the focus. These are the

apparently quality ships, where operational and

procedural deficiencies have been identified.

In respect of the oily water separator cases, there

are indications that some individuals hold the

belief that it is in the interest of the company or

themselves to solve problems associated with the

creation, storage and handling of waste contrary

to the provisions of the management systems in

force on board.

The root cause of such discrepant views on the

management system may vary. Although there

may be tangible evidence that the provisions of

a management system are adhered to throughout

the company, it may well be that the spirit - or

values - of the company behind the system, are

not realised by everybody.

The traditional mantra of Safety Management

Systems “Say what you do, do what you say and

record it” worked well for ensuring compliance in

a world that focused on tangible defects in relation

to a set of minimum requirements.

Companies may, however, need to consider to

what extent they have formulated and committed

to core values that pay regard to safety and the

environment - and to what extent such views are

shared throughout the organisation.

That may require that the scope of the manage-

ment systems - afloat and ashore - are expanded

to prioritise issues such as shared corporate values

and visions.

Today, the safety management system mantra

could be:

“State your intent,

Say what you do,

Do what you say and

Record it.”

Important things to remember:

ALWAYS!!!

• Tell the truth

• Tell others to tell the truth

• Make sure all log entries are

complete and accurate

• Know your safety, security

and environmental compliance

duties – and do them!

• Fix or report defects as soon as possible

• Share relevant information with

the authorities

More information is available on:

www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/psc/psc.htm

AVOID PROBLEMS – RUN A

SAFE AND SECURE SHIP AND

BE HONEST WITH PORT STATE

CONTROL OFFICERS

Conclusions 18

*


19

The role of BIMCO

Fair Treatment of Seafarers

At the beginning of 2006, BIMCO conducted a

study of recent cases involving the international

practice of using criminal sanctions towards sea-

farers. The study sought to identify cases in which

seafarers were detained, prosecuted or punished,

to identify the national, regional and international

instruments that apply to such cases, and the ini-

tiatives that have been taken at all levels aimed

at the protection of seafarers’ rights.

The study represents BIMCO’s initial attempt to

gather sufficient information upon which conclu-

sions regarding the extent of related problems

could be drawn. It is realised that not all such

cases have been included. Therefore, this study

will be enhanced to include additional related

cases as they are identified and as new cases

occur, as well as updates on related regulations

and initiatives.

The study revealed that the oily water separator

cases in the USA accounted for the majority of

the cases where seafarers were prosecuted. It

also became evident that the laws and regulations

applied were different from those international

conventions that seafarers were accustomed to

be held accountable towards.

It became evident that an educational deficit ex-

isted in this respect, both in relation to shore based

management as well as in relation to seafarers.

While various steps have been taken to increase

the awareness amongst shore-based managers,

BIMCO seeks through this guide to also increase

the awareness of seafarers. This is a direct exten-

sion of our work to ensure and contribute to the

fair treatment of seafarers.

More information regarding the BIMCO study

into the criminalisation of seafarers is available

on www.bimco.org

BIMCO, established in 1905, is the world's

largest international shipping association

with approximately 2,400 members situated

in 123 countries. The owner-members of

BIMCO control a fleet of about 550 million

deadweight tonnes, thereby representing

65% of the world's merchant fleet.

BIMCO seeks to protect the fair treatment

and welfare of seafarers at all times.

“Use of this guide will raise awareness

amongst seafarers regarding compliance

with Port State Control measures imple-

mented on board ships.”

C. E. Bone

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard

BIMCO

Bagsvaerdvej 161

2880 Bagsvaerd

Denmark

www.bimco.org

BIMCO – Reflecting

your interests 19


20

Port state control checklists

The last page of the BIMCO Guide to Port

State Control Inspections in the USA shows a

checklist.

The items listed are the general items that will be

inspected during a normal PSC inspection. The

list is intended to serve as a memory aid when

preparing for inspections.

The list also serves as a reminder that well-pre-

pared and thought out checklists are an integral

part of PSC preparations, as a vast number of

individual items must be checked frequently or

even continuously to ensure that all safety related

equipment is in satisfactory condition. These

checklists are found in most safety management

systems, and they are available from external

sources, such as class societies.

Checklists are also important for regulators as

well as for companies as they can be strong

signals to the crews regarding what is prioritised

by a ship manager. Checklists can be effective in

communicating the goals and values of a company

to the crew, and to link these values to the daily

operations and situations.

Most of the checklists used on board a ship are

not directly related to preparing for PSC inspec-

tions. However, the completion of the checks is

often crucial to the compliance with the applicable

regulations and essential for a satisfactory execu-

tion of a PSC inspection.

This may, in the eyes of officials, make check-

lists official documents, and accordingly the

same provisions and requirements with respect

to truthfulness that apply to log-books may be

applied to checklists.

Ship’s crew are advised to be truthful - also when

completing checklists.

The guide can be downloaded, printed and copied

from the BIMCO website. The box on the back

page is intended for the use of companies wishing

to integrate the guide into their formal systems so

that they can print their name, logo or manage-

ment system codes as appropriate.

The US PSC

Checks include:

• Certificates

• Emergency Generator and Lighting

• Main and Emergency Fire Pump

• Fixed Deck Foam FF System

• Fire Detection System

• Fire and Boat Drills

• Steering Gear

• Oily Water Separator and Bilge Monitor

• Safety Management System

• Navigation Safety Checks

• Conduct a Deck Walk - Structure

and Watertight Integrity

• ILO – Crew living Conditions

20


Documents

BIMCO USCG PSC Inspection Guidelines Explanatory Notes November 2006