Port State Control (PSC) – An agreed regime for the inspection of foreign ships

Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships present in a nation’s port for the purpose of verifying that the condition of the ships and their equipment comply with the provisions of international conventions and codes and that the ships are manned and operated in compliance with those provisions.

Many of IMO’s most important technical conventions contain provisions for ships to be inspected when they visit foreign ports to ensure that they meet IMO requirements.

These inspections were originally intended to be a back up to flag State implementation, but experience has shown that they can be extremely effective, especially if organized on a regional basis. A ship going to a port in one country will normally visit other countries in the region before embarking on its return voyage and it is to everybody’s advantage if inspections can be closely co-ordinated.
This ensures that as many ships as possible are inspected, but at the same time prevents ships being delayed by unnecessary inspections. The primary responsibility for ships standards rests with the flag state but Port State Control provides a “safety net” to catch sub-standard ships.

Primary Responsibilities

The primary responsibility for maintaining ships standard rests with the flag states, as well as their owners and masters. However, many flag states do not, for various reasons, fulfill their obligations under international maritime conventions, and PSC provides a useful “safety net” to catch substandard ships. PSC effectively does what the Flag State control should, but in many cases fails, to do.

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. 147.

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’.

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

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 1982.

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.

PSC regimes in operation worldwide

Nine regional agreements on port State control – Memoranda of Understanding or MoUs – have been signed:

1. Europe and the north Atlantic (Paris MoU)
2. Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo MoU)
3. Latin America (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar)
4. Caribbean (Caribbean MoU)
5. West and Central Africa (Abuja MoU)
6. the Black Sea region (Black Sea MoU)
7. the Mediterranean (Mediterranean MoU)
8. the Indian Ocean (Indian Ocean MoU)
9. the Riyadh MoU

The United States Coast Guard maintain the tenth PSC regime.

Who boards a ship to carry out Port State Control inspection?

A Port State Control Officer (PSCO) carries out port State control. The PSCO is a properly qualified person, authorized to carry out port State control inspections in accordance with the MoU, by the Maritime Authority of the port State and acts under its responsibility. All PSCO’s carry an identity card, issued by their maritime authorities.

The object of this Code is to assist PSCOs in conducting their inspections to the highest professional level. Port State Control Officers are central to achieving the aims of the MOU. They are the daily contact of the MOU with the shipping world. They are expected to act within the law, within the rules of their Government and in a fair, open, impartial and consistent manner.

Pic Courtesy: Class NK Port State Control Annual Report

If deficiencies are found the PSCO must:

• decide on the appropriate action to be taken.
• be satisfied that they will be rectified.
• decide if it is a ground for detention.

In principle, all deficiencies should be rectified before the departure of the ship. This does not
mean that every deficiency must be checked as rectified by the PSCO.

Fundamental Principles of the Code

The Code of Good Practice encompasses three fundamental principles against which all actions of PSCOs are judged: integrity, professionalism, and transparency. These are defined as follows:

1. Integrity is the state of moral soundness, honesty, and freedom from corrupting influences or motives.
2. Professionalism is applying accepted professional standards of conduct and technical knowledge. For PSCOs standards of behavior are established by the competent authority and the general consent of the port State members.
3. Transparency implies openness and accountability

Please find Code of Good Practice as per Paris MOU.

General Criteria as laid down by the PSC MOUs to carry out Inspection

1. Ships visiting a port of a state for the first time or after an absence of 12 months or more
2. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a state with deficiencies to be rectified
3. Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as being deficient
4. Ships whose certificates are not in order
5. Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods which have failed to report relevant information
6. Ships which have been suspended from class in the preceding 6 months
7. Ships which have been subject of a report or notification by another authority
8. Ships which have been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their way to port
9. Ships accused of an alleged violation of the provisions of IMO as to pose a threat persons, property or environment.
10. Ships are permitted to leave the port of a member state on conditions such as deficiencies are to be rectified before departure or at the next port or within 14days.

If there are other conditions, it must be specified. Ships above 13 years are to be in the overall targeting factor of PSC.

Certificates and Documents are to be inspected for the PSC

1. International Tonnage Certificate (1969)
2. Passenger Ship Safety Certificate
3. Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate
4. Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate
5. Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelegraphy Certificate
6. Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelephony Certificate
7. Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate
8. Cargo Ship Safety Certificate
9. Exemption Certificate including where appropriate the list of cargoes
10. International Certificate of Fitness for Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk
11. International Certificate of fitness for the carriage of Dangerous Chemical in Bulk
12. International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate
13. International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substance in Bulk
14. International Load Line Certificate
15. International Load Line Exemption Certificate
16. Oil Record Book, part I and II
17. Cargo Record Book
18. Minimum Safe Manning Document
19. Certificate of Competency including Dangerous Goods Endorsement
20. Medical Fitness Certificate
21. Stability information including grain loading information and Document of Authorisation
22. Document of Compliance and Safety Management Certificate issued in accordance with the ISM Code
23. Certificates as to ship’s hull strength and machinery installations issued by the classification society in question
24. Document of Compliance with the special requirements for Ships Carrying Dangerous Goods
25. High-Speed Craft Safety Certificate and Permit To Operate High-Speed Craft
26. Dangerous goods special list or manifest, or detailed stowage plan
27. Ship’s log book (OLB) with respect to the records of tests and drills and the log for records of inspection and maintenance of lifesaving appliance and arrangements
28. Special Purpose Ship Safety Certificate
29. Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Safety Certificate
30. For oil tankers, the record of oil discharge monitoring and control system for the last ballast voyage
31. Muster list, fire control plan, and for passenger ships, a damage control plan
32. Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP)
33. Survey report files (in case of bulk carriers and oil tankers)
34. Reports of previous port state control inspections
35. For RO-RO passenger ships, information on the A/A maximum ratio (A/Amax Certificate)
36. Document of authorization for the carriage of grain
37. Cargo Securing Manual
38. Garbage Management Plan and Garbage Record Book
39. Decision Support System for masters of passenger ships
40. SAR Co-operation Plan for passenger ships trading on fixed routes
41. List of operational limitations for passenger ships
42. Bulk carrier booklet
43. Loading and unloading plan for bulk carriers

Detention of Ships under PSC code

Where a ship in port appears to be dangerously unsafe or in the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment, she can be detained.
When a ship is in clear contravention with the IMO codes or the health and the well-being of the people on board is in danger, she can be detained. Pollution offenses would also detain the ship.

When deciding whether the deficiencies found in a ship are sufficiently serious to merit detention the PSCO will assess whether:

1. The ship has relevant, valid documentation.
2. The ship has the crew required in the Minimum Safe Manning Document or equivalent navigate safely throughout the forthcoming voyage.
3. Safely handle, carry and monitor the condition of the cargo throughout the forthcoming voyage.
4. Operate the engine room safely throughout the forthcoming voyage.
5. Maintain proper propulsion and steering throughout the forthcoming voyage.
6. Fight fires effectively in any part of the ship if necessary during the forthcoming voyage.
7. Abandon ship speedily and safely.
8. Prevent pollution of the environment throughout the forthcoming voyage.
9. Maintain adequate stability throughout the forthcoming voyage.
10. Maintain adequate watertight integrity throughout the forthcoming voyage.
11. Communicate in distress situations if necessary during the forthcoming voyage.
12. Provide safe and healthy conditions on board throughout the forthcoming voyage.
13. Provide the maximum of information in case of an accident (as provided by the voyage data recorder).

If the result of any of these assessments is negative, taking into account all deficiencies found, the ship will be strongly considered for detention. A combination of deficiencies of a less serious nature may also warrant the detention of the ship.

Detainable deficiencies

To assist the PSCO in the use of the procedures follows a list of deficiencies, grouped under relevant Conventions and/or Codes, which are considered of such a serious nature that they may warrant the detention of the ship involved. This list is not considered exhaustive but is intended to give an exemplification of relevant items:

General

The lack of valid certificates and documents as required by the relevant instruments.

However, ships flying the flag of States not a party to a Convention (relevant instrument) or not having implemented another relevant instrument, are not entitled to carry the certificates provided for by the Convention or another relevant instrument.
Therefore, the absence of the required certificates will not by itself constitute a reason to detain these ships, however, in applying the ‘no more favorable treatment’ clause, substantial compliance with the provisions must be required before the ship sails.

Areas under SOLAS

1. Failure of proper operation of propulsion and other essential machinery, as well as electrical installations.
2. Insufficient cleanliness of engine room, an excess amount of oily-water mixtures in bilges, insulation of piping including exhaust pipes in engine room contaminated by oil, improper operation of bilge pumping arrangements.
3. Failure of the proper operation of the emergency generator, lighting, batteries, and switches.
4. failure of the proper operation of the main and auxiliary steering gear.
5. Absence, insufficient capacity or serious deterioration of personal lifesaving appliances, survival craft, and launching arrangements.
6. Absence, non-compliance or substantial deterioration to the extent that it cannot comply with its intended use of fire detection system, fire alarms, fire fighting equipment, fixed fire extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, fire dampers, quick closing devices.
7. Absence, substantial deterioration or failure of proper operation of the cargo deck area fire protection on tankers.
8. Absence, non-compliance or serious deterioration of lights, shapes or sound signals.
9. Absence or failure of the proper operation of the radio equipment for distress and safety communication.
10. Absence or failure of the proper operation of navigation equipment, taking the provisions of SOLAS into account.
11. The absence of corrected navigational charts, and/or all other relevant nautical publications necessary for the intended voyage, taking into account that type- approved electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS) operating on official data may be used as a substitute for the charts.
12. The absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargo pump rooms.
13. Serious deficiencies in the operational requirements.

Areas under the IBC Code

1. Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of Fitness or missing cargo information.
2. Missing or damaged high-pressure safety devices.
3. Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or corresponding to code requirements.
4. Sources of ignition in hazardous locations.
5. Contraventions of special requirements.
6. Exceeding of maximum allowable cargo quantity per tank.
7. Insufficient heat protection for sensitive products.

Areas under the IGC Code

1. Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of Fitness or missing cargo information.
2. Missing closing devices for accommodations or service spaces.
3. Bulkhead not gastight.
4. Defective air locks.
5. Missing or defective quick closing valves.
6. Missing or defective safety valves.
7. Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not corresponding to code requirements.
8. Ventilators in cargo area not operable.
9. Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable.
10. Gas detection plant and/or toxic gas detection plant defective.
11. Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid inhibitor certificate.

Areas under LOADLINES

1. Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of plating and associated stiffening in decks and hull affecting seaworthiness or strength to take local loads, unless proper temporary repairs for a voyage to a port for permanent repairs have been carried out.
2. A recognized case of insufficient stability.
3. Absence of sufficient and reliable information, in an approved form, which by rapid and simple means enables the master to arrange for the loading and ballasting of his ship in such a way that a safe margin of stability is maintained at all stages and at varying conditions of the voyage, and that the creation of any unacceptable stresses in the ship’s structure are avoided.
4. Absence, substantial deterioration or defective closing devices, hatch closing arrangements and watertight doors.
5. Overloading.
6. The absence of or impossibility to read draught mark.

Areas under Annex I to MARPOL

1. Absence, serious deterioration or failure of proper operation of the oily water filtering equipment, the oil discharge monitoring, and control system or the 15 ppm alarm arrangements.
2. The remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficient for the intended voyage.
3. Oil record book not available.
4. Unauthorized discharge bypass fitted.
5. Survey report file missing or not in conformity with the double hull and double bottom requirements.

Areas under Annex II to MARPOL

1. The absence of the P&A Manual.
2. Cargo is not categorized.
3. No cargo record book available.
4. Transport of oil-like substances without satisfying the requirements.
5. Unauthorized discharge by-pass fitted.

Areas under Annex III to MARPOL

1. The absence of a valid Document of Compliance for carriage of dangerous goods (if required).
2. The absence of a Dangerous Cargo manifest or detailed stowage plan before departure of the ship.
3. Stowage and segregation provisions of the IMDG Code Chapter 7.1 and 7.2 are not met.
4. The ship is carrying dangerous goods, not in compliance with the Document of Compliance for carriage of dangerous goods of the ship.
5. Ship is carrying damaged or leaking dangerous goods packages.
6. Ship’s personnel assigned to specific duties related to the cargo are not familiar with those duties, any dangers posed by the cargo and with the measures to be taken in such a context.
7. The measures to be taken in such a context.

Areas under Annex IV to MARPOL

The absence of a Sewage treatment system not functioning Sewage comminuting and disinfecting system absence of a Sewage discharge connection.

Areas under Annex V to MARPOL

1. The absence of the garbage management plan.
2. No garbage record book available.
3. Ship’s personnel not familiar with disposal/discharge requirements of garbage management plan.

Areas under Annex VI to MARPOL

As per Guidelines for port State control inspections for compliance with Annex VI of MARPOL regulations for the prevention of air pollutions from ships.

Areas under STCW

1. Failure of navigational or engineering watch arrangements to conform to the requirements specified for the ship by the flag State Administration.
2. The absence in a watch of a person qualified to operate equipment essential to safe navigation, safety radio communications or the prevention of marine pollution.
3. The absence in a watch of a person qualified to operate equipment essential to safe navigation, safety radio communications or the prevention of marine pollution.
4. Inability to provide for the first watch at the commencement of a voyage and for subsequent relieving watches persons who are sufficiently rested and otherwise fit for duty.

Areas under ILO Conventions

Under ILO147:

1. Insufficient food for the voyage to next port.
2. Insufficient potable water for the voyage to next port.
3. Excessively unsanitary conditions on board.
4. No heating in accommodation of a ship operating in areas where temperatures may be excessively low.
5. Excessive garbage, blockage by equipment or cargo or otherwise unsafe conditions in passageways/accommodations.
6. Per Guideline for the Port State Control Officer on the inspection of hours of work/rest and fitness for duty and Guidance for inspection on working and living conditions.

Under MLC, 2006:

As per Guidance for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 and Guideline for the Port State Control Officer on the inspection of hours of work/rest and fitness for duty.

Areas under AFS Convention

1. Per Guidelines for port State control officers on control of Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS) on ships.
2. Areas which may not warrant a detention, but where e.g. cargo operations have to be stopped.
3. Failure of the proper operation (or maintenance) of the inert gas system, cargo related gear or machinery will be considered sufficient ground to stop cargo operation.

Equasis & its Main Principles

Pic Courtesy: icsclass.org

Equasis is a database holding safety-related details of more than 87,233 ships (as of 2015 – Source), including a record of port state control inspections. It is on the Internet and may be viewed by any member of the public.

Equasis aims at collecting and disseminating high quality, safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet that has been provided by the holders of such information. Equasis believes that, by providing factual information, its users will be able to build their own opinions on ships and/or companies and act accordingly.

Equasis displays information from public authorities and industry organizations, and the whole list of the present providers is available under the menu tab ‘Providers’. Even though data is regularly updated in order to help ensure that information remains as reliable as possible, Equasis does not aim to be or to become a “real-time” system. The frequency of updates varies from provider to provider, whereby 80% of the data contained in Equasis is refreshed on a weekly basis.

The main principles behind the Equasis information system are that:

1. Equasis should be a tool aimed at reducing substandard shipping, and it should be limited to safety-related information on ships.
2. Equasis has no commercial purpose; it addresses a public concern and should act accordingly.
3. Equasis should be an international database covering the whole world fleet.
4. Active co-operation with all players involved in the maritime industry is needed.
5. Equasis will be a tool used for better selection of ships, but it will be used on a voluntary basis and there will be no legal pressure for industry to use it.

It will promote the exchange of unbiased information, transparency in maritime transport and allow persons involved in maritime transport to be better informed about the performance of ships and maritime organizations with which they are dealing.

The role of the industry in promoting quality and safety in marine transport was at the heart of the Quality Shipping Campaign, launched by the European Commission and the UK Government in November 1997. The Campaign’s aim was to bring together all players involved in the various fields of marine business in an effort to improve maritime safety. It was based on dialogue between all the marine industry and public authorities and its tools were, primarily, voluntary measures. As the Quality Shipping Campaign demonstrated, one of the greatest impediments to a genuine quality culture in shipping is the lack of transparency in the information relating to the quality of ships and their operators.

While much relevant information is collected and available, it is scattered and often difficult to access. One of the main conclusions of the Quality Shipping Conference in Lisbon in June 1998, was a unanimous call from the participants representing the whole range of industry professionals (including shipowners, cargo owners, insurers, brokers, classification societies, agents, ports, and terminals), to make such information more accessible.

In response to this call, the European Commission and the French Maritime Administration decided to cooperate in developing an information system which collates existing safety-related information on ships from both public and private sources and makes it available on the Internet.

At the beginning, the two founding members, France and the European Commission, shared the cost of developing and running Equasis. In 2002, the first Equasis “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) was signed by a small number of quality-minded Maritime Administrations as a first step towards the progressive incorporation of other administrations with a similar philosophy. Since then, other Maritime Administrations have indeed joined the project. The “members” of the Supervisory Committee are designated by the Maritime Administrations that have signed the Equasis Memorandum of Understanding.

The Supervisory Committee decides and finances the Equasis project, and its composition aims to ensure an appropriate geographical spread. Equasis is therefore financed exclusively by public money and is made available to all users worldwide, free of charge. Those two characteristics are unique in the maritime world and give Equasis a special role in the marine industry.

At the moment, the members of the Supervisory Committee are as follows:

1. France (founding member)
2. European Commission (founding member), represented by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) since 2003
3. United Kingdom (member since 2002)
4. Japan (member since 2002)
5. United States of America (observer since 2002, member since 2011)
6. Norway (member since 2008)
7. Canada (member since 2009)
8. Republic of Korea (member since 2009)
9. Brazil (member since 2013)
10. Spain (member from 2002-2012, observer from 2013 to 2015, member from 2016)

In the past, Equasis also benefited from the participation of the following maritime authorities:

1. Australia (2005-2009)
2. Singapore (2002-2003)
3. Spain (2002-2012)

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) currently has observer status in Equasis.

Further Articles that may interest you:

Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC)

Ballast Water Management – Merchant Ships

What is ALARP and why do you need to know it?