Guide to Port State Inspections

8/2/2019 Guide to Port State Inspections

1/16

Page 1/16

A TOOL DEVELOPED BYRINA

TO ASSIST OWNERS PREPARE THEIR SHIPS

FOR PORTSTATE CONTROL INSPECTIONS

Guide toport State control

APRIL 1998FIRST EDITION

Background

Definitions

Legal basis

Port State control regimes

Targeting schemes

Inspection procedures

Detention

Right of appeal

Banning

Notification

Publication of detentions

Tables

The scope of this guide is to provide an overall viewof the present stage of development of port Statecontrol and the relevant basic principles andprocedures. It is not exhaustive and makesparticular reference to the Paris Memorandum ofUnderstanding and the United States Coast Guard.

RINA declines all responsibility for any damagederived from the use of the Guide to Port StateControl.


2/16

Guide to Port State Control

Page 2/16

1. Background.......................................................................Page 22. Definitions......................................................................... Page 2

3. Legal basis........................................................................Page 33.1 SOLAS 74 and MARPOL 73/783.2 ILLC 663.3 STCW 783.4 ILO 147

4. Port State control regimes ................................................Page 35. Targeting schemes ........................................................... Page 5

5.1 Paris MoU5.2 United States Coast Guard

6. Inspection procedures ...................................................... Page 76.1 Initial inspection

6.2 More detailed inspection6.3 Expanded inspection (Paris MoU only)

7. Detention .......................................................................... Page 88. Right of appeal ................................................................. Page 89. Banning (Paris MoU only)................................................. Page 810. Notification........................................................................ Page 9

10.1 To the master10.2 To the flag State10.3 To the classification society10.4 To other port States

11. Publication of detentions .................................................. Page 10

Tables

Port State control is the process by which a nation exercises its authorityover foreign vessels when those vessels are in waters subject to itsjurisdiction. Through port State control inspections, port States verify thecompliance of ships calling at their ports with the applicable internationalconventions and local legislation. Targeting schemes have beendeveloped to optimise the use of resources based on ships intrinsic

characteristics (type and age) and their previous port State control history.If the ship is not found in compliance with the applicable rules andregulations, corrective actions are requested to be taken according to agiven schedule. If the nature of the deficiencies found is such as to impairthe overall safety of the ship and threaten the marine environment, theship is detained in the port and is not allowed to sail until the deficiencieshave been rectified to the satisfaction of the port State control officer.

App l i cab le i ns t rumen ts , the following regulatory instruments, against

which checks of compliance are carried out during port State controlinspections:

the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (ILLC 66)


3/16


Page 3/16

the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974(SOLAS 74)

the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution fromShips, 1973 and the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (MARPOL

73/78) the International Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 (STCW 78) the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing

Collisions at Sea (COLREG 72) the International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of

Ships, 1969 the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976

(ILO No.147) domestic laws or regulations of the port

Clea r g rounds , evidence that the ship, its equipment or crew do notcorrespond substantially to the requirements of the applicable instrumentsor that the master or crew members are not familiar with essentialshipboard procedures relating to the safety of the ship or the prevention ofpollution.

Def i c iency , an item found not in compliance with the provisions of theapplicable instruments.

Deten t ion , a control action which restricts a vessels right of freemovement. The imposition of a restriction on the movement of a vesselconstitutes a detention regardless of whether or not it causes delay to theship.

I nspec t ion , a visit on board a ship in order to check its compliance withthe applicable instruments.

I n te rven t ion , an action taken following an inspection to bring a ship intocompliance with the applicable instruments. This may include requiring theimmediate or future rectification of deficiencies, detaining the ship orallowing the ship to proceed to another port for repairs.

According toRegulation I/19 of SOLAS 74and Article 5(2) of MARPOL73/78, port States are given the authority to board foreign vessels todetermine the validity of their SOLAS certificates and to check if the shipis in compliance with the applicable requirements. If deficiencies arefound, the port State is authorised to take such steps as may benecessary to ensure that the vessel does not leave the port until safetyand environmental hazards have been brought within acceptable limits.

According to Article 21(1)-(2) of ILLC 66, port States are given the

authority to board foreign vessels to verify the validity of the ILLCcertificate and to determine that the ship is not loaded beyond theallowable limits, that the position of the load line corresponds with the
http://rules/Solas/reg19.pdfhttp://rules/Solas/reg19.pdfhttp://rules/Solas/reg19.pdfhttp://rules/Marpol/art5.pdfhttp://rules/Marpol/art5.pdfhttp://rules/Marpol/art5.pdfhttp://rules/Illc/art21.pdfhttp://rules/Illc/art21.pdfhttp://rules/Illc/art21.pdfhttp://rules/Marpol/art5.pdfhttp://rules/Marpol/art5.pdfhttp://rules/Solas/reg19.pdf


4/16


Page 4/16

certificate and that alterations do not make it unsafe to proceed to sea.The port State is authorised to take such steps as may be necessary toensure that the ship does not leave the port until safety and environmentalhazards have been brought within acceptable limits.

According to Article X and Regulation I/4 of the STCW 1978Convention, port States are given the authority to verify that all seafarersare properly certified. The port State may also make an assessment of thewatchkeeping ability of the seafarers when the ship is involved in anaccident, illegal discharge or unsafe movement. Port States areauthorised to detain the ship when seafarers are not provided with valid orappropriate certificates.

According to Article 4 of the ILO 147 Convention, port States are giventhe authority to take measures necessary to rectify any conditions onboard which are clearly hazardous to safety or health.

In order to implement port State control, port State administrations havetaken different approaches. Some of them have decided to act individuallyand have therefore developed their own programs. This is the case of theUnited States Coast Guard (USCG).

Other administrations have decided to combine efforts and resources toensure uniformity and consistency of application. For this purpose, theyhave developed specific regional agreements of co-operation, whichdefine common inspection targets, criteria and procedures.

Yet other administrations initially developed and implemented their ownregimes and eventually became members of a regional agreement. This isthe case of Canada (which is a member of both the Paris MoU and TokyoMoU) and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA, member of theTokyo MoU).

As of today, the following 5 Memoranda are effective worldwide:

i. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control(Paris MoU), now consisting of 18 members. The writtenagreement was signed in March 1978. The Paris MoU isgoverned by a Committee, consisting of representatives fromMembers, the European Commission and some observers, andis co-ordinated by a Secretariat. Inspection data are stored in adatabase. The Paris MoU was the first agreement of this kindever signed, and all the other agreements in force today aregoverned by the same principles and procedures. The samebasic principles are also being considered for the memorandapresently under development.

The principles governing the Paris MoU have been incorporatedin the European Council Directive 95/21/ECof 19 June 1995,whose provisions are to be implemented by Member States
http://rules/Stcw/artx.pdfhttp://rules/Stcw/artx.pdfhttp://rules/Stcw/reg1_4.pdfhttp://rules/Stcw/reg1_4.pdfhttp://rules/Stcw/reg1_4.pdfhttp://rules/USCG/cap19.pdfhttp://rules/USCG/cap19.pdfhttp://rules/ParisMOU/20moutxt.pdfhttp://rules/ParisMOU/20moutxt.pdfhttp://rules/ParisMOU/20moutxt.pdfhttp://rules/Ec/directive.pdfhttp://rules/Ec/directive.pdfhttp://rules/Stcw/reg1_4.pdfhttp://rules/Stcw/reg1_4.pdfhttp://rules/ParisMOU/20moutxt.pdfhttp://rules/ParisMOU/20moutxt.pdfhttp://rules/USCG/cap19.pdfhttp://rules/Stcw/artx.pdfhttp://rules/Ec/directive.pdf


5/16


Page 5/16

through legislative and administrative instruments. This makesport State control compulsory by law in Europe. Both the ParisMoU and the European Council Directive incorporate theprovisions of Resolution A.787(19) Procedures for Port State

Control adopted at the 19th

Session of the Assembly of theInternational Maritime Organisation (IMO).

ii. The Latin American Agreement (Acuerdo de Via del Mar)signed in Via del Mar, Chile, in November 1992 and consistingof 11 members.

iii. The Memorandum of Understanding on port State control for theAsia and Pacific Region (Tokyo MoU), signed in Tokyo inDecember 1993 and consisting of 16 members.

iv. The Memorandum of Understanding on port State control for theCaribbean region (Caribbean MoU), signed in Barbados in

February 1996 and consisting of 20 members.v. The Memorandum of Understanding on port State control for the

Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU), signed in Malta inJuly 1997 and consisting of 8 members.

The following initiatives are presently under discussion:

vi. Persian Gulf area

vii. West and Central Africa.

The main characteristics of the Memoranda presently in force aresummarised in Table 1.

! "In order to optimise the use of resources and concentrate on specificships, port states have developed targeting schemes, based on thecombination of a certain number of parameters and aimed at assigningships a certain priority of inspection.

! #$%&

Ships are selected and prioritised for inspection based on the combinationand comparison of the following items:

i. Oil tankers 5 years or less from the date of phasing out inaccordance with Regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78.

ii. Bulk carriers, older than 12 years of age.

iii. Passenger ships.

iv. Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age.

v. Ships visiting a port of a member state for the first time or afteran absence of 12 months or more.

vi. Ships flying the flag of a state appearing in the three-year rollingaverage table of above-average detentions published in theAnnual Report of the Paris MoU.

vii. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a State,member of the Paris MoU, on condition that the deficiencies
http://rules/Imo/cover.pdfhttp://rules/Imo/cover.pdfhttp://rules/Imo/cover.pdf


6/16


Page 6/16

noted are rectified within a specified period, upon expiry of thisperiod.

viii. Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities ashaving deficiencies which may prejudice their safe navigation.

ix. Ships whose statutory certificates have been issued on behalf ofthe flag State by an organisation which is not recognised by theport state.

x. Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which have failed toreport all relevant information concerning the ships particulars,the ships movements and concerning the dangerous or pollutinggoods being carried, to the competent authority of the port State.

xi. Ships which have been suspended from class for safety reasonsin the course of the preceding six months.

The most updated three-year rolling average table of flag States and the

full text of the Annual Report can be found in the Paris MoU Internet WebSite at the following address:

http://www.parismou.org

! $'(''(%&%')#

The USCG targeting scheme is based on a risk assessment methodologywhich takes the following factors into account:

i. Targe ted owners /ope ra to rs , i.e. owners/operators whohave had more than one vessel detained by the USCG within thelast 12 month period.

ii. Targe ted f l ag S ta tes , i.e. flag States whose detention ratioexceeds the average detention ratio for all flag States whosevessels call at US ports. The detention ratio is computed bydividing the number of its ships which have been detained in thelast three years by the total number of its ships which have calledat US ports within the same period. The average detention ratiofor all flag States is computed by dividing the total number ofdetentions by the number of total distinct arrivals, for the lastthree years. The flag list is updated annually on 1 April andremains in effect for the following twelve months.

iii. Targe ted c lass i f i ca t i on soc ie t i es , i.e. classificationsocieties whose detention ratio is higher than the averagedetention ratio. The class detention ratio is computed by dividingthe number of class related detentions (i.e. detentions for whichthe classification society is considered responsible due to itspoor performance when acting on behalf of the flag State) andthe number of distinct arrivals for that society over the last threeyears.

iv. Sh ip t ype , i.e. oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers,passenger ships, bulk carriers more than ten years old, shipscarrying low value commodities in bulk.

v. Sh ip s h i s to ry , i.e. detentions within the previous 12 months,other operational control within the previous 12 months, casualty
http://www.parismou.org/http://www.parismou.org/


7/16


Page 7/16

within the previous 12 months, violation within the previous 12months.

The most updated lists of targeted owners, flag States and classificationsocieties can be found in the USCG Internet Web Site at the following

address:http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/psc/psc.htm

The above factors are summarised in the PSC Boarding Priority Matrix(Table 2), in which points are assigned in each column. Points are thensummed for a total point score, which identifies the priority inspection(Table 3).

$'$*$%+(,'$&

The initial inspection consists of a visit on board a ship in order to checkthat its major systems are in compliance with the applicable instruments,and that the crew possesses sufficient proficiency to safely operate theship. This is usually accomplished by a check of certificates anddocuments and a general examination of the ship, including the deck, theengine room and accommodation, as well as examination of hygienicconditions. The visual assessment of the various components may beaccompanied by limited testing of systems and the crew. According to theUSCG, the main items of the initial inspection (walk through) are thosesummarised inTable 4.

(('$*($%+(,'$&

When, following the initial inspection, some certificates or documents arefound missing or not valid and/or there areclear grounds for believingthat the condition of a ship or its equipment or crew does not substantiallymeet the relevant requirements of an applicable instrument, the port Statecontrol officer will:

i. conduct a more detailed inspection in the area(s) where cleargrounds were established

ii. carry out a more detailed inspection in other areas at random

iii. include further checking of compliance with on board operationalrequirements.

Examples of clear grounds for a more detailed inspection are given inTable 5.

-+($%+(,'$&.#$%&&*/0

Where there are clear grounds for a more detailed inspection of a shipbelonging to the following categories:

i. Oil tankers 5 years or less from the date of phasing out inaccordance with Regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78

ii. Bulk carriers, older than 12 years of ageiii. Passenger ships

iv. Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/psc/psc.htmhttp://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/psc/psc.htm


8/16


Page 8/16

anexpanded inspectionis carried out. In general, a ship is subject to anexpanded inspection only once during a period of 12 months. The itemswhich may be considered as part of an expanded inspection aresummarised, for the various ship types, inTable 6.

If deficiencies are found during the more detailed inspection or theexpanded inspection, the following situations may occur:

i. deficiencies do not adversely affect the ships seaworthiness ordo not pose unreasonable threat to the environment. In thiscase, the ship is not detained and the deficiencies are requestedto be corrected within a specified time period (e.g. within 14days, prior to the next port, prior to return to a certain port State,etc.)

ii. some deficiencies are clearly hazardous to safety, health or theenvironment. In this case, the ship is detained. The detentionorder will not be lifted until the hazard has been removed, i.e.those deficiencies which caused the detention have beenrectified or measures have been found ensuring that the ship canproceed to sea without risk to safety, health or the environment.A non exhaustive list of deficiencies which may warrant thedetention of the ship involved is given in Table 7.

iii. the deficiencies are clearly hazardous to safety, health or theenvironment, but cannot be remedied in the port of inspection.

Also in this case the ship is detained, but the port State mayallow the ship to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yardavailable, provided that adequate measures are taken to ensurethat the risk is reduced to an acceptable level. These measuresare to be confirmed by the flag State or the recognisedorganisation acting on its behalf and agreed with the port State.The repair yard is to be agreed between the master and the portState control officer.

"The owner or the operator of a ship has the right of appeal against adetention decision according to procedures established in accordance withthe port State legislation. The appeal does not automatically cause thesuspension of the detention.

1 .#$%&&*/0If a ship referred to in paragraph 7.iii:

i. proceeds to sea without complying with the measures requestedto bring the risk within acceptable limits; or

ii. does not proceed to the agreed repair yard,


9/16


Page 9/16

to a specific port may be permitted in the event of force majeure oroverriding safety considerations.

On completion of an initial inspection, a more detailed inspection or anexpanded inspection, the master is provided by the port State controlofficer with a document giving the results of the inspection and the list ofactions to be taken. The document is issued also when the inspectiondoes not reveal any deficiency, and consists of the following main parts:

i. ships identification and characteristics

ii. certificates involved, survey authority and date of the last survey

iii. information about the survey carried out and its result (asconcerns deficiencies and detention)

iv. description of deficiencies - if any

v. for each deficiency, relevant action taken by the port Statecontrol officer or required to be taken by the owner.

The most important codes for actions taken used by the Paris MoU arethe following:

10 Deficiency rectified 15 Rectify deficiency at the next port 16 Rectify deficiency within 14 days

17 Master instructed to rectify deficiency beforedeparture 30 Grounds for detention 40 Next port informed 50 Flag State/Consul informed70 Classification society informed

The inspection report form used by the Paris MoU is given in Annex 3tothe Paris MoU agreement.

If the ship is detained, the port State immediately informs, in writing, theflag State of the ship or the Consul or, in his absence, the nearestdiplomatic representative of the flag State.

If the ship is detained, the recognised organisation responsible for theissue of the ships certificates on behalf of the flag State should also benotified where relevant. The classification society may be explicitlyrequested to attend the ship in those cases where the deficiencies foundare relevant to certificates issued by it and are of a particularly seriousnature. In such cases, the classification society is requested to confirm to

the port State that the deficiencies have been corrected under itssupervision and to its satisfaction.
http://rules/ParisMOU/18ann3.pdfhttp://rules/ParisMOU/18ann3.pdfhttp://rules/ParisMOU/18ann3.pdf


10/16


Page 10/16

In order to correctly apply their targeting schemes, which often refer to theprevious history (in terms of inspections and detentions) of the ship, themost important port State control regimes have developed electronicdatabases, where information on inspections is collected and madeavailable to all other members.

In particular, if the ship is detained and allowed to proceed to the nearestappropriate repair yard, the port State notifies the competent authority ofthe State where the repair yard is situated. If in the above case the shipproceeds to sea without complying with the measures requested to bringthe risk within acceptable limits or does not call at the agreed repair yard,the port State immediately alerts the other members of the Paris MoU.

!"#$%%The list of port State administrations which have decided to makeinformation relevant to detentions public through Internet, the relevantaddress and details are given in Table 8.


11/16


Page 11/16

Tables

Table 1

Comparative port State control agreementsParis MoU Vina del Mar Tokyo MoU Caribbean MoU Mediterranean MoU

Participatingcountries

18Belgium, Canada,Croatia, Denmark,Finland, France,Germany, Greece,Ireland, Italy,Netherlands,Norway, Poland,Portugal, RussianFederation, Spain,Sweden, UnitedKingdom

11Argentina, Brazil,Chile, Colombia,Cuba, Ecuador,Mexico, Panama,Peru, Uruguay,Venezuela

16Australia, Canada,China, Fiji,Indonesia, Japan,Republic of Korea,Malaysia, NewZealand, PapuaNew Guinea,Philippines,RussianFederation,Singapore,Thailand, Vanuatu,Hong Kong (China)

For Solomon Islandsand Vietnamacceptance ispending

20Anguilla, Antigua &Barbuda, Aruba,Bahamas,Barbados,Bermuda, BritishVirgin Islands,Cayman Islands,Dominica,Grenada, Guyana,Jamaica,Montserrat,NetherlandsAntilles, Saint Kittsand Nevis, SaintLucia, Saint Vincent& the Grenadines,Suriname, Trinidad& Tobago, Turksand Caicos Islands.

8Algeria, Cyprus,Egypt, Israel,Malta, Lebanon*,Morocco, Tunisia,Turkey, PalestinianAuthorities*

For Lebanon and

PalestinianAuthorities,

acceptance ispending

Observers Japan, UnitedStates, IMO, ILO,Tokyo MoU

IMO, CEPAL United States, IMO,ILO, ESCAP, ParisMoU

IMO, ILO,CARICOM, IACS

IMO, ILO, EC

Targetinspectionrate

25% annualinspection rate percountry within 3years


50% annualregional inspectionrate by the year2000 (achieved in1996)



Specialattention

Passengerships, ro-roships, bulkcarriers

ships whichmay present aspecial hazard

ships whichhave hadrecentdeficiencies

ships flying theflag of atargeted flagState








ships notinspectedwithin 6months





Ships visitingthe port for thefirst time orafter anabsence of 12months ormore

ships withpendingdeficiencies tobe rectified


ships detainedin the previous6 months

Secretariat Provided by theNetherlandsMinistry ofTransport andPublic Works,office in Rijswijk(the Netherlands)

Provided by thePrefectura NavalArgentina, BuenosAires

Tokyo, Japan Barbados,Barbados

Alexandria, Egypt

Informationcentre

CentreAdministrative desAffairs Maritime(CAAM), SaintMalo, France

Centro deInformacion delAcuerdoLatinoamericano(CIALA), PrefecturaNaval Argentina,Buenos Aires

Information CentreVancouver, Canada

Information CentreCuracao,NetherlandsAntilles

Information CentreCasablanca,Morocco

Signed 2 March 1978 5 November 1992 2 December 1993 9 February 1996 11 July 1997


12/16


Page 12/16

Table 2Boarding Priority Matrix

(United States Coast Guard)OWNER FLAG CLASS HISTORY SHIP

TYPE

5 pointsTargetedOwner orOperator

7 pointsTargeted Flag State

Priority I

10 arrivals with detentionratio more than 4 times the

averageOR


13/16


Page 13/16

Table 4General examination (walk through)

(United States Coast Guard)

Structure Deck portion Ladderways, guardrails, firemain, piping, hatchcovers, closures, deckplating

Hull portion Damage, cracking, wastage, corrosion, internal structural membersvisible from deck in open hold/tanks

Load lines Closing appliances

Machineryspaces

Operation Emergency and standby electrical power sources, auxiliary steeringgear, bilge and fire pumps

Maintenance Temporary repairs, disconnected wires, water and oil leaks,inoperable pressure gauges, inoperative safety devices, etc.

Operationaltests

Emergency generator

Main and emergency fire pump

Bilge pumps

Remote stops for boilers, ventilation and fuel pumps

Steering gear

Emergency source of power for radio installations

Oily water separator

Safety Lifesavingappliances

Missing equipment, damage, disuse of launching equipment

Firefightingappliances

Fire main, hydrants, hoses, fire extinguishers, lack of cleanliness,escape routes

Navigation Logs, charts, publications, navigational equipment

Operationaltests

Fixed fire detection system

Watertight doors

Lowering of one seaside lifeboat

Table 5

Examples of clear grounds(IMO Res. A.787(19), EU Directive 95/21/EC, Paris MoU)

General A report or notification by another authority

A report or complaint by the master, a crew member or any person ororganisation having a legitimate interest in the safety of the ship

The ship has been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on its way to theport

Evidence that a certificate is clearly invalid

Evidence that the ships log, manuals or other required documentation are not onboard, not maintained or falsely maintained

Absence of principal equipment or arrangements required by the Conventions

Evidence that serious hull or structural deterioration or deficiencies exist that mayplace at risk the structural, watertight or weathertight integrity

Evidence that serious deficiencies exist in the safety, pollution prevention ornavigational equipment

Excessively unsanitary conditions on board the shipOperational

aspects Evidence of cargo and other operations not being conducted safely

Information or evidence that the master or crew is not familiar with essentialshipboard operations or that such operations have not been carried out

Evidence that the crew are not familiar with fire and abandon ship drillprocedures

Absence of an updated muster list

Indications that the relevant crew members are unable to communicateappropriately with each other

The emission of false distress alerts not followed by proper cancellation

Illegal discharge of substances from the ship when underway, at anchor or atberth

Ship manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner

Ship operated in such a way as to pose danger to persons, property or theenvironment


14/16


Page 14/16

Table 6Items which may be considered as part of an expanded inspection

(EU Directive 95/21/EC, Paris MoU)

1 All ships for which anexpanded inspection isrequired

Black-out and start of emergency generator inspection of emergency lighting

operation of emergency fire pump with two fire hosesconnected to the fire main line

operation of bilge pumps

closing of watertight door

lowering of one seaside lifeboat to the water

test of remote emergency stops for boilers, ventilation and fuelpumps

testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear

inspection of emergency source of power to radio installations

inspection and test of engine room separator

2 Oil tankers for which anexpanded inspection isrequired

In addition to item 1 above

Fixed deck foam system

fire fighting equipment in general

inspection of fire dampers to engine room, pump room and

accommodation control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof

check of the Survey Report File required by IMO Res.A.744(18)

3 Bulk carriers for which anexpanded inspection isrequired


Possible corrosion of deck machinery foundations

possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers

possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads

access to cargo holds

check of the Survey Report File required by IMO Res.A.744(18)

4 Gas and chemical tankersfor which an expandedinspection is required


Cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating totemperature, pressure and ullage

oxygen analysing and explosimeter devices, including theircalibration. Availability of chemical detection equipment(bellows) with an appropriate number of suitable gas detectiontubes for the specific cargo being carried

cabin escape sets giving suitable respiratory and eyeprotection, for every person on board

product being carried listed on the ICOF/COF certificate

fixed fire fighting installations on deck

5 Passenger ships


Testing of fire detection and alarm system

testing of proper closing of fire doors

test of public address system

fire drill where, as a minimum, all sets of firemens outfits mustbe demonstrated and part of the catering crew take part

demonstration that key crew members are acquainted with thedamage control plan


15/16


Page 15/16

Table 7Examples of deficiencies which may warrant detention

(IMO Res. A.787(19), EU Direct. 95/21/EC, Paris MoU)

SOLAS 74 Operational failure of propulsion and other essential machinery and electrical installation

Insufficient cleanliness of engine room, excessive amount of oily-water mixtures in bilges,insulation of piping including exhaust pipes in engine room contaminated by oil, improperoperation of bilge pumping arrangements

Operational failure of emergency generator, lighting, batteries and switches

Operational failure of the proper operation of the main and auxiliary steering gear

Absence, insufficient capacity or serious deterioration of personal lifesaving appliances,survival craft and launching arrangements

Absence, non-compliance or substantial deterioration of fire detection system, fire alarms,firefighting equipment, fixed fire-extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, fire dampers,quick-closing devices

Absence/substantial deterioration/operational failure of the cargo deck fire protection

Absence, non-compliance or serious deterioration of lights, shapes or sound signals

Operational failure of the radio equipment for distress and safety communication

Absence or operational failure of navigation equipment

Absence of corrected navigational charts and/or all other nautical publications necessaryfor the intended voyage

Absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargo pump rooms

IBC Code Transport of a substance not mentioned on the ICOF/COF certificate

Missing or damaged high-pressure safety devices

Electrical installations not intrinsically safe

Sources of ignition in hazardous locations

Contravention of special requirements

Insufficient heat protection for sensitive products

IGC Code Transport of a substance not mentioned on the ICOF/COF certificate

Missing closing devices for accommodation or service spaces

Bulkhead not gastight

Defective air locks

Missing or defective quick-closing valves

Missing or defective safety valves

Electrical installations not intrinsically safe Ventilators in cargo area not operable

Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable

Gas detection plant and/or toxic gas detection plant defective

Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid inhibitor certificate

ILLC 66 Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of plating and associated stiffening indecks and hull affecting seaworthiness or strength to take local loads

A recognised case of insufficient stability

The absence of sufficient and reliable information which enables the master to arrange forthe loading and ballasting of his ship with safe stability and stress margins

Absence, substantial deterioration or defective closing devices, hatch closingarrangements and watertight doors

Overloading

Absence of draft mark or draft mark impossible to read

MARPOL

Annex I

Absence, serious deterioration or operational failure of the oily-water filtering equipment,

the oil discharge monitoring and control system or the 15 ppm alarm Remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficient for the intended voyage

Oil record book not available

Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted

MARPOLAnnex II

Absence of the P&A Manual

Cargo not categorised

No cargo record book available

Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted

STCW Crew number, composition or certification not in line with the safe manning certificate

ILO Insufficient food for voyage to next port

Insufficient potable water for voyage to next port

Excessively unsanitary conditions on board

No heating in accommodation

Excessive garbage and/or unsafe conditions in passageways/accommodation


16/16


Page 16/16

Table 8

Information relevant to detentions made public

through InternetType Internet web Site Information published aboutthe detention and the ship

Australian MaritimeSafety Authority(AMSA)

Monthly list ofdetentions

www.amsa.gov.au Ships name, IMO number, type,classification society, flag,deadweight, year of build, cargotype, owner, manager, charterer,charter type, port and date ofinspection, last psc inspection,last special survey, seriousdeficiencies, action

Marine SafetyAgency (UK MSA)


www.detr.gov.uk Date and place of detention,ships name, deadweight, type,IMO number, flag, owner,operator, charterer, class society,number of previous detentions,number of deficiencies

Paris MoU Quarterly list ofships which havebeen detained atleast twice duringthe previous 24months

www.parismou.org name, IMO number, flag,classification society, port anddate of detention as well as thelist of deficiencies which causedthe detention

Transport Canada Quarterly list ofships detained

www.tc.gc.ca Date and place of detention,ships name, IMO number, year ofbuild, flag, classification society,type, owner, deficiencies

United StatesCoast Guard


www.uscg.mil Ships name, IMO number, placeand date of detention, flag,classification society anddeficiencies
http://www.amsa.gov.au/http://www.detr.gov.uk/http://www.parismou.org/http://www.tc.gc.ca/http://www.uscg.mil/http://www.uscg.mil/http://www.tc.gc.ca/http://www.parismou.org/http://www.detr.gov.uk/http://www.amsa.gov.au/

Guide to Port State Inspections

Documents

Transcript of Guide to Port State Inspections