INTERTANKO Technical Seminar Mumbai 19th September 2005

Port State Control Related Issues

Capt Howard N. Snaith. Master Mariner. M.N.I. Director, Marine, Ports, Terminals, Chemical &

Environmental

INTERTANKO Goals for PSC: Harmonised standards and training of inspectors

Common, Global, Sub-Standard Targeting Systems

Consistency regarding Clear Grounds for Detention

Standard Global Independent Detention appeals procedures.

Development of rewards / incentives for the Good Owners

Close out of Deficiencies

Operational Issues in relation to PSC

More needs to be done to ensure harmonised standards Greater sharing of inspection records would be beneficial It is an imperative that the integrity of PSC is maintained Better targeting would result from additional analysis of PSC

records Important lessons can be learned by analysing PSC

performance INTERTANKO is committed to working with PSC

Ideas to ensure Integrity of the System:

Regular and open dialogue between responsible owners Industry associations and PSC officials

Development of ”best practices” within PSC regimes

Appropriate mechansims for confidential feedback to INTERTANKO

Reports back to IMO of PSC performance

We have However Enjoyed some Excellent Success to date in achieving our Goals

Paris MoU Review Board

• Subsequent to INTERTANKO’s meeting with the Paris MoU Advisory Board - during 2001

• We raised our concerns regarding the lack of an independent review process in the case where an owner feels his vessel has been detained

unjustly.• After several Trials by the Paris MoU this

process came into effect • AND has proved successful in enabling some

detention records to be cleaned

TOKYO MOU Detention Review Board

INTERTANKO and its ‘Round Table’ colleagues wrote to the Tokyo MoU proposing that a similar, (To the Paris MoU) independent detention review board

be created within the Tokyo MoU, we are very pleased to announce that The Tokyo MoU have now instigated such a process and issued guidelines on their

website http://www.tokyo-mou.org/ .

Whilst the findings of the Tokyo MoU Detention Review Panel are not binding, they may provide justification for the detaining port State to amend its inspection

data already inserted in the APCIS system. The recommendation of the Panel can not be used as a ground for claiming a

financial compensation. But it allows for an independent vehicle for a detention review.

A full overview of the procedures are available on the Tokyo MoU web site http://www.tokyo-mou.org/

We are very grateful to the Tokyo MoU for taking our views and proposals onboard.

Mediterranean MoU Review Board

•Subsequent to our meeting & presentation to The Mediterranean MoU Board, we are pleased to advise that

the Med’ MoU has indicated that it proposes to instigate an independent detention review process (similar to that

practised by the Paris MoU). • INTERTANKO will be invited to future meetings of the

Med MoU to continue to build up our relationship. 

EQUASIS & WWW.Q88.com

• INTERTANKO has revised Questionnaire 88 to take into account new information and regular questions that have now become current by Brokers, based partly on legislative changes over the years.

• INTERTANKO expects to issue further revised editions in the future to ensure that this questionnaire remains up-to-date and continues to be seen as an industry standard.

The revised version of the Questionnaire 88 is a culmination of suggestions from charterers,

brokers and owners who felt the original questionnaire lacked certain essential

information relevant to today’s shipping markets

Questionnaire 88 - Revised

An important aspect within the revision is a question pertaining to CAS, (Condition

Assessment Scheme), which asks if the vessel has a statement of compliance issued under the

provisions of the Condition Assessment Scheme as relevant to MARPOL.

INTERTANKO believes that this will be of immense value to port state control officers

and other industry bodies.

Links Between EQUASIS & Q88.com

Links between EQUASIS and Q88.com are now in place.

This means that for those owners who have completed and submitted a Questionnaire 88 form,

the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) information contained within the questionnaire is now

directly available on the EQUASIS web site. In addition, links are in place on the EQUASIS web

site that enable access to the fully completed questionnaire 88 form via the Q88.com web site.  

INTERTANKO Standard Inspection Feedback Forms

An essential Feedback Systemfor Continual Improvement

Port State Control Inspections

A Comparison between

2003 - 2004

Q1. Did the Inspector observe all safety precautions?

97

3

96

40

20

4060

80

100

120

Yes No

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q2. Did the inspector discuss any deficiencies?

35

6

59

36

8

56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No N/A

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q3. Did the inspector change his opinion due to discussions of the deficiencies?

12

26

62

14

26

60

0

1020

3040

5060

70

Yes No N/A

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q4. Did the inspector leave a copy of the report onboard?

64

36

62

38

0

1020

3040

5060

70

Yes No

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q5. Did the inspector make any written or verbal observations?

64

36

62

38

0

1020

3040

5060

70

Yes No

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q6. Did the inspector act in an objective manner?

87

121

86

13

10

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No N/A

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q7. If the vessel was detained was the master advised of his right to appeal?

5 6

89

6 8

86

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No N/A

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q8. Did any observation reflect the condition of the vessel?

59

34

7

56

38

6

010

2030

4050

6070

Yes No N/A

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Q9. Safety/Efficiency of cargo handling operation effected by the manner in which the inspection was

conducted?

25

74

1

21

77

20

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No N/A

2003

2004

Port State Control Inspection

Which part(s) of the Ship was focused upon:- 2003 2004

Deck 73 77

FFA 63 63

Engine 68 70

Accommodation 57 64

Certification 90 91

FFA/LSA 62 65

ESP/Class 47 50

Structural 30 31

Cargo Gear 35 35

SMS Record 58 59

LSA 65 63

Records 54 53

Bridge 74 77

Port State Control Inspection

Port State Control Inspection

Q10. Which part(s) of the ship was focused upon:-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003

2004

Dec

k

FF

A

En

gin

e

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

Cer

tifi

cati

on

FF

A/L

SA

ES

P/C

lass

Str

uct

ura

l

Car

go

Gea

r

SM

S R

eco

rd

LS

A

Rec

ord

s

Bri

dg

e

Thank You