Even if I have to say it one hundred times, I would say

it.

Port state control inspections are the lifeblood of the

maritime trade.

It isn’t that the responsibility of the ship safety lies with

the port state control.

The responsibility of the ship safety primarily lies with

the ship staff, ship owners/managers, and flag states.

But what if the people primarily responsible for the ship

safety fail to do their job well.

In fact, in the ideal world, there should not be any port

state control. But that is only if we lived in the ideal

world.

And in 1976, with the grounding of Amoco Cadiz, it

proved that we do not live in ideal world.

This is what happened to the tanker Amoco Cadiz.
In a way, this incident led to having port state

inspections of the foreign ships in the national ports.

The idea of having Port state control has traveled a long

way since then.

In this post, I will discuss port state control inspections

from seafarers point of view.

What is port state control

 If you have been to sea for even for a couple of years,

you would most likely know about port state control.

After all these inspections can easily eat up our shore

leave, don’t they.

But the things is why are they doing these inspections.

Take for example this ship.

 Ship’s Flag is Singapore

 Ship’s Owner is based in the USA

 Ship’s Charterers are from Japan

 Ship’s Crew is from India and Philippines

Why would a port in Europe (say Rotterdam) want to

inspect this ship when it arrives in that port? What do

they get out of it?

Even though the ports may financially be covered for

any ship related incidents but that would not be a

reason enough to not prevent the accidents.

For example, you won’t accept someone to pay you

after destroying your home furniture. You will be more

interested in stopping someone to destroy your things.

So no country would want to welcome a sub-standard

ship in their territory because of threat that these ships

may possess.

But do the port state control have the legal powers to

inspect a foreign ship. Yes, they do.

Various IMO conventions like SOLAS, Marpol, STCW

defines the role of port state control in ensuring the

implementation of these conventions.

Port State Control MoU

Before we discuss MOUs from the port state control

point of view, let us understand what an MOU actually

means.

As per google,

A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is

a formal agreement between two or more parties.

Companies and organizations can use MOUs to establish

official partnerships. MOUs are not legally binding but

they carry a degree of seriousness and mutual respect,

stronger than a gentlemen’s agreement.

In simple words, an MOU is a formal agreement

between two or more parties which brings mutual

benefits for them.

With respect to port state controls, the meaning is no

different.
 The countries in an area (for example Europe) come

together to work as a team for inspecting the ships

calling their ports.

Port state control MOU, in other words, is the

harmonized system for the different port state controls.

As per the MOU between different port states,

 They have common documented standards and

procedures for the ship inspection

 they have a common database for the inspected ships

Port state control MOUs offered many benefits, to the

port states as well as to the ships and shipping

companies.

Among many other things, it offers cost saving.

How?

Let us take the example of Paris MOU which was the

first MOU of the port state controls.

At this date, there are 27 countries that are the member

of Paris MOU.

Belgium and Netherland are both the member countries

of the Paris MOU.

A ship calls port of Antwerp (Belgium) and goes through

the port state control inspection there. The inspection

results were satisfactory.

Next, the ship is calling Rotterdam (Netherland). Having

a common database under the Paris MOU means that

PSC in Rotterdam would know that this ship has already

been inspected.

This would not only save some costs in unnecessary

inspection at Rotterdam but also save unnecessary

burden on the ship staff.

A country can join any MoU that suits it. The MoU will

accept the request from the country if the procedures of

the PSC in that country are in line with the MoU

procedures.

But it is most benefitting for the country to join their

regional MoU because of common interest in the region.

For example, let us say a country in a far east joins the

Paris MoU. A ship inspected in this country will not be

inspected for the use of low sulphur fuel as per Annex

VI special area.

When this ship arrives in Europe, ideally there should

not any need to inspect this ship again as she has been

inspected in a port under same MoU.

But the port in Europe would still want to inspect the

ship for the marpol Annex VI compliance.

In fact, this is one of the few reasons as to Why we

have regional MoUs and not one combine under IMO?

The port state control MOUs are established as per the

region to have regional co-operation between different

PSCs.
At present, there are nine PSC MOUs.

Targeting the ships

One thing that we all understand is that we are all short

of resources. And port state controls are no different.

No port state control can inspect all the ships calling

their ports.

Having regional corporation between PSCs through MOU

reduces some burden and need to inspect all the ships.

So if a ship has been recently inspected at a country

that is part of the MOU, there would be no need to

inspect that ship again.

But still, the number of ships that need to be inspected

is no less considering in some ports there are hundreds

of ships calling each day.

Consider this for a port.

Number of ships called in on a particular day = 30

Number of ships that have not been inspected by any

MOU country = 23

Number of PSC inspectors available = 12

Number of ships that can be inspected on that day = 12

So out of 23 ships that need to be inspected, only 12

can be inspected on that day.

 But which 12 ships from these 23 ships should the PSC

inspect?

That is where calculating the ship’s risk profile helps.

Each ship is assigned a risk profile factor based upon

the

 type of ship

 age of the ship

 Flag of the ship

 Classification society of the ship

 Performance of the Ship’s ISM company

 History of the ship

So in the example we discussed, out of 23 ships, 12

ships with higher risk profiles will be inspected.

Not only the ship’s performance acts as a factor for ship

risk profile but it also takes into account the

performance of the company.

Type of PSC inspections

When a PSC inspector boards the vessel, he would

conduct one of the four types of PSC inspections.

These inspection types are

 Initial Inspection

 More detailed inspection

 expanded inspection

 Concentrated inspection campaign

Initial Inspection
 An initial inspection is a general inspection of certificates

and a round on deck, engine room, galley and other

common areas.

Expanded inspection

Expanded inspection is the initial inspection with a wider

scope.

It is generally carried out on ships that fall under higher

risk category compared to other ships.

For example, for Paris MOU, the expanded inspection is

done for ships

 Oil tankers over 15 years old and over 3,000GT

 Gas and chemical tankers over ten years old

 Bulk Carriers over 12 years old

 Passenger ships over 15 years old

As expanded inspections would require more time

compared to the initial inspections, Paris MOU requires

the ships to report to the PSC before arrival if their ship

falls under high-risk category.

More detailed inspection

During an initial inspection or expanded inspection of

the ship, the PSC inspector may have certain findings

(Clear grounds) that point out to the non-compliance

with certain regulations.

 In this case, the PSC inspector would change the scope

of the inspection to more detailed inspection.

Few examples of clear ground could be

 A missing mandatory certificate

 Oil record book entries that do not add up and points

towards a possible Marpol violation. PSC inspector will

focus on checking Marpol elements during the more

detailed inspection.

 Crew members not aware of their duties during fire

emergencies and abandon ship. In this case, PSC

inspector would concentrate more on emergency

preparedness of the ship during a more detailed

inspection.

 Multiple violations of the rest hours. In this case, PSC

inspector would focus on MLC related elements during

the more detailed inspection.

Concentrated inspection campaign

Port state control MoUs runs campaigns to concentrate

their inspection on any one area of ship operation.

These areas are chosen in the MoU meetings.

For example, Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU have

started concentrated inspection campaign on navigation

safety which will be carried out from September 2017 to

November 2017.

During this campaign period, PSC inspector during usual

ship inspections will check certain areas related to the

campaign.

The information on areas to be checked are developed

as a questionnaire. PSC inspector follows this

questionnaire and he will answer each question based

on the findings of the ship.

Here is the questionnaire for the navigation

concentrated inspection campaign by Paris MoU.

At the end of the campaign, port state control MoU

posts the detailed findings of the campaign.

At the beginning of the inspection, PSC inspector will let

the master know about the type of inspection he would

be conducting.
Even during an initial inspection, if the PSC inspector

has the reasons for more detailed inspection, he will let

the master know that the scope of inspection has now

changed and now the inspection is “More detailed

inspection”.

PSC inspection results

 Irrespective of the type of PSC inspection carried out on

board, either it will result in no deficiencies or some

deficiencies.

If there are no deficiencies, we just file the PSC

inspection report and inform the company about the

PSC inspection.

If there are deficiencies, these deficiencies can fall

under one of these three categories.

 Detainable deficiency

 Deficiency that needs to be corrected before departure

 Deficiency that needs to be corrected within a time

range

Detainable deficiency

If the ship is detained because of one or more observed

deficiencies, the PSC inspector will provide a “notice of

detention” to the master.

In this case, the Master of the ship cannot move the

ship from the berth without the permission of port state

control.
Once the detainable deficiencies are rectified, the

master needs to contact the port state control officer for

verification of the corrective actions.

The port state control officer will board the vessel and

conduct the verification of the corrective action taken

and rectification of deficiencies.

When satisfied, the PSC will issue the “notification of

release” of the ship.

Master of the ship must ensure that a copy of the notice

of release of the ship is on board before the vessel

leaves the port.

Deficiency that needs to be corrected before

departure

There can be a deficiency that PSC wants the ship

to correct before departure. The action code for such

deficiency is “Code 17″.

Upon receiving such deficiency, the master of the ship

must clarify with the PSC inspector if re-verification this

port will be required to close this deficiency.

For most of the port state controls, the statement of the

master that the deficiency has been rectified is enough.

For example, PSCs under Paris MoU does not require the

PSC inspector to verifythe rectification of such

deficiency.

Even then, it is a good practice to send an email to the

Port state control informing them of the fact that the

identified deficiency has been rectified.

 A copy of this email can be attached to the PSC report.

Deficiency that needs to be corrected within a

time range

Apart from detainable deficiency and Code 17

deficiencies, PSC inspector may give deficiencies with

action code such as

 To be corrected at next port (Code 15)

 To be rectified within 14 days (Code 16)

In this case, if the next port is in same MoU, a request

of re-inspection must be sent by the master to the port

state control intimating that deficiency has been

rectified.

If it is in different MoU, then an email should be sent to

the PSC confirming that the deficiency has been

rectified.
Again, for code 16 deficiencies too, the master must

send an email to the PSC within 14 days confirming that

deficiency has been rectified.

Conclusion

The whole idea of the port state control is to give

no operating space to the sub-standard ships.

The only way to eradicate the sub-standard ships is to

inspect the ships. But no port state can have so many

resources to inspect each ship that call their ports.

Having regional cooperation between different port

states (PSC MoUs) eliminated the need for inspecting

each ship.

Port state controls under the same MoU shared the

ship inspections results with a common database.

Assigning a risk factor to each ship set the priority for

inspection of a ship. With this, the ships with higher risk

profile were given a priority for inspection over the ships

with lower risk profile.