Rod Johnson, a former Port State Control officer, laments news the Paris MoU is likely to make its data harder to access.

You can’t put it back in the tube.

I’ll declare straight away that I spent five happy years as a Port State Control officer. Although it was only a part of my job as a flag state surveyor for the UK, it was for me the most rewarding. I am reluctantly ashore so I enjoyed the ambience of shipboard life. Most of my inspections were routine. My rewards came from those few occasions when I made seafarer lives better by calling out sloppy and unsafe ship management. Many of the masters I had to break the news of a detention to were actually relieved that something was finally being done to extract them from an impossible position. Mind you, I was lucky to be working for the UK Flag. The UK approach to PSC has always been rooted in common sense and delivered by seasoned mariners with the odd naval architect thrown in (some of them were very odd). It made it easy to use my discretion to get a result that would actually achieve something.

PSC inspections have two valuable functions. By capturing the current documentary state of a ship they provide one source of validation of who owns and operates ships which at the shallower end of the gene pool can be a moveable feast. The other one is that they monitor the health of the world fleet, shipmanagement, classification society performance and crew competence and that monitoring evidences itself in the deficiencies identified onboard. Any ship is not just a ship, it’s a part of a system.

Those deficiencies form a valuable data set that has, over time, grown to the extent that viable insight can be drawn from it.

The first modern Port State Control organisation was the Paris MoU, and that body has set the international standard for state-based ship inspection that the rest of the world has emulated. The ethos of the Paris MoU was to drive substandard ships and shipowners out of European waters by exposing them. Paris has never been afraid to name and shame, and publishes all of their findings and insight on their very entertaining website. They even provide some analytical tools to help the reader understand the messages that the data set is sending. Even better than that and in a demonstration of what world leading transparency looks like, they provide their inspection data at source for other data providers to incorporate into their products, multiplying the positive impact of all those hard working Port State Control officers. These providers include well-known brands such as Rightship.

That might come to an end next March. Under pressure from shipowners, the Paris MoU member states have agreed to stop providing data at source to industry and publish only via parismou.org and equasis.org.

Why? Because ratings providers like RightShip are causing owners some difficulty with prospective charterers and traders. A poor vetting score can mean less work for the least well-run ships. Ironically, just as the Paris MoU has realised its original ambition to an extent incomprehensible before the Data Age, it plans to take a giant step backwards. It’s probably going to do this alone, as none of the other MoUs are indicating, at least privately, that they are going to follow the Paris example. The irony that the data shared at source between PSC MoUs is visible on Equasis to enhance its effectiveness has not been lost on me.

I can’t imagine why the Paris member states have signed up to this. Perhaps the residual oil pollution from the Erica and the Prestige is now outside the environment. Politicians have short attention spans and bureaucrats have no imagination, which may explain why this course of action has been agreed. In circumstances like this I favour Hanlon’s Razor, which states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

So if you are reading this in The Hague, here’s perspective on transparency. It was the right decision to provide PSC data at source to industry. Doing so pushed the Paris ethos further and faster than if this had never been done. Doing so multiplied the effect of thousands of inspections carried out by people who genuinely care about safety at sea and the lives of seafarers. If the unintended consequence was to create a ratings industry that is causing shipowners commercial difficulties then the solution is to engage with the ratings industry to help them use the data fairly. Shutting off the data feed whilst at the same time declaring that the Paris website and Equasis satisfy the transparency agenda is disingenuous. Worse than that, it’s selling out PSC inspectors, seafarers and the fine record of the Paris MoU by giving succour to a minority of shipowners who see safety as an overhead and not an enabler.

Source: splash247

Britain has suspended checks on ships for compliance with low sulphur fuel regulations as part of wider measures that cut back on inspections to reduce the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on supply chains, the coastguard authority said on Friday.

The coronavirus has created growing logistical problems for freight as countries try to keep goods moving despite lockdown in many parts of the world.

At the start of the year, regulations came into effect – known as MARPOL Annex VI – that make it mandatory for ships to use fuel with a sulphur content of 0.5%, down from 3.5% previously, or to install devices, known as scrubbers, that strip out the toxic pollutant.

Enforcement of the rules, which have shaken up oil and shipping markets, is up to port and flag states.

Britain’s suspension of the checks is one of first indications of the challenges in enforcing the IMO regulations posed by the spread of the coronavirus.

Britain’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), which is responsible for maritime regulation, safety and counter-pollution, said it has enacted measures to keep freight moving.

“In terms of enforcing IMO 2020 and ultimately MARPOL Annex VI requirements, as we have suspended port state control inspections, this also means that the checking of compliant fuel has been suspended,” an MCA spokeswoman said, referring to the regulations, which were enacted by United Nations shipping agency the IMO.

“However, as a responsible regulator, we are continuing to monitor vessels that call at UK ports. If, as a result of reviewing information sent to us, we think it’s appropriate, we will inspect those vessels.”

The MCA said it had suspended ship survey and inspection activity, and relaxed rules such as extensions on ship certificates – all needed to enter ports.

“While we can’t compromise on safety, there are a number of temporary measures we have and are taking to ensure shipping doesn’t come to a standstill and seafarers can keep working,” Katy Ware, MCA director of maritime safety and standards, said in a statement this week.

(Reporting by Jonathan Saul; editing by Barbara Lewis)

The United States has a long history of holding companies and individuals accountable for violating environmental laws and regulations, including the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). With the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), which implements MARPOL, United States government agencies continue to prioritize the protection of oceans and waterways from pollution. Although the number of environmental enforcement actions initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between 2006 and 2018 has steadily decreased, Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement actions, in collaboration with the United States Coast Guard (USCG), have remained steady despite the current COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, not only has DOJ taken an active interest in prosecuting United States-based companies, but DOJ has also exercised its jurisdictional powers to prosecute foreign-flagged vessels, their operators, and in some cases, third-party vessel managers for violations of environmental laws and regulations.

The United States government continues to focus on Clean Water Act and APPS violations
As DOJ and other United States government agencies continue to focus on prosecuting individuals and companies taking shortcuts that pollute oceans and waterways, vessel owners and operators should be aware of the common criminal violations that are actively being pursued by DOJ and the USCG.

• APPS violations (33 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.): DOJ often pursues violations of APPS, which prohibits the discharge of oil, oily water or garbage into the navigable waters of the United States. This statute requires companies, and their crew members, to maintain accurate log books and to record all transfers and overboard discharges of oil, oily water and garbage, regardless of where the transfers and discharges occurred. This, in turn, provides DOJ with a broad jurisdictional hook against all foreign vessel owners and operators who enter United States waters with record books that fail to disclose all transfers of oil and oily water on a vessel and all discharges of oil, oily water or garbage into the ocean. Companies should ensure that crew members are properly trained on how and when to record all such transfers and discharges, in addition to the consequences for intentionally omitting or failing to properly record accurate information in the log books.
• Falsification of records (8 U.S.C. § 1519): If a company or its crew members knowingly alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, cover up, falsify or make a false entry in any record, document or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence an investigation, the company and/or its crew members could face criminal charges. This crime often involves companies, or its crew members, excluding—and often concealing—information or actions taken on a vessel. It often also involves companies, or its crew members, making false or inaccurate entries in records, log books or documents in order to conceal potentially illegal activity. To avoid liability, companies should ensure that crew members are properly trained to include all relevant information in all records, log books or any other documents and that crew members understand the consequences of improperly altering or concealing information.
• False statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001): To the extent that any false statements are made to the USCG inspectors during a Port State Control Inspection or any other routine inspection, including concealing material information, a company and its crew members could face criminal charges for making these statements. Companies should ensure that crew members understand that making false statements during USCG inspections can result in criminal liability, even if the crew member making the false statement was not directly involved in the underlying potentially illegal conduct.
• Obstruction of justice (8 U.S.C. § 1505): If a company, its employees or its crew members attempt to threaten, influence, obstruct or impede a USCG Port State Control Inspection or a government agency’s investigation, DOJ may consider charging the company, its employees and/or its crew members with obstruction of justice. This frequently arises when senior crew members direct others to provide false information to the USCG or to DOJ. Companies should ensure that crew members understand the importance of being cooperative during these investigations and that crew members avoid proactively concealing and/or destroying information, documentation and other evidence of potential wrongdoing.
• Ports and Waterways Safety Act (46 U.S.C. § 70021 et seq.): DOJ has also focused on violations of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. Whenever there is a hazardous condition either on a vessel or caused by a vessel, the owner, agent, master, operator or person in charge must immediately notify the nearest USCG office and submit a written report. It is important to note that “hazardous condition” has been defined broadly. For example, where excessive amounts of oil or oily water have been found in a vessel’s machinery spaces, especially in areas that are populated with electrical wires, DOJ may consider this to be a hazardous condition that should be reported to the USCG. Companies should ensure that crew members are properly trained on what may constitute a “hazardous condition” and encourage reporting of such conditions to the USCG.
• Clean Water Act violations (33 U.S.C. § 1321): Although less common, to the extent that a vessel is involved in the pollution of the navigable waters of the United States, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, DOJ may charge a company and its crew members, with a Clean Water Act violation. Of particular note, a company and its crew members may face criminal charges for misconduct that occurs within the 200-mile-wide exclusive economic zone. If a company pleads guilty for this violation, the company could potentially face additional enforcement actions with the EPA and debarment, including possible debarment from participating in certain government contracts. Because of the serious long-term implications of this charge, companies should ensure that all discharges of oil or oily water—even if the discharge is accidental—are properly reported to the relevant government agencies and properly recorded in the applicable log books.

Criminal liability is not limited to vessel owners
Current enforcement trends illustrate that vessel owners, operators, technical managers and individual crew members can be held liable for environmental crimes. Although a rarity, members of a company’s board of directors and officers can also be held liable for environmental crimes if the director and/or officer had knowledge of the violation, had the authority and capacity to prevent the violation based on their responsibilities and corporate positions, and failed to prevent the violation. It is also important to note that if the vessel’s owner is affiliated with a parent company, the parent company may also face criminal liability depending on the amount of control the parent company exercises in the operation of the vessel and the management of the crew members.

Notable recent environmental crime cases
Below are a few notable examples of recent environmental crime cases DOJ has actively pursued.

• United States v. Interorient Marine Services Ltd., 18 Cr. 366 (W.D.L.A 2018): The defendant corporation, operator of the tanker Ridgebury Alexandra Z, was charged with APPS violations for failing to maintain an accurate oil record book and for bypassing the oily water separator (OWS), causing thousands of gallons of oily water to be discharged into the ocean. The company was fined $2 million and required to implement a comprehensive environmental compliance plan during the four-year probation term. Of particular note, the owner of the vessel was not charged with any criminal violations because Interorient Marine Services Ltd. managed the vessel and the crew members. The company was also completely independent and not a part of the corporate structure of the ship owning company.
• United States v. D’Amico Shipping Italia S.P.A., 19 Cr. 284 (D.N.J. 2019): The defendant company, owner of Cielo di Milano, an oil tanker, was charged with violating APPS for failing to maintain an accurate oil record book. Two of the crew members directed discharges of machinery space bilge water and oily mixtures directly into the ocean and knowingly included false entries in the log book in an attempt to conceal the discharges. The company was fined $4 million and required to implement a comprehensive environmental compliance plan during the four-year probation term.
• United States v. Chartworld Shipping Corporation, Nederland Shipping Corporation and Vasileios Mazarakis, 19 Cr. 58 (D. Del. 2019): The defendant companies, the owner and operator of the refrigerated cargo ship Nederland Reefer, were charged with an APPS violation for failing to maintain an accurate oil record book and a Ports and Waterways Safety Act violation for failing to notify the USCG of a hazardous condition on the vessel. The defendants were fined $1.8 million ($900,000 each) and required to implement a comprehensive environmental compliance plan during the four-year term of probation. DOJ also brought charges against the chief engineer for his participation in bypassing the OWS, resulting in the discharge of oily bilge water into the ocean, and for his failure to accurately record the discharges in the oil record book. He received a one-year term of probation after pleading guilty to APPS violations.
• United States v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., 16 Cr. 897 (S.D. Fla. 2019): In December 2016, the defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy, obstructing justice and APPS violations for deliberately dumping oil-contaminated waste from one of its vessels. The company was fined $40 million and required to implement an environmental compliance plan during the five-year term of probation. In June 2019, the defendant was fined an additional $20 million, and the probation term was extended three additional years after the defendant admitted to violating the probation terms.
• United States v. Misuga Kaiun Co. Ltd., 20 Cr. 103 (M.D. Fla. 2020): The defendant company, the operator of the bulk carrier Diamond Queen, was charged with an APPS violation for failing to accurately record multiple overboard discharges of oily bilge water from April 2019 until May 2020. The company was fined $1.5 million and required to implement a comprehensive environmental compliance plan during the four-year probation term. The government also brought a single APPS charge against the chief engineer for his failure to maintain an accurate oil record board. He was sentenced to a one-year term of probation after pleading guilty.

Robust compliance programs and proper training are key to avoiding liability
Companies are often content with implementing boilerplate compliance procedures and requiring seafarers to obtain training and proper licensure through third-party companies. As illustrated by recent DOJ enforcement actions, boilerplate compliance procedures do not necessarily shield a company, the operator of a vessel or crew members from criminal liability and massive fines. To limit risk exposure, it is imperative that companies recognize the importance of creating and implementing robust compliance programs and ensuring that all crew members receive proper training. Companies should consider the following when analyzing pre-existing compliance programs:

• Equipment updates: Companies must ensure that all equipment, like the OWS, are functioning properly, maintained regularly and replaced when necessary. Companies must also ensure that crew members are properly trained on how to use the equipment and understand the consequences of discharging oil, oily water and garbage into the ocean.
• Enhanced compliance training: Companies must ensure that all crew members are properly trained before crew members commence their duties onboard a vessel. Companies should consider developing and implementing shore-based training programs and onboard refresher training programs.
• Increased shore-side oversight: Companies should implement a robust monitoring system, including internal audits, which will enable the company to detect gaps in the compliance program and to detect whether crew members are complying with environmental laws and regulations. Companies should also ensure that crew members are providing regular and accurate reports, especially reports relating to bilge water levels, incinerator usage, OWS usage and garbage storage levels and that crew members are recording accurate information in the vessel’s log books.
• Whistleblower hotlines: Companies should ensure that there is a proper mechanism in place for individuals to report environmental crimes anonymously.

Looking forward
Although the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted United States government investigations, the USCG has continued its inspections of vessels docking at United States ports. If a vessel and its crew members are detained, it is important to remember that (a) an attorney should be retained immediately; (b) all relevant documents and records should be preserved; (c) an internal investigation should be conducted; and (d) all crew members should be encouraged to cooperate and refrain from providing false information to the United States government. As the USCG continues to conduct inspections and potentially detain vessels and crew members in connection with suspected environmental crimes, it is imperative that companies, ship operators and ship managers proactively analyze preexisting compliance programs and ensure that crew members are adhering to all environmental laws and regulations in order to avoid costly mishaps, reputational harm and potential debarment.

Source: marinelink

A 738-foot bulk carrier that ran aground near Sewell’s Point in Norfolk, Va. was refloated during high tide on Friday morning, the U.S. Coast Guard said.

It took seven tugs to refloat the Panamanian flagged Hong Dai, which grounded late Wednesday night with 22 crewmembers aboard. The ship was said to be carrying a cargo of coal, as well as 188,000 gallons of low sulfur fuel oil, diesel and lube oil, collectively. No injuries, pollution or flooding concerns were reported.

The refloated ship remains at anchor under a Captain of the Port Order restricting its movement until an underwater survey can be conducted by the company and the vessel is deemed fully safe to sail by the officer in charge of marine inspections.

The response and refloating coordination was conducted through Coast Guard Sector Virginia’s prevention department utilizing teams of port state control officers, marine inspectors and marine investigators supported by a 45-foot Response Boat – Medium crew from Coast Guard Station Portsmouth to ensure the safety and stability of the ship and identify any potential pollution threats. The Port of Virginia’s Maritime Incident Response Team also provided assistance.

“The key to this successful marine salvage operation is the coordination of multiple port partners coming together and working for the continued safety, security, and prosperity of the Port of Virginia,” said Cmdr. Dean Horton, prevention department head at Sector Virginia.

The 2010-built Hong Dai is operated by COSCO Shipping and arrived at Norfolk anchorage last Friday from Baltimore following a transatlantic voyage from San Ciprian, Spain.

Source: marinelink

If the PSC regime wishes to improve the industry further, it needs to win the hearts and minds of the seafarers and the shipowners, argues Captain Pradeep Chawla from Anglo-Eastern Ship Management.

Most people in the maritime industry will agree that, in general, the port state control regime has nearly succeeded in eliminating sub-standard ships.

A recent analysis of the latest annual reports, clearly indicates that only about 5% of the 80,599 inspections that were carried out worldwide had led to a detention.

The average number of deficiencies per inspection are below four deficiencies. Given the complexity of ships and considering that the ships are manned by barely 20 people onboard, the shipping community should certainly be proud of it.

This brings up the question as to what should be the role of PSC going into the future?

It is evident to most people in the industry, that to a large extent, PSC has now taken up the role of ‘quality assurance’ and aims to highlight even the minor deficiencies onboard the ships.

The goal is zero detention and zero deficiency!

However, the PSC regime has one drawback – a common seafarer still considers them as a police force. Due to the commercial impact of PSC detentions or deficiencies; especially in the tanker and bulk carrier industry, PSC inspections are looked upon as a punishment. Unfortunately, punishment drives a behaviour of hiding.

If the PSC regime wishes to improve the industry further, it needs to win the hearts and minds of the seafarers and the shipowners.

For driving transparency, it is essential that the PSC regime shows empathy and encouragement.

The PSC regime needs to be a ‘caring’ regime in order to become a positive force driving the change with all stakeholders including IMO, IACS, shipyards, charterers.

It is like policing by working together with the local community.

A natural question to follow would be on how this can be achieved? Here are a few ideas to start the discussions.

Target only the bad ships. A single worldwide PSC database can be made. The USCG Qualship 21 program should be replicated worldwide.

With the garbage regulations in place, ships often arrive in port with large amounts of garbage on deck- and food waste in freezers! Why not ensure that all ports have adequate reception facilities and make it mandatory to land garbage in every port? Similarly, why not make it mandatory for no ship to have more than 20% capacity of bilge holding tank at the time of departure?

Rest hours implementation is like the proverbial elephant in the room. Are seafarers really at fault? Or is it the minimum safe manning regulation? Is it difficult for each coastal state to identify the areas where the seafarers find it difficult to get sufficient rest? Instead of detaining the vessel, shouldn’t the PSC be giving a ‘restraint’ order to allow the ships’ crew in achieving their rest before sailing? I am sure the seafarers will appreciate that, rather than a detention, where they have to answer to the shipowner as to why they were unable to plan their activities better.

In a similar breath, there are a large number of deficiencies related to design of a ship, for example, distance between railings is incorrect; or distance of heat detector to the bulkhead inside crew pantry room less than 0.5 m; or horizontal bar of handrails on main deck not of proper height. Should these deficiencies be given to the ship or should they be sent to the class / IACS as the seafarer expects to be sailing on ship approved by the authorities?

We want to win the hearts and minds of the seafarers and not punish them!

There are many deficiencies related to ship operation that need to be treated with empathy such as deficiencies for drills, because most ports do not give permission to lower boats or deficiencies for unpainted draft marks, because most ports do not allow painting.

PSC could also help the seafarers in some area for example by informing the ship 48 hours before boarding so that master can plan other activities in port and can devote time to the PSC inspector, getting the port authorities to send the passage plan and berthing plan 48 hours before the ship arrives, so that the bridge team has studied the plan before arrival.

The master should be allowed to give his reasons for the deficiencies and if the reasons are genuine and correct, PSC should empathise and consider the deficiency giving more time to rectify it. Everything does not have to be a code 17!

Finally, an appeal process should not be considered as a challenge to the PSC. It should be considered as a tool for an improved relationship with the stakeholders.

We need to engage in such forums more often. Informal exchanges should be encouraged. The seafarers and shipowners want to work in cooperation with PSC to jointly achieve continuous improvement in the industry.