2-Port State Control inspection for Bulk Carrier

2-Port State Control inspection for  Bulk Carrier

If you are aboard a bulk carrier, you may encounter inspections from two different perspectives. One of these involves being inspected by the Port State Control.

More detailed inspection of the bulk carrier mostly focuses on the structural parts of the bulk carrier.

Procedures for more detailed inspection of ship structural requirements.

1 - PSCO’s impression of hull maintenance and the general state on deck, the condition of deck fittings and areas of corrosion or pitting, influence the PSCO’s decision.
2 - Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of plating and associated stiffening affecting seaworthiness may be a ground for detention. It may be requested to check underwater part.
3 - PSCO will pay particular attention to the structural integrity and seaworthiness of Bulk Carriers.
4 - PSCO’s assessment of the structure of Bulk Carriers is based on the Survey Report File (ESP File) carried on board. This file contains:- Reports of structural surveys,- Structure Condition Evaluation Report,- Thickness Measurement Reports,- ESP PlanningThe lack on board of the ESP File is normally considered as a PSC deficiency / ground for detention.
5 – Based on the examination of the ESP file (or if no ESP file is on board), a more detailed inspection of the structure may be performed by PSCO, who will inspect the hull structure, piping system, holds, cofferdams, pipe tunnels, void spaces, cargo space, ballast tanks, etc.
6 - PSCO inspects holds’ main structure for any obviously unauthorized repairs.
7 - If applicable, bulk carrier booklet will be verified by PSCO to confirm whether is endorsed for any restriction imposed for carriage of solid bulk cargoes and for loading triangle permanent marking.
8 - PSCO checks that water level alarms in cargo hold are fitted.

In case PSCo has to do the ‘expanded inspection’ of Bulk Carriers, below items are the areas to be paid attention as the PSC keen on these areas on a bulk carrier.
Procedures for expanded inspection of Bulk Carriers

1 - Closing of the watertight doors.

2 - Possible corrosion of deck machinery foundations.

3 - Possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers.

4 - Possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads.

5 – Access to the cargo holds.

6 - Verification that the ESP file contains the relevant documents endorsed by the Classification Society.

 https://bulkcarrierguide.com/structural-problems.html

2022 Paris MoU Annual Report

2022 Paris MoU Annual Report “Port State Control; 40 years of harmonisation" | Paris MoU

Bulk Carrier is at the top of the list

USCG PSC Annual Report

CG-CVC Annual Reports (uscg.mil)

Bulk carriers that have been detained in recent years, based on Port State Control (PSC) records, can be examined as follows:

The following deficiencies have been found and considered as ground for detention by the PSCO on Bulk Carriers:ESP FILE MISSING:- Thickness survey measurement survey report.- Structural Condition Evaluation Report.- ESP Planning.TOP SIDE WB TANKS:- Bulkheads between TSWB Tanks were found cracked and perforated.- The web frames, brackets, floors in TSWB Tanks were found corroded, holed and cracked.- Numerous worn out anodes were found in the TSWB Tanks.AFT PEAK TANK:- Engine Room Aft Bulkhead was found corroded and perforated.- Aft Peak found heavy rusted and corroded, 1st platform found corroded and holed.HATCH COVERS AND HATCH COAMINGS:- Hatch end beam wasted.- Hatch covers damaged.- Cracks on the hatch covers.- Several hatch covers closing devices (cleats) were in poor condition.- Hatch coaming brackets wasted and cracked.- Hatch girder plates were found cracked.CARGO HOLDS- Lower stools in cargo hold - bolts and nuts missing on covers.- Cargo hold side shell frames’ brackets damaged and distorted.- Cargo hold hatch opening radius corner fractured.

Note:    ESP FlLEThe owner is to supply and maintain an ESP file containing the following documentation (kept for the life time of the ship).A survey report file:- Reports of structural surveys- Hull Condition Evaluation Report- Thickness Measurement Reports & other info which may identify suspect areas- ESP Survey PlanThe following additional documents is to be made available on board:- Main structural plans of cargo holds and ballast tanks- Previous repair history- Cargo & Ballast history- Ship’s personnel reports on: structural deterioration/defects, leakage on the bulkheads & piping system, condition of coating or corrosion prevention system- Other info that may help to identify suspect & critical structural areas.

Does a Flag State authority need to make audits to the ship who classified by the IACS members?

Yes, flag state authorities typically conduct audits and inspections of ships that fly their flag, regardless of whether the ship has been classified by an IACS (International Association of Classification Societies) member. Classification societies play a crucial role in ensuring that ships are designed, constructed, and maintained in compliance with international regulations and standards. They provide classification services, such as surveys and inspections, to verify that a ship meets certain safety and quality standards.

However, flag state authorities have the ultimate responsibility for enforcing regulations and ensuring that ships under their flag comply with international conventions and national laws. They may conduct their own audits and inspections to verify the ship's compliance with safety, environmental, and operational requirements.

In practice, there is often a collaborative relationship between classification societies and flag state authorities. Classification societies are recognized as organizations with the expertise to assess and verify compliance with certain technical standards. Flag state authorities may rely on the work of classification societies to some extent but will also carry out their own audits and inspections to ensure the overall safety and regulatory compliance of the vessels under their jurisdiction.

For example, the ship is placed on Technical Monitoring and on the list for Vertical Technical Audit to be carried.

VTA findings

The auditor's List of Findings identified 43 deficiencies, of which many were of a serious nature.Extracts from auditor's report:"condition of deck and cargo areas of the vessel reflects an almost total lack of maintenance""it is quite clear that the SMS is not functioning in any meaningful way"
Sample of the most serious findings:Various hatch pontoons found with cross-joint seal channels fracturedLongitudinal coaming stays at the forward corners of hatch No. 4 found crackedAll 4 steering gear rams found leaking at seals under "no-load condition"Secondary means of starting for the emergency fire pump found seizedQuick-closing valve found blocked in open position and unable to closeForepeak mid and upper levels requiring major repairsCargo holds appear heavily scaled. The hatch main beams are visibly damaged & corroded around the lightening holes.

Root Cause Analysis

Why was the vessel detained less than three months after the class renewal surveys were completed ?Why was the vessel in such a substandard condition?

• BV procedures/instructions not followed by attending surveyors

• Lack of preparation for the surveys

• Means of access not provided

• Repair works not properly done

• Lack of supervision during survey

• Lack of maintenance after the surveys

• Each of the above factors have been analysed to ascertain their contribution to the substandard condition of the ship

Root cause analysis - Several factors may have contributed to the detention:

Another example:

The ship is detained at Cardiff, UK. Following identification of structural defects on Cargo Hatch cleat brackets severely wasted, ship maintenance and equipment. Visit of EMSA onboard and VTA carried out at Cardiff, UK. Significant number of technical deficiencies identified throughout the vessel. Detention was considered as class related.

 Following e-mail received from MCA.

Thank you for your survey report received yesterday. To date 183 new cleat brackets have been fitted following the detention. From what the ships crew tell me these new cleat brackets were placed onboard during dry dock January The point of the Class responsibility is that these long term deficiencies should have been rectified before the vessel sailed, and were not. We cannot accept that they were placed onboard for the crew to carry out during operations, given the extensive wastage which had greatly reduced their securing ability.

VTA findings

The auditor's List of Findings identified 103 deficiencies, of which many were of a serious natureRepresentative photographs are shown in next slides"Sample of the most serious findings:All ER fan housing intake louvres to repair.Corrosion to external bulkhead of oxygen room to be repairedCorroded areas of hatch cover stiffening to definitively repaired.All hatch cover stiffening to be ultrasonically thickness gauged and repaired as required.All hold access house vent louvres to be repaired.All hatch coaming face plates to be de-scaled, ultrasonically thickness gauged and repaired as required.All hatch cover closing stops to be de-scaled and repaired as required.All DB ballast tanks adjacent to fuel tanks to be de-scaled, ultrasonically gauged and repaired in area 1m from fuel tank bulkhead.

When a flag state authority conducts an audit and identifies findings on a ship that has been previously surveyed by class surveyors, the consequences can vary depending on the nature and severity of the findings. Here are some possible consequences:

Issuance of Non-Conformities or Deficiencies:

The flag state authority may issue non-conformities or deficiencies based on the audit findings. These could relate to various aspects, such as safety equipment, structural integrity, environmental compliance, or operational procedures.

Correction and Rectification Period:

The ship's owner or operator will typically be given a specific period to address and rectify the identified issues. This corrective action period is determined by the severity of the findings and the potential impact on safety and compliance.

Follow-up Inspections:

The flag state authority may conduct follow-up inspections to verify that the identified non-conformities or deficiencies have been addressed satisfactorily. This is to ensure that the necessary corrective actions have been taken and that the ship now complies with the required standards.

Withholding of Certificates:

In more serious cases or if the identified issues pose an immediate threat to safety, the flag state authority may have the authority to withhold or suspend certificates until the necessary corrective measures are implemented.

Penalties and Sanctions:

Flag state authorities have the power to impose penalties or sanctions for non-compliance. These may include fines, detention of the ship, or even suspension or withdrawal of the ship's registration.

Communication with Classification Society:

The flag state authority may communicate its findings and concerns to the classification society that performed the initial surveys. This communication can lead to a review of the classification society's procedures and may impact its standing with the flag state.

It's important to note that the consequences will be determined based on the specific regulations and laws of the flag state, as well as the severity of the non-conformities found during the audit. The goal is to ensure that ships comply with international regulations, maintain safety standards, and operate in an environmentally responsible manner.

Please attempt the quiz in below link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScFhnMe_3cgOuJxerFBU-dRiJImiaR3j_AnXNCzH-4oYf6gYg/viewform?usp=sf_link