to the global average for ports inspecting tankers of 0.85%.
The port’s deficiency per inspection (DPI) for the last 36 months is 0.54%, lower than the global average for ports inspecting Tankers (0.72%). The statistics show that Corpus Christi is a port with increased PSC inspection experience on tankers (from 858 inspections on ships over the last 36 months, 535 was on tankers (64%)). The port KPIs are close to the global average (in respect of DPI and DER).
Port Call Risk Assessment (POCRA) The PSCI has been analyzed with the Port Call Risk Assessment (POCRA) Risk Assessment Tool developed by the RISK4SEA Platform with the following outcome:
PSC Inspection Probability The ship’s prior inspection in USCG was back in 2020, so the ship was eligible for inspection again. The ship was rated Priority I and the manager’s performance in USCG was marked as high. The inspection window had been open since December 2021.
The ship’s inspection ratio (SIR) for the unique ships called/inspected the last 12 months in Corpus Christi Port was 20%, meaning that two out of ten unique tankers calling at Corpus Christi were inspected.
As the ship had an open inspection window open date and the PSC history of the ship and its manager was well known and assessed by the local PSC authorities, the inspection probability was assessed as CERTAIN.
PSC inspection severity Related factors of the ship marked out some risks (red flags): - Ship deficiency per inspection – last 12 months > from Global average
- Ship Age Risk >15 years old - The manager’s PSC history within the MoU which was assessed as medium risked.
Some parameters were red flag, specifically: - Ship DPI with manager - Manager deficiency profile versus port top 20 deficiency codes
- Port related factors were assessed to be medium risk (yellow flag) as the port’s KPIs were close to or lower than the global average.
Overall POCRA Assessment Taking into consideration the above inspection probability and inspection severity the overall POCRA assessment was that the call risk was high. This should be an alert factor for preparation.
PSC inspection result The ship called at Corpus Christi and USCG officers boarded her for inspection and to check the ship’s safety status and condition. The result of the PSC inspection was eighteen deficiencies of which 10 were detainable. As it is expected in such situations the code 15109 - Maintenance of the ship and equipment was marked to engage the manager to verify ISM implementation on board through an ISM audit. All deficiencies were related to maintenance.
The breakdown of the Deficiency Areas that the ship found to be unsafe were:
Root Causes
Almost 90% of the ships detained have zero detentions in the 36 months prior so it is a strong and clear indication that any ship may be detained if not properly prepared. Research has provided evidence that ships are being detained for the following key reasons: - Inadequate identification that the ship will be inspected. It is evident in this case by the end result.
- Inadequate preparation of the crew and the ship as hardware. Numerous deficiencies in the areas where weekly inspections are due (FFA, LSA, Cargo Operations) are a testimony to that.
- Inadequate maintenance. All deficiencies were related to proper maintenance practices.
POCRA preparation checklist If the vessel had used the POCRA preparation checklist, the findings may have resulted differently. The POCRA checklist in Corpus Christi for tankers in its full extent generates a specific checklist including twenty seven items analyzed in detail. This checklist includes seven of ten detainable items identified during inspection. If the vessel had prepared properly in advance the detention could have been avoided, as all detainable items had been already identified for the ship.
Lessons to be learned
There are a number of lessons to be learned from this case study: - The ship’s maintenance condition and preparation on board was of a low level.
- Six deficiencies were found on fire safety and three on life saving appliances. This is too many, as the SOLAS weekly inspections are covering such issues.
- The five detainable deficiencies on fire safety related to oil accumulation. This is a serious issue onboard tankers.
- As PSC inspections aim to identify safety gaps onboard, having too many technical/procedural issues unattended will possibly lead to detention.
- Extreme caution should be exercised on the handling of the ISM Codes 15xxx. It is highly recommended that an additional audit onboard the ship is carried out to verify SMS implementation.
THE REPORT | MAR 2024 | ISSUE 107 | 55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132
