implementation and enforcement of the afs convention … june 2011... · marine surveyor a’...

5/31/2011

REMPEC - Regional AFS workshop, 7-8 June 2011 1

REMPEC-Regional AFS workshop, 7-8 June 2011

Implementation and Enforcement of the AFS Convention

Port State Control in Cyprus

Nicos C. AttasMarine Surveyor A’

Marine Environment Protection DivisionDepartment of Merchant Shipping

PORT STATE CONTROL COMMITTEE INSTRUCTION43/2010/25 (Rev2)

“Preliminary Guidelines for Port State ControlOfficers on Control of Anti-Fouling Systems

(AFS) on Ships”

Based on Resolution MEPC.105(49)



PSCC43-2010-25. preliminary AFS guidelines REV2 .pdf



MEPC105(49).pdf

5/31/2011


Instruction describes a harmonized approach on how to:

conduct an initial inspection,

inspect in more detail, if required

conduct sampling and analysis of the ship’s anti-fouling system, if

necessary

take actions against the ship, depending on inspection findings

report the inspection findings



AFS Convention 2001

Article 11

gives the right to Port States

to conduct inspections

on ship anti-fouling systems

Article 12

Prohibits violations and provides for sanctions

INITIAL INSPECTION Parties to AFS 2001 Convention

The PSCO should examine the validity of the International AFS Certificateand of the attached Record on Anti-Fouling System.

IAFSC has no expiry date! Certificate cease to be valid when:

(a) the AFS system is changed or replaced and the IAFS is notendorsed, or

(b) when the vessel changes flag (new IAFS Cert. can be based onthe valid previous Certificate)

or of the Declaration on Anti-Fouling Systems which should be signed bythe owner or authorized agent and be accompanied by appropriatedocumentation.


5/31/2011



INITIAL INSPECTION

Check the IAFSC validity

Examine that the date of AFS system application date matches with the period of drydocking

Ensure that only one tickbox is marked (AFS applied, removed, covered, or applied prior 2003.

No expiry date!!

INITIAL INSPECTION

The date of application of paint on the IAFS Certificate should be checked

by comparing the period of dry-docking with the date on the certificate.

There are various ways PSCO’s may verify the dry-dock period:

By examining the relevant entry into the ship’s official log book; OR

By verifying the endorsement date on the (statutory) Safety

Construction Certificate; OR

By the endorsement date on the (Class) Hull Certificate, OR

The dates on the Manufacturer’s Declaration OR by confirmation of the

shipyard.



INITIAL INSPECTION

The Record of Antifouling Systems should be inspected to ensure that the records are attached to the IAFS Certificate and are up to date.

The most recent record must correlate with the correct checkbox on the front of the IAFS Certificate

5/31/2011


INITIAL INSPECTION

Endorsement of the Records (AFS Regulation 1.1.(b))

required when the anti-fouling systems are changedor replaced.


IAFS CERTIFICATIONEXAMPLES

Example IAFS Certificate.pdf

IASC Certificates\MSC JAPAN\Japan - AFS Cert.pdf

IASC Certificates\MSC JAPAN\Anti_Fouling New Endorsement.pdf


INITIAL INSPECTION

Ships of Non-Parties to AFS 2001

NO FAVOURABLE TREATMENT

Ships are not entitled to be issued with an IAFS Certificate

The PSCO should look for documentation that contains all of the information in the IAFS Certificate. A verification may be based on sampling/testing or on reliable documentation such as (MSDs) Material Safety Data Sheets or similar, a declaration of compliancefrom the AFS system manufacturer or invoices from the shipyard


Example non compliance.PDF

IASC Certificates/MSC JAPAN/Japan - AFS Cert.pdf










IASC Certificates/MSC JAPAN/Anti_Fouling New Endorsement.pdf








IASC Certificates/MSC Mia Summer - AF Certificate.pdf

5/31/2011


INITIAL INSPECTION

Ships of Non-Parties to AFS 2001

Ships of Non-Parties may have Statements of Compliance issued inorder to comply with regional requirements, for exampleRegulation (EC) 782/2003 as amended by Regulation (EC)536/2008, which could be considered as providing sufficientevidence of compliance.

In all other aspects the PSCO should be guided by the procedures for ships required to carry an IAFS Certificate.



MORE DETAILED INSPECTION

When PSCO establishes clear grounds to believe that the ship doesnot substantially meet the requirements of the AFS Convention.

Clear grounds may be when:

1. the ship is from a flag of a non-party to the convention and there isno AFS documentation;

2. the ship is from a flag of a party to the convention but there is novalid AFS certificate;

3. the painting date shown on the AFS certificate does not match thedry dock period of the ship ;

4. the ship’s hull shows excessive patches of different paints;

5. the IAFS Certificate is not properly completed.


5/31/2011



If the IAFS Certificate was found not properly completed:

1. "When was the ship’s anti-fouling system last applied?”;

2. "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 to AFS 2001 and was removed, what was the name of the facility and date of the work performed?";

3. "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 of AFS 2001 and has been covered by a sealer coat, what was the name of the facility and date applied?";



If the IAFS Certificate was found not properly completed:

4. "What is the name of the anti-fouling/sealer products and the manufacturer or distributor for the existing anti-fouling system?”

and

5. "If the current anti-fouling system was changed from the previous system, what was the type of anti-fouling system and name of the previous manufacturer or distributor?”



AFS SAMPLING AND TESTING

• A more detailed inspection may include sampling and analysis of the ship’s anti-fouling system, if necessary to establish whether or not the ship complies with the AFS Convention.

• Generally, no sampling and no testing are carried out unless it is deemed necessary,

• If, however it is decided to carry out sampling and testing, they should be in accordance to MEPC.104(49) Resolution “Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems”.

• No clear guidance provided when brief sampling is justified.


E:/AFS/MEPC104(49)sampling.pdf




5/31/2011



Member States (Port States) should consider that:

• specialized equipment and facilities are required to be used.

• Laboratories to be set by the Port States should be accredited to ISO 17025 standards “General requirements for the competence of testing and

calibration laboratories”



Member States (Port States) should also consider that:

They may contract specialized companies (ISO 17025 accredited);

The PSCO should verify the ISO certification of the company and of the laboratory;

However, if the Port State decides NOT to use specializedcompanies, THEY SHOULD PROVIDE adequate TRAINING to PSCOsin the available sampling methods.



Schematic diagram of sampling device using

abrasive discs (abrasive paper) -

Method 2

MEPC.104(49)

Guidelines for brief sampling of AFS on

ships

5/31/2011



Sampling to be taken either during dry-dock or from theunderwater part of the ship, usually when in ballast or semi-ballastcondition.

MIND: AFS apply only to the underwater structure of the ship

Sampling and arrangements at the cost of the Port State. Do notexpect or insist that the ship has to arrange for safe access or tobear the costs associated for sampling and analysis.

PSCO is strongly advised to ensure for personal health and safetymeasures during sampling (protective clothing/breathing,precautions against falling down, weather, sea state, ship traffic,surroundings etc..



GENERAL REMARKS

Liaise with the ship, do not unduly prevent the ship’s schedule;

Do not expect the ship to provide arrangements or bear costs;

Select sampling points covering representative areas;

Take pictures of the hull, of sampling areas;

Avoid making early judgement on the paint quality;

Invite ship’s representative to be present;

Complete signed inspection report and attach sampling records as far as possible, and leave a copy onboard;



CONDUCTING ANALYSIS

IMO envisages a two stage analysis of samples;

First stage analysis serves to detect the total amount of tin in the AFS applied;

Second stage (organotin) analysis verifies compliance or not with the Convention requirements;

Conclusions on compliance should be based only on second stage analysis.


5/31/2011


ACTION(S) TAKEN

DETENTION

appropriate when :

1. Invalid or missing AFS certification,

2. ship admits not to comply with AFS,

1. Sampling proves non-compliance.


ACTION(S) TAKEN

DETENTION

• Detention does not force the ship to comply!

• Ship has to comply only if it wants to depart!

• if no repair facilities available, the MS/PSC may permit the ship tosail to another port to rectify the deficiency, but requires theagreement of that port.


ACTION(S) TAKEN

DETENTION

Article 13 of AFS – Undue delay or detention

1. All possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed under Articles 11 and 12.

2. When a ship is unduly detained or delayed under article 11 or 12, it shall be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered.

Cont…


5/31/2011


ACTION(S) TAKEN

DISMISSAL(FOR EXAMPLE if the ship chooses not to rectify and the MS/PS is

concerned on the environmental impacts if stayed longer)

appropriate when,

1. Invalid or missing AFS certification,

2. ship admits not to comply with AFS,

3. Sampling proves non-compliance.


ACTION(S) TAKEN

DISMISSAL

When a ship is dismissed,

write a ship related message in the ship inspection system (THETIS) , so that other Port States can decide whether to target the ship and require the ship to provide evidence before entry that it now complies.


ACTION(S) TAKEN

EXCLUSION

is appropriate when,

Sampling proves non-compliance, but the results have been obtained after the ship left the port.

AFS Art. 11(3) states that only the PSC may take such steps.

write a ship related message in the ship inspection system (THETIS) , so that other Port States can decide whether to target the ship and require the ship to provide evidence before entry that it now complies.


5/31/2011


ACTION(S) TAKEN

REPORTING TO FLAG STATE

AFS ARTICLE 11(3)

when a ship is detained, dismissed or excluded,

the Port State shall immediately inform the flag Administration of theship and any recognised organisation which has issued a relevantcertificate.


ACTION(S) TAKEN

AFS REPORT TO FLAG STATE IN RESPONSE

TO ALLEDGED CONTRAVENTIONS

• AFS Article 11(4) allows Parties to inspect ships on the request ofanother Party, if there is sufficient evidence that the shipoperates in violation of the Convention;

• Inspecting Party (PSC) is permitted to inform the Flag State (Art.12(2)), including any evidence established;

• The PSC Report should include as much as possible information.


ACTION(S) TAKEN

DEFICIENCY CODES

AND

REPORTING DEFICIENCIES


5/31/2011


Deficiencies related to AFS Certification and Documentation

are reported under codes 01131(0176) & 01304(0177):(codes in brackets were applicable until 31/12/2010)

Code Defective item References Nature of defect

01131 International AFS Certificate AFS/ART10 Missing, Invalid,

AFS/AN4/R2 Entries missing, Not properly filled,

Withdrawn

01304 Declaration of AFS Compliance AFS/ART10 Invalid, Entries missing,

AFS/AN4/R5 Not properly filled


AFS related deficiencies are reported under codes

“AFS CONVENTION”Code Defective item References Nature of defect

14701 AFS supporting documentation AFS/AN4/AP1 Missing,

not approved, not as required, missing documentation; missing entries.

14702 Logbook entries referring AFS AFS/AN4/AP1 Missing;

not as required ; not up to date

14703 Paint condition AFS/AN.1 Damaged;

not sealed; not properly maintained;

not removed; not as required;

14704 Other (AFS) Other


Examples - Reporting of deficiencies/action taken


5/31/2011








5/31/2011


CASE STUDY 1 – food for thinking


CASE STUDY 1

During PSC on a ship visiting your port it has been established:

• No AFS certification and supporting documentation and records;

• Master claims that the ship was in drydock some time last year,but he does not know exactly when, because he was not onboardat this time;

• You have strong suspicions that the ship does not comply with AFS Convention and most probably the ship’s anti-fouling paint is not in accordance with the Convention;

• You cannot take samples as there is no accredited laboratory;

You have clear grounds to detain or dismiss the ship from your port.

What would be your decision?


CASE STUDY 2 – food for thinking


5/31/2011


CASE STUDY 2

You have the same situation on board like in the previous case study 1, but you have also identified various safety related detainable deficiencies.

1. the emergency fire pump is inoperable and

2. the ship’s main radar is inoperable

3. the 15 ppm OWS is inoperable

Would you still consider to dismiss the ship from your port?

What would be your decision?


THANKS!

ANY QUESTIONS?


implementation and enforcement of the afs convention … june 2011... · marine surveyor a’...

Documents