INTERTANKO

A Guide to the Vetting Process

13th Edition
2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form, (including
photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or
incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of
INTERTANKO. Applicati ons for INTERTANKO's w ritten permissi on to reproduce any
part of thi s publication sho uld be addressed to the publisher.

© INTERTANKO 2019

Wh ilst every effort has been made to ensure that t he info rmation cont ained in t hi s pub li cati on is correct,
neither the authors nor INTERTANKO can accept any responsibil ity for any errors or omissions or any
consequences resulting therefrom .

No reliance should be placed on the information or advice contained in this publication without
independent verification .
Contents
Foreword 5

Guide to Port State Control and Regional MoUs

Introduction, Scope and Background to PSC 6
Port State Control Inspections 11
Professional Qualifications and Conduct of PSCOs 18
Deficiencies and Detentions 19
General Guide for Masters 26
A Guide for Masters - US Coast Guard Visits 29
Guidance for Companies 32
Selection of Ships for Port State Control 35

Guide to Port State Control and Regional MoUs 37

Port State Control - Abuja MoU 38
Port State Control - Black Sea MoU 40
Port State Control - Caribbean MoU 42
Port State Control - Indian Ocean MoU 43
Port State Control - Mediterranean MoU 46
Port State Control - Paris MoU 49
Port State Control - Riyadh MoU 55
Port State Control - Tokyo MoU 59
Port State Control - Vina del Mar 64
Port State Control Inspections in Australia 65
Port State Control Inspections in China 68
Port State Control Inspections in the United Kingdom 71
Port State Control Inspection in the USA 73
Code of Good Practice for Port State Control Officers 80

Detention Appeal and Review Procedures 82

Abuja Detention Review Panel Procedures 83
Australian Detention Review Panel Procedures 85
Black Sea Detention Review Panel Procedures 86
China Detention Review Panel Procedures 88
Indian Ocean MoU Independent Detention Review Panel 89
Mediterranean MoU Review Panel/Appeal Procedures 91
Paris MoU Detention Review Procedure 92
Tokyo MoU Detention Review Panel Procedures 94
United Kingdom Detention Review Procedures 95
Vina Del Mar MoU Detention Review Panel Procedures 96
Generic appeal letter for USCG interventions 97

Guide to Vetting Inspections 99

A Guide to Ship Inspections 100
OCIMF 118
SIRE Introduction 119
SIRE Documents 120
SIRE PSC Repository 122
Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI) 123

2 INTERTAN KO Guide to the Vetting Process

13th Edition, 2019
Vetting Company Requirements 129
ADNOC 130
AMPOL Management Services Pte Ltd 135
BASF 138
Borealis Polymers NV 142
BHP 147
BP Shipping Ltd 149
CEPSA 155
Chevron Shipping Company LLC 162
CITGO 166
Dow Chemical 171
ENI Trading and Shipping S.p.A 173
Emirates National Oi l Company Ltd (ENOC) 182
EQUINOR 192
ExxonMobil 194
Idemitsu Ship Vetting Service 200
INEOS 202
JXTG Nippon Oil & Energy Corporation 206
Koch Shipping Pte Ltd 209
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation 211
LUKOIL 215
Marathon Petroleum Corporation 218
MISC Maritime Services SDN BHD (MMS) 220
Motor Oil Hellas S.A. 224
Neste 226
NuStar Energy LP 236
OMV 242
Petrobras - Petroleo Brasileiro S/A 247
Phillips 66 250
PM.I.® Trading DAC 254
Preem AB 259
PTT Marine Group 261
Qatar Petroleum 263
REPSOL Trading S.A. 266
Rightsh ip 291
SABIC 296
Saudi Aramco Products Trading Company (Aramco Trading Company - ATC) 298
SGS Nederland BV 302
Shell International Trading & Shipping Company Ltd (STASCO) 303
ShipVet Services Ltd 305
ShipVetting B.V. 307
TOTALS.A. 310
Turkish Petroleum Refineries Corporation (TUPRAS) 315
Viva Energy Australia 320

Continued overleaf. ..

INTE.RTANKO Gu de to the Ve::ing Process 3

13th Edition, 2019
Appendices 323
Related Port State Control Information
EQUASIS 324
Guidelines for Port State Control related to the ISM Code 325
Port State Control and Regional MoUs 331
PSC Codes for Deficiencies/ Detention 336
Report of Inspection in accordance with IMO Port State Control procedures (Form A)* 339
Report of Inspection in accordance with IMO Port State Control procedures (Form B) 341

Related Vetting Information 342

Newbuilding Vetting and Dry-Dock Checklist 342
Newbuilding Table 343
Age, CAP and Officer Matrix Summary 347
INTERTANKO Benchmarking and Performance Monitoring tools 396
INTERTANKO Vessel & PSC Inspection Feedback Systems 400
Terminal Vetting Database 404
Tanker Management and Self Assessment (TMSA 3) 408
INTERTANKO Model Vetting Inspection Clause 2009 410
INTERTANKO Tanker Chartering Questionnaire 88 411
Q88.COM 412
OCIMF-SIRE Inspection Request Form Requirement, Singapore 424
OCIMF-SIRE Vessel Incident Repository (VIR) 428
OCIMF-SIRE PSC Repository 430
Streamlining the Inspection Process 431

4 INTERTANKO Guide to the Vetting Process

13th Edition, 2019
Foreword
Maritime risk - what is it and how do different organisations address risk? As a mariner and one who has been
involved in the marine transportation business for over 40 years, I have had to address mariti me risk through
different lenses and perspectives - as an individual on a ship, as part of the shipboard management team
and as an auditor, as part of the company's management team ashore and as part of INTERTANKO's Vetting
Committee.

Maritime transport poses various risks in terms of loss of life and limb, environmental pollution and loss of
property. Readers wi ll agree that eliminating risk comp letely is difficult to achieve; however, it is the ever-
demanding expectations of society and our customers that we must satisfy. In response to these expectations,
companies and organisations that make use of the marine transportation industry are increasingly sensitive to
any form of risk.

It is, therefore, the ability of shipping companies to demonstrate the use of risk management as part of their
company quality and safety management systems that w ill make them attractive business partners.

Vetting is the process wh ich energy companies, charterers and Port State authorities use to manage risk when
assessing a vessel. A successful "vetting" is, therefore, a vessel's "ticket to trade".

During my many years in the maritime industry, I have in one way or another been invo lved with INTERTANKO
and its Vetting Committee which conceived and developed this inva luable guide for the industry.

INTERTANKO responds to many enquiries for up-to-date information on the different vetting and ship-
inspection requirements of energy and chemical companies, terminals, insurers and underwriters as well as for
information pertaining to the various Port State Control requirements.

This Guide to the Vetting Process, compiled with the assistance and support of the vetting departments
of energy companies, Port State authorities and INTERTANKO Members, brings together the up-to-date
requirements of these stakeholders

As Chair of the Vetting Committee, I cannot understate the importance of understanding the risk-management
values and principles employed by energy companies, charterers and Port State authorities . This guide, now in
its 13th Edition, will provide shore-based personnel a better understanding of these and wi ll help them comply
with various vetting requirements .

Although the main aim of this publication has been to assist INTERTANKO Members with information and
guidance on ship-inspections and vetting processes, it has become the "go-to" publication for the wider
shipping industry. It is completed and supported by the revised and updated: "Vessels' Practical Guide to
Vetti ng " - a must have guide for ships' staff.

There are too many individuals and organisations to thank for their contributions and hard work _to inclu de
here, however, I wou ld like to offer particu lar thanks to INTERTANKO's Vetting Committee and its Secretariat.

Capt. Steve Hardy

NYK Line
Chairman, INTERTANKO Vetting Committee

NB: While every effort has been made to ensure that the information in this book is correct at the time of going to print,
INTERTANKO welcomes any information on changes that may be made since the publication was issued.
Guide to Port State Control and Regional MoUs

Introduction, Scope and Background to PSC

PSC is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment
comply with the requirements of international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in
compliance with these rules .

These inspections w ere originally intended to be a back up to Flag State implementation, however, experience
has shown that they can be extremely effective. PSC provides a "safety net" to catch substandard ships,
especially if the inspections are managed on a regional basis.

This chapter provides a general insight into the PSC inspection process; w hen, how and why it w as
institutionalised by countries and the general principles driving this process.

Background
The history of PSC inspections in the form we currently know it can be traced back to 1978 and the Amoco
Cadiz grounding off the coast of Brittany. The grounding led to the spill of more than 220,000 tonnes of
crude oil and had a devastating impact on the environment. The accident w as said to be a result of insufficient
monitoring of the ship's technical condition, inadequate training of the crew and deficiencies in what we know
as 'safety management' on board.

The incident caused a huge public outcry demanding far stricter regulatory measures with regard to safety,
not only on all domestic ships, but also foreign-Flagged ones. This public pressure finally led to the signing of
a Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in January 1982 by fourteen European countries in
Paris.

The MoU entered into operation on 1 July 1982 and covered :

• safety of life at sea

• prevention of pollution by ships, and

• living and working conditions on board ships.

The Paris MoU recognised that in accordance w ith International Law, the responsibility for compliance with the
requirements of international Conventions lies with the shipowner/operator and the responsibility for ensuring
compliance lies with the Flag State Administration, a task that can prove difficult.

Th is is especially the case w here a ship does not regularly call at a port of the Flag State. This challenge, although
partly overcome by appointing inspectors at foreign ports and/or authorising Recognised Organisations
(Classification Societies) to act on behalf of the administration, is still present.

In order to assist administrations in ensuring continuous control of the ship's compliance with international
Conventions and complement the measures already taken by the Flag State, it was decided to perform
unannounced inspections of "foreign-Flagged " merchant ships calling at ports of the Member States of the
Paris MoU.

Ships have always been inspected by Port Authorities around the world in various different w ays, however,
such inspections were only carried out in a systematic manner with specific rules and regulations after the
formation of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU) in July 1982.

6 INTERTANKO Guide to the Vetting Process

13th Edition, 2019
 Introduction, Scope and Background to PSC

The IMO recognised this success and in 1991 invited its members to develop regional agreements similar to
the Paris MoU.

Such regional agreements, or "MoUs" ensure that as many ships as possible are inspected without being
delayed by unnecessary inspections. The PSC inspections proved to be successful as the number of ships with
serious deficiencies decreased year after year.

Currently there are nine regional agreements (MoUs) around the world and the United States maintains a
separate PSC regime as identified in the Foreword.

These MoUs are listed and charted on the next page and their procedures are explained in further detail in
pages 37-81 .

INTERTANKO Guide to the Vetting Process 7

13th Edition, 2019
 Paris MoU
Germany
Table 1 - Geographical Overview of the Port State Control Regions Belgium Greece
Bulgaria Iceland
Canada Ireland
Croatia Italy
Cyprus Latvia
Denmark Lithuania
Estonia Malta
Finland Montenegro;
France Netherland!

United States
Port State
Control
Programme
USA

Signatories as follows:

Pars MoU

Tok o MoU
-- Mediterranean
Mou

-
Algeria
Cyprus
India Ocean MoU Caribbean MoU Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Medite anean MoU - Antigua and Barbuda
Lebanon
Aruba (KNL)
Malta
Bahamas
Morocco
Vina del M MoU - Barbados
Tunisia
Belize
Turkey
Bermuda
Caribbean MoU -
Cayman Islands
Cura~ao
Abuja MoU Cuba
France
Vina del Mar
Grenada Mou
Black Sea Mou
Guyana Ecuador
Jamaica Argentina Guatemala
RiyadhMoU - Netherlands Bolivia Honduras
Sain ·us and Nevis Brazil Mexico
Sainttucia_ Chile Panama
(* Pending acceptance Suriname ·~ ---1~~ ~ ~ = ~c=o"-
lo~m='b~i~
a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ P=e=
ru~ ~ ~
** Cooperating Member Trinidad and Tobago; Cuba Uruguay
* * * Associate Member) Saint Vincent and the Dominican Republic Venezuela
Grenadines***

Countries in more than one

colour denotes multiple MoU
signatory
 Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania Black Sea MoU
Russian Bulgaria Riyadh MoU
Federation Georgia Bahrain
Slovenia Romania Kuwait
Tokyo Mou
Spain Russian Federation Oman
Sweden Turkey Qatar Australia
Jnited Kingdom Ukraine Saudi Arabia Canada
United Arab Emirates Chile
China
Fiji
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Japan
Republic of Korea
Malaysia
Marshall Islands
Mexico**
New Zealand
Panama**
Papua New Guinea
Peru
Philippines
Russian Federation
Singapore
Thailand
Vanuatu
Viet Nam

Angola
Benin
Cameroon*
Cabo Verde
Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
,,
Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC)* Indian Ocean MoU
Equatorial Guinea*
Gabon Australia Mozambique
Gambia Bangladesh Madagascar
Ghana Comoros Myanmar
Guinea Djibouti* Oman
Guinea Bissau Eritrea Seychelles
Liberia France South Africa
Mauritania* I Sri Lanka
Na .. *
Iran Sudan
Nigeria Kenya United Republic of Tanzania
Sao Tome and Principe Maldives Yemen
Senegal Mauritius
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Togo

Map based on an image by 'Kristofferjay' as uploaded to https:l!commons.wikimedia.orglwiki!File:Portstatecontro/.svg

vvt::r v1t::w u1 1v1vu =:. c::1cuvny ana proceaures
The vario us MoUs have a list of activities determining the way they work. These are reported yearly to IMO and reported at the meeting of the IMO Sub-Committee on Implementation of
IMO Instruments. An overview is provided in the table below.

Performance Reward Detention

Target inspection rate Targeting system Banning/refusal of access EQUASIS
system system review
The scope, frequency and
priority of inspections are Computerised Ship White - Grey- Reserves the right to ban/refuse access Detention Data provider to
Paris Mou
determined on the basis of Ta rgeting System Black Lists outright Review Panel Equasis
a ship 's risk profile.
Detention
Vina del Mar 20% six-month inspection Computerised Sh ip Data provider to
Review(by
Agreement rate per country. Targeting System Equasis
each Member)
80% annual regional Computerised Ship Black - Grey - Publication of under- performing ships/ Detention Data provider to
Tokyo Mou
inspection rate. Targeting System White Lists Inspection at every port call Review Panel Equasis
15% annual inspection Data Exchange with
Caribbean Targeting System CMOU Rating List Detention
rate per country within 3 Refusal of Access finalised Equasis signed in
MoU being utilised being finalised Review Panel
years. November 2013
15% annual inspection
Mediterranean Computerised Ship Under Detention Data provider to
rate per country within 3 Reserves the right to refuse access
MoU Targeting System consideration Review Panel Equasi s
years .
10% annual inspection
Indian Ocean Computerised Underperforming Ship List. Banned Ship Detention Data provider to
rate per country within 3 Watch Li st
Mou Targeting System List provided by the Member Authorities Review Panel Equasis
years.
15% annual inspection Committee approva l obtained for
Computerised Under Detention Data Exchange with
Abuja Mou rate per country w ithin 3 publication of under-performin g ships
Targeting System consideration Review Panel Equasis is pending
years. and detention list on website
Black Sea 75% annual reg ional Computerised Sh ip Monthly Ship Publication of monthly ship watch lisV Detention Data provider to
Mou inspection rate. Targeting System Watch List subject for inspection at every port call Review Board Equasis
15% annual inspection Data Exchange with
Computerised Ship Under
Riyadh Mou rate per country w ithin 3 Equasis is under
Targeting System consideration
years. process
100% annual inspection 46 CFR
rate per vessel, safety risk Computerised Sh ip Reserves the right to ban/refuse access Qualship 21 and 1.03 contains Data provider to
USCG Targeting Lists
and ISPS risk matrix applied Targeting System outright Qualship E-Zero appeal Equasis
to all arriving vessels. procedures