U.S. - ISM Code Phase II Implementation and Enforcement

August 2002

U.S. Coast Guard Implementation and Enforcement of International Safety Management (ISM) Code Phase II

In August 2002 the Kleberg Law Firm in Texas handled a case believed to be the first in which the U.S. Coast Guard implemented the new ISM Safety Management System (SMS) enforcement procedures.

A tanker was ordered to depart from the United States and not return for a period of not less than ninety (90) days, until adequate proof of compliance with the ISM Code had been provided by objective evidence demonstrating that the vessel's (SMS) had been operating effectively for at least a 3-month period.

During the course of conducting a Tank Vessel Examination and Port State Inspection, the inspecting officer concluded the vessel was not adhering to the SMS, although the SMS paperwork was in order. Evidence of this included allegations that the master was unfamiliar with the forms necessary to report non-conformities, apparent lack of management follow-up to the vessel, and that the chief engineer could not read and write the English language, in which the SMS was written, and other communication problems.

The SMS auditor for the vessel found the chief engineer's difficulty in reading and writing English a major non-conformity and required that he be replaced with an English-speaking chief engineer. The other non-conformities cited by the auditor were deemed "administrative deficiencies" which required improvement and a further external audit in thirty days, but did not effect the safety of the vessel, its crew, or the environment. Nevertheless, the U.S. Coast Guard ordered the vessel to depart as soon as a qualified chief engineer was aboard in accordance with its Safe Manning Document, even though the vessel had not completed the discharge of its cargo.

The U.S. Coast Guard took this action based on a June 02, 2002 circular (see below) setting out the Coast Guard's policy on implementation and enforcement of Phase II of the ISM Code which came into effect July 1, 2002. (Of course, being a tanker, the vessel involved had been subject to the requirements of the ISM Code since 1998.)

Among the policy guidance provisions are the following:

"2. A. Certificate Issue Date: For Phase II vessels, if the issue date of the full term certificate is within 3 months of the July 1, 2002 implementation date, then boarding officers should verify through objective evidence that the SMS has been functioning effectively for at least 3 months on board the ship. Objective evidence includes records from internal audits performed by the company. Lack of documentary evidence should result in the ship being ordered out of U.S. waters until they are able to provide objective evidence of an effectively operating system for at least a 3-month period."

The guidance further provides:

"3. Enforcement: A SMS outlines the procedural requirements for vessels to carry out operations including, but not limited to, preventative maintenance, navigation procedures, bunkering operations, emergency preparedness, pollution prevention procedures, technical systems and operations and communications procedures. Vessels should be the subject of a SOLAS detention whenever a major non-conformity or series of non-conformities provide evidence of substantial non-compliance includes but is not limited to: the master being unfamiliar with the SMS, non-conformities not being forwarded to the company, failure of the master to conduct familiarization training, or evidence that a preventive maintenance program is not being conducted. Vessels found in port without evidence of an implemented SMS should be ordered out of port."

Members with vessels trading to the U.S. should be reminded that the U.S. Coast Guard is very serious about the implementation and enforcement of the ISM Code and failure to have an effectively operating SMS can have severe and adverse consequences.

 

Click to view related documents:

U.S. Coast Guard December 1998 "Guidance On Port State Control ISM Code Enforcement"

 

U.S. Coast Guard June 02, 2002 Circular

 

This article is based on a report circulated by the Kleberg Law Firm, Texas, in August 2002.