1 TEXT Best Practices Manual Safety Security Health Environment Rcaversion

8/8/2019 1 TEXT Best Practices Manual Safety Security Health Environment Rcaversion

1/28

ASEAN PORTS ASSOCIATION

BEST PRACTICES MANUAL ON

PORT SAFETY, HEALTH,

ENVIRONMENT AND

SECURITY

July 2004

Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports Association


2/28

Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,

Environment And Security

Page i

ASEAN PORTS ASSOCIATION


PORT SAFETY, HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY

The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the ASEAN

Ports Association (APA) for the purpose for which it was prepared. The APA

Permanent Secretariat takes no responsibility for inaccurate or incomplete

information that may have been submitted to it. The facts published indicate the

result of inquiries conducted and no warranty as to their accuracy is given by the

APA Permanent Secretariat.


3/28



Page ii

Published by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports Association,

Philippine Ports Authority, Marsman Building, South Harbor, Port Area,

Manila, Philippines

2004 APA Permanent Secretariat


4/28



Page iii

FOREWORD

This reference material, one in a series of APA port practices manuals, is the

fruition of the collaborative efforts of the 25th

APA Main Meeting held in 1999 in

Bali, Indonesia. It is APAs intent to draft a manual that would provide a guidefor internationally accepted best practices for port safety, health, environment

and security, as they are adopted and applied in APA member-ports.

Responses indicated on the customized survey questionnaire, which underwentseveral amendments to address identified survey lapses, served as groundworks

in the preparation of the manual. A total of 56 respondent ports/terminals fromthe seven APA member-countries, namely: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia,

Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines, have accorded the time andeffort to provide the needed data inputs. The survey also focused on policies,

processes, procedures, rules and regulations, and documentation pertaining to

port safety, health, environment and security.

In retrospect, the survey returns did not yield any definitive standards nor hard-

and-fast rules on effective and efficient port management and/or service delivery.

What needs to be taken within the proper perspective is that port efficiency and

productivity are the product of the optimum utilization of resources and

capabilities available to the port administrator or manager, which may be

characterize only a particular area and would largely be influenced by the

philosophies and attitudes of the stakeholders concerned.

In view of the foregoing, it was, thus, decided and agreed upon during the 28th

APA Main Meeting, held in 2002 in Singapore, for the APA Permanent

Secretariat to simply proceed for the time being with the compilation, analysisand presentation of the canvassed results as captured through the latest survey

instruments. The Permanent Secretariat has committed, in the future, to come

up with a more refined and comprehensive manual, which may serve as general

reference or guidepost for a wide range of users/readers, especially those

affiliated with the maritime industry.

The benefit this manual can offer only be derived relative to the objectives and

purposes of the user. Further improvements can be incorporated into this text to

address a broad spectrum of port information needs of APA member-ports. Be

that as it may, this undertaking is a continuing process that will document what

would be considered from a common perspective the best and the exemplary in

ASEAN practices with regard to port safety, health, environment and security.


5/28



Page iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports

Association which would like to acknowledge the following agencies, groups and

individuals:

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

1. Ports DepartmentINDONESIA

IPC I

1. BelawanIPC II

1. Palembang Port2. Panjang3. Panjang/UTPK4. Pontianak Port5. Tanjung Priok/PTJICT6. Tanjung Priok/General CargoIPC III

1. Tanjung Perak2. Surabaya

MALAYSIA

1. Port Klang Authority (PA)2. Penang Port3. Johore Port4. Kuantan Port5. Sabah Ports Authority6. Bintulu Port7. Kuching Port8. Rajang Port9. Miri Port10.Northport (Malaysia) Bhd11.Klang Multi Terminal12.

Johore Port Bhd13.Penang Port Bhd

14.Kuantan Port Consortium15.Bintulu Port Bhd16.Port of Tanjung Pelepas


6/28



Page v

SINGAPORE

1. Port of Singapore Authority Corporation Limited2. Jurong Port

THAILAND1. Bangkok Port2. Laem Chabang Port/TIPS3. Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal Co., Inc.4. LCB Container Terminal

VIETNAM

1. Saigon Port2. Baria Serece3. Danang Port

PHILIPPINES1. Port Management Office of Ozamis2. Port Management Office of Puerto Princesa3. Port Management Office of Iloilo4. Port Management Office of Tagbilaran5. Port Management Office of Pulupandan6. Port Management Office of South Harbor7. Port Management Office of Limay8. Port Management Office of Tacloban9. Port Management Office of Nasipit10.Port Management Office of Cotabato11.Port Management Office of Legazpi12.Port Management Office of Cagayan de Oro13.Port Management Office of General Santos14.Port Management Office of North Harbor15.Port Management Office of Davao16.Port Management Office of Surigao17.Port Management Office of Iligan18.Port Management Office of Zamboanga19.Port Management Office of Dumaguete20.Asian Terminals, Inc. (Batangas)21.International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI)22.Cebu Port Authority


7/28



Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND... 1II. DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICE. 2III. BEST PRACTICES... 3

A. Policy On Safety, Health and Environment.. 3B. Safety Organization..... 4C. Safety Rules/Procedures/Practices. 5D. Planned Safety Inspections... 8E. Safety Enforcement. 10F. Accident And Incident Investigation.. 11G. Safety Audit.. 12H. Safety Training. 15I. Safety Promotion. 16J. Maintenance Program. 16K. Security.. 17

IV. APPENDICESA. Survey Questionnaire On Port Safety, Health, Environment and Security

(February 2002 version)

B. Results Of The Survey On Port Safety, Health, Environment andSecurity


8/28



Page vii

ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS

1. APA - ASEAN Ports Association2. ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian Nations3. ATI - Asian Terminals, Incorporated4. CCTV - Closed Circuit Television5. DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(Philippines)

6. ICTSI - International Container Terminal Services, Inc.7. IMDG - International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code8. IMO - International Maritime Organization9. ISO - International Standards Organization or

International Organization for Standardization (ISO

is a word, not an abbreviation, derived from theGreekisos meaning equalas in isometric and

isonomy.)

10. JPPL - Jurong Port Pte Ltd.11. MARINA - Maritime Industry Authority12. MARPOL - Marine Pollution convention or International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

13. MICT - Manila International Container Terminal14. OHSES - Occupational Health, Safety, Environment and

Security Policy

15. PCG - Philippine Coast Guard16. PDO - Port District Office (Philippines)17. PMO - Port Management Office (Philippines)18. PPA - Philippine Ports Authority19. PSA - Port of Singapore Authority20. PUNSS - Port Users Needs and Satisfaction Survey


9/28



Page viii

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Port Authority - the port management body that is vested by the

State with the authority to oversee the ports

within a specified area of jurisdiction.

3. Port Contractor - any government or private entity, individual orcompany that is granted by the State or Port

Authority, as the case may be, with the permit orlicense to provide services in a port, usually

related to infrastructure development.

4. Port Operator - any government or private entity, individual orcompany that is granted by the State or Port

Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or

license to operate the port and provide other

related services.

5. Port Owner - any government or private entity, individual or

company that has the legal entitlement or

proprietorship of the port.

6. Terminal Operator - any government or private entity, individual or

company that is granted by the State or Port

Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or

license to operate the terminal in a port and

provide other related services.


10/28



Page 1


PORT SAFETY, HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND

SECURITY

I.

INTRODUCTION

Background

In its 25th

Main Meeting held on December 1-3, 1999 in Bali, Indonesia, the

ASEAN Ports Association (APA) identified a number of projects designed to

establish standards of efficiency and productivity in member-ports. One such

project was intended to come up with a manual on best practices in Port Safety,

Health, Environment and Security designed to provide benchmarks for the

formulation and implementation of policies, rules, regulations, processes, systems

and procedures in managing safety, health, environment and security within the

port premises.

A draft survey questionnaire was prepared in early 2000 to generate the

information necessary for the preparation of the manual. After undergoing

several revisions/amendments, the finalized form of the questionnaire was

disseminated to ports of APA member-countries in February 2001. The

accomplished forms were processed by the APA Permanent in May of the same

year.

The survey did not yield sufficient data needed for the manual. Among the

major problems encountered in the analysis of the responses were incomplete or

unrelated responses and unanswered questions.

The results of the February 2001 Survey were presented and discussed in the22nd APA Technical Committee Meeting held in Cebu City, Philippines on

January 22-24, 2002. Further amendments were made on the questionnaire to

address the identified deficiencies. The revised questionnaire (Appendix A) was

subsequently re-distributed to concerned member-ports in February 2002. The

questionnaire focused on major port safety, health, environment and security

issues and concerns.

Fifty-six (56) ports/terminals from the following seven APA member-countries

responded to the February 2002 survey questionnaire:


11/28



Page 2

1. Brunei Darussalam 12. Indonesia 93. Malaysia 154. Singapore 25. Thailand 46. Vietnam - 37. Philippines 22

Total 56

The respondents were categorized and distributed as follows:

1. Port authority 32 57 %2. Terminal operator 4 73. Port operator 12 214. Port contractor 2 45. Port owner/operator 2 46. Port owner 4 7

== ==

Total 56 100 %

As with the 2001 survey, the following problems were encountered:

1. Unclear or incomplete responses;2. Unanswered questions;3. Use of acronyms;4. Names of the same port documents differed from port to port;5. Poor response in submission of relevant reference materials on policies,

and guidelines as requested in the questionnaire to substantiate the

information/data entered in the survey forms.

6. Submitted reference materials were prepared in the language of thecountry of the respondent.

II. DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICEThe term Best Practice derives from various phrases now being used to refer

generally to processes, procedures and measures designed to improveperformance, in this case, in port safety, health, environment and security.

There are no generally accepted criteria by which to judge which is and which is

not best practice.

In addition, best practices could be applied only to cases where the operating

conditions and characteristics can be considered similar. Hence, the same


12/28



Page 3

operating standard would have meaning only in one kind of operating

environment and would be totally meaningless in another.

Best practice also depends on ones viewpoint. A port user such as a shipping

line, a shipper or a consignee would have more stringent measures of

performance compared to, say, a cargo handling operator who must deal with

various constraints such as physical limitations in the port, equipmentlimitations, labor laws and policies, port authority regulations, institutional and

other concerns as well as meeting his own profit targets. The major respondent

categories pre-identified in the Survey are as follows: port authority, terminal

operator, port operator, port contractor, port owner/operator and port owner.

Hence, these shall constitute the main perspective for assessing best practices in

the ASEAN ports.

One perspective that would be an important subject for a separate study that

may be integrated in this manual on best practices is that of the port users

(shipping lines, shippers, consignees, passengers). A move in this direction wasthe Port Users Needs and Satisfaction Survey (PUNSS) conducted by the

Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) in 2001. Phase II of the PUNSS was started inFebruary 2004 and expected to be completed in July 2004. An APA-wide

diagnostic survey should yield results that would be informative and providesome blueprint for documenting best practices in the ASEAN region.

III. BEST PRACTICESA. Policy On Safety, Health and EnvironmentB. Safety OrganizationC. Safety Rules/Procedures/PracticesD. Planned Safety InspectionsE. Safety EnforcementF. Accident And Incident InvestigationG. Safety AuditH. Safety TrainingI. Safety PromotionJ. Maintenance ProgramK. SecurityA. Policy On Safety, Health and Environment

1. Established policies on safety, health and environmentOut of the 56 respondents, two (2) indicated that either there were noenvironmental orders or that the port operator simply followed the

rules and policies issued by the Ministry of Environment. The rest

had their own in-house or in-agency policies. Those that submitted


13/28



Page 4

policy documents included the Brunei Ports Authority (Brunei),

Surabaya (Indonesia), PSA Corporation (Singapore), Asian

Terminals, Inc. (Batangas, Philippines), and the International

Container Terminal Services, Inc. (Manila, Philippines). All the

responding ports under the Philippine Ports Authority are covered by

various policy issuances pertaining to port safety, dockwork safety

and health standards.

2. Delineation of responsibilities of the port operators, vessel owners andother port users

Fifty (50) of the respondents indicated that the their policies contained

delineation of responsibilities of those involved in port operations,

vessel operations, other port users and landed clients in ensuring the

safety of the port, port workers, clients and fellow port users. The

other six respondents pointed that there was no such delineation in

responsibilities in their policies.

3. Safety ProgramFifty-two (52) of the respondents stated that they had adopted SafetyPrograms. However, only 12 submitted copies of the Safety Program

documents or semblances thereof. ATI, port operator in Batangas,Philippines mentions their OHSES Management Program while

ICTSI, container terminal operator in Manila, Philippines, submitted

their Accident and Loss Prevention Program.

B. Safety Organization1. Appointment of Safety Officer

Forty (40) of the surveyed entities replied that they hired a full-time

Safety Officer. Surabaya Port in Indonesia, Jurong Port in Singapore,

North and South Harbors in Manila, Philippines, ATI (in Batangas,

Philippines) submitted their respective organizational structures.

Saigon Port declared that it had it own Safety Department. ICTSI (inManila, Philippines) furnished a job description of its Safety Officer.

2. Safety CommitteeForty-nine (49) of the surveyed entities responded that they hadorganized or were members of a Safety Committee at the level of theport authority/owner/ operator.


14/28



Page 5

3. Safety, Health and Environment in Port Planning, Development andOperations

Fifty-one (51) of the surveyed entities replied that considerations of

safety, health and environment are incorporated in the functions,

duties and responsibilities of personnel involved in port planning,development and operations.

C. Safety Rules/Procedures/Practices1. Implementation Of Safety Regulations

The majority of the respondents (53) indicated that safety regulations

were being implemented for port administration and cargo handling

operations.

2. Review of Safety PoliciesReview of safety policies, rules and regulations is conducted on a

regular basis by 44 of the port organizations. But only a few indicatedthe frequency. Surabaya, Saigon, Tagbilaran (Philippines), Nasipit

(Philippines), Davao (Philippines) and ATI (Batangas, Philippines)stated that this was done on a yearly basis. Palembang mentions twice

a year while PSA, at least once every two years or when the need

arises.

3. Separate Regulations For Dangerous Cargo and Marine PollutionsMost of the respondents stated that they had separate regulations for

the handling, storage and transport of dangerous goods, and the

prevention of marine pollution, as follows:

a. Handling and Storage of Dangerous Cargo - 53b. Transport of Dangerous Cargo - 49c. Prevention of Marine Pollution - 50It can be seen from the above that there appears to be a healthy and

widespread awareness such that many of the respondents had to issuespecific and distinct measures for every aspect of the handling of

dangerous goods.


15/28



Page 6

4. Adoption of IMO Issuancesa. Recommendation on the safe transport of Dangerous Cargo and

related activities in port areas

All but four of the organizations/agencies investigated declared

that they were in compliance with the recommendations of theInternational Maritime Organization with regard to the safe

transport of dangerous cargo. However, most of these did not

indicate the extent of implementation. At the Port of Palembang

(Indonesia), the application was up to cargo handling operation,

pilot operation and on pilot boats. The PSA (Singapore) stated

that they adhered strictly to the requirements of the IMDG Code

Book. Jurong Port (JPPL- Singapore) followed closely the MPA

rules and regulations. The Manila South Harbor (Philippines)

says it conducts tests on the packages containing dangerous cargo

intended for export in accordance with the pertinent provisions ofthe IMDG Code and issues certifications to the manufacturers.

Other port authorities or port operators report implementation of

various measures immediately necessary as dictated by conditionsin their respective areas although many of the responses are

expressed in general terms which were at best vague. The ManilaNorth Harbor and the Port of Nasipit, both in the Philippines,

claim full adoption and observance of the IMO regulations. The

Port of Cotabato (Philippines) simply mentions implementation of

safety regulations within the port. On the other hand, the Port of

Davao indicates that it requires proper packaging and storing of

dangerous cargo and undertakes segregation from other types of

cargo. At the Port of Iligan (Philippines), flammable materials are

not allowed to be transported along with passengers on board RO-

RO barges, and mentions compliance with related issuances of the

Philippine Ports Authority. The Port of Dumaguete (Philippines)

reports simple measures such as wearing of masks during

operation.

The ICTSI (private terminal operator at the Manila InternationalContainer Terminal) has stated that it uses the IMDG Code/

Handbook for reference purposes only while the ATI (privatecargo handling operator at the Port of Batangas cites

identification, labeling, storage and handling as the extent of its

compliance.

The Cebu Port Authority (Philippines) deals with dangerous cargo

by requiring direct delivery.


16/28



Page 7

b. Awareness and Preparedness for emergencies at local level(APELL)

As with previous survey questions, the majority (49) claimed that

they have in place plans and procedures for handling emergencies

at the local levels although most were unable describe the extent ofpreparedness.

The Brunei Ports Authority points out that it has a set-up under

the Maritime Disaster Plan and the Port Safety Committee.

Jurong Port undertakes coordination with State Police, CISCO

Police, Fire Safety and Customer Department.

For their part, Philippine ports have in various forms contingency

plans in case of calamities and other emergencies, information

dissemination, organization of fire brigades, conduct of training ofport safety, fire prevention/suppression and control. ATI

(Batangas) claims in general terms plans and procedures for allpossible emergency situations that may arise. ICTSI has organized

its Emergency/Fire Response Team. Cebu Port Authority is stillorganizing such plans and procedures.

c. MARPOL 73/78Respondents, except for nine, mention adoption of MARPOL 73/78

in one form or another. Most did not describe the manner or

extent of their compliance.

Jurong Port simply reports adherence to MARPOL as required by

MPA while PSA says it is not applicable to them.

Philippine ports undertake measures by issuing policies contained

in memorandum circulars and implementing monitoring and

reporting procedures. Iloilo Port says they monitor vessels

activities while at berth and notifies the Philippine Coast Guard if

illegal discharges of prohibited materials are observed. At theManila South Harbor, circulars and guidelines are issued

regarding air and water pollution and has the proposed the puttingup of shore reception facilities. Dumaguete Port has prescribed a

disposal limit from the shoreline. ATI (Batangas) receives and

disposes oil wastes at the licensed treatment facility of thePhilippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources.ICSTI (Manila) coordinates with the Philippine Coast Guard on

matters of marine pollution. Cebu Port Authority undertakes


17/28



Page 8

negotiations with the private contractor to provide all the waste

reception facilities and services.

5. Measures To Remove Floating Debris, Oil Films, etc.On the matter of cleaning up the surrounding harbor waters of

floating waste, debris, oil slicks and films, 34 of the respondentsclaimed to have measures, but did not elaborate how removal was

actually done.

Jurong Port simply files an Oil Spill Notification Form. Eastern Sea

Laem Chabang Terminal points out that this is the responsibility of

the Port Authority.

Pulupandan Port (Philippines) cites PPA Administrative Order No.

16-95 specifying rules and regulations on waste treatment through the

use of reception facilities and collection of vessels refuse. DumaguetePort says cleaning of floating debris may be done by the port

management office but oil films are the responsibility of the PhilippineCoast Guard. ATI Batangas mentions it has measures for the

handling of offshore chemical spills. ICTSI replied that it simply filesa report on MICT Basin Cleaning Activity. It was not clear who does

the actual cleaning. Cebu Port Authority responded that this ishandled by the Philippine Coast Guard.

Fourteen (14) admitted that they had no such measures while two (2)

said it was PCG or port authoritys responsibility. Six (6) did not

respond.

D. Planned Safety Inspection1. Conduct of Safety Inspection

The survey recorded that all but three cited that safety inspection was

conducted regularly in their respective port areas. The three were

Bangkok Port, Pulupandan Port and Surigao Port wh ich perhapsconducts such inspection as needed.

2. Safety Inspection ChecklistAssociated with the regular safety inspection, 49 claimed to have aprepared standard checklist of items to be examined or investigated.

Rejang Port (Malaysia) and PSA (Singapore) submitted their

respective Safety and Health Inspection Checklists. Jurong Port has


18/28



Page 9

forms addressing specific safety matters a checklist for ships calling

at the Port, a checklist for barge/BT and wooden vessels, a checklist

for vessel cargo operations, and an Environment and Safety Checklist.

In the Philippines, the forms come in variations such as Monthly

Safety Inspection Report, simply Inspection Checklist, Safety

Inspection Checklist (not specifying a period), Health andEnvironment Inspection Checklist, Quarterly Safety Inspection

Checklist, Safety and Health Checklist and Dockwork Safety and

Health Standards. ATI Batangas furnished the survey group a

Tractor/Truck Inspection Checklist while ICTSI (Manila) gave a

Building/Facilities Inspection Checklist, a Vessel Inspection Report

and a Cargo Gear Inspection document.

3. Corrective ActionOf those that claimed maintaining safety records through regularinspection with a checklist, 48 indicated that the checklist report or

document provided a procedure for submitting recommendations forcorrective action.

4. Safety Inspection DocumentationThe types of document recording the results of safety inspections

generally refer just to the checklist as previously discussed which also

serves as the inspection report. For many of the respondents, this

appears to be the only safety inspection document being accomplished.

The survey team reports that 34 had no data (no document).

Apparently, there was some confusion in responding to this survey

question since the checklist would already enable recording of

conditions pertaining to safety issues and concerns. Those that

responded in the affirmative reiterated mention of the safety

inspection checklist and recommendation for corrective action. It was

not clear if this was one or two documents.

Tanjung Perak Port refers to a Report on Possible (predicted)

dangerous/unsecured/incident safety risks, a separate Report Formand a Corrective Action Form. Jurong Port mentions Fire and Safety

Inspection Report and a Notice of Safety Infringement. Saigon Portcites that records of safety inspection are set up in the Officials of the

Ports Labour Safety Department in the process of inspections.

In the Philippines, Legazpi Port furnished the survey team a copy ofthe Port Safety Assessment Report of the Regal Arrastre and

Stevedoring, Inc., a private cargo handling contractor. Cotabato Port

provided a Safety Inspection Checklist and communications relative to


19/28



Page 10

the results of safety audit. Davao Port gave a copy of their Safety and

Environmental Motives while Surigao Port provided their Central

Safety Disaster Strategy. The other ports simply cited submission of

their Safety Inspection Checklists.

E. Safety Enforcement1. Authorized Safety Personnel

The respondents submitted the following information consisting of a

caboodle of personnel, officers, units, committees or entities

authorized to enforce rules and regulations of safety, health and

environment:

1) Port activities2) Ports Department3) Port Administrator4) Port Director5) Terminal Manager, Health and Safety Enforcement

Manager/Officer

6) Marine Department7) Environment Unit8) Environmental Analyst9) Safety Officer10) Safety Committee11) Safety Department12) Safety and First Aid Assistant Manager13) Fire Safety Staff and Customer Service Enforcement Staff14) Chief Safety Officer, Senior Safety Specialist and Safety

Specialist

15) Terminal Security16) Security Personnel17) Security and Safety Unit18) Port Police Officer, Police/Security Personnel19) Operations Officer, Operations Personnel Quality Control

Department

20) Arrastre and Stevedoring Operations Offices21) Users Department and officers of the Security and Operations

Safety Department and the Industrial Safety and HealthDepartment

22) PAT/Harbor Department23)

Officials of the Ports Labour Safety Department, MedicalDepartment and Security Department

24) Deputy General Manager25) Assistant Manager supported by all Managers within the

company


20/28



Page 11

26) All Department Supervisors27) Engineers28) Philippine Coast Guard/PPA Division Managers, Department

Managers, Supervisors, Safety Coordinators, Company

Physician

29) Ministry of HealthSome respondents submitted names of personnel without specifying

their positions and/or duties.

Obviously, by fielding these personnel, units and groups, all

respondents demonstrate awareness, concern and preparation in

dealing with matters of safety, health, environment and security.

2. SanctionsMost of the surveyed entities (45) claimed that they wereimplementing a system of sanctions for violations of rules and

regulations. Again, no description or specifications of the nature ofthese violations and the manner of imposition.

The Brunei Ports Department furnished a copy of the Brunei Law

Chapter 144 of the Ports Act. Jurong Port cites that it conductsSafety Counselling Sessions.

In the Philippines, Tacloban Port made reference to PPA

Memorandum Circular No. 07-95 prescribing Anti-Pollution

Measures Within the Port Zone. Manila North Harbor mentions

Presidential Decree No. 857 (PPAs Charter) and PPA

Administrative Order No. 09-82. Philippine ports are subject to a

battery of safety and environmental laws, policies, rules and

regulations.

F. Accident And Incident Investigation1. Reporting of Accidents and Incidents

The investigation and reporting of all accidents and incidents either

by the Operations of Security Officers to be analyzed by the SafetyOfficer is made mandatory by 51 of the surveyed entities. However,

some give little or no information or description on the procedure.

Brunei Ports Department states that accidents and incidents arereported on a case-to-case basis and no report formats are specified.

Jurong Port requires the filing of a Fire/Oil/Accident/Dangerous

Occurrence Report.


21/28



Page 12

Philippine ports mention a set of various memorandum circulars

laying down guidelines on the reporting of accidents. These ports

prepare Accident/Illness Reports in one form or another. ICTSI

prepares a Statement of Accident and Investigation Report.

2. Report FormThe survey questionnaire attempted to draw more detailed

information by inquiring that, in the case an accident/incident report

is accomplished, certain information must be recorded, to which 53 of

the surveyed organizations simply replied in the affirmative without

elaborating. It would be safe to assume that these report forms

would enable the documenting of basic data such as names of injured

persons or persons, positions or occupations, dates and times of

accident, nature of injury and damage, full descriptions of the

accident/incident, actions taken or recommendations and estimatedamounts of damage

G. Safety Audit1. Conduct of Safety Audit

Many APA ports endeavor to assess compliance with safety policies,

rules and regulations. Forty-one (41) reported that they conducted

safety audits under varying frequencies although some did not

specify, This may be construed to mean that such audits are most

probably on a need basis.

The Brunei Ports Department does this safety compliance assessment

every quarter in the form of a port inspection by designated officers.

PSA claims to undertake such audits annually. Thailands three

ports that participated in the survey had audits from monthly to

semi-annually. Vietnams ports also audit safety compliance every

month or semi-annually.

In the Philippines, the frequency varies widely from monthly to oncein four years to as the need arises. The Manila North Harbor

states that safety compliance appraisal is done once a year in each ofits piers. The Cagayan de Oro Port mentions plant-level safety

audits being done weekly, monthly and quarterly while the PPA as a

whole performs this annually. Pulupandan Port reports that it is stillorganizing its safety audits. ATI Batangas, a private cargo-handlingoperator, renders safety audits twice a year. The Cebu Port

Authority provides information regarding a performance audit

rating system on safety observance.


22/28



Page 13

2. Safety Audit UnitVarious answers were given as to what unit or branch of the

organization was responsible for safety audit. Some 15 of the

establishments surveyed either did not respond or had unclearanswers.

Panjang and Panjang UTPK in Indonesia disclosed that they had no

units that conducted safety audits.

The various names of safety audit units or entities submitted are as

follows:

1) Management of the Director of Ports2) Quality Control Division3) Regulatory Body4) DG Office5) DG Unit6) Operations (Safety)7) Security, Health and Safety8) Chemist, Police, Bombs9) Operations10) Security and Operations11) Security and Fire Unit12) Safety, Security and Fire Department13) Safety Officer14) Safety Staff15) Safety Unit16) Safety Committee17) Safety and Security Department18) Central Safety Committee19) Safety and Environment Management Staff20) Safety Central Committee (Oroport)21) Safety, Port Operations, Engineering, BDMO22) Labour Safety Department23) External Safety Consultant and Industrial Health and Safety

Department24) Site Auditing System (ATI Batangas)25) HR Department/Top Management26)

Port Authority/Harbour Department

27) PPA Internal Control Department28) Internal Control Department/Port Operations & Services Dept.29) PPA and ATI (private cargo handling operator)30) Head Office National Office


23/28



Page 14

31) Ministry of Interior32) Department of Labor and Employment Labor Standards

3. Scope of Safety AuditThe 35 organizations that responded affirmatively had different

interpretations of the term scope of safety audit and some also gavemultiple responses, which were expressed in terms ranging from the

general and vague to the specific. These are as follows:

1) Port areas2) Within the port premises only3) Inside port terminal4) Access Control5) Security and Health6) Security Fencing7) Security and Safety8) Overall safety9) All safety aspects10) Safe working environment11) Safety cargo, person, environment and procedures12) Safety of the port13) PSA Safety Management System14) Unsafe act audit, unsafe condition audit15) Provision of safety protective devices/equipment16) DG (dangerous goods) and safety17) DG (dangerous goods) Safety, Marine, Infrastructure18) DG and Operations area19) HSC20) Pilferages21) Port operations, dangerous cargo control, environmental

(water, noise, air)

22) Workers observe the measures to prevent incidents in handlingoperations.

23) Environment, equipment, manpower, firefighting equipment24) Environment25) Inspection of cargo handling operator in accordance with the

dockworkers safety and health standards

26) Compliance/wearing of safety protective devices during portoperation

27) Compliance with port safety rules and regulations28)

All aspects of port operation, e.g. cargo handling operation,hauling, port premises and structures

29) Based on PPA Administrative Order No. 13-96 and PPAAdministrative Order 06-99 pertaining to Dockwork Safety

and Health Standards (DSHS)


24/28



Page 15

30) Proper handling of cargo, structural design of pier, wharf, fire-fighting equipment, environmental concern, safety audit and

inspection report

31) Port operations/safety of labor force32) ISO 1400/OHS IS001 elements and standards33) Management, operations, safety and health, environment and

security34) Handling35) Port activities

H. Safety Training1. Training Programs

There appears to be a general recognition and appreciation of the

importance and need for training programs on port safety andenvironmental protection not only for the port authority, port owner

and port operator but also for the port contractor. For the former,52 claimed to implement training courses, and 43 for the port

contractors. Few were able to elaborate on the contents of thesecourses which included the following scope:

1) Workshop safety, health, environment management2) Port safety and environmental protection3) Port and shipping management, environment management

systems

4) Safety training program5) Safety training topics6) Fire flushing training7) OHSES training

2. Training For Handling Of Dangerous GoodsWith regard to the handling of dangerous cargo, 50 reported that

they conducted separate and specialized training programs for port

officers and workers.


25/28



Page 16

I. Safety Promotion1. Safety Signs/Posters

As part of promoting safety consciousness, 54 of the respondents

exerted efforts to install signs, posters, billboards and other attention-

catching methods in conspicuous places within the port operationalareas.

2. Safety AwardsOn the matter of giving awards for adherence and observance of

safety standards, rules and regulations, it appears that the majority

of port authorities, owners and operators do not subscribe to this

system of reward. Similarly, only 12 of the contractors place

importance on safety awards. It could only be deduced that the only

real reward in complying with safety policies is that everyone shouldprotect each other while conducting business within the port

premises.

3. Safety Symposia/ConventionsAbout 60 percent of the respondents (35) stated that they organizedand conducted various symposia, conventions and fora to sustain

continued vigilance in maintaining safety in the port. The frequency

of these activities varied from once a year to as the need arises.

J. Maintenance Program1. Equipment Maintenance

Some 80 percent of those surveyed cite that they had in place

maintenance programs for handling and hauling equipment of the

port authority, owner or operator used in port and vessel operations.

Most did not elaborate on the contents and manner of

implementation of these programs. Those that did described their

programs as follows:

1) Framework of maintenance regime2) Preventive maintenance program for equipment is required by

the Philippine Ports Authority of all cargo handling operators

and shipping companies3) Equipment preventive maintenance system (by ATI Batangas)4) Inspection report of equipment (ICSTI Manila)


26/28



Page 17

2. Safety Devices In Cargo Handling EquipmentWith regard to the installation of safety devices in container handling

and hauling, 70 percent claimed that such devices are provided.

K. Security1. Access Control System

Practically all of the respondents indicated that they implement an

access control system in one form or another although most gave no

description or information on the locations of the control points. The

following descriptions were submitted:

1) Access to the port is by the two access system: Gatehouse at theMuara Conventional Terminal and MCT Gate only (Brunei

Ports Authority)2) Gate of port area (Palembang)3) Port District Office of Visayas (Philippines) Administrative

Order No. 01-91

4) Port District Office of Southern Mindanao (Philippines)Administrative Order No. 91-2002

5) Port Management Office of Tagbilaran (Philippines)Memorandum Circular No. 10-96

6) Guidelines on Control Regulation and Pass Control System(PMO-Pulupandan, Philppines)

7) Security Management Plan (Cagayan de Oro, Philippines)8) Handled by the Port Police Division (Manila North Harbor,

Philippines)

9) Steel gates, vehicular access road, pedestrian access road(Dumaguete Port, Philippines)

10) Port access system (ATI Batangas, Philippines)11) Terminal guidelines and pass control project (ICTSI, Manila,

Philippines)

12) General pass control system and access regulations (Cebu PortAuthority, Philippines)

2. Crime Prevention ProgramEighty (80) percent of the respondents mention that they had crimeprevention programs that were initiated by the port authority, owneror operator. As with the other survey items, few submitted

documents, gave sketchy descriptions or simply indicated that the


27/28



Page 18

crime prevention was already incorporated in the safety and security

rules and regulations.

3. Prevention of PilferageWith regard to pilferages, 90 percent cite that regulations to prevent

these were in place. A few provided explanations of sorts:

1) Brunei Law, Chapter 144 Port Act2) Cargo control documentation (Iloilo, Philippines)3) Philippine Ports Authority Memorandum Circular No. 17-20024) Security Management Plan (Cagayan de Oro, Philippines)5) Port Authority Police and Arrastre Services Security Guards

prepare rules and regulations. (Surigao, Philippines)

6) Security services provided. (ATI Batangas, Philippines)7) ISO 140001/002 (ICTSI, Manila, Philippines)

4. Surveillance Network ProgramThe implementation of surveillance network programs is done by 75percent of the entities surveyed. The Brunei Ports Authority reports

that it has a CCTV system located at the remote areas of the portwith main control at the gatehouse. ICTSI (Manila) cites that is has

both CCTV and manned surveillance.

5. Surveillance ImplementationRelated to the previous item, 78 percent mention that they have a

surveillance system in one form or another, as follows:

1) Manned only - 332) With use of computer system only - 33) Both manned and computerized - 84) None - 13

Total 56

6. Powers Of Port Security PersonnelAbout 75 percent disclosed that their port security personnel had the

power to impose sanctions and penalties for violations.

7. Coordination With Local PoliceAll of the respondents cite that there was an existing system of

enhancing coordination and cooperation with the local or city police


28/28



Page 19

department. (At the time of the survey, Surabaya Port was in the

process of negotiation with their local police department.)

8. Police Powers of the Port Authority/Owner/OperatorEighty (80) percent claim that the port authority, owner or operator

has the police power to enforce all relevant laws and regulations suchas arrest, investigation and prosecution of all related cases of crimes

which occur in the port area.

9. Information SharingA little over half of the respondents (55%) admit that they have a

program or network which enables member-ports to exchange

information or Information Retrieval Program for cases such as

stowage, hijacking, commercial crimes and violation of mass

destruction capabilities.

Documents

1 TEXT Best Practices Manual Safety Security Health Environment Rcaversion