DIPLOMA IN MARINE SURVEYING€¦ · EurIng ALLAN T LARSEN CEng CMarEng FRINA FIMarEST FCMS Managing Director, Larsens Marine Surveyors & Consultants Ltd & Vice President of the Society

Author EurIng ALLAN T LARSEN CEng CMarEng FRINA FIMarEST FCMS Managing Director, Larsens Marine Surveyors & Consultants Ltd & Vice President of the Society of Consulting Marine Engineers and Ship Surveyors.

DIPLOMA IN MARINE

SURVEYING Module F - The International Management

Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for

Pollution Prevention (The ISM Code)

Module F - The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (The ISM Code) 2

Contents

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND LEARNING OUTCOMES ......................................................................... 4

1. HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT (ISM) CODE ........................................ 7

1.1 Shipping Incidents ................................................................................................................... 9

1.1.1 Herald of Free Enterprise ................................................................................................ 9

1.2 IMO Intervention ................................................................................................................... 10

2. ISM CODE - SECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 12

2.1 ISM CODE and SOLAS Definitions .......................................................................................... 12

2.2 ISM Code Sections and Chapters ........................................................................................... 13

3. SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Safety and Environmental Policy ........................................................................................... 18

3.3 Instructions and Procedures ................................................................................................. 22

3.4 Defined Levels of Authority and Lines of Communication .................................................... 24

3.4.1 The Designated Person Ashore. .................................................................................... 24

3.4.2 Master and officers ....................................................................................................... 25

3.4.3 Ships staff, other than the Master. ............................................................................... 26

3.5 Reporting Accidents .............................................................................................................. 26

3.6 Emergency Preparedness ...................................................................................................... 27

3.7 Documentation ...................................................................................................................... 29

3.8 Internal Audits and Management Reviews ........................................................................... 30

4. RISK ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 32

5. ISM CODE CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................. 34

5.1 Document of Compliance ...................................................................................................... 35

5.2 Safety Management Certificate ............................................................................................ 35

5.3 The Certification and Verification Process ............................................................................ 35

5.3.1 Interim Verification ....................................................................................................... 36

5.3.2 Initial Verification .......................................................................................................... 37

5.3.3 Annual Verification of the Document of Compliance ................................................... 37

5.3.4 Intermediate Verification of the Safety Management Certificate ................................ 38

5.3.5 Renewal Verification ..................................................................................................... 38

5.3.6 Additional Verification ................................................................................................... 39

6. RECOGNISED ORGANISATIONS (RO) ............................................................................................. 40

7. PERFORMING AN ISM AUDIT ........................................................................................................ 41

7.1 The Auditor’s Personal Attributes ......................................................................................... 41

7.2 Requirements to be an Auditor ............................................................................................. 41


7.3 Planning an Audit .................................................................................................................. 43

7.4 Performing an Audit .............................................................................................................. 45

7.4.1 Opening meeting ........................................................................................................... 45

7.4.2 Documentation review. ................................................................................................. 46

8. MAJOR NON-CONFORMITIES AND REVOKING OF CERTIFICATION ............................................... 48

8.1 Evidence ................................................................................................................................ 48

8.2 How to Write A Non-Conformity ........................................................................................... 49

8.3 Company Response to Non-Conformities ............................................................................. 49

9. BENEFITS OF THE ISM CODE AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS) ................................... 51

10. CYBER SECURITY AND THE ISM CODE ....................................................................................... 53

11. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 54

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY, RECOMMENDED READING AND USEFUL INTERNET SOURCES. ...................... 55


GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of this module you will be able to:

• Navigate through the ISM Code requirements and Guidelines.

• Identify the parties responsible for applying and enforcing the ISM Code.

• Discuss the regulations contained within the ISM Code.

• Prepare to conduct an ISM Audit.

• Form an effective Audit Team.

• Explain how an Audit is conducted.

• Write safely worded non-conformities and observations.

• Produce an Audit report.

INTRODUCTION Commonly referred to as the “International Safety Management Code”, or simply, “the ISM Code”, “The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention” is possibly the only maritime regulation widely applied to the actual management not only of ships, but also of the companies which operate them. This relatively recent code applies to:

• Passenger Ships including passenger high speed craft (regardless of Gross Tonnage). • Oil Tankers >500 Gross Tonnes • Chemical Tankers >500 Gross Tonnes • Gas Carriers >500 Gross Tonnes • Bulk Carriers >500 Gross Tonnes • High Speed Craft >500 Gross Tonnes • Cargo Ships >500 Gross Tonnes • Propelled Mobile Offshore Drilling Units >500 Gross Tonnes

In summary, the objectives of this code are as follows:

• To ensure safety at sea • To prevent human injury • To prevent loss of life • To prevent damage to the environment • To prevent damage to property.

Figure 1: IMO Implementation Timeline for ISM Code [Diagram by Larsens Marine Surveyors & Consultants Ltd]


For the purposes of this module the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, will be referred to as the ISM Code or simply, “the code”. This is typical throughout the industry, but the full title should always be used in any legal or official documents. It is interesting to note that the ISM Code book, 2014 edition, is a mere 71 pages (A5 size) in length and the 2018 edition only marginally longer at 84 pages (A5 size). Compared to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 2014 Edition at 474 pages (A4 size) the ISM code publication is very small indeed. The recent increase in the length of the ISM Code being primarily due to the inclusion of many Cyber Security requirements added in response to the current problems faced globally in the Information Technology (IT) arena. However, the shortness of the ISM Code publication should not mislead you into believing that this is a simple code, in fact it is quite the opposite. The complexity of applying the code arises not from the regulations and guidelines themselves, but from the fact that each ship, and each of the companies which operates them, must produce, or be provided with, ship and company specific procedures which satisfy the code and the involved flag state administrations. It is because of the vast differences in ship types, ship operations and shipping companies that those involved with the ISM Code must have a very firm understanding not only of the code, but of the maritime industry in general and, in particular, the requirements of the flag state administrations. This requirement dictated that the code had to be based upon general principles and objectives rather than on tightly worded regulations. The fact that the ISM Code is a statutory matter means that it is enforceable by law. This in turn means that the flag state administrations are responsible for verifying that the vessels sailing under their flag are compliant. This task may be performed by the flag state administration or by a recognised organisation (RO) acting on behalf of the administration, by means of audits. Mr Dick Welsh, Director of the Isle of Man Ship Registry, a very well-respected flag state administration, provided the following statement for inclusion in this module. This statement very clearly demonstrates the importance and value of the ISM Code for the flag state administrations:


The ISM Code – a Flag State perspective “The Introduction of the ISM Code in its initial tranche in 1998 created a foundation of safety management principles in shipping companies which was ground breaking. Many companies had systems in some form or other, but this formalised the process and made it an absolute requirement for some ships types. Later to be rolled out across all types. But equally importantly it made the operator responsible for the safe management of its vessels and to designate one individual, the designated person ashore (DPA), responsible direct to the top management for each ship. From a Flag State perspective this was a great leap forward. It levelled the playing field as it required systems to be in place and audited by Flag States (or their Recognised Organisations) to ensure they were working operationally, and made boards, and their DPAs responsible for the safe management and operation of their ships. If ISM systems were found to be lacking or failing, Flag States had the ultimate sanction – withdrawal of the company’s Document of Compliance, which effectively stops all of its ships from operating. Has it made a difference? Yes, absolutely. Some initial systems were unwieldy and ‘off the shelf’ but as time has gone by, companies have been on a journey of continual improvement and refined their systems and written them to reflect what they actually do and how they do it safely and efficiently. It has established real consistency as officers and crew move between company vessels, using the same systems. Dick Welsh Director, Isle of Man Ship Registry [03rd July 2018}”

[Note: Where reference is made to the ISM Code this means the 2018 Edition. INSB No:978-92-801-1696-0]


1. HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT (ISM) CODE

Learning Outcomes

On successfully completing this module you will be able to:

• Explain why the ISM Code was developed and by whom.

• Discuss how the ISM Code came to become a statutory requirement.

• Refer to the findings of the formal investigation into the capsize of the mv Herald of Free Enterprise.

Possibly the most famous marine casualty of all time is that of the RMS Titanic on 15th April 1912. This incident caused the loss of more than 1500 lives and captured the attention of the global press and the global population. Of course, the incident also captured the attention of the safety bodies and organisations existing at that time and from this the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) was born in 1914. The ratification of SOLAS did not however prevent marine casualties occurring although it is generally accepted that this convention has led to immense and unquestionable improvements to safety at sea. Just as RMS Titanic led to the production of SOLAS, the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise is generally considered to have been the catalyst for the ISM Code. The Herald of Free Enterprise capsized and came to rest on a sandbank as she departed from the port of Zeebgrugge on 06th March 1987 with the loss of 193 lives. From the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise, and other losses of the same decade, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and, the maritime industry in general, came to realise that whilst the ever-growing extent of rules and regulations were mostly satisfactory in content, a problem did exist with the implementation of these. In fact, some shipping companies were beginning to complain about the increasing regulations with which they had to comply, and this same complaint is regularly heard in the current era as surveyors and auditors go about their very important tasks. On 04th November 1993, the IMO adopted the Assembly Resolution A.741 (18) with the title “International management code for the safe operation of ships and for pollution prevention”. Within this document the IMO made the following statement: “[The IMO] STRONGLY URGES Governments to implement the ISM Code on a national basis, giving priority to passenger ships, tankers, gas carriers and mobile offshore units which are flying their flags, as soon as possible but not later than 01st June 1998, pending development of the mandatory application of the code”.

Resolution A.741(18) then goes on to provide the objectives of the code. These objectives have changed slightly as shown below:


ISM CODE - OBJECTIVES

Section Resolution A.741 (18) November 1993 ISM Code 2018 Edition

1.2.1 The objectives of the Code are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment, and to property.

The objectives of the Code are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment and to property.

1.2.2 Safety-management objectives of the company should, inter alia:

Safety management objectives of the company should, inter alia:

1.2.2.1 provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment;

provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment;

1.2.2.2 establish safeguards against all identified risks; and

assess all identified risks to its ships, personnel and the environment and establish appropriate safeguards; and

1.2.2.3 continuously improve safety-management skills of personnel ashore and aboard ships, including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environmental protection.

continuously improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and aboard ships, including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environmental protection.

1.2.3 The safety-management should ensure: The safety management should ensure:

1.2.3.1 compliance with mandatory rules and regulations; and

compliance with mandatory rules and regulations; and

1.2.3.2 that applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the Organization, Administrations, classification societies and maritime industry organizations are taken into account.

that applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the Organization, Administrations, classification societies and maritime industry organizations are taken into account. *

N/A N/A * Refer to the List of Codes, recommendations, guidelines and other safety-and-security-related non-mandatory instruments (MSC.1/Circ.1371).

The above table serves to demonstrate how little the objectives of the code have changed over the years. In fact, other than changes to punctuation (1.2.1 / 1.2.2 / 1.2.2.3 & 1.2.3), only section 1.2.2.2 and 1.2.3.2 have been modified to any extent. That said, the importance of punctuation in regulations, and in applying the ISM Code, is of great importance and a well-versed barrister in a court of law can use something as simple as the location of a punctuation mark, to influence the case to a significant extent. Considering that initially the code was never intended to become a mandatory requirement the limited number of changes is quite impressive, particularly as amendments to SOLAS in 1995, and the


addition of Chapter IX, did change the intention and the code would become mandatory, in stages, from 1998 as follows: SOLAS Chapter IX, Regulation 2. “2.1.1.1 passenger ships including high-speed craft, not later than 1 July 1998. 2.1.1.2 oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and cargo high speed craft of 500 gross tonnage and upwards, not later than 1 July 1998; and 2.1.1.3 other cargo ships and mobile offshore drilling units of 500 gross tonnage and upwards, not later than 1 July 2002.”

This same Chapter IX of SOLAS also contains the very clearly worded Regulation 3 as follows; “Safety Management Requirements 3.1 The company and the ship shall comply with the requirements of the International Safety Management Code. For the purpose of this regulation, the requirements of the code shall be treated as mandatory. “

1.1 Shipping Incidents

1.1.1 Herald of Free Enterprise

The Herald of Free Enterprise was a triple screw Roll on-Roll Off ferry operating on a cross English Channel route and was owned by Townsend Car Ferries Limited, a subsidiary of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O).

Figure 2: [Photograph courtesy Marine Accident Investigation Branch 2018 www.gov.uk ] Upon departure from the port of Zeebrugge on 06th March 1987, sea water entered the car deck through open bow doors. The bridge watch was unaware that the doors were not closed and the assistant bosun, who was responsible for this, was asleep in his cabin. It is worth noting that the Captain on-board was an experienced man with over thirty years of sea going career and had held a Master’s certificate of competency (Foreign Going) for over twenty years. Within the formal investigation report, issued by the UK Department of Transport in 1987, the following entry appears: Report section 12.1 “Captain Lewry was Master of the HERALD on the 6th March 1987. In that capacity he was responsible for the safety of his ship and every person on board. Captain Lewry took the HERALD to sea with the bow doors fully open, with the consequences which have been related. It follows that Captain Lewry must accept personal responsibility for the loss of his ship.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/marine-accident-investigation-branch


However, the formal investigation goes on to introduce what would later be recognised as the basis of the ISM Code. In doing so the blame apportioned to the Captain was also attributed to the management of the company. Section 14 of the report states the following; “At first sight the faults which led to this disaster were the aforesaid errors of omission on part of the Master, the Chief Officer and the assistant bosun, and also the failure by Captain Kirby [Lead Master for the five Master’s who operated the vessel] to issue and enforce clear orders. But a full investigation into the circumstances of the disaster lead inexorably to the conclusion that the underlying or cardinal faults lay higher up in the Company. The Board of Directors did not appreciate their responsibility for the safe management of their ships. They did not apply their minds to the question: What orders should be given for the safety of our ships? The directors did not have any comprehension of what their duties were. There appears to have been a lack of thought about the way in which the HERALD ought to have been organised for a Dover/Zeebrugge run.

All concerned in management, from members of the board down to the junior superintendents, were guilty of fault in that all must be regarded as sharing responsibility for the failure of management. From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of sloppiness.

“ Section 14 goes on to state, in its penultimate sentence; “The failure on the part of the shore management to give proper and clear directions was a contributory cause of the disaster.”

In July 1986, prior to the Herald of Free Enterprise loss, the UK Department of Transport had issued an ‘M Notice’. This was M1188 entitled “Good ship management”. This is referred to in the formal investigation report. M1188 stated; “The efficient and safe operation of ships requires the exercise of good management both at sea and ashore …. The overall responsibility of the shipping company requires the need for close involvement by management ashore. To this end it is recommended that every company operating ships should designate a person ashore with responsibility for monitoring the technical and safety aspects of the operation of its ships and for providing appropriate shore-based backup…Stress is placed upon the importance of providing the Master with clear instructions to him and his officers. The instructions should include adequate Standing Orders. There should be close co-operation and regular and effective communication in both directions between ship and shore. “

1.2 IMO Intervention

Taking the history of shipping accidents, in particular the Herald of Free Enterprise, and in considering how to respond, the IMO decided, as discussed above, to make the ISM Code mandatory. And so, the future for ship managers and ship operators was set. Now, in the eyes of the code, the responsibility for safety at sea and how this is achieved, remains on-board with the Master but from top management down, the management of the company ashore must give a full and legal commitment to the ISM Code.


Directed Learning

• Study the Herald of Free Enterprise formal investigation. Available at www.gov.uk [Last accessed 31st October 2018].

• Research other shipping disasters – what were the root causes/causal factors that caused those disasters? How could the disasters have been prevented, had the ISM Code been in place? (Write down your initial thoughts, you will be able to build on this as you go through the module.)

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/flooding-and-subsequent-capsize-of-ro-ro-passenger-ferry-herald-of-free-enterprise-off-the-port-of-zeebrugge-belgium-with-loss-of-193-lives


2. ISM CODE - SECTIONS

Learning Outcomes


• Navigate through the ISM Code.

• Locate applicable regulations.

As discussed in the general introduction to this module, the 2018 edition of the ISM Code contains only 84 pages (A5 size) of text. This includes contents pages, references, examples of certificates and guidelines etc. Despite being compact and short, the contents of the code are very important and very wide ranging. So much so in fact that even very experienced auditors may spend some time deciding on which regulation is best suited to a particular situation or, in applying non-conformities. For this reason, all personnel involved with the code, be they ship managers, ship staff, auditors or any other concerned party, should have a thorough knowledge of the layout of the code. It is strongly recommended that, just as with any other regulations, the user does not attempt to memorise the requirements but instead develops a knowledge of the code which allows them to locate a particular entry in a short time. If this knowledge of the code layout is not developed, then a great deal of time can be lost during an audit and the confidence of the auditee in the auditor will surely fade. Within this section we shall discuss the layout and arrangement of the ISM Code, but it is important that before doing so, the definitions for the terminology used is fully understood. Therefore, the first section discussed will be the code definitions.

2.1 ISM CODE and SOLAS Definitions

The definitions for terminology used within the ISM Code are provide in Part A of the code. Part A is entitled “Implementation”. Within this section the following definitions are provided;

• International Safety Management (ISM) Code. means the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention as adopted by the Assembly, as may be amended by the Organization.

• Company. means the owner of the ship or any other organization or person such as the manger, or the bareboat charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for operation of the ship from the shipowner and who, on assuming such responsibility, has agreed to take over all duties and responsibility imposed by the code.

• Administration. means the government of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly.

• Safety Management System. means a structured and documented system enabling company personnel to implement effectively the company safety and environmental policy.

• Document of Compliance. means a document issued to a company which complies with the requirements of the code.

• Safety Management Certificate.


means a document issued to a ship which signifies that the company and its shipboard management operate in accordance with the approved safety management system.

• Objective evidence. means quantitative and qualitive information, records or statements of fact pertaining to safety or to the existence and implementation of a safety management system element, which is based on observation, measurement or test and which can be verified.

• Observation. means a statement of fact made during a safety management audit and substantiated by objective evidence.

• Non-conformity. means an observed situation where objective evidence indicates the non-fulfilment of a specified requirement.

• Major non-conformity. means an identifiable deviation that poses a serious threat to the safety of personnel or the ship or a serious risk to the environment that requires immediate corrective action or the lack of effective and systematic implementation of a requirement of the code.

• Anniversary date. means the day and month of each year that corresponds to the date of expiry of the relevant document or certificate.

• Convention. means the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended.

The above definitions as detailed in Part A of the code form the majority of definitions presented therein. However, the ISM code also makes reference to Chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) which contains the following related definitions;

• International Safety Management (ISM) Code. means the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention adopted by the Organization by resolution A.741(18), as may be amended by the Organization, provided that such amendments are adopted, brought into force and take effect in accordance with the provisions of article VIII of the present Convention concerning the amendment procedures applicable to the annex other than chapter I.

• Company As defined above.

• Oil tanker means an oil tanker as defined in regulation II-1/2.22.

• Chemical tanker means a chemical tanker as defined in regulation VII/11.2.

• Bulk carriers means a ship which is constructed generally with single deck, top-side tanks and hopper side tanks in cargo spaces, and is intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk, and includes such types as ore carriers and combination carriers.

• Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) means a vessel capable of engaging in drilling operations for the exploration for or exploitation of resources beneath the sea-bed such as liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, sulphur or salt.

• High-seed craft means a craft as defined in regulation X/1.

2.2 ISM Code Sections and Chapters

With the ISM Code and related SOLAS definitions now understood we can look at the layout and arrangement of the code. Of course, during any activity beyond this module, when performing audits for example, it is wise to carry at least one copy of the code with you for ease of reference.


The ISM Code 2018 Edition is arranged as follows:

• Contents page

• Foreword

• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended Chapter IX. o Extract from SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 1- Definitions. o Extract from SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 2 – Application. o Extract from SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 3 – Safety management requirements. o Extract from SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 4 – Certification. o Extract from SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 5 – Maintenance of conditions. o Extract from SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 6 – Verification and control.

• Resolution A.741(18) The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention adopted 04th November 1993.

• International Safety Management (ISM) Code. o Preamble. o Part A

▪ Implementation ▪ General ▪ Safety and environmental policy ▪ Company responsibilities and authority ▪ Designated person(s) ▪ Masters responsibility and authority ▪ Resources and personnel ▪ Shipboard operations ▪ Emergency preparedness ▪ Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous

occurrences ▪ Maintenance of the ship and equipment ▪ Documentation ▪ Company verification, review and evaluation

o Part B ▪ Certification and periodical verification ▪ Interim certification ▪ Verification ▪ Forms and certificates

o Appendix ▪ Forms of the Document of Compliance, ▪ the Safety Management Certificate, ▪ the Interim Document of Compliance, and ▪ the interim Safety Management Certificate

• Guidelines o Resolution A.1118(30) Revised Guidelines on the implementation of the

International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations. Adopted 06th December 2017.

▪ Introduction ▪ Scope and application ▪ Verifying compliance with the ISM Code ▪ Certification and verification process

o Appendix ▪ Introduction ▪ Standard of management


▪ Standards of competence ▪ Qualifications arrangements ▪ Certification procedures and instructions

• MSC-MEPC.7/ Circ.8 Revised Guidelines for the operational implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Companies. Approved on 28th June 2013.

o Introduction o Scope of application o Development of the safety management system o Designated person o Review of the safety management system (SMS) o Reporting and analysing of non-conformities, observations, accidents and hazardous

occurrences o Internal audits o Qualifications, training and experience o The company’s responsibilities

• MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.6 Guidance on the qualifications, training and experience necessary for undertaking the role of the designated person under the provisions of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code. Approved on 19th October 2007.

o Introduction o Qualifications o Training o Experience o Company requirements and records

• MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.7 Guidance on near-miss reporting. Approved 10th October 2008. o Introduction o Defining near miss o Overcoming barriers to reporting near misses o The near-miss investigation process o Gathering near-miss information o Analysing information o Identifying causal factors o Developing and implementing recommendations o Completing the investigation

• Resolution MSC.428(98) Maritime Cyber Risk Management in safety management Systems. Adopted 16th June 2017.

• MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3 Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management o Introduction o Background o Application o Elements of cyber risk management o Best practices for implementation of cyber risk management

From the above we can see that the code incorporates in its main text many resolutions as issued by the IMO Marine safety Committee (MSC) , the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) and the Facilitation Committee (FAL). However, the code also refers to additional resolutions and these will be discussed as this module progresses.


Directed Learning

• Read Resolution A.1118(30) available at www.classnk.or.jp [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

• Read MSC-MEPC.7/ Circ.8 available at www.classnk.or.jp [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

• Read MSC-MEPC.7/ Circ.7 available at www.register-iri.com [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

• Read MSC-MEPC.7/ Circ.6 available at www.classnk.or.jp [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

• Read MSC.428(98) available at www.imo.org [Last accessed 31st October 2018].

http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/imo_res_a1118-30.pdf

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.8.pdf

https://www.register-iri.com/forms/upload/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.7.pdf

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/MEPC7_Circ6.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Security/Guide_to_Maritime_Security/Documents/Resolution%20MSC.428(98).pdf


3. SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Learning Outcomes


• Identify the key areas of a Safety Management System.

• Explain why a Safety Management System is required and discuss the purpose which it serves.

• Advise a client why the Safety and Environmental Protection Policy, despite its brief content, is of cardinal importance to the International Safety Management System.

3.1 Introduction

The ISM Code in all companies and on-board all ships, as applicable, is based upon a Safety Management System (SMS). The title of this document, or group of documents, uses the term “system” and this is quite deliberate. The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definition for the term “system” as follows: “A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole”. [ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com Last accessed 31st October 2018].”

In the eyes of the ISM Code these “things”, “mechanisms” and the “interconnecting network” can be interpreted in many ways and these may include training, purchasing, emergency preparedness, means of communication and technical knowledge to name but a few. All of which work together, under one “system” which is continually assessed and updated as and when opportunities for improvement are identified. The Safety Management System can be a very extensive document, and this forms the basis and procedures to be use by the company, ashore and on-board, in order to comply with the code and to work towards ensuring the safe operation of their ships and in pollution prevention. Within the code, regulation 1.4, the following is stated, and this relates directly to the Safety Management System: Reg.1.4 ” Every company should develop, implement and maintain a safety management system which includes the following functional requirements:

1. a safety and environmental-protection policy. 2. instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation of ships and protection of the 3. environment in compliance with relevant international and flag state legislation. 4. defined levels of authority and lines of communication between, and amongst, shore and shipboard

personnel. 5. procedures for reporting accidents and non-conformities with the provisions of the Code. 6. procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations; and 7. procedures for internal audits and management reviews. “

As the Safety Management System forms such an important document it must be approved by the Flag State Administration or by their delegated Recognised Organisation. The document once approved, must be identical in each location in which it is held. This includes the company’s offices and on-board the ships operated by the company. This means that the document must be controlled, and this is best done using revision numbers on the document along with details of revision dates and details of any updates performed.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/system


It is the case that the Master must review the Safety Management system at least annually and report any errors or required updates to the company. Some Masters will perform a full review once a year whilst others will review a section, or sections, over the period of a year. After a twelve-month period, the entire document will have been reviewed. This is then repeated year after year. Each Safety Management System is unique to the company which develops it for use by their offices and ships. Generally, the layout will be as follows:

• Cover page (including revision details)

• General contents and background information

• Safety and Environmental Protection Policy(s)

• Details of the Designated Person Ashore including contact details

• Masters Responsibility and Authority

• Company Responsibility and Authority

• Resources and personnel

• Procedures for use in the operation of the ship

• Procedures for use in emergency situations

• Reporting of near misses / hazardous occurrences

• Non-conformity reporting documents

• Methodology for reporting of accidents and pollution incidents

• Maintenance requirements

• Maintenance records

• Documentation samples for all procedures

• Review documents and update records

3.2 Safety and Environmental Policy

The Safety and Environmental Policy is required by the ISM Code (2018 Edition), Part A, Reg 2.0 which states: “2.1 The company shall establish a safety and environmental-protection policy which describes how the objectives in paragraph 1.2 will be achieved”. “2.2 The company should ensure that the policy is implemented and maintained at all levels of the organization, both ship-based and shore-based.”

The statement “at all levels of the company” dictates that the Safety Management System, extends from the very top management down through every department of the company and at all levels of employment. It is important to recall this fact when conducting an ISM audit. It is fair to say that the Code hinges on the Safety and Environmental Policy. For this reason, the policy must be workable, practical and realistic. Some companies will produce a combined policy, but this may also be two separate documents, one for safety and one for environment. However, this is arranged the policy should include the safety and pollution prevention objectives of the company. Additionally, the Policy should include details of how the company will achieve its safety and pollution objectives. Later in the Safety Management System document the policy will be supported by “procedures”. It is important that the company ensures that this policy is applied AT ALL LEVELS of the company, on board and ashore.


A typical Safety and Environmental Policy may appear as follows:

Typical Safety and Environmental Protection Policy.

Joe Bloggs Marine Company has identified safety (ISM) and environmental protection as two (2) key areas of its sphere of operations that are of utmost importance and need to be effectively “controlled” to prevent unnecessary injuries, loss of life, damage to health, property and degradation of the environment. To meet this requirement, Joe Bloggs Marine Company has embraced the IMO’s International Safety Management (ISM) Code requirements within its safety management system (SMS). The safety management system is designed to ensure activities are sufficiently “controlled” to protect personnel, property and the environment from all risks and hazards that can be reasonably expected. Joe Bloggs Marine Company also recognises that an effective Safety (ISM) and Environmental protection program makes for a more profitable operation and thereby ensures the welfare of all involved in the business both ashore and at sea. Safety (ISM) and the environment is the concern of all and has no rank. However, to be effective it must be led by the top management. To this end, the company’s management is committed to ensuring all company personnel are safety and environmentally aware and encourages all staff to become actively involved in identifying possible hazards, implementing corrective action and constantly monitoring all aspects of their working environment to ensure safety (ISM) and environmentally aware conditions prevail. Any accident is indicative of a failure in the operating system and the company is committed to fully investigating all accidents or near miss incidents. The results of such investigations and any necessary corrective action will be brought to the attention of all concerned so we all may learn from the accident/incident. Learning is a never-ending journey on the road to excellence and effective training is fundamental to the company’s business and its safety (ISM) and environmental culture. As our standards improve, new goals and targets will be set to which all personnel shall strive to attain. This Policy is approved and, fully supported by top management. This policy is the company’s stated intention to abide by the requirements of the Code. Signed Joe Bloggs Chief Executive Officer Joe Bloggs Marine

The Safety and Environmental Policy should establish how regulation 1.2 (Objectives) of the code is complied with. However, this policy should not be a lengthy document, and some extend to no more than a few paragraphs, this is perfectly acceptable.


Regulation 1.2 of the code contains the following text: “1.2.1 The objectives of the Code are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment and to property.

1.2.2 Safety management objectives of the company should, inter alia:

.1 provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment.

.2 assess all identified risks to its ships, personnel and the environment and establish appropriate safeguards; and .3 continuously improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and aboard ships, including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environmental protection.

1.2.3 The safety management system should ensure:

.1 compliance with mandatory rules and regulations; and

.2 that applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the Organization, Administrations, classification societies and maritime industry organizations are taken into account. “

Now, if we look at the code regulation 1.2 (Objectives) again we can relate this to the Safety and Environmental Policy shown above and therefore assess the suitability of the policy.

Code Reference

Regulation 1.2 Objectives. Joe Bloggs Safety and Environmental Protection Policy.

1.2.1 The objectives of the Code are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment and to property.

Joe Bloggs Marine Company has identified safety (ISM) and environmental protection as two (2) key areas of its sphere of operations that are of utmost importance and need to be effectively “controlled” to prevent unnecessary injuries, loss of life, damage to health, property and degradation of the environment.

1.2.2.1 provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment.

The safety management system is designed to ensure activities are sufficiently “controlled” to protect personnel, property and the environment from all risks and hazards that can be reasonably expected.


1.2.2.2 assess all identified risks to its ships, personnel and the environment and establish appropriate safeguards; and

To this end, the company’s management is committed to ensuring all company personnel are safety and environmentally aware and encourages all staff to become actively involved in identifying possible hazards, implementing corrective action and constantly monitoring all aspects of their working environment to ensure safety (ISM) and environmentally aware conditions prevail. Any accident is indicative of a failure in the operating system and the company is committed to fully investigating all accidents or near miss incidents. The results of such investigations and any necessary corrective action will be brought to the attention of all concerned so we all may learn from the accident/incident.

1.2.2.3 continuously improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and aboard ships, including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environmental protection.

Learning is a never-ending journey on the road to excellence and effective training is fundamental to the company’s business and its safety (ISM) and environmental culture. As our standards improve, new goals and targets will be set to which all personnel shall strive to attain.

1.2.3.1 compliance with mandatory rules and regulations; and

To meet this requirement, Joe Bloggs Marine Company has embraced the IMO’s International Safety Management (ISM) Code requirements within its safety management system (SMS).

1.2.3.2 that applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the Organization, Administrations, classification societies and maritime industry organizations are taken into account.

To meet this requirement, Joe Bloggs Marine Company has embraced the IMO’s International Safety Management (ISM) Code requirements within its safety management system (SMS).

From the above table we can see that the Joe Bloggs Safety and Environmental Protection Policy fulfils the requirements of the code. It is arguable however that the wording related to Reg 1.2.3.1 and 1.2.3.2 could have been more effective. However, as the requirements of the code includes a need for a systematic approach to management to ensure the compliance of mandatory rules and regulations, then, under audit conditions, the wording by Joe Bloggs would be acceptable. The Safety and Environmental Protection Policy also contains a vitally important element and that is the fact that it is issued, supported by and signed by the highest level of management, the Chief Executive Officer in this case. This commitment is first mentioned in the Preamble to the code, specifically within section six of the Preamble which states:


“The cornerstone of good safety management is commitment from the top.”

This section of the preamble goes on to state: “In matters of safety and pollution prevention it is commitment, competence, attitudes and motivation of individuals at all levels that determines the end result”.

And so again, from this Preamble of the ISM Code, we can note that although the code applies at all levels of the company, the ultimate commitment must come from top management with a clear objective for shipping safety. It is for this reason that the Safety and Environmental Protection Policy should be written by the highest-ranking individual in the company.

3.3 Instructions and Procedures

The first point of note in this section is to be clear that a “policy” and “procedure” are not the same thing. These differ in content and in purpose. It is the role of the company to produce procedures which allow the safety and environmental protection policy to be complied with. Note -the code DOES NOT specify which procedures must be included. The procedures adopted by the company are the responsibility of the company and these should be based on a study of the ship’s operational aspects. Due to the nature of ships and shipping the procedures will often be specific to a certain vessel, type of vessel or fleet of vessels. Therefore, the procedures should be applied across the company but, where required, specific to each ship. Typically, the following procedures will be included in the Safety Management System:

• 2.2 Cargo procedures (where applicable); o Cargo planning o General cargo o Cargo securing o Dangerous goods

• 2.3 Confined space entry procedures

• 2.4 Deck procedures; o Deck watch. o Emergency anchor deployment. o Lifting appliances. o Deck and safety equipment planned maintenance system. o Hull. o Permit to work. o Confined space entry. o Emergency towing procedure.

• 2.5Emergency plans, emergency preparedness and emergency drills o collision; o fire; o man overboard; and o pollution (such as oil or sewage spill); o serious injury/death; o serious mechanical breakdown affecting the navigational abilities of the ship, or the

safety/integrity of the ship. o stranding/grounding; o sudden unexplained listing


o Drills including: ▪ Operation of watertight closing devices, doors, scuppers, sea valves. ▪ Fire detection and extinction. ▪ Abandon ship. ▪ Man overboard. ▪ Emergency steering. ▪ Pollution incident. ▪ Other incidents included in Ships Oil Pollution Emergency Plan ▪ Other incidents included in Ships Marine Pollution Emergency Plan

• 2.6 Engineering procedures o Main generator operation. o Shore power connection. o Local control of the main engines. o Starting and stopping a battery charger. o Engine room start up and shut down. o Watchkeeping responsibilities. o Monitoring machinery performance. o Completion of deck and engine maintenance. o Engineers handover.

• 2.7 Hygiene procedures; o Health and hygiene o Cleaning procedures o Waste procedures

• 2.8 Maintenance of Life Saving Appliances and Equipment

• 2.9 Navigational procedures; o Bridge pre-departure checks. o Passage planning (Berth to berth). o Keeping a safe navigational watch. o Navigational aids. o Communications equipment. o Watchkeeping responsibilities. o Hazardous situations. o Severe weather. o Alarm systems. o Emergency steering procedure. o Emergency towing procedure.

• 2.10 Other procedures that may be deemed appropriate for the type and service of the ship.

• 2.11 passenger procedures; o Passenger manifest. o Embarking and disembarking passengers. o Passenger safety briefings. o This section would be a lot more comprehensive for large passenger vessels such as

cruise ships.


3.4 Defined Levels of Authority and Lines of Communication

3.4.1 The Designated Person Ashore.

The role and position of the Designated Person Ashore (DPA) came into existence through the ISM Code. Prior to the introduction of this role the ships superintendent or fleet manager would have performed a similar task, although perhaps not so well defined as it is now. Assigned by the company, the Designated Person Ashore performs the following tasks and these provide a link between the ship and the shore-based staff as well as a direct route to top management.

• Be available to the ship 24 hours per day, every day.

• Provide support in ensuring the safe operation of the ship.

• Provide a link between the ship and the company.

• Monitor safety aspects of the ship’s operation.

• Monitor pollution prevention aspects of the ships operations.

• to communicate and implement the safety and environmental protection policy;

• evaluate and review the effectiveness of the safety management system;

• report and analyse non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences;

• organise and monitor internal audits including verification of independence and training of internal auditors;

• perform appropriate revisions to the SMS; and

• ensure that adequate resources and shore-based support is provided by the company, to the ship.

The ISM Code Regulation 4, provides the following with regards to the Designated Person Ashore; “To ensure the safe operation of each ship and to provide a link between the company and those on board, every company, as appropriate, should designate a person or persons ashore having direct access to the highest level of management. The responsibility and authority of the designated person or persons should include monitoring the safety and pollution-prevention aspects of the operation of each ship and ensuring that adequate resources and shore-based support are applied, as required.”

Clearly the role of the Designated Person Ashore is one of great responsibility and the International Maritime Organization have taken steps towards ensuring that persons employed in this role are suitably qualified and, equally as importantly, suitably experienced. The required qualifications and experience of the DPA are dictated by the ISM Code as follows: The Designated Person Ashore should hold a formal qualification:

• qualifications from a tertiary institution recognised by the administration or by the recognised organisation, within a relevant field of management, engineering or physical science; or

• qualifications and seagoing experience as a certified ship officer pursuant to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 1978, as amended, and incorporating the Manila Amendments; or

• other formal education combined with not less than three years’ practical senior level experience in ship management operations.


• The Designated Person Ashore should have undergone training relating to safety management elements in compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code, particularly with regard to:

• knowledge and understanding of the ISM Code; • mandatory rules and regulations; • applicable codes, guidelines and standards as appropriate; • assessment techniques of examining, questioning, evaluating and reporting; • technical or operational aspects of safety management; • appropriate knowledge of shipping and shipboard operations; • participation in at least one marine-related management system audit; and • effective communications with shipboard staff and senior management. • The designated person should have experience to: • present ISM matters to the highest level of management and gain sustained support for

safety management improvements; • determine whether the safety management system elements meet the requirements of the

ISM Code; • determine the effectiveness of the safety management system within the company and the

ship by using established principles of internal audit and management review to ensure compliance with rules and regulations;

• assess the effectiveness of the safety management system in ensuring compliance with other rules and regulations which are not covered by statutory and classification surveys and enabling verification of compliance with these rules and regulations;

• assess whether the safe practices recommended by the organisation, administrations, classification societies, other international bodies and maritime industry organisations to promote a safety culture had been taken into account; and

• gather and analyse data from hazardous occurrences, hazardous situations, near misses, incidents and accidents and apply the lessons learnt to improve the safety management system within the company and its ships.

When performing an ISM audit the auditor will always interview the DPA and during this process the foregoing should be thoroughly assessed.

3.4.2 Master and officers

The role and position of the Master is unquestionable in his/her authority over the ship. At no time may any person override the authority of the Master. This includes the company’s top management. It has always been the case that the Master is in overall command of a ship, but some yield to commercial or employers’ pressure, sometimes with disastrous results. The ratification of the ISM Code makes the Master’s authority abundantly clear in regulation 5.1 as follows: “The company should clearly define and document the master’s responsibility with regards to:

• implementing the safety and environmental protection policy of the company; • motivating the crew in the observation of that policy; • issuing appropriate orders and instructions in a clear and simple manner; • verifying that specified requirements are observed; and • periodically reviewing the safety management system (SMS) and reporting its deficiencies to the

shore-based management. “

This regulation 5.1 is produced with the intention of providing clarity on the extent of responsibility and accountability of the Master whilst also highlighting the need for the company to ensure effective management of the on-board Safety Management System. The regulation continues as 5.2 as follows;


“The company should ensure that the safety management system operating on board the ship contains a clear statement emphasizing the master’s authority. The company should establish in the safety management system that the master has the overriding authority and the responsibility to make decisions with respect to safety and pollution prevention and to request the company’s assistance as may be necessary. “

The statement “the master has the overriding authority and responsibility…” is very clear indeed and needs no further explanation. As mentioned earlier in this module, it is incumbent on the Master to review the Safety Management System at least annually.

3.4.3 Ships staff, other than the Master.

Whilst the role of the Master is mentioned within the code, the role of other on-board staff is not. Instead, the role of other staff is defined within the Safety Management System. The level of staffing on board a vessel must comply with the Safe Manning Certificate issued by the Flag State Administration. As an ISM auditor it is important to recall that this certificate declares the minimum safe manning and not the manning levels required for effective and efficient crewing of the vessel. The Master is supported by all officers and crew onboard and these individuals must be suitably qualified. The Master, Chief Engineer, Chief Officer and Second Engineer are often referred to as the “top four” and operate as the on-board management team. (On some vessels the Second Engineer is referred to as the first engineer). As a member of the on-board management team the officers Certificate of Competency will be clearly marked as “management level” whilst other ranks will hold a Certificate of Competency marked as “Operational level”. The management status of the “top four” should be verified during the on-board ISM audits by reviewing each Certificate of Competency (CoC).

3.5 Reporting Accidents

The ISM Code calls for continuous improvement in the safe operation of ships and for pollution prevention. To be able to “improve” requires a means of identifying “opportunities for improvement" and one way of achieving this is to record and assess accidents and near misses. Guidance on near-miss reporting is provided by the IMO MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.7 which was approved on 10th October 2008. This MSC-MEPC is not extensive in length but is well detailed in content. It is strongly advised that students read and understand this document. In summary the MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.7 requires the following to be obtained as a minimum in cases of near-miss.

• Who was involved?


• What was involved? • What happened? • Where did the near miss occur? • When did the near miss occur? • What was the sequence of events leading to, and during the event? • What were the potential losses? • What was the potential severity of outcome. • What was the likelihood of the loss being realised? • What is the likelihood of a recurrence of the chain of events and/or conditions that led to the

near-miss? Section 4.2 of the MSC-MEPC goes on to state; “The answer to these questions will determine if an in-depth investigation is needed, or if a cursory report will suffice. An in-depth investigation is required of those near-misses which are likely to recur, and/or which could have had severe consequences. “

In the eyes of an auditor, any accident or near-miss is an indication of a possible failure in the Safety Management System and this should be thoroughly assessed. An Observation, non-conformity or major non-conformity should be raised as appropriate.

3.6 Emergency Preparedness

Emergencies usually arise with very little or, no warning at all. Collision incidents may be identified as a possibility some minutes in advance of the vessels making contact and some time to prepare and raise the alarm may be available. However, a fire in an unmanned purifier room or galley for example, will not be known about until the fire detection system is activated by heat or smoke. This means that there is no time to prepare personnel and equipment as the matter must be dealt with immediately and effectively. For this reason, the ships staff, the ship and all emergency equipment must be ready for use and to address the situation without delay. This is known as Emergency Preparedness. Remember that personnel on-board who are dealing with an emergency such as a major fire, may have been sound asleep just a few minutes previously. This is a lot to ask of any person and therefore training and familiarity are of paramount importance! The ISM Code Regulation 8 states: “ 8.0 Emergency Preparedness 8.1 The company should identify potential emergency shipboard situations and establish procedures to respond to them. 8.2 The company should establish programmes for drills and exercises to prepare for emergency actions. 8.3 The safety management system should provide for measures ensuring that the company’s organization can respond at any time to hazards, accidents and emergency situations involving its ships.“

This regulation is very clear in its requirement and auditors should verify, at the time of the audit, that these requirements are included in the safety management system. However, simply reviewing a document in this case is not sufficient and the presence of procedures does not mean that the ships personnel and its equipment are in a state of emergency readiness.


It is surprisingly common for auditors to review the vessels Safety Management System and find a very comprehensive and well detailed section on maintenance of life saving appliances and procedures for use in an emergency. The following are some examples of non-conformities raised by the author under such circumstances.

Defects found during actual surveys / audits

Situation Example of defect Second example of defect

Lifejacket donning instructions posted on bulkheads.

Donning instructions are not relevant to the lifejackets onboard.

More than one type of lifejacket is provided onboard.

Immersion suites donning instructions posted. Instructions state that a lifejacket must be worn with the immersion suit.

Instructions on immersion suit clearly state that no lifejacket should be worn.

Also vice versa. Instructions do not call for a lifejacket to be worn, instructions on immersion suit state a lifejacket must be worn.

A procedure exists in the SMS for inflatable lifejackets to be serviced annually.

No evidence exists of servicing having been performed.

The SMS calls for all LSA to be inspected weekly or monthly. The check list is signed by the Safety Officer.

Lifejackets found in poor condition.

A procedure exists in the SMS for securing and rigging of float free Liferafts hydrostatic release unit.

Liferaft is not in a float free position, for example, below bridge wing.

Liferaft painter is tied to the vessel, not to the hydrostatic release weak link.

The SMS has a procedure for all personnel joining the vessel to undertake familiarity training. The training book is signed by the ships A/B.

The training and familiarisation manual is printed in Spanish. The A/B cannot understand the contents and speaks no Spanish.

The training manual is incomplete yet signed by all crew.

When defects such as the above are noted, and there are many more examples that could have been selected, the auditor must investigate these fully and raise a non-conformity, or major non-conformity as they deem necessary. This situation would also justify extending the scope of the audit. It is the responsibility of the company to propose both corrective and preventive actions to the auditor and for the auditor to accept, or not accept, these proposals having discussed the matter with the flag state administration.


Figure 3: Above, A damaged lifejacket found on-board. The ships LSA maintenance checklist was signed and dated that all lifejackets had been checked recently and found in good order. This is a failure of the ISM system on-board this vessel. [Photograph courtesy of Larsens Marine Surveyors & Consultants Ltd. 2018]

3.7 Documentation

The Safety Management Plan also provides the location for filing of pre-formatted forms and documents which are used in the operation of the ship or, in case of an emergency situation arising. The use of these documents not only leads to uniformity throughout the company but also saves time in emergency situations when every minute is valuable. A further benefit to the use of preformatted documents is the fact that all required information is provided. The use of Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan report forms is a prime example of this as strict requirements are applied to the type and format of information sent by the vessel to the Operational Contact Point responsible for the receipt, transmission and processing of urgent reports. Documents typically held in the Safety Management System include;

• Non-Conformity / Corrective Action Report. • incident/accident forms; • amendment/revision registers; • internal audit reports; • internal audit schedules; • internal audit checklists; • emergency drill record forms; • emergency drill checklists; • emergency drill schedules; • oil pollution records; • bunkering records; • crew familiarisation checklists; • crew qualifications; • crew training matrices; • pre-departure and pre-arrival checklists; • risk assessment forms; • permits to work forms; • accident / Incident report. • document change request forms; • safety meeting agenda and minutes; • master’s review records; • STCW – work/rest records; and


• planned maintenance checklists. All documents which are required to ensure the safe operation of the ship and for pollution prevention should be included in the Safety Management Plan and submitted to review at each audit.

3.8 Internal Audits and Management Reviews

Under the ISM system the company is required to perform, and act upon the findings of, internal audits and management reviews. The method of performing such audits and reviews must be included in the Safety Management System and the reports for these must be made available to the auditors at any time. The internal audits and reviews should cover the following;

• responsibilities; • competence and selection of auditors; • audit scheduling; • preparing and planning the audit; • executing the audit; • audit report; and • corrective action follow-up.

The scope of the internal audits and reviews are only beneficial if they are of sufficient scope to be effective. These audits should be performed at intervals not exceeding twelve months the purpose of which is to:

• Verify whether the shore-based activities comply with the Safety Management System. • Verify whether the ship-based activities comply with the Safety Management System. • To assess the effectiveness of the Safety Management System.

The code, regulation 8 controls the Qualifications, training and experience of persons conducting internal auditors as follows: “8.1 The ISM Code requires the company to ensure that all personnel involved in the company SMS have an adequate understanding of relevant rules, regulations codes and guidelines. The company should ensure that all personnel have the qualifications, training and experience that may be required in support of the SMS. All persons performing internal audits should have successfully completed a relevant auditor training course.“

All of the aspects of ISM Code Regulation 8 should be verified by the ISM auditor at the occasion of each audit, regardless of its type and scope.


Directed Learning

• Read MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.7 available at www.register-iri.com [Last accessed 31st October 2018]. • Address the following scenario as an auditor:

Within the company internal audit report, you note a non-conformity raised. This is worded as follows: “The Chief Engineer employed on ‘mv Gascarrier’ from 05th February 2018 to 31st May 2018 arrived on board with a Certificate of Competency issued by the Russian Federation. The ship sails under the flag of St. Vincent & the Grenadines. No St. V&G Certificate of Equivalent Competency and, no letter of application for a Certificate of Equivalent Competency, were available. Regardless of this, the Chief Engineer was signed on to the vessel and the vessel continued in service”.

https://www.register-iri.com/forms/upload/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.7.pdf


4. RISK ASSESSMENTS

Learning Outcomes


• Discuss the term “risk”.

• Explain how risk may be assessed.

• Propose how a risk may be categorised.

Much of the ISM Code can be based upon risk assessment and this is included, in part, in regulation 10.3 of the code which states: “The company should identify equipment and technical systems the sudden operational failure of which may result in hazardous situations. The safety management system should provide for specific measures aimed at promoting the reliability of such equipment or systems. These measures should include the regular testing of stand-by arrangement sand equipment or technical systems that are not in continuous use”. This regulation is intended to ensure that any possible risk associated to sudden operational failures of single components which could cause the ship to be in immediate danger are identified and mitigated against. An example of this may be the steering gear of a single screw vessel but this can be taken to component level, for example, failure of the rudder angle feedback indicator. A well experienced surveyor, marine engineer or deck officer should be able to identify components, equipment and systems which should be considered such as those intended by regulation 10.3. This is however somewhat open to interpretation and opinions may differ between individuals and between companies. An understanding of the risks associated with failure can assist in this assessment. Quite obviously, the failure of steering gear could result in grounding or collision for example. The consequences of which can be immense – such as with Exxon Valdez in 1989. Looking towards less serious failures, an anchor being lost as the vessel is leaving an anchorage will not place the vessel in immediate danger and, a second anchor should be in place ready for use and the chances of the anchor being urgently required are low. In this case a risk exists but the danger is not immediate. It is clear ten that the risks in discussion are made up of two components. Namely Likelihood and Consequence and this can be shown in a table as follows:


Figure 4: By applying the above table, the company can assess which equipment and systems should be identified in line with regulation 10.3 of the ISM Code and subsequently include measures and procedures in the Safety Management System to deal with these. The list of identified equipment and systems should be reviewed by the auditor during an ISM audit and some auditors will include these items in an emergency drill. By doing so, the auditor can verify that the procedures for regulation 10.3 (identification of critical equipment) and regulation 8 (Emergency preparedness) are effective. The auditor should also verify that these procedures and matters are included in the vessels operational maintenance routine as required by regulation 10.4 of the ISM Code. An example of this may be a steering failure drill. The auditor will ask the Master to simulate a steering gear failure or set a scenario for this. The auditor will witness how the crew react and how well trained they are in dealing with this situation. See also section 3.6 of this module.

Directed Learning

• Review the information available at www.hse.gov.uk [Last accessed 31st October 2018].

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/controlling-risks.htm


5. ISM CODE CERTIFICATION

Learning Outcomes


• Identify which ISM Documents should be on-board a ship and which should be held in the company office.

• Explain when a Safety Management Certificate may be issued and what dictates its validity.

When a vessel is deemed to comply with a regulation it is issued with the relevant statutory

certificate. For example, a vessel will hold the following:

• International Load Line Certificate.

• International Safety Construction Certificate.

• International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate.

• The list goes on….

The ISM Code certification differs to the above certificates as two certificates must exist before the

vessel can be certified.

Firstly, a Document of Compliance, known as a DoC, must be issued to the company.

Secondly, a Safety Management Certificate, known as an SMC, must be issued to the vessel.

It is important to note that the Document of Compliance may be valid when no Safety Management

Certificate is in force. However, if no valid Document of Compliance exists for the company, then the

Safety Management Certificate for the ship cannot be valid, regardless of its date of issue or it’s date

of expiry.

Always remember

NO VALID DOC = NO VALID SMC When performing an audit on-board a ship the auditor should ask to see a “copy” of the Document of Compliance for the company. The original should be in the office of the company. At the same time the auditor should ask to see the “original” Safety Management Certificate for the vessel. During the office audit the reverse is the case. An original Document of Compliance should be available along with copies of Safety Management Certificates for all vessels managed by the company.


Certificates required at time of audit.

Location DoC SMC

Office Original Document Copy of Document(s)

Ship(s) Copy of Document Original Document

5.1 Document of Compliance

The Document of Compliance (DOC) is issued to the company once the auditor is satisfied that all aspects of the code have been satisfactorily complied with. In order for a Document of Compliance to be issued, and to retaining its validity, a series of verifications must be completed, including:

• interim verification

• Initial verification.

• Annual or intermediate verification.

• Renewal verification; and

• Additional verification The terms “initial” and “interim” may at first seem to be in the incorrect order but it is the case that an “interim” verification will precede an “Initial” verification. This is controlled by IMO Resolution A.1071(28). Note, the Document of Compliance will mention the types of ships which the company may operate. The company may not operate ships of a type which are not specifically mentioned on the Document of Compliance. So, to operate “Bulk Carriers”, the words “Bulk Carriers” must appear in the list of ships types mentioned in the Document of Compliance. This is a very rigid requirement with no options for relaxing or allowing any other situation (by means of recommendation or non-compliance with time allowance for example).

5.2 Safety Management Certificate

• The Safety Management Certificate (SMC) is issued to the ship.

• A copy of the SMC must be available at the office of the company which manages the ship.

• This certificate is conditional upon: o the existence of a full-term DOC (not interim), valid for that type of ship; o the maintenance of compliance with the requirements of a classification society

which meets the requirements of IMO Resolution A.739(18) and A.789(19), as may be amended, or with the national regulatory requirements of an administration which provide an equivalent level of safety; and

o the maintenance of valid statutory certificates.

5.3 The Certification and Verification Process

As required by IMO Resolution A.1071 (as amended if appropriate), the verification and certification of companies and ships is performed at the request of the company. This means that it is the responsibility of the company, not the Flag State or Recognised Organisation, to initiate the process.


5.3.1 Interim Verification

The purpose of the Interim Verification in fact is not to issue a full-term certificate but to aid the company in its task of producing a safety management system, ready for submission for approval review. Not all companies will apply for the Interim Verification. When the company does request the flag state, or recognised organisation, to perform this verification then the following will be assessed and commented upon:

• It must be assessed whether the company is a new company or an established company

• It must be assessed which ship types will ultimately be included in the Document of Conformity which will be issued to the company.

• Confirmation that the Safety Management System available meets with the requirements of the code.

• It must be demonstrated that the company has plans in place to implement the Safety Management System and that this satisfies the code.

When all the above is deemed satisfactory to the auditor and, to the flag state administration, an Interim Document of Compliance may be issued for a period not exceeding twelve months. This interim verification extends also to the ships of the company and is utilised when, for example, a management company is changing its fleet, especially;

• A new build vessel is delivered from the construction yard.

• The company brings a vessel under its management.

• When a vessel changes flag. Whilst the interim Document of Compliance may be issued for a period of twelve months, the interim Safety Management Certificate can be issued only for six months. This may be extended for a further six months by the flag state administration or their recognised organisation under certain circumstances which are judged on a case by case basis. An interim Safety Management Certificate may be issued by the Flag State or their Recognised Organisations only when: The Document of Compliance has been verified as being relevant to the ship type. The Safety Management System has been reviewed and found to contain the key elements of the code and that this has been accepted for the issuance of an interim Document of Compliance. An internal audit of the ship is scheduled to take place within three months of the interim Safety Management Certificate being issued. It has been demonstrated that the ships staff are familiar with the Safety Management System. The Master and the ships personnel are in possession, and understand, essential instructions provided prior to commencement of the next voyage. All relevant information provided to the ships personnel, relating to the Safety Management System has been provided in their working language and is well understood by them. As the interim verification progresses the head office of the company will receive the original Interim Document of Compliance and, any office responsible for managing the ships will receive a copy of


this. Each ship will in turn receive an original Interim Safety Management Certificate a copy of which should be provided to the company’s head office.

5.3.2 Initial Verification

Again, as with the interim verification process, the company is responsible for ensuring that an initial verification is performed. The actual initial verification is performed by the Flag State or by their Recognised Organisations. This verification concentrates on the Safety Management System used in the head office and in any other location from where the management of the concerned ships ay be performed. This means that verification audits may be required in many different locations around the world and this can of course be time consuming and complicated. Once the initial verification of the offices has been completed with satisfactory results, a full-term Document of Compliance is issued to the company and the initial verification of each ship may commence. At each verification audit of the ships, it should be confirmed that a copy of the issued Document of Compliance is held on-board. As each ship now completes its initial verification audit successfully it will be issued with a Safety Management Certificate. The original document must be held on-board and a copy must be sent to the company’s head office to be retained in the Safety Management System. The scope of verification for the company and for the ship are similar and will include the following:

• Review of objective evidence that the Safety Management System complies with the requirements of the ISM Code.

• Confirmation that the Safety Management System has been in operation for not less than three months, ashore and onboard the ship.

• Verification that records of the company internal audits are available.

• Confirmation that the Safety Management System in place is effective and workable.

• Confirmation that the ship type is correctly included in the Document of Compliance issued to the company.

Once the Document of Compliance and Safety Management Certificates have been issued a copy of these must be provided to the Flag State Administration, unless the administration have themselves issued these certificates.

5.3.3 Annual Verification of the Document of Compliance

Both the Document of Compliance and the Safety Management Certificate are issued for a period not exceeding five years. However, for these certificates to maintain their validity the company must undertake an annual audit for the Document of Compliance matter, and the ships must be submitted to an intermediate audit for the Safety Management Certificate. The annual verification audit will include sufficient scope to confirm that each ship type managed by the company complies with the code requirements. To do so, the auditor is required to audit the files of a minimum of one ship per ship type managed by the company. It should be recalled that this is a minimum requirement and auditors may extend this at their discretion. Therefore, if the company operates bulk carriers, tankers and general cargo ships, a minimum of three vessels must be verified, it is not acceptable, for example, to concentrate only on tankers in this case.


This annual verification of the Document of Compliance is intended to assess whether the Safety Management System remains effective and to test any modifications or updates made to the system since it was approved by, or on behalf of, the flag state administration. A further verification which is performed is to ensure that the company is actually operating all of the ship types mentioned on the Document of Compliance. If a ship type is mentioned but is not being operated, then the auditor should contact the Flag State Administration for instructions. As with other statutory certificates the Document of Compliance audits may be performed within a six-month window which opens three months before, and closes three months after, the certificate anniversary date.

5.3.4 Intermediate Verification of the Safety Management Certificate

There is no requirement for an annual verification with regards to the Safety Management Certificate instead an intermediate verification is performed. This occurs at any time between the second and third anniversary date of the certificate. However, in some circumstances the flag state administration may require more than one intermediate audit to be performed and this would be typical following an initial period of operation for example. As with the Document of Compliance annual verification, the purpose of the intermediate verification is to assess the continued effectiveness of the Safety Management System, in this case on-board the ship. All modifications and updates will also be assessed for effectiveness and acceptability. During this verification the auditor will request various drills are performed by the ships crew. This is by far the most effective way to test the Safety Management System procedures and the knowledge which the crew have of this.

5.3.5 Renewal Verification

A renewal survey for the Document of Compliance, or for the Safety Management Certificate, must be completed before the expiry date of the document. An audit window for this opens three months before the expiry date of the documents. This renewal audit will include a greater scope of audit than that performed at annual or intermediate verification audits. At the time of the renewal audit all aspects of the Safety Management System and its’s compliance with the code, ashore and on-board the ship, are thoroughly reviewed. Depending upon the structure of the company, several audits in different offices may be required and this may involve a team of auditors working together, with a lead auditor having overall responsibility for the effective execution of the audit. Upon successful completion of the audits a new full-term Document of Compliance or a full-term Safety Management Certificate may be issued.


5.3.6 Additional Verification

It is of course the case that, despite the best efforts of all concerned, problems arise on-board a ship or in the company offices. It is also the case that, on occasion, the standards of management or attention to detail may be less than satisfactory and this leads the Safety Management System, the company and the ships into difficulties. Often the first indication of these problems will be a Port State Control Detention of a ship and it is almost guaranteed that any such detention will include a reference, at some point, to a failure of the ISM System on-board. Also, it may be necessary for a ship to be removed from service by the operator for some reason, perhaps lack of charter or other commercial reasons. This may necessity the vessel being moved to a cold layup status and removed from service for many years at a time. Either and both of the above scenarios are examples of reasons for the flag state administration requesting additional verification audits. These audits are performed by the flag state or by their recognised organisation. These additional verification audits firstly serve the purpose of confirming whether the Safety Management System remans effective and if not, to raise non-conformities or major non-conformities which require both corrective and preventive actions (to prevent reoccurrence). Secondly, the additional verification audit may be required to confirm that corrective and preventive actions have been completed, that these are effective and, that the vessel or office again complies fully with the ISM Code.

Directed Learning

• Read the IACS document PR09, Procedural requirements for ISM Code Certification available at www.iacs.org.uk [Last accessed 31st October 2018].

http://www.iacs.org.uk/publications/procedural-requirements/1-10/


6. RECOGNISED ORGANISATIONS (RO)

Learning Outcomes


• What a Recognised Organisation (RO) is and the role of the RO.

It is the duty and obligation of the Flag State Administrations to verify that a company and its vessels

comply with the ISM Code when those vessels sail under the flag of that administration.

Some Flag State Administrations will however delegate this task to a third party, often a Classification

Society or another recognised organisation or individual.

When delegated to perform ISM audits and tasks on behalf of the Flag State Administration the

acting organisation is referred to as a “Recognised Organisation” (RO).

The appointment and role of Recognised Organisations is controlled by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) via:

• Resolution A.739(18) • As amended by MSC.208(81) • Resolution A.789(19)

Directed Learning

• Read the referenced documents with regards to Recognised Organisations. Available at:

• A.739(18) www.imo.org [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

• MSC.208(81) www.imo.org [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=22561

http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Maritime-Safety-Committee-(MSC)/Documents/MSC.208(81).pdf


7. PERFORMING AN ISM AUDIT

Learning Outcomes


• Identify suitable candidates to train as an auditor.

• Explain the ISM requirements for auditors.

7.1 The Auditor’s Personal Attributes

ISM audits are performed by a qualified ISM Lead Auditor. The lead auditor should be approved by the flag state administration prior to commencing an audit plan. The lead auditor may be assisted by other auditors and also by experts in a particular field is so required. Lead auditors should possess not only a sound knowledge of ships and their operations but certain other skills as well;

• The ability to lead an audit team.

• Have good vision and instinct, the ability to sense when something isn’t quite correct.

• An ability to concentrate on the “bigger picture” and on small details of importance. By seeing the bigger picture an experienced auditor can reduce the number of observations, Non-Conformities and Major Non-Conformities issued, yet cover the same scope as when many more are issued. This is an important skill that should be consciously developed. In addition to the above the auditor should have an ability to work with individuals from a multitude of nationalities, cultures and religions as well as people from different backgrounds, with differing characteristics and behaviours. Add the following to this mix and the bedrock of being a successful auditor is established:

• An ability to be decisive and fair.

• An ability to balance facts and “read between the lines”.

• An ability to sense dishonesty and deliberately misleading comments.

• An ability to lead and teach less experienced auditors.

• An ability to lead a company or ships staff through an audit without influencing the outcome.

• A clear ability to plan and manage an audit. The above skills and attributes can then be used to great advantage when planning and performing an ISM audit

7.2 Requirements to be an Auditor

The ISM Code specifies the requirements for organisations and individuals wishing to practice as an auditor and this is included in section 3 of the Appendix to the code and also in IMO Resolution MSC.208(81) (Adoption of amendments to the guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the administration (Resolution A.739(18)).


The auditor must have:

• in depth ‘practical’ knowledge of the ISM Code.

• Training which can be evidenced such as: o qualifications from a tertiary institution recognised by the administration or by the

Recognised Organisation within a relevant field of engineering or physical science (minimum two-year program); or

o qualifications from a marine or nautical institution and relevant seagoing experience as a certificated ship officer.

o They should have undergone training to ensure adequate competence and o skills for performing verification of compliance with the requirements of the o ISM Code, particularly with regard to:

▪ knowledge and understanding the ISM Code; ▪ mandatory rules and regulations; ▪ the terms of reference which the ISM Code requires that companies should

take into account; o assessment techniques of examining, questioning, evaluating and reporting; o technical or operational aspects of safety management; o basic knowledge of shipping and shipboard operations; and o participation in at least one marine-related management system audit. o Such competence should be demonstrated through written or oral examinations, or

other acceptable means. However, the responsibility for approving, or not, an ISM auditor lies with the Flag State Administration who may accept alternative qualifications and experience in lieu of the above. By ensuring that auditors are appropriately qualified and experienced any audit problems can be avoided. Such problems may include, but are by no means limited to;

• Ship and office staff not being prepared for the audit.

• Ship unable to perform drills due to, for example, terminal restrictions.

• Language problems between auditee and auditor.

• Time keeping problems.

• Lack of cooperation from ship or office staff.

• “Games” played by the auditee (wasting time in particular).

• Aggression from auditee against auditor.

• Unexpected or unexplained instructions from the flag state administration or recognised organisation.

There will always be potential for the auditor and auditee to be unable to achieve a civilised working relationship, this is human nature and is at times simply unavoidable. However, if no alternative auditor can be provided then the matter should be dealt with first hand. At times, halting the audit to apply some ground rules is the best means of moving forward. If a safe and civilised working relationship cannot exist, the flag state administration should be advised of this unfortunate situation without delay. It is the case that an experienced auditor will find a way to progress the audit in a productive manner.


7.3 Planning an Audit

Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790) is generally credited as having said “Failing to plan is planning to fail”. This quotation can be applied to many aspects of the marine industry, including ISM audits. The planning stage of an audit is as important as any other stage. If the planning is poor, then so too will the audit execution. The Ship Audit is possibly more difficult to plan than the office audit as operational schedules may restrict available time and availability of personnel. However, with careful planing and forethought the audit should be completed without too many problems. It is important to ensure that the ship audit is performed with the ship in service, not during drydock periods or when laid up. As the ISM code is concerned with the “operation” of ships this makes perfect sense. Next consider the ships location at the planned time of the audit. How will weather conditions affect the audit and will there be sufficient daylight to complete the task in the allotted time period. If not, then a rescheduling of the audit may well be prudent. The location, date, time and duration of the audit should be agreed with the company. The type of audit to be performed (Interim, initial, annual, renewal or additional) must also be confirmed. The company and the ship should of course be well aware of which audit is due, but the auditor should never take this for granted. It is always worthwhile confirming the purpose of the audit with the company and to ask them to ensure that the maser of the ship is aware of this, as follows:

• Interim and Initial Audit: o Interim verification for the issue of an interim DOC to a company and interim SMC

for a ship is carried out as described in ISM Code Section 14. The interim verification for issuance of an interim DOC includes a review of the safety management system documentation.

• Annual audit o Verify the effective functioning of the SMS. o Ensure that any modifications made to the SMS comply with the requirements of the

ISM Code. o Confirm that corrective actions have been implemented. o Confirm that statutory and classification certificates are valid and that no surveys are

overdue. o The statutory and classification certification for at least one ship of each type

identified on the DOC shall be verified.

• Renewal audit o Assess the effective functioning of the SMS. o Ensure that any modifications made to the SMS comply with the requirements of the

ISM Code. o Determine that corrective actions have been implemented.


o Confirm that statutory and classification certificates are valid and that no surveys are overdue.

o The statutory and classification certification for at least one ship of each type identified on the DOC shall be verified.

As time may be limited during the audit in the company office or on-board the ship, it is beneficial for the auditor to obtain a copy of the Safety Management System in advance of producing a survey plan. This allows the auditor to become familiar with the procedures and documents used by the company and also to confirm that the Safety Management System has been approved by, or on behalf of, the flag state administration. A survey plan should then be produced and sent to the client for agreement or change requests. At this stage the auditor and company should be working with the common goal of ensuring the most effective and efficient plan is produced. A plan may appear as follows:

The International Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code)

Audit Plan Auditor: Mr Joe Bloggs Client: Whirlwind Marine Ltd Location of audit (Office address or name of vessel): Audit type:

Activity Date and time Duration Personnel required

Comments

Audit plan to be completed.

01st November 2018

na na To be confirmed by client.

Opening meeting.

01st December 2018 at 09:30 Hrs

1 hour Lead auditor Auditor Master Chief Officer Chief Engineer Second Engineer Safety Officer DPA

Other individuals involved in the ships operations and/or the scope of the audit to be confirmed.

Documentation review.

01st December 2018 at 12:30 Hrs

2.5 hours Lead Auditor Auditor Master

SMS documents and all ships certificates to be available. All Certificates of Competency and Medical Certificates to be available.

Lunch 12:30 Hrs 45 minutes. na na

General inspection of all areas of the ship.

13:15 Hrs 1 hour Lead auditor Auditor

Ships staff remain responsible for


Chief officer for deck areas. Chief Engineer for engine areas.

the safety of auditors.

Interview with ships staff

14:15 hrs 1 hour To be advised at time of audit.

Interviews will be in private and will not last more than 15 minutes. Interviewee may be accompanied at their request.

Break 15:15 Hrs 15 minutes na na

Fire Drill 15:30 Hrs

1 hour

Lead auditor Auditor All officers All crew

The lead auditor shall set a scenario at the time of the audit.

Steering gear drill

Man, overboard drill

Auditors meeting 16:30 Hrs 30 minutes Lead auditor Auditor

Auditors will finalise findings.

Closing meeting 17:00Hrs 1 hour Lead auditor Auditor Master Chief Officer Chief Engineer Second Engineer Safety Officer DPA.

Findings will be discussed, and observations, non-conformities and major non-conformities discussed as applicable.

Other matters arising.

18:00 Hrs 30 minutes. na na

Audit closes 18:30 Hrs na na na

The above is hereby agreed as an audit plan. It is acknowledged that the plan may be amended by the Lead Auditor as required. SIGNED Lead Auditor _____________________________ Date ______________ SIGNED for the company ___________________________Date ______________

7.4 Performing an Audit

7.4.1 Opening meeting

An opening meeting should be conducted, chaired by the lead auditor. This meeting should include;

• Recorded details of attendees.

• Introduce the auditor / audit team to auditees.

• Confirm levels of confidentiality.

• Confirm Scope of Audit.


• Discuss communication routes between those concerned.

• Summarise the audit methodologies to be used (Drills etc).

• Confirm that all documents are available.

• Confirm that the auditees understand the purpose of the audit.

• Arrange a time, if possible, for a closing meeting.

• A record of the opening and closing meeting should be produced. This opening meeting is also a very good opportunity for the auditor to gauge the level of cooperation expected from the client. Many auditees are nervous during the opening meeting, but the auditor can usually ease their concerns by explain the purpose of the audit and reflecting on the fact that the primary aim is to ensure the safety of the ship, those onboard and the protection of the environment.

7.4.2 Documentation review.

The documentation review provides the auditor with an overview of the ships classification and statutory status along with a clear view of dates of concern, for example, last serving date for Liferafts and last overload test of lifeboat davits. It is important to record dates at this stage and a digital camera serves this purpose well. It is good practice to review the Safety Management System before any other document and if possible, this can be performed in advance of arriving at the office or at the ship. If this review identifies short fallings, then the audit should be postponed until such times as the safety management system has been reviewed and updated by the company. The auditor should then review:

• Classification certificate

• All statutory certificates. Specifically, the ISM DOC and SMC.

• Safety performance records.

• Maintenance records

• Flag state records

• Port state control reports

• Near miss reports

• Determine whether any changes have been to the SMS since the last audit was perform.

• If changes have been made, then it is essential that these are added to the audit scope. (to verify suitability, application and effectiveness).

• Review previous observations and non-conformities.

• Assess the companies handling of correcting the previous observations and non-conformities including:

o Companies investigation of the non-conformities. o Root cause analysis of the non-conformities. o Corrective actions of the non-conformities. o Preventive actions relating to the non-conformities

During the office audit you may:

• Review documentation for each ship type covered by the Document of Compliance (DoC).

• Pay particular attention to Class and Statutory documents.


• Select a point from which to commence the remainder of the audit. This will have been identified during your documentation review.

• An example may be, a requisition from the ships master for a new seal for the emergency fire pump was denied – why?

• Ask staff members to explain the companies Safety and Environmental Policy.

• Confirm that staff can locate the policy.

• Confirm that staff can locate the procedures used by the company.

• Interview the ships superintend and fleet manager.

• Interview the Designated Person Ashore.

• Visit the purchasing department.

• Visit the recruitment department.

• Interview staff as required.

• Request staff demonstrate their working procedures to you.

• Compare working procedures and habits to the procedures mentioned in the SMS. From the above example a thorough audit should be possible but the auditor should always be prepared to follow a new audit trail if objective evidence of a possible non-conformity is identified.

Directed Learning

• Locate and read MSC.208(81) Adoption of amendments to the guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the administration.

• Produce a two-day audit plan for a Bulk Carrier Renewal Audit.


8. MAJOR NON-CONFORMITIES AND REVOKING OF CERTIFICATION

Learning Outcomes


• Identify and use objective evidence for use in a non-conformity.

• Write a clear and concise non-conformity.

Before raising a non-conformity, it important that the auditor has clear grounds for doing so. These clear grounds should be based upon “objective evidence”.

8.1 Evidence

Evidence is required to:

• Demonstrate that the SMS is working well.

• Demonstrate that the SMS is NOT working well.

• Backup audit findings.

• Reinforce non-conformities. Remember, it is just as important to justify a positive finding as it is to justify a negative one. All evidence used in an audit report or in support of audit findings should be objective. Such evidence may be obtained by any of the following methods;

• Interviews - Notes taken, official statements.

• Documentation reviews - Obtain photo’s or photocopies.

• Review of records - Obtain photo’s or photocopies.

• Observing activities - Notes, photographs.

• Inspection of the ship - Notes, photographs.

• Inspection of equipment - Notes, photographs, samples.

• Inspection of technical and engineering systems - Notes, photographs, samples. Recall that Objective evidence means information which is based on fact and which can be proven through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research. When selecting evidence, you can ask yourself this: -

• If questioned in court about the evidence used by you, could you demonstrate that it was factual? How?

• If challenged by a barrister could you defend this? How?

In fact, the number of auditors finding themselves in court is very small, but the above self-test remains effective and valuable!


8.2 How to Write A Non-Conformity

A non-conformity is “an observed situation where objective evidence indicates the non-fulfilment of a specified requirement”. With the objective evidence now available the auditor should be able to produce a clear an unambiguous non-conformity. It is of cardinal importance that non-conformities are accurate and precise. This is best explained by means of an example. Let’s assume that the auditor has identified fuel oil leaks on the port engine. This is clearly not desirable, and the Safety Management System should include maintenance procedures for the leaking equipment. A non-conformity should be referenced and so we shall write NC1 for this scenario: “NC1- Port main engine has fuel oil leaks”. This NC is not incorrect, but it lacks detail, accuracy and evidence. The NC as written above is not professional and should be better written. A further example follows: “NC1 – The port main engine was noted to have several fuel oil leaks in way of the fuel injector pumps. Requisitions for new armoured fuel hoses to be provided have not been answered by the company. This is a non-conformity against section 10.1 of the code which states “the company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the company”. Now, this second example provides all necessary information for the following to happen:

1. The company can fully understand the non-conformity. 2. A future attending auditor can understand the non-conformity fully. 3. The company can provide corrective actions. 4. The company can provide preventive actions.

Note, at no time does the auditor propose a remedy, a corrective action or a preventive action. This is the responsibility for the company.

8.3 Company Response to Non-Conformities

The company is responsible for determining and initiating the corrective action needed to correct a non- conformity or to correct the root cause of the non-conformity. Failure to correct non-conformities with specific requirements of the ISM Code may affect the validity of the document of compliance and related safety management certificates. Corrective actions and possible subsequent audits should be completed within the time period agreed. For corrective actions, this should not normally exceed three months. The company should apply for the follow-up audits as agreed. Failure to take adequate corrective actions, in compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code, including measures to prevent recurrence, may be considered as a major non-conformity.


In cases where non-conformities and/or major non-conformities are not dealt with to the satisfaction of the flag state administration the Document of Compliance can be withdrawn from the company. When this happens, all Safety Management Certificates on-board the ships operated by the company also become invalid. The ships can then not operate legally.

Directed Learning

• Write a non-conformity for the following scenario.

• During an interim audit of a VLCC it was noted that the Master did not hold a valid tanker endorsement on her Certificate of Competency. The Chief Engineer was found with an invalid medical certificate and the cook has not undertaken training in food hygiene.


9. BENEFITS OF THE ISM CODE AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS)

Learning Outcomes


• Discuss how the ISM Code has impacted on the marine industry and explain why the findings of the 2005 IMO review are of great interest despite being quite dated now.

The most recent analysis of the impact of the ISM Code, performed by the IMO took place some time ago in 2005. Performed by an appointed expert group the purpose of the study was to assess whether the introduction of the code had been effective and how shipping companies were responding to the new requirements. IMO Resolution MSC 81/17/1 published 21st December 2005 provides a summary of the findings of the expert group assigned to this very early task. Tangible positive benefits included evidence that compliance with rules and regulations had become easier to achieve by: Stream-lining and reducing the paperwork that supports ISM Compliance, particularly the SMS. Greater use of technology and IT to reduce paperwork. Identifying common areas in the ISM Code and for example the ISPS Code and integrating documentary requirements. Motivating seafarers to use the reporting and monitoring systems in the improvement of safety management systems. Involving seafarers in the development and continuous improvement of ISM manuals Increased integrated training for all concerned. Exploring measures to reduce the cost of compliance. And; Improving ISM compliance monitoring and developing performance indicators. The expert group also provided questionnaires to shipping companies in 2005, and the result of these showed the following:

• Many companies reported that ISM caused no major problems.

• 25% of companies reported no notable benefit.

• 25% of companies claimed the greatest benefit to relate to evaluate hazardous tasks.

• <20% reported that ISM did not aid in identifying the root cause of accidents.

• 17% of companies reported that the SMS system created an atmosphere that hazardous occurrences and near misses were less likely to happen.

• Companies reported that the most positive impact of the ISM Code related to improved communications. This was followed by:

• A reduction in personnel injuries.

• A reduction in pollution claims.

• A reduction in cargo damages.


• Companies identified that improved technology had also been responsible for improvements in safety performance.

Since 2005, and the publication of MSC 81/17/1 the global fleet has grown from a reported 61,227 ships (totalling 600,614 Gros Tonnes) to 89,804 ships (1,270,284 Gross Tonnes) in 2016. [Source www.equasis.org last accessed 20/08/2018). Note, 2017 figures not available at time of producing this module, October 2018. Despite this large rise in both shipping numbers and gross tonnage the regularity of major incidents occurring does seem to have reduced. However, major incidents do continue to occur, and the ISM Code must not be considered to be our only means of preventing incidents such as those occurring since the ISM Code became mandatory. For this reason, marine casualties will continue to be performed, continuous improvements sought, and our industry made ever safer.

Directed Learning

• Read MSC 81/17/1 available at www.imo.org [Last accessed 31st October 2018].

http://www.equasis.org/

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/SafetyManagement/Documents/17-1.pdf


10. CYBER SECURITY AND THE ISM CODE

Before concluding this module, it is worthwhile discussing the relatively new concept of cyber security risks to ships. For many people cyber security is an unknown danger which is not well understood. However, the cyber-attack against A.P. Moller Maersk in 2017 at an expected loss of revenue to the company of some $300 million highlights just how real and how large a threat this can be. MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/ 2.1 states the following: “ the vulnerabilities created by accessing, interconnecting or networking [these] systems can lead to cyber risks which should be addressed. Vulnerable systems should include, but are not limited to : Bridge systems Cargo handling and management systems Propulsion and machinery management and power control systems Access control systems Passenger servicing and management systems Passenger facing public networks Administrative and crew welfare systems; and Communication systems. “

The responsibility for defence against cyber risks is of course that of the “company” as defined by the code. The responsibility for verifying that the implemented risk management systems are effective, and in line with any requirements of the flag state administration of the vessel, remains that of the auditor.


11. CONCLUSION

The ISM Code, as mentioned at the opening of this specialist module, is not a large code when we consider its level of content. The extent that this code reaches into ship operations, company management and on-board management systems is however infinite and complex. It is the briefness of the regulations which are the strength of the ISM Code and this has served the industry well in bringing some sense to the ever-growing array of rules and regulations applied to ships. A further benefit is that the allocation of responsibility is clearly defined, and companies must now, more than ever, support the ship and their seagoing staff. It is fair to say that the ISM Code is both a great aid to shipping companies of good reputation and of good intent. It is equally as fair to say that the International Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention leaves little hiding place for those companies and individuals who would wilfully operate substandard ships and place human life and the environment in danger.


12. BIBLIOGRAPHY, RECOMMENDED READING AND USEFUL INTERNET SOURCES.

The International Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (the ISM Code) (2018 Edition). Published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). INSB No:978-92-801-1696-0

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended Chapter IX (SOLAS)

ISBN / MPN: 9789280115949

SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 1 - Definitions.

SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 2 - Application.

SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 3 - Safety management requirements.

SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 4 - Certification.

SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 5 - Maintenance of conditions.

SOLAS Chapter IX Regulation 6 - Verification and control.

Assembly Resolution A.741 (18) with the title “International management code for the safe operation

of ships and for pollution prevention

UK Department of Transport M Notice M1188 entitled “Good ship management”

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/merchant-shipping-notices-msns [Last accessed 31st

October 2018]

UK Government

Herald of Free Enterprise formal investigation https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/flooding-and-subsequent-capsize-of-ro-ro-passenger-ferry-herald-

of-free-enterprise-off-the-port-of-zeebrugge-belgium-with-loss-of-193-lives [Last accessed 31st

October 2018]

REVISED GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT

(ISM) CODE BY ADMINISTRATIONS

Published by IMO

Resolution A.1118(30) available at

http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/imo_res_a1118-30.pdf [Last accessed

31st October 2018]

REVISED GUIDELINES FOR THE OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY

MANAGEMENT (ISM) CODE BY COMPANIES

Published by IMO

MSC-MEPC.7/ Circ.8 available at

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.8.pdf [Last

accessed 31st October 2018]

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/merchant-shipping-notices-msns

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/



http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/imo_res_a1118-30.pdf

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.8.pdf


GUIDANCE ON NEAR-MISS REPORTING

Published by IMO

MSC-MEPC.7/ Circ.7 available at http://www.vta.ee/public/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.7_-

_Guidance_On_Near-Miss_Reporting.pdf [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

GUIDANCE ON THE QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE NECESSARY FOR UNDERTAKING

THE ROLE OF THE DESIGNATED PERSON UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY

MANAGEMENT (ISM) CODE

Published by IMO

MSC-MEPC.7/ Circ.6 available at

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/MEPC7_Circ6.pdf [Last accessed 31st

October 2018]

MARITIME CYBER RISK MANAGEMENT IN SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Published by IMO

MSC.428(98)

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Security/Guide_to_Maritime_Security/Documents/Resolution%20

MSC.428(98).pdf [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

Oxford English Dictionary

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/system [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

Safety Management System

Reg.1.4

International Safety Management Code, ISM Code (2018 Edition),

Published by IMO

ISBN 978-92-801-1696-0

• Part A, Reg 2.0

• ISM Code Regulation 4

• regulation 5.1

• ISM Code Regulation 8

• ISM Code Regulation 10.3

Published by IMO

GUIDANCE ON NEAR-MISS REPORTING

IMO MSC-MEPC.7/Circ 10th October 2008

Health and Safety Executive

Risk -Controlling the risks in the workplace

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/controlling-risks.htm [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

REVISED GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY (ISM) CODE BY

ADMINISTRATIONS

Published by IMO

IMO Resolution A.1071(28)

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/SafetyManagement/Documents/A1071(28).pdf

http://www.vta.ee/public/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.7_-_Guidance_On_Near-Miss_Reporting.pdf

http://www.vta.ee/public/MSC-MEPC.7-Circ.7_-_Guidance_On_Near-Miss_Reporting.pdf

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/ism/imo/MEPC7_Circ6.pdf



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/system

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/controlling-risks.htm

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/SafetyManagement/Documents/A1071(28).pdf


[Last accessed 31st October 2018]

International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) Procedural Requirements 1-10

Published by IACS

http://www.iacs.org.uk/publications/procedural-requirements/1-10/ [Last accessed 31st October

2018]

IMO

SPECIFICATIONS ON THE SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION FUNCTIONS OF RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS

ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION

Published by IMO

Resolution A.739(18)

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=22561 [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

IMO

RESOLUTION MSC.208(81) (adopted on 18 May 2006) ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE

GUIDELINES FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE

ADMINISTRATION (RESOLUTION A.739(18))

Published by IMO

MSC.208(81)

http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Maritime-Safety-Committee-

(MSC)/Documents/MSC.208(81).pdf [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

IMO

SPECIFICATIONS ON THE SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION FUNCTIONS OF RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS

ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION

Published by IMO

Resolution A.789(19)

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=22561 [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

Equasis

http://www.equasis.org/ [Last accessed 31st October 2018]

IMO

ROLE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT

Published by IMO

MSC 81/17/1


[Last accessed 31st October 2018]

http://www.iacs.org.uk/publications/procedural-requirements/1-10/





http://www.equasis.org/



© Copyright IIR Limited 2019. All rights reserved. These materials are protected by international copyright laws. This manual is only for the use of course participants undertaking this course. Unauthorised use, distribution, reproduction or copying of these materials either in whole or in part, in any shape or form or by any means electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, including, without limitation, using the manual for any commercial purpose whatsoever is strictly forbidden without prior written consent of IIR Limited. This manual shall not affect the legal relationship or liability of IIR Limited with, or to, any third party and neither shall such third party be entitled to rely upon it. All information and content in this manual is provided on an “as is” basis and you assume total responsibility and risk for your use of such information and content. IIR Limited shall have no liability for technical errors, editorial errors or omissions in this manual; nor any damage including but not limited to direct, punitive, incidental or consequential damages resulting from or arising out of its use. Lloyd's and the Lloyd's Crest are the registered trademarks of the Society incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.