Posted: 21.09.04 06:25. Post subject: Осторожно: Инспекции МАРПОЛ в США

BEWARE! Routine MARPOL inspections in the U.S.

Aggressive criminal prosecutions by US authorities over the treatment and discharge of oily wastes continue.Armed with search warrants and/or Grand Jury subpoenas,US authorities interrogate crew,take samples and seize various items including original logs,stand of pipe,valves,hose connections and even computer hard drivers,in an effort to severely punish those they suspect of polluting the sea and/or concealment of such activities with false records.Even in instances where government suspicions have proven unfounded,owners and operators have had to contend with intrusive investigations,vessel detentions, demand for security,replacement of detained crewmembers,fleet wide boardings,significant legal cost and other significant disruptions to operations.What is being done to ensure that you and your company are not unwittingly caught up in the middle of an illegal dumping investigation?


M A R P O L


The MARPOL specifically prescribes how oily wastes and other potential pollutants are to be treated by vessels.MARPOL makes it clear that responsibility for primary enforcement of the Convention rests with the FLag State to which the vessel is registered.Limited or «secondary» authority is also given to a Port State in which a vessel calls to further ensure compliance.For example,with respect to oily wastes,a Port State may review a vessel’s International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate,examine entries made in the Oil Record Book,and inspect and test the operation of equipment and systems related to fuel oil transfers and oil waste management.According to the Convention, MARPOL violations are to be first referred to the Flag State for enforcement,and then only if after the Flag State formally defers or fails to take action,may the Port State initiate enforcement.


Beyond MARPOL


However,when the U.S. adopted MARPOL by enacting The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships(«APPS»),33USC #1901-1911,it gave enforcement powers to U.S. regulators under APPS which go beyond MARPOL.For example,a «knowing» violation of MARPOL is considered to be a Class D felony,a crime,which is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment,a fine of up to USD 250,000 for an individual and up to USD 500,000 for a corporation for each violation.Clearly,a knowing violation of MARPOL within the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. wouldpotentially subject the violator to criminal prosecution.


Well beyond MARPOL


What is most remarkable about recent U.S. enforcement actions however, is the fact that criminal charges often do not relate to violations of MARPOL in the U›S› Many c?ses have recently been investigated involving non-US flag vessels for alleged violations occuring on the high seas well outside the jurisdictional limits of the US Relying on Title 18 of the US Code,the US authorities have instead charged individuals and companies with making false statement and/or concealing possible violations of MARPOL from inspectors during a Port State inspection.Title 18,in concert with established sentencing guidelines,has been utilized by US authorities as a means to extend the reach of US law well beyond MARPOL in obtaining substantial fines and prison sentences.
All too often,seemingly routine Port State Control inspections performed by US Coast Guard (USCG) quickly expand and evolve into full blown criminal investigations.The USCG’s obvious and primary focus is the Oily Water Separator (OWS), the Oil Content Meter (OSM) and the Oil Record Book (ORB).Instances of by-passing the OWS via modified piping,flexible hose connections and/or redirection of pollutants through sewage systems or use of eductors continue to be discovered. Fresh water injection into or mis-calibration of OCMs permit high oil content liquids to pass undetected directly overboard.False statement made to inspectors or the presentation of ORBs containing any number of false entries are considered separate violations each time they are made in each US port. (see continuation)

 Posted: 21.09.04 06:29. Post subject: Re: Осторожно: Инспекции МАРПОЛ в США

Avoiding suspicion

The best way to avoid suspicion is to insist on compliance.This is obvious; but for many , it has proven costly to conform to the obvious.How a shipowner encourages and ensures compliance within its fleet (or fails to do so) will also
be examined carefully by prosecutors in determining whether or not and who,to charge.It might be instructive to consider certain tell-tale signs or «red flags» that have in the past drawn suspicion from USCG and /or other agencies. These include:
-various lengths of flexible hose or pipe fitted with flanges matching the size ofthe overboard discharge valve or blanked components to the OWS;
-blank flanges on piping associated with the OWS and/or overboard discharge valve;
-shiny metal evidencing that nuts and bolts on flanges have been recently turned;
-fresh paint on OWS piping system;
-different colors of paint on relevant piping systems;
-crew’s apparent lack of familiarity with OWS system operation and bilge management practices;
-lack of sludge receipts for discharge ashore;
-piping schematics being out of date or not accurately reflecting existing piping;
-inoperable or rarely used incinerators;
-ORB irregularities or identical entries for routine voyages;
-observed oil leakage from valve stem packing, gauges or systems associated with clean ballast or other non-oil systems.None of the example identified are necessarily conclusive evidence of illegal discharge. However,they all serve as «red flag» to USCG inspectors. Due care should be taken to consider whether any of these conditions or circumstances exist on your vessel and how they might best be avoided or minimized in the future. Certain affirmative steps can be taken to further ensure compliance and hopefully avoid suspicion.Some of these include:
-better management of the stream of liquids allowed into the bilges in the first instance;
-consulting manufacture’s manuals and IMO circulars ( e.g.No.284 ) relating to cleaning agents used aboard ship which have proven to cause damage to OWS membranes and OSMs;
-periodic survey of the OWS and auditing of ORBs comparing entries with rated equipment capacities as indicated on the IOPP Certificate;
-implementation of system to assure positive control over locks,keys, and lead seals used to ensure that valves and flanges are not opened;
-painting OWS piping a distinct color to facilitate tracing it out and comparing with verified and current schematics;
-reviewing calibration requirements of OCM and training crew in the proper maintenance and use of the OWS.
(see cont.)

 Posted: 21.09.04 06:30. Post subject: Re: Осторожно: Инспекции МАРПОЛ в США

What to do and expect if you are targeted

One of the most difficult tasks for a master or chief engineer will be to discernwhether a routine Port State inspection is evolving into a criminal investigation.There are, unfortunately, no set criteria. Each inspector brings his own experiences and judgement to the job. What might appear to be strong evidence
of a violation to a new and relatively inexperienced inspector might be recognized as a common practice to a more experienced inspector.
Below however, are a few tips to keep in mind:
-USCG inspectors should be required to properly identify themselves.Do not be lulled into complacency by friendly demeanor or your familiarity with the particular inspector.Take special note if any inspectors are from individual state agencies or from other federal agencies. Only USCG is charged with Port State Control inspection responsibilities.Other agencies may no doubt have an interest in other functions or requirements,but typically not any involving the OWS and ORB unless they are looking for something else;
-pay attention as to whether or not USCG inspectors are making cell phone calls for guidance from other agencies or reporting on or questioning parts of the OWS system;
-escort all inspectors at all times.Do not allow them to wander alone in the Engine room spaces.Instruct crew to carefully observe their activities and note if photographs are taken or samples drawn.If samples are drawn,request or take your own «split samples» for the ship from the exact same location.
-be mindful of any verbal or written requests for «consent to conduct a search».Absent a search warrant,the authorities are limited in what they can search forunless they are given,or reasonably believe they are given,consent.This may be difficult since under MARPOL, USCG are given broad authority to examine various systems and procedures;
-officers and crew should be instructed to always tell the truth,should they choose to speak with USCG. Making a false statement at any time may result in a separate and independent crime. If a request for written or recorded statements is made, consider that the purpose is most likely to memorialize what has been said;
where it is clear that the authorities are moving toward a criminal investigation, it is probably best to defer answering any questions until a lawyer is contracted and present.Maritime counsel,and/or the Clud’s correspondent should be able to quickly identify and arrange for competent criminal counsel,if needed. Having counsel does not raise the implication that there is something to hide. In the US especially in recent times,it is almost expected.

 Posted: 22.09.04 04:56. Post subject: Re: Осторожно: Инспекции МАРПОЛ в США

Chert, eto stanovitsya myagko vyrazjayas’ ochen’ nervnitel’no dlya starmekhov.
Nedawno dovelos’ pobyvat’ on USA/Canada West Coast. Vse chto napisano vysche v teme est’ chistaya real’nost’!

 Posted: 01.09.05 11:23. Post subject: Re:

Ст. мех. работавший на борту балкера "Celine" покончил жизнь свмоубийством после того, как судно было задержано американской береговой охраной в порту Новый Лондон. Втечении проверки продолжавшейся 24 часа , офицеры береговой охраны постоянно нагнетали напряжение, допрашивая членов экипажа о сепараторе льяльных вод, звонили в ФБР и изъяли жесткий диск судового компьютера. 10 июня судно было задержано а на следующий день команда обнаружила 53 летнего стюмеха Ивана Пейкова нав трубе в твиндеке. Инспекторы придрались к гибкому шлангу в машинном отделении который мог служить ( мог служить, а мог и не служить) для откачки воды за борт. Не поступало ни каких доносов или свидетельств о реальном случае разлива. 14 июня судно покинуло портю Судовлалельцы уплатили 500 000 долларов штрафа. Бурегитесь шлангов господа они могут служить!!!!!!!

(взято с Форума odessacrewing.fastbb.ru)