Not Logged In, Login,

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Open Session – ‘Maritime Security’

Moderator: James McGregor, Ocean Ships Inc.

Scott Bergeron (LISCR)

highlighted LISCR’s Practical Guide to Implementation of the ISPS Code. He focused on IMO’s current work on model training guidelines for the CSO, SSO and PFSO and the deadlines which needed to be met to ensure timely implementation of the requirements under the ISPS Code. He provided an overview of the actions taken by his company and documents already presented by LISCR, plus a demonstration of the biometric identification card and its features. The card, which is in trial use during the period January-June 2003 and is based on dual finger print technology, has already gained recognition by Port Authorities, Port State Control and from the New York Police Department.

Captain Sanjiv Sehgal (Barber International

) focused on the short time (14 months) left until the 1 July 2004 implementation date of the ISPS Code. His presentation concentrated on the practical obstacles to putting in place the new security requirements and on the inherent problems and lack of information available to provide guidance in the various processes. Contracting Governments lacked the necessary infrastructure to aid implementation. A network for incident reporting needed to be established and a harmonisation with ISM put in place.

Ron Chittim (American Petroleum Institute)

called his presentation ‘Homeland Security and the Petroleum Industry’ and detailed the way the API since 11 September 2001 had cooperated with Federal, State and local authorities to put in place a security regime which would provide adequate protection to docks, refineries and related infrastructure. A second version of their API Security Guidelines is expected in May 2003.

Vernon Miller (HudsonTrident)

gave a presentation entitled ‘A practical approach to comply with the ISPS Code’ which offered a methodology for the CSO, SSO and PFSO compliance processes. He warned that the Ships Security Assessment and ensuing Plan would have to be vessel-specific and concluded that "time is of the essence".

Stephen van Dyke (Maritrans Operating Company LP)

covered the field of Terror Insurance Issues, which he described as uncharted territory. Basic insurance principles did not apply well due to the fundamental difference between insurance against the "intentional acts of others" as opposed to "accidental risk". He went on to consider the "realistic possibilities" such as oil spills/refinery fires/port blockage etc. and the fact that owners might end up being held fully liable due to lack of adequate insurance facilities. A good Security Plan and insurance would be the best protection against such a scenario. He made it clear that Extra War insurance coverage would not be available from P&I funds and that War Excess funds were a mere USD 400 million. The insurance industry could therefore easily find itself in a situation of not being able to provide cover. The US Government expected the industry to self finance its terror losses and owners to be prepared to defend themselves in court. He concluded that INTERTANKO had a big role to play in the development of relevant coverage by an insurance industry which could find itself unable to handle the liabilities that may be incurred.

Contact:

Gunnar A. Knudsen