July 2004
Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports Association

ASEAN PORTS ASSOCIATION
The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the ASEAN
Ports Association (APA) for the purpose for which it was prepared. The APA
Permanent Secretariat takes no responsibility for inaccurate or incomplete information that may have been submitted to it. The facts published indicate the result of inquiries conducted and no warranty as to their accuracy is given by the
APA Permanent Secretariat.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page i

Published by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports Association,
Philippine Ports Authority, Marsman Building, South Harbor, Port Area,
Manila, Philippines
© 2004 APA Permanent Secretariat
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page ii

This reference material, one in a series of APA port practices manuals, is the fruition of the collaborative efforts of the 25 th APA Main Meeting held in 1999 in
Bali, Indonesia. It is APA’s intent to draft a manual that would provide a guide for internationally accepted best practices for port safety, health, environment and security, as they are adopted and applied in APA member-ports.
Responses indicated on the customized survey questionnaire, which underwent several amendments to address identified survey lapses, served as groundworks in the preparation of the manual. A total of 56 respondent ports/terminals from the seven APA member-countries, namely: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines, have accorded the time and effort to provide the needed data inputs. The survey also focused on policies, processes, procedures, rules and regulations, and documentation pertaining to port safety, health, environment and security.
In retrospect, the survey returns did not yield any definitive standards nor hardand-fast rules on effective and efficient port management and/or service delivery.
What needs to be taken within the proper perspective is that port efficiency and productivity are the product of the optimum utilization of resources and capabilities available to the port administrator or manager, which may be characterize only a particular area and would largely be influenced by the philosophies and attitudes of the stakeholders concerned.
In view of the foregoing, it was, thus, decided and agreed upon during the 28 th
APA Main Meeting, held in 2002 in Singapore, for the APA Permanent
Secretariat to simply proceed for the time being with the compilation, analysis and presentation of the canvassed results as captured through the latest survey instruments. The Permanent Secretariat has committed, in the future, to come up with a more refined and comprehensive manual, which may serve as general reference or guidepost for a wide range of users/readers, especially those affiliated with the maritime industry.
The benefit this manual can offer can only be derived relative to the objectives and purposes of the user. Further improvements can be incorporated into this text to address a broad spectrum of port information needs of APA memberports. Be that as it may, this undertaking is a continuing process that will document what would be considered from a common perspective the best and the exemplary in ASEAN practices with regard to port safety, health, environment and security.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page iii

This report was prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports
Association which would like to acknowledge the following agencies, groups and individuals:
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
1.
Ports Department
INDONESIA
IPC I
1.
Belawan
IPC II
1.
Palembang Port
2.
Panjang
3.
Panjang/UTPK
4.
Pontianak Port
5.
Tanjung Priok/PTJICT
6.
Tanjung Priok/General Cargo
IPC III
1.
Tanjung Perak
2.
Surabaya
MALAYSIA
1.
Port Klang Authority (PA)
2.
Penang Port
3.
Johore Port
4.
Kuantan Port
5.
Sabah Ports Authority
6.
Bintulu Port
7.
Kuching Port
8.
Rajang Port
9.
Miri Port
10.
Northport (Malaysia) Bhd
11.
Klang Multi Terminal
12.
Johore Port Bhd
13.
Penang Port Bhd
14.
Kuantan Port Consortium
15.
Bintulu Port Bhd
16.
Port of Tanjung Pelepas
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page iv

SINGAPORE
1.
Port of Singapore Authority Corporation Limited
2.
Jurong Port
THAILAND
1.
Bangkok Port
2.
Laem Chabang Port/TIPS
3.
Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal Co., Inc.
4.
LCB Container Terminal
VIETNAM
1.
Saigon Port
2.
Baria Serece
3.
Danang Port
PHILIPPINES
1.
Port Management Office of Ozamis
2.
Port Management Office of Puerto Princesa
3.
Port Management Office of Iloilo
4.
Port Management Office of Tagbilaran
5.
Port Management Office of Pulupandan
6.
Port Management Office of South Harbor
7.
Port Management Office of Limay
8.
Port Management Office of Tacloban
9.
Port Management Office of Nasipit
10.
Port Management Office of Cotabato
11.
Port Management Office of Legazpi
12.
Port Management Office of Cagayan de Oro
13.
Port Management Office of General Santos
14.
Port Management Office of North Harbor
15.
Port Management Office of Davao
16.
Port Management Office of Surigao
17.
Port Management Office of Iligan
18.
Port Management Office of Zamboanga
19.
Port Management Office of Dumaguete
20.
Asian Terminals, Inc. (Batangas)
21.
International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI)
22.
Cebu Port Authority
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page v

I.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND…….………………..……………… 1
II.
DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICE…………………….……………… 2
III.
BEST PRACTICES….…………………………………….………………. 3
A.
Policy On Safety, Health and Environment…………….……………. 3
B.
Safety Organization…………………………………………..………... 4
C.
Safety Rules/Procedures/Practices…………………………….……… 5
D.
Planned Safety Inspections…….…………………………………….. 8
E.
Safety Enforcement………………….……………………………… 10
F.
Accident And Incident Investigation.………………………………. 11
G.
Safety Audit…………………….………….………………………… 12
H.
Safety Training……………………….……………………………… 15
I.
Safety Promotion…………………….……………………………… 16
J.
Maintenance Program……………….……………………………… 16
K.
Security……………….……………….……………………………… 17
IV.
APPENDICES
A.
Survey Questionnaire On Port Safety, Health, Environment and Security
(February 2002 version)
B.
Results Of The Survey On Port Safety, Health, Environment and
Security
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page vi

1. APA - ASEAN Ports Association
2.
ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian Nations
3.
ATI - Asian Terminals, Incorporated
4.
CCTV - Closed Circuit Television
5.
DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(Philippines)
6.
ICTSI - International Container Terminal Services, Inc.
7.
IMDG - International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
8.
IMO
9.
ISO
- International Maritime Organization
- International Standards Organization or
International Organization for Standardization (ISO is a word, not an abbreviation, derived from the
Greek isos meaning equal as in isometric and
10.
JPPL - Jurong Port Pte Ltd.
11.
MARINA - Maritime Industry Authority
12.
MARPOL - Marine Pollution convention or International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
13.
MICT - Manila International Container Terminal
14.
OHSES - Occupational Health, Safety, Environment and
Security Policy
15.
PCG
16.
PDO
17.
PMO
18.
PPA
- Philippine Coast Guard
- Port District Office (Philippines)
- Port Management Office (Philippines)
- Philippine Ports Authority
19.
PSA - Port of Singapore Authority
20.
PUNSS - Port Users’ Needs and Satisfaction Survey
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page vii

1. Port Authority - the port management body that is vested by the
State with the authority to oversee the ports within a specified area of jurisdiction.
3. Port Contractor - any government or private entity, individual or company that is granted by the State or Port
Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or license to provide services in a port, usually related to infrastructure development.
4. Port Operator - any government or private entity, individual or company that is granted by the State or Port
Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or license to operate the port and provide other related services.
5. Port Owner - any government or private entity, individual or company that has the legal entitlement or proprietorship of the port.
6. Terminal Operator - any government or private entity, individual or company that is granted by the State or Port
Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or license to operate the terminal in a port and provide other related services.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page viii

I.
INTRODUCTION
Background
In its 25 th Main Meeting held on December 1-3, 1999 in Bali, Indonesia, the
ASEAN Ports Association (APA) identified a number of projects designed to establish standards of efficiency and productivity in member-ports. One such project was intended to come up with a manual on best practices in Port Safety,
Health, Environment and Security designed to provide benchmarks for the formulation and implementation of policies, rules, regulations, processes, systems and procedures in managing safety, health, environment and security within the port premises.
A draft survey questionnaire was prepared in early 2000 to generate the information necessary for the preparation of the manual. After undergoing several revisions/amendments, the finalized form of the questionnaire was disseminated to ports of APA member-countries in February 2001. The accomplished forms were processed by the APA Permanent in May of the same year.
The survey did not yield sufficient data needed for the manual. Among the major problems encountered in the analysis of the responses were incomplete or unrelated responses and unanswered questions.
The results of the February 2001 Survey were presented and discussed in the
22 nd APA Technical Committee Meeting held in Cebu City, Philippines on
January 22-24, 2002. Further amendments were made on the questionnaire to address the identified deficiencies. The revised questionnaire (Appendix A) was subsequently re-distributed to concerned member-ports in February 2002. The questionnaire focused on major port safety, health, environment and security issues and concerns.
Fifty-six (56) ports/terminals from the following seven APA member-countries responded to the February 2002 survey questionnaire:
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 1

1.
Brunei Darussalam –
2.
Indonesia –
3.
Malaysia –
4.
Singapore –
5.
Thailand –
6.
Vietnam -
7.
Philippines –
Total
1
9
15
2
4
3
22
56
The respondents were categorized and distributed as follows:
1.
Port authority
2.
Terminal operator
3.
Port operator
4.
Port contractor
5.
Port owner/operator
6.
Port owner
32 57 %
4
12
2
2
4
7
21
4
4
7
Total
== ==
56 100 %
As with the 2001 survey, the following problems were encountered:
1.
Unclear or incomplete responses;
2.
Unanswered questions;
3.
Use of acronyms;
4.
Names of the same port documents differed from port to port;
5.
Poor response in submission of relevant reference materials on policies, and guidelines as requested in the questionnaire to substantiate the information/data entered in the survey forms.
6.
Submitted reference materials were prepared in the language of the country of the respondent.
II.
DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICE
The term “Best Practice” derives from various phrases now being used to refer generally to processes, procedures and measures designed to improve performance, in this case, in port safety, health, environment and security.
There are no generally accepted criteria by which to judge which is and which is not best practice.
In addition, best practices could be applied only to cases where the operating conditions and characteristics can be considered similar. Hence, the same
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 2

operating standard would have meaning only in one kind of operating environment and would be totally meaningless in another.
Best practice also depends on one’s viewpoint. A port user such as a shipping line, a shipper or a consignee would have more stringent measures of performance compared to, say, a cargo handling operator who must deal with various constraints such as physical limitations in the port, equipment limitations, labor laws and policies, port authority regulations, institutional and other concerns as well as meeting his own profit targets. The major respondent categories pre-identified in the Survey are as follows: port authority, terminal operator, port operator, port contractor, port owner/operator and port owner.
Hence, these shall constitute the main perspective for assessing best practices in the ASEAN ports.
One perspective that would be an important subject for a separate study that may be integrated in this manual on best practices is that of the port users
(shipping lines, shippers, consignees, passengers). A move in this direction was the Port Users’ Needs and Satisfaction Survey (PUNSS) conducted by the
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) in 2001. Phase II of the PUNSS was started in
February 2004 and expected to be completed in July 2004. An APA-wide diagnostic survey should yield results that would be informative and provide some blueprint for documenting best practices in the ASEAN region.
III.
BEST PRACTICES
A.
Policy On Safety, Health and Environment
B.
Safety Organization
C.
Safety Rules/Procedures/Practices
D.
Planned Safety Inspections
E.
Safety Enforcement
F.
Accident And Incident Investigation
G.
Safety Audit
H.
Safety Training
I.
Safety Promotion
J.
Maintenance Program
K.
Security
A.
Policy On Safety, Health and Environment
1.
Established policies on safety, health and environment
Out of the 56 respondents, two (2) indicated that either there were no environmental orders or that the port operator simply followed the rules and policies issued by the Ministry of Environment. The rest had their own in-house or in-agency policies. Those that submitted
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 3

policy documents included the Brunei Ports Authority (Brunei),
Surabaya (Indonesia), PSA Corporation (Singapore), Asian
Terminals, Inc. (Batangas, Philippines), and the International
Container Terminal Services, Inc. (Manila, Philippines). All the responding ports under the Philippine Ports Authority are covered by various policy issuances pertaining to port safety, dockwork safety and health standards.
2.
Delineation of responsibilities of the port operators, vessel owners and other port users
Fifty (50) of the respondents indicated that the their policies contained delineation of responsibilities of those involved in port operations, vessel operations, other port users and landed clients in ensuring the safety of the port, port workers, clients and fellow port users. The other six respondents pointed that there was no such delineation in responsibilities in their policies.
3.
Safety Program
Fifty-two (52) of the respondents stated that they had adopted Safety
Programs. However, only 12 submitted copies of the Safety Program documents or semblances thereof. ATI, port operator in Batangas,
Philippines mentions their OHSES Management Program while
ICTSI, container terminal operator in Manila, Philippines, submitted their Accident and Loss Prevention Program.
B.
Safety Organization
1.
Appointment of Safety Officer
Forty (40) of the surveyed entities replied that they hired a full-time
Safety Officer. Surabaya Port in Indonesia, Jurong Port in Singapore,
North and South Harbors in Manila, Philippines, ATI (in Batangas,
Philippines) submitted their respective organizational structures.
Saigon Port declared that it had it own Safety Department. ICTSI (in
Manila, Philippines) furnished a job description of its Safety Officer.
2.
Safety Committee
Forty-nine (49) of the surveyed entities responded that they had organized or were members of a Safety Committee at the level of the port authority/owner/ operator.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 4

3.
Safety, Health and Environment in Port Planning, Development and
Operations
Fifty-one (51) of the surveyed entities replied that considerations of safety, health and environment are incorporated in the functions, duties and responsibilities of personnel involved in port planning, development and operations.
C.
Safety Rules/Procedures/Practices
1.
Implementation Of Safety Regulations
The majority of the respondents (53) indicated that safety regulations were being implemented for port administration and cargo handling operations.
2.
Review of Safety Policies
Review of safety policies, rules and regulations is conducted on a regular basis by 44 of the port organizations. But only a few indicated the frequency. Surabaya, Saigon, Tagbilaran (Philippines), Nasipit
(Philippines), Davao (Philippines) and ATI (Batangas, Philippines) stated that this was done on a yearly basis. Palembang mentions twice a year while PSA, at least once every two years or when the need arises.
3.
Separate Regulations For Dangerous Cargo and Marine Pollutions
Most of the respondents stated that they had separate regulations for the handling, storage and transport of dangerous goods, and the prevention of marine pollution, as follows: a.
Handling and Storage of Dangerous Cargo - 53 b.
Transport of Dangerous Cargo - 49 c.
Prevention of Marine Pollution - 50
It can be seen from the above that there appears to be a healthy and widespread awareness such that many of the respondents had to issue specific and distinct measures for every aspect of the handling of dangerous goods.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 5

4.
Adoption of IMO Issuances a.
Recommendation on the safe transport of Dangerous Cargo and related activities in port areas
All but four of the organizations/agencies investigated declared that they were in compliance with the recommendations of the
International Maritime Organization with regard to the safe transport of dangerous cargo. However, most of these did not indicate the extent of implementation. At the Port of Palembang
(Indonesia), the application was up to cargo handling operation, pilot operation and on pilot boats. The PSA (Singapore) stated that they adhered strictly to the requirements of the IMDG Code
Book. Jurong Port (JPPL- Singapore) followed closely the MPA rules and regulations. The Manila South Harbor (Philippines) says it conducts tests on the packages containing dangerous cargo intended for export in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the IMDG Code and issues certifications to the manufacturers.
Other port authorities or port operators report implementation of various measures immediately necessary as dictated by conditions in their respective areas although many of the responses are expressed in general terms which were at best vague. The Manila
North Harbor and the Port of Nasipit, both in the Philippines, claim full adoption and observance of the IMO regulations. The
Port of Cotabato (Philippines) simply mentions implementation of safety regulations within the port. On the other hand, the Port of
Davao indicates that it requires proper packaging and storing of dangerous cargo and undertakes segregation from other types of cargo. At the Port of Iligan (Philippines), flammable materials are not allowed to be transported along with passengers on board RO-
RO barges, and mentions compliance with related issuances of the
Philippine Ports Authority. The Port of Dumaguete (Philippines) reports simple measures such as wearing of masks during operation.
The ICTSI (private terminal operator at the Manila International
Container Terminal) has stated that it uses the IMDG Code/
Handbook for reference purposes only while the ATI (private cargo handling operator at the Port of Batangas cites identification, labeling, storage and handling as the extent of its compliance.
The Cebu Port Authority (Philippines) deals with dangerous cargo by requiring direct delivery.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 6

b.
Awareness and Preparedness for emergencies at local level
(APELL)
As with previous survey questions, the majority (49) claimed that they have in place plans and procedures for handling emergencies at the local levels although most were unable describe the extent of preparedness.
The Brunei Ports Authority points out that it has a set-up under the Maritime Disaster Plan and the Port Safety Committee.
Jurong Port undertakes coordination with State Police, CISCO
Police, Fire Safety and Customer Department.
For their part, Philippine ports have in various forms contingency plans in case of calamities and other emergencies, information dissemination, organization of fire brigades, conduct of training of port safety, fire prevention/suppression and control. ATI
(Batangas) claims in general terms plans and procedures for all possible emergency situations that may arise. ICTSI has organized its Emergency/Fire Response Team. Cebu Port Authority is still organizing such plans and procedures. c.
MARPOL 73/78
Respondents, except for nine, mention adoption of MARPOL 73/78 in one form or another. Most did not describe the manner or extent of their compliance.
Jurong Port simply reports adherence to MARPOL as required by
MPA while PSA says it is not applicable to them.
Philippine ports undertake measures by issuing policies contained in memorandum circulars and implementing monitoring and reporting procedures. Iloilo Port says they monitor vessels’ activities while at berth and notifies the Philippine Coast Guard if illegal discharges of prohibited materials are observed. At the
Manila South Harbor, circulars and guidelines are issued regarding air and water pollution and has the proposed the putting up of shore reception facilities. Dumaguete Port has prescribed a disposal limit from the shoreline. ATI (Batangas) receives and disposes oil wastes at the licensed treatment facility of the
Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
ICSTI (Manila) coordinates with the Philippine Coast Guard on matters of marine pollution. Cebu Port Authority undertakes
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 7

negotiations with the private contractor to provide all the waste reception facilities and services.
5.
Measures To Remove Floating Debris, Oil Films, etc.
On the matter of cleaning up the surrounding harbor waters of floating waste, debris, oil slicks and films, 34 of the respondents claimed to have measures, but did not elaborate how removal was actually done.
Jurong Port simply files an Oil Spill Notification Form. Eastern Sea
Laem Chabang Terminal points out that this is the responsibility of the Port Authority.
Pulupandan Port (Philippines) cites PPA Administrative Order No.
16-95 specifying rules and regulations on waste treatment through the use of reception facilities and collection of vessels’ refuse. Dumaguete
Port says cleaning of floating debris may be done by the port management office but oil films are the responsibility of the Philippine
Coast Guard. ATI Batangas mentions it has measures for the handling of offshore chemical spills. ICTSI replied that it simply files a report on MICT Basin Cleaning Activity. It was not clear who does the actual cleaning. Cebu Port Authority responded that this is handled by the Philippine Coast Guard.
Fourteen (14) admitted that they had no such measures while two (2) said it was PCG or port authority’s responsibility. Six (6) did not respond.
D.
Planned Safety Inspection
1.
Conduct of Safety Inspection
The survey recorded that all but three cited that safety inspection was conducted regularly in their respective port areas. The three were
Bangkok Port, Pulupandan Port and Surigao Port which perhaps conducts such inspection as needed.
2.
Safety Inspection Checklist
Associated with the regular safety inspection, 49 claimed to have a prepared standard checklist of items to be examined or investigated.
Rejang Port (Malaysia) and PSA (Singapore) submitted their respective Safety and Health Inspection Checklists. Jurong Port has
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 8

forms addressing specific safety matters – a checklist for ships calling at the Port, a checklist for barge/BT and wooden vessels, a checklist for vessel cargo operations, and an Environment and Safety Checklist.
In the Philippines, the forms come in variations such as Monthly
Safety Inspection Report, simply Inspection Checklist, Safety
Inspection Checklist (not specifying a period), Health and
Environment Inspection Checklist, Quarterly Safety Inspection
Checklist, Safety and Health Checklist and Dockwork Safety and
Health Standards. ATI Batangas furnished the survey group a
Tractor/Truck Inspection Checklist while ICTSI (Manila) gave a
Building/Facilities Inspection Checklist, a Vessel Inspection Report and a Cargo Gear Inspection document.
3.
Corrective Action
Of those that claimed maintaining safety records through regular inspection with a checklist, 48 indicated that the checklist report or document provided a procedure for submitting recommendations for corrective action.
4.
Safety Inspection Documentation
The types of document recording the results of safety inspections generally refer just to the checklist as previously discussed which also serves as the inspection report. For many of the respondents, this appears to be the only safety inspection document being accomplished.
The survey team reports that 34 had no data (no document).
Apparently, there was some confusion in responding to this survey question since the checklist would already enable recording of conditions pertaining to safety issues and concerns. Those that responded in the affirmative reiterated mention of the safety inspection checklist and recommendation for corrective action. It was not clear if this was one or two documents.
Tanjung Perak Port refers to a Report on Possible (predicted) dangerous/unsecured/incident safety risks, a separate Report Form and a Corrective Action Form. Jurong Port mentions Fire and Safety
Inspection Report and a Notice of Safety Infringement. Saigon Port cites that records of safety inspection are set up in the Officials of the
Ports Labour Safety Department in the process of inspections.
In the Philippines, Legazpi Port furnished the survey team a copy of the Port Safety Assessment Report of the Regal Arrastre and
Stevedoring, Inc., a private cargo handling contractor. Cotabato Port provided a Safety Inspection Checklist and communications relative to
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 9

the results of safety audit. Davao Port gave a copy of their Safety and
Environmental Motives while Surigao Port provided their Central
Safety Disaster Strategy. The other ports simply cited submission of their Safety Inspection Checklists.
E.
Safety Enforcement
1.
Authorized Safety Personnel
The respondents submitted the following information consisting of a caboodle of personnel, officers, units, committees or entities authorized to enforce rules and regulations of safety, health and environment:
1) Port activities
2) Ports Department
3) Port Administrator
4) Port Director
5) Terminal Manager, Health and Safety Enforcement
Manager/Officer
6) Marine Department
7) Environment Unit
8) Environmental Analyst
9) Safety Officer
10) Safety Committee
11) Safety Department
12) Safety and First Aid Assistant Manager
13) Fire Safety Staff and Customer Service Enforcement Staff
14) Chief Safety Officer, Senior Safety Specialist and Safety
Specialist
15) Terminal Security
16) Security Personnel
17) Security and Safety Unit
18) Port Police Officer, Police/Security Personnel
19) Operations Officer, Operations Personnel Quality Control
Department
20) Arrastre and Stevedoring Operations Offices
21) Users Department and officers of the Security and Operations
Safety Department and the Industrial Safety and Health
Department
22) PAT/Harbor Department
23) Officials of the Ports Labour Safety Department, Medical
Department and Security Department
24) Deputy General Manager
25) Assistant Manager supported by all Managers within the company
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 10

26) All Department Supervisors
27) Engineers
28) Philippine Coast Guard/PPA Division Managers, Department
Managers, Supervisors, Safety Coordinators, Company
Physician
29) Ministry of Health
Some respondents submitted names of personnel without specifying their positions and/or duties.
Obviously, by fielding these personnel, units and groups, all respondents demonstrate awareness, concern and preparation in dealing with matters of safety, health, environment and security.
2.
Sanctions
Most of the surveyed entities (45) claimed that they were implementing a system of sanctions for violations of rules and regulations. Again, no description or specifications of the nature of these violations and the manner of imposition.
The Brunei Ports Department furnished a copy of the Brunei Law
Chapter 144 of the Ports Act. Jurong Port cites that it conducts
Safety Counselling Sessions.
In the Philippines, Tacloban Port made reference to PPA
Memorandum Circular No. 07-95 prescribing Anti-Pollution
Measures Within the Port Zone. Manila North Harbor mentions
Presidential Decree No. 857 (PPA’s Charter) and PPA
Administrative Order No. 09-82. Philippine ports are subject to a battery of safety and environmental laws, policies, rules and regulations.
F.
Accident And Incident Investigation
1.
Reporting of Accidents and Incidents
The investigation and reporting of all accidents and incidents either by the Operations of Security Officers to be analyzed by the Safety
Officer is made mandatory by 51 of the surveyed entities. However, some give little or no information or description on the procedure.
Brunei Ports Department states that accidents and incidents are reported on a case-to-case basis and no report formats are specified.
Jurong Port requires the filing of a Fire/Oil/Accident/Dangerous
Occurrence Report.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 11

Philippine ports mention a set of various memorandum circulars laying down guidelines on the reporting of accidents. These ports prepare Accident/Illness Reports in one form or another. ICTSI prepares a Statement of Accident and Investigation Report.
2.
Report Form
The survey questionnaire attempted to draw more detailed information by inquiring that, in the case an accident/incident report is accomplished, certain information must be recorded, to which 53 of the surveyed organizations simply replied in the affirmative without elaborating. It would be safe to assume that these report forms would enable the documenting of basic data such as names of injured persons or persons, positions or occupations, dates and times of accident, nature of injury and damage, full descriptions of the accident/incident, actions taken or recommendations and estimated amounts of damage
G.
Safety Audit
1.
Conduct of Safety Audit
Many APA ports endeavor to assess compliance with safety policies, rules and regulations. Forty-one (41) reported that they conducted safety audits under varying frequencies although some did not specify, This may be construed to mean that such audits are most probably on a need basis.
The Brunei Ports Department does this safety compliance assessment every quarter in the form of a port inspection by designated officers.
PSA claims to undertake such audits annually. Thailand’s three ports that participated in the survey had audits from monthly to semi-annually. Vietnam’s ports also audit safety compliance every month or semi-annually.
In the Philippines, the frequency varies widely from monthly to once in four years to “as the need arises.” The Manila North Harbor states that safety compliance appraisal is done once a year in each of its piers. The Cagayan de Oro Port mentions “plant-level” safety audits being done weekly, monthly and quarterly while the PPA as a whole performs this annually. Pulupandan Port reports that it is still organizing its safety audits. ATI Batangas, a private cargo-handling operator, renders safety audits twice a year. The Cebu Port
Authority provides information regarding a performance audit rating system on safety observance.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 12

2.
Safety Audit Unit
Various answers were given as to what unit or branch of the organization was responsible for safety audit. Some 15 of the establishments surveyed either did not respond or had unclear answers.
Panjang and Panjang UTPK in Indonesia disclosed that they had no units that conducted safety audits.
The various names of safety audit units or entities submitted are as follows:
1) Management of the Director of Ports
2) Quality Control Division
3) Regulatory Body
4) DG Office
5) DG Unit
6) Operations (Safety)
7) Security, Health and Safety
8) Chemist, Police, Bombs
9) Operations
10) Security and Operations
11) Security and Fire Unit
12) Safety, Security and Fire Department
13) Safety Officer
14) Safety Staff
15) Safety Unit
16) Safety Committee
17) Safety and Security Department
18) Central Safety Committee
19) Safety and Environment Management Staff
20) Safety Central Committee (Oroport)
21) Safety, Port Operations, Engineering, BDMO
22) Labour Safety Department
23) External Safety Consultant and Industrial Health and Safety
Department
24) Site Auditing System (ATI Batangas)
25) HR Department/Top Management
26) Port Authority/Harbour Department
27) PPA Internal Control Department
28) Internal Control Department/Port Operations & Services Dept.
29) PPA and ATI (private cargo handling operator)
30) Head Office – National Office
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 13

31) Ministry of Interior
32) Department of Labor and Employment – Labor Standards
3.
Scope of Safety Audit
The 35 organizations that responded affirmatively had different interpretations of the term “scope of safety audit” and some also gave multiple responses, which were expressed in terms ranging from the general and vague to the specific. These are as follows:
1) Port areas
2) Within the port premises only
3) Inside port terminal
4) Access Control
5) Security and Health
6) Security Fencing
7) Security and Safety
8) Overall safety
9) All safety aspects
10) Safe working environment
11) Safety cargo, person, environment and procedures
12) Safety of the port
13) PSA Safety Management System
14) Unsafe act audit, unsafe condition audit
15) Provision of safety protective devices/equipment
16) DG (dangerous goods) and safety
17) DG (dangerous goods) Safety, Marine, Infrastructure
18) DG and Operations area
19) HSC
20) Pilferages
21) Port operations, dangerous cargo control, environmental
(water, noise, air)
22) Workers observe the measures to prevent incidents in handling operations.
23) Environment, equipment, manpower, firefighting equipment
24) Environment
25) Inspection of cargo handling operator in accordance with the dockworkers’ safety and health standards
26) Compliance/wearing of safety protective devices during port operation
27) Compliance with port safety rules and regulations
28) All aspects of port operation, e.g. cargo handling operation, hauling, port premises and structures
29) Based on PPA Administrative Order No. 13-96 and PPA
Administrative Order 06-99 pertaining to Dockwork Safety and Health Standards (DSHS)
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 14

30) Proper handling of cargo, structural design of pier, wharf, firefighting equipment, environmental concern, safety audit and inspection report
31) Port operations/safety of labor force
32) ISO 1400/OHS IS001 elements and standards
33) Management, operations, safety and health, environment and security
34) Handling
35) Port activities
H.
Safety Training
1.
Training Programs
There appears to be a general recognition and appreciation of the importance and need for training programs on port safety and environmental protection not only for the port authority, port owner and port operator but also for the port contractor. For the former,
52 claimed to implement training courses, and 43 for the port contractors. Few were able to elaborate on the contents of these courses which included the following scope:
1) Workshop safety, health, environment management
2) Port safety and environmental protection
3) Port and shipping management, environment management systems
4) Safety training program
5) Safety training topics
2.
Training For Handling Of Dangerous Goods
6) Fire flushing training
7) OHSES training
With regard to the handling of dangerous cargo, 50 reported that they conducted separate and specialized training programs for port officers and workers.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 15

I.
Safety Promotion
1.
Safety Signs/Posters
As part of promoting safety consciousness, 54 of the respondents exerted efforts to install signs, posters, billboards and other attentioncatching methods in conspicuous places within the port operational areas.
2.
Safety Awards
On the matter of giving awards for adherence and observance of safety standards, rules and regulations, it appears that the majority of port authorities, owners and operators do not subscribe to this system of reward. Similarly, only 12 of the contractors place importance on safety awards. It could only be deduced that the only real reward in complying with safety policies is that everyone should protect each other while conducting business within the port premises.
3.
Safety Symposia/Conventions
About 60 percent of the respondents (35) stated that they organized and conducted various symposia, conventions and fora to sustain continued vigilance in maintaining safety in the port. The frequency of these activities varied from once a year to “as the need arises.”
J.
Maintenance Program
1.
Equipment Maintenance
Some 80 percent of those surveyed cite that they had in place maintenance programs for handling and hauling equipment of the port authority, owner or operator used in port and vessel operations.
Most did not elaborate on the contents and manner of implementation of these programs. Those that did described their programs as follows:
1) Framework of maintenance regime
2) Preventive maintenance program for equipment is required by the Philippine Ports Authority of all cargo handling operators and shipping companies
3) Equipment preventive maintenance system (by ATI Batangas)
4) Inspection report of equipment (ICSTI – Manila)
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 16

2.
Safety Devices In Cargo Handling Equipment
With regard to the installation of safety devices in container handling and hauling, 70 percent claimed that such devices are provided.
K.
Security
1.
Access Control System
Practically all of the respondents indicated that they implement an access control system in one form or another although most gave no description or information on the locations of the control points. The following descriptions were submitted:
1) Access to the port is by the two access system: Gatehouse at the
Muara Conventional Terminal and MCT Gate only (Brunei
Ports Authority)
2) Gate of port area (Palembang)
3) Port District Office of Visayas (Philippines) Administrative
Order No. 01-91
4) Port District Office of Southern Mindanao (Philippines)
Administrative Order No. 91-2002
5) Port Management Office of Tagbilaran (Philippines)
Memorandum Circular No. 10-96
6) Guidelines on Control Regulation and Pass Control System
(PMO-Pulupandan, Philppines)
7) Security Management Plan (Cagayan de Oro, Philippines)
8) Handled by the Port Police Division (Manila North Harbor,
Philippines)
9) Steel gates, vehicular access road, pedestrian access road
(Dumaguete Port, Philippines)
10) Port access system (ATI Batangas, Philippines)
11) Terminal guidelines and pass control project (ICTSI, Manila,
Philippines)
12) General pass control system and access regulations (Cebu Port
Authority, Philippines)
2.
Crime Prevention Program
Eighty (80) percent of the respondents mention that they had crime prevention programs that were initiated by the port authority, owner or operator. As with the other survey items, few submitted documents, gave sketchy descriptions or simply indicated that the
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 17

crime prevention was already incorporated in the safety and security rules and regulations.
3.
Prevention of Pilferage
With regard to pilferages, 90 percent cite that regulations to prevent these were in place. A few provided explanations of sorts:
1) Brunei Law, Chapter 144 Port Act
2) Cargo control documentation (Iloilo, Philippines)
3) Philippine Ports Authority Memorandum Circular No. 17-2002
4) Security Management Plan (Cagayan de Oro, Philippines)
5) Port Authority Police and Arrastre Services Security Guards prepare rules and regulations. (Surigao, Philippines)
6) Security services provided. (ATI Batangas, Philippines)
7) ISO 140001/002 (ICTSI, Manila, Philippines)
4.
Surveillance Network Program
The implementation of surveillance network programs is done by 75 percent of the entities surveyed. The Brunei Ports Authority reports that it has a CCTV system located at the remote areas of the port with main control at the gatehouse. ICTSI (Manila) cites that is has both CCTV and manned surveillance.
5.
Surveillance Implementation
Related to the previous item, 78 percent mention that they have a surveillance system in one form or another, as follows:
1) Manned only -
2) With use of computer system only -
3) Both manned and computerized -
4) None -
33
3
8
13
Total 56
6.
Powers Of Port Security Personnel
About 75 percent disclosed that their port security personnel had the power to impose sanctions and penalties for violations.
7.
Coordination With Local Police
All of the respondents cite that there was an existing system of enhancing coordination and cooperation with the local or city police
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 18

department. (At the time of the survey, Surabaya Port was in the process of negotiation with their local police department.)
8.
Police Powers of the Port Authority/Owner/Operator
Eighty (80) percent claim that the port authority, owner or operator has the police power to enforce all relevant laws and regulations such as arrest, investigation and prosecution of all related cases of crimes which occur in the port area.
9.
Information Sharing
A little over half of the respondents (55%) admit that they have a program or network which enables member-ports to exchange information or “Information Retrieval Program” for cases such as stowage, hijacking, commercial crimes and violation of mass destruction capabilities.
Best Practices Manual On Port Safety, Health,
Environment And Security
Page 19