Post on 18-Apr-2018
PPhhoottooggrraapphhss ooff DDeeffiicciieenncciieess iiddeennttiiffiieedd dduurriinngg PPoorrtt SSttaattee CCoonnttrrooll
LLiiffee SSaavviinngg
Wasted boat fall block
Wasted support bracket
Poor condition of embarkation ladder
Inadequate re-setting of on-load release gear
FFiirree FFiigghhttiinngg
MMAARRPPOOLL
Oily inside of discharge pipe
Oily corelessor
Leaked fire line
Disconnected CO2 bottle
Wasted fire damper
MMaacchhiinneerryy SSppaaccee
LLooaadd LLiinnee
Wasted gooseneck air vent.
Patched sea water pipe
Corroded packing channel
Oily and dirty E/R floor
Oily main engine
OOtthheerrss
CCrraacckkeedd hhaattcchh ccooaammiinngg
WWaasstteedd hhaattcchh wwaayy
Missing butterfly nut
CCrraacckkeedd bbuullwwaarrkk ssttaayy
BBrrookkeenn ffaaiirr lleeaadd
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
Foreword This annual Port State Control (PSC) report summarizes deficiencies identified by PSC inspections carried out in various countries around the world. This report is prepared with the objective of building awareness of the present state of PSC as well as to improve future maintenance and inspections, and also Safety Management System is compiled into the following Chapters. “Chapter 1”: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide “Chapter 2”: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships registered to ClassNK in 2011 “Chapter 3”: Statistical Analysis of NK SMC ship recorded ISM deficiency at PSC “Chapter 4”: Statistical Data from the Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, and USCG Port State Control has been found to be a very effective tool in reducing the number of substandard ships as well as improving maritime safety and pollution prevention. There has been a significant increase in PSC activity worldwide in concert with a number of amendments to relevant international conventions. In order to carry out the effective implementation of PSC provisions, many countries have already signed and accepted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for regional cooperation in PSC for many regions, and have established a centralized computerized database system and/or a harmonized approach. PSC inspection procedures have been improved to cover not only a ships’ hardware or documents, but also the operational requirements of the relevant conventions or shipboard maintenance under the ISM Code. Also, because several new conventions or amendments such as the ISPS Code, the Bulk Carrier Safety initiative, and air pollution prevention, etc. have come into force, the extent of PSC inspections has been further increased. In light of this background, ClassNK is working hard to increase the transparency of information related to PSC issues and to make it even more difficult for substandard ships to survive in the market place.
August 2012
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented in this report. However, as information is collected from a variety of sources, ClassNK cannot be held responsible for any erroneous data, judgements or conclusions that may appear in this report, in cases were the information available should prove to have been incomplete or incorrect in any respect.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide 1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions
1.1.1 IMSBC Code ·························································································· 1 1.1.2 Bridge Navigation Watch System ······························································· 1 1.1.3 Electronic Chart Display and Information System ········································ 1 1.1.4 Control for SOx and particulate matter (PM) within North American
Emission Control Area ············································································· 2 1.2 Recent global developments
1.2.1 MOUs around the world (1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MOU) ····································· 3 (2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU) ····························································· 4 (3) Latin-American region (Viña del Mar or Latin-America Agreement) ············ 5 (4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU) ························································ 5 (5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MOU)············································ 5 (6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) ················································ 5 (7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) ························································· 6 (8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU)············································ 6 (9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU) ····················································· 6
1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (U.S.Coast Guard) ···························· 6 1.2.3 Equasis ································································································· 7
1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK 1.3.1 Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections
(1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of the deficiencies ····· 8 (2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers ········································ 8
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships (1) Special training at several in-house meetings ··········································· 8 (2) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners ·································· 9
1.3.3 Visits to Port States ················································································· 9
Chapter 2 Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK 2.1 General ····································································································· 10 2.2 Data on Detentions 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State ········································································· 10 2.2.2 Detentions by ship type ··········································································· 12 2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age ··········································································· 13 2.2.4 Detentions by ship size (Tonnage) ······························································ 14 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State ·········································································· 15
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category ······················································· 16 2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies ···························································· 17
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State 2.4.1 China ·································································································· 23 2.4.2 Australia ····························································································· 24 2.4.3 Japan ·································································································· 24
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
2.4.4 India ··································································································· 25 2.4.5 Indonesia ····························································································· 25 2.4.6 U.S.A ·································································································· 26 2.4.7 Russian Federation ··············································································· 26 2.4.8 Spain ·································································································· 26 2.4.9 Vietnam ······························································································ 27 2.4.8 Netherlands ························································································· 27
Chapter 3
Statistical Analysis of NK SMC ship recorded ISM deficiency at PSC 3.1 ISM deficiency cases
3.1.1 Total number and average rate ······························································ 28 3.1.2 Comparison ························································································ 29 3.1.2.1 Per factors related to ship ································································· 29 3.1.2.2 Per factors related to Company ·························································· 33 3.1.2.3 Per port state who carried out PSC inspection ······································ 36
3. 2 ISM deficiencies and PSC actions 3.2.1 Comparison of deficiencies per ISM Code requirement ······························· 37 3.2.2 Comparison of deficiencies and detentions per port state ···························· 38 3.2.3 Analysis of deficiencies recorded along with PSC actions applied ················· 39 Appendix: Extract from PSC inspection reports ············································· 43
Chapter 4 Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU and the USCG 4.1 Tokyo MOU
4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities ········································ 51 4.1.2 Black List of Flag States ········································································ 52 4.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organization ···················································· 53 4.1.4 Deficiencies by Category········································································· 54
4.2 Paris MOU 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities ········································ 55 4.2.2 Black List of Flag States ········································································ 56 4.2.3 Deficiencies by Category········································································· 57 4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table ············································· 58
4.3 USCG 4.3.1 USCG Statistics ···················································································· 59 4.3.2 Targeted Flag States (Safety) ·································································· 59 4.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Safety) ·································· 60
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
1
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions Major amendments to international conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into effect in 2010 or will do so in 2011 are summarized below. 1.1.1 IMSBC Code (SOLAS VI, VII)
Date: 1 January 2011 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0772, 786] The IMSBC Code has become applicable to all ships as mandatory requirements since 1 January 2011.
1.1.2 Bridge Navigation Watch System (SOLAS V/19)
Date: 1 July 2011 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0838] Paragraphs 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 relating to the Bridge Navigation Watch System (BNWAS) were added to SOLAS Chapter V/19. A Bridge Navigation Watch System (BNWAS) is required to be installed on all affected ships by the following due dates: (1) Ships constructed on or after 1 July 2011: not later than the initial Safety
Equipment Survey (SE survey). (2) Passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2011: not later than the first SE survey
after 1 July 2012. (3) Cargo ships of 3,000 GT and upwards constructed before 1 July 2011: not later
than the first SE survey after 1 July 2012. (4) Cargo ships of 500 GT and upwards constructed before 1 July 2011: not later than
the first SE survey after 1 July 2013. (5) Cargo ships of 150 GT and upwards constructed before 1 July 2011: not later than
the first SE survey after 1 July 2014. (6) Ships constructed before 1 July 2011 but delivered after the due dates of (2) to (5)
above: not later than the initial SE survey. 1.1.3 Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19)
Date: 1 July 2012 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0907] Paragraphs 2.1.4 and 2.10, 2.11 relating to the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) were revised and newly added to SOLAS Chapter V/19. A Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) and back-up arrangement will be phased in from 1 July 2012. (1) Passenger ship
(i) Passenger ship constructed on or after 1 July 2012, not later than the initial safety equipment survey.
(ii) Passenger ship constructed before 1 July 2012, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2014.
(2) Tanker (i) Tanker constructed on or after 1 July 2012, not later than the initial safety
equipment survey. (ii) Tanker constructed before 1 July 2012, not later than the first safety
equipment survey on or after 1 July 2015.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
2
(3) Cargo ship other than tanker (i) Cargo ship, of 10,000GT and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2013, not
later than the initial safety equipment survey. (ii) Cargo ship, of 3,000GT and upward but less than 10,000GT constructed on or
after 1 July 2014, not later than the initial safety equipment survey. (iii) Cargo ship, of 50,000GT and upward constructed before 1 July 2013, not later
than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2016 (iv) Cargo ship, of 20,000GT and upward but less than 50,000GT constructed on
or after 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2017.
(v) Cargo ship, of 10,000GT and upward but less than 20,000GT constructed before 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2018.
(4) Ship constructed under the conditions of above (1)(ii), (2)(ii), (3)(iii), (iv) and (v), but delivered after the applicable due date, not later than initial safety equipment survey.
1.1.4 Control for SOx and particulate matter (PM) within North American Emission Control Area (MAROOL ANNEX VI)
Date: 1 August 2012 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0916] The control of the sulphur content in fuel oil for ships operating within the designated North American Emission Control Area (MARPOL ANNEX VI, Regulation 14) will commence on 1 August 2012.
New amendments to conventions are also introduced on the ClassNK Website in the section, ‘IMO International Convention Calendar’. (http://www.classnk.or.jp)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
3
1.2 Recent global developments 1.2.1 MOUs around the world In order to carry out PSC effectively, a recommendation concerning regional co-operation in the control of ships and discharges was adopted as a resolution by the IMO. In July 1982, fourteen European countries signed the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MOU), and today many countries have signed and accepted similar MOUs around the world. Currently, nine MOUs exist around the world and their respective activities in terms of implementing PSC are described below.
European and North Atlantic region :Paris MOU (http://www.parismou.org/) Asia-Pacific region :Tokyo MOU (http://www.tokyo-mou.org/) Latin American region :Viña del Mar (http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar/) Caribbean region :Caribbean MOU (http://www.caribbeanmou.org/) Mediterranean region :Mediterranean MOU (http://www.medmou.org/) Indian Ocean region :Indian Ocean MOU (http://www.iomou.org/) Black Sea region :Black Sea MOU (http://www.bsmou.org/) West and Central Africa region :Abuja MOU (http://www.abujamou.org/) Arab States of the Gulf :Riyadh MOU (http://www.riyadhmou.org/)
(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MOU)
1) Activity Established: 1 July 1982 Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
-1 The Paris MOU consists of 27 participating maritime Administrations and covers the waters of the European coastal States and the North Atlantic basin from North America to Europe. The Paris MOU states that their aim is to eliminate the operation of sub-standard ships through a harmonized system of port State control.
-2 Press releases have announced the recent activities of the Paris MOU as follows. Press release dated 14 February 2012
The Paris MOU announced the results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Structural Safety and load lines, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011.
- In total, 4,250 ships were inspected and 42 ships (1%) were detained for CIC-related deficiencies.
- The CIC questionnaire was completed during 4,386 inspections. Of them, general cargo/multi-purpose ships with 1,563 (36%) inspections, bulk carriers with 795 (18%) inspections, container ships with 495 (11%) inspections, chemical tankers with 433 (10%) inspections and oil tankers with 296 (7%) inspections included.
Press release dated 1 June 2012 A Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Fire Safety Systems is scheduled to be carried out from 1 September to 30 November 2012 simultaneously with Paris MOU/ Tokyo MOU, Black Sea MOU and Indian Ocean MOU.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
4
2) New Inspection Regime (NIR) -1 Classification of the Ship Risk Profile
A Ship Risk Profile is based on the flag, Recognized Organization and company performance, the number of deficiencies and detentions recorded for the ship, past inspection records of the ship, as well as the ship’s age and ship type. The Ship Risk Profile classifies ships into Low Risk Ships (LRS), Standard Risk Ships (SRS), and High Risk Ships (HRS). The time window is set according to the Ship Risk Profile as follows: - HRS: between 5-6 months after the last inspection - SRS: between 10-12 months after the last inspection - LRS: between 24-36 months after the last inspection
-2 Banned Ships The banning criteria for the first and second ban have been amended as follows: - If the ship flies a black listed flag, it will be banned after more than 3 detentions
in the last 36 months - If the ship flies a grey listed flag, it will be banned after more than 3 detentions
in the last 24 months Any subsequent detention after the 2nd banning will lead to a ban, regardless of
the flag of the ship. -3 Reporting obligations The ETA72 (a 72 hour pre-arrival) notification requirement has been widened to
include all ships with a HRS profile as well as all bulk carriers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, oil tankers, and passenger ships 12 years of age or older subject to an expanded inspection.
Further, all ships are required to notify their ETA24 (a 24 hour pre-arrival), ATA (the actual time of arrival), and ATD (the actual time of departure).
(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU)
1) Activity Established: 1 December 1993 Members: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Vanuatu, and Vietnam
-1 The main objectives of the Memorandum have been announced as follows: 1. to establish an effective Port State control regime in the Asia-Pacific region
through the co-operation of its members and the harmonization of their activities,
2. to eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety, 3. to protect the marine environment, and 4. to safeguard working and living conditions onboard ships.
-2 Press releases announced the activities of the Tokyo MOU as follows. Press release dated 9 February 2012
The Tokyo MOU announced the results of its ‘Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC)’ on Structural Safety and the International Convention on load lines which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011. - In total, 5,901 inspections were carried out. Of them, bulk carriers were the ship type with the highest number of CIC inspections which accounted for 1,898 (32.16%), followed by general cargo vessels 1,565 (26.52%) and container vessels 983 (16.66%).
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
5
- The most significant deficiencies found during the campaign were related to the protection of opening (ventilators, air pipes, casings) 554 instances.
Press release dated 23 April 2012 The 22nd meeting of the PSC Committee of the Tokyo MOU was held in Vina del Mar, Chile from 18 to 21 April 2011. - The Committee agreed to accept Peru as a Co-operating Member of the Tokyo MOU. - The Committee decided to put the measures for permanent implementation against under-performing ships that have been detained three or more times by the Tokyo MOU during the last 12 months. - The Committee approved the arrangements for the CIC on Fire Safety System that will be carried out from 1 September to 30 November 2012 jointly with the Paris MOU.
2) Targeting system To facilitate the selection of ships to be inspected throughout the Tokyo MOU region, a central computer database, known as ‘APCIS’, is consulted by PSC officers for data on ship particulars and for reports of previous inspections carried out within the region. The Tokyo MOU Authorities select ships for PSC inspection in accordance with a target factor that is calculated based on information stored in the database.
(3) Latin-American region (Viña del Mar or Latin-America Agreement)
Established: 5 November 1992 Members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras,
Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela -1 The 18th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Latin American Agreement was
held in Montevideo, Uruguay from 3 to 6 October 2011. -2 In 2012, the 19th meeting of the PSC Committee is scheduled to be held in Brazil. (4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU)
Established: 9 February 1996 Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cayman Islands,
Cuba, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, and Trinidad & Tobago
(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MOU) Established: 11 July 1997 Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,
and Turkey (6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU)
Established: 5 June 1998 Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, Eritrea, France (La Reunion Island),
India, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, and Yemen
-1 The 14th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Indian Ocean MOU was held at Goa, India from 12 to 15 September 2011.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
6
-2 The Indian Ocean MOU will carry out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on fire safety system arrangements from 1 September to 30 November 2011.
-3. According to Annual Report 2012 of the Indian Ocean MOU, a total of 5,550 inspections were carried out and 600 vessels were detained in 2011.
(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)
Established: 7 April 2000 Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine -1 The Black Sea MOU announced the results of its ‘Concentrated Inspection
Campaign (CIC)’ on structural safety and international convention on load lines, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011.
- In total, 1,199 vessels were inspected for the CIC and 21 (1.75%) were detained due to the CIC related deficiencies.
- Largest group of the ship inspected for the CIC were general cargo/multi-purpose ships with 541 (45.1%) inspections, bulk carrier 330 (27.5%) and oil tanker 123 (10.3%) were also inspected.
-2 The 13th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Black Sea MOU was held in Odessa, Ukraine from 5 to 7 June 2012.
-3 CIC on fire safety systems arrangements is scheduled to be carried out from 1
September to 30 November 2012.
(8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU) Established: 22 October 1999 Members: Benin, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Nigeria,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, and Togo
(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU) Established: 30 June 2004 Members: The Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
The Sultanate of Oman, and United Arab Emirates
1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG) 1) Activity
Although the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is not a member of any MOU, it is an observer at a number of MOUs, and undertakes effective PSC in cooperation with other MOUs. In the 1970's, the U.S. Coast Guard increased its emphasis on the examination of foreign vessels. Although this emphasis was primarily driven by requirements to ensure compliance with the then new U.S. pollution prevention and navigation safety regulations, boarding officers also exercised Port State authority when instances of non-compliance with SOLAS and MARPOL were noted. In 1994, the U.S. introduced risk-management methodologies into the Port State Control program in order to allocate limited inspection resources to where they could do the most good, by identifying those ships, ship owners, classification societies and Flag Administrations that were most often found lacking in meeting their international Convention responsibilities. On 1 January 2001, the USCG implemented an initiative to identify high-quality
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
7
ships, called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century. This program has since proven to be very effective in recognizing well operated and maintained ships of good quality and continues in use today.
2) USCG Boarding Priority Matrix The USCG uses a Boarding Priority Matrix which enables it to rationally and systematically determine the probable risk posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S. ports. The Matrix is used to decide which ships Port State Control Officers should board on any given day, in any given port. Points are assessed in each of five columns for Safety matters and four columns for Security matters, and then added up for a total point score. This numerical score, along with other performance- based factors, determines a ship’s boarding priority (http://homeport.uscg.mil/).
3) Banning of foreign vessels All foreign flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters are required to be maintained in compliance with U.S. regulations, international conventions and other required standards. However, when a vessel has been repeatedly detained by the USCG (totaling three detentions within a twelve month period) and it is determined that failure to effectively implement the SMS onboard may be a contributing factor for the substandard conditions that led to the detentions, the USCG Headquarters (USCG-HQ) will issue a Letter of Denial prohibiting the ship from further entering any U.S. port until such time as certain actions have been taken to rectify the situation. However, even if a vessel has less than three detentions in twelve months, a Letter of Denial may be issued to any vessel which, in the option of the USCG; 1. may pose a significant risk to the safety of the vessel, crew or the marine
environment; or 2. has a history of accidents, pollution incidents, or serious repair problems which
creates reason to believe that such a vessel may be unsafe or create a threat to the marine environment; or
3. has discharged oil or other hazardous material in violation of any law of the United States or in a manner or quantities inconsistent with the provisions of any treaty to which the United States is a party.
1.2.3 Equasis Equasis is a unique database that collects safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet from both public and private sources and makes it easily accessible on the Internet (http://www.equasis.org/). It displays information from public authorities (Port State inspection and detention information from the three participating PSC regions, i.e. the Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, and USCG) and industry players (such as information on class, insurance, participation in industry inspection schemes, and quality organizations), all free of charge.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
8
1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK 1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections (1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of deficiencies
When surveyors of the Society are notified of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, the Society actively co-operates with the reporting PCS Authority in a number of ways. The more direct of these steps include the following. - Surveyors liaise with port state control authorities to ensure that they are called in
as soon as appropriate when deficiencies related to class and/or statutory matters are identified.
- Surveyors liaise with PSC officers to ensure uniformity of interpretation of class and statutory requirements.
- Surveyors provide PSC officers with background information, extracts from reports pertinent to the inspection, and details of outstanding recommendations of class and statutory items whenever so requested by the port state.
- Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified by the PSC officers but also the general condition of the hull, machinery and equipment of the subject ship to the extent of an annual survey, carefully considering the seriousness of any deficiencies when they attend ships that have been subject to an intervention action by the port state.
(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers
When a surveyor receives an inspection report from a port state authority, the report is sent to the ClassNK Head Office. The report is immediately examined for the causes of the deficiencies by experienced staff. This examination is carried out for all ships for which such reports are received, and the results are circulated to all sections concerned, including all members of the board of directors, as necessary. The results are also reflected a ClassNK PSC database that has been developed for the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related information electronically. The results of this examination are also submitted to the Flag State Administration of the ship, as required. A letter is also sent to owner(s) of the ship to remind them of their ultimate responsibility regarding the safety of their ships and protection of the marine environment. Visits may also be made to the ship owner or manager, when deemed appropriate, to advise them of the relevant deficiencies noted and to encourage them to more proactively improve the routine maintenance of their ships and take other measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of safe and environmentally friendly operation. In cases where the intervention is determined to be related to previous surveys conducted by surveyors of the Society, those surveys are treated as a non-conforming service, and appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken in accordance with the ClassNK quality system.
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships (1) Special training at several in-house meetings
Special training on PSC related issues is conducted at several meetings held regularly for general managers and managers, to ensure that surveyors carry out full and effective surveys with an uncompromising attitude towards ensuring the quality and safety of the ships classed with the Society. Special re-training is also carried out under the supervision of the Head Office and regional managers, as needed, for those surveyors who have conducted any surveys
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
9
determined to be a non-conforming service under the quality system of the Society. (2) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners
(a) Visiting Management Companies When a ship classed with ClassNK is detained by PSC, a senior surveyor or manager of the Society visits the owner or the company managing the ship to discuss what steps can be taken to improve the routine maintenance of the ships in their fleet, so as to prevent both a recurrence of the deficiencies noted and the occurrence of similar problems in the future.
(b) Meetings and seminars
PSC related issues are regularly discussed at informal gatherings and technical committee meetings held with ship owners. At such times, explanations are given and documents presented, with emphasis placed on the importance of proactively ensuring the proper maintenance of ships and education of crew in order to prevent the detention of ships.
(c) Publications
The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” is distributed to all registered shipowners and operators in the ClassNK fleet. A checklist entitled “Good Maintenance on board Ships” has also been prepared in electronic format, which can be used by the ship’s crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship before entering port.
1.3.3 Visits to Port States Personnel from the ClassNK Head Office as well as local survey offices are assigned to visit the headquarters or offices of various Port States with the aim of introducing ClassNK and exchanging views on matters of mutual concern. Major port States and relevant organizations visited by executives of the Society during 2011 are listed below.
U.S.A United States Coast Guard (USCG) Canada Transport Canada China Marine Safety Administration (MSA) Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
10
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK 2.1 General The data in this chapter, on ships detained due to deficiencies identified during PSC inspections, is based on the following sources:
(1) Notifications from Port States issued in accordance with IMO Resolution A.1052(27) “Procedure for Port State Control, and
(2) Publications related to detained ships issued by the USCG, the Paris MOU, and the Tokyo MOU.
From January to December 2011, 431 PSC detentions were reported relating to 401 ships classed by NK. This included cases of detention for reasons not related to class or to NK itself. The total number of NK-registered ships (500 GT or over) was 6,914 at the end of December 2011. Therefore, the 401 ships detained represent about 5.8% of the total number of ships in the NK fleet. 2.2 Data on Detentions 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State
Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK)
Flag State
Number of Registered Ships (500GT or over)
Number of Detentions
Detention Ratio (%) (= Detentions /
Registered Number in each year)
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Panama 2,985 2,988 3,048 199 193 246 6.7 6.5 8.1 Liberia 260 267 299 20 16 26 7.7 6.0 8.7 Singapore 539 560 610 19 17 21 3.5 3.0 3.4 Malta 192 194 181 27 23 18 14.1 11.9 9.9 Hong Kong 347 388 422 10 18 18 2.9 4.6 4.3 Marshall Islands 168 213 249 13 13 18 7.7 6.1 7.2 Vietnam 94 98 90 13 6 14 13.8 6.1 15.6 Bahamas 136 132 131 11 5 14 8.1 3.8 10.7 Thailand 66 66 72 2 8 8 3.0 12.1 11.1 St. Vincent * 32 31 27 6 7 8 18.8 22.6 29.6 Cyprus 76 78 86 13 8 7 17.1 10.3 8.1 Turkey 47 56 58 9 7 7 19.1 12.5 12.1 Indonesia 85 104 108 1 5 4 1.2 4.8 3.7 Malaysia 235 240 257 1 4 4 0.4 1.7 1.6 Others - - - 23 22 18 - - - Total 6,485 6,675 6,914 367 352 431 5.7 5.3 6.2
* Refers to St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The same applies in all subsequent tables.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
11
Of those Flag State Administrations with ten or more NK classed ships, the following Administrations were identified as having a detention ratio higher than 10% in 2011: Vietnam, Bahamas, Thailand, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Turkey.
Fig 2.2.1-1 Detention by Flag (NK)
199
20 1927
10 13 13 112
613
91 1
23
193
16 1723
1813
6 5 8 7 8 7 5 4
22
246
2621 18 18 18
14 148 8 7 7 4 4
18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300Pa
nam
a
Libe
ria
Sing
apor
e
Mal
ta
Hon
g Ko
ng
Mar
shal
l Isl
ands
Viet
nam
Baha
mas
Thai
land
St. V
ince
nt *
Cyp
rus
Turk
ey
Indo
nesi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Oth
ers
Flag State
Det
entio
ns
200920102011
Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)
6.77.7
3.5
14.1
2.9
7.7
13.8
8.1
3
18.8
17.1
19.1
1.20.4
6.5 6
3
11.9
4.6
6.1 6.1
3.8
12.1
22.6
10.3
12.5
4.8
1.7
8.18.7
3.4
9.9
4.3
7.2
15.6
10.7 11.1
29.6
8.1
12.1
3.7
1.6
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Pana
ma
Libe
ria
Sing
apor
e
Mal
ta
Hon
g K
ong
Mar
shal
l Isl
ands
Viet
nam
Baha
mas
Thai
land
St. V
ince
nt *
Cyp
rus
Turk
ey
Indo
nesi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Flag State
Det
entio
n R
atio
(%) 2009
20102011
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
12
2.2.2 Detentions by ship type Table 2.2.2 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)
Ship Type
Number of Registered
Ships in 2011 (500GT or
over)
Number of Detentions Detention Ratio (%)
(= Detentions / Registered Number in each year)
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011
Bulk Carrier 2,916 186 161 209 8.3 6.7 7.2 General Cargo 650 62 65 93 9.8 10.3 14.3 Container Carrier 585 19 28 31 3.4 4.9 5.3 Chip Carrier 153 11 8 13 7.2 5.0 8.5 Cement Carrier 103 2 2 1 1.7 1.8 1.0 Ro-Ro Ship 92 3 2 9 3.0 2.0 9.8 Reefer Carrier 174 26 24 15 13.4 12.9 8.6 Vehicles Carrier 342 12 16 8 3.7 4.9 2.3 Oil Tanker 721 6 7 10 0.8 0.9 1.4 Oil/Chemical Tanker 625 29 32 31 4.6 5.0 5.0 Gas Carrier 353 7 4 9 2.1 1.2 2.5 Others 200 4 3 2 0.9 0.7 1.0 Total 6,914 367 352 431 Bulk carriers, General cargo ships, and Reefer carriers were identified as having a higher detention ratio than other ship types noted. (‘Detention ratio’ was determined by dividing the number of detentions by the number of ships of each respective ship type in the NK fleet.)
Fig. 2.2.2-1Detentions by Ship Type (NK)
186
62
19 112 3
2612 6
29
7 4
161
65
288 2 2
24 167
32
7 3
209
93
3113
1 9 15 8 1031
9 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
Bulk C
arrier
Genera
l Carg
o
Contai
ner C
arrier
Chip C
arrier
Cemen
t Carr
ier
Ro-Ro S
hip
Reefer
Carr
ier
Vehicle
s Carr
ier
Oil Tan
ker
Oil/Che
mical T
anke
r
Gas C
arrier
Others
Det
entio
ns
200920102011
Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (%)
8.3
9.8
3.4
7.2
1.7
3
13.4
3.7
0.8
4.6
2.10.9
6.7
10.3
4.9 5
1.8 2
12.9
4.9
0.9
5
1.2 0.7
7.2
14.3
5.3
8.5
1
9.88.6
2.31.4
5
2.5
1
0.02.04.06.08.0
10.012.014.016.0
Bulk C
arrier
Genera
l Carg
o
Contai
ner C
arrier
Chip C
arrier
Cemen
t Carr
ier
Ro-Ro S
hip
Reefer
Carr
ier
Vehicle
s Carr
ier
Oil Tan
ker
Oil/Che
mical T
anke
r
Gas C
arrier
Others
Det
entio
n R
atio
(%)
20092010
2011
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
13
2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age
Table 2.2.3 Detentions by Ship’s Age (NK)
Ship’s age
Number of Registered
Ships in 2011 (500GT or over)
Number of Detentions Detention Ratio (%)
(= Detentions / Registered Number in each year)
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Up to 5 years old 2,769 41 47 71 1.8 2.0 2.6
Over 5 and up to 10 1,286 52 52 68 4.4 4.0 5.3
Over 10 and up to 15 1,216 95 79 94 7.3 6.4 7.7
Over 15 and up to 20 842 54 66 88 6.8 7.5 10.5
Over 20 and up to 25 382 52 34 41 10.9 8.1 10.7
Over 25 419 73 74 69 14.5 14.3 16.5
Total 6,914 367 352 431
Fig. 2.2.3-1Detentions by Ship's Age (NK)
4152
95
54 52
73
4752
79
66
34
7471 68
9488
41
69
0
20
40
60
80
100
Up to 5 Over 5 andup to 10
Over 10 andup to 15
Over 15 andup to 20
Over 20 andup to 25
Over 25
Det
entio
ns
200920102011
Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio by Ship's Age (NK)
1.8
4.4
7.3 6.8
10.9
14.5
24
6.47.5 8.1
14.3
2.6
5.37.7
10.5 10.7
16.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Up to 5 Over 5 andup to 10
Over 10 andup to 15
Over 15 andup to 20
Over 20 andup to 25
Over 25Det
entio
n R
atio
(%)
200920102011
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
14
2.2.4 Detentions by ship size (Tonnage)
Table 2.2.4 Detention by Size (Tonnage) (NK)
Gross Ton (x 1,000)
Number of Registered
Ships in 2011 (500GT or over)
Number of Detentions Detention Ratio (%)
(= Detentions / Registered Number in each year)
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Up to 10 2,478 122 132 164 4.7 5.3 6.6 Over 10 and up to 20 1,204 92 76 89 8.1 6.5 7.4 Over 20 and up to 30 781 47 49 63 6.7 6.6 8.1 Over 30 and up to 40 906 56 41 61 7.2 4.8 6.7 Over 40 and up to 50 509 23 17 28 5.3 3.6 5.5 Over 50 and up to 60 273 3 9 7 1.3 3.6 2.6 Over 60 and up to 80 200 15 12 7 8.2 6.0 3.5 Over 80 563 9 16 12 2.0 3.2 2.1 Total 6,914 367 352 431
Fig.2.2.4-1 Detention by Gross Tonnage (NK)
122
92
4756
23
315 9
132
76
4941
179 12 16
164
89
63 61
28
7 7 12
020406080
100120140160180
Up to 10 Over 10 andup to 20
Over 20 andup to 30
Over 30 andup to 40
Over 40 andup to 50
Over 50 andup to 60
Over 60 andup to 80
Over 80
Det
entio
ns
200920102011
x 1,000 GT
Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio by Gross Tonnage (NK)
4.7
8.1
6.77.2
5.3
1.3
8.2
2
5.3
6.5 6.6
4.8
3.6 3.6
6
3.2
6.6
7.4
8.1
6.7
5.5
2.6
3.5
2.1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Up to 10 Over 10 andup to 20
Over 20 andup to 30
Over 30 andup to 40
Over 40 andup to 50
Over 50 andup to 60
Over 60 andup to 80
Over 80
Dete
ntion R
atio
(%)
200920102011
x 1,000 GT
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
15
2.2.5 Detentions by Port State Table 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)
Port State 2009 2010 2011 China 59 88 117 Australia 89 76 83 Japan 21 27 40 India 10 8 26 Indonesia 3 6 23 U.S.A.(*1) 31 24 21 Russian Federation 9 6 12 Spain 14 5 10 Vietnam 6 13 9 Netherlands 6 0 9 Republic of Korea 20 18 6 United Kingdom 5 7 6 Iran 4 6 5 Italy 1 2 5 France 3 6 4 Belgium 11 4 4 Chile 2 2 4 Ukraine 6 4 3 Israel 1 2 3 Singapore 3 1 3 Canada 5 1 3 Germany 3 0 3 Ireland 3 2 2 Papua New Guinea 0 1 2 Portugal 2 0 2 Slovenia 1 0 2 Greece 1 0 2 Poland 0 0 2 Others 48 43 20 Total 367 352 431 (*1) Including Puerto Rico Detentions by members of the Tokyo MOU made up more than 70% of the total number of ships detained in 2011.
0
1
1
2
0
3
3
5
3
1
6
2
11
3
1
4
5
20
6
6
14
9
31
3
10
21
89
59
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
4
2
4
6
2
6
7
18
0
13
5
6
24
6
8
27
76
88
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
10
12
21
23
26
40
83
117
Porland
Greece
Slovenia
Portugal
Papua New Guinea
Ireland
Germany
Canada
Singapore
Israel
Ukraine
Chile
Belgium
France
Italy
Iran
United Kingdom
Republic of Korea
Netherlands
Vietnam
Spain
Russian Federation
U.S.A.(*1)
Indonesia
India
Japan
Australia
China
201120102009
Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
16
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category In 2011, a total of 1,137 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 431 detentions, i.e., deficiencies which were serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, safety of the crew onboard, or to present an unreasonable threat of harm to the environment and therefore warranted the detention of the ship. The deficiencies are categorized as shown in Figure 2.3.1. Deficiencies related to fire-fighting and life-saving appliances combined accounted for more than one-third of the total in 2011.
Fig. 2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
3
2
3
1
0
2
4
16
3
33
16
8
27
76
64
43
46
51
61
53
94
143
217
0
0
4
0
0
2
5
0
2
6
1
2
3
6
18
0
31
6
11
17
42
81
41
35
45
47
59
112
97
205
0
0
0
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
8
8
10
12
15
19
20
24
25
51
52
57
57
66
66
85
134
153
238
0 50 100 150 200 250
MARPOL - ANNEX II
AFS CONVENTION
ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SAFETY
MARPOL - ANNEX II
ACCIDENT PREVENTION (ILO 147)
MARPOL - ANNEX V
WORKING SPACES (ILO 147)
ALL OTHER DEFICIENCIES
OIL, CHEMICAL TANKERS AND GAS CARRIERS
FOOD AND CATERING (ILO 147)
MOORING ARRANGEMENTS (ILO 147)
CARRIAGE OF CARGO AND DANGEROUS GOODS
CREW AND ACCOMMODATION (ILO 147)
MARPOL RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES
ALARM SIGNALS
MARPOL - ANNEX VI
SHIP'S CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS
BULK CARRIERS - ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES
MARPOL - ANNEX IV
CERTIFICATE AND WATCHKEEPING FOR SEAFARERS
STABILITY, STRUCTURE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY
SOLAS RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES
RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS
SAFETY OF NAVIGATION
LOAD LINES
MARPOL - ANNEX I
ISM RELATED DEFICIENCIES
LIFESAVING APPLIANCES
FIRE SAFETY MEASURES
Deficiencies
201120102009
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
17
2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies Figure 2.3.2 shows those items of detainable deficiencies that were reported frequently, in conjunction with the actual detention of ships in the NK fleet. Lifeboats, emergency fire pumps, and fire-dampers continue to be the major items where most detainable deficiencies were found. Maintenance of the ship and equipment also comprise major items noted in 2011. The items reported from 2009 to 2011 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (15) below.
Fig. 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported Frequentry (NK)
16
22
11
17
12
21
5
8
6
17
10
19
4
14
15
9
22
6
34
22
39
53
70
25
10
14
18
16
16
11
6
2
9
7
16
9
13
12
4
17
22
24
33
39
64
43
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
17
17
19
19
22
23
26
34
41
42
48
64
75
6041
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Cleanliness of engine room
Certificates for master and officers
Fire detection
Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines
Auxiliary engine
MF/HF radio installation
Fire drills
Water level indicator
Fixed fire extinguishing installation
Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control
Resources and personnel
Fire prevention
Sewage treatment plant
Emergency lighting, batteries and switches
Charts
Reserve source of energy
Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances
Development of plans for shipboard operations
Ventilators, air pipes, casings
Oil filtering equipment
Maintenance of the ship and equipment
Fire-dampers
Emergency Fire Pump
Lifeboats
Deficiencies
201120102009
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
18
(1) Fire Fighting Appliances Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Fire Safety Measures (Fire Fighting Appliances)” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(1) below.
Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety Measures (Fire Fighting Appliances) Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Fire pumps 53 64 64 Inoperable or low pressure emergency fire pumps
Fire-dampers, Mechanical Ventilations 60 41 48 Wasted and holed fire-dampers
Prevention (fire protection) 19 16 17 Wasted and holed air vents Wasted fire doors and fire insulation
Fire fighting equipment 17 20 16 Wasted and holed fire main system and hoses Seized isolating valve of fire main
Fixed fire extinguishing system 6 2 15 Inadequate maintenance and validity expired Wasted/holed fire main system
Quick closing valves, Remote control devices 17 9 15 Wooden blocked quick closing valves
Seized closing devices
Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines 17 18 14
Leakage of fuel oil Disconnected jacketed piping system Inoperable jacketed piping system
Fire detection 11 14 14 Inoperable fire detection units
Other (fire safety related) 5 10 12 E/R bilge full of oily water etc.
Doors within main vertical zone 6 4 12 Malfunction of self-closing device Un-gastight due to worn packing
(2) ISM Related Defects Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “ISM Related Defects” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(2) below.
Table 2.3.2-(2) ISM Related Defects Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Maintenance of the ship and equipment 39 39 42 Inadequate implementation of SMS by crew
Inadequate maintenance of ship’s equipment
Development of plans for shipboard operations 6 22 26
No record of hours of rest /work and incorrect description Missing port arrival checklist
Resources and personnel 10 7 15 Not familiar with operation of equipments
Masters responsibility and authority 2 6 12 Master failed to ensure proper implementation of
requirements of the ISM Code
Other(ISM) 2 6 12 ISM system does not ensure etc.
Emergency preparedness 14 15 10 Failure of abandon ship drill and fire drill Not familiar with fire fighting equipment
Documentation 4 5 5 SMS documents not on board
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
19
(3) Life Saving Appliances Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Life Saving Appliances” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(3) below.
Table 2.3.2-(3) Life Saving Appliances Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Lifeboats 70 43 78
Inoperable lifeboat engine Damaged / Wasted lifeboats and inventories Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-load release gear Inoperable lifeboat steering
Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 22 17 23 Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-load
release gear Launching and recovery arrangements for survival craft 22 19 11 Wasted / Holed davit
Defective winch brake Inflatable liferafts 4 2 5 Expired service period / hydrostatic release unit (4) Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(4) below.
Table 2.3.2-(4) Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Auxiliary engine 12 16 15 Inoperable Initial start arrangements Leakage of oil, dirty blocks
Cleanliness of engine room 16 25 13 Excessive oil and bilge in engine room
Other (Machinery) 17 15 12
Inoperable incinerator, air compressor, emergency generator Leaking pump, cooling sea water line, mooring winch, steering gear
Propulsion main engine 13 17 6 Leakage of oil, cooling water
(5) MARPOL-ANNEX I Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL-ANNEX I” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(5) below.
Table 2.3.2-(5) MARPOL-ANNEX I Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Oil filtering equipment (Oily-Water Separating Equipment)
22 33 41
Inoperable separator, bilge pump Oily water inside overboard discharging line By-pass line fitted for oil filtering equipment Not familiar with the operation of oil filtering equipment
15 ppm alarm arrangement 8 7 10 Failure of alarm
Oil record book 2 3 7 Defective entry in oil record book
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
20
Oil discharge monitoring and control system 4 4 5 Defective automatic stopping device
Other 2 2 5 Inoperable waste oil incinerator
(6) Load Lines Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Load Lines” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(6) below.
Table 2.3.2-(6) Load Lines Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Ventilators, air pipes, casings 34 24 34 Wasted/Holed ventilator, air pipes Damaged float of air pipe head Damaged closing device
Hatch covers 9 8 9 Wasted / Holed hatch cover Wasted hatch cover cleats Wasted rubber packing
Doors 4 5 9 Not weather tight
Cargo and other hatchway 4 3 8 Wasted / Holed hatch Cover Wasted / Holed hatch coaming
(7) Safety of Navigation Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Safety of Navigation” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(7) below.
Table 2.3.2-(7) Safety of Navigation Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Charts 15 12 19 Navigation charts not updated Navigation charts for intended voyage not available
Voyage data recorder (VDR) 4 4 9 Defective VDR / S-VDR Alarm panel showing “system error”
Nautical publications 7 4 7 Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights, list of radio signals, etc.) not updated
Lights, shape, sound-signals 5 3 7 Inoperable navigation lights Navigation lights not supplied by battery
(8) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Stability, Structure and Related Equipment” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(8) below.
Table 2.3.2-(8) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Emergency lighting, batteries & switches 14 13 14 Deficient batteries/emergency generator
Inoperable emergency lighting
Steering Gear 9 5 7 Inoperable emergency steering Not familiar with operation of emergency steering
Ballast, fuel and other tanks 5 1 7 Wasted / cracked structural members in WBT and FOT
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
21
(9) SOLAS Related Operational Defects Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “SOLAS Related Operational Defects” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(9) below.
Table 2.3.2-(9) SOLAS Related Operational Defects Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Fire drills 5 11 14 Fire drill failed
Abandon ship drills 16 9 8 Abandon ship drill failed
Operation of GMDSS equipment 7 1 4 Not familiar with the operation of GMDSS
(10) Radio Communications Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Radio Communications” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(10) below.
Table 2.3.2-(10) Radio communications Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Reserve source of energy 9 4 22 Inoperable radio equipments by DC power Low voltage
MF/HF Radio Installation 21 16 14 Not operable Not operable by DC power
EPIRB 6 4 5 Not operable Annual test overdue
INMARSAT 2 4 4 Not operable Not operable by DC power
(11) Ship’s Certificates and Documents Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Ship’s Certificates and Documents” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(11) below.
Table 2.3.2-(11) Ship’s Certificates and Documents Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
EIAPP 0 1 3 Certificate not onboard
(12) Alarm Signals Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Alarm Signals” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(12) below.
Table 2.3.2-(12) Alarm Signals Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Fire alarm 2 6 5 Not operable
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
22
(13) Certification and Watchkeeping Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Certification and Watchkeeping” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13) below.
Table 2.3.2-(13) Certification and Watchkeeping Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Certification of master and officers 22 10 14
Missing of endorsement on STCW certificates by flag state Valid certificates expired
(14) MARPOL Annex IV Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Alarm Signals” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(14) below.
Table 2.3.2-(14) Alarm Signals Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Sewage Treatment Plant 4 9 17 Not operable
(15) Bulk Carrier Safety Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Bulk Carrier Safety” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(15) below.
Table 2.3.2-(15) Bulk Carrier Safety Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies
Water level indicator 8 6 14 Water ingress alarm/sensor failure
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
23
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.8 show the most common deficiencies that resulted in the detention of vessels classed with NK under PSC inspections conducted by the top 10 Port States, by number of detentions reported from 2009 through 2011. 2.4.1 China
Table 2.4.1 China Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Fire Safety Measures 43 74 83 Lifesaving Appliances 28 21 47 MARPOL Annex I 11 22 25 Radio Communications 7 12 21 Load Lines 17 14 18 ISM Related Deficiencies 6 14 16 Stability, Structure and Related Equipment 5 8 13 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 6 12 9 Bulk Carriers add. Safety Measures 6 1 9 MARPOL – Annex IV 6 5 7 SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies 10 3 7 Ships Certificates and Documents 14 5 6 Alarm Signals 12 8 5 Safety of Navigation 6 6 5
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Lifeboats 21 15 32 Oil filtering equipment 10 15 19 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 9 29 18 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 9 18 13 Ventilators, air pipes, casings 6 7 13 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 2 9 10 Fire Prevention 8 2 9 Reserve source of energy 3 1 9 Fixed fire extinguishing installation 0 0 8 Fire detection 5 7 8 Quick closing valves 5 4 8 Emergency lighting, batteries and switches 2 2 7 Water level indicator 4 1 7 Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines 4 5 6 Fire safety 0 0 6 MF/HF radio installation 3 7 5
A total of 290 detainable deficiencies relating to 117 detentions were noted in 2011. (2.5 detainable deficiencies/detention)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
24
2.4.2 Australia
Table 2.4.2 Australia Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
ISM Related Deficiencies 12 33 45 Lifesaving Appliances 38 25 28 Fire Safety Measures 41 16 23 Radio Communications 17 7 10 Load Lines 12 16 6 MARPOL – Annex IV 0 4 6 Safety Navigation 2 2 6 SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies 1 4 5
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 20 15 22 Development of plans for shipboard operations 0 19 20 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 29 9 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 7 5 10 Masters responsibility and authority 0 3 10 Lifeboats 9 6 6 Sewage treatment plant 0 4 6 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 4 2 5 Charts 0 2 4 MF/HF radio installation 11 2 4 Reserve source of energy 3 2 4
A total of 141 detainable deficiencies relating to 83 detentions were noted in 2011. (1.7 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.3 Japan
Table 2.4.3 Japan Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Fire safety measures 12 14 21 SOLAS related operational deficiencies 2 9 13 MARPOL Annex I 1 5 11 ISM related deficiencies 2 9 9 Lifesaving appliances 7 4 7 Load lines 0 1 6
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Oil filtering equipment 1 5 11 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 5 0 9 Fire drills 1 6 8 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 4 3 7 Resources and personnel 0 4 6
A total of 78 detainable deficiencies relating to 40 detentions were noted in 2011. (3 detainable deficiencies/detention)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
25
2.4.4 India
Table 2.4.4 India Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Safety of Navigation 0 1 30 Fire Safety Measures 10 6 24 MARPOL Annex I 8 9 17 Lifesaving Appliances 0 2 15 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 3 6 10 ISM Related Deficiencies 2 4 9 Radio Communications 3 1 8 MARPOL Related Operational Deficiencies 0 0 6 MARPOL - Annex IV 0 1 6 Certificate & Documentation 2 1 5 Certificate and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 2 0 5 SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies 3 1 5 Load Lines 1 5 4
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Charts 0 0 7 Voyage data recorder (VDR) 0 0 7 Lifeboats 0 2 5 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 1 0 5 Cleanliness of engine room 0 0 5
A total of 165 detainable deficiencies relating to 26 detentions were noted in 2011. (6.3 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.5 Indonesia
Table 2.4.5 Indonesia Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Fire safety measures 4 3 23 Radio Communications 0 0 7 Load Lines 0 5 4
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Fire Prevention 0 1 11 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 2 1 4 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 1 1 4 Other (fire safety) 0 0 4 Functional requirements (Radio communications) 0 0 4
A total of 46 detainable deficiencies relating to 23 detentions were noted in 2011. (2 detainable deficiencies/detention)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
26
2.4.6 U.S.A.
Table 2.4.6 U.S.A. Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
ISM Related Deficiencies 0 0 10 Fire safety measures 0 12 8 MARPOL Annex I 0 0 6
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Development of plans for shipboard operations 0 0 4 Fire fighting equipment and appliances 0 2 4 Oil record book 0 0 2
A total of 36 detainable deficiencies relating to 21 detentions were noted in 2011. (1.7 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.7 Russian Federation Table 2.4.7 Russian Federation
Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Lifesaving Appliances 2 1 5 Fire safety measures 5 2 4 Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 1 0 3
Type of Deficiency 2008 2009 2010
Lifeboats 1 0 4 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 2 1 3 Other (Machinery) 0 0 2
A total of 22 detainable deficiencies relating to 12 detentions were noted in 2011. (1.8 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.8 Spain
Table 2.4.8 Spain Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Fire safety measures 6 5 6 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 4 4 6 ISM related deficiencies 15 4 5
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Auxiliary engine 1 0 4 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 3 1 2 Other (ISM related) 0 0 2 Fire fighting equipment and appliances 1 1 2
A total of 40 detainable deficiencies relating to 10 detentions were noted in 2011. (4 detainable deficiencies/detention)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
27
2.4.9 Vietnam
Table 2.4.9 Vietanam Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Certificate and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 2 0 7 Lifesaving Appliances 0 0 3 Fire Safety Measures 5 9 3
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Certificates for master and officers 2 0 6 Lifeboats 0 0 2 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 2 4 2
A total of 24 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions were noted in 2011.(2.7 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.10 Netherlands
Table 2.4.9 Netherlands Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
MARPOL – Annex VI 0 0 5 Fire Safety Measures 1 0 4 ISM Related Deficiencies 1 0 4 Lifesaving Appliances 0 0 3
Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011
Sulphur oxides 0 0 4 Lifeboats 0 0 2 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 3 0 2 15 ppm alarm arrangement 0 0 2 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 0 0 2
A total of 24 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions were noted in 2011.(2.7 detainable deficiencies/detention)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
28
Chapter 3
Statistical Analysis of NKSMC ship recorded ISM deficiency at PSC In this chapter, terms defined below are used. NKSMC ship: Ship holding an international safety management certificate issued by
ClassNK NKDOC company: Company holding a Document of Compliance issued by ClassNK ISM deficiency: Deficiency of a safety management system related to a requirement of ISM
Code ISM deficiency case: Case where any ISM deficiencies were recorded in a PSC inspection report ISM deficiency ship: Ship having a safety management system an ISM deficiency of which was
recorded in a PSC inspection report ISM deficiency rate*: Percentage of ISM deficiency ships to the whole NKSMC ships or a group
of NKSMC ships in consideration * Defining ISM deficiency rate as percentage of ISM deficiency cases to NKSMC ships that subjected to a PSC inspection is more meaningful. However, as the total number of such NKSMC ships is unknown, the total number of the whole or a group of NKSMC ships was used instead.
3. 1 ISM deficiency cases 3.1.1 Total number and average rate The total numbers of ISM deficiency cases and the average ISM deficiency rates in the past 4 years are shown in Table 3.1.1.1. In year 2008-2010, the rate show a tendency of decreasing, however, it has increased again in year 2011, to the value 5.4%.
Table 3.1.1.1 Total number and rate of ISM deficiency cases
Year
ISM deficiency
cases (A)
NKSMC ships
total No. (B)
ISM deficiency
rate (A/B)
2008 202 4148 4.9 2009 178 4073 4.4 2010 169 4212 4.0 2011 202 4505 4.5
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
29
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
3.1.2 Comparison 3.1.2.1 Per factors related to ship (a) Per type of ship ISM deficiency rate per type of ship is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (a) and Figure 3.1.2.1(a). The ISM deficiency rate of bulk carrier decreased 1.1% in 2010. The ISM deficiency rate of the other cargo ship was the same rate since 2009. The ISM deficiency rate of Gas carrier has been increasing since 2009. There was no report of ISM deficiency of passenger & MODU in 2011.
Table 3.1.2.1 (a) ISM deficiency rate per type of ship
Type of ship
No. of ISM deficiency
cases 2011 (A)
No. of NKSMC
ships 2011 (B)
ISM deficiency rate (%) (A/B)
2008
2009
2010
2011
Bulk carrier 95 1798 5.1 6.1 4.2 5.3 Other cargo ship 85 1680 6.4 4.9 4.8 5.1 Oil tanker* 15 769 2.0 1.5 2.3 2.0 Chemical tanker** 1 26 0.0 0.0 8.3 3.8 Gas carrier 6 227 2.9 0.9 1.8 2.6 Passenger & MODU 0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 202 4505 4.9 4.4 4.0 4.5 * Including oil/chemical tankers. ** Excluding oil/chemical tanker.
Figure 3.1.2.1 (a) ISM deficiency rate per type of ship
(b) Per age of ship The numbers of ISM deficiency ships per age group of ship in recent four years are shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (b) together with the numbers of NKSMC ship and the ISM deficiency rates in Figure 3.1.2.1 (b)-1, and ISM deficiency rate per type and age group of ship in 2011 in Figure 3.1.2.1(b)-2.
ISM
defic.
rate
(%)
Bulk carrier Other cargo ship Oil tanker Chemical tanker Gas carrier Passenger & MODU
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
30
The older a ship is greater the ISM deficiency rate tends to be. Such tendency is more conspicuous for bulk carrier and other cargo ship. This is attributed to the increase in the number of deficiencies due to inadequate maintenance of ship including equipment and fittings with aging of ships.
Table 3.1.2.1 (b) No. of ISM deficiency ships per age group of ship
Age No. of ISM deficiency cases (A) No. of NKSMC ships (B) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011
0 - 4 32 24 31 52 1440 1586 1671 1803 5 - 9 32 23 32 37 822 832 940 1064
10 - 14 57 52 39 47 849 817 773 744 15 - 19 12 27 27 39 355 355 381 463 20 - 24 35 29 16 16 373 238 210 218 25 - 34 23 24 11 309 245 237 213
Total 202 178 169 202 4148 4073 4212 4505 Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -2 ISM deficiency rate (%) per ship type and age group of ship
(c) Per gross tonnage of ship The numbers of ISM deficiency cases per gross-tonnage group of ship in recent four years are shown in Table 3.1.2.1(c) together with the numbers of NKSMC ship, and the ISM deficiency rates in Figure 1.2.1(c). The ISM deficiency rate of large ships of more than 50,000 gross tonnage has stayed
low continuously and decreased from around 3 % in 2010 to around 2 % in 2011.
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 ‐ 4年 5 ‐ 9年 10 ‐ 14年 15 ‐ 19年 20 ‐ 24年 25年以上
2008年
2009年
2010年
2011年
ISM
defic.
rate
(A/B)
(%)
ISM
defic.
rate
(A/B)
Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -1 ISM deficiency rate per age group of ship
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 14 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25 ‐
Bulk carrier
Other cargo ship
Oil tanker
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
31
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 ‐ 10 10 ‐ 20 20 ‐ 30 30 ‐ 40 40 ‐ 50 50 ‐ 60 60 ‐ 80 80以上
2008
2009
2010
2011
Table 3.1.2.1 (c) No. of ISM deficiency ships per GT group of ship
GT ( x 1,000)
No. of ISM deficiency cases (A) No. NKSMC ships (B) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011
0 - 10 67 47 62 67 1189 1149 1134 1106 10 - 20 34 45 31 43 782 741 757 815 20 - 30 32 21 18 24 505 459 474 515 30 - 40 39 29 24 34 551 556 578 672 40 - 50 13 15 8 17 380 363 389 438 50 - 60 8 5 6 4 197 212 222 241 60 - 80 4 7 6 3 135 150 169 171 80 - 5 9 14 10 409 443 489 547 Total 202 178 169 202 4148 4073 4212 4505
ISM
defic. rate (A/B) ( )
Figure 3.1.2.1 (c) ISM deficiency rate per GT
GT ( x 1,000)
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
32
(d) Per flag of ship ISM deficiency rate per flag of ship in 2008 to 2011 is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (d) together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases. ISM deficiency rate together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Philippine,
Panamanian and Liberian increased in 2011. ISM deficiency rate of Japanese is decreasing from 2010.
Table 3.1.2.1 (d) ISM deficiency rate per flag of ship
Flag 2008 2009 2010 2011 No. Rate No. Rate No. Rate No. Rate
Philippines 4 6.1 1 2.1 3 6.8 4 9.1 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 4 30.8 1 8.3 1 7.1 1 9.1
Thailand 3 4.1 0 0 5 9.4 5 8.8 Malta 10 8.5 10 8.3 8 6.5 7 5.8 Turkey 4 8.3 4 7.8 5 6.9 4 5.3 Panama 113 4.7 106 4.5 97 4.1 126 5.1 Liberia 12 6.2 15 8.3 4 2.1 11 5.1 Cyprus 7 10.3 5 8.5 4 6.9 3 4.7 Marshall Islands 4 4.2 7 6.2 7 5.0 9 4.6 Vanuatu 1 3.6 0 0 3 6.5 2 4.2 H.K. (China) 11 4.7 6 2.7 9 3.9 9 3.6 Singapore 16 3.7 9 2.0 15 3.1 16 3.1 Malaysia 1 2.3 1 2.8 2 6.1 1 2.6 Japan 5 3.6 9 6.0 4 2.3 3 1.6 Bahamas 2 2.0 1 0.9 2 1.8 1 0.9 Greece 3 6.4 2 4.4 0 0 0 0 Dominica 1 16.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syria 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 Former Netherlands Antilles
1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total/Average 202 4.9 178 4.4 169 4.0 202 4.5
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
33
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1~5 6~10 11~15 16~20 21~30 31~40 41~50 51以上
3.1.2.2 Per factors related to Company Note: The analysis presented in this section covers only NKSMC ships under the management of NKDOC Companies.
(a) Per number of ships under management by Company ISM deficiency rate per group of Companies corresponding to the number of ships under their management in 2011 are shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (a) together with ISM deficiency rate. The ISM deficiency rate of the group of 1-5, 6-10 ships is 5.6%, the highest, followed
by that of 11-15 ships, 4.5%, the same as total deficiency rate. In 2011 the ISM deficiency rate shows smaller value in steps, corresponding with the
number of the ships. 11 ships and 31 ships are boundary.
Table 3.1.2.2(a) ISM deficiency rate per No. of ships under management of Company
No. of ships under
management
No. of Companies
No. of ISM deficiency
cases (A)
No. of NKSMC ships
(B)
ISM deficiency
rate (A/B)
1 - 5 396 51 906 5.6
6 - 10 94 39 699 5.6
11 - 15 42 24 534 4.5
16 - 20 23 17 403 4.2
21 - 30 29 30 704 4.3
31 - 40 14 17 508 3.3
41 - 50 5 8 225 3.6
51 - 7 16 526 3.0
Total 610 202 4505 4.5 Figure 3.1.2.2(a) ISM deficiency rate per No. of ships under management of Company
ISM
defic. rate (%)
No. of ships under management of Company
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
34
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
2011
2010
(b) Per years past since the first issue of NKDOC for Company The numbers of ISM deficiency cases and ISM deficiency rate per years past since the first issue of NKDOC for Company are shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (b).. There is no correlation between the years and ISM deficiency rate.
Table 3.1.2.2 (b) ISM deficiency rate per length of Company’s SMS operation
Length of SMS
operation
No. of Companies
No. of ISM deficiency cases
2011(A)
No. of NKSMC ships
2011(B)
ISM deficiency rate
(A/B)
Total Per company
Total Per company
2010 2011
18 4 0 0.00 68 17.0 0.0 0.0
17 20 22 1.10 534 26.7 2.9 4.1
16 42 29 0.69 611 14.5 1.9 4.7
15 73 28 0.38 728 10.0 4.4 3.8
14 57 19 0.33 400 7.0 3.8 4.8
13 14 5 0.36 158 11.3 3.7 3.2
12 8 2 0.25 75 9.4 4.1 2.7
11 22 6 0.27 134 6.1 8.1 4.5
10 35 14 0.40 292 8.3 4.8 4.8
9 14 2 0.14 80 5.7 4.6 2.5
8 16 9 0.56 89 5.6 5.3 10.1
7 10 0 0.00 101 10.1 10.1 0.0
6 14 6 0.43 112 8.0 1.4 5.4
5 16 5 0.31 85 5.3 4.3 5.9
4 15 10 0.67 106 7.1 2.6 9.4
3 26 1 0.04 72 2.8 6.3 1.4
2 36 7 0.19 151 4.2 4.2 4.6
1 41 2 0.05 85 2.1 5.7 2.4
Total 463 167 0.36 3881 8.4 4.1 4.3
ISM
defic. rate (%)
Length of Company’s SMS operation Figure 3.1.2.2 (b) ISM deficiency rate per length of Company’s SMS
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
35
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Thail
and
Kore
a
Cana
da
Taiw
an
Philip
pines
Gree
ce
Turk
ey
H.K.
(Chin
a)
China
Japa
n
India
Mala
ysia
Germ
any
U.K.
Singa
pore
(c) Per country/region where Company is located ISM deficiency rate per country/region where Company is located, is shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (c), together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases, and in Figure 3.1.2.2 (c). The averaged ISM deficiency rate of ships under the management of Companies
located in Thailand and Turkey have decreased each from 11.4 % (2010) to 10.3%, from 9.7 % to 5.1 %, respectively.
That of ships under the management of Companies located in Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Hong Kong (China) have increased from 5.8% to 7.7 %, from 2.9% to 6.2%, from 3.4% to 6.2%, from 2.7% to 5.0%, respectively.
Although the rate in Greece and Singapore were equivalent, the rate in Japan was slightly increased from 4.3% to 4.8%.
Table 3.1.2.2(c) ISM deficiency rate per country/region in which company are located
Country/Region No. of Companies
No. of ISM deficiency
cases (A)
No. of NKSMC ships
(B)
ISM deficiency rate (A/B)
2010 2011 Thailand 6 6 58 11.4 10.3 Korea 36 12 155 5.8 7.7 Canada 2 1 15 7.7 6.7 Taiwan 16 10 161 2.9 6.2 Philippines 25 14 232 3.4 6.0 Greece 101 20 346 5.7 5.8 Turkey 43 8 156 9.7 5.1 H.K. (China) 18 16 318 2.7 5.0 China 49 6 121 3.1 5.0 Japan 189 88 1835 4.3 4.8 India 5 1 24 3.6 4.2 Malaysia 8 2 69 5.1 2.9 Germany 4 1 44 0.0 2.3 U.K. 7 1 47 0.0 2.1 Singapore 62 16 807 2.1 2.0 (Others) 39 0 117 2.0 0.0
Total 610 202 4505 4.0 4.5
ISM
defic. rate
Figure 3.1.2.2 (c) Deficiency rate per country/region in which company are located
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
36
3.1.2.3 Per port state who carried out PSC inspection The number of ISM deficiency cases per port state who executed PSC is shown in Table 3.1.2.3. The numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Australia and China have been increasing,
since 2008. The numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Japan increased from 26 to 36 in 2011. The number of ISM deficiency cases in U.S.A. increased from 11 cases (2012) to 22
cases. The numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Tokyo MOU member countries and USCG
are significantly large. Table 3.1.2.3 ISM deficiency case per port state who executed PSC
Authority No. of ISM deficiency cases 2008 2009 2010 2011
Australia 48 47 50 63 Japan 19 14 26 36 U.S.A. 34 17 11 22 China 12 12 15 17 Indonesia 0 0 2 8 U.K. 7 5 5 7 Spain 8 12 6 6 Korea 11 11 6 5 India 2 5 1 5 France 7 1 7 4 Italy 9 5 3 4 Netherlands 0 4 2 3 Viet Nam 2 0 2 3 Portugal 0 1 0 3 Taiwan 3 0 6 2 Belgium 4 7 4 2 Russia 5 3 3 2 Ireland 2 1 2 2 Chile 1 0 1 2 Argentina 1 6 4 1 Germany 6 3 2 1 Singapore 2 3 0 1 Greece 1 1 0 1 Kenya 0 0 0 1 Bulgaria 0 0 0 1 Brazil 3 4 3 0 New Zealand 1 4 2 0 Iran 2 2 1 0 Poland 4 0 1 0 Romania 1 0 1 0 Ukraine 1 0 1 0 South Africa 0 0 1 0 Turkey 0 0 1 0 (Others) 6 10 0 0
Total 202 178 169 202
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
37
3.2 ISM deficiencies and PSC actions 3.2.1 Comparison of ISM deficiencies per ISM Code requirement The total numbers of ISM deficiencies recorded in PSC reports in 2008 to 2011 and those divided according to ISM Code requirements, by its sections, are shown in Table 3.2.1.
Table 3.2.1 Total No. of ISM deficiencies and distribution per ISM Code requirement
Year ISM Code requirements (Section No.) Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 99* 2008 1 19 14 2 24 27 46 33 30 114 21 6 6 2 345 2009 0 5 10 1 11 23 37 25 17 109 5 4 3 22 272 2010 0 6 14 1 12 26 46 23 10 87 11 4 3 1 244 2011 0 10 5 2 12 25 44 28 11 86 17 5 2 24 271
99* : The ISM Code requirement with which the deficiencies were raised was not specified.
The total number of ISM deficiencies increased to 271 in 2011 with the increase of
ISM deficiency cases to 202. The number of ISM deficiencies per ISM deficiency case is 1.34% decreased from 1.44% in 2010.
Percentage of ISM deficiencies related to “Section 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment” decreased to 31.7% from 35.5% in 2010.
The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to “Section 6 Resources and personnel” decreased to 9.2% from 10.6% and that of “Section 8 Emergency preparedness” increased to 10.3% from 9.4%.
The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to “Section 7 Shipboard operations” decreased to 16.2% from 18.8%, that of “Section 9 Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences” was 4.1% same to in 2009.
Section Requirements for 1 General (1.2.3 Compliance with mandatory rules, etc.) 2 Safety and environmental protection policy 3 Company responsibilities and authority 4 Designated persons 5 Master’s responsibility and authority 6 Resources and personnel 7 Shipboard operations 8 Emergency preparedness 9 Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous
occurrences 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 11 Documentation 12 Company verification, review and evaluation 13 Certification and periodical verification
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
38
3.2.2 Comparison of deficiencies and detention per port state The numbers of ISM deficiencies and detentions of ship recorded in PSC reports in 2011 per ISM Code requirements and port state who executed PSC are shown in Table 3.2.2.1. Those in the brackets are the numbers of detention. Table 3.2.2.1 No. of ISM deficiencies & detention per port state & ISM Code requirements
Authority ISM Code requirements (Section No.) Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 99*
Australia 1 1 9 3 20 10 5 24 3 2 3 81 (7) (1) (12) (2) (8) (1) (1) (32)
Japan 10 10 6 4 24 3 2 59 (8) (2) (1) (1) (12)
U.S.A. 7 3 1 1 5 3 1 7 3 31 (1) (1) (4) (2) (2) (10)
China 1 1 5 2 7 2 1 1 2 22 (1) (2) (5) (1) (9)
Indonesia 1 2 1 7 11 (1) (1)
Korea 8 2 10 (1) (1) (2)
Spain 2 2 1 2 7 (1) (2) (1) (4)
U.K. 2 1 3 1 7 (1) (1) (3) (1) (6)
India 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (5)
France 2 1 1 4 (0)
(Others) 1 1 3 4 6 9 3 1 5 33 (1) (1) (2) (4) (6) (3) (17)
Total 0 10 5 2 12 25 44 28 11 86 17 5 2 24 271 (0) (3) (1) (1) (8) (15) (22) (8) (0) (27) (4) (2) (0) (7) (98)
( ): Number of detention 99*: The ISM Code requirement by Section with which the deficiencies were raised was not specified. The largest number of ISM deficiencies was pointed out at PSC inspections carried
out in Australia, followed by Japan, U.S.A., China and Indonesia. As to the number of detention of the ship, Australia was the largest, followed by
U.S.A, Japan, China, U.K. and India. The detainable ISM deficiencies related to “Section 10 Maintenance of the ship and
equipment” numbered 27 which accounted for 27.6% of all the detainable ones, and then the percentage of those related to “Section 7 Shipboard operations” and “Section 8 Emergency preparedness” are 22.4% and 8.2%, respectively.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
39
3.2.3 Analysis of deficiencies recorded along with PSC actions applied The distribution of ISM deficiencies recorded in PSC reports in 2011 per ISM Code requirements by its sections and PSC actions taken is shown in Table 3.2.3.1 and the distribution of the same by ISM Code requirement in Figure 3.2.3.1.
Table 3.2.3.1 Distribution of ISM deficiencies per ISM Code requirement and PSC Action
ISM Code
Sect. No.
Total
PSC Action Codes1) 10 15 16 17 18 302) 40 50 70 99 -
Def
ic. r
ecti
fied
Def
ic. t
o be
rec
tifie
d by
ne
xt p
ort
Def
ic. t
o be
rec
tifie
d w
ithi
n 14
day
s
Def
ic. t
o be
rec
tifie
d be
fore
dep
artu
re
Def
ic. t
o be
rec
tifie
d w
ithi
n 3
mon
ths
Gro
unds
for
dete
ntio
n
Def
ic. t
o be
rec
tifie
d w
ithi
n 7
days
Def
ic. t
o be
rec
tifie
d w
ithi
n 30
day
s
Def
ic. t
o be
rec
tifie
d be
fore
bac
k to
US
port
Oth
ers
Unk
now
n
1 0 2 10 1 2 1 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 5 12 2 8 1 1 6 25 4 6 15 7 44 3 17 22 2 8 28 1 4 14 8 1 9 11 1 10
10 86 2 8 44 27 1 1 2 1 11 17 1 4 7 4 1 12 5 2 2 1 13 2 1 1
Unknown3)
24 5 3 8 7 1
GT 271 1 0 9 32 113 98 1 1 7 7 2 GT4) 244 1 1 3 24 106 100 0 1 0 5 3
Notes: 1) The Action Codes are those used under Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, and USCG as follows.
Action Code 10, 15, 16, 17 and 30 are used under Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and USCG Action Code 18 and 99 are used under Paris MOU and Tokyo MOU Action Code 40, 50 and 70 are used under USCG.
2) The number of Action Codes 30 includes Action Code 19 “Rectify major non conformity before departure (Only for ISM defective items and always with a detainable deficiency)” used under Paris MOU, Vina Del Mar MOU, etc., not used under Tokyo MOU and USCG.
3) Related ISM Code requirement is not specified. 4) GT, Ground total. The data of 2010 were presented for comparison.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
10 15 16 17 18 30 40 50 70 99
2010
2011
Analysis with collected ISM deficiency data, which are summarized in Table 3.2.3.1, and the descriptions of ISM deficiencies related to the requirements of ISM Code Sections 6 to 10 recorded in PSC inspection reports along with PSC actions are presented below. For more information, the typical examples of PSC inspection report carried out in Australia, China, Spain, France, U.K., Indonesia, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal and U.S.A. in 2011 are given at the Appendix, showing the ISM deficiencies raised together with deficiencies on ship constructions, equipment, operation, etc. And further examples which we had are up-loaded on our web-site <
http://www.classnk.or.jp/> titled “Monthly PSC Information” in “ISM Code Related”. General Among PSC actions, per Action Code, applied to the ISM deficiencies, the number of
the deficiencies related to “Defic. to be rectified within 3 months” was the largest one which accounted for 41.7%, followed by those related to “Grounds for detention” accounting for 36.2% and those related to “Defic. to be rectified before departure” accounting for 11.8%.
The number of “Grounds for detention” in 2011 was 98 similar to 100 in 2010, and the percentage of that against the total number of deficiencies decreased from 40.9% in 2010. Among the numbers per ISM Code requirement, “Section 10 Maintenance of ship and equipment” was the largest one, followed by “7 Shipboard operations”, “Section 8. Emergency preparedness” and “Section 6 Resources and personnel”.
The percentage of “Section 3 Company responsibilities and authority” and “Section 5 Master’s responsibility and authority” against the total number of deficiencies decreased to 1.8% and 4.4% from 5.7% and 4.9%, respectively.
ISM Code Section 6 Resources and personnel The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 6 has been decreasing slightly to 9.2% in 2011, though the ratio of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies rlated to ISM Code Section 6 increased to 60.0% from 30.7%. Unfamiliarity with fire drill, inadequate crew certificate or endorsement of certificate, lack of chart control and insufficient navigation plan, which frequently result “Ground
Action Code
Figure 3.2.3.1 Distribution of ISM deficiencies per ISM Code requirement
No. of ISM defic.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
41
for detention”, are also able to be evidences for an additional detainable ISM related deficiency, i.e. with Section 7 or, sometimes Section 6.
ISM Code Section 7 Shipboard operations The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 7 to the whole was 16.2 % smaller than the one in 2010, and ratio of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 7 has been increasing from 41.3% (2010) to 50.0%. Most of ISM related deficiencies applied “Ground for detention” have related to non-compliance with the work/rest hours requirement of STCW convention, insufficient navigation/passage plans, charts not up to date, necessary charts not provided on board, etc.. These deficiencies themselves are often required “To be rectified before departure”. ISM Code Section 8 Emergency preparedness The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 8 was 10.3% larger to 9.4% (2010), but that of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 8 has been decreased from 60.8% (2010) to 28.6%. Most of deficiencies corresponding to the following (a) and/or (b) have resulted in ISM related detainable deficiency in addition to the judgment of “Detainable” on each deficiency. (a) As a result of performance inspection, the crew are found unfamiliar with the
procedures of fire drill including simulated operation of fixed fire extinguishing system and/or operation of lifeboats & launching appliances. In some situations, the deficiencies was judged in relation to ISM Code Section 6.
(b) Serious damages or malfunctioning of the following equipment were found on fire extinguishing systems. Fire main pipe, Emergency fire pump, Isolating valve, Fire damper, Water ingress system, Emergency generator, Emergency shut off vlave for Oil Tanks In some situations, the deficiencies were judged in relation to ISM Code Section 10.
ISM Code Section 9 Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and
hazardous occurrences The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 9 was 4.1%, same to the one in 2010, and there was no data related to deficiency with “Ground for detention” in 2011. Most of deficiencies pointed out were “Malfunction of hull construction, facilities, equipment, etc., had not been reported to the company as non conformity in accordance with the company SMS procedure”. There were the cases that no report of the deficiencies to Flag Government, Classification Society, Port Authority, etc., which specified in SOLAS Chapter 1 Part B Regulation 11 “Maintenance of condition after survey” (c), was raised as ISM related deficiency. Recurrence of the previous deficiencies pointed out by PSCO may result in ISM related detainable deficiency.
ISM Code Section 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 10 has decreased from 35.5% (2010) to 31.7%. The percentage of “Defic. to be rectified within 3 months” decreased from 54.0% (2010) to 51.8%, that of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 10 decreased from 39.1% (2010) to 31.4% and that of “Defic. to be rectified before departure” increased from 3.4% (2010) to 9.3%. The deficiencies related to maintenance which pointed out as the evidence of ISM related detainable deficiency were mainly those of the fire fighting equipment, ventilators & air pipes, life saving appliance, main engine, auxiliary engine, various pumps, hatch covers, navigation equipment, emergency lights, etc. In many cases, they
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
42
were required “Defic. to be rectified before departure” or “Ground for detention” The following equipment/facilities were frequently pointed out due to malfunction or poor maintenance as an evidence of ISM related deficiency. (a) Fire fighting equipment/facilities
Main & emergency fire pump, Self closing device of fire door, Fireman’s outfit, Hydrant, Fire extinguisher, Fire damper, Leakage of F.O & L.O. etc.
(b) Ventilators, Air vent. pipes Corrosion, Wear & tear, Poor or no operation due to sticking, etc.
(c) Life saving appliances Life boat engine, Hull of life boat, Furnishings of life boat, On-load-release gear/sling hook, Life buoy, etc.
(d) Equipment in Engine room Leakage of F.O./L.O., Lagging of purifier, exhaust pipe, etc wetted with oil, Leaving temporary repair of various pipe line, Insufficient function of oily water separating plant, In-operable emergency shut off valves for oil tanks, etc
(e) Navigation equipment Voyage Data Recorder (VDR), Automatic Identification System (AIS), Echo Depth
Sounder, Radar, GMDSS, Emergency power source of GMDSS
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
43
Appendix Extract from PSC inspection reports
An extract from reports of PSC inspections carried out in Australia, China, Spain, France,
UK, Indonesia, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal and U.S.A. in 2011 is given at the
Appendix showing below the descriptions of ISM deficiencies together with relevant
deficiencies on ship constructions, equipment, etc.
1.
Australia
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 17 1.EGC not configured correctly to receive AUSCOAST warning (Rectified during
inspection.
- 17 2.MOB lifebuoy on bridge wing (Stb'd): light defective.
- 17 3.Bosun’s store water ingress alarm switched on.
- 17 4.Large scale charts for next voyage not all available.
- 30 5.Water ballast tank air vent closing device defective (5 locations).
- 17 6.Forward mast light defective.
6 18 7.SMS has not ensured that appropriate scale charts are used for the voyage. Large
scale charts not used/available for previous voyage on Australian coast.
- 17 8.Fresh water tank inlet pipe on poop deck: Filling cap missing.
- 17 9.Inboard launching wire for both lifeboats unable to be disconnected from the handle
allowing lifeboats to get away.
- 17 1.Port & Stb'd lifeboats overdue for launch & maneuvering in the water (last record
Sept 2010).
- 17 2.Chart folio contains several photocopied charts.
- 17 3.Water ingress alarm switched off at time of initial inspection.
- 17 4.E/R fire dampers (P&S) stiff to operate.
- 30 5.Port & Stb'd lifeboat steering system defective.
- 17 6.Port lifeboat starting source 2 failed.
- 30 7.Port lifeboat on-load release defective.
- 30 8.Emergency fire pump unable to pressurize fire main.
- 17 9.E/R sounding pipe self closing valves - springs removed several locations.
- 17 10.No 1 WBT (Port/aft) air vent head cracked, affected area covered with painted
tape.
- 17 11.Fwd liferaft emergency light not operational.
- 17 12.Freeboard marks deteriorated, not plainly visible.
- 17 13.Hatch coaming top distorted in way of cleat devices No 1 S/A , No 2 aft, No3 P/A.
- 17 14.Build up of water port lifeboat engine bay.
8 30 15.ISM has not ensured emergency preparedness as evidenced by deficiencies
lifeboat maneuvering in water & water ingress alarm.
10 30 16.ISM has not ensured maintenance of ship and equipment as evidenced by the
these deficiencies.
7 30 17.ISM has not ensured development of plans for shipboard operations as evidenced
by deficiency of Chart.
- 30 18.Nature and extent of these deficiencies are objective evidence vessel has not
been maintained between surveys.
- 17 1.Voyage plan from Singapore to Geelong has not used largest scale charts available
for navigation.
- 17 2.Radio Room flap vent has no securing device.
- 17 3.Battery room vent gauze defective.
- 17 4.P&S liferafts not secured as per disposable HRU manufacturers instructions.
- 99 5.Additional deck air compressor connected to emergency switchboard.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
44
- 17 6.Vent flap removed from emergency generator room cable conduit.
- 17 7.Port side conveyor belt hatch on forecastle missing a hatch dog.
- 17 8.Numerous areas of cargo hatch packing missing.
- 99 9.Temporary wiring in laundry presents shock hazard.
- 17 10.Self closing sounding cock found defective.
- 17 11.Both steering gear oil tank gauges found gagged open.
- 17 12.Oil in cascade tank.
- 99 13.E/R Halon cylinder C12 found to be below manufacturers specified pressure at
present temperature. (35Bar@30C).
- 30 14.Sewage treatment plant defective.
- 30 15.Three way valve on OWS defective. Allows discharge overboard when oil content
meter is in alarm.
- 17 16.Crew unable to present evidence of approval for stability program in use on board.
5 30 17.SMS fails to ensure that vessel uses largest scale charts available for navigation
as evidenced by Voyage plan.
10 18 18.SMS fails to ensure that the vessel is maintained to the required standard as
evidenced by these deficiencies.
2. China
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 17 1.Unapproved hold back hook installed on A-Class self closing fire doors of galley
(3pcs).
12 30 2.SMS internal audit interval was more than 15 months (last SMS internal audit
29-06-2010).
- 30 3.ISPS internal audit interval was more than 15 months (last ISPS internal audit
29-06-2010).
- 17 4.Form 2 & 3 of CSR document No.2 unavailable.
- 30 5.Oil content meter keeps alarm when starting oil filtering equipment for functional
testing in every time.
- 17 6.Records enter in oil record book conflicts with the log in oil content meter monitor.
- 17 7.EIAPP certificate for M/E and generators and E/G unavailable.
- 16 8.Structure access manual was not approved by NK.
- 30 1.Fire detection system out of order: Test fire detector in wheel house deck, fire
detection system displays detector in stair way action.
6 30 2.Duty officer not familiar with the operation of power failure test of water ingress
system.
- 17 3.Weekly correction not recorded in catalogue of admiralty charts & publication.
- 17 4.Last annual service report to lifeboat launching appliances not available onboard.
6 30 5.Related crews not familiar with the possible major troubles and corrective actions
of oil water separator.
- 17 1.Clutch of portside lifeboat engine out of working.
- 17 2.Fire damper for E/R funnel can not be closed tightly.
- 17 3.Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines of M/E can not keep integrality.
6 17 4.Working language not be established in deck log book.
- 17 5.Record of hours of rest not be signed by seafarer & authorized person & master
partly.
- 17 6.NBDP functional test with coast station for MF/HF radio success never & not
record the non-conformity.
- 30 7.Emergency fire pump suction pipe penetrate the machinery space no enclosure of
the piping in a substantial steel casing.
- 17 8.Red signal lights on compass deck damaged.
- 30 9.ISM has not ensure maintenance of ship and equipment as evidenced by these
deficiencies.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
45
3. Spain
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 10 1.No indications on exit, doors not self closing.
- 30 2.All single cabin occupied for two persons, hospital also crew is sleeping there.
Mattress on alleyway, many obstructions in all emergency escapes.
7 30 3.Major NC; Deficiencies marked as (ISM) are objective of a serious failure, or lack of
effectiveness of the implementation of the ISM Code. Safety Management Audit be
performed before departure.
- 10 4.Freeboard more than 9m, no combination ladder arranged.
- 10 5.In some cabins and hospital lights damaged.
- 10 6.Shower and toilets drainage obstructed.
- 30 7.Dewatering system-F.Peak automatic valve out of order. (ISM)
- 30 8.Radio telex out of order. Antenna NAVTEX & transmitter broken. (ISM)
- 30 9.Total number of persons working and living on board at anchorage are 37. There are
life saving appliances for only 25 according safety equipment certificate. (ISM)
- 30 10.Hot work on ship without permit of Spanish authority and without knowledge about
this.
- 30 11.There is a connection pipe between sludge tanks & overboard through the general
service pumps and bilge pumps.
- 17 1.SE Exemption Certificate not on board.
- 17 2.Company should submit the Condition Evaluation Record not found on board.
- 30 3. Not capable of providing a source of energy to the radio equipment.
- 17 4.NP22 for the intended voyage is not up-dated.
- 18 5.Deficiencies marked are objective evidence of failure of the implementation of ISM.
- 30 6.Refrigerator unit out of order, Cold Rooms overheated.
- 30 7.Problems of starting No.1 Main Generator Diesel Engine.
- 17 8.Oil Record Book pages not signed by Master since 05-01-2011.
11 18 9.Critical Equipment not identified in the SMS Manual.
4. France
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 30 1.Not up to date.
- 30 2.Radar No.2 Stbd out of order. No evidence of of flag/classification society.
- 30 3.VDR in alarm (panel connection alarm code 084).
- 17 4.Medicines not properly stored.
Not properly segregated in plastic bags, dirty and not hygienic.
- 17 5.Galley to clean fridge, filter.
- 17 6.Laundry, shower room not hygienic.
- 17 7.Access to the stbd lifeboat obstructed by wood.
- 17 8.Safety lighting to be repaired solvent drums to close. Store to ventilate.
9 18 9.VDR Radar defect has not been notified according to the ISM, to the class society
& flag.
5. UK
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 17 1.No record of last annual survey in IOPP certificate.
- 17 2.Rest records were not kept for December (ISM).
- 17 3.Rest records for Chief Engineer are false on a number of days in November (ISM).
- 17 4.Rest records for master are false for several days in November (ISM).
- 16 5.Panamanian endorsement for 2nd/Eng. is issued for 1st/Eng. Panamanian
endorsement for 3rd/Eng. is issued for 2nd/Eng.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
46
- 30 6.Officer responsible for radio operations is not familiar with power supply
arrangement for GMDSS station (ISM).
- 30 7.Large air bubble in magnetic compass bowl (ISM).
- 30 8.Drain plugs are missing, battery one (each boat) is discharged, weekly inspections of
LSA are recorded in deck log book (ISM).
- 30 9.Officer responsible for LSA inspections not fully aware of inspection & recording
requirements (ISM).
- 30 10.Port liferaft painter tied to the ship & not to the weak link (last LSA inspection
recorded in deck log book on 17 Dec 2011) (ISM).
- 30 11.C/Eng. could not explain the operation of the CO2 fire extinguishing system (ISM).
- 30 12.None of the engineers knew which steering gear was fed from the emergency
switchboard (ISM).
- 17 13.Radio & general batteries show a permanent charging current of six amp (ISM).
- 17 14.Two of three deck head lights are inoperative in CO2 room.
10 30 15.Deficiencies marked (ISM) are objective evidence of a serious failure or lack of
effectiveness of implementation of the ISM Code.
- 10 1.Instructions posted for boarding & lowering lifeboat incorrect.
- 17 2.Last passage plan from Tenerife to Redcar has notation of following way points
1)Coast of East Australia, 2)Caroline Islands, 3)Solmon Sea, 4)South Pacific
Shows lack of adequate checks.
6 18 3.Deck log book & Emergency preparedness records show both lifeboats lowered &
exercised for 30 minutes on 14/08/11. E/R log book shows vessel at full sea
speed throughout 14/08/11. Number & nature of deficiencies bring into doubt effect.
- 16 4.Fall preventer fitted does not meet IMO Guidelines.
- 16 5.RPM of Emergency generator defective.
- 16 6.Lifebuoy self igniting lights in poor condition.
- 55 7.ILO 92 & 133 compliance certificate indicates accommodation is suitable for 25
persons. 26 crew onboard at time of inspection with LSA for 30 persons.
- 55 8.MORPOL IV Sewage certification states holding tank suitable for 22 persons. 26
crew onboard at time of inspection.
6. Indonesia
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 30 1.Emergency fire pump low pressure.
- 30 2.E/R fire door at poop deck un gastight.
- 17 3.Hydrostatic release unit for liferafts expired 4 pcs.
- 17 4.Flap funnel fire damper failure.
- 17 5.Fire isolation in E/R not in good condition.
- 17 6.Fire detection in workshop E/R not ready to use in emergency situation (cover by
plastic).
- 17 7.Portable fire extinguisher & CO2 expired on 2/8/2011.
- 17 8.Steering gear room deck with our wood grating for anti slippery.
- 17 9.Terminal panel printer for recording alarm in engine control room not working
properly.
- 17 10.NTM not update.
- 16 11.IMO symbol for fire hydrant, smoke detector & general alarm safety not available.
10 17 12.Maintenance checklist for emergency generator not available.
- 30 1.Flap funnel fire damper stuck.
- 17 2.Retro reflector for lifeboat (P&S) all worn out.
- 17 3.Thermometer for S.W. cooling & exhaust intake turbo charger out of order.
- 17 4.IMDG Code old edition.
- 17 5.Instruction manual operating procedure for incinerator not available.
10 17 6.Annual survey for SCBA not available.
- 17 7.IMO symbol for smoke detector & fire hydrant not available.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
47
7. India
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 17 1.Hatch Cover hinge bushes worn out mostly.
- 30 2.MF/HF DSC equipment not working on reserve power.
- 17 3.Foam compound analysis last done 03/10. Annual test due.
- 17 4.5 yearly load test reports for lifeboats not available.
- 17 5.Multi gas detector calibration certificates not available.
- 17 6.Lifeboat fire extinguisher hose damaged.
8 30 7.Emergency preparedness not adequate. Life boat launching takes more than 20
mins.
8. Italy
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
11 17 1.Voyage Plan to Genoa port does not consider entry point to VTS area.
- 17 2.EPIRB cannot be operated in test mode (Technician on board - equipment under
repair).
- 17 3.Main Boiler safety Valve - high pressure - not work properly (ISM).
- 16 4.One stern rope worn out.
- 18 5.Deficiencies marked ISM are objective evidence of a failure or lack of effectiveness
of implementation of the ISM Code. Internal audit is required within 3 months.
- 17 6.Funnel damper not work properly - R.O. survey required (ISM).
- 17 7.Engine room access door from steering gear room not close properly.
- 17 8.Quick closing valve for F.O. Settling TK inoperative (ISM). R.O. survey required.
- 16 9.Auxiliary diesel engine oil leakage found.
9. Japan
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 16 1.SSO certificate of captain accordance with STCW not have.
- 17 2.Some emergency lights not turned on.
- 16 3.IAMSAR manual Vol.III not up to date.
- 30 4.Stb'd side life boat incomplete re-setting of on-load release system.
- 17 5.Technical file for generator engine No.1 - No.3 not on board.
7 17 6.Crew members not familiar with release system of life boat.
- 17 1.Charts for intended voyage (JP150A & JP1081): Latest edition were not provided.
- 50 2.Ventilation of fore peak tank on fore station: Had a few holes due to corrosion.
- 17 3.Clamping devices for cargo hatch cover: Some clamping devices were missing.
- 17 4.Steel grating in front of windlass on fore station: Broken partly.
- 30 5.Ventilation for No.1 cargo hold on fore station: Had some holes due to corrosion &
one bolt & nut were missing.
- 17 6.Self closing door in stairway enclosure: Kept open with rope.
- 30 7.Ventilation for No.2 cargo hold on upper deck: Had some holes due to corrosion & a
few nuts were missing.
- 99 8.Maintenance record for cargo securing device: Not recorded after 05 June 2008.
- 17 9.Instruction for lifeboat (P side): Dirty.
10 18 10.Not maintained well as clear evidences of these defects.
6 30 11.Senior officers were not aware of their tasks & responsibilities.
6 18 1.Officer not understood assignment of each crew of fireman for fire drill and rescue
boat drill.
7 18 2.Officer could not explain to PSCO about the preparation of the chart for the
voyage.
- 17 3.Officer unfamiliar with AIS operation.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
48
- 17 4.Crew did not wear immersion suits properly.
- 17 5.How to set radar reflector - Officer not understood.
- 17 6.Officer unfamiliar with light and shape on the Japan Maritime Safety Laws and
Regulation.
- 17 7.S.G of radio batteries in battery room - not enough (about 25%).
- 17 8.Crew assigned to was not able to wear fireman's outfit properly.
- 30 9.Crew unable to demonstrate proficiency in fire drill.
6 30 10.Senior officers were not aware of their tasks and responsibilities. - Crew unable to
demonstrate proficiency in fire drill.
10. Korea
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 30 1.Engineers not watch kept as per the ship's watchkeeping schedule four hours a day
for about four years.
- 17 2.Ozone depleting substance list & record book not sighted.
- 17 3.Oxygen for resuscitator (Two x Forty liters) not provided.
- 17 4.Antidotes not onboard.
- 17 5.Passage plan not made from berth to berth.
- 17 6.VHF DSC test incapable.
10 17 7.Standard compass error not determined at least once a watch since 29-10-2008.
- 17 8.Magnetic compass error excessive (About 9 degrees).
- 17 9.Air Pipe for CO2 room & Foam room stuck.
10 17 10.Only visual inspection for Lifeboats launching appliance carried out weekly.
10 17 11.One Radar magnetron being used over the maker instruction period.
11 17 12.No instruction for dry powder actuator in bridge & dry powder room provided.
- 17 13.Both Lifeboat painters not connected to the releasers.
- 17 14.Securing wire not removed during Lifeboat Launching Drill.
10 17 15.Water spray pump was not ready for immediate use.
- 17 16.Securing pin (Two pieces) for opening hatch cover missing.
- 17 17.Lifebuoy with self-igniting light near pilot station not provided.
- 30 18.Bilge oil over 15 PPM discharged overboard (Discharge pipe & inside of Oily water
separator, oil found).
11 30 19.Deficiencies marked (ISM) are objective evidence of a serious failure or lack of
effectiveness of the implementation of the ISM Code.
- 15 20.Intact & damage stability & longitudinal strength not verified properly.
11. Portugal
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
- 30 1.Bulwark (P&S) were several cracks on brackets & Main Deck connections, Anchor
Seat on PS dented in, Frames (stb'd) of Bosun Store were heavy deformed including
Paint Store Frames and Bulkheads.
- 17 2.Not marked according Load Line Certificate. Class "NK" not permanently marked.
- 17 3.Ship Name not correctly marked (old names to be erased).
- 17 4.IMSBC: Int. Maritime solid bulk cargoes code missing.
- 17 5.Company address not the same as ISSC certificate.
- 17 6.Charts for ship location (Beato) missing. (intended voyage not established)
- 17 7.Gyro under repairs.
- 30 8.E/R ventilator not closing properly, E/R Skylight kept in open position, emergency
generator vent. closing devices missing.
- 30 9.CO2 room found with access blocked with insulation materials, Fire boxes access
blocked with garbage.
- 17 10.Mast house stb'd fwd./aft found with cracks on pipe passage & on bracket.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
49
- 17 11.Stb'd windlass chain guide into chain locker damaged (chain stopper), windlass
(P&S) found with hydraulic leaks on.
- 17 12.No fish & meat is near to finish (apparently required by master). Meat room
overheated.
- 17 13.Flushing water missing, hydrosphere for S.W. with piping leaking, water closer not
operational on main deck (S), drain system not operational.
- 17 14.Emergency generator automatic start system not operational.
- 30 15.M/E cool. water heavy leaks on Cyl. No.1,4 & 5; F.W. Cooler & L.O. Cooler leaking,
Bilges found with oily leaks & tank top dirty, Bilge tank access door screws missing.
- 30 16.Main switchboard: low insulation (110V) & 450 V meter without glass protection &
meter not properly working, Electric insulation/ rubber gloves missing.
- 17 17.P side lifeboat engine gear selector support loosen / driven (lever), (aft hook disk
connections apparently cracked to be checked P&S).
10 30 18.Deficiencies marked are objective evidence of a failure or lack of effectiveness of
the implementation of ISM Code. Safety Management Audit by Administration is
required before ship departure.
12. USA
ISM Code Action
Code Deficiencies
7 30 1.Company has not established guidance for securing Bags of Rice in Cargo holds
after loading.
7 30 2.No Assessment Form was filled out prior to the crewmembers entering Cargo holds
#2.
7 30 3.Safety meeting was not carried out prior to crewmembers entering Cargo hold #2.
7 17 4.No guidance is mentioned by the Company regarding the Securing of Bagged Rice
after loading Cargo. (action taken: 17a/b/c)
7 30 5.The External Audit was required prior to departure.
10 30 1.Fuel oil tank #4 center has an approx. 18cm x 5cm hole in tank top /bilge bottom.
Issue discovered within two weeks of class survey.
10 17 2.Main generators #1 is excessively leaking fuel from supply line to fuel manifold.
10 17 3.Main generators #2 & #3 are excessively leaking lube oil from various locations.
- 17 4.Category "A" doors to steering gear room & emergency exit door do not self close.
- 17 5.High bilge level indicator is inoperable.
10 17 6.Main engine has an excessive jacket water leak.
- 17 7.Ships paint locker is fitted with a sprinkler system which is not reflected on the fire
control plan.
10 17 8.Heavy fuel oil delivery pipe has soft patch covering 2 inch section of piping.
10 17 9.Steam pipe leading to the purifier has soft patches on two areas which are leaking
steam.
- 17 10.Excessive fuel oil was discovered in the bilge.
5 17 1.Vessel's Master failed to motivate the crew in the observation of safety
management system procedures.
- 10 2.Lifeboats doors were locked with a chain and padlock and would not be immediately
ready for emergency evacuation.
- 17 3.Fuel oil was leaking from the connection between the fuel line and fuel injector on
the #5 cylinder of the Main Engine.
- 17 4.A lack of cleanliness was found in the vessel’s machinery spaces.
3 17 5.Initial request was sent Apr 10 and parts have not been received despite urgent
status.
9 17 6.The vessel's Master is unfamiliar with basic SMS Procedures and documentation of
Non-conformities in accordance with the vessel's Safety Quality & Environmental
Manual.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
50
Chapter 4
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, and USCG
Several regional MOUs and Port States publicly announce their PSC data on their websites and publish Annual Reports every year. Based on this public data, this Chapter introduces abstracts of the results of detentions by the Tokyo MOU, the Paris MOU, and the USCG in 2011. The full text of each respective Annual Report can be obtained from the following websites.
Tokyo MOU http://www.tokyo-mou.org Paris MOU http://www.parismou.org USCG http://homeport.uscg.mil/
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
51
4.1 Tokyo MOU In 2011, 28,627 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 1,562 ships were detained due to serious deficiencies found onboard. 4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities Table 4.1.1 shows the numbers of Port State inspections carried out by each Port State from 2009 through 2011.
Table 4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Port Authorities (Tokyo MOU)
Authority No. of Inspection No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Australia 2,994 3,127 3,002 248 222 275 8.28 7.10 9.16 Canada 1) 402 447 325 6 5 8 1.49 1.12 2.46 Chile 732 764 861 13 14 28 1.78 1.83 3.25 China 4,308 5,186 7,821 404 532 678 9.38 10.26 8.67 Fiji 4 56 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hong Kong, China 692 734 746 30 21 25 4.34 2.86 3.35 Indonesia 1,065 1,406 2,150 15 38 77 1.41 2.70 3.58 Japan 4,930 5,308 5,076 192 239 217 3.89 4.50 4.28 Republic of Korea 2,313 2,290 2,070 265 205 126 11.46 8.95 6.09 Malaysia 367 660 848 4 12 13 1.09 1.82 1.53 New Zealand 567 565 479 21 13 12 3.70 2.30 2.51 Papua New Guinea 106 178 102 7 3 3 6.60 1.69 2.94 Philippines 1,504 1,785 1,812 2 4 4 0.13 0.22 0.22 Russian Federation 1) 1,162 1,068 1,136 51 30 25 4.39 2.81 2.20 Singapore 666 792 740 14 19 29 2.10 2.40 3.92 Thailand 405 368 333 8 2 6 1.98 0.54 1.80 Vanuatu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vietnam 899 1,028 1,093 56 52 36 6.23 5.06 3.29
Total 23,116 25,762 28,627 1,336 1,411 1,562 5.78% 5.48% 5.46%
1) Data is only for Pacific ports.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
52
4.1.2 Black List of Flag States Table 4.1.2 shows the Black List of Flag State announced in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report.
Table 4.1.2 Black List of Flag States (Tokyo MOU)
Flag State No. of
Inspections 2009-2011
No. of Detentions 2009-2011
Black to Grey limit
Black to Grey limit
Sierra Leone 555 111
49 Papua New Guinea 39 11 6 Georgia 203 42 21 Korea, Democratic People’s Republic 418 79
38 Cambodia 5,181 861 393 Mongolia 446 70
41 St. Kitts & Nevis 183 28 19 Kiribati 529 65 47 Indonesia 576 70 51 Thailand 1,042 109
87 Bangladesh 57 9 8 Vietnam 1,873 183 150 Tonga 41 7 6
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
53
4.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organizations Table 4.1.3 and Figure 4.1.3 show the detention data of IACS affiliated Recognized Organization in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report. Table 4.1.3 Inspections and Detentions per Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU) (*1)
Recognized Organization
Inspections 2009-2011
Detentions 2009-2011
RO responsibility
detentions Detention %
RO responsibility detention %
ABS 7,129 230 13 3.23 0.18
BV 7,456 384 15 5.15 0.20
CCS 6,679 96 3 1.44 0.04
DNV 8,521 283 12 3.32 0.14
GL 7,849 306 12 3.90 0.15
KR 6,851 172 5 2.51 0.07
LR 9,485 359 20 3.78 0.21
NK 24,001 920 70 3.83 0.29
RINA 1,597 91 1 5.70 0.06
RS 1,613 126 6 7.81 0.37 (*1) According to the Tokyo MOU annual report, in cases where a ship’s certificates were issued
by more than one recognized organization (RO), the number of inspections would be counted towards both of organizations, while the number of detentions would be counted only towards the RO that issued the certificate relating to the detainable deficiency or deficiencies.
Fig. 4.1.3 Detention Ratio by Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU)
0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00%
ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RINA RS
Det
entio
n ra
tio
DetentionRO responsibility
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
54
4.1.4 Deficiencies by Category Figure 4.1.4 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2009 through 2011.
Fig. 4.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)
21
64
151
207
258
305
440
379
496
312
533
822
863
727
712
866
1341
1398
2399
3354
3386
4132
4452
5723
6048
6462
12131
14207
14619
12
92
47
172
153
236
326
477
486
589
508
664
888
793
879
800
899
1336
1595
2479
3015
3191
4403
6238
6182
6921
11077
15998
24
53
173
197
284
286
501
641
661
680
704
743
850
996
1012
1090
1580
1692
2810
3073
3497
4930
5643
7166
8139
8257
12281
17435
18114
4073
15648
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
AFS Convention
MARPOL-ANNEX III
MARPOL-ANNEX II
Food and catering (ILO 147)
Other deficiencies
Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers
Crew and accommodation (ILO 147)
MARPOL related operational deficiencies
Bulk Carriers-additional safety measures
Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods
MARPOL-ANNEX VI
Alarm signals
Additional measures to enhance maritime safety
Mooring arrangements (ILO 147)
MARPOL-ANNEX IV
Accident prevention (ILO 147)
Working spaces (ILO 147)
MARPOL-ANNEX V
Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers
Ship's certificates and documents
Radio communications
ISM related deficiencies
SOLAS related operational deficiencies
MARPOL-ANNEX I
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
Load lines
Stability, structure and related equipment
Life saving appliances
Safety of navigation
Fire safety measures
Deficiencies
201120102009
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
55
4.2 Paris MOU In 2011, 19,058 inspections were carried out in the Paris MOU region, and 688 ships were detained due to serious deficiencies found onboard. 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities Table 4.2.1 shows the numbers of Port State Inspections carried out by each respective Port State from 2009 through 2011.
Table 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities (Paris MOU)
Authority No. of Inspections No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Belgium 1,419 1,361 971 77 37 11 5.43 2.72 1.13 Bulgaria 544 514 552 23 25 24 4.23 4.86 4.35 Canada 715 976 895 25 19 34 3.50 1.95 3.80 Croatia 373 417 269 22 16 12 5.90 3.84 4.46 Cyprus 300 293 127 53 27 10 17.67 9.22 7.87 Denmark 658 630 400 11 8 2 1.67 1.27 0.50 Estonia 395 384 196 3 1 1 0.76 0.26 0.51 Finland 349 376 316 2 1 2 0.57 0.27 0.63 France 1,587 1,515 1,253 66 57 38 4.16 3.76 3.03 Germany 1,468 1,466 1,411 48 36 37 3.26 2.46 2.62 Greece 979 1,021 1,015 53 47 54 5.41 4.60 5.32 Iceland 94 106 63 2 3 1 2.13 2.83 1.59 Ireland 418 436 242 28 11 14 6.70 2.52 5.79 Italy 1,885 1,993 1,707 171 119 114 9.07 5.97 6.68 Latvia 504 479 246 3 1 1 0.60 0.21 0.41 Lithuania 451 507 185 9 5 1 2.00 0.99 0.54 Malta 299 241 237 9 10 10 3.01 4.15 4.22 Netherlands 1,645 1,698 1,604 35 34 55 2.13 2.00 3.43 Norway 822 793 615 15 18 8 1.82 2.27 1.30 Poland 853 858 432 27 22 12 3.17 2.56 2.78 Portugal 836 468 448 23 13 8 2.75 2.78 1.79 Romania 1,163 1,233 776 41 48 17 3.53 3.89 2.19 Russian Fed. 1) 1,459 1,358 1,039 71 54 24 4.87 3.98 2.31 Slovenia 272 267 240 36 28 29 13.24 10.49 12.08 Spain 2,170 2,093 1,794 138 95 122 6.36 4.54 6.80 Sweden 731 743 421 9 5 5 1.23 0.67 1.19 United Kingdom 1,797 1,832 1,604 59 50 42 3.28 2.78 2.62
Total 24,186 24,058 19,058 1,059 790 688 4.38% 3.28% 3.61%
1) Only movements to the Russian ports in the Baltic Azov, Caspian and Barents Sea are included
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
56
4.2.2 Black List of Flag States Table 4.2.2 shows the Black List of Flag States announced by the Paris MOU.
Table 4.2.2 Black List of Flag States (Paris MOU)
Flag State Inspections 2009-2011
Detentions 2009-2011 Black to
Grey Limit Libyan 46 14 Very
High Risk 7
Bolivia 46 12 7 Togo 205 42 21 Sierra Leone 476 85 High Risk 43 Tanzania United Rep. 130 25 14 Albania 175 32 18 Moldova, Republic of 590 88 Medium to
high risk 52
Saint Kitts and Nevis 416 60 38 Comoros 593 76 52 Cambodia 768 91 66 Georgia 647 72 Medium
Risk
56 Ukraine 372 42 35 Azerbaijan 34 6 5 Lebanon 74 10 9 Syrian Arab Republic 166 19 18 Dominica 144 16 16 Honduras 59 8 8
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
57
4.2.3 Deficiencies by Category Figure 4.2.3 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2009 through 2011.
Fig. 4.2.3 Deficiencies per Category (Paris MOU)
58
33
197
266
330
459
145
602
768
494
1835
1720
4279
2439
2635
3418
3213
3104
4556
5031
4698
6915
7224
9618
8361
36
8
14
224
298
317
402
293
497
868
495
1684
1586
3458
2200
2191
2932
2851
2952
4239
4117
4349
5636
7057
8654
7687
15
36
125
253
332
347
358
464
578
602
1101
1318
1644
1704
1952
2313
2597
2808
2951
3046
3491
4782
5252
6528
6591
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
MARPOL Anti Fouling
MARPOL ANNEX III
MARPOL ANNEX II
Dangeous goods
MARPOL Annex IV
Cargo operations including equipment
MARPOL Annex V
MARPOL Annex VI
Alarms
ISPS
Other
Certificate & Document: Crew Certificate
MARPOL ANNEX I
ISM
Radio communications
Emergency Systems
Working and Living Conditions: Living Conditions
Water/Weathertight conditions
Structural Conditions
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
Certificate & Document: Ship Certificate
Certificate & Document: Documents
Life saving appliances
Working and Living Conditions: Working Conditions
Safety of Navigation
Fire safety
Deficiencies
201120102009
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
58
4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table Table 4.2.4 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those announced by the Paris MOU for the three years from 2009 through 2011.
Table 4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Paris MOU) Recognized Organization
Inspections 2009-2011
Detentions 2009-2011
Medium / High limit
Performance Level
ABS 6,035 1 102
High
DNV 12,725 11 228 CCS 878 0 10 LR 14,112 18 254 GL 15,868 27 288 RINA 3,160 4 50 BV 13,515 28 243 NK 6,878 15 118 KR 833 1 10 RS 6,055 26 103
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
59
4.3 USCG 4.3.1 USCG Statistics In 2011, a total of 9,326 individual vessels visited U.S. ports, and a total of 10,129 SOLAS based safety examinations were conducted by the USCG during the year. Table 4.3.1 shows the number of safety related detentions for the three years from 2009 through 2011. The three-year average detention ratio dropped from 1.86% to 1.53% during this time.
Table 4.3.1 Detentions by Year (Safety)
Year Distinct Vessel
Arrivals*
SOLAS Safety
Detentions Annual Detention Ratio
3 Year Average Detention Ratio
2009 8,557 161 1.88% 1.92% 2010 9,260 156 1.67% 1.86% 2011 9,326 156 1.04% 1.53%
* Distinct Vessel Arrivals: Number of ships greater than or equal to 500 GT, calling upon at least one U.S. port.
4.3.2 Targeted Flag States (Safety) The USCG publicly announced targeted flag states. The following flag states having a detention ratio higher than the overall average were listed as targeted flag states.
Table 4.3.2 USCG Targeted Flag States (Safety)
Flag State 2009-2011 Detention Ratio
Points of Targeting Matrix
Belize 3.17%
7 points
Bolivia 50.00% Cook Islands 24.00% Curacao 3.23% Dominica 37.50% Honduras 52.17% Lithuania 8.89% Mexico 8.11% New Zealand 16.67% Peru 37.50% Saint Kitts and Nevis 12.50% Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 15.95% Sierra Leone 80.00% Venezuela 40.00% Cyprus 2.54%
2 points
Gibraltar 3.13% Italy 2.63% Malta 2.52% Panama 1.87% Turkey 2.05%
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
60
4.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Safety) The table 4.3.3 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those announced by the USCG.
Table 4.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (USCG)
Class Distinct Vessel Arrives Class-Related Detentions Detention Ratio
Targeted Points 2009 2010 2011 Total 2009 2010 2011 Total
ABS 1,422 1,433 1,708 4,563 - - - 0 0.00% 0 points BV 912 784 1,098 2,794 1 - - 1 0.04% 0 points CCS 278 253 284 815 - - - 0 0.00% 0 points DNV 1,951 1,679 2,175 5,805 1 - - 1 0.02% 0 points GL 1,174 1,112 1,561 3,847 - - - 0 0.00% 0 points KR 264 306 263 833 - - - 0 0.00% 0 points LR 1,703 1,626 2,275 5,604 1 1 - 2 0.04% 0 points NK 1,805 2,195 2,009 6,009 - 1 - 1 0.02% 0 points RINA 183 212 243 638 - - - 0 0.00% 0 points RS 128 110 89 327 - - - 1 0.00% 0 points In accordance with the Boarding Priority Matrix, Recognized Organizations are evaluated on their PSC performance over the previous three years. The evaluation for 2011 was based on the records for 2009, 2010, and 2011. The level of performance required to be in the 0 point category is a three year average class-related detention ratio less than 0.5%. A classification society that has a class-related detention ratio between 0.5% and 1.0% will be assigned 3 points; those societies with a detention ration of between 1.0% and 2.0% will be assigned 5 points and class-related detention ratios above 2.0% will be assigned a Priority I status. The detention ratio of ClassNK, which was calculated based on the last three year’s detention numbers, was 0.02 percent. Therefore, the number of “Targeted Points” for 2011 is once again 0 Points for ClassNK.