Annual Report on Port State Control - classnk.or.jp · This annual Port State Control (PSC) report...

Annual Report on Port State Control

July 2007

NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI

PPhhoottooggrraapphhss ooff DDeeffiicciieenncciieess iiddeennttiiffiieedd dduurriinngg PPoorrtt SSttaattee CCoonnttrrooll

LLiiffee SSaavviinngg

Poor visibility from control position of Lifeboat

Poor condition of open-type Lifeboat inside

Inadequate form of support chock

Poor condition of Lifeboat Davit

Inadequate storage condition of Immersion suit (Not ready to use)

MMAARRPPOOLL

FFiirree FFiigghhttiinngg

Wasted casing of E/R Ventilator

Damaged or Wasted fire damper of E/R Ventilator

Illegal discharging pipe for the oily water

MMaacchhiinneerryy SSppaaccee

LLooaadd LLiinnee

Oily pipes

Missing Clip bolt & Poor condition of gasket

Dirty E/R tank top

Wasted top plate or Broken float of Air Pipe Head

OOtthheerrss

OOiill lleeaakkaaggee ffrroomm AAiirr ppiippee dduuee ttoo mmiissss ooppeerraattiioonn

Wasted suction pipe in E/R

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 surveys, and is compiled into the following Chapters. “Chapter 1”: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC World-wide “Chapter 2”: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships registered to ClassNK in 2006 “Chapter 3”: Statistical Data from the Tokyo MOU and Paris MOU 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. In recent years, 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 several regions, and have established a computerized database system and/or a harmonized approach. PSC inspection procedures have been improved to cover not only ships’ hardware or documents, but also 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. came 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.

July 2007

Note: Every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of information in this report. However as information is collected from a variety of sources, ClassNK can not be held responsible for any erroneous data, judgements or conclusions in this report, in cases were the information available should prove to have been incomplete or incorrect in any respect.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC World-wide 1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions

1.1.1 Bulk Carrier Safety related ······································································· 1 1.1.2 Daily reporting ······················································································· 1 1.1.3 Immersion Suits for every person onboard ··················································· 2 1.1.4 Maintenance, servicing and inspection for lifeboats and launching appliances··· 2 1.1.5 Satellite EPIRBs maintenance ··································································· 2 1.1.6 S-VDR on Existing ships ··········································································· 2 1.1.7 MARPOL 73/78 Annex I ············································································ 2 1.1.8 MARPOL 73/78 Annex II ··········································································· 3 1.1.9 IBC Code ································································································ 3 1.1.10 Construction drawing maintained on board and ashore································ 4 1.1.11 Towing and mooring equipment ································································ 4 1.1.12 Water level detectors on single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers ········ 4

1.2 Recent world developments

1.2.1 MOUs around the world (1) European region (Paris MOU)································································· 5 (2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU) ····························································· 6 (3) Latin-American region (Vina del Mar, or Latin-America Agreement) ··········· 7 (4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU)························································· 7 (5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MOU) ············································ 7 (6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) ················································ 7 (7) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU) ············································ 8 (8) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) ·························································· 8 (9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU) ····················································· 8

1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (U.S.Coast Guard) ···························· 9 1.2.3 Equasis··································································································· 9

1.3 Measures to be adopted by NK

1.3.1 Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections (1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and Treatment of the deficiencies ·· 10 (2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers ······································· 10

1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships (1) Special training at several in-house meetings·········································· 10 (2) ClassNK Concentrated Inspection Campaigns········································· 10 (3) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners································· 11

1.3.3 Visits to Port States················································································ 11


Chapter 2

Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK 2.1 General ······································································································ 12 2.2 Data on Detentions

2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State ········································································· 12 2.2.2 Detentions by ship type··········································································· 14 2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age ·········································································· 15 2.2.4 Detentions by tonnage ············································································ 16 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State ········································································· 17

2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies

2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category························································ 18 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequently······························································· 19

2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State

2.4.1 Australia······························································································· 25 2.4.2 China ··································································································· 25 2.4.3 Japan ··································································································· 26 2.4.4 U.S.A.··································································································· 26 2.4.5 Republic of Korea ··················································································· 26 2.4.6 Hong Kong ···························································································· 27 2.4.7 Singapore·······························································································27 2.4.8 Italy ····································································································· 27 2.4.9 Netherlands ························································································· 28 2.4.10 India··································································································· 28 2.4.11 Russian Federation··············································································· 28 2.4.12 United Kingdom··················································································· 28 2.4.13 Turkey ································································································ 29 2.4.14 Germany ····························································································· 29 2.4.15 Canada ······························································································· 29

Chapter 3

Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU and the USCG ········· 30 3.1 Tokyo MOU

3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Statistics ············································································· 31 3.1.2 Black List ····························································································· 32 3.1.3 Detentions by Class ················································································ 33 3.1.4 Deficiencies by Category ········································································· 34

3.2 Paris MOU

3.2.1 Black List ····························································································· 35


1

Chapter 1

Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC World-wide

1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions Major amendments to conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into effect or will do so in 2006 and 2007 are as follows. 1.1.1 Bulk Carrier Safety related

Date: 1 July 2006 (1) New definition of “Bulk Carriers”

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622] The definition of “Bulk Carriers” in SOLAS chapter XII was changed as follows: “Bulk carrier means a ship which is intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk, including such types as ore carriers and combination carriers.” For the purpose of the revised SOLAS chapter XII, the new definition contains “ships intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk” regardless of cross section of ship as well as typical bulk carriers arranged with top-side tanks and bilge hopper tanks as defined in SOLAS chapter IX.

(Note) Ships such as a chip carrier, an open type bulk carrier and a general cargo ship, etc. fall into the definition of bulk carriers from 1 July 2006 based on the revised SOLAS XII. Nevertheless, the requirements of the revised SOLAS chapter XII do not apply to these type ships constructed before 1 July 2006.

(2) Maintenance of hatch covers (Reg.7.2) [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622] “Standards for owners’ inspection and maintenance of bulk carrier hatch covers” (Resolution MSC.169(79)) was adopted as a mandatory requirement.

(3) Alternate hold loading ban [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622, 0632, 0651, 0663] Existing single-side skin bulk carriers of 150 m in length and upward carrying cargoes having a density of 1,780kg/m3 and above, if not in compliance with ‘SOLAS regulation XII/5.1’ and ‘IACS UR S12 (rev. 2.1) or UR S31’, shall be banned from sailing with any hold empty in the full load condition (greater than 90% of the ship’s deadweight at the relevant assigned freeboard) after reaching 10 years of age from 1 July 2006. The term “hold empty” means loaded to less than 10% of the hold’s maximum allowable cargo weight.

(4) Free-fall lifeboat [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622] The amendment to SOLAS regulation III/31 to require new bulk carriers as defined in SOLAS chapter IX to provide free-fall lifeboats instead of davit-type lifeboats was adopted.

1.1.2 Daily reporting (Reg.V/28)

Date: 1 July 2006 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0532] Each ship of 500 gross tonnage and above, engaged on international voyages exceeding 48 hours, is required to submit a daily report to its company and to retain all daily reports for the duration of the voyage.


2

1.1.3 Immersion Suits for every person onboard

Date: 1 July 2006 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588] The amendment to SOLAS regulation III/32.3 concerning carriage requirements for immersion suits was adopted. Cargo ships regardless of construction date are required to provide immersion suits for every person onboard. However, ships other than bulk carriers as defined in SOLAS chapter IX, may be exempted from providing those immersion suits if the ship is constantly engaged on voyages in warm climates where, in the opinion of the Administration, immersion suits are unnecessary. Existing ships constructed before 1 July 2006 are to carry immersion suits for every person onboard not later than the first SE Survey on or after 1 July 2006.

1.1.4 Maintenance, servicing and inspection of lifeboats and launching appliances

Date: 1 July 2006 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588, 0656, 0693] In accordance with the amendments to 1974 SOLAS (MSC.152(78)), regardless of flag, implementation of maintenance, servicing and inspection of lifeboats and launching appliances complying with MSC/Circ.1093 is required.

1.1.5 Satellite EPIRBs maintenance Date: 1 July 2006 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588, 0664] The amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/15 concerning the Satellite EPIRBs maintenance required at an approved shore-based maintenance facility every five years were adopted, as scheduled for entry into force on 1 July 2006.

1.1.6 S-VDR on Existing ships Date: 1 July 2006 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622, 0664] The draft amendment to SOLAS regulation V/20, concerning making the carriage of a Simplified Voyage Data Recorder on existing cargo ships constructed before 1 July 2002 mandatory, was adopted. The implementation schedule is to be as follows:

- cargo ships of 20,000 GT and upward, at the first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2006 but not later than 1 July 2009, and

- cargo ships of 3,000 GT and upward but less than 20,000 GT, at the first scheduled drydocking after 1 July 2007 but not later than 1 July 2010.

Administrations may exempt ships from the requirements to fit with S-VDR when the ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years after the implementation date specified above.

1.1.7 MARPOL 73/78 Annex I

Date: 1 January 2007 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0580, 0608, 0681] As a result of various amendments to MARPOL Annex I since its entry into force in 1983, the regulations become quite in complicated for users. For the purpose of making them user-friendly, MARPOL Annex I was re-constructed. In addition, the revised MARPOL Annex I contains the following new requirements. (1) Pump-room bottom protection (Reg. 22)


3

For oil tankers of 5,000DWT and above constructed on or after 1 January 2007, the pump-room shall be provided with a double bottom tank or space. The depth of double bottom should not less than B/15 meters or 2 meters, whichever is lesser (the minimum 1 meter).

(2) Accidental oil outflow performance (Reg. 23) Oil tankers delivered on or after 1 January 2010 shall be applied new regulation 23, instead of the current regulations 22 to 24, to specify the tank arrangement for preventing oil outflow in the event of stranding and collision. In this regard, "Explanatory notes on matters related to the accidental oil outflow performance" was also adopted.

(3) Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan (Reg. 37) All oil tankers of 5,000 DWT and above shall have prompt access to computerized, shore-based damage stability and residual structure strength calculation programs.

Date: 1 August 2007 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0657] Relating amendments to the revised MARPOL 73/78 Annex I , which was entered into force on 1 January 2007, the following amendments to the revised MARPOL 73/78 Annex I were adopted. (1) Protection of oil fuel tanks (Regulation 12A)

The amendment to revised MARPOL Annex I to add new regulation (12A) concerning oil fuel tank protection and the consequential amendments to the IOPP Certificate Supplement (Form A and B) were adopted. This regulation will apply to all ships with an aggregate oil fuel capacity of 600 m3 and above which the building contract is placed on or after 1 August 2007, or in the absence of a building contract, the keels of which are laid or which are at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 February 2008, or the delivery of which is on or after 1 August 2010. This regulation is prescribed arrangements of oil fuel tank in order to prevent the outflow of oil fuel from ships when the ship sustains the casualty.

(2) Definition of heavy grade oils (Regulation 21) The amendment to the regulation 21.2.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex I that specify "heavy grade oil (HGO)" was adopted. Although the current definition is limited the "fuel oils" having either a density at 15oC higher than 900 kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50 oC higher than 180 mm2/s, the amendment to this regulation include such as "oil" other than crude oils since "oils" having such as characteristics exist, other than fuel oils.

1.1.8 MARPOL 73/78 Annex II

Date: 1 January 2007 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0580, 0608, 0655] The revised MARPOL Annex II for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk was adopted. The main point of revisions is the change of pollution category system of noxious liquid substances from a “5- category system” (A, B, C, D and III (other liquid substance)) to a “4- category system” (X, Y, Z and OS (other substance)). The revised MARPOL Annex II contains various amendments such as stripping requirement, discharge requirement, etc. Also the construction of the rules is changed.

1.1.9 IBC Code

Date: 1 January 2007 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0580, 0608, 0655]


4

The revised IBC Code, which reflects the revised MARPOL Annex II, was adopted. The revised IBC Code includes 575 products under chapters 17 and 18, which were re-evaluated in accordance with the revised criteria on pollution category and ship type.

1.1.10 Construction drawings maintained on board and ashore (SOLAS II-1/3-7)

Date: 1 July 2007 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0633, 0686] A set of as-build construction drawings which is referred to in MSC/Circ.1135, and other plans showing any subsequent structural alterations shall be kept on board a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2007.

1.1.11 Towing and mooring equipment (SOLAS II-1/3-8) Date: 1 July 2007 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0633] Ships shall be provided with arrangements, equipment and fittings of sufficient safe working load to enable the safe conduct of all towing and mooring operations associated with the normal operation on the ship, except emergency towing arrangements provided in accordance with regulation 3-4. With regard to technical specifications for the regulation, MSC/Circ.1175 that provides standards for design and construction of shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures associated with towing and mooring was approved.

1.1.12 Water level detectors on single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers

(SOLAS II-1/23-3) Date: 1 July 2007 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0633] Single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers shall be provided with water level detectors which refer to MSC.188(79). For existing ships, they are to be provided not later than the date of the first Intermediate Survey or Renewal Survey, whichever is the earlier date, after 1 January 2007.

New amendments to conventions are also introduced on the ClassNK Website in the section ‘IMO International Convention Calendar’. (http://www.classnk.or.jp)


5

1.2 Recent world developments 1.2.1 MOUs around the world In order to carry out PSC effectively, “the recommendation concerning regional co-operation in the control of ships and discharges” was adopted by the IMO as a resolution. In July 1982, European countries signed the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MOU), and today many countries have signed and accepted similar MOUs. Currently, eight MOUs exist in the world and their status in implementing PSC is described below.

Europe 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 Arab States of the Gulf ：Riyadh MOU

(1) Europe 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 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 European. The Paris MOU declares that their aim is to eliminate the operation of sub-standards ship through a harmonized system of port State control.

-2 Press releases announced the activities of Paris MOU as follows. Press release dated 15 February 2007

Paris MOU announced the result of ‘Concentrated Inspection Campaign on MARPOL Annex I’, which was conducted from 1st of February 2006 to 30th April 2006.

-In total 4614 ships were inspected during the CIC and 128 ships (2.8%) were detained with serious deficiencies

-A total 3213 deficiencies were recorded -Major deficiencies were related to ‘IOPP Certificate’,, ‘discharge pipe’,

‘15ppm alarm’ or ‘three-way valve’. Press release dated 15 May 2007

The 40th meeting of this PSC Committee was held at Bonn, Germany and discussed the following topics.

- Bulgaria and Romanian becoming full members - Common training program jointly with EMSA

Press release dated 5 June 2007 Announced new ‘Black-Grey-White Flag States List’

-3 The following annual program of inspection campaigns were scheduled 1. ISM Code (2007) (Jointly with Tokyo MOU)


6

2. SOLAS Chapter V (2008) 2) Targeting system

To facilitate the selection of ships to be inspected throughout the Paris MOU region, a central computer database, known as ‘SIRENAC’ is consulted by PSC officers for data on ships particulars and for reports of previous inspections carried out within the region. The Paris MOU Authorities are selecting the ships in accordance with a target factor which is calculated from the database. (Please refer to Paris MOU website for the detail of target factor.)

3) Banned Ship A following ships will be refused access to ports in the MOU and announced as ‘Banned Ships’ on their Website

1. A ship registered with a flag on the Black List - after the 2nd detention in 3 years if it is in the “very high risk” or “high risk” category on the Black List after the 3rd detention in 2 years if it is in the “lower risk category” on the Black List

2. Failed to call at indicated repair yard (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, 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 4. To safeguard working and living conditions on board ships.

-2 Press releases announced the activities of the Tokyo MOU as follows. Press release dated 23 January 2006

Tokyo MOU announced the result of ‘Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Operation Requirement’, which was conducted from 1st of September 2005 to 30th November 2005.

-In total 4599 ships were inspected during the CIC and 144 ships were detained.

-Following significant deficiencies were recorded Not adequately maintaining or testing of Life saving appliances (8.1%) Not available for immediate use of Life saving appliances (7.3%) Not effectively implemented the maintenance plan for fire protection system (6.8%) Not satisfaction of the passage plan required under SOLAS/V (7.8%)

Press release dated 19 July 2006 Tokyo MOU announced the result of ‘Concentrated Inspection Campaign on MARPOL Annex I’, which was conducted from 1st of February 2006 to 30th April 2006.

-In total 4603 ships were inspected during the CIC and 96 ships were detained with serious deficiencies


7

-A total 2148 deficiencies were recorded -Major deficiencies were related to ‘Oil record book’, ‘SOPEP’ or ‘Oil filtering

equipment’’. Press release dated 2 October 2006 (issue on 28 September 2006)

The 16th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Victoria, Canada and discussed the following topics. -Adoption of the “Code of Good Practice for PSC Officers” in response to the request of the Ministerial Declaration “Strengthening the Circle of Responsibility” of the Second Joint Paris MOU/Tokyo MOU Ministerial Conference

-Approval to publicize ship targeting factors and online monthly detention list on Tokyo MOU web-site.

-3 The following annual program of inspection campaigns were scheduled 1. ISM Code (2007) (Jointly with Paris MOU and USCG) 2. Lifeboat safety, Cargo crane, Structural safety, ISPS Code (after 2008)

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 ships particulars and for reports of previous inspections carried out within the region. The Tokyo MOU Authorities are selecting the ships in accordance with a target factor which is calculated from 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, Venezuela -1 The 13th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Venezuela in September

2006 and discussed the following topics. Improvement in the training of the Maritime Authorities’ qualified officers Approval of new policies regarding the dissemination and information

-2 The following annual program of inspection campaigns were scheduled ISM Code (September to November 2007)

(4) Caribbean region（Caribbean MOU）

Established: 9 February 1996 Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Cuba,

Grenada, Guyana, Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago -1 The 11th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Nassau, Bahamas in 2006.

(5) Mediterranean region（Mediterranean MOU）

Established: 11 July 1997 Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,

Turkey -1 The 8th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Turkey in April 2006 together

with Black Sea MOU as First Joint Working Session.

(6) Indian Ocean region（Indian Ocean MOU） Established: 5 June 1998 Members: Australia, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, South

Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania


8

-1 The 9th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Tanzania in September 2006 and discussed the following topics.

Agreed on the proposals of Tokyo MOU and LRF for Data Exchange Participating in Joint CIC along with Tokyo MOU and Paris MOU

(7) West and Central Africa region（Abuja MOU）

Established: 22 October 1999 Members: Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial

Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo

-1 The 5th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Angola in 2006. (8) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)

Established: 7 April 2000 Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine

-1 The 7th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Turkey in April 2006 and discussed the following topics.

-Review of PSC Manual -Data exchange with IMO -Development of Targeting system

The member of Mediterranean MOU also attended this meeting as First Joint Working Session.

-2 The following annual program of inspection campaigns were scheduled ISM Code (2007)

(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU)

Established: 30 June 2004 Members: The Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Sultanate of Oman, State of

Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates


9

1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG) 1) Activity

Though the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is not a member of any MOU, it is an observer of some 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 the 1st of January 2001, the USCG implemented an initiative to identify high-quality ships, called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century.

2) USCG Boarding Priority Matrix

The Boarding Priority Matrix enables the Coast Guard 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 & 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/）

1.2.3 Equasis Equasis is a unique database collecting safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet from both public and private sources and making 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. 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.


10

1.3 Measures to be 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

When surveyors are notified of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, ClassNK actively co-operates as follows: 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 interpretations 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 a port state. Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified by the PSC officers but also the general condition of hull, machinery and equipment, to the extent of an annual survey, carefully considering the seriousness of any deficiencies when they attend ships intervened with under port state control.

(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers When surveyors receive inspection reports from port state authorities, the report is sent to ClassNK head office. The report is examined for the causes of the deficiencies immediately by experienced staff. This examination is carried out for all ships, for which reports are received, and the results are circulated to all concerned sections including all directors of the board and are reflected in the ClassNK PSC database that has been developed for the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related information electronically. The result of this examination is also submitted to the Flag State of the ship. A letter is sent to owner(s) of the ship to remind the owner of their ultimate responsibility regarding the safety of their ships and protection of the marine environment, and/or by advising them to improve routine maintenance of their ships, upon visiting the owner’s office. In cases where the intervention is judged as being related to the previous surveys conducted by the society’s surveyors, those surveys are treated as a non-conforming service and appropriate corrective/preventive actions are taken in accordance with our 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 was held at several meetings held in 2005 for general managers and managers, to ensure surveyors carry out full and effective surveys with an uncompromising attitude toward ensuring the quality and safety of the ships classed with the Society. Special re-training was also carried out under the supervision of Head Office and regional managers, for those surveyors who conducted any surveys judged as non-conforming services.

(2) ClassNK Concentrated Inspection Campaigns

(a) ‘Air pipe heads, Emergency Fire Pump and Fire dampers’ Deficiencies related to the Air pipe heads, Emergency fire pump and Fire dampers were frequently pointed out by PSC. Then, in 2006, a concentrated inspection


11

campaign was carried out to examine them during periodical survey. (3) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners

(a) Visiting Management Companies In cases of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, discussions with the owner about the improvement & enhancement of their routine maintenance are held upon visiting their office.

(b) Meetings and seminars

At informal gatherings and technical committee meetings with ship owners, PSC related issues have been discussed; explanations have been given and documents presented, pointing out the importance of the proper maintenance of ships and education of crew to prevent the detention of ships.

(c) Publications

The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” was distributed to all registered shipowners/operators in the fleet. A checklist (Good Maintenance On Board Ships) was also prepared in electronic format, which can be used by the ship’s crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship before she enters port.

1.3.3 Visits to Port States Personnel from ClassNK Head Office or survey offices were assigned to visit the headquarters or offices of Port States with the objective of introducing ClassNK and exchanging views. The organizations in the major port States, which were visited by executives during 2006, are listed below.

Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) New Zealand Maritime New Zealand U.S.A. United States Coast Guard (USCG) Singapore Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) Japan The Maritime Administration of Japan (JG)


12

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:

(1) Notifications from Port States in accordance with IMO Resolution A.787(19) “Procedure for Port State Control” amended by Resolution A. 882(21)

(2) Publications related to detained ships issued by the USCG, the Paris MOU and the Tokyo MOU.

From January to December 2006, 280 detentions under PSC were reported relating to 264 ships classed by NK. This included cases of detention for reasons not related to class or to NK. The total number of NK-registered ships (500 GT or over) was 6,005 at the end of December 2006. Therefore the 264 ships detained represents about 4.4% of the total. 2.2 Data on Detentions 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State

Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK) Number of

Registered Ships (500GT or over)

Number of Detentions

Detention Ratio (%) (= Detentions /

Registered Number in each year)

Flag State

2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 Panama 2,407 2,555 2,694 175 133 137 7.2 5.2 5.1 Cyprus 116 108 102 13 8 18 11.2 7.4 17.6 Liberia 218 233 236 13 6 16 6.0 2.6 6.8 Malta 168 161 159 25 16 14 14.9 9.9 8.8 Singapore 539 579 543 24 16 14 4.5 2.8 2.6 Thailand 95 96 88 8 11 10 8.4 11.5 11.4 Hong Kong 310 324 336 12 8 10 3.9 2.5 3.0 Bahamas 131 112 122 5 6 8 3.8 5.4 6.6 Philippines 131 119 109 7 2 7 5.3 1.7 6.4 Malaysia 282 262 256 11 9 6 3.9 3.4 2.3 St. Vincent 48 51 47 9 8 6 18.8 15.7 12.8 Marshall Islands 42 72 89 0 6 5 0 8.3 5.6 Vietnam 36 43 55 4 5 4 11.1 11.6 7.3 Indonesia 42 52 74 4 3 4 9.5 5.8 5.4 Turkey 46 49 40 4 2 4 8.7 4.1 10.0 Belize 22 19 13 4 2 3 18.2 10.5 23.0 Greece 49 50 44 3 0 3 6.1 0.0 6.8 (Others) - - - 18 11 11 - - - Total 5,684 5,894 6,005 339 252 280 6.0 4.3 4.7


13

From among those Administrations with 10 or more NK classed ships, the following Flag State Administrations were identified as having a detention ratio higher than 10% in 2006 Cyprus, Thailand, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Turkey, Belize

Fig 2.2.2-1 Detention by Flag (NK)

175

13 13

25 24

812

5 711 9

04 4 4 4 3

18

133

8 6

16 1611 8 6

29 8 6 5 3 2 2 0

11

137

18 16 14 1410 10 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200Pa

nam

a

Cyp

rus

Libe

ria

Mal

ta

Sing

apor

e

Thai

land

Hon

g Ko

ng

Baha

mas

Philip

pine

s

Mal

aysi

a

St. V

ince

ntM

arsh

all I

slan

ds

Viet

nam

Indo

nesi

a

Turk

ey

Beliz

e

Gre

ece

(Oth

ers)

Flag State

Det

entio

ns

200420052006

Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)

7.2

11.2

6

14.9

4.5

8.4

3.9 3.8

5.3

3.9

18.8

0

11.1

9.58.7

18.2

6.15.2

7.4

2.6

9.9

2.8

11.5

2.5

5.4

1.7

3.4

15.7

8.3

11.6

5.8

4.1

10.5

0

5.1

17.6

6.8

8.8

2.6

11.4

3

6.6 6.4

2.3

12.8

5.6

7.3

5.4

10

23

6.8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Pana

ma

Cyp

rus

Libe

ria

Mal

ta

Sing

apor

e

Thai

land

Hon

g Ko

ng

Baha

mas

Philip

pine

s

Mal

aysi

a

St. V

ince

ntM

arsh

all I

slan

ds

Viet

nam

Indo

nesi

a

Turk

ey

Beliz

e

Gre

ece

Flag State

Det

entio

n R

atio

(%)

200420052006


14

2.2.2 Detentions by ship type

Table 2.2.2 Detentions by ship type (NK)

Number of Detentions Detention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / Registered Number in each year) Ship Type

Number of Registered

Ships in 2006(500GT or

over) 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

Bulk Carrier 1925 96 81 116 5.7 4.5 6.0General Cargo 600 94 67 56 17.6 10.9 9.3Container Carrier 467 27 16 14 6.3 3.6 3.0Chip Carrier 121 7 4 6 6.3 3.5 5.0Cement Carrier 123 8 3 0 6.6 2.4 0.0Ro-Ro Ship 102 4 3 6 4.2 3.2 5.9Reefer Carrier 234 25 15 21 9.2 5.8 9.0Vehicles Carrier 332 21 18 20 6.6 5.4 6.0Oil Tanker 763 15 14 10 1.8 1.7 1.3Oil/Chemical Tanker 529 26 21 21 5.8 4.5 4.0Gas Carrier 325 11 6 3 3.3 1.9 0.9Others 484 5 4 7 0.9 1.0 1.4Total 6,005 339 252 280

General cargo or Reefer carrier were identified as having a heigher detention ratio . (‘Detention ratio’ was determined by dividing detentions by the number of ships of each ship type in the NK fleet.)

Fig. 2.2.2-1 Detentions by Ship type (NK)

96 94

27

7 8 4

25 2115

26

115

81

67

164 3 3

15 18 1421

6 4

116

56

146

06

21 2010

21

3 7

020406080

100120140

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

Vehicl

es C

arrier

Oil Tan

ker

Oil/Che

mical T

anke

r

Gas C

arrier

Others

Det

entio

ns 200420052006

Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (NK)

5.7

17.6

6.3 6.3 6.6

4.2

9.2

6.6

1.8

5.8

3.3

0.9

4.5

10.9

3.6 3.52.4

3.2

5.8 5.4

1.7

4.5

1.91

6

9.3

3

5

0

5.9

9

6

1.3

4

0.9 1.4

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

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

Vehicl

es C

arrier

Oil Tan

ker

Oil/Che

mical T

anke

r

Gas C

arrier

Others

Det

entio

n R

atio

(%)

200420052006


15

2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age

Table 2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age (NK)

Number of Detentions Detention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / Registered Number in each year) Ship’s age


Ships in 2006(500GT or over) 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

up to 5 years old 1,249 29 19 19 2.2 1.3 1.5

over 5 and up to 10 1,345 54 39 41 3.4 4.0 3.0

over 10 and up to 15 1,252 59 45 43 5.5 3.9 3.4

over 15 and up to 20 674 65 44 43 9.0 6.6 6.4

over 20 and up to 25 772 85 77 85 12.3 10.1 11.0

over 25 382 47 28 49 16.4 6.5 12.8

Total 6,005 339 252 280

Fig. 2.2.3-1 Detentions by Ship's age (NK)

29

5459

65

85

47

19

3945 44

77

2819

41 43 43

85

49

020406080

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 200420052006

Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio by Ship's age (NK)

2.23.4

5.5

9

12.3

16.4

1.3

4 3.9

6.6

10.1

6.5

1.53 3.4

6.4

1112.8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0


over 10 andup to 15

over 15 andup to 20

over 20 andup to 25

over 25Det

entio

n ra

tion

(%)

200420052006


16

2.2.4 Detentions by size （tonnage)

Table 2.2.4 Detention by size （tonnage) (NK)

Number of DetentionsDetention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / Registered Number in each year) Gross Ton (x 1,000)


Ships in 2006(500GT or over) 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

up to 10 2,641 168 123 107 6.3 4.5 4.1over 10 and up to 20 1,000 85 43 58 8.8 4.4 5.8over 20 and up to 30 673 32 30 44 5.0 4.6 6.5over 30 and up to 40 629 26 31 38 5.2 5.5 6.0over 40 and up to 50 351 12 7 15 4.3 2.3 4.3over 50 and up to 60 201 5 4 4 2.6 2.0 2.0over 60 and up to 80 142 5 7 7 4.1 5.4 4.9over 80 368 6 7 7 2.0 2.1 1.9Total 6,005 339 252 280

Fig. 2.2.4-1 Detentions by Gross Tonnage (NK)168

85

32 2612

5 5 6

123

4330 31

7 4 7 7

107

5844 38

154 7 7

020406080

100120140160180


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 200420052006

x 1,000 GT

Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio by Gross Tonnage (NK)

6.3

8.8

5 5.2

4.3

2.6

4.1

2

4.5 4.4 4.6

5.5

2.32

5.4

2.1

4.1

5.86.5

6

4.3

2

4.9

1.9

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.0


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

n R

atio

(%)

200420052006

x 1,000 GT


17

2.2.5 Detentions by Port State Table 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)

Port State 2004 2005 2006Australia 40 36 48China 33 40 36Japan 57 32 35USA (*1) 25 12 20Republic of Korea 14 12 20Hong Kong 43 11 13Singapore 7 7 9Italy 11 8 8India 18 10 7Netherlands 11 7 7Russian Federation 9 3 7United Kingdom 10 12 6Turkey 2 7 6Canada 9 7 5Germany 8 5 5Taiwan 0 3 4Slovenia 3 2 4Belgium 2 2 4Iran 0 0 4New Zealand 5 9 3Spain 6 8 3France 3 3 3Ukraine 0 2 3Ireland 1 1 3Vietnam 2 3 2Argentina 0 0 2Poland 2 0 2Romania 1 0 2(Others) 17 13 9Total 339 252 280

(*1) including Puerto Rico Detentions by the members of the Tokyo MOU made up 60% or more of the total number of detained ships in 2006.

1

2

0

2

1

0

3

6

5

0

2

3

0

8

9

2

10

9

11

18

11

7

43

14

25

57

33

40

0

0

0

3

1

2

3

8

9

0

2

2

3

5

7

7

12

3

7

10

8

7

11

12

12

32

40

36

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

8

9

13

20

20

35

36

48

Romania

Poland

Argentina

Vietnam

Ireland

Ukraine

France

Spain

New Zealand

Iran

Belgium

Slovenia

Taiwan

Germany

Canada

Turkey

United Kingdom

Russian Federation

Netherlands

India

Italy

Singapore

Hong Kong

Republic of Korea

USA (*1)

Japan

China

Australia

200620052004

Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)


18

2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category In 2006, a total of 754 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 280 detentions, i.e. deficiencies which were serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, safety of the crew on board or to present an unreasonable threat of harm to the environment and therefore warranted the detention of ships. The deficiencies are categorised as shown in Figure 2.3.1. Deficiencies related to fire-fighting and life-saving appliances accounted for approximately a third of the total in 2006.

Fig. 2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)

0

0

1

3

1

0

7

2

4

0

6

6

5

0

9

4

8

23

28

30

51

76

69

95

85

77

77

191

212

0

0

0

0

1

0

3

4

6

0

1

2

0

0

1

1

6

8

11

34

24

36

37

44

73

47

59

96

186

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

5

8

8

8

18

22

24

28

35

53

59

68

70

73

97

163

0 50 100 150 200 250

MARPOL-ANNEX III

MARPOL-ANNEX IV

MARPOL-ANNEX II

WORKING SPACES (ILO 147)

ALL OTHER DEFICIENCIES

MARPOL-ANNEX VI

FOOD AND CATERING (ILO 147)

CARRIAGE OF CARGO AND DANGEROUS GOODS

OIL, CHEMICAL TANKERS AND GAS CARRIERS

MARPOL-ANNEX V

MOORING ARRANGEMENTS (ILO 147)

ALARMS-SIGNALS

ACCIDENT PREVENTION (ILO 147)

BULK CARRIERS - ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES

ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SECURITY

MARPOL RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES

CREW AND ACCOMMODATION (ILO 147)

SHIP'S CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTS

CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING

SOLAS RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS

SAFETY OF NAVIGATION

PROPULSION & AUXILIARY MACHINERY

LOAD LINES

STABILITY AND STRUCTURE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT

ISM RELATED DEFICIENCIES

MARPOL-ANNEX I

LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES

FIRE SAFETY MEASURES

Deficiencies

200620052004


19

2.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequently 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. Fire-Dampers, Emergency Fire Pumps, Oily-Water Separating Equipment and Lifeboats continue to be the major items where most detainable deficiencies were found. The items reported in 2004 to 2006 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (14).

Fig. 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported Frequentry (NK)

13

12

13

19

25

3

12

7

11

24

23

17

40

31

23

61

51

34

76

3

5

12

12

22

9

7

6

3

15

21

10

25

20

19

35

32

53

42

10

10

11

11

11

12

12

13

13

16

16

18

24

25

27

32

39

49

57

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

15 PPM alarm arrangements

MF/HF radio installation

Abandon Ship Drills

Other (Machinery)

Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines

Beams,frames,floors - Corrosion

Resource and personnel

Emergency preparedness

Cargo and other hatchways

Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Switches

Fire Fighting Equipment and Appliances

Cleanliness of Engine Room

Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings

Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft

Maintenance of the ship and equipment

Lifeboats

Oil filtering equipment

Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pump)

Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control,etc.

Deficiencies

200620052004


20

(1) Fire Fighting Appliances Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Fire Safety Measures (Fire Fighting Appliances)” is shown in Table 2.3.2-(1).

Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety Measures (Fire Fighting Appliances) Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Prevention (Fire protection) 11 14 7

Damage / Missing of self-closing device for fire proof door Locked self closing valves for glass gauge for oil tanks (Open condition)

Fixed fire extinguishing system 12 8 7

Inoperable fixed fire extinguishing system in paint locker Missing Service reports Slack connector between CO2 Cylinder and Manifold

Fire Fighting Equipment 23 21 16 Defective hose/nozzle Leakage from fire hydrant

Fire Pumps 34 53 49Inoperable or low pressure emergency fire pumps Wastage or leakage of Fire main

Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.

76 42 57Seized closing devices; fire damper, door self-closer, emergency shut-off valves on FO tanks, Isolating valves of Fire main

Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines 25 22 11

Improper modification of drain line, leakage alarm system No protection for Generator Engine Protection miss-fitting (after maintenance)

Other (fire safety) 12 4 4 Defective fire protection for emergency escape trunk.

(2) Life Saving Appliances Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Life Saving Appliances” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(2).

Table 2.3.2-(2) Life Saving Appliances Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Lifeboats 61 35 32Inoperable lifeboat engine Wasted/holed shell Inoperable on-load release gear

Lifeboat inventory 26 0 7 Damaged / wasted inventories Inoperable bilge pump

Rescue boats 3 1 4 Inoperable rescue boat engine Damaged / wasted inventories

Inflatable Liferafts 10 3 5 Defective secured Damaged / wasted cradle

Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft 31 20 25 Wasted/holed davit

Wasted sheaves Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 3 3 4 Insufficient operation and drill


21

(3) MARPOL-ANNEX I Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “MARPOL-ANNEX I” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(3).

Table 2.3.2-(3) MARPOL-ANNEX I Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Retention of oil on board 1 5 6Fitted illegal by-pass line Coincide of Tank Capacity among oil record book, capacity plan or IOPP supplement

Oil filtering equipment (Oily-Water Separating Equipment)

51 32 39

Inoperable separator Wasted and holed separator casing Wasted discharging line Suspicion of by-pass line fitting for Oil filtering equipment

Oil discharge monitoring and control system 0 4 4 Inoperable oil discharge monitoring and

control system

15ppm alarm arrangement 13 3 10 Failure of alarm Inoperable automatic stopping device

Other (MARPOL Annex I) 3 4 4 Inoperable incinerator Leakage from deck machineries

(4) ISM Related Defects Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “ISM Related Defects” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(4).

Table 2.3.2-(4) ISM Related Defects Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Resources and personnel 12 7 12

Insufficient SMS by crew Not familiar with location of stop valve for fire main (Chief engineer and other engineers) Not familiar with operation of fixed fire extinguishing system

Emergency preparedness 7 6 13 Failure of abandon ship drill or fire drill Insufficient training

Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences

1 3 4No reporting about accident (about fire in engine room) No reporting non-conformities per SMS

Maintenance of the ship and equipment 23 19 27

No adequate function of SMS by crew No maintenance reports onboard No plan for ship’s maintenance

(5) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Stability, Structure and Related Equipment” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(5).

Table 2.3.2-(5) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Damage to hull due to weather or ship operation 3 0 4 Damaged ballast tank during cargo loading

Beams, Frames, Floors (corrosion) 3 9 12 Heavy wastage in cargo hold and ballast tank

(Long., frame)


22

Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Switches 24 15 16

Deficient battery/emergency generator Inoperable emergency lighting Low battery level

Deck (corrosion) 2 6 9Corroded and holed upper deck plates Heavy wastage / crack on hatch cover and bulwarks

Other (stability/structure) 1 8 4 Temporary repaired sea-suction pipe, etc by patch

(6) Load Lines Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Load Lines” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(6).

Table 2.3.2-(6) Load Lines Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Cargo and other hatchway 11 3 13 Defective hatch cover cleats

Hatchcovers 12 2 9 Wasted / holed hatch cover plates

Doors 9 5 4 Insufficient weather tight

Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings 40 25 24

Wasted/holed ventilator, air pipes Damaged float of air pipe head Damaged closing device

(7) Propulsion & Aux. Machinery Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Propulsion & Aux. Machinery” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(7).

Table 2.3.2-(7) Propulsion & Aux. Machinery Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Boilers 2 1 5 Inoperable safety valves Defective alarm system

Propulsion main engine 4 3 6 Leakage of F.O & L.O

Cleanliness of Engine Room 17 10 18 Excessive oil in Engine Room

Auxiliary engine 20 9 9 Leakage of oil, Dirty blocks

Other (Machinery) 19 12 11

Leakage of exhaust gas Defective switch of control panel for generatorengine Leakage of sea water pipe, fresh water pipe and cooling pipes


23

(8) Safety of Navigation Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Safety of Navigation” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(8).

Table 2.3.2-(8) Safety of Navigation Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Radar (1530) 6 6 4 Inoperable radar

Lights, shape, sound-signals 11 7 8 Miss-fitting of navigation lights Wasted / corroded stand

Charts 31 8 7Navigation charts not updated/correct Navigation charts for intended voyage not available

Nautical Publications 17 8 9Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights, list of radio signals, etc.) not updated/correct Nautical publications incomplete/missing

(9) Radio Communications Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Radio Communications” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(9).

Table 2.3.2-(9) Radio communications Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

MF/HF Radio Installation 12 5 10 Not operable

EPIRB 8 4 4 Inoperable EPIRB

Reserve source of energy 16 5 5Defective battery of GMDSS Poor knowledge and maintenance Low voltage

(10) SOLAS Related Operational Defects Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “SOLAS Related Operational Defects” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(10).

Table 2.3.2-(10) SOLAS Related Operational Defects Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Fire Drills 9 7 6 Not familiar with the drill

Abandon ship drills 13 12 11 Not familiar with the drill

(11) Certification and Watchkeeping Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Certification and Watchkeeping” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(11).

Table 2.3.2-(11) Certification and Watchkeeping Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Certification of Master & Officers 15 6 9 Invalid certificates onboard

Valid certificates expired


24

Endorsement by flag states 0 1 4 Missing of endorsement on STCW certificates by flag states

(12) Bulk Carrier Safety Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Bulk Carrier Safety” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(12).

Table 2.3.2-(12) Bulk Carrier Safety Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Water level indicator 0 0 5 Inoperable water ingress alarm system

(13) MARPOL Related Operational Defects Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “MARPOL Related Operational Defects” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(13).

Table 2.3.2-(13) MARPOL Related Operational Defects Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Oil and oily mixtures from machinery spaces 4 0 5 Not familiar with procedure for discharge of

oily water (14) Ship’s Certificates and Documents Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category “Ship’s Certificates and Documents” is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(14).

Table 2.3.2-(14) Ship’s Certificates and Documents Item 04 05 06 Noted deficiencies

Other (certificates) 3 0 4 Defective of P & I Certificate Validity of liferaft maintenance expired


25

2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.15 show the most common deficiencies that resulted in the detention of vessels classed with NK under PSC inspections conducted by the top 15 Port States, by number of detentions reported in 2006. 2.4.1 Australia

Table 2.4.1 Australia Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Lifesaving Appliances 10 9 11 Fire Safety Measures 22 10 29 Stability, Structure and Related Equipment 5 4 13 Load Lines 11 9 13 Radio Communications 13 1 6 SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies 1 4 6 ISM Related Deficiencies 4 3 10

Type of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Lifeboats 4 1 3 Launching arrangements for Survival Crafts 2 5 5 Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pumps) 2 8 6 Fire-dampers, Ventilation, Means of control 17 6 22 Emergency lighting, batteries and switches 2 1 6 Beams, frames, floors – corrosion 0 3 6 Cargo and other hatchways 3 2 4 Ventilators, airpipe, casings 8 5 8 MF/HF radio installation 6 1 3 Emergency preparedness (ISM Code) 0 0 3 Maintenance of the ship and equipment (ISM Code) 3 3 5

A total of 94 detainable deficiencies relating to 48 detentions in 2006. (2.0 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.2 China

Table 2.4.2 China Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Lifesaving Appliances 17 16 9 Fire Safety Measures 20 30 25 Stability, Structure and related equipment 9 14 7 Safety of Navigation 2 6 7 MARPOL Annex I 9 7 7 ISM Related Deficiencies 5 0 7


Lifeboats 8 7 4 Fire prevention 1 2 3 Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pumps) 4 9 11 Fire-dampers, Ventilation, Means of control 6 4 6 Propulsion main engine 1 0 3 Lights, shapes, sound-signals 1 3 5 Oil filtering equipment 8 5 5 Resources and personnel (ISM Code) 0 0 3


26


2.4.3 Japan

Table 2.4.3 Japan Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Fire Safety Measures 15 14 10 MARPOL Annex I 17 17 20


Endorsement by flag states (on crew certificates) 0 0 3 Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pumps) 1 0 6 Fire-dampers, Ventilation, Means of control 1 6 3 Oil filtering equipment 13 12 18 A total of 42 detainable deficiencies relating to 35 detentions in 2006. (1.2 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.4 U.S.A

Table 2.4.4 U.S.A. Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Lifesaving Appliances 16 3 5 ISM Related Deficiencies 6 2 6


Others (ILO 147) 0 0 3 Rescue boats 0 0 3 Oil filtering equipment 2 0 3 A total of 42 detainable deficiencies relating to 20 detentions in 2006. (2.1 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.5 Republic of Korea

Table 2.4.5 Republic of Korea Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Lifesaving Appliances 4 5 8 ISM Related Deficiencies 4 2 6


Lifeboats 3 3 3 Launching arrangements for Survival Crafts 1 1 3 Hatch covers 0 0 4 Maintenance of the ship and equipment (ISM Code) 1 2 4

Marking of IMO number 0 0 3 A total of 36 detainable deficiencies relating to 20 detentions in 2006. (1.8 detainable deficiencies/detention)


27

2.4.6 Hong Kong Table 2.4.6 Hong Kong

Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006 Lifesaving Appliances 34 13 8 Fire Safety Measures 55 25 11 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 4 3 6 Safety of Navigation 12 7 9


Fire fighting equipment and appliances 22 8 6 Cleanliness of engine room 2 3 4 Charts 11 2 3 Nautical publications 3 3 4


2.4.7 Singapore

Table 2.4.7 Singapore Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Lifesaving Appliances 0 2 8 Fire Safety Measures 3 9 12 Load Lines 0 2 6


Lifeboats 0 1 4 Inflatable liferafts 0 0 3 Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pumps) 1 7 4 Fire-dampers, Ventilation, Means of control 2 1 4 Cargo and other hatchways 0 0 3 A total of 32 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions in 2006. (3.6 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.8 Italy

Table 2.4.8 Italy Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Lifesaving Appliances 8 1 6 Fire Safety Measures 8 11 9 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 5 1 8


Launching arrangements for Survival Crafts 3 4 3 Fire fighting equipment and appliances 3 4 5 Cleanliness of engine room 0 1 4 A total of 38 detainable deficiencies relating to 8 detentions in 2006 (4.8 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.9 Netherlands

Table 2.4.9 Netherlands


28

Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006 Fire Safety Measures 4 6 5


Launching arrangements for Survival Crafts 2 1 3 A total of 17 detainable deficiencies relating to 7 detentions in 2006. (2.4 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.10 India

Table 2.4.10 India Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 2 8 5

Type of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006 Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pumps) 3 2 3 Oil and oil mixtures from machinery spaces 1 0 3 A total of 21 detainable deficiencies relating to 7 detentions in 2006. (3.0 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.11 Russian Federation

Table 2.4.11 Russian Federation Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Fire Safety Measures 4 0 4 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 0 0 3 A total of 23 detainable deficiencies relating to 7 detentions in 2006. (3.3 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.12 United Kingdom

Table 2.4.12 United Kingdom Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Radio Communications 5 7 5 SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies 4 2 5 ISM related deficiencies 7 6 6


Fire drills 3 2 3 Maintenance of the ship and equipment (ISM Code) 4 3 4



29

2.4.13 Turkey

Table 2.4.13 Turkey Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Fire Safety Measures 7 10 10

Type of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006 Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pumps) 1 2 3 A total of 19 detainable deficiencies relating to 6 detentions in 2006. (3.2 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.14 Germany

Table 2.4.14 Germany Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Stability, Structure and related equipment 2 0 5 ISM Related Deficiencies 12 3 6


Decks - cracking 0 0 5 A total of 24 detainable deficiencies relating to 5 detentions in 2006. (4.8 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.15 Transport Canada

Table 2.4.15 Canada Category of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006

Fire Safety Measures 4 9 5

Type of Deficiency 2004 2005 2006 Fire-dampers, Ventilation, Means of control 3 2 3 A total of 15 detainable deficiencies relating to 5 detentions in 2006. (3.0 detainable deficiencies/detention)


30

Chapter 3

Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU and Paris MOU 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 and the Paris MOU in 2006. The full text of each Annual Report can be obtained from the following Websites.

Tokyo MOU http://www.tokyo-mou.org Paris MOU http://www.parismou.org


31

3.1 Tokyo MOU In 2006, 21,686 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 1,171 ships were detained because of serious deficiencies found on board. 3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Statistics Table 3.1.1 shows the PSC inspections carried out by each Port State.

Table 3.1.1 PSC by Authority (Tokyo MOU)

No. of Inspection No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%) Authority 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

Australia 3,228 3,076 3,081 177 154 138 5.48 5.01 4.48Canada 1) 388 374 458 29 12 7 7.47 3.21 1.53Chile 576 532 665 28 12 18 4.86 2.26 2.71China 3,897 4,020 4,020 194 259 319 4.98 6.44 7.94Fiji 7 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0Hong Kong, China 745 500 596 169 84 62 22.68 16.80 10.40Indonesia 32 52 59 1 3 1 3.12 5.77 1.69Japan 4,896 4,680 4,898 459 248 292 9.38 5.30 5.96Republic of Korea 3,309 3,490 3,374 106 123 158 3.20 3.52 4.68Malaysia 353 355 434 5 3 3 1.42 0.85 0.69New Zealand 520 509 527 14 24 14 2.69 4.72 2.66Papua New Guinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Philippines 378 422 627 9 2 2 2.38 0.47 0.32Russian Federation 1) 983 1,112 1,001 110 66 36 11.19 5.94 3.60Singapore 1,612 1,359 1,290 64 75 99 3.97 5.52 7.67Thailand 153 149 124 3 2 4 1.96 1.34 3.23Vanuatu 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Vietnam 317 425 467 25 30 18 7.89 7.06 3.85

Total 21,400 21,058 21,686 1393 1,097 1,171 6.51% 5.21% 5.40%

1) Data is only for the Pacific ports


32

3.1.2 Black List Table 3.1.2 shows the flag states announced as “Black List” States in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report.

Table 3.1.2 Black List of Flag State (Tokyo MOU)

Flag State No. of

Inspections 2004-2006

No. of Detentions 2004-2006

Black to Grey limit

Honduras 36 14 6 Korea, Dem. People's Rep. 983 241 82 Indonesia 639 153 56 Georgia 93 26 11 Mongolia 468 102 42 Cambodia 3,513 573 271 Vietnam 882 134 75 Belize 2,104 268 167 Tuvalu 385 52 36 Dominica 76 13 9 Comoros 30 6 5 Myanmar 336 36 32 Thailand 949 90 80


33

3.1.3 Detentions by Class Table 3.1.3 & Fig.3.1.3 shows the detention data by Classification Society.

Table 3.1.3 Detentions by Class (Tokyo MOU) (*1) 2004 2005 2006

Class No. of Inspections

No. of Detentions Detention % No. of

InspectionsNo. of

Detentions Detention % No. of Inspections

No. of Detentions Detention %

ABS 1,945 78 4.0% 1,824 55 3.0% 1,907 53 2.8%BV 1,732 107 6.2% 1,660 92 5.5% 1,789 91 5.1%CCS 2,204 47 2.1% 2,111 36 1.7% 2,104 30 1.4%DNV 2,652 91 3.4% 2,448 67 2.7% 2,437 84 3.5%GL 2,077 96 4.6% 1,931 62 3.2% 2,103 73 3.5%KR 1,917 47 2.5% 1,888 41 2.2% 1,871 41 2.2%LR 3,018 166 5.5% 2,757 106 3.8% 2,776 104 3.8%NK 7,289 286 3.9% 7,003 199 2.8% 6,958 217 3.1%RINA 220 15 6.8% 221 20 9.1% 276 18 6.5%RS 835 79 9.5% 787 38 4.8% 752 33 4.4%

(*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 them, while the number of detention would be counted only towards the RO that issued the certificate relating to the detainable deficiencies.

Fig. 3.1.3 Detention ratio by Class (Tokyo MOU)

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RINA RS

Det

entio

n ra

tio

200420052006


34

3.1.4 Deficiencies by Category Fig.3.1.4 shows the deficiencies by Category.

Fig. 3.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)

102

58

137

309

54

276

509

481

550

587

802

366

325

2,039

2,185

2,504

2,803

3,053

2,673

3,124

5,056

6,454

5,550

11,259

9,813

12,082

90

10

42

46

173

210

130

355

581

274

362

459

580

793

550

530

2251

1825

2197

2930

3123

4048

3352

4304

6081

5832

10914

10572

88

48

136

220

236

319

358

379

383

417

555

636

709

731

819

1931

2237

2700

2830

3066

3186

3801

5423

6155

6475

10871

12680

1315412054

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Other deficiencies

MARPOL-ANNEX III

MARPOL-ANNEX II

MARPOL-ANNEX IV

Food and catering (ILO 147)

Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers

Bulk Carriers-additional safety measures

Alarm signals

MARPOL related operational deficiencies

MARPOL-ANNEX VI

Crew and accommodation (ILO 147)

Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods

Accident prevention (ILO 147)

Mooring arrangements (ILO 147)

Working spaces (ILO 147)

Additional measures enhance maritime safety

MARPOL-ANNEX V

Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers

Ship's certificates and documents

ISM related deficiencies

Radio communications

SOLAS related operational deficiencies

Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

MARPOL-ANNEX I

Stability, structure and related equipment

Load lines

Life saving appliances

Safety of Navigation

Fire safety measures

Deficiencies

200620052004


35

3.2 Paris MOU 3.2.1 Black List Table 3.2.1 shows the flag states announced as “Black List” States in the Paris MOU Website.

Table 3.2.1 Black List of Flag State (Paris MOU)

Flag State Inspections 2004-2006

Detentions 2004-2006 Black to

Grey LimitKorea, Democratic People’s Rep. 397 135 37 Albania 344 98 32 Bolivia 36 10

Very High Risk 6

Comoros 326 63 31 Georgia 718 126 62 Slovakia 202 39 21 St.Kitts and Nevis 40 10 6 Syrian Arab Republic 170 32 18 Honduras 116 22

High Risk

13 St Vincent & the Grenadines 2450 296 193 Cambodia 526 69 47 Lebanon 169 24

Medium to high risk 18

Brazil 38 7 6 Egypt 157 19 17 Belize 622 59 55 Morocco 170 18

Medium Risk

18

NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI For more information on this publication, please contact the Survey Department

4-7, Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8567, Japan Tel: +81-3-5226-2027 FAX: +81-3-5226-2029 e-mail: [email protected]

Annual Report on Port State Control - classnk.or.jp · This annual Port State Control (PSC) report...

Documents

Transcript of Annual Report on Port State Control - classnk.or.jp · This annual Port State Control (PSC) report...