Port State Control Annual Report
[English]
P
P
h
h
o
o
t
t
o
o
g
g
r
r
a
a
p
p
h
h
s
s
o
o
f
f
D
D
e
e
f
f
i
i
c
c
i
i
e
e
n
n
c
c
i
i
e
e
s
s
i
i
d
d
e
e
n
n
t
t
i
i
f
f
i
i
e
e
d
d
d
d
u
u
r
r
i
i
n
n
g
g
P
P
o
o
r
r
t
t
S
S
t
t
a
a
t
t
e
e
C
C
o
o
n
n
t
t
r
r
o
o
l
l
L
L
i
i
f
f
e
e
S
S
a
a
v
v
i
i
n
n
g
g
Broken safety belt
Damaged lifeboat seat
Poor condition of lifeboat hull
Inappropriate resetting of on-load
release gear
M
M
A
A
R
R
P
P
O
O
L
L
Oily inside of discharge pipe
Oily water separator clogged
Cracked fire door
Noncombustible compound missing
on A-class bulkhead
U
U
n
n
a
a
c
c
c
c
e
e
p
p
t
t
a
a
b
b
l
l
e
e
h
h
o
o
l
l
d
d
-
-
b
b
a
a
c
c
k
k
h
h
o
o
o
o
k
k
f
f
o
o
r
r
A
L
L
o
o
a
a
d
d
L
L
i
i
n
n
e
e
W
d
W
d
e
e
a
v
a
v
s
s
i
i
c
t
c
t
e
e
e
e
d
d
h
h
a
a
t
t
c
c
h
h
c
c
o
o
v
v
e
e
r
r
s
s
e
e
c
c
u
u
r
r
i
i
n
n
g
g
Oily and dirty engine room
Oily lagging of F.O. piping
O
O
t
t
h
h
e
e
r
r
s
s
G
G
a
a
p
p
o
o
f
f
h
h
a
a
t
t
c
c
h
h
c
c
o
o
v
v
e
e
r
r
s
s
i
i
d
d
e
e
c
c
l
l
e
e
a
a
t
t
H
H
e
e
a
a
v
v
i
i
l
l
y
y
w
w
a
a
s
s
t
t
e
e
d
d
o
o
n
n
-
-
d
d
e
e
c
c
k
k
p
p
i
i
p
p
i
i
n
n
g
g
W
W
a
a
s
s
t
t
e
e
d
d
m
m
o
o
o
o
r
r
i
i
n
n
g
g
l
l
i
i
n
n
e
e
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
“Chapter 3”: Statistics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships “Chapter 4”: Statistical Data from 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. 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.
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 2014
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions
1.1.1 Electronic Chart Display and Information System ···1
1.1.2 Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water···1
1.1.3 Means of recharging breathing apparatus ···2
1.1.4 Fire-fighter’s communication ···2
1.1.5 Types of fire-fighter’s outfits ···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 (USCG)···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 ···7
(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 ···8
1.3.3 Visits to Port States···9
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK
2.1 General··· 102.2 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 (Gross 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
2.4.4 U.S.A. ··· 25 2.4.5 India··· 25 2.4.6 Republic of Korea··· 25 2.4.7 Indonesia··· 26 2.4.8 Canada··· 26 2.4.9 Russian Federation ··· 26 2.4.10 Italy··· 27 2.4.11 Netherlands ··· 27
Chapter 3
Statistics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships
3.1 Statistics of ISM deficiency cases 3.1.1 Total number and average rate ··· 283.1.2 Statistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM Deficiencies ··· 28
3.1.2.1 Per Property of ship ··· 28
3.1.2.2 Per Factors related to Company ··· 33
3.1.2.3 Per Port State··· 36
3. 2 Analysis of ISM Deficiencies 3.2.1 Number of ISM deficiencies sorted by relevant ISM Code requirement ··· 37
3.2.2 ISM Deficiencies and Detentions per Port State ··· 38
3.2.3 ISM Deficiencies and PSC Action Code ··· 39
Appendix: Sample of PSC inspection reports ··· 43
Chapter 4
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU and Paris MOU
4.1 Tokyo MOU 4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities··· 524.1.2 Black List of Flag States ··· 53
4.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organization ··· 54
4.1.4 Deficiencies by Category··· 55
4.2 Paris MOU 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities··· 56
4.2.2 Black List of Flag States ··· 57
4.2.3 Deficiencies by Category··· 58
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 from 2012 through 2014 are summarized below.
1.1.1 Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19) Entry into force: 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. An 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.
（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 before 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.
1.1.2 Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water (SOLAS III/17-1) Entry into force: 1 July 2014
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0985]
1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage
2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By the first periodical or renewal safety equipment survey of the ship, whichever comes first after 1 July 2014
1.1.3 Means of recharging breathing apparatus (SOLAS II-2/15.2.2.6) Entry into force: 1 July 2014
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0947 & 0990]
SOLAS regulation II-2/15 was amended to add new paragraph 2.2.6 and this new paragraph states that an onboard means of recharging breathing apparatus used during drills or a suitable number of spare cylinders shall be carried on board to replace those used.
Application:
1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage
2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By 1 July 2014 1.1.4 Fire-fighter’s communication (SOLAS II-2/10.10.4)
Entry into force: 1 July 2014
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0947 & 0990]
SOLAS regulation II-2/10 was amended to add new paragraph 10.4. This new paragraph states that a minimum of two two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for each fire party for fire-fighter’s communication shall be carried on board and those two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus shall be intrinsically safe or of an explosion-proof type.
Application:
1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage
2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By the first survey after 1 July 2018
1.1.5 Types of fire-fighter’s outfits (Amendments to SOLAS II-2/1 & 10.1) Entry into force: 1 July 2014
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0947 & 0990]
SOLAS II-2/1 & 10.1 were amended and due to these amendments, compressed air breathing apparatus shall be fitted with an audible alarm and a visual or other device which will alert the user before the volume of the air in the cylinder has been reduced to no less than 200 l.
Application:
1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage
2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By 1 July 2019
New amendments to conventions are also introduced on the ClassNK Website in the
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 October 2013
The Paris MOU announced that seven (7) ships were detained for MLC-related deficiencies during the first month since entry into force of MLC2006 and this corresponded to 10% of the total number of detentions (68) in the Paris MoU area in this period.
Press release dated 17 February 2014
The Paris MOU announced the preliminary results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2013.
- 68 ships (41% of all detentions) were detained over the 3 month period as a direct result of the CIC for deficiencies related to propulsion and auxiliary machinery.
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, Republic of 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, 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 1 November 2013
The Tokyo MOU announced that the 24th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Tokyo MOU was held in Tokyo, Japan from 28 to 31 October 2013.
- The Tokyo MOU celebrated its 20 years anniversary during this meeting and the relevant forum was organized.
- The Committee approved the arrangements for the CIC on STCW Hours of Rest that will be carried out from 1 September to 30 November 2014 with the Paris MOU jointly.
- The 25th meeting of the PSC Committee will be held in New Zealand in November 2014.
Press release dated 1 April 2014
The Tokyo MOU announced the preliminary results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2013.
- A total of 282 detentions were recorded during the CIC inspections, among which 72 or 25.5% of them were detained as a direct result of the CIC.
- A detailed analysis of the results of the CIC will be considered by the PSC Committee in November 2014, after which a full report will be submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
2) New Inspection Regime (NIR)
The NIR will enter into force from 1 January 2014.
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: - LRS: 9 to 18 months after the last inspection
- SRS: 5 to 8 months after the last inspection - HRS: 2 to 4 months after the last inspection
(3) Latin-American region (Viña del Mar or Latin-America Agreement) Established: 5 November 1992
Members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela (4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU)
Established: 9 February 1996
Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Curacao, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts and Nevis, 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, Djibouti, Eritrea, France (La Reunion Island), India, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sultanate of Oman, Tanzania, Union of Comoros and Yemen
-1 In 2013, the Indian Ocean MOU carried out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery from 1 September to 30 November
(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) Established: 7 April 2000
Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine -1 In 2013, the Black Sea MOU carried out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign
(CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery from 1 September to 30 November 2013 in line with the CIC carried out by the Tokyo MOU and the Paris MoU. -2 The 15th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Black Sea MOU was held in
Constanta, Romania from 8 to 10 April 2014.
-3 According to Annual Report 2013 of the Black Sea MOU, a total of 5,080 inspections were carried out and 169 vessels were detained in 2013.
-4 CIC on STCW Hours of Rest is scheduled to be carried out from 1September to 30 November 2014.
(8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU) Established: 22 October 1999
Members: Angola, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Republic of Guinea, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa、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 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) PSC Safety Targeting Matrix
The USCG uses the Port State Control Safety and Environmental Protection Compliance Targeting Matrix which 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 examine on any given day, in any given port. The numerical score, along with other performance based factors, determines a ship's priority for examination. (reference: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgcvc/)
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.
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 PSC 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.
(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 by experienced staff to identify the causes of the deficiencies. 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. Further, 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 deficiencies pointed out by the port state authority are 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 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 a Port State, if deemed necessary, 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. In 2013, the ClassNK Head Office visited the following Port States for the above-mentioned purpose.
Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) China Maritime Safety Administration (MSA)
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 2013, 447 PSC detentions were reported relating to 411 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 7,620 at the end of December 2013. Therefore, the 411 ships detained represent about 5.4% of the total number of ships in the NK fleet. Further, detention ratio (Detentions/Registered number in 2013) of the NK fleet in 2013 is about 5.9%.
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 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Panama 3,048 3,160 3,160 246 258 249 8.1 8.2 7.9 Liberia 299 349 396 26 17 36 8.7 4.9 9.1 Marshall Islands 249 307 343 18 19 21 7.2 6.2 6.1 Malta 181 184 200 18 16 21 9.9 8.7 10.5 Singapore 610 649 691 21 21 17 3.4 3.2 2.5 Hong Kong 422 435 458 18 17 14 4.3 3.9 3.1 Indonesia 108 160 170 4 4 9 3.7 2.5 5.3 Thailand 72 72 67 8 10 8 11.1 13.9 11.9 Bahamas 131 134 144 14 9 7 10.7 6.7 4.9 Turkey 58 68 69 7 3 7 12.1 4.4 10.1 St. Vincent * 27 25 22 8 8 6 29.6 32.0 27.8 Cook Islands 3 9 21 1 3 6 33.3 33.3 28.6 Cyprus 86 85 86 7 6 5 8.1 7.1 5.8 Japan 810 840 860 0 3 5 0 0.4 0.6 Philippines 99 89 87 4 8 5 4.0 9.0 5.7 Others ‐ ‐ ‐ 31 35 31 ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 6,914 7,319 7,620 431 437 447 6.2 6.0 5.9 * Refers to St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The same applies in all subsequent tables or figures.
Of those Flag State Administrations with ten (10) or more NK classed ships, the following Administrations were identified as having a detention ratio higher than 10% in 2013: Malta, Thailand, Turkey, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Cook Islands.
Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)
7.2 10.7 0 4 4.9 6.2 3.9 13.9 7.1 0.4 9 9.1 10.1 8.7 8.1 33.3 12.1 11.1 3.7 3.4 9.9 8.1 29.6 4.3 33.3 4.4 6.7 2.5 3.2 8.7 8.2 32 5.7 0.6 5.8 28.6 27.8 4.9 11.9 5.3 3.1 2.5 10.5 6.1 7.9 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Pana ma Liberi a Marsh all Is lamds Malta Singa pore Hong Kong Indon esia Thail and Baha mas Turke y St. Vi ncen t * Cook Islan ds Cypru s Japa n Philip pines Flag State Detention Rat io (%) 2011 2012 2013
Fig 2.2.1-1 Detention by Flag (NK)
246 26 18 18 21 4 8 14 7 1 7 0 4 31 258 17 19 16 21 17 4 10 9 3 3 6 3 8 35 36 21 21 17 14 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 31 8 18 8 249 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 Pana ma Liberi a Marsh all Is lamds Malta Singa pore Hong Kong Indon esia Thail and Baha mas Turke y St. Vi ncen t * Cook Islan ds Cypru s Japa n Philip pinesOthers Flag State Detentions 2011 2012 2013
2.2.2 Detentions by ship type
Table 2.2.2 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)
Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered Detention Ratio (%) Number in each year) Ship Type Number of Registered Ships in 2013 (500GT or over) 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Bulk Carrier 3,180 209 216 246 7.2 7.2 7.7 General Cargo 766 93 100 80 14.3 13.6 10.4 Container Carrier 594 31 38 35 5.3 6.5 5.9 Chip Carrier 128 13 9 6 8.5 6.5 4.7 Cement Carrier 105 1 0 1 1.0 0 1.0 Ro-Ro Ship 44 9 6 6 9.8 12.8 13.6 Reefer Carrier 142 15 18 18 8.6 12.1 12.7 Vehicles Carrier 352 8 10 14 2.3 2.8 4.0 Oil Tanker 752 10 6 10 1.4 0.8 1.3 Oil/Chemical Tanker 672 31 27 22 5.0 4.2 3.4 Gas Carrier 365 9 6 6 2.5 1.7 1.6 Others 520 2 1 3 1.0 0.2 0.6 Total 7,620 431 437 447
A detention ratio of General cargo ships, Ro-Ro ships, and Reefer carriers was more than 10% and they 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)
93 31 13 1 9 8 10 9 2 100 38 9 0 6 10 6 6 1 246 35 6 1 6 15 14 10 6 3 31 209 18 27 216 18 22 80 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Bulk Carrie r Gen eral C argo Conta iner C arrier Chip Carrie r Ceme nt Ca rrier Ro-R o Ship Reefer Carr ier Vehic les C arrier Oil T anke r Oil/C hemi cal T anke r Gas C arrier Others D et ent ion s 20112012 2013
Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (%)
7.2 14.3 5.3 8.5 1 9.8 8.6 2.3 1.4 5 2.5 1 7.2 13.6 6.5 6.5 0 12.8 12.1 2.8 0.8 4.2 1.7 0.2 7.7 10.4 5.9 4.7 1 13.6 12.7 4 1.3 3.4 1.6 0.6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Bulk Carrie r Gene ral C argo Conta iner C arrier Chip Carrie r Ceme nt Car rier Ro-R o Ship Reefe r Carr ier Vehicles Carr ier Oil T anke r Oil/C hemi cal T anke r Gas C arrier Others D et en tio n R at io( % ) 2011 2012 2013
2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age
Table 2.2.3 Detentions by Ship’s Age (NK)
Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered Detention Ratio (%) Number in each year) Ship’s age Number of Registered Ships in 2013 (500GT or over) 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Up to 5 years old 3,055 71 67 57 2.6 2.2 1.9 Over 5 and up to 10 1,663 68 78 116 5.3 5.4 7.0 Over 10 and up to 15 1,105 94 86 77 7.7 7.4 7.0 Over 15 and up to 20 1,050 88 98 101 10.5 10.4 9.6 Over 20 and up to 25 404 41 35 43 10.7 9.2 10.6 Over 25 343 69 73 53 16.5 18.8 15.5 Total 7,620 431 437 447
Fig. 2.2.3-1Detentions by Ship's Age (NK)
71 68 94 88 41 69 67 78 86 98 35 73 57 116 77 101 43 53 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Up to 5 Over 5 and
up to 10 Over 10 andup to 15 Over 15 andup to 20 Over 20 andup to 25 Over 25
D et en tio ns 20112012 2013
Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio by Ship's Age (NK) 2.6 5.3 7.7 10.5 10.7 16.5 2.2 5.4 7.4 10.4 9.2 18.8 1.9 7 7 9.6 10.6 15.5 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Up to 5 Over 5 and
up to 10 Over 10 andup to 15 Over 15 andup to 20 Over 20 andup to 25 Over 25
D et ent ion R at io ( % ) 2011 2012 2013
2.2.4 Detentions by ship size （Gross Tonnage)
Table 2.2.4 Detentions by Ship Size （Gross Tonnage) (NK)
Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered Detention Ratio (%) Number in each year) Gross Ton (x 1,000) Number of Registered Ships in 2013 (500GT or over) 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Up to 10 2,586 164 147 137 6.6 5.8 5.3 Over 10 and up to 20 1,273 89 97 100 7.4 7.8 7.9 Over 20 and up to 30 910 63 64 55 8.1 7.4 6.0 Over 30 and up to 40 1,051 61 68 76 6.7 6.9 7.2 Over 40 and up to 50 592 28 26 20 5.5 4.6 3.4 Over 50 and up to 60 331 7 8 16 2.6 2.6 4.8 Over 60 and up to 80 213 7 9 14 3.5 4.3 6.6 Over 80 664 12 18 29 2.1 2.8 4.4 Total 7,620 431 437 447
Fig.2.2.4-1 Detentions by Gross Tonnage (NK)
164 89 63 61 28 7 7 12 147 97 64 68 26 8 9 18 137 100 55 76 20 16 14 29 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Up to 10 Over 10 and up to 20 Over 20 and up to 30 Over 30 and up to 40 Over 40 and up to 50 Over 50 and up to 60 Over 60 and up to 80 Over 80 D et en tions 2011 2012 2013 x 1,000 GT
Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio by Gross Tonnage (NK) 6.6 7.4 8.1 6.7 5.5 2.6 3.5 2.1 5.8 7.8 7.4 6.9 4.6 2.6 4.3 2.8 5.3 7.9 6 7.2 3.4 4.8 6.6 4.4 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 and up to 20 Over 20 and up to 30 Over 30 and up to 40 Over 40 and up to 50 Over 50 and up to 60 Over 60 and up to 80 Over 80 D et en tio n R at io ( % ) 2011 2012 2013 x 1,000 GT
2.2.5 Detentions by Port State
Table 2.2.5
Detentions by Port State (NK)
Port State
2011 2012 2013
China 117 120 141
Australia 83
77
79
Japan 40
31
27
U.S.A.(*1) 21
18
27
India 26
32
20
Republic of Korea
6
15
15
Indonesia 23
24
14
Canada 3
6
10
Russian Federation
12
14
9
Italy 5
2
9
Netherlands 9
8
7
United Kingdom
6
6
6
France 4
2
6
Iran 5
6
5
Egypt 1
6
5
Brazil 0
7
5
Viet Nam
9
8
4
Chile 4
4
4
Singapore 3
6
4
New Zealand
1
2
4
Turkey 0
5
4
Spain 10
11
3
Slovenia 2
0
3
Gibraltar 1
0
3
Bulgaria 0
0
3
Others 40
27
30
Total 431 437 447
(*1) Including Puerto Rico
Detentions by members of the Tokyo MOU made approximately two thirds of the total number of ships detained in 2013.
0 1 2 10 0 1 3 4 9 0 1 5 4 6 9 5 12 3 23 6 26 21 40 83 117 0 0 0 11 5 2 6 4 8 7 6 6 2 6 8 2 14 6 24 15 32 18 31 77 120 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 9 9 10 14 15 20 27 27 79 141 Bulgaria Gibraltar Slovenia Spain Turkey New Zealand Singapore Chile Viet Nam Brazil Egypt Iran France United Kingdom Netherlands Italy Russian Federation Canada Indonesia Republic of Korea India U.S.A.(*1) Japan Australia China 2013 2012 2011
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category
In 2013, a total of 1,169 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 447 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 and categories in this figure are based on those of the Tokyo MOU. Deficiencies related to fire safety and life-saving appliances combined accounted for about one-third of the total in 2013.
Fig. 2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK) 5 15 16 18 12 12 15 22 3 25 21 32 20 61 47 65 81 69 134 109 155 195 2 14 10 12 5 2 10 35 4 20 32 34 29 43 39 35 65 65 131 118 125 219 5 8 11 11 12 18 18 21 22 24 25 31 36 45 50 52 52 94 119 123 166 215 0 50 100 150 200 250
CARGO OPERATIONS INCLUDING EQUIPMENT ALARMS OTHER CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -DOCUMENTS WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - LIVING CONDITIONS ISPS POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅵ POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅳ POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅴ WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - WORKING CONDITIONS
CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -CREW CERTIFICATE STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -SHIP CERTIFICATE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY WATER / WEATHERTIGHT CONDITIONS POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅰ
SAFETY OF NAVIGATION ISM EMERGENCY SYSTEMS LIFESAVING APPLIANCES FIRE SAFETY Deficiencies 2013 2012 2011
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. The items reported from 2011 to 2013 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (15) below. 0 15 23 8 9 14 14 6 17 17 11 34 41 26 42 19 0 4 15 37 52 2 19 14 10 6 16 18 5 24 14 9 12 24 21 31 20 15 15 26 36 57 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 16 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 32 33 33 38 53 78 68 52 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Embarkation arrangements survival craft Means of control (opening, pumps ventilation, etc) Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances Fire fighting equipment and appliances Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.) MF/HF radio installation Fire detection Propulsion main engine Sewage treatment plan Fire prevention Launching arrangements for survival craft Ventilators, air pipes, casings Oil filtering equipment Development of plans for shipboard operations Maintenance of the ship and equipment Charts Emergency souce of power- Emergency Generator ISM Fixed fire extinguishing installation Fire-dampers Emergency Fire Pump Lifeboats
Deficiencies
2013 2012 2011
(1) Fire Safety
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Fire Safety)” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(1) below.
Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Fire-dampers 37 36 38 Wasted and holed fire-dampers Operation failure of fire-dampers Fixed fire extinguishing system 15 26 33 Corroded and holed CO2 lines
Operation failure of fire extinguishing systems Fire prevention 17 14 18 Deteriorated non-combustible materials for cable penetrations in A-class divisions Fire detection 14 18 15 Inoperable fire detection units
Fire fighting equipment and
appliances 8 10 14 Wasted and holed fire hoses Quick closing valves, Remote
control devices 15 19 13 Inoperable quick closing valves Jacketed piping system for high
pressure fuel lines 14 8 12 Operation failure of F.O. leakage alarm Fire pumps and its pipes 12 17 12 Wasted and holed fire main line
Ventilation 12 11 11 Corroded and holed ventilator casings Malfunction of mechanical ventilators Doors within main vertical zone 12 10 11 Malfunction of self-closing devices
(2) Life Saving Appliances
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Life Saving Appliances” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(2) below.
Table 2.3.2-(2) Life Saving Appliances
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies
Lifeboats 68 52 78 Lifeboat engine not started Poor maintenance of rechargeable batteries Inadequate resetting of on-load release gears Launching and recovery
arrangements for survival craft 11 9 19 Corroded boat falls Operational readiness of
lifesaving appliances 23 14 13 Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-load release gear Embarkation arrangements of
lifesaving appliances 0 2 13 Embarkation ladder heavily corroded and broken Rescue boats 10 8 7 Rescue boat engine not started
(3) Emergency Systems
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Emergency Systems” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(3) below.
Table 2.3.2-(3) Emergency Systems
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Emergency Fire Pump and its
pipes 52 57 53 Inoperable and unable to pressure the fire main Emergency source of power-
Emergency Generator 0 15 32 Emergency generator unable to start Fire drills 14 21 11 Fire drill failed
Abandon ship drills 8 8 10 Abandon ship drill failed (4) ISM Related Deficiencies
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “ISM Related Deficiencies” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(4) below.
Table 2.3.2-(4) ISM Related Deficiencies
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies ISM 4 15 33 Implementation of SMS failed generally Maintenance of ship and
equipment 42 31 22 Inadequate implementation of SMS by crew Inadequate maintenance of ship’s equipment Development of plans for
shipboard operations 26 21 21 Charts management not followed SMS
Resources and personnel 15 22 12 Ship’s crew not familiar with operation of ship’s equipment
(5) Safety of Navigation
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Safety of Navigation” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(5) below.
Table 2.3.2-(5) Safety of Navigation
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies
Charts 19 20 23 Navigation charts not updated Navigation charts for intended voyage not available
Voyage date recorder(VDR) 9 13 12 Defective VDR / S-VDR Alarm panel showing “system error”
Nautical publications 7 5 10 Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights, list of radio signals, etc.) not updated Lights, shapes, sound -signals 7 4 7 Inoperable navigation lights Navigation lights not supplied by batteries Gyro compass 3 3 5 Not Operable
(6) MARPOL Annex I
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex I” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(6) below.
Table 2.3.2-(6) MARPOL Annex I
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Oil filtering equipment
(Oily-Water Separating
Equipment) 41 24 20
Inoperable oily water separator Inoperable bilge pump
Oily water inside overboard discharging line Ship’s crew not familiar with operation of oil filtering equipment
15PPM alarm arrangements 10 9 12 Failure of 15PPM alarm
Control of discharge of oil 3 2 5 Unapproved by-pass line fitting on oil filtering equipment Inoperable automatic stopping device
Oil discharge monitoring and
control system 3 5 4 Defective automatic stopping device (7) Water/ Weathertight conditions
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Water/ Weathertight conditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(7) below.
Table 2.3.2-(7) Water/ Weathertight conditions
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Ventilators ,air pipes , casings 34 12 19 Wasted/Holed ventilators and air pipes Damaged float of air pipe heads
Damaged closing devices Hatch covers 9 6 14 Wasted / Holed hatch covers Wasted hatch cover cleats
Deteriorated rubber packing Cargo and other hatchways 8 4 5 Wasted / Holed hatch covers Wasted / cracked hatch coamings Doors 9 5 3 Doors not closed tightly
(8) 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-(8) below.
Table 2.3.2-(8) Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Propulsion main engine 6 5 16 Defective oil mist detectors Leakage of cooling water
Auxiliary engine 15 12 12 Inoperable Auxiliary engines
Other (machinery) 11 11 9 Safety valve of auxiliary boiler seized Oil leakage around auxiliary engines
(9) Radio Communications
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Radio Communications” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(9) below.
Table 2.3.2-(9) Radio Communications
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies MF/HF radio installation 14 16 14 Defective MF/HF radio apparatus Not operable by DC power Reserve source of energy 22 12 10 GMDSS reserve source of energy failed
Operation / maintenance 1 0 3 Ship’s officer not familiar with operation of NBDP
(10) Ship Certificate
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Ship Certificate” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(10) below.
Table 2.3.2-(10) Ship Certificate
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Cargo Ship Safety Equipment 1 4 6 Certificate expired The original certificate not onboard
Mandatory annual survey overdue Cargo Ship Safety Radio 1 1 5 Certificate expired The original certificate not onboard
Periodical survey overdue
Load Lines 1 2 4 Certificate expired The original certificate not onboard EIAPP 3 1 3 The original certificate not onboard Technical files not onboard
(11) Structural Conditions
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Structural Conditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(11) below.
Table 2.3.2-(11) Structural Conditions
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Electric equipment in general 3 1 5 Low insulation alarm malfunction
(12) Crew Certificate
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Crew Certificate” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(12) below.
Table 2.3.2-(12) Crew Certificate
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Certificates for master and
officers 6 14 12
Missing of endorsement on STCW certificates by flag state
(13) Working Conditions
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Working Conditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13) below.
Table 2.3.2-(13) Working Conditions
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies
Cleanliness of engine room 10 14 23 Dirty and oily engine room due to oil leakage etc. A large quantity of oily bilge in engine room
(14) MARPOL Annex V
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex V” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(14) below.
Table 2.3.2-(14) MARPOL Annex V
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies
Garbage 9 17 24 Inadequate entry in Garbage Record Book
(15) MARPOL Annex IV
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex IV” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(15) below.
Table 2.3.2-(15) MARPOL Annex IV
Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies Sewage treatment plant 17 24 16 Not operable
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State
Most frequent detainable deficiencies per port state are shown in Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.11 according to number of detentions reported from 2011 to 2013.
2.4.1 China Table 2.4.1 China Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Fire Safety 69 88 67 Lifesaving Appliances 46 44 58 Emergency Systems 34 33 42 Water/Weathertight conditions 19 11 24 MARPOL Annex I 25 17 19 ISM 16 24 18 MARPOL Annex V 0 1 17 Radio Communications 22 9 15
Ships Certificates and Documents 6 9 15
Safety of Navigation 5 11 14
Dangerous goods 3 1 12
Structural Conditions 6 9 9
MARPOL Annex VI 4 2 8
MARPOL Annex IV 5 12 7
Crew Certificates and Documents 4 7 7
Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013
Lifeboats 29 19 36
Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 15 24 22 Ventilators, air pipes, casings 13 5 14
Oil filtering equipment 19 10 11
Fire-dampers 8 14 11
Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator 0 3 11 Embarkation arrangements survival craft 0 2 11
Fire prevention 9 8 10
Quick closing valves 8 10 8
Ventilation 5 3 7
Certificates for master and officers 0 5 7 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 10 6 6
Jacketed high pressure lines 6 6 6
Incinerator 2 0 6
Charts 1 4 6
Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.) 1 2 6
Means of escape 0 3 6
Garbage 0 1 6
A total of 352 detainable deficiencies relating to 141 detentions were noted in 2013. (2.5 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.2 Australia Table 2.4.2 Australia Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 ISM 45 36 24 Lifesaving Appliances 28 16 19 Fire Safety 19 16 14 Emergency Systems 6 6 14 Water/Weathertight conditions 6 9 10 Radio Communications 10 4 8 MARPOL Annex IV 6 8 6 Safety of Navigation 8 7 2 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Development of plans for shipboard operations 20 17 14 Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 22 13 11 Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 5 3 9
Fire-dampers 10 7 6
Sewage treatment plant 6 7 6
MF/HF radio installation 4 3 5
Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.) 2 2 5 Fixed fire extinguishing system 0 1 5
Other(ISM) 0 1 4
Launching arrangements for survival craft 0 0 4
A total of 102 detainable deficiencies relating to 79 detentions were noted in 2013. (1.3 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.3 Japan Table 2.4.3 Japan Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 ISM 9 11 10 Fire Safety 15 11 9 Emergency Systems 17 14 7 Lifesaving Appliances 9 5 7
Crew Certificates and Documents 2 3 4
Safety of Navigation 2 0 3 Water/Weathertight conditions 6 2 2 Other 1 1 2 Alarms 1 0 1 Structural Conditions 0 0 1 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Fire drills 8 11 6
Resources and personnel 6 6 6
Lifeboats 2 2 5
Fixed fire extinguishing system 1 0 4
A total of 46 detainable deficiencies relating to 27 detentions were noted in 2013. (1.7 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.4 U.S.A. Table 2.4.4 U.S.A. Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Fire safety 7 7 15 ISPS 2 0 12 ISM 10 4 4 MARPOL Annex VI 0 0 3 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Fixed fire extinguishing system 0 0 10
Access control to ship 2 0 5
Other(Maritime security) 0 0 4
Electric equipment in general 0 1 2
Sulphur oxides 0 0 2
Ship security officer 0 0 2
A total of 48 detainable deficiencies relating to 27 detentions were noted in 2013. (1.8 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.5 India Table 2.4.5 India Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Safety of Navigation 31 8 18 Emergency Systems 5 13 13 Fire Safety 23 16 9 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 1 10 8
Lifeboats 5 4 5
Nautical publication 4 1 5
Voyage data recorder(VDR) / S-VDR 7 2 4 Safe means of access Deck/Hold/Tank, etc. 0 0 4
A total of 101 detainable deficiencies relating to 20 detentions were noted in 2013. (5.1 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.6 Republic of Korea
Table 2.4.6 Republic of Korea
Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013
Fire safety 4 8 9
ISM 3 5 9
Lifesaving Appliances 2 5 9
Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Launching arrangements for survival craft 0 0 5 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 2 4 4
2.4.7 Indonesia Table 2.4.7 Indonesia Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Fire Safety 19 17 11 Radio Communications 7 12 5 MARPOL Annex I 2 6 5 ISM 2 6 4 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Fire-dampers 4 5 4 Lifeboats 1 3 3 Fire detection 0 2 3
A total of 42 detainable deficiencies relating to 14 detentions were noted in 2013. (3.0 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.8 Canada
Table 2.4.8 Canada
Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013
Emergency Systems 0 2 6
Minimum requirements for seafarers 0 0 4
Pollution prevention 0 0 3
Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator 0 0 4 Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 0 2 2
A total of 15 detainable deficiencies relating to 10 detentions were noted in 2013. (1.5 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.9 Russian Federation
Table 2.4.9 Russian Federation
Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Lifesaving Appliances 5 4 8 Safety of Navigation 2 3 6 Fire Safety 1 6 5 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Lifeboats 4 4 6 Fire detection 0 2 2 Magnetic compass 0 1 2
Voyage date recorder(VDR) / S-VDR 0 1 2 A total of 24 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions were noted in 2013. (2.7 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.10 Italy Table 2.4.10 Italy Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Safety of Navigation 0 0 15 Lifesaving Appliances 2 0 13 Fire Safety 4 1 12 ISM 3 1 8 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 ISM 1 1 6 Charts 0 0 6
Launching arrangements for survival craft 0 0 4
Auxiliary engine 0 0 4
A total of 82 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions were noted in 2013. (9.1 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.11 Netherlands Table 2.4.11 Netherlands Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 Lifesaving Appliances 3 4 7 Fire Safety 3 0 7 Emergency Systems 2 0 5 Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013 ISM 0 1 3 Lifeboats 2 1 2 Fire-dampers 2 0 2
Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator 0 0 2
A total of 38 detainable deficiencies relating to 7 detentions were noted in 2013. (5.4 detainable deficiencies/detention)
Chapter 3
Statistics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships
This chapter is constructed based on the analysis result of Port State Control Inspection Reports which were collected in 2013.
The contents of the records are available as “Monthly PSC Information” in “Safety Management Systems (ISM)”on ClassNK web-site ＜http://www.classnk.or.jp/＞.
In this chapter, definition of the terms is as follows:
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 with safety management system related to the requirement of ISM Code
ISM deficiency case : Case where any ISM deficiency wasrecorded in PSC inspection report ISM deficiency rate* : Percentage of ISM deficiency cases 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 Statistics of ISM deficiency cases 3.1.1 Total number and average rate
The total number of ISM deficiency cases and the average ISM deficiency rates in the past 4 years are shown in Table 3.1.1.1. Since year 2010, the rate has been on the increase to 5.2% in year 2013.
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） 2010 169 4212 4.0 2011 202 4505 4.5 2012 237 4677 5.1 2013 251 4868 5.2
3.1.2 Statistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM Deficiencies 3.1.2.1 Per Property of 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 2013.
The ISM deficiency rate of the other cargo ship and oil tanker decreased 0.3% in 2013, respectively.
The ISM deficiency rate of chemical tanker decreased to the level of 2011. The ISM deficiency rate of Gas carrier has been decreased to one-fifth of 2012.
There has been no report of ISM deficiency of passenger & MODU since 2010.
Table 3.1.2.1 (a) ISM deficiency rate per type of ship
ISM deficiency rate （％） （A/B） Type of ship No. of ISM deficiency cases 2013 (A) No. of NKSMC ships 2013 (B) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Bulk carrier 119 2062 4.2 5.3 4.7 5.8
Other cargo ship 114 1783 4.8 5.1 6.7 6.4
Oil tanker＊
15 759 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0
Chemical tanker** 1 27 8.3 3.8 12.0 3.7
Gas carrier 2 232 1.8 2.6 4.5 0.9
Passenger & MODU 0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 251 4868 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.2
* Including oil/chemical tankers. ** Excluding oil/chemical tanker.
Figure 3.1.2.1 (a) ISM deficiency rate per type of ship
IS M def ic ienc y r at e ( % )
Bulk carrier Other cargo ship Oil tanker Chemical tanker Gas carrier Passenger & MODU 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 2010 2011 2012 2013
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 14 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25 ‐ 2010 2011 2012 2013 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 14 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25 ‐ Bulk carrier
Other cargo ship Oil tanker (b) Per Age of ship
The numbers of ISM deficiency cases per age of ships in recent four years are shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (b) together with the number of NKSMC ships. Figure 3.1.2.1 (b)-1 shows ISM deficiency rates. Figure 3.1.2.1(b)-2 shows ISM deficiency rate per type and age of ship in 2013.
Generally, the ship’s age and ISM deficiency rate are correlated. In 2013, the group of the age 20-24 shows the highest rate, that is the same tendency in 2012.
In 2013, “Bulk Carrier” of Age 20-24 shows a significantly higher deficiency rate than those of other ship types.
Table 3.1.2.1 (b) No. of ISM deficiency cases per age of ship
No. of ISM deficiency cases （A） No. of NKSMC ships （B） Age 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 0 - 4 31 52 46 47 1671 1803 1865 1849 5 - 9 32 37 50 70 940 1064 1211 1391 10 - 14 39 47 44 38 773 744 670 652 15 - 19 27 39 56 53 381 463 529 602 20 - 24 16 16 24 26 210 218 193 204 25 - 24 11 17 17 237 213 209 170 Total 169 202 237 251 4212 4505 4677 4868
Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -2 ISM deficiency rate (%) per ship type and age of ship
Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -1 ISM deficiency rate per age of ship
IS M def ic ienc y r at e ( A/ B) (% ) IS M def ic ienc y r at e ( A/ B) (% )
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 0 ‐ 10 10 ‐ 20 20 ‐ 30 30 ‐ 40 40 ‐ 50 50 ‐ 60 60 ‐ 80 80 ‐ 2010 2011 2012 2013 (c) Per Gross Tonnage of ship
The numbers of ISM deficiency cases per ship’s gross-tonnage in recent four years are shown in Table 3.1.2.1(c) together with the number of NKSMC ships. Figure 1.2.1(c) shows ISM deficiency rate.
The ISM deficiency rate of ships with GT “less than 10,000”, “20,000-30,000” and “60,000-80,000” has decreased in 2013 but other groups’ are increased.
Table 3.1.2.1 (c) No. of ISM deficiency cases per ship’s GT
No. of ISM deficiency cases （A） No. NKSMC ships (B) GT （ x 1,000） 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 - 10 62 67 90 70 1134 1106 1083 1096 10 - 20 31 43 46 62 757 815 804 850 20 - 30 18 24 31 31 474 515 567 605 30 - 40 24 34 31 38 578 672 695 731 40 - 50 8 17 14 22 389 438 491 508 50 - 60 6 4 10 12 222 241 275 302 60 - 80 6 3 4 2 169 171 176 175 80 - 14 10 11 14 489 547 586 601 Total 169 202 237 251 4212 4505 4677 4868
Figure 3.1.2.1 (c) ISM deficiency rate per Ship’s GT
GT ( x 1,000) IS M def ic ienc y r at e ( A/ B) (% )
