Annual Report on Port State Control 2001

Annual Report on Port State Control
2001
NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI
Photographs of Deficiencies on
Port State Control
Life Saving Appliances
Unauthorized boarding ladder
Hole in shell plate of life boat
Lifeboat deformed shell
Broken wire for release gear
Fire Fighting Appliances
Broken fire detector
Fire door with hook
Hull Structural Members in Cargo Holds
Wasted hold frames
Load Lines
Load Lines
Defective air pipe head
Corroded air pipe
Cement box on storm valve
Wasted vent head
Machinery in Engine Room
Bilge oil on engine room floor
Plastic tube on bilge separator
Ship’s Drill
Test of an emergency fire pump
Lifeboat lowering test
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Foreword
This annual PSC report summarizes deficiencies identified by Port State Control (PSC)
inspections carried out in various countries of the world. This report is prepared with the
objective of building awareness of the present state of PSC and to improve future
maintenance and surveys, and is complied into the following Chapters.
“Chapter 1”: the status of implementation and recent developments in PSC world-wide
“Chapter 2”: the statistical analysis of ships classed by NK, detained in 2001
“Chapter 3”: the statistical data of 2001 from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, USCG and
other port States
Port State control has been considered as a very effective tool in eliminating substandard
ships and ensuring maritime safety and pollution prevention. In recent years, there has
been a significant increase in PSC activity worldwide accompanied by a number of
amendments to relevant international conventions. The importance of port State control
has been more widely recognized and there has been important movement in various
regions toward establishing a harmonized approach to the effective implementation of the
control provisions.
The procedures of port State control inspections have been improved to cover not only
ships’ hardware and documents but also operational requirements of the relevant
conventions. This movement is to be accelerated after phase II of ISM Code came into
effect on 1 July 2002. The latest MOUs in the advanced regions now treat ISM
deficiencies in the same category as statutory surveys.
In view of this background, ClassNK will try to increase the transparency of information
related to PSC issues and make it more difficult for substandard ships to survive in the
market place.
August 2002
Note: ClassNK can not be held responsible for any incorrect judgement or conclusion in this report,
in cases were the information we had available should prove to be incomplete or incorrect in
certain respects.
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
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 May 1999 amendments to SOLAS ････････････････････････････････ 1
1.1.2 July 1999 amendments to MARPOL 73/78 ････････････････････････ 1
1.1.3 Amendments to MARPOL 73/78･･････････････････････････････････ 1
1.1.4 STCW 78 as amended in 1995 ･･･････････････････････････････････ 1
1.1.5 International Safety Management (ISM) Code ･････････････････････ 2
1.1.6 2000 Amendments to SOLAS ････････････････････････････････････ 2
1.1.7 Amendments to ESP Guidelines Res. A.744(18) ････････････････････ 3
1.1.8 Amendments to MARPOL Annex I Regulation 13G･････････････････ 3
1.2 Recent world developments
1.2.1 MOUs around the world
Paris MOU ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････ 4
Tokyo MOU ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････ 5
Vina del Mar, Caribbean MOU, Mediterranean MOU ･････････････ 6
Indian MOU, Abja MOU, Black Sea MOU････････････････････････ 7
1.2.2 Agreements under development ･････････････････････････････････ 8
1.2.3 U.S.C.G. ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 8
1.2.4 Equasis ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 9
1.3 Measures to be adopted by NK
1.3.1 Measures for eliminating substandard ships ･････････････････････10
1.3.2 Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners ･･････････････ 11
1.3.3 Visits to Port States ･･･････････････････････････････････････････ 11
1.3.4 Other activities ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････ 11
Chapter 2
2.1
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships,
Registered with ClassNK
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････････････････････････････････････････16
2.2.4 Detentions by tonnage ･････････････････････････････････････････17
2.2.5 Detentions by Port State ･･･････････････････････････････････････18
2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies
2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category ･･･････････････････････････19
2.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequently ････････････････････････････････20
2.3.3 Fire Fighting Appliances･･･････････････････････････････････････21
2.3.4 Life Saving Appliances ････････････････････････････････････････21
2.3.5 MARPOL-ANNEX I ･･･････････････････････････････････････････21
2.3.6 Stability Structure and Related Equipment ･･････････････････････22
2.3.7 Navigation ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････22
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.3.8 Load Lines ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････22
2.3.9 Propulsion & Aux. Machinery ･･････････････････････････････････23
2.3.10 Ship’s Certificate ････････････････････････････････････････････23
2.3.11 ISM Related Defects･･････････････････････････････････････････23
2.3.12 Radio ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････23
2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State
2.4.1 Japan････････････････････････････････････････････････････････24
2.4.2 Australia ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････24
2.4.3 Singapore ････････････････････････････････････････････････････24
2.4.4 Korea ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････25
2.4.5 U.S.A. ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････25
2.4.6 China ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････25
2.4.7 Spain ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････25
2.4.8 Hong Kong ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････26
2.4.9 Italy ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････26
2.4.10 Canada ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････26
2.4.11 India ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････27
2.4.12 Germany ････････････････････････････････････････････････････27
2.4.13 Russia ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････27
2.4.14 Chile ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････27
2.4.15 United Kingdom ･････････････････････････････････････････････27
2.4.16 Belgium･････････････････････････････････････････････････････28
2.4.17 France ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････28
2.4.18 Netherlands ･････････････････････････････････････････････････28
Chapter 3
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, USCG
and AMSA
3.1 Tokyo MOU
3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Targeting System ･･････････････････････････････････29
3.1.2 Tokyo MOU 2001 Statistics ････････････････････････････････････30
3.1.3 Tokyo MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign･･････････････････34
3.2 Paris MOU
3.2.1 Paris MOU Targeting System ･･････････････････････････････････35
3.2.2 Paris MOU 2001 Statistics ･････････････････････････････････････36
3.2.3 Paris MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign ･･････････････････40
3.3 USCG
3.3.1 USCG Boarding Priority Matrix ････････････････････････････････41
3.3.2 USCG 2001 Statistics ･････････････････････････････････････････42
3.3.3 USCG Strict Enforcement of PSC Inspection ･････････････････････46
3.4 Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
3.4.1 AMSA 2001 Statistics ･････････････････････････････････････････47
3.4.2 AMSA Focused Inspection Campaign････････････････････････････50
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments
in PSC World-wide
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions
Major amendments to the conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into
effect or will do in 2001 and 2002 are as follows.
1.1.1 May 1999 amendments to SOLAS (Res. MSC 87(71))
Date: 1 January 2001
The International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel,
Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code) became
mandatory, following amendments adopted to Chapter VII of SOLAS (Carriage of
dangerous goods).
1.1.2 July 1999 amendments to MARPOL 73/78 (Res. MEPC 78(43))
Date: 1 January 2001 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.376]
Amendments to MARPOL 73/78 make existing oil tankers between 20,000 and
30,000 tons deadweight carrying persistent product oil, including heavy diesel oil and
fuel oil, subject to the same construction requirements as crude oil tankers.
Regulation 13G requires, in principle, existing tankers to comply with the
requirements for new tankers in Regulation 13F, including double hull requirements
for new tankers or alternative arrangements, not later than 25 years after date of
delivery. Currently, the regulation applies to crude oil tankers of 20,000 tons
deadweight and above and product carriers of 30,000 tons deadweight and above, but
does not currently apply to product tankers between 20,000 and 30,000 tons
deadweight which carry heavy diesel oil or fuel oil.
1.1.3 Amendments to MARPOL 73/78 Annex II (Res. MEPC 85(44))
Date: 1 January 2001 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.390]
The new requirements adopted as Reg.16 of MARPOL 73/78 Annex II require that
every tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above which is certified to carry noxious
substances in bulk shall carry onboard a Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency
Plan (SMPEP) approved by the Administration by not later than 1 January 2003.
1.1.4 STCW 78 as amended in 1995
Date: 1 February 2002
STCW95 refers to the 1995 amendments to the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978.
The 1995 amendments, which completely revised the Convention, entered into force
on 1 February 1997. However, the STCW95 requirements were being phased in
under a transitional period until 1 February 2002. So, until 1 February 2002,
Parties could continue to issue, recognize and endorse certificates which applied
before 1 February 1997 in respect of seafarers who began training or seagoing service
before 1 August 1998.
From 1 February 2002, every master and officer must hold a valid certificate
complying with the regulations of STCW95 and an endorsement issued by the flag
State.
For the time being, the IMO has issued advice to port State control officers that, for a
period of six months after the 1 February 2002 the implementation deadline for the
1
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
STCW95, ships whose officers do not hold STCW95 certificates or flag State
endorsements need not be detained.
The Paris MOU, the Tokyo MOU, USCG and some other MOUs and port States
announced that when the IMO’s period of grace ended on 1 August 2002 the
provisions of the new STCW95 Convention would be strictly enforced by port States.
1.1.5 International Safety Management (ISM) Code [Second Phase]
Date: 1 July 2002
The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for
Pollution Prevention (ISM Code) became mandatory for most ships trading
internationally on 1 July 2002. Compliance with the Code has been mandatory for
tankers, passenger ships and bulk carriers since July 1998, under the first phase of
ISM implementation, and now all other vessels covered by the SOLAS Convention,
which includes all but the smallest internationally-trading vessels, including general
cargo ships and container ships and mobile offshore drilling units of 500 gross
tonnage and above must comply.
Previously, the IMO's attempts to improve shipping safety and to prevent pollution
from ships had been largely directed at improving the hardware of shipping, for
example, the construction of ships and their equipment. The ISM Code, by
comparison, concentrates on the “software” of shipping companies.
The ISM Code addresses the responsibilities of the people who manage and operate
ships and provides an international standard for the safe management and operation
of ships and for pollution prevention. The application of the ISM Code should support
and encourage the development of a safety culture in shipping.
1.1.6 2000 Amendments to SOLAS (Res. MSC.99(73))
Date: 1 July 2002 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.406]
Among the amendments, Chapter II-2 “Fire Safety” and Chapter V “Safety
Navigation” have been comprehensively amended. Some of the amendments are to be
applied to existing ships constructed before 1st July 2002. Following is a summary of
the main requirements in Chapter II-2 and Chapter V, which should be applied to
existing ships.
z Chapter II-2 “Construction – Fire Protection, Fire Detention and Fire Extinction”
Requirements for existing ships Regulations
Due Date
Notes
Emergency Escape Breathing
Part D
not later than the first
Equipment (EEBD)
Reg.13.3.4
survey after 1 July
Reg.13.4.3
2002
not later than the first
Part E
Operational Requirements
survey after 1 July
Reg.14.2.2
(1) Maintenance plans
2002
Reg.15.2.3
(2) Training manuals
(3) Fire safety operational booklets Reg.16.2
Tankers only
Part B
The first scheduled
Protection of Cargo Pump Room
Reg.4.5.10
dry-docking after 1
(1) Temperature sensing system
July 2002, but not
(2) CH gases monitoring system
later than 1 July
(3) Bilge level monitoring device
2005
Fixed local application firePart C
1 October 2005
Passenger ships
extinguishing systems
Reg.10.5.6
(2,000 gt and above)
Deep-fat cooking equipment
Part C
When the equipment New installation
Reg.10.6.4
is newly installed.
only
2
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Chapter V “Safety of Navigation”
Requirements for
Regulations
Due Date
existing ships
Global Positioning
Reg.19.2.1.8
not later than the first survey after 1 July 2002
System (GPS)
Automatic
Reg.19.2.4
i) Passenger ships engaged on international voyages:
Identification System
not later than 1 July 2003
(AIS)
ii) Tankers engaged on international voyages: not later
than the first survey after 1 July 2003
iii) Other ships engaged on international voyages
- 50,000≦GT: not later than 1 July 2004
- 10,000≦GT<50,000: not later than 1 July 2005
- 3,000≦GT<10,000: not later than 1 July 2006
- 300≦GT<3,000: not later than 1 July 2007
iv) The following ships not engaged on international
voyages: not later than 1 July 2008
-Passenger ships
-Other ships of 500 gt and over
Voyage Data
Reg.20
i) Roro passenger ships engaged on international
Recorder (VDR)
voyages: not later than the first survey on or after 1
July 2002.
ii) Passenger ships other than Roro passenger ships:
not later than 1 January 2004
Application to existing cargo ship will be further
considered by IMO’s NAV Sub-Committee in
accordance with Resolution MSC. 109(73).
z
1.1.7 Amendments to ESP Guidelines Res. A.744(18) (Res. MSC.105(73))
Date: 1 July 2002 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.406]
(1) For ships of 15 years of age and over to which the enhanced survey program (ESP)
applies, inspection of the outside of the ship’s bottom must be carried out with the
ship in dry dock, inspection while the ship is afloat will not be allowed.
(2) For tankers of 130m in length and upwards, the ship’s longitudinal strength must
be evaluated when the ship has reached 10 years of age.
1.1.8 Amendments to MARPOL Annex I Regulation 13G (Res. MEPC 95(46))
Date: 1 September 2002 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.404 & 457]
Originally, phasing out periods for existing single hull tankers were given as 25 years
for Pre-MARPOL and 30 years for MARPOL tankers respectively. However, the
planned phasing out periods have been amended to accelerate the phasing out of
these tankers. Under the new scheme, existing tankers are categorised as follows:
(a) “Category 1 oil tanker” = Pre-MARPOL tankers (20,000/30,000 DWT or over)
(b) “Category 2 oil tanker” = MARPOL tankers (20,000/30,000 DWT or over)
(c) “Category 3 oil tanker” = oil tankers of 5,000 tons deadweight and above but less
than that specified in above (a) or (b)
The phase out scheme for these tankers has been re-developed based on the year of
delivery. In principle, all single-hull tankers are to be completely phased out in 2015.
Further, Category 1 oil tankers operating beyond 2005, and Category 2 oil tankers
operating beyond 2010 are required to comply with a Condition Assessment Scheme
(CAS). However, accepting a CAS is up to the discretion of each respective flag
Administration.
3
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
1.2 Recent world developments
1.2.1 MOUs around the world
In order to carry out PSC effectively, “the recommendation concerning regional cooperation 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 of the countries
have signed and accepted MOUs. Currently, eight MOUs exist in the world and their
status in implementing PSC is described below.
(1) European region（Paris MOU）
Established：1 July 1982
Members：Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian
Federation, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom
Note:
Under the agreement each country undertakes to inspect 25% of individual foreign
flagged ships visiting their ports, to pool inspection information and harmonise
procedures. The co-ordinated effort results in inspection coverage of 90% to 100% of
individual ships visiting the region.
The Paris MOU Port State Control Committee (PSCC) held its 34th meeting in
Bruges, Belgium, from 8 to 11 May 2001. It was agreed that a dialogue should be
opened with the Tokyo MOU and United States Coast Guard (USCG) with a view to
establishing harmonized criteria to evaluate the performance of classification
societies. Recognizing the need for the introduction of a reward system to encourage
quality operators, the Committee instructed a Task Force to develop such a system.
The Committee also instructed Task Forces to undertake a detailed analysis of
deficiencies related to the human element and consider further harmonization of
detention criteria. The Committee agreed on a common policy to respond to
appeal/complaints from flag States, classification societies and operators and to aim
to make this response within 10 working days.
The Paris MOU Advisory Board decided on 28 January 2002 to take account of the
recommendations of the IMO Sub-Committee on STCW. If a seafarer's
documentation did not comply with STCW95 then a Letter of Warning was issued
and details of the ship were published on the Paris MOU internet site. Letters of
Warning were issued until 31 July 2002. From the beginning of August a ship to
which a Letter of Warning has been issued is to be subject to priority inspection and
may be detained if the documentation of the crew does not comply with the
requirements of STCW95.
The Paris MOU Committee 35th meeting was held in Halifax, Canada from 4 to 10
May 2002. In a major review of the Memorandum they agreed on banning procedures
which could result in 'two strikes and out' for many sub-standard ships. The banning
provisions mean that oil, chemical and gas tankers, bulk carriers and passenger
ships flying a flag featured on the MOU's 'black list' and with a poor detention record
will be refused access to MOU ports. Ships from flags in the 'high' and 'very high' risk
categories will be banned if they are detained more than once in a three year period.
For ships from 'medium' to 'medium to high' risk flags the ban will take effect after
the third detention in two years. The black list is available in the Annual Report on
4
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
the Paris MOU website.　(Refer to Table 3.2.2-3)
Also added to Memorandum is the International Labour Organisation's Protocol to
ILO 147 which covers the checking of new requirements for seafarers hours of work
and rest. These new provisions will enter into force on 22 July 2003.
The meeting confirmed its intention to carry out a 3-month concentrated inspection
campaign (CIC) on the International Safety Management (ISM) Code from 1 July
2002 when all ships will be required to have safety management systems in place.
Latvia was welcomed as the latest co-operating member of the MOU.
(2) Asia-Pacific region（Tokyo MOU）
Established：2 December 1993
Members：Australia, Brunei Darussalam*, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Solomon Islands*, Thailand,
Vanuatu and Vietnam (* : signed but not accepted)
Note:
The project for exchanging information between the database of the Tokyo MOU,
APCIS and the database of the Paris MOU, SIRENAC has been completed and
started operation in April 2001. Through this inter-regional data exchange, PSC
officers in both regions can access the databases of each other to make searches and
view inspection details of ships by way of the Internet.
The tenth meeting of the Tokyo MOU Port State Control Committee (PSCC) took
place in Tokyo, Japan from 15 to 18 October 2001. The PSCC agreed upon a number
of amendments to the text of the MOU and the PSC Manual. In an effort to
harmonize regional PSC procedures, one inter-sessional group was tasked to
incorporate some of the contents of the Paris MOU Manual into the Tokyo MOU
Manual and another inter-sessional group on target factors was re-established to
liase with the Paris MOU to ensure that target factors in both regions were as close
as possible, all the while ensuring that they met the particular requirements of the
regions. The PSCC noted that preparatory work for the conduct of a concentrated
inspection campaign (CIC) on ISM Code implementation scheduled for JulySeptember 2002 had been completed. During the Committee meeting, an open forum
was organized to exchange views between the PSCC members and industry
representatives on matters of mutual interest. The International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS), Japan Shipowners’ Association and ClassNK
attended this session.
The eleventh meeting of the Tokyo MOU PSCC took place in Manila, the Philippines
from 10 to 13 June 2002. The PSCC welcomed Chile as the eighteenth member of the
Tokyo MOU. The PSCC confirmed the arrangements for the CIC on the ISM Code
compliance. Furthermore, the PSCC planned to conduct the next CIC on bulk carrier
safety during the period of September - November 2003. The PSCC approved the
Tokyo MOU ship targeting system. The element of the targeting system is basically
similar to the targeting factors used by the Paris MOU. The PSCC decided to start to
implement the targeting system on a trial basis from the beginning of 2003.
5
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
(3) Latin-American region（Vina del Mar or Latin-America Agreement)
Established：5 November 1992
Members：Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras,
Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela
Note:
The Viña del Mar Agreement held its eighth PSCC meeting in Mexico, from 3 to 5
September 2001. The agenda included the control of fishing craft and passenger ships,
procedures for the notification of detentions to the captain of the detained ships, safe
cargo stowage and securing procedures, training of Port State Control Officers
(PSCO), status of relevant conventions under the Agreement and relevant decisions
of other regional agreements and international organizations. Concentrated
inspection campaigns for the period 2001-2002 relating to bulk carriers and the entry
into force of the STCW Convention and ISM Code were also discussed. A
representative of Honduras attended the meeting to present its candidature to join
Agreement, which was unanimously accepted by the Committee.
(4) Caribbean region（Caribbean MOU）
Established: 9 February 1996
Members: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British
Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Commonwealth of Dominica, Cuba, Grenada,
Guyama, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles (Curacao, St.
Maarten), Suriname, St. Kitts Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines,
Turks & Caicos Island and Trinidad & Tobago
Note:
The sixth meeting of the Caribbean PSC Committee was scheduled to be held in
Antigua from 5 to 7 March 2002.
(5) Mediterranean region（Mediterranean MOU）
Established: 11 July 1997
Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,
Turkey and Palestinian Authorities
Note:
The fourth PSCC meeting of the Mediterranean MOU took place in Valletta, Malta,
from 14 to 18 July 2001. The Committee accepted and thanked the European
Commission for its offer to provide the Secretariat with an advanced training
programme for PSCOs on CD ROM for use by Member States of the Mediterranean
MOU. The Committee also discussed the issue of a target factor system and decided
that the establishment of such a system would be premature at this stage and should
be deferred for the time being. Recommendations were made relating to charges for
PSC services subsequent to the first inspection, appeal proceedings and the sharing
of regional information between MOUs. The Committee agreed that charges for
verification visits should only be levied if they were carried out outside normal
working hours at the request of the shipowners/operators/agent; that a SubCommittee on Detention Disputes (SCDC) should be set up within the
Mediterranean MOU to consider appeals by flag States; and that ships which had
been subject to an expanded inspection by PSC authorities of the Paris MOU, Tokyo
MOU and United States Coast Guard within six months prior to their calling at ports
of the Mediterranean MOU would not have to be reinspected by the Member States of
the Mediterranean MOU, unless clear grounds were established which warranted or
justified their further inspection.
6
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
(6) Indian Ocean region（Indian Ocean MOU）
Established: 5 June 1998
Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Kenya,
Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Oman, Seychelles, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania and Yemen
Note:
The fourth session of the Indian Ocean MOU (IOMOU) PSCC was held in Colombo,
Sri Lanka, from 3 to 6 September 2001. The Committee discussed Certificates of
Competency issued by an Authority not included in the list of parties that have
complied with all the requirements of STCW Convention and decided that if the flag
State, on whose ships these persons are employed, accept these certificates, the same
should be accepted for PSC purposes. The Committee discussed the possibility of
purchasing a host site on the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS)
and the development of an IOMOU web site.
(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 and Togo
Note:
The first Committee meeting of the West and Central African MOU (Abuja MOU)
took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 11 to 15 June 2001. Rules of Procedure for the
Committee meetings were adopted. Members who had signed the MOU were urged to
confirm their acceptance in writing to the Secretariat. The Committee’s agenda
included training issues, financial and administrative matters relating to the
Secretariat and the Information Centre, status of relevant Conventions, co-operation
with other regional PSC MOUs and Agreements. The Committee also considered a
presentation by the Director of APCIS on the information system being used by the
Tokyo MOU. The Committee also discussed charges for PSC services and were
advised of IMO’s recommendation that the first visit should not be charged.
(8) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)
Established: 7 April 2000
Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine
Note:
The Black Sea MOU held its second Committee meeting in Varna, Bulgaria from 2 to
4 May 2001. The Committee was advised that the Black Sea MOU came into force on
19 December 2000, at which time official acceptance had been received from Bulgaria,
Georgia and Turkey. The Committee considered and approved a number of
amendments to the text of the MOU and noted a presentation on the proposed budget,
functionality and other matters relating to the Information Centre. The Agenda
included items on the administrative and financial operation of the Black Sea MOU,
co-operation with other regional memoranda, the development of a PSC manual and
common coding systems and training issues. Correspondence groups were
established to deal the development of a PSC manual and training matters.
7
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
1.2.2 Agreements under development
Though the Persian Gulf region is not covered by an MOU at present, preparations
are being made for the establishment of an MOU with the support of the IMO.
The Marine Emergency Mutual Aid Centre (MEMAC) of the Regional Organization
for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME) is still actively involved in
progressing this issue and a second regional training course on port State control will
be organized in 2002.
1.2.3 U.S.C.G.
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.
In 2002, the classification society performance criteria were changed recognizing that
the current method of comparing individual classification society performance
against the average performance was becoming overly restrictive. Keeping in mind
that demonstrated sustained high performance is the goal, the U.S.C.G. modified the
methodology used to evaluate classification society performance by defining a fixed
detention ratio level. Additionally, the U.S.C.G. has made significant strides towards
the targeting of charterers. The Coast Guard is currently collecting information on
charterers associated with detained vessels, and this information is being posted on
the Port State Control Web site on the Internet.
On 1 January 2001, the U.S.C.G. implemented an initiative to identify high-quality
ships, so-called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century. The eligibility
criteria for Qualship 21 were evaluated in these years. Recognizing that the current
detention ratio that a flag state must meet is a moving target, as well as having
reached a level commensurate with high quality performance, the detention ratio
criterion was fixed in 2002.
Beginning 1 August, 2002,U.S.C.G. will enforce full compliance with the
requirements of the STCW 95 Convention upon the ships entering U.S. ports. (Refer
to 3.3.3)
Although the U.S.A. is not a member of any MOU, the U.S.C.G. carry out effective
PSC through co-operation with other MOUs.
1.2.4 Equasis
On 17 May 2000, the maritime administrations of France, Japan, United Kingdom,
United States Coast Guard, Spain, Singapore and the European Commission signed
the 'Memorandum of understanding on the establishment of the Equasis Information
System' at the IMO Headquarters in London in conjunction with the 72nd Maritime
Safety Committee meeting.
Equasis is a unique database collecting safety-related information on the world’s
8
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
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 port State Control regions, i.e. Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and the US
Coast Guard) and industry players (such as information on class, insurance,
participation in industry inspection schemes and quality organizations), all free of
charge.
9
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
1.3 Measures to be adopted by ClassNK
1.3.1 Measures for eliminating substandard ships
(1) Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections
When surveyors are notified of the detention of ships classed with NK, they actively
co-operate 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 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 when 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, considering the seriousness of the deficiencies when
they attend ships intervened with under port state controls.
When surveyors receive inspection reports from port state authorities, the report are
sent to the Survey Department of ClassNK head office by fax/e-mail. The report is
examined for causes of the deficiencies by staff who are exclusively engaged in
dealing with ships subject to intervention by PSC. The examination is carried out for
all ships, for which reports are received, and the results are circulated to all directors
of the board and reflected in the ClassNK PSC database that has been developed for
the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related electronic information.
The result of this examination is submitted to the flag State of the ship.
A letter is sent to owner(s) of the ship for the purpose of making them aware of their
ultimate responsibility regarding the safety of their ships and protection of the
marine environment, and advising them to improve routine maintenance of their
ships.
In cases where the intervention is judged as being related to the previous surveys
conducted by our society’s surveyors, the surveys are treated as non-conforming
service and appropriate corrective/preventive actions are taken in accordance with
our quality system.
(2) Special Training at several in-house meetings
Special training on PSC related issues was held at several meetings held in 2001 for
general managers and managers to ensure surveyors carry out proper and sufficient
surveys with an uncompromising attitude toward ensuring the quality and safety of
the ships classed with our Society.
Special re-training was also carried out under observation of Head Office and the
regional managers, for the surveyors who conducted the surveys judged as serious
non-conforming services.
(3) ClassNK Concentrated Inspection Campaign
A concentrated inspection campaign by our Society’s surveyors on closing devices and
remote control devices provided on board the ships classed with our Society was
carried out from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 in order to increase the uniformity
of surveys and the consistency of actions between our surveyors. Our surveyors were
10
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
instructed to carry out the relevant surveys even more carefully than usual using a
special checklist. Those items were selected as targets of the internal campaign
because deficiencies concerning closing devices and remote control devices were
identified as being most common among the detainable deficiencies reported by port
States in 2000 following the deficiencies of lifeboats and emergency fire pumps, for
which the first concentrated inspection campaign had been undertaken in 2000.
In 2002, a concentrated inspection campaign is being carried out to examine oilywater separators and related equipment/documents required under MARPOL Annex
I. This campaign was decided on taking account of the fact that the detainable
deficiencies of oily-water separating equipment, piping & discharge arrangements,
retention of oil on board and 15ppm alarm arrangements, which were pointed out by
the PSC officers in 2001, were ranked in 4th, 17th, 22nd and 25th in the most
common detainable deficiencies and total number of these deficiencies went up by 83
cases in 2001. (referred to in paragraph 2.3.2)
1.3.2 Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners
At informal gatherings and technical committee meetings with ship owners, PSC has
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.
Special seminars for shipowners focused on PSC related issues were held in Japan,
Hong Kong and Singapore in 2001.
The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” was distributed to all registered
shipowners/operators in our fleet. A check list (Good Maintenance On Board Ships)
was also prepared as electronic information, 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
headquarters or offices of port States with the objectives of introducing ClassNK,
exchanging views and collecting information.
The organizations in the major port States, which were visited by our executives in
2001 and 2002, are listed below.
Australia:
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
Canada:Transport Canada
Hong Kong:
Marine Department Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Japan:
The Maritime Administration of Japan (JG)
New Zealand: Maritime Safety Authority (MSA) of New Zealand
Singapore:
Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) of Singapore
U.K.:
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)
U.S.A.:
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
1.3.4 Other activities
Personnel from ClassNK Head Office were assigned as lecturers to Training Course
for PSC Officers promoted by the Tokyo MOU which have been held every year in
Japan.
11
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
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 2001, 406 detentions under PSC were reported concerning
354 ships classed by NK. This included cases not related to activities conducted by NK.
The total number of NK-registered ships was 6,416 at the end of December 2001.
Therefore the number of 354 ships detained represents about 5.5% of the total.
2.2 Data on Detentions
2.2.1 Detentions by flag State
Table 2.2.1 Detentions by flag State with 10 or more NK classed ships
Flag State
Panama
Malta
Cyprus
Singapore
Philippines
St. Vincent
Bahamas
Liberia
Turkey
Hong Kong
Belize
Indonesia
Japan
Marshall Is.
Malaysia
Thailand
Vanuatu
Viet Nam
Greece
India
Taiwan, China
Bangladesh
Kuwait
Brunei
Honduras
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Others
Total
Registered
Number
2001
2447
174
150
819
186
54
135
222
52
132
28
34
1175
14
382
80
31
16
36
18
33
30
10
14
10
11
11
112
6416
Detentions / Total
Detentions (%)
Detentions
Detention Ratio (%)
(= Detentions / Registered
Number in each year)
1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001
176
166
218 49.0 44.4 54.5
7.5
7.0
8.9
24
22
29
6.7
5.9
7.3 15.6 12.9 16.7
26
19
22
7.2
5.1
5.5 17.6 12.3 14.7
21
30
19
5.8
8.0
4.8
2.4
3.6
2.3
27
19
11
7.5
5.1
2.8 11.6
9.0
5.9
4
18
11
1.1
4.8
2.8
7.1 29.5 20.4
7
12
10
1.9
3.2
2.5
5.5
9.2
7.4
14
19
10
3.9
5.1
2.5
5.4
8.4
4.5
15
15
10
4.2
4.0
2.5 30.0 31.9 19.2
8
11
8
2.2
2.9
2.0
8.7
9.6
6.1
2
1
6
0.6
0.3
1.5
6.9
3.6 21.4
4
3
6
1.1
0.8
1.5
8.7
8.3 17.6
4
3
6
1.1
0.8
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0
0
6
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0 42.9
7
9
5
1.9
2.4
1.3
1.7
2.3
1.3
11
8
5
3.1
2.1
1.3 12.4 10.3
6.3
2
1
3
0.6
0.3
0.8
6.3
3.4
9.7
1
2
3
0.3
0.5
0.8
5.6 14.3 18.8
2
4
2
0.6
1.1
0.5
5.0 11.1
5.6
1
0
2
0.3
0.0
0.5
5.6
0.0 11.1
1
0
2
0.3
0.0
0.5
2.3
0.0
6.1
0
0
1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
3.3
0
0
1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0 10.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
12
10
0.6
3.2
2.5
0.9
8.1
8.9
359
374
406
5.5
5.8
6.3
12
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
250
Fig. 2.2.1-1 Detentions by Flag (NK)
218
200
176
166
Detentions
150
1999
2000
2001
100
213
123
242
102
102
Flag State
001
001
Kuwait
5
Bangladesh
11
8
Taiwan, China
795
India
6
Greece
00
Viet Nam
436
Vanuatu
436
Thailand
Hong Kong
Turkey
Liberia
Bahamas
St. Vincent
Philippines
Singapore
Malta
Cyprus
0
Panama
6
21
Malaysia
11
8 8
Marshall Is.
19
1515
14
10
10
1210
7
Japan
18
11
4
Indonesia
30
29
27
26
2422
22 21
19
19
19
11
Belize
50
50.0
Fig. 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)
45.0
43
40.0
35.0
32
30.0
1999
2000
2001
25.0
15
14
12
5
6
5
7
6
4
2 2
Indonesia
Belize
Hong Kong
Turkey
Liberia
Bahamas
St. Vincent
Philippines
Singapore
Cyprus
Malta
Panama
0.0
001
00
6
6
5 6
6
6
3
2 21
3
2
0
0
00
00
Kuwait
6
Bangladesh
5.0
7
4
10
Taiwan, China
6
7
10
98
India
87
11
11
10
10
9
8
Greece
9
9
9
Viet Nam
12
Vanuatu
12
Thailand
13
19
18
18
Malaysia
15.0
17
19
Marshall Is.
16
10.0
21
20
20.0
Japan
Detention Ratio (%)
30
30
Flag State
The following flag State Administrations were identified as having a detention ratio
higher than 10% in 2001 among the Administrations with 10 or more NK classed ships.
Marshall Islands, Belize, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia,
Malta, Cyprus, India and Kuwait
The detention ratios were determined by dividing detentions by the number of NK fleet
ships registered in each flag State.
13
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.2.2 Detentions by ship type
Table 2.2.2 Detentions by ship type (NK)
Ship Type
Ships in
NK Fleet
2001
Detention Ratio (%)
Detentions
1999
2000
(= Detentions / Registered
Number in each year)
2001
1999
2000
2001
Bulk Carrier
1,512
128
130
131
9.3
9.1
8.7
Ore Carrier
18
3
2
5
15.0
9.5
27.8
General Cargo
742
114
116
140
13.0
14.8
18.9
Container Carrier
396
18
24
24
4.6
6.2
6.1
Chip Carrier
112
6
1
6
5.6
0.9
5.4
Cement Carrier
134
5
2
7
3.9
1.5
5.2
90
2
9
1
2.2
10.2
1.1
Reefer Carrier
316
38
33
35
11.2
10.1
11.1
Vehicles Carrier
305
13
15
12
4.4
4.9
3.9
Oil Tanker
926
7
17
17
0.7
1.8
1.8
Chemical Tanker
437
22
23
20
5.2
5.3
4.6
Gas Carrier
363
2
2
7
0.6
0.6
1.9
Others
1,065
1
0
1
0.1
0.0
0.1
Total
6,416
359
374
406
Ro-Ro Ship
Ore carriers, General cargo carriers and Reefer carriers were identified as having a
detention ratio higher than 10% in 2001. The detention ratios were determined by
dividing detentions by the number of ships of each ship type in the NK fleet.
14
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
160
140
116
114
120
100
1999
80
2000
60
2001
38 35
33
2424
18
27.8
7
101
G
al
ic
C
he
m
22
as n k e
C r
ar
rie
O r
th
er
s
er
nk
rie
Ta
O
il
C
22 23
20
Ta
r
r
rie
ar
Ve
hi
cl
es
rC
Sh
fe
ee
R
C
C
30
ip
r
R
o-
en
o
ar
rie
r
ar
em
C
hi
p
C
C
er
in
ta
on
rie
rie
ar
ar
C
al
er
en
r
go
r
rie
ar
C
re
G
O
Bu
lk
C
ar
rie
r
0
9
2 1
527
6 6
1
325
R
20
15 1717
13 12
7
ar
40
tC
Detentions
Fig. 2.2.2-1 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)
140
131
130
128
Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (NK)
20
18.9
1999
15.0
15
10
14.8
2000
13.0
9.3
9.18.7
10.2
9.5
6.2
6.1
5
4.6
5.6 5.4
5.2
0.9
1.5
5.3
5.2 4.6
2.2
1.1
1.81.8
0.7
1.9
0.6
0.6
0.1 0.1
0.0
C
O arri
e
re
C r
G
ar
en
rie
e
C
r
a
on
lC r
ta
ar
in
go
er
C
ar
C
hi
rie
p
r
C
C
em
ar
rie
en
tC r
a
R
o- rrie
r
R Ro
ee
Sh
fe
r C ip
Ve
hi
ar
cl
es rier
C
ar
O
rie
C
he il Ta r
m
nk
ic
er
al
T
G ank
as
e
C r
ar
rie
O r
th
er
s
0
2001
11.2 11.1
10.1
4.9
4.4 3.9
3.9
Bu
lk
Detention Ratio (%)
25
15
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age
Table 2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age
Ships in
NK Fleet
2001
Ship's age
Detention Ratio (%)
Detentions
1999
2000
(= Detentions / Registered
Number in each year)
2001
1999
2000
2001
upto 5 years old
1,674
40
34
43
2.0
1.9
2.6
over 5 and up to 10
1,762
51
50
60
3.3
3.0
3.4
over 10 and up to 15
1,005
65
40
55
6.3
4.1
5.5
over 15 and up to 20
1,100
132
151
144
12.2
13.6
13.1
over 20 and up to 25
571
57
79
74
9.1
13.2
13.0
over 25
304
14
20
30
5.9
7.6
9.9
Detentions
Fig. 2.2.3-1 Detentions by Ship’s Age (NK)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
151
144
132
40
34
43
5150
60
7974
65
57
55
40
14
U p to 5
over 5
over
over
over
and up 10 and 15 and 20 and
to 1 0
u p to
u p to
u p to
15
20
25
20
30
1999
2000
2001
over
25
Detention Ratio (%)
Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio by Ship’s Age (NK)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 3 .6
1 3 .1
1 2 .2
1 3 .21 3 .0
9 .9
9 .1
7 .6
6 .3
2 .0 1 .9
2 .6
U p to 5
3 .3 3 .0 3 .4
5 .9
5 .5
4 .1
1999
2000
2001
o ve r 5 o ve r 1 0 o ve r 1 5 o ve r 2 0 o ve r 2 5
a nd up a nd up a nd up a nd up
to 2 5
to 2 0
to 1 5
to 1 0
Although the number of ships aged over 15 years makes up only about 31% of the total of
the registed ships in the NK fleet, they make up a large part (about 61%) of the total
number of the detained ships in 2001. The detention ratios were determined by dividing
detentions by the number of ships belong to each range of age in the NK fleet.
16
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.2.4 Detentions by tonnage
Table 2.2.4 Detention by tonnage (NK)
Ships in
Gross Ton (x 1,000) NK Fleet
2001
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
250
Detentions
200
3,645
957
550
464
263
196
100
241
Detention Ratio (%)
Detentions
1999
184
100
32
20
9
4
5
5
226
(= Detentions / Registered Number in
each year)
2000
187
94
41
26
11
8
5
2
2001
226
72
32
37
16
6
7
10
1999
5.0
10.4
5.8
4.3
3.4
2.0
5.0
2.1
2000
5.1
9.8
7.5
5.6
4.2
4.1
5.0
0.8
2001
6.2
7.5
5.8
8.0
6.1
3.1
7.0
4.1
Fig. 2.2.4-1 Detentions by Tonnage (NK)
187
184
150
1999
2000
2001
100
94
100
72
50
32
41
32
20
26
37
16
9 11
4
8
6
5 5
7
5
2
10
0
u p to
10
over
over
over
10 and 20 and 30 and
u p to
u p to
u p to
40
20
30
over
over
over
40 and 50 and 60 and
u p to
u p to
u p to
50
60
80
over
80
(x 1,000 ton)
12
Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio by Tonnage (NK)
Detention Ratio (%)
1 0 .4
9 .8
10
8 .0
8
6
7 .5
7 .5
7 .0
6 .2
5 .8
6 .1
5 .8
5 .6
5 .0 5 .1
1999
2000
2001
5 .0 5 .0
4 .3
4 .2
4
4 .1
4 .1
3 .4
3 .1
2 .0
2
2 .1
0 .8
0
u p to 1 0
over 10
over 20
over 30
over 40
over 50
over 60
a n d u p to a n d u p to a n d u p to a n d u p to a n d u p to a n d u p to
20
30
40
50
60
80
over 80
(x 1,000 ton)
The detention ratios of ships of tonnage more than 30,000 gross tons increased from that
of 2000. The detention ratio of ships less than 10,000 gross tons is relatively low because a
large number of these ships are not operating in international waters (in comparison to
all other NK-registered ships). The detention ratios were determined by dividing
detentions by the number of ships belong to each range of tonnage in the NK fleet.
17
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.2.5 Detentions by Port State
Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)
Table 2.2.5
Detentions by Port State (NK)
Port State
1999 2000 2001
Japan
54
49
73
Australia
40
45
37
Singapore
22
26
37
Korea
11
25
35
USA
60
31
25
China
12
11
20
Spain
9
14
20
Hong Kong
39
18
19
Italy
9
6
16
Canada
17
14
15
India
11
21
14
Germany
11
16
10
Russia
6
9
10
Chile
0
2
9
United Kingdom
5
6
9
Belgium
9
13
7
France
1
7
7
Netherlands
13
8
6
Viet Nam
3
2
6
Brazil
2
3
4
Portugal
2
9
4
Israel
3
3
3
Philippines
0
5
3
Turkey
0
0
3
Greece
2
2
2
Poland
2
2
2
Romania
0
0
2
Cuba
0
0
1
Denmark
1
2
1
Finland
0
0
1
Iran
0
0
1
Jamaica
0
0
1
New Zealand
7
3
1
South Africa
3
4
1
Thailand
2
13
1
Argentina
0
1
0
Croatia
0
1
0
Ireland
1
1
0
Malaysia
0
1
0
Norway
1
1
0
Uruguay
1
0
0
Total
359 374 406
The number of the ships detained
by port States in some Asian
countries such as Japan,
Singapore, Korea, China
increased in 2001.
Japan
49
Australia
37
Singapore
37
40
22 26
Korea
25
USA
China
19
18
Hong Kong
Italy
39
16
6
9
15
14
17
Canada
14
India
11
Germany
10
11
Russia
0
21
16
10
9
6
Chile
9
2
United Kingdom
9
56
Belgium
7
France
7
7
9
1
Netherlands
6
Viet Nam
6
2
3
8
13
13
2001
34
2
Brazil
2000
4
Portugal
9
2
1999
3
3
3
Israel
3
Philippines
0
Turkey
0 3
0
Greece
2
2
2
Poland
2
2
2
Romania
0
0
5
2
1
0
0
Cuba
1
12
Denmark
Iran
1
0
0
1
0
0
Jamaica
01
0
New Zealand
1
Finland
3
7
1 4
3
South Af rica
1
2
Thailand
Argentina
0
1
0
Croatia
0
01
Ireland
0
1
1
Malaysia
0
01
Norw ay
0
1
1
Uruguay
0
01
0
18
60
20
14
9
31
20
11
12
Spain
45
35
25
11
73
54
13
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies
2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category
In 2001, 1252 detainable deficiencies were reported concerning 406 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 detention of ships. While there was an increase in detained ships in
2001, the total number of detainable deficiencies decreased from the 1519 observed on
ships in 2000. The deficiencies are categorised as shown in Figure 2.3.1.
Fig.2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)
235
FIRE FIGHTING APPLIANCES
214
LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES
215
214
200
121
MARPOL-ANNEX I
120
111
117
111
95
LOAD LINES
125
67
63
PROPULSION & AUX. MACHINERY
SHIP'S CERTIFICATE
28
34
SOLAS OPERATIONAL DEFECTS
54
24
37
28
CREW AND ACCOMMODATION
MOORING ARRANGEMENTS
9
MARPOL OPERATIONAL DEFECTS
5
17
16
16
15
ACCIDENT PREVENTION
15
12
CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING
14
43
31
24
10
8
5
FOOD AND CATERING
CARGO
6
14
6
ALARMS-SIGNALS
5
16
5
4
6
3
WORKING SPACES
OTHER DEFICIENCIES
2001
2000
1999
45
46
52
RADIO
MARPOL-ANNEX III
86
46
28
13
141
56
40
38
ISM RELATED DEFECTS
TANKERS
222
91
NAVIGATION
MARPOL-ANNEX II
142
92
STABILITY AND STRUCTURE
249
1
0
0
1
13
3
00
0
0
0
1
1
50
100
150
200
250
300
Deficiencies
Deficiencies in this category that are related to fire-fighting and life-saving appliances
account for approximately 40% of the total in 2001.
19
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequently
Figure 2.3.2 shows the items for which more than 10 detainable deficiencies were
reported in conjunction with the detention of ships in the NK fleet. Lifeboats, emergency
fire pumps and closing appliances continue to be the major items where most detainable
deficiencies were found.
The items reported in 1999 to 2001 are explained in detail in paragraphs 2.3.3 to 2.3.12.
Fig.2.3.2 Most Common Deficiencies (NK)
Lif eboats
68
68
Fire Pumps
56
60
60
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
43
Oily-Water Separating Equipment
38
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
45
Nautical Publications
33
Charts
Launching Arrangements f or Survival Craft
Cleanliness of Engine Room
20
Inf latable Liferafts
Appliances (General Equipment)
17
31
17
18
Other (Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery)
35
16
16
10
Personal Equipment
32
25
13
Prevention
51
20
19
12
Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Sw itches
30
39
23
14
10
23
51
34
26
26
26
65
39
31
21
16
12
10
15
Lif eboat Inventory
17
2001
2000
1999
24
15
19
16
Doors
Pumping, Piping & Discharge Arrangements
13
15
16
14
13
Lif ebuoys
Muster and Drills
27
14
8
1
13
Covers (Hatchw ays, Portable, Tarpaulins, etc.)
15
Retention of Oil on Board
13
8
3
17
13
14
6
Garbage
12
Beams, Frames, Floors-Corrosion
27
6
Cargo & Other Hatchw ays
12
Auxiliary Engine
12
11
16
15 PPM Alarm Arrangements
12
12
16
Certificate of Competency
11
10
Embarkation Arrangement for Survival Craf t
11
11
5
Propulsion Main Engine
24
22
11
8
2
20
11
11
8
MF/HF Radio Installation
78
49
36
Fire Fighting Equipment
76
77
11
11
11
Satellite EPIRB 406MHz/1.6GHz
Maintenance of the ship and equipment
6
0
9
11
10
20
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.3.3 Fire Fighting Appliances
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Fire Fighting Appliances” is shown in
Table 2.3.3.
Table 2.3.3 Fire Fighting Appliances
Item
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
Fire Pumps
56 78 68 Deficient emergency fire pumps
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing 65 60 60 Seized closing devices; fire damper, door self-closer,
Devices, Remote Control, etc.
emergency shut-off valves on FO tanks
Fire Fighting Equipment
21 31 39 Service Report of Fire Extinguishers missing
Unserviceable fire hose and nozzle
Appliances (General Equipment)
12 19 20 Leakage of fire main line and hydrants
Defective hose/nozzle
Prevention
10 16 16 Defective fire door
Personal Equipment
10 12 16 Defective Fireman’s outfit
Unserviceable Breathing Apparatus
2.3.4 Life Saving Appliances
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Life Saving Appliances” is shown in
the Table 2.3.4.
Table 2.3.4 Life Saving Appliances
Item
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
77 68 76 Inoperable lifeboat engine
Wasted/holed shell
Inoperable on load release gear
Launching Arrangements for Survival 32 30 26 Wasted/holed davit
Craft
Wasted sheaves
Inflatable Liferafts
10 14 23 Service certificate expired
Lifeboat Inventory
24 17 15 Equipment missing/expired
Lifebuoys
13 27 14 Defective attachment to man overboard lifebuoy
Smoke signal / light unit expired
Embarkation Arrangement for
5 11 11 Rotten embarkation ladder
Survival Craft
Short embarkation ladder
Lifeboats
2.3.5 MARPOL-ANNEX I
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “MARPOL-ANNEX I” is shown in the
Table 2.3.5.
Table 2.3.5 MARPOL-ANNEX I
Item
Oily-Water Separating Equipment
Pumping, Piping & Discharge
Arrangements
Retention of Oil on Board
15 PPM Alarm Arrangements
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
36 49 43 Inoperable separator
Wasted and holed separator casing
13 16 15 Direct discharge piping from oily water separator
By passing line of oily water separator
6 14 13 Much bilge in the engine room
12 16 12 Malfunction of 15 ppm alarm
21
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.3.6 Stability, Structure and Related Equipment
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Stability, Structure and Related
Equipment” is shown in the Table 2.3.6.
Table 2.3.6 Stability, Structure and Related Equipment
Item
Emergency Lighting, Batteries &
Switches
Beam, Frames, Floors-Corrosion
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
13 31 17 Deficient battery/emergency generator
Inoperable emergency lighting
6 27 12 Wasted frames in cargo holds
Wasted longitudinals and transverse webs in WBTs
2.3.7 Navigation
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Navigation” is shown in the Table
2.3.7.
Table 2.3.7 Navigation
Item
Nautical Publications
Charts
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
26 26 34 Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights, list of
radio signals, etc.) not updated/corrected
Nautical publications incomplete/missing
51 39 33 Navigation charts not updated/corrected
Navigation charts for intended voyage not available
2.3.8 Load Lines
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Load Lines” is shown in the Table
2.3.8.
Table 2.3.8 Load Lines
Item
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
Doors
Covers (Hatchways, Portable,
Tarpaulins, etc.)
Cargo & Other Hatchways
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
45 51 38 Wasted/holed ventilator
Wasted/holed air pipes
Closing devices frozen
16 19 15 Doors not weather-tight
Wasted doors
15 17 13 Wasted/holed cover
Securing device defective/missing
24 20 12 Wasted/holed hatch cover
Securing device defective/missing
22
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.3.9 Propulsion & Aux. Machinery
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Propulsion & Aux. Machinery” is
shown in the Table 2.3.9.
Table 2.3.9 Propulsion & Aux. Machinery
Item
Cleanliness of Engine Room
Other
Auxiliary Engine
Propulsion Main Engine
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
20 23 25 Excessive oil in Engine Room
18 35 17 Excessive leaking from pipes and pumps
Malfunction of miscellaneous machinery
11 16 12 Leakage from generator
8 11 11 Main engine failure
2.3.10 Ship’s Certificate
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Ship’s Certificate” is shown in the
Table 2.3.10.
Table 2.3.10 Ship’s Certificate
Item
Cargo Ship Safety Equipment
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
9 8 10 Certificate expired
2.3.11 ISM Related Defects
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “ISM Related Defects” is shown in the
Table 2.3.11.
Table 2.3.11 ISM Related Defects
Item
Maintenance of the ship and
equipment
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
6 9 11 Shipboard SMS does not ensure adequate
maintenance of ship's structure and equipment
2.3.12 Radio
The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Radio” is shown in the Table 2.3.12.
Table 2.3.12 Radio
Item
MF/HF Radio Installation
99 00 01
Remarkable deficiency
2 8 11 MF/HF DSC appears not operational
23
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State
Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.18 show the most common deficiencies that resulted in the detention of
the vessels classed with NK under PSC inspections conducted by the top 18 port States,
by number of detentions reported in 2001.
2.4.1 Japan
Table 2.4.1 Japan
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Nautical Publications
8
0
11
Oily-Water Separating Equipment
5
5
8
Lifeboats
9
5
7
Charts
15
4
7
Pumping, Piping & Discharge Arrangements
2
3
6
Hull-Cracking
0
2
5
Emergency Preparedness
0
0
5
Safety and Environmental Policy
0
2
4
Masters Responsibility and Authority
0
3
4
Prevention
2
5
3
Total 373 detainable deficiencies concerning 176 detentions : about 2.1 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.2 Australia
Table 2.4.2 Australia
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
23
15
18
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
8
9
9
Pumps
5
6
7
MF/HF Radio Installation
1
7
6
Lifeboats
4
4
4
Cargo & Other Hatchways
7
2
4
Operation/Maintenance
3
0
3
Maintenance of the ship and equipment
1
4
3
Total 246 detainable deficiencies concerning 122 detentions : about 2.0 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.3 Singapore
Table 2.4.3 Singapore
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Lifeboats
8
3
10
Garbage
0
2
10
Suspected Discharge Violation
3
3
7
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
1
0
5
Oily-Water Separating Equipment
0
0
5
Rescue Boats
0
3
4
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
4
1
4
Rescue Boat Inventory
0
0
3
Inflatable Liferafts
2
2
3
Line Throwing Appliances
0
1
3
Readily availability of Fire Fighting Equipment
0
2
3
Pumping, Piping & Discharge Arrangements
3
0
3
Total 200 detainable deficiencies concerning 85 detentions : about 2.4 detainable deficiencies/detention
24
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.4.4 Korea
Table 2.4.4 Korea
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Lifeboats
2
10
11
Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Switches
0
3
7
Oily-Water Separating Equipment
0
1
6
Pumps
0
0
5
Embarkation Arrangement for Survival Craft
0
2
4
Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft
1
1
3
Fixed Fire Equipment
0
2
3
Total 154 detainable deficiencies concerning 71 detentions : about 2.2 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.5 U.S.A.
Table 2.4.5 U.S.A.
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Fixed Fire Equipment
7
2
7
Fire Drills
23
12
7
Lifeboats
16
2
5
Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft
9
2
4
Abandon Ship Drills
15
9
4
Pumps
6
11
3
Total 337 detainable deficiencies concerning 116 detentions : about 2.9 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.6 China
Table 2.4.6 China
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Pumps
5
7
10
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
1
2
10
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
2
0
6
Oily-Water Separating Equipment
1
1
4
Lifeboats
2
4
3
Covers (Hatchways, Portable, Tarpaulins, etc.)
2
0
3
Total 125 detainable deficiencies concerning 43 detentions : about 2.9 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.7 Spain
Table 2.4.7 Spain
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Muster and Drills
0
1
5
Retention of Oil on Board
2
1
5
Cleanliness of Engine Room
2
1
4
Total 104 detainable deficiencies concerning 43 detentions : about 2.4 detainable deficiencies/detention
25
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.4.8 Hong Kong
Table 2.4.8 Hong Kong
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Charts
14
8
9
Lifeboats
6
5
6
Pumps
13
11
5
Nautical Publications
1
3
5
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
12
3
4
Lights, Shapes and Sound Signals
0
0
4
Lifeboat Inventory
1
0
3
Lifejackets
2
1
3
Fire Fighting Equipment
1
3
3
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
12
2
3
Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Switches
2
1
3
Total 244 detainable deficiencies concerning 76 detentions : about 3.2 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.9 Italy
Table 2.4.9 Italy
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Nautical Publications
0
0
7
Other (Accommodation)
0
2
6
Lifeboats
2
0
4
Lifebuoys
0
3
4
Charts
4
0
4
Sanitary Facilities
0
1
3
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
0
1
3
Other (Accident Prevention)
0
0
3
Steering Gear
0
0
3
Retention of Oil on Board
0
0
3
Total 132 detainable deficiencies concerning 31 detentions : about 4.2 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.10 Canada
Table 2.4.10 Canada
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Beams, Frames, Floors-Corrosion
4
6
6
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
3
5
3
Bulkheads-Corrosion
0
0
3
Total 126 detainable deficiencies concerning 46 detentions : about 2.7 detainable deficiencies/detention
26
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.4.11 India
Table 2.4.11 India
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Other (Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery)
5
11
8
Prevention
0
1
6
Pumps
5
7
5
Cargo & Other Hatchways
1
2
5
Gangway, Accommodation Ladder
0
3
4
Other (MARPOL - ANNEX I)
1
0
4
Readily availability of Fire Fighting Equipment
1
0
3
Other (Fire Fighting Appliances)
0
4
3
Doors
3
5
3
Total 423 detainable deficiencies concerning 46 detentions : about 9.2 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.12 Germany
Table 2.4.12 Germany
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Oily-Water Separating Equipment
4
5
5
Nautical Publications
0
6
4
Covers (Hatchways, Portable, Tarpaulins, etc.)
2
1
3
Radar
1
1
3
15 PPM Alarm Arrangements
1
2
3
Total 131 detainable deficiencies concerning 37 detentions : about 3.5 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.13 Russia
Table 2.4.13 Russia
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Other (Ship's Certificate)
1
1
2
Fire Pumps
0
0
2
Propulsion Main Engine
0
0
2
Total 35 detainable deficiencies concerning 25 detentions : about 1.4 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.14 Chile
Table 2.4.14 Chile
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Pumps
0
1
5
Total 22 detainable deficiencies concerning 11 detentions : about 2.0 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.15 United Kingdom
Table 2.4.15 United Kingdom
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Lifeboats
4
0
4
Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft
0
0
3
Pumps
1
2
3
Total 71 detainable deficiencies concerning 20 detentions : about 3.6 detainable deficiencies/detention
27
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
2.4.16 Belgium
Table 2.4.16 Belgium
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Fire Fighting Equipment
1
15
8
Lifeboat Inventory
2
10
6
Lifeboats
2
6
5
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.
8
16
4
Magnetic Compass
2
9
4
Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft
0
5
3
Pumps
1
3
3
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
3
9
3
Winches & Capstans
1
5
3
Total 563 detainable deficiencies concerning 29 detentions : about 19.4 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.17 France
Table 2.4.17 France
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Fire Fighting Equipment
0
0
4
Auxiliary Engine
0
1
4
Minimum Safe Manning Certificate
0
1
3
Other (Ship's Certificate)
0
0
3
Sanitary Facilities
0
0
3
Propulsion Main Engine
0
1
3
Total 107 detainable deficiencies concerning 15 detentions : about 7.1 detainable deficiencies/detention
2.4.18 Netherlands
Table 2.4.18 Netherlands
Type of Deficiency
1999 2000 2001
Lifeboats
13
7
10
Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft
4
5
4
Total 107 detainable deficiencies concerning 27 detentions : about 4.0 detainable deficiencies/detention
28
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Chapter 3
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, USCG and AMSA
3.1 Tokyo MOU (Source: Tokyo MOU web site)
3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Targeting System
After eight years of operation and development, The Tokyo MOU in the Asia-Pacific
region is moving ahead steadily and has become better known as one of the most active
port state control regimes around the world as well as the Paris MOU.
Each year since 1996 the Tokyo MOU has attained and maintained annual regional
inspection rates of over 50%. In 2000 the committee has adopted an amendment to the
Memorandum to increase the regional annual target inspection rate from 50% to 75%.
In selecting ships for inspection the Authorities will give priority to the following ships in
accordance with the MOU:
1. Passenger ships, roll-on/roll-off ships and bulk carriers;
2. Ships which may present a special hazard, including oil tankers, gas carriers,
chemical tankers and ships carrying harmful substances in packaged form;
3. Ships visiting a port of a State, the Authority of which is a signatory to the
Memorandum, for the first time or after an absence of 12 months or more;
4. Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the three-year rolling average table of
above-average detentions published in the annual report of the Memorandum;
5. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a State, the Authority of
which is a signatory to the Memorandum, on the condition that the deficiencies
noted must be rectified within a specified period, upon expiry of such period;
6. Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as having deficiencies
which may prejudice their safe navigation;
7. Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which have failed to report all
relevant information concerning the ships' particulars, the ships movements and
concerning the dangerous or polluting goods being carried to the competent
authority of the port and coastal State;
8. Ships which have been suspended from their class for safety reasons in the course
of the preceding six months;
9. Ships proceeding to sea without complying with the conditions agreed by the
Authority of the port of inspection to proceed to the nearest yard available since
deficiencies cannot be remedied in the inspection port.
10. Types of ships identified by the Committee from time to time as warranting
priority inspections.
The Authorities will pay special attention to oil tankers and bulk carriers of 10 years of
age and over.
29
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.1.2 Tokyo MOU 2001 Statistics (Source: Tokyo MOU Annual Report on PSC)
In 2001, 17,379 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 1,349 ships
were detained because of serious deficiencies found on board.
Year
Number of
inspections
Number of
individual ships
visited the region
Regional
inspection rate
Number of
detained ships
Detention ratio
Table 3.1.2-1
1998
Basic PSC figures (Tokyo MOU 2001)
1999
2000
2001
14,545
14,921
16,034
17,379
24,266
24,474
24,537
24,590
approx. 60%
approx. 61%
approx. 65%
approx. 71%
1,061
1,071
1,101
1,349
7.29%
7.18%
6.87%
7.76%
Table 3.1.2-2 shows the PSC inspections carried out by each port State.
Table 3.1.2-2
Authority
PSC by Authority (Tokyo MOU)
No. of ships
No. of
No. of
No. of
with
Inspection
deficiencies detentions
deficiencies
No. of
individual
ships 1)
Inspection
rate (%)
Detention
ratio (%)
Australia
2,913
1,788
8,818
127
4,545
64.09
4.36
Canada 2)
510
365
2,231
59
1,836
27.78
11.57
1,728
1,288
7,758
107
8,122
21.28
6.19
29
7
19
1
164
17.68
3.45
Hong Kong, China
890
693
5,413
98
5,479
16.24
11.01
Indonesia
934
494
1,976
3
5,216
17.91
0.32
Japan
4,498
3,335
18,297
465
10,917
41.20
10.34
Republic of Korea
2,344
1,687
7,778
116
9,162
25.58
4.95
Malaysia
380
201
1,236
34
5,298
7.17
8.95
New Zealand
691
298
1,234
10
1,112
62.14
1.45
0
0
0
0
385
0.00
Philippines
359
202
1,445
17
2,381
15.08
4.74
Russian Federation 2)
650
505
4,601
103
866
75.06
15.85
1,189
1,012
7,609
170
11,333
10.49
14.30
Thailand
76
46
242
18
3,448
2.20
23.68
Vanuatu
0
0
0
0
38
0.00
Vietnam
188
128
921
21
1,194
17,379
12,049
69,578
1,349
China
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Singapore
Total
15.75
Regional
Regional
approx.71
24,590
%
11.17
Regional
7.76%
1) LMIS data for 2001. (Sum of the number of individual ships visits during the first and second half of the year 2001)
2) Data are only for the Pacific ports.
30
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Table 3.1.2-3
Detentions by Flag (1999-2001 3-year rolling average by Tokyo MOU)
No. of
No. of
3-year rolling
Flag
Inspections
Detentions
detention ratio
Korea, Dem. People's Rep.
343
140
40.82%
Indonesia
407
116
28.50%
Cambodia
1,567
435
27.76%
Belize
1,402
342
24.39%
Viet Nam
269
63
23.42%
Honduras
840
109
12.98%
Russia
1,191
149
12.51%
Turkey
252
29
11.51%
Malaysia
998
104
10.42%
Thailand
615
61
9.92%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
1,005
93
9.25%
Taiwan, China
563
52
9.24%
Myanmar
140
12
8.57%
Korea, Republic of
1,660
131
7.89%
Iran
172
13
7.56%
Malta
1,089
80
7.35%
Note: Flags listed above are those flags whose ships were involved in at least 60 port State inspections in the period 19992001 and the detention percentage of which are above the regional 3-year rolling average detention percentage (7.28%).
Table 3.1.2-4
Other
Dry Cargo Ship
Tanker
Type of Ship
Detentions by Ship Type (1999-2001 Tokyo MOU)
No. of Inspections
1999
2000
2001
Chemical tanker
586
574
694
Gas carrier
274
315
352
Oil tanker
614
831 1,036
Combination carrier
42
159
155
Tanker, not otherwise specified
320
102
177
Bulk carrier
4,189 4,541 4,867
Containership
1,948 2,274 2,627
General cargo/multi-purpose ship 4,942 5,261 5,343
Heavy load carrier
17
28
28
Livestock carrier
76
78
74
Refrigerated cargo carrier
610
572
529
Ro-Ro cargo ship
251
210
253
Vehicle carrier
382
463
405
Woodchip carrier
59
119
167
Factory ship
2
1
2
Fishing vessel
0
4
4
High speed passenger craft
21
11
9
MODU & FPSO
3
1
1
Offshore service vessel
110
87
120
Passenger ship
195
176
183
Ro-Ro Passenger ship
22
23
26
Special purpose ship
61
39
39
Tugboat
117
85
209
Others
80
80
79
Total
14,921 16,034 17,379
31
No. of Detentions
1999
22
4
35
0
21
195
82
611
1
4
48
11
13
2
0
0
0
0
2
6
2
4
4
4
1,071
2000
26
12
46
7
6
206
85
625
0
0
42
11
12
1
0
0
1
0
3
10
1
0
4
3
1,101
2001
39
12
72
3
3
191
117
811
2
5
45
9
4
3
0
0
0
0
3
7
2
6
9
6
1,349
Average
Detention
Ratio
(%)
4.69
2.98
6.17
2.81
5.01
4.35
4.15
13.17
4.11
3.95
7.89
4.34
2.32
1.74
0
0
2.44
0
2.52
4.15
7.04
7.19
4.14
5.44
7.28
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Table 3.1.2-5
Year
Class
Detentions by Class (Tokyo MOU)
1999
Inspections
Detentions
2000
Detention
Ratio(%)
Inspections
2001
Detentions
Detention
Ratio(%)
Inspections
Detentions
Detention
Ratio(%)
ABS
863
52
6.0%
1,001
36
3.6%
1,155
47
4.1%
BV
714
59
8.3%
779
48
6.2%
835
61
7.3%
CCS
1,295
104
8.0%
1,190
69
5.8%
1,359
53
3.9%
DNV
962
35
3.6%
1,058
37
3.5%
1,133
44
3.9%
GL
780
39
5.0%
881
39
4.4%
1,007
57
5.7%
KR
854
60
7.0%
1,153
69
6.0%
1,313
72
5.5%
LR
1,443
53
3.7%
1,528
63
4.1%
1,488
72
4.8%
NK
5,354
229
4.3%
5,723
238
4.2%
5,860
246
4.2%
RINA
129
5
3.9%
115
9
7.8%
88
7
8.0%
RS
509
65
12.8%
486
57
11.7%
509
63
12.4%
Fig. 3.1.2-1 Detentions per Class (Tokyo MOU)
25.0%
Detention ratio
20.0%
15.0%
1999
2000
2001
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
ABS
BV
CCS DNV
GL
KR
32
LR
NK RINA
RS
NonIACS
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Fig. 3.1.2-2 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)
Life saving appliances
11,774
10,266
Fire safety measures
8,758
6,407
Safety of Navigation
7,066
5,813
6,475
Stability, structure and related equipment
5,550
Load lines
4,381
3,844
MARPOL-ANNEX I
2,944
Radio communications
2,573
2,504
3,784
13,588
10,988
8,742
7,331
5,236
4,916
3,300
2,833
1,991
2,641
SOLAS related operational deficiencies
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
1,602
1,555
2,694
2,643
2,602
2,204
Ship's certificates and documents
MARPOL-ANNEX V
1,542
75
83
939
695
Crew and accommodation
2001
1,951
2000
860
739
Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers
804
967
814
MARPOL related operational deficiencies
1999
792
719
531
ISM related deficiencies
Accident prevention
649
472
521
Mooring arrangements
639
603
638
Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods
590
523
517
419
410
462
Food and catering
330
251
260
Working spaces
Alarm signals
203
179
145
Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers
157
119
93
128
771
307
Other deficiencies
MARPOL-ANNEX II
73
35
36
MARPOL-ANNEX III
21
15
50
Bulk Carriers-additional safety measures
17
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Deficiencies
33
12000
14000
16000
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.1.3 Tokyo MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign
-1. Inspection Campaign on the ISM Code (from 1 July to 30 September 2002)
The Port State Control Committee confirmed the arrangements for the concentrated
inspection campaign on the ISM Code compliance which will run for three months.
The inspection is to be carried out in accordance with the agreed procedures similar to the
one of the Paris MOU referred to in 3.2.3-2.
-2. Strict Enforcement of STCW 95 (from 1 August 2002)
The Paris and Tokyo MOU Committees have confirmed that when the IMO's period of
grace ends on 1 August the provisions of the new STCW95 Convention are to be strictly
enforced by port States in the Regions. Ships issued with Letters of Warning since the
Convention came into force in February 2002 will be a priority for inspection, but all
ships inspected are expected to comply.
Port State Control Officers (PSCO's) will verify that all seafarers required to be
certificated do hold a valid certificate or dispensation. In addition officers are required to
have an appropriate certificate from the Administration and endorsement from the flag
State, or have documentary proof that an application for endorsement has been made.
This proof could be a written confirmation from the flag State that an application has
been received from an individual. Alternatively a copy of the seafarers written application
to the flag State, clearly showing name, certificate number, date of issue and validity will
be accepted.
Ships with seafarers not properly certificated will face detention if the deficiencies
represent an unreasonable danger to persons, property or the environment, taking into
account the length and nature of the voyage, the level of non-compliance and other factors.
Such detainable deficiencies including:
・No Safe Manning Document or the manning is not in accordance with the Safe
Manning Document;
・Certificates of Competency are not available or not in accordance with the
requirements of the Safe Manning Document;
・No mandatory specialized training document or endorsement is available, where
required;
・No radio operator certificates available;
・No documentation for personnel with designated safety or pollution prevention duties
is available;
・No flag State endorsement or documentary proof of application available (noting that a
seafarer may only serve on board for a period not exceeding 3 months on the basis of an
application and that the application should be made before serving in that capacity).
Deficiencies in the manning documentation will be considered as clear grounds for a more
detailed inspection which could include operational drills and an examination of the
ship’s safety management system, if appropriate.
34
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.2 Paris MOU (Source: Paris MOU web site)
3.2.1 Paris MOU Targeting System
To facilitate the selection of ships to be inspected throughout the Paris MOU region, the
central computer database, known as ‘SIRENAC’ is consulted by PSC officers for data on
ships particulars and for the reports of previous inspections carried out within the region.
If a ship has been inspected within the Paris MOU region during the previous six months
and, on that occasion, was found to comply, the ship will in principle be exempted from
further inspection, unless there are clear grounds to warrant further investigation.
In selecting ships for inspection the Paris MOU Authorities will give priority to:
1.
Ships visiting a port of a State, the Authority of which is a signatory to the Memorandum, for the
first time or after an absence of 12 months or more. In the absence of appropriate data for this
purpose, the Authorities will rely upon the available Sirenac data and inspect those ships which
have not been registered in Sirenac following the entry into force of that database on 1 January
1993;
2. Ships not inspected by any Authority within the previous 6 months;
3. Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship’s construction and equipment, issued in accordance
with the Conventions, and the classification certificates, have been issued by an organization
which is not recognized by the Authority;
4. Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the black-list as published in the annual report of the
MOU;
5. Ships which have been permitted by the Authority to leave a port of its State on certain
conditions:
a) deficiency to be rectified before departure
b) deficiency to be rectified at the next port
c) deficiencies to be rectified within 14 days
d) deficiencies for which other conditions have been specified
e) if ship related action has been taken and all deficiencies have been rectified;
6. Ships for which deficiencies have been recorded during a previous inspection, according to the
number of deficiencies;
7. Ships which have been detained in a previous port;
8. Ships flying the flag of a non-Party to a relevant instrument;
9. Ships with class deficiency ratio above average;
10. Ships which are in a category for which expanded inspection has been decided;
a) Oil Tankers, 5 years or less from the date of phasing out in accordance with Regulation 13G of
Annex I to MARPOL 73/78
b) Bulk Carriers, older than 12 years of age
c) Passenger ships
d) Gas and Chemical Tankers older than 10 years of age
11. Other ships above 13 years old.
35
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.2.2 Paris MOU 2001 Statistics (Source: Paris MOU Annual Report 2001)
In 2001, 18,681 inspections were carried out in the Paris MOU region on 11,658 foreign
ships, and 1,699 ships were detained because of serious deficiencies found on board.
Year
Number of
inspections
Number of
individual ships
inspected
Overall
inspection rate
Number of
detained ships
Detention ratio
Table 3.2.2-1
1998
Basic PSC figures (Paris MOU)
1999
2000
2001
17,643
18,399
18,559
18,681
11,168
11,248
11,358
11,658
26.5%
27.6%
28.6%
27.3%
1,598
1,684
1,764
1,699
9.06%
9.15%
9.50%
9.09%
Table 3.2.2-2 shows the PSC inspections carried out by each port State.
Table 3.2.2-2
Authority
PSC by Authority (Paris MOU 2001)
Inspections
Estimated
No. of
No. of
Detention
with
ship calls Inspections
detentions ratio (%)
deficiencies
Inspection
rate (%)
Belgium
5789
1679
849
102
6.08
29.00
Canada
1760
673
263
34
5.05
38.24
Croatia
964
410
213
37
9.02
42.53
Denmark
2400
612
230
29
4.74
25.50
Finland
1311
426
174
15
3.52
32.49
France
5792
558
359
69
12.37
9.63
Germany
6745
1469
845
111
7.56
21.78
Greece
2670
751
377
80
10.65
28.13
Iceland
323
114
60
5
4.39
35.29
Ireland
1330
280
170
15
5.36
21.05
Italy
5850
2547
1502
404
15.86
43.54
Netherlands
5645
1325
622
99
7.47
23.47
Norway
1800
464
210
28
6.03
25.78
Poland
1914
665
383
31
4.66
34.74
Portugal
2830
805
628
164
20.37
28.45
Russian Federation
6527
1750
1263
143
8.17
26.81
Spain
5594
1694
1113
208
12.28
30.28
Sweden
2850
658
285
12
1.82
23.09
United Kingdom
6457
1801
1213
113
6.27
27.89
68551
18681
10759
1699
9.09
27.25
Total
36
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Figure 3.2.2-1 shows the flag States with a detention ratio exceeding the average
percentage in 2001. Only flags with more than 20 port State control inspections in 2001
are recorded in the figure.
Fig.3.2.2-1 Detention by Flag in 2001 (Paris MOU)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Malta
Tuvalu
Korea, Republic of
Panama
Azerbaijan
Belize
Libyan Arab Jama.
Ukrainia
Iran
Bulgaria
India
St. Vincent & Grenadines
Egypt
Sylian Arab Republic
Cambodia
Romania
Turkey
Morocco
Algeria
Honduras
Tonga
Georgia
Lebanon
Albania
Sao Tome and Principe
Average: 9.09%
Since 1999 the Paris MOU produced “Black, Gray and White Lists” of flag State
performance as shown in the Table 3.2.2-3. The tables are based on performance of each
flag over a three-year rolling period.
Table 3.2.2-3
BLACK - GRAY - WHITE LISTS
Category
very high risk
BLACK LIST
Flag State
Albania, Bolivia, Sao Tome & Principe,
Honduras, Algeria, Lebanon, Georgia,
Cambodia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey,
Belize, Libyan Arab Jama, Tonga, Romania,
Morocco
high risk
St. Vincent & Grenadine, Egypt
medium high risk
Ukrainia,
Malta, Panama, India, Cyprus, Azerbaijan,
Bulgaria, Russian Federation
Kuwait, Portugal, Thailand, Croatia, Latvia, Cayman Islands,
Lithuania, Qatar, Malaysia, Faeroe Islands, Brazil, Iran, U.A.E.,
Tunisia, Tuvalu, Taiwan, Ethiopia, Estonia, Italy, Saudi Arabia,
Gibraltar, Antilles Netherlands, Korea Republic of, Vanuatu,
Philippines, Spain, U.S.A.
Barbados, Poland, Greece, Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong,
Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Japan, Bermuda, Luxembourg,
Singapore, China, Isle of Man, Liberia, Israel, Norway, France,
Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, U.K.
medium risk
GRAY LIST
WHITE LIST
(Paris MOU 2001)
37
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
16 .0 %
Fig. 3.2.2-2 Detentions by Ship Type (Paris MOU)
Detention ratio
2000
11 .8 %
12 .0 %
10 .0 %
1999
13 .3
13% .0 %
14 .0 %
2001
8.8%9.2%
8.7%
8.3%
8.1%
7.7%
8.0%
6.0%
7.5%
6.2%
5.9% 6.0%
5.5%
4.4%4.8%
3.6%
4.0%
8.0%
7.7%
5.1%
7.7%
7.0%
5.9%
3.2%
1.8%
1.6%2.0%
2.0%
ip
Sh
Ty
pe
s
ge
rs
O
th
er
s
/F
er
rie
s
C
ar
rie
rs
G
as
en
ss
Pa
Bu
lk
C
ar
rie
G
en
rs
er
al
R
oD
R
ry
o
C
/C
ar
go
on
ta
in
er
/V
eh
ic
le
R
ef
rig
er
at
ed
Ta
nk
C
ar
er
go
s
/C
om
b.
C
ar
rie
C
r
he
m
ic
al
Ta
nk
er
s
0.0%
Fig. 3.2.2-3 Deficiencies by Category (Paris MOU)
LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES
SAFETY IN GENERAL
FIRE SAFETY MEASURES
SAFETY OF NAVIGATION
MARPOL ANNEX I
LOAD LINES
PROPULSION/AUX. MACHINERY
SHIPS' CERTIFICATES
RADIO COMMUNICATION
CREW & ACCOMMODATION
ACCIDENT PREVENTION
836
1963
2113
1963
1506
1586
1506
2638
2703
2638
3816
3906
3816
3671
3713
3671
3465
3581
3465
4875
5116
4875
9243
8951
9243
8789
8547
8789
8055
8315
8055
2001
2000
1999
1323
836
1179
1302
1179
1132
CARGO
TRAINING CERT & WATCHKEEPING
10516
10942
1262
1132
929
1239
929
878
1109
878
1031
876
1031
742
758
742
678
SOLAS OPERATIONAL DEFECTS
ISM RELATED DEFECTS
MOORING ARRANGEMENTS
FOOD AND CATERING
MARPOL ANNEX V
703
678
618
456
618
330
326
330
212
151
212
52
65
52
9
WORKING SPACES
MARPOL OPERATIONAL DEFECTS
ALARM/SIGNALS
OIL/CHEMICAL/GAS TANKERS
NOT CLEARLY HAZARDOUS
50
9
71
43
71
44
33
44
31
BULK CARRIERS
MARPOL ANNEX II
ALL OTHER DEFECTS
0
2000
4000
6000
Deficiencies
38
8000
10000
12000
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Table 3.2.2-4
Detentions per Class (Paris MOU)
1999
Total
Class number of
inspections
2000
2001
No. of
No. of
No. of
Total
Total
ClassDetention
ClassDetention
ClassDetention
number of
number of
related
ratio
related
ratio
related
ratio
inspections
inspections
Detentions
Detentions
Detentions
ABS
1,203
18
1.50%
1,168
11
0.94%
1,116
23
2.06%
BV
2,353
45
1.91%
2,305
40
1.74%
2,222
32
1.44%
CCS
175
4
2.29%
139
4
2.88%
134
3
2.24%
DNV
2,090
23
1.10%
2,100
24
1.14%
2,046
20
0.98%
GL
3,278
29
0.88%
3,202
27
0.84%
3,348
16
0.48%
KR
138
3
2.17%
127
3
2.36%
144
7
4.86%
LR
3,271
53
1.62%
3,127
52
1.66%
3,081
50
1.62%
NK
1,222
20
1.64%
1,219
27
2.21%
1,309
24
1.83%
778
31
3.98%
806
27
3.35%
600
11
1.83%
1,706
41
2.40%
1,678
38
2.26%
1,701
24
1.41%
RINA
RS
Fig. 3.2.2-4 Class-related Detention Ratio by Class (Paris MOU)
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
1999
2000
2001
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
ABS
BV
CCS
DNV
GL
KR
LR
NK
RINA
RS
Note: The detention ratio was determined by dividing detentions of ships with class-related
detentions by number of inspections.
39
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.2.3 Paris MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign
-1. Inspection Campaign on Securing Arrangements (from 1 March to 31 May 2001)
The concentrated Inspection Campaign in 2001 was dedicated to cargo securing which
has been a growing cause for concern following a number of incidents. The results
highlight the poor quality of the lashing materials in use, lashing not carried out
according to the lashing plan, or a lashing plan that does not conform to the Cargo
Securing Manual. The Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Cargo Securing which took
place in ports across the Paris MOU region was carried out on board all ships subject to
PSC inspection and carrying cargo which required securing. A total of 1,072 inspections
were carried out. Sixteen ships were detained for deficiencies related to cargo securing.
The results indicate that:
• In 31% the quality of the lashing material in use was moderate to poor, and especially
the quality of twistlocks which were often very poor.
• In 1 out of 10 ships either the lashing plan was not in accordance with the Cargo
Securing Manual (CSM) and/or the cargo was actually not secured in accordance with
the CSM/lashing plan.
• Only 2% of the inspected ships did not carry an approved Cargo Securing Manual.
• Authorities approving the CSM do not always ensure that all cargoes (e.g. timber deck
cargo, steel coils) which can be carried by the ship are included in the CSM.
-2. Inspection Campaign on ISM Code (from 1 July to 30 September 2002)
The Paris MOU on Port State Control started strict enforcement of the ISM Code on 1
July during a 3-month Concentrated Inspection Campaign. No extensions is to be granted
to the ship types which become compliant on 1 July 2002.
Other ship types which already have been certified in accordance with the ISM Code are
also to be subject to the inspection campaign to verify that the safety management system
(SMS) is actually working on board.
Port State Control officers in the MOU countries use a standard inspection form to verify
critical areas of the management system. Deficiencies in any of these areas will be
considered as "major non-conformities" which will lead to the detention of the ship.
Ships which have not been certified in accordance with the Code will also be detained. If
no other deficiencies are found the detention may be lifted and the ship will be refused
access to all Paris MOU ports until the ship and/or company have valid certificates.
-3. Strict Enforcement of STCW95 (from 1 August 2002)
The action referred to in 3.1.3-2 is taken in harmony with the Tokyo MOU.
40
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.3 USCG (Source: USCG web site)
3.3.1 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 the five columns and then added up for a
total point score. This numerical score, along with other performance based factors,
determines a ship’s boarding priority. The following summarises the priority categories
and associated operational restrictions which may be imposed on ships by U.S. Coast
Guard Captains of the Port.
Table 3.3.1 USCG Boarding Priority Matrix
Category
OWNER
FLAG
CLASS
HISTORY
Points
5 Points
7 Points
Priority I
5 Points
3 Points
0 Points
5 Points Each
1 Point Each
2 Points
SHIP
TYPE
1 Point
Application
Listed Owner or Operator
Listed Flag State
Class-related detention ratio equal to or greater than 2%
Class-related detention ratio equal to 1% or less than 2%
Class-related detention ratio equal to 0.5% or less than 1%
Class-related detention ratio less than 0.5%
Detention within the previous 12 months
Other operational control within the previous 12 months
Casualty within the previous 12 months
Violation within the previous 12 months
Not boarded within the previous 6 months
Bulk freighter over 10 years old
Carrying low value commodities in bulk
Oil or Chemical Tanker
Gas Carrier
Passenger Ship
Priority I vessels:
• 17 or more points on the Matrix, or
• ships involved in a marine casualty that may have affected seaworthiness, or
• USCG Captain of the Port determines a vessel to be a potential hazard to the port
or the environment, or
• ships whose classification society has a detention ratio equal to or greater than
2%.
Operational restrictions: Port entry may be restricted until vessel is examined by the
Coast Guard.
Priority II vessels:
• 7 to 16 points on the Matrix, or
• outstanding requirements from a previous boarding in this or another U.S. port, or
the vessel is overdue for an annual tank or passenger exam.
Operational restrictions: Cargo operations may be restricted until vessel is examined
by the Coast Guard.
41
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Priority III vessels:
• 4 to 6 points on the Matrix, or
• alleged deficiencies reported, or
• the vessel is overdue for an annual freight examination, or quarterly passenger
vessel re-exam.
Operational restrictions: No operational restrictions imposed; vessel will most likely be
examined at dock.
Priority IV vessels:
• 3 or fewer points on the Matrix.
Operational restrictions: Vessel is a low risk, and will probably not be boarded.
3.3.2 USCG 2001 Statistics
The “Port State Control report for the year ending 2001” was publicly released in June
2002. The total number of detained ships declined continuously from 1997 as shown in
Table 3.3.2-1.
Table 3.3.2-1 Vessel Arrivals & Detentions
Year
Distinct Vessel Arrivals*
Vessel Detentions
Detention Ratio
1997
7686
547
7.12%
1998
7880
373
4.73%
1999
7617
257
3.37%
2000
7657
193
2.52%
2001
7842
173
2.21%
* Distinct Vessel Arrivals are the number of ships over 300GT that make at least one visit to a U.S. port.
In accordance with the Boarding Priority Matrix, Classification Societies are evaluated
on their PSC performance over the previous three(3) years. The evaluation for 2002 was
based on the records for 1999, 2000 and 2001. The level of performance required to be in
the 0 point category is a three year average class-related detention ratio less than 0.5%. A
classification society that has a class-related detention ratio between 0.5% and 1.0% will
be assigned 3 points; between 1.0% and 2.0% will be assigned 5 points and class-related
detention ratios above 2.0% will be assigned a Priority I status. The table 3.3.2-2 and the
graph 3.3.2-1 list data for classification societies which are the IACS affiliated societies
among those publicly announced by the USCG. The table shows detention ratios and
whether or not a classification society is a target class in consequence thereof. According
to the table, the IACS affiliated classification societies not targeted are ABS, BV, DNV,
GL, LR, RINA and NK. Among the IACS members, RS is listed as a class assigned
Priority I status. KR is listed as a targeted class given 5 points and CCS is listed as a
targeted class given 3 points.
42
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Table 3.3.2-2
2001 USCG’s Announced list of Targeted Class
Distinct Vessel Arrives
Class
1999
2000
2001
Class-Related Detentions
Total
1999
2000
2001
Total
Ave.
“Targeted”
Ratio
Points
ABS
937
941
886
2764
0
3
1
4
0.18%
0 points
BV
620
618
614
1852
1
0
2
3
0.16%
0 points
CCS
124
125
143
392
2
0
0
2
0.51%
3 points
DNV
1239
1202
1345
3786
1
0
1
2
0.05%
0 points
GL
714
742
744
2200
1
0
2
3
0.14%
0 points
KR
167
164
158
489
3
3
1
7
1.43%
5 points
LR
1439
1527
1340
4306
5
5
2
12
0.28%
0 points
NK
1705
1671
1683
5059
9
4
1
14
0.28%
0 points
RINA
167
158
146
471
0
1
0
1
0.21%
0 points
RS
166
180
137
483
7
4
3
14
2.90%
Priority I
Fig. 3.3.2-1 USCG Class-related Detention Ratio by Class
3.50%
Detention Ratio (%)
3.00%
Priority 1
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
5 points
1.00%
3 points
0.50%
0 point
0.00%
ABS
BV
CCS
DNV
GL
KR
43
LR
NK
RINA
RS
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
The USCG publicly announced targeted flag states in May 2001.
The three (3) year
overall average for the 2002 evaluation was 2.70%, down from 3.55% in 2001.
The
following flag states with a detention ratio higher than the overall average were listed as
targeted.
Table 3.3.2-3 USCG List of 2002 Targeted Flag States
Detention
Flag State
Flag State
Ratio
Algeria*
Antigua & Barbuda
18.52% Lithuania*
3.05% Malta
Detention
Ratio
6.25%
3.63%
Belize
23.08% Mexico*
12.50%
Bolivia
42.86% Panama
3.78%
Brazil*
12.50% Portugal*
6.67%
Bulgaria*
Cambodia
5.88% Republic of Korea*
30.77% Russia
3.43%
3.27%
Cayman Islands*
3.03% Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
6.11%
Croatia*
5.77% Thailand*
4.69%
Cyprus
3.21% Turkey
6.77%
18.18% Vanuatu*
2.92%
Honduras
India
Latvia*
7.58% Venezuela*
14.29%
11.11%
* Countries that were not on the list in 2001.
The deficiencies on the detained ships from 1999 to 2001 are categorized as shown in
Figure 3.3.2-2.
In 2001, fire fighting and lifesaving appliances, and the associated drills, accounted for
one third of the overall deficiencies identified on detained vessels. Safety in general
remains a major contributor to detentions at 12%.
An increase in ISM related deficiencies was very remarkable in 2001. Despite a high rate
of compliance with Phase I of the ISM code, vessels continue to arrive in the U.S. that do
not have valid Safety Management Systems (SMS). Also, the total number of ISM
deficiencies identified aboard these vessels has risen. In the four years since 1998, over
100 vessels have been detained for failing to adequately implement the ISM Code, and
the number of ISM deficiencies identified on Phase I vessels has risen to approximately
128 which represents nearly 20% of the overall deficiencies identified on detained vessels.
The breakdown of deficiencies under category “ISM Related Deficiencies” is shown in
Figure 3.3.2-3.
44
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Fig.3.3.2-2
Deficiencies per Category (USCG)
ISM Related Deficiencies
Safety In General
Life Saving Appliances
Fire Fighting Appliances
63
SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies
Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery
43
41
Load Lines
29
19
20
18
Certificates/Logbooks
1520
79
133
61
51
40
2001
38
2000
12
7 11
10
12
Navigation
Tankers
1999
4
9
3
2
Cargo
8
46
5
2 7
35
Accident Prevention
Accommodation
Radio
20
3
01
113
001
MARPOL Related (Operational)
Food and Catering
Working Spaces
1
01
01
2
Alarm Signals
Mooring Arrangements
0
Fig.3.3.2-3
75 84
73
84 93
99
82
98 104
32 41
32
MARPOL, Annex I
Crew
128
60
34
20
40
60
80
Deficiencies
100
120
140
ISM Related Deficiencies on Detained Ships (USCG)
Maintenance of ship and equipment
Reports/analysis of non-conformities
4
Master Responsibility and Authority
4
Development of plans for shipboard operation 0
20
12
18
7
12
2
Resources and Personnel
10
12
16
8
Safety and environmental policy 00
Documentation
36
14
10
1
2001
2000
1999
7
4
5
Emergency preparedness 0 2
Company responsibility and authority 00
5
44
Company verification, review and evaluation 0
Certification, verification and control 0 1 2
ISM related deficiencies (General) 0 11
0
45
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.3.3
USCG Strict Enforcement of PSC Inspection
-1 Strict Enforcement of STCW 95 (from 1 August 2002)
Vessels flagged by Administrations that are not party to the STCW 95 Convention will be
assigned a Priority I boarding status upon arrival at each U.S. port and will be boarded at
sea prior to entering the port. Also, vessels flagged by Administrations that are not
included on the White List will be assigned a Priority II boarding status upon arrival at
each U.S. port and will be boarded at the pier. During these boardings for non-signatory
and non-white list countries, an expanded examination will be conducted to evaluate the
competency of the crew with regard to the safe navigation and operation of the vessel. In
those cases where the competencies of the mariners are found to be inadequate, the vessel
will be detained until the crewmembers identified as not meeting an equivalent level of
competency are replaced.
46
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.4 Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) (Source: AMSA web site)
3.4.1 AMSA 2001 Statistics
During the period January to December 2001, 2913 inspections were carried out and 127
ships were detained because of serious deficiencies found during port state control (PSC)
inspections in Australia.
Port
Table 3.4.1-1 Total number of inspections by port
1999 2000 2001
Port
(AMSA)
1999 2000 2001
Brisbane
181
200
252 Melbourne
172
155
137
Dampier
198
255
255 Newcastle
296
342
272
Fremantle
93
86
119 Port Botany
158
148
115
Geelong
95
117
122 Port Hedland
127
173
154
Gladstone
121
139
178 Port Kembla
132
150
120
Hay Point/Dalrymple Bay
149
126
173 Sydney
162
133
121
Kwinana
208
201
185 Other ports
661
701
710
Total
2753 2926 2913
Table 3.4.1-2
Flag
Panama
Cyprus
Liberia
Malta
Singapore
Hong Kong
Germany
Malaysia
India
Iran
Italy
Korea, Republic of
Taiwan
Turkey
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
Denmark
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Detentions
39
12
9
6
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Detentions by Flag (AMSA 2001)
DetenInspecDeten- InspecFlag
tion
tions
tions
tions
ratio
918
4.2% Belize
1
7
129
9.3% Bermuda
1
34
231
3.9% Cayman Islands
1
10
73
8.2% Egypt
1
12
129
4.7% France
1
17
159
3.1% Greece
1
109
19 21.1% Indonesia
1
13
53
7.5% Kuwait
1
9
35
8.6% Marshall Islands
1
28
31
9.7% Myanmar
1
8
13 23.1% Netherlands
1
41
47
6.4% Norway
1
72
48
6.3% Papua New Guinea
1
18
32
9.4% Philippines
1
94
21
9.5% Tonga
1
4
138
1.4% United Kingdom
1
27
47
4.3% Others
0
269
18
11.1% Total
47
127
2913
Detention
ratio
14.3%
2.9%
10.0%
8.3%
5.9%
0.9%
7.7%
11.1%
3.6%
12.5%
2.4%
1.4%
5.6%
1.1%
25.0%
3.7%
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Detention
Ratio
Bulk Carrier
69
1757
3.9%
Container Ship
17
236
7.2%
16
196
8.2%
1
8
12.5%
Livestock
Carrier
5
69
7.2%
Refrigerated
Cargo Vessel
0
20
0.0%
Ro-Ro Cargo
Ship
0
17
0.0%
Vehicle Carrier
1
113
0.9%
Wood Chip
Carrier
2
58
3.4%
General
Cargo/ MultiPurpose Ship
Heavy Load
Carrier
No. of
Detentions
No. of
Inspections
Detention
Ratio
Chemical
Tanker
6
65
9.2%
Combination
Carrier
0
22
0.0%
Gas Carrier
1
58
1.7%
Oil Tanker
7
208
3.4%
0
3
0.0%
0
2
0.0%
0
18
0.0%
Passenger
Ship
1
27
3.7%
Special
Purpose Ship
1
15
6.7%
Tugboat
0
5
0.0%
Other Type
0
16
0.0%
127
2913
4.36%
Ship Type
Tanker
Ship Type
Dry Cargo Ship
Detentions by Ship Type (AMSA 2001)
No. of
Inspections
Other
Table 3.4.1-3
No. of
Detentions
Tankship (non
specified)
High Speed
Passenger
Craft
Offshore
Service Vessel
Total
Table 3.4.1-4
Detentions by Class (AMSA)
1999
2000
2001
No. of
No of
Detention
No of
No of
Detention
No of
No of
Detention
Class
Detentions* Inspections
Ratio
Detentions* Inspections
Ratio
Detentions* Inspections
Ratio
ABS
13
258
5.0%
13
308
4.2%
10
304
3.3%
BV
16
174
9.2%
8
189
4.2%
13
195
6.7%
CCS
5
99
5.1%
2
101
2.0%
2
91
2.2%
DNV
17
292
5.8%
11
311
3.5%
8
314
2.5%
GL
6
162
3.7%
4
139
2.9%
12
158
7.6%
KR
6
129
4.7%
1
141
0.7%
4
130
3.1%
LR
19
462
4.1%
13
507
2.6%
22
470
4.7%
NK
34
1,014
3.4%
42
1,066
3.9%
37
1091
3.4%
1
39
2.6%
3
43
7.0%
5
38
13.2%
RINA
2
36
5.6%
0
25
0.0%
0
25
0.0%
RS
Notes: " * " Includes only ships which were detained because of deficiencies to items which were related to
certificates issued by classification societies.
48
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
1 4 .0 %
Fig. 3.4.1-1 Detentions by Class (AMSA)
1 2 .0 %
1999
2000
1 0 .0 %
2001
8 .0 %
6 .0 %
4 .0 %
2 .0 %
0 .0 %
ABS
BV
CCS
DNV
GL
KR
LR
NK
R IN A
RS
Fig. 3.4.1-2 Deficiencies per Category (AMSA)
1,375
Life saving appliances
1,337
Fire fighting appliances
849 955
Radio
1,641
1,572
2,030
1,810
1,206
934
796 937
770
918
997
669
Navigation
Load lines
Stability, Structure & Related Items 00
478
275
245
241 348
Crew & Accommodation
316
304
343
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
464
277
333
MARPOL-ANNEX I (Oil)
308
177
101
Accident prevention
151
175 277
ISM related deficiencies
214
160
173
Food and catering
208
151
153
Mooring arrangements
183
97
98
Carriage of Cargo & Dangerous Goods
109
94
120
Ship's certificates & Documents
188
83
75
MARPOL-ANNEX V (Garbage)
70
69
67127
Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers
34
48
Working spaces
60
24
All Other deficiencies 514
23
MARPOL related operational deficiencies
31 31
12
Bulk Carrier - Additional Safety Measures 00
10
Alarm signals 18
24
810
Oil, Chemical Tankers & Gas Carriers
7
2
MARPOL-ANNEX II (Chemicals)0 3
1
MARPOL-ANNEX III (Hurmhul Substances)11
0
SOLAS operational deficiencies
2001
2000
1999
1,320
1,373
Safety in general
0
500
1,000
1,500
Deficiencies
49
2,000
2,500
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
3.4.2 AMSA Focused Inspection Campaign
Since 1 December 2000, a focused inspection regime has been implemented in addition to
usual PSC activities. The program changes every four months allowing six areas to be
addressed over a period of two years. Each phase focuses on a specific area of concern.
Phase 1 - Bridge visibility / Collision avoidance (1 December 2000 to 31 March 2001)
AMSA surveyors inspected 1057 vessels of which 132 (12% of those inspected) had defects
in the following areas:
・Visibility from the ship’s bridge accounted for 4% of the deficiencies recorded.
・Radar operations accounted for 11% of deficiencies.
・However, navigation light defects and problems with their visibility accounted for 85%
of the deficiencies recorded.
The high percentage of defective lights was primarily due to lack of maintenance. Two
vessels warranted detention for aspects of this focused inspection campaign.
Phase 2 – GMDSS (1 April 2001 to 31 July 2001)
During this phase, AMSA surveyors inspected 1114 vessels, of which 465 (42% of those
inspected) recorded deficiencies in the following areas.
・The ability of members of the crew to use the GMDSS equipment, despite holding valid
and appropriate qualifications, accounted for 54% of the deficiencies recorded.
・Appropriate provisions onboard to support the operation of the GMDSS system
accounted for 36%,
・The qualifications of the operators accounted for 6%, and
・Understanding by the crew of operating procedures, particularly in relation to the
actions required when sending or receiving a distress alert accounted for 4%..
Nine vessels were detained as a result of defects in relation to this campaign.
Phase 3 - Crew Living conditions / STCW95 (1 August 2001 to 30 November 2001)
During this phase 1025 ships were inspected and 124 ships recorded deficiencies relating
to crew living conditions, with 78 vessels also recording deficiencies relating to STCW 95
issues. The percentages were 12% and 8% respectively.
The most prominent areas of deficiencies in crew living conditions related to sanitary
facilities and food storage and preparation. Besides, many ships inspected were found
being manned by officers and crew whose certification was not in compliance with the
requirements of STCW 95. Where certification of seafarers did not fully comply with the
STCW 95 requirements that would be in force after 31 January 2002, a “letter of
warning” was issued to the 313 ships. No ships warranted a detention resulting from the
items inspected under the focused inspection campaign taking account of the
recommendation made by IMO.
Phase 4 - Cargo Management (1 December 2001 to 30 March 2002)
This campaign was divided in to two general areas - general/container and dry bulk, and
examined aspects of cargo management relating to SOLAS:
i. Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes; and
ii. Chapter VII - Carriage of Dangerous Goods.
50
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001
Phase 5 – MARPOL Issues (31 March 2002 to 31 July 2002)
The fifth focused inspection program examined MARPOL issues, specifically:
・Oily Water Separators and disposal of oil residues;
・Oil Record Books; and
・Garbage Management.
Phase 6 – Compliance with STCW 95 (1 August 2002 to 30 November 2002)
New requirements for mandatory training and certification of officers and ratings came
into force from 1 February 2002. However a period of grace was applied until 31 July
2002. As from 1 August, full compliance to the requirements of the STCW 95 Convention
is to be examined with reference to the following:
・the originals of all certificates are available on board
・certificate endorsements are in the correct format
・all persons performing GMDSS radio duties are appropriately qualified
・tanker and passenger ship crew hold appropriate endorsements; and/or documentary
evidence of training; and
・the arrangements of watch schedules and rest periods.
51
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]