Annual Report on Port State Control (including the ISM ... - ClassNK

6 downloads 67 Views 2MB Size Report
Aug 1, 2012 ... The Paris MOU announced the results of the Concentrated Inspection .... -2 In 2012, the 19th meeting of the PSC Committee is scheduled to be ...
Photographs of Deficiencies identified during Port State Control Life Saving Inadequate re-setting of on-load release gear

Poor condition of embarkation ladder

Wasted support bracket

Wasted boat fall block

Fire Fighting

Leaked fire line

Wasted fire damper

Disconnected CO2 bottle

MARPOL

Oily inside of discharge pipe

Oily corelessor

Machinery Space

Oily and dirty E/R floor

Oily main engine

Patched sea water pipe

Load Line Corroded packing channel

Wasted gooseneck air vent.

Missing butterfly nut

Others Wasted hatch way

Cracked hatch coaming

Cracked bulwark stay

Broken fair lead

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Foreword This annual Port State Control (PSC) report summarizes deficiencies identified by PSC inspections carried out in various countries around the world. This report is prepared with the objective of building awareness of the present state of PSC as well as to improve future maintenance and inspections, and also Safety Management System is compiled into the following Chapters. “Chapter 1”: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide “Chapter 2”: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships registered to ClassNK in 2011 “Chapter 3”: Statistical Analysis of NK SMC ship recorded ISM deficiency at PSC “Chapter 4”: Statistical Data from the Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, and USCG Port State Control has been found to be a very effective tool in reducing the number of substandard ships as well as improving maritime safety and pollution prevention. There has been a significant increase in PSC activity worldwide in concert with a number of amendments to relevant international conventions. In order to carry out the effective implementation of PSC provisions, many countries have already signed and accepted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for regional cooperation in PSC for many regions, and have established a centralized computerized database system and/or a harmonized approach. PSC inspection procedures have been improved to cover not only a ships’ hardware or documents, but also the operational requirements of the relevant conventions or shipboard maintenance under the ISM Code. Also, because several new conventions or amendments such as the ISPS Code, the Bulk Carrier Safety initiative, and air pollution prevention, etc. have come into force, the extent of PSC inspections has been further increased. In light of this background, ClassNK is working hard to increase the transparency of information related to PSC issues and to make it even more difficult for substandard ships to survive in the market place. August 2012 Note: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented in this report. However, as information is collected from a variety of sources, ClassNK cannot be held responsible for any erroneous data, judgements or conclusions that may appear in this report, in cases were the information available should prove to have been incomplete or incorrect in any respect.

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide 1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions 1.1.1 IMSBC Code ·························································································· 1 1.1.2 Bridge Navigation Watch System······························································· 1 1.1.3 Electronic Chart Display and Information System ········································ 1 1.1.4 Control for SOx and particulate matter (PM) within North American Emission Control Area ············································································· 2 1.2 Recent global developments 1.2.1 MOUs around the world (1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MOU) ····································· 3 (2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU)····························································· 4 (3) Latin-American region (Viña del Mar or Latin-America Agreement) ············ 5 (4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU) ························································ 5 (5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MOU)············································ 5 (6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) ················································ 5 (7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) ························································· 6 (8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU)············································ 6 (9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU) ····················································· 6 1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (U.S.Coast Guard) ···························· 6 1.2.3 Equasis ································································································· 7 1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK 1.3.1 Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections (1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of the deficiencies ····· 8 (2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers ········································ 8 1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships (1) Special training at several in-house meetings ··········································· 8 (2) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners ·································· 9 1.3.3 Visits to Port States ················································································· 9

Chapter 2 Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK

2.1 General····································································································· 10 2.2 Data on Detentions 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State ········································································· 10 2.2.2 Detentions by ship type ··········································································· 12 2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age··········································································· 13 2.2.4 Detentions by ship size (Tonnage) ······························································ 14 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State ·········································································· 15 2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category ······················································· 16 2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies ···························································· 17 2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State 2.4.1 China ·································································································· 23 2.4.2 Australia ····························································································· 24 2.4.3 Japan ·································································································· 24

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.4.4 India ··································································································· 25 2.4.5 Indonesia ····························································································· 25 2.4.6 U.S.A ·································································································· 26 2.4.7 Russian Federation ··············································································· 26 2.4.8 Spain ·································································································· 26 2.4.9 Vietnam ······························································································ 27 2.4.8 Netherlands ························································································· 27

Chapter 3 Statistical Analysis of NK SMC ship recorded ISM deficiency at PSC

3.1 ISM deficiency cases 3.1.1 Total number and average rate ······························································ 28 3.1.2 Comparison ························································································ 29 3.1.2.1 Per factors related to ship ································································· 29 3.1.2.2 Per factors related to Company ·························································· 33 3.1.2.3 Per port state who carried out PSC inspection ······································ 36 3. 2 ISM deficiencies and PSC actions 3.2.1 Comparison of deficiencies per ISM Code requirement ······························· 37 3.2.2 Comparison of deficiencies and detentions per port state ···························· 38 3.2.3 Analysis of deficiencies recorded along with PSC actions applied ················· 39 Appendix: Extract from PSC inspection reports ············································· 43

Chapter 4 Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU and the USCG

4.1 Tokyo MOU 4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities········································ 51 4.1.2 Black List of Flag States ········································································ 52 4.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organization ···················································· 53 4.1.4 Deficiencies by Category········································································· 54 4.2 Paris MOU 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities········································ 55 4.2.2 Black List of Flag States ········································································ 56 4.2.3 Deficiencies by Category········································································· 57 4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table ············································· 58 4.3 USCG 4.3.1 USCG Statistics ···················································································· 59 4.3.2 Targeted Flag States (Safety) ·································································· 59 4.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Safety) ·································· 60

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Chapter 1 Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide 1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions Major amendments to international conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into effect in 2010 or will do so in 2011 are summarized below. 1.1.1 IMSBC Code (SOLAS VI, VII) Date: 1 January 2011

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0772, 786]

The IMSBC Code has become applicable to all ships as mandatory requirements since 1 January 2011. 1.1.2 Bridge Navigation Watch System (SOLAS V/19) Date: 1 July 2011

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0838]

Paragraphs 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 relating to the Bridge Navigation Watch System (BNWAS) were added to SOLAS Chapter V/19. A Bridge Navigation Watch System (BNWAS) is required to be installed on all affected ships by the following due dates: (1) Ships constructed on or after 1 July 2011: not later than the initial Safety Equipment Survey (SE survey). (2) Passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2011: not later than the first SE survey after 1 July 2012. (3) Cargo ships of 3,000 GT and upwards constructed before 1 July 2011: not later than the first SE survey after 1 July 2012. (4) Cargo ships of 500 GT and upwards constructed before 1 July 2011: not later than the first SE survey after 1 July 2013. (5) Cargo ships of 150 GT and upwards constructed before 1 July 2011: not later than the first SE survey after 1 July 2014. (6) Ships constructed before 1 July 2011 but delivered after the due dates of (2) to (5) above: not later than the initial SE survey. 1.1.3 Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19) Date: 1 July 2012

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0907]

Paragraphs 2.1.4 and 2.10, 2.11 relating to the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) were revised and newly added to SOLAS Chapter V/19. A Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) and back-up arrangement will be phased in from 1 July 2012. (1) Passenger ship (i) Passenger ship constructed on or after 1 July 2012, not later than the initial safety equipment survey. (ii) Passenger ship constructed before 1 July 2012, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2014. (2) Tanker (i) Tanker constructed on or after 1 July 2012, not later than the initial safety equipment survey. (ii) Tanker constructed before 1 July 2012, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2015. 1

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(3) Cargo ship other than tanker (i) Cargo ship, of 10,000GT and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2013, not later than the initial safety equipment survey. (ii) Cargo ship, of 3,000GT and upward but less than 10,000GT constructed on or after 1 July 2014, not later than the initial safety equipment survey. (iii) Cargo ship, of 50,000GT and upward constructed before 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2016 (iv) Cargo ship, of 20,000GT and upward but less than 50,000GT constructed on or after 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2017. (v) Cargo ship, of 10,000GT and upward but less than 20,000GT constructed before 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2018. (4) Ship constructed under the conditions of above (1)(ii), (2)(ii), (3)(iii), (iv) and (v), but delivered after the applicable due date, not later than initial safety equipment survey. 1.1.4 Control for SOx and particulate matter (PM) within North American Emission Control Area (MAROOL ANNEX VI) Date: 1 August 2012

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0916]

The control of the sulphur content in fuel oil for ships operating within the designated North American Emission Control Area (MARPOL ANNEX VI, Regulation 14) will commence on 1 August 2012.

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

2

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.2 Recent global developments 1.2.1 MOUs around the world In order to carry out PSC effectively, a recommendation concerning regional co-operation in the control of ships and discharges was adopted as a resolution by the IMO. In July 1982, fourteen European countries signed the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MOU), and today many countries have signed and accepted similar MOUs around the world. Currently, nine MOUs exist around the world and their respective activities in terms of implementing PSC are described below. European and North Atlantic region Asia-Pacific region Latin American region Caribbean region Mediterranean region Indian Ocean region Black Sea region West and Central Africa region Arab States of the Gulf

:Paris MOU :Tokyo MOU :Viña del Mar :Caribbean MOU :Mediterranean MOU :Indian Ocean MOU :Black Sea MOU :Abuja MOU :Riyadh MOU

(http://www.parismou.org/) (http://www.tokyo-mou.org/) (http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar/) (http://www.caribbeanmou.org/) (http://www.medmou.org/) (http://www.iomou.org/) (http://www.bsmou.org/) (http://www.abujamou.org/) (http://www.riyadhmou.org/)

(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MOU) 1) Activity Established: 1 July 1982 Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom -1 The Paris MOU consists of 27 participating maritime Administrations and covers the waters of the European coastal States and the North Atlantic basin from North America to Europe. The Paris MOU states that their aim is to eliminate the operation of sub-standard ships through a harmonized system of port State control. -2 Press releases have announced the recent activities of the Paris MOU as follows. Press release dated 14 February 2012 The Paris MOU announced the results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Structural Safety and load lines, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011. - In total, 4,250 ships were inspected and 42 ships (1%) were detained for CIC-related deficiencies. - The CIC questionnaire was completed during 4,386 inspections. Of them, general cargo/multi-purpose ships with 1,563 (36%) inspections, bulk carriers with 795 (18%) inspections, container ships with 495 (11%) inspections, chemical tankers with 433 (10%) inspections and oil tankers with 296 (7%) inspections included. Press release dated 1 June 2012 A Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Fire Safety Systems is scheduled to be carried out from 1 September to 30 November 2012 simultaneously with Paris MOU/ Tokyo MOU, Black Sea MOU and Indian Ocean MOU. 3

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2) New Inspection Regime (NIR) -1 Classification of the Ship Risk Profile A Ship Risk Profile is based on the flag, Recognized Organization and company performance, the number of deficiencies and detentions recorded for the ship, past inspection records of the ship, as well as the ship’s age and ship type. The Ship Risk Profile classifies ships into Low Risk Ships (LRS), Standard Risk Ships (SRS), and High Risk Ships (HRS). The time window is set according to the Ship Risk Profile as follows: - HRS: between 5-6 months after the last inspection - SRS: between 10-12 months after the last inspection - LRS: between 24-36 months after the last inspection -2 Banned Ships The banning criteria for the first and second ban have been amended as follows: - If the ship flies a black listed flag, it will be banned after more than 3 detentions in the last 36 months - If the ship flies a grey listed flag, it will be banned after more than 3 detentions in the last 24 months Any subsequent detention after the 2nd banning will lead to a ban, regardless of the flag of the ship. -3 Reporting obligations The ETA72 (a 72 hour pre-arrival) notification requirement has been widened to include all ships with a HRS profile as well as all bulk carriers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, oil tankers, and passenger ships 12 years of age or older subject to an expanded inspection. Further, all ships are required to notify their ETA24 (a 24 hour pre-arrival), ATA (the actual time of arrival), and ATD (the actual time of departure). (2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU) 1) Activity Established: 1 December 1993 Members: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Vanuatu, and Vietnam -1 The main objectives of the Memorandum have been announced as follows: 1. to establish an effective Port State control regime in the Asia-Pacific region through the co-operation of its members and the harmonization of their activities, 2. to eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety, 3. to protect the marine environment, and 4. to safeguard working and living conditions onboard ships. -2 Press releases announced the activities of the Tokyo MOU as follows. Press release dated 9 February 2012 The Tokyo MOU announced the results of its ‘Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC)’ on Structural Safety and the International Convention on load lines which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011. - In total, 5,901 inspections were carried out. Of them, bulk carriers were the ship type with the highest number of CIC inspections which accounted for 1,898 (32.16%), followed by general cargo vessels 1,565 (26.52%) and container vessels 983 (16.66%). 4

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

- The most significant deficiencies found during the campaign were related to the protection of opening (ventilators, air pipes, casings) 554 instances. Press release dated 23 April 2012 The 22nd meeting of the PSC Committee of the Tokyo MOU was held in Vina del Mar, Chile from 18 to 21 April 2011. - The Committee agreed to accept Peru as a Co-operating Member of the Tokyo MOU. - The Committee decided to put the measures for permanent implementation against under-performing ships that have been detained three or more times by the Tokyo MOU during the last 12 months. - The Committee approved the arrangements for the CIC on Fire Safety System that will be carried out from 1 September to 30 November 2012 jointly with the Paris MOU. 2) Targeting system To facilitate the selection of ships to be inspected throughout the Tokyo MOU region, a central computer database, known as ‘APCIS’, is consulted by PSC officers for data on ship particulars and for reports of previous inspections carried out within the region. The Tokyo MOU Authorities select ships for PSC inspection in accordance with a target factor that is calculated based on information stored in the database. (3) Latin-American region (Viña del Mar or Latin-America Agreement) Established: 5 November 1992 Members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela -1 The 18th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Latin American Agreement was held in Montevideo, Uruguay from 3 to 6 October 2011. -2 In 2012, the 19th meeting of the PSC Committee is scheduled to be held in Brazil. (4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU) Established: 9 February 1996 Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, and Trinidad & Tobago (5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MOU) Established: 11 July 1997 Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey (6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) Established: 5 June 1998 Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, Eritrea, France (La Reunion Island), India, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, and Yemen -1 The 14th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Indian Ocean MOU was held at Goa, India from 12 to 15 September 2011. 5

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

-2 The Indian Ocean MOU will carry out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on fire safety system arrangements from 1 September to 30 November 2011. -3. According to Annual Report 2012 of the Indian Ocean MOU, a total of 5,550 inspections were carried out and 600 vessels were detained in 2011. (7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) Established: 7 April 2000 Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine -1 The Black Sea MOU announced the results of its ‘Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC)’ on structural safety and international convention on load lines, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011. - In total, 1,199 vessels were inspected for the CIC and 21 (1.75%) were detained due to the CIC related deficiencies. - Largest group of the ship inspected for the CIC were general cargo/multi-purpose ships with 541 (45.1%) inspections, bulk carrier 330 (27.5%) and oil tanker 123 (10.3%) were also inspected. -2 The 13th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Black Sea MOU was held in Odessa, Ukraine from 5 to 7 June 2012. -3 CIC on fire safety systems arrangements is scheduled to be carried out from 1 September to 30 November 2012. (8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU) Established: 22 October 1999 Members: Benin, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, and Togo (9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU) Established: 30 June 2004 Members: The Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, The Sultanate of Oman, and United Arab Emirates 1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG) 1) Activity Although the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is not a member of any MOU, it is an observer at a number of MOUs, and undertakes effective PSC in cooperation with other MOUs. In the 1970's, the U.S. Coast Guard increased its emphasis on the examination of foreign vessels. Although this emphasis was primarily driven by requirements to ensure compliance with the then new U.S. pollution prevention and navigation safety regulations, boarding officers also exercised Port State authority when instances of non-compliance with SOLAS and MARPOL were noted. In 1994, the U.S. introduced risk-management methodologies into the Port State Control program in order to allocate limited inspection resources to where they could do the most good, by identifying those ships, ship owners, classification societies and Flag Administrations that were most often found lacking in meeting their international Convention responsibilities. On 1 January 2001, the USCG implemented an initiative to identify high-quality 6

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ships, called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century. This program has since proven to be very effective in recognizing well operated and maintained ships of good quality and continues in use today. 2) USCG Boarding Priority Matrix The USCG uses a Boarding Priority Matrix which enables it to rationally and systematically determine the probable risk posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S. ports. The Matrix is used to decide which ships Port State Control Officers should board on any given day, in any given port. Points are assessed in each of five columns for Safety matters and four columns for Security matters, and then added up for a total point score. This numerical score, along with other performancebased factors, determines a ship’s boarding priority (http://homeport.uscg.mil/). 3) Banning of foreign vessels All foreign flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters are required to be maintained in compliance with U.S. regulations, international conventions and other required standards. However, when a vessel has been repeatedly detained by the USCG (totaling three detentions within a twelve month period) and it is determined that failure to effectively implement the SMS onboard may be a contributing factor for the substandard conditions that led to the detentions, the USCG Headquarters (USCG-HQ) will issue a Letter of Denial prohibiting the ship from further entering any U.S. port until such time as certain actions have been taken to rectify the situation. However, even if a vessel has less than three detentions in twelve months, a Letter of Denial may be issued to any vessel which, in the option of the USCG; 1. may pose a significant risk to the safety of the vessel, crew or the marine environment; or 2. has a history of accidents, pollution incidents, or serious repair problems which creates reason to believe that such a vessel may be unsafe or create a threat to the marine environment; or 3. has discharged oil or other hazardous material in violation of any law of the United States or in a manner or quantities inconsistent with the provisions of any treaty to which the United States is a party.

1.2.3 Equasis Equasis is a unique database that collects safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet from both public and private sources and makes it easily accessible on the Internet (http://www.equasis.org/). It displays information from public authorities (Port State inspection and detention information from the three participating PSC regions, i.e. the Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, and USCG) and industry players (such as information on class, insurance, participation in industry inspection schemes, and quality organizations), all free of charge.

7

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK 1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections (1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of deficiencies When surveyors of the Society are notified of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, the Society actively co-operates with the reporting PCS Authority in a number of ways. The more direct of these steps include the following. - Surveyors liaise with port state control authorities to ensure that they are called in as soon as appropriate when deficiencies related to class and/or statutory matters are identified. - Surveyors liaise with PSC officers to ensure uniformity of interpretation of class and statutory requirements. - Surveyors provide PSC officers with background information, extracts from reports pertinent to the inspection, and details of outstanding recommendations of class and statutory items whenever so requested by the port state. - Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified by the PSC officers but also the general condition of the hull, machinery and equipment of the subject ship to the extent of an annual survey, carefully considering the seriousness of any deficiencies when they attend ships that have been subject to an intervention action by the port state. (2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers When a surveyor receives an inspection report from a port state authority, the report is sent to the ClassNK Head Office. The report is immediately examined for the causes of the deficiencies by experienced staff. This examination is carried out for all ships for which such reports are received, and the results are circulated to all sections concerned, including all members of the board of directors, as necessary. The results are also reflected a ClassNK PSC database that has been developed for the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related information electronically. The results of this examination are also submitted to the Flag State Administration of the ship, as required. A letter is also sent to owner(s) of the ship to remind them of their ultimate responsibility regarding the safety of their ships and protection of the marine environment. Visits may also be made to the ship owner or manager, when deemed appropriate, to advise them of the relevant deficiencies noted and to encourage them to more proactively improve the routine maintenance of their ships and take other measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of safe and environmentally friendly operation. In cases where the intervention is determined to be related to previous surveys conducted by surveyors of the Society, those surveys are treated as a non-conforming service, and appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken in accordance with the ClassNK quality system. 1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships (1) Special training at several in-house meetings Special training on PSC related issues is conducted at several meetings held regularly for general managers and managers, to ensure that surveyors carry out full and effective surveys with an uncompromising attitude towards ensuring the quality and safety of the ships classed with the Society. Special re-training is also carried out under the supervision of the Head Office and regional managers, as needed, for those surveyors who have conducted any surveys 8

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

determined to be a non-conforming service under the quality system of the Society. (2) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners (a) Visiting Management Companies When a ship classed with ClassNK is detained by PSC, a senior surveyor or manager of the Society visits the owner or the company managing the ship to discuss what steps can be taken to improve the routine maintenance of the ships in their fleet, so as to prevent both a recurrence of the deficiencies noted and the occurrence of similar problems in the future. (b) Meetings and seminars PSC related issues are regularly discussed at informal gatherings and technical committee meetings held with ship owners. At such times, explanations are given and documents presented, with emphasis placed on the importance of proactively ensuring the proper maintenance of ships and education of crew in order to prevent the detention of ships. (c) Publications The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” is distributed to all registered shipowners and operators in the ClassNK fleet. A checklist entitled “Good Maintenance on board Ships” has also been prepared in electronic format, which can be used by the ship’s crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship before entering port. 1.3.3 Visits to Port States Personnel from the ClassNK Head Office as well as local survey offices are assigned to visit the headquarters or offices of various Port States with the aim of introducing ClassNK and exchanging views on matters of mutual concern. Major port States and relevant organizations visited by executives of the Society during 2011 are listed below. United States Coast Guard (USCG) U.S.A Transport Canada Canada China Marine Safety Administration (MSA) Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

9

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Chapter 2 Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK 2.1 General The data in this chapter, on ships detained due to deficiencies identified during PSC inspections, is based on the following sources: (1) Notifications from Port States issued in accordance with IMO Resolution A.1052(27) “Procedure for Port State Control, and (2) Publications related to detained ships issued by the USCG, the Paris MOU, and the Tokyo MOU. From January to December 2011, 431 PSC detentions were reported relating to 401 ships classed by NK. This included cases of detention for reasons not related to class or to NK itself. The total number of NK-registered ships (500 GT or over) was 6,914 at the end of December 2011. Therefore, the 401 ships detained represent about 5.8% of the total number of ships in the NK fleet. 2.2 Data on Detentions 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK)

Flag State

Panama Liberia Singapore Malta Hong Kong Marshall Islands Vietnam Bahamas Thailand St. Vincent * Cyprus Turkey Indonesia Malaysia Others Total

Number of Registered Ships (500GT or over)

Number of Detentions

2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2,985 2,988 3,048 199 193 246 260 267 299 20 16 26 539 560 610 19 17 21 192 194 181 27 23 18 347 388 422 10 18 18 168 213 249 13 13 18 94 98 90 13 6 14 136 132 131 11 5 14 66 66 72 2 8 8 32 31 27 6 7 8 76 78 86 13 8 7 47 56 58 9 7 7 85 104 108 1 5 4 235 240 257 1 4 4 23 22 18 6,485 6,675 6,914 367 352 431

Detention Ratio (%) (= Detentions / Registered Number in each year) 2009 2010 2011 6.7 6.5 8.1 7.7 6.0 8.7 3.5 3.0 3.4 14.1 11.9 9.9 2.9 4.6 4.3 7.7 6.1 7.2 13.8 6.1 15.6 8.1 3.8 10.7 3.0 12.1 11.1 18.8 22.6 29.6 17.1 10.3 8.1 19.1 12.5 12.1 1.2 4.8 3.7 0.4 1.7 1.6 5.7 5.3 6.2

* Refers to St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The same applies in all subsequent tables.

10

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

300

246

250

2009 2010

Detentions

200

199 193

2011

150

100

50 20 16

26

27 23

19 17 21

18 18

18

13 13

10

23 22

18

13

14

11

6

14 5

2

8 8

13

6 7 8

9 7 7

8 7

5 4 1

18

4 4 1

Othe rs

Mala ysia

Indo nesia

s Cypr u

Turk ey

*

and Thail

Baha ma s

Flag State

St. V incen t

Mars

Vietn

am

hall I sland s

Kong Hong

Malta

Pana ma

Liber ia

Sing apor e

0

Fig 2.2.1-1 Detention by Flag (NK) 35.0 29.6

30.0

Detention Ratio (%)

25.0

2009

22.6

2010 20.0

19.1

18.8

2011

17.1 15.6

15.0

14.1

13.8

10.7

10.0

12.5 12.1

12.1 11.1

11.9

10.3

9.9 8.1 6.76.5

8.7 7.7

8.1

7.7

7.2 6.1

6 4.64.3

5.0

3.5

3

3.4

8.1

6.1 4.8 3.7

3.8 3

2.9

1.2

1.71.6 0.4

Mal a ys ia

Indon esi a

Turk ey

Cyp r us

* St. V inc en t

and Thail

Bah a mas

Vi etn am

Mars hall I sl and s

K ong Hong

Mal ta

Si ng apor e

Li ber ia

Pan a ma

0.0

Flag State

Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK) Of those Flag State Administrations with ten or more NK classed ships, the following Administrations were identified as having a detention ratio higher than 10% in 2011: Vietnam, Bahamas, Thailand, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Turkey. 11

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.2 Detentions by ship type Table 2.2.2 Detentions by Ship Type (NK) Number of Detention Ratio (%) Registered Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered Ship Type Ships in 2011 Number in each year) (500GT or 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 over) Bulk Carrier 2,916 186 161 209 8.3 6.7 7.2 General Cargo 650 62 65 93 9.8 10.3 14.3 Container Carrier 585 19 28 31 3.4 4.9 5.3 Chip Carrier 153 11 8 13 7.2 5.0 8.5 Cement Carrier 103 2 2 1 1.7 1.8 1.0 Ro-Ro Ship 92 3 2 9 3.0 2.0 9.8 Reefer Carrier 174 26 24 15 13.4 12.9 8.6 Vehicles Carrier 342 12 16 8 3.7 4.9 2.3 Oil Tanker 721 6 7 10 0.8 0.9 1.4 Oil/Chemical Tanker 625 29 32 31 4.6 5.0 5.0 Gas Carrier 353 7 4 9 2.1 1.2 2.5 Others 200 4 3 2 0.9 0.7 1.0 Total 6,914 367 352 431 Bulk carriers, General cargo ships, and Reefer carriers were identified as having a higher detention ratio than other ship types noted. (‘Detention ratio’ was determined by dividing the number of detentions by the number of ships of each respective ship type in the NK fleet.) 250

Detentions

209

200

2009 2010 2011

186 161

150 93

100

62 65

50

19

28 31 11

8

13

26 24 2

2

3

1

2

9

29 32 31 12 16

15

8

6

7

10

7

7

9

4

3

2

Bu lk

O th er s

C ar rie r

G en er al C ar C go on ta in er C ar rie r C hi p C ar r ie C r em en tC ar rie r R oR o Sh ip R ee fe rC ar rie Ve r hi cl es C ar rie r O i lT O an il/ C ke he r m ic al Ta nk er G as C ar r ie r

0

Fig. 2.2.2-1Detentions by Ship Type (NK) 14.3 13.4 12.9

2010

9.8 8.6

8.5

8.3 6.7

2009

7.2

2011

7.2 4.9

5.3

5

4.9

3.4

4.6

2 1

2.3 0.8 0.9

1.4

2.5

2.1 1.2

G en er al C ar C go on ta in er C ar rie r C hi p C ar r ie C r em en tC ar rie r R oR o Sh ip R ee fe rC ar rie Ve r hi cl es C ar rie r O il Ta O il/ nk C er he m ic al Ta nk er G as C ar r ie r

Bu lk

5

3.7

3 1.7 1.8

5

Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (%) 12

0.9 0.7 1

O th er s

9.8

10.3

C ar rie r

Detention Ratio(%)

16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age Table 2.2.3 Detentions by Ship’s Age (NK) Detention Ratio (%) Number of Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered Registered Number in each year) Ships in 2011 (500GT or over) 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

Ship’s age Up to 5 years old

2,769

41

47

71

1.8

2.0

2.6

Over 5 and up to 10

1,286

52

52

68

4.4

4.0

5.3

Over 10 and up to 15

1,216

95

79

94

7.3

6.4

7.7

Over 15 and up to 20

842

54

66

88

6.8

7.5

10.5

Over 20 and up to 25

382

52

34

41

10.9

8.1

10.7

Over 25

419

73

74

69

14.5

14.3

16.5

6,914

367

352

431

Total

95

Detentions

100

94

88

79

80

71

60 41

73

68 52

47

66 54

52

74

2009 2010 2011

69

52 41 34

40 20 0 Up to 5

Over 5 and Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and up to 10 up to 15 up to 20 up to 25

Over 25

Detention Ratio (%)

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

20.0

16.5 14.5 14.3

15.0 10.5

10.0 5.0

7.3 4.4 1.8

2

4

5.3

6.4

7.7

6.8 7.5

10.9

10.7 8.1

2.6

0.0 Up to 5

Over 5 and Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and up to 10 up to 15 up to 20 up to 25

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

13

Over 25

2009 2010 2011

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.4 Detentions by ship size (Tonnage)

Gross Ton (x 1,000) 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

Table 2.2.4 Detention by Size (Tonnage) (NK) Detention Ratio (%) Number of Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered Registered Number in each year) Ships in 2011 (500GT or over) 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2,478 122 132 164 4.7 5.3 6.6 1,204 92 76 89 8.1 6.5 7.4 781 47 49 63 6.7 6.6 8.1 906 56 41 61 7.2 4.8 6.7 509 23 17 28 5.3 3.6 5.5 273 3 9 7 1.3 3.6 2.6 200 15 12 7 8.2 6.0 3.5 563 9 16 12 2.0 3.2 2.1

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

6,914

367

352

431

164

2009

132 122 92

2010

89

2011

76 63 47

61

56

49

41 23

28 17 3

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

9

15

7

Over 50 and up to 60

12

16

9

7

Over 60 and up to 80

12

Over 80 x 1,000 GT

Fig.2.2.4-1 Detention by Gross Tonnage (NK)

9.0 8.1 7.4

7.0

6.6

6.5

2009

7.2 6.7 6.6

6.7

2010

6

6.0 5.0

8.2

8.1

8.0

Detention Ratio (%)

Detentions

Total

5.3

2011

5.5

5.3 4.8

4.7

4.0

3.6

3.6

3.5 3.2

3.0

2.6 2

2.0

2.1

1.3

1.0 0.0 Up to 10

Over 10 and up to 20

Over 20 and up to 30

Over 30 and up to 40

Over 40 and up to 50

Over 50 and up to 60

Over 60 and up to 80

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

14

Over 80 x 1,000 GT

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.5 Detentions by Port State

Port State

2009 2010 2011 59

88

117

Australia

89

76

83

Japan

21

27

40

India

10

8

26

3

6

23

U.S.A.(*1)

88 59 83

Australia

China

Indonesia

117

China

Table 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)

76 89 40

Japan

27 21 26

India

8 10 23

Indonesia

6 3 21 24

U.S.A.(*1)

31 12

Russian Federation

6

Spain

5

9 10 14

31

24

21

9

6

12

14

5

10

Vietnam

6

13

9

Republic of Korea

Netherlands

6

0

9

United Kingdom

6 7 5

Iran

5 6 4

Russian Federation Spain

Republic of Korea United Kingdom

20 5

18 7

Vietnam Netherlands

6 6

Italy

Iran

4

6

5

France

Italy

1

2

5

Belgium

France

3

6

4

Chile

Belgium

11

4

4

Ukraine

Chile

2

2

4

Ukraine

6

4

3

Israel

1

2

3

Singapore

3

1

3

Canada

5

1

3

Germany

3

0

3

Ireland Papua New Guinea

3 0

2 1

2 2

Portugal

2

0

Slovenia

1

Greece Poland Others Total

9 13 6 9 0 6 6 18 20

2009

2 1 4 6 3 4 4 11 4 2 2 3 4 6 3 2 1

Singapore

3 1 3

Germany

2010

5

Israel

Canada

2011

3 1 5 3 0 3

Ireland

2 2 3

Papua New Guinea

2 1 0

Portugal

2 0 2

2

Slovenia

2 0 1

0

2

Greece

2 0 1

1

0

2

Porland

2 0 0

0 48 367

0 43 352

2 20 431

Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)

(*1) Including Puerto Rico

Detentions by members of the Tokyo MOU made up more than 70% of the total number of ships detained in 2011.

15

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category In 2011, a total of 1,137 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 431 detentions, i.e., deficiencies which were serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, safety of the crew onboard, or to present an unreasonable threat of harm to the environment and therefore warranted the detention of the ship. The deficiencies are categorized as shown in Figure 2.3.1. Deficiencies related to fire-fighting and life-saving appliances combined accounted for more than one-third of the total in 2011. FIRE SAFETY MEASURES

205

LIFESAVING APPLIANCES

94

MARPOL - ANNEX I

35

SOLAS RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES

57 46

52 64

STABILITY, STRUCTURE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT

42

81

51 76

25 17 27

CERTIFICATE AND WATCHKEEPING FOR SEAFARERS MARPOL - ANNEX IV

24

11 8

2011 2010 2009

20 6 16

BULK CARRIERS - ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES

19

SHIP'S CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS

31 33

15

0 3

12 18 16

ALARM SIGNALS MARPOL RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES

6 4

CREW AND ACCOMMODATION (ILO 147)

3 2

CARRIAGE OF CARGO AND DANGEROUS GOODS

2 0

MOORING ARRANGEMENTS (ILO 147)

1 1

10

8 8

5

4 6 3

FOOD AND CATERING (ILO 147) OIL, CHEMICAL TANKERS AND GAS CARRIERS

4 2 2

ALL OTHER DEFICIENCIES

4 0 3

WORKING SPACES (ILO 147)

3 5 2

MARPOL - ANNEX V

3 2 0

ACCIDENT PREVENTION (ILO 147)

2 0 0

MARPOL - ANNEX II

2 0 2 0 4 1

AFS CONVENTION

0 0 2

MARPOL - ANNEX II

0 0 2

0

Fig. 2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)

16

57

41 43

PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY

ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SAFETY

66

45 51

RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS

134

66 61

47

SAFETY OF NAVIGATION

112

85

59 53

LOAD LINES

MARPOL - ANNEX VI

153 143

97

ISM RELATED DEFICIENCIES

238 217

50

100

150

Deficiencies

200

250

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies Figure 2.3.2 shows those items of detainable deficiencies that were reported frequently, in conjunction with the actual detention of ships in the NK fleet. Lifeboats, emergency fire pumps, and fire-dampers continue to be the major items where most detainable deficiencies were found. Maintenance of the ship and equipment also comprise major items noted in 2011. The items reported from 2009 to 2011 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (15) below. Lifeboats

75

43

70

Emergency Fire Pump

64 64

53

Fire-dampers

48

41

Maintenance of the ship and equipment

39 39

Oil filtering equipment Ventilators, air pipes, casings

34

24

Development of plans for shipboard operations

22

6

Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 9

Charts

19

12

Emergency lighting, batteries and switches

15 19

13 14 17

9

4

17 16

Fire prevention Resources and personnel

10

Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control

2011 15

9

2009

6

Water level indicator

6

14 8 14

11

5

14

MF/HF radio installation

14

Auxiliary engine

12 14

Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines Fire detection

11

Certificates for master and officers

10

16

21

16

18 17

14 14 14 22 13

Cleanliness of engine room

25

16

0

2010

17 15

2

Fire drills

19

15

7

Fixed fire extinguishing installation

22 22

4

Sewage treatment plant

34 26

23

17

Reserve source of energy

41

33

22

60 42

10

20

30

40

Deficiencies

Fig. 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported Frequentry (NK) 17

50

60

70

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(1) Fire Fighting Appliances Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Fire Safety Measures (Fire Fighting Appliances)” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(1) below. Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety Measures (Fire Fighting Appliances) Item Fire pumps

09 10 11

Noted Deficiencies Inoperable or low pressure emergency fire 53 64 64 pumps

Fire-dampers, Mechanical Ventilations

60 41 48 Wasted and holed fire-dampers

Prevention (fire protection)

19 16 17

Fire fighting equipment

17 20

Wasted and holed air vents Wasted fire doors and fire insulation Wasted and holed fire main system and hoses 16 Seized isolating valve of fire main Inadequate maintenance and validity expired 15 Wasted/holed fire main system Wooden blocked quick closing valves 15 Seized closing devices Leakage of fuel oil 14 Disconnected jacketed piping system Inoperable jacketed piping system

Fixed fire extinguishing system

6 2

Quick closing valves, Remote control devices

17 9

Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines

17 18

Fire detection

11 14 14 Inoperable fire detection units

Other (fire safety related)

5 10 12 E/R bilge full of oily water etc.

Doors within main vertical zone

6 4 12

Malfunction of self-closing device Un-gastight due to worn packing

(2) ISM Related Defects Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “ISM Related Defects” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(2) below. Table 2.3.2-(2) ISM Related Defects Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Maintenance of the ship and Inadequate implementation of SMS by crew 39 39 42 equipment Inadequate maintenance of ship’s equipment No record of hours of rest /work and incorrect Development of plans for 6 22 26 description shipboard operations Missing port arrival checklist Resources and personnel

10 7 15 Not familiar with operation of equipments

Masters responsibility and authority

2 6 12

Other(ISM)

2 6 12 ISM system does not ensure etc.

Emergency preparedness Documentation

14 15 10

Master failed to ensure proper implementation of requirements of the ISM Code

Failure of abandon ship drill and fire drill Not familiar with fire fighting equipment

4 5 5 SMS documents not on board

18

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(3) Life Saving Appliances Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Life Saving Appliances” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(3) below. Table 2.3.2-(3) Life Saving Appliances Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Inoperable lifeboat engine Damaged / Wasted lifeboats and inventories 70 43 78 Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-load Lifeboats release gear Inoperable lifeboat steering Operational readiness of Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-load 22 17 23 lifesaving appliances release gear Launching and recovery arrangements for survival craft Inflatable liferafts

Wasted / Holed davit Defective winch brake 4 2 5 Expired service period / hydrostatic release unit

22 19 11

(4) Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(4) below. Table 2.3.2-(4) Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Inoperable Initial start arrangements 12 16 15 Auxiliary engine Leakage of oil, dirty blocks Cleanliness of engine room

16 25 13 Excessive oil and bilge in engine room

Other (Machinery)

Inoperable incinerator, air compressor, emergency generator 17 15 12 Leaking pump, cooling sea water line, mooring winch, steering gear

Propulsion main engine

13 17 6 Leakage of oil, cooling water

(5) MARPOL-ANNEX I Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL-ANNEX I” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(5) below. Item Oil filtering equipment (Oily-Water Separating Equipment)

Table 2.3.2-(5) MARPOL-ANNEX I 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Inoperable separator, bilge pump Oily water inside overboard discharging line 22 33 41 By-pass line fitted for oil filtering equipment Not familiar with the operation of oil filtering equipment

15 ppm alarm arrangement

8 7 10 Failure of alarm

Oil record book

2 3 7 Defective entry in oil record book 19

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Oil discharge monitoring and control system

4 4 5 Defective automatic stopping device

Other

2 2 5 Inoperable waste oil incinerator

(6) Load Lines Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Load Lines” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(6) below. Item Ventilators, air pipes, casings

Hatch covers

Table 2.3.2-(6) Load Lines 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Wasted/Holed ventilator, air pipes 34 24 34 Damaged float of air pipe head Damaged closing device Wasted / Holed hatch cover 9 8 9 Wasted hatch cover cleats Wasted rubber packing

Doors

4 5 9 Not weather tight

Cargo and other hatchway

4 3 8

Wasted / Holed hatch Cover Wasted / Holed hatch coaming

(7) Safety of Navigation Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Safety of Navigation” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(7) below. Table 2.3.2-(7) Safety of Navigation Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Navigation charts not updated 15 12 19 Navigation charts for intended voyage not Charts available Defective VDR / S-VDR 4 4 9 Voyage data recorder (VDR) Alarm panel showing “system error” Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights, list 7 4 7 Nautical publications of radio signals, etc.) not updated Inoperable navigation lights 5 3 7 Lights, shape, sound-signals Navigation lights not supplied by battery (8) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Stability, Structure and Related Equipment” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(8) below. Table 2.3.2-(8) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Emergency lighting, batteries & Deficient batteries/emergency generator 14 13 14 switches Inoperable emergency lighting Inoperable emergency steering 9 5 7 Not familiar with operation of emergency Steering Gear steering Wasted / cracked structural members in WBT 5 1 7 Ballast, fuel and other tanks and FOT 20

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(9) SOLAS Related Operational Defects Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “SOLAS Related Operational Defects” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(9) below. Table 2.3.2-(9) SOLAS Related Operational Defects Item

09 10 11

Fire drills

Noted Deficiencies

5 11 14 Fire drill failed 16 9 8 Abandon ship drill failed

Abandon ship drills Operation of GMDSS equipment

7 1 4 Not familiar with the operation of GMDSS

(10) Radio Communications Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Radio Communications” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(10) below. Table 2.3.2-(10) Radio communications Item

09 10 11

Reserve source of energy

9 4

MF/HF Radio Installation

21 16

EPIRB

6 4

INMARSAT

2 4

Noted Deficiencies Inoperable radio equipments by DC power 22 Low voltage Not operable 14 Not operable by DC power Not operable 5 Annual test overdue Not operable 4 Not operable by DC power

(11) Ship’s Certificates and Documents Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Ship’s Certificates and Documents” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(11) below. Table 2.3.2-(11) Ship’s Certificates and Documents Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies 0 1 3 Certificate not onboard

EIAPP

(12) Alarm Signals Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Alarm Signals” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(12) below. Table 2.3.2-(12) Alarm Signals Item Fire alarm

09 10 11

Noted Deficiencies

2 6 5 Not operable

21

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(13) Certification and Watchkeeping Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Certification and Watchkeeping” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13) below. Table 2.3.2-(13) Certification and Watchkeeping Item 09 10 11 Noted Deficiencies Missing of endorsement on STCW certificates Certification of master and 22 10 14 by flag state officers Valid certificates expired (14) MARPOL Annex IV Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Alarm Signals” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(14) below. Table 2.3.2-(14) Alarm Signals Item Sewage Treatment Plant

09 10 11

Noted Deficiencies

4 9 17 Not operable

(15) Bulk Carrier Safety Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Bulk Carrier Safety” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(15) below. Table 2.3.2-(15) Bulk Carrier Safety Item Water level indicator

09 10 11

Noted Deficiencies

8 6 14 Water ingress alarm/sensor failure

22

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.8 show the most common deficiencies that resulted in the detention of vessels classed with NK under PSC inspections conducted by the top 10 Port States, by number of detentions reported from 2009 through 2011. 2.4.1

China Table 2.4.1 China Category of Deficiency Fire Safety Measures Lifesaving Appliances MARPOL Annex I Radio Communications Load Lines ISM Related Deficiencies Stability, Structure and Related Equipment Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery Bulk Carriers add. Safety Measures MARPOL – Annex IV SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies Ships Certificates and Documents Alarm Signals Safety of Navigation Type of Deficiency

2009 2010 2011 43 74 83 28 21 47 11 22 25 7 12 21 17 14 18 6 14 16 5 8 13 6 12 9 6 1 9 6 5 7 10 3 7 14 5 6 12 8 5 6 6 5

2009 2010 2011 Lifeboats 21 15 32 Oil filtering equipment 10 15 19 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 9 29 18 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 9 18 13 Ventilators, air pipes, casings 6 7 13 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 2 9 10 Fire Prevention 8 2 9 Reserve source of energy 3 1 9 Fixed fire extinguishing installation 0 0 8 Fire detection 5 7 8 Quick closing valves 5 4 8 Emergency lighting, batteries and switches 2 2 7 Water level indicator 4 1 7 Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines 4 5 6 Fire safety 0 0 6 MF/HF radio installation 3 7 5 A total of 290 detainable deficiencies relating to 117 detentions were noted in 2011. (2.5 detainable deficiencies/detention)

23

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.4.2

Australia Table 2.4.2 Australia Category of Deficiency ISM Related Deficiencies Lifesaving Appliances Fire Safety Measures Radio Communications Load Lines MARPOL – Annex IV Safety Navigation SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies

2009 2010 2011 12 33 45 38 25 28 41 16 23 17 7 10 12 16 6 0 4 6 2 2 6 1 4 5

Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 20 15 22 Development of plans for shipboard operations 0 19 20 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 29 9 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 7 5 10 Masters responsibility and authority 0 3 10 Lifeboats 9 6 6 Sewage treatment plant 0 4 6 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 4 2 5 Charts 0 2 4 MF/HF radio installation 11 2 4 Reserve source of energy 3 2 4 A total of 141 detainable deficiencies relating to 83 detentions were noted in 2011. (1.7 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.3

Japan Table 2.4.3 Japan Category of Deficiency Fire safety measures SOLAS related operational deficiencies MARPOL Annex I ISM related deficiencies Lifesaving appliances Load lines

2009 2010 2011 12 14 21 2 9 13 1 5 11 2 9 9 7 4 7 0 1 6

Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Oil filtering equipment 1 5 11 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 5 0 9 Fire drills 1 6 8 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 4 3 7 Resources and personnel 0 4 6 A total of 78 detainable deficiencies relating to 40 detentions were noted in 2011. (3 detainable deficiencies/detention)

24

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.4.4

India Table 2.4.4 India Category of Deficiency Safety of Navigation Fire Safety Measures MARPOL Annex I Lifesaving Appliances Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery ISM Related Deficiencies Radio Communications MARPOL Related Operational Deficiencies MARPOL - Annex IV Certificate & Documentation Certificate and Watchkeeping for Seafarers SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies Load Lines

2009 2010 2011 0 1 30 10 6 24 8 9 17 0 2 15 3 6 10 2 4 9 3 1 8 0 0 6 0 1 6 2 1 5 2 0 5 3 1 5 1 5 4

Type of Deficiency

2009 2010 2011 Charts 0 0 7 Voyage data recorder (VDR) 0 0 7 Lifeboats 0 2 5 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 1 0 5 Cleanliness of engine room 0 0 5 A total of 165 detainable deficiencies relating to 26 detentions were noted in 2011. (6.3 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.5

Indonesia Table 2.4.5 Indonesia Category of Deficiency Fire safety measures Radio Communications Load Lines

2009 2010 2011 4 3 23 0 0 7 0 5 4

Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Fire Prevention 0 1 11 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 2 1 4 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 1 1 4 Other (fire safety) 0 0 4 Functional requirements (Radio communications) 0 0 4 A total of 46 detainable deficiencies relating to 23 detentions were noted in 2011. (2 detainable deficiencies/detention)

25

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.4.6

U.S.A. Table 2.4.6 U.S.A. Category of Deficiency ISM Related Deficiencies Fire safety measures MARPOL Annex I

2009 2010 2011 0 0 10 0 12 8 0 0 6

Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Development of plans for shipboard operations 0 0 4 Fire fighting equipment and appliances 0 2 4 Oil record book 0 0 2 A total of 36 detainable deficiencies relating to 21 detentions were noted in 2011. (1.7 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.7

Russian Federation Table 2.4.7 Russian Federation Category of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Lifesaving Appliances 2 1 5 Fire safety measures 5 2 4 Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 1 0 3 Type of Deficiency

2008 2009 2010 Lifeboats 1 0 4 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 2 1 3 Other (Machinery) 0 0 2 A total of 22 detainable deficiencies relating to 12 detentions were noted in 2011. (1.8 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.8

Spain Table 2.4.8 Spain Category of Deficiency Fire safety measures Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery ISM related deficiencies

2009 2010 2011 6 5 6 4 4 6 15 4 5

Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Auxiliary engine 1 0 4 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 3 1 2 Other (ISM related) 0 0 2 Fire fighting equipment and appliances 1 1 2 A total of 40 detainable deficiencies relating to 10 detentions were noted in 2011. (4 detainable deficiencies/detention)

26

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.4.9

Vietnam

Table 2.4.9 Vietanam Category of Deficiency Certificate and Watchkeeping for Seafarers Lifesaving Appliances Fire Safety Measures

2009 2010 2011 2 0 7 0 0 3 5 9 3

Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Certificates for master and officers 2 0 6 Lifeboats 0 0 2 Fire pumps (including emergency fire pumps) 2 4 2 A total of 24 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions were noted in 2011.(2.7 detainable deficiencies/detention) 2.4.10 Netherlands

Table 2.4.9 Netherlands Category of Deficiency MARPOL – Annex VI Fire Safety Measures ISM Related Deficiencies Lifesaving Appliances

2009 2010 2011 0 0 5 1 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 3

Type of Deficiency 2009 2010 2011 Sulphur oxides 0 0 4 Lifeboats 0 0 2 Fire-dampers, mechanical ventilations 3 0 2 15 ppm alarm arrangement 0 0 2 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 0 0 2 A total of 24 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions were noted in 2011.(2.7 detainable deficiencies/detention)

27

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Chapter 3 Statistical Analysis of NKSMC ship recorded ISM deficiency at PSC In this chapter, terms defined below are used. NKSMC ship:

Ship holding an international safety management certificate issued by ClassNK NKDOC company: Company holding a Document of Compliance issued by ClassNK ISM deficiency: Deficiency of a safety management system related to a requirement of ISM Code ISM deficiency case: Case where any ISM deficiencies were recorded in a PSC inspection report ISM deficiency ship: Ship having a safety management system an ISM deficiency of which was recorded in a PSC inspection report ISM deficiency rate*: Percentage of ISM deficiency ships to the whole NKSMC ships or a group of NKSMC ships in consideration

* Defining ISM deficiency rate as percentage of ISM deficiency cases to NKSMC ships that subjected to a PSC inspection is more meaningful. However, as the total number of such NKSMC ships is unknown, the total number of the whole or a group of NKSMC ships was used instead.

3. 1 ISM deficiency cases 3.1.1 Total number and average rate The total numbers of ISM deficiency cases and the average ISM deficiency rates in the past 4 years are shown in Table 3.1.1.1. In year 2008-2010, the rate show a tendency of decreasing, however, it has increased again in year 2011, to the value 5.4%. Table 3.1.1.1 Total number and rate of ISM deficiency cases Year

ISM deficiency cases (A)

NKSMC ships total No. (B)

ISM deficiency rate (A/B)

2008

202

4148

4.9

2009

178

4073

4.4

2010

169

4212

4.0

2011

202

4505

4.5

28

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

3.1.2 Comparison 3.1.2.1 Per factors related to ship (a) Per type of ship ISM deficiency rate per type of ship is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (a) and Figure 3.1.2.1(a).  The ISM deficiency rate of bulk carrier decreased 1.1% in 2010.  The ISM deficiency rate of the other cargo ship was the same rate since 2009.  The ISM deficiency rate of Gas carrier has been increasing since 2009.  There was no report of ISM deficiency of passenger & MODU in 2011.

Table 3.1.2.1 (a)

ISM deficiency rate per type of ship

No. of ISM No. of deficiency NKSMC cases ships

Type of ship

ISM deficiency rate (%) (A/B)

2011

2011

2008

2009

2010

2011

Bulk carrier

95

1798

5.1

6.1

4.2

5.3

Other cargo ship

85

1680

6.4

4.9

4.8

5.1

Oil tanker

15

769

2.0

1.5

2.3

2.0

Chemical tanker**

1

26

0.0

0.0

8.3

3.8

Gas carrier

6

227

2.9

0.9

1.8

2.6

Passenger & MODU

0

5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

202

4505

4.9

4.4

4.0

4.5

(A)

*



Including oil/chemical tankers.

(B)

** Excluding oil/chemical tanker.

10.0 2008

8.0

ISM

2009

6.0

defic.

2010

rate 4.0

2011

(%)

2.0 0.0

Bulk carrier

Other cargo ship

Figure 3.1.2.1 (a)

Oil tanker

Chemical tanker Gas carrier

Passenger & MODU

ISM deficiency rate per type of ship

(b) Per age of ship The numbers of ISM deficiency ships per age group of ship in recent four years are shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (b) together with the numbers of NKSMC ship and the ISM deficiency rates in Figure 3.1.2.1 (b)-1, and ISM deficiency rate per type and age group of ship in 2011 in Figure 3.1.2.1(b)-2. 29

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

 The older a ship is greater the ISM deficiency rate tends to be. Such tendency is more conspicuous for bulk carrier and other cargo ship. This is attributed to the increase in the number of deficiencies due to inadequate maintenance of ship including equipment and fittings with aging of ships. Table 3.1.2.1 (b) Age 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 Total

No. of ISM deficiency ships per age group of ship

No. of ISM deficiency cases 2008 2009 2010 32 24 31 32 23 32 57 52 39 12 27 27 35 29 16 34 23 24 202 178 169

(A) 2011 52 37 47 39 16 11 202

No. of NKSMC ships (B) 2008 2009 2010 2011 1440 1586 1671 1803 822 832 940 1064 849 817 773 744 355 355 381 463 373 238 210 218 309 245 237 213 4148 4073 4212 4505

14.0

2008年

12.0

2009年

10.0

2010年

defic.

8.0

2011年

rate

6.0

(A/B)

4.0

ISM

(%)

2.0 0.0 0 ‐ 4年

5 ‐ 9年

Figure

10 ‐ 14年

3.1.2.1 (b) -1

15 ‐ 19年

20 - 24年

25年以上

ISM deficiency rate per age group of ship

20.0 15.0 ISM 10.0

Bulk carrier Other cargo ship Oil tanker

defic. 5.0 rate (A/B)

0.0 15 ‐ 19 20 - 24 0‐4 5‐9 10 ‐ 14 25 Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -2 ISM deficiency rate (%) per ship type and age group of ship

(c) Per gross tonnage of ship The numbers of ISM deficiency cases per gross-tonnage group of ship in recent four years are shown in Table 3.1.2.1(c) together with the numbers of NKSMC ship, and the ISM deficiency rates in Figure 1.2.1(c).  The ISM deficiency rate of large ships of more than 50,000 gross tonnage has stayed low continuously and decreased from around 3 % in 2010 to around 2 % in 2011.

30

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Table 3.1.2.1 (c) GT ( x 1,000) 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 80 80 Total

No. of ISM deficiency ships per GT group of ship

No. of ISM deficiency cases (A) 2008

67 34 32 39 13 8 4 5 202

2009

47 45 21 29 15 5 7 9 178

2010

2011

62 31 18 24 8 6 6 14 169

67 43 24 34 17 4 3 10 202

2008

1189 782 505 551 380 197 135 409 4148

No. NKSMC ships (B) 2009

1149 741 459 556 363 212 150 443 4073

2010

1134 757 474 578 389 222 169 489 4212

8.0

2009 2010

6.0

2011

5.0

defic. rate (A/B) ( )

1106 815 515 672 438 241 171 547 4505

2008

7.0

ISM

2011

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 30

30 - 40

Figure

3.1.2.1 (c)

40 - 50

50 - 60

60 - 80

ISM deficiency rate per GT

31

80以上

GT ( x 1,000)

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(d) Per flag of ship ISM deficiency rate per flag of ship in 2008 to 2011 is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (d) together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases.  ISM deficiency rate together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Philippine, Panamanian and Liberian increased in 2011.  ISM deficiency rate of Japanese is decreasing from 2010. Table

Flag Philippines St. Vincent and the Grenadines Thailand Malta Turkey Panama Liberia Cyprus Marshall Islands Vanuatu H.K. (China) Singapore Malaysia Japan Bahamas Greece Dominica Syria Former Netherlands Antilles Total/Average

3.1.2.1 (d)

2008 No. Rate 4 6.1

ISM deficiency rate per flag of ship

2009 No. Rate 1 2.1

2010 No. Rate 3 6.8

2011 No. Rate 4 9.1

4

30.8

1

8.3

1

7.1

1

9.1

3 10 4 113 12 7 4 1 11 16 1 5 2 3 1 0

4.1 8.5 8.3 4.7 6.2 10.3 4.2 3.6 4.7 3.7 2.3 3.6 2.0 6.4 16.7 0.0

0 10 4 106 15 5 7 0 6 9 1 9 1 2 0 1

0 8.3 7.8 4.5 8.3 8.5 6.2 0 2.7 2.0 2.8 6.0 0.9 4.4 0 100.0

5 8 5 97 4 4 7 3 9 15 2 4 2 0 0 0

9.4 6.5 6.9 4.1 2.1 6.9 5.0 6.5 3.9 3.1 6.1 2.3 1.8 0 0 0

5 7 4 126 11 3 9 2 9 16 1 3 1 0 0 0

8.8 5.8 5.3 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 1.6 0.9 0 0 0

1

100.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

202

4.9

178

4.4

169

4.0

202

4.5

32

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

3.1.2.2 Per factors related to Company Note: The analysis presented in this section covers only NKSMC ships under the management of NKDOC Companies. (a) Per number of ships under management by Company ISM deficiency rate per group of Companies corresponding to the number of ships under their management in 2011 are shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (a) together with ISM deficiency rate.  The ISM deficiency rate of the group of 1-5, 6-10 ships is 5.6%, the highest, followed by that of 11-15 ships, 4.5%, the same as total deficiency rate.  In 2011 the ISM deficiency rate shows smaller value in steps, corresponding with the number of the ships. 11 ships and 31 ships are boundary. Table 3.1.2.2(a) ISM deficiency rate per No. of ships under management of Company No. of No. of ISM No. of ships No. of ISM deficiency NKSMC ships deficiency under Companies cases rate management (A) (B) (A/B) 1-5

396

51

906

5.6

6 - 10

94

39

699

5.6

11 - 15

42

24

534

4.5

16 - 20

23

17

403

4.2

21 - 30

29

30

704

4.3

31 - 40

14

17

508

3.3

41 - 50

5

8

225

3.6

51 -

7

16

526

3.0

610

202

4505

4.5

Total

6.0 5.0

ISM defic. rate (%)

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1~5

6~10

11~15

16~20

21~30

31~40

41~50

51以上

No. of ships under management of Company

Figure 3.1.2.2(a)

ISM deficiency rate per No. of ships under management of Company

33

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(b) Per years past since the first issue of NKDOC for Company The numbers of ISM deficiency cases and ISM deficiency rate per years past since the first issue of NKDOC for Company are shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (b)..  There is no correlation between the years and ISM deficiency rate. Table

3.1.2.2 (b)

ISM deficiency rate per length of Company’s SMS operation

No. of ISM deficiency cases Length No. of 2011(A) of SMS Companies operation Per Total company

No. of NKSMC ships ISM deficiency rate 2011(B) (A/B) Per Total 2010 2011 company

18

4

0

0.00

68

17.0

0.0

0.0

17

20

22

1.10

534

26.7

2.9

4.1

16

42

29

0.69

611

14.5

1.9

4.7

15

73

28

0.38

728

10.0

4.4

3.8

14

57

19

0.33

400

7.0

3.8

4.8

13

14

5

0.36

158

11.3

3.7

3.2

12

8

2

0.25

75

9.4

4.1

2.7

11

22

6

0.27

134

6.1

8.1

4.5

10

35

14

0.40

292

8.3

4.8

4.8

9

14

2

0.14

80

5.7

4.6

2.5

8

16

9

0.56

89

5.6

5.3

10.1

7

10

0

0.00

101

10.1

10.1

0.0

6

14

6

0.43

112

8.0

1.4

5.4

5

16

5

0.31

85

5.3

4.3

5.9

4

15

10

0.67

106

7.1

2.6

9.4

3

26

1

0.04

72

2.8

6.3

1.4

2

36

7

0.19

151

4.2

4.2

4.6

1

41

2

0.05

85

2.1

5.7

2.4

Total

463

167

0.36

3881

8.4

4.1

4.3

12.0

ISM defic.

10.0

2011

8.0

2010

6.0 4.0 2.0

rate (%)

0.0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Length of Company’s SMS operation

Figure 3.1.2.2 (b) ISM deficiency rate per length of Company’s SMS 34

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(c) Per country/region where Company is located ISM deficiency rate per country/region where Company is located, is shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (c), together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases, and in Figure 3.1.2.2 (c).  The averaged ISM deficiency rate of ships under the management of Companies located in Thailand and Turkey have decreased each from 11.4 % (2010) to 10.3%, from 9.7 % to 5.1 %, respectively.  That of ships under the management of Companies located in Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Hong Kong (China) have increased from 5.8% to 7.7 %, from 2.9% to 6.2%, from 3.4% to 6.2%, from 2.7% to 5.0%, respectively.  Although the rate in Greece and Singapore were equivalent, the rate in Japan was slightly increased from 4.3% to 4.8%. Table 3.1.2.2(c) ISM deficiency rate per country/region in which company are located No. of No. of ISM deficiency ISM deficiency NKSMC ships rate No. of Country/Region cases (B) (A/B) Companies (A) 2010 2011 6 6 58 11.4 10.3 Thailand 36 12 155 5.8 7.7 Korea 2 1 15 7.7 6.7 Canada 16 10 161 2.9 6.2 Taiwan 25 14 232 3.4 6.0 Philippines 101 20 346 5.7 5.8 Greece 43 8 156 9.7 5.1 Turkey 18 16 318 2.7 5.0 H.K. (China) 49 6 121 3.1 5.0 China 189 88 1835 4.3 4.8 Japan 5 1 24 3.6 4.2 India 8 2 69 5.1 2.9 Malaysia 4 1 44 0.0 2.3 Germany 7 1 47 0.0 2.1 U.K. 62 16 807 2.1 2.0 Singapore 39 0 117 2.0 0.0 (Others) 610 202 4505 4.0 4.5 Total 12.0 10.0

ISM

8.0

defic.

4.0

Singapore

U.K.

Germany

Malaysia

India

Japan

China

H.K. (China)

Turkey

Greece

Philippines

Canada

Korea

0.0

Taiwan

2.0

Thailand

rate

6.0

Figure 3.1.2.2 (c) Deficiency rate per country/region in which company are located 35

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

3.1.2.3 Per port state who carried out PSC inspection The number of ISM deficiency cases per port state who executed PSC is shown in Table 3.1.2.3.  The numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Australia and China have been increasing, since 2008.  The numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Japan increased from 26 to 36 in 2011.  The number of ISM deficiency cases in U.S.A. increased from 11 cases (2012) to 22 cases.  The numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Tokyo MOU member countries and USCG are significantly large. Table 3.1.2.3 ISM deficiency case per port state who executed PSC No. of ISM deficiency cases Authority 2008 2009 2010 2011 Australia 48 47 50 63 Japan 19 14 26 36 U.S.A. 34 17 11 22 China 12 12 15 17 Indonesia 0 0 2 8 U.K. 7 5 5 7 Spain 8 12 6 6 Korea 11 11 6 5 India 2 5 1 5 France 7 1 7 4 Italy 9 5 3 4 Netherlands 0 4 2 3 Viet Nam 2 0 2 3 Portugal 0 1 0 3 Taiwan 3 0 6 2 Belgium 4 7 4 2 Russia 5 3 3 2 Ireland 2 1 2 2 Chile 1 0 1 2 Argentina 1 6 4 1 Germany 6 3 2 1 Singapore 2 3 0 1 Greece 1 1 0 1 Kenya 0 0 0 1 Bulgaria 0 0 0 1 Brazil 3 4 3 0 New Zealand 1 4 2 0 Iran 2 2 1 0 Poland 4 0 1 0 Romania 1 0 1 0 Ukraine 1 0 1 0 South Africa 0 0 1 0 Turkey 0 0 1 0 (Others) 6 10 0 0 Total 202 178 169 202 36

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

3.2 ISM deficiencies and PSC actions 3.2.1 Comparison of ISM deficiencies per ISM Code requirement The total numbers of ISM deficiencies recorded in PSC reports in 2008 to 2011 and those divided according to ISM Code requirements, by its sections, are shown in Table 3.2.1. Table 3.2.1 Total No. of ISM deficiencies and distribution per ISM Code requirement ISM Code requirements (Section No.) Year Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 99* 2008 1 19 14 2 24 27 46 33 30 114 21 6 6 2 345 2009 0 5 10 1 11 23 37 25 17 109 5 4 3 22 272 2010 0 6 14 1 12 26 46 23 10 87 11 4 3 1 244 2011

0

10

5

2

12

25

44

28

11

86

17

5

2

24

271

99* : The ISM Code requirement with which the deficiencies were raised was not specified.

Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Requirements for General (1.2.3 Compliance with mandatory rules, etc.) Safety and environmental protection policy Company responsibilities and authority Designated persons Master’s responsibility and authority Resources and personnel Shipboard operations Emergency preparedness Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences Maintenance of the ship and equipment Documentation Company verification, review and evaluation Certification and periodical verification

 The total number of ISM deficiencies increased to 271 in 2011 with the increase of ISM deficiency cases to 202. The number of ISM deficiencies per ISM deficiency case is 1.34% decreased from 1.44% in 2010.  Percentage of ISM deficiencies related to “Section 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment” decreased to 31.7% from 35.5% in 2010.  The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to “Section 6 Resources and personnel” decreased to 9.2% from 10.6% and that of “Section 8 Emergency preparedness” increased to 10.3% from 9.4%.  The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to “Section 7 Shipboard operations” decreased to 16.2% from 18.8%, that of “Section 9 Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences” was 4.1% same to in 2009.

37

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

3.2.2 Comparison of deficiencies and detention per port state The numbers of ISM deficiencies and detentions of ship recorded in PSC reports in 2011 per ISM Code requirements and port state who executed PSC are shown in Table 3.2.2.1. Those in the brackets are the numbers of detention. Table 3.2.2.1 No. of ISM deficiencies & detention per port state & ISM Code requirements ISM Code requirements (Section No.) Authority Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 99* 1 1 9 3 20 10 5 24 3 2 3 81 Australia (7) (1) (12) (2) (8) (1) (1) (32) 10 10 6 4 24 3 2 59 Japan (8) (2) (1) (1) (12) 7 3 1 1 5 3 1 7 3 31 U.S.A. (1) (1) (4) (2) (2) (10) 1 1 5 2 7 2 1 1 2 22 China (1) (2) (5) (1) (9) 1 2 1 7 11 Indonesia (1) (1) 8 2 10 Korea (1) (1) (2) 2 2 1 2 7 Spain (1) (2) (1) (4) 2 1 3 1 7 U.K. (1) (1) (3) (1) (6) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 India (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (5) 2 1 1 4 France (0) 1 1 3 4 6 9 3 1 5 33 (Others) (1) (1) (2) (4) (6) (3) (17) 0 10 5 2 12 25 44 28 11 86 17 5 2 24 271 Total (0) (3) (1) (1) (8) (15) (22) (8) (0) (27) (4) (2) (0) (7) (98) (

): Number of detention

99*: The ISM Code requirement by Section with which the deficiencies were raised was not specified.

 The largest number of ISM deficiencies was pointed out at PSC inspections carried out in Australia, followed by Japan, U.S.A., China and Indonesia.  As to the number of detention of the ship, Australia was the largest, followed by U.S.A, Japan, China, U.K. and India.  The detainable ISM deficiencies related to “Section 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment” numbered 27 which accounted for 27.6% of all the detainable ones, and then the percentage of those related to “Section 7 Shipboard operations” and “Section 8 Emergency preparedness” are 22.4% and 8.2%, respectively.

38

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

3.2.3 Analysis of deficiencies recorded along with PSC actions applied The distribution of ISM deficiencies recorded in PSC reports in 2011 per ISM Code requirements by its sections and PSC actions taken is shown in Table 3.2.3.1 and the distribution of the same by ISM Code requirement in Figure 3.2.3.1. Table 3.2.3.1 Distribution of ISM deficiencies per ISM Code requirement and PSC Action

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Unknown 3)

99

-

Unknown

before back to US port

70

Defic. to be rectified

within 30 days

50

Defic. to be rectified

within 7 days

40

Defic. to be rectified

302) Grounds for detention

within 3 months

18

Defic. to be rectified

before departure

17

Defic. to be rectified

within 14 days

16

Defic. to be rectified

next port

Sect. No.

Total Defic. rectified

ISM Code

15 Defic. to be rectified by

10

Others

PSC Action Codes1)

0 10

1

2

1

3

3

5

1

1

1

2

2

1

12

1 2

8

1

1

25

4

6

15

44

3

17

22

4

14

8

1

10

8

44

27

4

7

4

1

2

2

1

28

1

11 86 17

2 1

5 2 24

1

1

5

3

8

7

2 1 1

1

2

1

1

GT

271

1

0

9

32

113

98

1

1

7

7

2

GT4)

244

1

1

3

24

106

100

0

1

0

5

3

Notes: 1) The Action Codes are those used under Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, and USCG as follows. Action Code 10, 15, 16, 17 and 30 are used under Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and USCG Action Code 18 and 99 are used under Paris MOU and Tokyo MOU Action Code 40, 50 and 70 are used under USCG. 2) The number of Action Codes 30 includes Action Code 19 “Rectify major non conformity before departure (Only for ISM defective items and always with a detainable deficiency)” used under Paris MOU, Vina Del Mar MOU, etc., not used under Tokyo MOU and USCG. 3) Related ISM Code requirement is not specified. 4) GT, Ground total. The data of 2010 were presented for comparison.

39

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

120 2010

100

2011 80

No.

60

of ISM defic.

40 20 0 10

15

16

17

18

30

40

50

70

99

Action Code Figure 3.2.3.1 Distribution of ISM deficiencies per ISM Code requirement Analysis with collected ISM deficiency data, which are summarized in Table 3.2.3.1, and the descriptions of ISM deficiencies related to the requirements of ISM Code Sections 6 to 10 recorded in PSC inspection reports along with PSC actions are presented below. For more information, the typical examples of PSC inspection report carried out in Australia, China, Spain, France, U.K., Indonesia, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal and U.S.A. in 2011 are given at the Appendix, showing the ISM deficiencies raised together with deficiencies on ship constructions, equipment, operation, etc. And further examples which we had are up-loaded on our web-site < http://www.classnk.or.jp/> titled “Monthly PSC Information” in “ISM Code Related”. General  Among PSC actions, per Action Code, applied to the ISM deficiencies, the number of the deficiencies related to “Defic. to be rectified within 3 months” was the largest one which accounted for 41.7%, followed by those related to “Grounds for detention” accounting for 36.2% and those related to “Defic. to be rectified before departure” accounting for 11.8%.  The number of “Grounds for detention” in 2011 was 98 similar to 100 in 2010, and the percentage of that against the total number of deficiencies decreased from 40.9% in 2010. Among the numbers per ISM Code requirement, “Section 10 Maintenance of ship and equipment” was the largest one, followed by “7 Shipboard operations”, “Section 8. Emergency preparedness” and “Section 6 Resources and personnel”.  The percentage of “Section 3 Company responsibilities and authority” and “Section 5 Master’s responsibility and authority” against the total number of deficiencies decreased to 1.8% and 4.4% from 5.7% and 4.9%, respectively. ISM Code Section 6 Resources and personnel The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 6 has been decreasing slightly to 9.2% in 2011, though the ratio of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies rlated to ISM Code Section 6 increased to 60.0% from 30.7%. Unfamiliarity with fire drill, inadequate crew certificate or endorsement of certificate, lack of chart control and insufficient navigation plan, which frequently result “Ground 40

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

for detention”, are also able to be evidences for an additional detainable ISM related deficiency, i.e. with Section 7 or, sometimes Section 6. ISM Code Section 7 Shipboard operations The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 7 to the whole was 16.2 % smaller than the one in 2010, and ratio of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 7 has been increasing from 41.3% (2010) to 50.0%. Most of ISM related deficiencies applied “Ground for detention” have related to non-compliance with the work/rest hours requirement of STCW convention, insufficient navigation/passage plans, charts not up to date, necessary charts not provided on board, etc.. These deficiencies themselves are often required “To be rectified before departure”. ISM Code Section 8 Emergency preparedness The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 8 was 10.3% larger to 9.4% (2010), but that of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 8 has been decreased from 60.8% (2010) to 28.6%. Most of deficiencies corresponding to the following (a) and/or (b) have resulted in ISM related detainable deficiency in addition to the judgment of “Detainable” on each deficiency. (a) As a result of performance inspection, the crew are found unfamiliar with the procedures of fire drill including simulated operation of fixed fire extinguishing system and/or operation of lifeboats & launching appliances. In some situations, the deficiencies was judged in relation to ISM Code Section 6. (b) Serious damages or malfunctioning of the following equipment were found on fire extinguishing systems. Fire main pipe, Emergency fire pump, Isolating valve, Fire damper, Water ingress system, Emergency generator, Emergency shut off vlave for Oil Tanks In some situations, the deficiencies were judged in relation to ISM Code Section 10. ISM Code Section 9 Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 9 was 4.1%, same to the one in 2010, and there was no data related to deficiency with “Ground for detention” in 2011. Most of deficiencies pointed out were “Malfunction of hull construction, facilities, equipment, etc., had not been reported to the company as non conformity in accordance with the company SMS procedure”. There were the cases that no report of the deficiencies to Flag Government, Classification Society, Port Authority, etc., which specified in SOLAS Chapter 1 Part B Regulation 11 “Maintenance of condition after survey” (c), was raised as ISM related deficiency. Recurrence of the previous deficiencies pointed out by PSCO may result in ISM related detainable deficiency. ISM Code Section 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment The percentage of ISM deficiencies related to ISM Code 10 has decreased from 35.5% (2010) to 31.7%. The percentage of “Defic. to be rectified within 3 months” decreased from 54.0% (2010) to 51.8%, that of “Ground for detention” to the deficiencies related to ISM Code Section 10 decreased from 39.1% (2010) to 31.4% and that of “Defic. to be rectified before departure” increased from 3.4% (2010) to 9.3%. The deficiencies related to maintenance which pointed out as the evidence of ISM related detainable deficiency were mainly those of the fire fighting equipment, ventilators & air pipes, life saving appliance, main engine, auxiliary engine, various pumps, hatch covers, navigation equipment, emergency lights, etc. In many cases, they 41

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

were required “Defic. to be rectified before departure” or “Ground for detention” The following equipment/facilities were frequently pointed out due to malfunction or poor maintenance as an evidence of ISM related deficiency. (a) Fire fighting equipment/facilities Main & emergency fire pump, Self closing device of fire door, Fireman’s outfit, Hydrant, Fire extinguisher, Fire damper, Leakage of F.O & L.O. etc. (b) Ventilators, Air vent. pipes Corrosion, Wear & tear, Poor or no operation due to sticking, etc. (c) Life saving appliances Life boat engine, Hull of life boat, Furnishings of life boat, On-load-release gear/sling hook, Life buoy, etc. (d) Equipment in Engine room Leakage of F.O./L.O., Lagging of purifier, exhaust pipe, etc wetted with oil, Leaving temporary repair of various pipe line, Insufficient function of oily water separating plant, In-operable emergency shut off valves for oil tanks, etc (e) Navigation equipment Voyage Data Recorder (VDR), Automatic Identification System (AIS), Echo Depth Sounder, Radar, GMDSS, Emergency power source of GMDSS

42

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Appendix

Extract from PSC inspection reports

An extract from reports of PSC inspections carried out in Australia, China, Spain, France, UK, Indonesia, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal and U.S.A. in 2011 is given at the Appendix showing below the descriptions of ISM deficiencies together with relevant deficiencies on ship constructions, equipment, etc. 1. Australia

-

Action Code 17

6

17 17 17 30 17 18

-

17 17

-

17

-

17 17 17 30 17 30 30 17 17

8

17 17 17 17 30

10

30

7

30

-

30

-

17

-

17 17 17 99

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.EGC not configured correctly to receive AUSCOAST warning (Rectified during inspection. 2.MOB lifebuoy on bridge wing (Stb'd): light defective. 3.Bosun’s store water ingress alarm switched on. 4.Large scale charts for next voyage not all available. 5.Water ballast tank air vent closing device defective (5 locations). 6.Forward mast light defective. 7.SMS has not ensured that appropriate scale charts are used for the voyage. Large scale charts not used/available for previous voyage on Australian coast. 8.Fresh water tank inlet pipe on poop deck: Filling cap missing. 9.Inboard launching wire for both lifeboats unable to be disconnected from the handle allowing lifeboats to get away. 1.Port & Stb'd lifeboats overdue for launch & maneuvering in the water (last record Sept 2010). 2.Chart folio contains several photocopied charts. 3.Water ingress alarm switched off at time of initial inspection. 4.E/R fire dampers (P&S) stiff to operate. 5.Port & Stb'd lifeboat steering system defective. 6.Port lifeboat starting source 2 failed. 7.Port lifeboat on-load release defective. 8.Emergency fire pump unable to pressurize fire main. 9.E/R sounding pipe self closing valves - springs removed several locations. 10.No 1 WBT (Port/aft) air vent head cracked, affected area covered with painted tape. 11.Fwd liferaft emergency light not operational. 12.Freeboard marks deteriorated, not plainly visible. 13.Hatch coaming top distorted in way of cleat devices No 1 S/A , No 2 aft, No3 P/A. 14.Build up of water port lifeboat engine bay. 15.ISM has not ensured emergency preparedness as evidenced by deficiencies lifeboat maneuvering in water & water ingress alarm. 16.ISM has not ensured maintenance of ship and equipment as evidenced by the these deficiencies. 17.ISM has not ensured development of plans for shipboard operations as evidenced by deficiency of Chart. 18.Nature and extent of these deficiencies are objective evidence vessel has not been maintained between surveys. 1.Voyage plan from Singapore to Geelong has not used largest scale charts available for navigation. 2.Radio Room flap vent has no securing device. 3.Battery room vent gauze defective. 4.P&S liferafts not secured as per disposable HRU manufacturers instructions. 5.Additional deck air compressor connected to emergency switchboard.

43

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

-

17 17 17 99 17 17 17 99

-

30 30

5

17 30

10

18

6.Vent flap removed from emergency generator room cable conduit. 7.Port side conveyor belt hatch on forecastle missing a hatch dog. 8.Numerous areas of cargo hatch packing missing. 9.Temporary wiring in laundry presents shock hazard. 10.Self closing sounding cock found defective. 11.Both steering gear oil tank gauges found gagged open. 12.Oil in cascade tank. 13.E/R Halon cylinder C12 found to be below manufacturers specified pressure at present temperature. (35Bar@30C). 14.Sewage treatment plant defective. 15.Three way valve on OWS defective. Allows discharge overboard when oil content meter is in alarm. 16.Crew unable to present evidence of approval for stability program in use on board. 17.SMS fails to ensure that vessel uses largest scale charts available for navigation as evidenced by Voyage plan. 18.SMS fails to ensure that the vessel is maintained to the required standard as evidenced by these deficiencies.

2. China

-

Action Code 17

12

30

-

30

-

17 30

-

17 17 16 30

6

30

6

17 17 30

6 -

17 17 17 17 17

-

17

-

30

-

17 30

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.Unapproved hold back hook installed on A-Class self closing fire doors of galley (3pcs). 2.SMS internal audit interval was more than 15 months (last SMS internal audit 29-06-2010). 3.ISPS internal audit interval was more than 15 months (last ISPS internal audit 29-06-2010). 4.Form 2 & 3 of CSR document No.2 unavailable. 5.Oil content meter keeps alarm when starting oil filtering equipment for functional testing in every time. 6.Records enter in oil record book conflicts with the log in oil content meter monitor. 7.EIAPP certificate for M/E and generators and E/G unavailable. 8.Structure access manual was not approved by NK. 1.Fire detection system out of order: Test fire detector in wheel house deck, fire detection system displays detector in stair way action. 2.Duty officer not familiar with the operation of power failure test of water ingress system. 3.Weekly correction not recorded in catalogue of admiralty charts & publication. 4.Last annual service report to lifeboat launching appliances not available onboard. 5.Related crews not familiar with the possible major troubles and corrective actions of oil water separator. 1.Clutch of portside lifeboat engine out of working. 2.Fire damper for E/R funnel can not be closed tightly. 3.Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines of M/E can not keep integrality. 4.Working language not be established in deck log book. 5.Record of hours of rest not be signed by seafarer & authorized person & master partly. 6.NBDP functional test with coast station for MF/HF radio success never & not record the non-conformity. 7.Emergency fire pump suction pipe penetrate the machinery space no enclosure of the piping in a substantial steel casing. 8.Red signal lights on compass deck damaged. 9.ISM has not ensure maintenance of ship and equipment as evidenced by these deficiencies.

44

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

3. Spain

-

Action Code 10 30

7

30

-

10 10 10 30 30 30

-

30

-

30

11

17 17 30 17 18 30 30 17 18

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.No indications on exit, doors not self closing. 2.All single cabin occupied for two persons, hospital also crew is sleeping there. Mattress on alleyway, many obstructions in all emergency escapes. 3.Major NC; Deficiencies marked as (ISM) are objective of a serious failure, or lack of effectiveness of the implementation of the ISM Code. Safety Management Audit be performed before departure. 4.Freeboard more than 9m, no combination ladder arranged. 5.In some cabins and hospital lights damaged. 6.Shower and toilets drainage obstructed. 7.Dewatering system-F.Peak automatic valve out of order. (ISM) 8.Radio telex out of order. Antenna NAVTEX & transmitter broken. (ISM) 9.Total number of persons working and living on board at anchorage are 37. There are life saving appliances for only 25 according safety equipment certificate. (ISM) 10.Hot work on ship without permit of Spanish authority and without knowledge about this. 11.There is a connection pipe between sludge tanks & overboard through the general service pumps and bilge pumps. 1.SE Exemption Certificate not on board. 2.Company should submit the Condition Evaluation Record not found on board. 3. Not capable of providing a source of energy to the radio equipment. 4.NP22 for the intended voyage is not up-dated. 5.Deficiencies marked are objective evidence of failure of the implementation of ISM. 6.Refrigerator unit out of order, Cold Rooms overheated. 7.Problems of starting No.1 Main Generator Diesel Engine. 8.Oil Record Book pages not signed by Master since 05-01-2011. 9.Critical Equipment not identified in the SMS Manual.

4. France

-

Action Code 30 30 30 17

9

17 17 17 17 18

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.Not up to date. 2.Radar No.2 Stbd out of order. No evidence of of flag/classification society. 3.VDR in alarm (panel connection alarm code 084). 4.Medicines not properly stored. Not properly segregated in plastic bags, dirty and not hygienic. 5.Galley to clean fridge, filter. 6.Laundry, shower room not hygienic. 7.Access to the stbd lifeboat obstructed by wood. 8.Safety lighting to be repaired solvent drums to close. Store to ventilate. 9.VDR Radar defect has not been notified according to the ISM, to the class society & flag.

5. UK ISM Code -

Action Code 17 17 17 17 16

Deficiencies 1.No record of last annual survey in IOPP certificate. 2.Rest records were not kept for December (ISM). 3.Rest records for Chief Engineer are false on a number of days in November (ISM). 4.Rest records for master are false for several days in November (ISM). 5.Panamanian endorsement for 2nd/Eng. is issued for 1st/Eng. Panamanian endorsement for 3rd/Eng. is issued for 2nd/Eng.

45

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

-

30

-

30 30

-

30

-

30

-

30 30

10

17 17 30

-

10 17

6

18

-

16 16 16 55

-

55

6.Officer responsible for radio operations is not familiar with power supply arrangement for GMDSS station (ISM). 7.Large air bubble in magnetic compass bowl (ISM). 8.Drain plugs are missing, battery one (each boat) is discharged, weekly inspections of LSA are recorded in deck log book (ISM). 9.Officer responsible for LSA inspections not fully aware of inspection & recording requirements (ISM). 10.Port liferaft painter tied to the ship & not to the weak link (last LSA inspection recorded in deck log book on 17 Dec 2011) (ISM). 11.C/Eng. could not explain the operation of the CO2 fire extinguishing system (ISM). 12.None of the engineers knew which steering gear was fed from the emergency switchboard (ISM). 13.Radio & general batteries show a permanent charging current of six amp (ISM). 14.Two of three deck head lights are inoperative in CO2 room. 15.Deficiencies marked (ISM) are objective evidence of a serious failure or lack of effectiveness of implementation of the ISM Code. 1.Instructions posted for boarding & lowering lifeboat incorrect. 2.Last passage plan from Tenerife to Redcar has notation of following way points 1)Coast of East Australia, 2)Caroline Islands, 3)Solmon Sea, 4)South Pacific Shows lack of adequate checks. 3.Deck log book & Emergency preparedness records show both lifeboats lowered & exercised for 30 minutes on 14/08/11. E/R log book shows vessel at full sea speed throughout 14/08/11. Number & nature of deficiencies bring into doubt effect. 4.Fall preventer fitted does not meet IMO Guidelines. 5.RPM of Emergency generator defective. 6.Lifebuoy self igniting lights in poor condition. 7.ILO 92 & 133 compliance certificate indicates accommodation is suitable for 25 persons. 26 crew onboard at time of inspection with LSA for 30 persons. 8.MORPOL IV Sewage certification states holding tank suitable for 22 persons. 26 crew onboard at time of inspection.

6. Indonesia

-

Action Code 30 30 17 17 17 17

-

17 17 17

10 10 -

17 16 17 30 17 17 17 17 17 17

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.Emergency fire pump low pressure. 2.E/R fire door at poop deck un gastight. 3.Hydrostatic release unit for liferafts expired 4 pcs. 4.Flap funnel fire damper failure. 5.Fire isolation in E/R not in good condition. 6.Fire detection in workshop E/R not ready to use in emergency situation (cover by plastic). 7.Portable fire extinguisher & CO2 expired on 2/8/2011. 8.Steering gear room deck with our wood grating for anti slippery. 9.Terminal panel printer for recording alarm in engine control room not working properly. 10.NTM not update. 11.IMO symbol for fire hydrant, smoke detector & general alarm safety not available. 12.Maintenance checklist for emergency generator not available. 1.Flap funnel fire damper stuck. 2.Retro reflector for lifeboat (P&S) all worn out. 3.Thermometer for S.W. cooling & exhaust intake turbo charger out of order. 4.IMDG Code old edition. 5.Instruction manual operating procedure for incinerator not available. 6.Annual survey for SCBA not available. 7.IMO symbol for smoke detector & fire hydrant not available.

46

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

7. India ISM Code 8

Action Code 17 30 17 17 17 17 30

Deficiencies 1.Hatch Cover hinge bushes worn out mostly. 2.MF/HF DSC equipment not working on reserve power. 3.Foam compound analysis last done 03/10. Annual test due. 4.5 yearly load test reports for lifeboats not available. 5.Multi gas detector calibration certificates not available. 6.Lifeboat fire extinguisher hose damaged. 7.Emergency preparedness not adequate. Life boat launching takes more than 20 mins.

8. Italy

11 -

Action Code 17 17

-

17 16 18

-

17 17 17 16

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.Voyage Plan to Genoa port does not consider entry point to VTS area. 2.EPIRB cannot be operated in test mode (Technician on board - equipment under repair). 3.Main Boiler safety Valve - high pressure - not work properly (ISM). 4.One stern rope worn out. 5.Deficiencies marked ISM are objective evidence of a failure or lack of effectiveness of implementation of the ISM Code. Internal audit is required within 3 months. 6.Funnel damper not work properly - R.O. survey required (ISM). 7.Engine room access door from steering gear room not close properly. 8.Quick closing valve for F.O. Settling TK inoperative (ISM). R.O. survey required. 9.Auxiliary diesel engine oil leakage found.

9. Japan

7 -

Action Code 16 17 16 30 17 17 17 50 17 17 30

-

17 30

10 6 6

99 17 18 30 18

7

18

-

17

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.SSO certificate of captain accordance with STCW not have. 2.Some emergency lights not turned on. 3.IAMSAR manual Vol.III not up to date. 4.Stb'd side life boat incomplete re-setting of on-load release system. 5.Technical file for generator engine No.1 - No.3 not on board. 6.Crew members not familiar with release system of life boat. 1.Charts for intended voyage (JP150A & JP1081): Latest edition were not provided. 2.Ventilation of fore peak tank on fore station: Had a few holes due to corrosion. 3.Clamping devices for cargo hatch cover: Some clamping devices were missing. 4.Steel grating in front of windlass on fore station: Broken partly. 5.Ventilation for No.1 cargo hold on fore station: Had some holes due to corrosion & one bolt & nut were missing. 6.Self closing door in stairway enclosure: Kept open with rope. 7.Ventilation for No.2 cargo hold on upper deck: Had some holes due to corrosion & a few nuts were missing. 8.Maintenance record for cargo securing device: Not recorded after 05 June 2008. 9.Instruction for lifeboat (P side): Dirty. 10.Not maintained well as clear evidences of these defects. 11.Senior officers were not aware of their tasks & responsibilities. 1.Officer not understood assignment of each crew of fireman for fire drill and rescue boat drill. 2.Officer could not explain to PSCO about the preparation of the chart for the voyage. 3.Officer unfamiliar with AIS operation.

47

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

-

17 17 17

6

17 17 30 30

4.Crew did not wear immersion suits properly. 5.How to set radar reflector - Officer not understood. 6.Officer unfamiliar with light and shape on the Japan Maritime Safety Laws and Regulation. 7.S.G of radio batteries in battery room - not enough (about 25%). 8.Crew assigned to was not able to wear fireman's outfit properly. 9.Crew unable to demonstrate proficiency in fire drill. 10.Senior officers were not aware of their tasks and responsibilities. - Crew unable to demonstrate proficiency in fire drill.

10. Korea

-

Action Code 30

10 10 10 11 10 -

17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 30

11

30

-

15

ISM Code

11. Portugal Action ISM Code Code 30

-

17 17 17 17 17 17 30

-

30

-

17

Deficiencies 1.Engineers not watch kept as per the ship's watchkeeping schedule four hours a day for about four years. 2.Ozone depleting substance list & record book not sighted. 3.Oxygen for resuscitator (Two x Forty liters) not provided. 4.Antidotes not onboard. 5.Passage plan not made from berth to berth. 6.VHF DSC test incapable. 7.Standard compass error not determined at least once a watch since 29-10-2008. 8.Magnetic compass error excessive (About 9 degrees). 9.Air Pipe for CO2 room & Foam room stuck. 10.Only visual inspection for Lifeboats launching appliance carried out weekly. 11.One Radar magnetron being used over the maker instruction period. 12.No instruction for dry powder actuator in bridge & dry powder room provided. 13.Both Lifeboat painters not connected to the releasers. 14.Securing wire not removed during Lifeboat Launching Drill. 15.Water spray pump was not ready for immediate use. 16.Securing pin (Two pieces) for opening hatch cover missing. 17.Lifebuoy with self-igniting light near pilot station not provided. 18.Bilge oil over 15 PPM discharged overboard (Discharge pipe & inside of Oily water separator, oil found). 19.Deficiencies marked (ISM) are objective evidence of a serious failure or lack of effectiveness of the implementation of the ISM Code. 20.Intact & damage stability & longitudinal strength not verified properly.

Deficiencies 1.Bulwark (P&S) were several cracks on brackets & Main Deck connections, Anchor Seat on PS dented in, Frames (stb'd) of Bosun Store were heavy deformed including Paint Store Frames and Bulkheads. 2.Not marked according Load Line Certificate. Class "NK" not permanently marked. 3.Ship Name not correctly marked (old names to be erased). 4.IMSBC: Int. Maritime solid bulk cargoes code missing. 5.Company address not the same as ISSC certificate. 6.Charts for ship location (Beato) missing. (intended voyage not established) 7.Gyro under repairs. 8.E/R ventilator not closing properly, E/R Skylight kept in open position, emergency generator vent. closing devices missing. 9.CO2 room found with access blocked with insulation materials, Fire boxes access blocked with garbage. 10.Mast house stb'd fwd./aft found with cracks on pipe passage & on bracket.

48

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

-

17

-

17

-

17

-

17 30

-

30

-

17

10

30

11.Stb'd windlass chain guide into chain locker damaged (chain stopper), windlass (P&S) found with hydraulic leaks on. 12.No fish & meat is near to finish (apparently required by master). Meat room overheated. 13.Flushing water missing, hydrosphere for S.W. with piping leaking, water closer not operational on main deck (S), drain system not operational. 14.Emergency generator automatic start system not operational. 15.M/E cool. water heavy leaks on Cyl. No.1,4 & 5; F.W. Cooler & L.O. Cooler leaking, Bilges found with oily leaks & tank top dirty, Bilge tank access door screws missing. 16.Main switchboard: low insulation (110V) & 450 V meter without glass protection & meter not properly working, Electric insulation/ rubber gloves missing. 17.P side lifeboat engine gear selector support loosen / driven (lever), (aft hook disk connections apparently cracked to be checked P&S). 18.Deficiencies marked are objective evidence of a failure or lack of effectiveness of the implementation of ISM Code. Safety Management Audit by Administration is required before ship departure.

12. USA

7

Action Code 30

7

30

7 7

30 17

7 10

30 30

10 10 10 -

17 17 17 17 17 17

10 10

17 17

5

17 17

-

10

-

17

3

17 17

9

17

ISM Code

Deficiencies 1.Company has not established guidance for securing Bags of Rice in Cargo holds after loading. 2.No Assessment Form was filled out prior to the crewmembers entering Cargo holds #2. 3.Safety meeting was not carried out prior to crewmembers entering Cargo hold #2. 4.No guidance is mentioned by the Company regarding the Securing of Bagged Rice after loading Cargo. (action taken: 17a/b/c) 5.The External Audit was required prior to departure. 1.Fuel oil tank #4 center has an approx. 18cm x 5cm hole in tank top /bilge bottom. Issue discovered within two weeks of class survey. 2.Main generators #1 is excessively leaking fuel from supply line to fuel manifold. 3.Main generators #2 & #3 are excessively leaking lube oil from various locations. 4.Category "A" doors to steering gear room & emergency exit door do not self close. 5.High bilge level indicator is inoperable. 6.Main engine has an excessive jacket water leak. 7.Ships paint locker is fitted with a sprinkler system which is not reflected on the fire control plan. 8.Heavy fuel oil delivery pipe has soft patch covering 2 inch section of piping. 9.Steam pipe leading to the purifier has soft patches on two areas which are leaking steam. 10.Excessive fuel oil was discovered in the bilge. 1.Vessel's Master failed to motivate the crew in the observation of safety management system procedures. 2.Lifeboats doors were locked with a chain and padlock and would not be immediately ready for emergency evacuation. 3.Fuel oil was leaking from the connection between the fuel line and fuel injector on the #5 cylinder of the Main Engine. 4.A lack of cleanliness was found in the vessel’s machinery spaces. 5.Initial request was sent Apr 10 and parts have not been received despite urgent status. 6.The vessel's Master is unfamiliar with basic SMS Procedures and documentation of Non-conformities in accordance with the vessel's Safety Quality & Environmental Manual.

49

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Chapter 4 Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, and USCG Several regional MOUs and Port States publicly announce their PSC data on their websites and publish Annual Reports every year. Based on this public data, this Chapter introduces abstracts of the results of detentions by the Tokyo MOU, the Paris MOU, and the USCG in 2011. The full text of each respective Annual Report can be obtained from the following websites. Tokyo MOU Paris MOU USCG

http://www.tokyo-mou.org http://www.parismou.org http://homeport.uscg.mil/

50

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.1 Tokyo MOU In 2011, 28,627 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 1,562 ships were detained due to serious deficiencies found onboard. 4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities Table 4.1.1 shows the numbers of Port State inspections carried out by each Port State from 2009 through 2011. Table 4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Port Authorities (Tokyo MOU) Authority Australia Canada 1) Chile China Fiji Hong Kong, China Indonesia Japan Republic of Korea Malaysia New Zealand Papua New Guinea Philippines Russian Federation 1) Singapore Thailand Vanuatu Vietnam Total

No. of Inspection 2009 2,994 402 732 4,308 4 692 1,065 4,930 2,313 367 567 106 1,504 1,162 666 405 0 899

2010 3,127 447 764 5,186 56 734 1,406 5,308 2,290 660 565 178 1,785 1,068 792 368 0 1,028

No. of Detentions

Detention ratio (%)

2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 3,002 248 222 275 8.28 7.10 9.16 325 6 5 8 1.49 1.12 2.46 861 13 14 28 1.78 1.83 3.25 7,821 404 532 678 9.38 10.26 8.67 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 746 30 21 25 4.34 2.86 3.35 2,150 15 38 77 1.41 2.70 3.58 5,076 192 239 217 3.89 4.50 4.28 2,070 265 205 126 11.46 8.95 6.09 848 4 12 13 1.09 1.82 1.53 479 21 13 12 3.70 2.30 2.51 102 7 3 3 6.60 1.69 2.94 1,812 2 4 4 0.13 0.22 0.22 1,136 51 30 25 4.39 2.81 2.20 740 14 19 29 2.10 2.40 3.92 333 8 2 6 1.98 0.54 1.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,093 56 52 36 6.23 5.06 3.29

23,116 25,762 28,627 1,336 1,411 1,562 5.78% 5.48% 5.46%

1) Data is only for Pacific ports.

51

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.1.2 Black List of Flag States Table 4.1.2 shows the Black List of Flag State announced in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report. Table 4.1.2 Black List of Flag States (Tokyo MOU) Flag State Sierra Leone Papua New Guinea Georgia Korea, Democratic People’s Republic Cambodia Mongolia St. Kitts & Nevis Kiribati Indonesia Thailand Bangladesh Vietnam Tonga

No. of Inspections 2009-2011 555 39 203 418 5,181 446 183 529 576 1,042 57 1,873 41

52

No. of Detentions 2009-2011 111 11 42 79 861 70 28 65 70 109 9 183 7

Black to Black to Grey limit Grey limit 49 6 21 38 393 41 19 47 51 87 8 150 6

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organizations Table 4.1.3 and Figure 4.1.3 show the detention data of IACS affiliated Recognized Organization in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report. Table 4.1.3 Inspections and Detentions per Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU) (*1) RO RO Recognized Inspections Detentions responsibility Detention % responsibility Organization 2009-2011 2009-2011 detentions detention % ABS

7,129

230

13

3.23

0.18

BV

7,456

384

15

5.15

0.20

CCS

6,679

96

3

1.44

0.04

DNV

8,521

283

12

3.32

0.14

GL

7,849

306

12

3.90

0.15

KR

6,851

172

5

2.51

0.07

LR

9,485

359

20

3.78

0.21

NK

24,001

920

70

3.83

0.29

RINA

1,597

91

1

5.70

0.06

RS

1,613

126

6

7.81

0.37

Detention ratio

(*1) According to the Tokyo MOU annual report, in cases where a ship’s certificates were issued by more than one recognized organization (RO), the number of inspections would be counted towards both of organizations, while the number of detentions would be counted only towards the RO that issued the certificate relating to the detainable deficiency or deficiencies.

9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00%

Detention RO responsibility

ABS

BV

CCS

DNV

GL

KR

LR

NK

RINA

RS

Fig. 4.1.3 Detention Ratio by Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU)

53

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.1.4 Deficiencies by Category Figure 4.1.4 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2009 through 2011.

Fire safety measures

14619

Safety of navigation

14207

18114

15998

15648

17435

12281 11077 12131

Life saving appliances Stability, structure and related equipment

6921 6462

8257

8139 6182 6048 7166 6238 5723 5643

Load lines Propulsion and auxiliary machinery MARPOL-ANNEX I

4403 4452 4930 4073 4132

SOLAS related operational deficiencies

3497 3191 3386 3073 3015 3354

ISM related deficiencies Radio communications

2810 2479 2399 1692 1595 1398 1580 1336 1341 1090 899 866 1012 800 712 996 879 727 850 793 863 743 888 822 704 664 533 680 508 312

Ship's certificates and documents Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers MARPOL-ANNEX V Working spaces (ILO 147) Accident prevention (ILO 147) MARPOL-ANNEX IV Mooring arrangements (ILO 147) Additional measures to enhance maritime safety Alarm signals MARPOL-ANNEX VI

661 589 496 641 486 379 501 477 440

Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods Bulk Carriers-additional safety measures MARPOL related operational deficiencies

286 326 305 284 236 258 197 153 207 173 172 151 53 47 64

Crew and accommodation (ILO 147) Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers Other deficiencies Food and catering (ILO 147) MARPOL-ANNEX II MARPOL-ANNEX III

92

AFS Convention

24 12 21

0

2011 2010 2009

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Fig. 4.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU) Deficiencies

54

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.2 Paris MOU In 2011, 19,058 inspections were carried out in the Paris MOU region, and 688 ships were detained due to serious deficiencies found onboard. 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities Table 4.2.1 shows the numbers of Port State Inspections carried out by each respective Port State from 2009 through 2011. Table 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities (Paris MOU) Authority Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Fed. 1) Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Total

No. of Inspections 2009 1,419 544 715 373 300 658 395 349 1,587 1,468 979 94 418 1,885 504 451 299 1,645 822 853 836 1,163 1,459 272 2,170 731 1,797

2010 1,361 514 976 417 293 630 384 376 1,515 1,466 1,021 106 436 1,993 479 507 241 1,698 793 858 468 1,233 1,358 267 2,093 743 1,832

No. of Detentions

Detention ratio (%)

2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 971 77 37 11 5.43 2.72 1.13 552 23 25 24 4.23 4.86 4.35 895 25 19 34 3.50 1.95 3.80 269 22 16 12 5.90 3.84 4.46 127 53 27 10 17.67 9.22 7.87 400 11 8 2 1.67 1.27 0.50 196 3 1 1 0.76 0.26 0.51 316 2 1 2 0.57 0.27 0.63 1,253 66 57 38 4.16 3.76 3.03 1,411 48 36 37 3.26 2.46 2.62 1,015 53 47 54 5.41 4.60 5.32 63 2 3 1 2.13 2.83 1.59 242 28 11 14 6.70 2.52 5.79 1,707 171 119 114 9.07 5.97 6.68 246 3 1 1 0.60 0.21 0.41 185 9 5 1 2.00 0.99 0.54 237 9 10 10 3.01 4.15 4.22 1,604 35 34 55 2.13 2.00 3.43 615 15 18 8 1.82 2.27 1.30 432 27 22 12 3.17 2.56 2.78 448 23 13 8 2.75 2.78 1.79 776 41 48 17 3.53 3.89 2.19 1,039 71 54 24 4.87 3.98 2.31 240 36 28 29 13.24 10.49 12.08 1,794 138 95 122 6.36 4.54 6.80 421 9 5 5 1.23 0.67 1.19 1,604 59 50 42 3.28 2.78 2.62

24,186 24,058 19,058 1,059

790

688 4.38% 3.28% 3.61%

1) Only movements to the Russian ports in the Baltic Azov, Caspian and Barents Sea are included

55

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.2.2 Black List of Flag States Table 4.2.2 shows the Black List of Flag States announced by the Paris MOU. Table 4.2.2 Black List of Flag States (Paris MOU) Flag State Libyan Bolivia Togo Sierra Leone Tanzania United Rep. Albania Moldova, Republic of Saint Kitts and Nevis Comoros Cambodia Georgia Ukraine Azerbaijan Lebanon Syrian Arab Republic Dominica Honduras

Inspections 2009-2011

Detentions 2009-2011

46 46 205 476 130 175 590 416 593 768 647 372 34 74 166 144 59

14 12 42 85 25 32 88 60 76 91 72 42 6 10 19 16 8

56

Black to Grey Limit Very High Risk High Risk Medium to high risk

Medium Risk

7 7 21 43 14 18 52 38 52 66 56 35 5 9 18 16 8

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.2.3 Deficiencies by Category Figure 4.2.3 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2009 through 2011. 6591

Fire safety

7687 8361

6528

Safety of Navigation 5252

Working and Living Conditions: Working Conditions

4782

Life saving appliances 3491

Certificate & Document: Documents

3046

Certificate & Document: Ship Certificate

9618

7057 7224 6915

4349 4698

4117

2951

Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

5636

8654

5031

4239 4556

2808 2952 3104

Structural Conditions

2597 2851 3213

2011

2313 2932 3418

2009

Water/Weathertight conditions Working and Living Conditions: Living Conditions

2010

1952 2191 2635

Emergency Systems

1704 2200 2439

Radio communications

1644

ISM

3458

4279

1318 1586 1720

MARPOL ANNEX I

1101 1684 1835

Certificate & Document: Crew Certificate Other

602 495 494

ISPS

578 868 768 464 497 602

Alarms MARPOL Annex VI

358 293 145

MARPOL Annex V

347 402 459

Cargo operations including equipment

332 317 330

MARPOL Annex IV

253 298 266

Dangeous goods

125 224 197 36 14 33

MARPOL ANNEX II MARPOL ANNEX III

8 15 36 58

MARPOL Anti Fouling

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Deficiencies

Fig. 4.2.3 Deficiencies per Category (Paris MOU)

57

10000

12000

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table Table 4.2.4 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those announced by the Paris MOU for the three years from 2009 through 2011. Table 4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Paris MOU) Recognized Organization ABS DNV CCS LR GL RINA BV NK KR RS

Inspections 2009-2011

Detentions 2009-2011

Medium / High limit

Performance Level

1 11 0 18 27 4 28 15 1 26

102 228 10 254 288 50 243 118 10 103

High

6,035 12,725 878 14,112 15,868 3,160 13,515 6,878 833 6,055

58

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.3 USCG 4.3.1 USCG Statistics In 2011, a total of 9,326 individual vessels visited U.S. ports, and a total of 10,129 SOLAS based safety examinations were conducted by the USCG during the year. Table 4.3.1 shows the number of safety related detentions for the three years from 2009 through 2011. The three-year average detention ratio dropped from 1.86% to 1.53% during this time.

Year 2009 2010 2011

Distinct Vessel Arrivals* 8,557 9,260 9,326

Table 4.3.1 Detentions by Year (Safety) SOLAS Safety Annual Detention Detentions Ratio 161 1.88% 156 1.67% 156 1.04%

3 Year Average Detention Ratio 1.92% 1.86% 1.53%

* Distinct Vessel Arrivals: Number of ships greater than or equal to 500 GT, calling upon at least one U.S. port.

4.3.2 Targeted Flag States (Safety) The USCG publicly announced targeted flag states. The following flag states having a detention ratio higher than the overall average were listed as targeted flag states. Table 4.3.2 USCG Targeted Flag States (Safety) 2009-2011 Points of Flag State Detention Ratio Targeting Matrix Belize 3.17% Bolivia 50.00% Cook Islands 24.00% Curacao 3.23% Dominica 37.50% Honduras 52.17% Lithuania 8.89% 7 points Mexico 8.11% New Zealand 16.67% Peru 37.50% Saint Kitts and Nevis 12.50% Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 15.95% Sierra Leone 80.00% Venezuela 40.00% Cyprus 2.54% Gibraltar 3.13% Italy 2.63% 2 points Malta 2.52% Panama 1.87% Turkey 2.05%

59

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

4.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Safety) The table 4.3.3 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those announced by the USCG.

Class ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RINA RS

Table 4.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (USCG) Distinct Vessel Arrives Class-Related Detentions Detention Ratio 2009 2010 2011 Total 2009 2010 2011 Total 1,422 1,433 1,708 4,563 0 0.00% 912 784 1,098 2,794 1 1 0.04% 278 253 284 815 0 0.00% 1,951 1,679 2,175 5,805 1 1 0.02% 1,174 1,112 1,561 3,847 0 0.00% 264 306 263 833 0 0.00% 1,703 1,626 2,275 5,604 1 1 2 0.04% 1,805 2,195 2,009 6,009 1 1 0.02% 183 212 243 638 0 0.00% 128 110 89 327 1 0.00%

Targeted Points 0 points 0 points 0 points 0 points 0 points 0 points 0 points 0 points 0 points 0 points

In accordance with the Boarding Priority Matrix, Recognized Organizations are evaluated on their PSC performance over the previous three years. The evaluation for 2011 was based on the records for 2009, 2010, and 2011. The level of performance required to be in the 0 point category is a three year average class-related detention ratio less than 0.5%. A classification society that has a class-related detention ratio between 0.5% and 1.0% will be assigned 3 points; those societies with a detention ration of between 1.0% and 2.0% will be assigned 5 points and class-related detention ratios above 2.0% will be assigned a Priority I status. The detention ratio of ClassNK, which was calculated based on the last three year’s detention numbers, was 0.02 percent. Therefore, the number of “Targeted Points” for 2011 is once again 0 Points for ClassNK.

60

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]