PSC NK

Annual Report on Port State Control
July 2007
NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI
Photographs of Deficiencies identified during

Port State Control
Life Saving
Poor visibility from control

position of Lifeboat
Poor condition of
open-type Lifeboat inside
Inadequate form of support chock
Poor condition of Lifeboat Davit
Inadequate storage condition

of Immersion suit
(Not ready to use)
Fire Fighting
Wasted casing of E/R Ventilator
Damaged or Wasted fire damper

of E/R Ventilator
MARPOL
Illegal discharging pipe for the oily water
Machinery Space
Oily pipes
Dirty E/R tank top
Load Line
Missing Clip bolt &

Poor condition of gasket
Wasted top plate or Broken float of

Air Pipe Head
Others
Wasted suction pipe in E/R
Oil leakage from Air pipe due

to miss operation
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
Foreword
This annual Port State Control (PSC) report summarizes deficiencies identified by PSC
inspections carried out in various countries around the world. This report is prepared with
the objective of building awareness of the present state of PSC as well as to improve future
maintenance and surveys, and is compiled into the following Chapters.
Chapter 1: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC World-wide
Chapter 2: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships registered to ClassNK in 2006
Chapter 3: Statistical Data from the Tokyo MOU and Paris MOU
Port State Control has been found to be a very effective tool in reducing the number of
substandard ships as well as improving maritime safety and pollution prevention. In recent
years, there has been a significant increase in PSC activity worldwide in concert with a
number of amendments to relevant international conventions.
In order to carry out the effective implementation of PSC provisions, many countries have
already signed and accepted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for regional
cooperation in PSC for several regions, and have established a computerized database
system and/or a harmonized approach.
PSC inspection procedures have been improved to cover not only ships hardware or
documents, but also operational requirements of the relevant conventions or shipboard
maintenance under the ISM Code.
Also, because several new conventions or amendments such as the ISPS code, the Bulk
carrier safety initiative, and Air pollution prevention, etc. came into force, the extent of
PSC inspections has been further increased.
In light of this background, ClassNK is working hard to increase the transparency of
information related to PSC issues and to make it even more difficult for substandard ships
to survive in the market place.
July 2007
Note: Every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of information in this report. However as
information is collected from a variety of sources, ClassNK can not be held responsible for any
erroneous data, judgements or conclusions in this report, in cases were the information available
should prove to have been incomplete or incorrect in any respect.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC World-wide
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions
1.1.1 Bulk Carrier Safety related 1
1.1.2 Daily reporting 1
1.1.3 Immersion Suits for every person onboard 2
1.1.4 Maintenance, servicing and inspection for lifeboats and launching appliances 2
1.1.5 Satellite EPIRBs maintenance 2
1.1.6 S-VDR on Existing ships 2
1.1.7 MARPOL 73/78 Annex I 2
1.1.8 MARPOL 73/78 Annex II 3
1.1.9 IBC Code 3
1.1.10 Construction drawing maintained on board and ashore 4
1.1.11 Towing and mooring equipment 4
1.1.12 Water level detectors on single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers 4
1.2 Recent world developments

1.2.1 MOUs around the world
(1) European region (Paris MOU) 5
(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU) 6
(3) Latin-American region (Vina del Mar, or Latin-America Agreement) 7
(4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU) 7
(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MOU) 7
(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) 7
(7) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU) 8
(8) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) 8
(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU) 8
1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (U.S.Coast Guard) 9
1.2.3 Equasis 9
1.3 Measures to be adopted by NK
1.3.1 Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections
(1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and Treatment of the deficiencies 10
(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers 10
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships
(1) Special training at several in-house meetings 10
(2) ClassNK Concentrated Inspection Campaigns 10
(3) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners 11
1.3.3 Visits to Port States 11
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK
2.1 General 12
2.2 Data on Detentions
2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State
2.2.2 Detentions by ship type
2.2.3 Detentions by ships age
2.2.4 Detentions by tonnage
2.2.5 Detentions by Port State
12
14
15
16
17
2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies

2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category 18
2.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequently 19
2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State
2.4.1 Australia 25
2.4.2 China 25
2.4.3 Japan 26
2.4.4 U.S.A. 26
2.4.5 Republic of Korea 26
2.4.6 Hong Kong 27
2.4.7 Singapore27
2.4.8 Italy 27
2.4.9 Netherlands 28
2.4.10 India 28
2.4.11 Russian Federation 28
2.4.12 United Kingdom 28
2.4.13 Turkey 29
2.4.14 Germany 29
2.4.15 Canada 29
Chapter 3
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU and the USCG 30
3.1 Tokyo MOU
3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Statistics
3.1.2 Black List
3.1.3 Detentions by Class
3.1.4 Deficiencies by Category
31
32
33
34
3.2 Paris MOU

3.2.1 Black List 35
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments
in PSC World-wide
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions
Major amendments to conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into effect
or will do so in 2006 and 2007 are as follows.
1.1.1 Bulk Carrier Safety related

Date: 1 July 2006
(1) New definition of Bulk Carriers
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622]

The definition of Bulk Carriers in SOLAS chapter XII was changed as follows:
Bulk carrier means a ship which is intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk,
including such types as ore carriers and combination carriers. For the purpose of
the revised SOLAS chapter XII, the new definition contains ships intended
primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk regardless of cross section of ship as well as
typical bulk carriers arranged with top-side tanks and bilge hopper tanks as defined
in SOLAS chapter IX.
(Note) Ships such as a chip carrier, an open type bulk carrier and a general cargo
ship, etc. fall into the definition of bulk carriers from 1 July 2006 based on
the revised SOLAS XII. Nevertheless, the requirements of the revised
SOLAS chapter XII do not apply to these type ships constructed before 1
July 2006.
(2) Maintenance of hatch covers (Reg.7.2)

Standards for owners inspection and maintenance of bulk carrier hatch covers
(Resolution MSC.169(79)) was adopted as a mandatory requirement.
(3) Alternate hold loading ban
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622, 0632, 0651, 0663]

Existing single-side skin bulk carriers of 150 m in length and upward carrying
cargoes having a density of 1,780kg/m3 and above, if not in compliance with SOLAS
regulation XII/5.1 and IACS UR S12 (rev. 2.1) or UR S31, shall be banned from
sailing with any hold empty in the full load condition (greater than 90% of the ships
deadweight at the relevant assigned freeboard) after reaching 10 years of age from 1
July 2006. The term hold empty means loaded to less than 10% of the holds
maximum allowable cargo weight.
(4) Free-fall lifeboat

The amendment to SOLAS regulation III/31 to require new bulk carriers as defined
in SOLAS chapter IX to provide free-fall lifeboats instead of davit-type lifeboats was
adopted.
1.1.2 Daily reporting (Reg.V/28)
Date: 1 July 2006

Each ship of 500 gross tonnage and above, engaged on international voyages exceeding
48 hours, is required to submit a daily report to its company and to retain all daily
reports for the duration of the voyage.
1
1.1.3 Immersion Suits for every person onboard

Date: 1 July 2006

The amendment to SOLAS regulation III/32.3 concerning carriage requirements for
immersion suits was adopted. Cargo ships regardless of construction date are required
to provide immersion suits for every person onboard. However, ships other than bulk
carriers as defined in SOLAS chapter IX, may be exempted from providing those
immersion suits if the ship is constantly engaged on voyages in warm climates where,
in the opinion of the Administration, immersion suits are unnecessary. Existing ships
constructed before 1 July 2006 are to carry immersion suits for every person onboard
not later than the first SE Survey on or after 1 July 2006.
1.1.4 Maintenance, servicing and inspection of lifeboats and launching appliances
Date: 1 July 2006
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588, 0656, 0693]

In accordance with the amendments to 1974 SOLAS (MSC.152(78)), regardless of flag,
implementation of maintenance, servicing and inspection of lifeboats and launching
appliances complying with MSC/Circ.1093 is required.
1.1.5 Satellite EPIRBs maintenance
Date: 1 July 2006
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588, 0664]

The amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/15 concerning the Satellite EPIRBs
maintenance required at an approved shore-based maintenance facility every five
years were adopted, as scheduled for entry into force on 1 July 2006.
1.1.6 S-VDR on Existing ships
Date: 1 July 2006

The draft amendment to SOLAS regulation V/20, concerning making the carriage of a
Simplified Voyage Data Recorder on existing cargo ships constructed before 1 July
2002 mandatory, was adopted.
The implementation schedule is to be as follows:
- cargo ships of 20,000 GT and upward, at the first scheduled dry-docking after 1
July 2006 but not later than 1 July 2009, and
- cargo ships of 3,000 GT and upward but less than 20,000 GT, at the first
scheduled drydocking after 1 July 2007 but not later than 1 July 2010.
Administrations may exempt ships from the requirements to fit with S-VDR when the
ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years after the
implementation date specified above.
1.1.7 MARPOL 73/78 Annex I
Date: 1 January 2007

As a result of various amendments to MARPOL Annex I since its entry into force in
1983, the regulations become quite in complicated for users. For the purpose of making
them user-friendly, MARPOL Annex I was re-constructed. In addition, the revised
MARPOL Annex I contains the following new requirements.
(1) Pump-room bottom protection (Reg. 22)
2
For oil tankers of 5,000DWT and above constructed on or after 1 January 2007, the
pump-room shall be provided with a double bottom tank or space. The depth of
double bottom should not less than B/15 meters or 2 meters, whichever is lesser (the
minimum 1 meter).
(2) Accidental oil outflow performance (Reg. 23)
Oil tankers delivered on or after 1 January 2010 shall be applied new regulation 23,
instead of the current regulations 22 to 24, to specify the tank arrangement for
preventing oil outflow in the event of stranding and collision. In this regard,
"Explanatory notes on matters related to the accidental oil outflow performance"
was also adopted.
(3) Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan (Reg. 37)
All oil tankers of 5,000 DWT and above shall have prompt access to computerized,
shore-based damage stability and residual structure strength calculation programs.
Date: 1 August 2007

Relating amendments to the revised MARPOL 73/78 Annex I , which was entered into
force on 1 January 2007, the following amendments to the revised MARPOL 73/78
Annex I were adopted.
(1) Protection of oil fuel tanks (Regulation 12A)
The amendment to revised MARPOL Annex I to add new regulation (12A)
concerning oil fuel tank protection and the consequential amendments to the IOPP
Certificate Supplement (Form A and B) were adopted. This regulation will apply to
all ships with an aggregate oil fuel capacity of 600 m3 and above which the building
contract is placed on or after 1 August 2007, or in the absence of a building contract,
the keels of which are laid or which are at a similar stage of construction on or after
1 February 2008, or the delivery of which is on or after 1 August 2010. This
regulation is prescribed arrangements of oil fuel tank in order to prevent the outflow
of oil fuel from ships when the ship sustains the casualty.
(2) Definition of heavy grade oils (Regulation 21)
The amendment to the regulation 21.2.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex I that
specify "heavy grade oil (HGO)" was adopted. Although the current definition is
limited the "fuel oils" having either a density at 15oC higher than 900 kg/m3 or a
kinematic viscosity at 50 oC higher than 180 mm2/s, the amendment to this
regulation include such as "oil" other than crude oils since "oils" having such as
characteristics exist, other than fuel oils.
1.1.8 MARPOL 73/78 Annex II

The revised MARPOL Annex II for the control of pollution by noxious liquid
substances in bulk was adopted. The main point of revisions is the change of pollution
category system of noxious liquid substances from a 5- category system (A, B, C, D
and III (other liquid substance)) to a 4- category system (X, Y, Z and OS (other
substance)). The revised MARPOL Annex II contains various amendments such as
stripping requirement, discharge requirement, etc. Also the construction of the rules is
changed.
1.1.9 IBC Code

3
The revised IBC Code, which reflects the revised MARPOL Annex II, was adopted. The
revised IBC Code includes 575 products under chapters 17 and 18, which were
re-evaluated in accordance with the revised criteria on pollution category and ship
type.
1.1.10 Construction drawings maintained on board and ashore (SOLAS II-1/3-7)
Date: 1 July 2007

A set of as-build construction drawings which is referred to in MSC/Circ.1135, and
other plans showing any subsequent structural alterations shall be kept on board a
ship constructed on or after 1 January 2007.
1.1.11 Towing and mooring equipment (SOLAS II-1/3-8)
Date: 1 July 2007

Ships shall be provided with arrangements, equipment and fittings of sufficient safe
working load to enable the safe conduct of all towing and mooring operations
associated with the normal operation on the ship, except emergency towing
arrangements provided in accordance with regulation 3-4. With regard to technical
specifications for the regulation, MSC/Circ.1175 that provides standards for design
and construction of shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures associated with
towing and mooring was approved.
1.1.12 Water level detectors on single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers
(SOLAS II-1/23-3)
Date: 1 July 2007

Single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers shall be provided with water level
detectors which refer to MSC.188(79). For existing ships, they are to be provided not
later than the date of the first Intermediate Survey or Renewal Survey, whichever is
the earlier date, after 1 January 2007.
New amendments to conventions are also introduced on the ClassNK Website in the
section IMO International Convention Calendar. (http://www.classnk.or.jp)
1.2 Recent world developments

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

1) Activity
Established: 1 July 1982
Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian
Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom
-1 The Paris MOU consists of 27 participating maritime Administrations and covers
the waters of the European coastal States and the North Atlantic basin from
North America to European. The Paris MOU declares that their aim is to
eliminate the operation of sub-standards ship through a harmonized system of
port State control.
-2 Press releases announced the activities of Paris MOU as follows.
Press release dated 15 February 2007
Paris MOU announced the result of Concentrated Inspection Campaign on
MARPOL Annex I, which was conducted from 1st of February 2006 to 30th April
2006.
-In total 4614 ships were inspected during the CIC and 128 ships (2.8%)
were detained with serious deficiencies
-A total 3213 deficiencies were recorded
-Major deficiencies were related to IOPP Certificate,, discharge pipe,
15ppm alarm or three-way valve.
Press release dated 15 May 2007
The 40th meeting of this PSC Committee was held at Bonn, Germany and
discussed the following topics.
- Bulgaria and Romanian becoming full members
- Common training program jointly with EMSA
Press release dated 5 June 2007
Announced new Black-Grey-White Flag States List
-3 The following annual program of inspection campaigns were scheduled
1. ISM Code (2007) (Jointly with Tokyo MOU)
5
2. SOLAS Chapter V (2008)

2) Targeting system
To facilitate the selection of ships to be inspected throughout the Paris MOU region,
a central computer database, known as SIRENAC is consulted by PSC officers for
data on ships particulars and for reports of previous inspections carried out within
the region.
The Paris MOU Authorities are selecting the ships in accordance with a target
factor which is calculated from the database. (Please refer to Paris MOU website for
the detail of target factor.)
3) Banned Ship
A following ships will be refused access to ports in the MOU and announced as
Banned Ships on their Website
1. A ship registered with a flag on the Black List after the 2nd detention in 3 years if it is in the very high risk or high risk
category on the Black List
after the 3rd detention in 2 years if it is in the lower risk category on the
Black List
2. Failed to call at indicated repair yard
(2) Asia-Pacific regionTokyo MOU
1) Activity
Established: 1 December 1993
Members: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian
Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Vietnam
-1 The main objectives of the Memorandum have been announced as follows.
1. To establish an effective Port State control regime in the Asia-Pacific region
through the co-operation of its members and the harmonization of their
activities
2. To eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety
3. To protect the marine environment
4. To safeguard working and living conditions on board ships.
-2 Press releases announced the activities of the Tokyo MOU as follows.
Press release dated 23 January 2006
Tokyo MOU announced the result of Concentrated Inspection Campaign on
Operation Requirement, which was conducted from 1st of September 2005 to
30th November 2005.
-In total 4599 ships were inspected during the CIC and 144 ships were
detained.
-Following significant deficiencies were recorded
Not adequately maintaining or testing of Life saving appliances (8.1%)
Not available for immediate use of Life saving appliances (7.3%)
Not effectively implemented the maintenance plan for fire protection
system (6.8%)
Not satisfaction of the passage plan required under SOLAS/V (7.8%)
Press release dated 19 July 2006
Tokyo MOU announced the result of Concentrated Inspection Campaign on
MARPOL Annex I, which was conducted from 1st of February 2006 to 30th April
2006.
-In total 4603 ships were inspected during the CIC and 96 ships were
detained with serious deficiencies
6
-A total 2148 deficiencies were recorded

-Major deficiencies were related to Oil record book, SOPEP or Oil filtering
equipment.
Press release dated 2 October 2006 (issue on 28 September 2006)
The 16th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Victoria, Canada and
-Adoption of the Code of Good Practice for PSC Officers in response to the
request of the Ministerial Declaration Strengthening the Circle of
Responsibility of the Second Joint Paris MOU/Tokyo MOU Ministerial
Conference
-Approval to publicize ship targeting factors and online monthly detention list
on Tokyo MOU web-site.
1. ISM Code (2007) (Jointly with Paris MOU and USCG)
2. Lifeboat safety, Cargo crane, Structural safety, ISPS Code (after 2008)
2) Targeting system
To facilitate the selection of ships to be inspected throughout the Tokyo MOU region,
a central computer database, known as APCIS is consulted by PSC officers for data
on ships particulars and for reports of previous inspections carried out within the
region.
The Tokyo MOU Authorities are selecting the ships in accordance with a target
factor which is calculated from the database.
(3) Latin-American regionVia del Mar or Latin-America Agreement)
Established: 5 November 1992
Members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras,
Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
-1 The 13th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Venezuela in September
2006 and discussed the following topics.
Improvement in the training of the Maritime Authorities qualified officers
Approval of new policies regarding the dissemination and information
ISM Code (September to November 2007)
(4) Caribbean regionCaribbean MOU
Established: 9 February 1996
Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Cuba,
Grenada, Guyana, Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago
-1 The 11th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Nassau, Bahamas in 2006.
(5) Mediterranean regionMediterranean MOU
Established: 11 July 1997
Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,
Turkey
-1 The 8th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Turkey in April 2006 together
with Black Sea MOU as First Joint Working Session.
(6) Indian Ocean regionIndian Ocean MOU
Established: 5 June 1998
Members: Australia, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania
7
-1 The 9th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Tanzania in September 2006
and discussed the following topics.
Agreed on the proposals of Tokyo MOU and LRF for Data Exchange
Participating in Joint CIC along with Tokyo MOU and Paris MOU
(7) West and Central Africa regionAbuja MOU
Established: 22 October 1999
Members: Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Cote dIvoire, Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Namibia,
Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo
th
-1 The 5 meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Angola in 2006.
(8) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)
Established: 7 April 2000
Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine
-1 The 7th meeting of this PSC Committee was held in Turkey in April 2006 and
-Review of PSC Manual
-Data exchange with IMO
-Development of Targeting system
The member of Mediterranean MOU also attended this meeting as First Joint
Working Session.
ISM Code (2007)
(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU)
Established: 30 June 2004
Members: The Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Sultanate of Oman, State of
Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates
1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)

1) Activity
Though the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is not a member of any MOU, it is
an observer of some MOUs, and undertakes effective PSC in cooperation with other
MOUs.
In the 1970's, the U.S. Coast Guard increased its emphasis on the examination of
foreign vessels. Although this emphasis was primarily driven by requirements to
ensure compliance with the then new U.S. pollution prevention and navigation
safety regulations, boarding officers also exercised Port State authority when
instances of non-compliance with SOLAS and MARPOL were noted.
In 1994, the U.S. introduced risk-management methodologies into the Port State
Control program in order to allocate limited inspection resources to where they could
do the most good, by identifying those ships, ship owners, classification societies and
Flag Administrations that were most often found lacking in meeting their
international Convention responsibilities.
On the 1st of January 2001, the USCG implemented an initiative to identify
high-quality ships, called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century.
2) USCG Boarding Priority Matrix
The Boarding Priority Matrix enables the Coast Guard to rationally and
systematically determine the probable risk posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S.
ports. The Matrix is used to decide which ships Port State Control Officers should
board on any given day, in any given port. Points are assessed in each of five
columns for Safety matters & four columns for Security matters and then added up
for a total point score. This numerical score, along with other performance-based
factors, determines a ships boarding priority.
http://homeport.uscg.mil/
1.2.3 Equasis
Equasis is a unique database collecting safety-related information on the worlds
merchant fleet from both public and private sources and making it easily accessible on
the Internet. (http://www.equasis.org/) It displays information from public authorities
(Port State inspection and detention information from the three participating PSC
regions, i.e. Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and USCG) and industry players (such as
information on class, insurance, participation in industry inspection schemes and quality
organizations), all free of charge.
1.3 Measures to be adopted by ClassNK

1.3.1 Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections
(1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of the deficiencies
When surveyors are notified of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, ClassNK
actively co-operates as follows:
Surveyors liaise with port state control authorities to ensure that they are called in as
soon as appropriate when deficiencies related to class and/or statutory matters are
identified.
Surveyors liaise with PSC officers to ensure uniformity of interpretations of class and
statutory requirements.
Surveyors provide PSC officers with background information, extracts from reports
pertinent to the inspection and details of outstanding recommendations of class and
statutory items whenever so requested by a port state.
Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified by
the PSC officers but also the general condition of hull, machinery and equipment, to
the extent of an annual survey, carefully considering the seriousness of any
deficiencies when they attend ships intervened with under port state control.
(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers
When surveyors receive inspection reports from port state authorities, the report is
sent to ClassNK head office. The report is examined for the causes of the deficiencies
immediately by experienced staff. This examination is carried out for all ships, for
which reports are received, and the results are circulated to all concerned sections
including all directors of the board and are reflected in the ClassNK PSC database
that has been developed for the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related
information electronically.
The result of this examination is also submitted to the Flag State of the ship.
A letter is sent to owner(s) of the ship to remind the owner of their ultimate
responsibility regarding the safety of their ships and protection of the marine
environment, and/or by advising them to improve routine maintenance of their ships,
upon visiting the owners office.
In cases where the intervention is judged as being related to the previous surveys
conducted by the societys surveyors, those surveys are treated as a non-conforming
service and appropriate corrective/preventive actions are taken in accordance with our
quality system.
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships
(1) Special training at several in-house meetings
Special training on PSC related issues was held at several meetings held in 2005 for
general managers and managers, to ensure surveyors carry out full and effective
surveys with an uncompromising attitude toward ensuring the quality and safety of
the ships classed with the Society.
Special re-training was also carried out under the supervision of Head Office and
regional managers, for those surveyors who conducted any surveys judged as
non-conforming services.
(2) ClassNK Concentrated Inspection Campaigns
(a) Air pipe heads, Emergency Fire Pump and Fire dampers
Deficiencies related to the Air pipe heads, Emergency fire pump and Fire dampers
were frequently pointed out by PSC. Then, in 2006, a concentrated inspection
10
campaign was carried out to examine them during periodical survey.

(3) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners
(a) Visiting Management Companies
In cases of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, discussions with the owner
about the improvement & enhancement of their routine maintenance are held upon
visiting their office.
(b) Meetings and seminars
At informal gatherings and technical committee meetings with ship owners, PSC
related issues have been discussed; explanations have been given and documents
presented, pointing out the importance of the proper maintenance of ships and
education of crew to prevent the detention of ships.
(c) Publications
The ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control was distributed to all
registered shipowners/operators in the fleet. A checklist (Good Maintenance On
Board Ships) was also prepared in electronic format, which can be used by the ships
crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship before she enters port.
1.3.3 Visits to Port States
Personnel from ClassNK Head Office or survey offices were assigned to visit the
headquarters or offices of Port States with the objective of introducing ClassNK and
exchanging views.
The organizations in the major port States, which were visited by executives during 2006,
are listed below.
Australia
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
New Zealand Maritime New Zealand
U.S.A.
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Singapore
Maritime and Port Authority (MPA)
Japan
The Maritime Administration of Japan (JG)
11
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK
2.1 General
The data in this chapter, on ships detained due to deficiencies identified during PSC
inspections, is based on the following:
(1) Notifications from Port States in accordance with IMO Resolution A.787(19)
Procedure for Port State Control amended by Resolution A. 882(21)
(2) Publications related to detained ships issued by the USCG, the Paris MOU and
the Tokyo MOU.
From January to December 2006, 280 detentions under PSC were reported relating to
264 ships classed by NK. This included cases of detention for reasons not related to class
or to NK. The total number of NK-registered ships (500 GT or over) was 6,005 at the end
of December 2006. Therefore the 264 ships detained represents about 4.4% of the total.
2.2 Data on Detentions
2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State
Flag State
Panama
Cyprus
Liberia
Malta
Singapore
Thailand
Hong Kong
Bahamas
Philippines
Malaysia
St. Vincent
Marshall Islands
Vietnam
Indonesia
Turkey
Belize
Greece
(Others)
Total
Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK)

Detention Ratio (%)
Number of
Number of
(= Detentions /
Registered Ships
Detentions
Registered Number
(500GT or over)
in each year)
2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006
2,407 2,555 2,694
175
133
137
7.2
5.2
5.1
116
108
102
13
8
18 11.2
7.4 17.6
218
233
236
13
6
16
6.0
2.6
6.8
168
161
159
25
16
14 14.9
9.9
8.8
539
579
543
24
16
14
4.5
2.8
2.6
95
96
88
8
11
10
8.4 11.5 11.4
310
324
336
12
8
10
3.9
2.5
3.0
131
112
122
5
6
8
3.8
5.4
6.6
131
119
109
7
2
7
5.3
1.7
6.4
282
262
256
11
9
6
3.9
3.4
2.3
48
51
47
9
8
6 18.8 15.7 12.8
42
72
89
0
6
5
0
8.3
5.6
36
43
55
4
5
4 11.1 11.6
7.3
42
52
74
4
3
4
9.5
5.8
5.4
46
49
40
4
2
4
8.7
4.1 10.0
22
19
13
4
2
3 18.2 10.5 23.0
49
50
44
3
0
3
6.1
0.0
6.8
18
11
11
5,684 5,894 6,005
339
252
280
6.0
4.3
4.7
12
Fig 2.2.2-1 Detention by Flag (NK)

200
180
175
160
Detentions
140
137
133
2004
2005
2006
120
100
80
60
40
25
24
18
8
5 6
11 9
9 8
6 5
6
0
Flag State
Mars
hall I
sland
s
St. V
incen
t
ysia
Mala
pines
Philip
Baha
mas
Kong
Hong
Thail
and
Sing
apor
e
Malta
Cypr
us
Liber
ia
0
Pana
ma
4 5 4
11 11
4 3 4
4 2 4
4 2 3
3 0 3
rs)
8 10
(Oth
e
12
Gree
ce
11 10
Beliz
14
Turk
ey
16
14
esia
16
16
13
Indo
n
13
Vietn
am
18
20
Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)

25.0
23
20.0
2004
2005
2006
18.8
18.2
15.7
14.9
15.0
12.8
11.6
11.1
11.5
11.4
9.9
10.0
7.2
7.4
8.4
5.4
4.5
3.9
2.82.6
2.6
2.5
6.4
5.3
4.1
3.9
3.4
3.8
3
2.3
1.7
e
Beliz
ey
Turk
esia
Indo
n
t
incen
St. V
Mala
ysia
pines
Philip
m as
Baha
Kong
Hong
and
Thail
ap or
e
Sing
Malta
ia
Liber
us
Cypr
ma
Flag State
Vietn
am
0.0
Pana
6.8
6.1
5.8
5.4
5.6
lands
5.0
7.3
6.6
10.5
8.7
8.3
6.8
5.25.1
10
9.5
8.8
Gree
ce
11.2
Mars
hall I
s
Detention Ratio (%)
17.6
From among those Administrations with 10 or more NK classed ships, the following Flag
State Administrations were identified as having a detention ratio higher than 10% in
2006
Cyprus, Thailand, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Turkey, Belize
13
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
Ships in 2006
Number in each year)
(500GT or
2004
2005
2006
2004
2005
2006
over)
1925
96
81
116
5.7
4.5
6.0
600
94
67
56
17.6
10.9
9.3
467
27
16
14
6.3
3.6
3.0
121
7
4
6
6.3
3.5
5.0
123
8
3
0
6.6
2.4
0.0
102
4
3
6
4.2
3.2
5.9
234
25
15
21
9.2
5.8
9.0
332
21
18
20
6.6
5.4
6.0
763
15
14
10
1.8
1.7
1.3
529
26
21
21
5.8
4.5
4.0
325
11
6
3
3.3
1.9
0.9
484
5
4
7
0.9
1.0
1.4
6,005
339
252
280
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
General Cargo
Container Carrier
Chip Carrier
Cement Carrier
Ro-Ro Ship
Reefer Carrier
Vehicles Carrier
Oil Tanker
Oil/Chemical Tanker
Gas Carrier
Others
Total
General cargo or Reefer carrier were identified as having a heigher detention ratio .
(Detention ratio was determined by dividing detentions by the number of ships of each
ship type in the NK fleet.)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
116
96
94
2004
81
67
2005
56
2006
27
25
4
21
21 18 20
26
15 14
21 21
11
10
en
er
th
er
al
C
ar
C
Bu
lk
15
ar
go
on
ta
in
er
C
ar
rie
r
C
hi
p
C
ar
ri e
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
Ch
er
em
ica
lT
an
ke
r
G
as
C
ar
rie
r
16 14
rie
r
Detentions
Fig. 2.2.2-1 Detentions by Ship type (NK)
Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (NK)

Detention Ratio (%)
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
17.6
2004
10.9
4.5
6.3
6.6
6.3
5.9
5
3.6
4.2
3.5
2.4
2005
9
5.8
6.6
5.4
2006
5.8
4.5 4
3.2
1.8 1.7 1.3
3.3
1.9
Bu
lk
ar
rie
r
en
er
al
C
ar
C
go
on
ta
in
er
C
ar
rie
r
C
hi
p
C
ar
rie
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
Ch
er
em
ica
lT
an
ke
r
G
as
C
ar
rie
r
14
1.4
0.9 1
0.9
th
er
s
5.7
9.2
9.3
2.2.3 Detentions by ships age

Table 2.2.3 Detentions by ships age (NK)
Number of
Registered
Ships in 2006
(500GT or over)
Ships age
Number of Detentions
2004
2005
2006
Detention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / Registered
2004
2005
2006
up to 5 years old
1,249
29
19
19
2.2
1.3
1.5
over 5 and up to 10
1,345
54
39
41
3.4
4.0
3.0
over 10 and up to 15
1,252
59
45
43
5.5
3.9
3.4
674
65
44
43
9.0
6.6
6.4
772
85
77
85
12.3
10.1
11.0
over 25
382
47
28
49
16.4
6.5
12.8
6,005
339
252
280
Total
Fig. 2.2.3-1 Detentions by Ship's age (NK)
Detentions
100
77
60
40
20
85
85
80
65
59
54
39
45
41
44
43
43
29
2004
2005
2006
49
47
28
19
19
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 ration (%)
Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio by Ship's age (NK)

20.0
16.4
15.0
10.1
10.0
5.0
12.8
12.3
2.2
3.4
1.3 1.5
6.6 6.4
5.5
3
11
6.5
3.9 3.4
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
15
over 25
2004
2005
2006
2.2.4 Detentions by size tonnage)

Table 2.2.4 Detention by size tonnage) (NK)
Detention Ratio (%)
Number of
Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered
Registered
Gross Ton (x 1,000)
Ships in 2006
(500GT or over) 2004 2005 2006
2004
2005
2006
up to 10
2,641
168
123
107
6.3
4.5
4.1
1,000
85
43
58
8.8
4.4
5.8
673
32
30
44
5.0
4.6
6.5
629
26
31
38
5.2
5.5
6.0
351
12
7
15
4.3
2.3
4.3
201
5
4
4
2.6
2.0
2.0
142
5
7
7
4.1
5.4
4.9
over 80
368
6
7
7
2.0
2.1
1.9
Total
6,005
339
252
280
Fig. 2.2.4-1 Detentions by Gross Tonnage (NK)

168
123
Detentions
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
107
2004
85
2005
58
44
43
32 30
26 31
2006
38
12
up to 10
over 10 and
up to 20
over 20 and
up to 30
over 30 and
up to 40
15
over 40 and
up to 50
over 50 and
up to 60
over 60 and
up to 80
over 80
x 1,000 GT
Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio by Gross Tonnage (NK)
Detention Ratio (%)
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
8.8
6.5
6.3
5
4.5
4.1
4.4
5.2
5.5
4.6
5.4
4.9
4.3
4.3
2.3
up to 10
over 10 and
up to 20
2004
2005
2006
5.8
over 20 and
up to 30
over 30 and
up to 40
16
over 40 and
up to 50
4.1
2.6
2
over 50 and
up to 60
over 60 and
up to 80
2.1 1.9
over 80
x 1,000 GT
2.2.5 Detentions by Port State

Table 2.2.5
Detentions by Port State (NK)
Port State
Australia
China
Japan
USA (*1)
Republic of Korea
Hong Kong
Singapore
Italy
India
Netherlands
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
Turkey
Canada
Germany
Taiwan
Slovenia
Belgium
Iran
New Zealand
Spain
France
Ukraine
Ireland
Vietnam
Argentina
Poland
Romania
(Others)
Total
2004 2005 2006

40
36
48
33
40
36
57
32
35
25
12
20
14
12
20
43
11
13
7
7
9
11
8
8
18
10
7
11
7
7
9
3
7
10
12
6
2
7
6
9
7
5
8
5
5
0
3
4
3
2
4
2
2
4
0
0
4
5
9
3
6
8
3
3
3
3
0
2
3
1
1
3
2
3
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
1
0
2
17
13
9
339 252 280
Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)

Australia
36
36
China
33
Japan
32
USA (*1)
12
Republic of Korea
12
Hong Kong
11
Singapore
8
8
India
Netherlands
7
7
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
Turkey
Canada
Germany
5
5
Taiwan
Slovenia
Belgium
2
2
Iran
43
10
18
11
2006
2005
12
2004
0
0
3
Spain
France
3
3
3
Ireland
14
New Zealand
Ukraine
25
20
11
10
57
20
13
9
6
40
35
7
7
Italy
48
40
1
1
Vietnam
Argentina
0
0
Poland
Romania
2
2
2
1
(*1) including Puerto Rico
Detentions by the members of the Tokyo MOU made up 60% or more of the total number
of detained ships in 2006.
17
2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies

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

163
FIRE SAFETY MEASURES

97
96
LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES

MARPOL-ANNEX I
59
ISM RELATED DEFICIENCIES
SAFETY OF NAVIGATION
35
36
28
24
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
85
59
44
PROPULSION & AUXILIARY MACHINERY
191
73
77
68
73
STABILITY AND STRUCTURE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
37
95
53
69
76
51
24
34
30
SOLAS RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES

CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING
11
SHIP'S CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTS
CREW AND ACCOMMODATION (ILO 147)
8
6
8
MARPOL RELATED OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES
1
4
ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SECURITY
BULK CARRIERS - ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES
0
0
ACCIDENT PREVENTION (ILO 147)
22
28
18
23
8
8
9
5
4
5
3
2
6
ALARMS-SIGNALS
MOORING ARRANGEMENTS (ILO 147)
2
1
MARPOL-ANNEX V
2
0
0
OIL, CHEMICAL TANKERS AND GAS CARRIERS
1
6
4
CARRIAGE OF CARGO AND DANGEROUS GOODS
1
4
2
FOOD AND CATERING (ILO 147)
1
3
MARPOL-ANNEX VI
1
0
0
ALL OTHER DEFICIENCIES
0
1
1
WORKING SPACES (ILO 147)
0
0
3
MARPOL-ANNEX II
0
0
1
MARPOL-ANNEX IV
0
0
0
MARPOL-ANNEX III
0
0
0
2006
2005
2004
50
100
150
Deficiencies
18
212
70
77
47
LOAD LINES
186
200
250
2.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequently

Figure 2.3.2 shows those items of detainable deficiencies that were reported frequently,
in conjunction with the actual detention of ships in the NK fleet. Fire-Dampers,
Emergency Fire Pumps, Oily-Water Separating Equipment and Lifeboats continue to be
the major items where most detainable deficiencies were found.
The items reported in 2004 to 2006 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (14).
Fig. 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported Frequentry (NK)

Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control,
etc.
57
42
76
49
Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pump)
34
Oil filtering equipment
39
32
32
Lifeboats
Maintenance of the ship and equipment
31
17
16
Fire Fighting Equipment and Appliances
21
23
16
15
Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Switches
24
2006
13
2005
11
Emergency preparedness
6
7
Resource and personnel
Beams,frames,floors - Corrosion
40
18
10
Cargo and other hatchways
61
25
24
25
Cleanliness of Engine Room
35
23
20
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
51
27
19
Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft
12
12
2004
13
12
11
Jacketed piping system for high pressure fuel lines
11
12
Other (Machinery)
22
25
19
11
12
13
Abandon Ship Drills

MF/HF radio installation
15 PPM alarm arrangements
10
12
10
13
10
20
30
40
50
Deficiencies
19
53
60
70
80
(1) Fire Fighting Appliances

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Fire Safety Measures
(Fire Fighting Appliances) is shown in Table 2.3.2-(1).
Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety Measures (Fire Fighting Appliances)
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Damage / Missing of self-closing device for
fire proof door
Prevention (Fire protection)
11 14 7
Locked self closing valves for glass gauge for
oil tanks (Open condition)
Inoperable fixed fire extinguishing system in
paint locker
Fixed fire extinguishing system 12 8 7 Missing Service reports
Slack connector between CO2 Cylinder and
Manifold
Defective hose/nozzle
Fire Fighting Equipment
23 21 16
Leakage from fire hydrant
Inoperable or low pressure emergency fire
Fire Pumps
34 53 49 pumps
Wastage or leakage of Fire main
Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick
Seized closing devices; fire damper, door
Closing
Devices,
Remote 76 42 57 self-closer, emergency shut-off valves on FO
Control, etc.
tanks, Isolating valves of Fire main
Improper modification of drain line, leakage
Jacketed piping system for high
alarm system
25 22 11
pressure fuel lines
No protection for Generator Engine
Protection miss-fitting (after maintenance)
Defective fire protection for emergency escape
Other (fire safety)
12 4 4
trunk.
(2) Life Saving Appliances

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Life Saving Appliances
is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(2).
Table 2.3.2-(2) Life Saving Appliances
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Inoperable lifeboat engine
Lifeboats
61 35 32 Wasted/holed shell
Inoperable on-load release gear
Damaged / wasted inventories
Lifeboat inventory
26 0 7
Inoperable bilge pump
Inoperable rescue boat engine
Rescue boats
3 1 4
Damaged / wasted inventories
Defective secured
Inflatable Liferafts
10 3 5
Damaged / wasted cradle
Launching Arrangements for
Wasted/holed davit
31 20 25
Survival Craft
Wasted sheaves
Operational
readiness
of
3 3 4 Insufficient operation and drill
lifesaving appliances
20
(3) MARPOL-ANNEX I
Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category MARPOL-ANNEX I is
shown in the Table 2.3.2-(3).
Table 2.3.2-(3) MARPOL-ANNEX I
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Fitted illegal by-pass line
Retention of oil on board
1 5 6 Coincide of Tank Capacity among oil record
book, capacity plan or IOPP supplement
Inoperable separator
Oil
filtering
equipment
Wasted and holed separator casing
(Oily-Water
Separating 51 32 39 Wasted discharging line
Equipment)
Suspicion of by-pass line fitting for Oil
filtering equipment
Oil discharge monitoring and
Inoperable oil discharge monitoring and
0 4 4
control system
control system
Failure of alarm
15ppm alarm arrangement
13 3 10
Inoperable automatic stopping device
Inoperable incinerator
Other (MARPOL Annex I)
3 4 4
Leakage from deck machineries
(4) ISM Related Defects

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category ISM Related Defects is
Table 2.3.2-(4) ISM Related Defects
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Insufficient SMS by crew
Not familiar with location of stop valve for fire
Resources and personnel
12 7 12 main (Chief engineer and other engineers)
Not familiar with operation of fixed fire
extinguishing system
Failure of abandon ship drill or fire drill
Emergency preparedness
7 6 13
Insufficient training
Reports
and
analysis
of
No reporting about accident (about fire in
non-conformities, accidents and 1 3 4 engine room)
hazardous occurrences
No reporting non-conformities per SMS
No adequate function of SMS by crew
Maintenance of the ship and
23 19 27 No maintenance reports onboard
equipment
No plan for ships maintenance
(5) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Stability, Structure and
Related Equipment is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(5).
Table 2.3.2-(5) Stability, Structure and Related Equipment
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Damage to hull due to weather
3 0 4 Damaged ballast tank during cargo loading
or ship operation
Beams,
Frames,
Floors
Heavy wastage in cargo hold and ballast tank
3 9 12
(corrosion)
(Long., frame)
21
Deficient battery/emergency generator

Emergency Lighting, Batteries
24 15 16 Inoperable emergency lighting
& Switches
Low battery level
Corroded and holed upper deck plates
Deck (corrosion)
2 6 9 Heavy wastage / crack on hatch cover and
bulwarks
Temporary repaired sea-suction pipe, etc by
Other (stability/structure)
1 8 4
patch
(6) Load Lines

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Load Lines is shown in
the Table 2.3.2-(6).
Table 2.3.2-(6) Load Lines
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Cargo and other hatchway
11 3 13 Defective hatch cover cleats
Hatchcovers
12 2 9 Wasted / holed hatch cover plates
Doors
Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings
9 5 4 Insufficient weather tight

Wasted/holed ventilator, air pipes
40 25 24 Damaged float of air pipe head
Damaged closing device
(7) Propulsion & Aux. Machinery

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Propulsion & Aux.
Machinery is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(7).
Table 2.3.2-(7) Propulsion & Aux. Machinery
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Inoperable safety valves
Boilers
2 1 5
Defective alarm system
Propulsion main engine
4 3 6 Leakage of F.O & L.O
Cleanliness of Engine Room
17 10 18 Excessive oil in Engine Room
Auxiliary engine
20 9 9 Leakage of oil, Dirty blocks
Other (Machinery)
Leakage of exhaust gas

Defective switch of control panel for generator
19 12 11 engine
Leakage of sea water pipe, fresh water pipe
and cooling pipes
22
(8) Safety of Navigation

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Safety of Navigation is
Table 2.3.2-(8) Safety of Navigation
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Radar (1530)
Lights, shape, sound-signals
Charts
Nautical Publications
6 6 4 Inoperable radar
Miss-fitting of navigation lights
Wasted / corroded stand
Navigation charts not updated/correct
31 8 7 Navigation charts for intended voyage not
available
Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights,
17 8 9 list of radio signals, etc.) not updated/correct
Nautical publications incomplete/missing
11 7 8
(9) Radio Communications

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Radio Communications
is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(9).
Table 2.3.2-(9) Radio communications
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
MF/HF Radio Installation
EPIRB
Reserve source of energy
12 5 10 Not operable
8 4 4 Inoperable EPIRB
Defective battery of GMDSS
16 5 5 Poor knowledge and maintenance
Low voltage
(10) SOLAS Related Operational Defects

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category SOLAS Related
Operational Defects is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(10).
Table 2.3.2-(10) SOLAS Related Operational Defects
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Fire Drills
Abandon ship drills
9 7 6 Not familiar with the drill

13 12 11 Not familiar with the drill
(11) Certification and Watchkeeping

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Certification and
Watchkeeping is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(11).
Table 2.3.2-(11) Certification and Watchkeeping
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Certification of Master &
Invalid certificates onboard
15 6 9
Officers
Valid certificates expired
23
Endorsement by flag states
0 1 4
Missing of endorsement on STCW certificates

by flag states
(12) Bulk Carrier Safety

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Bulk Carrier Safety is
Table 2.3.2-(12) Bulk Carrier Safety
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Water level indicator
0 0 5 Inoperable water ingress alarm system
(13) MARPOL Related Operational Defects

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category MARPOL Related
Operational Defects is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(13).
Table 2.3.2-(13) MARPOL Related Operational Defects
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Oil and oily mixtures from
Not familiar with procedure for discharge of
4 0 5
machinery spaces
oily water
(14) Ships Certificates and Documents

Major types and their details of deficiencies under the category Ships Certificates and
Documents is shown in the Table 2.3.2-(14).
Table 2.3.2-(14) Ships Certificates and Documents
Item
04 05 06
Noted deficiencies
Defective of P & I Certificate
Other (certificates)
3 0 4
Validity of liferaft maintenance expired
24
2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State

Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.15 show the most common deficiencies that resulted in the detention
of vessels classed with NK under PSC inspections conducted by the top 15 Port States,
by number of detentions reported in 2006.
2.4.1 Australia
Table 2.4.1 Australia
Category of Deficiency
Lifesaving Appliances
Fire Safety Measures
Stability, Structure and Related Equipment
Load Lines
Radio Communications
SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies
ISM Related Deficiencies
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006

10
9
11
22
10
29
5
4
13
11
9
13
13
1
6
1
4
6
4
3
10
2004 2005 2006
4
1
3
2
5
5
2
8
6
17
6
22
2
1
6
0
3
6
3
2
4
8
5
8
6
1
3
0
0
3
Lifeboats
Launching arrangements for Survival Crafts
Fire Pumps (including Emergency Fire Pumps)
Fire-dampers, Ventilation, Means of control
Emergency lighting, batteries and switches
Beams, frames, floors corrosion
Ventilators, airpipe, casings
MF/HF radio installation
Emergency preparedness (ISM Code)
Maintenance of the ship and equipment (ISM
3
3
5
Code)
A total of 94 detainable deficiencies relating to 48 detentions in 2006.
(2.0 detainable deficiencies/detention)
2.4.2 China
Table 2.4.2 China
Stability, Structure and related equipment
Safety of Navigation
MARPOL Annex I
2004 2005 2006

17
16
9
20
30
25
9
14
7
2
6
7
9
7
7
5
0
7
Type of Deficiency
Lifeboats
Fire prevention
Propulsion main engine
Lights, shapes, sound-signals
Resources and personnel (ISM Code)
2004 2005 2006

8
7
4
1
2
3
4
9
11
6
4
6
1
0
3
1
3
5
8
5
5
0
0
3
25

2.4.3 Japan
Table 2.4.3 Japan
MARPOL Annex I
2004 2005 2006

15
14
10
17
17
20
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
Endorsement by flag states (on crew certificates)
0
0
3
1
0
6
1
6
3
13
12
18
2.4.4 U.S.A
Table 2.4.4 U.S.A.
2004 2005 2006

16
3
5
6
2
6
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
Others (ILO 147)
0
0
3
Rescue boats
0
0
3
2
0
3
2.4.5 Republic of Korea

Table 2.4.5 Republic of Korea
2004 2005 2006
4
5
8
4
2
6
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006

3
3
3
1
1
3
0
0
4
Lifeboats
Hatch covers
1
2
4
Code)
Marking of IMO number
0
0
3
26
2.4.6 Hong Kong

Table 2.4.6 Hong Kong
Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery
2004 2005 2006

34
13
8
55
25
11
4
3
6
12
7
9
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
Fire fighting equipment and appliances
22
8
6
Cleanliness of engine room
2
3
4
Charts
11
2
3
Nautical publications
3
3
4
2.4.7 Singapore
Table 2.4.7 Singapore
Load Lines
2004 2005 2006

0
2
8
3
9
12
0
2
6
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
Lifeboats
0
1
4
Inflatable liferafts
0
0
3
1
7
4
2
1
4
0
0
3
2.4.8 Italy
Table 2.4.8 Italy
2004 2005 2006

8
1
6
8
11
9
5
1
8
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
3
4
3
Fire fighting equipment and appliances
3
4
5
Cleanliness of engine room
0
1
4
A total of 38 detainable deficiencies relating to 8 detentions in 2006
2.4.9 Netherlands
Table 2.4.9 Netherlands
27
2004 2005 2006

4
6
5
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
2
1
3
2.4.10 India
Table 2.4.10 India
2004 2005 2006

2
8
5
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
3
2
3
Oil and oil mixtures from machinery spaces
1
0
3
2.4.11 Russian Federation

Table 2.4.11 Russian Federation
2004 2005 2006
4
0
4
0
0
3
2.4.12 United Kingdom

Table 2.4.12 United Kingdom
2004 2005 2006
Radio Communications
5
7
5
SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies
4
2
5
ISM related deficiencies
7
6
6
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006

3
2
3
Fire drills
4
3
4
Code)
28
2.4.13 Turkey
Table 2.4.13 Turkey
2004 2005 2006

7
10
10
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
1
2
3
2.4.14 Germany
Table 2.4.14 Germany
Stability, Structure and related equipment
2004 2005 2006

2
0
5
12
3
6
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
Decks - cracking
0
0
5
2.4.15 Transport Canada

Table 2.4.15 Canada
2004 2005 2006

4
9
5
Type of Deficiency
2004 2005 2006
3
2
3
29
Chapter 3
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU and Paris MOU
Several regional MOUs and Port States publicly announce their PSC data on their
Websites and publish Annual Reports every year. Based on this public data, this
Chapter introduces abstracts of the results of detentions by the Tokyo MOU and the
Paris MOU in 2006.
The full text of each Annual Report can be obtained from the following Websites.
Tokyo MOU
Paris MOU
http://www.tokyo-mou.org
http://www.parismou.org
30
3.1 Tokyo MOU

In 2006, 21,686 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 1,171 ships
were detained because of serious deficiencies found on board.
3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Statistics
Table 3.1.1 shows the PSC inspections carried out by each Port State.
Table 3.1.1
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
PSC by Authority (Tokyo MOU)
No. of Inspection
2004
3,228
388
576
3,897
7
745
32
4,896
3,309
353
520
0
378
983
1,612
153
6
317
2005
3,076
374
532
4,020
0
500
52
4,680
3,490
355
509
0
422
1,112
1,359
149
3
425
No. of Detentions
Detention ratio (%)
2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

5.48
5.01
4.48
3,081
177
154
138
7.47
3.21
1.53
458
29
12
7
4.86
2.26
2.71
665
28
12
18
4.98
6.44
7.94
4,020
194
259
319
0
0
0
65
0
0
0
596
169
84
62 22.68 16.80 10.40
3.12
5.77
1.69
59
1
3
1
9.38
5.30
5.96
4,898
459
248
292
3.20
3.52
4.68
3,374
106
123
158
1.42
0.85
0.69
434
5
3
3
2.69
4.72
2.66
527
14
24
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.38
0.47
0.32
627
9
2
2
5.94
3.60
1,001
110
66
36 11.19
3.97
5.52
7.67
1,290
64
75
99
1.96
1.34
3.23
124
3
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.89
7.06
3.85
467
25
30
18
21,400 21,058 21,686
1) Data is only for the Pacific ports
31
1393 1,097 1,171 6.51% 5.21% 5.40%
3.1.2 Black List

Table 3.1.2 shows the flag states announced as Black List States in the Tokyo MOU
Annual Report.
Table 3.1.2
Flag State
Honduras
Korea, Dem. People's Rep.
Indonesia
Georgia
Mongolia
Cambodia
Vietnam
Belize
Tuvalu
Dominica
Comoros
Myanmar
Thailand
Black List of Flag State (Tokyo MOU)

No. of
No. of
Inspections
Detentions
2004-2006
2004-2006
36
14
983
241
639
153
93
26
468
102
3,513
573
882
134
2,104
268
385
52
76
13
30
6
336
36
949
90
32
Black to
Grey limit
6
82
56
11
42
271
75
167
36
9
5
32
80
3.1.3 Detentions by Class

Table 3.1.3 & Fig.3.1.3 shows the detention data by Classification Society.
Table 3.1.3
2004
Class
ABS
BV
CCS
DNV
GL
KR
LR
NK
RINA
RS
Detentions by Class (Tokyo MOU) (*1)

2005
2006
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of
Detention %
Detention %
Detention %
Inspections Detentions
1,945
1,732
2,204
2,652
2,077
1,917
3,018
7,289
220
835
78
107
47
91
96
47
166
286
15
79
4.0%
6.2%
2.1%
3.4%
4.6%
2.5%
5.5%
3.9%
6.8%
9.5%
1,824
1,660
2,111
2,448
1,931
1,888
2,757
7,003
221
787
55
92
36
67
62
41
106
199
20
38
3.0%
5.5%
1.7%
2.7%
3.2%
2.2%
3.8%
2.8%
9.1%
4.8%
1,907
1,789
2,104
2,437
2,103
1,871
2,776
6,958
276
752
53
91
30
84
73
41
104
217
18
33
2.8%
5.1%
1.4%
3.5%
3.5%
2.2%
3.8%
3.1%
6.5%
4.4%
(*1) According to the Tokyo MOU annual report, in cases where a ships
certificates were issued by more than one recognized organization (RO), the number
of inspections would be counted towards both of them, while the number of
detention would be counted only towards the RO that issued the certificate relating
to the detainable deficiencies.
Fig. 3.1.3 Detention ratio by Class (Tokyo MOU)
Detention ratio
10.00%
8.00%
2004
2005
2006
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
ABS
BV
CCS
DNV
GL
33
KR
LR
NK
RINA
RS
3.1.4 Deficiencies by Category

Fig.3.1.4 shows the deficiencies by Category.
Fig. 3.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)
13154
12054
12,082
Fire safety measures

12680
10572
9,813
10871
10914
11,259
Life saving appliances

Load lines
6475
5832
5,550
Stability, structure and related equipment
6155
6081
6,454
5423
4304
5,056
MARPOL-ANNEX I
3801
3352
3,124
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
3186
4048
2,673
SOLAS related operational deficiencies
3066
3123
3,053
Radio communications
2830
2930
2,803
ISM related deficiencies
2700
2197
2,504
Ship's certificates and documents

Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers
2237
1825
2,185
MARPOL-ANNEX V
1931
2251
2,039
Additional measures enhance maritime safety
819
530
325
Working spaces (ILO 147)
731
550
366
Mooring arrangements (ILO 147)
709
793
802
Accident prevention (ILO 147)
636
580
587
Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods
555
459
550
417
362
481
383
274
Crew and accommodation (ILO 147)

MARPOL-ANNEX VI
379
581
509
MARPOL related operational deficiencies

Alarm signals
358
355
276
Bulk Carriers-additional safety measures
319
130
54
Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers
236
210
309
Food and catering (ILO 147)
220
173
137
MARPOL-ANNEX IV
136
46
MARPOL-ANNEX II
48
42
58
MARPOL-ANNEX III
10
2006
2005
2004
88
90
102
Other deficiencies
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Deficiencies
34
10000
12000
14000
3.2 Paris MOU

3.2.1 Black List
Table 3.2.1 shows the flag states announced as Black List States in the Paris MOU
Website.
Table 3.2.1
Flag State
Korea, Democratic Peoples Rep.
Albania
Bolivia
Comoros
Georgia
Slovakia
St.Kitts and Nevis
Syrian Arab Republic
Honduras
St Vincent & the Grenadines
Cambodia
Lebanon
Brazil
Egypt
Belize
Morocco
Black List of Flag State (Paris MOU)
Inspections
2004-2006
Detentions
2004-2006
397
344
36
326
718
202
40
170
116
2450
526
169
38
157
622
170
135
98
10
63
126
39
10
32
22
296
69
24
7
19
59
18
35
Black to
Grey Limit
Very
High Risk
High Risk
Medium to
high risk
Medium
Risk
37
32
6
31
62
21
6
18
13
193
47
18
6
17
55
18
NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI
For more information on this publication,

please contact the Survey Department
4-7, Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8567, Japan

Tel: +81-3-5226-2027
FAX: +81-3-5226-2029
e-mail: svd@classnk.or.jp

PSC NK

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PSC NK

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Annual Report on Port State Control

NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI

Photographs of Deficiencies identified during

Poor visibility from control

Inadequate form of support chock

Poor condition of Lifeboat Davit

Inadequate storage condition

Wasted casing of E/R Ventilator

Damaged or Wasted fire damper

Dirty E/R tank top

Missing Clip bolt &

Wasted top plate or Broken float of

Wasted suction pipe in E/R

Oil leakage from Air pipe due

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.2 Recent world developments

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies

3.2 Paris MOU

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.1.1 Bulk Carrier Safety related

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622, 0632, 0651, 0663]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0532]

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.1.3 Immersion Suits for every person onboard

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588, 0656, 0693]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0588, 0664]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0622, 0664]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0580, 0608, 0681]

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0657]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0580, 0608, 0655]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0580, 0608, 0655]

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0633, 0686]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0633]

[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-0633]

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.2 Recent world developments

(1) Europe and North Atlantic regionParis MOU

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2. SOLAS Chapter V (2008)

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

-A total 2148 deficiencies were recorded

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.3 Measures to be adopted by ClassNK

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

campaign was carried out to examine them during periodical survey.

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK)

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Fig 2.2.2-1 Detention by Flag (NK)

Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)

Detention Ratio (%)

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.2 Detentions by ship type