Publicación Anual 2018 Resultado Inspecciones PSC ClassNK

20190531-3-2_A4表紙_PSCANR_2019_EN.
pdf 1 2019/05/31 17:46:55
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
Photographs of Deficiencies identified during
Port State Control
Fire Safety
Detached insulation
Wasted fire door and frame
Detached fire door frame
Detached fire door packing

Fire Safety
Damaged fire hydrant
Fire hose joint leaking
Fractured escape trunk bottom
Corroded CO2 line

Life Saving Appliances
Hatch not tightly closed
Non color coded seat belts
Weak link not fitted
Wasted pilot ladder

Load Line
Holed air pipe head
Holed mushroom ventilator
Machinery Space
Secured quick closing valve
Oily and dirty machineries

MARPOL
Oil contamination in
overboard discharge line
Oily corelessor
Holed oil coming
Excessive garbage
Others
Broken mooring rope
Missed sink pipe
Wasted catwalk
Broken illumination
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
Foreword
This Annual Report on Port State Control (PSC) summarizes deficiencies identified during PSC
inspections carried out in various countries around the world. This report is prepared with the objective of
building awareness with the present state of PSC and thereby improving future onboard maintenance and
inspections, and as well as Safety Management System.
The report consists of the following Chapters.
“Chapter 1”: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide

“Chapter 2”: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with ClassNK
“Chapter 3”: Statistical Analysis of NK SMC Ships Detained by PSC (ISM Code)
“Chapter 4”: Statistical Analysis of NK MLC Ships Detained by PSC (MLC, 2006)
“Chapter 5”: Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MoU and USCG
Port State Control has been recognized to be a very direct and effective means to reduce the number of
substandard ships as well as to improve safety of ships at sea and to prevent marine pollution. The activity
of PSC worldwide has significantly been strengthened along with the increasing number of amendments
to the relevant international Conventions.
Further to the above, in order to carry out the effective implementation of port state responsibilities, many
countries have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for regional cooperation between local
PSCs, and have agreed to establish a centralized digitized database system and/or a harmonized approach.
The scope of PSC inspection has been extended from the hardware aspect of the ship to the software
aspect such as onboard maintenance or operational procedures ever since the ISM Code was adopted and
applied to all ships and is still expanding as more new concept of regulations has been introduced by the
adoption of Noise Code, POLAR Code, Ballast Water Management Convention, The Manila amendments
to the STCW Convention, etc.
In line with the above progress of PSC, ClassNK has been working hard and will work harder to increase
the transparency of information related to PSC and to eliminate substandard vessels.
June 2019
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented in this report. However, as
information is collected from a variety of sources, ClassNK cannot be held responsible for any erroneous data,
judgements or conclusions that may appear in this report, in cases were the information available should prove to
have been incomplete or incorrect in any respect.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide ····················1
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions ······························································· 1
1.1.1 Amended requirements for sludge discharging piping and bilge-water piping
(Regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex I) ······························································ 1
1.1.2 An entry-into-force of an international code for ships operating in polar waters
(POLAR Code) ························································································ 1
1.1.3 Inspection and certification relating to the entry into force of the 2014 Amendments to
the MLC, 2006 on 18th January 2017 ······························································ 1
1.1.4 An entry-into-force of the International Convention for the Control and Management
of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) ····································· 1
1.1.5 Revised for Form of Garbage Record Book ······················································· 2
1.1.6 Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships ········································ 2
1.1.7 EU Regulation on Ship Recycling ·································································· 2
1.2 Recent global developments ·············································································· 3
1.2.1 MOUs around the world·············································································· 3
(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU) ············································· 3
(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU) ······························································ 4
(3) Latin-American region (Latin American Agreement) ········································ 4
(4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU) ···························································· 4
(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU) ··················································· 4
(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) ····················································· 5
(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) ····························································· 5
(8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MoU)·················································· 5
(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MoU)·························································· 5
1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG) ··················································· 6
1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK ··········································································· 6
1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by PSC Inspections ···································· 6
(1) Cooperative assistance with PSC and treatment of the deficiencies ························· 6
(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers ··············································· 7
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships ·············· 7
(1) Special training at several in-house meetings ·················································· 7
(2) Meetings and informal gatherings with management companies ···························· 7
1.3.3 Visits to PSC authorities ·············································································· 8
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with ClassNK ·······························9
2.1 General ······································································································ 9
2.2 Data on Detentions ························································································· 9
2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State ·············································································· 9
2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type ············································································· 11
2.2.3 Detentions per Ship’s Age ············································································12
2.2.4 Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage) ·························································13
2.2.5 Detentions per PSC Country ·········································································14
2.2.6 Detentions per MOUs and USCG ···································································15
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies ····································································16

2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category····························································16
2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies ································································17
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies per PSC Country ···············································23
2.4.10 China ·································································································23
2.4.20 Australia ·····························································································24
2.4.30 Russia ································································································24
2.4.40 U.S.A. ································································································25
2.4.50 Indonesia ·····························································································25
2.4.60 Turkey ································································································26
2.4.70 Belgium ······························································································26
2.4.80 Japan ·································································································27
2.4.90 Republic of Korea ··················································································27
2.4.10 France ································································································28
2.4.11 U.K. ··································································································28
2.4.12 India ··································································································28
Chapter 3
Statistical Analysis of NK SMC Ships Detained by PSC (ISM Code) ······················ 29
3.1 General ····································································································29
3.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK SMC Ships ·····························································29
3.3 Analysis of ISM Detainable Deficiencies ······························································31
3.3.1 China···································································································32
3.3.2 Australia ·······························································································33
3.3.3 Russia ··································································································34
Chapter 4
Statistical Analysis of NK MLC Ships Detained by PSC (MLC, 2006) ····················· 35
4.1 General ·····································································································35
4.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK MLC Ships ·····························································35
4.3 Analysis of MLC Detainable Deficiencies ·····························································36
Chapter 5
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MoU and USCG ··································· 39
5.1 Tokyo MOU ································································································40
5.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities ·················································40
5.1.2 Black List of Flag States ············································································41
5.1.3 Recognized Organization Performance ····························································41
5.1.4 Deficiencies per Category ···········································································42
5.2 Paris MoU ··································································································43
5.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities ·················································43
5.2.2 Black List of Flag States ············································································44
5.2.3 Recognized Organization Performance ····························································44
5.3 USCG ·······································································································45
5.3.1 USCG Statistics ······················································································45
5.3.2 Targeted Flag States (Safety) ·······································································45
5.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance (Safety) ·················································46
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments

in PSC Worldwide
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions

Major amendments to international conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into effect
from 2016 through 2018 are summarized as below.
1.1.1 Amended requirements for sludge discharging piping and bilge-water piping
(Regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex I)
Entry into force: 1 January 2017
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-1080]
Regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex I was amended and due to this amendment, it is required that
the connections between the sludge discharge piping / the bilge-water piping and common piping
leading to the standard discharge connection are not to allow for the transfer of sludge to bilge
system prior to the following implementation deadline.
Application:
1) Ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 January 2017: The date of delivery
2) Ships constructed before 1 January 2017: The first IOPP renewal survey on or after 1 January
2017
1.1.2 An entry-into-force of an international code for ships operating in polar waters (POLAR
Code)
The POLAR Code is applied to the ships operating in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans on or after
1 January 2017.
Part I Safety measures Part II Pollution prevention measures
New ships Ships constructed on or after 1 January 2017 On or after 1 January 2017
Not later than the first intermediate or

Existing ships On or after 1 January 2017
renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after 1 January 2018
1.1.3 Inspection and certification relating to the entry into force of the 2014 Amendments to
the MLC, 2006 on 18th January 2017
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-1098 & 1142]
Ships flying flag of the member States are required to carry the certificates or other documentary
evidence of financial security complying with the requirements of the amendments on board by 18
January 2017. In addition, the DMLC Part II need to be revised by the ship owner associating with
issuance of the revised DMLC Part I issued by the flag State administration and subsequently
shipboard verification of its implementation is also required by the initial inspection, the first
intermediate inspection or the first renewal inspection whichever period is earlier after 18 January
2017.
1.1.4 An entry-into-force of the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention)
Entry into force: 8 September 2017
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-1085, 1086, 1113, 1116]
1
On or after the following implementation deadline for Ballast Water Management Systems
(BWMS) according to IMO Res. A. 1088(28) and MEPC 71, ships are required to conduct ballast
water exchange through BWMS. On or after 8 September 2017 and prior to the following
implementation deadline for BWMS, ships are required to conduct ballast water exchange
offshore according to a ballast water management plan or ballast water exchange through BWMS.
Keel laid Target vessel Deadline for the BWMS installtation

Vessels which do not have IOPP Certificate By 8 September 2024
Vessels completed IOPP renewal survey on
By the completion date of first renewal survey associated
or after 8 September 2014 but prior to
with the IOPP Certificate on or after 8 September 2017
Before 7 September 2017
8 September 2017 By the completion date of the second renewal survey
associated with the IOPP Ceritificate on ora after 8
Vessels other than the above September 2017 or the nerwal survey associated with the
IOPP Certificate on or after 8 September 2019, whichever
comes first
On or after
All vessels By the completion date of the construction
8 September 2017
1.1.5 Revised for Form of Garbage Record Book

Entry into force: 1 March 2018
Amended form of Garbage Record book including amendment of garbage category for the purpose
of recording is required to be provided on board on or after 1 March 2018.
1.1.6 Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships

Data collection for fuel oil consumption and relevant is required on or after 1 January 2019.
Collected data is to be reported to the Administration or RO after the end of each calendar year,
and Statement of Compliance is to be provided on board. In addition, SEEMP Part II specified the
Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Data Collection Plan (DCP) which includes a description of the
methodology for data collecting and the reporting processes is to be approved, and Confirmation
of Compliance is to be provided on board by the following date.
(1) Ships for which the delivery is placed on or after 1 March 2018: The date of delivery
(2) Ships other than above (1): 31 December 2018
1.1.7 EU Regulation on Ship Recycling

Development of inventory of hazardous materials (IHM) is required for EU flagged ships and
non-EU flagged ships by the following date. In addition, ship owners have to ensure that EU
flagged ships to be recycled only at the recycling facilities included in the EU List, which list ship
recycling facilities authorized in acoordance with the Regulation.
(1) EU flagged new ships: The date of delivary
(2) EU flagged existing ships: 31 December 2020 (If a ship is to be recycled before 31 December
2020, IHM shall be prepared prior to recycling)
(3) Non-EU flagged ships: 31 December 2020
New amendments to conventions are also introduced on the ClassNK Website in the section, ‘IMO
International Convention Calendar’.
(http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/imo_conv_schedule/)
2
1.2 Recent global developments
1.2.1 MOUs around the world

In order to carry out PSC effectively, a recommendation concerning regional co-operation in the
control of ships and discharges was adopted as a resolution by the IMO. In July 1982, fourteen
European countries signed the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris
MoU), and today many countries have signed and accepted similar MOUs around the world.
Currently, nine MOUs exist around the world and their respective activities in terms of implementing
PSC are described below.
European and North Atlantic region ：Paris MoU (http://www.parismou.org/)

Asia-Pacific region ：Tokyo MOU (http://www.tokyo-mou.org/)
Latin American region ：Latin American Agreement (http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar/)
Caribbean region ：Caribbean MOU (http://caribbeanmou.org/)
Mediterranean region ：Mediterranean MoU (http://www.medmou.org/)
Indian Ocean region ：Indian Ocean MOU (http://www.iomou.org/)
Black Sea region ：Black Sea MOU (http://www.bsmou.org/)
West and Central Africa region ：Abuja MoU (http://www.abujamou.org/)
Arab States of the Gulf ：Riyadh MoU (http://www.riyadhmou.org/)
(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU)

Established: 1 July 1982
Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the 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 PSC.
-2. Press releases have announced the recent activities of the Paris MoU as follows.
Press release dated 22 May 2019
- The Paris MoU announced that the Paris MoU held its 52th Committee meeting in
Rossia through 13 to 17 May 2019. Committee approved the questionnaire for the CIC
on Emergency Systems and Procedures to be carried out from September to November
2019. The questionnaire will be published in August 2019.
Press release dated 17 June 2019
- The Paris MoU announced new performance lists for flag and Recognized
Organizations. These lists will take effect from 1 July 2019.
3
(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU)

Established: 1 December 1993
Members: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of
Korea, Malaysia, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the
Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam
-1. The main objectives of the Memorandum have been announced
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 12 November 2018
- The Tokyo MOU announced that the 29th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Tokyo
MOU was held in Hangzhou, China through 5 to 8 November 2018.
- The Committee unanimously agreed to accept Mexico as a co-operating member
Authority, and the Abuja MOU as an observer of the Tokyo MOU.
- The Committee decided to conduct the CIC on Emergency Systems and Procedures in
2019. By the agreement with the Paris MOU, the Committee confirmed to carry out a
joint CIC on Stability in General in 2020.
- The 30th meeting of the PSC Committee will be held in Marshall Islands in October
2019.
Press release dated 1 March 2019
- The Tokyo MOU announced the preliminary results of the Concentrated Inspection
Campaign (CIC) on MARPOL Annex VI, which was conducted from 1 September to
30 November 2018.
- During the course of the campaign Authorities carried out a total of 6,604 inspections
of target ships. Of this quantity, 4 ships were detained as a result of deficiencies found
during the CIC.
(3) Latin-American region (Latin American Agreement)

Established: 5 November 1992
Members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Panama, Peru, Republic of Dominica, Uruguay, and Venezuela
-1. According to Annual Report 2018 of the Latin American Agreement, a total of 7,877
inspections were carried out and 62 vessels were detained in 2018.
(4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU)

Established: 9 February 1996
Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cayman Islands, Cuba,
Curacao, France, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, the Netherlands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago
(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU)

Established: 11 July 1997
Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey
4
(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU)

Established: 5 June 1998
Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, Eritrea, France (La Reunion), India, Iran, Kenya,
Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sultanate of
Oman, Tanzania, and Yemen
-1. According to Annual Report 2018 of the Indian Ocean MOU, a total of 5,697 inspections
were carried out and 252 vessels were detained in 2018.
-2. The Indian Ocean MOU announced the preliminary results of the Concentrated Inspection
Campaign (CIC) on MARPOL Annex VI, which was conducted from 1 September to 30
November 2018. During the course of the campaign Authorities carried out a total of 1,007
inspections of target ships. Of this quantity, 1 ship was detained as a result of deficiencies
found during the CIC.
-3. CIC on Emergency System is scheduled to be carried out in 2019.
(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)

Established: 7 April 2000
Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine
-1. According to Annual Report 2018 of the Black Sea MOU, a total of 5,214 inspections were
carried out and 278 vessels were detained in 2018.
-2. The Black Sea MOU announced the results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC)
on MARPOL Annex VI, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2018.
During the course of the campaign Authorities carried out a total of 781 inspections of
target ships. Of this quantity, 55 ships were detained as a result of deficiencies found during
the CIC.
-3. CIC on Emergency System and Procedures is scheduled to be carried out in 2019.
(8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MoU)

Established: 22 October 1999
Members: Angola, Benin, Cape Verde, Republic of Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Gabon, The Gambia,
Ghana, Republic of Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Togo
-1. According to Annual Report 2018 of the Abuja MoU, a total of 2,409 inspections were
carried out and 14 vessels were detained in 2018.
-2. The Abuja MOU announced the results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on
Life Saving Appliances, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2018.
During the course of the campaign Authorities carried out a total of 611 inspections of
target ships. Of this quantity, no ship was detained as a result of deficiencies found during
the CIC.
(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MoU)

Established: 30 June 2004
Members: Kingdom of Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, State of Kuwait, State of Qatar, State
of United Arab Emirates, and Sultanate of Oman
5
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.
(2) PSC Safety Targeting Matrix

The USCG uses the Port State Control Safety and Environmental Protection Compliance Targeting
Matrix which enables the Coast Guard to rationally and systematically determine the probable risk
posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S. ports. The matrix is used to decide which ships Port State
Control Officers should examine on any given day, in any given port. The numerical score, along
with other performance based factors, determines a ship's priority for examination.
(Reference: http://www.uscg.mil)
(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.
1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK
1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by PSC Inspections

(1) Cooperative assistance with PSC and treatment of deficiencies
When surveyors of the Society are notified of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, the
Society actively co-operates with the reporting PSC in a number of ways. The more direct of these
steps include the following.
- Surveyors liaise with PSC 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 PSC.
- Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified by the PSC
officers but also expand the scope of the survey for the general condition of the hull, machinery
and equipment, or carry out the general examination to the extent of an annual survey if
necessary, carefully considering the seriousness of any deficiencies when they attend ships that
have been subject to an intervention action by the PSC.
6
(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers

When a surveyor receives an inspection report from PSC, the report is sent to the ClassNK Head
Office. The report is immediately examined by the experienced staff to identify the causes of the
deficiencies. This examination is carried out for all ships for which such reports are received, and
the results are circulated to all sections concerned, as necessary. The results are also reflected in a
ClassNK PSC database that has been developed for the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC
related information electronically. The results of this examination are also submitted to the Flag
State Administration of the ship, as required. Further, visits may also be made to the management
company or others, when deemed appropriate, to advise them of the relevant deficiencies noted and
to encourage them to more proactively improve the routine maintenance of their ships and take
other measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of safe and environmentally friendly
operation. In cases where the deficiencies pointed out by the PSC are determined to be related to
previous surveys conducted by surveyors of the Society, those surveys are treated as a
non-conforming service, and appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken in accordance
with the ClassNK quality system.
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships
(1) Special training at several in-house meetings
Special training on PSC related issues is conducted at several meetings held regularly for general
managers and managers, to ensure that surveyors carry out full and effective surveys with an
uncompromising attitude towards ensuring the quality and safety of the ships classed with the
Society.
Special re-training is also carried out under the supervision of the Head Office and regional
managers, as needed, for those surveyors who have conducted any surveys determined to be a
non-conforming service under the quality system of the Society.
(2) Meetings and informal gatherings with management companies
(a) Visiting Management Companies
When a ship classed with ClassNK is detained by PSC, if deemed necessary, a senior surveyor or
manager of the Society visits 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 management companies. 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) Software
Mobile application “ARRIVAL CHECKLIST for PSC” and software “PrimeShip-PSC
intelligence” have been prepared in order to support an improvement of PSC performance and
ship management system.
i) ARRIVAL CHECKLIST for PSC (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/psc/)

It is the preparatory checklist mobile app to help minimize the risk of PSC detentions and
deficiencies.
[Main Fanctions]
- The items frequently pointed out by PSCO can be checked in each area onboard
- Check results can be input the system along with notes and photos
- Check results can be forwarded to company easily
- The statistics and tencency of detentions in major ports can be confirmed
- Checklists and statistics are updated automatically as needed
7
ii) PrimeShip-PSC intelligence (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/activities/portal/psc-intelligence.html)

This system provides users with various functions to help improve fleet PSC performance and
ship management systems.
[Main Fanctions]
- Easy visual checking of a trend in the number of detentions and deficiencies at each port or
country on world-map with frequent deficiency examples
- Output 1) PSC checklists for each port or country based on the trend and 2) a summary
report for PSC performance of managing ships
- Analysis on the trend of deficiencies recorded on managing ships on a real-time basis
through the managing company’s input of PSC reports
- Easy registration for ships using a data link with NK-SHIPS
(d) Publications
The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” and a checklist entitled “Good Maintenance
on board Ships which can be used by the ship’s crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship
before entering port are distributed to all registered management companies or others in the
ClassNK fleet and also posted on NK website as below.
(http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/psc/)
“Monthly PSC Information”, which indicates the cases of PSC inspection including detainable
deficiency or ISM related deficiency, was also posted on the same page, however, as of 1 April
2019, all monthly PSC information downloads have been no longer available. Beginning on 1
April 2019, past and current monthly PSC information can be downloaded from “PrimeShip-PSC
Intelligence”.
Eighteen “ClassNK PSC Bulletin” were sent to Company managed ClassNK fleet as of June
2019 by e-mail. This bulletin provides timely information on particularly notable deficiencies
pointed out during PSC inspections of NK classed ships, and will be continuously served to
management companies.
1.3.3 Visits to PSC authorities

Deginated persons from the ClassNK Head Office as well as local survey offices are assigned to visit
the headquarters or offices of various PSC authorities with the aim of introducing ClassNK and
exchanging views on matters of mutual concern. In 2018, persons from the ClassNK Head Office
visited the following PSC authorities for the above-mentioned purpose.
- Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

- China Maritime Safety Administration (MSA)
- U.S.A. United States Coast Guard (USCG)
- Indonesia The Indonesia Maritime Authority
- Russia Black Sea Maritime Ports Administration
8
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with 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 2018, 384 PSC detentions were reported relating to 353 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 8,365 at the end of December 2018. Therefore, the 383
ships detained represent about 4.5 % of the total number of ships in the NK fleet. Further, detention
ratio (Detentions/Registered number in 2018) of the NK fleet in 2018 is about 4.6%.
2.2 Data on Detentions

2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State
Table 2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State

Number of Detention Ratio (%)
Registered Ships Number of (= Detentions /
Country in 2018 Detentions Registered Number
(500GT or over) in each year)
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Panama 3,213 3,119 3,053 255 222 183 7.9 7.1 6.0
Liberia 547 564 601 37 27 33 6.8 4.8 5.5
Marshall Islands 514 576 606 39 31 31 7.6 5.4 5.1
Malta 214 210 188 18 20 16 8.4 9.5 8.5
Hong Kong, China 454 449 439 17 12 15 3.7 2.7 3.4
Singapore 750 758 707 13 12 12 1.7 1.6 1.7
Cyprus 86 82 73 10 7 11 11.6 8.5 15.1
Philippines 72 81 80 1 4 6 1.4 4.9 7.5
Viet Nam 100 90 89 5 2 5 5.0 2.2 5.6
Japan 926 952 965 3 1 4 0.3 0.1 0.4
Indonesia 177 181 205 3 2 4 1.7 1.1 2.0
Bahamas 159 157 158 6 9 3 3.8 5.7 1.9
Thailand 74 79 78 9 6 3 12.2 7.6 3.8
Cayman Islands 53 56 59 0 1 0 0.0 1.8 0.0
Turkey 79 59 58 8 6 0 10.1 10.2 0.0
Others 1,001 1,032 1,006 47 64 58 4.7 6.2 5.8
Total 8,419 8,445 8,365 471 426 384 5.6 5.0 4.6
9
300
255
250 2016
222
2017
No. of Detentions
200 183 2018
150
100
64 58
47
50 37
33
39
31 31
27 18 20 16 17
12 15 13 12 12 10 7 11 6 5 2 5 6 9 3 9 6 8 6
1 4 3 1 4 3 2 4 3 0 1 0 0
0
ia
Malta
and
a
us
e
ey
nesia
rs
n
ma
ma s
s
pines
lands
Nam
sland
Chin
apor
Japa
Liber
Othe
Turk
Cypr
Pana
Thail
Baha
Indo
Philip
an Is
Viet
Sing
,
hall I
Kong
Caym
Mars
Hong
Fig. 2.2.1-1 No. of Detentions per Flag
20.0
2016
15.1
Detention Ratio (%)
15.0 2017
11.6
12.2 2018
10.110.2
9.5
10.0
8.4 8.5 8.5
7.9 7.6 7.5 7.6
7.1
6.8
6.2
6 5.0 5.8
5.5 5.4 5.6
5.1 4.9 5
4.8 4.7
5.0 3.7 3.8
3.4 3.8
2.7
1.4 2.2 2 1.9 1.8
1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.1
0.4
0.3 0.1 0 0 0
0.0
a
ia
an d
Malta
us
e
ey
rs
nesia
s
n
ma
ma s
pines
lands
Nam
sland
Chin
apor
Japa
Liber
Othe
Turk
Cypr
Pana
Thail
Baha
Indo
Philip
an Is
Viet
Sing
,
hall I
Kong
Caym
Mars
Hong
Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio per Flag (%)
10
2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type
Table 2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type

Registered Ships Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered
Ship Type
in 2018 Number in each year)
(500GT or over) 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Bulk Carrier 3,722 291 252 228 7.9 6.7 6.1
General Cargo 699 85 102 74 9.9 12.6 10.6
Container Carrier 609 24 17 29 4.0 2.8 4.8
Chip Carrier 119 5 4 4 4.3 3.4 3.4
Cement Carrier 124 1 2 1 0.8 1.6 0.8
Ro-Ro Ship 97 2 2 2 6.3 7.1 2.1
Reefer Carrier 115 14 9 12 11.0 7.7 10.4
Vehicles Carrier 345 7 5 9 2.0 1.5 2.6
Oil Tanker 718 14 10 4 1.9 1.3 0.6
Oil/Chemical Tanker 726 18 14 15 2.5 2.0 2.1
Gas Carrier 393 10 7 3 2.5 1.7 0.8
Others 698 0 2 3 0.0 0.3 0.4
Total 8,365 471 426 384
Among the dry cargo ships with the large numbers, a detention ratio of General cargo ships was
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.)
350
291
No. of Detentions
300 2016
252
250 228 2017
200 2018
150
85 102
74
100
50 24
17
29
5 4 4 2 2 2 2
14 9 12
7 5 9 14 10
4 18 14 15 10 7 3 2 3
1 1 0
0
er
r
ip
r
go
er
r
r
s
r
ri e
ri e
ri e
rie
rie
rie
ri e
nk
er
Sh
nk
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
th
ar
ar
Ta
Ta
C
o
tC
C
C
C
O
rC
C
C
R
al
al
p
lk
er
il
as
o-
es
en
er
fe
ic
hi
Bu
in
G
em
cl
ee
en
em
ta
hi
R
G
on
Ch
C
Ve
C
il/
O
Fig. 2.2.2-1 No. of Detentions per Ship Type

14.0 12.6
Detention Ratio (%)
12.0 10.6
11 2016
10.4
9.8
10.0 2017
7.9 7.7
8.0 6.7 6.3
7.1
2018
6.1
6.0 4.8
4.3
4
3.4
4.0 2.8 3.4
2.1
2.6 2.5 2.5
2 1.9 2 2.1 1.7
1.6 1.3
2.0 0.8 0.8
1.5
0.6 0.8
0.3 0.4
0
0.0
er
r
ip
r
go
er
r
r
s
r
ri e
ri e
ri e
rie
rie
rie
ri e
nk
er
Sh
nk
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
th
ar
ar
Ta
Ta
C
o
tC
C
C
C
O
rC
C
C
R
al
al
p
lk
er
il
as
o-
es
en
er
fe
ic
hi
Bu
in
G
em
cl
ee
en
em
ta
hi
R
G
on
Ch
C
Ve
C
il/
O
Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio per Ship Type (%)
11
2.2.3 Detentions per Ship’s Age
Table 2.2.3 Detentions per Ship’s Age

Registered Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered
Ship’s age Number in each year)
Ships in 2018
(500GT or over) 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Up to 5 years old 2,386 54 37 29 1.9 1.4 1.2
Over 5 and up to 10 2,554 132 104 94 5.6 4.2 3.7
Over 10 and up to 15 1,529 81 104 97 6.5 7.7 6.3
Over 15 and up to 20 914 107 60 56 10.2 6.2 6.1
Over 20 and up to 25 661 60 74 66 10.3 11.7 10.0
Over 25 321 37 47 42 11.7 15.1 13.1
Total 8,365 471 426 384
Aged ships tend to increase the detention ratio.
140 132
120 2016
104 107
104
2017
No. of Detentions
97
100 94
81 74 2018
80 60 66
60 56
54
60 37 47
37 42
40 29
20
0
Up to 5 Over 5 and Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and Over 25
up to 10 up to 15 up to 20 up to 25
Fig. 2.2.3-1 No. of Detentions per Ship's Age
15.1
16
13.1
Detention Ratio (%)
14 11.7 11.7 2016

12 10.2 10.3 10 2017
7.7
10
2018
8 5.6
6.5 6.3 6.2 6.1
6 4.2 3.7
4 1.9 1.4
1.2
2
0
Up to 5 Over 5 and Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and Over 25
up to 10 up to 15 up to 20 up to 25
Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio per Ship's Age (% )
12
2.2.4 Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage)
Table 2.2.4 Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage)

Registered Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered
Gross Ton (x 1,000)
Ships in 2018 Number in each year)
(500GT or over) 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Up to 10 2,649 124 130 98 4.4 4.8 3.7
Over 10 and up to 20 1,272 110 92 87 8.5 7.2 6.8
Over 20 and up to 30 1,084 58 68 69 5.5 6.3 6.4
Over 30 and up to 40 1,320 88 69 69 6.9 5.2 5.2
Over 40 and up to 50 798 34 29 23 4.5 3.6 2.9
Over 50 and up to 60 291 15 7 7 4.9 2.3 2.4
Over 60 and up to 80 207 9 7 3 4.4 3.4 1.4
Over 80 744 33 24 28 4.5 3.2 3.8
Total 8,365 471 426 384
A detention ratio of vessels with GT up to 40,000 tends to be higher than that of vessels with GT over
40,000.
140 130
124
120 110
2016
98
92
No. of Detentions
100 87 88 2017
2018
80 68
69 69
58 69
60
34 29
40 23 33 24
28
15
20 7 7 9 7
3
0
Up to 10 Over 10 and Over 20 and Over 30 and Over 40 and Over 50 and Over 60 and Over 80
up to 20 up to 30 up to 40 up to 50 up to 60 up to 80
x 1,000 GT
Fig.2.2.4-1 No. of Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage)
9.0 8.5
8.0 2016
7.2 6.9
7.0 6.8 6.3
6.4 2017
Detention Ratio (%)
6.0 5.5 5.2 5.2 2018

4.8 4.9
5.0 4.4
4.5 4.4 4.5
3.8
3.7 3.6
4.0 2.9
3.4 3.2
3.0 2.3 2.4

1.4
2.0
1.0
0.0
Up to 10 Over 10 and Over 20 and Over 30 and Over 40 and Over 50 and Over 60 and Over 80
up to 20 up to 30 up to 40 up to 50 up to 60 up to 80
x 1,000 GT
Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage) (%)
13
2.2.5 Detentions per PSC Country

90
China 92
103
Table 2.2.5 Australia

53
57
104
No. of Detentions per PSC Country
49
Country 2016 2017 2018 Russia 30

39
China 103 92 90 United States 21

25
23
Australia 104 57 53 19
39 30 49 Indonesia 38
Russia 14
United States 23 21 25 Turkey 9

15
Indonesia 14 38 19 11
Belgium 4
Turkey 8 9 15 3
10
Belgium 3 4 11 Japan 18
24
Japan 24 18 10 10
Korea 14
Korea 8 14 10 8
9
France 6 8 9 France 6
8
United Kingdom 11 14 6 6
United Kingdom 11
14
India 6 8 6 2018
6
10 7 6 India 8
Italy 6
2017
Iran 10 10 4 Italy
6
7
Romania 11 8 4
10
2016
4
Iran 10
Egypt 1 5 4 10
Canada 4 4 4 Romania
4
8
11
Poland 3 1 4 4
Egypt 5
Germany 9 11 3 1
4
Netherlands 4 5 3 Canada 4
4
Hong Kong, China 4 4 3 4

Poland 1
3
Spain 13 4 3
3
Argentina 0 2 3 Germany 9
11
New Zealand 0 2 3 Netherlands

3
5
4
Georgia 1 1 3
3
0 3 Spain 4
Tunisia 1 13
Others 51 37 31 Hong Kong, China

3
4
4
Total 476 471 384 3

New Zealand 2
(*) Including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Pago Pago 0
3
Argentina 0
2
3
Georgia 1
1
3
Tunisia 0
1
No. of Detentions
Fig. 2.2.5 No. of Detentions

per PSC Country
Number of ships detained by Russia in 2018 increased compared with that of 2017.
14
2.2.6 Detentions per MOUs and USCG
Table 2.2.6 No. of Detentions per MOUs and USCG
Region 2016 2017 2018

Tokyo MOU 274 238 218
Paris MoU 97 89 65
USCG 23 23 24
Others 77 76 77
Total 471 426 384
500 471
426 NK Total
400 384
Paris MoU
No. of Detentions
300 Tokyo MOU

274
238 USCG
218
200
100 97 89
65
23 23 24
0
2016 2017 2018
Fig. 2.2.6 No. of Detentions per MOUs and USCG
Compared with number of 2017, number of detention at Tokyo MOU decrease 8% and at Paris MoU
decrease 27% in 2018.
15
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies

2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category
In 2018 a total of 1,083 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 384 detentions, i.e.,
deficiencies which were serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, safety of the crew
onboard, or to present a threat of harm to the environment and therefore warranted the detention of
the ship. The deficiencies are categorized as shown in Figure 2.3.1 and categories in this figure are
based on those of the Tokyo MOU. Deficiencies related to fire safety and life-saving appliances
combined accounted for about one-third of the total in 2018.
226
FIRE SAFETY 234
237
133
LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES 137
151
112
ISM 169
180
96
EMERGENCY SY STEMS 121
107
87
SAFETY OF NAVIGATIOＮ 125
114
62
WATER/WEATHERTIGHT CONDITIONS 87
66
57
POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX I 46
58
38
PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY 40
51
35
2018
POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX IV 44
34 2017
29
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 38
42
2016
29
CERTIFICATE & DOCUMENTATION SHIP CERTIFICATES 30
33
27
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS 46
37
LABOUR CONDITIONS － ACCOMMODATION,RECREATIONAL

CONDITIONS-
LABOUR 25
ACCOMMODATION,RECREATIONAL FACILITIES,FOOD AND CATERING 35
FACILITIES,FOOD AND CATERING 18
20
CERTIFICATE & DOCUMENTATION CREW CERTIFICATES 59
48
16
ALARMS 6
17
13
POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX VI 24
21
13
WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - WORKING CONDITIONS 13
14
LABOUR CONDITIONS － HEALTH

LABOUR PROTECTION,MEDICAL CARE,SOCIAL
CONDITIONS- 12
28
HEALTH PROTECTION,
SECURITY MEDICAL CARE SOCIAL SECURITY 10
12
POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX V 8
3
11
LABOUR CONDITIONS － MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SEAFARERS 35
29
10
CERTIFICATE & DOCUMENTATION DOCUMENTS 14
7
9
OTHER 11
8
0 50 100 150 200 250

No. of Detanable Deficiencies
Fig. 2.3.1 No. of Detainable Deficiencies per Category
16
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, ISM, fire doors and fire
damper continue to be the major items where most detainable deficiencies were found. The items
reported from 2016 to 2018 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (15) below. (Regarding details
of deficiencies related to ISM and MLC, refer to Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.)
45
Lifeboats 51
62
38
ISM 61
70
38
Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions 42
33
34
Fire-dampers 26
35
33
Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 31
39
31
Sew agetreatment
Sewage treatmentplant
plant 28
24
24
Fire pumps and its pipes 24
23
24
Emergency source of pow er - Emergency Generator 25
2018
25
2017
22
Ventilators, air pipes, casings 31 2016
29
21
Maintenance of the ship and equipment 27
19
21
Oil filtering equipment 15
22
20
Other (ISM) 11
21
20
Launching arrangements for rescue boats 13
13
20
Fire detection and alarm system 16
26
18
Fixed fire extinguishing installation 24
21
16
Rescue boats 14
9
16
Nautical publications 16
26
15
15 PPM Alarm arrangements 8
8
15
Charts 29
31
15
Emergency lighting, batteries and sw itches 8
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
No. of Detainable Deficiencies
Fig. 2.3.2 Detainable Deficiencies Frequently Reported
17
(1) Fire Safety

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Fire Safety” are shown in Table
2.3.2-(1) below.
Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety
Item 2016 2017 2018 Noted Deficiencies
Fire doors/openings in Malfunction of self-closing devices
33 42 38
fire-resisting divisions Poor closing condition of fire door
Wasted and holed fire-dampers
Fire-dampers 35 26 34
Defective operation of fire-dampers
Malfunction of fire pump(incl. for emergency)
Fire pumps and its pipes 23 24 24
Wasted and holed fire main line
Fire detection 26 16 20 Inoperable fire detection units
Corroded and holed CO2 lines
Fixed fire extinguishing
21 24 18 Defective operation of fire extinguishing
system
systems
Quick closing valves,
10 13 11 Inoperable quick closing valves
Remote control devices
Fire fighting equipment and Wasted and holed fire hoses
7 13 11
appliances Fire extinguisher expired
Fire prevention structural
10 9 11 Wasted fire insulation
integrity
Fire hazard due to oil leakage from
Other (fire safety) 15 11 9
equipment in Engine Room
Corroded and holed ventilator casings
Ventilation 11 11 9
Malfunction of mechanical ventilators
(2) Life Saving Appliances

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Life Saving Appliances” are
shown in Table 2.3.2-(2) below.
Table 2.3.2-(2) Life Saving Appliances
Lifeboat engine not started
Lifeboats 62 51 45 Poor maintenance of rechargeable batteries
Inadequate resetting of on-load release gears
Launching arrangements for
13 13 20 Inoperative davit (Components seized, etc.)
rescue boats
Rescue boat engine not started
Rescue boats 9 14 16
Poor maintenance of rechargeable batteries
Launching arrangements for
14 10 8 Corroded boat falls
survival craft
Embarkation arrangement Embarkation ladder heavily corroded and
8 11 7
survival craft broken
Inflatable liferafts 7 2 7 Annual service expired
(3) ISM Related Deficiencies

For details of deficiencies, refer to Chapter 3.
18
(4) Emergency Systems

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Emergency Systems” are shown
in Table 2.3.2-(4) below.
Table 2.3.2-(4) Emergency Systems
Emergency Fire Pump and its Inoperable and unable to pressure the fire
39 31 33
pipes main
Emergency source of Emergency generator unable to start
25 25 24
power-Emergency Generator automatically or manually
Emergency lighting, batteries Deficient batteries/emergency generator
10 8 15
and switches Inoperable emergency lighting
Fire drills 17 23 12 Fire drill failed
Abandon ship drill failed
Abandon ship drills 7 18 4
Drill not conducted
Enclosed space entry and Enclosed spaces drill not planned and
6 7 3
rescue drills conducted as per requirement
(5) Safety of Navigation

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Safety of Navigation” are shown
Table 2.3.2-(5) Safety of Navigation
Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights,
Nautical publications 26 16 16
list of radio signals, etc.) not updated
Navigation charts not updated
Charts 31 29 15 Navigation charts for intended voyage not
available
Voyage date recorder Defective VDR/S-VDR
13 15 13
(VDR/S-VDR) Alarm panel showing “system error”
Lights, shapes, sound
9 11 7 Inoperable navigation lights
-signals
Electronic charts (ECDIS) 1 3 7 ENC not updated
(6) Water/ Weathertight conditions

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Water/ Weathertight conditions”
are shown in Table 2.3.2-(6) below.
Table 2.3.2-(6) Water/ Weathertight conditions
Waster/Holed ventilators and pipes
Ventilators, air pipes, casings 29 31 22 Damaged float of air pipe heads
Damaged closing devices
Wasted/Holed hatch covers
Hatch Covers 13 25 10 Wasted hatch cover cleats and its spacers
Deteriorated rubber packing
Wasted hatch covers and coamings
Cargo and other hatchways 7 9 8
Packing missing and damaged
Doors 6 5 4 Doors not closed tightly
19
(7) MARPOL Annex I

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex I” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(7) below.
Table 2.3.2-(7) MARPOL Annex I
Inoperable oily water separator
Oil filtering equipment Inoperable bilge pump
(Oily-Water Separating 22 15 21 Oily water inside overboard discharging line
Equipment) Ship’s crew not familiar with operation of oil
filtering equipment
15PPM alarm arrangements 8 8 15 Failure of 15PPM alarm
Oil and oily mixtures from

13 8 4 Oil spot beneath M/E and A/E
machinery spaces
Oil discharge Monitoring and
4 2 4 Inoperable ODM
control system (ODM)
Other (MARPOL Annex I) 5 1 4 Oil spill kit list missing
(8) Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Propulsion and auxiliary
machinery” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(8) below.
Table 2.3.2-(8) Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
Inoperable Auxiliary engines
Auxiliary engine 11 12 14
Uncleanness due to leakage of oil
Excessive oil and bilge in engine room
Other (machinery) 11 9 11
Malfunction of air compressors
Leakage from pump/piping
Bilge pumping arrangements 3 3 7
Falure of bilge alarm
Defective oil mist detectors
Propulsion main engine 15 12 4 Uncleanness due to leakage of oil and
cooling water
(9) MARPOL Annex IV

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex IV” are shown
Table 2.3.2-(9) MARPOL Annex IV
Sewage treatment plant 24 28 31 Not operative
Sewage is pumped directly to sea as
Other (MARPOL Annex IV) 6 6 1
sewage treatment plant defective
20
(10) Radio Communications

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Radio Communications”are
shown in Table 2.3.2-(10) below.
Table 2.3.2-(10) Radio Communications
MF/HF radio installation 9 11 8 Malfunction of radio devices
Operation of GMDSS Ship’s crew not familiar with operation of
5 3 4
equipment GMDSS equipment
Facilities for reception of
1 2 4 Malfanction of NAVTEX printer
marine safety information
EPIRB 2 1 4 Damaged EPIRB cover
Reserve source of energy 12 11 3 GMDSS reserve source of energy failed
(11) Ship Certificates

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Ship Certificates” are shown in
the Table 2.3.2-(11) below.
Table 2.3.2-(11) Ship Certificates
Cargo Ship Safety Equipment
Certificate (including 9 6 5 Original certificate missing, or expired
Exemption)
(12) Structural Conditions

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Structural Conditions” are shown
Table 2.3.2-(12) Structural Conditions
Steering gear 2 4 8 Oil leakage
Inoperable self closing device of sounding
Ballast, fuel and other tanks 3 2 5
pipe
(13) Labour Conditions-Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Labour
Conditions-Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering ” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13)
below.
Table 2.3.2-(13) Labour Conditions-Accommodation,
recreational facilities, food and catering
Sanitary facilities 5 7 7 Toilet/bath room defective/dirty
Heating, air conditioning and
2 3 3 Malfanction of air conditioning unit
ventilation
21
(14) Crew Certificate

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Crew Certificate” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(14) below.
Table 2.3.2-(14) Crew Certificate
Seafarers’ employment
12 18 9 Expired, missing
agreement (SEA)
Missing of endorsement on STCW
Certificates for master and
9 11 4 certificates by flag state
officers
Valid certificates expired
Endorsement by flag State 20 16 3 Expired, missing
Manning specified by the
1 4 3 Short of crews
minimum safe manning doc
(15) Alarms
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Alarms” are shown in Table
2.3.2-(15) below.
Table 2.3.2-(15) Alarms
General alarm 0 1 5
Not operative
Mechinery controls alarm 1 1 4
22
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies per PSC Country

Most frequent detainable deficiencies per PSC country are shown in Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.12 according
to number of detentions reported from 2016 to 2018. (Regarding details of deficiencies related to ISM
and MLC, refer to Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.)
2.4.1 China
Table 2.4.1 China
Category of Detainable Deficiency 2016 2017 2018
Fire safety 68 56 46
Life saving appliances 30 43 37
ISM 39 38 25
Emergency Systems 23 15 24
Pollution prevention -MARPOL Annex I 14 13 21
Water/Weathertight conditions 22 23 18
Safety of Navigation 16 20 13
Pollution prevention -MARPOL Annex IV 6 9 12
Radio Communications 7 9 6
Certificate & Documentation Ship Certificates 4 9 4
Structural Conditions 5 8 4
Type of Detainable Deficiency Frequently Reported 2016 2017 2018

Lifeboats 15 22 17
Maintenance of the ship and equipment 8 17 14
Oil filtering equipment 9 6 14
Sewage treatment plant 5 6 12
Ventilators, air pipes, casings 14 14 11
Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 12 5 11
Launching arrangements for rescue boats 2 3 9
Remote Means of control (opening, pumps,
4 4 7
ventilation, etc.) Machinery spaces
Fire-dampers 9 3 7
Emergency source of power - Emergency
5 3 7
Generator
Fire detection and alarm system 7 1 7
Fire prevention structural integrity 6 8 5
A total of 231 detainable deficiencies relating to 90 detentions were noted in 2018.
(2.6 detainable deficiencies/detention)
23
2.4.2 Australia
Table 2.4.2 Australia
ISM(*) 46 22 14
Fire safety 10 5 11

Emergency source of power - Emergency Generator 11 7 8
Fire-dampers 6 4 7
Other (ISM) 16 8 6
Shipboard operations 26 11 5
Rescue boats 4 1 5
15 PPM Alarm arrangements 1 1 4
Other (SOLAS operational) 1 0 4
(*) In Australia, deficiency relating to Safety of Navigation is not directly judged as
detainable deficiency but as ISM detainable deficiency since it is regarded as
ISM related.
2.4.3 Russia
Table 2.4.3 Russia
Fire safety 9 9 25
ISM 1 1 15

Other (ISM) 0 0 13
Emergency lighting, batteries and switches 4 2 11
Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions 1 0 10
Lifeboats 11 3 8
Lights, shapes, sound-signals 2 3 4
Facilities for reception of marine safety information 0 1 4
24
2.4.4 U.S.A.
Table 2.4.4 U.S.A.
ISM 9 10 6
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 4 0 4
Pollution prevention -MARPOL AnnexⅠ 3 10 2
Structural Conditions 2 2 2

Steering gear 1 1 2
Readily availability of fire fighting equipment 1 1 2
Other (machinery) 1 0 2
Fixed fire extinguishing installation 0 0 2
2.4.5 Indonesia
Table 2.4.5 Indonesia
Pollution prevention -MARPOL AnnexIV 11 17 8
Pollution prevention -MARPOL AnnexVI 6 16 4

Sewage treatment plant 8 11 8
Fire-dampers 4 8 6
Incinerator 6 16 4
Lifeboats 6 2 3
MF/HF radio installation 0 2 2
Rescue boats 0 2 2
25
2.4.6 Turkey
Table 2.4.6 Turkey
Fire safety 7 2 15
Safety of Navigatioｎ 3 5 5
Certificate & Documentation Crew Certificates 5 2 2
ISM 0 1 2

Fire fighting equipment and appliances 0 1 4
Charts 1 2 3
Endorsement by flag State 4 2 2
Other (fire safety) 0 0 2
2.4.7 Belgium
Table 2.4.7 Belgium
Fire safety 0 1 10
ISM 2 4 9
Labour Conditions-Conditions of employment 1 10 6
Certificate&Documentation-Crew Certificates 4 1 6

ISM 2 2 9
Seafarer' employment agreement (SEA) 2 0 6
Calculation and payment of wages 1 3 5
Ventilators, air pipes, casings 1 1 3
Launching arrangements for rescue boats 1 0 3
Cargo and other hatchways 0 1 2
Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 0 0 2
26
2.4.8 Japan
Table 2.4.8 Japan
ISM 12 10 4
Fire safety 3 5 2
Other 4 5 1
Certificate&Documentation-Crew Certificates 5 0 1
Struｃtural Conditions 1 0 1

Resources and personnel 10 10 4
Fire drills 6 6 4
Other (SOLAS operational) 4 5 1
Endorsement by flag State 5 0 1
Hull - corrosion 0 0 1
2.4.9 Republic of Korea

Table 2.4.9 Republic of Korea
Fire safety 5 7 5
ISM 4 6 4

Maintenance of the ship and equipment 1 3 1
Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.) 1 2 1
Lifeboats 1 2 1
Oil and oily mixtures from machinery spaces 1 2 1
Abandon ship drills 0 2 1
Shipboard operations 0 2 1
27
2.4.10 France
Table 2.4.10 France
Fire safety 3 9 9
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 1 2 2

Launching arrangements for survival craft 1 0 2
Ballast, fuel and other tanks 0 0 2
Electrical installations in general 0 0 2
Main Vertical zone 0 0 2
2.4.11 United Kingdom

Table 2.4.11 United Kingdom
Labour Conditions －Accommodation,recreational
1 9 5
facilities,food and catering
Fire safety 3 5 5
ISM 7 9 3
Working and Living Conditions -Working
0 0 2
Conditions

ISM 7 9 3
Sanitary facilities 0 1 2
2.4.12 India
Table 2.4.12 India
Fire safety 8 8 5

Certificates for master and officers 0 0 2
Speed and distance indicator 0 0 2
28
Chapter 3
Statistical Analysis of NK SMC Ships Detained by PSC (ISM Code)
3.1 General
This chapter presents statistical analysis from the viewpoints of ISM Code, on the ships holding
Safety Management Certificate (hereafter, “SMC”) issued by the Society (hereafter, “NK SMC
ships”) based on PSC Inspection Reports NK has obtained.
Table 3.1 shows the registered number of the NK SMC ships. The NK class ships account for 90% of
the NK SMC ships..
Table 3.1 Number of NK SMC Ships (per Class)

Classification 2016 2017 2018
NK class 4,867 89.7% 4,980 90.1% 4,968 90.0%
Other class 560 10.3% 550 9.9% 549 10.0%
Total 5,427 5,530 5,517
3.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK SMC Ships

In 2018, the total number of the detentions of NK SMC ships was 259, which was 4.7% of the all NK
SMC ships, or 5,517(hereafter, “Detention Ratio”).
Tables 3.2.1 and Table 3.2.2 show the number of detentions and the Detention Ratio per flag and ship
type, respectively.
Table 3.2.1 Number of Detentions and Detention Ratio of NK SMC Ships per Flag
2016 2017 2018
Country
(I) (II) (III) (I) (II) (III) (I) (II) (III)
Panama 196 2,665 7.4% 167 2,623 6.4% 131 2,519 5.2%
Singapore 12 594 2.0% 6 589 1.0% 11 549 2.0%
Marshall Islands 27 360 7.5% 25 440 5.7% 21 494 4.3%
Hong Kong 17 351 4.8% 10 362 2.8% 14 393 3.6%
Liberia 22 327 6.7% 16 365 4.4% 24 400 6.0%
Japan 3 268 1.1% 1 283 0.4% 3 302 1.0%
Malta 11 178 6.2% 15 179 8.4% 13 163 8.0%
Bahamas 5 114 4.4% 7 109 6.4% 2 110 1.8%
Turkey 9 90 10.0% 3 73 4.1% 0 65 0.0%
Thailand 7 75 9.3% 6 80 7.5% 3 78 3.8%
Cyprus 6 70 8.6% 5 71 7.0% 10 66 15.2%
Malaysia 3 68 4.4% 0 64 0.0% 0 50 0.0%
Other Flag 19 267 7.1% 24 292 8.2% 27 328 8.2%
Total 337 5,427 6.2% 285 5,530 5.2% 259 5,517 4.7%
Note: ( I ): No. of Detentions, ( II ): No. of NK SMC Ships, ( III ): Detention Ratio = ( I ) / ( II ) %
29
Table 3.2.2 Number of Detentions and Detention Ratio

of NK SMC Ships per Ship Type (SOLAS IX)
2016 2017 2018
Type of Ship
(I) (II) (III) (I) (II) (III) (I) (II) (III)
Bulk Carrier 220 2,390 9.2% 167 2,451 6.8% 160 2,435 6.6%
Other Cargo Ship 94 1,946 4.8% 101 1,958 5.2% 88 2,036 4.3%
*Chemical Tanker 7 425 1.6% 10 459 2.2% 1 544 0.2%
Oil Tanker 12 414 2.9% 4 396 1.0% 8 541 1.5%
Gas Carrier 4 248 1.6% 3 263 1.1% 2 339 0.6%
MODU 0 2 0.0% 0 2 0.0% 0 2 0.0%
Passenger Ship 0 1 0.0% 0 1 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
High Speed Craft 0 1 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
Total 337 5,427 6.2% 285 5,530 5.2% 259 5,897 4.4%
Note: 1. ( I ): No. of Detentions, ( II ): No. of NK SMC Ships, ( III ): Detention Ratio = ( I ) / ( II ) %
2. * Chemical Tanker includes Oil/ Chemical Tanker.
Table 3.2.3 shows “the number of detentions” and “the number of ISM detention cases” where ships
were detained due to detainable deficiencies related to ISM Code (hereafter “ISM detainable
deficiency”). Also, “the ISM detainable deficiencies ratio per PSC country” is shown.
Table 3.2.3 Number of Detentions and Detention Ratio

of ISM Detention Cases per PSC Country
2016 2017 2018
Country
( I ) (II) (III) ( I ) (II) (III) (I) (II) (III)
China 25 67 37.3% 23 63 36.5% 20 64 31.3%
Australia 29 92 31.5% 17 48 35.4% 13 47 27.7%
Russia 10 26 38.5% 7 16 43.8% 12 32 37.5%
Belgium 1 3 33.3% 1 1 100.0% 6 7 85.7%
Italy 1 8 12.5% 2 8 25.0% 4 4 100.0%
EU
Germany 2 8 25.0% 2 8 25.0% 2 2 100.0%
Other EU Members 17 39 43.6% 10 38 26.3% 10 20 50.0%
USA 5 17 29.4% 5 16 31.3% 5 16 31.3%
Other Countries 29 77 37.7% 24 87 27.6% 13 67 19.4%
Total 119 337 35.3% 91 285 31.9% 85 259 32.8%
Note: ( I ): No. of the ISM detention case
( II ): No. of detentions of NK SMC ships. (Notwithstanding the reason of detention)
( III ): ISM detainable deficiencies ratio = ( I ) / ( II ) %
30
3.3 Analysis of ISM Detainable Deficiencies

This section introduces a study of ISM detainable deficiencies recorded in China, Australia, and
Russia which are top 3 countries of the number of ISM detention cases in 2018 and a part of objective
evidences of the ISM detention by each country.
Deficiency Codes of ISM deficiencies specified by Tokyo MOU are shown in table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Deficiency Code per ISM Code Element (Tokyo MOU, USCG)
Def. Code ISM Code Element Defective Item
15101 2 Safety and Environmental Policy
15102 3 Company Responsibility and Authority
15103 4 Designated Person(s)
15104 5 Masters Responsibility and Authority
15105 6 Resources and Personnel
15106 7 Shipboard Operations
15107 8 Emergency Preparedness
15108 9 Reports of Non-conf., accidents & hazardous occur.
15109 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment
15110 11 Documentation- ISM
15111 12 Company Verification, Review and Evaluation
15112 13 Certification, Verification and Control
15199 - Other (ISM)
31
3.3.1 China
Table 3.3.1(a) shows the number of ISM detainable deficiencies per Deficiency Code. Table 3.3.1(b)
shows the number of deficiencies regarded as the evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies per
Deficiency Code. As seen from the Table 3.3.1(a), just like 2017, “15109 - Maintenance of the ship
and equipment” was most frequently recorded as ISM detainable deficiencies in 2018. Typical
objective evidences of the ISM detainable deficiency are as follows.
[15109 - Maintenance of the ship and equipment]

・ Corrosion of lifebuoy’s lifeline
・ Malfunction of self-closing device for fire door
・ Malfunction of limit switch for davit arm
・ An engine of life boat or rescue boat not start
・ Malfunction of solenoid valve of oily water separator
・ Leakage of fuel oil from main engine and auxiliary engine or oil leakage from the line
Table 3.3.1(a) Number of ISM Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code

Code DEF_ITEM 2016 2017 2018
15101 Safety and environmental policy 1 - 1
15102 Company responsibility and authority 1 - 2
15104 Masters responsibility and authority 1 - 1
15105 Resources and personnel 4 5 1
15106 Shipboard operations 10 3 7
15107 Emergency preparedness 1 6 4
15108 Reports of NCs, accidents and hazardous occur. 1 1 -
15109 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 8 16 15
15112 Certification, verification and control 2 - -
15199 Other (ISM) 3 1 1
Total 32 32 32
Table 3.3.1(b) Number of deficiencies regarded as objective evidences

of ISM Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code
Code Item No. Remarks
03105 Covers (hatchway-, portable-, etc.) 6
03108 Ventilators, air pipes, casings 12
04103 Emergency lighting, batteries and switches 6
07109 Fixed fire extinguishing installation 8
07114 Remote Means of control 5
07116 Ventilation 5
E.g.) Automatic closing device
07199 Other (fire safety) 10
of sounding pipe(E/R) broken
10109 Lights, shapes, sound-signals 5
11101 Lifeboats 13
11117 Lifebuoys incl. provision and disposition 6
13101 Propulsion main engine 5
14104 Oil filtering equipment 7
14402 Sewage treatment plant 6
Others 142
32
3.3.2 Australia
Table 3.3.2(a) shows the number of the ISM detainable deficiencies per Deficiency Code. Table
3.3.2(b) shows the number of deficiencies regarded as objective evidences of ISM detainable
deficiencies per Deficiency Code. As seen from the Table 3.3.2(a), the number of ISM detentions
trends to decrease in Australia and the number of ISM detentions due to a categorized “15106 -
Shipboard operations” which had been most frequently recorded in 2016 and 2017 was substantially
decreased in 2018. Typical objective evidences of most frequently recorded ISM detainable deficiency,
“15199 - Other (ISM)” are as follows. For the case where plural ISM code elements corresponding to
the objective evidences of ISM detention were found, “15199 - Other (ISM)” was recorded.
[15199 - Others (ISM)]

・ Damage and/or wastage of securing devices (cleats) or cleat crutches of cargo hatch covers
・ Emergency generator unable to automatically connect to emergency switchboard
・ Crews are unfamiliar with an operation of ECDIS
・ Incorrect entries for discharged date, time and potion of the ship on Garbage redord book
・ Port and Starboard lifeboat launched and maneuvered in water overdue

Code Item 2016 2017 2018
15105 Resources and personnel 1 1 1
15106 Shipboard operations 26 11 5
15107 Emergency preparedness 1 2 1
15109 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 2 - 2
15199 Other (ISM) 15 9 8
Total 45 23 17
Table 3.3.2(b) Number of Deficiencies Regarded as The Evidences

of ISM Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code
01308 Records of rest 5
03104 Cargo and other hatchways 5
03105 Covers (hatchway-, portable-, etc.) 8
04110 Abandon ship drills 5
Emergency source of power - Emergency
04114 5
Generator
07115 Fire-dampers 6
E.g.)Oily sludge accumulated
07199 Other (fire safety) 10
in galley exhaust duct
10111 Charts 7
10112 Electronic charts (ECDIS) 9
10116 Nautical publications 5
10127 Voyage or passage plan 16
10135 Monitoring of voyage or passage plan 6
11101 Lifeboats 5
14402 Sewage treatment plant 5
Others 124
33
3.3.3 Russia
Table 3.3.3(a) shows the number of ISM detainable deficiencies per Deficiency Code. Table 3.3.3(b)
shows the number of deficiencies regarded as the evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies per
Deficiency Code. As seen from the Table 3.3.3(a), in 2018, the number of ISM detention substantially
increased and “15199 – Other (ISM)” was most frequently recorded. Typical evidences of the ISM
detainable deficiency are as follows. Same as Australia, for the case where plural ISM code elements
corresponding to the objective evidences of ISM detention were found, “15199 - Other (ISM)” was
recorded.
[15199 - Others (ISM)]

・ Not the latest international conventions (SOLAS, COLREG, MARPOL etc.)
・ Not the latest nautical publications
・ Damaged safety nets of accommodation ladders
・ Entries in oil record book not as per required in MEPC.1/CIRC.736
・ Malfunction of self-closing device for fire door
・ Low insulation of feeder panel

Code Item 2016 2017 2018
15102 Company responsibility and authority - - 1
15105 Resources and personnel - - 1
15109 Maintenance of the ship and equipment - - 1
15150 ISM 1 2 1
15199 Other (ISM) - - 13
Total 1 2 17
Table 3.3.3(b) Number of Deficiency Regarded as The Evidences

of ISM Detainable Deficiency per Deficiency Code
01315 Oil record book 5
01328 Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan 5
02108 Electrical installations in general 6
07105 Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions 16
10111 Charts 10
10112 Electronic charts (ECDIS) 15
10116 Nautical publications 41
10127 Voyage or passage plan 8
14501 Garbage 7
14503 Garbage management plan 8
14801 Ballast Water Management Plan 5
Others 144
34
Chapter 4
Statistical Analysis of NK MLC Ships Detained by PSC (MLC, 2006)
4.1 General
This chapter presents statistical analysis from the viewpoints of MLC, 2006 on the ships holding
Maritime Labour Certificate issued by the Society (hereafter, “NK MLC ships”) based on the PSC
Inspection Reports having been obtained. Table 4.1 shows the registered number of the NK MLC
ships. About 88% of the NK MLC ships are classed with this Society.
Table 4.1 Number of NK MLC Ships (per Class)

Classification 2016 2017 2018
NK class 4,517 87.9% 4,629 87.9% 4,588 88.3%
Other class 618 12.1% 635 12.1% 603 11.6%
Total 5,135 5,264 5,191
4.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK MLC Ships

As of the end of April 2019, 93 countries have ratified MLC, 2006 and many countries have been
carrying out PSC inspections based on the convention. For detailed situations of the enforcement by
the countries, please refer to the following website of ILO.
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312331:NO
The table 4.2 shows the number of detention cases due to deficiencies related to MLC, 2006 (hereafter,
“MLC deficiencies”) for NK MLC ships in the last 3 years.
Table 4.2 Number of Detention Cases due to MLC Deficiencies (per PSC country)
Country 2016 2017 2018
Australia 4 6 2
Canada 2 1 2
China - 3 2
Russia - 2 2
Germany 3 5 2
Belgium 5 - 4
EU UK 3 6 2
Other EU Members 15 10 3
Other Countries 1 3 4
Total 33 36 23
35
4.3 Analysis of MLC Detainable Deficiencies

This section introduces the analysis of detainable deficiencies related to MLC, 2006 (hereafter, “MLC
detainable deficiencies”) and MLC deficiencies recorded as objective evidences of ISM detainable
deficiencies for NK MLC ships in 2018. In this Chapter, the deficiencies with Codes listed in Table
4.3.1 are defined as MLC deficiencies.
The number of MLC detainable deficiencies per the deficiency code is shown in Table 4.3.2. Also, top
20 MLC deficiencies regarded as objective evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies are shown in
Table 4.3.3. As for the MLC detainable deficiencies, “18204 - Calculation and payment of wages”
was most frequently recorded on NK MLC ships in 2018. And “01220 - Seafarers' employment
agreement (SEA)” and “18302 - Sanitary facilities” followed it.
On the other hand, the following deficiencies were recorded more than 4 as objective evidences of
ISM detainable deficiencies.
・ “01220 - Seafarers' employment agreement (SEA)”

・ “18302 – Sanitary facilities”
・ “18408 - Electrical”
・ “18412 - Personal equipment”
・ “18416 - Ropes and wires”
・ “18424 - Steam pipes, pressure pipes, wires (insulation)”
・ “18425 - Access/ structural features (ship)”
Table 4.3.1 Deficiency Codes of MLC Deficiencies - Paris MOU and Tokyo MOU
Deficiency Code Category / Item (Description in the List of Tokyo MOU Def. Codes)
01xxx Certificates & Documentation
-- Crew Certificate
01218 Medical Certificate
012 01219 Training and Qualification MLC- Personal Safety Training
01220 Seafarers` Employment Agreement (SEA)
01221 Record of Employment
-- Document
Max. Hours of Work or Min, Hours of Rest
01307
(Table of Working Hours)
013 Records of Seafarer’s Daily Hours of Work or Rest
01308
(Records of Rest)
01330 Procedure for Complaint under MLC, 2006
01331 Collective Bargaining Agreement
18xxx MLC, 2006 (Labour Conditions)
Minimum Requirements to Work on a Ship
181 01-04 & 99
(Minimum Requirements for Seafarers)
182 01-05 & 99 Conditions of Employment
183 01-28 & 99 Accommodation, Recreational Facilities, Food and Catering
184 01-32 & 99 Health Protection, Medical Care, Social Security
36
Table 4.3.2 Number of MLC Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code

Code Item No. Country (*ISO des.)
01220 Seafarer' employment agreement (SEA) 5 BEL, DEU, ITA, RUS
Certificate or documentary evidence of financial
01336 1 RUS
security for repatriation
Certificate or documentary evidence of financial
01337 1 RUS
security relating to shipowners liability
18xxx Labour Conditions (MLC, 2006)
18199 Other (Minimum requirements) 1 AUS
18203 Wages 2 ESP, KOR
18204 Calculation and payment of wages 7 BEL, ITA
18302 Sanitary facilities 5 BEL, DEU, ESP, GBR
18305 Hospital accommodation (Sickbay) 2 ESP, PAN
18306 Sleeping room, additional spaces 1 DEU
18311 Mess room and recreational facilities 1 DEU
18312 Galley, handling room (maintenance) 2 DEU, GBR
18313 Cleanliness 2 GBR, ITA
18314 Provisions quantity 2 BEL, ITA
18315 Provisions quality and nutritional value 2 DEU
18318 Food temperature 1 ITA
18321 Heating, air conditioning and ventilation 2 CAN, NGA
18326 Laundry, Adequate Locker 3 BEL, CAN, GBR
18401 Medical Equipment, medical chest, medical guide 2 BEL, PAN
18410 Gas instruments 1 CHN
18412 Personal equipment 1 CAN
18418 Winches and capstans 1 CAN
18424 Steam pipes, pressure pipes, wires (insulation) 1 DEU
18499 Other (Health protection, medical care …) 4 AUS, CHN, KOR
Total 50 -
*ISO description of the country

ISO des. Country ISO des. Country ISO des. Country
AUS Australia BEL Belgium CAN Canada
CHN China DEU Germany ESP Spain
GBR UK ITA Italy KOR Korea
NGA Nigeria PAN Panama RUS Russia
37
Table 4.3.3 Top 15 MLC Deficiencies Regarded as The Evidences

of ISM Detainable Deficiencies
Code Item No.
01220 Seafarer' employment agreement (SEA) 6
01308 Records of rest 2
- Other Deficiencies with 01xxx 3
18xxx Labour Conditions (MLC, 2006)
18201 Fitness for duty- work and rest hours 4
18301 Noise, vibration and other ambient factors 2
18302 Sanitary facilities 9
18304 Lighting (Accommodation) 2
18305 Hospital accommodation (Sickbay) 2
18311 Mess room and recreational facilities 3
18312 Galley, handling room (maintenance) 2
18314 Provisions quantity 2
18315 Provisions quality and nutritional value 3
18318 Food temperature 2
18407 Lighting (Working spaces) 3
18408 Electrical 6
18412 Personal equipment 6
18416 Ropes and wires 8
18417 Anchoring devices 4
18418 Winches and capstans 4
18424 Steam pipes, pressure pipes, wires (insulation) 5
18425 Access/ structural features (ship) 8
- Other Deficiencies with 18xxx 32
Total 118
(Reference) PSC Inspections on Working and Living Conditions in Countries not ratifying
MLC, 2006
Regarding the matters of ILO, Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU and other MOUs had been carrying out PSC
inspections using deficiency codes 09000 series “Working and Living Conditions” since the time
before implementation of MLC, 2006. These codes are still used by the countries in which MLC,
2006 has not yet come into force. Table 4.3.4 shows the number of detainable deficiencies with the
Code pointed out in 2018.
Table 4.3.4 Number of ILO Detainable Deficiencies (per Deficiency Code)

Code Item No.
091xx Living Conditions
09102 Dirty, parasites 1
09109 Pipes, wires (insulation) 1
092xx Working Conditions
09209 Electrical 1
09232 Cleanliness of engine room 4
09298 Other (accident prevention) 1
Total 8
38
Chapter 5
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 these public data available, this Chapter introduces
abstracts of the recent results of detentions by the Tokyo MOU, the Paris MoU and the USCG in
2018.
The full text of each respective Annual Report can be obtained from the following websites.
Tokyo MOU http://www.tokyo-mou.org

Paris MoU http://www.parismou.org
USCG http://www.uscg.mil/
39
5.1 Tokyo MOU

In 2018, 31,589 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 934 ships were detained
due to serious deficiencies found onboard.
5.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities

Table 5.1.1 shows the numbers of Port State inspections carried out by each Port State from 2016
through 2018.
Table 5.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Port Authorities (Tokyo MOU)
No. of Inspection No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)

Country
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
1)
Australia 3,675 3,128 2,922 245 165 161 6.67 5.27 5.51
2)
Canada 510 615 511 2 5 3 0.39 0.81 0.59
Chile 869 888 831 11 13 12 1.27 1.46 1.44
China 7,736 7,242 7,549 422 372 360 5.46 5.14 4.77
Fiji 10 42 64 0 2 0 0.00 4.76 0.00
Hong Kong, China 630 664 716 24 27 24 3.81 4.07 3.35
Indonesia 2,143 1,920 1,803 33 66 60 1.54 3.44 3.33
Japan 5,438 5,439 5,173 181 107 100 3.33 1.97 1.93
Republic of Korea 1,988 1,947 1,925 72 66 67 3.62 3.39 3.48
Malaysia 1,193 1,544 1,567 18 24 13 1.51 1.55 0.83
Marshall Islands 19 20 21 2 1 3 10.53 5.00 14.29
New Zealand 184 241 288 3 6 16 1.63 2.49 5.56
Papua New Guinea 129 143 154 4 7 5 3.10 4.90 3.25
Peru 484 502 544 3 2 4 0.62 0.40 0.74
Philippines 2,420 2,714 2,976 1 2 1 0.04 0.07 0.03
Russia 2) 1,049 1,101 1,162 22 54 90 2.10 4.90 7.75
Singapore 1,035 1,027 1,097 29 15 15 2.80 1.46 1.37
Thailand 634 607 669 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Vanuatu 0 5 4 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Vietnam 1,532 1,526 1,613 18 7 0 1.17 0.46 0.00
Total 31,678 31,315 31,589 1,090 941 934 3.44% 3.00% 2.96%
1) Data is also provided to Indian Ocean MOU.
2) Data is only for the Pacific ports.
40
5.1.2 Black List of Flag States

Table 5.1.2 shows the Black List of Flag State announced in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report.
Table 5.1.2 Black List of Flag States (Tokyo MOU)

No. of No. of
Grey to Black to
Flag State Inspections Detentions
White limit Grey limit
2016-2018 2016-2018
1)
Fiji 44 14 6
Tanzania 130 32 14
Cambodia 452 76 41
Togo 1,110 149 92
Mongolia 278 40 27
1)
Micronesia, Federated States of 372 46 35
Palau 209 27 21
Niue 155 21 17
Korea, Democratic People’s Republic 539 62 48
Sierra Leone 1,149 114 95
Barbados 59 9 8
Indonesia 659 58 57
1) Fraudulently registered vessels are involved.
5.1.3 Recognized Organization Performance

Table 5.1.3 shows the detention data of IACS affiliated Recognized Organization in the Tokyo MOU
Annual Report.
Table 5.1.3 Inspections and Detentions per Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU) (*)
Recognized No. of Inspections No. of Detentions Detention
Organization 2016-2018 2016-2018 ratio (%)
ABS 11,353 213 1.88
BV 11,439 360 3.15
CCS 7,580 58 0.77
CRS 141 8 5.67
DNV GL 27,584 606 2.20
IRS 261 11 4.21
KR 9,545 165 1.73
LR 14,569 318 2.18
NK 32,754 812 2.48
PRS 135 9 6.67
RINA 3,125 93 2.98
RS 1,382 57 4.12
(*) 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.
41
5.1.4 Deficiencies per Category

Figure 5.1.4 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2016 through 2018.
9,363
Life saving appliances 9,787
10,981
2018
13,340 2017
Fire safety measures 13,707
14,960 2016
2,046
Stability, structure and
2,324
related equipment
2,471
5,017
Load lines 5,283
5,587
10,127
Safety of navigation 11,701
12,207
1,616
ISM related deficiencies 1,987
2,192
31,932
Others 31,319
32,873
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
No. of Deficiencies
Fig. 5.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)
42
5.2 Paris MoU

In 2018, 17,952 inspections were carried out in the Paris MoU region, and 566 ships were detained
due to serious deficiencies found onboard.
5.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities

Table 5.2.1 shows the numbers of Port State Inspections carried out by each respective Port State
from 2016 through 2018.
Table 5.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities (Paris MoU)
No. of Inspections No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)

Country
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Belgium 942 961 989 23 23 28 2.44 2.39 2.83
Bulgaria 350 288 329 14 9 16 4.00 3.13 4.86
Canada 1,061 1,150 1,022 16 21 19 1.51 1.83 1.86
Croatia 315 323 341 4 11 11 1.27 3.41 3.23
Cyprus 147 122 114 13 11 7 8.84 9.02 6.14
Denmark 452 471 493 2 0 6 0.44 0.00 1.22
Estonia 199 202 210 2 0 0 1.01 0.00 0.00
Finland 274 282 282 1 1 0 0.36 0.35 0.00
France 1,132 1,140 1,072 24 32 35 2.12 2.81 3.26
Germany 1,149 1,121 1,134 51 48 36 4.44 4.28 3.17
Greece 1,016 1,016 982 63 66 42 6.20 6.50 4.28
Iceland 65 60 63 0 2 1 0.00 3.33 1.59
Ireland 300 288 285 7 8 9 2.33 2.78 3.16
Italy 1,430 1,464 1,381 65 93 60 4.55 6.35 4.34
Latvia 326 290 303 2 4 3 0.61 1.38 0.99
Lithuania 226 239 231 2 2 0 0.88 0.84 0.00
Malta 232 211 196 5 5 6 2.16 2.37 3.06
Netherlands 1,263 1,264 1,278 34 32 28 2.69 2.53 2.19
Norway 560 557 569 7 6 8 1.25 1.08 1.41
Poland 501 502 507 21 18 26 4.19 3.59 5.13
Portugal 499 499 514 13 7 9 2.61 1.40 1.75
Romania 502 510 533 59 58 28 11.75 11.37 5.25
1)
Russia 1,186 1,337 1,360 128 126 103 10.79 9.42 7.57
Slovenia 131 132 136 1 2 1 0.76 1.52 0.74
Spain 1,673 1,562 1,556 68 39 33 4.06 2.50 2.12
Sweden 556 562 573 8 10 11 1.44 1.78 1.92
United Kingdom 1,353 1,363 1,499 50 51 40 3.70 3.74 2.67
Total 17,840 17,916 17,952 683 685 566 3.83% 3.82% 3.15%
1) Only movements to the Russian ports in the Baltic Azov, Caspian and Barents Sea are included.
43
5.2.2 Black List of Flag States

Table 5.2.2 shows the Black List of Flag States announced by the Paris MoU.
Table 5.2.2 Black List of Flag States (Paris MoU)

Inspections Detentions Grey to Black to
Flag State
2016-2018 2016-2018 White Limit Grey Limit
Congo, Republic of the 98 26 Very High 12
Risk
Togo 486 92 44
Coromos 351 67 33
Palau 210 41 21
Cambodia 44 11 6
Tanzania, United Republic of 326 58 High Risk 31
Moldova, Republic of 409 69 38
Ukraine 82 17 10
Sierra Leone 333 55 31
Mongolia 36 8 Medium to 6
High Risk
Albania 69 12 9
Saint Kitts and Navis 233 31 23
Belize 361 44 Medium Risk 34
Cook Islands 424 46 39
5.2.3 Recognized Organization Performance

Table 5.2.3 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those
announced by the Paris MoU for the three years from 2016 through 2018.
Table 5.2.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Paris MoU)

RO-responsible
Recognized Inspections Performance
Detentions
Organization 2016-2018 Level
2016-2018
ABS 6,009 2
DNVGL 18,192 18
CCS 869 0
LR 12,505 14
BV 11,450 25
NK 8,393 23 High
KRS 1,233 2
RINA 4,427 13
RS 2,926 15
PRS 531 3
CRS 153 1
IRS 155 3 Medium
44
5.3 USCG
In 2018, a total of 10,418 individual vessels visited U.S. ports, and a total of 9,025 SOLAS based
safety examinations were conducted by the USCG during the year.
5.3.1 USCG Statistics

Table 5.3.1 shows the number of safety related detentions for the three years from 2016 through 2018.
The three-year average detention ratio decreased for the second year in a row from 1.39% to 1.06%.
Table 5.3.1 Detentions by Year (Safety)

Distinct SOLAS Safety
Year Vessel Annual Detention 3 Year Average
Detentions
Arrivals* Ratio Detention Ratio
2016 9,859 98 1.04% 1.58%
2017 10,190 91 0.98% 1.39%
2018 10,418 105 1.16% 1.06%
* Distinct Vessel Arrivals: Number of ships greater than or equal to 500 GT, calling upon at least one
U.S. port.
5.3.2 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 5.3.2 USCG Targeted Flag States (Safety)

2016-2018 Points of
Flag State
Detention Ratio Targeting Matrix
Barbados 7.59%
(*)
Cook islands 5.71%
India 3.85%
(*)
Mexico 2.56%
Philippines 2.16%
St. Kitts and Nevis 10.53% 7 points
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.66%
Tanzania 16.22%
Togo 8.54%
Turkey 2.63%
Vanuatu 5.73%
Antigua and Barbuda 1.54%
Cyprus 1.32%
Greece 1.17%
2 points
Malta 1.60%
Panama 1.33%
Portugal (*) 1.54%
* Administration not targeted last year.
45
5.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance (Safety)

The table 5.3.3 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among
those announced by the USCG.
Table 5.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (USCG)

Vessel Examinations Class-Related Detentions Detention Targeted
Class
2016 2017 2018 Total 2016 2017 2018 Total Ratio Points
ABS 1,836 1,685 1,936 5,457 - - - - 0.00% 0 points
BV 1,113 1,166 1,191 3,470 - - 2 2 0.05% 0 points
CCS 231 194 240 665 - - - - 0.00% 0 points
CRS 17 14 20 51 - - - - 0.00% 0 points
DNV GL 2,122 3,271 3,658 9,051 - - 3 3 0.03% 0 points
IRS 13 13 22 48 - - - - 0.00% 0 points
KR 242 314 269 825 - - - - 0.00% 0 points
LR 2,403 2,405 2,684 7,056 - 1 - 1 0.01% 0 points
NK 2,296 2,282 2,478 6,941 - - 1 1 0.01% 0 points
PRS 17 22 32 71 - - - - 0.00% 0 points
RINA 284 320 431 1,035 - - - - 0.00% 0 points
RS 34 29 32 95 - - 1 1 1.05% 5 points
In accordance with the Boarding Priority Matrix, Recognized Organizations are evaluated on their
PSC performance over the previous three years. The evaluation for 2018 was based on the records
for 2016, 2017, and 2018.
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 1 status.
46
20190531_A4裏表紙_PSCANR_2019_EN.pdf 1 2019/05/31 14:38:47
CM
MY
CY
CMY

Publicación Anual 2018 Resultado Inspecciones PSC ClassNK

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Publicación Anual 2018 Resultado Inspecciones PSC ClassNK

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Publicación Anual 2018 Resultado Inspecciones PSC ClassNK

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20190531-3-2_A4表紙_PSCANR_2019_EN.

pdf 1 2019/05/31 17:46:55

Wasted fire door and frame

Detached fire door frame

Detached fire door packing

Damaged fire hydrant

Fire hose joint leaking

Fractured escape trunk bottom

Corroded CO2 line

Hatch not tightly closed

Non color coded seat belts

Weak link not fitted

Wasted pilot ladder

Holed air pipe head

Holed mushroom ventilator

Secured quick closing valve

Oily and dirty machineries

Holed oil coming

Broken mooring rope

Missed sink pipe

“Chapter 1”: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide

2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies ····································································16

Status of Implementation and Recent Developments

1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions

Part I Safety measures Part II Pollution prevention measures

Not later than the first intermediate or

Keel laid Target vessel Deadline for the BWMS installtation

1.1.5 Revised for Form of Garbage Record Book

1.1.6 Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships

1.1.7 EU Regulation on Ship Recycling

1.2 Recent global developments

1.2.1 MOUs around the world

European and North Atlantic region ：Paris MoU (http://www.parismou.org/)

(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU)

(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU)

(3) Latin-American region (Latin American Agreement)

(4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU)

(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU)

(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU)

(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)

(8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MoU)

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

1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)

(2) PSC Safety Targeting Matrix

(3) Banning of foreign vessels

1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK

1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by PSC Inspections

(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers

i) ARRIVAL CHECKLIST for PSC (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/psc/)

ii) PrimeShip-PSC intelligence (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/activities/portal/psc-intelligence.html)

1.3.3 Visits to PSC authorities

- Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with ClassNK

2.2 Data on Detentions

Table 2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State

200 183 2018

Fig. 2.2.1-1 No. of Detentions per Flag

Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio per Flag (%)

2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type

Table 2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type