On March 22, the official website of China MSA released the February Port State Control (PSC) detention list. According to the list, 24 PSC authorities in the Chinese mainland area detained a total of 45 vessel - times in February. This was a sharp decrease of 25 vessel - times compared with the 70 vessel - times recorded in January, which came as a great relief to shipowners.

Details as follwos:

01 Detention Intensity Analysis

Tier 1 – PSC Red Alert Ports: Shanghai, Ningbo.

In January 2024, Shanghai Port recorded 6 vessel detentions, a decrease of 9 vessel detentions compared with the 15 cases in the prior January; Ningbo reported 5 vessel detentions. Shanghai saw a substantial drop in detention ratio, while Ningbo witnessed a rapid rise.

Tier 2 – PSC Orange Alert Ports: Qingdao, Rizhao, Tianjin, Xiamen, Zhoushan. Each of these five ports reported 3 vessel detentions.

Tier 3 – PSC Yellow Alert Ports: Humen, Yantai. Each recorded 2 vessel detentions.

Tier 4 – PSC Orange Alert Ports: Caofeidian, Changshu, Changzhou, Fangcheng, Guangzhou, Huanghua, Jiangyin, Lianyungang, Ningde, Shantou, Shenzhen, Taicang, Zhangjiagang, Zhangzhou, Zhuhai. Each of the above ports reported 1 vessel detention.

02 Detentions Characteristics in High-Detention Ports

 Characteristics of Vessel Detentions by Shanghai MSA

1) Detention intensity dropped significantly. Among the 6 detained vessels, there were 2 bulk carriers, 1 general cargo ship, 2 container ships, and 1 oil tanker.

It should be noted that 3 of these 6 vessels (with IMO numbers 9330111/9237503/9219795) were detained due to malfunctions of their main propulsion units. Therefore, all shipowners planning to call at Shanghai Port must conduct advance equipment maintenance, replace lubricants, and ensure the main propulsion units are in robust working condition.

In addition, container ship 9237503 flying the Liberian flag was detained for 5 days, and container ship 9219795 flying the Danish flag was detained for 7 days, both due to main propulsion unit failures. This deserves the close attention of all relevant parties.

2)Detentions imposed for non-compliance with the ISM Code under the PSC regime are generally targeted at bulk carriers and general cargo ships.

It is observed that among the 6 vessels detained in February, only bulk carrier 9546112 flying the Marshall Islands flag and general cargo ship 9646118 flying the Sierra Leone flag were issued detention orders for ISM Code non-compliance. Based on the pattern of deficiency issuance by Shanghai MSA’s PSC inspectors, it can be concluded that there is a general consensus that Shanghai MSA focuses its ISM Code deficiency inspections on bulk carriers and general cargo ships. Shipowners operating such vessels should pay close attention to this point.

Characteristics of Vessel Detentions by Ningbo MSA

The 5 vessels detained in Ningbo include 2 gas carriers, 1 container ship, 1 oil tanker, and 1 roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) ship.

It should be noted that among these 5 detained vessels, the cargo ships YONG XIN 08, PVT NEPTUNE, MATHILDE MAERSK and GAS COMMERCE were all detained due to a single deficiency: malfunctioning of the lifeboat and raft release devices. This is indicative of the strong professional competence of the Port State Control Officers (PSCOs) from Ningbo PSC who have a deck department background. All vessels bound for Ningbo should attach greater importance to the condition of their deck department equipment.

Characteristics of Vessel Detentions by Qingdao, Tianjin, Rizhao, Xiamen, Zhoushan MSA

1）Qingdao MSA: The 3 detained vessels consist of 2 oil tankers and 1 container ship. The PSC detention methods are straightforward and stringent: all detentions are imposed on the grounds of ISM non-compliance coupled with other deficiencies. ISM non-compliance serves as the primary basis for detention, while other triggering deficiencies include: VDR malfunctions, main propulsion unit failures, lifeboat release gear faults, corrosion and fracture of lifeboat/raft embarkation ladders, and non-compliance with requirements for enclosed space entry procedures.

2）Tianjin MSA: The 3 detained vessels include 2 bulk carriers and 1 general cargo ship. PSC inspectors did not resort to ISM non-compliance as the basis for detention; all detentions were enforced due to ordinary deficiencies, with each of the three vessels cited for more than 3 deficiencies.

The detention-triggering issues are concentrated in the following aspects: ballast water system malfunctions or erroneous records, poorly sealed fan dampers, substandard fire drills, non-compliant fire separation arrangements, and failure to meet steering gear alarm test requirements.

3）Rizhao MSA: Among the 3 detained vessels, only 1 was issued a Category 15 ISM-related detention deficiency. Other detention-triggering deficiencies include: lifeboat starting failures, faults in fire alarm and detection systems, absence of Part III in the SEEMP, malfunctions of cargo hold oil discharge monitoring systems, emergency generator failures, faults in fan fire dampers, and defects in domestic sewage treatment plants.

4）Xiamen MSA: Of the 3 detained vessels, only 1 was given a Category 15 ISM-related detention deficiency, while the rest were detained for two deficiencies each. Detention causes are predominantly deck-oriented – covering lifeboats, rescue boats, nautical charts, and fire detection & alarm systems. It is presumed that the MSA lacks PSCOs with an engine room background.

5）Zhoushan MSA: Among the 3 detained vessels, 2 were not cited for any ISM Code deficiencies. Key points to note among other detention-triggering deficiencies include: outdated SEEMP, crew certificates either not endorsed by the flag State or with expired endorsements, main propulsion unit defects, and failure to maintain spare parts replacement records as required by the technical documentation related to NOₓ emission standards under MARPOL Annex VI. In contrast to Xiamen MSA, Zhoushan MSA’s detention focus is primarily engine room-oriented, indicating that its PSCOs are likely to have a marine engineering background.

03 Distribution of Detention Deficiencies

1. A total of 27 vessel detentions were imposed on 16 bulk carriers and 11 general cargo ships, accounting for 60% of the total detentions.

2. 6 container ships and 5 oil tankers were detained.

Container ship detentions were concentrated at Shanghai and Ningbo Ports.

Oil tanker detentions were concentrated at Shanghai, Ningbo, Zhoushan and Qingdao Ports, a point that requires the close attention of shipowners prior to berthing.

3. In terms of classification societies: Class NK recorded 9 vessel detentions, remaining the top on the list; BV had 6 detentions; ABS had 5 detentions; RINA had 4 detentions; LR had 2 detentions;DNV and KR each had 1 detention; the rest were attributable to little-known small classification societies.

4. Regarding well-known flag states of convenience: Panama topped the list with 19 detained vessels; Liberia followed closely with 23 detentions; Belize and the Marshall Islands each had 2 detentions.

Overall, in February, China’s PSC conducted 462 inspections and imposed 45 detentions, resulting in a detention rate of 9.74%. There were 29 zero-deficiency reports, with a zero-deficiency rate of 6.27%.

In the same month, Tokyo MOU carried out 2,319 PSC inspections and detained 76 vessels, corresponding to a detention rate of 3.28%. It issued 927 zero-deficiency reports, with a zero-deficiency rate of 39.97%. By comparison, China’s PSC inspections are relatively stricter.

Among the 76 detained vessels under the Tokyo MOU: 45 were detained by China; 13 by Australia; 1 each by Canada, Chile, Hong Kong of China and Thailand; 6 by Japan; 5 by South Korea; 3 by Russia; 0 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam.

For the entire Tokyo MOU region in February, 78 inspections were conducted on vessels flying the Chinese flag. Of these, 43 passed with zero deficiencies – a remarkable performance. Only 1 vessel was detained: on February 28, the bulk carrier XIN QI XIANG 217 (IMO: 9629811) was detained by South Korean PSCOs. Built in 2010, this vessel was previously featured in our publication.

                                                                                                                                              Reprinted from PSCReady