DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report 2014 Annual Report 2014 Entity for the Quality Assessment and Certification of Organisations Recognised by the European Union CIC © QACE 2012 QACE Company number 7455733 Copying from this document 1 Lyric Square Registered in England and Wales can be done provided source London W6 0NB UK Community interest company reference www.qace.co limited by guarantee 4 TableQACE 2013 Annual of ReportContents Glossary QACE 2013 Annual Report 5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................06 ABS .....................................................................................................................American Bureau of Shipping ACB .................................................................................................................... Accredited Certification Body BSI ................................................................................. The British Standards Institution [Certification Body] I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................08 CCS ........................................................................................................................ China Classification Society II. Scope of Activities .....................................................................................................................09 CIC .................................................................................................Community Interest Company [Non Profit] CO ....................................................................................................................................RO Controlling Office III. The 2014 Work Plan .................................................................................................................10 CR .......................................................................................................................Collective Recommendations IV. .............................................................................................................. Observation Activities 12 CRS ..................................................................................................................... Croatian Register of Shipping V. Main Findings .............................................................................................................................16 DEKRA .................................................................................... DEKRA Certification GmbH [Certification Body] . VI. Recommendations .....................................................................................................................18 DNV ................................................................................................................................Det Norske Veritas AS DQS ................................................................................................................ DQS GmbH [Certification Body] VII. Formalising the Relationship with IACS..............................................................................20 EC ................................................................................................................................ European Commission VIII. QACE Members ...........................................................................................................................21 EMS ........................................................................................................ Environmental Management System IX. EU Commission’s Assessment ................................................................................................22 EMSA ..........................................................................................................European Maritime Safety Agency EU .......................................................................................................................................... European Union XI. Concluding Remarks...................................................................................................................23 EUW ..................................................................................................... IACS ACB Auditor End User Workshop XI. Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................24 GL .................................................................................................................................Germanischer Lloyd SE HO ............................................................................................................................................ RO Head Office IACS ................................................................................ International Association of Classification Societies IACS PR ............................................................................................................ IACS Procedural Requirements IACS UI ..................................................................................................................IACS Unified Interpretations Annex A IACS UR ................................................................................................................. IACS Unified Requirements Elected Non-Executive Directors of the Board for QACE.........................................................26 IAF ...................................................................................................... International Accreditation Forum, Inc. IAF MD ....................................................................................................................IAF Mandatory Document IMO ........................................................................................................ International Maritime Organization Annex B IRS ......................................................................................................................... Indian Register of Shipping Members of QACE - EU Recognised Organisations ................................................................... 27 IR ......................................................................................................................... Individual Recommendation ISM .................................................................................................... International Safety Management Code ISO ...........................................................................................International Organization for Standardization Annex C ISRSISPS ........................................................................... International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code 2015 Collective Recommendations ................................................................................................28 KR ......................................................................................................................... Korean Register of Shipping LR ...........................................................................................................................Lloyd’s Register of Shipping NC ..................................................................................................... Audit finding graded as Non Conformity NGO ...................................................................................................... IMO Non-Governmental Organisation NK .....................................................................................................................................Nippon Kaiji Kyokai OB ........................................................................................................... Audit finding graded as Observation PA ..............................................................................................................................RO Plan Approval Centre PRP .......................................................................................................................... Procedure Review Project PRS ........................................................................................................................Polish Register of Shipping QMS ................................................................................................................... Quality Management System QSCS ............................................................................................... IACS Quality System Certification Scheme RINA ................................................................................................................................. RINA Services S.p.A. RINAVE .......................................................................................................... Registro Internacional Naval SA RO ..............................................................................................................................Recognised Organisation RS .........................................................................................................Russian Maritime Register of Shipping SAI G. ................................................................................................... SAI Global Limited [Certification Body] SGS ...................................................................................................................... SGS S.A. [Certification Body] SL ......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marine Motors Certified by Rina Motive Motors Protection
    CE MARKING SERIE DELPHI EX MARINE MOTORS CERTIFIED BY RINA MOTIVE MOTORS PROTECTION marking is referred to: II 3G Ex nAEx IIB nA T4 T 4Gc Motive has been admitted to the alternative testing Protections must be chosen based on the PTC thermistor device II 3 GD Ex tD A22 IP65 125°C scheme (Statement Nr. 2015/MI/01/537) for specific running conditions, according to II 3D Ex tc IIIB T125°C Dc the certification of its three phase electric marine standards EN 60204-1 this device promptly, Low Voltage 06/95 EEC EN60034-2-1 (last issue). Rotating motors, constructed, tested and certified in confor- positively adjusts its electrical machines. Standard ATEXATEX isis thethe conventionalconventional name name of of the the Directive Directive 94/9/EC 14/34/EC for thefor equipmenthe equip-t intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. The name comes mity with RINA Rules, either for essential or non-es- External protections resistance once the methods for determining losses ment intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. The name sential service. Protection against overloads. A thermal threshold temperature is EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility and efficiency from tests comesfrom the from words the A Tmosphèreswords ATmosphères and EXplosibles. and EXplosibles. It became compulsoIt becamer y com-in all the European Union from 1st March 1996, imposing the evaluation of the cut-out relay, which automatically controls reached. 04/108/EEC pulsory in all the European Union from 1st March 1996, imposing the a knife switch. EN60034-30 (last issue). Rotating risk for all the equipmentevaluation operating of the in risk such for environments all the equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • International Association of Classification Societies
    International Association of Classifi cation Societies Roy Nersesian and Subrina Mahmood I. Introduction Th e International Association of Classifi cation Societies (IACS), headquar- tered in London, is made up of ten classifi cation societies: Lloyds Register (LR), American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), China Clas- sifi cation Society (CCS), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Korean Register (KR), Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK), Registro Italiano Navale (RINA), and the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS), as well as the Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) as an associate member. According to the Maritime International Secretariet Services (www.marisec.org), there are 47,700 vessels in the world trading fl eet made up principally of general cargo vessels, bulk carriers, container ships, tankers, and passenger vessels. If vessels smaller than 100 gross tons are included (too small to venture on the high seas or participate in international trade), the world fl eet numbers close to 100,000. Most of the world’s trading vessels – nearly 41,000 in 2008 – are registered with classifi cation society members of the IACS. Th e remaining vessels are covered by non-IASC member classifi cation societies. Classifi cation societies develop and implement technical standards for ships and fl oating off shore oil production and storage facilities. Th ese societies set rules to ensure the structural strength and integrity of the ship’s hull and its internal structure, cargo holds, bridge superstructure as well as the functional aspects and reliability of propulsion, steering systems, power generation, cargo handling, ship control, communication, navigation, emer- gency and other auxiliary systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 7-038-1 MARITIME ADMINISTRATOR Rev
    REPUBLIC OF Marine Notice THE MARSHALL ISLANDS No. 7-038-1 MARITIME ADMINISTRATOR Rev. Mar/2021 TO: ALL SHIPOWNERS, OPERATORS, MASTERS AND OFFICERS OF MERCHANT SHIPS, AND RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS SUBJECT: Periodically Unattended Machinery Spaces (PUMS); Requirements for Safety of Operation and Reduced Manning References: (a) Classification Society Rules (b) IMO Resolution A.325(IX), Regulations 24-32, Adopted 12 November 1975 (c) SOLAS 1974 as Amended Chapter II-l, Part E PURPOSE: This Notice sets forth the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) Maritime Administrator’s (the “Administrator”) manning policy for the safe operation of vessels with automated machinery installations. This Notice supersedes Rev. 5/14 and reflects the updating of DNV company name in §1.4. APPLICABILITY: Ships with machinery installations, approved by an authorized Classification Society for the assignment of the “Periodically Unattended Machinery Spaces” (PUMS) notation, will be eligible for a reduction in the number of engineering personnel. REQUIREMENTS: 1.0 Periodically Unattended Machinery Space Installations 1.1 For guidance in the installation of PUMS arrangements, the requirements of the 1981 Amendments to SOLAS 1974 at Chapter II-l Part E, should be used. These are generally covered by the Classification Society Rules. However, certain requirements of the Regulations are in addition to the Class Rules as now in force and, wherever reasonable and practicable, should be incorporated into the installation. 1.2 Newbuildings contracted for after 31 December 1983, shall fully comply with SOLAS as amended. 1 of 2 Inquiries concerning the subject of this Notice should be directed to the Office of the Maritime Administrator, Republic of the Marshall Islands, c/o Marshall Islands Maritime and Corporate Administrators, Inc., 11495 Commerce Park Drive, Reston, VA 20191-1506 USA.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Port State Control Report Australia
    2007 PORT STATE CONTROL REPORT Darwin Cairns Port Hedland Karratha Mackay Gladstone Brisbane Fremantle Newcastle Adelaide Sydney Canberra Wollongong Melbourne Devonport Australia I ©Australian Maritime Safety Authority This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or part subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source, but not for commercial usage or sale. Further information may be obtained from: The General Manager Maritime Operations Australian Maritime Safety Authority GPO Box 2181, Canberra ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA Telephone +61 2 6279 5069 Facsimile +61 2 6279 5071 This Report and AMSA detention data is available on the Shipping Safety pages of AMSA’s website www.amsa.gov.au ISSN 1033-2499 Copy/design/typeset: Australian Maritime Safety Authority II 2007 Port State Control Report PREFACE The Australian economy depends upon maritime trade. It is reasonable to expect that those in the industry will maintain the safety of personnel and protection of the marine environment in accordance with Australian and international standards. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) assists in ensuring these expectations are met through continuing to deliver a rigorous port State control (PSC) program, supported by the Australian government and other maritime industry stakeholders. AMSA has been able to see the benefits of this program through analysis of PSC data over a number of years, with a clear improvement in the overall standard of foreign flag ships and a general decline in average deficiencies per PSC inspection. We recognise that this is only partly a result of the efforts and professionalism of the AMSA Marine Surveyors, systems and support staff; the efforts of the users of shipping coming to Australian ports to employ quality tonnage are also to be applauded as are the efforts of ship crews and managers.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipbreaking" # 41
    Shipbreaking Bulletin of information and analysis on ship demolition # 41, from July 1 to September 30, 2015 Content Offshore platforms: radioactive alert 1 Pipe layer 21 Reefer 37 Waiting for the blowtorches 3 Offshore supply vessel 22 Bulk carrier 38 Military & auxiliary vessels 7 Tanker 24 Cement carrier 47 The podium of best ports 13 Chemical tanker 26 Car carrier 47 3rd quarter overview: the plunge 14 Gas tanker 27 Ferry 48 Letters to the Editor 16 General cargo 28 Passenger ship 56 Seismic research 17 Container ship 34 Dredger 57 Drilling 18 Ro Ro 36 The End: Sitala, 54 years later 58 Drilling/FPSO 20 Tuna seiner / Factory ship 37 Sources 60 Offshore platforms: radioactive alert The arrival of « Nobi », St. Kitts & Nevis flag, in Bangladesh. © Birat Bhattacharjee Many offshore platforms built in the 1970s-1980’s have been sent to the breaking yards by the long- lasting drop in oil prices and the low profile of offshore activities. Owners gain an ultimate profit from dismantlement. Most of the offshore platforms sent to be demolished since the beginning of the year are semi-submersible rigs. This type of rig weighs 10 to 15,000 t, i.e. a gain for the last owners of 2-4 million $ on the current purchase price from shipbreaking yards. Seen in the scrapyards: Bangladesh: DB 101, Saint-Kitts-and-Nevis flag, 35.000 t. Nobi, Saint-Kitts-and-Nevis flag, 14.987 t. India: Ocean Epoch, Marshall Islands flag, 11.099 t. Octopus, 10.625 t. Turkey: Atwood Hunter, Marshall Islands flag. GSF Arctic I, Vanuatu flag.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation of Liability of Classification Societies Young Min World Maritime University
    World Maritime University The Maritime Commons: Digital Repository of the World Maritime University World Maritime University Dissertations Dissertations 2011 Limitation of liability of classification societies Young Min World Maritime University Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations Part of the Admiralty Commons Recommended Citation Min, Young, "Limitation of liability of classification societies" (2011). World Maritime University Dissertations. 297. http://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations/297 This Dissertation is brought to you courtesy of Maritime Commons. Open Access items may be downloaded for non-commercial, fair use academic purposes. No items may be hosted on another server or web site without express written permission from the World Maritime University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WORLD MARITIME UNIVERSITY Malmö, Sweden Limitation of Liability of Classification Societies by MIN, YOUNG HUN Republic of Korea A dissertation submitted to the World Maritime University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in MARITIME AFFAIRS MARITIME LAW AND POLICY 2011 Copyright Min, Young Hun, 2011 DECLARATION I certify that all the material in this dissertation that is not my own work has been identified, and that no material is included for which a degree has previously been conferred on me. The contents of this dissertation reflect my own personal views, and are not necessarily endorsed by the University. Supervised by: Dr. Maximo Q. Mejia Jr. Associate Professor of Maritime Law and Policy World Maritime University Assessor: Dr. Proshanto K. Mukherjee ITF Professor of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection World Maritime University Co-assessor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Canada Shipbuilding Summit Introduction
    Western Canada Shipbuilding Summit The role of Classification Societies in Shipbuilding Marcel LaRoche, Marine Manager Western Canada Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. May 2nd, 2012 Introduction In the context of both international and Canadian shipping this presentation will examine the relationships between the key regulatory players related to shipbuilding and seek to clarify their roles. Ship Building Defining Design Criteria • Given the considerable cost of building a ship, three very important criteria must be established early in the design phase. 1. What is the need for the vessel thus establishing the design intent (ship type, area of operation…etc)? 2. To which Flag State will the ship be registered; hence establishing the regulatory framework to which the ship will be built and operated? 3. Will the ship be built to the Rules and Regulations of a Classification Society and if so, which one? Regulatory Regime Flag States (National Maritime Administrations) • That authority under which a country exercises regulatory control over the commercial vessel which is registered under its flag. • This involves the inspection, certification, and issuance of safety and pollution prevention documents. • Responsibilities include: • Development of national law and regulations • Implementation of international conventions and mandatory codes • Ensure compliance • Exercise control functions Regulatory Regime United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 94 of UNCLOS the Flag State has certain duties including: • “exercises its jurisdiction
    [Show full text]
  • Ssc-439 Comparative Structural Requirements
    NTIS # SSC-439 COMPARATIVE STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH SPEED CRAFTS This document has been approved For public release and sale; its Distribution is unlimited SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE 2005 SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE RADM Thomas H. Gilmour U. S. Coast Guard Assistant Commandant, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection Chairman, Ship Structure Committee Mr. W. Thomas Packard Dr. Jack Spencer Director, Senior Vice President Survivability and Structural Integrity Group American Bureau of Shipping Naval Sea Systems Command Mr. Joseph Byrne Mr.Gerard A. McDonald Director, Office of Ship Construction Director General, Marine Safety, Maritime Administration Safety & Security Transport Canada Mr. Thomas Connors Dr. Neil Pegg Director of Engineering Group Leader - Structural Mechanics Military Sealift Command Defence Research & Development Canada - Atlantic CONTRACTING OFFICER TECHNICAL REP. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Chao Lin / MARAD Lieutenant Eric M. Cooper Natale Nappi / NAVSEA U. S. Coast Guard Robert Sedat / USCG SHIP STRUCTURE SUB-COMMITTEE AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ATLANTIC Mr. Glenn Ashe Dr David Stredulinsky Mr. Yung Shin Mr. John Porter Mr. Phil Rynn Mr. William Hanzalek MARITIME ADMINISTRATION MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND Mr. Chao Lin Mr. Joseph Bohr Mr. Carlos Setterstrom Mr. Paul Handler Mr. Richard Sonnenschein Mr. Michael W. Touma NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TRANSPORT CANADA Mr. Jeffery E. Beach Mr. Jacek Dubiel Mr. Natale Nappi Jr. Mr. Allen H. Engle Mr. Charles L. Null UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Mr. Rubin Sheinberg Mr. Robert Sedat Captain Ray Petow Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. SSC-439 PB2005- 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Comparative Structural Requirements for High Speed Craft February 2005 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-12 Detention List
    SHORT GUIDANCE TO THE MONTHLY LIST OF DETENTIONS OF THE PARIS MOU • INFORMATION IN THE LIST The monthly list of detentions of the Paris MOU contains information about ships which were detained in the Paris MOU region during the month under review. An alphabetical index on ship’s name and an index on IMO number are provided with the list. The information listed for each ship is conform Annex 4 Publication of Information related to Detentions and Inspections. (As referred to in Section 5.2 of the Memorandum) https://www.parismou.org/inspections-risk/library-faq/memorandum Some of these items require an explanation: RO related deficiencies: a ‘Yes’ in this column indicates that one or more of the deficiencies mentioned under ‘Reasons for detention’ are the responsibility of the Recognized Organization which has issued the relevant certificate(s). This is not necessarily the Recognized Organization mentioned in the list (see below)! Port and date of release from detention: details of detentions are entered in the information system of the Paris MOU after the ship has been released. Therefore, the details on a detention of a ship detained in September but released in October are only available in October. Recognized Organization: the Recognized Organization mentioned is not necessarily the party issuing the certificates relevant for all deficiencies which were reasons for detention. ‘Ship allowed to sail to nearest repair yard for repairs’: in general, a ship is not released from detention before all necessary repairs have been made. However, sometimes it is not possible to repair all defects at the place of detention.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-10 Detention List
    SHORT GUIDANCE TO THE MONTHLY LIST OF DETENTIONS OF THE PARIS MOU • INFORMATION IN THE LIST The monthly list of detentions of the Paris MOU contains information about ships which were detained in the Paris MOU region during the month under review. An alphabetical index on ship’s name and an index on IMO number are provided with the list. The information listed for each ship is conform Annex 4 Publication of Information related to Detentions and Inspections. (As referred to in Section 5.2 of the Memorandum) https://www.parismou.org/inspections-risk/library-faq/memorandum Some of these items require an explanation: RO related deficiencies: a ‘Yes’ in this column indicates that one or more of the deficiencies mentioned under ‘Reasons for detention’ are the responsibility of the Recognized Organization which has issued the relevant certificate(s). This is not necessarily the Recognized Organization mentioned in the list (see below)! Port and date of release from detention: details of detentions are entered in the information system of the Paris MOU after the ship has been released. Therefore, the details on a detention of a ship detained in September but released in October are only available in October. Recognized Organization: the Recognized Organization mentioned is not necessarily the party issuing the certificates relevant for all deficiencies which were reasons for detention. ‘Ship allowed to sail to nearest repair yard for repairs’: in general, a ship is not released from detention before all necessary repairs have been made. However, sometimes it is not possible to repair all defects at the place of detention.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorization of Recognized Security Organizations (RSO) to Issue International Ship Security Certificates (ISSC)
    Authorization of Recognized Security Organizations (RSO) to issue International Ship Security Certificates (ISSC) For the purpose of approving SSP and issuing ISSC to Hong Kong registered ships, Marine Department has decided to authorize classification societies, which are already Recognized Organizations for conducting statutory survey and certification functions on behalf of the Hong Kong Administration, as RSO provided they can meet the criteria as stipulated in Part B of the ISPS Code. To verify the capability of individual classification society in discharging its duties as RSO, Marine Department has decided to split the authorization of RSO into stages as follows:- .1 Provisional authorization will be granted to a classification society applying to become a RSO provided that its submitted information can show that it is capable to meet the criteria as set out in Section 4.5 of Part B of the ISPS Code; .2 Subsequent to the provisional authorization, the classification society can start the process of reviewing and approving SSP for Hong Kong registered ships, and to arrange with companies for conducting shipboard verifications; .3 Final authorization will be granted after confirming that the training of personnel, the SSP approval process and the shipboard verification conducted by the classification society are found satisfactory, and that it has established the necessary procedural requirements and system for discharging the work of a RSO; and .4 Upon final authorization, the respective RSO can then proceed with issuing ISSC to the ships which have been verified to comply with the SOLAS and ISPS Code requirements. 2. At present, the following RSO are authorized to carry out statutory surveys and issue International Ship Security Certificates for Hong Kong registered cargo ships:- (i) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS); (ii) Bureau Veritas (BV); (iii) China Classification Society (CCS); (iv) DNV GL (DNV GL); (v) Korean Register of Shipping (KR); (vi) Lloyd's Register (LR); (vii) Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK); and (viii) RINA S.p.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    No.75 No. Format for Electronic Exchange and Standard 75 Reports (June (cont) 2001) (Rev.1 Feb 2015 Complete revision) Abstract: This document details “Unified Data Exchange Format (UDEF)” for electronic exchange of class and statutory data between IACS Member Societies and Flag States. Page 1 of 21 IACS Rec. 2001/Rev.1 2015 No.75 1. Electronic Access to Class and Statutory Data No. 1.1 Introduction 75 (cont) 1.1.1 This document details the data requirements that have been developed to facilitate the exchange of class and statutory data by IACS Member Societies with flag state administrations. Two means of exchange are defined in this document: • Electronic exchange: Data definitions and data fields for the electronic exchange of data are detailed. The mechanism of exchange is explained below. • Formats and Layout standards are shown for the visual presentation of the data using an online system. 1.2 Electronic Exchange and online viewing 1.2.1 The societies shall not provide printed information except by special cases. It is the responsibility of individual flag states to access the information and produce any relevant reports based on the data collected. 1.2.2 Access to the information shall be at the discretion of the individual society. Each society is invited to develop and run at its server the converting software to make the society’s data compatible with the data format as described below. 1.2.3 This implementation of Unified Data Exchange Format (UDEF) will make data from all societies available and harmonized for further processing and allow arrangement of Single window reporting, were any end user may collect complete and reliable data.
    [Show full text]