IACS History File + TB

Transcription

1 IACS History File + TB Part A UI SC 223 For Application of SOLAS Regulation II- 1/3-2 Performance Standard for Protective Coatings (PSPC) for Dedicated Seawater Ballast Tanks in All Types of Ships and Double-side Skin Spaces of Bulk Carriers, adopted by Resolution MSC.215(82) Part A. Revision History Version no. Approval date Implementation date when applicable Corr.1 (June 2012) 26 June Rev.2 (July 2011) 26 July July 2012 Rev.1 (July 2010) 27 July July 2011 Corr.2 (Apr 2009) 14 Apr Corr.1 (July 2008) 10 July New (June 2008) 30 June July 2008 Corr. 1 (June 2012).1 Origin of Change: Suggestion by an IACS member.2 Main Reason for Change: To clarify that paragraph in PSPC 4 is applicable to coating pre-qualification test commenced on or after 1 July List of non-iacs Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group:.4 History of Decisions Made: Suggestion from a GPG member was agreed by correspondence..5 Other Resolutions Changes:.6 Dates: Original Proposal: 12 June 2012 Made by a GPG member GPG Approval: 26 June 2012 (Ref: 11090aIGb) Page 1 of 4

2 Rev 2 (July 2011).1 Origin of Change: Request by non-iacs entity (Shipyard and Manufacturer) Suggestion by IACS member Based on IMO Decision (DE 53/26, paragraph 17.7).2 Main Reason for Change: This set of the revision consists of the following elements: 1. Matters relevant to Assistants to the coating inspector (Annex 2a) (COAT4009) (Task DE 53 IACS Observer Recommendation 10) 2. Matters relevant to Maximum DFT for test panels (Annex 2b) (COAT3004) (Task 25) 3. Solvent fee Epoxy coating system (Annex 2c) (COAT10000) (Task 35) 4. Acceptance of other methods for Secondary Surface Preparation (Annex 2d) 5. Acceptance of Soluble Salt Meter as equivalent (Annex 2e) (SP11012c) (the longstanding Task 8 Maintenance of IACS Resolutions).3 List of non-iacs Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group:.4 History of Decisions Made: Many of the elements of the change have been raised prior to and after the reactivation of the EG Coatings in October Through the discussions at the EG Coating meeting in March 2010, Statutory Panel meeting in March 2011 and correspondence, a final consolidated text was prepared..5 Other Resolutions Changes: It is decided to withdraw PR 34 with effect from 1 July Dates: Original Proposal: 3 September 2010 Made by the EG/Coating; and 4th May 2011 made by the Statutory Panel GPG Approval: 26 July 2011 (Ref: 11090_IGg) Rev 1 (July 2010).1 Origin of Change: Other (Inquiry from industry).2 Main Reason for Change: Page 2 of 4

3 Questions have been raised by the industry about acceptance of equivalency of non zinc containing or not silicate based shop primers as defined by the IMO PSPC Table, Section 2.3. After extensive discussion the Group agreed to apply the equivalency acceptance criteria given in the prequalification test alternative system in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to Annex 1 to MSC.215(82) Column B for such non zinc containing or not silicate based shop primers..3 List of non-iacs Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group:.4 History of Decisions Made: See.2 above.5 Other Resolutions Changes:.6 Dates: Original Proposal: 14 June 2010 Made by the EG/Coating (Ref cECa) GPG Approval: 27 July 2010 (Ref: 10078cIGc) Corr. 2 (Apr 2009) Correction to SOLAS reference in the implementation statement (Ref. 8535gABa). No TB document available. Corr. 1 (July 2008) Correction of reference in Section 1.5 of Method B: 5 years field exposure (Ref. 8535bIGd). No TB document available. New (June 2008) New UI developed for the application of IMO PSPC, incorporating the contents of UI SC222 Stripe coats and salt measurement. No TB document available. Page 3 of 4

4 Part B Part B. Technical Background List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UI SC223: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (July 2010) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2. TB for Rev.2 (July 2011) See separate TB document in Annex 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and 2e. Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for New (June 2008), Corr.1 (July 2008), Corr.2 (Apr 2009) and Corr.1 (June 2012). Page 4 of 4

5 Part B, Annex 1 Technical Background for UI SC223 Rev.1, July Scope and objectives To revise UI SC223 to include a unified interpretation (UI) on the meaning of the term equivalency for zinc containing inhibitor free zinc silicate based shop primers as defined by Section 2.2 of Table I under 2.3 of the IMO Res. MSC.215(82) Annex I known as the IMO PSPC Performance Standard for ballast tanks. To find mutual agreement on the interpretation of the wording or equivalent for zinc containing inhibitor free zinc silicate based shop primers as defined by the IMO PSPC Table 1, Section 2 under Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Table 1, Section 2 under 2.3 of the IMO PSPC specifically defines Zinc containing Inhibitor Free Zinc Silicate based shop primers to be used or equivalent. Some IACS Members are of the opinion that Epoxy based, zinc or non-zinc containing shop primers can be considered equivalent. Other IACS Members are of the opinion that the zinc silicate based shop primers can not be considered equivalent to epoxy based shop primers. Inherently, according to Section 8 of the IMO PSPC, acceptance of equivalency or not, determines whether or not coatings shall be considered alternative systems which have to meet the acceptance criteria in right columns of tables in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to Annex 1 to the IMO PSPC. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IMO PSPC Table 1, Section 2 under 2.3 IACS UI SC223 IACS PR Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution Interpretation on the acceptance criteria given in the pre-qualification test alternative system in appendix 1 to MSC.215 (82) (so called column B) for accepting non-zincsilicate shop primer was produced. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions 1. At initial discussion, five members considered that so far as the shop primer passes the acceptance criteria given in the pre-qualification test for epoxy based system in Appendix 1 to MSC.215 (82) (so called column A); the other members considered that any system not based on Zinc and then Silicate would not be qualified to use this criterion as such product is apparently inferior to the zincsilicate shop primer. 2. In this regard, the Group noted the definition of equivalents given in SOLAS regulation I/5, i.e., at least as effective as that required by the present regulations. 3. Another discussion the Group had was the way to provide clearer criterion on the equivalency. 4. General view of the Group was that, while a shop primer (e.g., an Epoxy-iron based shop primer in this instance) may pass the pre-qualification test, a zincsilicate shop primer is more durable than an epoxy-iron based shop primer.

6 5. After extensive discussion, the Group agreed to apply the acceptance criteria given in the pre-qualification test alternative system in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to MSC.215 (82) (so called column B) for accepting non-zinc-silicate shop primer. 6. Attachments if any

7 Part B, Annex 2 Technical Background for UI SC223 Rev.2, July 2011 (Annex 2a) 1. Scope and objectives In order to response a question made by IMO at DE 52 on the Assistant Inspector, the EG Coating has addressed the issue. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The matter was discussed in the EG Coating between DE 52 and DE 53 and an submission was made DE 53 as IACS paper DE 53/17/2 suggesting to rephrase the term as Assistants to coating inspector given in section 4.2 under PSPC Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS UI SC223 IMO Submission paper DE 53/17/2 (IACS) Report of DE 53 (DE 53/26) paragraph 17.6 IACS Observer s recommendation at DE Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution As given above Points of discussions or possible discussions As given above Attachments if any

8 Technical Background for UI SC223 Rev.2, July 2011 (Annex 2b) 1. Scope and objectives To revise UI SC223 and PR 34 to address the issue of dry film thickness (DFT). 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The Performance standard for protective coatings (PSPC), as given in resolution MSC.215(82), gives in Annex 1 a test procedures for coating qualification. In this procedure the requirements for the dry film thickness (DFT) is given as a minimum value. During the laboratory testing of the coatings, very high values are easily achieved to avoid having measurements below the minimum value. The question has therefore been raised as to whether, during testing, a maximum value for the average DFT should be specified. The objective is to find mutual IACS agreement on a maximum average DFT value for the test panels and to include the interpretation in UI SC 223 and PR Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS UI SC223 IACS PR Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution The following is inserted in PSPC 4 as new section to provide maximum thickness of DFT For the coating pre-qualification test, the measured average dry film thickness (DFT) on each prepared test panels shall not exceed a nominal DFT (NDFT) of 320 microns plus 20% unless a paint manufacturer specifies a NDFT greater than 320 microns. In the latter case, the average DFT shall not exceed the specified NDFT plus 20% and the coating system shall be certified to the specified NDFT if the system passes the tests according to Annex 1 of MSC 215(82). The measured DFT shall meet the 90/10 rule and the maximum DFT shall be below the maximum DFT value specified by the manufacturer 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions A possible consequence of a Type Approval based on test reports where a coating has been tested with very high DFT values is that the coating might fail if tested closer to the nominal dry film thickness. Acceptance of testing on lower values than the IMO requirements was discussed, but it was concluded that the 90/10 rule should be followed as specified. 6. Attachments if any

9 Technical Background for UI SC223 Rev.2, July 2011 (Annex 2c) 1. Scope and objectives The Performance standard for protective coatings (PSPC), as given in resolution MSC.215(82), gives the definition of alternative systems. It is clarified in principle that PSPC invites Governments to encourage the development of novel technologies aimed at providing for alternative systems. The definition of alternative systems described in section 8 of PSPC reflects such principle. There, however, is a misunderstanding on definition of alternative systems caused by misinterpretation of sentences of PSPC. Therefore, the clear interpretation of the definition corresponding to principles of PSPC is required. The objective is to make clearer and easier interpretation of definition of alternative systems in order to remove further controversial issues. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Alternative systems are defined in PSPC as below: 8 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS 8.1 All systems that are not an epoxy-based system applied according to table 1 of this Standard are defined as an alternative system. 8.2 This Standard is based on recognized and commonly used coating systems. It is not meant to exclude other, alternative, systems with proven equivalent performance, for example non epoxy-based systems. 8.3 Acceptance of alternative systems will be subject to documented evidence that they ensure a corrosion prevention performance at least equivalent to that indicated in this Standard. 8.4 As a minimum, the documented evidence shall consist of satisfactory performance corresponding to that of a coating system which conforms to the coating standard described in section 4, a target useful life of 15 years in either actual field exposure for 5 years with final coating condition not less than GOOD or laboratory testing. Laboratory test shall be conducted in accordance with the test procedure given in annex 1 to this Standard. According to above section, normal coating systems, i.e. not alternative systems, are epoxy-based systems applied according to table 1 of this Standard. This means alternative systems are - epoxy-based systems not applied according to table 1 of this Standard - non epoxy-based systems applied according to table 1 of this Standard - or non epoxy-based systems not applied according to table 1 of this Standard. If 3.4 of Appendix 1 and 2 of PSPC quoted below is referred to, the definition would be more comprehensible. 3.4 Alternative systems not necessarily epoxy-based and/or not necessarily applied according to table 1 of this Standard shall satisfy the criteria for alternative systems as indicated in the table above.

10 In case a coating system is defined as an alternative system, the coating system should satisfy the criteria for alternative systems described in the table of Appendix 1 and 2 through a pre-qualification test. The alternative system should be type approved according to the same process of normal coating systems including the results of the pre-qualification test. For example, one coat solvent free epoxy coating system is classified as an alternative system because the coating system is an epoxy-based system but is not applied according to table 1 of PSPC. The coating system would be type approved if it passes the pre-qualification test satisfying the criteria for alternative systems. In general, solvent-borne epoxy paints are commonly used coating systems for water ballast tank in shipbuilding industries in the world (these systems require two coat system at least). Considering solid volume and rheological properties, solvent-borne paint is necessarily applied by at least 2 coats to build sufficient dry film thickness for target useful life recommended in PSPC, whereas 1 coat is enough for solvent-free paint to achieve the thickness due to its high solid volume and rheological superiority, i.e. sag resistance. There are some evidences showing that application of one coat solvent-free epoxy paint system has no problem in technical aspect. First of all, a technical paper published by Samsung Heavy Industries at NACE conference, Corrosion 2010, shows performance of one coat solvent-free epoxy system is better than that of two coat solvent-borne epoxy paint. Table 1 shows the summary of test results. Table 1. Comparison of performance between solvent free and solvent borne epoxy system Category Item Solvent Free Solvent Borne Cyclic test Equivalent Equivalent WBT Corrosion Equivalent Equivalent simulation test Resistance Crack Not Good Better resistance test at high DFT Build-up Edge Retention test Over 100% (on 3C) Over 100% (on 3C) Property Sag Property (DFT) 800~1200 μm 410~510 μm General Porosity test Equivalent Equivalent Inspection Holiday test No pin hole No pin hole Source : NACE Corrosion 2010, Paper No HIGH PERFORMACE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY COATING SYSTME FOR WATER BALLAST TANK OF SHIP IN THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES Secondly, this one coat system for solvent-free paint has already been applied to lots of various types of ships especially on the area of water ballast tanks. Table 2 shows track record of 1 coat solvent-free paint system quoted from KOSHIPA s presentation material presented in EG coating meeting in March, 2010.

11 Table 2. Track record of one coat solvent-free epoxy systems ~ August, Total 69 Container ship 4 Passenger 16 Liner Supply Vessel 18 Tanker 20 LNGC 2 Bulk Carrier 2 Others 7 Finally, in March 2009, U.S. Navy (Naval Sea Systems Command) announced a new corrosion policy that NAVSEA officials have mandated that all seawater ballast tanks on submarines, surface ships, and aircraft carriers in service must be coated with rapidcure, single coat paint by September 30, It means all coatings for seawater ballast tanks of U.S. navy s ships have changed from traditional three coat system to one coat system. There are many kinds of rapid cure, single coat paints mentioned in the announcement and solvent-free epoxy paint is one of them. (Source : hyperlinked) In this respect, the one coat solvent-free epoxy paint system could be a good alternative to the current multi-coat solvent-borne epoxy paint system. A main point of one coat system is how to apply the system satisfactorily. It is advised that careful consideration will be given for the application of one coat solvent-free epoxy system once the paint is type approved. Especially, some issues such as how to get uniformity of dry film thickness will be carefully approached. These issues will be solved by collaboration among all concerned parties with interest. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS UI SC Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution A new section PSPC 8 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS has been created. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Clearer interpretation for definition of alternative systems shall be provided with UI SC 223. Thereby, epoxy-based systems which are not applied according to table 1 of PSPC, for example, one coat solvent-free epoxy system, shall be defined as an alternative system. Type approval certificate for alternative system should be issued if the alternative system passes the pre-qualification test according to Annex 1 of PSPC satisfying criteria for alternative systems. It is recommended that application of type approved alternative systems is demonstrated before its practical application in order to check workability, coating quality, worker s skill and so on. 6. Attachments if any

12 Technical Background for UI SC223 Rev.2, July 2011 (Annex 2d) 1. Scope and objectives To revise UI SC223 to include a unified interpretation (UI) on the application of other methods of surface preparation than Dry Grit Blasting and/or power tooling during Secondary Surface Preparation as defined by Section 3 of Table I under 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of the IMO Res. MSC.215(82) Annex I known as the IMO PSPC Performance Standard for ballast tanks. To find mutual agreement on the acceptance of other methods for Secondary Surface Preparation as defined by the IMO PSPC Table 1, Section 3, under 3.2, 3.3 and Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Subject Table 1, Section 3 requires Cleanliness and Roughness Profile Grades defined by Footnoted ISO Standard /2:1988 which Sa2 and Sa 2.5 Grades could be interpreted as a reference to Dry Grit Blasting only. Section 3.3 of same Table 1 refers to the power tooling Standard St3 or better or SA 2.5 where practicable, which wording better is not defined. For reasons of safety, health and protection of the environment, Dry Grit Blasting during Secondary Surface Preparation in open air is no longer promoted and in some parts of the world, even by law, not allowed any longer. Additionally, for same reasons, some owners, builders and/or coating producers voluntarily prefer to adopt other methods of secondary surface preparation above Dry Grit Blasting and/or Power Tooling. Experience and research has learned that other methods, such as, but not limited to the existing Wet Abrasive Grit Blasting, UHP Water Jetting, MBX Bristle Blast Power Tooling, Sponge Jetting and Multiple Laser Treatment systems under development, may provide equal or even better surface conditions as required by Table 1, Section 3, however more safe and with less impact on health and the environment than Dry Grit Blasting during Secondary Surface Preparation. Grade St3 or better refers to Power Tooling or better, which is not clearly defined. Power tooling is known to be a method, able to produce the desired Cleanliness Grade. However, same method, in many cases is known to destroy the existing roughness profile if applied incorrectly (by polishing). In that respect, other methods such as mentioned above, could be considered better. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IMO PSPC Table 1, Section 3, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of the IMO Res. MSC.215(82) Annex I known as the IMO PSPC Performance Standard for ballast tanks. IACS UI SC Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution Based on above motivations it is the intention to add following unified interpretation:

13 Methods such as, but not limited to UHP Water Jetting may be considered for Secondary Surface Preparation, where it can be demonstrated that the surface conditions specified by PSPC Table 1, Section 3 can be achieved. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Some members interpreted the Cleanliness Grades Sa2 and Sa 2.5 as synonymous to Dry Grit Blasting only. 1. Contradictory, some members referred to Section 6 of the footnoted ISO Standard :1988 which states: Other methods, such as wet blast cleaning, produce surfaces that may differ in appearance, colour, etc, but the photographs can still be used to give an indication of the preparation grade. 2. Also contradictory, some members took position that, in case Dry Grit Blasting only would be meant by the PSPC Table 1 Section 3, it should have referred to the ISO Standard :2000 (Abrasive Blast Cleaning) instead of the footnoted Standard ISO :1988 (Blast Cleaning) 3. Some members expressed their concerns about the quality of the roughness profile after UHP Water Jetting, which profile is required to provide enough anchorage for the first and subsequent coatings to be applied. 4. Other members argued that the majority of the roughness profile is produced during Primary Surface Preparation (in the automatic blasting/shop priming cabinet) which dry shot blasted profile is fully recovered if UHP Water Jetting is applied during Secondary Surface Preparation. 5. Further some members argued, that latest research by the industry has learned that, while a better roughness profile may be achieved by Dry or Wet Grit Blasting compared to UHP Water Jetting, the performance of coatings after UHP Water Jetting is found equal or even better, which is believed to be caused by elimination of embedded grit particles caught in the profile and by better removal of soluble salts from the surface 6. Some members argued that thru innovations in the coating industry, today some ballast tank coatings are specifically designed for application after UHP Water Jetting. Therefore, these coating producers recommend other profile requirements as believed to be defined by the PSPC Table 1 under 3.4 stating; a profile requirement between Microns, otherwise as recommended by the coating producer. 7. Some members took position that no other options as, other methods such as, but not limited to UHP Water Jetting, are left, in case Dry Grit Blasting during secondary surface preparation is simply not allowed by national or local mandatory regulations. 8. All members unanimously agreed, that it is considered a duty of Class Societies to promote such other methods than Dry Grit Blasting, in case it is proved that such other methods have less impact on health, safety and/or environment. Therefore, some members argued that such other methods should also be allowed, in case owners, builders or coating producers, for same reasons of health, safety and/or environment, voluntarily would prefer to adopt such other methods for secondary surface preparation. 6. Attachments if any

14 Technical Background for UI SC223 Rev.2, July 2011 (Annex 2e) 1. Scope and objectives In order to response the inquiry raised by manufacturer HedoN Electronic Developments B.V., the Statutory Panel has addressed the issue. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale It was decided to update UI SC223 in accordance with the IMO's decision as contained in MSC.1/Circ.1381 such that Footnote 8 would read: 8 Conductivity measured in accordance with the following standards:.1 ISO :1998. Preparation of steel substrate before application of paints and related products Test for the assessment of surface cleanliness; or.2 NACE SP Item no Standard practice methods of validating equivalence to ISO on measurement of the levels of soluble salts. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution MSC.1/Circ Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution As given above Points of discussions or possible discussions As given above Attachments if any