Maritime Safety Committee s 77 th Session

Transcription

1 News Update American Bureau of Shipping June 2003 Vol.12, No.2a Maritime Safety Committee s 77 th Session 28 May to 6 June 2003 Refer also: / News and Events / Regulatory Information ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2)

2 International Regulation News Update June 2003 Refer also: / News and Events / Regulatory Information Regulatory Development OPENING REMARKS (page 2) STRATEGIC PLAN ON SHIP CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (pg 2) SECURITY RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS (pages 2-4) Security Alarm System IMO Ship Identification Number Security Certification Automated Identification Systems (AIS) SAFETY RELATED MATTERS (pages 3-4) New SOLAS Amendments Survey of Repairs Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) BULK CARRIER SAFETY (pages 4-6) Survey and Maintenance of Hatch Covers Water Ingress Monitoring/Alarm Double Side Skin Standards Alternate Hold Loading Fore Deck Fittings Side Shell Strength Hatch Cover Securing Ship + Application Bulk Carriers 1988 LOAD LINE PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS (pages 6-8) Hatch Cover Strength Ships > 100m Minimum Bow Height Requirements Reserve Buoyancy Ships (except tankers) Other Amendments MISCELLANEOUS (pages 8-10) Emergency Towing Systems Safety of General Cargo Ships Partially Weathertight Hatch Covers Life Boat Tests Emergency Escape Breathing Devices Immersion Suits ( + ships are all self propelled vessels) General Cargo Ships Container Ships ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 1/10

3 OPENING REMARKS MSC 77 th Session (28 May to 6 June 2003) The 77 th session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) met from 28 May to 6 June 2003 at IMO Headquarters in London. Before the Committee embarked on the development and adoption of several new regulations and interpretations, the Secretary General, William A. O Neil, focused on the proposal from Bahamas and Greece for IMO to increase its involvement in the development of goal-based standards for ship structure and equipment and on the IMO Model Audit Scheme, the aim of which is to improve the performance of flag States with respect to fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities under the Conventions to which they are parties. STRATEGIC PLAN ON SHIP CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS One of the substantive issues progressed at MSC 77 was the development of advice to be sent to the June 2003 session of IMO s Council (responsible for the supervision and coordination of IMO operation) on whether IMO needs to take on a larger role in determining the standards to which new ships and their equipment are designed and built. A joint submission by Bahamas and Greece to the 89th session of Council proposed numerous areas where IMO should develop structural standards. As no conclusive decision was reached at C89, Council referred the Bahamas/Greece proposal to MSC77 for consideration. Two principal submissions were before the MSC on this matter: one by Bahamas and Greece and the other by IACS. Although both papers propose that IMO could be involved on a high level, the level of involvement proposed differs. With the view to building more robust ships that are less susceptible to flaws in maintenance programs, Bahamas and Greece proposed that IMO should establish goal-based standards (including, in the first stage of the program, design philosophy, design life, allowable shear force and bending moment and minimum longitudinal strength). Alternatively, recognizing that the structural performance of ships designed for the same conditions can vary for a variety of reasons including quality of workmanship, maintenance, operation, and the methodology and tools used to assess the structural arrangement and details, IACS proposed a less prescriptive approach where IMO would establish overall safety objectives and internationally agreed overall risk acceptance criteria based on Formal Safety Assessment (FSA). IACS and IACS Societies would then calibrate their rule formulations to satisfy IMO's criteria. IACS advised that a disruption to the current system of rule development by the class societies, which has functioned effectively for many years, without any compelling need having first been established, may prove detrimental to ship safety. After significant debate on the two different, but complementary roles, of IMO and IACS the Committee noted that, although the current system was not seriously deficient, there is opportunity for improvement. A majority of Governments that expressed a view generally supported the Bahamas/Greece proposal with the condition that the proposed goal-based standards and design philosophy are clarified. The Committee considered that it was premature to give any recommendations to IMO on this issue and therefore decided to further progress matters at MSC 78 in May SECURITY RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS Security Alarm System (sls XI-2/6) Performance standards for security alarm systems installed on/after 1 July 2004 were approved as a recommendatory resolution MSC.147(77). Systems installed before this date should still meet recommendatory resolution MSC.136(76). The standards recommend that the alarm be powered from an alternative supply in addition to the main source of electrical power. Alarm activation should be possible without the user required to break seals or removing a protective cover. Further, operation should not impair the functionality of the GMDSS installation nor should it require adjustment to, or tuning of, the radio system. Also, in approving MSC/Circ the Committee provided guidance on the design of ship security alert systems. The guidance notes that a system may employ proprietary tracking equipment provided by traffic service providers, a modified GMDSS system under certain conditions, and cellular phones or ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 2/10

4 satellite services depending on the distance from, and services provided by, coastal areas. IMO Ship Identification Number (sls XI-1/3) Based on the estimated cost to the shipping industry of US$25 million, a joint effort by a number of industry associations requested the Committee to reconsider the need to include IMO before the 7-digit number (e.g., IMO ) which needs to be permanently marked (raised lettering or center punching for steel) on all cargo ships >300gt and passenger ships (carrying more than 12 passengers) >100gt. The Committee did not accept the proposal and maintained the requirement to include IMO with the 7-digit number. The IMO Number is to be permanently marked on the following locations for all ships contracted on/after 1 July 2004 and for existing ships not later than the first scheduled drydocking after 1 July on the ship s stern; or amidships (port and starboard); or on the superstructure (port and starboard sides or on the front); or in the case of passenger ships, on a horizontal surface visible from the air. Additionally, it is to be marked on: a machinery space transverse bulkhead; or a hatchway coaming; or the tanker cargo pump room bulkhead; or a ro-ro space transverse bulkhead. Security Certification (sls XI-2/9) The Committee agreed that floating production and/or storage units were not subject to the provisions of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. Specifically, when such a unit may be engaged in a short voyage between the platform and the coastal State, such voyages are not considered to be international under the ISPS Code. Further, when attached to a fixed platform, such units should be covered by the security regime in force for the platform. The issuance of conditional or short term certificates to accommodate rectification of minor system non-conformities or equipment deficiencies was not considered by the Committee to be appropriate. Therefore, for the time being, the Committee did not agree with IACS proposal to treat security system non-conformities in an audit-like manner, similar to safety management system nonconformities. System non-conformities detected during shipboard security verifications should therefore be fully rectified in order for the International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) to be issued/endorsed. The Committee agreed with the assumption and understanding that the ISSC would not be issued unless paragraphs 8.1 to 13.8 of Part B of the ISPS Code were taken into account. These paragraphs address the detailed components to be covered by the Ship Security Assessment and its on-board survey, the Ship Security Plan (SSP) and the training and drills of the Ship Security Officer and shipboard personnel necessary to implement the SSP. The Committee further agreed that Companies are to immediately report failures of the security system or equipment that compromise security levels 1, 2 or 3 to the Administration, and when so instructed and appropriate to the Recognized Security Organization. Failures that do not compromise the above security levels are to be promptly reported. In both cases, the report should include details of any equivalent, alternative arrangements being implemented. Automated Identification System (sls V/19) The USA and Germany, recognizing that the Automated Identification System plays an instrumental part in enhancing maritime security on board ships, proposed that AIS should be connected to the radio station s reserve source of power. The Committee agreed in principle to the proposal, but an actual amendment to SOLAS V/19 was considered to be premature without first receiving comments by the Communications, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee. This matter is therefore scheduled to be addressed by MSC 78 in May SAFETY RELATED MATTERS New SOLAS Amendments In adopting new resolution MSC.142(77) which enters into force on 1 July 2006, the Committee revised the lower length limit for the application of the bridge visibility requirements ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 3/10

5 per SOLAS V/22. Previously, regulation V/22 had been applicable to ships with a length, determine under the 1966 Load Line Convention, of 45m and greater. However, to improve the practicality of the regulations application during design (when such a length is not yet known), length overall was adopted. Additionally, the value was increased from 45m to 55m in order to avoid unintended application to ships smaller in length than that currently specified. This resolution also requires each ship of 500 gt and above, engaged on international voyages exceeding 48 hrs to submit a daily report (containing position, course and speed and any conditions affecting the normal safe operation of the ship) to its Company. The other set of amendments, contained in resolution MSC.144(77), relate to the Enhanced Survey Program for tankers. With this adoption, upon entry into force on 1 July 2006, the thickness of longitudinal members required to be gauged should, at a minimum, be measured as follows: two readings for each deck plate and bottom shell plate; all longitudinal members comprising two girth belts for tankers between 10 and 15 years of age and three girth belts for tankers 15 years of age and older; one reading for the web and face plate of every longitudinal and girder located within 10% of the molded depth of the main deck and bottom shell plate; and one reading for the web and face plate of the remaining longitudinals and girders. Additionally, the minimum continuous length of a renewed or reinforced structural member should be at least twice the spacing of the primary members in way thereof. Thickness diminution at the butt joints of joining members forward and aft of the replaced member should not be within the substantial corrosion range (75% of the allowable diminution). A transition taper is to be provided in way of the butt joint where differences in thickness exceed 15% of the lower thickness. Survey of Repairs A new MSC/Circ.1070 recommends a number of precautions to take prior to and during the survey of repairs. These include the need for a meeting to determine extents of responsibility, supervision and control between the owner and surveyor, extent and method of repair including use of riding repairs, and type of nondestructive testing to be carried out. The Design and Equipment Sub-Committee is to decide in March 2004 if the above recommendations should be made mandatory. Continuous Synopsis Record (sls XI-1/5) A working group further developed the format of a Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) which records an abbreviated history of the ship from 1 July A final version of the CSR is to be developed intersessionally by a correspondence group and presented to the 23 rd Session of the Assembly in December 2003 for adoption as a resolution. A common format to be used by Administrations and Companies was considered essential recognizing IMO s intention to post the CSR s electronically. BULK CARRIER SAFETY Survey and Maintenance of Hatch Covers The Committee adopted new MSC/Circ.1071 which contains recommendations for the maintenance and survey of steel hatch covers on bulk carriers. This initiative stems from recent research which has quantified the substantial green sea loading pressures which may generate lateral forces well in excess of the capability of some hatch cover securing devices thereby causing significant loading on hatch cover travel stops and securing devices which are only partially resisted by frictional and cleating forces. In addition to specifying the details of a maintenance program, the Circular recommends that a thorough survey of hatch covers and coamings is only possible by examination in the fully opened, operating and fully closed positions of at least 50% of hatch cover sets in order to verify proper opening and closing operation at each annual survey. The closing of the covers should include the fastening of all peripheral, and cross joint cleats or other securing devices. The Design and Equipment Sub-Committee is to decide in March 2004 if the above recommendations should be made mandatory. ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 4/10

6 Water Ingress Monitoring/Alarm (Reg XII/12) Performance Standards for water level detector and alarm systems on bulk carriers were approved as resolution MSC.145(77). The resolution recommends that the system should be powered from two independent electrical supplies. The detectors should be accurate to within + 100mm and should identify the space being monitored. Where an alarm override capability is provided (e.g., for cargo holds designated to carry ballast) the cancellation of the override condition and alarm reactivation should automatically occur after the hold/tank has been brought to level below the activation level. Although type approval of equipment is not required, type testing of the prototype design is recommended. Tests should use an agitated suspension of representative fine material (50% concentration by weight) in seawater, and the standards recommend testing requirements for detectors that directly contact water (20 day submergence) and those that do not (24 hour submergence). The system should function after 10 repeated immersions without any cleaning carried out. Detectors and equipment are to be accessible for survey and functional testing to verify, for every hold and space, the pre-alarm (lower level for cargo holds) and main alarm (upper level for cargo holds or single level for other spaces). MSC/Circ.1069 was also adopted provide for uniformity between the sizes of spaces required to be fitted with level detectors as per SOLAS XII/12 and the sizes of spaces required to be fitted with a dewatering system as per SOLAS XII/13. Accordingly, spaces, the volume of which does not exceed 0.1% of the ship s maximum displacement volume and the chain cable locker, do not need to comply with regulations XII/12 and 13. Double Side Skin Standards MSC 77 agreed in principle to the minimum dimensions and internal clearances for double side skin (DSS) construction that is expected to apply to every cargo hold of new bulk carriers > 150 m in length. It is estimated the earliest date from which these new requirements may be applied would be to ships constructed (keel laid) from 1 July 2006 onward. The actual date has not, however, been determined. Referring to Figure 1, the minimum overall width of the DSS should not be less than 1000mm regardless of the type of framing system. For transverse framing systems, the minimum clear opening should not be less than 600mm. Because longitudinal framing systems contain continuous members, an increased minimum clearance between the inboard and outboard longitudinal members of 800mm was agreed. However, this distance can be reduced to 600mm to accommodate: the configuration of the DSS outside of the parallel part of the cargo hold length; and intermittent obstructions, such as air pipes, access ladders or framing end brackets. Figure 1 Double Side Skin Dimensions IACS is currently developing appropriate loads and the basis for determining the scantlings of the DSS structure, particularly with regard to inertial loads and the interaction between local pressure loads and hull girder loads. Also, the loads due to one-compartment flooding are also being taken into account based on MSC s agreement to retain this flooding principle for DSS bulk carriers. Alternate Hold Loading Ban As part of the package of risk control options to be applied to existing bulk carriers and to reduce the risk of hold flooding by reducing stresses in the side structure that occur during alternate hold loading, the MSC agreed in principle to the following provisions. No single side skin bulk carrier >150m in length shall operate at more than 90% of assigned deadweight with any cargo hold empty: after reaching 10 years of age if built before 1 July 1999, or if built on/after 1 July 1999, ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 5/10

7 unless, in either case, the ship complies with SOLAS Chapter XII structural survivability and IACS Unified Requirement S12 (rev.2.1) which addresses the side structure of single side skin bulk carriers. It is noted that the appropriateness of applying the 10 year limit to ships built before 1999, and therefore to a less robust standard, and not to ships built on/after 1999 requires clarification. The above proposed amendments to SOLAS are to be further developed in March 2004 by the Design and Equipment Sub-Committee for submission to MSC 78 in May If the proposed amendments are approved by MSC 78 and adopted by MSC 79 in December 2004, they could enter into force as early as July Foredeck Fittings Two new IACS Unified Requirements (URs S26 and S27) were adopted by resolution MSC.146(77) recommending that Governments apply these standards to ships not classed with an IACS Member. Both UR s address: for new ships (> 80m) of all types, fittings located within the forward 25% length and less than 10%L or 22m, whichever is less, above the summer load waterline; and for existing bulk carriers, ore/bulk/oil carriers, ore/oil carriers and most general cargo ships (> 100m), closures of openings leading below to forward spaces. The URs require compliance upon delivery for new ships built on/after 1 July 2004 and for existing ships at a specified survey based on the vessel s age as summarized in Table 1, below. Closures, and their primary and secondary securing devices, for access hatches, airpipes and ventilators are addressed for new and existing ships as is the securing arrangement for windlasses installed on new ships described above. Side Shell Strength Resolution MSC.146(77) also contains IACS UR S31. This UR applies to existing bulk carriers with the compliance schedule as per Table 1, below. The UR provides precise criteria for the webs of frames and brackets and requires that buckling, bending and shear strength checks be carried out when the measured thickness is less than a specified minimum. Additionally, minimum extents of thickness measurements and steel renewal for the lower part of the side shell frame are specified Hatch Cover Securing To reduce the possibility of hatch cover uplift and lateral displacement due to the horizontal loads of shipped seas, resolution MSC.146(77) also contains a fourth and final IACS UR, S30. This UR provides, for existing ships, strength standards for securing devices (quick acting cleats) and for hatch cover stoppers. The phased-in implementation schedule is shown in Table 1, below. Table 1 Implementation Schedule Age on 1 Jan 04 Compliance required by > 15 years At first due IS/SS >1/104 > 10 years At first due SS >1/1/04 < 10 years At 10 years of age Completion prior to 1 January 2004 of an intermediate survey (IS) or special survey (SS) with a due date after 1 January 2004 cannot be used to postpone compliance, except where the 18 month intermediate survey window straddles 1 January LOAD LINE PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS The following amendments to Annex B of the 1988 Load Line Convention Protocol were adopted and are contained in resolution MSC.143(177). The amendments enter into force for ships the keels of which are laid on/after 1 January 2005 and which are flagged with a State that is signatory to the 1988 Load Line Protocol. Hatch Cover Strength (icll 16) The loads applied to determine the strength of hatch covers located within the forward quarter of ships > 100m in length were significantly increased, as shown in Figure 2. ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 6/10

8 For comparison purposes the current 1966 ICLL applied load (1.75t/m2 with a 4.25 safety factor on ultimate strength) was approximated to be equivalent to 3.5 t/m2 with a 1.25 safety factor on yield strength. Based on 3.5 t/m2, it can be seen that at the forward perpendicular (FP) the loads increase from 42% (for L= 100m) to 290% (for L= 340m at a Type B-Reduced freeboard). Linear interpolation is to be used to obtain loads for lengths between 100m and 340m for either Type B or Type B-Reduced freeboards. The load remains constant for ships above 340m in length. The very large increase in the design loads for the reduced freeboard ships are due to the assumption of damage flooding of the forepeak space or the foremost cargo hold. Although the values of loads applied to hatch covers located aft of the forward quarter length were revised, because the applied factors of safety and the extent of material strength to be credited were also revised, the effects are negligible for hatch covers located in such positions. Minimum Bow Height (icll 39) The empirical formula contained in regulation 39 of the 1966 Load Line Convention was amended to reduce the amount of water shipped over the bow ( deck wetness ) and therefore the magnitude of pressures experienced based on an acceptable long-term probability level. The revised formula more comprehensively accounts for the global and local hull form parameters affecting deck wetness based on many years of research and model testing. Because the current formula is relatively simple and based solely on ship length and block coefficient, the new formula affects the magnitude of the minimum required bow height: for ships of more than 100m in length, the minimum required height will increase on the order of 0.5m. for new large ships assigned a type B freeboard, the minimum height will be of the same magnitude as currently required, or slightly greater. For ships subject to the new minimum reserve buoyancy requirements, as discussed below, it is anticipated that compliance with the new reserve buoyancy requirements will govern over the new minimum bow height standard. Reserve Buoyancy (icll 39) To reduce the frequency of seas boarding the forward portion of certain types of ships, regulation 39 was revised. Analytic studies and model tests carried out over the last several years showed that the buoyant volumes of structure located above the summer water line, determined under the current 1966 Load Line Convention, did not ensure equivalent distributions of reserve buoyancy for different sheer profiles. This shortcoming is most pronounced on panamax and capesize bulk carriers which normally do not have forward sheer and operate at reduced freeboards. The capesize exhibited the largest deficiencies about 30% less reserve buoyancy in the forward 15% length than a ship with standard bow sheer. The new regulation requires a minimum amount and distribution of reserve buoyancy for ships other than oil, chemical and gas carriers assigned a type B freeboard or B- Reduced freeboard. The volume of reserve buoyancy (represented by the projected areas A1, A2 and A3 shown in Figure 3, below) must not be less than the minimum required by regulation 39 which is calculated based on tabular freeboard, block coefficient, length and depth. ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 7/10

9 Table 2, on the following page, illustrates an example of changes in bridge height in order to comply with SOLAS bridge visibility requirements for three (3) Cases of a capesize bulk carrier complying with the minimum required reserve buoyancy. The distance that sheer and a focsle can extend aft of the FP depends on the hatchway arrangement and minimum airdraft restrictions of loading terminal arrangements. Table 2 Example of Bow Height Consequences Height at FP (mm) Change in Case Bridge Height Sheer Focsle (m above wl) Existing * * Case 1: Sheer extends 15% L aft FP Case 2: Original sheer with focsle (5% L) Case 3: Sheer (15% L) and focsle (5% L) * 15%L aft FP is not realistic for Capesize bulker Other Amendments Determination of Depth has been clarified for ships where the depth varies along the length (e.g., tugs with rake of keel). Block Coefficient for multi-hulled ships is to be based on the full breadth of the ship and not the breadth of the individual hull. Freeboard Depth for ships with discontinuous upper decks has been clarified with respect to the treatment of recesses in the upper deck. Position 2 definition for applying the relaxed closure and strength requirements (relative to Position 1) to hatchways, doorways, ventilators and airpipes has been revised to include locations within the forward quarter length of the ship provided they are at least two standard superstructure heights (4.6m for ships > 125m in length) above the freeboard deck. Coaming Heights and Closures for openings in the freeboard and superstructure decks (including those leading to the machinery space) have been revised and clarified taking into account IACS Unified Interpretations. Scuppers, Inlets and Discharges location and arrangement requirements have been revised and clarified, again based on IACS Unified Interpretations. Included in the amendments are requirements for garbage chutes and provisions for closures to mitigate the ingress of water through the tops of chain pipes leading from the upper deck to the cable/chain locker. Freeing Port Area arrangements and formula for calculating minimum area as a function of athwart ship free flow area were revised. Protection of Crew incorporates the IACS Unified Interpretation LL 50, which has been applied by IACS Members since MISCELLANEOUS Emergency Towing Systems Based on the preliminary results of a formal safety assessment carried out by Germany, the MSC agreed with Germany s proposal to require an emergency towing arrangement, similar to that now required on tankers by SOLAS, for all ships (new and existing) greater than 20,000 tons deadweight. This would, in effect, require ships to be fitted with a stern ETS (to be ready for operation under harbour conditions within 15 minutes), and an ETS on the foredeck (to be ready within 1 hour after taking into account the time needed for deployment of the optional layout which does not require the pick-up gear and towing pennant to be pre-rigged). The MSC tasked the Design and Equipment Sub-Committee to complete a draft proposal by the end of Safety of General Cargo Ships The MSC was presented with a 2002 investigation of general cargo ship losses and ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 8/10

10 associated fatalities relative to other types of ships undertaken by the Royal Institute of Naval Architects (RINA). This study concluded that although general cargo ships account for nearly 20% of the world merchant fleet, they suffer over 40% of the total losses and almost 40% of the fatalities. The study considered a fleet of 16,755 general cargo ships, comprising nearly 20% of the world fleet of merchant ships over 100 GT in Based on an estimated number of seafarers on each type of ship and allowing for the seafarer spending a maximum of 50% of the year on board during the year 2000, a risk of death for general cargo ship crew was estimated to be 3.7 x 10-4 per year (1 in 2700) of employment. For the same period, the total loss rate (number of losses per year divided by the population of ships) for general cargo ships in this period was 5.4 per 1000 ship years In light of the above, MSC 78 will consider in May 2004 whether a new work item should be undertaken to improve the safety of general cargo ships. Protection of Fuel Oil Lines The MSC adopted Circular 1083 which interprets the provisions of SOLAS regulation II-2/ insofar as the extent of protection against leaks to be provided in way of fuel oil lines. This regulation, which has been in force for ships constructed on/after 1 July 1998 and has been retroactively applied to existing ships for compliance by 1 July 2003, requires spray shields to be fitted around flanged joints and bonnets and any other flanged or threaded connections in fuel oil piping systems under pressure exceeding 0.18 N/mm2 which are located above or near: (1) units of high temperature (equipment >220oC which require insulation per SOLAS); (2) other sources of ignition (e.g., electric control panels); or (3) machinery intake vents". ABS is applying this requirement such that all of the above joints are to be shielded (insulation around such joints is considered as an acceptable method), unless: there exists an arrangement which clearly protects the flange/joint (e.g., locations below floor plates, behind bulkheads); or arrangement details and calculations are submitted justifying that sprayed/leaking oil will not impinge on hot surfaces (regardless of its insulation s performance) or machinery intake vents. Partially Weathertight Hatch Covers New MSC/Circ.1087 contains guidance for construction and equipment associated with partially weathertight covers fitted on container ships constructed on or after 1 January 2004 and operational measures relative to the stowage and segregation of cargo transport units containing dangerous goods which are to be applied as soon as possible. For ships >125m in length, the hatch cover should be located at least 6.9m above the designated freeboard deck for locations within the forward quarter length (4.6m if located elsewhere). Lower elevations are specified for lesser ship lengths. The fitting of longitudinal gutter bars approximately 65mm in height at the topsides of each hatch cover panel and athwarthship labyrinth bars at the bottom of the fore and aft end of the hatch cover panel are recommended to minimize the ingress of water. The above arrangement is also recommended if dangerous goods are to be stowed above partially weathertight covers in way of the gap (50mm maximum) between the panels. A typical gutter bar / labyrinth arrangement is shown in Figure 4, below. Figure 4 - Gutter Bar/Labyrinth Arrangement The circular also recommends that where a carbon dioxide fire extinguishing system is fitted for the cargo hold, that its capacity (in kg) as required by SOLAS for full cargo holds with full weathertight hatch covers should be increased by: ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 9/10

11 = 60 x (Gap Area) x (Beam/2) If the cargo hold is intended for carriage of vehicles with fuel in their tanks then the factor 60 is to be increased to 64. Lifeboat Tests A new amendment to SOLAS Chapter III was approved by MSC 77 and subject to adoption at MSC 78 in May 2004, will require life boat launching appliances to be subjected to a dynamic test of the winch brake at maximum lowering speed carried out annually. The load to be applied shall be the mass of the lifeboat without persons on board, except that at intervals not exceeding five years, the test shall be carried out with a proof load of 1.1 times the maximum working load of the winch. Further, lifeboat on-load release gear will be required to be operationally tested under a load of 1.1 times the total mass of the lifeboat when loaded with its full complement of persons (or equivalent) and equipment whenever the release gear is overhauled which shall be carried out at least once every five years. Emergency Escape Breathing Devices The MSC approved MSC/Circ.1081 which interprets SOLAS II-2/13 concerning the number of Emergency Escape Breathing Devices (EEBDs) to be provided on board. Because of the vague wording contained in this SOLAS regulation and the continued divergence of interpretations, Governments are recommended to apply this Circular, as summarized below in Table 3, to determine the total number of EEBDs. Table 3 Minimum EEBD Provisions Ship Type Accommodation Space Assigned Spares Cargo (2) (1) Pass < 36 (2) per each MVZ* (2) Pass > 36 (4) per each MVZ* (2) * except for spaces used for transit (stairwells) and fore/aft stores, lockers, etc. Main Propulsion Machinery All Space (1) in engine control room (Cat.A) Immersion Suits (1) in work shop (Cat.A) if no direct access to escape (1) on each platform level near 2 nd means of escape (Cat.A) (1), other than Category A space Subject to adoption at MSC 78 in May 2004, a new amendment to SOLAS Chapter III approved by MSC 77 will require an immersion suit complying with the requirements of the LSA Code to be provided for every person on board all ships. Ships constructed on/after the date of entry into force of this regulation (2005) will need to comply upon delivery. Existing ships will need to comply by the due date of the first safety equipment survey on/after date of entry into force of the amendments. Ships other than bulk carriers, as defined in regulation IX/1, constantly engaged on voyages in warm climates may be exempted from such provisions if deemed appropriate by the flag Administration. ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 10/10

12 Note - For further information please contact ABS Regulatory Affairs Department at: tel: ; fax: -5314; gshark@eagle.org ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 11/10

13 ABS REGULATORY AFFAIRS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATION NEWS UPDATE, JUNE 2003 (VOL 12, NO.2) page 12/10