Class and Statutory News

STATUTORY INFORMATION Date : 22-03-2019 SSE 6 – 4 TO 8 MARCH 2019 - MAJOR OUTCOMES OF THE 6TH SESSION OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIP SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

Mar. 22 2019

Summary:- The Sub-Committee on Ship Systems and Equipment (SSE 6) held its sixth session from 4 to 8 March 2019.

Summary:- The Sub-Committee on Ship Systems and Equipment (SSE 6) held its sixth session from 4 to 8 March 2019. Significant progress has been made in the different areas. - safety objectives and functional requirements, life raft ventilation, on-board lifting devices - but there is still work to be done. SSE 6 in particular agreed to the draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13 with a view to submission to MSC in conjunction with the associated Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARINE & OFFSHORE DIVISION MANAGEMENT

L-C&R

 

 

 

SSE 6 – 4 to 8 March 2019

major outcomes of the 6th session of the SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIP SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

 

 

SUMMARY

 

SSE 6 agreed to

  •    the draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13 with a view to submission to MSC in conjunction with the associated Guidelines (item 9).

 

SSE 6 agreed also to :

  •    the draft amendments to the Guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for SOLAS chapters II-1 and III (MSC.1/Circ.1212) and the associated MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval (item 3) ;

  •    the draft interim guidelines on life-saving appliances and arrangements for ships operating in polar waters and instruct the IMO Secretariat to prepare the draft associated circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval (item 5) ;

  •   agreed to the draft interim guidelines for minimizing the incidence and consequences of fires on ro-ro spaces and special category spaces of new and existing ro-ro passenger ships, and the associated draft MSC circular, with a view to approval by MSC 101 (item 6).

 

SSE 6 concurred to the following draft unified interpretation and the associated draft MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval (item 12) :

  •     SOLAS Regulation 10.10.4 – Fire-fighting, Fire-fighter's outfits, Fire-fighter's communication / Requirements for two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for fire-fighter's communication ;

  •     Footnote to SOLAS regulation II-2/9.7.5 - Containment of fire, Ventilation systems, Exhaust ducts from galley ranges ;

  •     application of the design temperature for piping, fittings and related components ;

  •     SOLAS regulations II-2/3.30, II-2/9.2.2.3.2.2, II-2/9.2.2.4.2.2, II-2/9.2.3.3.2.2 and II-2/9.2.4.2.2.2 as modified - Fire integrity of the bulkheads and decks between engine rooms and spaces in which urea or sodium hydroxide solution tanks are installed ;

  •     IGC Code Paragraph 11.4.8 – Fire protection and extinction, Dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing systems / Onboard discharge test of a dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing system ;

  •     SOLAS Regulation 32.1.1 – Personal life saving appliances, Lifebuoys / lifebuoy arrangements for means of embarkation/disembarkation

  •     SOLAS Regulation II-1/28, II-1/29 and II-1/30 - steering gear arrangements ;

  •     SOLAS Regulation 20.11 – Operational readiness, maintenance and inspections, Maintenance, thorough examination, operational testing, overhaul and repair of lifeboats, rescue boats and fast rescue boats, launching appliances and release gear.

 

 

Item 3 - Safety objectives and functional requirements of the guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for SOLAS chapters II-1 and III

 

SSE 4 had endorsed the draft functional requirements and the expected performances for SOLAS chapter III for submission to MSC 98 for consideration

 

In considering the draft functional requirements and expected performances for SOLAS chapter III, MSC 98 had instructed SSE 5 to consider some principles when describing the necessary function of the draft functional requirements (expected performance) in quantitative terms.

 

Having considered the matter SSE 5 agreed that a gap analysis would be necessary.

 

Referring to the draft functional requirements and expected performance criteria for SOLAS chapter III and the draft MSC circular on amendments to MSC.1/Circ.1212 elaborated by the Correspondence group established by SSE 5, some delegates at SSE 6 noted that the current approach in drafting the expected performances and functional requirements was not in line with the Generic guidelines for developing IMO goal-based standards (MSC.1/Circ.1394/Rev.1). But the main goal of this work item was to complete the draft amendments to MSC.1/Circ.1212 firstly, based on the existing IMO instruments but not on a hazard study.

 

Hence, SSE 6 agreed that a hazard identification study approach would not be appropriate at the time, given that the scope of the work was to develop functional requirements based on the existing IMO instruments.

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft amendments to the Guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for SOLAS chapters II-1 and III (MSC.1/Circ.1212) and the associated MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval.

 

A lengthy discussion on EP 1 under FR 8 occurred. The views were divided with regard to the inclusion of maintaining a long-term maximum carbon dioxide level of no more than 5,000 ppm for not less than 24 hours. It was finally agreed to add the terms "that prevent exposure to a long-term CO2 concentration of more than 5,000 ppm for at least 24 hours" at the end of EP 1 under FR 8.

 

The Sub-committee also agreed to add the terms "that prevent exposure to a long-term CO2 concentration of more than 5,000 ppm for at least 24 hours" at the end of EP 1 under FR 8.

 

  

Item 4 - Develop new requirements for ventilation of survival craft

 

MSC 97 had instructed it to develop the requirements related to the ventilation of totally enclosed lifeboats as high priority and consider requirements for other survival craft with a view to developing amendments to the LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances (resolution MSC.81(70)).

 

SSE 5 agreed to the draft amendments to the LSA Code for eventual submission to MSC for approval once the related amendments to the LSA Code regarding ventilation of survival craft other than totally enclosed lifeboats had been finalized. SSE 5, in order to progress the work intersessionally, established a Correspondence group.

 

In addition to the report of the Correspondence group, SSE 6 had for its consideration:

  •     proposal of amendments to the ventilation rate criteria in the LSA Code and resolution MSC.81 (70), which was based on the verification of the criteria through comparison between lifeboat test and model calculation ;

  •     additional measures to supplement the draft amendments to the LSA Code on ventilation requirements of survival craft i.e. sufficient CO2 monitors with audible and visual alarm which would activate at a 5,000 ppm high limit.

 

Draft amendments to the LSA Code regarding ventilation on totally enclosed lifeboats

 

SSE 6 noted the concerns expressed by the delegations of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the observer from ICS that the agreed performance standard of 5 m3/hr/person might not maintain a long-term CO2 concentration limit of 5,000 ppm as a performance standard for establishing a habitable atmosphere in totally enclosed lifeboats. They believed that the 5,000 ppm CO2 concentration limit was a better criterion for establishing a performance standard inside totally enclosed lifeboats. It would provide the necessary design flexibility for manufacturers to determine the best means of maintaining a habitable environment in not only totally enclosed lifeboats

 

However, the Sub-Committee could not reach an agreement on the proposed amendments to ventilation rate criteria.

 

Similarly, several delegations supported that the addition of a CO2 monitor would be an efficient measure to warn the survival craft occupants of CO2 accumulation. But SSE 6 was unable to reach consensus on the need for such a CO2 monitor.

 

Hence, SSE 6 agreed to retain the draft amendments to the LSA Code as prepared by SSE 5.

 

Draft amendments to resolution MSC.81(70) revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances

 

SSE 6 prepared the draft amendments to resolution MSC.81(70) and agreed to invite the Sub-Committee to establish a correspondence group to further progress these draft amendments intersessionally, with a view towards finalization at SSE 7.

 

Draft amendments to the LSA Code on the ventilation requirement for survival craft other than totally enclosed lifeboats

 

Due to time constraints, the Sub-Committee was not able to consider the draft amendments to the LSA Code on the ventilation requirement for survival craft other than totally enclosed lifeboats. It agreed to establish a correspondence group to further progress this issue intersessionally, with a view towards finalization at SSE 7.

 

 

 

Item 5 - Consequential work related to the new code for ships operating in Polar waters (Polar Code)

 

MSC 97 had instructed SSE to review the LSA Code and the relevant IMO resolutions to adapt current testing and performance standards to the Polar Code provisions.

 

SSE 5 agreed that the Interim guidelines on life-saving appliances and arrangements for ships operating in polar waters had to be developed as a matter of priority. Therefore, it established Correspondence Group which was instructed to further develop, with a view towards finalization, the draft interim guidelines on life-saving appliances and arrangements for ships operating in polar waters, and to consider suitable regulatory options to address future new test and performance criteria.

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft interim guidelines on life-saving appliances and arrangements for ships operating in polar waters and instruct the IMO Secretariat to prepare the draft associated circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval.

 

SSE 6 concurred with the understanding that chapter 8 of part I-A of the Polar Code (Life-saving appliances and arrangements) applies equally to new and existing ships, and that any differences in application would require an amendment to the Code.

 

In-depth discussion occurred regarding food rations. CLIA considered that for a 150-person lifeboat under the SOLAS Convention, a combined 1.2 tons of additional food and water rations were added. For liferafts, this added weight would also be very significant. This was an enormous increase from the requirements of the LSA Code and would have a significant impact to existing survival craft and launching appliances, which had not been designed to accommodate this increase in weight.

 

With regards to the capacity of survival craft, SSE 6 agreed that the seating capacity of each survival craft should be adjusted taking into account polar clothing, additional equipment including all persons carrying their intended personal survival equipment and space for occupants to stand and move in turns.

 

Due to time constraints, SSE 6 was not able to consider options to develop guidelines on how to determine the "maximum expected time of rescue" and how to address new guidelines for testing and evaluation of life-saving appliances and arrangements for ships operating in polar waters.

 

Guidelines for testing and evaluation are needed for the following areas in relation to life-saving appliances:

  •     Tests of all life-saving appliances to prove that they are operational at the polar service temperature

  •     Reliability of survival craft equipment

  •     Immersion suits for children:  regulation 8.3.3.1.1 of part I-A of the Polar Code requires an insulated immersion suit or thermal protective aid for all "persons", including children, while the LSA Code has no special requirements for immersion suits for children.

  •     Operation of survival craft and rescue craft in the worst ice conditions in which the ship is intended to operate: the draft interim guidelines require the survival craft and rescue craft to withstand the impact of being towed in icy waters. However, no ice load assumptions have been agreed upon.

 

 

 

Item 6 - Review SOLAS chapter II-2 and associated codes to minimize the incidence and consequences of fires on ro-ro spaces and special category spaces of new and existing ro-ro passenger ships

 

SSE 5 re-established the Correspondence Group on Fire Protection (FP) to :

  •     develop draft interim guidelines for minimizing the incidence and consequences of fires on ro-ro spaces and special category spaces of new and existing ro-ro passenger ships;

  •     develop draft amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention and associated codes, taking into account their application to existing ships;

  •     identify other related instruments which need to be consequentially amended 

 

Draft interim guidelines

SSE 6 agreed to the draft interim guidelines for minimizing the incidence and consequences of fires on ro-ro spaces and special category spaces of new and existing ro-ro passenger ships, and the associated draft MSC circular, with a view to approval by MSC 101.

 

Noting the views expressed in the report of the correspondence group as well as FIRESAFE II outcome, the Sub-Committee condensed provisions relating to inspection and maintenance of ship's electrical cables and sockets by using goal based language.

 

It decided to simplify :

  •     the provisions related to the protection of power cable sockets from faults and overloads by using condensed goal based language ;

  •     the provisions related to augmented fire patrols and accepting the use of portable thermal imaging devices ;

  •     the provisions related to the elimination of the sources of ignition while addressing the different hazards of alternative powered vehicles.

 

It added provisions to ro-ro space openings and the protection of life-saving appliances and embarkation stations from these openings and promoting the early activation of drencher systems

 

In addition, it also decided to organize the draft interim guidelines such that section 1 on prevention and ignition is recommended for all ships, whereas, the rest of the guidelines are recommended for new ships unless specifically stating otherwise.

 

Some interesting topics of the guidelines are summarized hereinafter :

 

Prevention/ignition

  •       Inspection and maintenance of ship's power supply equipment and cables

  •       Maintenance plan for electrical cables and their sockets in ro-ro and special category spaces intended for power supply to vehicles or cargo units

  •       Secured (metal protective cased) cables

  •       Shock/waterproof rating of electrical connections

  •       Earth fault breakers / individual circuit breakers

  •       Only crew connections

  •       Socket outlets

  •       Strengthening of the requirement for elimination of sources of ignition

 

Detection and decision

  •       Addressable type fixed fire detection and alarm systems

  •     Video monitoring

  •     Flame detectors (infrared and/or ultraviolet)

 

Extinguishment

  •       Revision of the requirements for fire-fighters' outfits and equipment for ro-ro passenger ships

  •       Remote control of fixed water-based fire-fighting systems

  •      Appropriate training and drills

  •      Functional requirements for positioning of sprinklers and nozzles, taking into account cargo distribution, services, structural elements, etc. providing satisfactory performance with respect to both activation time and water distribution

  •      Securing access for fire-fighting and systems for smoke extraction

  •      Fire-fighting needs related to electrical powered vehicles and alternatively fuelled vehicles

  •      Fire integrity of ro-ro spaces and special category spaces

  •      Openings in relation to fire and smoke spread from the ro-ro space

  •     Stowage requirements for alternative fuelled vehicles 

Draft amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention and associated codes

 

SSE 6, due to lack of time, was not able to consider all draft amendments to the SOLAS Convention and suggested amendments based on the casualty reports and summary of the FIRESAFE II study.

 

It was of the view that further consideration of the FIRESAFE II report would be needed at SSE 7, particularly in light of the proposed analysis of the report by the FSA experts group to be established at MSC 101.

 

Identification of other related instruments that need to be consequentially amended

 

SSE 6 estimated that the MSC.1/Circ.1430/Rev.1 Revised guidelines for the design and approval of fixed water-based fire-fighting systems for ro-ro spaces and special category spaces may need to be revised.

 

Draft amendment to the Revised Guidelines for the Maintenance and Inspection of Fire Protection Systems and Appliances (MSC.1/Circ.1432)

 

SOLAS regulation II-2/20.6.1 provides requirements with regard to fixed water-based fire-extinguishing systems fitted on board ro-ro passenger ships. SOLAS regulation II-2/14.2.2.1 administers the maintenance, testing and inspection of fixed water-based fire-extinguishing systems, the details of which are specified in the Revised Guidelines for the maintenance and inspection of fire protection systems and appliances (MSC.1/Circ.1432). In particular, paragraph 7.5 of the annex to MSC.1/Circ.1432 states the following:

 

".12 blow dry compressed air or nitrogen through the discharge piping of dry pipe systems, or otherwise confirm the pipework and nozzles are clear of any obstructions. This may require the removal of nozzles, if applicable; (…)

.16 test a minimum of one section  in each open head  water mist system by  flowing water through the nozzles. The sections tested should be chosen so that all sections are tested within a five-year period»

 

In 2018, China conducted fixed water-based fire-extinguishing system tests on board over 20 ro-ro passenger ships engaged on international voyages and 40 ro-ro passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages. The tests indicate that nearly 30% of the nozzles failed to flow water, generally caused by rust blocks formed by rust and gravel.

 

Paragraph 7.5 of the annex to MSC.1/Circ.1432 entails annual air blowing and simulation tests on the fixed water-based fire-extinguishing systems. In practice, rust blocks in pipes cannot be blown away by air and would not hinder air blowing. Consequently, the rust blocks in pipes cannot be detected by air blowing. When water flows through pipes, rust blocks are washed to the nozzle, which causes the nozzle to be blocked. Therefore, according to China, the flowing water test is the most effective method to detect the fixed water-based fire-extinguishing

 

SSE 6 noted that as the revised guidelines would apply to all ships, the proposed draft amendments to the revised guidelines go beyond the scope of the output, which is to minimize the incidence and consequences of fires on ro-ro passenger ships. These amendments should be more universally applied and thus a new output would be needed to address this matter.

 

Main topics and structure of the FIRESAFE II study - EU

 

The FIRESAFE II study consisted of two main parts which followed the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) methodology and two parts which were dedicated to testing, namely of alternative detection systems for open ro-ro spaces and weather decks, as well as for alternative fixed fire-extinguishing systems.

 

The main topics of the FIRESAFE II study were detection, decision, containment and evacuation concerning the fire safety of ro-ro, special category and vehicle spaces, as well as a combined assessment (with FIRESAFE I) at the end of the study.

 

It should be highlighted that specific proposals for amendments to or for inclusion in the interim guidelines will be developed, especially for the RCOs proven to be cost-effective.

 

SSE 6 agreed that the study be reviewed by the FSA Experts Group (FSA EG) intersessionally and that the Group report directly to SSE 7.

 

 

 

Item 7 - Amendments to MSC.1/Circ.1315

 

SSE 5, in considering draft amendments to the Guidelines for the approval of fixed dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing systems for the protection of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (MSC.1/Circ.1315), agreed that sodium bicarbonate should be excluded as an acceptable dry chemical powder on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk

 

SSE 5 had noted that it would be necessary to further develop criteria according to which a dry powder could be considered as a sodium bicarbonate powder (e.g. mass percentage of the main compound), as opposed to a sodium-based dry powder.

 

SSE 6 improved draft amendments to the revised guidelines for the approval of fixed dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing systems for the protection of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (MSC.1/CIRC.1315) for further consideration at coming meetings.

 

The Sub-Committee considered sodium bicarbonate to be banned as a main component of dry chemical compound, but did not reach a consensus on total prohibition. While potassium-based salts should be the main component of the dry chemical powder, it is considered that the use of a new dry chemical powder in which the majority of the components are chemicals with either a similar or superior performance to potassium salts in all aspects should not be precluded, subject to compliance with the test requirements.

 

It also agreed that alternative agents approved in accordance with all performance criteria outlined in the draft revised guidelines should be accepted as dry chemical compounds whether or not they are potassium based.

 

 

 

Item 8 – Fault isolation requirements for individually identifiable fire detector systems installed in lieu of section identifiable fire detector systems on cargo ships and passenger ship cabin balconies

 

A new output was agreed aboutr fault isolation requirements for individually identifiable fire detector systems installed in lieu of section identifiable fire detector systems on cargo ships and passenger ship cabin balconies.

 

The amendments to the FSS Code, as adopted at MSC 88, place more onerous fault isolation requirements on individually identifiable systems than on section identifiable systems.

 

When a decision is being made on the type of fire detection system that is to be fitted on a cargo ship or in passenger ship cabin balconies, the cost and complexity of providing individually identifiable fault isolation compared to section identifiable fault isolation; is weighed against the enhanced safety afforded by individually identifiable fire detection compared to section identifiable fire detection.

 

There are, however, systems that are available that combine the enhanced safety of individually identifiable fire detectors, which are required for passenger ships; with the less complex and less costly section identifiable fault isolation functionality.

 

To facilitate the use of such systems on a global and consistent basis, there is a need for amendments to the fault isolation requirements for individually identifiable fire detector systems, which are installed in lieu of section identifiable fire detector systems on cargo ships and passenger ship cabin balconies.

 

SSE 6 agreed to invite interested Member States and international organizations to submit comments and proposals to the next session on the draft amendment prepared at MSC 98.

 

 

 

Item 9 – Requirements for onboard lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

SSE 5 had considered the goal- and function-based SOLAS regulations concerning onboard lifting appliances and anchor handling winches (OLAW), with a particular emphasis on types of equipment, safe working load (SWL), the scope of application, inspection and testing, training and qualification of the ship's crew and shore-based personnel, loose gear brought from the shore-side, and the draft guidelines supporting the goals and functional requirements.

 

MSC 100 had agreed that a "list of inclusions with some exclusions" approach should be taken when drafting the relevant SOLAS amendments in relation to OLAW; and that onboard lifting appliances installed on offshore construction ships should be excluded from the new requirements. Subsequently, MSC instructed SSE 6 to further consider which lifting appliances and winches should be indicated in the draft amendments.

 

Some delegations were of the view that, recalling the difficulties faced in relation to the GBS approach and despite the risk of setting a precedence for future new SOLAS regulations, the proposed SOLAS regulations with prescriptive requirements should be used to resolve the longstanding issues that need a practical and pragmatic approach. Recalling the conclusion of MSC 100 on the experience gained in the application of the Generic guidelines for developing IMO goal-based standards (MSC.1/Circ.1394/Rev.1), it should be the prerogative of the concerned organ of the Organization to use any approach considered suitable

 

Following discussion, SSE 6 agreed to take a prescriptive approach.

 

Draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13 with a view to submission to MSC in conjunction with the associated Guidelines, once finalized.

 

SSE 6 amended draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13.3, including its title, containing provisions for loose gear and addressing equipment not covered  in  draft  SOLAS regulations II-1/3-13.1 and II-1/3-13.2 so as to require Administrations to set criteria for testing, thorough examination, inspection, operation and maintenance of OLAW, while providing for flexibility as to how this was to be achieved.

 

SSE 6 commenced its work by developing the definition for "lifting appliance".

 

Regulation 2 – Definitions

(…)

"31 Lifting appliance means any load-handling ship's equipment:

.1             used for cargo loading, transfer, or discharge;

.2             used for raising and lowering hold hatch covers or moveable bulkheads;

.3             used as engine room cranes;

.4             used as stores cranes;

.5             used as hose handling cranes;

.6             used for launch and recovery of tender boats and similar applications; and

.7             used as personnel handling cranes.

 

The Sub-Committee had a lengthy discussion on whether or not to include "personnel handling cranes" in the definition of "lifting appliance" and agreed that, regardless of the fact that there was no evidence that these constituted a particular concern, the direct risk to safety of life and the consequences resulting from incidents warranted their inclusion.

 

It also discussed and agreed to the definitions of "anchor handling winch" and "loose gear.

 

32        Anchor handling winch means any winch for the purpose of deploying, recovering and repositioning anchors and mooring lines in subsea operations.

 

33        Loose gear means an article of ships equipment by means of which a load can be attached to a lifting appliance or an anchor handling winch but which does not form an integral part of the appliance or load.

 

In line with the decision of MSC 100 to maintain the principle of inclusions with some exclusions, agreed to include all equipment to which the regulation applies in the definition of "Lifting appliance" (inclusions) and to develop the list of exclusions under regulation II-1/3-13.1.2 (Application).

 

Regulation 3-13

Lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

1           Application

 

1.1           Unless expressly provided otherwise, this regulation shall apply to lifting appliances and anchor handling winches, and loose gear utilized with the lifting appliances and the anchor handling winches.

 

1.2           Notwithstanding the above, this regulation does not apply to:

.1             lifting appliances on ships certified as MODUs;*

.2             lifting appliances used on offshore construction ships, such as pipe/cable laying/repair or offshore installation vessels, including ships for decommissioning work, which comply with standards acceptable to the Administration;

.3             integrated mechanical equipment for opening and closing hold hatch covers; and

.4             life-saving appliances complying with the LSA Code.

 

Threshold value for OLAW and list of inclusions and exclusions

 

At SSE 5, there were mixed views on the respective options for the SWL threshold and the Group could not reach a consensus on this issue.

 

An alternative approach was proposed, as follows:

  •    the application of the survey and certification regime for the appliances,    as appropriate, should be established in accordance with an SWL threshold of 1,000 kg; and

  •    the remaining functional requirements should apply to all appliances, irrespective of their SWLs.

 

However, there were mixed views on this approach and the Group could not clearly identify which regulations were related to "survey and certification regime" and which regulations could be applied to all appliances irrespective of their SWLs.

 

SSE 6 agreed that an SWL threshold for anchor handling winches might not be necessary for the reason that it was highly unlikely that there would be any anchor handling winches on SOLAS ships (500 gross tons and above) that had a maximum line pull of 1,000 kg or 500 kg, since such a line pull would be inadequate to handle anchors on these ships.

 

SSE 6 was invited to note that the design requirements for lifting appliances by ILO (ILO C152, e.g.  articles 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27), state authorities (e.g. European Directive on Machinery), recognized organizations and industry standards (e.g. EN 13001) are applicable to all lifting appliances regardless of their SWL.

 

SSE 6 agreed to remove any threshold limit in draft regulation II-1/3-13.1.1 and to address, through drafting provisions of "exclusions", those smaller lifting appliances which would not be part of the mandatory ship survey and certification system under SOLAS chapter I.

 

But some considered that without a threshold value, every single piece of equipment such as shackles, ropes, blocks etc. would fall under the survey and certification regime of SOLAS chapter I, which was neither intended nor practical and thus a threshold value would be a pragmatic solution in light of the protracted development of SOLAS requirements.

 

After a lengthy discussion, SSE 6 agreed to include draft regulation II-1/3-13.1.3 which provided flexibility to an Administration to apply draft SOLAS regulations II-1/3-13.2.1 and II-1/3-13.2.4 to lifting appliances with a SWL of less than 1,000 kg.

 

Regulation 3-13

Lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

1           Application

(…)

1.3           The Administration shall determine to what extent the provisions of regulations 3-13.2.1 and 3-13.2.4 do not apply to lifting appliances which have a Safe Working Load below 1,000 kg.

 

After agreeing that anchor handling winches should not have a lower application threshold for the application of the new draft SOLAS regulation, SSE 6 agreed to limit to lifting appliances the application of draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13.1.3, which allowed flexibility for equipment with a SWL of less than 1,000kg. The threshold issue under an "exclusions" paragraph, enables the differentiation among respective types of requirements, e.g. for operational or design.

 

Design and construction criteria

 

Marking of lifting appliances and loose gear

 

SSE 6 agreed that existing and new lifting appliances should be required to be marked with their SWL, as reflected in draft regulations II-1/3-13.2.3 and the associated Guidelines, whereas the marking of anchor handling winches was a more complex issue and better addressed in the Guidelines for anchor handling winches.

 

Design and construction of anchor handling winches

 

The Sub-Committee had a lengthy discussion on whether the design and construction requirements for anchor handling winches should be in accordance to class society rules but concluded that it was aware of only very few class societies that had rules for anchor handling winches in place and subsequently decided to refer solely to Administrations, as set out in draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13.2.2.

 

Regulation 3-13

Lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

2           Design and construction

 

2.1           Lifting appliances installed on or after [date] shall be:

.1             designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the requirements of a classification society which is recognized by the Administration in accordance with the provisions of regulation XI-1/1 or standards acceptable to the Administration which provide an equivalent level of safety; and

.2             load tested and thoroughly examined after installation and before being taken into use for the first time and after repairs, modifications or alterations of major character.

 

2.2           Anchor handling winches installed on or after [date] shall be designed, constructed, installed and tested to the satisfaction of the Administration, based on the Guidelines developed by the Organization.†

 

Testing requirements for new and existing lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

SSE 6 agreed to the testing and thorough examination requirements for all new and existing lifting appliances and anchor handling winches and to make reference to the guidelines which would include further details.

 

Regulation 3-13

Lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

3 Maintenance, operation, inspection and testing

 

All lifting appliances and anchor handling winches, regardless of installation date, and all loose gear utilized with any lifting appliances and anchor handling winches, shall be operationally tested, thoroughly examined, inspected, operated and maintained, based on the Guidelines developed by the Organization.**/†

 

Harmonization and potential duplicative requirements between ILO C152 and new draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13

 

Several delegations raised concerns with respect to possible duplication of requirements for ships that had to comply with ILO C152 and new draft SOLAS regulation II-1/3-13, especially with respect to thorough examination and load testing requirements.

 

After discussion, SSE 6 agreed that the existing requirements under ILO C152 should not lead to additional requirements under SOLAS for the same equipment but that the detailed explanations and clarifications should be included in the Guidelines.

 

Out-of-service / inoperative lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

It was discussed the circumstances and conditions when inoperative OLAW would render a ship unseaworthy and what actions needed to be taken by the master to establish seaworthiness before proceeding to the next port.

 

SSE 6 agreed that no exhaustive list of actions by the master could be drafted that foresaw all possible circumstances and to include them in the draft guidelines for lifting appliances and the guidelines for anchor handling winches.

 

Draft guidelines for the safety of onboard lifting appliances and anchor handling winches

 

Owing to time constraints, SSE 6 was unable to consider and further develop the two sets of draft guidelines for the safety of onboard lifting appliances and anchor handling winches, respectively, and agreed that these tasks could be carried out by the Correspondence Group.

 

 

 

Item 11- Development of guidelines for cold ironing of ships and of amendments to SOLAS chapters II-1 and II-2

 

Owing to the outcome of the correspondence group established at SSE 5, SSE 6 considered premature to task a drafting group for further developing the draft guidelines and, therefore, the work should continue to be progressed by means of a correspondence group.

 

Those guidelines should not mix standardization and operational aspects so as to avoid duplication with existing international standards. Therefore, only operational aspects should be under focus instead of developing technical requirements

 

SSE 6 decided to establish an Intersessional Correspondence Group which was instructed to further develop the draft guidelines on safe operation of onshore power supply (OPS) service in port for ships engaged on international voyages,

 

During the discussion, a concern was expressed that making the guidelines mandatory under SOLAS should be avoided, as ships had many measures to reduce the air pollution emission, not limited to onshore power supply only.

 

 

 

Item 12 - unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety, security and environment related conventions

 

Unified interpretations related to fire safety

 

Requirements for two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for fire-fighter's communication

 

SSE 6 had for its consideration a draft unified interpretation of SOLAS regulation II-2/10.10.4 on the requirements for two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for fire-fighter's communication, in particular, regarding the term "explosion-proof type or intrinsically safe", intended to specify the certified safe type and essential particulars defined in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standards.

 

Amendments to SOLAS regulation II-2/10 that were adopted by resolution MSC.338(91) require, inter alia, two two-way portable radiotelephone apparatuses per fire party to be carried on board as follows:

 

"10.4 Fire-fighter's communication

 

For ships constructed on or after 1 July 2014, a minimum of two two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for each fire party for fire-fighter's communication shall be carried on board. Those two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus shall be of an explosion-proof type or intrinsically safe. Ships constructed before 1 July 2014 shall comply with the requirements of this paragraph not later than the first survey after    1 July 2018."

 

IACS considers that the requirement in SOLAS regulation II-2/10.10.4 on mitigating the explosion hazard is rather vague and open to interpretation. IACS has further witnessed some inconsistencies in the implementation of this requirement, in particular, with respect to the term "explosion-proof type or intrinsically safe". IACS understands that specifying "intrinsically safe" type equipment is in some ways meaningless without also specifying the need for the certified safe type and further the essential particulars defined in IEC Standards 60079 and 60092-502

 

Specifying the "explosion-proof type" is even vaguer.

 

Taking account of the above analysis, including the clarification provided in MSC/Circ.1120 and with a view to facilitating the global and consistent implementation of the requirements of SOLAS regulation II-2/10.10.4, IACS has developed a draft IACS Unified Interpretation (UI).

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft UI on ChapterII-2 and forwarded it to MSC 101 for approval.

 

Regulation 10.10.4 – Fire-fighting, Fire-fighter's outfits, Fire-fighter's communication

 

Two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for fire-fighter's communication required by regulation 10.10.4 should be of certified safe type suitable for use in zone 1 hazardous areas, as defined in IEC Publication 60079.

 

The minimum requirements in respect to the apparatus group and temperature class are to be consistent with the most restrictive requirements for the hazardous area zone on board which is accessible to fire party.

 

Draft unified interpretation of the footnote to SOLAS regulation II-2/9.7.5

 

SSE 6 considered proposal of a draft unified interpretation of SOLAS regulation II-2/9.7.5, as amended by resolution MSC.365(93), intended to clarify that the footnote to this regulation did not prohibit the use  of fixed CO2  fire-extinguishing systems that had not been designed or tested to   ISO 15371, and the minimum quantity required for the protection of galley exhaust ducts.

 

SOLAS regulation II-2/9.7.5, as amended by resolution MSC.365(93), states:

 

"7.5.1  Requirements for passenger ships carrying more than 36 passengers

 

7.5.1.1 In addition to the requirements in sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, exhaust ducts from galley ranges shall be constructed in accordance with paragraphs 7.2.4.2.1 and 7 2 4 2 2 and insulated to "A-60" class standard throughout accommodation spaces, service spaces, or control stations they pass through. They shall also be fitted with (…)

.3          a fixed means for extinguishing a fire within the duct*;

 

"7.5.2 Requirements for cargo ships and passenger ships carrying not more than 36 passengers

 

When passing through accommodation spaces or spaces containing combustible materials, the exhaust ducts from galley ranges shall be constructed in accordance with paragraphs 7.2.4.1.1 and 7.2.4.1.2. Each exhaust duct shall be fitted with (…) :

.4          fixed means for extinguishing a fire within the duct*"

 

* Refer to the recommendations published by the International Organization for Standardization, in particular publication ISO 15371:2009, Ships and marine technology – Fire-extinguishing systems for protection of galley cooking equipment.

 

However, carbon dioxide has been, and still is, among the most common fire-extinguishing medium used to protect the exhaust ducts of galley ranges.

 

According to the requirements listed in paragraph 3 above, SOLAS or the FSS Code prescribe a minimum required quantity of CO2 to protect spaces. However, no specific requirements are given for a minimum quantity required for the protection of galley exhaust ducts.

 

Additionally, the ISO standard referenced in the footnote to SOLAS regulation II-2/9.7.5 is only applicable to pre-engineered systems. However, CO2 systems are not pre-engineered, as defined by the standard.

 

In considering the footnote to SOLAS regulation II-2/9.7.5, IACS understands that ISO 15371 is given as an example of a suitable performance standard for the galley duct fixed fire-extinguishing system. Other applicable standards may be used, too.

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft UI of the footnote to SOLAS regulation II-2/9.7.5 and forwarded it to MSC 101 for approval.

 

Regulation 9.7.5 - Containment of fire, Ventilation systems, Exhaust ducts from galley ranges

 

The reference to ISO 15371:2009 in the footnote to both regulations 9.7.5.1.1.3 and 9.7.5.2.4 is given as an example of a suitable performance standard for pre-engineered galley duct fixed fire-extinguishing systems.

 

CO2 fire-extinguishing systems, which are not pre-engineered fixed fire-extinguishing systems, should be designed according to the requirements set out in regulation 10.6.3.1.1 (spaces containing flammable liquids) or another suitable standard acceptable to the Administration.

 

Application of the design temperature for piping, fittings and related components

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft unified interpretation in the application of the design temperature for piping, fittings and related components and the associated draft MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval.

 

IACS provided a draft IACS unified interpretation on the application of the design temperature for piping, fittings and related components, as required by paragraph 11.3.6 of the IGC Code which intended to bring clarity as to whether the weather deck areas above "F.O. tanks" were regarded as part of the "cargo area" and whether the piping, fittings and related components of a water-spray system in such an area were to be designed to withstand 925°C.

 

IACS sought clarification on the application of the design temperature for piping, fittings and related components of water-spray systems as required by paragraph 11.3.6 of the IGC Code, as amended by resolution MSC.370(93) (hereafter referred to as the IGC Code), taking into account paragraph 11.1.4 of the Code.

 

The requirements for water-spray systems are prescribed in paragraph 11.3.6 of the IGC Code, as follows:

 

"11.3.6   All pipes, valves, nozzles and other fittings in the water-spray system shall be resistant to corrosion by seawater. Piping, fittings and related components within the cargo area (except gaskets) shall be designed to withstand 925°C. The water-spray system shall be arranged with in-line filters to prevent blockage of pipes and nozzles. In addition, means shall be provided to back-flush the system with fresh water."

 

The definition of "cargo area" is provided in 11.1.4 of the IGC Code, as follows:

 

"11.1.4 For the purposes of firefighting, any weather deck areas above cofferdams, ballast or void spaces at the after end of the aftermost hold space or at the forward end of the forwardmost hold space shall be included in the cargo area."

 

In this regard, the question had been raised as to whether the weather deck areas above "F.O. tanks" were regarded as part of the "cargo area" and, consequently, whether the piping, fittings and related components of a water-spray system in such an area were to be designed to withstand 925°C.

 

Interpretation

 

Where "F.O. tanks" are installed at the after end of the aftermost hold space or at the forward end of the forwardmost hold space instead of cofferdams as allowed for in paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the IGC Code, the weather deck area above these tanks shall be regarded as a "cargo area" for the purpose of applying paragraph 11.3.6 of the IGC Code, i.e. piping, fittings and related components of water-spray systems shall be designed to withstand 925°C.

 

Fire integrity of the bulkheads and decks between engine rooms and spaces in which urea or sodium hydroxide solution tanks are installed

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft unified interpretation of SOLAS regulations II-2/3.30, II-2/9.2.2.3.2.2, II-2/9.2.2.4.2.2, II-2/9.2.3.3.2.2 and II-2/9.2.4.2.2.2 as modified, and the associated draft MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval.

 

Recently, there have been an increasing number of ships installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems or exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS), so that ships can comply with the NOX and SOX emission limits in accordance with the provisions of the MARPOL Convention.

 

Urea or sodium hydroxide solutions are used as reducing agents in SCR systems, EGR systems and EGCS, and the storage tanks for them are often installed within the main engine room or in a space that is adjacent to the main engine room.

 

However, in determining the fire integrity of divisions, SOLAS regulation II-2/9 does not identify a category for such a storage space. Therefore, there is a possibility that inconsistencies may arise due to different understandings/interpretations.

 

Similar to workshops, converter rooms, etc. within engine rooms, such storage tanks that are located within the engine room are considered as being part of the main engine room.

 

On the other hand, although categories of the storage tanks installed in a separate compartment shall be determined in accordance with SOLAS regulations II-2/9.2.2.3.2.2, II-2/9.2.2.4.2.2, II-2/9.2.3.3.2.2 or II-2/9.2.4.2.2, there is no definiton for such compartments in these regulations. Hence, the most appropriate categories for these compartments can be assigned considering the fire properties of what is stored in them.

 

The chemical properties of urea and sodium hydroxide solutions mean that they can be regarded as non-flammable liquids having a flash point exceeding 60 degrees and which do not present an explosion risk. Based on this understanding, IACS has reached the conclusion that "other machinery  spaces"  for  passenger  ships  carrying  not  more  than  36 passengers and cargo ships; and "tanks, voids and auxiliary machinery spaces having little or no fire risk" for ships carrying more than 36 passengers are the most appropriate categories for spaces in which urea and sodium hydroxide solutions are stored.

 

Interpretation

 

In cases where urea or sodium hydroxide solution tanks for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems or exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS) are installed in a space separated from the engine room, in determining fire integrity of divisions, the solution tank space should be considered as "similar spaces" in the definition of "machinery spaces" and should be categorized as:

 

"(10)       Tanks, voids and auxiliary machinery spaces having little or no fire risk" for ships carrying more than 36 passengers; or

 

"(7)          Other machinery spaces" for ships carrying not more than 36 passengers and cargo ships.

 

The bulkhead between the engine room and the solution tank space should have a fire integrity of at least "A-0" class.

 

Draft unified interpretation regarding the onboard discharge test of a dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing system

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft unified interpretation regarding the onboard discharge test of a dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing system and the associated draft MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval.

 

IACS and SIGTTO propsed a new draft unified interpretation regarding the onboard discharge test of a dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing system, as required by paragraph 11.4.8 of the IGC Code (resolution MSC.370(93)), intended to clarify the term "sufficient amounts of dry chemical powder".

 

Paragraph 11.4.8 of the IGC Code (resolution MSC.370(93)) (hereafter referred to as the Code) states:

 

"11.4.8After installation, the pipes, valves, fittings and assembled systems shall be subjected to a tightness test and functional testing of the remote and local release stations. The initial testing shall also include a discharge of sufficient amounts of dry chemical powder to verify that the system is in proper working order. All distribution piping shall be blown through with dry air to ensure that the piping is free of obstructions."

 

IACS' advised SSE 5 of the following challenges that were being encountered when implementing the provisions of paragraph 11.4.8 of the Code:

  • the difficulty to completely prevent powder splash into the marine environment, despite the efforts of those conducting the test;

  • the negative effect on the marine environment (in particular, fisheries), as well as the working environment, as a result of the discharge of this chemical powder;

  • the disruption to the shipbuilding process (hampering the ship's painting process) and the risk presented to already installed onboard sensitive and safety critical electronic

  • the refilling of significant amounts of powder on board that came with a risk of moisture getting into the powder after the conduct of this discharge for testing,

  • the risk of the system being left with residues of dry powder in it, which could later lead to clogging;

 

 

Interpretation

 

Paragraph 11.4.8 – Fire protection and extinction, Dry chemical powder fire-extinguishing systems

 

Testing arrangements should involve the discharge using dry chemical powder from all monitors and hand hose lines on board but it is not required that there is a full discharge of the installed quantity of dry powder. This testing can also be used to satisfy the requirement that the piping is free of obstructions, in lieu of blowing through with dry air all the distribution piping. However, after the completion of this testing, the system, including all monitors and hand hose lines, should be blown through with dry air but only for the purpose of the system subsequently being clear from any residues of dry chemical powder.

 

This unified interpretation should be considered as an interim solution and a new output proposal to amend this paragraph of the IGC Code would be necessary for a sustainable solution.

 

 

Unified interpretations related to life-saving appliances and other matters

 

Unified interpretation on lifebuoy arrangements for means of embarkation/disembarkation

 

IACS proposed a draft unified interpretation on "Lifebuoy arrangements for means of embarkation/disembarkation", in the context of SOLAS regulations III/22.1.1 (lifebuoys for passenger ships), III/32.1.1 (lifebuoys for cargo ships) and SOLAS regulation II-1/3-9 (Means of embarkation and disembarkation from ships), intended to clarify that a lifebuoy fitted with both a light and a lifeline as per MSC.1/Circ.1331 for compliance with SOLAS regulation II-1/3-9 should not to be taken into account when considering the minimum number and distribution of lifebuoys, as required by SOLAS regulation III/22.1.1 or III/32.1.1, as applicable.

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft unified interpretation on lifebuoy arrangements and the associated draft MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101, for approval.

 

Interpretation

 

Regulation 32.1.1 – Personal life saving appliances, Lifebuoys

 

When considering the minimum number and distribution of lifebuoys as required by regulations 22.1.1 or 32.1.1, as applicable, a lifebuoy, fitted with both a light and a lifeline as per MSC.1/Circular.1331 for compliance with SOLAS regulation II-1/3-9.2, should not be taken into account.

 

Draft revision of IACS unified interpretation SC242 relating to SOLAS regulations II-1/28, II-1/29 and II-1/30

 

IACS provided a revised version of UI SC242, which offered draft unified interpretations of the relevant elements of SOLAS regulations II-1/28, II-1/29 and II-1/30.

 

SOLAS adequately addresses steering gear arrangements having a traditional propulsion system and a rudder-type steering system. However, IACS considers that the Convention does not adequately provide for modern combined propulsion/steering systems such as azimuth thrusters, podded propulsors, waterjets, cycloidal propellers, etc.

 

IACS developed Unified Interpretation (UI) SC242 regarding the steering capability of these systems. A copy of UI SC242 was provided in the annex to document DE 55/3 and MSC 90 subsequently approved MSC.1/Circ.1416 on Unified Interpretation of SOLAS regulations II-1/28 and II-1/29 (MSC 90/28, paragraph 9.2). Experience in the application of UI SC242 and feedback from the industry indicated that further clarification was needed, in particular with respect to the implementation of SOLAS regulations II-1/29.1 and II-1/29.6.1. Consequently, IACS submitted a revised version of UI SC242 to SSE 4.

 

Since then, IACS has considered the concerns raised at SSE 4.

 

IACS considers that redundancy should be required in the steering gear for each steerable propulsion unit based on the understanding that, in particular for passenger ships a reduced steering capability after a single failure is not acceptable;

 

Consequently, IACS considers the requirement for a main and auxiliary steering gear should be applicable for each of the steering gears in a multiple steering-propulsion unit installation.

 

A new UI has been developed for SOLAS regulation II-1/30.2, which clarifies that the requirements of SOLAS regulation II-1/30.2 apply to each steering system in ships fitted with multiple steering systems.

 

SSE 6, having concurred with the content of the draft revised version of UI SC242 and that a revised version of MSC.1/Circ.1416 should be issued as a new circular, agreed to draft unified interpretation of SOLAS regulation II-1/28, II-1/29 and II-1/30 and the associated MSC Circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval.

 

Having agreed that the latest version of this IACS UI was considered acceptable as an interim measure, SSE 6 decided a new output proposal with a holistic approach encompassing all types of modern steering systems would be necessary.

 

Draft unified interpretation relating to SOLAS regulation III/20.11

 

IACS submitted a draft unified interpretation relating to SOLAS regulation III/20.11 (UI SC144) intended to clarify that examinations, overhauls and operational tests carried out at intervals of at least once every five years should be done in the presence of the surveyor in order to verify that the relevant equipment had been maintained and tested satisfactorily

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft unified interpretation relating to SOLAS regulation III/20.11 and the associated draft MSC circular, for submission to MSC 101 for approval.

 

Interpretation

 

Regulation 20.11 – Operational readiness, maintenance and inspections, Maintenance, thorough examination, operational testing, overhaul and repair of lifeboats, rescue boats and fast rescue boats, launching appliances and release gear

 

The thorough examinations, overhauls and operational tests, carried out at intervals of at least once every five years, should be done in the presence of a surveyor.

 

 

 

Item 17 - Any other business

 

Discrepancy between chapter VI of the LSA Code and the testing provisions in resolution MSC.81(70)

 

MSC 98 adopted, by resolutions MSC.425(98) and MSC.427(98), amendments to the LSA Code and  resolution MSC.81(70) on Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances to correct the discrepancy regarding the testing of winches and winch brakes

 

There is an omission in the amendments  to  chapter VI of the LSA Code and the testing requirements in resolution MSC.81(70), as adopted at MSC 98.

 

Taking into account the amendments introduced in resolution MSC.427(98), the first and fifth sentences of paragraph 8.1.1 of part 1 of the annex to resolution MSC.81(70 on testing of davits and launching appliances, read, respectively, as follows:

 

"8.1.1 For lifeboats other than free-fall lifeboats, davits and launching appliances, except winches, should be subjected to a static proof load of 2.2 times their maximum working load."

 

"For free-fall lifeboats, the launching appliances for lowering a free-fall lifeboat by falls, except the winch brakes, should be subjected to a static proof load of 2.2 times the maximum working load at the full outboard position."

 

Resolution MSC.425(98) amends paragraph 6.1.1.5 of the LSA Code to read:

 

"6.1.1.5  The launching appliance and its attachments other than winches shall be of sufficient strength to withstand a factory static proof load test of not less than 2.2 times the maximum working load."

 

If the Sub-Committee agrees that the fifth sentence of paragraph 8.1.1 of part 1 of the annex to resolution MSC.81(70) should be similarly amended as in the first sentence of said paragraph,  IACS   proposes   the   following   modifications   to   the   fifth   sentence  (shown as additions/deletions):

 

"For free-fall lifeboats, the launching appliances for lowering a free-fall lifeboat by falls, except the winches brakes, should be subjected to a static proof load of 2.2 times the maximum working load at the full outboard position."

 

SSE 6 agreed to the draft amendments to resolution MSC.81(70), for consideration by MSC 101 as a minor correction

 

 

 

*         *

 

*