imo slf 54 - lr class direct

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Overview)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

1

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview – External Version for Clients

Introduction

The 54th session of the IMO Sub-Committee on Stability, Load Lines and Fishing vessels (SLF 54) will be held from 16 to 20 January 2012, at the IMO headquarters in London. This briefing summarises subjects under discussion which are relevant to the work of Lloyd's Register. Due attention should be made to the “Advice” and “Application” sections given under each subject. Readers should note that regulations relating to SOLAS are generally, unless expressly provided otherwise, applicable to ships (cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and above, and passenger ships irrespective of tonnage) engaged on international voyages. Similarly, Load Line regulations are applicable to ships over 24 metres in length which are engaged on international voyages. Working groups are expected to be established to discuss relevant agenda items as follows: Intact stability – agenda items 3 and maybe 10. Guidelines for verification of damage stability requirements for tankers – agenda item 5. Subdivision and damage stability – agenda items 6, 7, 8 and maybe 4 and/or 13.

Overview of agenda items

The following agenda items are relevant to the work of Lloyd’s Register: Development of second generation intact stability criteria (agenda item 3) The IMO recognised that the traditional intact stability calculations do not adequately address all intact stability failures. Work has been undertaken in the SLF Sub-Committee to investigate some dynamic intact stability phenomena and develop some criteria to identify, at the design stage, which ships are likely to suffer from them and thus reduce the incidence of them. Proposals for some criteria are nearly agreed. For details, please refer to Annex 1 of this document. Development of guidelines on safe return to port for passenger ships (agenda item 4) It was agreed by the MSC that the long standing agenda item “Survivability of passenger ships in damage condition” should be changed to be “Development of guidelines on safe return to port for passenger ships”. It was recognised some time ago that there was a requirement for passenger ships to remain habitable for a certain time after a casualty to allow for a safe and orderly abandonment should this be necessary. The “safe return to port” requirements (SOLAS II-1/8-1, II-2/21, II-2/22 and II-2/23) introduced requirements to enable certain passenger ships to return to port under their own power or under tow. Those contained in SOLAS II-1/8-1 are currently in the process of being amended to require the provision of stability information by computer. There has been some suggestion that there is insufficient guidance on what the computer should be able to do. For details, please refer to Annex 2 of this document. Development of guidelines for verification of damage stability requirements for tankers (agenda item 5) Concern has been expressed about the ability of tankers to provide evidence that they comply with damage stability requirements for any specific loading condition, particularly one which is not given in the approved stability book. Design and operational guidance is to be developed to indicate how compliance should be demonstrated. For details, please refer to Annex 3 of this document.


2

Revision of the damage stability regulations for ro-ro passenger ships (agenda item 6) There is ongoing research into the relative safety level achieved under the probabilistic damage stability requirements (as contained in SOLAS chapter II-1) when compared to the older deterministic SOLAS and Stockholm Agreement damage stability. For details, please refer to Annex 4 of this document. Development of amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 7) Concern has been raised at IMO that the current exemptions from complying with the probabilistic damage stability contained in SOLAS chapter II-1, given to vessels complying with deterministic damage stability contained in other IMO instruments (see footnote to SOLAS II-1/4), are no longer valid. Of particular concern is the equivalence of resolution MSC.235(82) “Guidelines for the design and construction of offshore supply vessels, 2006”. For details, please refer to Annex 5 of this document. Revision of SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision and damage stability regulations (agenda item 8) During the course of the rewrite of the current SOLAS chapter II-1 (resolutions MSC.194(80) and MSC.216(82)) areas which require further improvement were identified. A lot of further investigation into the identified issues has been undertaken and is still in progress which may lead to further changes to SOLAS chapter II-1. A number of changes have already been agreed and further discussion on outstanding issues is expected to take place in a working group. For details, please refer to Annex 6 of this document. Development of provisions to ensure the integrity and uniform implementation of the 1969 TM Convention (agenda item 9) There has been pressure on designers to reduce the gross tonnage of ships as a lot of fees are based on it. This has led to a reduction in crew space and a lack of berths for trainees on ships. The SLF sub-committee has looked at various ways of trying to reverse this trend by changing or improving the implementation of the 1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention. For details, please refer to Annex 7 of this document. Development of amendments to part B of the 2008 IS Code on towing and anchor handling operations (agenda item 10) This is a new work programme item proposed by Norway following the sinking of the “Bourbon Dolphin” while undertaking anchor handling at an offshore rig. The proposal is to develop requirements for tug duties – towing (harbour, inshore and offshore), anchor handling, and vertical lifting (escort duties are excluded) - and to develop associated operational guidance in the form of limiting operational criteria (max lifting forces, weather conditions, limiting curves of heeling moment vs. displacement). For details, please refer to Annex 8 of this document. Consideration of IACS unified interpretations (agenda item 11) IACS presents its interpretations of unclear regulations to the appropriate sub-committees to advise the member delegations of the approach IACS members will take. A submission has been made concerning the use of stayless stanchions for guardrails. For details, please refer to Annex 9 of this document. Development of amendments to the criterion for maximum angle of heel in turns of the 2008 IS Code (agenda item 12) There are some apparent inconsistencies in the criterion for the maximum heel angle in turns for passenger ships contained in the 2008 IS Code. Some amendments to the 2008 IS Code are proposed to address these. For details, please refer to Annex 10 of this document.


3

Development of amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/4 concerning subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 13) It was noted that footnotes to SOLAS do not form part of the authentic text and concerns about this have been raised at MSC, resulting in this new agenda item. Previously the SLF Sub-Committee had agreed that the current footnote to SOLAS II-1/4.1 was required for uniform implementation of the requirements. For details, please refer to Annex 11 of this document. Any other business (Agenda item 16) Any matters which need to be brought to the attention of the sub-committee but do not fit under one of the agenda items will be discussed under this item. Documents have been submitted on the following matters for consideration at this session:

1. Report on casualty onboard “Chicago Express” 2. Ice accretion on timber deck cargoes 3. Technical review of Torremolinos Protocol and Convention

For details, please refer to Annex 12 of this document. Lloyd’s Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the ‘Lloyd’s Register Group’. The Lloyd’s Register Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd’s Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 1 Development of second generation intact stability criteria (agenda item 3)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

4

Annex 1 Development of second generation intact stability criteria (agenda item 3)

Overview

The IMO recognised that the traditional intact stability calculations do not adequately address all intact stability failures. Work has been undertaken in the SLF Sub-Committee to investigate some intact stability phenomena and develop some criteria to identify, at the design stage, which ships are likely to suffer from them and thus reduce the incidence of them. Some criteria have been suggested for all the phenomena being investigated and some validation has been done. This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2014.

Background

Static intact stability standards (based on the properties of the righting lever (GZ) curve) have served the shipping industry well for decades, but it has been recognised that incidents do occur to ships meeting the standards and that there may be hydrodynamic related mechanisms that can lead to stability failure. The IMO has been working for some time now on updating the 2008 Intact Stability Code (2008 IS Code) to include, for the first time, criteria for specific problematic modes of stability failure. These modes are:

• Parametric roll (excessive roll in head seas) • Surf riding/broaching (typically following seas) • Pure loss of stability on a wave crest (ship loses buoyancy because it is effectively stationary on the crest

and the water profile is different from design i.e. level waterline) • Dead ship condition (large roll is possible as stabilising effects of speed are removed) • Excessive accelerations

They have become collectively known as the ‘second generation intact stability criteria’. The IMO has planned a three tier approach to vulnerability assessment for each of these criteria with each level becoming more complex. A design must pass the assessment at one of these levels:

• Level 1: simple calculation (possible by calculator) • Level 2: more involved calculation (may involve spreadsheets or small software program) • Level 3: direct assessment (by sophisticated software)

Ships deemed ‘conventional’ are expected to pass level 1 and most other ships at level 2. A ship complying with the simplest level (level 1) will not have to carry out difficult calculations at levels 2 or 3. Further ‘operator guidance’ is envisaged as a natural output from level 3 assessments. A correspondence group discussed these intersessionally and proposals have been put forward for assessment criteria for the following: Excessive acceleration – Level 1 and level 2 Parametric rolling – Level 1 and level 2 Pure loss of stability in waves – Level 1and level 2 Dead ship stability – Level 1 Some limited verification of the level 1 criteria for two phenomena (parametric roll and excessive acceleration) has been carried out.


5

Lloyd’s Register’s position

Although much work has been done, there is still a lack of usable criteria to determine whether ships are vulnerable to the identified problems or not. Further work should be focused on producing formulae for all criteria which can then be used on existing ships to assess practicality. This topic has the potential to have a large impact on ship design and operation. LR will be involved in the discussions and will provide feedback on the usability of the proposed criteria where possible.

Advice to Clients

General It is recommended that all clients monitor the discussions at IMO due to the potential for significant impact on ship design and operation. Owners / operators will need to be aware of the additional calculations which may be necessary before a ship leaves port showing compliance with the new regulations for dynamic stability for the ship in the “as loaded” condition. Designers and builders will need to carry out further calculations to confirm compliance with the new criteria. Manufacturers of computer programs which carry out stability calculations will need to ensure that their programs are able to cover these new calculations as well. Flag Administrations and their Recognized Organizations will need to ensure that employees are aware of the need for the new calculations to be done and ensure that suitable training is provided.

Applicability

The application of these criteria is still not decided. It is intended to include them initially in the non-mandatory part (Part B) of the 2008 IS Code to ensure they are workable. A date for the application has not yet been decided.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/3 (Japan) – Report of the intersessional correspondence group on intact stability This paper gives a brief summary of the discussions which have taken place over the past year. Some validation of the various criteria has been carried out to confirm that level 1 criteria are more conservative than level 2, which in turn is more conservative than direct calculation (level 3). Further details are provided in SLF 54/INF.12. SLF 54/3/1 (Chairman of working group) – Report of the working group at SLF 53 (part 2) At the last session of SLF the working group continued its discussions after the formal report to the meeting. This paper advises the outcome of those further discussions. The framework for the development work has been updated and some possible criteria developed for parametric roll and loss of stability in waves. Potential problems with the validation of criteria were discussed and are listed in the paper. SLF 54/3/2 (China) – Proposal for level 2 criteria of parametric rolling and excessive accelerations China has reviewed proposals for parametric roll and excessive accelerations and carried out some simulations for four different ships. The results of their simulations and the effect of wind on intact stability are presented. The paper concludes that a common criteria set could be used for both parametric roll and excessive acceleration assessments. SLF 54/3/3 (United States) – Summary of research into stability failure modes and associated criteria development This paper presents a summary of the phenomena being investigated and the basic causes of loss of stability in those situations. It introduces SLF 54/INF.4 and a report which has been written giving extensive information and reasoning behind the proposals for second generation intact stability criteria.


6

SLF 54/3/4 (China) – Proposal for level 1 criterion of excessive accelerations This paper presents a simple (level 1) criterion for calculating when the acceleration at the navigation bridge level is likely to be excessive. It is based on ship dimensions and the angle of roll and period of roll as currently used for the weather criteria. SLF 54/3/5 (China) – Sample verification and proposal of draft level 1 criteria on parametric roll and pure loss of stability An analysis of twenty-two different ships against the proposed level 1 criteria for parametric roll and pure loss of stability has been undertaken and is reported in this paper. The results suggest that some amendment to the proposed level 1 criteria is needed to make them more realistic. SLF 54/3/6 (Sweden) – Evaluation of Ikeda’s simplified method for prediction of roll damping Sweden has carried out some validation of the proposed level 2 parametric roll criteria. It concludes that some further refinement may be necessary to account for the effect of forward speed. SLF 54/3/7 (Germany) – Improving of understanding of proposed criteria and their acceptability by developing application procedures It has been recognised that the criteria and explanations given for the dynamic stability assessment are not easily understood by those who will have to use it. This paper proposes a common format for the procedures which will enable those who currently do not understand the application process to do so. SLF 54/3/8 (SYBAss) – Level 1 assessment of parametric roll – direct calculation of GM variation in regular waves This paper examines three large yachts with fine hull forms and compares the results of the proposed formula to the results of some direct calculations of the change in GM as a wave passes along the length of a ship. It concludes that the proposed formula is overly conservative for fine hull forms and suggests that it is amended for these ship types. SLF 54/INF.4 (United States) – Research into stability failure modes and associated criteria development This paper provides further detail on the information presented in SLF 54/3/3 and advises the location of a comprehensive report on the second generation intact stability criteria. SLF 54/INF.4/Corr.1 (United States) – Research into stability failure modes and associated criteria development This paper provides a correction to the web page given in SLF 54/INF.4 for the location of the comprehensive report carried out by the United States. SLF 54/INF.6 (Germany) – Theoretical investigation into the loss of containers of the Pacific Adventurer off Cape Morton Queensland The container ship “Pacific Adventurer” lost some containers off the coast of Queensland, Australia. This paper presents a report which investigated the incident and looks into the theoretical background to the loss of containers. The paper concludes that it is incorrect to isolate the dynamic stability phenomena and that care needs to be taken with the correction for free surfaces. SLF 54/INF.7 (Germany) – A background study on seakeeping behaviour of container vessels in ballast condition This paper presents the results of research into the high accelerations and extreme roll angles experienced by container ships when sailing in ballast conditions or conditions which are close to ballast conditions. It concludes that low speed and high GM are causes and the loss of stability in these situations cannot be easily predicted by ship’s crew. SLF 54/INF.9 (Germany) – A background study on application of MSC.1/Circ.1228 on the revised guidance to the master for avoiding dangerous situations in adverse weather and sea conditions An analysis has been made of 12 different accidents, both real ships and model tests, to see whether following the current IMO guidelines (MSC.1/Circ.1228 and the previous MSC/Circ.707) would have meant that the accidents did not happen. The studies conclude that even if the guidelines had been followed, the accidents


7

would still have occurred. It further concludes that the existing guidance is inadequate and could lead to dangerous situations developing. SLF 54/INF.10 (Germany) – Further background information on the proposal by Germany with regard to the new generation intact stability criteria This paper presents the formal investigation report into the fatal accident on board “CMV CCNI Guayas”, it also includes an analysis of the accident on the “CMV Frisia Lissabon”. It concludes that excessive stability led to very high accelerations on the bridge. SLF 54/INF.12 (Japan) – Information collected by the intersessional correspondence group on intact stability This paper provides the detail of proposals for methodologies, criteria, validation and other research which has been carried out since the last SLF which is summarised in SLF 54/INF.13 and SLF 54/3. SLF 54/INF.13 (Japan) – Summary of the methodologies for the second generation stability criteria available Japan has summarised the different methods, and where applicable the papers where they may be found, which are currently being debated for use to develop one of the second generation stability criteria. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 2 Development of guidelines on safe return to port for passenger ships (agenda item 4)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

8

Annex 2 Development of guidelines on safe return to port for passenger ships (agenda item 4)

Overview

It was agreed by the MSC that the long standing agenda item “Survivability of passenger ships in damage condition” should be changed to be “Development of guidelines on safe return to port for passenger ships”. It was recognised some time ago that there was a requirement for passenger ships to remain habitable for a certain time after a casualty to allow for a safe and orderly abandonment should this be necessary. The “safe return to port” requirements (SOLAS II-1/8-1, II-2/21, II-2/22 and II-2/23) introduced requirements to enable passenger ships of 120 metres or more or which have 3 or more main vertical fire zones to return to port under their own power or under tow. Those contained in SOLAS II-1/8-1 are currently in the process of being amended to require the provision of certain stability information by computer. There has been some suggestion that there is insufficient guidance on what the computer should be able to do. This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2013.

Background

The changes to regulation II-1/8-1 proposed by SLF 53 (January 2011) were approved by MSC 89 (May 2011) and are expected to be adopted at MSC 90 (May 2012). It is expected that they will come into effect from 1 July 2014. These changes will require the provision of a computer either on board or ashore which can calculate stability after damage to any selection of compartments. Guidelines on the information which is to be provided has been given in MSC.1/Circ.1400 “Guidelines on operational information for Masters of passenger ships for safe return to port by own power or under tow”. Concern has been raised that existing guidance on the functionality of the computer programs is inadequate, and that further guidance is needed for these specific computers. There has also been continuing research into the ability of computational fluid dynamics programmes to accurately model flooding. Reports of this research and of research into the effectiveness of non-watertight doors in delaying flooding will be presented. This is needed as SOLAS regulation II-2/22.3.2 requires the fire main, internal communications, external communications, bilge systems for the removal of fire-fighting water, lighting along escape routes etc. and guidance systems for evacuation, to remain operational for at least 3 hours after a fire incident. There is a related MSC paper, MSC 89/9/4 which raises concerns with the guidance presently given for computers on board ships. It is thought that the guidance does not adequately cover computers which will have to calculate the stability after a damage.


LR will monitor developments in both areas.

Advice to Clients

General All clients with interests in passenger ships to which the safe return to port requirements are applicable are advised to be aware of the developments.

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 2 Development of guidelines on safe return to port for passenger ships (agenda item 4)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

9

Owners / operators of affected passenger ships will have to consider training for crew where an onboard system is chosen. Any standards which are developed will help to ensure that systems meet a minimum standard. Designers and builders should already be considering the impact of the safe return to port requirements and the need to provide computers. Manufacturers of computer systems should monitor developments and be prepared for any standards which are developed. Flag Administrations and their Recognized Organizations are encouraged to follow developments and start to make any preparations they can, e.g. decide what would be acceptable in a computer system, how computer systems will be approved, whether certification will be required, whether regular confirmation of usability and accuracy is required (e.g. annual survey).

Applicability

The safe return to port requirements apply to passenger ships with a length of 120 metres or more or having three or more main vertical fire zones. Certain systems are required to remain operational for at least 3 hours after a fire incident (SOLAS II-2/22.3.2).

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/4 (Finland) – An analysis of the recommendation on a standard method for evaluation of cross-flooding arrangements as presented in resolution MSC.245(83) The EU project FLOODSTAND included some work on cross flooding ducts and the results of some analysis on the current IMO recommendation (resolution MSC.245(83)) has been carried out. This paper presents a summary of the analysis and proposes some amendments to resolution MSC.245(83). SLF 54/4/1 (IACS) – Comments on document MSC 89/9/4 Paper MSC 89/9/4 was discussed at MSC 89 (May 2011). Since then IACS has considered the paper in detail and has made some comments on the suggestions proposed. SLF 54/4/2 (Japan) – Verification of the validity of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tool and its applicability to a standard evaluation method for cross-flooding arrangements in resolution MSC.245(83) The Japanese have conducted further investigations into the use of CFD to evaluate cross-flooding arrangements and have compared their results with those published by FLOODSTAND and NMRI. All the results using CFD gave good correlation to model test results, but did not reflect those contained in the resolution. It is concluded that the regression formulae in the resolution may need to be changed. SLF 54/INF.8/Rev.1 (Finland) – Modelling of leaking and collapsing of closed non-watertight doors This paper presents the results of part of the FLOODSTAND project which investigated the leakage and collapse of non-watertight doors. Full scale and Finite Element Methods were used. The paper notes that due to the limited number of tests the results should be used with caution. SLF 54/INF.14 (Japan) – Detailed features of the CFD tool This paper gives detailed information about the features of the CFD tool which was used to provide the information contained in SLF 54/4/2. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 3 Development of guidelines for verification of damage stability requirements for tankers (agenda item 5)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

10

Annex 3 Development of guidelines for verification of damage stability requirements for tankers (agenda item 5)

Overview

Concern has been expressed about the ability of tankers to provide evidence that they comply with damage stability requirements for any specific loading condition, particularly one which is not given in the approved stability book. Design and operational guidance is to be developed to indicate how compliance should be demonstrated. This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2012.

Background

There are requirements in SOLAS, MARPOL, IBC Code and IGC Code for damage stability to be assessed on tankers and bulk carriers. At its last session the SLF sub-committee decided to develop separate guidelines for the verification of damage stability on tankers from that for bulk carriers and create two separate agenda items. A correspondence group has been working intersessionally to develop some draft guidelines for tankers. The proposed text is separated into design and operational guidance. Two alternative texts are proposed for the operational guidance and the sub-committee will be requested to decide which is preferred. A suggestion on permissible variation from an approved loading condition has been put forward which will introduce some flexibility in loading patterns based on approved loading conditions. Some amendments to Load Line, MARPOL, IBC and IGC are proposed to remove some ambiguities from the text.


The proposed amendments to Load Line, MARPOL, IBC and IGC are considered helpful. Any agreed acceptable variation to approved loading conditions should be carefully considered. Where stability is on the limit it is not possible to predict what effect changes to the condition will have. Arbitrary limits could result in unsafe loading conditions. Any guidance developed should be clear and unambiguous about the options and actions required to achieve an approval.

Advice to Clients

Owners / operators of tankers should note that some discussion is expected on the possibility of mandating the carriage of Type 2 stability programs for new and existing ships. Owners should be aware of this and be prepared to supply a stability program if required. The requirements for documenting compliance with damage stability will need to be included in shipboard procedures and any necessary training should be provided. Designers and builders will need to ensure that calculations for determining the acceptable variation from approved loading conditions contained in the stability manual are done. This will increase the time needed

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 3 Development of guidelines for verification of damage stability requirements for tankers (agenda item 5)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

11

for the creation of stability books. Some builders will need to adjust the format of stability books to ensure that all the information required is provided. Where stability programs are provided and their use has been approved then the necessary advice will need to be included in the approved stability book. Flag Administrations and their Recognized Organizations will note that the draft guidelines are comprehensive. They will need to be discussed and explained to staff undertaking approval of stability and those confirming compliance with damage stability requirements in port before departure.

Applicability

The draft guidelines are applicable to new and existing tankers. The date of application is still to be determined.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/5 (United Kingdom) – Report of the correspondence group This paper identifies some existing ambiguities between the damage requirements and proposes some changes to the relevant texts (Load Line, MARPOL, IBC Code, IGC Code) to remove them. Some draft guidelines for verification of damage stability requirements for tankers covering both design and operational aspects are also presented together with a method to determine the allowable deviation from an approved loading condition. SLF 54/5/1 (China) – Comments on damage stability verification for tankers with assigned tropical freeboard This paper requests clarification as to why IACS requires damage stability verification at the tropical freeboard given that the SOLAS and Load Line conventions only require assessment at the summer load waterline. SLF 54/5/2 (China) – Proposal on loading in accordance with an approved loading condition This paper presents an analysis of 7 different ships when various parameters for loading were varied. It proposes some possible criteria for permissible variation in loading which would still provide compliance with damage stability. SLF 54/5/3 (Germany) – Comments on the report of the correspondence group This paper gives the German view on some of the conclusions reached by the correspondence group as reported in SLF 54/5. They view a permissible deviation as essential and consider that an interim absolute value should be set while further research is carried out. Limitations on the use of limiting KG/GM curves need to be clear in any Type 2 loading instrument and if different criteria are applicable (e.g. MAPOL and IBC) then the instrument should be able to deal with this. Cross levelling is not permitted by MARPOL and this should be included in the guidance. Finally it is considered that three intermediate stages of flooding are sufficient. SLF 54/5/4 (OCIMF and INTERTANKO) – Comments on document SLF 54/5/2 regarding proposals on loading in accordance with approved loading condition OCIMF and INTERTANKO have concerns with the limited number of ships used in the analysis reported in SLF 54/5/2 which only represent a very small portion of the world fleet. They also question whether the conclusions reached are appropriate. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 4 Revision of the damage stability regulations for ro-ro passenger ships (agenda item 6)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

12

Annex 4 Revision of the damage stability regulations for ro-ro passenger ships (agenda item 6)

Overview

A number of administrations have concerns that the probabilistic damage stability requirements contained in SOLAS do not provide the same level of safety as those which were contained in the older deterministic SOLAS requirements and the Stockholm Agreement. A number of different research projects are currently underway which are still to report. This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2013.

Background

Concerns raised by administrations are focused on the fact that under the probabilistic requirements there is the possibility that a ship will sink under a given damage scenario but that there will be sufficient survivable damage scenarios to mean that compliance is achieved. Preliminary research indicated that ships with long lower holds are particularly susceptible to rapid capsize after damage when water is present on the lower deck forming that hold. The original scope of the work has been expanded to include any other damage stability issues relating particularly to ro-ro passenger ships which may be identified during the research. Five issues have been identified by the correspondence group as requiring further consideration:

− the introduction of a new regulation requiring a minimum freeboard, − whether internal ramps used to subdivide large cargo spaces need to be weathertight or watertight, − improved information to the Master relating to the interaction of trim, GZ and displacement, − definitions of capsize and rapid capsize, and − proposals regarding the further investigation of cases which involve long lower holds which do not

contribute to the attained index. The first two issues will be further discussed by the sub-committee as the correspondence group could not agree on the outcome. The third issue has been transferred to the discussions to be held under agenda item 8 “Revision of SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision and damage stability regulations”, and the last two items will be discussed by the correspondence group once all research work is completed.


LR will be closely monitoring the discussion in the working group which is expected to be established and will contribute as appropriate.

Advice to Clients

General This is still in the very early stages of development. Depending on the conclusions reached by the various research projects and the discussions at the IMO there could be changes to the damage stability requirements for passenger ships. Those with an interest are encouraged to follow developments.

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 4 Revision of the damage stability regulations for ro-ro passenger ships (agenda item 6)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

13

Applicability

Any changes agreed will be applicable to passenger ships and ro-ro passenger ships. Full details of the applicability will be finalised when the work is complete.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/6 (United Kingdom) – Report of the SDS correspondence group This paper gives a brief summary of the current status of the ongoing research projects into ro-ro damage stability. Three of the four projects are likely to propose changes to the SOLAS 2009 requirements for ro-ro passenger ships. Additional issues had been identified but the correspondence group could not agree on the outcome. These matters have been referred back to the sub-committee. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 5 Development of amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 7)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

14

Annex 5 Development of amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 7)

Overview

Concern has been raised at IMO that the current exemptions from complying with the probabilistic damage stability contained in SOLAS chapter II-1, given to vessels complying with deterministic damage stability contained in other IMO instruments (see footnote to SOLAS II-1/4), are no longer valid. In particular the equivalence of resolution MSC.235(82) “Guidelines for the design and construction of offshore supply vessels, 2006” to SOLAS is causing concern. This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2012.

Background

There are worries that the current exemptions from complying with the probabilistic damage stability requirements contained in SOLAS Chapter II-1, as given in the footnote to regulation II-1/4.1, are not providing an equivalent level of safety. The requirements for offshore supply vessels in particular are a major worry. These ships are getting longer and resolution MSC.235(82) has a limited application to ships of less than 100 metres in length. The results of a research project into the stability of offshore supply vessels is presented, together with a proposal to amend MSC.235(82). The proposed change to MSC.235(82) would significantly change the damage stability assessment in offshore supply vessels. It should be noted that the BLG Sub-Committee has an agenda item which is looking at a possible revision to Resolution A.673(16) “Guidelines for the transport and handling of limited amounts of hazardous and noxious liquid substances in bulk on offshore support vessels”. An intersessional correspondence group was unable to come to a consensus on what should be done and this matter will have to be discussed further at this session of SLF. See also agenda item 13 which is to consider the status of the current footnote to regulation II-1/4.1.


LR has followed the discussions concerning the OSVs in the BLG Sub-Committee as well as in SLF and welcomes the results of further studies. LR would support a revision of MSC.235(82) but would wish to see minor damages being investigated in all OSVs.

Advice to Clients

Designers and builders of offshore supply vessels are encouraged to discuss the issue with their respective flag administrations. If the SLF sub-committee agrees to amendments to MSC.235(82) there may be significant additional stability requirements to consider. Flag Administrations and their Recognized Organizations will need to train their stability approval staff in any new requirements which are developed. They will need to be advised of any changes to the footnote to SOLAS regulation II-1/4.1, see also agenda item 13.

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 5 Development of amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 7)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

15

Applicability

The application of amendments has not yet been determined.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/7 (United Kingdom) – Report of the SDS correspondence group This paper presents a summary of the work which was carried out by the SDS correspondence group in relation to the damage stability requirements for offshore support vessels. No consensus could be reached in the correspondence group for a way forward. SLF 54/7/1 (United States) – Proposed revision of Resolution MSC.235(82) to upgrade the damage stability standard for larger offshore supply vessels Resolution MSC.235(82) includes stability standards for offshore supply vessels (OSVs) up to 100 metres in length. OSVs are getting much larger than this and some criteria are required to ensure that appropriate damages are considered for these vessels. There is a proposal to limit the exemption from probabilistic damage calculations to vessels less than 100 metres in length. This paper also introduces SLF 54/INF.2. SLF 54/INF.2 (United States) – Study regarding the equivalency of the offshore supply vessel damage stability standard in resolution MSC.235(82) to the dry cargo ship standard in SOLAS chapter II-1. This paper presents the findings of a study into the probabilistic damage stability results for 20 OSVs, where the damage stability already met the requirements of MSC.235(82). The attained index at the lightest, partial and deepest draughts are shown, together with subdivision arrangement plans and other basic data for the vessels studied. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 6 Revision of SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision and damage stability regulations (agenda item 8)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

16

Annex 6 Revision of SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision and damage stability regulations (agenda item 8)

Overview

During the course of the rewrite of the current SOLAS chapter II-1 (resolutions MSC.194(80) and MSC.216(82)) areas which require further improvement were identified. A lot of further investigation into the identified issues has been undertaken and is still in progress which may lead to further changes to SOLAS chapter II-1. A number of changes have already been agreed and further discussion on outstanding issues is expected. This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2012.

Background

Experience in the use of the “new” SOLAS chapter II-1, which came into effect on 1 January 2009, (resolutions MSC.194(80) and MSC.216(82)), has identified a number of areas where improvements could be made either to the text of SOLAS or to the associated explanatory notes (resolution MSC.281(85)). The SLF sub-committee has been discussing possible amendments for a number of years and at its last session agreed to a number of changes. Further discussions have been taking place in a correspondence group with the aim of preparing some text for agreement at this session of SLF. Outstanding or additional issues that have been identified as requiring further detailed discussion include definition of small cargo vessels, the applicability of Parts B-1 to B-4 to ship types currently excluded by the footnote to regulation II-1/4.1, the use of additional trims for the calculation on the light service draught, double bottom damages in smaller ships and a possible consistency issue with the location of controls for watertight doors. There is a recommendation that the target completion date for this work and that under agenda item 7 is aligned with the work being done under agenda items 6 and 13, i.e. changed to 2013.


LR has followed the work in the correspondence group and at previous sessions of SLF. Some further work needs to be done to understand grounding in ships less than 80 metres in length to ascertain the typical extent of damage. LR does not support the reduction of the requirement to s=0.5 for these cases as this reduces the chances of survival to an unacceptable level. Before the requirement for smaller ships to have s=1 for damages forward of the collision bulkhead is introduced, further damage statistics relevant to these ships should be investigated to find evidence that small cargo ships have not survived these damages in the past. LR will continue to contribute to this work where practical.

Advice to Clients

General All clients are encouraged to review the work. Some of the proposed changes could have a significant impact on ship design. Builders of smaller ships (less than 80 metres) may need to review the provision of a double bottom. Other changes such as the use of different trims on the light service draught, the use of L in regulations other than regulation 7 and the s=1 requirement for damages forward of the collision bulkhead for all SOLAS ships will to some extent affect the damage stability calculations especially for smaller cargo ships.


17

Flag administrations and their recognised organisations will need to ensure that staff verifying compliance with the requirements are aware of the changes.

Applicability

At this stage of the discussion it is not possible to determine the application date of any amendments. Any agreed changes will be applicable to all new ships subject to SOLAS.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/8 (Chairman of the working group) - Report of the working group at SLF 53 (part 2) The SDS WG established at SLF 53 continued working after their formal report had been written. This paper reports on that work. It contains some further agreed amendments to SOLAS and some questions which were addressed by the correspondence group. SLF 54/8/1 (United Kingdom) – Report of the SDS Correspondence Group This paper provides a summary of the discussions which have taken place intersessionally about the amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1. One of the annexes presents the whole of chapter II-1 together with the relevant explanatory notes and the discussion that has taken place. A further annex presents a summary table of the regulations with an indication of whether agreement has been reached or if further discussion is needed. SLF 54/8/2 (IACS) – IACS Unified Interpretations relevant to the work being undertaken by the Sub-Committee on the revision of SOLAS chapter II-1 Subdivision and damage stability regulations and the related Explanatory Notes This paper puts forward three IACS UIs (SC 81, SC 93 and SC 220) which are relevant to the work being carried out on the revision of SOLAS chapter II-1. SLF 54/8/3 (Republic of Korea) – Proposals for revision of regulation II-1/9.8 for cargo ships of less than 80 m in length This paper advises the sub-committee of the results of an investigation into bottom damages on smaller cargo ships. It concludes that changes to SOLAS are needed to ensure that regulation II-1/9.8 can be sensibly applied to ships less than 80 m in length. SLF 54/8/4 (Japan) – Concepts of probabilistic bottom damage stability requirements based on goal-based and risk-based approach This paper introduces a goal and risk based approach to bottom damage requirements. It introduces two INF papers (SLF 54/INF.15 and SLF 54/INF.16) which provide background information on their proposals. The final proposal is to develop some further probabilistic requirements for cargo ships which may be used as an alternative to SOLAS II-1/9.8. SLF 54/8/5 (United States) – Comments on the report of the SDS correspondence group This paper explains some reservations with the proposals in the SDS correspondence group report covering SOLAS II-1/4.1. Alternative text for SOLAS II-1/4 is proposed in an annex to the paper. SLF 54/8/6 (Germany) – Comments on the report of the SDS correspondence group – proposal on a further way to structure the deliberations This paper suggests that the matters which the correspondence group has agreed should be accepted. Also that where there was a majority in favour of an option in the correspondence group then that option should be accepted. It also puts forward the German view on a number of the outstanding items. The paper also includes a proposal for prioritising some of the outstanding matters. SLF 54/INF.15 (Japan) – Examination of statistics regarding grounding accidents causing bottom damage This paper analyses accidents which have been recorded by various Japanese authorities between January 1989 and December 2010. The majority of bottom damages resulted in the ship being beached.


18

SLF 54/INF.16 (Japan) – Detailed analysis of factor Z This paper details how the proposed factor Z used in the suggested probability calculation for grounding (paper SLF 54/8/4) is calculated. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 7 Development of provisions to ensure the integrity and uniform implementation of the 1969 TM Convention (agenda item 9)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

19

Annex 7 Development of provisions to ensure the integrity and uniform implementation of the 1969 TM Convention (agenda item 9)

Overview

There has been pressure on designers to reduce the gross tonnage of ships as a lot of port fees are based it. This has led to a reduction in crew space and a lack of berths for trainees on ships. The SLF sub-committee has looked at various ways of trying to reverse this trend by changing or improving the implementation of the 1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention. This item is expected to be discussed in plenary. The target completion date for this item is 2014.

Background

The tendency of various bodies to base their fees on gross tonnage has lead to a desire to reduce the overall enclosed space on a ship. The effect has seen pressure to reduce crew numbers and crew accommodation which has a consequence of reducing the space available for berths for trainees and a subsequent impact on manning levels. The lack of training berths may mean that onboard training may not be undertaken which introduces concerns about the competency of newly assigned crew. There is also pressure to store safety equipment in open spaces which do not contribute to the gross tonnage or to reduce the quantity of safety related equipment which requires storage in an enclosed space. The 1969 International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (TMC) does not have tacit acceptance procedures, i.e. an amendment automatically enters into force after adoption. This makes any changes to the regulations very difficult to achieve. There is a circular, TM.5/Circ.5, on “Interpretations of the provisions of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of Ships, 1969” which sets out some agreed interpretations. Given the difficulties in changing the TMC it has been agreed that the best way to ensure consistency in the application of the regulations is to review TM.5/Circ.5 and update it to cover issues which have arisen since it was produced. 27 issues which require addressing were identified and agreed at the last session of SLF and further concerns about crew space and another proposal for a new reduced gross tonnage were raised when the matter was discussed at MSC 89 (May 2011). The papers submitted to this session include some suggested solutions to the identified issues, and a proposed method of work to ensure that the target completion date is met. A request to widen the scope of the review is also put forward. Related MSC paper MSC 89/9/5 proposes a reduced gross tonnage which removes the volume of the crew accommodation. MSC 89/9/8 supports the proposal.


LR supports the development of further guidance on the application of the TMC. LR has concerns about introducing new tonnage calculations, the problem is not with the gross tonnage calculation (which is a workable measure of the total size of the ship) it is with the use of it to calculate fees. Unless all concerned with setting fees agree to use the “new” reduced gross tonnage there will be no benefit seen with crew spaces increasing in size.


20

Changes to the tonnage convention itself are firstly difficult to take legal effect (entry into force) and secondly may have unintended consequences if they are made retrospective. For example a ship which is currently just over 500 gt could become just under with new tonnage calculations and would no longer have to comply with SOLAS. This would be a reduction in safety for smaller ships.

Advice to Clients

General All clients are encouraged to follow the discussions and provide input to their Administration or industry body. The measurement of tonnage affects all ships and changes in the way it is measured can have a significant impact on design. Flag administrations and recognised organisations should be aware of the length of time that was required before the 1969 TMC became universally used. Not applying new requirements to existing ships can lead to confusion with different ships measured to different requirements.

Applicability

Once agreed the interpretations will be applicable to all ships. At this stage it is not possible to give a specific date for the application or to indicate whether they will apply only to new ships or to all ships which are remeasured.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/9 (IACS) – Proposals for solutions to the issues previously identified with the 1969 TM Convention IACS has reviewed the list of issues identified by the SLF sub-committee and listed in SLF 53/5 as needing addressing and proposes some solutions. SLF 54/9/1 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Norway, Panama and the United States) – Proposed Plan of Action The authors of this paper put forward a method for meeting the deadline (2014) for concluding the work on this agenda item. A correspondence group is proposed to prepare some draft text during 2012, reporting to SLF in 2013. A working group at the next SLF meeting (2013) is envisaged to finalise the text and circulate it to the DE and STW sub-committees before final approval by SLF in 2014. SLF 54/9/2 (Italy) – Proposals for solutions to the issues previously identified with the 1969 TM Convention This paper comments on SLF 54/9, and while agreeing with many of the proposals in that paper suggests some alternatives for items relating to the exclusion of recesses and the treatment of complex shapes. SLF 54/9/3 (IACS) – Comments on document MSC 89/9/5 IACS has concerns that the alternative gross tonnage proposed in MSC 89/9/5 will not provide the benefits which are looked for unless there is widespread use of it to calculate fees etc. SLF 54/9/4 (ITF) – Review of the 1969 Tonnage Measurement convention, including crew well-being considerations The ITF highlight the connection between fees charged and the gross tonnage, but go on to suggest that the review be open, include a comprehensive impact analysis of article 18, investigate the feasibility of introducing tacit acceptance procedures, and include the human element. SLF 54/9/5 (Japan and Korea) – Unified interpretation on calculating volumes of spaces open to the sea This paper proposes that if spaces “open to the sea” contain cargo or are used to provide buoyancy then they should be included in both the gross and net tonnage.


21

SLF 54/INF.11 (United States) – Alterations or modifications affecting tonnage – Comparison of requirements and interpretations A background to the discussions which went into the development of the various requirements concerning alterations which affect the tonnage is presented in this paper. It also shows the effect of changing the gross tonnage by unity, 1%, 5% and 10% for four different ships and the corresponding amount by which the cargo carrying capacity would be increased. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 8 Development of amendments to part B of the 2008 IS Code on towing and anchor handling operations (agenda item 10)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

22

Annex 8 Development of amendments to part B of the 2008 IS Code on towing and anchor handling operations (agenda item 10)

Overview

This is a new work programme item proposed by Norway following the sinking of the “Bourbon Dolphin” while undertaking anchor handling at an offshore rig. The proposal is to develop requirements for tug duties – towing (harbour, inshore and offshore), anchor handling, and vertical lifting (escort duties are excluded) - and to develop associated operational guidance in the form of limiting operational criteria (maximum lifting forces, weather conditions, limiting curves of heeling moment vs. displacement). This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2014.

Background

The “Bourbon Dolphin” was laying an anchor for an offshore rig when she experienced an unexpected load and sank with loss of life. As a result the IMO has agreed that new intact stability criteria for tugs should be developed together with operational criteria to try and minimise incidents which occur due to anchor handling and towing duties. Part B of the 2008 Intact Stability Code will be amended. This is the non-mandatory part of the code so it will be up to individual flag Administrations to decide whether to require compliance for relevant ships or not. Some suggested texts have been developed, with supporting background information. Alternative criteria which are currently used in one country have also been provided. Related MSC paper, MSC 88/23/2, gives background information on the accident and the reasons for the new agenda item.


LR supports the development of criteria to cover these duties.

Advice to Clients

Owners / operators of vessels which undertake towing or anchor handling or vertical lifting duties will have a standard against which to assess their vessels. As the requirements are to be in the non-mandatory part of the 2008 IS Code it will depend on flag requirements as to whether they are required to be met or will be an optional extra. Owners may wish to consider their obligations under the ISM Code to develop, implement and maintain instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation of ships and protection of the environment. Designers and builders will need to consider the additional information which will be needed in the stability book. Some design changes may be necessary if early calculations indicate that the ship will not comply with the criteria. Manufacturers/developers of stability calculation instruments/programs will need to ensure that their software is capable of carrying out the necessary calculations where applicable.

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 8 Development of amendments to part B of the 2008 IS Code on towing and anchor handling operations (agenda item 10)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

23

Flag Administrations and their Recognized Organizations will need to ensure that those undertaking the assessment of stability information are trained in the new requirements. Flags which have developed their own criteria are encouraged to submit the information to the IMO so all views can be taken into account when developing the new criteria.

Applicability

The criteria will be applicable to new ships of 24 m in length or above engaged in the towing of other vessels (tugs etc.), or anchor handling, or vertical lift duties from a date to be decided. It is expected that operational information will be applicable to all ships, new and existing.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/10 (Norway) – Amendments to the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code) Norway is proposing amendments to Part B of the 2008 IS Code to introduce requirements for design criteria and operational information to be provided to ships engaged in towing, anchor handling or vertical lift duties. SLF 54/INF.5 (Norway) – Amendments to the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code) In this paper Norway provides the background information which forms the basis on their proposals in SLF 54/10. SLF 54/INF.17 (Finland) – Intact stability criteria for tugboats This paper presents the regulations for tugboats with one propeller and one rudder and no bow thrusters which are flagged with Finland. It also gives some brief details of an accident involving a conventional tug boat which supports the use of the formulae given in this paper. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 9 Consideration of IACS unified interpretations (agenda item 11)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

24

Annex 9 Consideration of IACS unified interpretations (agenda item 11)

Overview

IACS presents its interpretations of unclear regulations to the appropriate sub-committees to advise the member delegations of the approach IACS members will take. IACS develops unified interpretations on any subject where it is considered that clarification is needed. Agreement is reached within IACS members by consensus. This item is expected to be discussed in plenary. This is a continuous agenda item.

Background

Since the last session of SLF, IACS has discussed and developed one unified interpretation on a matter which is of relevance to the SLF sub-committee. Guard rail stanchions In some locations it is impractical or potentially dangerous to include stays on guard rail stanchions, e.g. where they will form a trip hazard. In order to ensure that stanchions in these locations are still providing the required support, IACS has amended its unified interpretation on guard rail stanchions (UI LL 47) to cover stayless stanchions.


LR participates in all the discussions in IACS and implements the unified interpretations.

Advice to Clients

General All clients should be aware that LR will implement agreed IACS unified interpretations unless instructed otherwise by flag administrations. There should be little impact if SLF decides to make these IMO interpretations.

Applicability

UI LL47 has been used by IACS members on ships contracted for construction on or after 1 April 2007 where proposals have been made for stayless stanchions.

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/11 (IACS) – Guard rails (regulations 25(2) and (3) of the 1966 Load Line Convention and the 1988 Load Line Protocol, as amended in 2003) (IACS UI LL 47) IACS has reviewed UI LL 47 in light of the possibility of trip hazards being caused by stays fitted to guard rail stanchions. This paper puts forward a proposal for stayless stanchion arrangements. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 10 Development of amendments to the criterion for maximum angle of heel in turns of the 2008 IS Code (agenda item 12)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

25

Annex 10 Development of amendments to the criterion for maximum angle of heel in turns of the 2008 IS Code (agenda item 12)

Overview

There are some apparent inconsistencies in the criterion for the maximum heel angle in turns for passenger ships contained in the 2008 IS Code. Some amendments to the 2008 IS Code are proposed to address these. This item is expected to be discussed in plenary. The target completion date for this item is 2013.

Background

At its last session the SLF sub-committee was advised of some potential shortcomings in the criterion for maximum angle of heel in turns for passenger ships given in the 2008 IS Code. This work item has been agreed to address the identified issues. The major problem identified is that the current formula assumes a diameter of turn equal to 10 ship lengths. This is inconsistent with the standards for ship manoeuvrability contained in resolution MSC.137(76), which recommends 5 ship lengths as a maximum. Related MSC paper, MSC 89/22/7, provides the justification for this new agenda item.


LR supports a review of the formula. There are concerns about forcing a limitation on the steering system as the master should remain in control of the ship at all times. It is considered that advice to the master about the heel expected when turning should be adequate. It is recommended that stabiliser devices should be considered as not operational when making the assessment as this would give a worst case result. Additionally it should be noted that stabilising devices reduce heel by slowing the rate of turn rather than by actively counteracting the heel.

Advice to Clients

Designers and builders of passenger ships should be aware of the discussions and review the proposed amendments to assess the potential impact on their ships. Manufacturers of programs which calculate intact stability for passenger ships should be aware that the formula is likely to be changed. Flag Administrations and their Recognized Organizations need to be aware of the discussions and that a change is likely.

Applicability

If agreed the application of the amendment will be to passenger ships constructed on or after a date still to be determined.

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 10 Development of amendments to the criterion for maximum angle of heel in turns of the 2008 IS Code (agenda item 12)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

26

Documents Submitted

SLF 54/12 (RINA) – Proposed amendment to the 2008 IS Code The criterion for the angle of heel in turns in the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), takes no account of the vessels' turning ability, and assumes a turning diameter that is double that recommended by the adopted Standards For Ship Manoeuvrability. In addition, the formula required to be employed is not valid for some hull types, and also this criterion conflicts with the requirements of the 2000 HSC Code. Furthermore, the present criterion guarantees no minimum stability margin in full-helm turns. To address these issues, a proposed amendment to the 2008 IS Code is put forward. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 11 Development of amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/4 concerning subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 13)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

27

Annex 11 Development of amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/4 concerning subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 13)

Overview

It was noted that footnotes to SOLAS do not form part of the authentic text and concerns about this would be raised at MSC, resulting in this new agenda item. Despite this fact the SLF Sub-Committee agreed that the current footnote to SOLAS II-1/4.1 was required for uniform implementation of the requirements. This item is expected to be discussed in a working group. The target completion date for this item is 2013.

Background

During the discussions at SLF under the agenda item “Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision standards for cargo ships” the fact that the footnote to SOLAS regulation II-1/4 does not form part of the authentic text of the Convention was highlighted. The current footnote is required to ensure consistency in the application of the SOLAS regulations. It permits ships which have to comply with some other damage stability regulations to be excluded from conducting damage stability investigations in accordance with SOLAS. The text of the footnote currently reads: Cargo ships shown to comply with the following regulations may be excluded from the application of part B-1: Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, except combination carriers (as defined in regulation II-2/3.14) with type B freeboards are not excluded; International Bulk Chemical code; International Gas Carrier code; Guidelines for the design and construction of offshore supply vessels (resolution A.469(XII)); Code of Safety for Special Purpose Ships (resolution A.534(13), as amended); Damage stability requirements of regulation 27 of the 1966 Load Lines Convention as applied in compliance with resolutions A.320(IX) and A.514(13), provided that in the case of cargo ships to which regulation 27(9) applies, main transverse watertight bulkheads, to be considered effective, are spaced according to paragraph (12)(f) of resolution A.320(IX), except ships intended for the carriage of deck cargo; and Damage stability requirements of regulation 27 of the 1988 Load Line Protocol, except ships intended for the carriage of deck cargo. If the current footnote is made part of the authentic text, then any changes will be required to follow the procedure for SOLAS amendments (approval at one MSC, adoption at the next and entry into force 18 months later). This can take a considerable time. However, as a footnote the text does not have the same status as the text and can be ignored if an Administration wishes to. This means that the regulation is open to interpretation and could lead to inconsistent application and possible problems particularly at change of flag. Related document MSC 89/22/8 contains some proposed amended text for SOLAS II-1/4 which moves the current footnote text into the main text of the SOLAS regulation. It has been noted that the reference to resolution A.469(XII) needs to be updated to resolution MSC.235(82).

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 11 Development of amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/4 concerning subdivision standards for cargo ships (agenda item 13)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

28


LR in general applies footnotes unless instructed not to do so by flag administrations.

Advice to Clients

General All clients are encouraged to consider the advantages and disadvantages of making these footnotes part of the authentic text of SOLAS. Flag Administrations are advised to instruct their Recognized Organizations on the applicability of footnotes to SOLAS.

Applicability

SOLAS is applicable to all passenger ships and cargo ships of 500 gt or more.

Documents Submitted

No documents have been submitted under this agenda item, however paper SLF 54/8/5 is relevant. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 12 Any other business (Agenda item 16)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

29

Annex 12 Any other business (Agenda item 16)

Overview

Matters of importance related to subjects usually considered by the sub-committee but which do not have specific agenda items are submitted under this agenda item. The following topics have submissions:

− Report on casualty onboard “Chicago Express” − Ice accretion on timber deck cargoes − Technical review of Torremolinos Protocol and Convention

This agenda item is expected to be discussed in plenary. This is a continuous agenda item.

Background

Matters which are relevant to the SLF sub-committee but do not yet have associated agenda items are discussed under this agenda item. Three matters have been raised at this session of SLF. The serious casualty “Chicago Express” The “Chicago Express” experienced severe rolling while trying to weather a typhoon off a lee shore. There was one fatality, one serious injury and four other injuries. The seriousness of the incident was noted by the FSI sub-committee and the report was referred to the SLF sub-committee as the identified causes include some which are relevant to the work being carried out by this sub-committee. Ice accretion on timber deck cargoes The DSC sub-committee has reviewed the Code for Timber Deck Cargoes and noted during its review that the information for accounting for ice when ships are carrying timber contained in the 2008 Intact Stability Code was not complete. There is a proposal which suggests factors which should be considered in any development of criteria. Review of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol and Torremolinos International Convention After a number of years of intense negotiation there are some hopes that the International Convention for the safety of fishing vessels (Torremolinos Convention) will finally come into effect on an international scale following a diplomatic conference to be held in South Africa during October 2012. It is proposed that after entry into force a full technical review of the Convention will be started to reflect technological advances since it was written.


To monitor the discussions and provide technical advice where possible.

Document Submitted

SLF 54/16 (Secretariat) – Investigation report on the very serious casualty on board the container ship “Chicago Express” The “Chicago Express” experienced severe rolling (up to 44 degrees) which caused one death and one serious injury when crew were thrown across the bridge. The investigation report recommends that dynamic stability modelling, together with limiting criteria are developed.

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview (Annex 12 Any other business (Agenda item 16)) ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

30

SLF 54/16/1 (IACS) – Revision of the code of safe practice for ships carrying timber deck cargoes, 2011: ice accretion on timber deck cargoes The revision of the timber deck cargo code identified that the ice requirements contained in the 2008 IS Code do not specify a weight for the ice on timber deck cargoes. IACS has briefly looked at the issue and identified possible areas which should be considered for inclusion in a formula for calculating the weight of ice. SLF 54/INF.3 (South Africa) – Technical review of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol and Torremolinos International convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977 A proposal will be made to MSC 90 (May 2012) to include a new unplanned output for SLF to review the technical provisions of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol and Torremolinos International convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977. This would be a complete review of the provisions to update them as necessary to take account of developments in technology and construction since the last complete review in 1993. Return to overall summary at start of document

IMO SLF 54 Agenda preview ©Lloyd’s Register 2011

31

External Affairs, Lloyd’s Register T +44 (0)20 7423 2962 F +44 (0)20 7423 1564 E [email protected]

Lloyd's Register EMEA T +44 (0)20 7709 9166 F +44 (0)20 7423 2057 E [email protected]

Lloyd's Register Asia T +852 2287 9333 F +852 2526 2921 E [email protected]

Lloyd's Register Americas, Inc. T +1 281 675 3100 F +1 281 675 3139 E [email protected]

71 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 4BS UK

71 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 4BS UK

Suite 3501 China Merchants Tower Shun Tak Centre 168-200 Connaught Road Central Hong Kong, SAR of PRC

1401 Enclave Parkway Suite 200 Houston Texas, 77077 USA

Lloyd’s Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the ‘Lloyd’s Register Group’. The Lloyd’s Register Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd’s Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.