Panel O-44

Previous revision:   August 17, 2004 (FPSO/FSU; LR version of revised ICLL)
May 6, 2004 (tanker issues; load lines, hatchcovers & contacts updated)
February 21, 2001 (added items from activities)
September 27, 2000 (re-organized pages)

Harmonization of Damage Stability Provisions in SOLAS Chapter II-1

The new harmonized regulations are based on the widely accepted and modern probabilistic cargo ship regulations - SOLAS Chapter II-1, Part B-1. A probabilistic standard aligns the placement of a ship’s subdivision with the probable locations of collision, resulting in improved survivability and optimized construction costs. The U.S. approach to the harmonization effort has been subject to intense technical debates for many years. These debates have resulted in a strong - technically sound U.S. position to require a minimum 2 compartment deterministic survivability standard for high-capacity passenger ships (carrying more than 400 persons). This minimum requirement or "floor" as it has been termed, was proposed and incorporated into the new draft regulations by the Subdivision and Damage Stability (SDS) Working Group at SLF 42 (February 1999).

In support of the SLF harmonization effort, a 3-year European Community funded research project entitled "Harmonization of Rules and Design Rationale" (HARDER) was conducted from 2000 to 2003. The HARDER project systematically investigated the validity, robustness, consistency and impact of harmonized probabilistic damage stability regulations on the survivability of existing ships and on the design of new ship concepts for various types of cargo and passenger ships. The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), in recognizing the significant value of this research, instructed SLF to consider the results from the HARDER project.

At SLF 45 (July 2002), the proposals from the HARDER project regarding the damage distributions and the survival factor "s" were generally agreed to, with minor modifications, as the basis for the formulations of the draft SOLAS Chapter II-1. Sufficient agreement and progress was made to proceed with the critical sample ship calculations for establishing the required subdivision index "R" during the intersessional period prior to SLF 46. The issues of minor damage, watertight integrity, transient flooding, sample ship calculations, double bottom requirements and collision bulkheads were also discussed in the SDS Working Group.

At SLF 46 (September 2003), the sample ship calculation results together with the HARDER project’s final recommendations were reviewed in detail. It was agreed to accept the majority of the HARDER proposals for the damage distribution and survivability formulations, subject to further validation of specific items (the p-factor, SEM / alternate water-on-deck factors, transient and intermediate stages of flooding and equalization, minimum values of "A" at specific draughts, and passenger ship heeling moments). The majority of the S/C was of the opinion that there should be a single required subdivision index "R" for all dry cargo ship types. As this would significantly raise the survivability standard for new ro-ro cargo ships, which was beyond the mandate to maintain an equivalent safety level, the S/C requested further guidance from the MSC on this matter. Regarding the general principles for establishing the required subdivision index for passenger ships, the majority of the S/C agreed that the downward trend of survivability for larger passenger ships as reflected in the current sample ship calculation results was not acceptable. The majority of the S/C believed that the survivability trend should be upwards for larger ships and for ships with greater numbers of passengers. As this did not conform to the mandate to maintain an equivalent safety level as in existing SOLAS, the S/C also requested further guidance from the MSC on this matter. The SDS Intersessional Correspondence Group was re-established, co-chaired by Sweden and the United States, to validate/finalize the damage stability calculation formulas and re-run the sample ship calculations to establish the required subdivision index "R", and to complete the draft revised SOLAS Chapter II-1.

At MSC 78 (May 2004), the Committee confirmed the decisions of the S/C at SLF 46:   all dry cargo ships, regardless of type, should meet the same standard of survivability (even if this means ro-ro ships must meet a higher standard), and the survivability standard for passenger ships should increase with ship size and number of persons onboard (even if this means exceeding the current SOLAS standard). MSC also instructed SLF 47 to complete the harmonization task and finalize the revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 for approval at MSC 79.

At SLF 47 (September 2004), the S/C initially considered the matter of whether there was now a sufficient technical basis to complete the harmonization work. Despite Italy and several other delegations’ preference to defer finalization to allow for further validation work to be carried out (in particular regarding the "p" and "s" factors for large passenger ships), the majority of the S/C were of the opinion that the proposed harmonized regulations represented a technically sound standard and that the revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 should be finalized at this session. The S/C also agreed to a proposal to delete inclusion of the SEM method in the "s" survivability factor because the effects of water on deck were already adequately accounted for in the factor. The SDS Working Group then worked throughout the week to finalize the draft text of the revised SOLAS Chapter II-1. In this regard, the Group considered the damage distributions, probability density functions and "p" factor in draft regulation 7-1. As a result of an alternate proposal from Italy, the Group reviewed the statistical analyses leading to the development of the "p" factor. On the basis of this review, it was generally considered by the majority that the "p" factor in draft regulation 7-1 was as accurate and correct as could be expected from the available collision damage statistics. The "s" factor in draft regulation 7-2 was reviewed and agreed to recognizing that, for consistency with the current regulations, the provisions for intermediate stages of flooding will only apply to passenger ships. The results from the sample ship calculations conducted by the SDS Intersessional Correspondence Group and the methodology used to develop the proposed required subdivision indexes were considered, along with an alternate passenger ship proposal from the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL). For passenger ships the Group agreed to the required subdivision index "R" developed by the Correspondence Group. For cargo ships the Group agreed to the required subdivision index "R" developed by the Correspondence Group, except for small cargo ships less than 100 meters in length where a lower "R" line similar to current Part B-1 was included. Additionally a requirement for a minimum attained subdivision index at each partial draught was agreed to for passenger ships (0.9R) and cargo ships (0.5R) in draft regulation 6. Minimum double bottom requirements based on a modified proposal from Germany and Norway were agreed to. The finalized text of the revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 damage stability regulations was then considered by the S/C, and agreed to for submission to MSC 79 for approval with a view to adoption. Italy reserved its position and indicated their intention to submit an additional proposal to MSC 79 for consideration. (For complete details see the Report from SLF 47)

At MSC 79 (December 2004), the Committee approved the draft revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 damage stability regulations with a view for adoption at MSC 80. Papers submitted to MSC 79 commenting on the proposed harmonized regulations are listed on the Other IMO Matters web page: follow the navigation bar shortcut to the Selected Committee Reports and Papers section; the papers are under MSC 79 agenda item 11 (MSC 79/11/xx, etc).

MSC 79 agreed that a SDS Intersessional working group meeting should be held in London from January 19-21, 2005, with the express purpose to evaluate and fully verify the Italian proposals. The Working Group agreed to a revised Regulation II-1/7-1 as reported in MSC 80/3/5. The revised p-factor formula, which only affected ships over 260 meters in length, was validated by re-calculation of the "A" for effected sample ships. The results were evaluated and the SDS intersessional correspondence group agreed that for both cargo and passenger ships the resulting change in the "R" formula was sufficiently negligible that the "R" formulas agreed to at SLF 47 should be retained (MSC 80/3/11).

At MSC 80 in May 2005, the harmonized SOLAS Chapter II-1 damage stability regulations were adopted. These regulations will enter into force on January 1, 2009.

Visit the SDS Correspondence Group’s website for information.
www.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/sdsiscg/home.html

Contact - Jim Person or Bill Peters

Back to Top

Tanker Issues

U.S. reserves position at IMO on MARPOL Reg 13G amendments - On April 27, 2001, IMO adopted amendments to MARPOL Regulation 13G, which accelerate the phase out schedules of some classes of single hulled tank vessels. The U.S. has officially notified IMO that express approval of the U.S. Government will be necessary before the revised Reg 13G would enter into force for the U.S., because of technical differences between MARPOL and OPA 90. (Federal Register of February 19, 2002) The U.S. reserved its position in the same manner on the original MARPOL Regs 13F and 13G on July 21, 1993.

Contacts - Jim Person or Paul Cojeen

IMO activity related to protection of tanker pump-rooms and access to shore-based computer programs for salvage operations - The United Kingdom has submitted a paper (MEPC 47/18/1) to the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) proposing a new item for the work program of the Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) Sub-Committee. Their proposal is to add the following 2 requirements, related to damaged tanker salvage operations, to MARPOL Annex I:

• That oil tankers be provided with a double bottom in way of the cargo pump room to enable lightering operations to be undertaken in the event of bottom damage to the pump room area.
• That all oil tankers of 5000 DWT or more have prompt access to computerized, shore-based damage stability and residual structural strength calculation programs.

In response, INTERTANKO has submitted a paper (MEPC 47/18/3) that comments on the UK paper. Their paper discusses consequences and ramifications of requiring a double bottom in tanker pump rooms.

MEPC 47, held from March 4-8, 2002, considered these papers and took the following action:

• The Committee, in considering the proposal by the United Kingdom (MEPC 47/18/1) and the comments by INTERTANKO (MEPC 47/18/3), decided it would be more appropriate for the Ship Design and Equipment (DE) Sub-Committee to take the lead on this work.
• The Committee requested DE 45 (meeting from 18 to 22 March 2002) to include this new item of protection of pump rooms and access to shore-based computer programs on its agenda. The Committee also instructed the BLG Sub-Committee to contribute in this work.

DE 45, held from March 18-22, 2002, added the item "Salvage difficulties with damaged tankers in relation to MARPOL Annex I" as a low priority item to its work program (it did not include this item on its provisional agenda for DE 46).

MEPC 48, held from October 7-11, 2002, decided to upgrade this item to high priority and include it on the agenda for DE 46 as "Protection of pump-rooms of tankers and access to shore-based computer programs for salvage operations".

DE 46, held from March 10-19, 2003, discussed this item only briefly and agreed, in view of the target completion date of 2004, to consider it further at DE 47 (scheduled for February 25 - March 5, 2004). INTERTANKO has submitted an additional paper to DE 47 (DE 47/11) that updates their previous comments on this matter.

Following the consideration of DE 47/11 at DE 47, a new regulation (13I) and a relevant amendment to regulation 26 of MARPOL Annex I were proposed and sent to MEPC 51 for consideration. The Committee approved the proposed regulation (13I - applying to oil tankers of 5000 tons deadweight and above constructed on or after January 1, 2007) and amendment (as set out in Annex 9 of MEPC 51/22) with a view towards adoption of same at MEPC 52.

Contacts - Jim Person or Paul Cojeen

SNAME Ad Hoc Panel #6 "Structural Design and Response in Collision and Grounding" - The Ship Structure Committee (SSC) has funded one project of this multi-part panel. Thus far, the SSC portion of this panel will investigate methods designed for modeling structural damage in collision. Of particular interest is the issue to assess and integrate existing simplified collision-damage models and mechanisms to predict probabilistic collision damage extents given a probabilistic description of collision scenarios. The ad hoc panel has been closed.

Those interested in this subject should contact the Panel’s Chair, Professor Alan Brown.

You may visit their website at: http://www.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/crashworthy/charter.html

Copy of the SSC Statement of Work

Contact - SSC Exec Director (wnabach@comdt.uscg.mil)

Marine Board Double Hull Alternatives Study - Final Report released December 2001 - In Section 423 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to coordinate a new study of double hull tanker design alternatives by the Marine Board. The intent of this new study was to establish a double hull equivalency evaluation procedure that maintains a high standard of environmental protection, while encouraging innovative ship design.

The Study's final report, Environmental Performance of Tanker Designs in Collision and Grounding: Method for Comparison (Special Report 259), is now available from the Transportation Research Board or the National Academy Press. The report can also be found on their website at www.nap.edu

Contacts - jperson@comdt.uscg.mil or hcojeen@comdt.uscg.mil

IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) - At BLG 6 (February 2001), a working group continued work on matters related to the probabilistic methodology for accidental oil outflow analysis. The working group completed development of the draft regulation [21] of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, incorporating the following elements:

• Simplify the calculation methodology for oil capture by non-oil compartments;
• Provide an alternative, more rigorous approach for calculating the probabilities of damage;
• Develop a probabilistic outflow criterion for tankers of 5000 DWT and above;
• Not have a probabilistic outflow criterion for tankers under 5000 DWT, but rather rely on existing tank size and length limitations; and
• Require oil/bulk ore carriers (OBOs) to meet the same probabilistic outflow criterion as other oil carriers.

At BLG 7 (June 2002), the working group finalized the new draft regulation 21 on Accidental oil outflow performance (draft reg 21 begins on page 37 of Annex I of BLG 8/4 ). The finalized version includes the following changes:

• a new coefficient for the mean oil outflow for side damage of ships having 2 longitudinal bulkheads inside the cargo tanks; and
• a less restrictive mean oil outflow requirement for oil/bulk ore carriers (OBOs) that incorporates an additional novel allowance for their "structural crashworthiness" aspects.

A correspondence group was re-established, chaired by Germany, to finalize the explanatory notes related to the new draft regulation 21 prior to BLG 8. In addition, the group was tasked to review and finalize the text of the revised Guidelines for the Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and Construction of Oil Tankers under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. The correspondence group report, BLG 8/3, provides these two items.

Contacts - rhennessey@comdt.uscg.mil or jperson@comdt.uscg.mil

Application of IMO requirements to F(P)SOs and FSUs

How MARPOL, SOLAS and Load Line requirements apply to floating production, storage and offloading systems (FPSOs) and floating oil storage units (FSUs) has been an ongoing topic of discussion at IMO. The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is considering this issue for MARPOL requirements and has put this item on the Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) Sub-Committee’s work program. The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) is considering this issue for SOLAS and Load Line requirements.

• BLG Status: At BLG 6 (February 2001), the matter was discussed without any real progress. Australia volunteered to submit a paper to BLG 7 with a proposal on what MARPOL regulations and interpretations should/should not apply to FPSOs and FSUs. This paper (BLG 7/8/1) is available upon request. (Summary from BLG 6/16 Report to MEPC) At BLG 7 (June 2002), a drafting group using BLG 7/8/1 as a base document began drafting Guidelines on Application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs. The task was not completed and a correspondence group was established, chaired by Australia, to finalize the Guidelines and related MEPC circular. (the summary from the BLG 7 Report to MEPC begins on page 31 of BLG 7/15 ) This matter will be further considered at BLG 8 (to be held March 24-28, 2003). The correspondence group report, BLG 8/8, provides the draft MEPC circular (Guidelines on Application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs) and related information.
• MSC Status: At MSC 74 (June 2001), the Committee considered document MSC 74/21/4 (Australia) proposing that the Organization should develop unified international requirements for the design, construction, survey and operation of FPSOs and FSUs. Having noted that BLG is working on the application of MARPOL requirements to FPSOs and FSUs, the Committee agreed to refer the document to BLG 7 for consideration and development of a structured work plan so that MSC 76 can decide on how to proceed with the matter. BLG 7 considered the matter and agreed that, at this time, application of other mandatory IMO instruments to address safety-related issues for FPSOs and FSUs was not necessary. Consequently, BLG 7, having agreed that a structured plan to develop appropriate safety guidelines for FPSOs and FSUs, as requested by MSC 74, was no longer necessary, invited the MSC to consider this advice and take action as appropriate. At MSC 76 (December 2-13, 2002), the Committee noted BLG’s view and decided to take no further action on safety-related issues for FPSOs and FSUs, taking into account the views expressed in plenary that the existing safety regime was adequate.
• The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) has submitted an information paper, BLG 7/INF.8, providing a compilation of FPSOs and FSUs currently deployed in the offshore oil sector worldwide. This listing provides information on unit type, build, coastal state, storage capacity, flag state, class society, propulsion, mooring, regulatory scheme, etc.

This issue was finalized through the publication of MEPC circ./406. This document is available at: http://www.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/msccircs.html

Contacts - Jim Person

Back to Top

Ballast Water Management

An issue of considerable environmental and political interest over the last few years, ballast water management has now developed into more of a "compliance-oriented" arena. Following IMO action that noted a ballast exchange at sea could be conducted safely, the Coast Guard Naval Architecture Division commissioned a study to determine if various sized PANAMAX containerships can safely conduct an at-sea ballast water exchange (BWE). The study showed that both stability and strength are a concern during BWE evolutions but that both are manageable through proper evaluation and timing of the BWE sequence. The results indicate that the three PANAMAX containerships analyzed can safely perform an at-sea BWE with only a small impact on ship operations. However, it may be necessary to develop a specific ballast exchange sequence for the actual cargo and consumables loadout. This could be accomplished with an onboard stability and loading computer during normal cargo operations while the ship is in port. This study was submitted to the IMO's SLF 42 as an information paper.

Because of its size, the report has been divided into two pdf-formatted sections - the Main section which contains the results/conclusions and also the Appendices which contains the ship specific information and the analysis output data. (The appendix is 421 Kb and may take 5 to 8 minutes to download.)

Since the report's submittal, the U.S. has significantly upgrdaded its ballast water management program including significant regulatory action. For more information, contact the Coast Guard, Environmental Standards Division.

Fishing Vessel Safety - Training and Education

There are numerous Coast Guard initiatives being undertaken to educate commercial fishermen and U. S. Coast Guard fishing vessel safety program administrators in prevention of stability related casualties. Examples include the development and use of the USCG Small Fishing Vessel Training Suite:

• Small Fishing Vessel Stability Trainer
• Small Fishing Vessel Damage Stability Trainer
• Small Vessel Damage Control Trainer

These trainers are specifically designed for interaction with an audience. Participants can learn and relearn hole plugging and patching techniques, sound stability practices, and the importance of watertight integrity and subdivision. Trainers have been provided to all U.S. Coast Guard Districts for local training programs.

USCG Contacts (updated December 2005):
Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Program Manager: mrosecrans@comdt.uscg.mil

Back to Top

High Speed Ferries

The Maritime Safety Committee agreed to the final amendments to the 2000 HSC Code. The Committee considered amendments in details of bottom raking damage and Load Line matters. In bottom raking damage, the sub-committee agreed to the 35%L for vessels over 50 meters and a sliding scale for vessels under 50 meters. As for Load Line matters, it was determined that the HSC addressed all relvent load lines issues.

Contact: wpeters@comdt.uscg.mil

Environmental Issues - High speed ferries are quickly growing as a popular mode of public transportation. This popularity has sparked a number of studies to look at the impact these craft may have on the environment. Two issues are receiving particular attention. First, air pollution from high speed ferries is being compared to that of other forms of transportation. Second, high speed craft have a tendency to produce a large wake that can be detrimental to the shoreline. Further information on these issues is given below.

SNAME Ad-Hoc Panel - The Technical & Research Steering Committee of SNAME created an Ad-Hoc Panel to survey the impact high speed ferries may have on the environment. The panel prepared a two-part report that looks at the impacts of high speed ferries in general, and then focuses on the San Fransisco Bay Area in particular.

"Air Pollution in Harbors" - A recent technical paper studies the effects of all kinds of marine traffic, including high speed ferries, on the harbor environment.
For information contact: Hans Otto Kristensen

Danish Report: "Report on the Impact of High-Speed Ferries on the External Environment" - Published by the Danish Maritime Authority in January, 1997. Excerpts have been translated and compiled into a 27-page English version. The paragraphs below are taken from the Foreword of the English version:

"During recent years, the Danish authorities have received a number of complaints about inconveniences from high-speed ferries. These complaints have included questions about noise, energy consumption, waves, speed and water jets and their influence on the surrounding environment, as the protection of nature including animal and plant life, sailing and bathing safety, erosion of the coastline and the safety of the dikes. In October 1996, a committee was set up with a view to investigate the effects of high-speed ferries on the marine environment. The Danish committee has completed a report concerning investigations of waves and erosion, noise from high-speed ferries as well as a working note on the disturbance to bird life caused by high-speed ferry operation near Samso."

Further information: Reprint of Chapter 1 of the English version, Summary of the Work of the Committee

Contacts concerning this report:
In the United States: William "Bill" Peters at wpeters@comdt.uscg.mil
In Denmark: Hans Otto Kristensen at hohk@tdcadsl.dk

The Winter 1999 issue of Marine Technology contains the following two articles on High Speed Ferries:

"Damage Length Predictor for High-Speed Craft" by Steven McGee, et al, addresses the extent of damage on high speed craft. The paper may be accessed on the Marine Technology On-Line website by members using their member-number and password. It is in pdf-format (1225 Kb).

"The Prediction, Measurement, and Analysis of Wake Wash from Marine Vessels," by Stan Stumbo, et al. This paper documents a successful program that Washington State Ferries used to procure new, high-speed environmentally friendly passenger ferries for operation on Puget Sound.

Back to Top

Load Lines

The 1988 Protocol to the International Convention on Load Lines (ICLL) was finally ratified in 1999 and went into force in February 2000. One of the most significant provisions of the Protocol is that it makes amending the load line regulations much easier.

Accordingly, working groups at SLF have been hard at work for the past few years developing the first set of proposed revisions under the Protocol. Their work was largely finished at SLF 45 (July 2002) and submitted to MSC 76 (December 2002). Some of the proposed revisions were further modified during the MSC 76 session, then approved for distribution to member countries for consideration during the intersessional period before MSC 77. At MSC 77 (May/June 2003), the proposed revisions were officially adopted and will enter into force on January 1, 2005.

The complete MSC-approved ICLL/Protocol is in MSC 77/3/1 (Adobe .pdf format, 921kb) (this special web version is color-highlighted to identify the revised portions). Lloyd's Register has also posted a special color-coded version of the revised ICLL/Protocol on their “Class Direct Live” website. This version consolidates all revisions (past and present) to the Load Line Convention, including the new provisions that enter into force on January 1, 2005. It is particularly helpful because it also shows deleted text that has been superceded by the revisions. It can be found at: www.cdlive.lr.org/information/Documents/classnews/2004/Load%20Line%20Composite%20V2.pdf
(link provided courtesy of LR).

In general, the revisions include editorial improvements (corrections and clarifications), additional definitions, incorporation of IACS load line interpretations, and some modernizing to reflect evolution of ship designs since 1966.

The most significant revisions, however, were driven by the Derbyshire casualty and other bulk carrier safety issues. Numerous model tests and computer simulations have revealed that, under the wrong conditions, the foredeck area of ships (not just bulk carriers), particularly those without forecastles, can experience peak wave loads on their foremost hatch covers that are well above the design loads of the 1966 Convention.

These findings influenced the three most significant changes to the LL regulations pertaining to minimum bow height, reserve buoyancy distribution, and hatch cover design loads:

• Minimum bow height (revised Regulation 39): The method for calculating the minimum required bow height has been radically changed. The original method relied solely on the vessel's length and block coefficient. The new method is a more-sophisticated formula that takes into account additional dimensional characteristics of the vessel (draft, beam, and waterplane area of the forebody). The formula is based on long-term probabalistic deck wetness, intended to achieve an equal level of deck wetness for all vessels regardless of hull form. That is, both large vessels and small vessels will experience similar levels of boarding seas over the bow. In practice, the bow heights for small vessels (less than 100 m) will increase about 500 mm, and for large B-type vessels will be at least the same or greater than current (extracted text - Reg 39 (revised) (Adobe .pdf format, 127kb)).
• Reserve buoyancy (new requirement added to Regulation 39): A new provision has been added to Reg 39 to ensure that the reserve buoyancy distribution favors the bow. The new provision applies to all type B ships except oil tankers, chemical tankers and gas carriers (extracted text - Reg 39 (revised) (Adobe .pdf format, 127kb)).
• Hatch covers (new Regulation 16-1): The requirements for hatch cover design were significantly upgraded, and separated into a new regulation (Reg 16-1). The new regulation adopts two strategies: (1) design loads have been increased for both Position 1 and Position 2 hatch covers; and (2) Position 1 hatch covers in the foreward 0.25L have a higher design load than other Position 1 locations. Thus, there are now three hatch cover design loads that may apply to a vessel (extracted text - Regs 15, 16 and 16-1 (revised) (Adobe .pdf format, 100kb)).

What is a "protocol" anyway? It should be noted that the above-discussed revisions are being implemented under the ICLL Protocol of 1988. Protocols are essentially supplements to a convention (such as protocols to SOLAS, MARPOL, and ICLL). Protocols have their own regulations, which supercede the corresponding convention regulations (for example, Protocol Reg 22 supercedes original Reg 22); where the protocol is silent, the original convention regulation still applies. Protocols are separate legal instruments from the convention, with their own ratification process; only countries signatory to the parent convention may sign the protocol, and only countries signatory to the protocol may apply it once it goes into force. Since the United States is signatory to the ICLL Protocol, it applies to US-flag vessels. Unfortunately, many national governments don't necessarily appreciate the importance of a protocol, so ratification usually takes many years (11 years, in the case of the ICLL Protocol). At this time, there are 151 countries that are signatory to the original ICLL (representing 98.5% of the world tonnage) but only 65 countries signatory to the ICLL Protocol (representing 63.4% of the world tonnage).

IMO Load Line publication: IMO has published a new Load Line edition, "Load Lines (2005 edition)", which replaces the 2002 edition. This new edition contains the text of the 1966 Convention; the articles of the 1988 Protocol; a consolidated text of the 1966 Convention as modified by the 1988 Protocol and its 2003 Amendments (which entered into force on 1 Jan 2005); the 2004 Amendments to the Protocol (which are expected to enter into force on July, 2006); and the Unified Interpretations of the Convention approved by the Maritime Safety Committee up to 2004.

Contact: Thomas Jordan at tjordan@comdt.uscg.mil.

Back to Top

Guidelines for Partially-Weathertight Hatchcovers

One of the load line issues under review at IMO concerns the installation of partially-weathertight hatchcovers on container ships. Although such hatchcovers have the conventional weathertight clamping/gasketing arrangements around their perimeters, they do not have gaskets at the mid-hatch joints between adjacent hatchcover sections. In some designs, there may even be a gap of several millimeters.

Although this load line issue falls under the purview of the SLF sub-committee, non-weathertight hatchcovers raise concerns about fire protection, bilge de-watering systems, and segregation of cargo containers of hazardous liquids; these concerns fall under the purviews of other sub-committees. Therefore, the Maritime Safety Committee directed SLF not to finish its work on this issue until the other sub-committees (FP, DE, and DSC) have had a chance to review its impact on their areas of responsibility.

At this time, the status of sub-committee action is as follows:

• Sub-Committee on Design and Equipment (DE): For several years, this sub-committee had invited its members to comment on this issue; however, none were ever submitted. Therefore, at DE 44 (March 2001) it was decided to inform SLF that no comments have been submitted to DE, and to direct DE members to submit any comments directly to SLF. This concluded DE action on this issue.
• Sub-Committee on Stability, Load Lines, and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF): Draft guidelines (without the DSC and FP input) were agreed upon at SLF 45 (July 2002) (see section 7 and Annex 4 of the SLF 45 Report). The guidelines were reviewed at MSC 76 (December 2002), which then forwarded them to the FP sub-committee for final consolidation into a single set of comprehensive guidelines. This concluded SLF action on this issue.
• Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC): At DSC 7 (September 2002), this sub-committee developed stowage and segregation guidelines for hazardous cargo containers stowed on top of partially-weathertight hatchcovers (extracted here from the DSC 7 Final Report (section 8 and annex 3)) [.pdf file, 403k]. The guidelines were reviewed at MSC 76 (December 2002), which then forwarded them to the FP sub-committee for final consolidation into a single set of comprehensive guidelines. This concluded DSC action on this issue.
• Sub-Committee on Fire Protection (FP): This sub-committee has been wrestling for several years on the fire safety-related aspects of partially-weathertight hatch covers. The issue is determining how much excess charge is needed for fixed gas fire extinguishing systems (to account for leakage through the non-tight hatch cover joints). This was finally resolved at FP 47 (February 2003), and a final draft set of guidelines was prepared that also incorporated the DE, SLF and DSC input. The draft guidelines were forwarded for consideration by the Maritime Safety Committee. This concluded FP action on this issue.

The draft guidelines were reviewed and approved at MSC 77 and issued as MSC/Circ.1087, "Guidelines for Partially Weathertight Hatchway Covers on board Containerships" on 18 June 2003, to go into effect on January 1, 2004.

Contact: Thomas Jordan at tjordan@comdt.uscg.mil.

Back to Top

Loading Manuals - Instruments

SOLAS Chapter XII Regulation 11: - On 6 February 1998, Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC/Circ.836 was issued. It described the work of the 1997 SOLAS Conference (referenced in the Bulk Carrier Safety section above) pertaining to the new Chapter XII, regulation 11. Regulation 11 requires all bulk carriers of 150 meters in length and upwards to be fitted with a loading instrument capable of providing information on hull girder shear forces and bending moments.

In that connection, the Conference also adopted Resolution 5 (in PDF format), Recommendation on Loading Instruments, the text of which is attached as annex 1 to MSC/Circ.836, where reference is made to IACS's document Recommendation No.48 on loading instruments.

In adopting the above resolution, the Conference urged SOLAS Contracting Governments to:

.1  apply the above-mentioned IACS recommendation when approving loading instruments, as required by regulation 11 for ships not yet fitted with an approved loading instrument; and

.2  ensure that loading instruments already fitted on ships to which regulation 11 applies have been approved in accordance with the standards of the recognised organisations.

As requested by the Conference, the text of the aforementioned IACS's recommendation was reproduced in Annex 2 (in PDF format) to the MSC circular.

The Sub-Committee recalled that SLF 41 considered a proposed draft model stability booklet and agreed that the draft model booklet should be further elaborated to cater for several issues discussed at that session. At SLF 42, the Sub-Committee considered, in detail, the draft Model loading and stability manual prepared by Germany. This was eventually approved by MSC 71 as MSC/Circ.920, "Model Loading and Stability Manual" issued on 15 June 1999.

MSC 69 approved MSC/Circ.854, "Guidelines for Shipboard Loading and Stability Computer Programs" issued on 12 June 1998.

Contact: wpeters@comdt.uscg.mil or jperson@comdt.uscg.mil

Bulk Carrier Safety

There were a large number of bulk carriers lost at sea in the early 1990s, and over 700 lives have been lost on these types of ships in the past ten years. In 1995, IMO began an initiative to address these casualties, and it has been a high priority agenda item ever since. The United States has been actively involved in the development of these amendments throughout this period.

The 1997 SOLAS Conference adopted numerous amendments to the Convention that addressed the safety of bulk carriers. In addition to the 1997 Conference, a 1996 amendment to SOLAS chapter VI, dealing with the loading of bulk carriers and the responsibility of the terminal representative is also provided.

On January 16, 1998, the bulk carrier Flare broke in half and sank off Nova Scotia in heavy weather with the loss of 21 people. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigated this casualty and their investigative report is available on their web site at: Marine Investigation Report for the Bulk Carrier Flare.

In September of 1980, the 169,000 ton bulk carrier Derbyshire was lost off Okinawa during Typhoon Orchid with all 44 people on board. A survey of the wreck was conducted to determine the cause or most likely cause of the loss. MV Derbyshire Surveys. UK/EC Assessors' Report: A Summary is available at the U. K. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions web site under "contents". The Summary is available in its entirety in PDF format.

After the UK/EC Assessors' report into the Derbyshire surveys were completed and published on 12 March 1998; the Deputy Prime Minister ordered that the Formal Investigation be re-opened. The final report of the re-opened inquiry is available at www.mv-derbyshire.org.uk.

The United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency is coordinating an International Collaborative Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) Study of Bulk Carriers. The purpose of this project is to inform IMO's future decision-making regarding measures to improve the safety of bulk carriers, apply FSA methodology to the safety of dry bulk shipping, and secure international collaboration and agreement. Information on the Bulk Carrier Formal Safety Assessment can be found at www.fsa.mcga.gov.uk.

Information Resources on Bulk Carrier Safety are available on the IMO web site in PDF format.

A DSC Sub-Committee working group completed the draft revised Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes (BC Code). This draft will be reviewed at the next DSC meeting in September 2002 for submission to MSC 76 (December 2002). Beyond format changes and continuity with other IMO instruments, the draft addresses cargo liquefactrion and sliding failure and provides amended entries for individual cargoes.

Back to Top

Proposed/Potential Projects

• Cost-benefit analysis of coatings (i.e. hull efficiency & protection vs. toxicity)
• Nonindigenous species issues (environmental and engineering)
• MARPOL Annex 5 interpretation differences
• Facilities pollution
• Cargo residues
• Oily water separators
• Interpretations to SOLAS
• High speed craft wake
• A regional water-on-deck requirement for ro-ro ferries operating in Canadian and United States waters
• Promotion of an ongoing/continuing dialog among Canadian and United States ferry operators and the cognizant regulatory bodies

Proposed Project Example

"U/W Obstacle Detection in Shoal Waters"

Objective: To use echo sounding techniques and sound frequencies with short enough wavelengths to identify distinct hazards of navigation at distances to provide a useful warning to mariners.

Benefit: To be able to identify underwater hazardous objects in waters of less than 100 fathoms and at useful distances directly by using sonar.

Cost: The goal for the cost of production systems will be comparable with current marine radar systems.

Goal: The final goal is a console at the conning station (bridge) of a ship that will provide coverage for the underwater hemisphere as effectively as the radar system covers the above-water hemisphere. It is intended that the sonar and radar displays will be coordinated and useful for the conning officer.

Required technology: Some of the required technologies are sensor inputs, signal processing, sensor mounting location, hull and sensor interaction, water/sonar flow phenomenom, and meaningful displays of three dimensional results. Some test-tank data for new signal preprocessing may be proposed. The project will involve itself only with unclassified information. For additional details on this proposed project.

Back to Top

 
Summary of Minutes

Panel O-44; Second meeting, Friday, October 17, 1997

Agenda items included: decision paper (means for proposing panel projects), completion of the member lists, and project funding.

Since this panel relied heavily on the World Wide Web, rather than frequent meetings, all agreed that there needed to be a clear procedure for putting forth and getting membership approval for new panel projects. The chair noted the contribution of a summer (of 1997) intern in creating the design for the O-44 home page. The procedure was to be put on the business plan and charter web page. It was agreed that the O-44 forum was a natural vehicle for allowing members‘s views to be heard. Mr. Tagg (Electronic Media Committee) informed the panel of the features of the e-mail server, which permits members‘ e-mails to automatically be forwarded to all O-44 members.

The membership lists was reviewed and additional names suggested. The chair related the story of a Korean SNAME member reading of the work of the panel on the web, and asking to be included on the new panel.

SNAME Home / O-44 Home / O-44 Activities Page