Marine Safety,
 Environment and
 and Ad Hoc Panels

Activities of the Subcommittee
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
SOLAS Schedules

Active Projects

Other IMO Matters

Auxiliary Issues
Potential Projects
Summary of Minutes

Completed Ad Hocs

More Information

SNAME Home
O-44 Home

             Active Projects

Last revised: December 6, 2010 (SOLAS WG meeting update)

Previous revisions:
November 30, 2009 (major update - activities; SOLAS WG)
November 10, 2009 (WG meetings - link to IMO reports posting)
June 5, 2009 (O-44 became Subcommittee of the Technical & Research Steering Committee)
March 27, 2009 (Removed items, added environmental engineering)
January 8, 2009 (Updates: Ad Hoc #15, O-49, SD-3, EC-3, meeting dates)
December 14, 2008 (Updates & emissions, OWS panel activity)
February 20, 2008 (MARPOL Annex VI, Coatings, SLF meeting)
May 5, 2003 (Complete revision of page; user friendly & added customer form)

SOLAS Working Group Meetings Schedules

The Coast Guard serves as head of the U.S. delegations to several IMO committees and sub-committees, that meet periodically in London. They have created a web page for all the IMO committees and sub-committees. Prior to the IMO meetings, the Coast Guard holds several "SOLAS working group" meetings that are open to SNAME members and interested parties in order to develop U.S. positions on the agenda items. Listed below are the meeting dates for some selected sub-committees and their respective working groups.

We are even more pleased to inform you that the Coast Guard is now posting the reports of the Committees and Sub-Committees at www.uscg.mil/imo/. Scroll midway down the page to find the links.

SLF 52: January 10 - 14, 2010
SLF Working Group Meeting: December 7, 2010
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Room 6103 at 1300   Meeting Agenda
Contact - James.L.Person@uscg.mil
SLF 53 Agenda, Working Group Information, and Annotated Agenda
SLF 52 Agenda, Working Group Information, and Annotated Agenda
Report from SLF 51 and SLF 51 papers
Report from SLF 50 and SLF 50 papers
Report from SLF 49 and SLF 49 papers
Reports and papers from previous SLF sessions

DE 54: October 25-29, 2010
Working Group meeting:
USCG HQ, Room 2415 at 0930
Contact - Wayne.M.Lundy@uscg.mil
Agenda for DE 53
DE 52 Report to MSC
Link to selected DE papers (on IMO Activities page)
BLG 14: February 8-12, 2010
Working Group meeting:
USCG HQ, Room 6103 at 0930
Contact - Tom Felleisen
Agenda for BLG 14
BLG 13 Report to MEPC
Link to selected BLG papers (on IMO Activities page)

 

MSC 88: Nov 24-Dec 3, 2010
Working Group meeting:
USCG HQ, Room 2415 at 0930
Contact:
LCDR Jason Smith   Agenda for MSC
MEPC 61: Sept 27 - 1 Oct, 2010
Working Group meeting:
USCG HQ, Room 2415 at 0930
Contact:
LCDR Brian Moore   Agenda for MEPC

We are pleased to inform you that the Coast Guard is now posting the reports of the Committees and Sub-Committees at www.uscg.mil/imo/. Scroll midway down the page to find the links.

   

 

Panel/Regional/Sub-Panel Meetings

Panel: Contacts - PCojeen@yahoo.com or Jaideep.Sirkar@uscg.mil, chair, Technical & Research Steering Committee

Regional:

Sub-Panels:
Ad Hoc Panel #8 - Safety of passenger ships
Ad Hoc Panel #15 - Loading criteria for people aboard passenger vessels
Ad Hoc Panel #18 - Greenhouse gases (GHG) and transportation efficiency - EEDI
Ad Hoc Panel #19 - Marine vessel environmental performance and rating system
Ad Hoc Panel #20 - Greenhouse gases (GHG) - existing ships, operations - EEOI
Ad Hoc Panel #21 - Greenhouse gases (GHG) - economics

Back to Top


World Maritime Technology Conference - 2009

WMTC 2009 was hosted by The Institute of Marine Engineers (India) in Mumbia, India, January 21-24, 2009. Please see the mid-February SNAMeNewsLetter for a report on the conference.

Website: http://www.wmtc2009.com
More Information is available at: http://www.worldmaritimenetwork.com

International Activities Committee - IAC

Please see the activities web page for the IAC.


Active Projects

This section reports on active projects at IMO and SNAME T&R Ad Hoc panels. Reports on completed projects are preserved on the IMO Activities Archive web page or the topical web page or the Ad Hoc Completed web page.


Explanatory Notes for the new harmonized SOLAS Chapter II-1 Damage Stability Regulations

The new harmonized SOLAS Chapter II-1 damage stability regulations were adopted at MSC 80 in May 2005 (see Resolution MSC.194(80)) and re-adopted at MSC 82 in December 2006 (see Resolution MSC.216(82)), and entered into force on 1 January 2009. The remaining task associated with this harmonization effort is for the SLF Sub-Committee to develop associated Explanatory Notes, to ensure uniform application of the new regulations by providing amplifying details and information. Progress on this task is summarized here:

At SLF 48 (September 2005), significant progress was made on priority issues associated with intermediate stage flooding, cross-flooding, equalization time, progressive flooding, and horizontal escape routes. Resolving these issues in the Explanatory Notes was extremely important due to their impact on future passenger ship designs. The Subdivision and Damage Stability (SDS) Correspondence Group was re-established to complete the draft Explanatory Notes for consideration at SLF 49 (July 2006). The following additional items are being considered in association with development of the Explanatory Notes:

  • Revision of Resolution A.266(VIII) to include cross-flooding arrangements other than pipes and air ventilation to assure efficient cross-flooding
  • Guidelines on damage consequence diagrams and, if considered appropriate, inclusion in the Explanatory Notes
  • Guidance by which Administrations may determine the impact on survivability of open watertight doors permitted by new SOLAS regulation II-1/22.4 for inclusion in the Explanatory Notes

At SLF 49 (July 2006): in the interest of getting guidance published as soon as possible, the SDS working group completed interim Explanatory Notes, which were approved at MSC 82 (December 2006) and issued as MSC.1/Circ.1226, Interim Explanatory Notes to the SOLAS Chapter II-1 Subdivision and Damage Stability Regulations. These interim Explanatory Notes will remain in effect while the SDS working group works on finalizing some remaining details that require more time.

At SLF 50 (April/May 2007), the SDS working group continued development of additions and improvements to the interim Explanatory Notes. It is expected that they will be finalized at SLF 51 (July 2008) and approved at MSC 85 (November/December 2008), just as the new harmonized SOLAS regulations enter into force on January 1, 2009. At SLF 51 (July 2008), the SDS working group completed the Explanatory Notes. They are contained in Annex 1 of the report to the Committee. Resolution MSC.281(85) was approved in December 2008, and is contained in Annex 22 to their report.

SDS Correspondence Group - After nearly two decades as the co-coordinator of the correspondence group the Unites States delegation felt the baton should be passed. The UK agreed to carry forward as co-coordinators along with Sweden. Previous SDS Correspondence Group pages are still available, for historical reference at:
legacy.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/sdsiscg/home.html

Contacts - Jim Person, Tracy Phillips, at Tracy.Phillips@uscg.mil

Back to Top


Passenger Ship Safety

SDS Intersessional Correspondence Group, between SLF 51 and SLF 52 (January 2010), is being co-coordinated by United Kingdom (Andrew Scott) and Sweden (Joakim Heimdahl). It was their plan to have an early questionnaire complied, but they have decided that the results of two research projects must be completed and available to all ISCG members; the present timeline is early to late April 2009. The projects referenced are a joint NL/UK project, relating to interpretation of the SOLAS 2009 regulations/Explanatory Notes for vessels with twin stern appendages. The other project is a joint project being undertaken by EUROYARDS which will address the water-on-deck issue with respect to the SOLAS 2009 amendments. Its intention is to evaluate the differences between old SOLAS regulations and SOLAS 2009. This analysis is being carried out working on the detailed designs of actual RoPax vessels; the team will examine about 12-15 cases.

Background - In 2001, IMO began a broad initiative to review the safety of large passenger ships. MSC 74 (June 2001) directed SLF to evaluate nine tasks related to the regulatory framework for both existing and future large passenger ships. After consideration of these tasks at SLF 44 (September 2001) and SLF 45 (July 2002), the active items were narrowed to: characterize the design survivability of the ship; structural integrity of the ship after damage; and raking damage issues for future ships. The SLF Sub-Committee worked on these items for the next several years, and finally completed them at SLF 49 (July 2006). The details of SLF work on these items are found on the IMO Activities Archive web page under the heading of IMO Large Passenger Ship Safety Initiative.

Although the main IMO initiative is finished, numerous passenger ship work items continue within the technical sub-committees: (1) Damage stability regulations for ro-ro passenger ships - RoPax, (2) Guidance on the impact of open watertight doors on existing and new ship survivability, (3) Guidelines for flooding detection systems, (4) Time-dependent survivability in damaged condition, and (5) Stability and seakeeping characteristics of damaged passenger ships when returning to port. These are discussed in detail below.

(1) Damage stability regulations for ro-ro passenger ships - RoPax: SLF 51 established a correspondence group to review the impact of the new damage stability requirements (revised SOLAS Chapter II-1) on RoPax (ro-ro passenger ships). While the methods were supported by a majority of group members for each study, the same was not true for the conclusions. Only one study’s conclusions had a majority of support from the group. A slight majority of the group felt that the safety levels provided by SOLAS 2009 are generally equivalent to what is required through a combination of SOLAS 90 and the Stockholm Agreement. A majority of the group felt that SOLAS 2009 may need to be rectified to account for the unique aspects of RoPax, but this must be based on further research. The group also identified that RoPax ships with long lower holds designed to SOLAS 2009 may have additional capsizing/sinking risk, but most agreed more research on this topic is needed.

GOALDS - stands for goal-based damage stability - In a few sentences the EU-funded project seeks to treat safety as a design objective rather than through rule compliance -- “Design for Safety”. It attempts to embrace innovation through routine utilization of first-principles tools. The kickoff meeting was held at NTUA in September 2009. Specifically the project will:

  • Develop an enhanced formulation for the survival factor “s” accounting for key design parameters of passenger ships and for the time evolution of flooding scenarios
  • Develop a new survivability formulation for flooding following grounding accidents
  • Integrate collision and grounding survivability formulations into a single framework
  • Validate the new formulations by experimental and numerical analyses
  • Develop a new damage survivability requirement in a risk-based context
  • Evaluate the practicability of the new formulations by a series of ship concept design studies, and
  • Throughout the three-year project, partners, through their Administrations, will submit key documents to SLF

(2) Guidance on the impact of open watertight doors on existing and new ship survivability: At SLF 51, there was extensive discussion on this topic, and many countries supported the view that the guidance developed should distinguish between existing and new ships. SNAME agrees with this position, and supports the general findings of the correspondence group to allow for exceptions on existing ship survivability criteria when additional operational measures are imposed.

(3) Guidelines for Flooding Detection Systems: - the new harmonized SOLAS Regulation II-1/22-1 on flooding detection systems will go into force on July 1, 2010. To ensure uniform interpretation of the requirements, SLF is developing appropriate guidelines. At SLF 50 (April/May 2007), several key decisions were agreed upon regarding continuous flood level monitoring and size limits on spaces to be equipped with detection systems. The SDS Correspondence Group (under the joint coordination of Sweden and the U.S.) was tasked to develop draft Guidelines during the intersessional period (for consideration at SLF 51 (July 2008)).

More information is available on the SDS Correspondence Group's website:
http://legacy.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/sdsiscg/home.html

(4) Time-dependent survivability of passenger ships in damaged condition (aka “Time-to-Flood”) - Based on the working group's Report on Passenger Ship Safety, MSC 81 (May 2006) added this as a high-priority item to SLF's work program. The objective is to continue the earlier work related to time-to-flood calculations and advance the concept of establishing casualty criteria that would allow a 3-hour minimum time period for orderly evacuation and abandonment of a damaged passenger ship. At SLF 50, the S/C reviewed an ITTC progress report on benchmark testing of numerical codes for time-to-flood prediction for damaged passenger ships, and at SLF 51 a preliminary report on this topic was provided by the ITTC. The Sub-Committee invited Members and international organizations to submit proposals and comments on this session and we anticipate a submission from ITTC.

(5) Stability and seakeeping characteristics of damaged passenger ships in a seaway when returning to port by own power or under tow (aka “Return-to-Port”) - MSC 82 (December 2006) added this item to the SLF work program, for preliminary consideration at SLF 50 (April/May 2007). The objective is to develop SOLAS amendments regarding design requirements to enable safe return to port, and develop operational guidelines for use by passenger ship masters in assessing damage stability for safe return to port (either under power or under tow). At SLF 50, the S/C extensively debated on how to best proceed on this issue, and established an intersessional correspondence group (under the coordination of the UK) to develop design and damage stability criteria for such damaged passenger ships, and develop initial draft operational Guidelines for masters for consideration at SLF 51 (July 2008). At SLF 51 many delegations supported the U.S. position of “operational guidance only” approach for safe return to port. SNAME shares this position. A correspondence group was established to work on this agenda item; the group examined whether to create design criteria for safe return to port, or to use operational guidance only. The group’s opinions were divided as to the specific guidance to be given to the Master, and whether there should be a mandatory requirement for onboard stability computers. There was unanimous support for the draft text. SNAME agrees with the general opinion of the group that ro-ro vessels might be handled as a special case, but that this issue cannot be decided until the agenda item on RoPax is decided.


SNAME Ad Hoc Panel #8, Safety of Passenger Ships, which was formed under the SNAME T&R Steering Committee in 1999 (before the issue was taken up by the MSC in 2001), has been retained even after the Maritime Safety Committee’s completion of the Large Passenger Ship Safety Initiative. The Ad Hoc panel has been queried for IMO passenger ship issues since then. The ad hoc panel also encompasses the activities of the very active Ad Hoc Panel #15 on passenger weights. Information concerning the panel is located on the Panel’s website at:
http://legacy.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/passenger/home.html

SNAME Ad Hoc Panel #15, Loading Criteria for People Aboard Passenger Vessels, was chartered by the SNAME T&R Steering Committee at its meeting in October 2005 at the SMTC held in Houston. The panel’s main work will be to peer review the USCG-sponsored study on increased passenger weight - as it affects the U.S. domestic small passenger vessel fleet. The ad hoc panel has commented on the grouping of passenger vessels for evaluation, the technical assumptions used for the evaluations, and reviewed the technical validity and thoroughness of the results. This rulemaking will impact the U.S. domestic fleet of T, K and H boats. This fleet numbers in excess of 7000 vessels. The SNAME comment to the docket was provide under President Kramek signature in November. The comment period for the NPRM was been extended (to March 20, 2009) by request of SNAME and industry to give more opportunity for review the numerous documents in the docket. The Ad Hoc Panel is waiting for the Coast Guard to decide the next regulatory action; then the Panel will reactivate.

Information (including links to the Federal docket (number 2007-0030) is contained on the panel’s web page at:
http://legacy.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/passenger/activity-15.html

Contacts (SDS) - Jim Person or Tracy Phillips

Contacts (Ad Hoc #15) - Bill Peters or Dr. George Borlase

Back to Top


Intact Stability

Development of new generation intact stability criteria

Since the Intact Stability Code was adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) at its 85th session, the programme item has now been updated to reflect the changing focus of the work on this topic. The Intersessional Correspondence Group on Intact Stability (ISCG-IS) was re-established at SLF 51 and recently submitted its report to SLF (SLF 52/3/1 with SLF 52/INF.2 as an appendix). The Terms of Reference for the ISCG-IS were ambitious, but the group was able to obtain the support of several members to complete its tasks. The ISCG-IS successfully obtained sample ship data relevant to intact stability failure modes and made this data available to its members. Members then made numerous submissions with proposals for vulnerability criteria for each of the stability failure modes of immediate interest (i.e., deadship condition, broaching, pure loss of stability, parametric rolling), and developed draft options for preliminary criteria specifications. Direct assessment proposals were also made by several members. There was unanimous agreement among the members that many additional sample calculation results are required, along with wider validation before finalizing these criteria.

SNAME had a significant presence in this Group through the DSTG (Dynamic Stability Task Group under T&R) chaired by Chris Bassler. The DSTG assisted the group in planning the completion of the tasks assigned. SLF 52/INF.x was prepared by the group and submitted to IMO by RINA.

Review of the Intact Stability Code

The IMO Sub-Committee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) established a Working Group on Revision of the Intact Stability Code (IS Code) at its 45th session (July 2002) under the chair of Professor Alberto Francescutto of the University of Trieste. The terms of reference (TOR) of the working group was to develop a two-way approach that (a) would allow the completion of some priority tasks by 2004 and (b) a plan to re-develop the Code according to a performance standards approach. The IS Code was first published in 1995 and subsequently amended in 1999.

At SLF 46 (September 2003), the task of making certain IS criteria mandatory was discussed and agreed upon as a worthwhile next step in the revision of the Code. It was determined that any decisions on mandatory sections of the Code would be beyond the mandate of SLF. Germany volunteered to submit a paper to the MSC (MSC 78/24/1) requesting that this task be added to the SLF work-plan.

At SLF 47 (September 2004), the Intact Stability Working Group continued to review the Intact Stability Code using a two-phased approach, completing most of the short-term phase at this session. The short-term phase included: development of a new structure for the Code (to include making certain parts mandatory), consideration of free surface effects of nominally full liquid cargo tanks, and the use of anti-heeling devices. The long-term phase (to be completed by 2007) will consider revising the Code using performance-based criteria, additional ship type specific standards, modification of the weather criterion, interim guidelines for model tests and full-scale trials as an alternative to the weather criterion, revision of MSC/Circ.707, Guidance to the master for avoiding dangerous situations in following and quartering seas, and initial efforts aimed at identifying areas of concern and areas requiring future research. The intersessional correspondence group was re-established to continue this work; its terms of reference are presented in the SLF 47 Summary of Decisions (paper SLF 47/17).

During the intersessional period between SLF 47 and SLF 48, the Correspondence Group developed a draft revised IS Code, which was submitted for consideration at SLF 48 (September 2005). In addition to the re-structuring of the Code, a number of changes were included, for example, definitions, a new chapter 4 of Part B (stability, loading instruments), standard loading conditions merged under Part B, light ship survey, certain sections were inserted into the Explanatory Notes, guidelines for alternative assessment of the weather criterion are implemented, and MODU criteria added.

At SLF 48 (September 2005), the Intact Stability working group completed the short-term tasks for the IS Code revision by addressing all noted technical issues. The S/C agreed that the weather criteria should remain as it is in Part A, and submitted the Interim Guidelines for alternative assessment of the weather criterion (these were ultimately approved at MSC 81 as MSC.1/Circ.1200). In addition, the S/C agreed that hardware of stability computers should not be approved by the Administration and endorsed development of guidelines for the approval of stability instrument software. Finally, the S/C agreed that performance-based criteria should be developed as a long-term item.

At SLF 49 (July 2006), the S/C completed its technical work on the revised Code of Intact Stability (IS Code) after accepting further improvements and recommendations by the intersessional Correspondence Group. The IS Correspondence Group was tasked to recommend a plan to determine the most appropriate way to amend the SOLAS and Load Lines regulations to implement the mandatory provisions, and suggest means to achieve the same entry-into-force date. Agreement was also reached on several MSC circulars, which were approved by MSC 82; included explanatory notes, guidelines for stability instrument approval, and Guidance to the master for avoiding dangerous situations in adverse weather and sea conditions (as a revision to MSC/Circ.707). The Correspondence Group was tasked to continue work on the items in the updated plan of action for IS work, such as consideration of regulations for certain types of ships and development of performance-based criteria.

At SLF 50 (April/May 2007), several key actions and decisions were made: the final draft of the IS Code was approved by the Sub-Committee; the S/C drafted amendments to both SOLAS and ICLL conventions to make Part A of the IS Code mandatory; and the S/C approved the final draft Explanatory Notes to the IS Code. All three were forwarded for consideration at MSC 83 (October 2007). At SLF 51 (July 2008), the amendments to both SOLAS and ICLL conventions to make Part A mandatory were drafted, and the Explanatory Notes to the IS Code was completed. The S/C will now turn to the long-term objective of developing the new generation intact stability criteria.

Resolution MSC.267(85) was approved in December 2008, and is contained in Annex 2 to their report.

Contact - Bill Peters

SDC Panel SD-3 - Stability

SNAME Ad Hoc Panel #13, Investigation of Head-Sea Parametric Rolling and Resulting Vessel and Cargo Securing Loads was established in 2002, with the primary topics of parametric rolling. The key objective of the panel was to better identify sea and vessel characteristics that initiate this coupling of pitch and extreme rolling based on current data and to propose operational guidelines and navigational procedures for vessels to avoid the effects of the phenomenon. Please refer to the ad hoc panel website for the final studies and outcome. The remaining activities of this panel were transferred to the Panel SD-3, Stability.

Contact - SD-3 chair Richard Sonnenshein

Back to Top


Verification of Damage Stability Requirements for Tankers and Bulk Carriers

At MSC 83 (October 2007), paper MSC 83/25/14 raised the issue of verification that loaded tank vessels are in compliance with appropriate damage stability requirements when they sail. For many tank vessels, the number of possible tank loading combinations can differ greatly from the actual sample loading conditions presented in the vessel's approved Trim and Stability Booklet. The paper pointed out that although shipboard loading and stability computers can verify that the tank vessel's loaded condition meets intact stability requirements, but such computers do not verify that the loading condition also meets damage stability requirements. The paper notes that “a range of stability programmes approved by classification societies already exist which can address this issue, and these have been effectively rendered compulsory equipment on new tank vessels by IACS UR L5. However, in order to provide a uniform standard of calculation, consideration must be given to developing guidelines on a specific calculation methodology which can be applied by all such programmes.” A similar paper (MSC 83/25/16) raised the same concern for bulk carriers. After discussing the issue, the Committee decided to add this item to the SLF work programme, commencing with SLF 51 (July 2008). There was extensive debate on this topic at SLF 51. Some delegations supported the view that there is an urgent need to develop guidelines for the verification of damage stability requirements for tankers prior to departure, and other delegations strongly supported the view that more information on the alleged non-compliance is needed before taking any action. Similar discussions ensued at MSC 85. The Chairman of MSC highlighted that MSC 83 had already agreed on the need for this work item, and stated that SLF should focus its efforts on the technical aspects. The UK submitted a paper (SLF 52/9/1) detailing the results of a new study on the topic. There is some doubt as to the tolerances set by the UK study. SNAME will not take a position prior to SLF 52, but has formally supported the RINA document (SLF 52/9/x).

Contact - Jim Person

Back to Top


Environmental Protection Matters

Revision of MARPOL Annex I - At BLG 8 (March 2003), the BLG S/C finalized and agreed to a draft revised MARPOL Annex I (primarily a re-write of the current Annex I). The draft revised MARPOL Annex I was approved in principle at MEPC 49 (July 2003), with a view towards incorporating any amendments adopted by MEPC 50 for a final approval of the Annex at MEPC 51. Amendments to regulation 13G and a new regulation 13H were subsequently adopted at MEPC 50 (see MEPC 51/22, paragraph 12 for a summary). MEPC 51 (April 2004) then incorporated the changes and approved the updated draft revised MARPOL Annex I with a view to adoption at MEPC 52. The revised MARPOL Annex I (Resolution MEPC.117(52)) was adopted at MEPC 52 (October 2004) and entered into force on January 1, 2007.

Contact - Jim Person

Back to Top


Environmental Engineering

Issues associated with Oily Water Separators - At MEPC 58 (October 2008) the DE S/C was asked to provide comments on the operational aspects of OWSs. Panel EC-3, Oily Waste Water and Bilge, under co-chair Bruce Russell, prepared an excellent troubleshooting guide. This guide has been submitted to the S/C (DE 52) by our colleagues at IMarEST (Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology. The paper can be viewed as DE 52/20/3 on the O-44 Other IMO Activities web page. A companion paper has been submitted for publication in Marine Technology, and a T&R Bulletin is in preparation.

Contact - Bruce Russell at barussell@verizon.net


Ship Design Matters

Protective coatings and corrosion

Maintenance and Repair of Protective Coatings - DE 50 (March 2007) established the intersessional Correspondence Group on Coatings, and gave it three tasks: (1) develop guidelines for the maintenance and repair of protective coatings, (2) consider corrosion protection for means of access, and (3) continue drafting a new SOLAS regulation concerning corrosion protection of cargo tanks. The progress on these tasks is discussed in detail below.

(1) Guidelines for the maintenance and repair of protective coatings: the CG agreed that a good starting point for draft Guidelines is IACS's Recommendation 87, “Guidelines for Coating Maintenance and Repair for Ballast Tanks and Combined Cargo/Ballast Tanks on Tankers,” recognizing that the scope needed to be expanded to include other vessels in addition to oil tankers. The CG's draft Guidelines and other related papers were considered at DE 51 (February 2008) under agenda item 14. The S/C determined that the appropriate technical expertise to expand the applicability to other vessels (in addition to tankers) was not represented at DE 51. The IACS observer advised the S/C that IACS was also working on the “other vessels” issue. The S/C also recognized that “repair” of coatings was substantially different from “maintenance,” so that these should be treated as two separate issues. Therefore, the S/C decided to defer consideration of the draft Guidelines to DE 52 (March 2008), when the results of IACS' efforts would be available.

(2) Corrosion protection for means of access: MSC 83 (October 2007) adopted resolution MSC.215(82), “Performance standards for protective coatings for dedicated SWB tanks in all types of ships and double-side skin spaces of bulk carriers (PSPC).” The purpose of this task is to develop specific PSPC requirements for coating protection for means of access within these tanks and spaces. The CG considered both permanent and non-permanent means of access (deciding to limit it to permanent means), types of protective coatings (hot-dipped galvanizing, epoxy-based paints, etc), in-service repairability, etc. The proposed draft requirements were considered at DE 51 (February 2008). The S/C approved the Guidelines and an associated draft MSC circular, to be forwarded for consideration at MSC 84 (May 2008).

(3) Draft SOLAS regulations regarding corrosion protection of oil cargo tanks: MSC 82 (December 2006) added this item to DE's work programme as a high-priority item. The CG used the draft SOLAS regulation proposed in MSC 82/23/4 as a starting point. The CG considered the types of oil cargo (crude vs. product), the use of corrosion-resistant steel (in lieu of coatings), and non-aggressive cargoes. Unlike the protective measures for means of access (where the CG came to a consensus position among members), this issue did not result in a single consensus position. Therefore, the draft SOLAS regulation contains several square-bracketed provisions. The draft SOLAS regulation, and other related papers, were considered at DE 51 (February 2008). The S/C agreed to the draft performance standard in principal, but decided that certain aspects still needed further development (in particular regarding stripe coating and testing of alternative arrangements). The draft was approved by DE 52 (March 2009).

At MSC 86 June 2009) the Guidelines for maintenance and repair of protective coatings were approved as MSC.1/Circ.1330. Also, the Secretary-General was requested to circulate the draft new SOLAS regulation for consideration at MSC 87, with a view to adoption. These regulations are contained in Annex 19 (draft SOLAS regulation on corrosion protection of cargo oil tanks of crude oil tankers) in the MSC 86 report. The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee had agreed to finalize the draft Performance standard for protective coatings for cargo oil tanks of crude oil tankers and the draft Performance standard for alternative means of corrosion protection for cargo oil tanks of crude oil tankers at DE 53.

Link to selected DE papers (on the IMO Activities web page)

OSVs - subdivision standards

Subdivision standards for cargo ships - The subdivision and damage stability requirements in SOLAS chapter II-1 have been revised, and the new standards entered into force on January 1, 2009. There is a footnote to the new regulation II-1/4, which allows cargo ships to comply with alternative IMO damage stability requirements, instead of those found in SOLAS Part B-1. This footnote was retained from the previous subdivision and damage stability requirements. The UK submitted a paper to MSC 85 (85/23/1) which states that the Guidelines for the design and construction of offshore supply vessels (Resolution A.469(XII); now Resolution MSC.235(82)) are not equivalent to SOLAS Part B-1 for large OSVs. They therefore proposed to remove footnote .4 from regulation II-1/4. The Committee added this item to SLF’s work program, with a target completion date of 2011.

International Convention on Tonnage Measurement (TM), 1969

Development of options to improve effect on ship design and safety of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement - Several options to improve the Convention were considered at SLF 51, but it was agreed that the options needed additional development and evaluation. The correspondence group’s report (SLF 52/5/2) recommends four options for further consideration, including the option favored by the U.S. (improve the integrity and consistency of the existing gross and net tonnage parameters), and another new option to develop an “adjusted net tonnage” parameter that reflects deck cargo volume. Against our recommendation, the report retains the Maritime Real Estate (MRE) option. MRE uses a product of a vessel's length, breadth and draft to arrive at a “pseudo” gross tonnage parameter, and our objections have centered around its potential to lead to “boxy” vessel designs with poor operating characteristics which can adversely affect crew comfort and increase crew fatigue. MRE also favors certain types of vessels (e.g., containerships) at the expense of others (e.g., tankers), and unfavorably treats some multihull vessels, regardless of type. The report also recommends additional analysis before deciding on one option. SNAME strongly supports the U.S. position.

Back to Top


Air Emissions and Energy Efficiency

MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships

MARPOL Annex VI entered into force on May 19, 2005. At MEPC 53 (July 2005), the committee decided that Annex VI should undergo a general revision, and gave the task to the BLG sub-committee with a view to significantly reducing air pollution in the shortest possible time. BLG 10 started this effort in April 2006 and continued its work at BLG 11; two intersessional Working Groups on Air Pollution (BLG WGAP) also were held. BLG 12 (February 2008) completed the proposed revisions and submitted them for consideration at MEPC 57 (March/April 2008).

MEPC 57 (March/April 2008) approved the proposed amendments, and were adopted at MEPC 58 (October 2008). The amendments would then enter into force in 2010. Refer to the IMO press release for more-detailed discussion of the amendments. The work is not yet done, with agenda items slated both for BLG 13 and MEPC 59, March and July 2009, respectively. The second intersessional meeting of the Working Group on GHG issues was be held in IMO Headquarters, back-to-back with BLG 13. They reported to MEPC 59 on the Energy Efficiency Design Index and the Interim Guidelines on the Energy Efficiency Operational Index. Further MEPC will consider the outcome of BLG 13 on the relevant non-mandatory instruments as a consequence of the revised MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code 2008. As noted above, the Code was adopted at MEPC 58 and is expected to come into force on 1 July 2010.

MEPC 59 (July 2009) made progress in the following GHG-related matters -- intended to be used for trial purposes until the Committee's sixtieth session in March 2010. The measures include:

  • interim guidelines on the method of calculation, and voluntary verification, of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships, which is intended to stimulate innovation and technical development of all the elements influencing the energy efficiency of a ship from its design phase; and
  • guidance on the development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), for new and existing ships, which incorporates best practices for the fuel efficient operation of ships; as well as guidelines for voluntary use of the Ship Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) for new and existing ships, which enables operators to measure the fuel efficiency of a ship.

Market-based instruments - The Committee held an in-depth discussion on market-based instruments and agreed to a work plan for its further consideration at MEPC 60. MEPC will take into account the relevant outcomes of the climate change conference (COP 15) that the United Nations is convening in Copenhagen in December 2009. Such instruments will have significant impacts on world-wide shipping; offsetting of emissions, incentives for the industry to invest in more fuel-efficient technologies, and others.

Contacts - Bruce Russell or Paul Cojeen

Three new Ad Hoc Panels under T&R Steering Committee are being formed to review the complex issues associated with these GHG efforts - EEDI, operations and economics. Please contact either of the persons below if you wish to contribute.

Contacts - Keith Michel or Bruce Russell or Jaideep Sirkar

Back to Top


Fishing Vessel and Small Working Vessel Operations and Safety

Agreement on the implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol

The Torremolinos Protocol for the Safety of Fishing Vessels has not yet entered into force due to insufficient support from IMO members. This item was added to SLF’s agenda to allow for identification of provisions of the Protocol which are preventing ratification and implementation. Once these provisions are identified, measures can be included in an implementation agreement which would make it possible for additional governments to ratify the Protocol and subsequently allow entry into force. SLF 51 created a Torremolinos Protocol questionnaire, and recommended that the IMO Secretariat use this to initiate a consultation process with States that have more than 500 registered fishing vessels of 24 meters in length and over. SNAME has supported the U.S. and Canada over the years in their voluntary guidelines, and believes that our larger fishing vessels are properly designed and safe. SNAME is likewise aware of the statutory authority limitations associated with inspections; these provide a significant barrier to ratification of the Protocol.

Small Fishing Vessel Safety

At MSC 79 (December 2004), the Committee approved the FAO/ILO/IMO Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels, 2005 and the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels, 2005. At the same meeting, and in order to address the safety of small fishing vessels that are not covered by these instruments, the Committee agreed to add new work item to the SLF 48 agenda on the Safety of small fishing vessels, with the objective of developing safety standards for small fishing vessels.

At SLF 48 (September 2005), the Sub-Committee gave initial consideration to the contents of safety standards for small fishing vessels on the basis of documents SLF 48/16 (FAO) and SLF 48/INF.3 (Ireland) and provided terms of reference to the correspondence group. In co-operation with FAO [and ILO], IMO will examine existing regional and national safety standards for small fishing vessels and develop a consolidated draft text of the safety standards for small fishing vessels. These standards will cover decked fishing vessels of less than 12 m in length and undecked fishing vessels of any length. The correspondence group is to submit a report to SLF 49.

At SLF 49 (July 2006), the Working Group on Safety of Small Fishing Vessels continued development of draft safety standards for small fishing vessels on the basis of the consolidated draft text provided in the Correspondence Group report. SLF 49 agreed to use “Safety recommendations for decked fishing vessels of less than 12 metres in length and undecked fishing vessels” as the guidance document title. The amended draft Safety Recommendations are provided in part 2 of the Working Group’s report. The Correspondence Group was re-established under the coordination of South Africa to finalize the draft Safety Recommendations for consideration at SLF 50.

At SLF 50 (April/May 2007), the working group developed the draft Safety Recommendations to the degree that they will now be circulated among other relevant IMO sub-committees for review and comment as appropriate. The S/C also decided that there will be a need for Guidelines to assist competent maritime authorities in implementing the Safety Recommendations and requested approval from MSC 83 to develop these (which has subsequently been granted). Meanwhile, the intersessional correspondence group was re-established to review the draft Safety Recommendations against the pending ILO Convention and Recommendation concerning work in fishing (to ensure consistency between the two), and to review the pending FAO study on scantlings of wooden fishing vessels.

At SLF 51 the correspondence group on the Safety of small fishing vessels was 51 re-established. This correspondence group amended the text of the draft safety recommendations, after considering input from other IMO Sub-Committees and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). A final version was prepared for SLF 52, and the group recommends this be sent to MSC for approval.

The correspondence group will use the website:
http://www.sigling.is/FVS-ISCG to exchange and disseminate information and papers during the intersessional period.

Contact - Mike Rosecrans at Michael.Rosecrans@ntsb.gov

International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference - IFISH 4 - May 2009

The fourth International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference (IFISH 4) will be held in Reykjavik, Iceland May 11-14, 2009. The Conference is proudly hosted by the Government of Iceland, and jointly sponsored by the University of Iceland, the Food and Agriculture Organization, NIOSH-Alaska-Pacific Region, and the Icelandic Maritime Administration.

The website for the Conference is:
http://www.ifishconference.org/

Contact - Ari Gudmundsson at ari.gudmundsson@fao.org

Back to Top

STOC Panel O-49 - Small Working Vessel Operations and Safety

Ad Hoc Panel #12 on Fishing Vessel Operations and Safety was formed in 2001 as one of the ad hoc panels formed under the T&R Steering Committee banner. The panel’s purpose was to address fishing vessel safety from a broad perspective. It's work was a success; a key accomplishment being their work with other like-minded organizations to affect a major shift to a safety culture within the U.S. and international commercial fishing fleets. The ad hoc panel was closed in 2005, and its few remaining tasks were shifted to a newly-created STOC Panel O-49. This new panel, titled Small Working Vessel Operations and Safety, whose principle project is to assess the wind-heel relationship of fully-rigged sailing vessels. This has entailed an instrumentation for Pride of Baltimore II installed in 2008. The data has been used to validation the CFD models from Prof. Lasher. The panel will present a paper at the March 2009 Chesapeake Bay Sailing Yacht Symposium (CSYS), as well as a paper for the SNAME Annual Meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, 21-23 October.

The 2009 CSYS was held Friday and Saturday, March 20 and 21 on the St. John’s College campus in Annapolis. SNAME is one of the six sponsors; the website is:
www.csysonline.com

Contacts - John Womack or Prof. Bruce Johnson

Back to Top


SNAME Home / O-44 Home

  


http://legacy.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/activity.html