IACS History File + TB

Transcription

1 IACS History File + TB Part A UI SC191 IACS Unified Interpretations (UI) SC 191 for the application of amended SOLAS regulation II- 1/3-6 (resolution MSC.151(78)) and revised Technical provisions for means of access for inspections (resolution MSC.158(78)) Part A. Revision History Version no. Approval date Implementation date when applicable Rev.4 (Sept 2011) 16 September July 2012 Rev.3 (Mar 2006) 1 March October 2006 Corr.1 (Dec 2005) No record 1 May 2006 Rev.2 (Oct 2005) 7 October May 2006 Rev.1 (May 2005) 15 May July 2005 NEW (Nov 2004) 19 November January 2005 Rev.4 (Sept 2011).1 Origin for Change: Suggestion by IACS member.2 Main Reason for Change: In order to unify the interpretation of plan examinations for the requirements of means of access for spaces in, and forward of, the cargo area specified in SOLAS Ch.II-1 Reg.3-6 among the classification societies..3 List of non-iacs Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None.4 History of Decisions Made: 1) The Survey Panel (Spring 2007) reviewed a member s comments (2/1/07) on guardrails welded to deckhead instead of to PMA (i.e. hanging guardrails) and unanimously agreed this design was not acceptable (T.P. Para 3.3, Interpretation) thus taking into consideration Survey Panel Task 51. 2) PT at their meeting (4/12/08) discussed and agreed on items brought by members regarding:- (i) Table 1, Para 1.1.4, Interpretation. (ii) Table 2, Para 2.5, Interpretation (iii) Ladder linking platforms T.P. Para 3.14 and Interpretation. (iv) Portable ladders Table 2, Para 1.8 and interpretation. 3) SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-6, Para 2.1 and Interpretation added; T.P. Para 3.10,11, Interpretation added; T.P. Para 3.14, Interpretation - partial amendment to draft agreed by PT. Page 1 of 3

2 4) A member suggested that the practices of plan examinations for the requirements of means of access amongst classification societies should be unified at the panel meeting in March ) Subsequently, practices of each society s plan examination departments were collected for the review of survey panel. 6) The panel members discussed the issues under Task 53 (PSU6013) and reached conclusion to unify the interpretations. 7) Comments for the access to Fore Peak Void and Guardrail intermediate rail were raised by a GPG member. 8) The panel members discussed the issues raised by GPG member, and reached conclusion at the panel meeting in March Other Resolutions Changes IACS Rec Dates: Original proposal: 14/3/07, 12/9/07, 14/12/07, 4/12/08, 19/2/10 made by: Survey Panel on Task 1 and Survey Panel PT on task 53. Panel Approval: 09 September 2011 GPG Approval: 16 September 2011 (Ref. 7503_IGp) Rev. 3 (Mar 2006) See TB document in Part B Annex 3. Rev. 2 (Oct 2005) & Corr.1 (Dec 2005) See TB document in Part B Annex 2. Rev. 1 (May 2005) Treated as a Complete Revision. See TB document in Part B Annex 1. New (Nov 2004) No TB document available. Page 2 of 3

3 Part B Part B. Technical Background List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UI SC191: Annex 1. TB for Rev. 1 (May 2005) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2. TB for Rev. 2 (Oct 2005) & Corr.1 (Dec 2005) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Annex 3. TB for Rev. 3 (Mar 2006) See separate TB document in Annex 3. Annex 4. TB for Rev. 4 (Sept 2011) Note: See separate TB document in Annex 4. 1) There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for UI SC191 New (Nov 2004). Page 3 of 3

4 Technical Background Document UI SC191 (Rev.1, May 2005) 1. Objective: Develop common procedures for acceptance of Alternative Means of Access to be described in the Access Manual. 2. Background : The approval of Access Manual as required by SOLAS II-1/3-6 makes it necessary to develop a common standard for approval of Alternative Means of Access with corresponding safety procedures. Currently the attending surveyors have necessary authority to reject means of access not found appropriate or ask for additional staging when available access is considered not satisfactory. Owners having an approved access manual available may refer to the solutions accepted in the access manual and the approval can thereby contest the attending surveyor s authority to decide which means of access is appropriate and safe. The approved application of alternative means of access in the access manual will also set the standard for surveys to be carried out on existing tankers and bulk carriers. 3. Discussion 3.1 AHG/PMA developed new Annex to SC 191 on 20 Dec So as to not be overly prescriptive of the SMS, throughout the document a revision has been made such that the maintenance, rigging and operation of equipment and training in its use should be "addressed by" (as opposed to "included in") the Ships Safety Management System. This allows the use of the ship's access manual to contain these provisions; and The reference to the Register of Innovative Designs on pg 10/10 has been placed in lower case and the reporting of innovative designs to IACS has been made recommendatory. (3037hABj, 14 Mar 2005) 3.3 Section 5.6 on Innovative Approaches. Considering that the area of alternative means of access with regard to their approval is somewhat new to class societies, the AHG felt is important to suggest to GPG a scheme where Members would share their experience with new emerging solutions for means of access.(ahg/pma report, 3037hLRc, 20 Dec 2004). Submitted by the Permanent Secretariat 11 April 2005

5 Technical Background UI SC 191 (Rev.2, Oct / Corr. Dec 2005) *Para.3.2 of SC191 : the IACS submission to DE 49 is annexed. & UR Z10.1 (Rev.13) UR Z10.2 (Rev.18) UR Z10.3 (Rev.8) UR Z10.4 (Rev.3) UR Z10.5 (Rev.2) 1. Objective - to confirm whether the guidelines for approval/acceptance of alternative means of access (now REC91, ex Annex to UI SC191) is mandatory or non-mandatory. - to consider other safety related proposals. 2. Background The DNV proposal to submit the UI SC191(Rev.1, May 2005, Annex 1) to IMO DE49 triggered a number of discussion points that led to amendments to the following resolutions: UI SC191(Rev.2) New REC 91 REC 39(Rev.2) UR Z10s Points of Discussion 3. Is the Annex to UI SC191(Rev.1, May 05, guidelines for approval / acceptance of alternative means of access) mandatory or non-mandatory? Answer: Non-mandatory. Hence, re-categorized as new REC Limitation of use of rafts in bulk carrier holds DNV proposed that conditions for rafting should be limited to areas, such as anchorage or harbour, where swell conditions are limited to 0.5m. After discussion, GPG approved the ABS alternative proposal to use the swell Page 1 of 3

6 condition as a basis to determine the appropriateness of rafting, instead of geographic areas(harbours or anchorage) of Z10.2 refers. RINa proposed that para should be included in all the Z10s. NK s objection is recorded as follows (3037hNKq, 29/08/2005): 1. With regard to RIm of 26 August 2005, NK considers that the proposed amendment to should be limited to UR Z Rafting survey for tankers are actually carried out on the open sea from a discharge port to a loading port and in such situation the rise of water within the tanks would always exceed 0.25m. It is different situation from rafting survey for hold frames of bulk carriers normally conducted in a harbour or at an anchorage. 3. If the same requirement applies to tankers, any rafting survey for cargo oil tanks and ballast tanks of tankers would be prohibited. This is not practicable under present survey procedure for tankers. 4. Therefore, NK can not support Laura s proposal that the proposed amendment to of UR Z10.2 is introduced into the other URs and new Recommendation. For compatibility with the IMO s mandatory requirements*, GPG decided to add the same amendment to all the UR Z10s. * Appendix 4 to MEPC.99(48) Mandatory requirements for the Safe Conduct of CAS Surveys MSC.197(80) amendments to A ), Annex A for DSS and SSS bulk carriers and Annex B for single and double hull oil tankers. As a consequence, of REC 91(ex Annex to UI SC191) was also amended: -to remove the reference to dynamic /sloshing (as the 0.25m rise was considered negligible); -to refer to the rafting conditions contained for cargo holds in Z10.2 and Z10.5 and for oil cargo tanks in Z10.1 and Z Means of access from longitudinal permanent means of access within each bay to rafts GPG reviewed the proposal that the following text be added to Z10s: A means of access to the longitudinal permanent platform from rafts or boats is to be fitted in each bay. (Technical Background: for the safety of surveyors) There may be ships which are arranged in accordance with para b, page 8 of the Annex to the current SC 191 (i.e., no means of access from the LPMA in each bay to a raft is required) and therefore could not be rafted if the sentence proposed by RINA("A means of access to the longitudinal permanent platform from rafts or boats is to be fitted in each bay") is included in the Z10's. GPG therefore agreed not to include this sentence in Z10s. Page 2 of 3

7 For the same reason, the same sentence was not added to Rec.39. Finally, GPG added the following sentence to UI SC191(interpretation for II- 1/3-6): A permanent means of access from the longitudinal platform to the water level indicated above is to be fitted in each bay (e.g permanent rungs on one of the deck webs inboard of the longitudinal permanent platform). 6. Implementation It was agreed that the revised UI SC191 be implemented to ships contracted for construction 6 months after adoption by Council. UI SC191 was also edited in line with IMO MSC/Circular. 1176, leaving its mandatory language (is/are to, shall) unchanged. (Note: UI SC191(Rev.2) makes references to the following new Recommendations: - REC 90: Ship Structure Access Manual - REC 91: Guidelines for approval/acceptance of Alternative Means of Access) 23 September 2005 Permanent Secretariat Updated on 13 Oct Annex: the IACS submission to DE 49 re para.3.2 of UI SC191(Rev.2, Corr. 2005) Page 3 of 3

8 SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIP DESIGN AND DE 49/11/?? EQUIPMENT?? December TH SESSION Original: ENGLISH Agenda Item 11 CONSIDERATION OF IACS UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS Submitted by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) Executive Summary:- Action to be taken:- See paragraph 6. SUMMARY This paper contains at annex Revision 2 of IACS Unified Interpretation SC 191 based on experience gained in the application of UI SC 191, Rev.1, which is contained in MSC/Circ.1176, and seeks the Sub-Committee s concurrence to develop a corresponding draft revision to MSC/Circ Related Documents:- MSC/Circ.1176, DE 48/25 and DE 48/21/2 Background 1. IACS submitted DE 48/21/2, which contained Unified Interpretation SC 191, to the Sub-Committee for consideration and action as appropriate. 2. The Sub-Committee agreed with the text of the interpretation contained in the document and instructed the Secretariat to include it in the draft MSC circular on Interpretations to SOLAS chapter II-1 as noted in paragraph of DE 48/ The Committee, at its 80 th Session, approved MSC/Circ.1176 on Interpretations of SOLAS chapters II-1 Extent of Revision to UI SC The full text of IACS Unified Interpretations SC 191, Rev.2, is posted at Of these revisions, only the revision to the interpretation to SOLAS regulation II-1/3-6, paragraph 3.2 impacts MSC//Circ Therefore, only this revision with new text shown as underlined has been included at annex. All other revisions are editorial corrections or revisions to bring UI SC191 into line with MSC//Circ IACS considers that the revision at annex is needed to ensure ready and safe access to and from the tank of surveyors and crew carrying out surveys and inspections utilizing rafts. Action requested of the Committee 6. The Committee is invited to take action as appropriate with respect to MSC/Circ.1176 based on the attached revision to Unified Interpretation SC191.

9 TB for a Revision of Technical Provision 3.3 of UI SC Distance between Stanchions (Rev.3, Feb 2006) Figure 1 provides a classical arrangement as per the UI SC 191 for the 3.3 of the Technical provision. If we call I the inertia of one of the handrails and L 1 its length over the stanchion, the handrails stiffness is proportional to I/L 1. In order to provide the same stiffness and strength when the handrails are connected together as shown in Figure 2, and if we suppose the same inertia I for the handrails, at first approximation, we can express the stiffness of the arrangement shown in Figure 2 as function of the stiffness of one single handrail of Figure 1, as : 2I I = L L 2 1 It is assumed that in both cases, the same load is acting on one handrail in case of Figure 1 and in the middle of the vertical connection between the connected handrails in case of Figure 2. That means that L 2 = 2 L 1 for having the same stiffness and strength. Taking into account that L 1 = 150 mm in order to get a maximum distance between the two stanchions, L 2 should be less than 300 mm leading to a distance between the stanchions equal to 650 mm. In order to have some safety and considering that the load may act at any point at the vertical member connecting the handrails, we can limit the distance to 550 mm corresponding to L 2 /L 1 = = L1 50 I 350 Figure 1 Page 1 of 2

10 L2 50 I 550 Figure 2 For the maximum distance between one stanchion and another structural member (Bulkhead, web frame, etc), the same consideration is made and so distance between the stanchion and the structural members is limited to 200mm and 300mm in case of Figures 1 & 2 respectively. Permsec s Note: 1) Implementation date: 1 Oct ) The IACS reply to SAMSUNG is attached to this TB. Submitted by the Hull Panel Chairman 6 Dec 2006 Page 2 of 2

11 IACS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES LTD. PERMANENT SECRETARIAT: 36 BROADWAY LONDON SW1H 0BH UNITED KINGDOM TEL: +44 (0) FAX: +44(0) INTERNET Web Site: SAMSUNG Heavy Industries 530, Jangpyeong-Ri, Sinhyeon-Eup, Geoje-si Gyeingsangnam-Do, Republic of Korea Tel: Fax: March 2006 Our Ref: GYH-3037jIAa Att. Mr. Y J Kim, Vice-President & Mr. T S Lee, Senior Manager, Shipbuilding Design Team Mr. Y S Bae, Vice-President & Mr. J S Park, Senior Manager, Shipbuilding Design Team 2 Your Ref: letter dated 12 October 2005 (SHI/KR-5898) and letter dated 17 October 2005 (SHI/NK-1011) Subject : Replies to Questions on Technical provisions for Permanent Means of Access From Samsung Heavy Industry in Korea Dear Sirs, With reference to your letter of MSG No. SHI/KR-5898 dated 12 th October 2005 concerning IACS unified interpretation UI SC191 we would advise as follows with respect to the questions raised therein: 1. Regarding discontinuous handrails are allowed provided the gap does not exceed 50mm, 1) What is the criterion for deciding maximum 50mm. (We think a distance of 100mm may also meet the intention of this regulation and avoid hand injuries during walking)? IACS Response : The maximum handrail gap allowance of 50mm for discontinuous handrails has been provided to prevent the possibility of any hand slippage through such gaps. 100mm is not acceptable. 2) Whether the maximum. 50mm gap between mid rails also to be kept? IACS Response : It is not necessary to maintain a gap of 50mm for mid rails provided the distance between end stanchions does not exceed the maximum gap of 350mm. Page 1 of 3

12 3) Whether the maximum 50mm gap between rails (top and mid-rail) and bulkhead (or pipe etc.) is to be kept? IACS Response : The 50mm gap is also to be maintained between the top rail and other structural members. 2. Regarding the maximum distance between the adjacent stanchions across the handrail gaps is to be 350mm, 1) What is the criterion for deciding maximum 350mm? IACS Response : The stanchion spacing of 350 mm has been provided for the prevention of crews/inspectors falling between stanchions and for ensuring the strength of handrails at their ends. * * * Also in response to your letter of MSG No. SHI/NK-1011 dated 17th October 2005 concerning The application of Handrails for PMA and your request for confirmation which of the 3 sketches (Figure 1) complies with the intent of IACS UI SC191 we would advise as follows: Case 1 : This case is acceptable to IACS members. Case 2 : The case 2 is not within the application of IACS UI SC 191, due to the distance between stanchions. However, for that case the top and mid handrails are connected together, IACS considers it as an equivalent solution. However the radius of the bent connection between the top and mid rails needs to be limited to 100 mm. Case 3 : This case is acceptable to IACS members. Page 2 of 3

13 Figure 1 Types of Hand Rail questioned from Samsung Heavy Industry Yours faithfully, Steven R McIntyre Chairman IACS General Policy Group (GPG) Page 3 of 3

14 Part B, Annex 4 Technical Background for UI SC191 Rev.4, Sept Scope and objectives This update of UI SC 191 is to unify the practice of plan examination departments among the classification societies. This is based on annual review of UI SC 191 taking into account Survey Panel Task 51 and ergonomic considerations. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale - To unify the plan approval examination department practices. - Achieve uniform interpretation of SOLAS II-1/3-6 and T.P.s.. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS UI SC 191(Rev.3), IACS UI SC 190, IACS Rec Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1) Each societies plan examination department s practices for every clause of SOLAS CH.II was collected and reviewed by the Survey Panel. 2) In order to unify the practices of plan examination department s practices and unify interpretations among the classification society, following extensive discussion, amendments have been proposed, relating to: - SOLAS regulation II-1/3-6, paragraph TP Resolution MSC. 158(78) paragraph TP Resolution MSC. 158(78) paragraph TP Resolution MSC. 158(78) paragraph TP Resolution MSC. 158(78) paragraphs 3.10 and Table 1 - Resolution MSC. 158(78) paragraph Table 2 - Resolution MSC. 158(78) paragraph Table 2 - Resolution MSC. 158(78) paragraph ) A new paragraph to Rec. 91 is proposed taking into account IACS UR Z10.2, paragraph 5.3. This amendment to Rec. 91 has been migrated to task 72 (PSU 9022) in order to consolidate with further amendments to Rec. 91 under that Task. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None