Bulk Carrier Safety the latest IMO developments

http://www.dnv.no/din_bransje/maritime/publikasjoner/publications/dnvb...

1990 and 1991 were indeed two annus horribilis for the bulk carrier industry. A total of 27 bulk carriers were lost, claiming the lives of 276 seafarers, all in accidents presumed to emanate from the vessels structural failures. A common feature of most of the losses in both years was that the cargo had a high density. In most cases, it was iron ore. The international shipping community agreed that action was necessary and, in 1993, Bulk Carrier Safety was put on the agenda of the IMOs Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) by the former Secretary General Bill ONeil.
In May 1997, the MSC 68 agreed upon the text of a new Chapter XII to SOLAS entitled Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers, and the text was adopted by the IMO at the special SOLAS Conference in November of the same year. The final outcome was, however, considered by some to be more of a political compromise than a panacea for the core problems. Concern was in particular expressed regarding the limited number of solutions aimed at existing vessels, especially since these vessels were BIMCO Headquarters regarded as being more vulnerable than newer ones. Hence, in 1998, the UK proposed to the IMO that a full Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) study of bulk carriers should be undertaken. The UK also offered to sponsor the study and to act as the coordinator. The study was finalised in late 2002 and reported to the IMOs MSC 76. In addition, in 2002, IACS announced its Eight Initiatives for existing bulk carriers, which were also considered by the IMO. The FSA Study assessed 75 different Risk Control Options, of which some 20 passed the Cost Benefit Assessment test. In December 2002, MSC 76 tentatively agreed to a number of items, emphasising that most of them would need further work by the MSC and its specialised subcommittees. The IMOs Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE 47), which met from 25 February to 5 March 2004, finalised the drafting work and forwarded the agreed SOLAS Chapter XII amendments to MSC 78 for adoption in May 2004. A couple of other measures, however, have already been adopted: Water Ingress Alarms in all holds and spaces forward of the cargo section. Despite protests from the industry, these alarms must also be installed in double hull bulk carriers. Application of IACS URs S26, S27, S30 and S31 to bulk carriers MSC 77 also adopted MSC resolution MSC.146(77) on the Application of IACS Unified Requirements (URs) S26, S27, S30 and S31 to bulk carriers developed by DE 46. S26 and S27 deal with small access hatches and deck fittings on exposed foredecks. S30 applies to cargo hatch cover securing and S31 deals with renewal criteria for side shell frames. The reason for bringing these IACS standards to the IMO is to ensure global application, including on non-IACS classed vessels. 1988 Load Lines Protocol The adopted amendments will in practice mean that new bulk carriers will be built with a forecastle.

1 of 3

7/29/2013 8:06 PM

Bulk Carrier Safety the latest IMO developments

http://www.dnv.no/din_bransje/maritime/publikasjoner/publications/dnvb...

The design loads on the deck and hatch covers have also been increased substantially. Items discussed at DE 47 Hatch Cover Surveys and Owners Inspections and Maintenance The MSC/Circ.1071 on Guidelines for Bulk Carrier Hatch Cover Surveys and Owners Inspections and Maintenance was approved by MSC 77. DE 47 developed the relevant parts of these guidelines into draft Standards and inserted text in SOLAS Chapter XII/7.2 with a reference, thus making the Standards mandatory. Furthermore, amendments were made to resolution A.744(18) on the Enhanced Survey Programme pertaining to the survey of hatch covers and coamings. Alternate-hold loading ban for bulk carriers Most bulk carriers in the iron ore trade are designed to carry a full cargo in alternate holds (e.g. in holds 1-3-5-7-9) or in a block load condition (e.g. in holds 1-3-4-6-7-9). There are several reasons for designing a bulk carrier to be able to carry a full load of cargo in this manner. One reason is to raise the centre of gravity, thus making the vessel less stiff and more comfortable for the crew on ocean voyages. It can be shown, though, that loading in alternate holds, as compared to loading homogeneously in all holds, has very little effect on the vessels roll period. Alternate-hold loading is more commonly driven by a desire amongst charterers for a faster turnaround time at terminals. The general view is that bulk carriers can be loaded and discharged much more quickly if they are operating in the alternate-hold loading mode than if they are homogeneously loaded. It can be shown, though, that this may not always be the case. In fact, loading in alternate holds may require more shifts of the conveyor than when loading homogeneously. Still, in todays iron ore market, it is very common, if there are two otherwise comparable bulk carriers, for the one that can carry a full load in the alternate-hold mode to obtain a premium compared to the one which must load the cargo homogeneously distributed. The pros and cons of the alternate/ block loading condition have been discussed since its invention. From a structural stress point of view, the alternate-hold loading condition is more demanding than the homogeneous one. Basically, the vessels hull girder strength is utilised 90100% in the alternate hold loading condition, whereas homogeneous loading may only utilise some 50% of the bending strength and even down to 25% of the shear strength. Therefore, everything else being equal, the vessel has a substantial reserve strength when loaded homogeneously. DE 47 thus agreed to ban bulk carriers from sailing with any hold empty unless the structural requirements for new ships stated in SOLAS Chapter XII are complied with and the hold frames comply with IACS UR S12 Rev. 2.1 or the equivalent. The ban applies only to the full load condition, which is defined as a draught corresponding to 90% of the ships deadweight at the relevant freeboard. Finally, in order to avoid loopholes, the term empty is defined as a hold loaded to less than 10% of the holds maximum allowable cargo weight. Other Measures A number of other measures have also been tentatively agreed on. New bulk carriers must be equipped with free-fall lifeboats, and all bulk carriers must have immersion suits for the entire crew and be subject to mandatory weather routing. Smaller bulk carriers (L<150m) should be equipped with a stability loadicator and performance standards for protective coating are also being developed. Items to be finalised at MSC 78 in May 2004 Double-Side Skin Mandating for New Bulk Carriers The mandating of double-side skin construction for new bulk carriers over 150m in length came out rather favourably in the FSA study in terms of the cost-benefit assessment. There were two basic reasons for the double-side skin coming out favourably: Firstly, most fatalities had been a direct consequence of side shell failure and, secondly, double-side skin offers operational advantages. Input into the FSA study from selected receiving bulk terminals showed that the discharge time for double-side skin bulk carriers was 10%25% less than for traditional bulk carriers with exposed frames in the cargo holds when discharging sticky cargoes like coke and coal. In addition, the amount of stevedore-imposed damage to the hold structure, particularly the hold frames and frame brackets, was reduced by a factor six. One inherent beauty of the FSA concept is that it is based solely on factual data rather than on personal perceptions. However, the quality and the availability of the data provided can always be questioned, and this is also the reason why different FSA studies on the same subject may produce different results. Detailed casualty data in particular can be difficult to obtain. The mandating of double-side skin was tentatively agreed on by MSC 76 in December 2002. At the

2 of 3

7/29/2013 8:06 PM

Bulk Carrier Safety the latest IMO developments

http://www.dnv.no/din_bransje/maritime/publikasjoner/publications/dnvb...

following meeting of DE 46, the technicalities of the mandate were discussed, particularly the appropriate width of the double-side spaces. Participants agreed to a minimum internal clearance of 600mm and that the distance between the outer and inner shells should be kept at 1,000mm. Present designs show that this figure will actually be around 1,200mm for a Handymax, increasing to around 1,800mm for a Capesize. There has been strong opposition to the mandating of double-side skins for new bulk carriers, based on the claim that the side shells of newly designed single-side skin bulk carriers have sufficient strength. In fact, a single-side skin bulk carrier built today is much stronger than one built 1015 years ago, and would indeed strength-wise be superior to a new double-side skin vessel if the latter is optimised to the limit. For this reason, the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) has been requested to develop rules for the construction of double-side skin bulk carriers. These rules are expected to be available in late 2004. One very special feature of the new rules is that they will apply to all IACS members. This should ensure that the scantlings should be very similar regardless of the classification society. The bulk carrier working group at DE 47 was clearly instructed not to discuss the pros and cons of double side skin, but only to draft text reflecting the tentative decision taken by MSC 76. It is thus to be expected that a major discussion on this subject will take place at MSC 78. If sufficient and adequate new information is fed into the debate, the decision on mandating double side skin could be revoked. Alternatively, a compromise solution could be to mandate it only for vessels over 200m or 225m, as the issue of side shell failure, according to the available statistics, is most relevant for large bulk carriers. Overall risk reduction on new bulk carriers The UK, having led the way on the FSA study, conducted an assessment of the overall risk reduction. If the entire package of risk control measures agreed on by MSC 76 is adopted, it would facilitate a mean reduction in potential loss of life of 74.9% on new bulk carriers. For existing bulk carriers the figure was somewhat lower. Finally It is worth noting that the most important safety measure ever imposed on bulk carriers is probably the Enhanced Survey Programme, which was adopted by the IMO Assembly as Resolution 744(18) in 1993. Niels Bjrn Lindberg Mortensen Master Marine & Naval Architect Senior Manager Marine Department BIMCO Dato: 12. februar 2008

3 of 3

7/29/2013 8:06 PM