MISCELLANEOUS
Safety
of Large Passenger Ships
In
light of the Secretary General’s urging for the MSC to undertake
a global, holistic evaluation of potential risks associated with
ships carrying large numbers (not yet defined) of passengers, in
some cases to remote destinations, the MSC embarked upon such an
undertaking.
The
MSC agreed that to adequately consider safety issues associated
with new technologies and concepts, enhancements to the regulatory
regime will need to be goal and performance oriented in much the
same manner as the 2000 High Speed Craft Code.
It
was noted that the existing regulatory regime sets out rather prescriptive
requirements which aim at mitigating the consequences of serious
accidents rather than focusing on preventing their occurrence --
particularly with respect to fire prevention.
Such
an approach would need to address design requirements to support
the agreed philosophy that the ship is the preferred safe haven
(as opposed to its life boats) and identify risks associated with
evacuating and rescuing large numbers of survivors. Further, it
would need to link the ship’s design survivability with the
time needed to carry out rapid, but orderly, abandonment. Risk analysis
techniques employed would need to allow for future enhancements
to search, rescue and emergency services, which were acknowledged
as not able to cope with an incident involving a large number of
survivors.
Discussion
also considered the prevention of collisions and it was agreed to
task the Navigation SubCommittee to develop criteria for effective
voyage planning. This aspect, together with current work on bridge
resource management and operator fatigue and training, were considered
essential to preventing such casualties.
These
and other key issues will be progressed intersessionally by a correspondence
group, coordinated by the U.S. Coast Guard. 4.1
Carriage
of Dangerous Goods
The
MSC further considered the necessary steps to take to mandate compliance
with the IMDG Code after 1 January 2004. It was agreed that only
certain parts of the Code should be made mandatory. These tentatively
include the Code’s regulations on training, explosives, cargo
flash points and fire safety precautions.
This
matter will be further progressed at MSC 75 in May 2002. 7.14
Passenger
Submersible Design
To
facilitate the international movement, acceptance and safe operation
of passenger submersible craft and to provide the highest practicable
standard of safety for passengers in such craft, Guidelines for
Design, Construction and Operation of Passenger Submersible Craft
were approved as MSC/Circ.981. The Guidelines are intended to be
applied for underwater excursions where the pressure in the passenger
compartment is at or near one atmosphere.
The
Guidelines were developed to be aligned with performance oriented
recommendations rather than providing specific criteria and standards
for the craft’s pressure boundary, marine and life support
systems and equipment (hydraulic, mechanical and electrical), stability
and navigation.
Other
issues such as surface support and dive site issues which may be
critical to safe operations are not addressed recognizing that such
arrangements should be to the satisfaction of the coastal State
in whose waters the passenger submersible craft will be operating.
Along
the same lines, the Guidelines acknowledge that the coastal State
must also be satisfied with the design standards applied to the
craft. Also, the Guidelines do not attempt to specify which particular
type of passenger submersible craft should be employed recognizing
that the operator will examine and identify the most suitable option
for the area and type of operation depending on associated bathymetry,
environmental conditions and auxiliary supporting arrangements. 9.5
Bridge
Layout and Design
To
improve the reliability and efficiency of navigation, recommendations
with regard to layout of bridge equipment in an ergonomically and
functionally orientated manner were approved and are contained in
MSC/Circ.982.
To
facilitate consistent, reliable and efficient bridge operation,
descriptions of key functional areas of the bridge are provided.
These include system monitoring, navigating, maneuvering, docking,
manual steering, planning, documentation and communication. Recommendations
for levels of ventilation, temperature, lighting/illumination, vibration,
color, and arrangement of furniture, equipment, alarms and controls
provide for more effective ergonomic bridge design. It also recommends
display formats and luminescence levels of information provided
electronically to bridge personnel. 11.12
Multiple
Inspections
At
the initiative of the Secretary General based on concerns that the
proliferation of the number of inspections that a ship is subject
to upon entering port can distract operating personnel and introduce
safety risks, the MSC started exploring means to reduce the number
of these inspections. The initial discussions categorized the inspections
into four principal categories: statutory, port State control, commercial
and quality/risk management inspections.
There
was general agreement that there was only marginal room for reductions
in statutory inspections, particularly in light of the streamlined
surveys provided for under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification
which came into force on 3 February 2000.
Discussions
focused on the benefits that could be realized if information gathered
for the various port State control regimes could be better coordinated
with the view to providing a reliable global information database
to more judiciously administer port State control by focusing on
substandard ships. Although the MSC understood that ship vetting
inspections are in line with risk management and quality objectives,
there was some consensus on the value of such inspections.
Based
on insurer’s reports which showed improvements in safety and
environmental protection on ships which effectively implement the
ISM Code, the MSC agreed on a draft Circular which recommends that
the extent of multiple inspections might somehow be tempered and
adjusted using the ISM Code as an indicator of an acceptable level
of safe operation. 20.10
|
