In-depth | SAFETY
Changes to ISM Code aim to improve vessel safety
Changes to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code were among amendments to existing regulations that entered into force on 1 July 2010, writes Sandra Speares
A
ccording to the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), the scope of the proposed changes to
the ISM Code, which were adopted at the International Maritime Organization (IMO’s) Maritime Safety Committee meeting in December 2008, were relatively small. According to the Chamber: “Te most
significant amendment is that internal audits of the Safety Management System will now have to be conducted at least once every 12 months. However, this has always been recommended by ICS and International Shipping Federation (ISF) since the Code first entered into force, and this 12 month requirement is already reflected in existing IMO Guidelines to Companies and Administrations which are applied by most Recognised Organisations (classification societies) when conducting external audits prior to the issue of ISM certification.” Te other amendments, according to the
Chamber, “are relatively minor and mostly involve giving additional emphasis to certain issues, such as the use of checklists, analysis of non-conformities, and certification procedures”. Te ICS and the International Shipping
Federation have launched a new set of guidelines with incorporate changes that came into force on 1 July. Te guidelines on the application of the
ISM Code include additional information on risk and environmental management and the safety culture. Guidance includes how to maintain safety
management systems and the role of the designated person who provides the link between ship and shore-based facilities. Te guidance also includes analysis of why
accidents happen. While the ISM Code is concerned with
safety at sea, it also covers marine pollution, the ICS has pointed out. Te new guidance reiterates the importance of environmental management.
146 Te amended code puts more focus on risk
assessment, according to Dr Phil Anderson, who heads ConsultISM. While he said that the ISM Code was not
intended to crease new inter-party liability, but was intended to make ships safer, lawyers and the courts have “started to realise that it could be used as a sword against operators, and operators could use it as a shield”. Te big issue, Dr Anderson says is how to balance minimum risk and maximum profit. “Tere is nothing wrong with making a profit, be we have to manage risk”. Other changes to regulations that came
into force on 1 July this year include those to Marpol Annex VI to reduce harmful emissions from ships, as well as emissions of sulphur oxide in certain specified emission control areas. Te main changes to MARPOL Annex
VI will see a progressive reduction of SOx emissions from ships, with the global sulphur cap reduced initially to 3.50% (from the current 4.50%), effective from 1 January 2012; then progressively to 0.50 %, effective from 1 January 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018. Te limits applicable in sulphur emission
control areas (ECAs) are reduced to 1.00%, beginning on 1 July 2010 (from the current 1.50%); being further reduced to 0.10%, effective from 1 January 2015. Tis means that ships trading in the current ECAs will have to burn fuel of lower sulphur content (or use an alternative method to reduce emissions) from 1 July 2010. Further amendments coming into force
on 1 July include those concerning the safety of passenger ships. Te amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea convention (SOLAS) follow the concept of the ship being its own best lifeboat. Given the increasing size of passenger
vessels, the emphasis behind the changes is on trying to prevent an accident happening in the first place, and if it does, keeping
passengers onboard, in a safe location, while the ship returns to port. Design concepts like the amount of
damage a ship can sustain and still return safely to port have been incorporated in the amendments. The amendments offer a degree of
flexibility to ship designers when approaching the safety issue. Amendments include: alternative designs
and arrangements, provision of safe areas for passenger, redundancy or propulsion, onboard safety centres, fixed fire detection and alarm systems and time for orderly evacuation and abandonment, specifying those systems that should remain operational if any one main vertical zone is inoperable due to fire. • onboard safety centres, from where safety systems can be controlled, operated and monitored • fixed fire detection and alarm systems, including requirements for fire detectors and manually operated call points to be capable of being remotely and individually identified • fire prevention, including amendments aimed at enhancing the fire safety of atriums, the means of escape in case of fire and ventilation systems; and • time for orderly evacuation and abandonment, including requirements for the essential systems that must remain operational in case any one main vertical zone is unserviceable due to fire.
Other SOLAS amendments Other important SOLAS amendments entering into force on 1 July 2010 include the following: December 2008 amendments to SOLAS
Amendments to the SOLAS Convention and to the 1988 Load Lines Protocol. Tese amendments make mandatory the
International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code). Te 2008 IS Code provides, in a single document, both mandatory
The Naval Architect September 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164