ANNEX 1Ship stability regulations: inclusion of SOLAS 2009

within Community legislation1. Introduction

The revised IMO SOLAS Ch.II-1, parts A, B and B-1 (commonly referred to as: “the SOLAS 2009 stability rules”) will replace the current “SOLAS 90 stability rules”, as amended, on the 1 January 2009. At the same time, the current regional requirement relating to damage stability and ingress of water on roro passenger ship (ropax) car decks (the 1996 Stockholm Agreement) will become obsolete, as this is considered to be included in the new rules.

In practice, the calculation methods used in the new SOLAS 2009 and the Stockholm Agreement rules are incompatible.

In addition, SOLAS 2009 calls for the upgrade of existing vessels to the level of latest SOLAS amendments. This would mean that for existing ships a number of SOLAS amendments relating to stability would also become applicable from 2009 (see table below and section 2.2.)

The above mentioned international instruments will have a direct impact on the implementation of EU Directives. The MS have unanimously called for their revision to take account of SOLAS 2009.

The impact of SOLAS 2009 regulations on passenger ships in general may be summarised in the following table:

Impact of SOLAS 2009 Regulations on EU Directives at the date of entry in force 1 January 2009   

  Existing vessels before 1/1/2009

New vessels on and after 1/1/2009

98/18/EC as amended(passenger ships)

General upgrade to SOLAS 2004 Amendment level (see page 9)

SOLAS 2009

2003/25/EC as amended(ropax ships)

Upgrade to SOLAS 96/98 Amendment level (see page 9)

(To be confirmed)

Directive 98/18/EC as amended, has to be revised to take into account the new stability calculation regulation for passenger vessels built after the entry into force of SOLAS 2009.

A more complex situation has risen for the revision of Directive 2003/25/EC, and concerns the regional requirement of IMO for the calculation of water on deck in the case of the damage stability of ropax vessels. The Directive refers back to Directive 98/18/EC and applies not only to new ropax ships, but also to existing ropax ships built before 1st October 2004. Member States have agreed that the new IMO SOLAS 2009 does not specifically include requirements for the calculation of water on deck.Following the Commission's announcement at the COSS Committee in Brussels on 13-14 December 2007 recommending a submission to IMO to review the SOLAS 2009 regulations in relation to the water on deck criteria for ropax vessels and a request to acquiesce to a temporary continuation of the Stockholm Agreement rules, Member States forwarded a submission to IMO MSC 84 asking for a new work programme to revisit the regulations (Paper MSC 84/22/12 - copy enclosed), but considered that a submission requesting IMO at MSC 84 to agree to the temporary continuation of the Stockholm Agreement rules was neither necessary nor appropriate.

Pending consideration by IMO, and in the light of the persisting concerns about the level of safety afforded by the new SOLAS 2009 regulations to ropax vessels, a number of options are put forward.

1

2. Options

2.1. New buildingsThere are several technical options available for the revision of Directive 98/18/EC, and Directive 2003/25/EC, as regards new building ropaxes. The option of doing nothing is disregarded, as it would render the Community legal texts incoherent - references to current regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1 would no longer be correct – and create significant legal uncertainty.

(1) Maintain SOLAS 90 in addition to the Stockholm Agreement :

This would limit the transfer of SOLAS vessels, unless they are built to both IMO and EU standards.

This would lead to international shipping lines which use EU flagged ropax ships substituting them for non-EU flagged vessels (outside EU waters).

This would provide a sound solution for non-SOLAS vessels (Class B and C), pending stability calculations using SOLAS 74 up to the 96/98 Amendments.

However, if applied to small non-SOLAS vessels only, a second revision might be needed following completion of a study.

Conclusion: This conservative approach, despite its short term benefits, seems unfeasible in the long run. The potential benefits of SOLAS 2009 would be disregarded. Nevertheless, this could constitute an alternative approach for domestic vessels.

(2) Incorporate SOLAS 2009, while maintaining the Stockholm Agreement :

The combination of these two alone is untested, and is against the basic mathematical principles of any calculation, which would lead to uncertainty. It has not yet been proven in practice.

Such a combination would work much better with the additional calculation of the complete SOLAS 90 in conjunction with the Stockholm Agreement.

This option limits the benefits of SOLAS 2009 for ship design due to regulations which are not applicable outside the EU.

The model test option within the Stockholm Agreement is not possible with SOLAS 2009

Conclusion: Some may see this as a feasible solution, but there is little probability that this option could be implemented from both a technical and a political point of view.

(3) Incorporate SOLAS 2009, while adding a refined and compatible version of the Stockholm Agreement

The above-mentioned combination could work with only partial calculation of SOLAS 90, namely only Ch.II-1,Part B,Reg.8.2.3.and Reg.8.4., while the rest of SOLAS 90 is omitted from the calculation.

This option would require raising the height of the bulkhead deck on the plans from the SOLAS 2009 calculation level.

This would in general require a denser sub-construction than SOLAS 2009 alone, and/or transversal bulkheads on the bulkhead deck.

2

Transversal bulkheads on the bulkhead deck would generate further requirements for the logistics of loading, as well as for part of the equipment outfitting.

Large vessels could need B/5 bulkheads on the mid-ship of the car deck.

The benefits of SOLAS 2009 would be optimised, while the safety level would be kept within available regulations.

In addition to the first bullet point, this option could omit the calculation of water on deck, if a 2m residual freeboard of bulkhead deck under the Stockholm Agreement is used alone. However, the size of the vessel could technically limit this as a possible direct requirement.

This option would require the omitting of the Model Test option

Conclusion: This option would be preferred from a technical point of view. The calculation sequence is presented on pages 6-7 of this document. The sequential calculation procedure for damage stability, using parts of the old rules, presented by FI at the last COSS meeting and initially supported by UK and DE, has been confirmed to be controllable with modern application software. The software is also commonly available and in use by all major parties. This facilitates the introduction of this option.

(4) Incorporate SOLAS 2009 (without implementing the Stockholm Agreement)

This would constitute a U-turn in regard to the latest developments and decisions made.

This would put more responsibility on shipyards for damage stability calculations. Many possible cases of damage stability might not be taken into account.

This would require a cut-off date for the Stockholm Agreement requirements.

This would be technically difficult to apply on smaller vessels.

Conclusion: an option acceptable to several MS, but given the concerns expressed by EMSA and other MS about the new rules, this may no longer be a viable choice.

2.2. Existing vesselsThe following are two technical options available for the revision of EU Directives 98/18/EC and 2003/25/EC, for existing ships:

(5) Implementation of SOLAS 2009

The new SOLAS 2009 Ch.II-1,Reg.1.2 requires that ships constructed before 1 January 2009 meet the requirements of SOLAS up to the 2004 amendments (see Appendix 1, pages 8-9). This retroactive application would cause the following amendments to EU Directives, demanding up-grading prior to calculation of water on deck:

For domestic passenger vessels Class A, the above enters into force automatically.

For ropax ships on international voyages, the revision of Directive 2003/25/EC would mean an upgrade to new SOLAS levels, i.e. to the level of IMO SOLAS 96/98 Amendments.

The current cross-reference for domestic ropax vessels in Article 6(a) of Directive 98/18/EC for the calculation of “water on deck” could require the same up-grade for vessels in Class B and C, but this may not be acceptable.

3

The 'water on deck' calculation of the Stockholm Agreement still stands and is applicable to the relevant international and domestic ropax ships according to the timetable set out in Article 7 of Directive 2003/25/EC and Article 6(a) of Directive 98/18/EC respectively.

The above interpretation of a vessel’s upgrade to SOLAS 96/98 level would technically require re-calculation of the subdivision where there is a long lower hold, additional aids for buoyancy in the damage stability condition and/or transversal bulkheads on the bulkhead deck. In particular:

the addition of buoyancy aids, an addition of ducktail or sponsoons on the sides would, in practice, reduce the performance of the vessel (speed, manoeuvrability and/or berthing conditions). The sponsoons may require extension to davits and ladders, etc, life saving equipment on side, while the ducktail might cause bottom slamming.

the need for transversal bulkheads on the bulkhead deck would add additional requirements on the logistics of the loading and part of the equipment outfitting. It would also contribute to slightly reduced DWT.

large vessels would need B/5 bulkheads on the midship of the car deck.

those vessels calculated according to Resolution A.265 may need B/5 bulkheads in the long lower hold and/or on the main car deck.

The requirements would harmonise the calculation methods in use, instead of different SOLAS amendments starting from 1974, while the safety level would be kept within existing rules.

The contribution of the harmonised calculation of damage stability to the actual construction onboard would render the safety level of the hull uniform, avoiding sections with different standards.

The Model Test option remains available.

Conclusion: A viable option, dependent on Member State support

(6) Maintain the current SOLAS 90 in addition to the Stockholm Agreement:

Derogates from the IMO requirements(Class A).

Makes the transfer of domestic vessels outside the EU difficult.

A simple solution for non-SOLAS vessels (Class B and C).

Ensures the continued use of Resolution A.265 and long lower holds in limited domestic operations.

Leads to various interpretations for the calculation of water on deck at the time of implementation.

Conclusion: An approach relying on old IMO rules for domestic vessels of Class B and C inside EU, depending on the date of construction. May cause political or/and legal uncertainty in the case of accidents. Not feasible for Class A.

3. Summary of conclusionsThe Commission services preliminary assessment is that from a technical point of view:

(A) for new building ropax ships following the SOLAS rules: the best technical solution would be Option (3); and

4

(B) for existing ropax vessels: either Option (5) or (6) is feasible

If this solution is followed, the table on the page 1 could be completed as follows:

Impact of SOLAS 2009 Regulations on EU Directives at the date of entry in force 1 January 2009

  Existing vessels before 1/1/2009

New vessels on and after 1/1/2009

98/18/EC as amended

Upgrade to SOLAS 2004 Amendment level

SOLAS 2009 (Class A); Classes B – C to be decided.

2003/25/EC as amended

Upgrade to SOLAS 96/98 Amendment level

SOLAS 90 Ch.II-1, Reg.8.2.3 & Reg.8.4

  Model test option remains No Model test optionNote: New buildings in the domestic fleet - options (1) or (3) would be optimal , but as regards Option (1), the interpretation of “SOLAS 90”, as referred to in Directive 2003/25/EC, should be interpreted as SOLAS 96/98 Amendments.

Existing vessels: Options (5) or (6) would both be possible, with the schedule depending on the keel laying date or the revision time. In the case of existing vessels in the domestic fleet of Classes B and C, the current time schedule would still apply within Option (6).

Timeframe

Should Option (3) be taken up, a possible schedule of adaptation to the revised “Water on Deck calculation” is provided in the following table:

    Keel Laying date 

Service Vessel Class

before 1/10/04

after or on 1/10/04, before 1/1/09

before 1/1/09, upgraded before 1/1/2009

before 1/1/09, upgraded before 17/5/2003

1/1/09 ->

International N/A Option 5 by 1/10/2010

Option 5 by 1/10/2010

Option 6 by 1/10/2010, Option 5 by 1/10/2015

Option 6 by 1/10/2010, Option 5 by 1/10/2015

Option 3

Domestic A Option 5 by 1/10/2010

Option 5 by 1/10/2010

Option 6 by 1/10/2010, Option 5 by 1/10/2015

Option 6 by 1/10/2010, Option 5 by 1/10/2015

Option 3

  BOption 6 by 1/10/2010 or by 1/10/2015*

Option 6 by 1/10/2010

Option 6 by 1/10/2010

Option 6 by 1/10/2010

Option 3 (or Option 1 **)

  C   Option 6 by 1/10/2010

Option 6 by 1/10/2010

Option 6 by 1/10/2010

Option 3 (or Option 1 **)

* unless phased out on 1/10/2010 or on a later date on which they reach the age of 30 years, but in any case not later than 1.10.2015

** stability calculation using SOLAS 74 as up to the 96/98 Amendments.

5

6

Commentary on flowchart sequence for Option 31) First the vessel is planned and calculated according to S20092) If the vessel does not fulfil A>R, the layout has to be changed and the calculation

restarted.3) When the plan fulfils A>R, the Water on Deck calculation may be started.4) The water on deck will be calculated using Annex I of Directive 2003/25/EC. 5) In subject Annex I, Reg.1.1., only the provisions of SOLAS 90 Ch.II-1,Pt.B, Reg.8.2.3

and Reg.8.4. will be fulfilled.6) If the persons onboard are > 400 , all two adjacent compartments have to be checked

(to find the worst case flooding.)7) If the set criteria are not fulfilled, a change of layout or the following options will come

into question:1) Increase the height of bulkhead deck, or2) Insert partial B/5 bulkheads in way of the car deck, or3) Insert transversal bulkheads on the car deck, or4) Insert sponsoons

8) A new calculation of Water on Deck will follow.9) When the criteria for Water on Deck have been fulfilled, the values obtained (Range,

GZ and Area) will be verified by a second S2009 calculation.10) If the index A>R is not fulfilled, a similar set of options to the above will follow for

revision, prior to recalculating.11) When A>R , the calculation is compete.

Note: When options are entered at the Water on Deck calculation stage, they must not be removed at the second S2009 calculation, in order to optimise, if A>>R !

7

APPENDIX 1

8

__________________________________________________________________________ Correspondence table of MSC Reports to SOLAS Amendments

  Solas -74

MSC.1(XLV) Am.-81

MSC.6(48) Am.-83

MSC.12(56) MSC.11(55) Am.-88

MSC.19(58) MSC.13(57) Am.-89/90

MSC.27(61) MSC.26(60) Am.-91/92

Resolution 1 of the 1995 SOLAS Conference   Am.-94/95

MSC.69(69),MSC.65(68),MSC.57(67) MSC.47(66) Am.-96/98

MSC,99(73) Am.-00*

MSC.134(76) Am.-02*

MSC.170(79) MSC.151(78) Am.-04*

* does not contribute to stability matters

9