INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E IMO MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE 82nd session Agenda item 21 MSC 82/21/18 29 August 2006 Original: ENGLISH WORK PROGRAMME Central control stations and safety centres on passenger ships Submitted by Argentina and ICCL Executive summary: Action to be taken: Paragraph 24 Related documents: Introduction SUMMARY This document contains the proposal for clarification of the requirements pertaining to the installation of central control stations and safety centres in order to avoid any confusion in the centralization of emergency management on board passenger ships FP 50/WP.6, MSC 81/WP.6, MSC 81/25/Add.1 and Circular letter No.2716, annex 1 1 At its last session, the Committee considered draft amendments to SOLAS 1974, chapter II-2, and approved, inter alia, the inclusion of a new regulation II-2/23 on Safety centres on passenger ships, circulated via Circular letter No.2716 (annex 1), which is expected to be adopted at this session. 2 The International Maritime Organization undertook an analysis on the safety of large passenger ships as a proactive measure in response to the ongoing increase in the capacity of new passenger ships. At its seventy-ninth session, the Maritime Safety Committee decided to extend the revision to all passenger ships regardless of their size. 3 The requirement of installation of a safety centre, aimed at facilitating a space to assist in the management of emergency situations on board, can be found among the Cruise Ship Safety Forum recommendations of current best practices. After significant discussion on this item the Sub-Committee on Fire Protection and the MSC 81 considered and approved it. The new regulation II-2/23 stipulates: Notwithstanding the requirements set out elsewhere in the Convention, the full functionality (operation, control, monitoring or any combination thereof, as required) of the safety systems listed below shall be available from the safety centre:.1 all powered ventilation systems;.2 fire doors; For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
MSC 82/21/18-2 -.3 general emergency alarm system;.4 public address system;.5 electrically powered evacuation guidance systems;.6 watertight and semi-watertight doors;.7 indicators for shell doors, loading doors and other closing appliances;.8 water leakage of inner/outer bow doors, stern doors and any other shell door;.9 television surveillance system;.10 fire detection and alarm system;.11 fixed fire-fighting local application system(s);.12 sprinkler and equivalent systems;.13 water-based systems for machinery spaces;.14 alarm to summon the crew;.15 atrium smoke extraction system;.16 [flooding detection systems]; and.17 fire pumps and emergency fire pumps. 4 SOLAS regulation II-2/7.9.3 requires that passenger ships carrying more than 36 passengers have the fire detection alarms and controls for the systems listed below, centralized in a continuously manned central control station: (a) (b) (c) (d) fire detection system alarms; remote operation systems for the closure of fire doors; stopping and reactivation of ventilating fans of the ventilating system; the control panels for alarm, fire door and ventilating fan systems should be provided with indicators to display the position (open close) of fire doors and the status (on off) of detectors, alarms and ventilators. Additionally, regulation II-2/9.4.1.1.4 details the control features from the central control station of fire doors located in bulkheads of main vertical zones, galley perimeters and stairway enclosures. 5 From the functional point of view, all the duties of the central control station are fulfilled from the safety centre. Operationally, the central control station is required to be continuously manned; in practice it means control from the bridge.
- 3 - MSC 82/21/18 6 If the safety centre is located in the bridge, the central control station will be superseded by the safety centre, provided it also fully complies with the current requirements for the control station. If the safety centre is located adjacent to but not on the bridge and is not continuously manned, the functions of the control station can be fulfilled by assuring that certain elements of the safety centre are duplicated on the bridge. 7 The new chapter II-2 appears to have several related definitions. The central control station defined in II-2/3.9 is only used to define the continuously manned central control station. Chapter II now also defines a safety centre to control/operate/monitor several safety systems which are to include those systems requiring control from the central control station. It would appear then that a clarification would seem necessary and desirable. 8 Likewise, from the human factor point of view, the control or operation of these safety systems should not be possible from two different locations at the same time. Accordingly, clear direction should be provided to avoid any misunderstanding. There should not be two centres of authority for the same function at any one time. Scope of the proposal 9 This document proposes to clarify concepts related to safety management on chapter II-2 in SOLAS Convention, by unifying or harmonizing as necessary the current central control station, manned central control station and safety centre definitions taking into account the alarms/systems that should be monitored from a manned location on board. 10 As usual practice in many ships nowadays, the safety centre should assume the central management of safety incidents, having assured its operational authority and assumed, as appropriate, proper monitoring, operation and control of safety systems from the bridge The need for the adoption of the proposal 11 The lack of requirements regarding the power source for the safety centres, as well as the possibility of a confusion of certain aspects of the safety management such as the required control locations to close fire doors and to shut down the ventilation fans (currently mentioned in manned central control station and the safety centre requirements), create the urgent need of clarifying and simplifying the SOLAS Convention to solve this matter. Cost for the maritime industry 12 The suppression of overlapping definitions/requirements for control stations could not only have a positive repercussion on the emergency safety management but also simplify the SOLAS Convention comprehension. Legislative and administrative work 13 The administrative and legislative work to be done will be minimum, since it simply implies harmonizing, within the SOLAS Convention, the requisites of the present requirements pertaining to central control stations and safety centres on board and/or drafting appropriate explanatory notes.
MSC 82/21/18-4 - Benefits of adopting the proposal 14 The existence of three control station definitions is unnecessary and confusing. In fact, the central control station defined in regulation II-2/3.9 is only used to define continuously manned central control station. 15 Furthermore, although regulation II-2/7.9.3 sets forth provisions about the power source for the panel of the central control station, the new regulation II-2/23 does not, therefore, the safety centre could become inoperative in case of an emergency. 16 The clarification of the present requirements regarding the role the control stations in emergency situations onboard passenger ships would mean an improvement of safety management in case of emergency avoiding the possibility of the adoption of conflicting decisions from different locations on the ship. Priority and date of completion 17 Given the forthcoming enforcement of the new regulation II-2/23 of SOLAS Convention, it is clear that the discussions on the requirements pertaining to safety management on board passenger ships in cases of emergency are of high priority. 18 The clarification and/or guidance regarding the safety centres in cases of emergency are expected to be completed after two sessions of the Sub-Committee on Fire Protection. Detail of measures to be adopted 19 The need to maintain the three control station definitions, the inter-relations between the systems controlled from their control panels, and the power source required for the safety centre should all be reviewed by the FP Sub-Committee with the goal to eliminate conflict among any existing regulations and providing guidance as deemed necessary. Is the subject of the proposal consistent with IMO objectives? 20 Yes. Are there enough regulations in the industry? 21 No (this is about modifying the present SOLAS regulations). Do the advantages offered justify the adoption of the proposed measures? 22 Yes (see paragraph 14 above). Determination of auxiliary bodies essential for the completion of the work 23 This document proposes that the Sub-Committee on Fire Protection be appointed to carry out the work.
- 5 - MSC 82/21/18 Action requested of the Committee 24 The inclusion of a new item in the work programme of the Sub-Committee on Fire Protection is hereby proposed in order to clarify and review the need to maintain the three control station definitions, the inter-relations between the systems controlled from their control panels, and the power source required for the safety centre.