IACS History File + TB Part A UR L4 Closure of Chain Lockers Part A. Revision History Version no. Approval date Implementation date when applicable Corr.1 (Aug 2011) 23 August 2011 - Rev.3 (Mar 2011) 22 March 2011 1 January 2012 Rev.2 (Nov 2005) 2 November 2005 - Rev.1 (July 2003) 29 July 2003 - NEW (Nov 2002) 14 November 2002 1 July 2003 Corr.1 (Aug 2011).1 Origin for Change: Suggestion by an IACS member.2 Main Reason for Change: To reinstate the examples of acceptable closing arrangements of spurling pipes, which was inadvertently deleted during the last revision..3 List of non-iacs Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group:.4 History of Decisions Made: The correction was originally initiated by an IACS member and drafted by PermSec..5 Other Resolutions Changes.6 Dates: Original proposal: 5 August 2011 Made by: An IACS member GPG Approval: 23 August 2011 (Ref.11137_IGb) Rev.3 (Mar 2011).1 Origin for Change: Other (Based on Vessel Incident: Port state inspections found some instances where access openings on chain lockers could not be demonstrated as being watertight) Page 1 of 3
.2 Main Reason for Change: To clarify requirements for access openings below the weather deck on spurling pipes and chain lockers..3 List of non-iacs Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group:.4 History of Decisions Made: The revision was originally initiated by an IACS member and drafted through discussions and email correspondence within the Hull Panel. Version approved by the Hull Panel was sent to the Statutory Panel for review and concurrence. Final version drafted by the Statutory Panel after discussions and further revisions by the Statutory Panel..5 Other Resolutions Changes.6 Dates: Original proposal: 1 July 2010 Made by: An IACS member Panel Approval: 11 August 2010 (Hull Panel); 18 Feb 2011 (Statutory panel) GPG Approval: 22 March 2011 (Ref. 11047_IGc) Rev.2 (Nov 2005) See TB document in Part B. Rev.1 (July 2003) No TB document available. NEW (Nov 2002) No TB document available. Page 2 of 3
Part B Part B. Technical Background List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR L4: Annex 1. TB for New (November 2002) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2. TB for Rev.1 (July 2003) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Annex 3. TB for Rev.2 (November 2005) See separate TB document in Annex 3. Annex 4. TB for Rev.3 (March 2011) See separate TB document in Annex 4. There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document prepared for Rev.3 Corr.1 (August 2011) Page 3 of 3
Technical Background Document WP/SSLL UR L4, New 2002 The Working Party on subdivision, stability and load lines has been tasked to develop a UR to ensure watertightness of chain lockers. At the same time the IMO subcommittee SLF introduced such a requirement in the revised annex for the 1988 Load Line Protocol. The WP agreed unanimously that this requirement meets all criteria considered necessary by the WP in their previous deliberations on this issue as there are the pressure height to be assumed and the closure of access opening to the chain locker by means of a cover secured by closely spaced bolts, as also advised by GPG in the actual Work Programme of the WP/SSLL. However, due to the situation that not all new-build ships are built under the provisions of the 1988 Protocol a UR covering the remaining ships remains necessary. The WP agreed to use the same wording used in the IMO text amended by a respective application paragraph. Date of Submission: 25 Sept 2002 Permanent Secretariat
IACS TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR L4 Rev.1 Closure of chain lockers ABS raised the question of clarification of acceptable means of closure, having been presented with arrangements that vary from canvas hoods with tie-downs to split steel plates that cover the spurling pipe while accommodating the presence of the chain to minimize the ingress of water to the chain locker. GPG concurred that a footnote should be added and approved the text as follows: "(*) examples of acceptable arrangements are such as: i.) steel plates with cutouts to accommodate chain links or ii.) canvas hoods with a lashing arrangement that maintains the cover in the secured position". Permanent Secretariat 17 July 2003 Page 1 of 1
UR L4 (Rev.2, Nov 2005) Technical background TB The text of existing UR L4 (rev. 1) cannot be read otherwise than the separation of the cable (chain) lockers should be watertight. The approval practice that is established for supply vessels is not in accordance with this UR. Therefore, it was proposed that the text should be changed so it would be clear that only the cable (chain) locker as a whole is to be made watertight, and that common boundary between, or separating, adjacent cable (chain) lockers need not be watertight. Submitted by Statutory Panel Chairman 14 Sept 2005 Permsec s Note (Implementation Date) The Statutory Panel Chairman proposed that if GPG would consider it necessary to indicate an implementation date, considering the practice in place and that the modifications carried out do not modify its technical essence, the UR might be applied uniformly as soon as it is adopted by the Council. GPG decided that an implementation date for this revision is not needed. Council approved UR L4(Rev.2) on 1 Nov 2005 (5030dICa).
Part B, Annex 4 Technical Background for UR L4 Rev.3, Mar 2011 1. Scope and objectives To clarify watertight standard applicable to access openings situated below the weather deck on spurling pipes and chain lockers. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Access openings situated below the weather deck on spurling pipes and chain lockers are to be watertight. There have been instances of inspections of the chain locker by port state authorities where the access cover and its fittings on the chain locker could not be demonstrated as being watertight. The text of the UR is therefore being modified to explicitly state requirements for access openings below the weather deck. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through input from the Hull Panel and Statutory Panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: New text covering requirements in 2. above have been introduced in this revision. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The revisions were made through discussions and email correspondence separately within the Hull Panel and Statutory Panel, which involved incorporating individual comments and accepting the consolidated text. 6. Attachments if any