送信者： "Cox, Geoff" <CoxG@bre.co.uk>
宛先： "Koichi Yoshida (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
送信日時： 2002年4月3日 16:44
件名： FW: Formal liaison with ISO TC92?
I promised to copy to you my invitation to ISO/TC8. Here is the email I sent to Piersall, copied to Abbate on February 26. I still have had no reply.
It was good to see you again.
From: Cox, Geoff
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:03 AM
Cc: 'Claudio Abbate'; Magda di Carlo (E-mail)
Subject: Formal liaison with ISO TC92?
I'm writing to enquire as to whether TC8 or probably more likely TC8/SC1 wishes to establish formal liaison with TC92. You and I had some preliminary discussions along these lines some while ago and in reviewing my tasks for my next Plenary I note that I have been remiss in not taking this forward.
I note that the Chair of the IMO FP subcommittee proposed this (copied below) in his closing remarks to their 45th session in London last year which I was unable to attend.
Since Dr Yoshida is himself very active in TC92 I am a little embarrassed that I have not Progressed this following our representation at that FP sub committee meeting. IMO of course have been in Class A liaison with us for a long time. We will be delighted to be of assistance in any way we can.
With best wishes
Geoff Cox (Prof)
Chairman ISO TC92 "Fire Safety"
Closing remarks of Dr Koichi Yoshida at IMO Fire Protection Sub-Committee 45th session on January 12th 2001 at IMO:
"Members involved in ISO/TC8/SC1 for fire safety are quite small number (about 12 people at most) from very limited countries just about 7 (Denmark, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, UK and USA), and many of them are the people in maritime administration who know well about ship and today's fire safety regulations for ships but I suppose they do not know much about fire safety technology and science.
If the new work item proposal by USA by paper FP45/INF.5 (I mentioned in my closing remark) is approved, and if ISO/TC8/SC1 would like to take tasks of developing relevant standards for the purpose, I believe human resources in TC8/SC1 is insufficient.
I believe ISO/TC8 or its SC1 should have formal liaison with ISO/TC92 which has more than 300 fire safety scientist and experts and has developed and been developing many number of widely applicable (of cause also to ships) fire safety standards which IMO is using in many IMO recommendations and Fire Test Procedures Code.
Also, we, IMO FP, need a lot of help by ISO/TC21 which has developed and been developing extensive number of standards for fire-fighting systems, such as portable fire-extinguishers, fixed fire extinguishing systems, sprinkler systems and so on. IMO is a user of these standards.
In the participants list of FP45, following delegations have relation to TC92;
Mr. Bluhme (Denmark DIFT), Mr. Weckman (Finland VTT), Miss Le Tallec (France LNE), Myself, Mrs. Murrell (UK WFRC), Prof. Galea(UK)
and to TC21;
Mrs. Tuomisaari (Finland), Mr. Isaksson (Sweden), Mr. Smithey(UK)
Quite large number of people who have relation to TC92 or TC21 attended in former FP meeting for long years since 1906s as national delegates authorized by their maritime administrations.
IMO and at least FP needs their help. I very much appreciate their voluntary contributions to IMO."
Privileged and confidential information and/or copyright material may be contained in this e-mail. The information and material is intended for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee you may not copy or deliver it to anyone else or use it in any unauthorized manner. To do so is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you.
Liaison report from IMO
March 23, 2002
1. Fire test procedures
International code for Application of Fire Test Procedures (FTP Code) of IMO is a mandatory code under International Convention for the Safety of life at Sea (SOLAS). Table-1 shows a list of fire test procedures and referred ISO standards in FTP Code:
Table-1 fire test procedures and referred ISO standards in FTP Code
||Title of test procedures
||Standards referred to
||Equivalent or similar standards
||Smoke and toxicity test
||Test for fire protection divisions
||Test for fire door control systems
||Test for surface flammability
||IMO A.653(16) IMO A.687(17)
||Test for primary deck coverings
||Test for vertically supported textiles and films
||IMO A.471(XII) IMO A.563(14)
||Test for upholstered furniture
||Test for bedding components
||Test for fire restricting materials for high speed craft
||IMO MSC Resolution 40(64) IMO MSC Resolution 90(71) ISO 9705, ISO 5660-1
||Test for fire resisting divisions for high speed craft
||IMO MSC Resolution 45(65)
||Test for calorific potential
2. Guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for fire safety
Each regulation in Part B, C, D, E and G of SOLAS chapter II-2 "Construction - fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction" contains prescriptive requirements. However, designer and/or owner of ships may wish to use new fire safety design and/or arrangements which are not explained in the regulations but may produce a fire safety level equal to or better than those specified by prescriptive requirements. Therefore, IMO has developed a regulation (new Chapter II-2 part F Regulation 17) for evaluation of level of fire safety provided by alternative design and arrangements. The principle is specified in the draft Regulation 17 that;
.1 The designer may deviate from prescriptive requirements in the regulations and design the fire safety measures to meet the fire safety objectives defined in Regulation 2 or other regulations in Part B, C, D, E and G of SOLAS Chapter II-2.
.2 The designers, when deviating from the prescriptive requirements, shall provide proof that the alternative design or arrangements have the equivalent safety level of that in accordance with the prescriptive requirements. For proving the safety level, an engineering analysis shall be curried out.
The fundamentals of the engineering analysis is specified also in the regulation 17 that,
.1 proposal stating which prescriptive requirements are not used;
.2 specifying fire safety performance and its criteria addressed by the prescriptive requirements;
.3 detail of alternative design and arrangements, and the assumptions used in the design which may lead to operational restrictions on the ship such as limiting operation under certain condition; and
.4 proof that the alternative design and arrangements meet the required performance and criteria derived by .2.
In order to specify detail of the method of proof, "Guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for fire safety" has been developed and disseminated as IMO MSC/Circ.1002. The guidelines specifies detail method for the step .1 to .4 above. One of the key issues is that an established technology, such as ISO TR13387 series or SFPE Engineering Guide should be used for this purpose.
3. Review of SOLAS requirements for harmonization of performance testing and approval standards for fire safety systems (Document FP 46/12)
Chapter II-2 of SOLAS and the recently developed Fire Safety Systems (FSS) Code contain only minimal requirements that measure the effectiveness of fire safety systems. The existing criteria need to be further developed and harmonized to assure that consistent requirements are applied by Administrations when testing and approving fire safety systems.
Because of the large number and diversity of the fire safety systems under Chapter II-2 and the FSS Code, it is necessary to further subdivide the work item into related areas to ensure that the performance testing and approval standards will give equivalent protection for systems installed in common areas. For example, the fire hazard being protected against for machinery spaces does not change. Therefore, water based systems, gaseous agent type systems and foam systems intended for machinery space applications should all be evaluated to similar test standards. The performance testing and approval standards must, however, consider the differences between the extinguishing mechanisms of the various agents, and the acceptance criteria for the different agents should be selected accordingly.
The categories of spaces are:
- Machinery spaces (Engine rooms etc.)
- Accommodation, service and control spaces
- Vehicle spaces
- Cargo spaces
Fire Protection Sub-Committee (FP) at its 46th session (February 4 to 8m 2002) discussed methodology to accomplish this task and derived following steps:
(1) Identify fire hazard in each category of space,
(2) Establish fire scenario in each category of space,
(3) Establish goal of fire safety level of each category of space,
(4) Clarify requirements on detection of, extinction of and mitigation from fire in each category of space, and
(5) Review and, if necessary, revise existing or establish new performance testing and approval standards of fire safety systems
This task should be completed within four years from 2002.
4. Evacuation analysis for passenger ships
Passenger ships are categorized into 3 types:
(1) High speed passenger craft
(2) Passenger ferry (carrying passengers and motor vehicles) call as "ro-ro passenger ships"
(3) Passenger ships other than (1) and (2).
Performance of escape routes of passenger ships of (1) and (2) shall be evaluated in its design stage. Analytical technique is necessary for such evaluation. IMO FP has developed;
(a) Interim guidelines for a simplified evacuation analysis on ro-ro passenger ships (IMO MSC/Circ. 909)
(b) Interim guidelines for a simplified evacuation analysis for high speed Claft (IMO MSC/Circ.1001)
(c) Interim guidelines for evacuation analysis for passenger ships (developed at FP 46 and to be approved by Maritime Safety Committee 75th session in May 2002)
Interim guidelines of (c) contain both guidelines for simplified calculation methods and computerized simulation method for evacuation analysis.
During the development of these guidelines, members of ISO/TC92/SC4 gave much contribution to FP. FP appreciated the effort of these members.
5. Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for IMO Rule making process
IMO has developed guidelines for risk assessment called "Formal Safety Assessment (FSA)" (document MSC 74/WP.19 = ISO/TC92/SC4/N279). FSA is a rational and systematic process for assessing the risks associated with shipping activity and for evaluating the costs and benefits of IMO's options for reducing these risks. The use of FSA is consistent with, and should provide support to, the IMO decision-making process.
Application of FSA may be particularly relevant for proposals for regulatory measures which have far reaching implications in terms of costs to the maritime industry or the administrative or legislative burdens which may result. This is achieved by providing a clear justification for proposed regulatory measures and allowing comparison of different options of such measures to be made. This is in line with the basic philosophy of FSA in that it can be used as a tool to facilitate a transparent decision-making process. In addition, it provides a means of being proactive, enabling potential hazards to be considered before a serious accident occurs.
FSA consists five steps:
Step 1: Hazard identification,
Step 2: Risk analysis,
Step 3: Identification of risk control option
Step 4: Cost-benefit analysis
Step 5: Recommendations
FSA utilizes established risk analysis techniques, such as Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Event Tree Analysis (ETA), HAZIP (Hazard Identification Procedures) and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA).
The FSA guidelines has been approved by MSC in June 2001 and MEPC (Marine Environmental protection Committee in March 2002), and will be issued as an MSC/Circ soon.
6 Next FP meeting
FP 47 is tentatively scheduled from 10th to 14th February 2003.