FEEDBACK ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT … · PLA Response: Working group discussed and...

24.12.12 1

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY

FEEDBACK ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT THAMES FREIGHT STANDARD – APRIL 2012

Section

Consultee/Organisation

Summary of Feedback

GENERAL Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

Raised the question of applicability to having the technical standards and the operational requirements contained in one document. Suggests that the Standard may be presented better if split into two distinct sections. Section one to contain the technical requirements for the purpose of issuing a vessel licence and section two the operational requirements for the purpose of auditing the operator/ operations. There appears to be a lack of information regarding the inspection, or auditing of the SMS within the document and therefore it is not possible to comment on this aspect of the Standard. PLA Response: Guidance relating to the audit process will be contained in the Code Of Practice. It will broadly follow the Domestic Safety Management Code and will be updated inline with the MCA requirements under DSMC The proposed Standard contains no details of implementation dates for the vast majority of elements. PLA Response: This will be phased in with dates being agreed for specific requirements through the working group. The use of the word ‘vessel’ does not always follow the definition and it is often difficult to understand whether it applies to all vessels or certain types and equally to new builds or existing vessels. PLA Response: We agree and have reviewed the relevant Sections to include exemptions for dumb barges where required. The document should be split into two sections. Technical Vessel Standards and Operational Requirements Standards. PLA Response: Following the consultation, it was agreed at the working group that the Thames Freight Standard would contain only the technical requirements for licensing as suggested. There will be a separate Code of Practice to address the operational and SMS elements currently contained within the draft TFS document. General – there are a number of varieties of vessel length cut-off points for different requirements. Some seem to be based on older requirements which may no longer be required. There needs to be a standardisation into a small number of clearly defined lengths recognised by international and European standards. It is suggested that 15 metres and 24 metres LOA is used and not registered length.

24.12.12 2

Stephen Hames British Waterways

PLA Response:13.7m is used to align with the specific requirements of the PLA General Directions. 24m is inline with the MCA cut off for vessels either certificated under either SCV or Load Line Regulations There is a variation in the use of registered length (ship practice) and length over all, LOA, as used by inland waterways. LOA is used as the navigation constraints to limit the size of vessels and LOA is quick and easy to measure. Change all dimensions to actual sizes and not calculated sizes based upon cargo carrying capacity. PLA Response: This is inline with current MCA terminology and methods of measurement

DEFINITIONS Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Peter Hugman CBOA

Definition y) the use of this term is confusing. By this definition a tug is a high risk vessel at any time, even it appears when it is running light. The Cory tugs are however Certificated as workboats and so would be low risk vessels. Dumb barges are also low risk vessels PLA Response: Agree – Type 1 / Type 2 will be used to replace high / low risk. Definition y) We do not accept that all motor barges and any powered vessel over 24m can be described in any way as ‘High Risk’. Though there may well be a need to define these vessels as a group – this definition can be expected to lead to lawyers having a ‘field day’ if an incident of any type occurs. I can imagine the headlines – High Risk Barges allowed on Thames!!! PLA Response: Agree – Type 1 / Type 2 will be used to replace high / low risk.

3. APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

3.2.1 - No reference to IW vessels currently licensed to operate outside the Category D winter limits. Will these have to pass a PLA and a MCA inspection? PLA Response: The PLA is restricted by its powers and limited to the certification of vessels only in Category C & D waters within the Thames. Should an operator wish to proceed to sea, beyond the limits of Categorised Waters, they shall be subject to the SCV Code <24m and/or loadline Regulations where applicable. Vessels holding an SCV certificate or equivalent are exempt from PLA licensing under the PLA Act. 3.4 - There should be some right of appeal. PLA Response: An appeals procedure will be included in the Standard and based on that of the SCV Code.

4. CONSTRUCTION AND STRUCTURAL STRENGTH

Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA

4.1 - “The design of the hull should…” change “should” to “shall”. The strength of a vessel is essential for safe navigation. Therefore reinforce the requirement by changing should to shall to make it compulsory to provide sufficient strength. PLA Response: Agreed, amended. 4.2.1(b) The diminution requirement is in excess of that imposed on the Rhine where 3mm is the minimum. Similarly, class societies refer to diminution below rule thickness. That is, if a vessel is built of 15mm plate but suffers 30% diminution to about 10mm, there may be no need to replace the plate if the rules state that the minimum as built thickness for such plate work is, say, 8mm. 4.2.1 - This is too simplistic. Allowance should be made for vessels built with thicker hulls where this is to allow for corrosion and wear. A vessel with a 25mm hull will still have a thicker hull at 50% diminution than a vessel with an 8mm hull at 10% diminution. A standard formula is used in both the Rhine and EU regulations

24.12.12 3

Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

PLA Response: The Rhine Rules state that repairs must be undertaken when the diminution results in the plate thickness being less than 85% of the original plate thickness, however the minimum plate thickness should not be less than 3mm. The PLA will consider reducing the current 75% diminution limit on a case by case basis subject to operators providing a supporting case for the reduced diminution limits. Where greater limits are discussed and agreed with the PLA, the minimum thickness shall be marked on the vessel’s documents for future reference. 4.2.2 – New build vessels - Whilst the use of the EC Directive 2008/87/EC is the correct way for large cargo barges we would strongly recommend the inclusion of Lloyds Rules for Special Ships as they are most appropriate for smaller craft such as push tugs and launches. We would also recommend the inclusion of ABS rules for Inland Waterway Barges as these standards are more appropriate for UK style barges which can often be required to take the ground between tides as opposed to other standards which have developed around the Rhine style barges which do not take the ground between tides. PLA Response: This is already covered in Section 4.2.2; however will include suggested text to clarify point. 4.4.2 - “…Load Line Length”. This should be changed to Length Over All. This is where the length confusion starts between Length Over All and Load Line Length. It is European and inland waterway practice to use the measurement LOA and not the Load Line Length. The EU Directives for Inland Waterway Vessels and the Recreational Craft Directive use LOA as the primary length for boat measurement and vessel size cut-off points. PLA Response: This is inline with current MCA terminology and methods of measurement 4.4.3 - “… Load Line Length” This should be change to Length Over All, as in 4.4.2. PLA Response: This is inline with current MCA terminology and methods of measurement 4.4.4.3 - Existing vessels as well as some new vessels have access to the accommodation through the wheelhouse…….shall be directly accessible from the weather deck or wheelhouse. PLA Response: Reviewed by the working group and agreed that existing form of text is appropriate

4.6 – “… Load Line Length”

This should be change to Length Over All as in 4.4.2

PLA Response: This is inline with current MCA terminology and methods of measurement

4.7 - “ Rigid Inflatable Boats” – change to “Inflatable and Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats”. Expand the

section title to include all inflatable craft and not just ribs.

PLA Response: We Agree – Tittle amended

4.7.2 - Inflatable boats or rigid inflatables meeting the requirements of ISO 6185 Part 1 are not suitable

for operation under this Standard.” Change to include ISO Part 1. We do use such craft for inspection

purposes as deflated they fit into the boot of a car and are powered by a small 3 hp petrol or electric

24.12.12 4



outboard. They can be carried onto site and deployed quickly.

PLA Response: Part 1 of ISO 6185 has been reviewed and agreed by the working group that

whilst these types of vessels may be acceptable in Category A and B waters, they would not be

suitable for use in Category C & D Waters of the tidal Thames based on the limitations of the

engine Kilowatts.

4.8 - Remove the whole section. This Standard should rely on the ISO standards for construction

requirements. It should be for the manufacturers using appropriate standards to prove compliance.

PLA Response: We disagree - This is inline with the SCV Code

4.9.1 – Testing - “120% of safe working pressure”. We would suggest that 120% of the safe working

pressure may put the testers at risk of injury if the inflatable was to fail suddenly. Although this test is

used for inflatable rescue boats they are subject to a higher maintenance regime. Over inflating an

object could result in a rupture with consequences. Just use test as listed in 4.9.1 d).

PLA Response: We understand your concerns, however this procedure is inline with the

requirements of the SCV Code for all inflatable boats; however following discussions at the

working group, the text will be amended to ensure that any testing is undertaken by a “Competent

Person”.

5. WEATHERTIGHT INTEGRITY

Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

John Spencer GPS Marine

5.0 - Add: Openings in the weather deck that do not comply with this section will reduce the safety

clearance of the vessel

PLA Response: Working group discussed and agreed that no further action required. 5.0 - Weathertight Integrity - This whole section needs editing. There is inconsistence within this section with various sections repeating within each part. The section should be re-edited to reduce the word content and repetitiveness of the parts. Ideally the section should make use of existing standards where possible. Note: For vessels under 24m load line length …Change to Length Over All. ISO 12215 uses LOA and not Load Line Length for calculations. PLA Response: Our aim is to provide all the necessary requirements in one document, however refer to ISO Standards as an alternative where possible. The Section has been reviewed and amendments agreed by the working group, however it should be noted that these amendments are not extensive. 5.0 - Weathertight Integrity – Note: For vessels under 24m load line length, ISO 12215 is considered acceptable for strength and water-tightness purposes only. This must be checked as to its suitability for all types of vessel under 24m LOA. We do not believe that ISO 12215 is acceptable for all types of vessel under 24m length over all. This standard maybe acceptable for commercial craft developed from recreational craft but it would not be suitable for use with other types of vessel. PLA Response: This is inline with the SCV Code, however ISO 12215 “Is” will be replaced with “may be” 5.2.1.1 - Many existing vessels do not have weather tight doors capable of operation from either side. To make such vessels compliant with the proposed standard would in some cases be impossible, in

24.12.12 5

Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

most cases would be difficult and in all cases would be expensive. PLA Response: To clarify, this is a wethertight door and not a watertight door. A weathertight door can consist of a timber door in a timber frame, provided it fits, closes and can be secured in the closed position and does not allow the ready ingress of water under normal conditions. Discussed by working group and agreed that interpretation is correct. 5.2.1.1- Time will be needed to comply with this for existing vessels. PLA Response: Agreed, however please note the comments in our response to Mr Spencer’s comment on Section 5.2.1.1. 5.6.2 - Air pipes to fuel tanks to have a permanently attached weather tight closure. On loadline vessels floating balls serve on some tank vents, others are equipped with canvas socks and wooden bungs. These forms of weather tight appliance should be acceptable on the Thames. PLA Response: As suggested, “Canvas socks” would be accepted as equivalence by the second part of the same paragraph. Add guidance into Guidance to Surveyors notes. 5.6.2- This needs clarifying. Existing system should be sufficient. Is a closure needed if opening is above the safety clearance level? PLA Response: Discussed at working group. Agreed to insert into Guidance to Surveyors with reference to height and position of vents. 5.7.2 - The seacock/valve is a very necessary part of maintaining watertight integrity for inlet\discharges below the water line;change “, it should be fitted” to “, it shall be fitted”. This is also to maintain watertight integrity. PLA Response: We Agree and will amend text. 5.8 - A general note regarding the correct matching of materials is required to prevent galvanic corrosion. The choice of valve\sea cock material must be carefully matched with the vessel structure to prevent\reduce the effects of galvanic reaction between the fittings and other parts of the hull structure. PLA Response: We Agree – insert paragraph using second sentence of your comment above to reflect this.

7. MACHINERY


7.1.1 - Rebuilt or reconditioned engines to comply with current exhaust and noise emissions. This is excessive because this will frequently require owners to install new engines instead of rebuilt types of existing engines. This adds massively to costs as engine beds and pipework, at least, would then need to be changed. In our opinion, existing engines should be able to be exchanged for identical units and only when new or different engines are installed should the replacement engine have to conform to all the current rules on emissions and noise. On seagoing vessels this regulation only applies to vessels affected by MARPOL — ie over 400 GT. The same should be the case on the Thames. PLA Response: The concerns raised over this Section were reviewed by working group and it was agreed to amend the Section removing the reference to rebuilt engines. This is based on the fact that the MCA do not currently have a definition that differentiates between “rebuilt” and “reconditioned” engines. The term “like for like” engine replacements will be inserted, which do not have to comply with noise and emission standards.

24.12.12 6

Peter Hugman CBOA Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Stephen Hames British Waterways Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

7.1.1 – The rquirement that all reconditioned or rebuilt engines must immeadiatly comply is unrealistic. The comparable regulation is now only in forceon the Rhine, but following a lengthy adjustment period of I believe, 15 years. We believe that these rules should only apply when new engines are fitted, but recondirtioned or rebuilt engines should compy as far as is reasonable practicable. PLA Response: Please see PLA response to Mr Spencer’s comment on Section 7.1.1 7.1.1 - Due to older tonnage on the Thames it may proof impossible for the new engines to comply with the new regulations for emissions and therefore new engines will have to be sourced. Given the size of some of the engines this will be very costly and possibly make the vessel uneconomical to operate. PLA Response: Please see PLA response to Mr Spencer’s comment on Section 7.1.1 7.1.1 - This section needs a rewrite. The section requires better clarification of the intent. In particular the phrases shall be designed, built should really be selected as the vessel designer and builder have little control on modern marine engine builds as they are built to comply with international standards. PLA Response: Please see PLA response to Mr Spencer’s comment on Section 7.1.1 7.1.1 – Capt Caborn concurs with GPS & CBOA comments. PLA Response: Please see PLA response to Mr Spencer’s comment on Section 7.1.1 7.1.3 - Modern vessels are being built with LPG or other gas as fuels – this should be allowed PLA Response: Agreed. Other proposed installations will be considered on a case by case basis. 7.2.1 - Delete Section. This section repeats more or less what was already covered in section. PLA Response: We disagree, working group considered that current wording is appropriate. 7.6.1 - “All exhaust gases….” Change to “All combustion exhaust gases…” Greater clarity on what gases need to be exhausted out of the vessel. PLA Response: We agree, text amended Add a new section at say 7.6.5 to cover the use of asbestos. ‘7.6.5 On new builds and repairs the exhaust system insuation is not to contain asbestos.’ Suitable alternatives of asbestos free materials are available. The aim of this, is the long term removal of all asbestos products from marine craft to reduce the risk to operators and maintenance staff. PLA Response: We Agree; add after Section 7.6.4 and move Section 7.6.5 to 7.6.6. 7.6.6 - Add a new section at 7.6.6 to cover existing asbestos lagging. ‘7.6.6 On existing systems where asbestos lagging has been identified the lagging may remain providing it is correctly sealed and the asbestos lagging is not breaking down. Where the asbestos lagging is breaking up then the lagging shall be removed in accordance with asbestos regulations and with the use of a licensed and approved contractor. The replacement lagging shall be of a non-asbestos material.’ The aim of this is the long term removal of all asbestos products from marine craft to reduce the risk to operators and maintenance staff. Asbestos lagging should be monitored to make sure it is not a risk by breaking down and flaking into particles. Should the sealed asbestos start to flake off then an assessment has to be carried out into the extent of the problem with removal seen as the

24.12.12 7

Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine Capt Neil Caborn Cory environmental Peter Hugman CBOA

best long term solution. PLA Response: We Agree; this Section will be expanded to ensure that asbestos free materials are used for insulation. 7.6.5 - Rewrite as part of 7.6.3 with the added part of “…against physical contact by location or barrier.” This edit will both clarify and strengthen section 7.6.3 by explaining design and installation methods to reduce the problem of touching hot pipes. PLA Response: We Agree. Text amended. 7.7.1 - Auxiliary fuel tanks. Rewrite section to cover only permitted for portable appliances. Fixed auxiliaries must be supplied from a fixed tank system. Small auxiliary tanks are only permitted on portable equipment such as small outboards or water pumps. This section must clearly define that for all fixed power systems the fuel must come from a separate fixed system. It must not be permitted to allow refuelling of small tanks above what could be a hot engine in a fixed installation. This would be a potential fire hazard. PLA Response: We Agree – Text revised to limit the use of such tanks. 7.7.13 b) – delete “for petrol engines” but retain the rest for diesel engines. Petrol engines shall not be permissible. It is a requirement of the Boat Safety Scheme to fit suitable gauze onto an air breather pipe to prevent the ingress of dirt and the possibility of flame reaching vapours from the tank. PLA Response: We disagree - Petrol engines are permitted providing they are of a suitable outboard type (7.12.7) as per the SCV Code. Also under the SCV Code, flash gauzes are only required on petrol tanks where there is the risk of a flame igniting vapors emanating from the tank. Section 7.7.13 a) should prevent the entry of dirt and water ingress into the tank. 7.7.8 - Safeguarding fuel and oil tanks against accidental over spilling, this would be virtually impossible in practice as most existing vessels do not lend themselves to readily having a "bunker station" where filler and vent pipes all terminate in a single save all installed. We suggest that there be a requirement to carry a prescribed amount of spill gear. As an alternative level alarms could be fitted in bunker tanks, but again there are significant cost implications in this and loadline vessels under 400GT are not required to comply with any similar regulation. PLA Response: This is achievable by not leaving bunker stations unattended and monitoring tank levels during refueling, as covered in Section 7.7.7. It is not the intention to require level alarms on fuel systems as we agree that this would be excessive in terms of this Standard. However Section 7.7.9 does refer to level alarms “if” fitted. Spill kits are a valid suggestion, however could pose impractical on small boats. The detail of bunkering operations should be documented in the vessel’s SMS. 7.7.8 – While all of our newer tugs would comply, a system would need to be retro fitted on the MERIT & GENERAL VIII at considerable cost. These tugs are not at the end of their useful life but would become less attarctive to any new owners. PLA Response: Please see PLA response to Mr Spencer’s comment on Section 7.7.8 7.7.8 Add: Existing installations that do not comply with 7.7.9 can only be used if the vessel has a relevant risk assessment and method of operation that includes the carrying of a spill kit on board.

24.12.12 8

John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

PLA Response: Please see PLA response to Mr Spencer’s comment on Section 7.7.8 7.8 - As a whole this section places a higher level of regulation than exists for loadline vessels under 500GT. The costs associated with fitting double wall fuel pipes would be excessive and a number of existing vessels have engines installed for which double wall fuel pipes are not available. Although it is frequently possible to fit shrouds around fuel pipes, doing so frequently impairs the safe operation of the engines. If vessels below 500GT can operate to sea without double wall or shrouded fuel pipes, surely such vessels should be able to operate on the Thames. PLA Response: Text amended to apply to New Build Vessels with aggregate output >750Kw,, however existing vessel >750Kw shall comply as soon a practicably possible. An exemption for existing vessels may be applied through Section 7.8.4 based on risk assessment 7.8.2 & 7.8.3 - do not equate to each other. 7.8.3 applies to existing vessels with 375KW or less but not to new vessels. 7.8.3 refers to new vessels with over 750kW PLA Response: Section 7.8 reviewed and amended to address new and existing vessel both above and below 750Kw. – Reference to 375Kw removed. 7.8.3 - 4.8.1(b) Incorrect reference PLA Response: Agree – Should read Section 7.8.2(b), however following discussion at the working group, second sentence in paragraph has been removed. 7.8.3 - There needs to be a more flexible approach to options for existing vessels. The aim should be to minimise risk but without prescriptive measures. Where aggregate totals are used, installation on smaller generators may be especially problematical. PLA Response: Section discussed with MCA and working group and concluded that Section 7.8.3 could be utilized to identify whether smaller units posed a risk to fire safety and are mitigated by other means. 7.9.2 - Most small oil containers (25l or less) are now supplied in plastic containers. Many vessels use several types of oil especially for reduction/direction boxes. One single small oil container of each type as supplied by the manufacturer (of the oil) should be allowed. PLA Response: This is already a requirement of PLA inspection criteria; Any oils or flammable liquids stored within the engine space should be contained in fire resistant receptacles where possible, otherwise shall be securely stowed away from heat sources. Text amended to reflect comments from working group. 7.10 - Rhine Regulation 8.09.1 specifically designates the engine room bilge as the place to hold oily water. Other old oils should if possible be stored in specific tanks or in suitable 25l drums. It is safer to have temporary storage in the engine room – much safer than having it on deck! PLA Response: This Section was discussed in detail at the working group and concluded that the engineroom bilge is not a suitable storage receptor for oily waste. Oil in the engineroom bilge should be decanted into smaller containers and suitably disposed of ashore. 7.10.1 – The PLA must supply a place to dispose of this oily water or a safe and economic method of doing so. These rules are based on EC regulations and cannot be implemented without the accompanying infrastructure enabling compliance. PLA Response: There is currently no obligation on the PLA to provide waste disposal facilities for

24.12.12 9

Capt Neil Caborn Cory environmental John Spencer GPS MArine Stephen Hames British Waterways Mike Harrison Dolphin Maritime Software Ltd

operators; however your comments have been noted and this issue has been bought to the attention of the PLA Executive Committee for discussion. 7.10.2 - REGAIN & RESOLVE do not have a dedicated storage tank facility for oily water and waste oil. This accumulates in the bilge and is pumped ashore regularly. Retro fitting tanks to these vessels would be very costly. PLA Response: Oily water can be decanted from the bilge and stored in 25l containers. The main purpose of this section is to prevent contaminated water from being discharged overboard during bilging. The water accumulated is generally from the stern gland and if this can be segregated from the area of bilge below the engine and provided with a separate pump, this would address our primary concerns. 7.10.3 - Most vessels can comply with the concept of storing used oil and disposing of it ashore. However, by far the most common and largest volume of oily waste is oily bilge water. Storing any meaningful volume of oily bilge water would be challenging in most small river craft and there is no requirement for sea going vessels of less than 400GT to do so. Similarly, there should be no requirement for river craft to do so. Instead, better provision should be made for disposing of oily bilge water, possibly by PLA. In this way vessels could keep bilge levels low and the whole problem could be done away with. PLA Response: This only applies to vessels over 24m load line length and should be achievable in vessels of this Class. The comment regarding disposal points is noted and the issue has been bought to the attention of the PLA Executive Committee. 7.12 Petrol Engines - Only outboard motors acceptable. All of 7.12 shall be revised. Petrol vapour is a fire and explosive hazard which requires a significant amount of safe management. Unless it is a proper outboard engine all petrol engines shall not be permitted. There are suitable alternatives for portable power available such as electric bilge and salvage pumps and lightweight diesel powered pumps and generator\welding sets. PLA Response: We agree with part of your comment in principle, however it would not be practical to prohibit the carriage of all petrol engines; a number of vessels carry portable petrol driven pumps which would be prohibited under your proposal; in addition chainsaws and petrol driven disc cutters are carried on board a number of vessels and are required for their work. Inboard petrol engines are permitted under IWSPB Code, however are required to comply with strict installation standards and are assessed on a case by case basis. 7.12.1 - should "planning mode" actually be "planing mode"? PLA Response: This is a typo and should read “planing mode” as suggested.

8. ELECTRICAL ARRANGEMENTS

Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways

8.0 - The whole Electrical section needs to be re-assessed. It appears to be over prescriptive with parts taken from different regulations which make them difficult to follow especially where translations may be less than perfect – reference should simply be to a recognised standard. We would like to see existing vessels simply being assessed as safe to operate or covered by ‘no incidents over 5 years’. PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and amended 8.0 - Electrical Installations - The whole section must be revised and written to reflect the use of IEC marine electric standards and requirements of Classification Society requirements. This

24.12.12 10

Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman

section requires a complete rewrite. It should not be for this standard to lay down electrical installation instructions and requirements. These are better done through the correct IEC\BSi documents in accordance with UK National Regulations. PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and amended based on comments received during the consultation. 8.2.1.2 - Even though a vessel may have been in class not all the paperwork may be present to the current operator, what allowance are there so as to meet the standard? PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and amended, however it should be noted that this is currently a requirement under MGN 322 for vessels transferring from Class. 8.2.1.2 A general requirement to hold a wiring diagram should be sufficient. There should be no need to hold the calculations on board. Does the PLA really need or want to see all this. Surely that is what the inspection or class is about? This section has been reviewed and amended, however it should be noted that this is currently a requirement under MGN 322 for vessels transferring from Class. 8.2.2.5 - We question the need for existing vessels to be fitted with explosion proof lights in battery and paint lockers. PLA Response: This mirrors the requirements laid down in the EC Regulation concerning electrical installations in potentially hazardous/explosive environments 8.2.4.1 - Systems with an operating voltage greater than 50 V must be earthed. Electrical installations having a nominal voltage greater than 50V a.c. or d.c. shall be provided with a protective earth system connected to the vessels protective earth terminal. This is a miss-translation. The EC regulation is : Systems with an operating voltage greater than 50 v must include an earth. This means that they should be a three wire system – live, neutral and earth – basically the same as standard in any business. The neutral and earth combine together at the generator. PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and amended 8.2.10 - There is some confusion between clauses and the section is unclear, especially the section headed vessels under 24m much of which also applies to vessels over 24m. PLA Response: This section has been reviewed by the working group and amended accordingly. 8.2.10.6 - Forced ventilation battery boxes for batteries requiring more than 2Kw of charge is not a requirement for loadline vessels under 500GT or for vessels operating under the workboat code. Why should this requirement apply to craft working in the Thames? PLA Response: We agree - This section has been reviewed and the phrase “Forced draught” has been removed 8.2.10.6 - The EC only requires forced ventilation if the lead acid batteries are charged at more than 3kW. The 2kW level only applies to Nickel-Cadmium batteries. PLA Response: We agree, we will amend to reflect this and include the requirements for both nickel cadmium and lead acid batteries. 8.2.10.9 - Between 8.2.10.9 and 8.2.10.10 Vessels under 24m WHY? Therefore there

24.12.12 11

CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

Matthew Harris Livetts Launches

Peter Hugman CBOA

John Spencer GPS Marine John Spencer GPS Marine

are no battery standards for vessels over 24m???? PLA Response: We agree; this section requires turning around to include a Section heading of “All Existing Vessels”, followed by a break down of additional requirements for >24m. Section has been reviewed and amended 8.2.10.10 - If they only have one set of batteries then 8.2.10.11 can’t apply. PLA Response: We agree ; 8.2.10.10 has been removed.

8.2.10.11 - The requirement to carry 2 sets of starting batteries has absolutely no bearing on safety. From an operational perspective it is desirable to have 2 sets of batteries and to have a different set of batteries for starting from that used for the vessel's services. However, this should at most be a recommendation and certainly should not be a requirement. PLA Response: The requirement for dual starting has been removed for vessels<24m. Vessels >24m will be required to have two power sources, either two sets of batteries, or a generator which can be used to charge the staring bank of batteries. Smaller vessels should carry an independent means of communication for emergency use.

8.2.10.11 - As most of the vessels are powered through a gearbox they should be running all the time hence once they have started there is no need to stop. Therefore having two means to start the engine is impractical. Also due to some of the sizes of engines a large amount of batteries is required to start them. By having two different sources you double the amount and also double the risk associated with having batteries onboard and charging. PLA Response: In view of the comments received, this section has been reviewed and amended to only apply to vessels >24m. In addition the requirement for two sets of batteries shall be replaced with the requirement to have two power sources ie. A generator capable of charging the starting bank. Smaller vessels should carry an independent means of communication for emergency use. 8.2.10.11 - This is never done. The standard is back to front. The EC regulations and SAFETY dictate that only one set of batteries can be used to start any one engine, though one set of batteries can start several engines. It is important that start batteries are not used for ‘domestic’ equipment. PLA Response: We agree. This Section has been removed in view of other comments received for Section 8.2.10.11. 8.2.10.17 to 8.2.10.21 – this is exactly the same as the start of the Section? PLA Response: We Agree that some of this is repeated in both <24m & >24m. The Section will be reviewed and separated to include all vessels Section and >24m. 8.2.10.22 - We are not aware that fuses can be placed in starting cables. Certainly, we have no experience of fuses being installed in starting cables on any vessel that we have ever operated — even classed ones! PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and amended to remove the requirement for fuses on starter lines and critical electrical motor circuits

24.12.12 12

Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Peter Hugman CBOA

8.2.10.22 - This regulation really applies to the switchboard not the battery. Starter motor cables are not fitted with fuses. PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and amended to remove the requirement for fuses on starter lines and critical electrical motor circuits 8.2.11.1 - Does PLA propose to conduct full electrical surveys? We are uncertain as to whether all our craft comply with this regulation and we doubt that PLA surveyors are qualified to assess whether or not they do. PLA should be aware of the financial impact of redesigning switch boards in existing vessels. PLA Response: Comments noted and complete Section reviewed and revised by the working group to take this into consideration. 8.2.11.3 - We have classed vessels that are capable of operating worldwide that do not have audible earth leakage alarms. While most vessels are already fitted with earth lamps the audible alarm requirement seems excessive. PLA Response: We agree, this Section has been removed. 8.2.11.3 – b) should be “Networks that do not include CPC’s with a voltage….” PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and amended 8.2.11.4 – It is impractical to place mats behind switchboards on all vessels due to there size and where the switchboard has been mounted, usually on bulkheads PLA Response: Reviewed at the working group and agreed that this would only apply where practicable 8.2.11.4 – not as in the EC Regulations – no requirement for a mat behind the switchboard. PLA Response: This section has been reviewed and agreed at the working group that this would only apply where practicable.

9. STEERING GEAR, RUDDER AND PROPELLER SYSTEMS

Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

9.2.3 – What is meant by: When steering gear is fitted with a remote control …… The original EC regulation refers to steering gear with mechanical drive! All of the options are NOT realistic for a vessel especially over 24m. The usual system is to switch from manual to hand- hydraulic or have two sources of energy to operate the mechanical system. This needs a total re-think. PLA Response: Section reworded to indicate that anchoring is an acceptable alternative to emergency steering. Emergency procedures will need to be submitted in support of this requirement. Information included in Guidance to Surveyors. 9.2.3 – Using tillers for emergency steering – This requirements shows a lack of understanding of the environment in which vessels operate on the Thames. a) The rudderstocks of most existing Thames tugs (even those that have operated on the Continent) would need to be replaced to meet this requirement. b) The steering gear of many vessels is in closed compartments, so it would take too long to fit and rig a tiller, by which time an accident could have already occurred.

24.12.12 13

Matthew Harris Livetts Launches

c) Most tugs would not be able to be steered by a tiller alone and would need blocks and tackles rigged – tis would take even longer before a modicum of control could be re-established. d) The degree of control afforded by such a jury rigged system is insufficient for safe operation of vessels in the Thames environment. e) It is infinitely better that vessels are provided with an efficient anchoring system than that owners scarce resources are wasted on useless emergency steering systems. After all, it’s not as though a vessels suffering steering failure in the Thames would need to be navigated for any significant distance before it could receive assistance in the form of a tow from another vessel is seldom more than a few minutes away. PLA Response: Sections a-e removed and inserted into Surveyors Guidance. 9.2.3 – This is impractical for the larger tugs working on the Thames. By having two means of steering, be it by electrically driven hydraulic motor and a hydraulic motor should suffice, which is similar to that of a ship. PLA Response: We agree – as above.

10. BILGE PUMPING

Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Peter Hugman CBOA Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

10.1.5 - In addition to this the area the bilge alarm is in should be indicated at the alarm sounding point where multiple bilge alarms are in place. PLA Response: We agree that in instances where more than one bilge alarm is fitted, it should be accompanied by clearly distinguishable lights. 10.1.5 - Each alarm should be separately identifiable. PLA Response: We agree – as above 10.1.7 - To pump a tank or bilge ‘dry’ would not be possible using most pumps. PLA Response: We realise that this may be the case, however every effort should be made to remove as much water as possible in order to reduce free surface effect within the spaces and facilitate full inspection. Section reviewed to state “remove as much water as practicably possible” 10.1.7 – Delete DRY PLA Response: See above 10.2.2 - Many, if not most existing vessels, including those built to class rules are provided with only one bilge pump. While we can understand the thrust of the regulation, we consider that a portable power driven pump should be accepted as a second bilge pump. PLA Response: This section has been worded such, that the operator can provide a solution suitable to their own vessels/operations. A portable power driven pump would satisfy this requirement; “hand pump” to be amended to “hand or independently driven pump”. 10.2.1 - Delete DRY PLA Response: Disagree – see above 10.2.2 - It appears bizarre that a hand pump is necessary to comply with this regulation. In our small vessels we have electric bilge pumps and a power driven portable pump. Surely this arrangement should be acceptable since the pumping capacity far out weighs the requirements of this regulation.

24.12.12 14

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA



Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames

PLA Response: Text amended to “hand or independently driven pump” 10.2.2 - The EC regulation 8.08.2 only requires one power bilge pump for this size of vessel (and those carrying less than 350t, tugs etc). If two pumps are necessary, the second should be hand operated OR powered/portable. PLA Response: We agree – see above. 10.2.3 – Should specifically allow a portable powered pump. PLA Response: This Section states that a second pump must be independently driven, therefore would include a portable powered pump. Agreed by working group.

10.2.6 - Add: or easily primed PLA Response: We disagree – this is the requirement across most UK regulations.

10.2.8 - Many existing vessels have bilge and ballast valves in a single chest — modification costs could be prohibitive. PLA Response: For existing vessels appropriate procedures should be put in place for effective use of bilge pumping / ballasting systems to prevent cross contamination of ballast water with bilge water when discharging ballast water. This should be documented in the vessels SMS 10.2.8 - It will be very difficult to alter pump manifolds on existing vessels so this should not apply to existing vessels with a proven 5 year history of safe operation. PLA Response: See above 10.2.9 - Void spaces should be exempt from this requirement. PLA Response: We disagree – This is a requirement under Section 5.2 of the PLA Craft Towage COP that all void spaces on barges are checked for water content prior to departure. In addition we inspect many vessels where unknown quantities of water are discovered once the access hatches are opened for void space inspections.

10.3.1 - Should allow two powered bilge pumps. Suggest – these vessels must carry two bilge pumps at least one of which must be powered. Should simply specify two pumps. PLA Response: We agree. One pump can be power driven from the main engine, the second may be hand or independently power driven. 10.3.1 - Powered Vessels under 24 metres. Include the option of a bucket or hand bailer instead of a hand pump. On small craft the storage of a hand pump can be difficult and pumps tend to get damaged. With the option of a hand bailer or bucket these are less likely to get damaged nor stored in a place which is not readily accessible. PLA Response: Buckets and bailers have a tendency to go missing; either stolen or otherwise therefore a fixed pump is the preferred option. In addition, whilst a bailer may be appropriate for an open boat <6m, any vessel with an enclosed bilge space (ie. engineroom or cabin) could prove difficult to access the bilge with a bailer and would not have any meaningful effect, therefore it is not deemed appropriate for vessels under this Standard.

10.3.2 – “hand-powered pump, bucket or hand bailer.” As per Section 10.3.1above.

24.12.12 15

British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA

PLA Response: We Agree that a bailer or bucket would be suitable for this type of vessel; however it should be stowed such that it remains on board at all times. Buckets and bailers have a tendency to go missing, either stolen or otherwise therefore a fixed pump is the preferred option. Text amended. 10.3.3 - add “A bucket or hand bailer should be added to the vessel inventory as a precaution.” This is a simple device to cover the need to carry some kind of equipment to provide a means of bailing out water. A cut down plastic container can be used as a hand bailer. PLA Response: This would be assessed on a case by case basis and would be dependent on the type of vessel as discussed in 10.3.2. 10.4.3 – Delete DRY PLA Response: We realise that this may be the case, however every effort should be made to remove as much water as possible in order to reduce free surface effect within the spaces and facilitate full inspection. – The term “dry” will be replaced with “discharge as much water as practicably possible”

11. STABILITY

Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

Section 11 – Stability – No section on Pusher Tugs. This should be added as 11.2.6 Vessels engaged in pusher operations. The stability requirements for pusher tugs seem to have been overlooked. PLA Response: The working group has discussed this issue and feels that Section 11.1 addresses this point. 11.2.1 - PLA should clarify whether all barges operating on the Thames will be required to be provided with a stability document. If they do, will this document be formally approved by PLA? PLA Response: There will not be the requirement for barges to hold a stability information booklets; however when operating in Cat D waters an assessment of stability will be required and will be based on beam to length ratios. 11.2.1 - There is no history, either in this country or within the EC, of stability issues for dry cargo barges except when they carry containers wholly above the hatch coamings. They should therefore be exempt from any general stability assessment. PLA Response: Stability requirements for barges will only be applicable when operating in Category D waters and will be based on beam to length ratios. 11.2.4 - Vessels fitted with a lifting device. This will be almost every vessel as, due to the wording, it includes those with a simple davit to launch a dinghy or lifeboat. This cannot be the intention of the regulation. This should be better defined. This would be better covered by HSE, LOLER and specified heeling tests as at present. The requirement needs to be practicable and not separate from current lifting regulations in force. PLA Response: We agree that the term lifting device be defined for the purpose of this Section. Section 11.6.1 of the SCV Code will be used as a footnote. 11.2.4 - PLA should clarify whether crane barges will need to be provided with a stability book. If so PLA should set out the full stability criteria to be achieved and set out the form such a book should take. Presumably PLA will formally approve such documents? PLA Response: Crane barges will not require stability information booklets; however will require

24.12.12 16

Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA

an assessment of their stability for the intended tasks. This is the responsibility of the owner/operator and the PLA will only review stability information and not approve it. 11.2.4 - Vessels fitted with a lifting device. Delete “(10° if the heeled freeboard is at least 250mm)” This angle of heel is against most crane manufacturers’ information regarding the maximum angle of heel permitted on crane mounting rings and bearings. It is also not acceptable under the BS 7121 Code of Practice for Cranes. The recognised industry maximum permitted angle of heel is 7°. This limit should not be overlooked as it is the accepted norm. PLA Response: We agree and will include reference to manufacturer’s safe working limits. 11.2.4 c) - The requirement for all hands to be on deck when a crane is being used should not necessarily apply. While this may be a sensible requirement if the stability criteria were doubtful, we suggest that in such situations it should not be permitted for a vessel to operate with such a large crane. However, if the stability information shows the operation of a specific crane on a vessel to be completely safe (and it is only in such situations that the installation should be permitted) the all hands on deck requirement is unnecessary. PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed that this should be left to the risk assessment. 11.2.4 c) - should be left to the risk assessment/method statement. PLA Response: Agreed; 11.2.4 c) amended accordingly. 11.2.5 Will all existing tugs be forced to carry a stability book? Comments at 11.2.4 also apply here. In addition, problems could be encountered due to lack of construction drawings, lines plans etc. PLA Response: There is no requirement for tugs engaged in towing to hold a SIB. However tugs engaged in towing vessels of more than twice their own displacement will be subject to an assessment of stability with the formula set out in Section 11.4. PLA / MCA will provide block coefficients when requested. 11.2.5 - Existing vessels should be covered by the 5 year rule. PLA Response: We disagree – there have been a number of cases that have highlighted the need for stability information when towing.

12. FREEBOARD, FREEBOARD MARKING AND DRAUGHT MARKS AND SCALES

John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA

12.1.2 - All our barges operate in category D waters and much of our business relies on them doing so. We are concerned that PLA seek to inhibit or prevent us carrying on our long established operations. PLA Response: Discussed at second working group and agreed that existing text remains appropriate. 12.1.2 - The exemption for open vessels to operate in Class D waters has currently no guidelines. When this rule was being discussed with the MCA originally, this was one of the items that had to be looked at further. It would be advantageous to make some specific recommendations for this such as a significantly greater safety clearance and/or greater freeboard and/or increased pumping arrangements and/or significant bulwarks. PLA Response: Discussed at second working group and agreed that the existing text remains appropriate.

24.12.12 17

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

12.3.2 - Scantling draught???? Not defined PLA Response: Scantling draught removed and replaced with “plane of maximum draught” 12.3.3 - The values of safety clearance and freeboard should not be varied at the whim of the PLA otherwise it is not possible to design any new vessels. The values of safety clearance and freeboard should not be varied in any manner that appears arbitrary. PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed that the second sentence from “However….” Is removed. 12.4 - Surely this should be for vessels carrying less than 1000kg? PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed to amend tittle amended to” Less Than” 12.4.1 - The values of safety clearance and freeboard should not be varied at the whim of the PLA otherwise it is not possible to design any new vessels. PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed that the second sentence from “However….” Is removed. 12.4.1 - delete “over 13.7m load line length” – Three points –

1. The use of 13.7m as a measurement will cause confusion. If a measure is needed then this should be 15.0m as recognised in the EU Directive2006/87EU and by the RCD. The use of the 45 feet\ 13.7m length needs to be reviewed by the MCA as this measure no longer is compatible with EC requirements and should be dropped. 2. As stated before the use of old Board of Trade\Department Of Transport definitions of load line length need to be changed to length over all as laid out in the EU Directive. 3. All vessels except open workboats, inflatables and ribs, should be fitted with a freeboard mark to enable the crew to use the vessels safely.

PLA Response: The length of 13.7m may appear out of context for operators unfamiliar with PLA requirements, however it aligns with a number of PLA regulations such as General Direction 4, VHF requirements; Local Knowledge Endorsement requirements under Thames Byelaw 22, ‘Certificate of Compliance’ requirements to operate above 12 knots within restricted areas, and Byelaw 10, ‘Small, Fast Vessels’. In addition to these requirements, under current vessel licensing requirements, this has been the upper limit before a vessel is required to fit draught scales. Title to 12.4 also amended to include 13.7m LOA

12.5 - Edit “Rigid Inflatable Boats” to “Inflatable Boats and Rigid Inflatable Boats”. Expand the scope to include inflatable boats. PLA Response: We Agree – Amend tittle. 12.5.2 - Edit “A freeboard mark…rigid inflatable boats.” To “….inflatable boats and rigid inflatable boats PLA Response: We Agree – Amend text. 12.6.1 - delete “over 13.7m load line length” Three points here –

24.12.12 18


1. The use of 13.7m as a measurement will cause confusion. If a measure is needed then this should be 15.0m as recognised in the EU Directive 2006/87EU and by the RCD. The use of the 45 feet\ 13.7m length needs to be reviewed by the MCA as this measure no longer is compatible with EC requirements and should be dropped. 2. As stated before the use of old Board of Trade\Department Of Transport definitions of load line length need to be changed to length over all as laid out in the EU Directive. 3. All vessels except small open workboats, inflatables and ribs, should be fitted with draft marks to enable the crew to use the vessels safely.

PLA Response: The length of 13.7m may appear out of context for operators unfamiliar with PLA requirements, however it aligns with a number of PLA regulations such as General Direction 4, VHF requirements; Local Knowledge Endorsement requirements under Thames Byelaw 22, ‘Certificate of Compliance’ requirements to operate above 12 knots within restricted areas, and Byelaw 10, ‘Small, Fast Vessels’. In addition to these requirements, since 2006 this has been the upper limit before a vessel is required to fit draught scales. 12.6.3 - Use of decimeters – This is not standard with the EC directive. The unit of measure should be millimeter which would be 100mm in this case. The use of the decimeter may cause confusion and this should be replaced with the measurements in millimeters (mm). PLA Response: We disagree; working group agreed to leave text as described.

13. LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Capt Neil Caborn Cory environmental Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

13 - A general exemption for unmanned vessels to be required to carry any lifesaving equipment should be included. PLA Response: We agree, however an exemption should include a statement to require personnel to be wearing an appropriate self inflating lifejacket when on board vessels which do not have LSA on board. 13.2.1 - Reference to SMS should be removed to a separate operational standard PLA Response: Agreed; the requirement for an operational SMS will be removed from the Standard and covered in the COP. The text will be amended to manufacturer’s requirements 13.2.2 – Parachute flares, the requirement for Cat D waters would be 6 parachute flares. This level of provision is only required for vessels that are certificated for Category1/0 under the SCV Code. PLA Response: Noted, will amend to 2 buoyant orange smoke floats and 2 hand held red flares – this will only be applicable to vessels operating below Denton wharf (Cat D waters) 13.2.2 - The requirement for parachute flares is not appropriate for the Category of water. PLA Response: We agree – This will be amended to 2 buoyant orange smoke floats and 2 hand held red flares – this will only be applicable to vessels operating below Denton wharf (Cat D waters) 13.3 – The type of liferaft is very prescriptive. The original MCA Fitness for Purpose only required that it should be of an ORIL type. This should be sufficient for all vessels of the type this regulation is for. PLA Response: The standard provides a broad range of acceptable life rafts including ORIL type life rafts provided they are DfT approved.

24.12.12 19

Capt Neil Caborn Cory environmental Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

Peter Hugman CBOA

13.3.1 - All vessels operating in Category D waters shall have a liferaft onboard. Recommended in Category C Waters .As dumb barges are included in ” all vessels” and ours operate in Cat D waters, we would need to fit liferafts to every container carrying and mooring barge in order to comply. Providing and maintaining this number of liferafts will be both very costly and logistically challenging. There will also be a significant challenge in maintaining security of these liferafts in remote and unmonitored positions. PLA Response: We agree, text to be amended to exempt Dumb barges and collar barges as all personnel on these vessels should be wearing appropriate self inflating lifejackets. 13.3.1 - There can be no requirement for towed or pushed barges that are not normally manned to have any lifesaving equipment. These vessels can only move when being towed/pushed and the equipment required will be carried on the tug. If necessary the risk assessment would include the crew taking one lifebuoy onto the barge when they picked it up. Should refer to MANNED vessels PLA Response: We agree, however an exemption will include a statement to require personnel to be wearing an appropriate self inflating lifejacket when on board such vessels 13.3.2. – “Wheelmarked” change to “Marine Equipment Directive Approved” Not everyone is familiar with the concept of the ship’s wheel as a mark of compliance. Better to ask for a MED approved liferaft. PLA Response :We Agree – will amend to MED approved with (whelmarked) for guidance. 13.4..4 - These are inland waters. The current standards as used by the MCA and EC should be adhered to. There is no justification for requiring full sea specification lifejackets. See EC regulation 10.05.2. The use of automatically inflatable lifejackets should be the first recommendation as it then enables them to be worn at all times that personnel are WORKING on deck. The requirement to have non-inflatable lifejackets for working personnel is a retrograde step and should not be followed. PLA Response: We agree that automatic inflatable lifejackets should be the recommended choice, however if presented with a solid type lifejacket at the time of the inspection, it must comply with the required standards of Section 13.4.2. 13.4.1 “…shall comply and be tested…” Add this in as there have been problems with life jackets complying with standards but failing. The product testing can be done by a quality management system. PLA Response: We Agree – will amend text. 13.4.2 – Delete BS 3595 from list BS 3595 was replaced by BS EN 396 in 1994. Therefore life jackets to BS 3595 will now be at least 18 years old and should be considered for replacement. PLA Response: We agree – delete reference to BS3595. 13.4.4 - As inflatable lifejackets are more likely to be worn they should not be included as an apparent ‘second best’. PLA Response: This is not viewed as ‘second best’. If a vessel has suitable containment inline with Section 22, to ensure the safety of personnel, the company may choose to provide solid type lifejackets which will be accepted under this Standard.

24.12.12 20

Capt Neil Caborn Cory environmental Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine

13.5 - Lifebuoys and lifebuoy requirements – As worded this Section requires all Cory vessels, including dumb barges to have lifebuoys with lights and lines fitted. As for liferafts, maintaining the number of lifebuoys with their fittings will, be costly and logistically challenging. Again there will be a significant challenge in maintaining the security of these lifebuoys, fittings and a means of recovery in remote unmonitored positions. PLA Response: We agree that Dumb vessels and collar barges should be exempt from the carriage of lifebuoys. A general exemption will be included at the start of the LSA Section to exclude these unmanned vessels. 13.5 - Should refer to MANNED vessels PLA Response: See above 13.5.3 and 13.5.4 – Lifebuoys - Alternatives for small craft. We would strongly urge that suitable alternatives to lifebuoys be included for the safe stowage of LSA equipment. We would recommend that rescue quoits with lines may form a suitable alternative along with the floating strop and line MOB devices. We would also recommend the carrying of a river rescue throw line in lieu of a lifebuoy in small boats such as inflatables, ribs and open workboats as another alternative solution. PLA Response: This was discussed at the working group and agreed that this would be applicable to small RIBs and inflatables, however not workboats. 13.5.6 - Vessels longer than 24m to have a means of recovering a person from the water. This is not a requirement for vessels that operate under the workboat code, are classed or operate under loadline regulations. It is also relevant that these vessels carry more crew so retrieving persons from the water is easier than it is from smaller boats with fewer crew. PLA Response: This Section is to be deleted and replaced with Section 22.11. 13.5.6 - Examples should be given – suggest grab net/ladder. Only applicable for manned vessels. PLA Response: This Section is to be deleted and replaced with Section 22.11. Details of suitable means of recovery to be listed in Guidance to Surveyors 13.5.6 – Change to “All vessels means ….” “The requirement to have available a method or device is to aid recover of an inert body from the water onboard” Means of recover can be any device including a looped rope and block or a strop with grab handles to haul someone onboard. It can also be a feature of the vessel design such as a bathing platform on the aft end of the vessel. All craft must carry such a device as an aid to haul an inert body onboard. PLA Response: Section has been replaced and information on types provided in the Guidance to Surveyors 13.7.5 - The requirement for on board communication systems does not apply to our vessels that operate to sea. This is an expensive requirement that will deliver few if any benefits. One very significant cost will be the installation of sound proof booths in the engine rooms of all vessels. PLA Response: It is not the intention to induce significant financial burden on the operator nor is it a requirement to introduce sound proof booths, however the operator should be able to demonstrate that the Master can communicate with the Crew in the event of an emergency. This Section was discussed at the working group and agreed that the Section should be removed

24.12.12 21

Capt Neil Caborn Cory environmental Peter Hugman CBOA

13.7.5 – All Cory tugs already have intercom systems fitted allowing communication to a number of spaces, but not all. The cost to expand these systems to cover ‘all spaces’ will far exceed the benefit derived. PLA Response: Agreed; Delete Section as above. 13.7.5 - This is excessive. 13.7.2 allows every crew member to be warned in an emergency. PLA Response: We agree. Delete Section as above

14. FIRE SAFETY

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA

14.1.1 - The engine space shall be capable of being closed down in order that the fire extinguishing medium cannot escape. PLA Response: We Agree. Remove ‘that the fire extinguishing medium cannot escape.’ and replace with ‘ to restrict the spread of fire.’ 14.1.2 - Please note we believe the Watermen’s boats will not comply with this. PLA Response: We disagree. This is simply a plywood engine box coated internally with either a fire rated paint or insulation. An engine box is already required to prevent personnel from coming into contact with moving machinery. 14.1.5 - Many existing vessels have portholes in engine room casings and engine room skylights -- given that part of this regulation requires natural light to be provided at workstations whenever possible, it seems bizarre if this regulation requires portholes in engine room casings to be sealed up. In our seagoing vessels portholes in engine room casings have to be provided with deadlights or externally fitted storm covers that double as a means of sealing the engine room in the case of fire. We suggest that a similar provision should be provided under this regulation. PLA Response: This Section relates specifically to “internal boundary”, ie. bulkheads, and does not include sky lights or portlights fitted into the engineroom casings.. 14.1.5 - This needs clarification – what is meant by internal bulkhead? Many existing vessels have small deadlights or decklights. These have not caused problems in the past. Why ban now? Regulation 22.8 requires natural light. PLA Response: This Section relates specifically to “internal boundary”, ie. bulkheads, and does not include sky lights or portlights fitted into the engineroom casings.. 14.4.3 - A requirement to fit drip trays under engines is a regulation dreamed up by a yachtsman! Not a single vessel in our fleet complies with any part of this regulation, none have drip trays and none have engine bearers that are sealed from the rest of the bilge space. This applies equally to non classed craft only capable of working in the Thames as it does to our vessels that are classed for worldwide trade. PLA Response: Reference to drip trays has been removed and the Section reworded to better explain the areas of concern relating to pollution prevention 14.4.3 - This should only be required for new installations and is in any case impracticable for main engines. PLA Response: Reference to drip trays has been removed and the Section reworded to better explain the areas of concern relating to pollution prevention.

24.12.12 22

Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA

14.4.3 – The wording for this Section is unclear but seams to require the fitting of drip trays under engines of all vessels. No Cory vessel has a drip tray fitted and neither are the engine bearer free from holes. Any spillage of oil is contained in the bilges, as is their purpose, and dealt with as and when appropriate. To implement this measure would be both costly and impractical. PLA Response: Reference to drip trays has been removed and the Section reworded to better explain the areas of concern relating to pollution prevention. 14.4.5 - Does this regulation refer to oily rags or oily liquid waste. It must be understood that almost all Thames craft have oil / water mixtures present in engine room bilges. This is an unavoidable fact of life and all that can be done is to try to keep such wastes to a minimum PLA Response: This refers any oily waste including, but not limited to, oily rags etc. 14.4.5 - This should be for oily solid waste not liquid PLA Response: This refers to any such oily waste including but not limited to, oily rags etc. 14.4.6 - Delete No such section.(7.12.15) In addition apart from petrol outboards no other petrol fuelled engine should be carried for use onboard. PLA Response: Agreed, not necessary, Section deleted. 14.6 – Is this again only for LPG apparatus? PLA Response: No this refers to any type of fuel fired heating, cooking and refrigeration types. 14.6.1 – typo and change “… liquefied gas…” to “liquid fuel PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed to revert after assessing the follow on implications of changing the text; Ref appendices; 14.6.6 - Does this section only apply to the accommodation? PLA Response: No it applies to any space where there is a risk of the accumulation of Carbon Monoxide. 14.6.6 - Difficult to make reliable if the equipment is in the engine room! PLA Response: Section refers to Section 14.5.7 which with the amended text limits the requirement to living quarters, accommodation and wheelhouse. 14.9.1 – Change from recommend to shall be. For a number of years it has not been possible to buy furniture without the foam being fire retardant and yet examples of non-retardant foams still find their way aboard marine vessel soft furnishings. Burning foam smoke is probably a significant killer in cabin fires aboard craft. This is the ideal opportunity to remove this problem. PLA Response: Whilst we agree with your comments, this is not a practical solution due the age of many commercial vessels operating on the Thames, but this will be a requirement for new builds. Text to be amended to reflect this. 14.10 - Existing vessels will need time to comply PLA Response: Agreed

24.12.12 23

John Spencer GPS Marine John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

14.10.1 - Classed vessels less than 500GT operating under loadline rules are not obliged to have fixed fire detection systems in machinery spaces. PLA Response: Working group reviewed and agreed. Text amended to make absolute for New Build vessels, however recommend for existing vessels. 14.10.3 - Vessels of less than 500GT operating under the loadline rules are not required to have fire detection alarms which are audible in the wheelhouse. PLA Response: Reviewed at working group and agreed, as above. 14.10.3 - There is no point having an alarm in the engine room telling you that it is on fire – if you heard it you would already know! The alarm should sound in the accommodation and wheelhouse. PLA Response: Discussed at the working group and agreed that the requirement should be reworded. “appropriate warning” 14.11.1 - Existing vessels under 5000T operating under class and loadline rules do not necessarily have to provide 2 means of escape from accommodation and machinery spaces. Certainly, vessels built pre 1964 do not have to comply with such regulations. It may be that on many existing vessels it will be difficult (if not impossible) to comply with this regulation. 14.11.1 a) - EC allows an amendment to this. If the room has a door directly to the deck or a door to a corridor that is an emergency exit with an exit at each end then it does not need a second (emergency) exit. PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed that the existing text is appropriate. 14.11.1 - Existing vessels may not be able to comply without extensive modification. PLA Response: An exception is permitted under 14.11.3 providing sufficient early warning is provided by means of fire detection devices. 14.11.6 - Why only for vessels under 24m – surely for all vessels. PLA Response: We Agree. This should apply to all vessels. Text amended

15. FIRE APPLIANCES

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

15.1.3 - Should refer to relevant MGN reference Carbon Dioxide. PLA Response: MGN 354 only makes reference to CO2 fixed installations and is not relevant to this Section 15.3 - These regulations need to be completely reconsidered especially for existing vessels. Many vessels only have one engine room and do not have a second source of overboard water available. PLA Response: This Section allows for either a fire pump OR additional portable fire extinguishers 15.3.1 - Unless there is a requirement for vessels of less than 15m to carry 2 crew, there is no point requiring them to have a hand operated fire pump since it would be impossible to operate the fire pump and fight the fire singlehandedly! The requirement for small vessels to have a power driven fire pump either inside or outside the machinery space may be difficult to achieve. A better solution would be to make the fire extinguisher requirement more rigorous. PLA Response: Within 15.3.1(b), an alternative of portable extinguishers are permitted.

24.12.12 24

Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

15.3.1 - There should be no requirement for the pump to be outside the engine room for any vessel, if the engine room is on fire there will be no power to the pump. The best and safest option is to get off. The fire hose standard is also excessive as it is likely to be bigger than the pump is capable of – does it actually mean a 10mm hose and nozzle? Why do they have to carry all the fire extinguishers in table 15.6.1 AND two more – this does not make sense For these small vessels extra or larger fire extinguishers are likely to be more appropriate. PLA Response: Within 15.3.1(b), an alternative of portable extinguishers are permitted. 15.4 – Change “Load Line Length” to “Length Over All”, as before the confusion between directives and standards PLA Response: This is inline with current MCA terminology and methods of measurement 15.4 and 15.5 - Vessels under 500GT operating under loadline rules do not necessarily have a dedicated power driven or hand operated fire pump outside the machinery space. We frequently use a portable power driven pump with a flexible connection to the fire main in order to provide a source of water for fire fighting external to the machinery space. Such an arrangement should be permitted under these regulations. PLA Response: We agree, a portable pump would be outside the engine space and therefore acceptable. 15.4.1 & table 15.6.1- The fire extinguisher requirements are far in excess of the requirements of the SCV Code. PLA Response: Agreed, the requirement for vessels over 15m LOA will be amended to 13.7m LOA and the requirement reduced to 1 of each extinguisher. 15.4.1 - Again why outside the main (and only) engine room. Also see 15.3.1 for other comments. PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed 15.5.1 - Again why outside the main (and only) engine room. The fire will be in the engine room- in which case the fixed installation will take care of it or otherwise use the fire pump in the engine room Does not refer to table 15.6.1 PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed Table 15.6.1 - The number of fire extinguishers is far in excess of any existing, EC or Rhine regulation – in fact more than double the number. In fact on many vessels that number of extinguishers will result in accidents by tripping over them! PLA Response: We agree, table amended to mirror requirements of SCV Code. 15.7 - Engine room fires on small vessels are usually extinguished by closing of all ventilation to the engine room. A fixed system does not add significantly to the safety of the crew. PLA Response: This Section does not imply that a fixed system is mandatory 15.8 - Allow an alternative of a (portable) power driven pump outside the engine room that can be attached to the fire main. This is common on the Rhine PLA Response: This would be an accepted alternative and will be included in the Guidance to Surveyors

24.12.12 25

Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA

15.8.1 - Should allow any fixed installation to MCA or appropriate EC standard. PLA Response: This is covered within this Section as “equivalent” 15.8.2 - There is no requirement for vessels below 500GT operating to sea under class and loadline rules to have a fixed fire fighting system in machinery spaces. For example our LR classed UK flag Hibernia 416 gross and 3520 bhp (4120 total installed hp) does not have a fixed fire fighting system in the ER. This regulation is, therefore, considered to be excessive. PLA Response: discussed at the working group and agreed that although this method of fire suppression is the preferred method, it will only be mandatory for tankers with cargo pump rooms. 15.8.2 – Should allow any EC standard as well as MCA 1666. Where does 21.34m come from???? PLA Response: The requirements of the EC Standard are contained within the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection Small Ships) Regulations 1998. 15.8.2 – “Vessels that are either over 150gt or over 21.3m (70feet?)…” change to “15m length” or “24m length”. Old regulations creeping in again. This should follow the EU Directives and ISO standards and not requirements based upon Fishing Vessel regulations. PLA Response: These vessel lengths are as prescribed in Merchant Shipping Fire Protection Regulations and MSN1666 for Class IX and IX(A) vessels. 15.9.1 - Should allow any EC standard as well as MCA 1666. PLA Response: EC Standards. Reviewed - MSN1666 was developed from the EC Standards, therefore it is not necessary to include the EC Standards

16. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

16.1.1- “except that open vessels under 13.7m load line…” change to “vessels under 15m length over all…” For consistency with EU Directives PLA Response: We disagree; 13.7m is inline with PLA General Direction 4. 16.1.1 – “except that open vessels…” change to “except that vessels...” The use of a hand held unit in lieu of a fixed unit for vessels under 15metres length overall should be acceptable. We believe the value of modern hand held units especially with onboard docking stations should not be overlooked. In addition the use of a hand held unit can overcome problems with some restricted wheelhouses and with the problem of theft onboard a moored vessel. PLA Response: We agree that hand held VHF radios have improved and virtually become a fixed set by utilising a docking station, however the signal range on the Thames can be limited by the nature of the river and the difficulty of maintaining line of sight with VTS aerials. Therefore a fixed installation with an external antenna increases the probability of maintaining comms with VTS as required under PLA General Direction 4 for vessels over 13.7m. Most vessels over 13.7m should be able to accommodate a fixed VHF installation.

17. NAVIGATION LIGHTS, SHAPES AND SOUNDS


17.3 - This has already been covered in a preceding regulation PLA Response: We agree and will remove this paragraph 17.3 – change “load line length” to “length over all” As before and for consistency with EU Directives PLA Response: We disagree, this aligns with UK legislation regarding <24m vessels

24.12.12 26


17.4, 17.5 – Sound signaling device must be carried. With portable sounding horns available there is no reason why any party should be able to have any exemption PLA Response: This was discussed at working group and agreed that it specifically relates to an exemption from full compliance with SI 1996, No.75 and no vessel will be totally exempt from carrying a sound signal.

18. NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT

Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA

18.1 and parts needs to be revised and shortened. This section would benefit with editing to make it less wordy and to improve clarity. PLA Response: Reviewed at working group and it was agreed that the text is appropriate, however GPS compasses will be included as per Peter Hugman’s comment. 18.1.1 - Should allow GPS compass PLA Response: We Agree

20. ANCHORS AND CABLES

Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Peter Hugman CBOA

20.0 - remove references to load line length and replace with length overall As before and for consistency with EU Directives PLA Response: We disagree as this aligns with UK regulations 20 - The fitting of anchors and or stern anchors to existing vessels for the first time will be a very costly and complicated task. The cost benefit of this should first be assessed and note taken of any incidents that would have been prevented if they had been available. Stern anchors are an EC requirement as it is often impossible for the vessels to turn round at all. This is not the situation on the Thames for existing vessels so should not be a requirement. PLA Response: This Section was discussed at the Anchor Sub group and agreed that it would be subject transitional arrangements. 20.1.2 – This will be very costly to implement on our craft. PLA Response: This Section was discussed at the Anchor Sub group and agreed that it would be subject transitional arrangements. 20.1.2 - The minimum length should be in the 35m to 40m range PLA Response: Discussed at Anchor Sub Group and agreed at Working Group that the length of tug and tows is to be raised to 50m. 20.1.5 – Remove PLA Response: We disagree. PLA have a list of Class and other recognized anchor types 20.4.1 - This will be very costly to implement on our craft. PLA Response: Amendment from Anchor Sub Group discussed and agreed at Working Group to ease the burden based on risk. 20.2.2 - Re-write: Appropriate for use. PLA Response: Discussed at working group and agreed that the requirement was appropriate.

24.12.12 27

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA

20.4 - This section should be subject to clarification and risk assessment. Vessels with two means of propulsion and appropriate steering are likely to provide an acceptable level of safety. PLA Response: Discussed at Anchor Sub Group and agreed at Working Group that based on risk assessment, vessels may not require the prescribed anchor arrangements if the risk can be sufficiently mitigated by other means. 20.4.2 - Why. These vessels are not manned whilst underway so the anchor could not be used. PLA Response: There will be a requirement for the barge to be manned if operating in the configurations prescribed, upstream of Cherry Gardens. 20.4.2 – Cory operate a number of barges over 30m in length and would therefore have to comply with Section 20. To allow the installation of a hawse pipe and chain locker, the aft peak hatch would require moving from the centerline and the peak space would need to be divided into compartments to provide a chain locker. The installation of the relevant deck machinery for anchor retrieval would cause an intolerable hazard and reduce clear working space for the lighteremen. Due to the increase in weight, the barge stability would have to be re calculated and the additional weight would reduce cargo capacity overall. Longitudinal loadings and buckling stresses could also become an issue. The cost of implementation is estimated at £2.7m excluding the cost of the mechanical windlass. There are also other issues that do not appear to have been considered such as training in anchor deployment, welfare facilities as the barges would have to be manned during the transit through London and the safety of personnel on board the stern of the barge. The length of cable required to be deployed could result in the tug being upstream of a bridge arch whilst the barge is anchored downstream. Overall this requirement would introduce an unacceptable level of risk and would be prohibitive in cost. PLA Response: Amendments to requirements and risk mitigation methods discussed at Anchor Sub Group and agreed at Working Group. 20.5.1 - No definition of a “High Holding Power anchor” Examples must be shown by what is deemed a high holding anchor. It should also include the correct selection for vessel duty and types of bottom holding. PLA Response: We agree, definition added in definitions section. 20.8.4 - Stern anchors are very commonly used with cables instead of chains especially when retrofitting. EC regulations do not require a section of chain to be included PLA Response: We agree, this has been amended to state that a short length of chain may be fitted.

21. ACCOMODATION AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES


21- This whole section requires a rewrite. We believe this section should be reviewed and rewritten in a more logical format. The basis is good material but it needs a good editing. PLA Response: This was discussed at the working group and all disagreed with the requirement to rewrite the entire Section, however the structure of the Section has been amended into a more logical format following the consultation. 21 - Accommodation – needs general exemption for existing vessels. PLA Response: We disagree, however the Section has been subdivided to separate the requirements for existing, new build and overnight accommodation.

24.12.12 28

Peter Hugman CBOA

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA


21.1.1 - May be required to comply!! – how does that work. Is this for existing vessels? Who decides and when. PLA Response: Yes this is for existing vessels. Where practicable all vessels should comply with Section 21 in its entirety, however if this is not possible, the minimum requirements are set out in 21.1.2. – Text for Section 21 has been reviewed to remove ambiguity. 21.2.1 - Remove PLA Response: We disagree, this should be down to good housekeeping. The text “as necessary” will be added to the paragraph. 21.3 - Remove PLA Response: We disagree, safety within the accommodation is as important as that elsewhere on the vessel. 21.8.1 - Fiddler rails should not be mandatory on all vessels. Larger vessels especially in class C waters do not need them. PLA Response: We disagree as this Section relates to crash bars on a gimbaled cooker, and not fiddler rails. 21.8.2 – Remove PLA Response: We disagree, this Section is necessary to ensure that when cooking the pots, pans etc, do not become dislodged and endanger the safety of the person using the equipment. 21.10.2 - This needs explanation. What is meant by ‘dead ship’. Why should this need extra alarm systems? PLA Response: It is not a requirement for extra detection devices to be fitted, so long as the devices that are fitted can work independently if there is no shore power, generator or the starting batteries are isolated. 21.12 - Lee boards or cloths! These are not sea going vessels. Could be removable. Remove, these are not fishing boats PLA Response: This will be assessed on a case by case basis and could be removable. 21.19.2 - c) is part of b). e) and h) are the same. Could simply read – potable water tanks shall be fit for purpose. PLA Response: We agree – Text reviewed and amended.

22. SAFETY OF PERSONNEL

Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

22 - This whole section requires a rewrite. We believe this section should be reviewed and rewritten in a more logical format. The basis is good material but it needs a good editing. Elements of Operational Requirements are creeping in to what should be a technical requirement. PLA Response: PLA reviewed and updated. Operational requirements moved to COP. 22 - No guidance on ladders, stairways or means of getting out of vessel spaces especially hold and hopper tanks. We suggest using the section from the EU Directive 2006/87EU and use the BS EN standards for walkways, stairs, ladders and hand holds in support of these requirements. PLA Response: We Agree - Ladder requirements added into Section.

24.12.12 29

Peter Hugman CBOA

Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA

22.1.2 - COSWP is for sea going vessels. It is not relevant here. All vessels will be covered by UK employment regulations etc. PLA Response: We disagree. There are certain aspects of the COSWP that remain pertinent for all vessels regardless of whether they proceed to sea. 22.3 – No mention of BS EN 711 is the standard for inland waterway vessels bulwarks, guardrails and handrails as used in support of the EU Directive. It is a very useful standard for defining arrangements and requirements. PLA Response: We disagree – reference to BSEN711 is too prescriptive for vessels operating on the Thames. This also appears to conflict with the MCA requirements of 1000mm guardrails. 22.3 - Bulwark height — most existing lighterage tugs on the Thames have bulwarks less than 630mm high. To modify these tugs with guard rails is completely impractical and to increase the bulwark height would render the tugs less useable and the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. PLA Response: An exemption to this Section is covered in Sections 22.3.4 & 22.4

22.3 - Why are the rules as in 22.6.5 for new vessels used here? They are internationally agreed and more suitable for these types of vessels. PLA Response: Noted; Section 22.6 has been amended throughout to reflect your comments. 22.3.2 - The reference to load line regulations indicates this standard is more appropriate for sea going vessels. Safety railings can in themselves be a considerable hazard especially when mooring and operating locks. They must be allowed to be dismountable and the European norm EN 711 : 1995.should be allowed. As written this rule requires any railing has to have three horizontals – this is not workable as access through the railing needs to be possible to manage the vessel. The top rail should be at 900mm. Bent and damaged railings are dangerous and can frequently occur during normal operation of this type of vessel. The reference to load line indicates that this regulation is more appropriate to sea going vessels. PLA Response: Reviewed BSEN 711 with working group. The current MCA standard of 1000mm will remain in the Standard except where exempted by other parts of Section 22. 22.4 - ISO 15085 for the 94/25/EC Design Category C should be the standard for this type of vessel not one based on sea going practices. PLA Response: The reference to ISO 15085 is already included in the text as an equivalent. 22.4.3 - This regulation specifically prohibits bulwarks of less than 600mm in height — for all the reasons given above this is unworkable. PLA Response: This Section has been removed as it related specifically to sailing vessels under the SCV Code. 22.11- Though this may seem to be a significant safety step. If in fact the casualty was unconscious it would be difficult or indeed dangerous for the vessel to manouvre and get alongside the casualty due to the tidal flow and cross currents. A much more realistic requirement is to ensure that a conscious casualty can be got back on board with the aid of a ladder or similar that extends sufficiently far down into the water. We would like to discuss this Section in depth to understand what systems the PLA envisages. PLA Response: Section 13.5.6 is similar, however does not relate to an unconscious person being

24.12.12 30

Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA

recovered Discussed at working group and agreed to delete this Section and leave Section 13.5.6 22.11 – Recovery of Persons From Water – cut and place with LSA section This is a repeat of previous LSA section. PLA Response: We agree, Delete this Section and leave Section 13.5.6 22.12 General Safety – delete - This is more of an operational statement which should be covered by a separate set of standards for the operations of vessel. PLA Response: We disagree, this Section specifically highlights the owners responsibility to provide a safe working environment. Agreed at working group to edit text and include reference to whole body vibration. 22.12.2 - This should be removed as it is covered, more appropriately in 29.2 PLA Response: We disagree; this Section refers to general safety and includes all seating on all vessels. Section 29.2 specifically relates to Vessels Operating in Planing Mode, however we will include the reference to “vibration, including shock loads”

23. MEDICAL CARE


23 - Medical Care – revise- This is more of an operational statement. The Section should be restricted to the acknowledgement that a first aid kit is required. PLA Response: We disagree, the information is required to ensure that the requirements within this Standard are met with reference to medical stores.

24. TENDERS AND DINGHIES


24 - Tenders and Dinghies – add the use of BS EN 1914 – Ships Boats will be of help here as it covers requirements for dinghies and tenders to be used by inland waterway vessels. PLA Response: Comments noted - PLA reviewed and amended to include reference to BSEN1914 and statement to mandate that tenders should comply with the design category for the waters in which they wish to operate.

25. COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

25 - Commercial Operations – edit and move parts to separate Operational Standards document. Move sections such as this to an Operational Standards document will separate out the Technical from the Operational. PLA Response: Discussed at the working group and agreed that the relevant aspects of this Section would be removed and included in the new COP. 25 - Title should be Towing Operations PLA Response: We agree that this would be a more appropriate title – Amended. 25.1.2 - Appendix 2 rules out tug masters who are accepted to be master of tugs operating at sea under the workboat code. In order to be master of a tug operating under the workboat codes at sea would need to hold an RYA yacht master Offshore licence, as attached. It seems bizarre, therefore, if a holder of the same licence can not operate a tug on the Thames. We would like to see skippers qualified to tow under the SCV Code able to continue to work on the Thames. We would suggest that as the PLA currently have their own local knowledge qualification, they could carry out a similar system for towing and pushing. PLA Response: We agree that SCV tug skippers should be able to undertake towage on the tidal Thames. This issue has been discussed at the working group and the requirements for skippers with RYA qualifications has been set out in the revised Crew Competency Standard

24.12.12 31

Peter Hugman CBOA

Peter Hugman CBOA

25.2.3 – This is unduly prescriptive; suggest: ‘it must be possible to safely release the tow under all conditions’ PLA Response: We disagree as the text contained in this Section follows best practice 25.2.5 - If the tug has to have anchors capable of holding both tug and tow, this should enable the anchor requirement for the towed vessel to be minimised – see comments on section 20. We would like to discuss this Section in depth as there must be a practicable limit to the size of the anchors. PLA Response: This issue was discussed at the anchoring sub group. The purpose of implementing stern anchors above Cherry Garden Pier is to negate the need to swing on an anchor in limited available river width. Therefore the bow anchor plays no part in anchoring the vessel when using the stern anchors and can’t be considered when calculating stern anchor mass.

26. CARGO OPERATIONS

Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA

26 - Cargo Operations – edit and move parts to separate Operational Standards document Move sections such as this to an Operational Standards document which will separate out the Technical from the Operational. PLA Response: We agree, this Section has been moved to the COP. 26.2 - Two ‘nots’ in second sentence – makes it non-sensible PLA Response: We Agree, the first ‘ not’ should be removed. 26.5 - This regulation, as worded, is meaningless. The regulation should set out in what circumstances moisture content tests should be carried out, it should detail what tests should be performed and when a result would mean that a cargo should not be carried. The regulation should also set out when such tests do not need to be carried out, for instance when a vessel is specially fitted (for instance with moveable sealable bulkheads) to carry slurry, or if it is a hopper designed specifically for the carriage of slurries. 26.5 - This is not relevant to these regulations and meaningless. I presume this is something to do with stability and is one specific item on a great range of issues that the skipper must be aware of. This is covered in Boatmaster’s training. PLA Response: We agree – This Section has been expanded to include reference to the IMBC Code and moved to COP.

27. VESSELS FITTED WITH A DECK CRANE OR OTHER LIFTING DEVICE


27 - Requires editing - Move some parts to an Operational Standards document and separate out the Technical from the Operational PLA Response: Discussed at the working group and agreed that the operational aspects contained within this Section would be removed and inserted into the COP. 27 - As written this applies to any vessel that carries a small derrick for lifting stores or a tender. Surely this is not intended or appropriate. This section requires the PLA to examine and approve all crane vessels. Surely the better approach would be to require the vessel to have been specifically designed to have a crane fitted or if a temporary fitting of a crane to a flat top barge to have been certified as capable by a suitable organisation. Then the PLA would only need to see the paperwork. This would remove the need for such prescriptive regulations that can never cover more than a proportion of the

24.12.12 32

Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways John Spencer GPS Marine John Spencer GPS Marine Stephen Hames British Waterways

possibilities. PLA Response: All lifting equipment shall be inspected and certificated inline with SI2006:2184 - The Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment) Regulations 2006 27.2 - Generally – Not at all! This is not correct. PLA Response: We disagree “Generally” applies and therefore does not make it mandatory. 27.2 - Review this section - A number of inland workboats have open spaces for putting in materials and with access doors to other parts of the vessel such as workshops and power supplies. PLA Response: We agree and the term “generally” will exempt these types of vessels 27.3 - Surely specifically built or adapted crane barges are quite usual and they should be specifically designed and/or certificated by a recognised class body or similar. PLA Response: We disagree, the Thames is host to a number of modified barges and platforms which were not specifically built or designed as crane barges. 27.3 – Review this section - A number of inland workboats have open spaces for putting in materials and with access doors to other parts of the vessel such as workshops and power supplies. PLA Response: This would be covered by the first part of the Section requiring agreement from the PLA following an assessment on a case by case basis 27.7 - Items of unknown weight should never be lifted without first carrying out calculations to ascertain the weights and to apply factors of safety to allow for miscalculations. The LOLER regulations are incorporated within the maritime regulations that relate to lifting operations such that lift plans must be produced (except for repetitive lifts) lifts should be supervised by accredited lift supervisors or STCW95 qualified ABs. This is a difficult area that PLA would be well advised to research thoroughly since it is estimated that 66% of lifts carried out in the UK are to a greater or lesser extent carried out illegally. PLA Response: We agree that all lifts should be planned, however when operating in the marine environment which involves lifting items from the water, it is not always possible to accurately estimate the weight of the item being lifted. An inclinometer should only be used as guidance and does not remove the operator’s obligation under SI2006:2184 - The Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment) Regulations 2006, LOLER and BS 7121. 27.8 d) - See comments at 11.2.4 c). PLA Response: See response for 11.2.4 c) 27.8 - Change to include a safe load indicator device. - New safe devices make the operator aware that the crane is moving to an unstable condition through bar graphs, warning indicators and\or sound devices. We have found these to be more useful than pendulums as the indicator is always in the visual and audible area of the operator whereas the pendulum cannot always be seen directly by the operator. PLA Response: We agree that safe load indicators will be included within the text.

24.12.12 33

John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA

27.9 - This regulation states that counter weights are not allowed! Surely PLA realises that all crawler cranes are fitted with counter weights and this regulation, as drafted would prohibit all existing crane barges on the Thames from operating. The regulation requires massive redrafting. PLA Response: We agree, this Section has been amended inline with the SCV Code. 27.9 – This is not workable. All cranes have counterweights. PLA Response: We agree, this Section has been amended inline with the SCV Code.

29. VESSEL OPERATING IN PLANING MODE


29 - Is this a repeat of earlier requirements? Can this section be dealt with earlier? PLA Response: A kill cord is mentioned in various Sections, however this relates specifically to planing vessels.

30. MANNING AND COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS

Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental

30 - We believe that Manning should not be part of the construction Standards and needs to be in a separate operating Standard. PLA Response: We agree, this Section has been moved to COP 30 - Manning and Competency Requirements – delete - This should be covered by MCA Boat Master Requirements and other Merchant Shipping requirements. PLA Response: We agree, this Section has been moved to COP 30.1.4 - This is tautology. If they are required by their licence to have a first aid certificate why repeat it here!? PLA Response: We agree, this Section will be removed. 30.1.6 - The base assumption should be that vessels of this type should not need any sort of engineer. The first sentence should be. For vessels with less than 750Kw aggregated power no engineer will be required, but if deemed necessary through risk assessment, a member of the crew shall hold a minimum of an Approved Engine Course Certificate. PLA Response: We agree, will amend text in COP 30.1.7 - It should be possible for engineers in vessels of more than 750Kw operating in Thames partially smooth waters to be licensed or exempted from licensing on the basis of say 5 years experience in the job and a testimonial from an owner or, at most, an oral examination. PLA Response: We agree that vessels with less than 750Kw should be aligned to the SCV Code. 30.1.7 - These requirements are excessive. There is a huge difference between being able to safely operate machinery and being able to repair it without outside assistance. Sea going qualifications recognise that help is often not available from outside. On the River Thames the vessel can be safely anchored or moored and outside help obtained to assist with repairs. The minimum should be an engine course certificate with the addition of company/vessel training. Only in specifically complicated or unusual cases (as by risk assessment) should a MEOL be required. PLA Response: We agree that vessels with less than 750Kw should be aligned to the SCV Code. 30.1.7 – Engineer qualifications – these are far in excess of those required under the SCV Code. A MEOL is only required on an SCV vessel when engaged in towing I Category 0 waters. Similarly, the engineer on a vessel over 24m, under 200gt and under 1500Kw only require a MEOL when over

24.12.12 34

Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

60nm from a safe haven. PLA Response: We agree that vessels with less than 750Kw should be aligned to the SCV Code. 30.2 - Is the PLA realistically going to read and study an individual risk assessment for every vessel operating on the Thames however small? Surely there must be some guidelines that would minimise the work required. Small workboats etc (less than 10m?) should be able to operate with one person subject to suitable equipment being fitted. PLA Response: The PLA will assess single man operations as we already do under the IWSPB Code; guidance will be provided. 30.2.2 - MSN 1767 is not relevant as it only applies to SEA going ships. The PLA should not define these vessels as high risk. The basic assumption should be that all vessels should have a crew of 2 when operating on the tideway. Any additional personnel will depend on the operation and vessel equipment. The better way is, as with the Rhine crew requirements section 3.14, to stipulate the minimum and type of equipment required to operate with the minimum two crew. This would be simple for a surveyor to check compliance. Dry cargo vessels on the Rivers Humber and Mersey only have two crew up to 55m length. The international Rhine regulations (and by extension on the River Scheldt and Seine) only require two crew up to 86m when operating a maximum of a 14 hour day. PLA Response: Previously discussed and agreed, incorporate comments into COP. 30.2.2 – MSN 1767 only applies to seagoing vessels and specifically excludes tugs that do not ordinarily operate outside Categorised Waters. PLA Response: Previously discussed and agreed, incorporate comments into COP. 30.2.3 - Again re risk assessment PLA Response: PLA Response: The PLA will assess single man operations as we already do under the IWSPB Code; guidance will be provided. 30.3.1 - This regulation is not applicable. The applicable regulation is MSN 1778 (M) Application of the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003. This needs to be discussed. A system based on present manning levels should be possible without a long and involved process. PLA Response: PLA will review MSN 1778 to assess applicability within this Standard. 30.4, 30.5 & 30.6 - Again the same comments. Are the PLA realistically doing all this. This method may be required for seagoing vessels but on the River Thames many vessels are doing essentially similar operations which would enable a generic approach rather the very prescriptive approach indicated here. PLA Response: This will be required under the operational COP. 30.6.4 - This regulation is not applicable. PLA Response: This has been reviewed , moved to the CoP, and revised.

24.12.12 35

31. OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANANGEMENT SYSTEM

Peter Hugman CBOA Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Stephen Hames British Waterways Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

31 - We believe that the OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM should not be part of the construction regulations and needs to in a separate operating standard. There is obviously a need to ensure that all vessels are operated safely but the system used must be appropriate and relevant to the sort of vessels used and the types of risk encountered. It is not appropriate or relevant to require the type of wholesale compliance with the seagoing SMS as stipulated in this section. The seagoing SMS system was introduced to ensure safe operation of vessels that are a long way from the main office and difficult to reach/manage/supervise. This is not the case with the inland vessels operating on the Thames who are always very close to the office/wharf. More appropriate would be use a different title to ensure that though similar, a full SMS is NOT required. We suggest a Thames Safety System. OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. There is obviously a need to ensure that all vessels are operated safely but the system used must be appropriate and relevant to the sort of vessels used and the types of risk encountered. It is not appropriate or relevant to require the type of wholesale compliance with the seagoing SMS as stipulated in this section. PLA Response: Section has been moved into COP and reviewed inline with feedback 31 - OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. – Whilst Cory’s supports the introduction of the SMS and would have no difficulty in complying with the requirements set out, we are concerned that certain elements appear disproportionate and unfeasible for smaller operators to comply with. PLA Response: Section has been moved into COP and reviewed inline with feedback 31- Operational Safety Management System – remove to an Operational Standard Move sections such as this to an Operational Standards document which will separate out the Technical from the Operational. PLA Response: Section has been moved into COP and reviewed inline with feedback

31.1 - is appropriate. PLA Response: Agreed and moved to COP 31.2, 31.3, 31.4 & 31.5 - are appropriate except for the split of low and high risk. PLA Response: Terminology changed – Typ1 & Type 2 31.6 to 31.14 - Almost all of these regulations are not appropriate and not realistic or appropriate for the size of vessels and type of operation. PLA Response: Section has been moved into COP and reviewed inline with feedback

32. POLLUTION PREVENTION

Peter Hugman CBOA

32.1.1 - There is currently NO infrastructure in place to enable Black Water Tanks to be emptied. If black water tanks are required then PLA will have to provide a safe and economic way of emptying them! The Thames is frequently contaminated with sewage discharged from the land which will not be reduced until at least 2018. PLA Response: The PLA is not responsible for providing waste reception facilities, this is an operational requirement to be addressed by the operator.

24.12.12 36

John Spencer GPS Marine John Spencer GPS Marine Matthew Harris Livetts Launches Peter Hugman CBOA Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental John Spencer GPS Marine Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA Peter Hugman CBOA

32.1 - In many cases it would be impractical to fit a black water holding tank of any meaningful capacity in existing vessels. There is no requirement under MARPOL for vessels below 400GT to comply with this regulation and so few such existing vessels operating to sea do. If PLA apply this regulation we could have the bizarre situation where small classed or coded vessels capable of going to sea are less regulated than those only capable of operating in the Thames. PLA Response: This requirement is inline with Byelaw 49.1 of the new Thames Byelaws 2012 introduced on 1st July 2012. 32.1- While fitting black water tanks adds plenty of cost to owners what provision would PLA provide for emptying such tanks were the regulation to be adopted. This is particularly important because if, as suggested above, it would be difficult to install large black water tanks in existing vessels, small tanks would need to be emptied on a very regular basis. PLA Response: This requirement is inline with Byelaw 49.1 of the new Thames Byelaws 2012 introduced on 1st July 2012. 32.1.2 - This will prove difficult to operate considering the lack of infrastructure on the Thames to pump out. PLA Response: This requirement is inline with Byelaw 49.1 of the new Thames Byelaws 2012 introduced on 1st July 2012. 32.1.2 1/1/2015 is a very short time. Summary states 2020?. PLA Response: This requirement is inline with Byelaw 49.1 of the new Thames Byelaws 2012 introduced on 1st July 2012. 32.1.2 1/1/2015 differs from the Summary date which states 2020?. PLA Response: This requirement is inline with Byelaw 49.1 of the new Thames Byelaws 2012 introduced on 1st July 2012. 32.2 - MARPOL only relates to vessels over 400GT PLA Response: We agree, this is stated in Section 32.2.1 32.2 - Rather than quoting a long list of regulations many of which only have small sections applicable to Inland Waters, we would suggest that a simple reference to compliance with a Port Waste Management system and relevant regulations would be sufficient. The full list would be better in an Appendix. PLA Response: We agree, Section headers moved to COP and detail removed 32.2.1-The use of harmful antifouling is completely banned on vessels used in inland waters. PLA Response: Section has been removed 32.2.4 - The majority of the regulations and guidance quoted do not and were not intended to be applied to inland waterway or estuarine vessels. Simply listing them does not aid compliance with pollution prevention. There is of course a requirement to prevent pollution and this is covered by requiring vessels to dispose of all waste, both oil based and general, in an approved manner. This will require shore disposal in ALL cases. PLA Response: We agree, detail to be removed and Sections split between the Standard and the COP where required

24.12.12 37

Capt Neil Caborn Cory Environmental Peter Hugman CBOA John Spencer GPS Marine

32.2.4 – Very few of the regulations in this Section apply to Inland Waters vessels and will do little to encourage smaller operators to comply with pollution regulations. PLA Response: We agree, detail to be removed and Sections split between the Standard and the COP where required 32.2.5 Refers to 29.2.3(g) – this does not exist! PLA Response: Agreed, reference should be 32.2.4 g), however Section has been removed 32.2.4 d) - MARPOL only relates to vessels of 400GT and above. While it is great for ships to separate waste into different containers on board, there would seem to be little point when harbour authorities and berth owners only provide one skip for all ships' waste to be put into ashore — more muddled thinking!! PLA Response: All vessels have an obligation to discard their waste in an appropriate manner, MARPOL regs give an example as to how this requirement can be achieved.

33. PACKAGED DANGEROUS GOODS


33 - There should be a reference to ADN as an appropriate standard. PLA Response: Agree, however following discussions at the working group, Section 33 has been removed in its entirety. 33 - Packaged Dangerous Goods – Move to an Operational Standard. Move sections such as this to an Operational Standards document which will separate out the Technical from the Operational. PLA Response: Agree, however following discussions at working group, Section 33 has been removed in its entirety.

APPENDIX 1 Stephen Hames British Waterways Stephen Hames British Waterways

Appendix 1 – ISO 12215 Parts 1 to 8 Small Craft Hull Construction/Scantlings – review its use. This series of standards were developed for the Recreational Craft Directive and the leisure craft market. They may not be suitable for all types of small craft operating in a working environment. PLA Response: Reference to ISO12215 is included in the body of the document which sets out the specifics of when it may be applied. Appendix 1 – Edit and change - The IEE regulations for Ships 1990 has been withdrawn. Replace with IEC 60092-509 - 2011 Electrical installations in ships – Part 509: Operation of electrical installations. PLA Response: Noted and amended

APPENDIX 2 Peter Hugman CBOA Stephen Hames British Waterways

Appendix 2 - The list of alternative qualifications accepted appears to exclude many of those permitted by the MCA as equivalent to the Boatmaster’s Licence. As these alternatives have been thoroughly consulted on and previously accepted by the MCA they should still be accepted, subject to them having a ‘commercial endorsement’. They will still require local knowledge. PLA Response: Appendix 2 has been approved by the PLA’s Navigational Management Team. Discussed at working group and agreed that matrix should be divided up and included with the COP. RYA/MCA qualifications are included in the revised version contained within the COP. Appendix 2 – move to an Operational Standard document Move sections such as this to an Operational Standards document which will separate out the Technical from the Operational. PLA Response: We agree, this has been moved to the COP and rewritten in a different format

24.12.12 38

APPENDIX 3 Stephen Hames British Waterways

Appendix 3 – Rewrite to remove references to inboard petrol engines being permissible. No inboard petrol engine powered vessel should be allowed to operate as commercial vessel. Older craft should by now have been re-engined to diesel power. PLA Response: Discussed at working group and concluded that inboard petrol engines will not be permitted under this Standard. The ISO standards relating to fuel hoses and tank installations for petrol outboards have been moved into Appendix 1, and the remainder of Appendix 2 removed.


Appendix 4 – Fire Test – Remove. The fire test must be carried out by a properly competent fire test facility and there should not be any encouragement to DIY. PLA Response: Discussed at the working group and agreed to remove Appendix 4 as this is required to be undertaken under laboratory conditions.


Appendix 5 – Ignitability Test – Remove. The ignitability test must be carried out by a properly competent fire test facility and there should not be any encouragement to DIY. PLA Response: Discussed at the working group and agreed to remove Appendix 4 as this is required to be undertaken under laboratory conditions.

Nick Dodson – Trinity House - No comments Julian Kenned – Environment Agency - No comments

FEEDBACK ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT … · PLA Response: Working group discussed and...

Documents

Transcript of FEEDBACK ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT … · PLA Response: Working group discussed and...