Tripartite Tokyo September 2007
Safety & SOLAS
3.1 IMO Goal-based Standards
Eirik Andreassen
Det Norske Veritas
DNV Council Member
Chairman of IACS EG/GBS
Content
• CG on GBS for Bulk Carriers and Tanker for Oil
• CG on Safety Level Approach
• Pilot Project
– IACS Position & contribution
– Comments to report from PP Coordinator
CG on GBS for Bulk Carriers and Tanker
for Oil
• Dissemination from PP
• Proposal for new Reg II (SOLAS)
– SOALS Amendment (Tier I)
– MSC Resolution (Tier II)
– MSC Circular (SCF)
CG on Safety Level Approach
• Safety levels
– Submission by Germany
– Proposal by Denmark on Human Factors
• Ship types
– Many submissions and proposals
• LRFP
– No definite agreement
• Concetual issues to be dealt with by WG/GBS, while
detailed issues could be dealt with by WG/FSA
Pilot Project
• IACS Position & contribution
– Contributed by preparing CSR as an example for
review by the Pilot Panel (see MSC83/INF.5)
– Participated in meetings by answering questions
and clarifying technical content
Pilot Project
• Report from PP Coordinator
– Guidelines for Verification of Compliance with GBS
• Verification by GoE vs
• Self assessment by Class
– Information and Documentation requirements
• Level of detail
• Verification requirements
– In-Service Structural Performance Monitoring
Requirements (separate slide)
– Net Scantlings (separate slide)
In service structural monitoring
•
•
Continuous self assessment of effectiveness of own rules
In principle a good proposal, however…
– Spans
• construction, survey, operation, maintenance and repair
– Depends on
• operations, routing, loading/discharge, maintenance,
individual designs, workmanship/seamanship, …
–
–
–
–
In service experience is not controlled by NB requirements
Is already routinely monitored by individual class societies
Similarities with EWS
May compromise IPR of ship designs
•
… practicalities will have to be well though out
•
IACS ask for industry understanding/support on our views
Net scanlings
•
IACS support the majority view of the PP:
– Strength assessment should be based on the foreseeable
development of the ship structure throughout the life of the
vessel.
– Assessment based on the “pure” net scantling definition is too
simplistic
•
Have provided an alternative text:
– The net scantlings should provide the structural strength
required to sustain the design loads,
– assuming the structure is in intact condition and
– accounting for the steel diminution that could be reasonably
expected to occur during the life of the vessel due to corrosion
and wastage.
•
•
Long experience with implementation of the proposed definition
•
IACS ask for industry support on our views and proposal
Implementation of the strict net scantlings approach should
therefore be justified.