80 likes | 252 Views
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
E N D
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 • Implementation of the strict net scantlings approach should therefore be justified. • IACS ask for industry support on our views and proposal