1. 2 Reduction of GHG emissions Energy Efficiency Design Index – Minimum power to ensure safe manoeuvring in adverse conditions Tripartite – Tokyo, 15-16 October 2010 Pierre C. Sames Germanischer Lloyd

2. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -162last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL Contents Introduction The challenges The objectives IACS work plan

3. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -163last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL Introduction (1/2) During the last Tripartite meeting, IACS stated concerns on EEDI impacts on safety: – early statements from ICS and ITF raised alarm – initial idea was to develop appropriate correction factors to credit safety margins At MEPC 60, the issues was discussed and documented as – “The Bahamas stated that in the drive to make ships as environmentally efficient as possible, there will be an incentive to build underpowered or reduced strength ships. To avoid this, a minimum safety level based upon engine power and speed should be developed.” IACS confirmed its engagement and submitted the current redundant propulsion class notation requirements to the intercessional working group (EE-WG1/4).

4. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -164last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL Introduction (2/2) The topic was further debated at the EE-WG1: – “The group recalled the comments made at MEPC 60 that, in the drive to make ships as environmentally efficient as possible, there might be a motivation to build underpowered or reduced strength ships. To avoid this, a minimum safety level base upon engine power and speed should be developed.“ In response, IACS submitted a proposal (MEPC 61/5/3) for amending the EEDI regulations as – "For each ship to which this regulation applies, the installed propulsion power shall not be less than the propulsion power needed to maintain the manoeuvrability of the ship under adverse conditions as defined in the guidelines to be developed by the Organization." The IACS proposal was included in the draft regulatory text with square brackets and the understanding that IACS would submit draft guidelines to MEPC 62.

5. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -165last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL Tough conditions

6. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -166last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL The Challenges Today, no regulation exists on safe manoeuvring in adverse conditions. Definitions of what safe manoeuvring might constitute are not available. They may differ per ship type and ship size. In this context, definitions of environmental conditions which are considered to be “adverse” are not available. Experimental test and numerical simulation capabilities for manoeuvring in adverse conditions are not state-of-the-art but only at a research stage. A satisfactory solution and comprehensive guidelines at IMO level may take time to develop.

7. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -167last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL The Objectives Formulate a high-level goal and functional requirements for safe manoeuvring in adverse conditions, such as, e.g.: – “The ship should be capable of manoeuvring in adverse conditions in all defined operation scenarios.” “Adverse conditions are …” “Standard operation scenarios are …” “Manoeuvrability is …” (performance criterion) Derive a procedure to demonstrate that a vessel has adequate performance.

8. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -168last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL The approach and interaction with ship yards and ship owners Define a high-level goal on safe manoeuvring in adverse conditions Derive functional requirements (select ship missions and set performance criteria) – advice from industry to select reasonable missions Identify appropriate environmental conditions (waves, wind, current) Select suitable test methods (experimental and numerical) Perform tests for limited number of cases Derive draft guidance as result from tests – discuss with industry outcome from tests and relevance Issue recommendations and prepare draft submission – propose joint industry submission to MEPC 62

9. Tripartite Tokyo - 2010-10-15 and -169last modified: 2010-10-14, PCS/GL IACS work plan Oct. 2010Start of project work Nov 2010Define goal and perf. criteria Define environmental conditions Identify suitable tools Select test cases Dec. 2010, Jan 2011Develop and test procedure Feb 2011Industry workshop to discuss results and possible submission March 2011Update draft submission Circulate draft submission 8 April 2011Submission (13 weeks deadline)