View non-flash version
those with Arctic experience. In the case of arctic LNG carriers, the IACS UR for Polar Ships may provide adequate hull strength to operate in arctic regions; however, they do not provide provisions for the designers to assess the integrity of the cargo containment system under ice impacts. e designers may adopt more holistic approaches in dealing with the novelty of the vessel, environmental uncertainties, and lack of experience. In this regard, a risk-based design assessment approach accompanied by direct calculation methods may be a rational and practical solution. More changes to come In 2009, the IMO adopted an update to its arctic guidelines as Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters , which extended the applicability of the guidelines to both arctic and antarctic waters. e new guidelines still refer to the IACS Requirements Concerning Polar Class as the construction provisions for polar class ships. e IMO is currently working on an initiative (with a planned comple- tion date of 2012) to prepare a comprehensive polar code for ships operating in polar waters, aimed at enhancing the existing voluntary measures related to maritime safety and environmental protection in polar waters. (For more details on the IMO polar code program, see ÂToward a Polar Code? on page 64 in this issue.) Although it is at an early stage of development, there has been strong support to develop a risk-based code with functional requirements supported by prescriptive provisions, and the developed code is likely to be made mandatory under SOLAS and/or MARPOL. e United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) III was adopted in 1982 and entered into force in 1994 when it was ratied by 60 countries. e U.S. has not ratied this convention. UNCLOS III allows certain sovereign rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zone to the coastal states which will redene the high seas in the Arctic Sea. e White House Council on Environmental Quality issued the nal recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in July 2010, which supported U.S. accession to UNCLOS III. It is antici- pated that more actions will follow which would undoubtedly aect arctic shipping and oshore activities in U.S. waters. Although it is too early to predict the outcome of any regulations, the U.S. was one of the countries to request the mandatory polar code. Canada has been a proponent of IMO arctic guidelines and actively participated in the development of the IACS Requirements Concerning Polar Class , and continues to support the mandatory polar code development. Han Yu is a manager with ABS Technology, responsible for harsh environment programs. His areas are full-scale measurement of ship performance in harsh environments, and arctic technologies. FURTHER READING | The following publications oer in-depth details of the requirements and regulations outlined in this article: Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report , published by the Arctic Council Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-covered Waters , published in 2002 by the International Maritime Organization Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters , published in 2009 by the International Maritime Organization Requirements Concerning Polar Class , published in 2007 by the International Association of Classi?cation Societies FIGURE . LIMIT STATES FOR LOCAL FRAMING REQUIREMENTS January 2011 www.sname.org/sname/mt