Implementation of SOLAS regulation III/1.5 on the replacement of lifeboat release and retrieval system

Transcription

1 E MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE 95th session Agenda item 21 MSC 95/21/7 31 March 2015 Original: ENGLISH ANY OTHER BUSINESS Implementation of SOLAS regulation III/1.5 on the replacement of lifeboat release and retrieval system Submitted by the Republic of Korea SUMMARY Executive summary: This document indicates practical difficulties that may occur in regard to the implementation of SOLAS regulation III/1.5 on the replacement of lifeboat release and retrieval system, with a view to providing possible solutions Strategic direction: 5.2 High-level action: Planned output: No related provisions Action to be taken: Paragraph 17 Related documents: DE 50/12/2, DE 50/27, paragraph 12.7 to 12.9; DE 51/8, DE 51/28, paragraph 8.39; DE 52/6/1, DE 52/21, paragraph 6.43, DE 52/WP.1; DE 53/3, DE 53/26, annex 1; MSC 88/3/4, MSC 88/26, paragraphs 3.34 to 3.43; DE 55/7, DE 55/22,section 7 and annexes 5 to 9; MSC 89/3/4, MSC 89/25, paragraph 3.2; and MSC.1/Circ.1392 Background 1 During the discussion on "Measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats", at DE 50, the United Kingdom for the first time raised concerns on design issues of lifeboat release and retrieval systems (hereinafter referred to as LRRS) such as inadvertent operation, failure and materials not suitable for the marine environment which resulted in casualties or injuring crew members. 2 Consequently, having lengthily discussed the above issue for several years, the Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-ninth session, adopted the amendments to SOLAS chapter III and the LSA Code and approved the relevant Guidelines for evaluation and replacement of lifeboat release and retrieval systems (MSC.1/Circ.1392).

2 Page 2 3 SOLAS regulation III/1.5 states: "Notwithstanding paragraph 4.2, for all ships, not later than the first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2014, but not later than 1 July 2019, lifeboat on-load release mechanisms not complying with paragraphs to of the Code shall be replaced with equipment that complies with the Code.* * Refer to the Guidelines for evaluation and replacement of lifeboat release and retrieval systems (MSC.1/Circ.1392)." 4 In this regard, MSC.1/Circ.1392 provides detailed instruction and procedure to facilitate an uninterrupted and consistent implementation of SOLAS regulation III/1.5 worldwide regarding the replacement of LRRS. Practical consideration 5 The replacement of LRRS mentioned above should be carried out by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the lifeboat according to paragraph 19 of the annex to MSC.1/Circ It is required to be completed by the time of the first scheduled out of water survey of the ship's outer bottom (i.e. dry-docking) after 1 July 2014 for an uninterrupted implementation of replacement work and relevant tests according to SOLAS regulation III/1.5 and MSC.1/Circ.1445 on Clarification of the term "first scheduled dry-docking" as contained in SOLAS regulation III/1.5, as amended by resolution MSC.317(89). 6 However, in many recent cases, involving the Republic of Korea flagged ships, lifeboat manufacturers were unable to provide replacement services before the completion of the first scheduled dry-docking as required by the SOLAS regulation III/1.5. This stemmed from inadequate global service coverage and the limited number of engineers certified by manufacturers as well as excessive replacement workload. The fact that replacement services are performed on an ad-hoc basis compounded the problem. 7 For instance, there was the case in which the Republic of Korea flagged ship failed to replace the LRRS within the given time limit. The shipowner rearranged the dry-docking schedule considering the available work schedule of the lifeboat manufacturer and offered enough time for replacement before the dry-docking. Despite the owner's efforts, he was abruptly notified by the manufacturer of the short supply of release hooks and, therefore, of the unavailability of the replacement. According to the manufacturer, the replacement was to take place almost 30 days after the expected completion date of ship's dry-docking at the earliest. 8 In such cases, Passenger Ship Safety or Cargo Ship Safety Certificates were rendered invalid due to the failure of replacing LRRS even though all other statutory surveys and inspections had been completed. It could also lead to a delay or detention of ships, resulting in huge financial losses or disadvantage experienced by shipowners/operators. Discussion 9 The discussion on the mandatory implementation of LRRS replacement through SOLAS regulation has been carried out for years with the full involvement of the Organization. During the course, several potential solutions were included in the MSC.1/Circ.1392, as stated below, to help with the concern on the cases under which the new requirement would not be implemented due to reasons such as bankruptcy of the lifeboat manufacturer or failure of the lifeboat manufacturer to provide suitable replacement to LRRS.

3 Page 3 10 Paragraphs and 19 of the annex to MSC.1/Circ.1392 states: "9.9 Manufacturer, with respect to existing lifeboat release and retrieval systems, is:.3 any other person or entity which has taken responsibility for a range or type of lifeboat release and retrieval system when the original manufacturer no longer exists or supports the equipment. 19 Companies should, where possible, select replacement equipment acceptable to the lifeboat manufacturer. However, in cases where the lifeboat manufacturer is unable to offer a suitable replacement lifeboat release and retrieval system, the Company may select an alternative lifeboat release and retrieval system, with the agreement, if possible, of the lifeboat manufacturer." 11 However, it is unclear whether a case in which the lifeboat manufacturer is unable to offer a suitable replacement for LRRS within the time limit as required by SOLAS regulation III/1.5, due to lack of stock on spare parts or available certified engineers, falls under the application of paragraph 19 of the annex to MSC.1/Circ If it does, an alternative replacement by the third party (i.e. qualified LRRS manufacturers, other than original lifeboat or LRRS manufacturers, which can provide the required replacement of LRRS) is acceptable according to paragraph 19 of the annex to MSC.1/Circ Proposals 12 As already mentioned, a certain number of lifeboat manufacturers have been facing challenges in securing a global network of certified servicing stations or international stock of spares that are prerequisites for the mandatory implementation of LRRS replacement. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for manufacturers to offer a suitable replacement within the applicable compliance dates defined as per SOLAS regulation III/1.5 on all occasions. 13 Such problems can continue to occur as the implementation of mandatory requirement on the replacement of LRRS has been introduced since 1 July Therefore, whether to accept the alternative replacement by third party, in the case where the replacement cannot be carried out by lifeboat manufacturers within the time limits required by SOLAS, should be considered as a matter of urgency. 14 In this regard, the Republic of Korea suggests to clarify whether the cases, in which a lifeboat manufacturer is unable to provide suitable replacement within an adequate time frame, so that replacement is completed within the time limits required by SOLAS, should be construed as a situation under which replacement by a third party could be accepted as in the cases of bankruptcy of the manufacturer or failure to provide support in securing a suitable replacement for LRRS. Such a clarification is requested to be provided by means of amending MSC.1/Circ.1392, as set out in the annex. 15 However, in order to allow for replacement by a third party, the Administration or a recognized organization acting on its behalf should verify that the shipowner/operator has made every effort in advance to arrange the replacement by the lifeboat manufacturer. Moreover, the third party performing the LRRS replacement is required to provide sufficient technical documentation on the replacement to ensure safety after replacement.

4 Page 4 16 Furthermore, the lifeboat manufacturer should not refuse or retard the company's decision to implement the replacement through a third party without justifiable reasons. And vice versa, the alternative replacement by a third party should not be permitted in any case where the lifeboat manufacturers refuse the company's decision due to the technical reasons which, in the opinion of the Administration, are valid. Action requested of the Committee 17 The Committee is invited to consider and clarify the foregoing issue, with a view to developing an appropriate amendment to MSC.1/Circ.1392, based on the proposal set out in the annex, if deemed necessary. ***

5 Annex, page 1 ANNEX DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION AND REPLACEMENT OF LIFEBOAT RELEASE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS (MSC.1/CIRC.1392) The existing paragraph 19 of the annex is amended to read as follows: "19 Companies should, where possible, select replacement equipment acceptable to the lifeboat manufacturer. However, in cases where the lifeboat manufacturer is unable to offer a suitable replacement lifeboat release and retrieval system within an adequate timeframe in order to complete the replacement within time limit of the ship's first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2014, the Company may select an alternative lifeboat release and retrieval system, with the agreement, if possible, of the lifeboat manufacturer. The lifeboat manufacturer should not refuse or retard to the company's decision on an alternative lifeboat release and retrieval system without justifiable reasons, and vice versa an alternative lifeboat release and retrieval system should not be used in any case where the lifeboat manufacturer refuse the company's decision due to the technical reasons which, in the opinion of the Administration, are valid."