E

MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE

90th session
Agenda item 25

MSC 90/25/17
14 February 2012
Original: ENGLISH
WORK PROGRAMME

Proposed amendments to the Guidelines for vessels with

dynamic positioning (DP) systems (MSC/Circ.645)
Submitted by the United States, IADC and IMCA
SUMMARY
Executive summary:

This document proposes an unplanned output for the

Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) that would
amend the Guidelines for vessels with dynamic positioning (DP)
systems (MSC/Circ. 645) in order to reflect advances in technology
and operations since the publication of the circular in 1994

Strategic direction:

5.2

High-level action:

5.2.1

Planned output:

No related provisions

Action to be taken:

Paragraph 17

Related documents:

MSC/Circ.645 and resolution A.1023(26)

Introduction
1
This document proposes an unplanned output to amend technical and operational
Guidelines contained in MSC/Circ.645.
2
The proposal conforms to the Guidelines on the organization and method of work of
the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee and their
subsidiary bodies (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.4).
IMO's objectives
3
The proposal falls under the scope of Strategic Direction 5.2 (Enhancing technical,
operational and safety management standards) and High-level Action Plan item 5.2.1.
4
MSC/Circ.645 (the Circular) was published on 1 July 1994. Because of the potential
catastrophic consequences of failure of DP systems on these vessels, the present
Guidelines should be updated to address the current technology employed on modern
vessels that are growing in size and operating in deeper waters.

I:\MSC\90\25-17.doc

MSC 90/25/17
Page 2
Compelling need
5
Over the past decades, the move of offshore exploration, development and
production into deeper water has transformed an industry characterized by relatively simple,
domestic shallow water fixed platforms and small logistical vessels into an industry with
complex, international floating vessels supplied and serviced by other large, international
multipurpose vessels. This has given rise to DP as the practical answer for keeping these
vessels within precise navigational limits and providing commercial advantages.
6
DP failures on vessels conducting critical operations such as oil exploration,
production or diving have potentially large consequences such as loss of life, oil spills, and
property damage. While this is true for all units conducting these operations, it is particularly
true for MODUs, where a loss of position could result in a subsea spill and potentially
catastrophic environmental consequences.
7
The United States has experienced incidents involving equipment failures on
DP MODUs that have caused a loss of position and emergency disconnect, sometimes on a
live well, which presents a serious environmental risk. The Deepwater Horizon incident has
demonstrated the serious challenges associated with subsea spill response.
8
With increasing deepwater offshore activities, the reliance upon and use of DP
systems has grown and been accompanied by a commensurate evolution of DP technology.
9
This scenario of a technology that has evolved in recent years, combined with the
serious consequences of failure and known DPS equipment casualties, gives rise to the
compelling need to revise this circular.
Analysis of the issue
10
The existing international Guidelines (MSC/Circ.645) were published with extensive
support from the Dynamically Positioned Vessel Owners Association (DPVOA) a
predecessor organization to IMCA using known technology and casualty statistics available
at that time. Since its publication, technology has rapidly advanced and much more
experience has been gained. Updating MSC/Circ.645 will enhance safety and environmental
protection.
Analysis of implications
11
Operators in coastal States that have chosen to comply with MSC/Circ.645 would
bear the additional cost of meeting any amendments. However, we believe a significant
portion of the industry voluntarily complies with DPS guidance that exceeds MSC/Circ.645, a
cost mitigating factor. Improving the safety and effectiveness of DP operations outweigh the
anticipated implementation costs.
Benefits
12
In the view of the sponsors, an updated circular would enhance safety and reduce
the likelihood of casualties and environmental damage. Analysis of recent casualty statistics
and near-misses has revealed gaps in the existing Guidelines. Further, it is expected that
the revised Guidelines will benefit industry by improving reliability and reducing the
downtime. Finally, the revised Guidelines would address disparities in performance within
the same class of DP equipment or between the different classes.

I:\MSC\90\25-17.doc

MSC 90/25/17
Page 3
Industry standards
13
Specialist consultants with a significant amount of expertise have filled a growing
need for all those involved with DP to communicate and assist each other in creating safe
and efficient procedures to cope with the exceptional operational requirements of this unique
form of ship handling and navigation. Since the publication of MSC/Circ.645, multiple
industry guidance documents have kept pace with this advancing technology; IMCA alone
has produced over 50 DP guidance documents memorializing DP and related station
keeping experience. We believe this info/experience can be used as a baseline to update
the existing Guidelines and standardize industry practices.
Output
14
Revise the Guidelines for vessels with dynamic positioning (DP) systems
(MSC/Circ.645) incorporating the improved guidance available in multiple industry guidance
documents.
Human element
15
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Organization and is based on
human element guidance and principles in resolution A.947(23). The completed human
factors checklist from MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.1 is set out in annex 1.
Priority/urgency
16
It is recommended that the new item be added to the work programme of DE 57
with sufficient priority to complete in 2014 (two sessions).
Action requested by the Committee
17
The Committee is invited to add to the biennial agenda of the DE Sub-Committee, a
new item on "Guidelines for vessels with dynamic positioning systems" with a view to
updating MSC/Circ.645, with a target completion date of 2014.

***

I:\MSC\90\25-17.doc

MSC 90/25/17
Annex, page 1
ANNEX
CONSIDERATION OF HUMAN ELEMENT ISSUES
Instructions: If the answer to any of the questions below is:
(A)
(B)
(C)

YES, the preparing body should provide supporting details and/or recommendation for further
work.
NO, the preparing body should make proper justification as to why human element issues were
not considered.
N/A (Not Applicable) the preparing body should make proper justification as to why human
element issues were not considered applicable.

Subject Being Assessed: (e.g. Resolution, Instrument, Circular being considered) Guidelines for
Vessels with Dynamic Positioning DP Systems (MSC/Circ.645)
Responsible Body: (e.g. Committee, Sub-Committee, Working Group, Correspondence Group,
Member State)
Ship Design and Equipment Sub-Committee
1.
Was the human element considered during development or amendment Yes No NA
process related to this subject?
2.
Has input from seafarers or their proxies been solicited?
Yes No NA
3.
Are the solutions proposed for the subject in agreement with existing Yes No NA
instruments? (Identify instruments considered in comments section)
4.
Have human element solutions been made as an alternative and/or in Yes No NA
conjunction with technical solutions?
5.
Has human element guidance on the application and/or implementation of
the proposed solution been provided for the following:
Yes No NA
Administrations?
Yes No NA
Ship owners/managers?
Yes No NA
Seafarers?
Yes No NA
Surveyors?
6.
At some point, before final adoption, has the solution been reviewed or Yes No NA
considered by a relevant IMO body with relevant human element
expertise?
7.
Does the solution address safeguards to avoid single person errors?
Yes No NA
8.
Does the solution address safeguards to avoid organizational errors?
Yes No NA
9.
If the proposal is to be directed at seafarers, is the information in a form Yes No NA
that can be presented to and is easily understood by the seafarer?
10. Have human element experts been consulted in development of the
Yes No NA
solution?
11. HUMAN ELEMENT: Has the proposal been assessed against each of the factors below?

CREWING. The number of qualified personnel required and available to Yes No NA

safely operate, maintain, support, and provide training for system.

PERSONNEL. The necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience Yes No NA

levels that are needed to properly perform job tasks.

TRAINING. The process and tools by which personnel acquire or improve Yes No NA
the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to achieve desired job/task
performance.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY. The management systems, Yes No NA

programmes, procedures, policies, training, documentation, equipment,
etc., to properly manage risks.

I:\MSC\90\25-17.doc

MSC 90/25/17
Annex, page 2

WORKING ENVIRONMENT. Conditions that are necessary to sustain the Yes No NA

safety, health, and comfort of those on working on board, such as noise,
vibration, lighting, climate, and other factors that affect crew endurance,
fatigue, alertness and morale.

HUMAN SURVIVABILITY. System features that reduce the risk of illness, Yes No NA
injury, or death in a catastrophic event such as fire, explosion, spill,
collision, flooding, or intentional attack. The assessment should consider
desired human performance in emergency situations for detection,
response, evacuation, survival and rescue and the interface with
emergency procedures, systems, facilities and equipment.

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING. Human-system interface to be

consistent with the physical, cognitive, and sensory abilities of the user Yes No NA
population.
Comments: (1) Justification if answers are NO or Not Applicable. (2) Recommendations for additional
human element assessment needed. (3) Key risk management strategies employed. (4) Other
comments. (5) Supporting documentation.

___________

I:\MSC\90\25-17.doc