200506 Emergency Escape Sets

Emergency Escape Sets
MARS Report 200506

Report 200434 has prompted me to recount my own experiences with EEBDs. With the change in the SOLAS regulations, these were supplied to all our company vessels (dry cargo) in 2002. However, we have had innumerable problems with the sets.

On one ship, a routine weekly check by the 3rd Mate revealed some sets undercharged (red sector). The sets were refilled by the manufacturer at San Juan (Puerto Rico). A week later the sets were again found discharged. The manufacturer was informed (through the company) and the sets were refilled again at Philadelphia a month later as, in the meantime, the vessel had loaded in some small ports. In Philadelphia, the manufacturer's representative himself stated that the design was faulty and that these were recurring problems. In the following 6 months we had to recharge three sets. We have had similar problems on all our vessels which unfortunately were all issued with the same type of EEBD. The problem is further compounded by the non-availability of manufacturer's authorised agents at many of the ports (some large) at which our vessels call. Hence, if a an EEBD discharges, it may remain in that state for some time.

The device is in a sealed bag and there is no on board maintenance except checking the pressure gauge, a routine which we have increased from weekly to daily. The manufacturer's response has been to advise us that the EEBD should be stowed in a cool location, perhaps implying we should air condition the whole ER instead of just the control room as the pressure disc may rupture at temperatures above 65 Celsius. We have checked all the ships and found the temperature at the various locations varies from 30 to 50 Celsius so that is not the cause. How has such a safety equipment received type approval from all the major maritime administrations? Or is this an isolated experience?