FSA – General FSA – ECDIS Formal Safety Assessment – Electronic Chart Display and Information System Rolf Skjong, dr, chief scientist Stavanger, 8 January 2006
Background – Use of risk assessment � Nuclear Industry in 60s: Probabilistic Safety Assessments � Chemical Industry in 70s: QRA, Seveso Directive I and II � Offshore Industry in 80s: QRA, Industrial Self Regulation Regime in Norway, Safety Case Regimes in UK � Shipping Industry since 90s: FSA 1992: UK House of Lords, Lord Carver Report 1993: MSC 62: UK proposes FSA concept 1997: MSC 68: FSA Interim Guidelines 2001: MSC 74: FSA Guidelines � Actual FSA Studies - 1997: FSA/HLA - 2000-2004: FSAs Bulk Carrier Safety - 2004: FSA/NAV/LPS 16 February 2006 Slide 2 Version
Purpose of FSA � FSA is intended to be a tool for rule-making at IMO: - To make the decision process at IMO more rational, reduce ad-hoc proposals/implementation, give less room for politics - To provide a proactive, holistic approach, comprising technical as well as operational aspects � To generate information achieved in a way which is structured, systematic, comprehensive, objective, rational, auditable and documented � To demonstrate that suitable techniques have been applied and sufficient efforts have been made to identify hazards and to manage the associated risk 16 February 2006 Slide 3 Version
FSA compared to ‘current’ approach Formal Safety Assessment Current Approach Step 1 What might go wrong? Hazard identification What did go wrong? Step 2 Risk analysis How often, how likely? Frequencies, probabilities How bad? Consequences Risk = frequency x consequence Step 3 How can matters be Risk control options How can matters be improved? identification improved? Step 4 How much? Cost benefit evaluation How much better? Step 5 What actions are Recommendation What actions are worthwile to take? worthwhile to take? 16 February 2006 Slide 4 Version
FSA compared to ‘current’ approach Current Approach FSA - Risk Based Approach • proactive, trying to identify all • reactive, responding to accidents conceivable hazards - before they lead to accidents • continuous ammendment of regulations • regulations, consistent with safety • prescriptive regulations objectives • principle of technical equivalency • principle of safety equivalency • encompasses technical, human and • contains mainly technical organisational aspects requirements • cost of safety identified 16 February 2006 Slide 5 Version
FSA - a risk based approach Definition of Goals, Systems, Operations Preparatory Step Hazard Identification Step 1 Hazard Identification Scenario definition Consequence Cause and Frequency Analysis Analysis Step 2 Risk Summation Risk Analysis No No Risk Step 3 Options to decrease Options to mitigate Frequencies Controlled? Consequences Risk Control Options Yes Step 4 Cost Benefit Assessment Cost Benefit Assessment Step 5 Recommendations Reporting for Decision Making 16 February 2006 Slide 6 Version
Decision criteria used in FSA � Individual Risk 1.00E-02 Intolerable Risk 1.00E-03 Individual risk ALARP 1.00E-04 1.00E-05 1.00E-06 Negligible Risk 1.00E-07 r r r r r r r e ) l e e e e e e e e k i k i k k s i r r r r n r n n n O s r r a a a a a e a a C C T T T C . V T l c o o l l l s l r i n a a O i e g g a O i c c ( n r r G i i / a a m r i m k a e C C l t e e u i n r B o h h r l o a a R C C C r C e / / l o n i k O R e l u G B 16 February 2006 Slide 7 Version
Decision criteria used in FSA � Societal/Group Risk (MSC 72/16) Oil tankers 1.0E-02 Chem. tankers Intolerable Frequency of N or more fatalities (per ship Oil/Chemical tankers 1.0E-03 Gas tanker ALARP year) 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 Negligible 1.0E-06 1 10 100 Fatalities (N) 16 February 2006 Slide 8 Version
Decision criteria used in FSA � Most ship types are in the ALARP area, but not ALARP - Implication: Cost Effectiveness is used as criteria � Three important decision criteria: � Gross Cost Of Averting a Fatality (GCAF) � GCAF = ∆ Cost/ ∆ Risk � Net Cost of Averting a Fatality (NCAF) � NCAF = ( ∆ Cost – ∆ Economic_Benefits)/ ∆ Risk � Cost of Averting a Ton of oil Spill (CATS) � CATS = ∆ Cost/ ∆ Risk_spill � Criteria: CAF = $3m, CATS=$60,000 16 February 2006 Slide 9 Version
Version � Basis is: Willingness to pay & Socioeconomics Decision criteria used in FSA $US million 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland 16 February 2006 Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Average OECD Slide 10
FSA/ECDIS: Motivation and Background � Collisions and Groundings dominate accident statistics � FSA on Large Cruise Ship Navigation demonstrated that ECDIS is an extremely cost effective RCO with respect to Grounding - Justified by economic considerations alone - Justified by safety considerations alone � http://research.dnv.com/skj/FSALPS/FSA-LPS-NAV.htm � FSA ECDIS – project launched to investigate if ECDIS is cost-effective for other ship types (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, UK) � http://research.dnv.com/skj/FSA-ECDIS/ECDIS.htm 16 February 2006 Slide 11 Version
Objective and Scope of work � The objective is to carry out a Formal Safety Assessment, including cost effectiveness assessment of ECDIS for relevant vessel types (excl. High Speed Crafts). The cost effectiveness will be measured as Gross/Net CAF values. The following tasks have been carried out: � Define a set of representative vessel types and trades � General study on ECDIS and the effect of ECDIS � Update and extend the risk model used for Cruise ships to become valid for an extended set of vessel types. The detailed modeling has been carried out for two vessel types, and extended to other vessel types by more general considerations � Quantify risk reducing effect of ECDIS, costs of implementation and potential economic benefits to calculate GrossCAF and NetCAF values for the selected cases � General considerations of other vessel types and sizes 16 February 2006 Slide 12 Version
Method of work � Selection of representative Ship Types, Sizes and Trades � Modeling of exposure to potential grounding situations � Modeling of probability of grounding given exposure, and probability of fatalities given grounding using Bayesian Network models. � Bayesian Networks: - A set of nodes representing random variables, and edges or arcs representing direct probabilistic dependencies among them. 16 February 2006 Slide 13 Version
Ship Selection Type Size Trade Product Tanker 4 000 DWT Mongstad (Norway) – Stockholm (Sweden) Tanker for Oil 80 000 DWT Kuwait (Kuwait) – Marseilles (France) Bulk Carrier 75 000 DWT Newcastle (Australia) – Tokyo (Japan) 16 February 2006 Slide 14 Version
Slide 15 16 February 2006 Chosen Routes Version
Slide 16 16 February 2006 Routes Version
Slide 17 16 February 2006 Scenarios Version
Factors considered in risk model 16 February 2006 Slide 18 Version
Ship Types � Tankers and bulk carriers represent about 65% of the world fleet measured in gross tonnage, thus this is a natural choice. � In addition, in order to establish a basis for drawing general conclusions on cargo ships, it was decided to include a ship type providing the combination of relatively low value of the ship itself; low value of its cargo as well as low pollution potential. The bulk carrier carrying coal was chosen for this purpose 16 February 2006 Slide 19 Version
TANK, size and trade 16 February 2006 Slide 20 Version
BULK, size and trade 16 February 2006 Slide 21 Version
RCO: ECDIS � ECDIS can replace nautical paper charts and publications to plan and display the ship’s route, plot and monitor positions throughout the intended voyage. � Continuously determining a vessel’s position in relation to land, charted objects, navigational aids and possible unseen hazards. � Possible to integrate ECDIS with both the radar system and Automatic Identification System (AIS). However, this study considers a basic ECDIS system as described in the Performance Standard for ECDIS of IMO, ref. /5/. � The main benefits of using ECDIS considered in this study include: - Liberate time for the navigators to focus on navigational tasks - Improved visual representation of fairway - More efficient updating of charts 16 February 2006 Slide 22 Version
ECDIS EFFECT � The effect of the RCO has been tested by comparing a vessel with ECDIS installed and in use, to a vessel without ECDIS. � Modeled effect of ECDIS (all ship types modeled) : 36 %, Meaning: � The number of Grounding incidents will be reduced by about 1/3 � The number of Grounding related Fatalities will be reduced by about 1/3 16 February 2006 Slide 23 Version
Cost and Benefit 16 February 2006 Slide 24 Version
Cost and Benefit � Cost includes - Purchase and Installation - Maintenance - Training � Benefits are restricted to - Reduced environmental damage cost (direct cost only) - Reduced property damage cost 16 February 2006 Slide 25 Version
Recommend
More recommend
