Surface transport technologies for sustainable development
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 17

Surface Transport Technologies for Sustainable Development PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 58 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

V A L E N C I A , S P A I N 4 - 5 - 6 J U N E 2 0 0 2. Surface Transport Technologies for Sustainable Development. Risk Acceptance Criteria: Current proposals and IMO position Rolf Skjong, DNV. Nuclear Industry in 60s: Probabilistic Safety Assessments

Download Presentation

Surface Transport Technologies for Sustainable Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Surface transport technologies for sustainable development

V A L E N C I A , S P A I N 4 - 5 - 6 J U N E 2 0 0 2

Surface Transport Technologies for Sustainable Development

Risk Acceptance Criteria:

Current proposals and IMO position

Rolf Skjong, DNV

Slide no: 1


Background 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 in 90s: FSA

92: UK House of Lords, Lord Carver Report

93, MSC 62: UK proposes FSA concept

97, MSC 68: FSA Interim Guidelines

00, MSC 72, Norwegian proposal for acceptance criteria

01, MSC 74: FSA Guidelines

02, MSC 76, A number of decisions to be made based on FSA

Background- Risk Assessment

Slide no: 2


Formal safety assessment

Preparatory Step

Step 1

Hazard Identification

Step 2

Risk Analysis

Step 3

Risk Control Options

Step 4 Cost Benefit

Assessment

Step 5 Recommendations

for Decision Making

Formal Safety Assessment

Slide no: 3


New and old process

New and Old Process

Slide no: 4


Methods to establish criteria details in msc 72 16

Methods to establish criteria (details in MSC 72/16)

  • Comparison with other hazards

    • Is the hazard under consideration contributing significantly to risk? (For example infections, illnesses, home accidents)

  • Comparison with natural hazards

    • For example earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding, lightening

  • Comparison with risks we normally take

    • For example crossing the street, driving cars, bicycling

  • Comparison with previous decisions

    • Present building codes, road standards, train safety, etc.

  • Comparison with well informed decisions in democratic forums

    • Cases where risk results have been presented, debated, and a decision made

  • Slide no: 5


    Individual risk

    Individual Risk

    Intolerable

    High

    Crew

    10-3/year

    Passengers&3rd parties

    10-4/year

    ALARP

    Crew&Passengers

    10-6/year

    Low

    Negligible

    Interpretation of HSE,

    and other standards

    adopted for ships

    Slide no: 6


    Individual risk1

    Individual Risk

    Slide no: 7


    Societal risk fn diagrams

    Societal Risk - FN Diagrams

    Slide no: 8


    Societal risk fn diagrams1

    Societal Risk - FN Diagrams

    Slide no: 9


    Individual and societal risk

    Individual and Societal risks are in ALARP area

    Individual and societal risks are not ALARP

    Cost Effectiveness Assessment (CEA) must be carried out to arrive at recommendations

    Societal risks for Bulk Carriers were recently close to intolerable or intolerable

    Note: Not all ship types included

    Individual and Societal Risk

    Slide no: 10


    Cost effectiveness criteria

    Cost Effectiveness Criteria

    >

    Changed by FSA to <

    Slide no: 11


    Cost effectiveness published criteria

    Cost Effectiveness, Published Criteria

    Slide no: 12


    Cost effectiveness societal indicators

    Cost Effectiveness, Societal indicators

    Skjong & Ronold (1998)

    Slide no: 13


    Cost effectiveness criteria1

    Cost Effectiveness Criteria

    MSC 72/16 suggests:

    • If health and injuries are not included explicitly, use £ 2 million per averted fatality as criteria, with a range from £ 1 to £ 5 million

    • If health and injury are included explicitly, use £ 1 million as criteria, with a range from £ 0.5 to £ 2.5 million

    • Currently the statistics relating to injuries and ill health is limited, as compared to fatalities

    Slide no: 14


    Status today

    Status Today

    • The new FSA Guidelines mention all proposed decision parameters

    • No acceptance criteria in FSA Guidelines

    • Seems to be accepted that most ship types are in the ALARP area, but not ALARP.

    • Maybe some ship types that was not included in MSC 72/16 is in intolerable area (e.g. fishing vessels, large passenger ships, subgroups of standard ship types )

    • FSA Studies by Japan, IACS, Norway, and the UK/Int. all use the proposed criteria

    Slide no: 15


    Status today msc 75 may 2002

    Status Today- MSC 75 (May 2002)

    • The committee listed all RCOs with an NCAF < $ 3 million in all studies (IACS, Japan, Norway, UK/Int.)

    • The review process remains, and MSC 76 will decide

    • The criteria may result in:

      • Double hull

      • Improved coating

      • Forecastle, Bulwark or Breakwater

      • Protected deck fitting

      • Stronger hatch covers

      • Hatch cover closing devices, indication of closure

      • Free fall lifeboat

      • Water ingress alarms

      • Immersion suits to all personnel

    • Applicability(TBD) New/Existing, Handy, Panamax, Capesize

    Slide no: 16


    Status after msc 76 december 2002

    Status after MSC 76 (December 2002)

    • IMO has made a well informed decision based on FSA and cost effectiveness assessment

    • Assuming that IMO is rational: This will be the preferred reference point for all risk analysts

    • The implicit or explicit criterion used may be used in later analysis and in safety equivalency documentation

    Slide no: 17


  • Login