1 / 17

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. Nuclear Industry in 60s: Probabilistic Safety Assessments

stacey
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. New and Old Process Slide no: 4

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Individual Risk Slide no: 7

  8. Societal Risk - FN Diagrams Slide no: 8

  9. Societal Risk - FN Diagrams Slide no: 9

  10. 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

  11. Cost Effectiveness Criteria > Changed by FSA to < Slide no: 11

  12. Cost Effectiveness, Published Criteria Slide no: 12

  13. Cost Effectiveness, Societal indicators Skjong & Ronold (1998) Slide no: 13

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

More Related