We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDrake Betterley
Modified over 2 years ago
©DNVSlide no: 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
©DNVSlide no: 2 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
©DNVSlide no: 3 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
©DNVSlide no: 4 New and Old Process
©DNVSlide no: 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
©DNVSlide no: 6 Individual Risk Intolerable ALARP Negligible 10 -3 /year 10 -4 /year 10 -6 /year Crew Passengers&3 rd parties Crew&Passengers Interpretation of HSE, and other standards adopted for ships High Low
©DNVSlide no: 7 Individual Risk
©DNVSlide no: 8 Societal Risk - FN Diagrams
©DNVSlide no: 9 Societal Risk - FN Diagrams
©DNVSlide no: 10 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
©DNVSlide no: 11 Cost Effectiveness Criteria Changed by FSA to < >
©DNVSlide no: 12 Cost Effectiveness, Published Criteria
©DNVSlide no: 13 Cost Effectiveness, Societal indicators Skjong & Ronold (1998 )
©DNVSlide no: 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
©DNVSlide no: 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
©DNVSlide no: 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
©DNVSlide no: 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
1 So much for safety Rolf Skjong and Knut Ronold Det Norske Veritas & OMAE, Oslo, June 24-28, 2002.
1 Setting Target Reliabilities by Marginal Safety Returns Rolf Skjong Strategic Research Det Norske Veritas JCSS Workshop on Code.
1 SKJ©DNV Cost Effectiveness of Hull Girder Safety Rolf Skjong & EM Bitner-Gregersen Det Norske Veritas OMAE, Oslo, June 24-28, 2002.
MSC 75-1 ©IACS Formal Safety Assessment Overview and IACS Experience Presentation at MSC May 2002.
Risk Estimation Two distinct categories of Risies Voluntary Risks e.g. driving or riding in an automobile, and working in an industrial facility. Involuntary.
PPRT PREVENTION DES RISQUES ET LUTTE CONTRE LES POLLUTIONS Safe Communities & a Sustainable Hazaedous Industry : Present and Future Discussion.
PSPC and the BW Convention Tokyo Tripartite Meeting, 2010.
Title slide PIPELINE QRA SEMINAR. PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION 2.
SAFETY REPORTS Reg 4 Every operator shall take all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences to persons and the environment.
Lessons Learned from the Application of Risk Management in the Shipment of LNG.
1 IACS Common Structural Rules INTERTANKO LATIN AMERICAN PANEL Rio de Janeiro, 25 April 2006.
LIFEBOATS Yesterday, Today & Vision for the Future Mr. Fredrik Larsson Marine Manager INTERTANKO.
PASSENGER SHIPS – now and in the future
Tripartite Discussions Beijing 2005, 31 st Oct – 1 st Nov Agenda Item Europe 3 rd Maritime Safety Package Speakers: Chris Horrocks Secretary General.
1 CAA Offshore Helicopter Review Mark Swan Group Director, Safety and Airspace Regulation.
Railtrack PLC Safety & Standards Directorate Railway Safety: Analysing Risks and Causes Sally Brearley Railtrack Safety and Standards Directorate 8 December.
1 Risk evaluation Risk treatment. 2 Risk Management Process Risk Management Process.
Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide to Assessing Operational Risk Chapter 20: Global Perspectives.
3/15/06 Tripartite Agreements and Bio Fuels Maurice Gordon, P.E. Maritime Systems Engineering, Inc. Engineering, Inc.
Are You Ready for an SIS? What to do before starting on your SIS…and after it’s installed March 24, 2009.
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.