Risk analysis of Marine Activities in the Belgian Part of the North Sea (RAMA) Annemie Volckaert Dirk Le Roy Jan-Bart Calewaert Pieter De Meyer Frank Maes Tim Fowler Supported by the Federal Science Policy

2 Goals and approach Risk-analysis of shipping incidents with environmental damage on the Belgian part of the North Sea Approach 1. Comparison of different methods for risk analysis 2. Identification of hazardous activities at sea 3. Release assessment of marine incidents 4. Description of the effects of the incidents 5. Risk estimation 6. Examination & recommendations to existing contingency plans

3 1. Comparison of methods ≠ quantitative and qualitative approaches 7 steps of an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA):  Problem formulation  Hazard identification  Release assessment  Exposure assessment  Consequence or Effect assessment  Risk characterisation  Estimation & risk evaluation

4 1. Comparison of methods (2) 3 important topics:  Uncertainty rating  Quality assessment of input  Potential gaps

5 2. Identification of hazardous activities at sea Activities with environmental risk:  ≠ human activities in BPNS  Shipping as major contributor: Merchant shipping Shipping related to:  Fishery  Sand- and gravel extraction  Dredging  Military exercises  Off-shore constructions  Pleasure crafts/recreational  Study area: Shipping lanes BPNS (11 SA’s) Excl. Scheldt traffic Excl. Noordhinder TSS (no data)  Data period: April March 2004

6 2. Identification of hazardous activities at sea Total voyages (or ± ship mov.) 40% dangerous goods (DG) 60% of DG in packaged form; 40% in bulk 74% with oil tankers, RoRo/ car carriers, containers 45% CT 7 (HNS with low environmental danger) CT1 & CT2 mainly transported with oil/chemical tanker & container ships

7 3. Release assessment Quantitative estimation of the probability of release:  Historical approach ( ) Lack of relevant spill quantity data Difference in reporting trends (underestimation)  Modelling approach MARCS model Performed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV)  Accident frequency (acc. per year)  Accident spill frequency (acc. with environm. spill per year)  Cargo spill risk (tonnes spilled per year) 8 different ship types; 7 types of accidents; 10 cargo types

8 3. Release assessment: Ship types 8 types  ST1Oil (crude) tankers  ST2Chemical tankers + refined  ST3Gas tankers  ST4RoRo + car carriers + Ropax  ST5Bulk carriers  ST6General cargo + reefers  ST7Containers  ST8Others + Passenger Ships  Excluded from analysis : approx. 1.5 % of data

9 3. Release assessment: Cargo types 10 Classes  CT1 Marine Pollutants + Bulk Cat A  CT2Crude oils  CT3 Bunkers and heavy fuels  CT4 other oil products  CT5 Potential Marine Pollutants + Bulk Cat B & C  CT6 Toxic Products (IMO-code 6.1 & 2.2)  CT7 other identifiable dangerous goods or HNS  CT8 dangerous goods, with insufficient product information  CT9 empty but with leftover fractions from dangerous goods  CT10 No dangerous goods

10 3. Release assessment: accident types Ship-ship collision; Powered grounding (groundings which occur when the ship has the ability to navigate safely yet goes aground); Drift grounding (groundings which occur when the ship is unable to navigate safely due to mechanical failure); Structural failure/ foundering whilst underway; Fire/ explosion whilst underway; Powered ship collision with fixed marine structures such as platforms or wind turbines (similar definition to powered grounding); Drifting ship collision with fixed marine structures such as platforms or wind turbines (similar definition to drift grounding).

11 3. Release assessment (2)– Accident frequency 1.0 E E E E E E E E E E-02 > 1.0 E-02 Total acc. freq of 14.5 acc/year Majority powered groundings: 12 acc/yr  Lane ends close to grounding lines at ports  Ground type: soft sand/mud banks; will reverse off without reporting, in many cases

12 3. Release assessment (3): Accident spill freq. 1.0 E E E E E E E E E E-02 > 1.0 E-02 Total acc. Spill freq of 0.3 acc/year (every 3 years) Accident type  1° powered groundings: 0.25 acc/yr (1 per 4 yr)  2° collisions: 0.03 acc/yr Cargo type  1° CT8 (no info): 1 per 13 yr  2° CT4 (other oil): 1 per 14 yr  CT2 & CT3 (crudes & heavy fuels): 1 per 150 yr

13 3. Release assessment (4): Cargo spill risk Tonnes/yr spilled Highest risk class 8 (dangerous, no info)  Total: 539 t/yr  Containers: 390 t/yr Class 1 (MP, cat A)  Total: 12.3 t/yr  Containers: 9.9 t/yr Class 2 (crudes)  Total: 101 t/yr  Oil tankers: 101 t/yr 1.0 E E E E E E E E E E-02 > 1.0 E-02

14 4 Description of the effects of the incident Selection of two scenarios  Worst case oil: ton/accident; crudes  Worst case HNS: ton/accident (1.000 ton/accident); acetone cyanohydrine Ecosystem approach: interactions and processes within species, among species and between species and their abiotic environment (in stead of protect species)  Benthos  Fish  Birds  (Mammals)

15 4. Description of the effects of the incident (2) Sensitivity analysis  Ecological parameters  Socio-economic parameters  3 Scenarios (general, winter, summer ~ interests) Effect analysis  Exposure assessment (PEC)  Consequence assessment (PNEC)  Risk characterisation (PEC/PNEC)

16 4a. Sensitivity analysis Identifying sensitive area’s in the marine and coastal zone of Belgium  Economical parameters  Social parameters  Ecological parameters Decision support tool Aid in prevention and preparation of spills GIS analysis

17 4a. Sensitivity analysis: methodology

18 4a. Sensitivity analysis methodology GIS map per parameter (data layers) BPNS + coast as a grid of 1km x 1km cells Per data layer score per cell f.ex. concession zone score 1 Combining data layers and adding up scores Sensitivity map = map representing total score

19 4a. Sensitivity analysis: ecological criteria ImportanceEntityNumberScore (internationally standardized) InternationalRAMSAR sites25 EC - Special Protected Areas (SPA) (in framework of habitat or bird directive) 2 (habitat) 3 (bird) 5 EC - Habitat Directive Area (Natura 2000)135 EC- Bird directive Area (Natura 2000)35 NationalMarine Protected Areas (MPA)3*3 Strict nature reserve03 National park03 RegionalBeach (nature) reserves21 Nature reserve11 Natural monument01 Landscape reserve (classified landscape)11

20 4a. Sensitivity analysis: socio-econ. criteria ParameterEntityScoreRemark RecreationGlobal tourist factor (beach recreation) 3Relative sensitivity calculation (source GAUFRE, 2005) Garded swimming zones1Relative sensitivity calculation: (number/ municipality) (source GAUFRE, 2005) Marinas1Relative sensitivity calculation (source MareDasm, 2002) FisheriesSpawning sites?No spawning area’s were identified / reported Concentration of fish?No specific area’s were identified / reported ShippingPort2 Local port1 Anchorage area Shipping lane 0 Economical aspectsTouristical value coast2Relative sensitivity calculation (overnight stays; rental homes/secondary residences; day tourists; employees) (Source: Maredasm, 2002) Aggregate extraction and windenergy at sea 1 Social aspectsHigh population1(Source FOD Economie, KMO, middenstand en energie, 2005)

21 Summer scenario

22 Winter scenario

23 Ecological impact assessment model Physico-chemical database Modelling Biological database Ecotoxicological database Exposure assessment PEC Consequence assessment PNEC or LC50 Risk characterisation 4b. Effect analysis

24 4b. Effect analysis: worst case oil Exposure assessment:  12,6 km² oil spill (MU slick lets model)  1 mm thickness / 4 km diameter  In 13 hours Zwin Consequence assessment:  LC50 values of aromatic components  Direct loss biota: 12% - 68%  Bird loss open sea: 471  Bird loss Zwin: 741 Seabirds; 2595 Water birds

25 4b. Effect analysis: worst case HNS Exposure assessment:  0,01 mg/l (critical effect concentration = 1% loss biota)  No birds Consequence assessment:  75 simulation days  Max. concentration  Ecological impact area  ton: 70% BPNS  ton: 40% BPNS

26 5. Risk estimation Frequency x consequence of event  Frequency: hazard identification & release assessment (quantitative)  Consequence: direct loss (qualitative ~ hazardous characteristics

27 5. Risk estimation (2)

28 5. Risk estimation (3) the highest risk in the high risk subareas SA3, SA5, SA6, SA7 characterised by sandbank formations and/or presence of harbour (intense shipping traffic is not the determining factor); in the first place oil tankers and container ships form a high risk for almost the total BPNS due to the fact that they transport the most hazardous cargo types and that in case of a spill accident high quantities of dangerous goods are spilled at sea (related to high transported quantities); secondly also chemical tankers and RoRo traffic is risk full, in particular in the high risk subareas, respectively due to the hazardous characteristics of chemical tankers (notice the low spill quantity) and a medium frequency and quantity of accidents with RoRo ships; the risk from bulk, general cargo and other (passenger ships & other ships) transport is rather low.

29 6. Contingency planning: an evaluation 1. Framework  Legal / competences / International context / …  Situating new developments 2. Required elements of a good plan ?  Other contingency plans; IMO and other guidelines … 3. Examination of elements identified in 2.  Gaps, weaknesses, improvements, … 4. Recommendations

30 6. Recent developments contingency planning New Royal Decree (BOJ 15 March 2006) Focus on land-based planning Some new concepts and definitions Coastguard Structure better coordination between competent authorities at sea Working group “rampenplan Noordzee” Active review of the BNSDP Operational plans Oiled birds Clean beaches Pollution combating interventions at sea

31 6. Conclusions and recommendations BNSDP has served purpose in the past  New situation  thorough revision recommended definitions / coverage: applies to? / target audience overviews: nat. & intern. legal frame / competences relationship with other plans (operational, land-based, …) equipment: spill-size / platform or vessel / study capacity Area assessment – RAMA, GAUFRE, BWZEE, … Information and communication … Operational pollution intervention plan  Good first step – clear and straightforward  further elaborated  Main focus on oil ! Separate plans?

32 Thank you for your attention. Any questions?