Upload
lamkiet
View
250
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FSA – GeneralFSA – ECDIS
Formal Safety Assessment –Electronic Chart Display and Information System
Rolf Skjong, dr, chief scientistStavanger, 8 January 2006
Version Slide 216 February 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: FSA1992: UK House of Lords, Lord Carver Report1993: MSC 62: UK proposes FSA concept 1997: MSC 68: FSA Interim Guidelines2001: MSC 74: FSA Guidelines
Actual FSA Studies- 1997: FSA/HLA
- 2000-2004: FSAs Bulk Carrier Safety
- 2004: FSA/NAV/LPS
Version Slide 316 February 2006
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
Version Slide 416 February 2006
FSA compared to ‘current’ approach
Formal Safety Assessment Current ApproachStep 1 What might go wrong? Hazard identification What did go wrong?
Step 2How often, how likely?
How bad?
Risk analysisFrequencies, probabilities
ConsequencesRisk = frequency x
consequenceStep 3 How can matters be
improved?Risk control options
identificationHow can matters be
improved?Step 4 How much?
How much better?Cost benefit evaluation
Step 5 What actions areworthwile to take?
Recommendation What actions areworthwhile to take?
Version Slide 516 February 2006
FSA compared to ‘current’ approach
FSA - Risk Based Approach Current Approach
• proactive, trying to identify allconceivable hazards -before they lead to accidents
• reactive, responding to accidents
• continuous ammendment ofregulations
• regulations, consistent with safetyobjectives
• prescriptive regulations
• principle of safety equivalency • principle of technical equivalency
• encompasses technical, human andorganisational aspects
• contains mainly technicalrequirements
• cost of safety identified
Version Slide 616 February 2006
FSA - a risk based approachDefinition of Goals, Systems, Operations
Hazard Identification
Cause and Frequency Analysis
Consequence Analysis
Risk Summation
Risk Controlled?
Options to decrease Frequencies
Options to mitigate Consequences
Cost Benefit Assessment
Reporting
NoNo
Yes
Scenario definition
Preparatory Step
Step 1Hazard Identification
Step 2Risk Analysis
Step 3Risk Control Options
Step 4 Cost Benefit Assessment
Step 5 Recommendations for Decision Making
Version Slide 716 February 2006
Decision criteria used in FSA
Individual Risk
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
Oil Tan
ker
Chemica
l Tan
ker
Oil/Che
mical T
anke
rGas
Tanke
rBulk
/Oil C
arrier
Bulk C
arrier
(incl.
Ore)
Contai
ner V
esse
l
Genera
l Carg
o Carr
ier
Ro/Ro C
argo C
arrier
Indi
vidu
al ri
sk
Intolerable Risk
ALARP
Negligible Risk
Version Slide 816 February 2006
Decision criteria used in FSA
Societal/Group Risk (MSC 72/16)
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1 10 100
Fatalities (N)
Freq
uenc
y of
N o
r mor
e fa
talit
ies
(per
shi
p ye
ar)
Oil tankers
Chem. tankers
Oil/ChemicaltankersGas tanker
Negligible
Intolerable
ALARP
Version Slide 916 February 2006
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
Version Slide 1016 February 2006
Decision criteria used in FSA
Basis is: Willingness to pay & Socioeconomics
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Aust
ralia
Aust
ria
Belg
ium
Can
ada
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Den
mar
k
Finl
and
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Icel
and
Irela
nd
Italy
Japa
n
Kore
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mex
ico
Net
herla
nds
New
Zea
land
Nor
way
Pola
nd
Portu
gal
Spai
n
Swed
en
Switz
erla
nd
Turk
ey
Uni
ted
King
dom
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Aver
age
OEC
D
$US
mill
ion
Version Slide 1116 February 2006
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
Version Slide 1216 February 2006
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
Version Slide 1316 February 2006
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.
Version Slide 1416 February 2006
Ship Selection
TradeSizeType
Newcastle (Australia) – Tokyo (Japan)
75 000 DWTBulk Carrier
Kuwait (Kuwait) –Marseilles (France)
80 000 DWTTanker for Oil
Mongstad (Norway) –Stockholm (Sweden)
4 000 DWTProduct Tanker
Version Slide 1516 February 2006
Chosen Routes
Version Slide 1616 February 2006
Routes
Version Slide 1716 February 2006
Scenarios
Version Slide 1816 February 2006
Factors considered in risk model
Version Slide 1916 February 2006
Ship Types
Tankers and bulk carriers represent about 65% of the world fleetmeasured 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
Version Slide 2016 February 2006
TANK, size and trade
Version Slide 2116 February 2006
BULK, size and trade
Version Slide 2216 February 2006
RCO: ECDISECDIS 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
Version Slide 2316 February 2006
ECDIS EFFECT
The effect of the RCO has been tested by comparing a vessel withECDIS 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
Version Slide 2416 February 2006
Cost and Benefit
Version Slide 2516 February 2006
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
Version Slide 2616 February 2006
Conclusions for selected ships
Few lives saved, thus high Gross CAF
Benefits exceed costs, thus negative Net CAF
Cost and Benefit estimates considered Robust (by a factor between 2 and 5), thus
ECDIS should be recommended as mandatory based on Net CAF
Version Slide 2716 February 2006
Other Ships
ECDIS should be recommended as mandatory for all ships in world wide trade, considering that
- Other ship types are usually more expensive- Other ship’s cargo is usually more expensive - Exposure to grounding risk is no less for other ships- Crew competence assumed the same- Effect of ECDIS is the same
Version Slide 2816 February 2006
www.dnv.com/research/transport/skj.asp