FSA General FSA ECDIS Formal Safety Assessment Electronic Chart - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

FSA – General FSA – ECDIS

Formal Safety Assessment – Electronic Chart Display and Information System

Rolf Skjong, dr, chief scientist Stavanger, 8 January 2006

Version Slide 2 16 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: FSA

1992: UK House of Lords, Lord Carver Report 1993: MSC 62: UK proposes FSA concept 1997: MSC 68: FSA Interim Guidelines 2001: MSC 74: FSA Guidelines

Actual FSA Studies

• 1997: FSA/HLA
• 2000-2004: FSAs Bulk Carrier Safety
• 2004: FSA/NAV/LPS

Version Slide 3 16 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
• perational 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 4 16 February 2006

FSA compared to ‘current’ approach

Formal Safety Assessment Current Approach

Step 1 What might go wrong? Hazard identification What did go wrong? Step 2 How often, how likely? How bad? Risk analysis Frequencies, probabilities Consequences Risk = frequency x consequence Step 3 How can matters be improved? Risk control options identification How can matters be improved? Step 4 How much? How much better? Cost benefit evaluation Step 5 What actions are worthwile to take? Recommendation What actions are worthwhile to take?

Version Slide 5 16 February 2006

FSA compared to ‘current’ approach

FSA - Risk Based Approach Current Approach

• proactive, trying to identify all

conceivable hazards - before they lead to accidents

• reactive, responding to accidents
• continuous ammendment of

regulations

• regulations, consistent with safety
• bjectives
• prescriptive regulations
• principle of safety equivalency
• principle of technical equivalency
• encompasses technical, human and
• rganisational aspects
• contains mainly technical

requirements

• cost of safety identified

Version Slide 6 16 February 2006

FSA - a risk based approach

Definition 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

No No Yes

Scenario definition

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

Version Slide 7 16 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 O i l T a n k e r C h e m i c a l T a n k e r O i l / C h e m i c a l T a n k e r G a s T a n k e r B u l k / O i l C a r r i e r B u l k C a r r i e r ( i n c l . O r e ) C

• n

t a i n e r V e s s e l G e n e r a l C a r g

• C

a r r i e r R

• /

R

• C

a r g

• C

a r r i e r Individual risk Intolerable Risk ALARP Negligible Risk

Version Slide 8 16 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) Frequency of N or more fatalities (per ship year)

Oil tankers

• Chem. tankers

Oil/Chemical tankers Gas tanker Negligible Intolerable ALARP

Version Slide 9 16 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 10 16 February 2006

Decision criteria used in FSA

Basis is: Willingness to pay & Socioeconomics

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Average OECD

$US million

Version Slide 11 16 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 12 16 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 13 16 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 14 16 February 2006

Ship Selection

Trade Size Type Newcastle (Australia) – Tokyo (Japan) 75 000 DWT Bulk Carrier Kuwait (Kuwait) – Marseilles (France) 80 000 DWT Tanker for Oil Mongstad (Norway) – Stockholm (Sweden) 4 000 DWT Product Tanker

Version Slide 15 16 February 2006

Chosen Routes

Version Slide 16 16 February 2006

Routes

Version Slide 17 16 February 2006

Scenarios

Version Slide 18 16 February 2006

Factors considered in risk model

Version Slide 19 16 February 2006

Ship Types

Tankers and bulk carriers represent about 65% of the world fleet

measured in gross tonnage, thus this is a natural choice.

In addition, in order to establish a basis for drawing general conclusions

• n 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 20 16 February 2006

TANK, size and trade

Version Slide 21 16 February 2006

BULK, size and trade

Version Slide 22 16 February 2006

RCO: ECDIS

ECDIS 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

• bjects, 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 23 16 February 2006

ECDIS EFFECT

The effect of the RCO has been tested by comparing a vessel with

ECDIS 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 24 16 February 2006

Cost and Benefit

Version Slide 25 16 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 26 16 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 27 16 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 28 16 February 2006

w w w .dnv.com/research/transport/skj.asp