Part I. Estimated Recovery Efficiencies in Selected Cases Part II. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
part i estimated recovery efficiencies in selected cases
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Part I. Estimated Recovery Efficiencies in Selected Cases Part II. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 16, 2024 42 likes •364 views

Part I. Estimated Recovery Efficiencies in Selected Cases Part II. Evaluation of the Preparedness using ARPELs RETOS Tool Fourth Inter-regional Workshop on Risk Assessment Tools for Pollution Preparedness and Response 30.10.2018

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Part I. Estimated Recovery Efficiencies in Selected Cases Part II. Evaluation of the Preparedness using ARPEL’s “RETOS” Tool

Fourth Inter-regional Workshop on Risk Assessment Tools for Pollution Preparedness and Response 30.10.2018 World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

Jorma Rytkönen Finnish Environment Institute jorma.rytkonen@ymparisto.fi

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Contents of the Presentation

2

  • Phase 1:
  • Scenarios
  • Incidents and oil releases
  • Theoretical oil recovery capacity of the

Finnish fleet

  • Scenarios 1,8 and 9
  • Draft Conclusions
  • Phase 2. RETOS calculations
  • Pålsson’s dissertation – selected cases
  • RETOS – evaluator’s competence
  • RETOS scopes and levels
  • Results and remarks
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Scenarios

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Incident scenarios…

ID Latitude Longitude Date Type of event ERC-M GT LOA Env. Hum. Econ. [tonnes] [m] 1 59.78111 20.61028 30.05.2014 Traffic zone violation 5045 125 2 59.71972 19.87833 04.02.2015 Under keel clearance 29683 183 3 60.43528 22.06556 12.11.2015 Drifting 6280 117 4 59.92833 21.59972 18.07.2016 Engine failure 11935 144 5 59.74861 22.79278 04.01.2014 Reporting 29905 183 6 59.74861 22.71806 18.12.2016 Near collision 57301 244 7 60.20306 25.59694 09.10.2016 Under keel clearance 64259 252 8 60.06694 25.41194 10.06.2016 Near collision 11793 145 9 60.09806 26.08639 12.06.2015 Traffic zone violation 62404 249 10 60.48444 26.95000 28.05.2015 Engine failure 6572 125

Notes: Env.: Environmental consequences as per ERC-M, Hum.: Human losses as per ERC-M, Econ.: Economic damages as per ERC-M

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Oil releases/types of incidents selected….

ID Sea area Accident type Oil type Spill size Spill duration [-] [-] [-] [tonnes] [-] 1 1 Collision Diesel 1000 Immediate 2 1 Grounding Light-medium crude 491 Immediate 3 2 Grounding Gasoline 210 Immediate 4 2 Grounding Light-medium crude 829 Immediate 5 3 Collision Gasoline 5000 Immediate 6 3 Collision Diesel 12500 Immediate 7 4 Grounding Light-medium crude 5451 Immediate 8 4 Collision Diesel 12500 Immediate 9 5 Collision Light-medium crude 20000 Immediate 1 5 Grounding Gasoline 150 Immediate

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Theoretical recovery capacities

VESSEL'S NAME LENGTH [m] SWEEPIN G WIDTH [m] BRUSHES [number/cm ] WIDTH OF BRUSHES [cm] TANK CAPACITY [m³] SWEEPING AREA [km2/ 12h] RECOVERY RATE [m³/h] MAX LIFTING CAPACITY OF BRUSHES [m³/h] Halli 60,5 40 18/338 338 1400 1,8 74 108 Hylje 64,3 35 16/300 300 900 1,6 65 96 Kummeli 28,2 25 10/188 188 70 1,1 46 60 Letto 42,7 30 2x110 220 42,7 1,3 56 73 Linja 34,9 23 2x100 200 77,4 1,0 43 67 Louhi 71,4 42 30 n/a 1200 1,9 78 180 Merikarhu 58 32 2x136 272 40 1,4 59 91 Oili I 24,5 21 10/188 188 80 0,9 39 60 Oili II 24,5 21 10/188 188 80 0,9 39 60 Oili III 24,5 21 10/188 188 80 0,9 39 60 Oili IV 19 19 10/188 188 30 0,8 35 60 Otava 34,9 25 8/71 71 100 1,1 46 48 Polaris 100 52 40 1200 2,3 97 180 Seili 50,5 30 12/225 225 196 1,3 56 72 Sektori 33 25 10/188 188 108 1,1 46 60 Stella 33 25 8/71 71 100 1,1 47 48 Svärtan 24 21 n/a n/a 52 0,9 39 50 Tursas 61,45 30 12/225 225 100 1,3 56 72 Turva 95,9 45 1200 2,0 84 180 Total 7056 25,0 1043 1625

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Scenario 1

7

  • Scenario 1 corresponds the case where
  • il product tanker after a traffic zone

violation collided resulting diesel oil

  • utflow of 1 000 ton.
  • Weather conditions are based on the

30.5.2015 situation when wind was blowing smoothly 5 m/s from North- East (wind direction 035o)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Scenario 1

Recovery ship / estimated recovery rate [m3/h] and storage tank [m3] Sailing time to the area Recovered amount of oil recovery rate [m3/h] /recovered amount per day[m3] 1 day 2 day 3 day Total [theoretical without breaks, 3 days TURVA/ 1000 9 h 5/150 3/ 72 2/48 270 HYLJE/ 900 15 h 10/90 5/120 3/72 282 KBV/ 200 24 h

  • ………………… 5/120…………… 2/48

168 KBV /1000 24 h

  • 5/120…………… 2/48

168 888 m3

Loss through evaporation (Fingas 2000)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Scenario 8; Diesel oil 12 500 m3

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Scenario 8 – one possible trajectory

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Scenario 8

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Scenario 9 – 20 000m3 crude oil release

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Scenario 9 – recovery fleet

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Draft Conclusions

slide-15
SLIDE 15

MT Propontis accident 2/2007

Jorma Rytkönen

15

Accident site

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Largest Oil Combating Exercise BALEX DELTA in August 2012 – MT Kyeema Spirit grounding, Monday 8 October at 6.55am close to Muuga Port, Estonia Jorma Rytkönen A B

Anchor was failed (A), and ship was dragged by the 17…20 m/s north- east wind and grounded (B)

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Jorma Rytkönen

17

November 7, 2012 – Maersk Hakone arrived to Muuga Port – 330 x 60 m VLCC carrier – was idling a couple of days due to the hard wind – 12th November in port - loading (??)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Jorma Rytkönen

18

Case MT LOVINA 20.10.2012

Note: MT Propontis’ accident 2/2007 !! Near-miss site

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Jorma Rytkönen Finnish Environment Institute

Phase 2: Evaluation of the Finnish Preparedness using ”RETOS” tool

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Pålsson’s dissertation: Oil spill preparedness in Sweden : prevention, planning, and response for large accidents. 2016 WMU

slide-21
SLIDE 21

RETOS – evaluator’s competence requirements

21

  • Actual oil spill response experience
  • Knowledge of spill contingency plan development and

current response practices

  • Current, up-to-date knowledge of applicable regulations
  • Knowledge of OSR strategies, tactics, and techniques
  • Sound understanding of the 2008 IOSC Guideline
  • Understanding of best practices for type of operations

covered by the selected OSR program Scope

  • Familiarity and access to OSR manuals and reference

materials

  • Trained in purpose and use of tool
  • Team approach. For assessments at Levels B and C is

particularly important to count with multiple specialists developing the evaluation together.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

RETOS – Scopes /Assessment Levels

22

  • Government or Industry
  • - Facility
  • - Facility Asset /Operator
  • Government
  • - Port /City / Local
  • - Area
  • - National & Multinational
  • Industry
  • - Country or Business line
  • - Corporate
  • Level A: Achieving preparedness at this level indicates all

components are in place to a minimum level, which provides a reasonable OSR management capacity. Contingency plans are in place, approved, and fully implemented.

  • Level B: Achieving this level applies to programs that have

been implemented to more rigorous levels and reflects performance gains from earlier feedback and use of evaluation process for improvement and sustained management capability.

  • Level C: Achieving the highest level reflects programs in

search of excellence. These are programs that consistently implement feedback in improving sustained readiness through application of best international practices in OSR concepts, management, planning, and competency.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

RETOS – Level A

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

RETOS – Level B

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

RETOS – Level C

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Retos estimates – LEVEL A results

29.10.2018 THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE

Global Performance Analysis Results Category Value Legislation, Regulations, Agreements 100 % Oil Spill Contingency Planning 71 % Response Coordination 100 % Health, Safety & Security 100 % Operational Response 94 % Tracking, Assessment & Information Management 100 % Logistics 100 % Financial & Administrative Considerations 83 % Training & Exercises 88 % Sustainability & Improvements 75 % Total 88 % Institution Specific Criteria N/A

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Retos estimates – LEVEL A results;

#Completed / Number of questions: 56/ 68

29.10.2018 THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Legislation, Regulations, Agreements Oil Spill Contingency Planning Response Coordination Health, Safety & Security Operational Response Tracking, Assessment & Information Logistics Financial & Administrative Considerations Training & Exercises Sustainability & Improvements

Level A Results with No Weighting

slide-28
SLIDE 28

RETOS estimates: LEVEL C results

28

29.10.2018 THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE

Global Performance Analysis Results Category Value Legislation, Regulations, Agreements 100 % Oil Spill Contingency Planning 77 % Response Coordination 82 % Health, Safety & Security 100 % Operational Response 78 % Tracking, Assessment & Information Management 100 % Logistics 92 % Financial & Administrative Considerations 93 % Training & Exercises 79 % Sustainability & Improvements 82 % Total 84 % Institution Specific Criteria N/A

slide-29
SLIDE 29

RETOS estimates: LEVEL C results;

#Completed / Number of questions: 159/ 211

29

29.10.2018 THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Legislation, Regulations, Agreements Oil Spill Contingency Planning Response Coordination Health, Safety & Security Operational Response Tracking, Assessment & Information Management Logistics Financial & Administrative Considerations Training & Exercises Sustainability & Improvements

Level C Results with No Weighting

slide-30
SLIDE 30

RETOS estimates: left-hand side (OpenRisk); right-hand

Jonas Pålsson’s dissertation

30

29.10.2018 THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Legislation, Regulations, Agreements Oil Spill Contingency Planning Response Coordination Health, Safety & Security Operational Response Tracking, Assessment & Information Management Logistics Financial & Administrative Considerations Training & Exercises Sustainability & Improvements

Level C Results with No Weighting Pålsson’s estimate 2016 !

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Retos – LEVEL C – some remarks !

31

Mechanical recovery, treating agents (including dispersants), and in-situ burning are included in the equipment inventories. in situ burning/dispersnats/herding agrnts not in the tool box Equipment inspections and evaluations are performed

  • n a scheduled basis in relation to Best Available

Technology criteria and the database updated accordingly. need to be improved !! Equipment locations are identified, secured, and distributed to allow response within defined mobilization and transit times to key spill risk locations from possible staging areas. need to be improved !!

Operational Response

Spill risk areas re-assessed regularly. need to be done !! Risk-based approach is used to define priority areas of potential spills based on operations, volumes, and environmental factors. we have risk based approaches and results but are not using them effectively Risk-based approach includes mapping and list of species of concern. Priority planning is focused on areas of high-risk and environmental sensitivity. Trajectories consider prevailing and worst-case

  • perating conditions.

no systematic procedures - cases made to BORIS system (library) Graphics indicate species at risk. university R&D, not our system ?? Stochastic and worst-case trajectories shown in scenarios are basis for response planning. shold be enhanced this part - OpenRisk post-evaluation

Oil Spill Contingency Planning

slide-32
SLIDE 32

More Information:

jorma.rytkonen@ymparisto.fi and jani.hakkinen@ymparisto.fi

32