Briefing at: Consequence Analysis Workshop October 30, 2012

Briefing at:Consequence Analysis Workshop

October 30, 2012

• What is a Risk Assessment?• Project Background• Work Plan• Vessel Traffic

Study Results• Outreach Efforts• Questions?

What is a Risk Assessment?

• What can go wrong?

What is a Risk Assessment?

• How likely is it?

What is a Risk Assessment?

• What are the impacts?

What is a Risk Assessment?

• Can the risk be reduced or the impact mitigated?

Project Background

• 1999 Safety of Navigation Forum – Homer• 2000 Ports and Waterway Safety Assessment• 2006 Sea Bulk Pride Grounding• 2006 Cook Inlet Vessel Traffic Study• 2007 Navigational Safety Forum – Anchorage• 2008 Risk of Vessel Accidents and Spills• 2009 Aleutian Island Risk Assessment

Project Background

2007 Navigational Forum – Consensus Points• Cook Inlet RCAC should move forward with a

risk assessment,• Engaging in the political process will be

necessary to obtain funding, and• Public participation and outreach will be

critical to the success of the risk assessment.

Project Background

National Academy of SciencesTransportation Research BoardSpecial Report 293

Work Plan

• Limits and Bounds

• Organization and Management Structure

• Project Steps/Tasks

• Timeline

• Deliverables

Limits and Bounds

Substances• Oil– Cargo, Crude Oil or Refined Product– Fuel, Bunkers

Limits and Bounds

Vessel Types– Containerships– Bulk carriers– Gas carriers– Car carriers– Cruise ships and Ferries– Crude oil tankers– Product tankers

– Tank barges and tugs– Cargo barges and tugs– Chemical carriers– Tugs– Offshore Supply Vessels– Mobile Drill Rigs– Government Vessels

Limits and Bounds

Accident Types• Collisions• Allisions• Powered Groundings• Drift Groundings• Foundering

• Structural Failures• Mooring Failures• Fires

Limits and Bounds

Geographic Region

Organization

Management Team– Mike Munger, CIRCAC– Steve Russell, ADEC– LT. Kion Evans, USCG– Burt Lahn, USCG

Project Managers– Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC.

Organization

Advisory Panel• Fisheries• Local Government• Mariner, Pilot• Mariner, Salvor• Mariner, Containerships

• Mariner, Tug and Barge• Mariner, Tank Ship• Mariner, General• Non-Governmental Org.• Resource Manager• Subsistence User

Tasks

1. Project Communications

2. Facilitate and Support Manage Team and Advisory Panel

3. Vessel Traffic Study

4. Baseline Accident and Spill Study

5. Consequence Analysis Workshop

Tasks

6. Identify Risk Reduction Options

7. Evaluate Risk Reduction Options

8. Prioritize Risk Reduction Options and Prepare a Final Report

TimelineMilestone Completion

Form Advisory Panel 1st Year- 3rd quarter 2011

Draft Vessel Traffic Study 1st Year- 3rd quarter 2011

Final Vessel Traffic Study 2nd Year- 1st quarter 2012

Draft Spill and Casualty Study 2nd Year- 1st quarter 2012

Final Spill and Casualty Study 2nd Year- 2nd quarter 2012

Consequence Workshop 2nd Year- 4rd quarter 2012

Consequence Report 2nd Year- 4rd quarter 2012

Identify Risk Reduction Options 3nd Year- 1rd quarter 2013

Rank and Prioritize Risk Reduction Options 3nd Year- 2th quarter 2013

Draft Final Report 3nd Year- 3th quarter 2013

Publish Final Report 3nd Year- 4th quarter 2013

Deliverables

• Vessel Traffic Study (Completed)

• Spill and Causality Study (Completed)

• Consequence Workshop Report (Fall 2012)

• Risk Reduction Recommendations

• Final Report

Vessel Traffic Study

Objectives

1. Characterize Vessel Traffic Utilizing Cook Inlet in 2010 Base Year (≥ 300 Gross Tons),

2. Predict Vessel Traffic Until 2019

Vessel Traffic Study

Findings

• 480 ship port calls• 80% of the calls were made by 15 ships• 218 million gallons of persistent oil and 9

million gallons of non-persistent oil were moved on 83 tank ship voyages to or from the Nikiski and Drift River terminals

Vessel Traffic Study

Findings

• 36% of all persistent oil moved was fuel oil on dry cargo ships calling at Anchorage

• 102 oil barge transits moved 366 million gallons of nonpersistent oil; the greatest amount of oil moved by a single vessel type

Vessel Traffic Study

• AMHS ferries 23%• Horizon Lines container ships 22%• TOTE Ro-Ro cargo ships 22%• Crude oil tank ships 15.5%• Refined product tank ships 4%• Bulk carriers 4%• Gas carriers 2.5%• Cruise ships 3%• Fish industry 1%

45

450 million gallons of persistent oil were move in 2010

566 million gallons of non-persistent oil was moved in 2010

Spill & Causality Study

ObjectivesStudied Historical Incidents and Vessel Traffic to Define:

1. Baseline (2010-2014) and;2. Projected (2015- 2020) annual spill rate

Scenario Development

Spill Rates

• Vessel Types– Tank Ships– Tank Barges– Non-Tank/Non-workboat vessels (Cargo, Cruise

ship)• Highest forecasted spill rate of 1.3 per year

– Workboats (OSV, Towboat/Tugboat)• Highest baseline spill rate of 0.96 per year

– Sum of the four vessel types is 3.9 spills per year

Scenarios

• Defined for 2,112 unique combinations of vessel types and spill factor subcategories.

• Majority of scenarios have low to very low relative risk level.

• Tank ships have lowest baseline spill rate, but have the most risk from an oil spill.

Scenarios for Workshop

• Total of 6 scenarios– 2 Upper Cook Inlet: Knik Shoal & Port of

Anchorage– 2 Mid Cook Inlet: Drift River & Nikiski – 2 Lower Cook Inlet: Barren Islands & Port of

Homer

Outreach Efforts

• Email Contacts• Advisory Panel Solicitation• Public Meetings• Website

www.cookinletriskassessment.com

Questions?