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