Docstoc

Places of refuge and fairways_ selection_ tools and procedures

Document Sample
Places of refuge and fairways_ selection_ tools and procedures Powered By Docstoc
					Places of refuge and fairways,
selection, tools and procedures
  Demo C team
  Report No C4 and C7 > Revision No 0 > 2007-03-21
  Prepared by Robert Vik
Contents:

1     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 3
2     INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4
3     TERMS OF REFERENCE..................................................................................................................... 5
4     WORK SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................... 6
5     NORWEGIAN COAST, PLACES OF REFUGE ................................................................................ 7
    5.1       SITUATION BEFORE DEMO C .......................................................................................................... 7
    5.2       PLACES OF REFUGE, BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 8
6     CRITERIA FOR A IMPROVED SELECTION PROCESS................................................................ 9
    6.1       RISK MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 9
    6.2       STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT......................................................................................................... 9
7     PLACES OF REFUGE, CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................. 10
    7.1       DEFINITION OF A PLACE OF REFUGE: ........................................................................................... 10
    7.2       LOCATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 10
    7.3       DENSITY OF PLACES OF REFUGE .................................................................................................. 11
    7.4       SOME IMPORTANT ASPECTS ......................................................................................................... 12
8     METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 12
    8.1       SELECTION AND NAUTICAL REVIEW .............................................................................................. 13
    8.2       TECHNICAL AND SECTOR REVIEW - CONFLICT POTENTIAL.......................................................... 13
    8.3       ON-SITE INSPECTIONS................................................................................................................... 14
    8.4       CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 15
    8.5       PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ............................................................................................................... 18
    8.6       DECISION ....................................................................................................................................... 19
9     GIS-TOOL FOR PRESENTING THE RESULTS ............................................................................ 20
10            DATEBASE INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 22




                                                                                                                                                               2
1 Executive summary

Key findings and results:
   •   A six-stage process has been used to develop a method for selection of Places of Refuge.
       The method is based on risk management and stakeholder involvement.
   •   A method for assessing the suitability based on consequences has been developed and
       used in the process.
   •   The GIS-tool “Kystinfo” has been updated with the proposed Places of Refuge and can be
       displayed together with fairways, the vulnerable and protected nature areas and other
       information.
   •   A database format based on the information sheets from each Place of Refuge has been
       developed to display the relevant information and can be used together with GIS-tool
       Kystinfo in both planning and operational use.
   •   On-site inspections with participation of pilots and local authorities are essential and should
       in some cases also be performed as a part of the initial nautical review and selection of
       places of refuge.
   •   The process of selecting Places of Refuge have resulted in 10 times more places to choose
       from in the area that is mapped.


The typical procedure for handling vessels in distress will be:
   •   A suitable Place of Refuge will be found in cooperation between the Norwegian Coastal
       Administration (NCA) and the Municipal Preparedness Groups (IUA). The GIS-presentation
       tool “Coastal Info” and the database with information about the properties of each Place of
       Refuge is used in the planning.
   •   The local Harbour administration is briefed about the chosen site.
   •   NCA will assure that the sufficient towing capacity is found and controlled during tow to the
       Place of Refuge.
   •   NCA will assure that the necessary actions are taken to bring the needed anti-pollution
       measures in place when the vessel reach the place of refuge.
   •   The ship in distress will be towed to the chosen Place of Refuge using a fairway that avoid
       vulnerable nature areas and using “Coastal Info” with GIS-presentation and database as an
       operational tool in case of a rapid change in the situation.


It is considered to be an important success criteria for local involvement and acceptance that the
selection of Places of Refuge and Intentional Grounding Sites are not restricting the local
authorities in their planning process. If the situation at the site changes in a way that affects the
suitability, the next round of updates will reflect this in the database. However, it is important to
note that the national body in charge of preparedness needs to have the authority to intercept the
local planning process in the instance that there are few suitable sites for grounding a sinking ship.
This is however outside the scope of this project and is not being debated here. It is however
imperative that the authority in charge of the emergency situation has the power to choose freely
from the alternatives of refuge when a situation occur and that the political and local deliberations
have been completed during the 6-stage process.

                                                                                                     3
2 Introduction
The two deliverables C4 and C7 has been included in the work of the Norwegian Coastal
Administration in mapping and selecting new Places of refuge along the Norwegian coast. The
intention of the project was to come up with the criteria and methods for selection of places of
refuge in a specific geographic area. The goal was also to end up with operational tools and
guidelines that can be used to perform the same process along the rest of the Norwegian coast. It
was also the intention that the Norwegian Coastal Administration would prove the method suitable
to adapt for other countries and end up with harmonization of the procedures in EU coastal waters.
The terms “Places of Refuge” and “Sites for Intentional Grounding” is essential in the report and
need some further explanation. In the selection process the main objective has been to establish
Places of Refuge and fairways to them that are not in substantial conflict with protected nature
areas with vulnerable species. The emphasis on sites for intentional grounding is less since the
probability for these to be needed is less. However, these sites are also being mapped as a part of
the information gathered when mapping suitable Places of Refuge and will as a result of this be
included in this term.
Given the fact that an emergency situation more often than not involves the need of port facilities
as a suitable Place of Refuge, the emphasis has been put on locating sites with a certain
closeness to infrastructure such as electric power, docks, lifting cranes and roads. Along the
fairway to such a mapped Place of Refuge, any site along the way needs to be checked for
suitability in an operational situation if the situation changes rapidly and for instance grounding
needs to be performed in order to avoid that a ship in distress may sink in deep waters where it
can not be reached for emptying of oil or removal.
The work in Demo C of Safety at Sea has been directly integrated in the work of the Norwegian
Coastal Administration and the result will be the first round of work that will carry on until all of the
Norwegian coast is covered in the same manner. Written material for guidance and introduction to
the subject has also been prepared in the course of the project in order to make the same process
run more smoothly in the next rounds to come.


The two deliveries C4 and C7 are combined in this document since they are interrelated topics that
can not easily be separated. C4 is called “Select places of refuge and fairways” and C7 is named
“Develop decision making procedures and tools”. These tasks have been an integrated part of the
whole process and is described together in this document. The process of selection and the
resulting database for planning and operational purpose is both the process and the resulting tools.
Since the work with C4 and C7 is involving a large number of organizations outside the project, it
has not been possible to complete all the 6 stages within the timeframe of the project. At the time
of project completion, the process has come to stage 5, Public Consultation. Since the only task
left after this phase is to update the material with new information, this is not considered to be an
important deviation and the results of the project will not be significantly affected.




                                                                                                        4
3 Terms of reference
Terms used in this report is based on the document “Harmonised RM Framework rev. 4”, which is
part of Strand 1. The most relevant definitions in this report is listed below:


Safety Absence of unacceptable levels of risk to life, limb and health (from unwillful acts). IACS.
Risk Risk is a measure of the likelihood that an undesirable event will occur together with a
measure of the resulting consequence within a specified time. IACS.
Formal Safety Assessment A rational and systematic process for assessing the risk
associated with an activity and for evaluating the costs and benefits of options for reducing these
risks. IMO.
Incident An unforeseen or unexpected event which may have the potential to become an accident
but in which injury to personnel and/or damage to ship or to the environment does not materialize
or remained minor. IACS.
Frequency The number of occurrences per unit time (e.g. per year). IACS.
Consequence The outcome of an accident. IACS.
Risk Identification The process of recognizing that a risk exists and defining its characteristics.
IALA.
Accident Scenario A specific sequence of events from an initiating event to an undesired
consequence. IACS.
Accident An unintended event involving fatality, injury, ship loss or damage, other property loss,
damage or environmental damage. IACS
Accident Category A designation of accidents according to their nature, e.g. fire, collision,
grounding, etc. IACS
Loss an injury or damage to health, property, the environment, or something else of value. IALA.
Risk Assessment An integrated array of analytical techniques, e.g. reliability, availability &
maintainability engineering, statistics, decision theory, systems engineering, human behaviour etc.
that can successfully integrate diverse aspects of design and operation in order to assess risk.
IACS.
Risk The activity of estimating the frequency or probability and IALA
Estimation consequence of risk scenarios, including a consideration of the uncertainty of the
estimates.
Risk Evaluation The process by which risks are examined in terms of magnitude and distribution,
and evaluated in terms of acceptability considering the needs, issues, and concerns of
stakeholders. IALA.
Risk Control Measure A means of controlling a single element of risk
Risk Reduction Actions taken to lessen the frequency, negative consequences, or both, of a
particular risk. IALA.
Risk Management The systematic application of management policies,procedures, and practices
to the tasks of analysing, evaluating, controlling, and communicating about risk
issues. IALA.
Risk Acceptance A decision to accept a risk. IALA.
                                                                                                      5
4 Work Schedule
Activities for Demonstration Project C is described in table below. Activities relevant for this report are shaded.
Table 1: Work Schedule for Demonstration Project C.
 Act.     Activity Description                                                       Dead line      Work involving the
 No.                                                                                                Partners (Yes/No)
                                                                                                    NOR         FLA
  C1      Organise the work: Establishing the network of participating               Dec. 2004       Yes
          partners. Establishing working routines across the partners.
  C2      Classify sensitive areas: Make relevant databases available                June 2005        Yes
          (compatible). Analysis of land and sea area in respect to suitability.
          Classify and compile sensitive areas in respect to environmental
          aspects as well as industrial aspects (fish farming, tourism etc.), and
          develop selection criteria. Identify sensitive areas to be protected
          from pollution
  C3      Make an overview of emergency preparedness and rescue                      June 2005        Yes             Yes
          arrangements: Compile emergency preparedness plans for the
          partner region. Assess alternative arrangements. Assess elements of
          the arrangements that have a major influence on the risk assessment
          and risk calculations.
  C4      Select places of refuge and fairways: Select potential locations for       Dec. 2005        Yes
          place of refuge. Prepare an impact assessment of the potential places
          of refuge. Recommend location of fairways in relation to sensitive
          areas
  C5      Develop emergency preparedness arrangements for selected                   June 2006        Yes
          places of refuge: Assess the need for emergency preparedness
          arrangements, in particular for the selected places of refuge.
  C6      Assess business potentials and compensations: Analyse the                  June 2006        Yes             Yes
          development potentials for the industries related to control stranding
          of ships and implementing actions at place of refuge. Analyse and
          recommend necessary means of compensation in case of stranding
          (clean up, economic compensation etc.)
C7        Develop decision making procedures and tools: Develop practical            Dec. 2006        Yes             Yes
          decision making procedures and tools for selecting optional places of
          refuge, and for selecting the actual place of refuge in case of an
          accident. Develop risk assessment methods/tools for assessing the
          risk level as a function of the emergency preparedness arrangement.
          Test the decision making tool on three known and three imaginary
          incidents. Systematise the test results and experiences


  C8      Report and disseminate results: Prepare a documentation report             March            Yes
          and dissemination material                                                 2007




                                                                                                                            6
5 Norwegian Coast, Places of Refuge
5.1 Situation before Demo C
The Places of refuge and sites for “beaching” (intentional grounding) for the Norwegian Coastal
waters are described in a list that was completed in 1995 and has been continuously updated
since. The accompanying action plan for the handling of such incidents was approved by the
Fisheries and Coastal Directorate on June 28. 2004. The list describes 69 predetermined Places of
Refuge and 62 possible sites for intentional grounding of ships in distress. The plans are
formulated as an answer to IMO resolution “A.949(23) Guidelines on places of refuge for ships in
need of assistance” in addition to the EU directive “2002/59/EC/ Article 20 – Places of Refuge” In
addition to maps showing the different location the same information is tabulated to show the
positions and some comments on navigational accessability and conflict potential related to
protected species and vulnerable areas.
The process of selection was carried out by the responsible government authority, at that time SFT
(Norwegian Pollution Control Authority) and the Regional Government representatives were
involved to a certain extent in the mapping of sensitive areas. There was no regional political
involvement in the planning and no local or stakeholder involvement.
This describes the situation when the project Safety at Sea, demo C started the work to find a new
method for selecting suitable sites.
The situation along the Norwegian coast before the start of Demo C



     Places of                                       Sites for
     Refuge                                          intentional
                                                     grounding




As can be seen from the maps showing the original Places of Refuge and Intentional Grounding,
there is a long sailing distance between these places in some parts of the coast and the pre-
selected sites would provide little help if a situation occurred between some of these sites.


                                                                                                 7
5.2 Places of refuge, background
At 1st of January 2003 the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs assumed responsibility of the
national preparedness for acute pollution, formerly the responsibility of the Ministry of the
Environment. Along with this, the responsibility of managing situations where vessels pose a risk
for acute pollution was transferred. The Coastal Administration has been handed the operational
responsibility for this work. A relevant measure in such situations can be to take vessels to a place
of refuge or in more extreme circumstances to carry out a controlled grounding of the ship to
reduce the consequence of the pollution.


In 2003 IMO issued guidelines for the use of places of refuge and controlled grounding for ships in
need of assistance. EU directive 2002/59 points to IMO’s guidelines and calls for a national
preparedness plan for this purpose.


In line with EU directive 2002/59, the Coastal Administration has prepared procedures for the
authorities common management of situations in which a vessel may be transported to a place of
refuge or site for intentional grounding. The purpose of these procedures is to provide guidelines
for the Coastal Administrations involvement and action towards vessels that threaten the safety at
sea or is posing an environmental threat. The procedures will ensure that the decisions of the
Coastal Administration in cooperation with other authorities to determine place of refuge is
implemented and carried out in a coordinated and consistent way. All decisions and actions at the
various operational levels need to have a solid foundation in established administrative practice. If
a vessel has problems the Coastal Administration’s responsibilities will among others be:
Surveillance, inspection, consultation, assistance, preparedness resources and operational
management.


The Coastal Administrations decisions regarding the use of place of refuge site for grounding will
be discussed with both local, regional and national authorities (e.g. the Norwegian Maritime
Directorate). However, it is a very important fact to note that the final decision regarding place of
refuge will ultimately lie with the head of operation at the Coastal Administration.


As of today, a list of suitable places of refuge along the Norwegian coastline exists. This list is
based on work that was concluded in 1995 by the Norwegian Maritime Directorate, which at that
time was in charge of that field. Both the risk perception and use of area along the coast has
changed considerably since 1995 and therefore a new and updated evaluation of suitable places of
refuge and sites for intentional grounding is needed.




                                                                                                        8
6 Criteria for a improved selection process
The main objective of this work is to revise and update the preparedness in line with the risk
assessment. The specific objective of the project is also to develop the process concerning
selection of places of refuge and further to accommodate a continuous update of plans and
procedures for utilising these. This will take place through regional and local parties being involved
in the work along with the national authorities in charge of oil protection preparedness
Two important criteria has been selected as basis for the process of selecting new sites, Risk
Management as a tool and stakeholder involvement in order to achieve a more open process that
lead to less controversial decisions and more local ownership to the solutions.

6.1 Risk management
Risk management was by definition determined to be the theoretical basis for the process of
selecting Places of Refuge and Places for Intentional Grounding. On this background a set of
criteria was listed as input to Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and a report was completed by them after
several rounds of discussion and updates. This report is called “Guideline for selection of Ports of
Refuge”, report no.: 2003-0372. The report was the starting point for the work of creating a new
system of selection of sites but since the completion of the report the guidelines has been refined
further and the report is used for reference in the final guidelines. The report is amended in Annex
I.

6.2 Stakeholder involvement
The previous process of selecting Places of Refuge, fairways and sites for intentional grounnding
that was completed in 1995 has been criticized for being semi-closed and without local and
regional involvement. To remedy this situation in the current process, it was from the start stated
the criteria of stakeholder involvement. A group of people consisting of experienced pilots, local
IUA (intermunicipal oilspill preparedness groups) and other stakeholders have been working
together during the whole process. There is local and regional involvement in all of the steps and
the most wide and complete involvement is in step 5 where the public consultation takes place.
The consultation starts with a public hearing and information meeting where the proposed sites are
presented. After this, anyone can comment on the proposal until the set deadline. Public hearings
are held in each county.




                                                                                                       9
7 Places of Refuge, considerations
Since the term Place of Refuge is so often used and important in this process a few considerations
on this subject will follow.



7.1 Definition of a place of refuge:
Suitable locality to which vessels can go by own machine or be towed. The purpose of seeking an
place of refuge is to be able to repair the vessel, carry out emergency emptying, adjust the stability
to reduce risk and size of pollution, if necessary prepare the ship for sea with the intent of
continuing sailing.
IMO Resolution A.949(23): Place of refuge means a place where a ship in need of assistance can
take action to enable it to stabilize the condition and reduce the hazards to navigation, and to
protect human life and the environment.



7.2 Locations
Locations which are particularly interesting in connection to preparedness for acute pollution shall
be pointed out. The Coastal Administration’s procedure for places of refuge outlines how the
Coastal Administration can intervene and act towards vessels in need of assistance, threatening
the safety at sea or posing a risk to the environment. The procedure applies to situations in which
life and health is not at stake. The Main Rescue Operation Center (HRS) will be informed about the
situation underway as such a situation quickly can develop into involving life and health.


If taking control of a vessel in need of assistance and bringing it to a place of refuge becomes
necessary, this is then the responsibility of the Coastal Administration, which decides if and to
where the vessel is to be sailed or towed. Important external parties normally contributing in a
cooperation process are:
The Navy, the Maritime Directorate, the Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning,
the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, the Directorate for Nature Management, County
Governor, municipalities, ship-owner, flag state, P&I, rescue companies and the bordering nations.


Unwanted situations in which it might be necessary to take a vessel to a place of refuge might be
complex. This can be vessels drifting with no engine power or vessels with great structural
damages and mechanical breakdown. Such incidents can also involve vessels on fire, potentially
exploding or leaking gas. In a critical situation where it may be considered to intentionally ground
the vessel to prevent or reduce possible spills, the option of setting it ashore close to the place of
refuge is very important. (… A place where the ship can be set on ground in a controlled manner
when the immediate danger of total wrecking is present.)


Examples of such incidents are:


The oil tanker “PRESTIGE” which broke and sank outside of Spain 19.11.02
The cargo ship “JOHN R” which hit ground 3,5 nautical miles west of Grøtøy, Nord-Troms 25.12.00
(broke into to parts 02.01.01).

                                                                                                     10
The oil tanker “FJORD CHAMPION” (32 477 DWT) which caught fire 15 nautical miles southeast
of Mandal 04.03.05, and drifted into and hit ground east of the island Udvår, close to Søgne in
Vest-Agder.
MS SERVER hit ground 12.01.07 at 18.26 just south of Fedje, Fedje commune. The ship broke
and the front ship was towed to a place of refuge in Ågotnes, Fjell commune.


Due to time constraints the account of place of refuges, areas of responsibility, tools to support
decision-making and lines of action must be present before such incidents take place.



7.3 Density of places of refuge
The need for places of refuge stem from various considerations. Environmental fragility,
environmental risk (the outcome of likelihood and consequence in a scenario), traffic density and
more. Four factors are identified as important when assessing how densely the places of refuge
should be placed:

   1) The likelihood of incidents where the use of place of refuges is a likely scenario.
   2) Short distance to limit the time it takes to get a vessel into the place of refuge, as the chance
      of potential environmental risk is reduced when a vessel is taken into an place of refuge (in
      situations where the environmental risk is not reduced by taking the vessel into the place of
      refuge, that is a situation where an place of refuge will not be used).
   3) Short distance to avoid sailing past environmentally fragile areas, densely populated areas,
      and other places, which increase the risk of environmental or societal damage.
   4) Nautical and preparedness properties. Where good places of refuge are not present, pointing
      out a place of refuge will not be beneficial, as taking the vessel there will not decrease the
      risk of damaging the environment.

For places of refuge in category 1 these are vessels which mainly sail in the outer corridors, and in
the passages to the oil and gas terminals. It is desirable for places of refuge to be placed in
connection to as many passages as possible along the coast, and in connection to the docks to which
the vessels arrive frequently.

For places of refuge in category 2 the density should especially take into consideration the 3 factors
mentioned above. For the time being there is a recommended minimum distance of 15 nautical
miles to the nearest place of refuge, equivalent to 3 hours of tugging/towing with an estimated
speed of 5 knots.

Should any of the places of refuge be classified as not suited for conflict scenarios, this means that
we should have other places of refuge close to them to be used for such situations. For instance,
some places of refuge will be unsuited when there is a risk of fire or explosion aboard the vessel,
and an alternative place of refuge will be needed.




                                                                                                     11
7.4 Some important aspects
Stortingsmelding 14 (2004-05) sketches out a medium to high risk for the environment in different
parts of the West Coast. The data is based on international statistics, the accident database DAMA
and spills registered by the Coastal Administration. This is updated in the Report for National
Tugging Preparedness of 18.01.06.

Green= low risk, Yellow=medium risk, Red=high risk

Seen together, the three coastal counties have an estimated occurrence period for oil spills from
tankers after 95 years, from smaller product tankers every 25 years, and from other vessels with
bunker oil (?) every 7 years. (St.meld. 14(2004-05)). Places of refuge are a possible solution to
avoid or reduce the risk to the environment, which this involves.


8 Methodology
The Guideline is based on a step-by-step process using given selection criteria for identifying the
suitability of ports of refuge/ beaching sites, as well as possible consequences and conflicts. The
following steps are identified in specified order:


   1. Selection and nautical review
   2. Technical and sector review - conflict potential
   3. On-site inspections
   4. Consequence analysis
   5. Public consultations
   6. Conclusion




                                                                                                    12
8.1 Selection and nautical review
The first selection and nautical review is mainly a map- and desk-exercise but the project has
shown that it may be beneficiary to have on-site inspections also in this phase, at least in some
cases. The on-site inspections yield a lot of information that can not be retrieved by using maps
and other sources of written information. The selection and review is done based on nautical and
maritime conditions exclusively.
A Place of Refuge are evaluated against these criteria:
   •   Navigational considerations, how is the access and how is the possibilities for
       manoeuvring.
   •   Is it possible to contain an oilspill in a good manner by closing off the site?
   •   Can it be used for different types of vessels?
   •   How exposed is it to wind, waves and current?
   •   Possibilities of beaching/intentional grounding at the site and on the way to it?
   •   Sea-bottom conditions for anchoring?
   •   Tidal water/tidal currents?
   •   Communication, how is coverage for VHF and mobile phones?
   •   Harbour facilities like electric power, cranes, docks ets?
   •   How easy can emergency and pollution preparedness storage facility be reached
       (roads/distance)?


To sort out these criteria, a form for gathering information has been designed. This form will be
filled-in during all of the 6 stages and be completed at the end of stage 6. By this time all of the
information will be updated into the database which is described later.
A completed form that show the information that is gathered for each potential place of refuge is
emended in Annex II, the example used is information for the location Husefest.



8.2 Technical and sector review - Conflict potential
This stage involves the start of mapping the interest and finding possible conflicts. Now the
considerations about public safety, environmental considerations and economic interests are entered
into the process. The most critical areas are sorted out and established.




                                                                                                       13
8.3 On-site inspections
A physical review together with a group of people with local knowledge and with navigational
experience is considered to be important to verify data and gather more information about the
proposed Place of refuge.


The picture show KV Garsøy from the “Inner Coastguard” during the on-site inspections




The settlement of Uggdalseidet, Tysnes.




                                                                                                14
8.4 Consequence analysis
The GIS-based consequence analysis is a major part of the process. The locations are classified
based on suitability and total consequence. In order to evaluate this in a consistant manner and
based on risk management, the following system has been developed to evaluate the
consequences. This guide needs to be seen in relation to the form “Joint estimate of conflict” that is
amended in Annex xxx

Guidance for the form; “Joint estimate of conflicts”
Degree of conflicts in 3 scenarios
Degree of conflicts from 0 to 3 should be estimated for three different scenarios/ dangerous
situations, with the highest degree of conflict when the interest is close to the place of refuge:


1) Without pollution risk: Vessel who ask for entrance to place of refuge, because of bad
weather, crew conditions, or other, without representing a particular risk of pollution.
2) With pollution risk: Vessel who represent acute pollution, or danger for acute pollution.
Example; limited seaworthiness, staggered cargo, engine trouble, structure damaged and other
obvious danger for pollution.
3) With danger for fire- and explosion: Vessel in fire or with obvious danger for fire and
explosion.
Note! In a situation with both danger for fire/explosion and danger for pollution, column 2 and 3
must both be considered.
Extra emphasizes: In area of conflict settlement/population in a case of danger for fire/explosion,
the conflict factor is doubled (x2). It is the same way in the area of natural area (MOB) in a case
with danger for pollution.
Degree of conflict is also estimated for the entrance to place of refuge: for entrance to place
of refuge in class 1 the conflicts are estimated from the sea boundary to the place of refuge. For
the entrance to place of refuge in class 2, the conflicts are estimated from the secondary coastal
channels to the place of refuge.
The degree of conflict regarding entrance must always be considered in relation with the total
tugging- or sailing distance relevant.
Categories of places of refuge
Place of refuge is divided into 2 classes: 1) Places of refuge special suited for tankers and bulk
carriers, and 2) places of refuge for the expected traffic in main and secondary coastal channels.
Designed vessel for the two categories of places of refuge is defined below. Some of the places of
refuge in class 2 has additional limitations, and cannot receive all types of vessels.
Place of refuge class 1:
Bulk carrier (Narvik) 500.000DWT, LOA (Length over all)=380m, width=60m, deep-draught =18m
Tanker: 350.000DWT, LOA=330m, width =60m, deep-draught =18m

Type of vessels: Tankers who carries crude oil and heavy fuel oil, and tankers over 10 000 BT.
Place of refuge class 1 will first of all be needed in relation to the outer sailing channel where the
tankers are sailing, together with entrance channels to oil terminals and main harbours.

                                                                                                         15
Place of refuge class 2:
LOA=200m, width =25m, deep-draught =10,5m. Vessels over 5.000 BT.


Conflict analysis


Grading of conflict with settlement/population
Includes all densely populated areas and cottage areas from the national statistics (SSB).


The degree of conflict with various distances:


                         Distance to   Distance to              Distance to
Degree of conflict       popul areas   scattered popul areas    isolated houses/cottages
3 Big conflict           < 5km         < 2km
2 Moderate conflict      <10km         < 5km                   <2km
1 Small conflict         <20km         <10km                   <5km
0 No conflict            ≥20km         ≥10km                   ≥5km


It is considered as conflicted to direct a vessel in place of refuge with a shorter distance than 20 km
to a populated area, 10 km to a scattered populated area and 5 km to isolated houses/cottages.
The same distance criteria will be used regarding conflict to entrance of place of refuge.


Grading of conflict with business (physical obstacle)
Include sea-based business that can experience obstacle regarding their activity as a result of a
vessel is taken in to a place of refuge. This is special the case for harbour terminals, docks etc.
3 Conflict with business of national interest
2 Conflict with business of regional interest
1 Conflict with business of local interest
0 No conflict
Grading of conflict with natural area (MOB)
Includes every area that is listed in the MOB-model (A-areas and B-areas)
(http://www.beredskapsportalen.no/Contact/mob_def.htm).


Sea distance from the place of refuge to the natural area:
< 2 km           3 Big conflict
< 5 km           2 Moderate conflict
< 10 km          1 Small conflict
≥ 10 km          0 No conflict


                                                                                                      16
It is considered as conflicted to direct a vessel in place of refuge with a shorter distance than 10 km
to a natural area. The same distance criteria will be used regarding conflict to entrance of place of
refuge.




Grading of conflict with recreation areas
Includes every area that is listed in the MOB-model (C-areas and D-areas)
(http://www.beredskapsportalen.no/Contact/mob_def.htm).


Sea distance from the place of refuge to the recreation area:
< 2 km         3 Big conflict
< 5 km         2 Moderate conflict
< 10 km        1 Small conflict
≥ 10 km        0 No conflict


It is considered as conflicted to direct a vessel in place of refuge with a shorter distance than 10 km
to a recreation area.


Grading of conflict with nature based business
Includes business activity that is based on the nature. Most important are aquaculture, fish inlets
and tourism.


Sea distance from the place of refuge to the nature based business
< 2 km         3 Big conflict
< 5 km         2 Moderate conflict
< 10 km        1 Small conflict
≥ 10 km        0 No conflict


It is considered as conflicted to direct a vessel in place of refuge with a shorter distance than 10 km
to a nature based business.


Suited for emergency preparedness arrangement
Suitability is here considered regarding nautical and preparedness arrangement in the individual
place of refuge.




                                                                                                      17
8.5 Public consultations
The proposals are distributed to the relevant parties and stakeholders ( municipalities, counties etc)
for consultation and feedback. The process starts with a information meeting and end when the set
deadline for comment have been reached.

An example of the map showing places of Refuge and fairways is shown here. The 3 complete
maps are shown in annex III.




The information about each site in the database, is also a part of the material that is presented during
the public consultation. A typical example of database information interface is given in chapter 10.




                                                                                                     18
8.6 Decision
The Norwegian Coastal Administration will amend the relevant information to the maps and
database after the consultation period is completed.




                                                                                           19
9 GIS-tool for presenting the results
The Norwegian Coastal Administration has integrated the proposed Places of Refuge into their
already existing GIS-tool “Kystinfo” (Coastal Information). This WEB-based information system is
including the MRDB-database where all the information about protected areas and sensitive species
are stored. Most parts of this database is open to the public and can be accessed through the
Norwegian Coastal Administrations homepage; http://www.kystverket.no

As described in delivery C2, “Classification of sensitive areas” the areas sensitive to pollution are
sorted into the categories A-B-C-D-E where A is the highest priority. This is a part of the MOB-
model that is the basis for the system. This model is also described in detail in delivery C2:
Classifiacation of sensitive areas.


This is a screen dump of how the selected Places of Refuge is shown in the WEB-application
Kystinfo with the layer of MOB A January added.




                                                                                                        20
The following information can be displayed in the GIS-tool by choosing different layers on the
selected area of the map: Places of refuge, fairways into the Places of refuge, ordinary sailing
fairways, harbours and ports, anchoring sites, several types of depos containing pollution control
equipment, the MOB-areas in categories A-D in different seasons and protected nature/recreational
areas.


This image shows the map with the following layers active: Proposed Places of refuge with
fairways, MOB A-areas in July and two different types of oilspill equipment facilities.




The information about Places of refuge and the database of information will be displayed in the
WEB-application Kystinfo and made available in the electronic maps for pilots and authorities. It
will not be shown on the ordinary paper maps for navigation since the information do not have
relevance for the seafarers.




                                                                                                    21
10 Datebase information
The information in the database for each Place of Refuge is divided in two parts, one is the facts
that describe the properties of the Place of Refuge, the second is the information containing the
conflict potentials and the evaluation of this.

This is a sample from the database showing the four pages that is displayed from each Places of
Refuge. The two first pages are description of physical properties.




Page 1 database information




                                                                                                     22
Page 2 database information




                              23
Page 3 and 4 database information




                                    24
Reference:
DNV Consulting: ”Veiledning til valg av nødhavner, rapport nr. 2006-0372”, mai 2006.
IMO Res. A.949(23) Guidelines on places of refuge for ships in need of assistance (2004).
Report for National Tugging Preparedness of 18.01.06.



Annexes
I      DNV, Guideline for selection of ports of refuge
II     Properties form, mapping of Places of refuge (eks Husefest)
III    3 maps showing the proposed Places of Refuge
IV     Form: “Joint estimate of conflict”




                                                                                            25
Annex I   DNV, Guideline for selection of ports of refuge




                                                            26
DNV CONSULTING




Guideline for selection of ports
of refuge:
Report for Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune
Report no.: 2003-0372
Rev 1, 29 May 2006




                                .
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                          DNV CONSULTING



Guideline for selection of ports of refuge                                                                   DET NORSKE VERITAS AS
                                                                                                                       Veritasveien 1
for                                                                                                                      1322 Høvik
                                                                                                                Tel: +47 67 57 99 00
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune
                                                                                                               Fax: +47 67 57 99 11
Veritasveien 1
                                                                                                               Registered in Norway
                                                                                                               NO 945 748 931 MVA

Client ref:

Report No.:                          2003-0372                                       Subject Group:

Indexing terms:

Summary:
Prepared by:                         Name and position                                           Signature
                                     Odd Willy Brude, Senior Consultant,


Verified by:                         Name and position                                           Signature
                                     Geir Morten Skeie, Principal
                                     Consultant


                                     Name and position                                           Signature


Approved by:                         Name and position                                           Signature
                                     Tor Jensen, Principal Consultant
Date of issue:                       29 May 2006

Project No:                          66113937




               No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit (however,
               free distribution for internal use within DNV after 3 years)
               No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit

               Strictly confidential

               Unrestricted distribution


All copyrights reserved Det Norske Veritas AS. This publication or parts thereof may not be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying or recording, without the prior
written consent of Det Norske Veritas AS.




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                   DNV CONSULTING



Contents:
1.0              Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
2.0              Methodology ................................................................................................... 2
3.0              Guidelines to selection of port of refuge...................................................... 3
3.1              Step 1: Nautical review..................................................................................... 3
3.2              Step 2: Mapping of interests............................................................................. 4
3.3              Step 3: Inspection............................................................................................. 4
3.4              Step 4: Suitability evaluation and impact assessment ...................................... 4
3.5              Step 5: Public inquiry with local and regional authorities .................................. 8
4.0              Risk assessment as basis for localization of ports of refuge and
                 determining the distance between them ...................................................... 9
5.0              References .................................................................................................... 13
Appendix I – Draft form for identifying ports of refuge and beaching locations.. 14




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                         Page 1
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING




1.0          Introduction
The planning system for the Norwegian Coastal Administration for use of ports of refuge will be
developed and updated in accordance with the risk situation (White paper no.14 (2004-2005).
This work is part of a demonstration project (demo C: Coastal zone management, places of
refuge and preparedness) under the Interreg IIIB- project Safety at Sea. The objective of the
ports of refuge project is to prevent or minimize the size of critical pollution and other negative
consequences as a result of incidents where vessels are involved. EUs Interreg-program aims
at strengthening cooperation between regions, regardless of country boarders. Safety at sea is
a high priority subject in the Interreg IIIB North Sea program and in the North Sea commission.
Specificly, within the field of safety at sea and oil spill preparedness, there is a need to
harmonize and develop a general strategy, methods and tools for risk management as a
general challenge for the North Sea.

The present document has been written as a general overall guideline, which should serve as
a foundation for continued work along the rest of the Norwegian coast, using the same
methodology, and to transfer experience to the other member countries in the Safety at Sea
project.

In the two documents White paper no.14 (2004-2005) ”On the safe side- seaworthiness and oil
spill preparedness” (Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal affairs 2005) and DNV’s Environmental
Risk Assessment for the Norwegian Coast (DNV 2004), it was chosen to distinguish scenarios
according to the size of the vessel involved in a situation; tankers, smaller production vessels,
and other vessels above 5.000 GT. Based on this classification, the ports of refuge are devided
into two categories.

1) Ports of refuge particularly suitable for tankers (and large bulk ships - Narvik) and
2) Ports of refuge for vessels above 5.000 GT.

Dimensioning vessels for the two categories of ports of refuge are defined below. Some ports
of refuge will have limitations beyond this:

Port of refuge category 1:
Bulk ship (Narvik): 500.000 DWT, LOA= 380m, width=60m, deep draught=18m.
Tanker: 350.000 DWT, LOA=330m, width=60m, deep draught=18m.
Vessel class: Tankers that carry crude oil and heavy fuel oil, and production vessels above
10.000 GT. Ports of refuge in category 1 will primarily be necessary in connection with the
outer fairways where tankers sail, in fairways into oil terminals and other regular ports of call for
tankers and production tankers.

Port of refuge category 2:
LOA=200m, width=25m, deep draught=10,5m and other vessels with a capacity exceeding
300 tonne bunker fuel oil (over 5.000 GT). Allowances should be considered for local
variations, and, especially in fairways into individual ports. The port of refuge is mainly relevant
for nearby traffic.




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                         Page 2
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING


2.0          Methodology
The Guideline is based on a step-by-step process using given selection criteria for identifying
the suitability of ports of refuge/ beaching sites, as well as possible consequences and
conflicts. The following steps are identified in specified order:

Step 1: Nautical review
This initial process involves the pilots, inter-municipal committees for acute pollution (IUA) and
others possessing local knowledge of nautical and contingency conditions. A systematic review
of nautical/physical/geographical criteria for consideration of suitability of an area as a port of
refuge is performed.

Step 2: Mapping of Interests
A systematic collection and review of data that are relevant for detecting potential conflicts as a
result of using an area as port of refuge must be performed. Regional environmental-, fishery-,
preparedness- and planning authorities are asked to contribute. Relevant topics that should be
mapped are described with respect to sources of information and how the information can be
systematized.

Step 3: Inspection of relevant locations
A standardized questionnaire is prepared for use when inspecting each locality.

Step 4: Impact assessment
In order to evaluate the consequences of establishing ports of refuge in an area, a description
is given of how a simple impact assessment can be performed The locations in question are
classified based on their suitability and total consequences.

Step 5: Public inquiry with local and regional authorities
Including the contents of inquiry documents, possible map presentations etc.

The collected information is used to identify locations and determine the desired density
between ports of refuge, as well as to consider suitability of the locations (see Figure 1).




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                         Page 3
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING




Figure 1. Overview over steps included in the assessment of localization and suitability for ports of
refuge for the two given vessel categories.
3.0          Guidelines to selection of port of refuge
The evaluation is completed in several steps. Step 1 to 3 include collection of basic
information, and is suggested gathered in one form. A draft form is given in appendix I.

3.1          Step 1: Nautical review
Relevant nautical information will be:
   • Map/ seabed conditions
          o Minimum and maximum depth
          o Anchoring/ mooring possibilities
          o Seabed conditions related to beaching
   • Entry conditions
          o Width and depth
          o Dimensioning vessel
          o Space for towing / maneuverability
   • Vessel size
          o It is suggested that in connection with each port of refuge, design vessels are
              registered based on the given nautical and natural conditions of the port and of
              the given entrance.
   • Weather restrictions
          o Suitability in relation to weather / wind conditions
          o Potential ice conditions
   • Quay structures, infrastructure, port facilites
   • Availability for oil booms and oil protection equipment.
   • Possibilities for beaching in or close to the port of refuge.




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                                             Page 4
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                      DNV CONSULTING


3.2          Step 2: Mapping of interests
There are several possible conflicting interests related to defining an area as a possible port of
refuge or as a beaching location. Safety issues and environmental considerations are
important issues. By performing a mapping of interest for predefined subjects, one will secure
that the proper considerations will be made concerning a possible decision to bring a vessel to
a port of refuge.

With regard to safety, it is important to emphasize the consideration of distance to settlements
and the size of these settlements. In addition, both land and sea based industrial activity
around the port must be considered. Further, it is relevant to gather information about interests
concerning the recreational use of the area in the form of secured recreation areas and
tourism. Potential conflicts related to historical or cultural monuments in the area are also
relevant points of investigation.

From an environmental point of view it is necessary to consider the location of ports of refuge
in relation to vulnerable and environmentally prioritized areas (denoted MOB areas in Norway).

It is suggested that these interests are mapped., along with an indication of possible conflicts of
interest in the area, based on the distance to and size of the potential conflict. The table below
outlines subjects and mapping parameters that should be included in such an evaluation.




Subject                                                      Evaluation parameters
Settlements and built-up areas                               Distance to and kind of settlement
Industrial- and business activity                            Type of activity (e.g. harbour activity)
Secured recreation areas                                     Distance to and type of recreation area
Environmentally vulnerable and                               Distance to MOB area with high priority (A and B), and information
prioritized areas                                            about these areas (species, vulnerability period). Possibly, distance
                                                             to and kind of historical and cultural monuments.
Industry                                                     Distance to and type of activity
(fish farms / tourism)

In order to complete a more precise distinction between the different conflicts of interest, a
simple mapping form is suggested, using criteria of distance to the area of interest and
number of evaluation parameters involved (see step 4 below). The interests must be mapped
both in the port of refuge and along the entrance.

3.3          Step 3: Inspection
A survey of the location is required to produce the information in step 1 and 2. At this survey
local experts should be included, to secure the best information about local wind-, sea- and
current conditions.

An example on a filled in form for step 1-3 is shown in Appendix II.

3.4          Step 4: Suitability evaluation and impact assessment
After collecting nautical information (step 1) and completing an first evaluation of suitability for
a location, it is necessary to put together the information and to assess the consequence
potential at the different locations in accordance with the results from the mapping of interests

Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                         Page 5
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING


(step 2) and the survey of the location (step 3). The consequence potential has to be
considered in relation to different scenarios (fire/explosion risk, pollution risk etc.). Based on
the mapping of interests, criteria for grading the potential consequences or the degree of
conflict for these situations, are suggested. E.g. a location containing a settlement in the
immediate neighbourhood is not suitable as a potential port of refuge in a situation where a risk
of fire- or explosion is involved. Other situations do not necessary make a location unsuitable,
but a grading is used reflecting the degree of conflict with a given interest. A location will be
less suitable as a port of refuge for a vessel that constitutes a great pollution hazard if the
location is close to vulnerable or prioritized environmental areas. The degree of conflict will
then be graded as high in the sensitive period of the prioritized environmental area.

The impact assessments include consequences associated with both the port of refuge and
with the entrance. A flow chart for the assessment is shown in Figure 2.




Figure 2. Flow chart for the assessment of suitability of a location as port of refuge in accordance to 3
different danger situations.

STEP 1:
Based on nautical and emergency preparedness conditions (step 1+2), the locations will be
evaluated as:
       1) Unsuitable as port of refuge
       2) Suitable as port of refuge
       3) Very well suited as port of refuge (implies good access to relevant facilities and
          equipment that is necessary in a possible situation involving acute pollution)

STEP 2:
3 different risk scenarios:




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                                                          Page 6
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                                   DNV CONSULTING


                    1) No pollution risk: Vessels requesting arrival at a port of refuge because of bad
                       weather conditions, crew difficulties, or other causes, without representing any
                       particular environmental risk.
                    2) Pollution risk: Vessels that represent an ongoing acute pollution situation or a
                       risk of acute pollution. E.g. vessels with reduced seaworthiness, displaced
                       cargo, engine problems, construction damages and obvious possibilities for
                       acute pollution.
                    3) Fire/ Explosion risk: Vessels on fire or vessels with considerable probability of
                       fire/explosion.

For industry interests and aquaculture locations, natural areas (MOB category A+B) and
secured recreational areas, the level of conflict is suggested graded according to distance to
the potential port of refuge:

  Degree of conflict                                          Distance to port of refuge
  3 (large degree of conflict)                                         0-2 km
  2 (moderate degree of conflict)                                      2-5 km
  1 (small degree of conflict)                                        5-10 km
  0 (no conflict)                                                     > 10 km

For settlements the following categorisation is suggested:
  Degree of conflict                                       Community*                      Scattered       Single houses/holiday
                                                                                          residential             houses
                                                                                              area
  3 (large degree of conflict)                                 0-5 km                        0-2 km
  2 (moderate degree of conflict)                             5-10 km                        2-5 km               0-2 km
  1 (small degree of conflict)                                10-20 km                      5-10 km               2-5 km
  0 (no conflict)                                              > 20 km                      > 10 km               > 5 km
     *SSBs (statistics Norway) definition and overview of settlements in Norway to consider the degree of built up areas. SSB have defined
     community as a collection of houses where it lives at least 200 people, and where the distance between the houses normally is no more than 50
     metre. In some cases the distance can be up to 200 metre. This applies to apartment buildings, industrial buildings and sports facilities. Groups
     of houses with at least 5 buildings and that is less than 400 metre from the built up area, is part of the community (like a satellite to the
     community core). The definition is independent of municipal- and county boarders. Viewed against the definition, SSB have identified 88
     communities with more than 3000 inhabitants, distributed on 131 municipalities.


For the entrance it is sufficient to evaluate settlements and environmentally prioritized areas
(MOB) areas along the fairway. The number of each conflict category should be noted, i.e. the
number of settlements with grade 1-3 and the number of MOB localities with grade 1-3.
The degree of conflict could be adjusted if the relevant interest is particularly vulnerable – or
alternatively has particularly low vulnerability towards a vessel with pollution risk.

The scores are given a weight, depending of the kind of situation. The total result of the
suitability evaluation is obtained by summarising the scores for each degree of conflict
parameter,:

                                                            Port of refuge
  Conflict parameter                                       Scenario1                          Scenario2           Scenario3
  Settlement                                                  N.A                              2 x (0-3)           2 x (0-3)
  Business                                                    0-3                                 0-3                 0-3
  Nature area MOB                                             N.A                                N.A.              2 x (0-3)
  Secured recreational area                                   N.A                                N.A.                 0-3
  Industry                                                    N.A                                N.A.                 0-3
  SUM suitability (Ssum)                                      0-3                                0-6*               0-21**
     * = not suitable with value 3 for settlements (factor value 6)
     ** = not suitable with value 3 for settlements or MOB areas (factor value 6)


Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                                                 Page 7
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                          DNV CONSULTING



                                                                                Seilingsled

  Conflict parameter                                                     Scenario1               Scenario2           Scenario3
  Settlement                                                                N.A               Number with value   Number with value
                                                                                                    0-3                 0-3
  Nature area MOB                                                               N.A                N.A.           Number with value
                                                                                                                        0-3
  SUM suitability                                                                 -            Sum (number *       Sum (number *
                                                                                                  value)               value)

Low SSUM will indicate that the port of refuge is suitable, nevertheless, the conflict parameters
should be examined individually when considering a real incident where a port of refuge is a
relevant alternative.

In addition, some decisive criteria are suggested that on their own lead to the conclusion that a
location is unsuitable as port of refuge for defined danger situations:
    • Pollution danger: Location with conflict level 3 for nature areas (MOB) is unsuitable as
        a port of refuge.
    • Fire/explosions danger: Location with conflict level 3 for settlements or MOB areas is
        unsuitable as a port of refuge.

For ports of refuge in category 2 the suitability follows from the flow chart in Figure 2. If the
impact assessment implies different levels of consequences depending on the season,
separate charts must be made for summer and winter.

For ports of refuge in category 1 (larger tankers that traffic the outer coast), nautical and
preparedness conditions as well as suitability of the port of refuge (step 1 in the mapping) is of
vital importance. Such ports of refuge have to be placed close to existing fairways / entrances
and one should seek the shortest possible distance from the baseline. The most important
aspect in the consideration will be the degree of conflict in the entrance (see example in Figure
3).




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                         Page 8
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING




Figure 3. Example of a categorisation of conflicts of fairways for winter- (left) and summer (right)
situations based on the distance to MOB areas. Note that long fairways obviously will have greater
frequency of overlap with prioritised areas. This has to be taken into consideration when assessing the
degree of conflict along the fairway.


3.5          Step 5: Public inquiry with local and regional authorities
Experience from previous work and processes shows there is considerable scepticism and
opposition against establishing predefined ports of refuge- and beaching locations. This is
believed to be partly due to a “Not In My Back Yard” mentality, but also the insecurity of what
this actually implies is probably a major factor. It is therefore suggested to work out a fairly
extensive hearing document describing the following:

3.5.1 General aspects
-     General background for the work, with references to international experience where
      ports of refuge have not been established or approved.
-     The significance of establishing ports of refuge, by emphasising the value of reducing
      the risk of polluting a larger area.
-     Historical experience from Norway, regarding how often situations have occurred where
      ports of refuge have or should have been used. This is to explain that the frequency of
      use will be very low if the location is to be used at all.
-     Description of the course of events in case the location is to be used. This description
      should include a specification of the operation both off shore and onshore the expected
      duration of an operation, and the expected duration of potential preparedness and
      shoreline cleanup activities.
-     Formal and legal conditions. In the section, a description should be given of the needs
      for including this description in development plans, local authority plans, and also how
      possible economical consequences (i.e. reduced site value) will be handled.


3.5.2 Specific aspects



Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                         Page 9
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING


-            Description of the process leading up to the public hearing and how the process will
             continue after the public hearing statements are received.
-            Results from nautical assessments
-            Results from the inspection/survey
-            Results from the impact assessment



4.0          Risk assessment as basis for localization of ports of refuge and
             determining the distance between them
The frequency of navigation-related incidents (collisions, contact damage, running aground)
varies largely along the coastline. The probability that a port of refuge will be used will depend
on the surrounding waters. The environmental consequences will also vary along the coast and
it can be argued that the importance of having a port of refuge easily available is higher in
areas with high environmental risk and in areas where environmental consequences could be
high than in other areas. By using environmental risk together with towing-time as criteria, the
following will be ensured:
     − Better availability of ports of refuge in areas with high probability for incidents, i.e.
        where there is an increased probability for a port of refuge to be used in the future.
     − High availability of ports of refuge where the environmental vulnerability is high.
In addition, defining an unnecessary number of ports of refuge in advance in areas where
either the probability of an incident or the environmental vulnerability is low is avoided.

For ports of refuge in category 1 (larger tankers that traffic the outer coast), nautical and
emergency preparedness conditions of the port of refuge (step 1 in the mapping) is the
critically important criterion of. Such ports of refuge must be situated in the vicinity of existing
entrance gates and the shortest possible distance should be sought, in order to lower the
conflict with environmental- and social interests. A proposed criterion is to localize ports of
refuge in category 1 in areas within 10 nautical miles (actual sailing distance) from the
baseline/ pilot boarding area (cf. Figure 4) and as far out to the outer coast as possible to
minimize the towing distance.




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                        Page 10
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING




Figure 4. Distances (in nm) from entrances and fairways for large tankers along the Norwegian west
coast.


For all other ports of refuge (category 2), a criterion based on environmental risk combined with
the towing-time to another port of refuge is to be used to identify locations and density of
potential ports of refuge. If an average towing speed of 5 knots for large vessels is assumed, it
is proposed that a criterion be used that there shall be maximum 2 hours towing-time per 10
nm to the port of refuge within the areas with high environmental risk and maximum 4 hours
per 20 nm in areas with lower environmental risk. This proposal is mainly based on an
assessment of closeness of MOB areas, and the possibility to avoid towing past
environmentally sensitive areas combined with actual availability of suitable ports of refuge .in
turn based on the work that has been carried out by the Coastal Administration under the
Safety at Sea project in the Rogaland to Sogn and Fjordane area (Kystverket 2006). The term
Environmental risk is used as defined in the White paper about sea safety (Ministry of Fishery
and Coastal affairs 2006) and is estimated in relation to coastal segments (Figure 5).

The criterion implies that ports of refuge must be defined with a maximum distance of twice the
towing distance, i.e. 20 nm (37 km) in areas with high environmental risk and up to 40 nm (74
km) in areas with low risk. To illustrate the need for ports of refuge, a fjord like the
Hardangerfjord with a length of about 300 km must have 4-8 ports of refuge, depending on the
risk level. In addition, there should be defined some ports of refuge in side fjords of some
length (e.g. Sørfjorden). The level of density seems obtainable with today’s access to suitable
locations. For other areas with different topography and nature of the coastal zone, the criteria
should be re-evaluated.

In an early phase, density should be considered in relation to the evaluation of suitability of
each port of refuge, i.e. in areas where there is a sufficient density of ports, but where some of


Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                        Page 11
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING


the proposed ports of refuge aren’t adequately suitable, one should evaluate whether to
incorporate other ports or to substitute some of the identified ports. Density assessments are
thereby iterative processes aimed at achieving a final selection of ports with the sufficient
suitability.




Figure 5. Estimated environmental risks for coastal segments along the Norwegian coast (DNV 2004).
Red = high risk, yellow = medium risk, green = low risk.

The above suggestion implies that in areas with high environmental risk, the density of ports of
refuge in category 2 will be such that for any location along the fairway, the distance to a port
of refuge will never exceed 10 nm (~28 km) , and in areas with lower risk, the distance to a port
of refuge will never exceed 20 nm (~46 km).

Given an average towing speed of 5 knots for a large vessel, coverage areas within different
towing times from the suggested ports of refuge are outlined in Figure 6.




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                        Page 12
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING




Figure 6. Example of coverage area from proposed ports of refuge in accordance with density criteria
for tow time (=distance) to the port of refuge. Coastal segments marked blue indicate higher
environmental risk and hence more strict criteria concerning density of ports of refuge.

Figure 6 shows examples of coverage areas according to the criterion for maximum tow time of
2 hours and 4 hours, respectively (based on existing proposal for ports of refuge and beaching
places for Western Norway). The coverage is sufficient with the exception of the areas that are
indicated with black arrows.
    − Coastal segment 8; lacking port of refuge in the inner areas of Boknafjorden and by
        outer side of Karmøy
    − Coastal segment 9; lacking port of refuge on the outer side of Bømlo
    − Coastal segment 11; lacking port of refuge in the inner part (Veafjorden)
    − Coastal segment 12; lacking port of refuge in the inner part and the outer part of
        Sognefjorden
    − Coastal segment 13; lacking port of refuge in the inner part of Nordfjorden
In addition some of the suggested ports of refuge may be cancelled in areas where coverage is
high (e.g. the area near Florø).




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                        Page 13
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING


5.0          References
DNV 2004. Skipstrafikk langs norskekysten - Analyse av miljørisiko. DNV rapport nr 2004-
0778. Rev 01. 117 sider.

Kystverket 2006. Vurdering av aktuelle nødhavner Rogaland, Hordaland og Sogn og Fjordane.
Interreg IIIB - Safety at Sea Demo C. Arbeidsutkast ver. 0.7.

Fiskeri og Kystdepartement 2005. Storingsmelding nr. 14 (2004-2005). På den sikre side –
sjøsikkerhet og oljevernberedskap.
http://odin.dep.no/fkd/norsk/dok/regpubl/stmeld/047001-040002/dok-bn.html




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                                              Page 14
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                        DNV CONSULTING


Appendix I – Draft form for identifying ports of refuge and beaching locations.



Step 1 – Nautical conditions

 Date:                                                               Carried out by:


 Coordinates –                                                       Coordinates -
 degrees                                                             UTM


 Sea map no:                       County:                           Municipality:        Fjord:            Port/location:




 Nearest fairway:                                                                         Waypoints for
                                                                                          entrance:


 Navigational, towing,
 maneuvering conditions
 etc.
 Dimensioning vessel
 (LOA, depth etc.)


 Minimum depth of                                         meters                            Minimum depth             Meters
 entrance:                                                                                  other than
                                                                                            entrance:
 Extensive
 description of
 conditions re.
 depth:


 Exposed at                                   No                               Yes        Indicated wind            Degrees
 certain weather                                                                          direction:
 conditions
 Ice problems:                             None                              Some         Moderate                 Serious


 Sea bed:                                    Muddy                              Sand           Stoney            Rock
 Extensive
 description of
 conditions re. sea


Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                                                     Page 15
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                               DNV CONSULTING


 bed:


 Tidal difference:                                                            centimeters


 Tidal currents:                                       knots                                           Other current                knots
                                                                                                       conditions:
 Can the area be                             No                                     Yes                Length span:             meters
 blocked by oil
 booms?
 Boom type:                                                         Anchoring/strongholds:


 Mobile (cell)                                No                               Yes               Comment:
 phone
 coverage?:
 VHF coverage?:                               No                               Yes               Comment:


 Distance to nearest road suitable for heavy vehicles:                                                                     meters
 Distance to nearest quay:                                                                                                  meter

 No. of inhabitants:                                                                                                      Persons
 Distance to                                                                              meters Type of
 nearest                                                                                         settlement:
 settlement:




 Digital photo?:                              No                               Yes               Comment:
 Photo name:                                                         Coordinates and
                                                                        direction:
 Photo name:                                                         Coordinates and
                                                                        direction:
 Photo name:                                                         Coordinates and
                                                                        direction:
 Photo name:                                                         Coordinates and
                                                                        direction:




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                                                    Page 16
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                              DNV CONSULTING


Map section


Step 2 & 3 – Mapping o finterests/ potential of conflict

Permanent settlement/ Recreational settlement
                               Distance                                                                    Period of
  Area name                    in km                Setllement type                                        settlement




Collective degree of conflict (3= Large, 2 = moderate, 1 = low, 0 = none):

MOB-areas and protected areas
                               Distanc             (MOB)              Protecte                                         Vulnerability
  Area name                    e in km             Priority           d?                  Resource type                period




Collective degree of conflict (3= High, 2 = moderate, 1 = low, 0 = none):

Recreational areas
                               Distanc                                                                    Period of
  Area name                    e in km             Secured               Description                      use




Collective degree of conflict (3= High, 2 = moderate, 1 = low, 0 = none):

Business activities incl. aquacultural locations (indicatetype), fishery areas
                             Distance                                                                                  Period of
  Area name                  in km                Priority            Type & location number.                          use




Collective degree of conflict (3= High, 2 = moderate, 1 = low, 0 = none):

Harbour activity
                             Distance                                                                     Period of
  Area name                  in km                Type of activity                                        use




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                        Page 17
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING




Collective degree of conflict (3= High, 2 = moderate, 1 = low, 0 = none):




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                                             Page 18
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                                       DNV CONSULTING


Step 4 – Assessment

Suitability of port of refuge:
                                                               No pollution               Incl. pollution     Incl. fire- and
                                                                 hazard                   hazard                expolosion
                                                                                                                      hazard
  Dimensioning vessel size


 Notes:


Suitability for beaching:
                                                               No pollution               Incl. pollution     Incl. fire- and
                                                                 hazard                   hazard                expolosion
                                                                                                                      hazard
  Dimensioning vessel size


 Notes:




Collective degree of conflict, Port of Refuge:
                     Topic                                          Scenario1                     Scenario2        Scenario3
 Settlement                                                               N.A.
 Activity
 Nature areas (MOB)                                                       N.A.                       N.A.
 Secured recreational areas                                               N.A.                       N.A.
 Businesses                                                               N.A.                       N.A.
 Sum suitability                                                                                       *                **
3= High, 2 = moderate, 1 = low, 0 = none
* = unsuitable if degree of conflict is 3 with respect to MOB (factor value 6)
** = unsuitable if degree of conflict is 3 with respect to settlements or MOB (factor value 6)



Collective degree of conflict, Fairway:
                     Topic                                       Scenario2                    Scenario3
 Settlement
 Nature areas MOB                                                      N.A.
 Sum suitability




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
29 May 2006
Guideline to selection of ports of refuge 2003-0372 (rev 1)                                        Page 19
Kystverket/ Møre & Romsdal Fylkeskommune                                                  DNV CONSULTING


Notes

Notes of importance regarding the suitability or unsuitability of a location as a port of refuge:




Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible
Document id.:197012
C:\Data\Kystverket\Nødhavner\Guidelines.doc
DNV Consulting:
is a different kind of consulting firm, offering advanced cross-disciplinary competence within
management and technology. Our consulting approach reflects the new risk agenda in high-risk
and capital-intensive industries. We have a firm base in DNV's strong technological competencies,
international experience and unique independence as a foundation. Our consultants serve
international clients from locations in Norway, UK, Germany, Benelux and the USA.



DNV CONSULTING            DNV CONSULTING
Veritasveien 1            Duboisstraat 39 – Bus 1
N-1322 Hovik              B-2060 Antwerp
Norway                    Belgium
Phone: +47 67 57 99 00    Phone: +32 (0) 3 206 65 40

DNV CONSULTING            DNV CONSULTING
Johan Berentsenvei        Palace House
109-111                   3 Cathedral Street
N-5020 Bergen             London SE1 9DE
Norway                    United Kingdom
Phone: +47 55 94 36 00    Phone: +44 20 7357 6080

DNV CONSULTING            DNV CONSULTING
Bjergstedveien 1          Highbank House
N-4002 Stavanger          Exchange Street
Norway                    Stockport
Phone: +47 51 50 60 00    Cheshire SK3 0ET
                          United Kingdom
DNV CONSULTING            Phone: +44 161 477 3818
Ingvald Ystgaardsvei 15
N-7496 Trondheim          DNV CONSULTING
Norway                    Cromarty House
Phone: +47 73 90 3500     67-72 Regent Quay
                          Aberdeen AB11 5AR
DNV CONSULTING            United Kingdom
Businesspark              Phone: +44 1224 335000
Essen - Nord
Schnieringshof 14         DNV CONSULTING
45329 Essen               16340 Park Ten Place
Germany                   Suite 100
Phone: +49 201 7296 412   Houston, TX 77084
                          USA
                          Phone: +1 281 721 6600




a different approach for a new reality:
                                                       DNV CONSULTING
Annex II   Properties form, mapping of Places of refuge (eks Husefest)




                                                                         27
Place of refuge
Place name:                                Husefest
Category/ Class (1 - 2):                   2
Designed vessel                            ca. 150 LOA
Suited for emergency                       No pollution risk: Suited
preparedness arrangement                   With pollution risk: Suited
                                           With danger for fire/explosion: Suited

Source (Name/date):                        Sogn og Sunnfjord IUA 27.10.2006
                                           Nordfjord IUA 27.10.2006
                                           Kystverket 27.10.2006
Position (WGS84)                           N 61°42,0’ E 004°58,5’
Nautical Chart nr:                         28
County:                                    Sogn og Fjordane
Municipal:                                 Bremanger / Flora
Harbour district:                          Bremanger / Flora
IUA:                                       Nordfjord / Sogn og Sunnfjord
Entrance:                                  1518 Stabbeleia - Frøysjøen /
                                           2334 Seljestokken - Kalvåg

Short description and possible main conflicts/consequences connected to place of
refuge:
The anchoring ground is very exposed to the west
Big quay under construction at Seljestokken 1,5 nautical mile from Husefest, but this
is exposed
Also a possibility 2,5 nautical mile north, at Storevikgrunnanorth of Olaskjær for
anchoring
”The norwegian pilot” volume 3, page 403
Many vulnerable nature areas nearby (MOB)




216Husefest_eng_rev1                    Side 1 av 7
1 Important resources and information – Place of refuge
                         Description

Nautical information     Exposed
in to the place of
refuge, navigation
mark, shallow water
etc.:

Depth in the entrance:

Depth in the place of    15-50 meter
refuge:

Anchoring and sea        Good anchoring depth, but exposed to western winds with
floor (mud, sand,        drag shore
stone, rock):
                         One alternative is 2 n mile further north at Storevikgrunna.


Quay conditions:         No quay, but under construction at Seljestokken


Possibility of barring
the place of refuge
(Length of stretch,
type of lenses,
anchors bolts etc.

Possibility of
grounding
In or nearby the place
of refuge

Tidal current (Knots)

Tidal range (Z0) =

Ice problems (no,
some, moderate,
serious) :

VHF-coverage area:

Mobile telephone
service:
                         Little settlement in the area
Settlements in the
area:



216Husefest_eng_rev1                   Side 2 av 7
Resources and          Type of resource. Distance and position
infrastructure

Road:

Oil protection         Governmental depot in Florø, 7 n mile
equipment:

Receiving facilities
of oil waste:

Dockyard/repair:

Tugboat service:       Florø 7 n.mil



Other comments:




216Husefest_eng_rev1                   Side 3 av 7
                                     - Map -
                       Datum: WGS84, projeksjon: UTM sone 33.




216Husefest_eng_rev1                  Side 4 av 7
Other relevant information:                                       Sjøkart 1 (OBS: Not to scale)
                                                                  Red areas – MOB A, Orange area – MOB B
Map in Kystinfo: http://kart.kystverket.no/default.php?minX=-
37206&minY=6875815&maxX=-
22001&maxY=6888339&layerId=4,110,122,71,72,73,74,113,112&mapSer
vice=d:/mapserver/mapengine/kystverket/mapfile_grunnkart.map

Map i S@S:




216Husefest_eng_rev1                   Side 5 av 7
Possible consequences of taking a vessel in to place of refuge

Settlement, Cottages
 Area name                         Distance   Type of use                                               Periode of
                                   in km                                                                use


Distance to the entrance defined

Nature areas. MOB-areas with protected areas.
 Area name                         Distanc    MOB           Protecte   Type of resource                                       Periode of
                                   e in km    priority      d?                                                                vulnerabilit
                                                                                                                              y
 Rognane Naturreservat             2 (0,5)    Mob B         Yes        Natural value: other nature area, nourishment,         Juli
                                                                       breeding
                                                                       Species: goose, tern
 Vengane Naturreservat             3 (0)      Mob A         Yes        Natural value: overwintering, nourishment,             Jan/Juli
                                                                       breeding. Species: goose, tern, auk, seagull …
 Hovdefjell Naturreservat          4,5        Mob A         Yes        Natural value: fishing, seal, restingplace for seal,   Jan/Juli
                                   (1,5)                               overwintering, breeding. Species: auk, ducks,
                                                                       goos, seagull…
 Gåsøy Naturreservat               3 (1)      Mob A         Yes        Naturverdi: Rasting, Overvintring, Hekking,            Jan/Juli
                                                                       Våtmark m/ornitol. Verdier. Arter: Ender, Gjess,
                                                                       Skarv, Vadere
 Barekstadlandet                   4-7 (3)    Mob A                    Naturverdi: Rasting, Overvintring, Hekking, Usp.       Jan/Juli
                                                                       Våtmarksomrsde. Arter: Ender, Gjess, Måker,
                                                                       Skarv, Vadere
 Nærøyane Naturreservat og         5-9 (0)   Mob A      Yes      Naturverdi: Rasting, Overvintring, Hekking,        Jan/Juli
 fuglefredning                                                   Våtmark m/ornitol. Verdier. Arter: Ender, Gjess,
                                                                 Hegre, Måker, Skarv, Terner, Vadere
 Frøyskjera Naturreservat          8-12      Mob A      Ja       Naturverdi: Rasting, Overvintring, Næring,         Jan/Juli
                                   (1)                           Hekking. Arter: Alkefugl, Ender, Gjess, Måker,
                                                                 Skarv, Terner, Vadere
Distance to the entrance defined

Recreation areas
 Area name                         Distanc   Priority            Type and locality nr.                              Periode of
                                   e in km                                                                          use




Business activity. Incl harbours, aqua culture (type), fish areas, coastal tourism
 Name                              Distanc   Priority            Type and locality nr.                              Periode of
                                   e in km                                                                          use
 Fisheri / fish farming                                          -
 Botnane, lok.nr. 13152            5                             Salmon, hatching, hatchery-production              All year
Annex III   3 maps showing the proposed Places of Refuge




                                                           28
 Høringsforslag
 Aktuelle nødhavnlokaliteter
 i Sogn og Fjordane
                                                                                       Tegnforklaring
                         Borgundvåg 228                                                Nødhavn
                                                                                            Nødhavn kategori 1

                                                                                            Nødhavn kategori 2
                       Moldefjorden 227
                Ulvesundet 231
                                                                                                       9.5.2007
              Skavøypollen 222Maurstadvika 223
                Allmenningen 221
                                  Davika 224
                                                 Nordfjordeid 225




      Husefest 216Sørgulen 219
           Vindspollen 220

       Botnaneset 214


     Askrova 106


                    Gjelsvika 212

Hærlandsvika 211
        Askvika 210
Nybø 209
                Vilnesfjorden 208



                                                                    Vetlefjorden 203
             Åfjorden 207
                                     Vadheim 200Høyanger 201
              Bøfjorden 198     Nordrevik 199                Esefjorden 202
            Nessefjorden 196
                                                                                       Kaupanger 204


                                                                                                 Lærdal 205
Nappsvågen 195
Sløvågen 192
Mongstad 107
             Haugsøytangen 191




Sture 190

   Vettås 189
      Mjølkevikvarden 188
         Nappsvågen 195
                                                           Høringsforslag
                  Sløvågen 192
                                                           Aktuelle nødhavnlokaliteter
               Mongstad 107
                           Haugsøytangen 191
                                                           i Hordaland

Hjelmevågen 108
      Sture 190


                        Vettås 189
  Mjølkevikvarden 188




                     Hanøytangen 187
       Ågotnes 186



                                                                                        Ålvik 177

      Skogsvågen 109                                                  Norheimsund 175
                                                                                                       Kinsarvik 178
                                                                            Herandsvågen 176
                  Fanafjorden 185
    Austefjorden 229

                                                            Omastrand 174

                                     Strandvikflaket 183                                  Nordnes 179



                                                                                        Tyssedal 180

                        Uggdalseidet 182                                                 Odda 181



                           Onarheimsfjorden 173




                                  Høylandsbygd 172
                      Eldøyane 169
      Børøyfjorden 110

                                                                                          Tegnforklaring
                                                                                          Nødhavn
      Langevåg 168
                                                                                                Nødhavn kategori 1
                                            Ølen 171                                            Nødhavn kategori 2


                                                                                                           9.5.2007
                                               Ølen 171
Høringsforslag
Aktuelle nødhavnlokaliteter
i Rogaland
   Haugesund havn 167

          Bøvågen 166
                        Husøy 165
              Håvik 164                               Berakvam 159
                        Byggnes 163
        Kopervik kai 162Hervikfjorden 160


                   Falkeidflæet 161




                                            Breiviga 158
                                 Rennesøy 157
                        Mekjarvik 154Åmøyfjorden 155




                     Risavika 111



                          Gandsfjorden 156




                             Sirevåg 152



                                Eigersund havn 112
                                                                          Tegnforklaring
                                                                          Nødhavn

                                                                               Nødhavn kategori 1

                                                                               Nødhavn kategori 2
                                                       Jøssingfjord 151

                                                                                        9.5.2007
Annex IV   Form: “Joint estimate of conflict”




                                                29
Joint estimate of conflicts
This is a simplified estimate. The use of an area as a place of refuge has to be considered from case to case.


                                                                                  Scenarios
 Areas of conflict                                Without                       With             With danger for fire- and
 (Place of refuge):                             pollution risk              pollution risk              explosion
 Settlement/ population                        Not applicable                     0-3                      0-3 (x2) *
 Business (physical obstacle)                          0-3                        0-3                            0-3
 Natural area (MOB)                            Not applicable                  0-3 (x2)                          0-3
 Recreation area                               Not applicable                     0-3                            0-3
 Nature based business                         Not applicable                     0-3                            0-3
 Sum up conflict                                    0-3 of 3                 0-18 of 18                   0-18 of 18
Degree of conflict: 3 = big (red), 2 = moderate (yellow), 1 = small (blue), 0 = no (green)
* Unsuited with degree of conflict 3 (With danger for fire- and explosion)
Not applicable – No effect on area of conflict
MOB – Environmental Priority Areas based on vulnerability on pollution.


                                                                                   Scenarios
 Areas of conflict                                  Without                       With                With danger for fire-
 (Entrance to place of refuge)                    pollution risk              pollution risk             and explosion
 Settlement/ population                          Not applicable                      0-3                          0-3
 Natural area (MOB)                              Not applicable                     0-3                  Not applicable
 Sum up conflict                                                                 0- 6 of 6                  0-3 of 3
Place of Refuge         228         Borgundvåg                              Conflict areas (in near proximity)
Type of conflict              Dist. (km)           Name of area                                   Priority of resource
Recreation area               4            Flugevågsholmane                MOB D. Boating. Recreational fishing.


Recreation area               4            Sandevika-Blikneset/            MOB D. Local beach/swimming-area.
                                           Nolleneset

Populated area                0,5-1        Borgundvågen                    Scattered settlement


Populated area                12           Selje, closest settlement       Settlement, population of 694 (01.01.2005)


Nature area                   4            Flugevågsholmene, Vanylven      MOB B. Bird breading area; Razorbill, Ducks, Seagulls, Terns
                                           kommune

Nature area                   4,5          Storholmen/Fekøy, Vanylven      MOB B. Bird feeding/resting area. Razorbill, Ducks, Seagulls,
                                           kommune                         Swans, Cormorants

Nature area                   6            Eggholmene og Lisjleholmen,     MOB B. Bird resting/breeding area. Razorbill, Ducks,
                                           Vanylven kommune                Seagulls, Cormorants

Nature-based business         0,5          Beitveit, Sea-farming no.:      Fish farming for human consumption. Salmon. 780 tons.
                                           13845, Selje kommune

Nature-based business         2            Revjehornet, Sea-farming no.:   Farming of seashells for human consumption. Common
                                           14200, Selje kommune            Mussel. 2,5 acres

Nature-based business         5            Brudevika, Sea-farming no.:     Fish farming for human consumption. Salmon
                                           12237, Vanylven kommune

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:31
posted:5/31/2011
language:English
pages:64