Docstoc

RAMA

Document Sample
RAMA Powered By Docstoc
					Risk analysis of Marine Activities in
 the Belgian Part of the North Sea
              (RAMA)

    Annemie Volckaert
    Dirk Le Roy

    Jan-Bart Calewaert
    Pieter De Meyer
    Frank Maes

    Tim Fowler

                                 Supported by the
                             Federal Science Policy
Goals and approach
        Risk-analysis of shipping incidents with
         environmental damage on the Belgian part
         of the North Sea
        Approach
    1. Comparison of different methods for risk analysis
    2. Identification of hazardous activities at sea
    3. Release assessment of marine incidents
    4. Description of the effects of the incidents
    5. Risk estimation
    6. Examination & recommendations to existing
       contingency plans

                                                       2
1. Comparison of methods
   ≠ quantitative and qualitative approaches
   7 steps of an Environmental Risk Assessment
    (ERA):
       Problem formulation
       Hazard identification
       Release assessment
       Exposure assessment
       Consequence or Effect assessment
       Risk characterisation
       Estimation & risk evaluation

                                           3
1. Comparison of methods (2)
   3 important topics:
       Uncertainty rating
       Quality assessment of input
       Potential gaps




                                      4
2. Identification of hazardous activities at sea
                         Activities with environmental risk:
                            ≠ human activities in BPNS
                            Shipping as major contributor:
                                Merchant shipping
                                Shipping related to:
                                    Fishery
                                    Sand- and gravel extraction
                                    Dredging
                                    Military exercises
                                    Off-shore constructions
                                    Pleasure crafts/recreational
                            Study area:
                                Shipping lanes BPNS (11 SA’s)
                                Excl. Scheldt traffic
                                Excl. Noordhinder TSS (no data)
                            Data period:
                                April 2003 - March 2004

                                                            5
2. Identification of hazardous activities at sea
                           Total 57.791 voyages
                            (or ± 320.000 ship mov.)
                           40% dangerous goods (DG)
                           60% of DG in packaged
                            form; 40% in bulk
                           74% with oil tankers, RoRo/
                            car carriers, containers
                           45% CT 7 (HNS with low
                            environmental danger)
                           CT1 & CT2 mainly
                            transported with
                            oil/chemical tanker &
                            container ships
                                               6
3. Release assessment
   Quantitative estimation of the probability of
    release:
       Historical approach (1960-2003)
           Lack of relevant spill quantity data
           Difference in reporting trends (underestimation)
       Modelling approach
           MARCS model
           Performed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
               Accident frequency (acc. per year)
               Accident spill frequency (acc. with environm. spill per year)
               Cargo spill risk (tonnes spilled per year)
           8 different ship types; 7 types of accidents; 10 cargo types

                                                                       7
3. Release assessment: Ship types
   8 types
          ST1         Oil (crude) tankers
          ST2         Chemical tankers + refined
          ST3         Gas tankers
          ST4         RoRo + car carriers + Ropax
          ST5         Bulk carriers
          ST6         General cargo + reefers
          ST7         Containers
          ST8         Others + Passenger Ships

          Excluded from analysis : approx. 1.5 % of data


                                                            8
3. Release assessment: Cargo types
   10 Classes
           CT1 Marine Pollutants + Bulk Cat A
           CT2 Crude oils
           CT3 Bunkers and heavy fuels
           CT4 other oil products
           CT5 Potential Marine Pollutants + Bulk Cat B & C
           CT6 Toxic Products (IMO-code 6.1 & 2.2)
           CT7 other identifiable dangerous goods or HNS
           CT8 dangerous goods, with insufficient product information
           CT9 empty but with leftover fractions from dangerous goods
           CT10 No dangerous goods




                                                               9
3. Release assessment: accident types
   Ship-ship collision;
   Powered grounding (groundings which occur when the
    ship has the ability to navigate safely yet goes aground);
   Drift grounding (groundings which occur when the ship is
    unable to navigate safely due to mechanical failure);
   Structural failure/ foundering whilst underway;
   Fire/ explosion whilst underway;
   Powered ship collision with fixed marine structures such
    as platforms or wind turbines (similar definition to
    powered grounding);
   Drifting ship collision with fixed marine structures such as
    platforms or wind turbines (similar definition to drift
    grounding).


                                                         10
3. Release assessment (2)– Accident frequency
                                           Total acc. freq of 14.5
                                            acc/year
                                           Majority powered
                                            groundings: 12 acc/yr
                                               Lane ends close to
                                                grounding lines at ports
                                               Ground type: soft
                                                sand/mud banks; will
                                                reverse off without
                                                reporting, in many cases
                  1.0 E-08 - 1.0 E-06

                  1.0 E-06 - 1.0 E-05

                  1.0 E-05 - 1.0 E-04

                  1.0 E-04 - 1.0 E-03

                  1.0 E-03 - 1.0 E-02

                  > 1.0 E-02




                                                                11
3. Release assessment (3): Accident spill freq.
                                            Total acc. Spill freq of 0.3
                                             acc/year (every 3 years)
                                            Accident type
                                                1° powered groundings:
                                                 0.25 acc/yr (1 per 4 yr)
                                                2° collisions: 0.03 acc/yr
                                            Cargo type
                                                1° CT8 (no info): 1 per 13
                                                 yr
                   1.0 E-08 - 1.0 E-06          2° CT4 (other oil): 1 per 14
                   1.0 E-06 - 1.0 E-05           yr
                                                 CT2 & CT3 (crudes & heavy
                   1.0 E-05 - 1.0 E-04

                   1.0 E-04 - 1.0 E-03
                                             
                   1.0 E-03 - 1.0 E-02           fuels): 1 per 150 yr
                   > 1.0 E-02




                                                                   12
3. Release assessment (4): Cargo spill risk
                                           Tonnes/yr spilled
                                           Highest risk class 8
                                            (dangerous, no info)
                                               Total: 539 t/yr
                                               Containers: 390 t/yr
                                           Class 1 (MP, cat A)
                                               Total: 12.3 t/yr
                  1.0 E-08 - 1.0 E-06
                                               Containers: 9.9 t/yr
                  1.0 E-06 - 1.0 E-05
                                           Class 2 (crudes)
                  1.0 E-05 - 1.0 E-04

                  1.0 E-04 - 1.0 E-03
                                               Total: 101 t/yr
                  1.0 E-03 - 1.0 E-02          Oil tankers: 101 t/yr
                  > 1.0 E-02




                                                                13
4 Description of the effects of the incident
   Selection of two scenarios
       Worst case oil: 17.000 ton/accident; crudes
       Worst case HNS: 8.000 ton/accident (1.000
        ton/accident); acetone cyanohydrine
   Ecosystem approach: interactions and
    processes within species, among species and
    between species and their abiotic
    environment (in stead of protect species)
       Benthos
       Fish
       Birds
       (Mammals)
                                                      14
4. Description of the effects of the incident (2)
   Sensitivity analysis
       Ecological parameters
       Socio-economic parameters
       3 Scenarios (general, winter, summer ~ interests)


   Effect analysis
       Exposure assessment (PEC)
       Consequence assessment (PNEC)
       Risk characterisation (PEC/PNEC)


                                                    15
4a. Sensitivity analysis
   Identifying sensitive area’s in the marine and
    coastal zone of Belgium
       Economical parameters
       Social parameters
       Ecological parameters


   Decision support tool
   Aid in prevention and preparation of spills

   GIS analysis
                                              16
4a. Sensitivity analysis: methodology
                                                                        score
            Ecological             Conservation                          0-5
                                   Bird, habitat, fish
            cultural               Landscape, heritage                   0-1
            physical               Shoretype, currents                   0-2
            economic               Aquaculture, fisheries,
                                                                         0-3
                                   ports, saltworks
            social                 population                            0-1
                                                                    SUM of SCORES

                 25

                 20

                 15
             %




                 10

                  5

                  0
                      0   2    4    6    8      10   12   14   16
                                        class


                              Classification:
                                  High;
                                medium;
                                   low




                 Priority spill protection zones


                                                                                    17
4a. Sensitivity analysis methodology
                          GIS map per parameter
                           (data layers)
                          BPNS + coast as a grid of
                           1km x 1km cells
                          Per data layer score per
                           cell f.ex. concession zone
                           score 1
                          Combining data layers
                           and adding up scores
                          Sensitivity map = map
                           representing total score


                                             18
4a. Sensitivity analysis: ecological criteria
Importance      Entity                                                                Number        Score (internationally
                                                                                                         standardized)
International   RAMSAR sites                                                          2             5


                EC - Special Protected Areas (SPA) (in framework of habitat or bird   2 (habitat)   5
                      directive)                                                      3 (bird)

                EC - Habitat Directive Area (Natura 2000)                             13            5


                EC- Bird directive Area (Natura 2000)                                 3             5


National        Marine Protected Areas (MPA)                                          3*            3


                Strict nature reserve                                                 0             3


                National park                                                         0             3


Regional        Beach (nature) reserves                                               2             1


                Nature reserve                                                        1             1




                Natural monument                                                      0             1


                Landscape reserve (classified landscape)                              1             1




                                                                                                                  19
4a. Sensitivity analysis: socio-econ. criteria
Parameter            Entity                         Score   Remark
Recreation           Global tourist factor (beach   3       Relative sensitivity calculation
                           recreation)                      (source GAUFRE, 2005)

                     Garded swimming zones          1       Relative sensitivity calculation: (number/ municipality)
                                                            (source GAUFRE, 2005)

                     Marinas                        1       Relative sensitivity calculation
                                                            (source MareDasm, 2002)

Fisheries            Spawning sites                 ?       No spawning area’s were identified / reported
                     Concentration of fish          ?       No specific area’s were identified / reported


Shipping             Port                           2


                     Local port                     1


                     Anchorage area                 0
                          Shipping lane

Economical aspects   Touristical value coast        2       Relative sensitivity calculation (overnight stays; rental
                                                                  homes/secondary residences; day tourists; employees)
                                                            (Source: Maredasm, 2002)
                     Aggregate extraction and       1
                          windenergy at sea

Social aspects       High population                1       (Source FOD Economie, KMO, middenstand en energie, 2005)




                                                                                                               20
Summer scenario




                  21
Winter scenario




                  22
4b. Effect analysis
             Ecological impact assessment model


    Physico-chemical                   Biological database
    database                           Ecotoxicological
    Modelling                          database


      Exposure assessment                  Consequence
             PEC                            assessment
                                           PNEC or LC50


                        Risk characterisation




                                                             23
4b. Effect analysis: worst case oil
   Exposure assessment:
       12,6 km² oil spill (MU slick
        lets model)
       1 mm thickness / 4 km
        diameter
       In 13 hours Zwin
   Consequence assessment:
       LC50 values of aromatic
        components
       Direct loss biota: 12% - 68%
       Bird loss open sea: 471
       Bird loss Zwin: 741 Seabirds;
        2595 Water birds

                                        24
4b. Effect analysis: worst case HNS
   Exposure assessment:
       0,01 mg/l (critical effect
        concentration = 1% loss
        biota)
       No birds
   Consequence
    assessment:
       75 simulation days
       Max. concentration
       Ecological impact area
       8.000 ton: 70% BPNS
       1.000 ton: 40% BPNS


                                      25
5. Risk estimation
   Frequency x consequence of event

       Frequency: hazard identification & release
        assessment (quantitative)
       Consequence: direct loss (qualitative ~ hazardous
        characteristics




                                                    26
  5. Risk estimation (2)

       OilTan   ChemTank   GasTank   RoRo    Bulk   GenCar   Contain        Other

SA1         2         12        16      8      54       36         2           54

SA2         2         12        16      8      36       36         2           54

SA3         1         6         12      4      18       18         1           27

SA4         3         18        24      12     81       54         3           81

SA5         2         6         12      2      27       27         2           27

SA6         2         6         12      2      27       27         6           27

SA7         1         6         18      4      18       27         1           27

SA8         8         18        36      4      54       24         4           36

SA9        27         27        54      6      81       81        27           36

SA10        3         27        54      24     54       54         9           54

SA11        3         18        24      12     81       36         3           81




                                                                       27
5. Risk estimation (3)
   the highest risk in the high risk subareas SA3, SA5, SA6, SA7
    characterised by sandbank formations and/or presence of harbour
    (intense shipping traffic is not the determining factor);
   in the first place oil tankers and container ships form a high risk
    for almost the total BPNS due to the fact that they transport the
    most hazardous cargo types and that in case of a spill accident
    high quantities of dangerous goods are spilled at sea (related to
    high transported quantities);
   secondly also chemical tankers and RoRo traffic is risk full, in
    particular in the high risk subareas, respectively due to the
    hazardous characteristics of chemical tankers (notice the low spill
    quantity) and a medium frequency and quantity of accidents with
    RoRo ships;
   the risk from bulk, general cargo and other (passenger ships &
    other ships) transport is rather low.



                                                               28
6. Contingency planning: an evaluation
1.   Framework
          Legal / competences / International context / …
          Situating new developments


2.   Required elements of a good plan ?
          Other contingency plans; IMO and other guidelines …


3.   Examination of elements identified in 2.
          Gaps, weaknesses, improvements, …


4.   Recommendations

                                                             29
6. Recent developments contingency planning
   New Royal Decree (BOJ 15 March 2006)
       Focus on land-based planning
       Some new concepts and definitions
   Coastguard Structure
       better coordination between competent authorities at
        sea
   Working group “rampenplan Noordzee”
       Active review of the BNSDP
   Operational plans
       Oiled birds
       Clean beaches
       Pollution combating interventions at sea


                                                        30
6. Conclusions and recommendations
   BNSDP has served purpose in the past
       New situation  thorough revision recommended
           definitions / coverage: applies to? / target audience
           overviews: nat. & intern. legal frame / competences
           relationship with other plans (operational, land-based, …)
           equipment: spill-size / platform or vessel / study capacity
           Area assessment – RAMA, GAUFRE, BWZEE, …
           Information and communication …
   Operational pollution intervention plan
       Good first step – clear and straightforward
       further elaborated
       Main focus on oil ! Separate plans?

                                                               31
Thank you for your attention.

      Any questions?



                                32

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:0
posted:9/21/2011
language:English
pages:32