You are on page 1of 28

FSA General

FSA ECDIS

Formal Safety Assessment


Electronic Chart Display and Information System
Rolf Skjong, dr, chief scientist
Stavanger, 8 January 2006
Background Use of risk assessment
Nuclear Industry in 60s: Probabilistic Safety Assessments

Chemical Industry in 70s: QRA, Seveso Directive I and II

Offshore Industry in 80s: QRA, Industrial Self Regulation Regime in Norway, Safety
Case Regimes in UK

Shipping Industry since 90s: FSA


1992: UK House of Lords, Lord Carver Report
1993: MSC 62: UK proposes FSA concept
1997: MSC 68: FSA Interim Guidelines
2001: MSC 74: FSA Guidelines

Actual FSA Studies


- 1997: FSA/HLA
- 2000-2004: FSAs Bulk Carrier Safety
- 2004: FSA/NAV/LPS

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 2


Purpose of FSA
FSA is intended to be a tool for rule-making at IMO:
- To make the decision process at IMO more rational, reduce ad-hoc
proposals/implementation,
give less room for politics
- To provide a proactive, holistic approach, comprising technical as well as
operational aspects

To generate information achieved in a way which is structured, systematic,


comprehensive, objective, rational, auditable and documented

To demonstrate that suitable techniques have been applied and sufficient


efforts have been made to identify hazards and to manage the associated
risk

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 3


FSA compared to current approach
Formal Safety Assessment Current Approach
Step 1 What might go wrong? Hazard identification What did go wrong?

Step 2 Risk analysis


How often, how likely? Frequencies, probabilities
How bad? Consequences
Risk = frequency x
consequence
Step 3 How can matters be Risk control options How can matters be
improved? identification improved?
Step 4 How much? Cost benefit evaluation
How much better?
Step 5 What actions are Recommendation What actions are
worthwile to take? worthwhile to take?

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 4


FSA compared to current approach

FSA - Risk Based Approach Current Approach

proactive, trying to identify all reactive, responding to accidents


conceivable hazards -
before they lead to accidents
continuous ammendment of
regulations
regulations, consistent with safety prescriptive regulations
objectives
principle of safety equivalency principle of technical equivalency
encompasses technical, human and contains mainly technical
organisational aspects requirements
cost of safety identified

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 5


FSA - a risk based approach
Definition of Goals, Systems, Operations Preparatory Step
Hazard Identification
Step 1
Scenario definition
Hazard Identification

Cause and Consequence


Frequency Analysis Analysis

Risk Summation Step 2


Risk Analysis
No No
Options to decrease Risk Options to mitigate Step 3
Frequencies Controlled? Consequences Risk Control Options
Yes
Step 4 Cost Benefit Assessment
Cost Benefit Assessment
Step 5 Recommendations
Reporting
for Decision Making

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 6


Decision criteria used in FSA
Individual Risk

1.00E-02 Intolerable Risk


1.00E-03
Individual risk

1.00E-04 ALARP

1.00E-05
1.00E-06
Negligible Risk
1.00E-07
er

r
r
r

er

er

el
)

rie
rie
ke

rie

re
nk

nk

ss
nk

ar
an

ar
.O
ar
Ta

Ve
Ta

Ta

C
C
C
lT

cl

go
o
il

al

er
as

il

in
a
O

g
/O
ic

ic

r(

in

ar
ar
G
m

lk

ta
rie

C
C
Bu
he

he

on

o
al
ar

R
C

er
C

o/
il/

en
lk
O

R
Bu

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 7


Decision criteria used in FSA
Societal/Group Risk (MSC 72/16)
Oil tankers
1.0E-02

Frequency of N or more fatalities (per ship Intolerable Chem. tankers

Oil/Chemical
tankers
1.0E-03 Gas tanker

ALARP
year)

1.0E-04

1.0E-05
Negligible

1.0E-06
1 10 100
Fatalities (N)

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 8


Decision criteria used in FSA
Most ship types are in the ALARP area, but not ALARP
- Implication: Cost Effectiveness is used as criteria

Three important decision criteria:


Gross Cost Of Averting a Fatality (GCAF)
GCAF = Cost/Risk
Net Cost of Averting a Fatality (NCAF)
NCAF = (Cost Economic_Benefits)/Risk
Cost of Averting a Ton of oil Spill (CATS)
CATS = Cost/Risk_spill
Criteria: CAF = $3m, CATS=$60,000

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 9


Version
$US million

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Japan

16 February 2006
Korea
Decision criteria used in FSA

Luxembourg
Basis is: Willingness to pay & Socioeconomics

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

Average OECD
Slide 10
FSA/ECDIS: Motivation and Background
Collisions and Groundings dominate accident statistics
FSA on Large Cruise Ship Navigation demonstrated that ECDIS is an
extremely cost effective RCO with respect to Grounding
- Justified by economic considerations alone
- Justified by safety considerations alone

http://research.dnv.com/skj/FSALPS/FSA-LPS-NAV.htm

FSA ECDIS project launched to investigate if ECDIS is cost-effective


for other ship types (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, UK)
http://research.dnv.com/skj/FSA-ECDIS/ECDIS.htm

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 11


Objective and Scope of work
The objective is to carry out a Formal Safety Assessment, including cost
effectiveness assessment of ECDIS for relevant vessel types (excl. High Speed
Crafts). The cost effectiveness will be measured as Gross/Net CAF values.
The following tasks have been carried out:
Define a set of representative vessel types and trades
General study on ECDIS and the effect of ECDIS
Update and extend the risk model used for Cruise ships to become valid for an
extended set of vessel types. The detailed modeling has been carried out for two
vessel types, and extended to other vessel types by more general considerations
Quantify risk reducing effect of ECDIS, costs of implementation and potential
economic benefits to calculate GrossCAF and NetCAF values for the selected
cases
General considerations of other vessel types and sizes

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 12


Method of work
Selection of representative Ship Types, Sizes and Trades
Modeling of exposure to potential grounding situations
Modeling of probability of grounding given exposure, and probability of
fatalities given grounding using Bayesian Network models.
Bayesian Networks:
- A set of nodes representing random variables, and edges or arcs representing
direct probabilistic dependencies among them.

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 13


Ship Selection
Type Size Trade
Product Tanker 4 000 DWT Mongstad (Norway)
Stockholm (Sweden)

Tanker for Oil 80 000 DWT Kuwait (Kuwait)


Marseilles (France)

Bulk Carrier 75 000 DWT Newcastle (Australia)


Tokyo (Japan)

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 14


Chosen Routes

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 15


Routes

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 16


Scenarios

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 17


Factors considered in risk model

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 18


Ship Types
Tankers and bulk carriers represent about 65% of the world fleet
measured in gross tonnage, thus this is a natural choice.
In addition, in order to establish a basis for drawing general conclusions
on cargo ships, it was decided to include a ship type providing the
combination of relatively low value of the ship itself; low value of its cargo
as well as low pollution potential. The bulk carrier carrying coal was
chosen for this purpose

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 19


TANK, size and trade

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 20


BULK, size and trade

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 21


RCO: ECDIS
ECDIS can replace nautical paper charts
and publications to plan and display the
ships route, plot and monitor positions
throughout the intended voyage.
Continuously determining a vessels
position in relation to land, charted
objects, navigational aids and possible
unseen hazards.
Possible to integrate ECDIS with both the
radar system and Automatic Identification
System (AIS). However, this study
considers a basic ECDIS system as
described in the Performance Standard for
ECDIS of IMO, ref. /5/.

The main benefits of using ECDIS


considered in this study include:
- Liberate time for the navigators to focus on
navigational tasks
- Improved visual representation of fairway
- More efficient updating of charts

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 22


ECDIS EFFECT
The effect of the RCO has been tested by comparing a vessel with
ECDIS installed and in use, to a vessel without ECDIS.

Modeled effect of ECDIS (all ship types modeled) : 36 %,


Meaning:
The number of Grounding incidents will be reduced by about 1/3
The number of Grounding related Fatalities will be reduced by about 1/3

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 23


Cost and Benefit

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 24


Cost and Benefit
Cost includes
- Purchase and Installation
- Maintenance
- Training

Benefits are restricted to


- Reduced environmental damage cost (direct cost only)
- Reduced property damage cost

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 25


Conclusions for selected ships

Few lives saved, thus high Gross CAF


Benefits exceed costs, thus negative Net CAF
Cost and Benefit estimates considered Robust (by a factor between 2 and 5),
thus

ECDIS should be recommended as mandatory based on Net CAF


Version 16 February 2006 Slide 26
Other Ships
ECDIS should be recommended as mandatory for all ships in world wide
trade, considering that

- Other ship types are usually more expensive


- Other ships cargo is usually more expensive
- Exposure to grounding risk is no less for other ships
- Crew competence assumed the same
- Effect of ECDIS is the same

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 27


www.dnv.com/research/transport/skj.asp

Version 16 February 2006 Slide 28