1. ©DNVSlide no: 1 V A L E N C I A, S P A I N 4 - 5 - 6 J U N E 2 0 0 2 Surface Transport Technologies for Sustainable Development Risk Acceptance Criteria: Current proposals and IMO position Rolf Skjong, DNV

2. ©DNVSlide no: 2 Background- 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 in 90s: FSA – 92: UK House of Lords, Lord Carver Report – 93, MSC 62: UK proposes FSA concept – 97, MSC 68: FSA Interim Guidelines – 00, MSC 72, Norwegian proposal for acceptance criteria – 01, MSC 74: FSA Guidelines – 02, MSC 76, A number of decisions to be made based on FSA

3. ©DNVSlide no: 3 Formal Safety Assessment Preparatory Step Step 1 Hazard Identification Step 2 Risk Analysis Step 3 Risk Control Options Step 4 Cost Benefit Assessment Step 5 Recommendations for Decision Making

4. ©DNVSlide no: 4 New and Old Process

5. ©DNVSlide no: 5 Methods to establish criteria (details in MSC 72/16)  Comparison with other hazards – Is the hazard under consideration contributing significantly to risk? (For example infections, illnesses, home accidents)  Comparison with natural hazards – For example earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding, lightening  Comparison with risks we normally take – For example crossing the street, driving cars, bicycling  Comparison with previous decisions – Present building codes, road standards, train safety, etc.  Comparison with well informed decisions in democratic forums – Cases where risk results have been presented, debated, and a decision made

6. ©DNVSlide no: 6 Individual Risk Intolerable ALARP Negligible 10 -3 /year 10 -4 /year 10 -6 /year Crew Passengers&3 rd parties Crew&Passengers Interpretation of HSE, and other standards adopted for ships High Low

7. ©DNVSlide no: 7 Individual Risk

8. ©DNVSlide no: 8 Societal Risk - FN Diagrams

9. ©DNVSlide no: 9 Societal Risk - FN Diagrams

10. ©DNVSlide no: 10 Individual and Societal Risk  Individual and Societal risks are in ALARP area  Individual and societal risks are not ALARP  Cost Effectiveness Assessment (CEA) must be carried out to arrive at recommendations  Societal risks for Bulk Carriers were recently close to intolerable or intolerable  Note: Not all ship types included

11. ©DNVSlide no: 11 Cost Effectiveness Criteria Changed by FSA to < >

12. ©DNVSlide no: 12 Cost Effectiveness, Published Criteria

13. ©DNVSlide no: 13 Cost Effectiveness, Societal indicators Skjong & Ronold (1998 )

14. ©DNVSlide no: 14 Cost Effectiveness Criteria MSC 72/16 suggests:  If health and injuries are not included explicitly, use £ 2 million per averted fatality as criteria, with a range from £ 1 to £ 5 million  If health and injury are included explicitly, use £ 1 million as criteria, with a range from £ 0.5 to £ 2.5 million  Currently the statistics relating to injuries and ill health is limited, as compared to fatalities

15. ©DNVSlide no: 15 Status Today  The new FSA Guidelines mention all proposed decision parameters  No acceptance criteria in FSA Guidelines  Seems to be accepted that most ship types are in the ALARP area, but not ALARP.  Maybe some ship types that was not included in MSC 72/16 is in intolerable area (e.g. fishing vessels, large passenger ships, subgroups of standard ship types )  FSA Studies by Japan, IACS, Norway, and the UK/Int. all use the proposed criteria

16. ©DNVSlide no: 16 Status Today- MSC 75 (May 2002)  The committee listed all RCOs with an NCAF < $ 3 million in all studies (IACS, Japan, Norway, UK/Int.)  The review process remains, and MSC 76 will decide  The criteria may result in: – Double hull – Improved coating – Forecastle, Bulwark or Breakwater – Protected deck fitting – Stronger hatch covers – Hatch cover closing devices, indication of closure – Free fall lifeboat – Water ingress alarms – Immersion suits to all personnel  Applicability(TBD) New/Existing, Handy, Panamax, Capesize

17. ©DNVSlide no: 17 Status after MSC 76 (December 2002)  IMO has made a well informed decision based on FSA and cost effectiveness assessment  Assuming that IMO is rational: This will be the preferred reference point for all risk analysts  The implicit or explicit criterion used may be used in later analysis and in safety equivalency documentation