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

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
1.
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:







Study area:




Fishery
Sand- and gravel extraction
Dredging
Military exercises
Off-shore constructions
Pleasure crafts/recreational
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
ST2
ST3
ST4
ST5
ST6
ST7
ST8

Excluded from analysis : approx. 1.5 % of data







Oil (crude) tankers
Chemical tankers + refined
Gas tankers
RoRo + car carriers + Ropax
Bulk carriers
General cargo + reefers
Containers
Others + Passenger Ships
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


1.0 E-08 - 1.0 E-06
1.0 E-06 - 1.0 E-05
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-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



Cargo type

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° powered groundings:
0.25 acc/yr (1 per 4 yr)
2° collisions: 0.03 acc/yr

1° CT8 (no info): 1 per 13
yr
2° CT4 (other oil): 1 per 14
yr
CT2 & CT3 (crudes & heavy
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)



Class 1 (MP, cat A)


1.0 E-08 - 1.0 E-06
1.0 E-06 - 1.0 E-05

1.0 E-03 - 1.0 E-02
Total: 12.3 t/yr
Containers: 9.9 t/yr
Class 2 (crudes)
1.0 E-05 - 1.0 E-04
1.0 E-04 - 1.0 E-03
Total: 539 t/yr
Containers: 390 t/yr


Total: 101 t/yr
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
Ecological
score
0-5
Conservation
Bird, habitat, fish
Landscape, heritage
Shoretype, currents
Aquaculture, fisheries,
ports, saltworks
population
cultural
physical
economic
social
0-1
0-2
0-3
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
directive)
2 (habitat)
3 (bird)
5
EC - Habitat Directive Area (Natura 2000)
13
5
EC- Bird directive Area (Natura 2000)
3
5
Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
3*
3
Strict nature reserve
0
3
National park
0
3
Beach (nature) reserves
2
1
Nature reserve
1
1
Natural monument
0
1
Landscape reserve (classified landscape)
1
1
National
Regional
19
4a. Sensitivity analysis: socio-econ. criteria
Parameter
Entity
Score
Remark
Recreation
Global tourist factor (beach
recreation)
3
Relative sensitivity calculation
(source GAUFRE, 2005)
Garded swimming zones
1
Relative sensitivity calculation: (number/ municipality)
(source GAUFRE, 2005)
Marinas
1
Relative sensitivity calculation
(source MareDasm, 2002)
Spawning sites
?
No spawning area’s were identified / reported
Concentration of fish
?
No specific area’s were identified / reported
Port
2
Local port
1
Anchorage area
Shipping lane
0
Touristical value coast
2
Aggregate extraction and
windenergy at sea
1
High population
1
Fisheries
Shipping
Economical aspects
Social aspects
Relative sensitivity calculation (overnight stays; rental
homes/secondary residences; day tourists; employees)
(Source: Maredasm, 2002)
(Source FOD Economie, KMO, middenstand en energie, 2005)
20
Summer scenario
21
Winter scenario
22
4b. Effect analysis
Ecological impact assessment model
Physico-chemical
database
Modelling
Biological database
Ecotoxicological
database
Exposure assessment
PEC
Consequence
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


2.
Required elements of a good plan ?

3.
Other contingency plans; IMO and other guidelines …
Examination of elements identified in 2.

4.
Legal / competences / International context / …
Situating new developments
Gaps, weaknesses, improvements, …
Recommendations
29
6. Recent developments contingency planning

New Royal Decree (BOJ 15 March 2006)



Coastguard Structure


better coordination between competent authorities at
sea
Working group “rampenplan Noordzee”


Focus on land-based planning
Some new concepts and definitions
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