Risk analysis of Marine Activities in the Belgian Part of

the North Sea (RAMA)

Annemie VolckaertDirk Le Roy

Jan-Bart CalewaertPieter De MeyerFrank Maes

Tim Fowler

Supported by the Federal Science Policy

2

Goals and approach

Risk-analysis of shipping incidents with environmental damage on the Belgian part of the North Sea

Approach1. Comparison of different methods for risk

analysis 2. Identification of hazardous activities at sea3. Release assessment of marine incidents4. Description of the effects of the incidents5. Risk estimation6. Examination & recommendations to existing

contingency plans

3

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

4

1. Comparison of methods (2)

3 important topics: Uncertainty rating Quality assessment of input Potential gaps

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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).

11

3. Release assessment (2)– Accident frequency

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

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

12

3. Release assessment (3): Accident spill freq.

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

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 2° CT4 (other oil): 1 per

14 yr CT2 & CT3 (crudes &

heavy fuels): 1 per 150 yr

13

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 Containers: 9.9 t/yr

Class 2 (crudes) Total: 101 t/yr Oil tankers: 101 t/yr

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

14

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)

15

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)

16

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

17

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,

ports, saltworks 0-3

social population 0-1 SUM of SCORES

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

class

%

Classification: High;

medium; low

Priority spill protection zones

18

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

19

4a. Sensitivity analysis: ecological criteriaImportance 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

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

20

4a. Sensitivity analysis: socio-econ. criteriaParameter 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)

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 areaShipping lane

0

Economical aspects Touristical value coast 2 Relative sensitivity calculation (overnight stays; rental homes/secondary residences; day tourists; employees)

(Source: Maredasm, 2002)

Aggregate extraction and windenergy at sea

1

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

21

Summer scenario

22

Winter scenario

23

Ecological impact assessment model

Physico-chemical databaseModelling

Biological databaseEcotoxicological database

Exposure assessmentPEC

Consequence assessment

PNEC or LC50

Risk characterisation

4b. Effect analysis

24

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

25

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

26

5. Risk estimation

Frequency x consequence of event

Frequency: hazard identification & release assessment (quantitative)

Consequence: direct loss (qualitative ~ hazardous characteristics

27

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

28

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.

29

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

30

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

31

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?

32

Thank you for your attention.

Any questions?