Briefing at: Consequence Analysis Workshop October 30, 2012.
-
Upload
catherine-carter -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of Briefing at: Consequence Analysis Workshop October 30, 2012.
Briefing at:Consequence Analysis Workshop
October 30, 2012
• What is a Risk Assessment?• Project Background• Work Plan• Vessel Traffic
Study Results• Outreach Efforts• Questions?
What is a Risk Assessment?
• What can go wrong?
What is a Risk Assessment?
• How likely is it?
What is a Risk Assessment?
• What are the impacts?
What is a Risk Assessment?
• Can the risk be reduced or the impact mitigated?
Project Background
• 1999 Safety of Navigation Forum – Homer
• 2000 Ports and Waterway Safety Assessment
• 2006 Sea Bulk Pride Grounding
• 2006 Cook Inlet Vessel Traffic Study
• 2007 Navigational Safety Forum – Anchorage
• 2008 Risk of Vessel Accidents and Spills
• 2009 Aleutian Island Risk Assessment
Project Background
2007 Navigational Forum – Consensus Points• Cook Inlet RCAC should move forward with a
risk assessment,• Engaging in the political process will be
necessary to obtain funding, and• Public participation and outreach will be
critical to the success of the risk assessment.
Project Background
National Academy of SciencesTransportation Research BoardSpecial Report 293
Work Plan
• Limits and Bounds
• Organization and Management Structure
• Project Steps/Tasks
• Timeline
• Deliverables
Limits and Bounds
Substances• Oil– Cargo, Crude Oil or Refined Product– Fuel, Bunkers
Limits and Bounds
Vessel Types– Containerships– Bulk carriers– Gas carriers– Car carriers– Cruise ships and Ferries– Crude oil tankers– Product tankers
– Tank barges and tugs– Cargo barges and tugs– Chemical carriers– Tugs– Offshore Supply Vessels– Mobile Drill Rigs– Government Vessels
Limits and Bounds
Accident Types• Collisions• Allisions• Powered Groundings• Drift Groundings• Foundering
• Structural Failures• Mooring Failures• Fires
Limits and Bounds
Geographic Region
Organization
Management Team
– Mike Munger, CIRCAC– Steve Russell, ADEC– LT. Kion Evans, USCG– Burt Lahn, USCG
Project Managers– Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC.
Organization
Advisory Panel• Fisheries
• Local Government
• Mariner, Pilot
• Mariner, Salvor
• Mariner, Containerships
• Mariner, Tug and Barge
• Mariner, Tank Ship
• Mariner, General
• Non-Governmental Org.
• Resource Manager
• Subsistence User
Tasks
1. Project Communications
2. Facilitate and Support Manage Team and Advisory Panel
3. Vessel Traffic Study
4. Baseline Accident and Spill Study
5. Consequence Analysis Workshop
Tasks
6. Identify Risk Reduction Options
7. Evaluate Risk Reduction Options
8. Prioritize Risk Reduction Options and Prepare a Final Report
TimelineMilestone Completion
Form Advisory Panel 1st Year- 3rd quarter 2011
Draft Vessel Traffic Study 1st Year- 3rd quarter 2011
Final Vessel Traffic Study 2nd Year- 1st quarter 2012
Draft Spill and Casualty Study 2nd Year- 1st quarter 2012
Final Spill and Casualty Study 2nd Year- 2nd quarter 2012
Consequence Workshop 2nd Year- 4rd quarter 2012
Consequence Report 2nd Year- 4rd quarter 2012
Identify Risk Reduction Options 3nd Year- 1rd quarter 2013
Rank and Prioritize Risk Reduction Options 3nd Year- 2th quarter 2013
Draft Final Report 3nd Year- 3th quarter 2013
Publish Final Report 3nd Year- 4th quarter 2013
Deliverables
• Vessel Traffic Study (Completed)
• Spill and Causality Study (Completed)
• Consequence Workshop Report (Fall 2012)
• Risk Reduction Recommendations
• Final Report
Vessel Traffic Study
Objectives
1. Characterize Vessel Traffic Utilizing Cook Inlet in 2010 Base Year (≥ 300 Gross Tons),
2. Predict Vessel Traffic Until 2019
Vessel Traffic Study
Findings
• 480 ship port calls• 80% of the calls were made by 15 ships• 218 million gallons of persistent oil and 9
million gallons of non-persistent oil were moved on 83 tank ship voyages to or from the Nikiski and Drift River terminals
Vessel Traffic Study
Findings
• 36% of all persistent oil moved was fuel oil on dry cargo ships calling at Anchorage
• 102 oil barge transits moved 366 million gallons of nonpersistent oil; the greatest amount of oil moved by a single vessel type
Vessel Traffic Study
• AMHS ferries 23%• Horizon Lines container ships 22%• TOTE Ro-Ro cargo ships 22%• Crude oil tank ships 15.5%• Refined product tank ships 4%• Bulk carriers 4%• Gas carriers 2.5%• Cruise ships 3%• Fish industry 1%
45
450 million gallons of persistent oil were move in 2010
566 million gallons of non-persistent oil was moved in 2010
Spill & Causality Study
ObjectivesStudied Historical Incidents and Vessel Traffic to Define:
1. Baseline (2010-2014) and;2. Projected (2015- 2020) annual spill rate
Scenario Development
Spill Rates
• Vessel Types– Tank Ships– Tank Barges– Non-Tank/Non-workboat vessels (Cargo, Cruise
ship)• Highest forecasted spill rate of 1.3 per year
– Workboats (OSV, Towboat/Tugboat)• Highest baseline spill rate of 0.96 per year
– Sum of the four vessel types is 3.9 spills per year
Scenarios
• Defined for 2,112 unique combinations of vessel types and spill factor subcategories.
• Majority of scenarios have low to very low relative risk level.
• Tank ships have lowest baseline spill rate, but have the most risk from an oil spill.
Scenarios for Workshop
• Total of 6 scenarios– 2 Upper Cook Inlet: Knik Shoal & Port of
Anchorage– 2 Mid Cook Inlet: Drift River & Nikiski – 2 Lower Cook Inlet: Barren Islands & Port of
Homer
Outreach Efforts
• Email Contacts• Advisory Panel Solicitation• Public Meetings• Website
www.cookinletriskassessment.com
Questions?