Marine risk assessment methodology_Cluj_2012.pdf

8/17/2019 Marine risk assessment methodology_Cluj_2012.pdf

1/17

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260085655

Marine risk assessment methodology usingformal safety assessment in the Black Sea basin

Article · January 2012

READS

57

1 author:

Carmen Gasparotti

Universitatea Dunarea de Jos Galati

36 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Carmen Gasparotti

Retrieved on: 26 April 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carmen_Gasparotti?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitatea_Dunarea_de_Jos_Galati?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carmen_Gasparotti?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carmen_Gasparotti?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260085655_Marine_risk_assessment_methodology_using_formal_safety_assessment_in_the_Black_Sea_basin?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260085655_Marine_risk_assessment_methodology_using_formal_safety_assessment_in_the_Black_Sea_basin?enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2


2/17

METODOLOGIA DE EVALUAREA A RISCULUIMARIN UTILIZÂND EVALUAREA FORMALĂ A

SIGURANŢEI ÎN BAZINUL MĂRII NEGRE

MARINE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGYUSING FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT IN THE

BLACK SEA BASINSef lucrari dr. ec. ing. Gasparotti Carmen

Universitatea „Dunarea de Jos” Galati

Abstract: Formal safety assessment (FSA) is a structured and systematic methodology, aimed atenhancing maritime safety by using risk and cost-benefit assessment. Formal safety assessment (FSA)represents IMO’s response to the necessity of a modern approach of the process of establishingregulations in order to improve safety at sea. Black Sea pollution has now reached an unprecedentedlevel, the biggest polluter being hydrocarbons. While the level of safety at sea has in general improved in

recent years, accidents still occur and improvements are still desirable. An important role in oil pollutionis played by the offshore and the tanker accidents. The aim of the work proposed herewith is to presentthe steps of risk assessment methodology that could be incorporated in the whole process of the FSA.Risk assessment results stay on base of risk management to the adoption of measures for risk control,prevention and reduction in operating ships at sea and to the recommendation for decision-making bodiesand regulators to bring risk to the lowest possible level. The best reduce measures of risk are establishedbased on cost-benefit analysis.

Keywords: formal safety assessment, risk assessment, hazards identification, decision making.

1. INTRODUCERE

Poluarea Mării Negre a atins în ultimul timpproporţii dramatice. Sursele şi cauzele suntmultiple: evacuările de ape uzate, deşeurileindustriale, scurgeri de hidrocarburi din activităţide foraj şi extracţie în zonele marine, operaţii detransport, transfer, rafinare şi depozitare.

În bazinul Mării Negre sunt descărcate anual110 000 tone de petrol, din care cel mai marepoluator sunt sursele continentale, Dunărea fiindcel mai mare poluator. El aduce anual 53 000 tonede petrol în mare, dar şi sute de tone de cadmiu,

mercur, plumb, zinc, crom. De asemenea, sunt

1. INTRODUCTION

Black Sea pollution has lately gotten dramaticproportions. Sources and causes are multiple:discharges of domestic sewage, industrial wastes,hydrocarbon spills from drilling and extractionactivities in marine areas, the operations of transport,transfer, refining, and storage.

In the Black Sea basin is discharged 110,000tons of oil annually, of which the worst polluter arecontinental sources, the Danube being the mainpolluter. It brings annually 53,000 tones of oil intothe sea, but hundreds of tons of cadmium, mercury,

lead, zinc, chromium. Also, are spilled significant


3/17

deversate cantităţi semnificative de silicon, nitraţi,

fosfaţi, pesticide în Marea Neagră.Pe sectorul românesc printre poluatorii majoriai Mării Negra sunt platforma industrială Petromidia-Năvodari, oraşele Constanţa şiMangalia şi operatorii de transport pe mare, carespală tancurile de petrol, produse chimice sau gazelichefiate, înainte de a intra în port. Totuşi,accidentele cu consecinţe serioase se datorează navigaţiei.

Astfel, pe 11 noiembrie 2007 a avut loc celmai mare dezastru ecologic din istoria MăriiNegre. În strâmtoarea Kerci, care leagă Marea

Neagră de Marea Azov, petrolierul Volga-Nefttransportând 4000 tone de păcură, în timpul uneifurtuni s-a rupt în două, deversând în mareaproximativ 2000 tone. În aceiaşi zi, trei alte navece transportau sulf, tot datorită furtunii s-auscufundat, deversând în mare 7000 tone de sulf.

Accidentele maritime însoţite de scurgerimasive de petrol, deşi rare, reprezintă riscuriserioase pentru poluarea marină şi de coastă,cauzând dezastre ecologice reale.

Evaluarea riscurilor din accidentele pe mare audeterminat luarea de măsuri de către industrie,guverne, IMO (Organizaţia Maritimă Internaţională) trebuid să revizuiască regulile,procedurile, tehnicile şi materialele din industria detransport maritim, aşa încât din etapa de proiectarepână la operare aceste riscuri trebuie luate în modcorespunzător în considerare. Accidenteletancurilor Erika şi Prestige în 1999 care au cauzatpoluarea pe scară largă a ţărmurilor europene, audus la luarea în discuţie a procedurilor de urgenţă asupra tancurilor cu corp simplu, care în final aucondus la un acord internaţional asupra

construcţiei tancurilor petroliere cu dublu corp.Scopul acestei lucrări este de a prezenta paşiice trebuie urmaţi în metodologia de evaluare ariscului maritim şi de a sublinia importanţaacesteia pentru managementul riscului în adoptareacelor mai eficiente măsuri de reducere a riscului laun nivel rezonabil posibil.

2. EVALUAREA RISCULUI ŞI LUAREADECIZIILOR

Evaluarea riscurilor este un proces complex ce

implică identificarea riscurilor şi a surselor

amounts of silicon, nitrates, phosphates, pesticides

into the Black Sea.On the Romanian sector among the majorpolluters of the Black Sea include Petromidia-Navodari industrial platform, the cities of Constantaand Mangalia and sea carriers which washing theiroil tankers, chemical or liquefied gas carriers, beforeentering the port. However, the accidents withserious consequences are due to shipping.

Thus on November 11, 2007 has been the biggestenvironmental disaster in the history of the BlackSea. In the Kerci Strait that connects the Black Seaand Sea of Azov, Volga-Neft tanker carrying 4,000

tones of fuel oil, during a storm broke in two, spillinginto the sea about 2000 tones. In the same day, threeother vessels carrying sulfur, all because of the stormsank, spilling into the sea about 7000 tones of sulfur.

Shipping accidents accompanied by massiveoil spills, although rare, represent serious risks tomarine and coastal pollution, causing real ecologicaldisaster.

Evaluating the risk of accidents at sea hasdetermined taking of measures by industry,government, IMO (International MaritimeOrganization) being to revise the regulations,procedures, techniques and materials in the shippingindustry, so that from the design to the operationstage these risks should be properly taken intoaccount. Accidents of Erika tanker (1999) andPrestige which caused widespread pollution ofEuropean shores, have resulted in makingdiscussion on emergency procedure of single bodytankers, which in the end led to an internationalagreement on construction of oil tankers withdouble body.

The aim of this paper is to present the steps

must be followed in the marine risk assessmentmethodology and to highlight its importance for riskmanagement in adopting the most effectivemeasures of reducing risk to a reasonable possiblelevel.

2. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DECISION-MAKING

Risks assessment is a complex process involvingthe identification of the risk and its sources, as wellas of the occurrence and severity of their

consequences. This is used to elaborate strategies


4/17

acestora, precum şi apariţia şi gravitatea

consecinţelor lor. Aceasta este folosită pentru aelabora strategii pentru diminuarea riscurilor şi îmbunătăţirea siguranţei pe mare prin adoptarea demăsuri de prevenire, control şi reducere ariscurilor.

Pentru creşterea siguranţei pe mare, IMO adezvoltat o metodologie structurată şi sistematică pentru o evaluare formală a siguranţei (FSA), prinfolosirea analizei de risc şi a unui managementeficient al riscurilor.

FSA este un proces sistematic şi raţional pentruevaluarea riscurilor şi pentru evaluarea costurilor şi

beneficiilor a diferitelor opţiuni de reducere aacelor riscuri.

Metoda oferă un mijloc de a fi proactiv,permiţând pericolelor potenţiale care urmează să fie luate în considerare înainte de produce unaccident grav.

FSA este folosită de autoritatea dereglementare pentru a evalua riscurile pe o navă reprezentativă "generic" şi să decidă care suntnormele de siguranţă ce ar trebui să se aplicetuturor navelor din flotă. Acest lucru este destinatsă asigure ca toate navele din flotă să respecte unstandard acceptabil de siguranţă.

Modelul generic nu ar trebui să fie privit ca onavă izolată, ci mai degrabă ca o colecţie desisteme, incluzând aspectele de organizare, demanagement, operaţionale, umane, electronice şihardware-ul.

FSA reprezintă o schimbare fundamentală dela ceea ce a fost anterior o abordare în mare partefragmentată şi reactivă la una care este proactivă,integrată, şi mai presus de toate pe baza evaluării şimanagementului riscurilor într-un mod transparent

şi justificabil încurajând astfel o mai mareconformitate cu cadrul de reglementare maritim,larândul său conducând la îmbunătăţirea securităţii şiprotecţiei mediului.

Principalul cadrul al FSA constă dinurmătoarele cinci etape:-Identificarea pericolelor.-Evaluarea riscurilor asociate cu aceste pericole.-Modalităţi de gestionare a riscurilor.-Evaluarea cost-beneficiu a opţiunilor şi,-Deciziile asupra căror opţiuni trebuie selectate.

Primele trei implică utilizarea tehnicilor de

for risk diminishing and safety improvement at sea

by the adoption of measures for prevention, controland reduce the risks.To increase safety at sea, IMO has developed a

structured and systematic methodology for a formalsafety assessment (FSA), by using risk analysis andan efficient risk management.

FSA is a rational and systematic process forassessing risks and for evaluating the costs andbenefits of different options for reducing thoserisks.

The method provides a means of beingproactive, enabling potential hazards to be

considered before a serious accident occurs.FSA is used by the regulator to assess the risks

on a representative “generic” ship and decide whichsafety rules should be applied to all ships in thefleet. This is intended to ensure that all ships in thefleet meet an acceptable standard of safety.

The generic model should not be viewed as anindividual ship in isolation, but rather as a collectionof systems, including organizational, management,operational, human, electronic and hardwareaspects.

FSA represents a fundamental change fromwhat was previously a largely piecemeal andreactive regulatory approach to one which isproactive, integrated, and above all based on riskevaluation and management in a transparent and

justifiable manner thereby encouraging greatercompliance with the maritime regulatoryframework, in turn leading to improved safety andenvironmental protection.

The main FSA framework consists of thefollowing five steps :-The identification of the hazards.

-The assessment of the risks associated with thosehazards.-Ways of managing the risks.-Cost benefit assessment of the options and,-Decisions on which options to select.

The first three involve the use of risk assessmenttechniques, while the fourth one is, as stated, costbenefit assessment. The fifth step is nothing else butthe logical outcome of the cost benefit assessment(Fig. 1).


5/17

evaluare a riscurilor, în timp ce al patrulea este,

după cum s-a declarat, evaluarea cost-beneficiu. Alcincilea pas este nimic altceva decât rezultatullogic al evaluării cost-beneficiu (Fig.1)

Fig. 1 Evaluarea şi managementul riscului

2.1. Identificarea pericolelor

Identificarea riscurilor constă în identificareapericolelor, care ar putea provoca poluarea gravă amediului înconjurător. Acesta reprezintă primulpas care este esenţial într-o evaluare a riscurilor.Un pericol este identificat ca o situaţie cu unpotenţial de vătămare a siguranţei umane,mediului, proprietăţii sau afacerii, indiferent demodul în care ar putea sau nu un astfel deeveniment să se producă. Identificarea pericolelortrebuie să fie un proces bine structurat sistematic şi

critic.Scopul acestui pas este de a identifica

pericolele legate de o zonă problematică specifică şi de a genera o listă a acestora, în funcţie deprobabilitatea lor de apariţie şi severitateaconsecinţelor lor faţă de viaţa oamenilor, bunurilorşi mediului, în scopul de a asigura baza sau punctulde referinţă pentru următorul pas.

Principalele pericole identificate din bazele dedate pot fi clasificate în următoarele tipuri deaccidente generice: coliziuni navă-navă, derivă peuscat, insuficienţa structurală, incendiu /explozie în

Fig. 1 Risk Assessment and Management

2.1. The identification of the hazards

Risk identification consists of hazardsidentification, which should caused severe pollutionof environment. It represents first step which isessential in a risk assessment. A hazard is identifiedas a situation with a potential for causing harm tohuman safety, the environment, property orbusiness, regardless of how likely or unlikely suchan occurrence might be. The hazards identificationmust be a well-structured systematic and criticalprocess.

The aim of this step is to identify the hazardsrelated to a specific problematic area and generate a

list of them, according to their likelihood ofoccurrence and the severity of their consequencetowards human life, property and the environment,in order to provide the base or the reference pointfor the next step.

The main dangers identified from databases canbe categorized into the following generic accidenttypes: ship-ship collisions, powered groundings,drift groundings, structural failure, fire/explosionwhilst underway, powered ship collision with fixedmarine structures such as platforms or windturbines.


6/17

timp ce în curs de navigare, coliziuni ale navelor

cu structurile marine fixe, cum ar fi platforme sauturbine eoliene.Expresia cea mai populară utilizată pentru

întregul proces de identificare a pericolelor senumeşte tehnica "brainstorming". Aceasta tehnică implică personal calificat şi cu experienţă carecombină cunoştinţele lor de a identifica pericoleleprin abordări diferite, cum ar fi următoarele:-Analiză preliminară a riscurilor (PHA).-Modul eşecurilor şi analiza efectelor (FMEA).-Studiul pericolelor şi al operabilităţii (HAZOP).

O analiză grosieră a cauzelor posibile şi a

rezultatelor din fiecare categorie de accident artrebui să fie efectuată.

Este unanim acceptat faptul că un accidentmarin nu este cauzat de o singură cauză, ci de omultitudine de cauze, factori individuali, factoritehnologici şi organizaţionali. Pornind de la ocauză imediată a deversării anchetatorul poateexamina lanţul de evenimente şi poate identificaunul sau mai mulţi factori care au contribuit laaccident sau cauzele de bază.

Analiza cauzelor de bază încearcă să înţeleagă "de ce", a avut loc un accident şi să răspundă la

întrebări de genul "ce s-a întâmplat, cum s-a întâmplat", şi "de ce s-a întâmplat”.

Cauzele care contribuie la riscuri includ:densitate mare de trafic, condiţiile meteonefavorabile şi a obstacolelor de navigaţie,condiţiile de mare (adâncimea apei şi naturafundului mării), vizibilitate, erorile umane, eşuărilede nave necunoscute, emisiile de gaze produse încisterne. Acestea pot apărea individual sau în oricecombinaţie şi ar putea avea ca rezultat o deversarede petrol majoră. Datele statistice arată că cele mai

multe accidente s-au produs din cauza condiţiilorhidro meteorologice nefavorabile şi a erorilorumane (erori ale comandanţilor sau erori aleechipajului). Baza de date CTX (Centrul deExcelenţă pentr petroliere) susţine că eşeculstructural este, pe departe, singura cauză cea maiimportantă, atât pentru distrugerea navei cât şi adeversărilor, iar eşecul maşinilor şi instalaţiiloreste cea de a doua cauză cea mai importantă adeversărilor..

Nivelul actual de risc al petrolierelor în MareaNeagră este mic, dar acesta nu ar trebui să fie

The most popular expression used for the whole

process of hazard identification is called“brainstorming” technique. This technique involvestrained and experienced personnel combining theirknowledge to identify the hazards through variousapproaches, such as the following:-Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA).-Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA).-Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study.

A coarse analysis of possible causes andoutcomes of each accident category should becarried out.

It is widely accepted that a marine accident is not

caused by a single cause, but a multitude of causes,individual factors, technological and organizationalfactors. Starting from an immediate cause ofdischarge the investigator may examine the chain ofevents and may identify one or more factors thatcontributed to the accident or basic causes.

Analysis of the basic causes seek to understand"why" an accident occurred and seek to answerquestions like "what happened, how happened" and"why happened".

Causes contributing to the risks include: hightraffic density, bad weather conditions andnavigational obstacles, sea conditions (water depthand the nature of the seabed), visibility, humanerrors, unknown ship failures, gas emissionsproduced in tankers. These can occur individuallyor in any combination and could have as a result amajor oil spill. Statistical data show that mostaccidents were produced due strong hydrometeorological conditions and human errors(commandants’ errors or team errors).The CTX(Center for Tanks ship Excellence) database claimsthat structural failure is by far the single most

important cause of both tanker deaths and spillageand machinery failure is the second most importantcause of tanker spillage.

Identification hazards make use of a number oftechniques. Generally, for hazard identificationcomprises a combination of both creative andanalytical techniques, the aim being to identify allrelevant hazards. This creative element is to ensurethat the process is proactive and not confined onlyto hazards that have materialized in the past.

The current level of risk of tankers in the BlackSea is low, but it should not be neglected due to the


7/17

neglijat, datorită consecinţelor grave ale

accidentelor marine, însoţite de scurgeri de petrolmasive pentru mediul înconjurător.

2.2 Evaluarea riscurilor asociate pericolelor

identificate

Evaluarea riscului reprezintă, de fapt, o analiză a riscurilor generate de pericole diverse,identificate în pasul 1. Aceasta presupuneevaluarea probabilităţii, respectiv de cât de des saude probabilă este apariţia riscului şi de cât desevere sunt consecinţele acestuia. Acest lucru

permite ca atenţia să se concentreze pe zonele derisc ridicat şi să identifice şi să evalueze factoriicare influenţează nivelul de risc.

Aşa cum arată statisticile ITOPF (FederaţiaInternaţională de Poluare a proprietarilor depetroliere), frecvenţa deversărilor de petrol dinbaze privind dezastrele marine a scăzut în mijloculanilor 80, iar acum ele sunt foarte rare.

Există o variaţie considerabilă în ceea cepriveşte incidenţa anuală a poluării cu hidrocarburişi volumul de petrol evacuat, care ilustrează, deasemenea, natura aleatorie a accidentelor. Acestlucru reduce deversările de petrol ce pot fi atribuite

în mare măsură eforturilor industriei de transportmaritim şi guvernelor (prin intermediul IMO)pentru îmbunătăţirea siguranţei navigaţiei şiprevenirea poluării.

Probabilitatea poate fi abordată fie din punctde vedere calitativ cât şi cantitativ. Abordareacalitativă se bazează pe experienţa şi judecataexperţilor, în timp ce abordarea cantitativă arebazele de date naţionale şi internaţionale,rapoartele istorice şi statisticile accidentelor şi

înregistrările locale.Consecinţele accidentelor marine, însoţite dedeversările de petrol sunt orientate pe trei direcţii:pierderea de vieţi/răniri grave, pierdereaproprietăţii şi de deteriorare a mediului.

Criteriul care ar trebui să fie utilizat pentru aevalua consecinţele asupra mediului estevulnerabilitatea socio-economică a mediului laexpunerea de petrol.

Evacuările masive de petrol din accidentele detransport maritim care cauzează daune gravepentru ecosistemele acvatice şi de coastă,

severe consequences of marine accidents

accompanied by massive oil spills for theenvironment.

2.2. The assessment of the risks associated with

those hazards

The risk evaluation represents in fact an analysisof the risks generated by various dangers, identifiedin step 1. It assumes the evaluation of thelikelihood, respectively how often or probable is therisk occurrences and how severe are theirconsequences. This allows attention to be focused

upon high risk areas and to identify and evaluate thefactors which influence the level of risk.

As shown by statistics from ITOPF(International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation)oil spill database frequency of marine disastersdecreased in the mid 80’s and now they are verycare.

There is a considerable annual variationconcerning the incidence of the oil pollution and thevolume of oil discharged that illustrates also therandom nature of the accidents. This reduces of theoil discharges can be related in great measure withthe efforts of the industry for maritimetransportation and of governments (through IMO)for improving the safety navigation and preventingthe pollution.

The likelihood can be approached either fromqualitative and quantitative point of view. Thequalitative approach is based on the expertexperiences and judgments, while the quantitativeapproach has national and international databases,accident history reports and statistics, local records.

Consequences of marine accidents accompanied

by oil spills are orientated on three directions: lossof lives/serious injuries, loss of property anddamage to the environment.

The criterion that should be used to evaluate theconsequences on the environment is the socio-economical vulnerability of the environment to theoil exposure.

Massive discharges of oil from shippingaccidents causing serious damages to aquaticecosystems and coastal, socio-economic activitiessuch as tourism, fishery, crustaceans farming andother marine products.


8/17

activităţilor socio-economice, cum ar fi turismul,

pescuitul, fermele de crustacee şi alte produsemarine.Natura şi durata prejudiciului depind de o serie

de factori, inclusiv, tipul şi cantitatea de petrol şide comportament odată deversat; condiţiilemeteorologice şi de sezon, caracteristicile zoneiafectate; tipul şi eficienţa răspunsului privindcurăţarea.

Din toţi factorii critici tipul de petrol este foarteimportant. Ţiţeiul brut şi păcura grea prezintă celemai mari probleme din cauza vâscozităţii lorridicate. Ele sunt foarte persistente în mediul marinşi astfel pot călători distanţe mari de la locaţiaoriginală a scurgerii, provocând contaminarea pescară largă a resurselor costiere.

Pierderea de proprietate constă în pierderea saudeteriorarea navei şi pierderea mărfii transportate.

Figura 2 prezintă costurile anuale estimateglobale de daune pe un petrolier reprezentativ.

Fig.2 Estimări generale de risc după FSA pentru o navă petrolier

Pentru a determina statistic cele două

elemente cheie pentru evaluarea riscului,probabilitatea şi consecinţele, sunt identificatediferite tipuri de accidente pe baza analizei dateloristorice şi scenariilor practice.

Probabilitatea şi consecinţele sunt evaluate prinevaluarea nivelurilor. Probabilitatea poate fievaluată ca fiind foarte puţin probabil, îndepărtat,ocazional, frecvente, iar consecinţele ca fiindcatastrofal, critică, majore şi minore.

Următorul pas este evaluarea riscurilor. Pentruestimarea riscului probabilitatea şi consecinţeleevenimentelor sunt combinate pentru a cuantifica

The nature and duration of the damage depend

on a number of factors including, the type andamount of oil and behavior once spilled; weatherconditions and season, the characteristics of theaffected area; the type and effectiveness of theclean-up response. Out of all critical factors the typeof oil is very important. Heavy crudes and heavyfuel oil posing the greatest problems because oftheir high viscosity. They are highly persistent inthe marine environment and so can travel greatdistances from the original spill location, causingwidespread contamination of coastal resources.

Loss of property consists in the loss or damage

to the ship and loss of the goods transported.Figure 2 shows the estimated overall annual

costs of damage on a representative tanker.

Fig.2 Overall risk estimates from oil tanker FSA

In order to determine the statistical of two keyelements for risk assessment, likelihood andconsequences, based on the historical data analysisand practical experience scenarios for differenttypes of accidents are identified.

The likelihood and the consequences areevaluated by assessing levels. The likelihood can be

evaluated as being very unlikely, remote,occasional, probable, frequent, but theconsequences as being catastrophic, critical, majorand minor.

The next step is risk assessment. For riskestimation the likelihood and consequences ofevents are combined to quantify risk. The calculatedrisks are then compared and ranked, take intoaccount the ALARP criteria of acceptability.Spill Risk = spill likelihood x spill consequence

On this basis the risk classification can be donein priority order for the effort to reduce them,


9/17

riscul. Riscurile calculate sunt apoi comparete şi

ierarhizate, luând în considerare criteriile deacceptabilitate ALARP.Riscul de deversare = probabilitatea x consecinţă

Pe această bază clasificarea riscurilor se poateface în ordinea priorităţii, pentru efortul de a lereduce, luarea de decizii pentru noi măsuri desiguranţă şi îmbunătăţirea celor existente.Evaluarea riscurilor de scurgeri de petrol estefoarte dificilă din cauza multiplelor consecinţe şi afactorilor, care au influenţat gravitatea lor. Acestlucru face imposibilă utilizarea unui singur criteriude evaluare a riscului total.

Un risc ar trebui să fie considerat inacceptabil, în cazul în care pierderea de vieţi omeneşti adepăşit 10-3 / persoană pe an, dar poate fi, deasemenea, inacceptabil, la niveluri mult maiscăzute de risc marin, în cazul în care altecomponente de risc sunt ridicate. Chiar dacă pierderea de vieţi omeneşti este de 10-6 sau maipuţin, nu poate fi descris ca "acceptabil", deoareceacest termen se aplică numai la riscul total.

În cazul în care alte consecinţe ale riscurilorsunt necunoscute, evaluarea riscurilor poate fiobţinută prin utilizarea ponderii lor. Această abordare va recurge la cerinţa criteriilor deacceptabilitate pentru riscul combinat. O abordarealternativă este de a calcula riscul de poluare amediului, riscul pentru viaţa şi riscul de proprietateseparat, iar apoi riscurile calculate sunt verificatepe baza a trei criterii de acceptabilitate separate.

Un rol esenţial în definirea acceptabilităţiiriscurilor marine este atribuit experienţelor şi

judecăţii experţilor. Matricele de risc sunt cele maiutilizate pentru evaluarea riscurilor în activităţilemarine, fiind simplu de aplicat şi uşor de înţeles.

Riscurile inacceptabile nu pot fi justificate încircumstanţe obişnuite. Astfel de riscuri, dacă eleexistă, trebuie să fie reduse, astfel ca acestea să fietolerabile sau acceptabile sau pericolul asociat să fie eliminat.

Figura 3 prezintă riscurile individuale pentrutipurile de nave generice.

Riscul este redus la un nivel la care, beneficiulcâştigat din viitoarea reducere a riscurilor estecompensat de costul de obţinere a acestei reduceria riscului.

making decisions for new safety measures and

improving existing ones. Risk assessment of oilspills is very difficult due to multiple consequencesand factors, which influenced their severity. Thismakes impossible using of a single criterion fortotal risk assessment.

A risk should be considered unacceptable, in casein which the loss of lives exceeded 10-3 per person-year, but it may also be unacceptable at much lowerlevels of marine risk if the other risk componentsare high. Even if the loss of lives is 10-6 or less, itcannot be described as “acceptable”, because thisterm applies only to the total risk.

In case in which the other consequences of risksare unknown, the risk assessment can be obtainedby using their weight. This approach will resort tothe requirement of acceptability criteria for thecombined risk. An alternative approach is tocalculate risk to environmental pollution, risk tolives and risk to property separately, and then thecalculated risks are checked against three separateacceptability criteria.

An essential role in defining the acceptability ofmarine risks is assigned to expert experiences and

judgments. Risk matrices are the most commonapproach used for risk assessment in marineactivities, being straightforward to apply and easy tounderstand.

The unacceptable risks cannot be justified in anyordinary circumstances. Such risks, if they do exist,must be reduced so that they are tolerable oracceptable or the associated hazard must beeliminated.

Figure 3 shows the individual risks for genericship types.

The risk is reduced to a level to which the benefit

gained from further risk reduction is outweighed bythe cost of achieving that risk reduction.


10/17

Fig. 3 Riscuri individuale pentru diferite tipuri

de nave

Un risc care a fost redus în acest fel esteconsiderat a fi fost redus la un nivel care este la felde "mic pentru a fi rezonabil practicabil", esteALARP.

2.3. Modalitati de gestionare a riscurilor.

Recomand ări pentru luarea deciziilor

Obiectivul la această etapă este de a propunemăsuri eficiente şi practice de control a riscurilor

(RCMs) pentru zone cu risc ridicat identificate dininformaţiile produse de evaluare a riscurilor înetapa anterioară. În această etapă implementareacosturilor şi a beneficiilor potenţiale ale măsurilorde control a riscurilor nu sunt de interes. Îngeneral, există trei caracteristici principale înconformitate cu care RCMs sunt evaluate şi carepot fi rezumate după cum urmează:- Cele referitoare la tipul fundamental de reducerea riscului ca măsurile preventive care fac "barierede securitate", care nu permit un incident pentru să progreseze.-Cele cu privire la tipul de acţiune necesară (deexemplu, de inginerie sau de procedură).-Cele cu privire la încrederea că pot fi plasate încadrul măsurilor (unice sau redundante, active saupasive).

Reducerea probabilităţii de apariţie şi / saugravitatea consecinţelor pericolelor se pot realizareducerea riscurilor. Există trei metode principaleutilizate pentru reducerea riscului, şi anume cele demanagement, inginerie şi cele operaţionale

Soluţiile manageriale implică activităţi legate

de managementul fiecărei organizaţii.

Fig. 3 Individual risks for generic ship types

A risk that has been reduced in this way isconsidered to have been reduced to a level that is as“low as is reasonably practicable”, is ALARP.

2.3. Ways of managing the risks. Recommendations

for decision-making

The aim at this stage is to propose effective andpractical Risk Control Measures (RCMs) to high-risk areas identified from the information produced

by the risk assessment in the previous step. At thisstage the implementation costs and potentialbenefits of risk control measures are not of concern.In general, there are three main characteristicsaccording to which RCMs are evaluated and whichcan be summarized as follows:- Those relating to the fundamental type of riskreduction like the preventative measures forming“safety barriers” not allowing an incident toprogress.-Those relating to the type of action required (i.e.engineering or procedural).

-Those relating to the confidence that can be placedin the measure (single or redundant, active orpassive).

Reducing the likelihood of occurrence and/or theseverity of the consequences of hazards can achieverisk reduction. There are three main methods usedfor risk reduction, namely the management,engineering and operational ones.

Managerial solutions involve activities related tothe management of each organization.

Engineering solutions involve the design and/orconstruction of the ship.


11/17

Soluţiile de inginerie implică proiectarea şi /

sau construcţia de nave.Soluţiile operaţionale implică dezvoltarea şiintroducerea de proceduri adecvate pentruefectuarea sarcinilor "de risc-critice", precum şi

îmbunătăţirea eficienţei personalului in cadrulacestor sarcini.

Rezultatele evaluării riscului stau la bazagestionării riscurilor, pentru adoptarea de măsuride control a riscului, de prevenire şi reducere înoperarea navelor pe mare, în scopul de a

îmbunătăţi siguranţa în transportul de produsepetroliere. Pe baza evaluării riscurilor pot fi luate

decizii mult mai în cunoştinţă de cauză pentru aajuta la reducerea probabilităţii si severităţiideversărilor de petrol viitoare. Acest lucru este, defapt, scopul evaluării riscurilor.

Atât riscurile istorice cât şi riscurile recentidentificate (de la etapele 1 şi 2), ar trebui să fieluate în considerare, obţinând o gamă largă demăsuri de control a riscurilor.

Managementul riscurilor trebuie să răspundă la următoarele întrebări: ce măsuri sunt necesarepentru a reduce riscurile, care sunt diferiteleopţiuni, care implică diferite combinaţii desiguranţă şi de cheltuieli ce ar trebui să fieselectate, cât de mult ar trebui să se investească în

îmbunătăţirea siguranţei.Măsurile adoptate de managementul riscurilor

sunt luate în considerare prin nivelul de risc. Încazul în care riscurile sunt considerate acceptabiledin punct de vedere tehnic şi social, atunci altemăsuri de control a riscurilor, nu vor fi necesare.Cu toate acestea, este esenţial să se dezvolteprograme de monitorizare a situaţiei, astfel încât să nu se deterioreze pe o perioadă de timp. Auditurile

de securitate se numără printre instrumenteleutilizate în acest scop. Pentru riscurile consideratetolerabile, în funcţie de criteriile de risc, estepractic să se identifice măsurile de reducere ariscurilor, pe baza celor mai moderne practici,astfel încât acestea să se găsească într-o gamă careeste considerată acceptată. În cazul în care riscuriledepăşesc criteriul maxim tolerabil, atunci trebuieluate măsuri pentru a le face tolerabile; altfeloperaţiunile care au generat aceste riscuri trebuiesă înceteze.

Managementul riscului oferă posibilitatea de a

Operational solutions involve the development

and introduction of appropriate procedures forcarrying out “risk-critical” tasks, as well asimproving the effectiveness of personnel in thesetasks.

Risk assessment results stay on base of riskmanagement, to the adoption of measures for riskcontrol, prevention and reduction in operating shipsat sea, in order to improve safety in transportationof petroleum products. Based on risk assessmentmore informed decisions can be taken to helpreduce the probability and severity of future oilspills. This is, in fact, the aim of assessing risk.

Both historical risks and newly identified risks(from steps 1 and 2) should be considered,producing a wide range of risk control measures.

Risk management must respond to thequestions: what measures are necessary to reducethe risks; which of various options, involvingdifferent combinations of safety and expenditureshould be selected; how much should be invested inimproving the safety.

The adopted measures by risk management aretaken into account by risk level. If the risks areconsidered to be technically and socially acceptable,then further risk control measures will be notrequired. However, it is then essential to developprograms to monitor the situation so that it does notdeteriorate over a period of time. Safety audits areamong the tools used for this purpose. For risksconsidered tolerable, according to the risk criteria, itis practical to identify risk reduction measures,based on most modern practice, so that they arefound in a range that is considered accepted. If therisks exceed the maximum tolerable criterion, thenmeasures must be taken to make them tolerable;

otherwise the operations which generated theserisks must cease.The risk management offers the possibility to

identify the most appropriate and effective riskmeasures so that they are reduced to a level atwhich they are “reasonably practicable”. The riskmanagement requires a systematic evaluation of theidentified risks and of control and reduction riskmeasures. The risk can be reduced by activepreventative measures (mainly aimed at reducingthe likelihood of accidents) and active mitigationand control measures (mainly aimed at reduction the


12/17

identifica măsurile cele mai adecvate şi eficiente

de risc, astfel încât acestea sunt reduse la un nivella care sunt "rezonabil practicabile".Managementul riscului necesită o evaluaresistematică a riscurilor identificate şi a măsurilorde control şi de reducere a riscurilor. Riscul poatefi redus prin măsuri preventive (obiectivulprincipal de reducere a probabilităţii de accidente)şi de măsuri active de atenuare şi de control (înspecial pentru reducerea consecinţeloraccidentelor). Pentru petrolierele existente,accentul se pune pe controlul riscului şi adoptareamăsurilor de reducere a acestuia. Pentru noile

modele, accentul se pune pe abordarea proiectăriinavelor tanc raţional, prin integrarea analizei derisc în procesul de proiectare, evaluarea risculuisistematic folosind principii şi abordândprevenirea//reducerea riscului de poluare prinmijloace active şi pasive.

Măsurile de reducere a riscurilor (RCM) artrebui să vizeze în general una sau mai multe dinurmătoarele aspecte:-reducerea frecvenţei eşuărilor printr-o mai bună proiectare a tancurilor, proceduri mai bune labordul navei, o mai bună organizare, politici maibune, pregătire mai bună, practici de operare maibune, tehnologii şi practici mai bune, sisteme maibune de detectare, sisteme de protecţie mai bune şitehnici de luptă mai bune;-reducerea efectului eşuărilor, pentru a preveniaccidentele;-atenuarea circumstanţelor în care pot aparedefecţiuni;-reducerea consecinţelor accidentelor.

Pentru a identifica noile măsuri de reducere ariscurilor RCM sunt utilizate de obicei tehnici de

atac structurate. Aceste tehnici pot încurajadezvoltarea unor măsuri adecvate şi includeatribute de risc şi lanţuri cauzale. Atributele de riscse referă la modul în care o măsură ar puteacontrola un risc, şi lanţurle cauzale se referă lacazul în care, în secvenţa "inţierea evenimentuluipentru fatalitate", controlul riscurilor poate fiintrodus.

Scopul de atribuire a atributelor este de afacilita un proces de gândire structurat pentru a

înţelege modul în care lucrează o măsură dereducere a riscului (RCM ), cum se aplică şi cum

consequences of accidents). For existing tankers,

the focus is to control risk and adopting itsreduction measures. For new designs, the focus is toapproach the design of tankers rationally byintegrating risk analysis into the design process,assessing risk systematically using firs-principlesand addressing prevention/reduction of pollutionrisk by passive and active means.

Risk control measures (RCMs) should in generalbe aimed at one or more of the following:

-reducing the frequency of failures throughbetter tanker design, onboard procedures,organizational, polices, training, operating practices,

guidelines, technologies and practices, detectionsystems, protection systems and fightingtechniques;

-mitigating the effect of failures, in order toprevent accidents;

-alleviating the circumstances in whichfailures may occur;

-mitigating the consequences of accidents.To identify new RCMs for risks structured

review techniques are typically used. Thesetechniques may encourage the development ofappropriate measures and include risk attributes andcausal chains. Risk attributes relate to how ameasure might control a risk, and causal chainsrelate to where, in the "initiating event to fatality"sequence, risk control can be introduced.

The purpose of assigning attributes is to facilitatea structured thought process to understand how anRCM works, how it is applied and how it wouldoperate.

2.4. Evaluation of alternative prevention, protection

and mitigation measures. Cost-benefit assessment of

the options

Selected RCMs must also be cost-effective(attractive) so that the benefit gained will be greaterthan the financial loss incurred as a result of theadoption.

The purpose of this step is to identify andcompare benefits and costs associated with theimplementation of each RCO identified and definedprevious.

Each potentially option of risk reduction isevaluated both its contribution to risk reduction as


13/17

va funcţiona.

2.4. Evaluarea alternativelor de prevenire,

protec ţ ie şi măsuri de atenuare. Analiza cost-

beneficiu de evaluare a op ţ iunilor

Măsurile RCM selectate trebuie să fie, deasemenea, atractive din punct de vedere aleficienţei costurilor, astfel încât beneficiul obţinutva fi mai mare decât pierderile financiare suferiteca urmare a adoptării.

Scopul acestui pas este de a identifica şicompara beneficiile şi costurile asociate cu

punerea în aplicare a fiecărei RCO identificate şidefinite anterior.

Fiecare opţiune potenţială de reducere ariscului este evaluată atât din punct de vedere acontribuţiei sale la reducerea riscului cât şi dinpunct de vedere al beneficiilor opţiunii şi acosturile punerii în aplicare. Se efectuează analizacost-beneficiu a opţiunilor şi, astfel, se decide careopţiune trebuie selectată şi pusă în aplicare.

Criteriile cost-beneficiu definesc punctul de lacare beneficiile unei opţiuni de control a riscurilorau o pondere mai mare decât costurile sale, şi, prinurmare, arată dacă RCO este necesar a faceriscurile " aşa de mici încât să devină rezonabilpracticabile" (ALARP). O reprezentare grafică aprincipiului ALARP este prezentată în Fig. 4.

Costurile sunt exprimate în termeni de costuriale ciclului de viaţă şi pot include iniţial, costuri deoperare, de formare, de inspecţie şi certificare, etc.

Fig.4 Principiul ALARP

Beneficiile pot include reduceri a numărului de

benefits of option and implementation cost. It is

carried out the cost-benefit analysis of the optionsand thus is decided which option must selected andimplemented.

Cost-benefit criteria define the point at which thebenefits of a risk control option outweigh its costs,and hence show whether the RCO is needed tomake the risks “As Low As ReasonablyPracticable” (ALARP). A graphical representationof the ALARP principle is shown in Fig. 4 .

Costs are expressed in terms of life cycle costsand may include initial, operating, training,inspection and certification, decommission etc.

Fig. 4 The ALARP principle

Benefits may include reductions in fatalities,injuries, casualties, environmental damage andclean-up.

The most common approach is to use Cost-Benefit to select the most cost effective safetymeasure from a set of alternatives.

Comparisons of cost effectiveness for RCOsmay be made by calculating some indices: indiceswhich express cost effectiveness in relation to safetyof life, indices based on damage to and affect onproperty and environment.

The evaluation of the above costs and benefitscan be carried out by using various methods andtechniques.

Cost-benefit assessment (CBA) method is an

important decisional support. It takes account of


14/17

decese, vătămări, numărul de victime, daune ale

mediului.Abordarea cea mai comuna este de a utilizaanaliza Cost-Beneficiu pentru a selecta măsura ceamai eficientă din punct de vedere al costuluidintr-un set de alternative.

Comparaţiile din punct de vedere al eficienţeicosturilor pentru RCO poate fi f ăcută princalcularea unor indici: indicii care exprimă eficienţa costurilor, în ceea ce priveşte siguranţavieţii, indicii pe baza daunelor şi care afectează proprietatea şi mediul.

Evaluarea costurilor şi beneficiilor de mai sus

poate fi realizată prin diferite metode şi tehnici.Metoda de evaluare Cost-beneficiu (CBA), este

un important punct de sprijin decizional. Acesta ia în considerare doi dintre cei mai importanţi factori în multe decizii privind măsurile de siguranţă, şianume costul şi siguranţa. Se face analiza acestorfactori în mod explicit.

Succesul analizei cost-beneficiu depinde deidentificarea corectă a opţiunilor adecvate decontrol înainte de analiză. În cazul în care opţiunilede control a riscurilor sunt prost concepute, f ără ocalculare adecvată pentru cea mai bună tehnologiesau cea mai bună practică, atunci este inevitabil camulte dintre opţiuni să aibă un raport cost-beneficiu relativ slab, şi toate ar putea fi respinseca fiind nefezabile.

2.5. Luarea deciziilor

Ultimul pas al FSA este "luarea deciziei",care are drept scop să ofere recomandări şi luareadeciziilor pentru îmbunătăţirea siguranţei, luând înconsiderare concluziile din cadrul întregului

proces. Astfel, piesele de informaţii generate întoate cele patru etape anterioare sunt utilizate înselectarea opţiunilor de control a riscului, carecombină cel mai bine eficienţa costurilor şi oreducere acceptabilă a riscului, în conformitate cucriteriile "de risc" stabilite, de către autorităţile dereglementare.

Rezultatele din analiza de control a riscurilor,măsurile de prevenire şi de reducere sunt baza derecomandare pentru organele de decizie şi dereglementare pentru a aduce riscul la cel mai micnivel posibil.

two of the most important factors in many decisions

on safety measures, namely cost and safety. Itmakes the analysis of these factors explicit.The benefit/cost analysis’ success depends on the

correct identification of suitable control optionsprior to the analysis. If the risk control options arepoorly conceived, without adequate accounting forbest technology or best practice, then it is inevitablethat many of the options will have relatively poorbenefit/cost ratios, and all might then be rejected asinfeasible.

2.5. Decision making

The final step of FSA is “decision making”,which aims at giving recommendations and makingdecisions for safety improvement taking intoconsideration the findings during the whole process.Thus the pieces of information generated in all fourprevious steps are used in selecting the risk controloption which best combines cost effectiveness andan acceptable risk reduction, according to the set“risk criteria” by the regulators.

Results from analysis of risk control, preventionand reduction measures are the basis for

recommendation for decision-making bodies andregulators to bring risk to the lowest possible level.The formulated recommendations would be basedupon the comparison and ranking of all hazards andtheir underlying causes; the comparison and rankingof risk control options as a function of associatedcosts and benefits; and the identification of thoserisk control options which keep risks as low asreasonably practicable. They will take inconsideration the areas where legislation or rulesshould be reviewed or develop, so that the safety atsea increase.

Adoption of risk management throughout thelife cycle of ship, design and operation, can providethe best practices for reducing risks in the maritimetransport of petroleum products.

3. CONCLUSIONS

The current level of risk of tankers in the BlackSea is low, but it should not be neglected due to thesevere consequences of marine accidentsaccompanied by massive oil spills for the

environment.


15/17

Recomandările formulate ar trebui să se bazeze

pe compararea şi ierarhizarea tuturor pericolelor şia cauzelor lor; compararea şi clasificarea opţiunilorde control a riscurilor în funcţie de costurile şibeneficiile aferente; precum şi identificarea acestoracelor opţiuni de control a riscurilor, care menţinriscurile la un nivel cât mai scăzut rezonabilposibil. Ele vor lua în considerare domeniile încare legislaţia sau normele ar trebui să fie revizuitesau dezvoltate, astfel încât siguranţa pe mare să crească.

Adoptarea managementui riscului peparcursul ciclului de viaţă al navei, proiectare şi

funcţionare, poate oferi cele mai bune practici dereducere a riscurilor în transportul maritim deproduse petroliere.

3. CONCLUZII

Nivelul actual de risc al petrolierelor din MareaNeagră este mic, dar nu ar trebui să fie neglijat,datorită consecinţelor grave ale accidentelormarine, însoţite de scurgeri de petrol masive pentrumediul înconjurător.

Consecinţele accidentelor marine, însoţite dedeversări de petrol sunt severe şi sunt orientate petrei direcţii: pierderea de vieţi omeneşti, rănirigrave, pierderea proprietăţii şi de deteriorare amediului. Definirea gradului de acceptabilitate aldezastrelor marine este dificilă datorită consecinţelor şi a factorilor care au influenţatgravitatea lor.

Evaluarea riscurilor permite identificarea noilormăsuri de control, de prevenire şi reducere ariscului în operarea navelor pe mare, cu scopul dea îmbunătăţi siguranţa în transportul de produse

petroliere.Cele mai bune măsuri de prevenire şi reducere ariscului la nivelul ALARP sunt stabilite pe bazaanalizei cost-beneficiu. Ele sunt recomandatepentru luarea deciziilor organelor de decizie şiautorităţilor de reglementare din domeniul naval.

REFERENCES

Andreassen E., Kristoffersen L., Spouge J., Torhaug R.,2001, Development of Classification Rules UsingFormal Safety Assessment to Prevent Collision and

Grounding,2nd International Conference Collision

The consequences of marine accidents

accompanied by oil spills are severe and areorientated on three directions: loss of lives, seriousinjuries, loss of property and damage to theenvironment. Defining the acceptability of marinedisasters is difficult due to several consequence andfactors which influenced their severity.

Risk assessment permits to identify newmeasures for risk control, prevention and reductionin operating ships at sea, in order to improve safetyin transportation of petroleum products.

The best prevention and reduce measure of risk tothe ALARP level are established based on cost-

benefit analysis. They are recommended fordecision-making bodies and regulators from navalfield.

REFERENCES

Andreassen E., Kristoffersen L., Spouge J., Torhaug R., 2001, Development of Classification Rules Using Formal Safety Assessment to Prevent Collision and

Grounding,2nd International Conference Collision and Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen

Aksu S., Vassalos D., Tuzcu C., Mikelis N., Swift P.,2004, A risk-based design methodology for pollution

prevention and control, RINA InternationalConference on Design and Operation of Double HullTankers, London, vol.1, p. 170

Bătrânca Gh., 2007, Risk assessment . In: Ship-ShoreInterface safe working practices, Nautical Press,

Constanţa, p. 70-81Eliopoulou E., Papanikolaou, A., Hamann R., 2008, Risk

analysis of large tankers. Technical report , 2th International Workshop on Risk Based Approaches In the Maritime Industry, p.1-12

Embankment A., 2002, Guidelines for formal safetyassessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making

process, London SE1SR (MSC/Circ.1023-

MEPC/Circ.392) Gasparotti Carmen, Georgescu L., Mirela Voiculescu,

2008, „Implementing a sea pollution and safety management system in the navigation companies”, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, „Gh. Asachi” Technical University of Iaşi, vol 7, No. 6, pg. 725-729, ISSN 1582-9596, 2008

Hanzu-Pazara, 2007, Risk assessment in marine industry.In: The human errors and the impact on theenvironment (in Romanian), Nautical Press,Constanţa, p. 43-46

Johansson P., O., 1993, Cost –benefit analysis. In: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260087199_Implementing_a_sea_pollution_and_safety_management_system_in_the_navigation_companies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227240899_Casualty_analysis_of_large_tankers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279373_Development_of_Classification_Rules_Using_Formal_Safety_Assessment_to_Prevent_Collision_and_Grounding?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-656eca69-65de-41b8-a1f1-69d625f23abc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDA4NTY1NTtBUzoxMDE2MjcwMjk2MjI3ODhAMTQwMTI0MTE4MDQ0MQ==


16/17

and Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen

Aksu S., Vassalos D., Tuzcu C., Mikelis N., Swift P.,2004, A risk-based design methodology for pollution prevention and control, RINAInternational Conference on Design and Operationof Double Hull Tankers, London, vol.1, p. 170

Bătrânca Gh., 2007, Risk assessment . In: Ship-ShoreInterface safe working practices, Nautical Press,

Constanţa, p. 70-81Eliopoulou E., Papanikolaou, A., Hamann R., 2008,

Risk analysis of large tankers. Technical report , 2th International Workshop on Risk BasedApproaches In the Maritime Industry, p.1-12

Embankment A., 2002, Guidelines for formal safety

assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process, London SE1SR (MSC/Circ.1023-MEPC/Circ.392)

Gasparotti Carmen, Georgescu L., Mirela Voiculescu,2008, „Implementing a sea pollution and safetymanagement system in the navigation companies”, Environmental Engineering and ManagementJournal, „Gh. Asachi” Technical University of Iaşi,vol 7, No. 6, pg. 725-729, ISSN 1582-9596, 2008

Hanzu-Pazara, 2007, Risk assessment in marineindustry. In: The human errors and the impact onthe environment (in Romanian), Nautical Press,Constanţa, p. 43-46

Johansson P., O., 1993, Cost –benefit analysis. In:Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.121-137

Kuo C., 1998, Managing ship safety. London: LLPLois P.,Wang J.,Wall A., Ruxton T., 2004, Formal

safety assessment of cruise ships, TourismManagement 25, p. 93–109

Peachey, J.H, 1999, . Managing risk through legislation,managing risk in shipping. A Practical Guide(pp.93–100). London: The Nautical Institute’sPublication

Wang J., Foinikis P., 2001, Formal safety assessment ofcontainerships, Marine Policy 25, p. 143-157

Wang J, Pillay A,Wall A,Ruxton T., 1999, The latestdevelopment in ship safety assessment. Proceedingof the Fourth International Conference onReliability, Maintainability and Safety(ICRMS'99), Shanghai, China, May, p. 711-719.

***Det Norske Veritas, 2002, Marine risk assessment,Offshore Technology Report ,

http://www.hse.gov.uk

***IMO. Resolution MEPC.111(50), 2003, Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978

relating to the International Convention for the

prevention of pollution from ships, 1973 (Amendments to regulation 13G, addition of new

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.121-137

Kuo C., 1998, Managing ship safety. London: LLPLois P.,Wang J.,Wall A., Ruxton T., 2004, Formal safetyassessment of cruise ships, Tourism Management

25, p. 93–109Peachey, J.H, 1999, . Managing risk through legislation,

managing risk in shipping. A Practical Guide(pp.93–100). London: The Nautical Institute’sPublication

Wang J., Foinikis P., 2001, Formal safety assessment ofcontainerships, Marine Policy 25, p. 143-157

Wang J, Pillay A,Wall A,Ruxton T., 1999, The latestdevelopment in ship safety assessment. Proceedingof the Fourth International Conference on

Reliability, Maintainability and Safety (ICRMS'99),Shanghai, China, May, p. 711-719.***Det Norske Veritas, 2002, Marine risk assessment,

Offshore Technology Report , http://www.hse.gov.uk

***IMO. Resolution MEPC.111(50), 2003, Amendmentsto the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the

International Convention for the prevention of

pollution from ships, 1973 (Amendments toregulation 13G, addition of new regulation 13H andconsequential amendments to the IOPP Certificateof Annex I of MARPOL 73/78)

*** IMO, 1997, IMO/MSC Circular 829,interimguidelines for the application of formal safety

assessment to the IMO rule-making process.London: IMO

***ITOPF, 2010, Tanker Oil Spills Statistics, Report onthe activities of the international oil pollution

compensation funds in 2009, The InternationalTanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited http://www.itopf.com/news-and-events/events

***UK MSA, 1993 , Formal safety assessment .Submitted by UK to IMO Marine SafetyCommittee, IMO/MSC 66/14, London


17/17

regulation 13H and consequential amendments to

the IOPP Certificate of Annex I of MARPOL73/78)

*** IMO, 1997, IMO/MSC Circular 829,interimguidelines for the application of formal safety

assessment to the IMO rule-making process.London: IMO

***ITOPF, 2010, Tanker Oil Spills Statistics, Report onthe activities of the international oil pollution

compensation funds in 2009, The InternationalTanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited http://www.itopf.com/news-and-events/events

***UK MSA, 1993 , Formal safety assessment .

Submitted by UK to IMO Marine SafetyCommittee, IMO/MSC 66/14, London

Marine risk assessment methodology_Cluj_2012.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Marine risk assessment methodology_Cluj_2012.pdf