part i. estimated recovery efficiencies in selected cases
Post on 28-May-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Part I. Estimated Recovery
Efficiencies in Selected Cases
Part II. Evaluation of the
Preparedness using ARPEL’s
“RETOS” Tool
Fourth Inter-regional Workshop on Risk
Assessment Tools for Pollution Preparedness
and Response
30.10.2018
World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden
Jorma Rytkönen
Finnish Environment Institute
jorma.rytkonen@ymparisto.fi
Contents of the Presentation
2
● Phase 1:
• Scenarios
• Incidents and oil releases
• Theoretical oil recovery capacity of the
Finnish fleet
• Scenarios 1,8 and 9
• Draft Conclusions
● Phase 2. RETOS calculations
• Pålsson’s dissertation – selected cases
• RETOS – evaluator’s competence
• RETOS scopes and levels
• Results and remarks
3
Scenarios
4
Incident scenarios… ID Latitude Longitude Date Type of event ERC-M GT LOA
Env. Hum. Econ. [tonnes] [m]
1 59.78111 20.61028 30.05.2014 Traffic zone violation 5045 125
2 59.71972 19.87833 04.02.2015 Under keel clearance 29683 183
3 60.43528 22.06556 12.11.2015 Drifting 6280 117
4 59.92833 21.59972 18.07.2016 Engine failure 11935 144
5 59.74861 22.79278 04.01.2014 Reporting 29905 183
6 59.74861 22.71806 18.12.2016 Near collision 57301 244
7 60.20306 25.59694 09.10.2016 Under keel clearance 64259 252
8 60.06694 25.41194 10.06.2016 Near collision 11793 145
9 60.09806 26.08639 12.06.2015 Traffic zone violation 62404 249
10 60.48444 26.95000 28.05.2015 Engine failure 6572 125
Notes: Env.: Environmental consequences as per ERC-M, Hum.: Human losses as per ERC-M,
Econ.: Economic damages as per ERC-M
5
Oil releases/types of incidents selected….
ID Sea area Accident type
Oil type Spill size Spill duration
[-] [-] [-] [tonnes] [-]
1 1 Collision Diesel 1000 Immediate
2 1 Grounding Light-medium crude 491 Immediate
3 2 Grounding Gasoline 210 Immediate
4 2 Grounding Light-medium crude 829 Immediate
5 3 Collision Gasoline 5000 Immediate
6 3 Collision Diesel 12500 Immediate
7 4 Grounding Light-medium crude 5451 Immediate
8 4 Collision Diesel 12500 Immediate
9 5 Collision Light-medium crude 20000 Immediate
10
5 Grounding Gasoline 150 Immediate
6
Theoretical recovery capacities VESSEL'S
NAME
LENGTH
[m]
SWEEPIN
G
WIDTH [m]
BRUSHES
[number/cm
]
WIDTH OF
BRUSHES
[cm]
TANK
CAPACITY
[m³]
SWEEPING
AREA
[km2/ 12h]
RECOVERY
RATE
[m³/h]
MAX
LIFTING
CAPACITY
OF
BRUSHES
[m³/h]
Halli 60,5 40 18/338 338 1400 1,8 74 108
Hylje 64,3 35 16/300 300 900 1,6 65 96
Kummeli 28,2 25 10/188 188 70 1,1 46 60
Letto 42,7 30 2x110 220 42,7 1,3 56 73
Linja 34,9 23 2x100 200 77,4 1,0 43 67
Louhi 71,4 42 30 n/a 1200 1,9 78 180
Merikarhu 58 32 2x136 272 40 1,4 59 91
Oili I 24,5 21 10/188 188 80 0,9 39 60
Oili II 24,5 21 10/188 188 80 0,9 39 60
Oili III 24,5 21 10/188 188 80 0,9 39 60
Oili IV 19 19 10/188 188 30 0,8 35 60
Otava 34,9 25 8/71 71 100 1,1 46 48
Polaris 100 52 40 0 1200 2,3 97 180
Seili 50,5 30 12/225 225 196 1,3 56 72
Sektori 33 25 10/188 188 108 1,1 46 60
Stella 33 25 8/71 71 100 1,1 47 48
Svärtan 24 21 n/a n/a 52 0,9 39 50
Tursas 61,45 30 12/225 225 100 1,3 56 72
Turva 95,9 45 0 0 1200 2,0 84 180
Total 7056 25,0 1043 1625
Scenario 1
7
● Scenario 1 corresponds the case where
oil product tanker after a traffic zone
violation collided resulting diesel oil
outflow of 1 000 ton.
● Weather conditions are based on the
30.5.2015 situation when wind was
blowing smoothly 5 m/s from North-
East (wind direction 035o)
8
Scenario 1
Recovery ship /
estimated recovery
rate [m3/h] and
storage tank [m3]
Sailing
time to
the area
Recovered amount of oil recovery rate
[m3/h] /recovered amount per day[m3]
1 day 2 day 3 day
Total [theoretical
without breaks, 3
days
TURVA/ 1000 9 h 5/150 3/ 72 2/48 270
HYLJE/ 900 15 h 10/90 5/120 3/72 282
KBV/ 200 24 h -………………… 5/120…………… 2/48 168
KBV /1000 24 h - 5/120…………… 2/48 168
888 m3
Loss through evaporation
(Fingas 2000)
9
Scenario 8; Diesel oil 12 500 m3
10
Scenario 8 – one possible trajectory
11
Scenario 8
12
Scenario 9 – 20 000m3 crude oil release
13
Scenario 9 – recovery fleet
14
Draft Conclusions
MT Propontis accident 2/2007 Jorm
a R
ytk
önen
15
Accident site
Largest Oil Combating Exercise BALEX DELTA in August
2012 – MT Kyeema Spirit grounding, Monday 8 October at
6.55am close to Muuga Port, Estonia
Jorm
a R
ytk
önen
A
B
Anchor was failed
(A), and ship was
dragged by the
17…20 m/s north-
east wind and
grounded (B)
16
Jorm
a R
ytk
önen
17
November 7, 2012 – Maersk Hakone arrived to Muuga
Port – 330 x 60 m VLCC carrier – was idling a couple of
days due to the hard wind – 12th November in port -
loading (??)
Jorm
a R
ytk
önen
18
Case MT LOVINA 20.10.2012
Note: MT Propontis’
accident 2/2007 !!
Near-miss site
Jorma Rytkönen
Finnish Environment Institute
Phase 2: Evaluation of the Finnish Preparedness using ”RETOS” tool
20
Pålsson’s dissertation: Oil spill preparedness in Sweden :
prevention, planning, and response for large accidents. 2016 WMU
RETOS – evaluator’s competence requirements
21
● Actual oil spill response experience
● Knowledge of spill contingency plan development and
current response practices
● Current, up-to-date knowledge of applicable regulations
● Knowledge of OSR strategies, tactics, and techniques
● Sound understanding of the 2008 IOSC Guideline
● Understanding of best practices for type of operations
covered by the selected OSR program Scope
● Familiarity and access to OSR manuals and reference
materials
● Trained in purpose and use of tool
● Team approach. For assessments at Levels B and C is
particularly important to count with multiple specialists
developing the evaluation together.
RETOS – Scopes /Assessment Levels
22
● Government or Industry
• - Facility
• - Facility Asset /Operator
● Government
• - Port /City / Local
• - Area
• - National & Multinational
● Industry
• - Country or Business line
• - Corporate
● Level A: Achieving preparedness at this level indicates all
components are in place to a minimum level, which provides
a reasonable OSR management capacity. Contingency plans
are in place, approved, and fully implemented.
● Level B: Achieving this level applies to programs that have
been implemented to more rigorous levels and reflects
performance gains from earlier feedback and use of
evaluation process for improvement and sustained
management capability.
● Level C: Achieving the highest level reflects programs in
search of excellence. These are programs that consistently
implement feedback in improving sustained readiness through
application of best international practices in OSR concepts,
management, planning, and competency.
RETOS – Level A
23
RETOS – Level B
24
RETOS – Level C
25
26
Retos estimates – LEVEL A results 2
9.1
0.201
8 TH
E NA
ME O
F THE P
RESEN
TER, SYK
E
Global Performance Analysis Results
Category Value
Legislation, Regulations, Agreements 100 %
Oil Spill Contingency Planning 71 %
Response Coordination 100 %
Health, Safety & Security 100 %
Operational Response 94 %
Tracking, Assessment & Information Management 100 %
Logistics 100 %
Financial & Administrative Considerations 83 %
Training & Exercises 88 %
Sustainability & Improvements 75 %
Total 88 %
Institution Specific Criteria N/A
27
Retos estimates – LEVEL A results; #Completed / Number of questions: 56/ 68
29
.10
.2018
THE N
AM
E OF TH
E PR
ESENTER
, SYKE
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Legislation,Regulations,Agreements
Oil SpillContingency
Planning
ResponseCoordination
Health, Safety &Security
OperationalResponse
Tracking,Assessment &
InformationManagement
Logistics
Financial &AdministrativeConsiderations
Training &Exercises
Sustainability &Improvements
Level A Results with No Weighting
RETOS estimates: LEVEL C results
28
29
.10
.2018
THE N
AM
E OF TH
E PR
ESENTER
, SYKE
Global Performance Analysis Results
Category Value
Legislation, Regulations, Agreements 100 %
Oil Spill Contingency Planning 77 %
Response Coordination 82 %
Health, Safety & Security 100 %
Operational Response 78 %
Tracking, Assessment & Information Management 100 %
Logistics 92 %
Financial & Administrative Considerations 93 %
Training & Exercises 79 %
Sustainability & Improvements 82 %
Total 84 %
Institution Specific Criteria N/A
RETOS estimates: LEVEL C results; #Completed / Number of questions: 159/ 211
29
29
.10
.2018
THE N
AM
E OF TH
E PR
ESENTER
, SYKE
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Legislation,Regulations,Agreements
Oil SpillContingency
Planning
ResponseCoordination
Health, Safety &Security
OperationalResponse
Tracking,Assessment &
InformationManagement
Logistics
Financial &AdministrativeConsiderations
Training &Exercises
Sustainability &Improvements
Level C Results with No Weighting
RETOS estimates: left-hand side (OpenRisk); right-hand
Jonas Pålsson’s dissertation
30
29
.10
.2018
THE N
AM
E OF TH
E PR
ESENTER
, SYKE
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Legislation,Regulations,Agreements
Oil SpillContingency
Planning
ResponseCoordination
Health, Safety &Security
OperationalResponse
Tracking,Assessment &
InformationManagement
Logistics
Financial &AdministrativeConsiderations
Training &Exercises
Sustainability &Improvements
Level C Results with No Weighting
Pålsson’s estimate 2016 !
Retos – LEVEL C – some remarks !
31
Mechanical recovery, treating agents (including
dispersants), and in-situ burning are included in the
equipment inventories.
in situ burning/dispersnats/herding
agrnts not in the tool box
Equipment inspections and evaluations are performed
on a scheduled basis in relation to Best Available
Technology criteria and the database updated
accordingly.
need to be improved !!
Equipment locations are identified, secured, and
distributed to allow response within defined
mobilization and transit times to key spill risk locations
from possible staging areas.
need to be improved !!
Operational Response Spill risk areas re-assessed regularly. need to be done !!
Risk-based approach is used to define priority areas of
potential spills based on operations, volumes, and
environmental factors.
we have risk based approaches and
results but are not using them
effectively
Risk-based approach includes mapping and list of
species of concern.
Priority planning is focused on areas of high-risk and
environmental sensitivity.
Trajectories consider prevailing and worst-case
operating conditions.
no systematic procedures - cases made
to BORIS system (library)
Graphics indicate species at risk. university R&D, not our system ??
Stochastic and worst-case trajectories shown in
scenarios are basis for response planning.
shold be enhanced this part - OpenRisk
post-evaluation
Oil Spill Contingency Planning
More Information: jorma.rytkonen@ymparisto.fi
and
jani.hakkinen@ymparisto.fi
32
top related