Briefing toKenai Peninsula Borough

February 19, 2013

• What is a Risk Assessment?

• Study Results• Risk Reduction

Options• 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 Scope

Substances• Oil– Cargo, Crude Oil or Refined Product– Fuel, Bunkers

Project Scope

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

Project Scope

Accident Types• Collisions• Allisions• Powered Groundings• Drift Groundings• Foundering

• Structural Failures• Mooring Failures• Fires

Project Scope

Geographic Region

Organization

Management Team

– Mike Munger, CIRCAC– Steve Russell, ADEC– Captain Paul Mehler, 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 Users

Tasks Completed

• Vessel Traffic Study

• Baseline Accident and Spill Study

• Consequence Analysis Study

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 Baseline & 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 Baseline & Causality Study

• Analyzed vessel casualty/spill incidents

• Analyzed casualty/spill causes

• Analyzed potential spill volumes

• Determined most likely scenarios

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.

Consequence Analysis

• Workshop was held in Anchorage Oct 30 & 31

Consequence Analysis

• Based on Expert Judgment

• Considered 7 spill scenarios

• Characterized likely impacts

Consequence Analysis

Environmental • Habitat• Fish• Birds• Mammals

Socioeconomic• Subsistence• Commercial Fishing• Recreation and Tourism• General Commerce• Oil Industry Operations

Impacts Considered

Consequence Analysis

• Both persistent and non-persistent oil spill scenarios were evaluated

• The conclusion were that even moderate size spills (~100 bbl) can have significant impacts

• Over 40 people attended the Workshop• Workshop report was posted for public review

and is being finalized.

Risk Reduction Options

Indentify Potential Risk Reduction Options

Risk Reduction Options

• Some potential Risk Reduction Options have already been identified

• We want to consider the broadest array of options, so we are asking anyone with a idea to submit it for consideration

Risk Reduction Options

• The Advisory Panel will meet Friday February 22nd to consider Risk Reductions Options

• The most promising ones will be evaluated for possible recommendation for implementation by the Advisory Panel

Risk Reduction Options

• The evaluation process will consider– Estimating costs and benefits

– Evaluating ease of implementation

– Considering Un-intended consequences

• Based on these evaluations the Advisory Panel will prioritize and make final recommendations in their Final Report

www.cookinletriskassessment.com

Questions?