part i. estimated recovery efficiencies in selected cases

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

[email protected]

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


5 3 Collision Gasoline 5000 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%



Planning



OperationalResponse



Logistics


Training &Exercises


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%



Planning



OperationalResponse



Logistics


Training &Exercises


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: [email protected]

and

[email protected]

32

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

part i. estimated recovery efficiencies in selected cases

Documents