Part I. Estimated Recovery Efficiencies in Selected Cases Part II. Evaluation of the Preparedness using ARPEL s RETOS Tool

Transcription

1 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 World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden Jorma Rytkönen Finnish Environment Institute jorma.rytkonen@ymparisto.fi

2 Contents of the Presentation 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 2

3 Scenarios 3

4 Incident scenarios ID Latitude Longitude Date Type of event ERC-M GT LOA Env. Hum. Econ. [tonnes] [m] Notes: Env.: Environmental consequences as per ERC-M, Hum.: Human losses as per ERC-M, Econ.: Economic damages as per ERC-M Traffic zone violation Under keel clearance Drifting Engine failure Reporting Near collision Under keel clearance Near collision Traffic zone violation Engine failure

5 Oil releases/types of incidents selected. ID Sea area Accident Oil type Spill size Spill duration type [-] [-] [-] [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 Immediate 7 4 Grounding Light-medium crude 5451 Immediate 8 4 Collision Diesel Immediate 9 5 Collision Light-medium crude Immediate Grounding Gasoline 150 Immediate 5

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 [km 2 / 12h] RECOVERY RATE [m³/h] Halli 60, / , Hylje 64, / , Kummeli 28, / , Letto 42,7 30 2x ,7 1, Linja 34,9 23 2x ,4 1, Louhi 71, n/a , Merikarhu x , Oili I 24, / , Oili II 24, / , Oili III 24, / , Oili IV / , Otava 34,9 25 8/ , Polaris , Seili 50, / , Sektori / , Stella / , Svärtan n/a n/a 52 0, Tursas 61, / , Turva 95, , Total , MAX LIFTING CAPACITY OF BRUSHES [m³/h] 6

7 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 corresponds the case where oil product tanker after a traffic zone violation collided resulting diesel oil outflow of ton. Weather conditions are based on the situation when wind was blowing smoothly 5 m/s from North- East (wind direction 035o) 7

8 Scenario 1 Recovery ship / estimated recovery rate [m 3 /h] and storage tank [m 3 ] Sailing time to the area Recovered amount of oil recovery rate [m3/h] /recovered amount per day[m 3 ] 1 day 2 day 3 day TURVA/ h 5/150 3/ 72 2/ HYLJE/ h 10/90 5/120 3/ KBV/ h - 5/120 2/ KBV / h - 5/120 2/ m 3 Total [theoretical without breaks, 3 days Loss through evaporation 8 (Fingas 2000)

9 Scenario 8; Diesel oil m3 9

10 Scenario 8 one possible trajectory 10

11 Scenario 8 11

12 Scenario m3 crude oil release 12

13 Scenario 9 recovery fleet 13

14 Draft Conclusions 14

15 Jorma Rytkönen MT Propontis accident 2/2007 Accident site 15

16 Jorma Rytkönen Largest Oil Combating Exercise BALEX DELTA in August 2012 MT Kyeema Spirit grounding, Monday 8 October at 6.55am close to Muuga Port, Estonia B A Anchor was failed (A), and ship was dragged by the m/s northeast wind and 16

17 Jorma Rytkönen 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 (??) 17

18 Jorma Rytkönen Case MT LOVINA Near-miss site Note: MT Propontis accident 2/2007!! 18

19 Phase 2: Evaluation of the Finnish Preparedness using RETOS tool Jorma Rytkönen Finnish Environment Institute

20 Pålsson s dissertation: Oil spill preparedness in Sweden : prevention, planning, and response for large accidents WMU 20

21 RETOS evaluator s competence requirements 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. 21

22 RETOS Scopes /Assessment Levels 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, 22 management, planning, and competency.

23 RETOS Level A 23

24 RETOS Level B 24

25 RETOS Level C 25

26 Retos estimates LEVEL A results 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 THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE

27 Retos estimates LEVEL A results; #Completed / Number of questions: 56/ 68 Level A Results with No Weighting Financial & Administrative Considerations Sustainability & Improvements Training & Exercises Legislation, Regulations, Agreements 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Oil Spill Contingency Planning Response Coordination Health, Safety & Security THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE Logistics Operational Response Tracking, Assessment & Information 27

28 RETOS estimates: LEVEL C results 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 % THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE Total 84 % 28 Institution Specific Criteria N/A

29 RETOS estimates: LEVEL C results; #Completed / Number of questions: 159/ 211 Level C Results with No Weighting Sustainability & Improvements Training & Exercises Financial & Administrative Considerations Logistics Legislation, Regulations, Agreements 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Tracking, Assessment & Information Management Oil Spill Contingency Planning Operational Response Response Coordination Health, Safety & Security THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE

30 RETOS estimates: left-hand side (OpenRisk); right-hand Jonas Pålsson s dissertation Level C Results with No Weighting Sustainability & Improvements Training & Exercises Financial & Administrative Considerations Legislation, Regulations, Agreements 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Oil Spill Contingency Planning Response Coordination Health, Safety & Security THE NAME OF THE PRESENTER, SYKE Logistics Operational Response Tracking, Assessment & Information Management Pålsson s estimate 2016! 30

31 Retos LEVEL C some remarks! Oil Spill Contingency Planning Spill risk areas re-assessed regularly. need to be done!! Operational Response Risk-based approach is used to define priority areas of potential spills based on operations, volumes, and environmental factors. 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. we have risk based approaches and results but are not using them effectively no systematic procedures - cases made to BORIS system (library) Graphics indicate species at risk. university R&D, not our system?? Mechanical recovery, treating agents (including dispersants), and in-situ burning are included in the equipment inventories. Equipment inspections and evaluations are performed on a scheduled basis in relation to Best Available Technology criteria and the database updated accordingly. 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. in situ burning/dispersnats/herding agrnts not in the tool box need to be improved!! need to be improved!! Stochastic and worst-case trajectories shown in scenarios are basis for response planning. shold be enhanced this part - OpenRisk post-evaluation 31

32 More Information: and 32