Chemical tanker spill risk

Transcription

1 Chemical tanker spill risk Otto Sormunen Aalto University Marine Technology Maritime Safety Group

2 Content Overview Collisions Frequency Spills Groundings Frequency Spills Effects of ice Risk control options Recovery vessels Velocity reduction Double hull changes Route changing Traffic Analysis x x x x Vessel Modeling x x x x Open Water x x x Collision Model Ice Conditions x x x x Open Water x x x x Grounding Model Ice Conditions x x x Collision x x x Damage Model Grounding x x x Chemical Outflow Model x x Risk Mitigating Proposals x x x x x Reporting x x Final Report x x 31-34

3 Formal Safety Assessment

4 Baltic Sea & Gulf of Finland conditions Marinetraffic.com Shallow waters Slow water circulation Archipelago Ice cover IMO: Particularly sensitive sea area Heavy traffic Oil traffic from Russia

5 HELCOM Baltic Sea crossings Year Baltic crosssings total Change Passen ger Cargo Tanker Other Unknown ,3 % ,8 % ,2 % ,6 % ,9 %

6 Gulf of Finland maritime traffic Ships entering and exiting GoF Composition: Year Total Change N_passenger N_cargo N_tanker N_other N_unknow n ,0 % Harsh ,8 % Average ,3 % Mild Ice ,4 % Very mild ,6 % Mild Average

7 GoF traffic 2010 cargo Mt 2010 oil Mt 2010 cargo total Mt Finnish ports Sköldvik Kotka Helsinki Hamina Hanko Other Finnish ports (GoF) Sum Russian ports Primorsk St Petersburg Vysotsk+Vyborg Ust-Luga Sum Estonian ports Muuga (Port of Tallinn)* Paldiski (Port of Tallinn)* Sillamäe Vanasadam Kunda Vene-Balti Bekker Miiduranna Paljassaare (Port of Tallinn)* Sum Total

8 Accidents Gulf of Finland statistics Reported accidents by ship- and accident type (Kujala, et al., 2009, p. 1350)

9 Baltic Sea Collisions and groundings in the Baltic Sea from HELCOM data Collisions Groundings

10 Accidents Gulf of Finland (DAMA-database) HELCOM % 1 % 0 % 0 % 4 % 1 % 4 % 5 % Grounding Ship-ship collisions % 11 % 48 % 10 Coll. w. bridge or quay 8 Coll. w. a floating object 6 Fire, explosion 4 GoF collisions GoF groundings 20 % Machinery damage Sinkings 2 0

11 Causes HELCOM (Baltic Sea) Human factor Techni cal Externa l Other No information % 22 % 17 % 5 % 6 % % 20 % 9 % 5 % 36 % % 20 % 15 % 8 % 5 % % 13 % 18 % 7 % 15 % % 20 % 12 % 4 % 32 % % 15 % 9 % 5 % 35 % % 23 % 5 % 23%* 7 % % 21 % 5 % 10 % 19 % * includes cases where multiple factors were the cause Baltic sea HELCOM Groundings Pilot =1 Pilot = 0 Pilot = n.i. Pilot = exemption certificate % 64 % 9 % 4 % % 70 % 8 % 3 % % 63 % 5 % 5 % % 65 % 10 % 7 % % 67 % 4 % 4 % % 43 % 50 % 0 % % 57 % 17 % 2 % % 41 % 36 % 3 %

12 UNDERREPORTING Jan 2004-June 2006 DAMA and HELCOM databases for Finnish vessels Estimated real number Lincoln- Peterson Chapman Chapman LB Chapman UB Chao's Chao's LB Chao's UB of accidents 57, ,6 64,3 61,14 53,32 68,95 Accidents in both DAMA and HELCOM 5,22 5-1,4 12,3 9,14 1,32 16,95 HELCOM reporting rate 48,9 % 49,1 % 55,3 % 43,5 % 45,8 % 52,5 % 40,6 % DAMA reporting rate 82,1 % 82,5 % 92,9 % 73,1 % 76,9 % 88,1 % 68,2 % Combined reporting rate 90,9 % 91,2 % 102,8 % 80,9 % 85,1 % 97,5 % 75,4 %

13 Step 2: Risk analysis Groundings Frequency Consequences Collisions Frequency Consequences Chemicals and their effects

14 Expected groundings per 1000 port arrivals HELCOM and DAMA Tanker arrivals in Share of Harbor 2011 total in % HaminaKot ka ,41 Loviisa 2 0,15 Sköldvik ,20 Helsinki 8 0,58 Kantvik 5 0,36 Inkoo 2 0,15 Förby 16 1,16 Total: Year Groundings per 1000 port arrivals , , , , , , , ,097 X = Average: 0,332 Expected groundings / Harbor year HaminaKot ka 0,15265 Loviisa 0,00066 Sköldvik 0,29334 Helsinki 0,00265 Kantvik 0,00166 Inkoo 0,00066 Förby 0,00531 Total: 0,45694 TraFi: Ulkomaan meriliikennetilasto 2011 Return period between groundings: All tankers: 2-8 years Chemical: 4-16 years

15 Expected spill sizes E(groun dings) per year Return period E(spill E(spills) Return size spill) in per year period,, m3 0, ,8 58, ,1 Porvoo Oil 0,327 3,1 tankers Gas 0,011 90,9 0, ,2 0,20 301,6 Chemical 0, ,2 0, ,9 0,92 294,6 Total 0,390 2,6 0, ,1 59, ,1 Kotka Oil 0, ,7 0, ,1 1,28 673,9 Hamina Gas 0, ,7 0, ,8 0,17 465,1 tankers Chemical 0,108 9,3 0, ,3 3,56 548,3 Total 0,1455 6,9 0, ,5 5,00 515,4 Overall 0,5356 1,9 0, ,4 64, ,6 Uncertainty: recently grounding frequency has been decreasing Further research needed Which probability is the most realistic one? Spill model has uncertainties

16 New grounding model Number of groundings N groundings = x Traffic (in thousands) R 2 =0.74 N groundings = x Draft no info (in thousands) R 2 = N groundings = x N other (in 1000) R 2 = No statitically significant model found for Baltic collisions or grondings nor GoF collisions Data limited y = -0,0001x + 9,496 R² = 0, y = 0,0005x - 16,902 R² = 0,7403 GoF collisions GoF groundings Lin. (GoF collision Lin. (GoF groundings)

17 Grounding chain of events Reports from Finnish Accident Investigation Board Mechanical Navigational Manouver Fareway

18 Grounding damage model Maximum bottom damage height Re-analyzing 20 grounding damage studies by Luukkonen (1999)

19 Grounding damage model 1200 Area vs grounding energy y = 1,7414x - 16,444 R² = 0, Area Lin. Less than 150 MJ -> bow or shoulder damage only

20 GoF collisions Goerlandt & Kujala (2011) Marine Traffic Simulation Model Causation factors: Hänninen & Kujala (2012) Range: to ~

21 Modeling chemical spills Collision frequency all tankers Return period GoF 1 every 16,75 y Most risky location: 1 every 666 y Map: TraFi license nr 1803/1024/2010.

22 Chemical tankers DWT of chemical and gas tankers 200 Pr(tanker is chemical) DWT (1000 tons) 0,72 < 10 0, , , , , , , , , , , = x 10 4 DWT of oil and oil product tankers x 10 4 Return period GoF: 1 every 45 y Most risky location: 1 every 1175 y Map: TraFi license nr 1803/1024/2010.

23 Spill model New FEM/MATLAB-based model built upon Ehlers (2010) FEM => MATLAB =>

24 Perpendicular penetration = = , = 20000, < , 5000, Energy [MJ] Penetration [m] 125 % 100 % 75 % 50% FEM 100 % with an absolute minimum width of 0.76 m and a maximum required width of 2 m.

25 Spill model = = 1.11 Total of 2700 simulated spills GoF: 28.8 m 3 / y Riskiest location: 1.4 m 3 / y Median: 2100 m Range: m3 Observations Map: TraFi license nr 1803/1024/ Spill volume m 3

26 GoF chemicals Finland: +95 % HaminaKotka & Porvoo IMO GESAMP classification X: Major hazard Y: Hazard Z: Minor hazard N/A: Not hazardous Most common chemicals Finnish harbors Category Volume 2011 X 2,75 % Y 74,34 % Z 16,10 % N/A 6,81 % Finnish Transport Agency

27 Effect of chemicals Chemical spill risk map, weighed according to the average hazard level of chemicals in the area Map: Finnish Transport Agency license nr 1803/1024/2010 Risk multiplier: GoF West: = 1.73 GoF East: = 1.89

28 Ice collisions and groundings Review of accident investigation reports from Finland Sweden Canada No AIB reports on collisions or groundings in ice Reason: damage usually quite limited => No investigation

29 Ice collisions and groundings Previous studies 50 % of collisions ice breaker & assisted ship Mostly minor damages

30 Future work with ice Statistical ice loads vs hull strenght Mapping & quantifying different ice accident scenarios

31 Step 3: Risk control options Velocity reduction Recovery vessels Re-routing Double hull rule changes

32 Re-routing Soomere T, et al The use of Lagrangian trajectories for the identification of the environmentally safe fairways. Marine Pollution Bulletin; 62(7): Gulf of Finland Traffic Separation Scheme (Rytkönen et al. 2002:82)

33 Logistic regression metamodel Pr =, = Standa Sig Independent variable x b rd error. e b Lstriking (LA) Vstriking (VA) Double hull width (WDH) Collision in tank compartment (δ) Collision angle 0;90 (β) Constant (x0)

34 Velocities Baseline: 100 % 4000 Initial velocity of striking ship Number of cases Impact velocity of striking ship Number of cases Knots Initial: Mean=14.6 kn, Mode=13.3 kn, Impact: Mean=10.8 kn, Mode=13.5 kn

35 Modifying initial velocity Velocity at impact if initial velocity x " - x " - x " - x " - x Knots Knots

36 Limiting max initial velocity 4000 Velocity at impact if initial velocity capped to max 15 kn " - max 13 kn " - max 10 kn Knots

37 Effect on spill probability Init. Velocity: Pr(spill collision) 125 % 46,9 % 110 % 44,8 % 100 % 42,3 % 90 % 40,4 % 75 % 35,7 % 50 % 25,5 % 50,0 % 40,0 % 30,0 % 20,0 % 10,0 % 0,0 % 0% 50% 100% 150% -10,0 % Pr(spill collision) Prediction Polyn. (Pr(spill collision)) y = -0,2374x 2 + 0,699x - 0,0347 R² = 0,9993

38 Limiting initial velocity 45,0 % Max 15 kn 41,2 % Max 13 kn 39,0 % Max 10 kn 33,7 % 40,0 % 35,0 % 30,0 % 25,0 % 20,0 % 15,0 % 10,0 % 5,0 % 0,0 % -5,0 % Max velocity Prediction Polyn. (Max velocity) y = -0,0014x 2 + 0,0496x - 0,0207 R² = 1

39 Oil recovery vessels HELCOM: 6 h to accident site 72 h for collecting t oil

40 Tanker sizes DWT practical maximum for liquid bulk tankers?

41 Step 3: Risk Control Options Finnish Navy ship Louhi First true chemcial RV 48 m m3 oil tanks, 200 m3 chemical tank Costs of chemical capability uncertain Estimates 1.5 % - 40 % of total cost

42 Step 4: Cost-Benefit Analysis minz = argmin E spilled chemicals d

43 Step 4: Cost-Benefit Analysis Traditional CBA makes no sense- HELCOM recommendations for oil 6 h to site 72 h to recover total spill from 2 side tanks of the biggest size of tanker = No corresponding one for chemicals Adapted to chemicals More chemical than oil tankers in the GoF 2 / 3 transported chemicals float 1 / 2 float and are toxic

44 Step 4: Cost-Benefit Analysis HELCOM: Contents of 2 side tanks spilled Assumption: chemicals only recoverable in metal tanks Max 24 h Max 72 h Assumed biggest chemical tanker: Vessel Tank size (m3) recovery capacity (m^3) recovery capacity (m^3) Tanker DWT DWT DWT DWT Louhi spill size (m^3) Future Boarder Guard Needed extra vessels: Future Boarder Guard Vessels Louhi-size 13,7 10,3 1,7-0,6 Total: Louhi w. all metal tanks 3,9 3,0 0,5-0,2 Assumption: chemicals can also be recovered in plastic tanks designed for oil Max 24 h Max 72 h Vessel Tank size recovery capacity recovery capacity Needed extra DWT DWT Merikarhu vessels Louhi-size 1,4 0,4-2,0-2,7 Tursas Uisko Louhi Future Boarder Guard Future Boarder Guard Total:

45 Step 5: Recommendations for Decisionmaking Current bases (Helsinki & Upinniemi) suboptimal Not sufficient chemical RV coverage of Eastern Finland Need for more chemical RVs vessels How many? Seems like a good and not too expensive by-product to equip RVs for chemicals as well Information is imperfect Not all accidents modeled => recommendations not absolute truths Re-routing? Velocity reduction must be radical to have practical effect Double hull width has impact

46 Conclusions Groundings most common accidents Best explanation: N other in AIS data Grounding damage can be modeled statistically Most risky collision areas Mid GoF Sköldvik Hamina Kotka Chemicals to HaminaKotka slightly more toxic than others Ice accidents usually not severe Underreporting Several risk control options available

47 CHEMBALTIC partners Implementation period: Partners include: Kotka Maritime Research Association Aalto University University of Turku Port of HaminaKotka Finnish Transport Safety Agency Finnish Port Association Finnish Ship-owners Association NESTE Oil Crystal Pool All publications available at

48 Publications Research reports and theses (2) Sormunen, O. (2012). Spill estimation of chemical tanker collisions in the Gulf of Finland. Aalto University, School of Science. Sormunen, O. (2011). Mitigating environmental risks of chemical tanker collisions with recovery vessels in the Gulf of Finland. Hanken School of Economics. Scientific (1), conference (2) and popular articles (3) Presentations (7) Sormunen, O., Ehlers, S. and Kujala, P. (2013) Collision consequence estimation model for chemical tankers, Proc IMechE, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, Volume 227 Issue 2 May 2013 pp Sormunen, O. (2012). Diplomityö: Risk analysis of chemical tanker collisions in the Gulf of Finland in INFORS, Suomen Operaatiotutkimusseuran jäsenlehti 2 / 2012 link Sormunen, O. (2012). Chemical tanker spill risk in the Gulf of Finland. Maritime Research News, Vol.27/ISSN Sormunen, O., Goerlandt, F., Ståhlberg, K., Montewka, J. & Kujala, P. (2011). Estimating Spills Caused by Chemical Tanker Collisions in the Gulf of Finland Using Different Impact Models. In the proceedings of XIV International Scientific and Technical Conference on Maritime Traffic Engineering - Gucma L. (ed), 2011, Maritime University of Szczecin, pp Mazaheri, A., Sormunen, O., Hyttinen, N., Montewka, J., Kujala, P., (2013), "Comparison of the learning algorithms for evidence-based BBN modeling A case study on ship grounding accidents", the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL), September 30th - October 2nd, Amsterdam, the Netherlands * Sormunen, O. (2013). Perspectives and risks of oil transportation in the Gulf of Finland. Nostra Conference, October 10 Helsinki, Finland. Sormunen, O. (2013). Slow steaming as a measure to mitigate maritime risk? BSR InnoShip Slow Steaming Workshop, , Espoo, Finland Sormunen, O. (2013). Presentation of research results of , TraFi - Aalto University seminar, , Helsinki Finland. Sormunen, O. (2012). Presentations "Tankkerikuljetusten riskit Suomenlahdella" about Chembaltic and MIMIC projects in Studia Maritima lectures in Turku and Rauma, 4 of December, Sormunen, O. (2012). FinCro seminar presentation between Aalto University Marine Technology unit and Croatian naval architecture and marine technology research units, organized by Zagreb University on 5-6 November Sormunen, O. (2011). Estimating Spills Caused by Chemical Tanker Collisions in the Gulf of Finland Using Different Impact Models. MTE11 conference Swinoujscie, Poland. Kujala, P & Montewka, J. (2012). The risks of oil and chemical transportations in the Baltic Sea. Also Steering group members Elisa Mikkolainen and Ramon Ernst had a presentations in the seminar. WIP (3 articles, 1 conference) Sormunen, O., Goerlandt, F., Häkkinen, J., Posti, A., Hänninen, M., Montewka, J., Ståhlberg, K. and Kujala, P Uncertainty in maritime risk analysis: Extended case study on chemical tanker collisions. Submitted to Proc IMechE, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. Mazaheri A., Kotilainen P., Sormunen, O., Montewka J. and Kujala P. (In progress) "On predictability of ship grounding accident using ship traffic and waterway complexity A sample study on the statistics of the Gulf of Finland" To be submitted to the Journal of Navigation * Sormunen, O. Ship grounding damage estimation using statistical models. Submitted to PSAM 2014 conference paper review. Sormunen, O., Hänninen, M. and Kujala, P. Overview And Analysis Of Ship Accidents In The Baltic Sea And The Gulf Of Finland. Peer reviewed journal article. * in co-operation with MIMIC-project