See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260085655

Marine risk assessment methodology using

formal safety assessment in the Black Sea basin
Article January 2012

READS

57

1 author:
Carmen Gasparotti
Universitatea Dunarea de Jos Galati
36 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Carmen Gasparotti

Retrieved on: 26 April 2016

METODOLOGIA DE EVALUAREA A RISCULUI

MARIN UTILIZND EVALUAREA FORMAL A
SIGURANEI N BAZINUL MRII NEGRE
MARINE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
USING FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT IN THE
BLACK SEA BASIN
Sef lucrari dr. ec. ing. Gasparotti Carmen
Universitatea Dunarea de Jos Galati

Abstract: Formal safety assessment (FSA) is a structured and systematic methodology, aimed at
enhancing maritime safety by using risk and cost-benefit assessment. Formal safety assessment (FSA)
represents IMOs response to the necessity of a modern approach of the process of establishing
regulations in order to improve safety at sea. Black Sea pollution has now reached an unprecedented
level, the biggest polluter being hydrocarbons. While the level of safety at sea has in general improved in
recent years, accidents still occur and improvements are still desirable. An important role in oil pollution
is played by the offshore and the tanker accidents. The aim of the work proposed herewith is to present
the steps of risk assessment methodology that could be incorporated in the whole process of the FSA.
Risk assessment results stay on base of risk management to the adoption of measures for risk control,
prevention and reduction in operating ships at sea and to the recommendation for decision-making bodies
and regulators to bring risk to the lowest possible level. The best reduce measures of risk are established
based on cost-benefit analysis.
Keywords: formal safety assessment, risk assessment, hazards identification, decision making.
1. INTRODUCERE
Poluarea Mrii Negre a atins n ultimul timp
proporii dramatice. Sursele i cauzele sunt
multiple: evacurile de ape uzate, deeurile
industriale, scurgeri de hidrocarburi din activiti
de foraj i extracie n zonele marine, operaii de
transport, transfer, rafinare i depozitare.
n bazinul Mrii Negre sunt descrcate anual
110 000 tone de petrol, din care cel mai mare
poluator sunt sursele continentale, Dunrea fiind
cel mai mare poluator. El aduce anual 53 000 tone
de petrol n mare, dar i sute de tone de cadmiu,
mercur, plumb, zinc, crom. De asemenea, sunt

1.

INTRODUCTION

Black Sea pollution has lately gotten dramatic

proportions. Sources and causes are multiple:
discharges of domestic sewage, industrial wastes,
hydrocarbon spills from drilling and extraction
activities in marine areas, the operations of transport,
transfer, refining, and storage.
In the Black Sea basin is discharged 110,000
tons of oil annually, of which the worst polluter are
continental sources, the Danube being the main
polluter. It brings annually 53,000 tones of oil into
the sea, but hundreds of tons of cadmium, mercury,
lead, zinc, chromium. Also, are spilled significant

deversate cantiti semnificative de silicon, nitrai,

fosfai, pesticide n Marea Neagr.
Pe sectorul romnesc printre poluatorii majori
ai Mrii Negra sunt platforma industrial
Petromidia-Nvodari, oraele Constana i
Mangalia i operatorii de transport pe mare, care
spal tancurile de petrol, produse chimice sau gaze
lichefiate, nainte de a intra n port. Totui,
accidentele cu consecine serioase se datoreaz
navigaiei.
Astfel, pe 11 noiembrie 2007 a avut loc cel
mai mare dezastru ecologic din istoria Mrii
Negre. n strmtoarea Kerci, care leag Marea
Neagr de Marea Azov, petrolierul Volga-Neft
transportnd 4000 tone de pcur, n timpul unei
furtuni s-a rupt n dou, deversnd n mare
aproximativ 2000 tone. n aceiai zi, trei alte nave
ce transportau sulf, tot datorit furtunii s-au
scufundat, deversnd n mare 7000 tone de sulf.
Accidentele maritime nsoite de scurgeri
masive de petrol, dei rare, reprezint riscuri
serioase pentru poluarea marin i de coast,
cauznd dezastre ecologice reale.
Evaluarea riscurilor din accidentele pe mare au
determinat luarea de msuri de ctre industrie,
guverne,
IMO
(Organizaia
Maritim
Internaional) trebuid s revizuiasc regulile,
procedurile, tehnicile i materialele din industria de
transport maritim, aa nct din etapa de proiectare
pn la operare aceste riscuri trebuie luate n mod
corespunztor
n
considerare.
Accidentele
tancurilor Erika i Prestige n 1999 care au cauzat
poluarea pe scar larg a rmurilor europene, au
dus la luarea n discuie a procedurilor de urgen
asupra tancurilor cu corp simplu, care n final au
condus la un acord internaional asupra
construciei tancurilor petroliere cu dublu corp.
Scopul acestei lucrri este de a prezenta paii
ce trebuie urmai n metodologia de evaluare a
riscului maritim i de a sublinia importana
acesteia pentru managementul riscului n adoptarea
celor mai eficiente msuri de reducere a riscului la
un nivel rezonabil posibil.
2.
EVALUAREA
DECIZIILOR

RISCULUI

amounts of silicon, nitrates, phosphates, pesticides

into the Black Sea.
On the Romanian sector among the major
polluters of the Black Sea include PetromidiaNavodari industrial platform, the cities of Constanta
and Mangalia and sea carriers which washing their
oil tankers, chemical or liquefied gas carriers, before
entering the port. However, the accidents with
serious consequences are due to shipping.
Thus on November 11, 2007 has been the biggest
environmental disaster in the history of the Black
Sea. In the Kerci Strait that connects the Black Sea
and Sea of Azov, Volga-Neft tanker carrying 4,000
tones of fuel oil, during a storm broke in two, spilling
into the sea about 2000 tones. In the same day, three
other vessels carrying sulfur, all because of the storm
sank, spilling into the sea about 7000 tones of sulfur.
Shipping accidents accompanied by massive
oil spills, although rare, represent serious risks to
marine and coastal pollution, causing real ecological
disaster.
Evaluating the risk of accidents at sea has
determined taking of measures by industry,
government,
IMO
(International
Maritime
Organization) being to revise the regulations,
procedures, techniques and materials in the shipping
industry, so that from the design to the operation
stage these risks should be properly taken into
account. Accidents of Erika tanker (1999) and
Prestige which caused widespread pollution of
European shores, have resulted in making
discussion on emergency procedure of single body
tankers, which in the end led to an international
agreement on construction of oil tankers with
double body.
The aim of this paper is to present the steps
must be followed in the marine risk assessment
methodology and to highlight its importance for risk
management in adopting the most effective
measures of reducing risk to a reasonable possible
level.
2. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DECISIONMAKING

LUAREA

Risks assessment is a complex process involving

the identification of the risk and its sources, as well
Evaluarea riscurilor este un proces complex ce as of the occurrence and severity of their
implic identificarea riscurilor i a surselor consequences. This is used to elaborate strategies

acestora, precum i apariia i gravitatea

consecinelor lor. Aceasta este folosit pentru a
elabora strategii pentru diminuarea riscurilor i
mbuntirea siguranei pe mare prin adoptarea de
msuri de prevenire, control i reducere a
riscurilor.
Pentru creterea siguranei pe mare, IMO a
dezvoltat o metodologie structurat i sistematic
pentru o evaluare formal a siguranei (FSA), prin
folosirea analizei de risc i a unui management
eficient al riscurilor.
FSA este un proces sistematic i raional pentru
evaluarea riscurilor i pentru evaluarea costurilor i
beneficiilor a diferitelor opiuni de reducere a
acelor riscuri.
Metoda ofer un mijloc de a fi proactiv,
permind pericolelor poteniale care urmeaz s
fie luate n considerare nainte de produce un
accident grav.
FSA este folosit de autoritatea de
reglementare pentru a evalua riscurile pe o nav
reprezentativ "generic" i s decid care sunt
normele de siguran ce ar trebui s se aplice
tuturor navelor din flot. Acest lucru este destinat
s asigure ca toate navele din flot s respecte un
standard acceptabil de siguran.
Modelul generic nu ar trebui s fie privit ca o
nav izolat, ci mai degrab ca o colecie de
sisteme, incluznd aspectele de organizare, de
management, operaionale, umane, electronice i
hardware-ul.
FSA reprezint o schimbare fundamental de
la ceea ce a fost anterior o abordare n mare parte
fragmentat i reactiv la una care este proactiv,
integrat, i mai presus de toate pe baza evalurii i
managementului riscurilor ntr-un mod transparent
i justificabil ncurajnd astfel o mai mare
conformitate cu cadrul de reglementare maritim,la
rndul su conducnd la mbuntirea securitii i
proteciei mediului.
Principalul cadrul al FSA const din
urmtoarele cinci etape:
-Identificarea pericolelor.
-Evaluarea riscurilor asociate cu aceste pericole.
-Modaliti de gestionare a riscurilor.
-Evaluarea cost-beneficiu a opiunilor i,
-Deciziile asupra cror opiuni trebuie selectate.
Primele trei implic utilizarea tehnicilor de

for risk diminishing and safety improvement at sea

by the adoption of measures for prevention, control
and reduce the risks.
To increase safety at sea, IMO has developed a
structured and systematic methodology for a formal
safety assessment (FSA), by using risk analysis and
an efficient risk management.
FSA is a rational and systematic process for
assessing risks and for evaluating the costs and
benefits of different options for reducing those
risks.
The method provides a means of being
proactive, enabling potential hazards to be
considered before a serious accident occurs.
FSA is used by the regulator to assess the risks
on a representative generic ship and decide which
safety rules should be applied to all ships in the
fleet. This is intended to ensure that all ships in the
fleet meet an acceptable standard of safety.
The generic model should not be viewed as an
individual ship in isolation, but rather as a collection
of systems, including organizational, management,
operational, human, electronic and hardware
aspects.
FSA represents a fundamental change from
what was previously a largely piecemeal and
reactive regulatory approach to one which is
proactive, integrated, and above all based on risk
evaluation and management in a transparent and
justifiable manner thereby encouraging greater
compliance with the maritime regulatory
framework, in turn leading to improved safety and
environmental protection.
The main FSA framework consists of the
following five steps :
-The identification of the hazards.
-The assessment of the risks associated with those
hazards.
-Ways of managing the risks.
-Cost benefit assessment of the options and,
-Decisions on which options to select.
The first three involve the use of risk assessment
techniques, while the fourth one is, as stated, cost
benefit assessment. The fifth step is nothing else but
the logical outcome of the cost benefit assessment
(Fig. 1).

evaluare a riscurilor, n timp ce al patrulea este,

dup cum s-a declarat, evaluarea cost-beneficiu. Al
cincilea pas este nimic altceva dect rezultatul
logic al evalurii cost-beneficiu (Fig.1)

Fig. 1 Risk Assessment and Management

Fig. 1 Evaluarea i managementul riscului

2.1. Identificarea pericolelor

Identificarea riscurilor const n identificarea
pericolelor, care ar putea provoca poluarea grav a
mediului nconjurtor. Acesta reprezint primul
pas care este esenial ntr-o evaluare a riscurilor.
Un pericol este identificat ca o situaie cu un
potenial de vtmare a siguranei umane,
mediului, proprietii sau afacerii, indiferent de
modul n care ar putea sau nu un astfel de
eveniment s se produc. Identificarea pericolelor
trebuie s fie un proces bine structurat sistematic i
critic.
Scopul acestui pas este de a identifica
pericolele legate de o zon problematic specific
i de a genera o list a acestora, n funcie de
probabilitatea lor de apariie i severitatea
consecinelor lor fa de viaa oamenilor, bunurilor
i mediului, n scopul de a asigura baza sau punctul
de referin pentru urmtorul pas.
Principalele pericole identificate din bazele de
date pot fi clasificate n urmtoarele tipuri de
accidente generice: coliziuni nav-nav, deriv pe
uscat, insuficiena structural, incendiu /explozie n

2.1. The identification of the hazards

Risk identification consists of hazards
identification, which should caused severe pollution
of environment. It represents first step which is
essential in a risk assessment. A hazard is identified
as a situation with a potential for causing harm to
human safety, the environment, property or
business, regardless of how likely or unlikely such
an occurrence might be. The hazards identification
must be a well-structured systematic and critical
process.
The aim of this step is to identify the hazards
related to a specific problematic area and generate a
list of them, according to their likelihood of
occurrence and the severity of their consequence
towards human life, property and the environment,
in order to provide the base or the reference point
for the next step.
The main dangers identified from databases can
be categorized into the following generic accident
types: ship-ship collisions, powered groundings,
drift groundings, structural failure, fire/explosion
whilst underway, powered ship collision with fixed
marine structures such as platforms or wind
turbines.

timp ce n curs de navigare, coliziuni ale navelor

cu structurile marine fixe, cum ar fi platforme sau
turbine eoliene.
Expresia cea mai popular utilizat pentru
ntregul proces de identificare a pericolelor se
numete tehnica "brainstorming". Aceasta tehnic
implic personal calificat i cu experien care
combin cunotinele lor de a identifica pericolele
prin abordri diferite, cum ar fi urmtoarele:
-Analiz preliminar a riscurilor (PHA).
-Modul eecurilor i analiza efectelor (FMEA).
-Studiul pericolelor i al operabilitii (HAZOP).
O analiz grosier a cauzelor posibile i a
rezultatelor din fiecare categorie de accident ar
trebui s fie efectuat.
Este unanim acceptat faptul c un accident
marin nu este cauzat de o singur cauz, ci de o
multitudine de cauze, factori individuali, factori
tehnologici i organizaionali. Pornind de la o
cauz imediat a deversrii anchetatorul poate
examina lanul de evenimente i poate identifica
unul sau mai muli factori care au contribuit la
accident sau cauzele de baz.
Analiza cauzelor de baz ncearc s neleag
"de ce", a avut loc un accident i s rspund la
ntrebri de genul "ce s-a ntmplat, cum s-a
ntmplat", i "de ce s-a ntmplat.
Cauzele care contribuie la riscuri includ:
densitate mare de trafic, condiiile meteo
nefavorabile i a obstacolelor de navigaie,
condiiile de mare (adncimea apei i natura
fundului mrii), vizibilitate, erorile umane, eurile
de nave necunoscute, emisiile de gaze produse n
cisterne. Acestea pot aprea individual sau n orice
combinaie i ar putea avea ca rezultat o deversare
de petrol major. Datele statistice arat c cele mai
multe accidente s-au produs din cauza condiiilor
hidro meteorologice nefavorabile i a erorilor
umane (erori ale comandanilor sau erori ale
echipajului). Baza de date CTX (Centrul de
Excelen pentr petroliere) susine c eecul
structural este, pe departe, singura cauz cea mai
important, att pentru distrugerea navei ct i a
deversrilor, iar eecul mainilor i instalaiilor
este cea de a doua cauz cea mai important a
deversrilor..
Nivelul actual de risc al petrolierelor n Marea
Neagr este mic, dar acesta nu ar trebui s fie

The most popular expression used for the whole

process of hazard identification is called
brainstorming technique. This technique involves
trained and experienced personnel combining their
knowledge to identify the hazards through various
approaches, such as the following:
-Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA).
-Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA).
-Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study.
A coarse analysis of possible causes and
outcomes of each accident category should be
carried out.
It is widely accepted that a marine accident is not
caused by a single cause, but a multitude of causes,
individual factors, technological and organizational
factors. Starting from an immediate cause of
discharge the investigator may examine the chain of
events and may identify one or more factors that
contributed to the accident or basic causes.
Analysis of the basic causes seek to understand
"why" an accident occurred and seek to answer
questions like "what happened, how happened" and
"why happened".
Causes contributing to the risks include: high
traffic density, bad weather conditions and
navigational obstacles, sea conditions (water depth
and the nature of the seabed), visibility, human
errors, unknown ship failures, gas emissions
produced in tankers. These can occur individually
or in any combination and could have as a result a
major oil spill. Statistical data show that most
accidents were produced due strong hydro
meteorological conditions and human errors
(commandants errors or team errors).The CTX
(Center for Tanks ship Excellence) database claims
that structural failure is by far the single most
important cause of both tanker deaths and spillage
and machinery failure is the second most important
cause of tanker spillage.
Identification hazards make use of a number of
techniques. Generally, for hazard identification
comprises a combination of both creative and
analytical techniques, the aim being to identify all
relevant hazards. This creative element is to ensure
that the process is proactive and not confined only
to hazards that have materialized in the past.
The current level of risk of tankers in the Black
Sea is low, but it should not be neglected due to the

neglijat, datorit consecinelor grave ale severe consequences of marine accidents

accidentelor marine, nsoite de scurgeri de petrol accompanied by massive oil spills for the
masive pentru mediul nconjurtor.
environment.
2.2 Evaluarea riscurilor asociate pericolelor 2.2. The assessment of the risks associated with
identificate
those hazards
Evaluarea riscului reprezint, de fapt, o analiz
a riscurilor generate de pericole diverse,
identificate n pasul 1. Aceasta presupune
evaluarea probabilitii, respectiv de ct de des sau
de probabil este apariia riscului i de ct de
severe sunt consecinele acestuia. Acest lucru
permite ca atenia s se concentreze pe zonele de
risc ridicat i s identifice i s evalueze factorii
care influeneaz nivelul de risc.
Aa cum arat statisticile ITOPF (Federaia
Internaional de Poluare a proprietarilor de
petroliere), frecvena deversrilor de petrol din
baze privind dezastrele marine a sczut n mijlocul
anilor 80, iar acum ele sunt foarte rare.
Exist o variaie considerabil n ceea ce
privete incidena anual a polurii cu hidrocarburi
i volumul de petrol evacuat, care ilustreaz, de
asemenea, natura aleatorie a accidentelor. Acest
lucru reduce deversrile de petrol ce pot fi atribuite
n mare msur eforturilor industriei de transport
maritim i guvernelor (prin intermediul IMO)
pentru mbuntirea siguranei navigaiei i
prevenirea polurii.
Probabilitatea poate fi abordat fie din punct
de vedere calitativ ct i cantitativ. Abordarea
calitativ se bazeaz pe experiena i judecata
experilor, n timp ce abordarea cantitativ are
bazele de date naionale i internaionale,
rapoartele istorice i statisticile accidentelor i
nregistrrile locale.
Consecinele accidentelor marine, nsoite de
deversrile de petrol sunt orientate pe trei direcii:
pierderea de viei/rniri grave, pierderea
proprietii i de deteriorare a mediului.
Criteriul care ar trebui s fie utilizat pentru a
evalua consecinele asupra mediului este
vulnerabilitatea socio-economic a mediului la
expunerea de petrol.
Evacurile masive de petrol din accidentele de
transport maritim care cauzeaz daune grave
pentru ecosistemele acvatice i de coast,

The risk evaluation represents in fact an analysis

of the risks generated by various dangers, identified
in step 1. It assumes the evaluation of the
likelihood, respectively how often or probable is the
risk occurrences and how severe are their
consequences. This allows attention to be focused
upon high risk areas and to identify and evaluate the
factors which influence the level of risk.
As shown by statistics from ITOPF
(International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation)
oil spill database frequency of marine disasters
decreased in the mid 80s and now they are very
care.
There is a considerable annual variation
concerning the incidence of the oil pollution and the
volume of oil discharged that illustrates also the
random nature of the accidents. This reduces of the
oil discharges can be related in great measure with
the efforts of the industry for maritime
transportation and of governments (through IMO)
for improving the safety navigation and preventing
the pollution.
The likelihood can be approached either from
qualitative and quantitative point of view. The
qualitative approach is based on the expert
experiences and judgments, while the quantitative
approach has national and international databases,
accident history reports and statistics, local records.
Consequences of marine accidents accompanied
by oil spills are orientated on three directions: loss
of lives/serious injuries, loss of property and
damage to the environment.
The criterion that should be used to evaluate the
consequences on the environment is the socioeconomical vulnerability of the environment to the
oil exposure.
Massive discharges of oil from shipping
accidents causing serious damages to aquatic
ecosystems and coastal, socio-economic activities
such as tourism, fishery, crustaceans farming and
other marine products.

activitilor socio-economice, cum ar fi turismul,

pescuitul, fermele de crustacee i alte produse
marine.
Natura i durata prejudiciului depind de o serie
de factori, inclusiv, tipul i cantitatea de petrol i
de comportament odat deversat; condiiile
meteorologice i de sezon, caracteristicile zonei
afectate; tipul i eficiena rspunsului privind
curarea.
Din toi factorii critici tipul de petrol este foarte
important. ieiul brut i pcura grea prezint cele
mai mari probleme din cauza vscozitii lor
ridicate. Ele sunt foarte persistente n mediul marin
i astfel pot cltori distane mari de la locaia
original a scurgerii, provocnd contaminarea pe
scar larg a resurselor costiere.
Pierderea de proprietate const n pierderea sau
deteriorarea navei i pierderea mrfii transportate.
Figura 2 prezint costurile anuale estimate
globale de daune pe un petrolier reprezentativ.

The nature and duration of the damage depend

on a number of factors including, the type and
amount of oil and behavior once spilled; weather
conditions and season, the characteristics of the
affected area; the type and effectiveness of the
clean-up response. Out of all critical factors the type
of oil is very important. Heavy crudes and heavy
fuel oil posing the greatest problems because of
their high viscosity. They are highly persistent in
the marine environment and so can travel great
distances from the original spill location, causing
widespread contamination of coastal resources.
Loss of property consists in the loss or damage
to the ship and loss of the goods transported.
Figure 2 shows the estimated overall annual
costs of damage on a representative tanker.

Fig.2 Overall risk estimates from oil tanker FSA

Fig.2 Estimri generale de risc dup FSA pentru o nav

petrolier

Pentru a determina statistic cele dou

elemente cheie pentru evaluarea riscului,
probabilitatea i consecinele, sunt identificate
diferite tipuri de accidente pe baza analizei datelor
istorice i scenariilor practice.
Probabilitatea i consecinele sunt evaluate prin
evaluarea nivelurilor. Probabilitatea poate fi
evaluat ca fiind foarte puin probabil, ndeprtat,
ocazional, frecvente, iar consecinele ca fiind
catastrofal, critic, majore i minore.
Urmtorul pas este evaluarea riscurilor. Pentru
estimarea riscului probabilitatea i consecinele
evenimentelor sunt combinate pentru a cuantifica

In order to determine the statistical of two key

elements for risk assessment, likelihood and
consequences, based on the historical data analysis
and practical experience scenarios for different
types of accidents are identified.
The likelihood and the consequences are
evaluated by assessing levels. The likelihood can be
evaluated as being very unlikely, remote,
occasional,
probable,
frequent,
but
the
consequences as being catastrophic, critical, major
and minor.
The next step is risk assessment. For risk
estimation the likelihood and consequences of
events are combined to quantify risk. The calculated
risks are then compared and ranked, take into
account the ALARP criteria of acceptability.
Spill Risk = spill likelihood x spill consequence
On this basis the risk classification can be done
in priority order for the effort to reduce them,

riscul. Riscurile calculate sunt apoi comparete i

ierarhizate, lund n considerare criteriile de
acceptabilitate ALARP.
Riscul de deversare = probabilitatea x consecin
Pe aceast baz clasificarea riscurilor se poate
face n ordinea prioritii, pentru efortul de a le
reduce, luarea de decizii pentru noi msuri de
siguran i mbuntirea celor existente.
Evaluarea riscurilor de scurgeri de petrol este
foarte dificil din cauza multiplelor consecine i a
factorilor, care au influenat gravitatea lor. Acest
lucru face imposibil utilizarea unui singur criteriu
de evaluare a riscului total.
Un risc ar trebui s fie considerat inacceptabil,
n cazul n care pierderea de viei omeneti a
depit 10-3/ persoan pe an, dar poate fi, de
asemenea, inacceptabil, la niveluri mult mai
sczute de risc marin, n cazul n care alte
componente de risc sunt ridicate. Chiar dac
pierderea de viei omeneti este de 10-6 sau mai
puin, nu poate fi descris ca "acceptabil", deoarece
acest termen se aplic numai la riscul total.
n cazul n care alte consecine ale riscurilor
sunt necunoscute, evaluarea riscurilor poate fi
obinut prin utilizarea ponderii lor. Aceast
abordare va recurge la cerina criteriilor de
acceptabilitate pentru riscul combinat. O abordare
alternativ este de a calcula riscul de poluare a
mediului, riscul pentru viaa i riscul de proprietate
separat, iar apoi riscurile calculate sunt verificate
pe baza a trei criterii de acceptabilitate separate.
Un rol esenial n definirea acceptabilitii
riscurilor marine este atribuit experienelor i
judecii experilor. Matricele de risc sunt cele mai
utilizate pentru evaluarea riscurilor n activitile
marine, fiind simplu de aplicat i uor de neles.
Riscurile inacceptabile nu pot fi justificate n
circumstane obinuite. Astfel de riscuri, dac ele
exist, trebuie s fie reduse, astfel ca acestea s fie
tolerabile sau acceptabile sau pericolul asociat s
fie eliminat.
Figura 3 prezint riscurile individuale pentru
tipurile de nave generice.
Riscul este redus la un nivel la care, beneficiul
ctigat din viitoarea reducere a riscurilor este
compensat de costul de obinere a acestei reduceri
a riscului.

making decisions for new safety measures and

improving existing ones. Risk assessment of oil
spills is very difficult due to multiple consequences
and factors, which influenced their severity. This
makes impossible using of a single criterion for
total risk assessment.
A risk should be considered unacceptable, in case
in which the loss of lives exceeded 10-3 per personyear, but it may also be unacceptable at much lower
levels of marine risk if the other risk components
are high. Even if the loss of lives is 10-6 or less, it
cannot be described as acceptable, because this
term applies only to the total risk.
In case in which the other consequences of risks
are unknown, the risk assessment can be obtained
by using their weight. This approach will resort to
the requirement of acceptability criteria for the
combined risk. An alternative approach is to
calculate risk to environmental pollution, risk to
lives and risk to property separately, and then the
calculated risks are checked against three separate
acceptability criteria.
An essential role in defining the acceptability of
marine risks is assigned to expert experiences and
judgments. Risk matrices are the most common
approach used for risk assessment in marine
activities, being straightforward to apply and easy to
understand.
The unacceptable risks cannot be justified in any
ordinary circumstances. Such risks, if they do exist,
must be reduced so that they are tolerable or
acceptable or the associated hazard must be
eliminated.
Figure 3 shows the individual risks for generic
ship types.
The risk is reduced to a level to which the benefit
gained from further risk reduction is outweighed by
the cost of achieving that risk reduction.

Fig. 3 Riscuri individuale pentru diferite tipuri

de nave

Fig. 3 Individual risks for generic ship types

A risk that has been reduced in this way is

Un risc care a fost redus n acest fel este
considered
to have been reduced to a level that is as
considerat a fi fost redus la un nivel care este la fel
low
as
is
reasonably
practicable, is ALARP.
de "mic pentru a fi rezonabil practicabil", este
ALARP.
2.3. Ways of managing the risks. Recommendations
2.3. Modalitati de gestionare a riscurilor. for decision-making
Recomandri

pentru

luarea

deciziilor

Obiectivul la aceast etap este de a propune

msuri eficiente i practice de control a riscurilor
(RCMs) pentru zone cu risc ridicat identificate din
informaiile produse de evaluare a riscurilor n
etapa anterioar. n aceast etap implementarea
costurilor i a beneficiilor poteniale ale msurilor
de control a riscurilor nu sunt de interes. n
general, exist trei caracteristici principale n
conformitate cu care RCMs sunt evaluate i care
pot fi rezumate dup cum urmeaz:
- Cele referitoare la tipul fundamental de reducere
a riscului ca msurile preventive care fac "bariere
de securitate", care nu permit un incident pentru s
progreseze.
-Cele cu privire la tipul de aciune necesar (de
exemplu, de inginerie sau de procedur).
-Cele cu privire la ncrederea c pot fi plasate n
cadrul msurilor (unice sau redundante, active sau
pasive).
Reducerea probabilitii de apariie i / sau
gravitatea consecinelor pericolelor se pot realiza
reducerea riscurilor. Exist trei metode principale
utilizate pentru reducerea riscului, i anume cele de
management, inginerie i cele operaionale
Soluiile manageriale implic activiti legate
de managementul fiecrei organizaii.

The aim at this stage is to propose effective and

practical Risk Control Measures (RCMs) to highrisk areas identified from the information produced
by the risk assessment in the previous step. At this
stage the implementation costs and potential
benefits of risk control measures are not of concern.
In general, there are three main characteristics
according to which RCMs are evaluated and which
can be summarized as follows:
- Those relating to the fundamental type of risk
reduction like the preventative measures forming
safety barriers not allowing an incident to
progress.
-Those relating to the type of action required (i.e.
engineering or procedural).
-Those relating to the confidence that can be placed
in the measure (single or redundant, active or
passive).
Reducing the likelihood of occurrence and/or the
severity of the consequences of hazards can achieve
risk reduction. There are three main methods used
for risk reduction, namely the management,
engineering and operational ones.
Managerial solutions involve activities related to
the management of each organization.
Engineering solutions involve the design and/or
construction of the ship.

Soluiile de inginerie implic proiectarea i /

sau construcia de nave.
Soluiile operaionale implic dezvoltarea i
introducerea de proceduri adecvate pentru
efectuarea sarcinilor "de risc-critice", precum i
mbuntirea eficienei personalului in cadrul
acestor sarcini.
Rezultatele evalurii riscului stau la baza
gestionrii riscurilor, pentru adoptarea de msuri
de control a riscului, de prevenire i reducere n
operarea navelor pe mare, n scopul de a
mbunti sigurana n transportul de produse
petroliere. Pe baza evalurii riscurilor pot fi luate
decizii mult mai n cunotin de cauz pentru a
ajuta la reducerea probabilitii si severitii
deversrilor de petrol viitoare. Acest lucru este, de
fapt, scopul evalurii riscurilor.
Att riscurile istorice ct i riscurile recent
identificate (de la etapele 1 i 2), ar trebui s fie
luate n considerare, obinnd o gam larg de
msuri de control a riscurilor.
Managementul riscurilor trebuie s rspund
la urmtoarele ntrebri: ce msuri sunt necesare
pentru a reduce riscurile, care sunt diferitele
opiuni, care implic diferite combinaii de
siguran i de cheltuieli ce ar trebui s fie
selectate, ct de mult ar trebui s se investeasc n
mbuntirea siguranei.
Msurile adoptate de managementul riscurilor
sunt luate n considerare prin nivelul de risc. n
cazul n care riscurile sunt considerate acceptabile
din punct de vedere tehnic i social, atunci alte
msuri de control a riscurilor, nu vor fi necesare.
Cu toate acestea, este esenial s se dezvolte
programe de monitorizare a situaiei, astfel nct s
nu se deterioreze pe o perioad de timp. Auditurile
de securitate se numr printre instrumentele
utilizate n acest scop. Pentru riscurile considerate
tolerabile, n funcie de criteriile de risc, este
practic s se identifice msurile de reducere a
riscurilor, pe baza celor mai moderne practici,
astfel nct acestea s se gseasc ntr-o gam care
este considerat acceptat. n cazul n care riscurile
depesc criteriul maxim tolerabil, atunci trebuie
luate msuri pentru a le face tolerabile; altfel
operaiunile care au generat aceste riscuri trebuie
s nceteze.
Managementul riscului ofer posibilitatea de a

Operational solutions involve the development

and introduction of appropriate procedures for
carrying out risk-critical tasks, as well as
improving the effectiveness of personnel in these
tasks.
Risk assessment results stay on base of risk
management, to the adoption of measures for risk
control, prevention and reduction in operating ships
at sea, in order to improve safety in transportation
of petroleum products. Based on risk assessment
more informed decisions can be taken to help
reduce the probability and severity of future oil
spills. This is, in fact, the aim of assessing risk.
Both historical risks and newly identified risks
(from steps 1 and 2) should be considered,
producing a wide range of risk control measures.
Risk management must respond to the
questions: what measures are necessary to reduce
the risks; which of various options, involving
different combinations of safety and expenditure
should be selected; how much should be invested in
improving the safety.
The adopted measures by risk management are
taken into account by risk level. If the risks are
considered to be technically and socially acceptable,
then further risk control measures will be not
required. However, it is then essential to develop
programs to monitor the situation so that it does not
deteriorate over a period of time. Safety audits are
among the tools used for this purpose. For risks
considered tolerable, according to the risk criteria, it
is practical to identify risk reduction measures,
based on most modern practice, so that they are
found in a range that is considered accepted. If the
risks exceed the maximum tolerable criterion, then
measures must be taken to make them tolerable;
otherwise the operations which generated these
risks must cease.
The risk management offers the possibility to
identify the most appropriate and effective risk
measures so that they are reduced to a level at
which they are reasonably practicable. The risk
management requires a systematic evaluation of the
identified risks and of control and reduction risk
measures. The risk can be reduced by active
preventative measures (mainly aimed at reducing
the likelihood of accidents) and active mitigation
and control measures (mainly aimed at reduction the

identifica msurile cele mai adecvate i eficiente

de risc, astfel nct acestea sunt reduse la un nivel
la
care
sunt
"rezonabil
practicabile".
Managementul riscului necesit o evaluare
sistematic a riscurilor identificate i a msurilor
de control i de reducere a riscurilor. Riscul poate
fi redus prin msuri preventive (obiectivul
principal de reducere a probabilitii de accidente)
i de msuri active de atenuare i de control (n
special
pentru
reducerea
consecinelor
accidentelor). Pentru petrolierele existente,
accentul se pune pe controlul riscului i adoptarea
msurilor de reducere a acestuia. Pentru noile
modele, accentul se pune pe abordarea proiectrii
navelor tanc raional, prin integrarea analizei de
risc n procesul de proiectare, evaluarea riscului
sistematic folosind principii i abordnd
prevenirea//reducerea riscului de poluare prin
mijloace active i pasive.
Msurile de reducere a riscurilor (RCM) ar
trebui s vizeze n general una sau mai multe din
urmtoarele aspecte:
-reducerea frecvenei eurilor printr-o mai bun
proiectare a tancurilor, proceduri mai bune la
bordul navei, o mai bun organizare, politici mai
bune, pregtire mai bun, practici de operare mai
bune, tehnologii i practici mai bune, sisteme mai
bune de detectare, sisteme de protecie mai bune i
tehnici de lupt mai bune;
-reducerea efectului eurilor, pentru a preveni
accidentele;
-atenuarea circumstanelor n care pot apare
defeciuni;
-reducerea consecinelor accidentelor.
Pentru a identifica noile msuri de reducere a
riscurilor RCM sunt utilizate de obicei tehnici de
atac structurate. Aceste tehnici pot ncuraja
dezvoltarea unor msuri adecvate i include
atribute de risc i lanuri cauzale. Atributele de risc
se refer la modul n care o msur ar putea
controla un risc, i lanurle cauzale se refer la
cazul n care, n secvena "inierea evenimentului
pentru fatalitate", controlul riscurilor poate fi
introdus.
Scopul de atribuire a atributelor este de a
facilita un proces de gndire structurat pentru a
nelege modul n care lucreaz o msur de
reducere a riscului (RCM ), cum se aplic i cum

consequences of accidents). For existing tankers,

the focus is to control risk and adopting its
reduction measures. For new designs, the focus is to
approach the design of tankers rationally by
integrating risk analysis into the design process,
assessing risk systematically using firs-principles
and addressing prevention/reduction of pollution
risk by passive and active means.
Risk control measures (RCMs) should in general
be aimed at one or more of the following:
-reducing the frequency of failures through
better tanker design, onboard procedures,
organizational, polices, training, operating practices,
guidelines, technologies and practices, detection
systems, protection systems and fighting
techniques;
-mitigating the effect of failures, in order to
prevent accidents;
-alleviating the circumstances in which
failures may occur;
-mitigating the consequences of accidents.
To identify new RCMs for risks structured
review techniques are typically used. These
techniques may encourage the development of
appropriate measures and include risk attributes and
causal chains. Risk attributes relate to how a
measure might control a risk, and causal chains
relate to where, in the "initiating event to fatality"
sequence, risk control can be introduced.
The purpose of assigning attributes is to facilitate
a structured thought process to understand how an
RCM works, how it is applied and how it would
operate.
2.4. Evaluation of alternative prevention, protection
and mitigation measures. Cost-benefit assessment of
the options
Selected RCMs must also be cost-effective
(attractive) so that the benefit gained will be greater
than the financial loss incurred as a result of the
adoption.
The purpose of this step is to identify and
compare benefits and costs associated with the
implementation of each RCO identified and defined
previous.
Each potentially option of risk reduction is
evaluated both its contribution to risk reduction as

va funciona.
2.4. Evaluarea alternativelor de prevenire,
protecie i msuri de atenuare. Analiza costbeneficiu de evaluare a opiunilor
Msurile RCM selectate trebuie s fie, de
asemenea, atractive din punct de vedere al
eficienei costurilor, astfel nct beneficiul obinut
va fi mai mare dect pierderile financiare suferite
ca urmare a adoptrii.
Scopul acestui pas este de a identifica i
compara beneficiile i costurile asociate cu
punerea n aplicare a fiecrei RCO identificate i
definite anterior.
Fiecare opiune potenial de reducere a
riscului este evaluat att din punct de vedere a
contribuiei sale la reducerea riscului ct i din
punct de vedere al beneficiilor opiunii i a
costurile punerii n aplicare. Se efectueaz analiza
cost-beneficiu a opiunilor i, astfel, se decide care
opiune trebuie selectat i pus n aplicare.
Criteriile cost-beneficiu definesc punctul de la
care beneficiile unei opiuni de control a riscurilor
au o pondere mai mare dect costurile sale, i, prin
urmare, arat dac RCO este necesar a face
riscurile " aa de mici nct s devin rezonabil
practicabile" (ALARP). O reprezentare grafic a
principiului ALARP este prezentat n Fig. 4.
Costurile sunt exprimate n termeni de costuri
ale ciclului de via i pot include iniial, costuri de
operare, de formare, de inspecie i certificare, etc.

benefits of option and implementation cost. It is

carried out the cost-benefit analysis of the options
and thus is decided which option must selected and
implemented.
Cost-benefit criteria define the point at which the
benefits of a risk control option outweigh its costs,
and hence show whether the RCO is needed to
make the risks As Low As Reasonably
Practicable (ALARP). A graphical representation
of the ALARP principle is shown in Fig. 4 .
Costs are expressed in terms of life cycle costs
and may include initial, operating, training,
inspection and certification, decommission etc.

Fig. 4 The ALARP principle

Benefits may include reductions in fatalities,

injuries, casualties, environmental damage and
clean-up.
The most common approach is to use CostBenefit to select the most cost effective safety
measure from a set of alternatives.
Comparisons of cost effectiveness for RCOs
may be made by calculating some indices: indices
which express cost effectiveness in relation to safety
of life, indices based on damage to and affect on
property and environment.
The evaluation of the above costs and benefits
can
be carried out by using various methods and
Fig.4 Principiul ALARP
techniques.
Cost-benefit assessment (CBA) method is an
Beneficiile pot include reduceri a numrului de
important decisional support. It takes account of

decese, vtmri, numrul de victime, daune ale

mediului.
Abordarea cea mai comuna este de a utiliza
analiza Cost-Beneficiu pentru a selecta msura cea
mai eficient din punct de vedere al costului
dintr-un set de alternative.
Comparaiile din punct de vedere al eficienei
costurilor pentru RCO poate fi fcut prin
calcularea unor indici: indicii care exprim
eficiena costurilor, n ceea ce privete sigurana
vieii, indicii pe baza daunelor i care afecteaz
proprietatea i mediul.
Evaluarea costurilor i beneficiilor de mai sus
poate fi realizat prin diferite metode i tehnici.
Metoda de evaluare Cost-beneficiu (CBA), este
un important punct de sprijin decizional. Acesta ia
n considerare doi dintre cei mai importani factori
n multe decizii privind msurile de siguran, i
anume costul i sigurana. Se face analiza acestor
factori n mod explicit.
Succesul analizei cost-beneficiu depinde de
identificarea corect a opiunilor adecvate de
control nainte de analiz. n cazul n care opiunile
de control a riscurilor sunt prost concepute, fr o
calculare adecvat pentru cea mai bun tehnologie
sau cea mai bun practic, atunci este inevitabil ca
multe dintre opiuni s aib un raport costbeneficiu relativ slab, i toate ar putea fi respinse
ca fiind nefezabile.
2.5. Luarea deciziilor
Ultimul pas al FSA este "luarea deciziei",
care are drept scop s ofere recomandri i luarea
deciziilor pentru mbuntirea siguranei, lund n
considerare concluziile din cadrul ntregului
proces. Astfel, piesele de informaii generate n
toate cele patru etape anterioare sunt utilizate n
selectarea opiunilor de control a riscului, care
combin cel mai bine eficiena costurilor i o
reducere acceptabil a riscului, n conformitate cu
criteriile "de risc" stabilite, de ctre autoritile de
reglementare.
Rezultatele din analiza de control a riscurilor,
msurile de prevenire i de reducere sunt baza de
recomandare pentru organele de decizie i de
reglementare pentru a aduce riscul la cel mai mic
nivel posibil.

two of the most important factors in many decisions

on safety measures, namely cost and safety. It
makes the analysis of these factors explicit.
The benefit/cost analysis success depends on the
correct identification of suitable control options
prior to the analysis. If the risk control options are
poorly conceived, without adequate accounting for
best technology or best practice, then it is inevitable
that many of the options will have relatively poor
benefit/cost ratios, and all might then be rejected as
infeasible.
2.5. Decision making
The final step of FSA is decision making,
which aims at giving recommendations and making
decisions for safety improvement taking into
consideration the findings during the whole process.
Thus the pieces of information generated in all four
previous steps are used in selecting the risk control
option which best combines cost effectiveness and
an acceptable risk reduction, according to the set
risk criteria by the regulators.
Results from analysis of risk control, prevention
and reduction measures are the basis for
recommendation for decision-making bodies and
regulators to bring risk to the lowest possible level.
The formulated recommendations would be based
upon the comparison and ranking of all hazards and
their underlying causes; the comparison and ranking
of risk control options as a function of associated
costs and benefits; and the identification of those
risk control options which keep risks as low as
reasonably practicable. They will take in
consideration the areas where legislation or rules
should be reviewed or develop, so that the safety at
sea increase.
Adoption of risk management throughout the
life cycle of ship, design and operation, can provide
the best practices for reducing risks in the maritime
transport of petroleum products.
3. CONCLUSIONS
The current level of risk of tankers in the Black
Sea is low, but it should not be neglected due to the
severe consequences of marine accidents
accompanied by massive oil spills for the
environment.

Recomandrile formulate ar trebui s se bazeze

pe compararea i ierarhizarea tuturor pericolelor i
a cauzelor lor; compararea i clasificarea opiunilor
de control a riscurilor n funcie de costurile i
beneficiile aferente; precum i identificarea acestor
acelor opiuni de control a riscurilor, care menin
riscurile la un nivel ct mai sczut rezonabil
posibil. Ele vor lua n considerare domeniile n
care legislaia sau normele ar trebui s fie revizuite
sau dezvoltate, astfel nct sigurana pe mare s
creasc.
Adoptarea
managementui
riscului
pe
parcursul ciclului de via al navei, proiectare i
funcionare, poate oferi cele mai bune practici de
reducere a riscurilor n transportul maritim de
produse petroliere.

The consequences of marine accidents

accompanied by oil spills are severe and are
orientated on three directions: loss of lives, serious
injuries, loss of property and damage to the
environment. Defining the acceptability of marine
disasters is difficult due to several consequence and
factors which influenced their severity.
Risk assessment permits to identify new
measures for risk control, prevention and reduction
in operating ships at sea, in order to improve safety
in transportation of petroleum products.
The best prevention and reduce measure of risk to
the ALARP level are established based on costbenefit analysis. They are recommended for
decision-making bodies and regulators from naval
field.

3. CONCLUZII

REFERENCES
Andreassen E., Kristoffersen L., Spouge J., Torhaug R.,

Nivelul actual de risc al petrolierelor din Marea

2001, Development of Classification Rules Using
Neagr este mic, dar nu ar trebui s fie neglijat,
Formal Safety Assessment to Prevent Collision and
datorit consecinelor grave ale accidentelor
Grounding,2nd International Conference Collision and
Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen
marine, nsoite de scurgeri de petrol masive pentru
Aksu S., Vassalos D., Tuzcu C., Mikelis N., Swift P.,
mediul nconjurtor.
2004, A risk-based design methodology for pollution
Consecinele accidentelor marine, nsoite de
prevention
and control, RINA International
deversri de petrol sunt severe i sunt orientate pe
Conference
on
Design and Operation of Double Hull
trei direcii: pierderea de viei omeneti, rniri
Tankers, London, vol.1, p. 170
grave, pierderea proprietii i de deteriorare a
Btrnca Gh., 2007, Risk assessment. In: Ship-Shore
mediului. Definirea gradului de acceptabilitate al
Interface safe working practices, Nautical Press,
dezastrelor marine este dificil datorit
Constana, p. 70-81
consecinelor i a factorilor care au influenat Eliopoulou E., Papanikolaou, A., Hamann R., 2008, Risk
gravitatea lor.
analysis of large tankers. Technical report, 2th
International
Workshop on Risk Based
Evaluarea riscurilor permite identificarea noilor
Approaches In the Maritime Industry, p.1-12
msuri de control, de prevenire i reducere a
riscului n operarea navelor pe mare, cu scopul de Embankment A., 2002, Guidelines for formal safety
assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making
a mbunti sigurana n transportul de produse
process,
London
SE1SR
(MSC/Circ.1023petroliere.
MEPC/Circ.392)
Cele mai bune msuri de prevenire i reducere a
Gasparotti Carmen, Georgescu L., Mirela Voiculescu,
riscului la nivelul ALARP sunt stabilite pe baza
2008, Implementing a sea pollution and safety
analizei cost-beneficiu. Ele sunt recomandate
management system in the navigation companies,
pentru luarea deciziilor organelor de decizie i
Environmental Engineering and Management
autoritilor de reglementare din domeniul naval.
Journal, Gh. Asachi Technical University of Iai,
REFERENCES
Andreassen E., Kristoffersen L., Spouge J., Torhaug R.,
2001, Development of Classification Rules Using
Formal Safety Assessment to Prevent Collision and
Grounding,2nd International Conference Collision

vol 7, No. 6, pg. 725-729, ISSN 1582-9596, 2008

Hanzu-Pazara, 2007, Risk assessment in marine industry.
In: The human errors and the impact on the
environment (in Romanian), Nautical Press,
Constana, p. 43-46
Johansson P., O., 1993, Cost benefit analysis. In: Costbenefit analysis of environmental change,

and Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen

Aksu S., Vassalos D., Tuzcu C., Mikelis N., Swift P.,
2004, A risk-based design methodology for
pollution
prevention
and
control,
RINA
International Conference on Design and Operation
of Double Hull Tankers, London, vol.1, p. 170
Btrnca Gh., 2007, Risk assessment. In: Ship-Shore
Interface safe working practices, Nautical Press,
Constana, p. 70-81
Eliopoulou E., Papanikolaou, A., Hamann R., 2008,
Risk analysis of large tankers. Technical report, 2th
International
Workshop on Risk Based
Approaches In the Maritime Industry, p.1-12
Embankment A., 2002, Guidelines for formal safety
assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making
process, London SE1SR (MSC/Circ.1023MEPC/Circ.392)
Gasparotti Carmen, Georgescu L., Mirela Voiculescu,
2008, Implementing a sea pollution and safety
management system in the navigation companies,
Environmental Engineering and Management
Journal, Gh. Asachi Technical University of Iai,
vol 7, No. 6, pg. 725-729, ISSN 1582-9596, 2008
Hanzu-Pazara, 2007, Risk assessment in marine
industry. In: The human errors and the impact on
the environment (in Romanian), Nautical Press,
Constana, p. 43-46
Johansson P., O., 1993, Cost benefit analysis. In:
Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.121-137
Kuo C., 1998, Managing ship safety. London: LLP
Lois P.,Wang J.,Wall A., Ruxton T., 2004, Formal
safety assessment of cruise ships, Tourism
Management 25, p. 93109
Peachey, J.H, 1999, .Managing risk through legislation,
managing risk in shipping. A Practical Guide
(pp.93100). London: The Nautical Institutes
Publication
Wang J., Foinikis P., 2001, Formal safety assessment of
containerships, Marine Policy 25, p. 143-157
Wang J, Pillay A,Wall A,Ruxton T., 1999, The latest
development in ship safety assessment. Proceeding
of the Fourth International Conference on
Reliability,
Maintainability
and
Safety
(ICRMS'99), Shanghai, China, May, p. 711-719.
***Det Norske Veritas, 2002, Marine risk assessment,
Offshore
Technology
Report,
http://www.hse.gov.uk
***IMO.
Resolution
MEPC.111(50),
2003,
Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978
relating to the International Convention for the
prevention of pollution from ships, 1973
(Amendments to regulation 13G, addition of new

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.121-137

Kuo C., 1998, Managing ship safety. London: LLP
Lois P.,Wang J.,Wall A., Ruxton T., 2004, Formal safety
assessment of cruise ships, Tourism Management
25, p. 93109
Peachey, J.H, 1999, .Managing risk through legislation,
managing risk in shipping. A Practical Guide
(pp.93100). London: The Nautical Institutes
Publication
Wang J., Foinikis P., 2001, Formal safety assessment of
containerships, Marine Policy 25, p. 143-157
Wang J, Pillay A,Wall A,Ruxton T., 1999, The latest
development in ship safety assessment. Proceeding
of the Fourth International Conference on
Reliability, Maintainability and Safety (ICRMS'99),
Shanghai, China, May, p. 711-719.
***Det Norske Veritas, 2002, Marine risk assessment,
Offshore Technology Report, http://www.hse.gov.uk
***IMO. Resolution MEPC.111(50), 2003, Amendments
to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the
International Convention for the prevention of
pollution from ships, 1973 (Amendments to
regulation 13G, addition of new regulation 13H and
consequential amendments to the IOPP Certificate
of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78)
*** IMO, 1997, IMO/MSC Circular 829,interim
guidelines for the application of formal safety
assessment to the IMO rule-making process.
London: IMO
***ITOPF, 2010, Tanker Oil Spills Statistics, Report on
the activities of the international oil pollution
compensation funds in 2009, The International
Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited
http://www.itopf.com/news-and-events/events
***UK MSA, 1993, Formal safety assessment.
Submitted by UK to IMO Marine Safety
Committee, IMO/MSC 66/14, London

regulation 13H and consequential amendments to

the IOPP Certificate of Annex I of MARPOL
73/78)
*** IMO, 1997, IMO/MSC Circular 829,interim
guidelines for the application of formal safety
assessment to the IMO rule-making process.
London: IMO
***ITOPF, 2010, Tanker Oil Spills Statistics, Report on
the activities of the international oil pollution
compensation funds in 2009, The International
Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited
http://www.itopf.com/news-and-events/events
***UK MSA, 1993, Formal safety assessment.
Submitted by UK to IMO Marine Safety
Committee, IMO/MSC 66/14, London