Skip to main content
Log in

Environmental risk evaluation criteria

  • Published:
WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes an approach to incorporating environmental risk evaluation criteria within IMO’s guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA). Such criteria are currently absent from FSA, and the discussion to include them has just started. Said criteria are relevant for evaluating on a cost-benefit basis Risk Control Options (RCOs) for reducing oil spill pollution risk. Oil pollution may comefrom any ship, including bunker spills from non-tank vessels. RCOs are not necessarily ship-based, and may include vessel traffic management information systems (VTMIS) and other options. The proposed approach may be useful in extending FSA to cover environmental risk evaluation criteria and combines such criteria with criteria already in use in FSA. It can also readily be extended to environmental consequences other than oil pollution. Recent IMO developments on this matter are also reported.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Clarke, S., and M. Starling. 2007.Research Project 591: Environmental Risk Criteria. Report by BMT Isis Ltd. Maritime and Coastguard Agency. http://www.mcga.gov. uk/c4mca/final_report_rp_591-2.pdf.

  • Devanney, J. 2008.Uses and Abuses of Ship Casualty Data. The Center for Tankship Excellence. http://www.c4tx.org.

  • Etkin, D.S. 1999. Estimating Cleanup Costs for Oil Spills.Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington, 8-11 March 1999. Washington, D.C.: American Petroleum Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etkin, D.S. 2000. Worldwide Analysis of Marine Oil Spill Cleanup Cost Factors.Proceedings of the 23rdArctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar. Environmental Research Consulting. http://www.environmental-research.com/erc_papers/ ERC_paper_2.pdf.

  • Kontovas C.A., and H. N. Psaraftis. 2006. Assessing Environmental Risk: Is a single figure realistic as an estimate for the cost of averting one tonne of spilled oil? Working paper NTUA-MT-06-01, National Technical University of Athens. http://www. martrans.org/documents/2006/safety/Assessing environmental risk v3 0.pdf.

  • Psaraftis, H.N. 2008.An Approach to Incorporating Environmental Risk Evaluation Criteria within IMO’s Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment: the Oil Pollution Case. Annex to CG report to MEPC 58, document MEPC 58/17. http://www.martrans. org/documents/2008/sft/MEPC 58-17 WG report.pdf.

  • Skjong, R., Vanem, E., and Ø. Endresen. 2005.Risk Evaluation Criteria. SAFEDOR-D-4.5.2-2007-10-24-DNV-RiskEvaluationCriteria-Rev-3. http://www.safedor.org.

  • White, I.C., and F. Molloy. 2003. Factors that Determine the Cost of Oil Spills.Proceedings of the 2003 International Oil Spill Conferen ce, Vancouver, Canada, 6–10 April 2003. http://www.iosc.org/papers/IOSC%202003%20a83.pdf.

Related Bibliography (sample)

  • Etkin, D.S. “Modeling oil spill response and damage costs.” Paper presented at the 5th Biennial Freshwater Spills Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, 6–8 April 2004. Etkin, D.S.. “Development of an oil spill response cost-effectiveness analytical tool.” Paper presented at the 28th Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar. Environment Canada: Ottawa ON, 2005, 889–922.

  • Etkin, D.S., French McCay, D., and J. Rowe. “Modeling to evaluate effectiveness of variations in spill response strategy.” Paper presented at the 29th Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar. Environment Canada: Ottawa ON, 2006, 879–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontovas, C. A. “Formal Safety Assessment: Critical Review and Future Role.” Diploma Thesis, National Technical University of Athens, July 2005.

  • Kontovas, C. A., H.N. Psaraftis, and P. Zachariadis. “The Two C’s of the Risk Based Approach to Goal-Based Standards: Challenges and Caveats.” Paper presented at the International Symposium on Maritime Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (SSE07), Athens, Greece, September 2007.

  • —. “Improvements in FSA Necessary for Risk-Based GBS.” Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures Conference (PRADS), Houston, USA, 30 Sep-5 Oct 2007. Houston: American Bureau of Shipping, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontovas, C.A., and H.N. Psaraftis. “Marine Environment Risk Assessment: A Survey on the Disutility Cost of Oil Spills.” Paper presented at the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) Greek Section’s 2nd International Symposium on Ship Operations, Management and Economics, 18–19 September 2008.

  • Zachariadis, P., H.N. Psaraftis, and C.A. Kontovas. “Risk Based Rulemaking & Design — Proceed with Caution.” Paper presented at the Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA) Conference on Developments in Classification and International Regulations, London, UK, January 2007.

  • Zagoraios, G. “A Study of Oil Spill Response Cost in Greece”. Diploma Thesis, National Technical University of Athens, 2008 (in Greek).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harilaos N. Psaraftis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Psaraftis, H.N. Environmental risk evaluation criteria. WMU J Marit Affairs 7, 409–427 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195142

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195142

Key words

Navigation