Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:16:16.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Practical Method for the Evaluation of Societal Risk in the Context of the International Maritime Organization's Safety Level Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2018

Molin Sun ,
Zhongyi Zheng  and
Longhui Gang
Molin Sun*
Affiliation:
(Navigation College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China)
Zhongyi Zheng
Affiliation:
(Navigation College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China)
Longhui Gang
Affiliation:
(Navigation College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Safety Level Approach (SLA) is a structured application of risk-based methodologies for the International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) rule-making process. When the SLA is applied, safety goals have to be provided. In order to set appropriate levels for safety goals, it is necessary to measure the tolerance degree of the current safety level. Based on the consistency with individual risk criteria and the principle of continuous improvement, this paper proposes an approach to establish the societal risk criteria, which can be used for setting safety goals in the context of the IMO's SLA. Furthermore, by defining dynamic factors to express risk aversion, a method for tolerance measurement of the current societal risk is developed. Finally, a case study into the societal risk evaluation of cruise ships and Roll-On Roll-Off (RO-RO) passenger ships is conducted.

Keywords

Safety level approachSocietal riskFrequency-Fatality (FN) diagramRisk criteria
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , July 2018 , pp. 919 - 932
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chakrabarti, U. K. and Parikh, J. K. (2013). Risk-based route evaluation against country-specific criteria of risk tolerability for hazmat transportation through Indian State Highways. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26(4), 723–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. C. and Baybutt, P. (1982). Limit lines for risk. Nuclear Technology, 57(3), 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Maritime Safety Agency. (2015a). Risk Acceptance Criteria and Risk Based Damage Stability Final Report part 1: Risk Acceptance Criteria. http://emsa.europa.eu/emsa-documents/latest/download/3547/2419/23.html. Accessed 24 February 2015.Google Scholar
European Maritime Safety Agency. (2015b). Risk Acceptance Criteria and Risk Based Damage Stability Final Report part 2: Formal Safety Assessment. http://emsa.europa.eu/emsa-documents/latest/download/3546/2419/23.html. Accessed 29 June 2015.Google Scholar
Health and Safety Executive. (2003). Transport fatal accidents and FN-curves: 1967–2001. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101214205808/http:/www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rr073.pdf. Accessed 17 February 2003.Google Scholar
Hirst, I. L. (1998). Risk assessment: a note on f-n–curves, expected numbers of fatalities and weighted indicators of risk. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 57(1), 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, M. E., Fulton, N. and Westcott, M. (2008). Measures of societal risk and their potential use in civil aviation. Risk Analysis, 28(6), 1711–1726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, W. K., Lian, S. J. and Huang, S. H. (2017). Risk Assessment of Operational Safety for Oil Tankers - A Revised Risk Matrix. The Journal of Navigation, 70(4), 775–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IMO. (2000). MSC 72/16. Formal Safety Assessment-Decision parameters including risk acceptance criteria, 14 February 2000.Google Scholar
IMO. (2005). MSC 80/24. Report of the maritime safety committee on its eightieth session, 24 May 2005.Google Scholar
IMO. (2008). MSC/85/INF.2. Formal safety assessment: FSA-cruise ships, 21 July 2008.Google Scholar
IMO. (2013). MSC-MEPC.2/Circ. Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process, 8 July 2013.Google Scholar
IMO. (2016). MSC 96/WP.8. Report of the GBS Working Group, 19 May 2016.Google Scholar
Jonkman, S. N., van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M. and Vrijling, J. K. (2003). An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 99(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonkman, S. N., Vrijling, J. K. and van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M. (2006). A generalized approach for risk quantification and the relationship between individual and societal risk. Proceedings of the ESREL 2006, Estoril, Portugal, 1051–1059.Google Scholar
Kaneko, F., Arima, T., Yoshida, K. and Yuzui, T. (2015). On a novel method for approximation of FN diagram and setting ALARP borders. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 20(1), 14–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mona, K. R. (2014). Global Risk Assessment of Natural Disasters: new perspectives. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/8545. Accessed 20 June 2014.Google Scholar
Prugh, R. W. (1992). Improved F/N graph presentation and criteria. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 5(4), 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qu, X., Yang, Y., Liu, Z., Jin, S. and Weng, J. (2014). Potential crash risks of expressway on-ramps and off-ramps: a case study in Beijing, China. Safety science, 70, 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, M. A., Arezes, P. M. and Leão, C. P. (2015). Defining risk acceptance criteria in occupational settings: A case study in the furniture industrial sector. Safety Science, 80, 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjong, R. and Eknes, M. L. (2002). Societal risk and societal benefits. Risk Decision and Policy, 7(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjong, R., Vanem, E. and Endresen, Ø. (2007). Risk Evaluation Criteria. http://www.safedor.org/resources/SAFEDOR-D-04.05.02-2005-10-21-DNV-RiskEvaluationCriteria-rev-3.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2007.Google Scholar
Schofield, S. L. (1993). A Framework for Offshore Risk Criteria. Safety and Reliability, 13(2), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trbojevic, V. M. (2006). Risk Criteria for the Shipping Industry. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 22(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanem, E. (2012). Ethics and fundamental principles of risk acceptance criteria. Safety Science, 50(4), 958–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrijling, J. K., van Hengel, W. and Houben, R. J. (1995). A framework for risk evaluation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 43(3), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Luo, Y., Pei, J., Hao, Y., Zeng, Z. and Yang, Y. (2015). The establishment of gas accident risk tolerability criteria based on F-N curve in China. Natural Hazards, 79(1), 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar