The Experts below are selected from a list of 96 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Erik Vanem - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Risk Acceptance Criterion for tanker oil spill Risk reduction measures
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2011Co-Authors: George Ad Psarros, Rolf Skjong, Erik VanemAbstract:Abstract This paper is aimed at investigating whether there is ample support for the view that the Acceptance Criterion for evaluating measures for prevention of oil spills from tankers should be based on cost-effectiveness considerations. One such Criterion can be reflected by the Cost of Averting a Tonne of oil Spilt (CATS) whereas its target value is updated by elaborating the inherent uncertainties of oil spill costs and establishing a value for the Criterion’s assurance factor. To this end, a value of $80,000/t is proposed as a sensible CATS Criterion and the proposed value for the assurance factor F = 1.5 is supported by the retrieved Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs’ Annual Reports. It is envisaged that this Criterion would allow the conversion of direct and indirect costs into a non-market value for the optimal allocation of resources between the various parties investing in shipping. A review of previous cost estimation models on oil spills is presented and a probability distribution (log-normal) is fitted on the available oil spill cost data, where it should be made abundantly clear that the mean value of the distribution is used for deriving the updated CATS Criterion value. However, the difference between the initial and the updated CATS Criterion in the percentiles of the distribution is small. It is found through the current analysis that results are partly lower than the predicted values from the published estimation models. The costs are also found to depend on the type of accident, which is in agreement with the results of previous studies. Other proposals on Acceptance criteria are reviewed and it is asserted that the CATS Criterion can be considered as the best candidate. Evidence is provided that the CATS approach is practical and meaningful by including examples of successful applications in actual Risk assessments. Finally, it is suggested that the Criterion may be refined subject to more readily available cost data and experience gained from future decisions.
A A P De Alwis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
derivation of a societal Risk Acceptance Criterion for major accident hazard installations in sri lanka
Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2017Co-Authors: K G V K De Silva, M Y Gunasekera, A A P De AlwisAbstract:Abstract The usage of Risk Acceptance criteria for preventing major accident hazards (MAH) in chemical industrial installations is not widely practiced in Sri Lanka at present. This paper attempts to derive a societal Risk Acceptance Criterion for MAH installations in the Sri Lankan context. In the absence of a precedent for a “societal Risk Acceptance criteria” in Sri Lanka a reference criteria or baselines were developed initially based on historical data using an empirical deductive approach. Disasters resulting from natural and technological events were considered. The level of Risk is presented in the form of a Cumulative Frequency, F (N) vs Fatalities, N curve or FN curve. Two FN curves for natural disasters were compared with one FN curve for technological disasters to select a suitable reference or baseline. The selected baseline was then compared with internationally accepted societal Risk Acceptance criteria for the two major characteristics of the criteria line, slope and anchor point. Based on this comparison a line having a slope of −1 and an anchor point of (10, 10−4) is proposed as an initial estimate for the societal Risk Acceptance Criterion.
Harilaos N. Psaraftis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Re: Risk Acceptance Criterion for tanker oil spill Risk reduction measures.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2011Co-Authors: Harilaos N. PsaraftisAbstract:[No abstract available
Michael Havbro Faber - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
On the assessment of marginal life saving costs for Risk Acceptance criteria
Structural Safety, 2013Co-Authors: Katharina Fischer, Edgar Virguez, Mauricio Sánchez-silva, Michael Havbro FaberAbstract:During the evaluation of societal Risk Acceptance based on the Life Quality Index (LQI), the marginal life saving costs have to be assessed and compared with the Societal Willingness to Pay for a marginal increase in life safety. With this procedure, decisions on investments into different Risk reduction measures are based on efficiency considerations in order to achieve an optimal allocation of limited societal resources. Three basic assumptions can have a large effect on the efficiency of a Risk reduction measure and the absolute level of Risk to life deemed to be acceptable by the LQI Criterion: The definition of the marginal life saving costs, the discount rate used for comparing costs and benefits that accrue at different points in time and the time horizon over which future consequences of the decision are taken into account. In the present paper these issues are discussed based on a clear differentiation between monetary optimization and the societal Risk Acceptance Criterion, which enters the decision as a boundary condition. The aim is to provide clear guidelines on how the assessment of marginal life saving costs has to be performed in the context of regulating different Risks to life based on the LQI Criterion.
George Ad Psarros - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Risk Acceptance Criterion for tanker oil spill Risk reduction measures
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2011Co-Authors: George Ad Psarros, Rolf Skjong, Erik VanemAbstract:Abstract This paper is aimed at investigating whether there is ample support for the view that the Acceptance Criterion for evaluating measures for prevention of oil spills from tankers should be based on cost-effectiveness considerations. One such Criterion can be reflected by the Cost of Averting a Tonne of oil Spilt (CATS) whereas its target value is updated by elaborating the inherent uncertainties of oil spill costs and establishing a value for the Criterion’s assurance factor. To this end, a value of $80,000/t is proposed as a sensible CATS Criterion and the proposed value for the assurance factor F = 1.5 is supported by the retrieved Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs’ Annual Reports. It is envisaged that this Criterion would allow the conversion of direct and indirect costs into a non-market value for the optimal allocation of resources between the various parties investing in shipping. A review of previous cost estimation models on oil spills is presented and a probability distribution (log-normal) is fitted on the available oil spill cost data, where it should be made abundantly clear that the mean value of the distribution is used for deriving the updated CATS Criterion value. However, the difference between the initial and the updated CATS Criterion in the percentiles of the distribution is small. It is found through the current analysis that results are partly lower than the predicted values from the published estimation models. The costs are also found to depend on the type of accident, which is in agreement with the results of previous studies. Other proposals on Acceptance criteria are reviewed and it is asserted that the CATS Criterion can be considered as the best candidate. Evidence is provided that the CATS approach is practical and meaningful by including examples of successful applications in actual Risk assessments. Finally, it is suggested that the Criterion may be refined subject to more readily available cost data and experience gained from future decisions.
