Expert Group Judgment in Maritime Risk Reduction

1. Risk/Pollution Reduction and Expert Group Judgmentin the Maritime Industry Dr. N.P. Ventikos, P.G. Anaxagorou, NTUA

2. OVERVIEW • Targets • Basis of Approach – Implemented Methodology • Consequence Analysis – Results • Expert Judgment Assessment – Examples • Proposal of Case Studies (Consequence / Risk) • Presentation of The Pollution Control Options

3. TARGETS • Based on Specific ET Structures • Analysis & Exploitation of Answers/Judgment from Group of Experts Regarding the Consequence/Risk Potential of each of the Provided Casualty Scenarios for Tankers • Identification of Risk/Pollution Control Options (through Case Studies)

4. KEY STEPS OF IMPLEMENTED METHODOLOGY • Post Accident Assessment • Questionnaires and ET Structure (per Type of Casualty) was Provided to the Expert Group • Expert Group Judgment • Assessment of Expert Group Judgment (not Possible through the Concordance Coefficient ‘W’, Annex of MSC 78/19/2) • Classification and Rule-based Knowledge Theory • Consequence-based Analysis and Risk-based Analysis  Rules & Decision Trees • Pollution Control Options (through the Proposal and Survey of Case Studies)

5. METHODOLOGY INPUTS Event Gates Experts’ Scoring 1 Frequency & 3 Severity Slots Scenarios/Endings

6. PROVIDED SCALES FOR SCORING/VOTING

7. METHODOLOGY STEPS FOR CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS The scope is to identify/simulate what the experts perceived as important in terms of events for giving their consequence/probability ranking and differentiate the practical value of one index to another  this way it can be identified where the experts focused on the structure of the ET and how they actually proceeded in the scoring of the numerous provided scenarios per type of casualty

8. MAPPING OF VOTES – CONSEQUENCE

9. MAPPING OF VOTES

10. EXPERT JUGDMENT – DETAILED

11. ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT JUDGMENT & CONSENSUS High Consequence Scenarios Present a Significant Experts’ Consensus. In Particular 67% of these Scenarios Received High Consequence Ranking and Only 1% Received Scores Ranging from Low to High Consequence

12. ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT JUDGMENT & CONSENSUS Only 17% of High Consequence Scenarios Received the Minimum Consensus (50%) of the Involved Experts

13. GROUNDING : RULES & DECISION TREES Rules: Rule 0/7: Breach in hull = yes Breach in inner hull = na Hard Aground = yes -> class 4 [0.909] Rule 0/8: Ship breaks into piece = yes -> class 4 [0.909] Rule 0/9: Breach in inner hull = yes Hard Aground = yes -> class 4 [0.889] Rule 0/10: Ship sinks without breaking into pieces = yes -> class 4 [0.833] Decision tree: Breach in hull = no: :...Hard Aground = yes: 2 (4) : Hard Aground = no: 1 (4) Breach in hull = yes: :...Ship breaks into piece = yes: 4 (20/1) Ship breaks into piece = no: :...Breach in inner hull = no: :...Hard Aground = yes: 3 (6) : Hard Aground = no: 2 (8/3) Breach in inner hull = yes: :...Ship sinks without breaking into pieces = yes: 4 (6) : Ship sinks without breaking into pieces = no: : :...Hard Aground = yes: 4 (5) : Hard Aground = no: 3 (10/2) Breach in inner hull = na: :...Hard Aground = yes: 4 (7) Hard Aground = no: :...Ship sinks without breaking into pieces = yes: 4 (2) Ship sinks without breaking into pieces = no: 3 (5/1) Rule 0/1: Breach in hull = no Hard Aground = no -> class 1 [0.833] Rule 0/2: Breach in hull = no Hard Aground = yes -> class 2 [0.833] Rule 0/3: Breach in hull = yes Breach in inner hull = no Hard Aground = no Ship breaks into piece = no -> class 2 [0.600] Rule 0/4: Breach in hull = yes Breach in inner hull = no Hard Aground = yes Ship breaks into piece = no -> class 3 [0.875] Rule 0/5: Breach in inner hull = yes Hard Aground = no Ship sinks without breaking into pieces = no Ship breaks into piece = no -> class 3 [0.750] Rule 0/6: Breach in hull = yes Breach in inner hull = na Hard Aground = no Ship sinks without breaking into pieces = no Ship breaks into piece = no -> class 3 [0.714]

14. GROUNDING – CONSEQUENCE: SIMPLIFIED RESULTS • According to the Experts Scoring and the Results From the Methodology the High Consequence Scenarios Incorporate One of the Following Simplified Scenarios Given a Grounding: • Single Hull Tanker that Suffered a Breach in Hull and Run Hard Aground • or • Double Hull Tanker that Suffered a Breach in Inner Hull and Run Hard Aground • or • Single or Double Hull Tankers that Break into Pieces • or • Single or Double Hull Tankers that Sink Without Breaking into Pieces

15. THE PROPOSED CASE STUDIES

16. COMMENTS ON EXPERT JUDGMENT Experts’ Voting Distribution for Collision Three experts gave identical distribution (#1, #6, #8) with a great concentration around the high consequence scenarios. One of them (#7) has a more ‘balanced’ opinion Experts’ Voting Distribution for Fire One of the experts (#7) has completely different scoring distribution comparing to the others. Identical distributions were given again by #1, #6 and #8 and by #3 and #5 accordingly Experts’ Voting Distribution for Non Accidental Structural Failure In the case of non accidental structural failure only 3 out of 9 experts assessed the scenarios. Their scorings provide similar distributions for high consequence scenarios

17. COMMENTS ON EXPERT JUDGMENT Experts’ Detailed Voting Distribution for High Consequence Scenarios in the Case of CollisionThe high consequence scenarios present a significant expert consensus. In particular 71% of these scenarios received high consequence ranking Experts’ Detailed Voting Distribution for High Consequence Scenarios in the Case of Structural FailureIn this case the high consequence scenarios present a total (100%) expert consensus

18. THE POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS • 6 MAIN PCO CATEGORIES – 19 NEW PCOs • Procedures for Emergency Response (Place Of Refuge) – 5 PCOs • Tug Assistance – 3 PCOs • Tanker Design and Associated Regulations – 1 PCO • Systems Onboard – 5 PCOs • Systems for Pollution Control and Mitigation – 3 PCOs • Human Factor – Training – 2 PCOs

19. SYSTEMS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL AND MITIGATION PCO 15: Consider the fitting of system for pollution control and mitigation. In particular, systems which facilitate the transshipment of oil for sunk and upturned ships. Assess the effectiveness of fitting systems such as Fast Oil Recovery systems for different situations (all types of events, ONBOARD) PCO 16: Availability of systems for receiving significant quantities of oil without the need of a lightering tanker in critical location or directly on tankers (all types of events, ONBOARD) PCO 17: Availability of systems onboard the tankers for the containment of oil spilled such as booms or more innovative systems, such as HARDOIL (all types of events, ONBOARD) • HUMAN FACTOR – TRAINING PCO 18: Develop emergency preparedness through suitable training and awareness as part of the Safety Management System of ISM (all types of events) PCO 19: Training sessions should be dedicated to emergency procedures and in particular, there should be focus on firefighting methods and response methods in case of explosions (all types of events)

20. CONCLUSIONS FROM EXPERT VOTING • Experts Population (# of Experts that Assessed the Scenarios) • Experts Mixture (Different Professions & Experience) • Forms/Questionnaires Provided – Time Dedicated • Cooperation Between Experts • The Focus of the Experts (Which are the Key Events that Attract Their Attention?) • Measurable and Quantifiable Scales for Scoring • Ranking • Difficulty in Assessing the Outcome from the Expert Group Judgment

21. EXPERT GROUP JUDGMENT IN THE MARITIME INDUSTRY Difficult Puzzle!!