Safety assessment for a cruise ship terminal

• Autorzy: Vidmar P. , Perkovic M. , Brcko T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Cruise ships arriving in the port of Koper carry approximately 1000 to 3000 passengers and crew members. Such a concentration of people presents a high degree of risk in the event of a major disaster, because it is difficult to control, due to limited space, the dynamics of people in the event of a general panic, the presence of large amounts of fuel, proximity of the city center and other vessels and cargo at the port. To avoid the possibility of hazard events, a good safety assessment must be done prior to a ship’s arrival. One of the methodologies for systematically assessing the risk is a Formal Safety Assessment, a tool for determing and evaluating the risk of potential hazards at a cruise ship terminal. This paper discusses the diverse aspects of safety analysis.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

cruise ships; safety assessment; degree of risk; hazards; ship terminal

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe / Akademia Morska w Szczecinie
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: nr 36 (108) z. 1
• Strony: 168--176
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 15 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Vidmar P.

• University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport 6320 Portorož, Pot Pomorščakov 4, Slovenia

autor

Perkovic M.

• University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport 6320 Portorož, Pot Pomorščakov 4, Slovenia

autor

Brcko T.

• University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport 6320 Portorož, Pot Pomorščakov 4, Slovenia

Bibliografia

• 1. WILD P., DEARING J.: Development of and prospects for cruising in Europe. Maritime Policy and Management, 27(4), 2000, 315–337.
• 2. United States Coast Guard, Passenger Vessel Association. PVA Risk Guide: A Guide to Improving the Safety of Passenger Vessel Operations by Addressing Risk, 2007.
• 3. Maritime Safety Committee. MSC 85/INF.2, Formal Safety Assessment – Cruise Ship, IMO, 2008.
• 4. Institution of Chemical Engineers. Nomenclature for Hazard and Risk Assessment in the Process Industry Rugby. 1992.
• 5. TRBOJEVIC V.M.: Risk criteria in EU. ESREL’05, Poland, 2005, 27–30.
• 6. BOTTELBERGHS P.H.: Risk analysis and safety policy development in the Netherlands. Journal of Hazardous, 2000.
• 7. RAJ P.K., LEMOFF T.: Risk analysis based LNG facility pitting standard in NFPA 59A, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22, 2009, 820–829.
• 8. International Maritime Organization. MSC 72/16, Formal Safety Assessment – Decision parameters including risk acceptance criteria –Submitted by Norway, 2000.
• 9. UK P&I Club. Press release, UK club’s analysis: Two per cent of claims incur 72% of the costs. London 1999.
• 10. HIGHTOWER M.M., LUKETA-HANLIN A., GRITZO L.A., COVAN J.M.: Review of the independent risk assessment of the proposed Cabrillo liquefied natural gas deepwater port project, Sandia National Laboratories, 2006.
• 11. BOTTELBERGHS P.H.: Risk analysis and safety Policy developments in the Netherlands. Journal of Hazardous Materials 71, 2000.
• 12. GUCMA L.: Evaluation of oil spills in the Baltic Sea by means of simulation model and statistical data. International Maritime Association of Mediterranean, Balkema 2007.
• 13. DNV Energy. Nautical Risk assessment LNG transport Rostock, December 2007.
• 14. MACDONALD D.: Practical Hazops, Trips and Alarms, IDC Technologies, imprint of Elsevier, 2004.
• 15. DOUGAL D.: An introduction to Fire dynamics, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1998.