・ Quantification can be controversial. While the costs of damage to ships can be readily quantified, quantification of other accident effects such as delays requires more obscure economic calculations. The important impacts of accidents on people and the environment are particularly difficult to represent in financial terms, but cannot be adequately reflected in the analysis if this is not done.
・ FSA results are uncertain. As a result of factors such as listed above, the results of any FSA are inevitably uncertain. Independent analyses might obtain numerical results differing by a factor of 10 or more, and some of the conclusions may be sensitive to such uncertainties.
・ FSA can deliver useful results. While uncertainty limits the reliance that can be placed on the results of an FSA, we find that even uncertain results are more useful than the previous absence of any risk information. Some conclusions are robust against very large uncertainties in the risk estimates, particularly those showing that capital-intensive measures are not effective against specific unlikely accident sequences.
・ The FSA process is a useful discipline. Even when the results are not yet credible, the process of performing an FSA often gives useful insights into the nature of the risks. The conventional rule development process tends to create a focus on hazards and ways of preventing them happening, while losing sight of the likelihood of accidents and the costs of prevention. FSA has the potential to promote a more holistic view, which will be to the benefit of classification societies, ship-owners and society as a whole.
・ The cost-effectiveness of FSA is not yet proven. Classification is a competitive business, and for FSA to be adopted widely it must confer a competitive advantage. FSA is resource intensive, and it is not yet clear how to gain the maximum benefit without unnecessary complexity. DNV recognise that FSA will increase the cost of rule developments in the short-term, but anticipate that it will deliver a long-term saving to the industry by showing where rules are not cost-effective and therefore not suitable for development.
4.2 The Road Ahead
DNV is continuing to develop the foundation for FSA-based ship rule development, by carrying out further generic ship FSAs and pilot rule FSAs. We aim to have completed detailed FSAS Of the major generic ship types and pilot rule FSAs of each major type of rule by the end of 2001. This will solve the major technical challenges, and open the way to implement the FSA approach as a routine part of all ship rule development activities.
5. CONCLUSION
The adoption of FSA seems set to cause a radical change in the way DNV approaches rule development. Justifying new rule proposals in terms of their costs and benefits, explicitly quantified as far as possible, is both challenging and invigorating for the DNV organisation. Early indications are that while it will require a major commitment of resources, this investment will bring major benefits in terms of the consistency and transparency of the rules. The fundamental challenge is to realise the well-known potential of FSA as a proactive, systematic, rational approach to marine safety, while also enhancing the efficiency of safety regulation, to ensure that the investment quickly repays itself and secures widespread acceptance in the marine industry.
6. REFERENCES
[1] IMO (1997), "Interim Guidelines for the Application of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) to the IMO Rule-Making MSC/Circ.829, International Maritime Process", Organization, London.
[2] House of Lords (1992), "Safety Aspects of Ship design and Technology", Select Committee on Science and Technology.
[3] Kuo, C., Pryke, N., Sodahl, B. & Houison Craufurd, S (1998), "A Safety Case for Stena Line's High Speed Ferry HSS1500", Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
[4] Mathiesen, T-C. & Skjong, R. (1996), "Towards a Rational Approach to Marine Safety and Environment Protection Regulations", Conference on Market Mechanisms for Safer Shipping and Cleaner Oceans, Rotterdam.
[5] HSE (1999), "Reducing Risks, Protecting People", Discussion Document, Health & Safety Executive, London.
[6] Spouge, J.R. (1998), "Formal Safety Assessment of Helicopter Landing Area on Passenger Ships as a Safety Measure - Additional Information" DNV Report 98-2047.
