Volume List  / Volume 6 (4)

Article

PORT RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR HUMAN ACCIDENTS IN CONTAINER TERMINALS: EVIDENCE FROM THE PORT OF PIRAEUS – GREECE

DOI: 10.7708/ijtte.2016.6(4).01


6 / 4 / 368-377 Pages

Author(s)

Constantinos I. Chlomoudis - Department of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece -

Petros L. Pallis - Department of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece -

Ernestos S. Tzannatos - Department of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece -


Abstract

World trade increasingly relies on longer, larger and more complex port systems, where maritime transportation is a vital backbone of such operations. Port systems are more prone to being risk oriented. Many specific methods have been found to assess risk and safety in a port area or operation. A review is presented of different approaches to quantify the risk in port area. On the other hand, there is no specific risk assessment method or framework to cope with threats and hazards as a whole. This conceptual paper presents a Port Risk Assessment (PRA) methodology, seeking to transfer the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) framework as applied to ships into the domain of ports. The PRA is structured to include all steps from risk identification and assessment to risk control cost/benefit assessment and recommendation, and is capable of modelling all probable port risks on human lives, property and the environment. The applicability of the PRA is demonstrated for human accidents with reference to the container terminal of the Port of Piraeus, in Greece.


Download Article

Number of downloads: 330


References:

Berle, O.; Asbjørnslett, B. E.; Rice, J. B. 2011. Formal Vulnerability Assessment of a maritime transportation system, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 96(6): 696–705.

 

Chlomoudis, C. I.; Kostagiolas, P. A.; Lampridis, D. C. 2005. Prospective employment of quality awards in the seaport industry: Old solution to contemporary questions. In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference 2005, Limassol, Cyprus.

 

Chlomoudis, C. I.; Pallis, L. P. 2008. Defining Factors for the Undertaking of Risk for Investments in the Port Industry. In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference 2008, Dalian, China.

 

Chlomoudis, C. I.; Kostagiolas, P. A.; Pallis, L. P. 2012. An Analysis for Formal Risk and Safety Assessments for Ports: Empirical Evidence from Container Terminals in Greece, Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 2(1): 45-54.

 

Chlomoudis, C. I.; Lampridis, D. C.; Pallis, L. P. 2013. Quality Assurance: Providing Tools for Managing Risk in Ports, International Journal of Maritime, Trade and Economic Issues 1(1): 3-20.

 

Haimes, Y. Y. 2009. Risk modelling, assessment, and management, A John Wiley & Sons, Inc. USA.

 

Høj, N. P.; Kröger, W. 2002. Risk analyses of transportation on road and railway from a European perspective, Safety Science 40(1–4): 337–357.

 

Marhavilas, P. K.; Koulouriotis, D.; Gemeni, V. 2011. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: On a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24(5): 477-523.

 

Reniers, G. L. L.; Ale, B. J. M.; Dullaert, W.; Soudan, K. 2005. Developing an external domino prevention framework: Hazwim, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18(3): 127–138.

 

Rouvroye, J. L.; Van Den Bliek, E. G. 2002. Comparing safety analysis techniques, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 75(3): 289–294.

 

Skjong, R.; Vanem, E.; Endresen, O. 2005. Risk Evaluation Criteria, SAFEDOR-D-4.5.2-2007-10-24-DNV-RiskEvaluationCriteria-rev-3.0. Available from internet: http://www.safedor.org.

 

Trbojevic, V. M.; Carr, B. J. 2000. Risk based methodology for safety improvements in ports, Journal of Hazardous Materials 71(1): 467–480.

 

Tzannatos, E.; Xirouchakis, A. 2013. Techno-Economic Assessment of Hull-mounted Sonar for Oil-spill Risk Control, The Journal of Navigation 66(4): 625-636.

 

Van Duijne, F. H.; Aken, D.; Schouten, E. G. 2008. Considerations in developing complete and quantified methods for risk assessment, Safety Science 46(2): 245–254.

 

Woodruff, J. M. 2005. Consequence and likelihood in risk estimation: a matter of balance in UK health and safety risk assessment practice, Safety Science 43(5–6): 345–353.