WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 65–108 | Cite as

Hazardous material incidents: Some key results of a risk analysis

  • Arben Mullai
  • Everth Larsson


Human safety and health, environmental and property protection and security concerning hazardous materials supply chain are important issues for many countries, industries and organisations around the world. This paper presents some key results of a comprehensive risk study on hazardous materials supply chain incidents. Based on a risk analysis framework adapted for maritime transport of packaged dangerous goods, this study combines qualitative and quantitative analysis of large and diverse datasets collected from some of the U.S.’s best and largest data sources. The study may be one of the largest of its kind, and some of the results might not be found elsewhere. Incidents have occurred in every system of the hazardous materials supply chain, including platforms, all modes of transport, chemical plants, terminals and storages. The results show that more than half (52.1 %) of incidents are attributed to the transport system. The study largely considers incidents happening during maritime transport, which account for 18% of transport incidents. In absolute terms, the FN curves of maritime transport human risks are generally found to be well below the corresponding FN curves of aggregated supply chain human risks.

Key words

Dangerous Goods Hazardous Materials (hazmat) Accidents and Incidents Risks Supply Chain Transport Vessel Water or Maritime Transport 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batten, S.D., R.J.S. Allen and C.O.M. Wotton. 1998. The Effects of the Sea Empress Oil Spill on the Plankton of the Southern Irish Sea.Marine Pollution Bulletin 36 (10): 764–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crokhill, M. 1992. “Santa Clara I” Incident.Hazardous Cargo Bulletin, September.Google Scholar
  3. European Commission (EC). 1997.Working Paper on Risk Management. Directorate General III of the European Commission. Directive 76/769/EEC. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  4. -. 2006.The New EU regulatory framework (REACH) for chemicals. European Commission.Google Scholar
  5. European Environment Agency (EEA). 1995.European Environment:The Dobris Assessment. Stanners D. and P. Bourdeau. Office for Official Publications of the EC, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC.Google Scholar
  6. Gilfillan, E.S., E.J. Harner, J.E. O’Reilly, D.S. Page and W.A. Burns. 1999. A Comparison of Shoreline Assessment Study Designs Used for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.Marine Pollution Bulletin 38 (5): 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goulielmos, A.M. 2001. Maritime safety: facts and proposals for the European OPA.Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 10 (4): 278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Health and Safety Executive UK (HSE). 2001.Reducing risks: HSE’s decision-making process protecting people. Report of Health and Safety Executive, UK, HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. International Electro-technical Commission (IEC). 1995.Dependability management — Risk analysis of technological systems (International Standard IEC 300-3-9). IEC, Geneva.Google Scholar
  10. International Maritime Organization (IMO). Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). 1996.Reports on Marine Casualties, Harmonized Reporting Procedures. IMO documents-Annex 3, Draft MSC/MEPC Circular, IMO FSI4/18 1994, FSI2/22, 1996 Annex 2. London: IMO.Google Scholar
  11. —. 1997.Interim Guidelines for the Application of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) to the IMO Rule-Making Process. MCS/Circ.829. London: IMO.Google Scholar
  12. —. 2002.Guidelines for Formal Safety (FSA) for use in the IMO Rule-Making Process. The MSC/Circ. 1023, MEPC/Circ. 392. London: IMO.Google Scholar
  13. —. 2004a.Formal Safety Assessment: Risk Evaluation, Report submitted by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). Maritime Safety Committee, 78th session, Agenda item 19, MSC 78/19/. London: IMO.Google Scholar
  14. -. 2004b.Bulk Carrier Safety: Comparative Study of Single and Double Side Skin Bulk Carriers. Submitted by Greece Maritime Safety Committee, MSC 78/5/1,78th session 20 February 2004, Agenda item 5.Google Scholar
  15. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 2001.Report of the World Health Organization Task Group on Environmental Health Criteria (224) for Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds. Google Scholar
  16. International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). 1999.Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries — Offshore Production Installations — Guidelines on Tools and Techniques for the Identification and Assessment of Hazardous Events. Draft International Standard ISO 17776.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, S. and B.J. Garrick. 1981. On the quantitative definitions of risks.Journal of Risk Analysis 1(1): 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirchsteiger, C. 1999. Trends in accidents, disasters and risk sources in Europe.Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1): 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Konstantinos, G. and B.G. Ernestini. 2002. Assessing the risk of pollution from ship accidents.Disaster Prevention and Management: International Journal 11 (2): 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, J.O., I.Ch. Yeo and Y.S. Yang. 2001. A trial application of FSA methodology to hatchway watertight integrity of bulk carriers.Marine Structure 14: 651–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lois, P., J. Wang, A. Wall and T. Ruxton. 2003. Formal Safety Assessment of Cruise Ships.Tourism Management 25: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loughran, C.G., A. Pillay, J. Wang, A. Wall, and T. Ruxton. 2002. A preliminary study of fishing vessel safety.Journal of Risk Research 5 (1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LRS). 1996.Casualty Return Series. Google Scholar
  24. Lloyd’s Maritime Information Services (LMIS). 1995.Ships Editorial, Casualty System Guide. Maritime Information Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  25. McGowan J. 1993. M/v “Santa Clara I” — Why the Incident is so Unique.Proceedings of U.S. Marine Safety Council. Google Scholar
  26. Merrick, G. 1993. When disaster makes a port call,Proceedings of U.S. Marine Safety Council. Google Scholar
  27. Miraglia, R.A. 2002. The Cultural and Behavioral Impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on the Native Peoples of Prince William Sound, Alaska.Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 7 (1–2): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mullai, A. and U. Paulsson. 2002.Oil Spills in Öresund — Hazardous Events, Causes and Claims. Report on the SUNDRISK Project, Lund University Centre for Risk Analysis and Management (LUCRAM), Department of Industrial Management and Engineering Logistics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
  29. Mullai, A. 2004. A Risk Analysis Framework for Maritime Transport of Packaged Dangerous Goods (PDG). In Brindley C. 2004.Supply Chain Risk. Ashgate Publishing Company, UK, Chapter 9: 130–159.Google Scholar
  30. —. 2006.Maritime Transport and Risks of Packaged Dangerous Goods. Safe and Reliable Transport Chains of Dangerous Goods in the Baltic Sea Region (DaGoB). Project Publication Series 4:2006, Turku School of Economics, Logistics, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  31. —. 2007.A Risk Analysis Framework for Maritime Transport of Packaged Dangerous Goods -A Validating Demonstration, Volume II. Doctorial Thesis, Department of Industrial Management and Logistics, Engineering Logistics, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  32. National Response Center (NRC). 2005.National Response Center Database for reporting of all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories (1982–2004). Google Scholar
  33. Trbojevic V.M. and B.J Carr. 2000. Risk based methodology for safety improvements in ports.Journal of Hazardous Materials 71: 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. U.S. Environment Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Ship loses arsenic drums in Atlantic.EPA Journal 18 (2): 3.Google Scholar
  35. U.S. Department of Commerce (U.S. DOC). 2004. Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Account (NIPA) U.S. Gross Domestic Product.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 1992.U.S. Coast Guard, M/v “Santa Clara I”. Board of Inquiry Report Concerning the Loss of Hazardous Materials Near the New Jersey Coast. January 3–4.Google Scholar
  37. -. 2000. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau: 1997 Economic Census: Transportation, 1997 Commodity Flow Survey: Hazardous Materials, Issued April 2000, EC97TCF-U.S. (HM) RV.Google Scholar
  38. -. 2001–2004. Maritime Administration, Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis 2001–2004: Vessel statistics: vessel calls and capacity.Google Scholar
  39. -. 2004. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau: 2002 Economic Census: Transportation 2002 Commodity Flow Survey: Hazardous Materials, Issued December 2004, EC02TCF-U.S. (HM).Google Scholar
  40. -. 2005. Hazardous Material Safety, Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS): Hazmat Incident for calendar Years 1993–2004.Google Scholar
  41. Wang, J. 1999. A subjective modelling tool applied to formal ship safety assessment.Ocean Engineering 27: 1019–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. —. 2002. Offshore safety case approach and formal safety assessment of ships.Journal of Safety Research 33: 81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, J. and P. Foinikis. 2001. Formal safety assessment of containerships.Marine Policy 25: 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ventikos, N.P. and H.N. Psaraftis. 2004. Spill accident modelling: a critical survey of the event-decision network in the context of IMO’s formal safety assessment.Journal of Hazardous Materials 107: 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wetzel, E.A. 2004. International Shipping: A Focus on the Republic of China: An Interview with Steven R. Blust, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission.Review of Business 25(3): 5–9.Google Scholar
  46. Whipple, F.L., R.R. Laferriere and S.K. Moon. 1993. M/v “Santa Clara I”: Arsenic Trioxide Response —An Operational Review.Proceedings of the U.S. Marine Safety Council.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, LTHLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations