Risk Management System – A Conceptual Model

  • Arben Mullai
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 124)

This chapter deals with the topic of risk management concerning the transportation of dangerous goods. The evidence presented derives from a European project – the DaGoB (Safe and Reliable Transport Chains of Dangerous Goods in the Baltic Sea Region) project,1 as well as the author’s own research in the field. One of the main objectives of the DaGoB project is to enhance and transfer the knowledge in the field at local, national, regional and international levels.

The chapter begins with definitions of the central concepts, namely risk analysis, assessment and management. Then, a unified concept of the risk management system is provided. The main phases, stages and steps presented in the model are explored in some detail.


Risk Management Risk Communication International Maritime Organisation Risk Management Strategy Dangerous Good 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ACS (American Chemical Society) (1998) Understanding Risk Analysis, Guide for Health, Safety and Environmental Policy Making.Google Scholar
  2. Bender M.J., Swanson S., Robinson R. (1997) On the Role of Fuzzy Decision Support for Risk Communication among Stakeholders. IEEE Proceeding, pp. 317-322.Google Scholar
  3. Bickerstaff K. and Walker G. (1999) Clearing the Smog? Public Response to Air Quality Information. Magazine of Local Environment, Oct. issue, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety) (1992) Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
  5. CRN (Comprehensive Risk Analysis and Management Network) (2004),2004.
  6. DETRA (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, UK) (1999) Identification of Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRA’s) in the UK. Report prepared by Safetec for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.Google Scholar
  7. DCDEP (Directorate for Civil Defence and Emergency Planning, Norway) (2000) Risk Assessment in Europe. A summary report from the EU Workshop on Risk Assessment, Part 2, Oslo 25-26 November 1999, ISBN: 82-993462-8-2.Google Scholar
  8. DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (1995) Feasibility Study for Safety Assessment of RoRo Passenger Vessels. Report prepared by the Det Norske Veritas Limited, Technical Consultancy, London, UK.Google Scholar
  9. DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (1996) Safety Assessment of Passenger/RoRo Vessels. Summary report for the North West European Project on Safety of Passenger/Ro-ro Vessels, Det Norske Veritas Ltd., Technical Consultancy, London.Google Scholar
  10. Erkut EV (1996) A Framework for Hazardous Materials Transport Risk Assessment Insurance. Elsevier, Journal of Mathematics and Economics, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 135.Google Scholar
  11. EC (European Commission) (1996) Recommendations on the development and implementation of Environmental Agreements. COM (96) 561 Final and Official Journal (OJ) No L333/59, 21.12.1996.Google Scholar
  12. EC (European Commission) (1997) Working Paper on Risk Management. Directorate General III of the European Commission, Directive 76/769/EEC.Google Scholar
  13. EC (European Commission) (1999) The Concerted Action on Formal Safety and Environmental Assessment of Ship Operations. Report by Germanischer Lloyd and Det Norske Veritas, project funded by the European Commission under the Transport RTD Programme of the 4th Framework Programme, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. EC (European Commission) (2000) Report on the Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures, Part 2, European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate, October 2000.Google Scholar
  15. EC (European Commission) (2006) The New EU Regulatory Framework (REACH) for Chemicals, European Commission, 2006.
  16. Frewer L. (2004) The Public and Effective Risk Communication. Elsevier Ireland Ltd., Toxicology Letters, Vol. 149, pp. 391-397.Google Scholar
  17. HSE (Health and Safety Commission/ Executive, UK) (1991) Major Hazardous Aspects of the Transport of Dangerous Substances. Report of Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, Health and Safety Executive, UK, London, HMSO.Google Scholar
  18. HSE (Health and Safety Executive, UK) (1992) The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Station. Report of Health and Safety Executive, United Kingdom, HMSO, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. HSE (Health and Safety Executive, UK) (1995) Generic Terms and Concepts in the Assessment and Regulation of Industrial Risks. Discussion Document DDE2, Health and Safety Executive, UK, HSE Books.Google Scholar
  20. HSE (Health and Safety Executive, UK) (1999) Reducing Risks, Protecting People. Discussion Document, Health and Safety Executive, UK.Google Scholar
  21. HSE (Heath and Safety Executive, UK) (2001) Reducing Risks: HSE’s Decision-Making Process Protecting People, Report of Heath and Safety Executive, UK, HMSO.Google Scholar
  22. HSE (Health and Safety Executive, UK) (2002) Marine Risk Assessment: Offshore Technology. Report 2001/063, prepared by Det Norske Veritas for the Health and Safety Executive, UK, ISBN 0 7176 2231 2.Google Scholar
  23. IEC (International Electro-technical Commission) (1995) Dependability Management Risk Analysis of Technological Systems (International Standard IEC 300-3-9), IEC, Geneva.Google Scholar
  24. IMO (International Maritime Organisation) (1997) Interim Guidelines for the Application of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) to the IMO Rule-Making Process. Marine Safety Committee MCS/Circ.829, International Maritime Organization, London.Google Scholar
  25. IMO (International Maritime Organisation) (2002) Guidelines for Formal Safety (FSA) for use in the IMO Rule-Making Process, MSC/Circ. 1023 and MEPC/Circ. 392.Google Scholar
  26. IMO (International Maritime Organisation) (2004) 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/.Google Scholar
  27. IMO (International Maritime Organisation) (2006) Goal-Based New Ship Construction Standards, Safety Level Approach - Safety Level Criteria. Report submitted by Japan, Maritime Safety Committee, 81st session, Agenda item 6, MSC 81/6/10, 21 March 2006.Google Scholar
  28. ISO (International Organisation for Standardization) (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
  29. Johnsson B.B. (2004) Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects of Public Reactions. Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 1.Google Scholar
  30. Kaplan S. and Garrick B.J. (1981) On the Quantitative Definitions of Risks. Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knight W.K. (1999) An Introduction to the Australian and New Zealand Risk Management Standards: AS/NZL: 4360: 1999. Report to ISO Working Group.Google Scholar
  32. Knoflacher H. and Pfaffenbichler P.C. (2004) A Comparative Risk Analysis for Selected Austrian Tunnels. Paper on 2nd International Conference “Tunnel Safety and Ventilation” 2004, Graz, Institute for Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering, Vienna University of Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Leiss W. (2004) Effective Risk Communication Practice. Elsevier Ireland Ltd., Toxicology Letters, Vol. 149, pp. 399-404.Google Scholar
  34. Mullai A. and Paulsson U. (2002) Oil Spills in Öresund - Hazardous Events, Causes and Claims. The report on the SUNDRISK Project conducted within the Lund University Centre for Risk Analysis and Management (LUCRAM), Department of IndustrialGoogle Scholar
  35. Management and Engineering Logistics, Institute of Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
  36. 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, pp. 130-159.Google Scholar
  37. Mullai A. (2006) Risk Management System - Risk Assessment Frameworks and Techniques. Safe and Reliable Transport Chains of Dangerous Goods in the Baltic Sea Region (DaGoB) Project Publication Series 5:2006, Turku School of Economics, Logistics, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  38. Mullai A. (2007) A Risk Analysis Framework for Maritime Transport of Packaged Dangerous Goods - A Validating Demonstration, Volume II. Doctorial Thesis,Google Scholar
  39. Department of Industrial Management and Logistics, Engineering Logistics, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  40. Nicolet-Monnier M. and Gheorghe A.V. (1996) Quantitative Risk Assessment of Hazardous Materials Transport System. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2000) Environmental Health and Safety Publications Series on Risk Management: Framework For IntegratingGoogle Scholar
  42. Social-Economic Analysis in Chemical Risk Management Decision Making Nr. 13 ENV/JM/MONO (2000); Environment Directorate OECD Paris 2000.Google Scholar
  43. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2001) The Chemical Accident Risk Assessment Thesaurus (CARAT), 2001.
  44. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002) Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemicals Risk Management, Environment Directorate Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, ENV/JM/MONO (2002)18, 25-Jul-2002.Google Scholar
  45. Reid S.G. (1999) Perception and Communication of Risk, and the Importance of Dependability. Elsevier Science Ltd., Structural Safety, Vol. 21, pp. 373-384.Google Scholar
  46. RSSG (Royal Society Study Group, UK) (1992) Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. Report of the Royal Society Study Group, UK, London 1992, Based on British Standards 4778 1991.Google Scholar
  47. SRA (Society for Risk Analysis) (2004) SRA Represents Members, Individuals and Organisations, from Different Countries 2004.
  48. Saccomanno F. and Cassidy K. (1993) Transportation of Dangerous Goods: Assessing the Risks. Proceedings of the First International Consensus Conference on the Risks of Transport of Dangerous Goods, 1992 Toronto, Institute for Risk Research University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada.Google Scholar
  49. Spouge J. (1997) Risk Criteria for Use in Ship Safety Assessment. Report of the DNV Technica UK, the Institute of Marine Engineers, UK.Google Scholar
  50. USCG (U.S. Coast Guard) (2001) Risk-Based Decision Making Guidelines, 2nd Edition, http://www.uscg, 2001.
  51. USEPA (U.S. Environment Protection Agency) (2000) Water Quality Standards Handbook. EPA 823-B94-005a, Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).Google Scholar
  52. Vrijling J.H.K., van Gelder P.H., Goossens L.H.J., Voortman H.G., Pandey M.D. (2004) A Framework for Risk Criteria for Critical Infrastructures: Fundamentals and Case Studies in the Netherlands. Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 569-579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weigkricht E. and Fedra K. (1993) Computer Support for Risk Assessment of Dangerous Goods Transportation. Institute for Risk Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arben Mullai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Management and Logistics, Division of Engineering LogisticsLund University, Lund Institute of TechnologyLundSweden

Personalised recommendations