Review of Tanker Safety after the Introduction of OPA 90

Apostolos Papanikolaou
i
,
Professor, Ship Design Laboratory, NTUA, Greece, papa@deslab.ntua.gr
Eleftheria Eliopoulou,
Dr ng, Ship Design Laboratory, NTUA, Greece, eli@deslab.ntua.gr
Rainer a!ann,
Dr ng, Ger!anischer Lloyd AG
ii
, Ger!any, rainer.ha!ann@gl"group.co!
A"stract# The present study focuses on a comprehensive analysis of recorded accidents of medium and large oil
tankers (deadweight over 20,000 tonnes), which occurred after the introduction of OPA0 and until today! "aw
casualty data was reviewed and re#analysed in order to produce appropriate statistics useful for the implementation of
risk#$ased assessment methodologies! The main outcome of the presented study is the identification of significant
historical trends and of %uantitative characteristics of individual categories of tanker accidents, like overall accidental
fre%uencies per ship year, fre%uencies of each ma&or accident category and per tanker ship si'e, ship type(design and
age, the degree of accidents) severity and the oil spill tonne rates per ship year! Therefore this study is a valua$le
source of information for the assessment of the effectiveness of current *+O regulations, classification society rules
and tanker industry)s practice!
$eywords# Tanker casualties, marine oil pollution, risk analysis and assessment, tanker hull design
%lossary
#ollision includes cases of striking or $eing struck $y another ship, regardless of whether under way, anchored or moored! This
category does not include striking wreck!
#ontact e$ents contain cases where the vessel is striking any fi-ed or floating o$&ect other than in collision cases!
Grounding e$ents include cases where the ship is going aground or hitting(touching shore, sea $ottom or underwater o$&ects (wrecks,
etc!)!
%ire, and &plosion events are defined in the way that the event in %uestion is the first initiati$e e$ent reported!
Non"Accidental Structural %ailure 'NAS%( contains cases of hull damage in view of non#accidental structural failure, such as cracks and
fractures, affecting ship)s seaworthiness or efficiency! .amage to a vessel)s rudder, or rudder#ad&oining parts are also considered as
structural damage!
)achinery %ailure* cases in which a technical failure of machinery or of related system affects vessel)s seaworthiness!
%ailure of +ull %ittings* cases of damage to ship)s hull#fitting e%uipment(outfitting, affecting ship)s seaworthiness or efficiency, like deck
e%uipment, vessel)s propeller, propeller portion or propeller ad&oining parts!
&' Introduction
A prime concern of the maritime industry and of relevant regulatory authorities is the enhancement of ship safety and the reduction of
marine pollution related to ship incidents(accidents! /ince an elimination of marine accidents is practically unrealistic, a reasona$le
target is the mitigation of accidents in terms of a reduction of the occurrence)s pro$a$ility and of associated conse%uences of accidents,
$oth taking into consideration economic constraints! /tarting point of such mitigation measures is a critical assessment of the current
safety status, i!e! the determination of accident fre%uencies and of societal risks!
The main o$&ective of the present study is the identification and %uantification of the main high level ha'ards that may lead to a
tanker)s loss of watertight integrity and conse%uently cause environmental damage!
The particular investigation started within the framework of the 01 funded pro&ect POP23 456 426 and was enhanced and continued
through another 01 funded pro&ect, namely /A70.O" 48, 9, :6! These studies led to a rational evaluation of risk of large tan,er safety
and ultimately to a su$mission to *+O in 200; 4<6!
7urther studies were performed su$se%uently for the !ediu! si-e crude oil tankers $y the /hip .esign =a$oratory of >T1A in
colla$oration with ?ermanischer =loyd, @am$urg 4A6, aiming to identify the effect of tanker si'e on maritime pollution accidents
(possi$le differences to the pattern of large tankers accidents), and also the identification of important trends in the safety of oil
i
#orresponding author, Director of the Ship Design Laboratory, NTUA, ., +eroon Polytechniou, /0112 Athens"3ografou, G4#, http*55666.na$al.ntua.gr5sdl
ii
Ger!anischer Lloyd +ead7uarters, 8roo,tor,ai /9 :;<01 +a!burg 5 Ger!any
transport $y all ma&or types of tankers, $esides the determination of accident and pollution rates, as necessary for the implementation of
risk $ased methodologies in tanker design and operation!
*n the following, we ela$orate on the methodology of work (source of raw data, sampling plan and fleet at risk) in section 2, analyse the
fre%uency of accidents leading to =oss of Batertight *ntegrity (=OB*) in section 8, discuss the conse%uences of tanker accidents in
section 9 and :, and we conclude of the current status of tanker safety and on the way ahead in section <!
( )ethodolo*y of work
:./ %ield Data )odel
*n order to conduct a risk analysis assessment, historical casualty data was e-tracted from commercial casualty data$ases (*@/ 7airplay,
39TC, ?*/*/), imported in a new purposely designed data$ase (>T1A#/.=), critically assessed and enhanced $y other information
pu$licly availa$le (internet search, etc!)! The particular step is considered of paramount importance
iii
for the relia$ility of the conducted
risk analysis $ecauseD
3ommercial data$ases were originally not designed for potential application in risk assessment procedures,
Their information is to a great e-tent availa$le in te-tual form, whereas details of importance for formal risk assessment
procedures (7/A) are missing!
*n several cases, there was lack of or erratic information a$out principal issues for the analysis, namely on the conse%uences of
the incident or(and on several steps of 0vent Tree analysis (missing or erroneous spillage e-tent for important and well
pu$licised ma&or tanker accidents)!
:.: Sa!pling Plan
7ig! 5 presents the ma&or undesired main top events that may lead a ship to a risk condition! The present study focuses on accidents that
potentially lead to ship)s =oss Of Batertight *ntegrity (=OB*) and to accidental oil pollution, thus only the first si- (<) categories of
accidents are investigated as illustrated in 7ig!5 (shaded $o-)! *t should $e noted that incidents of the other categories (machinery, hull
fittings) were considered via the other categories, when escalating, and for instance leading to collision or grounding!
+i*' &# ?eneric casualty main top event categorisation for risk assessment
Ta"le &# /ample of casualty data
iv
Medium Tankers ,&990-(009. Large Tankers ,&990-(00/.
0asualties 1u!"er 2 1u!"er 2
0ollision 28 88E 2;; 342
0ontact 558 5<E A &&2
%roundin* 20: 2;E 20: (42
+ire :8 AE A; 92
E5plosion 88 :E 8 42
1AS+ A; 55E 5:5 &/2
Total 6(& /7/
/tudied time period on tanker incidents is confined to the last two decades, namely it takes into account accidents $etween year 50
and up to Octo$er 200! Fear 50 is considered a landmark year $ecause of the introduction of the dou$le#hull tanker concept through
OPA 0 in 1/A (in the aftermath of the catastrophic 0--on Galde' accident in 5;) and its tremendous effect on related regulatory
developments thereafter! *t is $elieved that this period is %uite representative for assessing today)s situation! *t is noted that previous
iii
This was reiterated in the recent *+O#+/3 ?roup of 0-perts (?o0) meeting (>ovem$er 2052) reviewing the tanker 7/A su$mitted $y .enmark in 200; 4:6
iv
"efers to casualties that occurred during ship)s operation, e-cluded incidents that happened in shipyards 2 drydocks
studies on the same su$&ect showed a significant reduction of accident occurrence in the post#0 period, taken into consideration that a
series of introduced key regulations was found to $e related to the significant decrease of the fre%uency of tanker accidents 426!
3oncerning the si'e of tanker ships involved in the incidents, the following .BT si'e segments were consideredD
)ediu! =il Tan,ers (studied periodD 50#Oct 200)D contains
@A>.F/*H0 tankers (20,000# 89, .BT) and @A>.F+AC tankers (8:,000 I <0,000 .BT)!
Large =il Tan,ers (studied periodD 50#Oct 200;)D contains
PA>A+AC tankers (<0,000# A, .BT), A7"A+AC tankers (;0,000 I 55, .BT), /10H+AC tankers (520,000 I 5,
.BT), G=33 tankers (200,000#85, .BT) and 1=33 tankers (greater than 820,000 .BT)!
Bith respect to the tanker su$types(su$categories considered in the study, only categories relevant to oil tan,ers were considered in the
current investigation, namely according to the definition of *@/ casualty data$aseD Oil Tankers, 3rude Tankers, /huttle Tankers,
Product 3arriers and 3hemical(Oil Tankers! *t is noted that OJOs, Ore(Oilers and 3hemical Tankers (and the related accidents that may
have led to maritime pollution) were e-cluded from the present analysis, $ecause these tanker su$types have special design(layout and
operational features, which are not representative of the whole class of tankers!
An overview of the analysed sampling plan accounting for non#serious as well as accidents with serious degree of severity is given in
Ta$le 5! The definition of accident)s degree of se$erity is taken $y default according to the notation in the used commercial data$ases
*@/, note that recent studies of the authors indicated sporadic inconsistencies in the particular definition 4;6!
:.2 =perational %leet at 4is,
Annual Operational 7leet at "isk is defined as the num$er of ships that operate in the corresponding period and it was calculated
according to the monthly operation of each vessel $ased on data from the *@/ data$ase! 7ig!2 presents the corresponding fleet at risk of
large and medium tankers along with the annual distri$utions of .ou$le @ull (.@) 7leet and >on#.ou$le @ull 7leet! *n difference to
the analysed casualty data period, Ta$le 5, it is noted that the shown data for the operational fleet at risk cover the period until the end
of 2050!
+i*' (# Operational 7leet at "isk of medium and large si'e tankers I .ou$le and non#dou$le hull ships
Annual .@#ships population was significantly small in the first years of the analysis period, namely 50#5:, $ut it steadily
increased as could $e e-pected $ecause of the gradual enforcement of the re%uirements of dou$le hull ship concept worldwide (and the
corresponding phase out of single hull ships), surpassing for the first time the non#.@ fleet in the period 2005#2008!
3 +re8uency of accidents leadin* to 9O:I
7ig!8 presents the annual fre%uency of the sum of the si- (<) investigated main accidents types in the post#0 period, confirming the
significantly decreased trend in that period 46!
+i*' 3# 7re%uency of occurrence of main tanker accidents per ship year I medium and large tankers
The accidental fre%uency $ehaviour is %uite similar for $oth main tanker si'e categories (medium and large), with high peaks o$served
in year 50 and progressively decreasing values in the years after $y a factor : to <, while presenting %uite sta$le low values after
5! >ote that after 5, the .@#fleet started having a considera$le share in the overall tanker fleet, which means that the
new$uildings entering the operational fleet at the year of census, have had enhanced implemented formal *+O procedures, complying
with stricter rules, disposing enhanced design (dou$le hull concept) and their crew undergoing enhanced safety training! 7urthermore,
even the e-isting single hull fleet had at that time to comply with a series of stricter regulations until their phase out, so that as a
conse%uence the overall fre%uency of accidents decreased!
*n 7ig!9, the average overall fre%uency for medium and large tankers is presented per accident category and degree of accidents)
severity! Jecause of the nature of statistical data, it considered essential to esta$lish the uncertainty margins of the o$tained averaged
values! Thus, confidence intervals were presented $ased on bino!ial confidence analysis, they are herein calculated as :E confidence
intervals correspond to the :E pro$a$ility that certain values will $e met!
+i*' 4# 7re%uencies of serious and non#serious events per ship year with uncertainty margins I main top events
7ocusing on the accidents with serious degree of severity, 7ig!9 (shaded columns), the following comments can $e madeD
" Na$igational accidents (collision, contact and grounding) as well as Non"accidental Structural %ailures 'NAS%( e-hi$it significantly
lower fre%uencies of serious cases, compared to the non#serious ones, this is confirmed for $oth the medium and large tankers!
@owever, latest investigations 450, 556 showed significant underreporting in cases of accidents with non#serious degree of severity, thus
the particular difference may $e actually erratic, in general, fre%uencies of accidents in the various categories appear similar $etween
medium and large tankers, e-cept for the >A/7 accidents, for which the fre%uencies of the large tankers are higher $y an a$out factor
2!0!
" %ire and &plosion accidents appear to e-hi$it a different $ehaviour with respect to seriousness of accidents (with the recorded serious
accidents prevailing), indicating that if such accident happen, higher pro$a$ilities of having serious conse%uences (and fatalities) should $e
e-pected!
+i*' 7# >avigational accidental events, 7re%uency per ship year
2./ Na$igational Accidents
The fre%uency of navigational incidents) occurrence e-hi$its a steadily decreasing trend within the studied period, 7ig!:! Practically, after
year 5, the annual fre%uency of navigational accidents does not further decrease, $ut starts oscillating $elow an upper limit of a$out
2!00#02!
Although the .@ tanker concept does not affect the fre%uency of navigational incidents) occurrence, the entrance of new#$uilt ships to the
world fleet (in that case of .@ concept) along with the more stringent regulations entering into force, contri$uted to the increase of tanker
safety! The rationali'ation of shipping companies) operational procedures and management systems through the */+ 3ode, /T3B, 0T/,
/O=A/ provisions on routeing systems etc, that $ecame mandatory for all ships, are some principal regulations that may have led to the
particular fre%uency decrease!
Jased on the collected data, some refined information regarding the pro$a$ility of side damages vs! $ottom damages can $e e-tracted,
which can $e used for a rough verification of the corresponding pro$a$ility assumptions em$edded in +A"PO=)s provisions for the
estimation of accidental oil outflow! 7ocusing on the sampling plan of serious navigational accidents and assuming that accidental side
damages are related to collisions and contacts, whereas $ottom damages are attri$uted to grounding events, the following pro$a$ilities
were calculatedD
# +edium tankersD :AE side damages I 98E $ottom damages, related fre%uenciesD 9!<20#08 side, 8!:50#08 $ottom!
# =arge tankersD :5E side damages I 9E $ottom damages, related fre%uenciesD 9!0<0#08 side, 8!00#08 $ottom!
The a$ove relationships should $e compared to the 90E to <0E assumption of +A"PO=)s reg! 28 4526, which appears erratic and
needs to $e revisited!
2.: %ire, and &plosion Accidents
According to the casualty analysis, fire was initiated inside the vessels in 2#<E of the reported events for $oth ship si'es!
3onsidering these cases, fire started in ship)s aft area in ;#:E of relevant cases, from which ;8E started in the 0ngine "oom!
"egarding the e-plosion events, there is a considera$le pro$a$ility of a$out 9:E of cases for which fire followed an e-plosion, which
is very important for the event se%uence!
7ig!< presents a slightly decreasing tendency in the annual fre%uency of fire and e-plosion events along the studied period! 0specially,
in the second decade (after 5), annual fre%uencies are confined within significantly smaller margins compared to the corresponding
dates in the first decade of statistical analysis!
+i*' ;# 7ire, and 0-plosion events, 7re%uency per ship year
*t is $elieved that the introduction of the */+ 3ode, the stricter re%uirements for oil fuel lines> protection 'S=LAS #hapter ??":( that
entered into force in 5; for new$uildings, as well as the temperature sensing devices applied after 2002, have enhanced the safety of
ships against fire and e-plosion events, as reflected in the a$ove statistics!
2.2 Non"Accidental structural failures and the i!pact of ship>s age
7ig!A presents the annual fre%uency of non#accidental structural failures for $oth tanker si'es within the studied period! *n year 50,
large tankers e-hi$ited a significant peak for the >A/7 fre%uency, namely 8!A0#02 (95 incidents), noting that a$out half of the occurred
cases (5 incidents) were related to the largest si'e tanker ships (G=3321=33 si'e)!
At first, the two main parameters of >A/7 risk analysis (fre%uencies and conse%uences) are studied in relation to ship)s $asic hull type
of design (.@ and >on#.@ ships)! 3learly, the conse%uence analysis is highly dependent on ship)s $asic design, $ecause the .@
concept gives a lower pro$a$ility of pollution in scenarios with small hull penetrations in the cargo area! This effect of dou$le hull can
also $e concluded from +A"PO=)s oil outflow model 4586! 7urthermore, the fre%uency parameter appears non#highly correlated to
ship)s $asic design in cases of navigational events (collision, contact and grounding) or fire and e-plosion events! @owever, in cases of
non#accidental structural failure (>A/7), the fre%uency parameter is e-pected to $e significantly dependent on hull type, $ecause the
particular event category is strongly correlated to ship)s internal structure design and to related manufacturing(maintenance %uality!
7ocusing on the .ou$le @ull large tankers, 22 non#accidental structural failures occurred over the studied period resulting to an average
fre%uency of 5!;0#08, it is noted that /@ cases out of :: registered NAS% cases 6ere reported for ne6ly built ships, namely in the group
age of 0#: ship)s years old! +edium .ou$le @ull Tankers present 52 occurred non#accidental structural failures yielding a fre%uency of
5!50#08, which is actually lower than the corresponding one of large tankers and without any indication of higher fre%uency for the new#
$uilt ships!
*n order to analy'e this interesting relationship $etween >A/7 and ship)s age, the ship age categories were $roken down into five years
periods and the corresponding num$er of accidents as well as the num$er of ship years were determined! At first, as single hull ships are
inherently of higher age than dou$le hull ships, it is essential to evaluate $oth ship types on a common age $asis during the study period!
3onsidering this and focusing on the >A/7 $y group age, it is found that there is a peak in the middle age (5<#20 years) group, whereas
fre%uencies for more aged .@ ships (over 20 years) are lower, 7ig!; (left hand diagram)! The latter can $e e-plained $y the fact that there
are only very few operating .@ ships over 20 years of age, therefore the uncertainty of the particular result is rather high!
+i*' 6# >on#Accidental /tructural 7ailure, 7re%uency per ship year
3ompara$le results for large oil tankers show also comple- (and may $e une-pected) patterns of fre%uencies, namely high fre%uencies in
the young age group (0#: years), and then continuously increasing fre%uency after the <#50 years of $uilt! *n the young age group (0#:
years) there is a remarka$le structural failure rate for all large ship su$#si'es, e-cept for G=33(1=33, 7ig!; (right hand diagram) 4;6!
+i*' /# +edium Tankers, >A/7 and group age, =arge Tankers, >A/7
and group age
The a$ove identified pro$lems of >A/7 for tanker ships of relatively young age (especially for the large tankers) suggest pro$lems in
the 7uality of recent ne6buildings, rather than typical fatigue type structural failures of properly fa$ricated ship structures (see, also,
46)! Thus, though one may e-pect that >A/7 pro$lems are directly related to ship)s age, this relationship is not straightforward $ut
needs careful investigation of the actual causes of >A/7 in order to identify upcoming pro$lems in due time!
4 Ship<s total loss
7ig! illustrates the fre%uency of ship)s total loss for each incident category for large and medium tankers! +edium tankers present higher
fre%uencies for grounding, >A/7 and almost the same value in case of e-plosion events, compared to the corresponding ones derived from
the large tankers analysis! +oreover, large tankers e-hi$it higher corresponding fre%uencies in cases of collision and fire accidents! These
o$servations, however, need to $e considered with caution, $ecause of the large statistical uncertainty due to the scarcity of related
historical data!
7 )arine pollution
7or the investigated tanker ship si'es, it is trivially confirmed that the larger the ship the more severe is the environmental impact in case of
accidental loss of watertight integrity! 7igs 50#55 present the oil released to the sea as a conse%uence of medium and large si'e oil tanker
accidents during the studied time period!
+i*' 9# 7re%uency of ship)s total loss
Ta$les 2#8 present the /pill Tonne "ate per ship year along with the :E confidence intervals (3!*!) that were determined for the mean
o$tained value! The spill tonne rates for large and medium tankers are not compara$le, as could $e e-pected, $ecause of the large
difference in the carried cargo capacity! *t is acknowledged that the :E confidence intervals with respect to the noted average values are
%uite wide, indicating that the spill tonne rates are decisively determined $y a very limited num$er of individual accidents with large oil
spills (catastrophic accidents), rather than $y many small pollution events or average si'e!
Ta$le 2D =arge tankers, /pill Tonne "ate per ship year Ta$le 8D +edium tankers, /pill tonne rate per ship year
9ar*e tankers )ediu! tankers
Period Spill tonne rates 0'I' Period Spill tonne rates 0'I'
50#200; 98!5 K 8A!A 50#200 A!8 K <!8
50#5 A5!8 K <A!< 50#5 58!2 K 55!<
2000#200; 55!A K 52!0 2000#200 5!9 K 5!;
Proceeding to a more refined analysis for A7"A+AC tankers, the calculated oil released to the sea is 288,58; tonnes within the studied
period (50#200;)! Taking into account that the A7"A+AC 7leet at "isk was calculated to $e ,A;< shipyears and considering an
average .BT value of 500,000 tonnes, also accounting for a ship)s life cycle of 2: years period, this leads to a$out 0!<E .BT rate of
oil per A7"A+AC ship, which is e-pected to $e released to the sea within the ship)s life cycle! This may $e compared to the 0!05: (or
5!:E .BT) ma-imum allowa$le rate of oil spill for an A7"A+AC tanker according to +A"PO=, reg28 4526, indicating that the
+A"PO= re%uirement is on the safe side!
; 0onclusions and the way ahead
The current study presented results of a systematic analysis of accidents pertaining to medium and large oil tankers (deadweight over
20 k tonnes) and covering the period after the introduction of OPA 0, namely 50 to 200 (Octo$er), continuing earlier studies of
>T1A#/.= and ?ermanischer =loyd on the design and safety of tankers! 3alculated values derived from the statistics must $e used
+i*' &0# +edium Tankers# marine pollution over the studied
period
+i*' &&D =arge Tankers# +arine pollution over the studied
period
with caution $ecause availa$le data$ases do not capture in general all accidents (pro$lem of under"reporting), they partly include
erratic information and provide always a snapshot of the status for a certain o$servation period! Thus, single accidents, when they
happen, may have a significant impact on the accident fre%uencies and especially on the indentified conse%uences, especially when
they are of Lcatastrophic) character! *n order to show the uncertainty of the fre%uencies presented in this paper a confidence analysis
was also presented referring to the initiating main top events!
The data in this paper provide the $asis for the development of a risk model for medium si'e tankers, which complements earlier
conducted studies for large tankers! /uch a risk model should consider the uncertainty in the initial accident fre%uencies as well as in
the dependent pro$a$ilities in the scenarios! This would allow considering the effect of uncertainty also in su$se%uent analyses, for
instance in a cost#$enefit analysis of design modifications 4596!
@aving completed earlier the 7ormal /afety Assessment procedure for =arge Oil Tankers 4<6, the present study is the first one
addressing systematically the effect of ship si'e in the frame of 7ormal /afety Assessment procedures providing information that will
allow the development of more ela$orated risk models taking into account the ship si'e! This is considered essential, particularly when
dealing with ship types, for which their safety performance (hereD safety of environment) may dramatically change with the increase of
ship si'e! A comparison of the herein o$tained results for the medium si'e tankers with corresponding ones for the large oil tankers
ena$led the identification of nota$le differences in the accidental pattern, though overall trends are compara$le! Also, some important
conclusions regarding relevant regulatory provisions of +A"PO= regarding the accidental oil outflow inde- were ena$led!
*n the ne-t stage of this research, which will $e complemented $y the analysis of accidental data of the s!all tan,ers (deadweight
$elow 20 k tons), the societal risk will $e calculated and e-pressed $y 7> diagrams (denoting cumulative fre%uencies of losses of
human lives) and 7T diagrams (denoting cumulative fre%uencies of oil pollution in tonnes, i!e! the environmental impact $y oil
spillage), this will allow even more comprehensive conclusions on the safety of oil transport $y all si'es of tankers!
6' Acknowled*e!ents
A part of the work presented herein was financially supported $y the 0uropean 3ommission under the 7P< /ustaina$le /urface
Transport Programme! This support was given under the scheme of /T"0P, POP23 pro&ect, 3ontract >o! T/T8#3T#2009#:0<58 and
under the *ntegrated Pro&ect /A70.O", 3ontract >o 7P<#:5<2A;! /u$se%uent studies were partly financially supported $y the
$ilateral >T1A#?= pro&ects TA>MOPT (200#2055) and 3O>T*OPT (2055#2058)!
The 0uropean 3ommunity and the authors shall not in any way $e lia$le or responsi$le for the use of any knowledge, information or
data of the present paper, or of the conse%uences thereof! The views e-pressed in this paper those of the authors and do not necessary
reflect the views and policies of the 0uropean 3ommunity!
The authors like to thank +r! Pavlos .iamantis, graduated student of >T1A # /chool of >aval Architecture and +arine 0ngineering
for his support in the presented work through his diploma thesis 45:6!
References
5! POP23! Pollution Prevention and 3ontrol! 01 pro&ect, <th 7ramework Programme, 3ontract >o T/T8#3T#2009#:0<58, (2009#
200A)!
2! .elautre /!, 0liopoulou 0! and +ikelis >!, NThe *nfluence of "egulations on the /afety "ecord of the Aframa- TankersO, 200:,
/tudy carried out within the POP23 pro&ect, www!pop#c!org!
8! /A70.O"! .esign, Operation and "egulation for /afety! 01 pro&ect, 7P<#:5<2A; (200:#200)!
9! Papanikolaou, A!, 0liopoulou, 0!, Alissafaki, A!, +ikelis, >!, Aksu, /! and .elautre, /! 3asualty analysis of Aframa- tankers! Proc!
*+ech0, Part +, P! 0ngineering for the +aritime 0nvironment, 200A, vol! 225 (issue +2), pp! 9A#<:!
:! 0liopoulou, 0!, and Papanikolaou, A! 3asualty analysis of large tankers! P! +arine /cience and Technology, Gol!52, >o 9, pp 55#
2A5, >ovem$er 200A, /pringer Papan, *//> 09;#92;0 (Print) 598A#;258 (Online)!
<! .enmark#*+O! 7/A I 3rude Oil Tankers! +0P3 :;(5A(2 and +0P3 :;(*>7!2, 200;!
A! TA>MOPT, 7ormal /afety Assessment and +ulti#o$&ective Optimi'ation of Tanker ships, >T1A#?= $ilateral pro&ect, 200#2055!
;! 3O>T*OPT, 7ormal /afety Assessment and +ulti#o$&ective Optimi'ation of 3ontainerships, >T1A#?= $ilateral pro&ect, 2055#
2058!
! Papanikolaou, A! and 0liopoulou, 0! *mpact of ship age on tanker accidents! ?reek /ection of /ociety of >aval Architects and
+arine 0ngineers, /ept! 200;, Athens!
50! *A3/! ?eneral 3argo /hip /afety, 7/A study I /tep 2 ("isk analysis)! /u$mitted $y *A3/, *+O +/3 ;A(*>7!9, 25 Panuary 2050!
55! @amann "!, 0liopoulou 0!, Monovessis .!, Thomas +! and Pasionowski A! /tandard risk models for collision and grounding
events of passenger vessels, .elivera$le :!5 (2055), ?OA= .amage /ta$ility, .? "esearch I 7PA 2nd call, 2050!
52! "esolution +0P3!55A (:2), (2009), "evised Anne- * of +A"PO= A8(A;!
58! +0P3!522 (:<), 2009D 0-planatory >otes on matters related to the accidental oil outflow performance under regulation 28,
"evised +A"PO= A>>0C *! *nternational +aritime Organisation, =ondon!
59! @amann "! and =oer M! "isk#$ased optimisation of crude oil tanker cargo holds! />A+0 3onf! /hip Operations, +aintenance 2
0conomics (/O+0), A#; Octo$er 2050, Athens!
5:! .iamantis, P (2050)! Q3asualty analysis of medium si'e tankersQ, .iploma Thesis, /hip .esign =a$oratory, >ational Technical
1niversity of Athens, 2050 (in greek)!