and the permit application process Broadening Horizons646188/...a Licentiate thesis in Environmental Science Licentiate thesis in Environmental Science Broadening Horizons The FMECA-NETEP

a

Licentiate thesis in Environmental Science Licentiate thesis in Environmental Science

Broadening HorizonsThe FMECA-NETEP model, offshore wind farms and the permit application process

John Ohlson

ISBN: 978-91-87427-48-0

Broadening Horizons

John Ohlson

a



John Ohlson

ISBN: 978-91-87427-48-0

Broadening Horizons

John Ohlson

a



John Ohlson

ISBN: 978-91-87427-48-0

Broadening Horizons

John Ohlson

a



John Ohlson

ISBN: 978-91-87427-48-0

Broadening Horizons

John Ohlson

a



John Ohlson

ISBN: 978-91-87427-48-0

Broadening Horizons

John Ohlson

a



John Ohlson

ISBN: 978-91-87427-48-0

Broadening Horizons

John Ohlson

Broadening Horizons

The FMECA-NETEP model, offshore wind farms and the permit application process

John Ohlson

Linnæus University

Sweden

2013

LICENTIATE THESIS

ISBN 978-91-87427-48-0

i

Licentiate thesis, 2013

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

Linnæus University

John Ohlson

Kalmar Maritime Academy

Linnæus University

SE-391 82 Kalmar

Sweden

ii

The seas are Europe's lifeblood. Europe's maritime spaces and its coasts are central to its

wellbeing and prosperity – they are Europe's trade routes, climate regulator, sources of food,

energy and resources, and a favoured site for its citizens' residence and recreation … on the

one hand technology and know-how allow us to extract ever more value from the sea … on the

other hand, the cumulated effect of all this activity is leading to conflicts of use and to the

deterioration of the marine environment that everything else depends on.

An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union

iii

Abstract

The permit application process for offshore wind farms (OWF) in Sweden conceivably

requires a comprehensive and transparent complement within risk management. The NETEP

framework (covering risks concerning navigation, economics, technology, environment and

politics), based on a futures planning mechanism (STEEP) has consequently been brought

forward as a structure for the application of FMECA (Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality

Analysis) methodology to the permit application process of the Swedish offshore wind farm

sector. FMECA, originating from the aeronautical and automobile industries, presents a

systematic method for the prediction of future failure in a product, part or process, to

evaluate the consequences of that failure and to suggest possible measures for its mitigation

or eradication. Its application to attitude and acceptance, safety and environmental effect

remains, however, limited which creates the research gap for this thesis. Three Swedish

offshore wind farm (OWF) projects in the Baltic Sea area (Lillgrund, Taggen and Trolleboda)

were put forward as case studies for use in the evaluation of the proposed FMECA-NETEP

methodology, which was approached in two stages. The first evaluation stage results

showed that the model accommodates the precautionary principle, the consideration of

stakeholder viewpoints, the mitigation of negative effects, the analysis of alternative sites,

the observation of relevant legislation and the utilisation of contemporary research. In the

subsequent stage of evaluation, the factor for incorporation into the adapted model was

intra- and inter-sector cumulative impact. Results showed that positive cumulative impact

cannot be illustrated by the model whereas neutral and negative cumulative impact can.

The model’s added value is that it facilitates decision making by providing a rigorous,

transparent and structured methodology, the holistic approach of which provides a sound

basis for the incorporation of contemporary research.

Keywords

FMECA, cumulative impact, risk, offshore wind farm (OWF)

Photograph on cover page: Taken from Garpens fyrplats, a lighthouse off the coast of Bergkvara, looking south towards the proposed Vattenfall Trolleboda OWF site. Photograph: John Ohlson.

iv

Sammanfattning

Havsbaserad vindkraft och de olika parametrar som påverkar förutsättningarna för hållbara

etableringar ligger till grund för denna studie. Tillämpbarheten hos en riskvärderingsmodell

som ska kunna användas vid beslut om lokalisering av större vindkraftsparker till havs har

utvecklats och utvärderats. Den slutliga modellen framhävar en metodik och struktur som

gör det möjligt att väga in såväl sjöfartssäkerhet som miljömässiga, ekonomiska, tekniska

och politiska faktorer i en kartläggning och helhetsbedömning av de tänkbara riskerna som

finns. Detta kan göra tillståndsprocessen för vindkraftsetableringar till havs mer transparent

och heltäckande, samtidigt som bättre hänsyn kan tas till kumulativa risker än vad som är

vanligt med nuvarande metoder.

Nyckelord

FMECA, kumulativa effekter, risk, havsbaserad vindkraft

v

Contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

1.1 STEEP and spatial planning …………………………………………………………………………….……………….1

1.2 NETEP and maritime spatial planning ………………………………………………………….………………….2

1.3 FMEA and FMECA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5

1.4 FMECA-NETEP……….…………………………………………………………………………………………………..….11

1.5 Cumulative impact ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12

1.6 Objective ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..19

1.7 Outline for the study ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…20

1.7.1 Adoption of the ISO 31000:2009 as a framework ……………………………………………..20

1.7.2 Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Maritime Spatial Planning………………23

1.8 Contemporary research ………………………………………………………………………………………………..26

1.8.1 FMECA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…26

1.8.2 STEEP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28

2. The testing ground…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

2.1 Sustainable development ……………………………………………………………………………………………..30

2.2 The permit application process offshore in Sweden ……………………………………………………..30

2.3 International legislation of importance for the establishments of OWFs ………………………32

2.4 The territorial sea and legislation …………………………………………………………..…………………….33

2.5 The exclusive economic zone and legislation …………………………………………..……………………40

2.6 Case studies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….43

2.6.1 Lillgrund ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………46

2.6.2 Trolleboda ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..48

2.6.3 Taggen ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49

3. Falling in line with the model?..........................................................................................52

3.1 Stage One: Individual NETEP …………………………………………………………………………………………52

3.1.1 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………..………….….52

3.1.1.1 The reference group ………………………………..………………………………………..………52

3.1.1.2 The conduct of the study ……………………………………………………………..…………..53

3.1.2 Results ……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….58

3.1.2.1 FMECA analysis by Stage One reference group ………………………………………….58

3.1.2.2 Observations made by the reference group during analysis ……….……………..62

3.1.3 Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..64

3.2 Cumulative impact …………………………………………………………………………………………………….….65

3.3 Stage Two: Group NETEP ………………………………………………………………………………………………66

3.3.1 Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………66

3.3.1.1 The reference group …………………………………………………………………..……………..66

3.3.1.2 The conduct of the study………………………………………………..…………………….……67

3.3.2 Results …………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………70

3.3.2.1 FMECA-NETEP analysis by Stage Two reference group ………………………….…..70

3.3.2.2 Observations made by the reference group during analysis………………….......77

3.3.3 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..78

vi

4. Concluding discussion………………………………………………………………………………….….……….………79

5. Future research……………………………………………………………………………………….………………….……80

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……82

Reference list……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….83

vii

Abbreviations

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

FMECA Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis

ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management, used particularly within European Union

institutions, where it is administered by the European Commission’s Directorate

General: Environment. The terminology has become generic for integrated coastal

management issues since its inception in the Woods Hole (USA) Coastal Zone

Workshop 1972. Other variations include ICM (Integrated Coastal Management) and

ICOM (Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management)

ISO International Organization for Standardization

MSP Maritime Spatial Planning, (particularly within renewable energy concerns termed

Marine Spatial Planning). Within the European Union administered by the European

Commission’s Directorate General Mare

NETEP Navigational, economic, technological, environmental and political risk areas

OWE Offshore wind energy

OWF Offshore wind farm(s)

STEEP Social, technical, economic, environmental and political trends that should be borne in

mind when drawing up strategic plans particularly within spatial planning or

marketing. A STEEP analysis is customarily used to predict future conditions based on

present trends. Other variations include PEST or STEP (political, economic, social and

technological) STEEPLE (STEEP with legislative and ethical) and PESTLE (political,

economic, sociological, technological, legal and environmental)

STA The Swedish Transport Agency, (Transportstyrelsen) is a Swedish government agency

that operates under the auspices of the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and

Communications. It was formed on 1 January 2009 through a merger of several

government agencies, including the Swedish Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket),

the government agency which provides shipping lane and navigational routeing

services to the maritime transport sector

SwAM Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agencies_in_Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Enterprise,_Energy_and_Communications_(Sweden)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Enterprise,_Energy_and_Communications_(Sweden)

1

1. Introduction

This thesis concerns evaluation of the FMECA (Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis),

risk model to areas of application outside its natural sphere. FMECA is a derivative of an

earlier model, FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis), which is utilised without criticality

(C), an option which presents a means by which risk levels can be ranked in order of

importance. Whilst the thesis targets FMECA the two methodologies, FMECA and FMEA,

differ only in this regard and notwithstanding the criticality component are regarded as

synonymous. FMECA is adapted for evaluation of the permit application process for offshore

wind farms in Sweden by means of the NETEP framework, derived by the author from an

existing planning tool, STEEP. The combined model FMECA-NETEP can be considered within

a maritime spatial planning (MSP) perspective, an increasingly utilised planning mechanism

which deals with the central management of competition for sea use. The International

Organization for Standardization, International Standard ISO 31000:2009 framework for risk

management and related terminology section ISO Guide 73, 2009 have been applied to the

combined model FMECA-NETEP. American Psychological Association (APA 6th edition)

referencing has been used.

1.1 STEEP and spatial planning

Within planning operations the STEEP model has traditionally been used within trend

forecasting. It is a form of risk perception which looks at trends over given time frames that

could affect a project. It is used by government authorities within regional planning (United

Kingdom Government, 2009) and for noticing trends in consumer behavior and societal

development prior to the potential launch of a new product within marketing, thereby

gauging entrepreneurial opportunities (Ford Motor Company, 2013). As a backboard for

discussion around the five areas of external influence or trends that can have an effect on a

project or organization (social, technological, environmental, economic and political)

variations on its theme include STEEPLE (with legislative and ethical trends also added),

PESTLE (political, economic, sociological, technological, legal, environmental trends) and

STEP or PEST (political, economic, social and technological trends). A modification of the

latter is central to a contemporary marine renewable energy (wave and tidal) risk analysis

study. The consenting procedure is illustrated as a socio-political risk issue, accompanied by

2

finance, technology and grid risks. Event, likelihood of occurrence, potential impact and

possible mitigation strategies are presented as the opposing variables. Krohn et al. (2013)

believes that:

by understanding the risks impacting wave and tidal projects, the industry can work with other

stakeholders to develop viable strategies for overcoming them. Only by engaging with the

challenges together can they be conquered. In short, it is time to get real about risk. (p. 3)

1.2 NETEP and maritime spatial planning

In this thesis a navigation, economics, technology, environment and politics framework,

NETEP, has been adapted from STEEP with the modifications that navigation has substituted

the social issues category, which has been transferred to the politics sector. Here, political

issues are seen to operate as a collective term for developments that affect the citizen.

NETEP differs from STEEP and its counterparts in that potential risk rather than purely trend

is targeted. This however does not represent a given use for land-based spatial planning

methodology to areas within maritime spatial planning (MSP). The conceptual difference

between the two is based on the notion of property ownership and is too pronounced for

direct duplication of methodology from one to the other (Emmelin, 2013). Rather the

navigation (N) component offers an extension of a spatial planning tool (STEEP) to a

proposed maritime spatial planning framework (NETEP). With the perceived potential to

accommodate both air and maritime navigation the importance of its inclusion highlights the

need for cross-sector risk management within the permit application (licensing) procedure.

Contemporary international maritime research mirrors this stand point, Porathe as cited in

ACCSEAS (2013) states that:

(o)ne of the biggest problems is that there is no formal consultation programme with the

transnational shipping community when projects such as offshore wind farms are planned.

There needs to be much stronger collaboration and co-operation between industry

organisations and governmental administrations in order to achieve solutions that reflect the

interests of all parties … greater navigational accuracy from e-Navigation technologies will help

lead to safer seas but this alone cannot remove all risks associated with navigating in the

3

vicinity of offshore wind-farms. Responsible planning that avoids co-locating turbines in areas of

high shipping density is of paramount importance if the risks are to be minimised. (p. 1)

Research presenting a comprehensive analysis of international legislation with relation to

maritime spatial planning has been published in the EU funded SEANERGY 2020 synthesis

report, administered by the European Wind Energy Agency. Attention in the report is drawn

to the relocation of shipping lanes to accommodate increased offshore deployments such as

wind farms and the importance of sufficient analysis methods to accommodate this

situation. Possible negative ecological impacts such as greater fuel consumption and carbon

dioxide emissions are highlighted in this respect (Kreutzkamp, Jacques & Joseph, in European

Wind Energy Agency, 2012, p. 48). Attention to the emerging, interlinking structure of wind

power expansion in symbiosis with other sea uses is seen as a matter of priority. Cameron,

Hekkenberg & Veum (Ibid.) state that:

the cumulative effect of growing sea use and the strain this puts on the maritime ecosystem

also needs to be addressed. The cumulative pressures resulting from uses and how these will

evolve in the future is important, in particular for uses that include large expansion plans, such

as offshore wind energy. (pp. 56-57)

The body of legislation applicable to offshore wind power development spans international,

regional and national spheres. The main areas addressed within the NETEP framework

concern Swedish legislation with reference to international guidelines. This includes, but is

not limited to, the following;

• the Swedish Environmental Code Miljöbalken (1998:808), in particular,

Chapter 6 Environmental Impact Assessment: effects of planned OWF on environment (flora/fauna) and humans,

Chapter 9 Miljöfarlig verksamhet (environmentally hazardous activity) and,

Chapter 11, paragraph 9 Vattenverksamhet (water-based activity) permits applied for from MMD Mark och Miljödomstolen (the Land and Environmental Court) – this made possible by Chapter 21 paragraph 3 of the Swedish Environmental Code;

• the Swedish Environmental Ordinance regarding Environmentally Hazardous Activities and Public Health Förordning om miljöfarlig verksamhet och hälsoskydd (1998:899);

4

• the Planning and Construction Act Plan- och bygglagen, PBL (2010:900), Chapter 3 (Kommunens Översiktsplan) relates to the local authority general plan; also the Planning and Construction Ordinance Plan- och byggförordningen PBF (2011:338) Chapter 2 paragraph 5 relating to significant environmental effects; Chapter 6, paragraph 5, subsection 7 (valid until July 1, 2013 when superceded by subsection 8) in relation to the construction of new or significant alteration of existing wind turbines;

• the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Förordning om

miljökonsekvensbeskrivningar (1998:905);

• the Electricity Act - Ellagen (1997:857); also the Electromagnetic Compatibility Act - Lag om elektromagnetisk kompatibilitet (1992:1512);

• the Heritage Conservation Act (1988:950) superceded by Lag om ändring i lagen (1988:950) om kulturminnen m.m (2013:548); • the Utility Easements Act Ledningsrättslag (1973:1144) in the drawing of power lines;

• the Protection of Landscape Information Act - Lag om skydd för landskapsinformation (1993.1742) relating to hydrographic surveys;

• Hinders to airborne navigation Transportstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd om markering av byggnader, master och andra föremål (TSFS 2010:155);

• the Maritime Traffic Ordinance Sjötrafikförordningen (1986:300) Chapter 2, paragraph 2 as regards hinders to maritime navigation. Permit allocations are considered by the Swedish Transport Agency after consultation with the Swedish Maritime Administration, also important are Recommendations provided by The International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) regarding the marking procedures for OWFs;

• the Act concerning the Territorial Waters of Sweden Lag om Sveriges Sjöterritorium (1966:374), the Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone Act Lag om Sveriges ekonomiska zon (1992:1140) and Ordinance (1992:1226), and the Act on the Continental Shelf Kontinentalsockellagen (1966:314), and its Ordinance (1966:315) as regards sea bed exploration and the laying of underwater cables.

5

The subject areas of NETEP in this thesis can be broadly introduced as the following:

Navigational – whilst recognising inland waters, civil air navigation and the operations of the

armed forces the thesis concerns maritime navigation, in particular, commercial shipping;

Economic – the micro-economic effect of the OWF (on local industries), the effects of

government offshore wind energy policy on the project itself;

Technological – factors related to the laying of underwater cables, hydrographic surveys,

electromagnetism, the physical make-up of turbines including foundations, wind speed

considerations and related temperature maps, also maintenance considerations including

transport distances and proximity of the electricity network grid;

Environmental – effects on flora and fauna;

Political – public acceptance, consenting procedure, stakeholder participation, matters

relating to areas of historical and cultural importance including marine archaeology, effects

on public safety and the well-being of stakeholders and the public.

1.3 FMEA and FMECA

The development of the two intrinsically linked systems has been approximately parallel, the

delineation between them being use of the criticality mode. Failure Mode, Effects, and

Criticality Analysis (FMECA) was developed by the United States National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) within aeronautical programmes, its use emanating from

military concerns. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) has its home in automotive

applications. Whilst standards exist which define FMEA terminology, specify procedures for

performance and describe formats (Reliawind, 2007, p.25), spheres of application for the

two systems cannot be regarded as mutually exclusive.

The United States military has a well-documented use of FMECA. Within reliability studies

the military standard, MIL-STD 785A (1969) was superceded in 1980 by MIL-STD 785B, which

in Task 204 describes the purpose of FMECA as:

6

to identify potential design weaknesses through systematic, documented consideration of the

following: all likely ways in which a component or equipment can fail; causes for each mode;

and the effects of each failure (which may be different for each mission phase). (United States

Government, 1980, 204-1)

An earlier use of FMECA was in the United States Armed Forces military procedures of the

late 1940s as MIL-P-1629, updated in 1974 to a maritime variant, suffixed (SHIPS). As an

indication of the prominence of the 1629 system and to illustrate the connection between it

and MIL-STD-785B, procedure identification is outlined within Task 204 of MIL-STD-785B in

accordance with 1629 methodology (United States Government, 1980, 204-3.1b). MIL-P-

1629 was revised once again in 1980 suffixed A (United States Government, 1980b),

although both standards were subsequently cancelled, MIL-STD-1629A in 1998. Despite this,

MIL-STD-1629A remains on the public domain and can be regarded as one of the blueprints

for further development of FMECA risk methodology.

By the early 1960s, NASA had introduced the risk methodology and was applying it to several

projects including the Apollo in 1966 (see for example Bolt in National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, 2009), and as the preferred reliability practice for the Viking, Voyager,

Magellan and Galileo projects which spanned from 1975 to 2003 (National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, 2000). As its areas of application broadened, it was introduced into

aircraft engineering in the late sixties as the ARP 926 Fault/Failure Analysis Procedure, which

was upgraded to an A version in 1992 and later to ARP 926B in 1997 (Society of Automotive

Engineers International, 2013).

Within automotive applications, the Society of Automotive Engineers’ recommended

practice version of FMEA, SAE J-1739, was jointly developed by Daimler Chrysler, Ford Motor

Company and General Motors under sponsorship of the United States Council for

Automotive Research (USCAR) in 1994 (FMEA Infocentre, 1997, p. 61). Until 2009 there were

three revisions of the original published in 1994 (Society of Automotive Engineers

International, 2013b). Prior to this, FMEA had established itself as an integral part of Ford

Motor Company’s quality assurance regime by the 1980s, having been introduced as result

of the Ford Pinto project (Lindo, 2013, p.3), as well as a result of the questions raised against

7

risk-benefit analyses in the automobile industry in the 1970s (for example Friedman in

Encyclopedia.com, 2013). Its use by this time had become widespread throughout the USA

and European automotive industries. In the decade that followed, both FMECA and FMEA

were increasingly being used within a range of industries most notably perhaps healthcare,

and today have a broadening spectrum of applicability.

As regards standards outside the realms of the automotive and aeronautics industries,

FMECA plays an integral role in the International Standard Organization ISO 17359:2011

which are general guidelines for the condition monitoring of machines and is the successor

of 17359:2003(E). Procedures for FMEA are also laid out in in the British Standards Institute

BS-EN-60812:2006 relating to analysis techniques for system reliability. CENELEC (the

European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation) uses the international version,

IEC 60812:2006, which has superseded the British Standard BS 5760-5:1991.

Of significance also is the fact that FMEA exists as one of the seven recommended risk

analysis measures forwarded in the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Guidelines

for Formal Safety Assessment (MSC/Circ. 1023; MEPC/ Circ.392) having been adapted for use

within a range of applications within the maritime industry since its original NASA, military

and industrial backgrounds. The International Marine Contractors’ Association FMEA

Management Guide of 2005 being one such example.

There are different variations of FMEA. System or Concept FMEA (S/C FMEA) is used to

analyse complete systems and sub-systems during the concept of the design stage of a

product. Design FMEA (DFMEA), is used to analyse a product design before it is released to

the manufacturing sector, and lastly Process FMEA (PFMEA) analyses the manufacturing and

assembly process. Another aspect is that of machinery and the MFMEA (see for example

Reliasoft Corporation, 2013). Although these variations exist the methodology remains

similar in all cases. This thesis, as a study of the applicability of FMECA to a permit

application process concerns itself primarily with the design aspects of the FMECA model.

FMECA is used for the analysis of potential failures in a system (failure modes). Its use

enables potential failure modes to be identified based on past history and discussion of

potential problems within a reference team. The acronym is divided into two parts; Failure

Mode which is a mistake, error or defect in a system and the manner in which it occurs, and

8

Criticality and Effects Analysis which is the process by which the consequences of these

failures by expert judgments of the reference team are prioritized and studied. The level of

effect of the consequences (severity) is registered, how frequently related causes of the

failure occur (occurrence) and finally how effective existing control mechanisms are at

detecting the failure modes or causes of them, in classical methodology, before they reach

the customer (detection). The methodology is thereby proactive, and the criticality level

provides a system by which risks can be prioritised, and further evaluation measures

introduced arriving at the second risk priority number.

In line with standards used for FMECA and FMEA analysis, e.g. EN-60812:2006 and MIL–STD–

1629A, there are ten major levels covered in an FMECA operation, for an FMEA version,

criticality is removed.

The major levels of an FMECA operation

1. Review the process

2. Brainstorm potential failure modes

3. List potential effects of failure

4. Assign Severity Rankings (1-10)

5. Assign Occurrence Rankings (1-10)

Criticality S x O (1-10 x 1-10)

6. Assign Detection Rankings (1-10)

7. Calculate the Risk Priority Number – RPN (S x O x D) also written as RPN (1)

8. Develop the Action Plan (Recommended actions)

9. Take action

10. Calculate the resulting RPN (incurs new S x O x D) also written as RPN (2)

9

Results of an FMECA analysis can be documented in spreadsheets as exemplified in Table 1.

Table 1. Spreadsheet depicting the stages of an FMECA analysis to RPN(1) via Steps 1-7 and to the

resulting RPN, RPN(2) via Steps 8-10

Steps 1-7

Steps 8-10

It is evident that a number of potential causes can be derived from the same potential

effects of failure (which, in turn, can be more than one). Each potential cause is designated

an occurrence rating and criticality levels are calculated. A detection rating is designated

according to how well the current process controls (tests, procedures, methods) can detect

either the cause or the potential failure mode.

Item Potential

Failure

Mode

Potential

effect(s) of

the failure

Severity

1-10

Potential

cause(s)

of the failure

Occurrence

1-10

CRIT

Current

Process

Controls

Detection

1-10

RPN

Recommended

actions

Responsibility

and target

completion date

Actions

taken

Severity

1-10

Occurrence

1-10

Detection

1-10

Resulting RPN

10

Within the permit application process of an OWF there exist examples that important factors

have been omitted or insufficiently dealt with in permit applications, which have resulted in

a more time-consuming application processes and increased costs. Observance of

insufficiencies within the permit application process can be found in,

• court decisions1;

• government administration investigations (Swedish Energy

Agency, 20122; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,

2005)3 and;

• government commissioned synthesis research reports4

Furthermore, from an offshore perspective, research within the ACCSEAS and SEANERGY

2020 (European Wind Energy Agency, 2012) projects suggests that greater coordination is

needed between industrial organisations and governmental administrations within OWF

planning. This should be carried out in order to ensure that solutions made are in the

interests of those parties concerned and that OWFs are not planned at locations where

conflicts of interest may occur i.e. heavily trafficked shipping areas, or, if conflicts do exist

they can be mitigated.

1 Examples can be found in the Trolleboda M-2415-06 (see page 48) and Taggen M-695-07 (see page 49) cases and which relate to a number of ‘Conditions to be met’ in each. 2 One of the major causes for the increase in lead times for permit applications, and the resulting revision of the permit application process by the Swedish Energy Agency, is given as the fact that many applications are regarded by the responsible authorities to be of inadequate quality and thereby require supplementation. See reference list: Swedish Energy Agency (2012) and section 3.1.3. in the corresponding report, written in Swedish. 3 Report 5513 describes a methodology for a complement to permit applications that would make more effective the presentation of alternative sites and dialogue with affected parties thereby improving the application process. See reference list: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2005), written in Swedish. 4 In Vindval Report No. 6545 The Effects of Wind Power on Human Interests (Henningsson et al). Recommendations that are put forward on wind power and socio-economy include the development of a general model for rapid follow-ups to ensure that conditions for the establishment of wind farms are complied with. Also mentioned is the need for the development of up-to-date templates in order to reduce the need for applications to be supplemented. In the section regarding knowledge gaps it is put that ``research on positive and negative cumulative effects of a wind farm as a whole should increase´´ (page 138). See reference list: Henningsson et al. (2012).

11

This thesis proposes that the present system of permit application does not encompass a

unified cross-sector analysis of risk and there is a need for a more effective, transparent and

holistic management of risk system within the permit application process. The underlying

query pertains to what extent an inward-looking risk methodology can be turned outwards

towards partly non-technical policy areas accommodated under the NETEP umbrella.

Moreover, FMECA risk methodology is interesting to employ in this regard because if proven

effective as an appropriate form of analysis within NETEP areas it could be considered as a

complementary model for use within the OWF permit application process.

Plausible spheres of use include as,

• an appendix-based supplement to a permit application, addressing the perceived risks

noted in the analyses carried out within applications involved in a planned site location.

Methodology would involve footnoting and coding the risks stated in existing analyses and

then administer an FMECA-NETEP analysis of each coded risk;

• a tool for state spatial planners to specify and quantify the risks involved in the siting of

planned OWFs;

• a means by which cumulative impact can be quantified within each individual NETEP sector

(intra-sector e.g. within navigation) and between sectors (inter-sector e.g. navigational risk

issues lead to environmental cumulative impacts); and,

• as a logical extension of this, between OWF project areas that are in close geographical

proximity of each other, either within boundaries of the same coastal state, or between two

or more coastal states.

Possible use of the model would thereby support governmental targets for the production of

renewable energy whilst simultaneously taking account of stakeholder viewpoints and multi-

sector considerations.

1.4 FMECA-NETEP

As international requirements exist for the production of renewable energy (see for example

the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC), and in conjunction with an emerging drive for

greater maritime collaboration within sea use (maritime spatial planning), pressure is

12

growing to `find the right place´ for offshore developments. Simultaneously, further research

into the communication problems that exist between wind power developers, (the

production logic) stakeholders (the political logic) and government institutions (the

administrative logic) within the application process is called for (Rönnberg, 2006). FMECA is

presented within a NETEP framework as schematically shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. FMECA adapted to NETEP (navigation, economics, technology, environment and politics)

1.5 Cumulative impact

Effects within each individual NETEP area (intra sector) as well as cumulative impact of that

NETEP sector upon another sector (inter sector) are addressed in this section. The term

cumulative impact is principally used to describe the effects of actions upon the

environment, this thesis however offers a broader definition which includes but is not

limited to environmental impact.

FMECA

Navigation

Economics

Technology Environment

Politics

13

Legislation in the form of the National Environmental Policy Act defines cumulative impact

as (United States Government, 1970):

the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when

added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other action. Cumulative impacts

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period

of time. (Section 1508.7)

Further analysis of cumulative effects has been addressed in which analysis techniques, tools

(United States Government, 1997, chapter 5, pp. 49-57) as well as a roadmap to incorporate

cumulative effect analysis within environmental impact assessment (Ibid., chapter 1, p. 10)

have been created in response to the legislation.

As regards a European approach, ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative

Impacts as well as Impact Interactions’ (the Guidelines) was published by the European

Commission DG XI (Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection) in May 1999. It also

considers cumulative impact within the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process,

provides advice on approaching it at different stages of an EIA and suggests methodology for

the identification and assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts and of impact

interactions. For the purposes of this thesis, these three conditions are presented under the

same umbrella term as cumulative impact since they overlap to such a marked degree.

According to the Guidelines, indirect impacts are impacts on the environment which are not

a direct result of the project and often come as a result of a complex pathway. Cumulative

impacts are seen as results of reasonably foreseeable actions within the project whilst

impact interactions are viewed as reactions between impacts whether within one project or

between other projects in the same area (European Commission DG XI, 1999, p. iii). Despite

the definitions provided in the Guidelines, explanations that attempt to delineate between

the different approaches are problematic, since, as expressed in the literature, `à key

problem identified in the study was how to define indirect and cumulative impacts and

impact interactions. The definitions of these three types of impact overlap, although there

are no agreed and accepted definitions´´ (Ibid., p. ii).

14

The inclusion of cumulative impacts within an EIA is viewed as a response to legislative

demands, a contribution to sustainable development and an aid to the decision making

process as well as a part of good practice (Ibid., p. 8). The methodology adopted should not

be complex, but should have as an objective the presentation of results that the developer,

the decision-maker and the general public can understand with ease (Ibid., p. 20), indicating

a high level of transparency which indicates openness, accountability and communication.

Four of the eight methods for assessing cumulative impacts according to the Guidelines are

covered by the FMECA-NETEP model, these relate to the construction of an expert team

(expert opinion), the use of checklists, of matrices and the use of models (Ibid., p. vii-x).

Development of various approaches to suit a particular project and the establishment of an

appropriate project team are also mentioned (Ibid., p. iii). Additionally, demands have been

expressed from industry to the government level calling for more international cooperation

towards collaborative planning so that, in particular, wind resources are managed in a

sustainable manner (E.ON, 2011, p. 65; European Wind Energy Agency, 2012), representing a

consideration of the importance of cumulative impact. The understanding of cumulative

impact in this thesis derived from the following sources;

• Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact

Interactions. `Guidelines´

• ISO Guide 73:2009 Risk Management – Vocabulary. `Guide 73´

• FMEA/FMECA Standards. `Standards´:

• MIL-STD-1629A

• IEC 60812:2006

Guide 73 accompanies the International Standard ISO 31000:2009 for risk management and

provides the terminology to promote a holistic understanding of risk management concepts

and terminology among different functions, organisations, applications and types (p. viii).

Whilst Guide 73 does not address cumulative impact per se, it defines consequence in

Definition: 3.6.1.3, Note 4 as `` initial consequences that can escalate through knock-on

effects´´ (International Standards Organization Guide 73, 2009, p. 7).

15

As regards the Standards, a strict delineation must be made between the concept of effect

and that of cumulative impact. FMEA or FMECA deals with the effects of a failure mode. The

effect can be grouped under one headline with up to three different stages that constitute

that effect. MIL-STD-1629A (United States Government, 1980b) sees effects in terms of local,

next higher level and end effect (p. 4). Failure effect is the overlying category for the three

underlying classifications (local, next higher and end), and one severity ranking is given for

the entire category: failure effect (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Failure effect and underlying classifications as illustrated in MIL-STD-1629A

Another system of importance is TM 5-698-4 (United States Government, 2006) a technical

manual, issued by the United States Army which, similar to the other standards, addresses

both FMEA and FMECA structures. The FMEA structure as regards failure effects in TM 5-

698-4 is the same as MIL-STD-1629A, (United States Government, 2006, pp. 3-10 – 3-13).

Regarding SAE J-1739, it is silent on the issue of first, intermediate and end effects, and ISO

17359:2011, the relation of which to FMECA is incorporation rather than standardisation,

places FMECA in the monitoring process with no mention of levels of effect.

The international standard IEC 60812:2006 methodology considers events in terms of lower

and higher levels, the effects at a lower level becoming the causes at a higher level. Section

5.2.2.3 Levels of analysis (d) (International Electrotechnical Commission, 2006) reads:

In the FMEA, the definitions of failure modes, failure causes and failure effects depend on the

level of analysis and system failure criteria. As the analysis progresses, the failure effects

identified at the lower level may become failure modes at the higher level. The failure modes at

the lower level may become the failure causes at the higher level, and so on. When a system is

broken down into its elements, effects of one or more of the failure mode causes make a failure

mode, which in turn is a cause of the higher level effect, a part failure. Part failure is then the

FAILURE EFFECT

Local - Next higher level - End

16

cause of a module failure (effect), which in itself is a cause of a subsystem failure. The effect of

a cause of one system level thus becomes a cause of another effect at a higher level. (p. 13)

IEC 60812:2006 refers to immediate (local), next higher and final (end) effects, all however

columned under a common title potential effect(s) of failure. Section A.2.3 Worksheet

entries reads:

A concise description of the effects of the failure mode on the item being analysed is entered

under ‘Local effect’. Similar information is entered in the ‘Final effect’ column to indicate the

effects of the failure mode on the end item. For some FMEA analyses it is desirable to evaluate

the failure effect at an intermediate level. In this case the effect on ‘Next higher assembly’ is

entered in an additional column. (Ibid., p. 36)

According to IEC 60812:2006 the severity rating refers to the final effect of a failure mode.

This is evident in the Figure 3 modified for the purposes of this thesis from IEC 60812:2006

(Ibid., p. 19) and presented below. The flow does not depict the criticality component since it

is designed for FMEA use. Emphasis added on points 5 and 6.

17

Figure 3. FMEA Analysis flowchart modified from IEC 60812:2006

Within IEC 60812:2006, FMECA is not considered suitable for cumulative impact calculation,

in section 4.1 it is stated that ``FMEA generally deals with individual failure modes and the

effect of these failures on the system. Each failure mode is treated as independent. The

procedure is therefore unsuitable for consideration of dependent failures resulting from a

sequence of events´´ (Ibid., p. 17). Other sources however may regard FMECA as potentially

capable of adaptation, as there exists, ``no definitive standard, nor is there any reason to

have a standard layout, providing that an organisation adopts a style and applies that style

consistently´´ (Roberts, 2001, p. 7). Within the NETEP framework, intra-sector means

18

cumulative impacts within the same NETEP sector e.g. environment: underwater noise

affects local Herring population which has a cumulative effect on the Cod population. Inter

sector means cumulative impacts across sectors e.g. environment: decrease in Cod

population has negative cumulative impact on economics: commercial fishing production.

This thesis defines cumulative impact as, impacts (both intra- and inter sector) that result

from the end effects of a preceding risk issue. Cumulative impact (intra- or inter) can occur

from one OWF to another. Also, according to the Standards, within the Effect section there

are possibilities to carry out the following functions: have one effect; have one first effect

and one end effect; or, have one first effect followed by one intermediate effect followed by

one end effect. In all cases the severity is rated against the highest or final effect (end

effect). This is evident in Table 2 which illustrates an adaption of two original FMEA

templates which represent FMEA calculations for the same component at different stages in

production. Template 1 (ReliaSoft Corporation, 2013, p. 4) relates to the design stage i.e. a

Design FMEA, Template 2 (ReliaSoft Corporation, 2013b) relates to the production stage i.e.

a Process FMEA. The Potential Failure Mode in Table 2 thereby includes information from

both these levels of production. The FMECA-NETEP model structure in Stage Two of this

thesis is dependent on the potential effect(s) of failure with a marked significance of end

effect.

Table 2. Potential Failure Mode illustrating first, intermediary and end effect with severity ranking.

Potential Failure Mode Potential effect(s) of Failure Severity 1-10

Corroded interior lower door panels (Template 1) Insufficient wax coverage over specified surface (Template 2)

(FIRST) Deteriorated life of door leading to: 7

(INTERMEDIARY) Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time.

(END) Impaired function of interior door hardware

19

1.6 Objective

The objective of the study on which this thesis is based is to examine the applicability of the

FMECA-NETEP risk model as a tool for use within the permit application process of OWFs in

Sweden. In this light the study seeks to answer the following questions;

Can FMECA be utilised in each individual NETEP area with reference to the permit

application process for OWFs i.e. is NETEP effective as a framework for FMECA

utilisation? (Stage One)

Can FMECA be utilised in a combined NETEP (reference group) framework with

reference to the permit application process for OWFs i.e. can FMECA accommodate

cumulative impact? (Stage Two)

The study is approached in two stages. Stage One evaluates the applicability of FMECA to

each of the NETEP areas individually. Stage Two draws upon the conclusions made and

extends the study to encompass a reference group approach, in which factors such as

cumulative impact (intra-sector and inter-sector) are examined. To evaluate the applicability

of FMECA-NETEP, case study material is provided regarding the permit application process

for three Swedish OWFs; Lillgrund, Taggen and Trolleboda. Throughout the study, expert

knowledge and opinion is utilised.

20

1.7 Outline for the study In this thesis a number of interlinked concepts are taken into consideration, within which the

FMECA-NETEP model finds its home. The emerging framework for integrated maritime

spatial planning based upon recent developments within the European Union relating to

integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and maritime spatial planning (MSP) is one

issue. Offshore renewable energy is one of many sea uses that compete for the same spatial

area that other uses may require. The role of environmental impact assessments in the

mapping of potential consequences of a project is another sector. Binding spatial planning

and environmental impact assessment together is the ecosystem approach to planning at

sea which takes into account the cumulative impacts that different sectors have upon each

other. Moreover, in order for the FMECA-NETEP risk model to be understandable to the

different approaches to risk management within each of the disciplines of the NETEP sphere

a universal standard, the ISO 31000:2009 risk management system is adopted.

1.7.1 Adoption of the ISO 31000:2009 as a framework

Ohlson (2011) offers a summary of risk approaches based on transparency and the

juxtaposition of a two-way, bottom-up approach to one-way, top-down risk management.

Approaches to risk are analysed in terms of their degrees of openness, which is defined as

the degree of ability of stakeholders to influence decision making. In this light, ``traditional,

technical, engineering or one-way forms of management of risk have a low degree of

openness and democratic, human relations, social science or two-way forms have a high

degree of openness´´ (p. 3). Figure 4 illustrates the relationship of different approaches to

each other and to the concept of transparency (degrees of openness). The term

management of risk is adopted as generic in order to avoid confusion between concepts

used by different fields for different stages in the risk process.

The concept of risk has been described as an awkward kettle of fish characterised by

different approaches with a universal terminology that has usage areas particular to each

field (Ibid., p. 4). This produces a situation whereby ´´risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk

management, risk communication and risk assessment overlap, superimpose and merge

with each other´´ (Ibid.) where the fields meet. Moreover, risk as a concept in itself is not

21

without its ambiguities, an understanding of its very meaning being the subject of much

debate (Frosdick, 1997, p. 165).

Figure 4. Degrees of openness within Management of Risk (Ohlson, 2011)

Relating this notion to the NETEP framework it is apparent that each sector has at least one

risk methodology and related usages of terminology that are particular to it. Within natural

science, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) risk assessment

methodology whereby the risk analysis process is divided into three stages; risk assessment,

risk communication and risk management is used (see e.g. Filipsson, 2009, p. 11), whereas

an environmental science risk study must exhibit the interplay between society and the

environment. Lundqvist (2005, pp. 14-18) focuses on the development of a risk assessment

guideline based on environmental impact assessment and highlights subjective and objective

views within the social science view of risk. Frosdick (1997), examines the meaning of risk

analysis, proposing a definition of it that encompasses risk identification, risk estimation and

risk evaluation and highlighting the range of approaches within the different levels drawn

from engineering, economics, behavioural science and politics (democratic and participative

techniques). A division is also drawn between between individual and societal risk.

Degrees of openness within the Management of Risk

Traditional Public involvement Stakeholder involvement

One-way Two-way Multi-level

Top down Bottom up Multi-level

Engineering Human relations

Natural science Social science

Technical Socio-political

Expert input Amateur input

Dissemination Audience orientated dissemination Dialogue

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

22

Risk itself can be categorised into different camps, creating a spectrum of what might

tentatively be termed risk ideology. Ekwall (2011), offers a view of risk proposing two

different approaches, that of engineering and human relations. The engineering risk

approach brackets risk as definite units, objectively measured and independent from societal

influences, technical factors are central whereby any management of the physical causes of

accidents (failure) is to the end of overriding the human factor. The human approach regards

risk as culturally based, manageable by dialogue and experience and thereby essentially

constructivist. Other distinctions delineate between engineering and social science

approaches to risk (Frosdick, 1997, p. 166). Technical and democratic schools have also been

documented within risk communication, drawing a parallel with one-way (dissemination)

and two-way (collaboration) communication (Hayenhjelm, 2006, p. 2). Discipline-specific,

juxtaposing understandings of and definitions for the various stages of the risk process

would lead to incongruence within the multi-disciplinary NETEP environment. It is for this

reason and in the interests of clarity and uniformity that ISO 31000:2009 has been adopted.

It is used to cover the use of risk terminology throughout the NETEP spectrum, providing a

generic approach. Its advantage is that it is not specific to any industry, sector or enterprise,

whether association, group or individual and is applicable to the life cycle of the organisation

as well as a wide range of activities, including projects (International Standards Organization,

p. v).

Central to the understanding of risk is the concept of hazard which is generally accepted as a

condition or situation which has the potential to cause harm to enterprises, property, human

safety or the environment (United Kingdom Government, 2001, p.16). The notion of harm

itself however is more elusive in the literature. Guide 73, provides the same definition of

hazard as a source of potential harm whilst harm is left undefined. According to the World

Health Organization’s International Programme on Chemical Safety - IPCS risk assessment

terminology harm is defined as a simplified term for adverse effect, (World Health

Organization, 2004, p.27) although ´ín view of the numerous general language connotations

for the word, it was proposed that it be deleted from the final (terminology) list´´ (Ibid.).

Reverting to a more generic source, the Oxford English Dictionary refers to harm as physical

injury and material damage as well as potential or actual ill effects or danger. For the

23

purposes of this thesis harm is be defined as adverse effect(s) and a hazardous condition can

be defined as a source of potential harm (adverse effects).

Within FMECA-NETEP, failure is defined as an issue that could cause harm (adverse effects).

Whilst uncertainty is dealt with as an overriding factor and a detailed analysis of it per se is

not approached, this thesis follows the Guide 73 definition of risk as the effect of uncertainty

on objectives (International Standards Organization, 2009b, p.1). The understanding of it is

epistemic as opposed to stochastic (variability) and is in line with the ISO definition

`ùncertainty is the state, even partial, of deficiency of information related to, understanding

or knowledge of, an event, its consequences, or likelihood´´ (Ibid., p. 2).

1.7.2. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Maritime Spatial Planning

According to Ehler (2011) the emergence of ICZM (Integrated Coastal Zone Management)

and MSP (Maritime Spatial Planning) as separate concepts can be traced to the (US) Coastal

Zone Management Act (1972) after which the definition of coast as the interim area

between land and sea was generally accepted. The development of ICZM was affected by

the three nautical mile territorial seas of the USA at that time limiting sea use influence,

along with delegation of power to federal states thereby negating any central control over

sea use. The concentration of personnel trained within terrestrial planning and operative

within ICZM issues increased the land-based stance of ICZM, which was followed

internationally. In this void MSP began to develop separately and was more connected with

sea use issues. Added to this conceptual divide both ICZM and MSP are affected by a

duplication of terminology and the scope of MSP has not yet been clearly defined (Douvere,

2008). ICZM has a number of variations afforded to it (see Abbreviations) and MSP has both

a marine and maritime spatial planning identity. Maritime Spatial Planning is the term used

mainly within European level institutions, and the term preferred in this study, whilst

internationally marine spatial planning has become the term of art. Both terms however

refer to the same concept. Central to both ICZM and MSP is the ecosystem approach (ibid.).

McLeod et al., (2005) illustrates the interplay between the sectors inherent in its

management:

24

The goal of ecosystem-based management is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive

and resilient condition so that it can provide the services humans want and need. Ecosystem-

based management differs from current approaches that usually focus on a single species,

sector, activity or concern; it considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors. Specifically,

ecosystem-based management … integrates ecological, social, economic, and institutional

perspectives, recognizing their strong interdependences. (p. 1)

Maes (2008) writes that the increased prominence of fixed uses of the sea such as offshore

wind energy are gaining ground on the more traditional mobile activities such as shipping

and commercial fishing in terms of sea use. This along with the will and need to safeguard

the natural environment by the creation of marine protected areas as well a general regard

for the environment via nature conservation requirements creates a conflict of interests, and

MSP is regarded as an appropriate process and instrument to avoid user conflicts (p. 797), a

point introduced by the same author in relation to an earlier study on the Belgian territorial

sea (Maes, 2007, p. 185).

MSP is the mechanism by which the interests of actors involved in both sea use and

protection are consolidated and formed into decisions pinpointing those interests that take

priority in any given area. Its role is to a great extent mediatory since ``many interests are in

fact shared, such as in shipping, fishing, wind energy, tourism, defense, and material

extraction. The purpose of marine spatial planning is to prevent conflicts between various

interests and assist in solving conflicts that do occur´´ (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water

Management, 2011). Figure 5 illustrates the vertical competing actors involved in the

maritime arena, whereby decisions are reached through a process of discussion at the MSP

level.

In the case of Sweden the authority charged with coordinating the MSP task, in conjunction

with other governmental agencies and industry, is the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water

Management (SwAM), formed in 2010. It is presently involved in cooperation with Sweden’s

coastal municipalities and county administration boards with influence from environmental

NGOs and the public within maritime spatial planning issues in preparation for new EU

25

legislation regarding MSP (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, 2012). Due

in late 2013 it is not yet known whether this is likely to take the form of a directive or

guidelines. Contemporary research (European Wind Energy Agency, 2012) however suggests

that the framework for European MSP should follow the same structure (constructed around

the European sea basins), as that for the Water Framework Directive regardless of its

legislative status. This opinion is shared in Sweden (Emmelin, 2013, Time: 13:23). Importance

is also placed on the role of trans-border MSP and a common framework for permitting

procedures as reflected upon in the SEANERGY 2020 project, (European Wind Energy

Agency, 2012, p. 4):

as highlighted by the project, panelists agreed on the need of regional cooperation to strengthen the

deployment of offshore renewables and to better coordinate with all other sea users. All stakeholders

agreed that they should be involved in the planning from the very beginning in order to avoid possible

conflicts. Moreover, it is necessary to spread consultation also with stakeholders in neighbour countries

who are using the same sea space. In order to reinforce international collaboration, it is first necessary

that Member States have put into place a national MSP, and it would be better to have a common

framework concerning permitting procedure.

The emerging framework of integrated MSP, the importance of the consideration of

cumulative impacts both within an OWF and between accumulated OWFs in the same

proximity, the ecosystem approach and a general risk management framework within which

different sectors can communicate are then the main concepts from which the present study

can be approached.

26

Figure 5. Decision making within the integrated maritime spatial planning system. Ehler (2011).

1.8 Contemporary research

1.8.1 FMECA

As regards FMECA and its use within the wind power industry, research has largely

concentrated on the application of the risk model to wind turbine reliability (Klein and Lalli

1990; Tavner et al., 2010; Das et al., 2011; Arabian-Hoseynabadi et al, 2010). Likewise, EU

synthesis reports indicate FMEA as a valuable tool within turbine reliability methodology

(Reliawind, 2007), and although the performance of an FMEA has a tendency to be tedious

and time-consuming, if a customised failure modes library could be constructed for the wind

turbine industry, future overall costs could be reduced (Reliawind, 2007b, p. 25). Greiner and

Seifert (2010) conclude the FMECA method is presently underutilised in the wind power

industry during the ``design, planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of wind

turbines and farms´´ (p. 86). Turbine maintenance (Rademakers & Brahm, 2001) is also

addressed. Also studied is the utilisation of FMEA to reveal potential failure components to

be targeted for reliability-centred maintenance (Fischer et al, 2011) using Elforsk failure data

for Swedish turbines from 1989-1995 (Fischer et al, 2012).

On the internal mechanism of the FMECA, research has concentrated on the relevance and

accuracy of the severity, occurrence and detection (SOD) 1-10 delineations. Wheeler, (2011)

27

advocates a 1-5 scale with representation of the SOD values in the form of S= 5, O= 4 and D=

3 which could then be compared to S= 4, O= 5 and D=3; the severity and occurrence values

thereby opening up discussion within the FMECA team. The weighting of SOD values in order

to increase validity has also been studied (Vallee in Wheeler, 2011), whereby 1, 3, 5, 7, 9

delineations are suggested.

Another area of research has been the risk priority number (RPN) and its potential

representation in monetary terms. Life Cycle Cost has been linked to FMEA whereby

incurred financial costs replace ranking scales, in this way FMEA is used to designate the

estimated cost of failures (Rhee and Ishii, 2003). Additionally, Kahrobaee and Asgarpoor

(2011) have found that risk-based FMEA can illustrate the cost of individual failures to the

total failure cost thereby providing the wind turbine owner with a suitable approach to

reduce the total failure cost. Moreover, a frequent observation is that an FMEA, whilst a

sound basis for fault management, is not enough in itself (Bidokhti, 2009) and that a number

of design activities are required both prior to and after the FMEA has been completed, the

issue of fault insertion testing (the intentional creation of faults within a system to test that

system) being of high importance. Moreover, the FMEA or FMECA system:

must be tailored to the design at hand. It is important to ensure the design team is clear on the

purpose of FMEA. If the team’s desire is to design a solid fault management architecture and

framework, then the content that goes into the FMEA should be mapped to this requirement.

The MIL-STD-1629 can be used as a starting point to create a FMEA template. Most

organizations develop their own FMEA template that is tailored to their specific application and

market requirements. (Ibid., p. 3)

The incorporation of FMEA with other techniques such as Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) (Moss

and Kurty, 1983; Yu et al., 2011; Jain et al., 2010) has been advocated, primarily to maximise

the anticipation of as many failure modes as possible. FTA involves the assessment of causes

to a negative (top) event which is displayed in a logical diagram (Lundkvist, 2005, p. 16).

A recent application has been made of FMECA methodology to economic (cost),

environmental and political (local population) areas, on both a short and long term basis,

and within an environmental sphere. An FMECA study of the Giant Mine remediation project

28

in June, 2011 called for by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board applied

FMECA methodology after an initial Failure Scenario Analysis (FSA), a fault tree mechanism

used to define potential items for FMECA study. The style of the FMECA used presents a

departure from what could be considered the norm in that a detection measurement is not

used and severity is gauged in terms of non-numerical values A-B-C-D-E, ranging from A

being Low and E Critical within Public Safety and Environment issues, and A as < 100,000 and

E > 50 M in terms of cost. These values are decided by means of reference to a risk matrix

format. Occurrence, present in a conventional FMECA, is not present and is measured in

terms of likelihood. It also has a five-point scale ranging in terms of events and years, where

Index 1 represents more than once every five years, 2 once every 15 years up to 5 which

represents once every 1,000 years. Interesting also is that a criticality level is absent

(criticality = severity x occurrence).

Additionally, the three main areas for study (public safety, environment and cost) are

measured within consequence severity rather than as separate items for severity,

occurrence and detection analysis, and the study starts from the component level e.g. drill

holes, Baker Creek channel integrity, and even public safety itself. Finally, as a result of these

factors, no RPNs are produced. The study also assumes that all required permits and other

approvals have been approved (Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2011, p. 3).

Despite its departure from conventional FMECA design, the study illustrates that FMECA

applications are possible on an environmental issue affecting economic, political and

environmental areas, and that itemised spreadsheets could function as reference points for

a more detailed, written risk assessment. Also distinguished from FMECA but intrinsic to the

role of the severity rankings, Rechnitzer & Lane (1994) in research focusing on vehicular

safety and occupant injuries show that design changes can reduce injuries due to rollover

incidents.

1.8.2 STEEP

Roadmapping can be defined as a process which provides a method to develop, organise and

present information regarding system requirements and targets that must be satisfied within

given time frames. It involves the identification of areas that need to be developed to meet

those targets and provides the information required for making trade-offs between different

29

alternatives (Garcia & Bray, 1997, p. 12). Furthermore, it is put forward by Phaal et al. (2004)

that:

roadmaps and the roadmapping process can provide a means for enhancing an organization´s

`radar´, in terms of extending planning horizons, together with identifying and assessing

possible threats and opportunities in the business environment. For example, roadmaps can be

used as a means for assessing the impact of potentially disruptive technologies and markets on

business plans and systems. (p. 49)

Research conducted by Carlsson et al. (2008) focuses on a demand profile analysis for

automobile material adapted to the future requirements of society and spans up to twenty

years into the future. Central to the research is the evaluation of roadmapping methodology,

and of importance in this respect is the Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap which

measures trends within social, technological, economic, environmental and political (i.e.

STEEP) as well as infrastructural sectors over given time frames spanning twenty years. The

Roadmap initiative represents a collaboration project between UK governmental agencies,

universities and the automobile industry, created as a forum to bring forward sustainable

solutions to road transport challenges. Studies are carried out in different phases; the trends

and drivers section includes the STEEP model framework plus infrastructural issues whilst

the performance measures and targets section includes industry sector issues. Objectives

include the sustainability within the UK road transport network by means of trend

forecasting and the potential realisation of environmental targets within an organisational

structure of industry collaborations, academia and networks (Foresight Vehicle, 2004, p.5).

Other applications of the STEEP model within research are within spatial planning and

sustainability research, notable recent projects include STEEP (2010) involving urban

development, energy concerns and land-use models and STEEP-RES (2009) which targets the

development of sustainable energy systems for increasing welfare.

30

2. The testing ground

2.1 Sustainable development

Concerns related to the effect of greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide, on the

global climate have fueled the promotion and development of renewable energy sources

within Sweden, the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (RED) playing a major part in

this drive. As part of this movement towards an increase in the production of renewable

energy wind power is playing a major role. From September 2011-2012 Swedish national

annual wind energy production reached 7 terawatt hours (TWh) (Swedish Energy Agency,

2012b), marking an increase in annual wind power generated electricity by approximately a

third compared with the previous year. In May 2013, annual production was over 7.5 TWh

and increasing (Swedish Energy Agency, 2013, p.2). The annual production target for year

2020 is 30 TWh, of which a third, 10 TWh will be generated offshore. On the European

sphere it is predicted that offshore wind could meet 4% of the electricity demand of the

European Union by 2020 and 14% by 2030 (COM 494 final, 2012, p.7). As this drive for an

increase in renewable energy gains momentum, steps are presently being taken by the

government to simplify the permit application process for OWFs.

2.2 The permit application process offshore in Sweden

The permit application process for offshore wind farms in Sweden is categorised by OWFs

within Sweden’s territorial seas (including the large inland lakes) and OWFs planned outside

the territorial seas (abbreviated TS) limit but within Sweden’s exclusive economic zone

(abbreviated EEZ). In this respect the notion of municipal (local authority) consent is a

guiding factor for establishments within the territorial seas. Local authorities have planning

responsibility in this sphere, and according to chapter 16 paragraph 4 of the Environmental

Code permits for OWF construction can only be granted if local authority consent is

provided, unless national interests prevail (in line with chapter 3 paragraph 8 of the same

Code). Due to the complexities of land use, sea use and legislation that binds these together

the process is characterised by overlapping responsibilities and legal requirements which

cover the spectrum of the NETEP framework. Figure 6 illustrates the division of

responsibilities and introduces Sweden’s maritime zones (note that one nautical mile

(abbreviated NM) corresponds to 1.852 km). The figure is a modification of the original

31

produced by SwAM from a maritime spatial planning perspective (reference provided in

Figure 6), the emerging structure of maritime spatial plans as well as the role of local

authorities in the planning process is of significant importance. The Ordinances presented

relate to the management of sea areas and water quality. Generally, these spheres (marked

amber) are in the process of becoming established concepts, not all coastal local authorities

in Sweden have for example yet developed översiktsplan, a general guidance planning

structure which can be used by the local authorities to express a stance on wind farming

within their territorial sea limit. Likewise, the maritime spatial planning structure is presently

being developed. The maritime zones (marked green) are established within Swedish

legislation.

Maritime spatial plan areas in Sweden begin one nautical mile from the baseline and stretch

throughout the territorial seas to the seaward limits of the exclusive economic zone. Within

the territorial seas, the maritime spatial plans overlap the local authority plans. The

continental shelf is also relevant from a maritime spatial planning perspective. As an

extension to Figure 6 below, Sweden’s three maritime spatial plan regions are illustrated in

Figure 11.

32

Figure 6. Swedish maritime zones and planning mechanisms. Modified by author from SwAM. Available in Swedish at: https://www.havochvatten.se/havsplanering/svensk-havsplanering.html.

2.3 International legislation of importance for the establishment of OWFs Legislative zones at sea are governed by the United Nations’ Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which

has been transposed into Swedish law (1966:374). From land, these boundaries are divided

between the baseline, the territorial sea (TS) and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

According to UNCLOS the continental shelf can extend beyond the exclusive economic zone

200 nautical mile limit and into the High Seas. However, in the case of Sweden, and its

particular geography, the EEZ or TS conjoins another state’s EEZ (or TS) by means of

international agreements, although laws regarding the continental shelf must be adhered to.

The territorial sea generally comes under coastal state jurisdiction notwithstanding maritime

law relating to foreign-flagged vessels transiting and operating in this zone on innocent

passage. The EEZ, puts control of the economic resources in this zone, for example oil

reserves, fishing and the establishment of wind farms in the hands of the coastal state.

Regulations regarding the continental shelf must also be abided by since this overlaps the

EEZ. International waters are areas seawards of the territorial sea whilst national waters

Internal

waters

Havsplan – Maritime Spatial Plan

Territorial seas TS Exclusive Economic Zone EEZ Limit with bordering

state EEZ or TS

Havsmiljöförordningen (2010:1341)

Marine Strategy Framework Ordinance

Vattenförvaltningsförordningen

(2004:660) The Swedish

Ordinance for Water Management

Kommunal planering Local

authority planning

Continental shelf

Swedish maritime zones and planning mechanisms

Co

astl

ine

Bas

elin

e

1 nautical mile (NM)

equals 1852 metres

12 NM = 22 km 188 NM = 348 km

https://www.havochvatten.se/havsplanering/svensk-havsplanering.html

33

includes sea areas landwards of that boundary. The Swedish concept allmänt vatten (public

waters) is outlined in Act 1950:595 relating to areas bordering areas of private waters and is

manifested in the Swedish Continental Shelf Act (1966:314) via paragraph 1 of that law.

Within the context of offshore wind power and maritime zones the notion of public waters

connects the Continental Shelf Act to areas within the territorial seas. The limit of public

waters begins at least 300 metres from the baseline; if at that point it is not at least 3 metres

deep, private waters (enskilt vatten) extend until the three metre depth range.

2.4 The territorial sea and legislation

Areas within the territorial sea are to be included in the local municipal plan (översiktsplan),

which is central to local authority planning. In order to construct an offshore wind farm

within Sweden’s territorial sea a permit for environmentally hazardous activities (according

to chapter 9 of the Environmental Code) and activities that affect water (chapter 11

paragraph 9 of the Environmental Code) is applied for. Municipal consent, i.e. support from

the local authority also is an important, but not legally binding factor as national interests for

the development of wind energy can overweigh local resistance to wind farm establishment.

The permit for environmentally hazardous activities is ordinarily tried by the land and

environmental courts or alternatively issued by the county administration board

(Länstyrelsen), which operates as the next higher level of government from local authorities

and includes a number of local authorities within its jurisdiction.

When applying for the permit for activities that affect water it is considered most effective

to include the application for chapter 9 directly in the case that will be tried at the

environmental court. This is made possible by chapter 21 paragraph 3 in the Environmental

Code. Planning (construction) permission according to the Planning and Construction Act

(PBL) (2010:900), which entered into force on May 2, 2011, is not required to build an OWF

that has acquired a permit although an application in line with PBL chapter 6 paragraph 5

subsection 7 of the Planning and Construction Ordinance (2011:338) is required regarding

compliance with the detailed plan of the area in question. A permit in line with the Swedish

Continental Shelf Act (1966:314) is also required (Vindlov, 2012b). The process of application

follows the framework as illustrated in Figure 7.

34

Figure 7. The permit application process for offshore wind farms within the TS. Translated by author from Vindlov. Available from: http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Provningsprocessen/

Regardless of whether the proposed wind farm is planned for the territorial seas or within

the exclusive economic zone at least the following three permits are required: a permit for

environmentally hazardous activities, a permit for activities that affect water and a permit

from the Legal Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet) regarding

disposition (rådighet). The right to disposition in public water (allmänt vatten) is a

prerequisite for obtaining an environmental permit and is linked to the notion of the public

good and of related socio-economic considerations (involving cost-benefit analysis). The

laying of underwater cables in accordance with the Environmental Code is also considered at

this stage.

The consultation stage also involves adherence to the Environmental Code (chapter 6

paragraph 4). At this stage, and as early as possible in the process, the project owner should

submit a consultation briefing to the county administration board and relevant local

authority organs if applicable. This dissemination, which involves a series of reports carried

out on the proposed offshore site relates to its localisation, planning, area, formation,

alternative sites for the site, a zero alternative if the site were not to exist and a non-

technical explanation of these factors well as expected environmental impact (Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, pp. 46-47 in Vindlov 2012). This should be made

available to affected parties for example, those living in nearby coastal communities. If the

proposed OWF is considered to have potential to cause significant environmental effects this

consultation process is broadened to include environmental organisations and other

affected actors. The form of this consultation meeting is decided upon by the project owner,

and the viewpoints of affected parties are taken into consideration, recorded and

Permit for

activities that

affect water

Consultation

Permit

application

Environmental

Impact

Assessment

Decision or

Ruling

Local authority (municipal) consent

http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Provningsprocessen/

35

documented in the form of a report. The county administration board provides information

at this stage on the content and scope of the environmental impact assessment, abbreviated

EIA (Vindlov, 2012b).

The influence of the Environmental Code continues through the permit application stage

whereby permit applications are made in line with chapter 11, paragraph 1, which lays out

the content of the application. If the land and environment court regards the application to

be complete and can be used as a basis for further investigation, the case will be tried by the

court, and if an environmental impact assessment has been completed it accompanies the

application. The permit application stage is summarised in Figure 8. Of special interest to

potential use of the FMECA-NETEP model is the role of governmental agencies and boards in

steps 5 and 6.

36

Figure 8. Summarised structure of the permit application stage. Modified and translated by author from Vindlov original. Available in Swedish at: http://www.vindlov.se/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Provningsprocessen/Tillstand-for-vattenverksamhet/Ansokan-om-tillstand/

The next stage in the application process for offshore wind farms within the territorial seas

involves completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment, these requirements of which

can be arranged within an NETEP format as illustrated in summarised form Figure 9. Note

that an additional sector, uniform issues, has been added in order to accommodate areas

within the EIA that cannot otherwise be categorised within any single NETEP sector, the null

hypothesis (noll alternativ) in this section pinpoints the likely consequences if the OWF is not

constructed. Each factor relates to its corresponding sector i.e. shipping involves shipping

routes, maritime safety, maritime traffic and other matters related to Navigational issues.

Summarised structure of the permit application stage

1. The permit application is submitted to the land and environmental court (´the court´), a fee is set.

2. The court demands any additional information required to be presented (incomplete application).

3. The court makes public the application Notice and the EIA (MKB miljökonsekvensbeskrivning) in the local

press, a copy of the Notice is sent to parties affected by the application.

4. The court appoints a dossier manager.

5. A copy of the application and the Notice is sent to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal,

Financial and Administrative Services Agency, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), the commercial

fishing unit within SwAM (formerly Fiskeriverket), the county administration board concerned, the local

authority environmental committee(s), the local authority (-ies) as well as any other government agency

affected (e.g. Swedish Maritime Agency).

6. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency, the

Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) if required provide standpoints as regards protection of the

environment or other public interests.

7. Any objections to the application are forwarded to the project owner.

8. The court, after Notice is given tries the case and the main hearing is held.

9. The court accepts the EIA and the permit application receives its verdict.

10. Time frame for further objections is provided.

11. The verdict is made public.

http://www.vindlov.se/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Provningsprocessen/Tillstand-for-vattenverksamhet/Ansokan-om-tillstand/

http://www.vindlov.se/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Provningsprocessen/Tillstand-for-vattenverksamhet/Ansokan-om-tillstand/

37

Figure 9. Summary of the main areas to be focused upon in an Environmental Impact Assessment according to chapter 6 of the Environmental Code

In line with chapter 6 paragraph 3 of the Environmental Code the objective of an EIA is to

illustrate the direct and indirect effects of the planned OWF, particularly relating to

Navigational issues

Shipping

Service routes to and from OWF

Civil aviation

The Swedish armed forces

Economic issues

Commercial fishing and aquaculture

Sea bottom characteristics / valuable raw materials

Technological issues

Radio and telecommunications

Transport routes affected on land

Cable laying

Environmental issues

Natural environment

Air and climate

Flora and fauna

Waste products

Shadowing and reflection

Underwater noise

Political issues

Consultation

Cultural heritage

Recreation

The seascape

Uniform issues

Alternative sites and formation

Null hypothesis

Risk avoidance, reduction and mitigation

Non-technical summary

38

structures with significant environmental effects (which OWFs are). Within chapter 6

(paragraph 7, subsection 2) demands for explanations by the project owner as to how

damaging effects (interpreted as risk areas as illustrated in Figure 9) can be avoided, reduced

or mitigated against are laid out, a reference is made back to chapter 5 and the

environmental norms that should be upheld. References to EIA are also present in chapters 9

(environmentally hazardous activities) and 11 (activities that affect water) of the Code.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (the ÈIA Ordinance´)

Miljökonsekvensbeskrivnings Förordningen (1998:905) is adhered to as regards the

consultation process (Vindlov, 2012b). This Ordinance underwent a revision in 2013,

producing Ordinance 2013:505. The revisions mainly concern the chapters of the EIA

Ordinance dealing with international cooperation (the Esbo Convention) and the notification

of significant environmental effects of planned projects.

The consultation process should be carried out in line with chapter 3 of the EIA Ordinance

whereby the project owner shall inform the county administration board, the responsible

authority and other parties likely to be affected by the project. In the case of projects with

significant environmental effects (in effect all OWF projects) the public, local authorities,

state organs, stakeholders and organisations must be consulted. During the consultation

process the county administration board bears responsibility for ensuring that the EIA is

sufficiently hearing. The provision of comprehensive study of alternative sites and

formations is of importance in this regard (Ibid.).

At the decision stage the land and environment court holds a main hearing. OWF rulings

differ from other environmental applications due to the extensive nature and number of the

studies carried out within an OWF permit application. Therefore, complementary material

submitted prior to the main hearing is also considered. The main hearing takes into account

the following issues; the environmental impact assessment, government department reports

and standpoints, the viewpoints of affected parties, the results of investigations and

enquiries, the results of the proposed OWF site investigations and of issues raised in the

main hearing itself (Ibid.). Local authority (municipal) consent is an important, although not

a legally binding factor for applying parties to consider.

39

Of interest to territorial sea placements, the procedure of Swedish permit application has

undergone recent changes. Previously a system of double-testing was applied to applications

whereby they underwent both environmental and construction testing. Since this was

considered to have lengthened the application process unnecessarily a new system was

introduced as of August 1, 2009. Construction testing (Plan och bygglagen 1987:10)

withdrawn if the wind farm was covered by Environmentally Hazardous Activities (according

to chapter 9 of the Environmental Code) and activities that affect water (according to

chapter 11 paragraph 9 of the same Code).

Another change of relevance to offshore wind farms is that Sweden’s five environmental

courts located in Växjö, Vänersborg, Stockholm, Östersund and Umeå changed their

construction and became land and environmental courts on 2 May, 2011. The courts deal

with the earlier courts’ cases, the majority of the property court’s cases and the majority of

cases involving planning and construction. The third significant change to the system came in

June 2012 when the county administration boards’ judging of permit applications involving

environmentally dangerous activities was concentrated to twelve of Sweden’s 21 county

administration boards. Termed the MPD (miljöprövningsdelegationer) in Swedish, this

concentration of environmental testing administration boards (own translation) was also a

step on the way to greater effectiveness (Swedish Energy Agency, 2012, p.17).

As part of the 2009 revision, local authority power of consent was introduced (often termed

the municipal veto) to protect the rights of local populations in view of wind power

development. In territorial sea applications, local authority acceptance should be sought in

accordance with chapter 17, paragraph 6 of the Environmental Code, although permission

can be granted for an OWF within the territorial seas even if local authority acceptance has

not been received, and national interests are considered more important. This is evident in

case M-833-99 Utgrunden, also within a land-based case involving natural conservation

case M-7051-07 Tolvmanstegen. A clear and concise viewpoint from local authorities upon

the question of establishment of wind power farms is nevertheless desirable. Local authority

acceptance would be most likely if the application is in line with local municipal general plan

(översiktsplan) in view of wind power farm localisation. The localisation rule demands that

farms should be located in the least disturbing area for the local population.

40

2.5. The exclusive economic zone and legislation

According to chapter 5 of the Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1992:1140) permission

is required from the government for the commercial use of structures within the exclusive

economic zone, in applying for a permit chapters 2-4 and chapter 5 paragraph 3 as well as

chapter 16 paragraph 5 of the Environmental Code are be adhered to. An environmental

impact assessment in line with chapter 6 of the Code is also demanded. The county

administration board in closest proximity to the planned OWF holds responsibility for the

carrying out of a hearing for an OWF permit application according to chapter 6 of the

1992:1140 Act. A permit according to regulations regarding the Continental Shelf Act

(1966:314) chapter 15 subsection (a) is also required for cable laying and investigation of the

sea floor within the Swedish EEZ (Vindlov, 2012c). Figure 10 summarises the main bodies of

legislation.

41

Figure 10. Main areas of legislation concerning the permit application process for offshore wind farms within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1992:1140)

Chapter 2. Protection of the marine environment

Chapter 4. Regarding natural resources

Chapter 5 (subsection 3). Government approval for permit (commercial purposes)

Chapter 6. Cross reference to the Environmental Code

Chapter 2. General conditions (location selection, responsibility for environmental damage,

human health and safety);

Chapter 6. Environmental impact assessment. The county administration boards in closest

proximity to the planned OWF bears responsibility for the EIA (relating to procedures,

requirements, plans and planning mechanisms).

Swedish Act on the Continental Shelf (1966:314)

Chapter 2 (a). Cross reference to the Environmental Code

Chapter 4. Conditions of permit issuance. Protection of public interest, health and safety, the

environment, sustainable management of sea uses

Chapter 9. The Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU) (via governmental delegation) monitors the

geological survey

Chapter 15 (a). Government approval required for permit (or governmental delegation to a state

authority)

Swedish Ordinance on the Continental Shelf (1966:315)

Chapter 4. The permit application is submitted to the Swedish Department of Industry

(Regeringskansliet: Näringsdepartementet). Particular requirements demanded.

Chapter 4 (4). Cross reference to the Environmental Code

Chapter 4 (a). Permit according to Act on the Continental Shelf (1966:314) Chapter 15 (a) issued

by the Government.


human health and safety).


human health and safety).

42

The Act on the Continental Shelf (1966:314) relates to exploration of the sea bed and the

laying of underwater cables. Governmental permission is required for the laying of cables

outside the territorial seas in accordance with chapter 15 (a) of the Act. Within the EEZ, the

government bears the ultimate responsibility for the issuance of permits for work to be

carried out on the continental shelf (according to chapter 4 of the Ordinance 1966:315),

preparation of the application is however partly delegated to the Geological Survey of

Sweden (SGU). Its powers are two-fold, within public waters and in dealing with sand, gravel

and pebble materials it bears full responsibility for decision-making on the issuance of

permits. Within EEZ continental shelf issues, the SGU carries out the survey and puts

forwards recommendations to the government whereby the final decision on permit

allocation is taken. Demands as regards the Environmental Code in view of environmental

impact assessments (chapter 6) are identical to those of the EEZ.

Protection of the public interest, health and safety, the environment, sustainable

management of sea areas and the maintenance of safety are the keystones of continental

shelf legislation. Particular demands are also laid out in chapter 4 of the Act on the

Continental Shelf. These are, provision of the OWF details; the area involved and the

planned time frame; a project plan; detailed consideration of chapter 2 of the Environmental

Code; measures regarded necessary by the project owner that should be taken in order to

avoid water pollution, disturbance of shipping, commercial fishing as well as other public

and private interests; detailed analysis of the project owners’ economic and technological

competencies required for completion of the project, and, chart work completed in line with

SGU recommendations showing the area to be covered by the planned OWF accompanied

by a written explanation.

References to areas related to the study of risk in legislation covering the territorial seas and

exclusive economic zone are to be found in; the Environmental Code (1998:808) in chapter 6

paragraph 3 (as regards direct and indirect effects of the planned project) and chapter 6

paragraph 7 subsections 2 (as regards damaging effects and avoidance, reduction and

treatment) and 3 (the provision of information regarding the predicted main effects on

humans and the environment) as well as the Act on the Continental Shelf (1966:314) in

chapter 4. In this respect the main objective is the maintenance of good environmental

order (miljökvalitetsnormer) as outlined in chapter 5 of the Environmental Code.

43

2.6 Case studies

To recapitulate on the objective of this study, it is to examine the applicability of the FMECA-

NETEP risk model as a tool for use within the permit application process of OWFs in Sweden.

To this end, three case studies offer a starting point from which the use of the FMECA

system can be evaluated by the reference teams with potential risk concerns within each of

the NETEP areas. Reference can also be made to other cases thought to be directly

applicable. The utility value of the FMECA-NETEP model is thereby evaluated by means of

the permit application process itself whether in the form of study, research or decisions

taken.

In order to afford the study a degree of uniformity the three case studies were chosen due

to the fact that:

• all sites belong to the same parent concern, Vattenfall and

• all sites are located within the territorial seas.

Lillgrund OWF is located is in the Sound, south of the Öresund bridge. The proposed

Trolleboda site is situated in the southern Kalmar Sound Kalmarsund spanning the separate

Torsås and Karlskrona municipalities. The proposed Taggen OWF is located in the Bay of

Hanö within the Kristianstad and Sölvesborg municipalities. Both the Taggen and Trolleboda

developments therefore involve the decision-making mechanisms of two local authorities

and the Lillgrund site lies within the planning jurisdiction of one. The parent company,

Vattenfall AB is a Swedish public limited company wholly owned by the Swedish state.

The Lillgrund OWF consists of 48 turbines and production of energy commenced in

December 2007. The OWF was constructed on commercial property at an investment cost of

approximately SEK 1.8 billion (210,000,000 Euro). As of information presented in 2003, it

produced approximately 0.33 terrawatt (TWh) per annum which is equivalent to household

consumption for approximately 60,000 homes (Vattenfall, 2013c).

The Trolleboda project is wholly owned by Vattenfall AB Nordic Generation, part of Business

Group Vattenfall Scandinavia. In 2005 Vattenfall received permission from the government

for a pilot study of five turbines, the organisation however decided to apply for

approximately thirty turbines in the same area, which was granted in 2008 (Case M-2415-06)

44

with twelve conditions to be met. If the project enters the production stage it will be able to

produce 0.5 terawatt hours per year providing electricity for 100,000 households (Vattenfall,

2013e, p.1).

Originally, Vattenfall AB held full responsibility for the Taggen project to construct a wind

farm in Hanöbukten the Hanö Bay, situated off the south-east coast of Sweden. The project

Taggen vindpark AB (TVAB) is the result of a merger between Vattenfall Vindkraft Taggen AB

(50%) and Hanöbuktens Offshore AB (50%), which itself is a co-operation between the

Triventus and Wallenstam concerns. TVAB wholly owns the electricity (grid) network sector

of the concern TVEAB Taggen Vindpark Elnät AB. The offshore wind farm is expected to

produce 1 TWh per year providing electricity for 200,000 households if production

commences (Taggen vindkraftpark, 2012, p.1). The project involves the placement of sixty

turbines.

In Figure 11, the approximate positions of the three OWFs addressed in the case studies are

given. The three maritime spatial planning areas are also provided. These are, from the

north, the Bothnian Bay administered by Västernorrland County Administration Board, the

Baltic Sea administered by Kalmar Administration Board and the Western Sea (an informal

description of the Skagerrak and Kattegatt) administered by Västra Götaland County

Administration Board. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM),

under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment administers maritime spatial on the

national level whilst the three county administration boards administer on the regional level

(Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, 2013).

45

Figure 11. The Swedish maritime planning area in the Baltic Sea (Havsplanområde Östersjön). Approximate positions of OWFs Trolleboda (black), Taggen (orange) and Lillgrund (red) marked. The limits of the EEZ (ekonomisk zon) marked in blue line. Original chart retrieved from: https://www.havochvatten.se/havsplanering/havsplan-ostersjon.html

https://www.havochvatten.se/havsplanering/havsplan-ostersjon.html

46

2.6.1 Lillgrund

As regards risk areas in the Lillgrund project, research both prior to and after construction

concentrated on navigational safety, potential avian mortality, marine flora and fauna,

archaeological conditions and visual effects (with related realty prices) of the OWF on

inhabitants living along the surrounding coastline (Vattenfall, 2013), illustrating the scope of

studies required within the permitting procedure. Within close proximity of the Öresund

bridge that links Sweden with Denmark navigational safety was a major concern at the

feasibility level. Navigational simulation exercises involving the location of wind farms in

Sweden and of the proposed Lillgrund site in particular were first carried out at Kalmar

Maritime Academy (Snöberg, 1998).

Figure 12. Navigational chart depicting the pattern of the Lillgrund site in the Öresund Sound. Courtesy of the Swedish Maritime Administration.

The decision allowing the Lillgrund project to go ahead was taken by the government and

the project received governmental grants in order to promote wind power, via reports which

were to be written in order to facilitate increased investment in wind power projects.

Reports covering subjects involved in the application involve; communication and

acceptance, technical description of the turbines and site, experiences from the construction

47

of the wind farm (offshore cable installation, testing and commissioning of the wind farm),

environmental aspects such as birds in the southern Öresund, marine flora and fauna,

archaeology and visual effects, service and maintenance, production analyses as well as

procurement, financial and legal issues:

Vattenfall AB has received a financial grant from the state for the construction of the Lillgrund

wind farm in Öresund. The overall objective of the support is to promote the development and

to make offshore wind energy more cost-effective. Vattenfall will, therefore, report knowledge

and experience generated from the Lillgrund project. (Vattenfall, 2009, p. 4)

The government was later to introduce a number of research programmes aimed at

increasing knowledge of the effects of wind power (Vindval and Vindforsk, also information

via Vindlov). The Lillgrund project was acquired by Vattenfall AB from Eurowind AB in 2004

(Ibid.) when consultations with the public had already been carried out. The main points in

the permit application process can be summarized as follows:

• in 1997 Örestad Vindkraft AB initiates the project,

• 1998 Eurowind AB submits application to the government;

• on 22nd March 2001 Government diary number: M1998/2620/Na provides the permit

for the construction of an offshore wind farm at Lillgrund in line with Chapter 4, Act

1987:12 on the management of natural resources;

• on 20th December 2002 in case M-416-01, the Environmental Court in Växjö grants

permission for the project to go ahead;

• February 12th, 2004 government’s final decision gives Eurowind AB permission to

initiate construction ;

• in 2004 Vattenfall AB purchases the Lillgrund project from Eurowind AB; and,

• all permits were received in 2005 (Vattenfall, 2008, p. 4)

The project developed throughout the application process not only in terms of ownership

but also within the type of turbines to be used. Initially, in the original permit application, 48

turbines of 1.5 MW were to be stationed in rows, however, due to the lengthy application

process a new model was chosen by Vattenfall, a larger 2.3 MW model, reducing the spacing

between the turbines and increasing the height allowance from 105 to 115 metres above sea

level (ibid., p. 5).

48

2.6.2 Trolleboda

Trolleboda has twelve conditions to be met before construction can commence, according to

the Environmental Court in Växjö, Case M- 2415-06, 17 April, 2008, which illuminates the

highest risk areas of the project. These include cooperation with the Swedish Transport

Agency as regards hinder marking for both maritime and airborne navigation, plans for

decommissioning and restoration of the site and financial guarantees for the same, the OWF

shall be formed in such a manner that the visual effect from Bergkvara hamn (Harbour) and

Kristianopel is of a linear arrangement of turbines thereby minimising visual impact in more

built-up coastal areas, and that sound levels do not exceed 40 dB (A), outside dwellings.

Figure 13. The planned Trolleboda site will be positioned within the shaded area, the horizontal bottom line of which is approximately in line with Kristianopel (marked EL on the chart). Bergkvara Harbour is situated out of picture to the north. Courtesy of the Swedish Maritime Administration.

49

2.6.3 Taggen

The Taggen application received negative comment from a number of government agencies

including the defence forces, national board of fisheries and the national planning and

building board. Sixteen conditions are required to be met in accordance with decision taken

on 10 June 2011, at the Environmental Court in Växjö, case number M-695-07. In summary

these relate in part to competing maritime spatial planning use with the Swedish defence

forces, requirements for guarantees of maritime safety in conjunction with the Swedish

Transport Agency and the visual impact of the OWF on coastal communities.

Figure 14. The chart shows the planned Taggen site south south-west of the Listerlandet headland. Courtesy of the Swedish Maritime Administration.

Of legal relevance here also is that Vattenfall AB and Hanöbuktens Offshore AB originally

submitted separate permit applications to the environmental court within the same area,

Hanöbukten. The applications were dealt with in M-3376-06 as well as M-695-07 mentioned

above. As noted, the two concerns later merged to form TVAB which now adhers to Case M-

695-07. Case M-3376-06 has been revoked. The Blekinge Offshore AB (BOAB) application (in

northern Hanöbukten), was judged along with Taggen in Case M-4234-10 at Växjö

Environmental Court on 5th May 2011. The case referred to Government Bill: prop.

1997/98:45 (page 168) regarding the total effects of the environmental consequence of

Planned establishment

50

BOAB’s proposed OWF. In M-4234-10, the high number of protected bird species in the area,

low levels of research in the effects of combined OWFs of over 150 turbines (BOAB had

applied for 700), an improved environmental impact assessment regarding bats and marine

mammals, a guarantee of financial security for the venture as well as improved research in

safety matters were laid down as conditions to be met.

As can be seen both Taggen and Trolleboda have a number of conditions that are to be met

before construction can go ahead. The application for Taggen offshore wind farm has been

further complicated by the notion apparent in Swedish Bill prop. 1997/98:45 regarding the

total effects of construction on the environment, birds migrating would have to pass two

separate wind farm areas thereby possibly increasing the risk of avian mortality. This

however, must be taken in the context of research within avian mortality/turbine blade

collision and migratory species which is introduced in Vindval Report 6467. Likewise,

Trolleboda is situated in an area of comparatively high density wind farm construction and

the southern Kalmar Sound (Kalmarsund) is considered ideal from a producer’s standpoint

for wind energy, with both Utgrunden I (commissioned) and II (permission authorised) lying

north-east and in relatively close proximity. As regards environmental aspects, Lillgrund can

best be viewed in retrospect, the main report issued on the subject indicating little or no

negative impact on the environment (Vattenfall, 2010). As regards financial considerations,

the main differences between Lillgrund on the one hand and both Taggen and Trolleboda on

the other is that Lillgrund received governmental support to essentially promote wind power

in Sweden.

Arguably, the Lillgrund project came at a time when the Swedish government was

particularly interested in creating a flag ship for renewable energy and related research, and

thereby urged the construction of the wind farm. Connected to this an interesting

relationship between the Swedish executive and judiciary unfolds. The Swedish government

approved of the Lillgrund project in 2001 although the application was not within the system

until late 2002, the Environmental Court dealing with the case in the same manner that was

afforded the construction of the Öresund Bridge (Eurowind, 2004). The Taggen and

Trolleboda projects are still on hold, partly due to the conditions that must be met and partly

because the Swedish market is not considered conducive to profitability. Vattenfall AB has

acquired concerns in the UK (see for example, Vattenfall, 2013b; 2008b) on which it is now

51

partly concentrating its investments whilst Lillgrund came at a time when Vattenfall was

committed to wind power development in Sweden. Reviewing the corporate literature, from

the perspective of Vattenfall AB the Trolleboda project is presently dormant due to

economic considerations;

`Though wind power has no fuel costs, total cost per produced kilowatt hour is high due to significant

investment costs and the need for network capacity investments for new wind farms. Therefore, wind power is

largely dependent on support systems … Vattenfall sees significant growth opportunities within wind power,

though profitability is dependent on support systems …´ (Vattenfall, 2013d)

Taggen however, partly owned by Vattenfall AB announces on its public domain portal

(Taggen vindkraftpark, 2012b) that construction work could ensue in 2014, and no mention

is made of the overriding economic climate. It would seem that the various conditions that

must be met by the project as well as the total effects consideration mentioned above need

to be considered before construction can commence. However, if Trolleboda were to act as

a precedent it would seem that economic conditions must improve before this can be

considered likely.

52

3. Falling in line with the model?

This level of the study evaluates the applicability of the FMECA-NETEP model by use of the

three case studies

3.1 Stage One: Individual NETEP

Objective revisited:

Can FMECA be utilised in each individual NETEP area with reference to the permit

application process for OWFs? i.e. is NETEP effective as a framework for FMECA utilisation?

3.1.1 Methodology

3.1.1.1 The reference group

The following representatives participated in a workshop/interview on FMECA and its

potential use within the different NETEP areas. The workshop/interviews proper

commenced in February and were finalised in September 2012. Names are omitted.

Navigation aspects were dealt with at the Swedish Transport Agency (STA), Norrköping (14 –

1615), Friday 27th January, 2012. Two representatives from the Maritime Department, and

two from the Aviation Department of STA were present at an introduction meeting. Contact

was maintained with the representative responsible for navigational hinder marking in line

with International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities

(IALA) Recommendation 0-139, The Agency’s Guidelines for Wind Power Projects and the

Agency’s Recommendations for Hinder Marking from whom a Background for Discussions

booklet was received by e-mail on Wednesday 4th April. The booklet included navigational

charts and potential risk matrices for the three OWFs. A second workshop/interview

(including use of the booklet) was held with the same representative on Wednesday 23rd

May (12-1330) at the Kalmar Conference Centre (Kalmarsalen) during the Swedish National

Wind Conference.

Economics and Technology aspects were considered at Vattenfall AB, Malmö, Thursday 16th

February, 2012 (11-13). The representative was the Senior Project Manager for Vattenfall

Offshore Wind within the Quality and Coordination Department with extensive experience

of wind power developments in Sweden and the UK, and a member of the Reference Group

53

for official reports on Lillgrund working in close co-operation with the Project Manager for

Taggen and Trolleboda.

Economics and Technology aspects were also dealt with at Linnaeus University, Kalmar on

Tuesday 18th September, 2012 (14-16). The representative was the E.ON Regional Manager

for Stakeholder Management and Political Affairs, responsible within this position for the

Kårehamn development, on the east coast of Öland.

Environment aspects were taken into account by a consultant (Energy sector) in Kalmar,

Thursday 24th May, 2012 (1305–1345). The consultant has extensive, and in-depth

experience of wind power development and its effects in Sweden. The representative was

the Programme Officer at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency until 2012, and held

responsibility for the VKK programme 2001, Vindforsk 2002- 2004 and Vindval until 2012

(see Totalförsvarets förskningsinstitut, 2003; Elforsk, 2008).

Politics aspects were the subject at a meeting at the Swedish Energy Agency, Eskilstuna,

Monday 7th May, 2012 (11-1410). The representative has extensive knowledge of wind

power developments in Sweden and has worked in close co-operation with the Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency within Vindval. Presently active as Market Development

Officer (MDO) within the Market Development Department of the Swedish Energy Agency’s

Wind Power Unit. Also present at the workshop/interview for a shorter period due to time

constraints (25 minutes) was a second MDO from the Wind Power Unit.

3.1.1.2 The conduct of the study

The individual workshop/interview for each representative consisted of the following. The

objective of the study was explained, after which the FMECA risk model was introduced by

presenting a detailed explanation of the ten stages of each FMECA study for Stage One of

the study as shown in Figure 15. The application of FMECA to the ISO 31000:2009 risk

management framework as illustrated in Figure 16 was also discussed. Examples were used

from past OWF applications to illustrate the possible use of FMECA within each of the

individual NETEP areas and during the individual workshop/interview observations were

noted of the comments, viewpoints, reflections and actions of each representative. These

observations were later sent to the representatives for verification. The procedure for the s

54

A consultancy team is assembled within the specific NETEP i.e. navigation experts (maritime) or navigation experts (air). As an example Navigation (maritime) can be taken here - N (MAR)

1. Identify the scope of the FMECA. How detailed should the scope of the FMECA be? At this stage the use of relevant flowcharts may be useful to identify the scope.

2. For each item in relation to Site X, the ways in which failure could occur should be listed. Failure is defined as an issue that can cause harm (an adverse effect). These are the potential failure modes.

3. For each failure mode, the potential effects of failure should be listed. Ask the question “What happens when this failure occurs?”

4. The next step is to determine how serious each effect is. This is the severity rating, or SEV (S). Severity is rated on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very low and 10 is dangerously high. Decimals are used – if failure is seen as midway between 5 and 6, 5.5 is the correct failure level. For each failure mode, determine and list all the potential causes using the knowledge and experience of the team.

5. For each cause, determine its occurrence rating, or OCC (O). This rating estimates the probability of failure. Occurrence is rated on a scale from 1 to 10, including decimals where 1 is remote and 10 is very high. On the FMECA table, list the occurrence rating for each cause. Criticality is calculated after the OCC stage. Criticality = SEV x OCC.

6. The detection rating, or DET (D) valuates how well the cause related to its failure mode can be detected. Detection is rated on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that detection is absolutely certain and 10 means any control is almost certain not to detect the problem (or no control exists) – with an extremely remote chance of that occurring. On the FMECA table, list the detection rating for each cause related to its failure mode.

7. Calculate the risk priority number, or RPN, which equals S × O × D. 8. An action plan is developed to as far as possible reduce the potential failure modes. 9. Action plan is carried out. 10. A new S x O x D calculation is calculated. The resulting RPN is compared to the original

for improvement.

Figure 15. The FMECA–NETEP procedure for Stage One of the study

55

Figure 16. FMECA adapted to the ISO 31000:2009 risk management framework

The representatives were then requested to attempt to carry out an FMECA study of at least

one Item of potential risk within each of the case studies making use of ranking criteria

provided in Figure 17 and document the results of their efforts in accordance with the table

shown in Table 3. Each representative was provided with accompanying literature (relevant

case proceedings as well as the modified ranking criteria of FMECA and explanations), a

questionnaire covering potential use of the FMECA and further participation in the study.

Establish the context

Site X for OWF position

Mo

nito

ring an

d review

Co

mm

un

ication

and

con

sultatio

n

Risk assessment

FMECA within each NETEP area

Risk analysis

4. Assign Severity Rankings (1-10)

5. Assign Occurrence Rankings (1-10)

Calculate Criticality S x O (1-100)

6. Assign Detection Rankings (1-10)

7. Calculate RPNs (S x O x D) (1-1000)

Risk evaluation

8. Develop the Action Plan

9. Take action

10. Calculate the resulting RPNs

Risk treatment

Risk identification

1. Review the process

2. Brainstorm potential failure modes. List PFMs

3. List potential effects of failure

56

Figure 17. The ranking criteria utilised in the case study evaluations. Decimal divisions were adopted within rank in Stage One (i.e. 1.0, 1.1, 1.2… 10)

Table 3. The FMECA-NETEP model for Stage One of the study. In the headings of an FMECA spreadsheet RPN means Risk Priority Number; SEV means Severity, OCC means Occurrence and DET means Detection.

NETEP AREAS

Issue/Item in relation to the site

Potential failure mode PFM

Effects of the failure

SEV 1-10

Cause of the faiilure

OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Steps 1-10

Planned actions Action taken SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

Steps 11-16

57

In this stage of the study the following procedure applies (here, use of the present tenses is

prevalent); for each item in relation to Site X, the ways in which failure could occur to that

item or issue should be listed. Failure is defined as an issue that can cause harm (an adverse

effect). These are the potential failure modes (PFM). For each failure mode, the potential

effects of failure should be listed. The question is asked “What happens if this failure

occurs?” The next step is to determine how serious each effect is. This is termed the severity

rating, or SEV also S. Severity is rated on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very low and 10 is

dangerously high. For each failure mode, and particular to Stage One, the expert is asked to

determine and list just one potential cause as to why or how that failure mode can occur

although more than one cause is generally regarded as common practice within FMECA. For

the cause, an occurrence rating, (or OCC, also O) is determined. This rating estimates the

probability of failure. Occurrence is rated on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is remote and 10

is very high. On the FMECA table, the occurrence rating for the cause is entered.

The next stage is the criticality level, C, and is a result of severity multiplied by occurrence. It

provides a means by which perceived higher risks can be targeted before the detection

stage. The detection rating, (DET or D) evaluates how well the cause and related failure

mode can be detected, with respect to current control mechanisms, if they exist and if

legally accessible i.e. how well the control systems enable detection of cause or failure

mode. In this stage of the study, although a topic for discussion, it was decided that the

notion of current control mechanisms would not be presented in a column. Detection is

rated on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that detection is absolutely certain and 10

means possibility to detect the problem is extremely remote. Figure 18 summarises the

relationship between severity, occurrence and detection factors and stages of analysis.

Figure 18. Severity, occurrence and detection and related analysis stages

Particular to Stage One is that decimal gradations are used for the severity, occurrence and

detection levels – if failure is seen as midway between 5 and 6, then 5.5 could be regarded

as the correct failure level. The risk priority number, or RPN, is the figure that is used to

58

compare different Issues or Items in relation to the site. A high RPN on Item X would be

considered more important, a higher risk, than a lower RPN for Item Y. It is calculated by

multiplying S × O × D (severity x occurrence x detection). After this first RPN an action plan is

developed to as far as possible reduce the highest RPNs (risk priority numbers) of the highest

risk PFMs (potential failure modes). Once action has been planned and undertaken a new

RPN is calculated (S x O x D) and the resulting RPN is compared to the original RPN for

improvement. The ranking criteria for severity, occurrence and detection scales (shown in

figure 16) are designed for potential use within the range of NETEP areas.

3.1.2 Results

3.1.2.1 FMECA-NETEP analysis by Stage One reference group

Table 4 shows a summary of FMECA actions that were possible to fulfill within the NETEP

system using the same FMECA-NETEP table structure as that used in the individual NETEP

studies. For each column a figure is presented within each NETEP area and within each case

(LIL means Lillgrund, TAG means Taggen, TRO means Trolleboda). This figure represents the

number of occasions that the various stages of FMECA (from Item in relation to the site to

Resulting RPN) were completed within each NETEP area and within each case study

(Lillgrund, Taggen and Trolleboda). The figure 0 means that no FMECA action was made, 1

means that one FMECA action was made related to the issue considered, 2 means that

FMECA actions were made related to the two issues considered and 3 means that FMECA

actions were made related to the three issues considered.

59

Table 4. Summary of FMECA actions that were possible to fulfill within NETEP. LIL means Lillgrund; TAG means Taggen, TRO means Trolleboda. In Economics and Technical NETEP areas: E denotes E.ON AB and V denotes Vattenfall AB., each covered both Technological and Economic sectors

NETEP AREAS Issue/Item in relation to the site

Potential failure mode


SEV 1-10

Cause of the failure

OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1 Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

NAV LIL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

NAV TAG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NAV TRO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ECO LIL E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 E2 V3 ECO TAG E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 ECO TRO E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3 E1 V3

TEC LIL E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3

TEC TAG E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 TEC TRO E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3 E0 V3

ENV LIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

ENV TAG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

ENV TRO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

POL LIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

POL TAG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

POL TRO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Within the NETEP area Politics for Lillgrund and for Taggen, no second RPN value was

obtained as a result although a value for the first RPN was given. Time constraints may have

played a role in the omission.

An FMECA analysis was possible to fulfill in at least one case study within all NETEP areas. In

two thirds of the cases a second RPN value was reported. Some selected results for each

NETEP area are provided in Tables 5 – 10.

60

Table 5. Navigation

NAV

Issue or Item in relation to site



SEV 1-10

Cause OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

LIL OWF site adjacent fairway 202

Risk: allision with OWF with one bridge officer on watch

Fatal injury

9.7 Fatigue 5.5 53.3 4 213.2 Increase bridge watch passing OWF. Increase rest periods. OWF site in shallow waters.

Increased bridge watch (2-3 officers)

9.7 3 2 58.2

TAG OWF site adjacent fairway 245

As above

As above

9.7 Fatigue 5 48.5 4 194 As above As above

9.7 3 2 58.2

TRO OWF site adjacent fairway 301B

As above

As above

9.7 Fatigue 5 48.5 4 194 As Above

As Above

9.7 3 2 58.2

Table 6. Economics

ECO V-fall




SEV 1-10

Cause OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

LIL Landfall Nearest landfall Bunkeflo not possible

Longer off/onshore cables required

6 Increased costs

6 36 2 72 Clarify Bunkeflo cable landfall

Desk top study

6 6 2 72

TAG Foundations Unforeseen geotechnical conditions

Drilling required

8 Increased costs

6 48 2 96 Geotechnical studies

Geophysical studies

8 3 2 48

TRO Boat docking areas

Docking areas damaged due to ice

Landings need to be replaced

6 Increased costs

6 36 2 72 Statistical analysis of met ocean

None 8 4 2 64

Table 7. Economics / Technology

ECO/ TECH E ON




SEV1-10

Cause OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

LIL Gearbox Renewed twice within 25 years

Invest- ment 100% increase

5 Gearbox – no guarantee of life length

3 15 6 90 Increase mainten-ance operations

More engineers on site

5 2 3 30

TAG Cable Corrosion due to contact with salt water

Product-ion stop

8 Effect of salinity on cable

2 16 7 112 Divers on site for mainten-ance and checking operations. Also, a self-control on the cable (mantel checks)

- 8 2 3 48

TRO Wind strength

East coast prevailing winds not reliable and steady

Wind speed major effect. 1 m/s in 10 years. Wind speed in 20-24 years?

7 Climate change

3 21 3 63 Alternative site further out at sea would provide less turbulence.

- 6 3 3 54

61

Table 8. Technology

TECH V-fall




SEV 1-10

Cause OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

LIL Wind speed

Production is overestimated

Less production

8 Reduced revenue

7 56 3 168 Detailed climate analysis. Met mast

Preliminary climate estimate; onshore data

8 4 3 96

TAG Met ocean conditions

Overestimated availability

More down time

7 Reduced production/ revenue

7 49 3 147 As Above

Preliminary climate estimate

7 4 3 84

TRO Met ocean conditions

Weather delays during installation

Longer installation

7 Increased costs

7 49 3 147 As Above

Preliminary climate estimate

7 3 3 63

TECH E.ON




SEV 1-10

Cause OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

LIL REGARDED UNNECESSARY (TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS)

TAG

TRO

Table 9. Environment

ENV




SEV 1-10

Cause OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

LIL Pygmy bat population

Collision with turbine rotor blades

Decrease in pygmy bat population

7 Turbine rotor blades operational simultaneously with bat flight

6 42 7 294 Install bat mode

- 7 1 7 49

TAG Herring population

Herring species stops spawning due to disturbance from OWF

Fishermen’s incomes decrease

8 Noise emanating from the turbine foundations

8 64 3 192 Reduce turbines installed at OWF

- 6 6 4 48

TRO Migratory birds – migration path

Migratory birds collide with turbine rotor blades

Decrease in those species of migratory birds

5 Collision with operational rotor blades

8 40 5 200 Turbine layout to suit migration routes

- 5 5 5 125

Table 10. Politics

POL




SEV 1-10

Cause OCC 1-10

CRIT DET 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions

Action taken

SEV

OCC DET RPN 2

LIL Real estate prices

Residential property (real estate) prices in adjacent coastal communities decrease

Reduction in acceptance

6 Attitude that residential property prices will decrease in conjunction with the construction of the OWF

5 30 3 90 Offer subsidized electricity or part ownership -shareholdingof the OWF

- - - - -

TAG Siting and layout of the OWF

OWF has a negative visual effect

Local tourism is negatively affected

7 The attitude that the OWF is experienced as a disturbance by tourists

7 49 3 147 Distribute attitude to wind power studies. Conduct tourist attitude study

- - - - -

TRO OWFs layout

Public concern – no ‘straight lines’ visible from shore

Planned layout decreases accept-ance

5.5 Layout of OWF experienced as visually disturbing (NB: not a NIMBY issue)

5.5 30.25 5 151.25 Re-design OWF layout. New consultation process.

New consult-ation -new layout.

5.3 5.3 5 140.45

62

3.1.2.2 Observations made by the reference group during analysis

All observations that were made during the workshop/interviews were verified by the

representatives. The main issues that were noted are the following;

(i) the ranking criteria functioned adequately; although,

(ii) an observation was made that the decimal divisions in the ranking criteria create more

uncertainty and should therefore not be used (as part of the same observation it was

mentioned that a ranking scale of 1-4 is ordinarily used in risk assessment);

(iii) economic and technical issues could be regarded as one unit;

(iv) a project must be economically/technologically viable to proceed to the application

phase. Economic considerations are vital at the decommissioning stage by means of

guarantees by developers that the area can be restored after 20-25 years;

(v) all risk involves a monetary value, the cost of an adverse effect can therefore be

measured in financial terms; if technical aspects do not function properly this has a direct

effect on the economy of the project;

(vi) within the detection stage, technical issues can be considered within political issues and

overlaps between NETEP areas can therefore exist. Other risk models can be integrated into

the FMECA- NETEP system and likewise;

(vii) contemporary research can be integrated into the model at all S-O-D (severity,

occurrence, detection) stages (e.g. within the environment sector and avian populations – if

an entire species is threatened this results in a high ranking criteria, if local populations are

threatened then a lower ranking criteria for severity can be utilised). Within navigation,

research focusing on fatigue could be utilised at the occurrence level, likewise research on

turbine foundations could be used within the detection phase (relating to underwater sound

and Cod stocks);

(viii) the precautionary principle outlined in the Environmental Code (Chapter 2, paragraph

3), can be utilised within FMECA, whereby if there is any doubt of the level of risk posed to

humans or the environment then the highest risk possible should be considered; and,

63

(ix) RPN 2 could be used for improvements within the confines of a project, whereby new

calculations could be made, allowing for ongoing risk assessment of issues thought to be of

importance, this behoves items with the highest criticality level being given more attention;

(x) the RPNs of alternative sites by the use of different spreadsheets can be compared.

The results from the questionnaire covered functionality, user-friendliness, potential of the

model for use within the permit application process and further participation in the study.

All questionnaires (5) were completed and returned. In response to the question: Can

FMECA-NETEP be considered as a complement to an OWF permit application, 3 of 5

respondents were positive, 1 of 5 respondents was uncertain, and 1 of 5 was negative. The

main comments were that a more concise definition of the different levels of likelihood and

consequence is required and that financial cost should be used as the common denominator

within the ranking criteria 1-10 (where 1 = 10,000 financial units, 2 = 100,000 etc). It was also

noted that the present ranking scale of 1-10 with decimal points (essentially 1-100) is too

broad, implying a more exact analysis than is actually the case (it is evident that the use of

decimal points was not consistent throughout the study). The point was also made that

some risks areas could be measured twice, a navigation risk could for example also be seen

as an environmental risk, the working environment was used as an example. Additionally,

the scope of each NETEP section must be strictly defined, an FMECA study demands strict

definition and planning of each section. Generally, the FMECA was regarded as easy to use.

64

3.1.3. Discussion

The main objective of Stage One of this study was to evaluate, by means of

workshop/interviews and practical application, whether FMECA methodology could be

applied to all NETEP areas. Secondary objectives of the study were to ascertain whether the

FMECA-NETEP model could be considered for use as a complement to OWF permit

applications, this factor measured by the attitudes of the experts. Observations were also

made of the comments and actions made during the workshop/interviews on the possible

use of the FMECA in respective NETEP areas. Stage One thereby covered the applicability of

FMECA by means of practical usage by experts and attitudes on its potential as a

complement to permit applications.

Conclusions regarding economic considerations are that firstly, economics could perform a

role within ranking criteria and secondly, that economics has a possible role as a cumulative

effect without an independent section, thirdly that within guarantees for the

decommissioning phase economics plays a vital role, and that lastly economics and

technology could be considered together as one sector.

The FMECA model’s possible utilisation within the OWF permit application process was

undocumented before the onset of this study, but after Stage One can be considered

possible. Uncertainty could be reduced with a revision of the ranking criteria, a reduction to

a 1-7 or 1-5 scale may prove more effective. Legal demands such as the provision of

alternative sites can also be accommodated, as can reference to contemporary research and

thereby transparency. Other demands such as respect for the precautionary principle can be

integrated into the model. The NETEP system exhibits an interdisciplinary character and

therefore the possible registration of cumulative impact within the model is considered

worthwhile, a further discussion of which is presented below.

65

3.2 Cumulative Impact

For transition from Stage One to Stage Two of the study construction of a system capable of

registering cumulative impact within FMECA-NETEP was necessary. To this end, alterations

were made to the existing model framework in line with the results from Stage One of the

study. The prototype FMECA-NETEP was presented to the Stage Two reference group for

analysis (see Table 11). The main modifications were the inclusion of expected cost and of

cumulative impact variables. Note that Effect (which replaces Effects of the Potential Failure)

is set to one stage. Other modifications included the replacement of the terminology for

variable,

• Potential Failure Mode with Risk Issue;

• Effects of the Potential Failure with Effect;

• Cause with CAUSE for CUMULATIVE IMPACT related to RISK ISSUE; and,

• exclusion of the variable: Action taken.

Table 11. The Prototype FMECA-NETEP for evaluation of Cumulative Impact as presented for analysis in Stage Two. This version divides the spreadsheet into three sections.

NETEP Item in relation to the OWF

RISK ISSUE Effect Cumulative impact

Cost A – high E - low

Severity 1-10

CAUSE for CUMULATIVE IMPACT related to RISK ISSUE

Occurrence 1-10

Criticality Present controls Detection 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions Severity 1-10

Occurrence 1-10

Detection 1-10

RPN 2

66

3.3 Stage Two: Group NETEP

Objective revisited:

Can FMECA be utilised in a combined NETEP (team) framework with reference to the permit

application process for OWFs i.e. can FMECA accommodate cumulative impact?

3.3.1 Methodology

3.3.1.1 The reference group

Invitations to participate in the study were distributed to potential reference group NETEP

members at the latest 30 days prior to the arranged date of the workshop. The request

included a brief explanation of the model as well as summaries of court decisions involving

the three case studies Lillgrund, Taggen and Trolleboda. Contact had previously been made

with two of the group members at the CWE 2013 Conference in Stockholm 5-7 February

2013 at which the FMECA-NETEP model was exhibited. CWE 2013 was managed by the

Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency under the

auspices of Vindval, a government commissioned research network disseminating scientific

knowledge of the effects of wind power impact on humans and the environment.

The following representatives agreed to participate in this stage of the study which was

organised as a workshop on FMECA-NETEP for the evaluation of cumulative impact. The

workshop took place at Kalmar Maritime Academy, Linnaeus University, Kalmar on 21

March, 2013 (1300- 1615).

The expert on Navigation issues was a Senior Research Coordinator from the Research and

Innovation Group, Sjöfartsverket, the Swedish Maritime Administration.

Expert on Economic issues was Enterprise and Business Development Manager at the Wind

Power Unit within Regionförbundet i Kalmarlän, the Regional Council in Kalmar County.

The expert on Politics issues was the same Market Development Officer from the Wind

Power Unit at Energimyndigheten, the Swedish Energy Agency that took part in Stage One of

the study.

67

The Environment issues expert was an Environmental Officer from the Permit Applications

and Regulations Unit, Spatial Planning Division at Naturvårdsverket, the Swedish

Environment Protection Agency. This representative was not able to be present within the

group workshop but was interviewed independently at a later FMECA-NETEP meeting held

at Kalmar Maritime Academy, 3 May 2013 (1000- 1245).

For sake of clarity, the term workshop group is defined as those representatives of the

reference team from the navigation, politics and economics sectors, whilst reference group

refers to all representatives. A specific representative for technical issues was not attainable.

The representatives were chosen for their in-depth and specialised knowledge of offshore

wind power matters ranging from maritime spatial planning, ship traffic management, wind

power permit application procedures, market development and involvement in government

committees on planning within wind power related matters. Names are omitted.

3.3.1.2 The conduct of the study

Navigation simulation of maritime traffic in vicinity of Lillgrund OWF

The workshop group conducted a navigation simulator (Navsim) exercise which involved

observation of maritime traffic movements of vessels in proximity of the Lillgrund OWF. Two

simulators were utilised. Navsim 1 was programmed with restricted visibility conditions

involving heavy precipitation and radar interference. Navsim 2 was programmed with good

visibility conditions. Identical routes for an identical vessel were programmed, the vessel

under main observation was typical for Baltic Sea coastal trade with a level of competency

for command of Deck Officer Class 7 according to IMO (International Maritime Organization)

requirements. The notion of fatigue was introduced as a factor for consideration and the

timeframe for passage of the vessel was set at sunrise.

The objective for this methodology was to observe the divergence in levels of visibility

(including radar interference) of the Lillgrund OWF in the two different conditions simulated.

Other important variables included the type of vessel, the level of competence required for

command of the vessel type, potential levels of fatigue of bridge watching personnel

apparent in the command of the type of vessel, interaction with other vessels in vicinity of

the Lillgrund OWF including the action of a rogue vessel involved in a crossing situation

68

forward of the target vessel in contradiction of the International Regulations for Preventing

Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGs).

The navigation simulator exercise was designed and administered in collaboration with a

Navigation lecturer at Kalmar Maritime Academy in capacity as Master Mariner/navigation

simulator instructor. The workshop group was briefed on the exercise, administered

throughout and de-briefed by the lecturer. A research assistant employed at the Academy

was also present for documentation and recording purposes.

Evaluation of the Prototype FMECA-NETEP

The structure of the model and the ranking criteria were explained and the objective of the

exercise defined. The workshop group was tasked with providing ITEMs in relation to the

OWF that could be used to evaluate the model, in particular cumulative impact. Background

reference included but was not restricted to the earlier navigation simulator exercise and

the conditions that were set in court decisions that had been distributed, which were,

• for Lillgrund, Diary number (Dnr) 443-244/2006 Ansökan om tillstånd enligt

kontinentalsockellagen för arbeten i samband med uppförandet av en vindkraftpark på

Lillgrund i Öresund Permit application for planning permission according to the Continental

Shelf Act and in connection with the construction of an offshore wind farm at Lillgrund;

• for Taggen, Case M 695-07 Ansökan om tillstånd för att uppföra och driva vindkraftverk i

Hanöbukten i Kristianstad och Sölvesborgs kommuner Permit application for planning

permission in connection with the construction and maintenance of an offshore wind farm in

the Hanö Bay within the Kristianstad and Sölvesborg municipalities;

• for Trolleboda, Case 2415-06 Ansökan om tillstånd enligt miljöbalken att uppföra och driva

en gruppstation för vindkraft m.m. inom det s.k. Trollebodaområdet i Kalmarsund,

Karlskrona kommun, Blekinge län och Torsås kommun Kalmar län Permit application for

planning permission in connection with the construction and maintenance of an offshore

wind farm in the Trolleboda area in the Kalmar Sound within the Karlskrona and Torsås

municipalities.

69

The spreadsheets presented in Tables 13, 14 and 15 were constructed as a result of

workshop operations and of consultation with the reference group. The work was carried

out in two steps. The first step was within the workshop group. This involved analysis of the

prototype and entries being made, input at this level led to construction of the Stage Two

FMECA-NETEP in line with Table 12 and the entries specified as NAV 1 and TEC 1. At this level

colour-coding was used on the prototype and any alterations thought necessary to its

structure were noted. The second step focused on environmental issues and was based on

the Stage Two FMECA-NETEP. It is identified by entries specified in the column NETEP Ref.

No. with the INDIV notation. Colour-coding is used to depict NETEP areas. This occurs both

within the reference number (NETEP Ref. no.) column and prior to the corresponding

cumulative impact (NETEP), see Figure 19.

NETEP area Colour code

navigational aspects

blue

economic aspects

yellow

technical aspects

grey

environmental aspects

green

political aspects

red

Figure 19. Colour-coding for reference number and for cumulative impact.

70

The sequence of analysis from Stage One (Individual FMECA-NETEP) and through Stage Two

(Group FMECA-NETEP) can therefore be summarised as follows;

• Stage One is finalised. Stage Two commences;

• Stage Two: Prototype (Table 11) is constructed based on the results from Stage One;

• workshop group (politics, economics, navigation representatives) analyse the prototype,

suggest possible alterations to its structure and make entries to the model based upon

observations made during the simulator exercise, specialised knowledge and the distributed

case study material;

• the prototype is altered in line with workshop group analysis and views of the author. The

Stage Two FMECA-NETEP in line with Table 12 is constructed;

• the Stage Two FMECA-NETEP is used for analysis (regarding both structure of the model

itself as well as providing input) by the environment representative;

• entries on Stage Two FMECA-NETEP, based upon work within the reference group

(navigation, economics, environment, politics) including modifications by author are made;

• the finalised Tables 13, 14 and 15 are distributed to the reference group for approval, tacit

acceptance is highlighted with a deadline set;

• approval is assumed.

3.3.2. Results

3.3.2.1 FMECA-NETEP analysis by the Stage Two reference group

Based upon suggested alterations and entries made by the reference group to the prototype

spreadsheet and observations made during analysis, the FMECA-NETEP spreadsheets,

divided into short (construction phase), middle (production phase) and long term

(decommissioning phase) sections were constructed. The spreadsheets were distributed to

the reference group. All representatives (4/4) concurred with the information presented on

the basis of tacit agreement i.e. a deadline was set for any alterations to be made. No

alterations were suggested. The final spreadsheet layout – the Stage Two FMECA-NETEP is

presented in Table 12 in four sections. The workshop group concentrated on the design of

71

the prototype and issues depicted by NAV 1 and TEC 1. The environment representative was

tasked with making any necessary alterations to the Stage Two FMECA-NETEP structure and

made environmental entries, which underwent modification by the author, in line with TEC 1

INDIV.

Table 12. Layout of the Stage Two FMECA-NETEP model after revision in line with Stage Two (workshop group) suggested alterations, spreadsheet entries and observations. This version divides the FMECA spread into four sections.

NETEP Reference no.

ITEM in relation to the OWF

RISK ISSUE in relation to the OWF

First Effect Intermediary Effect

End Effect

NETEP Cumulative impact Cost A –high E–low Severity 1-10

CAUSE for Cumulative Impact related to RISK ISSUE

Occurrence 1-10

Criticality Present Controls Detection 1-10

RPN 1

Planned actions SEV 1-10 OCC 1-10 DET 1-10 RPN 2

The spreadsheets depicting short term/construction phase (ST), medium term/operational

phase (MT) and long term/decommissioning phase (LT) are provided overleaf.

72

Table 13. Construction phase entries upon which the Stage Two reference group concurred

NET

EP

Re

f.

no

.

ITEM

in

rela

tio

n t

o

the

OW

F

RIS

K

ISSU

E in

re

lati

on

to

OW

F

Firs

t Ef

fect

In

ter.

Effe

ct

End

Ef

fect

NETEP

Cu

mu

lati

ve

imp

act

Cost A – E

SEV 1-10

CA

USE

fo

r C

um

ula

tive

Im

pac

t re

late

d

to R

ISK

ISSU

E

OCC 1-10

CRIT

Pre

sen

t

Co

ntr

ols

DET 1-10

RPN 1

Pla

nn

ed

ac

tio

ns

SEV 1-10

OCC 1-10

DET 1-10

RPN 2

ST

TEC

1

Tech

no

logy

Fo

un

dat

ion

P

ile

dri

vin

g

-

-

No

ise

C

od

m

igra

tio

n

away

fro

m

site

C

7

Dis

turb

ance

d

uri

ng

spaw

nin

g p

erio

d

5

35

U

nd

erw

ater

re

cord

ing

dev

ices

. V

ind

val

rese

arch

1

35

P

ile d

rivi

ng

du

rin

g n

on

-sp

awn

ing

seas

on

2

2

1

4

ST

TEC

1

IND

IV

No

ise

Dam

age

to

aud

ito

ry

syst

em o

f h

arb

ou

r p

orp

ois

es

(Ph

oco

ena

p

ho

coen

a)

C

7

Un

der

wat

er

vib

rati

on

/ ex

cess

ive

no

ise

exp

osu

re

7

49

R

epo

rt 5

84

6

(NV

V).

Se

ism

ic

stu

die

s,

CP

OD

s –

EU

Sam

bah

p

roje

ct.

2

98

P

orp

ois

e cu

rtai

n

evac

uat

ion

of

rem

ain

ing

po

rpo

ises

fro

m

site

du

rin

g p

ile

dri

vin

g

7

1

2

14

ST

TEC

1

IND

IV

No

ise

Gre

y se

al

mig

rati

on

aw

ay f

rom

si

te

C

7

Dis

turb

ance

6

4

2

Res

earc

h.

Rec

ord

ing

2

84

P

ile d

rivi

ng

d

uri

ng

low

sea

l p

op

ula

tio

n

per

iod

s

7

2

2

28

ST

NA

V 1

N

avig

atio

n -

Sh

ipp

ing

OW

F u

nd

er

con

str-

u

ctio

n

crea

tes

risk

to

sh

ipp

ing

Alli

sio

n

vess

el

agai

nst

O

WF

or

par

ts/

serv

ices

th

ereo

f

Hu

ll d

am-

age

Oil

leak

- ag

e

T

raff

ic r

e-ro

ute

d o

r su

spen

ded

d

uri

ng

clea

n-u

p

B

7

Lim

ited

m

ano

euvr

ab-

ility

of

vess

els:

n

arro

w

chan

nel

s/

fair

way

s b

esid

e O

WF.

Als

o

fati

gue,

rad

ar

dis

turb

ance

an

d

bad

vis

ibili

ty.

4

28

Sh

ip t

o s

ho

re

con

tact

6

1

68

San

d b

ank

pro

tect

ion

. O

WF

area

: In

crea

se V

HF

S2

S an

d b

rid

ge

wat

ch. D

ou

ble

-h

ull

vess

els

on

ly. A

lt.

fair

way

s p

oss

ible

.

7

2

2

28

N

avig

atio

n -

Sh

ipp

ing

Lim

ited

m

ano

eu-

vrab

ility

Hig

h d

ens-

ity

traf

fic

- co

llisi

on

Hu

ll d

am-

age

Oil

leak

- ag

e

A

s ab

ove

B

7

A

s ab

ove

4

2

8

As

abo

ve

6

16

8 A

s ab

ove

7

2

2

2

8

N

avig

atio

n -

Sh

ipp

ing

Rad

ar

dis

turb

-an

ce

Co

nfu

sio

n-

colli

sio

n

Hu

ll d

am-

age

Oil

leak

- ag

e

A

s ab

ove

B

7

A

s ab

ove

4

2

8

As

abo

ve

6

16

8 A

s ab

ove

7

2

2

2

8

D

amag

e to

w

ildlif

e,

seab

ed a

nd

co

astl

ine.

B

8

Ref

er t

o

Pla

nn

ed

acti

on

s ST

N

AV

1

N

eg. l

oca

l p

ub

lic o

p.

on

pro

ject

.

B

7

As

abo

ve

73

Table 13 illustrates the (short term) construction phase, within which the ST TEC 1 entry

relates to pile driving. The same considerations were central in the Skotterevet case (M-294-

08) whereby environmental and commercial considerations were weighed against each

other, with pile driving, Cod population and commercial fishing interests in the centre of

debate and in which risk levels were expressed in qualitative terms such as very serious

(mycket allvarliga) and strong (betydande) (Svea hovrätt, p.4). A possible mitigation of this

potential risk is to conduct pile driving operations with respect to the spawning ground i.e.

outside of the spawning season, the RPN in this case shown to have fallen from RPN 1 = 35

to RPN 2 = 4, integral to which is a decrease in severity levels from RPN 1 to RPN 2 in line

with a design change as is evident in vehicle design studies undertaken by Rechnitzer and

Lane (1994, p. 6).

Other environmental issues registered in this stage of the model include conditions for the

Baltic harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) both

critically endangered species as Baltic Proper subpopulations. The cumulative impacts upon

these species can be evaluated with reference to contemporary research (see for example

Elforsk, 2008) with possible mitigation measures if necessary. Whilst not made as an entry

on the spreadsheet other research concerns could be taken into consideration under the

present controls variable (specifically see for example, Johansson, 2012). Additionally, as

regards research input within environmental impact as a whole, homepage-accessed Vindval

material is a major resource, and conference proceedings are also available (see for example

Conference on Wind Power and Environmental Impacts 2013, in Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency, 2013).

As regards navigational issues, the construction of the Lillgrund OWF creates a number of

possible risk scenarios involving traffic movements, restricted manoeuvrability in a high

traffic density area and possible radar interference from the turbines. Planned actions or

mitigation measures include increased S2S (ship-to-shore) contact and possible provision of

alternative fairways. These measures however must be taken with respect to flag state

concerns in line with international maritime legislation. It is evident from Figure 13 that

navigational risk has a cumulative impact in other sectors.

74

Table 14. Operation phase entries upon which the Stage Two reference group concurred

NET

EP

Re

f.

no

.

ITEM

in

rela

tio

n t

o

the

OW

F

RIS

K

ISSU

E in

re

lati

on

to

OW

F

Firs

t Ef

fect

In

ter.

Effe

ct

End

Ef

fect

NETEP

Cu

mu

lati

ve

imp

act

Cost A – E

SEV 1-10

CA

USE

fo

r C

um

ula

tive

Im

pac

t re

late

d t

o

RIS

K IS

SUE

OCC 1-10

CRIT

Pre

sen

t

Co

ntr

ols

DET 1-10

RPN 1

Pla

nn

ed

act

ion

s

SEV 1-10

OCC 1-10

DET 1-10

RPN 2

MT

TE

C 1

Te

chn

olo

gy

Fou

nd

atio

n

No

ise

thro

ugh

tu

rbin

e fo

un

dat

-io

ns

No

ise

-

U

nd

er-

wat

er

dis

turb

-an

ce

Ef

fect

on

C

od

p

op

ula

tio

n.

D

3

Po

pu

lati

on

d

ecre

ase:

M

igra

tio

n a

way

o

f C

od

. In

crea

se:

Co

d n

ot

affe

cted

. O

WF

-pro

tect

s C

od

fro

m f

ish

ing

2

6

Vin

dva

l re

sear

ch

No

act

ion

MT

TE

C 1

IN

DIV

As

abo

ve

Ef

fect

on

h

arb

or

po

rpo

ise

po

pu

lati

on

(P

ho

coen

a

ph

oco

ena

)

D

8

Po

pu

lati

on

d

ecre

ase

–M

igra

tio

n a

nd

st

ress

. Po

siti

ve is

th

at O

WF

pro

tect

s h

arb

or

po

rpo

ise

– n

o

fish

ing

zon

e (b

y-ca

tch

/dro

wn

ing

red

uce

d)

2

16

R

esea

rch

N

o a

ctio

n

MT

TE

C 1

IN

DIV

As

abo

ve

D

istu

rban

ce

to g

rey

seal

C

5

U

nd

erw

ater

d

istu

rban

ce.

Hab

itat

d

eter

iora

tio

n.

1

5

Res

earc

h

No

act

ion

MT

N

AV

1

Nav

igat

ion

-

Ship

pin

g C

olli

sio

n

allis

ion

d

ue

to

OW

F

-

-

O

il le

ak-

age

Tr

affi

c re

-ro

ute

d o

r su

spen

ded

d

uri

ng

clea

n-

up

B

7

C

lean

-up

o

per

atio

ns

bo

om

s et

c

2

14

A

ctio

n t

aken

ST

NA

V 1

2

2

8

No

act

ion

D

amag

e to

w

ildlif

e se

abed

an

d

coas

tlin

e

B

8

A

s ab

ove

N

o a

ctio

n

Neg

ativ

e p

ub

lic

op

inio

n c

an

affe

ct o

ther

p

roje

cts

B

7

A

s ab

ove

N

o a

ctio

n

75

The main observation that was discussed for the operation phase, see Table 14, comes as a

result of MT NAV1 and the cumulative impacts that can be related to environmental damage

and socio-economic (economics and politics) effects of negative opinion on other projects. It

illustrates a degree of flexibility within the NETEP framework and the possible

accommodation of other combined sectors. Both this cumulative impact and the

environment cumulative impact (i.e. damage to wildlife, seabed and coastline) are

terminated at the severity stage due to the risk issue in relation to the OWF (collision or

allision due to OWF) having been mitigated in ST NAV 1. It is the decision of the reference

team if it considers further evaluation on a particular risk issue and the cumulative impacts

worthwhile. Commercial fishing exclusion might serve as a positive effect for fish stocks at

this stage although positive registration within the model is not possible. Maintenance and

operation duties are also major risk factors during this phase, which would increase activity

with navigation (supply and service traffic) and technological sectors (turbine maintenance

and general operation duties). Relevant research results should be referred to with regards

to in particular the present controls level.

76

Table 15. Decommissioning phase entries upon which the Stage Two reference group concurred

NET

EP

Ref

. no

.

ITEM

in

rela

tion

to

the

OW

F

RIS

K

ISSU

E in

re

lati

on

to O

WF

Firs

t Ef

fect

In

ter.

Effe

ct

End

Effe

ct

NETEP

Cum

ulat

ive

impa

ct

Cost A – E

SEV 1-10

CAU

SE fo

r Cu

mul

ativ

e Im

pact

rel

ated

to

RIS

K IS

SUE

OCC 1-10

CRIT

Pres

ent

Co

ntro

ls

DET 1-10

RPN 1

Plan

ned

acti

ons

SEV 1-10

OCC 1-10

DET 1-10

RPN 2

LT

TEC

1 Te

chno

logy

Fo

unda

tion

N

oise

th

roug

h tu

rbin

e fo

unda

t-io

ns a

nd

thro

ugh

deco

m.

acti

ons

Noi

se

-

U

nder

-w

ater

di

stur

b-an

ce

Ef

fect

on

Co

d po

pula

tion

D

6 Te

mpo

rary

di

stur

banc

e of

si

te a

rea

duri

ng

deco

mm

issi

on-

ing

acti

viti

es.

3 18

V

indv

al

rese

arch

1

18

Dec

omm

isio

n -in

g du

ring

non

-sp

awni

ng s

easo

n.

Leav

e fo

unda

tion

s w

hich

act

as

reef

en

cour

agin

g Co

d -

impr

ovin

g bi

otop

e.

2 2

1 4

LT

TEC

1 IN

DIV

As

abov

e

Har

bour

po

rpoi

se –

in

crea

sed

stre

ss,

mor

talit

y

C 7

As

abov

e 5

35

Rese

arch

2

70

Ada

pt d

ecom

. op

erat

ions

to

pres

ence

of

porp

oise

or

guid

e po

rpoi

se a

way

fr

om s

ite

(bla

nket

s)

7 2

2 28

LT

TEC

1 IN

DIV

As

abov

e

Gre

y se

al –

in

crea

sed

stre

ss

D

7 A

s ab

ove

5 35

Re

sear

ch.

Trac

king

2

70

Ada

pt d

ecom

. op

erat

ions

to

pres

ence

of g

rey

seal

7 2

2 28

LT

NA

V 1

N

avig

atio

n -

Ship

ping

Co

llisi

on

allis

ion

due

to

OW

F

-

-

O

il le

ak-

age

Tr

affic

re-

rout

ed o

r su

spen

ded

duri

ng c

lean

-up

B 7

Incr

ease

d co

llisi

on r

isk

due

to d

ecom

mis

sion

op

erat

ion

vess

els

in a

rea.

2 14

A

ctio

n ta

ken

ST

NA

V 1

2

28

Incr

ease

vig

ilanc

e ar

ound

OW

F si

te.

Extr

a w

atch

on

deco

m. o

pera

tion

ve

ssel

s.

7 1

1 7

D

amag

e to

w

ildlif

e se

abed

and

co

astl

ine

B 8

A

ctio

n ta

ken

ST

NA

V 1

Neg

ativ

e pu

blic

op

inio

n ca

n af

fect

oth

er

proj

ects

B 7

A

ctio

n ta

ken

ST

NA

V 1

77

Table 15 illustrates the (long term) decommissioning phase. It is evident that as in

construction (short term), noise and turbidity considerations affect marine wildlife,

underwater fauna and vegetation. Technological issues leading up to decommission involve

noise generated by the turbine which permeates to the sea bed foundation level.

Contemporary research provides the information base for the present controls for this issue.

Local economic effects involve a downturn in related industries to the site including

maintenance and surveillance service industries. Navigational risks are related to increased

maritime traffic and the use of specialist vessels for deconstruction. The flow of the model

accommodates the first RPN calculation, mitigation measures and the second RPN.

The model is deemed as functional at all stages i.e. construction, operation and

decommissioning.

3.3.2.2 Observations made by the reference group during analysis

The following observations relate to discussions involved within the workshop group on the

Prototype (Table 11) and include;

• strict delineation between Effect and Cumulative Impact is required;

• a cumulative impact from the same NETEP area can be registered from the preceding

effect (intra-sector);

• more than one cumulative impact is possible from the same Risk Issue; and,

• more than one NETEP area can be registered within the same cumulative impact (i.e. a

socio-economic issue involving both politics and economics);

• the Cost A – high, E-low variable functions adequately;

• the NETEP reference number and cumulative impact colour-coding functions adequately.

The environmental representative concurred with the structure of the Stage Two FMECA-

NETEP. Environment related entries are designated INDIV in Tables 13, 14 and 15.

78

3.3.3. Discussion

Utilisation of an existing framework (End Effect)

As discussed with reference to the FMECA Standard ISO IEC 60812:2006 and also inherent in

MIL-STD-1629A (local, next higher and end effect variables), the severity rating of an FMECA

analysis refers to the final effect of a failure mode. The Stage Two model incorporates a

similar structure i.e. first effect, intermediate effect and end effect. This sequence of effect

occurs as a result of the preceding risk issue (potential failure mode in more traditional

usage).

Connection of Cumulative Impact to the End Effect

In the Stage Two model cumulative impact occurs due to the end effect of a risk issue.

Cumulative impact can either occur as a result of a NETEP area upon itself (intra-sector) or as

a result of the end effect of one NETEP sector upon another or others (inter-sector).

Cumulative impact is registered and possible mitigating action (planned action) is taken i.e.,

Intra-sector: the entire FMECA process is followed if deemed necessary;

• after the end effect has been registered and,

• after criticality values are compared.

Inter-sector: as regards cumulative impacts that receive a high severity ranking, they should

be either;

• further evaluated if the team considers that there exists good reason to study the

likelihood of occurrence and the ensuing FMECA in its entirety (including mitigating or risk

reduction measures) of that cumulative impact, or,

• the FMECA for that cumulative impact is terminated at the severity stage. If severity is

considered high for the cumulative impact in focus, its root cause is addressed i.e. the risk

issue in relation to the OWF, which if inter-sector will involve the evaluation of an issue

within another (the originating) NETEP area.

By definition, FMECA is a risk management tool dealing with potential failure (i.e. adverse

effects) measured according to the ranking criteria, registration of positive outcome is

79

therefore not possible. The FMECA potential failure methodology is based upon risk and

registers potential negative effect, therefore an RPN of 1 although possible, is not realistic

since risk issue is introduced into the model as a potential threat.

4. Concluding discussion

FMECA can accommodate cumulative impact within risk management and be applied to all

NETEP areas with reference to the permit application process for OWFs. It can thereby be

concluded that the FMECA-NETEP model is capable of accommodating factors central to

environmental impact assessments and the demands set by the permit application process.

Disadvantages of the model, apart from those inherent in FMECA itself, include the fact that

the boundaries of NETEP sectors can become diffuse when a closer evaluation of cases is

carried out. The limits of the NETEP sector politics, for example, become blurred when

institutional considerations are incorporated, and it would seem that the term stakeholder

itself requires more precise definition. The interplay between different governmental

bodies, themselves stakeholders, is therefore a field for future parallel research bordering

the scope of this model. Study of the relationship of those bodies with other non-

governmental stakeholders for example, the commercial fishing sector, is of interest in this

respect of which case M-294-08 (regarding the permit application from Falkenberg Energi

for construction of an OWF with up to thirty turbines on an offshore site, Skotterevet, on the

west coast of Sweden, Falkenberg) offers a starting point. Likewise, as evident from the

results of Stage One of the study, economic considerations are inherent in other sectors than

economics. The addition of a cost variable in the Stage Two model offers a stop-gap to this

phenomenon. Moreover, for a structured framework, adherence to the content of each

NETEP sector in line with Figure 9 is considered good methodology although the applicability

of FMECA to all considerations within the uniform sector is not practical.

FMECA risk methodology has been evaluated within a decision-making system involving

environmental legislation and the required assessments (both possible to address under the

risk issue section), advocacy of the precautionary principle (in the use of the ranking criteria

the highest plausible ranking should be set), the mitigation of risk with calculation of

following results (within planned actions and RPN 2), and the consideration of stakeholder

80

viewpoints (risk issues). Importantly, the utilisation of contemporary research (within

present controls) enables incorporation of external evaluations such as specialised risk

assessments (present controls) within its evaluation mechanism. This is the very stuff of its

input. Its structured methodology, utilising generic risk terminology is applicable to the

range of sectors apparent in the process, thereby offering a framework for transparent and

holistic evaluation.

As a risk model accommodating the measurement of potential negative outcomes, it could

serve as a framework for consideration and mitigation of potential project risk and provide

evidence that potential negative effects of a project have been identified, undergone

rigorous analysis and mitigated against.

5. Future research

Suggestions for future research include a concept that this thesis has failed to address. The

notion of `no net loss´ was intrinsic to the proceedings of the Conference on Wind Power

and Environmental Impacts held in February 2013 (Swedish Environmental Protection

Agency, 2013b) and its inclusion in relation to the planned actions prior to RPN 2 needs to be

considered.

There are other potential modifications to the model. Firstly, within NETEP the inclusion of

an additional sector that would include the registration of uniform issues, as illustrated in

Figure 9 is considered worthwhile. Also with reference to roadmapping methodology (within

STEEP) it is evident that a risk model would benefit from consideration of expected or

predicted future factors not specifically set out in legislative demands of the permit

permission process but nevertheless central to the risk management process. Use of trend

forecasting is therefore considered worthwhile.

Providing a structure for these issues, inclusion of uniform issues (UN) added to the NETEP

acronym affords the term NEPTUNE. Departure from the failure mode designation evident in

the Stage Two analysis can be complemented by a continued inclusion of the term effect

analysis. Research into possible development of a model based on the resulting concept: the

81

NEPTUNE Effect Analysis model, computer-based and on two-levels combining both present

legislative demands and future trends is considered of importance.

Secondly, within the FMECA-based side of the model, a modification to include a ranking

criteria of 0 is a possible modification. This expression of (absolute) epistemic uncertainty

(i.e. no knowledge of the subject in hand) is presently not included in the FMECA ranking

criteria generally since FMECA is used to identify potential failures in an established system.

With risk issues that cannot be ranked according to the criteria i.e. there is no sufficient

knowledge presently available on that particular parameter (severity, occurrence or

detection) a value of 0 should be possible on the first level (RPN1). This results in an RPN1 of

0. This does not indicate a non-existent risk issue, rather an issue that demands prioritised

further investigation. This would affect the utilisation of the criticality level and its use as a

prioritising mechanism, since 0 values would require the highest priority of all. Thirdly, study

focusing on the possibility of registration of positive outcome is considered worthwhile.

Areas to be considered for inclusion in a potential NEPTUNE effect analysis model include,

• consideration of future trends (in line with roadmapping);

• registration of (absolute) epistemic uncertainty in the ranking criteria (i.e. a zero option);

• registration of positive cumulative impact.

The development of such a model would require its application to collaborative research

within a multidisciplinary and international environment displaying inherent cumulative

impact. The navigation component of the present model prepares it for use within both land

and offshore developments and processes, addressing both airborne and water-based

navigation, alongside socio-political, environmental, technological and economic

considerations. Future research should target the construction of an analytical tool capable

of being tested for dealing with foreseeable risks, predicted effects of present trends and

quantifying these in both positive and negative terms.

82

Acknowledgements

I would like to offer my gratitude to all those that have enabled me to complete this thesis.

Firstly, the Head of Kalmar Maritime Academy, Captain Jan Snöberg for organising the

funding of my Licentiate studies and making the whole thing possible. To the invaluable

contribution made by the participants in the various stages of the model’s development who

although they remain anonymous are all out there working within the offshore industry and

in Sweden’s governmental agencies. To the help that I have received from my fellow

students at Linnaeus University, from my own students and colleagues at KMA that have

offered advice and help along the way and to the personnel at the Faculty of Health and Life

Sciences for their friendly help and excellent tuition. Thanks goes especially to my daughter

Louise for putting up with me and to my mum for always sounding interested.

Finally, sometimes, if you´re lucky, people will walk into your life and guide you in the right

direction. I would like to offer a very special, huge thank you to my supervisor, Professor Bo

Carlsson. His support, guidance, and encouragement have enabled me to gain the beginning

of an understanding of what life as an academic writer could entail. Rarely do we come

across individuals in life with such patience, intelligence and humility and pure joy for what

they do. Thanks Bo for everything. And to Celia, thank you, and in answer to your ever

recurring question. I think, hope, that maybe, I can relatively safely say:

And they think it’s all over. It is now.

83

Reference list

ACCSEAS. (2013). Accessibility for Shipping Efficiency, Accessibility and Sustainability. New

Research by ACCSEAS highlights growing safety concerns for North Sea shipping traffic.

Retrieved from ACCSEAS website: http://www.accseas.eu/news-and-events/news/new-

research-by-accseas-highlights-growing-safety-concerns-for-north-sea-shipping-traffic

Arabian-Hoseynabadi, H., Oraee, H., Tavner, P. J. (2010). Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

(FMEA) for wind turbines. International journal of electrical power and energy systems 32 (7)

817-824. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/6687/1/6687.pdf?DDD10+des5jmd+d67a9y

Bidokhti, N. (2009). FMEA Is Not Enough. IEEE Xplore download. ISBN 1-4244-2509-9/09

Retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04914698

British Standard. (2006). BS EN 60812: 2006. Analysis techniques for system reliability –

Procedure for failure mode and effect analysis. Retrieved from: http://www.docin.com/p-

285629883.html

Carlsson, B., Nyborg, L., Nylinder, Å., Palm, M. (2008). Kravprofiler för material i fordon

anpassade efter våra framtida samhällens behov – En idépromemoria om forskningsbehov.

Rapport för Vinnova projekt dnr 2008-00234. Högskolan i Kalmar.

COM 494 final. (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,

The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The

Regions. Blue Growth – opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth. Brussels,

13.9.12. Retrieved from:

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth/documents/com_2012_494_enpdf

Das, M., Panja, S., Chowdhury, S., Elombo, A. I. (2011). Expert-based FMEA of wind turbine

system. IEEM (1582-1585), IEEE. ISBN: 978-1-4577-0740-7. Retrieved from:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6118183

http://www.accseas.eu/news-and-events/news/new-research-by-accseas-highlights-growing-safety-concerns-for-north-sea-shipping-traffic

http://www.accseas.eu/news-and-events/news/new-research-by-accseas-highlights-growing-safety-concerns-for-north-sea-shipping-traffic

https://webmail.lnu.se/owa/redir.aspx?C=8vWlU-8tFkuacv8djcbrtLtw-cYtL9AIn0EkVcxahAkiQsPoNHE-tR52roXjAVni-H0a2khTZxY.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fieeexplore.ieee.org%2fstamp%2fstamp.jsp%3farnumber%3d04914698

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth/documents/com_2012_494_enpdf


84

Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based

sea use management. Marine Policy 32 (2008) 762– 771. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6920_spring2010/readings/Douvere_2009.PDF

Ehler, C. (2011). (Producer) IOC/UNESCO Marine Spatial Planning Course 30 May – 1 June

2011, Oostende, Belgium. [Streaming video]. Retrieved from: http://vimeo.com/34510224

Ekwall, D. (2011). Univerity of Borås. M.Sc. Risk Management course lecture notes. 2011.

Elforsk. (2008). Miljöeffekter av vindkraft. Underlag till VindForsks syntesrapport. Vindforsk

teknikrapport 4:08. Retrieved from:

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Vindforsk/Rapporter%20fran%20Vindforsk%20II/TR4_08_synt

esrapport%20miljoeffekter.pdf

Emmelin, L. (2013). (Producer) Maritime Spatial Planning – Swedish spatial planning goes to

sea? [Streamed video]. Retrieved from:

http://web22.abiliteam.com/ability/show/ysh/20130409_0851_bth_studion/mainshow.asp

?STREAMID=1 accompanying slides available at: http://tuba.bth.se/peter/lars_emmelin.pdf

Encyclopedia.com. (2013). Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and the Profit Motive. [Video

file]. Retrieved from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/iPqdRqacpFk-milton-friedman-

on-selfinterest-profit.aspx

E.ON. (2011). Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning. Södra Midsjöbanken - tillhörande ansökan

om tillstånd enligt kontinentalsockellagen och lag om Sveriges ekonomiska zon att

anlägga en vindkraftspark på Södra Midsjöbanken inklusive nedläggande av kablar,

uppförande av transformatoranläggningar med mera. PDF. Retrieved from:

api.vind.tankstationer.se/.../ceec2285-7322-4d6d-8ab4-a02abd7c6f5

European Commission DG XI. (1999). Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and

Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. PDF. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf

http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6920_spring2010/readings/Douvere_2009.PDF

http://vimeo.com/34510224

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Vindforsk/Rapporter%20fran%20Vindforsk%20II/TR4_08_syntesrapport%20miljoeffekter.pdf

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Vindforsk/Rapporter%20fran%20Vindforsk%20II/TR4_08_syntesrapport%20miljoeffekter.pdf

http://web22.abiliteam.com/ability/show/ysh/20130409_0851_bth_studion/mainshow.asp?STREAMID=1

http://web22.abiliteam.com/ability/show/ysh/20130409_0851_bth_studion/mainshow.asp?STREAMID=1

http://tuba.bth.se/peter/lars_emmelin.pdf

http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/iPqdRqacpFk-milton-friedman-on-selfinterest-profit.aspx

http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/iPqdRqacpFk-milton-friedman-on-selfinterest-profit.aspx

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf

85

European Wind Energy Agency. (2012). SEANERGY 2020 Final Project Report May 2012.

Delivering offshore electricity to the EU: spatial planning of offshore renewable energies and

electricity grid infrastructures in an integrated EU maritime policy (2012). PDF. Retrieved

from European Wind Energy Agency website:

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/Seaner

gy_2020.pdf

Eurowind. (2004). Regeringen ger klartecken för Sveriges största vindkraftpark. Press release (in

Swedish). Retrieved from: http://news.cision.com/se/eurowind/r/regeringen-ger-klartecken-

for-sveriges-storsta-vindkraftpark,c94522

Filipsson, M. (2009). Environmental Risk Assessment – Uncertainty, variability and statistical

methods. Licentiate thesis. School of Pure and Applied Natural Sciences, University of

Kalmar. ISBN: 978-91-85993-33-8. Available from:

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-2990

Fischer, K., Besnard, F., Bertling, L. (2011). European Wind Energy Conference (EWEC 2011)

A Limited-Scope Reliability-Centred Maintenance Analysis of Wind Turbines. Chalmers

University of Technology, Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Electric Power

Engineering, Sweden. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/local_138613.pdf

Fischer, K., Besnard, F., Bertling, L. (2012). Reliability-Centred Maintenance for Wind

Turbines Based on Statistical Analysis and Practical Experience. PDF. Retrieved from:


FMEA Infocentre. (1997). Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice. Draft Proposal from the

SAE J1739 Main Working Committee. Retrieved from:

http://www.fmeainfocentre.com/handbooks/SAE_FMEA_draft_std.doc.

Ford Motor Company. (2013). Ford Futurist Honored Among Fast Company’s 100 Most

Creative Business People for 2013. [Streamed video]. Retrieved from:

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/Seanergy_2020.pdf

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/Seanergy_2020.pdf

http://news.cision.com/se/eurowind/r/regeringen-ger-klartecken-for-sveriges-storsta-vindkraftpark,c94522

http://news.cision.com/se/eurowind/r/regeringen-ger-klartecken-for-sveriges-storsta-vindkraftpark,c94522

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-2990



http://www.fmeainfocentre.com/handbooks/SAE_FMEA_draft_std.doc

86

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/pr-ford-futurist-honored-

among-fast-38026

Foresight Vehicle. (2004). Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap, 2004. Technology and

Research Directions for Future Road Vehicles. Retrieved from:

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Research/CTM/Roadmapping/foresight_vehicle_v1.

pdf

Frosdick, S. (1997). The techniques of risk analysis are insufficient in themselves, Disaster

Prevention and Management, Vol. 6 Issue: 3, pp.165 – 177. University of Borås. M. Sc. Risk

Management course lecture notes. 2011. Available from:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=870911

Garcia M. L., Bray O. H. (1997). Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping. Retrieved from:

http://admin.oif.vn/Uploaded/Private/most/Library/SandiasFundamentalsofTech-

roadmaping.pdf

Greiner, S., Seifert, H. (2010). If things can go wrong - they will. Design of Supervisory and

Control Systems of Wind Turbines by using FMEA. DEWI Magazine Number 36 February

2010. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.dewi.de/dewi/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Magazin_36/12.pdf

Henningsson, M., Jönsson, S., Bengtsson Ryberg, J., Bluhm, G., Bolin, K., Bodén, B., Ek, K.,

Hammarlund, K., Hannukka, I-G., Johansson, C., Mels, S., Mels, T., Nilsson, M., Skärbäck, E.,

Söderholm, P., Waldo, Å., Widerström, I., Åkerman, N. (2012). Vindval Report No. 6545 The

Effects of Wind Power on Human Interests - a synthesis. ISBN 978-91-620-6545-4. PDF.

Retrieved from: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-

620-6545-4.pdf

Hayenheim, M. (2006). Asymmetries in Risk Communication, Risk Management

Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 2006). 1-15. University of Borås. M. Sc. Risk Management course lecture

notes. 2011. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3867940?seq=15

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/pr-ford-futurist-honored-among-fast-38026

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/pr-ford-futurist-honored-among-fast-38026

http://admin.oif.vn/Uploaded/Private/most/Library/SandiasFundamentalsofTech-roadmaping.pdf

http://admin.oif.vn/Uploaded/Private/most/Library/SandiasFundamentalsofTech-roadmaping.pdf

http://www.dewi.de/dewi/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Magazin_36/12.pdf

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6545-4.pdf

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6545-4.pdf

87

International Electrotechnical Commission. (2006). International Standard. IEC 60812.

Second edition 2006-1. Analysis techniques for system reliability – Procedures for failure

mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Available from:

http://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec60812%7Bed2.0%7Den_d.pdf

International Standards Organization. (2009). 31000:2009. Risk Management – Principles

and Guidelines. First edition, 2009.

International Standards Organization. (2009b). Guide 73. Risk Management – Vocabulary.

First edition, 2009.

Jain, R., Ananthakrishnan, T., Mandalik, S., Jindal, G. (2010) Risk analysis of medical

instruments - Case study of Cardiac Output Monitor. IEEE Xplore. 637-641. Retrieved from:


Johansson A., Andersson M. (2012) Ambient Underwater Noise Levels at Norra

Midsjöbanken during Construction of the Nord Stream Pipeline. Report number: FOI-R—

3469—SE. Retrieved from:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_USM80gCIpwJ:https://www.nor

dstream.com/download/document/194/%3Flanguage%3Dsv+Ambient+Underwater+Noise+L

evels+at+S%C3%B6dra+Midsj%C3%B6banken+during+Construction+of+the+Nord+Stream+Pi

peline.+Report+number:+FOIR%E2%80%943469%E2%80%94SE.&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se

Kahrobaee, S., Asgarpoor, S. (2011). Risk-Based Failure Mode and Effect Analysis for Wind

Turbines (RB-FMEA). Retrieved from:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=electricalenginee

ringfacpub

Klein, W., Lalli V. (1990). Model-OA wind turbine generator: failure modes and effects

analysis. Reliability and Maintainability Symposium Proceedings (1990) 337 – 340. Retrieved

from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=67979

http://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec60812%7Bed2.0%7Den_d.pdf

https://webmail.lnu.se/owa/redir.aspx?C=lsVHD6Pf2U--V02V9UBmPeEUHlo6L9AIM1WpDi6ydXsknJ-5BK3MYuTNVPc9CmuwdS73MDS_CIY.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fieeexplore.ieee.org%2fsearch%2fsearchresult.jsp%3fsearchWithin%3dp_Authors%3a.QT.Mandalik%2c+S.A..QT.%26searchWithin%3dp_Author_Ids%3a38075645600%26newsearch%3dtrue

https://webmail.lnu.se/owa/redir.aspx?C=lsVHD6Pf2U--V02V9UBmPeEUHlo6L9AIM1WpDi6ydXsknJ-5BK3MYuTNVPc9CmuwdS73MDS_CIY.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fieeexplore.ieee.org%2fsearch%2fsearchresult.jsp%3fsearchWithin%3dp_Authors%3a.QT.Jindal%2c+G.D..QT.%26searchWithin%3dp_Author_Ids%3a37601677700%26newsearch%3dtrue

https://webmail.lnu.se/owa/redir.aspx?C=lsVHD6Pf2U--V02V9UBmPeEUHlo6L9AIM1WpDi6ydXsknJ-5BK3MYuTNVPc9CmuwdS73MDS_CIY.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fieeexplore.ieee.org%2fstamp%2fstamp.jsp%3ftp%3d%26arnumber%3d5779627

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_USM80gCIpwJ:https://www.nordstream.com/download/document/194/%3Flanguage%3Dsv+Ambient+Underwater+Noise+Levels+at+S%C3%B6dra+Midsj%C3%B6banken+during+Construction+of+the+Nord+Stream+Pipeline.+Report+number:+FOIR%E2%80%943469%E2%80%94SE.&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se




http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=electricalengineeringfacpub

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=electricalengineeringfacpub

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=67979&queryText%3DFMEA+Klein+Lalli

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=67979&queryText%3DFMEA+Klein+Lalli

88

Krohn, D., Woods, M., Adams, J., Valpy, B., Jones, F., & Gardner, P. (2013). Wave and Tidal

Energy in the UK 2013. Conquering Challenges Generating Growth. Retrieved from the

Renewable UK website: www.renewableuk.com/en/.../wave-and-tidal-energy-in-the-uk-

2013.

Lindo, S. (2013). Pitfalls of FMEAs. Presentation. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.incose.org/Chicagoland/docs/2013_02%20Pitfalls%20of%20FMEAs.pdf

Lundkvist M. (2005). Accident Risk and Environmental Assessment. Development of an

Assessment Guideline with Examination in Northern Scandinavia. PhD thesis. Uppsala

University. Retrieved from: http://www.env-impact.geo.uu.se/LundkvistPhD.pdf

Maes, F. (2007). The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: The Belgian

case. Marine Policy 31 (2007) 182–191. PDF. Retrieved from: http://www.unesco-ioc-

marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/4196c93f0934d5d1decb5b1cdbf9bf87.pdf

Maes, F. (2008). The international legal framework for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy

32 (2008) 797–810. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://classroom.oceanteacher.org/pluginfile.php/3504/mod_resource/content/0/Maas_M

SP_International_Legal_Framework_2008.pdf

McLeod, K., Lubchenco J., Palumbi S. and Rosenberg A. (2005). Consensus statement on

marine ecosystem-based management. The Communications Partnership for Science and the

Sea (COMPASS). PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.compassonline.org/sites/all/files/document_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_

v12.pdf

Moss, H., Kurty, M. (1983). Reliability Analysis of a Tension Leg Platform. IEEE Xplore. 755-

759. Retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1152166

http://www.renewableuk.com/en/.../wave-and-tidal-energy-in-the-uk-2013

http://www.renewableuk.com/en/.../wave-and-tidal-energy-in-the-uk-2013

http://www.incose.org/Chicagoland/docs/2013_02%20Pitfalls%20of%20FMEAs.pdf

http://www.env-impact.geo.uu.se/LundkvistPhD.pdf

http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/4196c93f0934d5d1decb5b1cdbf9bf87.pdf

http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/4196c93f0934d5d1decb5b1cdbf9bf87.pdf

http://classroom.oceanteacher.org/pluginfile.php/3504/mod_resource/content/0/Maas_MSP_International_Legal_Framework_2008.pdf

http://classroom.oceanteacher.org/pluginfile.php/3504/mod_resource/content/0/Maas_MSP_International_Legal_Framework_2008.pdf

http://compassonline.org/pdf_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf

http://compassonline.org/pdf_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf

http://www.compassonline.org/sites/all/files/document_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf

http://www.compassonline.org/sites/all/files/document_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf


89

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2000). NASA Engineering Network. Public

Lessons Learned Entry: 0795. Retrieved from:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/0795.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2009). Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

Richard (Dick) Bolt. Retrieved from: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/DickBolt.html

Ohlson, J. (2011). Degrees of openness - potential tool for the management of risk process?

Paper completed for the Risk Management module in M. Sc. Risk Management. University of

Borås.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Probert. D. (2004). Technology roadmapping – A planning framework

for evolution and revolution. Science Direct Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71

(2004) 5–26. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.carlosmello.unifei.edu.br/Disciplinas/Mestrado/PQM-

21/Textos%20para%20leitura/Texto_2_TRM_Phaal_Probert_2004.pdf

Public Works and Government Services Canada. (2011). Failure Mode Effects Criticality

Analysis (FMECA) – Giant Mine Remediation – Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact

Review Board – Information Request 12 Response. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EA0809-

001_RB_IR_12_Response_Attachment_1328902425.PDF

Rademakers.L., Braam, H. (2001).The Maintenance Manager. Collecting and Analysing

Maintenance Data of Wind Turbines. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2001/c01012.pdf

Rechnitzer, G., Lane, J. (1994). Rollover Crash Study. Vehicle Design and Occupant Injuries.

Monash University Accident Research Centre. Report no. 65. Retrieved from:

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc065.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/0795.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/DickBolt.html

http://www.carlosmello.unifei.edu.br/Disciplinas/Mestrado/PQM-21/Textos%20para%20leitura/Texto_2_TRM_Phaal_Probert_2004.pdf

http://www.carlosmello.unifei.edu.br/Disciplinas/Mestrado/PQM-21/Textos%20para%20leitura/Texto_2_TRM_Phaal_Probert_2004.pdf

http://reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EA0809-001_RB_IR_12_Response_Attachment_1328902425.PDF

http://reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EA0809-001_RB_IR_12_Response_Attachment_1328902425.PDF

http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2001/c01012.pdf

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc065.pdf

90

Reliasoft Corporation. (2013). Example FMEA Reports Generated with the Xfmea Software.

Retrieved from: http://www.reliasoft.com/xfmea/fmea_reports.htm

Reliasoft Corporation. (2013b).Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. Front Door L.H.

Retrieved from: http://www.weibull.com/basics/fmea_fig1.htm

Reliawind. (2007). Reliability focused research on optimizing wind energy systems design,

operation and maintenance: Tools, proof of concepts, guidelines & methodologies for a new

generation. Collaborative Project: Large Scale Integrated Project FP7-ENERGY-2007-1-RTD.

Deliverable D 1.1 - Report on previous publications dealing with wind turbine reliability. PDF.

Retrieved from: http://www.reliawind.eu/files/publications/pdf_20.pdf

Reliawind. (2007b). Reliability focused research on optimizing Wind Energy systems design,

operation and maintenance: tools, proof of concepts, guidelines & methodologies for a new

generation. Collaborative Project: Large Scale Integrated Project FP7-ENERGY-2007-1-RTD.

Deliverable D.1.3 - Report on Wind Turbine Reliability Profiles. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.reliawind.eu/files/file-

inline/110502_Reliawind_Deliverable_D.1.3ReliabilityProfilesResults.pdf

Rhee, S., Ishii, K. (2003). Life Cost-Based FMEA Using Empirical Data. Proceedings of

DETC2003 ASME2003 Design Engineering Technical Conferences Chicago IL, September 2-6,

2003. PDF. Retrieved from: http://www.medicalhealthcarefmea.com/papers/DFM2003-

48150.pdf

Roberts, P. (2001). Warwick Manufacturing Group. University of Warwick. Product Excellence

Using Six Sigma, Failure Modes and Criticality Analysis. Warwick Manufacturing Group.

School of Engineering. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/ftmsc/modules/modulelist/peuss/slides/section_1

2a_fmeca_notes.pdf

Rönnberg, P. (2006). Finding the right place. The story about an offshore wind power

project. PhD thesis. ISBN 91-631-8676-4. University of Gothenburg. School of Business,

http://www.reliasoft.com/xfmea/fmea_reports.htm

http://www.reliawind.eu/files/publications/pdf_20.pdf

http://www.reliawind.eu/files/file-inline/110502_Reliawind_Deliverable_D.1.3ReliabilityProfilesResults.pdf

http://www.reliawind.eu/files/file-inline/110502_Reliawind_Deliverable_D.1.3ReliabilityProfilesResults.pdf

http://www.medicalhealthcarefmea.com/papers/DFM2003-48150.pdf

http://www.medicalhealthcarefmea.com/papers/DFM2003-48150.pdf

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/ftmsc/modules/modulelist/peuss/slides/section_12a_fmeca_notes.pdf

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/ftmsc/modules/modulelist/peuss/slides/section_12a_fmeca_notes.pdf

91

Economics and Law. Kungälv: Grafikerna Livréna. Available from:

http://libris.kb.se/bib/10134733

Snöberg, J. (1998). Vindkraftpark vid Lillgrund – konsekvenser för sjöfarten med avseende på

radarnavigering /säkerhet. Kalmar Maritime Academy, Kalmar University College.

Society of Automotive Engineers International. (2013). Fault/Failure Analysis Procedure.

Retrieved from: http://standards.sae.org/arp926b/

Society of Automotive Engineers International. (2013b). Potential Failure Mode and Effects

Analysis in Design (Design FMEA), Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in

Manufacturing and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA). Available from:

http://standards.sae.org/j1739_200901/

STEEP. (2010). Interdisciplinary research team dissemination portal within Sustainability

Transition, Environment, Economy and local Policy. Retrieved from: http://steep.inrialpes.fr/

STEEP-RES. (2009). Chalmers UN - Habitat Partner University Portal for Socio-technical

ecological evaluation of potential renewable energy sources. Retrieved from:

http://www.chalmers.se/gmv/habitat-en/projects/steep-res

Svea hovrätt (2008). Case M 294-08 Miljööverdomstolen.

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. (2011). Marine Spatial Planning.

Retrieved from: https://www.havochvatten.se/en/start/marine-planning.html


Retrieved from: https://www.havochvatten.se/en/start/marine-spatial-planning/within-

sweden.html


Retrieved from: https://www.havochvatten.se/havsplanering/svensk-havsplanering.html

http://libris.kb.se/bib/10134733

http://standards.sae.org/arp926b/

http://standards.sae.org/j1739_200901/

http://steep.inrialpes.fr/

http://www.chalmers.se/gmv/habitat-en/projects/steep-res

https://www.havochvatten.se/en/start/marine-planning.html

https://www.havochvatten.se/en/start/marine-spatial-planning/within-sweden.html

https://www.havochvatten.se/en/start/marine-spatial-planning/within-sweden.html

https://www.havochvatten.se/havsplanering/svensk-havsplanering.html

92

Swedish Energy Agency. (2012). Utveckling av tillståndsprocesser för anläggningar som

producerar förnybar el och för kraftnät. Redovisning av uppdrag 10 i Regleringsbrevet för

Energimyndigheten 2012. ISSN 1403-1892. Retrieved from:

http://www.energimyndigheten.se/sv/Press/Pressmeddelanden/Sa-vill-Energimyndigheten-

effektivisera-tillstandsprocessen-for-fornybar-el/

Swedish Energy Agency. (2012b) Nu har svensk vindkraft nått 7 TWh. Swedish Energy Agency

online. Press release (in Swedish). Retrieved from:

http://www.energimyndigheten.se/sv/Press/Pressmeddelanden/Nu-har-svenskvindkraft-

natt-7-TWh/

Swedish Energy Agency. (2013). Kraftläget i Sverige Elproduktion. Vindkraftproduktion.

Vecka 21, 20 maj-26 maj år 2013. Rullande 52 veckor. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.svenskenergi.se/Global/Statistik/Aktuellt%20kraftläge/Aktuellt-Kraftläge-

Sverige-veckorapport.pdf

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Val av plats för vindkraftsetableringar

Komplement till miljökonsekvensbeskrivning enligt miljöbalken. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5513-5.pdf

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Conference on Wind Power and

Environmental Impacts. Retrieved from: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/cwe2013

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). Inga nettoförluster för miljön med

vindkraft. Press release (in Swedish). Retrieved from:

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/Inga-nettoforluster-for-

miljon-med-vindkraft/

Taggen vindkraftpark. (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.taggenvindpark.se/

Taggen vindkraftpark. (2012b). Retrieved from: http://www.taggenvindpark.se/2-4.aspx

http://www.energimyndigheten.se/sv/Press/Pressmeddelanden/Sa-vill-Energimyndigheten-effektivisera-tillstandsprocessen-for-fornybar-el/

http://www.energimyndigheten.se/sv/Press/Pressmeddelanden/Sa-vill-Energimyndigheten-effektivisera-tillstandsprocessen-for-fornybar-el/

http://www.energimyndigheten.se/sv/Press/Pressmeddelanden/Nu-har-svenskvindkraft-natt-7-TWh/

http://www.energimyndigheten.se/sv/Press/Pressmeddelanden/Nu-har-svenskvindkraft-natt-7-TWh/

http://www.svenskenergi.se/Global/Statistik/Aktuellt%20kraftläge/Aktuellt-Kraftläge-Sverige-veckorapport.pdf

http://www.svenskenergi.se/Global/Statistik/Aktuellt%20kraftläge/Aktuellt-Kraftläge-Sverige-veckorapport.pdf

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5513-5.pdf

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/Inga-nettoforluster-for-miljon-med-vindkraft/

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/Inga-nettoforluster-for-miljon-med-vindkraft/

http://www.taggenvindpark.se/

http://www.taggenvindpark.se/2-4.aspx

93

Tavner, P., Higgins, A., Arabian, H., Long, H., Feng, Y. (2010). European Wind Energy

Conference (EWEC 2010) Using an FMEA method to compare prospective wind turbine

design reliabilities.PDF. Retrieved from: http://www.supergen-

wind.org.uk/docs/publications/Tavner,%20Higgins,%20Arabian,%20Long,%20Feng-

EWEC2010.pdf

Totalförsvarets förskningsinstitut. (2003). Vindkraftsprogrammen VKK och Vindforsk.

Lägesrapport verksamhetsåren 2001 och 2002. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Vindforsk/Rapporter_fran_aldre_program/Lagesrapport_01_

02.pdf

United Kingdom Government. (2001). Health and Safety Executive. Marine risk assessment.

Prepared by Den Norska Veritas for the Health and Safety Executive. Offshore Technology

Report 2001/063. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2001/oto01063.pdf

United Kingdom Government. (2009). Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development

Planning Authority Futures Group. STEEP Analysis Outputs Draft. PDF.

Retrieved from: http://www.gcvcore.gov.uk/downloads/futures/STEEPanalysisOutputs.pdf

United States Government. (1970). The National Environmental Policy Act. Retrieved from:

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ for definitions: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm

United States Government. (1980). MIL-STD 785B. Military Standard. Reliability Program for

Systems and Equipment Development and Production. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.sre.org/pubs/MIl-Std-785B.pdf

United States Government. (1980b). MIL-STD-1629A. Military Standard. Procedures for

performing a Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://sre.org/pubs/Mil-Std-1629A.pdf

http://www.supergen-wind.org.uk/docs/publications/Tavner,%20Higgins,%20Arabian,%20Long,%20Feng-EWEC2010.pdf



http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Vindforsk/Rapporter_fran_aldre_program/Lagesrapport_01_02.pdf

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Vindforsk/Rapporter_fran_aldre_program/Lagesrapport_01_02.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2001/oto01063.pdf

http://www.gcvcore.gov.uk/downloads/futures/STEEPanalysisOutputs.pdf

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm

http://www.sre.org/pubs/MIl-Std-785B.pdf

http://sre.org/pubs/Mil-Std-1629A.pdf

94

United States Government. (1997). Considering Cumulative Effects under the National

Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality. Executive Office of the

President. Retrieved from: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/cumulative_effects.html

United States Government. (2006). TM-5-698-4. Technical Manual. Failure Modes, Effects

and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) for Command, Control, Communications, Computer,

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Facilities. Retrieved from:

http://armypubs.army.mil/eng/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/tm5_698_4.pdf

Vattenfall. (2008). Experiences from the Construction and Installation of Lillgrund Wind

Farm. Retrieved from: http://corporate.vattenfall.se/sv/file/Experiences-from-the-

construc_11336756.pdf

Vattenfall. (2008b). Vattenfall och Scottish Power Renewables ingår partnerskap kring

vindkraftinvesteringar. Retrieved from:

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/nyheter_65655.htm?newsid=0EBE5D304CC94AB9869E785F389

2BA4A&WT.ac=search_success

Vattenfall . (2009). In cooperation with the Swedish Energy Agency. Assessment of the

Lillgrund Windfarm. Power Performance. Wake effects. Retrieved from:

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/file/15_Assessment_of_the_Lillgrund_W.pdf_16596737.pdf?W

T.ac=search_success

Vattenfall. (2010). Lillgrund Offshore Wind farm. Concluding report of the monitoring of

marine flora and fauna within the environmental monitoring program for the Lillgrund

Offshore Wind Farm. Environmental Monitoring of Marine Flora & Fauna.

PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/file/Environmental_Monitoring_Flora_Fauna_17379857.pdf

Vattenfall. (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/rapporter-fran-lillgrund-

reports-in-english.htm?WT.ac=search_success

http://armypubs.army.mil/eng/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/tm5_698_4.pdf

http://corporate.vattenfall.se/sv/file/Experiences-from-the-construc_11336756.pdf

http://corporate.vattenfall.se/sv/file/Experiences-from-the-construc_11336756.pdf

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/nyheter_65655.htm?newsid=0EBE5D304CC94AB9869E785F3892BA4A&WT.ac=search_success

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/nyheter_65655.htm?newsid=0EBE5D304CC94AB9869E785F3892BA4A&WT.ac=search_success

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/file/15_Assessment_of_the_Lillgrund_W.pdf_16596737.pdf?WT.ac=search_success

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/file/15_Assessment_of_the_Lillgrund_W.pdf_16596737.pdf?WT.ac=search_success

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/file/Environmental_Monitoring_Flora_Fauna_17379857.pdf

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/rapporter-fran-lillgrund-reports-in-english.htm?WT.ac=search_success

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/rapporter-fran-lillgrund-reports-in-english.htm?WT.ac=search_success

95

Vattenfall . (2013b). Retrieved from: http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/koncernens-

historia.htm?WT.ac=search_success

Vattenfall . (2013c). Retrieved from: http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/lillgrund-wind-farm.htm

Vattenfall. (2013d). Retrieved from: http://www.vattenfall.com/en/q-a-six-

energysource.htm#build_more_wind_power

Vattenfall. (2013e). Retrieved from: http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/trolleboda-

vindkraftpark.htm

Vindlov. (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-

vatten/Definition-av-klassen/

Vindlov. (2012b). Retrieved from: http://www.vindlov.se/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-

vatten/Provningsprocessen/Tillstand-for-vattenverksamhet/MKB/

Vindlov. (2012c). Retrieved from: http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Internationellt-

vatten/Definition-av-klassen/

Wheeler, D. (2011). Problems with Risk Priority Numbers. Avoiding more numerical

jabberwocky. Quality Digest Magazine 06/27/2011. Retrieved from:

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-column/problems-risk-priority-

numbers.html

World Health Organization. (2004). IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety. IPCS

Risk Assessment Terminology. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/ipcsterminologyparts1and2.pdf

Yu, S., Jiwen. L., Yang, Q., Pan. M. (2011). A Comparison of FMEA, AFMEA and FTA. IEEE

Xplore. 954-960. Retrieved from:


http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/koncernens-historia.htm?WT.ac=search_success

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/koncernens-historia.htm?WT.ac=search_success

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/lillgrund-wind-farm.htm

http://www.vattenfall.com/en/q-a-six-energysource.htm#build_more_wind_power

http://www.vattenfall.com/en/q-a-six-energysource.htm#build_more_wind_power

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/trolleboda-vindkraftpark.htm

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/trolleboda-vindkraftpark.htm

http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Definition-av-klassen/

http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Definition-av-klassen/

http://www.vindlov.se/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Provningsprocessen/Tillstand-for-vattenverksamhet/MKB/

http://www.vindlov.se/Steg-for-steg/Svenskt-vatten/Provningsprocessen/Tillstand-for-vattenverksamhet/MKB/

http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Internationellt-vatten/Definition-av-klassen/

http://www.vindlov.se/sv/Steg-for-steg/Internationellt-vatten/Definition-av-klassen/

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-column/problems-risk-priority-numbers.html

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-column/problems-risk-priority-numbers.html

http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/ipcsterminologyparts1and2.pdf


96