Challenges Facing the Government Official...Challenges Facing the Government Official Examples of How Fire Safety and Risk Engineering Methods Can Solve a Wide Variety of Problems

Challenges Facing the Government Official

Examples of How Fire Safety and Risk Engineering Methods Can Solve a

Wide Variety of Problems

Dr. Björn Karlsson, Director General, Iceland Construction AuthorityAssociate Professor, University of Iceland

Background, Bjorn Karlsson• Civil Engineering, Edinburgh, 1980-85• Dept. Fire Safety and Risk Eng., Lund University, 1985 – 2001, Ph.D

1992, Associate Professor• Visiting Professor, University of Maryland 1996• Author of textbook ”Enclosure Fire Dynamics” with Professor Jim

Quintiere• Director, Iceland Fire Authority, 2001-2010• Director, Iceland Construction Authority, 2011-• Ass. Prof. at Dept. Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of Iceland, 2005- Focus: Fire Safety and Risk Engineering

Content• Examples of some practical problems

Ex1: Should we move the Oil Harbour Depot?Ex2: Risks in a ”single tube” road tunnelEx3: Hazardous materials past Reykjavik´s water reservoirEx4: Rescue in the Nordic ArcticEx5: Evacuation due to massive glacial floodEx6: Should we move rubber tire recycling depot?

• Some other AHJ challenges and Conclusions

Role at ICA and at University of IcelandIceland Construction Authority (ICA):• Responsible for laws and regulations regarding fire safety, Rescue services, inspection

of rescue services, run the Rescue Services College• Responsible for building laws and building regulations, guidance documents,

accrediting designers and master builders, run a database for all building applications and subsequent inspections

• Responsible for electrical safety, from production to outlet, accredited inspection firms conduct inspections

• Responsible building authority for constructions in the Arctic sea (oil platforms etc)Univeristy of Iceland:• Associate professor, focus on Fire Safety and Risk Engineering

Many Hats!

Björn Karlsson

Authority

LecturerAdvisor to Ministers

Researcher

On politically sensitive issues: The role of Researcher (or Professor) is best!

Background: Construction and Rescue in Iceland – Special Challenges• There are many different challenges regarding natural phenomena:

• Extreme weather (the 50 year storm occurs 3 times per year)• Earthquakes• Vulcanic eruption: lava and ash• Vulcanic eruption under glacier => Massive flood• Snow avalances• etc

• This has considerable consequences for construction design and rescue activities• Iceland has a large surface area (=England + Wales) and very challenging nature• But a small population (330.000 inhabitants) with relatively small resources

What to Do When Great Uncertainty?• Very often a debate will occur in the media, where politicians, specialists and the public

debate on a great variety of issues (for example: should the oil harbour be moved from the city center?). Strong opinions, little knowledge of facts

• Often no explicit true solution to the problem being debated• However, there is a lot of knowledge available on decision making under uncertainty , risk

engineering, fire engineering• I will give examples of some practical problems which I have found challenging

• Some problems of a purely political or purely technical nature• Some of technical/political nature• Many problems are multidiciplinary• In some cases there is no ”correct” solution => prepare good graphics




Ex1: Should We Move the Oil Harbour Depot?

• After the Buncefield disaster in England, media asks if it is dangerousto have Iceland´s lagrest Oil depot by the harbour in central Reykjavik

• Icelandic media drives the question: Should we shut it down, move it elsewhere?

• What to do? MSc student of Risk Engineering at Lund universityperforms risk analysis of the oil harbour depot, studied statistics and probabilities, fire in many cysterns, radiation, smoke

Sol1: Should We Move the Oil Harbour Depot?• Problem: Should we shut it down, move it? • What to do? MSc student of Risk Engineering at Lund university, carried

out a risk analysis, studied statistics, probabilities, consequences, inexpensive

• Further risk analysis carried out by Cowi Consult (limited expense sinceMSc study with all data)

• Bödvar Tomasson fire and risk engneer, conducted an analysis where the oil depot is placed at 4 different locations, comparing risks

• Result: Oil Harbor Depot is not moved

Ex2: Risks in a ”Single Tube” Road Tunnel

• A 6 km long road tunnel constructed north of Reykjavik, under a deep fjord• A ”single tube” (so no rescue tunnel, high risk)• My office was not AHJ during design and construction• After construction, the ICA can offer opinion on the risks regarding fire and

transport of haz mat• Heated debate in media: Should tunnel be closed?• What to do? MSc student of Risk Engineering at Lund university, Gudni

Palsson, does risk analysis

Fire of any importance? 30% Scenario

Yearly Frequency in

the tunnel

Average return period (years)

40.0% 0.4 B1 0.130 7.7150% 0.5

1.20527 98%98.5% 0.59 B2 0.192 5.22

40% 99% 1.6960.0% Heat release rate

70% 1.675451%

1.5% 0.01 B3 0.00292 342.92.0% 0.72

Around 4 MW

Around 8 MW

Yes

No

Yes

Passenger vehicle fire

Societal Risk, 100 Iterations, Max 106 Dead

100

101

102

10-12

10-10

10-8

10-6

10-4

10-2

100

X, Number of fatalites

Year

ly F

requ

ency

, P(X

>x)

Total Risk per year

Sol2: Risks in a ”Single Tube” Road Tunnel• Problem: Should 6 km long ”single tube” road tunnel be closed? • Solution: MSc thesis presents risk analysis with probabilities and

consequence analysis• Result: It is 6 times more dangerous to drive 45 minutes around the

fjord, than to drive 6 minutes through the tunnel• This work resulted in a number of risk reducing activities (after

construction). Speed reduced, procedures enhanced, rescue services exercises, etc




Ex3: Hazardous Materials past Reykjavik´s Water Reservoir

• Political concern: Hazardous material transported by road past the Reykjavik water reservoir (the only way to transport oil and gasoline to south Iceland)

• Media drives the demand to forbid this traffic• What to do? MSc students of Risk Engineering at Lund university

collected data and conducted risk analysis, Dadi Thorsteinsson and Jonas Roosberg

ElliðavatnSuðurá

Hólmsá

Suðurlandsvegur

Bláfjallave

gur

Rauðhóla-vegur

Heiðmerkurvegur

Scale 1:60,000

2 km10

12

0.1

25

Concentration, mg/L

Surface water

Roads

Spill location

Pumping wells

Calculated concentration of pollutants after 30 days Scenario #5 - 32 tons

ElliðavatnSuðurá

Hólmsá

Suðurlandsvegur

Bláfjallave

gur

Rauðhóla-vegur

Heiðmerkurvegur

Scale 1:60,000

2 km10

1.4

0.1

2.8

Concentration, mg/L

Surface water

Roads

Spill location

Pumping wells

Calculated concentration of pollutants after 183 days Scenario #5 - 32 tons

Sol3: Hazardous Materials past Reykjavik´s Water Reservoir

• Problem: Media drives the demand to forbid haz mat traffic past Reykjavik´swater reservoir

• Solution: MSc students of Risk Engineering at Lund university collected data and conducted risk analysis, Dadi Thorsteinsson and Jonas Roosberg

• Results: The health risk is acceptable but the environmental risk is too high (buthigh uncertainty in the results). Must find new reservoir, great cost

• Rescue plan: No risk reducing activity performed, but an extreme rescue activityplanned in case of accident: Road closed, all trucks and excavators availabledeployed, massive excavation

Ex4: Rescue in the Nordic Arctic• In 2010 the Icelandic parliament decides that ICA is responsible for

construction safety in the Iceland Search and Rescue region in the Arctic, mostly because of expected oil exploration. Also increasedpassenger ship traffic contributes to risk

• What to do? Applied for an EU research grant together with the Norwegian Rescue School, the Swedish Contingencies Agency and more

• Employed a Ph.D. student (Risk Engineer from Lund University)

Arctic Search and Rescue Regions

30

Possible Helicopter Rescue Areas

Sol4: Rescue in the Nordic ArcticTwo main scenarios:• Scenario 1: Oil platform or similar, few lives at risk, potential huge

environmental risk• Scenario 2: Passanger ship, hundreds or thousands of lives at risk• Result, Scenario 1: Very limited capabilty to save lives or environment• Result, Scenario 2: Passenger ship in trouble: Great probability of very

many deaths• Problem: Society has a tendency to ignore potential huge disasters. My

role is to communicate clearly: We have extremely limited rescue capability

Remember Costa Concordia?




Documents

Challenges Facing the Government Official...Challenges Facing the Government Official Examples of How Fire Safety and Risk Engineering Methods Can Solve a Wide Variety of Problems