Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management

Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

The Risk Assessment Safety of a Multipurpose Small Port

Santospriadi, Tri Tjahjono
Civil Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universitas Indonesia,
Depok, West Java 16431, Indonesia.
[email protected] , [email protected]

Sunaryo
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universitas Indonesia
Depok, West Java 16431, Indonesia.
[email protected]

Abstract
Activities at the port can be an environment that is potentially prone to accidents. Various studies have been conducted
to reduce risks and discuss safety factors in large ports but little for small ports, especially in determining the analysis
method. This paper aims to discuss various risk analysis methods that may be used in analyzing small port areas that
are considered dangerous in port areas: (1) Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), (2) Risk-Based Decision-Making
Guidelines (RPDM), (3) Frequency, probability, event tree (4) Quantitative risk assessment (QRA), and (5) Risk index
and ranking. The literature method used is a literature study on a risk assessment which is then adjusted to the port
characteristics. The results concluded that the FSA is a method that can still be used with adjustments in several ways,
especially related to accident characteristics. Furthermore, we are developing the use of FSA with As Low As
Sufficient and Practical (ALARP) based innovations, especially in small ports.

Keywords
Risk Assessment, Safety, Small Port and Sea Transportation

1. Introduction
The port is one of the infrastructures in the marine transportation mode which plays an important role in supporting
the smooth operation of sea and land transportation activities which are organized for the benefit of the public service.
There have been many studies that have shown how important the role of port infrastructure is in economic growth
and trade, job creation, and attracting investment (Putra et al. 2018). furthermore, To further spur service performance
improvements, especially related to safety, the Indonesia government has concerning sea transportation service
standards, which emphasize more on the aspects of safety, order, regularity, comfort, convenience, and equality. A
port is a vital means of economic development in a region and a source of state revenue, so a port that operates
properly is needed so that the economy runs smoothly. In the eastern part of Indonesia, people with their economic
activities rely heavily on the marine transportation sector, especially in Papua-Maluku Islands.

1.1. Objektives
The government has encouraged the development of ship infrastructure in Indonesia to be in line with the country's
main infrastructure projects. As a result, sea transportation activities have increased, but this has increased incidents
and accidents. Accidents issued by Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT) in 2019, the number of
accidents at sea has increased every year. From 2011 to 2018 there were 125 accidents (Figure 1), with the most
accidents occurring around 43. During that time, 673 victims died or disappeared and 418 injured victims. The results

© IEOM Society International 620

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

of research on the characteristics of ship accidents in Indonesia for the 2007-2014 period stated that 47.44% of ship
accidents were 'collisions' that occurred at the port. This opinion is generally due to the actions of ship operators, ship
owners, classification bureaus, and representatives from the government for administration and port authorities that
have not complied with the applicable regulations. load passengers or goods (Hasugian et al. 2018) .

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 1 Chart of Ship Accidents by KNKT 2011-2018

Figure 1 Ship Accidents by KNKT 2011-2018, stated that 47.44% of ship accidents were 'collisions' that occurred at
the port

2. Literature Review
Research Port safety, Risk analysis is the key to researching Port safety (Trbojevic & Carr 2000). Much debate remains
around risk analysis in terms of validity, practicality, methodology and other areas. Research can be broadly divided
into qualitative ,and quantitative risk assessments, although some studies use a combination, or use a mix of
qualitative-quantitative or semi-quantitative. Regarding quantitative methods, it is used when the phenomenon of
interest is relatively rare, so expert judgment and experimental support are essential, even though the results may be
subjective. Qualitative methods can be used as an initial method of exploration, and then fully more complex
quantitative investigations can be used on a larger scale. Many studies have been conducted to reduce risks and discuss
safety factors at ports, especially in determining accident factors and analysis methods. Several risk analysis methods
are used in analyzing specific port areas that are considered risky. This paper aims to discuss various risk analysis
methods used in analyzing port areas, i.e (1) Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), (2) Risk-Based Decision-Making
Guidelines (RPDM), (3) Frequency, probability, event tree (4) Quantitative risk assessment (QRA), and (5) Risk index
and ranking. Therefore, it is necessary to research to reduce risks and discuss safety factors in eastern Indonesian
ports, especially in determining risk assessments. Ports in Eastern Indonesia are multipurpose small ports.
Determining the appropriate risk analysis method can mitigate various types of accident risks at ports, so that the role
of ports can be more efficient and effective in supporting programs to accelerate economic development in Eastern
Indonesia (KTI=Kawasan Timur Indonesia). This research aims to recommend an appropriate risk assessment method
for the port system in multipurpose small ports.

3. Methods
Multipurpose small Port is defined as a small area of infrastructure, limited infrastructure area, difficult to develop
due to limited area, with wharf length <400 m, equipment to serve various types of ships and cargo flexibly and
provide optimum usability. The multipurpose small port is serving the transportation of people and goods in one
terminal, accommodate heterogeneous loads from a general cargo of loose cargo which is limited in number to
containers. Various loads are combined, not necessarily in large quantities as in special container terminals. The port
provides an effective cargo handling facility for a considerable period of time. To be able to handle all types of loads
effectively and efficiently, the terminal requires a wider variety of mechanical equipment than conventional break
bulk terminals, but lower than the normal requirements for container-specific terminals. This terminal also requires a
different layout (layout) and modern management.

The approach used in literature research. Analysis of the suitability of risk assessment technique variables and port
characteristics. The port under study is a port with a tendency to carry out loading and unloading activities or

© IEOM Society International 621

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

multipurpose activities in KTI. Therefore, accident investigation is very important, and currently, several public
institutions aim to analyse and record accident information. These can be national or international bodies. in Indonesia,
there is Komisi Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT).

4. Port Characteristics in Eastern Indonesia

In Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN) 2015-2019, the areas included in the Eastern
Indonesian Region are the islands of Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku, Nusa Tenggara and Papua. Port selection is
based on Wilayah Pengembangan Strategis (WPS) which are new growth centres in KTI, namely NTT, North Maluku,
Maluku, Central Sulawesi.
In general, the specific characteristics of ports in eastern Indonesia are:
• Deficient of documentation of accidents
• Multipurpose small port is a port whose terminal can serve various kinds of ships and cargo to anticipate various
kinds of commodity traffic being unloaded at the port.
• Port of passengers and goods
• Has loading and unloading equipment in the port space which is a limited area, because from the beginning it
was a public port that was not designed for a large port.
• Port functions other than loading and unloading activities can also be used for another functions

5. Result and Discussion

The seaports with safe and reliable operations are of great significance for the protection of human life and health, the
environment, and the economy, therefor Any inappropriate operation could lead to a profound negative impact on
service quality, productivity cost, and lifestyle, (Wang et al. 2017) Furthermore, the effect of accidents and/or disasters
that jeopardize terminal operations can be reduced/eliminated if a robust risk forecasting mechanism.(Alyami et al.
2019). The hazardous events related to port operations can be classified as follows : Carrier accidents at sea in the
vicinity of ports (Altan 2019), (Debnath & Chin 2016), (S. A.M. Youssef et al. 2014), Accidents during berthing at
port, and Accidents during a ship-to-shore transfer of people or goods (Vidmar & Perkovič 2015), Accidents at cargo
sheds (Nævestad et al. 2019), Accidents during lifting and transportation of hazardous cargo from port premises to
outside area of port (Chen et al. 2018)

5.1. Formal Safety Assessment (FSA).

International Maritime Organization (IMO) defines FSA as a “way of ensuring that action is taken before a disaster
occurs, and a systematic process for assessing the risks associated with shipping activity and for evaluating the costs,
and benefits for reducing these risks” (IMO, 2002).

Decision Makers

Step 1 Step 2 Step 5

Hazard Risk Decision Making
Identification Assessment Recomendations

Step 3
Risk Control Options

Step 4
Cost Benefit

Figure 2. FSA – a risk approach (IMO, 2000)

© IEOM Society International 622

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

Figure 2, FSA – a risk approach, International Maritime Organization (IMO) defines FSA as a “way of ensuring that
action is taken before a disaster occurs.

FSA can be used as a tool to help evaluate new regulations or to compare proposed changes with existing standards.
It enables to draw a balance between various technical and operational issues, including the human element and
between safety and costs. FSA consists of five steps (Figure 2) (Marine Safety 2008) :
• Identification of hazards, i.e. preparing a list of all relevant accident scenarios ;
• Assessment of risks, i.e. evaluation of risk factors;
• Risk control options, i.e. devising measures to control and reduce the identified risks;
• Cost-benefit assessment, i.e. determining cost-effectiveness of each risk control option; and
• Recommendations for decision-making, i.e. defining a decision strategy based on the results obtained in the
previous steps.
The basic goal of FSA is to facilitate a transparent decision-making process. In addition, FSA provides a means of
being proactive, enabling the interested parties to consider potential hazards before a serious accident occurs, approach
to one that is proactive, integrated, and above all based on risk evaluation and management in a transparent and
justifiable manner, thereby encouraging greater compliance with the maritime regulatory framework (Montewka et
al. 2014). The weakness/drawback of the IMO method is that it does not clearly show the criteria of the limits used
for each consequence (life, environment, and property), and also does not explain the method in determining the
criteria and limits/criteria whether the consequences are biased or not.

This method refers to past accidents to predict the likelihood of future unwanted events. This type of analysis is
primarily a qualitative analysis, but it is possible to draw quantitative conclusions if many accident records are
available (J. Zhang et al. 2016). In some cases, certain trends can be inferred from the data set, with respect to the
many variables and aspects involved in accidents, i.e. Causes of accidents, the parties involved, Number of parties
involved, activities carried out at the time of the accident, Type of accident (fire, explosion, gas, etc.), Consequences
of accidents (casualties, injuries, refugees, economic losses, environmental damage).

5.2. The Risk-based Decision-making Guidelines (RBDM).

This method was implemented by The United States Coast Guard (USCG) to show great interest in risk analysis and
accident risk prevention techniques, and has developed several solutions and tools for risk analysis and marine
accident management in general, with an occasional focus on port accidents. This manual consists of 3 volumes (A
Navigating Navigator Onboars or a Monitoring Operator Ashore, n.d.) i.e. Risk-Based Decision Making Navigator,
Introduction to Risk-Based Decision Making, and Procedures for Assessing Risk. RBDM can be specialized by the
public and private sectors for navigation safety, traffic efficiency, and environmental protection. If these resources
are spent in a limited manner on low-risk issues at the expense of high-risk issues, then the shipping industry will face
a higher risk of being unsustainable due to imbalances in resource distribution. Implementing RBDM can improve
this situation. Risk-based decision-making provides a powerful tool that can help ensure that limited public and private
resources are allocated more effectively to reduce risks, maximize marine safety and environmental protection and
increase traffic efficiency

The RBDM Guidelines approach is one that offers Marine Safety Offices (MSOs) a complete, reliable and easy-to-
use toolbox so that they can carry out their own projects in the areas of risk assessment, management, and evaluation.
As noted above, the definition of risk on which this Guide is based is relatively broad and involves not only dangerous
cargo but also unforeseen events that cause harm to people, installations, and the environment (Lounis & McAllister
2016). Some of the techniques presented in the RBDM Guidelines, because of their high logical formalization and
intrinsic need to be implemented in well-defined systems (as an industrial process), cannot be adapted to complex
(and obscure) environments such as ports to be considered as a whole.

5.3. Frequencies, Probabilities, Event Trees

Probability is a dimensionless number between 0, and 1. Within the framework of both probabilistic risk assessment
and quantitative risk assessment is often necessary to establish the likelihood that certain events occur, not others, and
the frequency with which certain events occur over time. For example frequency collision ship and port. The
frequency is expressed by 1 event/duration unit, usually year. Thus, the frequency of occurrence of collision can be
once in ten years). Probabilities is the probability that an event after it has occurred, whereas Frequencies is the
expected rate of occurrence of an event produces a certain result. The probability and frequency data are mainly used

© IEOM Society International 623

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

in the QRA analysis framework, to assign a frequency for each accident scenario identified. The scenario frequency
is then multiplied by the consequences (Konovessis & Vassalos 2008).

The above calculation scheme requires a variety of probability data, which often arise from mere expert judgment,
but sometimes are estimated based on historical analysis. In addition, it involves a structured form of forecasting how
an event is developing, which is called an event trees. This method the need to determine the frequency of the initiating
event. with general, this is discovered through one of three methods: historical analysis, expert judgment or fault tree
analysis (FTA)(Lestari et al. 2017). The frequency with which this item fails is the most basic element of an FTA
(Toz et al. 2018). They are available in specialized databases for a wide variety of items and devices. They are always
counted after observing a large number of such devices over a very long working time. Some authors have tried to
use fault trees to describe events that are not defined by a rigid set of conditions, such as, Trees and fault trees (Kum
& Sahin 2015).

5.4. Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA).

QRA aims at estimating the risk entailed by a system, in terms of human loss or, economic loss, results are presented
forms curves (f) frequency-(N) Number of victims caused by a number of accident scenarios. f-N curves are always
decreasing and often used to test the system analysed in terms of acceptable risk against some criteria defined in
regulations and guidelines. Acceptability criteria are sometimes represented by way of straight, decreasing lines
(Samy Adly Mansour Youssef & Paik 2018). As mentioned before, QRA builds on a number of other methods,
including historical analysis as a tool for hazard identification, as well as fault and event trees. Moreover, quantitative
risk analysis makes use of accident consequence calculation and vulnerability theory in order to fully define individual
risk. The combination of all these tools into a single methodology makes QRA a very comprehensive instrument. The
combination of all these tools into a single methodology makes QRA a very comprehensive instrument. For the same
reason, QRA is more demanding than other risk assessment techniques, in terms of time to the risk analyst (Steijn et
al. 2017) . QRA sometimes poses the problem of finding the number of non-fatal victims. The standard way to solve
the problem is to apply vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability equations are empirical relations that link the effects of
accidents with the probability that a certain receptor suffers a certain consequence, via a probit function. The receptor
can be a human individual or an object, like a structure or some piece of equipment (Collins & Najafi 2017). In the
case the receptor is a person, the consequence examined can be either death or some kind of injury.

5.5. Risk indices and ranking

Risk indexing expresses the level of risk associated with a plant or an installation. Nevertheless, the scope of an index
can be other than establishments, facilities, buildings, and machinery. For instance, there are indices describing the
inherent hazards of substances, reacting systems, etc. This technique had already gained a widespread acceptance as
a cost-effective prioritization and screening tool for risk assessment programmes. From a simplistic point of view, it
can be said that risk indexing is the same as quantitative risk assessment, in that both approaches are intended to
describe the level of risk of a certain object/system. The ranking is generally expressed by way of a dimensionless
number, which is normally provided a verbal translation by way of verbal assessments such as “unacceptable”,
“tolerable”, “negligible”, etc. Risk indexing is not a substitute for a detailed risk analysis, but it is probably the best
assessment tool at the stage of planning, screening and ranking priorities.

A risk index may be more or less complex. Whereas QRA expresses risk in proper units of measurement (e.g. expected
number of casualties per year) and is a deterministic methodology, risk index provides only a ranking (that is a value
to be compared with those previously calculated for other plants/units) and is essentially based on expert judgment.
Generally, the more complex the index, the more aspects related to a plant or installation are taken into account, and
the “better” the device. An index demonstrates good performance when it has good sensitivity to the presence of
safety systems. While using a risk index may be very cost-effective in comparison with turning to a QRA, a risk
indexing algorithm has to be sufficiently well structured and representative of the system for which it has been
devised: using a very simplified method could lead to significant errors in the decision making.

Compared with other methods, excess FSA is that it can be used as a tool to increase measures and new regulations
in ship design and analysis, operation and control of ships, safety management standards and regulations and can be
combined according to the realistic needs (Marine Safety 2008), (Pak et al. 2015), (Montewka et al. 2014), (Görçün
& Burak 2015). The use of the FSA has been carried out several times to identify some of the shortcomings of the
FSA (Table 1), both due to improper application of the method, and several suggestions for further action, including
the need to be careful in formulating risks / hazards, not being transparent, using the FSA not according to the IMO

© IEOM Society International 624

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

guidelines, there are the same input data but have different results and therefore unusable, determinations, but the
FSA provides a proactive way of being, allowing potential hazards to be considered before serious accidents occur
(Montewka et al. 2014) .

Table 1. Research on the use of the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA)

Author/ year Issue

The port of Wuhan, China ship traffic system (VTS), a new risk control option (RCO)
Tang et al. (2008)
can be identified with the revised Domino mode. Ship traffic in shipping lanes
Kontovas & A Critical Review a review of the FSA methodology and critical ways to fix it. Oil
Psaraftis (2009) spills and ships (LNG, Cruise, Ferry, Container, Oil Ship, etc.)
Disadvantages of FSA (Transparency, Root cause, initial events and curve of F - N
Harilaos N.
curve and ALARP region, etc.), Weakness of FSA according to environmental criteria
Psaraftis (2012)
Ship and oil spill
The navigational risk of the Yangtze River can be determined using the FSA concept
Zhang et al.
and the Bayesian network (BN) technique with possibility and fraud-related.
(2013)
navigation on rivers, waterways
On a systematic perspective on risks for formal safety assessment (FSA) Use of
Jakub et al. (2014)
Knowledge and Understanding variables in determining ferry risk
Istanbul Straits risks associated with marine traffic with different factors selected for
Görçün et al.
risk analysis such as vessel specifications, accident location, time of the accident, type
(2015)
of accident Hazard risk Ships in shipping lanes/straits
Pak, J. et al. Identification of the factors that affect the safety of navigation in ports and to analyze
(2015) which of these factors affect port safety. From the perspective of the captain of the
ship. Ship navigation activities at the port
Port Risk Management Methodology (PRM), seeks to transfer the Formal Safety
Pallis (2017)
Assessment (FSA terminal) of a safety-oriented port container port
Youssef et al Crude oil tanker safety assessment FSA assessment for risk to different tanker
(2018) operations

Unacceptable risks, except for very special conditions

(High risk)

Reduce the risk to an acceptable limit

Risk level

The remaining acceptable risk, only a reduction in

risk, is further unsupportive

Reduction of risk is not required further because the

resources expended are not proportional to the
reduction in risk (low risk)

Figure 3. Concept of ALARP (Hurst et al. 2019)

Table 1, Research on the use of the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), include evaluation of risk factors, as an answer
to the question "how severe and how might it happen, it is investigated in detail about the causes and consequences
of the scenarios that have been identified and evaluate the factors that influence level of risk. These objectives can be
achieved by using a technique in accordance with established risk models and the attention focused on the risk that is
rated high.

© IEOM Society International 625

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

Figure 3, Concept of ALARP, the term used to describe the extent to which an occupational risk should be reduced
by applying various mitigation is required

The value in question is the level (level) risk, which can be divided into risks that cannot be justified or accepted,
except in extraordinary circumstances (intolerable), risks that have been made so small that it does not need further
precautions (negligible), the risk whose levels were between intolerable and negligible levels so introduced methods
(As Low As Reasonably Practicable = ALARP)(Selvik et al. 2020),

"Reasonable" or "can be justified". The opposite is "unreasonable" that is "absurd" or "making it up". Whereas
"practicable" is often defined as "practical" or rather "can be applied relatively easily"(Baybutt 2014). Usually the
reference is the availability of current technology and available resources. More details, if efforts to lower the risk of
a job was difficult because the available technology is not adequate or require effort and funds were too large, then
when it is necessary to re-think by finding another more adequate effort(Van Coile et al. 2019).

6. CONCLUSIONS
Risk assessments are nowadays an integral part of any port activity, mainly because of a need for port reliability,
which is strongly related to service revenue. Port activity is much more sensitive to safety faults in the
transportation of people and goods. An accident is an inability of a port operator and other partners in a process
to manage unpredictable events. Risk Assessment and criteria, as presented in the paper, are strongly related to
actual safety standards and modern port management. The use of Historical analysis, databases, statistics and
frequency, probability, event trees in port risk assessments is not currently usable, due to the lack of accident
data documented by the port in the form of accident reports. Analysis of both Refers to past accident data where
the probability is only on certain events with frequent occurrences and subsequent impacts. National data
collection was done by KNKT, and this was limited to major and reported accidents. Many accidents have been
handled directly by the Polisi Air (POLAIR) and the Port Authority.

Format Safety Assessment (FSA), Quantitative risk assessment (QRA), The risk-based decision making
(RBDM), and Risk Indices Ratings guidelines provide proven methods for addressing real decision-making
needs in the marine safety, security, and environmental protection arenas. Decision-makers throughout the
marine industry will find the insights, suggestions, and procedures in the guidelines valuable in the conduct of
their operations. The results conclude sequentially that the FSA, GRA, RPDM, and Risk Indices Ratings are
deemed appropriate for port risk analysis. The use of the FSA with innovation ALARP needs to be considered
in analyzing port safety risks. This is to ensure that safety resources are allocated to maximize the number of
lives saved, and implies that the ALARP criteria result in stronger minimum requirements for life safety
investments.

The paper presents the methodology applying different approaches, deterministic and qualitative to present
deeper understanding and relations governing risks. Operational (technical) risks are analyzed and discussed for
further improvement in their management.

References
Altan, Y. C., Collision diameter for maritime accidents considering the drifting of vessels, Ocean Engineering, vol.
187, 1September 2019, 106158, 2019.
Alyami, H., Yang, Z., Riahi, R., Bonsall, S., & Wang, J., Advanced uncertainty modelling for container port risk
analysis, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 123, pp. 411-421, 2019.
Baybutt, P. The ALARP principle in process safety, Process Safety Progress, vol. 33, 2014.
Chen, L., Xu, X., Zhang, P., & Zhang, X., Analysis on Port and Maritime Transport System Researches, Journal of
Advanced Transportation, vol. 2018, pp. 1-20, 2018.
Collins, E. P., & Najafi, B., Human reliability analysis for evaluation of conduct of operations and training, Global
Congress on Process Safety 2017 - Topical Conference at the 2017 AIChE Spring Meeting and 13th Global
Congress on Process Safety, March 28, 2017.
Debnath, A. K., & Chin, H. C., Modelling Collision Potentials in Port Anchorages: Application of the Navigational
Traffic Conflict Technique (NTCT), Journal of Navigation, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 183-196, 2016.
Görçün, Ö. F., & Burak, S. Z., Formal Safety Assessment for Ship Traffic in the Istanbul Straits. Procedia - Social

© IEOM Society International 626

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 207, pp. 252-261, 2015

Hasugian, S., Sri Wahyuni, A. A. I., Rahmawati, M., & Arleiny, A., Pemetaan Karakteristik Kecelakaan Kapal di
Perairan Indonesia Berdasarkan Investigasi KNKT, Warta Penelitian Perhubungan, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 229–240,
2018.
Hu, S., Fang, Q., Xia, H., & Xi, Y., Formal safety assessment based on relative risks model in ship navigation,
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 92, no.3, pp. 369-377, 2007.
International Maritime Organization, Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Use in the IMO Rule-
making Process. In International Maritime Organization, 2002.
Konovessis, D., & Vassalos, D., Risk evaluation for RoPax vessels, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, vol. 222, no. 1, pp. 13-26, 2008.
Kum, S., & Sahin, B., A root cause analysis for Arctic Marine accidents from 1993 to 2011. Safety Science, vol. 74,
pp. 206–220, 2015
Lestari, D. A., Purwangka, F., & Iskandar, B. H., Identifikasi Keselamatan Kerja Kegiatan Bongkar Muat Kapal Purse
Seine Di Muncar, Banyuwangi (An Occuputional Safety Identification of Purse Seiner Loading and Unloading
Services in Muncar, Banyuwangi), SAINTEK PERIKANAN : Indonesian Journal of Fisheries Science and
Technology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.31-37, 2017
Lounis, Z., & McAllister, T. P., Risk-based decision making for sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems,
Journal of Structural Engineering (United States), vol. 142, no.9, pp. F4016005, 2016.
Marine safety, In The Maritime Engineering Reference Book, 2008
Montewka, J., Goerlandt, F., & Kujala, P., On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA),
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 127, july 2014 ,pp. 77-85, 2014.
Nævestad, T. O., Phillips, R. O., Størkersen, K. V., Laiou, A., & Yannis, G., Safety culture in maritime transport in
Norway and Greece: Exploring national, sectorial and organizational influences on unsafe behaviours and work
accidents, Marine Policy, vol. 99, September 2018, pp. 1–13, 2019.
Pak, J. Y., Yeo, G. T., Oh, S. W., & Yang, Z., Port safety evaluation from a captain’s perspective: The Korean
experience, Safety Science, vol. 72, pp. 172–181, 2015.
Pallis, P. L., Port Risk Management in Container Terminals, Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 25, 2017, pp.
4411-4421, 2017.
Putra, A. A., Ngii, E., & Djalante, S., Port development in supporting connectivity system of Archipelago region,
International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development, vol. 8, pp. 557-
574, 2018.
Selvik, J. T., Elvik, R., & Abrahamsen, E. B., Can the use of road safety measures on national roads in Norway be
interpreted as an informal application of the ALARP principle? Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 135, pp.
Februari 2020, 2019.
Steijn, W. M. P., Groeneweg, J., van der Beek, F. A., van Kampen, J., & van Gelder, P., An integration of human
factors into quantitative risk analysis: A proof of principle. Safety and Reliability - Theory and Applications -
Proceedings of the 27th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2017, 2017.
Tang, X., Fan, Y., & Cai, C., Application of formal safety assessment in planning VTS, Journal of Southeast
University (English Edition), vol. 24, pp. 99-103, 2008.
Toz, A. C., Sakar, C., & Koseoglu, B., Investigation of grounding accidents in the bay of Izmir with the application
of root-cause analysis, AGA 2018 - 19th Annual General Assembly (AGA) of the International Association of
Maritime Universities (IAMU), pp. 425- 433, 2018.
Trbojevic, V., & Carr, B., Risk based methodology for safety improvements in ports, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
vol. 71, pp. 467–480, 2000.
Van Coile, R., Jomaas, G., & Bisby, L., Defining ALARP for fire safety engineering design via the Life Quality Index,
Fire Safety Journal, vol. 107, May 2019, pp. 1-14, 2019.
Vidmar, P., & Perkovič, M., Methodological approach for safety assessment of cruise ship in port, Safety Science, vol.
18, December 2015, pp. 189-200, 2015.
Vidmar, P., & Perkovič, M., Safety assessment of crude oil tankers, Safety Science, vol. 105, June 2018, pp.178-191,
2018.
Wang, Z., Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M. D., Cui, H., Wu, L., & Liu, C., Port sustainable services innovation:
Ningbo port users’ expectation, Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol.11, pp. 58-67, 2017.
Youssef, S. A.M., Kim, Y. S., Paik, J. K., Cheng, F., & Kim, M. S., Hazard identification and probabilistic scenario
selection for ship-ship? Collision accidents, Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects Part A:
International Journal of Maritime Engineering, vol. 156 (PART A1), pp. 61-80, 2014.
Youssef, Samy Adly Mansour, & Paik, J. K., Hazard identification and scenario selection of ship grounding accidents.

© IEOM Society International 627

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Harbin, China, July 9-11, 2021

Ocean Engineering, vol. 153, February 2018, pp. 242–255, 2018.

Zhang, D., Yan, X. P., Yang, Z. L., Wall, A., & Wang, J., Incorporation of formal safety assessment and Bayesian
network in navigational risk estimation of the Yangtze River, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol.
118, pp. 93-105, 2013.
Zhang, J., Teixeira, Â. P., Guedes Soares, C., Yan, X., & Liu, K., Maritime Transportation Risk Assessment of Tianjin
Port with Bayesian Belief Networks, Risk Analysis, vol. 36, no.6, pp. 1-17, 2016.

Biographies
Santospriadi is a doctoral candidate in the civil engineering department of the Indonesia University, lecture in faculty
Engineering in Department of Civil Engineering at the Universitas Muhammadiyah Maluku Utara, North Maluku,
Indonesia. He earned Masters in Civil Engineering from Indonesia University, Indonesia. He has published journal
and conference papers. Santospriadi has completed research transportation projects with Government, i.e. Ternate,
Tegal, and Cirebon. His research interests include Transportation and Safety.

Tri Tjahjono as Associate Professor, Indonesia University, Faculty of Engineering at the Department of Civil
Engineering, Indonesia University. Obtained his Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree at FTUI in 1981. Completed
his Masters in 1987 and 2003 in the field of Transportation Engineering at the University of Leeds. His teaching career
began in 1981. Until now, he is still active. He has produced a lot of research, including in the fields of port planning
and management, transportation planning and policy, transportation economics and transportation safety.

Sunaryo as a Professor in engineering Faculty in the department Mechanical Engineering, Indonesia University.
Holds a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering at FTUI in 1982. He finished Master and doctoral education
fields Ship Production Tech at Strathclyde University Scotland in 1989 and 1993. His teaching career began in 1985.
Until now, he is still active teaching in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. many related types of researchin
the field of shipping, including the safety of Shipyard System and Shipbuilding Engineering.

© IEOM Society International 628