Probabilistic Risk Framework for Nuclear- and Fossil-Powered Vessels: Analyzing Casualty Event Severity and Sub-Causes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection for the Case Studies
2.2. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Methodology
- Potential Fatalities: Historical data provided the average and worst-case fatality counts for each type of event (collisions, fires, etc.). A weighted factor w1 was assigned based on casualty rates [44];
- Environmental Impact: A factor w2 captured ecological consequences (e.g., oil spills) by examining total spill volume, environmental sensitivity (e.g., proximity to protected habitats), and restoration time [45];
- Economic Losses: Direct costs (e.g., vessel repair, salvage) and indirect losses (e.g., port downtime, third-party liability) were translated into monetary terms [44]. A factor w3 captured these impacts.
2.3. Limitations
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
- According to the casualty event severity, a country-specific analysis of NPVs reveals that China, the United Kingdom, and India exhibit above-average risk levels for marine incidents, while France and the United States remain close to the average. In the category of marine casualties, the highest risks are associated with France, India, and Russia. For very serious incidents, Russia stands out with an exceptionally elevated risk level of 100%, significantly surpassing the average of 18%;
- Comparing risk levels across both FPVs and NPVs, Russia emerges as a significant concern in the very serious risk category. Conversely, China demonstrates the highest risk in relation to FPVs. Notably, NPVs display no substantial risks beyond the category of marine incidents. In the case of NPVs, France exhibits a considerably higher-than-average risk in the marine casualty category, classified as moderate risk. For FPVs, France, alongside the United States, demonstrates an above-average risk profile in the category of very serious events, following China and Russia;
- An analysis of casualty event categories reveals that the United Kingdom, Russia, and France hold prominent positions in the NPV category, while the United Kingdom, India, and France are significant in the FPV category. The United Kingdom and France emerge as the leading countries with the highest risk levels, in first and third positions across both categories. In contrast, the analysis reveals that Russia has struggled to translate its expertise from FPVs to NPVs effectively;
- Countries with higher risk values, particularly Russia, France, and the UK, should invest in accident prevention programs, emphasizing training, technology upgrades, and proactive maintenance schedules;
- Given the severe consequences associated with very serious accidents, countries like Russia should prioritize high-impact risk mitigation measures, such as stricter safety audits and real-time monitoring systems;
- To mitigate the high risks associated with collisions and fire, it is essential to implement advanced collision-avoidance systems, strengthen navigational protocols, and enhance measures to prevent and suppress fire, across both NPVs and FPVs;
- Global organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) should strengthen regulatory frameworks specific to NPVs, enforcing uniform safety standards;
- Leveraging advanced technologies such as predictive maintenance and AI-based incident monitoring systems can help countries with high accident risks, particularly Russia, China, and France;
- PRA should be conducted regularly, considering evolving fleet dynamics and operational environments, to ensure adaptive safety measures;
- Nuclear engineering programs could be integrated into maritime education to enhance educational offerings.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
NPVs | Nuclear-Powered Vessels |
FPVs | Fossil-Powered Vessels |
PRA | Probabilistic Risk Assessment |
Equasis | Electronic Quality Shipping Information System |
EMSA | European Maritime Safety Agency |
IMO GISIS | International Maritime Organization Global Integrated Shipping Information System |
Appendix A
No. | Year of Occurence | Country | Vessel Involved | Casualty Event Severity | Sub-Cause | Summary of Events |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1960 | Russia | K8 | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Major steam generator leak accompanied by a helium leak from the pressurizer system; fire |
2 | 1961 | Russia | K19 | Very Serious | Ship equip. damage | Crack in a coolant pipe of the pressurizer system |
3 | 1962 | US | SSN Skate | Marine Incident | Ship equip. damage | Leak in a seawater circulation system |
4 | 1963 | US | SSN Thresher | Very Serious | Loss of control | Failure in the submarine’s saltwater piping system |
5 | 1964 | Russia | K27 | Marine Incident | Ship equip. damage | Coolant freeze in one of its liquid metal-cooled reactors |
6 | 1965 | Russia | K11 | Very Serious | Other | Personnel |
7 | 1965 | Russia | K74 | Marine Casualty | Loss of control | Failure of an automatic control system |
8 | 1966 | Russia | Icebreaker NS Lenin | Marine Casualty | Loss of control | Operator error during refueling |
9 | 1967 | Russia | K3 | Very Serious | Fire explosion | Fire |
10 | 1968 | Russia | K129 | Very Serious | Capsize | Sinking |
11 | 1968 | Russia | K27 | Marine Casualty | Ship equip. damage | Reactor accident due to coolant leakage in the port reactor’s steam generators |
12 | 1968 | Russia | K140 | Marine Incident | Other | Personnel |
13 | 1968 | US | SSN Scorpion | Marine Casualty | Other | Personnel |
14 | 1970 | Russia | K8 | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Fire |
15 | 1970 | Russia | K320 | Marine Incident | Other | Personnel |
16 | 1972 | Russia | K19 | Very Serious | Fire explosion | Fire |
17 | 1972 | Russia | K377 | Marine Incident | Loss of control | Reactor accident during sea trials when the liquid metal coolant (Pb-Bi) solidified |
18 | 1973 | Russia | K56 | Marine Casualty | Collision | Collided with the Soviet research vessel Akaldernik Berg |
19 | 1973 | US | SSN Guardfish | Marine Incident | Ship equip. damage | Leak in the primary cooling circuit |
20 | 1976 | Russia | K47 | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Fire |
21 | 1977 | Russia | Echo-II class | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Fire |
22 | 1978 | Russia | K451 | Marine Incident | Fire explosion | Fire |
23 | 1978 | Russia | K171 | Very Serious | Other | Personnel |
24 | 1979 | Russia | K116 | Very Serious | Other | Human error |
25 | 1980 | Russia | Echo-II class | Very Serious | Fire explosion | Fire |
26 | 1980 | Russia | K222 | Very Serious | Other | Personnel |
27 | 1982 | Russia | K123 | Marine Casualty | Ship equip. damage | Solidification of the primary circuit coolant |
28 | 1983 | Russia | K429 | Marine Casualty | Other | Personnel |
29 | 1984 | Russia | K131 | Marine Casualty | Occupational accident | Crew member’s clothes caught fire while working on electric installations in the electro-technical compartment |
30 | 1985 | Russia | Echo-II class | Very Serious | Other | Personnel |
31 | 1985 | Russia | Echo-II class | Very Serious | Ship equip. damage | Reactor overheating |
32 | 1986 | Russia | Echo-II class | Marine Incident | Ship equip. damage | Propulsion system failure |
33 | 1986 | Russia | K219 | Very Serious | Fire explosion | Explosion and fire |
34 | 1989 | Russia | K278 Komsomolets | Very Serious | Fire explosion | Fire |
35 | 1989 | Russia | K192 | Very Serious | Ship equip. damage | Leak in the primary circuit of one of its reactors, causing loss of coolant |
36 | 1989 | Russia | ALFA CLASS | Marine Incident | Loss of control | Fault in the reactor system |
37 | 1990 | Russia | Admiral Ushakov Class Cruiser | Marine Incident | Ship equip. damage | Small leakage in the primary circuit of one of its reactors |
38 | 1991 | Russia | Typhoon Class Submarine | Marine Incident | Ship equip. damage | Missile failure during a test launch |
39 | 1992 | Russia—US | Kostroma—USS Baton Rouge | Marine Incident | Collision | aCollision with the American Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine Baton Rouge (SSN-689) |
40 | 1992 | US—Russia | USS Baton Rouge—Kostroma | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision with the American Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine Baton Rouge (SSN-689) |
41 | 1994 | France | Emeraude Nuclear Submarine | Marine Casualty | Ship equip. damage | Failure of the sea-water cooling system of a steam condenser |
42 | 1996 | Russia | Yamal (icebreaker) | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Fire |
43 | 2000 | Russia | K141 Kursk | Very Serious | Fire explosion | Leak of hydrogen peroxide in the forward torpedo room; explosion |
44 | 2000 | UK | HMS Tireless | Marine Incident | Loss of control | Reactor coolant leak |
45 | 2001 | US—Japan | USS Greeneville -Ehime Maru | Very Serious | Collision | Collision |
46 | 2002 | US | USS Oklahoma City | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision with tanker |
47 | 2003 | Russia | K159 | Very Serious | Capsize | Sinking |
48 | 2003 | US | USS Hartford | Marine Incident | Grounding | Grounding |
49 | 2005 | US | USS San Francisco | Very Serious | Contact | Collision |
50 | 2005 | US | USS Philadelphia | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision |
51 | 2006 | Russia | Daniil Moskovsky | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Fire |
52 | 2006 | US | USS Minneapolis-Saint Paul | Marine Casualty | Loss of control | Washed overboard by heavy waves |
53 | 2007 | Russia | Arktika (1972 icebreaker) | Marine Incident | Fire explosion | Fire |
54 | 2007 | UK | HMS Tireless | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Explosion |
55 | 2007 | US | USS Newport News | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision with Japanese tanker Mogamigawa |
56 | 2008 | Russia | K152 | Very Serious | Ship equip. damage | Asphyxiation caused by a gas leak |
57 | 2008 | UK | HMS Superb | Marine Incident | Contact | Collision—hit a rock |
58 | 2009 | France—UK | Le Triomphant—HMS Vanguard | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision |
59 | 2009 | Russia | Yamal (icebreaker) | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision |
60 | 2009 | UK—France | HMS Vanguard—Le Triomphant | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision |
61 | 2009 | US | USS Hartford—USS New Orleans | Marine Casualty | Collision | Collision |
62 | 2010 | UK | HMS Astute | Marine Incident | Grounding | Grounding |
63 | 2011 | India | INS Arihant | Marine Casualty | Hull | Caisson (temporary docking gate) collapsed |
64 | 2011 | UK | HMS Astute | Marine Casualty | Other | Fatal shooting |
65 | 2012 | US | USS Miami | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Fire |
66 | 2012 | US | USS Montpelier—USS San Jacinto | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision |
67 | 2013 | Russia | K150 Tomsk | Marine Casualty | Fire explosion | Fire |
68 | 2013 | US | USS Jacksonville | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision |
69 | 2016 | UK | HMS Ambush | Marine Incident | Collision | Collision with a merchant ship |
70 | 2017 | India | INS Arihant | Marine Incident | Other | Personnel |
71 | 2017 | India | INS Chakra | Marine Incident | Hull | Large hole in the sonar dome in the bow |
72 | 2019 | Russia | AS-12 | Very Serious | Fire explosion | Fire |
73 | 2021 | US | USS Connecticut | Marine Casualty | Grounding | Grounding |
74 | 2023 | Russia | Icebreaker | Marine Incident | Fire explosion | Fire |
75 | 2024 | China | - | Marine Incident | Capsize | Sinking |
References
- Bhattacharyya, R.; El-Emam, R.S.; Khalid, F. Climate Action for the Shipping Industry: Some Perspectives on the Role of Nuclear Power in Maritime Decarbonization. e-Prime Adv. Electr. Eng. Electron. Energy 2023, 4, 100132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wulff, L. Feasibility of the Implementation of Nuclear Reactors as Main Energy Source in Passenger Vessels. Master’s Thesis, Aalto University, Espo, Finland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Adamantiades, A.; Kessides, I. Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development: Current Status and Future Prospects. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5149–5166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, P. Using Nuclear Energy for Maritime Decarbonization and Related Environmental Challenges: Existing Regulatory Shortcomings and Improvements. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ølgaard, P.L. Accidents in Nuclear Ships; NKS-RAK-2(96)TR-C3; NKS: Roskilde, Denmark, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Zucchetti, M.; Aumento, F. Accidents in Nuclear-Powered Submarines and Their Effect on Environmental Marine Pollution. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2006, 7, 176–185. [Google Scholar]
- Högberg, L. Root Causes and Impacts of Severe Accidents at Large Nuclear Power Plants. AMBIO 2013, 42, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adumene, S.; Islam, R.; Amin, M.T.; Nitonye, S.; Yazdi, M.; Johnson, K.T. Advances in Nuclear Power System Design and Fault-Based Condition Monitoring towards Safety of Nuclear-Powered Ships. Ocean Eng. 2022, 251, 111156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strupczewski, A. Accident Risks in Nuclear-Power Plants. Appl. Energy 2003, 75, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauker, F.; Kaminski, T.; Karcher, M.; Dowdall, M.; Brown, J.; Hosseini, A.; Strand, P. Model Analysis of Worst Place Scenarios for Nuclear Accidents in the Northern Marine Environment. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 77, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voutilainen, M.; Peltonen, T.; Mattila, A.; Tanskanen, A. Consequence Assessment of Nuclear-Powered Vessel Accidents and Floating Nuclear Power Plant Transit Accidents in the Arctic Region. Available online: https://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/146769 (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- Lee, K.-H.; Kim, M.-G.; Lee, J.I.; Lee, P.-S. Recent Advances in Ocean Nuclear Power Plants. Energies 2015, 8, 11470–11492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mian, Z.; Ramana, M.V.; Nayyar, A.H. Nuclear Submarines in South Asia: New Risks and Dangers. J. Peace Nucl. Disarm. 2019, 2, 184–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reistad, O.; Mærli, M.B.; Bøhmer, N. Russian Naval Nuclear Fuel and Reactors. Nonorolif. Rev. 2005, 12, 163–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, J.E. Alternative Fuel Response Operations: The Evolution of Marine Casualty Response. Int. Oil Spill Conf. Proc. 2024, 1, 252. [Google Scholar]
- Pilatis, A.N.; Pagonis, D.-N.; Serris, M.; Peppa, S.; Kaltsas, G. A Statistical Analysis of Ship Accidents (1990–2020) Focusing on Collision, Grounding, Hull Failure, and Resulting Hull Damage. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, L.; Gao, Z.; Zhang, X.; Xu, Y.; Liu, R.W.; Xie, C.; Shu, Y. Graph Neural Networks Enabled Accident Causation Prediction for Maritime Vessel Traffic. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2025, 257, 110804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choe, C.-W.; Lim, S.; Kim, D.J.; Park, H.-C. Development of Spatial Clustering Method and Probabilistic Prediction Model for Maritime Accidents. Appl. Ocean Res. 2025, 154, 104317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.-H.; Lee, S.-H.; Ryu, K.-J.; Lee, Y.-W. Applying Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) to Fishing Vessels: An Analysis of Occupational Injuries on Korean Trap Boats. Fishes 2025, 10, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Tian, H.; Xu, L.; Xu, T.; Yang, H.; Gao, F. Semi-Automatic Construction and Analysis of Complex Networks for Ship Collision Accidents. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2025, 261, 107519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasanspahić, N.; Vujičić, S.; Frančić, V.; Čampara, L. The Role of the Human Factor in Marine Accidents. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullai, A.; Paulsson, U. A Grounded Theory Model for Analysis of Marine Accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1590–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Liu, Z.; Wang, X.; Graham, T.; Wang, J. An Analysis of Factors Affecting the Severity of Marine Accidents. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 210, 107513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akyuz, E. A Marine Accident Analysing Model to Evaluate Potential Operational Causes in Cargo Ships. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Bian, W.; Wan, Z.; Yang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Wang, P. Identifying Factors Influencing Total-Loss Marine Accidents in the World: Analysis and Evaluation Based on Ship Types and Sea Regions. Ocean Eng. 2019, 191, 106495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kum, S.; Sahin, B. A Root Cause Analysis for Arctic Marine Accidents from 1993 to 2011. Saf. Sci. 2015, 74, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Wang, X.; Cao, W.; Wang, J.; Fang, S.; Loughney, S. Quantitative Analysis of Risk Influential Factors of Evacuation Accidents for Passenger Ships. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2025, 11, 04024088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rausand, M. Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-118-28110-9. [Google Scholar]
- Prins, M.J. A Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Transportation of Department of Defense Micro Reactors with the Effects of an Accident on the Surrounding Population. Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- The United Nations Trade and Development Data Hub Merchant Fleet by Flag of Registration and by Type of Ship, Annual. Available online: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/dataviewer/US.MerchantFleet (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- Equasis and EMSA The World Merchant Fleet—Statistics from Equasis. Available online: https://www.emsa.europa.eu/equasis-statistics/items.html?cid=95&id=472 (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- Lloyd’s Register Foundation Heritage & Education Centre World Fleet Statistics. Available online: https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/world-fleet-statistics (accessed on 14 January 2025).
- Chen, P.; Huang, Y.; Mou, J.; van Gelder, P. Probabilistic Risk Analysis for Ship-Ship Collision: State-of-the-Art. Saf. Sci. 2019, 117, 108–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, F.; Ma, Y.; Wu, B. Review of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Models for Ship Collisions with Structures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaneko, F. Methods for Probabilistic Safety Assessments of Ships. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2002, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, X.; Liu, K.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wu, X. A Probabilistic Risk Approach for the Collision Detection of Multi-Ships under Spatiotemporal Movement Uncertainty. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 215, 107772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aras, E.M.; Diaconeasa, M.A. A Critical Look at the Need for Performing Multi-Hazard Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants. Eng 2021, 2, 454–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Tong, J.; Zhao, J. An Integrated Modeling Approach for Event Sequence Development in Multi-Unit Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2016, 155, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheehan, B.; Murphy, F.; Ryan, C.; Mullins, M.; Liu, H.Y. Semi-Autonomous Vehicle Motor Insurance: A Bayesian Network Risk Transfer Approach. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2017, 82, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabral, E.A.; Tofoli, F.L.; Sampaio, R.F.; Leão, R.P.S. Reliability Assessment Applied in the Design of an Industrial Substation in the Context of Industry 4.0. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2024, 231, 110365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, E. The Advanced Measurement Approach to Operational Risk; Risk Books: London, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-1-904339-88-5. [Google Scholar]
- Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Probabilistic_risk_assessment&oldid=1263013503 (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- Haimes, Y.Y. On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems-Based Approach. Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 1647–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stopford, M. Maritime Economics, 3rd ed; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 0-203-89174-0. [Google Scholar]
- Guideline for Arctic Marine Risk Assessment. Available online: https://eppr.org/projects/risk-assessment-methods-and-metadata/ (accessed on 19 January 2025).
- American Bureau of Shipping Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Industries. Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/other/97_riskassessapplmarineandoffshoreoandg/risk-assessment-gn-may20.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2025).
- Kiran, D.R. Chapter 26—Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. In Total Quality Management; Kiran, D.R., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 373–389. ISBN 978-0-12-811035-5. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Fan, S.; Wang, H.; Yang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Wang, J.; Shi, R. Analysis of Factors Affecting the Severity of Marine Accidents Using a Data-Driven Bayesian Network. Ocean Eng. 2023, 269, 113563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayraktar, M.; Pamik, M. Nuclear Power Utilization as a Future Alternative Energy on Icebreakers. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2023, 55, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furfari, S.; Mund, E. Advanced Nuclear Power for Clean Maritime Propulsion. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2022, 137, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Kang, J. Fire Risk Assessment of a Ship’s Power System under the Conditions of an Engine Room Fire. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Liu, Z.; Wang, X.; Huang, D.; Cao, L.; Wang, J. Analysis of the Injury-Severity Outcomes of Maritime Accidents Using a Zero-Inflated Ordered Probit Model. Ocean Eng. 2022, 258, 111796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durlik, I.; Miller, T.; Kostecka, E.; Tuński, T. Artificial Intelligence in Maritime Transportation: A Comprehensive Review of Safety and Risk Management Applications. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 8420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duong, P.A.; Ryu, B.R.; Jung, J.; Kang, H. A Comprehensive Review of the Establishment of Safety Zones and Quantitative Risk Analysis during Ship-to-Ship LNG Bunkering. Energies 2024, 17, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | F: Fossil N: Nuclear | Total Vessels | Total Accidents | Casualty Event Severity | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marine Incident | Marine Casualty | Very Serious | ||||
USA | F | 4610 | 326 | 69 | 105 | 152 |
N | 232 | 17 | 9 | 5 | 3 | |
UK | F | 2378 | 910 | 146 | 409 | 355 |
N | 33 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | |
China | F | 2790 | 514 | 74 | 122 | 318 |
N | 18 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
France | F | 992 | 312 | 40 | 126 | 146 |
N | 20 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
Germany | F | 1750 | 249 | 72 | 116 | 61 |
N | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
India | F | 912 | 157 | 45 | 42 | 70 |
N | 19 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
Japan | F | 7414 | 233 | 42 | 145 | 46 |
N | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Russia | F | 4399 | 270 | 50 | 87 | 133 |
N | 249 | 45 | 13 | 14 | 18 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tanyildizi-Kokkulunk, H.; Kökkülünk, G.; Settles, J. Probabilistic Risk Framework for Nuclear- and Fossil-Powered Vessels: Analyzing Casualty Event Severity and Sub-Causes. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030553
Tanyildizi-Kokkulunk H, Kökkülünk G, Settles J. Probabilistic Risk Framework for Nuclear- and Fossil-Powered Vessels: Analyzing Casualty Event Severity and Sub-Causes. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2025; 13(3):553. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030553
Chicago/Turabian StyleTanyildizi-Kokkulunk, Handan, Görkem Kökkülünk, and John Settles. 2025. "Probabilistic Risk Framework for Nuclear- and Fossil-Powered Vessels: Analyzing Casualty Event Severity and Sub-Causes" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 13, no. 3: 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030553
APA StyleTanyildizi-Kokkulunk, H., Kökkülünk, G., & Settles, J. (2025). Probabilistic Risk Framework for Nuclear- and Fossil-Powered Vessels: Analyzing Casualty Event Severity and Sub-Causes. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 13(3), 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030553