|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
S P E C I A L R E P O R T 2 5 9
ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE of
TANKER DESIGNS in
COLLISION and GROUNDING
Method for Comparison
Committee for
EVALUATING DOUBLE-HULL
TANKER DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
MARINE BOARD
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy Press
Washington, D.C.
2001
OCR for page R2
Transportation Research Board Special Report 259
Subscriber Categories
IB energy and environment
IV operations and safety
IX marine transportation
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications
directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national-
academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with
TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further infor-
mation, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, National Research Council,
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-
2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of
the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The
members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competen-
cies and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the proce-
dures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This study was sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Cover photo courtesy of Miles Kulukundis and Frontline Ltd.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Environmental performance of tanker designs in collision and grounding : method for
comparison / Committee for Evaluating Double Hull Tanker Design Alternatives.
p. cm.--(Special report / Marine Board, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council ; 259)
ISBN 0-309-07240-9
1. Tankers--Design and construction--Evaluation--Methodology. 2.
Tankers--Accidents--Environmental aspects. 3. Petroleum--Transportation--Safety
measures. 4. Oil spills--Data processing. I. National Research Council (U.S.).
Committee for Evaluating Double Hull Tanker Design Alternatives. II. National
Research Council (U.S.). Marine Board. III. Special report (National Research Council
(U.S.). Transportation Research Board) ; 259.
VM455 .E58 2001
623.8245--dc21
2001057451
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating soci-
ety of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedi-
cated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general
welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the
Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scien-
tific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engi-
neers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, shar-
ing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal
government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering pro-
grams aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president
of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sci-
ences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the
examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congres-
sional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initia-
tive, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine
is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-
ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the
Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the gov-
ernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is
administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce
M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of
the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research Council,
which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engi-
neering. The Board's mission is to promote innovation and progress in transporta-
tion by stimulating and conducting research, facilitating the dissemination of
information, and encouraging the implementation of research results. The Board's
varied activities annually engage more than 4,000 engineers, scientists, and other
transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and
academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program
is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the com-
ponent administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organi-
zations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE FOR EVALUATING DOUBLE-HULL
TANKER DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Kirsi K. Tikka, Chair, Professor of Naval Architecture, Webb Institute, Glen Cove,
New York
Peter F. Bontadelli, President, PFB and Associates, Sacramento, California
John M. Burke, Mobil Shipping and Transportation Company (retired), Vienna,
Virginia
Paul S. Fischbeck, Associate Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Alan G. Gavin, Manager, Technical Planning and Development Department,
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, London, United Kingdom
Sally Ann Lentz, Executive Director and General Counsel, Ocean Advocates,
Clarksville, Maryland
J. Randolph Paulling, Professor Emeritus of Naval Architecture, University of
California, Geyserville, California
Dragos Rauta, Technical Manager, INTERTANKO, Oslo, Norway
Philip G. Rynn, Senior Staff Consultant--Engineering Management, American
Bureau of Shipping, Houston, Texas
Robert Unsworth, Principal, Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
Luther W. White, Professor of Mathematics, University of Oklahoma, Norman
Sponsoring Liaisons
H. Paul Cojeen, Chief, Naval Architecture Division, United States Coast Guard,
Washington, D.C.
David A. DuPont, Project Manager/Analyst, Standards Evaluation and Analysis
Division, United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
Other Agency Representatives
David Chapman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Thomas Jordan, United States Coast Guard
Alexander C. Landsburg, Maritime Administration
Tony Penn, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
James Person, United States Coast Guard
LCDR Jess Riggle, United States Navy
LCDR Jeff Stettler, United States Navy
Transportation Research Board Staff
Beverly M. Huey, Study Director
Peter Johnson, Consultant
Susan Garbini, Senior Program Officer
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
PREFACE
F ollowing the grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William
Sound in March 1989, which resulted in the loss of more than
11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaskan waters, the U.S. Congress pro-
mulgated P.L. 101-380, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). The in-
tent of this law was to minimize oil spills through a variety of
mechanisms, including improved tanker design, changes in operations,
and other actions aimed at improving the capability to manage the
cleanup of oil spills should they occur. Section 4115 of OPA 90 mandated
changes in ship design and construction to prevent or minimize spillage
in accidents, establishing the double-hull standard for tankers that trans-
port oil in U.S. waters and call on U.S. ports. Following the passage of
OPA 90, changes in the international regulatory regime in the form of two
additions to MARPOL 73/78 mandated a worldwide transition to double-
hull vessels or their equivalent.1
Since 1990, then, the world tanker fleet has been changing to
double-hull construction. During the same time, however, a number of
alternative tanker designs have been proposed with the intent of pro-
viding performance equivalent to or better than double hulls. While both
OPA 90 and MARPOL regulations allow for the possibility of accepting
alternative designs, provided they are equivalent to or better than dou-
ble hulls in limiting oil outflow in case of a contact accident, the United
States Coast Guard (USCG) has not accepted any other design as equiv-
alent. IMO, on the other hand, has adopted two alternative designs as
1MARPOL 73/78 is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, developed by
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1973 and modified by the Protocol of 1978. MARPOL 73/78,
Regulation I/13F, specifies hull configuration requirements for new tankers of 600 deadweight tons (DWT)
capacity or greater contracted after July 1, 1993; oil tankers of more than 5,000 DWT are required to have
double hulls or the equivalent. MARPOL 73/78, Regulation I/13G, addresses operational requirements to re-
duce oil outflow from single-hull vessels in the world tanker fleet and specifies a schedule for retrofitting or
retiring such vessels.
vii
OCR for page R8
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF TANKER DESIGNS
viii
equivalent to the double hull. To date, no alternative designs have actu-
ally been built.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 mandated the Secre-
tary of Transportation to commission the Marine Board of the National
Research Council's (NRC) Transportation Research Board (TRB) to de-
velop a rationally based approach and method for assessing the envi-
ronmental performance of alternative tanker designs relative to the
double-hull standard. (A copy of the relevant legislation is found in Ap-
pendix B.) Under the auspices of the Marine Board, NRC convened an
11-member Committee for Evaluating Double-Hull Tanker Design Alter-
natives with appropriate scientific and technical expertise in risk assess-
ment, tanker design, tanker operations, crashworthiness of ships, and
costs and damages (including environmental damages) related to oil
spills. Committee members had extensive experience in the day-to-day
operations of all relevant technologies, as well as in the overall analysis
of operations and risks and in systems management (see Study Commit-
tee Biographical Information at the end of this report).
The committee as a whole met five times between June 1999 and
January 2001, and subgroups met periodically throughout that period.
The early meetings included extensive presentations in sessions open to
the public, during which experts from government, academia, and in-
dustry described a variety of issues and views for the committee. (See
Appendix A for a listing of the presentations provided.) This final report
represents a synthesis of the information gathered by the committee,
which encompassed the data, analytical tools, and simulation methods
currently available for the development of a rationally based approach
for assessing the environmental performance of alternative tanker de-
signs relative to the double-hull standard.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
During the course of this study, the committee and staff received nu-
merous briefings and presentations, consulted with experts, and sub-
contracted modeling work. The committee wishes to thank the many
individuals who thus contributed their time and effort to the project. In
particular, the committee would like to thank Deborah French and her
colleagues at Applied Science Associates, Inc., who conducted the spill
consequence modeling; Dagmar Etkin of Environmental Research Con-
sulting, who modeled the mechanical containment and recovery costs
and shoreline cleanup costs, and provided data on worldwide tanker oil
OCR for page R9
PREFACE
ix
spills for 1973 through 2000; Alan Brown, who performed the modeling
of the structural damage and resulting outflow for different collision sce-
narios; and Kirsi Tikka, who carried out the modeling of the structural
damage and resulting outflow for different grounding scenarios. Appre-
ciation is also expressed to the many individuals and organizational rep-
resentatives who provided information, including B. John Garrick,
Garrick Consulting; William O. Gray, Gray Maritime Company; Ron
Heintz, Auke Bay Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service/National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NMFS/NOAA); Keith Michel,
Herbert Engineering; Frank Nicastro, Exxon Company, International (re-
tired); RADM Robert C. North, USCG; Jim Sartucci, Legislative Assistant,
Office of Senator Trent Lott; Professor Preben Pedersen, Technical Uni-
versity of Denmark; Stan Rice, Auke Bay Laboratory, NMFS/NOAA; CAPT
Edward K. Roe (USCG, retired), Marine Safety Systems, Inc.; RADM Joel
D. Sipes (USCG, retired), Marine Safety Systems, Inc.; Jaideep Sirkar,
USCG; and Wayne Willis, ICF Kaiser International. Representatives of fed-
eral and state agencies, as well as private companies, also provided in-
valuable assistance to the committee and the staff. Thanks are due
especially to the liaison representatives from USCG, H. Paul Cojeen and
David A. DuPont, who responded promptly and with a generous spirit
to the committee's many requests for information.
The study was performed under the overall supervision of
Stephen R. Godwin, Director of Studies and Information Services. Susan
Garbini served as project director through January 1999, and Beverly M.
Huey served as project director from February 1999 through the com-
pletion of the report. The committee also wishes to thank Pete Johnson
for his efforts in acquiring and organizing data and in drafting sections
of the report; and Suzanne Schneider, Associate Executive Director of
TRB, who managed the report review process. The report was edited by
Rona Briere and prepared for publication under the supervision of Nancy
A. Ackerman, Director of Reports and Editorial Services. Special thanks
go to Donna Henry-Rahamtalla for assistance with meeting arrangements
and correspondence with the committee and to Alisa Decatur for assis-
tance with word processing and production of the final manuscript.
The report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with
procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The pur-
pose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical com-
ments that will assist the institution in making the published report as
sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional
OCR for page R10
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF TANKER DESIGNS
x
standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study
charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential
to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks
the following individuals for their participation in the review of this re-
port: Don V. Aurand, Ecosystem Management and Associates, Purcell-
ville, Virginia; Lars Carlsson, Concordia Maritime AB, Gothenburg,
Sweden; B. John Garrick, Garrick Consulting, Laguna Beach, California;
Bruce Hutchinson, Glosten Associates, Seattle, Washington; Henry S. Mar-
cus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; R. Keith Michel,
Herbert Engineering Corporation, Alameda, California; Ann Rothe,
Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage; and Theodore Tomasi, ENTRIX, Inc., New
Castle, Delaware. Although these reviewers provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the report's
findings and conclusions, nor did they see the final draft before its release.
The review of this report was overseen by Robert A. Frosch, Har-
vard University, Cambridge, and Lester A. Hoel, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville. Appointed by NRC, they were responsible for making cer-
tain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in ac-
cordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments
were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this re-
port rests solely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R11
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY
ACRONYMS
ABS American Bureau of Shipping
ASA Applied Science Associates
CWA Clean Water Act
DH double hull
DNV Det Norske Veritas
DWT deadweight ton
IACS International Association of Classification Societies
IMO International Maritime Organization
INTERTANKO International Association of Independent Tanker Owners
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships
MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International
Maritime Organization
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MLW mean low water
NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC National Research Council
NRDA Natural Resources Damage Assessment
NRDAM/CME Natural Resources Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and
Marine Environments
OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-380)
P&I protection and indemnity
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
QRA quantitative risk assessment
SH single hull
SNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
SSC Ship Structures Committee
TRB Transportation Research Board
USCG United States Coast Guard
VTS vessel traffic service
xi
OCR for page R12
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF TANKER DESIGNS
xii
GLOSSARY
Ballast. Water (usually seawater) carried in designated tanks of a vessel to increase
the vessel's draft to a safe and efficient operating level when not carrying cargo.
Central ballast tank. A tank (or tanks) designed to carry ballast and located in the
center of the vessel.
Collision. An event in which one vessel strikes another, usually causing some dam-
age to the vessel(s) and sometimes an oil spill. In this study, collisions are also de-
fined to include allisions, events in which a vessel strikes a fixed object such as a pier,
bridge, or other fixed structure.
Crashworthiness. A measure of the ability of a vessel to withstand damage follow-
ing a collision or grounding incident.
Crude carrier. A tank vessel designed to carry crude oil.
Deadweight tonnage. A measure of the weight of cargo (plus fuel, water, and sup-
plies) a vessel can carry.
Domestic trade. Transportation of goods from one port or location in the United
States to another.
Draft. The vertical distance between a vessel's waterline and baseline.
Grounding. An event in which a vessel strikes a fixed object, such as a rock or
wreck, on the bottom of the sea or waterway, or the seafloor itself.
Mid-deck. A tank vessel design with a watertight deck located about midway be-
tween the vessel's upper deck and bottom so that if the vessel is holed below this
deck, hydrostatic pressure will prevent (or minimize) oil spills.
Natural resource damage. A measure of harm done to resources in the natural en-
vironment following an oil spill.
Oil slick. The layer of oil floating on a body of water following an oil spill, which
usually spreads in area and diminishes in thickness with time.
Oil transport and fate. The migration of a quantity of oil spilled from the initial spill
location (transport) and its ultimate effect on the environment or ecosystem.
Outflow. The amount of oil that escapes into the surrounding environment from a
tank vessel after a collision or grounding.
Plastic deformation. The phenomenon of metal stretching without breaking when
subjected to a force such as that resulting from a vessel collision or grounding. The
metal will break (or fracture) when the force becomes great enough.
Product carrier. A tank vessel designed to carry refined petroleum products, such
as fuel oil or gasoline.
Response cost. The cost associated with responding to an oil spill, usually includ-
ing the cost of mobilizing people and equipment, conducting cleanup operations,
and disposing of spilled oil and waste.
Sheen. A very thin oil slick characterized by being just thick enough to have a visi-
ble "sheen" when observed by the naked eye.
OCR for page R13
GLOSSARY
xiii
Stability. The measure of a vessel's ability to float in an upright orientation.
Structural damage. The physical damage sustained by a metal structure after being
struck during an event such as a collision or grounding.
Subdivision. Division of the overall tank space on a vessel into a number of indi-
vidual watertight and/or oiltight tanks or compartments.
Third-party damage. The monetary damage from an oil spill to parties not involved
in the spill, such as users of beaches, recreational boaters, fishermen, and nearby
property owners.
Underpressure system. A tank vessel design that utilizes a vacuum system in cargo
tanks to prevent or minimize oil spills if the tanks are ruptured in a collision or
grounding.
U.S. flag vessels. Vessels registered under the jurisdiction of the United States and
thus subject to U.S. laws and regulations and entitled to fly the U.S. flag.
U.S. waters. As defined in OPA 90, waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, including the Exclusive Economic Zone.
OCR for page R14
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 13
Study Purpose, 14
Background, 15
Scope and Approach, 24
Organization of This Report, 26
2 Assessment of Previous Evaluation Methods,
Proposals for Alternative Designs, and
Historical Databases 27
Previous Evaluation Methods and Their Limitations, 27
Proposals for Alternative Designs, 31
Limitations of Historical Databases, 35
Quantitative Risk-Assessment Techniques and Their
Application to Similar Problems, 40
3 Description of the Proposed Methodology 44
Overview, 44
Structural Damage and Oil Outflow Calculation, 48
Consequence Assessment, 59
Design Comparison, 65
Limitations of the Methodology, 66
Summary of the Methodology, 67
OCR for page R15
4 Application of the Methodology 70
Selection of Vessels and Collision and Grounding
Scenarios, 70
Collision and Grounding Analyses, 75
Results of Collision and Grounding Analyses, 80
Hypothetical Spill Scenarios and Consequence
Measures, 82
Limitations of the Consequence Assessment, 101
Design Comparison, 101
Summary, 111
5 Conclusions and Recommendations 113
Overall Methodology, 113
Double-Hull Reference Ships, 114
Need for Vessel Design Details, 115
Consideration of Active Systems, 116
Components of the Methodology, 116
Appendix A Presentations at Committee Meetings, 120
Appendix B The Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 1998, 123
Appendix C Summary of IMO 13F Guidelines, 124
Appendix D Structural Designs for New
Double-Hull Tankers, 128
Study Committee Biographical Information 132
OCR for page R16
