Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1