DOUBLE-HULL TANKER LEGISLATION

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

Committee on Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Section 4115) Implementation Review

Marine Board

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1998



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
--> DOUBLE-HULL TANKER LEGISLATION AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 Committee on Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Section 4115) Implementation Review Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1998

OCR for page R1
--> NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 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 panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The project is part of a program supported by interagency agreement No. DTMA91-94-G00003, which is managed on behalf of participating agencies by the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation; and grant No. N00014-95-1-1205 between the Navy and the National Academy of Sciences. Financial support from the American Bureau of Shipping to cover the costs of report publication is gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors and no official endorsement should be inferred. Limited copies are available from: Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418 International Standard Book Number 0-309-06370-1 Copyright © 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
--> COMMITTEE ON OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 (SECTION 4115) IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW DOUGLAS C. WOLCOTT (chair), Chevron Shipping Company (retired), Ross, California PETER BONTADELLI (vice chair), California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento LARS CARLSSON, Concordia Maritime AB, Göteborg, Sweden WILLIAM R. FINGER, ProxPro, Inc., Friendswood, Texas RAN HETTENA, Maritime Overseas Corporation, New York, New York JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, NAE/NAS, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts SALLY ANN LENTZ, Ocean Advocates, Columbia, Maryland DONALD LIU, American Bureau of Shipping, New York, New York DIMITRI A. MANTHOS, Admanthos Shipping Agency, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut HENRY MARCUS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge KEITH MICHEL, Herbert Engineering Corporation, San Francisco, California JOHN H. ROBINSON, Consultant, Santa Barbara, California ANN ROTHE, Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage DAVID G. ST. AMAND, Navigistics Consulting, Boxborough, Massachusetts KIRSI K. TIKKA, Webb Institute, Glen Cove, New York Marine Board Staff CHARLES BOOKMAN, Director (until April 1997) PETER JOHNSON, Acting Director (from May 1997) DONALD PERKINS, Study Director (until June 1996), Consultant (from July 1996) JILL WILSON, Study Director (from July 1996) RICHARD WILLIS, Consultant SHARON RUSSELL, Administrative Assistant (until June 1995) MARVIN WEEKS, Administrative Assistant (from July 1995 to May 1997) THERESA FISHER, Administrative Assistant (from May 1997) Liaison Representatives KEVIN BAETSEN, Military Sealift Command, U.S. Navy, Washington, D.C. J. ROWLAND HUSS, Naval Sea Systems Command, U.S. Navy, Washington, D.C. ZELVIN LEVINE, Office of Environmental Affairs, Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C. FREDRICK SCHEER, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. JAIDEEP SIRKAR, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
--> MARINE BOARD JAMES M. COLEMAN (chair), NAE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge JERRY A. ASPLAND (vice chair), The California Maritime Academy, Vallejo BERNHARD J. ABRAHAMSSON, University of Wisconsin, Superior BROCK B. BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California LILLIAN C. BORRONE, NAE, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey SARAH CHASIS, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, New York CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge BILIANA CICIN-SAIN, University of Delaware, Newark BILLY L. EDGE, Texas A&M University, College Station JOHN W. FARRINGTON, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts MARTHA GRABOWSKI, LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York JAMES D. MURFF, Exxon Production Research Company, Houston, Texas M. ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL, NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California DONALD W. PRITCHARD, NAE, State University of New York at Stony Brook and Severna Park, Maryland STEVEN T. SCALZO, Foss Maritime Company, Seattle, Washington MALCOLM L. SPAULDING, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Charlotte, North Carolina E.G. "SKIP" WARD, Shell Offshore, Houston, Texas Staff CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director (until April 1997) PETER A. JOHNSON, Acting Director (from May 1997) DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate

OCR for page R1
--> Preface Since the end of World War II, industrialized nations have imported increasing quantities of oil from the Middle East, the North Sea, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Caribbean, and other parts of the world. More than 3,300 tankers, each with a capacity of more than 10,000 deadweight tons (DWT), now serve the world maritime oil trade; approximately 40 percent of these vessels call each year at U.S. ports. Although the maritime oil trade supports economic growth in many countries, it has also raised concerns about damage to the marine environment in the event of oil spills. As the demand for maritime oil transportation increased rapidly in the postwar years, the average size of a tanker grew. A single cargo tank on today's large tankers can hold more than twice as much oil as an entire World War II tanker. The large size of tank vessels and major spillage from vessel accidents—such as the grounding and breakup of the Torrey Canyon off the Scilly Isles in 1967—stimulated international action to formulate tank vessel design and construction standards aimed at reducing oil outflow following tanker damage. These standards, which are incorporated in international conventions, were developed by representatives of governments of the major international maritime nations and by industry representatives, ship classification societies,1 and other interested parties, working under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations. The IMO standards in MARPOL 73/782 addressed ballast tank location in tank vessel designs and 1   For example, the American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyd's Registry of Shipping, and Det Norske Veritas. 2   The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978. This convention, known as MARPOL, addresses pollution from oil, chemicals, and other harmful substances, garbage, and sewage.

OCR for page R1
--> operational requirements such as ballast tank cleaning as a means of reducing oil outflow after ship collisions and during routine operations. Enforcement of these IMO standards was primarily dependent on the actions of flag states (nations where tank vessels are registered) and of classification societies. Since 1990, a review of procedures by both IMO and the classification societies has led to a strengthening of port-state enforcement options and increased stringency of internal classification society procedures aimed at increasing vessel quality. The grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound in March 1989, and the subsequent spillage of more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaskan waters, resulted in changes in both the character of tank vessel design standards and the manner in which they are formulated. In August 1990, the U.S. Congress promulgated P.L. 101-380, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). The intent of this law was, in part, to minimize oil spills through improved tanker design, operational changes, and greater preparedness. Section 4115 of OPA 90 focused on changes in ship design—notably double hulls—to prevent or minimize spillage when an accident occurs.3 Single-hull tank vessels of 5,000 gross tons or more will be excluded from U.S. waters after 2010 unless they are equipped with a double bottom or double sides, in which case they may be permitted to trade to the United States through 2015, depending on their age. An exemption allows single-hull tankers trading to the United States to unload their cargo offshore at deepwater ports or in designated lightering areas through 2015.4,5 The fact that the United States, as a port state,6 unilaterally promulgated legislation that applies to all tankers operating in U.S. waters, not just to U.S.-flag vessels, had a worldwide impact. 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 equivalents. MARPOL 73/78, Regulation I/13F (MARPOL 13F) specifies hull configuration requirements for new tankers of 600 DWT7 capacity or greater contracted after July 1993; oil tankers of more than 5,000 DWT are required to have double hulls or the equivalent. MARPOL 73/78, Regulation I/13G (MARPOL 13G) addresses operational requirements to reduce oil outflow from single-hull vessels in the 3   OPA 90, Section 4115 (c)(2) states that tank vessels shall be equipped with a double hull or "with a double containment system determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be as effective as a double hull for the prevention of a discharge of oil." The Secretary has not approved an equivalently effective system as of the date of this report. 4   The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port is currently the only offshore deepwater port in the United States. 5   In practice, very large crude carriers (VLCCs) are the primary users of lightering zones and the deepwater port, although the exemption applies to all tankers regardless of size. 6   A port state is a nation whose ports are called on by any vessels of any flag. 7   OPA 90, Section 4115 defines vessel sizes in gross tons (GT). whereas MARPOL 13F and 13G use DWT. GT is a volumetric measure of a vessel's size as determined according to international convention. DWT is a measure of the weight of cargo plus water, fuel, and stores that a vessel can carry.

OCR for page R1
--> world tanker fleet and specifies a schedule for retrofitting or retiring such vessels 25 or 30 years after delivery. Origin of the Study Congress anticipated that OPA 90 would have significant and wide-ranging effects on both the domestic and the world tanker fleets; more than 90 percent of the tank ships calling on U.S. ports operate under a foreign flag. Congress ordered the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, acting through the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), to assess the impact of Section 4115 on the marine environment and on the economic viability and operational makeup of the maritime oil transportation industry. After the USCG requested the advice of the National Research Council (NRC) in preparing its report to Congress, the NRC convened the Committee on the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Section 4115) Implementation Review under the auspices of the Marine Board. Committee members were selected with expertise in the following areas: tanker fleet management; tank vessel design, construction, operation, and maintenance; economics of oil sourcing and oil transportation; marine safety; marine environmental law and policy; natural resource damage assessment; international maritime conventions; and federal regulations related to marine petroleum transportation and operations. Biographical sketches of committee members are provided in Appendix A. Study Scope and Context The committee was charged with assessing the impact of the double-hull and related provisions of OPA 90, Section 4115 (see Appendix B) on three areas identified in the legislation: Ship Safety and Protection of the Marine Environment. Determine the extent to which there has been a change (or the extent to which change can be anticipated) in oil pollution in U.S. waters; in the incidence of marine casualties; in the risk of oil spills resulting from, or influenced by, early retirement of tank vessels and exemptions to OPA 90; and in measures taken to modify single-hull tank vessels to reduce risk of accidental spillage (in compliance with OPA 90). Document the progress made in double-hull tank vessel design, construction, maintenance, and operations, and specifically identify any known safety problems that have occurred with double-hull tank vessel designs. Economic Viability of the Maritime Oil Transportation Industry. Determine the effect of OPA 90, Section 4115 on industry as may be evidenced, for example, by the extent of shifts to other modes and means of transportation, trends in shipbuilding and chartering, and changes in chartering rates. Identify added costs of construction and maintenance of double-hull tank vessels compared to non-double-hull tank vessels.

OCR for page R1
--> Operational Makeup of the Maritime Oil Transportation Industry. Identify the nature and extent of changes within the industry and the safety implications that may be related to OPA 90, Section 4115—for example, changes in tank vessel ownership and tank vessel type utilization. In addition, the USCG and the NRC agreed that the scope of the assessment should include the influence of international conventions on tank vessel design and operation. In particular, the committee was asked to review and comment on evidence regarding the influence of international conventions (primarily MARPOL 13F and 13G) concerning hull design (for reducing the risk of oil spills from tank vessels) on the composition and character of tanker fleets and the interaction of these conventions with Section 4115. OPA 90 addresses not only structural design issues, but also oil pollution liability and compensation, spill response planning, manning standards, vessel traffic services, and other issues. As a result, the maritime oil transportation industry has revised its operations, particularly in light of the law's strict liability provisions for oil spills and the potential costs associated with cleanup and related third-party and natural resource damage if spills occur. These changes come at a time when both the market for construction of new tankers and oil shipping rates (freight rates) are emerging from a depressed period, during which income was usually insufficient to cover the cost of new investment. Changes in the international regulatory environment are also affecting tank vessels. In addition to the structural and operational requirements of MARPOL 13F and 13G, initiatives of note include enhanced surveys by classification societies, increased audits and inspections of vessels by charterers and the sharing of this information through industry-sponsored programs, and more comprehensive port-state control activities. These factors combine to affect the safety of the overall fleet by preventing casualties that could result in oil spills, reducing oil outflow from casualties, or decreasing the number of tank vessels subject to casualties. Because the influence of Section 4115 on safety is intertwined with other factors, its effects are difficult to isolate, and this complexity is reflected in the committee's findings. The committee's assessment, moreover, was subject to constraints inherent in the timing of the study. Insufficient data on actual incidents were available to evaluate the effect of Section 4115 on oil spills from vessels in U.S. waters. The committee's assessment, therefore, is based on an analytical comparison of the oil outflow characteristics of double-hull and single-hull designs. In accordance with its charge, the committee did not question the double-hull mandate or examine alternative designs potentially equivalent to double hulls. A more comprehensive discussion of alternative tank vessel designs can be found in Tanker Spills: Prevention by Design (NRC, 1991). With respect to tank barges, the committee's assessment focused on barges

OCR for page R1
--> engaged in the ocean transportation of petroleum. The spill data presented in Chapter 2 include spills from both inland and oceangoing barges, but the economic and structural analyses in Chapters 5 and 6 are limited to oceangoing barges. Study Methods The full committee met six times over the course of the study. In addition, several committee members held work sessions to analyze specific topics and data and to draft sections of the report. Several supplementary studies were conducted under subcontract (see Appendix D), most notably a comparative analysis of double-hull and single-hull tank vessel designs performed by Herbert Engineering Corporation (see Appendix K). To obtain the necessary data, the committee made an exhaustive search of available data resources in the public and private sectors concerning the following: double-hull construction and safety; early retirement of single-hull vessels; tanker fleet composition and ownership; international maritime rules; the lightering and deepwater port exemption to OPA 90; oil spills and oil spill risk; oil supply and demand; single-hull modification; tanker economics and operations; and vessel casualties. In addition, publications and reports related to the study topic were reviewed by the committee. Files developed by the USCG since the initiation of OPA 90 were a significant resource, as were unpublished maritime accident data for 1994 and 1995 obtained with the assistance of the USCG. Industry representatives provided the committee with current information on a number of topics, including maritime oil industry economics, tanker sale and purchase brokerage, shipbuilding trends and costs, trends in inspection practices for double-hull tank vessels, vessel finance and insurance, and the operational and economic characteristics of the oceangoing domestic barge fleet. A list of presentations made to the committee is provided in Appendix D. The committee also sent questionnaires to shipyard operators and to the owners and operators of double-hull tankers, designers of double-hull tankers, classification societies, and oceangoing tank-barge operators to solicit information on design trends, costs, problems with double-hull vessels, and any special concerns and practices unique to double-hull design (see Appendix C). The committee requested public comments on its interim report (NRC, 1996) by means of a USCG announcement in the Federal Register in April 1996 (Federal Register, 1996). Comments were received from the American Institute of Merchant Shipping (now the U.S. Chamber of Shipping), VELA International Marine Ltd. of Saudi Arabia, the State of Washington Office of Marine Safety, and the Water Quality Insurance Syndicate, an association of companies that insures vessel owners and operators against statutory and third-party pollution liability.

OCR for page R1
--> Organization of the Report The report is divided into seven chapters and a series of appendixes. Chapter 1 provides an overview of oil demand and supply factors that determine the need for maritime oil transportation and describes the hull design characteristics of the world tanker fleet. Chapters 2 and 3, respectively, address the safety and protection of the marine environment and the operational makeup of the marine oil transportation industry. The economic impact of OPA 90, Section 4115 on the world tanker fleet and on the domestic fleet of tankers and oceangoing barges is addressed in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. Chapter 6 discusses issues concerning tank vessel safety, construction, maintenance, and operations that have been matters of concern since the early debates that led to the promulgation of OPA 90. The conclusions and recommendations stemming from the findings of Chapters 2 through 6 are given in Chapter 7. Acknowledgments The committee gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the many individuals and organizations who contributed their time and effort to this study in the form of presentations to the committee, correspondence, telephone calls, and responses to questionnaires and other requests for information. Particular thanks are given to Jaideep Sirkar of the USCG Office of Design and Engineering Standards: Jack Klingel of the USCG Office of Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection; Zelvin Levine of the Maritime Administration Office of Environmental Activities; and Fred Scheer of the USCG Office of Standards Evaluation and Development. In addition, the committee appreciates the assistance of individuals from various sectors of the marine oil transportation industry, including information and publication services, ship classification societies, and engineering organizations. Many of these individuals, identified in Appendix D, traveled from Europe or Asia to make presentations to the committee. Finally, the chairman wishes to thank all the members of the committee for their hard work during meetings, for reviewing drafts of the report, and for their individual efforts in gathering information and writing sections of the report. References Federal Register. 1996. Interim Report on Tank Vessel Design, Construction, and Operation Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Notice of availability of interim report: request for public comments. FR 61(81):18457-18458. April 25. National Research Council (NRC). 1991. Tanker Spills: Prevention by Design. Marine Board. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1996. Effects of Double-Hull Requirements on Oil Spill Prevention: Interim Report. Marine Board. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

OCR for page R1
--> Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   10     U.S. Oil Supply and Demand   12     Marine Oil Transportation System   12     Tank Vessel Design   15     References   17 2   SHIP SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT   18     History and Causes of Spills   18     Section 4115 Requirements and Implementation   23     International Regulatory Regime   25     Government and Industry Initiatives   32     Vessel Quality   39     Findings   40     References   41 3   OPERATIONAL MAKEUP OF THE MARITIME OIL TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY   42     Vessel Size and Trading Patterns   43     Age Distribution and Scrapping Patterns   48     Vessel Ownership, Sales, and Transfers   56     Jones Act Fleet   62     Findings   63     References   64

OCR for page R1
--> 4   ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 ON THE INTERNATIONAL TANKER FLEET   65     Tanker Supply and Demand   66     Supply-Demand Balance   72     Adequacy of World Shipbuilding Capacity and Financing   84     Economic Costs of OPA 90 and MARPOL   88     Findings   94     References   95     Bibliography   96 5   DOMESTIC (JONES ACT) TANKER TRADE   97     Tank Vessel Supply   99     Supply-Demand Balance   103     Shipyard Capacity and Availability of Capital   109     Economic Impact of Section 4115 on Domestic Shipping   110     Findings   113     References   114 6   DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF DOUBLE-HULL VESSELS   115     Comparative Analysis of Double-Hull and Single-Hull Designs   115     Experience with Double-Hull Tank Vessels   127     Design of Double-Hull Tank Vessels   135     Findings   139     References   140 7   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS   142     Implementation of Section 4115   142     Protection of the Marine Environment   144     Design of Double-Hull Tank Vessel   145     Operational Makeup of the Maritime Oil Transportation Industry   147     Economic Viability of the International Tanker Industry   148     Economic Viability of the Jones Act Tank Vessel Fleet   149     APPENDICES         A Biographies of Committee Members   153     B Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-380), Section 4115   158     C Questionnaires   165     D Committee Meetings and Activities   170     E Supplementary Data on Vessel Ownership for the U.S. Trading Fleet   173     F Methodology for Determining the International Tanker Supply   176     G Freight Rate Mechanism in the Short Run: A Theoretical Approach   178     H Seasonal Variations in Tanker Demand and Freight Rates   182

OCR for page R1
-->     I Letter to the Committee from R.W. Porter   185     J Methodology for Determining Ship Replacement Costs   187     K Comparative Study of Double-Hull and Single-Hull Tankers   191     L Research on Double-Hull Vessel Technology since 1990   243     M Summary of Questionnaire Responses from Owners and Operators of Double-Hull Tank Vessels   250     ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY   263

OCR for page R1
--> The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated 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 scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce 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 engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs 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 Sciences 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 congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, 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 Sciences 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 government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
--> Tables, Figures, and Boxes Tables 2-1   Section 4115 Phaseout Schedule for Vessels without Double Hulls by Age of Vessel   22 2-2   Requirements of OPA 90 and IMO Regulation 13F for New Vessels   27 2-3   Requirements of OPA 90 and IMO Regulation 13G for Existing Vessels   28 2-4   OPA 90 and International Regulations for Tank Vessels without Double Hulls   31 2-5   Major Features of Regional Port-State Control Agreements   34 3-1   Change in Tonnage, by Coast and Vessel Size, 1990-1994   44 3-2   Change in Composition of World Fleet between 1990 and 1994, by Hull Type as Percentage of Total Tonnage   49 3-3   Tankers Scrapped per Year from World Fleet, 1990-1995   50 3-4   Changes in Age of U.S. Trading Fleet and World Fleet   54 3-5   Comparison of Average Age by Coast and Size Category   56 3-6   Average Size, Tonnage Carried, and Number of Port Calls, by Age of Vessel in the U.S. Trading Fleet for 1990 and 1994   57 3-7   World Tanker Sales, 1990 to 1994   58 3-8   Tonnage of Government-Owned Fleets Trading to the United States, 1990 and 1994   60 3-9   Tonnage of Oil Company Fleets Trading to the United States, 1990 and 1994   61 3-10   Change in Ownership of U.S. Trading Fleet by Coast, 1990 and 1994   62

OCR for page R1
--> 3-11   U.S. Flag Vessels Sold or Scrapped, 1990-1995   62 4-1   Additional Fleet Capacity in Million DWT after Adoption of HBL   75 4-2   Two-Tier Markets after OPA 90   82 4-3   Tanker Fleet and Orderbook as of July 1, 1996   84 4-4   Number of Shipbuilding Berths or Docks for Vessels Exceeding 40,000 DWT   86 4-5   Tanker Newbuilding Prices as of April 1, 1996   89 4-6   Increased Cost of Building the Double-Hull Fleet   89 4-7   Comparison of Maintenance and Repair Costs ($/DWT/year) for Double-Hull and Single-Hull Tankers by Vessel Type   90 4-8   Increase in Operating Costs for Double-Hull Tankers   90 4-9   Incremental Costs of Double-Hull Fleet   91 4-10   Break-Even Special Survey Costs ($ million) for Pre-MARPOL Tankers in International Trade   93 5-1   Jones Act Tank Vessel Fleet by Hull Type   99 5-2   Projected ANS Crude Oil Exports   104 5-3   Product Supply Methods to the Eastern United States (MBD) 1993   107 5-4   Number of U.S. Industry Vessel Building Slots   109 5-5   Special Survey Break-Even Costs ($ million) for Jones Act Tank Vessels   113 5-6   Cost Impact of Early Retirement Due to Section 4115 on Jones Act Tank Vessel Fleet   113 6-1   Survivability Indices for Single-Hull and Double-Hull Tankers   125 6-2   Advantages and Disadvantages of Double-Hull Compared to Single-Hull Tankers   128 6-3   Comparison of Producibility Factors for Double-Hull and Single-Hull Tankers   129 6-4   Existing and Proposed Regulations Relating to Oil Outflow, Intact Stability, and Survivability Performance of Double-Hull Tankers   136 E-1   Changes in Age of the U.S. Trading Fleet Based on Individual Ships by Ownership Category, 1990-1994   173 E-2   Changes in Age of the U.S. Trading Fleet Based on Port Calls by Ownership Category, 1990-1994   174 E-3   Size in Million DWT of the U.S. Trading Fleet by Age Range and Ownership Category, 1990 and 1994   175 H-1   Monthly Indices of Seasonal Variations in Crude Oil Exports, 1990-1995   183 H-2   Quarterly Indices of Seasonal Variations in Freight Rates of VLCCs Trading from Rotterdam, 1970-1995   183 H-3   Quarterly Indices of Seasonal Variations in Freight Rates of Suezmax Tankers Trading from the Arabian Gulf to Rotterdam, 1976-1995   184 H-4   Quarterly Indices of Seasonal Variations in Freight Rates of Aframax Tankers Trading from North Africa to Rotterdam, 1976-1995   184

OCR for page R1
--> H-5   Quarterly Indices of Seasonal Variations in Freight Rates of Product Tankers Trading from the Caribbean to the U.S. East Coast, 1976-1995   184 J-1   Data for Calculating the Cost of Tankers in International Trade ($ million)   189 J-2   Data for Calculating Costs for Jones Act Tankers ($ million)   189 K-1   Sizes and Hull Types of Tank Vessels Evaluated   207 K-2   Principal Particulars for 35,000 DWT-50,000 DWT Tankers   210 K-3   Oil Outflow Evaluation for 35,000 DWT-50,000 DWT Tankers   211 K-4   Survivability Evaluation for 35,000 DWT-50,000 DWT Tankers   211 K-5   Intact Stability Evaluation for 35,000 DWT-50,000 DWT Tankers   212 K-6   Ballast Condition Evaluation for 35,000 DWT-50,000 DWT Tankers   213 K-7   Principal Particulars for 80,000 DWT-100,000 DWT Tankers   215 K-8   Oil Outflow Evaluation for 80,000 DWT-100,000 DWT Tankers   216 K-9   Survivability Evaluation for 80,000 DWT-100,000 DWT Tankers   216 K-10   Intact Stability Evaluation for 80,000 DWT-100,000 DWT Tankers   217 K-11   Ballast Condition Evaluation for 80,000 DWT-100,000 DWT Tankers   218 K-12   Principal Particulars for 135,000 DWT-160,000 DWT Tankers   221 K-13   Oil Outflow Evaluation for 135,000 DWT-160,000 DWT Tankers   222 K-14   Survivability Evaluation for 135,000 DWT-160,000 DWT Tankers   222 K-15   Intact Stability Evaluation for 135,000 DWT-160,000 DWT Tankers   223 K-16   Ballast Condition Evaluation for 135,000 DWT- 160,000 DWT Tankers   224 K-17   Principal Particulars for 265,000 DWT-300,000 DWT Tankers   227 K-18   Oil Outflow Evaluation for 265,000 DWT-300,000 DWT Tankers   228 K-19   Survivability Evaluation for 265,000 DWT-300,000 DWT Tankers   228 K-20   Intact Stability Evaluation for 265,000 DWT-300,000 DWT Tankers   229 K-21   Ballast Condition Evaluation for 265,000 DWT-300,000 DWT Tankers   230 K-22   Principal Particulars for Oceangoing Barges   232 K-23   Oil Outflow Evaluation for Oceangoing Barges   233 K-24   Survivability Evaluation for Oceangoing Barges   233 K-25   Allowable Still-Water Bending Moments as a Percentage of the ABS Standard Value   239 Figures 1-1   History of marine oil transportation and related legislation   11 1-2   Waterborne crude oil imports and domestic crude oil production, 1973-1994   13 1-3   Growth in international marine oil transportation, 1900-1993   14 1-4   Oil tanker fleet development, 1971-2000   15 1-5   Basic tank vessel designs   16 2-1   Number of oil spills and volume of spillage in U.S. waters, 1973-1995   19 2-2   Volume of oil spilled from tankers and barges in U.S. waters, 1973-1995   20

OCR for page R1
--> 2-3   (a) Volume of oil spilled from tankers in U.S. waters and causes of spillage, 1991-1995. (b) Volume of oil spilled from barges in U.S. waters and causes of spillage, 1991-1995   21 2-4   Probability of zero outflow for single-hull and double-hull tankers   25 2-5   Effect of Section 4115 and IMO Regulations 13F and 13G on eligibility of existing vessels to operate in U.S. waters   29 2-6   Growth in petroleum tonnage in U.S. waters carried in double-hull vessels   30 3-1   Projections of U.S. crude oil imports through 2015   46 3-2   Projections of U.S. Gulf Coast lightered and deepwater port crude oil imports through 2015   47 3-3   Scrapping profile for the world fleet, 1990-1995   50 3-4   Age of tankers scrapped from world fleet, 1990-1995. (a) < 150,000 DWT. (b) ≥ 150,000 DWT   51 3-5   Freight rates and total tonnage scrapped from world fleet, 1982-1995   52 3-6   Deletions from world fleet due to OPA 90 and MARPOL, with and without lightering exemption for vessels of more than 150,000 DWT   53 3-7   Tonnage carried by vessels trading to the United States, by age of vessel for 1990 and 1994   54 3-8   Estimated scrapping profile for tankers trading to the United States   55 3-9   Changes in tonnage, by ownership category, for U.S. trading fleet between 1990 and 1994   59 3-10   Changes in number of port calls, by ownership category, for U.S. trading fleet between 1990 and 1994   60 4-1   Capacity of international tanker fleet by hull type as of October 1995   67 4-2   Age profile of international tanker fleet as of October 1995   68 4-3   Impact of OPA 90, Section 4115, on size of international tanker fleet eligible to trade in U.S. waters   68 4-4   Impact of MARPOL 13G on the size of the international tanker fleet   69 4-5   Impact of HBL alternative on the size of the international tanker fleet through 2015   69 4-6   Impact of MARPOL 13G on the international tanker fleet by size category through 2015   70 4-7   International tanker oil flows, 1995-2005   71 4-8   Interregional crude oil exports by region, 1995-2005   72 4-9   Tanker requirements for transportation of crude oil and petroleum products, 1994-2005   73 4-10   Aggregate supply-demand tanker balance with and without HBL, 1995-2005   74 4-11   Tanker newbuildings required under MARPOL 13G for 1995-2005 with and without HBL   75 4-12   International tanker requirements for all size segments, 1995-2005,   76

OCR for page R1
--> 4-13   International tanker requirements for individual size segments, 1995-2005   78 4-14   RFR by market segment, 1992-1996   80 4-15   Increase in shipbuilding capacity by geographic area, 1990-2000   85 4-16   Comparison of shipbuilding capacity and forecast newbuildings—European estimate   86 4-17   Comparison of shipbuilding capacity and forecast newbuildings—Japanese estimate   87 4-18   Estimated shipyard revenues for newbuildings, 1995-2006   87 4-19   Generalized distribution of scrapping   92 5-1   Age profile of Jones Act fleet   100 5-2   Jones Act tank vessel supply (vessels of more than 50,000 DWT)   100 5-3   Jones Act tank vessel supply (vessels of less than 50,000 DWT)   102 5-4   Jones Act tank vessel supply (tank barges and ITBs)   102 5-5   Forecasts of Alaskan oil production   103 5-6   ANS crude oil trade supply and demand   105 5-7   ANS crude oil supply and demand with alternative demand forecast, 1996-2005   106 5-8   ANS newbuilding conundrum   106 5-9   Jones Act tank vessel coastal product supply and demand   108 5-10   Comparison of historical scrapping pattern and OPA phaseout age for Jones Act tanker fleet   111 5-11   Average age of U.S.-flag tankers when scrapped   112 6-1   Probability of zero outflow for single-hull and double-hull tankers   120 6-2   Mean outflow for single-hull and double-hull tankers   121 6-3   Variation in mean outflow with longitudinal subdivision for double-hull tankers   121 6-4   Extreme outflow for single-hull and double-hull tankers   122 6-5   IMO pollution Index E for single-hull and double-hull tankers   123 6-6   Probability of zero outflow for single-hull and double-hull tank barges   124 6-7   Mean outflow for single-hull and double-hull tank barges   124 G-1   Quarterly average of daily time charter rates for VLCCs operating from the Arabian Gulf to Rotterdam   178 G-2   Conceptual VLCC supply function   179 G-3   VLCC time charter equivalent rates for 1988 and 1989   181 K-1   Cargo tank arrangements   192 K-2   Ballast tank arrangements   193 K-3   Longitudinal extent of grounding damage   196 K-4   IMO reference double hulls   200 K-5   Variation in intact stability   203 K-6   Effect of levels of internal subdivision on free surface effect   204 K-7   Effect of levels of liquid in tanks on free surface effect   204

OCR for page R1
--> K-8   Stability characteristics of a vessel   205 K-9   Typical arrangements for 50,000 DWT tanker   209 K-10   Typical arrangements for 80,000 DWT tankers   214 K-11   Typical arrangements for 150,000 DWT tankers   220 K-12   Typical arrangements for 280,000 DWT tankers   226 K-13   Typical arrangement for double-hull oceangoing barges   231 K-14   Probability of zero outflow for single-hull and double-hull tankers   234 K-15   Mean outflow for single-hull and double-hull tankers   235 K-16   Mean outflow data for 150,000 DWT double-hull tankers   236 K-17   Mean outflow for double-hull tankers with and without centerline bulkheads   236 K-18   Extreme outflow for single-hull and double-hull tankers   237 K-19   IMO pollution prevention Index E for single-hull and double-hull tankers   238 K-20   Mean outflow for single-hull and double-hull barges   240 Boxes 2-1   U.S. Port-State Control Initiative   36 2-2   Ship Inspection Report (SIRE) Program   38 6-1   Typical Cargo Tank Arrangements   117 6-2   Typical Ballast Tank Arrangements   118