Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ENTRANCES TO PORTS AND HARBORS Captain Daniel Charter This paper focuses on the regulatory issues relating to the safety of entrances to ports and harbors, particularly navigation safety. These regulatory issues include actions by international bodies and the federal government. This paper also briefly touches on state and local requirements. One major caution should be noted here. The regulator at all levels of government, as a general rule, takes port and harbor entrance design as given, and develops suitable regulations and procedures around it. Certainly regulatory problems should be considered during the planning and design stage. However, the fundamental consideration should be navigation safety, rather than the regulatory aspects. International Rules There are several requirements at the international level that have an indirect effect on entrance design. The international requirements are generally for vessels. However, since the reason for the existence of a port is to provide an interface between land and marine transportation, it is obvious that regulatory requirements for vessels can influence port design considerations. The first step is to determine the traffic mix that will be using the port entrance. Once this is done, the navigational equipment that vessels will be carrying can be determined by analyzing international carriage requirements. For example, will vessels have radar, back-up radar, depth finders, radio direction finders, etc.? International rules that should be considered include the agreement that has been reached on standard routing measures for vessels, including traffic separation schemes. A traffic separation scheme is designed to separate traffic in congested areas, and generally to provide for inbound and outbound lanes, often with a precautionary area where traffic patterns cross. The overall port entrance design must then consider anticipated traffic volumes to determine whether a traffic separation scheme will be required. If one is required, is there room to accommodate both inbound and outbound lanes and still provide the necessary separation buffer? Will there be special types or sizes of vessels? Will there be cross traffic, and if so, what will 27
28 be the density and the types of vessels involved? Can these vessels be safely accommodated? Should the design be altered to permit a safer situation? Finally, coastal states have the responsibility to provide aids to navigation that permit vessels to use a traffic separation scheme properly. Does the overall design consider these aids? International collision regulations should also be considered. While the collision regulations generally have sufficient flexibility to permit application to any entrance design, the planners should be aware of the regulations and avoid any design feature that would interfere with application of normal sailing rules. Legislation is pending in Congress that would unify the rules of the road for the United States and bring them into accordance with international rules. As indicated earlier, international requirements apply to vessels rather than ports. There are a few exceptions, suab as those I will note in a subsequent section. There is now an international convention in the process of ratification by the U.S. that enjoins governments to provide adequate reception facilities for oil, chemical, and other vessel wastes. An international guide is being drafted for port rules pertaining to the movement and handling of dangerous goods. However, there are no international proposals that would address port or harbor design or capabilities. Federal Regulations At the federal level, additional regulations are in force that primarily address vessel operations, and in some limited cases, special equipment requirements. These regulations can be found under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-474) provides broad authority to the Coast Guard to control vessel and waterfront facility operations, to establish vessel and facility equipment requirements, and to manage traffic in our waterways. It requires regulatory action that has not yet been completed for port access routes, pilotage requirements, and lightening zones. Vessel equipment requirements and operating procedures are contained in the Navigation Safety Regulations (33 CFR 164~. The equipment requirements are similar to the international requirements, except that the United States requires an electronic position-fixing device (either loran-C or transit satellite receivers satisfy the regulatory requirement) on vessels of 1600 gross tons or more. The principal purpose of this requirement is to assure safe navigation in the coastal confluence zone. However, the availability and accuracy of electronic positioning systems could be a factor in approach design. Navigation equipment requirements serve only one purpose today--to assure that the vessel is suitably equipped so that the mariner can properly navigate his vessel. The Coast Guard intends to publish a proposed rule requiring loran-C capability and a suitable device for retransmission of the loran coordinates to a shore station. The purpose of this requirement is to permit the Coast Guard to monitor the movement of a vessel during its approach to the entrance of Prince
29 William Sound, and its passage and transit. This proposed rule would apply only to tanker traffic in and out of Valdez, Alaska, but it is reasonable to expect that similar action may be taken elsewhere. Although Prince William Sound is the only area where monitoring of vessel movements through equipment installed on the vessels is being seriously considered, there are other areas where vessel positions are monitored by radar or low-light-level television. These areas have established vessel traffic centers to provide vessels with information on the location and activity of other vessels. The vessel traffic center receives reports from vessel pilots. In some areas, it is necessary to augment these reports with some form of surveillance; to date, either shoreside radar or low-light-level television. Although the need for a vessel traffic service (or VTS) is determined by casualty history, the existence or potential establishment of a VTS should be considered during entrance design. For example, the presence of a VTS would permit management of a one-way traffic flow if the design of the entrance makes it necessary. Absence of a VTS would not rule out management of one-way patterns. There are areas where management is exercised by local harbor masters or the vessel pilots themselves. The regulations governing mandatory participation in a VTS are found at 33 CFR 161. The rules of voluntary participation are covered in locally published operating manuals. Voluntary VTS systems are not covered by federal regulation. The following ports or harbors operate a VTS: Prince William Sound, Puget Sound, San Francisco, Houston-Galveston, and New Orleans. A limited VTS operation may soon be established in New York. There are several other regulations pertaining to vessel management that could affect port and harbor design. These include anchorage regulations, security zones, regulated navigation areas, safety zones around offshore structures, inland waterways navigation regulations, and general safety zones. The anchorage regulations (33 CFR 109-110) establish anchorage grounds, specify their limits, and prescribe management procedures, if necessary. An anchorage can be relocated or abolished, so it need not be a constraint in entrance design. However, an existing anchorage was established for some purpose, usually to serve as a holding area for queued vessels. If an anchorage must be changed in reconfiguration of a waterway, its use must be analyzed so that alternatives can be provided if necessary. Security zones {33 CFR 127) are established to safeguard vessel", harbors, ports, and facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage. Entry to these areas can be made only with permission. While there are very few of these (five now exist) the presence of a security zone and the conditions governing operations within the zone could have major implications for entrance design, and the regulations should be checked for the area in question. Regulated Navigation Areas {33 CFR 128) are designated for specification of navigation rules to be observed when operating in areas that present unusual hazards. When such an area is established at a port or harbor entrance, it is usually due to a basic design problem. The existence of Regulated Navigation Areas must be
30 considered in new designs. It would be desirable to eliminate the conditions that prompted the regulations, but even if this is not possible, awareness of the regulations and reasons for them should provide the designer with insight into problems that might be encountered. Safety zones on the outer continental shelf (33 CFR 147), inland waterways navigation regulations (33 CFR 162), and safety zones in navigable waters (33 CFR 165) could also affect entrance design, and it would be a good practice to check these parts of the regulations. It may be that the factors that prompted regulatory action could also influence entrance design. This is particularly true in the case of the regulations for inland waterways navigation, as these specify conditions for some locations that are very similar to the rules for Regulated Navigation Areas. As previously mentioned, several sections of the Port and Tanker Safety Act will ultimately lead to regulatory action in pilotage requirements, port access routes, and lightening areas. The pilotage requirements can be confusing, particularly since they involve some departure from traditional federal-state relations. Another presentation addresses these concerns (nHarbor Entrance Design: A Pilot's Views. Designers of harbor entrances should be aware that the regulation of pilotage may come under the administration of either the federal or state government, depending on the nature of the trade and state requirements. Pilotage requirements for vessels engaged in coastal trade is a federal function, while primary authority for pilotage on vessels engaged in foreign trade is vested in the states. There is a provision that the federal government may require pilotage when the state government does not, but no federal regulations have been issued under this authority. The Port and Tanker Safety Act provides for establishment of lightening areas where vessels can transfer oil and hazardous commodities from ship to ship. This provision was included in the act primarily to provide areas for transfer of oil from ULCCs (ultralarge crude carriers) and VLCCs (very large crude carriers). No such areas have yet been established, but a notice of proposed rulemaking is expected to be published in the near future. Although the lightening areas themselves probably would not affect entrance design, designers should maintain awareness of their location and activity. Lightering activity can have a substantial influence on the traffic patterns in and around port entrances. The final area of the Port and Tanker Safety Act that I will address in this section is port access routes. As the number and variety of demands for the available space on our offshore waters increased, conflicts began to arise among the users. The first offshore structure, probably even the first several hundred structures, were helpful to the mariner in fixing his position. With the placement of several thousand structures, they soon became a major hindrance to navigation. As a result of these and other conflicts, Congress ordered a study of safe port access routes and the publication of suitable regulations that would recognize the paramount right of navigation over all other
31 uses within the designated area. Studies of some of the high-priority areas will be completed this year. Establishment or potential establishment of access routes under this authority will have major consequences for entrance design. When study of an area has been completed, regulations will be published in the Code of Federal Regulations. If there are no regulations for an area, there may be an ongoing study to establish whether such regulations are needed, and if so, what they should specify. This can be determined by checking with the local district office of the Coast Guard. If a project involves the redesign of a port or harbor, it could change the existing traffic patterns, and this may necessitate reexamination of an already completed study of port access routes. If this is the case, the district office should be consulted so that suitable safe access routes can be established, if necessary. State and Local Regulations and Customs I have indicated that entrance design can also be affected by state and local regulations. While these vary from port to port, they are generally similar to federal regulations. As noted, the bulk of the pilotage requirements are under state jurisdiction. Although some actions of state and local authorities are preempted by the federal government, these governments and regional authorities may impose certain vessel operating controls, and operate the equivalent of a vessel traffic service. In addition to the actual local requirements, in many waterways there are binding procedures resulting from local customs or practices. Observance of these may be as important or more important than observance of the formal regulations. Most of these local practices are given in the appropriate Coast Pilot and suitable charts of the area, or they can be obtained by consulting with the local pilots associations. Summary Most of the rules, regulations, and customs governing the entrances to ports and harbors were developed in response to the design of the entrances (either natural or man-made). However, one or more of these requirements could have substantial importance for entrance design. While rules and regulations are flexible and can be changed to meet the requirements of new or redesigned entrances, it may well be that the factors creating the need for the regulation cannot be changed. Therefore, the examination of applicable regulations in project planning should include analysis to determine why they were required. If a project will affect existing regulations, contact should be made as early as possible with the appropriate authorities so that necessary actions can be initiated.
32 DISCUSSION KRAY: Aside from the regulations for aids to navigation, what is the Coast Guard's jurisdiction over drawbridges, particularly their engineering for maximum navigability? CHARTER: We issue the permits for bridges over navigable waters. As part of the process, we review the implications of the design for the navigable water body. We examine the design for other effects as well, and go through a full environmental analysis or environmental assessment during the process. A major item of the design review would be the effects of that particular bridge on the safe navigation of the water body. This is a function that was fairly recently (in the mid-1960s) transferred from the U.S. Ax my Corps of Engineers to the Coast Guard. There is an aspect of the bridge problem that might be of interest to you and others here. If any of you have used our waterways, particularly the inland waterways, you are well aware that many of the existing bridges--bridges that have been there for 50 or 75 or more years--are obstructions to safe navigation. There is provision for the federal government to modify or to require modification of these bridges, using primarily federal funds, with some funding from operators for the modifications. Several dozens are identified as hazardous to navigation, and a single modification project might cost $10 or $20 million. It is a very expensive process. KRAY: The second question I have is, I understand that the port of Galveston is enlarging its facilities and trying to construct deepwater ports. I would like to know how far the Coast Guard is involved in approval of the design of that navigation channel. CHARTER: We were involved in the review of the project proposal from the point of view of navigation safety. We did provide some comments on aspects of navigation safety, the relationship of the proposed project to the port entrance itself, and the traffic patterns in the area. Some of the problems we perceived had to do win the design of the channel in relation to the traffic flow. HERBICH: During the last six-month period ending about February 1, there were 18 ship collisions or casualties around Galveston. We beve formed some opinions about why this occurred. I wonder if you might have some opinions. CHARTER: The Coast Guard has written a 103-page opinion on that particular subject. One of the provisions of the Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 is authorization for the Secretary of Transportation to conduct investigations of general casualties. We have long had the authority to investigate vessel casualties, but in the new act the secretary was given specific authority to investigate casualties not necessarily related to vessel collisions, ramming, or groundings.
33 Under that authority, we conducted our first investigation very recently, and it was of the Galveston channel entrance. We felt that a number of occurrences there were not justified by the density of traffic and the traffic mix. As a result, we convened a board and the investigation was conducted. It was completed approximately two months ago. The investigative report was circulated to the offices in our headquarters and also to our district office and local units for comment. Several comments have been received, but the final commandant action has not yet been taken. The board has many recommendations--perhaps 30 or 40. Most pertain to the aids to navigation, the traffic flow, and the vessel traffic management in the area. I would say that 80 percent of those recommendations will be acted upon by the Coast Guard. Some depend on the action of other agencies. Among the recommendations that will likely appear in the final report are provision of a traffic separation scheme with a suitable precautionary area, looking at the pilotage boarding location and the entrance aids to navigation, particularly the channel marking aids, and others. The investigation was triggered by the similarity of the incidents as much as by their seriousness. WEBSTER: I gather from your comments that vessel controls are installed and Regulated Navigation Areas established only after there have been some casualties. My question is, do you use any of the simulation techniques that are now available to evaluate harbors and navigational aids? CHARTER: I think there will be a presentation that discusses the use of simulation techniques for harbor entrance design and aids to navigation. I use it as part of the decision process. I start basically with casualty history, because we have to demonstrate a favorable benefit-cost ratio. Any of the installations we are looking at must be justified to our own department and agency, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress. Although we are working on several other approaches, the only way we can justify the cost of a vessel traffic system or other traffic management control techniques is through historical analysis of the casualties, and projection into the future of the cost of doing business in that area, and the potential benefits. Probably the most complete analysis we have done--and are still doing--is for Puget Sound. We looked at the historical analysis of casualties, and spent a great deal of time at the computer simulator in Kings Point examining different sizes and types of vessels, and different operational control techniques to determine the operational controls that would assure safe navigation under all conditions. The exercise for Prince William Sound was very similar. The problem is that for a single regulatory action in Price William Sound and one in Puget Sound, the researab, the studies, the background investigation alone cost a couple of million dollars.
34 I try to structure these studier so that the results will be widely applicable to navigable waters. I would hope that the risk analyses we are conducting for Puget Sound, and the tug-assist trials taking place in October and November, would transfer almost totally into any environment. I don't know if we will be completely successful, but these are among our goals.
