NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC20418
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 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 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 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. Harold Liebowitz 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 M. Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The program described in this report is supported by interagency cooperative agreement No. DTMA91-94-G-00003 between the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Sciences.
Limited copies are available from:
Marine Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20418
Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Cover Photo: The CHEVRON MARINER, which was built in 1994, is a recent addition to the Chevron Transport Corporation tanker fleet. A 156,382 DWT crude oil carrier of double-hull construction, the CHEVRON MARINER normally operates between the Persian Gulf or other Asian ports and terminals in California.
Printed in the United States of America
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 of Naval Architecture, Glen Cove, New York
Staff
DONALD PERKINS, Project Director
MARVIN WEEKS, Project Assistant
RICHARD WILLIS, Consultant
MARINE BOARD
RICHARD J. SEYMOUR (chair),
Texas A&M University, College Station, and Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California
BERNARD J. ABRAHAMSSON,
University of Wisconsin at Superior
JERRY A. ASPLAND,
Arco Marine, Inc. (retired), Long Beach, California
ANNE D. AYLWARD,
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts
MARK Y. BERMAN,
Amoco Corporation, Houston, Texas
BROCK B. BERNSTEIN,
EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California
JOHN W. BOYLSTON,
Argent Marine Operations, Inc., Solomons, Maryland
SARAH CHASIS,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, New York
CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
BILIANA CICIN-SAIN,
University of Delaware, Newark
JAMES M. COLEMAN,
NAE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
BILLY L. EDGE,
Texas A&M University, College Station
MARTHA GRABOWSKI,
LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York
M. ELISABETH PATÉ.-CORNELL,
NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California
DONALD W. PRITCHARD,
NAE, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Severna Park, Maryland
STEPHANIE R. THORNTON,
Coastal Resources Center, El Cerrito, California
KARL K. TUREKIAN,
NAS, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
ROD VULOVIC,
Sea-Land Service, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey
E.G. “SKIP” WARD,
Shell Offshore, Inc., Houston, Texas
ALAN G. YOUNG,
Fugro-McClelland BV, Houston, Texas
Staff
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director
DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director
DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate
Preface
Following the Exxon Valdez accident in March 1989, which spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaskan waters, the Congress of the United States promulgated P.L. 101-380, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). The intent of the law was, in part, to minimize future oil spills through preventive measures such as improved tanker design and operational changes and through heightened preparedness.
The Committee on Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Implementation Review was established by the National Research Council (NRC) to review and assess the effects of Section 4115 of the act. This section requires, with some exceptions, that tankers operating in U.S. waters have double hulls. Tankers must comply within a 25-year phase-in period. The secretary of transportation will assess the effects of the double hull requirement and related provisions of the act on the marine environment and on the economic viability and operational makeup of the maritime transportation industry. The results of this assessment are to be reported by the U.S. Coast Guard to Congress with recommendations for legislative or other action.
OPA 90 provisions are just coming into force. Following the publication of a National Research Council study, Tanker Spills: Prevention by Design (1991), double-hull design regulations were promulgated for tank vessels operating in U.S. marine waters. International rules were also amended to require double hulls, or the equivalent, in future designs. Because of the time required to implement design provisions of OPA 90, the U.S. Coast Guard requested that the deadline for the report to Congress be extended to 1997 and formally requested the assistance of the Marine Board of the NRC. In the meantime, interim structural and operational measures for reducing outflow from single-hull ships have been issued
by the International Maritime Organization (IMO, a United Nations organization), but these regulations have not yet been promulgated in the United States.
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
The Committee on Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Implementation Review consists of 15 experts in a variety of disciplines. Their fields of expertise include tanker fleet management, tank vessel design and construction, ship operation and maintenance, shipping and petroleum economics, economic analysis of construction and operational costs, marine safety, marine environmental law and policy, natural resource damage assessment, international maritime conventions, and federal regulations related to petroleum marine transportation and operations.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The committee will assess the effects of the double-hull design requirements and related provisions in OPA 90 on three areas expressly referred to in Section 4115: (1) ship safety and the protection of the marine environment, (2) the economic viability of the maritime oil transportation industry, and (3) the operational makeup of the industry. The U.S. Coast Guard and the NRC have also agreed to expand the scope of the assessment to include aspects of international conventions that directly affect and interact with several tank vessel structural and operational requirements of OPA 90, Section 4115. The scope of the charge to the committee is described in greater detail below.
Ship Safety and the Protection of the Marine Environment
The committee will determine changes that have occurred or can be anticipated in oil pollution in U.S. waters and in the incidence of marine casualties.1 The committee will assess the change in the risk of oil spills resulting from, or influenced by, early retirement of tank vessels, exemptions under OPA 90, and measures for modifying single-hull tank vessels to reduce the risk of accidental spillage (in compliance with OPA 90). The committee will consider the effect on the risk of exemptions from the requirements for double-hull tank vessels: (1) tank vessels weighing less than 5,000 gross tons, (2) tank vessels lightering in designated lightering zones, and (3) tank vessels discharging at deep-water ports.
>In addition, the committee will document progress in double-hull tank vessel design, construction, maintenance, and operations and identify known safety problems that have arisen with the double-hull tank vessel design.
|
1 |
The definition of casualty in the context of this report refers to incidents such as groundings, collisions, allisions, or structural failure, in which the vessel is damaged. It should be noted that a casualty may or may not result in an oil spill depending on the extent and location of the damage. Also, vessel casualty and vessel accident may be used interchangeably within this report. |
Economic Viability of the Maritime Oil Transportation Industry
The committee will determine the effect of the act (Section 4115) on industry as may be evidenced, for example, by shifts to other modes and means of transportation, trends in shipbuilding and chartering, and changes in charter rates. The committee will also identify the added costs of construction and maintenance of double-hull tank vessels and compare them to the costs for single-hull tank vessels.
Operational Makeup of the Maritime Oil Transportation Industry
The committee will identify the nature and extent of operational changes within the industry and the safety implications that may be related to Section 4115 of OPA 90 (e.g., changes in ownership and the hull type, age, and flag of tank vessels trading in U.S. waters).
Influence of International Conventions on Tank Vessel Design and Operations
In addition to OPA 90 (Section 4115), the United States subscribes to international maritime agreements that have the effect of law. Moreover, several of these agreements or conventions parallel the tank vessel structural and operational provisions of Section 4115 and apply to most of the world tank vessel fleet. Therefore, the committee will assess the influence of international conventions on tank vessel design and operations.
For this purpose, the committee will review and comment on evidence concerning the influence of international conventions, primarily Regulations 13F and 13G, Annex 1, of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). These conventions require changes in hull design and ship operation to reduce the risk of oil spills from tank vessels, changes that will influence the composition and character of tanker fleets. The committee will further describe how these conventions interact with OPA 90 (Section 4115) in regard to the retirement of single-hull tank vessels. This study will include a phase-out schedule for single-hull tank vessels of more than 5,000 gross tons specified in the statute; and structural and operational spill prevention measures for existing single-hull tank vessels.
The committee will assess the implementation of tank vessel statutory provisions promulgated since the enactment of OPA 90 and the implementation likely to occur during the 1995 to 2015 phase-out period for single-hull tank vessels. The study will also focus on tank barges engaged in the ocean transport of crude petroleum.
STUDY METHODS
The committee is conducting its work in two phases. The first phase addresses the accessibility and adequacy of available information for assessing the
implementation of Section 4115 of OPA 90. The second phase will focus on assessments of the data obtained during the first phase.
The first phase began with an exhaustive search in the public sector for available data on the following subjects:
-
double-hull effectiveness, safety, and construction
-
early retirement of single-hull vessels
-
fleet composition and ownership
-
international maritime actions
-
lightering/deep-water ports/other exceptions
-
oil spills and oil spill risk
-
petroleum demand
-
shipbuilding
-
single-hull modifications
-
tanker economics and operations
-
vessel casualties
The committee identified publications and reports showing promise, and synopses were disseminated to committee members for review and initial assessment. Committee members identified gaps in the information and obtained additional materials from industry sources. The U.S. Coast Guard files developed since the initiation of OPA 90 were a significant resource.2
Second, the committee identified a number of areas where current information was essential and invited a number of industry experts to make presentations before the committee. Their areas of expertise included maritime oil industry economics, sale and purchase brokerage, shipbuilding trends and costs, trends in inspection practices relative to double-hull tankers, and vessel finance and insurance. A list of experts who made presentations to the committee is provided in appendix C.
Third, the committee sent questionnaires to shipyard operators, owners and operators of double-hull tankers, designers of double-hull tankers, classification societies, and seagoing tank-barge operators. The questionnaires solicited information on design trends, costs, problems with double-hull vessels, and special concerns and practices unique to double-hull design.
The committee analyzed the data in terms of adequacy and availability for further assessments. Because deficiencies in the available data will hinder assessment of the implementation of the structural aspects of OPA 90, the committee identified gaps in the data and recommended ways to fill those gaps.
The committee was divided into four task groups, each responsible for analyzing the type and depth of available data. The task groups were charged with
|
2 |
In addition, the committee identified a number of organizations (see appendix D) as sources of pertinent but less accessible information. Later in the study, the committee will contact these organizations to obtain specific data. |
ascertaining if sufficient data were readily available and, if not, determining what could be done to fill those gaps. Finally, the groups were asked to determine if expected data would be sufficient for the committee to complete its task.
After publication of this interim report, the committee will request public comments for consideration in assessing the data acquired during the first phase of the study. Following the review of comments, the committee will determine if the quantity and quality of available data are sufficient. The scope of the second phase will then be amended as necessary. The second phase of the study will encompass data assessment, the development of findings, and the preparation of the final report. The final report may contain recommendations based specifically on the findings of the committee.
The information and data provided to the committee are working papers and are not available for public dissemination. Inquiries should be made directly to the identified information source.
