UNITED STATES 
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
 
 
 FINAL 
 
 FEI 
 
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
 
 MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 
 
 TITLE XI 
 TANK VESSELS ENGAGED IN 
 DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
 MA-EIS-7302-79016-F 
 
( ) Draft 
 
 Maritime Administration Title XI Tank Vessels 
 Engaged in Domestic Trade 
 
 (X) Final Environmental Statement 
 
 Responsible Office: U.S. Department of Commerce 
 Maritime Administration 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 Environmental Impacts : 
 
 Environmental impact of the program poses some degree of pollution 
 risk to the marine environment and adjacent shoreline. The risk 
 potential is related to adverse effects on the environment and 
 other resource use which may result from cargo spillage of bulk 
 liquids as a result of accidental collision or grounding and the 
 release of contaminated water from operational procedures. 
 
 4 . Alternatives Considered : 
 
 Alternatives to Title XI financing for the construction of tank 
 vessels for the domestic trade have been considered in the statement 
 and include withdrawing government support in providing guaranteed 
 obligations to alternative modes of moving certain bulk liquids, 
 such as by pipeline, railroad, motor carriers or aircraft. 
 
 5 . Comments Requested : 
 
 Environmental Protection Agency 
 
 Department of State 
 
 Department of Defense 
 
 Department of Transportation 
 
 U.S. Coast Guard 
 
 Department of Treasury 
 
 Department of Energy 
 
 Department of the Interior 
 
 J Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
 
 % Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 
 
 t Bureau of Mines 
 
 i Geol ogi cal Survey 
 
 | Office of Oil and Gas 
 
State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 State 
 
 of Alabama 
 
 of Al aska 
 
 of Arkansas 
 
 of California 
 
 of Connecticut 
 
 of Delaware 
 
 of Florida 
 
 of Georgia 
 
 of Illinois 
 
 of Indiana 
 
 of Iowa 
 
 of Kansas 
 
 of Kentucky 
 
 of Louisiana 
 
 of Maine 
 
 of Maryl and 
 
 of Massachusetts 
 
 of Michigan 
 
 of Minnesota 
 
 of Mississippi 
 
 of Missouri 
 
 of North Carolina 
 
 of Pennsylvania 
 
 of New Jersey 
 
 of Nebraska 
 
 of New York 
 
 of Ohio 
 
 of Okl ahoma 
 
 of Oregon 
 
 of Rhode Island 
 
 of South Carolina 
 
 of Tennessee 
 
 of Texas 
 
 of Virginia 
 
 of Washi ngton 
 
 of West Virginia 
 
 of Wisconsin 
 
 6. Draft Statement made available to the Environmental Protection 
 Agency and the public 22 July 1978. 
 
 7. Final Statement made available to the Environmental Protection 
 Agency and the public 
 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
 MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 
 
 TITLE XI TANK VESSELS ENGAGED IN 
 DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 SECTION PAGE 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION 1-1 
 
 II. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM 2-1 
 
 A. The Title XI Program 2-1 
 
 B. Domestic Waterborne Shipping 2-6 
 
 C. Domestic Tankers and Tank Barges as Part of the 2-35 
 Title XI Program 
 
 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 3-1 
 
 A. Open Ocean 3-1 
 
 B. Coastal Ocean 3-2 
 
 C. Inland Waterways and Great Lakes (Freshwater) 3-10 
 
 D. Great Lakes System 3-12 
 
 E. Inland Waterways Environment 3-15 
 
 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TITLE XI TANK VESSELS ENGAGED 4-1 
 IN DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
 A. Overview of Tank Vessel Polluting Incidents 4-1 
 
 B. Oil Pollution 4-4 
 
 C. Chemical Pollution 4-65 
 
 D. Spill Probability and Risk 4-102 
 
 E. Potential Economic Impacts 4-116 
 
 F. Other Ship-Generated Pollutants 4-119 
 
 G. Tank Vessel Construction, Repair and Scrapping 4-134 
 H. Port, Harbor, & Waterway Development 4-143 
 
 V. MITIGATING FACTORS 5-1 
 
 A. Vessel Construction and Operating Requirements 5-1 
 
 B. Marine Transportation Services 5-27 
 
 C. Inspection and Monitoring 5-31' 
 
 D. Personnel Qualifications Standards and Training 5-33 
 
 E. Spill Control and Clean Up 5-3*6 
 
 F. Recent and Future Programs 5-51' 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 
 
 ALTERNATIVES TO THE DOMESTIC TANK VESSEL TITLE XI 6-1 
 PROGRAM 
 
 A. Discontinue the Program 6-3 
 
 B. Suspend the Program 6-4 
 
 C. Alternative Modes of Transportation 6-5 
 
 D. New Standards 6-13 
 
 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 7-1 
 UNDER THE PROGRAM 
 
 A. Use of Materials and Energy Resources 7-1 
 
 B. Energy Utilization 7-1 
 
 C. Polluting Spills 7-2 
 
 D. Other Adverse Impacts 7-5 
 
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USE OF THE 8-1 
 ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT 
 OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 
 
 A. Effect of Oil and Chemical Spills 8-1 
 
 B. Natural Resources Utilized for Vessel Construction 8-2 
 and Operation 
 
 C. Land Use for Shipyards, Ports and Waterways 8-2 
 Facilities 
 
 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 9-1 
 RESOURCES 
 
 A. Effects of Oil and Chemical Spills 9-1 
 
 B. Use of Minerals in Vessel Construction and 9-1 
 Operation 
 
 C. Resource Dedication for Shipyards, Ports and 9-2 
 Waterways 
 
 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 
 
 A. Disposition of EPA's General Comments 10-8 
 
 B. Disposition of DOI's Comments 10-15 
 
 C. Disposition of the Comments of the State of Alaska 10-18 
 
 D. Disposition of the Comments of the State of Georgia 10-20 
 
 E. Disposition of the Comments of the State of Illinois 10-22 
 
 F. Responses from the States of Iowa, Maryland, New 
 
 Jersey and New York 10-23 
 
 G. Disposition of the Comments of the State of Oregon 10-31 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
 TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE 
 
 II-l Post War Shipbuilding Demand 2-9 
 
 II-2 Net Total Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 
 
 Calendar Years 1947-1976 2-11 
 
 I I -3 Summary of Area of Employment in Domestic Ocean Trade 2-15 
 
 II-4 Controlling Depth and Maximum Permissible Size 
 
 Vessels for Some Contiguous Ports 2-17 
 
 II-5 Tanker Demand for Alaskan Oil Trade 120,000 DWT 
 
 Ships Only 2-20 
 
 I 1-6 Forecast of Total Number of Ships by Size in Valdez- 
 
 West Coast Service 2-20 
 
 I 1-7 Safety and Environmental Protection Features on Title 
 
 XI Tankers Constructed since 1971 2-22 
 
 II-8 Commercially Navigable Waterways of the United States 
 
 by Lengths and Depths 2-29 
 
 I I -9 U.S. Great Lakes Domestic Waterborne Commerce by 
 
 Vessel Type 2-36 
 
 11-10 Summary of Tank Vessels Eligible for Domestic Trade 
 
 that Receive Title XI - Government Aid 2-38 
 
 Title XI Tankships Eligible for Domestic Trade 2-39 
 
 Title XI Tank Barges Eligible for Domestic Trade 2-40 
 
 Environmental Parameters of the Estuarine Zones 
 
 of the United States 3-4 
 
 Great Lakes Environs 3-13 
 Type of Location of Pollution (Oil and Other 
 
 Substances) 4-5 
 
 Sources of Pollution (Oil and Other Substances) 4-6 
 
 Causes of Pollution (Oil and Hazardous Substances) 4-7 
 
 Budget of Worldwide Petroleum Hydrocarbons Introduced 
 
 into the Oceans 4-8 
 
 IV-5 Reported Vessel Spillages of Sizes Greater than 
 
 50,000 Gallons, April 1973 through March 1977 4-9 
 
 IV-6 Sources of Oil Pollution in U.S. Waters 4-11 
 
 IV-7 Oil Pollution Incidents of Tank Ships and Tank 
 
 Barges In and Around U.S. Waters 4-12 
 
 11-11 
 
 11-12 
 
 III-l 
 
 III-2 
 
 IV-1 
 
 IV-2 
 
 IV-3 
 
 IV-4 
 
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) 
 
 TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE 
 
 IV-8 Worldwide Tanker Accidents and Oil Pollution Outflow 4-16 
 
 IV-9 Distribution of Tanker Accidents, PCI's, and Outflow 
 Among Three Coasts of North America During 1969 to 
 1974 Period as a Whole and Only Those Within Coastal 
 Zones 4-17 
 
 IV-10. Analysis of 20 Tank Barge Casualties 4-20 
 
 IV-11 Cause Factors of 20 Tank Barge Casualties 4-20 
 
 IV-12 Effects of Oil on Selected Species 4-34 
 
 IV-13 Estimated Toxicity Sensitivity (parts per million) 4-36 
 
 IV-14 Salt Marsh Plants Susceptibility to 011 Spillage 4-46 
 
 IV-15 Type of Pollution (Oil and Other Substances) 4-66 
 
 IV-16 Chemical Tank Barge Accidents Involving Pollution 
 
 July 1968 - June 1973 4-73 
 
 IV-17 Toxic Discharge Levels Which Would Be Expected to 
 
 Kill Most Aquatic Life in Specified Systems 4-83 
 
 IV-18 A Sample of Noxious Liquid Substances Carried in Bulk 4-85 
 
 IV-19 Outline of NAS Rating System 4-87 
 
 IV-20 Hazard Ratings of Chemicals of Various Transport 
 
 Conditions 4-88 
 
 IV-21 Chemical Properties and Shipping Hazards 4-98 
 
 IV-22 Number and Type of Worldwide Tanker Accidents and 
 
 Pollution Causing Incidents (PCI's) 4-110 
 
 IV-23 Number and Magnitude of Worldwide Pollution Causing 
 
 Incidents (PCI's) by Type of Tanker Accident 4-111 
 
 IV-24 Frequency Distribution of Dollar Value of Lost Cargo 
 
 for Barges in Accidents July 1968 - June 1973 4-114 
 
 IV-25 Calculation of Barge Exposure Mileage and Per Mile 
 
 Accident Rates (1971) 4-115 
 
 IV-26 Expected Annual Spill Rates for Ten Case Studies 
 
 for Barge Transportation 4-117 
 
 IV-27 Principal, Actual, and Potential Economic Loss 
 
 Resulting from Waterborne Spills 4-118 
 
 IV-28 Ambient A1r Quality Standards 4-123 
 
 IV-29 A1r Quality Attainment Status Designations of 
 
 Some Major Port Areas 4-124 
 
 IV-30 Vessel A1r Pollutants Sources 4-126 
 
 IV-31 Hydrocarbon (HC) Hourly Emission (Lbs/Hr) 4-128 
 IV-32 Examples of Municipal, County, and State Air 
 
 Pollution Control Regulations 4-131 
 
TABLE NO. 
 
 IV-33 
 
 IV-34 
 
 V-l 
 
 V-2 
 
 V-3 
 
 V-4 
 
 V-5 
 
 VI-1 
 
 VI-2 
 
 LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) 
 
 TITLE PAGE 
 
 Maximum Permissible Airborne Noise Levels Aboard 
 
 Ship (decibel levels) 4-135 
 
 Materials Used in Ship and Barge Construction 4-141 
 
 Federal Regulations on Tanker Pollution Control 5-2 
 
 MarAd Pollution Abatement Specification 5-8 
 
 Pollution Mitigation Factors on Vessel Design 5-17 
 
 VTS Reductions for 22 U.S. Ports or Waterways 5-29 
 
 Pollution Abatement Alternatives 5-55 
 
 Comparison of Alternative Modes of Transportation 6-7 
 
 Economic and Safety Comparison of Transporting 
 
 Selected Bulk Chemicals 6-10 
 
 Relative Energy Efficiencies of Various Modes of 
 
 Transporting Crude Oil 7-3 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 FIGURE TITLE PAGE 
 
 II-l Domestic Waterborne Commerce (1976) 2-12 
 
 I 1-2 Domestic Waterborne Trade Lanes 2-14 
 
 II-3 The Arco Prudhoe Bay - Large New American Merchant 
 
 Marine Tanker of 70,000 DWT Capacity 2-23 
 
 I 1-4 Typical Cryogenic Tanker 2-25 
 
 II-5 Integrated Tug-Barge System 2-26 
 
 II-6 Commercially Navigable Waterways of the United States 2-28 
 
 II-7 Inland Waterways Towboat and Barges 2-31 
 
 II-8 Special River Barges for Transport of Liquid Chemicals 2-32 
 
 II-9 Great Lakes Navigation System Domestic Freight 
 
 Transport 2-34 
 
 III-l North American Oceanic Water Masses 3-3 
 
 III-2 Bathymetric Physiographic Provinces 3-6 
 
 III-3 Annual Net Oceanic Currents 3-8 
 
 II 1-4 General Coastal Ecological Systems 3-9 
 
 III-5 Seasonally Shifting Stocks of the North American 
 
 Coastal Zones 3-11 
 
 IV-1 Location of Refineries and Tanker Terminals Accessible 
 
 from the Coast 4-2 
 
 IV-2 General Areas of Pollution 4-3 
 
 IV-3 The Tanker Pollution Problem 4-13 
 
 IV-4 Processes Affecting Oil Spilled at Sea 4-22 
 
 IV-5 A Series of Diagrams Showing the Outline Development 
 
 and Subsequent Break-Up of the 011 SUck 4-27 
 
 IV-6 Summary of Self-Cleaning and Biological Recovery 
 
 Processes for Chedabucto Bay Shore Zone, 1970-1976 4-43 
 
 IV-7 Generalized Flow Diagram of the Vulnerability Model 4-75 
 
 IV-8 Processes Which Influence the Distribution and Fate 
 
 of Pollutants Entering the Aquatic Environment 4-76 
 
 IV-9 The Effects of Spill Rate and Wind Velocity on the 
 
 Downwind Dispersion of Flammable LNG Vapors 4-101 
 
 IV-10 The Effect of Spill Rate on the Downwind Dispersion 
 
 of Chlorine Vapor 4-103 
 
 IV-11 The Effect of Spill Rate and Wind Velocity on the 
 
 Downwind Dispersion of Ammonia 4-104 
 
 IV-12 Tanker Casualties Versus Tanker Trips (1969-1972) 4-106 
 
 IV-13 Tanker Casualties Versus Volume Throughput (1969-1972) 4-107 
 
 vii 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont. 
 
 FIGURE TITLE PAGE 
 
 IV-14 Comparison of U.S. and Foreign Flag Tanker Spill 
 
 Incident Rates in U.S. Waters from 1973 to 1975 4-113 
 
 IV-15 Summary Matrix of Tank Vessel Type Versus Pollutants 4-120 
 
 V-l Simplified Illustration of LOT Procedure 5-13 
 
 VI-1 MarAd Financial Assistance Programs for U.S. 
 
 Maritime Industry 6-2 
 
CHAPTER I 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Title XI Program Implementation of the Merchant Marine Act of 1970 
 for Tank Vessels Involved in Domestic Trade 
 
 This document is a programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement 
 for the continued and future financing of tank vessels used solely in do- 
 mestic trade under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as amended 
 in 1970. Other components of this Act which discuss Title XI funding for 
 different vessel types, trade routes, and offshore drilling facilities 
 are not covered in this report. 
 
 The Merchant Marine Act of 1970, which amended the 1936 Merchant 
 Marine Act, made a number of changes designed to make the Maritime Admin- 
 istration Merchant Marine Program more attractive to private operators. 
 For the first time under the 1970 Act the Title XI financing and loan 
 guarantee program was extended to tank vessels. 
 
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM 
 
 A. THE TITLE XI PROGRAM 
 
 1 . INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 
 
 The primary purpose of the Title XI Program is to promote the growth 
 and modernization of the United States Merchant Marine by issuing guaran- 
 tees of obligations to enable the financing and refinancing of vessels 
 constructed in the United States and owned and operated by citizens of 
 the United States. The Program enables owners of eligible vessels to 
 obtain long-term financing in the private capital market at favorable 
 terms, conditions, and interest rates as available to the larger finan- 
 cially stronger corporations. Such favorable financing terms are usually 
 not available to the average shipowner. 
 
 The Maritime Administration's financing has allowed several smaller 
 U.S. companies to participate in the current expansion of tank vessel 
 commerce in domestic waterways. This should provide healthier competi- 
 tion and reduce the transportation costs to the general public. 
 
 The Federal Ship Financing Program (hereinafter called the "Program") 
 was established pursuant to Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. 
 This Act, as amended, provides for a full faith and credit guarantee by 
 the United States Government for the purpose of financing or refinancing 
 United States flag vessels constructed or reconstructed in U.S. shipyards. 
 The Program is administered by the Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs 
 on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. The guarantee of the United States 
 Government under this Program provides for the prompt payment in full of 
 the interest on and the unpaid principal of any guaranteed obligation in 
 the event of default by the shipowner in the payment of any principal and 
 interest on the obligations when due or for other specified defaults. 
 
 2-1 
 
The Program is used by the Secretary as a revolving fund for the pur- 
 pose of underwriting the Government's guarantee and to pay the expenses of 
 the Program. In addition, the Secretary is authorized to borrow from the 
 United States Treasury in the event the Fund is insufficient for the pur- 
 pose of making prompt payments under its guarantee. In November 1975 the 
 President signed into law a bill providing for an increase in the statu- 
 tory ceiling for Title XI to $7 billion. 
 
 2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 
 
 Vessels eligible for Title XI assistance under this phase of the Pro- 
 gram include vessels designed principally for the shipment of bulk liquids 
 and liquefied gases. However, any towboat, bulk liquid gas barge, canal 
 boat, or tank vessel, to be eligible, must be more than 25 gross tons. 
 
 The design of the vessel must be adequate from an engineering view- 
 point for its intended use, and the delivered vessel must be classed by 
 the American Bureau of Shipping as Class A-l, or meet other standards ac- 
 ceptable to the Secretary. The shipowner must be a United States citizen 
 and have sufficient operating experience and the ability to operate the 
 vessel on an economically sound basis. The shipowner must meet certain 
 financial requirements with respect to working capital and net worth, both 
 of which are based on such factors as the amount of the guaranteed obliga- 
 tions, the shipowner's financial strength, intended employment of the ves- 
 sel, etc. These factors also affect the terms of the guarantee with re- 
 spect to continuing Title XI financial covenants, guarantee fees, reserve 
 fund, etc. No guarantee under this program can be legally entered into 
 unless the project is determined by the Secretary to be economically sound. 
 
 3. FUNDING PROCEDURES 
 
 Application forms for Title XI are obtained from the Maritime Admini- 
 stration. Approval of the application is contingent upon the determina- 
 tion of the Secretary as to whether the vessel (s) and the project meet all 
 the applicable requirements of the existing statutes and regulations. If 
 the application is approved, a conditional letter of commitment to guar- 
 antee the obligation is issued, stating the requirements necessary for 
 
 2-2 
 
final approval. The applicant is notified in writing when the applica- 
 tion is not approved. Final approval of the application is accomplished 
 after the formal documentation of the transaction and all the conditions 
 in the letter commitment are satisfied; at such time the Secretary enters 
 into a formal Commitment to Guarantee, and guaranteed obligations (notes 
 or bonds) are issued and sold and a secured interest or a mortgage on the 
 vessel (s) recorded. 
 
 4. AMOUNT GUARANTEED 
 
 The amount of the obligation guaranteed by the government is based 
 on the "actual cost" of the vessel as determined by the Secretary. The 
 actual cost of a vessel includes those items which would normally be capi- 
 talized as vessel costs under usual accounting practices, such as the cost 
 of construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning (including designing, 
 inspecting, outfitting, and equipping) of the vessel, together with commit- 
 ment fees and interest on the related loan during the period of construc- 
 tion. All items of actual cost must be determined to be fair and reason- 
 able by the Secretary. Some costs are excluded from actual cost (and are 
 sometimes considered capitalizable costs) such as legal and accounting 
 fees, printing costs, guarantee fees, vessel insurance and underwriting 
 fees, and any interest or borrowings for the shipowner's equity in the ves- 
 sel (s). In addition, costs of foreign components are excluded from the 
 actual cost (See Section A. 8 for further detail). 
 
 The Secretary is authorized to guarantee an obligation which does 
 not exceed 75 percent of the actual cost of most eligible vessels. 
 However, obligations may be guaranteed in an amount not exceeding 87-1/2 
 percent of the actual cost of (1) passenger vessels, designed to be of 
 not less than 1,000 gross tons and capable of a sustained speed of not 
 less than 8 knots, to be used solely on inland rivers and waterways; 
 (2) oceangoing tugs of more than 2,500 horsepower; (3) barges; (4) vessels 
 of more than 2,500 horsepower designed to be capable of a sustained speed 
 of not less than 40 knots (including hydrofoils); and (5) other vessels 
 of not less than 3,500 gross tons and capable of a sustained speed of 
 14 knots. Vessels built with construction-differential subsidy or vessels 
 other than barges and passenger vessels in (1) above engaged solely in the 
 
 2-3 
 
transportation of property on inland rivers and canals exclusively are 
 eligible only for a guarantee not exceeding 75 percent of their actual 
 cost. 
 
 If a Title XI guarantee of an obligation for a vessel is documented 
 after delivery or for refinancing, the actual cost must be depreciated 
 from the date of delivery to the documentation date of guarantee. 
 
 5. SOURCE OF FUNDS 
 
 Since the Program is a guarantee program and not a direct loan 
 program, funds secured by the guaranteed debt obligations and used for 
 the financing of the vessel (s) are obtained in the private sector. The 
 main sources for such funds include banks, pension trusts, life insur- 
 ance companies and bonds sold to the general public. 
 
 6. AMORTIZATION AND INTEREST RATE 
 
 The maximum guarantee period is 25 years from the date of delivery; 
 however, if the vessel has been reconstructed or reconditioned, the life 
 may be extended by the Secretary to include the remaining useful years of 
 the vessel as determined by the Secretary. Amortization in equal payments 
 of principal is usually required; however, other amortization methods such 
 as level debt (equal payments of principal and interest) may also be ap- 
 proved if sufficient security is offered such as long term charters, re- 
 duction of the amount of guarantee and/or length of guarantee period. 
 
 The interest rate of the obligation guaranteed, for both new and re- 
 financed vessels, must be within the range of interest rates prevailing 
 in the private market for similar loans and risks and must be determined 
 to be fair and reasonable by the Secretary. 
 
 7. INVESTIGATION FEE 
 
 An investigation fee, not exceeding one-half of 1 percent of the 
 original principal amount of the obligation to be guaranteed, is charged 
 for the investigation of applications, including related appraisals and 
 
 2-4 
 
inspections. Generally, a fee of only slightly in excess of one-eighth 
 of the 1 percent is charged. If the application is not approved, one-half 
 of the fee is refundable. 
 
 8. ANNUAL GUARANTEE FEES 
 
 The fee for the guarantee of an obligation for a delivered vessel 
 will be not less than one-half of 1 percent or more than 1 percent per 
 annum, of the average principal amount of the outstanding obligation, or 
 not less than one-quarter of 1 percent or more than one-half of 1 percent 
 per annum, of the principal amount of an obligation relating to a vessel 
 under construction, reconstruction or reconditioning. Amounts of deposit 
 for the vessel in an escrow fund held by the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 
 Title XI are excluded in the computation of this charge. The fee is re- 
 quired by law to be paid annually in advance. 
 
 Unless otherwise determined by the Secretary, the annual premium 
 rates are based on a ratio of net worth to long-term debt of the ship- 
 owner, and are subject to annual adjustment except during the construc- 
 tion period. 
 
 9. "BUY AMERICAN" POLICY 
 
 The Maritime Administration's long-standing policy has been that 
 vessels built with the aid of Title XI are subject to the "Buy American" 
 provision of Section 505 of the Merchant Marine Act which states in part: 
 (1,2) 
 
 "In all such construction the shipbuilder, subcontractors, 
 materialmen or suppliers shall use, so far as practicable, 
 only articles, materials, and supplies of the growth, produc- 
 tion, or manufacture of the United States as defined in para- 
 graph K of Section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930." 
 
 Pursuant to Title XI the shipowner may be permitted to use compon- 
 ents of foreign manufacture providing: (1) the performance of the vessel 
 will not be adversely affected and (2) the incorporation of such foreign 
 
 2-5 
 
components into the vessel will not impair its entitlement to operate in 
 the coastwise trade of the United States or to carry preference cargoes. 
 However, if foreign components are used, the cost thereof will be ex- 
 cluded from actual cost if the Secretary determines that suitable American 
 domestically produced components are available. This reduction in the 
 actual cost will increase the owner's share of the total cost of the 
 vessel and reduce the amount of the guaranteed obligation. 
 
 10. REFINANCING 
 
 Amounts outstanding on existing Title XI obligations, or amounts out- 
 standing on obligations not previously insured or guaranteed (provided 
 they had been issued for the purposes contained in Title XI) may be refin- 
 anced under the Title XI program up to the amount of the existing obliga- 
 tions being refinanced. Such financing under Title XI must meet all the 
 applicable requirements of the existing statutes and regulations, and the 
 original obligation must have been issued within one year after vessel 
 delivery. Vessels purchased as "used" vessels are not eligible under this 
 provision. However, under certain conditions the proceeds of guaranteed 
 obligations issued with respect to any eligible vessel may be used for 
 the purchase of certain marine equipment. 
 
 B. DOMESTIC WATERBORNE SHIPPING (3,4,5) 
 
 1. INTRODUCTION 
 
 In the Merchant Marine Act of 1970, Congress re-emphasized the man- 
 date of the Maritime Administration to promote a merchant marine suffi- 
 cient to carry the nation's domestic waterborne commerce on all routes 
 essential to maintaining the flow of such commerce at all times. The 
 following discussion provides an overview of the major components of this 
 domestic trade as they relate to the movement of bulk liquid commodities. 
 It must be pointed out at this point, however, that while the following 
 discussion deals with the entire domestic trade, only a very small portion 
 of this trade has historically received Title XI Ship Financing Guarantees. 
 
 2-6 
 
2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 
 
 The modern domestic waterborne trade was principally developed as a 
 response to a national transportation policy to actively expand and pro- 
 mote domestic waterborne commerce. To foster this policy specific pieces 
 of national legislation were enacted. Among the more significant of these 
 acts are the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (popularly known as the Jones Act) 
 and the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. 
 
 The 1920 Act stated in its preamble that "It is necessary for the 
 national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic 
 commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best 
 equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater 
 portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time 
 of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately 
 by citizens of the United States; and it is hereby declared to be the pol- 
 icy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and 
 encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine." 
 
 The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 provides for the protection of the 
 U.S. merchant fleet by excluding foreign-built, owned or operated ships 
 from the U.S. domestic trades. The Jones Act covers all waterborne trans- 
 port between U.S. ports, including inland waterways, Great Lakes and the 
 oceanborne trade between the United States mainland and the so-called 
 non-contiguous area of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. 
 
 Almost every maritime nation has similar legislation, even such highly 
 competitive ones as Norway, Greece, Sweden and Japan. The principal pur- 
 poses of such cabotage laws are to assure reliable service and to provide 
 domestic maritime business. At least a minimum sized national fleet is 
 maintained, a minimum market is preserved for the country's shipyards and 
 various national and economic objectives are served. The shipyards are 
 able to obtain some economies of scale and to maintain some merchant ship- 
 building capability in times of crisis. The Secretary of the Treasury has 
 the authority to issue waivers to the Jones Act in the interest of national 
 defense. 
 
 2-7 
 
3. CONTRIBUTION OF SHIPPING STATUTES 
 
 Besides its success in encouraging the development of a U.S. domestic 
 fleet that can make major contributions to the nation's security, the 
 Jones Act and Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (as amended) 
 have also been instrumental in stimulating U.S. ship construction, employ- 
 ment and tax revenue. 
 
 The domestic fleet has been a steady and prolific generator of new 
 ship construction. From the wery beginning, the domestic fleet was a 
 prime market for U.S. shipbuilders who faced a decline in business with 
 the end of WWI. Although the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 had authorized 
 the subsidization of the foreign trade segment of the U.S. merchant fleet, 
 it was after WWII, with its surplus of war-built vessels, that the demand 
 for domestic vessels had its greatest impact on shipbuilding. The domestic 
 shipping industry was the prime shipbuilding customer until 1960 (see 
 Table II— 1 } - Taken together, the national policies implemented by the 
 Jones Act and the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (as amended) have maintained 
 adequate U.S. shipbuilding capacity. 
 
 These policies have generated considerable employment in the follow- 
 ing professions: 
 
 12,000 shipyard workers engaged in building oceangoing vessels 
 for the domestic trades. 
 
 24,000 employees in allied industries which support domestic 
 ocean shipbuilding efforts. 
 
 20,000 employees of inland shipyards involved in building tow- 
 boats and barges. 
 
 12,000 seamen aboard oceangoing vessels in the U.S. domestic 
 ocean fleet. 
 
 93,000 workers on the nation's inland waters and lakes and 
 nearby offshore vessels. 
 
 2-8 
 
Table 11-1 
 POST WAR SHIPBUILDING DEMAND 
 
 YEAR 
 
 NUMBER 
 
 DOMESTIC 
 SHIPBUILDING 
 AS PERCENT 
 
 OF TOTAL 
 
 DWT TONNAGE <000's) 
 
 DOMESTIC 
 SHIPBUILDING 
 AS PERCENT 
 
 OF TOTAL 
 
 DOMESTIC 
 FLEET 
 
 FOREIGN 
 FLEET 
 
 DOMESTIC 
 FLEET 
 
 FOREIGN 
 FLEET 
 
 1950 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 100% 
 
 110 
 
 __ 
 
 100% 
 
 1951 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 57% 
 
 85 
 
 34.5 
 
 71% 
 
 1952 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 36% 
 
 88 
 
 93 
 
 49% 
 
 1953 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 50% 
 
 355.7 
 
 202 
 
 64% 
 
 1954 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 60% 
 
 356 
 
 134.7 
 
 73% 
 
 1955 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 50% 
 
 57.6 
 
 42.9 
 
 57% 
 
 1956 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 100% 
 
 144 
 
 — 
 
 100% 
 
 1957 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 100% 
 
 269.5 
 
 — 
 
 100% 
 
 1958 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 79% 
 
 448 
 
 33 
 
 93% 
 
 1959 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 100% 
 
 512 
 
 — 
 
 100% 
 
 1960 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 50% 
 
 347 
 
 79 
 
 81% 
 
 1961 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 29% 
 
 300 
 
 203.7 
 
 60% 
 
 1962 
 
 3 
 
 25 
 
 11% 
 
 184.8 
 
 290 
 
 39% 
 
 1963 
 
 5 
 
 26 
 
 16% 
 
 195 
 
 318 
 
 38% 
 
 1964 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 27% 
 
 166 
 
 130.5 
 
 56% 
 
 1965 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 15% 
 
 92 
 
 144 
 
 39% 
 
 1966 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 8% 
 
 36 
 
 160.5 
 
 18% 
 
 1967 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 17% 
 
 18 
 
 131 
 
 12% 
 
 1968 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 19% 
 
 136 
 
 277 
 
 33% 
 
 1969 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 36% 
 
 230 
 
 104 
 
 69% 
 
 1970 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 70% 
 
 427 
 
 66 
 
 87% 
 
 1971 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 57% 
 
 471.5 
 
 169 
 
 74% 
 
 1972 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 46% 
 
 416 
 
 187.6 
 
 69% 
 
 1973 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 29% 
 
 400 
 
 437 
 
 48% 
 
 1974 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 31% 
 
 304 
 
 473 
 
 39% 
 
 1975 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 63% 
 
 340.8 
 
 486 
 
 41% 
 
 1976 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 38% 
 
 275 
 
 125.8 
 
 69% 
 
 1977 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 57% 
 
 950 
 
 854 
 
 53% 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 196 
 
 266 
 
 42% 
 (Avg.) 
 
 7714.9 
 
 5176.2 
 
 60% 
 (Avg.) 
 
 TOTAL 
 CONST. 
 
 462 VES 
 
 SELS 
 
 
 12.891.1 (C 
 
 00's) DWT 
 
 
 SOURCE: Maritime Administration, 1978 
 
 2-9 
 
The Maritime Administration offers no direct subsidy (Title V - 
 Construction Differential Subsidy or Title VI - Operating Differential 
 Subsidy) to operators in the domestic trades. 
 
 4. DOMESTIC WATERBORNE COMMERCE - GENERAL 
 
 Domestic waterborne commerce represents one of the major transporta- 
 tion modes for the movement of goods between cities within the continental 
 U.S. and the principal means of conveying goods to Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto 
 Rico and the Virgin Islands. Of the five principal transportation modes-- 
 highway motor freight, railroads, airways, pipelines and water— waterborne 
 accounts for approximately 24 percent of the total ton-mile volume of the 
 domestic transport trade. Continuing developments in vessel design, 
 vessel routings, and dockside industry indicate that waterborne commerce 
 may command a slightly larger percentage of the transport volume in the 
 future. 
 
 The recent tonnage values of waterborne commerce illustrated in 
 Table I 1-2 indicate that over 978 million tons of domestic trade was 
 generated in 1976 (4). As illustrated in Figure II-l, approximately 
 49 percent of the domestic trade was bulk liquid cargo as is being con- 
 sidered under this portion of the Title XI program. The volumes and 
 statistics of the domestic waterborne trade are collected and compiled 
 annually by the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers. The product 
 classifications or groups considered under this action are the transport 
 of crude petroleum, chemicals and allied products. The amount of Title 
 XI financing contributed for bulk liquid carriers and their principal 
 routes is indicated in Section C. 
 
 Domestic trade routes can be conveniently divided into: (1) the 
 domestic ocean trade routes; (2) domestic inland waterways; and (3) the 
 Great Lakes System. The amount of domestic trade in 1976 was approxi- 
 mately 233 million tons (24%) on the domestic oceans, 605 million tons 
 (62%) on the inland waterways and 140 million tons (14%) on the Great 
 Lakes (5). 
 
 2-10 
 
Table 11-2 
 NET TOTAL WATERBORNE COMMERCE 
 OF THE UNITED STATES, CALENDAR YEARS 1947- 
 (in tons of 2,000 pounds) 
 
 YEAR 
 
 FOREIGN AND 
 DOMESTIC TOTAL 
 
 FOREIGN 
 TOTAL 
 
 DOMESTIC 
 TOTAL 
 
 1947 
 
 766,816,730 
 
 188,256,115 
 
 578,560.615 
 
 1948 
 
 793,200,465 
 
 162,971,591 
 
 630,228,874 
 
 1949 
 
 740,720,971 
 
 165,358,281 
 
 575,362,690 
 
 1950 
 
 820.583,571 
 
 169,224,695 
 
 651,358,876 
 
 1951 
 
 924,128,411 
 
 232,055,832 
 
 692,072,579 
 
 1952 
 
 887.721,984 
 
 227,326,277 
 
 660,395,707 
 
 1953 
 
 923,547,693 
 
 217,396,489 
 
 706.151,204 
 
 1954 
 
 867,640,207 
 
 213,844,290 
 
 653,795,917 
 
 1955 
 
 1,016,135,785 
 
 271,102.932 
 
 745.032.853 
 
 1956 
 
 1,092,912,924 
 
 326.689.789 
 
 766,223,135 
 
 1957 
 
 1,131,401,434 
 
 358,539,550 
 
 772.861,884 
 
 1958 
 
 1,004,515,776 
 
 308,850.798 
 
 695,664,978 
 
 1959 
 
 1,052,402,102 
 
 325,669,939 
 
 726,732,163 
 
 1960 
 
 1,099,850/431 
 
 339,277,275 
 
 760,573,156 
 
 1961 
 
 1,062,155,182 
 
 329.329,818 
 
 732.825,364 
 
 1962 
 
 1,129,404,375 
 
 358.599,030 
 
 770,805,345 
 
 1963 
 
 1,173,766,964 
 
 385,658,999 
 
 788,107,965 
 
 1964 
 
 1,238,093,573 
 
 421,925,133 
 
 816.168,440 
 
 1965 
 
 1,272,896,243 
 
 443,726.809 
 
 829,169,434 
 
 1966 
 
 1,334,116,078 
 
 471,391,083 
 
 862,724,995 
 
 1967 
 
 1,336,606,078 
 
 465,972,238 
 
 870,633,840 
 
 1968 
 
 1,395,839,450 
 
 507,950.002 
 
 887.889,448 
 
 1969 
 
 1,448,711,541 
 
 521,312,362 
 
 927,399,179 
 
 1970 
 
 1,531,696,507 
 
 580,969,133 
 
 950,727,374 
 
 1971 
 
 1,512,583,690 
 
 565.985,584 
 
 946,593,106 
 
 1972 
 
 1.616,792,605 
 
 629.980.844 
 
 986.81 1,761 
 
 1973 
 
 1,761,552,010 
 
 767,393.903 
 
 994.158,107 
 
 1974 
 
 1,746,788,544 
 
 764.088,905 
 
 982,699,639 
 
 1975 
 
 1,695,034,368 
 
 748,707,407 
 
 946,326,959 
 
 1976 
 
 1.835.006,819 
 
 855,963,909 
 
 979.042,910 
 
 2-11 
 
IRON ORE AND IRON 
 AND STEEL 
 
 8.4% 
 
 Figure 11-1 DOMESTIC WATERBORNE COMMERCE (1976) 
 
 SOURCE: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1976 
 
 2-12 
 
5. DOMESTIC OCEAN TRADE 
 
 The domestic ocean trade may, for convenience of analysis, be divided 
 into four segments— contiguous trade (coastwise and intercoastal ), Puerto 
 Rican trade, Hawaiian trade, and Alaskan trade — comprising some 16 trade 
 lanes. These lanes are illustrated in Figure II-2. Table 1 1-3 shows the 
 number and area of employment of self-propelled tank vessels engaged in 
 domestic ocean trade at one instant; allocations change frequently. In 
 addition, there are nearly 600 tank barges engaged in that trade. 
 
 In 1976, approximately 76 percent of the domestic ocean trade was in 
 the contiguous routes with the non-contiguous trade between the United 
 States mainland and Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii accounting for the re- 
 maining 24 percent. Of the 233 million tons of domestic ocean trade dur- 
 ing 1976, gasoline, crude petroleum, distillate fuel, residual fuel and 
 jet fuel accounted for 77 percent of the principal commodities carried. 
 The remaining 23 percent is distributed among basic chemicals and other 
 commodities. 
 
 Of the 207 million short tons of bulk liquid cargo transported by 
 tanker and tank barge in domestic ocean trade, approximately 77 percent 
 were transported by tanker and 23 percent by tank barge. These values 
 have changed since 1976 with the advent of the crude oil transport from 
 Valdez, Alaska to the Lower 48 States along Routes 1 and 10 illustrated 
 in Figure 1 1 -2. 
 
 Preliminary data for the period August 1977 through July 1978 
 indicates an average daily movement from Valdez of about 130,000 short 
 tons, about one-third of which moved through the Panama Canal. 
 
 2-13 
 
St" SIS 
 
 lllt=!K 
 
 u. It K < <w-*i 
 
 OOOiOl ** 
 O O O - Ot 
 
Table 11-3 
 SUMMARY OF AREA OF EMPLOYMENT FOR 
 
 TANKSHIPS IN DOMESTIC OCEAN TRADE* 
 
 AREA 
 
 NUMBER OF SHIPS 
 
 ATLANTIC COAST 
 
 45 
 
 GULF COAST 
 
 38 
 
 PACIFIC COAST 
 
 28 
 
 INTERCOASTAL 
 
 26 
 
 ALASKA 
 
 32 
 
 HAWAII 
 
 2 
 
 PUERTO RICO 
 
 7 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 178 
 
 * AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1978. 
 
 SOURCE: Maritime Administratio 
 
 February 1978. 
 
 2-15 
 
a. CONTIGUOUS TRADE 
 
 The most significant restriction on modal capability for contiguous 
 tanker traffic is the depth of harbors and channels at mainland U.S. 
 ports. The "average" tanker size for the contiguous trade is about 
 35,000 deadweight tons with sizes ranging from 10,000 to 70,000 tons. 
 The "average" tank barge is approximately 3,500 deadweight tons, with 
 sizes ranging from less than 1,000 tons to more than 40,000 tons. Based 
 on cargo size alone, larger tankers are more economical even for the 
 relatively short hauls in contiguous trade. Table I 1-4 shows the maxi- 
 mum permissible vessel size (when fully loaded) that can enter some sel- 
 ected U.S. coastal ports. 
 
 Table 1 1-4 indicates existing U.S. ports are limited by controlling 
 depths, which constrain the deadweight tonnage of tankers operating in 
 domestic ocean trade. The table indicates most U.S. ports are limited 
 to vessels under 50,000 DWT, with a very limited number of ports being 
 able to accommodate tankers above 150,000 deadweight tons. The extreme 
 northern and southern ports of the Pacific Coast are the only ones having 
 enough depth to accommodate large vessels in the 150,000 to 250,000 DWT 
 range. 
 
 Other physical factors that may dictate the future flow patterns of 
 the contiguous trades are the development of offshore deepwater ports and 
 Alaskan oil reserves. The impact of Alaskan oil development is discussed 
 later in this chapter. With regard to deepwater ports, the number and 
 location of these ports and the mode of transshipment may influence the 
 number, size and type of vessels needed to handle the movement of crude 
 oil. 
 
 The total 1976 tonnage for the contiguous domestic ocean trades, 
 coastwise and intercoastal, was 173.9 million short tons. On the East 
 Coast, it amounted to 49.2 million tons, with dry cargo carryings of 
 5.2 million (11%) and liquid cargo of 44.0 million (89%). Principal 
 commodities transported in the East Coast trade were gasoline (16.4 
 million tons), distillate fuel oil (12.4 million tons) and residual fuel 
 oil (10.2 million tons). These three commodities accounted for 39.0 
 million tons or 79 percent of the total for this trade area. 
 
Table II- 4 
 CONTROLLING DEPTH AND MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE 
 SIZE VESSELS FOR SOME CONTIGUOUS PORTS 
 
 PORT OR HARBOR AREA 
 
 CONTROLLING 
 DEPTH 
 (FEET) 
 
 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM 
 
 PERMISSIBLE VESSEL 
 
 SIZE WHEN FULLY 
 
 LOADED 
 
 (DWT) 
 
 EAST COAST 
 
 DELAWARE RIVER PORTS 
 HAMPTON ROADS, VA 
 NEW YORK, NY 
 PORTLAND, ME 
 BALTIMORE, MD 
 BOSTON, MA 
 
 40 
 45 
 35 
 45 
 42 
 40 
 
 53,000 
 80,000 
 40,000 
 80,000 
 53,000 
 40,000 
 
 GULF COAST 
 
 NEW ORLEANS, LA 
 TAMPA, FL 
 BATON ROUGE, LA 
 MOBILE, AL 
 CORPUS CHRISTI.TX 
 HOUSTON, TX 
 BROWNSVILLE, TX 
 PASCAGOULA, MS 
 
 40 
 34 
 40 
 40 
 45 
 40 
 36 
 38 
 
 50,000 
 35,000 
 50,000 
 45,000 
 50,000 
 50,000 
 30,000 
 35.000 
 
 PACIFIC COAST 
 
 LONG BEACH, CA 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CA 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO BAY PORTS 
 
 PUGET SOUND, WA 
 
 52 
 51 
 35 
 73 
 
 150,000 
 150,000 
 40,000 
 250,000 
 
 SOURCE: US — 124, Shipping Data, Waterborne: U.S. Department of Commer 
 Maritime Administration Tanker Construction Program, Final EIS 
 AN 73-0725-F, Washington, D.C. 
 
 2-17 
 
Within the Gulf Coast area, total 1976 tonnage was 28.9 million tons, 
 with dry cargo of 10.6 million (37%) and liquid cargo of 18.3 million 
 (63%). Principal liquids moving were gasoline (6.0 million tons), resid- 
 ual fuel oil (2.3 million tons) and crude oil (1.7 million tons). Together 
 they represented 13.9 million tons or 48 percent of total cargo movements 
 for the intra-Gulf trade area. 
 
 The coastwise trade between the Gulf and East Coasts amounted to 65.5 
 million tons in 1976. Dry cargo carriage was 1.1 million tons (2%) while 
 liquid cargo accounted for most of the tonnage, 64.4 million tons (98%). 
 Four commodities dominated— gasoline (19.0 million tons), distillate fuel 
 oil (17.9 million tons), residual fuel oil (10.0 million tons), and crude 
 petroleum (3.0 million tons). These four amounted to 49.9 million tons 
 or 76 percent of total tonnage in the trade. 
 
 In the West Coast trade, total tonnage in 1976 was 29.1 million tons 
 with dry cargo accounting for 0.9 million tons and liquid cargo of 28.2 
 million tons. The bulk of the tonnage consisted of four commodities, 
 gasoline (4.2 million tons), distillate fuel oil (5.0 million tons), 
 residual fuel oil (7.6 million tons), and crude petroleum (9.2 million 
 tons). These four commodities made up 26 million tons or 89 percent of 
 total West Coast carriage. 
 
 Intercoastal trade amounted to 1.2 million tons in 1976, 0.8 million 
 tons westbound and 0.4 million tons eastbound. Gasoline (0.3 million tons) 
 and residual fuel oil (0.8 million tons) made up the bulk of the total 
 commodity movement in the intercoastal trade. 
 
 b. PUERTO RICAN TRADE 
 
 In 1976, approximately 40 million short tons of cargo were transported 
 in the Puerto Rican trade (5). Virgin Islands trade is included in this 
 figure although this territory is not subject to the Jones Act. The 
 principal bulk liquid commodities transported are residual fuel oil, 
 
naphtha, distil late fuel oil, crude petroleum, gasoline, kerosene and 
 chemicals. The total domestic bulk liquid cargo tonnage shipped and 
 received by Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, respectively, in tank 
 vessels in 1976 amounted to 12 and 24 million tons. 
 
 c. HAWAIIAN TRADE 
 
 More than 9 million short tons of cargo were transported in the 
 Hawaiian trade during 1976 (5). Tank barge traffic was entirely intra- 
 state and amounted to nearly 400,000 tons. Bulk liquids shipped to and 
 from Hawaii amounted to nearly 2.8 million tons, 1.3 million shipped and 
 1.5 million received. Commodities transported in Hawaiian trade are re- 
 sidual fuel oil, gasoline, distillate fuel oil, kerosene, molasses and 
 naphtha. 
 
 d. ALASKAN TRADE 
 
 In 1976, more than 15.4 million tons of cargo were transported in 
 the Alaskan trade (5). The principal bulk liquid commodities transported 
 were distillate fuel oil, jet fuel oil, gasoline, crude petroleum, re- 
 sidual fuel oil and chemicals. About 9.8 million tons of bulk liquids 
 were shipped and 3.1 million tons received. On the average, over 19,000 
 tons per day of crude petroleum were shipped from Alaska in 1976, none of 
 which were from the North Slope oil fields. The Alaskan pipeline, which 
 came on stream in 1977, created a substantial increase in crude oil trans- 
 portation, as well as an increase in tanker tonnage. The Alaskan pipeline 
 began operation in the third quarter of 1977 at a flow rate of approxi- 
 mately 80,000 tons per day. During 1978, this throughput increased to 
 about 160,000 tons per day and in the early 1980s, with the addition of 
 several more pumping stations, the line may carry its full capacity of 
 approximately 307,000 tons per day. The tanker demand of West Coast ports 
 for the Alaskan trade and the distribution of ship size as a function of 
 pipeline flow rate are shown in Tables 1 1- 5 and II-6, respectively. 
 
 The size of the tankers for Alaskan trade is in the 37,000 to 265,000 
 DWT range with the average tanker size being 100,000 DWT. Of the 18 tankers 
 
Table 11-5 
 
 TANKER DEMAND FOR ALASKAN OIL TRADE 
 
 120,000 DWT SHIPS ONLY 
 
 PORT 
 
 1977 
 .815 MMB/D 
 
 1978 
 
 1.420 MMB/D 
 
 1980 
 2.241 MMB/D 
 (NO SURPLUS) 
 
 1980 
 
 2.241 MMB/D 
 
 (.5 MMB/D SURPLUS PIPELINE 
 
 FROM LONG BEACH) 
 
 PUG ET SOUND 
 SAN FRANCISCO 
 LONG BEACH 
 
 1.49 
 4.92 
 6.37 
 
 2.59 
 8.57 
 11.08 
 
 4.10 
 13.52 
 17.50 
 
 3.18 
 10.50 
 22.27 
 
 TOTAL NUMBER 
 OF VESSELS 
 
 12.78 
 
 22.24 
 
 35.12 
 
 35.95 
 
 TOTAL DWT 
 (THOUSAND) 
 
 1,534 
 
 2,669 
 
 4,214 
 
 4,314 
 
 Table 1 1 -6 
 
 FORECAST OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHIPS BY SIZE IN VALDEZ- 
 
 WEST COAST SERVICE 
 
 PHASE 
 
 PIPELINE 
 
 FLOW RATE 
 
 (M BPD) 
 
 SHIP SIZE (MDWT) 
 
 150 
 
 130 
 
 120 
 
 90 
 
 80 
 
 75 
 
 70 
 
 60 
 
 45 
 
 II 
 III 
 
 600 
 1,200 
 2,000 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 16 
 
 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 SOURCE: Criteria and Design Bases Appendices, Alyeska I 
 Houston, Texas, April 1974. Summary Report, 
 Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, 
 
 Appendix E of E-3.1016 
 
 2-20 
 
listed in Table II-7, 13 tankers have collision avoidance systems and 
 LORAN C, 11 tankers have IMCO segregated ballast, 4 tankers have defen- 
 sive spaces, 12 tankers have inert gas systems, 4 tankers have double 
 bottoms and 3 tankers have a double hull design. 
 
 e. TYPICAL VESSELS OF THE DOMESTIC OCEAN TRADE 
 
 Typical vessels employed in domestic ocean trade for the shipment 
 of bulk liquid cargoes consist of self-propelled tankers and oceangoing 
 barges using either the conventional or the integrated tow system. 
 
 The self-propelled tanker is generally larger, faster, and more 
 expensive than a comparable barge system. For economical operation of 
 these vessels the tanker port time has to be minimized and the number of 
 revenue ton-miles maximized. More than 80 percent of the bulk liquid 
 commodities, petroleum in particular, are transported in self-propelled 
 tankers. Figure I 1-3 illustrates one of the large new self-propelled 
 tankers of 70,000 DWT capacity designed to transport Alaskan crude oil. 
 
 There are only a few chemical tankers employed in the domestic trade. 
 Most of the chemical cargo transported in domestic trade is by barge. 
 The chemical tankers are designed to meet the U.S. Coast Guard Dangerous 
 Cargo regulations and the Bulk Chemical Code developed by the Intergovern- 
 mental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). The Code categorizes 
 the chemicals by the degree of hazard they present to the environment and 
 corresponding ship designs are specified to minimize damage and to contain 
 the cargo in the event there is a vessel casualty. 
 
 Currently there is no domestic trade in liquefied natural gas and 
 only a small amount of domestic trade in liquefied propane and butane 
 gases. The method of transportation to be used to bring the North Slope 
 gas to the Lower 48 States was determined to be by pipeline across Canada 
 to the central United States (6,7). However, new gas supplies from the 
 National Petroleum Reserve number four in the north and potential gas fields 
 in other parts of Alaska will present opportunities for the transport of LNG 
 by domestic tankers. Studies are now in progress to investigate alternate 
 
 2-21 
 
H 2 
 < ^ 
 
 HI LU 
 U- O 
 
 1 g2 
 
 ■S ujI- 
 
 1=6-8 
 
 £ o 
 
 zu e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ° z ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !ofe 
 
 1 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 j5>; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o> w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ecu 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S3 
 
 , 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 , 
 
 X 
 
 , 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 Zl! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 \- 
 
 1- 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _|S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 §i 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 I 
 
 m*- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 i § 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 Q 
 
 
 O 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 Q 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K 1- 
 
 , 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 , 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 , 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 i 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 §uj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -cc< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cc»- 
 
 R 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 a> 
 
 2 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 O) 
 
 0) 
 
 S) 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 S; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 (0 
 
 
 
 O) 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 < 
 
 (9 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 EC 
 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 < 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 (9 
 < 
 
 I 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 Z 
 3 
 
 cc 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 s 
 
 z 
 
 O 
 
 I 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 z 
 I 
 < 
 3 
 
 Z 
 3 
 
 S 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 cc 
 
 z 
 
 3 
 
 i 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 | 
 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 cc 
 
 S3 
 
 § 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 =! 
 
 13 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 ifl 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 3 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 DO 
 
 * 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 c/> 
 
 H 
 
 h 
 
 H 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 oi 
 
 W 
 
 * 
 
 in 
 
 10 
 
 * 
 
 CO 
 
 oS 
 
 ° 
 
 £ 
 
 Si 
 
 5 
 
 s 
 
 £ 
 
 s 
 
 E 
 
 S 
 
 I I 
 
 2-22 
 
2-23 
 
shipping routes of LN6 from Alaska. It would be expected that the current 
 LNG and LPG vessels which are engaged in foreign trade, or a similar vessel 
 design, would be developed for this trade. Figure 1 1 -4 illustrates a 
 cryogenic tanker designed to transport liquefied natural gas at a temper- 
 ature of minus 260°F. 
 
 The integrated tug-barge system is employed quite frequently in the 
 domestic ocean trade. The operation of an integrated tug-barge differs 
 from that of a conventional tug-barge system. The conventional barge is 
 towed behind a tugboat with a hawser and the integrated system requires 
 the tug and barge to be mechanically connected. The integrated system 
 as illustrated in Figure I 1-5 permits a number of barges of differing 
 sizes and geometries to be built, the only requirement being the tug and 
 barge have a compatible hull design. With this design the integrated 
 tug-barge acts as a ship and is able to safely handle heavy seas. The 
 conventional barge system must be towed by hawser in heavy seas, a less 
 efficient and sometimes dangerous operation. 
 
 While integrated barges and tugs are not intended to be separated 
 at sea, except in an emergency, each is seaworthy and certified for un- 
 restricted ocean service. With this design, if the barge were to be 
 threatened by sinking or fire, the tug could be saved by remote control 
 uncoupling. 
 
 Although an integrated tug-barge could be used for any service, its 
 principal application has been for coastwise petroleum trade. The 
 typical barge hull has a ship type bow, a sloping stern, and is sub- 
 divided into four separate cargo parcels containing three tanks each. 
 Maneuvering is aided by a transverse lateral bow thruster. The barge is 
 constructed for unrestricted ocean and coastwise service and is designed 
 to compete with small tankers, both being in the 35,000 to 42,000 dead- 
 weight range. It is generally a single skinned conventionally designed 
 hull without segregated ballast capacity except the peak tanks. 
 
 Technically, vessel maneuverability is the only distinguishable 
 difference between the tanker and integrated tug- barge with regard to 
 potential environmental effects. All of the integrated tug-barge units 
 
 2-24 
 
2-25 
 
B 
 
 Ml 
 
 H^HEEEHl id — ii I 
 
 PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 LENCTH OVERALL 5: 
 
 BEAM, MOLOED 
 
 DEPTH. MOLDED TO UPPER U 
 
 DEPTH. MOLOED TO MAIN OK 
 
 DRAFT. MAX.. AT ASSIGNED FREEDROARD. . . 
 DISPLACEMENT AT MAX.ORAFT (MOLDED)... 
 
 TYPICAL INTEGRATED TUG-BARGE CHARACTERISTICS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 
 
 
 TUG 
 
 BARGE 
 
 COMBINATION 
 
 LOA 
 
 156' -6" 
 
 532' - 0" 
 
 620' - 6" 
 
 BEAM 
 
 46' - 0" 
 
 87' - 0" 
 
 
 DEPTH 
 
 33' - 4" 
 
 46' - 4" 
 
 
 DRAFT 
 
 29' - 3" 
 
 37' - 5" 
 
 
 LIGHTSHIP 
 
 1,250 1. 1. 
 
 5,800 l.t. 
 
 7,050 l.t. 
 
 DEADWEIGHT 
 
 
 36,500 l.t. 
 
 36,530 l.t. 
 
 FULL LOAD DISPLACEMENT 
 
 
 
 
 TYPE OF PROPULSION 
 
 TWIN SCREW DIESEL 
 
 
 
 SHP 
 
 11,000 
 
 
 
 SPEED 
 
 
 
 14 KNOTS 
 
 Figure 1 1-5 INTEGRATED TUG-BARGE SYSTEM 
 
 SOURCE: Mariti 
 
 2-26 
 
in service or under construction are of twin-screw design, which offers 
 better maneuverability per unit of horsepower than the single-screw design 
 typical of tankers. Given similar features such as power, number of screws 
 and thrusters, the maneuverability, stopping distance, controllability and 
 other parameters are virtually unchanged from conventional ships of similar 
 size. In such a case, there would be no significant environmental differ- 
 ences between these competitive systems. 
 
 5. INLAND WATERWAYS TRADE (3,4,5) 
 
 a. THE SYSTEM 
 
 The inland waterways system, the major artery of which is the 
 Mississippi River and its tributaries, is a network of over 25,000 miles 
 of navigable waters, as illustrated in Figure 1 1-6. 
 
 Part of this overall system is the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway which 
 is linked directly to the Mississippi River and extends eastward 1,800 
 miles from Brownsville, Texas to St. Marks, Florida. 
 
 Other navigable inland waterways include the Atlantic Intracoastal 
 Waterway, the Hudson River/New York State Barge Canal and the Columbia/ 
 Snake/Sacramento Rivers. 
 
 Table I 1-8 summarizes the navigable lengths and depths of the inland 
 waterway network. 
 
 Many of the waterways were made navigable by the construction of a 
 system of locks and dams, of which there are approximately 150. Over 
 60 percent of the channels are maintained at a 9- foot level although 
 waterways with less than a 9-foot channel are navigable. 
 
 The inland waterway towing industry is made up of over 1 ,80*> 
 companies who operate 4,000 towboats and tugboats, more than 23,000 
 dry cargo barges and 3,600 tank barges. Total tank barge capacity 
 exceeds 8.5 million net tons. 
 
1 * 
 
 s < 
 
 81 
 
 2-28 
 
la. 
 I-uj 
 u.Q 
 OQ 
 COZ 
 
 u 
 
 CH- 
 iu (j 
 HZ 
 
 < HI 
 
 J._i m 
 
 *<% 
 -S C5 I— 
 
 < CO 
 
 5* 
 
 LU £ 
 
 I< 
 
 SO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *5s& 
 
 s 
 
 * 
 
 2 
 
 * 
 
 n 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 °' 
 
 o 
 
 
 U H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 SJ 
 
 t 
 
 S 
 
 in 
 
 1 
 
 en 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 " 
 
 
 <» 
 
 
 CO" 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 < 
 
 K 
 
 
 8 
 
 ' 
 
 E 
 
 ' 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 - 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 OH 
 
 8 
 
 S 
 
 0> 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 CO 
 
 «- 
 
 g 
 
 
 2? 
 
 O) 
 
 £ 
 
 
 £ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 °t 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 8 
 
 i 
 
 K 
 
 M 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 » 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 *~ 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 ID 
 
 
 OH 
 HU- 
 
 5 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 en 
 
 | 
 
 3 
 
 - 
 
 (0 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 °t 
 
 (O 
 
 1 
 
 in 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 tp 
 
 CM 
 
 
 ll 
 
 3 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 o 
 
 R 
 
 *■ 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !i 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 2 
 
 o 
 
 
 I "5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -.£ 
 
 oc 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 H 5 
 OO 
 HOC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 § ■§ 
 
 z 
 
 2 
 
 JS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <~ 
 
 2 
 o 
 oc 
 
 £ 
 
 *! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 oc< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2s 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 O 
 oc 
 o 
 
 g2 E 
 
 H 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 if 
 
 M 
 
 s 
 
 < 
 s 
 
 oc 
 
 1 
 
 H 
 < 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ">& 
 
 fc is 
 
 < z a 
 
 8 |s 
 
 ill 
 
 < 
 
 to 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 2j 
 
 OC U. 
 
 > 
 < 
 S 
 oc 
 
 s 
 
 < 
 o 
 o 
 
 if 
 
 H » 
 
 II 
 
 o^ 
 
 I 
 
 oc 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 1 
 
 (0 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 S 
 oc 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 oc 
 
 X 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 
 < c" 
 
 < ^ 
 
 
 u.O 
 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 _i »■* 
 
 
 
 -ICC 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 h| o 
 
 HO 
 
 3 
 
 OO 
 
 
 < 
 
 oc 
 
 
 oc 
 
 
 
 <S> 
 
 <H 
 
 o 
 
 urn 
 
 2 
 
 
 (9 
 
 < 
 
 (J 
 
 I 2 
 
 ° 5 § -8 
 
 hi *< 
 
 §2.1 £2 
 
 S 2 s i £ i 
 
 • H 8 f 
 
 ill 1| | 
 
 II! li 
 
 »l| 
 
 IS s 
 
 2-29 
 
In 1976, total tonnage carried on the Inland waterways exceeded 
 607.7 million tons and over 267 billion ton-miles, with bulk liquid 
 commodities responsible for 40 percent of the total. Major bulk liquid 
 commodities include residual fuel, crude petroleum, distillate fuel oil, 
 gasoline, alcohols, jet fuel, kerosene, lubricating oils and greases, 
 vegetable oils and liquid chemicals. 
 
 b. TANK BARGES IN THE INLAND WATERWAYS TRADE (8) 
 
 The majority of cargo in the inland waterways trade is carried in 
 non-self-propelled vessels (i.e., unmanned barges). Barges are lashed 
 together to form a tow and are generally pushed by towboats, as illus- 
 trated in Figure 1 1-7. The type of service, channel constraints and 
 lock dimensions dictate the size of a given tow. For example, an average 
 tow on the Ohio River, a locking river, is 14 barges, while on the Lower 
 Mississippi, which has no locks, tows of 40 barges are not uncommon. 
 
 There are three basic tank barge sizes as indicated in Figure I 1-8. 
 Tank barges are also distinctive by type. Single-skin tank barges have 
 bow and stern compartments separated from the midship by transverse 
 collision bulkheads. The entire midship shell is the cargo tank and is 
 divided by bulkheads. Double-skin tank barges have both an inner and 
 outer shell. This configuration contributes added protection in the 
 transport of hazardous materials. A third type of tank barge is the 
 specifically constructed barge for the purpose of transporting liquids 
 under pressure. Cylindrical tanks can be mounted in open hopper barges, 
 thus permitting free expansion or contraction independent of the hull 
 structure. 
 
 6. GREAT LAKES TRADE (THE SEAWAY SYSTEM) (3,6) 
 
 a. GENERAL 
 
 The Great Lakes Seaway System, as illustrated in Figure 1 1-9, 
 extends 2,342 miles from the Atlantic Ocean to mid-continent serving 
 many of the key industrial centers of mid-America, including Cleveland, 
 Detroit, and Chicago. The Seaway System connects with the inland waterway 
 
I- 5 
 
 < ^ 
 
 5 ui 
 
 2-31 
 
TANK BARGE SIZES AND CAPACITIES 
 
 LENGTH 
 FEET 
 
 BREADTH 
 FEET 
 
 DRAFT 
 FEET 
 
 CAPACITY 
 TONS 
 
 CAPACITY 
 GALLONS* 
 
 175 
 195 
 290 
 
 26 
 35 
 50 
 
 9 
 9 
 9 
 
 1,000 
 1,500 
 3,000 
 
 302,000 
 454,000 
 907,200 
 
 * Based on an average of 7.2 barrels per ton and 42 gallons per barrel. 
 
 (NOTE THE GIANT INDEPENDENT CYLINDRICAL TANKS) 
 
 Figure II— 8 SPECIAL RIVER BARGES FOR TRANSPORT OF LIQUID CHEMICALS 
 
 SOURCE: Adapted fi 
 
 2-32 
 
system at three points: with the New York State Barge Canal in upper 
 New York State at Buffalo; into Lake Erie and through the Oswego Canal 
 into Lake Ontario; and with the Illinois Waterway at the tip of Lake 
 Michigan in Chicago's Calumet Harbor. As can be seen in Figure I 1-9, 
 the largest freight throughput occurs on Lakes Huron and Superior; 
 however, the largest freight traffic tonnage per port occurs at Chicago 
 and Duluth which are located at the extremities of Lake Michigan and 
 Lake Superior, respectively. 
 
 The Great Lakes Seaway System has a number of navigational limita- 
 tions and restrictions on its use as a transportation artery. A major 
 physical disadvantage of the Great Lakes System is that it requires a 
 circuitous route between many of the major lakeside centers of economic 
 activity. The added extra travel distances and the winter ice shutdown 
 have tended to discourage increased waterway utilization. In addition, 
 vessel navigation is hampered by high wave action and water level fluctua- 
 tions causing draft problems in interconnecting canals. 
 
 The impact of water levels on available vessel draft is a significant 
 factor in vessel transport costs. Available drafts on the Great Lakes 
 are affected in two ways. First, there is a natural fluctuation on the 
 level of the Great Lakes themselves which will impact on the water levels 
 in connecting waterways. During the years 1962 to 1968, water levels 
 varied as much as 3.55 feet in Lake Superior and 5.76 feet in Lakes Michigan 
 and Huron: Second, the level to which interconnecting channels are dredged 
 has a direct impact on available vessel draft. Due to the rougher water 
 conditions encountered in the Great Lakes, the typical inland waterway 
 barge is not suited to operation on the Great Lakes. Even lake-worthy 
 barges cannot typically be operated in lengthy tows such as found on the 
 Mississippi River because the wave action of the Lakes will break the 
 tow apart. Consequently, barging operations of the Great Lakes are lim- 
 ited to one or two barges being pushed or towed. 
 
 2-33 
 
It 
 
 go 
 
 3 £ 
 
 II 
 
 tt 1=5 
 
 £ o 
 
 3 x 
 
 .T 2 
 
 2-34 
 
Since the major oil distribution to mid-America is from the south, 
 there are no primary markets for the domestic movement of crude petroleum 
 and natural gas on the Great Lakes System and only a limited demand for 
 refined products movement. Consequently, bulk liquid transport comprised 
 only 5 percent of the total 1976 Great Lakes domestic cargo tonnage of 
 140.3 million short tons, with 7.1 million tons being handled. Principal 
 bulk liquid commodities moved were residual fuel oil (2.5 million tons), 
 distillate fuel oil (2.1 million tons) and gasoline (1.5 million tons). 
 
 b. TYPICAL VESSELS OF THE GREAT LAKES TRADE 
 
 Tankships employed in the Great Lakes domestic trade are roughly 
 comparable to those employed in domestic ocean service except that they 
 are generally smaller (3,000-9,000 DWT) and, unless originally constructed 
 for ocean service, are built to the less rigorous classification standards 
 applicable to Great Lakes service. Tank barges may resemble those used 
 in either ocean or inland service as to size and, again, unless built as 
 oceangoing barges, are built to Great Lakes classification standards. 
 
 The U.S. Great Lakes fleet consists primarily of dry cargo bulk 
 carriers, with tankers playing a decreasing role as more petroleum products 
 are moved by pipeline. Table I I -9 shows the decline in the number of 
 tankers and the increase in utilization of tank barges in Great Lakes 
 domestic waterborne commerce during the years 1972 through 1976. It 
 should be noted that dry cargo vessel shipments exceeded 90 percent of 
 the total Great Lakes domestic waterborne commerce during this period. 
 
 C. DOMESTIC TANKERS AND TANK BARGES AS PART OF THE TITLE XI PROGRAM 
 
 1. TANKERS (OIL AND CHEMICAL) 
 
 Tank vessels engaged in the domestic trade play a vital role in the 
 United States economy as well as in the defense of the country in time of 
 war. In the past 50 years domestic U.S. shipping has produced enormous 
 economic benefits for the nation due to the employment within the shipping 
 and allied industries, the taxes, balance of payments benefits, and the 
 transportation services rendered. 
 
 2-35 
 
*1 
 
 UJ S 
 
 at 
 
 HI o 
 
 i & 
 
 ii 
 
 o g 
 
 z! 
 
 I O c 
 
 - £Q 10 
 
 a> CC g 
 
 H St 
 5 o 
 
 P£ 
 
 w o 
 
 Hi u> 
 
 S? 
 
 §| 
 
 £2 1 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 5? S? S? S? 
 
 s — — — 
 
 1 
 
 129,227 
 4,147 
 3,937 
 3,002 
 
 § 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 (93% 
 (3% 
 (2% 
 (2% 
 
 ss 
 
 127,420 
 4,400 
 2,742 
 2,526 
 
 o 
 
 S; 
 
 
 
 (94% 
 (3% 
 (1% 
 (1% 
 
 | 
 
 145,983 
 5,139 
 2.021 
 2,141 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 (95% 
 (3% 
 ( — 
 (2% 
 
 o 
 
 156,777 
 
 5,627 
 
 347 
 
 2,392 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 (92% 
 (4% 
 (2% 
 (2% 
 
 1 
 
 142,041 
 6,769 
 2,441 
 2,591 
 
 s 
 
 
 DRY CARGO VESSEL 
 TANKER VESSEL 
 DRY CARGO BARGE 
 TANK BARGE 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 t- 
 
 2-36 
 
However, of the domestic tankers currently engaged in domestic trade, 
 only a small percentage receive government aid. As of the end of February 
 1978, there were 178 tankers engaged in domestic ocean trade. Only 10 of 
 these (excluding the tankers chartered to the Military Seal if t Command) 
 were receiving Title XI financial aid. A breakdown of the area of employ- 
 ment of tankers receiving Title XI Government Aid that are eligible for 
 domestic trade is given in Table 11-10. In addition to the 178 tankers 
 which are actively engaged in domestic ocean trade, there was a potential 
 for 37 additional ships. These vessels were laid-up, chartered to Military 
 Sealift Command, under construction, or engaged in the foreign trade, but 
 receiving Title XI funding. Of the 37 it is likely that only the 3 under 
 construction and some percentage of the 21 then in the foreign trade would 
 actually enter the domestic trade. Table 11-11 is a listing of those 
 ships that are eligible to receive Title XI financing. 
 
 2. TANK BARGES (OIL AND CHEMICAL) 
 
 As of the end of June 1977 there were 117 tank barges that were 
 receiving Title XI ship financing guarantees. These barges range in 
 capacity from 10,000 to 100,000 barrels, carry a variety of oil products 
 and chemicals, and vary in design from single skin to double skin, con- 
 ventional and integrated. In addition to these barges being used for 
 the domestic ocean, inland and Great Lakes trades to transport petroleum 
 products and chemicals, there are a number of barges used for refueling 
 larger vessels. Table 11-12 provides a listing of those barges built 
 during the years 1970 through 1977 in the domestic trade that are receiv- 
 ing Title XI financial aid. 
 
 2-37 
 
Table 11-10 
 
 SUMMARY OF TANK VESSELS ELIGIBLE 
 
 FOR DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
 THAT RECEIVE TITLE XI-GOVERNMENT AID 
 
 AREA OF EMPLOYMENT 
 
 NUMBER OF VESSELS 
 
 CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
 INTERCOASTAL 
 GULF COAST 
 ATLANTIC COAST 
 PACIFIC COAST 
 PUERTO RICO 
 
 SUBTOTAL 
 
 3 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 CURRENTLY IN FOREIGN TRADE 
 TIME CHARTERED (EXCLUSIVE OF MSC 
 
 AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION) 
 CHARTERED TO MSC 
 LAID-UP 
 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 
 
 SUBTOTAL 
 
 21 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 37 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 47 
 
 e Administration, February 1978. 
 
 2-38 
 
Table 11-11 
 TITLE XI TANKSHIPS ELIGIBLE FOR DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
 NAME 
 
 NAME 
 
 DWT 
 
 YEAR BUILT 
 
 ALBATROSS TANKER CORP. 
 
 ERNA ELIZABETH 
 
 33,200 
 
 1959 
 
 AMERICAN TRADING CO. 
 
 WASHINGTON TRADER 
 
 41,600 
 
 1959 
 
 ANTIETAM TANKERS, INC. 
 
 COASTAL KANSAS 
 
 37,250 
 
 1958 
 
 COVE TANKERS. INC. 
 
 COVE LEADER 
 
 71,054 
 
 1959 
 
 EAGLE TERMINAL TANKERS 
 
 EAGLE LEADER 
 EAGLE CHARGER 
 
 37,350 
 26,500 
 
 1969 
 1969 
 
 FALCON TANKERS. INC. 
 
 USNS COLUMBIA 
 USNS HUDSON 
 USNSNECHES 
 USNS SUSQUEHANNA 
 
 34,250 
 34,250 
 34,250 
 34,250 
 
 1971 
 1972 
 1971 
 1972 
 
 FREDERICKSBURG SHIPPING CO. 
 
 FREDERICKSBURG 
 
 26.500 
 
 1958 
 
 INTERCONTINENTAL BULK- 
 TANK CORP. 
 
 OVERSEAS ALASKA 
 OVERSEAS ALICE 
 
 62,000 
 37,300 
 
 1968 
 1970 
 
 CHARLES KURZ & CO. 
 
 CHILBAR 
 
 32,000 
 
 1959 
 
 MANHATTAN TANKER CO. 
 
 MANHATTAN 
 
 114,500 
 
 1962 
 
 MONTICELLO TANKER CO. 
 
 MONTICELLO VICTORY 
 
 47,700 
 
 1961 
 
 MONTPELIER TANKER CO. 
 
 MONTPELIER VICTORY 
 
 47,700 
 
 1962 
 
 MOUNT VERNON TANKER CO. 
 
 MOUNT VERNON VICTORY 
 
 47,000 
 
 1961 
 
 MOUNT WASHINGTON 
 TANKER CO. 
 
 MOUNT WASHINGTON 
 
 47,000 
 
 1963 
 
 NEWPORT TANKER CORP. 
 
 ACHILLES 
 
 41,200 
 
 1960 
 
 OGDEN MARINE 
 
 OGDEN CHALLENGER 
 OGDEN CHAMPION 
 
 35.070 
 37,250 
 
 1960 
 1969 
 
 PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS 
 
 PUERTO RICO (LPG) 
 
 34,400 
 
 1971 
 
 QUEENSWAY TANKERS. INC. 
 
 STUYVESANT 
 
 225,000 
 
 1977 
 
 SABINE TOWING AND 
 TRANSPORTATION CO. 
 
 COLORADO 
 
 30,400 
 
 1972 
 
 SHIPCO 2295 INC. 
 
 ATIGUN PASS 
 
 165,000 
 
 1976 
 
 SHIPCO 2296 INC. 
 
 KEYSTONE CANYON 
 
 165,000 
 
 1976 
 
 SHIPCO 2297 INC. 
 
 BROOKS RANGE 
 
 165.000 
 
 1978 
 
 SHIPCO 2298 INC. 
 
 THOMPSON PASS 
 
 165,000 
 
 1978 
 
 SHIPCO 668 INC. 
 
 TONSINA 
 
 118,300 
 
 1977 
 
 SHIPCO 669 INC. 
 
 PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND 
 
 118,300 
 
 1977 
 
 SHIPMOR ASSOCIATES, INC. 
 
 OVERSEAS CHICAGO 
 
 89,700 
 
 1977 
 
 652 LEASING CO. 
 
 SOHIO INTREPID 
 
 80,000 
 
 1971 
 
 653 LEASING CO. 
 
 SOHIO RESOLUTE 
 
 80,000 
 
 1971 
 
 UNITED TANKER CORP. 
 
 METON 
 
 32,000 
 
 1959 
 
 U.S. TRUST CO. OF N.Y. 
 
 AQUILA 
 
 80.000 
 
 1973 
 
 WABASH TRANSPORT, INC. 
 
 OGDEN WABASH 
 
 37.853 
 
 1969 
 
 WILLAMETTE TRANSPORT INC. 
 
 OGDEN WILLAMETTE 
 
 37,853 
 
 1969 
 
 2-39 
 
»5 
 
 OCI- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <d 
 
 o 
 
 *• 
 
 eo 
 
 10 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 t"3 
 
 s 
 
 0> 
 
 O) 
 
 0) 
 
 en 
 
 
 0) 
 
 CO 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 en 
 
 >tn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0. 
 
 to 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 5 
 
 M 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 Of 
 
 (9 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 t 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 Z — 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 §3 
 
 5^ 
 
 -i 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 (3 • 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 Z = 
 
 Z 2 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 K 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 <s 
 
 < g> 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 UJ 
 
 8 
 
 UJ UJ 
 
 85 
 
 ll 
 
 X 
 CJ 
 
 > 
 E 
 
 > 
 E 
 
 8 
 
 OC CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UJ -1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00.. UJ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 CO 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 CM 
 
 *• 
 
 * 
 
 £ 
 
 - 
 
 3 uj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 UL 
 
 i> 
 
 I 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 eo 
 
 3 
 00 CM 
 
 — . com 
 
 O 
 00? 
 ~00 
 
 co — r»- 
 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 UJ 
 
 O 
 
 DC 
 
 < 
 
 m 
 
 
 •■is 
 cji-eo 
 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 z 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 OOOCD 
 
 CMOO 
 
 qOio 
 
 Hi 
 
 CMqCM 
 
 EScmS 
 
 
 32 
 
 coo 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CL 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 hi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 i- 
 
 OC 
 O 
 O 
 
 1- 
 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 a." 
 
 zO 
 
 -ICO 
 
 II 
 
 11 
 
 i- 
 
 i 
 
 z 
 
 
 > 
 Z 
 < 
 a. 
 
 
 oc 
 o 
 
 a.' 
 oc 
 
 cc 
 
 z 
 
 i 
 
 UJ 
 
 a 
 oc 
 
 < 
 en 
 
 i- 
 
 Is 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 o 
 o 
 j 
 5 
 
 z 
 E 
 < 
 s 
 
 -1 
 
 < 
 
 oc 
 
 H 
 Z 
 UJ 
 
 o 
 
 UJ 
 
 C3 
 OC 
 < 
 00 
 
 5 
 
 z 
 z 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 ai- 
 ds 
 i 2 
 I* 
 11 
 
 (9 
 
 Z 
 
 I 
 
 X 
 CO 
 UJ 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 z 
 
 8^ 
 il 
 
 OCH 
 CJCO 
 
 .8 
 
 LU O 
 
 OCZ 
 
 H 
 
 _ W 
 
 
 8> 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 |s 
 
 <o 
 
 O 
 o 
 
 K 
 
 11 
 
 2-40 
 
cch 
 
 oo 
 
 in in in m in 
 
 CO 
 
 cm CM CM 
 
 r» 
 
 CM CM CM CM 
 
 in 
 
 (O 
 
 <- 
 
 ■"» E; 
 
 
 
 
 
 r» r*r<. r* 
 
 
 
 Ul3 
 
 en w 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 O) 
 
 O) 
 
 >co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 11 
 
 3 3 3 2 5 
 
 XI J3 J3 .£) .o 
 
 3 
 
 111 
 
 
 llll 
 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 ss 
 
 ooo oo 
 ooooo 
 
 o 
 
 ooo 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 ooo 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 
 o 
 
 0. 
 
 o o 
 
 ooooo 
 
 o 
 
 ooo 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 
 o 
 
 . < 
 
 do 
 
 in in in in o" 
 
 
 ooo 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO CO 
 
 co co co co to 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 
 
 zzzzz 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 z£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 </> V> V) w 
 
 
 
 > 
 1- 
 
 
 55555 
 ooooo 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 
 
 OOOO 
 
 
 1* 
 
 o 
 
 cccc 
 
 UJ UJ 
 
 zzzzz 
 
 <<<<< 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 cccccc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc cccccc 
 
 UJ UJ UJ UJ 
 
 cc 
 
 12 
 
 oc 
 < 
 
 00 
 
 >> 
 
 ooooo 
 
 UJ 
 
 o 
 
 >>> 
 
 > 
 
 >>>> 
 
 > 
 
 oz 
 
 Ecc 
 
 ooooo 
 
 o 
 
 EEE 
 
 cc 
 
 0.0.0.0. 
 
 E 
 
 o = 
 
 2 i 
 io8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 D W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 in<o r» co 
 
 CO COCO CO 
 
 
 «-CMC0 
 
 ooo 
 
 
 6666 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM CM CM 
 
 
 zzzz 
 
 
 
 
 
 HI- HI- in 
 <<<<tn 
 
 
 odd 
 
 
 UJUJUJUJ 
 
 oooo 
 
 
 r- 
 
 O-i 
 
 ss 
 
 Hl-I-I-*- 
 cc octree^ 
 
 isis§ 
 
 
 zzz 
 
 CO 
 
 cc cccccc 
 <<<< 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 ooo 
 cccccc 
 <<< 
 
 O 
 cc 
 < 
 
 00 00 00 00 
 C/)C/)C/)C/> 
 
 §155 
 
 
 J 
 
 zz 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 zzzz 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 cc 
 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 z 
 E 
 
 is 
 
 o 
 
 k 
 
 cc 
 o 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 </) 
 
 UJ 
 
 z 
 cc 
 < 
 
 z 
 E 
 «d 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 cc 
 
 z 
 
 cc 
 
 00 
 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 2z 
 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 z 
 
 1 
 
 >■ 
 t- 
 o 
 cc 
 
 H 
 
 z 
 
 &i 
 El 
 
 go 
 
 2 
 
 UJ 
 
 I 
 o 
 
 V) 
 
 2 
 
 -j 
 < 
 z 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 <ui 
 
 M 
 
 <UJ 
 
 c/> 
 Q 
 
 cc 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 -J 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 < 
 
 
 Si- 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 Zc/> 
 
 E 
 
 c/j 
 
 2-41 
 
CHAPTER II - REFERENCES FROM TEXT 
 
 1 The Jones Act: Security for the United States and America , prepared 
 by the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department, February 13, 1975. 
 
 2 Economic Significance of the Jones Act , prepared for the Shipbuilders 
 Council of America, Washington, D.C., April 1975. Jacob J. Kaplan 
 Consultant, International Finance and Economics. 
 
 3 Domestic Waterborne Shipping, Market Analysis , prepared by A.T. 
 Kearney Inc., Management Consultants, February 1974. 
 
 4 Waterborne Commerce of the United States , 1976. 
 
 5 Domestic Waterborne Trade of the United States 1972-1976 , U.S. 
 Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C. 
 
 6 Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas , Congress of the United States, 
 Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C, September 1977, p. 7. 
 
 7 Federal Power Commission, Recommendation to the President, Alaskan 
 Natural Gas Transportation~~System (Washington, D.C, Federal Power 
 Commission, May 1, 1977), p. 1-44. 
 
 8 Big Load Afloat , U.S. Domestic Water Transportation Resources. The 
 American Waterways Operators, Inc., 1973. 
 
 9 Joint Marad/USCG Tank Barge Study , October 1974. 
 
 2-42 
 
CHAPTER III 
 DESCRIPTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The marine environment may be grouped into two major domains: the 
 coastal ocean and the open ocean. The coastal ocean includes the waters 
 of the continental shelves, estuaries, and adjacent wetlands and lagoons. 
 The open ocean lies seaward of the continental shelves and is not signifi- 
 cantly affected by continental boundaries or the ocean bottoms. A third 
 aquatic domain is navigable freshwater rivers and lakes. 
 
 A. OPEN OCEAN (1,2) 
 
 Beyond the continental shelves, the open ocean is relatively unaf- 
 fected by the continental boundaries. Over most of the open ocean, warm 
 surface waters are separated from the cooler deep waters by what is known 
 as the pycnocline, a rapid increase in density that more or less sepa- 
 rates surface ocean waters from deeper waters. The deeper waters are 
 known to move sluggishly after forming in the polar regions (primarily 
 the Antarctic) and to return to the surface about 600 to 1,000 years 
 later. 
 
 Away from the continents that interrupt surface water movements, 
 ocean currents are primarily directed east-west. Only in the areas of 
 the continental boundaries are the currents deflected to the north or 
 south forming major boundary currents. Open ocean currents generally 
 move surface waters at speeds of a few miles per day. In the boundary 
 currents such as the Gulf Stream, the waters move at speeds of ten to a 
 hundred miles per day. 
 
 Winds blowing across the ocean set the surface waters in motion. 
 In the open ocean where tidal currents are relatively weak, these wind 
 drift currents account for about 40 percent of the surface currents. 
 
 3-1 
 
1. OCEANIC WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 Due to the major oceanic circulation patterns, oceanic water masses 
 are established possessing similar water quality characteristics. These 
 water masses are established due to the major oceanic circulation pat- 
 terns, as illustrated in Figure III-l. Although these masses are loosely 
 defined, they do afford a method for descriptive analysis since they 
 possess similar water quality as well as major marine specie assemblages. 
 
 As presented in Table III-l, the principal controlling parameter of 
 the water masses is the temperature component. Although salinity, oxygen, 
 and nutrients do vary within the respective masses, the temperature com- 
 ponent has the most significant effect on determining the marine commun- 
 ity distribution within the respective water mass. 
 
 Within the major masses as previously discussed the near shore en- 
 vironment can be significantly modified by coastal features. These 
 smaller environmental and habitat differences produce changes in the 
 marine populations along the east and west coasts. 
 
 B. COASTAL OCEAN (1,2) 
 
 The coastal ocean is the water adjacent to the shore; there the ad- 
 jacent land boundary, freshwater runoff from the land, and local atmos- 
 pheric conditions contribute significantly to the movement and mixing of 
 the waters. The width of the coastal ocean varies, and its outer bound- 
 ary is not well defined. It may be quite narrow along coasts where the 
 continental shelf is narrow and where oceanic conditions and "permanent" 
 currents come close to shore. Conversely, where the continental shelf is 
 wide, the coastal ocean may be tens or even hundreds of miles wide. The 
 coastal ocean does not, however, always coincide with the continental 
 shelf. Where the shelf is very narrow, the coastal ocean may extend beyond 
 the edge of the shelf, or where the shelf is yery wide, the coastal 
 ocean may extend out from shore for only a part of the shelf width. 
 
 Although making up only 12.5 percent of the ocean surface, coastal 
 ocean waters are vitally important. Heavily used for waterborne commerce, 
 
Figure 1 1 1-1 NORTH AMERICAN OCEANIC WATER MASSES 
 
 ADAPTED FROM: Odum, H.T., B.J. Copeland, E.A. McMahan, Coastal 
 Ecological Systems of the United States, The 
 n Foundation, 1974. 
 
 3-3 
 
-Jo 
 
 151 s 
 
 4 g, 
 
 1«1 
 
 
 
 iiiZBCOH «aj j=H a,^ 
 
 3-4 
 
coastal waters are also used for recreational fishing and boating, commer- 
 cial fishing, and waste disposal. Despite these heavy and often conflict- 
 ing uses, coastal waters are still the most productive part of the world 
 ocean; an estimated 90 percent of the world's marine food resources are 
 harvested there. 
 
 The principal ecosystems which could be affected by this program 
 are the coastal waters along the domestic ship routes and navigable 
 inland waterways. Due to the broad scope of the program only general 
 environmental descriptions will be discussed for the principally utilized 
 shipping routes. The principal shipping zones for domestic oceanic trade 
 traverse along the Pacific coast off Alaska, Canada, the Continental 
 U.S. and Mexico; the Carribbean Sea; the Gulf of Mexico; and the U.S. 
 Atlantic Coast. The description of the marine environment is divided 
 into the bathymetric physiographic settings, major circulation patterns, 
 general water mass oceanographic features, major tropic levels and 
 species, commercial species and coastline resources. 
 
 1. MARINE PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES (3,4) 
 
 The submerged nearshore coastal environment along the U.S. domestic 
 oceanic trade routes varies in a similar fashion as its landward com- 
 ponents. These characteristics, as illustrated in Figure 1 1 1-2 and tabu- 
 lated in Table III-l, range from broad continental shelf areas as found 
 surrounding the Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard to the deep trenches im- 
 mediately off the west coast of Central America. The differences in the 
 bathymetric provinces form a significant environmental factor control- 
 ling the marine and estuarine flora and fauna found in the respective 
 regions. The principal features of the physiographic provinces which con- 
 trol the marine communities are the controlling depths and bottom compo- 
 sition of rocks, sand, silts, shells and reefs. These two features inter- 
 act with other oceanographic and environmental parameters to provide habi- 
 tat controls for the marine community development. Although the princi- 
 pal amount of coastwise commerce traverses over the continental shelf 
 area, along the Pacific coast routes, due to the small extent of the shelf 
 area, the continental slope and abyssal plains areas are principally tra- 
 versed. Shipping routes to the Hawaiian Islands traverse the open Paci- 
 fic Ocean for 3,200 miles from the west coast. 
 
 3-5 
 
KEY 
 
 1 
 
 Figure 111-2 BATHYMETRIC PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES 
 
 SOURCE: Adapted from 
 
 3-6 
 
2. MAJOR COASTAL CIRCULATION PATTERNS 
 
 The large scale circulation of water masses surrounding the North 
 American Continent is the major environmental driving force controlling 
 marine assemblages and dynamics. The worldwide circulation and mass 
 
 movements, as illustrated in Figure IT I- 3, within the North American 
 coastal zones are the clockwise north Pacific current in the Pacific 
 Ocean and the north Equatorial and Gulf Stream current in the Caribbean, 
 Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic seaboard. Close to shore these major cur- 
 rents can form counter currents and gyres as the Alaska Gyral in the Gulf 
 of Alaska, Davidson Current off California, and the Middle Atlantic and 
 Carol inean Current off the Atlantic Coast. Each of these currents has 
 differing physical and chemical characteristics which greatly influence 
 marine and estuarine ecosystems (1,2,5). 
 
 Within the immediate coastal zone existing one to five miles offshore, 
 these major circulation patterns and cells become heavily influenced by 
 wind-induced stresses, thermoclines, salinity changes, bottom roughness, 
 freshwater inputs, and tidal and estuarine movements. For any given 
 location along the coasts these variables would control the currents in 
 differing degrees and makes generalizations meaningless. 
 
 Vessels traversing the Pacific coastal routes would be more heavily 
 under the influence of the major water masses whereas the vessels travel- 
 ling along the inshore coastal shelf area off the Gulf and East coasts 
 would likely be under the influence of the major currents as well as the 
 modified current induced by the more prevalent inshore current stresses. 
 
 Coastal ecosystems along the periphery of the North American Conti- 
 nent vary from rocky seafronts to marshland. As illustrated in Figure 
 III-4, the predominant coastal ecosystems are rocky seafronts and high 
 energy sandy beaches. Although the physical appearance of a coastal 
 ecosystem may be similar from one area -of the continent to another, the 
 physical and chemical components of the water mass greatly influence 
 the biographic distributions of the species and organisms. 
 
 3-7 
 
NOTE: RELATIVE CURRENT SPEED IN KNOTS 
 
 tl2 y A _ T OB 1 AL_C^L NT 
 
 Figure III — 3 ANNUAL NET OCEANIC CURRENTS 
 
 SOURCE: Adapted fi 
 
 i, Gordon R., Oceanography, Oxford University Press, 1 
 rup, Johnson and Fleming, Oceans, Prentiss Hall 1942 
 .em Gulf of Alaska, Draft E IS, BLM, 1975. National 
 United States Geological Survey, 1975. 
 
 3-8 
 
^>v 
 
 
 KEY 
 
 
 
 
 3s 
 
 A1 
 
 ROCKY SEAFRONT AND INTERTIDAL ROCKS 
 
 
 A2 
 
 HIGH ENERGY BEACHES 
 
 
 A3 
 
 HIGH VELOCITY SURFACES 
 
 
 A4 
 
 OSCILLATING TEMPERATURE CHANNELS 
 
 
 A5 
 
 SEDIMENTARY DELTAS 
 
 
 A6 
 
 HYPERSALINE LAGOONS 
 
 / " 
 
 A7 
 
 BLUE GREEN ALGAE MATS 
 
 B1 
 
 MANGROVES 
 
 
 B2 
 
 CORAL REEFS 
 
 
 B3 
 
 TROPICAL MEADOWS 
 
 
 B4 
 
 TROPICAL INSHORE PLANKTON 
 
 
 B5 
 
 BLUE WATER COAST 
 
 
 C1 
 
 TIDEPOOLS 
 
 
 C2 
 
 BIRD AND MAMMAL ISLANDS, SHORES etc. 
 
 
 C3 
 
 LANDLOCKED SEAWATERS 
 
 
 C4 
 
 MARSHES 
 
 
 C5 
 
 OYSTER REEFS 
 
 
 C6 
 
 WORMS AND CLAM FLATS 
 TEMPERATE GRASS FLATS 
 
 
 C8 
 
 OLIGOHALINE SYSTEMS 
 
 MEDIUM SALINITY PLANKTON ESTUARY 
 
 
 C10 
 
 SHELTERED AND STRATI Fl ED ESTUARY 
 
 
 C11 
 
 KELP BEDS 
 
 
 C12 
 
 NEUTRAL EMBAYMENTS 
 
 
 D1 
 
 GLACIAL FIORD 
 
 
 D2 
 
 TURBID OUTWASH FIORD 
 
 «C11 
 
 F 
 
 FRESHWATER 
 
 Figure 1 1 1-4 GENERAL COASTAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 
 
 SOURCE: Adapted f 
 
 Odum, H.T., B.J. Copeland, I 
 Ecological Systems of the Un 
 Conservation Foundation, 19 
 
 ^. McMahan, Coast 
 
 3-9 
 
The coastal ecosystems form an important nursery and feeding area 
 for the offshore assemblages. For this reason the respective populations 
 are controlled by the physical coast-front environment and the offshore 
 populations. 
 
 The distribution of the principal migrating commercial species util- 
 izing these coastal systems is shown in Figure II 1-5. An analysis of the 
 important commercial species utilizing these waters emphasizes the impor- 
 tance of maintaining the quality of the coastal ecosystems. 
 
 C. INLAND WATERWAYS AND GREAT LAKES (FRESHWATER) (3) 
 
 Vessels transporting bulk cargoes (primarily tank barges) enter 
 inland waterways for the purpose of loading and discharging these 
 cargoes. Life in freshwaters is influenced, as in the ocean environ- 
 ment, by water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, color, turbidities, 
 total dissolved solids, total alkalinity, nutrients and mineral 
 composition. 
 
 The nearshore zone of large deep lakes such as the Great Lakes is 
 the most important portion from the standpoint of man. Not only is it 
 the zone that is most used by man (for example, as a source of water sup- 
 ply for domestic, industrial, and cooling water uses and as an area for 
 fishing, boating and swimming), but it is also a biologically productive 
 region. One basic reason for the natural high productivity of shallow 
 water is the presence of a substrate within the lighted surface zone 
 where photosynthesis can take place. Also, nutrients are continually 
 recycled from the bottom sediments back into the water column due to 
 vertical mixing processes. 
 
 River environments differ from lakes in the following fundamental 
 respects: (1) depth is small compared to lakes; (2) the water is gener- 
 ally confined to a relatively narrow channel; (3) the volume of water 
 flows in one direction; (4) streams increase their length, width and depth 
 with increasing age; and (5) eroded materials are transported downstream 
 with no opportunity for return. 
 
 3-10 
 
1 PANDALID SHRIMP 
 
 2 SALMON 
 
 3 KING CRAB 
 
 4 LARGE CLAW LOBSTER 
 . 5 SEA MAMMALS 
 
 6 SEA BIRDS 
 
 7 HERRING. MENHADEN, ALEWIVES, ETC. 
 
 8 SHAD 
 
 9 STRIPED BASS 
 
 10 PENAEID SHRIMP 
 
 11 MULLET 
 OFFSHORE SPECIES SHIFT AREAS 
 
 ^> <;> r. 
 
 Figure III— 5 SEASONALLY SHIFTING STOCKS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN 
 COASTAL ZONES 
 
 3-11 
 
River environments exhibit all intergrades from the very swift rush- 
 ing waters in narrow channels to situations which are relatively lakelike. 
 This range of conditions is reflected in the biota, which varies from the 
 distinctively characteristic organisms of falls and rapids to lake-like 
 systems. 
 
 D. GREAT LAKES SYSTEM 
 
 The Great Lakes System is approximately 2,000 miles long and has a 
 surface area of 95,000 square miles. The volume of the Great Lakes Sys- 
 tem constitutes the earth's largest f reef lowing freshwater resource. The 
 overall lake and river system constitutes the largest system within the 
 U.S. and has an annual outflow of 237,000 cubic feet per second. As il- 
 lustrated in Table III-2, the respective dimensions of the lakes vary 
 considerably as does the aquatic habitat. The aquatic habitat varies 
 from a cold-water fishery to a warm-water fishery throughout the span of 
 the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River System. 
 
 The quality of the surface water in Lakes Ontario, Huron, Superior, 
 and Michigan is generally high with some serious problems being experi- 
 enced in the surrounding major metropolitan and industrial areas. Lake 
 Erie, as a result of many factors including its shallowness and large 
 number of metropolitan areas surrounding it, has the poorest water qual- 
 ity. Despite the poor water quality, Erie is still the leader in fish 
 production. Recent water pollution control efforts made within the past 
 decade are slowly improving the lake's water quality; consequently, the 
 aquatic resources are demonstrating a regrowth. 
 
 The development of the Great Lakes is principally due to the scour- 
 ing action and deposition of the multiple glacial surges proceeding 
 across the region. Due to the large lake depths, a dimictic circulation 
 pattern is exhibited. The lakes become stratified during the summer with 
 negligible mixing occurring into the colder water layer located beneath 
 the thermocline. Within the water layers above the thermocline, the nu- 
 trients and oxygen circulate due to the wind driven currents. During the 
 spring and fall, the temperature differential between the two water layers 
 
 3-12 
 
Till 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 I 
 
 - 16% OF TOTAL GREAT LAKES FISHERY PRODUCTION 
 
 - LAKE TROUT, WHITEFISH, LAKE HERRING DOMINANT 
 SPECIES 
 
 - SPORT FISHERY: SMELT, PERCH, SUCKERS, PANFISH, 
 
 NORTHERN PIKE, WALLEYE, BASS 
 
 - SALMONID FISHERY: LAKE TROUT; COHO AND 
 
 CHINOOK SALMON; RAINBOW, 
 BROWN, BROOK, AND STEEL- 
 HEAD TROUT 
 
 - YELLOW PERCH, SMELT, SUCKERS, SMALLMOUTH 
 BASS, NORTHERN PIKE, WALLEYE AND ASSORTED 
 PANFISH 
 
 - SPORT FISHERY: OVER 1,700,000 ANNUALLY OF 
 
 SALMONIDS 
 
 - SALMONIDS: COHO AND CHINOOK SALMON, RAINBOW 
 
 TROUT, LAKE TROUT, BROWN AND 
 BROOK TROUT 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 m 
 
 £> 
 
 < id 
 
 1 !§' 
 | *{£ 
 
 s > 
 
 < S 
 
 ; s 
 
 > u. 
 
 3 s 
 
 i Si 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 p" 
 
 E 
 
 8 
 
 Q 
 
 Q 
 
 1 
 
 E 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 (A 
 
 Q 
 2 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 - LARGEST AND NORTHERNMOST GREAT LAKE 
 
 - MOST RUGGED, UNINHABITED AND INACCESSIBLE 
 SHORELANDS 
 
 - SHORELANDS ARE OF PRIME RECREATIONAL VALUE 
 
 - TOTAL SHORELINE LENGTH IS 1,362 MILES 
 
 - SHORELINE ALONG WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, 
 MICHIGAN STATES 
 
 - CONTAINS LARGEST EMBAYMENTS 
 
 - CONTAINS LEAST NUMBER OF ISLANDS AND ISLAND 
 GROUPS 
 
 - SANDDUNES, VULNERABLE ERODIBLE BLUFF AREAS 
 
 - VALUABLE MARSHLANDS IN GREEN BAY AND BIG AND 
 LITTLE BAYS DE NOC 
 
 - SECOND LARGEST LAKE 
 
 - SEPARATED FROM LAKE MICHIGAN BY STRAITS OF 
 MACKINAC 
 
 - MAJORITY OF SHORELINE UNDER JURISDICTION OF 
 CANADIAN PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 
 
 - SAGINAW BAY MOST SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE 
 AREA BECAUSE OF WETLANDS 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 i 
 
 < 
 
 Z 
 < 
 (9 
 
 I 
 O 
 
 I 
 
 < 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 3 
 I 
 Ul 
 
 < 
 
 3-13 
 
I 
 
 
 - WALLEYE, YELLOW PERCH, WHITE BASS, CHANNEL 
 CATFISH 
 
 - SPORT FISHERY: YELLOW PERCH, WHITE BASS, 
 
 CHANNEL CATFISH, WALLEYE, 
 SMALLMOUTH BASS 
 
 - VERY LITTLE COMMERCIAL FISHING 
 
 - SPORT FISHERY: SMALLMOUTH BASS, YELLOW PERCH, 
 
 BROWN BULLHEAD, NORTHERN PIKE, 
 ROCK BASS, COMMON BLUEGILL, 
 SUNFISH, LARGEMOUTH BASS, WHITE 
 PERCH, WHITE BASS, BLACK CRAPPIE, 
 CARP, CHANNEL CATFISH, AMERICAN 
 EEL, FRESHWATER DRUM, WALLEYE 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 E 
 j* 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 Z 
 < 
 
 (X 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 Q 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 OC 
 
 § ££ 
 
 s il 
 
 1 ii 
 S ei 
 
 < zee 
 
 S S5S 
 
 O -=l- 
 
 " o§ 
 j £z 
 
 Z W° 
 
 Hi 
 
 OC Q? 
 
 ZO 
 
 1 << 
 W WW 
 
 1 1 
 
 - SHALLOWEST MAXIMUM DEPTH OF ALL GREAT LAKES 
 (210 FEET) 
 
 - 30 FOOT DEPTH CONTOUR 1 MILE FROM SHORE 
 
 - GREAT WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS 
 
 - STRONG WINDS LOWER WATER LEVEL AT ONE END 
 8 FEET AND RAISE SEVERAL FEET AT OTHER END 
 
 - 115 MILE LONG WATERWAY DIVIDES UPPER GREAT 
 LAKES FROM LOWER LAKE ERIE 
 
 - SHORELINE RANGES FROM WETLANDS, LOW ERODIBLE 
 BLUFFS TO ERODIBLE PLAIN SHORE 
 
 - EAST-WEST SHORELINE: BLUFFS OF GLACIAL MATERIAL 
 FROM 20 TO 60 FEET HIGH, NARROW GRAVEL BEACHES 
 BORDERING THE BLUFFS 
 
 - DRUMLINS AND DUNES SEPARATED BY MARSH AREAS 
 ALONG SHORELINE FROM SODUS BAY EAST TO PORT 
 ONTARIO 
 
 - DUNES AND BARRIER BEACHES 10 MILES NORTH OF 
 OSWEGO-JEFFERSON COUNTY LINE THEN ROCKY 
 SHORE NORTH TO ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 C3 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 X = 
 
 * s 
 
 OC 
 
 < 
 
 g 
 
 K 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 3-14 
 
diminishes and some deep circulation occurs as the thermocline diminishes. 
 During the winter, the four months of ice cover limit the wind driven 
 circulation pattern in the water column. 
 
 The Great Lakes System does provide a stopover area for the Mid- 
 America Waterfowl Flyway. During the spring and fall migration, the 
 protected bays and adjacent wetlands provide a valuable habitat. 
 
 E. INLAND WATERWAYS ENVIRONMENT 
 
 Since the principal inland natural waterways are the Mississippi and 
 the Ohio rivers, they were selected for a discussion of the inland water- 
 way environment. 
 
 1. MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
 
 The navigable portion of the Mississippi River as illustrated in 
 Figure 1 1 -6 is principally composed of the upper Mississippi, lower Missis- 
 sippi, Illinois Waterway, and the Ohio River System sections. The over- 
 all basin comprises 40 percent of the continental U.S. land area. The 
 river is the world's second longest, has the third largest drainage area 
 and is ranked seventh in annual discharge. 
 
 2. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
 
 The lower Mississippi River begins at the confluence of the Ohio with 
 the main stem and proceeds to the Head of the Passes at the Gulf of Mexico. 
 The river throughout this reach has been extensively leveed, carries a 
 significant silt load, and is used extensively for the disposal of muni- 
 cipal and industrial wastewater. These factors have produced a stressed 
 environment with greatly reduced water quality and aquatic ecosystems 
 within the main channel area. Within the lower Mississippi these pollu- 
 tion levels have drastically reduced the commercial fishing potential of 
 the river. Although the main stream has a lowered aquatic resource value 
 the tributaries feeding the river and the extensive estuarine nursery 
 area surrounding the rivers, mainstem, bayous and drainage ways consti- 
 tute valuable habitat and nursery areas. 
 
 3-15 
 
The annual flows into the Gulf of Mexico are approximately 611,000 
 cubic feet per second when the diverted flow into the Atchafalaya drain- 
 age is considered. Average water velocity through this reach is approxi- 
 mately 2 miles per hour. Spill studies conducted on the lower Missis- 
 sipi River indicate that the spill would spread laterally at 250 feet per 
 mile. Under these conditions a spill of neutral buoyancy would be di- 
 luted 10,000 times within the first half hour of river travel. 
 
 3. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
 
 The upper Mississippi River has not been as extensively developed as 
 the lower river; consequently, the aquatic environment and the water qual- 
 ity is higher than the lower River. In contrast to the leveed banks of 
 the lower river, the upper Mississippi has an extensive border of channels, 
 sloughs and wetlands which have been integrated into the upper Missis- 
 sippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge and the Mark Twain National Wildlife 
 Refuge. These two areas, numerous smaller wildlife refuges, and the high 
 quality rivers entering the mainstream provide a broad and valuable habi- 
 tat for aquatic and waterfowl resources. 
 
 Commercial fishery landings in the upper Mississippi Basin are high 
 and reflect the relative value of the warm water fishery. The mainstream 
 and its borders provide valuable recreation areas for fishing, hunting, 
 and boating activities. 
 
 Wetlands along the Mississippi River provide a major route of the Mid- 
 America Waterfowl Flyway and provide valuable habitat for the waterfowl 
 population which resides all summer in the area. The river also sup- 
 plies water for municipalities along its banks. The average flows at St. 
 Louis are approximately 175,000 cubic feet per second with stream veloci- 
 ties varying from 2.5 to 7.5 feet per second depending on the river stage. 
 
 4. OHIO RIVER 
 
 The 981-mile navigable portion of the Ohio River from Pittsburgh, 
 Pennsylvania to Cairo, Illinois falls 429 feet. The navigability of the 
 river is controlled by 19 high lift locks and dams. The navigable river 
 
 3-16 
 
width varies from one-half mile to 4 miles wide. The mean monthly dis- 
 charge ranges from a high of 20,000 cubic feet per second in March to a 
 low of approximately 3,000 cubic feet per second in September. The water 
 quality of the Ohio is impacted with acid mine drainage and with large indus- 
 trial and municipal discharges. These discharges have caused fish kills 
 and affected the aquatic resources of the mainstream. Even with the 
 elimination of fish kills, the more subtle changes causing taste and odor 
 problems in the fish and other changes in the aquatic resource food 
 chains will still prevail. With the potential increases in coal develop- 
 ment and coal -powered power pi ants, the water quality problem areas would 
 be expected to remain. 
 
 Due to water pollution, fish tainting, and market trends, the once- 
 flourishing commercial fishery on the Ohio has drastically diminished. 
 While the commercial fishing interests have diminished, the waterborne 
 usage for sport fishing and hunting has increased. The commercial spe- 
 cies most usually taken are buffalo carp, catfish, paddlefish and 
 sturgeon. 
 
 The Ohio and Mississippi rivers constitute a waterfowl flyway for 
 birds proceeding southward from Indiana and Ohio. 
 
 3-17 
 
CHAPTER III - REFERENCES FROM TEXT 
 
 1. Seymour, A.H. and others, Radioactivity in the Marine Environment , 
 National Academy of Sciences, 1971. " 
 
 2. Gross, M.G., Oceanography; A View of the Earth. 
 Enqlewood-Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 
 
 3. U.S. State Department, Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 
 Third U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, A pril 1, 1974. 
 
 4. U.S. Interior Department, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Pro- 
 posed 1975 PCS Oil and Gas General Lease, Offshore Texa s, (PES 74-82), 
 August 27, 1974. ' 
 
 5. The National Estuarine Pollution Study Report of the Secretary of 
 "tTTe Interior to the United States Congress Pursuant to P.L. 89-753 . 
 The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. March 25, 1970. 
 
 3-18 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TITLE XI TANK VESSELS 
 ENGAGED IN THE DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
 This chapter discusses the potential environmental impacts generated 
 by bulk liquid domestic waterborne commerce of the type that could be 
 funded under the Title XI Program. The major subjects discussed are: 
 tank vessel pollution (oil, chemical and others), spill probability and 
 risk, potential economic impacts, and the effects of port and harbor 
 development. 
 
 Tankships and barges may be classified into two groups: (1) crude 
 oil carriers and (2) those that carry petroleum products, chemicals and 
 liquefied gases. These are not fixed groups, however, since vessels may 
 shift from one trade to another as transportation requirements change. 
 The current patterns of tanker utilization have evolved over the years 
 as a result of economic factors, refinery locations, and prevailing trade 
 patterns. Figure IV-1 illustrates the location of refineries and oil 
 terminals near the navigable waterways of the United States. It gives 
 some indication as to where domestic oil and petro-chemical trade may 
 take place along the U.S. coastline and the navigable inland waterways. 
 
 In general, larger tankers (over 100,000 deadweight tons) are used 
 for carrying crude oil and smaller tankers (under 40,000 deadweight tons) 
 are used to transport chemicals and refined products. On occasion small 
 tankers carry crude oil in U.S. waters due to draft limitations in U.S. 
 ports. Intermediate sized ships (40,000 to 100,000 DWT) are often used 
 to carry either crude oil, residual fuel oils or chemicals resulting from 
 the refining process. 
 
 A OVERVIEW OF TANK VESSEL POLLUTING INCIDENTS (1) 
 
 During the calendar year 1976, approximately 34 million gallons of 
 liquid material (oil and other substances) were discharged in and around 
 U.S. waters from various marine and non-marine sources. Figure IV-2 shows 
 the general area of these polluting incidents. Approximately 66% of the 
 polluting incidents and 49% of the total volume spilled in 1976 occurred 
 on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts combined, which is expected because 
 
 4-1 
 
CM 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 «. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 gal 
 
 
 i 
 
 2,627 
 
 = 8,876,01 
 
 INCIDEN 
 3,623 gal. 
 
 ,237 
 
 8 1 
 
 00 
 
 n : n n 
 w "X. <°. ii 
 
 
 M m 
 
 £ 8 * ? S2 
 
 9 52 f 
 
 u «» 
 
 Z 
 
 > z . 
 
 O in -J uj . 
 
 
 UJ -J 
 
 O M 5 9 1 
 
 Z o O 
 
 en 
 
 9 o 
 
 - iS 
 
 
 I 5 
 
 {2 S 
 
 Z N SS 
 
 uj S- 
 
 8 
 
 It 
 
 to 3 
 
 
 ci 55 r-' 
 
 Q 
 
 S9 «- 
 
 6 
 
 CM 
 
 
 N r«. „ 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 in m 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 M - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 * 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ll 
 
 _L 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 
 eT 
 
 
 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 
 HI 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- t 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 E 
 < 
 
 8 is! 
 
 o 
 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 E 
 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 _i 
 
 5 
 
 D 
 Q 
 Z 
 < 
 
 Z 
 
 -J da 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 H 3? 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 
 O < OS 
 
 0- 
 
 O 
 
 ~ 
 
 o s 
 < a 
 
 < 2 
 cc | 
 
 z 3 
 
 Sn 
 
 > 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 Q C3 
 
 £ 
 
 g 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 =i? 
 
 OJ 
 
 tS 
 
 ^ 
 
 LL, 
 
 g 
 
 UJQ 
 
 
 
 3Z 
 
 
 
 ^.Q 
 
 
 t; 
 
 UJD 
 
 
 = 
 
 £C0. 
 
 Ott 
 
 4-3 
 
both of these coasts handle the majority of tanker traffic. Tables IV-1 
 and IV-2 give the specific type of locations and sources of these 1976 
 discharges. Approximately 95.6% of the polluting incidents and 75.7% of 
 the total volume spilled occurred within 12 miles of the U.S. coast 
 (inland waters included). Of the 34 million gallons spilled, tankers 
 contributed approximately 9 million gallons (26%) and tank barges con- 
 tributed 2 million gallons (6%). These two sources account for approxi- 
 mately 11 million gallons or 32% of the total liquid material discharged 
 into U.S. waters. Table IV-3 provides a breakdown of the various causes 
 of pollutant incidents. By volume, the structural failure category 
 contributed the greatest amount of pollution in 1976. 
 
 While it is difficult to determine exactly what percentage of this 
 pollution was the result of vessels receiving Title XI government aid en- 
 gaged in the domestic trade, it is believed that these vessels contri- 
 buted a yery small percentage of the total pollution entering U. S. 
 waters. 
 
 B OIL POLLUTION (2) 
 
 1 . GENERAL 
 
 A vast amount of material has been written on oil pollution and its 
 environmental impacts during the past five years. Uncertainty is a gen- 
 eral feature of most of the reports. Published estimates of the total 
 annual influx of oil into the oceans of the earth vary from 1.64 million 
 tons to 10 million tons. Table IV-4 indicates that the best estimate of 
 the amount of petroleum hydrocarbons introduced into the world's oceans 
 is 6.113 million metric tons annually. As indicated in Table IV-4 trans- 
 portation sources contribute approximately 35 percent of this input. 
 
 In contrast, actual oil input into U.S. waters is yery small in com- 
 parison to global input estimates. The average annual spillage for tankers 
 and barges in the U.S. reported for the years 1973 through 1977 is illus- 
 trated in Table IV-5. This table indicates the relative location, vessel 
 type and general cause of the spills over the five year period. The pro- 
 portion of domestic commerce versus foreign commerce was not taken into 
 
o=> 
 
 o: 
 
 !3 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 N "" IO N 
 
 rj co a cm 
 
 CM CO 
 
 8 j: S ■* 
 1 
 
 
 
 pn 
 
 x 9 l? 
 
 5< E | 
 
 III: 
 
 g ^ JO o 
 
 -5S§ 
 
 i 
 
 | ! j j 
 
 5 
 
 1 J 
 
 hON 
 ZNT 
 
 8 2 
 
 Mi! 
 
 K "*. £ °. 
 
 "bjo 
 
 00 CM ^ O 
 
 N o * 6 
 
 as o i- o 
 
 1 i i j 
 
 53*5 
 
 < 
 
 Oz £5 
 cc — 
 
 Mil 
 
 8582 
 
 g oo 5 r^ 
 
 8 N 5.° 
 
 J? rj * O 
 
 5 
 
 i 1-1,1 
 
 
 iz<5 
 
 OOOI- 
 
 u5 2 >l 
 
 
 
 I2|2 
 
 S "J S '"! 
 
 * *■ 8 • 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 rOOIUI 
 
 £ 2 » 8 
 
 1 
 
 CO K 
 KQO 
 
 cc z<n 
 
 I 
 
 53j5 
 
 !-" "" oi 
 
 i-" "" en" 
 1 
 
 »-" "" o 
 
 8 
 
 » 
 
 CO 10 10 to 
 
 
 5 «o 5 5 
 
 5. 
 
 5 " | ° 
 
 §515 
 
 * 
 
 |S|5 
 
 CO 
 
 00 8 ° Si 
 
 cm" co" 
 
 **8 
 
 ill 
 
 °§|S 
 
 I o , o 
 
 ; 6 6 
 
 l o , o 
 ; o ; o 
 
 8512 
 
 10 
 
 jg CM £ CO 
 
 < 
 cc 
 < 
 
 < I 
 
 K CC UJ 
 
 Z% i 
 
 2 z a? > 5? 
 
 z 
 
 cc ui 
 
 "a 2 
 
 Si 3 
 
 < 3 O 
 
 j z as > ss 
 5 
 
 OC UJ 
 
 B § 
 
 a § 3 
 
 u. 3 o 
 
 5 z as > a? 
 
 < 
 
 CC UJ 
 
 I I 
 
 u. 3 O 
 
 -i z as > a? 
 
 3 
 (9 
 
 3{ i 
 
 « 3 O 
 
 iu z as > as 
 
 OC 
 
 o 
 
 CC UJ 
 
 J I 
 
 < 3 O 
 
 o 
 
Table IV-2 
 
 SOURCES OF POLLUTION 
 
 (OIL AND OTHER SUBSTANCES) 
 
 SOURCE 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 INCIDENTS 
 
 %OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 VOLUME IN 
 GALLONS 
 
 *OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 VESSELS 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. DRY CARGO SHIPS 
 
 41 
 
 0.3 
 
 11,679 
 
 0.0 
 
 
 2. DRY CARGO BARGES 
 
 324 
 
 2.6 
 
 24,840 
 
 0.1 
 
 
 3. TANK SHIPS 
 
 623 
 
 4.9 
 
 8,930,029 
 
 26.4 
 
 
 4. TANK BARGES 
 
 976 
 
 7.7 
 
 1,953,442 
 
 5.8 
 
 
 5. COMBATANT V ESSE LS 
 
 179 
 
 1.4 
 
 26,987 
 
 0.1 
 
 6. OTHER VESSELS 
 
 1,153 
 
 9.1 
 
 245,013 
 
 0.7 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 3,296 
 
 26.0 
 
 11,191,990 
 
 33.1 
 
 LAND VEHICLES 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. RAIL VEHICLES 
 
 82 
 
 0.6 
 
 269,440 
 
 0.8 
 
 2. HIGHWAY VEHICLES 
 
 335 
 
 2.6 
 
 323,391 
 
 1.0 
 
 3. OTHER/UNKNOWN VEHICLES 
 
 47 
 
 0.4 
 
 20,968 
 
 0.1 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 464 
 
 3.6 
 
 613,799 
 
 1.9 
 
 NON-TRANSPORTATION- 
 RELATED FACILITIES 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. ONSHORE REFINERY 
 
 101 
 
 0.8 
 
 211,614 
 
 0.6 
 
 2. ONSHORE BULK/STORAGE 
 
 365 
 
 2.9 
 
 5,873,932 
 
 17.4 
 
 3. ONSHORE PRODUCTION 
 
 242 
 
 1.9 
 
 349,053 
 
 1.0 
 
 4. OFFSHORE PRODUCTION FACILITIES 
 
 1.358 
 
 10.7 
 
 274,732 
 
 0.8 
 
 5. OTHER FACILITIES 
 
 1,055 
 
 8.3 
 
 9,749,869 
 
 28.8 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 3,121 
 
 24.6 
 
 16,469,200 
 
 48.0 
 
 PIPELINES 
 
 653 
 
 5.2 
 
 4,530,094 
 
 13.4 
 
 MARINE FACILITIES 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. ONSHORE/OFFSHORE BULK 
 CARGO TRANSFER 
 
 321 
 
 2.5 
 
 333.712 
 
 1.0 
 
 2. ONSHORE/OFFSHORE FUELING 
 
 88 
 
 0.7 
 
 21,708 
 
 0.1 
 
 3. ONSHORE/OFFSHORE NONBULK 
 CARGO TRANSFER 
 
 23 
 
 0.2 
 
 15,643 
 
 0.0 
 
 4. OTHER TRANSPORTATION- 
 RELATED MARINE FACILITY 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 128 
 
 1.0 
 
 5,787 
 
 0.0 
 1.1 
 
 560 
 
 4.4 
 
 376,850 
 
 LAND FACILITIES 
 
 182 
 
 1.4 
 
 442,730 
 
 1.3 
 
 MISC/UNKNOWN 
 
 4,379 
 
 34.6 
 
 227,167 
 
 0.7 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 12,655 
 
 100.0 
 
 33,851,830 
 
 100.0 
 
 4-6 
 
Table IV-3 
 
 CAUSES OF POLLUTION 
 
 (OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES) 
 
 INCIDENT 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 INCIDENTS 
 
 %OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 VOLUME IN 
 GALLONS 
 
 %OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 MATERIAL/DESIGN EQUIPMENT FAILURE 
 
 HULL/TANK RUPTURE/LEAK 
 
 TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE 
 RUPTURE/LEAK 
 
 OTHER STRUCTURAL FAILURE 
 
 PIPE RUPTURE/LEAK 
 
 RAILROAD/HIGHWAY/AIRCRAFT 
 
 ACCIDENTS 
 VALVE FAILURE 
 
 PUMP FAILURE 
 
 OTHER RUPTURE/LEAK 
 
 OTHER EQUIPMENT FAILURE 
 
 782 
 
 522 
 411 
 875 
 257 
 400 
 158 
 343 
 1,025 
 
 6.2 
 
 4.1 
 3.2 
 6.9 
 2.0 
 3.2 
 1.2 
 2.7 
 8.1 
 
 8,128,139 
 
 2,281,746 
 12.193,880 
 4,120,886 
 481,647 
 277,387 
 648,773 
 80,343 
 905,502 
 
 24.0 
 
 6.7 
 36.0 
 12.2 
 1.4 
 0.8 
 1.9 
 0.2 
 2.7 
 
 HUMAN ERROR 
 
 TANK OVERFLOW 
 
 IMPROPER HANDLING OPERATION 
 
 OTHER PERSONNEL ERROR 
 
 BILGE PUMPING 
 
 BALLAST PUMPING 
 
 OTHER INTENTIONAL DISCHARGE 
 
 NATURAL OR CHRONIC PHENOMENON 
 
 UNKNOWN 
 
 1,072 
 499 
 530 
 242 
 34 
 228 
 
 318 
 
 4,959 
 
 8.5 
 3.9 
 4.2 
 1.9 
 0.3 
 1.8 
 
 2.5 
 
 39.2 
 
 273,272 
 346,449 
 434,786 
 9,407 
 2,085 
 784,378 
 
 118,798 
 
 2,764,352 
 
 0.8 
 1.0 
 1.3 
 0.0 
 0.0 
 2.3 
 
 0.4 
 
 8.2 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 12.655 
 
 100.0 
 
 33,851,830 
 
 100.0 
 
 4-7 
 
Table IV-4 
 
 BUDGET OF WORLDWIDE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 
 
 INTRODUCED INTO THE OCEANS 
 
 SOURCE 
 
 INPUT RATE (MTA) a 
 
 BEST ESTIMATE 
 
 PROBABLE RANGE 
 
 OFFSHORE PRODUCTION 
 
 0.08 0.08-0.15 
 
 TRANSPORTATION 
 
 
 LOT b 
 
 0.31 0.15-0.4 
 
 NON-LOT TANKERS 
 
 0.77 0.65-1.0 
 
 DRY-DOCKING 
 
 0.25 0.2-0.3 
 
 TERMINAL OPERATIONS 
 
 0.003 0.0015-0.005 
 
 BILGES, BUNKERING 6 
 
 0.5 0.4-0.7 
 
 TANKER ACCIDENTS 
 
 0.2 0.12-0.25 
 
 NONTANKER ACCIDENTS 
 
 0.1 0.02-0.15 
 
 COASTAL REFINERIES 
 
 0.2 0.2-0.3 
 
 ATMOSPHERIC RAINOUT c 
 
 0.6 0.4-0.8 
 
 COASTAL MUNICIPAL WASTES 
 
 0.3 
 
 COASTAL, NONREFINING. 
 INDUSTRIAL WASTES 
 
 0.3 
 
 URBAN RUNOFF 
 
 0.3 0.1-0.5 
 
 RIVER RUNOFF 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 
 
 SUBTOTAL 
 
 5.513 
 
 NATURAL SEEPS 
 
 0.6 0.2-1.0 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 6.113 
 
 MTA. MILLION METRIC TONS ANNUALLY. 
 
 LOT IS AN ABBREVIATION FOR "LOAD-ON-TOP" 
 
 BASED UPON ASSUMED 10 PERCENT RETURN FROM THE ATMOSPHERE 
 
 FOR ALL SHIPS EQUIVALENT TO AN AVERAGE LOSS PER SHIP OF ABOUT 
 
 10 TONS PER ANNUM 
 
 1 METRIC TON = 311 GALLONS (ASSUMING A SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF 0.85 FOR OIL) 
 
 4-8 
 
I uj x 
 >NU 
 
 ■80" 
 
 uj ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 8 8 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 5? 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 (9 
 
 
 3 
 
 z Z 
 
 
 < 
 
 5 2 
 
 oc 
 
 O 
 
 Z U £ 
 
 < 
 
 
 3 3 uj 
 
 
 
 j 1 
 
 > 
 
 
 a t 
 
 cc 
 
 
 (9 U O 
 
 
 
 
 0. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 
 W 
 
 3 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 in ro 
 
 -1 
 < 
 
 
 5? 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 -J 
 
 i 
 
 Q. 
 
 $ 
 
 
 t 
 
 K > 
 
 I 
 
 
 uj uj c 
 
 -1 
 
 i 
 
 * a ui 
 
 Z DC X 
 
 i 
 
 > 
 
 k m O 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 3 
 Z 
 Z 
 < 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 R S ^ ? S 
 
 > 
 
 s? 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 (A 
 
 
 i 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 § 
 
 i - § 
 
 5 1 I 6 8 
 
 s < 8 < 
 
 | h a 8 £ 
 
 5 < i IL < 
 
 3 uj _i j 
 
 7 cc < 3 h- 
 £ C3 2 O < 
 
 4-9 
 
consideration in this study. Outflows in U.S. waters for calendar year 
 1976 (the latest year for which such data are available) reported to the 
 U.S. Coast Guard are shown in Table IV-6 (3). The total oil outflow 
 volume is over 23 million gallons which amounts to approximately 0.074 
 million metric tons of oil (assuming a specific gravity of 0.85 for oil). 
 However, the data in Table IV-6 indicate vessel sources contributed ap- 
 proximately 46 percent of the total input to U.S. waters during calendar 
 year 1976. 
 
 A compilation of oil outflow data from tankships and tankbarges for 
 a variety of causes is shown in Table IV-7. It should be noted that the 
 total number of oil pollution incidents that occurred to tank barges dur- 
 ing calendar year 1976 is about 1-1/2 times larger than the total number 
 that occurred to tankships, but the volume of oil outflow from tank barge 
 incidents is less than one-sixth the amount from tankships (3). 
 
 2. TANKERS 
 
 Accurate estimates of oil spillage from tankers are difficult to 
 obtain. The estimates of tanker related oil pollution vary widely 
 depending on the choice of assumptions or factors and the available infor- 
 mation concerning tankers. Examples of these factors include: amount of 
 oil retained onboard after discharge of cargo ("clingage"), number of tanks 
 washed, oil content of water discharged, amount of oil leaked to bilges, 
 quantities of dirty lube oil and purifier sludge produced, cargo handling 
 spills and spills as a result of tanker accidents. Figure IV-3 shows a 
 breakdown of the tanker oil pollution problem. Table IV-4 provides an 
 estimate of the amount of oil pollution worldwide from the various tank 
 vessel sources. Actual spillage during the year 1976 in U.S. waters is 
 given in Table IV-6. Oil pollution from tankers originates from two 
 principal sources: (1) normal tanker operations, such as tank cleaning, 
 ballasting and other operational reasons for periodically discharging 
 oil overboard and (2) various types of tanker accidents. 
 
 a. OPERATIONAL POLLUTION 
 
 Tank cleaning and ballasting accounts for approximately one million 
 
 -10 
 
Table IV-6 
 SOURCES OF OIL POLLUTION IN U.S. WATERS 
 
 SOURCE 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 INCIDENTS 
 
 %OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 VOLUME IN 
 GALLONS 
 
 %OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 VESSELS 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. DRY CARGO SHIPS 
 
 38 
 
 0.4 
 
 11,513 
 
 0.0 
 
 2. DRY CARGO BARGES 
 
 303 
 
 2.8 
 
 22,718 
 
 0.1 
 
 3. TANK SHIPS 
 
 577 
 
 5.4 
 
 8.924,675 
 
 38.6 
 
 4. TANK BARGES 
 
 909 
 
 8.5 
 
 1,370,909 
 
 5.9 
 
 5. COMBATANT VESSELS 
 
 179 
 
 1.7 
 
 26,987 
 
 0.1 
 
 6. OTHER VESSELS 
 
 1.099 
 
 10.3 
 
 243,605 
 
 1.1 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 3,105 
 
 29.1 
 
 10.600.407 
 
 45.8 
 
 LAND VEHICLES 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. RAIL VEHICLES 
 
 60 
 
 0.6 
 
 167,220 
 
 0.7 
 
 2. HIGHWAY VEHICLES 
 
 310 
 
 2.9 
 
 297,968 
 
 1.3 
 
 3. OTHER/UNKNOWN VEHICLES 
 
 43 
 
 0.4 
 
 7,848 
 
 0.0 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 413 
 
 3.9 
 
 473,036 
 
 2.0 
 
 NON-TRANSPORTATION 
 RELATED FACILITIES 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. ONSHORE REFINERY 
 
 88 
 
 0.8 
 
 11,296 
 
 0.0 
 
 2. ONSHORE BULK/STORAGE 
 
 337 
 
 3.2 
 
 5,817,212 
 
 25.2 
 
 3. ONSHORE PRODUCTION 
 
 234 
 
 2.2 
 
 348,457 
 
 1.5 
 
 4. OFFSHORE PRODUCTION 
 FACILITIES 
 
 1,312 
 
 12.3 
 
 274,318 
 
 1.2 
 
 5. OTHER FACILITIES 
 
 892 
 
 8.4 
 
 374,792 
 
 1.6 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 2,863 
 
 26.9 
 
 6.826.075 
 
 29.5 
 
 PIPELINES 
 
 627 
 
 5.9 
 
 4,362,421 
 
 18.9 
 
 MARINE FACILITIES 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. ONSHORE/OFFSHORE BULK 
 CARGO TRANSFER 
 
 286 
 
 2.7 
 
 274,677 
 
 1.2 
 
 2. ONSHORE/OFFSHORE FUELING 
 
 86 
 
 0.8 
 
 21,708 
 
 0.1 
 
 3. ONSHORE/OFFSHORE NONBULK 
 CARGO TRANSFER 
 
 21 
 
 0.2 
 
 15,583 
 
 0.1 
 
 4. OTHER TRANSPORTATION- 
 RELATED MARINE FACILITY 
 
 118 
 
 1.1 
 
 4,599 
 
 0.0 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 511 
 
 4.8 
 
 316,567 
 
 1.4 
 
 LAND FACILITIES 
 
 166 
 
 1.6 
 
 355,233 
 
 1.5 
 
 MISC/UNKNOWN 
 
 2,975 
 
 27.9 
 
 191,975 
 
 0.8 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 10,660 
 
 100.0 
 
 23,125,714 
 
 100.0 
 
 4-11 
 
Table IV-7 
 
 OIL POLLUTION INCIDENTS OF TANK SHIPS AND TANK BARGES 
 
 IN AND AROUND U.S. WATERS 
 
 CAUSE 
 
 TANK SHIPS 
 
 TANK BARGES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 VOLUME IN 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 VOLUME IN 
 
 
 INCIDENTS 
 
 GALLONS 
 
 INCIDENTS 
 
 GALLONS 
 
 HULL OR TANK LEAK 
 
 68 
 
 1,321,216 
 
 276 
 
 1,137,965 
 
 TRANSPORTATION PIPE 
 
 
 
 
 
 RUPTURE OR LEAK 
 
 5 
 
 375 
 
 9 
 
 92,963 
 
 OTHER STRUCTURAL FAILURE 
 
 5 
 
 7,502,257 
 
 16 
 
 600 
 
 PIPE RUPTURE OR LEAK 
 
 14 
 
 1,170 
 
 18 
 
 305 
 
 OTHER RUPTURE OR LEAK 
 
 20 
 
 9,923 
 
 35 
 
 3,744 
 
 VALVE FAILURE 
 
 57 
 
 5,082 
 
 53 
 
 6,798 
 
 PUMP FAILURE 
 
 3 
 
 192 
 
 19 
 
 3,988 
 
 OTHER EQUIPMENT FAILURE 
 
 39 
 
 1,693 
 
 108 
 
 4,501 
 
 TANK OVERFLOW 
 
 154 
 
 41,690 
 
 215 
 
 21,953 
 
 IMPROPER EQUIPMENT 
 
 
 
 
 
 OPE RATION/HANDLING 
 
 46 
 
 14,869 
 
 69 
 
 8,053 
 
 OTHER PERSONNEL ERROR 
 
 38 
 
 4,727 
 
 45 
 
 87,329 
 
 RAILROAD, HIGHWAY, 
 
 
 
 
 
 AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT 
 
 2 
 
 201 
 
 ~ 
 
 _ 
 
 BILGE PUMPING 
 
 28 
 
 4,251 
 
 4 
 
 425 
 
 BALLAST PUMPING 
 
 13 
 
 1,076 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 OTHER INTENTIONAL DISCHARGE 
 
 14 
 
 1,847 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 NATURAL OR CHRONIC 
 
 
 
 
 
 PHENOMENON 
 
 6 
 
 511 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 UNKNOWN 
 
 65 
 
 13,595 
 
 35 
 
 2,226 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 577 
 
 8,924,675 
 
 909 
 
 1,370,869 
 
 SOURCE: Pollui 
 
 t Reporting Syst* 
 
 4-12 
 
O s 
 
 O |J 
 
 DC h? 
 
 4-13 
 
metric tons of the estimated six million tons of oil entering the marine 
 environment from all sources each year. (Bilges and bunkering contribute 
 another 0.5 million metric tons.) Tanker bilge discharges are the required 
 periodic pumpage of water from the ship's bilge which has become fouled by 
 oil from cargo and machinery spaces. Bunkering operational spills are 
 those which occur during vessel refueling operations. These discharges 
 would be very similar to those made during cargo handling operations. The 
 amount of oil spilled as a result of cargo handling depends on the number 
 of cargo transfers and the measures taken to avoid such spills. 
 
 There are three principal causes of terminal spills. These are: 
 (1) mechanical faults, (2) design faults, and (3) human error. Based on 
 the existing reporting system to the U.S. Coast Guard, human error is the 
 predominant cause and is the most difficult to remedy. Mechanical fail- 
 ures include: (1) cargo hose bursts; (2) piping, fitting, or flange 
 failures, either ashore or on the tanker; and (3) tank ruptures. Any of 
 the foregoing items could have also been an inherent design fault. De- 
 sign faults also include the incompatibility of the tanker's cargo trans- 
 fer equipment with a given terminal. 
 
 A spill may result from overfill of a cargo tank of a tanker. The 
 overfill of a cargo tank may be prevented by employing a closed gauging 
 system, but in some cases the system fails as a result of human error or 
 negligence. 
 
 b. TANKER ACCIDENTS 
 
 Vessel accidents are estimated to contribute about 0.3 million metric 
 tons per year of the oil entering the marine environment. The estimated 
 annual oil spills from tanker and non-tanker accidents are shown in 
 Table IV-4. 
 
 A recent analysis (February 1978) of 3,709 worldwide tanker acci- 
 dents which occurred between January 1, 1969 and December 31, 1974 was 
 
prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Oceans Program (5). 
 The data in this analysis were derived from Lloyd's Weekly Casualty 
 Reports, IMCO Casualty Data, U.S. Coast Guard files and various operating 
 company services. The analysis considered tankers of gross registered ton- 
 nage equal to or greater than 2000 tons. The accident types include mech- 
 anical breakdowns, collisions, explosions, fires, groundings, rammings, 
 structural failures and all others. The distribution among accident types 
 including those leading to Pollution-Causing Incidents (PCI's) and the 
 total oil pollution outflow is given in Table IV-8. The OTA found that 
 groundings and collisions together accounted for nearly 50% of the total 
 accidents over this six-year sampling period. Approximately 14 percent 
 of the tanker accidents resulted in a pollution -causing incident. 
 
 An analysis was also conducted of accidents occurring within the 
 coastal zones contiguous to the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts of 
 North America. Table IV-9 shows the number of total accidents, the 
 number of Pollution-Causing-Incidents (PCI's) and the amount of total 
 outflow for each of the three coasts. Approximately 14 percent of the 
 accidents, PCI's, and total outflow for the three coasts combined oc- 
 curred within 50 nautical miles of land [exclusive of an entranceway, 
 harbor or at a pier). 
 
 A notable major tanker accident that occurred in U.S. waters was the 
 collision between the OREGON STANDARD and ARIZONA STANDARD. These two 
 tankers collided on January 18, 1971 dumping 20,000 barrels of Bunker C 
 fuel oil into the marine environment. (5) The oil was carried by tidal cur- 
 rents to beaches both above and below the entrance to San Francisco Bay. 
 Because tanker accidents often occur in a dramatic way, accidental pollu- 
 tion has received more attention and public comment than any other source 
 of pollution. 
 
 4-15 
 
Table IV-8 
 
 WORLDWIDE TANKER ACCIDENTS 
 
 AND OIL POLLUTION OUTFLOW 1 
 
 TYPE OF ACCIDENT 
 
 NUMBER OF EVENTS 2 
 
 NUMBER OF PCI's 3 
 
 TOTAL OUTFLOW 
 (LONG TONS) 
 
 BREAKDOWNS 
 
 403 
 
 12 
 
 48,763 
 
 COLLISIONS 
 
 877 
 
 147 
 
 226,884 
 
 EXPLOSIONS 
 
 127 
 
 40 
 
 134,610 
 
 FIRES 
 
 233 
 
 17 
 
 2,935 
 
 GROUNDINGS 
 
 935 
 
 144 
 
 309,824 
 
 RAMMINGS 
 
 543 
 
 51 
 
 14,506 
 
 STRUCTURAL 
 
 586 
 
 104 
 
 340,727 
 
 ALL OTHERS 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 54,911 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 3,709 
 
 519 
 
 1,133,160 
 
 2. Catastrophic Events are included 
 
 3. PCI = Pollution Causing Incident 
 
 "An Analysis of Oil Tanker Casualties, 1969—1974", prepared by OTA Oceans Program 
 for the Use of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
 Washington, D.C., February 7, 1978. 
 
 4-16 
 
52 
 
 Tig 
 7 D< 
 
 50iu 
 
 <i 
 
 £«< 
 o w 
 
 Q. < 
 
 < a 
 
 5<p 
 
 2d 
 
 OUTFLOW WITHIN 
 50 NMI OF LAND 
 BUT NOT WITHIN 
 ENTRANCEWAY, 
 HARBOR, OR AT 
 PIER 
 
 22,677 2 
 
 6,195 
 1,350 
 
 I 
 
 ot 
 
 O 
 
 1 95,042 1 
 
 14,889 
 9,228 
 
 | 
 
 PCI'S WITHIN 
 
 50 NMI 4 OF 
 
 LAND BUT NOT 
 
 WITHIN 
 
 ENTRANCEWAY, 
 
 HARBOR, OR AT 
 
 PIER 
 
 „ „ „ 
 
 (D 
 
 
 g 8 5 
 
 E 
 
 ACCIDENTS 
 WITHIN 50 NMI 
 OF LAND BUT 
 NOT WITHIN 
 ENTRANCEWAY, 
 HARBOR, OR AT 
 PIER 
 
 s a 2 
 
 I 
 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 O M CO 
 
 S 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 i 
 < 
 cc 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 EAST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA 
 
 GULF OF MEXICO/ 
 CARIBBEAN SEA 
 
 WEST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 s£ 
 
 Si i 
 
 4-17 
 
Recently the U.S. Coast Guard issued proposed regulations defining 
 the distribution of segregated ballast in tankers of over 20,000 DWT. 
 These regulations are based on the following: (7) 
 
 Tank vessel accidents are statistically small in number in- 
 volving random unpredictable events. The number of accidents that 
 result in spillage is even smaller, on the order of one- fourth of 
 the accident events. Further, accident analysis shows that about 
 80 percent of the oil pollution outflow is caused by approximately 
 2 percent of the accidents. 
 
 The historical data with respect to the relative frequencies 
 of occurrences of side damaging accidents as a result of groundings 
 reveal that the side damaging accidents occur 1.5 times as often as 
 the bottom damaging accidents. 
 
 Data on spill frequency by type of accident are considered more re- 
 liable because of better reporting procedures. These data reveal that 
 spills from the side of a vessel from collisions and rammings occur 1.4 
 times as often as the spills from the bottom area. These two factors 
 would suggest a preference for side protection over bottom protection. 
 The Coast Guard studied a large number of U.S. Salvage Association damage 
 reports to determine if there were any particular areas of the tanker's 
 cargo tank that were more prone to damage. The study revealed that no 
 particular area of the tanker is immune to damage; however, the area of 
 the turn of the bilge was identified as one damage-prone area. 
 
 3. TANK BARGES 
 
 It was indicated in Section IV-31 that the sources of oil pollution 
 from tank barges are the result of (1) discharges due to leaks, (2) 
 spills during loading and unloading of cargo at terminals and (3) barge 
 accidents. The reasons for discharges as a result of leaks and spills 
 during loading and unloading are similar to those for tankers and will 
 not be discussed in this section. 
 
 4-18 
 
a. TANK BARGE ACCIDENTS (8, 9) 
 
 The U.S. Coast Guard performed an analysis of tank barge casualties 
 (that occurred during fiscal year 1971) for the Council on Environmental 
 Quality's Deep Water Port Study. There were 497 reports on file for tank 
 barge casualties throughout United States waters (East and West coasts, 
 Great Lakes, western rivers, Gulf and intercoastal waterways). Pollution 
 was indicated for 49 of the 497 tank barge casualties. Twenty of these 
 49 cases were analyzed because of their significant impact; other cases, 
 such as those in which pollution occurred at the loading dock, were not 
 included in the analysis. Tank barge casualty statistics involving only 
 petroleum products were included in this analysis. 
 
 Tables IV-10 and IV-11 give a distribution of the 20 tank barge pol- 
 luting incidents by type of casualty, causes and oil outflow magnitude. 
 The parameters of barge length and tonnage did not appear to have any in- 
 fluence on pollution potential. 
 
 The above statistics cannot be used to determine trends because the 
 causes of the casualties considered are the most probable, and therefore 
 are only speculative. In almost every case, however, the casualties may 
 have been avoided had the vessel operators been alert for the situation 
 encountered. 
 
 Conclusions were not made regarding the effect of tow length on pol- 
 lution ; however, in a few of the tows, the towboat horsepower was insuf- 
 ficient to control the tow in a strong current. While it was not directly 
 concluded from the data, it was assumed that the controllability of a tow 
 is dependent upon the towboat horsepower and the currents in the channel. 
 
 Since oil was not carried in the bow or stern compartments of the 
 barges /those locations were not specifically noted as damage locations. 
 Where side damage was indicated for grounding casualties, it was at the 
 bilge corner of the barge, and could possibly have been prevented by ef- 
 fective double side construction. The one collision case that showed bot- 
 tom damage was caused from the vessel grounding. In all the collision 
 cases, side damage was not extensive enough to cause pollution had double 
 sided construction been employed. Double bottoms would have probably 
 prevented oil spillage in all cases where bottom damage occurred. 
 
 4-19 
 
Table IV-10 
 ANALYSIS OF 20 TANK BARGE CASUALTIES 
 
 TYPE OF CASUALTY 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 CASUALTIES 
 
 AMOUNT OF 
 
 OIL SPILLED 
 
 (TONS) 
 
 % OF TOTAL 
 OIL SPILLED 
 
 GROUNDINGS 
 
 COLLISION (VESSEL STRUCK 
 BY ANOTHER VESSEL) 
 
 COLLISION (WITH BARGE) 
 
 COLLISION (WITH TOW) 
 
 SUB-TOTAL 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 1,142 
 
 233 
 72 
 13 
 
 1,460 
 
 78 
 
 16 
 5 
 1 
 
 100 
 
 Table IV-11 
 CAUSE FACTORS OF 20 TANK BARGE CASUALTIES 
 
 CAUSE FACTOR 
 
 NUMBER OF CASUALTIES 
 
 PILOT ERROR 
 
 9 
 
 WEATHER 
 
 4 
 
 BARGE OVERLOADED 
 
 5 
 
 LACK OF COMMUNICATION 
 
 2 
 
 WATER CURRENT 
 
 4 
 
 EXCESS BARGE SPEED 
 
 2 
 
 TOO CLOSE TO BANK 
 
 3 
 
 INADEQUATE TOWBOAT 
 HORSEPOWER 
 
 2 
 
 OTHER 
 
 6 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 37 # 
 
 OF THE 20 CASUALTIES, SOME HAD A MULTIPLICITY OF CAUSE FACTORS. 
 
 4-20 
 
4. FATE OF OIL SPILLS (TO, 11) 
 
 a. GENERAL BEHAVIOR OF PETROLEUM IN THE MARINE AND AQUATIC 
 ENVIRONMENT 
 
 The impacts to the marine and aquatic environments created by bulk 
 liquid spillage by waterborne commerce may be categorized as those at- 
 tributed to: (1) routine, long term release of oil into the world's 
 oceans, (2) fairly frequent, but low level introduction of oil into a 
 specific locality such as around fresh and marine water oil terminals and 
 harbors, (3) relatively infrequent catastrophic large spills concentrated 
 in a relatively small geographic area. These impacts are not all the same. 
 The environmental impacts would vary depending upon spill size, frequency 
 and locality of oil input, oil type, waterway and oceanographic condi- 
 tions, meteorological conditions, turbidity, season, biota and method of 
 spill clean-up. The complex interactions of these variables are illus- 
 trated in Figure IV-4. 
 
 b. PETROLEUM COMPOSITION 
 
 The hydrocarbon composition of petroleum varies greatly, depending 
 upon where it is obtained and the type of product. Toxicity of 
 each type of oil depends substantially on the water soluble and aromatic 
 fractions and other hydrocarbon constituents of the petroleum. 
 
 Petroleum products are composed of alkanes (also referred to as par- 
 affins or saturates), alkenes (olefins), and aromatics. Alkanes are 
 chains of carbon atoms with attached hydrogen atoms and may be simple 
 straight chains (normal), branched chains, or simple rings (naphthetic). 
 As with most classes of organic compounds, the higher the number of carbon 
 atoms in a molecule, the higher its boiling point,and the less volatile 
 and soluble it becomes. Low boiling alkanes produce anaesthesia and nar- 
 cosis at low concentrations and at high concentrations cause cell damage 
 and death among a wide variety of lower marine and aquatic biota. Higher 
 boiling alkanes are naturally produced by life processes and are found in 
 all marine organisms. Higher boiling alkanes of petroleum origin are not 
 normally toxic; however, they may affect chemical communication and in- 
 
 4-21 
 
EVAPORATION 
 
 SPREADING 
 
 DISSOLUTI 
 
 it // ll\\\ //DISTRIBUTION 
 
 OIN \// J N^^ //BY PLANKTON 
 
 •ATION jff 11 Ji J ZZ^W 
 
 r V TARRY J 
 
 t# 
 
 NOTE: ARROW SIZE DENOTES RELATIVE VOLUMES OF SPILL DYNAMICS. 
 
 Figure IV-4 PROCESSES AFFECTING OIL SPILLED AT SEA 
 
 MODIFIED AND ADAPTED FROM: A. Nelson Smith. Oil Pollution and Marine Ecology, 
 Plenum Press, New York, 1973. 
 
 4-22 
 
terfere with metabolic and physiological processes. 
 
 Al kenes are between alkanes and aromatics in structure and proper- 
 ties. They are not found in crude oils, but in some refined products, 
 such as gasoline, and in cracking products. Al kenes are relatively more 
 toxic than alkanes, but less so than aromatics. 
 
 Aromatic hydrocarbons are characterized by the possession of six- 
 member benzene rings. Low boiling aromatics are relatively the most tox- 
 ic and mutagenic compounds found in oil. Higher boiling aromatics, es- 
 pecially multi-ring compounds, are suspected as long-term poisons and 
 some are known carcinogens causing malignant growths. 
 
 Petroleum spills on water as illustrated in Figure IV-4 are modified 
 by evaporation, dissolution, microbial action, chemical oxidation, and 
 photo-chemical reactions-- often collectively called weathering. The 
 speed of weathering is markedly influenced by hydrocarbon constitu- 
 ents, light, temperature, nutrients and inorganic substances, winds, 
 tides, currents, and waves. They all affect the microbial degradation, 
 evaporation, dissolution, dispersal, and sedimentation processes. Degra- 
 dation rates appear to vary with the specific hydrocarbon composition of 
 the oil. The more toxic fractions are generally less susceptible to mi- 
 crobial degradation, and have greater evaporation and dissolution rates. 
 The heavy residuals that do not degrade may be deposited in sediments or 
 they may float as tar lumps or tar balls. 
 
 c. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHANGES (WEATHERING) 
 
 Since oil and petroleum products are complex mixtures of many hydro- 
 carbon compounds, the effects on marine organisms vary with the specific 
 oil spilled. As stated previously, the chemical composition of spilled 
 oil is altered significantly by evaporation, dissolution, and chemical 
 oxidation. Because the varying constitutents of oil are affected at dif- 
 ferent rates by these "weathering" processes, the relative composition 
 and, therefore, the biological effects of spilled oil will vary. 
 
 Evaporation depletes the more volatile components but causes little 
 
separation (fractionation) between hydrocarbons that have the same boil- 
 ing points but substantially different structures and effects on organ- 
 isms. Hydrocarbons are quickly lost through evaporation and aerosol iza- 
 tion into the atmosphere. 
 
 Dissolution preferentially removes the lower molecular weight com- 
 ponents from an oil slick based on the hydrocarbon solubility. Some po- 
 tentially toxic fractions, such as the aromatic hydrocarbons, have a 
 higher solubility than the less toxic and insoluble compounds. Once 
 dissolved in seawater, these soluble constituents follow quite dif- 
 ferent pathways than the more conspicuous sliek. 
 
 Biochemical (microbial) attack affects compounds within a much wider 
 boiling range than evaporation and dissolution. Hydrocarbons with the 
 same general chemical structures are attacked at about the same rates. 
 Normally, paraffins are degraded the fastest followed by the gradual re- 
 moval of the branched alkanes. Some components of oil may resist bio- 
 degradation. Cycloalkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons are more resistant 
 and disappear at a much slower rate. 
 
 Chemical degradation processes of oil during weathering are not well 
 understood. Oxidation affects most readily aromatic hydrocarbons of in- 
 termediate and higher molecular weight. 
 
 The effect of these slick weathering processes is a general deple- 
 tion by evaporation and dissolution within 48 - 96 hours of lower boil- 
 ing fractions with a boiling point below 250°C, and a slower degradation 
 by microbial and chemical oxidation in terms of years for the higher boil- 
 ing fractions. 
 
 Oil incorporated into marine sediments does not undergo the same 
 changes as those observed in oils exposed to the atmosphere because of 
 the absence of dissolved oxygen and the shielding from sunlight. This 
 environment causes the oil to retain its original composition for much 
 longer periods and if the deposit is later distributed by the actions of 
 waves, tidal currents, or dredging, oil which has undergone little degra- 
 dation will be released. After release, the oil can be moved into other 
 areas where it can cause deleterious effects. Furthermore, the oil re- 
 
 4-24 
 
leased from sediments may contain pesticides (or their decomposition pro- 
 ducts) which were originally associated with mineral grains incorporated 
 in the deposits. 
 
 d. EMULSION FORMATION 
 
 Oil when mixed with seawater tends to form emulsions and depending 
 upon the chemical composition of the oil and presence or absence of other 
 surface active constituents (surfactants), the emulsions may be either 
 oil-in-water (as in milk) or water-in-oil (as in butter). Emulsion forma- 
 tion changes the physical characteristics of the oil and its physical and 
 chemical behavior in the ocean and, therefore, alters its effects on 
 marine organisms. 
 
 Many oils when vigorously mixed with seawater form oil-in-water emul- 
 sions. The fine oil droplets are then dispersed through a large volume 
 of water, often disappearing from the ocean surface. In a stable disper- 
 sed form, the oil does not "wet" surfaces and also provides maximum sur- 
 face area for microbial and chemical degradation of the oil. The large 
 surface area also permits soluble constituents in the oil to dissolve 
 more readily in seawater. 
 
 e. MOVEMENT AND DISPERSAL OF OIL SLICKS (10) 
 
 A volume of oil suddenly spilled on the sea surface spreads hori- 
 zontally at three different rates, each one determined by a balance of 
 various properties of oil and water. These successive phases of spread- 
 ing are: an inertia phase, a viscous phase, and finally a surface-tension 
 phase. The duration of each phase depends on the amount of oil initially 
 released. Observations indicate that an oil slick spreads to a certain 
 size and then ceases to spread any further. Various theories have been 
 developed to explain this phenomenon. A plausible explanation is that 
 the hydrocarbon component responsible for last stage surface-tension 
 spreading are lost either by evaporation, or dissolution into the water, 
 to a point where surface spreading is held by uniform surface tension (10). 
 
In addition to the well -documented spreading phenomena, an oil spill 
 such as that illustrated in Figure IV-6 exhibits two other important pro- 
 perties. First, during the spreading process, variations in the wind, 
 waves, and current usually separate a large spill into several large 
 patches. The large patches tend to move apart with time. This increases 
 the area of the patch swept by the spill and also increases the rate of 
 dissolution of hydrocarbons into the water. Secondly, waves on the open 
 ocean and the surf near shore cause rapid mixing of the oil and seawater. 
 The tiny suspended oil droplets in the water substantially increase the 
 surface area available for dissolving hydrocarbons into the water and the 
 formation of water-in-oil emulsions and aid in aerosol ization. The dyna- 
 mics of a large spill are illustrated in Figure IV-5. 
 
 f. PHYSICAL BREAKUP OF AN OIL SLICK INTO OIL DROPLETS AND SUBSURFACE 
 DISPERSION 
 
 The suspension and dispersion of micro oil droplets in seawater is 
 related to the turbulent energy in surface waters. Turbulence is in- 
 creased when waves break so that winds strong enough to cause whitecaps 
 substantially increase the turbulence of surface waters. The depth to 
 which this wave- induced turbulence penetrates varies, but 30 to 100 feet 
 might be a representative range for the depth of penetration of the 
 strong wave-generated surface turbulence. Thus, fine oil droplets dis- 
 persed by wind mixing would be most abundant in near-surface waters (less 
 than 100 feet). Mixing of waters caused by strong tidal currents in es- 
 tuaries can mix oil droplets to much greater depths. 
 
 g. SUBSURFACE DISTRIBUTION OF "OIL DROPLETS" 
 
 Oil droplets respond to turbulence depending on their size, with a 
 small oil droplet much less than that of a large droplet. Thus, one can 
 expect to find small oil droplets fairly deep, while large droplets 
 should remain near the surface. Increased mixing also increases the 
 depth of droplet penetration into the water. 
 
 4-26 
 
® © © o o 
 
 o 
 
 L£? 
 
 PATCHES OF THICKER OIL EMULSIONS 
 
 CpSi 
 
 
 \ €& 
 
 SPILL SIZE: 120 TONS SPILLED WITHIN 50 MINUTES 
 SLICK VELOCITY: 3.3% OF WIND SPEED 
 
 Figure IV-5 A SERIES OF DIAGRAMS SHOWING THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT 
 AND SUBSEQUENT BREAK-UP OF THE OIL SLICK 
 
 SOURCE: Large Scale Experiments on the Spreading of Oil at Sea and Its Disappearance by Natural Factors, P.G. Jeffery. 
 
 4-27 
 
Wind blowing over the water imparts momentum to the surface water 
 and moves it in the direction the wind blows. The motion while the wind 
 blows is of importance because the surface layer of water and associated 
 oil slicks can move substantial distances. 
 
 Predictions have been made on oil slick movement due to wind effects 
 by assuming the surface water and winds behave similarly, and that the 
 ratio of the square root of densities of air and water is the factor de- 
 termining the velocity of the water at the surface with respect to the 
 velocity of the wind measured at a height of about 30 feet. Based on 
 this assumption, the velocity of the surface layer is about 3 percent of 
 the surface wind velocity, although observations of the recent ARGO MER- 
 CHANT oil spill have indicated the surface layer velocity is only about 
 1 percent of the surface wind velocity (12). 
 
 The surface drift as a result of wind has been taken into considera- 
 tion with respect to the bulk fluid lying under the surface layer. If 
 this fluid is under the action of a current, the net motion will be a 
 vector summation of the two velocities. Thus, the velocity of slick 
 movement is equal to the current velocity plus 3 percent of the wind ve- 
 locity. (Since vector quantities are a consideration, both speed and 
 direction must be calculated). This formula has proven to be consistent 
 with laboratory and field observations, with the exception of a recent 
 observation of the ARGO MERCHANT spill. 
 
 h. MOVEMENT OF OIL AND OIL SLICKS IN ESTUARIES (13,14) 
 
 In an estuary, movements of oil slicks are complicated by the large 
 oscillatory tidal currents and the larger wind-induced currents near the 
 shoreline. Therefore, oil spill dynamics in an estuary will behave some- 
 what differently than in the open sea. 
 
 In the surface layers, the spilled oil will be extended into an elon- 
 gated horizontal plume by tidal currents assuming no wind. Through the 
 action of mixing processes previously described, a widespread slick of 
 relatively low concentration will develop on which a relatively narrow 
 plume of higher concentration is superimposed with each tide. 
 
 4-28 
 
Tidal currents moving past irregularities in the shoreline further 
 disperse the oil. Intense mixing of oil and surface waters can occur 
 where strong tidal currents move slicks across an irregular bottom such 
 as the sills (submerged ridges) in fjordlike estuaries. 
 
 Frequently, eddies associated with embayments or with points of land 
 that project into the estuary will temporarily trap water containing high 
 concentrations of oil as the plume is carried past by tidal currents. 
 Most of the oil is carried on out past the shore feature by the tidal cur- 
 rent, while the trapped oil slowly spreads out into the main stream caus- 
 ing dispersal behind the main body of the slick. When the tide reverses, 
 the process is repeated, with a resulting dispersion on the opposite side 
 of the slick. 
 
 1. TRANSFER OF OIL FILMS TO THE ATMOSPHERE (15) 
 
 Observations of the evaporation and disappearance of oil films from 
 large lakes suggest other important processes may be actively involved in 
 removing oil from the sea-surface and transferring it into the atmosphere. 
 Laboratory studies and open water oil spill studies have shown that a sig- 
 nificant portion of a spill is immediately lost to the atmosphere. This 
 phenomenon occurs as a result of evaporation of the spill and the creation 
 of aerosols which directly transfer the oil to the atmosphere without a 
 phase change. 
 
 Recreation-spawned oil films, for example, disappear from the water 
 surface in 70 to 90 hours after boating activity has stopped. There 
 was no spill evidence to indicate that the oils are removed by evapora- 
 tion, dissolution, or emul si fi cation. Instead it appears that most of 
 the loss occurs by formation of tiny droplets (aerosols) which are in- 
 jected into the atmosphere. 
 
 Laboratory experiments indicate that the combined action of bubbles 
 and ultraviolet irradiation are ^ery effective in removing oily films 
 from the water surface. Exposure to the atmosphere and ultraviolet radi- 
 ation apparently oxidizes the hydrocarbons in these films. The film 
 materials preferentially pick up other oil-soluble constituents in 
 
 4-29 
 
the water. The aerosols are also likely to be colonized by bacteria and 
 other micro-organisms. While the data are inconclusive, the process de- 
 scribed may be one of the important processes that cause disappearance of 
 oil slicks in many marine areas. 
 
 j. BEHAVIOR OF SPILLED OIL ON SHORE 
 
 When an oil slick reaches the shore, its behavior depends on the nat- 
 ure of the oil, its emulsions, the seastate and the nature of the shoreline. 
 Usually, much of the oil will be carried to the beach and deposited at 
 the high-water mark by successive tides. Wei 1 -weathered or heavy oils 
 mix with sand or plant debris during this process, forming "oil-cakes-" 
 These cakes may cause more trouble by sinking into sand and gravel or 
 clinging to seaweeds. 
 
 On pebble beaches, oil may sink among the pebbles to a depth of 
 0.5-1 meter. Oil does not sink as deeply into wet sand. Breakers may, 
 however, throw fresh sand over the oil-containing sand, burying it. In 
 this way a beach may appear clean shortly after an oil slick has come 
 ashore. Later removal of surface layers during storms or in seasonal 
 sand movements expose the oil. Studies of hydrocarbons within sandy 
 beaches' interstitial water indicate that hydrocarbons persist for decades 
 after the spill event and do affect the benthic marine organisms. 
 
 Because of the many differing beach physiographic features and eco- 
 systems involved, a general oil vulnerability classification system has 
 been devised (16). This classification system is based on a 1 to 10 
 scale, in order of the increasing ecosystem vulnerability. These beach 
 environs are: 
 
 (1) exposed, steeply dipping, or cliffed rocky shores, 
 
 (2) eroding wavecut platforms, 
 
 (3) fine sand beaches, 
 
 (4) coarse sand beaches, 
 
 (5) exposed tidal flats, 
 
 (6) mixed sand and gravel beaches, 
 
 (7) gravel beaches, 
 
 (8) sheltered rocky coasts, 
 
 4-30 
 
(9) sheltered tidal flats, and 
 (10) salt marshes and mangroves. 
 
 5. EFFECTS OF OIL ON MARINE ORGANISMS AND ECOSYSTEMS (10, 11) 
 
 a. GENERAL 
 
 In a continuing effort to evaluate the relative harmful effects of 
 petroleum products to aquatic organisms as set forth by IMCO's Resolution 
 No. 6 of the Marine Pollution Conference of 1973 (MP/CONF/WP. 46), the 
 U.S. EPA conducted investigations to determine the acute toxicity of six 
 petroleum products on four test organisms. Additionally, a thorough 
 literature review was conducted to further examine the relative 
 effects of different refined fractions of crude oil. For a detailed 
 analysis of the harmful effects of oil upon marine organisms, see 
 reference (17). 
 
 Exposure to oil can affect an organism physiologically and behavior- 
 ally. The effects of hydrocarbons on the individual organisms may be 
 generalized as: direct lethal toxicity; sublethal disruption of physiol- 
 ogical processes and behavior; effects of direct coating by oil; incorpo- 
 ration of hydrocarbons, causing tainting and/or accumulation of hydrocar- 
 bons (including carcinogens) in organisms directly or by food-web- trans- 
 fer; and changes in biological habitats. 
 
 Lethal toxicity (death) can occur when hydrocarbons interfere di- 
 rectly with cellular genetic and subcellular processes, especially mem- 
 brane activities. Sublethal effects may also involve cellular and phy- 
 siological effects. Although they do not produce immediate death, sub- 
 lethal responses ultimately can affect survival of individual organisms, 
 their local population dynamics, and the dynamic equilibria of biotic 
 communities.* 
 
 A population is defined as a group of individuals of the same species 
 inhabiting the same geographic region of the marine environment. A 
 community is defined as a group of populations occupying the same re- 
 gions or biotic zone in a region. 
 
 4-31 
 
Important in this category are disrupted behavior, higher susceptibility 
 to disease, reduced photosynthesis, reduced fertility, and abnormal cel- 
 lular development. 
 
 Coating is generally associated with the high-boiling fractions of 
 oil, i.e., weathered oil. It can be a problem for intertidal marine 
 species, eggs and larvae, sessile species, plankton, and birds and mam- 
 mals. Mobile organisms would seem to have the capacity to avoid prolong- 
 ed exposure, but they are physiologically affected by minute amounts of 
 fouling. Subtidal benthic species are somewhat protected from coating 
 because oil does not occur as a film on subtidal substrate except in the 
 worst local spill situations. 
 
 The incorporation of hydrocarbons, including carcinogens, is of 
 particular concern because they can be accumulated in marine organisms 
 and be transferred to other organisms through the food web. Both taint- 
 ing and accumulation of hydrocarbons can occur in marine organisms expos- 
 ed to oil. Oil entering a salt marsh, for example, is found in and on 
 virtually all marine organisms. Once exposure is terminated, however, 
 with time some species have recovered completely. 
 
 Significant shifts in composition and distribution of species can 
 occur in a spill area when the habitat is changed so as to become unsuit- 
 able or less suitable to a certain specie or species. Intertidal and 
 subtidal benthic species are, therefore, important subjects. How much 
 and what kinds of oil prevent a species from utilizing a substrate, for 
 example, is largely unknown; but in view of available data, the presence 
 of low to medium boiling point aromatic hydrocarbons at concentrations 
 as low as 10 to 100 parts per billion may chemically perturb many species. 
 The effects of higher boiling, insoluble materials depend on how much an 
 organism relies on its particular substrate and how much it is altered by 
 oil. Species depending on a substrate only for passive support may be 
 little affected by habitat changes caused by the oil. But those living 
 
 4-32 
 
in the substrate or otherwise actively depending on the substrate's phys- 
 ical properties are surely more vulnerable. Still other effects are ac- 
 climation and selection, processes that may alter how individuals and 
 populations tolerate concentrations of oil. Table IV-12 lists the sensi- 
 tivities of selected species to oil. 
 
 Table IV-13 is an assessment of toxic sensitivities of adult and 
 larval stages of marine organisms. The available data indicate that 
 death may be expected in most adult marine organisms from exposure to 
 1 to 100 parts per million of total soluble aromatic hydrocarbon deriva- 
 tives (SAD) within few hours' exposure. For larvae, lethal concentra- 
 tions may be as low as 0.1 parts per million of SAD. These lethal con- 
 centrations can result from unweathered oil slicks. Soluble aromatic 
 hydrocarbon derivative concentrations of 10 to 100 parts per billion 
 have been demonstrated to interfere with chemical sensing and communica- 
 tions on which lobsters and anadromous fish depend. 
 
 The effects of oil on local populations may be examined by consider- 
 ing parameters such as population size and age distribution, and whether 
 the spill is an isolated accidental event or the result of chronic dis- 
 charges. Accidental spills are comprised of three general stages: (1) 
 prespill equilibrium, (2) immediate postspill impact, and (3) recovery to 
 equilibrium conditions. In contrast, a continuous discharge results in 
 sublethal oil contamination, which may not produce immediate, dramatic 
 impacts, but may instead show subtle, long term effects. 
 
 Biological effects are determined by the following factors: 
 
 type of oil spilled, in particular, the concentration of lower 
 
 boiling aromatic hydrocarbons, 
 
 amount of oil , 
 
 physiography of the spill area, 
 
 weather conditions at the time, 
 
 biota in the area, 
 
 season of the year, 
 
 previous exposure of the area to oil, 
 
 exposure to other pollutants, 
 
 method of treatment of the spill. 
 
 4-33 
 
m< 
 
 ICJ 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 * 
 
 Ml O 
 
 3 < 
 
 
 
 X X 
 
 XX XXX 
 
 
 (9 
 
 Z 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 XX 
 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 3 
 
 
 XXX 
 
 X 
 
 XX X XXXX 
 
 * 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 
 XXXX X 
 
 xxxxxxxxx 
 
 
 XXX 
 
 Z 
 
 Om 
 22 
 2< 
 
 oz 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 S 
 
 i- 
 
 ALEWIFE 
 HERRING 
 MUMMICHOG 
 ATLANTIC COD 
 CROAKER 
 STRIPED BASS 
 WINTER FLOUNDER 
 
 ZOOPLANKTON 
 AMPHIPOD 
 ACORN BARNACLE 
 ZOOPLANKTON 
 SHRIMP 
 MOLE CRAB 
 AMERICAN LOBSTER 
 HERMIT CRAB 
 SHRIMP 
 
 SCALLOP 
 
 VIRGINIA OYSTER 
 COQUINA CLAM 
 NORTHERN QUAHOG 
 HORSE MUSSEL 
 SOFT SHELL CLAM 
 EDIBLE MUSSEL 
 PERIWINKLE 
 COMMON MUD SNAIL 
 DOG WHELK 
 
 2k 
 
 IH 
 
 ill 
 
 3d2 
 
 
 1 
 
 si 
 
 EEir 
 
 00 
 
 FISH 
 Alosa spp. 
 Clupea harengus 
 Fundulus heteroclitus 
 Gadus morhua 
 Micropogon undulatus 
 Morona saxatillis 
 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 
 
 CRUSTACEANS 
 Acartia spp. 
 Ampelisca vadorum 
 Balanus balanoides 
 Calanus spp. 
 Crangon spp. 
 Emerita spp. 
 Homarus americanus 
 Paqurus longicarpus 
 Pandalus spp. 
 
 MOLLUSKS 
 Asquipecten spp. 
 Crassostrea spp. 
 Donax spp. 
 
 Mercenaria mercenaria 
 Modiolus spp. 
 Mya arenaria 
 Mytilusedulis 
 Littorina littorea and spp. 
 Nassarius obsoletus 
 Thais labillus 
 
 si 
 111 
 
 nn 
 
 o<z<5> 
 
so 
 K o 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 u, a 
 
 = 5 
 
 - 
 
 
 (3 
 
 Z 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 XXX, 
 
 z 
 
 ii 
 II 
 
 u 
 
 z 
 II 
 
 cc = 
 << 
 
 sssS 
 
 CCOCC 
 
 <<Oiu 
 
 S2u^ 
 
 w 
 5 
 S5 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 « I 
 
 lis 
 
 ill 
 ill 
 
 o 
 
 ill! 
 
 M 11 if 
 
 is 
 
 a 1 
 
 Of 
 
 if 
 
 MO 
 
 ?8 
 
 £§ 
 
 IS 
 
 4-35 
 
Table IV-13 
 
 ESTIMATED TOXICITY SENSITIVITY 
 
 (Parts per million) 
 
 CLASS 
 
 ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION 
 
 OF SOLUBLE AROMATICS 
 
 CAUSING TOXICITY 
 
 PLANTS 
 
 10-100 
 
 FINFISH 
 
 5-50 
 
 LARVAE (ALL SPECIES) 
 
 0.1 -1 
 
 PELAGIC CRUSTACEANS 
 
 1 -10 
 
 GASTROPODS (SNAILS, ETC.) 
 
 10-100 
 
 BIVALVES (OYSTERS, CLAMS, ETC.) 
 
 5-50 
 
 BENTHIC CRUSTACEANS (LOBSTERS, CRABS, ETC.) 
 
 1 -10 
 
 OTHER BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 
 
 1 - 10 
 
 SOURCE : The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil Engineering, 1973, 
 "A Preliminary Assessment of the Environ mental Vulnerability of Machias Bay, 
 Maine to Oil Supertankers", prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality 
 (NTIS Accession No. COM 73-10564). 
 
 4-36 
 
 
b. EFFECTS ON BIRDS 
 
 Many dead sea birds have been observed after most spills of crude 
 and heavy fuel oils. The death toll has usually been estimated by count- 
 ing the number of oiled birds washed onto beaches, but these estimates 
 often do not include dead birds not reaching shore. The primary effect 
 of oil on birds has been the fouling of the small barbules which causes a 
 disruption of the insulation and buoyancy and flight characteristics of 
 the feathers. Birds, in turn, may sink and drown, or may rapidly lose body 
 heat and succumb to pneumonia. Fouled birds exhibit excessive preening, 
 which may disrupt normal feeding activity or result in ingestion of oil. 
 Ingested oil may poison the birds through inflammation of the digestive 
 tract or disturb other physiological processes. Birds in which the in- 
 sulating ability of the feathers has been damaged develop a very high met- 
 abolic rate to compensate for the rapid loss of body heat. This, coupled 
 with a cessation of feeding, may lead to "accelerated starvation." Oiled 
 birds may not lay eggs as usual and oiled eggs may not hatch. 
 
 Some species of sea birds are more susceptible to oiling than others. 
 Diving sea birds suffer inordinate mortalities, whereas other types such 
 as sea gulls and shearwaters indicate oil avoidance tendencies. There 
 have been reports that the more susceptible species are those that are 
 attracted by the oil slick and land on it. Another important factor is 
 that diving birds, which may remain submerged for several minutes, may 
 surface under oil slicks. 
 
 During the Santa Barbara incident, loons and grebes, which comprise 
 7 to 10 percent of the total bird population, suffered 64 percent of the 
 mortality. Many of these sea birds have long lives and breed slowly; 
 thus the recovery of a population may be a very slow process (18). 
 Because of migratory behavior, a large proportion of a bird species may 
 often be concentrated in a small area. Oil spillage in this area would 
 severely reduce the population. The jackass penguin currently faces ex- 
 tinction because the species is restricted to South Africa and is gradu- 
 ally being killed off by floating oil emanating from tankers rounding the 
 Cape of Good Hope (19). 
 
 4-37 
 
c. EFFECTS ON MAMMALS 
 
 Little is known about the effects of oil pollution on mammals, al- 
 though it is recognized to be less serious than on birds. Serious con- 
 cern was expressed for the sea lions and elephant seals of Santa Barbara's 
 Channel Islands and for the migrating endangered grey whales and other 
 mammals along the East and West coasts of the United States. Despite 
 confusing public reports, there is no conclusive evidence that any of the 
 coated mammals were killed directly by the Santa Barbara oil spill (20,21). 
 
 Mammals have been affected by some spills (22"). Possible effects 
 include suffocation by oil, disruption of insulation abilities of fur 
 coats, and poisoning from ingested oil. In addition to pinnipeds (seals, 
 walruses, etc.) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins), other mammals occupy 
 coastal marine habitats. Sea otters are recovering from near extinction 
 along the West Coast of the United States. Commercially valuable fur 
 bearers, mainly muskrats, inhabit coastal wetlands in Louisiana and are 
 susceptible to oil pollution from the production fields, although fur 
 production has not declined. 
 
 d. EFFECTS ON FISH AND SHELLFISH (11) 
 
 There is a great deal of experimental and field evidence indicating 
 that refined oil products and components are quite toxic to fish and 
 shellfish. Fish may be more resistant than some other marine organisms 
 because their surfaces, including gills, are coated with a slimy mucus 
 that is an oil repellent; and evidence suggests that fish may simply 
 migrate away from an area affected by large oil concentrations (23,24). 
 
 Recent data from the ARGO MERCHANT spill indicated selective cytoge- 
 netic and cytological impacts on pelagic fish eggs. There has been con- 
 cern that larval fish, which often concentrate at the ocean surface, may 
 be adversely affected by floating oil, either through toxicity or entrap- 
 ment (22,25,26). 
 
 Numerous deaths among these young forms could have serious conse- 
 quences for adult populations over the long run, and such consequences 
 may be difficult to detect, although a recently developed physical model 
 (27) suggests that they would be minimal. Also unknown are the long-term 
 
effects of trace contamination of fish through feeding. Many fish feed 
 on benthic, invertebrates that may contain petroleum hydrocarbons. Others, 
 such as mullet, feed on organisms and detritus at the water's surface, 
 where there may also be hydrocarbon concentrations. Mullet in some Aus- 
 tralian coastal waters close to port and refinery facilities are frequent- 
 ly contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and have a characteristic 
 odor and chemical composition similar to kerosene (28, 30). Similar 
 situations to this are found along certain U.S. inland waterways. 
 
 e. EFFECTS ON FISHERIES (11) 
 
 Oil pollution may affect the use of commercial species of fish, mol- 
 lusks, and crustaceans. Even though no direct effects of oil on fish 
 were observed in Santa Barbara Channel (24,30), the risk of fouling fish- 
 ing gear or catching contaminated fish severely reduced fishing effort. 
 This had an economic impact on the local fishermen, even though the re- 
 source was not directly affected (31 )v 
 
 Tainting of commercial species of fish (22)> clams (3 ! 2), oysters 
 (33) } and mussels (22) by oil has been reported. Tainting can result in 
 a loss to commercial fisherman because of unsaleable catches. Tainting 
 may be quite persistent, the noticeable taint lasting several months. 
 Furthermore, Blumer, et al . (34) have indicated that oysters affected by 
 the West Falmouth spill, but subsequently kept in clean water, retained 
 petroleum hydrocarbons similar in chemical composition to the Number 2 
 fuel oil spilled over eight months previously. Based on these findings, auth- 
 orities imposed a total ban on the taking of shellfish in a large area. 
 A partial ban still exists more than three years after the original con- 
 tamination. 
 
 More recent research indicates that shellfish and fish. (35) 
 will accumulate hydrocarbons, but will cleanse themselves if maintained 
 in uncontaminated seawater for several months. The mechanisms of uptake 
 and of decontamination are complex and varied and the time required for 
 decontamination would be expected to depend on: the duration and dosage 
 of exposure, storage sites, possession of metabolic processes to detoxify 
 the hydrocarbons, and on the organisms' physiological state and other 
 factors. 
 
 4-39 
 
Attempts have been made to demonstrate the effects of oil spillage 
 on fishery productivity as reflected in commercial catch statistics. 
 Notable among these was a study undertaken along the coast of Louisiana, 
 which supports very large and important commercial fisheries as well as 
 a highly developed petroleum industry. Statistics showed no decline in 
 catches of shrimp, crabs, and fish concomitant with the development of 
 the petroleum industry (36). A decline in the oyster harvest coincident 
 with the expansion of the petroleum industry in the 1940 ' s has been at- 
 tributed to an oyster disease and not oil. These study results should 
 be used cautiously since they do not represent precise reporting. 
 They fail to take into account the changing effort and technological ad- 
 vances of fisheries and are generally not available for the localized 
 areas in which pollution may be intense. 
 
 In the Gulf of Mexico, where oil and gas operations have continued 
 for 25 years, no significant long-term changes in fish catch have been 
 noted. However, the record catches of 1954 have never been exceeded, and 
 recent studies at Texas A & M University indicate that the fish catch has 
 remained high as a result of the increased effort. Shrimp catches in 
 the last few years have been declining both in total catch in waters and 
 catch per effort ( 37) . 
 
 The long history of oil production on the Gulf Coast has not indicated 
 that significant impacts on the gulf fisheries has resulted, but the data 
 is inconclusive on the possibility of important local effects. 
 
 f. EFFECTS ON PLANKTON 
 
 Few observable effects of oil spills on the small, passively drift- 
 ing plants and animals composing plankton have been uncovered in post- 
 spill investigations. Some kills were observed during the Torrey Canyon 
 spill among phytoplankton (plant plankton), but none among the zooplank- 
 ton (animal plankton). It was found that the heavy use of chemical dis- 
 persants complicates the issue. Studies following the Santa Barbara off- 
 shore oil rig blowout could detect no harmful effects on phytoplanktonic 
 
 4-40 
 
productivity (38) or zooplankton populations (39). However, because 
 plankton are passively carried about by water currents, it would be very 
 difficult to discern effects in the field especially in open waters like 
 the Santa Barbara Channel. Zooplankton surveys following the ARGO MER- 
 CHANT spill found mandibular contamination and oil present in the gut 
 and natural oil storage areas. Laboratory experiments have generally 
 produced more tangible results, although the degree to which these re- 
 sults may be extrapolated to natural conditions is open to question. 
 These results indicate that there is a possibility of both stimulation 
 and inhibition of photosynthesis in areas subject to chronic oil pollu- 
 tion or in the immediate vicinity of a heavy oil spill. 
 
 The larvae or young of many benthic and fish species spend time as 
 members of the zooplankton. They are often much more susceptible to toxi- 
 cants than adults. Larvae of the intertidal barnacle (Elminius modestus) 
 were shown to be killed by 100 parts per million (ppm) of fresh crude oil 
 (40). Crude oils have also been shown to be toxic to the planktonic eggs 
 and larvae of some fishes, including cod and herring (41). 
 
 In addition to potentially acute effects of oil spills on planktonic 
 organisms, there has been concern about the long-term effects of floating 
 oil and tar lumps, which have become alarmingly common on the high seas. 
 If the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in ocean surface waters 
 are being increased by shipping discharges or atmospheric input, there 
 would certainly be concern for the near-surface plankton so important to 
 oceanic productivity. Data on hydrocarbon concentrations in seawater are 
 remarkably scant and historical data are nonexistent, thus making it im- 
 possible to predict future trends and effects of oil on the oceanic eco- 
 system. 
 
 g. EFFECTS ON NEUSTON ( 11) 
 
 Neuston is the assemblage of organisms which live right at or within 
 5 to 10 centimeters beneath the surface of the sea. Some research is now 
 in progress in Bermuda on the effects of floating oil on the Sargassum 
 community. Unfortunately, the ecology of neustonic organisms is yery 
 poorly known, and the effects on it of floating oil can only be surmised. 
 
 4-41 
 
However, it can be generally felt that if the oil sheen is visible, the 
 fouling potential from the dissolved and dispersed oil fractions would be 
 sufficient to eradicate or severely impact this community. 
 
 h. EFFECTS ON INTERTIDAL ORGANISMS (ll) 
 
 Spilled oil has its most visual effects on the intertidal environ- 
 ment. Oil may smother, foul, or directly poison intertidal organisms. 
 Reports of the effects of direct oil poisoning vary from "non-existent" 
 to "extremely damaging." The differences seem in part due to the type of 
 oil spilled, which determines both the toxicity and the degree of contact 
 with fresh oil slicks. Even crude oils differ in their toxicities to in- 
 tertidal organisms (24). 
 
 General oil spill impacts have varied from slight to moderate, and 
 the communities have partially recovered within a few years. The resis- 
 tance and resilience to oil is attributed to: (1) the hardiness of inter- 
 tidal organisms, (2) their rapid reproduction, and (3) the relatively ra- 
 pid removal of oil from the intertidal zone by waves. The use of cosme- 
 tic clean-up techniques - such as toxic dispersants, steam cleaning,. and 
 straw on certain oiled shores has been demonstrated to cause greater mor- 
 tality or slower regrowth. Most biologists who have experience with the 
 effects of such techniques recommend no attempt at removal unless clearly 
 necessary, and then only with absorbents or by scraping away oily sand 
 (ll). Investigations of the beach self-cleaning processes and the 
 biological recovery of the bunker C spill in Chedabucto Bay in Nova 
 Scotia are shown in Figure IV-6. This figure indicates the intricacies 
 of the beach as well as the species involved in analyzing the beach 
 recovery processes. As indicated, the vegetal species, kelp Fucas visicu- 
 losus and salt marsh cordgrass Spartina atteni flora, showed a moderately 
 rapid recovery whereas the soft shelled clam Mya arenaria was still 
 being impacted by the beaches' interstitial water hydrocarbon content. 
 
 1. EFFECTS ON SEABED ORGANISMS (11) 
 
 Oil has a distinct affinity for sediment particles, especially clay 
 
 4-42 
 

 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 
 
 
 1 1 1 
 f / ' 
 
 \ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 / / 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 / ' 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 N 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 > 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 
 / / 
 / / 
 
 / 1 
 
 / / 
 / / 
 / / 
 / / 
 
 § 1 
 t 
 
 */ si 
 
 21 * 1 
 
 
 £' 
 
 © / 
 
 
 .*/ «# 
 
 
 3* 
 
 */ 
 
 \ 
 
 &/ £ ' 
 
 
 
 1/ 
 
 3\ 
 
 $ SI 
 
 
 3i\ 
 
 o/ 
 ^1 
 
 2 » 
 
 ?/ 1/ 
 
 
 If 
 
 v- \ 
 VI 1 
 
 ■*7 5 ' 
 
 tu/ O 1 
 
 
 %\ 
 
 */ 
 
 <i 
 
 67 £ f 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 i 
 
 ;57 «// 
 
 
 *\ 
 
 o 
 
 i. 
 
 / ' v^ 
 
 / / ^x 
 
 
 
 
 ?/ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 o / 
 
 f i // 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 // 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
 toy 
 
 
 
 v/ 
 
 
 / f 
 
 
 
 i/V 
 
 
 X / 
 
 
 
 x/ 
 
 
 r i 
 
 
 
 /* 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 7 1 > 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 / I / 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / / 
 
 y^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / / 
 
 S^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / a/ 1 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^sy 
 
 I 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 
 / 
 
 \Z— 
 
 / 
 
 t 
 
 
 / 
 
 1 1 — 
 
 ok" 
 
 I UJ2 
 
 O 0_ 
 
 5 N > 
 
 Og| 
 
 2gl 
 
 co eo° 
 
 Z <? 
 <0Q . 
 C30| 
 
 Z D = 
 
 < OS' 
 in <" 
 
 tJQS 
 9uj 
 
 U.IS 
 
 -» 03 
 eo S • 
 
 2 3^0 
 
 so-. 
 
 DCCg 
 
 AU3AQ33U -|V3IDQ-|Qia QIMV 
 NOISOU3 3 U3XNng Q3QNVU1S 
 
 4-43 
 
minerals and particles coated with organic matter. Oil is often depos- 
 ited in high concentrations on the bottom, where it may persist and 
 chronically repollute an environment. Biodegradation and other weather- 
 ing processes result in a selective loss of n-alkanes so that the rela- 
 tive composition of the oil persisting in sediments changes markedly as 
 the total quantity of oil is reduced (34). The net effect is that the 
 hydrocarbons remaining are rich in aromatics and cycloalkanes which may 
 continue to be harmful in a quiescent environment for a long period of 
 time. Measurements taken after the ARGO MERCHANT spill found sediments' 
 hydrocarbon concentrations up to 100 ppm within 10 miles of the grounding. 
 
 Marine organisms may accumulate petroleum hydrocarbons in their 
 tissues. This may be especially true for benthic organisms, many of 
 which feed on suspended matter or bottom sediments which may contain oil. 
 The chronic effects of such contamination remain unstudied, and it is un- 
 known if petroleum hydrocarbons can be transmitted to fish feeding on 
 oil -contaminated seabed organisms. 
 
 j. IMPACT ON WETLANDS (14) 
 
 The great value of tidal wetlands in coastal ecosystems is generally 
 accepted, if not always well understood. Tidal wetlands are character- 
 istic of many estuarine shores throughout the world and include salt 
 marshes dominated by grasses in temperate climates, and mangrove swamps 
 dominated by trees in the tropics. They serve as habitat, feeding, or 
 nesting grounds for shore birds, fish, and other wildlife; consequently 
 they are considered the most vulnerable ecosystems for oil spill impacts. 
 
 The amount of impact damage to the wetlands is a function of the 
 type and amount of oil, the plant species involved and the time of year. 
 In the case of oil pollution, salt marshes often suffered only minimal 
 damage and have also alleviated the pollution problem by trapping and 
 holding oil. 
 
 4-44 
 
The general short-term impact of oil on marsh ecosystems is the foul- 
 ing of the flora and fauna, which, in turn, results in the destruction of 
 the fouled plant stems within several days and the drastic reduction of 
 the indigenous fauna. Over long periods there is an extended recovery 
 time in which the salt marsh plants recover as a result of the new growth 
 from the viable root stock. This process appears to be specie site and 
 seasonally specific. A general guide to salt marsh plants' susceptibility 
 to oil spillage is shown in Table IV-14. 
 
 k. IMPACT ON THE SUBPOLAR MARINE AND POLAR MARINE ENVIRONMENT (11) 
 
 The tapping of oil resources in the North American Arctic and the 
 environmental consequences of the Trans-Alaska pipeline have received 
 much public attention. Alaskan oil will continue to be transported by 
 sea, from the warm water port of Valdez to the lower 48 states, but as 
 pipeline flow rates increase, larger tankers will probably be employed. 
 Because of the hazards of navigation in these waters, there is a signi- 
 ficant possibility of massive oil spills in the subpolar marine environ- 
 ment. The effects of spilled oil in polar regions might be serious and 
 long lasting (42) because: (1) cold temperatures do not permit rapid 
 evaporation of aromatics in oil, thereby allowing more of the toxic hy- 
 drocarbon components to enter solution in sea water even though the solu- 
 bility of these compounds is lower at low temperatures; (2) the rate of 
 bacterial degradation and other natural weathering processes are compar- 
 atively slower at the colder temperatures; and (3) the marine biota of 
 polar regions are generally long-lived, have low reproductive potentials 
 and do not have wide ranging dispersal stages (43). 
 
 A large oil spill in the North American Arctic might have consider- 
 able effects: (1) the oil would persist and remain toxic for a long 
 time, and (2) recovery of an affected area through recolonization would 
 be slow. These potential impacts should be considered in light of the 
 relative inefficiency of spill prevention and control techniques in 
 such a difficult environment. 
 
 4-45 
 
Table IV-14 
 SALT MARSH PLANTS' SUSCEPTIBILITY TO OIL SPILLAGE 
 
 GROUP 
 
 SUSCEPTIBILITY 
 
 REASON FOR DAMAGE 
 
 1 
 
 VERY SUSCEPTIBLE 
 
 SHALLOW ROOTING PLANTS WITH NO 
 OR SMALL FOOD RESERVES; QUICKLY 
 KILLED BY OIL AND CANNOT RECOVER; 
 e.g., Suaeda maritima (SEABLITE); SEED- 
 LINGS OF ALL SPECIES 
 
 2 
 
 SUSCEPTIBLE 
 
 SHRUBBY PERENNIALS WITH EXPOSED 
 BRANCH ENDS WHICH ARE BADLY DAM- 
 AGED BY OIL; e.g., laliminoe porticulacoides 
 (SEA PURSLANE) 
 
 3 
 
 SUSCEPTIBLE 
 
 FILAMENTOUS GREEN ALGAE. THOUGH 
 FILAMENTS ARE QUICKLY KILLED, POP- 
 ULATIONS CAN RECOVER RAPIDLY BY 
 GROWTH AND VEGETATIVE REPRODUC- 
 TION OF ANY UNHARMED FRAGMENTS 
 OR SPORES 
 
 4 
 
 INTERMEDIATE 
 
 PERENNIALS WHICH USUALLY RECOVER 
 FROM ONE SPILLAGE OR UP TO FOUR 
 LIGHT EXPERIMENTAL OILINGS, BUT 
 DECLINE RAPIDLY IF CHRONICALLY 
 POLLUTED; e.g., Spartina anglica; 
 Puccinellia maritima (SEA POA) 
 
 5 
 
 RESISTANT 
 
 PERENNIALS, USUALLY OF ROSETTE 
 FORM, WITH LARGE FOOD RESERVES 
 (e.g., TAP ROOTS). MOST OF THEM DIE 
 DOWN IN WINTER. SOME HAVE SUR- 
 VIVED TWELVE EXPERIMENTAL OIL- 
 INGS; e.g., Armeria maritima (THRIFT) 
 
 6 
 
 VERY RESISTANT 
 
 PERENNIALS OF GROUP 5 TYPE WHICH 
 HAVE IN ADDITION A RESISTANCE TO 
 OILS AT THE CELLULAR LEVEL; e.g., 
 MEMBERS OF THE Umbelliferae. 
 
 Baker, J.M., Crapp, C.B., The Biological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral Communities 
 Including Salt Marshes, Marine Pollution and Sea Life, United Nations FAQ 1972. 
 
 4-46 
 
1. IMPACT ON ESTUARIES (11) 
 
 Estuaries are extremely productive and valuable ecosystems and are 
 often subjected to the intense pressure of multiple uses by man. The 
 estuaries are expected to assimilate domestic and industrial wastes and 
 accommodate marine transportation, yet continue to remain productive in 
 fish and shellfish. Because of the increasing trend toward tanker-trans- 
 ported crude and refined oils and the proximity of estuaries to popula- 
 tion centers, estuaries must cope with increasing levels of petroleum 
 pollution and industrial and domestic effluents. Thus, certain estuarine 
 environments may be subjected to frequent small spills, often of more 
 toxic refined products or continuous low-level additions from refineries, 
 petro-chemical plants, oil field wastes, and even domestic sewage and 
 urban runoff. 
 
 Because estuaries are generally confined and relatively shallow 
 bodies of water, oil spills can be spread by successive tidal stages over 
 much of the water's surface and have little chance to be swept to sea. 
 In all spill cases there is a high likelihood that the oil will reach 
 large portions of the shoreline and pollute the bottom. Estuaries are 
 typically turbid, and therefore oil will be absorbed onto fine sediment 
 particles and sink to the bottom, where it will contaminate bottom-dwell- 
 ing organisms, including shellfish and bottom-feeding fish. This process 
 seemed to be the principal cause of the widespread contamination follow- 
 ing the West Falmouth oil spill (44). The oleophilic nature of detritus, 
 which is typically abundant in estuaries, increases the probability of 
 ingestion of oil by estuarine detritivores. If oil is deposited in sedi- 
 ments, it will persist for long periods under the anaerobic conditions 
 typical of subsurface estuarine sediments. 
 
 The abundant microbial biota of estuaries ensures that aerobic de- 
 gradation will be rapid, leading to an intermediate recovery rate. With 
 the great reproductive potentials typical of most estuarine organisms, 
 population shifts and specie recruitment would immediately begin to rees- 
 tablish the ecosystem. Clearly this is one aspect of the oil pollution 
 problem where full assessment of the biological problems depends on sound 
 information on the fate of the introduced oil, particularly on the degree 
 
to which oil finds its way into estuarine sediments and on the changes 
 in amount and composition of oil in sediments. 
 
 The intertidal areas of estuaries are often characterized by exten- 
 sive tidal wetlands— salt marshes in temperate latitudes and mangrove 
 swamps in the tropics. These are thought to be in large part responsible 
 for the very high productivity of estuarine environments and are a main- 
 stay of the detritus-based estuarine food chain. Wetlands are vulnerable 
 to dosage by floating oil. Although most experimental evidence shows 
 that marsh grasses suffer little from a single dosage of oil (45), oils 
 as different as the light Number 2 fuel oil and the heavy Bunker C fuel 
 oil have caused lethal damage to marsh plants at West Falmouth (46) and 
 Chedabucto Bay, Canada (47). Furthermore, chronic pollution - such as 
 in the vicinity of a refinery effluent or near an oil handling facility - 
 can kill off marsh plants leaving the area susceptible to erosion (48,49). 
 
 m. IMPACT ON THE SURVIVAL OF LOCAL SPECIES (10) 
 
 A local species population has recovered from an oil spill when it 
 recolonizes and density and age distribution return to prespill levels. 
 
 Recovery is not considered complete until prespill size and age dis- 
 tributions have been restored, with allowance for natural fluctuations. 
 This strict criterion does not reflect complete recovery that might occur 
 in more complex situations. For example, the ecological successions in- 
 volved in local population or community recovery might result in a new 
 equilibrium that differs qualitatively or quantitatively from prespill 
 conditions. The difference does not necessarily indicate degradation or 
 lack of recovery. 
 
 Four major stages of population recovery can be identified: (1) 
 assuming survival of part of the original population, recovery begins 
 with survivors; (2) colonizers enter the recovery area; (3) colonizing 
 individuals settle or otherwise reestablish; and (4) recovery is com- 
 pleted. In annual species, recovery occurs when prespill population den- 
 sity is reached; recovery in perennial species is equated with return to 
 a prespill stable age distribution within the local population. 
 
 4-48 
 
"Wide-dispersal ubiquitous species," the most common marine biotic 
 category, are the populations whose prespill habitat is accessible to re- 
 invading members of the species in a single reproductive season and who 
 number enough "immigrants" to replace local prespill populations. Recov- 
 ery time is of the order of the life spans of individual organisms. 
 
 "Wide-dispersal non-ubiquitous species" are the populations whose 
 prespill habitat is accessible to reinvading members of the species in a 
 single reproductive season but who may not have enough settlers to repopu- 
 late the local area quickly. This category may be vulnerable to occasi- 
 onal biotic catastrophes (occasions of high adult mortality). Birds are 
 in this group; their recovery time, though largely unknown, is highly 
 variable. 
 
 "Non-wide dispersal species" are populations whose prespill habitat 
 is not accessible to reinvading members of the species. Some snails are 
 an example. Recovery times are likely to be longer than the life spans 
 of the species. This group 1s very sensitive to catastrophic spills be- 
 cause 1t takes longer than other categories to repopulate a decimated 
 zone. 
 
 "Highly mobile species," like finfish and birds, appear signifi- 
 cantly vulnerable only during highly localized breeding or other types 
 of aggregations at various times of the year or during certain life sta- 
 ges. The significance of such a threat is extremely difficult to project. 
 Planktonic organisms and diving birds are potentially more vulnerable to 
 exposure to oil in the open sea than nektonic organisms, which can swim 
 about. However, a single oil slick should not threaten an entire plank- 
 tonic population. 
 
 Species with small or local breeding populations such as anadromous 
 fish native to a particular river-- the alewife, striped bass, and 
 salmon-- may be especially vulnerable. 
 
 n. EFFECTS OF MASSIVE OIL SPILLS 
 
 In view of the number and size of Title XI program tank vessels en- 
 
 4-49 
 
gaged in domestic trade, it is necessary to consider ecological effects 
 of massive oil spills resulting from a tank vessel casualty and complete 
 loss of cargo. In other words, consider the maximum credible accident. 
 
 (1) First Massive Oil Spill . The TORREY CANYON which grounded on March 
 18, 1967 was the second largest spill recorded, releasing approximately 
 110,000 tons of crude oil in three separate spills; the largest was about 
 50,000 tons which was released when the ship broke up on March 26, 1967 (50). 
 
 In the TORREY CANYON incident, an estimated 100,000 tons of crude 
 oil came ashore on the Cornish beaches after having been at sea for about 
 a week, and polluted about 140 miles of rocky shore and headlands (51). 
 Some of the smaller coves were protected. An unknown quantity of oil 
 came ashore after April 1967, on the beaches of Brittany, polluting about 
 75 miles of coastline. This oil had been at sea for about two weeks. 
 Oil from the TORREY CANYON was also identified in the Bay of Biscay in 
 early June 1967, about six weeks after the last major release (50). 
 
 (2) Recent Massive Oil Spill in U.S. Waters (16) . There were several 
 spill incidents that received national attention during December 1976. 
 The most notable incidents were the grounding and break up of the ARG0 
 MERCHANT and the explosion of the tanker SANSINENA in Los Angeles (9 per- 
 sons killed and 50 injured). During the same period of time there were 
 several accidents, although on a smaller scale, occurring in the Thames 
 River in Connecticut, the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, the Hudson 
 River in New York and in Buzzards Bay 1n Massachusetts. These accidents 
 occurred in U.S. waters; however, most of the vessels involved were of 
 Liberian registry. 
 
 The ARG0 MERCHANT grounding and subsequent breakup was the largest 
 spill to occur from a vessel in or near U.S. waters (7.6 million gallons 
 of number 6 fuel oil). It ran aground southeast of Nantucket Island, 
 nearly 25 miles off course. The 23-year-old 640-foot Liberian flag ves- 
 sel had a record of eighteen previous accidents. One of the causes of 
 the grounding on December 15, 1977 was thought to be navigational error. 
 The following navigational equipment was found to be inoperative: 
 
 4-50 
 
radar (broken), 
 
 gyro compass (in error), 
 
 radio direction finder (Improperly calibrated), 
 
 echo sounder (not operating). 
 
 The short term biological impact of this spill was minimal because 
 of several fortunate events: 
 
 oil did not float onto the shore; 
 
 a significant amount of oil did not sink and contaminate the 
 
 bottom; 
 
 the incident occurred during the cold winter when fishing and 
 
 biological productivity are low. 
 
 Studies conducted at the spill site indicated the rapid weathering 
 of the fuel oil occurred, forming a thick "pancake" slick as the weather- 
 ing progressed. Maximum oil concentration found 1.8 to 3.6 meters be- 
 neath the slick was 250 parts per billion (ppb). Within this zone the 
 pelagic fish eggs were found to be intermixed with the higher hydrocarbon 
 levels. Fish eggs of several commercial species were collected in the 
 area. These eggs immediately beneath the spill had oil droplets adhering 
 to the membrane in varying amounts which was specie-specific. Laboratory 
 analyses found cytological and cytogenetic impacts the same as on the 
 developing eggs. The total impact on the rich fishery as a result of 
 this spill is difficult to determine quantitatively. Fish which spawn 
 over wide ocean areas would be expected to suffer some minor population 
 declines, but the species as a whole would not be expected to suffer sub- 
 stantial declines as a result of one isolated event in an open ocean 
 system (26). 
 
 Further studies will have to be conducted to determine the long- 
 term impact of the spill. 
 
 (3) Environmental Impact of Massive Oil Spills . The environmental Im- 
 pact of massive oil spills is variable depending upon the location of the 
 incident and other environmental factors. As previously discussed, the 
 coastal zone is more vulnerable because of its relatively high biological 
 productivity, while offshore incidents will cause less damage. The 
 
 4-51 
 
season in which the spill occurs would also influence the extent of bio- 
 logical damage (16). A spill will cause biological damage during the 
 spring reproductive period or during the growing season. In addition, 
 the toxicity of the petroleum crude or product varies depending upon its 
 hydrocarbon components. The volatile components of petroleum are usually 
 the most toxic and evaporate rapidly to the atmosphere. Other factors 
 which influence the environmental impact include winds, wave action, 
 tides, and currents. 
 
 From these large spills, it can be concluded that the pollution 
 from a massive spill will be widespread, although discontinuous, in those 
 parts of the coastal ocean where currents and wind effects may move the 
 oil within a period of a few weeks. 
 
 Drawing on an admittedly inadequate data base, it is most difficult 
 to predict and evaluate the environmental impacts of a massive oil spill. 
 The brief analysis herein depends on scaling up of observed effects from 
 major oil spills. For physical and chemical effects, this strategy may 
 be adequate. The size of the oil slicks and the amount of soluble hydro- 
 carbons dissolved in the ocean are probably directly related to the 
 amount of oil spilled. Likewise, the movement of the slick can be cal- 
 culated using data on currents and winds in a relatively simple computer 
 program. 
 
 Biological effects are not so readily scaled. The area covered by 
 an oil spill will be determined by the amount of oil spilled, as influ- 
 enced by the amount lost at sea or weathered in various ways as discussed 
 in previous sections, but many questions related to possible threshold 
 effects remain unanswered. For example, if all the wetlands in an en- 
 tire coastal region are covered with oil causing major mortalities among 
 birds, mammals, and invertebrates, can these wetlands eventually recover? 
 Much more work is needed to assess the long-term impact of large spills 
 and the recovery of the marine environment before such questions can be 
 answered. In short, an adequate assessment of ecological effects of a 
 massive oil spill is not yet possible. Still it is possible to indicate 
 in a qualitative way some of the probable effects of a massive oil spill 
 from a Title XI program tank vessel engaged in domestic trade. 
 
 4-52 
 
(4) Ecological Impact Of Spills In U.S. Maters . In order to assess 
 possible ecological impacts of a massive oil spill in U.S. coastal and 
 inland waters from the complete loss of a tank vessel, it is necessary 
 to delineate the waters likely to be affected by such spills. The 
 coastal limits of coastal circulation cells in which currents and winds 
 are capable of moving large oil slicks within a few weeks must be deter- 
 mined; however, the coastal ocean circulation around the United States 
 is poorly known. The current patterns are complicated and subject to 
 seasonal changes in strength and direction in response to winds and 
 river runoff. 
 
 Major coastal circulation cells may be delineated as follows: 
 
 Atlantic Ocean 
 
 Gulf of Maine - Bay of Fundy to Cape Cod, Massachusetts 
 Middle Atlantic Bight - Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, North 
 
 Carolina 
 South Atlantic Bight - Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to 
 
 Miami, Florida 
 South Florida - Miami, Florida to Sanibel Island, Florida 
 
 (Fort Myers, Florida) 
 
 Gulf of Mexico 
 
 East Gulf of Mexico - Sanibel Island, Florida to Mobile, 
 
 Alabama 
 Mississippi Delta - Mobile, Alabama to Morgan City, Louisiana 
 Western Gulf of Mexico - Morgan City, Louisiana to Rio Grand 
 
 River, Texas 
 
 Pacific Ocean 
 
 Hawaiian Islands 
 
 Southern California Bight - U.S. Mexico border to Point Con- 
 ception, California 
 
 Central California Cession - Point Conception to Cape 
 Mendocino, California 
 
 4-53 
 
Oregon - Washington Coast - Cape Mendocino, California to 
 
 Strait of Juan de Fuca 
 Gulf of Alaska - South of the Aleutian Islands 
 Bering Sea - South of Cape Prince of Wales 
 
 The effects of a massive oil spill in each of these areas can be ex- 
 pected to be different. To illustrate these effects and their magnitude, 
 this section will briefly sketch the probable environmental impacts of a 
 massive oil spill for five different areas described above: Gulf of 
 Maine (Machias Bay); Middle Atlantic Bight; Gulf of Mexico (Louisiana); 
 Southern California Bight; and Puget Sound. 
 
 (a) Gulf of Maine (Machias Bay, Maine ) If a tank ship were to lose 
 150,000 tons of oil in the coastal waters adjoining Machias, Maine, a 
 massive slick would form. The thickness of a slick would depend on the 
 type of crude oil being carried. Assuming such a slick formed, the 
 150,000 tons of oil could form an emulsion (80%) that would cover about 
 20 square miles about one-half an inch thick. If the oil formed only a 
 thick slick of a few microns, it could cover about one square mile for 
 each ton of oil or about 150,000 square miles (50). This last possi- 
 bility seems unlikely in rough sea conditions because of the rapid clean- 
 ing of the sea surface by aerosol transfer (52) and other decomposition 
 processes as previously discussed. The slick would be moved along the 
 coast by winds and coastal currents. 
 
 If the effects of winds are ignored, the non-tidal currents in 
 spring would carry the oil southward along the coast at about a half 
 knot or about 15 statute miles a day. Within two weeks, the oil slick 
 could reach the vicinity of Boston and Massachusetts Bay. Some of the 
 oil might be carried around Cape Cod but it seems unlikely that large 
 quantities would move south of Cape Cod to enter the Middle Atlantic 
 Bight. (Winds from the south could well move the slick into the Bay of 
 Fundy within a few days following the spill). In either case, 200 to 300 
 miles of New England shoreline would be potentially exposed to heavy oil 
 pollution. The most immediate effect of the slick would be to kill 
 thousands of seabirds in the Gulf of Maine and along its shores. 
 
 4-54 
 
Some oil would likely be carried by tidal or wind-driven currents 
 into the wetlands and estuaries along the New England Coast. If the oil 
 had most of its volatile components (i.e., had not weathered), the ef- 
 fects on the wetlands could be quite serious, perhaps resembling the 
 widespread damage reported in the marshes of West Falmouth, Massachusetts 
 following a spill of light fuel oil (53). If the oil going into these 
 wetlands had aged at sea, its effects on the marine life would be greatly 
 reduced. Given sufficient time to weather at sea, the oil impact might 
 well resemble that observed on the Cornish coast from the 1967 TORREY 
 CANYON spill, i.e., pollution of many miles of shoreline (without deter- 
 gent effects) (51). 
 
 Owing to the intake of petroleum by shellfish and lobsters, it seems 
 highly probable that the fishery for these organisms could be greatly 
 damaged. The effect might be a complete loss of the shellfish and lob- 
 ster catch for one or more years until the petroleum had decomposed, or 
 been buried, and diluted sufficiently so that it no longer affected the 
 organisms. In addition, if permanent tainting occurs, time will be need- 
 ed to generate a population not so affected. The maximum loss would be 
 approximately 20 million dollars per year (1969) with a processed value 
 of about 48 million dollars. The data from the 1967 TORREY CANYON spill 
 suggests that the effect on finfish would be less severe although there 
 would likely be some tainting of fish and loss to fishermen owing to oil 
 fouling their nets, boats and other equipment. 
 
 Depending on the season in which the spill occurred, losses to the 
 coastal recreational industry could be quite large. For example, an en- 
 tire tourist season miqht be lost with serious economic loss to coastal 
 New England communities. 
 
 (b) Middle Atlantic Bight (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras) (54) . The Middle 
 Atlantic Bight is the heavily urbanized part of the coastal ocean lying 
 between Nantucket Shoals, south of Cape Cod, and Cape Hatteras, North 
 Carolina. The warm subtropical waters of the Gulf Stream form the outer 
 limits of this coastal circulation system. The so-called North wall of 
 
the Gulf Stream is marked by a sharp change in water temperature between 
 the cooler and less saline coastal ocean waters and the warmer saltier 
 subtropical waters of the Gulf Stream. A broad zone of waters of inter- 
 mediate temperature and salinity, called the Slope Waters, separate the 
 Gulf Stream waters from the lower salinity waters which occur over the 
 broad continental shelf. 
 
 The continental shelf is more than 100 miles wide southeast of New 
 York City. The shelf narrows to the south and is only a few tens of 
 miles wide offshore of Cape Hatteras. 
 
 Eastern Long Island Sound provides water deep enough for operation of 
 the largest Title XI program tank vessels engaged in domestic trade. Most 
 harbors in the region, however, are too shallow for the largest vessels in 
 the program without extensive dredging. "Handy Tankers" (35-40,000 DWT) 
 could operate in most ports with relatively minor dredging required. 
 
 Except for Long Island Sound, massive spills of oil from the 
 wreck of a tanker could occur only in coastal waters several miles from 
 shore. Spills resulting from the loss of smaller tankers involving ei- 
 ther crude or refined products could occur in Delaware Bay, in New York- 
 New Jersey port area, in Chesapeake Bay, or in the harbors on Long Island 
 Sound. Most other bays in the region are too shallow for tankers. 
 
 The general movement of the coastal waters of the Middle Atlantic 
 Bight is westward south of Long Island and generally southerly along the 
 New Jersey-Maryland-Virginia coastline. Current speeds are generally 5 
 to 10 miles per day. This general circulation appears to be driven pri- 
 marily by the temperature-salinity distributions caused primarily by 
 river discharge and fresh water mixing with saline offshore waters. 
 
 Winds also have a major influence on the coastal circulation. 
 Strong winds sustained for more than three days can locally reverse 
 coastal currents. During the colder months of the year, the winds are 
 generally from the west or northwest and move surface waters generally 
 
 4-66 
 
offshore. During the warmer months, the winds are generally from the 
 same direction but are weaker and may cause a shoreward movement of sur- 
 face waters. In late summer when winds are generally weak and river dis- 
 charge 1s low, the circulation of coastal waters becomes quite sluggish. 
 At this time currents may be replaced by sluggishly moving large eddies 
 near the shore. 
 
 Movements of subsurface waters are less well known. Studies of sea- 
 bed drifter returns suggest that near-bottom waters near the coast move 
 shoreward at speeds of a few tenths of a mile per day. 
 
 Water in the many small bays and lagoons as well as the larger estu- 
 arine systems including Long Island Sound, New York Harbor, Delaware Bay, 
 and Chesapeake Bay exchange with the waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight. 
 Tidal currents play the dominant role in the exchange of water through 
 the inlets to the small bays and the entrances to the larger systems. 
 
 Winds play a dominant role in determining the movements of massive 
 oil slicks in the coastal waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight. Analysis 
 of smaller spills for the New York-New Jersey and Delaware Bay areas can 
 also be used for general indications of the movements of more massive oil 
 slicks. In the New York region, the oil slicks will generally move sea- 
 ward during the months of December through March and probably miss local 
 beaches. During the remainder of the year, about 25 percent of the spills 
 will probably reach the New Jersey beaches and areas to the south, and 
 about 25 percent will probably enter lower New York Harbor. The remaining 
 half of the spills will affect the Long Island beaches and possibly enter 
 Block Island Sound, Gardiners Bay and even eastern Long Island Sound. 
 Some oil is likely to enter the smaller bays to be deposited on the wet- 
 lands and along the extensively developed suburban shorelines. 
 
 Despite the extensive urbanization and regional pollution problems, 
 fish of the Middle Atlantic Bight are extensively exploited. The domi- 
 nant species fished are surf clams, lobsters, oysters, menhaden and blue 
 crabs. It is difficult to predict the effect of a massive spill on the 
 commercial fishery and its exploitation. Oysters from Chesapeake Bay 
 and New York waters are prone to tainting and possible loss of production 
 owing to oil spills, although oysters themselves appear to be relatively 
 
 4-57 
 
tolerant to crude oil as previously discussed. Hard clams, too, are 
 likely to be affected by oil that enters the bays where they are produced 
 along the Long Island and New Jersey coast. Surf clams and lobsters liv- 
 ing on the continental shelf usually tens of miles from shore are less 
 likely to be affected. Menhaden are not likely to be affected by spilled 
 oil, although the slick from a spill may interfere with or even prevent 
 fishing operations until it disperses or moves out of the region. In 
 short, it is difficult to predict with precision the effect on local fish- 
 eries from a massive oil spill. But it seems likely that the loss to the 
 Middle Atlantic fishery would well run into millions of dollars—perhaps 
 tens of millions. 
 
 The Middle Atlantic coastal region is extensively urbanized. Major 
 urban areas occur along the Connecticut coast, in the New York-Northeast 
 New Jersey area, in the Philadelphia-New Jersey-Delaware area, at the head 
 of Delaware Bay, and along the shores of Chesapeake Bay. 
 
 The shoreline is also extensively used for recreation. Southern 
 Long Island and New Jersey beaches are especially heavily used owing to 
 their proximity to large urban areas. 
 
 Seasonal housing is another major industry in the Middle Atlantic 
 region. Many small communities on the barrier beaches (such as Fire Is- 
 land) or on the bays contain large numbers of cottages occupied season- 
 ally by the owners or rented for short-term occupancy by vacationers. 
 Its importance is indicated by noting that waterfront lots on Long Island 
 sell at prices ranging between $50 and $100 per foot of beach front. Con- 
 sidering the hundreds of miles of shoreline in the region, the value of 
 such property would easily run in the billions. Even a small drop in 
 value because of oil spills may represent a potential loss of many mil- 
 lions to the owners of such properties. 
 
 (c) Gulf of Mexico . The Gulf of Mexico has long been exposed to oil 
 spills, some of them quite large, from oil well accidents, broken pipe- 
 lines, and vessel accidents. Despite this frequent exposure to spilled 
 oil, there are few reliable data available for evaluation of ecological 
 
 4-58 
 
effects of individual spills and none on chronic or long-term effects. 
 Most of the available data discuss commercial species such as oysters, 
 shrimp, and finfish. Future studies of the effects of well -documented 
 spills in the region would provide useful data for assessing the impacts 
 on other U.S. coasts from oil spills of all sizes. 
 
 Owing to the shallowness of nearshore waters, a massive spill from 
 a coastwise tanker along the Gulf Coast will most likely occur 2-3 miles 
 offshore. 
 
 The effects to be expected from a massive spill will depend greatly 
 on the time of year and the winds during and after the spill. In other 
 words, if a spill occurs during the winter when winds are from the north, 
 the oil may be blown offshore and have little or no impact on wetlands, 
 beaches, or associated marine communities. Such oil could form globules 
 in open ocean surface waters. If a summer spill occurs followed by 
 winds from the south or southeast, the oil would be blown ashore and 
 could well affect many miles of coast before the oil slick dissipated 
 over a period of several weeks to a month. 
 
 Near the Mississippi Delta, the currents in the region will move the 
 oil at an average speed of one knot toward the Louisiana and Texas coast 
 if the spill occurs south and west of the Mississippi Delta. If, however, 
 the spill occurs east of the Delta, the prevailing currents would gener- 
 ally move the slick southwesterly where it might not come ashore at all. 
 
 Biological effects are also strongly dependent on the season. If a 
 spill occurred in the spring just before the growing and major reproduc- 
 tive season started, the effects would be greatest, especially if the oil 
 were moved by winds and currents into the wetlands. At this time an oil 
 spill could perhaps destroy the shrimp crop for that year in the areas af- 
 fected ,and it could also destroy new plant growth for that year in the 
 wetlands. With no other spills, recovery could occur in one to two grow- 
 ing seasons if the local populations were not completely destroyed. Al- 
 though resistant to toxic effects of crude petroleum, oysters may suffer 
 mortalities due to clogging of feeding and respiratory organs. At the 
 
 4-59 
 
very least, they would likely be tainted by the presence of oil and thus 
 could not be sold commercially. Effects on adult fish are not well docu- 
 mented, but there may well be long-term effects through damage to egg or 
 larva stages and the resulting possible destruction of an entire year 
 class. 
 
 A massive spill that occurred in autumn after the major growing sea- 
 son would allow several months for the oil to decompose and to move 
 through the permeable marsh deposits where it would be out of reach for 
 many organisms. Such a spill would have a minimal effect which might 
 persist for only a single season. 
 
 (d) Southern California Bight (55 ). The Southern California Bight is 
 an open embayment of the Pacific Coast. This area will be utilized as 
 the possible terminus of the Alaskan crude oil trade. The United States 
 portion of this urbanized coastal region extends from Point Conception 
 on the north to the Mexican border, just south of San Diego. This is a 
 rapidly growing region and, next to the Middle Atlantic Bight, Southern 
 California is the most densely populated and extensively developed area 
 of the U.S. coastline. The steeply sloping rocky coastline provides 
 several areas where water depths are sufficient to permit operations of 
 all the Title XI Program tank vessels in domestic trade. Numerous sub- 
 marine canyons also provide deep water access to port areas near the 
 shore. 
 
 The southward flowing California Current lies offshore from the 
 Southern California Bight. Unlike the Gulf Stream current, the California 
 Current is highly responsive to the regional winds and the current speeds 
 vary between 2 and 15 miles per day. Circulation of surface waters near 
 the coast is complicated by the presence of the islands offshore and the 
 irregular bottom topography. For instance, the near shore circulation is 
 generally south along the coast from Santa Monica to the Mexican border 
 but westward in the vicinity of Point Conception. North of Point Concep- 
 tion, the northward flowing Davidson Current is especially well developed 
 in surface waters during the wetter months of the year owing to freshwater 
 discharges and regional wind patterns. The flow of subsurface waters is 
 
 4-60 
 
generally northward along the shore as part of the California undercur- 
 rent. 
 
 Superimposed on the above general circulation, the currents exhibit 
 substantial variability. Regional winds are the dominant influence. Cur- 
 rents generally follow the winds. In the absence of strong winds, the 
 regional currents will dominate at all depths on the shelf. Tidal cur- 
 rents also strongly influence the currents in the region. Because of 
 this variability, it is difficult to predict with precision the movement 
 of the slicks released from a massive oil spill that would accompany the 
 wreck of a tanker. Much depends on the location of the accident, 
 and the winds at the time and during the lifetime of the surface 
 slick. 
 
 In addition to the surface currents set up by the regional winds, 
 there are vertical water movements that will tend to affect movements of 
 oil slicks. Winds from the north or west that tend to parallel the coast 
 move surface waters seaward. In this process, known as upwelling, sur- 
 face waters and any floating oil are moved away from the coast and deeper 
 waters are brought to the surface. These waters are cooler and the dis- 
 solved nutrients in them support the growth of the phytoplankton in the 
 region. Upwelling seems to occur when the winds are in the proper direc- 
 tion and apparently ceases when the winds stop. These winds and associ- 
 ated upwelling will tend to keep the oil away from the coast. 
 
 Recreation is a major sector in the economy of the Southern Califor- 
 nia region. It is estimated that about 85 million recreation-days are 
 spent each year on the more than 100 miles of public beach in the South 
 ern California coastal region. The value of such uses easily exceeds 100 
 million dollars each year. Other activities using the beaches include 
 scuba diving in the shallow waters; more than 90 percent of such activi- 
 ties occur in waters less than 60 feet deep. Such recreational activi- 
 ties will be adversely affected by a massive oil spill in coastal waters. 
 
 The coastal waters are also heavily used for recreational boating. 
 There are an estimated 350,000 small boats in the region. These boats 
 
 4-61 
 
and the 14 marinas and boat harbors would require extensive cleanup fol- 
 lowing an oil spill. 
 
 Commercial fishing is apparently not a major factor in the economy 
 of the region. Landings in the Los Angeles region are now generally 20 
 to 40 million pounds per year compared to 100 to 150 million pounds in 
 1940 to 1945. Sardines, anchovy and various bottom fishes (halibut and 
 rockfish) dominate the catches. Aside from the impact on recreational 
 fishing, a massive oil spill would likely have little economic impact on 
 the region's fishing industry. 
 
 (e) Puget Sound (56 ) . As one of the few naturally confined deep water 
 ports in the U.S., Puget Sound is likely to be used by the Alaskan oil 
 trade engaged in domestic commerce, particularly by tankers exceeding 
 100,000 DWT. 
 
 If a tanker were grounded in Puget Sound and caused a large spill, 
 the environmental impacts would be high for marine biota. The oil slick 
 could spread to both sides of the Sound following the grounding of the 
 vessel. The slick would be moved up and down the Sound by the strong 
 tidal currents until the central part of the Sound would be exposed to 
 the slick. Because of the complicated geometry of the system, much of 
 the oil would likely wash into the Sound' s protected rocky coastline and 
 beaches. 
 
 The turbulence of the waters and the relatively high particle concen- 
 trations would likely cause much of the oil slick to sink to the bottom. 
 The results of these processes would probably be the removal of the slick 
 from the surface within a few weeks. The complicated currents within the 
 Sound might prevent floating oil from reaching all parts of the Sound. 
 The wind regime following the spill would play a major role in determining 
 where the oil would spread. 
 
 Extensive mixing of surface and subsurface waters at the spills in 
 Puget Sound would likely result in emulsification of the oil to form oil - 
 in-water emulsions. Tiny oil droplets would be widely dispersed through 
 the water columns. Some of this oil would then tend to move with the sub- 
 
 4-62 
 
surface waters and to penetrate into parts of the Sound not previously 
 entered by the surface slick. In this way, the oil would likely be dis- 
 persed throughout the Sound and enter marine organisms far from the 
 spill site. 
 
 The wetlands and shallow ocean bottom in the Sound would likely be 
 covered with oil near the wreck. Depending on wind conditions, many 
 small wetland areas and adjoining bays of the Sound would be severely 
 damaged. Seabird mortality would be high and marine mammals (seals, 
 whales) would be damaged. 
 
 If the shellfish and bottom fish were unusable for commercial pur- 
 poses, this would represent a loss to Puget Sound fishermen of about 
 $500,000 per year. If all commercial fishing were impossible, the loss 
 would be about $2 million. Sport fishery (primarily for salmon) which 
 is valued at about two million dollars annually would similarly suffer. 
 Total value of the fishery to the Puget Sound region is estimated at 
 about 40 million dollars (56). 
 
 In the cold waters of Puget Sound, a massive oil spill would likely 
 take much longer to dissipate than in the Gulf Coast area. 
 
 Oil from a wreck in Puget Sound might enter the Strait of Juan de 
 Fuca and potentially the Strait of Georgia system as well. It seems un- 
 likely that large quantities of floating oil would escape from Puget 
 Sound to flow into the coastal currents of the Pacific Ocean. 
 
 (f) Inland Waterway Oil Spill Impact . Perhaps the best way to describe 
 the impact of a major oil spill on an inland waterway is to summarize 
 the effects from an actual spill. A recent and notable inland waterway 
 oil spill is the international pollution incident on June 23, 1976 re- 
 sulting from the grounding of the NEPC0 140 tank barge in the vicinity 
 of Alexandria Bay on the St. Lawrence River. Three of the barge's cargo 
 tanks were punctured, spilling about 7,355 barrels of No. 6 fuel oil (57). 
 
 4-63 
 
River currents in the main channel ranged from 3 to 5 ft/sec, mak- 
 ing it impossible to control the movement of oil by conventional con- 
 tainment measures. Cleanup crews had to wait until the oil moved into 
 protected and semi-enclosed areas such as shore line coves and the lee- 
 ward side of islands where containment could take place. The spilled 
 oil moved rapidly downstream at a speed of 2-1/2 miles per hour, a dis- 
 tance of 75 miles within 30 hours. The wildlife areas in Chippewa and 
 Goose Bays received the worst impact. Alexandria Bay Harbor, a focal 
 point in New York State's Thousand Island tourism trade, was most vulner- 
 able to economic loss; consequently, clean-up activity in this area 
 received the highest priority and restoration was completed before the 
 4th of July weekend holiday. 
 
 The Canadian side of the river was fortunate in that the impact on 
 wildlife areas was minimal. Most of the oil concentrated along the 
 American side of the river and as much as 80% area coverage was observed 
 for a distance of 55 miles from the leaking barge. The mixing energy 
 from the powerhouse and flood control dams at Cornwall mitigated the im- 
 pact by dispersing the oil to a low concentration. 
 
 The containment and clean-up operations employed several out-of- 
 state private contractors. Conventional oil barriers were ineffective 
 in high currents, but booms deployed near the shore prevented contamina- 
 tion of important wildlife areas. The clean-up equipment ranged from 
 mechanical devices such as skimmers, vacuum trucks, and steam sprayers 
 to manual devices such as shovels, rakes, and pitchforks. The shoreline 
 was cleaned by employing high-pressure hoses to remove residual oil from 
 rock and dock areas. Accumulated oil from the cleaning was recovered by 
 the use of a synthetic sorbent material. Marshes were cleaned manually 
 by the use of sickles and scythes to cut reeds below the contaminated 
 area for removal by boat. 
 
 A bird-cleaning station was organized by the New York State Depart- 
 ment of Environmental Conservation where a large number of rounded-up 
 birds were taken to remove heavy oil. Of the sixty-seven oil-contami- 
 nated birds treated, only seven of them were badly contaminated and 
 three birds died from exposure. 
 
 4-64 
 
The size of the spill was relatively small; however, because the 
 incident occurred in an extremely sensitive and vulnerable location, the 
 cost of clean-up operations amounted to $8.5 million. 
 
 Specifically, the exorbitant expense was attributed to: 
 
 difficult access to contaminated areas, 
 
 large number of sites (thousands) where recontamination 
 
 occurred, 
 
 effects on St. Lawrence River recreation, and 
 
 effect on wildlife reserves. 
 
 C. CHEMICAL POLLUTION (58) 
 
 1 . GENERAL 
 
 During the past decade there has been a rapid growth in the water- 
 borne transportation of bulk liquid chemicals within U.S. coastal waters 
 by tankers and tank barges. In comparison to the net petroleum commerce, 
 the total tonnage is small; however, the growth of chemical and hazard- 
 ous material transport and the danger of some of the cargoes require 
 that this segment of the marine industry be heavily regulated. (See 
 Chapter V for more details on regulations.) 
 
 This section will discuss the chemical and hazardous liquid pollu- 
 tion from tankers and tank barges and indicate to the extent possible 
 the fate and effect of the pollutant. 
 
 Chemical pollution of the U.S. waters is very small in comparison 
 to the volume of oil pollution primarily because the total tonnage shipped 
 is not as large as oil shipments. Table IV-15 illustrates this compar- 
 ison of the number of incidents and volume discharge of oil with inci- 
 dents involving other substances in U.S. waters during calendar year 
 1976. The volume outflow of liquid chemicals during that year amounted 
 to only 6.2 percent of the total outflow and the corresponding number of 
 incidents was only 2.3 percent of the total. 
 
 4-65 
 
Table IV-15 
 
 TYPE OF POLLUTION 
 
 OIL AND OTHER SUBSTANCES 
 
 SUBSTANCE 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 INCIDENTS 
 
 %OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 VOLUME IN 
 GALLONS 
 
 %OF 
 TOTAL 
 
 OIL 
 
 
 
 
 
 CRUDE OIL 
 
 2,667 
 
 21.1 
 
 4,990,691 
 
 14.7 
 
 FUEL OIL 
 
 909 
 
 7.2 
 
 9,780,886 
 
 28.9 
 
 GASOLINE 
 
 658 
 
 5.2 
 
 764,168 
 
 2.3 
 
 OTHER DISTILLATE 
 FUEL OIL 
 
 251 
 
 2.0 
 
 462,140 
 
 1.4 
 
 SOLVENT 
 
 34 
 
 0.3 
 
 95,317 
 
 0.3 
 
 DIESEL OIL 
 
 2,063 
 
 16.3 
 
 1,100,133 
 
 3.2 
 
 ASPHALT OR RESIDUAL 
 FUEL OIL 
 
 132 
 
 1.0 
 
 4,982,195 
 
 14.7 
 
 ANIMAL OR 
 VEGETABLE OIL 
 
 93 
 
 0.7 
 
 94,513 
 
 0.3 
 
 WASTE OIL 
 
 1,217 
 
 9.6 
 
 131,377 
 
 0.4 
 
 OTHER OIL 
 
 2,636 
 
 20.8 
 
 724,294 
 
 2.1 
 
 OTHER SUBSTANCES 
 
 
 
 
 
 LIQUID CHEMICAL 
 
 296 
 
 2.3 
 
 2,110,048 
 
 6.2 
 
 OTHER POLLUTANT 
 (Sewage, dredge spoil, 
 chemical wastes, etc.) 
 
 130 
 
 1.0 
 
 6,468.940 
 
 19.1 
 
 NATURAL SUBSTANCE 
 
 94 
 
 0.7 
 
 6,468 
 
 0.0 
 
 OTHER MATERIAL 
 
 146 
 
 1.2 
 
 2,120,386 
 
 6.3 
 
 UNKNOWN MATERIAL 
 
 1,329 
 
 10.5 
 
 20,274 
 
 0.1 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 12,655 
 
 100.0 
 
 33,851,830 
 
 100.0 
 
 SOURCE: Pollution Incidents in and Around U.S. Waters, Pollution Incidei 
 Reporting System, CG 487, Calendar Year 1976, U.S. Coast Gu< 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 4-66 
 
It is difficult to estimate exactly what amount of this chemical 
 pollution is attributed to tankers and tank barges. It is even more 
 difficult to determine what percentage of this pollution is a result of 
 Title XI Program tank vessels engaged in domestic trade. It can be 
 surmised from the statistical data in Table IV-15 that the chemical 
 pollution from tank vessels is very small in comparison to the other 
 materials being discharged to U.S. waters (e.g., oil). 
 
 2. CHEMICAL TANKERS 
 
 Chemical tankers present several potential sources of pollution to 
 the marine environment through normal ship operation. The causes of 
 chemical pollution, i.e., casualties or operational practices, would be 
 expected to be similar to those for oil tankers. 
 
 Chemical tankers can also cause oil pollution since oil can be 
 carried as a cargo on many of these ships. Most chemical carriers are 
 designed to carry multiple products, chemicals and petroleum products in- 
 cluded. Pollution can also occur during pumping of engine room bilges 
 and bunkering operations. A discussion of these causes of pollution 
 will not be repeated here because they are basically the same as those 
 in the section on tankers (See Section IVB). 
 
 The two major sources of operational pollution from shipping chemi- 
 cals are: (1) ballasting and tank cleaning operations and (2) terminal 
 operations. 
 
 a. OPERATIONAL POLLUTION (BALLASTING AND TANK CLEANING) 
 
 After having discharged the cargo, a chemical tanker must ballast 
 with sufficient water to insure proper propeller immersion and to main- 
 tain ship controllability and seakeeping characteristics. The amount of 
 ballast taken aboard depends upon the anticipated weather conditions, 
 the distance and route of the ballast voyage, and the vessel's character- 
 istics. The amount of ballast generally varies from 20 to 40 percent of 
 the vessel's full load displacement, but may be greater during periods of 
 adverse weather. 
 
 4-67 
 
The ballast that is loaded into cargo tanks after cargo discharge 
 comes into contact and "mixes" with the chemicals that have adhered to 
 the tank surfaces or remained in the cargo suction piping system. De- 
 pending on the location of the vessel, this contaminated ballast may be 
 treated to remove the contaminants and disposed of by discharge to the 
 sea or discharged to a reception facility upon arrival at the loading 
 port. Liquid substances other than oil discharged worldwide into the 
 sea during normal tank cleaning operations during 1970 were estimated 
 to be slightly less than 10,000 tons (59). Pollution control reg- 
 ulations concerning these discharges are discussed in Section V. 
 
 In general, chemical tankers are designed with varying amounts of 
 segregated ballast tanks. As much dedicated ballast as possible is in- 
 cluded in the design of chemical ships, and this becomes more important 
 as the proportion of chemicals to other cargoes increases on the ship. 
 Excess volume 1s common 1n modern chemical tankers and can provide some 
 dedicated ballast space. Cofferdams and Innerbottom tanks, where present, 
 also can be utilized. 
 
 The load-on-top method of retaining tank cleaning wastes, commonly 
 used in the oil tanker trade, cannot be generally used on chemical tank- 
 ers. The prime reason is the number of different cargoes carried per 
 voyage and the possible adverse effects of mixing these different types 
 of chemicals (i.e., dangerous chemical reaction and delivery of a poor 
 quality product). The tank washing discharge of IMCO Category A cargoes 
 will be prohibited by IMCO rules (60) and must be pumped to shore facil- 
 ities. IMCO Categories B, C and D cargoes may be discharged overboard but 
 under controlled conditions (see Section V for details). It should be 
 noted that to completely clean a tank as much cargo as possible is 
 pumped out by means of portable eductor. 
 
 In a discussion of operational discharges, some note must be made of 
 the cost of the cargoes and the importance of cargo purity. In the past 
 when environmental considerations were not stressed, the design of the 
 
 4-68 
 
ships for cleanliness and the amount of effort spent in stripping the 
 cargo before washing was dependent upon cargo worth. For instance, with 
 relatively low-cost crude oil cargoes, the time and equipment needed to 
 strip the tanks completely cost more than the lost cargo was worth. The 
 resultant pollution of the seas from such operational discharges has 
 been a main source of environmental damage from bulk liquid shipping. 
 On the other hand, some modern chemical tankers have double 
 hulls, double bottoms and drain wells with special stripping pumps in 
 each hold. Such systems are said to leave less than one gallon of cargo 
 in the tank excluding clingage. 
 
 b. TRANSFER OPERATIONS 
 
 Accurate figures on the amount of chemicals spilled during loading 
 and unloading operations are not known. It should be recognized that 
 errors occur both in estimating spill rates as well as in reporting 
 actual spill sizes. Using the 1976 data (listed as onshore/offshore 
 bulk cargo transfers from Tables IV-2 and IV-6), chemical spill volume 
 from terminal operations is about one-fifth the value of the oil spill 
 volume from the same source. While this annual spill rate is small, 
 1t is possible that a spill of larger magnitude can occur occasionally, 
 causing an adverse effect on marine life in the spill area. Also, it 
 should be kept in mind that a chemical spill may be more lethal or 
 damaging than an equivalent quantity of oil. 
 
 As with oil tanker operations, there are three principal reasons for 
 chemical pollution at marine terminals: (1) mechanical faults; (2) de- 
 sign faults; and (3) human error. It is expected, however, that spill- 
 age incidents of chemicals during transfer operations are much less fre- 
 quent than experienced during oil operations. This is due to the low 
 rates of cargo transfer used in the chemical trade, the need for cargo 
 purity, and extensive safety precautions because of the hazardous nature 
 of some of the chemicals. 
 
 4-69 
 
c CHEMICAL TANKER ACCIDENTS 
 
 The effects of the spillage of chemicals into the sea will vary 
 greatly, depending upon the chemicals in question, and may or may not re- 
 sult in consequences more serious than those resulting from the casualty 
 discharge of a petroleum product. Not only must the hazard of the dis- 
 charged chemical itself be considered, but the compatibility of the chem- 
 icals discharged, both between themselves and the environment (i.e., air 
 and water), must be taken into account. Ships designed for the carriage 
 of the cargoes considered most dangerous to the environment are con- 
 structed with double bottoms and wing tanks outboard of the cargo spaces, 
 which reduces the chance of leakage. The requirements for ship con- 
 struction are less restrictive for other less dangerous cargoes. 
 
 Cargo containment and arrangement aboard tank vessels have been con- 
 sidered in the efforts to limit or prevent accidents and their conse- 
 quences. The IMCO Code for Bulk Chemical Carriers provides for three 
 ship types, each type being governed by the type of cargo to be carried 
 and the relative cargo hazard. The three ship types provide three dif- 
 ferent degrees of physical cargo protection by defining the location of 
 the cargo space within the hull, the volume of the cargo space, and the 
 extent to which the ship should be capable of remaining afloat after dam- 
 age. Noxious substances other than oil have also been divided into four 
 broad categories by IMCO, based upon their potential hazard when consider- 
 ing their effects on living resources, human life and health, and inter- 
 ference with the use of the seas, (see Section V D for details regarding 
 IMCO requirements.) 
 
 There is no data available at present indicating the amount of chem- 
 icals discharged into the sea as a result of vessel accidents. In light 
 of the differences in vessel construction, the accident data used for oil 
 tankers is not applicable to chemical tankers. Because chemical tankers 
 are of generally safer construction (e.g., double bottoms and double 
 hulls) and smaller size (world fleet average of less than 2,000 DWT/ship), 
 the total loss of cargo and the probability of cargo loss by casualty 
 would be much less than expected with a similar number of oil tankers. 
 
 4-70 
 
The types of accidents experienced by chemical tankers are the same 
 as those encountered by oil tankers. Collisions and groundings, as with 
 oil tankers, very likely represent 50 percent of the total number of cas- 
 ualties that occur (5). Groundings and collisions result from poor 
 navigational aids, uncharted rocks and/or reefs, bad weather, poor opera- 
 tional practices, equipment failure, and errors on the part of ship crews 
 and/or pilots. The remaining types of casualties tend to result from 
 Improper operations, inadequate design, and human error. 
 
 It is apparent from the above that the consequences of a spill from 
 a chemical tanker accident depend upon the chemical or combination of 
 chemicals spilled and the design and equipment of the ship. The segrega- 
 tion of chemical cargoes and the use of wing tanks and double bottom 
 tanks should, however, minimize damage to, and thus the release of cargo 
 from the vessel's tanks. 
 
 The wide variety of chemical types being transported in bulk by 
 tankers increases the types of impacts on the environment which must be 
 dealt with after an accidental spill occurs. Some chemicals are very 
 volatile, others will float on the surface of the sea, some will sink, 
 some will mix and disperse, and some will react with either the water or 
 the air. The effects that each chemical will have on the environment 
 should be analyzed separately in light of the unique hazards it repre- 
 sents. 
 
 3. CHEMICAL TANK BARGES (61) 
 
 As with oil-carrying tank barges, the primary causes of chemical 
 pollution are: (1) discharges due to leaks, (2) spills during loading 
 and unloading, and (3) barge accidents. The first two will not be ad- 
 dressed because of their similarity to spills in oil tank barges, dis- 
 cussed previously. A discussion of chemical tank barge accidents is 
 provided on the following page. 
 
 4-71 
 
a. CHEMICAL TANK BARGE ACCIDENTS 
 
 A Marad study entitled "A Modal Economic and Safety Analysis of the 
 Transportation of Hazardous Substances in Bulk" examined, among other 
 things, accidents involving barges carrying hazardous materials (61). 
 As part of this study, a locational listing of barge accidents involving 
 pollution as shown in Table IV-16 was developed for the time period July 
 1968 - June 1973. Each accident included in the study appears as a re- 
 sult of a vessel casualty reported to the Coast Guard and does not neces- 
 sarily represent the total population of such type pollutions. As de- 
 fined by 46 CFR 136, a reportable marine casualty results from any of 
 the following: (a) actual physical damage to property in excess of 
 $1500; (b) material damage affecting the seaworthiness or efficiency of 
 a vessel; (c) stranding or grounding; (d) loss of life; and (e) injury 
 causing any person to remain incapacitated for a period in excess of 72 
 hours, except injury to harbor workers not resulting in death and not 
 resulting from vessel casualty or vessel equipment casualty. 
 
 As illustrated in Table IV-16 of the 96 accidents involving 174 
 barges, almost half of these occurred on the Mississippi River, with the 
 remainder equally divided between the Gulf Intracoastal Canal and other 
 rivers. However, the number of barges involved in accidents is quite 
 different for the three areas. The ratio of barges to accidents for the 
 Mississippi was 2.1 (i.e., 93 divided by 44), 1.8 for the Gulf Intra- 
 coastal Canal, and 1.3 for the other rivers of interest. These ratios 
 reflect the possible different traffic densities in the various areas. 
 Also shown are the annual barge accident rates for certain segments of 
 the inland waterways (i.e., the number of barges involved in accidents 
 divided by 5 years). 
 
 4. FATE OF CHEMICAL SPILLS 
 
 a. OVERVIEW 
 
 A spilled chemical, depending on its own particular physical and 
 chemical characteristics, can undergo many transformations upon release 
 into the marine estuarine and aquatic environments. 
 
 4-72 
 
Table IV-16 
 
 CHEMICAL TANK BARGE ACCIDENTS INVOLVING POLLUTION 
 
 JULY 1968 -JUNE 1973* 
 
 LOCATION 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 ACCIDENTS 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 BARGES 
 INVOLVED 
 IN ACCIDENTS 
 
 ANNUAL 
 
 BARGE 
 
 ACCIDENT 
 
 RATE 
 
 SEGMENTS OF THE MISSISSIPPI 
 
 
 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS- MOUTH OF MISSOURI 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 3.6 
 
 MOUTH OF MISSOURI - MOUTH OF OHIO 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 3.2 
 
 MOUTH OF OHIO - BATON ROUGE 
 
 11 
 
 31 
 
 6.2 
 
 BATON ROUGE - NEW ORLEANS 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 2.6 
 
 NEW ORLEANS- MOUTH OF PASSES 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 3.0 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 44 
 
 93 
 
 18.6 
 
 SEGMENTS OF GULF INTRACOASTAL CANAL 
 
 
 
 
 MISSISSIPPI - SABINE RIVER 
 
 13 
 
 21 
 
 4.2 
 
 SABINE RIVER - GALVESTON 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 2.4 
 
 GALVESTON- CORPUS CHRISTI 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 2.4 
 
 PENSACOLA - MOBILE 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 0.2 
 
 MOBILE- NEW ORLEANS 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 0.6 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 28 
 
 49 
 
 9.8 
 
 OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST 
 
 
 
 
 OHIO RIVER 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 
 4.4 
 
 TENNESSEE RIVER 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 0.8 
 
 NECHES RIVER 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 0.4 
 
 KANAWHA RIVER 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 0.2 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 0.4 
 
 COLUMBIA RIVER 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 0.2 
 
 CHICAGO RIVER 
 
 
 
 
 
 0.0 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 24 
 
 32 
 
 6.4 
 
 GRAND TOTAL 
 
 96 
 
 174 
 
 34.8 
 
 INCLUDES TANK BARGES (INFLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE CARGOES), CARGO BARGES 
 (DANGEROUS AND HAZARDOUS CARGOES). AND TANK BARGES (DANGEROUS AND HAZARD- 
 OUS CARGOES). 
 
 4-73 
 
A computer simulation ("vulnerability model") designed to provide 
 quantitative measures of the consequences of hazardous materials spills 
 prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard considers five spill scenarios for a 
 spilled liquid (62). They are: 
 
 spreading and evaporation of an immiscible, floating 
 
 cryogenic liquid, 
 
 spreading and evaporation of an immiscible, floating 
 
 liquid with high vapor pressure, 
 
 sinking and boiling of an immiscible liquid, 
 
 mixing, advection, and dilution of a miscible liquid 
 
 in a tidal river, nontidal river, or still water, 
 
 mixing, dilution, and evaporation of a miscible liquid 
 
 with high vapor pressure. 
 
 There are other possibilities, but those considered encompass the 
 largest number of cargoes frequently transported by tankers and tank 
 barges. Liquefied natural gas, for example, is treated by the first 
 scenario, gasoline by the second, and liquid chlorine by the third. 
 The simulation operation is divided into two phases. Phase I simulates 
 the spill itself, and the physical and chemical transformations and 
 dispersions of the spilled substance. Phase II models the effects of 
 toxicity, explosion, and/or fire on the vulnerable resources as a func- 
 tion of time and estimates the number of deaths and nonlethal personal 
 injuries. A generalized flow diagram of the simulation model is pre- 
 sented in Figure IV-7. 
 
 The processes which influence the distribution and fate of a mis- 
 cible chemical liquid is shown in Figure IV-8. The starting point of 
 these processes would be the end point of Phase II of the vulnerability 
 model flow diagram in Figure IV-7 . 
 
 b. PHYSICAL DILUTION AND DISPERSION 
 
 The most significant physical influence on distribution of pollu- 
 tants in the aquatic environment results from water movements. Motions 
 
 474 
 
SPILL DEFINITION 
 
 HYDROGRAPHIC 
 
 OCEANOGRAPHIC 
 
 DATA 
 
 PHYSIOCHEMICAL 
 
 PROPERTIES OF 
 
 SPILLED 
 
 SUBSTANCE 
 
 PHASE I 
 
 SIMULATE DISTRIBUTION OF SPILL 
 
 STARTING WITH FIRST TIME 
 
 INTERVAL & FIRST CELL 
 
 AIR DISPERSION 
 SURFACE SPREADING 
 WATER DISPERSION 
 
 LIQUID/SOLID 
 VAPOR LOCATION 
 & CONCENTRATION 
 
 RECORD DATA FOR 
 
 THIS TIME INTERVAL 
 
 AND THIS CELL 
 
 THERMAL RADIATION 
 
 OVERPRESSURE 
 
 IMPULSE 
 
 (ALL CELLS) 
 
 RECORD DATA FOR 
 
 THIS TIME INTERVAL 
 
 AND ALL CELLS 
 
 ASSESS INJURIES/DAMAGE 
 
 STARTING WITH FIRST TIME 
 
 INTERVAL & FIRST CELL 
 
 RECORD DATA FOR THIS 
 TIME INTERVAL 
 AND THIS CELL 
 
 Figure IV-7 GENERALIZED FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE VULNERABILITY MODEL 
 
 SOURCE: Vulnerability Model: A Simulation System for Assessing Damage Resulting from Marine Spills 
 1 "*— * — D.C., June 1975 
 
POLLUTANT 
 
 I 
 
 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT 
 
 Figure IV-8 
 
 PROCESSES WHICH INFLUENCE THE DISTRIBUTION AND FATE OF 
 POLLUTANTS ENTERING THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT 
 
 Institute, Pacific Northw 
 
 4-76 
 
are common in both the sea and freshwater, ranging from those of molec- 
 ular dimensions to river and oceanwide current systems (63). Wind is 
 the most effective source of energy in dispersing chemicals since it 
 results in turbulence and wind waves, the latter of which exhibit sub- 
 surface orbital motions. These motions have a considerable influence 
 in mixing and dispersion. Tidal currents are particularly important to 
 dispersion in coastal waters, since they occur on a rhythmic daily basis. 
 The influences of ocean currents, such as the California Current, and of 
 inflowing freshwater rivers are also important. 
 
 Soluble substances will sooner or later be completely dissolved 
 although the process is accelerated in the presence of water movement. 
 Neutrally buoyant and soluble substances may remain in the water column 
 indefinitely and be removed by the processes indicated in Figure IV-8. 
 Temperature and salinity influence rates of solubility and precipitation 
 of soluble pollutants, as well as the coagulation of dispersed material. 
 
 Insoluble substances with lower density, such as mineral oil, will 
 float on the surface and be deposited on shore from which they are later 
 removed by waves, surf, or currents. If the substance is heavier than 
 sea water, it will sink with a velocity depending on its density, shape, 
 and size. Viscosity, which depends upon temperature and salinity, will 
 have an indirect influence by determining the sinking velocity of parti- 
 cles (52). 
 
 c. CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATIONS 
 
 Substances are affected in the aquatic environment by chemical trans- 
 formations of either an inorganic or biological nature. Inorganic chemi- 
 cal transformations include radionuclide decay, oxidation-reduction, and 
 hydrolysis. If solution parameters are known, these reactions can be 
 predicted with reasonable certainty. 
 
 Biological reactions, including biochemical and microbial transfor- 
 mations, are considerably more complex. Biochemical degradation mechan- 
 
 4-77 
 
isms include: dehalogenation, dealkylation, amide and ester hydrolysis, 
 oxidation-reduction, ether fission, aromatic ring hydroxylation, and ring 
 cleavage. 
 
 The rate, extent, and direction of microbial transformations of 
 chemicals are commonly dependent upon the predominant flora and fauna, 
 energy sources, available nutrients, degree of aeration, temperature, 
 moisture, pH, light, and the presence of toxic substances. "Studies 
 by Jannasch and Einhjellen (64) have demonstrated that low rates of micro- 
 bial activity exist under deep sea conditions. These authors concluded 
 that deep sea waste disposal would be extremely inefficient and involve 
 the transport of waste products of intermediate decomposition by 
 bottom currents. 
 
 d. CONCENTRATION IN THE ECOSYSTEM 
 
 Aquatic organisms may biologically concentrate materials introduced 
 into the aquatic environment. Buildups are achieved as uptake proceeds 
 through the food chain from phytoplankton through fish and mammals (65). 
 The process is termed bioaccumulation (66) and is considered to occur if 
 an organism takes up a chemical to which it is exposed so that it con- 
 tains a higher concentration of that substance than is present in the 
 ambient water or its food. The process is reversible and bioaccumula- 
 tion may be short lived (less than 24 hours), as well as long-lived. It 
 is also recognized that metabolites may be formed from ingested sub- 
 stances which may be more poisonous or ecologically damaging and/or have 
 a longer biological half life than the original material. 
 
 Pollutants are also concentrated in bottom materials, as for example 
 when they adhere to particles of clay or other suspended material and are 
 carried to the bottom sediments (67). They are also occasionally concen- 
 trated in other non-living niches as in the case of DDT in surface films 
 of oil on the sea. 
 
 4-78 
 
e. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 
 
 An assessment of the hazards of bulk chemical carriage upon the 
 aquatic environment includes the following basic sets of variables: 
 
 (1) Variability of Environmental Condition . In the event of a chemical 
 spill, the extent of chemical dispersion will be determined by a multi- 
 tude of natural, physical, and chemical conditions, including pollution 
 loads, water chemistry, etc. For example, the environmental impact of 
 the loss in an estuary of a toxic chemical which is slightly soluble, 
 but heavier than water, will be substantially determined by the condi- 
 tions of wave action and/or tidal and wind-induced currents. Without 
 current or wave action, its heavier specific gravity would carry the 
 chemical directly to the bottom where toxic effects will be imposed on 
 the benthos. On the other hand, with wave action and/or current, the 
 same chemical would be diluted and transported from the immediate spill 
 site. Thus bottom dwelling organisms or benthos at the immediate site 
 would be spared toxic impacts, although the same may not be said for 
 down current organisms. 
 
 {?.). Variability of Biotic Resources . The initial impact of a toxic 
 chemical spill is limited to a large extent by the kinds, life stages, 
 and abundance of flora and fauna present at the time and place of the 
 spill. Subsequent impacts of the spill will similarly be limited by the 
 kinds and abundance of organisms passing through or exposed to the chem- 
 ical during its period of dissipation, dilution, dissolution, or decom- 
 position. The distribution of biota is not random, and species gener- 
 ally inhabit wery specific niches within the ecosystem, e.g. clams in 
 the tidal zone. Thus, a toxic chemical spill in a productive biological 
 area will have greater biological impacts than one in a less productive 
 zone. 
 
 (3) Variability of Spill Volumes . The net impacts of a toxic chemical 
 spill will be determined to a great extent by the volume of chemical 
 lost. Large losses provide the potential for extensive pollution ef- 
 fects; whereas, smaller losses normally have proportionately smaller im- 
 pacts. 
 
 4-79 
 
(4). Varying Chemical Characteristics . Chemicals vary greatly in their 
 physical and chemical characteristics and mechanisms of dispersion and 
 toxicity. Some chemicals are not soluble in water and, thus, are not 
 readily subject to dilution. Specific gravity and solubility are impor- 
 tant in determining whether a spilled chemical remains in the surface 
 water layer, reaches lower water layers or the bottom, or is mixed 
 throughout the water column. 
 
 f. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS 
 
 The process of examining and judging a material or event as a source 
 of danger can be defined as hazard identification and evaluation (68). 
 The rapid expansion of the chemical industry, combined with major ad- 
 vances in shipping technology, has created a wide spectrum of problems in 
 assigning suitable hazard ratings to specific chemical cargoes. 
 
 Several hazard identification and evaluation systems have been de- 
 veloped. These include systems by: (a) the Joint Group of Experts on the 
 Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP) (66); (b) the Intergov- 
 ernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) (60); (c) the U.S. 
 Coast Guard (69); and (d) the Environmental Protection Agency (70). 
 
 ( 1 ) . Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollu- 
 tion (GESAMP) (p6 ,71 ). In November 1971 the Intergovernmental Maritime 
 Consultative Organization ClMCO) Subcommittee on Marine Pollution, in 
 preparation for the October 1973 Conference to negotiate an International 
 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, requested GESAMP 
 to review the noxious liquid substances carried in bulk and to consider 
 their hazard to the environment. In developing hazard profiles for the 
 selected substances, GESAMP used the following criteria: 
 
 Bioaccumulation . Bioaccumulation occurs if an aquatic organism takes up 
 a chemical to which it is exposed so that it contains a higher concentra- 
 tion of that substance than is present in the ambient water or its food. 
 Profile ratings are: 
 
 bioaccumulated and liable to produce a hazard to aquatic life 
 or human health, 
 
 4-80 
 
not known to be significantly bioaccumulated, 
 short retention of the order of one week or less, 
 liable to produce tainting of seafood. 
 
 Damage to Living Resources . In calculating damage to living resources, 
 available 96 hour TL (tolerance limit median) data is used. TL m is de- 
 fined as the concentration of a substance which will, within the speci- 
 fied time, kill 50% of the exposed group of test organisms, and 1s often 
 specified in parts per million. The bioassay may be conducted under 
 static or continuous flow conditions. Profile ratings used: 
 
 highly toxic, 
 
 moderately toxic, 
 
 slightly toxic, 
 
 practically non-toxic, 
 
 non-hazardous, 
 
 problem caused primarily by high oxygen demand, 
 
 deposits liable to blanket the seafloor. 
 
 Damage to Human Health . Three principal ways were considered in which 
 injury to human health can occur from a substance polluting the seas and 
 waterways, namely through ingestion of water containing the substance, 
 ingestion of fish and shellfish which have accumulated the substance, 
 and direct human contact with the substance and its vapors. The degrees 
 of hazard are listed in terms of the median lethal dose (LD 5Q ) of the 
 substance, i.e., the dose of substance which will, within a specified 
 period of time, kill 50% of a group of test animals to which it is admin- 
 istered. Profile ratings are: 
 
 hazardous (solution), 
 slightly hazardous (solution), 
 non-hazardous (solution). 
 
 Reduction of Amenities . Amenities are defined as values of the recrea- 
 tional use or scenic aspects of the environment. Profile ratings are: 
 
 highly objectionable because of persistency, smell, or poison- 
 
 4-81 
 
ous or irritant characteristics— beaches liable to be closed; 
 moderately objectionable because of the above characteristics, 
 but short-term effects leading to temporary interference with 
 use of beaches; 
 
 slightly objectionable, no interference with use of beaches; 
 no problem. 
 
 In addition to hazard profiles of selected substances the levels of 
 dangerous toxic discharges which would be expected to kill aquatic life 
 were estimated. These estimates are presented in Table IV-17. GESAMP 
 recommended extreme caution in using these data, however, to insure that 
 the results are not extrapolated to systems substantially different from 
 those described. 
 
 (2). Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) (60,71 ). 
 The 1973 IMCO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 
 from Ships in Annex II dealt with pollution by noxious liquid substances 
 transported in bulk other than oil, sewage and garbage (60). The sub- 
 stances to which Annex II of the convention applies have been subdivided 
 into the following categories based on the hazard ratings assigned by 
 GESAMP. 
 
 Category A . Substances which are bioaccumulated and liable to produce a 
 hazard to aquatic life or human health or highly toxic to aquatic life 
 (as expressed by a Hazard Rating 4, defined by a Tl_ m less than 1 ppm); 
 and additionally certain substances which are moderately toxic to aquatic 
 life (as expressed by a Hazard Rating 3, defined by a TL of 1 ppm or 
 more, but less than 10 ppm) when particular weight is given to special 
 characteristics of the substance. 
 
 Category B . Substances which are bioaccumulated with a short retention 
 of the order of one week or less; or which are liable to produce taint- 
 ing of the sea food; or which are moderately toxic to aquatic life (as 
 expressed by a Hazard Rating 3, defined by a TL of 1 ppm or more, but 
 less than 10 ppm); and additionally certain substances which are slightly 
 toxic to aquatic life (as expressed by a Hazard Rating 2, defined by a 
 TL of 10 ppm or more, but less than 100 ppm) when particular weight is 
 
 4-82 
 
9E 
 
 DO 
 
 O LU 
 
 gft 
 |it: 
 
 73o 
 
 «£< 
 
 s 
 
 Si 
 
 Q=! 
 o* 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CO CO 
 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 z z 
 
 z z 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O O 
 
 O O 
 
 
 H 
 
 K 
 
 1- H 
 
 1- H 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 in in 
 
 in 
 
 in 6 
 
 i8l 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 V 
 
 
 s 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 o in 
 
 m 
 
 
 g 
 
 in 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 z 
 O 
 
 § g 
 
 8 8 
 
 w 
 
 i- 
 
 H 
 
 H -J 
 
 -i -i 
 
 K 
 
 w 
 
 10 
 
 1 CM 
 
 « 3 
 
 < 
 
 CM 
 
 s 
 
 CM CM 
 
 D 
 
 (0 
 
 CD *- 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 V 
 
 
 IT) 
 
 in 
 
 cm m 
 
 in 
 
 
 cm 
 
 CM 
 
 (O CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 6 *~ 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 S 3 
 
 jfj 8 
 
 oo2 
 
 
 § 
 
 1 2 
 
 co 2 
 
 (0 
 
 
 
 
 tcz. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i i 
 
 i V 
 
 
 IS 
 
 o 
 
 CM CO 
 
 rt 
 
 
 d 
 
 52 
 
 CO f» 
 
 
 h{2- 
 
 
 I 
 
 o 9 
 
 1 © 
 
 x<t S 
 
 l 
 
 o 
 
 ; < 
 
 <=> d 
 
 1 V 
 
 o«r 
 
 o 
 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 d 
 
 §1 
 
 LU Q 
 
 OCZ 
 
 
 4-83 
 
given to additional factors in the hazard profile or to special charac- 
 teristics of the substance. 
 
 Category C . Substances which are slightly toxic to aquatic life (as ex- 
 pressed by a Hazard Rating 2, defined by a TL of 10 or more, but less 
 than 100 ppm); and additionally certain substances which are practically 
 non-toxic to aquatic life (as expressed by a Hazard Rating 1, defined by 
 
 a TL of 100 ppm or more, but less than 1,000 ppm) when particular weight 
 
 m 
 is given to additional factors in the hazard profile or to special char- 
 acteristics of the substance. 
 
 Category D . Substances which are practically non-toxic to aquatic life, 
 (as expressed by a hazard rating 1, defined by a TL of 100 ppm or more, 
 but less than 1,000 ppm); or cause deposits blanketing the seafloor 
 with a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); or are highly hazardous to human 
 health, with an LD,-q of less than 5 mg/kg; or produce moderate reduction 
 of amenities because of persistency, smell, or poisonous or irritant char- 
 acteristics possibly interfering with use of beaches; or are moderately haz- 
 ardous to human health with an LD 5Q of 5 mg/kg or more, but less than 50 
 mg/kg and produce slight reduction of amenities. 
 
 Other Liquid Substances . Substances other than those Categories A,B,C, 
 and D above. 
 
 Representative chemicals and their respective pollution categories 
 are given in Table IV-18. 
 
 (3). U.S. Coast Guard (69) . The National Academy of Sciences, National 
 Research Council's Committee on Hazardous Materials assisted the U.S. 
 Coast Guard in developing a hazard evaluation system for bulk dangerous 
 cargoes and assigning suitable ratings. The results of the Committee's 
 study are summarized in the report, "Evaluation of the Hazard of Bulk 
 Water Transportation of Industrial Chemicals - A Tentative Guide," pub- 
 lished 1n 1966 and revised 1n 1969, 1970, and 1972. The ratings repre- 
 sent the overall hazard potential connected with the bulk waterborne 
 shipment of specified industrial chemicals. 
 
 4-84 
 
Table IV-18 
 
 A SAMPLE OF NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES 
 
 CARRIED IN BULK 
 
 SUBSTANCE 
 
 UN NUMBER 
 
 POLLUTION 
 CATEGORY 
 FOR 
 OPERATIONAL 
 DISCHARGE 
 
 RESIDUAL CONCENTRATION 
 (PERCENT BY WEIGHT) 
 
 (REGULATION 
 
 3 OF 
 
 ANNEX II) 
 
 (REGULATION 
 5(1) OF 
 ANNEX II) 
 
 (REGULATION 
 
 5(7)OF 
 
 ANNEX II) 
 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 III 
 
 OUTSIDE SPECIAL 
 
 AREAS 
 
 IV 
 
 WITHIN SPECIAL 
 
 AREAS 
 
 -ACETALDEHYDE 
 
 1089 
 
 C 
 
 
 -ACETIC ACID 
 
 1842 
 
 C 
 
 
 -ACETIC ANHYDRIDE 
 
 1715 
 
 C 
 
 
 ^ACETONE 
 
 1090 
 
 D 
 
 
 -ACETONE 
 CYANOHYDRIN 
 
 1541 
 
 A 
 
 0.1 0.05 
 
 -ACETYL CHLORIDE 
 
 1717 
 
 C 
 
 
 -ACROLEIN 
 
 1092 
 
 A 
 
 0.1 0.05 
 
 -ACRYLIC ACID* 
 
 - 
 
 C 
 
 
 -ACRYLONITRILE 
 
 1093 
 
 B 
 
 
 -ADIPONITRILE 
 
 - 
 
 D 
 
 
 -ALKYLBENZENE 
 SULFONATE 
 
 
 
 
 (STRAIGHT CHAIN) 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 (BRANCHED CHAIN) 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 -ALLYL ALCOHOL 
 
 1098 
 
 B 
 
 
 -ALLYL CHLORIDE 
 
 1100 
 
 C 
 
 
 -ALUM (15% SOLUTION) 
 
 - 
 
 D 
 
 
 -AMINOETHYL- 
 ETHANOLAMINE 
 
 
 
 
 (HYDROXYETHYL- 
 ETHYLENEDIAMINE)* 
 
 - 
 
 D 
 
 
 ETC. 
 
 
 
 
 INDICATES THAT THE SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY INCLUDED IN THIS LIST AND 
 THAT FURTHER DATA ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE EVALUATION OF ITS 
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO LIVING RESOURCES. 
 
 n Convention, Annex I! 
 
The hazard evaluation is based on four main classes of hazards: 
 fire, health, water pollution, and reactivity. A brief description of 
 the hazards follows, including a general scheme of the system as shown 
 in Table IV-19. The specific National Academy of Sciences (NAS) hazard 
 ratings of a representative sample of chemicals transported under various 
 transport conditions is given in Table IV-20. 
 
 Fire Hazards . Chemicals are classified as having a fire hazard if prop- 
 erties are such that they may ignite or may spread a fire during bulk 
 water transportation. Ratings are based principally on flash points; 
 however, other factors may be considered and the rating raised or lowered 
 accordingly if the chemical represents a hazard unlike the hazard of 
 hydrocarbons. Chemicals having such unique hazards include: (1) chemi- 
 cals such as halogen-, nitrogen-, or sulfur - containing compounds that 
 evolve noxious gases in burning; (2) chemicals having exceptionally high 
 or low ignition temperatures; and (3) chemicals that ignite spontaneously 
 on contact with air or water. 
 
 Health Hazards . Health hazards are classified as originating from (1) 
 gases, vapors, fogs and mists of liquids that produce eye, skin, or res- 
 piratory irritation; (2) liquids or solids that produce eye injury or 
 skin burns upon direct contact; and (3) chemicals that produce systemic 
 poisoning when absorbed by inhalation, skin absorption or ingestion. 
 
 Water Pollution . Since large quantities of bulk chemicals are trans- 
 ported on inland waters, there is a serious possibility of impacting 
 potable water supplies when chemicals are spilled. Water pollution rat- 
 ings reflect the degree of concern that arises when chemicals are spilled 
 or dumped in U.S. waters. A wide variety of problems arise from such 
 occurrences. These are: municipal potable water systems may be rendered 
 unfit for consumption; fish and other aquatic life may be killed; waters 
 in streams or on beaches may be contaminated making them unfit for recre- 
 ational purposes; or noxious odors or vapors may evolve from the spill 
 to contaminate the atmosphere in areas nearby. The water pollution 
 characteristics of chemicals are rated in three ways: (1) human toxicity, 
 (2) aquatic toxicity, and (3) aesthetic effect. 
 
 4-86 
 
> DC 
 
 a> c/j 
 3 < 
 
 a 
 < 
 
 K 
 O 
 
 FLASH POINT BELOW 
 100°F, B.P. BELOW 
 100°F 
 
 SEVERE EFFECT; MAY 
 DO PERMANENT 
 INJURY 
 
 SECOND-DEGREE AND 
 THIRD-DEGREE BURNS 
 
 SEVERELY TOXIC 
 
 TOXIC CHEMICALS; 
 LD50 50 mg/kg 
 
 THRESHOLD LIMITS 
 BELOW 1 ppm 
 
 HEAVY OILS, COLORED 
 OR MALODOROUS 
 
 REACT WITH EACH 
 OTHER AND ALL 
 OTHER GRADES 
 
 VIGOROUS REACTION; 
 LIKELY TO BE 
 HAZARDOUS 
 
 SELF-OXIDIZING 
 CHEMICAL; CAPABLE 
 OF EXPLOSION OR 
 DETONATION 
 
 Q 
 < 
 
 DC 
 (3 
 
 FLASH POINT BELOW 
 100°F, B.P. ABOVE 
 100°F 
 
 IRRITATING; CANNOT 
 BE TOLERATED 
 
 SECOND-DEGREE 
 BURNS, FEW MINUTES 
 EXPOSURE 
 
 MODERATELY 
 TOXIC 
 
 MODERATELY TOXIC; 
 LD50 50-500 mg/kg 
 
 THRESHOLD LIMITS 
 
 1 TO 100 ppm 
 
 LIGHT-COLORED 
 HIGH-BOILING OILS; 
 ODOROUS WATER- 
 SOLUBLE COMPOUNDS 
 
 REACT WITH EACH 
 OTHER AND WITH 
 THOSE OF GRADES 
 
 2 AND 4 
 
 MORE VIGOROUS 
 REACTION; MAY 
 BE HAZARDOUS 
 
 VIGOROUS SELF- 
 REACTION; REQUIRES 
 STABILIZER 
 
 a 
 < 
 
 IX 
 
 u 
 
 FLASH POINT 
 100 TO 140°F 
 
 MODERATE IRRITA- 
 TION; TEMPORARY 
 EFFECT 
 
 FIRST-DEGREE BURNS, 
 SHORT EXPOSURE 
 
 INTERMEDIATE 
 TOXICITY 
 
 SLIGHTLY TOXIC; 
 LD 50 0.5 to 5 g/kg 
 
 THRESHOLD LIMITS 
 100 TO 1,000 ppm 
 
 MILD-ODORED, 
 COLORLESS, WATER 
 INSOLUBLE OILS; 
 B.P. 150-450°F 
 
 REACT WITH GRADES 
 3 AND 4 
 
 MODERATE REACTION 
 
 WILL UNDERGO SELF- 
 REACTION IF CON- 
 TAMINATED; DO NOT 
 REQUIRE STABILIZER 
 
 Q 
 
 < 
 
 ce 
 
 C3 
 
 CLOSED CUP FLASH 
 POINT ABOVE 140°F 
 
 SLIGHT EFFECT 
 
 CAUSES SKIN 
 SMARTING 
 
 SLIGHTLY TOXIC 
 
 PRACTICALLY NON- 
 TOXIC; LD 50 5-15 g/kg 
 
 THRESHOLD LIMITS 
 1,000 TO 10,000 ppm 
 
 MILD-ODORED LIGHT 
 OILS AND SOLUBLE 
 CHEMICALS 
 
 REACT ONLY WITH 
 GRADE 4 
 
 MILD REACTION; UN- 
 LIKELY TO BE 
 HAZARDOUS 
 
 MILD SELF-REACTION 
 UNDER SOME 
 CONDITIONS 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 < 
 DC 
 O 
 
 NO HAZARD 
 
 NO EFFECT 
 NO EFFECT 
 NO EFFECT 
 
 NONTOXIC; LD 50 
 15 g/kg 
 
 ACUTE THRESHOLD 
 LIMITS ABOVE 
 10,000 ppm 
 
 NO SIGNIFICANT 
 POLLUTION; GASES 
 AND ODORLESS 
 LIQUIDS 
 
 INACTIVE; MAY BE 
 ATTACKED BY 
 GRADE 4 
 
 NO REACTION 
 NO REACTION 
 
 8 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 < 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 FIRE 
 
 HEALTH 
 
 VAPOR IRRITANT 
 
 LIQUID OR SOLID 
 IRRITANT 
 
 POISONS 
 
 WATER POLLUTION 
 
 HUMAN TOXICITY 
 AQUATIC TOXICITY 
 
 AESTHETIC EFFECT 
 REACTIVITY 
 
 OTHER CHEMICALS 
 
 WATER 
 SELF-REACTION 
 
 4-87 
 
> 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 OC 
 
 x NOiiovaa-dTas 
 x aaiVM 
 
 = S1V0IW3H0 H3H10 
 
 ° 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 Z 
 
 <r2 
 
 S3 
 
 5 £ 
 
 5 103dd3 OI13H1S3V 
 
 > aiioixox ouvnov 
 
 > A1I3IX01 NVI/VHH 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 - 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 > SNOSIOd 
 
 ±iw±iaai 
 = anos/ainon 
 
 - INVIIHUI UOdVA 
 
 « 
 
 * 
 «» 
 
 - 
 
 ■ 
 
 oc 
 
 - 
 
 • 
 
 " 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 <o 
 
 5° 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 Q 
 
 9 
 
 o 
 K 
 
 8i™ 
 
 z 
 E 
 o 
 
 I-™ 
 
 uo 
 
 3 
 O 
 OC 
 
 a 
 > 
 i 
 z 
 < 
 < 
 z 
 o 
 
 2 co 
 SI 
 
 <z 
 
 z 
 
 O 
 
 2 
 
 DC 
 
 => 
 
 3 
 
 •8 
 
 JO 
 
 Sg 
 
 51 
 
 tc 
 
 ID oc 
 
 OC < 
 
 2 g 
 I - 
 " te 
 
 K Zr«. 
 
 H £2 
 
 OQ ^"< 
 
 S Ouj 
 < Oce 
 
 J. si 
 
 OC .UJ 
 
 3 <? 
 
 p£ "S 
 
 T> |l 
 
 5< _i< 
 
 2 o 
 
 3 "- 
 
 1 3« 
 H 2£ 
 
 1- II 
 Z UO 
 
 11! 
 Hi. 
 
 im 
 
 pa ocO< 
 <*■ 2wo 
 ' o S<oc 
 ii 0.1-0 
 
 °uj 
 
 » IS 
 
 5 2s 
 
 5 £ 
 
 a. See 
 
 8 lis 
 
 1 £§2 
 
 -1 uj|-C3 
 1 D<Z 
 
 uj 2c= 3 
 
 -z g|| 
 
 ?■ lis 
 
 If gfE< 
 
 OC 
 
 < 
 
 uj Z 
 
 5 2 
 
 K 1- 
 < £C 
 OC o 
 £ % 
 
 2 I 
 
 K OC 
 
 I ■" 
 CJ o 
 T Uui 
 
 I o 
 
 S 2» 
 
 ! 11 
 ss si 
 
 il SI 
 
 << i< 
 
 21 
 
 ft 
 
 || zS 
 
 IO c <2* 
 
 i§ sit 
 
 ~Z Z COW 
 
 i| lis 
 
 < ill 
 
 SO >; uj> 
 
 HO- O IO 
 
 it I 55 
 
 38 
 
 *S 
 
 si! 
 
 oc>o 
 
 < S = 
 
 o o 
 
 >18 
 
 5 E 
 
 gig 
 
 Oguj 
 
 a o< 
 < ococ 
 
 *8« 
 
 2 > < 
 
 _j i-z 
 
 m 
 °% 
 
 I 3£g - 
 
 1 lie I 
 
 •* o 
 
 ,oo § °oco 
 
 = oaz 
 
 lis 
 
 
Reactivity. This class of hazard arises from the susceptibility of chem- 
 icals to undergo a chemical reaction under the conditions of bulk water 
 transportation. Three types of hazards are considered: (1) the reaction 
 of chemicals with each other; (2) the reaction of chemicals with water; 
 and (3) self-reaction, usually polymerization or decomposition. 
 
 (4). Environmental Protection Agency (70 ). The Environmental Protection 
 Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical Assistance Data System 
 (OHM-TADS) is an automated information retrieval file designated to fa- 
 cilitate rapid retrieval of information on 1,000 oil and hazardous sub- 
 stances. 
 
 The prime function of the files is to provide immediate feedback of 
 information on hazardous substances to spill response team personnel. 
 Individual segments contain both numerical data and interpretive com- 
 ments. These can serve as background for decision-making and guidelines 
 to initiate corrective action. 
 
 The completed files can also be used as a source of diverse informa- 
 tion on hazardous substances as a whole, allowing research and enforce- 
 ment authorities to assess areas where more work or stricter regulations 
 are needed. 
 
 The system includes a wide variety of physical, chemical, biological- 
 toxicological , and commercial data. However, the greatest emphasis is 
 placed on the deleterious effects these materials may have on water qual- 
 ity. 
 
 5. EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL SPILLS ON HUMAN HEALTH 
 a. OVERVIEW 
 
 Since accidental losses of chemicals from bulk waterborne carriers 
 occur on or in the water, human exposure can occur either directly through 
 bodily contact of the liquid, solid, or vapor state, or indirectly 
 
through ingestion via drinking water or the food chain. Human health im- 
 plications of such exposure have been carefully considered and rated by 
 GESAMP (66) the U.S. Coast Guard (69). IMCO (60), and EPA (70). The 
 following subsections discuss human health implications of noxious and 
 hazardous substances. 
 
 b. CHEMICAL POISONS 
 
 Poisonous chemicals gain access to the body through inhalation (e.g., 
 chlorine, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, oleum, oxygen difluoride, and 
 tetraethyl lead), oral ingestion (e.g., DDT, ethyl mercury, and dieldrin), 
 and skin absorption (e.g., carbon tetrachloride, acrylonitrile, and ana- 
 line). The type and severity of the toxic effects are dependent upon the 
 particular chemical and its concentration in the body. Chemicals are 
 also considered poisonous if they are anesthetics or narcotics or have a 
 cumulative toxic effect, as well as if they are acutely toxic. 
 
 c. LIQUID AND SOLID IRRITANTS 
 
 Some hazardous substances will chemically "burn" or irritate human 
 skin as a result of contact in the liquid or solid state (e.g., caustic 
 soda, hydrochloric acid, hydroflouric acid, nitrogen tetra-oxide, and 
 phenol). Chemicals which burn the skin are also severe in their effects 
 on the eyes and membranes. Burns arising from heat (if in hot molten 
 state) or cold (if in refrigerated state) can also occur. 
 
 d. VAPOR IRRITANTS 
 
 This type of hazard involves the toxicological effect of vapors and 
 fumes evolved from the chemical and not to splashes of the liquid itself. 
 The class includes gases, or those chemicals which emit vapors or fogs 
 irritating to the skin or the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, throat 
 and lungs (e.g., n-butyraldehyde, carbon disulfide, cresols, diamino 
 propane, dichloroethane, hydrocyanic acid, and hydrogen peroxide). When 
 present in lower concentrations, many of the inhaled poisons mentioned 
 above under chemical poisons fit into this class. 
 
 4-90 
 
6. EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL SPILLS ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS 
 
 a. OVERVIEW 
 
 Effects of chemical spills on aquatic organisms have been classed 
 into two general categories: (1) direct or acute toxic effects upon or- 
 ganisms; and (2) sublethal effects, including chronic toxicity. An ele- 
 ment is said to be toxic if it injures the growth or metabolism of an or- 
 ganism when applied above a certain concentration (72). Definitions of 
 direct, acute and chronic toxicity adopted for use herein are those ex- 
 pressed by McKee and Wolf (73). Acute, or direct, toxicity is defined as 
 the lethal action occurring within a period of 96 hours or less, while 
 chronic toxicity involves deleterious effects which may not be evident 
 for weeks, months or longer. Sublethal effects include the broad spec- 
 trum of direct and indirect effects, including chronic toxicity, which 
 may occur in the aquatic environment as a result of chemical introduc- 
 ti on . 
 
 b. DIRECT TOXIC EFFECTS 
 
 Direct toxic effects on aquatic organisms of a particular chemical 
 have been found to vary both among species and between life stages of 
 particular species (74). Portmann (75) concluded, as a result of his 
 studies of 160 "pollutants" and review of the literature, that fish lar- 
 vae are more sensitive than fully grown adults with LC 5Q (the concentra- 
 tion required to kill 50 percent of the animals in 48 hours) values vary- 
 ing by a factor of 3 to 100 times. He also observed that phytoplankton 
 species appear to be more susceptible than adult marine animals. 
 
 The most important mode of toxic action is thought to be the poison- 
 ing of enzyme systems (72)- For example, the outstanding toxicity of 
 electronegative metals, notably copper and mercury, is related to their 
 great affinity for amino, imino and sulfhydryl groups, which are doubt- 
 less reactive sites on many enzymes. 
 
 In view of the large number of enzymes in living cells, great vari- 
 ations of chemical toxicity levels are to be expected. Other modes of 
 
 4-91 
 
toxic action result from: (1) behavior of pollutants as antimetabolites 
 (2) formation of stable precipitates or chelates with essential 
 metabolites; (3) catalyzation of the decomposition of essential metabol- 
 ites; (4) combination with the cell membrane with resultant affectation 
 of its permeability; and (5) replacement of structurally important elem- 
 ents in the cell with subsequent failure to function (72). 
 
 The extent of toxic effects is also regulated by the particular phy- 
 sical and chemical properties of the chemical as it interacts with en- 
 vironmental variables. For example, the toxicity of hydrogen cyanide 
 will increase with a decrease in hydrogen ion concentration (pH), or with 
 an increase in temperature (72 ) . Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides are 
 most toxic during summer rather than winter temperatures, and at least 
 one of the common detergents becomes decidedly more toxic to fish as sali- 
 nity levels increase (72). Spill location is also important. For ex- 
 ample , insoluble, lighter than water substances may be more persistent 
 in colder climates, where chemical and bacterial degradation is slow. 
 Under such conditions accumulation can occur to create a hazard to aqua- 
 tic life and wild life, (e.g., seals, polar bears, and other mammals liv- 
 ing on and under the ice) (66). 
 
 Reactions of introduced chemicals with dissolved organics and in- 
 organic materials 1n the receiving waters may result in neutralization, 
 synergism or antagonism of one substance by another. These interactions 
 1n turn determine the ultimate effects on the aquatic organisms (66, 69). 
 The toxicity of heavy metals, which are less toxic in seawater than in 
 freshwater, 1s regulated 1n this manner. In some instances, such as with 
 endosulfan, the toxicity is actually higher 1n saline water than in fresh 
 water (66). 
 
 These relationships are particularly important when chemical losses 
 occur in already polluted areas, since the lost materials will tend, in 
 some cases, to synergize and, in others, to antagonize the effects of 
 existing pollutants. Where synergism occurs the net effect would gener- 
 ally be increased toxicity to already stressed organisms, and perhaps 
 mortality, which might not have resulted from a spill occurring under 
 
 4-92 
 
the original pollution conditions. In the case of antagonistic interac- 
 tion, the net effect might occasionally be beneficial, since toxic ef- 
 fects would be at least temporarily reduced. Predictability of synergism 
 and antagonism is difficult since little is understood about the basic 
 mechanisms or fundamentals governing these processes (73). 
 
 Direct toxic effects are regulated to a large degree by the life his- 
 tory characteristics of organisms. In the sea, dilution of wastes is 
 frequently very rapid so that levels which are directly toxic to fish are 
 found only in the immediate vicinity of the point of discharge and usu- 
 ally persist for a relatively short period of time (76)- Most fish 
 species have the capacity to swim away from such short term toxic concen- 
 trations, although they do not always do this, and indeed, may be at- 
 tracted by certain substances (76). Visual evidence of fish kills is 
 generally transient, since dead and dying fish sink, are carried away by 
 currents, or are eaten by sea birds. Lobster, crab, and shrimp can move 
 away from unfavorable areas (although relatively slowly) (76). As a 
 result of their immobility, oysters, mussels, and cockels have to cope 
 with anything brought to them by tides, currents, or winds. If necessary 
 these organisms have a temporary defense mechanism of being able to close 
 their shells and exclude poisonous substances for several hours or even 
 days. Losses are most likely to occur in estuaries and shallow semi- 
 enclosed coastal bays and inlets where both the volume of water and 
 capacity for quick dilution or dispersal are limited (76). 
 
 c. SUBLETHAL EFFECTS 
 
 As used herein, the term sublethal effects is that described by 
 Mitrovic (77) and refers to effects of all concentrations not necessarily 
 lethal for individuals, even at prolonged exposures, but which increase the 
 population mortality, decrease its size or change its composition. 
 
 The effect on aquatic organisms of small quantities of various toxic 
 materials, although generally less apparent than sudden fish kills, may 
 be even more harmful. This circumstance demonstrates why it is diffi- 
 cult to establish safe concentrations of toxic substances (77)- Sub- 
 stances most likely to cause long-term effects at low concentrations are 
 
 4-93 
 
those which are persistent in the environment and are accumulated in 
 animals and plants or in the bottom sediment (76). Lists of these sub- 
 stances have been cited by GESAMP (66), Idler (78), and USCG (69). 
 
 Sublethal concentrations of chemicals or their reactant products may 
 affect reproduction in many different ways. Induced abnormal development 
 of embryos may result in deformed or non-functioning larvae, which cannot 
 survive hatching. Reproduction may be influenced by induced behavioral 
 changes in the adults during the mating season. Adult behavior and the 
 production of egg nutrients and egg shells may all be affected by change 
 of hormone function and enzyme activity (79). Alderson (80) found that 
 very low levels of chlorine would produce significant larval and egg 
 mortalities (e.g., LD 5Q 0.024-0.34 ppm for larvae and 0.07-0.12 ppm for 
 eggs.) Davis (79) cited a study by Kinne and Rosenthal which showed that 
 in concentrations of FeS0 4 and H^SO. as low as 1:32,000, the percentage 
 of successful fertilization of herring (Clupea harengus) eggs was re- 
 duced, embryonic growth rate was retarded, the embryonic heat frequency 
 was enhanced (stress), the duration of incubation was decreased, the per- 
 centage of successful hatchings was reduced, and the occurrence of 
 structural abnormalities in the hatchings was increased. 
 
 Nutrient-containing or yielding chemicals may lead or contribute to 
 eutrophi cation in some waters. This tends to be truer in enclosed water 
 areas, particularly in the tropics. Since bacterial activity has been 
 demonstrated to be temperature dependent (66) it is anticipated that de- 
 gradation of spilled chemicals will be most rapid in warm tropical wa- 
 ters and slowest in cold arctic waters. Chemicals which are readily bio- 
 degradable in temperate waters, may, due to temperature- related persis- 
 tence, have significant long-term consequences in the arctic (66). Com- 
 pounds exhibiting high biological oxygen demand (BOD), such as molasses, 
 can have chronic, as well as acute, toxic effects, particularly in trop- 
 ical and semi-tropical waters (66). 
 
 Many chemicals or their reactants will find their way to the bottom. 
 For example, colloidal clay suspensions, available from inflowing fresh 
 
 4-94 
 
water run-off, will absorb certain chemicals, including nutrients and 
 pesticides, which in turn will reach the bottom as the clay is flocculat- 
 ed on mixing with seawater (66). Others will be deposited after reac- 
 tion with plankton and other suspended organic matter. Some, such as 
 phosphorous, tetraethyl lead, and liquid sulfur, will sink to the bottom 
 since they are heavier than seawater and not highly soluble. 
 
 Once at the bottom, substances such as heavy metals, pesticides, and 
 nutrients are incorporated in the sediments where they may cause toxic 
 effects on benthos and other organisms frequenting the water mass near 
 the bottom. However, it does not necessarily follow that the chemical 
 has found a final resting state, since oxidation-reduction reactions may 
 cause them to be released or currents may transport them to other loca- 
 tions . 
 
 Ranchor (81) reported on the release of waste acid off Helgoland 
 (German Bight) containing about 10% H^O^, 14% FeS0 4 and also mineral 
 pollutants. Bottom samples showed a loose mass of Fe (III) oxide-hydrate 
 flakes floating above the sediment. Under laboratory conditions, this 
 waste acid was found to have harmful effects even in great dilution. How- 
 ever, field studies were not so conclusive. Although fauna! collections 
 indicated a change in benthic species composition, it was considered im- 
 possible to prove any harmful effect to the macrofauna. Some macrofaunal 
 species, originally scarce in the research area, now exist there in great 
 numbers, making up more than 50% of the total organisms. This could be 
 due to the natural processes, or it may have been favored by the waste 
 disposal. Chemicals which cause suspensoids may, on occasion, signifi- 
 cantly reduce light penetration and, in so doing, affect the growth of 
 bottom algae and reduce phytoplankton production (76). 
 
 Avoidance reactions to various toxic chemicals have been observed 
 for both fish and other organisms. These reactions impact organisms in 
 various ways. For example, Portmann (75) found that European brown 
 shrimp (Crangon crangon) were able to detect and escape from 3.3-10 ppm 
 of HoSO, and 10-33 ppm of phenols, indicating that this species can 
 through avoidance probably escape direct toxicity from spill incidents. 
 Chemical losses may have significant impacts when they cause avoidance 
 
 4-95 
 
reactions at critical times or locations. Mitrovic (77) cited a study by 
 Kalakiner which concluded that fish would not inhabit parts of a river 
 with phenol content higher than 0.2 mg/1, while Ishio (82) described an 
 imbalanced fish distribution in the Onaga River (Japan) where parts of 
 the river were polluted by coal-washing wastes containing phenol in con- 
 centrations 0.024-0.1 mg/1. Elson (83) concluded that slow upward pas- 
 sage of Atlantic salmon (salmo solar L.)through the Miramitchi River 
 (Canada) appears to be attributed to the Miramitchi's burden of indus- 
 trial pollution. 
 
 Some substances often accumulate in organisms or bottom sediments 
 from which they can be taken up by bacteria and bottom-living organisms 
 (67), Once accumulating in the food chain, they may eventually reach 
 concentrations of sufficient level to harm the involved organisms 'life 
 history stages. Through concentrations in parts of fish and shellfish, 
 the substances may result in public health hazards and economic losses 
 due to tainting problems. Substances most commonly implicated in taint- 
 ing of fish and shellfish are oil, phenols and cresols (76). 
 
 Since chemicals may be washed ashore at any point and may be depos- 
 ited directly on the inter-tidal zone, the filter-feeding shellfish such 
 as mussels and oysters are most frequently affected although lobsters and 
 crabs may be similarly affected. Idler (78) cites a study by Nitta which 
 concludes that bitter tastes from soft clams in a river estuary may be 
 due to the presence of polluting metabolites of aromatic compounds. 
 
 7. VAPOR HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEA TRANSPORT OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS 
 IN BULK (84) 
 
 This section considers the potential hazard resulting from the inad- 
 vertent release of certain chemical cargoes which subsequently give rise 
 to a fire, explosion, or toxic vapor condition. The conditions leading to 
 the release of the cargo are not discussed; only the potential magnitude 
 or extent of the hazard is considered. The most serious hazards are vap- 
 ors from liquefied gas releases. For example, liquefied petroleum gas 
 (LPG) presents a potential fire and explosion hazard, liquefied natural 
 gas (LNG) a fire hazard (explosive only if confined), while ammonia and 
 
 4- 96 
 
chlorine pose toxic hazards. It is important to bear in mind that, where- 
 as atmospheric concentrations on the order of 25,000 parts per million 
 (ppm) can indicate flammable hazards, concentrations as low as 100 ppm 
 can pose serious toxic problems. 
 
 Table IV-21 gives pertinent physical properties and shipping hazards 
 of these chemicals. It can be seen from the Table that the individual 
 properties of the substance have marked effects on both the nature and 
 severity of the hazard. 
 
 a. EXTENT OF VAPOR HAZARDS 
 
 Following an inadvertent spill of a liquefied gas on water, rapid 
 vaporization takes place immediately, primarily due to heat input from 
 water. Normally the heat from the atmosphere is much less and can be 
 neglected. Since the resulting vapors are carried downwind, it is neces- 
 sary to know the extent or range of flammable or toxic concentrations. 
 As previously indicated, typical flammable concentrations are on the 
 order of 100 times greater than toxic concentrations. Therefore, for 
 vapors of comparable density, the downwind toxic hazard spread will be 
 much greater than the flammable hazard. 
 
 LPG vapor dispersions from spills on water have not been reported 
 although LPG vapor dispersion and fire radiation tests are now being 
 conducted for the U.S. Coast Guard at the Naval Weapons Station, China 
 Lake, California. Since LPG vapors are much heavier and possess a lower 
 flammable limit in comparison to LNG vapor, it is possible that the ex- 
 tent of flammable vapor concentrations downwind for LPG could be greater 
 than for LNG. However, LPG has a lower vaporization rate (.03 vs. .04 
 
 LNG vapor dispersions from spills on water have been the subject of 
 extensive, independent studies by the U.S. Bureau of Mines Safety Re- 
 search Center (85) for the U.S. Coast Guard, Exxon Research and Engineer- 
 ing Company (86) and the Thorton Research Centre of Shell Research 
 
 4-97 
 
>< 
 
 2- 
 
 E*. 
 
 Oo 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 
 Liquefied gas. 
 
 Greenish yellow. Irritating, 
 
 bleach-like choking odor 
 
 Sinks and boils in water. 
 Poisonous, visible vapor 
 cloud is produced. 
 
 i p 
 
 U 1 S «-= pj 
 
 Not flammable. 
 Not flammable. 
 Not flammable. 
 
 
 10 
 
 <§_ 
 
 20C< 
 
 111 
 
 E 
 
 1 
 
 Liquefied gas 
 
 Colorless, Ammonia odor 
 
 Floats and boils on water. 
 Poisonous, visible vapor 
 cloud is produced. 
 
 <3 1 " 6'S 6 
 
 3 1 
 
 
 J< 
 
 2 
 
 (9 
 
 2 
 
 Liquefied gas. 
 
 Colorless, Odorless or weak 
 
 skunk odor 
 
 Floats and boils on water. 
 
 Flammable visible vapor 
 
 cloud is produced. 
 
 cS 1 £ d = d 
 
 j | 
 
 1 7 u. 
 
 2 « g 
 
 <* o o o o o o 
 
 < 
 
 Si 
 
 ||5 
 
 ■ i 
 
 1 c 
 
 Liquefied gas. 
 Colorless, Weak odor; may 
 have skunk odor added. 
 Floats and boils on water. 
 Flammable vapor cloud 
 is produced. 
 
 o o 
 
 °o S 
 
 ^ i 
 
 «"-* d — 
 
 8 IS ».i * 
 
 CD aa o= .- 
 
 Propane, -156°F 
 Butane, - 76°F 
 Propane, 2.2 - 9.5% 
 Butane, 1.8-8.4% 
 Propane, 871°F, 
 Butane, 761°F 
 
 <* o o o o o o 
 
 8 
 
 E 
 
 i- 
 o 
 < 
 oc 
 < 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 2 
 O 
 
 2 
 > 
 
 2 
 O 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 E 
 
 is 
 
 a 
 
 PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 
 PHYSICAL STATE AT 15°C and 1 atm. 
 BOILING POINT AT 1 atm. 
 
 SPECIFIC GRAVITY 
 
 VAPOR (GAS) 
 SPECIFIC GRAVITY 
 
 FIRE HAZARDS 
 FLASH POINT 
 
 FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR 
 
 IGNITION TEMPERATURE 
 
 NAS HAZARD RATING FOR BULK 
 WATER TRANSPORTATION 
 FIRE 
 HEALTH 
 
 VAPOR IRRITANT 
 LIQUID OR SOLID IRRITANT 
 POISONS 
 WATER POLLUTION 
 HUMAN TOXICITY 
 AQUATIC TOXICITY 
 AESTHETIC EFFECT 
 
Ex 
 
 3d 
 
 « r O 
 
 0.08 ppm/168 hr/trout/ 
 TL m /fresh water 
 10 ppm/1 hr./tunicates/ 
 killed/salt water 
 
 Data not available 
 
 Zcc< 
 
 II s 
 
 < 
 
 
 0.3—0.4 ppm/*trout fry/ 
 toxic or lethal/fresh water 
 0.7 ppm/6.5 hr/rainbow 
 trout/toxic or lethal/ 
 fresh water 
 120 ppm 120 ppm 
 Not pertinent 
 
 None 
 
 Mi 
 
 z 
 
 
 None 
 
 < 
 
 S = " 
 
 OO" 
 
 1- 
 
 o o o 
 
 None 
 
 i 
 
 EC 
 
 < 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 REACTIVITY 
 
 OTHER CHEMICALS 
 
 WATER 
 
 SELF-REACTION 
 
 WATER POLLUTION 
 
 AQUATIC TOXICITY 
 
 WATERFOWL TOXICITY 
 BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN 
 DEMAND (BOD) 
 FOOD CHAIN 
 CONCENTRATION POTENTIAL 
 
 4-99 
 
Limited (87) in behalf of the American Petroleum Institute. The Shell 
 tests were conducted on a laboratory scale,whereas the Bureau of Mines 
 and Esso studies included much larger field tests. 
 
 Results of the Shell test vaporization rates varied from 0.006 to 
 0.040 Ib/sec-ft .with the latter value being the maximum observed, and the 
 
 Bureau of Mines and Esso test results were 0.032 to 0.037 Ib/sec-ft and 
 
 2 
 0.04 lb/sec-ft .respectively. Other small-scale tests performed inde- 
 pendently by Continental Oil Company, Massachusetts Institute of Techno- 
 logy and University Engineers tend to confirm the results first reported 
 by the Bureau of Mines. 
 
 To circumvent this apparent discrepancy in evaporation rates which 
 introduces at least a factor of two in the downwind dispersion distances, 
 it was decided to calculate downwind dispersion distances for continuous 
 steady state spills on water. The results of these calculations are 
 summarized in Figure IV-9. This calculation technique is similar to 
 that used by the Bureau of Mines. 
 
 The concentrations reported in Figure IV-9 are time averages. How- 
 ever, it has been observed that the concentration at any point undergoes 
 a variation due to atmospheric fluctuations. Therefore, it is necessary 
 to establish the magnitude of this fluctuation, which is commonly refer- 
 red to as the peak- to-average concentration. The extent of the flammable 
 region should be based on these peak concentrations, rather than the time- 
 average values. The peak- to average concentration is a function of sev- 
 eral variables, including wind speed and atmospheric conditions. 
 
 The peak- to-average concentration can vary from more than 10 to 1 
 for unstable atmospheric conditions down to about 1.5 to 1 for stable con- 
 ditions. Stable atmospheric (Brookhaven D) conditions usually result in 
 a long downwind range and are used for "worst-case" hazard evaluations so 
 the error involved in omission of the peak- to-average values is not crit- 
 ical. In addition, the uncertainties in the many other parameters which 
 govern the extent of vapor dispersion is not as important for toxic vapor 
 dispersions because the toxic limits are average values for periods rang- 
 ing from a few minutes to several hours. 
 
 4-100 
 
\ 
 
 1 I 1 
 
 .11 1 | 1 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - \ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 \ >- 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 D VELOCI 
 6 KNOTS 
 
 
 
 
 \ \ Z 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 \ V 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 >-\ \ 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oh \ \ 
 
 >i \ \ 
 
 Ow \ \ 
 
 
 
 
 S \ \ 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 " 
 
 CO 
 
 2 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 HfiO 
 
 \ 
 
 
 " 
 
 O ' uj 
 -iO> 
 
 
 
 
 < 2 UJ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 5>< 
 
 
 \ \ - 
 
 " 
 
 eco 
 
 
 \ V 
 
 
 oo 
 
 LUCE 
 1- CO 
 
 
 
 
 HI 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 ill 1 III 
 
 i i 
 
 -§ 52 
 
 > w 
 
 ii 
 
 9o 
 
 
 Z OL 
 
 
 1> 
 M 
 
 < _i 
 
 ■D 3 
 C 00 
 
 UJ Uj 
 
 m o 
 
 5si 
 
 11 
 
 cc< 
 
 Q o 
 
 -1? 
 
 in .5 
 
 -"S 
 
 §)(J 
 
 E< 
 
 3 Z 
 
 CO -I 
 
 
 U.U- 
 
 £ 
 
 Ou- 
 
 
 eo O 
 
 * 
 
 So 
 
 § 
 
 (sj9*9iuo|!>D liwn 3TaVWIAIV1d H3AAO! Ol 30NV1SIQ 
 
 4-101 
 
Chlorine vapor dispersions following a spill on water pose a severe 
 toxic hazard in that an exposure to a concentration of 100 ppm for a min- 
 ute or so can be extremely dangerous. In 1970 the U.S. Bureau of Mines 
 Safety Research Center released a report on the hazards of marine trans- 
 portation of liquid chlorine (85). Since the density of chlorine gas is 
 more than twice the density of air, chlorine vapors tend to layer on the 
 surface during downwind dispersions. Even though chlorine is soluble in 
 water, the Bureau of Mines reported little evidence of chlorine absorp- 
 tion at the water interface. Figure IV-10 shows the predictions by 
 University Engineers for the steady-state downwind travel of vapors hav- 
 ing a concentration of 100 ppm as a function of a continuous spill rate. 
 Stable (Brookhaven D) atmospheric conditions and a wind velocity of 3 
 knots was used for this calculated estimate. Corrections for vapor den- 
 sity effects were not included. This figure dramatically illustrates 
 that even minor releases of chlorine vapors cannot be tolerated, parti- 
 cularly since concentrations of 100 ppm are five to ten times higher than 
 what is considered dangerous for exposures of one-half hour duration. 
 
 Since the lower flammable limit of ammonia is about 160,000 ppm as 
 compared to a toxic concentration of 1,000 ppm (for very short durations 
 of a few minutes), ammonia vapor dispersions should be classed primarily 
 as a toxic hazard. In contrast tc chlorine and LPG, ammonia vapors are 
 less dense than air; therefore, they will tend to layer less and disperse 
 vertically due to the effects of buoyancy. Figure IV-11 summarizes the 
 predictions by University Engineers for the downwind travel of a vapor 
 cloud having concentration of 1,000 ppm. For these calculations, it was 
 assumed that 85 percent of the ammonia spilled on water vaporizes, and 
 the remainder dissolves in the water. 
 
 D. SPILL PROBABILITY AND RISK 
 
 A survey by the Oceanographic Institute of Washington (88) of tanker 
 casualties for seven major port areas in the United States (for the time 
 frame 1969-1972) found there is a good correlation between tanker casu- 
 alties and tanker trips. The port areas are as follows: 
 
 4-102 
 
&s 
 
 -J II o 
 
 o< 
 
 LU 7 
 
 (sjeiaiuo|!>|) Wdd 001 01 30NV1SIQ 
 
 4-103 
 
J_J_ 
 
 oc z 
 _iO 
 
 -I s 
 IS 
 
 </> < 
 Oo 
 
 Si 
 
 u. co 
 u- CC 
 
 LU Ul 
 
 _ D 
 
 (Simmon*) lAIdd OOOl Ol 30NV1SIQ 
 
 4-104 
 
New York, including the ports of New Haven and Bridgeport, 
 Conn., and Port Jefferson and New York, N.Y.; 
 Delaware Bay, encompassing that area extending from the mouth 
 of the Delaware River upstream to Trenton, New Jersey, includ- 
 ing the ports of Philadephia, Trenton, and others; 
 Chesapeake Bay, including the ports of Baltimore and Hampton 
 Roads, all associated entrances and approach channels; 
 Gulf Coast, including all U.S. coastal ports from the Mexican 
 border to the Sabine-Nachez Waterway; 
 
 Los Angeles/Long Beach, including the ports of Los Angeles, 
 Long Beach, San Diego, and associated waters; 
 San Francisco, including all ports located inland of the 
 entrance to San Francisco Bay; 
 
 Puget Sound, including that area from the Columbia River to 
 Cape Flattery, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and 
 northern waters to the Canadian border. 
 
 The results of their analysis indicated that there is no signifi- 
 cant difference among the mean casualty rates for various years. They 
 also showed the casualty rates are constant from one U.S. port to the 
 next. By combining U.S. Coast Guard casualty data with the cargo volume 
 throughput and vessel trip data compiled by the U.S. Army Corps of En- 
 gineers (Waterborne Commerce in the United States), it was possible for 
 the Institute to define a relationship among the three variables, i.e., 
 casualties, cargo volume throughput and vessel trips. Figures IV-12 
 and IV-13 illustrate the results of this procedure. In Figure IV-12* ad- 
 justed casualties include all casualties involving U.S. flag vessels 
 greater than 7000 DWT. Adjusted trips include all vessel round trips by 
 tankers under U.S. flag registry. Since data pertaining to vessel trips 
 in U.S. ports is not compiled in a form that differentiates between ves- 
 sel registries, the following relationship was assumed: 
 
 Total Bulk Petroleum waterborne 
 No. U.S. Flag Tanker Roundtrips _ Commerce (excluding Foreign Commerce ) 
 
 Total No. of Tanker Roundtrips Total Bulk Petroleum Waterborne 
 Commerce 
 
1 1 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 .' 
 GULF COAST > 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 . 
 
 
 / NEW YORK 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO / 
 • / 
 
 DELAWARE BAY/ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PUGET 
 — SOUND 
 
 /CHESAPEAKE BAY 
 / • 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 • S 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 & LONG BEACH 
 
 
 
 
 / I i 
 
 1 1 1 I 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 
 ADJUSTED TRIPS (x 10°) 
 
 Figure IV-12 TANKER CASUALTIES VERSUS TANKER TRIPS (1969-1972) 
 
 SOURCE: Offshore Petroleum Transfer System for Washington State, A Feasibility Study; 
 prepared by the Oceanographic Institute of Washington for the Oceanographic 
 Commission of Washington, December 16, 1974, Page V— 45. 
 
 4-106 
 
1 1 
 
 1 1 ' 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 ' 1 ' 
 
 
 •\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fe\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - < \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - -J \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 D \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ o 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 \ U 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 !*\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 UJ \ 
 
 o V 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 f 
 
 • 
 
 \ s 
 
 \ w 
 
 \ < 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ s 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 UjUJ \ 
 
 • 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 s 3 si\ 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 3 * ss > 
 
 0. 
 
 1 1 1 1 
 
 y . 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 
 1 I 
 
 
 3 if> 2 
 ||| 
 
 Ou-| . 
 
 oc<*g 
 
 I «f ° | 
 1-3 c> 
 UJ c £ I 
 
 ill' 
 
 D £ £3 
 We?e 
 CC|-8 
 
 jjj^IS 
 
 siii 
 
 U«oS 
 
 Bill 
 
 ?*** 
 
 Will 
 
 UJ£ £ o 
 
 vOao 
 
 sainvnsvo aaisnrav 
 
 4-107 
 
Thus, the actual number of U.S. flag tankers is estimated by assum- 
 ing the number of U.S. flag vessel trips is proportional to the volume of 
 petroleum and petroleum products transported by U.S. flag vessels. The 
 resulting plot of casualties versus trips illustrated in Figure IV-12 
 shows a strong linear relationship having a slope of 0.0044 casualties/ves- 
 sel trip. The relationship between vessel casualties and petroleum vol- 
 ume throughput of Figure IV-13 illustrates a similar strong correlation 
 having a slope 0.119 casualties/volume throughput. This analysis has 
 demonstrated that the probability of a tanker casualty and a resulting 
 oil spill is highly dependent on the frequency of vessel transits. There- 
 fore, the risk potential at each port is sensitive to changes in the fleet 
 mix, i.e., alternate vessel sizes. From a risk viewpoint, the use of 
 large numbers of relatively small tankers will increase the potential for 
 vessel casualties in a particular port area. Recent trends indicate oil 
 companies will use high- capacity vessels to avoid the substantial economic 
 penalties resulting from the use of relatively small tankers. Small tank- 
 ers, because of their much higher ton-mile costs, are unsuitable for long 
 trips. Larger tankers will rapidly displace smaller vessels particu- 
 larly in the Alaskan trade. From a risk viewpoint, the use of \/ery 
 large tankers would reduce the level of tanker transits in certain U.S. 
 harbors and thereby reduce the potential for a vessel casualty. Al- 
 though the probability of a vessel casualty will be reduced, the extent 
 of the hazard may be much greater because of the probability of a larger 
 spill volume. 
 
 The estimates of the casualty rate (number of tanker casualties/tan- 
 ker trips) previously presented are without regard to the probability of 
 a spill. It is likely that only a small portion of accidents would be 
 sufficiently severe to cause the rupture of a cargo tank and the spil- 
 lage of liquid cargo. Here the probability of a spill based on pollu- 
 tion causing-inci dents (PCI) for petroleum tankers is estimated. 
 
 The recent analysis of worldwide tanker accidents prepared by the 
 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Oceans Program (5) provides a basis 
 for estimating spill probability. The analysis differentiates between 
 
 4-108 
 
 
non-polluting accident types and pollution-causing-incidents (PCI's). 
 The number of tanker accidents with associated pollution incidents for 
 each type of accident is presented in Table IV-22. A spill frequency 
 can be calculated by dividing the number of pollution incidents by the 
 total number of accidents for each accident type as shown in column two. 
 An annual tanker accident rate and an annual Pollution-Causing-Incident 
 rate can be calculated by dividing the number of accidents and number of 
 pollution causing incidents by six years as shown in columns three and 
 five, respectively. An examination of the estimated annual rates reveals 
 the interesting conclusion that collisions, groundings, rammings and 
 structural failures appear to be the four most frequent type of events 
 for both tanker accidents and Pollution-Causing-Incidents. 
 
 Table IV-22 provides the basis for estimating the fraction of tan- 
 ker casualties which could be of sufficient magnitude to cause a spill. 
 An analysis of incident frequency alone can be misleading, however, if 
 the associated spill volume is not considered. Actual oil outflows can 
 range from minimal spills to total loss of the tanker. In their analysis, 
 the OTA differentiated between catastrophic spills and non-catastrophic 
 spills. Table IV-23 shows the number and magnitude of 519 pollution in- 
 cidents for different types of tanker accidents. The OTA staff with the 
 assistance of ECO, Inc. concluded the following: 
 
 If catastrophic (very large) events are excluded, groundings 
 account for over twice the oil outflow than that of collisions 
 and together they represent over 80 percent of the oil pollu- 
 tion from the accidents studied. 
 
 If all events are included, structural failures are the largest 
 single cause of oil spills and groundings are second largest. 
 
 If only catastrophic (yery large) events are included, struc- 
 tural failures are the largest single cause of oil spills and 
 groundings and collisions are about equal as the second 
 largest. 
 
 4-109 
 
u.Z 
 OO 
 
 El 
 
 fc SB 
 
 s ^ 
 
 11 
 
 1X1 1 X X X 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 CCuj 
 
 ! 
 
 li 
 
 iSsSIIS 2 
 
 co 
 
 (0 
 
 lis 
 
 |2 
 
 1 X 1 1 X X X 1 
 
 1 
 
 Is 
 
 z_ 
 
 IS 
 
 oiAocooinmrv 
 
 
 life 
 
 1111 
 
 "■U.0C"" 
 
 O 
 
 66006066 
 
 6 
 
 zg< 
 
 S £ & 3 g 5 S 
 
 s 
 ft 
 
 0) 
 
 5 
 
 Z 
 O 
 
 2* 
 
 X 
 Z 
 < 
 
 1 i 1 i s 2 s 
 
 a 2 § 5 1 ? 1 
 1 5 S 2 5 1 § s 
 
 mouiu.octo< 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 1- 
 
 IIP 
 
 a 6 * 3 
 
 °<Is 
 
 i ft 1 ! 
 i I 
 
 <3 £ 
 
 4-no 
 
Table IV-23 
 
 NUMBER AND MAGNITUDE OF WORLDWIDE POLLUTION 
 
 CAUSING INCIDENTS (PCI'S) BY TYPE OF TANKER ACCIDENT r 
 
 
 TYPE OF EVENT 
 
 TYPE OF ACCIDENT- 
 LEADING TO PCI z - 
 
 CATASTROPHIC 
 EVENTS 
 INCLUDED 
 
 CATASTROPHIC 
 
 EVENTS 
 
 EXCLUDED 
 
 CATASTROPHIC 
 EVENTS 
 ONLY 
 
 BREAKDOWNS 
 COLLISIONS 
 
 EXPLOSIONS 
 
 FIRES 
 GROUNDINGS 
 
 HAMMINGS 
 
 STRUCTURAL 
 FAILURES 
 
 ALL OTHERS 
 
 12 / 48,763 
 
 147 / 226,884 
 (22%) 3 - 
 
 40 / 134,610 
 (13%) 
 
 17 / 2,935 
 
 144 / 309,824 
 (31%) 
 
 51 / 14,506 
 
 104 / 340,727 
 (34%) 
 
 4 / 54,911 
 
 9 / 590 
 
 138 / 58,240 
 (27%) 
 
 25 / 7,326 
 
 16 / 1,685 
 
 130 / 122,925 
 (57%) 
 
 51 / 14,506 
 ( 7%) 
 
 89 / 18,208 
 
 ( 9%) 
 
 1 / 121 
 
 3 / 48,173 
 
 9 / 168,644 
 (21%) 
 
 15 / 127,284 
 
 (16%) 
 
 1 / 1,250 
 
 14 / 176,899 
 
 (22%) 
 
 / 
 
 15/322,519 
 
 (41%) 
 
 3 / 54,790 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 519/1,133,160 
 
 459 / 223,601 
 
 60 / 899,559 
 
 NOTES: LL Involving tankers 2000 GRT and greater during the period 1969 to 1974 
 
 1 2. Number of PCI's /Total Outflow (Long Tons) 
 
 1 3. Relative percentage of oil outflow of the four major accident types are given 
 
 SOURCE: Adapted From " An Analysis of Oil Tanker Casualties 1( 
 OTA Oceans Program for the Use of the I 
 Commerce, Science and Transportation, V 
 February 7, 1978. 
 
It should be noted that the data from these studies were analyzed to 
 determine the amount of oil pollution resulting from worldwide tanker 
 casualties which may be orders of magnitude greater than the pollution 
 from Title XI Program tankers engaged in domestic trade. It is difficult 
 to assess the amount of oil pollution attributed to U.S. flag vessels 
 engaged in domestic trade; however, spill incidence rates of U.S. flag 
 vessels as compared to foreign flag vessels have been estimated (89). 
 
 Based on an estimate of port visits and Coast Guard PIRS data, equi- 
 valent spill incidence rates by flag for 1973 through 1975 were calcu- 
 lated and are illustrated in Figure IV-14. The estimates in Figure IV-14 
 are based on the assumption there is one U.S. port visit for vessels in 
 import/ export trade for every two U.S. port visits for vessels in domes- 
 tic coastwide trade. In addition, it was assumed that vessel port visits 
 are distributed among flags of registry in proportion to the relative ton- 
 nage of crude and petroleum products imported/exported. The numbers il- 
 lustrated graphically in Figure IV-14 show that U.S. ships have about 50 
 percent as many spills per port visit as Liberian tankers, and about 20 
 to 30 percent as many spills per port visit as foreign tankers in general. 
 
 1 . TANK BARGES 
 
 A safety analysis of barge cargo losses on inland waterways as a 
 result of marine casualties was conducted by Marad, for the period July 
 1968 through June 1973 (61). Table IV-24 shows a frequency distribution 
 of the 255 barges included in the analysis. Of the 229 barges for which 
 information was available, 104, or 45%, experienced some loss of cargo 
 as a result of an accident. 
 
 Table IV-25 indicates the accident rate per million miles in each 
 inland waterway segment for barges carrying hazardous materials. For 
 the ten bulk liquid chemical movements in the study, methanol has the 
 highest probability of spill. The expected annual accidental spill rate 
 of 0.0465 is equivalent to one spill every 22 years. That is, the re- 
 currence interval for this type of spill would be every 22 years if 
 conditions remained unchanged. Other recurrence intervals range as 
 
Figure IV-14 COMPARISON OF U.S. AND FOREIGN FLAG TANKER SPILL 
 INCIDENCE RATES IN U.S. WATERS FROM 1973 TO 1975 
 
 Nov. 4, 1977, page 81. 
 
 4-113 
 
Table IV-24 
 
 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DOLLAR VALUE OF 
 
 LOST CARGO FOR BARGES IN ACCIDENTS 
 
 July 1968 -June 1973* 
 
 
 NUMBER 
 OF BARGES 
 
 PERCENT 
 OF TOTAL 
 
 $ 1-$ 100 
 $ 101-$ 500 
 $ 501 -$ 1.000 
 $ 1,001 -$ 2.000 
 $ 2,001 - $ 4,000 
 $ 4,001 - $ 6,000 
 $ 6,001 - $ 8,000 
 $ 8,001 -$10,000 
 $10,001 -$20,000 
 $20,001 - $30,000 
 $30,001 - $40,000 
 
 8 
 15 
 16 
 11 
 13 
 10 
 4 
 11 
 6 
 6 
 4 
 
 7.7 
 14.4 
 15.4 
 10.6 
 12.5 
 9.6 
 3.8 
 10.6 
 5.8 
 5.8 
 3.8 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 104 
 
 100.0 
 
 NO LOST CARGO 
 
 125 
 
 
 LOSS UNKNOWN 
 
 26 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 255 
 
 
 •INCLUDES TANK BARGES (INFLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE CARGOES), CARGO 
 BARGES (DANGEROUS AND HAZARDOUS CARGOES) AND TANK BARGES (DANGEROUS 
 AND HAZARDOUS CARGOES). 
 
 SOURCE: A Modal E 
 
 4-114 
 
IS 
 
 UI 
 
 >S9 
 «cco 
 
 ^ U_ UJ 
 
 od 
 zS 
 
 Oar 
 
 3s 
 
 31 
 
 ££z« 
 
 Ouj-JJ 
 
 § 8 8 Si 
 
 ^ (0 in r; 
 
 .800 
 1.476 
 1.220 
 
 .524 
 2,400 
 
 .099 
 .241 
 338 
 .222 
 
 .417 
 
 s 
 Ip 
 
 i- 
 
 5324315 
 5.802,425 
 5397354 
 31336,845 
 48360,839 
 
 5348,004 
 1,625377 
 
 164,846 
 1,146,924 
 
 999326 
 
 1 
 
 01 
 
 4,048,002 
 
 18392,586 
 
 2367,846 
 
 900332 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 KCCJ 
 
 22i 
 
 12,988,882 
 12,940387 
 12,036,920 
 70331,947 
 
 1 
 i 
 
 ? 
 
 11,703,845 
 3,626,176 
 367,633 
 2,557,814 
 2,229,763 
 
 5 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 9.027.659 
 40.795340 
 5.280,655 
 2,009315 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 
 £&,, 
 £qoc 
 *|2 
 
 IS S 3 | 
 
 s § s § s 
 
 | s § s 
 
 On 
 
 13,672,507 
 13,621355 
 12382,571 
 70331,947 
 
 13,150388 
 3,626,176 
 413,071 
 2,557,814 
 2,686/162 
 
 9,027,659 
 41,207,313 
 5380,655 
 2/420,741 
 
 Sif 
 
 o i- 
 
 10354,380,498 
 10316,015382 
 9311.928,159 
 52,748.960,517 
 
 9,862,790,805 
 2,719.632,166 
 309,803393 
 1318.360.385 
 2,014,846,402 
 
 6,770,744340 
 30,905,484.849 
 3360.491,547 
 1.815,556,012 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
 
 BATON ROUGE - NEW ORLEANS 
 MINNEAPOLIS- MISSOURI RIVER 
 MISSOURI RIVER - OHIO RIVER 
 OHIO RIVER - BATON ROUGE 
 TOTAL 
 
 GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAYS 
 MISSISSIPPI RIVER -SABINE RIVER 
 SABINE RIVER - GALVESTON 
 PENSACOLA - MOBILE 
 MOBILE - NEW ORLEANS 
 GALVESTON - CORPUS CHRISTI 
 TOTAL 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER 
 
 OHIO RIVER 
 
 TENNESSEE RIVER 
 
 COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE 
 RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER AND 
 PORTLAND 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 II in m -o 
 
 
 is 
 
 4-115 
 
high as 20,000 years as shown in Table IV-26. These calculated recur- 
 rence intervals provide an estimate of the relative risk associated with 
 barge movements of the ten chemicals. 
 
 E. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS 
 
 Economic Impacts resulting from spills and accidents in the water- 
 borne shipment of bulk liquids has caused small to major economic losses 
 as a result of petroleum, gas and chemical spills and incidents. In 
 areas where waterborne commerce is routinely conducted, the role of 
 the waterway is intrinsic to the communities' economic viability; there- 
 fore when a spill occurs, economic losses are incurred within the imme- 
 diate spill area and throughout the far field economy area. The princi- 
 pal actual and potential economic losses of a spill are summarized in 
 Table IV-27. This table indicates the complexity of the economic im- 
 pacts which could be generated from a spill incident at: docks ide, with- 
 in a harbor inland waterway system; or out along the coastal and open 
 ocean trade routes. The economic variability of a spill will range from 
 the simple loss of the cargo as a result of an operational error where 
 no clean-up or vessel repairs are required, to a complex incident which 
 will entail all, or the majority, of the principal economic losses 
 itemized in Table IV-27. 
 
 Recent incidents involving these complex economic losses were the 
 SANSINENA explosion and spill in Los Angeles Harbor (9 killed, 50 in- 
 jured) and the tanker collision and spills at a Philadelphia refinery on 
 the Delaware River. In both of these cases the major economic impacts 
 will not be determined until the legal settlements are judged. For the 
 less intrinsic loss of marine resources the economic losses will never 
 be fully reconciled. 
 
 With the increase in shipment sizes and the hazardous nature of cer- 
 tain cargoes, probable accident scenarios have been developed which could 
 conceivably produce economic losses approaching and in excess of one 
 billion dollars. Also, because of the wide variability of economic los- 
 ses each transportation scheme must be reviewed individually and the 
 potential economic losses and hazards judged accordingly. 
 
 4416 
 
1a 
 
 oS 
 
 U. CO 
 
 ' <l- 
 >tr uj 
 
 oj(3 
 3 -ice 
 
 i- to oo 
 
 <o 
 
 Du. 
 
 o is 
 ■io§ 
 
 290 
 260 
 290 
 130 
 008 
 003 
 213 
 016 
 036 
 143 
 
 
 2<f 
 
 0117 
 
 0465 
 
 029 
 
 0065 
 
 00011 
 
 00003 
 
 0092 
 
 0011 
 
 0018 
 
 0066 
 
 
 iuzQ 
 
 X<0 
 
 w < 
 
 0261 
 
 1034 
 
 0660 
 
 01465 
 
 00023 
 
 00007 
 
 0206 
 
 0025 
 
 0040 
 
 015 
 
 
 oc 
 
 QafC 
 OzX 
 
 UJmj — 
 
 < 
 
 6.52 
 5.91 
 6.60 
 2.93 
 
 .182 
 0.04 
 4.81 
 0.38 
 0.79 
 3.32 
 
 (A 
 
 1L °- 
 
 oE 
 
 UJ _l 
 0Q< 
 S3 
 DZ 
 
 zz 
 
 < 
 
 in 
 oinoorocdrorvotD 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 Ul 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 ACRYLONITRILE 
 METHANOL 
 STYRENE 
 
 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA 
 CHLORINE 
 SULFURIC ACID 
 CAUSTIC SODA 
 BENZENE 
 
 ETHYLENE GLYCOL 
 SUGAR 
 
 iu2 
 UUJ 
 
 ffio 
 
 Si 
 
 QCC 
 
 Oh 
 ZJ 
 
 i-< 
 
 OBQ 
 
 DO 
 
 QU 
 
 oi 
 
 5fl 
 
 Q<l- 
 
 Buj8 
 <Xuj 
 
 4-117 
 
Table IV-27 
 
 PRINCIPAL, ACTUAL, AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC LOSS 
 
 RESULTING FROM WATERBORNE SPILLS 
 
 VESSEL-ASSOCIATED LOSSES 
 
 1. LOSS OF CARGO 
 
 2. LOSS OF VESSEL AND REPAIR 
 
 3. LOSS OF FUTURE BUSINESS 
 
 4. COST OF VESSEL CLEAN-UP 
 
 MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL LOSSES 
 
 1. CREATION OF HAZARDS AND DISRUPTION OF SHIPPING 
 
 . LOSS OF RETAIL TRADE 
 
 . WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS AND SHUTDOWNS 
 
 . COST OF SPILL CONTAINMENT AND CLEAN-UP 
 
 TOURISM, AMENITY LOSSES 
 
 1. BEACH ACTIVITIES 
 
 2. SPORT FISHING AND HUNTING 
 
 3. BOATING ACTIVITIES 
 
 4. CAMPING 
 
 5. LODGING AND EATING 
 
 COMMERCIAL. AQUATIC, AND MARINE RESOURCES LOSSES 
 
 1. SPORT FISH 
 
 2. COMMERCIAL FISH 
 
 3. SHELLFISH 
 
 4. MAMMALS 
 
 5. DUCKS AND GEESE 
 
 4-118 
 
F. OTHER SHIP-GENERATED POLLUTANTS 
 
 Marine pollution has been defined by the 1972 United Nations Con- 
 ference on the Human Environment as the introduction by man, directly or 
 indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment result- 
 ing in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources, hazards to 
 human health, hindrance to marine activities including fishing, impair- 
 ment of quality for use of sea water, and reduction of amenities. In 
 addition to pollution from cargo sources, impacts on the aquatic and 
 marine environment from the Domestic Tank Vessel Title XI Program, as 
 defined under marine pollution, are generated by sewage, domestic waste- 
 water, garbage, noise, and stack exhaust. Barges themselves do not gen- 
 erate these types of pollutants, rather the tugs that push them may. 
 Figure IV-15 presents a summary matrix of the vessel-generated pollutants 
 from tankships and tank barges and indicates the level of impact each 
 pollutant has on the environment. 
 
 1. SEWAGE AND GRAY WATER 
 
 Current information concerning the treatment and disposal of vessel 
 sanitary wastes is provided in "Treatment and Disposal of Vessel Sanitary 
 Wastes - A Synthesis of Current Information" (90). For the purpose of 
 this statement the following definitions hold: 
 
 Sewage - human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and 
 
 other receptacles intended to receive or retain body 
 
 wastes (35 gallons/man/day); 
 Domestic Wastewater (i.e., gray water) - wastes from sinks, 
 
 showers, laundries, and galleys (35 gallons/man/day); 
 Sanitary Wastewater - sewage and domestic wastewater (70 
 
 gallons/man/day). 
 
 It is recognized that even though untreated sewage and gray water 
 from merchant ships is not the chief contribution of the sewage contami- 
 nation of our waterways, it is certainly additive to pollution from com- 
 munities along these waterways and has posed a problem in harbor areas 
 prior to recent control regulations. The present EPA regulations, which 
 are reinforced by the Maritime Administration ship construction speci- 
 fications, do not permit the disposal in certain areas of U.S. waterways 
 of inadequately treated sewage and gray water from vessels. Under the 
 authority of the Federal Water Quality Improvement Act (Section 13) of 
 
 4-119 
 

 ,.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 (9 
 
 oocz 
 
 
 
 
 
 SSE 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 
 3SS 
 
 
 
 
 HZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 S32 
 
 
 
 
 
 ««8 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ■»xl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oc 
 
 
 
 
 
 °H 
 
 
 
 
 
 K< 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Sh 
 
 
 
 
 
 §5 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 D 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 (9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 O-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 -5 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IU 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 =; cd 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 o£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ul 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 -J 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 z 
 
 £ < 
 
 I* 
 
 BARGE 
 
 IL BARGE 
 
 HEMICAL 
 ARGE 
 
 
 > 
 
 z 
 < 
 1- 
 
 m d 
 
 UiZ 
 
 
 * 5 
 
 OH 
 
 * o um 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 4-120 
 
1970, the Environmental Protection Agency established standards (Federal 
 Register, June 23, 1972) of performance for marine sanitation devices to 
 prevent the discharge of treated or untreated sewage into or upon the 
 navigable waters of the United States from vessels. Essentially this 
 was a no discharge standard, and new vessels were required to have hold- 
 ing tanks or closed packaged shipboard sewage treatment plants. In 1976 
 the EPA issued its final standards of performance which, in essence, amend 
 the prior standards and allow under certain conditions the use of flow- 
 through sewage treatment plants. 
 
 In most navigable waters the sewage plant effluent shall not have 
 a fecal col i form bacterial count greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters 
 and have no visible floating solids. This standard becomes more strin- 
 gent after 1980. 
 
 Research and development is presently being made in the field of 
 shipboard sewage (and sanitary waste) treatment (90). At present, the 
 simplest effective marine sanitation device is the collection, holding 
 and transfer (CHT) system for sewage and gray water. Each CHT system 
 normally consists of a holding tank, non-clog ejection pumps, flushing 
 system, air supply, fittings, valves and controls necessary to store 
 the wastes and to discharge the contents into a system ashore. However, 
 more advanced systems are being developed. The CHT system permits the 
 discharge of wastes to shoreside facilities for subsequent treatment 
 and disposal. Section 70 of the Marad Standard Specifications for Mer- 
 chant Ship Construction requires either a sufficiently sized holding 
 tank and CHT system or the installation of certified shipboard sewage 
 treatment plant (91). 
 
 2. GARBAGE 
 
 Operating vessels daily produce small quantities of garbage and 
 solid waste materials. Although aesthetically unpleasant, over-board 
 discharge of biodegradable garbage in the amount normally produced by 
 vessels in the open ocean is not considered hazardous to the environment 
 and may in fact be beneficial to a certain extent by providing additional 
 nutrients to an area where normal low nutrient levels may be limiting 
 abundant phytoplankton growth. 
 
 4-121 
 
In port, on the other hand, local ordinances usually forbid garbage 
 being dumped overboard. Consequently, the garbage and trash are either 
 collected for disposal ashore, or they are contained aboard ship for 
 overboard discharge after the vessel is many miles out to sea. Tradi- 
 tionally, Marad has subsidized the installation of garbage grinders and, 
 in addition, is considering the possibility of treatment of the effluent 
 in combination with sewage treatment or removal by incineration. 
 
 3. AIR POLLUTION 
 
 Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established by the 
 
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These federal standards for 
 
 gaseous pollutants are given in Table IV-28 as micrograms per cubic meter 
 
 3 3 
 
 (jug/m ) or as milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m ). Attainment status 
 
 designations for different areas of the United States (including cities 
 1n major port areas) as approved or designated by the Environmental Pro- 
 tection Agency are listed in 40 CFR 81.300. Area designations are subject 
 to revision whenever sufficient data becomes available to warrant a re- 
 designation. Both the states and EPA can initiate changes to these des- 
 ignations, but any state redesignation must be submitted to EPA for con- 
 currence. Table IV-29 gives the attainment status designations of some 
 major port areas 1n the United States. 
 
 The concept of air quality control of areas may have a significant 
 Impact on vessel operations. The concept is designed to protect high 
 growth areas, especially metropolitan areas, from violating federal air 
 quality standards by requiring states to submit State Implementation Plans 
 to EPA on how future emissions will be controlled. The rate at which 
 economically viable technological advances in air pollution controls can 
 offset the potential emissions from rapid growth is uncertain. Because 
 of this uncertainty, EPA guidelines require a review of new major pro- 
 jects with a criterion for permit approval that is dependent on emissions 
 "tradeoffs." These tradeoffs would have the effect of substituting new 
 low-polluting equivalent facilities for older facilities (thus reducing 
 emissions), or permitting growth of new facilities having an emissions 
 output less than those of replaced older facilities. The State of Calif- 
 ornia (specifically the South Coast Air Quality Management District), has 
 
 4-122 
 
Table IV-28 
 
 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 
 
 FEDERAL STANDARDS 
 PARTICULATES 
 
 PRIMARY STANDARDS 
 
 75 ug/m 3 ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN 
 260 ug/m 3 MAXIMUM 24-1- 
 PER YEAR 
 
 SECONDARY STANDARDS 
 
 60 ug/m 3 ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN 
 150 ug/m 3 MA 
 PER YEAR 
 
 SULFUR DIOXIDE 
 
 PRIMARY STANDARDS 
 
 80 ug/m 3 (0.03 ppm) ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN 
 365 ug/m 3 (0.14 ppm) MA> 
 THAN ONCE PER YEAR 
 
 SECONDARY STANDARDS 
 
 CARBON MONOXIDE 
 
 NON-METHANE HYDROCARBONS 
 
 i. TO 9 a.m.) NOT TO BE 
 
 PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS 
 
 NITROGEN DIOXIDE 
 
 100 ug/m 3 (0.05 ppm) ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN 
 
Table IV-29 
 
 AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT STATUS DESIGNATIONS 
 
 OF SOME MAJOR PORT AREAS 
 
 LOCATION 
 
 POLLUTANT 
 
 
 CO 
 
 no 2 
 
 TSP 
 
 so 2 
 
 o x 
 
 ALASKA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ANCHORAGE 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 FAIRBANKS 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 ENTIRE STATE 
 
 o,® 
 
 O.CD 
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO BAY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AREA AIR BASIN 
 
 • 
 
 O.CD 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 • 
 
 ALAMEDA COUNTY 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O.CD 
 
 SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WEST SAN DIEGO COUNTY 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 EAST SAN DIEGO COUNTY 
 
 O.CD 
 
 O.CD 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NEW JERSEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CONNECTICUT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 INTERSTATE AQCR 
 
 
 0,® 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 (1) BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 CD 1 
 
 
 (2) BOROUGH OF BRONX (SOUTHERN) 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 CD 
 
 
 (3) BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (NORTHERN) 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 (4) BOROUGH OF QUEENS (NORTHWESTERN) 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 CD 
 
 
 (5) BOROUGH OF STATEN ISLAND (WEST CENTRAL) 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 (6) REMAINDER OF AQCR 
 
 O.CD 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 TEXAS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HOUSTON AREA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AQCR 216 
 
 0,CD 
 
 0,CD 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 BRAZORIA COUNTY 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 GALVESTON COUNTY 
 
 
 
 • 2 
 
 
 • 
 
 HARRIS COUNTY 
 
 
 
 • 2 
 
 
 • 
 
 REMAINDER OF AQCR 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 O.CD 
 
 NOTES: (1) EXCEPT BETWEEN 59th AND 125th STS. 
 
 (2) LIMITED AREAS OF COUNTY 
 CO = CARBON MONOXIDE 
 
 N0 2 = NITROGEN DIOXIDE 
 TSP = TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES 
 S0 2 = SULPHUR DIOXIDE 
 O x = PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS 
 
 LEGEND 
 • DOES NOT MEET PRIMARY STANDARDS 
 f) DOES NOT MEET SECONDARY STANDARDS 
 CD CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED 
 O BETTER THAN NATIONAL STANDARDS 
 
 121 -AIR, EPA Regulations Designating 
 
 4-124 
 
adopted this type of policy and has explicitly included "...those 
 (emissions) that result from the operation of the carriers' engines; the 
 purging or other method of venting of vapors; and from the loading, un- 
 loading, storage, processing, and the transfer of cargo" (92). 
 
 Vessels transporting bulk liquid petroleum, chemicals and gases re- 
 present complex sources of air pollutants. This complexity is attributed 
 to the mobility of the vessel creating a non-point air pollutant source 
 while underway and a point source at dockside and secondly, the great 
 variability of producing air pollutants from cargo transport, storage and 
 transfer operations. The sources of air pollutants from vessel operations 
 are listed in Table IV-30 to illustrate the complexity of the source 
 functions. The principal pollutants which must be reviewed for the gen- 
 eral operations are hydrocarbons (HC), particulates (Part), sulphur di- 
 oxide (S0 2 ), nitrogen dioxide (NOp), carbon monoxide (CO), and other noxious 
 and hazardous air pollutants from substances which may be carried as cargo. 
 
 The air emissions from vessel operations would be different for each 
 phase of the operation but would not be dependent upon the cargo charac- 
 teristics. The air emissions from the cargo handling operations are de- 
 pendent upon the specific cargo characteristics. This would change from 
 one petroleum product to another and would drastically change when gases 
 and chemicals are transported. 
 
 As discussed in the water pollutant section, there have been many 
 cargo classification studies conducted to determine the potential cargo 
 hazards and to design the appropriate containment vessels and operational 
 procedures to control the potential air pollutant hazards from the mater- 
 ials. In comparison to the vessel-generated air pollutants, the poten- 
 tial emission of hazardous and toxic cargo air pollutants represents a 
 much more serious threat to human life and the environment. A study con- 
 ducted for the Department of Transportation indicated that serious numbers 
 of deaths and injuries could potentially result from air pollution inci- 
 dents from waterborne cargo spillages. 
 
 4-125 
 
Table IV-30 
 VESSEL AIR POLLUTANT SOURCES 
 
 SOURCE 
 
 MOVING POINT SOURCE 
 
 STATIONARY POINT SOURCE 
 
 TANKER* 
 
 TANKER ENGINES UNDER 
 POWER 
 
 TANKER ENGINES 
 LOADING AND UNLOADING 
 
 TANKER ENGINES HOTELING 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 TUG 
 
 TUG ENGINES UNDER 
 POWER 
 
 TUG ENGINES HOTELING 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 CARGO OPERATION** 
 
 CARGO VENTING 
 DURING UNLOADING 
 
 CARGO VENTING 
 DURING LOADING 
 
 CARGO STANDING 
 STORAGE AND TRANSPORT 
 
 BALLASTING OPERATIONS 
 
 PUMP AND 
 VALVE LOSSES 
 
 TANK CLEANING 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 • EMISSION & HAZARD FACTORS ARE CARGO SPECIFIC 
 
The control of cargo vapor emissions from safety, health, and envi- 
 ronmental viewpoints has always been an Important area of vessel con- 
 struction. With the great diversity of bulk liquid chemicals transported 
 on vessels, specific ship design requirements and regulations are being 
 developed to insure cargo and crew safety. 
 
 For purposes of analysis, the sources of air pollution from vessels 
 can be divided into three broad categories: (1) cargo handling opera- 
 tions (e.g., vent emissions from cargo loading and stack exhaust emissions 
 from cargo pump operation); (2) vessel operations (i.e., stack exhaust 
 emissions from propulsion and auxiliary power systems); and (3) spills. 
 
 The air pollution problem from categories (1) and (2) is discussed 
 in detail in the paragraphs which follow. Air pollution from category 
 (3) has been thoroughly discussed in Sections B.4 and C.4, and therefore 
 will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that accidental spills 
 could have a significant short-term Impact on air quality due to the 
 evaporation of hydrocarbons from oil or toxic components from chemicals. 
 
 a. VAPOR EMISSIONS FROM CARGO-HANDLING OPERATIONS 
 
 It 1s possible for a significant quantity of cargo vapor to be 
 vented from a tank during cargo loading, purging, and ballasting opera- 
 tions. The vapor may either escape through an individual vent or it may 
 be discharged into a venting system common to a number of cargo tanks. 
 In addition, there may be other openings through which vapors can be re- 
 leased Into the atmosphere as a result of human error or equipment failure. 
 Because of the various locations for release of vapors and the variability 
 1n the quantities released from these sources, generalization of the 
 effect 1s difficult. However, there have been several analyses conducted 
 of emissions from oil tanker cargo handling operations (i.e., loading, 
 purging, and ballasting). 
 
 Table IV-31 summarizes a range of estimated values from various 
 studies of hourly emissions from cargo venting, ballasting, and purging 
 operations. The wide range of values is primarily the result of the 
 variety of assumptions made 1n the different studies. As can be seen 
 
 4-127 
 
Table IV-31 
 
 HYDROCARBON (HC) HOURLY EMISSION (LBS/HR) 
 
 (Estimated Range of Values) 
 
 OIL TANKER SIZE 
 DWT 
 
 CARGO VENTING 
 INERTED/NON-INERTED 
 
 BALLASTING 
 SEG/NON-SEG 
 
 PURGING 
 INERT 
 
 70,000 
 
 NE / - 350 
 
 / 420 - 2129 
 
 0-NE 
 
 80,000 
 
 NE / 0-400 
 
 - NE / NE - 2560 
 
 - 2280 
 
 120,000 
 
 / 0-600 
 
 0-NE / NE-2175 
 
 0-8300 
 
 165,000 
 
 / 0-410 
 
 / - 3000 
 
 - 8740 
 
 NE = NEGLIGIBLE EMISSION 
 
 Review of Environmental Issues of the Transportation of Alaskan North Slope 
 Crude Oil, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office 
 of Energy, Minerals and Industry, May 1977. 
 
 4-128 
 
from Table IV-31, the single largest emission source, purging, if per- 
 formed in port, could cause an Impact on the air quality in a region. 
 Tank washing or maintenance are the only activities that warrant tank 
 purging. If it is assumed that no purging will be performed in port, 
 then the problem becomes one of the magnitude and extent of ballasting 
 emissions. If only segregated ballast tankers were allowed, no ballast 
 emissions would occur in a port area. If an inertlng system is used 
 and/or properly operating vent relief valves are used on tankers, then 
 negligible venting emissions will occur. These negligible venting 
 emissions are a result of hydrocarbon evaporation within the vessel's 
 tanks due to ambient temperature changes and can be controlled by proper 
 valve settings and positive Inert gas pressure. Tanker hydrocarbon 
 emissions will be nearly zero if segregated ballast and inerting are 
 employed and no purging is conducted. 
 
 b. STACK EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM VESSEL OPERATIONS 
 
 Air pollution produced from vessel exhaust gases are from two prin- 
 cipal types of propulsion systems. These are oil-fired steam generating 
 systems which are generally the major propulsion plants on Great Lakes 
 and ocean going vessels, and diesel engines as found on tug propulsion 
 plants and for auxiliary power systems. The size of the respective 
 power plants is a function of the vessel's size and design. The operating 
 characteristics of a diesel engine require higher fuel grade require- 
 ments; consequently they can be considered to use one fuel type. In con- 
 trast, oil-fired steam plants use a variety of fuel oils depending upon 
 availability, cost, operating characteristics, and air pollution con- 
 straints. Air pollution resulting from inexpensive fuels having a high 
 sulphur and asphalt content is generally higher than from expensive re- 
 fined products. 
 
 Shipboard stack exhaust emissions on steam-propelled vessels are 
 manageable with Improvements in fuel and better control over combustion. 
 Fuel additives can be introduced to assist in the combustion process; and 
 the use of certain techniques in boiler firings, such as low excess air 
 combustion, could result in more efficient combustion, particularly at 
 the lower firing rates used in port. 
 
 4-129 
 
When the oil-fired boilers on steam-propelled vessels operate at low 
 firing rates, soot (particulates) may accumulate on the boiler tubes and 
 uptakes. After a protracted stay in port, it may become necessary to 
 operate the boiler soot blowers in order to prevent soot fires in the 
 boiler casing and uptakes. However, since the new ships are generally 
 designed for short turn-around time, their port operation will not re- 
 quire soot blowing. Diesel -propel led ships, tugs and gas turbine ships 
 generate exhaust gases which usually contain smaller quantities of soot 
 than steamships. 
 
 On diesel engines there is wery little emission control after the 
 engine has been adjusted for the most efficient operation. Oil fired 
 steam power plants on the other hand can be drastically controlled by 
 the air and fuel settings and the fuel type. With the increased state 
 and federal controls vessel operators are being required to adjust chan- 
 nel and harbor operations to utilize lower pollutant fuels and make the 
 necessary boiler adjustments to reduce emissions. Lower pollutant fuels 
 generally have a lower sulphur content and produce a more efficient burn- 
 ing process. 
 
 It is difficult to assess accurately the impact of exhaust emissions 
 from ships in a metropolitan harbor as, for example, New York City. How- 
 ever, it is generally assumed that the pollution load from vessels in a 
 metropolitan area is substantially lower than that from other sources such 
 as stationary power-generating plants, industry, and automobiles ashore 
 (93). Data from a DOT Transportation Systems Center study indicate that 
 the marine shipping industry is not a significant contributor to air 
 pollution (94). In a more recent study, the DOT Center has estimated 
 exhaust emissions from river towboats operating in the region of St. 
 Louis, Missouri (95). It was concluded that on a percentage basis for 
 the entire Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), towboat emissions are 
 minor relative to other emission sources. It should be recognized that 
 air pollution 1s cumulative and that an exception cannot be made for 
 each source. Ships 1n port areas are required by most existing munici- 
 pal codes to conform to the local regulations on stack emissions which 
 are enforced by the local agencies. Typical examples of municipal, 
 county, and state air pollution control regulations containing specific 
 requirements are shown in Table IV-32. 
 
 4-130 
 
SI 
 
 §1 
 
 «5S ag 
 
 z<x g< 
 
 I = > °(t 
 
 S = 2 °£ 2 
 
 uj-ujO 
 ill 
 
 
 5hS 25 
 
 Zuj°; <o 
 
 SiS" Bl 
 
 ujgS Ou. 
 
 §15 k2 
 
 2<g 
 
 id 
 
 wo" 
 
 OuJOir 
 
 
 IliSi 
 
 0-ii-uj3 
 OUJ<oO 
 
 Sg|85 
 
 ,_ UJ» u jO 
 
 tUo"-<z 
 
 Bigg; 
 
 Oui w O<r 
 2^hOz 
 
 &E 
 
 us 
 
 PI 
 
 28° 
 
 -tod 
 
 4-131 
 
CCOzZ 
 
 3500 
 
 sgii 
 
 o°i§ 
 
 £><t 
 
 gS3- 
 
 zz«t 
 
 N02 2 
 
 zoo 
 28z 
 
 IS 
 
 3M 
 
 mmz5o ooc 
 
 Sac 1- x^ 
 
 2ooi"Q Og WUJ05 
 
 8"t2 £& -jt k 
 
 i££i§ OS SIS? 
 
 7 ZZ 
 
 
 ce 3 . 
 
 §«8 
 
 
 °82 
 §2$ 
 
 s o? 
 
 
 ?«s 
 
 $2 
 
 
 32£ 
 
 5?OS 
 
 
 8-£n 
 
 in 
 
 si? 
 
 E 
 
 s5> 
 
 ago 
 
 2£g 
 
 a: 
 
 x >c * 
 
 OuQ 
 
 o 
 
 o^S 
 
 
 
 "zS 
 
 KOt 
 
 oo s 
 
 fx'j 
 
 Q 
 
 o*x 
 
 z£uj 
 
 r s zo 
 
 £g:s z 
 
 ccgwo. 
 
 O 
 
 
 2gfc§ 
 
 Z 
 
 3o3g 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 5y=! 
 
 55 cc<c 
 
 £°i 
 
 >HC0 
 
 z£ec 
 <<o 
 p«> 
 
 t-QI- 
 
 -IZCC 
 
 £ S<° 
 
 8 o 
 
 IP 
 
 iS 2 
 
 SI 
 
 £zS 
 
 52= 
 
 Zqoo 
 
 JJIZ Q ML Z 
 
 oigs 
 
 4-132 
 
EPA regulation development pertaining to Section III of the Clean 
 Air Act addresses the emission of shore facility stack gases for various 
 industry plants including those relating to steam generating plants. 
 While these regulations would apply to shipyard facilities, they would 
 not apply to ships because they are not fixed installations. Provisions 
 of Section 70 of the Standard Specification for Merchant Ship Construc- 
 tion recommend the installation of smoke indicators and alarms. 
 
 Concerning the situation in various U.S. ports, it is clear that 
 strictly enforced local regulations should reduce the overall environ- 
 mental impact of stack emissions in port areas. If any overriding EPA 
 regulations are implemented, conformance to them will also be required. 
 However, data developed by EPA (96) indicate that underway emissions by 
 both steam and motor vessels and in-berth emissions by steam vessels of 
 carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are insignificant. 
 
 NOISE 
 
 Vessels generate noise in their operation primarily from their whis- 
 tles, from the operation of diesel engines and gas turbine drives, and 
 from other machinery such as pumps and winches. With the exception of 
 the noise from whistles, these sounds are limited to the vicinity of the 
 vessel and are of a relatively low level, being muffled by the structure 
 of the vessel itself. Since vessels generally operate in established 
 harbor areas, which are industrial in nature, and since the approaches to 
 these harbors are such that a distance is maintained between the vessel 
 and populated areas, external noises of vessels have not been considered 
 a problem. Some consider vessel noises, such as whistles, as adding to 
 the local color of waterfront and coastal areas. The Noise Control Act 
 of 1972 empowers the Administrator of EPA to set noise emission standards; 
 tank vessels will comply with these standards when they are issued. How- 
 ever, noise pollution from vessels is considered to be insignificant (97). 
 
 The Marad Standard Specification for Merchant Ship Construction, 
 Section I, Article 11, provides for shipboard sound insulation and isola- 
 tion treatment as necessary to keep noise levels within practical limits. 
 Maximum noise levels are stated in the Specification and range from 72 
 decibels in living spaces to 90 decibels in machinery spaces. The per- 
 
 4-133 
 
missible airborne noise levels aboard ship are not to exceed the decibel 
 values given in Table IV- 33. These values are consistent with Walsh- 
 Healy Labor Standards. To assure that these standards are maintained 
 during the life of the ship, the U.S. Coast Guard enforces maintenance 
 of engine room noise levels within regulated tolerances. 
 
 G. TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND SCRAPPING 
 
 1. GENERAL 
 
 While this section is concerned with the construction and general 
 operation of vessels engaged in bulk liquid transport, the vessel-gener- 
 ated pollution described herein would be associated with the construction 
 of any type of vessel. The functions can be categorized as: expansion 
 of shipbuilding facilities to accommodate the program; actual construc- 
 tion of the ships; and use of materials. 
 
 2. EXPANSION OF FACILITIES 
 
 Although the Title XI Program aids in promoting vessel construction, 
 the small amount of the fleet that actually benefits from the Program 
 would not be expected to promote major shipyard expansions. The avail- 
 able shipbuilding capacity is believed to be adequate for the Title XI 
 Program. However, should expansion be required, a few of the salient 
 impacts are discussed herein. 
 
 Before shipyard expansion or construction can commence, the project 
 may be subjected to extensive review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
 and state and local authorities and open hearings are conducted for the 
 public. Environmental Impact Statements may be prepared for each ship- 
 yard improvement and specific attention to the environmental setting of 
 the improvement will be required. 
 
 Expansion of existing shipyards, which are in most cases located in 
 already highly industrialized areas of a waterfront, will generally re- 
 quire certain disruption of the adjacent shoreline. Such disruptions may 
 
 4-134 
 
Table IV-33 
 
 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE AIRBORNE 
 
 NOISE LEVELS ABOARD SHIP 
 
 (Decibel values) 
 
 
 FREQUENCY BAND, HZ 
 
 20- 
 75 
 
 75- 
 150 
 
 150- 
 300 
 
 300- 
 600 
 
 600- 
 1200 
 
 1200- 
 2400 
 
 2400- 
 4800 
 
 4800- 
 10000 
 
 LIVING SPACES 
 PASSAGEWAYS 
 MACHINERY SPACES 
 
 72 
 75 
 85 
 
 66 
 69 
 85 
 
 60 
 64 
 85 
 
 55 
 59 
 85 
 
 52 
 57 
 85 
 
 50 
 55 
 85 
 
 48 
 53 
 85 
 
 47 
 52 
 85 
 
 NOISE MEASUREMENTS SHALL BE TAKEN WITH THE SHIP IN OPERATION AT ABS HORSEPOWER 
 AND WITH NORMAL AUXILIARIES INCLUDING REFRIGERATION, VENTILATION AND AIR CON- 
 DITIONING IN OPERATION. MACHINERY SPACE NOISE MEASUREMENTS SHALL BE TAKEN AT 
 THE NORMALLY ATTENDED OPERATING STATIONS AND NOT EXCEED 85 dB(A). 
 
 SOURCE: MARAD Standard Specifications for Tanker Construction, December, 1977. 
 
 4-135 
 
be caused by filling, dredging, pile driving, excavation, bottom stabil- 
 ization, and/or other hydraulic works depending upon the nature of the 
 expansion. 
 
 When suitable land area adjacent to the existing facility is not 
 available due to the configuration of the shoreline, location of other 
 industrial plants, proximity of residential sections, or for other reasons, 
 then such land must be created by filling suitable sections of the water- 
 way on which the expansion is contemplated. 
 
 Creation of new acreage by filling an existing waterway, whether for 
 expansion of a shipyard or building a new one, causes permanent impacts 
 on the waterway. The filled bottom ceases to provide natural habitat and 
 possible spawning grounds for marine life. Construction of a new shipyard 
 on land which requires little or no filling would, however, eliminate the 
 former Impact on the terrestrial or wetland environment. 
 
 The disturbance to the environment caused by filling, pile driving, 
 and other hydraulic activities will be of a permanent nature, changing 
 the physical environment, and hence, also the associated biota. 
 
 3. POLLUTION FROM TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION 
 
 Shipbuilding like any other major industry generates noise, air, 
 water and solid waste pollutants which must be treated and controlled. 
 A modern shipyard is composed of many operations all of which produce 
 waste streams and airborne emissions from their individual operations. 
 The major operations within the shipyard are: (a) buildings which house 
 steel preparation and manufacturing equipment, i.e., flat and curved 
 steel panel shops and ships for processing special steel shapes; 
 (b) machine shop, pipe shop, electrical, paint, welding metal processing 
 and sheet metal shop; (c) outside storage space in which steel plates 
 are stored; (d) outside plate or other steel assembly areas in which 
 modules or small hull sections are assembled; (e) the shipway or building 
 dock where the hull is erected. 
 
 Environmental protection regulations are in force for the pollutant 
 waste streams and airborne emissions from shipyards. These rules and 
 
 4-136 
 
regulations are enforced by federal, state, local and certain authorized 
 commissions in a similar fashion as any industrial source. 
 
 Part of the shipbuilding process is done indoors where pollution 
 control can be effectively practiced. The work that is done outside of 
 buildings, in particular, erection of the hull, presents greater problems 
 in abating pollution. 
 
 In addition to the U.S. federal regulations on pollution control in 
 industrial activities, state and local regulations apply to areas in 
 which shipyards are located. While tangible improvements in environ- 
 mental quality in shipyards have been made, additional steps are being 
 taken as technology in pollution control is developed and as federal, 
 state, and regional guidelines are formulated. 
 
 Four principal types of pollution are identified with the shipbuild- 
 ing industry: air pollutio water pollution, land pollution, and noise 
 pollution. 
 
 a. AIR POLLUTION 
 
 The sources of air pollution fall into three types: products of 
 combustion, airborne particulates, and airborne fumes and vapors. 
 
 (1) Products of Combustion . Combustion products from ships' and 
 yards' boilers and incinerators, smoke from burning and welding opera- 
 tions, exhaust from internal combustion engines, and soot from boiler 
 heating surfaces are combustion products that contribute to air pollu- 
 tion. 
 
 To reduce pollution from these sources, the major shipyards report 
 only intermittent use of boilers and in some yards natural gas or low 
 sulfur fuel is used to fire yard boilers. Use of incinerators has been 
 discontinued in favor of having waste removed by licensed disposal 
 firms. Smoke from burning and welding operations and internal combus- 
 tion engines is generally exhausted to the atmosphere. 
 
(2) Airborne Particulates . Dust resulting from abrasive blasting, 
 dust created by woodworking machinery, and dust due to unpaved roadway 
 surfaces contribute to pollution from airborne particulates. 
 
 The problem of airborne particulates from abrasive cleaning is the 
 most difficult to control. The major builders of deep draft ships have 
 installed enclosed abrasive cleaning facilities of major size for cleaning 
 raw stock steel and modular assemblies. Abrasive cleaning and painting of. 
 hulls on the shipways or at outfitting berths is the subject of an intensive 
 industry study. Dust-collecting systems have been installed in some of the 
 yards for collection of woodworking dust. 
 
 (3) Airborne Fumes and Vapors . Overspray of protective coatings, 
 evaporation of toxic chemicals and solvents, leakage of toxic or explo- 
 sive gases in piping, fuel tank venting of explosive vapors, odors from 
 sanitary facilities, and photochemical ly reactive hydrocarbons in paints 
 and solvents are among shipyard airborne fumes and vapors. 
 
 The problem of overspray of painting that is done on the shipways 
 or outfitting berths is under study along with abrasive blasting. Air- 
 less spraying equipment is used as much as possible. Regularly sched- 
 uled tests are made in pipelines for toxic or explosive gases. Flame 
 arrestors and stops are installed in fuel tank vent lines. 
 
 b. WATER POLLUTION 
 
 The basic types of discharge that could emanate from shipyards and 
 pollute the waterways fall into two broad categories: liquids and solids. 
 
 (1). Liquids . Liquids include chemical make-up plus suspended sol- 
 ids and thermal change. Sanitary waste discharges, discharge of process 
 chemicals, petroleum spills, overflow, and leakage; overspray and spil- 
 lage of protective coatings; and discharge of cleaning fluids are among 
 the liquids that contribute to water pollution. Sanitary waste dis- 
 charges are disposed of through municipal sewer systems. Collection of 
 process chemicals and cleaning fluids for removal by outside contractors 
 
 4-138 
 
is practiced by the major shipbuilders. Oil spill craft with booms, 
 skimmers, and other systems are in use to handle accidental oil spills. 
 Paint overspray and spillage have been minimized by the use of airless 
 spray equipment and rollers. 
 
 (2). Solids . Overboard discharge of spent abrasives, waste and 
 scrap materials, debris from launching ways or deteriorated waterfront 
 structures, and disposal of dredging spoils are among the solids that 
 contribute to water pollution. 
 
 Shipbuilders enforce strict regulations on controlling the discharge 
 of spent materials, i.e., grit, rust, scale, and paint residues into the 
 waterways. In the vessel construction process most of the blasting is 
 done indoors under controlled conditions. Building docks and shipways 
 are cleaned after the blasting operation and in some of the yards abra- 
 sive material is reclaimed. 
 
 Overboard discharge of waste or scrap materials is against shipyard 
 policy. Debris from launching ways is retrieved by yard water patrols. 
 Disposal of dredging spoils 1s controlled by the Corps of Engineers 
 through the designation of dumping sites. 
 
 c. SOLID WASTE AND OTHER POLLUTION 
 
 Solid waste and other pollution sources include a broad variety of 
 materials used in the various shipbuilding processes and operations. 
 Grit, rust, scale, metal and paint chips from abrasive cleaning of steel 
 on shipways and outfitting berths are difficult to control. As pre- 
 viously noted, this problem is the subject of a cooperative industry 
 study. 
 
 Petroleum spills from fuel handling and storage and machinery oper- 
 ations; metallic residues from welding and brazing operations; paint 
 residues from coating processes; solvent spills from cleaning operations; 
 metal scraps and particles from flamecutting operations; sand and resin 
 dust from casting operations; and chemical spills from galvanizing all 
 
 4-139 
 
contribute to this pollution. The major shipbuilders have installed 
 devices and methods to abate much of the pollution from these sources. 
 
 d. NOISE POLLUTION 
 
 The major noise pollutant sources in shipbuilding have been identi- 
 fied as diesel and gas power source exhausts, high capacity vent fans, 
 percussion tools and air operated tools. The industry is combating noise 
 through the use of mufflers, silencers, equipment modifications, incorpor- 
 ation of noise standards in specifications for equipment and restricted 
 use of horns and whistles. 
 
 4. USE OF MATERIALS 
 
 Vessels are built primarily of steel. Steel is used in the vessel 
 hull, machinery, pipeline and almost all the other systems and comprises 
 approximately 96 percent of the vessel weight. The second most impor- 
 tant material used in vessel construction is copper, which is used in 
 the propeller and electrical systems. The remainder of the vessel uses 
 small amounts of a large number of materials as shown on Table IV-34. 
 
 The analysis of material used in shipbuilding is that it utilizes 
 0.25 to 0.5 percent of the nation's production of steel and copper pro- 
 ducts. The environmental impact as far as material is concerned would 
 be in proportion to that accorded to the steel and copper industry. 
 
 5. VESSEL REPAIR 
 
 Because of casualties and the need for routine maintenance and in- 
 spection, a vessel spends a yearly average of 10 days in a ship repair 
 yard. During this lay up period routine maintenance and major repairs 
 are performed. Barges which enter the repair yard for hull -related 
 repairs and inspection generally spend about 5 days per year in the 
 yard. 
 
 To meet this need, an extensive vessel repair industry has developed 
 in nearly every U.S. port. The industry includes both small, "topside" 
 shops which have the capability to repair and overhaul machinery, and 
 
 4-140 
 
Table IV-34 
 MATERIALS USED IN SHIP AND BARGE CONSTRUCTION 
 
 ACETYLENE 
 
 MANGANESE (CASTING) 
 
 ALUMINUM 
 
 MERCURY 
 
 ASBESTOS 
 
 NICKEL 
 
 ASPHALT 
 
 NITROGEN 
 
 CARBON DIOXIDE 
 
 PAINTS 
 
 CEMENT 
 
 PAPER 
 
 CERAMICS 
 
 PETROLEUM 
 
 CHEMICALS (ACETONE, ALCOHOL. 
 AMMONIA, CREOSOTE, GLYCERIN) 
 
 PHARMACEUTICALS 
 PLATINUM 
 
 CHROMIUM 
 
 RARE EARTH 
 
 CLAY 
 
 CLEANING COMPOUNDS 
 
 COPPER 
 
 CORDAGE 
 
 DIATOMACEOUS EARTH 
 
 FIBER GLASS 
 
 REFRIGERANT (CHLORINE, FLUORINE) 
 
 RUBBER 
 
 SILICON 
 
 STEEL 
 
 TALLOW 
 
 TAR 
 
 GLASS 
 HELIUM 
 LEAD 
 MAGNESIUM 
 
 TEXTILES 
 TITANIUM 
 WOOD 
 WOOL 
 
 
 ZINC 
 
 U.S. Department of Commerce, f 
 NTIS Report NO. EIS 7300727F 
 Impact Statement, Maritime Adn 
 Construction Program, May 30, 1 
 
 4441 
 
vessel construction yards which have the capability to drydock vessels 
 and perform hull repair work. 
 
 In essence, the pollutants generated by ship repair operations are 
 the same as those created in the shipbuilding process. These fall into 
 the following categories: 
 
 a. AIR POLLUTION 
 
 Combustion products, including internal combustion engine 
 exhausts, welding and burning, and boiler operations; 
 Particulates resulting from blasting and painting; 
 Fumes and vapors resulting from evaporation of paint solvents, 
 fuel tank venting, and refuse and sanitary odors. 
 
 b. WATER POLLUTION 
 
 Overboard discharges of spent chemicals, sanitary wastes, and 
 refuse and trash. 
 
 c. NOISE POLLUTION 
 
 Sounds of mechanical equipment in operation; 
 
 Horns, whistles, air operated percussion tools, etc.; 
 
 Rapid expansion of gases. 
 
 Although there are no statistics available to Marad that indicate 
 the volume of specific pollutants generated in the vessel repair and 
 conversion process, it is reasonable to assume that there will be no new 
 pollutants, above those already listed. More likely, the volume and mix 
 of specific pollutants will be altered. 
 
 Because of better equipment and longer-lived coatings, the new ves- 
 sels do not require as much maintenance and repair work as older vessels. 
 
 6. SCRAPPING 
 
 A vessel is scrapped at the end of its useful life (i.e., approxi- 
 mately 20 to 25 years for a tanker and 25 years for a barge). In this 
 
 4-142 
 
process, a shipbreaker dismantles the vessel in approximately the re- 
 verse order of its construction. 
 
 This process involves cutting the vessel and its components up with 
 torches and removing reusable equipment and parts. The following types 
 of pollutants are generated: 
 
 . . Fumes and vapors resulting from the use of acetylene torches 
 and other cutting devices; 
 
 Unrecoverable wastes, such as lumber, insulating materials, 
 and concrete ballast; 
 Sanitary wastes; 
 Fuel, diesel oils, and greases. 
 
 Both ferrous and non-ferrous metals are recovered from the vessel 
 and sold to producers who recycle them. 
 
 There are no records of the volume of pollutants produced in the 
 scrapping process; however, these are monitored and required to meet 
 local and Environmental Protection Agency air and water pollution stand- 
 ards. 
 
 The recovery of both ferrous and non-ferrous metals during recycl- 
 ing results in a significant saving of natural resources and the efforts 
 to minimize the volume of pollutants produced in the scrapping process are 
 justified in the light of the overall savings realized. 
 
 H. PORT, HARBOR AND WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT 
 
 Although the Title XI Program does not directly promote port and 
 harbor development, it does so indirectly by promoting waterborne commerce 
 in lieu of overland rail, truck and pipeline modes of transport. An ex- 
 ample is the new Alaskan-Valdez port development and expansion of southern 
 California port facilities to transport the Alaskan crude, versus the 
 construction of an overland pipeline into the mid U.S. (like the proposed 
 ALCAN natural gas pipeline). In order to determine what, if any, port 
 and related development can be expected to take place, consideration must 
 first be given to ports and related facilities and their ability to 
 handle Program vessels. 
 
 4-143 
 
Conventional port or terminal facilities are those assigned to 
 handle the trade which is normal in volume and character to the geogra- 
 phic area served by the facility. These conventional ports can be divi- 
 ded into several categories such as: 
 
 1. EXCAVATED HARBORS 
 
 As a result of the relative inflexibility of excavated harbors to 
 accommodate future changes, accurate long-haul forecasting of the facil- 
 ity purpose and capacity is a necessity, when compared to a substantial 
 investment in breakwaters and dredging. The breakwaters generally dis- 
 turb the ecological balance causing coastal erosion and sand transport, 
 and limited flushing requires special attention to effluents and basin 
 cleaning. On the plus side, such man-made harbors may help develop an 
 otherwise unproductive or economically depressed area which lacks estua- 
 ries or natural bays. The waterfront is small, and basins are well pro- 
 tected with reduced maintenance and dredging. However, in the United 
 States, there are numerous natural harbors which could be developed if 
 such are required. 
 
 2. LOCKED BASINS 
 
 As in the case with excavated harbors, locked basins are inflexible 
 to changes. 
 
 3. TIDAL BASINS 
 
 These basins are of a more flexible nature, and the inconvenience 
 of vertical movement during cargo handling is reduced by the increased 
 size of modern vessels. 
 
 4. RIVER AND ESTUARY PORTS 
 
 These type ports enable maritime traffic to move far into the hin- 
 terland thereby bringing the cargo closer to consuming centers which can 
 result in substantial transportation cost savings. 
 
 4-144 
 
Except for possibly those vessels used in the Alaskan trade, most of 
 the vessels covered by this EIS should be able to enter many of the U.S. 
 ports without any additional dredging. 
 
 In the event that additional vessel traffic would require some al- 
 teration or addition to the current facilities, environmental impact 
 statements would be required by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers before 
 a permit to build in navigable waters is issued. In addition, the United 
 States Coast Guard would require certain environmental protection actions 
 pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
 amended in 1972, and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972. An 
 example of this process 1s the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Terminal at 
 Valdez, Alaska which underwent a federal and state environmental review. 
 
 The environmental impacts of shore facility development associated 
 with ports and waterways deal primarily with land use, water, and air 
 pollution problems. The problems will vary from one alternative to 
 another, depending upon a number of factors. The five principal factors, 
 or dimensions, which combine to dictate the impacts are: 
 
 Whether the site or waterway selected is a new one or an 
 
 existing one. 
 
 Whether the principal development is onshore or offshore or 
 
 along an existing waterway. 
 
 Whether the waterway facility is for transfer only or is 
 
 also planned for processing and other secondary developments. 
 
 The type or types of bulk commodity that will move through 
 
 the waterway. 
 
 The type and value of the aquatic, marine, estuarine and 
 
 terrestrial ecosystems disturbed by the proposed system. 
 
 5. PORT AND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT 
 
 Each component of the given port or waterway system will have cer- 
 tain design characteristics that will determine how existing and planned 
 land use will be affected. In the context of the delivery system, the 
 shore facility problem starts with the point of loading/unloading and is 
 
 4-145 
 
a factor in each component through the processing. Berths, docks and 
 bulkheads will alter a hitherto undeveloped area substantially, especi- 
 ally where there are important wetlands, beaches, or riverbank areas. 
 Other areas previously in use as a port or navigable waterway which are 
 changed to accommodate these vessels may have little or no impact in 
 cases where the existing waterfront is in a state of decay. 
 
 If the site is an existing port, there may be a need for expanded 
 channel and turning basins, and land storage areas. Finding storage 
 space may be a significant problem in a heavily developed area. It could 
 well mean the displacement of other land uses and will have to be eval- 
 uated on an individual basis. 
 
 The impact of constructing a new dock facility in a previously under- 
 developed area will create greater environmental and land use problems. 
 The site will probably be selected so that space is not a problem; how- 
 ever, the visual aspects, air, and water pollution problems generated may 
 be \/ery significant and controversial. In new development there is also 
 the opportunity to select sites which will result in a minimum of envir- 
 onmental intrusion by avoiding ecologically sensitive areas and by plac- 
 ing structures inland from the shoreline. 
 
 A final element in the analysis of shore facilities is the develop- 
 ment of auxiliary facilities and associated secondary development. This 
 can have more significant environmental impact than any other component 
 of a port system over a long period of time. Auxiliary processing facil- 
 ities and secondary development themselves frequently use large land 
 areas, generate waste products that add to air and water pollution and 
 waste disposal problems, create significant visual intrusions, and place 
 demands upon local water supplies. In addition, they can create employ- 
 ment through the multiplier effects which would increase population and 
 the subsequent demand for housing and services such as roads, sewers 
 and schools. 
 
 For the State of Washington, the shipbuilding economic multiplier 
 has been calculated to be 2.90. This value would be expected to be 
 fairly representative for the Industry on a national basis. 
 
 4-146 
 
If the area of the port is already heavily developed, such new 
 growth can create congestion that places burdens on existing utilities 
 and services. Development in a new area can take these problems into 
 account through proper site selection, design and planning; but there is 
 no automatic guarantee that this will happen. In fact, it is likely not 
 to happen in a satisfactory way unless these factors are specifically 
 taken into account during the planning and design of such a facility. 
 
 In any evaluation of the impact of shore facility development, there 
 are two different philosophies which should be recognized and considered. 
 First, there is the point of view that adding new and larger facilities 
 and possibly further water, air and visual pollution to a port site now 
 in use will have less of an impact than the creation of a new port on an 
 unspoiled coastal area. On the other hand, there is the argument that 
 existing port areas are so heavily used and congested that environmental 
 degradation should not be allowed to proceed further and, therefore, that 
 new port development should look to new areas where adequate planning and 
 regulation can maintain an orderly, environmentally acceptable pattern of 
 growth. These are perplexing problems which must be reviewed on an indi- 
 divual basis by all parties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
 
 In either case there are alternatives for combating environmental 
 problems. Expansion of existing ports can be designed to improve the 
 area. This is especially true where existing port facilities are old, 
 outdated, or no longer in use because of obsolescence. Renovation could 
 substantially improve the total environment of the area and possibly 
 eliminate a potential fire hazard. In totally new locations, the most 
 modern precautions could be taken to preserve the environment. 
 
 6. WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT AND VESSEL EFFECTS 
 
 The development of new waterways and the expansion and modification 
 of existing waterways to promote greater waterborne commerce is contro- 
 versial with respect to environmental and competing transportation modes. 
 Numerous environmental court cases have attempted to block these devel- 
 opments. The Corps of Engineers has currently authorized navigation 
 
 4-147 
 
extensions on the Trinity, Red Tembigee, and Coosa Rivers and has 
 planned numerous smaller channel, lock and navigation improvements which 
 could be utilized by Title XI Program vessels. 
 
 The Title XI Program 1s not responsible for promoting these projects 
 other than being considered as a general waterborne industrial statistic. 
 These programs in all cases would be necessary without any Title XI fund- 
 ing to the Industry, but this Program can be considered as a small con- 
 tributor and benefactor of these programs. 
 
 The secondary effects of vessel movements on inland waterways (e.g., 
 the Mississippi and Illinois rivers) have an impact on the ecosystem. 
 These effects include increased turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion of 
 river banks which impact on water quality. Although the types of effects 
 are known, the magnitude of these effects remains incalculable. It is 
 questionable whether the secondary effects of vessel movements on inland 
 waterways will be as significant as those same effects occurring from 
 natural events (e.g., heavy rainfall and flooding). 
 
 The environmental effects of waterway use and development programs 
 produce permanent changes 1n land use, aquatic biota, water quality 
 and terrestrial environment within the area. These specific impacts are 
 discussed under NEPA guidelines and will not be discussed herein. The 
 environmental impacts of each individual program are analyzed at the fed- 
 eral, state and local levels through the environmental impact statement 
 process prior to final authorization. In proceeding in this manner each 
 program must be justified on its own merits. In general terms the en- 
 vironmental impacts are similar to those discussed for harbor and port 
 development but of much greater magnitude and complexity because of the 
 extent and linear nature of the system. 
 
 4-148 
 
CHAPTER IV - REFERENCES FROM TEXT 
 
 1. U.S. Coast Guard, Polluting Incidents In and Around U.S. Waters , 
 Calendar Year 1976 , Pollution Incident Reporting System, CG-487, 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 2. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Regulations for Tank Vessels 
 Engaged in the Carriage of Oil in Domestic Trade , 1975, U.S. Coast 
 Guard. 
 
 3. op_.cU.U.S. Coast Guard, 1976. 
 
 4. International Petroleum Encyclopedia, 1976. 
 
 5. An Analysis of Oil Casualties 1969-1974 , prepared by OTA Oceans 
 Program for the Use of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 
 Science and Transportation, Washington, D.C, February 7, 1978. 
 
 6. An Analysis of Oil Outflows Due to Tanker Accidents , IMCO Document 
 DE IX/3/2, submitted on November 8, 1972. 
 
 7. Rules and Regulations for Protection of the Marine Environment 
 "Relating to Tank Vessels Carrying Oil in Domestic Trade , Federal 
 Register, January 8, 1976. 
 
 8. Unpublished material developed for Council on Environmental Quality 
 Study on Deepwater Ports, 1972. 
 
 9. Tank Barge Study , Joint Maritime Administration/U.S. Coast Guard, 
 October 1974. 
 
 10. Council on Environmental Quality, PCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental 
 Assessment , Washington, D.C, April 1974. 
 
 11. Boesch, D.F., Hersher, C.H., Milgram, J.H., Oil Spills and the 
 Marine Environment , papers prepared for the Energy Policy Project 
 of the Ford Foundation, 1974. 
 
 12. Sea Technology , October 1977, p. 16. 
 
 13. Moore, S.F., and Dwyer, R.L., A Preliminary Assessment of the Environ- 
 mental Vulnerability of Machias Bay, Maine, to Oil Supertankers , 
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972. 
 
 14. Seymour, A.H., and others, Radioactivity in the Marine Environment , 
 National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C, 1971. 
 
 15. Baier, R.S., "Organic Films on Natural Waters: Their Retrieval, 
 Identification and Modes of Elimination," Journal of Geophysical 
 Research, 77: 5062-5075, 1972. 
 
 16. Gundlack, Erich R. , "Oil Tanker Disasters," Environment , Vol. 19, 
 No. 9, December 1977. 
 
17. U.S. Maritime Administration, "The Relative Harmful Effects of Light 
 and Heavy Oils," Appendix A , Final Environmental Impact Statement , 
 Title XI Vessels Engaged in OTfshore Oil and Gas Drilling Operations , 
 MA-EIS-7302-76015F. 
 
 18. Connell, J.H., Submission to the Royal Commission on Exploitation 
 on the Great Barrier Reef , May 1971. 
 
 19. Westfall, A., Jackass Penguins , Marine Pollution Bulletin 14, 
 pp. 2-7, 1969. 
 
 20. Brownell, R.L., Jr., and LeBoeuf, B.J., "California Sea Lion Mortal- 
 ity: Natural or Artifact?" In Biological and Oceanographical Survey 
 of the Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spill 1969-1970 , Vol. 1, pp. 255- 
 276. Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, 
 D. Straughan, editor, 1971. 
 
 21. LeBouef, B., "Oil Contamination and Elephant Seal Mortality: A 
 'Negative' Finding." In Biological and Oceanographical Survey of 
 the Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spill 1969-1970 , Vol. 1, pp. 277-285. 
 Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, D. 
 Straughan, editor, 1971. 
 
 22. Nelson-Smith, A., Oil Pollution and Marine Ecology , Elek Science, 
 London, 260 pp., 1972. 
 
 23. North, W.J., Neushul , M., Jr., and Clendenning, K.A., Successive 
 Biological Changes Observed in a Marine Cove Exposed to a Large 
 Spillage of Oil , Symposium Commission, Internationale Exploration 
 Scientifique Mer Mediterranee, Monaco, 1964, pp. 335-354, 1965. 
 
 24. Ebeling, A.W., DeWitt, F.A., Werner, W., and Calliet, G.M., "Santa 
 Barbara Oil Spill: Fishes." In Santa Barbara Oil Symposium, Santa 
 Barbara, December 16-18, 1970 , University of California, R. W. 
 Holmes and F. A. DeWitt, editors, 1970. 
 
 25. Sherman, K. , Colton, J.B., Knapp, F.R., and Dryfoos, R.L., Fish Lar- 
 vae Found in Environment Contaminated with Oil and Plastic , National 
 Marine Fisheries Service, MARMAP Red Flag Report No. 1, 1973 
 
 26. Crosby, Longwell,"A Genetic Look at Fish Eggs and Oil ,"0ceanus, 
 Vol. 20, Number 4, Fall 1977. 
 
 27. Offshore Oil Task Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
 
 The Georges Bank Petroleum Study , Volume II, Massachusetts Institute 
 of Technology, Cambridge, 311 pp., 1973. 
 
 28. Vale, G.H., Sidhu, G.S., Montgomery, W.A., and Johnson, A.R., "Studies 
 of a Kerosene-Hke Taint in Mullet (Mugil cephalus)," Journal on 
 
 the Science of Food and Agriculture , 21, pp. 429-432, 1970. 
 
 29. Shipton, J., Last, J.H., Murray, K.E., and Vale, G.L., "Studies on a 
 Kerosene-like Taint 1n Mullet (Mugil cephalus)," Journal of the 
 Science of Food and Agriculture , 21, pp. 433-436, 1970. 
 
30. Straughan, D. , editor, "011 Pollution and Fisheries 1n the Santa 
 Barbara Channel." In: Biological and Oceanographlcal Survey of 
 the Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spill 1969-1970 , Vol. 1, pp. 245-254. 
 Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, 1971. 
 
 31. Mead, W.J., and Sorensen, P.E., "The Economic Cost of the Santa 
 Barbara 011 Spill." In: Santa Barbara Oil Symposium, Santa Barbara, 
 December 16-18, 1970 , University of California, R.W. Holmes and 
 
 F.A. DeWitt, editors, 1970. 
 
 32. Hawkes, A.L., "A Review of the Nature and Extent of Damage Caused 
 
 by 011 Pollution at Sea," Transactions of the North American Wildlife 
 Conference , 26, pp. 343-355, 1961. 
 
 33. Menzel , R.W., Report of Two Cases of "Oily Tasting" Oysters at 
 Bay Ste. Elaine Oilfield , Texas A & M Research Foundation, 1948. 
 (Project Nine - unpublished report.) 
 
 34. Blumer, M. , and Sass, J., The West Falmouth Oil Spill , data avail- 
 able 1n November 1971. II"! Chemistry. Technical Report of the 
 Woods Hole OceanograpMc Institution, No. 72-19, 60 pp., 1972. 
 
 35. Lee, R.F., Sauerheber, R. , and Dobbs, G.H., "Uptake, Metabolism and 
 Discharge of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Marine F1sh," 
 Marine Biology , 17, pp. 201-208, 1972. 
 
 36. St. Amant, L.S., "Biological Effects of Petroleum Exploration and 
 Production in Coastal Louisiana." In Santa Barbara Oil Symposium , 
 Santa Barbara, December 16-18, 1970 , University of California, 
 R.W. Holmes and F.A. DeWitt, editors, 1970. 
 
 37. Spears, R.W. , "An Evaluation of the Effects of 011, Oil Field Brine, 
 and 011 Removing Compounds." In American Institute of Mining, 
 Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, AIME Environmental Quality 
 Conference , Washington, D.C., June 7-9, 1971, pp. 199-216, American 
 Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers. 
 
 38. Oguri, M. , and Kanter, R., "Primary Productivity 1n the Santa Barbara 
 Channel." In Biological and Oceanographical Survey of the Santa 
 Barbara Channel Oil Spill 1969-1970 , Vol. 1, pp. 17-48, Allan Han- 
 cock Foundation, University of Southern California, D. Straughan, 
 editor, 1971. 
 
 39. McGlnnis, D.R. , "Observations on the Zooplankton of the Eastern 
 Santa Barbara Channel from May 1969 to March 1970." In Biological 
 and Oceanographlcal Survey of the Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spill 
 1969-1970 , Vol. 1, pp. 49-59, Allan Hancock Foundation, University 
 of Southern California, D. Straughan, editor, 1971. 
 
 40. Sponner, J.F., "Effects of Oil and Emulsifiers on Marine Life." In 
 Water Pollution by Oil: Proceedings of a Seminar Held at Aviemore, 
 Invernesshire, Scotland , May 4-8, 1970, pp. 375-376, London, 
 Institute of Petroleum, P. Hepple, editor, 1971. 
 
 4-151 
 
41. Kuhnhold, W.W., Effect of Water Soluble Substances of Crude Oil on 
 Eggs and Larvae of Cod and Herring , 15 pp., Copenhagen, International 
 Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Fisheries Improvement 
 Committee, 1969. (CM 1969/E 17.) 
 
 42. Clark, R.B., "Reports from Rapporteurs." In Water Pollution by Oil: 
 Proceedings of a Seminar Held at Av ignore, Invernesshire, Scotland , 
 May 4-8, 1970, pp. 366-370, London, Institute of Petroleum, P. 
 Hepple, editor, 1971. 
 
 43. Dunbar, M.J., Ecological Development in Polar Regions, A Study in 
 Evolution , Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 119 pp., 1968. 
 
 44. Blumer, M., Sanders, H.R., Grassle, J.F., and Hampson, G.R., "A 
 Small Oil Spill," Environment , 13, (2), pp. 1-12, 1971. 
 
 45. Baker, J.M., "The Effects of a Single Oil Spillage." In Proceedings 
 of the Symposium on the Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on 
 Littoral Communities, London , November 30-December 1, 1970, London , 
 Institute of Petroleum, E.B. Cowell, editor, 1971. 
 
 46. Burns, K.A., and Teal, J.M., Hydrocarbon Incorporation into the 
 Salt Marsh Ecosystem from theWest Falmouth Oil Spill , Technical 
 Report of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, No. 71-69, 
 24 pp., 1971. 
 
 47. Thomas, M.L.H., "Effects of Bunker C Oil on Intertidal and Lagoonal 
 Biota in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia," Journal of the Fisheries 
 Research Bd. , Canada, 30, pp. 83-90, 1973. 
 
 48. Banker, J.M., "Successive Spillage." In Proceedings of the Symposium 
 on the Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral Communities, 
 London , November 30-December 1, 1970, London, Institute of Petroleum, 
 E.B. Cowell, editor, 1971. 
 
 49. Cowell, E.B., editor, "Refinery Effluent." In Proceedings of the 
 Symposium on the Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral 
 Communities, London , November 30-December 1, 1970, London, Institute 
 of Petroleum, 1971. 
 
 50. Cabinet Office, The Torrey Canyon , Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 
 London, p. 48, iWT. 
 
 51. Smith, J.E., editor "Torrey Canyon" Pollution and Marine Life , 
 Cambridge University Press, London, p. 196, 1968. 
 
 52. Baier, R.S., "Organic Films on Natural Waters: Their Retrieval, 
 Identification and Modes of Elimination," Journal of Geophysical 
 Research , 77:5062-5075, 1972. 
 
 53. Blumer, Max, "Scientific Aspects of the Oil Spill Problem," Environ- 
 mental Affairs , 1:54-73, 1971. 
 
 54. Tarzwell, CM., "Toxicity of Oil and Oil Dispersant Mixtures to 
 Aquatic Life," pp. 263-272. In Water Pollution by Oil , Elsevier 
 Publishing Co., Ltd., Amsterdam, 393 pp., Peter Hepple, editor, 1971. 
 
 4-152 
 
55. Spooner, M.F., "Effects of Oil and Emulsifiers on Marine Life," 
 
 p. 376. In Water Pollution by Oil , Elsevier Publishing Co., Ltd., 
 Amsterdam, 393 pp., Peter Hepple, editor, 1971. 
 
 56. Vagners, Juris, and Mar, Paul, Oil on Puget Sound , University of 
 Washington Press, Seattle, p. 628, 1972. 
 
 57. On-Scene-Commander Report of Major Spill , NEPCO 140, June 23, 1976, 
 Captain of the Port, Buffalo, New York. 
 
 58. U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, MA-EIS 7302- 
 74043- F, Final Environmen ta l Impact Statement Bulk Chemical Carrier 
 Construction Program , August 1974. 
 
 59. International Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) Preparations 
 for International Marine Pollution Conference 1973, Report of Study 
 No. IX submitted by Norway, Pollution Caused by the Discharge of 
 Noxious Liquid Substances Other Than Oil Through Normal Operational 
 Procedure of Ships Engaged in Bulk Transport . 
 
 60. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 
 Final Act of the International Conference on Marine Pollution , 1973. 
 
 61. U.S. Maritime Commission, A Modal Economic and Safety Analysis of 
 the Transportation of Hazardous Substances in Bulk , prepared by 
 Arthur D. Little, Inc., July 1974. 
 
 62. U.S. Coast Guard, Vulnerability Model: A Simulation System for 
 Assessing Damage R¥sulting from Marine Spills , Washington, D.C., 
 June 1975. 
 
 63. Weidmann, H. , and Sendner, H., "Dilution and Dispersion of Pollutants 
 by Physical Processes," Marine Pollution and Sea Life , published by 
 arrangement with FAO, Fishing News (Books) Ltd., p. 115, 1972. 
 
 64. Jannasch, H.W., and Einhjellen, K. , "Studies of Biodegradation of 
 Organic Materials in the Deep Sea," Marine Pollution and Sea Life , 
 published by arrangement with FAO, Fishing News (Books) Ltd., 
 London, pp. 150-151, 1972. 
 
 65. Dawson, G.W., et al., Control of Spillage of Hazardous Polluting 
 Substances , BaTEeTTe Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Labora- 
 tories, for the FWQA, USDI Program No. 1509, Contract No. 14-12-866, 
 November 1, 1970. 
 
 66. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution 
 (GESAMP), IMCO, 1973, Identification of Noxious and Hazardous Sub- 
 stances , GESAMP IV/19/Supplement 1, March 19, 1973. 
 
 67. Dybern, B.I., "Pollution in the Baltic," Marine Pollution and Sea 
 Life , published by arrangement with FAO, Fishing News (Books) Ltd., 
 lond'on, pp. 15-23, 1972. 
 
68. McConnaughy, W.E., "Hazard Evaluation," Second International Sym- 
 posium on the Transport of Hazardous Cargoes by Sea , May 11-14, 1971. 
 
 69. United States Coast Guard, Evaluation of the Hazard of Bulk Water 
 Transportation of Industrial Chemicals - A Tentative Guide , proposed 
 by Evaluation Panel, Committee on Hazardous Materials, National 
 Research Council for the U.S. Coast Guard, July 1973. 
 
 70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oil and Hazardous Materials 
 Technical Assistance Data System . 
 
 71. United States Coast Guard, Draft Environmental Impact Statement - 
 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships , 
 Office of Marine and Environmental System, USCG, 1973. 
 
 72. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality Cri- 
 teria , Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the 
 Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C., April 1, 1968, p. 89. 
 
 73. McKee, J.E., and Wolf, H.W., Water Quality Criteria , 2nd Edition, 
 Pub. No. 3-A, California State Water Quality Control Board, 1963. 
 
 74. Newell, R.C., "The Effect of Chemical Waste on Marine Organisms," 
 Effluent and Water Treatment Journal , 12 (6), 307-311, 1972. 
 
 75. Portmann, J.E., "Results of Acute Toxicity Tests with Marine Organ- 
 isms Using a Standard Method," Marine Pollution and Sea Life , pub- 
 lished by arrangement with FAO, Fishing News (Books) Ltd., London, 
 pp. 212-217, 1972. 
 
 76. Cole, H.A., "Implications of Disposal of Wastes in the North Sea - 
 Effects on Living Resources, Especially Fisheries," Chemistry and 
 Industry , No. 4, February 17, 1973, pp. 162-166. 
 
 77. Mitrovic, V.V., "Sublethal Effects of Pollutants on Fish," Marine 
 Pollution and Sea Life , published by arrangement with FAO, 
 Fishing News (Books) Ltd., London, pp. 252-255, 1972. 
 
 78. Idler, D.R., "Effects of Pollutants on Quality of Marine Products 
 and Effects on Fishing," Marine Pollution and Sea Life, published 
 by arrangement with FAO, Fishing News (Books) Ltd., London, 
 
 pp. 535-541, 1972. 
 
 79. Davis, C.C., "The Effects of Pollutants on the Reproduction of 
 Marine Organisms," Marine Pollution and Sea Life , published by 
 arrangement with FAO, Fishing News (Books) Ltd., London, pp. 305- 
 311, 1972. 
 
 80. Alderson, R., "Effects of Low Concentrations of Chemicals on Eggs 
 and Larvae of Plaice, Pleuronectes platessa L.," Marine Pollution 
 and Sea Life , published by arrangement with FAO, Fishing News (Books) 
 Ltd., London, pp. 312-315, 1972. 
 
81. Ranchor, E., "On the Influence of Industrial Wastes Containing 
 H 2 SCL and FeSO* on the Bottom Fauna off Helgoland (German Bight)," 
 Marine Pollution and Sea Life , published by arrangement with FAO, 
 Fishing News [Books) Ltd., London, pp. 390-391, 1972. 
 
 82. Ishio, S., Formal Discussion , Section I, Paper 10/Sprague, Adjacent 
 Water Pollution Res., 4, 1969. 
 
 83. Elson, P.F., Lauzier, L.N., and Z1tko, Z,, "A Preliminary Study of 
 Salmon Movements in a Polluted Estuary," Marine Pollution and Sea 
 Life , published by arrangement with FAO, Fishing News [Books) Ltd., 
 LohTon, pp. 325-330, 1973. 
 
 84. Sliepcevich, CM., Possible Hazards Associated with the Sea Trans- 
 port of Liquefied Gases in Bulk , Committee on Hazardous Materials, 
 National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washing- 
 ton, D.C, 23 pp. 
 
 85. Burgess, D., Biordi, J., and Murphy, I., Hazards of Spillage of 
 LNG into Water , U.S. Bureau of Mines, PMSCRC Report 4177, 1972. 
 
 86. ESSO Research and Engineering Co., Vaporization and Downwind Drift 
 of Combustible Mixtures , Internal Report No. EEQIE-72. 
 
 87. Boyle, G.J., and Kneebone, A., Laboratory Investigation into the 
 Characteristics of LNG Spills onto Water , Shell Research Limited, 
 Thorton Research Centre. 
 
 88. Offshore Petroleum Transfer System for Washington State, A Feasibil- 
 ity Study , prepared by the Oceanographic Institute of Washington for 
 the Oceanographic Commission of Washington, December 16, 1974. 
 
 89. Stewart, R.J., "Tankers in U.S. Waters," Oceanus , Vol. 20, No. 4, 
 1977. 
 
 90. Maritime Research Information Service Report, Treatment and Dis- 
 posal of Vessel Sanitary Wastes - A Synthesis of Current Informa- 
 tion , July 1971. 
 
 91. U.S. Maritime Administration Standard Specification for Merchant 
 Ship Construction, Section 70, Pollution Abatement Systems and 
 Equipment , February 10, 1975. 
 
 92. Environmental Protection Agency, Review of Environmental Issues of 
 the Transportation of Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil , Office of 
 Energy, Minerals and Industry, Washington, D.C, May 1977. 
 
 93. Wesler, J.E., "Survey of Activities in the Air and Noise Pollution 
 Control Fields," Proceedings of the Conference Sponsored by the 
 International Association for Pollution Control , May 11 and 12, 1972. 
 
 94. Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, U.S. 
 Coast Guard Pollution Abatement Program, Preliminary Study of Vessel 
 and Boat Exhaust Emission , CG-D-72-3, 1972. 
 
95. Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, An 
 Estimation of River Towboat Air Pollution in St. Louis, Missouri , 
 Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., DOT-TSC-OST-75-42, February 
 1976. 
 
 96. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant 
 Emission Factors , February 1972 (Rev. Ed.). 
 
 97. Federal Maritime Commission Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 
 Council of North Atlantic Shipping Association v. American Mail 
 Lines, December 12, 1975. 
 
 4-156 
 
MITIGATING FACTORS 
 
 The mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from domestic 
 waterborne commerce is extensive and complex. This complexity is attri- 
 buted to the nature of the potential impacts which can be generated by 
 the waterborne commerce and the myriad of state, federal and international 
 legislative actions and agencies which have control of waterborne commerce 
 within their respective jurisdictions. The control of waterborne impacts 
 can be principally divided into: vessel construction and operating re- 
 quirements, marine transportation services, personnel training, inspection 
 and monitoring, spill control and cleanup, and recent/future programs. 
 
 A. VESSEL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS 
 
 The construction and operation of tank vessels for the domestic trade 
 are subject to specific standards of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), American 
 Bureau of Shipping (ABS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Table 
 V-l lists the nucleus of federal regulations dealing with the pollution 
 control provisions on tankers. In addition, the U.S. Maritime Administra- 
 tion has established standards for pollution control equipment for tankers 
 constructed within the United States with federal assistance. 
 
 2. U.S. COAST GUARD CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS 
 
 U.S. Coast Guard regulations and the American 
 Bureau of Shipping rules govern most facets of ship construction. The 
 Coast Guard, as the principal federal regulatory agency, promulgates 
 design and construction regulations, reviews designs, and makes inspec- 
 tions during construction and at periodic intervals throughout the 
 vessel 's service life. 
 
 5-1 
 
-J 
 
 o 
 
 cc 
 
 1- 
 z 
 
 U 
 
 Z 
 
 (3 
 < 
 
 < 
 X 
 
 Q 
 
 Q 
 CC 
 < 
 3 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 1 
 
 z 
 
 O 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 cc 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 z 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 D 
 
 -J 
 _J 
 
 o 
 
 O. 
 OC 
 LU 
 
 Ji 
 
 ■5 
 
 HO 
 CO 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 _i 
 D 
 O 
 
 LU 
 CC 
 
 -J 
 
 < 
 
 cc 
 
 LU 
 
 Q 
 
 LU 
 LU 
 
 1- 
 X 
 
 2 
 
 PART 151 - OIL POLLUTION REGULATIONS 
 
 PART 153- CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL 
 AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, 
 DISCHARGE REMOVAL 
 
 PART 154 - LARGE OIL TRANSFER FACILITIES 
 
 PART 155 - VESSEL DESIGN AND OPERATIONS 
 
 PART 156 - OIL TRANSFER OPERATIONS 
 
 PART 157 - TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL 
 
 PART 159 - MARINE SANITATION REQUIREMENTS, 
 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND 
 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 
 REQUIREMENTS 
 
 PART 161 - VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES 
 
 PART 164 - NAVIGATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 
 
 PART 100- DISCHARGE OF OIL 
 
 PART 116 - DESIGNATION OF HAZARDOUS 
 SUBSTANCES 
 
 PART 117 - DETERMINATION OF REMOVABILITY 
 OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 
 
 PART 118 - DETERMINATION OF HARMFUL QUAN- 
 TITIES FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 
 
 PART 119- DETERMINATION OF UNITS OF 
 MEASUREMENT AND RATES OF 
 PENALTY FOR HAZARDOUS 
 SUBSTANCES 
 
 PART 125 - NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 
 ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) 
 
 PART 140 - MARINE SANITATION DEVICES, 
 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 g 
 
 3 
 
 Q 
 Z 
 < 
 
 TITLE 33, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, 
 SUBCHAPTER O - POLLUTION 
 
 SUBCHAPTER P - NAVIGATION 
 
 Z 
 
 II 
 
 is 
 
 £< 
 
 °£ 
 St 
 
 o< 
 
 11 
 
 H 
 
> 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 I 
 
 < 
 
 EC 
 Q 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 1- 
 z 
 
 s 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 CC 
 
 > 
 z 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 CC 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 O 
 Q 
 
 CC 
 
 31 
 
 111 
 
 <o£ 
 
 °|z 
 
 <zS 
 
 °^H 
 
 1- 
 cc 
 
 < 
 
 PART 30- GENERAL PROVISIONS 
 
 PART 31 - INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION 
 
 PART 32 - SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY 
 AND HULL REQUIREMENTS 
 
 PART 34- FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT 
 
 PART 35- OPERATIONS 
 
 PART 36 - ELEVATED TEMPERATURE CARGOES 
 
 PART 38- LIQUEFIED FLAMMABLE GASES 
 
 PART 151- UNMANNED TANK BARGES 
 
 PART 153 - SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS CARRYING 
 BULK DANGEROUS OR EXTREMELY 
 FLAMMABLE LIQUID CARGOES 
 
 PART 154 - SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS CARRYING 
 BULK LIQUEFIED GASES 
 
 CC 
 
 H 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 on 
 
 Q 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 z 
 o 
 t- 
 < 
 
 o 
 a. 
 < 
 
 CC 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 UJ> 
 
 Oec 
 
 Ouj 
 
 °.fe 
 
 2< 
 
 TITLE 46, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, 
 SUBCHAPTER D - TANK VESSELS 
 
 SUBCHAPTER O - CERTAIN BULK 
 DANGEROUS CARGOES 
 
The regulations are designed to make the U.S. vessels the safest 
 vessels in the world merchant fleet and provide the greatest affordable 
 degree of environmental protection. The results of this construction 
 program are clearly demonstrated in the lower number of oil spills by 
 the U.S. fleet in comparison with the foreign flag vessels. 
 
 The Coast Guard's design requirements for tank vessels ensure that, 
 even if a vessel sustains damage, it will remain afloat with a minimum or 
 ho loss of cargo. To achieve this goal, the Agency prescribes acceptable 
 levels of compartmentation and freeboard for each vessel design, so that 
 damage to one tank, or certain combinations of tanks, will not result in 
 the vessel 's sinking. 
 
 In regard to chemicals, the Coast Guard certifies all new U.S. 
 vessels for the carriage of bulk danagerous cargoes. For those liquid 
 chemicals which are not covered by regulations, requirements are made 
 based upon a safety evaluation by the Coast Guard. This evaluation 
 assures that the cargo in question can be safely contained during trans- 
 port, loading and unloading without pollution effects. Otherwise, Coast 
 Guard ship design approval and cargo certification would be withheld. 
 
 The Coast Guard development of procedures and regulations for the 
 safe water transportation of dangerous chemical cargoes is oriented toward 
 changing conditions in water transportation and providing for: (1) the 
 growing size of new multiple-hazards cargoes, (2) advances in cargo con- 
 tainment technology, and (3) increasing waterway and port congestion. 
 The Coast Guard's approach to regulations for dangerous chemical cargo is 
 casualty-preventive. It is based on achieving marine safety by evaluating 
 potential hazards and adopting necessary preventive measures beforehand 
 rather than investigating "after the casualty" to determine what and who 
 is to blame. Regulations to control engineering design and operational 
 procedures with respect to cargo containment, personnel and cargo transfer 
 are implemented in order to protect against hazards which relate to the 
 vessel, crew, public safety and environmental pollution. The safety reg- 
 ulations are designed to protect the public and industry from all cargo 
 hazards. The problems and experiences of industry and government as well 
 as specific research programs form the basis for appropriate safety designs 
 and procedures. 
 
 5-4 
 
 
The design and construction for cargo containment depend upon the 
 physical, chemical and toxic properties of the cargo. Because of the 
 many possible varying combinations of these properties, a standard pro- 
 cedure cannot be used to determine the design factors of a given cargo 
 system. Therefore, the approach used to evaluate cargo system safety 1s 
 usually on a case-by-case basis. Cargoes which require the most exacting 
 containment exhibit the following characteristics: 
 
 Highly toxic 
 
 Water Insoluble 
 
 Lighter than water 
 
 Highly reactive 
 
 High vapor density 
 
 High freezing point 
 
 Low boiling point 
 
 Low flashpoint 
 
 Highly flammable (wide flammabillty range) 
 
 Low auto-Ignition temperature 
 
 Pyrophoric 
 
 The loss or leakage of cargo can occur because of swamping, collision 
 or sinking of vessels, poor design and construction techniques, and im- 
 proper operation or maintenance procedures. Also, the chemical cargo 
 could reach and react with or adversely affect the vessel's hull struc- 
 ture, contaminate the voids around the tank, pollute the air and the water, 
 and endanger the crew and the public. 
 
 Since our waterways and navigable waters may traverse populated 
 communities this latter concern is a high priority item. 
 
 The operational controls of the waterborne commerce industry 
 constitute an important part of the overall mitigation process. The 
 requirements which govern the maritime operations are principally con- 
 trolled and enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard. Other agencies which have 
 jursidiction over the air, water and solid waste aspects of the waterborne 
 
commerce industry are the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps 
 of Engineers, and the individual state agencies which regulate and enforce 
 the discharge of pollutants to these resources. Mar Ad under the Title XI 
 Program initially reviews the ability of the vessels and crews to operate 
 within the framework of the federal regulations. After the assistance is 
 granted, the vessel operations would have to conform to U.S. Coast Guard 
 regulations. The daily operations including cargo loadings, pilotage, 
 cargo transfer, shipboard safety, and general shipboard operations are 
 controlled by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is the primary 
 agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of federal mer- 
 chant vessel laws pertaining to waterborne safety and pollution abatement. 
 The regulations implemented by the Coast Guard provide for pollution pre- 
 vention with regard to cargo containment and transfer operations. 
 
 Since prevention is the most acceptable means of maintaining envi- 
 ronmental quality, the Coast Guard Pollution Prevention Regulations 
 (33 CFR 154, 155, 156) provide equipment requirements and operating pro- 
 cedures for vessels and terminals. These regulations were developed to 
 reduce the probability of an accidental discharge of oil or oily wastes 
 during normal vessel operation, during the transfer of oil or oily wastes, 
 or as a result of certain vessel accidents. Standards for bilge and 
 ballast piping, oil transfer hoses, qualifications for the person-in-charge 
 of an oil transfer, and required tests and records of those tests are in 
 the regulations. These regulations are continually under revision and 
 reflect the latest developments in oil pollution control technology. 
 
 3. AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING RULES 
 
 The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) rules give sound guidance for 
 structural design of vessels. Major classification societies such as ABS 
 base their rules on years of experience and research, and they strive to 
 keep informed of the current state of the art in order to improve their 
 rules. 
 
The Rules of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) prescribe stan- 
 dards for the design and construction of the hull structure, main pro- 
 pulsion machinery, and vital auxiliary equipment for all types of mer- 
 chant vessels. Where there is sufficient need, specific rules are dev- 
 eloped for specialized vessels, such as chemical and liquefied gas tank- 
 ers. Rules have been published for river barges carrying dangerous 
 chemicals in bulk. The Rules require that Surveyors to the Bureau review 
 the design for compliance with technical standards, supervise the con- 
 struction of the vessel and its vital machinery to insure satisfactory 
 workmanship, and survey the vessel periodically while it is in service 
 to confirm that it is maintained in satisfactory condition. Both the 
 United States Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration participate 
 1n the formulation of the Bureau's Rules. 
 
 The Bureau has been delegated the authority by the U.S. Coast Guard 
 to assign load lines in accordance with the International Load Line Con- 
 vention. In some areas, ABS standards and/or inspection are accepted as 
 evidence that Coast Guard regulations are met, but ABS is not empowered 
 to regulate on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard. 
 
 4. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION SPECIFICATIONS 
 
 The Maritime Administration has developed standard specifications 
 to provide guidance for merchant ship designers preparing detailed ship 
 specifications. The ship specifications are divided into over 100 sec- 
 tions, and each section deals with a specific part, system or related 
 series of systems. 
 
 The construction guidelines follow the latest requirements for the 
 reduction of pollution to the air, water and land resources. MarAd now 
 recommends the applicable design features and equipment for all Title XI 
 ships. This is especially critical with respect to the pollution abate- 
 ment provisions of Sections 70 and 94-4 of the MarAd Specifications. The 
 major environmental specifications of Sections 70 and 94-4, presented 1n 
 Table V-2, are mandatory solely for tankers receiving MarAd construction 
 subsidy assistance and are guidelines for Title XI tank vessels (1, 2). 
 
 5-7 
 
£o>d 
 
 OhtO 
 oc<_iw 
 
 Q.0C << 
 
 sgs 
 
 illl 
 
 Q.l-N|_ 
 
 "ode 
 
 mwOO 
 
 II 
 
 Pi 
 
 o<jE z^ 
 5>o = ? 
 
 z2w2i 
 
 !E<isl 
 
 §sSs§ 
 
 - I 
 
 £-JE£e,J 
 
 2ZOB 
 
 III 
 
 lo|i 
 
 ft 
 
 51 
 
 53 
 
 2 a 
 
 -P | 
 
 oca °< ? 
 
 go s * ° 
 
 ""£ OW 4 
 
 §1 ^ 2 
 
 Sf 5S =! 
 
 s* o> o . 
 
 E° Si 5* 
 
 toe £5 o£ 
 
 S| <5l 2< 
 
 !8 IS is 
 
 g 
 
 °U1 >z . " 
 
 Of3 «< ¥ 
 
 55 ?2 h 
 
 Sec 
 
 0"C 
 
 *5 a ox 
 
 ^ 2° -■ 
 
 |. -g ^1 
 
 31 04 OOC 
 
 ||2 
 
 •-oiScc 
 
 uj COD O 
 
 8£2< 
 <2z2 
 °Sr H 
 
 <SUE 
 
 
 UJgS< 
 
 55§22 
 <<t-zm 
 
 -ICCOO 
 Sill 
 
 >¥0£2 
 h-ZiOD; o 
 
 <>:o°l 
 
 0°Cl<h 
 
 <II2CC 
 Ot-OOl- 
 
 3< 
 
 !i 
 
 o o 
 S < 
 
i | a 
 
 ? n j 
 
 2>< 
 
 3g = 
 
 IOI 
 
 I 
 
 fe H 
 
 3 < 
 
 <-iui 
 q uj5? 
 
 Ogwl 
 
 ZOQJ 
 
 ccqoF 
 oo-ii- 
 
 U-ItflU. 
 
 <*22 
 
 2§i! 
 
 uSUZo 
 OQgZOz 
 
 Bill 
 
 m 
 
 hiun 
 
 IE! 
 
 o<9 
 
 3^| <p 
 
 I liSS 
 
 OC -I IU<_|UJ 
 
 JUJ-I Hl<U 
 
 JQ.< -I<hX 
 
 Pi 
 
 OlOSg 
 
 -z §o<5« 
 
 <£ 3ujuiZ< 
 
 gz <*§>*§ 
 
 22 f.S!:<> 
 
 Ko§< 
 
 <zpz 
 
 fflOWo 
 
 QQ-! 
 UJ0Cl-< 
 
 -"weep 
 
 *<2!S 
 
 £>??. <*a 
 
 zg°2z 
 
 §§111 
 
 8 2 0; 
 

 °o 
 
 _J 
 
 
 
 
 z« Q < 
 
 z 
 
 
 s 
 
 5 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 E 
 u 
 
 Zqj 
 Ow 
 
 d° 
 
 °^ 
 
 Zu 
 
 <> 
 <r< 
 o> 
 
 MX 
 
 c w 
 ujO 
 
 1 
 
 o-» 
 
 15 
 OCX 
 U.h- 
 
 <z 
 
 p 
 Si 
 
 ceo 
 
 13 
 
 Zo 
 
 52 
 
 CC-I 
 
 <-l 
 
 XH 
 
 «£ 
 
 Oh 
 Eh 
 
 Sg 
 
 >o 
 
 UJ Z 
 
 
 < _i fen- 
 
 mm 
 
 III 
 
 lilill 
 
 jf<S'fcw< 
 
 5 S „ . < G " 
 
 til&S . 
 
 mm 
 
 1- 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 <| 
 
 u 
 
 so 
 
 2& 
 
 och 
 
 >-o 
 
 UJCC 
 
 102 
 „| 
 
 u.O 
 
 o = 
 
 -Dull- 
 
 £<^° 
 
 till 
 
 ZOju 
 
 tt<§o 
 
 => -S> 
 
 "- tt ,^ Q z 
 
 w^o<5 
 
 OT-U.XW 
 
 igif 
 
 sslsl 
 
 <ujqO- 
 
 2z^I* 
 
 ijSil 
 
 Sw°h° 
 
 ww oOuj 
 
 5xgR£E 
 
 z i-m<_i 
 
 3l-<2*< 
 
 O 
 
 2- 
 
 CCKi" 
 
 Dl- U . 
 CC UJCC 111 
 <I->Z 
 
 11S1 
 
 S>oo 
 
 SUJMH 
 
 o 
 
 is 
 
 Jut 
 
 IS 
 
 •-s 
 
 zee 
 
 
 z> 
 
 oz 
 
 jl-CCCC 
 <U "qS 
 
 
 CCujzJ 
 
 <m — 
 
 HI 
 
 III 
 
 z< 
 
 0.Z 
 
 lis 
 
 
 1! 
 
 oo 
 
 is 
 
 <CC 
 
 SS3SS 
 
 £ujUJCCI-0 
 M CDXOSCX 
 
 H-JO M .O 
 
 lw Q 2«2 
 
 oS Sd IE 
 
 
 
 u!s8 
 
 ccQz 
 
 
 >-!<(= JZQ 
 
 is 
 
 Ot/j 
 
 
 ££o> 
 o9<h 
 
 M4 
 
 
 
 ju-O 
 
 
 > Jq.O< _ uj 
 
 
 UJ_|_I»Q- 
 
 !-<<ax 
 
 -JD<XuJ e0 
 
 -i "- >-«o 
 
 
 >O.X 
 
 -iujoc 
 
 
 <ooSwO± 
 
 XX 
 
 J<IhIO 
 
 _i><ui 
 
 
 OOh 
 
 <Oh 
 
 
 l-l- 
 
 S<C3WW 
 
 <JwOhh 
 
 <mmoc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *" 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 
 ~" 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 i- 
 > 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 S5 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 h- 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 < z 
 
 
 5 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 0. 
 Q CL 
 
 
 5 
 a 
 
 
 h- 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 Z m 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 < 
 
 < <9 
 
 
 Q 
 
 Z 
 < 
 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 £ 5 
 
 S 
 
 5 
 
 
 < 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 CC 
 
 < 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 *5 < 
 < S 
 
 o o 
 
 5 C9 
 
 > 
 
 cc 
 
 < 
 
 oe 
 
 u 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 1^ 
 
 2 oe 
 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 z 
 
 * 1 
 
 
 D 
 
 WW 
 
 < 
 
 ta 
 
 d 
 
 Q 
 
 & <■ 
 
 
 J 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ls 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 CO 
 
 
 
 
 N VISUAL- PHOTO-ELECTRIC 
 HE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE 
 AN ALARM WHICH ACTUATE 
 ABLISHED BY THE ARTICLE 
 AUTO-SEMI-AUTO PRESSUR- 
 OF THE LENS. THE INDICA- 
 AL CONTROL CONSOLE. A 
 INTENSITY ALARM TO 
 UNDARDS ESTABLISHED BY 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 *-> 
 
 ocw 
 
 S 
 
 DC 
 < 
 < 
 Q 
 
 2 
 < 
 > 
 < 
 
 
 {S?o 
 5s2§ 
 
 5 
 
 
 ITH ACOMBINATIO 
 EARLY INDICATE T 
 IE PROVIDED WITH 
 DS THE VALUE EST 
 ROVIDEDWITH AN 
 iURE CLEANLINESS 
 ITYOFTHECENTR 
 i WITH THE SMOKE 
 ON ABOVE THE ST, 
 
 
 
 <£uj 
 
 1-Q.Q 
 
 (3<2 
 
 z 2 < 
 
 2 
 
 UJ 
 
 < 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 ><Ui 
 
 2 
 O 
 
 g |8 
 
 j 
 
 
 ACH BOILER SHALL BE EQUIPPED W 
 WOKE INDICATOR WHICH SHALL CLI 
 F SMOKE. THE INDICATOR SHALL B 
 HEN THE SMOKE INTENSITY EXCEE 
 BOVE. THE INDICATOR SHALL BE P 
 :ed LENS CLEANING SYSTEM to inj 
 OR SHALL BE VISIBLE IN THE VICIN 
 ECORDER SHALL BE COORDINATED 
 ECORD THE DURATION OF POLLUTI 
 RTICLE ABOVE. 
 
 
 EC 
 
 8 
 
 <2°= 
 
 Q -,UJ 
 
 §:< 
 HI 
 
 O 
 < . 
 
 Q-l 
 
 
 3< 
 
 u!" 
 t--j 
 >< 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 
 ->=>£E 
 
 
 uj w o s < - 1- ec ce < 
 
 <o£ 
 
 <W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 2 
 O 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 o o 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 fe 
 
 z 3 
 
 II 
 
 | 
 
 g 
 
 
 1 HI 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 DC 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 < w 
 
 DC 
 < 
 Q 
 < 
 CC 
 
 
 7 
 
 °f 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Since their inception, Sections 70 and 94-4 have periodically been 
 updated to prescribe current standards and regulations of the Environ- 
 mental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard and IMCO. It is the general 
 Intent of the MarAd Pollution Abatement Specifications to recommend ap- 
 propriate pollution control measures for the design, construction and 
 operation of all merchant ships in order to protect the quality of the 
 marine environment from ship-generated pollutants. These provisions 
 include oil water separator, oily water slop tank, oil and sewage shore- 
 side discharge connections, oil content meter, marine sanitation device, 
 segregated ballast, pump emergency shutdown, overflow alarm, smoke 
 Indicator and alarms and many other features. 
 
 One of the latest additions to the MarAd specifications and a sug- 
 gested procedure for Title XI tank vessels is a cargo/ballast system that 
 employs the "Load-On-Top" (LOT) method for reducing vessel operational 
 oil discharges to coastal waters. 
 
 The LOT method is devised to limit the discharge of oil from tankers 
 caused by pumping oily ballast water and oily tank washings overboard. 
 The amount of ballast water taken aboard tankers generally varies from 
 20 to 50 percent of the vessel's total cargo capacity (3). In the LOT 
 system, ballast water carried in cargo tanks is first allowed to settle 
 to the bottom and then most of it 1s pumped overboard. The remainder of 
 the oily ballast and washwater is transferred to a slop tank which pro- 
 vides further settling of the water from the oil before the separated 
 water 1s discharged. Fresh cargo oil 1s loaded on top of the residual 
 oil remaining in the slop tank; hence the term "load-on-top." The steps 
 of the LOT cleaning and ballasting method are illustrated in Figure V-l. 
 
 Presently new methods and designs are being implemented and research 
 carried out to improve the LOT method. A significant part of this oper- 
 ation, particularly for crude oil tankers, is the thorough cleaning or 
 washing down of the cargo tanks which must take place on every ballast 
 voyage. The traditional method of tank washing consists of revolving 
 nozzles connected to the end of a hose lowered to various levels in the 
 tank to be washed. The nozzles revolve around both a vertical and a 
 
1 2 E§3=1 4 5 6 E7E 8 E9E 10 E11E 12 
 
 AFTER DISCHARGING OIL CARGO 
 AND AS SHIP EASES OUT TO SEA. 
 TANKS 3, 7, 9 AND 11 ARE FILLED 
 WITH SEA WATER BALLAST. 
 
 TANKS 2, 4, 8 AND 10 WASHED 
 
 OIL FLOATS TO TOP OF DIRTY BALLAST 
 
 1 2 e3e 4 5 6 e7e 8 e9E 10 E11E 12 
 
 WASHING SLOPS FROM TANKS 
 2. 4. 8 AND 10 ARE PUMPED TO 
 TANK 12 (SLOP TANK). 
 
 UIIUUU 
 
 WATER PUMPED OUT OF 3, 7, 9 AND 11 LEAVING OIL 
 
 CLEAN BALLAST IS PUT INTO 
 TANKS 2, 4, 8 AND 10; SEAWATER 
 IS PUMPED OVERBOARD FROM 
 TANKS 3, 7, 9 AND 11 LEAVING 
 OIL/WATER MIXTURE. 
 
 SEAWATER PUMPED TO SEA PRIOR TO CARGO LOADING 
 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 
 
 Figure V-1 SIMPLIFIED ILLUSTRATION OF LOT PROCEDURE 
 
 SOURCE: Tanker Pollution Abatement Report, U.S. Dept. of Commerce/MarAd, July 1977 
 
horizontal axis by the action of the wash water at a pressure of about 
 160 psi and a temperature of about 170°F to 180°F. This system is known 
 as the Butterworth System. 
 
 A new method being employed to improve LOT is a combination of 
 several slop tanks as a Cascade System which allows further settling and 
 reduction of the oily content of the wastewater that may be discharged 
 overboard. 
 
 Also, improvement in the design of the slop tank is being considered. 
 The shape and configuration of the slop tank, the positioning of the in- 
 lets, outlets, baffles, or weirs in the tank and the use of heating coils 
 and chemical flocculants will help avoid excessive turbulence and 
 entrainment of oil with the water, thereby reducing the oil content of 
 the decanted water discharged to the sea. 
 
 All tankers will be fitted with an oil content monitoring arrangement 
 to check the purity of any water discharged directly to the sea from the 
 slop tanks. Also effective oil/water interface detectors are being con- 
 sidered for rapid and accurate determination of the oil/water interface. 
 
 If all tank vessels employed a 100 percent efficient LOT system 
 100 percent of the time, tank cleaning and ballasting operations would 
 not be a significant source of oil pollution (4). 
 
 All tankers are not capable of conducting LOT operations. Moreover, 
 LOT operations can cope only with 80 percent of the potential operational 
 pollution arising from tank washings. This is due to the following 
 reasons: 
 
 The LOT system cannot be applied to tankers in the persistent 
 oil product trade since finished products cannot be mixed with 
 one another and cannot tolerate salt content in the same way 
 as most crude oils. 
 
 Certain ballast voyages can be so short as to preclude the time 
 necessary for satisfactory operation of the LOT systems. 
 
 5-14 
 
Depending on sea conditions, the necessary separation process 
 may not be completely effective. 
 
 The ability to accurately determine the oil -water interface 1n 
 the holding tank is lacking and consequently results 1n drawing 
 off a portion of the lower layer of oil along with the water. 
 
 Many of the LOT operational disadvantages can be eliminated by em- 
 ploying alternative techniques (e.g., the installation of segregated 
 ballast tanks or crude oil washing). 
 
 Exxon International Company, Tanker Department, developed a "crude 
 oil washing process" for washing the tanker's cargo tanks with the crude 
 oil cargo as the washing fluid. Crude oil washing has proven to be more 
 effective than water washing because crude acts as a solvent, dissolving 
 sludge and sediments. IMCO has adopted crude oil washing as an alterna- 
 tive to segregated ballast for existing tankers. If the "crude oil wash- 
 ing" (COW) method 1s properly employed as a closed system (i.e., cargo 
 tank hatches are closed and the pressure of the atmosphere 1n the cargo 
 tank 1s maintained below the vent valve settings), then this type of tank 
 cleaning operation should not be a significant source of air pollution. 
 
 The majority of tank vessels engaged in the domestic trade are 
 product carriers, except possibly those in the Alaskan trade, and there- 
 fore will not be able to utilize the LOT procedure. Unlike tankers in 
 the crude oil trade which will clean on an average of 30-40% of their 
 tanks on each ballast voyage, product tankers clean a greater percentage 
 or all of their cargo tanks during the ballast voyage. This is because 
 of the uncertainty of the next cargo and the concern for contamination 
 of the subsequent cargo by the residues of the previous one. The residues 
 from a product tanker are discharged to a slop tank and retained on board 
 for discharge to a reception facility. 
 
 Another recent addition to the MarAd specifications is the collision 
 avoidance radar system for vessels which is considered to be one of the 
 most advanced systems in preventing pollution accidents. This system is 
 capable of tracking fixed and moving targets, providing information with 
 respect to such objects and sounding a warning signal if a collision is 
 
 5-15 
 
possible. Such a system provides an automatic radar watch, together with 
 course and speed information necessary to avoid collisions which could 
 result in serious polluting incidents. 
 
 Collision Avoidance Systems (CAS) are shipboard computers which 
 automatically process radar data and display ship encounter situations 
 that would lead to groundings, collisions and polluting spills. The 
 Collision Avoidance System reduces the Conning Officer's workload and 
 allows more time for decision-making particularly in situations where 
 the danger of an accident is imminent. MarAd currently requires this 
 system on all subsidized ships and the Coast Guard has proposed regula- 
 tions which would require this system installed on all vessels exceeding 
 10,000 gross tons. 
 
 MarAd has conducted experimental research at the Computer Aided 
 Operations Research Facility (CAORF), National Maritime Research Center, 
 Kings Point, New York to study deck officer performance with collision 
 avoidance systems (5). The results indicate that a watch officer increases 
 the miss distance to another ship, takes corrective action earlier; makes 
 a substantial course change rather than several small changes; and achieves 
 greater cross-track deviations from other ships. The study revealed that 
 the use of a CAS resulted in a 33 percent increase in miss distance as 
 compared to the use of radar and visual sighting only. 
 
 The CAORF experiments indicated that CAS improved the miss distances 
 to vessels in heavier traffic and in limited visibility, while miss dis- 
 tances with radar alone decreased in heavy traffic and did not improve in 
 limited visibility. 
 
 Although not set forth in the anti-pollution MarAd specification, 
 extensive research and development efforts have been sponsored to improve 
 vessel design, maneuverability, and equipment which may mitigate the po- 
 tential of tanker pollution. A brief description of each feature is listed 
 in Table V-3. 
 
 The listed technical improvements of vessel design, maneuverability 
 and equipment can be utilized to reduce the probability of accidental 
 
 5-16 
 

 z 
 
 uiQn 
 oZfft 
 
 -jSo 
 
 S2o 
 
 ucc 
 
 3< 
 
 ujOu 
 
 azi* 
 
 oils 
 
 <<£ 2 
 
 JuOz 
 
 a.Zt-3 
 
 So 
 ooc 
 
 3< 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 cc 
 
 111! 
 
 >- 
 
 O 
 <CC 
 
 h- 
 w Z 
 o 1 
 3 WZ 
 
 2S2 
 
 cc cc 
 «2 2 
 i£2 
 
 CC^<M 
 
 ^OujJ" 
 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 o 
 
 h- 
 
 (9 
 
 25 
 
 tew 
 
 11 
 
 -o>cc 
 
 QZOS 
 
 d£ 
 
 Z ccuj 
 
 z 
 
 5!2* 
 
 00K 
 
 
 w<ujo 
 OH3CC 
 oSSOO 
 
 00 I- 
 
 £3 
 
 § 
 
 3 
 
 o< 
 
 Oz 
 
 S2 
 
 cc wz 
 
 III 
 
 J si 
 
 -J Q-l- 
 
 00 Xm 
 
 i^g 
 
 so< 
 j > 5 
 
 !S5 5 
 > <o 
 o So 
 
 o 
 < 
 
 < 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 §2o 
 
 13 
 
 .CD 
 
 IS 
 
 o*lg 
 
 z<°I 
 -ctoS 
 
 2 = << 
 teolro 
 
 z<oz 
 «2cc| 
 
 0-<S 
 
 <oo< 
 
 zZeH 
 
 13 
 
 .00 
 
 §s 
 
 = o-<< 
 
 8gsE! 
 
 WCC 
 Z|_ 
 
 zl i 
 
 o«| 
 
 H>C5 
 
 <HM Q - 
 
 z-*°£ 
 
 OK<00 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 32 
 
 <2cc 
 
 ZZCC(3 
 
 <scc< 
 
 0-<CC 
 
 <OOa: 
 z2cco 
 
 
 u.ujOi_ w 
 ^CCI°Q 
 £o3-J^O 
 
 
 go 
 
 35 
 
 OflOz 
 
 Bisi 
 
 §3 
 
 OqO z 
 •-> o 
 2o£w 
 hSfEj 
 
 oqo z ' 
 •-> o 
 
 HgplZj 
 
 §1 
 
 !8 
 
 <OJtC 
 
 
 Q> 
 
 0°-u.O 
 
 Q_l 
 
 O "".-! 
 
 0°-u-_i 
 
 o_i 
 
 zee 
 
 (-3 J uiZ 
 
 OOOC 
 
 S occ 
 
 z ±3u. 
 
 
 UJZ 
 
 £C>3CC 
 
 ffi° 
 
 CC>30 
 
 CC>30 
 
 iuo 
 
 i< 
 
 2 Ouji< 
 -goOKI- 
 
 cccc< 
 
 iS oc< 
 
 s2 J < 
 
 
 OCiu 
 
 0.00 000 
 
 
 a. CO COO 
 
 CwOOOOU 
 
 CCa. 
 
 Su 
 
 
 CC 0.O 
 
 SOow 
 
 
 * 
 
 z 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 |§| 
 
 HZ 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 §?cc> 
 
 IZ^CD 
 
 
 o 
 
 (9 
 
 •~uj 
 
 
 
 s 
 o 
 
 
 
 ffilQ 
 
 go 
 
 1- 
 
 <s^2 
 
 o»<< 
 < w o s 
 o 2 ^5 
 
 S2i2j 
 OUJiuo 
 
 sip 
 
 <2 Q(E 
 
 
 S 
 
 < 
 
 >z 
 
 Ijjj 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 l-CCCC 
 <3uj 
 
 E8S 
 
 Ogo 
 
 OK 
 
 5 2 
 << 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 cc 
 
 
 2fc 
 HOC 
 
 3< 
 
 KG 
 
 HO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HJ^-' 
 
 Oh- 
 
 < 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 E 
 2 
 
 Q 
 
 if 
 qO 
 
 25 
 
 Is 
 
 31 
 ZK 
 
 r(3 
 
 2 2 
 
 Oj 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 H 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 < 
 
 I 
 1- 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 1- 
 1 
 
 2i8 
 
 gill 
 
 o I £ z 
 
 82i§ 
 
 SE2S 
 
 3|-0 
 
 u 
 
 z 
 
 cc 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 
 o£J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jji^ 
 
 w OH 
 
 
 
 <>- 
 
 II 
 
 21 
 
 <i2 
 
 III 
 
 i 
 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 a 
 a 
 
 Q 
 
 3 
 
 cc 
 
 fciS 
 zo 
 
 II 
 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 o 
 o 
 cc 
 < 
 
 ooo9 
 
 I<CC £ 
 gU<LU 
 
 Ills 
 
 <tzcc 
 
 2?| 
 
 o°-o 
 
 Of* 
 
 o 
 cc 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 z 
 < 
 z 
 < 
 
 lips 
 illil 
 
 °£^{2o 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 
 < 
 
 >o 
 
 
 o 
 
 ggoo 
 
 30H- 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 5.Q1-U--* 
 
 IU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 h-OO 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 <Q 
 
 > 
 
 I 
 
 Z 
 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 1- 
 < 
 a 
 
 °H 
 - J < 
 ujcj 
 
 < 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 a 
 
 || 
 
 < 
 
 5 
 
 _i 
 
 O 
 
 [Jj 
 
 
 lii 
 
 [Jj 
 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 cc 
 
 z 
 
 1 
 
 CC 
 (9 
 
 m 
 
 3 
 
 
 oo 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 z 
 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 
 g 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 
 cc 
 
 OO 
 
 o 
 
 if ul S w s 
 
 5-17 
 
z 
 o 
 
 < 
 a 
 
 S 
 
 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL MANEUVER- 
 ABILITY AT VESSEL SPEEDS BELOW 
 3 KNOTS 
 
 REDUCES TUG REQUIREMENTS IN PORT 
 AND DOCKING SITUATIONS 
 
 REDUCES POTENTIAL SPILL ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISIONS, RAMMINGS 
 
 PROPELLER PITCH MAY BE CHANGED 
 VERY QUICKLY AND REVERSE THRUST 
 OBTAINED FOR STOPPING PURPOSES 
 
 REDUCES POTENTIAL SPILL ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISIONS, RAMMINGS 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SHIP'S ABILITY 
 TO TURN AND CHECK A TURN CAN BE 
 REALIZED 
 
 REDUCES POTENTIAL SPILL ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISION AND RAMMING 
 
 TWIN SCREW PROPULSION COUPLED 
 WITH A TWIN RUDDER ARRANGEMENT 
 RESULTS IN IMPROVED MANEUVERABILITY 
 
 REDUCES POTENTIAL SPILL ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISIONS AND RAMMINGS 
 
 INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF HORSE- 
 POWER AVAILABLE IN THE ASTERN 
 DIRECTION DECREASES THE SHIP'S 
 STRAIGHT LINE STOPPING DISTANCE AND 
 STOPPING TIME 
 
 REDUCES POTENTIAL SPILL ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISIONS AND RAMMINGS 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 £ 
 
 Q 
 
 Z 
 
 s 
 
 C-ui 
 
 ig" 
 
 11; 
 
 ><2e 
 z £ 2 
 
 = ^2 
 
 >:^ = 
 > x " 
 sis! 
 
 S 5z 
 
 o 2 < 
 
 13 
 
 iiES 
 
 55 
 
 <-% 
 
 occXo 
 
 5<XM 
 
 2g2S 
 
 zSujE 
 lS Q<Ui 
 
 U3-IZ 
 JZCOI- 
 
 S'-'-x 
 
 s§s| 
 
 325§ 
 
 £i x tt 
 i 
 
 - INVOLVES INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE RUDDER AND/OR 
 INCREASING THE RATE AT WHICH THE RUDDER CAN BE 
 TURNED 
 
 - LARGE TANKERS BENEFIT IN MANEUVERABILITY FROM 
 INSTALLING LARGE RUDDERS 
 
 - SMALL TANKERS BENEFIT IN MANEUVERABILITY FROM 
 AN INCREASE IN RUDDER RATE 
 
 O 
 
 Z 
 
 u. 
 
 < 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 5 
 
 3 
 -1 
 u 
 z 
 
 s<£ 
 fcg 
 
 >3 
 
 ii 
 
 o HJ 
 
 |i 
 
 EE 
 
 - ASTERN THRUST INCREASES ROUGHLY AS THE 2/3 
 POWER OF THE SHAFT HORSEPOWER ASTERN 
 
 - FOR A LARGE TANKER (191,000 DWT), INCREASING THE 
 AMOUNT OF ASTERN SHAFT HORSEPOWER BY 100% 
 RESULTS IN ABOUT 20-25% REDUCTION IN STOPPING 
 DISTANCE (i.e., INSTEAD OF STOPPING IN 20 SHIP LENGTHS, 
 CAN STOP IN 15-16 SHIP LENGTHS) 
 
 _i 
 1 
 
 Cm 
 >e 
 
 33 
 
 IS 
 
 2"- 
 
 1 
 > 
 
 M 
 
 DC 
 
 M 
 
 3 
 B 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 OS 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 t 
 1 
 
 oi 
 
 Em 
 
 Ho. 
 
 s° 
 
 Ob 
 ua. 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 Q 
 
 3S! 
 
 <=« 
 
 DB 
 
 P 
 
 Ii 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 E 
 
 a. 
 
 H 
 
 z 
 
 ii 
 ii 
 
 EM 
 
 E 
 
 i 
 
 z 
 
 E 
 
 I 
 
 Q 
 E 
 
 5-18 
 
z 
 o 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 DECREASES THE SHIP'S STRAIGHT LINE 
 STOPPING DISTANCE AND STOPPING 
 TIME 
 
 REDUCES POTENTIAL SPILL ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISIONS AND RAMMING 
 
 Z 
 
 m 
 
 S<o< 
 
 Z w£ S 
 
 558 = 
 
 hose 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 .a, 1 
 l|i § 
 
 Ooc<oo 
 
 gZOgZ 
 >e£q| 
 
 Iftlll 
 
 E"J = 3<2 
 
 ililg 
 
 zz<&u 
 
 OFFICERS AND PILOTS WILL HAVE A 
 BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE 
 VESSEL'S MANEUVERING CAPABILITIES 
 AND LIMITATIONS AND WILL REDUCE 
 POTENTIAL SPILL-PRODUCING ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISIONS. RAMMINGS AND 
 GROUNDINGS 
 
 IMPROVES MANEUVERABILITY DUE TO 
 MOMENTUM GENERATED BY OPERATING 
 PROPELLERS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS 
 OR AT DIFFERENT ROTATION RATES 
 
 INCREASES TURNING RATES AND 
 REDUCES POTENTIAL SPILL ACCIDENTS 
 SUCH AS COLLISIONS AND RAMMINGS 
 
 o 
 
 - REDUCES SHIP'S STOPPING DISTANCE BY ARTIFICIALLY 
 INCREASING HULL RESISTANCE 
 
 o BRAKE FLAP SURFACES ARE EXTENDED FROM THE SHIP'S 
 HULL BY HYDRAULIC CONTROL (PLACED EITHER AT BOW 
 OR STERN) 
 
 o BASICALLY AIRCRAFT BRAKING PARACHUTES WHICH ARE 
 PLACED IN THE WATER OVER EACH SIDE OF THE SHIP 
 
 o DUCTS ARE LOCATED IN THE BOW OF THE SHIP AND CAUSE 
 A NET DRAG INCREASE ON VESSEL BY DIVERTING THE 
 MOMENTUM OF WATER PASSING THROUGH SYSTEM 
 
 si 
 
 §I> 
 Mi 
 
 ill 
 
 Sit 
 
 wqoo 
 
 EM 
 
 s|2 
 
 3</>< 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 1- 
 z 
 < 
 
 2 
 
 oc 
 
 o 
 oc 
 
 a. 
 Q 
 
 Z 
 < 
 > 
 
 z 
 z 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 E 
 Z 
 1- 
 
 5 
 
 00 
 
 XUI 
 tP 
 Sj 
 
 II 
 
 Q.O 
 
 >o 
 
 JZ 
 
 <s 
 p 
 
 8| 
 
 So 
 
 31 
 
 °^ 
 
 Sites 
 
 Q^ 
 
 >2E 
 
 Ouj k 
 EMU. 
 
 EDO 
 
 i 
 < 
 
 □ 
 
 < 
 
 go 
 
 32 
 
 <3 
 
 P 
 
 So. 
 
 i 
 
 {i 
 
 o> 
 
 II 
 Ei 
 
 IL< 
 
 t 
 
 < 
 
 EcO 
 
 11 
 
 155 
 
 5"- 
 
 i 
 
 > 
 
 M 
 
 ill 
 
 1 1 
 i I 
 
 £ -• 5 ° 
 
 > n 5 SI 
 
 S $ 2 g 
 
 5 m £ £ 
 
 3 o o o 
 < 
 
 Z 
 jj 
 
 1 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 < 
 
 00 
 
 E 
 < 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 E 
 K 
 
 O 
 
 g 
 
 i 
 
 oc 
 > 
 
 3 
 Z 
 < 
 
 S 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 E 
 0. 
 
 S 
 
 oc 
 
 M 
 
 z 
 
 ? 
 
 5-19 
 
z 
 o 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 AVOIDS SPILL POLLUTION INCIDENTS 
 BY REDUCING THE CONNING OFFICERS 
 WORKLOAD, ALLOWING MORE TIME 
 FOR DECISION MAKING, PARTICU- 
 LARLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE 
 DANGER OF SHIP COLLISION IS 
 IMMINENT. 
 
 a 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 !< 
 
 H z 
 
 o2 
 
 O |- 
 
 !| 
 
 1< • 
 
 <S| 
 
 ill 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 o«g2< 
 ° 2 > b 
 
 < ? m £ 
 
 DC % (3 CO 
 
 3§ 2 g 
 
 > < w < 
 OOajK 
 
 lS£2 
 
 a 
 *z < a 
 
 §"i 
 
 >Qz 
 
 sgg 
 
 o z , cc 
 
 _l z o 
 
 g i i 
 
 > O 5 <o 
 
 3 j S w 
 
 Ou« J 
 J<2c3 
 
 < 3 < o 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 1- 
 E 
 
 B 
 
 - COMPUTERIZED RADAR DATA PROCESSING AND PLOTTING 
 AID TO ASSIST IN CORRECTLY INTERPRETING RADAR DATA 
 TO AVOID COLLISIONS. 
 
 - AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRING TARGET SHIP ON RADAR, COM- 
 PUTING TARGET SHIP COURSE AND SPEED AND DETERMINING 
 CPA ALARMS SOUND IF TARGET SHIP PASSES TOO CLOSE TO 
 OWN SHIP. 
 
 - A RADIO DETECTION AND RANGING DEVICE THAT PROVIDES 
 AN INDICATION RELATIVE TO OWN SHIP OF THE POSITION OF 
 OTHER SURFACE VESSELS, OBSTRUCTIONS. BUOYS, SHORE- 
 LINES AND NAVIGATIONAL MARKS. 
 
 - DESIGNED TO SEE THROUGH POOR VISIBILITY CONDITIONS 
 (DARKNESS, FOG, SNOW, HAZE. ETC.) 
 
 - A SONAR SPEED DEVICE THAT TRANSMITS SOUND WAVES 
 DOWNWARD FROM THE HULL OF A SHIP INTO THE WATER 
 WHERE SOUND WAVES ARE REFLECTED BACK TO THE HULL 
 BY BOTTOM OR WATER MASS. 
 
 - SPEED ACCURACY 0.1 KNOT OR 1% OF SPEED, WHICHEVER 
 IS GREATER. 
 
 - A PULSED RADIO, HYPERBOLIC NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEM 
 THAT PROVIDES A SHIP'S POSITION FROM MEASUREMENTS 
 OF THE DIFFERENCES IN TIMES OF ARRIVAL OF RADIO 
 SIGNALS TRANSMITTED FROM PAIRS OF SHORE STATIONS 
 AT KNOWN LOCATIONS. 
 
 - LORAN C VESSEL POSITIONING IS ACCURATE TO WITHIN 
 % NAUTICAL MILE. 
 
 OC 
 D 
 < 
 
 Z 
 1 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 1 
 > 
 
 in 
 
 CO 
 
 I 
 < 
 
 Q 
 O 
 > 
 < 
 
 z 
 o 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 OC 
 
 < 
 
 OC 
 
 U 
 
 > 
 Q 
 
 a 
 
 OC 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 "I 
 
 to 
 § 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 2! 
 
 Q » {5 s 
 
 5 Hi 
 
 2 S|l| 
 
 5-20 
 
spills. The design improvements apply to tank vessels whereas the man- 
 euverability devices and equipment may be installed either on the tank 
 vessel or on other vessels which could collide with tank vessels and 
 cause a major spill . 
 
 5. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
 
 By international agreement through the United Nations a special 
 agency entitled Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization 
 (IMCO) was established to provide maritime regulations and issue vessel 
 construction requirements for the waterborne commerce of bulk liquid 
 commodities. IMCO oversees international merchant fleet vessel design 
 and operation for purposes of safety and pollution prevention. The 
 findings of this organization are voluntarily accepted by the United 
 States to guide in vessel regulations and construction. 
 
 The vessel standards and regulations administered by federal 
 agencies are equal to or more stringent than the general ship specifi- 
 cation standards developed by IMCO. The U.S. Congress in adopting the 
 Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 intended to complement and 
 implement IMCO findings through Coast Guard design, construction, and 
 equipment regulations. Under Title II of this act the U.S. Coast Guard 
 is authorized to develop new standards for vessels carrying polluting 
 substances (6). 
 
 The need for international agreement on measures curbing the growth 
 of pollution from ships is reflected in various conventions and standards 
 developed and adopted by IMCO. Some of the relevant codes and conventions 
 are discussed in the following paragraphs. 
 
 a. THE 1973 IMCO CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS (7) 
 
 The International Conference on Marine Pollution convened by the 
 IMCO in October 1973 achieved its main objective of concluding a new 
 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The 
 instrument contains provisions aimed at eliminating the intentional 
 pollution of the marine environment by harmful substances and minimizing 
 the accidental discharge of such substances. 
 
 5-21 
 
b. IMCO CODE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SHIPS CARRYING 
 DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN BULK (8) 
 
 This Code, developed by the IMCO Subcommittee on Ship Design and 
 Equipment of the Maritime Safety Committee, is based upon a philosophy 
 of relating cargo containment features of vessel design, construction, 
 and operation to the hazards of various chemicals covered by the Code. 
 The Code applies to bulk cargoes of dangerous chemical substances other 
 than petroleum or similar flammable products. 
 
 c. IMCO CODE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SHIPS CARRYING 
 LIQUEFIED GASES IN BULK (9) 
 
 The IMCO Liquefied Gas Code provides internationally agreed upon 
 standards on vessel design, construction, and operation for the safe 
 transportation of liquefied gases in bulk. The Code was prepared by the 
 IMCO Subcommittee on Ship Design and Equipment. The gas tanker code 1s 
 separate and distinct from the bulk chemical code, although it is similar 
 1n scope and format. The IMCO gas code standards are very comprehensive, 
 covering ship design, construction and, in a limited manner, ship opera- 
 tions. 
 
 6. NATIONAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 
 
 a. U.S. COAST GUARD REGULATORY AUTHORITY 
 
 The laws which give the Coast Guard the authority to develop regula- 
 tions relating to specific dangerous chemical cargoes are contained in: 
 
 The Dangerous Cargo Act (P.L. 78-809) 
 
 The Tanker Act (P.L. 74-765) 
 
 The Espionage Act (P.L. 83-777) 
 
 The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (P.L. 92-340) 
 
 5-22 
 
The Dangerous Cargo Act of 1940 authorizes the Coast Guard to reg- 
 ulate all waterborne bulk dangerous cargoes other than bulk flammable or 
 combustible liquids. Examples of bulk cargoes regulated under this act 
 are ammonia, chlorine, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and molten 
 phosphorus. 
 
 The Tanker Act of 1936 assigns responsbility to the Coast Guard for 
 regulating the bulk water transportation of flammable and combustible 
 liquids. As the name indicates, the Act applies particularly to tank 
 vessels. Unlike the Dangerous Cargo Act, bulk cargoes are primarily 
 petroleum products and are classified in the regulations on the basis of 
 flash point and Reid vapor pressure. 
 
 The Espionage Act of 1954 and Executive Order 10173 , as amended, as- 
 sign responsibilities for port security to the U.S. Coast Guard. Although 
 the name implies concern only with subversive activities of an enemy, the 
 scope of responsibility includes regulations of designated waterfront fa- 
 cilities which may jeopardize normal functioning of a U.S. port. In 
 accordance with this Act, the Coast Guard administers regulations covering: 
 (1) the handling of dangerous cargoes on waterfront facilities and onboard 
 vessels and (2) vessel movements, as necessary, to assure the safety of 
 ports, vessels and waterfront facilities. 
 
 The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 empowers the Coast Guard 
 to implement regulations and promote the safety of ports, harbors, water- 
 front areas and navigable waters of the United States. This Act has two 
 parts: Title I provides the Coast Guard with broad authority for con- 
 trolling vessels in the nation's ports, coastal waters and waterways, 
 for operating vessel traffic control systems, and for improving the 
 safety of the marine transportation system, as a way of preventing pollu- 
 tion; Title II directs the Coast Guard to develop new regulations and 
 establish standards for vessels carrying polluting substances and provides 
 for the establishment of comprehensive minimum standards of design, con- 
 struction and operation of vessels to protect the environment. These 
 standards will apply to all vessels documented under the laws of the 
 United States or for all vessels entering the navigable waters of the U.S. 
 
b. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATORY AUTHORITY 
 
 The regulation of the domestic waterborne commerce industry by 
 the Environmental Protection Agency is primarily through control stand- 
 ards issued for solid waste, sewage, air, and cargo discharges. The 
 primary legislative acts which authorized the EPA to promulgate the 
 regulations of the industry are: 
 
 Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217). 
 
 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 
 
 (P.L. 92-500) 
 
 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 
 
 (P.L. 92-532) 
 
 Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (P.L. 91-604). 
 
 Clean Water Act of 1977 . This Act, which amended the Federal 
 Water Pollution Control Act, extends U.S. national jurisdiction for 
 water pollution control to the ocean beyond the contiguous zone where 
 the fisheries and other natural resources of the U.S. may be adversely 
 affected. 
 
 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The most 
 significant national goals of these amendments relating to the marine 
 environment are: 
 
 the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the 
 U.S. be eliminated by 1985, 
 
 wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which 
 provides for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, 
 wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on water to be 
 achieved by 1983, 
 
 the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be pro- 
 hibited and 
 
 a major research and demonstration effort be made to develop 
 technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants 
 into the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and 
 the oceans. 
 
While the 1972 Amendments are directed primarily at water pollution 
 from land-based municipal and industrial sources, they do contain some 
 provisions which relate to vessels. In particular, the Amendments extend 
 the present provisions concerning liability for clean-up costs which 
 apply to oil under the Water Quality Improvement Act Amendments to hazard- 
 ous substances and create a new penalty for the discharge of hazardous 
 substances which cannot be cleaned up. This Act required EPA to promul- 
 gate standards of performance for marine sanitation devices to prevent 
 the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon 
 the navigable waters of the United States from vessels. The long range 
 standard is for no discharge of sewage from vessels into U.S. waters. 
 
 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 . This Act 
 requires a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency for all dumping 
 in U.S. waters and the contiguous zone and dumping of material transported 
 from the United States anywhere in the oceans. 
 
 The ocean dumping law prohibits disposal of radiological, chemical, 
 and biological warfare agents and any high-level radioactive wastes in the 
 ocean, and it provides for regulation of all other dumping through issuance 
 of permits by EPA. U.S. jurisdiction applies anywhere on the high seas to 
 dumping by Government vessels and to dumping of materials that have been 
 transported from U.S. ports. All vessels in U.S. territorial waters and 
 the contiguous zone are also subject to U.S. controls. The law calls for 
 a comprehensive research and monitoring program on the effects of ocean 
 dumping and authorizes the establishment of marine sanctuaries for recre- 
 ation, conservation and ecological purposes. 
 
 Clean Air Amendments of 1970 . The Clean Air Amendments of 1970 set 
 in motion a nationwide federal and state program to achieve acceptable 
 air quality. In essence, the Clean Air Act requires achievement of 
 national standards of ambient air quality to protect public health. 
 These standards are known as primary standards. Secondary standards 
 will be designed to protect aesthetics, property and vegetation. 
 
 5-25 
 
The Act requires that EPA implement regulations which will cover the 
 emissions of shore facility stack gases for various industry plants inclu- 
 ding those relating to steam generating plants. While these regulations 
 would apply to shipyard facilities, they would not apply to ships because 
 they are not fixed installations. The spirit of this act is carried by 
 the state statutes which, in some major port areas, do exercise control 
 of vessel stack and incinerator emissions. 
 
 c. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' REGULATORY AUTHORITY 
 
 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has had a long involvement with 
 developing and regulating domestic shipping principally within ports and 
 on the inland waterway system. Under the current federal regulations 
 (33 CFR Part 209), the Corps has regulatory authority over the discharge 
 of refuse into navigable waterways, and is charged with the responsibility 
 to ensure the preservation of the quality of the aquatic environment. 
 In response to the federal pollution abatement policies, the Corps of 
 Engineers personnel can be enlisted under 33 CFR 151 to enforce Coast 
 Guard regulations including swearing out warrants and making arrests. 
 
 d. STATE STATUTES 
 
 The control of pollutant waste streams from shipping is also 
 controlled by state statutes. All states have enacted water quality 
 measures to protect their waterways from sources of pollution. These 
 regulations are applicable to controls of shipborne waste systems and 
 discharges as a result of negligent cargo handling. Certain states which 
 have high air pollution levels have enacted standards for vessel stack 
 emissions. These requirements are primarily enforced to reduce sulphur 
 dioxide emissions in the non-attainment areas. The vessels engaged in 
 these areas would be controlled accordingly. 
 
 The individual states have always had the power to legislate pilotage 
 requirements within their waters. With this instrument the state retains 
 some direct control in the daily operations of the industry within its 
 waters. The states also have the power to exercise control so long as it 
 does not interfere with federal and international relationships. 
 
 5-26 
 
Operations within the Great Lakes are governed by the Great Lakes 
 Water Quality Agreement of 1972. This agreement consists of a number of 
 annexes, several of which discuss the control of vessel design, construc- 
 tion, operation and the control of vessel wastes. Operation of vessels 
 on the Great Lakes come under the pollution abatement articles of 
 this agreement. 
 
 B. MARINE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 
 
 The creation of a safer navigation environment through federal 
 assistance and control to the shipping industry is a major mitigative 
 action to prevent groundings and collisions, and their resultant oil and 
 chemical spills. The U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Commerce, and 
 the U.S. Corps of Engineers all provide on a daily basis marine and in- 
 land waterway transportation services. 
 
 1. U.S. COAST GUARD 
 
 The U.S. Coast Guard is the principal federal agency for providing 
 the required assistance. Their assistance can be divided into categories 
 as: navigational aid systems, communication systems, vessel traffic 
 systems, and cargo information. 
 
 a. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS 
 
 Techniques developed and employed for the industry include: improved 
 aids to navigation (buoys, ranges, structures), radar systems, satellite 
 navigation systems and the Loran navigation systems. These systems are 
 being continuously upgraded to provide faster and more accurate vessel 
 positioning capabilities. 
 
 b. COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 
 
 With the enactment of the Bridge to Bridge Radiotelephone Act of 1971, 
 all vessels operating in navigable waters of the U.S. are required to have 
 bridge to bridge communication systems. The Coast Guard is charged with 
 the responsibility of enforcing this act. 
 
 5-27 
 
c. VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICE (VTS) 
 
 One area of marine operations with clear implications for vessel 
 safety and environmental protection is a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS). 
 The Coast Guard defines VTS as: "an integrated system encompassing the 
 variety of technologies, equipment and people employed to coordinate 
 vessel movements in or approaching a port or waterway." 
 
 The Ports and Waterways Safety Act enacted by Congress on July 10, 
 1972, authorized the Coast Guard to: "(1) establish, operate and maintain 
 vessel traffic services and systems for ports, harbors, and other waters 
 subject to congested vessel traffic; (2) require vessels to carry or in- 
 stall electronic or other devices necessary in the traffic system; and 
 (3) control vessel traffic, when conditions are hazardous or congested, 
 by specifying times of vessel movements, establishing routing schemes, 
 establishing vessel size and speed limitations, and restricting vessel 
 operations to those vessels with particular operating capabilities." 
 
 Both historical casualty data and the future outlook for waterborne 
 commerce indicate a need for improved marine traffic safety. 
 
 The objectives of Vessel Traffic Service are to reduce the probability 
 of vessel collisions, rammings and groundings while facilitating the 
 orderly movement of vessels within or through navigable waters. Vessel 
 Traffic Service can make significant contributions to this objective. 
 
 A U.S. Coast Guard study (10) of 22 major U.S. ports and waterways 
 concluded that some types of casualties could be avoided by the imple- 
 mentation of Vessel Traffic Service (VTS). Each area was evaluated on 
 the basis of economic losses, pollution incidents, and deaths and injur- 
 ies resulting from vessel casualties, and the effectiveness of various 
 levels of VTS in reducing those losses. Those areas studied are listed 
 in Table V-4 in descending order beginning with the ports and waterways 
 most in need of VTS. For each location, an estimate has been made of the 
 effectiveness of the recommended level of VTS in reducing casualties. 
 The levels of VTS referred to in Table V-4 are as follows: 
 
 5-28 
 
§2 
 
 3-" 
 Qco 
 
 UJK 
 
 UJZ 
 
 cm co o <tr(M in co en r» o . *. . N , , ,,.,,, 
 in rt co Sm i- <o t «- <o 1 1 1 «- 1 1 llllll 
 
 2" 
 
 Is 
 
 li 
 <e 
 
 z< 
 
 assss fc b *" "* '? i s i i '"■ ' 'i ' -i iiiiii 
 
 z 
 J2 
 
 COUII- 
 >U|UI 
 
 3" - r r if i" j" 
 
 O -f N OO DC « M M cm OC O O cm O O OOOOOO 
 
 1 
 
 01 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 6 
 
 z 
 
 UJZ 
 
 £S 
 
 CM i- (M «-^- <0 «0 i- CM CO (O 00 O CO CO CM CJ 00 M * C* CO 
 
 r» t- r» coco cm i- r«« i- to «- cm cm n «- in i- 
 
 (A 
 
 OCUI 
 
 < 
 
 «-«»en oo> oo o is « en oo r» *■ co ^ in 5 2 to K ° 2 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 otvm co <o co i- in i- r«. oo r» oo cm »- »» to o> o e> o in 
 n n <f «» «- co « u n co in o o <» in <» cm cm co cm co •- 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 octree 
 OOtu 
 
 NEWYORK 
 
 NEW ORLEANS 
 
 H OUSTON/G A LV ESTO N 
 
 SABINE - NECHES 
 (ICW 265 -290) 
 
 CHESAPEAKE BAY 
 
 ICW 80 - 99 
 
 (MORGAN CITY) 
 
 ICW 107 - 129 
 
 (COTE BLANCHE) 
 
 BATON ROUGE 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 ICW 50 - 60 
 (HANNA) 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 DELAWARE RIVER & BAY 
 
 TAMPA 
 
 PUGET SOUND 
 
 MOBILE 
 
 DETROIT RIVER 
 
 ICW 155 -179 
 
 VERMILLION RIVER 
 
 ST. LOUIS 
 
 LONG ISLAND SOUND 
 
 LA/LB 
 
 CORPUS CHRISTI 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 {el 
 
 ill 
 
 £• E 
 
 S ° o 
 
 e si 
 
 II? 
 
 5-29 
 
L - Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radio Telephone. 
 
 L R - Regulations - for example, regulations establishing a 
 
 relationship between tow boat characteristics and size of tow. 
 L 1 - Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). 
 I_ 2 - Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS). A system where vessels 
 
 relay navigational information to a shore-based control center. 
 Lo - Basic Surveillance - shore-based radar for observing vessel 
 
 positions and movements. 
 
 4'_ Advanced Surveillance and Automated Advanced Surveillance - 
 5 Collision avoidance radar and computer-interfaced components. 
 
 VTS appears most effective in reducing collision casualties and least 
 effective in rammings. VTS would not prevent casualties directly result- 
 ing from mechanical failures, groundings and rammings due to winds or cur- 
 rents, collisions caused by pleasure craft, and rammings at piers and 
 docks. 
 
 The Coast Guard is now operating major advanced Vessel Traffic Services 
 (l_ 3 , l_ 4 , and L 5 ) in Puget Sound, San Francisco and the Houston-Galveston 
 area. The Puget Sound VTS is a mandatory system and the San Francisco 
 and Houston-Galveston VTS systems are voluntary at this time. Vessel 
 Traffic Services are underway for the Lower Mississippi River (New Orleans) 
 and for the New York areas. 
 
 d. CARGO INFORMATION 
 
 When shipment of a dangerous chemical cargo is planned, the shipper 
 or carrier may contact the U.S. Coast Guard for assistance regarding rules 
 and regulations. For chemical cargoes not covered in the regulations, the 
 appropriate Coast Guard office will provide the criteria or information 
 upon which approval is based. The personnel in the Cargo and Hazardous 
 Materials Division at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C. review 
 proposed shipments and provide information on approvals. 
 
 b-30 
 
2. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 
 MARINE TRANSPORTATION (NOAA) 
 
 NOAA primarily aids the marine shipping industry by publishing the 
 most up to date navigational charts, notes and tables for all navigable 
 waterways within the U.S. This agency also informs vessels of current 
 weather conditions and issues weather warnings as required. These two 
 activities help to promote a safer navigational environment and thus re- 
 duce environmental risks. 
 
 3. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
 
 The Corps of Engineers is the principal agency for developing and 
 maintaining safe waterways from the civil engineering viewpoint. The 
 Corps provides all the channel straightening, bend easing, and channel 
 dredging required to maintain the navigable waterways in a safe condition. 
 The Corps has permit power on all construction along the nation's navig- 
 able inland waterways and along the coastal shelf. By regulating the 
 development, the Corps can ensure that safe navigation in the waterways 
 is promoted and maintained. 
 
 C. INSPECTION AND MONITORING 
 
 Inspection and monitoring of the waterborne commerce operations for 
 safety and pollution abatement by federal agencies constitutes a meaning- 
 ful program for the mitigation of environmental damage. The primary re- 
 sponsibility for Inspection and monitoring of the maritime industry is with 
 the U.S. Coast Guard. In response to this responsibility the Coast Guard 
 operates a multi faceted program of shore, shipboard, airborne, and remote 
 sensing surveillance systems. Inspection and monitoring of the oil 
 transfer operation between ship and terminals is a major program in the 
 Coast Guard harbor patrol function. Under these inspection systems both 
 the facilities and management of the transfer action are monitored to 
 ensure safe transfers. Included in this program is the periodic annual 
 or biannual physical inspection of the vessel. Since July 1, 1974, U.S. 
 
 5-31 
 
inspected vessels have been required to comply with the Pollution Prevention 
 Regulations as a condition of certification. Without a valid certificate, 
 the vessel may not continue in commercial service. 
 
 The Captain of the Port (COTP) or Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 
 (OCMI) may order oil transfer operations suspended when he finds there is 
 a condition requiring immediate action to prevent the discharge of oil. 
 The Coast Guard regulations require each tanker crew to maintain an Oil 
 Record Book. Vessels engaged in domestic trade must enter any information 
 regarding ballasting, deballasting or cleaning of the cargo tanks, dis- 
 posal of oily residue from the slop tanks or from other sources and any 
 accidental or exceptional discharges of oil. Through the periodic inspec- 
 tion of the book, management problem areas and possible sources of pollu- 
 ton incidents can be determined. 
 
 Pollution monitoring is a continuous function within the Coast Guard. 
 Under this program, harbor, channel and oceanic surveillance is conducted 
 to detect spills and monitor general vessel operations. This program 
 also permits the Coast Guard to board vessels from which sources of pol- 
 lution are suspected to occur. The routine inspection of the waterways 
 and vessel traffic are positive programs to control unsafe operations 
 which could lead to polluting incidents. 
 
 In response to the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
 Act of 1972 the Coast Guard expanded its pollution surveillance program 
 to incorporate: airborne remote sensing over wide areas which have high 
 levels of pollution incidents; remote local area surveillance within ports 
 and estuaries and near shore areas; and spill source identification. 
 
 The Coast Guard has developed a sensor system called Airborne Oil 
 Surveillance System (AOSS II), which can detect illegal discharges of 
 oil and provide documentation for enforcement action. The system employs 
 a combination of current state-of-the-art sensors which are integrated 
 to provide day/night surveillance capabilities, effective in all but 
 extreme weather conditions. Although it is still considered a prototype, 
 AOSS II has proven itself to be a capable tool for detecting and mapping 
 
 5-32 
 
oil spills. In the fall of 1978, the Coast Guard contracted for its 
 first production sensor system, called Airborne Remote Identification 
 System (ARI), to be installed aboard six new medium-range surveillance 
 aircraft. 
 
 The Coast Guard has also been developing prototype oil-in-water 
 sensors capable of continuous automatic monitoring of local, high risk 
 spill areas in harbors, rivers and deepwater sites. These sensors are 
 of two types: buoy mounted and fixed (to stationary objects). Telemetry- 
 generated data is transmitted to receiver units in local Captain of the 
 Port (COTP) or Marine Safety Offices using current telephone circuitry. 
 
 A scientific technique has been developed by the Coast Guard to 
 identify the source of an oil spill in a waterway. This system utilizes 
 fluoresence spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, thin-layer chromatography, 
 and gas chromatography, and is capable of providing a correct match or 
 mismatch in 99.99% of all comparisons. A number of mini labs located at 
 COTP units aid in identifying oil spills by utilizing fluorescence 
 spectroscopy and thin-layer chromatography. 
 
 The overall inspection and monitoring program demonstrates the 
 emphasis the federal government is placing on eliminating spills and 
 prosecuting the responsible parties. 
 
 D. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION STANDARDS AND TRAINING 
 
 An alternative approach to reducing marine pollution from waterborne 
 commerce is to improve the training of tanker, barge and terminal personnel 
 and to improve testing and certification procedures to insure that such 
 personnel have the necessary skills. The importance of adequately trained 
 personnel in marine transportation systems is graphically demonstrated in 
 accident statistics. U.S. Coast Guard studies have indicated that 80 to 
 85 percent of the casualties were related to personnel errors. 
 
 Personnel error has constantly been a major contributor to the level 
 of pollution in the environment. Higher personnel standards augment the 
 pollution-abatement effect of improved hardware since higher levels of 
 
 5-33 
 
technology will require improvement in the knowledge and capabilities of 
 operating personnel both in the vessel's crew and at the terminal. While 
 the degree of mitigation attributed to training cannot be quantified, it 
 would follow that as personnel training programs, examination, and 
 certification procedures become more rigorous, there should be a major 
 reduction in pollution incidents. The U.S. laws and regulations affect- 
 ing U.S. flag ships are both more stringent and far more enforceable in 
 matters of safety of personnel, property, and environment than Inter- 
 national conventions or treaties. 
 
 Both industry and the federal government have cooperated in training 
 programs to upgrade personnel competence. The Coast Guard, MarAd and 
 Environmental Protection Agency all have current educational and training 
 programs related to marine pollution abatement. Formal training programs 
 for merchant marine personnel are offered in a variety of facilities both 
 public and private. The major installations are the U.S. Merchant Marine 
 Academy operated by MarAd, six State Maritime Academies and Colleges, the 
 three Regional Training Centers operated by MarAd, and the several industry 
 training centers operated under joint trusteeship of particular maritime 
 unions and steamship company groups. All of these installations are in 
 close contact with the U.S. Coast Guard and MarAd with particular concern 
 for updating curriculum content in keeping with new skill and knowledge 
 needs, whether enforced by regulation or not. 
 
 The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, operated as a fully accredited 
 college by MarAd for the education and training of new Engineering and 
 Deck Officers, offers an environmental pollution control course consisting 
 of two ten-week sessions. 
 
 The Maritime Institute of Graduate Studies located at Lithicam, 
 Maryland offers a refresher training course to Merchant Marine Officers 
 including simulated radar exercises and cargo handling and engine room 
 control from a centralized control panel. 
 
 Shiphandling simulators are located at the U.S. Merchant Marine 
 Academy, Kings Point, New York (sponsored by MarAd) and at Marine Safety 
 
International, Inc., LaGuardia Airport, New York, New York (an industry 
 school). The shiphandling simulators are a mock-up of a life-size ship's 
 bridge surrounded by a projection screen. Projected on the screen are 
 images of a ship entering specific ports or harbors enroute to a particular 
 terminal site. The operating characteristics of the vessel are repro- 
 duced in the simulator. Control changes made by the ship's officers on 
 the mock-up bridge will produce changes in the projected image on the 
 screen. The simulator is programmed to vary weather conditions, time of 
 day, depth of water, pecularities of channels and traffic patterns. 
 
 MarAd's National Maritime Research Center at the U.S. Merchant Marine 
 Academy has cooperated with the U.S. Coast Guard in a major revision of 
 the Tankerman Manual, a U.S. Coast Guard publication specifically designed 
 to cover the field of knowledge for the special skills required on board 
 tank vessels. The basic requirements for these skills are specified in: 
 Rules and Regulations for Licensing and Certification of Merchant Marine 
 Personnel . 
 
 The Tankerman Manual covers new technologies, new operational pro- 
 cedures, and pollution control in keeping with the intent of the laws and 
 regulations. The Manual constitutes a basic reference work in the field, 
 has direct use as a course text in formal training programs for seafarers 
 endeavoring to acquire a "Tankerman" rating, and is the source for devel- 
 opment of examination questions for issue of the rating document. 
 
 With specific reference to environmental protection courses designed 
 for seafarers and terminal personnel, regardless of ship type, MarAd 
 issued on October 21, 1975 its Curriculum on Marine Pollution Abatement 
 and has prepared a pollution abatement manual which is available to all 
 existing maritime training facilities. 
 
 In MarAd's Regional Offices, ongoing short courses are offered to 
 active merchant mariners in collision avoidance radar, Long Range Radio 
 Navigation (LORAN), firefighting and damage control. Since July 1, 1971, 
 the U.S. Coast Guard has required that all licensed deck officers satis- 
 factorily demonstrate their capabilities as qualified Radar Observers 
 
 5-35 
 
every five years in order to continue sailing on their licenses. New 
 Coast Guard regulations pertaining to licensing of merchant marine 
 officers and seamen include questions in the area of environmental pol- 
 lution and related laws, regulations and procedures to prevent pollution. 
 The U.S. Coast Guard examinations achieve some measure of assurance that 
 merchant mariners possess the basic knowledge necessary to minimize or 
 avert environmental damage. Failure to satisfactorily answer these 
 pollution abatement questions can lead to non-issue or non-renewal of the 
 mariner's document. Pollution incidents found to be caused by personnel 
 fault can lead to action by the U.S. Coast Guard in suspension or revo- 
 cation of license documents. 
 
 In addition to seaman training, extensive nationwide training programs 
 have been initiated in oil and chemical spill control and cleanup. These 
 training sessions are generally coordinated with federal, state and indus- 
 try personnel to familiarize cleanup crews with the techniques to be 
 employed in spill prevention, control and cleanup. These programs 
 provide immediate mitigative control to reduce environmental degradation 
 from oil or chemical releases. 
 
 E. SPILL CONTROL AND CLEANUP 
 
 The single most important mitigative measure for the control and 
 cleanup of polluting spills is the formulation of the National Contin- 
 gency Plan (NCP). This plan was developed in response to the 1970, 
 1972, and 1977 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments which 
 recognized spills were inevitable and a National Contingency plan was 
 essential for environmental protection. All of the agencies respon- 
 sible for terminal activities, ports, and inland, coastal and Great 
 Lakes waterways have established local plans. To enact the policies of 
 the 1970 Act, the federal government established national and regional 
 response teams to direct and coordinate pollution control efforts. The 
 Coast Guard has the federal responsibility to control spills from the 
 waterborne shipping industry on the high seas, coastal and contiguous 
 zone waters, the Great Lakes, ports, and harbors. For spills within 
 these defined areas the Coast Guard provides an On-Scene Coordinator who 
 
 5-36 
 
supervises the implementation of the specific contingency plan. The 
 Coast Guard has developed quick response teams which can be rapidly 
 deployed by air to the spill scene. 
 
 The Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard have developed 
 a wide spectrum of equipment for spill control and cleanup and for envi- 
 ronmental restoration. Such equipment includes: oil water separation, 
 tanker pump out and containment equipment, oil barriers, oil absorbents, 
 dispersants, beach cleanup equipment, and other oil control measures. 
 
 Within certain larger port and terminal areas oil spill cleanup 
 associations have been formed by the waterway users. These organizations 
 have assembled more equipment than an individual waterborne user could 
 employ, and also have the necessary manpower to quickly respond to major 
 spills and incidents. 
 
 An action plan for federal, state, and local authorities for oil 
 spill control and cleanup was developed by the Council on Environmental 
 Quality (the "National Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency 
 Plan") in August 1971 and amended in 1975. Mechanisms were established 
 for coordinating the response to a spill of oil (or other hazardous 
 material) among interested government agencies. The following three 
 classes of spill volumes were established for offshore waters: 
 
 Minor - less than 1,000 gallons 
 Moderate - 1,000 to 100,000 gallons 
 Major - more than 100,000 gallons 
 
 In the plan, the U.S. Coast Guard was given responsibility for 
 developing regional plans and required to furnish the On-Scene Coordi- 
 nator who is the sole responsible agent to coordinate and direct the 
 spill control activities in the coastal waters. The Coast Guard assigns 
 pre-designated On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) for each coastal region. 
 Each 0SC is responsible for the development of detailed local contingency 
 plans to identify potential problem areas and the available federal, 
 state, local, and commercial pollution control resources. The 0SC estab- 
 lishes a means for rapid and effective responses so as to avoid or mini- 
 
 5-37 
 
mize damage to the environment from pollution incidents which occur 
 within his region. Local contingency plans are further supported through 
 regional contingency plans which contain the means for rapid acquisition 
 of expertise and equipment from other governmental agencies when needed. 
 
 The On-Scene Coordinator for an area is notified whenever a discharge 
 occurs in his region. He evaluates the situation and initiates further 
 federal response efforts as appropriate. It is the policy of the federal 
 government to encourage the party responsible for the discharge to under- 
 take appropriate removal actions. These actions are continually monitored 
 by the OSC. If the responsible party fails at anytime to undertake 
 proper removal actions, or the identity of the responsible party is un- 
 known, the OSC will act to take the steps necessary to remove the pollut- 
 ant. When federal actions become necessary commercial cleanup contrac- 
 tors are utilized whenever possible. Coast Guard Strike Team person- 
 nel participate in cleanup efforts when contractors are unavailable or 
 do not possess the necessary equipment or expertise. State pollution 
 response capabilities exist in some regions of the country and these 
 resources may also be utilized by OSC s during federal cleanup operations. 
 Personnel having specific expertise in the various areas that are involved 
 in the overall decision making process, such as bird cleaning, sensi- 
 tivity of an estuary, etc., are made available to the OSC for his use 
 in an advisory capacity. Such advisors originate from the National 
 Strike Force, Regional Response Teams consisting of federal, state, and 
 local agency representatives. 
 
 The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with providing OSCs 
 to respond to pollution incidents which occur on the inland waters of 
 the United States. Likewise, EPA has the responsibility for issuing 
 regulations to prevent pollution from non-transportation related 
 facilities. Thus, the two agencies work closely with each other and 
 have complementing programs in the areas of prevention and response 
 which, when combined, cover all of the navigable waters of the 
 United States. 
 
 5-38 
 
1. OIL SPILL CONTROL AND CLEANUP (11, 12, 13, 14) 
 
 Control and cleanup procedures following a tank vessel oil spill 
 are an essential part of mitigating the effects of environmental damage. 
 The Coast Guard has conducted a number of research and development pro- 
 jects to Improve the state-of-the-art in containment, recovery and clean- 
 up of oil spills. 
 
 Advanced equipment developed by the Coast Guard thus far for use 
 in coping with pollution incidents resulting from vessel accidents 
 includes an air deliverable, high capacity pumping system for pumping 
 oil or oil-water mixtures from damaged tankers, a rough water oil con- 
 tainment system, and a rough water recovery skimming system. These con- 
 tainment and recovery systems will function effectively in 5 foot seas, 
 20 knot winds, and 1-1/2 knot currents. There are several containment 
 barriers, pumping systems, and oil recovery systems in the Coast Guard 
 Strike Team inventory. Any or all of this equipment can be fully deployed 
 within 24 hours of notification. Although this first generation rough 
 seas equipment represents a significant capability and the best that 
 exists in the world today, when on-scene conditions exceed their design 
 limits as occurred in the ARGO MERCHANT incident, where the winds were 
 at times in excess of 50 knots and the seas approached 20 feet, this 
 equipment is virtually useless. Research is continuing to increase this 
 capability, but it is recognized there are practical limits for contain- 
 ment and recovery of oil. 
 
 The Coast Guard has also developed a high speed surface delivery 
 system. This device will be utilized for transporting equipment from a 
 staging site to the scene of an incident. The system is a planed hull 
 sled designed to be towed by helicopter or ship. Other areas which the 
 Coast Guard is presently investigating include the identification of 
 special requirements for response for operations in cold weather (arctic) 
 environments and a fast current oil recovery device that will be able 
 to remove oil from areas with currents as strong as 10 knots. 
 
 5-39 
 
The following describes the technology developed by private industry 
 for control and cleanup of oil spills on water. 
 
 a. OIL RETENTION BARRIERS 
 
 There are many devices (booms) for floating oil containment. Almost 
 all booms have severe limitations regarding wave heights and currents in 
 which they can retain 100 percent of the spilled oil. Short, choppy 
 waves are usually most troublesome because most barriers cannot readily 
 follow these waves. Oil can flow out underneath or slosh over the top. 
 Strong currents also entrain oil droplets near the front of the contained 
 slick; those droplets can pass beneath the barrier. This type of con- 
 tainment system, however, does allow the oil removal system to be an 
 integral part of the overall port design, which is a definite advantage 
 over other containment concepts. Such systems can be placed around the 
 ship after docking and removed before sailing. 
 
 Another concept in oil retention barriers is a device called a 
 pneumatic barrier in which a continuous upward flow of air bubbles from 
 a submerged manifold creates an upward current. At the surface the 
 bubbles dissipate, upward water momentum is deflected and causes surface 
 currents which can be used to oppose the potential spreading energy of 
 oil at a given depth. When equilibrium is established the floating oil 
 is essentially contained by the bubble generated currents. Breaking 
 waves and strong natural currents require large amounts of power to 
 create bubble generated water currents at the surface capable of contain- 
 ing the oil. Under these conditions some oil continuously drains over 
 the top as small droplets, or is swept through. 
 
 The primary advantage of the pneumatic system is its permanent 
 installation below the water where ships can pass over or through it so 
 that handling of containment booms is not necessary for each vessel 
 movement. However, separate pickup and removal equipment must be avail- 
 able to move into and extract the contained oil. 
 
b. SKIMMING DEVICES 
 
 There are other methods of controlling and collecting spilled oil. 
 Skimming devices scrape oil off the water surface or force it along 
 rotating elements (plates, disk, belts, etc.) from which it can be 
 recovered. Vortex generating devices to separate oil and water have 
 been developed. Magnetic liquids can be added to the oil, and recovery 
 by magnetic pick-up devices is then possible. One of the most promising 
 of all these collection devices for use in offshore terminal harbors 
 appears to be a skimmer boat using an inclined plane. As the collectior 
 boat moves through the water, oil (and water-in-oil emulsions) is forcec 
 along the moving plane until it reaches the collection well from which 
 it is pumped to an auxiliary collection tank. 
 
 c. TREATING AGENTS 
 
 A variety of treating agents have been used in the field. These 
 include: 
 
 Sorbents that absorb oil to form a floating mass for later 
 collection and removal. 
 
 Sinking agents (such as sand) create a compound or mixture 
 dense enough to sink. 
 
 Burning agents are chemicals or other materials which assist 
 ignition or enhance combustion of spilled oil. 
 Dispersants are chemicals forming oil-in-water suspension. 
 Biodegradants are substances that promote oxidization of oil 
 by bacterial action. 
 
 Gelling agents are chemicals that form semi -sol id oil agglom- 
 erates which facilitate removal. 
 
 Herding agents are chemicals that concentrate the spilled 
 oil in a small area. 
 
 5-41 
 
(1) Sorbents. Any material that absorbs oil and floats for later 
 pickup and disposal (or oil removal and reuse) can be considered to be 
 a sorbent. In laboratory experiments polyurethane foams showed the 
 highest oil sorption capacity, while inorganic sorbents have the least. 
 Detergents and other surface contaminants interfered with their 
 effectiveness. Five basic operations are required to achieve oil removal 
 by sorbents; these are: 
 
 Sorbent broadcasting. 
 Oil-sorbent harvesting. 
 Oil -sorbent separation. 
 Oil storage or disposal, 
 Sorbent reuse or disposal. 
 
 The main advantage of sorbents is that they are not affected by sea 
 conditions. In fact, better results are achieved in the presence of 
 waves to provide mixing energy. Lacking a mechanical retrieval system, 
 manual labor must be used, which is a major disadvantage. In addition 
 retrieved sorbents contribute to solid waste or air pollution problems. 
 A surface active chemical ("herder") to prevent spreading can be used 
 with polyurethane foam as a sorbent under favorable sea (4 to 6 foot 
 wave) conditions. Preliminary tests indicate that the system is a 
 feasible technique for controlling and recovering oil spills on the ocean 
 over a broad spectrum of weather conditions. 
 
 (2) Sinking Agents . Dense materials such as sand can he used to form 
 a compound or oil -sol id mixture dense enough to sink to the bottom. Of 
 concern obviously is what happens to bottom dwelling organisms when 
 covered by the sunken oil-sand mixtures. The available data does not 
 permit an adequate assessment of these effects. However, it can perhaps 
 be assumed that any sessile epifauna (organisms living on the surface 
 that do not move) in the area affected will be killed. Some infaunal 
 (living in the sediments) organisms may be able to reestablish a connec- 
 tion to the sediment water interface and will not be killed by a lack of 
 oxygen. However, they will likely suffer from the toxic effects of the 
 oil. 
 
 5-42 
 
In general, sand-water slurries which contain a cationic wetting 
 agent to render the solid surface oil wettable in the presence of water 
 can cause sinking provided the wetting agent concentration is large 
 enough to produce oleophilic (oil-wetted) sand surfaces. To prevent the 
 formation of continuous carpets of the sunken oil -sand conglomerate on 
 the bottom, a dispersant chemical can be sprayed on the floating oil 
 film before the sand-wetting agent is applied. 
 
 The "National Contingency Plan" provides guidelines for the use of 
 sinking agents. The Plan is presented in Title 40 of the Code of Fed- 
 eral Regulations, Part 1510.1, Annex X. Paragraph 2007.1-1 of the Plan 
 states that sinking agents shall not be applied to discharges of oil 
 or hazardous substances on the navigable waters of the United States 
 and the contiguous zone. 
 
 (3) Burning Agents . Burning agents are materials or chemicals 
 which aid burning of oil on water. It appears that there is little 
 toxicity to marine organisms since the burning agents employed were 
 either inert or non-toxic. No evidence is available to permit evalu- 
 ations of the effects of burning on marine life beneath the spill area. 
 Improved combustion would also reduce the smoke plumes by consuming more 
 of the polluting exhausts. Field investigations have uncovered problems 
 with wind and wave action which separated the slick in smaller pools 
 which did not ignite and burn. Barrier containment to provide continuous 
 burning is a possible solution. 
 
 (4) Dispersants . Dlspersants are chemical agents or compounds 
 
 which emulsify, disperse, or solubilize oil into the water column or act 
 to further the surface spreading of oil slicks in order to promote dis- 
 persal of oil into the water column. Toxicity and secondary effects of 
 dispersal agents to marine life has been the object of considerable 
 research. 
 
 In a circulating aquarium system, the toxicity of two types of 
 non-ionic, oil -dispersing agents was tested on common marine species: 
 an edible mussel, winter flounder, soft shell clam, mummichog, Atlantic 
 silversides, and fourth stage lobster larvae. The wery short-term life 
 period (24 hours) suggested that the high toxicity was due to the 
 
 5-43 
 
relatively volatile solvent fraction of the oil dispersant. The toxicity 
 of both dispersants to marine plankton was also investigated at a concentra- 
 tion of 30 ppm (dispersant). Before adding the dispersants, all organisms 
 were alive and vigorous. Twenty-four hours later, 90 percent were dead or 
 moribund. Field studies of the effects of dispersants have also docu- 
 mented their toxicity to a variety of marine organisms. Some recently 
 developed dispersants, however, have toxicities less than oil. 
 
 Because of the above-mentioned problems concerning the use of dis- 
 persants 1n controlling oil spills, rigorous restrictions and guidelines 
 were established in the National Contingency Plan. For example, when 
 there are major and medium discharges, dispersing agents may be used in 
 quantities designated by the OSC when their use will: 
 
 (1) in the judgment of the OSC, prevent or substantially reduce 
 hazard to human life or Hmb or substantially reduce explosion 
 or fire hazard to property; 
 
 (2) in the judgment of the EPA regional response team (RRT), 
 prevent or reduce substantial hazard to a major segment 
 of vulnerable waterfowl species populations; or result in 
 the least overall environmental damage, or result in the 
 least interference with designated water uses. 
 
 The appropriate state or federal agencies would be consulted on 
 these matters on a case-by-case basis. 
 
 In addition, there are special provisions for minor discharges and 
 special restrictions for chemical dispersing agents. Details of these 
 restrictions and guidelines are outlined in Title 40 of the Code of 
 Federal Regulations, Part 1510, Annex X, Paragraph 2003. 
 
 d. TYPE OF LOCATION AND CONTROL OF OIL SPILLS 
 
 Control of accidental oil spills is considered in three subgroups 
 depending on the location of the spill: (1) in port or harbor; (2) at 
 sea; or (3) near shore and coastal inlets. 
 
(1 ) Containment and Cleanup in Port and Harbor . Because of the 
 chronic and continuing nature of small spills from routine operations in 
 harbor areas, it is anticipated that containment equipment will be in 
 place surrounding the site of normal loading or unloading. In that way, 
 immediate containment and removal could take place should oil be spilled. 
 
 Control of oil spills at a terminal or port can be greatly facili- 
 tated by proper terminal design. Consideration must be given to this 
 factor in site selection and design facilities. A properly planned fa- 
 cility could trap spilled oil from tankers or could allow slips to be 
 sealed off during transfer. Breakwaters protecting ports can make 
 floating containment barriers surrounding ships function more effectively 
 by reducing wave conditions. Strong currents could also be reduced by 
 proper port design and such designs improved by using a hydraulic model 
 test. 
 
 Using known containment and cleanup techniques, it appears that 
 control of small oil spills from ships in a harbor can be effective and 
 is a relatively minor problem if dock site selection and design incor- 
 porates environmental considerations for proper functioning of existing 
 oil spill containment and removal devices. If the containment or oil 
 removal devices are ineffective, oil can spread in the harbor or terminal 
 area to enter various ecological systems with the harmful effects as 
 previously described. 
 
 (2) Containment at Sea . A cost effectiveness analysis (8) was made 
 of equipment, materials and techniques applicable to removal or disper- 
 sal of oil on open waters. Parameters included oil types, spill loca- 
 tions (3 and 12 miles from shore) and spill sizes (2,700; 270,000; and 
 6,750,000 gallons). Evaluation criteria included: completeness of oil 
 removal; removal rate; hazard and pollution; use in small areas; environ- 
 mental sensitivity; temperature extremes; toxicity to marine life; and 
 system availability. 
 
 The most practical universal system for cleaning up massive spills 
 with a favorable cost effectiveness ratio was found to be dispersing. 
 The next most practical system was that of containment and dispersing. 
 
 5-45 
 
For spills up to 270,000 gallons, it was concluded that there would be no 
 significant toxic or other deleterious effect on offshore fishing. However, 
 for the massive 6,750,000 gallon spill, large amounts of dispersants would 
 be required and the probability of exceeding a 5 ppm limit on dispersant 
 concentration would be great. Finally, burning agents were judged to be 
 the third best system based on favorable costs but limited applicability 
 to oil types and allowable environmental conditions. 
 
 Although it is recognized that containment and recovery of spilled 
 oil at sea is highly desirable, no system is now available that can handle 
 the possible range of oil spill sizes or cope with waves above six to 
 eight feet and currents greater than a knot. Such conditions are commonly 
 experienced at sea. 
 
 One attractive possibility is combining a containment device as 
 part of a larger system. The complete system would consist of the barrier; 
 a removal system within the barrier to remove oil as it accumulates; a 
 separation device; and finally a storage and disposal system for the col- 
 lected oil. Such a system is not yet available. 
 
 In summary: 
 
 Presently available containment barriers (booms) are ineffective 
 in currents greater than 1 knot and waves 6-8 feet; 
 
 Large removal devices have yet to be systematically developed 
 and evaluated for optimum efficient designs; and 
 
 Dispersants, although economic and effective in heavy seas, 
 are still toxic and their use must be restricted. 
 
 Because a capability is not available today, one must conclude that 
 a spill of 30,000 tons or larger could not be contained effectively in 
 the open or coastal ocean waters. 
 
 (3) Containment Near Shore and Coastal Inlets. Bays, lagoons, 
 and many estuarine areas along much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast are 
 naturally protected by barrier beaches. Various inlets penetrate the 
 
 546 
 
barrier beaches and provide passages for spilled oil to enter estuaries 
 or lagoons. 
 
 In the event that oil from a major spill approaches the coast, it 
 would be desirable to seal off the inlet(s) involved. Thus, oil would 
 be kept out of the most ecologically important areas with a minimum 
 effort. However, should oil reach a barrier beach area far from an 
 inlet, natural shore transport processes would tend to eventually 
 move the contaminated sand along the shore until an inlet is reached. 
 From there, it could spread to the estuary or adjacent wetland area. 
 
 Barriers to protect inlets could be a floating mechanical or pneu- 
 matic barrier. Limitations of present designs have been described 
 previously. Each would have certain advantages. For example, the mech- 
 anical type floating barrier could be more readily installed at any of 
 the possible inlets. Therefore, its portability and relative flexibility 
 in length make it more versatile for possible use at any inlets from a 
 central storage point. Certainly, if the offshore spill is 25-30 miles 
 from shore, time will be available to chart the movements of the slick 
 and prepare shoreline defenses as is currently done for hurricanes. On 
 the other hand, pneumatic barriers may be permanently installed across 
 the major navigation inlets; their primary advantage lies in permitting 
 an uninterrupted ship movement to continue until the oil endangers the 
 coastlines. At present, no inlet protection systems of this type exist 
 in U.S. waters. 
 
 When oil comes ashore, pronounced economic and ecological damages 
 usually result. In many cases of offshore spills, complete removal or 
 dispersal of the oil will be impossible and, therefore, methods and 
 procedures for beach restoration must be available. When a spill occurs 
 and oil washes ashore, it accumulates along the shoreline and may con- 
 taminate vessels and shore installations. On beaches, the main impact 
 is aesthetic and the immediate remedy is physical removal of the oil - 
 contaminated sands. 
 
 Oil contamination of beaches usually causes one or both of the 
 following situations. (1) Beach material becomes uniformly contaminated 
 
 5-47 
 
with a thin layer of oil up to the high tide mark and/or deposits of oil 
 dispersed randomly over the beach surface. Oil penetration is usually 
 limited to approximately one inch, unless dispersants have been used. 
 (2) Agglomerated pellets of oil-sand mixture or oil-soaked material, such 
 as straw and beach debris, are distributed randomly over the surface 
 and/or mixed into the sand. 
 
 Beaches can be cleaned by several techniques. The use of straw on 
 the beach after oil reaches the shore is generally not very effective. 
 However, if the straw is spread before the oil has a chance to reach the 
 shoreline, then it is more effective in absorbing oil and minimizing the 
 amount which penetrates into the sand. 
 
 At Santa Barbara, several techniques were tried in rocky areas, 
 including stream cleaning, sand blasting, and high-pressure water streams. 
 Sand blasting was the only one found to be totally effective; however, 
 this method is slow and costly, requiring extensive use of hand labor to 
 remove accumulated debris. 
 
 Other cleanup techniques used at Santa Barbara included: 
 
 Vacuum tank trucks, of the type used in cleaning out septic 
 tanks; they were used to recover accumulated oil from Santa 
 Barbara Harbor. 
 
 Straw mulchers or spreaders which were used to distribute the 
 sorbent materials. 
 
 Road graders, with tines welded below the blade, which were 
 used for raking debris. 
 
 Bulldozers, front-end loaders, and dump trucks used for picking 
 up and hauling away accumulated debris. 
 
 The restoration of beaches involves: 
 
 Physical pickup and removal for disposal of oil deposits, 
 oil -soaked sand, straw, and other debris, cleaning of the 
 
 548 
 
sand on the beach through removal by screen separation of 
 contaminated materials. 
 
 Disposal of contaminated materials at an approved site. 
 
 The choice of restoration methods depends upon the economic and 
 recreational value of the area and the urgency of returning the area 
 to "normal" conditions. A highly-developed resort complex, where a 
 large proportion of the area economic activity depends upon retaining 
 the attractiveness of the beach, will require implementation of cleaning 
 methods chosen more for their quickness than for their cost. In other 
 instances, where the shoreline is mainly valued for its view, the presence 
 of contaminants on the beach will not be so critical and restorative tech- 
 niques of a slower, less costly nature will be found adequate. 
 
 2. CHEMICAL SPILL CONTROL AND CLEANUP 
 
 In the event of a chemical discharge or leak, efforts are made to 
 reduce, stop, or contain the flow of material at its source in a safe 
 manner. 
 
 The Manufacturing Chemists Association operates a Chemical Trans- 
 portation Emergency Center (CHEMTREC) 24 hours a day to handle emergency 
 situations arising from spills of bulk liquid chemicals. One can con- 
 sult experts on chemicals and spill response by calling the appropriate 
 CHEMTREC toll-free number. 
 
 The Coast Guard has a Chemical Hazard Response Information System 
 (CHRIS) which is designed to provide information needed for decision- 
 making by responsible Coast Guard personnel during emergencies that 
 occur in the transportation of hazardous chemicals. CHRIS consists of 
 handbooks or manuals, a hazard assessment computer system and technical 
 support personnel located at Coast Guard headquarters. 
 
 The Coast Guard's Regional Contingency Plans, although not considered 
 a part of CHRIS, are an important adjunct to the system. Each Regional 
 Contingency Plan contains a section that presents data on a specific 
 
 5-49 
 
region, sub-region, or locale. These data, which are intended for use 
 by On-Scene Coordinator personnel, include the following information: 
 
 An inveniory of physical resources and strike forces. 
 
 Vulnerable or exposed resources. 
 
 Potential pollution sources. 
 
 Geographical and environmental features. 
 
 Cooperating organizations. 
 
 Recognized experts with identified skills. 
 
 The Coast Guard's National Strike Force consists of personnel 
 especially trained and equipped to respond to discharges of oil and 
 hazardous materials. It is organized into three strategically located 
 teams, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Gulf strike teams, consisting 
 of approximately three officers and 15 enlisted men per team. Each team 
 maintains a state of readiness that enables a minimum of four men to pro- 
 ceed to a pollution incident within two hours of notification with augmenta- 
 tion up to full team strength within 12 hours. The National Strike Force 
 has been involved in salvage and cargo transfer operations on vessels 
 ranging in size from small inland barges to tankers and ^/ery large crude 
 carriers. 
 
 The Environmental Protection Agency's Division of Oil and Hazardous 
 Materials provides emergency assistance on procedures for safe handling 
 and cleanup of the spilled chemicals. In a matter of minutes, all per- 
 tinent information and details can be given with the aid of the OHM-TADS 
 (Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical Assistance Data System). Interro- 
 gation of an on-line computerized data bank provides a print-out which is 
 immediately checked by a spill -response expert and relayed to cleanup 
 personnel. The OHM-TADS techniques and equipment are fairly recent 
 innovations which are being utilized and improved to provide a data net- 
 work for emergency service to spill response personnel all over the 
 nation. 
 
 5-50 
 
F. RECENT AND FUTURE PROGRAMS 
 
 1. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS 
 
 The most recent emphasis on the mitigation of marine pollution can 
 be summarized by the Presidential Message to the Congress on March 17, 
 1977, the 1978 Amendments to the Ports and Wateways Safety Act of 1972, 
 and the proposed National Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act 
 of 1978. 
 
 The Presidential Message to the Congress recommended the formula- 
 tion of regulations for all new tankers which would include: double 
 bottoms, segregated ballast, inert gas systems, backup radar systems, 
 and collision avoidance radar systems, improved steering standards, 
 and improved crew standards for all new tankers. The President also 
 requested the development of a tanker boarding program, formation of a 
 marine safety information service, approval of comprehensive oil pol- 
 lution liability and compensation legislation, improvement of the fed- 
 eral ability to respond to oil pollution emergencies, and Senate rati- 
 fication of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu- 
 tion from Ships. 
 
 The Ports & Waterways Safety Act of 1972 was amended during 1978 
 by the Port & Tanker Safety Act (P.L. 95-474) This new law provides a 
 stringent and comprehensive program dealing with the design, construc- 
 tion, operation, equipping, and manning of all tank vessels using U.S. 
 ports to transfer oil and hazardous materials. The design, construc- 
 tion, and equipment requirements contained in this law are, for the 
 most part, in agreement with the results of the IMCO 1978 Conference on 
 Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention (see Section V F2). 
 
 The National Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act of 1978 
 would provide a comprehensive national system governing oil pollution 
 liability and compensation and the creation of an all exclusive compen- 
 sation fund to pay for damages and cleanup compensation and restoration 
 costs due to oil discharges. 
 
In May 1977 the Coast Guard, in response to the Presidential 
 instructions, published proposed rules for new construction and equipment 
 standards for oil tankers. The new rules would apply to all U.S. and 
 foreign tankers over 20,000 deadweight tons which enter U.S. waters. 
 A radar equipment requirement would apply to all vessels over 10,000 
 gross tons. The proposed regulations would require: 
 
 Double bottoms on new tankers, and segregated ballast capability 
 on both new and existing tankers to reduce oil spillage in U.S. 
 waters . 
 
 Improved emergency steering standards on all tankers to reduce 
 the probability of collision and grounding of oil tankers caused 
 by steering failure and therefore reduce the risk of oil 
 pollution. 
 
 Inert gas systems on all tankers to reduce the number of cargo 
 tank explosions on board tankers. 
 
 Backup radar systems with collision avoidance equipment on all 
 vessels of over 10,000 gross tons to reduce the probability of 
 collision and grounding of oil tankers and therefore the risk 
 of pollution. 
 These proposed rules will be modified in the near future to reflect 
 the requirements of P.L. 95-474. 
 
 The other Presidential instructions relating to measures for improved 
 crew standards, tanker boarding programs and information systems, ratifi- 
 cation and implementation of the International Convention for the Prevention 
 of Pollution from Ships, and approval of comprehensive oil pollution lia- 
 bility and compensation legislation are under development by the Coast Guard 
 and other federal organizations. 
 
 2. IMC0 PROGRAMS 
 
 IMC0 convened an International Conference on Tanker Safety and 
 Pollution Prevention in London, England on February 6-17, 1978 in response 
 to the President's Message to Congress. The outcome of the IMC0 Conference 
 was the adoption of Amendments to the 1974 International Convention on 
 
 5-52 
 
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the 1973 Convention on the Prevention 
 of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The new requirements are as follows: 
 
 a. SOLAS PROTOCOL 
 
 Improved inspection and certification procedures for all ships. 
 Inert gas systems for all new tankers 20,000 DWT and above and 
 existing tankers of 40,000 DWT or more. 
 
 Second radar on all ships over 10,000 GRT. IMC0 will also pre- 
 pare a performance specification for collision avoidance aids 
 by July 1979. 
 
 Improved emergency steering gear requiring two independent 
 steering control systems for all tankers 10,000 GRT or more. 
 
 b. MARPOL PROTOCOL 
 
 Protective location of segregated ballast tanks in the side 
 
 and bottom shell areas for new tankers. 
 
 Clean ballast tanks as an alternative to segregated ballast 
 
 on product tankers by using certain cargo tanks only for clean 
 
 ballast water. 
 
 Crude oil washing for tankers 20,000 DWT and over and as an 
 
 alternative to segregated ballast for existing crude oil 
 
 tankers of 40,000 DWT and above. 
 
 Since human error accounts for 80 to 85 percent of all marine 
 accidents, President Carter, in his message, also strongly recommended 
 that IMC0 consider improvement of crewing standards at its forthcoming 
 International Conference on Training and Certification of Seafarers. The 
 conference was held 1n London, England, in June 1978. 
 
 3. OIL POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAMS 
 
 MarAd completed a study of programs conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, 
 Navy, Army Corps of Engineers, EPA and the Maritime Industry which covered 
 a broad range of tanker features relating to pollution abatement (5). The 
 pollution abatement features studied were: 
 
 5- 53 
 
Hull design and construction. 
 
 Ship propulsion and maneuverability. 
 
 Safety of navigation. 
 
 Pollution abatement systems and equipment. 
 
 Crew standards and training. 
 
 Comprehensive oil pollution liability and compensation. 
 
 Reception facilities in port for treatment of oily wastes from 
 
 ships. 
 
 MarAd pollution abatement research and development programs. 
 
 Presidential initiatives dealing with marine oil pollution. 
 
 The pollution abatement features studied were assessed in relation 
 to the President's Message to Congress. The study concluded that certain 
 features appear at least equal to the Presidential initiatives. These 
 features are shown in Table V-5 under pollution abatement techniques 
 and are categorized according to their application to new vessels (only) 
 or new and existing vessels. 
 
 Because the installation of double bottoms on new tankers and segre- 
 gated ballast on new and existing tankers can be a costly venture, some 
 consideration will be given to alternate methods of reducing operational 
 and accidental pollution from vessels. The 1977 Coast Guard proposed rules allow 
 the acceptance of technical improvements or alternate design or equipment 
 as "equivalent" to segregated ballast and double bottoms. Possible alter- 
 natives to segregated ballast for tank vessels include: 
 
 Crude oil washing. 
 
 Ballast oil/water separator. 
 
 Shores ide facilities. 
 
 Possible alternatives to double bottoms for tank vessels include: 
 
 Defensive location of segregated ballast. 
 Intermediate cargo tank deck. 
 
 The intermediate deck concept has yet to be demonstrated as an 
 effective method of preventing pollution and requires further study to 
 determine whether or not it is a viable alternative. 
 
 5-54 
 
3 S^ 
 
 ^ St 
 
 cc j on 
 
 2-j S2 
 
 zm z 
 <=> ^£ 
 
 3=J 95S 
 
 i-o S2> 
 
 2<P 
 
 s -Si 
 
 £££! 
 
 S|S2 
 
 zocOoc 
 o<o:o 
 
 UUC9U. 
 
 SI 
 
 S? IB 22 
 
 H i< 
 
 ii 
 
 = 1 
 
 IS 
 
 is 
 
 oo 
 
 << 
 
 zp 
 
 °s 
 
 SE8 
 
 (i 1 
 
 ZflCO 
 
 2"5 
 
 lis 
 
 lit 
 
 2i< 
 
 £* 
 
 ii 
 
 Mm 
 
 001 
 
 a>lz 
 
 Xi 
 
 4 
 
 S^ 
 
 cm 
 
 <> 
 
 3 So, 
 
 nil 
 
 |u.<|§ 
 
 Sin S5S S 2 
 
 2&W ZoUjSjW 
 
 <0> wScegjw 
 
 
 ■ISi! 
 
 ZSWBCo. 
 
 SBJ'.S 
 
 ccowccd 
 
 ujgZUJo 
 
 ma.3uO 
 
 25S 
 
 §1! 
 
 g 
 
 i 1 
 
 5: PS 
 j <9 
 
 £ m * 
 
 M 
 
 5-55 
 

 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 2* 
 
 turn 
 
 < 
 
 
 2S 
 
 §1,0 
 
 z 
 
 
 cog 
 
 Oiu 
 
 2|i 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 
 t-o 
 
 o°j 
 
 z 
 
 
 QJ 
 
 go"o 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 
 oo 
 
 z5| 
 
 < 
 
 
 UJO 
 
 ok 
 
 S 
 
 CO 
 
 
 co< 
 
 osr - 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 a 
 
 -I 
 
 §1° 
 
 3 
 Q 
 
 CO 
 
 DC 
 
 2 
 
 g° 
 
 £88 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 >m 
 
 £>s 
 
 9 
 
 
 UlB 
 
 KU.O 
 
 8 
 
 
 I! 
 
 o5 Q - 
 
 Ok 
 
 ill 
 
 o 
 
 (9 
 
 z 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 JZ 
 
 
 -»o9 
 
 <-"c2 J 
 
 2* 
 
 
 _|"0B 
 
 u_jujm 
 
 
 
 <2oc 
 
 -UJCCO 
 
 Q — 
 
 
 sg> 
 
 DO 
 
 oc 2 
 
 
 Du-O 
 
 lOll 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 5g! 
 
 
 
 
 g2< 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 ocgo 
 
 
 
 
 => O "i 
 
 
 
 
 Utctt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EC 
 
 
 
 ~ oc 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 c O 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 oc 
 
 
 
 H < 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 co K 
 
 
 
 ill 
 
 3 < 
 8 S 
 
 CO 
 
 K 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 Bil 
 
 > £ 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 
 CO -I 
 
 5 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 
 x 5 
 
 ft 
 
 5 
 
 
 < s 
 
 < 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 K 
 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 £ o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 5-56 
 
a. SEGREGATED BALLAST AND DOUBLE BOTTOM ALTERNATIVES 
 
 The following is a brief description of the segregated ballast and 
 double bottom alternatives: 
 
 (1) Crude Oil Washing-An Alternative to Segregated Ballast . The problem 
 of mixing oil and water by employing the traditional method of washing 
 cargo tankers with jets of water can be eliminated by washing the tanks 
 with crude oil. During crude oil washing, a portion of the cargo oil 
 being discharged ashore is diverted into the tank cleaning system and 
 into the tanks being offloaded so that exposed tank internal surfaces 
 coated with residual oil are washed by jets of crude oil. The solvent 
 action of the crude oil dissolves sludge, paraffins and heavy asphaltic 
 oils and leaves only a thin film of oil. A minimum amount of water 
 washing is required for the tank to be used for clean ballast or gas 
 freeing operations. Crude oil washing is economically attractive because: 
 there is greater oil recovery, reductions in time and cost from routine 
 drydock tank cleaning, and increased cargo oil capacity because less oil 
 is retained onboard. Ultimately, crude oil washing will offer the capa- 
 bility of taking on ballast water without water washing and discharging 
 clean ballast having an oil content of 15 ppm or less. 
 
 (2) Ballast Oil/Water Separator-An Alternative to Segregated Ballast . 
 Ballast oil/water separators have not been widely used for primary ship- 
 board processing of dirty ballast and tank washing slops. Suitable units 
 for marine service with capacity to process the entire quantity of ballast 
 on large tankers have not been available. However, manufacturers of oily 
 water separators have recently demonstrated the ability to effectively 
 process a wide variety of oil-in-water mixtures with throughputs up to 
 3,000 gpm. The quality of the effluent would allow a tanker to be able 
 
 to meet the permissible discharge requirements (no visible sheen or 15 ppm) 
 in prohibited areas. An oily water separator used in conjunction with 
 crude washing should provide at least equivalent and possibly greater 
 environmental protection than segregated ballast. 
 
 5-57 
 
x j) Shoreside Reception Facilities-An Alternative to Segregated Ballast . 
 Pollution from vessel operations can be eliminated by specific tanker 
 design requirements or, alternatively, by requiring all ship's wastes to 
 be retained onboard and discharged to shoreside treatment facilities. 
 The installation of shoreside reception facilities for the treatment of 
 oily wastes from ships would eliminate the need for tankers to discharge 
 oily wastes at sea. The International Convention for the Prevention of 
 Pollution from Ships, 1973, states that the government of each party to 
 the convention shall ensure the installation of reception facilities at 
 oil loading terminals, repair ports, and other ports in which ships have 
 oil residues to discharge. 
 
 (4) U.S. Coast Guard Defensive Location of Segregated Ballast-Alternative 
 to Double Bottoms . Current U.S. Coast Guard regulations on the defensive 
 location of segregated ballast for new tankers of 70,000 DWT and above 
 require that 45 percent of the cargo portion of the hull be protected by 
 ballast tanks. Double bottoms or double sides can be used as a practical 
 means to meet this requirement. On smaller vessels, the defensive require- 
 ment can be met economically by allocating wing tanks for segregated 
 ballast. This design feature offers substantial bottom protection and 
 also can provide protection in the case of side damage. The segregated 
 ballast regulation requires that a given area of the shell be protected 
 by ballast volumes or voids under penalty of forced reduction of allowable 
 oil outflows. For example, segregated ballast spaces must be distributed 
 so that the mathematical average of the hypothetical collision and strand- 
 ing outflows as determined by the procedures in the regulations is 80 
 percent or less of the maximum allowable outflow. 
 
 4. COMPREHENSIVE OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION PROGRAMS 
 
 The Maritime Administration has supported the development of a 
 comprehensive legal regime providing for liability and compensation for 
 damages resulting from oil pollution incidents. The currently existing 
 maze of state, federal and international laws is simply not conducive to 
 rapid and fair compensation for damages. Comprehensive liability and 
 compensation legislation would provide the needed protection to the public 
 for oil pollution damages, would assure rapid cleanup and restoration of 
 
 5-58 
 
the environment subsequent to an oil spill, and would serve as an incen- 
 tive to prevent oil spills. The liability and compensation process would 
 involve certain major steps: the oil discharge; the cleanup and removal; 
 an investigation and report by an on-scene coordinator; a public notice 
 regarding the appropriate claims procedure; an assessment of damages; 
 the filing of claims; and the settlement and adjudication of claims. 
 
 MarAd has considered the goals of methods and procedures for admin- 
 istering this comprehensive system of liability and compensation^)- The 
 goals may include the following: 
 
 Encouragement of equality of treatment among claimants (a claimant 
 may not be subject to a different standard because of spill 
 location). 
 
 Encouragement of uniform standards for damage measurement and 
 assessment so as to assure full and fair compensation. 
 
 Settlement and adjudication may be made as uncomplicated as 
 possible to avoid unnecessary confusion and delays and to 
 reduce costs. 
 
 Claimants and dischargers may have the choice of having their 
 rights determined through judicial action or administrative 
 action. 
 
 The concepts and provisions to accomplish these goals are outlined 
 in detail in reference 5. 
 
 5. POLLUTION ABATEMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 
 
 Efforts are underway to foster research and development programs 
 for the prevention and control of pollution from ships. An excellent 
 summary of information concerning pollution control and abatement sys- 
 tems, research and development efforts, testing projects and planned 
 implementation of pollution abatement systems and equipment on ships 
 was recently published as a technical plan by the Department of the 
 
 5-59 
 
Navy's Sea Systems Command (15). The technical plan describes the 
 Navy's efforts as well as programs administered by other agencies include 
 the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Maritime 
 Administration. A comprehensive discussion of these studies is beyond 
 the scope of this environmental impact statement; however, some of the 
 Maritime Administration's programs are discussed in the following 
 paragraphs. 
 
 The Maritime Administration's research and development program for 
 the prevention and control of pollution from ships was begun in 1962 
 subsequent to the passage of the 1961 Oil Pollution Act. This act imple- 
 mented the 1954 International Convention for Prevention of Pollution of 
 the Seas by Oil. In terms of priorities, the major program emphasis has 
 been on the development of systems and procedures for reducing the 
 quantities of ship-generated pollutants discharged both accidentally and 
 intentionally. At the same time, means for the handling and disposal of 
 ship-generated wastes have been investigated. MarAd has cooperated with 
 other federal agencies, each of which has recognized the severity of the 
 problem of preventing and controlling pollution from ships and has a 
 major research and development program underway aimed at protecting the 
 marine environment. 
 
 MarAd' s research and development programs are structured to develop 
 and apply advanced technology to improve the productivity and capabili- 
 ties of the American shipping and shipbuilding industries. Although the 
 pollution program is not directly aimed at improving the competitive 
 position of the U.S. Merchant Marine, it has received a high priority 
 within the overall research and development effort. 
 
 a. PAST RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 
 
 The following is a brief description of past pollution prevention 
 and control activities supported by the Maritime Administration. Two 
 basic approaches were implemented; (1) the development of applied tech- 
 nology to enable ships to operate pollution-free and (2) the conduct of 
 studies addressing the scientific, environmental, and economic aspects 
 
 5-60 
 
of pollution-free ship operations. Within this basic framework, various 
 project categories were established as follows: 
 
 (1) Onboard Processing . These projects were aimed at the improvement of 
 onboard operations to reduce polluting discharges, such as: 
 
 (a) development of high capacity, oil/water separation systems, including 
 instrumentation to monitor discharges; 
 
 (b) improvement of Load-on-Top operations by development and/or inves- 
 tigation of: 
 
 oil /water interface detection equipment, 
 
 ballast water contaminant levels, 
 
 chemical flocculants to accelerate gravity separation of 
 
 dispersed oil in water, 
 
 improved slop tank design; 
 
 (c) evaluation and development of improved tank cleaning techniques and 
 related operations, e.g., crude washing, sludge removal and disposal, 
 and training guidelines; 
 
 (d) evaluation of ship stack gas monitoring methods and equipment; 
 
 (f) safety enhancement analyses for tankers concerning such topics as 
 tank electrostatics, tank washing, and atmosphere control. 
 
 (2) Ship Design and Equipment . These projects investigated whether 
 changes to the basic ship design and equipment offer potential for re- 
 ducing oil discharges, and evaluated thecost-effectiveness of each change. 
 Studies of various tank arrangements for segregated ballast have been 
 completed, and the costs, effectiveness, and operations associated with 
 segregated ballast evaluated. In addition, developmental efforts have 
 been pursued in the prevention of accidental oil spillage through advanced 
 anti -stranding sonar systems, satellite communication and navigation 
 systems, harbor advisory control systems, and the Computer Aided Operations 
 Research Facility (CAORF). 
 
 5-61 
 
(3) Shoreside Reception Facilities . Investigations have been performed 
 regarding the design and economic requirements for~collecting, processing, 
 and disposing of ship generated wastes. 
 
 (a) Mobile Waste Oil Processing Vessel - studied the techno-economic 
 feasibility of converting reserve fleet vessels into oily waste 
 processing ships and sewage treatment ships for in-port use; 
 
 (b) Port Collection and Separation Facilities - determined the technical 
 and economic requirements for establishing the capability in each 
 port to collect, process, and dispose of all ship-generated oily 
 wastes. 
 
 (4) Environmental Sciences . Long-range scientific studies were performed 
 in order to establish an estimate of quantities and concentrations of in- 
 tentional discharges of oil which can be safely tolerated by the marine 
 environment. Such projects included the following: 
 
 (a) Source Quantification - This project aimed at helping to completely 
 define the problem of oil pollution of the oceans by reliably pin- 
 pointing the sources of oil input as well as the areas of the oceans 
 heavily loaded by either natural seepages or land outfalls. Such 
 information is also helpful in determining rates of degradation and 
 dispersion at various input concentrations. 
 
 (b) Ocean Mapping - A surface and sub-surface sampling project was spon- 
 sored in order to establish a baseline of hydrocarbon content in the 
 oceans. This project resulted in the generation of worldwide oil 
 pollution maps from which an understanding of the fate of the oil in 
 the seas can be analyzed. 
 
 (c) Ship Discharges - A survey was conducted to define and quantify dis- 
 charge sources originating from oil tankers operating under routine 
 conditions. 
 
 (d) Stack Gas Emissions - A mathematical diffusion study was performed 
 to determine the effect of ship stack emissions on air quality in 
 the Port of Galveston. 
 
 5-62 
 
(5) Pollution Control Regulations and Standards . Various studies have 
 been performed in order to analyze the significance and effects of certain 
 vessel discharges, regulations and standards applicable to these discharges, 
 and available methods and processes for meeting the regulatory requirements. 
 Such studies include the following: 
 
 (a) Shipboard sewage regulations and disposal methods; 
 
 (b) Regulations, significance, and control methods concerning stack gas 
 emissions from oceangoing ships; 
 
 (c) Regulations concerning the transport of oil by inland tank barge. 
 
 b. PRESENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 
 
 In recent years MarAd has reduced its support for the development of 
 onboard processing equipment for preventing polluting ship discharges. 
 Efforts have continued, however, on the development and application of 
 advanced concepts for improving vessel operational safety and thereby re- 
 ducing accidental pollution from ships. Projects being investigated and 
 systems undergoing development include: 
 
 (1) Low cost satellite navigation and systems. 
 
 (2) Computer Aided Operations Research Facility (CAORF) to analyze and 
 improve the human factor element of ship navigation and pilotage. 
 
 (3) Reliability of steering gear systems for high powered ships. 
 
 (4) Integrated lookout system to provide the vessel's conning officer 
 with comprehensive threat information related to vessel safety. 
 
 (5) Harbor simulation model to study the ship/harbor interaction with a 
 view to improving overall harbor design, channels and navigation, 
 vessel traffic systems, and ship design. 
 
 (6) Advanced display concepts for standardized conning stations. 
 
 5-63 
 
(7) Advanced collision avoidance system. 
 
 (8) Anti -stranding sonar systems. 
 
 (9) Bulk carrier operation safety enhancement. 
 
 c. FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 
 
 Future MarAd environmental R&D efforts will be part of a pollution 
 control program plan which is directed at two primary goals as follows: 
 (1) to significantly reduce the number and severity of merchant ship cas- 
 ualties which result in polluting discharges and (2) to significantly re- 
 duce the quantities of pollutants spilled, dumped, or discharged during 
 routine merchant ship operations. Additional tasks to those listed pre- 
 viously for achieving these goals are as follows: 
 
 (1) Collection and analysis of ship (tanker) casualty data in order to 
 determine cause and effect relationship of casualties. 
 
 (2) Establishment of physical and operational risks for tankers on 
 selected routes and development of procedures and methodologies for 
 lessening these risks. 
 
 (3) Improving maneuverability and stopping characteristics of tankers, 
 particularly VLCCs. 
 
 (4) Improvement and simplification of inert gas systems for all tankers. 
 
 (5) Analysis and application of crude oil washing techniques. 
 
 (6) Evaluation of design, construction, and equipment standards for tank 
 barges which carry oil. 
 
 (7) Improving procedures aboard ship for handling oil and hazardous 
 chemical cargoes. 
 
 (8) Development of shoreside reception facilities for shipboard wastes. 
 
Detailed outlines of some of the more important aspects of these 
 projects, both current and planned, are described in reference 5. 
 
 6. FUTURE CREW STANDARDS AND TRAINING 
 
 The present training provided in maritime training institutions has 
 generally proven to meet operational needs. There are, however, significant 
 areas where future improvements in training have been recently discussed. 
 The area of most immediate concern is as a result of the recent series of 
 oil tanker accidents. Certain regulatory measures which will increase the 
 demand on existing training capabilities have been recommended. 
 
 MarAd is requesting additional funds and positions to expand its 
 maritime training capabilities in consonance with the proposed regulatory 
 measures. This expansion is briefly described as follows: 
 
 (1) Augment existing Collision Avoidance Radar equipment and staff at 
 MarAd 's Regional Radar Training Centers. 
 
 (2) Add two new Collision Avoidance Radar Training Facilities. 
 
 (3) Add staff and equipment to expand MarAd' s LORAN-C training program. 
 
 (4) Participate jointly with Coast Guard in a study to establish effective 
 training and examination evolutions with Ship Handling Simulators. 
 
 (5) Develop an approved training course in pollution prevention, control, 
 and abatement; including curriculum handbook and training devices. 
 
 Improvements have also been discussed in providing assistance to 
 maritime training institutions. It has been proposed that authorization 
 be provided to the Secretary of Commerce to make available marine equip- 
 ment which is surplus to the needs of the Maritime Administration and 
 which can be used as training aids at approved, non-profit maritime 
 training institutions, without cost to the government. This proposal 
 requires legislation and further study by MarAd. 
 
 5-65 
 
Another area of concern involves the training of entry ratings. It 
 has been recently proposed that applicants for original certificates of 
 service be required to satisfactorily demonstrate basic knowledge and 
 skills via training and examination. This proposal would require a leg- 
 islative amendment and is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Coast Guard. 
 The topic has also been recognized and discussed at IMCO. An IMCO draft 
 recommendation provides that every prospective seafarer should receive 
 training prior to seafaring employment. 
 
 Finally, it should be noted that "Curriculum Standards for Merchant 
 Marine Officers Training Programs" are currently being developed by the 
 Office of Maritime Manpower with assistance from leading maritime train- 
 ing institutions. These standards will provide criteria to assist in 
 evaluating programs which relate to the training of Third Mates and 
 Third Assistant Engineers - Unlimited, for original licenses. 
 
 Examination and certification of merchant vessel personnel are within 
 the jurisdiction of U.S. Coast Guard. A number of major changes are being 
 discussed. The most significant change will be in three separate areas 
 where regulations are to be amended. The areas are as follows: 
 
 (1) More emphasis will be placed on requiring deck officers to demonstrate 
 important skills, such as radar operation and interpretation, instead 
 of relying on written examinations. 
 
 (2) Requirements for issuance and renewal of licenses to ship masters, 
 mates, and federally licensed pilots will include experience by 
 class and size of vessel, or training and demonstration of pro- 
 ficiency on ship simulators. 
 
 (3) Regulations will be issued to require that crew members in charge of 
 cargo transfer operations be specially trained and examined. 
 
 Coast Guard is currently developing Proposed Rulemakings to promulgate 
 the regulations required by Items 1 and 2 above. The regulations required 
 by Item 3 are contained in U.S. Coast Guard Proposed Rulemakings entitled, 
 "Tankerman Requirements," published in the Federal Register, April 25, 
 1977. 
 
 5-66 
 
CHAPTER V - REFERENCES FROM TEXT 
 
 1. U.S. Maritime Administration, Final Opinion and Order of the 
 Maritime Subsidy Board Docket A-75, MarAd Tanker Construction , 
 August 30, 1973. 
 
 2. U.S. Maritime Administration, Fi nal Opinion and Order Docket 
 A-93 On The MarAd Bulk Chemical Carrier Construction Program , 
 December 31, 1974. 
 
 3. Landsburg, A.C. and Cruikshank, J.M., Tanker Ballasting, How Light 
 Can You Go , U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, 
 Washington, D.C., May 1975, Com 75 10542. 
 
 4. Porricelli, Keith and Storch, "Tankers and the Ecology", Transactions 
 of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers , 1971. 
 
 5. U.S. Maritime Administration, Study of Tanker Construction Design and 
 Operating Features Related to Improved Pollution Abatement , U.S. 
 Department of Commerce, July 1977. 
 
 6. Oil Transportation By Tankers: An Analysis of Marine Pollution and 
 Safety Measures , Congress of the United States, Office of Technology 
 Assessment, July 1975. 
 
 7. Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). "Inter- 
 national Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973". 
 London, England, 1973. 
 
 8. Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), Code 
 for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous 
 Chemicals in Bulk , Resolution A. 212 (VII), October 12, 1971. 
 
 9. Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), Code 
 for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied 
 Gases in Bulk , Resolution A. 328 (IX), November 12, 1975. 
 
 10. U.S. Coast Guard, Vessel Traffic Systems Analysis of Port Needs , 
 U.S. Coast Guard Study Report, August 1973. 
 
 11. James, W.P., Environmental Aspects of a Supertanker Port on the 
 Texas Gulf Coast , Texas A & M University, College Station Texas, 
 1972. 
 
 12. Nelson, Smith A., "The Problem of Oil Pollution of the Sea", 
 Advances in Marine Biology , 1970, Vol. 8, p. 215-306. 
 
 13. The Torre.y Canyon , Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Cabinet Office, 
 London, 1967. 
 
 14. The 1975 Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution Pro - 
 ceedings , March 22-27, 1975, San Francisco, California. 
 
 15. "NAVSEA Shipboard Pollution Abatement Program Technical Plan," 
 
 0900-038-9010, fifth revision, January 1978. 
 
 5-67 
 
ALTERNATIVES TO THE DOMESTIC TANK VESSEL - TITLE XI PROGRAM 
 
 The Maritime Administration has the federal responsibility to provide 
 technical and financial assistance to the U.S. maritime industry. To dis- 
 charge this responsibility the Maritime Administration has established 
 five principal programs to economically promote the maritime industry. 
 These programs as illustrated in Figure VI-1 have a common goal but utilize 
 different funding mechanisms. As illustrated in the figure, the Title XI 
 Program for domestic bulk waterborne commerce, the subject of this environ- 
 mental assessment, is only a portion of the overall Title XI Program which, 
 in turn, is only one of the five financial programs administered by the 
 Maritime Administration. Although the specific methodology of providing 
 the funding to industry is different within the respective programs, the 
 common goal of promoting the maritime industry is the same. It would be 
 erroneous to consider the remaining four programs as alternative programs 
 in the event the Title XI funding were curtailed. The Merchant Marine Act 
 of 1936, as amended (the Act), prohibits the payment of Operating Differ- 
 ential Subsidy (ODS) to any person or company engaged in- domestic trade. 
 The Act also requires a Construction Differential Subsidy (CDS) applicant 
 to build his ship for use only in the foreign commerce of the U.S. Finally, 
 the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) program is not available to operators 
 operating vessels only in the contiguous domestic commerce. Therefore, 
 the decrease or cessation of Title XI funding would not leave the range 
 of alternative types of funding available to domestic operators as implied 
 in Figure VI-1. The curtailment of the Title XI program would deny the 
 Maritime Administration the flexibility of providing the maritime financial 
 assistance and would make overall program administration more difficult. 
 
 The alternatives range from the discontinuance or suspension of the 
 Title XI financial aid program to the requirement for improved construc- 
 tion and pollution standards to reduce potential pollution from vessels 
 under this program. 
 
 6-1 
 
RSS 
 
 <u.gE 
 
 lOu 
 
 ill 
 ¥ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ill 
 
 (0 
 
 
 
 
 mill! 
 
 nl«i;| 
 llrafe 
 
 Islsss.* 
 
 ifllllil 
 1**1111 
 
 ■juji 
 iff* 
 
 a 5 * * 3 '5 
 
 iiiiii 
 
 s is | 
 till I 
 
 mi Si ii 
 i' III I I 
 
 IS 
 
 Ik 
 
 ill 
 
 6-2 
 
A. DISCONTINUE THE PROGRAM 
 
 An alternative available to the Secretary of Commerce is to discon- 
 tinue this assistance to tankers (oil and chemical) and tank barges. Such 
 an action would violate the intent of the Jones Act and the Merchant Marine 
 Act of 1936, as amended in 1970, to promote the U.S. - merchant marine 
 fleet for economic and national defense purposes. By discontinuing MarAd 
 Title XI assistance to these tanker and tank barge programs, some con- 
 struction of privately financed American vessels would stop and the rate 
 of U.S. shipbuilding would decline. At a time when the need for the trans- 
 portation of energy products is critical, the elimination of the Title XI 
 Program would only result in the adverse economic impact. If the Title XI 
 Program for U.S. tankers engaged in domestic trade is discontinued, the 
 U.S. would be expected to become more dependent on the importation of oil. 
 For example, an alternative that has been given serious consideration by 
 the Department of Energy (DOE) is to export Alaskan oil to Japan and import 
 Middle Eastern oil to the U.S., instead of employing U.S. tankers to trans- 
 port Alaskan oil to California ports for trans-shipment to the Gulf and 
 East coast refineries (1). If DOE's alternative is implemented, the 
 incident rate of oil spills would be expected to increase because it has 
 been demonstrated that foreign flag vessels are more spill prone in U.S. 
 waters than U.S. vessels (refer to discussion of Spill Probability and 
 Risk of Chapter IV). 
 
 The enforcement of environmental controls is a major problem 
 with foreign vessels. Hence the substitution of foreign flag tankers 
 for U.S. constructed, owned, operated and regulated vessels would in- 
 volve increased risks of pollution of U.S. waters and shoreline. Such 
 risks are difficult to quantify because it is difficult to predict the 
 flags of the vessels which might be used in U.S. trades, the stringency 
 of inspection and regulation of the vessels, the qualifications of 
 their crews, and other variables. Enforcement of the 1973 IMCO Marine 
 Pollution Convention vessel standards for pollution abatement has yet 
 to be fully demonstrated by individual countries. 
 
Termination of the Program would reduce the amount of materials used 
 for construction, lessen shipyard generated pollution and may substantially 
 reduce the pressure for expansion of U.S. shipyard facilities. An analysis 
 of the environmental benefits which may flow from this alternative must be 
 judged in terms of the alternative activities which could take place in 
 shipyards and elsewhere if tanker and barge construction were halted. Most 
 shipyards could be expected to continue to construct naval and other types 
 of merchant ships. Complete elimination of the Program would have the 
 effect of reducing the availability of vessels of the highest construction 
 and operational standards to transport oil and chemicals in U.S. waters. 
 
 The termination of this Program would, in addition to the above, 
 have adverse implications for U.S. employment, U.S. economic status, and 
 our national defense posture, which would rely heavily on these vessels 
 during time of national crisis. 
 
 B. SUSPEND THE PROGRAM 
 
 Another alternative available to the Secretary of Commerce is to 
 suspend this form of government assistance and await the technical 
 improvements of tankers and barges so that the potential pollution is 
 reduced. 
 
 It is the belief of the Maritime Administration that the design, 
 construction and operational features of the U.S. vessels represent 
 the highest level of practical pollution control that can be achieved. 
 With the present state of the art it is doubtful where any additional 
 pollution control features would prove to be environmentally, as well 
 as economically, beneficial. However, this will not preclude the 
 future installation of new features which have been proven to be 
 beneficial as a result of MarAd, Coast Guard, Navy, and EPA on-going 
 research and development efforts. 
 
C. ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION (2,3) 
 
 The alternative modes of moving certain bulk liquid cargoes are: 
 (1) pipeline, (2) railroad, (3) motor carriers and (4) aircraft. The 
 following discussion provides a general comparison of these alternative 
 modes. 
 
 By far the most competitive alternative mode of bulk liquid 
 transportation to the tank vessel is by pipeline. While motor tank 
 trucks and rail tankcars offer the advantage of speed and flexibility, 
 these two modes lack the large capacity that can be achieved with tank 
 vessels. As a result this large capacity advantage can be translated 
 into a cost advantage achieved by tank vessels over trucks and trains. 
 This is particularly true for oil and to a lesser extent for the move- 
 ment of hazardous materials which are moved in smaller lots. Because 
 chemicals are moved in these smaller lots trains and trucks become 
 somewhat more cost competitive. 
 
 It can be concluded that movement by pipeline is generally the 
 lowest cost, highest volume and least flexible of all modes of trans- 
 portation. 
 
 The pipeline mode has three important advantages: 
 
 . The pipeline route is usually more direct than the 
 marine route. 
 
 . The pipeline is suited to unbalanced "one-way" 
 commodity flows. Balanced flow patterns are not 
 necessary since the pipeline does not require the return 
 of a vessel to the origin to be refilled. 
 
 . The pipeline has a very low variable cost. On a 
 fully allocated cost basis, pipeline and marine costs 
 may be approximately equivalent; however, 70% of the costs 
 of pipeline are fixed capital costs and variable costs are 
 very low. Hence, it is much cheaper to operate a pipeline 
 than a marine vessel, but it is much more expensive to 
 build a pipeline than a marine vessel. However, in light 
 
of escalating construction costs and increases in pipeline 
 property taxes, careful economic analyses are required to 
 determine the true costs. 
 
 Additional advantages of the pipeline mode are its large capacity 
 and its ability to vary the capacity of the operating system simply by 
 changing the flow rate of the material being transported. The pipe- 
 line mode has the inherent ability to provide continuous and reliable 
 movement of large volumes of bulk liquid commodities. 
 
 Inflexibility is the greatest disadvantage of the pipeline mode. 
 Pipelines can offer direct service only to those shippers and receivers 
 which are linked to the system. However, it should be noted that the 
 handling cost of most materials transported by pipeline is yery low and 
 that the movements of these liquid commodities are generally efficient 
 operations. Therefore, the pipeline can offer indirect service to a 
 wide range of shippers and receivers. 
 
 Although the possibility exists for development of a liquid bulk 
 air lift system, it does not appear to be a viable alternative at this 
 time. Operation of a large fleet of air tankers that would be required 
 to carry even a portion of domestic oil and chemical volume would in- 
 volve substantial air and noise pollution and land changes. 
 
 As indicated above each mode of transportation has inherent 
 capabilities and characteristics, i.e. flexibility, capacity, speed, 
 which influence its role in the transportation system. A 1974 Study 
 prepared for the Maritime Administration ranked each of the modes 
 within each characteristic. While this study was performed for all 
 types of commodities (dry and liquid) it can be used to show the 
 qualitative ranking for the movement for oil and chemicals (see 
 Table VI-1). 
 
Table VI-1 
 
 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE 
 
 MODES OF TRANSPORTATION 
 
 HIGH FLEXIBILITY 
 
 HIGH CAPACITY 
 
 HIGHSPEED 
 
 LOW COST 
 
 TRUCK 
 
 PIPELINE 
 
 AIRLINE 
 
 PIPELINE 
 
 RAIL 
 
 WATER 
 
 TRUCK 
 
 WATER 
 
 WATER 
 
 RAIL 
 
 RAIL 
 
 RAIL 
 
 PIPELINE 
 
 TRUCK 
 
 WATER 
 
 TRUCK 
 
 AIRLINE 
 
 AIRLINE 
 
 PIPELINE 
 
 AIRLINE 
 
 SOURCE: Domestic Waterborne Shipping, Market Analysis, 
 
 prepared by A.T. Kearney, Inc., Management Consultar 
 for the U.S. Maritime Administration, February 1974. 
 
 6-7 
 
The environmental impact of pollution from oil and chemical releases 
 from alternative modes of transportation is of a lesser magnitude. However, 
 the location of a spill from alternative modes of transportation, e.g., a 
 tank truck accident spilling oil or chemicals on a major highway, may be of 
 a greater health or safety hazard. In 1976, 82 railroad spillages 
 (incidents) occurred in and around United States waters accounting for 
 269,440 gallons of material.* These incidents involved mainly tank cars 
 rather than rail freight movements. This is indicated by the large number 
 of gallons spilled for each incident (i.e., 3,286 gallons per incident). 
 The major spillages were oil, and were caused by 60 rail vehicle incidents 
 (167,220 gallons). Of these 60 incidents, there were eleven tank leaks 
 (83,000 gallons), one equipment failure (2,000 gallons), and one tank 
 overflow (4,000 gallons). The remainder was a result of valve failure, 
 personnel error and other incidents (3). 
 
 For the same year, motor carriers have had a greater number of 
 incidents than rail vehicles; however, the percentage of volume released 
 was nearly the same. In 1976 the U.S. Coast Guard indicated that there 
 were 335 incidents in or around U.S. waters of highway vehicles (considered 
 motor carrier for the purpose of this discussion) contributing 323,391 
 gallons of material discharged. Oil spillages from tank leaks accounted 
 for 36 of the incidents amounting to 23,639 gallons. The remaining 
 accidents were the result of improper equipment operation/handling 
 (14 incidents/3,803 gallons), personnel errors (14 incidents/4,793 gallons), 
 tank overflow (40 incidents/7,216 gallons), structural failure (6 incidents/ 
 3,882 gallons), valve failure (8 incidents/10,690 gallons), equipment 
 failure (9 incidents/1,167 gallons), and other incidents. 
 
 ♦Material includes crude oil, gasoline, other distillate fuel oil, fuel 
 oil, solvent, diesel oil, asphalt or residual fuel oil, animal or vegetable 
 oil, waste oil, chemicals, other oil, other pollutants, etc. 
 
In 1976 there were 653 pipeline incidents resulting in 4,530,094 
 gallons released. Of the 653 incidents, 393 (contributing 3,692,393 
 gallons) were the result of pipeline related ruptures or leaks of oil (3). 
 
 In the study prepared for the Maritime Administration entitled 
 "A Modal Economic and Safety Analysis of the Transportation of Hazardous 
 Substances in Bulk" the following environmental conclusions were reached 
 from a comparison study of 10 hazardous chemicals by various modes of 
 transportation. Table VI-2 illustrates the relative effects of the move- 
 ment of the hazardous materials. The conclusions of the study are: 
 . With exception of chlorine and benzene, the annual expected 
 exposure associated with the transport of the chosen substances 
 is lowest for the barge mode. 
 
 . The truck mode of transport, judged on an expected annual 
 exposure basis, is as safe as the barge mode, and both 
 barge and truck are substantially safer than rail for the 
 ten case studies. 
 
 . Pipeline was considered applicable for only one chemical, 
 anhydrous ammonia, and therefore it is not possible to 
 make general statements relating to its safety. 
 
 . The barge mode of transport is apparently better inspected 
 and regulated from a safety point of view than rail or 
 truck. 
 
 While these figures represent emissions from all forms of freight 
 movement, they do provide a relative indication as to the amount of 
 emission that would be released from the movement of just oil and 
 chemicals . 
 
 As might be expected, motor carriers are subject to increasingly 
 regulated air pollution requirements whereas domestic ocean carriers and 
 railroads are largely unaffected. 
 
 6-9 
 
78 
 
 HO 
 
 EXPECTED 
 ANNUAL 
 VALUE OF 
 PROPERTY 
 LOSS 
 (URBAN/RURAL) 
 
 $ 130/55 
 
 $ 160/20 
 $2400/250 
 
 CO CO CO co 
 
 5 5 S 
 
 § s s 
 
 CO MM 
 
 o o a 
 <o MM 
 
 si*i 
 
 CC UJ 
 
 q q 
 
 5 2 5 o 
 
 & e 
 
 O S CO 
 
 i- 1 6 «- 
 
 o.co 
 
 cc - "" 
 
 . ■'- 
 
 § 5 5 ~» 
 
 O J CM CM 
 
 | 1 E 
 
 5 2? 
 ~to o o 
 © in in 
 
 S ?ui 
 
 CCZ3_, 
 
 gg<o 
 ™z 
 
 > 
 > t 
 
 cS jc c cc 
 
 > 
 > H 
 
 co° 1- w iu uj 
 
 UJ* - ujCC UJ cc ce 
 
 g§gg g 3 3 
 
 > 
 
 > £ 
 1- Si 
 
 2a 21 < < 
 
 S3 - 
 
 cc o w w 
 
 31 si 1 i 
 
 u.u.11 
 
 8!§f| 
 
 55 a 55 
 
 8 g | ! 
 
 1 II 
 
 1 || 
 
 Ssgi 
 Mil 
 
 o«5- 
 
 
 oo oo 
 m qq q q to 
 
 i I 5 2 s s 
 
 51 §8 
 
 0) ~^ § 
 
 2 *» 
 
 o 
 
 o o o 
 
 § sal 
 
 8 8 S 
 
 O CO 10 
 
 5 5 8 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 as 
 
 z 
 < 
 oe 
 
 O CJ _, _l 
 
 CC 3 = ill 
 
 < CC < ?£ 
 CD H- CC O. 
 
 in * ' i 
 
 O CJ j -1 
 
 1 ill 
 
 Ul X 2 
 O CJ , J 
 
 5 2 < £ 
 
 co i- cc o. 
 
 Ul 
 X 2 
 (3 cj . -i 
 ec a = ui 
 < oc < & 
 m h e o. 
 
 uj$ 
 
 s< 
 
 <z M 
 
 jOCC 
 <K< 
 
 lis 
 H 
 
 2 I 
 
 1 2 
 ! i 
 
 o 5§ o- 
 
 -l <o OCX 
 > 3o <0 
 CC Zoo NH 
 <J Z < 
 < < I 
 
 Z SS <9 
 
 ujCC >X 
 
 3 Ol- s 
 
 1 Z? N< 
 
 z z < 
 
 < < I 
 
 Q £ 
 
 UJ K 
 
 1 I 
 
 m z 
 
 2 2 
 
 zz EE 
 
 ZO IL V 
 
 z 1 51 Sa 
 
 5 <°- ecx 
 N =>8 <o 
 
 Z Zr Nt- 
 
 uj Z < 
 CO < z 
 
 Q 
 
 It co- 
 | pt 
 
 z ii? 
 
 oo ^s 
 
 E <§ |g 
 
 51 x 
 
 
EXPECTED 
 
 ANNUAL 
 
 VALUE OF 
 
 PROPERTY 
 
 LOSS 
 
 (URBAN/RURAL) 
 
 O 
 
 m mm 
 
 $ 960/200 
 
 $1100/150 
 $9700/1900 
 
 $ 450/120 
 
 $ 700/84 
 $1100/2100 
 
 u a 
 
 V> <A tf> 
 
 OC UJ 
 
 5 3 
 
 t- 
 
 — — 
 
 2 2 s 
 
 S3, 
 
 o_|to 
 
 IsSS 
 
 OZO" 
 
 oc _LL 
 
 § * 5 
 
 n § 
 
 s ? 5 
 
 § ° s 
 
 IIP 
 
 z 
 
 > 
 
 — rr OC CC 
 
 sS " O 
 
 Zt- < < 
 S< CM CO 
 
 6S 6 
 
 > 
 
 > t 
 t y 
 
 M 5 M o 
 
 UJ< UJ K w 
 
 ccE -10c uj ui 
 
 OS =UI OC DC 
 
 << Sh 
 
 2u. bS - <* 
 
 >- 
 > t 
 t y. 
 
 d x 
 
 Si ^S g g 
 Si! SI 2 5 
 
 CC OC 
 
 < < 
 
 CM CO 
 
 Sod 
 
 OCuJCCCC 
 
 « to 
 
 1 § I 
 
 5 ^ s 
 
 III 
 
 UJ02-C 
 
 i«» 
 
 3 EI 
 
 8 § § 
 
 00 
 °!*. <o in 
 w * w SI 
 
 000 
 
 us 
 
 5 
 
 m 00 
 
 
 cm in 
 
 M 8 S 
 
 2 
 
 1- 
 < 
 
 JO 
 
 ?o 
 
 8>s 
 z 
 < 
 a 
 
 K 
 
 ui x 5 
 
 <3 O _, -1 
 
 oc => r lu 
 
 < oc < Fr 
 
 CD K OC 0. 
 
 * jjj 
 
 _, -1 
 cc d r ui 
 
 < OC < 2: 
 
 CO 1- OC 0. 
 
 ui x ^ 
 O _, J 
 CC 3 - ui 
 < cc < 9z 
 a i- oc o. 
 
 uj * I 
 
 , _l 
 
 K D ^ S 1 
 
 < oc < S: 
 
 CO K CC a. 
 
 i< 
 
 <Z«l 
 
 zzo 
 -jOoc 
 
 iil 
 
 51° 
 
 < 
 O 
 
 2* 
 
 JH 
 
 S§ it 
 
 » S2 z 2 
 138 1? 
 
 K 2 < 
 UJ < I 
 
 2 £ 
 g-E < 
 
 5s q 
 
 uja z 
 
 CSO < 
 
 is s 
 
 l-o «i- 
 
 < <5 ocx 
 
 1 =g <0 
 1- 2m NK 
 ui 2 < 
 
 S < I 
 
 2 £ 
 
 8: < 
 
 1 i 
 
 uj 2 
 22 C 
 
 Is ^ 
 
 1 51 11 
 
 tt =0 <o 
 
 > 2cm NK 
 H 2 < 
 W < I 
 
 Q 
 
 I Q 
 
 ! $ 
 
 1 i| 111 
 
 32 < 
 
 W < I 
 
 -l^uiOC 
 
 85- ° 
 
 = I-q 
 
 
 5«1 
 
 S>82 
 
 2<OD 
 UI2CC0C 
 
 2CC0.I- 
 
 S2o2^ 
 
 UJ>Ulu) 
 
 H<U.|-X 
 
 6-11 
 
kOHi-2 
 
 
 "" u|UlUI> 
 
 E»gs 
 
 "l<ic1 
 
 5o> 
 
 111 < 
 
 Pi 
 
 LUO 00 
 
 
 <Ex 
 
 OUil- 
 
 dS 
 
 2|t 
 
 >UI 
 
 Oh 
 
 IWQ 
 
 _l< 
 
 hnui 
 
 <s 
 
 EiS 
 
 9j= 
 
 *2h 
 
 *~UJ 
 
 Ol-O 
 
 T-l 
 
 DOZ 
 
 *2 
 
 0CD o 
 
 •"^Q 
 
 Zq 
 
 Ms 
 
 281 
 
 i? 
 
 LUZ 
 
 *! 
 
 o< 
 
 2* D 
 
 5oz 
 
 OCH J 
 
 §* 
 
 £*z 
 
 "-zSg 
 
 gjUJ 
 
 cc<i= 
 
 OD 
 
 £$q 
 
 _l< 
 -ICC 
 
 
 H2SS5< 
 
 mj|-<Z 
 IIZOUJ 
 
 —j i-ouji-Q 
 ■a xu.Q2o 
 V toot;" 
 
 3 o2<S° 
 
 " SfcgSsS 
 
 CSS < uj 2 . lu 
 
 §5>S< 
 _i w uia< 
 
 ssgss 
 
 Sol? 
 
 QlOulSi:"- 
 
 QuiDjSz 
 
 — • CO CO •— UJ 
 
 §g2fcuji2 
 
 ozw 
 ZOP 
 
 UJ§< 
 
 cc<w 
 
 |Sz 
 
 Q UJ _ 
 
 _|C0 
 
 OJ 
 
 £8 
 
 o> 
 
 mcc 
 cccc 
 O 
 
 IO 
 
 -ii^E 
 
 <trfS: 
 
 E>»- 
 
 i-ujec 
 zoco 
 
 loo 
 
 ui<<CC S2 = 
 
 6-12 
 
Noise pollution from all modes of transportation is considered 
 to have a minor impact, except possibly for air carriers, which is not 
 considered a viable alternative at this time. For example, the find- 
 ings of the United States Railway Association in its Preliminary 
 System Plan (5) indicate that the percentage of the United States 
 population affected by noise pollution from all types of moving trains 
 is extremely small. EPA's study entitled Transportation Noise and 
 Noise-Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines, states: "Of 
 all the sources of noise in transportation systems, ships are probably 
 the least important in terms of environmental impact on the community 
 in general. .."(6). 
 
 D. NEW STANDARDS 
 
 Another alternative that could be implemented is to require new 
 standards relating to tank vessel pollution abatement including 
 construction design, equipment, personnel competence and operational 
 features. 
 
 With the most recent Presidential and Congressional activities 
 with respect to tanker safety and pollution prevention, with the 
 promulgation of various Coast Guard proposed regulations in response 
 to the Presidential initiative, and with the guidance of the 
 Maritime Administration's policies and vessel standard specifications, 
 U.S. domestic tank vessels will be required to meet the most 
 stringent safety and pollution control standards in the world. 
 
 As new advances in pollution abatement are proven effective, 
 environmentally as well as economically, through research and develop- 
 ment efforts, they will be considered for implementation. However, 
 it is believed at this time that the addition of new standards above 
 and beyond those presently proposed or required would not appreciably 
 improve the protection of the marine environment without substantial 
 economic burdens. 
 
 6-13 
 
CHAPTER VI - REFERENCES FROM TEXT 
 
 1. The Washington Post , July 5, 1977. 
 
 2. Domestic Waterborne Shipping, Market Analysis , prepared for the 
 Maritime Administration by A. T. Kearney, Inc. Management 
 Consultants, February 1974. 
 
 3. Polluting Incidents in and Around U.S. Waters , Calendar Year 
 1976, U. S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. 
 
 4. A Modal Economic and Safety Analysis of the Transportation of 
 Hazardous Substances in Bulk , prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc. 
 for the Maritime Administration, July 1974. 
 
 5. United States Railway Association, Preliminary System Plan , 
 Washington, D.C. , 1975. 
 
 6. Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal 
 Combustion Engines , NTIS 300.13, prepared by Wyle Laboratories for 
 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C, 
 December 31, 1971. 
 
 
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED UNDER THE PROGRAM 
 
 A. USE OF MATERIALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 
 
 As indicated in Chapter IV, the construction of vessels under this 
 Program will require the use of quantities of steel, minerals, and 
 energy resources. While a very large part of the minerals can be re- 
 cycled, the mining and processing of these materials may involve en- 
 vironmental harm in the form of land use-change and air and water 
 pollution. However, when the amounts of materials used are considered 
 in terms of total production and consumption, the amounts are small and 
 ultimately recycled. In addition, it is questionable whether domestic 
 production would be reduced, and hence the environmental effects reduced, 
 if vessel construction under the Program did not take place. The ex- 
 penditure of the energy resources necessary to produce the vessel - 
 construction materials and provide operating energy will be irre- 
 trievably lost in the pursuance of maintaining current productivity 
 levels. The operation of these vessels will require the consumption 
 of bunker fuel oil, diesel oil and lube oil. The extraction and 
 processing of these products involve impacts generally similar to those 
 concerning materials used in construction and other transportation 
 systems. The amounts of materials and energy involved in the Title 
 XI Program vessels are small, and it is questionable whether the effect 
 will be significant upon total national production and consumption. 
 
 B. ENERGY UTILIZATION 
 
 One of the major goals of the energy industry is the conservation of 
 energy throughout the sequential stages from exploration to retailing. 
 The efficient transportation of crude, finished products, and processed 
 chemicals 1s an Important aspect of the overall energy conservation pro- 
 gram. It has been estimated that the petroleum industry consumes approx- 
 imately 17 percent of Its own energy value for capitalization, explora- 
 tion, development, transportation, and refining, with transportation ac- 
 counting for approximately 2 percent (1). For the efficient transportation 
 
 7-1 
 
of petroleum products with the degree of market flexibility which is 
 required, waterborne transportation is essential. As illustrated in 
 Table VII-1 the overall efficiency for all modes of transportation is 
 very near 100 percent. The ancillary energy requirement data are not 
 comparable for different modes of transportation, however, because each 
 mode is assumed to transport the oil a different distance. The selection 
 of one transportation mode over an alternative mode would depend on the 
 distance travelled, products being transported, volumes, schedules, and 
 availability of alternatives and existing transportation systems. Due 
 to the transportation systems which have been developed, the efficiency 
 for transporting large bulk shipments appears to decrease from: tanker, 
 pipeline, barge, rail and truck. Although rail and truck have a high 
 energy efficiency they lack the logistic ability to transport large bulk 
 liquid shipments over great distances. 
 
 With the advent of the Alaskan crude shipments of approximately 
 307,000 tons per day being transported by tanker from Valdez to ports 
 along the West Gulf and East coasts, the annual domestic ton-mile ship- 
 ments of petroleum products will increase dramatically (e.g., one day's 
 throughput will about equal the annual domestic shipment from Valdez of 
 petroleum products in 1976). The efficient movement of crude oil from the 
 TAP system is essential for significant energy conservation. 
 
 C. POLLUTING SPILLS 
 
 Chapter IV discusses the various types of pollution which tankers 
 and tank barges may possibly produce. Chapter V describes measures 
 which may be taken to lessen the amounts and effects of pollution from 
 these tank vessels. These include enforcement of various safety and 
 environmental vessel design, construction, and operational standards 
 and other measures for controlling and cleaning up of ship generated 
 pollution. While a reduction of air and water pollution is possible 
 and achievable, some pollution is inevitable. Operational discharges 
 for the most part can be controlled within limits; however, accidental 
 discharges, especially those from casualties, result from the fall- 
 ibility of man and equipment and are more difficult to control. Various 
 safety measures can reduce the probability of accidents and minimize 
 
 7-2 
 
 
Table VII— 1 
 
 ENERGY EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS MODES 
 OF TRANSPORTING CRUDE OIL 
 
 METHOD 
 
 ANCILLARY ENERGY 1 ' 
 (109PER 
 1()12bTU's) 
 
 OVERALL 2 ' 
 EFFICIENCY 
 (PERCENT) 
 
 DISTANCE FOR 
 
 ANCILLARY 
 ENERGY (MILES) 
 
 PIPELINE 
 
 3.69 
 
 99.3 
 
 300 
 
 TANKERS AND SUPERTANKERS 
 
 40.7 
 
 95.8 
 
 10,000 
 
 BARGES 
 
 25.7 
 
 97.4 
 
 1,500 
 
 TANK TRUCKS 
 
 14.1 
 
 U 
 
 500 
 
 TANK CARS 
 
 14.6 
 
 U 
 
 500 
 
 1. Ancillary energy is input energy required to transport 10 BTU's of energy. 
 For example, tankers and supertankers require 40.7 x 10 9 BTU's for 10 12 BTU's 
 transported 10,000 miles. 
 
 2. Overall efficiency is equal to the output energy divided by the total input energy 
 including the ancillary energy. 
 
 U = Unknown 
 
 7-3 
 
the effects of them when they do occur, but environmental damage from 
 significant accidental spills involving Program vessels are a distinct 
 possibility and can be mitigated only by employing practical and re- 
 sponsive clean up measures. 
 
 When polluting discharges from tank vessels and tank barges occur, 
 they can have the following environmental effects. The marine en- 
 vironment is rich in both its variety and quantity of marine life. 
 Oil and chemical pollution can affect, in varying degrees, all forms 
 of marine plant and animal life from those that are the lowest in the 
 food chain to those at the top. The degree of pollution, type of 
 pollutant spilled, where the spill occurs, duration and the physical 
 conditions under which it occurs determine the extent of the impact. 
 After pollution has occurred, a normal balance may be regained in a 
 short period of time or the impact may be more severe and recovery 
 may require a span of many years. Little is known of what effect the 
 chronic incremental discharge of ship generated pollutants may have on 
 the marine food web. In addition to the effects upon plant and animal 
 life, polluting discharges of the chronic type or major spills could 
 affect beaches, water areas, and historic sites making them at least 
 temporarily unusable for recreational purposes. If such pollution 
 incidents occurred during periods of normal heavy visitor use, loss of 
 recreational enjoyment and economic benefit to the vicinity could be 
 substantial. Fishing, water sports, boating and many other marine 
 related activities could be made much less attractive for an indeter- 
 minate period, depending upon the promptness and efficiency of the 
 cleanup operation. 
 
 Certain chemical cargoes transported by this program do represent 
 a hazard to crew and shoreline inhabitants, facilities and environ- 
 mental communities. The release of these materials through polluting 
 incidents is infrequent; however, the potential consequences are much 
 more significant than those of the more frequent petroleum spills. 
 With a release of highly flammable or toxic substances immediate risks 
 to human life are realized. To control against the occurrence of such 
 events, certain operational procedures are developed for each class of 
 materials to make the waterborne transport of these materials as safe 
 as practical. 
 
D. OTHER ADVERSE IMPACTS 
 
 The foregoing Sections detail the major environmental impacts 
 which cannot be avoided. The Title XI Program will also involve some 
 other impacts which are of lesser significance or which can be 
 attributed only in part to this Program. Small amounts of air, water, 
 noise, and solid waste pollution will result from construction, op- 
 eration,, repair, and scrapping of these vessels and barges. As pointed 
 out in the individual sections, these forms of pollution can be and 
 are likely to be kept within the limits of local, state, and national 
 standards for these forms of pollution. To the limited extent that 
 this program will contribute to the demand for the development of 
 additional shipyard and port and waterway facilities, certain land use 
 changes (e.g., dredging and filling) may produce adverse environmental 
 Impacts. 
 
 REFERENCES FROM TEXT 
 
 1. Hays, Earl T. , "Energy Implications of Materials Processing, 
 Science , Vol. 191, February 20, 1976. 
 
 7-5 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USE 
 
 OF ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND 
 
 ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 
 
 A. EFFECT OF OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS 
 
 To the extent that the Maritime Administration Title XI Program for 
 tankers engaged in domestic trade contributes to the increased use of 
 vessels to carry oil and chemicals and consequently to spills, this pre- 
 sent use may have an effect upon the present and future productivity of 
 the U.S. waterways. The extent to which the Program will contribute to 
 pollution of the U.S. waterways is described in earlier chapters. Due 
 to the current imperfect state of our understanding of the long-term 
 effects of oil and chemicals upon the environment and the scope of this 
 program, it is difficult to analyze quantitatively the extensive rela- 
 tionships of the short-term use of the waterways for oil and chemical 
 transportation by program vessels in relation to the maintenance and en- 
 hancement of the long-term productivity of these resources. The long 
 term effect of incremental and major spillage of oil and chemicals cannot 
 be projected until reliable data becomes available which will permit an 
 analysis of the net result of the combined effects. The additional stress 
 which the ecosystem can absorb is limited, but at present the bounds of 
 these limitations are not known. 
 
 Although the toxic effects of chemical spills are of concern, the 
 subtle effect of oil and chemical breakdown in the marine environment is 
 also important and should be a major concern. Among the fractions from 
 the petroleum breakdown are aromatic compounds, some of which (toluene 
 and benezene) are very toxic. Other aromatic compounds, including those 
 with carcinogenic properties, are dangerous if ingested. There is con- 
 cern that these compounds might be concentrated and transferred through 
 the marine food chain to man (1\ With increased controls by international 
 groups such as the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization 
 (IMCO) and by domestic agencies such as the Environmental Protection 
 Agency (EPA), the Coast Guard and MarAd, the incidents of oil and chemi- 
 cal pollution should be reduced; however, adverse long-term effects from 
 
 -1 
 
oil and chemical spills are still a possibility. 
 
 The net cumulative effects of this program will be to enhance the 
 modernization of the U.S. tanker fleet. By the action of this program 
 in concert with other federal pollution abatement programs the net spill- 
 age into U.S. waters would be expected to decrease due to better con- 
 structed and operated vessels and the decrease in dependence upon im- 
 ported oil being brought into U.S. waters by foreign vessels. 
 
 B. NATURAL RESOURCES UTILIZED FOR VESSEL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 
 
 The extraction and use of minerals and materials in the construction 
 and operation of the Program vessels involves a short term use of resources, 
 some of which can never be recovered. However, because of the relatively 
 small amounts of resources used in comparison with total national resources, 
 and the ability to reclaim shipboard materials when scrapping vessels, the 
 effect upon long term productivity should be quite small. 
 
 The fuel consumption for U.S. waterborne commerce has been estimated 
 to be approximately 2.5 percent of the total U.S. transportation usage. 
 This value is approximately one quarter of one percent of the country's 
 net energy consumption. This utilization does represent a resource loss 
 and does produce pollution emissions; however, this is required to main- 
 tain and promote the national productivity levels. As discussed, water- 
 borne transport is one of the most efficient bulk freight moving systems; 
 consequently, the promotion of this transport mode is in agreement with 
 the national objectives of energy conservation and increased energy 
 efficiency. 
 
 C. LAND USE FOR SHIPYARDS, PORTS AND WATERWAYS FACILITIES 
 
 To the extent that the construction and operation of Program vessels 
 may require shipyard expansion or the construction of new port facilities, 
 land will have to be dedicated for these purposes. The extent to which 
 this program exerts pressure for such dedication and the types and amounts 
 of lands which are expected to be so dedicated are difficult to define 
 quantl'tatiyely, The major long term effect is a reduction in the 
 
productivity of the submerged shore! and and wetlands affected due to 
 dredging and spoiling operations. The adverse long term effects can be 
 minimized by strict enforcement of environmental protection procedures 
 being developed by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Interior 
 Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal and state agencies which 
 regulate such construction projects. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII - REFERENCE FROM TEXT 
 
 L. M. Blumer, "Oil Pollution of the Ocean." Pages 5-13. In D. P. Hoult 
 (ed.) Oil on the Sea . Plenum Press, New York, 114 p., 1969. 
 
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 
 COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 
 
 A. EFFECTS OF OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS 
 
 The extent of potential oil and chemical spillage from Program 
 vessels has been previously discussed. Such spills may have irreversible 
 and irretrievable environmental impacts. 
 
 The major significance of such spillage in the marine and aquatic 
 environment is its potential effect on the biological resources. At 
 this time, there is no evidence that low-level spillage has led to an 
 irreversible commitment of resources, nor is there any conclusive 
 evidence that it has not. More dramatic, though less probable, are the 
 major cargo spills that could occur through the loss of one of the 
 Program's vessels along the coastal zones and inland waterways. The 
 extent and severity of such a spill's effects, including its irre- 
 versible and irretrievable injury to natural resources, would depenc 
 on the combination of location, amount, time of year, weather and sea 
 condition. The chances of all these circumstances occurring to cause 
 maximum damage and resulting irreversible consequences are, in MarAd's 
 opinion, remote. It is not clear that spills of lesser impact would 
 result in an irreversible commitment or damage to natural resources. 
 
 B. USE OF MINERALS IN VESSEL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 
 
 The construction and operation of Program vessels will involve the 
 use of mineral resources, some of which cannot be recovered. Coal, lime- 
 stone, and other materials are used to produce steel and other materials 
 used in construction of vessels. While many materials are recoverable, 
 such as steel used in construction, other materials are not. The char- 
 acter of these materials is not unique, nor will the quantities used be 
 such that their use is significant in terms of our national resources, in 
 the opinion of the MarAd staff. 
 
 9-1 
 
The operation of the vessels will require the expenditure of 
 energy resources * Although these resources will be irrevocably lost, 
 the necessary work generated by their expenditure is a necessity to 
 carry out waterborne commerce. As demonstrated earlier, vessels under 
 this program include some of the most energy efficient transportation 
 modes; thus the Program is in agreement with the national goals of 
 efficient energy utilization and conservation. Title XI Program 
 vessels will be used in shipment of Alaskan crude to the Lower 48, 
 thus furthering the goals of Project Independence. 
 
 C. RESOURCE DEDICATION FOR SHIPYARDS, PORTS AND WATERWAYS 
 
 As discussed, the Title XI Program to promote domestic tanker 
 commerce may inadvertently cause a secondary development as a result of 
 shipyard, port, and waterway expansions. If this should occur, the 
 irreversible commitment of terrestrial, water, wetland, landuse, 
 biological and geophysical resources will have to be made for these 
 commitments. The specific commitments of these resources will have to 
 be made on their own individual merits and the environmental impacts 
 reviewed on a case by case basis. It is not the intent of this Program 
 to directly cause this development; however, it is recognized as a 
 contributory factor. 
 
 9-2 
 
CHAPTER X 
 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 
 
 This chapter presents an account of the consultation and coordina- 
 tion processes involved in the preparation of the draft environmental im- 
 pact statement (DEIS), the period of review of the DEIS, and the steps 
 leading to the preparation of the final environmental impact statement 
 (FEIS). All official review comments of the DEIS are attached and, where 
 appropriate, the disposition of pertinent comments leading to the prepar- 
 ation of the FEIS 1s indicated. 
 
 Chapter II has been totally restructured and other chapters revised 
 to reflect all comments pertaining to the original draft wherever consid- 
 ered appropriate. 
 
 The DEIS was made available to the Environmental Protection Agency 
 and the public on July 22, 1978; the review and comment period ended 
 September 30, 1978. All review comments of the DEIS were considered and, 
 where appropriate, the disposition of the comments is indicated and any 
 unresolved issues are identified. Remarks concerning disposition of com- 
 ments are to be found immediately following each letter received which 
 has been reproduced verbatim. In this way, it is hoped that the Depart- 
 ment's responses to many of the issues raised can be easily located and 
 oriented to the agency or person that originated the comment. Page num- 
 bers refer to pages commented upon in the DEIS. 
 
 10-1 
 
Department of Energy 
 Washington, D.C. 20545 
 
 AUG 9 1978 
 
 Mr. Kenneth W. Forbes 
 
 Environmental Activities Group, Room 6092 
 
 Office of Shipbuilding Costs 
 
 Maritime Administration 
 
 U.S. Department of Commerce 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20230 
 
 Dear Mr. Forbes : 
 
 This is in response to Dr. Galler's letter of July 21, 1978, 
 transmitting the Maritime Administration's draft environmental 
 impact statement on the Title XI Program for Tank Vessels Engaged 
 in Domestic Trade for review. 
 
 We have reviewed the statement and have determined that the proposed 
 action will not conflict with current or known future Department of 
 Energy programs. We have no comments to offer on the statement itself. 
 
 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
 statement. 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 ty/n^^renm ngton ,/Sr rector 
 -fsion of Program Review 
 and Coordination 
 Office of NEPA Affairs 
 
 
 10-2 
 
Uffiy 
 
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 
 
 2 2 SEP 1978 
 
 Mr. Sidney R. Galler 
 Deputy Assistant Secretary 
 
 for Environmental Affairs 
 U.S. Department of Commerce 
 Washington, D.C. 20230 
 
 Dear Mr. Galler: 
 
 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Maritime 
 Administration's Draft environmental impact statement (EIS) , "Maritime 
 Administration Title XI Tank Vessels Engaged in Domestic Trade," MA-EIS- 
 7302-78051-D. 
 
 The draft EIS is a good review of oil spill probabilities and water 
 pollution risks associated with the transportation of oil, oil products, 
 and chemicals by tankers and barges on the oceans, inland waterways, and 
 the Great Lakes. Also, the discussion on the effects of the spilled 
 material in the environment is quite complete from a water pollution 
 standpoint. However, the draft EIS does not relate these probabilities 
 and effects to the tank vessels in question. Other than a few subjective 
 statements, such as the one on page 4-4, no attempt is made to relate 
 the discussions to the Title XI tank vessels. 
 
 The EIS gives only slight attention to the potential air pollution 
 impact of Title XI aid. Air pollution emissions originate from three 
 broad classes of tanker events, ship operations (propulsion systems 
 emissions, auxiliary power generation system emissions and the like); 
 cargo handling operations (loading, unloading, cargo tank washing, 
 etc.); and spills. The draft EIS addresses only one of these classes, 
 namely, ship operations. For these, MarAd cited documents which indicate 
 that air pollution is not much of a problem. The emissions of hydrocarbons 
 (HC) from spills and cargo handling are not addressed and their impacts 
 may cause significant air quality problems. 
 
 We have rated the EIS as category ER-2 Environmental Reservations, 
 Insufficient Information in that the EIS does not sufficiently assess 
 the environmental impact associated with Title XI aid to tank vessels 
 engaged in domestic trade. Our concerns with this EIS center in the 
 water and air pollution areas. 
 
 10-3 
 
Our detailed comments are enclosed. If you have questions on our 
 comments, please contact Mr. George Turner of my staff (755-0770). 
 
 Sincerely yours j-^ *^V ^ 
 
 William D. Dickerson 
 
 Acting Director 
 
 Office of Federal Activities (A-104) 
 
 10-4 
 
EPA Detailed Comments on 
 
 "Maritime Administration Title XI 
 
 Tank Vessels Engaged in Domestic Trade" 
 
 (MA-EIS-7302-78051-D) 
 
 Specific Comments 
 
 pp. 4-21- 
 
 4-22: The disagreements concerning side versus bottom protection 
 is exemplified on these two pages. Page 4-21 presents the argu- 
 ment for bottom protection based on greater outflows from 
 groundings than from collisions with equal frequency of 
 occurence. Page 4-22 presents the argument for side protection 
 based on a higher frequency of spill occurance from collisions 
 and rammings. The EIS should be clarified to show how these 
 figures are derived, e.g., the inclusion or exclusion of 
 massive spills and the question of the Sea Star incident. 
 This applies also to the statements on page 4-113. 
 
 pp. 428: para 2: A comment indicating the recalcitrance of some 
 components of oil to biodegradation should be added. 
 
 pp. 4-46: para, 2: Biological names should be underlined or italicized, 
 i.e. Spartina alternif lora , Mya arenaria . 
 
 pp. 4-128: Paragraph 2. This paragraph contains essentially the only 
 statement about air pollution from tanker cargo. Data on 
 amounts of air pollutants arising from normal cargo handling 
 operations or the types of pollution control equipment employed 
 in cargo handling should be included in the EIS. 
 
 pp. 4-128: Paragraph 3. "Air pollution resulting from these different 
 fuels (various fuel oils) is generally higher than from the 
 less expansive refined products which have a higher sulfur and 
 asphalt content". 
 
 This statement leads to confusion. One would not expect less 
 pollution from products having higher sulfur and asphalt content. 
 
 pp. 4-129(1): While the EIS states that a berthed ship would be subject 
 to the same air pollution requirements as other point sources 
 in the area, it does not give any data on the local requirements. 
 It should also identify those ports located in non-attainment Air 
 Quality Control Regions (AQCR) . 
 
 (2) "... it is generally assumed that a pollution load from 
 vessels in a metropolitan area is substantially lower than 
 that from other sources such as stationary power generating plants, 
 industry and automobiles". 
 
 10-5 
 
This (probably good) assumption is frequently a basic part of 
 specious argument for exception to pollution abatement requirements. 
 The assumption fails to recognize that air pollution is cumulative 
 and that an exception cannot be made for each source. 
 
 (3) "Data from a recent DOT... study indicate that marine shipping 
 industry is not a significant contributor to air pollution." 
 
 The reference, No. 93 found on page 4-152 should be updated, 
 and adequate reference should be provided to allow an interested 
 individual to obtain the document. 
 
 pg. 5-8: The hypothetical outflow figure for specification 70-2 should 
 read "400 3 DWT," not "400 3 DWT". 
 
 pp. 5-9 
 
 and 5-14: (1) Specification 70-4 and the discussion on page 5-12 regarding 
 load-on-top (LOT) seem to ignore the major disadvantages of the 
 process. These are: 1) LOT is not effective for short voyages 
 because sufficient time is not provided for decanting; and 2) LOT 
 and retain-on-board (ROB) are opeational methods and thus 
 highly dependent on crew training. The statement on page 5-14 
 regarding efficiency is therefore rather misleading. The final 
 EIS should provide full discussion of LOT and ROB and expand 
 on the desirability of segregated ballast tanks (SBT) , which 
 eliminate the disadvantages of these operational methods. 
 
 (2) The EIS mentions crude oil washing (COW) in passing 
 (3 sentences) on page 5-14, and provides description of the 
 process on page 5-55, but the discussion does not treat COW as 
 an air pollution issue. The impact of the anticipated expanded 
 use of COW should be addressed. A comparison of these emissions 
 to other tankers not utilizing COW procedures in and around 
 U.S. ports would be helpful. 
 
 pg. 5-22: The reference to the Acts which authorize EPA to regulate 
 
 discharges is not accurate. Rather than the Water Qualtity 
 Improvement Act of 1970 and the 1972 Amendments, the reference 
 should be the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L., 95-217). 
 
 pp-34 - 35: para E. The whole paragraph should be rewritten to clarify 
 that the EIS is discussing the National Contingency Plan (NCP) 
 and not the Spill, Prevention Containment and Countermeasure 
 Plans (SPCC). 
 
 sen 1 - Substitute NCP for SPCC after word "formulation" 
 
 sen 2- Substitute Clean Water Act of 1977 for Amendments 
 of 1970, and Change National response plan to read 
 National Contingency Plan. 
 
 10-6 
 
sen 3- Substitute local for such before "plans." 
 
 sen 6- substitute Contingency plan for SPCC plan after 
 word "specific" 
 
 pp. 35: Last para sentence 1. Addition to sentence, " ...in the 
 Coastal waters." 
 
 pp. 5-41: Sinking Agents - para 2. It should be stated that NCP - 
 
 40 CFR 1510-1 Annex X states in para 2007-1-1 that "Sinking 
 Agents shall not be applied." 
 
 pp. 5-52: Dispersants - para 2 should be deleted and guidance provided 
 by NCP-40CFR/1510 annex X para 2003 substituted for. 
 
 pp. 6-6: In the discussion of alternative ways of transporting oil 
 
 and other bulk liquid cargoes, the EIS did not list the reduction 
 of air pollution among the advantages of pipeline transport, 
 nor provide any discussion of this point. 
 
 10-7 
 
A. DISPOSITION OF EPA'S GENERAL COMMENTS 
 
 As was stated on page 4-4 of the draft EIS, it is difficult to de- 
 termine exactly what percentage of pollution is the result of vessels 
 receiving Title XI government aid engaged in domestic trade. The diffi- 
 culty arises from the way in which vessel casualty data is compiled by 
 various sources. The U.S. Coast Guard's Commercial Vessel Casualty 
 Statistics, Lloyd's Weekly Casualty Reports and IMCO casualty data are 
 the most reliable sources available. None of these data sources distin- 
 guish among different MarAd programs (such as the Title XI Program). 
 
 Chapter II discusses the Title XI Program and indicates a very 
 small number of the vessels engaged in domestic trade receive Title XI 
 financial aid. Therefore it can be concluded that Title XI vessels con- 
 tribute a yery small percentage of the total pollution entering U.S. 
 waters. This conclusion was stated on page 4-4 of the draft EIS. 
 
 With regard to the potential air pollution impact from Title XI 
 tankers, Section F of Chapter IV was rewritten to incorporate the gen- 
 eral comments recommended by EPA. 
 
 10-8 
 
1. Disposition of EPA's Specific Comments 
 
 pp. 4-21 - 4-22: 
 
 An attempt was made to present conclusions from an analysis of oil 
 outflow due to tanker incidents. The EPA's detailed comments and the 
 request for clarification suggested further research to show how the 
 figures were derived in the study. 
 
 In response to the EPA's request for clarification, it was deter- 
 mined that the study entitled: "An Analysis of Oil Outflow Due to Tan- 
 ker Accidents" (from IMCO Document DE IX/3/2, submitted on November 8, 
 1972) was based on relatively old data and would not provide an accurate 
 account of the present situation. Therefore, the reference to the study 
 was deleted from the DEIS. The basis for issuing recently proposed reg- 
 ulations on page 4-22 which defines the distribution of segregated bal- 
 last in tankers of over 20,000 DWT (reference 7) was retained because it 
 is up-to-date information that will make a significant contribution to 
 the FEIS. Similarly, the recent analysis of worldwide tanker accidents 
 prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Oceans Program pre- 
 sented on pages 4-17 and 4-112 was retained. The source of the accident 
 data for this analysis is included in the FEIS. It is believed this mod- 
 ification will clarify the discussion on tanker accidents in the FEIS. 
 
 To discuss how the numbers were derived from these studies would 
 require almost an entire reiteration of each study report which is con- 
 trary to the main objective established for the development of the FEIS. 
 The objective is to develop an environmental impact statement which meets 
 the requirements of NEPA and conforms to President Carter's plea for 
 concise statements. Each study is adequately referenced in the FEIS to 
 permit an interested individual to obtain the documents in question and 
 determine the methodology employed. 
 
 p. 4-28: 
 
 The following sentence was added to the second complete paragraph 
 of page 4-28: 
 
 Some components of oil may resist biodegradation. 
 
 10-9 
 
p. 4-46: 
 
 The biological names mentioned in the second complete paragraph of 
 page 4-46 were underlined as recommended (i.e., Spartina a! term' flora , 
 My a arenaria , etc . ) 
 
 p. 4-128, 2nd paragraph: 
 
 The entire section 3, entitled "Air Pollution" starting at page 
 4-126, was rewritten. Data on estimated amounts of air pollution arising 
 from normal cargo-handling operations was included. 
 
 p. 4-128, paragraph b: 
 
 The last sentence in the paragraph has been corrected to read: 
 
 Air pollution resulting from inexpensive fuels having a high sulphur 
 and asphalt content is generally higher than from expensive refined prod- 
 ucts. 
 
 p. 4-129 (1): 
 
 Changes have been made in the second complete paragraph to reflect 
 the ambient air quality standards and references. 
 
 Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (i.e., specific quantitative 
 requirements) are now shown in a table in the FEIS. 
 
 References are given for the identification of ports located in non- 
 attainment air quality control regions. Also included is a table of some 
 major port areas and their attainment status designations. 
 
 p. 4-129 (2): 
 
 A sentence has been added to the second complete paragraph of page 
 4-129 to read: 
 
 It should be recognized that air pollution is cummulative and that 
 an exception cannot be made for each source. 
 
 p. 4-129 (3): 
 
 In the second complete paragraph the third sentence was modified by 
 
 10-10 
 
deletion of the word "recent." The sentence now reads as follows: 
 
 Data from a DOT Transportation Systems Center study indicate that ma- 
 rine shipping industry is not a significant contributor to air pollution. 
 
 The DOT study was adequately referenced to allow an interested in- 
 dividual to obtain the document. The reference now reads: 
 
 Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, U.S. 
 Coast Guard Pollution Abatement Program, Preliminary Study of Vessel and 
 Boat Exhaust Emission, CG-D-72-3, 1972. 
 
 The conclusion from a more recent study (1976) performed by the DOT 
 Center on exhaust emissions from river towboats operating in the region 
 of St. Louis, Missouri was added to paragraph 2 on page 4-129. A new 
 sentence was added at the end of the paragraph which reads as follows: 
 
 In a more recent study, the DOT Center estimated exhaust emissions 
 from river towboats operating in the region of St. Louis, Missouri (94). 
 It was concluded that on a percentage basis for the entire Air Quality 
 Control Region (AQCR), towboat emissions are minor relative to other 
 emission sources. 
 
 p. 5-8: 
 
 The hypothetical outflow figure for specification 70-2 was corrected 
 to read 400 V^DWT instead of 40O 3 DWT. 
 
 pp. 5-9 and 5-14(1): 
 
 The following paragraphs were added to the second complete paragraph 
 of page 5-14: 
 
 All tankers are not capable of conducting LOT operations. Moreover, 
 LOT operations can cope only with 80 percent of the potential operation 
 and pollution arising from tank washings. This is due to the following 
 reasons: 
 
 • The LOT system cannot be applied to tankers in the persistent oil 
 product trade since finished products cannot be mixed with one another 
 and cannot tolerate salt content in the same way as most crude oils. 
 
 10-11 
 
• Certain ballast voyages can be so short as to preclude the time 
 necessary for satisfactory operation of the LOT systems. 
 
 • Depending on sea conditions, the necessary separation process may 
 not be completely effective. 
 
 • The ability to accurately determine the oil-water interface in the 
 holding tank is lacking and subsequently results in drawing off a portion 
 of the lower layer of oil along with the water. 
 
 Many of the LOT operational disadvantages can be eliminated by em- 
 ploying alternative techniques (e.g., the installation of segregated bal- 
 last tanks or crude oil washing). 
 
 (2) A sentence was added at the end of the third complete paragraph of 
 page 5-14 to read: 
 
 If the "crude oil washing" method is properly employed as a closed 
 system (i.e., cargo tank hatches are closed and the pressure of the atmos- 
 phere in the cargo tank is maintained below vent valve settings), then 
 this type of tank cleaning operation should not be a significant source 
 of air pollution. 
 
 p. 5-22: 
 
 The reference to the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and 1972 
 amendments was changed to read: 
 
 The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217). 
 
 pp. 5-34 and 5-35: 
 
 The paragraphs in Section E were rewritten to reference the 1977 
 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act 
 of 1977). 
 p. 5-35: 
 
 The following wording was added to the end of the first sentence of 
 the last paragraph of page 5-35: 
 
 ... in the Coastal Waters. 
 
 10-12 
 
p. 5-41: 
 
 The second sentence of the second complete paragraph was deleted and 
 the following sentence was substituted: 
 
 The plan is presented in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
 part 1510.1, Annex X. Paragraph 2007.1-1 of the plan states that sinking 
 agents shall not be applied to discharges of oil or hazardous substances 
 on the navigable waters of the United States and the contiguous zone. 
 
 p. 5-42: 
 
 The third, fourth, and fifth complete paragraphs on page 5-42 were 
 
 deleted and new paragraphs substituted to describe the guidance provided 
 
 by NCP-40CFR/1510 Annex I, paragraph 2003. 
 
 p. 6-6: 
 
 The section in question (Section C. "Alternative Modes of Transpor- 
 tation," beginning on page 6-5) attempts to summarize a comparison of the 
 alternative modes of transporting liquid cargoes. The environmental im- 
 pact of pollution from oil and chemical releases as a result of pipeline 
 Incidents is discussed on page 6-8, along with incidents involving motor 
 carriers and rail tank cars. Although the section does not explicitly 
 discuss air pollution from such incidents, one can surmise what the 
 impact may be after careful study of the material presented in Chapter 
 IV (particularly Section B.4). 
 
 It would be presumptuous at this time to state that air pollution 
 reduction is an advantage of pipeline transport without first conducting 
 a very detailed analysis. For example, it is generally known that com- 
 pressor/pump stations used to pump oil over long pipeline distances gen- 
 erate air pollution. 
 
 For purposes of clarification, the section D., entitled "Environ- 
 mental Impact (3)", was deleted on page 6-8, making it an integral part 
 of Section C, "Alternative Modes of Transportation (2,3)." 
 
 10-13 
 
United States Department of the Interior 
 
 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 
 
 PEP ER-78/698 
 
 SEP 1 8 1978 
 
 Mr. Sidney R. Galler 
 Deputy Assistant Secretary 
 
 for Environmental Affairs 
 U.S. Department of Commerce 
 Washington, D.C. 20230 
 
 Dear Mr. Galler: 
 
 Thank you for your letter of July 21, 1978, requesting our 
 views and comments on the draft environmental statement for 
 Tank Vessels Engaged in Domestic Trade. We have completed 
 our review and have only the following minor comments . 
 
 Page 7-3. A definition for "overall efficiency" should be 
 provided in Table VII-1, "Energy Efficiencies of Various 
 Modes of Transporting Crude Oil." 
 
 Page 8-2. Section B of Chapter VIII begins with the in- 
 correct statement that : "The extraction and use of minerals 
 and materials in the construction and operation of the 
 Program vessels involves a short term use of our resources." 
 As indicated in Section B of Chapter IX, however, some of the 
 minerals which are utilized can never be recovered. Thus, 
 the lead statement in Section B of Chapter VIII should be 
 revised accordingly. 
 
 We hope these comments are of assistance in completing the 
 final statement. 
 
 Bruce Blanchard , Director 
 Environmental Project Review 
 
 10-14 
 
B. DISPOSITION OF DOI'S COMMENTS 
 
 p. 7-3: 
 
 The following definition of overall efficiency was added to Table 
 VII-1 on page 7-3. 
 
 Overall efficiency is equal to the output energy divided by the 
 total input energy including the ancillary energy. 
 
 p. 8-2: 
 
 The first sentence of Section B on page 8-2 has been modified to 
 read: 
 
 The extraction and use of minerals and materials in the construction 
 and operation of the Program vessels involves a short term use of re- 
 sources, some of which can never be recovered. 
 
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 
 
 DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING 
 
 ' JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor 
 
 Phone 465-3512 
 Pouch AD - Juneau 9981 1 
 
 September 25, 1978 
 
 Mr. Kenneth W. Forbes 
 Environmental Activities Group 
 Office of Shipbuilding Costs 
 United States Department of Commerce 
 Maritime Administration 
 Washington, D.C. 20230 
 
 Subject: State Clearinghouse Close-out on DEIS 
 Maritime Administration Title XI Tank 
 Vessels Engaged in Domestic Trade 
 
 Dear Mr. Forbes: 
 
 The Alaska State Clearinghouse has completed review on the subject DEIS. 
 
 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation had the following 
 comments: 
 
 "The Maritime Administration has two programs that influence tanker 
 construction. The first is through payment of a construction 
 differential subsidy (CDS) to the owners of tankers engaged exclu- 
 sively in the foreign trade. The CDS is the difference between the 
 costs of building in a foreign yard and the higher costs of building 
 in the United States. Under this program MARAD will subsidize 
 certain additional features, such as collision avoidance radar, 
 dual radars, segregated ballast and inert gas systems, which they 
 feel will help control pollution from tankers. The second program 
 addressed covers government guarantee of the ship ' s mortgage under 
 Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as amended. The mort- 
 gage money for construction or reconstruction is obtained from 
 commercial sources. 
 
 "This document outlines domestic oil transportation by water, 
 explains the Title XI program, reviews oil spill data, discusses 
 the fate of oil in the water, and ecological damages, and analyzes 
 various forms of pollution from shipping activities. Chapter V 
 deals with approaches to mitigate pollution from tankers. There 
 are extensive discussions of the requirements of the Coast Guard, 
 EPA, American Bureau of Shipping, and SOLAS. The MARAD domestic 
 program, under Title XI, "encourages" features, such as collision 
 avoidance radar, inert gas, load on top, segregated ballast, tank 
 size limitations, oil discharge monitors, etc. All these features 
 have been analyzed. It is our recommendation to implement them in 
 a bold manner. Various implementation schemes under Title XI 
 
 10-16 
 
Nj. Kenneth W. Forbes 
 September 25, 1978 
 Page 2 
 
 should be discussed in detail, such as the possibility of requiring 
 the inclusion of certain features as a precondition of the mortgage 
 guarantee. These guarantees can also be used to encourage retrofit 
 of certain equipment or features. 
 
 "MARAD has a very powerful tool in Title XI, and should use it to 
 require antipollution features instead of just encouraging them. 
 Clean-up costs alone for the AMOCO CADIZ have been estimated to 
 exceed $110 million and this does not include any estimate for 
 ecological damage. If the vessel had had a double bottom, perhaps 
 less oil would have escaped, or if it had had a back-up steering 
 system, the grounding may not even have occurred. The list of 
 catastrophic spills continues to grow with no significant improve- 
 ments to date and only a forecast of more delay in implementing 
 strong new initiatives to control pollution from tankers. However, 
 if the recommendations in MORAD's program are forcefully implemented, 
 there would be a considerable improvement." 
 
 The crux of the comments from Environmental Conservation appear to the 
 Clearinghouse as an urging to the Maritime Administration that it imple- 
 ment "in a bold manner" those avenues open to influence more sturdy 
 construction of tank vessels and "required antipollution features, 
 instead of just encouraging them." 
 
 The Alaska State Clearinghouse supports these recommendations for a more 
 explicit and positive phrasing of proposed activity. 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 Jerry tJ. Madden 
 
 State -Federal Coordinator 
 
 Commissioner Ernst Mueller 
 
 Department of Environmental Conservation 
 
 10-17 
 
C. DISPOSITION OF THE COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 
 
 Essentially, the comments from the State of Alaska recommend that 
 MarAd take "bolder" action rather than "encourage" vessel features, such 
 as collision-avoidance radar, inert gas, load-on-top, segregated ballast, 
 tank size limitations, oil discharge monitors, etc. 
 
 MarAd acknowledges the recommendation by the State of Alaska and 
 appropriate action will be taken to influence improved construction of 
 vessels and the use of anti -pollution features. 
 
 10-18 
 
ixtt ai planning an& ^Buftget 
 
 ^Execuiiue department 
 
 GEORGIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE MEMORANDUM 
 
 Mr. Kenneth W. Forbes 
 Office of Shipbuilding Costs 
 Environmental Activities, Rm. 6092 
 Washington, D.C. 20230 
 
 Charles H. Badger, Administrator 
 Georgia State Clearinghouse 
 Office of Planning and Budget 
 
 DATE: September 28, 1978 
 
 SUBJECT: RESULTS OF STATE-LEVEL REVIEW 
 
 Applicant: U. S. Department of Commerce 
 
 Project: Draft EIS - Tank Vessels Engaged in Domestic Trade 
 
 State Clearinghouse Control Number: 78-08-01-10 
 
 The State-level review of the above-referenced document has been completed. As a result of 
 the environmental review process, the activity this document was prepared for is recommended 
 for further development with the following recommendations for strengthening the project: 
 
 A tanker malfunction or accident resulting in an oil spill or leakage would bring 
 about the same situation as that of offshore drilling rig leaks or spills, and 
 could even be more extensive. The entire Georgia Coast including inshore and offshore 
 waters, marsh estuaries, beaches, dunes and all interrelated biota would suffer 
 drastically. For this reason, utmost care and importance should be placed on safety 
 both in construction design of vessels and Coast Guard regulations on safe water 
 transportation of dangerous chemical cargoes. 
 
 The following State Agency has been offered theopportunity to review and comment on 
 this project: Department of Natural Resources 
 
 cc: Ray Siewert, DNR 
 
 270 Washington £t„ §». JD. • ^tlanta, Georgia 30334 4/ y g 
 
 10-19 
 
D. DISPOSITION OF THE COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA 
 
 MarAd acknowledges the recommendation by the State of Georgia and 
 will continue to work closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to assure appro- 
 priate safety standards are Instituted for both vessel design and chem- 
 ical cargo transportation by water. 
 
STATE OF ILUNOIS 
 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 
 
 BUREAU OF THE BUDGET 
 
 SPRINGFIELD 6270S 
 
 August 22, 1978 
 
 U.S. Department of Commerce 
 Maritime Administration 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 Dear Sirs: 
 
 RE: DEIS on Maritime Administration Title XI Tank Vessels Engaged in 
 Domestic Trade - #78 08 02 61 
 
 The Illinois State Clearinghouse has reviewed the referenced subject 
 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 0MB Circular A-95, 
 Revised and the administrative policy of the State. State agencies which 
 are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards have been given 
 ♦•he opportunity to comment on this subject. 
 
 The Illinois Department of Conservation has indicated that the referenced 
 DEIS does not take into consideration the secondary effects of vessel move- 
 ment on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers' ecosystem. These effects include 
 increased turbidity, increased sedimentation, increased erosion of river banks, 
 and the related water quality impacts. 
 
 These cumulative secondary effects may have a large adverse impact on 
 the rivers' ecosystem and should be discussed in the final EIS. Please call 
 upon Richard W. Lutz if you desire further information. 
 
 Thank you for your cooperation. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 T. E. Hornbacker, Director 
 Illinois State Clearinghouse 
 
 TEH/li 
 
 cc: Richard Lutz 
 
 10-21 
 
E. DISPOSITION OF THE COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 
 
 p. 4-144: 
 
 Section H.6 of Chapter IV has been rewritten to reflect the second- 
 ary effects of vessel movements on inland waterways. 
 
F. RESPONSES FROM THE STATES OF IOWA, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY, AND 
 NEW YORK 
 
 10-23 
 
nil 
 
 STATE OF IOWA 
 
 Office for Planning and Programming 
 
 523 East 12th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Telephone 515/281-3711 
 
 ROBERT 0. RAY 
 
 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 
 
 PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SIGNOFF 
 Date Received: July 31, 1978 State. Application Identifier: 7901 56 
 
 Review Completed: September 8. 1978 
 
 APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE: ~ ~ " ~~~ 
 
 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Maritime Administration 
 
 APPLICANT AGENCY: Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 
 
 Address Assistant Secretary for Science 
 
 and Technology Sidney R. Galler 
 
 FEDERAL PROGRAM TITLE, AGENCY Federal Ship Financing Guarantees 
 AND CATALOG NUMBER: Department of Commerce 
 
 Maritime Administration 
 
 Catalog No. 11.502 
 
 AMOUNT OF FUNDS REQUESTED: 
 
 NA 
 
 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 
 
 United States Department of Commerce Draft Environmental Impact Statement Maritime 
 
 Administration Title XI Tank Vessels Engaged in Domestic Trade. 
 
 MA-EIS-7302-78051-D 
 
 The State Clearinghouse makes the following disposition concerning this application: 
 
 / X / No, Comment Necessary. The application must be submitted as received by 
 the Clearinghouse with this form attached as evidence that the required 
 review has been performed. 
 
 / / Comments are Attached. The application must be submitted with this form 
 plus the attached comments as evidence that the required review has been 
 performed. 
 
 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE COMMENTS: — — 
 
 CH-14 Rev. 9-75 
 
 10-24 
 
MARYLAND 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING 
 
 301 WEST PRESTON STREET 
 MARVIN MANOEL BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201 
 
 TELEPHONE: 301-383-2451 
 
 MEMORANDUM 
 
 DATE: July 27, 1973 
 
 0..^^^^^^ 
 
 FROM: James W. McConcaughhay 
 Chief, State Cleariagnoi 
 
 RE: State Clearinghouse Project #78-7-113 
 
 Draft EIS - Assistance in the Construction of Tank Vessels Engaged in 
 Domestic Trade (U. S. Department of Commerce - Maritime A dmini stration) 
 MA-EIS-7302-78051 -D 
 
 The enclosed summary on the reference project is forwarded for your info -mat ion 
 and use. If you desire to further comment on the project, please contact the Federal 
 agency within two weeks from the date of this memorandum and send an information 
 copy of such response to this State Clearinghouse. If no response is received within 
 this time period, it will be assumed that your agency has no further interest in 
 commenting on the project. 
 
 Thank you for your attention ~o this matter. 
 
 JWM:se 
 
 Addressees : 
 
 Henry Silbemann - DNR 
 Lowell Frederick - DECD 
 Donald Noren - EHA 
 Greg Halpin - M?A 
 Clyde Pyers - DOT 
 Lois Gilliam - DSP 
 
 Information coxiy : 
 
 Sidney R. Galler - U.S. Dept. of Commerce 
 
 10-25 
 
363 WEST STATE STREET 
 POST OFFICE BOX 2768 
 TRENTON, N.J. 08625 
 
 But? nf 2fom 3lprsj?jg 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 
 
 August 14, 1978 
 
 Mr. Kenneth W. Forbes 
 Environmental Activities Group 
 Room 6092 
 
 Office of Shipbuilding Costs 
 Maritime Administration 
 Washington, D.C. 20230 
 
 RE: 0SRC-FY-79-126 
 
 Dear Mr. Forbes: 
 
 In accordance with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular 
 A-95 Revised, your Environmental Impact Statement for Tank Vessels 
 Engaged in Domestic Trade designated application OSRC-FY-79-126, has met 
 the State of New Jersey's Clearinghouse requirements. 
 
 We have circulated this Project Notification to the appropriate 
 State agencies, none of which have voiced any objections. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 <7f 
 
 (4 ■ <■ ■ 
 
 '/ Richard A. Ginman . \/'' 
 / State Review Coordinator 
 
 / 
 
 RAG:cp / 
 
 10-26 
 
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 
 
 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 
 Office of Environmental Analysis 
 
 Peter A. A. Berle, 
 Commissioner 
 
 September 18, 1978 
 
 U. S. Department of Commerce 
 Maritime Administration 
 Washington, D.C. 20006 
 
 Draft En.vironmenta/ Impact 
 Statement, Maritime Administration 
 Title XI, Tank Vessels Engaged 
 in Domestic Trade DEC 000-188 
 
 The New York State Department of Environmental 
 Conservation has completed its review of the subject 
 draft and has no comments to offer at this time. 
 
 We thank you for the opportunity for review. 
 We request one copy of the final statement when 
 available. 
 
 ^ery truly yours, 
 
 Terence P. Curran, Director 
 Office of Environmental Analysis 
 
 ERM/Imp 
 
 G. Colvin 
 G. Sovas 
 File DEC 000-18 
 
 10-27 
 
Executive Department 
 
 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION 
 
 ROOM 306, STATE LIBRARY BLDG., SALEM, OREGON 97310 
 
 September 29, 197 8 
 
 Kenneth W. Forbes 
 Environmental Activities Group 
 Room 6 092 
 
 Office of Shipbuilding Costs 
 Maritime Administration 
 Washington, D.C. 20230 
 
 Dear Mr. Forbes: 
 
 RE: Tank Vessels in Domestic 
 Trade 
 PNRS 7808 4 1050 
 
 Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental 
 Impact Statement for State of Oregon review and comment. 
 
 Your draft was referred to the appropriate state 
 agencies. The Department of Fish & Wildlife offered the 
 enclosed comments which should be addressed in preparation 
 of your final Environmental Impact Statement. 
 
 We will expect to receive your copies of the 
 final statements as required by Council of Environmental 
 Quality Guidelines. 
 
 Martin W. 
 
 Manager 
 
 Grants Coordination 
 
 Management Section 
 
 MWL:cb 
 Enclosure 
 
 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 
 
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM 
 
 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 
 
 Intergovernmental Relations Division 
 306 State Library Buildinq, Salem. Oroqon 97310 
 
 Project #: 
 
 P N R S 
 
 )8 4 1q5q 
 
 Ph: 378-3732 
 
 STAT E REVIEW 
 
 Return Date : 
 
 
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES. 
 
 1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental review. 
 
 2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if 
 necessary . If you cannot respond by the above return date, please 
 call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension. 
 
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW 
 DRAFT STATEMENT 
 
 ( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact. 
 
 ( X ) The environmental impact is adequately described. 
 
 ( ) We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara- 
 tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro- 
 ject. 
 
 ( ) No comment. 
 
 REMARKS 
 Comments are attached. 
 
 Agency 
 
 r ■■.-■, a -c '■>■• iw.c . Bv brbpj? Jttt ^ g. 
 
 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTI 
 
 9/78 
 
 10-29 
 
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 
 
 comments on 
 
 MARITIME ADMINISTRATION TITLE XI 
 
 TANK VESSELS ENGAGED IN DOMESTIC TRADE 
 
 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
 7808-4-1050 
 
 From the DEIS information, it would appear that the administration 
 and operation of high quality United States petroleum and hazardous 
 material carriers in U. S. waters is preferable to transportation 
 by foreign flag vessels. This position is supported by the number 
 of accidental spills by foreign vessels in U. S. ports. 
 
 We are advised that international controls and standards have 
 been violated by some ships of signatory countries. Therefore, 
 we must assume that beneficial environmental effects can be anti- 
 cipated through the Title XI program. 
 
 10-30 
 
(5. DISPOSITION OF THE COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. 
 
 The comments from the Fish and Wildlife Department of the State of 
 Oregon are acknowledged and made a part of the FEIS by inclusion herein. 
 
 10-31 
 
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 ADD0D71EflbS3E