<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>REGULATORY ASSESSMENT: FINAL RULE ON STRUCTURAL MEASURES FOR EXISTING SINGLE-HULL TANKERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/572255</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Final Regulatory Assessment examines certain alternative pollution prevention measures on a selected range of existing single-hull tank vessel categories.  The final rule assessment studies the cost and benefit variations if certain existing tank vessels were required to fit protectively located spaces or hydrostatically load cargo to standards equivalent to those in Regulation 13G of Annex I of the International Convention for the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL).  The cost and benefit study was broken down by vessel type (international or domestic), gross tonnage, and type of cargo carried.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/572255</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ENERGY USE IN THE MARINE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY: TASK II. REGULATIONS AND TARIFFS. FINAL REPORT, VOLUME III</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/162182</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The evaluation of the energy impacts of regulations and tariffs is structured around three sequential steps: identification of agencies and organizations that impact the commercial marine transportation industry; identification of existing or proposed regulations that were perceived to have a significant energy impact; and quantification of the energy impacts. Following the introductory chapter, Chapter II describes the regulatory structure of the commercial marine transportation industry and includes a description of the role of each organization and the legislative basis for their jurisdiction and an identification of major areas of regulation and those areas that have an energy impact. Chapters III through IX each address one of the 7 existing or proposed regulatory or legislative actions that have an energy impact. Energy impacts of the state of Washington's tanker regulations, of tanker segregated ballast requirements, of inland waterway user charges, of cargo pooling and service rationalization, of the availability of intermodal container transportation services, of capacity limitations at lock and dam 26 on the Mississippi River and the energy implications of the transportation alternatives available for the West Coast crude oil supplies are discussed. (ERA citation 05:003286)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/162182</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OPTIMIZATION OF SEGREGATED BALLAST DISTRIBUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON TANKER ECONOMICS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/167209</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization in 1973 proposed requirements for segregated ballast in an effort to eliminate pollution originated by ballast operations of tankers and possibly to reduce pollution caused by tanker accidents.  The most cost-effective application of these pollution abatement measures for tankers is the subject of this paper.  An existing very large crude carrier (VLCC) was used as the base ship for the studies on which the paper is based.  An optimization procedure for the distribution of segregated ballast within the cargo box for three basic concepts is outlined in the first part of the paper; the determination of an optimum construction concept is described in the second.  The optimum concept is derived from a comparison of ship economics.  An economic evaluation for the conversion of the existing VLCC by modifying overall dimensions is presented in the third part.  Also, a brief study of the economics for jumboizing the final tankers is included in Appendix 2.  The purpose of the paper is to enhance capital savings with the utilization of cost-effective tank arrangements for conversions and new constructions, as proposed in Part 1.  The economic studies of Parts 2 and 3 should assist an owner in his decision as to which construction concept to employ for a major conversion of an existing vessel or for a new vessel.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/167209</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CRUDE OIL WASHING: IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATING PROCEDURES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/163292</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The authors describe the circumstances leading to the use of crude oil washing as standard procedure on VLCCs as a means of reducing the time spent water washing tanks for clean ballast.  This led to greatly reduced quantities of retained oil on board as part of the load-on-top operation and eliminated the problems of sludge build up in tanks. Crude oil washing was adopted in 1978 by the Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention Conference as an alternative to segregated ballast tanks in existing tankers.  This preserved deadweight capacity and although the back-fitting of complete crude oil washing and inert gas systems will cost at least 1M pounds sterling per ship, it is still an attractive alternative.  The authors discuss generation of electrostatic charges and tank atmosphere control, the impact of the TSPP crude oil washing specifications and operational procedures.  They conclude that even these regulations will be of no avail unless staff are trained and dedicated to safe tanker practice.  Order from BSRA as No. 54,782.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/163292</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE IMPACT OF NEW TANKER REGULATIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/165471</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The promotion of regulatory measures aimed primarily at enhancing tanker safety was a feature of the late 1970s.  In particular The Marine Pollution Prevention Protocol (MARPOL) and The Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) developed by IMCO and which will ultimately apply internationally, and the Port and Safety Act implemented by the US Coast Guard, all call for substantial changes in the design and instrumentation of the world tanker fleet. The study describes existing and pending national and international tanker regulatory measures, and the world fleet will be assessed in order to gauge the extent to which existing tankers will be able to meet the requirements of these regulations.  For some owners the costs of installing equipment necessary to conform to the new regulations (e.g. Crude Oil Washing, Inert Gas Systems, Segregated Ballast Tanks, Navigational Aids etc) will be prohibitive.  The Study will estimate the consequent effect on the tanker fleet in terms of scrappage and on future tanker operating efficiency.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/165471</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TIMETABLE AND RULES FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL FROM SHIPS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/166760</link>
      <description><![CDATA[These rules are divided into the Marine Pollution Convention of 1973 (MARPOL 1973) dealing with oil cargoes and other forms of polluting substances and the Safety of Life at Sea Protocol 1978 (SOLAS) pertaining to improved navigation equipment and general safety measures.  In the nature of measures requiring international concurrence, the MARPOL Convention has not yet been ratified, but the SOLAS Protocol has been ratified and is scheduled to take effect in June 1981.  The MARPOL Protocol of 1978 (which encompasses the MARPOL Convention of 1973) requires for ratification, as all acts of IMCO, the ratification of 15 member states representing 50 per cent of the total tonnage.  A time scale varying from 0-3 years from the entry into force of the convention is allowed to member governments for full implementation.  As of 1 December 1980, the MARPOL Protocol '78 had been ratified by 10 member states representing 38 per cent of the total tonnage.  Countries having ratified the Protocol as of that date were: Denmark, Liberia, Norway, Peru, Sweden, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/166760</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OIL TANKER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/165964</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The article deals with the following aspects of the MARPOL/TSPP safety requirements: Tank arrangement requirements, cargo and ballast handling requirements, conversion and operation of existing ships including their market influence, requirements for 40000-70000 dwt tankers, requirements for tankers above 70000 dwt, design and operation of new ships including the newbuilding market, the competitiveness of combination carriers, cleaning requirements and costs, cargo handling operations, and the shipbuilding market.  Order from NSFI as No. 21288.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/165964</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A NOVEL DESIGN OF A MAMMOTH TANKER TO SUIT THE MARPOL CONVENTION WITH MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SEGREGATED BALLAST</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/168518</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As an example of the influence of IMCO regulations on ship design, the hull form of a segregated ballast tanker of 500,000 dwt is optimised in detail in the light of the 1973 Marine Pollution Convention.  A novel design parameter is introduced which affects the displacement at the ballast draught.  Starting with a basis ship, the hull form is changed by an unusual method and the resulting optimum having an unconventional hull form is compared to the best alternative i.e., the conventional optimum.  It is shown that the unconventional hull form is more profitable, has a lower block coefficient and a pronounced V-shape, but a greater breadth than the optimal conventional design.  Order from BSRA as No. 54,647.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/168518</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND CONSEQUENT ECONOMIC SURVIVABILITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/157666</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper examines the practical application of new tanker regulations in the commerical world of ongoing operations.  Where one can foresee possible problems, some recommendations are offered to make the process smoother. The goal is clear; to implement the full letter and spirit of the new regulations without causing any greater expense and disruption than necessary.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/157666</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SLOWLY GETTING MATTERS RIGHT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/160802</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The SEACOP conference sponsored by the Department of Trade in 1978, was designed to assess problems facing the environment while energy requirements demand the transportation by sea of massive quantities of unrefined oil.  The UK government has 3 listed proposals but they only apply if pollution is on a scale which can't be managed by local authorities.  If tanker owners acted upon environmental reasoning and not economic reasoning, less spillage would occur.  Slop receptacles cause added expense and are not available to smaller vessels; therefore slops may be dumped into the sea.  The main method of prevention must be to put a deterrant so high that no captain would risk discharging any amount, however small, into the sea.  TOVALOP, established in the aftermath of the Torrey Canyon disaster of 1967, set a precedent for the IMCO Intergovernmental compensaton regimes.  TOVALOP was supplemented by CRISTAL (in 1971), which is a cargo owner's agreement established to provide additional compensation in case of major accidents.  Oil pollution of the sea might be reduced if tanker operators and owners took action in 4 areas--effective implementation of load on top system; early ratification of further tanker safety and anti-pollution measures adopted by IMCO; adequate shore reception facilities, especially for oily wastes; and a possible scheme for regional cooperation to combat pollution which had been involved with IMCO.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/160802</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ARRANGEMENT AND STRUCTURAL STUDY FOR VERY LARGE CRUDE CARRIERS (VLCC) SEGREGATED BALLAST TANKERS. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/143612</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes the results of a program to evaluate the economic impact of the 1973 Marine Pollution Conference segregated ballast requirements. A 265,000 DWT tanker was redesigned for segregated ballast using single bottom, double bottom, and double hull concepts to meet the 1973 requirements. Since the work was substantially complete before the Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention Conference of 1978 (TSPP), these designs do not meet these 1978 requirements. In addition to new construction, retrofitting segregated ballast capability using liquid or solid ballast in two sizes of tankers was investigated.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/143612</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TANKER STANDARDS RULEMAKING PETITION (MASSACHUSETTS)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/143520</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Massachusetts has consistently advocated direct and immediate action by the United States Coast Guard and has heartily endorsed all administrative efforts to promote a higher level of operational safety among tank vessels in U.S. coastal waters. At the same time the state was gravely disappointed by the Coast Guard's failure to adopt the very regulations which it admits would significantly reduce both operational and accidental pollution from tankers. The most recent IMCO convention (February, 1978) provided another opportunity for the world maritime community to adopt those standards which the U.S. has been reluctant to impose unilaterally. The results of the conference were encouraging, but fall short of desirable goals both nationally and internationally. The IMCO resolutions are substantively less rigorous than earlier Coast Guard proposals and are not likely to become fully effective for several years. As a result, Massachusetts filed a formal rulemaking petition, incorporating those recommendations which it has supported over the past two years. It was feared that without additional administrative or legislative incentive, the Coast Guard would acquiesce to standards which fall considerably below those proposed by the President last March. The petition contains some modifications and additions to the Coast Guard's rulemaking proposal of May 16, 1977; but is considered by Massachusetts to represent a reasonable and well considered position in support of more stringent tanker regulations. Specific rulemaking proposals are summarized.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/143520</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN ALGORITHM FOR WASHED SURFACES COMPUTATION IN TANKERS (CRUDE OIL WASHING)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/160437</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Item 4.2.8 of IMCO Resolution A.446 (XI), which contains the revised text of Annex to Resolution 15 of Attachment 3 of the Final Act of the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention 1978 reads as follows: 4.2.8-The number and location of the machines in each cargo tank shall be such that all horizontal and vertical areas are washed by direct impingement or effectively by deflection or splashing of the impinging jet. In assessing an acceptable degree of jet deflection in splashing, particular attention shall be paid to the washing of upward facing horizontal areas and specified parameters shall be used.  IMCO item 4.2.9 also further complicates the calculations.  The disadvantages of both approaches are that they require arduous and huge amounts of work by specialized staff, with consequent high costs.  Two of the Authors, in the ambit of the graduation thesis for the degree in Mathematics, with the cooperation of the Research and Data Processing Department of the R.I.NA., have dealt with the problem of reducing calculus times and costs.  As a result, a program has been formulated, written in FORTRAN language, that carries out the calculation of the areas washed by the jet, by means of a merely geometric algorithm.  This work aims to explain such program synthetically, pointing out its economic characteristics and its extreme flexibility in respect to possible changes of the present regulations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/160437</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SOME EFFECTS OF THE IMCO RULES FOR SEGREGATED BALLAST ON TANKERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/159620</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper attempts to discuss the broad effects of the IMCO 1973 tanker rules on various aspects of design, with particular emphasis on those areas where they have an adverse effect on ship costs or operational behaviour.  It is suggested that the provisions regarding segregated ballast impose a change in operating costs greater than can be justified in terms of the corresponding reduction of the oil pollution problem, and that, in view of certain adverse effects, this part of the rules should be re-examined and evaluated against alternative methods of achieving the same objective.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/159620</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE EFFECT OF THE NEW REGULATIONS ON EXISTING SHIPS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/159621</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The 1978 IMCO Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention has proposed a number of major new measures for oil tankers.  These measures can be grouped under three main "functional" headings, i.e.  Minimization of Operational Pollution, Improvement of Ship Safety and Maintenance of Standards.  To assist the Shipowner in the selection of alternative solutions, the required extent of application of these measures is discussed in relation to the size and status of the ships comprising a mixed fleet of tankers of varying age.  The various conversion options are considered under the following headings; (a) Retrofit of Clean Ballast Tanks (CBT)/Segregated Ballast Tanks (SBT), (b) CBT Conversion, (c) SBT Conversion, (d) Pumping and Piping System, (e) Corrosion Control, (f) Retrofit of Crude Oil Washing (COW) and Inert Gas (IGS) Systems, (g) Installation of COW and (h) Installation of IGS.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/159621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>