Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Port of Texas City, Texas
Workshop Report
Introduction
A Port Risk Assessment Workshop was conducted for the Port of Texas City on August 21,
2000. This workshop report provides the following information:
• Brief description of the process used for the assessment;
• List of participants;
• Numerical results from the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)';
• Summary of risks and mitigations discussion; and
• Port of Texas City Attributes Summaries.
Strategies for reducing unmitigated risks will be the subject of a separate report.
Assessment Process
The risk assessment process is a structured approach to obtaining expert judgments on the level
of waterway risk. The process also addresses the relative merits of specific types of Vessel
Traffic Management (VTM) improvements for reducing risk in the port. Based on the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP), the port risk assessment process uses a select group of waterway
users/stakeholders in each port to evaluate waterway risk factors and the effectiveness of various
VTM improvements. The process requires the participation of local Coast Guard officials before
and throughout the workshops. Thus the process is a joint effort involving waterway users,
stakeholders, and the agencies/entities responsible for implementing selected risk mitigation
measures.
This methodology employs a generic model of port risk that was conceptually developed by a
National Dialog Group on Port Risk and then translated into computer algorithms by the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center. In that model, risk is defined as the sum of the
probability of a casualty and its consequences. Consequently, the model includes variables
associated with both the causes and the effects of vessel casualties. The participants are asked to
establish scales to measure each variable. Once the parameters have been established for each
risk-inducing factor, port specific risk is estimated by putting into the computer risk model
specific values for that port for each variable. The computer model allows comparison of
relative risk and the potential efficacy of various VTM improvements between different ports.
• 1 Developed by Dr. Thomas L. Saaty, et al, to structure complex decision making, to provide scaled
measurements, and to synthesize many factors having different dimensions.
1
Report Documentation Page
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE
AUG 2000 2. REPORT TYPE
3. DATES COVERED
00-00-2000 to 00-00-2000
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
5d. PROTECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Coast Guard Academy ,31 Mohegan Avenue ,New London
,CT,06320-8103
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBIECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF
___ ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same OS
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
21
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Texas City Port Risk Assessment Background
Texas City was selected for a port risk assessment at the request of the Coast Guard Captain of
the Port (COTP) because of a major port infrastructure expansion project that is in the planning
stages. Texas City is on the West side of Galveston Bay about seven miles NW from Galveston.
Texas City is a privately owned port of considerable and growing commercial importance. It has
extensive foreign and coastwise trade in petroleum, chemicals, fertilizer, and tin ore. Studies are
underway to expand Snake Island as a container port. 2
• 2 United States Coast Pilot; Volume 5, Atlantic Coast: Gulf of Mexico. Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands; 27 th
Edition, 1997.
2
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Participants
The following is a list of waterway users and stakeholders who participated in the process:
Participant
Organization
Phone
Email
Joe Bridges
Americana Shipping
(813) 276-4670
jbridges@americanaships.com
Dean Cheramie
Kirby Marine
(713) 435-1663
dean.cheramie @kmtc.com
Jim Coonrod
Galveston-Texas City Pilots
(409) 740-1671
jimcrod@swbell.net
Richard Eames
BP Amoco
(409) 945-1349
eamesrd@bp.com
Joe Gilder
Port of Texas (Texas City
Terminals)
(409) 945-4461
xl5
jgilder37@aol.com
Phil Glenn
Clean Channel
(713)534-6195
pglenn@pdq.net
Alisha Goldberg
Galveston Bay Foundation
(281) 332-3381
gbf@electrotex.com
Jeremy Goodson
Garner Environmental
(281)930-1200
N/A
CAPT Wayne
Gusman
USCG Marine Safety Office
Houston/Galveston
(713) 671-5199
wgusman@msohouston.uscg.mil
Bing Hastings
USCG Auxiliary
(936) 321-5896
binghastings@worldnet.att.net
CWO Thomas Horan
USCG Group Base
(409) 766-4715
thoran@grugalveston.uscg.mil
Jim Jndest
TNRCC
(713) 767-3561
jindest@ tnrcc.state.tx.us
CDR Rick Kaser
USCG Marine Safety Unit
Galveston
(409) 766-3609
rmkaser@msugalveston.uscg.mil
Tim Leitzell
Marine Exchange of West Gulf, Inc.
(281) 821-1208
tleitzell@butterworthsystems.com
Marvin Reed
Texas Waterways Operators Assoc.
(713) 943-5063
mreed @ coastaltowing.com
Tom Rodino
Shiner Moseley & Associates, Inc.
(361) 857-2211
trodino@shinermoseley.com
John Rozsypal
USACE (Galveston Dist.)
(409) 766-3091
johnny.rozsypal@usace.army.mil
John Salvesen
Odfjell Tankers (USA) Inc.
(713) 844-2200
john.salvesen@houston.odfjell-
tankers.com
John Savage
G&H Towing
(409) 744-6311
jsavage@wt.net
CDR Pete Simons
USCG Vessel Traffic Service
(713) 671-5164
psimons@vtshouston.uscg.mil
Kelly Teichman
T&T Marine Salvage, Inc.
(409) 744-1222
t2marine@aol.com
Facilitation Team
Members
Organization
Phone
Email
Mike Sollosi
USCG Commandant (G-MWV)
(202) 267-1539
msollosi@comdt.uscg.mil
Doug Perkins
Potomac Management Group, Inc.
(703) 836-1037
dperkins @potomacmgmt.com
Fred Edwards
Soza & Company, Ltd.
(703) 560-9477
fredwards@soza.com
Kris Higman
Potomac Management Group, Inc.
(757) 838-5296
khigman @ hotmail. com
Leanne Rebuck
Potomac Management Group, Inc.
(703) 836-1037
lrebuck @ potomacmgmt.com
3
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
The PAWSA session in Texas City was abbreviated from a day and a half to just one day. In the
longer session, participants contribute their input to weighting the national port risk model
categories and factors. These stages (Books 1 and 2) were not done in Texas City. In the
interest of time, the participants went straight to Book 3 after discussing the specific risks in
Texas City. The purpose of Book 3 is for the participants to calibrate a risk assessment scale for
each risk factor. For each risk factor there is a low (Port Heaven) and a high (Port Hell) severity
limit, which are assigned values of 1.0 and 9.0 respectively. The participants determined
numerical values for two intermediate qualitative descriptions between those two extreme limits.
Results obtained are as follows:
Book 3 Factor Scales - Condition List (Generic)
Scale Value
Wind Conditions
a. Severe winds < 2 days / month 1.0
b. Severe winds occur in brief periods 2.5
c. Severe winds are frequent & anticipated 4.9
d. Severe winds occur without warning 9.0
Visibility Conditions
a. Poor visibility < 2 days/month 1.0
b. Poor visibility occurs in brief periods 2.3
c. Poor visibility is frequent & anticipated 4.3
d. Poor visibility occurs without warning 9.0
Tide and River Currents
a. Tides & currents are negligible 1.0
b. Currents run parallel to the channel 2.0
c. Transits are timed closely with tide 5.0
d. Currents cross channel/turns difficult 9.0
Ice Conditions
a. Ice never forms 1.0
b. Some ice forms-icebreaking is rare 2.1
c. Icebreakers keep channel open 5.6
d. Vessels need icebreaker escorts 9.0
Visibility Obstructions
a. No blind turns or intersections 1.0
b. Good geographic visibility-intersections 1.7
c. Visibility obscured, good communications 4.5
d. Distances & communications limited 9.0
Channel Width
a. Meetings & overtakings are easy 1.0
b. Passing arrangements needed-ample room 2.3
c. Meetings & overtakings in specific areas 5.9
d. Movements restricted to one-way traffic 9.0
4
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Bottom Type
a. Deep water or no channel necessary 1.0
b. Soft bottom, no obstructions 2.0
c. Mud, sand and rock outside channel 4.8
d. Hard or rocky bottom at channel edges 9.0
Waterway Complexity
a. Straight run with NO crossing traffic 1.0
b. Multiple turns > 15 degrees-NO crossing 2.6
c. Converging - NO crossing traffic 4.9
d. Converging WITH crossing traffic 9.0
Number of People on Waterway
a. Industrial, little recreational boating 1.0
b. Recreational boating and fishing 3.3
c. Cruise & excursion vessels-ferries 5.8
d. Extensive network of ferries, excursions 9.0
Petroleum Volume
a. Little or no petroleum cargoes 1.0
b. Petroleum for local heating & use 2.4
c. Petroleum for transshipment inland 5.1
d. High volume petroleum & LNG/LPG 9.0
Chemical Volume
a. Little or no hazardous chemicals 1.0
b. Some hazardous chemical cargo 2.4
c. Hazardous chemicals arrive daily 5.2
d. High volume of hazardous chemicals 9.0
Economic Impacts
a. Vulnerable population is small 1.0
b. Vulnerable population is large 2.9
c. Vulnerable, dependent & small 5.3
d. Vulnerable, dependent & large 9.0
Environmental Impacts
a. Minimal environmental sensitivity 1.0
b. Sensitive, wetlands, VULNERABLE 3.2
c. Sensitive, wetlands, ENDANGERED 5.9
d. ENDANGERED species, fisheries 9.0
Health and Safety Impacts
a. Small population around port 1.0
b. Medium - large population around port 2.3
c. Large population, bridges 5.1
d. Large DEPENDENT population 9.0
5
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Analysis
On average, participants from this port evaluated the difference in risk between the lower limit
(Port Heaven) and the first intermediate scale point as being equal to 2.0; the difference in risk
between the first and second intermediate scale points was equal to 2.7; and the difference in risk
between the second intermediate scale point and the upper risk limit (Port Hell) was 3.9.
Book 4 - Risk Factor Ratings (Port of Texas City)
Fleet
Composition
Traffic
Conditions
Navigational
Conditions
Waterway
Configuration
Immediate
Consequences
Subsequent
Consequences
9.3
21.5
8.5
20.6
19.8
14.4
% High Risk Volume Wind Visibility Number of Economic
Deep Draft Deep Draft Conditions Obstructions People on Impacts
Waterway
4.3 5.5 3.1 3.4 5.9
2.2
% High Risk Volume Visibility Channel Volume of Environmental
Shallow Draft Shallow Draft Conditions Width Petroleum Impacts
5.0 6.5 2.2 7.4 9.0 6.1
Vol. Fishing & Tide & River Bottom Volume of Health &
Pleasure Craft Currents Type Chemicals Safety Impacts
3.3 2.2 4.4 8.6 2.4
Traffic Ice Waterway
Density Conditions Complexity
6.2 1.0 5.4
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Analysis
This is the point in the workshop when the process quantifies local port risks. The participants
use the scales developed in Book 3 to assess the absolute level of risk in their port for each of the
20 risk factors. The values shown in the preceding table do NOT add up to 100. Based on the
input from the participants, the following are the top risks to port safety in the Port of Texas City
(in order of importance):
1. Volume of Petroleum (9.0)
2. Volume of Chemicals (8.6)
3. Channel Width (7.4)
4. Volume of Shallow Draft (6.5)
5. Traffic Density (6.2)
6. Environmental Impacts (6.1)
7. Economic Impacts (5.9)
8. Volume of Deep Draft (5.5)
9. Waterway Complexity (5.4)
10. % High Risk Shallow Draft (5.0)
7
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Book 5 - VTM Tools (Port of Texas City)
Fleet
Traffic
Navigation
Waterway
Immediate
Subsequent
Composition
Conditions
Conditions
Configuration
Consequences
Consequences
% High Risk
Deep Draft
Volume Deep
Draft
Wind
Conditions
Visibility
Obstructions
Number of
People on
Waterway
Economic
Impacts
9
0.4
7
0.8
19
0.0
14
0.1
14
0.1
4
1.2
RA
RA
ALERT
RA
RA
ALERT
RA
OTH
ALERT
% High Risk
Volume
Visibility
Channel
Volume of
Environmental
Shallow Draft
Shallow Draft
Conditions
Width
Petroleum
Impacts
9
0.4
4
1.2
14
0.1
14
0.1
1
1.9
2
1.5
RA
RA
ALERT
RA
OTH
1|ert
OTH
ALERT
OTH
Vol. Fishing &
Tide & River
Bottom
Volume of
Health &
Pleasure Craft
Currents
Type
Chemicals
Safety Impacts
9
0.4
14
0.1
13
0.3
2
1.5
9
0.4
RA
RA
RA
OTH
ALERT
RA
ALERT
Traffic
Ice
Waterway
Density
Conditions
Complexity
6
1.0
20
-0.1
8
0.6
RA
ALERT
RA
RA
Legend
See the KEY (below). Rank is the position of the Risk Gap for a particular factor
relative to the Risk Gap for the other factors as determined by the participants.
Risk Gap is the variance between the existing level of risk for each factor
determined in Book 4 and the average acceptable risk level as determined by each
participant team. Negative numbers imply that the risk level could INCREASE
and still be acceptable. The teams were instructed as follows: If the acceptable
risk level is equal to or higher than to the existing risk level for a particular factor,
circle RA (Risk Acceptable). If the mitigation needed does not fall under one of the
VTM tools, circle OTH (Other) at the end of the line. Otherwise, circle the VTM
tool that you feel would MOST APPROPRIATELY reduce the unmitigated risk to
an acceptable level.
8
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
The tool listed is the one determined by the majority of participant teams as the
best to narrow the Risk Gap. An ALERT is given if no mathematical consensus is
reached for the tool suggested. Below are the tool acronyms and tool definitions.
KEY
Risk
Factor
Rank
Risk Gap
Tool
ALERT
RA Risk Acceptable
AN Improve Aids to Navigation
CM Improve Communications
RR Improve Rules & Regulations
SI Improve Static Navigation Info
DI Improve Dynamic Navigation Info
VTIS Vessel Traffic Information System
VTS Vessel Traffic System
OTH Other - not a VTM solution
Analysis
The results shown are consistent with the discussion that occurred about risks in the Port of
Texas City area. For 10 out of the 11 risk factors for which there was good consensus, the
participants judged the risk to be at an acceptable level already due to existing mitigation
strategies.
No consensus alerts occurred because votes were split between several VTM tools, as indicated:
• Volume Deep Draft - RA (4), CM (2), RR (1), DI (1), VTS (2)
• Volume Shallow Draft - RA (3), CM (1), RR (2), VTS (2), OTH (2)
• Traffic Density - RA (4), DI (2), VTIS (1), VTS (2), OTH (1)
• Visibility Obstructions - RA (5), AN (1), CM (1), DI (2), VTS (1)
• Channel Width - RA (2), RR (1), VTIS (1), VTS (1), OTH (5)
• Volume of Petroleum - RA (3), CM (1), DI (2), OTH (4)
• Volume of Chemicals - RA (3), CM (1), DI (2), OTH (4)
• Economic Impacts - RA (4), DI (1), OTH (5)
• Health & Safety Impacts - RA (4), CM (2), OTH (4)
9
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
Summary of Risks
Scope of the port area under consideration: As the first step in the port risk assessment
process, the participants defined the port area to be discussed. They decided that the port area of
Texas City included Texas City Channel, Texas City Harbor and Turning Basin, and the
Industrial Canal, plus Bolivar Roads and the junction of the junction of the Texas City Channel
with the Houston Ship Channel.
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Fleet Composition
Percent High
Risk Deep Draft
Cargo &
Passenger Vessels
Today:
• 5 to 6 ships per day. Very few high
risk ships in Texas City today
• Low value cargoes attract poor ships
but very few in this port
• Right now the container mega-vessels
do not service Gulf ports. The ships
that do call are in good condition
• Summary: risk level for Texas City is
low
Trends:
• New container fleet ships being built
and will replace older ones
• Impact of increased container ship
traffic if multi-modal terminal is built:
1 ship per day for 350 ship visits per
year.
- Volume through pass will not
change short term because ships
diverted from Houston to Texas
City.
- Over time with full build-out there
will be 1500 ships per year, a
doubling in the number of deep
draft ships, as well as diversion
from Houston to Texas City
• Quality of ships is high and will
remain high
Existing Mitigations:
• For one container line, average age is
7 years now; next year average age
will be under 5 (new ships in fleet)
• Chemical carries well maintained in
conformance to safety regulations. No
history of accidents
New Ideas:
• When container facility is active,
there will not be a decrease in quality
of ship, if anything, fleet will increase
in quality
10
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Fleet Composition (continued)
Percent High
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Risk Shallow
Draft Cargo &
• 25 barges per day
• Low OSV traffic
Passenger Vessels
• Tug/tows also considered good
• Low level of recreational boat
quality. Age estimated ~20 years.
• Bunkering 3-4 vessels a day due to
activity, mostly on the north side of
the Texas City Dike
fuel price advantages
• By law tug operators can stand 12
• Tugs fleet in Pelican Cove awaiting
access to harbor
hours watch a day and stand 12 on 12
• Tugs undergo major maintenance on
off.
30-month cycle.
• Groundings resulting from cutting the
• Texas Waterway Operator
corner where Texas City Channel
Association certificates for high risk
crosses the ICW
cargo carried in barges
• Fishing vessels. Local fleet works the
Texas City Channel and is more
• Harbor tug quality is good
professional in local knowledge and
• Licensing of tug operators
stay clear of the transiting ships
• Conformance to regulations
Trends:
New Ideas:
• Other than increases in bunkering for
• Simulator training for Houston and
container ships there are no changes
Texas City (Seaman’s Church
anticipated
Institute)
• Bunkering from tank barges for
• Licensing/apprenticeship for
container ships. Bunkering a part of
port call
steersman
• Address human factors concerns
• 800-900 x 105 PAN AM AX size
container ships anticipated
• Expect to get largest ships that the
port can handle
• Bunkering will be done by Texas City
tug and barge
about operator fatigue
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Traffic Conditions
Volume of Deep
Draft Vessels
Today:
• 1750 deep draft ship visits per year (4
per day average)
• Run out of tugs before they run out of
pilots
• Observation: 8 ships per day through
5 NM channel with run time of 45
minutes to 1 hour. Waterway can
physically handle larger number of
ships
• Adequate dockside space today
Trends:
• An additional 4 ships per day once
the container terminal is developed
(5-6 years). That is a doubling of
deep draft ship visits
• Turn around cycles will change.
Container ships are rapid turn around
where as some other fleets are slower
Existing Mitigations:
• Pilots self regulate Texas City
Channel to one way traffic with large
ships
• Mandatory pilotage
• Present VTS covers entire defined
port area and Texas City Channel
• Dedicated area tugs
• Tug escort for all planned deep draft
ship movements
• If no movements scheduled, tugs may
be as far away as Galveston
New Ideas:
• May have to introduce two-way
traffic to satisfy traffic considerations
• May need additional tugs
• New turning basin 1500 feed wide
NW of proposed container port in
vicinity of front range
• New turning basin will be outside of
Texas City channel
• Tractor tugs, especially for the
volume of chemical ships. Note: even
with a tractor tug made up to the ship,
at seven knots it still takes Vi NM to
get ship back under control
• Continue working agreement with the
harbor master
12
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Traffic Conditions (continued)
Volume of
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Shallow Draft
• 3-5% annual growth rate
• Harbormaster office controls
Vessels
• 25 tows per day. Tows may have to
movements.
wait as much as 36-48 hours. Product
has to go to specific docks. Tows will
New Ideas:
not wait in Texas City, will stay in
• Facilities issue for tows, not a
Bolivar Roads area
waterway issue.
• Some congestion in turning basin
• Establish fleeting area on east side of
when barges depart facilities. Have to
Texas City harbor rather than Bolivar
hold traffic in Texas City Channel
• Facilities are limited so barges enter
Road. Problem, too, because creates
congestion in harbor
queue system for a turn
• Identify fleet area for barges. Require
pilings or mooring to ensure integrity
Trends:
of tow
• Do not anticipate seagoing container
• Refine scheduling so that barges
barges
arrive when dock is available
• Identify scope of authority of private
port authority of Texas City
Traffic Conditions (continued)
Volume of
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Fishing &
• Recreational traffic not using Texas
• None discussed
Pleasure Craft
City today
• Problems are at Y and ICW junction
• 4th largest recreational boating area
in U.S.
• Two boat ramps on south side of
Texas City Dike
Trends:
• No plans for marinas or yacht clubs
• Do not anticipate problem of boat
ramps near dike
New Ideas:
• None discussed
13
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR RISKS RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Traffic Conditions (continued)
Traffic Density Today: Existing Mitigations:
• Have to wait for opposing traffic to
clear in Horn of the port
• Y where ICW and Texas City
Channel connect; a congestion spot
• Two-way traffic when just one large
ship meeting tugs and tows
Trends:
• Traffic increasing in channel
• One way rule for large draft vessels in
Texas City Channel to end of
Industrial Canal
• Harbormaster schedules and controls
traffic movements
• Former COTP moved fleeting traffic
out of port
• Pilots talk to each other, especially
turning corner to harbor.
• Expect more congestion at the Horn
• Channel deepening to 45 feet is Texas
City channel only. Will not include
the port area past the Horn
• Dredging might affect hydrodynamics
along the Texas City Dike - sucking
water off the flats along the dike as
deep draft ships pass
• Hydrodynamic problem in Industrial
canal caused by deep draft
movements
• Use CH 16 for call-up and then shift
to working frequency. Traffic on
channels 12 and 13 is worse than on
channel 16
• Very limited recreational boaters and
commercial fishing fleet
New Ideas:
• Plans are to create turning basin and
deepening channel for the container
port facility
• Trim NW corner at Shoal Point to
widen channel and to open visibility
at entrance to Harbor
Consider using specified frequency
for bridge to bridge and harbor
control
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Navigation Conditions
Wind Conditions
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
•
Wind not a major concern for ships
• None discussed
now
•
Tows crab, taking up more of the
New Ideas:
channel
• None discussed
•
Winds frequently 20-25 knots year
round. When from SE not a problem,
when from NW in winter, ships
remain at dock until abates
•
Winter predictions are not accurate-
fronts stall. Creates traffic density
problem and congestion in holding
areas.
•
Spring has strongest fronts and high
winds last throughout March and
April
•
Tropical waves and depressions
create big problem because they last
for awhile
Trends:
•
Pilots anticipate wind will be problem
for large containerships
Navigation Conditions (continued)
Visibility
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Conditions
•
Fog- 300 hours per year
• None discussed
•
Fog distributed throughout the year
New Ideas:
•
Fog can blanket entire run up channel
to port
• None discussed
Trends:
•
None identified
15
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Navigation Conditions (continued)
Tide & River
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Currents
• Strong on ebb and flood with axis of
• Texas City Dike protects channel and
channel
port from cross currents
• Strong cross channel current once
clear of the dike
Trends:
• None discussed
New Ideas:
• None discussed
Navigation Conditions (continued)
Ice Conditions
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
• None discussed
• None discussed
Trends:
New Ideas:
• None discussed
• None discussed
Waterway Configuration
Visibility
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Obstructions
• Background lighting
• Blind corner out of Industrial Canal-
• Existing aids to navigation adequate
but could be enhanced
large mounds of coke
New Ideas:
• Horn deep draft ships can see each
other over it but tows cannot see each
other.
Trends:
• Potential back-lighting from night ops
at proposed container port
• Container ships will block view
around the horn when berthed
• Container ship terminal stacks may be
high enough to obstruct view
• None discussed
16
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Waterway Configuration (continued)
Channel Width
Today:
• Texas City Channel 400 feet wide
widens to 550 feet at turn approach to
Horn.
• Industrial Canal is 250 feet wide
• Pipe line at Horn limits depth of inner
harbor
Trends:
• If number of ships doubles, then all
large ships will have to get in a queue
for coordinated arrivals and
departures
Existing Mitigations:
• Dock space at existing facilities limits
size of chemical carriers
• Harbor depth restricts size of tankers
• Harbormaster has video surveillance
of Texas City Channel to head of
navigation. Informs pilots and tows of
traffic
• Tugs and tows wait when they see
large ships in the channel
New Ideas:
• Texas City Channel will be deepened
to 45 feet, but not widened, for
container terminals
• New turning basin (1500 feet
diameter) outside the channel at NW
end of Texas City Channel
• US ACE dredge southeast corner of
Texas City Y
• Plans to trim off NW corner of Snake
Island at the Horn
Waterway Configuration (continued)
Bottom Type
Today:
• Hardspots: Pipeline crossing at the
Horn area
• Mostly mud and silt bottom
• Dike can be hit by shallow draft ships
but not deep draft ships
• Industrial Canal is rock
Trends:
• None identified
Existing Mitigations:
• None discussed
New Ideas:
• Plans to relocate and deepen the
pipeline
17
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Waterway Configuration (continued)
Waterway
Complexity
Today:
• Two 90 degree turns in harbor
• Merge at Y
• Crossing traffic with ICW
• Rare but possible need for large ship
to turn in Y from Texas City into
Houston Ship channel northbound
Trends:
• New turning basin at Horn will cause
crossing situation with every turn and
docking by container ships
• New passenger vessel berthed on
north wall of dike between inner
ranges but, will have to enter channel
below dike somewhere (do not know
where for sure yet)
Existing Mitigations:
• Mandatory pilotage
• Mandatory tug escorts for large ships
New Ideas:
• Open the Horn by removing point,
increasing channel width and turning
basin
Immediate Consequences
Number of
People on
Waterway
Today:
• No risk from cruise ships or ferry
boats
• Party boat activity where Texas City
Channel meets Houston Ship Channel
• Passenger barge (hotel barge) uses
ICW
• No gambling boats
Trends:
• No future development anticipated
Existing Mitigations:
• None discussed
New Ideas:
• None discussed
18
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Immediate Consequences (continued)
Volume of
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Petroleum
Cargoes
• 50-60 million barrels of crude per
• Area contingency plan in place
year coming in
• Refined product going out
• Oil spill cleanup companies available
• Port has installed anchor points for
• 700 oil tankers per year (2 per day)
boom
• Considerable amount of product in
barges too
• Mutual aid society exists
• Two national OSRO’s with ships in
Trends:
Galveston
• Growing at 3-5 % per year and will
• No fault pollution response SOP
continue to grow at that rate
New Ideas:
• Accessibility of personnel from spill
source company to make decisions
Immediate Consequences (continued)
Volume of
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Hazardous
• A lot of ship and barges traffic.
• Oil spill companies also respond to
Chemical
amount not specified
chemical spills. New task area not
Cargoes
• Cargoes of particular hazard (e.g..
fully tested or experienced yet
benzene, ethylene): no concrete
knowledge of specific cargoes by
New Ideas:
name
• Area Contingency Plan in preparation
• Containership manifests: element of
stage
doubt as to what is really in a
• Proposed CG, International, Federal
container
and LECP guidelines and regulations
X rends -
• Work more closely with local Office
• None discussed
of Emergency Management
• Communications: type and quantity
of product in tanks available to
concerned party
• Improve Dynamic Navigation
information on currents, sea state,
approaching weather/winds
19
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Subsequent Consequences
Economic
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Impacts
• Function of accident happens.
• Hurricane plans in effect. All written
Businesses are dependent on just-in-
since 1983; therefore, so not tested in
time shipments to satisfy operations
action
• Texas City is small, depends on
• Salvage equipment available for small
constant turnover so there is limited
ship or brown water vessel. Respond
reserve storage capacity
in 2 hours time
• Hurricane-not had a bad one since
• Large ship grounding-tugs of
1983
• Shut down by Tropical Storm Francis
sufficient horsepower available to
break suction and unstick ship
for two days-pilots could not board or
move vessels. Created 72 vessel
• Port is prepared to respond to oil spill
backlog throughout the entire system
New Ideas:
(Houston Ship Channel, too). Created
• Study impact of storm surge on
high tides, flooding, high winds for
three days
Trends:
• With containerships, 24-48 hours due
to offload and redistribution. Customs
and funds take 24 hours, beyond that,
a problem
• Damage from dockside containers
washed adrift in storm
various parts of port area particularly
planned container terminal
Subsequent Consequences (continued)
Environmental
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Impacts
• Wetlands: Pelican Island, Swan Lake,
• Area Contingency Plans
and Virginia Lake. None in the
• OSROs on site
defined port area but all affected by
an uncontained spill
• Easy to keep oil within port confines.
New Ideas:
Once released, quickly spreads
beyond the port area to wetlands
• Maps from Texas General Land
Office identifies environmentally
areas.
sensitive areas along the coast
• Roseate spoonbills south of the
• Increase and improve marine
Industrial Canal
Trends:
• None identified
firefighting capability
20
Port Risk Assessment Port of Texas City
FACTOR
RISKS
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Subsequent Consequences (continued)
Health & Safety
Today:
Existing Mitigations:
Impacts
•
Health and safety consequences as a
• Alert and evacuation plans
result of confined spill in Industrial
Canal or Harbor itself
• Vapor controls in loading and
unloading product at facilities
•
People on the Texas City Dike for
recreation
New Ideas:
•
Workers within Texas City port area
• Consider vapor controls in
•
46,000 population base within Texas
City proper
transferring product between ships
•
Type of product involved: crude oil
spill vs. toxic chemical plume
Trends:
•
None discussed
21
