Safety innovations in the tanker industry? An official of the Socony Mobil Oil Co. touched all bases in answering this question for the Marine Section of the National Safety Council at its annual congress last fall.

are one of the most conservative of industries. While poor planning, bad judgment, or corner cutting in a shoreside business can be expensive, it is seldom catastrophic, as it may be when a ship at sea is involved. The elements seldom give us a chance to make more than one mistake. Change simply for the sake of change under circumstances where safety may be compromised is entirely out of place.

Whether we like it or not, we are being forced to make radical changes in our practices and in our thinking to keep abreast of the times and meet the demands placed upon us by pres

become involved in the carriage of liquefied gases but we may soon be called upon to do so.

The escalation of labor costs and stiff competition within the industry has made it essential to keep manpower to a minimum, and to reduce the amount of work to be done by the ship's crews wherever possible. This is being done by the use of laborsaving devices, equipment and materials requiring less maintenance, and automatic controls for certain shipboard functions. All these have presented new problems involving safety of life and property.

Tanker

John T. Knepper

THAT WE ARE living in an era of change is obvious to us all. The extent of these changes and speed with which they take place, is often difficult for us to grasp. Some values which have gone unquestioned for generations are now viewed with skepticism or have been destroyed entirely. The accepted practice of yesterday is questioned today. In short, the sacred cow of today may be the dead duck of tomorrow.

Our own tanker industry has not been exempted from this upheaval. If we have any doubt of that, let's recall that within the memory of most of us the average tanker was something under 10,000 deadweight tons with a speed of about 91⁄2 knots. Not long ago a contract was signed for construction of a 170,800 tonner. Perhaps some can remember the last of the commercial sailing vessels. Today nuclear propulsion is no longer a novelty and the hover-craft and hydrofoil are a reality. The giant submarine tanker could even be commonplace in the not too distant future.

Changes never come easily in the marine field. With good reason, we

ent-day conditions-particularly the keen competition in the tanker industry.

These changes have brought with them new problems and hazards. First I'd like to review some of the changes which have caused us to revise, or at least to reconsider, some of our long-standing practices.

The first and most spectacular is the tremendous increase in size of tankers which has taken place in the last 20 years and particularly in the last 5 years and which, incidentally, shows little sign of having run its course. As the basket gets bigger and the number of eggs in it increases the problem of protecting it from harm grows greater.

Another change which has stimulated our thinking on tanker safety is the increasing number and variety of products we are called upon to carry in our ships. The rapid development of the petrochemical industry has brought us into an entirely new field and presents safety problems of an entirely different nature. Liquefled gases under great extremes of temperature or pressure will pose still different problems. We have not yet

With a whole new set of problems to be solved, it soon became obvious that merely continuing on in the same old way would not do; simply adding more of the same was not the answer. Fortunately the climate which induced the changes in the first place produced some of the answers. In other words we had to learn to "think big" in safety too.

Let's now look at some of the actual developments in safety which have directly or indirectly come about because of recent changes in tanker design and operations.

One of the first things coming to mind in this regard is the elimination of the midship house and relocation of all crew quarters to the after part of the ship. While this was originally conceived of as a cost reduction measure, it has had a strong secondary value as a safety feature.

A great deal of work has been done in recent years in the field of fire protection and firefighting. One of the most noteworthy advances was the revision of the U.S. Coast Guard's firefighting regulations, which was done in collaboration with industry.

Fire protection for petroleum carriers in the past gave evidence of hand-me-downs from cargo ship practices and like most hand-me-downs, it didn't fit too well. The steam smothering system and the straightstream hose nozzle may have been fine on the general cargo ship but they are of little use on a gasoline fire on board a tanker. The revised regulations have permitted adoption of some of the concepts of smothering and cooling developed by the petroleum industry to shipboard use.

In our own new vessels we have made substantial improvements in firefighting protection and installations. Steam smothering has been eliminated entirely and waterfog and foam systems substituted. The waterfog system consists of a separate piping system in the cargo tank hatches, served by its own fire pump. Foam installations vary from ship to ship; some having fixed systems, others portable. Our newest vessels are also fitted with foam monitors.

While we have standardized on 3 percent foam on our crude and product carriers, we have retained 6 percent foam on one vessel which is in the chemical trade. It is our feeling that the greater body and cohesion of the 6 percent foam makes it more effective on chemical fires and is worth the sacrifice in volume.

The increased size of vessels has brought up a number of other problems requiring solution. An example of these is the length of firehoses. As you know, the standard length has traditionally been 50 feet, which has always been satisfactory in vessels of moderate size. With ship's beams exceeding 100 feet, it now becomes impossible to reach over the side with one length, and for this reason we have adopted 75-ft. lengths on our large new vessels.

The matter of personnel has required some thought, and departures from principles of long standing have been made. For example, the crew of a 95,000-deadweight-ton vessel is roughly the same size as that of a 35,000 tonner. With a much larger number of fire stations on the former it is obviously impossible to follow the customary practice of assigning men to each fire station, as there just aren't enough to go around. We therefore adopted the "emergency squad" concept to concentrate men and apparatus at the scene of the fire. This makes a good deal more sense than the "shotgun" approach where manpower and equipment are scattered about the ship, some perhaps being 1,000 feet from the scene of action.

We think we have thoroughly refuted the notion held by some that there is safety in mere numbers of people. In fact, we feel that as a general rule-a few well-trained people with good equipment make a most efficient kind of safety unit. We also feel that a well-trained man with poor equipment will have fewer accidents than a poorly trained one with good equipment.

It is our firm belief then, that the training of personnel is by far the most important element in our safety program. It is not enough to provide the most modern up-to-date firefighting gear in the world. We have to teach our ship's people how to use it and use it effectively. This involves more than the usual perfunctory fire and boat drill held once a week in fine weather, it means actually using the equipment on a fire, seeing what it will do.

We have made it a practice to have every man in our fleet attend firefighting school before joining his vessel, and take a refresher course periodically. For our U.S. fleet, this training is given by the plant fire department at our Beaumont, Tex., refinery. Our foreign-flag fleet personnel receive training in schools which we have been instrumental in establishing in London, Hamburg, Freetown, Bombay, and Karachi. Most of these have been set up with assistance and collaboration from local fire brigades, using their training grounds and equipment and our instructors. The course at the overseas schools averages 2 days except for the one in Hamburg which runs for 1 week. Both officers and unlicensed personnel are expected to take this training. In this training the personnel gain confidence and experience in what can be done with the equipment in putting out actual fires.

While there have been and will continue to be accidents so long as we have the human element with us, well-trained men with good equipment is the best route to our goal of the fewest possible accidents. We must provide both good men and safe equipment.

While I cannot go into great detail regarding the many minor innovations in firefighting equipment and techniques I would, however, like to mention some of them, most of which are refinements of existing materials or practices. We are, for instance, adopting some improvements in hose couplings and connectors to permit easier and faster hooking up of hoses. This involves use of 45° swivel connection fire hydrants, and snap

couplings between hose and hydrants. Fire extinguishers are being standardized throughout the fleet. Dry chemical of a type compatible with foam is being used in all locations except electrical flats and radio rooms, where CO is employed. All vessels are supplied with a minimum of eight applicators, and 90 percent of all hose nozzles are of the all-purpose type. Two-and-one-half-inch hoses are used throughout in our large new vessels, because of the need for volume of water or fog. Plastic foam cans are to be used in place of metal containers to beat the rusting problem which has plagued us all for so long.

I'd like to mention very briefly here a couple of new developments in which we are interested. I believe you'll be hearing a good deal about them in the future, although they are presently in the development stage. I refer first to subsurface application of foam. Our research and development and safety people in Paulsboro are doing a good deal of work with this. If and when they succeed in overcoming their remaining problems, it might very well have an application to tankers by permitting foam to be introduced into the cargo tanks directly through the pipelines.

Another interesting development is the use of high-expansion foam for inerting and displacing vapors from cargo tanks as well as for firefighting. While not new, high-expansion foam has never received the attention we feel it merits. Our marketing people

have adopted it as the principal means of fire protection in a new 500-ft. automated warehouse and information developed in this connection has led us to believe that it may possibly have an application as an inerting or gas-freeing medium in cargo tanks.

Before leaving the subject of inerting, I might mention here that we have installed flue gas systems on two of our vessels, but not the most recent group. We do not believe routine gas-freeing contributes measurably to safety, but rather the contrary.

While we have some rapid strides in firefighting and fire protection, we have taken a somewhat more conservative course with regard to new developments in lifesaving equipment. We refer chiefly here to plastic lifeboats and inflatable liferafts.

Boats constructed of glass fiber and synthetic resins have been the subject of much controversy. We have used them in a few of our newer vessels, but until such time as fire-retardant resins have been further developed and are available we intend to remain with metal boats. The matter is being followed with interest, however.

As for inflatable liferafts, these undoubtedly would be useful under certain conditions, but they do not in our estimation have the all-around utility of a lifeboat. They are, of course, now required by the U.S. Coast Guard, although not by SOLAS.

Among the other developments in the field of lifesaving equipment, are adoption of the diesel-powered boat

or four sailors taking a heavy hawser or a wire to a winch drum to heave the vessel alongside.

Another feature which has resulted in increased safety although not designed with it in mind, is the air conditioning of quarters. This has been particularly effective with regard to the midship house. There are now no open ports or doors by which fumes can enter during loading and ballasting. With air-conditioned quarters, doors are of the vapor lock type, and ports are kept closed at all times.

All our new vessels are constructed to standards laid down by the classification societies and the British Ministry of Transport, the German SBG, or the U.S. Coast Guard, whichever may be higher. We feel we are fortunate in being able to select the best features of each, which is resulting in ships which are, on the whole, unsurpassed in safety anywhere in the world. £

where motor or mechanically operated boats are required. We are replacing all gasoline and hand-propelled boats. To provide better access to boat decks on the bridge-aft vessels, we have provided additional vertical type ladders. Survival kits have been updated and lifeboats have been provided with radar reflectors to assist search and rescue teams looking for them. Resuscitator/respirator units have been standard equipment on our vessels for some time.

The hazard of collision is of the greatest concern to us, as it is to every tanker operator. The skills required by the present-day tanker mariner with respect to navigation and ship operation have become more critical than ever with the increase in size and complexity of the large tanker. We recognize that a single failure of action or equipment in these vessels could be catastrophic. Collisions and strandings are to be avoided at all costs. To do this requires a high order of seamanship on the part of our personnel and the best equipment available. We are in the process of installing a second radar set on all our large vessels. All are equipped with Decca Navigators or Loran. Each of the large vessels is being supplied with walkie-talkie sets to be used in docking and undocking. They may also be used for communication between company ships in the near vicinity. We are experimenting with closed-circuit television as an aid to lookout-keeping.

The safety of the ship's crews has also received a great deal of attention in design of new ships. In noting a few of the improvements built into new construction, we might start with gratings and ladders. These are perennial sources of injury to personnel and we have devoted a considerable amount of research to treads on gratings and the location of the ladders themselves. We have made progress in this area, and feel we have come up with some answers that will result in fewer slips and falls. Tank repairs, particularly those in underdeck areas have become more and more difficult to carry out as the depth in tanks is increased. The old wooden ladder is long gone, and in tanks 60 feet deep a light metal ladder is no longer suitable. We feel we may have a partial solution by ballasting the tank and using an inflatable raft for the men to work from-not an original idea with us, of course.

In our new vessels, vent intakes have been relocated forward of the stack to avoid flue gases being discharged into quarters. Air winches have been provided for forepeak storerooms. Hydraulically operated cargo valves have been provided in the large vessels and the newest will also have automated cargo control rooms. On these ships, back strain from turning large hand cargo valves I will be a thing of the past. We also feel there is less hazard in one man handling a large mooring wire on a good self-tensioning winch than three

RECENTLY A MERCHANT vessel, approximately 120 miles offshore, reported a crewmember suffering from a heart attack. A Coast Guard helicopter was dispatched to evacuate the man to a hospital. During this mission, there were no effective voice communications between the helicopter and the vessel. The Coast Guard fixed-wing aircraft, escorting the helicopter, was also unable to communicate with the vessel. When the helicopter arrived on scene, the patient had already been placed in a small boat clear of the vessel. The captain of the merchant vessel, in an effort to expedite the evacuation, had assumed this to be the best method for the helicopter to hoist the patient. The patient had also been placed in one of the vessel's stretchers, not rigged for single point hookup and hoisting. As a result, this rescue mission was complicated and required excessive time to complete. It was first necessary to lower a stretcher from the helicopter and transfer the patient into the stretcher rigged for hoisting. The maneuvering of the helicopter over the small boat for hoisting required greater caution, and time, and presented a more difficult hoist platform for the pilot due to the boat being dead in the water and being blown around by the helicopter downwash. The mission was successfully accomplished; however, had communications been possible with the vessel, or had the captain had information available to him concerning the capabilities of the helicopter, the mission could have been accomplished with greater ease and speed.

This article is written with the intent of providing merchant vessels with some of the Coast Guard helicopter capabilities and requirements

Commander Thometz, a native of Twin Falls, Idaho is commanding officer of the Coast Guard Air Station at New Orleans, La. He is a graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and the U.S. Navy's Fixed Wing and Helicopter Flight Training Schools. He has previously served at Coast Guard air stations in San Diego and San Francisco, Calif.; Sangley Point, Philippines; Barbers Point, Hawaii, and at Port Angeles, Wash. He has been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Coast Guard Commendation Medal, as well as several Letters of Commendation from the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.

for medical

evacuations at sea. Although we cannot hope to cover every possibility, the information will be extremely valuable to every master of a merchant vessel.

In any evacuation at sea, the primary controlling factor is distance. The Sikorsky HH-52A amphibious turbine-powered helicopter is currently used by the Coast Guard. Under no wind conditions, its maximum radius of action from its base or refueling point is 185 miles out, 10 minutes hovering, and return to its departure point. This radius will be decreased by wind, weather conditions, and added weight factors. Only under the most favorable conditions would such a range be attempted. It is obvious if a merchant vessel is 300 miles at sea and requests a helicopter evacuation, it will be necessary for him to divert from his course and head for the nearest position at which a rendezvous can be made with the helicopter. Normally, the Coast Guard Rescue Coordination Center controlling the mission will request the vessel to divert and head for a certain position or port. The sooner the captain acknowledges by message to the Coast Guard that he will divert and gives his estimated time of arrival at such a position, the sooner the helicopter flight can be planned and launched. If the vessel is already within range of the helicopter, it is still necessary for him to divert in the direction of the helicopter's departure point to expedite the removal of the patient. Future plans of the Coast Guard include multiengine helicopters and will result in greater range capabilities.

The second important factor in the evacuation is communications. As pointed out in the first part of this