NO. 40. "SANTA CATALINA" [NOW "M. V. CHIMU"] Seaman alleges that during the period from August 17, 1936, to December 1935, while he was quartermaster aboard the above ship, she carried only two men having lifeboatmen's certificates and that boat falls were in bad condition; that one of the falls carried away, causing a man to drown in the port of Pisco, Peru. In investigating this complaint the Bureau secured an affidavit from Captain T. M. Williams, who is at present master of the above ship and was master of her during the above-mentioned periods. This affidavit states that, "* * * during this period all lifeboat equipment was in first class condition and at no time did we drop a boat, neither was there any loss of life. At all times the vessel carried the number of certified lifeboat men as required by the certificate of inspection. To the best of my knowledge, we never put any of our life boats in the water while in the port of Pisco, Peru." On September 2, 1936, an inspector from the New York office examined the lifeboat equipment aboard this ship and found that the boat falls had apparently just been renewed and that the lifeboats were in good condition. It appears further that this ship was, during the period in question, operating from the Canal Zone to west coast ports of South America. There would, therefore, be no inspection other than that required by the Panama Canal authorities, and for this reason the Bureau cannot definitely refute the charges that boat falls were in poor condition at the time. Requirements, such as renewal of boat falls, and equipment and sundry like requirements, are everyday occurrences in the work of the local and assistant inspectors. See reports #92, #93, #97. NO. 41. S. S. "WICHITA" NO. 42. "CITY OF HAMBURG" The alleged conditions set forth in this complaint are covered completely in response to complaint No. 27, concerning the same ship. NO. 44. S. S. "PRESIDENT HARDING" Complainant alleges that safety valves on the above ship while sealed as required by the regulations of the Bureau are tampered with after the ship is at sea. He also alleges that repaired steam hoses are used in the engine room and that the men are required to work in the upper part of the engine room in hazardous conditions without proper protection. The complainant further alleges that #5 hatch has a fuel oil leak which constitutes a serious fire hazard. Investigation of this complaint included a sworn statement made by Mr. Brennan, chief engineer. The allegations regarding safety valves and improper safety precautions were investigated by the local inspectors at New York on July 24. The charges were not sustained, and the complaint was dismissed. A complete record of this investigation is available in the local inspectors' office in New York. Investigation indicates that certain leaks did develop in #5 hatch tank top, but that such leaks were ordered repaired, which repairs have been made. A further investigation of this complaint made by a traveling inspector from the Bureau indicates that a formal investigation of the matter was made on July 20, 1936, by the board of local inspectors at New York, and it was found that there was no violation of any rule or regulation. The records of the local inspectors indicate that on March 4, 1936, the safety valves of this vessel were inspected and sealed by an inspector from that office. On July 18, 1936, the chief engineer of the President Harding reported by letter to the local inspectors that it was necessary to break the seal, while the vessel was at Hamburg, to make repairs to the safety valves, and in a letter to the local inspectors dated July 24, 1936, the chief engineer reported that it was necessary to break the seals on numbers 1, 2, and 3 boilers, due to the valves blowing at 257 pounds, thereby causing an excessive loss of fresh water. The allowed pressure of this vessel is 265 pounds. At the return of the vessel to New York the local inspectors made further examination of the safety valves, and all the springs in the valves were renewed, and the valves were set and sealed, and since that timehave caused no difficulty. Investigation also developed that new steam hoses were furnished this vessel every trip, and there was no occasion to use old or repaired steam hoses, and that all precautions were taken when any work such as painting or repairing was done in the engine department. With reference to the complaint that there were oil leaks in the vicinity of #5 hatch, investigation developed that such leaks existed, but were not of a dangerous nature. Vessels of the President Harding type, due to the nature of their construction, which is the Isherwood System, work considerably in a seaway, which tends to start rivets, particularly in double bottoms and tank tops. These started rivets are caulked or renewed as soon as possible after it is noted that they are leaking. NO. 45. S. S. "EXETER" Seaman formerly employed as machinist aboard the above ship complains that the high pressure valve seats are in such condition as to be unsafe in view of the extremely high pressures which they carry. He found further, according to his complaint, that the condition of these valves is well-known by the inspectors of the Bureau and that they have neglected to do anything about it. The local inspectors at New York investigated this case very thoroughly for the reason that the complainant holds at the present time a license issued by their office in the grade of first assistant engineer on steam vessels of any gross tons navigating any ocean. The local inspectors examined the chief engineer of the Exeter. The examination brought out that there had been some difficulty with one high pressure steam valve seat which was made of monel metal. The solution to the difficulty was found in renewing the valve and making it all steel. Another witness examined was the first assistant engineer on the Exeter whose testimony indicates that two valves were found to be porous on examination but that the porosities were properly filled by welding. Both the local inspectors after examining these witnesses dismissed the case. The investigation shows no violation of law, the regulations, or the shipping articles. NOS. 44 AND 46. S. S. "SANTA ROSA" The complainant states that while he was employed as a water tender on the steamship Santa Rosa on a voyage commencing October 9, 1935, and ending November 19, 1935, extensive work was undertaken in the boiler room of this vessel while the ship was at sea and at Mazatlan, Mexico. He indicates that he did not believe permission was granted to perform this work, consisting of renewing the superheaters and installing Foster-Wheeler economizer. He further states that on February 11, 1936, the same job was done by the shore gang at New York; that the vessel left New York on February 15 with the work uncompleted; that the engineers finished the job at sea; and that no tests were made by the Bureau. The Bureau's records indicate that on October 9, 1935, blue prints describing this installation were submitted to the United States local inspectors at New York, and permission was requested to place the material on board the ship and perform the work on the west coast. The local inspectors replied that they had no comment to offer to the above procedure, which was carried out. The local inspectors at Los Angeles, California, issued an amended certificate to this vessesl, permitting the use of three boilers. On November 21, 1935, the chief engineer of the Santa Rosa advised the local inspectors at New York that permission was granted by the local inspectors at Los Angeles to proceed on three boilers, pending completion of the work. Upon completion, a hydrostatic test of 430 pounds was put on the new work on Number three boiler and, after all tubes and connections were found tight, steam was raised in the boiler. A review of the records on file in the office of the local inspectors at New York indicates that the work performed on board the Santa Rosa was only done after approval had been granted by the local inspectors, and with their full knowledge and consent. The Foster-Wheeler superheaters and economizers installed on this vessel are devices which have received approval of the Board of Supervising Inspectors of the Bureau. It may be true that in the course of installing these devices there was some confusion in the boiler room. However, it was not of such a nature as would effect the safety of the vessel, and there does not appear to be any violation of the laws, rules, or regulations. NO. 47. S. S. "CITY OF RAYVILLE" Seaman complains that, while employed as oiler abroad the motor ship City of Rayville, he was required to wash paintwork and paint auxiliary machinery in the engine room while on watch. He further states that the engineer in charge of the watch was busy working on the lathe in the machine shop and that there was no one watching the engine. There is nothing new of unusual in the practice which this man complains of. If the ship was being navigated in crowded waters or in a fog or during any other period when close attention to the throttle is necessary, the engineer in charge of the watch could be charged with negligence. The Bureau has under consideration the preparation of regulations of a new part in addition to the present regulations which will cover "operation." These regulations would cover such situations. The Bureau finds no violation of the present regulations, the law, or the shipping articles in the matter complained of. NO. 48. S. S. "BLACK TERN" Former water tender aboard the above steamer complains that the safety valves were tampered with in order to raise the steam pressure from 200 pounds, as set by the Bureau's inspectors, to 230 pounds. He further claims that upon returning to American ports the safety valves were again adjusted to below at 200 pounds. The regulations of the Bureau have, since January 1, 1935, required safety valves to be sealed in order that they cannot be tampered with. On July 14, 1936, an inspector of the Bureau visited this vessel and found the seals on the safety valves intact with no evidence of tampering. If the seals are placed on the valves it is impossible to reset the blow-off pressure. Inasmuch as complaint is not definite as to time, it is possible that the alleged occurrence took place before safety valves were required by the regulations to be sealed, i. e., January 1935. In this case it would be physically possible for the setting of the valve to be changed, inasmuch as it had not been officially sealed. Section 4437, Revised Statutes, prescribes a penalty of $200 fine, together with up to five years' imprisonment, for any person who intentionally changes the setting of a safety valve in such a way as to cause it to open at a greater pressure than that allowed by the certificate of inspection. From the evidence submitted, together with that adduced by the investigation, the Bureau finds no definite violation of the law or the regulations. NO. 49. T. S. "EXECUTIVE" Seaman complains of the conditions of the steering gear on the above ship on which he was employed during January 1936 stating that the ship steered so badly because of poor steering gear as to have several near collisions. He also complains of the marks on the engine telegraph. Investigation of this complaint by the local inspectors of New York together with extracts from the ship's log book indicates that on the dates specified by the log book the ship was not where the complainant says she was. The complainant states that on January 17 she was in the Delaware River, while the log states that on January 17, 18, and 19, she was in Jersey City at New York at pier F. An extract from the vessel's log as set forth below together with a portion of the investigation: Jan. 17, 1936. At pier F, Jersey City, N. J.; discharging. Jan. 20, 1936, 4 p. m. Inspected and tested steering gear, whistle, telegraph. All in good condition. Vessel sailed for Philadelphia. Jan. 21, 1936. Made fast to pier 25, Philadelphia, 8 p. m. Jan. 22, 1936. At Philadelphia discharging. Jan. 23, 1936, 4:30 p. m. Examined and tested steering gear, whistle, telegraph, and running lights. All in good order. Vessel sailed for Baltimore. Jan. 24, 1936. Philadelphia to Baltimore. Jan. 25, 1936. Arrived Baltimore, 9:13 a. m.; 2:50 p. m., examined and tested steering gear, telegraph, whistle, and running lights. All in good order. Vessel sailed for New York. Jan. 26, 1936. Proceeding to New York. Jan. 27, 1936. Arrived at New York. It is noted that during the time as above, the steering gear and telegraph were tested at required times and recorded in good condition. Also there was no trouble with either. The telegraph is properly marked and distinct. On the dates specified in the complaint the vessel was at pier F, Jersey City, and not in the Delaware River. The Bureau has on file the affidavits of both the master and chief engineer concerning the alleged deficiencies. The Bureau finds no violation of the law or the regulations. NO. 50. "YOMACHICHI” Seaman alleges that in 1931 the above steamer went ashore on the coast of Cuba due to the fact that the anchor gear was in such poor condition as to preclude the immediate release of the anchor. Investigation indicates that this stranding was made a subject of an investigation by the board of local inspectors at New York on April 27, 1931. "Testimony taken at investigation does not disclose any negligence or inattention to duties on the part of any licensed officer, and does show that the motor vessel Yomachichi while off Cape Maysi, Cuba, en route New York to Australia, after passing four and a half miles off lighthouse, engines became deranged and had to be stopped. "With easterly wind, heavy swell and tide setting to the westward, vessel drifted toward the cape. Soundings were taken for anchorage, but not until vessel reached a position about one mile south of the lighthouse was bottom found at fifteen fathoms, when both anchors were let go. Vessel remaind at anchor about three hours, until engines were repaired, but in getting under way, came in contact with the bottom and remained stranded until 10:57 a. m., January 22, a period of three days and seven hours, when vessel floated, assisted by wrecking steamer Kellerig, and proceeded to Guantanamo where survey was held and vessel proceeded to Balboa for permanent repairs. "No persons were injured, and as no further action is deemed necessary, case is dismissed. "(Sgd.) HECTOR R. CAMPBELL. "JOHN W. WATERS." NO. 51. S. S. "PRESIDENT MONROE" Complainant alleges that while he was serving as a fireman on board this vessel during the period of December 22, 1934, to April 9, 1935, the bulkheads in fuel room leaked oil to the extent that at times there were 6 inches of oil in the bilges and a dangerous condition was created. He further states that there was a fire in the bilge while the vessel was at Singapore and that three fusible plugs were dropped in No. 5 Boiler. Section 16 of Rule V, Ocean and Coastwise, requires the master of a vessel to report to the nearest local inspector upon arrival in port of any accident or casualty involving loss of life or damage to property. Section 4448 R. S. requires that licensed officers shall point out to inspectors any defects to hull, boilers, and equipment. Section I-18-5, rule II, requires the chief engineer to report any changes or renewals of fusible plugs. An examination of the records of the U. S. local inspectors at New York revealed that no report of any of the alleged occurences had been made to the U. S. local inspectors. The port engineer and port captain for the Dollar Line at New York were interviewed and stated they had no knowledge of same. A Mr. Louis E. Arvin was chief engineer of the S. S. President Monroe during the period in question and is now residing in Oakland, California. The U. S. local inspectors at San Francisco have been directed to contact Mr. Arvin and inquire as to his knowledge of the allegation. In the event that there was any violation of the law, rules, or regulations, the local inspectors at San Francisco have been directed to take appropriate action. Relative to oil leaks, this has been a matter requiring constant attention on the part of the licensed officers and inspectors of the Bureau. Due to the construction of vessels of the President Monroe class, which are built on the Isherwood system of longitudinal framing, these vessels work extensively in a seaway, thereby starting rivets and causing seams to seep. This can only be remedied by reriveting, caulking, and welding. NO. 52. S. S. "MUNORLEANS" Former watertender on the above steamer states that from March 31, 1930, to April 17, 1930, while he was aboard the ship, he found bulkheads so rusty that it was dangerous to chip them and that the steam lines were in a rusty and leaky condition and that the whole ship was a floating "mess." He further complains that the steam lines blew out endangering the lives of those on board. There always have been operators who refuse to spend the amounts of money necessary to keep ships properly equipped and in a seaworthy condition. The law and the Bureau regulations require an annual inspection and at this inspection the ship's equipment is tested and examined to determine its fitness. However, 32437-38-pt. 5-13 previous to 1935, the Bureau regulations did not require a thorough examination of auxiliary machinery, etc., on ships which were not maintained and classed in a recognized classification society, which society would subject said ship to a thorough examination and survey every four years. In 1935, the Bureau recognizing the need for such survey of unclassified vessels, placed in the Bureau regulations the requirements concerning special surveys. At the present time these surveys are being carried out by the local inspectors and as a result many ancient ships have been condemned. The above-named ship, the Munorleans, was scrapped about two years ago. NO. 53. S. S. "SELMA CITY" With reference to this complaint a traveling inspector visited the Selma City at Brooklyn, N. Y. The complainant alleges that he was employed as an oiler on this vessel and that he was required to do all kinds of work which he was not supposed to do. He also alleges that the firemen were required to do the same kind of work, washing paint, painting the fidley, etc. During this time the engineer on watch was seldom to be seen, being generally in the machine shop. He further alleges that the motorboat had a hole in it and that the boat deck also leaked into the crew's quarters. He states that he has been in this company for more than three years and has found it to be the practice of the engineers not to be present in the engine room during their watch. The traveling inspector examined the engine room and machine shop, with particular attention to the location of the machine shop with reference to the operating platform. The chief engineer was questioned as to the amount of time the watch engineer spent in the machine shop. The machine shop on this vessel is on the upper platform on the port side about 20 feet in a direct line from the operating platform, and if it is necessary for the engineer on watch to perform work in the machine shop he has a full view of the engine room, the telegraph signal from the bridge, and the throttle. He is also able to observe the gauge glasses of the boilers. The chief engineer stated that when it was necessary for the watch engineer to go to the machine shop the oiler remained on the operating platform by the throttle. With reference to the oilers and firemen doing other work other than their duties, the chief engineer stated that a wiper was carried who did all the necessary cleaning in the engine room, and the major paint work was done while the vessel was in port. The chief officer stated that the motorboat had some repairs made in September 1936; that a new keel and two planks on each side were renewed. He said that at no time did he know of the motorboat having a hole in it. There does not appear to be a violation of any law, rules, or regulations on this vessel. NO. 54. S. S. "BLACK FALCON" A former water tender on the above steamer complains that the safety valve seating was changed as soon as the ship cleared the harbor of New York. Response to this complaint is similar to that of No. 48, the Black Tern. The complainant further states that the firemen were made to do other work while on watch, such as painting and cleaning bulkheads and boilers. He further states the crew's quarters aft were damp and crowded and that the crew worked a great deal of overtime. Recent legislation requires a monthly examination of the crew's quarters by inspectors of the Bureau, and already owners have been required to improve living conditions, including toilets and washing facilities. In regard to overtime, recent legislation restricts the day's work at sea to eight hours per man. NO. 55. S. S. "WEST KEBAR" The complainant alleges that while laying in New York the boilers of this vessel were inspected and passed, and that less than 48 hours after the inspection two of the boilers let go. Consequently, the ship was delayed for two days. About six weeks after departure from New York two of the boilers let go again, and ten days later another boiler let go. The complainant alleges that insufficient fire and boat drills were held, and that the vessel was not equipped with a hospital. It was also alleged that the vessel ran aground and was refloated, and then proceeded to sea without a survey. It is also alleged that more than the total number of persons allowed were carried, and that there were aliens in the crew. An |