APPENDIX A

RADIATION DOSE STUDIES

For a land surface nuclear burst, the free-field fallout radiation dose at a point offshore can come from 4 sources, 3 of which are interrelated. The transit dose is that received from the radioactive cloud as it passes overhead; this dose is independent of the surface over which the cloud travels. As the radioactive cloud passes it deposits radioactive particles. If these particles settle on the deck of a ship they give rise to the deck-deposit dose; if the particles settle on an adjacent land surface they give rise to the land-deposit dose. Finally, if the particles settle on and in the water surrounding the ship they produce the waterborne dose. This waterborne dose can be further subdivided into a water settling dose, which is received during the time that the particles are falling from the surface of the water to the bottom and a water-solution dose, which results from dissolution of a portion of the radioactivity as the particles fall through the water and thereafter.

In order to determine the relative importance of land deposit, deck deposit, and waterborne dose, contribution factors, which are dependent on the placement of the ship in relation to the land water areas, must be calculated. In this report we have used Ref. 1, which is based on experimental data from a La-140 radiation field, to calculate the contribution factors for land-, deck-and water-deposit radiation.

Finally, in order to determine the dose to a person on a vessel, we must consider the structural shielding of the vessel itself as well as the time over which the sources contribute to the total dose. Transit radiation irradiates the ship from all sides, but only while the cloud is passing near the vessel. Deck-deposit radiation penetrates from the horizontal surfaces of the ship from the moment of deposition until it is removed — either by washdown or decontamination. Land-deposit radiation, both direct and indirect, penetrates the ship through the hull and the deck from the moment of deposition until the land surface is decontaminated. Waterborne radiation contributes primarily through the submerged hull, the water-settling component contributing only during the period of actual fallout, the water-solution component remaining as a contributor for an indefinite time or until dispersed by tidal action and dilution.

Transit dose was calculated using a model developed at NRDL.2 Deposit dose was calculated using the NRDL D-Model,3 and was then split into its three possible components — deck deposit, land deposit or waterborne — by inspection of the geometry of the situation. The water settling and water solution doses were calculated using the data of Ref. 4. It was assumed5 that 10% of the radioactivity of the falling particles dissolved as they fell through the water, creating the water-solution dose. The time to fall 1 meter in quiescent water, was taken

Time, hrs = 312 / (Particle size,Microns)2

which time defines the water settling dose. It was found that a depth of 9 ft was an adequate limit to which to carry the calculation of both water-settling and water solution doses.

The contributors to the total free-field radiation dose received up to 1 yr after burst time are presented in Figs, A.1,2, and A.2 as a function of downwind distance along the hotline for total yields of 1 MT, 5 MT, and 20 MT, respectively. An effective wind of 15 knots is assumed and all downwind distances are measured along the hotline. An idealized pattern of total-dose contours resulting from such a wind structure would be similar to those illustrated in The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (p. 44-5).7 In any actual case, the doses received would generally be less than those indicated in Figs. A.1, 2, and A.2, since any actual winds encountered would be less uniform and more widely dispersed than those specified here. Actual winds would tend to distribute the radioactivity over a greater area and result in radiation intensities less than those predicted, even though isolated "hot spots" might be encountered. Actual doses received would be less for two other reasons. First, fission yields would normally range from 40% to 60% (p. 23, Ref. 7) for the total weapon yields used here, and doses would be reduced proportionately. Second, most points under consideration would probably not be on the hotline, and doses would also be reduced accordingly.

The radiation dose to occupants of any type vessel can be calculated, using Figs. A.1, 2, and A.2. We shall consider a converted Liberty ship as an example (Fig. A.3), using the data for a 5 MT weapon (Fig. 2). The assumed conditions are that the converted Liberty is beached with its bow 20 ft onshore (as shown in Fig. 12b) and that the ship is equipped with a washdown system that continuously decontaminates the top surface of the ship as well as a 100-ft-wide staging area shoreside of the bow of the ship. With this configuration, we find that the contribution factor from deposited fallout will be, for a point in the center of the ship, 94% from the ship's deck and 6% from the shore. The radiation from the 4 sources is reduced by the shielding of the ship itself; the reduction factors range from 0.005 for the deck-deposit dose, which must penetrate 4 inches of concrete and several thicknesses of deck, to 0.1 for the transit and waterbome doses, which penetrate primarily through a 1-inch hull thickness. Finally, the washdown system provides continuous decontamination of the ship's upper surfaces, reducing the deck deposit dose by another 90%. The overall reduction factors then range from 0.1 for transit radiation to 0.0005 for deck-deposit radiation. From Fig. A.3 it is apparent that, the land deposit dose is controlling except near the point of burst. However, the deck-deposit dose would be equally high if (a) the ship had no washdown system, or (b) the ship did not have a 4-inch layer of concrete on the weather deck. Waterbome radiation is negligible; so too is transit radiation except at close-in distances. Figure A.3 suggests that a converted Liberty would adequately safeguard its occupants against fallout radiation as close as 6 miles from a 5 MT burst. This safe distance could be decreased to 3 miles by either adding expedient shielding to the hull of the ship or by moving the ship into midchannel prior to arrival of fallout.


Fig. A.1 Radiation Dose Studies - 1 MT Weapon Yield
Various Components of the Free Field Radiation Dose Received up to One Year After Burst
vs Downwind Distance Along the Hot Line




Fig- A.2 Radiation Dose Studies - 20 MT Weapon Yield
Various Components of the Free Field Radiation Dose Received up to One Year After Burst
vs Downwind Distance Along the Hot Line


Fig. A.3 Hot Line Radiation Dose from Several Sources to Occupants of a Beached Converted Liberty Ship Downwind from a 5-MT Land-Surface Burst

Curves similar to Fig. A.3 can be drawn up for any weapon yield and for any particular configuration of any type vessel. If the vessel is within a half-mile of land, the contribution of land-deposit radiation must be taken into account. The total dose to occupants from transit, deck deposit, land-deposit, and waterbome radiation can then be determined.

Figures A.4 and A.5 show, for 3 types of vessels, the total dose to occupants for 1-MT and 20-MT land-surface bursts, respectively, The first case, a fishing boat of 15-ft beam, is located in the middle of a 1600-ft-wide river that is 9-ft deep. The boat has a reduction factor of only 0.8 but it is equipped with a washdown system that removes 80% of deck-deposit fallout. The second case is the SS INDEPENDENCE, which is assumed to be at sea when fallout arrives. A reduction factor of 0.02 (from Fig. 8) is supplemented by a washdown system with an effectiveness of 80% (higher effectivenesses are not assumed, because of the relatively high holdup of particulate matter that might be expected on wooden decks). The third case, already considered in detail in Fig. A. 3, is the converted Liberty ship beached on a shore.


Fig. A.4 One Year Doses to Occupants of Various Type Vessels Downwind from a 1-MT Land-Surface Burst


Fig. A.5 One Year Doses to Occupants of Various Type Vessels Downwind from a 20-MT land-surface Burst

From these figures, it is apparent that the converted Liberty ship beached on shore and the SS INDEPENDENCE at sea are about equivalent in protection afforded against fallout radioactivity. The fishing boat, as might be expected, provides only limited protection against fallout. However, a comparison of Figs. A.1 and A.4 does show the boat to have a definite protective value. At 30 miles downwind, the free-field dose would be 7500 r whereas occupants of the fishing boat would receive only 300 r.

REFERENCES

1. Schlemm, CL., and Anthony, A.E., Scattered Gamma Radiation Measurements from a Lanthanum-140 Contaminated Field, June 1959, AFSWC-TK-59-18.

2. Huebsch, I.O., USNRDL Technical Report in preparation.

3. Anderson, A.D., The NRDL Dynamic Model for Fallout from Land Surface Nuclear Bursts, USNRDL-TR-410, 5 April 1960.

4. Ksanda, CF., Cohn, S.M., et al., Gamma Radiations from Contaminated Slabs and Planes, USNRDL-TM-27, 10 Jan 1955.

5. Hawkins, M.B., Procedures for the Assessment and Control of the Shorter Term Hazards of Nuclear Warfare Fallout in Water Supply Systems, 1 March 1960. University of California, Institute of Eng. Research, Berkeley.

6. Callahan, E.D., et al., Shelter from Fallout, 7 April 1961. Technical Operations, Inc.

7. Glasstone, S., Editor, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, April 1962.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPENDIX B

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF REDUCTION-FACTOR CALCULATIONS FOR FALLOUT GAMMA RADIATIONS

By Endel Laumets

The method used to calculate the reduction factors against fallout gamma radiation for various ship locations is described by CF. Ksanda in the paper "Ship Shielding Calculations."1

This paper states the following: "The general problem of computing ship shielding factors involves: (1) specification of the radioactive source characteristics, particularly geometric configuration and radiation energy spectrum; (2) specification of the major ship characteristics, particularly configuration and nature of materials; (3) development of methods for computing the interaction of the radiation with the ship. To arrive at a practicable solution, it has been necessary to idealize and generalize into static situations the dynamic source configurations produced by a variety of nuclear detonations and to idealize the complex structures and components of naval ships, as well as to devise sufficiently simple approximations to the transmission of gamma rays through attenuating media — which may consist of air and water as well as the material of the ship."

Ksanda states further: "Basically, the approach that has been followed is a point-by-point calculation. The radioactive source region is considered to be made up of an aggregate of point isotropic sources. The dose rate from each source is calculated at a given location by estimating the radiation attenuation along the entire path length, and the total dose is found by summing over all sources. In practice, the summation process is replaced to the extent possible by integration. The calculations are made for monoenergetic sources of different energies. By properly weighting and adding the results for different energies, an estimate may be made for the spectrum from mixed fission products at any time after fission."

Calculations of ship shielding effectiveness against transit, deck-deposit, and waterborne radiations for any interior (below-decks) location are complicated and numerous, and when done manually, are tedious, time consuming, and subject to human error. Past and current calculation methods have proved unsatisfactory because the calculations have necessarily had to be done manually. The complications of ship shielding calculations arise from numerous factors: (1) configuration of the radiation source (deck-deposit plane source, transit or water-borne volume source); (2) nonuniform distribution of activity in the source; (3) source-shield-receiver geometry; (4) gamma-ray energy spectrum change with time after fission; (5) effect on the gamma-ray energy spectrum of various kinds of attenuating material; and (6) thicknesses of materials providing shielding to different interior locations. Further complicating the calculations are the many parameters and their relatively wide ranges of values that have to be considered.

The calculations for a given interior location have to take into account (a) all the gamma radiations arriving there from all the points of a plane source, a volume source, or both; (b) all the significant aspects of the particular source-shield-receiver geometry; (c) all the gamma-ray energy spectra for the respective times of interest after fission; and (d) all the significant interactions of the radiation and the intervening air shielding materials (air, water, steel, etc.).

A method of calculating shielding factors was therefore devised with its procedural steps formulated to provide a computational sequence for a high-speed electronic computer program.

[Laumets, E.,A Method of Determining Ship Shielding Factors for Fallout Gamma Radiation, USNRDL-TR in preparation, Unclassified.]

Then, a computer program of the method was written. This program evaluates the basic equations derived from the theoretical equations given in Ksanda's "Ship Shielding Calculations" paper. This program can calculate shielding factors for any interior location in any ship type, and is applicable for fallout gamma radiations from airborne transit-or waterborne sources, and from deck-deposit sources; for an assumed uniform distribution of activity in the source; for any time after fission; for any source-shield-receiver geometry; and for any number of partial shields (deck-plating sections, bulkheads, etc.) contributing to the total shielding provided the location.

The program is not specifically applicable to the waterborne case because of the uncertainty about the subsurface distribution of fallout activity deposited in the water; and the settling and mixing rates for the various-sized fallout particles. The waterbome case is expected to be of relatively minor importance because of the rapid reduction in dose rate due to the appreciable attenuation of radiation by water. Also, the program is not applicable to the fallout activity deposited on vertical or near-vertical weather surfaces, or to base-surge transit radiation, or to the initial radiation from the fireball (radiation emitted during the first minute after the burst).

For a given interior location and for a given time after fission, the program first computes the shielding contribution of each partial shield. For a partial shield, the program first obtains, by numerical integration, a shielding factor for each of 5 gamma-ray energies of the pseudospectrum used to represent the "true" spectrum for that time after fission.

[Laumets, E., Gamma-Ray Energy Pseudospectrum for U235 Fission Products at Various Times After Fission, USNRDL-TR in preparation (Uncl).]

Then, the 5 shielding factors are multiplied by the corresponding pseudospectrum weighting fractions for that time, and the products are summed to get the total shielding factor for the partial shield. This computation is repeated for each other partial shield for the location, and all the partial-shield shielding factors are summed to get the shielding factor for the location for the given time after fission.

For radiation reaching the interior location from above, only the deck-plating thicknesses are considered. To account for shielding material other than deck plating, such as major bulkheads, beams, pipes, equipment, machinery, and supplies, the shielding factors is computed for double deck-plating thicknesses. The computed shielding factor should be close to the expected or "true" shielding factor. For radiations entering through the sides of the ship, the hull, intervening major longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, and any liquid loading between them are considered, along with any intervening deck plating.

A technique was developed for obtaining the necessary dimensional values of a given source-shield-recciver geometry and for combining the thicknesses of the various shielding materials. This technique is explained in detail in Ksanda's paper. Shielding factors obtained with computer program of the method were compared with experimental shielding factors and agreed by a factor of less than 2. Details are given in Ref. 2.

REFERENCES

1. Ksanda, CF., Ship Shielding Calculations, Proceedings of Tripartite Symposium on Technical Status of Radiological Defense in Fleets, Vol. I, May I960 .(Uncl).

2. Haggmark, L.G., Ship Shielding Factors - Computational Method Compared to Experimental Results, USNRDL TR-514, 7 June 1961

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPENDIX C

SAN FRANCISCO POPULATION DENSITY AND POPULATION MOBILITY STUDY

This study was conducted to determine (1) San Francisco's population distribution and (2) the speed and ease with which any part or all of this population, after being warned of an impending disaster, might move on foot to ships located at the water's edge. These ships might either be landlocked or beached vessels located on the western and northern perimeter of the city or docked vessels located along the city's eastern shore.

These data were then used to determine, as a function of time, the cumulative percentage of the total city population able to reach each given dockside loading zone. These dockside loading zones (Fig. C.1), six in number and designated zone A through zone F, should be clearly distinguished from the nine population areas into which the city has been divided. The population areas are designated area 1 through area 9. Daytime and nighttime populations in each area are listed in Table C.1.

Figures C.2 and C.3 show the relative numbers of people that might be expected at various loading zones as a function of time after the sounding of a warning signal, and for the daytime and nighttime cases, respectively. In the "daytime" case the employed population is assumed to be at work; the "nighttime" case (identical with the "weekend" situation) assumes the population to be at home. Such information could also be used to calculate the time required to move the entire San Francisco population to ship shelters or to help determine the optimum location and number of these ship shelters.

Figures C.2 and C.3 compare the relative percentage of the population that could, in any given length of time, be brought to any of the six loading zones during the day (Fig. C.2) or night (Fig, C.3). These curves could help locate optimum shelter locations for either a day or night attack situation, but any actual location selected must be satisfactory for both of these cases. During the day, zone D appears to be the best ship shelter location because large numbers of people are close to this waterfront loading zone. Following, in decreasing order, would be zones E, P, and A. Zones C and B appear to be of little or no use as mooring places due to the small number of people in the population areas from which these zones would draw their evacuees and the slow rate of their arrival. During the nighttime, zone D appears to be a good location for ship shelters because of the rapid influx of people possible into this zone; a disadvantage is the relatively small total number of people living close to this loading zone. Zones F and A are both good, each having almost double the number of potential evacuees of zone D. Zone E, at night, would be a poor ship shelter location. Zones C and B are both fair to poor nighttime choices, due to the relatively slow rate at which people would arrive at these loading zones. It should be noted that the nighttime curves tend to bunch together far more than the daytime curves; one reason for this is the longer assumed nighttime reaction times that tend to mask differences in walking speeds and distances to shelter that would apply to the daytime situations.


Fig. C.1 San Francisco Population Areas

Areas 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are primarily residential. Area 3 is primarily light industrial. Area 4 is both residential and light industrial. Area 5 is residential, business, and contains the central business district.


Fig. C.2: Time for Evacuees to Reach San Francisco "Loading Zones" Daytime. (Use with Fig. C.1 and Table C.1)


Fig. C.3 Time for Evacuees to Reach San Francisco "Loading Zones" Nighttime. (Use with Fig. C.1 and Table C-1)

Table C.1 SAN FRANCISCO DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME POPULATIONS BY AREA

AREA

DAYTIME

POPULATION

NIGHTTIME

POPULATION

1

59,200

(6.5%)

85,200

(11.2%)

2

72,600

(8.0%)

89,700

(11.8%)

3

64,100

(7.1%)

71,200

(9.4%)

4

185,300

(20.3%)

25,000

(3.3%)

5

244,900

(27.0%)

101,000

(13.3%)

6

31,500

(3.5%)

49,300

(6.5%)

7

44,100

(4.8%)

64,800

(8.6%)

8

150,700

(16.5%)

190,200

(25.2%)

9

57,200

(6.3%)

81,000

(10.7%)

TOTAL

909,600

(100.0%)

757,400

(100.0%)

Figures C.2 and C.3 are quite encouraging and show that a large part of San Francisco's population could quickly reach ship shelters. Within 15 min nearly 22% of the city's daytime population could reach ship shelters. Loading zones D and E account for two-thirds of this total. Unfortunately, because of the longer assumed nighttime reaction times, less than 1% of the nighttime population would have reached ship shelters at this time. By 30 min after warning, however, 16% of the nighttime population could be at a ship shelter (about three-fourths of this number would be evenly distributed at loading zones A, C, D, and F). The corresponding 30-minute daytime figure is 51% of the total population, with loading zones D and E accounting for 70% of this total. If 1 hr warning time could be provided, 86% of the daytime population and 63% of the nighttime population could be at ship shelters. Loading zones D and F would account for over one-half of this 1-hr nighttime figure in approximately equal proportion. People would begin arriving at the ship shelters after about 10 minutes after warning and arrival would be virtually complete two and a quarter hours after warning in both the daytime and nighttime cases.

The data analyzed consisted of (1) 1960 Census Tract Totals, (2) General Social and Economic Characteristics of the San Francisco-Oakland Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1960, (3) Population and Housing Analysis for San Francisco: 1960, (4) Total 1960 Employment in San Francisco and Northern San Mateo Counties by Metropolitan Traffic Zones (collected by the California Department of Employment), (5) 1961 Student Population of San Francisco, (6) appropriate maps relating to the above items, and (7) various estimates from the San Francisco Visitors and Convention Bureau, San Francisco Hotel Association, and San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

The nighttime-population estimate was based entirely on Bureau of the Census data and Chamber of Commerce tourist and visitor estimates. The daytime-population estimate was deduced from all the data cited above. This estimation was complicated by the large daytime influx of workers into San Francisco from the suburbs and also by the daytime mobility of the resident San Francisco population. Oddly enough, even though San Francisco is an important tourist attraction, visitors to the city accounted for only about 3% of the population and were easily accounted for.

The daytime population was assumed to consist only of (1) persons employed in San Francisco, (2) persons attending college in San Francisco (3) San Franciscans who were neither working nor attending college and (4) tourists and visitors to the city. The distribution of persons from groups (1) and (2) within the 9 city population areas was determined from California State Department of Employment statistics. The number of people in group (3) was assumed equal to the total San Francisco nighttime population less the number of San Franciscans gainfully employed or attending college. Estimates of the number of tourists and visitors in San Francisco were gained from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Hotel Association, and Visitors and Convention Bureau. People in group (3) were considered distributed within each population zone in proportion to the nighttime population distribution. People in group (4) were considered to be uniformly distributed in each area.

The objective of the population mobility study was to determine, as a function of time, the maximum number of people who could reach the nearest San Francisco waterfront loading zone on foot. The waterfront, in this study, was defined as that part of the perimeter of San Francisco touched either by the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay. This perimeter was divided into six loading zones (zones A through F; see Fig. C.1). This perimeter will subsequently be called the "wetted perimeter." People from the nine population areas were assigned to one of the six loading zones closest to them. In the computation, it was assumed that the population was uniformly distributed within each of the 9 areas noted above unless the available data suggested otherwise. In these cases, this hypothesis was modified in the following way. Within each population area, two to four representative closest distances to the wetted perimeter were chosen and a proportional part of each area's population was assumed to traverse these distances on foot. An average walking speed of 85 yd/min,1 normally distributed with a standard deviation of 12.5 yd/min, was chosen. Average speeds for each 5% of the population were determined using fractiles of the normal distribution.2 It was further assumed that daytime reaction times (namely, the time after warning when movement to the wetted perimeter started) were 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes for each 20% of the population; the corresponding nighttime figures chosen were 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 minutes.

Using the data and assumptions described above, the total number of people arriving at a given loading zone was calculated as a function of time after warning. These data, plotted in Figs. C.2 and C.3, indicate that, at times less than 30 to 40 min, the cumulative percentage of the total San Francisco population reaching a given loading zone is greater during the day than at night; this is primarily due to the shorter daytime reaction times assumed. This early lead is always maintained and even increased in loading zones D and E where evacuees are drawn from the heavily populated downtown areas. However, in the other loading zones, there is a cross-over point at about 35 min (this point occurs at about 60 min in loading zone F). After this time, the cumulative percentage of the total San Francisco population reaching the loading zone is greater at night than during the day. Loading zones D and E are exceptional for another reason. Only in these two loading zones are the daytime populations greater than the nighttime populations -- and by such a large amount, that the total daytime population of San Francisco is about 7% greater than the total nighttime population.

REFERENCES

1. Alexander, M.N., et al., Effect of Population Mobility on the Location of Communal Shelters, O.R.O., Johns Hopkins University, October 1957.

2. Oliver and Boyd, Mathematical Tables, Edinburgh.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPENDIX D

NEW YORK AND SAN FRANCISCO PORT STUDIES OF SHIPPING

Waterborne traffic (commercial vessels, military passenger ships and military cargo vessels) at the Ports of New York and San Francisco was studied for periods of 4 weeks and 2 weeks, respectively, to determine traffic flow patterns, traffic volume and representative lengths of time that a ship remains in port ("turnaround time"). The collected data and the calculated statistics for these ports were then studied to see how waterborne commercial and nonfighting military ships might augment our civil defense capability during an emergency.

Traffic at the Port of San Francisco was studied in a preliminary project which covered the period from 23 May 1962 to 11 June 1962, Only those sections of the waterfront that are a part of the city of San Francisco were considered. Information and experience gained in this study were applied to a much larger study in which data from the 27 New York and New Jersey ports (Fig. 6) which comprise the Port of New York were analyzed.

The primary sources of information for the San Francisco port study were the "Shipping News" of the San Francisco Examiner and Lloyd's Register of Shipping. Information sources used to study waterbome traffic at the Port of New York included Lloyd's Register of Shipping, The Journal of Commerce and Commercial, a daily newspaper containing much shipping news, and data received from The Port of New York Authority.

In the San Francisco study a record was kept for each ship entering the Port, the vessel's arrival date, pier where docked, and date of departure. For the time period studied, a record was also made of the number of ships in port on any given day (Fig, D.1). Tankers were not counted because they could not be used for lifesaving applications. The gross and net tonnage of each vessel listed was found in Lloyd's Register, and the concentration of pier activity at the Port was studied. Similar, but not identical, statistics were kept for the Port of New York. Those statistics that were felt to be most meaningful and most useful were collected and analyzed to obtain a picture of the Port's activity and the potential usefulness and capability of such harbor traffic in the event of a local or national disaster.


Fig. D.1 Number of Ships in the Port of San Francisco During the Period: 29 May 1962 - 11 June 1962


Fig. D.2 Pier Activity in the Port of San Francisco During the Period: 29 May 1962 - 11 June 1962


Fig. D.3 Daily Totals of General Cargo Vessels in the Port of New York

This chart covers only general cargo vessels which, in 1961, accounted for approximately 50% of the ship traffic at the Port of New York. (Source: The Port of New York Authority) of ships that remained in port for long time periods.


Fig. D.4 Ship Stay-Time at Selected Harbors of the Port of New York During the Period: 21 July 1962 - 13 August 1962

The data collected for the first 7 days for both ports were not used when calculating the average number of ships in port, so that nearly all the ships logged out of each port were first recorded as arriving in port. The averages collected were for each 12-hr period and, for the Port of San Francisco, covered the period from 29 May 1962 to 11 June 1962, that is, after the first 7 days' data were eliminated. Figure D.1 depicts the number of ships in the Port of San Francisco during this period and illustrates the wide fluctuations from one part of the week to another and from one week to the next. Although this generalization is based on a very short period of time it was substantiated in the Port of New York both by the Port of New York Authority data and by the Port of New York data collected for this study (see below).

Table D.1 shows that the median ship turnaround time in San Francisco was 2.25 days, and the average (arithmetic) turnaround time was 3.75 days. The average turnaround time was greater than the median turnaround time both in San Francisco and at all of the ports comprising the Port of New York because of the very long turnaround time of a relatively small number of ships. It seems reasonable to expect this generalization to hold true for other ports as well as for those investigated in this study.

On the average, approximately 19 ships were present in the Port of San Francisco during the time of this study and. these had an average net tonnage of 3700 tons and an average gross tonnage of 7000 tons. Figure D.2 shows that ship activity is not uniformly distributed throughout the San Francisco harbor area but, rather, is concentrated in four or five piers or groups of piers. This nonuniform ship-traffic concentration also occurs in the Port of New York.

Table D.1 summarizes much of the data collected for the entire Port of New York for the period, 17 July 1962 to 21 August 1962. This table illustrates both the great amount of port activity and also how this activity is heavily concentrated in only a few of the harbors which comprise the Port of New York. This study indicates that Brooklyn alone accounts for 46% of the number of ships in the Port of New York, and Manhattan (North River) accounts for over 17% of all the ships in port. Thus, these two ports together account for nearly two-thirds of all of the traffic (by number of ships) in the Port of New York. In addition, at the Port of Brooklyn, the shipping activity is far greater at certain selected docks or groups of docks than at others. For instance, the Brooklyn Army Terminal, the Erie Basin, and the Bush Docks in Brooklyn accounted for 41.5% of all the ships except tankers that arrived in Brooklyn during the time period studied. Such congestion is less apparent in Manhattan (North River) where the distribution of the busiest piers seems to be more uniform.

Table D.1 Selected Statistics for Various Ports

Port Studied

Dates Checked

Total Vessels in Port

Number Passenger Vessels

Per Cent Passenger Vessels

Ship Median Turnaround Time (Days)

Average Turnaround Time (Days)

San Francisco

23 May - 8 June 62

126*

?

?

2.25

3-75

Port of New York

Brooklyn, N.Y.

17 Jul - 21 Aug 62

345

5

1.5

2.75

3.25

North River, N.Y.

17 Jul - 21 Aug 62

130

62

47.7

1.85

2.40

Port Newark, N.J.

17 Jul - 21 Aug 62

87

0

0

2.25

3.75

Hoboken, N.J.

17 Jul - 21 Aug 62

42

11

26.2

3.00

4.10

East River, N.Y.

17 Jul - 21 Aug 62

24

0

0

1.50

2.32

22 Other N.Y. Area Ports

17 Jul - 21 Aug 62

122

2

1.6

2.05

3.38

* Extrapolation so that all time figures are comparable.

Table D.1 also shows that passenger vessels that enter the Port of New York tend to be distributed nonuniformly. Of all the passenger vessels entering all of New York's harbors, 77.5% dock in Manhattan (North River) and more than 13-5% dock in Hoboken, New Jersey. Thus, these two harbors together account for over 90% of the passenger vessel activity in the Port of New York, This finding is extremely significant, since many of these vessels are larger than the average vessel, are particularly suitable for housing people, and have significant electrical-generating and water-distilling capability.

Figure 7 shows the daily totals of all ships (except tankers) in the Port of New York and also the daily totals for the component harbors of Brooklyn and Manhattan (North River) for the time period analyzed. These figures illustrate the wide weekly fluctuations and the even greater weekday fluctuations in the total number of ships in port. A definite midweek maximum and weekend minimum number of ships is evident, along with an increased number of ships at the beginning of the week and a tapering off toward the end of the week. These data, for the short period studied agree quite well with Port of New York Authority data collected for a 6 month period in 1955-1956 (Fig. D.3).

The Port of New York Authority has stated: "The number of commercial deep-sea vessels in port at any one time varies from a low of 90 (plus or minus 20%) over weekends, to a high of 175 (plus or minus 20%) in the later part of a week. These figures are based upon 1961 data and include all types of vessels. The average breakdown of this in-port count would be 50% general cargo common carrier; 27% tanker; 18% specialized or industrial carriers; and 5% passenger." In another part of this same communication they added: "On the average, 39 deep-sea vessels arrived daily in the Port of New York in 1961; typical breakdown of this traffic would be: Common Carrier General Cargo (19), Tankers (11), Specialized (banana, sugar, etc.) (7), Passenger (2), Total (39)."

The length of time these ships remained in the Port of New York is listed in Table D.1. The median turnaround times ranged from 2 to 3 days, whereas the arithmetic averages ranged from 2.5 to 4 days and are generally about 1 day more than the median times. This difference is due here (as in the San Francisco port study) to the disproportionate effect on the arithmetic average caused by a relatively small number

The Port of New York Authority stated further: "The turnaround time for vessels in the Port of New York varies by type of vessel. Common carrier general cargo ships average between 3.5 and 4.5 days in port; passenger liners average between 2.5 and 3.5 days; tankers 1 to 2 days; specialized vary widely - container ships 1.5 days; bulk sugar 5 days; lumber 5 days; scrap 8 days, etc." These figures are very close to those median values cited above for turnaround times. Figure D.4 depicts the ship turnaround times found in this study for three selected harbors in the Port of New York. Two essential features of this figure are (1) the similarity of the 3 curves and (2) the narrow range of stay times that includes most of the ships in each port.

The main point to bear in mind when assessing this mass of information and its possible application to civil defense purposes is that, on any given day in the Port of New York, there are probably 45 to 90 common carrier general cargo vessels, 24 to 48 tankers, 16 to 32 specialized carriers, and 5 to 10 passenger vessels.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPENDIX E

Proposed Conversion of EC2 (Liberty) Ships to Personnel Shelters

September 1962

An Engineering Feasibility Study
prepared
by Michael J. Ryan, Naval Architect
San Francisco, Calif,
under the supervision of
The San Francisco Naval Shipyard
San Francisco 24, Calif.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ABSTRACT

A study was made of the engineering feasibility of conversion of surplus Liberty (EC2) cargo vessels to personnel shelters. The conclusions indicate that stability of the converted vessels would be adequate and that from an engineering standpoint these vessels could be converted to the intended use as fallout survival shelters for 5000 persons.





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONTENTS

Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
Report of Investigation

1. Introduction

2. Description of Vessels

3. Conversion Proposals

4. Stability

5. Modifications, Accommodations and Facilities

6. Conclusion

Conversion Cost Estimate
Shelter Capacity of a Converted Liberty Ship
Plans and Drawings

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Structural Modifications - Sh #1
2. Structural Modifications - Sh #2
3. Structural Modifications - Sh #3 4. Accommodation Plan - Sh #1
5. Accommodation Plan - Sh #2
6. Ventilation Diagram - Sh #1
7. Diag. of Plumbing Drains, Deck Drains, and Fresh Water System - Sh #1
8. Firemain, ABC Washdown System and Sanitary System - Sh #1
9. Power, Lighting and Communication Diagram - Sh #1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 USNRDL is investigating various proposals for providing personnel fallout shelters. As part of this project, a study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of converting surplus Liberty cargo ships to such service, based on a potential life of 5 - 10 years under minimal maintenance conditions. Evacuated personnel are to remain on the ship for a minimum of two weeks.

1.2 The study included the following:

1. Investigation of vessel stability after conversion.

2. Development of sketch plans and diagrams sufficient to permit an approximation of conversion costs (cost estimates are included as an appendix to this report).

2. DESCRIPTION OF VESSELS

2.1 Standard EC2 "Liberty" ships:

Length Overall............. 441'-6"
Length betw. Perpendiculars 441'-0"
Breadth .................... 57'-0"
Depth to Upper Deck........ 37'-4"

2.2 The standard EC2 has 2 complete decks, 5 cargo holds, machinery amidships. These are built of steel, welded and riveted. The extent of riveting varies, depending on where built.

2.3 The condition of these vessels can be expected to vary considerably depending, in part, upon the effectiveness of the preservation methods employed and length of layup. Condition of bottom plating will obviously be an important consideration in selection of vessels.

3. CONVERSION PROPOSALS

3.1 The conversion proposal involves the stripping of the vessel including all propulsive machinery and equipment, cargo gear including masts, navigating and lifesaving equipment, piping and electrical systems, crew outfit, and other equipment not required on a non-navigating dumb vessel. The midship deckhouse structure would be retained, as would the mast houses. All other structure above the upper deck would be removed. The rudder would be retained and made fast to the hull. Anchor chain would be retained for emergency use. Machinery removals can be accomplished thru the engine and boiler hatches. Propeller shafting could be left in place if desired.

3.2 The vessel could accommodate a total of about 2000 persons in the lower holds and on the second deck, on the basis of 11-12 sq. ft. per person, without the addition of new structure in the holds. Addition of 2 complete platforms in the holds and 2 complete platforms in the machinery space will provide for an additional 3000, for a total of 5000 persons. The structural arrangement of the vessel under this proposal is illustrated on "Structural Modifications," Sheets 1-2-3.

3.3 Since these vessels are to be permanently moored, the U.S. Coast Guard, American Bureau of Shipping, and U.S. Public Health Service requirements applicable to self-propelled vessels will by bypassed. It is assumed that CCD would institute a minimal maintenance program, that would include protection of the newly installed ventilation fans and motors, diesel generators and electrical switchgear, and some provision for protection of the hull against accelerated corrosion. Since the vessel would be permanently moored, shore connections could be provided for the firemain, fresh water and electrical systems.

4. STABILITY

4.1 Stability of the vessel has been reviewed with the following assumptions considered:

1. No ballast of any description aboard.

2. All existing fuel, water and ballast tanks dry.

3. Stability criteria used is same as that which would be applicable under USCG regulations for a passenger vessel in ocean service.

4. The USCG figure of 140 pounds as the average weight of a person with no baggage applies.

The investigation revealed that stability would be no problem for any condition of loading up to the maximum of an estimated 5100 persons accommodated aboard. No ballast would be required for this purpose. The standard USCG Wind Heel and Passenger Heel requirements would be met by a wide margin. It is estimated the converted vessel would have a trim by the stern of about 4'-0" in the light condition; 3'-9" when fully loaded. Should this be considered objectionable it could be modified somewhat by ballasting the fore peak tank.

4.2 It is estimated that the converted vessel would have a light ship weight of about 3600 long tons, loaded weight of about 3930 long tons. Under these conditions, the following would be the vessel characteristics:


Light Ship

Full Load (5100 persons)

Mean Keel Draft

8.3'

9'-0"

GM (available)

10.6'

8.6'

Draft, Forward Perpendiculars

6.25'

8.9'

Draft, Aft Perpendiculars

10.34'

10.88'

GM Req'd, Wind Heel


2.16'

GM Req'd to Limit Passenger Heel to 14° (all persons concentrated at 1/4 beam off center), all in assigned spaces


3.11'

GM Req'd to Limit Passenger Heel Partial Load of 1500 persons, all on weather deck at 1/4 beam off center.


0.96'

5. MODIFICATIONS, ACCOMMODATIONS AND FACILITIES

5.1 The proposed changes to the standard EC2 type vessel, discussed briefly above are indicated on the following diagrammatic-type drawings included in this report.

1. Structural - "Structural Modifications," Sheets 1-2-3.

2. Accommodations - "Accommodations Plan," Sheets 1-2.

3. Piping - "Diagram of Plumbing Drains, Deck Drains, Fresh Water System," Sheet 1.

4. Piping - "Firemain, ABC Washdown System and Sanitary-System, " Sheet 1.

5. Ventilation - "Ventilation Diagram," Sheet 1.

6. Electrical - "Power, Lighting, and Communication Diagram," Sheet 1.

Applicable general notes are included on the above plans.

CONCLUSION

6.1 Modification of standard EC2 type cargo vessels, on an austerity basis, to serve as radiation fallout shelters proved feasible from an engineering standpoint. For a potential ready-service life of 5-10 years, a preservation program for the newly installed components and for the bottom of the hull proper would be necessary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONVERSION COSTS FOR A LIBERTY SHIP
(This cost estimate was prepared by the The Planning and Estimating Division, San Francisco Naval Shipyard.)

1. Systems

a. Electrical including diesel generators

$ 152,000

b Washdown system

7,000

c. Sanitary and firefighting

94,000

d. Fresh water storage and distribution

13,500

e. Ventilation

91,000

f. Communication

12,500


370,000

2. Compartments (includes cost of painting and bunks)

a. Compartment B

15,000

b. Compartment C

26,000

c. Compartment D

18,000

d. Compartment E

16,000

e. Compartment F

13,000

f. Compartment G

13,000

g. Command Center

2,000


103,000

3. Hull

a. Concrete (4") and steel plate (1/8")

54,000

b. New decks and supporting structure

272,000

c. New interior bulkheads

60,400

d. Interior watertight doors and embarcation ports

11,700

e. Access ladders

17,500


415,600

4. Miscellaneous

a. Engine ripout (incl. 2nd deck FR 88-108)

26,700

b. Midship house ripout (maindeck and above)

3,000

c. Removal of topside equipment

5,700

d. Removal of shafting

3,100

e. Docking

15,000

f. Removing consol oil

11,500


65,000

SUBTOTAL

953,600

Less 10% for multiple conversions

95,400

TOTAL

$ 858,200

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SHELTER CAPACITY OF A CONVERTED LIBERTY SHIP

Level/Compartment

B

C

D

E

F

G

Total

2nd Deck - Level A

219

--

--

--

--

--

219

2nd Deck - level B

159

318

210

168

Hosp.

240

1095

1st platform

183

350

243

240

279

240

1535

2nd platform

180

349

243

229

264

164

1429

Hold

--

291

201

167

129

--

788

Total

741

1308

897

804

672

644

5066

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dwg. 1 Structural Modifications - Sh #1

Dwg. 2 Structural Modifications - Sh #2

Dwg- 3 Structural Modifications - Sh #3

Dwg. 4 Accommodation Plan - Sh #1

Dwg. 5 Accommodation Plan - Sh #2

Dwg. 6 Ventilation Diagram - Sh #1

Dwg. 7 Diagram of Plumbing Drains, Deck Drains, and Fresh Water System - Sh #1

Dwg. 8 Firemain, ABC Washdown System and Sanitary System - Sh #1

Dwg. 9 Power, Lighting and Communication Diagram - Sh #1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPENDIX F

Surplus Ship Emplacements for Shelters and Civil Defense

January 1963

A Feasibility Study
prepared by
Frederic R. Harris, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
New York, N. Y.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SUMMARY

This study was authorized to determine the feasibility of emplacing surplus EC-2 (Liberty) ships in various assigned locations to serve as Personnel Fallout Shelters and Emergency Supply Storage centers. It was also authorized to investigate the feasibility of burying a surplus battleship of the Indiana (BB-58) class, to serve as a Civil Defense Operational Headquarters.

As a result of the study these emplacements appear to be entirely feasible from an engineering viewpoint. They can be accomplished in a comparatively short time. They would afford excellent protection against the hazards specified, for large numbers of personnel, for whole communities' emergency supply requirements, and for governmental and civilian defense functions. They would utilize ships in protective functions, for which they are ideally suited, as opposed to possibly scrapping them. Finally, these emplacements would add to the country's resources for thermonuclear defense.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONTENTS

Summary
Table of Contents
List of Drawings
Introduction
Project Scope
Discussion of Study
Personnel Fallout Shelter - Case 1
Emergency Supply Storage - Case 2
Civil Defense Operational Headquarters - Case 3
Site Selection and Soils Conditions
Cost Estimates
Conclusions

Appendix

Cost Estimates
Towing
Typical Soils Data

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LIST OF DRAWINGS

1 Personnel Fallout Shelter - One Ship Berthed at a Pier

2 Personnel Fallout Shelter - One Ship Beached

3 Personnel Fallout Shelter - Three Ships Beached

4 Personnel Fallout Shelter - One Ship Landlocked

5 Emergency Supply Storage

6 Civil Defense Operational Headquarters

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

INTRODUCTION

A number of merchant vessels, and some naval warships are currently-being scrapped or are under consideration for scrapping in the near future. The largest potential source of surplus ships are the EC-2's (Liberty) of which some 900 remain afloat in the NDRF. Only 4 battleships remain extant in the Naval Reserve Fleet presently and their future is not clearly defined at the present time.

Studies have shown that the interior of the EC-2 can be safely converted to house between five and ten thousand persons during an emergency. Used as a fallout shelter, such a converted vessel would also afford some blast and thermal protection.

It is the purpose of this study to determine the feasibility of emplacing converted EC-2 ships in certain locations and under specified conditions where they could serve as Personnel Fallout Shelters and Emergency Supply Storage centers. The study is also authorized to investigate the feasibility of burying a surplus battleship for use as a Civil Defense Operational Headquarters with a "high probability of survival" in the event of a thermonuclear attack.

PROJECT SCOPE

The study is to investigate, discuss, and provide cost estimates for each of the three cases described below.

Case 1 - Personnel Fallout Shelter

For use in areas where underground protection is unavailable or inadequate, but which are accessible to waterways within one-half hour's walking distance of population centers. This application of converted EC-2's considers the following conditions:

a. One ship berthed at a pier.

b. One ship beached.

c. Three ships beached.

d. One ship landlocked.

Case 2 - Emergency Supply Storage

For use near major population centers where serious shortages in food and other vital supplies could develop following a massive thermonuclear attack. The emplacement condition considers six EC-2's. loaded with food and other supplies, moored and nested in deep water.

Case 3 - Civil Defense Operational Headquarters

For use as a centralized operations headquarters, during and after a thermonuclear attack, to protect and maintain the essential functions of government. The emplacement condition considers a battleship of the Indiana (BB-58) class buried near the downtown section of a metropolis and adjacent to a waterway. The study is to cover the preparation of the vessel for emplacement though the conversion of the interior is not within its scope.

The sites to be considered for Cases 1 and 2 are:

Norwalk, Connecticut
Charle
ston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
San Francisco Bay, California
New Orleans, Louisiana
Chicago, Illinois
New York, New York

For case 3 a single "good" site is to be selected from any of the above east coast locations.

DISCUSSION OF STUDY

The study directed itself towards isolating the problem that would be faced by the emplacements specified. These were then analyzed for solutions which are consistent with good engineering practice. Where more than one solution presented itself, the most economical solution was chosen in most cases.

Every effort was made to indicate the direction the emplacement designs should take. Drawings were based upon assumed conditions and these conditions were considered typical for each emplacement. The drawings were utilized to obtain "order of magnitude" cost estimates with no allowance made for possible differences in labor and materials costs in the various locations.

Since no on-site inspections were included in this study, it had to rely upon the extensive experience of Frederic R. Harris, Inc., with shore-front facilities, in many of the areas listed. Frequent reference was made to Frederic R. Harris' extensive library of U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey maps, municipality and area maps, and soils and foundations studies previously conducted in the areas cited. The familiarity of certain staff members with these areas was of considerable help in analyzing the various sites. In addition, current literature was reviewed to obtain the latest thoughts on nuclear blast and fallout shelter design for possible application to this investigation.

The body of this report discusses each of the emplacements in detail. The potential sites are reviewed in connection with soils conditions. The Appendix tabulates the cost estimates for each emplacement and also lists the source of vessel and towing distance for each site. Finally, there is included a specialized solution for the relief of uplift in the case of landlocked and buried vessels.

PERSONNEL FALLOUT SHELTER - CASE 1

General

An EC-2 ship is to be prepared for use as a personnel fallout shelter. It Is to be stripped of its main engines and the below deck spaces altered to accommodate between five and ten thousand persons. It is to be provided with diesel motor generator sets; fresh water in specially-coated tanks; washdown, fire-fighting, and sanitary systems; filtered ventilation with blast-protected vents; and three access doors, about eleven feet wide, through the starboard side, leading to the second deck. During stand-by or readiness periods, the spaces below main deck are to be sealed and kept under dehumidification. The deck house is to be kept available for civic functions as described in Appendix E.

The vessel is to be towed to its prepared emplacement site, located within thirty minutes walk of a population center. The emplacement is to be designed for five pounds per square inch overpressure and four hundred calories per square centimeter, thermal radiation from a thermonuclear blast. It is assumed that all personnel are aboard prior to the blast, the vessel is sealed-off, and that the washdown system is in operation.

The emplacement site must provide an access route and staging area to handle ten thousand persons in one hour; a shore-based fifty kilowatt power source; a twelve hundred gallon per minute water supply for the washdown, firefighting and sanitary systems; and diversion of washdown and sanitary discharges where necessary.

Nuclear Blast

An overpressure of five pounds per square inch corresponds to a dynamic pressure of about eighty pounds per square foot. A peak overpressure of this magnitude would occur at a distance of two and one-quarter miles from ground zero for a one megaton free air burst. For a five hundred kiloton free air burst this distance would be one and eight-tenths miles. These pressures are of exceedingly short duration, measured in seconds.

The thermal radiation from a 500 kt free air burst corresponding to a dynamic pressure of five pounds per square inch is approximately 150 calories per square centimeter. The thermal radiation, like the blast pressures, is also of comparatively short duration. The mass of concrete and steel applied to all horizontal surfaces on the main deck will serve to keep down the temperature rise of the deck itself. All vertical steel plating, exposed to the thermal radiation would suffer an "instantaneous" temperature rise. Considering the mass of the interior grid-work of steel in contact with the exterior shell plating and the fact that the amount of thermal radiation reaching the vessel will fall off rapidly, the "instantaneous" temperature rise will dissipate itself quickly. At no time would the ship's hull be expected to become as hot as the surface of a heated steam radiator. As a safety measure it is recommended that all persons and flammable materials be kept out of contact with exterior shell plating. For comfort of personnel, of course, the ventilation system should function continuously.

Fallout which will be deposited on all horizontal surfaces will be adequately removed by the washdown system. The mass of concrete and steel plating deposited on the horizontal surfaces will prevent harmful radiation from penetrating to the interior.

The washdown water will actually serve two functions, the removal of fallout and the cooling of those surfaces with which it comes in contact. For this latter reason it is recommended that the washdown system be put into operation immediately after securing all personnel aboard.

One Ship Berthed at a Pier - Case 1a (Dwg. No. l)

For the purpose of this study it is assumed that a suitable pier is available with sufficient depth of water, about eleven feet minimum. The pier is further assumed to be strong enough to secure the vessel during the pre-attack phase. The roads leading to the pier are considered adequate to handle ten thousand persons in one hour and the pier itself is assumed wide enough to handle this number of people preparing to enter the shelter.

The shelter is towed from the nearest MARAD fleet and moored with its starboard side adjacent to the pier. The effects of an eighty pound per square foot dynamic pressure will be similar to those experienced with the peak gusts of hurricane force wind velocities. A mitigating effect will be the short duration of the loading. Under such conditions inertia of the vessel will help absorb the energy imparted to it by the suddenly applied force. To assist the vessel in absorbing this energy, the lines should be slackened when securing for attack. This will permit the vessel to move and absorb some of the blast energy in this way, before the lines pick up the load and transfer it to the pier. Also, a camel is kept between pier and vessel, to prevent the vessel from damaging itself against the pier, should it be heeled over sharply by the blast.

During normal times the deck house is to be available for civic functions. It is assumed that conventional gangways are available for access to the main deck, for this purpose. Access to the shelter interior is by means of three five foot wide, light weight, metal gangways. These are to be bolted to the deck before and after boarding the shelter. In these stored positions they will be available when needed and be protected by the ship's washdown system during attack.

The required rate of access is ten thousand persons per hour. Since there are three access doors, this means about one person per second per doorway. Each eleven foot doorway opens on a six foot wide passageway leading forward and aft. Considering that people will be pressing to get aboard and that there will be none or little space between them as they mount the gangway, the arrangement specified should yield more than twice the desired capacity and at the same time keep any congestion on the pier deck, where it can be readily handled, rather than in the passageways, where many difficulties might arise.

The external power source is indicated as a fifty kilowatt diesel generator set with a one thousand gallon buried tank. This is specified in preference to a public utility line as being more general in its application. The generator set is housed within a reinforced concrete shelter with barred windows and conventional doors. It is assumed that under blast, the windows and door will be blown out but that the shelter and generator set will remain intact for restoration to service. The power line is to be physically disconnected from the ship prior to securing the shelter for attack, in order to avoid damaging the system.

The external water supply can be taken directly from the surrounding waters through the sea chests. For this study, however, it was assumed that the water depth is too shallow so that mud might foul the inlets. Provisions were, therefore, included to run a length of pipe, horizontally from each pump suction through the hull of the ship, about three feet above the bottom. The inlet is screened and provided with a shut-off valve. The installation of this intake can be made while the ship is moored alongside the pier.

The washdown effluent and sanitary discharge are allowed to flow directly into the surrounding waters.

One Ship Beached - Case 1b (Drawing No. 2)

A vessel could be beached by simply running her aground. Under such conditions it is likely that the stern would be afloat, even at low water, and the vessel would probably develop a list. In addition, a long causeway or other type of access route over water would be required. This means of access would have to be durable enough to be ready at any time, and should be available for disembarkation too. For these reasons, therefore, it was decided to dredge a slipway with enough depth so that the vessel would be beached at high water with its bow about one hundred feet inshore of the high water mark.

With the slipway prepared to receive the ship, the vessel is towed to the site from the nearest MARAD fleet. The vessel is trimmed to a near horizontal keel and at high tide is given enough headway by two tugs to beach itself in the slipway.

The external water supply for the washdown, firefighting and sanitary systems are obtained by running a line to ten feet of water, minimum depth. A ten inch diameter line is used terminating in a screened inlet, turned up. The line itself is laid in a trench with the outboard end anchored. The inshore end is connected to a ten inch diameter line strap-welded to the ship's starboard side about three feet above the bottom. This section of the water line is flanged at the forward end and tapped and connected to each pump suction inlet through the hull. All the laterals are fitted with valves.

A ten inch diameter sewage line is strap welded to the port side similar to the water line. The sewage line is connected to each sewage tank scupper. The aft end of this line is connected to a ten inch diameter sea line, laid as for the water line except that its outlet is horizontal and cut at a forty-five degree. The sewage line outlet is kept a minimum of one hundred feet away from the water intake.

After the pipework is completed the dredged material is backfilled against the hull on both sides from the bow aft, to about Frame #135. Surplus material is mounded to a height of about fifteen feet. On the starboard side the mound is extended to a width of about twenty-five feet minimum. This will serve as a staging area when assembling for entry into the shelter.

The shoulder is sloped off gradually, about one on four, to reduce the effects of dynamic pressure and practically eliminate the effects of thermal radiation in the shielded areas. After stabilizing, the surfaces are paved so that they can serve to catch and drain the wash-down effluent towards the aft end of the emplacement where it will be flushed out through the sewage line.

The ship will have to be ballasted after emplacement, to reduce uplift during storms and unusually high tides. The mounding against the vessel's sides will greatly assist in this stabilization but the ballast is specified for exceptional conditions. Stability against overturning due to lateral dynamic pressure is about eight to one. This is with the vessel light and without considering the effects of the mounding. When filled with people this stability will be further increased.

Access to the main deck, during normal times is by way of a stairway welded to the starboard side of the ship. For access to the shelter areas, three five foot wide stair-ramps are provided. These are of light-weight metal construction and bolted to the deck when not in use.

The external power source is a fifty kilowatt diesel-generator set as in the case of One Ship Berthed at a Pier. It is provided with a one thousand gallon buried tank and a reinforced concrete shelter. The power cable can be permanently connected to the ship's main deck power panel.

The site is assumed to lie near a highway and a twenty foot wide access road is laid on grade to connect the shelter with this highway, about fifteen hundred feet away. The pavement is designed for pedestrian and light vehicular traffic. A vehicle turning area is provided near the bow of the ship.

Three Ships Beached - Case 1c (Drawing No. 3)

All conditions and methods of emplacement are the same as for One Ship Beached.

The vessels will be beached about twenty-five feet apart (fifty feet maximum). The fill between the vessels will serve to add to the stability of the emplacement.

The water-supply lines for the vessels are combined into a common system. The same is done for the sewage-drainage lines. The size of the sea lines, however, are increased from ten to twelve inch diameter.

Separate auxiliary power systems are supplied for each shelter to keep them independent. In the event of a failure in one emergency power can be supplied by the other two units.

The ships are ballasted as with One Ship Beached, for unusually high tides and storms. A single access roadway services the entire emplacement. The width of this roadway is increased to thirty feet.

One Ship Landlocked - Case 1d (Drawing No. 4)

For purposes of this study the vessel is landlocked with its stern about one hundred feet inshore of the high water mark. All other conditions and facilities are the same as for One Ship Beached except that the sea lines are increased to twelve inches, no stair-ramps are required, and the need for ballast is eliminated by elevating the ship above its normal flotation level, at high tide.

Elevating the ship is accomplished in a manner similar to that used in canal-locks. The steps may be listed as follows:

a. The vessel is brought into the slipway at high tide.

b. The sea end of the slipway is sealed off with the dredged fill.

c. Additional fill is mounded around the rim of the basin as needed.

d. Portable pumps are used to raise and maintain the water level in the basin at about four feet above high tide.

e. Sand pumps are used to deposit fill under the keel. This is continued until the vessel is grounded. The water pumps are then stopped.

f. The previously dredged fill is 'backfilled into the basin and the surplus mounded against the vessel, all around.

The effect of elevating the ship's bottom in this fashion is to reduce uplift and eliminate the need for ballast. Sealing of the slipway and proceeding with raising the ship's elevation should be postponed until after the pipe work on the ship's hull is completed. Connection to the sea lines can be done after the backfilling is complete.

The landlocked ship has the inherent disadvantage that all fallout lighting in the surrounding "lake" (and possibly some of that not properly diverted from the decks of the ship out to open water) will accumulate, eventually causing the "lake" to be almost as radioactive as the surrounding terrain.

EMERGENCY SUPPLY STORAGE - CASE 2

General

Six EC-2 ships are to be loaded with food and other essential supplies and nested in a prepared mooring. The site is selected for proximity to a major population center where critical shortages might develop as a result of a thermonuclear attack.

The vessels are to be loaded to a draft of twenty-eight feet. A twenty-four hour guard is to be maintained on the ships. Existing inboard generators will be used to supply all necessary power. Freshwater and sanitary facilities are included in one of the ships, designated the mother ship. Washdown is not required as any personnel aboard during attack can find adequate shelter from fallout in the shaft alley.

Emplacement (Drawing No. 5)

The vessels are to be towed to the nearest grain loading port and from there to the emplacement site. The appendix includes a tabulation of the MARAD fleet nearest to each emplacement site and the location of the grain loading port. The distances given are approximations only.

For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that some dredging is required, an area of about seven hundred feet by one thousand feet, and an average depth of six feet. All dredging is assumed to be completed in advance of the emplacement.

The type of mooring and facilities selected will depend upon the kind of exposure to wind and tide and the kind of bottom at the site. For this study, conditions are assumed suitable for a spread-mooring system as detailed on Drawing No. 5. The four ton anchors are selectee as one possible example. In suitable bottom they should develop full strength of the chains and cable.

Comments

Nuclear fallout and thermal radiation will have no objectional effect on this emplacement. Careful storage of perishables will minimize spoilage due to any possible temperature rise. Concerning the dynamic pressure of eighty pounds per square foot, as was stated earlier, this is approximately equal to pressures resulting from peak gusts of hurricane weather. The proper selection of sites can mitigate these conditions. If a dredged site is selected, some future maintenance dredging may be required.

CIVIL DEFENSE OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS - CASE 3

General

A battleship of the Indiana (BB 58) class is to be buried near the downtown section of a large metropolis and adjacent to a waterway. The buried ship is to be used as an operations center and provide a shielding factor of 0.001 against nuclear fallout. It is also to provide protection against an overpressure of thirty-five pounds per square inch. Access to the operations center is to accommodate five thousand persons in one-half hour.

The use of thick armor plating and heavy high-tensile (HTS) and special-treatment (STS) steels to protect the vital areas of a battleship, makes it ideally suited for this assigned purpose. When buried, the thermal radiation and nuclear fallout will have little effect on the interior of the ship. The protected area offers an excellent chance for survival against the indicated overpressure of thirty-five pounds per square inch.

The battleship Massachusetts (BB 59) is now in Norfolk, Virginia. This vessel is surplus and part of the Naval Reserve Fleet. For this study it was decided to consider an emplacement in Norfolk, Virginia because of the availability of the vessel and the proximity to vital national functions.

Preparation of Ship

The entire superstructure above the main deck is to be removed. This includes the sixteen inch guns and rotating turrets. The stationary portion of the No. II turret is to be cut back to the deck. For this study, it is assumed that the cost of removing the superstructure will be balanced by the sale price of the scrap.

All deck openings, including the turrets are to be sealed with reinforced concrete slabs. The main deck forward of Frame #24and aft of Frame #140 is to be strengthened with a reinforced concrete slab. The shell plating forward of Frame #24 and aft of Frame #140 is to be reinforced in way of living quarters and usable spaces.

An eight foot doorway is to be cut through the blister and armor plating, about midships, to provide access to the Third Deck from the outside. This doorway is to be enclosed with a blast-proof door, and will be about on level with grade after emplacement.

Any additional work required on the interior of the ship to enable the prescribed operations center to function are considered extra to this study.

Emplacement (Drawing No. 6)

The emplacement site is selected so that the vessel's stern will be about one hundred feet inshore of the high water mark. When buried, the rising tide can be expected to saturate the soil surrounding the vessel to approximately its flotation depth. This will result in uplift. Under unusually high tides or storm conditions the soil cover might be broached. To avoid this, the vessel is elevated so that it is grounded well above its flotation level.

The steps used to elevate the vessel are similar to those used for One Ship Landlocked. These are as follows:

1. A slipway is dredged for a distance of about eight hundred feet inshore of the high water mark. The depth of the excavation is to accommodate the vessel at high tide.

2. The vessel is towed from its storage site to the emplacement. Waiting for high tide, tugs are used to give it enough headway so that it moves into the slipway.

3. The sea end of the slipway is sealed off with the dredged fill.

4. Additional fill is mounded around the rim of the basin as needed.

5. Portable pumps are used to raise and maintain the water level in the basin at about six feet above high tide.

6. Sand pumps are used to deposit fill under the keel. This is continued until the vessel is grounded. The water pumps are stopped.

7. The previously dredged fill is backfilled into the basin and the surplus mounded over the vessel.

A shielding factor of 0.001 against the radiation from nuclear fallout requires a cover of thirty inches of soil. To provide against future consolidation the minimum cover used in this study is five feet at the deck edge. The contour of the earth cover will provide a considerable depth in excess of the required minimum.

The earth cover is to be gradually sloped (minimum one on five) and faired to grade. With this type of cover the effects of dynamic pressure become negligible for the buried condition.

The entire area surrounding the buried ship will be subjected to the thirty-five pounds per square inch overpressure. Burying it any deeper than indicated would not materially affect this loading. As stated above, the battleship is particularly well suited to resist the overpressure, especially in way of the blisters. As a safety precaution, it is recommended that during attack, all personnel retire to the protected sections of the vessel.

Additional Comments

Access to the Third Deck opening is via reinforced concrete tube or tunnel. The tunnel rests on grade at its outboard end and is supported by the ship's side, on its inboard end. The entrance is closed with a blast-proof door and there is a paved area in front. This will act as a staging area for personnel and a turning area for vehicles. The wing walls are sloped upwards towards the ship to reduce the effect of dynamic pressure. A paved access roadway is laid directly on grade to the adjacent highway.

SITE SELECTION AND SOILS CONDITIONS

Indications are that each of the locations has one or more sites suitable for both Case 1 - Personnel Fallout Shelter and Case 2 -Emergency Supply Storage. The tabulation below lists suggested emplacement sites for each.

Location

Case 1

Case 2

Norwalk, Conn.

off Seaview Park

South of Wilson Point

Charleston, S.C.

near Yacht Basin

near Yacht Basin

Norfolk, Va.

Lynn Haven Beach

Lynn Haven Beach

San Francisco Bay-

south of Hunters Point

south of Hunters Point

New Orleans, La.

south of Huey Long Bridge

south of Huey Long Bridge

Chicago, Ill.

Lake Shore Forest, East Chicago

Lake Shore Forest, East Chicago

New York, N.Y.

Plum Beach, Jamaica Bay-

East Rockaway Point Jamaica Bay

The soils conditions in each of these locations (see Appendix) would probably lend themselves to emplacement procedures similar to the ones described above. It would be essential to survey the sites and study the soils, tides, and weather conditions before deciding upon the emplacement and proceeding with the designs.

For Case 1a - One Vessel Moored at a Pier - locating a suitable pier would be the most important aspect of the site survey. Weather and tide would also be of some consideration as well as the accessibility of the pier to adjacent roadways.

COST ESTIMATES

All costs are "order of magnitude" costs only and are tabulated in the Appendix. To arrive at these costs, however, quantities were used in each case based upon the assumed conditions outlined in the applicable chapter. The towing charges are going rates based upon estimates secured from established towing concerns. The towing distances used for this estimate are also given in the Appendix and are approximate, only. Note that the trip to Chicago has to be made from the MARAD Fleet in the Hudson River via the St. Lawrence Seaway. This route is about twenty-nine hundred miles and raises the cost of this emplacement, under some conditions, to about four times that of closer sites.

The table that follows tabulates the per capita emplacement cost for each of the four conditions assumed under Case 1 - Personnel Fallout Shelter. Because of its long towing distance, Chicago is treated separately. All the other locations are combined and a single average cost shown for the six sites.

Per Capita Emplacement Cost

Case 1 - Personnel Fallout Shelter

Condition

Chicago Only

Average Cost All Other Sites

a

$8.00

$2.42

b

13.70

8.07

c

11.37

5.74

d

17.80

12.17

The average cost for the emplacement of six vessels under Case 2 -Emergency Supply Storage at each of the sites except Chicago, is Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars. For Chicago, again "because of the long towing distance, this cost is higher, Six Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand Dollars.

The cost of burying the battleship Massachusetts on a site in Norfolk, Virginia is Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars. This cost includes preparation of the ship as well as emplacement.

CONCLUSIONS

The emplacement of surplus ships in carefully selected and prepared sites, offers economical solutions to some of the highly complex problems of national defense. At comparatively low cost per capita, they can provide personnel fallout shelters for small communities that are accessible to waterways. Food, medical and other essential supplies could also be readily stock-piled, with a good chance of being available for use when needed after the attack phase had passed. Used as "hardened" civil defense headquarters, they could be made safe against nuclear blast except for a direct hit. In addition to the above, the surplus ships are readily available and their emplacements could be accomplished in relatively short times, while their utilization would put the vessels to better use than their present methods of disposal.

As a result of this study, therefore, it is concluded that the plan to utilize surplus ships as Personnel Fallout Shelters, Emergency Supply Centers, and Civil Defense Operational Headquarters, is entirely feasible.

APPENDIX

Cost Estimates

CASE I - PERSONNEL FALLOUT SHELTER EMPLACEMENT COST ONLY

Item

1a
One Ship Berthed At Pier

1b
One Ship Beached

1c
Three Ships Beached

1d
One Ship Landlocked

Site Preparation

10,000

15,000

40,000

28,000

Ship Preparation

1,500

20,000

35,000

25,000

Shore Utilities

8,500

8,500

25,500

8,500

Earthwork

--

10,000

25,000

30,000

Surfacing

--

7,500

17,500

10,500

Roadway

--

15,000

15,000

15,000

TOTALS

20,000

76,000

158,000

117,000

CASE I - PERSONNEL FALLOUT SHELTER TOTAL COST-EMPLACEMENT PLUS TOWING

Case

Item

Norwalk Conn.

Charl. S.C.

Norfol Va.

San Fr. Cal.

New Orl. La.

Chicago ILL.

New York N.Y.

1a

Towing

3,400

6,900

2,000

3,100

6,700

60,000

3,000

Emplacemt.

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

TOTAL

23,400

26,900

22,000

23,100

26,700

80,000

23,000

1b

Towing

4,000

7,500

2,500

3,500

7,500

61,000

3,500

Emplacemt.

76,000

76,000

76,000

76,000

76,000

76,000

76,000

TOTAL

80,000

83,500

78,500

79,500

83,500

137,000

79,500

1c

Towing

12,000

22,500

7,500

10,500

22,500

183,000

10,500

Emplacemt.

158,000

158,000

158,000

158,000

158,000

158,000

158,000

TOTAL

170,000

180,500

165,500

168,500

180,500

341,000

168,500

1d

Towing

4,000

7,500

2,500

3,500

7,500

61,000

3,500

Emplacement

117,000

117,000

117,000

117,000

117,000

117,000

117,000

TOTAL

121,000

124,500

119,500

120,500

124,500

178,000

120,500

CASE 2 - EMERGENCY SUPPLY CENTER

TOTAL COST - EMPLACEMENT PLUS TOWING


Norw. Conn.

Charl. S.C.

Norfolk Va.

San Fran Calif.

New Orl. La.

Chicago Ill.

New York N. Y.

Towing to Grain Port

20,500

12,000

12,000

18,500

40,000

360,000

18,000

Towing to Site

16,000

46,000

12,600

17,000

14,500

16,000

15,000

Mooring Facilities

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

Dredging Basin

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

TOTALS

286,500

308,000

274,600

285,500

304,500

626,000

283,000

CASE 3 - CIVIL DEFENSE OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
NORFOLK, VA.

1. Site Preparation

$175,000

2. Shipwork

100,000

3 Towing and Positioning

7,000

4.. Earthwork

230,000

5. Access

13,000

TOTAL

$525,000

Towing

Case 1 - Personnel Fallout Shelter

MARAD Fleet

Emplacement Site

Miles

John's Pt., Hudson River, New York

Norwalk, Conn.

100

Wilmington, N.C.

Charleston, S.C.

150

Fort Eustis, James River, Virginia

Norfolk, Va.

20

Suisun, California

San Francisco, Cal.

75

Mobile, Alabama

New Orleans, La.

150

John's Pt., Hudson River, New York

Chicago, Ill.

2900

John's Pt., Hudson River, New York

New York, N.Y.

75

Case 2 - Emergency Supply Storage

MARAD Fleet

Grain Loading Port

Miles

Emplacement Site

Miles

John's Point

New York, N.Y.

55

Norwalk

40

Wilmington

Norfolk, Va.

350

Charleston

500

Fort Eustis

Norfolk, Va.

10

Norfolk

10

Suisun

San Francisco, Cal.

75

San Francisco

30

Mobile

New Orleans, La.

150

New Orleans

10

John's Point

Chicago, Ill.

2900

Chicago

20

John's Point

New York, N.Y.

55

New York

20

Case 3 Civil Defense Operational Headquarters

NRF

Emplacement Site

Miles

Portsmouth, Va.

Norfolk, Va.

30

Typical Soils Data

The general foundation conditions encountered at the sites investigated are:

1. Norwalk, Conn.

(a) Norwalk River at Connecticut Turnpike; up to 30 feet of soft organic silt extending to El. -30; underlain by dense sand and gravel*

(b) Along Long Island Sound - sand.

2. Charleston, S.C.

(a) Cooper River - U. S. Naval Shipyard. Pew feet of soft silt underlain by still silty clay marl.

(b) Cooper River - Columbus Street Terminal, approximately one mile downstream (south) of Naval Base. Seventy feet of very soft organic clay to El. -80 underlain by hard marl.

3. Norfolk, Va.

U. S. Naval Shipyard (Portsmouth); soft clayey silt extending to approximately El. -50, underlain by dense shell sand.

4 San Francisco Bay, Cal.

(a) U. S. Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point; very soft bay mud to approximately El. -110.

(b) Carquinez Strait, Martinez, Cal. - Shell Refinery; very soft mud to approximately El. -80.

5. New Orleans, La.

(a) Mississippi River, Algiers, adjacent to U. S. Naval Reservation; soft silty clay with varying strata of fine sand.

6. Chicago, Ill.

(a) Soft clay to approximately El.-50, underlain by very hard clay and silt.

7. New York, N. Y.

(a) Hudson River; very soft organic silt of varying thickness representative depth to El. -50, underlain by sand and gravel.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dwg. 1 Personnel Fallout Shelter - One Ship Berthed at a Pier

Dwg. 2 Personnel Fallout Shelter - One Ship Beached

Dwg. 3 Personnel Fallout Shelter - Three Ships Beached

Dwg. 4 Personnel Fallout Shelter - One Ship Landlocked

Dwg. 5 Emergency Supply Storage

Dwg. 6 Civil Defense Operational Headquarters

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPENDIX G

The Utilization of Active and Inactive Merchant Vessels as Floating Utilities and as Liquid Storage Facilities

January 1963

A Feasibility Study

prepared by Michael J. Ryan
Naval Architect
San Francisco, Calif,
under the supervision of
The San Francisco Naval Shipyard
San Francisco 24 Calif.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ABSTRACT

A study was made of the feasibility of utilizing vessels of the active commercial and of the inactive MARAD reserve fleets as sources of - (1) electrical powers (2) water distillation plants; (3) facilities for storage of fuel or water. The conclusions indicate that turbine electric drive tankers are superior for all three purposes with geared turbine drive tankers next most suitable.

Turbine/electric drive passenger/transport vessels have excellent potential for power generation. Liberty vessels, under the assumed conditions, must be considered as unsuited for anything other than storage of modest quantities of fuel or water. Vessels from the active commercial fleet offer the best potential because of ready availability; this includes the many comparatively large bulk carriers operating in the Great Lakes region.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONTENTS

Abstract
Table of Contents

Report of Investigation

1. Introduction

2. Types of Vessels-general

3. General Considerations

4. Reactivation-MARAD Reserve Fleet Types

5. Manning

6. Electrical Power Generation-Distribution

7. Water Purification-Storage

8. Conclusion

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 USNRDL is investigating the feasibility of utilization of commercial vessels from the active world fleets and from the MARAD reserve fleets as sources of electric power, water distillation plants, and for fuel and water storage. Vessels of the active commercial fleet are assumed to be in or near American ports during a local or national emergency, and in ready service condition. MARAD reserve fleet units are assumed to have been reactivated and placed in such condition as would permit operation nf the auxiliaries required for the above stated services under minimal conditions, but not necessarily as units ready for seagoing service.

1.2 The study included the following:

1. Investigation of vessel capabilities to perform the stated functions under emergency conditions.

2. Tabulation of the characteristics of the various vessels considered including data pertinent to electric power, water distillation and liquid capacities.

2. TYPES OF VESSELS - GENERAL

2.1 The vessels included in the study are shown in the accompanying TABLES I thru IV, which give the basic characteristics such as size, cargo deadweight (or payload capacity in long tons of 2240 lbs), liquid capacities, and electric generating and salt water distilling capabilities.

2.2 Basic characteristics of the commercial passenger/transport vessels included are shown in TABLE I, commercial tankers in TABLE II, commercial cargo vessels in TABLE III, and the same types in MARAD reserve fleet status in TABLE IV. Other types, such as the Great Lakes carriers, are mentioned without tabulation.

2.3 The characteristics of the electric generating plants of the same vessels are given in the accompanying TABLES Ia, thru IVa; data on the salt water and distilling plants are given in TABLES Ib thru IVb.

2.4 Specific data on other than vessels of the United States Flag (or Liberian or Panamanian Flags in the case of tankers) have not been included.

3. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Vessels from the active commercial fleets, whether passenger, tanker, or dry cargo types have obvious advantages over like vessels taken from the MARAD reserve fleets by virtue of ready availability and in a great majority of cases superior capabilities in regard to electrical generating and salt water evaporation potential.

3.2 Active commercial fleet vessels normally would require no extensive preparation and could be expected to be ready for service for extended periods in an emergency, barring the breakdown of an important machinery component, especially when not operating at full normal power levels. In addition, such units could be moved under their own power to locations where the need was urgent, even with a minimal crew and under conditions of a local or national emergency. This is obviously not the case with vessels taken from reserve fleet status and placed in a condition suitable for service as an emergency source of electric power, water evaporation plant, or as a fuel or water storage facility. Also, they might otherwise be unsuited for ocean or coastal service under their own power (or even if towed).

3.3 TABLES I thru IV set forth basic physical dimensions of the various type vessels. These will indicate some of the factors to be considered when planning to berth or anchor a ship, or to moor two vessels (either similar or dissimilar units) together to combine their facilities. Although the mean light drafts given are an indication of the depth of water required for the ships it must be strongly emphasized that many vessels, especially tankers in light condition, usually have considerable trim by the stern. That is, they draw far more water at the stern than at the bow. Full load drafts, which are usually associated with little or no trim, should be kept in mind when selecting mooring sites for vessels-especially tankers - when they are to be employed for storing large amounts of water or fuel oil. If utilized as reserve liquid storage units tankers will generally require far greater depths of water than dry cargo or passenger vessels. Their full load drafts range from 30 feet for a 16000 deadweight ton T-2 to over 47 feet for the largest more modern tankers.

3.4 Regardless of type, all vessels moored in open water will require stern anchors, as well as those provided at the bow, to prevent the ships from swinging and turning, thus fouling power and utility lines which have been rigged for shore connections. Stern anchors are not required on merchant vessels, and are generally installed at the owners option depending on the vessels trade. Therefore, it cannot be expected they will be found on all vessels available for emergency service. When installed, the weight of a stern anchor is usually about only a third of that of a standard bow anchor.

Depending on tidal, weather, and current conditions additional stern anchors will probably be required (even where one is presently carried) on any vessel moored in open water. Stern anchor windlasses are rare. In the event a vessel moored with stern anchors must be shifted, a means of lifting these anchors must be provided. In some cases a jury rig employing cargo gear, towing winches (if installed) etc, could accomplish this. In others, a floating crane might be required. The latter procedure probably would also be necessary for handling bow anchors on some MARAD reserve fleet vessels where only minimal reactivation is accomplished. The BE-1 type vessels are fitted with stern anchors.

3.5 The commercial fleet passenger/transport types have excellent potential. Being in ready service status such vessels not only could produce large amounts of power (especially the turbine electric types) and water, but would be suited for use as living quarters for large numbers of persons, would provide emergency hospital facilities, and could be moved under their own power. There are currently 33 sea going passenger vessels in service under the American flag. This number does not include ferries, excursion boats or passenger vessels operating on The Great Lakes. It also excludes transports under control of MSTS. Of this number, two are combination cargo-passenger ship versions of the old C3s; three are converted Mariners of the 1950 C4 type; nine others are primarily cargo carriers with accommodations for 52 passengers, and three are basically cargo liners carrying 120 passengers. A number of the larger and newer vessels, however, have significant auxiliary electrical generating capacities and fresh water capabilities. Of the 33 ships only two (President Cleveland/Wilson) have electric drive propulsion. All the others are geared turbine.

3.6 The modern commercial tanker fleet types also have excellent capabilities. Modern types range from 30,000 to 80,000 deadweight tons, with the trend continuing upwards to 130,000 deadweight tons. Designed for long voyages, with alternating current, generating capacities usually in the range of 1200-1600 KW, plus standby. Water evaporators are usually 2 - 10,000 gallons per day units. Most American owned vessels of this type fly Liberian or Panamanian flags. The following tabulation gives the approximate number of tankers of 30,000 deadweight tons and over in the world fleet. The larger sizes are steadily increasing in number.

30,000 - 40,000 - - 480
40,000 - 50,000 - - 150
50,000 - 60,000 - - 150
60,000 and over - - 30

3.7 The modern commercial cargo vessels also have excellent capabilities, with considerably greater generating and water producing capacity than World War II vessels. Generating plants are a-c and usually have capacities of 1000-1500 KW, plus standby of 75-100 KW.

3.8 All capacities shown in the following TABLES I thru IV, pages 8 thru 12, are in long tons of 2240 lbs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONVERSION TABLE

1 Ton fresh water = 269.0 gallons
1 Ton salt water = 261.9 gallons
1 Ton fuel oil = 278.5 gallons
1 Ton diesel oil = 6.63 barrels

1 Ton fresh water = 36.0 cubic feet
1 Ton salt water = 35.0 cubic feet
1 Ton fuel oil* = 37.22 cubic feet
1 Barrel = 42 gallons

*Based on fuel oil gravity of 15 degrees API

NOTE: The "PEAK" tanks noted on the following tabulations include both the fore peak tank (at the bow) and the aft peak tank (at the stern). Usage varies but they can be voids, or used as water or liquid fuel spaces.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table I
Vessel Characteristics - Commercial Passenger Vessels


PRES. CLEVELAND
PRES .WILSON

PRES. ROOSEVELT

CONSTITUTION
INDEPENDENCE

MARAD DESIGNATION

P2 - SE2 - R3

P2 - S2 - R2

P3 - S2 - DL2

TYPE

Passenger

Passenger

Passenger

DEADWEIGHT CAP. (Cargo Only)

400 Dry Cargo



DIMENSIONS (LOAxBxD)

609.4' x 75.5' x 43.5'

622.6 x 75.5' x 51.5'

682.5' x 89' x 52.9'

DRAFTS - Light

18' -6 "



- Full Liquids Only




- Full Load

30'--10.5"

25--1"

30'-2"

TRIM - Light

11'-10.5" A

8'-5" A


PROPULSION- No. of Screws

Twin- 2 Eng. Rms.

Twin - 2 Eng.Rms.

Twin

Type

Turbo Electric

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

SHP

20,000

18,000

55,000

Boilers -No. & Wk. Press.

4 w.t. - 625 Psi

4 w.t. - 500 Psi

4 w.t. - 680 PSi

FUEL OIL CAPACITY




Double Bottom Tks.

2237

2137


F.O. Settlers

404

131


F.O. Deep Tks.

1700

774


Total F.O. Capacity (Long Tons )

4341

3042

8100

LUB. OIL

11

18


DIESEL OIL

49

8


FRESH WATER CAPACITY (Long Tons)




Reserve Feed




Potable Water

387

291


Wash Water




Distilled Water


22


Total F. W.(No Peaks)


313

760

PEAK TANKS

300

280

300

Total Water Capacity

690

590

1060

DEEP TANKS - Cargo or Other

760

none


TOTAL POTENTIAL WATER CAPACITY Excluding F.O.Tks. (Long Tons)

1450

590

1060

EST. SHIPS IN LAY UP
(% of Reserve fleet)

0

See under P2 Geared Transports

0

EST. SHIPS IN SERVICE

2

None as converted

2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table II
Vessel Characteristics - Commercial Tankers


30-35000 DWT.

45-50000 DWT.

60-80 DWT

T2-STANDARD & "Mission"Class

MARAD DESIGNATION

None

None

None

T2 -SE- A2

TYPE

Bethlen Std.Design

Tanker

Tanker

Tanker

DEADWEIGHT CAPACITY (Cargo Only)

32,000

45-50000

60-80,000

15,640 Max.

DIMENSIONS (LOA x B x D)

661' x 90' x 45.25'

725' x 100' x50'

825' x 110' x60'

533' x 68' x 39.25'

DRAFTS - Light




8'-11.25"

- Full Liquids Only




29' - 11.5"

- Full Load

33'-11"

36'-38'

42'-46'

29'11.5"

TRIM - Light




13'-0"

PROPULSION No. of Screws

Single

Single

Single

Single

Type

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

Turbo-Electric

SHP

15,000

18,000

22,000

10.000 Mission, 6600 Std.

Boilers No. & Wk. Press.

2 w.t. - 700 Psi

2 w.t. - 680 Psi

2 w.t.-680 Psi

2 w.t. -675 Psi

FUEL OIL CAPACITY





Double Bottom Tks

None

None

None

None

F.O. Settlers

338



756

F.O. Deep Tks

2782



1476

Total F.O. Capacity (Long Tons)

3170

6,000

6.000

2232

LUB. OIL





DIESEL OIL


125

125


FRESH WATER CAPACITY (Long Tons)




222

Reserve Feed

--




Potable water

96



99

Wash Water

40



--

Distilled Water

36



36

Total F.W. (No Peaks)

172



357

PEAK TANKS

1000



385

Total Water Capacity

1170



740

CARGO TANKS - (Long Tons)

30-35,000

45-50,000

60-80,000

15,640

TOTAL POTENTIAL WATER CAP. excluding F.O. Tks. (Long Tons)

42,000 100% full water

50-55,000

65-85,000

16,000

EST. SHIPS IN LAY UP
(% of reserve fleet)



5

50 inc. T2-SE-A1's (2.7%)

EST. SHIPS IN SERVICE (About)

450

150

150

300

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table III
Vessel Characteristics - Commercial Cargo Vessels


1950 Mariner

1960 Mariner

1960 - C3

C 3 Old

MARAD DESIGNATION

C4-S-1f

C4 - S -1t.

C3-S-38 a

C3 - S -A2

TYPE

Dry Cargo

Dry Cargo

Dry Cargo

Dry Cargo

DEADWEIGHT CAP. (Cargo Only)

13,000

12,000

10, 700

9690

DIMENSIONS (LOAxBxD)

563.6' x 76' x 44.5'

563' x 76' x 44.5'

492.5 x73' x 42.1'

492."x67.5 x42.5 •

DRAFTS - Light

12'-5"

14'-2"

14

10'-4"

- Full,Liquids Only





- Full Load

29'-10"

31'-6"

28'-0'


TRIM - Light




6'-9" A

PROPULSION - No. of Screws

Single

Single

Single

Single

Type

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

SKP

19250 Max.

19250 Max.

13,750 Max.

9350 Max.

Boilers - No. & Wk. Press.

2 w.t. - 600 Psi

2 w.t. - 600 Psi

2 w.t. - 600 Psi

2 w.t. - 525 Psi

FUEL OIL CAPACITY





Double Bottom Tks.

2274

2449


1361

F. O. Settlers

377

199


135

F. O. Deep Tks.

387

112


112

Total F. O. Capacity
(Long Tons

3038

2750

2700

1608

LUB OIL




10

DIESEL OIL

7




FRESH WATER CAPACITY (Long Tons)





Reserve Feed )


25


309

Potable water )

232

58


70

Wash Water

--

75


--

Distilled Water

25


18

Total F. w. (Bo Peaks)

257

158


397

PEAK TANKS
(Long Tons)

203

220

450

198

Total Water Capacity

460

378


595

DEEP TANKS - Cargo or Other

770

2600

1400

2009

TOTAL POTENTIAL WATER CAPACITY
Excluding F. O. Tks. (Long Tons)

1230

2990

1900

2604

EST. SHIPS IN LAY UP
(% of reserve fleet)

none

none

None

21 (1.1%)

EST. SHIPS IN SERVICB (About)

32

30

40


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table IV
Vessel Characteristics - MARAD Reserve Fleet Types


C3 (Old)

C4 (Old)

Liberty Ship

P2 Electric "Admiral" Class

P2 Geared "General" Class

BD1-SE1

MARAD DESIGNATION

C3 - S - A2

C4 - S - A1

EC2 - S - C1

P2 -SE2- R1

P2 - SE - R2

S4 -SE2- BD1

TYPE

Dry Cargo

Troop Transport

Dry Cargo

Troop Transport

Troop Transport

Troop Transport

DEADWEIGHT CAPACITY (Cargo only)

9690

Minor

9320

Minor

Minor

Minor

DIMENSIONS (LOA x B x D)

492' x 69.5' x 42.5'


441.5' x 56' x 37.33'

608'x75.5'x52.5'

622.6 x 75.5 x 51.5

426 x58 x 28.5

DRAFTS - Light

10 '-4"

14'-0"

7'-7"

15'-9.5"

15'-10.5"

11'-6"

- Full, Liquids only







- Full Load

18' 6.5"

25'-10"

27'-8.75"

29'-1"

26'-l"

16'-0"

TRIM - Light

6'-9" A

17'-3" A

4'-9" A

8'-9" A

3'-9" A

2' 1" A

PROPULSION - No of Screws

Single

Single

Single

Twin (2 Eng.Rms.)

Twin(2 Eng.Rms.)

Twin (2 Eng. Rms. )

Type

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

Recip. Steam Eng.

Turbine Electric

Geared Turbine

Turbo-Electric

SHP

9350

9900 Max

2500

20,000

13,000

6600

Boilers.No.& Wk.Press.

2 w.t.-520 Psi

2 w.t.-522 Psi

2 w.t.-250 Psi

4 w.t.-675 Psi

4 w.t.-500 PSI

2 w.t.-475 Psi

FUEL OIL CAPACITY







Double Bottom Tks.

1361

1992

1018

2397

2137

873

F. O. Settlers

135

73

100

417

131

594

F. 0. Deeo Tks.

112

--

733

1243

774


Total F.O. Capacity

1608

2065

1851

4057

3042

1467

LUB. OIL

10

18

2

11

12

6

DIESEL OIL (Long Tons)


6


49

65

49

FRESH WATER CAPACITY (Long Tons)







Reserve Feed

309

232

132

22



Potable water

70

491

56

387

341

269

Wash Water

--

1204

none

1336

882


Distilled Water

18

13

--

-

21


Total F.w. (No Peaks)

397

1940

188

1745

1244

269

PEAK TANKS

198

249

296

299

279

170

Total Water Capacity(L.T

595

2189

484

2044

1523


DEEP TANKS -Cargo or other



630

none

none


TOTAL POTENTIAL WATER CAP. excluding F.O. Tks.(L.T).

595

2190

1115

1635

1520

440

EST. SHIPS IN RESERVE FLT. (% of reserve fleet)

21 (1.1%)

41 (2.1%)

985 (50%)

1

6

40 (2.1%)

EST. SHIPS IN ACTIVE SERV.




7

4

2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table IV (Continued)
Vessel Characteristics - MARAD Reserve Fleet Types


T2

T2 "Mission” Class

VICTORY

VICTORY

LIBERTY TANKER

MARAD DESIGNATION

T2 -SE- A1

T2 -SE- A2

VC2 -S- AP3

VC2 -S- AP5

Z-ETJ-S-C3

TYPE

Tanker

Tanker

Dry cargo

Troop Transport

Distilling Ship

DEAD WEIGHT CAPACITY (cargo only)

14545 Norm., 16281 Max.

13569 Norm.. 15640 Max.

7436

Minor

8856

DIMENSIONS (LOA x B x D)

533' x 68 x 39.25'

533' x 68 x 39.25'

455 x 62 x 38

455 x 62 x38

441.5' x 57 x 37.33

DRAFTS - Light

8'-7.25"

8'-11.25"

9'-10"

14'-0" Ballasted

8'-5"

DRAFTS - - Full, Liquids Only

30'-2"

29'-11.5"

28'-6.75"

28'-6.75"

27'-8.75"

DRAFTS - - Full Load

30'-2"

29'-11.5"



27'-8.75"

TRIM - Light

12'-0"

13'-0"

5'-6"

0'-4"

5'-6"

PROPULSION- No. of Screws

Single

Single

Single

Single

Single

Type

Turbo Electric

Turbo Electric

Geared Turbine

Geared Turbine

Recip. Steam Engine

SHP

6600 Norm.

10.000

8500 Norm.

8500 Norm.

2500

Boilers-No. & Wk. Press.

2 w.t.-500 Psi

2 w.t.- 675 Psi

2 w.t.- 525 Psi

2 w.t.-525 Psi

2 w.t.- 250 PSI

FUEL OIL CAPACITY






Double Bottom Tks.

none

none

1236

1053

1018

F. O. settlers

756

756

128

124

100

F. 0. Deep Tks.

714

1476

1519

none

956

Total F. 0. Capacity

1470

2232

2863

1177

2074

LUB. OIL

11

12

17

11

2

DIESEL OIL (Long Tons)

1

1

5

131


FRESH WATER CAPACITY (Long Tons






Reserve Feed

265

222

178

178

132

Potable water

99

99

96

96

56

wash Water

--

--

--

416

--

Distilled water

36

36

21

21

--

Total F.W. (No Peaks)

400

357

295

711

188

PEAK TANKS

374

386

140

140

296

Total Water Capacity (L.T.)

774

743

435

851

484

DEEP TANKS - Cargo or Other

16,000

16,000

none

none

8856

TOTAL POTENTIAL WATER CAP. excluding F.O. Tanks(L.T.)

16,509

16, 500

435

990

9350

EST. SHIPS IN LAY UP
(% of Reserve fleet)

---50 both classes --- (2.7%)

44 (2.1%)

103 (5.5%)

2

EST. SHIPS IN SERVICE

---About 300---



0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4. REACTIVATION - MARAD RESERVE FLEET TYPES

4.1 Estimation of reactivation costs involve a number of variables, including the location of the reserve fleet, proximity to and availability of repair facilities, the work load in such facilities, the effectiveness of the preservation program for the specific vessel and its machinery auxiliaries, the condition of the hull, and availability of spare parts in the case of special types such as the BDI - BEI class.

4.2 Assuming that all of the various reserve types are in the same general condition, cost of reactivation would be approximately the same for all essentially similar vessels i.e., (1) single screw turbine electric types; (2) single screw geared turbine; (3) twin screw double engine room turbine electric types; (4) twin screw double engine room geared turbine types; (5) Liberty ship types. This estimate is predicated on putting in good operation condition, the boilers, together with associated auxiliaries, fire and bilge pumps, auxiliary generators, and evaporation plants on all vessels. Only on turbine electric powered vessels would the turbines and main propulsion generators with their necessary auxiliaries be activated. The propulsion motor on turbo-electric type, the turbines on geared drive vessels, the main engine on Liberty's, cargo gear machinery, ventilation systems (other than in machinery spaces), steering gear, windlass, galleys, and primary life saving equipment would not be reactivated. Portable fire extinguishers should be provided and the fixed fire fighting systems put in working order where possible. Vessels generally would not require drydocking prior to operation as electrical power and distilling units unless sea chests, sea valves and underwater overboard discharges are badly fouled or damaged.

4.3 The 40 BD1-BE1 class vessels are in various reserve fleet locations, and have not been operated since World War II. These were designed as attack transports and attack cargo vessels, intended for shallow draft (about 15' loaded) and were built with exceedingly light scantlings. They are considered unsuited for commercial service due to American Bureau of Shipping classification restrictions. There are two in operation as school ships, one for the California and one for the New York Maritime Academy. The physical condition of 40 ships which have been in layup for an extended period is unknown, and costs of previous reactivation, if any, are also unknown. Reactivation difficulties would include the possibility of delay in obtaining repair parts for this more or less special type of vessel. If necessary, one or more vessels not selected for reactivation could be used as one source of needed parts. The same would be true for post-reactivation maintenance.

4.4 The T-2 type tanker has great potential for generating electric power, storage of fuel or water, and water purification. The great majority of these have the "standard" T-2 power plant of 6600 shaft horsepower; the so-called "Mission" class have 10,000 shaft horsepower and have not been privately owned. All are turbine electric drive. In addition to the standard T-2 types in MARAD reserve status, it should be noted that some operators of this type have such vessels in layup. A great many are in commercial service. Some of these have been converted to special service as chemical carriers with special tanks. One is an edible liquid foods carrier with special stainless steel tanks. Some have been jumboized from the standard 16,000 deadweight tons cargo capacity to 20,000 and 24,000 deadweight tons. Any of the MARAD reserve fleet standard T-2 type vessels should be considered superior to the BD1-BE1 class because of their probably better condition, greater capability in electric power generating, and far greater liquid storage capacities.

4.5 Approximately 550 T-2 Tankers, including both "Standard" and "Mission" classes, were built by MARAD during World War II. Less than 300 remain today including those under foreign flag, those in active condition under American registry and those in the MARAD reserve fleet. War losses, marine casualties, and scrapping have accounted for the balance. Twenty-one were scrapped in 1959 and 55 in 1960 and the program of disposing of those in the poorest condition continues. Only about 50 remain in the reserve fleet; this is about 2.7% of the vessels in the reserve fleet. As noted above, a considerable number of T-2s have been "jumboized" by installing new midbodies (i.e., that portion containing the cargo tanks) of greater length beam and depth than the original sections, thus increasing their deadweight capacity. The machinery plant, including electrical and distillation facilities, however, remain unchanged.

4.6 Costs for minimal reactivation of the MARAD reserve types included in the study, assuming sound structural hull condition, and limiting the work to those engine room auxiliaries necessary to permit operation of generators and evaporators, are estimated at an average of $325,000.00 per vessel, and after breakout from the reserve fleet and towing to the repair site, about 25 working days. Costs for tankers selected for cleaning of their tanks for water storage will exceed the above by perhaps 25%.

Complete reactivation would average 3 to 4 times the above.

5. MANNING OF UTILITY VESSELS

5.1 Reserve fleet vessels activated and moored solely for the purpose of producing electrical power and fresh water would probably not be required legally to be inspected by the Coast Guard, the Agency that customarily certificates merchant vessels and establishes the minimum manning standard on such ships. It is appreciated that the urgency of a local or national emergency may be such as to preclude concern over what is legally required. It is important, however, that the machinery plants on these vessels be adequately and competently manned to Insure their continued and efficient operation with a minimum of break down in service. Personnel should be, preferably, Coast Guard licensed merchant marine engineers and certificated crewman or U.S. Navy personnel having experience on generally similar type power plants. The minimum manning per watch suggested for each engine room is substantially that required by the Coast Guard on inspected vessels, viz:-

1- Licensed engineer
1- Fireman/watertender
1- Oiler

5.2 P-2 and BDI transports having two complete and independent machinery spaces will require double the number listed above. Each vessel should have a chief or supervising engineer with overall responsibility for the power plant. One chief engineer could probably supervise more than one vessel if moored in close proximity to one another. In general the manning of a single engine room vessel, based on a three watch operation, would be

4 engineering officers and 6 engine crewmen, a total of 10 men in the machinery space.

5.3 The need for, and number of, deckcrew would depend on several factors; security of the vessel if moored at anchor; need for line handling if berthed at a dock in areas having a significant tidal range; need for line handling due to change in draft and trim resulting from off loading large amounts of water or fuel oil, and need for personnel to assist in water and fuel transfer operation - if applicable. The deck crew could range from a minimum of 1 to possibly 4 or 5.

6. ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION-DISTRIBUTION

6.1 In reviewing the characteristics of the various merchant type commercial vessels, and comparing the modern cargo ships with those in the MARAD reserve fleet, two significant differences stand out which are of interest in this study. One concerns electrical power generation; the other, methods of producing and using fresh water. (The latter is discussed in Section 7.)

6.2 At the time the majority of the MARAD reserve fleet was designed electrical engineering technology had not yet satisfactorily solved all the problems associated with alternating current when used to drive cargo winches, windlasses and various other shipboard machinery. Accordingly, most of these ships have steam driven winches and auxiliaries. Electrical power requirements were limited to shipboard lighting and miscellaneous electrical equipment. The generating capacities therefore are generally modest, and the voltage usually 240/120 d-c. Modern cargo ships on the other hand use primarily A-C motors for virtually all deck machinery and many auxiliaries, hence are provided with generating plants of considerable capacity. As an example, the new Pacific Far East Line Mariners (C4-S-1t) class can produce a total of 2150 KW, 450 volts, A-C electrical energy.

6.3 Liberty (EC2-S-C1) ships, which make up over half of the MARAD reserve fleet (985 of this class as of December 1962) have a total generating capacity of only 60 KW, 120 volt, D-C. With this meager capacity, these ships are of no significant value as a source of electrical power.

6.4 The exceptions to this rule in the MARAD fleet are the turbo electric drive T-2 tankers and certain transports (P2 and BD1) with similar type propulsion. They have very significant useable generating capacities. Two T-2 tankers (Donbass at Eureka, California, and Sacketts Harbor at Anchorage, Alaska) served very successfully for a number of years as major sources of electrical power when connected with shoreside municipal utility facilities. The "Mission" class T-2 tankers can produce up to a maximum capacity of 6890 KW, 3500 volt, 60 cycle, A-C, plus 1600 KW, 450 volt, 60 cycle A-C. There are 8 "Admiral" class electric drive P-2 (see Table 1-A) all transports, of which only one is presently laid up. Seven are being operated by MSTS.

In the event they were not needed for transport duty during an emergency, they would he capable when moored of delivering substantially all of their high voltage power for use ashore without effecting their capability to serve as hotel or hospital facilities suitable to accommodate large numbers of people.

6.5 The BD1-BE1 class of vessels are turbine electric drive. These are twin screw, with 2 separate engine rooms. Main generator data follows:


Normal

Maximum

At 60 Cycles

KW

2310

2550

1510

Speed

4800

4950

3600

Phase

3

3

3

Cycles

80

82-1/2

60

Volts

2l40

2210

1310

Amp

660

660

660

Power Factor

1.0

1.0

.80

There are 2 auxiliary generators, each 312 KVA, 450 volts, 400 amps, 60 cycle. Fuel consumption is about the same as the T-2, in terms of kilowatt hours per barrel of fuel. One of the auxiliary generators would be required for plant operation. The other unit could be utilized as a source of power to shore, and as a standby unit for ship generation when needed. As shown in the tabulation, operation of the main generators at a frequency of 60 cycles is operationally possible, but a loss of about 41% in kilowatt output and voltage results.

6.6 The characteristics of the auxiliary generators and the emergency generators installed on the various vessels are shown in the accompanying tabulations. The output of one of the auxiliary generators should be retained for ship plant operation, the output of the remaining one (or more) could be diverted to shore use. Where capacity of the emergency unit warrants, this could also be diverted to shore use. On some vessels, where generator capacity is abnormally large, the normal generated power in excess of the ship plant requirements could also be diverted to shore use.

6.7 For shore power use, most voltages will have to be increased by transformers to be useable. The most general and useable distribution voltage for use ashore is at least 12 KV; however distribution voltages ranging from 2.3 KV to 66 KV might be encountered, depending upon geographical location. Turbine electric drive vessels which can generate 2200 to 3500 KV could be directly coupled (without transformers) to very small distribution systems, but in general power transformers will be required to convert to higher voltages. A typical usage of this type vessel would be the P.G.&E. operation of the 6tern of the T-2 tanker Donbass at Eureka, California. This power plant was used successfully as a power source and was operated 24 hours a day. The net output, without the 2-400 KW auxiliary generator was 4900 KW at 2300 volts, 60 cycles. This power was converted to 12 KV before distribution. Fuel consumption for this 4900 KW average 374 kilowatt hours per barrel of fuel.

6.8 Ships that produce 450 V a-c power could, in instances where the mooring is close to a vital plant, be directly coupled to the plant secondary distribution panels without need for transformers. For most applications however, transformers to convert to higher distribution voltages will be necessary.

6.9 The older geared Turbine drive vessels generate direct current power. This power, except for very special applications, will have to be converted by motor generator sets. Transformers will also be required to convert to distribution voltages.

6.10 As indicated above, the power generated by the vessels studied will require conversion to higher distribution voltages. Major utility companies have portable unit substations which can accept several voltage ranges and which are capable of switching and transforming the voltages to the various system voltages. These voltage ranges, however, are all very high so that shipboard voltages would have to be put thru transformers either aboard ship or ashore before they could be converted by the portable substations. Being integrated units with high voltage switching capabilities, these mobile substations would be of great value. Where a vessel can be moored adjacent to shore, the transformers required to convert power to the range required can be placed either ashore or on the vessel. Where the vessel must be moored off-shore the transformers would normally be placed aboard. Conductors to bring power from the ship to shore need not be of the type normally associated with marine applications. These might be of the newer types used in commercial practice, and placed either on the bottom or carried along the surface on floats. In addition to the transformers and conductors, delivering power to shore will require installation of the necessary switchgear, regulating, and indicator devices to suit the particular vessel involved. Operationally, it will be necessary that the watch engineers be familiar with parallel operation of generators, which in all cases will involve at least one ship generator and the shore plants.

6.1.1 Fuel consumption for electrical power generation is estimated as follows: For turbine electric drives, the main generators at about 375 kilowatt hours per barrel of fuel; for auxiliary generators on geared turbine drives at about 250 kilowatt hours per barrel of fuel.

6.12 Given a ship in port, moored, lighting only being provided by the emergency generator, and the boiler plant in a "cold" condition, about 8 hours would be required to deliver the full generation power capabilities of such a ship.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table I A
Electric Plant Characteristics - Commercial Passenger Vessels


P2 - SE2 - R3
P2—ELECTRIC

A

P2 - SE — R2
P2- GEARED

B

CONSTITUTION.
INDEPENDENCE

C

1. MAIN PROPULSION GENERATORS


None

None

TYPE

Turbine Drive



NO/SHIP

Two (1 x 6890 kw each engine room)



CAPACITY (Total)

13.780 kw



PARTICULARS

3500 v a-c 3 ph 60 cyc







2. AUXILIARY GENERATORS




TYPE

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive


Four

Five

Four

CAPACITY (Total)

1600 kw

2100 kw

4400 kw

PARTICULARS

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 cyc

4 turbo drive totaling 800 kw 240/120 d-c

240/120 -3 wire d-c

450 v a-c
3 ph
60 cyc
0.80 pf

3. STAND-BY (EMERGENCY) GEN.




TYPE

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

NO/SHIP

One

One

One

CAPACITY (Total)

75 kw

75 kw

100 kw

PARTICULARS

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 cyc

240/120 v d-c

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 cyc

4. MAX. EXCESS ELEC. PWR AVAILABLE FOR SHORE USE

15.000 kw

1700 kw

4000 kw

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table II A
Electric Plant Characteristics - Commercial Tankers


30-35 M dwt

d

45-50 M dwt

e

60-80M dwt

f

T2, standard

g

MAIN PROPULSION GENERATORS

None

None

None

T2, SE-A1

TYPE




Turbine Drive

NO/SHIP




one

CAPACITY (Total)




5400 KW

PARTICULARS




2300 v a-c
60 cyc
3 ph
1.0 pf

2. AUXILIARY GENERATORS





TYPE

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

NO/SHIP

Two

Two

Two

Two

CAPACITY (Total)

1000 kw

1200-1400 kw

1200-1400 kw

800 kw

PARTICULARS

450 v a-c 3 ph. 0.8 pf 60 cyc

450 v a-c 3 ph. 0.8 pf

450 v a-c 3 ph, 0.8 pf

450 v a-c 3 ph. 0.8 pf 60 cyc

3. STAND-BY (EMERGENCY) GEN'S.





TYPE

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

NO/SHIP

One

One

One

One

CAPACITY (Total)

75 kw

100-200 kw

100-200 kw

75 kw

PARTICULARS

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 cyc

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 cyc

450 v a-c 3ph 60 cyc

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 cyc

4. MAX. EXCESS ELEC. PWR. AVAILABLE FOR SHORE USE

630 kw

800 -1000 kw

800-1000 kw

5400 kw

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table III A
Electric Plant Characteristics - Commercial Cargo Vessels


1950 Mariner

h

1960 C4

j

1960 C3

k

C3 ("old")

l

1. MAIN PROPULSION GENERATORS

None

None

None

None

TYPE





NO/SHIP





CAPACITY





PARTICULARS





2 . AUXILIARY GENERATORS





TYPE

Turbo-Drive

Turbo-Drive

Turbo-Drive

Turbo-Drive

NO./SHIP

Two

Two

Two

Three

CAPACITY (Total)

1200 kw

1200-2500 KW

1200 kw

750 kw

PARTICULARS

450 v a-c
3 ph
60 cyc
0.8 pf

450 v a-c
3 ph
60 cyc
0.8 pf

450 v a-c
3 ph
60 cyc
0.8 pf

120/240 d-c 1040 amps

3. STAND-BY (EMERGENCY) GEN'S.





TYPE

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

NO./SHIP

One

One

One

One

CAPACITY

75 kw

150 kw

100 kw

15 kw

PARTICULARS

450 v a-c
3 ph
60 cyc

450 v a-c
3 ph
60 cyc

450 v a-c
3 ph
60 cyc

120 v d-c

4. MAX. EXCESS ELEC. PWR. AVAILABLE FOR SHORE USE

800 kw

800-2100 kw

800 kw

400 kw

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table IV A
Electric Plant Characteristics - MARAD Reserve Fleet Types


EC2—"LIBERTY"

n

Z-ET1 ( "Liberty")
(wtr.-distilling)

n

VC2 - S – AP3
VC2- -VICTORY"

o

C4 - S – A1
C4, ("Old")

p

P2-SE-R2
P2-GEARED

q

1. MAIN PROPULSION GENERATORS

None

None

None

None

None

TYPE






NO./SHIP






CAPACITY






PARTICULARS






2. AUXILIARY GENERATORS

Steam Recipro

Steam Recipro-




TYPE

Eng. Drive

Eng. Drive

Turbine Drive


Turbine Drive

NO./SHIP

Three

Three

Two

Three

Four


60 KW

60KW

600 kw

1200 kw

1600 KW

PARTICULARS

120 v d-c

120 d-c

240/120 v
3 wire
d-c

240 v -2 wire, d-c; also. 3 - 75 kw 230/115. d-c M.G. Sets

240/120 V
3 wire
d-c

3. STAND-BY (EMERGENCY) GEN'S.






TYPE

None

None




NO./SHIP



Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

CAPACITY



One

One

One

PARTICULARS (Total)



15 kw 240/120 v 3 wire, d-c

75 kw 240/120 v 3 wire, d-c

75 kw 240/120 v d-c

4. MAX. EXCESS ELEC PWR.

AVAILABLE FOR SHORE USE



300 kw

1000 kw

1200 kw

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table IV A (Continued)
Electric Plant Characteristics - MARAD Reserve Fleet Types


T2- SE-A1
T2. standard

r

T2 - SE – A2
T2. "Mission"

s

BD1-BE1 Transport

t
(at 60 cycles)

P2-Transport

u

C3("Old")

v

1. MAIN PROPULSION GENERATORS




None

None

TYPE

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive



NO./SHIP

One

One

Two



Capacity (Total)

5400 kw

6890 kw

3020 kw



PARTICULARS

2300 v a-c
60 cyc
3 ph
1.0 pf.

3300 v a-c
60 cyc
3 ph
1.0 pf

1310 v a-c
60 cyc
660 amp
3 ph
.80 pf



2. AUXILIARY GENERATORS






TYPE

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

Turbine Drive

NO./SHIP

Two

Two

Two

Four

Three

CAPACITY (TOTAL)

800 kw

800 kw

620 kva

1600 kw

750 kw

PARTICULARS

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 eye

450 v a-c 3 ph 60 eye

(2-85 kw. ) (120 v d-c for ) (generator ) (excitation )

450 v a-c 60 cyc 400 amp

120/240 v d-c 3 wire

120/140 v d-c 3 wire

3. STAND-BY (EMERGENCY) GEN'S.






TYPE

Diesel Drive



Diesel Drive

Diesel Drive

NO./SHIP

One



One

One

CAPACITY (Total)

75 kw



75 kw

15 kw

PARTICULARS

450/120 v a-c 60 cyc



120/240 v d-c

120 v d-c

4. MAX. EXCESS ELEC. PWR- AVAILABLE FOR SHORE USE

5400 kw

7000 kw

3600 kw

1200 kw

400 kw

7. WATER PURIFICATION - STORAGE

7.1 In the 1930's and early 1940, when most of the MARAD reserve fleet was designed, it was customary to segregate the fresh water supply into potable, distilled, wash and reserve feed systems and to carry relatively large amounts of water. On these types, both salt water evaporators and distillers were provided. The function of the latter is the distillation of raw fresh water for greater purity; the rated capacities of these units as shown in the accompanying tabulations are based on such service. These capacities are customarily reduced 50% if these units are placed in salt water service.

7.2 The current trend is to have water for all purposes stored in common tanks and to rely more heavily on evaporators, thus reducing the amount of fresh water carried. Feed water requirements are met by redistilling, for greater purity, water from the common source.

7.3 It is probable that the present condition of evaporator plants on many of the laid up ships is far from optimum. They cannot, therefore, in all cases be expected to produce at their rated capacity. The fact that scaling and corrosion properties of harbor water are generally worse than ordinary sea water will contribute further to diminish the output.

7.4 Although the laid up T-2 tankers have considerable capacity for storing liquids, extensive tank cleaning would be required in many cases to make suitable for storage of potable water. Ideally, they should be sand blasted and given a cement wash. Should extreme circumstances not permit carrying out work of this type, they should at least be steam washed using the ship's Butterworthing system and the scale and debris manually removed from the bottom of tanks.

7.5 Many of the modern tankers and a few T-2s in active service have exotic coatings on their cargo tanks which should be relatively easy to clean and make acceptable for emergency water storage.

A few special service ships and a number of the new Mariners have stainless steel clad tanks and are particularly well adapted for this service although the capacity of these tanks on the Mariners is small (430,000 gallons) compared to tanker capacities. One active modified T-2 tanker, Angelo Petri, is fitted with stainless steel cargo tanks, flush plated inside, having a total capacity of 2,5000,000 gallons. This vessel which carries primarily edible products would be ideal for water storage in addition to its ability to generate electrical power if its unique design and facilities did not render it more valuable for other services,

7.6 Of the 62 Liberty ship tankers (Z-ET1-S-C3) built during World War II only two remain in the MARAD fleet. Both are distilling vessels converted by the Navy for that purpose. S.S. NORMAN

D. PEDRICK, ex USS Stagg, AW1, is laid up in the James River; S.S. LEON GODCHAUX, ex USS Wildcat, AW2, is in the Astoria, Oregon reserve fleet. They would be invaluable as emergency water producers but cannot be counted on as a source of electrical power as previously noted. Each is fitted with 3 - 20,000 gallon per day evaporator units.

7.7 TABLES IB thru IVB indicate average capacities of the evaporator and distilling plants presently installed aboard the ships being considered. The source of energy is boiler fuel oil in all cases. Shipboard storage tank capacities will be found elsewhere in this study.

7.8 The tabulated daily output must be regarded as representing distilling plant capability under ideal conditions, which would be: sea water temperature 85°F evaporators in cleantube condition; pumps, other auxiliaries, salinity indicator-alarms, piping systems, etc. in good working order; clean sea water as feed-water, and experienced operators in attendance. All units, including standbys, would be continuously operated. Average or normal output would fall below the maximum by about 30 per cent. The reduction allows for normal progressive build-up of scale in the evaporators and minor malfunctioning of pumps, etc. Output would be reduced by operation in a harbor contaminated by oil or other volatile substances.

7.9 Any distilling unit would be shut down necessarily at intervals of 30 to 50 days or more in order to remove scale and accomplish repairs. For high pressure units, this would be necessary at more frequent intervals. The frequency and duration of downtime would depend upon the initial condition of the unit, operating steam pressure and temperature, degree of feedwater salinity and oil-contamination, and the amount of care taken to prevent scale formation. The installation of HAGEVAP units on low pressure evaporators would permit continuous operation without down-time for scaling and cleaning.

7.10 Limitations to continuous operation would be confined to the unlikely possibility of concurrent failure of all units of a ship's distilling plant. Inasmuch as low-pressure evaporators and distillers are designed for continuous operation no unusual over-heating problems should occur. Maximum efficiency is obtained when operating at relatively low steam pressure and temperature. Maximum capacity is obtained (in terms of water/ fuel ratio) when operating at higher steam pressure and tempera-However, at higher temperatures scale builds up much more rapidly and will be of the hard "porcelain" sulfate type rather than the more easily-removed soft carbonate.

7.11 Distilling plant output per barrel of fuel oil will vary widely as between turbine electric drive and geared turbine vessels. In the first instance, the evaporators can be operated using steam extracted from the main turbine, while in the latter case, auxiliary steam is used. For single effect plants, output per barrel of fuel oil will average about 375 gallons on geared turbine electric; for double effect plants, about 800 gallons and 1700 gallons, respectively.

7.12 Almost all commercial vessels have low pressure evaporators. Water produced by such units from contaminated harbor waters cannot be considered potable, hence vessels intended for operation in such areas will require chlorinating equipment for water purification.

7.13 General service pumps presently installed on the vessels could be utilized to provide ship-to-shore pumping in addition to the normal fresh water pumping capacity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table I B
Evaporator and Distilling Plant Characteristics - Commercial Passenger Vessels


P2-SE2-R3
P2-ELECTRIC

a

P2-SE-R2
P2-GEARED

b

CONSTITUTION,
INDEPENDENCE

c

1. TYPE

Cleveland.Wilson Horizontal. Double. Effect. Low Pressure. Submerged Type

Pres. Roosevelt Low Pressure Submerged Type Double Effect


2. NO. /SHIP

Two

Two

Two

3. RATED CAPACITY TOTAL. SEA WATER TO F.H.

121,500 gpd

61,000 gpd

240,000 gpd

4. DISTILLER

Two Units Total Capacity 121,500 gpd

One Unit Total Capacity 81,000 gpd


5. CONTAMINATED WATER EVAP.

One - 8000 gpd @ 70% clean tube factor



6. TOTAL WATER, GALS PER DAY. EXCLUDE CONTAM. EVAP.

182,000 gpd*

121,500 gpd*

240,000 gpd

* Distiller at 50% of tabulated raw water capacity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table II B
Evaporator and Distilling Plant Characteristics - Commercial Tankers


30-35 M dwt.

d

45-50 M dwt

e

60-80 M dwt

f

T2,standard

9

1. TYPE

Low Pressure. Horizontal. Single Effect. Submerged Type



See Table IV B

2. NO. /SHIP

Two

Two

Two

3. RATED CAPACITY (Total)

12.000 gpd

18.000 gpd

18.000 gpd

4. TOTAL WATER. GALS PER DAY

12.000 gpd

18.000 gpd

18.000 gpd

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table III B
Evaporator and Distilling Plant Characteristics - Commercial Cargo Vessels


1950 Mariner

h

1960 C4

j

1960 C3

k

C3. ("Old")

l

1. TYPE

Low Pressure, Double Effect. Submerged Tube Type

Low Pressure, Doable Effect. Flash Type

Low Pressure, Double Effect

Vert. Submerged

2. NO./SHIP

Two

Two

Two

One

3. RATED CAPACITY (Total)

24,300 gpd

13,000 gpd

14,000 gpd

3,000 gpd

4. DISTILLERS




One vert, submerged Marine Type

5.900 gpd

5. CONTAMINATED WATER EVAP.

One Submerged Type

Single Pass 11,000 gpd

One Submerged Type

11.000 gpd


One Vert. Submerged Marine Type

7.000 gpd

6. TOTAL WATER, GALS. PER DAY, EXCLUDE CONTAMINATED EVAP.

24.000 gpd

13,000 gpd

14,000 gpd

11,000 gpd *

* Distiller at 50% of tabulated raw water capacity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table IV B
Evaporator and Distilling Plant Characteristics - MARAD Reserve Fleet Types


EC2-S -C1 EC2—"LIBERTY"

m

Z-ET1 ("LIBERTY") (wtr.distilling)

n

VC2-S-AP3
VC2 --VICTORY

o

C4-S-A1
C4. ("Old")

p

P2-GEARED

q

1. TYPE

Vertical Submerged Marine Type

Vertical Submerged Marxne Type

Vertical Submerged Type

Vertical Submergfsd Type

Low Pressure Submerged

Double Effect

Type

2. No./SHIP

One

Three

One

One

Two

3. RATED CAPACITY TOTAL. SEA WATER TO F.W.

6.000 gpd

60.000 gpd

7.200 gpd with a clean tube factor of 70%

8,100 gpd with a clean tube factor of 70%

81.000 gpd

4. DISTILLER

One 6.000 gpd

One -6.000 gpd

7.200 gpd with a clean tube factor of 85%

One -6,000 gpd

One -81.000 gpd

5. CONTAMINATED WATER EVAP.




One Vert. Marine

Submerged Type 6,000 gpd with a clean tube factor of 70%


6. TOTAL WATER, GALS. PER DAY, EXCLUDE CONTAMINATED EVAP.

9,000 gpd*

63.000 gpd*

10.800 gpd*

11.100 gpd*

121,500 gpd*

* Distiller at 50% of tabulated raw water capacity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table IV B (Continued)
Evaporator and Distilling Plant Characteristics - MARAD Reserve Fleet Types


T2. standard

r

T2. "Mission'

s

BD1. BE1-Transport

t

P2—Transport. Elec.

u

C3. ("Old")

V

1. TYPE

Lou Pressure

Vertical Marine Type Low Pressure

Solo Shell Low Pressure

Low Pressure Submerged Double Effect Type

Vertical, Submerged Type Low Pr-

2. NO./SHIP

One

One

Two

Two

one

3. RATED CAPACITY TOTAL. SEA WATER TO P.M.

3400 gpd

5400 gpd based on clean tube factor of 70%.

20.000 gpd

81,000 gpd

43

8,100 gpd

4. DISTILLER

One

4300 gpd (Distilling Raw Water)

One Vertical Marine Type 4802 gpd with a clean tube factor of 35%


One with Capacity of 8.600 gpd

One Vertical Submerged Marine Type 5.900 gpd

5. CONTAMINATED WATER EVAP.


One 9.600 gpd with a clean tube factor of 70%


One with capacity of 8,600 gpd

One Vertical Submerged Marine Type 7.000 gpd

6. TOTAL WATER, GALS. PER DAY, EXCLUDE CONTAMINATED EVAP.

7300 gpd*

7800 gpd*

20.000 gpd

85.300 gpd*

11.100 gpd*

* Distiller at 50% of tabulated raw water capacity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 Vessels from the active commercial fleet offer the best potential as sources of emergency electric power and for water purification. Reactivation of older vessels from the MARAD reserve fleets is feasible from an engineering standpoint, but except for types with turbine electric drives reactivation and post-reactivation operating and maintenance costs, because of the relatively small amounts of electric power made available, create doubt as to economic feasibility.