DRAFT
UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
Thursday, September 18, 2003, 8:30 am
National Science Foundation
Room 1235
To download a pdf copy of these minutes click: <200309cncmi.pdf>
The UNOLS Council met on Thursday, September 18, 2003, at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Room 1235. Tim Cowles, UNOLS Chair, called the meeting to order at 0830. Due to the approach of Hurricane Isabel, many Council members could not travel to the meeting, but participated via phone conference. The meeting was abbreviated so that those who wished to avoid the storm could do so.
A
major focus of the meeting was academic fleet renewal activities and
plans. Jim Yoder gave a report on the
National Science Foundation (NSF) facility implementation plans. A resolution has been approved for including
a funding request for the ARRV as part of the Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC) account in a FY2005 or future budget. Jim discussed the status of the Regional
Class Ship design and construction effort.
OCE is discussing design and acquisition strategies for 3-4 ships based
on the SMRs and the JJMA report. The
Integrated Product Team (IPT) approach with two teams is under consideration.
Lastly,
Jim reported on the status of marine mammal and acoustic permits. NSF has been meeting with the NMFS to
address acoustic permitting and to establish guidelines. There is a matrix under development that is
intended to provide guidelines for the permitting process; however, it will not
be ready this year.
The
Navy has expressed interest in supporting an Ocean Class Phase II study. The Ocean Class study will resemble the
study conducted for the Regional Class by JJMA.
A series of charts showing ship
utilization trends and projections were presented. Fleet utilization and projected use for 1993 to 2005 indicates an
increasing ship demand. In 2003, a
total of 373 days needed to be deferred to 2004. In 2004, it is estimated that
deferred programs will require 289 days to be moved to 2005 in addition to a
near record number of days being scheduled in 2004.
A summary of FIC recommendations and activities were presented. FIC encourages the agencies to update the FOFC plan so that consideration of increasing ship demand, future observatory facility needs, and changing ship retirement dates are included. FIC endorses the Integrated Product Team (IPT) plan (2-teams) as a reasonable acquisition approach; however, the opportunities for community feedback need to be clearly defined in the process. FIC recommends the formation of a Regional Ship Users Advisory Committee that will include science users, naval architects, ship operators, and marine technicians. The issue of community input to the design process was a serious concern of both the FIC and Council.
Other FIC activities include:
·
Continuation
of KILO MOANA debrief interviews.
·
FIC
recommends that a ship motion analysis of KILO MOANA be supported.
· Continue to review and provide feedback on design and construction efforts.
· FIC will send NSF a letter of endorsement in support LDEO’s option for replacement of EWING with a commercially available modern, seismic vessel.
· FIC will keep abreast of new ship design efforts and ensure that new issues/regulations are considered in future design efforts.
· FIC recommends that the UNOLS Post Cruise Assessment Subcommittee provide feedback to FIC in respect to shipboard capabilities and equipment improvements.
·
FIC
will review the UNOLS Ocean Observatory working group recommendations and
encourage community feedback to the working group’s draft report.
Tim
Cowles provided a summary of the JJMA Phase II study on the Regional Class
Conceptual Development Task. The
“desired SMR” monohull design regional vessel is estimated to be within the
budget cap and does not require design trade-off decisions. The estimated ship day rate for the desired
SMR monohull and SWATH variants were $13,389 and $14,287, respectively. The day rates are comparable to current
intermediate vessel rates. Various
acquisition strategies were considered by the study including the conventional
approaches, Integrated Product Team (IPT) with one team approach (Similar to
AGOR 26), and the IPT with two-team approach.
It appears that that JJMA and NSF are favoring the IPT 2-team approach
for acquisition. The Council voiced
concern over the need for a formalized mechanism for community feedback into
the design process. There is also concern
regarding the size of the “desired SMR” vessel. Due to regional operating area differences, there is not a
community consensus regarding the vessel’s size. NSF plans call for construction to begin in FY06.
The status of various ship design and construction efforts was presented. Terry Whitledge reviewed the status and future plans in the ARRV design effort. A key change in the design was the decision to use a Z-Drive propulsion system instead of Azipod. The propulsion evaluation of the Azipod revealed that the system exceeded the noise criteria. Z-drives will improve underwater-radiated noise characteristics over all frequency bands. Mike Purdy of Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) provided a report on plans for EWING’s mid-life refit/replacement. LDEO is considering acquisition of a modern, commercially available, seismic replacement vessel. The estimated cost for acquisition of the replacement ship is $7M with an additional cost of approximately $12M for conversion (which includes costs for re-flagging).
Two
ship mid-life refit efforts were reported.
Steve Rabalais reported that the PELICAN mid-life refit effort is
complete and the ship is back in operation.
As a major part of the refit, the ship was extended approximately 11
feet. Bruce Corliss reported that the CAPE
HATTERAS mid-life effort is 90% complete and the ship is back in
operation. The remaining work is being
done dockside in homeport.
The CAPE HENLOPEN replacement effort continues. Four shipyard proposals were received for the construction of the CHRV and are under consideration.
A
variety of UNOLS discussion items were addressed. These included:
·
UNOLS Working Group on Ocean Observatory Facility
Needs
·
Quality of Service, Post Cruise Assessment
–Subcommittee tasking
·
Defined Levels of Technician/Instrumentation
Support
·
UNOLS
Wires and Cables
·
Winches
– Manufacturer ship visits
·
Committee and Agency Issues
Lastly
Tim Cowles recognized departing Council and Committee members and thanked them
for their dedicated service to UNOLS:
Task
|
Assignment
|
Review draft UNOLS objectives, priorities and
goals for 2003-2004 (Top 10 list) – provide input to UNOLS Office
|
Council
|
Review draft report from UNOLS Working Group on
Ocean Observatory Facility Needs – provide input via on-line feedback page.
|
Council
|
|
Subcommittee
on Post Cruise Assessment – revise tasking statement and implement |
PCA Subcommittee
|
Review draft performance requirements for a new
wire. Provide input via on-line
feedback page.
|
Council
|
II. Participant List
III. NSF Report (1.2 MB)
IV. UNOLS Utilization Trends and Projections
V. FIC Report to Council – 9/18/03
VI. JJMA Regional Class Concept Development Task Review (1.7 MB)
VII. Alaska Region Research Vessel – Status Report – to download the PowerPoint slides along with video clips go to <http://color.mlml.calstate.edu/unols/fic/arrv/arrv.html>
VIII. EWING Replacement Plans (3.1 MB)
IX. UNOLS Ocean Observatory Working Group –Status Report (15.4 MB)
X. Icebreaker Plans and Major Issues
XI. RVTEC Subcommittee Report on Definition of Technical Support
XII. AICC Activities and Issues
Welcome and Introductions: The UNOLS Council meeting was held on Thursday, September 18, 2003, at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Room 1235. Tim Cowles, UNOLS Chair, called the meeting to order at 0830 and provided an opportunity for introductions. Due to the approach of Hurricane Isabel, many Council members could not travel to the meeting. Some of these members joined in the discussions via phone conference. The meeting was abbreviated so that those who wished to leave the area to avoid the storm could do so.
Accept the minutes of the June 2003 Council Meeting – A motion was made and approved to accept the minutes of the June 2003 Council meeting.
Academic Fleet Renewal Activities and
Plans:
Federal Agency Plans for Fleet Renewal Implementation - Jim Yoder gave a report on the National Science Foundation (NSF) facility plans and Fleet renewal. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix III. There are three Ocean Science programs that are in the Major Research Equipment (MRE) queue for support. These include the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), and the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV). In August, “the Board approved a resolution for including a funding request for the ARRV as part of the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account in a FY2005 or future budget request by the National Science Foundation." Of the seven NSF MREs, three are from the Ocean Sciences division.
Jim
reported on the status of marine mammal and acoustic permits. Over the past year operations were delayed
and/or cancelled due to marine mammal permitting issues. NSF has been meeting with the NMFS to
address acoustic permitting and establish guidelines. There is a matrix under development that is intended to provide
guidelines for the permitting process; however, it will not be ready this
year. For now, operations involving
various sound sources are being addressed on a case-by-case situation. It is unclear how multibeam operations will
be addressed. NSF has no plans to
support acoustic permits for anything but seismic work.
There
was Council discussion on these issues:
Question
– Have the OOI facility installation and support needs been addressed and will
they be included in an updated Fleet Plan?
Jim replied that they plan to wait until the OOI office is established
to address this issue.
Question
– Will the FOFC plan be updated, and if so when? Jim replied that FOFC plans to address this issue at their next
meeting. However, an update may be
overtaken by Congressional language that will direct the agencies to establish
an implementation plan.
Question
– Will UNOLS be funded for additional staff to support the marine mammal
permitting process? Jim explained that
they would wait until they hear from NMFS with a recommendation before
providing support for a person. We need
to find out what level of expertise is needed for that position. Jim commented that the technical expertise
would probably be beneficial to the process.
Navy
– Although there was no representative present, at the FIC meeting it had been
reported that the Navy has expressed interest in supporting an Ocean Class
Phase II study. The Ocean Class study
will resemble the study conducted for the Regional Class by JJMA.
Ship Utilization Trends
- Annette DeSilva reviewed a series of charts showing ship utilization trends
and projections. Her slides are included
as Appendix IV.
The first chart showed fleet utilization and projected use for 1993 to 2005. Use has steadily increased over these years. In 2003 there were a number of programs that needed to be deferred to 2004 for a total of 373 days. The reasons for deferring ship time to 2004 included:
·
Ship Availability - Ships were booked for other
projects or the specific type of ship needed was not located close enough to
schedule (134 days).
· External reasons – Forces outside the control of schedulers or PIs such as permits, clearances, civil unrest and changes in the availability of funds (180 days).
·
Instrumentation Availability – Scheduling conflict or
unavailability of major instrumentation including ROVs, MCS, OBS, etc. ALVIN is included with ship availability
unless ALVIN was out of service while ATLANTIS was available (17 days).
· Principal Investigator – Delay or deferral at the request of the PI or because the PI or user equipment was unavailable for the proposed cruise period (42 days).
In 2004, deferred programs will
require 289 days to be moved to 2005.
The reasons for deferring ship time to 2005 include:
· Ship availability - 214 days.
·
Instrumentation availability –40 days.
· Principal Investigator –35 days.
Additionally, there were seven programs that requested large vessels, but were scheduled on UNOLS intermediate vessels (204 days). There is one other program (78 days) that has not been scheduled yet on a UNOLS vessel.
Next, Annette showed utilization broken down by class. The Global/Large ship utilization has been very high. The Intermediate/Ocean Class utilization has been lower than full utilization over the past years. Regional and local ship utilization trends show increasing demand.
Jim
Yoder remarked that since the budget is unlikely to be significantly increased,
we would probably see lower ship use in coming years due to a lack of funds.
FIC Meeting Summary – Plans and Recommendations – Annette DeSilva reviewed a series of
slides prepared by FIC at their meeting on 17 September. The slides are included as Appendix V.
FOFC Long Range Fleet Plan - FIC encourages the agencies to update the FOFC plan so that consideration of increasing ship demand, future observatory facility needs, and changing ship retirement dates are included. FIC will update the FIC website and draft a FIC version of Figure 17 of the FOFC plan.
Regional Class – FIC endorses the IPT 2-team plan as a reasonable acquisition approach; however, the opportunities for community feedback need to be clearly defined in the process. FIC recommends the formation of a Regional Ship Users Advisory Committee that would include science users, naval architects, ship operators, and marine technicians - both intermediate and regional vessel users. FIC recommends community review and feedback opportunities to both of the team designs prior to selection.
KILO
MOANA – FIC will continue FIC debrief interviews. As an action item they will send the University of Hawaii a list
of items that need to be addressed including: CTD operation problems, noise
issues and over-the-side handling issues.
Additionally, FIC will review the debrief interview responses in respect
to the monohull versus SWATH hull characteristics. This information will be useful in supporting future hull form
decisions. FIC will again recommend
that a ship motion analysis of KILO MOANA be supported.
Ship Design and Construction - FIC will continue to review and provide feedback on design and construction efforts including the replacement of CAPE HENLOPEN, the Alaska Region Regional Vessel, and the EWING Replacement. FIC will send NSF a letter of endorsement in support LDEO’s option for replacement of EWING with a commercially available modern, seismic vessel.
New Ship Design Efforts – FIC will keep abreast of new ship design efforts and ensure that new issues/regulations are considered in future design efforts including homeland security, handicap access, noise, and broadband communications. FIC recommends that the UNOLS Post Cruise Assessment Subcommittee provide feedback to FIC in respect to shipboard capabilities and equipment improvements.
Ocean
Observatories – FIC will review the UNOLS Ocean Observatory working group
recommendations and encourage community feedback to the working group’s draft
report. They will work to ensure that
new vessel designs consider ocean observatory facility support. Future fleet plans must include
consideration of emerging observatory facility needs.
Discussion followed:
Bruce
Corliss and Wilf Gardner commented that they endorse FIC’s recommendation to
update the FOFC plan.
Jim
Yoder asked what the benefit of community review would be to the two Regional
Class design studies if the IPT included a UNOLS representative. It was explained that although it is good to
have a full time UNOLS representative on the IPT, one person would have
difficulty adequately representing all science disciplines, especially in terms
of science outfitting and arrangements.
Regional
Class Ship Planning – Status report on JJMA’s Phase II - Tim
Cowles provided a summary of Dan Rolland’s slides that were presented at yesterday’s
FIC meeting. The slides are included
as Appendix VI.
The JJMA Phase study included the following tasks:
1)
Acquisition
Process - Analyze possible acquisition approaches
2) Refinement of Concept Design – What can be built for $25M and how will it meet the SMRs?
3) Tonnage Analysis - Analyze tonnage of concept designs and regulatory impacts
4) Technology Investigation - Investigate innovative technologies to reduce manning, life cycle costs.
5) Ship Specification Development - Develop specification and other design documentation to support the next phase.
Two concept designs were developed by JJMA and analyzed:
The slides include a table showing the concept variant designs versus the UNOLS Regional Class SMRs. The “desired” SMR ship design met all desired SMRs. The “minimum” ship variant can meet the minimum SMR value with the exception of storage space.
It is predicted that the desired SMR monohull ship design could meet the seakeeping criteria spectrum for both short and long crested seas. A chart showing the percent time operability versus wave height for long and short crested seas was displayed. The “desired” monohull and SWATH variants both meet or exceed the operability criteria for short crested waves. The SWATH also exceeds operability for long-crested waves in SS6 (the monohull does not).
The seakeeping speed polar diagrams were presented. The models predict that:
· At SS4 all speeds and directions are met with roll stabilization tanks for both the desired and minimum SMR designs.
· At SS5 with roll stabilization tanks the designs exceed the SMR motion criteria during head seas transit for the monohull. The SWATH exceeds the motion criteria in aft seas.
· At SS6 with roll stabilization tanks there will be some operability in beam seas with the desired monohull SMR ship design, but little operability in other seas. The SWATH was fairly operable.
The program cost estimates for the desired and minimum SMR ships were presented. The estimated lead ship costs are:
· Desired SMR Monohull = $25M - $28M (within budget)
· Minimum SMR Monohull = $23M - $26M
· Desired SMR SWATH = $30M - $37M
· Minimum SMR SWATH = $27M - $33M
The desired SMR monohull is within the budget cap and does not require design trade-off decisions. Also, reducing to the minimum SMR ship achieves relatively minor initial cost savings at the expense of significantly reducing capability. JJMA also indicates that there can be economy with a multiple ship contact (multiple equipment purchases and non recurring costs).
Fuel cost analyses and operating costs were estimated for each variant. The ship day rate for the desired SMR monohull and SWATH variants were $13,389 and $14,287, respectively. The day rates are comparable to current intermediate vessel rates but considerably higher than existing regional vessels.
Various acquisition strategies were considered by the study:
· Conventional Approaches:
− Contract Design
− Circular of requirements
· IPT with 1-Team Approach (Similar to AGOR 26)
· IPT with 2-Team Approach
The IPT would include government, industry and a UNOLS representative. The industry representatives include the shipyard and the designers.
The pros and cons of the various
acquisition strategies were identified by JJMA. These included:
Contract design approach:
Pros:
· Community opportunity for input at design reviews
· Design defined in detail
· Greatest control over design process
Cons:
· No shipbuilder input to design process or cost estimate
· Limits innovation by yard and designer
· Risk of exceeding budget ceiling because of unknown costs
· Design budget increases with iterations and changes
Integrated
Product Team approach:
Pros:
· Shipbuilder involvement early in process helps avoid surprises
· Design to cost cap lowers risk of exceeding budget ceiling
· Community has real time input to design process through representatives on IPTs
· Reduce costly change orders during construction
· Ensure ship meets research needs
· Allows more innovation by shipbuilder and design agent
· Competition throughout process encourages technical innovation and cost savings
Cons:
· Multiple teams can increase initial design cost
· Some control over design process ceded to community representatives and IPTs
· Need effective communication between community and representatives
· Mitigate with team design reviews with larger community audience
JJMA also performed a tonnage analysis for a design that would be <300 Domestic tons. To stay below 300 Domestic tons some SMRs cannot be met. The ship length is estimated at 132 LWL, which is shorter than the desired SMR length. The ship would still be over the International tonnage limit.
JJMA conducted a technology investigation to identify ship systems where life cycle costs are high and some improvement would be welcome. They looked at: propulsion, mission systems, handling systems, and auxiliary systems.
Discussion followed Tim’s summary. It was commented that JJMA’s study and NSF
are favoring the IPT 2-team approach for the acquisition strategies. Tim remarked that with the IPT approach it
would be more challenging for the community to provide feedback into the design
process. Also, there needs to be a
clearly defined SMR at the onset of the process.
Mike Reeve commented that this process is
probably drawing concerns because people are viewing it with respect to the
KILO MOANA design effort. The KILO
MOANA used a one-team IPT approach. The
approach that is being considered now is a 2-team IPT and will include a full
time UNOLS representative. Jim Yoder
added that there would be opportunities for community input before the design
is selected. However, once the design
is finalized, it is costly to make changes.
The question was asked if NSF has a
timeline for the project. Jim replied
that they plan to review the JJMA study recommendations. They will meet with another federal entity with
shipyard experience to explore arrangements for joining the IPT. They need to identify the UNOLS
representative to the IPT. They will
also need to prepare the project Request for Proposals (RFP). This whole process could take a year. They are still looking at construction in
FY06.
The question was asked what other federal
entities are being considered as part of the IPT. Jim replied that there are only a couple options since only two
agencies have recent ship construction experience.
Ocean
Class Planning – An ONR representative was not present,
so discussions from the FIC meeting were briefly summarized. ONR has indicated that they are still very
interested in Ocean Class construction.
Admiral Cohen is a strong advocate, but ONR has to compete with the rest
of the Navy for funding. ONR will
support a Phase II study and they are finalizing the JJMA statement of
work. They welcome UNOLS input to the
project.
FOFC
Implementation Plan – There is language from the Senate for
NSF to provide an agency implementation plan.
The status of this is unclear at this time.
Ocean
Commission Recommendations – It was reported that the Ocean
Commission report would likely be supportive of academic fleet renewal.
Ship Design and Construction Efforts:
Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) – Terry Whitledge reviewed the
status and future plans in the ARRV design effort. Terry’s viewgraphs are included in Appendix VII. He reviewed the key changes in the design,
deck equipment issues, handicap access issues, security systems, broadband
communications, and the science equipment list.
A key change in the design was the decision to use a Z-Drive propulsion system instead of Azipods. The propulsion evaluation of the Azipod revealed that the system exceeded the noise criteria. Z-drives will improve underwater-radiated noise characteristics over all frequency bands. The vessel will potentially be able to meet ICES noise goals up to 11 knots except in the very low frequency bands. The ship’s length had to be increased by 10 feet to accommodate the z-drives. This will allow for an added fuel capacity resulting in increased endurance. It appears that there will be no impact on resistance or sea keeping characteristics.
Another key change in the design is with the arrangements. These include:
·
Move
the bridge as far aft as possible for aft deck visibility
· Add a hydro boom control room (01 deck) with visibility to the Baltic room and the exterior of the vessel
· Relocate service lift to Baltic room for interior access
· Rearrange galley/mess area
· Rearrange/relocate EOS
· Add mammal observation area on forward 03 deck
· Reduce the size of the science office
· Add a science workshop on the main deck
· Add main deck camber (outboard of trawlway)
Terry reviewed deck equipment issues
regarding the motion compensated hydro-boom arrangement.
Both Dynacon and Markey proposed arrangements for a motion-compensated
hydro-boom involving dedicated deck space in the Baltic room that would reduce
the utility of the space. Both Dynacon
and Markey noted that operating the motion-compensated boom within the confines
of the Baltic room and through the existing Baltic room side port pose significant
design constraints.
Handicap access issues have been addressed. Current handicap access arrangements include one handicap stateroom provided on the 01 deck. A personnel lift, handicap accessible, is provided for access to all deck levels with the exception of the bridge. All passageways are a minimum 4-ft width to accommodate handicap access. Additionally, portable/dropping door coamings will be provided on the exterior entry door on the main deck.
Terry commented that they are pleased
with the news that the ARRV has been included in the MRE account.
Terry Whitledge is completing his term on
the Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC). He was presented with a certificate of appreciation for his
service on the AICC by Tim Cowles, UNOLS Chair.
EWING Mid-Life Refit/Replacement Plans - Mike Purdy of Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) provided a report on plans for EWING’s mid-life refit/replacement. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix VIII.
MAURICE EWING was built in 1983 and converted in 1989-1990. It is 237 feet in length and accommodations include 29 Science Berths. In planning for the EWING mid-life refit needs, the following questions were considered:
- How might EWING be upgraded to best address the scientific needs of the community?
- What additional capabilities should the ship have?
- What are the tradeoffs between optimizing seismic capabilities
and general-purpose capabilities?
Science needs have changed since
EWING entered the fleet. The future
scientific requirements have been identified and are listed in Appendix
VIII. To address these science needs,
the community will need:
· Ocean Observatory Systems
· High Resolution bathymetry/side-scan and advanced seafloor imaging and sampling
· 2D and 3D Multi-channel seismics and large arrays of OBS/OBH
· Broadband seismic instruments
· Repeat seismic surveys, seafloor geodetic instruments
· Time series measurements of ocean currents and properties
· Hard rock and water sampling capabilities; heat flow measurements
· High resolution sub-bottom profiling
· Long sediment cores and large volume shallow cores
· Active archives of MGG data; centralized searchable online metadata catalog
To plan for the refit of EWING, LDEO solicited input from community via EOS advertising, direct mailing; and requests in community newsletters. They established a new internal advisory committee along with a community-wide steering committee. An extensive set of ‘Technical Option Papers’ has been produced. A workshop was held in October 2002 and LDEO has produced a workshop report.
Key statements of the EWING
Mid-life workshop summary and conclusions included:
· “A refit of EWING cannot improve 2-D MCS and provide an effective multiple streamer capability (for 3D) and substantially improve general-purpose operations.
· Quality of present EWING MCS operations would be substantially improved through increased repeatability of the sound source.
· In the refit of EWING, use of a linear airgun array forces serious compromises in OBS and general-purpose operations.
· In the refit of EWING, without a linear airgun array, there are excellent options for new lab and deck layouts.”
The workshop recommended that if
the goal is to tow multiple long streamers, improve source repeatability using
linear gun arrays, and improve the vessel’s general purpose/OBS capabilities,
then EWING cannot satisfy these needs, and the possibility of securing a used
industry vessel should be studied. In
response, LDEO has formulated a set of three options for discussion:
Maximize EWING general-purpose capabilities, and enhance conventional MCS.
· Outfit EWING with linear gun array
· Acquire a replacement vessel.
Replacing the EWING with a used industry vessel would greatly enhance the US Academia’s capability to collect MCS and OBS seismic data.
Mike Purdy reviewed the science capabilities of a potential replacement vessel. The ship would have 4 streamers x 6 km (8 km) with separation up to 200m. There would be four linear gun arrays (Dual Source) with separation +/-50m. The ship’s dynamic positioning capability would include a twin screw with bow tunnel thruster and would include a forward azimuthing thruster. The ship’s over-the-side capability would match or exceed EWING’s for over-the-side handling. Lab area far exceeds EWING’s and there is more open deck than on EWING. There would be a five-van/container capacity without effecting other operations. A scale model of the replacement vessel was on display at the meeting.
Cost for a EWING refit is estimated at $12M. The estimated cost for acquisition of the replacement ship is $7M with an additional cost of approximately $12M for conversion (which includes costs for re-flagging). The potential replacement vessel is a 1991 hull form.
Bob
Knox asked if the daily rate for the replacement ship would be much higher than
EWING’s. Mike indicated that there are
additional costs but not significant.
Mike
Prince stated that Al Walsh and Paul Ljunggren have created a draft SMR for a
Global Seismic Vessel. It is posted on
the UNOLS website and community review is encouraged.
Annual Meeting Cancellation - Tim Cowles officially announced that
the Annual meeting scheduled for 19 September is cancelled due to Hurricane
Isabel.
PELICAN Mid-Life - Steve Rabalais reported on the PELICAN mid-life refit effort. The PELICAN began its refit at Conrad Shipyard on November 4, 2002. Seven months later on 31 May 2003 sea trials were completed and science operations resumed. Support for the refit included $1.8M from the State of Louisiana, $260K from LUMCON, and $370K from NSF for a total cost of $2,430,000. As a major part of the refit, the ship was extended approximately 11 feet. Some of the major mid-life items include:
· 280 sq. ft. of open back deck.
· 25 tons of deck load compared to 15 tones before refit
· 2,496 cu. ft. storage space
· 8 linear ft. of dry lab.
· Upper deck science lounge.
· Two additional science berths (total science capacity = 16).
· Completely new interior.
· Major overhauls on main and generator diesel engines.
· New main engine gears.
· All new bilge, ballast, fire fighting, domestic/portable water (including new MSD), seawater, fuel, and MIDAS piping including pumps, valves, strainers, and manifolds.
· All new electrical systems
· New main trawl/coring winch and new deck crane.
Status of CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement effort - Annette summarized a report by Matt Hawkins on the CAPE HENLOPEN replacement plans. On August 29th four shipyard proposals were received for the construction of the CHRV. The total cost was slightly higher than expected, but the proposals were competitive and pricing was relatively tight. The University of Delaware is in a 90-day shipyard evaluation process and cannot discuss precise cost details at this time. Matt has been instructed by the UDel leadership to proceed toward yard selection and contract negotiation. Contract signing is currently projected for November.
CAPE HATTERAS Mid-life – Bruce Corliss briefly reported (via
phone conference) on the status of the CAPE HATTERAS mid-life effort. The mid-life work is 90% done and the ship
is back in operation. The wet labs
improvements are being completed. They
hope to have all items complete in the next six months. The remaining work is being done in homeport
dockside.
Open Discussion on Fleet
Renewal Issues:
Coring – There was discussion on coring
capabilities and if these operations could be conducted from a SWATH
vessel. Hawaii has indicated that
coring can be done off the stern of KILO MOANA, but other operations may not be
done simultaneously. Also, there would
be limitations to the length of cores.
It was pointed out that the Ocean Class SMRs specifically define the
desired coring length. As the Ocean
Class concept design analysis goes forward, we need to ensure that the desired
coring capability is not lost.
UNOLS
Discussion Items:
Ocean
Studies Board’s Committee on Future Needs in Deep Submergence Science –
Patty Fryer report on the status of the OSB committee study. There have been
three meetings of this group and a variety of presentations have been
made. The first meeting focused on the
National Deep Submergence Facility and Human Occupied Vehicles (HOVs). The second meeting focused on deep
submergence science drivers, various submergence vehicles and new
technologies. The third meeting was closed. The draft report is being circulated for
review and should be available later in the fall.
UNOLS Working Group on Ocean Observatory Facility Needs – Dana Yoerger was to report on the status of the working group efforts to address ocean observatory facility needs; however, because of the storm he was unable to attend the meeting. Annette summarized his slides that were provided in advance of the meeting. The slides are included as Appendix IX. The working group was formed early in the year by the UNOLS Council. The group membership and full task statement is included in Appendix IX. The group was asked to identify facility support needs for ocean observatories in terms of both ships and submergence vehicles. They studied:
·
Deep ocean
seafloor observatories
·
Deck
handling and mooring deployment/recovery needs
·
ROV and AUV
requirements
·
Mapping
requirements
·
Coastal
observatory requirements (including aircraft)
Vessel characteristics, possible improvements, and recommendations for new vessel designs.
They met once in February. Since that time they have been gathering information and drafting their report.
The working group agrees with these estimates and emphasizes that access to ROVs must become routine for observatory maintenance and science.
Annette showed a map of the moored-buoy observatories locations. Many of the locations are in high latitudes where high sea states can be expected. Ships that can operate in these conditions will be needed. Some buoys are moored in waters that are at depths of up to 3000m. The deep-water observatories will require:
· A heavy lift capability for cable servicing (20,000 lbs or more) – equipment and specially trained personnel.
· Large open deck space
· More sophisticated, redundant DP capability
· The ability to operate in higher sea states
· Routine access to ROVs for all observatories operations.
Some modification to the Global Class ships should be considered to improve their utility for observatory operations. UNOLS should also consider the acquisition or long-term lease of a heavy lift vessel.
Slides demonstrating two baseline repair scenarios for seafloor observatories were shown. Both options require ROVs. The minimal handling equipment that will be required to support seafloor observatories include an aft chute, 20,000 lb Safe Working Load (SWL) winch and 2 capstans (10,000 lbs each for handling soft line) with stoppers applied on deck. Generic equipment that will be required included capstans/tuggers, grappling gear, hard/soft stoppers, cable splicing gear (several transportainers), and deck space.
Various improvements to UNOLS vessels should be considered. These include:
· Shrouded Z-drive nozzles to protect props from cables
· Slight increase in fuel capacity
· Improvement in low speed/DP efficiency
· Install redundant DP systems to improve reliability during critical operations
· Remove part (or all) of the hangar on the Global Class ships to increase deck space
· Remove all of superstructure aft of hydro lab to really increase deck space (requires naval architect study)
· Increase A-frame SWL through ship modification to spread the load
· Consider installation of stronger A-frame/heavier winch combinations to increase load-handling ability to 20,000 lbs static.
The working group stresses the major safety issues regarding ocean observatory operations. These operations will require specially trained crew with expertise in heavy lifting work.
As another option, the acquisition or lease of a heavy lift vessel should be considered. Applications for such a vessel include:
· Cabled observatory maintenance and modification
· Cable reuse (H2O as prototype)
· Large buoy installation and maintenance
· Long coring operations
The submarine telecommunications marketplace collapsed in 2001 just as major cable ship deliveries took place. As a result, cable maintenance vessels can be purchased for approximately 10% of construction cost. This is a short-term opportunity that will not last. Some of the advantages of acquiring a commercial vessel include:
A slide of a typical cable repair ship was presented. The ship is approximately 100m in length. It is equipped with a large cable drum, a heavy-duty a-frame, aft chute, and open deck space.
Routine access to ROVs will be required for all observatory operations. One additional vehicle will be required when the OOI is implemented (2-3 years from now). One more vehicle will be required when OOI facilities are fully operational (5-7 years from now). Commercial ROVs are not suitable for most science operations but may be usable for routine maintenance tasks.
Coastal observatory needs are also being studied and preliminary findings indicate the need for:
· Better access to vessels for observatory research
· Ten local or regional vessels distributed on the east and west coast
· Need for coordination of multiple vessel operations
· Need for rapid response capability
· Long duration glider-type AUVs will be a key observation platform
· Aircraft facility needs.
Council
discussion followed. Dale Chayes
commented that the group should explore a service agreement arrangement. There are commercial companies that have
ships located globally and could provide a heavy lift capability. This would eliminate the need to drive a
UNOLS ship around the world to support the various observatories.
Jim
Yoder commented that once the OOI office is established they will be tasked to
address the issues identified in this report.
Perhaps they will be asked to work with the working group and FIC. Until funding is in place, it will be
difficult to address the facility needs.
Icebreaker Plans and Major
Issues – Lisa Clough
could not attend the meeting, but provided her slides on the USCG POLAR Class
Icebreaker Science Upgrade Workshop held in June. These slides are included as Appendix X.
Mike Prince reviewed Lisa’s slides.
Extreme 2002-2003 Antarctic ice conditions required two USCG icebreakers, HEALY and POLAR SEA. POLAR SEA experienced propeller casualties. The #1 blade on the starboard prop broke off while breaking heavy ice. This is a yet another sign that the POLARs are in need of upgrade.
Quality of Service, Post Cruise
Assessment – The status of the Subcommittee on
Post Cruise Assessments and their tasking was discussed. The FIC has requested
that the subcommittee inform them of feedback regarding fleet improvement
suggestions.
Dolly
commented that the new PCA forms have been very helpful in determining
equipment needs and for the ship inspections.
Dale
commented that the forms should not be used to as a way to grade cruise
success. They do not allow for an
adequate way of quantitatively assessing cruises. Mike Prince showed a slide on the percent return by chief
scientists. Mike Reeve stated that NSF
is interested in the assessment grade, as well as the improvement
suggestions. NSF is required to provide
a quantitative assessment of quality of service. Dale explained that he is not implying that there shouldn’t be a
grade. What he is saying is that the
form does not give a grade. Most of the
assessments submitted indicate that everything is above average. Mike Prince stated that many comments have
been submitted regarding the grade system.
It needs to be looked at carefully.
Peter
Wiebe remarked that the committee is in the best position to advise on how
their tasking should be revised. Mike
Prince suggested that the subcommittee communicate via phone/web conference.
Lastly,
Mike Prince reported that we are trying to eliminate the paper PCA form. So far this year the on-line return is
approximately 53%. Since the
implementation of the on-line form, we have seen a lower response level. However, PCAs are often submitted at the end
of the year.
Defined
Levels of Technician/Instrumentation Support – Annette
reviewed the status of the RVTEC Subcommittee on Technical Services. Her slides are included as Appendix
XI.
The outline and information will reside
on the web. The actual design of the
web page has not yet been addressed, and the subcommittee recommends that
professional services be contracted to help design the website.
In related issues, Patty Fryer reported
that she has been on two ships recently that the marine technicians were not
aware of the RVTEC and their activities.
Dale replied that if that is the case, the heads of the ship technician
groups are not doing their jobs. NSF
pays for technical support and provides support for each marine group to attend
the RVTEC meetings. This is area that
needs to be addressed further.
New
Security Regulations –The Security Committee will meet in
Duluth, just prior to the RVOC meeting.
UNOLS Wires and Cables – Mike Prince reported on plans for developing
new wire and establishing safe working load parameters. Mike had included support for developing a
new wire spec in the UNOLS proposal.
The agencies recommended that it be removed from the proposal. Instead they requested that Mike draft performance
requirements for a new wire. Mike has
drafted these and has sent them out to a few people for review. These people had previously expressed
interest in the program. Once the
performance requirements are reviewed, they will be posted on the UNOLS website
for community comment.
Winches – Dolly reported that this is an area of
high interest. The Dynacon and Markey
winch manufacturers will visit ships to review servicing procedures and the
condition of the winches. Mike Prince
is in the process of scheduling these visits.
Opportunity
for Additional Reports and Comments:
RVOC
Safety Committee Appointment – The question was
asked if Council approval was required for an RVTEC appointment to RVOC Safety
committee. No.
RVTEC
– The November RVTEC meeting will include an open
dialog about wireless capabilities aboard ships.
SSC
– The Ship Scheduling Committee will continue to
address any unresolved scheduling issues.
DESSC
– Patty reported that access to non-NDSF
submergence assets is an issue. When a
PI submits a request to NSF for use of an asset that is not in the NDSF, it
often gets reviewed negatively. Patty
has sent a letter to agencies regarding this issue.
Agency
Activities – Mike Reeve provided information on changes with
the review process for ship operation proposals. In the past, the ship facility program was reviewed every five
years and a waiver was granted to allow review of ship operation proposals
internally within NSF. After this
current waiver runs out (last year of the waiver), starting with the FY05
proposals, the ship operation proposals will be reviewed using the same process
as all other NSF proposals. The proposals
will be peer reviewed and NSF will not apply for the waiver.
Council Members –
Tim Cowles recognized departing Council and Committee members and thanked them
for their dedicated service to UNOLS:
UNOLS Council
·
Tom Shipley, University of Texas at Austin
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee
·
Larry Lawver,
University of Texas at Austin
·
Terry Whitledge, University of Alaska at
Fairbanks
Fleet Improvement Committee
·
Larry Atkinson (Chair), Old Dominion University
Research Vessel Operators’ Committee
·
Steve Rabalais (Chair), Louisiana Universities
Marine Consortium
Ship Scheduling Committee
·
Joe Ustach (Chair), Duke University
·
Daniel Schwartz, (V-Chair), University of
Washington
Scientific Committee for Oceanographic
Aircraft Research
·
Carl Friehe (Chair), University of California at
Irvine
Presentations
were made to Joe Ustach for his service as Chair of the Ship Scheduling
Committee and to Steve Rabalais for his service as Chair of the Research Vessel
Operators’ Committee. Each was
presented with a UNOLS plaque.
Other Issues:
Summer
Council Meeting - Tim Cowles announced that there would be no summer Council
meeting in 2004. Any business will be
conducted via phone/web conferencing.
The meeting adjourned at 1300.