UNOLS FLEET IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
October 5, 2005
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 320
Arlington, VA 22230
A pdf version of these minutes can be downloaded at <200510ficmi.pdf>.
Executive Summary:
The
UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) met on October 5, 2005 at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA.
The first part of the meeting was spent reviewing Fleet renewal
activities. An update on the Regional
Class acquisition status, operator selection, and timeline was provided. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for
design/build teams is expected in the first quarter of FY06. NSF has indicated that operator selection
for the Regional Class ships might have to wait until there is official
authorization to construct the ship.
Authorization for construction would be requested after the Phase I
design process has been completed and the construction cost is known. John Freitag reported on the Ocean Class
acquisition status. ONR was directed to
include $25M in their FY07 budget and that it should be SCN funds. There is also $4M in their budget to begin
the design process. The status of these
items is currently unclear. The Navy FY06 budget has not been passed and they
are operating on a continuing resolution.
Bob
Houtman provided that status of the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee
(FOFC) Long-Range Fleet Renewal Plan. The
Plan groups the ships into two categories, Research and Survey,
and three classes, Global, Ocean, and Regional. Based on agency budget projections, the overall fleet size will
decrease from 48 ships to 47 by 2015; 18 ships will be retired and 17 new
advanced ships are planned during this period.
By 2025 an additional 14 ships will be retired while only 2 new ships
are planned, decreasing the fleet size to 35 ships, provided that the funds are
available to build the ships identified in the plan. They hope to have a revised draft to FOFC in November.
A
good part of the meeting was devoted to a detailed the review of the draft
UNOLS 2006 Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP).
There was consensus that the report’s introduction and executive summary
should emphasize the need for the Fleet.
Also, the science sections need to clearly state why ships are
needed. The draft will be revised.
The
need to establish research vessel guidelines for the American’s with
Disabilities Act (ADA) was discussed.
NSF has indicated the need for new ship
construction and ship conversion efforts to address ADA requirements. A UNOLS ad hoc committee will
be formed to develop ADA
guidelines.
Reports on various ship design, construction, conversion and transfers were provided. These included the Marcus Langseth conversion status, Alaska Region Replacement Vessel, Hugh R. Sharp delivery and outfitting update, and
Seward Johnson II transfer to BBSR status.
Action Items:
|
Task Description |
Action |
|
Regional Class Actions: |
|
|
· Stay engaged in acquisition process § Provide feedback to NSF §
Insure community input |
FIC, RCAC |
|
KILO MOANA Actions: |
|
|
·
Continue Select Debrief Interviews with more focused
set of questions. |
FIC |
|
·
Compile Debriefs for posting on the
UNOLS website |
Office -Ongoing |
|
·
Draft EOS or other appropriate article |
Dave and Brian
Taylor |
|
FOFC Fleet Plan Update - ·
Provide the Working Group information when requested. ·
Provide Statements of Science Imperative for Research
Vessels |
FIC |
|
Design and Constructions Efforts
- Stay engaged in ongoing design and construction efforts (ARRV, Langseth
Conversion, etc.) |
FIC - Ongoing |
|
Ocean Class Planning – Provided input as requested |
FIC and OCSC |
|
Global
Class: Update SMRs |
Global Class SMR Committee – ongoing |
|
2005 Fleet Improvement Plan: · Revise outline and plan organization. · Provide standard format for Science sections and clearly state the need for ships. · Complete draft text for all sections ·
Review Draft should be available for March Council
Meeting |
FIC – ongoing |
|
Ocean
Observatories – Stay in contact with ORION Office. |
Dave Hebert – ongoing |
|
FIC Membership – A replacement is needed for Ron Benner. Announce a call for nominations. |
Office |
|
ADA Guidelines: · Form a subcommittee to draft guidelines for new construction or ship conversions. Establish procedural guidelines for at-sea operations. · Convene a 2-day workshop as needed · Provide preliminary recommendations to NSF for Regional Class Construction effort · Provide draft recommendations in Spring 05 |
Peter Wiebe will task and form committee. |
Appendices:
I.
Agenda
II.
Attendees
III.
FIC Chair
and Office Meeting Slides
IV.
FOFC
Fleet Renewal Plan Update
V.
Marcus
Langseth
Conversion Update
VI.
Alaska
Region Research Vessel Design Update
VII.
Letter
from Matt Hawkins to FIC regarding R/V Hugh R. Sharp status
Meeting Summary Report:
Call the Meeting: The
UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) met on October 5, 2005 at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA.
Dave Hebert, FIC Chair, called the meeting to order at 0830 and
provided an opportunity for introductions.
The meeting agenda was followed in the order as recording in these
minutes. The meeting agenda is included
as Appendix I and the meeting participants are listed in Appendix
II.
A motion was made to accept the minutes of the March
2005 FIC Meeting. One correction
was pointed out. On page 9 it should
read “single streamer,” not “single screw.”
The minutes were approved upon the correction of page 9.
Dave reviewed the status of the FIC Action/Task List
from the October meeting (included in Appendix III). He reported that he and Peter Wiebe have attended FOFC meetings to represent UNOLS
and keep abreast of their plans to update the long-range fleet plan. UNOLS and
FIC will be tasked to establish ADA guidelines for research vessels. David Chapman of the University of Delaware
has been funded by NSF to study how research vessels currently accommodate
disabilities. UNOLS should keep abreast
of his findings. Dave reported that he
has been keeping in contact with the ORION Office and Bob Detrick. There is an ORION meeting in March 2006 to
review the proposed ideas for the observatory.
Dave will attend the meeting.
Fleet Renewal
Activities:
Regional
Class Acquisition Status, Operator Selection, and Timeline
- Pete Kilroy provided a brief status on the Regional Class acquisition
effort. First there was a discussion on
the open meeting policy. UNOLS meetings
are open. Pete expressed concern over
having a contractor present at the meeting.
The representative from Titan left the meeting. Mike Reeve indicated
that this issue would require further discussion. Pete Kilroy presented slides, but they will not be included with
the meeting minutes or posted on the web.
NSF
has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with PEOShips to manage the Regional Class
acquisition effort. PEOShips expects to
release the RFP for design/build teams in the first quarter of FY06. Pete presented the project timeline.
Mike
Reeve discussed the operator selection process for the Regional Class
ships. He explained that in order to
get permission to spend funds for the ship construction, they would need to
make the request before the NSF Board.
They cannot go before the Board until they have designed the ship and
know its cost. In turn, they cannot go
out for operator selection until they have permission for construction. This translates to operator selection in
early calendar year 2007. Margaret
Leinen may ask for guidance on this topic at the spring Board meeting. Mike Reeve explained that this is a default
stance and hopefully they will be successful in moving the operator selection
earlier.
The
group discussed the Regional Class performance specifications. FIC had expressed concern with including
science equipment details in the RFP.
Pete Kilroy explained that there are three options: government furnished
equipment (GFE), shipyard furnished, or purchase after delivery. If the decision is to provide equipment as
GFE, they would need to provide the space reservations - footprint, weight,
etc. If equipment were shifted from
contractor provided to GFE, the money would be shifted accordingly. Pete explained that there is flexibility and
funds for change orders.
Terry
Whitledge asked if ADA modifications would be considered and the budget
available to implement them. Pete
replied that if the ADA guidelines are defined now and built into the designs,
it would save cost. Peter Wiebe asked
if ADA requirements are defined and included in the bid package? Pete Kilroy replied, “no” because the ADA requirements are not
defined. Dave Hebert commented that
Dave Chapman has identified some items in his proposal. ADA will be discussed later in the meeting.
There
was concern over the science outfitting specifications. A better set of specs for mission equipment
is needed.
Al
Suchy commented that UNOLS provided many comments on the Regional Class
performance specifications, yet they did not get feedback on what was
incorporated by PEO Ships. Pete Kilroy
indicated that they probably would not be allowed to circulate a final draft of
the SOR before its release. Dan Rolland
indicated that they tried to incorporate as many comments as possible; about
80% were included.
Ocean
Class Acquisition Process Status and Timeline - John Freitag
(ONR) reported that once the Navy begins the acquisition process, they plan to
select the operator early. ONR was
directed to include $25M in their FY07 budget and that it should be Ship
Construction Navy (SCN) funds. This
would be included annually, so that there would be funds available to construct
a ship every three years. With the ship
construction funds included in the SCN account, it is competing against all
other Navy gray ships. There is also
$4M in their budget to begin the design process. The status of these items is currently unclear. The Navy FY06
budget has not been passed and they are operating on a continuing
resolution.
Peter
Wiebe questioned how the Navy would get community input into the Ocean Class
process.
The
plan has been challenging to put together.
The number of ships is much greater and the issues are more
complicated. They hope to have a
revised draft to FOFC in November.
Discussion
followed:
• Terry
Whitledge asked if the observatory facility needs had been addressed. Bob replied that since the ocean
observatories are not budgeted and funded, it is not reflected in the
plan. However, the text of the report
makes mention of them. They have not
been ignored, observatories are addressed to the level that they feel that they
can address it.
• Al
Suchy asked if the topic of SLEPs was addressed in the report. How are the costs being factored? Older ships are having a difficult time
finding maintenance parts.
• Peter
Wiebe asked who would approve this the Plan.
Bob explained that the National Oceanographic Leadership Council (NORLC)
is trying to work with the Ocean Action group.
They are moving towards resolution.
• Clare
Reimers asked how could we make sure that the FOFC and FIP reports are
consistent. Bob indicated that Peter
and Dave have attended FOFC meetings.
•
Terry Whitledge asked what should FIC provide as
input if they don’t know what the FOFC report includes. Bob replied that they are looking for statements
on why the fleet is needed. The Ocean
Action Plan very clearly states that the Fleet renewal plan is required. This report will have tremendous visibility. The report will be carefully reviewed and
scrutinized by OMB and others.
Break
Review
status of Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP) Update- Dave Hebert
reviewed the FIP outline. The next few
hours were spent reviewing and commenting on the FIP working draft. Below is a listing of many of the comments
and suggestions that were made.
• Move
the SLEP section into the section on future needs.
• The
introduction and executive summary should emphasize the need for the Fleet.
• The
Executive Summary should be able to serve as a stand-alone glossy brochure.
• In
the Future Fleet section – Use the FOFC plan as a starting point. Can the FOFC plan meet current demands?
• Explain
that SLEPs are needed if construction timelines shift.
• There
should be an important introduction to the science section that ties it all
together.
• The
group felt that there should be a common format to the sections.
• The
science sections need to clearly state why ships are needed.
• Put
ship needs into science introduction.
• What
is the compelling need for ships now?
• Outreach
and Education - Discuss the attributes for both the real experience vs. virtual
experience. Explain any special needs,
communications requirements, and space.
• Page
36 – Retirements chart. Either separate
or color code. Only show current fleet.
• Page
38 - Explain what Alvin is.
• Page
40 - remove highlight
• Add
a section on Polar vessel capability
• Page
41 – delete nuclear sub section.
• Remove
observatories from this section.
• Page
42 – Move retirement dates and SLEP
• Page
42 – add why the SLEP is considered.
“In order, to meet current demand, SLEPs can be conducted; however…”
• Page
46 – Explain why was Fleet underutilized?
Explain how the ships were used.
• Page
46 – Explain what the FOY is and why they differ by ship.
• Keep all ship
classes
in document.
• Page 51 – Science
berths represent non-crew bunks
• Page 52 – Show days. Add days.
• Page 54 – We should explain the
change from solid to dotted line is budget reductions.
• Page 55 – what
would have been needed in dollars to accommodate the deferred work?
• Fleet Costs – pie chart, show Kilo
Moana as Ocean Class. Indicate the
number of ships per class.
• Peter – add a chart
that shows the cost per bunk.
• Cost of operating,
fully utilized ship, by class for bunk cost.
• 57 – personnel (salary
and fringe),
fuel cost – can be added to the
fleet chart.
• Remove chart showing
Annual operating cost by class
• Start Kilo Moana in 2003
Lunch
Continue
review of FIP Update:
-
Page 61 – Start the section with an intro about projections. In the second
paragraph: “The academic community
envisions a need for ship support…”
-
Then define the FOFC projections. Explain that FOFC Plan is
constrained by budget.
-
Then explain our projections that would enable the future
science.
-
Keep the ocean observatory projections in – just shade it lighter.
-
Keep the first chart and the second chart.
-
There is concern about showing utilization with
out showing demand. What was deferred?
-
Add the STR estimate to the chart.
-
Move the construction timeline back or remove. Remove “realistic”
-
Ocean Observatory:
Chave report is extreme – knowing this, we are reducing it by 1/3.
-
Move Fleet distribution, scheduling, and operating
modes to the “Fleet description” section.
-
There was discussion on who is going to
read this document– who is the audience?
-
UNOLS
-
Academic community
-
Agency reps
-
Congress.
•
Move some sections of the report into the Appendix.
•
Move the distribution and leasing into the “What is a
UNOLS Ship”
section.
•
Page 72 – ship scheduling – describe how the process takes
place – short piece.
•
Shortfalls are the priority – should be in front of
report. Ex Summary
•
Define possible scenarios:
-
FOFC Plan
-
Less than FOFC Plan
-
SLEPs carried out
American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidelines – Peter Wiebe reported that NSF has indicated the need for new ship construction and ship
conversion efforts to address ADA requirements. In response, an ad hoc committee should
be formed to develop ADA guidelines for
new ship construction/conversion. This task has become more urgent
now that guidelines are needed for the Regional Class.
Peter
reviewed the draft task statement. His
slides are included in Appendix III.
Draft Task Statement:
Establish ADA Guidelines for new ship construction/conversion
o
–Review
and provide input to the ADA paper drafted by Terry Whitledge.
o
Evaluate
guidelines on how to implement ADA requirements for passenger vessels <http://www.access-board.gov/pvaac/guidelines.htm>.
ADA guidelines should take into consideration the size of the vessel, as well as the nature of the disability (hearing, vision, and mobility). There are levels of accommodations that can be made.
•
Recommend
how procedural guidelines could be established for accommodating seagoing
scientists with disabilities. This should consider shipboard mobility and
access areas, research
operations, and evacuation / safety procedures.
Terry Whitledge
recommended
that the committee hold a two-day workshop to brainstorm and develop the
guidelines. Representatives from the US
Coast Guard can be invited.
Membership
on the Committee
was discussed. Terry was asked to
consider the Chair position. It was
agreed that the Committee include sea-going scientists with disabilities.
The
guidelines would not apply to the crew, since they come under STCW.
The
recommendation to hold a workshop will be added to the task
list. In order to meet the Regional
Class schedule, the draft ADA guidelines would be needed in March.
Break
1430 American’s
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidelines – Plans are underway to form an ad hoc committee
to address ADA guidelines for new ship construction/conversion. Additionally
the group should recommend how procedural guidelines could be established for
accommodating seagoing scientists with disabilities. Review draft task items and related activities. (Peter Wiebe)
Design,
Construction, Conversion and Transfers:
Marcus Langseth Conversion Status - Jim Cochran provided
a status report on the Marcus Langseth conversion effort. His slides are contained in Appendix V. Jim reported that a UNOLS Oversight
committee, Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC), has been
proposed for the vessel. The UNOLS
membership will vote on adopting that committee at their Annual meeting. Jim reviewed the conversion timeline. LDEO is required to have an open bid process,
which has
resulted in a delay of the conversion effort. LDEO has hired a 3-D seismic science officer. They have submitted a proposal for the post-conversion
shakedown
cruise. The shakedown will be a two-phase
approach. In the first phase,
non-seismic
items, such as, hydraulics, DP, OBS recovery, and marine mammal mitigations
would be evaluated. The second phase would
evaluate seismic
operations. A 3-D seismic imaging 2-day workshop was held in
September and was
well
attended. The request for
shipyard bids has been issued. The
timeline indicates that the ship could be ready for science operations in
October 2006.
Alaska Region Replacement Vessel (ARRV) - Terry Whitledge gave a status report on the ARRV. His slides are included as Appendix VI. The tasks that remain before construction include the final design spiral, updated science instrumentation, enhance ADA configuration, update science justification, and encourage community support. They reserved $20K of their budget for the final design spiral. They plan to complete the final design spiral once the actual funding get closer.
Hugh R. Sharp – Delivery and
outfitting update – Matt Hawkins provided a written status report on Hugh
R. Sharp’s delivery and outfitting efforts. It is included as Appendix VII. Annette DeSilva provided a brief summary of
the report (included in Appendix III):
•
Sept/Oct
2005 – Shipyard Trials
•
Sept 15 – Preliminary
Acoustic trials – Overall results were excellent
•
Oct 10 – Acceptance of vessel
by UDel is planned
•
Early Dec – Ship arrives in
Port Everglades, FL
•
Winter 05/06 – Cape
Henlopen cross-decking in Lewes, DE
•
Jan 06 – Caley CTD Handling
system delivery.
•
March 21-23 – NSF Inspection
•
Late March – Science
operations begin.
Seward Johnson II transfer
to BBSR status - Annette DeSilva provided a brief status on the transfer of
Seward Johnson II (SJII) to Bermuda Biological Station for Research
(BBSR). A slide is included in Appendix
III. BBSR is moving forward
with plans to acquire R/V Seward Johnson II and retire R/V
Weatherbird II. SJII
completed sea trials on September 29th and ABS
certified the ship classification on September 30th. SJII will arrive at Lyon’s Shipyard
in Norfolk, VA for a 4.5-month modification and maintenance period. In January, Weatherbird II will
arrive at Lyon’s shipyard for cross decking. Cape Hatteras will support
BATS during this period. SJII is
scheduled to begin operations and support of BATS in March 2006.
Kilo Moana discussion - Dave Hebert lead a discussion on the Kilo Moana debrief process and future plans. Slides are included in Appendix III. Dave review a revised set of Kilo Moana debrief questions that had been prepared by Terry Whitledge:
A.
What were the
most positive aspects of your research cruise on the R/V KILO MOANA?
B.
What were the
most negative aspects of your research cruise on the R/V KILO MOANA?
C.
Did sea
conditions ever prevent or impair any of the science operations? If so, how?
D.
Was station
keeping and maneuvering on station satisfactory for all science
operations?
E.
Were all
science systems operating properly and fully functional?
What was the habitability of the science spaces and living quarters?
Marc Willis
commented that only
questions C and D are relevant to a SWATH.
So why are these questions needed? Dave
replied that there is a need to inform the community about
what is real
and what is not in regard to the Kilo Moana’s capabilities.
There was a discussion on FIC’s
interaction with the University of Hawaii.
FIC sent UH
a set of questions and issues that were identified in the debriefs, but UH
hasn’t responded. John Freitag and Dolly Dieter
indicated that
the funding
needed to correct some of the problems has not been provided to UH. Better interaction and improved communications
with Hawaii
and FIC is probably needed.
Dave will contact Brian Taylor to discuss a future approach that would
meet everyone’s goals.
Ocean Observatories –Dave Hebert reported that he has been in contact with the ORION office. A conference is planned in March 2006 and additional information about facility needs might be known at that time.