UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
8:30 A.M., Tuesday, 13 October 2009
National Science Foundation, Stafford
II, Room 555
4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA
Meeting Minutes
Executive Summary:
The UNOLS Council met at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA on the morning of October 13, 2009. Major discussion topics included:
·
Antarctic
research vessels and UNOLS/AICC
·
The
UNOLS research vessel designation of R/V Seward
Johnson
·
The process
for recommending non-operational periods of ships in the UNOLS Fleet
·
Greening the UNOLS Fleet initiatives
·
Endorsement of the R2R Project
Status reports on various UNOLS activities were provided. Committee Chairs had an opportunity to raise issues requiring Council attention.
Appendices:
Action Items:
1) Antarctic Research Vessels
and UNOLS:
· Form an ad-hoc committee to develop the terms of reference for a UNOLS Antarctic Research Vessel Coordinating standing committee.
· The ad-hoc committee would also suggest the charter membership for the standing committee.
· After Council endorsement of the terms and members, this item will be added as a Ballot Measure to the 2010 Annual Meeting Agenda
· ACTION: Vernon will appoint ad-hoc committee members and draft their task statement. The UNOLS Office will assist.
2) UNOLS Involvement at Future Science Meetings - Explore the possibility of an AGU session on the UNOLS Fleet.
3) Greening the UNOLS Fleet –This will be a goal for the upcoming year.
4) Post Cruise
Assessment Report Subcommittee:
·
Fill
committee membership vacancies.
·
Send
the subcommittee the next set of PCARs
for review.
·
Review
the new draft form.
5) Investigate the feasibility of a more
flexible UNOLS to meet the needs of additional users:
· Form an ad hoc committee to investigate the problem and make recommendations
· The ad hoc committee would prepare a White Paper addressing fleet opportunities, constraints, and methods that are successful in engaging new users.
· The ad-hoc committee should define how decisions are made regarding ship use.
· Ad hoc members include:
o John Diebold
o Nancy Rabalais
o Mary Jane Perry
o Stan Winslow
o Dennis Nixon can contribute.
o Agency reps.
· ACTION - Vernon will prepare their task statement.
6) Gender Climate at Sea - The UNOLS Office will work with Kenneth Coale to determine the cost,
scope, and what is needed to tailor Workplace Answers on-line training to
vessel operations.
Council Recommendations and Endorsements:
· R/V Seward Johnson –The Council accepted HBOI’s letter to withdraw the designation of R/V Seward Johnson as a UNOLS vessel, but maintains their membership as a non-ship operator.
· R2R Project - The Council endorsed the letter from Jim Holik to initiate the R2R program in the UNOLS Fleet.
Meeting Minutes:
Call the Meeting: The UNOLS Council met at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA on the morning of October 13, 2009. Vernon Asper, UNOLS Chair, called the meeting to order and provided an opportunity for introductions. The agenda for the meeting is included as Appendix I and the participant list is Appendix II.
Accept the minutes of the July 2009 Council Meeting – The Council voted to approve the minutes of the July Council meeting as amended by Marcia McNutt and Nancy Rabalais.
Antarctic Research Vessels and UNOLS - Alex Isern (NSF/OPP) reported that NSF/OPP is interested in bringing the Antarctic research vessels more in line with UNOLS. She pointed out that:
· There is a desire to increase access to the vessels, by breaking down access barriers
· They would like to increase the sharing of equipment and services
· There hasn’t been a seismic cruise in years.
· The future of Laurence Gould is a concern.
· NSF’s lease for use of the Nathaniel B. Palmer runs out in 2012. It will likely be renewed for 5 years. At that time the vessel will be at about 20-25 year life. There are a lot of internal discussions on future plans. It is difficult to justify a mid-life refit for a vessel that you don’t own.
· Last year, if it hadn’t been for strong community support, future access to Gould would have been lost.
Discussion:
· Marcia McNutt – How does the delay in renewing the Palmer’s contract for Antarctic services impact operations? Alex – It won’t affect operations, there is a six month overlap.
· Dan Schwartz – Do you see a UNOLS AICC-type committee for the Antarctic? AICC has worked very well in providing a voice for the Arctic scientists and advising on the use of Healy. AICC’s user debriefs have been very effective. Alex – NSF can’t direct Raytheon; however, ARVOC can provide advice to Raytheon. NSF’s relationship with the USCG is stressed in the Antarctic, so a committee that is separate from the AICC might be needed.
· John Diebold – Does Raytheon deal solely with Edison Chouest? Alex – Yes, but they don’t have to. NSF can interject and deal with Chouest; however, it requires a lot of effort.
· Jim Holik – In his days at Raytheon, they didn’t interact with UNOLS. He would like to see more of the UNOLS model applied to Antarctic operations – UNOLS is leaner in terms of the technical support that is provided at sea. There are pros and cons to both models.
· Vernon – He served on the ARVOC and he doesn’t feel that they were very effective. Alex – The ARVOC reviews past and current operations, but doesn’t think ahead. However, there are a lot of differences with how AICC conducts business for coordination and planning for Arctic operations and what is needed in the Antarctica.
· Vernon –It seems like a separate UNOLS committee for Antarctic is desired. This new committee could meet jointly with AICC on occasion. They could do post cruise user debriefs that would go to Raytheon.
· Marcia – It is very important to carefully consider the membership of this new committee.
· Annette – We work to have broad disciplinary representation on the UNOLS standing committees. If the Council is considering the formation of a new standing committee, an ad-hoc committee should be formed to draft the terms for the new standing committee. The ad-hoc committee should also identify and nominate charter members. At next year’s Annual Meeting, a ballot measure can be added for a membership vote on the addition of the new standing committee.
· Alex – The USAP renewal date is Oct 2010. Forming a new committee at this time would be good.
· Dan Schwartz – What are the concerns/stresses with USCG. Alex – NSF used the foreign vessel Oden for breakout and there are three more years on the Oden’s charter for breakout. Mike – There is tension because the USCG icebreaker operating funds are in the NSF budget. Until that is changed, there will always be tension.
· Marcia – To what extent is there connectivity to the ships. Alex – Limited, there is no live internet. They will get Fleet Broadband. Jim Holik – At high latitudes there will be gaps. 95% of the time there will be gaps. Marcia – By increasing connectivity, it could broaden the number of people using the ships. It would increase access and should be a major focus.
A motion was made to form an ad-hoc committee with the task of drafting Terms of Reference for a new Standing Committee on Antarctic Research Vessel coordination and oversight. The ad hoc committee would also identify the charter members for the new committee (Pinkel/Marcia). The Council voted unanimously in favor. Motion passed.
Actions:
- Vernon will appoint an ad-hoc committee to develop the terms of reference for a UNOLS Antarctic Research Vessel Coordinating standing committee.
- The ad-hoc committee would suggest the charter membership for the standing committee.
- After Council endorsement of the terms and members, this item will be added as a Ballot Measure to the 2010 Annual Meeting Agenda
UNOLS Research Vessel Designation discussion regarding R/V Seward Johnson – Jon Alberts reported on the status of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution’s plans for future operation of the R/V Seward Johnson. His slides are included as Appendix III.
Prior to the Council meeting, Jon prepared an information package for the Council that included documentation on the requirements for being a UNOLS Vessel, the definition of a research vessel, and background information on the correspondences between HBOI and NSF and UNOLS.
From the Code of Federal Regulations, § 188.10-53, “The term oceanographic research vessel means a vessel that the Secretary finds is being employed only in instruction in oceanography or limnology, or both, or only in oceanographic or limnological research, including those studies about the sea such as seismic, gravity meter, and magnetic exploration and other marine geophysical or geological surveys, atmospheric research, and biological research.”
In June 2009, a commercial company called UNOLS concerned that Seward Johnson was competing in the commercial sector. On June 16th, NSF and UNOLS were informed by HBOI’s Director of Center of Ocean Engineering and Director of Tech Operations that HBOI was bidding on commercial work but would like to continue as a UNOLS member until a decision was reached.
In a letter dated, July 4th from Peter Tatro (FAU/HBOI) to the Council, Tatro explained that FAU/HBOI was working to join the CEPEMAR consortium for ship work in Brazil for the commercial firm, Petrobras. If selected, HBOI anticipates having to withdraw the Seward Johnson from UNOLS.
On September 15th, Bill Baxley (HBOI) informed UNOLS that HBOI had been selected by CEPEMAR. Some procedural issues had to be addressed, and it was “looking good” that the Seward Johnson would be working in Brazil.
On October 12th, Peter Tatro sent a letter to UNOLS, stating that HBOI would remove the vessel, R/V Seward Johnson from UNOLS, but that HBOI would like to maintain their membership with UNOLS as a non-ship operator (see Appendix IV). The cruises that are scheduled on Seward Johnson are being rescheduled to other vessels.
Discussion:
· Marcia McNutt – What is the future of HBOI’s submersibles? Jon – The future of the submersibles is uncertain. Seward Johnson is currently the only ship that can operate their subs.
· Rich Findley – The vessel will most likely support environmental/research operations, not exploration. This might include submersible operations. The future is still unclear and it is very early in this new partnership.
· Jon – HBOI is determining if the USCG will let them keep their “Research Vessel” designation.
· Vernon – Peter Tatro’s letter indicates that HBOI could not support the vessel financially by keeping it within UNOLS. Should UNOLS be more flexible in the types of operations that the Fleet can support?
· Mike Prince – The larger issue pertains to the restrictions that the agency must impose on their owned vessels. Dennis Nixon – As an example, hull insurance is required when agency owned vessels take on non-federal operations. The hull insurance might out-price the vessels competitively.
· Stan Winslow – Within ONR, there is an effort to determine what “appropriate” work is for their Navy owned vessels.
· Jon – Each project is considered on a case by case review.
· Dan Schwartz – The source of ship operation funds must be looked at. Some contract work is actually federal work. As an example, SAIC funded cruises are often in support of Navy work.
· Stan – The University of Hawaii has a good insurance broker, and they have been able to obtain hull insurance at a reasonable cost.
· Marcia – MBARI has done some contract funded work on Western Flyer. There must be a legitimate research element in the cruise plan and there had to be an MBARI scientist involved with the program.
· Annette – The RVOC meeting will include a discussion on cruise cancellation fees. Maybe the RVOC discussion can be expanded in scope to discuss what works and what doesn’t work in terms of scheduling cruises that are supported by non-traditional funding sources.
· Linda Goad – One indicator of whether or not a potential cruise can be considered appropriate for a research vessel, is if the user is willing to release the data collected during the cruise.
A Council motion was made and passed to accept HBOI’s letter to withdraw the designation of Seward Johnson as a UNOLS vessel, but maintain their membership as a non-operator (Coale/Findley).
There was a brief discussion on the equipment that is installed on Seward Johnson and its future, but since HBOI just recently determined that their ship would be leaving service from UNOLS no information is available.
UNOLS Booth – Annette reported that there are no plans to have a UNOLS booth at the Fall 2009 AGU meeting. The cost for a booth at the AGU meeting is quite expensive. UNOLS will hold an MLSOC meeting and a DESSC meeting in San Francisco on the Sunday just prior to AGU.
Annette asked the Council for their feedback regarding UNOLS activities at the Ocean Science scheduled for February 2010. There are currently plans to hold a SCOAR Town Hall meeting.
Discussion:
· Marcia – What is gained by a UNOLS booth? Annette – Typically the booth doesn’t bring in new users to the fleet. It seems to be more of a gathering place for those who already are familiar with UNOLS. However, in years when UNOLS was trying to highlight a new capability or get feedback from the community, the booth was useful
· John Morrison – Maybe there should be a town hall session on fleet utilization issues
· Mary Jane – Abstracts are due this week for the 2010 Ocean Sciences papers (October 14th). Perhaps UNOLS should submit an abstract for the session that will be chaired by Deb Glickson on the NRC study.
· Bruce Corliss – Perhaps a future AGU meeting should include a session on the UNOLS Fleet.
· Linda Goad –NSF can include the new UNOLS Brochure in the NSF booth.
Process for Recommending Non-Operational Periods of Ships in the UNOLS Fleet – Jon Alberts opened a discussion on the UNOLS process for reviewing the agency recommendations on ship operations. His slides are included as Appendix V.
In July 2006, UNOLS developed the criteria and a process for helping the agencies with recommendations for non-operational periods, <http://www.unols.org/publications/reports/budget_impacts/NonOp_Process_Recmd.pdf>. The criteria and priorities used for reviewing the agency recommendations include meeting science needs, geographic availability, cost of operations, quality of operations, sharing the pain, and diversity of operations. Each year, a subcommittee is appointed by the UNOLS Chair and is comprised of at least three members from non-operating institutions. Based on input from the community, the subcommittee works to provide balanced, fair, and un-conflicted feedback to the Agencies on the adequacy of the agency recommendations and possible alternative scenarios to consider within 30 days. Since the process has now been used for a few years, feedback on whether the process is effective is desired.
Mary Jane Perry remarked that she has served on the subcommittee a couple of times. She said that the reviews are a fluid process and sometimes things change during the review period. She thinks that it would be useful to continue to give the agencies advice periodically throughout the year as schedules evolve. John Morrison and Mary Jane said that as subcommittee members, they would like to be kept informed about the ship schedules up to the start of the operating year. Last year additional ship time came along after the committee made their recommendations.
Mary Jane reviewed the agency recommendations and the ad hoc committee’s response that are included as Appendix VI. She said that this year’s process was relatively easy. John Morrison added that because no lay-ups had been recommended, the process was more straight-forward. However, there is concern over the decrease in the number of requests for ship time.
The Council approved a motion to endorse the ad hoc committee response to the agency recommendations regarding 2010 ship operations (Corliss/Diebold)
Break
Informational Items: Annette DeSilva reported on two
initiatives that are underway (see Appendix XII):
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force – On June 12, 2009, President Obama sent a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and federal agencies establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. The Task Force is charged with developing a recommendation for a National policy that ensures protection, maintenance, and restoration of oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for improved stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning. The Task Force’s Interim Report is available on-line at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans/ and is open for comments until Oct 17, 2009.
An
Ocean Infrastructure Strategy for U.S. Ocean Research in 2030 – The National Research Council (NRC) has formed a committee to provide advice on the types of U.S. ocean
infrastructure that will facilitate research in 2030. The project scope and committee membership
can be viewed at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49139
. The study sponsors
include the Arctic Research Commission, DOE, EPA, FDA, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Marine Mammal Commission, MMS, NASA, NOAA, NSF, USGS, and the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The study start date is June 22,
2009 and the final report is expected approximately 24 months from the start
date.
Greening the UNOLS Fleet – Identifying
future initiatives – Bruce Corliss provided a report on, “Green Ships and
Blue Waters - Environmental Considerations for the Future UNOLS Fleet.” His
slides are included as Appendix VIII.
Bruce reported that creating a green fleet should consider vessel construction, operation, and recycling. Elements of construction and operation that can potentially apply green technologies include:
1) Hull and design
2) Propulsion, fuel and lubricants
3) Power systems
4) Fluids - water and sewage
5) Interior: cabins, labs, galley and mess areas.
Some of the green alternatives for ship propulsion systems include solar and wind. The Solar Sailor has solar wings that are used as solar collectors and as sails. The M/V Auriga Leader has solar panels that provide power for the ship’s main electric grid.
Biofuels can be considered for fuel and lubricant applications. NOAA’s Green Ship Initiative will work to convert Great Lakes vessels that use petroleum-based fuels to renewable and environmentally friendly products.
Bruce reported on an experiment that was conducted on R/V Cape Hatteras to use waste vegetable oil (WVO) for diesel power. During early 2008, shipboard personnel configured one of the ship’s generators to run on WVO, which is commonly used to fry foods in deep fat fryers. WVO has a high viscosity when compared to diesel fuel oil. Therefore, the WVO must be preheated to 70o C to decrease viscosity sufficiently for providing clean combustion. Raising the WVO temperature was accomplished by installing a system of valves and a heat exchanger on the ship’s aft generator. For the initial generator start-up, valves were set to allow only diesel fuel into the generator’s fuel system. Once the WVO is sufficiently heated, the diesel fuel intake valve is closed and the WVO is opened and introduced into the generator. Prior to shutting the generator down, diesel fuel is reset as the fuel source to remove all WVO from the fuel system prior to having the generator cool down.
A beta test was conducted on the Hatteras during the May – June 2008 time frame. To carry out the beta tests, Duke Marine Laboratory students, employees, and ship’s personnel contacted local seafood restaurants to explain the test and make arrangements for transferring WVO to tanks. Restaurant-to-truck and truck-to-ship WVO transfers were carried out using a tank and pump mounted to a trailer. A WVO pickup schedule was established. During the beta test, WVO was stored in the trailer-mounted tank until it was filtered and eventually transferred to the ship.
The beta test was successful and much was learned from the experiment. Incorporating WVO as a secondary or primary fuel source requires substantial personnel and infrastructure. Additionally, formal arrangements with WVO providers are necessary.
Bruce reviewed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria that are applied to boat building (see slides).
In terms of ship recycling, Bruce reported on IMO’s Guidelines on Ship Recycling (2003) that call out the “Green Passport.” The Green Passport can be used to formulate a safe and environmentally sound plan for decommissioning a ship. It raises awareness of hazardous materials. Lloyd’s Register verifies the Green Passport for both new and existing vessels.
Additional costs will be incurred to address or incorporate green solutions and many of these expenses will be front-loaded. Bruce suggested that UNOLS consider development of guidelines for both existing and new vessels.
Discussion:
· Bob Collier – In the past, Jack Bash made a presentation on fuel cells. This might be another technology to consider. Mike Prince – This concept has been rejected by ONR for ship construction because their ship design requirement is for a propulsion system that has been proven.
· Dan Schwartz – State regulatory requirements for emissions and power continually change and are becoming more stringent. Ships will need to carry shore power lines. Mike Prince – The new Ocean Class ships will be designed to meet California regulations.
· Marcia McNutt – We will need to look at the environmental footprint of the vessels and their impact on what they are monitoring during science operations.
· Linda Goad – When R/V Langseth was working in Canadian waters, they wanted to know the carbon footprint of the vessel.
· Marcia –Antarctic ship tour groups strive for zero discharge. Their vessels have internal systems for air and water pollution.
· Prince – Green ship efforts must be considered early in the ship acquisition process so that they are included in the acquisition budget.
· Kenneth – Greening considerations could be incorporated into the Science Mission Requirements (SMRs).
R2R Project Update – Jim Holik introduced a discussion on the
Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R) initiative.
R2R is ready to accept data from the fleet. Jim drafted a letter that was circulated to the
Council. The letter is included as Appendix
X. NSF and the R2R team would
like Council’s endorsement to implement R2R fleet-wide.
Vicki Ferrini (LDEO) provided an update on the R2R project status. Her slides are included as Appendix IX. The objective of the program is to provide well documented, high-quality, publicly available data. The R2R pilot program as of October 12, 2009 has included 14 ships and 831 cruises. Details about the R2R program can be found on their website at http://www.rvdata.us/ .
Effective immediately, operators are invited to send a copy of their full cruise data distribution to R2R for cataloging and archival. Once received, the cruise data will be securely archived and a catalog record will be posted online with a file listing and track map. Individual data sets will then be assembled and delivered to the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) or National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) for public dissemination, once proprietary holds are cleared with the Chief Scientist. No data will be released to the National Data Centers prior to the funding agency’s allowed proprietary period without the concurrence of the Chief Scientist.
Upon receipt of these data by R2R, all Chief Scientist requests for duplicate copies of data distributions can be referred to R2R. The PI will no longer be responsible for providing these data distributions to long-term National Data Centers, as this will be done routinely through R2R. All data collected by any of the ship's permanent equipment should be provided to R2R. Data distributions may be uploaded to R2R via direct network transfer, or may be submitted on most common digital media including portable hard drive, flash drive, tape cartridge (4mm, 8mm, S/DLT), or optical disc.
Discussion:
· Marcia – Would R2R be expanded to non-UNOLS vessels? Vicki – R2R will do what they can within their budget. Jim Holik – In the future, they would like to expand R2R, but the first priority is to get all of the UNOLS vessels onboard. With additional funds, R2R can be expanded.
· Pinkel – How many people are on the R2R team? Vicki – There are two PIs from each R2R funded institution and additional technical staff for a total of 14 people. R2R is funded by NSF.
· Dan Schwartz – Will there be guidance regarding clearances for collection of underway data (foreign EEZs)? Mike Prince – Liz Tirpak has been involved with R2R’s development plans.
· Kenneth Coale – Will R2R be integrated with the “Sea Keeper” program? Jim Holik – The R2R program needed to start somewhere and it started small. John Morrison – The Sea Keeper is an automated system that is well calibrated and documented. Rich Findley – Sea Keepers was on the Royal Caribbean’s Explorer of the Seas and the University of Miami’s R/V Walton Smith, but they don’t use it anymore.
· Bob Arko – Throughout the past year, R2R has engaged the RVTEC, USCG, and others to update them on R2R plans and obtain their feedback.
Vernon called for a Council vote to endorse NSF’s request to implement R2R effective immediately throughout the UNOLS Fleet. The Council made a motion to endorse NSF’s request to implement R2R. The motion passed (Pinkel/Rabalais).
Status Reports and Past Action Items:
Update on Dr. Ballard's plans for the Ocean Exploration Trust's R/V Nautilus – Jon Alberts provided an update on Dr. Ballard’s Ocean Exploration Trust Research Vessel Nautilus. His slides are included as Appendix XI. The owner of the ship is Ocean Exploration Trust, a 501C3 organization. The ship is flagged by St. Vincent and the Grenadines and is ABS Classed as Ice Strengthened. The approximate day rate is $30,000/day. The ship was built in 1967 and was formerly a German hydrographic ship.
In 2010, a shipyard period is planned in April to
install a Dynamic Positioning System, enlarge the A-frame and improve the general
oceanographic capabilities. The ship has
plans to operate from 15 June to 15 December in the following areas: Black Sea, Aegean Sea, Mediterranean, Red
Sea, and the Indian Ocean. The homeport is
in Yalikavak, Turkey.
Dr. Ballard is making an effort to engage the oceanographic community to formulate strategies for implementing an exploratory paradigm. He hopes that discoveries will lead to new research initiatives. This can be a ship of opportunity.
Post Cruise Assessment Report (PCAR) Subcommittee – Jon Alberts provided the
PCAR report. His slides are included as Appendix XII. Following the 2007 PCA report,
the subcommittee resolved to continue PCA reviews. The committee has been relatively inactive
this past year. New members are needed
to replace Mary Jane Perry and Mary-Lynn Dickson. Jon will work with the subcommittee chair to
re-form the committee and resume the PCAR reviews. The committee will also review a draft for a
new PCAR on-line form.
AICC Membership – The Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee
(AICC) has requested the Council’s endorsement of their nominations for new
members:
· Larry Mayer to replace Bernie Coakley in November 2009
· Luc Rainville to replace Rebecca Woodgate in November 2009
· Karen Frey to replace Erica Key (seat already vacant)
· Jeremy Mathish to replace Kate Moran (seat already vacant)
· Robert Campbell to replace Carin Ashjian in January 2010
The Council passed a motion to approve the
appointments to the AICC (McNutt/Findley).
UNOLS 2009 Goal – Vernon Asper opened a discussion on investigating the feasibility of a more flexible UNOLS to meet the needs of additional users.
Discussion:
· Mary Jane Perry – UNOLS encourages ship operators fully schedule their vessels, yet the operators face constraints in terms of alternate uses for the ships. Additional guidance to the ship operators would be useful.
· Vernon – A White Paper that provides information on the types of ship scheduling opportunities that are appropriate, as well as, constraints would be helpful.
· Mike Prince – Determining ways to adapt the scheduling process to better support NOAA operations could be considered.
Vernon proposed that an ad hoc subcommittee be formed to investigate the problem and make recommendations. A motion was made and passed to form the ad-hoc committee (Rabalais/Perry). The following members were identified:
· John Diebold
· Nancy Rabalais
· Mary Jane Perry
· Stan Winslow
Agency representatives and Dennis Nixon could be asked to provide advice.
Vernon will prepare a task statement for the ad hoc committee and appoint a Chair.
Gender Climate at Sea –Kenneth Coale is exploring on-line training
options for Gender Climate at Sea. He
has contacted a company, Workplace Answers, who develops on-line training
programs. Information about Workplace
Answers is contained in Kenneth’s slides, Appendix XIII.
Workplace Answers can customize their on-line training to UNOLS
operations in terms of content and execution.
The training is web-based, but disks can be provided for ships. The cost for training is $15 per session.
Discussion:
·
Stan Winslow – Some institutions already have
procedures and training in place.
·
Mike Prince – There was a survey conducted to
determine how many institutions have training programs. Some institutions only require their
employees to be trained once and some have no training at all.
·
Rob Pinkel – The training is very valuable.
·
Nancy Rabalais – An informational pamphlet on
appropriate gender climate at sea should be handed out to the science party
members.
·
John Diebold – There should be a certificate showing
proof that the training has been taken.
The UNOLS Office will work with Kenneth to determine the cost, scope, and
how the training can be tailored it to research vessel operations.
UNOLS Council Winter Meeting – The UNOLS Office will work with Vernon to determine a location for the winter meeting. The Office will poll the Council and FIC members for dates for a winter meeting.
The meeting adjourned
at 12:00 noon.