1. law, govt and politics
2. legal issues
3. human rights

University Of Washington
Faculty Council on Research
June 5, 2013, 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Gerberding 26
Meeting Synopsis:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Call to Order
Approval of the Minutes from February 13th and April 10th
Executive Order 24: Use of Human Subjects
Green Labs
APL-UW Request for FCR Approval
Update on F&A Rate Agreement Proposal
Adjourn
1) Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Miller at 9:00 a.m.
2) Approval of the Minutes from February 13th and April 10th
Minutes from February 13th and April 14th were approved as written.
3) Executive Order 24: Use of Human Subjects [Exhibits A and B]
Karen Moe, Director of Human Subjects Division and Assistant Vice Provost for Research, provided a
proposed revision to Presidential Executive Order 24: Use of Human Subjects (EO 24) and is looking to
get feedback from FCR before faculty senate review. The EO has not been revised for a long time and is
out of date due to organizational and procedural changes. Additionally, several parts in the current EO
are noncompliant with federal regulations. The current content written in the EO are murky and difficult
to understand so the goal is craft a clear statement of UW’s principles and policies towards human
subjects. A second priority is to develop clear designation of authority regarding UW’s injury
compensation program. Since there are many problematic issues with how the EO is currently written
the revisions are starting from scratch. Examples of UW’s principles and policies on human subjects
include value and respect, Belmont report principles, autonomy for the institutional review board,
manage risk for subjects, and assistance programs for subjects.
The draft EO has already been evaluated by various stakeholders and will be sent to the faculty senate
once feedback is completed. Discussion ensued regarding the process to amend the EO. The EO will be
introduced by the president at the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) which could be approved and
referred to the senate for discussion. If it is not approved by SEC then FCR may need to review the EO a
second time for approval.
It is important to include protections for researchers so they feel safe when conducting their work. All
researchers are subject to the state whistleblower act and it is important to remind people about that.
1
Aragon discussed issues she had regarding minimal risks studies. When conducting a minimal risk study
at UW the process takes a very long time compared to other institutions. Aragon stated that the policy
should also protect the rights of the researchers. For example, the policy should state that minimal risk
studies be reviewed in an expedited fashion. Aragon went into further detail explaining that if a
modification is made, such as adding another researcher to the study, the current review process could
take up to three weeks. It was mentioned that UW central offices took a 30% cut and this is the
consequence. Discussion ensued regarding streamlining the process and counseling employees to allow
for flexibility in approving minimal risk studies.
The EO is intended to be the highest level policy statement of protections and delegates authority to the
president and Vice Provost of Research. The formal standard operating procedures from the Human
Subjects Division are posted on the website with details for submitting modifications. Moe stated that
the EO will be much better in the fall quarter once it becomes completely revised. The policy statement
will be made public and be available for potential research participants to review and understand
policies.
4) Green Labs [Exhibit C]
Aubrey Batchelor and Jennifer Perkins (Office on Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability) presented
on green laboratory certification at the UW. UW receives more research funding than most other
institutions and has the opportunity to take the lead in adopting sustainable behavior in its laboratories.
UW has more than 4,500 labs covering 2.4 million square feet, which accounts for approximately 18% of
all space on campus. Laboratories use 5-10 times more energy per square foot, use substantially more
water and generate more waste than an average office building.
Green lab certification is a complex issue. UW has old buildings which makes it difficult to incorporate
solutions to create efficiencies in energy and water use. As a result the Office on Environmental
Stewardship & Sustainability focuses on targeting individual behavior. The office has looked at other
green labs programs across the US to incorporate into UW’s sustainability program, such as a freezer
cleaning program at UC Davis which saved the university $30,000. The UW also intends to establish an
incentive program to encourage units to works towards sustainable practices which includes a
competition amongst units for money and prizes.
The program has an oversight committee composed of students and staff with representatives from
across the Seattle, Bothell and Tacoma campuses. The certification process is modeled after the Green
Office Certification program which provides three levels of certification (Bronze, Silver, Gold) based on a
variety of criteria. Scope and criteria used to assess sustainability include:




Communication and education
Energy
Recycling/compost/waste reduction
Chemical usage/disposal
2



Purchasing
Water conservation
Innovation
In addition to certifying labs the office provides feedback and recommends on how to improve the
following year.
Green lab certification was officially launched in May 2013. Future goals including replicating UC Davis’
freezer challenge competition and applying it to the UW. Additionally, the program hopes to obtain
freezer cleaning kits to loan out to different units. A workshop is also planned for next spring. Batchelor
mentioned that there has been a lot of interest in UW’s program including the EPA and private
institutions.
Batchelor is asking for FCR to help in several ways:




Encourage labs to become certified
Encourage labs to use available resources
Develop incentives for labs to participate
Participate in competition
It is very difficult to get individual labs involved with this program. A good strategy would be to
encourage larger units composed of separate labs to participate together in order to become certified.
This would require more work for the individual leading the effort, but it could be done.
It was suggested to obtain loaner freezers since there is no shared freezer space amongst labs. This is a
limiting factor which could potentially save the UW a considerable amount of money since labs could
borrow freezers instead of throwing them out. Discussion ensued.
A question was raised asking what counts as a lab. For example, a room filled with computers could
count as a lab. This could be covered as well since the Office on Environmental Stewardship &
Sustainability is looking to encourage sustainable behavior across all spectrums of campus. One
problematic issue with computer labs is leaving computers on overnight which uses unnecessary
electricity
One suggestion was made to recruit custodial services. Custodial services could replicate an observer
program being conducted at UW Medicine that incentivizes employees to comply with hand washing
requirements. For labs, the behavior modification would be reducing energy and water usage.
5) APL-UW Request for FCR Approval [Exhibits D and E]
The Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) is requesting FCR to approve a contract: “Next Generation IMS
Hydroacoustic Hydrophone Stations Modular Design Study” from the Preliminary Comprehensive Test
3
Ban Treaty Organization. APL is asking for $90,315 to conduct a study of the current IMS hydroacoustic
facilities, arrays and cabling. This study will focus on upgrades to the existing in-water equipment to
enable easier and faster deployment, recovery and maintenance operations, increased system
reliability, and to maximize capital and operating cost-effectiveness relative to the current system. This
study, considered to be Phase 1, would lead to a second Phase where the design will be implemented. In
order to efficiently conduct this study, APL-UW will require access to the current station designs and
implementation details. APL-UW understands that this access will be granted at the Project Kick-Off
Workshop. Following the Project Kick-Off Workshop in Vienna, APL-UW will analyze the Commission’s
requirements for hydrophone monitoring stations and documentation of the existing stations. Based on
their findings, they will generate an overview of the current state-of-the-art for all applicable
technologies, and submit a report containing preliminary design concepts for the next generation IMS
hydroacoustic stations.
There will be no foreign or international students involved with the project so there is no worry about a
thesis or publication. Additionally, this is a study plan workshop so there is no interest to publish from
the event. The subcommittee unanimously approved this request and is submitting this to FCR for
approval.
Slattery moved to approve the request which received unanimous approval. A question was raised after
the vote asking why the testing is occurring off coast of North America rather than Guam or Hawaii. APLUW would be working within the Juan de Fuca plate that is internationally renowned for this type of
testing. The council will also be asking APL-UW to review all the facilities to look for efficiencies. It was
mentioned that the equipment is already available which APL-UW can take advantage of.
6) Update on F&A Rate Agreement Proposal [Exhibit F]
Cristi Chapman, Director of Management Accounting & Analysis (MAA), presented an update on the
Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Rate Proposal Process. Their office is at the point in the cycle where
rate calculations are taking place and Chapman is providing FCR with an overview of the process.
MAA calculates and submits an F&A proposal to the Health and Human Services Division of Cost
Allocation (HHS DCA) who negotiate an overall F&A rate agreement with UW. As UW's cognizant agent,
HHS DCA is responsible for negotiating cost recovery agreements on behalf of all Federal agencies that
grant awards to the UW. UW interfaces with DCA's San Francisco branch office. The Office of Sponsored
Programs will then use the F&A rate agreement to negotiate individual awards as they arise. As grant
expenses occurs F&A is then recovered by the UW.
F&A rates are calculated in accordance with Circular A-21 and are based on activities captured in the
based year (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013). Various datasets are required to calculate F&A rates which
include:




Functional use of key campus space
Financial expenses
Demographics
Payroll data
4
The rate proposal project life cycle occurs every five years and the next base year to calculate rates is FY
2013. As soon as the fiscal year is done in June MAA will capture all the financial and space data
available on campus. A question was raised asking that given the sequester, is HHS DCA even interested
in entering into negotiations? UW has been working with peer institutions and there is no indication
that there is hesitation from HHS DCA in negotiating with institutions.
F&A rates are based on facilities costs associated with research conducted on campus and
administrative overhead. Negotiation occurs every five years due to the complexity and magnitude of
overall process.
The current rate agreement expires on June 30, 2014. At that point, UW's rates will go into 'provisional'
status until a new rate agreement is negotiated. That pattern is typical for any major research university
and was the case during the last cycle. Submission date of April 2014 is planned, although it may take
longer. During the last proposal process, MAA submitted in November 2009, 17 months after the base
year ended. Schools generally submit sometime the summer after their base year (or approximately 12
months after base year end). MAA’s goal is to submit 10 months after the end of the year, which will be
a major improvement.
Once the next proposal is submitted HHS DCA will have approximately one year to review the proposal.
As part of the review process they will ask for additional data and visit the campus to review research
space. Negotiators will pick a sample lab and assess its capacity by examining how it utilizes space with
the goal to ensure that UW’s claim is accurate. Rate negotiations will also include the new South Lake
Union facility, APL, and the WaNPRC.
Federal agencies are required to pay negotiated rates but there are cases in which agencies do not fully
reimburse the UW (legislative requirements or the agencies limitations). A question was raised asking if
HHS DCA is moving to put a cap on F&A rates. There is an administrative cap imposed on the UW since it
is a degree granting institution. There are several reasons; one being that UW is dually focused on
research and on instruction. Nonprofit institutions, such as Fred Hutchinson Research Center, have most
of their activity focused on research. This impacts their F&A rates. Some universities have secured
higher F&A rates due to investment in their research facilities. Facilities costs are for newer research
facilities are higher which is recognized by the feds. As UW develops more space, such as the
development in South Lake Union, F&A rates in those locations will most likely remain higher.
Conversation ensued regarding space assessment and justification for applying F&A rates based on
space. Negotiators pay special attention to labs dedicated 100% for research. Discussion ensued
regarding topics such as the segregation of students from lab space.
Conversation moved to risks and considerations for the 2013 proposal. When submitting the proposal
UW must consider the federal fiscal climate which is a huge driver affecting F&A rates. UW is also
looking closely at O&M costs and the impact of campus-wide SmartGrid program which will give better
data on power consumption across campus.
UW’s greatest strength in negotiations is its historical efforts in creating credibility as an institution.
Some institutions have been traditionally aggressive in handling their proposals resulting in more
difficult negotiations between them and the government. UW carefully balances positions we take in
negotiation with the overall relationship with HHS DCA.
5
Chapman mentioned that she will come back in the fall and spring quarters to provide updates to FCR
before submitting the proposal.
7) Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Miller at 10:30 a.m.
Minutes by Grayson Court, Faculty Council Support Analyst. [email protected]
Present:
Faculty: Miller (Chair), Aragon, Beauchamp, Vogt, Slattery, Rosenfeld, Scheuer
Ex-Officio Reps: Sundt
Guests: Cristi Chapman, Karen Moe
President’s Designee: Lidstrom
Absent:
Faculty: Roesler
Ex-Officio Reps: Nolan, Yin, Fridley
6
Exhibit A
Presidential Order, Executive Order 24
“Use of Human Subjects”
Proposed Revision
Description
Presidential Order 24 is the University’s highest-level statement about the University’s use of human subjects
in research.
Reasons for Revision
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Out-of-date. Much of the current Order is out-of-date, due to numerous organizational and procedural
changes.
Example: It inaccurately describes organizational and reporting structure of the Human Subjects
Division.
Non-compliant with federal regulations. The primary federal human subjects regulatory agency, as well
as UW Internal Audit, found certain elements of the current Order to be non-compliance with federal
human subjects regulations. A 2012 report by UW Internal Audit requires the Order to be revised or
removed.
Example: The federal regulatory office found the appeals process (as described in the Order) to
violate the regulatory autonomy and authority of the Institutional Review Boards.
Inappropriate content. The current Order consists largely of procedural details about the review of
specific types of human subjects research.
Example: It contains an inaccurate description of how to obtain “exempt” status for a research
project, including the name of a no-longer-existing form to complete.
Incomplete statement of principles and policy. Several desirable elements of a high-level statement of
University values and policy are missing.
Example: There is no reference to the Belmont ethical principles that are the foundation of human
subjects protections, as codified by our assurance to the federal government.
Authority for Human Subjects Assistance Program. There is currently a gap in the written delegation of
authority for the Human Subjects Assistance Program (i.e., treatment for research adverse effects) from
the President to the Vice Provost for Research.
Example: The current Order does not mention the University’s program, or the Standing Order of
the Board of Regents that authorizes the program.
General principles and policies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
We value and respect our human subjects.
We abide by the Belmont Report ethical principles.
We accept our responsibility for protecting human subjects.
There is an administrative structure that oversees human subjects research and compliance.
The Institutional Review Boards that review and approve human subjects research have the requisite
authority and autonomy, as provided by federal regulations.
We manage the risks to subjects.
There is an assistance program for subjects, for treating adverse effects.
We use the flexibility of the regulations to shape requirements and procedures that are appropriate
across the wide variability of University research.
All employees can, and should, report problems or concerns about human subjects research.
April 16, 2013
DRAFT
University of Washington
Exhibit B
Presidential Orders
Executive Order
No. 24
Research with Human Subjects
The University of Washington respects and values the volunteer human subjects who participate in
University research. Strong adherence to ethical principles and to protection of subjects’ rights and
welfare is an institution-wide responsibility that is part of the University’s commitment to integrity and
high quality in all of its activities. The University’s human research protection program is essential for
maintaining the public trust in the value and oversight of the University’s research activities.
1.
Principles
In order to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects, the University conducts research
with human subjects in accordance with the ethical principles of The Belmont Report: respect for
persons, beneficence, and justice. The commitment to the Belmont principles is codified in a
legally binding Federalwide Assurance between the University and the federal Office of Human
Research Protections.
2.
Policy Provisions
A.
Responsibility
The University recognizes and accepts its responsibility for ensuring that research involving
human subjects abides by the Belmont ethical principles and with all federal regulations,
state laws, and University policies governing research with human subjects. This
responsibility is shared with University researchers, research staff, employees, and students.
B.
Administration and Oversight
The University has established an administrative and oversight structure in the Office of
Research, through the Vice Provost of Research, to facilitate and assure excellence in
research with human subjects as well as full compliance with applicable principles,
regulations, laws, and policies. This includes the Institutional Official identified on the
Federalwide Assurance, the Human Subjects Division, the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs),
the Faculty Council on Research, the Human Subjects Advisory Board, and the Research
Advisory Board. Most policies and procedures relating to research with human subjects are
developed, implemented, and enforced by delegated authority to the Human Subjects
Division, in consultation with the IRBs and other appropriate University bodies.
C.
Authority and Autonomy of the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
The University and its researchers recognize the authority and autonomy of the University
IRBs, as outlined in the University’s Federalwide Assurance, applicable federal regulations,
and by delegated authority. All University-conducted research with human subjects that is
not exempt from applicable regulations is required without exception to have prior approval
from the IRB before the research is initiated. The IRB has sole authority to grant IRB
approval for research with human subjects. By specific federal regulation (45 CFR 46.112), if
the IRB does not grant IRB approval or suspends or terminates IRB approval, these decisions
may not be overturned at any higher level. Implementation of IRB-approved research may
be prevented or terminated by decision of other levels or offices of the University, although
the IRB approval is not voided by such action.
D.
Risks to Human Subjects
Risks to human subjects may be physical, psychological, social, legal, economic, or
reputational. They vary in probability, magnitude, and duration. The University recognizes
and accepts its dual responsibilities to protect subjects by:
E.
1)
Reducing risks as feasible, and
2)
Ensuring that the research consent process leads to a voluntary decision about
whether to participate that is free of undue influence or coercion and is made only
after appropriate description of the research and its risks.
Assistance Program for Human Subjects
In recognition of the risks that may be assumed by human subjects when they participate in
research, the University maintains a no-fault assistance program for human subjects to
provide medical and other assistance to human subjects who, in the course of Universityconducted research, suffer adverse effects. The program is administered by the Human
Subjects Division, with significant participation by University Risk Management, UW
Medicine, and Health Sciences Risk Management.
F.
Facilitation of Research
The University seeks to fulfill its ethical and compliance responsibilities in a manner that
facilitates the entire breadth of its research mission, which ranges from qualitative
observations to controlled trials in virtually every academic discipline. Risks to human
subjects vary from none to significant. In recognition of this wide variability, the University
carefully considers and employs the flexibility built into the ethical principles, regulations,
and its Federalwide Assurance so as to develop policies and ensure subject protections that
are commensurate with the level of risk to subjects.
3.
Responsibility to Report
Anyone who becomes aware of an ethical concern, noncompliance or other problem concerning
University research with human subjects has a responsibility and right to notify the Human
Subjects Division for investigation of the issue. Concerns and complaints may be brought to the
attention of the Human Subjects Division at:
•
•
•
•
EO No. 24
Phone: 206–543–0098
Email: [email protected]
Campus mail: Box 359470
U.S. mail: Human Subjects Division
University of Washington
Box 359470
Seattle, WA 98195-9470
Page 2
June 7, 1972; November 20, 1975; June 15, 1976; October 1, 1982; September 12, 1990; June 8,
2005;____, 2013.
EO No. 24
Page 3
Exhibit C
UNIVERSITY of WASHINGTON
Green Laboratory Certification
Aubrey Batchelor
Jennifer Perkins
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
Why is Green Laboratory Certification
Program Important?
• Labs use 5 to 10 times more energy per square foot
than an average office building
• Labs generate tons of waste
• Labs use more water than an average office
• UW has more than 4,500 labs
• Labs account for about 18% of space at UW
2.4 million square feet
• Other top ranking Universities have similar programs
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
Green Laboratory Program
Committee and Oversight
Stakeholders
Green Labs
Committee
EXTERNAL RESOURCES
• Colorado Boulder,
UC San Diego,
University of
Michigan, UC Davis,
Harvard, ASU
• Associations: Labs 21
• UW Lab Suppliers:
Mt. Baker Bio, VWR
Team lead: Caileigh Shoot, ESS Student
John Kelly, EH&S
Doug Gallucci, EH&S
Jennifer Perkins, ESS
Aubrey Batchelor, ESS
Shelly Carpenter, Oceanography
Christine Aker, Health Sciences
Emily Newcomer, Recycling & Solid Waste
Claudia Christensen, Purchasing
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
UW Tacoma
Lia Wetstein
Jessica
Asplund
UW Bothell
Christy
Cherrier
Kirk Pawlowski, CPO
Jude Van Buren, EH&S
Ruth Johnston, ESS/F2 admin
Jill Morelli, SOM
Lawrie Robertson, Public Health
Stephanie Harrington, CoEnv
Dawn Lehman, Civil/Env. Engineering
Denny Liggett, Comp Med
Dave Anderson, ED HS Admin
Project Manager
Aubrey Batchelor,
ESS
Environmental
Stewardship
Committee
Creating the Certification
• Model the program structure after our Green
Office Certification program
• Online application
• Three certification levels – Bronze, Silver, Gold
• Resources to implement criteria
• Fall Quarter 2012 – Program on the Environment
course focused on Green Labs
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
Certification Scope & Criteria
Communication and Education
Staff meetings or other means of communication regularly include information regarding
laboratory sustainability practices (1 pt) How to...
Energy
Coils and motors on our refrigerator/freezer are regularly cleaned (3 pts) How to...
Recycling, Compost, and Waste Reduction
Our laboratory recycles plastic and glass containers, including reagent bottles when appropriate
(1 pt) How to…
Chemical Usage and Disposal
When using chemicals, our laboratory practices green chemistry methods (eg. micro-scale
reactions, computer simulations, ect.) whenever possible (1 pt) How to…
Purchasing
Our laboratory properly & safely recycles Lecture Bottles/Gas Cylinders that vendors do not
accept back (2 pts) How to...
Water Conservation
Our laboratory runs our dishwashers/autoclaves only when they are full (2 pts)
Innovations (extra credit, shared online)
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
Green Lab Certification Status
• Officially launched March 2013
http://green.washington.edu/green-laboratory
• Congrats to our first labs certified:
•
Gold: ESS Isotope Geochemistry Lab,
UW Bothell Chemistry Lab
•
Silver: Deming Biological Oceanography Lab
•
Bronze: UW Bothell Instructional Biology Lab
• Marketing underway for program
• CSF Funded project
• Student Consultant – POE Capstone
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
Future of Green Labs
• Freezer cleaning kit for checkout
• Freezer Challenge competition
•
Goals: Save energy, retire freezers, improve
sample access and security
•
UC Davis saved $27,500 in 2011
• Sharing the tool
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
•
Greening Laboratories – April 2014
Two day workshop for EH&S professionals
•
Seattle University
How Can FCR Help?
• Encourage labs in your areas to become certified
• Encourage labs to use the resources available
through the program
• Do you have incentive ideas for the labs that
participate? Let us know!
• Create some friendly competition between your
laboratories
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
Questions?
Aubrey Batchelor
Sustainability Programs Supervisor
Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability
[email protected]
Jennifer Perkins
Sustainability Communications Coordinator
Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability
[email protected]
Sustainability: It’s in our nature.
Exhibit D
May 14th, 2013
To:
Faculty Council on Research
From: Robert T. Miyamoto
Applied Physics Laboratory
University of Washington
206-685-1303
[email protected]
Subject: Request for FCR approval of contract: “Next Generation IMS Hydroacoustic
Hydrophone Stations Modular Design Study” from the Preliminary Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).
I would like to request University of Washington Faculty Council on Research (FCR)
approval for a contract from the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty Organization (http://www.ctbto.org/) to APL-UW to conduct a study to
improve the Commission’s ability to acoustically detect nuclear testing. The Principal
Investigator on the project is Gary Harkins, and the amount of requested funding is
approximately $$90,315 over six months. The funding is a result of APL-UW’s proposal
to the CTBTO’s call for proposal under solicitation 2012-0293/ALVAREZ.
The Office of Sponsored Programs has asked for this request to FCR because the contract
has the following language, "Confidentiality: Any possible publication by the Contractor
resulting from the execution of this Contract shall be subject to prior approval by the
Commission. Such approval shall be at the sole discretion of the Commission." APL-UW
does not plan on any open publications in the execution of this contract. The wording
does not rule out the possibility of a publication, but does not provide an open process for
publication.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans nuclear explosions by
everyone, everywhere: on the Earth's surface, in the atmosphere, underwater and
underground.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is almost universal but has yet to become law. The
CTBT was negotiated in Geneva between 1994 and 1996. 183 countries have signed the
Treaty, of which 159 have also ratified it (as of February 2013), including three of the
nuclear weapon States: France, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. But 44
specific nuclear technology holder countries must sign and ratify before the CTBT can
enter into force. Of these, eight are still missing: China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North
Korea, Pakistan and the USA.
The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Organization (CTBTO) was founded in 1996 to promote the Treaty and build-up the
verification regime so that it is operational when the Treaty enters into force. The annual
budget is around US$120,000,000 or €82,000,000. The USA is an active participant in
CTBTO.
In order to verify adherence to the CTBT, The International Monitoring System (IMS)
will, when complete, consist of 337 facilities worldwide to monitor the planet for signs of
nuclear explosions. Over 85 percent of the facilities are already up and running. The IMS
uses four state-of-the-art technologies including hydroacoustic (11 hydroacoustic stations
“listen” for sound waves in the oceans. Sound waves from explosions can travel
extremely far underwater).
APL-UW proposes to conduct a study of the current IMS hydroacoustic facilities, arrays
and cabling. This study will focus on upgrades to the existing in-water equipment to
enable easier and faster deployment, recovery and maintenance operations, increased
system reliability, and to maximize capital and operating cost-effectiveness relative to the
current system. This study, considered to be Phase 1, would lead to a second Phase where
the design will be implemented.
APL-UW will provide the labor and expertise to accomplish this study using our
experience with cabled ocean observatories and underwater acoustic equipment, as well
as our strong working relationships with relevant suppliers.
In order to efficiently conduct this study, APL-UW will require access to the current
station designs and implementation details. We understand that this access will be
granted at the Project Kick-Off Workshop. Following the Project Kick-Off Workshop in
Vienna, APL-UW will analyze the Commission’s requirements for hydrophone
monitoring stations and documentation of the existing stations. Based on our findings, we
will generate an overview of the current state-of-the-art for all applicable technologies,
and submit a report containing preliminary design concepts for the next generation IMS
hydroacoustic stations.
After acceptance of the report, APL-UW will meet with the Commission to select the
appropriate concepts and technologies for further development in a Phase 2 (not yet
proposed). APL-UW will travel to Vienna to lead this workshop, and will provide a
written report of the decisions made within 10 working days following the workshop.
Following the Phase 1 workshop, APL-UW will conduct in-depth analyses of the selected
technologies and will submit our findings in a Phase 2 report, to be finalized after
consideration of any clarification requests from the Commission.
APL-UW understands the UW desire to maintain an open publication policy, but our
need to maintain a global capability to make it very difficult for countries to develop
nuclear bombs for the first time, or for countries that already have them, to make more
powerful bombs, seems important to consider.
Please find below answers to the “Questions for Researchers Applying for a Classified,
Proprietary or Restricted Research Contract.” Let us know if you wish to meet with Gary
Harkins and/or myself to discuss this further. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Miyamoto
Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington
1. What unique capabilities do your program and the UW bring to this proposed project?
The Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington (APL-UW) is a national
center for engineering research and development, advanced science, and education.
APL-UW was formed in 1943 for the U.S. Navy to bring university research resources to
bear on urgent World War II1 technology issues. Since then, APL-UW has developed an
international reputation for its broad-based programs in science, engineering, and for
designing, building, and deploying the advanced technology required to meet the research
needs of numerous government and commercial sponsors. The majority of work
performed by APL-UW is centered on the ocean environment.
Our intent is to leverage the work conducted by the University of Washington (not just
APL-UW) on the Regional Scaled Nodes (RSN) part of the Ocean Observatories
Initiative (OOI) funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF). RSN was
conceived as a system to enable transformational science by changing the paradigm from
localized, short time-span data acquisition campaigns to decades-long campaigns,
offering high power and bandwidth over a large geographical area. Although the original
concept is now several years old, the project was initiated in 2009. APLUW is providing
the engineering team that is implementing the system from site selection, design and
construction through deployment and operation, and has been a key partner with the NSF
throughout the entire process.
Specifically, RSN provides a cabled infrastructure to enable full-time science access to
instruments across the Juan de Fuca plate in the northeast Pacific Ocean for seafloor and
water column measurements (see Figure 1). This infrastructure comprises approximately
900 km of telecom cable with seven backbone nodes, 17 scientific nodes with
instruments, and three hybrid moorings, each with two different profiler systems. A total
of 32 different types of instruments will be deployed in 2013 and 2014, of which
approximately 80% are commercial units and 20% are purpose-built for the project.
Our design work for RSN will be applied to the CTBTO study.
2. Describe the scholarly, scientific, and/or educational benefits of this proposed project.
Long-range acoustic propagation has been a strong research area for APL-UW. One of
the participants in this initial phase of the project, Dr. Kevin Williams, will be a co-author
on an invited paper for the upcoming underwater acoustics conference in Corfu in June
on technologies for the CTBT. This is a conference attended by many acoustic
researchers and will provide new avenues of research. There are also many opportunities
for ocean engineering improvements that can lead to improvements in scientific
instrumentation, signal processing, and engineering to support not just APL-UW, but
others in the UW and scientific community as well..
3. In what ways does the proposed project provide a public or community service?
This is the key question behind this request. We believe that providing our expertise to
improve the monitoring of nuclear testing will ultimately help prevent the huge damage
caused by radioactivity from nuclear explosions to humans, animals and plants.
4. In what ways, if any, will UW students (graduate or undergraduate) be involved in the
project? If they participate in the research, will they require security clearance or have
restrictions placed on their thesis, dissertation, or other academic activities?
No UW students will be involved in the project at this stage.
5. Does the proposed project engender any restrictions on publications by the PI,
members of the research team, students or postdoctoral fellows?
The project is an engineering study and is not intending any open publications (the
deliverable is a study to be provided to the sponsor). However, the Commission reserves
the right to authorize any open publication. We anticipate the release of any and all
information if we desire publication on some aspect of the project, but there is no open
process for the Commission to approve that information.
6. Are there any ‘foreign nationals’ working on this project?
No ‘foreign nationals’ will work on this project.
Exhibit E
Original Proposal
NAME OF PROJECT: Next Generation IMS Hydroacoustic Hydrophone
Stations Modular Design Study
CLOSING DATE:
07 December 2012
CTBTO REF. No.:
2012-0293/ALVAREZ
PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
__________
___________
___________
STATEMENT OF CONFTRMAflON
I
University of Washington
On behalf of name of firm or organization):
hereby attest and confirm that the firm/organization:
contracts with the
a) Possesses the legal status and capacity to enter into legally binding
Commission for the supply of equipment, supplies, services or work.
not under
b) Is not insolvent, in receivership, bankrupt or being wound up, and
to the
administration by a court or a judicial officer, and that it is not subject
s
suspension of its business or legal proceedings for any of the foregoing reason
.
c) Has fulfilled all its obligations to pay taxes and social security contributions
years been
d) 1-las not, and that its directors and officers have not, within the last five
the
making of
or
conduct
professional
to
related
convicted of’ any criminal offense
s to enter
qualification
or
capacity
their
to
as
false statements or misrepresentations
into a procurement or supply contract.
e) 1-las no conflict of interest.
f)
at a later
That the Commission, in the event that any of the foregoing should occur
disqualify
to
the
right
have
will
time, will be duly informed thereof, arid in any event,
the firm/organization from any further participation in procurement proceedings.
the firm/organization from
g) That the Commission shall have the right to disqualify
agrees to
it
participation in any further procurement proceedings, if offers, gives or
Commission
the
of
give, directly or indirectly, to any current or former staff member
or value,
a gratuity in any form, an offer of employment or any other thing of service
by,
followed
as an inducement with respect to an act or a decision of or a procedure
the Commission in connection with a procurement proceeding.
4
Peggy C
Interrm Director
Office of Sponsored
Programs
:
TiteJPosiuon
Place (Chy and Country):
Seattle. WA
3 December 2012
/
.
at,
Signature:
Caro’ Rhodes
Name (print):
‘.e
fit
USA
iartrnan
Grant & Contract Adrnimstrator
Actingfor Carol Rhodes.
VENDOR PROFILE FORM (VPF)
Name of Corn oanv:
.cet aercss’
-
FOR PRODUCTS/SERVICES/WORK
University of Washington
Office of Sponsored Programs
4333 Brooklyn Ave NE. Box 359472
1-206-543-4043
4. Fax
G
Seattle
Zip Code
Country.
98 195-9472
‘
6. Contact Prson’
or
-
1-206-685-1732
5. E-Mail
USA
Title:
Carol Rhodes
Peggy Hartman
:
ospuw.edu
Interim Director
Grant and Contract Administrator
7. Legal Status (e.g. Partnership. Private Limited Company, Government Institution)
State of Washington, Institution of Higher Education
8. Year Established:
I
3
9. Number of Employees;
1
—31,000 FTE
f
II. Annual Export Turnover (USSm)*:
10. Gross Annual Turnover (US$rn)*: $4.6B
See http ://f2.wash ington.edu/fm/uw-annual-report/
Supplier
12. Type of Business/Products: Manufacturer
11 Sole Agent
Education and Research
Civil Work [“1 Governmental Institution F
13. Tyne of Business/Services/Work: Engineering
Applied Physics Lab: Applied research and engineering product
14. References (your main customers, country. year and technical field of products. services or work: **
US Dept. of Defense (Army, Air Force. Navy. etc.). Dept. of Energy. DARPA, NASA. NIH. NSF
rxi
industry sponsors: Honeywell. Lockheed Martin. HDR, and many others
15.PrevinusSupply Contracts with United Nations Organizations (over the last3years)*
Organization:
Value n IJS$ Equivalent:
Oran’iation’
Value in US$ Equivalent:
‘iIpryr
t
;hn
a tour ovpa
i
Year:
s o ner//p ourng the I st 5 years:
None
!Zst
_______
_____
_________
ei snet:
1
of ProJuu Servhes\Vork offerci Lce indicate the Prodact arviceiWorL f as per attac
Wart:
Dcripdc______
Prcduct’Ser’:ce
c’ cc WorL
For the UWApplied Physics Laborator where work will be performed:
——1
System Design
Design of complex electro-mechanical oceanographic systems
Electronic Design
Liectronic design
Mechanical Design
of
underwater components
Mechanical design of underwater moorings
--
Fabrication of US Navy and other data collection systems
Fabrication
Installation & Testing
--
Installation & testing of in situ oceanography observatory
-
Please see APL website for more details: http://www.apl.washin I
Questionnaire completed by:
l8Name: Peggy Hartman Title: Grant and Contract
Signature:y
Administrator
Date: 3Dec
OR CTI3 iC) USE ort,
19. Evaiuated By:
Eitiais
29
‘nitiais
:
rduted
By:
Date:
:
Nocce, ecLf]
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 1.0
Page 2 of 34 Description of Services
APL-UW proposes to conduct a study of the current IMS hydroacoustic facilities,
arrays and cabling. This study will focus on upgrades to the existing in-water
equipment to enable easier and faster deployment, recovery and maintenance
operations, increased system reliability, and to maximize capital and operating
cost-effectiveness relative to the current system.
APL-UW will provide the labor and expertise to accomplish this study using our
experience with cabled ocean observatories and underwater acoustic equipment, as
well as our strong working relationships with relevant suppliers.
In order to efficiently conduct this study, APL-UW will require access to the
current station designs and implementation details. We understand that this
access will be granted at the Project Kick-Off Workshop.
Following the Project Kick-Off Workshop in Vienna, APL-UW will analyze the
Commission’s requirements for hydrophone monitoring stations and
documentation of the existing stations. Based on our findings, we will generate an
overview of the current state-of-the-art for all applicable technologies, and submit
a Phase 1 report containing preliminary design concepts for the next generation
IMS hydroacoustic stations.
After acceptance of the report, APL-UW will meet with the Commission to select
the appropriate concepts and technologies for further development in Phase 2.
APL-UW will travel to Vienna to lead this workshop, and will provide a written
report of the decisions made within 10 working days following the workshop.
Following the Phase 1 workshop, APL-UW will conduct in-depth analyses of the
selected technologies and will submit our findings in a Phase 2 report, to be
finalized after consideration of any clarification requests from the Commission.
A timeline for this study is shown in Figure 3.
2.0
Background
2.1 APL-UW History and Capabilities
The Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington (APL-UW) is a
national center for engineering research and development, advanced science, and
education.
APL-UW was formed in 1943 for the U.S. Navy to bring university research
resources to bear on urgent World War II1 technology issues. Since then, APL-UW
has developed an international reputation for its broad-based programs in science,
engineering, and for designing, building, and deploying the advanced technology
required to meet the research needs of numerous government and commercial
sponsors. APL-UW currently has a staff of 311 full-time engineers, scientists and
support staff as well as a yearly operating budget of over $76 million. The
majority of work performed by APL-UW is centered on the ocean environment.
Approximately 40% of the Laboratory’s funding comes from the U.S. Navy, which
1MoreinformationaboutthehistoryofAPL‐UWmaybefoundathttp://www.apl.washington.edu/about/history.php.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 3 of 34 covers everything from basic research to applied and operational system
developments. Other main sponsors are the National Science Foundation,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the National Institutes of Health.
APL-UW has a large group of sea-going scientists and engineers with many years
of experience developing, installing and using a wide range of ocean instruments
and systems. Our scientists and engineers also have considerable experience
working in the Arctic environment as well as its surrounding waters. While the
range of projects and clients has expanded since the inception of APL-UW2, our
core mission remains the development and deployment of innovative and reliable
surface and undersea equipment and instrumentation systems, including a strong
focus on ocean acoustics.
2.2 Regional Scale Nodes
The Regional Scaled Nodes (RSN) is part of the Ocean Observatories Initiative
(OOI) funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF). RSN was conceived
as a system to enable transformational science by changing the paradigm from
localized, short time-span data acquisition campaigns to decades-long campaigns,
offering high power and bandwidth over a large geographical area. Although the
original concept is now several years old, the project was initiated in 2009. APLUW is providing the engineering team that is implementing the system from site
selection, design and construction through deployment and operation, and has
been a key partner with the NSF throughout the entire process.
Specifically, RSN provides a cabled infrastructure to enable full-time science
access to instruments across the Juan de Fuca plate in the northeast Pacific Ocean
for seafloor and water column measurements (see Figure 1). This infrastructure
comprises approximately 900 km of telecom cable with seven backbone nodes, 17
scientific nodes with instruments, and three hybrid moorings, each with two
different profiler systems. A total of 32 different types of instruments will be
deployed in 2013 and 2014, of which approximately 80% are commercial units and
20% are purpose-built for the project.
2
MoreinformationaboutcurrentAPL‐UWprojectsmaybefoundat
http://www.apl.washington.edu/research/research.php. CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 4 of 34 Figure 1. RSN Cable and Node Layout, Juan de Fuca Plate
APL-UW, invoking a systems engineering approach to manage the total cost and
life cycle, specified and contracted the backbone infrastructure design and
installation to L-3 MariPro, utilizing a telecom industry grade backbone of cable
with unique primary distribution nodes (the red squares in Figure 1) to convert
power from 10 kV DC to 375 V DC and distribute power and communications to
the scientific infrastructure.
The scientific infrastructure is a network of scientific nodes, designed and built by
APL-UW, to distribute power and communications to the instruments. Also part
of the scientific infrastructure, three specialized moorings will provide subsurface
platforms anchored at depths to 2900 m, as well as two different types of profilers
to enable full water column measurements in areas that previously have been
sparsely sampled.
Connections between the backbone and the scientific infrastructure, as well as
between nodes and instruments use both dry-mate and ROV wet-mate connectors
with a variety of cable types. Installation and maintenance of this infrastructure
and instruments has been designed to be performed by a deep water ROV. ROV
operators have been partners from the beginning of the design process to maximize
system serviceability.
The design and construction of the scientific nodes (also called Junction Boxes or
J-Boxes) has been a focus of APL-UW. These J-Boxes are required to provide
appropriate power and communication to a wide range of instruments, e.g.
seismometers, hydrophones, fluorometers, mass spectrometers, physical samplers,
CTDs, still cameras and HD cameras, all of which have significantly different
power and communication needs. An optical instrument may only draw 50 mW of
power with no surge and have an older serial interface (e.g. 1960s vintage RS-232),
while a mass spectrometer requires 200W on startup, operates at 50W and has an
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 5 of 34 100BaseT Ethernet interface. The HD camera has a 10GigE interface and has full
controls for focus, aperture, pan, tilt and lighting.
Our solution for managing the diversity of instrument interfaces has been to
optimize each port on the J-Boxes to the particular instrument by means of custom
built hardware and software, developed and implemented by our team. The RSN
network includes both low and medium powered J-Boxes to optimize space,
efficiency and minimize the distribution of waste heat plumes. The J-Boxes can be
connected to one another to extend the physical footprint and distribute
instruments over a large area. This communication infrastructure is based on
Ethernet protocol and permits direct instrument access from remote shore sites.
Where necessary, the J-Boxes convert serial instrument interfaces to Ethernet.
The RSN network also offers Precision Time Protocol (PTP) IEEE-1588 standard
timing, enabling to 10 microsecond time stamping of science data. If the
instrument can accept the timing information, timing is folded into the data
stream. For instruments that cannot accept the timing, the timestamp is included
in the Ethernet header to a lesser accuracy of 10 milliseconds at the port.
Instruments, such as some new Ethernet hydrophones being deployed on RSN,
accept either method and incorporate that timestamp into their own data header.
Cables and connectors are always an area of high concern with underwater
systems. RSN uses several types of cables, with selection based on power,
bandwidth, length, weight, durability, and connector compatibility. Generally, for
short cable runs, oil-filled cables with either wet-mate or dry-mate connectors were
chosen for longest life, however, there is a length limit of roughly 90 m for such
cables. For longer cables, the solution was a hybrid cable where a Cable
Termination Assembly (CTA) interface couples a long, solid construction cable to
the oil-filled cable. The CTA can accommodate either a pass-through of copper, or
an electronics package that converts between copper and fiber, and can provide
signal multiplexing.
RSN primary cables transiting shallow coastal regions were buried from the shore
to minimize aggression by fishing gear or anchors, and were armored. These
cables were laid by cable ships. All other RSN cables will deployed by an
appropriately equipped ROV.
Cable route planning is also important, not only for cable lengths, but to avoid
problem areas. The two main sites being instrumented by RSN are a methane
hydrate site (Hydrate Ridge) on the edge of the continental shelf, and in and
adjacent to the caldera of an active volcano (Axial Seamount) on the Juan de Fuca
Ridge, both being located off the coast of Oregon. Hydrate Ridge is a challenging
location for heavy infrastructure, since the hydrate is in a metastable solid phase,
and areas have been known to spontaneously “blow out” or erupt 10s of square
meters of bottom as the methane transitions to a gas. Axial Seamount presents
fissures, collapsed lava tubes, and sharp basalt edges, as well as eruptions
approximately every 10-15 years. Both sites required careful route planning prior
to laying cables. RSN used a combination of ship-board multi-beam sonar, AUV
and ROV mounted multi-beam sonar and ROV-generated photomosaics to
establish favorable cable routes.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 6 of 34 As stated above, the RSN scientific infrastructure includes three specialized
moorings with innovative profilers, designed by APL-UW to instrument the whole
water column in depths ranging from 600 m to 2900 m, shown in Figure 1. Each
mooring system consists of three distinct subsystems, termed the Deep Profiler,
the Vertical Mooring, and the Shallow Profiler. The Deep Profiler is based on a
McLane Mooring Profiler, a wire-crawling device that has been heavily modified
by APL-UW to equip it with an advanced inductive coupling system, extended
range, and a nonstandard instrument payload. This profiler will travel from the
seafloor to less than 200 m below the surface, returning to a seafloor dock to
inductively recharge its batteries and download science data. The Vertical
Mooring is a large floating platform stationed 200 m below the surface, and which
supports the Shallow Profiler as well as a number of instruments. The Shallow
Profiler is a sophisticated winched system, designed by APL-UW to profile the
upper 200 m of the water column to 5 m below the surface with a payload of up to
15 instruments.
Figure 2. RSN Cable and Node Layout, Juan de Fuca Plate
2.3 Aloha Mooring System
The ALOHA mooring system, currently deployed at 4600 m depth near Hawaii,
was also designed and built by APL-UW and served as the prototype from which
the current RSN Vertical Mooring and Deep Profiler designs were derived. The
ALOHA system utilizes a single-point mooring with a subsurface instrument
platform and a modified McLane Mooring Profiler for water column
measurements. The key profiler modifications made by the APL-UW were the
addition of an innovative inductive charging and data transmission system, and
extension of the profiler range by adding a customized battery pack.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 3.0
Page 7 of 34 Terms of Reference – Points to Consider
APL-UW believes that all points of interest listed in Section 3 of the Terms of
Reference should be addressed. These points are reiterated below, followed by our
perspective in each case.
3.1 High Priority Points

Hydrophone triplet topology which must allow for modular deployment with
minimal deployment down-time because of bad weather
Modularizing hydrophones and cables allows several advantages for maintenance and ease of deployment: discrete time intervals for deployment in short weather windows and flexibility with regard to ship type. However, some elements of the cables are not amenable to short segments, for example, the near‐shore segments that must be buried to mitigate external aggression from fish trawling and anchoring. Those segments need to be laid by a cable ship for effective burial. A design that separates sections between buried and on‐bottom lay can easily be coupled with ROV wet‐mate connectors and allow more flexibility. Having a central distribution node for hydrophone riser cables, for example, permits not only the deployment, but eventual maintenance and upgrade of hydrophones on an individual basis. The distribution node and hydrophone and riser cable segments may be standardized, with the uniqueness of a site dictating the cabling to the shore station. By modifying the design of the APL‐UW nodes, a redundant shore cable could be implemented. 
All equipment to be deployed offshore should be capable of deployment in Sea
State 6 weather conditions
We understand that this capability is desirable at high latitude sites. This is a serious operational requirement, however, that may require unusual assets to accomplish. A recent survey of ROV operators produced no encouraging responses. 
The triplet topology should be such that in case of failure of one or more of the
three hydrophone sub-systems there is resilience of the remaining hydrophones
The triplet topology is the minimum configuration that enables azimuthal directionality with omnidirectional hydrophones grouped in isolation, i.e. in the absence of other nearby hydrophones. By incorporating a suitable degree of system modularity and a star topology into the cable configuration, the failure of a single hydrophone should have no effect on the performance of the remaining individual hydrophones in its local group, although such a situation would result in loss of unambiguous directionality to that group. Since IMS hydrophone installations are typically designed in triplet pairs, the loss of a single hydrophone in the type of modular system described above should not seriously compromise the directionality of the installation as a whole. 
Modularity of the node to shore cable, with dry or wet mate-able connectors (to
facilitate for example the repair or replacement of damaged cable sections or
for derisking installation in extreme environments)
Many submarine telecom installations do not use connectors on their seafloor cables. They prefer to raise a damaged cable with the node or repeater attached, remove the bad cable section and then splice the ends together on the deck of the cable ship. The reason for this approach is that they consider the connector to be the weak link in their system. CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 8 of 34 Since most telecom cables are buried out to a depth of 1200 m or more, the company figures they are relatively safe from external aggression by fish trawlers, ship anchoring or other such external factors. In deeper water the cables are not buried but are in areas with relatively low problems of external aggression. For the IMS hydroacoustic stations APL‐UW would recommend that wet mate connectors be used to facilitate modular repair of all system components. It would be hard for the CBTB system to duplicate the degree of component reliability that the telecoms have achieved without spending an inordinate amount of time and money. APL‐UW feels that when the life cycle costs to the organization are calculated, they will show that using a modular connectivity for all of their components will truly save money in the long run. 
Trade-offs of using wet mate-able versus dry mate-able technologies
The advantage of using wet mate technologies is that one can remove components from the system while it is installed on the sea floor without disturbing the rest of the system. With dry mate‐able technologies one must bring the component to the surface for servicing while it is still attached to the rest of the system. For installations where inclement weather will allow only short weather windows for installing a new component or replacing a failed one, the advantages of the wet mate technologies are immense. This type of technology could easily make the difference between the success or failure of the installation. On the negative side, wet mate technologies are more complicated and expensive than dry mate‐able components and have a significantly shorter service history. These factors must be weighed in determining which technology is best suited for the particular type of installation. 
Appropriately armoured sub-sea cables with fiber-optic data link and electrical
power supply to the nodes
Selecting an appropriate sub‐sea cable is extremely important in designing the IMS hydroacoustic stations. The process should begin with an accurate seafloor mapping and sub‐bottom profiling. Once the surface and sub‐surface topology are understood, cable selection can commence. The best option for an installation like this would be a standard submarine telecom cable. This coaxial type of cable consists of a number of fiber pairs for communication purposes surrounded by a single copper conductor for supplying power to the node, with a sea current return. In general the cable leaving the Shore Station should be buried at least 1m beneath the sea floor out to a depth of 1200m or more. This will require an armoured cable. The type of terrain that the cable will be buried in determines the type and amount of armor normally used for this purpose. After the buried section, the cable will be switched to a lightweight submarine telecom cable that is normally laid on the sea floor surface. The importance of using a standard submarine telecom cable is that the industry has perfected cable joining and connector terminating techniques that are extremely reliable. To use any other type of cable could introduce a major risk factor. 
Specification and availability of cables
Underwater cables are generally manufactured to order, with lead times commonly in the range of 14‐20 weeks. Riser cables are typically subject to more stringent design tradeoffs than comparable performance seafloor cables. In general, riser cables are designed to minimize in‐water weight while providing adequate gauge power conductors and maintaining an acceptable working‐to‐breaking load ratio. Other design considerations to CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 9 of 34 be addressed by APL‐UW will be fish bite protection, jacket material water permeability, water blocking, conductor and strength member configurations, and mechanical termination design, and service life. 
Strain/fatigue and wear and tear associated with hydrophone riser vibrations
The design of the riser cable is critical to the success of the sensor deployment. In order to maintain position, tension on the cable is necessary that will, by nature, generate strum frequencies based on cable diameter, length and current velocity. Several cable fairing options are available to reduce strumming amplitude, and the cable configuration can sometimes be adjusted to minimize in‐band effects. Newer, digital hydrophones use smaller diameter cables, resulting in reduced drag and different strum amplitude and frequency. Good, long term current data are important for effective hydrophone riser design. 
Hydrophone housing, riser and mooring design concepts, with particular
emphasis on suppression of strumming cable vibrations, flow noise, and
hydrophone vibrations
Two common means of addressing flow‐induced noise in hydrophone moorings are mechanical isolation of the hydrophone housing from the riser cable, and the use of faired riser cables. Cable fairings are available in ribbon, hair and hard configurations, as well as extruded jacket ribbing, with selection influenced by factors such as cable tension and drag coefficient (driven by watch circle requirements), length and construction, ocean current distribution (spatial and temporal), and cost. APL‐UW will consider each site individually when making recommendation. 
Remote isolation and identification of faults in the nodes and moorings without
compromising the functionality of the remainder of the system
The ability to remotely detect and identify faults in the system is extremely important. If a fault is so severe that a repair ship must be sent to fix the problem, one must ensure that the appropriate repair part and field technician are both aboard the vessel before it leaves the dock. A built‐in fault diagnostic routine that is operable from land enables the operator to determine the required course of action to restore functionality in advance. A good fault location system should in no way compromise system functionality. APL‐UW has implemented extensive remote diagnostic capabilities in the RSN nodes, ranging from basic functions such as temperature, humidity and orientation detection to more advanced functions such as overvoltage, overcurrent, and ground fault detection. We will address these issues further in the study. 
UWS electronics designs (high reliability, easy and accurate optical cable or
electronic/electrical fault identification and location)
To develop a high reliability system that is affordable requires the development of a complete life‐cycle analysis of the system. In particular, the cost of maintaining a remote underwater system can be enormously high if appropriate design decisions are not made at the beginning of development. A system with a 20 year Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) requirement for the wet‐end makes such decisions even more critical. Achieving high reliability normally starts with an analysis of potential failure modes for the system. From this analysis, the designer will select components that meet the reliability CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 10 of 34 requirements wherever possible. When the selection is in doubt, redundant components should be considered. 
Reliable constant current or constant voltage power supply for the underwater
nodes (one node consists of a hydrophone triplet, with the characteristics
described in Attachment 1)
Most submarine telecom systems use a constant current power supply to drive the cable. This constant current source is designed to drive the optical repeaters located every 60‐70 km that amplify and spectrally control the communication signals carried on the fiber. For the RSN Observatory, a constant voltage source was selected because of the much higher power required for both the initial installation and to provide future growth potential. The expected power drain of the IMS hydroacoustic stations does not appear to be as large as for RSN, but, since optical repeaters will not be used, it would still be advantageous to use a constant voltage source. Then, depending on the size and length of the cable, it would be easy to tailor the voltage to the specific site and minimize the incoming power. This will allow the system to be operated at appropriate power levels that will minimize heat dissipation inside the node. Since the node’s pressure vessel will probably be made of titanium, a poor conductor of heat, keeping the heat dissipation as low as possible should lengthen the lifetime of the components and increase system reliability. 
Sea-shore interface and data acquisition and storage segment design concept
and issues of compatibility with present hydroacoustic stations
Ethernet was selected as the standard protocol for the RSN network. All RSN seafloor sensors are either selected to have Ethernet outputs or have their signals converted from their native format to Ethernet. The system’s infrastructure can then easily handle the transmission of all sensor data back to the Shore Station using standard network technology. Keeping all transmission in an Ethernet format also greatly simplifies data handling after it reaches the shore. Unfortunately we do not have enough information to discuss compatibility with the present hydroacoustic stations but it would seem reasonable to expect that they would have the ability to work with an Ethernet. 
Digital hydrophone and signal conditioning electronics design concepts,
conforming to or exceeding the requirements listed in Attachment 1
Currently available, commercial digital hydrophones typically exceed the specifications listed in Attachment 1. APL‐UW is utilizing several having with 5 Hz ‐100 kHz bandwidth and 24‐bit digitization (to 325 kS/s) with a 90 dB low pass filter. The same manufacturer has another model with a bandwidth from 20 mHz to 1600 Hz and the same 24‐bit (140 dB dynamic range) digitization. The RSN system provides 10 microsecond timing (IEEE‐
1588) that is utilized by this vendor. Also, the onboard DSP generates time‐frequency data streams that are transmitted in addition to the time‐series data. 
Time to maturity for a proposed design
APL‐UW will provide a timeline for finalizing a proposed design that best meets the requirements provided by the Commission, and that is based on an agreed‐upon technology set. CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 
Page 11 of 34 Design validation approach and steps needed
Design validation approaches range from the purely analytical, as would be appropriate for very mature technologies in well‐defined environments, to a combination of analytical and empirical methods for less established technologies and/or difficult environments. APL‐UW will work with the Commission to clearly define the optimum technology set and the appropriate design validation approach. 
Considerations regarding the rough order of magnitude (ROM) prices/costs of
the envisioned systems
APL‐UW will provide a rough order of magnitude estimate for the cost to build and deploy the envisioned systems. 
Standard interface with existing sub-sea telecommunication cables to
maximize possibilities of deployment and repairs and related qualification
processes of the joints and cable terminations
The best type of cable to use for the hydroacoustic stations is undoubtedly a standard submarine telecom cable. The telecoms have invested large amounts of funding, spread over a period of many years, into the development of a cable architecture that is extremely reliable and cost effective. They have also developed a number of specially designed ships for the deployment, jointing, at sea repair and recovery of these same types of cables. Modern submarine telecom cable has extremely high capacity for data transmission and because of its optical nature is highly secure from outside interference or detection. It also adds only insignificant delays between the time a data sample is taken and when it is received at the Station.

Design of the sea current return
Seawater returns are common in telecom systems, enabling a halving of copper in the power side of the cable. This reduces size, weight and cost of the cable. These systems typically place the cathode in the deep water location to avoid anodic‐material depletion at a difficult location. The cathode design issue is then to reduce current density to minimize salt accretion and element burnout. This is normally done by employing a carbon or platinum coated mesh. This concept prevents corrosion and distributes current density over a volume defined by the system current. On the shore side, sufficient cathode fields are drilled into the near‐shore to achieve < 1 Ω impedance connection to the seawater. The size of this field is dependent on the location, water table over the span of the year and the peak current needed to support the deployed system. 
Ship loading, transport and deployment of the envisioned systems
Modularizing cable segments, use of pre‐loaded reels of cables with connectors, and hydrophones with their riser cables as assemblies are straightforward elements to load onto vessels. Size and weight limits for ROV deployments fall well within most commercial shipping capacities. Many commercial vessels are willing to make temporary modifications to accommodate ROVs and the necessary winches to deploy moderately heavy equipment. Baseline specifications for ship and ROV capabilities will be generated as part of this study. CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 
Page 12 of 34 Reliability and life time estimates of the envisioned systems
APL‐UW will address reliability concerns and will provide service life estimates, supported by component manufacturer data, where available. 
Whenever possible and if economically feasible, preference should be given to
concepts which use proven reliable components and technologies (e.g. cables,
connectors, branching units). Ideally such components should have a history of
several years of use in ocean monitoring ranges, subsea telecommunications,
offshore engineering, oceanography or other ocean engineering applications,
and should be available on the market.
It is clear that high system and component reliability, as well as commercial availability of components will be important attributes for any proposed systems. By virtue of decades of experience in design, specification, construction and deployment undersea instrumentation systems, as well as current engagement in developing a large undersea cabled observatory using best available technology, APL‐UW is well positioned to identify proven components and technologies for the envisioned systems. 3.2 Other Points of Interest

Compatibility with existing ocean observatory systems (e.g. for the case where
one may plug a hydroacoustic monitoring component into existing ocean
observatories in order to compensate for loss of data during the time when a
hydrophone station may not be operational)
APL‐UW examined all accessible active observatories during the design phase of the RSN program, and attempted to specify as much common technology as possible to allow the ability to test components on other observatories. We found no ocean observatories that are fully pin‐compatible, nor any with standardized communications or timing protocols. While most observatories use, for example, ODI wet‐mate connectors, the pinouts are not common. This variation is driven partly by the pace of enabling technologies. For example, IEEE‐
1588 is not available in the 10 GigE network switches within the RSN primary nodes, but has been implemented in the RSN scientific nodes for future use (given the 25 year observatory design life) and is being used with digital hydrophones on the RSN network. A standard needs to be driven by outside forces, such as industry consortiums and user communities. CTBTO can be a part of these user communities, and we would recommend that involvement. This is not to say that it would be impossible to connect a CTBTO component into an existing ocean observatory, but it would most likely require some additional engineering in advance. APL‐UW can address this issue further during the study. 
Autonomous temporary replacement concepts (e.g. autonomous moored buoy
systems) to compensate for loss of data during the time when a hydrophone
station may not be operational
Temporary hydrophone system designs could be realized in at least two major formats – fully battery powered standalone moorings having surface expression for satellite communications, or inductive coupling for power and data transfer. The latter method would require an existing, functional inductive coupler system on the network. Gliders CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 13 of 34 also offer a potential solution. APL‐UW is a pioneer in the development of gliders with its SeaGlider, which has already integrated hydrophones onto the platform. Gliders can maintain station in an area for months and relay subsets of data either via satellite during surfacing intervals, or by acoustic modem to other links. A more detailed evaluation of these options can be addressed in the study. 
Consideration of potential benefits and drawbacks of using Ethernet protocol
based transmissions for the digitized data in the underwater system
APL‐UW definitely feels that using Ethernet technology in everything from the acoustic hydrophones to the S Station equipment is the most efficient alternative. This does involve more complexity than simpler electronic formats but the use of Ethernet opens the door to using a wide variety of commercial equipment in the system design. It also allows for easier system expansion with less redesign to handle system growth as well as a much easier path for technically refreshing the system over time as new components become available. 
Equipment qualification issues
All equipment to be installed on the hydroacoustic system must be subjected to a rigorous testing program. This applies to the Shore Station as well as to the wet end equipment. The qualification test program should be designed to exercise all critical functions of each piece of equipment and include comprehensive tests for when the equipment is connected into other parts of the system. It is extremely important that all necessary testing is done in as realistic a manner as possible before the equipment is deployed. If problems are not uncovered until the system is underwater, the cost to repair or replace is exorbitant. The qualification testing period should also include a long term operational “burn‐in” of the equipment to ensure that all infant mortality issues are eliminated before installation takes place. 
System component redundancy
To achieve the 20 year operational lifetime requested in the specification will probably require a certain level of redundancy. For some of the components that have extremely high MTBF numbers, redundancy should not be required. For more complex components that have lower MTBF numbers, redundancy will be considered. It will also be important to analyze the amount and complexity of circuitry required to control the redundant components to make sure that the overall effect still produces a higher reliability. 
Installation environmental limitations to include ship specifications and
operational considerations; ROV specifications, environmental limitations and
operations
It is the experience of APL‐UW that ships and ROVs must be considered together to properly meet mission requirements. Issues of deck layout, crane and A‐frame capabilities and ROV space and utility requirements all intersect. Ship station‐keeping capabilities and ROV capabilities also must also be factored into the deployment and recovery planning process. APL‐UW will provide essential specifications for the ship and ROV combination as part of the study. CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 
Page 14 of 34 A high level system failure analysis.
A failure analysis should definitely be performed for the major components of any proposed system design. This failure analysis will necessarily be a high level approach until the detailed design effort is advanced enough to allow for selection of the system components. This high level approach will at least provide the organization with an understanding of where the weak points are located in the system. Using as much proven technology as possible in the system will greatly show benefits in the failure analysis. APL‐UW will provide a high level system failure analysis in conjunction with reliability and service life estimates as described above. 4.0
Other Concepts for Consideration
In addition to the many important study points detailed in Section 3 of the Terms
of Reference, APL-UW proposes the following additional concepts to be considered
for inclusion in the study.
4.1 Inductive Coupling
Recognizing that modularity is a critical design requirement for the next
generation IMS hydrophone stations, and that ROV wet-mate connectors will
play a key part in enabling that requirement, APL-UW believes that there is
justification to examine inductive coupling as a complementary technology.
ROV wet-mate connectors excel at high power, high bandwidth applications.
They are also very expensive (typically $25k-30k per side for electrical-optical
connectors, $10k-15k for electrical connectors), are rated for a limited number
of mates and demates, and require significant time on the part of even skilled
ROV pilots to correctly mate them.
Based on our experience, underwater inductive coupling is a cost-effective and
reliable way to transmit power at levels well above that required by most
commercial hydrophones, and likewise, is very effective at transmitting data
at bandwidths greater than required by low frequency hydrophones. Another
significant advantage offered by inductive couplings is the fact that they do
not need the high level of positional control required for ROV wet-mate
connectors, and can consequently be mated and demated more efficiently.
APL-UW has pioneered this technology in such projects as the ALOHA
mooring as described above, and is utilizing a more advanced version on the
RSN Deep Profiler, also described above.
4.2 Redundant Hydrophones
The price of even the most sophisticated hydrophone is likely to be a relatively
small part of the overall cost of most IMS installations. In difficult (i.e.
expensive) locations, that cost difference will be magnified. For this reason,
we recommend considering the use of more than one hydrophone per mooring
to improve system reliability through redundancy. If Ethernet hydrophones
are used, multiplexing signals onto one cable can be very cost effective.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 15 of 34 4.3 In-Situ Calibration of Hydrophone Installations
Hydrophone calibration is likely to be a long term concern. If the current IMS
doesn’t have a satisfactory method, APL-UW can suggest a few approaches
that could be implemented at hard-to-access locations to generate repeatable
calibration signals on command without the need to dispatch a ship.
4.4 Local Access to Cabled Undersea Networks for Testing
The RSN network will be active in 2013 and will have capacity to add
instruments such as hydrophones networks for testing should the need arise.
5.0
Proposed Study Schedule
In accordance with the requirements established in Section 6 of the Terms of
reference, APL-UW agrees to a six month study duration based on our current
understanding of the scope of work, to start from the date the Contract is signed.
A proposed schedule for this work is shown in Figure 4.
At this time, the earliest possible start date for this study would be 07 January,
2013.
Figure 3. Proposed study schedule
6.0
APL-UW Study Team
APL-UW has assigned the four key individuals listed below to conduct the study.
All four would serve for the duration of the study. Résumés for these individuals
are attached in Appendix A.

Gary Harkins, system engineering/electrical engineering

Kevin Williams, acoustic physics

Gerald Denny, ocean engineering

Geoffrey Cram, mechanical engineering
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 7.0
Page 16 of 34 Summary
There is great potential for improving the robustness, reliability, serviceability,
and service life of the IMS hydroacoustic stations. Some of the many options for
realizing these improvements include carefully considered modular elements such
as wet-mate connectors on discrete sections of underwater cable, a star topology
with a central undersea node for each hydrophone triplet, a ring topology from
shore station to each node, in situ hydrophone calibration, and consideration of
more recent technical developments such as inductive power and data coupling.
APL-UW is well qualified to conduct this study. We have a long history of
developing and deploying undersea instrumentation systems in general, and
hydrophones in particular. Being currently engaged in the construction of a world
class undersea cabled observatory, we have a broad and deep understanding of the
current state-of-the-art for all the components and design issues involved in
constructing such networks. We also have strong relationships with key suppliers
of underwater connectors, cables and instrumentation – including hydrophones
and seismometers – and with ROV service providers. We have an excellent
working relationship with our subcontractor L-3 MariPro, and we have
considerable underwater equipment deployment experience with our own systems
worldwide.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL APPENDIX A
Résumés for APL-UW Study Team
Page 17 of 34 CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 18 of 34 GaryL.Harkins
Principal Electrical Engineer and Department Chairman, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington Education
M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, 1968 B.S., Electrical Engineering, Seattle University, 1965 EmploymentHistory
Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington 1989–Present Department Chairman, Electronic & Photonic Systems Center 1983‐1989
Principal Electrical Engineer 1978‐1983
Senior Electrical Engineer 1973‐1978 Electrical Engineer 1969‐1973 Associate Electrical Engineer 1966‐1969 Assistant Electrical Engineer WorkExperience
Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington 2003 ‐ Present Chief Engineer, Regional Scale Nodes Observatory 1993 ‐ Present Chief Engineer, AN/UNQ‐9 Tactical Data Recorder Systems 1988 ‐ Present Chief Engineer, AN/BQH‐9 Acoustic Data Collection System 1989 – 2008 Project Manager, TPS Data Processing System 1988‐1994 Project Manager, Behm Canal Acoustic Tracking Range 1985‐1994 Project Manager, AN/BQH‐10 Acoustic Data Collection Systems 1984‐1987 Project Manager, TARSUS Acoustic Survey System 1978‐1999 Project Manager, AN/BQH‐5 Acoustic Data Collection Systems 1972‐1978 Senior Engineer, Carr Inlet Acoustic Tracking Range 1970‐1982 Senior Engineer, AN/BQR‐26 Acoustic Lens Systems 1969‐1972 Design Engineer, Arctic Marginal Ice Zone Experiments 1969‐1970 Design Engineer, Kikit Island Survey System 1966‐1969
Design Engineer, Submarine Weapon Systems Accuracy Tests CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 19 of 34 Kevin L. Williams
17525 58th W
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Principal Physicist, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington
Associate Professor, University of Washington School of Oceanography
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Physics, Washington State University, 1985
M.S., Physics, Washington State University, 1983
B.S., Physics, Washington State University, 1979
HONORS/AWARDS
Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America, 1998
EMPLOYMENT
20112001 2000 2008 - 2011
2000-2006
1998-2000
1995-2000
1988-1995
1985-1988
1979-1981
Department Chairman, Applied Physics Laboratory, Univ. of Washington,
Acoustics Department
Associate Professor, University of Washington, School of Oceanography
Principal Physicist, Applied Physics Laboratory, Univ. of Washington
IPA at Office of Naval Research
Department Chairman, Applied Physics Laboratory, Univ. of Washington,
Ocean Acoustics Department
Affiliate Associate Professor, University of Washington, School of
Oceanography
Senior Physicist, Applied Physics Laboratory, Univ. of Washington
Physicist, Applied Physics Laboratory, Univ. of Washington
Physicist, Naval Coastal Systems Center, Panama City, FL
Physicist, McDonnell Douglas, Huntington Beach, CA
PUBLICATIONS:
S. G. Kargl, K. L. Williams, E. I. Thorsos, “Synthetic Aperture Sonar Imaging of Simple Finite
Targets during SAX04,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 37, 516-532 (2012).
M. Zampolli, A. L. España, K. L. Williams, S. G. Kargl, E. I. Thorsos, J. L. Lopes, J. L.
Kennedy, and P. L. Marston. “Low- to mid-frequency scattering from elastic objects on a sand
sea floor: Simulation of frequency and aspect dependent structural echoes.” J. Comp. Acous.,
Vol. 20, No. 2 (2012).
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 20 of 34 J. R. La Follett, K. L. Williams, P.L.Marston, “Boundary effects on backscattering by a solid
aluminum cylinder: Experiment and finite element model comparisons,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
130, 669 (2011).
K. L. Williams, S. G. Kargl, E. I. Thorsos, D. S. Burnett, J. L. Lopes, M. Zampolli, P. L.
Marston, “Acoustic scattering from an aluminum cylinder in contact with a sand sediment:
Measurements, modeling, and interpretation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 127, 3356-3371 (2010).
K. L. Williams, “Forward Scattering from a rippled sand/water interface: Modeling,
measurements and determination of the plane wave, flat surface reflection coefficient,” IEEE J.
Ocean. Eng., 34, 399-406 (2009).
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, D.Tang, K. B. Briggs, E. I. Thorsos,” Acoustic Backscattering
from a Sand and a Sand/Mud Environment: Experiments and Data/Model Comparisons,” IEEE
J. Ocean. Eng., 34, 388-398 (2009).
D. Tang, K. L. Williams, E. I. Thorsos, “Utilizing High-Frequency Acoustic Backscatter to
Estimate Bottom Sand Ripple Parameters,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 34, 431-443 (2009).
B. T. Hefner, D. R. Jackson, K. L. Williams, and E. I. Thorsos, “Mid- to high-frequency acoustic
penetration and propagation measurements in a sandy sediment,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng.,34, 372387 (2009).
D. R. Jackson, M. D. Richardson, K. L. Williams, A. P. Lyons, C. D. Jones, K. B. Briggs, and D.
Tang, “Acoustic observation of the time dependence of the roughness of sandy sea floors,” IEEE
J. Ocean. Eng.,34, 407-422 (2009).
A. L. Gerig, A. P. Lyons, E. Pouliquen, K. L. Williams, “Comparison of Seafloor Roughness
and Scattered Acoustic Temporal Decorrelation”, IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 34, 423-430 (2009).
J. E. Piper, R. Lim, E. I. Thorsos, and K. L. Williams, “Buried sphere detection using a synthetic
aperture sonar,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 34, 485-494 (2009).
K. L. Williams, “Sand acoustics: The effective density fluid model, Pierce/Carey expressions and
inferences for porous media modeling, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 125, EL164-170 (2009).
J. Yang, D. Tang, K. L. Williams, “Direct measurement of sediment sound speed in Shallow Water '06,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, EL116 (2008) D. Tang, F. S. Henyey, Z. Wang, K. L. Williams, D. Rouseff, P. H. Dahl, J. Quijano, and J. W. Choi, “Mid‐frequency acoustic propagation in shallow water on the New Jersey shelf. II. Intensity fluctuation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, EL91 (2008) CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 21 of 34 D. Rouseff, D. Tang, K. L. Williams, Z. Wang, J. N. Moum, “Mid‐frequency sound propagation through internal waves at short range with synoptic oceanographic observations,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 124, EL73 (2008) D. Tang, F. S. Henyey, Z. Wang, K. L. Williams, D. Rouseff, P. H. Dahl, J. Quijano, J. W. Choi, “Mid‐frequency acoustic propagation in shallow water on the New Jersey shelf: Mean intensity,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 124, EL85 (2008) B. T. Hefner and K. L. Williams, “Sound speed and attenuation measurements in unconsolidated
glass bead sediments saturated with viscous pore fluids,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 120, 2538-2549
(2006).
K. L. Williams, E. I. Thorsos, W. T. Elam, “Examination of Coherent Surface Reflection Coefficient (CSRC) approximations in shallow water,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 116, 1975-1984 (2004).
D. R. Jackson, K. L. Williams, E. I. Thorsos, and S. G. Kargl, “High-frequency subcritical
acoustic penetration into a sandy sediment,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 27, 346-361 (2002).
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, E. I. Thorsos, D. Tang and K. B. Briggs, “Acoustic
backscattering experiments in a well characterized sand sediment: Data/model comparisons
using sediment fluid and Biot models,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 27, 376-387 (2002).
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, E. I. Thorsos, and D. Tang, “Comparison of sound speed and
attenuation measured in a sandy sediment to predictions based on the Biot theory of porous
media,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 27, 413-428 (2002).
J. E. Piper, K. W. Commander, E. I. Thorsos, K. L. Williams, “Detection of Buried Targets
Using a Synthetic Aperture Sonar,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 27, 495-504 (2002).
K. B. Briggs, D. Tang, and K. L. Williams, “Characterization of interface roughness of rippled
sand off Fort Walton Beach, Florida,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 27, 505-514 (2002).
D. Tang, K. B. Briggs, K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, E. I. Thorsos, “Fine-scale volume
heterogeneity measurements in sand,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 27, 546-560 (2002).
M. D. Richardson, K. L. Williams, K. B. Briggs, and E. I. Thorsos, “Dynamic measurement of
sand grain compressibility at atmospheric pressure: acoustic applications,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng.,
27, 593-601 (2002).
K. L. Williams, J. M. Grochocinski, and D. R. Jackson, “Interface scattering by poroelastic seafloors: First-order theory”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 110, 2956-2963 (2001).
K. L. Williams, “An effective density fluid model for acoustic propagation in sediments derived
from Biot theory”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 110, 2276-2282 (2001).
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 22 of 34 K. L. Williams, F. S. Henyey, D. Rouseff, S. A. Reynolds, T. E. Ewart, “Internal wave effects on
high frequency acoustic propagation to horizontal arrays - Experiment and implications to imaging,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 26, 102-113 (2001).
K. L. Williams, “Temporal fluctuations in the acoustic scattering from bottom-deployed objects
and localized biological treatments,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 26, 63-70 (2001)
E. I. Thorsos., K. L. Williams, N. P. Chotiros, J. T. Christoff, K. W. Commander, C. F.
Greenlaw, D. V. Holliday, D. R. Jackson, J. L. Lopes, D. E. McGehee, M. D. Richardson, J. E.
Piper, and D. Tang, “An overview of SAX99: Acoustic measurements,” IEEE J. of Ocean. Eng.,
vol. 26, pp. 4- 25, 2001.
R. Lim, K. L. Williams, E. I. Thorsos, “Acoustic scattering by a three-dimensional elastic object
near a rough surface,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 1246-1262 (2000).
Eric I. Thorsos, Darrell R. Jackson, Kevin L. Williams, “Modeling of subcritical penetration into
sediments due to interface roughness,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,107, 263-277 (2000)
Kevin B. Briggs, Kevin L. Williams, Darrell R. Jackson, Christopher D. Jones, Anatoliy N.
Ivakin, Thomas H. Orsi, “Influence of fine-scale sedimentary structure on high-frequency
acoustic scattering,” submitted to Marine Geology (November 1999).
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, “Bistatic Bottom Scattering: Model, Experiments, and
Model/Data Comparison,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,103, 169-181 (1998)
S. G. Kargl, K. L. Williams, R. Lim, “Double monopole resonance of a gas-filled, spherical
cavity in a sediment,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,103, 265-274 (1998)
Kevin L. Williams, Frank S. Henyey, James M. Grochocinski, Daniel Rouseff, Terry E. Ewart,
Stephen A. Reynolds, “The Effect of Ocean Volume Variability on Synthetic Aperture Sonar,” J.
Underwater Acoustics, 47, 665-668 (1997)
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, “A Model for Bistatic Scattering into Ocean Sediments for
Frequencies from 10-100 kHz,” J. Underwater Acoustics, 47, 795-810 (1997)
Dezhang Chu, Kevin Williams, Dajun Tang, D. R. Jackson, “High Frequency Bistatic Scattering
by Sub-bottom Gas Bubbles,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 102, 806-14 (1997)
Frank S. Henyey, Daniel Rouseff, James M. Grochocinski, Stephen A. Reynolds, Kevin L. Williams, “Effects of Internal Waves on a Horizontal Aperture Sonar,” IEEE J. Ocean Eng., 22, 1-11
(1997)
D. R. Jackson, K. B. Briggs, K. L. Williams, M. D. Richardson, “Tests of Models for High-frequency Sea-Floor Backscatter,” IEEE J. Ocean Eng., 21, 458-470 (1996)
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 23 of 34 D. R. Jackson, K. L. Williams, K. B. Briggs, “High-frequency observations of benthic spatial
and temporal variability,” Geomarine Letters Vol.16, 212-218 (1996).
K. L. Williams, D. E. Funk, “High frequency forward scattering from the arctic canopy: Experiment and high frequency modeling,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 96, 2956 - 2964 (1994)
Dajun Tang, Guoliang Jin, Darrell Jackson, Kevin Williams, “Analyses of high-frequency
bottom and subbottom backscattering for two distinct shallow water environments,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am., 96, 2930 - 2936 (1994)
K. L. Williams, J. S. Stroud, and P. L. Marston, “High frequency forward scattering from
Gaussian spectrum, pressure release, corrugated surfaces. I. Catastrophe theory modeling,” J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., 96, 1687-1703 (1994)
P. D. Mourad, K. L. Williams, “Near Normal Incidence Scattering from Rough, Finite Surfaces:
Kirchhoff Theory and Data Comparison for Arctic Sea Ice,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 94, 1584-1597
(1993).
K.L. Williams, G.R. Garrison, P.D. Mourad, “Experimental examination of growing and newly
submerged sea ice including acoustic probing of the skeletal layer,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 92,
2075- 2092 (1992).
K. L Williams, R. E. Francois, “Sea Ice Elastic Moduli: Determination of the Biot Parameters
using In-Field Velocity Measurements,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 91, 2627-2636 (1992).
D. L. Funk, K. L. Williams, “A Physically Motivated Simulation Technique for High Frequency
Forward Scattering Derived using Specular Point Theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 91, 2606-2614
(1992).
R. H. Hackman, K. L. Williams, “Aspects of the Axisymmetric Acoustic Scattering from Finite
Elastic Cylinders: Resonance Suppression and the Bipolar Coupling Phenomena,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am., 91, 1375-1382 (1992).
R. E. Francois, K.L. Williams, G.R. Garrison, P.D. Mourad, and J.C. Luby, “Ice Keels I:
Intrinsic physical/acoustic properties of sea ice and scattering from ice blocks (U),” Navy
Journal of Underwater Acoustics Oct. 89.
K.L. Williams and L.J. Satkowiak, “Linear and parametric array transmission across a watersand interface - theory, experiment, and observation of beam displacement,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
85, 311-325 (1989).
K.L. Williams, G.S. Sammelmann, D.H. Trivett, and R.H. Hackman, “Transient Response of an
Elastic Spheroid-Surface Waves and Quasi-Cylindrical Modes,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 85, 23722377 (1989).
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 24 of 34 Kevin L. Williams, Roger H. Hackman, and D.H. Trivett, “High frequency scattering from
liquid/ porous sediment interfaces,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,84, 760-770 (1988).
Roger H. Hackman, Gary S. Sammelmann, Kevin L. Williams, and D.H. Trivett, “A reanalysis
of the acoustic scattering from elastic spheroids,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 83, 1225-1266 (1988).
Kevin L. Williams and Philip L. Marston, “Synthesis of backscattering from an elastic sphere
using the Sommerfeld-Watson transformation and giving a Fabry-Perot analysis of resonances,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 79, 1702-1708 (1986).
Kevin L. Williams and Philip L. Marston, “Backscattering from an elastic sphere, SommerfeldWatson transformation and experimental confirmation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 78, 1093-1102
(1985); 79, 2091 (E) (1986).
Kevin L. Williams and Philip L. Marston, “Axially-focused (glory) scattering due to surface
waves generated on spheres,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 78, 722-728 (1985).
Kevin L. Williams and Philip L. Marston, “Mixed-mode acoustical glory scattering from a large
elastic sphere: Model and experimental verification,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 76, 1555-1563 (1984).
Philip L. Marston, Kevin L. Williams, and T. Hansen, “Observation of the acoustical glory: High
frequency backscattering from an elastic sphere,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 74, 605-618 (1983); 78
1128 (E) (1985).
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 25 of 34 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS ARTICLES
K. L. Williams, E. I. Thorsos, D. R. Jackson, B. T. Hefner, “Thirty years of sand acoustics: A
perspective on experiments, models, and data/model comparisons,” Proceedings of OA2012,
Beijing, China, May 2012.
S. G. Kargl, K. L. Williams, T. M. Marston, J. L. Kennedy, L. L. Lopes, “ Acoustic response of
unexploded ordinance (UXO) and cylindrical targets,” Proceedings of Oceans ‘10’, September
2010.
T. M. Marston, P. L. Marston, K. L. Williams, “Scattering Resonances, Filtering with Reversible
SAS Processing, and Applications of Quantitative Ray Theory,” Proceedings of Oceans ‘10’,
September 2010.
K. L. Williams, S. G. Kargl, E. I. Thorsos, D. Tang, “Synthetic Aperture Sonar (SAS) Imaging
and acoustic scattering strength measurements during SAX04 (Sediment Acoustics Experiment –
2004): Experimental results and associated modeling.” in Proceedings of Boundary Influences in
High Frequency, Shallow Water Acoustics, University of Bath, UK 5th-9th September 2005.
D. R. Jackson, D. Tang, K. L. Williams, and E. I. Thorsos, “Bistatic scattering by sediment
ripple fields,” in Proceedings of Boundary Influences in High Frequency, Shallow Water
Acoustics, University of Bath, UK 5th-9th September 2005.
K. L. Williams, R. D. Light, V. W. Miller and M. F. Kenney, “Bottom mounted rail system for
Synthetic Aperture Sonar (SAS) imaging and acoustic scattering strength measurements: Design/
operation/preliminary results”, in Proceedings of the International Conference “Underwater
Acoustic Measurements: Technologies & Results”, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 28th June – 1st
July 2005.
E. I. Thorsos, K. L. Williams, D. Tang and S. G. Kargl, “Sound interaction in ocean sediments,”
in Proceedings of the International Conference “Underwater Acoustic Measurements:
Technologies & Results”, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 28th June – 1st July 2005.
D. Tang, B. T. Hefner, K. B. Briggs, A. H. Reed and K. L. Williams, “Measurement of sediment
interface and subbottom properties,” Proceedings of the International Conference “Underwater
Acoustic Measurements: Technologies & Results”, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 28th June – 1st
July 2005.
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, E. I. Thorsos, D. Tang and K. B. Briggs, “Spatial and temporal
variability in bottom roughness: Implications to high frequency subcritical penetration and
backscattering,” Proceedings of the Impact of Littoral Environmental Variability on Acoustics
Predictions and Sonar Performance Conference, Lerici, Italy Sept. 2002.
J. L. Lopes, C. L. Nesbitt, R. Lim, D. Tang, K. L. Williams and E. I. Thorsos, “Shallow grazing
angle sonar detection of targets buried under a rippled sand interface,” in Proceedings of Oceans
2002 MTS/IEEE, pp. 461-467 (2002).
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 26 of 34 E. I. Thorsos, K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, M. D. Richardson, K. B. Briggs, and D. Tang, “An
experiment in high-frequency sediment acoustics: SAX99,” Proceedings of the Institute of
Acoustics 23, 344-354 (2001).
K. B. Briggs, K. L. Williams, M. D. Richardson, and D. R. Jackson, “Effects of changing
roughness on acoustic scattering: (1) natural changes,” Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics
23, 375-382 (2001).
M. D. Richardson, K. B. Briggs, K. L. Williams, A. P. Lyons, and D. R. Jackson, “Effects of
changing roughness on acoustic scattering: (2) anthropogenic changes,” Proceedings of the
Institute of Acoustics 23, 383-390 (2001).
K. L. Williams, M. D. Richardson, K. B. Briggs, and D. R. Jackson, “Scattering of highfrequency energy from discrete scatterers on the seafloor: Glass spheres and shells,”
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 23, 369-374 (2001).
Kevin Williams, Darrell Jackson, Dajun Tang, “High frequency bistatic scattering from
sediments - experiments, modeling, future work,” Proceedings of the International Congress on
Acoustics and the Acoustical Society of America, Seattle, Washington, June 1998.
E. Thorsos, D.Jackson, J.Moe, K. Williams, “Modeling of sub critical penetration into sediments
due to interface roughness,” Proceedings of the High Frequency Acoustics in Shallow Water
Conference, Lerici, Italy July 1997.
John S. Stroud, Philip L. Marston, Kevin L. Williams, “Intensity moments of underwater sound
scattered by a Gaussian spectrum corrugated surface: Measurements and comparison with a
catastrophe theory approximation,” Proceedings of the High Frequency Acoustics in Shallow
Water Conference, Lerici, Italy July,1997.
Kevin L. Williams, Darrell R. Jackson, “Bottom Bistatic Scattering: Experimental Results and
Model Comparison for a Carbonate Sediment,” Proceedings of the High Frequency Acoustics in
Shallow Water Conference, Lerici, Italy, July 1997.
Kevin L. Williams, Darrell R. Jackson, “High Frequency Bistatic Scattering By Ocean
Sediments: Models And Experimental Tests,” Proceedings of the Shallow Water Acoustics
Conference, Beijing, China, April 1997.
D. R. Jackson, K. L. Williams, “High Frequency sea-bed scattering measurements in shallow
water,” Conference Proceedings of 3rd European Conference on Underwater Acoustics (July
1996).
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson (1995), “Acoustic scattering measurements at 40 kHz,”
Proceedings of the Workshop, Modeling Methane-Rich Sediments of Eckernfoerde Bay, T.
Wever, Ed., FWG Report 22, 97-100.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 27 of 34 K. L. Williams, P. H. Dahl, D. R. Jackson, “Some current efforts and future plans in surface and
bottom scattering characterization (U),” Proceedings of The Technical Cooperation Program,
July 1994
K. L. Williams, D.R. Jackson, “Monostatic and bistatic bottom scattering: Recent experiments
and modeling,” Proceedings of Oceans ‘94’, September 1994
K.L. Williams, R. Stein, T. Wen, and R.E. Francois, “Determination of the elastic moduli of sea
ice,” Proceedings of Oceans ‘89’, 4, 1231-1235, September 1989.
K.L. Williams and L.J. Satkowiak, “Bounded Beam Transmission Across a Water/Sand Interface:Experiment and Theory,” Proceedings of Oceans ‘88’.
Kevin L. Williams and Philip L. Marston, “Scattering from an aluminum sphere: Fabry-Perot
analysis of resonances based on the Watson Transformation,” in Proceedings of the 12th
International Congress on Acoustics (Beauregard Press, Toronto, Canada, 1986), pp I1-2.1-2.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 28 of 34 Gerald Denny
Professional Interests:
Ocean sensor systems, particularly acoustics, acoustic signal processing and associated engineering
problems, and environmental acoustics.
Education:
Master of Science, Ocean Engineering, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island,
1982. Under the guidance of Drs. L.R. LeBlanc and L.A. Mayer, I developed a high-resolution
deeply-towed sub-bottom profiling system. This novel work included both wet and dry hardware
and acquisition and post-processing software. That system has evolved and become a commercial
product. Studies included acoustics, signal processing, corrosion and oceanography.
Bachelor of Arts, Applied Physics and Information Science, University of California at San
Diego, La Jolla, Ca, 1975. Under Drs. V.C. Anderson and F.H. Fisher, I studied acoustics and
optics and signal processing, including optical and acoustical holography and synthetic aperture
sonar.
Experience:
*
2007-Present: University of Washington, Applied Physics Lab, Seattle, WA
Principal Engineer: Part of the core team designing and implementating the Regional Scaled
Network (RSN), a $160M NSF funded component of the Ocean Observatory Initiative, that
provides transformational capability to ocean sciences. Wide ranging duties include writing system
requirements and specifications, hydrodynamic modeling, design coordination and site selection
with the science staff of the project, environmental impacts of features of the system, sensor
acquisition and testing, establishing Operations and Maintenance procedures and processes, and a
reference for instrumentation.
*
2003-2007: Alaska Native Technologies, LLC, Anchorage, AK & Poulsbo, WA
Chief Sonar Engineer: CTO and Systems Engineering developing and testing new generation
acoustic (active and passive) equipment for military applications. PI for the principle program
novated from SciFish to start ANT, an ANC 8(A) company. The program evolved into a
development adding passive acoustics to UUVs (gliders). Other projects include SBIRs for a dual
mode sonar (broadband and parametric, NSWC) and a broadband swimmer detection sonar for
harbor security (DHS), and adding avoidance behaviors to UUVs (ONR). Phase I SBIR of a
development using a Generalized Nearfield Acoustic Holographic (GAH) scheme to calibrate the
hull sonars on the new DDG-1000 class vessel. Part of the design team for the new High Gain
arrays for SEAFAC. General Manager: served as interim GM for ANT from March ‘04 to
November ‘05 responsible for all operational activities. I was FSO, setting up the FCL and ability
to hold and process classified data at the Poulsbo Office. I expanded the Poulsbo office from 1 to
13 persons (1997 to present) and established the Newport, RI office in fall 2006.
*
1997-2003: Scientific Fishery Systems, Inc., Anchorage, AK & Poulsbo, WA
Chief Sonar Engineer: System engineering developing and testing new generation acoustic
equipment for primarily fisheries and also military applications. Responsible for system
development from concept, modeling and proposal to hardware and software development and
integration to system testing and delivery. Program Manager for the development of 1) an
Acoustic Temperature Profiling sonar (ONR SBIR Phases I, II and III funded), 2) a new broadband
split-beam tracking sonar (NSF SBIR Phase II funded) and a long range tuna detection sonar.
Tested systems on commercial and NOAA vessels. Instructor (acoustics and signal processing) for
SciFish’s short course in Broadband Acoustics.
*
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 29 of 34 1995-1998: Chapman University, Bangor Extension Campus, Silverdale, WA
Adjunct Professor (part-time): Teaching Oceanography (lecture and lab), physics and
mathematics. Developed and taught the first lab class at this campus.
*
1994-1997: SEMCOR/SEACOR, Bremerton, WA
Senior Systems Analyst, Electronics Engineer, Technical Writer: Developing and updating software
testing procedures and requirements for Advanced Display Systems.
*
1991-1994: System Engineering Technologies, Inc., Edmonds, WA
Staff Scientist (part time): Research and modeling of problems in ocean acoustics involving
advanced signal processing schemes, such as time-frequency distributions and high-order spectral
decomposition of ocean noise.
*
1989-1993: West Sound Associates, Bremerton, WA
Associate-Acoustic Engineer/Analyst: Research and Development Engineer/Analyst for problems
in: underwater acoustic system design and modeling, acoustic signal processing, field data
correlation and analysis (acoustic and environmental) and ocean engineering (mooring, corrosion,
current measurements). Conducted studies of acoustic-meteorological interaction of an Alaskan
fjord (SEAFAC) and an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the impact of high intensity sound on
the aquatic life of Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Assisted (modeling, software and hardware
development, and testing) in the development of a successful Near-Field Acoustic Holography
system for CD-NSWC, Detachment Bremerton.
*
1982-1989: Honeywell, Marine Systems Division (now Ratheyon), Everett, WA
Senior Sonar Systems Engineer/Analyst: Scientist/Engineer/Analyst for developmental sonar
system concept modeling and design. Developed the corporate capability for environment and
propagation modeling. Functioned as Systems Engineer, Applications Modeler, Project
Engineer, Software Engineer and Electrical Design Engineer on commercial and military
systems such as the Passive Arctic Whale-Tracker, MSF E-M field modeling, Mk-50 torpedo
sonar, AN/BQS-14A(FLU), AN/SLQ-33, LFA, IUSS, AN/SQQ-89i and High Gain Array for
SEAFAC.
Electro-Acoustic Test Engineer: Responsible for design and implementation of commercial and
MIL-SPEC electrical and acoustic systems testing, including test requirements and documentation.
*
1980-1982: University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
Research Assistant: Developed and tested a broadband acoustic subbottom profiling system
(design and implementation), including hardware, software, and signal processing of a FM chirp,
matched-filter system.
*
1977-1980: Linn-Benton Community College, Albany, OR
Faculty: Taught (including curriculum and facilities development), Basic Electronics, Physics, and
co-taught Oceanography courses.
*
1973-1976: Scripps' Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA
Research Assistant: Under Dr. F. Fisher, examined the pressure effects of acoustic absorption in
sea water. Built and operated experimental apparatus to support this work. Also functioned as
Computer Operator and Data Analyst: Under Arnold Bainbridge, for Geochemical Ocean
Sections (GEOSECS).
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 30 of 34 Publications (sample):
Pressure Effects of acoustic absorption in sea water at 20 KHz, F.H. Fisher, G.F. Denny, E.D.
Squire, 1976, Scripps' Technical Bulletin #76-99, Scripps' Institution of Oceanography.
Development of a deeply-towed High-Resolution Subbottom Profiler, Master's Degree Thesis,
Gerald F. Denny, Dept. of Ocean Engineering, University of Rhode Island, 1982.
Behm Canal, Alaska Acoustic-Meteorological Compendium and Analysis Report, Gerald F.
Denny, West Sound Associates for DTRC-Det Puget Sound, August 1990 and Addendum of
October 1990.
Aquatic Studies Technical Report: Assessment of the Potential Effects on Aquatic Life Due to the
Intermediate Scale Measurement System (ISMS) at Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, G.F. Denny with
D.H. Bennett, C.M. Falter, P.M. Washington, G. Thomas, WSA Technical report for DTRC/ARD,
Bayview, Idaho, October, 1990.
Near-Field Target Strength System Acoustic Field Separation Risk Assessment: Separation of
Acoustic Fields, Final Report and Appendices, Ernest W. Swenson and Gerald F. Denny, WSA
Technical Report for CD-NSWC/Det Bremerton, December, 1992.
NRL Holographic Data Analysis Report, G.F. Denny and E.W. Swenson, WSA Technical Report
for CD-NSWC/Det Bremerton, November, 1993.
Final Report, Long-Range Tuna Detection System, Design Specification, G.F. Denny, K.D.
deVilleroy, P.K. Simpson, NOAA Technical Memorandum, September, 1997.
A Broadband Acoustic Fish Identification System, G.F. Denny, P.K. Simpson, J. Traynor,
Presentation to the joint 16th ICA/ 135th ASA meeting in Seattle, WA, June 1998
Assessment of a broadband acoustic fish identification system in the Missouri River, Denny, G.,
Chapman, D., Fairchild, J., & Jacobson, R. (1999). 2000 Annual Meeting of the American
Fisheries Society, St. Louis, MO, Poster Session.
Preliminary Assessment of a Broadband Acoustic Fish Idenfification System in Shallow Water,
D.C. Chapman, G.F. Denny, P.K. Simpson, Presentation at ICES Symposium, Montpilier, France,
May 2002
Broadband Fish Identification of Laurentian Great Lakes Fishes, G.W. Fleischer, P.K. Simpson,
and G.F. Denny, Presentation at ICES Symposium, Montpilier, France, May 2002
Comparative Evaluation of Parametric and Omnidirection Sonar for Mine-Like Target Detection
and Identification , Denny, G., deVilleroy, K., Simpson, P., Subcontract No. K99-017-SF, for
Office of Naval Research Technology Review Panel Presentation, October 23, 2002.
Broadband Active Sonar Swimmer Detection and Identification, Jae-Byung Jung, Gerald Denny, James
Tilley, Alex Kulinchenko and Patrick Simpson, IJCNN conference, July, 2006
Underwater Acoustic Gliders , Gerald Denny, Billy Jones, James Tilley and Jennifer Gunderson, NDIA
Undersea Distributed Networked Systems Conference, 13-15 Feb 2007
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 31 of 34 Professional Societies:
 Acoustical Society of America (>25 years)
 IEEE (Ocean Engineering and Acoustic, Speech and Signal Processing Sections, >25 years)
 Seattle Section Ocean Engineering Society (Chair)
 US delegation member to ICES FAST Working Group
Other:
 US Navy Vietnam Veteran
 DoD Security Clearance
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 32 of 34 GEOFFREY CRAM, PE
CAREER SUMMARY
Versatile, practical and tenacious mechanical engineer with over 20 years of increasing
responsibility on capital projects in ocean engineering, biotech manufacturing and the pulp and
paper industry. Highly capable project manager with excellent communications and problem
solving skills in regulated industries.
NOTABLE STRENGTHS







Capital project and team management, stakeholder engagement
Equipment design, sourcing, integration
Root cause analysis, process troubleshooting and optimization
Data and process analysis
RFP authoring, contract negotiation, supplier management
Documentation authoring (test plans, reports, specifications, SOPs, validation protocols)
Communication (verbal, reports, presentations, graphics)
SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Currently leading multidisciplinary team of engineers in development of $15MM water column
profiling systems, including three sets of winch-based shallow profilers and undersea
platforms to be moored at depths of 600-3000 m in the northeast Pacific Ocean for 25-year
operation. Manage the design, specification and fabrication of all mechanical systems as well
as underwater cables and connectors.

Managing production of 14 undersea nodes: responsible for design, procurement, fabrication
and testing of titanium pressure housing and external support structures. Nodes will be
deployed at depths of 80-2900 m in the northeast Pacific Ocean for 25-year operation.

Established and implemented development test guidelines that cover planning through report
writing. Design, conduct and oversee tests such as device and housing integrity under
pressures to 6500 psi, oil seal leakage, motor efficiency in oil, and heat sink effectiveness.

Specifying and managing the procurement and machining of 60,000 lb of Grades 2 and 5
titanium for over 100 undersea pressure housings, as well as manage their design and stress
analysis. Total cost of titanium, fabrication and testing will exceed $3MM.
ZYMOGENETICS, INC., Seattle, WA

Started up and optimized $15 MM clinical manufacturing plant for production of novel
therapeutic proteins. A new Hepatitis C drug produced in this plant showed significant
promise in clinical trials, resulting in one of the larger joint-development deals in recent
history ($1.1 B in milestone payments) with a major pharmaceutical partner.

Successfully managed $2 MM fast-track GMP biomanufacturing equipment upgrade project.
Delivered custom, highly automated 500 L bioreactor, portable Clean-in-Place skid, and
process control system from initial specifications and supplier negotiations through
acceptance testing, commissioning and validation, on time and within budget. First
production bioreactor run was exceptionally smooth and resulted in excellent product titer.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Federal Way, WA

Led multidisciplinary teams to design and build test equipment that met a range of R&D and
QC needs using precision motion control, robotics, and instrumentation such as load cells,
temperature, flow and humidity sensors, under strict budget and time constraints.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Page 33 of 34 
Championed and supported thermal energy analyses of pulp and paper mills across the US.
Developed financial models of energy optimization proposals for senior management.
Identified 17% average thermal saving opportunities, of which up to half were implemented.

Provided key engineering support for fast-track optimization of 20-year old paper machine,
improving chemical addition, feedstock supply and major subsystems, leading to 30%
production increase for net return of $13 MM/y at cost of $1.5 MM.
EXPERIENCE
APPLIED PHYSICS LAB, UW, Seattle, WA
Principal Mechanical Engineer
(2010 - present)
Managing a multidisciplinary team of engineers to develop advanced underwater profilers,
undersea floating platforms and seafloor nodes for long term operation in the open ocean,
under strict cost, performance and time constraints. Create detailed budgets and project
plans for development, testing, production and deployment of these systems for execution
by team members and outside entities. Manage design, write specifications and test
protocols for undersea titanium pressure housings for 25 year operational life. Check
drawings and calculations, lead mechanical design reviews, lead, design and conduct
mechanical and thermal tests. Specify and procure underwater cables and connectors,
custom slip rings, mechanical and lip seals. Manage suppliers and consultants. Secret
clearance.
ZYMOGENETICS, INC., SEATTLE, WA
(2004 – 2009)
Senior Process Engineer
Managed the specification, procurement, commissioning and optimization of GMP
equipment for clinical manufacturing plant. Wrote engineering standards, specifications
and RFQs; sized equipment, established instrumentation and utility requirements.
Negotiated with and managed equipment suppliers, prepared for and conducted SATs and
FATs. Designed and implemented equipment upgrades. Managed drawing system.
Supported validation (IQ/OQ/PQ) of entire range of equipment, including authoring and
execution of validation protocols. Provided engineering support to Facilities and Process
Development departments.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Federal Way, WA
(1988 – 2003)
Engineering Specialist (1999 – 2003)
Analyzed and debottlenecked pulp and paper mill processes and unit operations at locations
across the United States and Canada. Achieved cost-effective increases in reliability,
production and quality, minimizing environmental impacts and negative effects on
upstream and downstream operations.
Energy Optimization Engineer (1995 – 1999)
Championed and supported thermal and electrical energy as well as water use optimization
projects at pulp and paper mills across the US. Acquired and analyzed operating data from
a diverse array of sources. Performed detailed financial analyses of optimization projects
for senior management. Coordinated activities between mill staff and consultants.
R&D Instrumentation Engineer (1988 – 1995)
Headed teams to rapidly develop specialized automated test equipment, utilizing 3-D CAD,
customized automation, instrumentation, and precision machining. Translated the needs of
senior scientists into fully functional and reliable devices, rapidly and within limited
budgets.
CTBTO REF. NO.: 2012‐0293/ALVAREZ PART I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EDUCATION
 Biotechnology coursework, Shoreline Community College, Shoreline, WA
 MS Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
 BS Mechanical Engineering, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
FOREIGN LANGUAGES
German and French (basic conversation and reading)
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Ocean Engineering Society (OES)
Page 34 of 34 Exhibit F
Facilities and Administrative (F&A)
Rate Proposal Process
Update to the Faculty Council on Research
Management Accounting and Analysis
A Division of Financial Management
within Finance and Facilities
June 2013
Agenda
Review of Process, Timeline, and Steering
Committee
Summary of Risks and Issues
Questions
2
How are F&A Costs Recovered?
MAA
calculates and
submits F&A
proposal
DCA negotiates
overall F&A rate
agreement with
UW
OSP uses F&A
rate agreement
to negotiate
individual awards
As grant
expenses
occur, F&A
is recovered
Rates calculated in accordance with Circular A-21
Activities captured for entire ‘base year’
(FY 2013 -- July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013)
Various data sets required to calculate F&A rates:
Functional use of key campus space
financial expenses, demographic, and payroll data
Next proposal to be submitted Spring 2014.
3
3
Facilities and Administrative Rate Proposal
Project Life Cycle
Initiation
Winter 2011
Scope
Winter 2011 –
Summer 2012
Planning
Spring - Fall
2012
Develop project plan and budget
Form key campus advisory committees
Assess and address pre-base year opportunities and risks
Develop campus training and tools
Update space inventory and CAD drawings
Conduct campus training
Departments functionalize space & external review of space
Prepare F&A proposal and facilities projections:
Implementation
Fall 2012Spring 2014
O&M (central and department-funded repair &
maintenance, utilities, security, and EHS)
Equipment and building depreciation
Cost sharing and base issues
Special rates (SLU, APL, and RPC)
Submit proposal and projections
Control
Close
Summer 2014 Winter 2015
Spring 2015
Respond to DCA information requests
Prep campus departments for DCA space reviews
DCA campus visits and space reviews
Determine negotiation parameters with Steering Committee
Negotiate rates
4
Conduct proposal
post-mortem
November 2011
Facilities and Administrative Rate Proposal – FY 2013
OVERSIGHT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART -- DRAFT
Red Names –
TBD as of
6/3/13
Steering Committee
Susan Camber, Mary Lidstrom,
Ruth Mahan, Bob Stacey,
Jerry Miller (FCR Rep), Gary Quarfoth,
Paul Jenny, Dave Anderson, V’Ella Warren, and
Ana Mari Cauce
All Campus
Advisory Group
Deborah Fishler, Kittie Tucker,
Kojay Pan, Jennifer Raines,
Eric Darst,
and MAA
SOM Advisory Group
Harriet Ortiz, Miranda Leidich,
Nancy McDonald,
Nancy Cameron, Ruth Woods,
and MAA
Executive Sponsors
Ana Mari Cauce
and
V’Ella Warren
Core Project Team
Cristi Chapman, Project Lead
Michael Anthony, Technical Advisor
Brion Norton, MAA
Devon Rosencrans, MAA
Hank Williams, MAA
University-Wide
Communication
All campus trainings,
College/Dept. Staff
and BOD/RAB/FCR meetings,
FM and other newsletters,
and MRAM
Key Process Partners
Academic departments,
OPB, CPO, GCA,
Facilities Services,
Financial Reporting,
and OSP
Campus
Stakeholders
Research Faculty,
College and Departmental
Leadership,
and Central
Administration
Updated 6/2013
5
Considerations and Risks for FY 2013 Proposal
Considerations
Risks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Federal fiscal climate
Residual ARRA funding offset with possible sequestration
A-81 Omni Circular
Strategic investments in key areas
Technology costs
Implementation of campus-wide Smart Grid*
Potential increase equipment capitalization threshold
Organizational changes since FY 2008 (e.g., College of the Environment)
• Overall negotiation environment
• Lack of integrated financial systems and aging financial systems
• Impact of budget and other cost reductions since FY 2008:
• Operations and maintenance costs
• Central and academic administrative support
• Utility costs in FY 2013*
• Continued movement of research groups
• Utilization of research space
• Validation of asset useful lives
6
Questions
7
Organized Research Rate:
New Negotiated Rates
(FY 2010-2014)
Previously Negotiated
Rates (FY 2005-2009)
On-campus
54% -- FY 2010-2012
54.5% -- FY 2013-2014
55.5% -- FY 2005-2007
56% -- FY 2008-2009
Off-campus
26%
26%
South Lake Union
66% -- FY 2010; 68% FY 2011;
72% -- FY 2012; 73% -- FY 2013;
74% -- FY 2014
66%
Regional Primate Center
42% (A)/
78% (A+B)/
83% (A+B+C)
44% (A)/
75% (A+B)
Applied Physics Lab
17%
17%
Other Sponsored Activity
33.8% (on-campus)
26% (off-campus)
n/a
Vessel
25% (S&W)
25% (S&W)
Instruction
53.0% (on-campus)
26% (off-campus)
58% (on-campus)
26% (off-campus)
8
Facilities and Administrative Rate Proposal Definitions
• APL – Applied Physics Laboratory
• CAD – Computer aided design (used to graphically represent building
floor plans and other structural layers of a building)
• DCA – Division of Cost Allocation (arm of the Department of Health and
Human Services responsible for negotiating F&A rates with the UW)
• FHCRC – Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
• F&A – Facilities and Administrative Costs (i.e., indirect costs)
• O&M – Operations and maintenance (utility-like costs)
• RCR – Research Cost Recovery
• RPC – Washington National Primate Research Center
• SLU – South Lake Union Biomedical Research Complex
9
Contact Information
Management Accounting and Analysis
Phone: (206) 897-1617
FAX:
(206) 897-1482
Box:
354988
Brion Norton
Cristi Chapman
Devon Rosencrans
Hank Williams
Michael Anthony
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
206.543.8282
206.543.9985
206.616.8490
206.616.2069
206.616.1379
[email protected]
Management Accounting and Analysis
A Division of Financial Management
within Finance and Facilities
10