11 January 2011

Present: Chad Broyles, Chieh Peng, Phil Rumford, Carlos Zarikian, Steve Prinz, Paul Foster, Katerina Petronotis, John Miller, Brad Julson, David Houpt, Roy Davis.

Item 1: Core Racks/Photo table placement

Chieh gave a historical perspective on the placement of the d-tube racks and close-up photo table in the core lab. The SODV project did not provide space for the close-up table. Currently the table is moved between two locations, one (a) being in the middle of the core lab adjacent to the elevators, the other (b) in the corner of the microscope area next to the thin-section imager. The positioning of the close-up table affects the number and location of core racks available to the technicians. With the close-up table adjacent to the elevator two core racks can be placed in the corner of the microscope area (with some small adjustment to the location of the thin-section imager). Alternatively, having the close-up table in the alternate location only one core rack can be accommodated adjacent to the elevator. It seems that the positioning of the core racks has become an area of disagreement between the two technical groups and the opinion of the Curatorial LWG was sought in order to settle the matter.

A number of considerations were taken into account before the LWG came to its decision. Individual comments are appended to the end of this document.

Some of the advantages of configuration (a):

        ·         The two d-tube racks create more core storage space, essential on high recovery Exps. Cores can stay in the lab longer allowing for a buffer when the magnetics lab get behind in their measurements.

        ·         Lessens the intervals at which cores need to be boxed.

        ·         Having the close up table in the middle of the core lab allows it to become an auxiliary table which can be used for multiple purposes.

        ·         Shifts the core boxing process away from the space next to the cryo, elevator door, and footpath. Core boxing can be done in the much safer location in front of the paleo door.

        ·         Can take close-up photos from the whole core without flipping the section 180 degrees.

Some of the advantages of configuration (b):

        ·         Configuration (a) leaves the lighting more exposed to traffic that could result in damage to the equipment.

        ·         Configuration (a) may increase ambient noise levels in the microscope lab. A contention that was hotly disputed by the techs present at the meeting.

        ·         The close-up table can be used as a convenient place to box core.

        Bill Mills presented an alternative layout to the group. In general the group thought that this option would result in constricting the available space in already high traffic areas.

In conclusion the majority of the LWG thought that there was little advantage to configuration (b) during either high or low recovery Expeditions. The group was also aware of the ORTF recommendation that labs remain as flexible as possible to accommodate the mission specific goals of Expeditions.

Recommendation: The group recommends that configuration (a) be the default configuration. The LO/Staff Scientist may agree to change the configuration to meet the specific needs of an Expedition, but it should always return to its default state (a) at the end of the Expedition.

Item 2: Project Charter for IODP Core Sampling Program

Phil initiated a discussion of the elements of the project charter for IODP Core Sampling Program. Included in the discussion; the identification of the stakeholders; the modular design elements of the program; scope; testing; risks; and key deliverables.

Action: Once the document is complete Phil will circulate it to the LWG for comments.

Item 3: Splice Software/Reports

There was some discussion whether this should be a part of Sample Master or a LIMS report? It was generally though that it would be best to submit it as a LIMS report so that it could be completed in a timely manner.

Action: Phil will resubmit the project.

Item 4: Exp 323 Samples migrated from J-cores to LIMS.

Katerina and Carlos expressed a keen interest in having the Exp 323 sample data available in LIMS. This amounts to around 56K samples.

Action: Carlos will send an email to Japan to request Exp. 323 sample data. The GCR will need to give the KCC an Excel template in to which the data copied and from there uploaded into the LIMS database.

Specific comments/emails relating to Item 1

Hillis: 

I would like to throw my two-cents in regarding the proposed moving of racks and tables. This input comes from someone that spends as much as 90% of their time in the core lab and is always involved in boxing core. 

*Installing d-tube racks in the paleo/microscope room leads to a lot of noise in a typically quiet area. There is a lot of clanking around and noise as the racks are filled with d-tubes. We tried this setup one cruise and had complaints about noise from the paleontologists. The aft end of the microscope lab seems like the perfect, out-of-the-way space for photographers to work.

*Moving the close-up table to the current location of the d-tube rack led to two scientists making that their work area on 317. This meant their chairs were constantly in the walkway. The close-up table where it is now is out of the way for both the photographer to use for his purposes OR a scientist work area.

*As the close-up table is now, it serves as the perfect place to box core. When the photographer's items are not set up on the table (sediment cruise=not as many close-up requests), I am able to set up an empty wax box on the table and pack several core boxes without the help of anyone. On a high recovery leg, it's easier for one person to slip away to make a few boxes than several people leaving to box core. Plus, the table height makes it easier to box - no wrestling a cart at ankle height.

*Exp 323 has been the highest recovery cruise since the Singapore remodel and the layout worked well as-is. We would often have to box twice per shift, but that would have to happen regardless of the number of racks, because only so many boxes can be maneuvered on the cart. There was never a big issue with space in the racks. I believe we were ready with a worst-case scenario of placing the auxiliary rack in the splitting room if there was overflow, but it never occurred.

I fully support the idea of redesigning a d-tube rack that would have only a slightly wider footprint, but would hopefully allow for three more d-tubes across. The current rack has enormous side supports that are not necessary and waste space - if the supports were slimmed down, two additional d-tubes could easily fit per row. Plus, a 10-across design would make boxing easy.

Foster: 

A picture / drawing of the proposed layout would be very useful. Took me a bit of reading to figure out what I think the proposed layout looks like.

Not sure why they want to be able to switch them back and forth. No reason for this need provided.

Does put the photog doing close-ups directly into the walk path towards the elevator. Given this table is not used that heavily, should not be an issue.

With the amount of gear on this table I can definitely see the photogs not wanting it to become a "general" work area / piling point. May need some thought into making the closeup table more modular. IE remove closeup gear easily (possibly upwards) so that space is available for other tasks and put it back quickly when needed for closeups.

Overall I think it is a good idea and should move ahead quickly.

Prinz:

Full speed ahead on this project as far as I'm concerned. Chieh & I had the lab set up this way last year on Shatsky, everyone liked it, it made much more sense from work flow point of view & increased core section storage. If the attachments of the racks are kept temporary with unistrut, (no use of nail guns & welding) then we should all be happy. 

Crawford:

An effort has been made to make that area an efficient one for Thin Section Imaging and for Close-up Photography. Since Singapore, there have been opposing views, and I hoped that these discussions were done given the positioning of the PICAT (Thin Section Imaging Station) relative to the close-up station. 

Certainly the ships' Lab Configuration must be fluid and that I will not argue. Some have suggested removing the table where the Therm con normally resides across from the stairwell to place the rack needed in a high recovery leg. Obviously It is my wish to leave the current close up and thin section imaging area,as it is. The close-up station could be moved to the other side of the elevator but the area is very high traffic. The strobe lighting might be mounted on swing arms to fold out of the way, otherwise damage to the lights or injury might be a problem. Some will argue the close up station as is does not have the space it needs and yes compromises have been made already. To photograph some of the ends of the section the section must be flipped or reversed in order to do so. Most of the close up requests are hard rock and the pieces are removed from the liner so this is not a problem. The PICAT as well as any microscope type device has to be placed in subdued light. An Emergency light in the Paleolab was re-wired just a few days ago to make the microscope lab area a bit more user friendly. The impact to Photography and those others who are using the Thin Section imaging station will be significant.

Davis:

David, I agree with proposal. Jay in a meeting with Mills and I agreed that the option to move the table should be available. This was after it was moved to the corner during an Exp. 

Crowder:

I've taken a few days to think about the rack situation and get thoughts from others. Mills has also drawn out some ideas that you may see at some point and I will comment on those here as well. 

First off, I agree with many if not all of my core moving, boxing colleagues that having the D-tube rack(s) in the corner of the Microscope area is preferred. It was a luxury on X317 when there were two racks there. If memory serves, the second rack was put in on X324 to keep more sections in the lab for hard rock sampling purposes.

Additionally, the Close-up table did serve as a multi use space when it was next tot he elevator. Maybe that isn't desirable that the table would get cluttered with other stuff but it did not keep the Imaging Specialist from taking close-ups. Currently I use the Close-up table to box core on. I can push the box up against the wall and the boxes are high enough that I do not have to bend down. 

I do believe that having two Archive racks in the lab is generally a good idea, however, it is not absolutely necessary. I see more reason for this on a basement coring leg where it is desired to keep as many Working sections in the lab as possible for Sampling Parties. For a high recovery sediment leg, yes, two Archive racks will allow for some buffer when the SRM gets behind. The trouble with these two upcoming high recovery legs is that we can not get behind. There simply is not enough time between sites to catch up and very little time at the end. Regardless of storage space, the science party does have to compromise on the extent of measurements taken. 

I see two issues here. First, an immediate solution for the rapidly approaching X339. Secondly, what will our long term solution be? 

For X339 and X340, I suggest that the two archive racks are placed back into the corner in the Microscope area. It is an easy, workable solution for the short term. The Thin Section image station can be moved over by a foot to make room for the racks. Altering the station would require a little woodwork and repositioning of the cabinet and supports. 

You might see a recommendation from Mills to place the second rack in the Description area but it just doesn't work. The description area needs as much space as possible and not be closed off by a big rack. I would defer any decision regarding where the racks go for X339 to that tech and science crew. 

As far as a long term solution goes, I would NOT like to see the racks and Close-up Table switch around all of the time. For many years I have heard many discussions among staff to make new D-Tube racks (both Archive and Working) that can hold 10 sections across. One of the main reasons for that is that boxing becomes much easier as there are 10 sections to a box. We would need to examine this carefully as 10 across does take up a little more room and we would still need a stout rack for that many sections. The placement of the racks is the trick. The Working can go exactly where the one is now. I find the placement is good. The Archive could go in either of the two places we've used already or as you will see, Mills has a rework of the whole Microscope/Elevator area. 

Since I've only seen this for a few days I'm still considering it and could offer more thoughts down the road. The positioning and angle of the rack is critical. There are some good merits to the proposal and it certainly draws attention to an area of the lab that hasn't seen much change since we began. 

Broyles:

I fully support the ideas set forth in this project. I feel that it will be vital to have the extra core rack space for Exp. 339. Estimates suggest that we will be receiving 5000-6500m of core. We also will be drilling in shallow water at most of the sites. We will be receiving core about every 30 minutes. This is another reason why the extra rack space will be vital towards our efforts on Exp. 339.

Mills:

[Bill disagrees] with the proposed solution if it was meant as a permanent change to the lab.

Anyway, in the attachment you will see that I have an alternative proposal for a permanent solution. This isn't a perfect but I believe it addresses all of our major concerns and can easily be accomplished with a small amount of funds. 

My comments regarding the project: D-tube racks and close-up photo table placement in Core Lab 

Question, is this project a temporary rearrange to accommodate the upcoming high recovery expeditions or is this a proposal to permanently reconfigure the lab? 

A Temporary Change 

A temporary change in the lab layout does not require a project proposal. The Lab officer and Expedition Project Manager have to authority to modify the lab as necessary (working with shore supervisor and their staff) to meet the specific needs of an expedition, provided that the modification is not permanent and does not place any analytical system at risk. During Expedition 336 we added table space in the core entry and worked with David Houpt to remove the fast track to accommodate the special needs of this expedition. At the end of this expedition, the labs will be restored. 

Project justification: my comments are in italics 

Description of capability needed

1) Increase core storage space in the core lab

Yes! This definitely needed, additional storage would provide for: 

· Holding sections for magnetic measurements (which always fall behind core processing); 

· Holding hard rock core in the lab for description and sampling 

· Lessen the rate at which the staff must stop and box cores (critical during high recovery expeditions) 

2) Create a multi-purpose work surface; 

The current Close-up table is already used as a multi-purpose workspace. 

3) Reduce close-up photo core loading issue: Currently, in order to take a close up photo form top/bottom of a section, physical “flipping” of a section is required due to the location of the table. If the table is moved to the proposed location, the problem is completely eliminated. 

You need at least 10’ of counter space to avoid flipping the core for photos. This space only has 8’, so you would still have the core protruding into a busy walkway. Also, this is only an issue when photographing soft materials which is rare. The majority of close-ups are taken on hard rock cores where the pieces are removed from the liner. 

The last time the close-up table was in this space, you had at least of 4’ to walk around as the core description table was shorter. Since then, we have added the sampling table and added a 3rd description table which has taken up this space. Having people stand and work at this location just isn’t reasonable as there is barely room to get a cart of boxed cores through. Instead, many of us would like to get the D-tube cart and end table out, and open up the path to the elevator.

4) Relocate core boxing activity away from center of corelab. 

Boxing of the working half is in the center of the lab. Boxing of the archive half is in front of the elevator, granted this has its own issues, but this area is the least busy space in the lab. 

Moving the racks back into the Microscope lab would now shift these activities into the walkway used by the scientist working between the Paleo Prep Lab and their desks in the microscope lab. 

5) Reduce the possibility of damaging an analytical instrument (Cryomag) from core boxing activity 

Unlikely, there is a greater chance that we would run into it with a pallet jack than we would damage the system with our boxing activity. If we thought this was a serious problem, we could add protection. 

6) Eliminate blockage of elevator door and the pathway between core lab and portside labs. 

This does move the activity from in front of the elevator but it still blocks the port side labs. The access we need to keep clear on the port side, is the access between the Paleo Prep and Microscope lab. 

7) The location of the D-tube racks and close-up photo table needs to be reversible. And the man power to reverse the location should be less than 12 man hours. 

Does this project fix a current problem?

1) Currently, the close-up photo table sits in a corner and become a dead space. When the table is not being used for close-up photo, it becomes a junk yard. By moving the close-up table into the middle of the core lab, it becomes an auxiliary table, and it can be used for multiple purposes.

This is not dead-space and already is used for multiple purposes. During the core lab remodeling project on the transit from Hobart, we added two full size tables (the third description table and a sampling table) while keeping the cart table available outside the splitting room (which allows for another table inside the splitting room). We essentially doubled our table capacity in the lab and the need for another table cannot be used to justify moving the close-up table. 

2) By having 2Dd-tube racks in the corner creates more core storage space, which is essential for a high recovery expedition. 

Yes! Also, additional space is need for hard rock legs and for buffering cores for the magnetic lab. 

3) Moves core boxing away from space next to cryo, elevator door, and footpath. Core boxing will be done in front of paleo door, already proven as safe and effective location. It's a miracle cryo has not been damaged from moving and packing heavy core box directly in front. Core boxing in front of elevator door also limits use of elevator.

The space in front of the elevator door was always planned for this purpose, as both boxing and freight handling require a large open space. Also, let’s remember that the technical staff are the primary users of the elevator at the core lab level and during coring operations we actively discourage personal use. The potential of damage to the cryo is so unlikely it should not even be a consideration in my opinion. Our logistic activity presents a greater risk and we are not going to stop that activity. 

As a temporary change I have no issues with this proposal but as I said before, this really up to the LO and EPM, and David Houpt(if he has any concern regarding the Close-Up and PICAT systems. Also, I would point out, that the third description table (installed for the hard rock missions) can be removed (8 bolts) and because it is all aluminum, stored outside on the house top. This would provide room for the close-up table or for the second D-tube cart. If you leave the close-up area as is and move the second cart to this location, you’re looking at 1 man-hour to make this change. 

A Permanent Change

There is another reason I don’t support this change as a permanent solution to core storage problem. The scientists on the SODV design committees (representing the science community) wanted a microscope lab that was close to the core lab action but separated from the noise of core processing. Like everything else, we had to compromise the requirement but we did create a partial separation of the two spaces. Moving the archive core racks and boxing activity into this space would completely destroy what separation is left. The boxing activity and science use of this space are not compatible. On the expeditions that used this area for core racking and boxing, we did have complaints about the noise from the scientists using the microscope lab.

Although I don’t agree with Chieh’s proposed changes or all of her justifications, I do recognize the serious problem she is trying to address and its urgency. For the upcoming legs we should take temporary measures as necessary but we need a permanent solution. Here is what I propose…

Please refer to the attached drawing

1. Keep the Close-Up and PICAT stations in the current location: The current layout of this space is made up of various pieces of furniture left over from the SODV installation. I proposed removing everything (not the microscope stations) and design the entire area to meet the work requirements. When we do this, it is possible to install a 10’ counter along the port wall without affecting any microscope stations. This eliminates the core “flipping” issue with the current configuration. The close-up counter would be at 29 ½” inches with a permanently mounted close up stand and with lights that could either be removed or swung aside. The PICAT station would be mounted on a 36” high counter at the forward end which would allow for cores to slide under it. Computers and monitors would be mounted on the wall. Under the countertop we would install 24” deep Vidmar cabinets which would hold all of the close-up equipment (cleaning up the junkyard) and all of the microscope parts. This, in turn, would allow us to remove the tall vidmar cabinets and install either another microscope station or a general work bench in their place. We would effectively be adding another 10’ of new countertop to this lab (15’ in total) and eliminating all of the current issues with the Close-up station. Cost estimate: ~$2500 for the vidmar cabinets and countertops.

Note, the layout shown in the attached drawing has been verified by measuring the current space. 

2. Modify the aft end of the wall separating the Microscope from the Core lab and installing a permanent D-tube rack. 

On the attached drawing the black square is the frame of a standard repository D-tube rack (shown with D-tubes). The red box is the clear area necessary to use this rack. By angling the rack, we maintain 3’-2” walkway through the Paleomag lab to the forward staterooms and 4’-4” walkway to the port labs while keeping the access between the Microscope and Paleo Prep lab free. 

The rack would be walled on two sides which would maintain the Microscope lab’s separation from the Core lab but allow for easy cleaning behind and below the rack. Inside the Microscope Lab would lose one 5’ long, adjustable microscope table which would be replaced by custom counter top providing the same amount of desktop. The 3’ wall cabinet would be relocated to the wall over the close-up area. The new forward facing wall would hold a large format LED TV (identified in the Video Distribution project). The printer would be relocated to aft wall as shown. 

The existing wall would be removed but the ceiling supports would remain. This approach eliminates the need for structural modification and leaves the current fire boundary intact. The two new walls would be built under the ceiling supported by unistrut welded to the deck and with only two structural supports (on the corners) welded to the overhead. Installation would take less than 4 days to complete. No HVAC vents and only one light fixture would need to be relocated. 

The new rack would meet our core storage requirements (more than double current capacity, 2 carts +) and eliminated the need for Archive D-tube cart. With the cart gone, we could re-purpose this space other uses such as the storage of curation supplies or as a boxing station or completely remove everything and open up the walkway. 

Cost estimate: ~$500 wall materials and ~$400 for the rack (unless the repositories would give us one for modification) 

3. Replace the current Working D-tube cart with a permanent D-tube rack. 

Remove the existing unistrut frame used to secure the D-tube cart and replace both with a standard D-tube rack (shorten). This would increase working storage by 25%. The boxing table would remain as is. If we made the changes proposed in 2 and 3, I would recommend returning two of the carts to the repositories and leaving one onboard. 

Cost estimate: ~$300 for the rack 

4. Microscope Lab Detailing 

Purchase materials and fabricate custom shelving and desk trim pieces to provide additional room for research materials and personal items. Install task lighting under wall cabinets. 

Cost estimate: ~$800 for materials 

Timeline 

If this proposal is accepted and the materials ordered immediately, we could install the archive and working racks during 340T. I would recommend that rest of the work be completed during the next tie-up period.