-----Original Message-----

From: GSedlacek@jjma.com [mailto:GSedlacek@jjma.com]

Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:39 AM

To: Matthew Hawkins

Cc: Forcucci, David; Gary Sedlacek (E-mail)

Subject: Re: Hastelloy C and Healy Science Seawater modifications





We have had quite a history with CRES 304L on the Healy.  It was installed

in the seawater system, and lasted until just after the waranty was over.

The 304L failed due to pitting.  CRES 316L is a better material than 304L

in seawater.  However, whenever there is stagnant seawater in 316L, it has

a strong tendancy to pit.  Once pitting starts, it tends to continue since

the water velocity in the pitted area is usually very low.


If we could operate the system for years on end without securing it, we

might have a chance of success with 316L.  Even then, if there area bolted

sections with gaskets or other similar situations, we could get pitting.


Hastelloy C or titanium are much better materials for this seawater system.

Either material will last much longer than the 316L.  In my opinion, the

Hastelloy C is probably a better choice because it is lower cost, and the

pumps, although they are special order, are not as hard to get as the

titanium pumps.  If there are any questions, please let me know.




-----Original Message-----

From: Matthew Hawkins [mailto:hawkins@UDel.Edu]

Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:55 AM

To: Forcucci, David

Subject: Re: Hastelloy C and Healy Science Seawater modifications




We're in detailed design for our new coastal research vessel right now -

which, of course, involves piping systems.  We've tried to go with PVC

where ever ABS will let us - which (unfortunately) is not too many

places!  We'll be able to do PVC or Teflon systems in our case because

we won't penetrate WT bulkheads - labs are directly above scientific sea

chests and labs are "weather tight" only.  Your arrangement is probably

very different.  We'll have to have a metal (SS) seachest and seacock

(per ABS), but PVC and/or Teflon from there.  For "trace metal clean"

folks, we'll use dedicated systems over the side - not through a sea



Question for you.  We've been considering 316L for a number of other

salt water systems on board.  We've used "regular" SS on our current

vessel with mixed results - though pipes appear pristine, we've seen a

number of pin hole leaks develop.  Our naval architect is under the

impression that 316L (the highest/marine grade) does not have this



What kind of corrosion have you seen with 316L?  What kind of service

was it in, and how long did it last?  All we have heard so far is

hear-say - some specific info would be most helpful.


Many Thanks,


Matt Hawkins

Director, Marine Operations





-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Zettler [mailto:ezettler@sea.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:49 AM
To: 'Forcucci, David'
Subject: RE: Hastelloy C and Healy Science Seawater modifications

Hi Dave,

Is there a reason you need to use metal pumps? If not, I suggest the March Manufacturing pumps and plastic piping, as used on SEA and many of the UNOLS vessels.


Erik R. Zettler

Science Coordinator

Sea Education Association

P.O. Box 6, Woods Hole, MA 02543, U.S.A.

ph: 508-540-3954 x29 fax: 508-457-4673

email: ezettler@sea.edu website: www.sea.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Kluckhohn, Robert [mailto:Bob.Kluckhohn@usap.gov]
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 8:02 PM
To: Forcucci, David
Cc: Michaelson, Don; Campbell, Aaron
Subject: Healy notebook and RE: Hastelloy C and Healy Science Seawater modifications



    Hi Dave,


    I have been thinking about the intake and I am wondering what will happen in 10/10 ice with snow.   Will the intake clog with snow.   Second question the hull will conduct heat out of the box...  if you are drawing -1.8 SW and the hull is -2 or -4 degrees what will prevent the whole box from becoming a big block of ice? 


    Consider a second intake on the skag...  just  a pipe opening.   The new ice breaker we considering to replace the NBP may have keel for the sweep array and the sea water intake.   We are also considering an intake forward on the hull for long transits.   If you can create an intake that can be opened for the long transits it may be of interest to trace metal chemists that want to collect water while the vessel is underway.   Just a thought.


    The pumps we use are macerator pumps and they are food grade.   We have not had a problem with rust.    The pump heads have a Teflon head in the pump chamber.   I am not familiar with Hastelloy C...  








-----Original Message-----

From: Shailer Cummings [mailto:Shailer.Cummings@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 7:14 AM

To: Forcucci David

Subject: Re: Hastelloy C and Healy Science Seawater modifications



Hi Dave -


I've was involved in the Sea Water system on the RCCL EXPLORER of the

Seas (www.rsmas.miami.edu/rccl) and read your proposal with interest.

The system installed on the EXPLORER is a "flowing by-pass system": the

water flows through a manifold and up over the side.  Water is drawn off

the manifold to feed sensors.  This design minimizes the residence

time.  Some of the water is sent up to the Ocean lab 75m farther aft and

14 meters higher.  This Lab water passes through a maifold discharge

system and then up 4 decks and over the side.  The reason for going up

before discharge is to maintain head pressure the same all though the

system.  This way as faucets are opened/closed there is no pressure/flow

difference at any of the sensors, consequently no flow re-adjustment. At

the high discharge point the water is dumped into a large deck drain to

break any siphon affect.  Now my problem is cleaning the system and I

think that I will use a high pressure water hose snake( drain cleaning

type) and possibly an air propelled sponge (from GoodWay PJ-1200-60)to

wipe the inside of the long feed run.  The system is teflon lined

stainless with a PVDF (plastic) head pump.  Our pump would not be

suitable for ice.


Good luck with the improvements,






-----Original Message-----

From: Dale Chayes [mailto:dale@ldeo.columbia.edu]

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 5:55 PM

To: Forcucci, David

Cc: aicc@unols.uscg.mil; Brown, April LCDR; Glenn Cota (E-mail)

(E-mail); Jackie Grebmeier (E-mail); Meister, Neil LCDR

Subject: Re: Healy science seawater Modifications for Dry Dock 2003








With regard to the draft plan, in my quick read, I missed two things,

perhaps buried in references, that are outlined here:


1) The existing (or spare) SeaBird "remote" temperature probe has to

get mounted (or re-mounted?) in the re-plumbing forward, and,


2) The plumbing (perhaps with the exception of the headed overflow

line) should be insulated to keep the water from  from warming as it

wends its way through the vessel.


I note that this work requires integration into the vessels monitoring

system and I think that is a good idea. I didn't catch provision to

reverse the pump(s) from ECC. Should that be included in this round? 

If so, where is the reverse flow to be drawn from? (Hopefully not by

sucking water out of the pipes running aft to science systems such as

the TSG which would be likely to implode.) One would need to provide a

head tank or check-valved reservoir (of "clean" water.)


I also think that there should be a prominent statement in the

beginning, perhaps as part of the intro (Scope), where the intent is

stated as installing new plumbing, pumps, etc that the purpose of the

work should be stated. Perhaps the by adding to the first sentence

something like:


       "to achieve the goal(s) of........".


I can't think of any reason why one wouldn't tell the bidders what

problem is supposed to be solved by this work, but perhaps that is a

naive view?



A couple of other comments:



I did look at the separate (very nice) PDF rendering of the sea-chest

and separator designs. However, I found that many of the figures in the

draft plan did not render properly (the piping arrangements for

instance) when I opened the document in MS Word (Office X with all the

current updates).  Perhaps they are not (yet) in this version or

perhaps they were "linked" rather than embedded in the Word file.  It

might be a better (more portable and generally more accessible) if the

"plan" document was provided as a PDF with the figures embedded.


Section numbering:


This version jumps from section 1 (Scope) to Section 3.1 without

Section 2. Seems odd.