DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee Report Executive Summary Interest in fixed ocean observing systems has been increasing for many years as it becomes apparent that the technology is now available to collect and return large volumes of data to shore using satellite or cable technology. Cable technology is particularly appealing since orders of magnitude more bandwidth can be supplied to observatories continuously at relatively low operational cost relative to satellite links. Due to rapid technology advances and a downturn in the industry, first and second generation lightwave submarine telecommunications cable systems are now being retired. These provide data capacities of 560 and 1120 Mb/s, respectively, and span long oceanic distances, including both transatlantic and transpacific. There is currently much discussion within the scientific community about the potential scientific resource provided by the re-use of these cables for seafloor and water column research. A DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee was tasked to provide the National Science Foundation and the Scientific Community with advice on the many technical and economic issues that must be addressed before significant resources are committed to the acquisition and re-use of retired telecommunications cable systems for scientific purposes. The specific issues that the committee was asked to address are given in the scope, which is provided in Appendix 1 of this report, and include those related to engineering limitations, development, power, communications, relocation, liability and spares. The principle findings of this study are: - There are no fundamental engineering limitations that would prevent effective re-use of retired cables either in-situ or relocated. The system power available for the observatory node instruments will be a limiting factor but only when high power consuming instruments such as pumps are used in a long or multi-node observatory. The system data transmission capacity available for the observatory node instruments should not be a limiting factor. The only required development that is unique to the re-use of retired systems is for circuitry to interface the observatory node instruments to the cable data stream and for shore based circuitry to interface the IP data format to the cable data stream format. - The only significant technical issues related to the relocation of cable are that cable recovery at cross-under with other cables is not possible and recovery of buried cable should not be assumed. There are no significant technical issues related to re-use of cable stations. - For equivalent architecture and complexity, re-used cable systems either in-situ or relocated, are almost always less expensive than new cable systems but it is deemed outside of the scope of the committee to comment on the issue of “equivalent architecture and complexity”. The principle recommendations from the committee are: - All spare cable and repeaters and available associated hardware and equipment should be procured. All spare terminal electronics and all available test and maintenance equipment should be procured unless time is available to do sufficient system design for re-used systems to permit detailed decisions. A complete set of first and second generation lightwave submarine telecommunications cable systems documentation should be procured. - Less expensive cable storage capabilities should be developed, e.g. coastal river barges, inexpensive university and government facility, laboratory or Navy, waterfront space. - A careful examination should be made of all terms and conditions in all of the existing licenses and permits granted to the original cable system owners as well as all applicable laws and treaties. - Third person liability costs and indemnification should be evaluated with an insurance carrier. - Working groups should be established to - build upon the work started by IRIS Ocean Cable with respect to the re-use of retired and to be retired cable systems, - develop a capital and expense investment time line to protect the ability to re- use retired and to be retired cable systems until decisions can be made and - develop specific plans for cable re-use for input to the re-use decisions. 1. Introduction First and second-generation electro-optical transoceanic telecommunications cable systems are being retired. There is currently much discussion within the scientific community about the potential scientific resource provided by the re-use of retired cables for seafloor and water column research. This DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee was tasked to provide the National Science Foundation and the Scientific Community with advice on the many technical and economic issues that must be addressed before significant resources are committed to the acquisition and re-use of these cables for scientific purposes. The committee scope is provided in Appendix 1 of this report. Interest in fixed ocean observing systems has been increasing for many years as it becomes apparent that the technology is now available to collect and return large volumes of data to shore using satellite or cable technology. Cabled observatories are essential to the Ocean Sciences (NRC, 2000), and the impacts of these observatories have been discussed in a succession of NSF workshops and NRC reports (National Research Council, 1998; National Research Council, 2000; National Academy Press, 2003). Cable technology is particularly appealing since orders of magnitude more bandwidth can be supplied to observatories continuously at relatively low operational cost relative to satellite links. The downturn in the telecommunications industry and rapid increases in available bandwidth have made the continued operation of these early generation cables by the industry uneconomical. The dramatic increase in capacity, coupled with over optimistic projections for traffic has led to the down-sizing of the industry and retirement of the older systems. Submarine cables require periodic amplification of the signals being transmitted. In the first and second generation optical cables, installed between 1988 and 1995, this was accomplished by changing the incoming optical pulses to a repeater into electrical pulses, regenerating them and then changing them back to optical pulses for further transmission. These repeaters were spaced at a distance of approximately 40 to 150 km depending on the specific system design. Newer systems, installed beginning in 1995, operate with optical amplifiers rather than signal regenerators, making it possible when appropriately designed to add additional signals at different light wavelengths without changing the cable system. This technology permits large increases in data capacity, with the newest systems capable of transmitting over 1 Tb/s, or as much as 2,000 times the capacity of the systems being retired. The fiber optic telecommunications cables being retired by the telecommunication industry and under consideration for scientific reuse include three Pacific systems—Hawaii-4 (HAW-4), Trans-Pacific Cable-3 (TPC-3), Guam-Philippine-Taiwan (GPT)—and four Atlantic Systems— Trans-Atlantic-8 (TAT-8), TAT-9, TAT-10, and TAT-11 The length of these cables (Figure 4) is 4238km (HAW-4), 9161km (TPC-3), 3749km (GPT), 6705km (TAT-8), 8358km (TAT-9), 7354km (TAT-10), and 7162km (TAT-11). The transfer of all or portions of these systems to science is currently in negotiations. A facility for ownership transfer is IRIS Ocean Cable, Inc. (IOC), a not-for-profit corporation formed by The IRIS Consortium in consultation with the National Science Foundation to acquire ownership of retired telephone cables for science. IOC currently owns two retired coaxial telephone cables: TPC-1 (Guam-Japan) with the University of Tokyo and Hawaii-2, which serves the NSF-funded Hawaii-2 Observatory (H2O). Other systems will also be made available as retirement of other systems occurs during the next few years. Appendix 2 provides a list of cables that have been retired or will be in the near future. The specific issues that the committee was asked to address are given in the scope and include those related to engineering limitations, development, power, communications, relocation, liability and spares. 2. Technical Description of Systems 2.1. Transmission and electrical properties AT&T submarine cable systems being considered for scientific reuse include both first and second generation designs. The principal differences are bit rate and transmission wavelength. The first generation systems, designated SL280, operate at a rate of 295.6 Mb/sec per fiber pair and at a wavelength of 1.30 µm. Second generation systems, designated SL560, operate at a rate of 591.2 Mb/sec per fiber pair and at a wavelength of 1.55 µm. All systems now being considered for reuse have two active fiber pairs plus a spare fiber pair. Spare fibers can be switched in as needed on a section-by-section basis. To the best of our knowledge as of the date of this report, during the active commercial lifetimes of these systems there have been only two instances where switching to spare fiber sections was required. Switching of fibers at repeaters using supervisory units in the terminal facilities provides a powerful means of testing these systems and the spare fibers and components in the repeaters. Terminal facilities include supervisory equipment for monitoring repeaters and for switching to spare fibers if needed. All systems are DC powered from the ends and operate at a current of 1.6 A. It is important that equipment incorporated into these cable systems for scientific purposes be designed to maintain this current level throughout the system implying that observatories must be connected in series with the cable power system. The maximum voltage that should be applied to these systems is 8.0 kV. Repeater spacing, both within a single system and between systems, varies widely. The range for all systems is 40 to 150 km. The repeater voltage drop for SL280 systems is 22.3 V and for SL560 systems is 43.0 V. The DC resistance of the cable is 0.71 Ω/km for both generations of systems, so the voltage drop in the cable is 1.14 V/km. This information is required to calculate power available to science instruments and will be discussed later in the report. Third generation AT&T systems which were installed starting in 1995 contain optical amplifier repeaters instead of regenerative repeaters. Early optical amplifier systems used 21-mm diameter cable with the same electrical and mechanical properties as the cable used in regenerative systems, while later systems almost all used a 17-mm diameter version of the cable with lower weight, lower strength, and a DCR of 1.0 Ω/km. The fiber count in these systems varies from four to eight. The operating current depends on the number of fibers, but in all cases is lower than the current in regenerative systems. While we expect that some of these systems will be decommissioned over the next few years, at this time we know of no specific plans by any owner to do so. Consequently, these systems will not be considered further in this report. 2.2. Mechanical properties All systems use the same repeater housings, which, with their associated cable couplings, weigh 3.8 kN in air and 3.1 kN in water. Cable couplings are designed to allow handling of repeaters around 3-meter diameter or larger drums and sheaves. Smaller equipment may require special handling arrangements. All of the AT&T systems use SL21 cable or equivalent. The deep water version, commonly called LW, and the special applications version, called SPA (originally fishbite protected) have the following properties:

Property LW SPA Diameter 21 mm 32 mm Weight in air 8.25 N/m 13.4 N/m Weight in water 4.76 N/m 5.40 N/m Hydrodynamic constant 58 deg-kts 50 deg-kts Nominal transient tensile strength 81 kN 82 kN Nominal operating tensile strength 53 kN 58 kN Breaking strength 107 kN 107 kN Bending diameter, no load 2.0 m 2.0 m Bending diameter, >10 kN load 3.0 m 3.0 m The principal value of this information is to permit calculation of cable recovery rates for various water depths and sea states. LW and SPA recovery rates are limited primarily by cable properties. Similar data are available for the various armored cable types, but recovery rates are usually limited by shipboard handling considerations rather that cable properties. Three types of armored cable are normally used in regenerated SL21 systems: Cable type Abbreviation Light wire single armored LWA Single armored SA Double armored DA All armored cables have limitations on the maximum depths from which they can be recovered at reasonable speed (practical minimum 1 knot). This limit depends in part on the weather conditions assumed for the recovery. Since a particular length of cable may need to be recovered by itself, by a weaker cable adjacent to it in the system, or by a stronger cable adjacent to it in a system, the maximum depth also depends on the particular system configuration and may vary along the length. Most system cable configurations result in maximum recovery depths of approximately 2000 meters or less for single armored types and approximately 1000 meters or less for double armored. Single armor and double armor (SA and DA) cable use is limited to shallow water and rough bottoms. They cannot be recovered from deeper than 2 km because of their heavy weight. When buried, recovery of cable is both expensive and high-risk. Spares exist for all cable types. 3. Cable re-use opportunities There are four generic possibilities for the use of retired cable systems: 1) short segments that do not require signal regeneration in a system repeater, 2) re-use in-place, 3) partial move utilizing the existing cable landings, and 4) total move of long segments requiring a new cable landing. The economic benefits of reusing existing systems are particularly strong when the observatory spans long linear distances. The serial nature of nodes in this configuration requires the same high reliability designed into existing systems. As a rough example, the cost of just buying the cable and repeaters required for a 5,000 km observatory could be as much as $50,000,000. For roughly 20% of this cost, an existing system can be recovered and redeployed ready for installation of science nodes and instrumentation. 3.1. Short segments Sections of cable can either be taken from the spare cable resource or recovered from the ocean floor to provide observatory infrastructure. Since these segments do not contain repeaters, the power and data transmission are restricted only by the characteristics of the cable and available technology. The length is constrained only by the data rate and the transmitter, fiber and receiver characteristics. For lengths up to approximately 100km, data rates on the order of a Tb can be achieved using current technology. The only advantage of re-using cable instead of using new cable for this purpose is that the former should be considerably less expensive. In the past the cost of new deep water cable was approximately $8,000/km but we are aware of recent sales at significantly lower prices due to current market conditions. Science uses for such cable segments include coastal observatories and extensions to existing and planned observatories. As with any cabled observatory requiring a new shore landing, cost will depend to a large extent on conditions and infrastructure at the cable landing. The Hawaii Undersea Geophysical Observatory (HUGO) (Duennebier, et.al., 2002) utilized spare SL cable for its infrastructure. 3.2. Re-use in-place Cable systems that were installed in areas of scientific interest can be used in-place. The Hawaii- 2 Observatory (H2O) is an example of such an observatory. H2O was installed on a coaxial telecommunications cable about halfway between Hawaii and California. Compared to the SL cable systems, however, the coaxial Hawaii-2 system has about three orders of magnitude lower data bandwidth and less than 1/4th the electrical power. Re-use in-place requires that the cable be cut, lifted to the surface, and that an observatory node connection be spliced into the cable. Two types of connections are possible: terminal – where the connection is at the cut-end of the cable, and in-line – where the cable continues on both sides of the connection. While an in-line connection requires the addition of cable of approximately 2½ times the water depth and thus is more expensive to install than a terminal connection, an in-line connection allows the cable to be used for observatories over its whole length. The constant-current (series) electrical power system of these cables requires that each in- line observatory node draw power from the cable by a voltage drop across the node connection. The voltage drop times the cable current yields the electrical power consumed by that observatory. Since the resistance in the cable and the repeaters also draw power by reduction in the voltage, there is a limit to how much power can be removed from the system. In the hypothetical power curve shown below, 16 in-line observatory nodes, each drawing about 900 W, are connected to the 4200 km HAW-4 cable at 250 km intervals (Figure 1). This example requires that the cable be powered at both ends at about 7500V plus margin for earth potential differences. This example assumes fixed observatory loads and uniform spacing, but spacing and loads can vary without changing the result as long as the source voltages and currents remain the same. In this example, the observatories could share four 100Mb/s data channels, or about 25 Mb/s continuous rate per observatory (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Potential use of the HAW-4 Cable showing the cable voltage curve with 16 observatories, each drawing 900 W from the cable. Figure 2: HAW-4 Cable Map showing 16 observatory nodes (stars), each capable of supplying 900 W of power and 25 Mb/s data flow. 3.3. Partial move Retired cables could be cut, and the cable recovered from the ocean floor onto a cable ship, then re-laid along a path more appropriate for observatory science needs. If HAW-4, for example, were cut near the center (close to where the voltage goes through zero), then about eight observatories similar to those in the example above could be installed on each side (Figure 3). Partial move has several advantages. As the cable is recovered, the in-line and terminal node connections can be spliced into the cable aboard ship, eliminating the requirement for cutting and splicing a previously laid cable. Where many nodes are to be inserted, this could yield a considerable cost saving. A second advantage is that the cable landing is not changed, and a new shore landing is not required. The figure below shows one possible use for HAW-4, using the cable for a series of observatories east of Hawaii and for observatory nodes west of the Gorda and Juan de Fuca plates (complementary to the NEPTUNE Project). Each node can deliver an average of 900 Watts and 25 Mb/s for observatory support. Figure 3: Possible re-use of the HAW-4 cable for observatory nodes east of Hawaii and west of the Gorda and Juan de Fuca plates. 3.4. Complete relocation Complete relocation involves recovery of a large section of cable from the ocean floor and re-use in a completely different location. While this option is certainly the most expensive of those described, it also can provide observatory infrastructure in areas where it might otherwise be impractical, such as the southern ocean. Complete relocation might also supply a large number of fixed observatories in regions where there is a strong need for continuous monitoring of environmental parameters, such as the equatorial Pacific and the Kuroshio current. A map of some of the cable systems being retired this year and in the near future that terminate in North America and Hawaii is shown below. (Figure 4) Figure 4: Map of Undersea Light-Wave Cables Being Retired (Butler, 2003) The map below (Figure 5) shows, if the cables could be made available, how they might be relocated to more interesting areas in the southern ocean. Each of these segments could support a string of from 6-10 observatories drawing 800 W each depending on the intended uses and cable length. Each of these 6-10 observatories could easily support the science requirements of a high- rate DEOS buoy. Even though the map was generated for a buoy scenario, the benefits of reusing cable to support this research effort are obvious. With slight modifications of the desired buoy locations, the benefits are even greater. A significant amount of the operational costs of the DEOS buoys is in maintaining the power generators and paying for the satellite data link. For sites that are within a reasonable distance, say less than 1000 km, of a suitable shore landing, it is worth considering replacing the diesel generators and satellite telemetry hardware in buoys of this type with a section of a reused system. This has the obvious benefits of increasing power and data availability and significantly reducing operational costs. Figure 5: Example of moving sections of cables to the southern ocean. The DEOS observatory sites are shown for comparison. Green and red triangles are funded and planned observatories, respectively. Green and red circles are funded and planned air-sea flux sites respectively (DEOS Steering Committee, unpublished data). Opportunities for re-use requiring cable relocation need to consider whether newer cables cross over the older ones. In such cases, long sections, several thousand km in length are available for recovery and longer sections can be obtained by recovering the cable on both sides of the cross and appropriately slicing the two sections together. While this committee can advise on whether re-use of the retired systems is a viable alternative to the use of new cables for fixed ocean observatories, it is not in a position to determine whether this use is justified by science and monitoring priorities. It appears that the opportunities for cable re-use for RIDGE and MARGINS priority sites and for oceanography, marine biological and other initiatives are considerable. The possibility of large amounts of power and high data rates – compared to what has been available previously – challenge the community to envision new experiments that will take advantage of this resource. The Global Ocean Observing System should also be able to benefit strongly from cable re-use to fill its environmental monitoring mission. 3.5. Military Cable Systems The U.S. Navy maintains the majority of Government-owned seafloor cable systems that could be of potential value for reuse for ocean observatories. These Navy cables include several kinds of test and tracking ranges typically close to shore, special use systems and a few undersea information and power cables in a variety of locations. The U.S. Army has relatively few systems that could be used in any environmental monitoring application. The U.S. Air Force has developed a methodology of leasing much of the information transfer capacity and has utilized Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) as its agent in most of this effort. There is no single official point of contact or office working to coordinate in-water government cable information. The closest thing to that is a relatively new office in the Department of the Navy, established several years ago to better interface with commercial industry and other users of the ocean floor. During the rapid expansion of the telecommunication systems in the last decade, it became very clear that interface with the commercial industry was vital to protect those Navy systems that were installed on the seafloor. The decision was made to concentrate these efforts in this new office of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) located in the Washington Navy Yard. The present point of contact is Mr. Herb Herrmann, ph-202-433- 5319, e-mail: [email protected]. During the effort to establish this NAVFAC office as the focal point for cable information, Mr. Herrmann worked to establish contact within the US Air Force, US Army Corps of Engineers and DISA. Mr. Herrmann is in contact with many of the offices involved and has excellent first hand knowledge of this aspect of the architecture. For the foreseeable future he is probably the most effective single point of contact concerning military and other government owned and operated cable systems. This NAVFAC office and Mr. Herrmann have been advised of the needs of the NSF with regards to the possible reuse of retired military cable systems and are prepared to support these needs in keeping within existing security guidelines and other government controls. This office will also be able to disseminate information concerning the schedule for the retirement of military cable systems. It is recommended that the NSF establish contact with this office to be advised of possible opportunities as well as providing assistance for complying with the security issues addressed in Section 5.5 of this report. Note however that others in the science community are pursuing this area and NSF should stay abreast of those activities. The nature of the military systems is multi-faceted with the most attractive items for ocean observation re-use being the ranges. This includes the tracking range at St Croix, which is being retired due to the closure of the Vieques Island Ordnance range. The ranges remaining open include, for example, AUTEC (Tongue of the Ocean) in the Bahamas, Southern California Acoustic Range off the West Coast, and Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off the coast of Hawaii. These ranges have multiple cable runs to provide data from a complex of sensors tracking vessels, objects, or acoustic events within the water column over a fairly large area to a shore processing facility. There are also several cables in existence from the retired SOSUS systems on both East and West Coasts of the US. These systems have been declassified but the conditions of the shore landing cables and availability are not accurately known at the moment. In addition, it should be noted that the condition of the at sea cable is unknown. If available, some investment for re-use would likely be required. These system cables were designed for collection of acoustic information from a widely disbursed field of long range, low frequency sensors and most are 30-year-old technology. This is certainly not a complete listing but rather a set of examples of assets that are in the water and potentially available at some point in the future. 3.6. Hardware Development Development efforts are needed to utilize retired optical cables for observatory use. One advantage of these systems is that they are effectively identical in most respects, and hardware built for one will work equally well on another, significantly lowering development costs. Hardware for node connections, power supplies, and communications systems is required. Some proposals are provided in Appendix 3. 4. Technical Issues Associated with Cable Re-use This section of the report addresses various technical issues related to cable re-use. 4.1. Engineering Limitations The charge to the Committee asked for advice on engineering limitations related to cable re-use, i.e. “What are the engineering limitations related to the re-use of retired fiber optic cables?”. No fundamental engineering limitations were identified that would prevent effective re-use of retired cables. Various technical operational constraints were identified, however, and these are discussed in the following sections. In addition, it is judged that limitations are most likely cost driven. As discussed elsewhere in this report, re-used systems can provide power and data telemetry adequate for existing and near-term planned science scenarios. However it should be noted that new observatory systems are being designed to provide substantially more power and data telemetry capabilities that may be useful for future generation science scenarios. 4.2. Power The charge to the Committee asked for advice on power issues related to cable re-use, i.e. “What are the issues related to the power systems associated with these cables? What power would be available at the seafloor for supporting sensors in the seafloor and water column?”. As described in Section 2.1, the SL280 and SL560 generations of systems were designed to be powered from the shore stations with a constant DC current of 1.6 amps. The associated shore based power plant contains redundant power converters and when fully equipped can provide a voltage of up to 7.5 kV. For a specific existing installed system, the power plant may not be fully equipped and thus only a lower maximum voltage would be available. In such a case, realization of 7.5 kV would require adding plug-in power stages and possibly equipment bays to house the added stages. These can be obtained by using spares or by cannibalizing the redundant power converters. The downside of cannibalizing is that certain single failures would cause an outage until the repair could be effected, possibly not a significant issue for observatory operation. The cable and repeaters should permit the applied voltage to be increased up to 8 kV but this would require the purchase of a new power plant. While use of the existing power plants may indeed be the best solution for powering the cables, these provide reliability well in excess of most science needs. There are relatively inexpensive replacement power supplies that would be adequate for the observatory systems. As stated in Section 2.1, the cable DC resistance is 0.71 ohms/km and the repeater voltage drop is 22.3 and 43.0 volts for SL280 and SL560 repeaters, respectively. Assuming average repeater spacings of 70 and 135 km for SL280 and SL560 systems, respectively, leads to an average aggregate power drop along the cable of approximately 2.3 W/km. Consequently, with the standard 7.5 kV shore based power plant, the aggregate average power available for observatory nodes would be approximately 9.7, 7.3 and 5.0 kW for 1000, 2000 and 3000 km length systems, respectively Power buffering through the use of batteries and/or capacitors at the user node could provide peak powers in excess of these values. Also, the ability to turn user instruments on and off should be a requirement along with ground fault over current monitoring Appendix 4 lists the power requirements for various observatory node instruments. A comparison of the instrument power requirements with the available power indicates that power will be a limiting factor but only when high power consuming instruments such as pumps are used in a long or multi-node observatory. 4.3. Communications The charge to the Committee asked for advice on communications issues related to cable re-use, i.e. “What are the issues related to communications protocols and the potential for translating legacy technologies to other protocols (e.g. TCP/IP) in use on the Internet?”. The candidate cable systems provide telecommunications standard interfaces at 140 Mb/s. The SL280 systems provide 2 such interfaces on each of 2 fiber pairs for an aggregate data capacity of 560 Mb/s. The SL560 systems provide 4 such interfaces on each of 2 fiber pairs for an aggregate data capacity of 1120 Mb/s. The standards for these 140 Mb/s signals are defined and equipment exists to interface the Internet world to this telecommunications industry world. Such interfacing equipment would be needed on the shore and in the observatory nodes, if Internet Protocol is employed. The actual transmission signal on each the fibers is a custom 296 Mb/s format for the SL280 systems and a custom 592 Mb/s format for the SL560 systems. These rates can be used for transmission as an alternative to the use of 140 Mb/s format transmission. Equipment does not exist, however, to generate 296 or 592 Mb/s signals from the Internet signals or to transmit such signals on the shore and, consequently, new custom equipment would be required in the shore station and in the observatory nodes. In addition, cable system repeater fault location and control would require off line testing with standard SL test equipment. Buffering and/or time division multiplexing at the user node can provide higher individual instrument peak data rates. Also, for observatory systems of length less than one repeater span the SL transmission protocols need not be used and data rates can be much higher than the rates discussed above. Appendix 4 lists the data requirements for various observatory node instruments. A comparison of the instrument data requirements with the available data transmission capacity indicates that the cable data capacity should not be a limiting factor. 4.4. Cable System Relocation The charge to the Committee asked for advice on issues related to cable system relocation, i.e. “What is the feasibility and approximate associated cost of relocating retired cables? Three cases should be considered – cable reuse in place, cable re-use with some relocation but using original shore station and cable re-use with relocation of the cable and establishment of a new land station.”. The technical issues are addressed here. The cost issues are addressed in a following section. Significant lengths of coaxial undersea cable systems have been relocated, e.g., a US Navy re- use of a TAT system entailing the recovery and relay of a total of a few thousand kilometers including repeaters. A few hundreds of kilometers of lightwave undersea cable including repeaters have been picked up and re-laid. During recovery, the cable should be visually inspected for insulation damage and optically tested. The need for repair will depend upon bottom conditions and crew experience. With good bottom conditions, a reasonable assumption is a maximum of 1 or 2 repairs per a few thousands of kilometers of recovered cable. Repairs can be accomplished on board the cable ship. Particular attention needs to be paid to understanding where other cables cross and come close to the cable being recovered. Cable recovery at cross-under locations is not possible. Cable cutting on both sides of the crossing is necessary with resplicing of the two pieces. Recovery of buried cable usually cannot be justified. Re-laid cable needs to satisfy the usual bottom and depth conditions, e.g., lightweight cable should not be laid on rocky ridges. These are the only significant technical issues related to the cable. There are no significant technical issues related to the cable stations. 4.5. Development Requirements The charge to the Committee asked for advice on development issues related to cable re-use, i.e. “What are the re-engineering/engineering development issues that must be dealt with in order to re-use the submarine cable systems likely to be retired?”. The only development issues identified by the committee that are both required and unique to the re-use of the systems likely to be retired are - development and procurement of circuitry to interface the observatory node instruments to the cable data stream and power and - development and procurement of shore based circuitry to interface the IP data format currently the consensus format of the science community to the cable data stream format. Two other development items of note are - modification and replacement of the shore based high voltage power plant to provide 8 kV at 1.6 amps but see Section 4.2 for a discussion of the issues related to this subject and - mechanical arrangement to interface an observatory node to the cable but this should be similar if not identical to the arrangement used with new cable. 4.6. Reliability Although not specifically requested in the Committee scope, the reliability of re-used cable and repeaters was addressed. The reliability of in-situ equipment should continue to exhibit telecommunications industry performance, i.e., 25 years minimum life and probably longer. Significant engineering effort went into designing systems that could meet this objective. Reliability performance to date on the AT&T systems considerably exceeds the objectives and expectations of the systems designers. The reliability of relocated cable and repeaters should exhibit similar performance, assuming that standard telecommunications industry care is taken during the recovery and re-lay. Reliability issues for new equipment on re-used systems should be similar to those for the equivalent equipment on new systems of equivalent configuration. Detailed failure mode analysis for node equipment should be required and mitigated as necessary in both re-used and new systems. 4.7. Test Equipment Although not specifically requested in the Committee scope, test equipment needed to administer, operate and maintain the system was addressed. Test equipment that should be included as part of any retired cable system procurement needs to be defined. This is in addition to the definition of any new test equipment that will be required but is not unique to the re-use of retired systems. 5. Economic and Other Non-technical Issues Associated with Cable Re-use 5.1. Cost of Relocation The charge to the Committee asked for advice on issues related to cable system relocation, i.e. “What is the feasibility and approximate associated cost of relocating retired cables? Three cases should be considered – cable reuse in place, cable re-use with some relocation but using original shore station and cable re-use with relocation of the cable and establishment of a new land station.”. The cost issues are addressed here. The technical issues are addressed in a previous section. 5.1.1. Wet Plant The following approximate cost estimates are extracted from Appendix 5 and suggested for the wet plant for initial planning purposes. Examples of the use of these numbers are provided in the appendix. Cable and repeater pick-up – range of 0.5 to 2.0 M$ per thousand kilometers of pick-up. This assumes – a ship cost of 20 to 80 K$ per day but this depends strongly on opportunity and market conditions; a 50 km per day pickup rate but this depends strongly on bottom conditions. Ship transit – range of 50 to 200 K$ per thousand kilometers of transit, with the same assumption and caveat for ship cost. Re-lay – range of 100 to 400 K$ per thousand kilometers of re-lay, with the same assumptions and caveats. Observatory node installation – 100 to 200 K$ per node for non-relocated cable and negligible added cost for relocated cable. The relocated cost assumes the installation will be done during pick-up and ship transit operations. Also note that this does not include the actual installation of the observatory instruments. Survey – survey costs are entirely dependent on the specific route and node location and need to be estimated on a case-by-case basis. This is beyond the scope of the committee. 5.1.2. Shore Stations Re-use of space in original shore station, i.e. cable re-use in place and cable re-use with some relocation. – Assuming the existing owner of the station maintains ownership and not including new hardware, the costs for re-use are primarily related to space rental and liability coverage, and are very site dependent and open to negotiation. For the case of station purchase, rental cost is replaced by purchase price, if any, and on going ownership costs. The committee is not in a position to provide estimates for either of these cases. Some estimates are available to IRIS Ocean Cable (http://www.iris.iris.edu/cable/info.htm) but the committee is not in a position to confirm those numbers. Establishment of new shore station. – Not including new hardware, the major costs for a new shore station are associated with land, right-of-way, building, power, communications, ground farm, dry civil works, survey, cable landing, wet cable protection, cable installation including burial as necessary, permits, environmental, liability, attorney fees and on going ownership. These costs are very site dependent and the committee is not in a position to provide estimates. 5.2. Relative Cost for Relocated and New Systems The charge to the Committee asked for advice on the relative cost for relocated and new cable systems, i.e. “In what circumstances will the relocation of a cable and the salvage of repeaters be less expensive than establishing a new system?”. Consideration was given to the significant and unique cost factors associated with new cable observatory systems and with relocated systems, both partial and complete relocation. Many of these factors are discussed elsewhere in this report. The committee concluded that for equivalent architecture and complexity, cable re-use is almost always less expensive. It is outside the scope of the committee, however, to comment on the issue of “equivalent architecture and complexity” which includes the advantages and disadvantages of various architectures. 5.3. Liabilities The charge to the Committee asked for advice on issues related to liabilities associated with cable system re-use, i.e. “What are the liability issues associated with ownership and use?”. Various licenses, permits and ownership agreements are granted and/or entered into as part of the construction and operation of a telecommunications undersea cable system. In addition, various national laws and international treaties govern such systems. Typically, the owners of a cable system enter into a Construction and Maintenance Agreement (C&MA) governing the relationship between them in the joint enterprise to construct and maintain a cable system. The cable system is composed of different segments, usually the cable stations in the landing countries and the submarine cable between the cable stations. The C&MA defines these segments and identifies ownership of them. Typically, one or more parties from the particular landing country own the respective cable stations and the submarine cable segments between the cable stations are owned in common undivided shares as specified in the C&MA. The C&MA normally provides for responsibility for claims made against any party to the agreement which is usually shared among the owners. The owners also enter into Supply Contracts for the construction of the system. These establish the relationship between the owners and the suppliers and usually contain provisions regarding warranties and liabilities. The governments of various jurisdictions in the countries in which the cable system terminates require various licenses and permits. The licenses and permits can contain provisions governing liabilities and responsibilities affecting the owners. The licenses, permits, C&MA, Supply Contracts, laws and treaties cover a multitude of issues related to rights and responsibilities that would be expected in some way to transfer to a new owner. Of particular interest to the question of cable re-use are those rights, responsibilities and associated costs related to environmental, liability, including third party, and final deactivation and abandonment. The current parties to the particular C&MA may want relief and or indemnification from third party, including fishing industry, and environmental claims. If a cable system is procured only from the US to a point in international waters, then the parties may only have to be concerned with US laws and international treaties. Also, the licenses and permits may contain conditions related to change of ownership and termination of use for telecommunications. Consequently, careful examination needs to be made of all terms and conditions in all of the existing licenses and permits granted to the original cable system owners as well as all applicable laws and treaties. In addition, third person liability costs and indemnification should be evaluated with the insurance carrier of the new owner, e.g., IOC. 5.4. Spares The charge to the Committee asked for advice on issues related to the procurement of spare equipment associated with retired cable systems, i.e. “How much liability should be incurred in the acceptance of spares related to each of these retired systems? Should all spares be accepted?”. It is reported (Butler, 2003) that AT&T can make available approximately 700 km of SL280 and SL560 cable of 5 cable types, lightweight to double-armored, in 41 sections of 1 to 40 km length; 15 SL280 and 23 SL560 repeaters; and various shore-based transmission terminal, shore-based power plant and repeater electronic circuits. Information from that report is given in Appendix 6. The primary issues related to the procurement of this spare equipment is how much, when, where the spares should be stored, the costs associated with obtaining, storing, replacement and final disposal, and use of the spares for other observatory applications such as node extensions. It is clear that there is considerable pressure to minimize the procurement of spare equipment because of the costs involved. An observatory system, however, cannot be maintained without spares or the ability to newly manufacture replacement parts. New manufacture of SL280 and SL560 equipment would be very expensive and in most cases, possibly in all cases, impossible. Consequently, a no decision on the procurement of the spares, which includes not making a decision and sufficiently delaying a decision, is in effect a decision not to reuse the retired cables. The cost of this procurement is the moving to a new storage facility, if required, and storage. The Committee makes the following recommendations with respect to the spares. - Procure all spare cable and available associated cable hardware (jointing kits, termination hardware, branching units, etc.). In addition to protecting the ability to re-use retired cables if so desired, this equipment has application for other observatory uses even if the decision is made not to re-use systems, e.g., for extension cables in currently planned observatories and possibly for the backbone cable of coastal observatories. - Develop other less expensive cable storage capabilities, e.g. coastal river barges, inexpensive university and government facility, laboratory or Navy, waterfront space. Possibilities for new storage locations for the cable are suggested in Appendix 6. - Procure all spare repeaters and associated equipment to protect the ability to reuse cable systems until a decision is made. - Procure all other spare terminal and repeater electronics unless time is available to do sufficient system design for re-used systems to permit detailed decisions. - Procure all available test and maintenance equipment unless time is available to do sufficient system design for re-used systems to permit detailed decisions. - Although not limited to spares, procure all available documentation on the specifications, operation of, design, lay, and history of each candidate cable system. 5.5. Security Although not specifically requested in the Committee scope, certain security issues related to the re-use of retired cables were addressed. The only security issue unique to such reuse is the impact on nearby military cables during the recovery of a cable that is being relocated. Other security issues are common to any ocean observing system in an area of concern to the DOD. The primary threats are from external aggressors – attaching unapproved sensors to the system and making unwanted measurements, accessing data from approved sensors, subverting a PI who has an approved sensor, or taking advantage of approved sensors without the knowledge of the PI. For information on these issues please see NRC (2003). 6. Findings and Recommendations 6.1. Findings The following findings have been discussed in previous sections of this report. 1. There are no fundamental engineering limitations that would prevent effective re-use of retired cables either in-situ or relocated. Limitations are most likely cost driven. See Sections 4.1 and 5.1 for additional information. 2. The system power available for the observatory node instruments will be a limiting factor but only when high power consuming instruments such as pumps are used in a long or multi- node observatory. See Section 4.2 for additional information. 3. The system data transmission capacity available for the observatory node instruments should not be a limiting factor. See Section 4.3 for additional information. 4. The only significant technical issues related to the relocation of cable are that cable recovery at cross-under with other cables is not possible, recovery of buried cable should not be assumed and re-laid cable needs to satisfy the usual bottom and depth conditions. There are no significant technical issues related to re-use of cable stations. See Section 4.4 for additional information. 5. The only required development that is unique to the re-use of retired systems is for circuitry to interface the observatory node instruments to the cable data stream and for shore based circuitry to interface the IP data format to the cable data stream format. See Section 4.5 for additional information. 6. The reliability of in-situ equipment should continue to exhibit telecommunications industry performance, i.e., 25 years minimum life and probably longer. The reliability of relocated cable and repeaters should exhibit similar performance, assuming that standard telecommunications industry care in taken during the recovery and re-lay. The reliability for new equipment on re-used systems should be similar to that of equipment on new systems of equivalent configuration. See Section 4.6 for additional information. 7. For equivalent architecture and complexity, re-used cable systems either in-situ or relocated, are almost always less expensive than new cable systems. It is outside the scope of the committee, however, to comment on the issue of “equivalent architecture and complexity”. 8. The only security issue unique to cable system re-use is the impact on nearby military cables during the recovery of a cable that is being relocated. See Sections 3.5 and 5.5 for additional information. 6.2. Recommendations The following recommendations have been made in previous sections of this report. 1. Conduct a careful examination of all terms and conditions in all of the existing licenses and permits granted to the original cable system owners as well as all applicable laws and treaties. See Section 5.3 for additional information. 2. Evaluate third person liability costs and indemnification with the insurance carrier of the re- used cable system owner, e.g., IOC. See Section 5.3 for additional information. 3. Procure - all spare cable and available associated cable hardware (jointing kits, termination hardware, branching units, etc.), - all spare repeaters and associated equipment, - all other spare terminal and repeater electronics and all available test and maintenance equipment unless time is available to do sufficient system design for re-used systems to permit detailed decisions and - a complete set of SL280 and SL560 system documentation to protect ability to re-use cable systems until decisions are made. See Section 5.4 for additional information. 4. Define the test equipment that should be included as part of any retired cable system procurement and the required new test equipment that is not unique to the re-use of retired systems. 5. Develop other less expensive cable storage capabilities than current commercial approaches, e.g. coastal river barges, inexpensive university and government facility, laboratory or Navy, waterfront space. See Appendix 6 for additional information. 6. Require a detailed failure mode analysis for observatory node equipment and the associated necessary failure mitigation for both re-used and new systems. The following recommendations are made in response to the charge to the Committee to make “Recommendations, as appropriate, for near term steps for proceeding”. 7. Establish working groups to - build upon the work started by IRIS Ocean Cable with respect to the re-use of retired and to be retired cable systems, - develop a capital and expense investment time line to protect the ability to re-use retired and to be retired cable systems until decisions can be made and - develop specific plans for cable re-use for input to the re-use decisions. This last group should start with one Pacific Ocean cable and then one Atlantic Ocean cable. Consider starting this activity at the cable regional observatory workshop in October 2003. The Committee also makes the following recommendations. 8. Require that any future Requests for Proposals or Announcements of Opportunity related to mechanical and electrical arrangements for the use of repeatered re-used cable systems heavily weight proposals that are broadly applicable. 9. Examine the procurement of all land and ship based cable handling equipment that may become available, e.g., cable haulers, LCEs, deployment drums, cable troughs, A-frames, cranes, gantries and ROVs. 10. Examine the procurement of retired and to be retired cable ships. 11. Initiate discussions with AT&T with respect to potential retirement of third generation undersea lightwave systems e.g., TAT-12/13. 12. Establish contact with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for advice on possible military cable opportunities as well as assistance for complying with the security issues addressed in Section 5.5. Also stay abreast of all activities in the scientific community. 7. References

Butler, R. 2003. Scientific use of a fiber-optic submarine telecommunications cable systems. Clark, H. L. 2001. New seafloor observatory networks in support of ocean science research, IEEE Conference Publishing, http://www.coreocean.org/Dev2Go.web?id=232087 Glenn, S.M. and T.D. Dickey. 2003. SCOTS:Scientific Cabled Observatories for Time Series, NSF Ocean Observatories Initiative Workshop Report, Portsmouth, VA., 80 pp., www.geoprose.com/projects/scots_report.html. National Ocean Partnership Program. 2001-2002. An Integrated Ocean Observing System: A Strategy for Implementing the First Steps of a U.S. Plan. http://www.coreocean.org/deos/Dev2Go.web?id=220672 National Research Council. 1998. Opportunities in Ocean Sciences: Challenges on the Horizon. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 9 pp. National Research Council. 2000. Illuminating the Hidden Planet, the Future of Seafloor Observatory Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 135 pp. National Research Council. 2003. Enabling Ocean Research in the 21st Century: Implementation of a Network of Ocean Observatories. In press. 8. Appendices 8.1. Appendix 1 – Committee Scope Optical Submarine Cable Re-Use for Scientific Purposes With the current downturn in the telecommunications industry, as well as dramatic increases in bandwidth available on the newest generation of fiber optic submarine cables resulting from significant advances in technologies underlying fiber optic communications, many first and second generation fiber optic submarine cables are now being retired. There is currently much discussion within the scientific community about the potential scientific resource provided by the re-use of these retired cables for seafloor and water column research. The geographic location and/or relocation of these cables could potentially provide the scientific community with high power and bandwidth to instrumentation well situated to address high priority science. Priority science must ultimately drive the need for the establishment of observatory sites using retired submarine telecommunication cables. There are many technical and economical issues that must first be addressed before significant resources are committed to the acquisition and use of these early generation fiber optic cables for scientific purposes. Because of these technical issues and concerns about feasibility and costs, this committee has been established to provide NSF and the Scientific Community with advice on the following: - What are the engineering limitations related to the re-use of retired fiber optic cables? - What are the re-engineering/engineering development issues that must be dealt with in order to re-use the submarine cable systems likely to be retired? - What are the issues related to the power systems associated with these cables? What power would be available at the seafloor for supporting sensors in the seafloor and water column? - What are the issues related to communications protocols and the potential for translating legacy technologies to other protocols (e.g. TCP/IP) in use on the Internet. - In what circumstances will the relocation of a cable and the salvage of repeaters be less expensive than establishing a new system? - What is the feasibility and approximate associated cost of relocating retired cables? Three cases should be considered: • Cable reuse in place • Cable re-use with some relocation but using original shore station • Cable re-use with relocation of the cable and establishment of a new land station. - What are the liability issues associated with ownership and use? - How much liability should be incurred in the acceptance of spares related to each of these retired systems? Should all spares be accepted? Recommendations, as appropriate, for near term steps for proceeding. 8.2. Appendix 2 – Upcoming Cable Retirements and Decision Dates (Butler, 2003) Cable Retirement Date Decision on Spares Transfer Agreement-in-Principle TAT-8 May 2002 Spares lost November 2003 Station Equipment temporarily saved at IOC request 11/2002 GPT April 10, 2003 June 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 TAT-10 June 30, 2003 August 31, 2003 December 31, 2003 TAT-11 June 30, 2003 August 31, 2003 December 31, 2003 HAW-4 September 30, 2003 December 31, 2003 March 31, 2004 TPC-3 September 30, 2003 December 31, 2003 March 31, 2004 TAT-9 December 2003 February 2004 June 2004 8.3. Appendix 3 – Hardware Development Node Connections A cost-effective, reliable system must be developed for connecting observatories to the cables. The constant-current power system demands that all observatories must be connected in series, such that any observatory malfunction could disrupt the whole cable system unless precautions are taken. The node connection is critical since failure could disrupt the whole cable system. A schematic for possible use with a SL280 system is shown below (Figure 6). The node connections (green) would provide power and fiber (blue) connections to observatories (red). A mechanical (power-off) switch in the connection node would be opened by the ROV when an observatory was connected, allowing power to pass to the observatory.

Figure 6: Potential schematic for a node connection with a SL280 system. Power Supplies Power is supplied to the observatories by a voltage drop across the observatory. The observatory supplies must change the constant-current cable power to constant-voltage supplies required by most electronics. The supply must also be able to adjust for changes in load as instruments are added, and as configurations change. The power supply designed for the Hawaii-2 Observatory performs these tasks, and a supply for use on the optical cable systems is under development at Hawaii. A design review utilizing the expertise available from the telecom industry is needed prior to implementation. Communications Systems The figure above shows one possible design for communications with observatories on retired first generation optical cable systems. In this case, a communications circuit consists of a loop utilizing one of the two pairs of fibers available in the SL cables. Each fiber pair has the capacity to transmit 280 Mb/s, and each could supply two channels of 100 Base T Ethernet data. Since two fiber pairs can be active at a time, the cable capacity would then be 400 Mb/s. Restrictions in data protocol are imposed by the repeaters, which demand a particular data rate and data format (24b-1p). The repeaters themselves accept commands to switch fibers, loop-back fibers, and other tasks, which will be important to the reliability of these systems. 8.4. Appendix 4 – Potential Instruments with Bandwidth and Power Requirements Note that these tables indicate the kind of instruments that can be supported by re-used cabled observatories, but are not meant as a recommendation for a particular suite of instruments. Also note that these requirements are substantially greater than those for instruments used to date. POTENTIAL INSTRUMENT DATA REQUIREMENTS (bits/second)

SAMPLING INTERVAL (sec) TYPICAL INSTRUMENT SUITE Continuous 20 60 300 3600 300 kHz Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 554.4 184.8 37.0 3.1 1200 kHz ADCP 554.4 184.8 37.0 3.1 CTD 2.4 0.8 0.2 0.013 FLUOROMETER 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.004 Optical Back Scatter 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.004 Broadband Seismometer 9.0E+03 Future High Bandwidth Acoustic Array 3.2E+07 High Definition TV (full frame rate) 1.5E+09 HDTV (compressed format) 1.9E+07

TOTAL FOR SUITE w/compressed HDTV (bits/second) 5.1E+07 5.1E+07 5.1E+07 5.1E+07

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENT POWER REQUIREMENTS (Watts) SAMPLING INTERVAL (sec) TYPICAL INSTRUMENT SUITE Continuous 20 60 300 3600 300 kHz ADCP 2.7 1.3 0.3 0.02 1200 kHz ADCP 2.7 1.3 0.3 0.02 CTD 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.01 FLUOROMETER 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.01 OBS 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.001 Broadband Seismometer 0.9 Future High Bandwidth Acoustic Array 38.4 5 HP Pump (approximate) 4500 HDTV w/lights (approximate) 1500

AVERAGE POWER REQUIRED FOR SUITE (Watts) 6047 6043 6040 6039 NOTE: Instantaneous power demand will be greater 8.5. Appendix 5 – Cost Spreadsheet CABLE REUSE COST MODEL

Upfront costs Developing these costs is beyond the scope of this effort but should include costs such as the following

Route engineering Additional survey (if necessary) Observing node(s) design, construction & test Shore station lease rates (if shore station exists) Shore station construction costs (for new shore station) Permit maintenance fees (incl. Fishing organizations) Legal fees Right of way fees Cost of backhaul to internet and others

Input Parameters Most Optimistic Most Likely Most Pessimistic Cable ship operating day rate $40,000 $40,000 $80,000 Cable ship transit day rate $30,000 $40,000 $80,000 $/day Cable ship transit speed 25.9 22.2 22.2 km/hr Time to recover and repair a cable break 1 2 3 days Time to work around a overlaying cable 1 2 3 days Science Ship operating day rate $20,000 $20,000 $30,000 $/day

DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee Report page 25 of 30 09/15/03 SCENARIO 1: Transit to mid ocean, recover 1500 km of cable, turn and re-lay to a new site, deploy 1 observing node at the end of the cable from cable lay vessel

Most Optimistic Most Likely Most Pessimistic Cable Ship Transit distance 2000 2000 2000 km Cable Ship Transit cost $96,525 $150,150 $300,300 $ Cable location and recovery time 0.5 0.5 1 days Splice time 0 0.5 1 days Locate, recover, splice cost $20,000 $40,000 $160,000 $ Length of cable to recover 1500 1500 1500 km Recovery rate 1.8 1.3 0.9 km/hour Expected number of breaks 1 2 3 each Number of overlaying cable crossing 1 2 3 each Recovery cost $1,468,889 $2,243,077 $6,995,556 $ Distance to new shore landing 0 0 0 km Transit to new shore landing cost $0 $0 $0 $ Time to pull cable ashore 0 0 0 days Cost to pull cable ashore $0 $0 $0 $ Length of cable to deploy 1500 1500 1500 km Deployment rate 9.25 7.4 5.55 km/hour Deployment cost $270,270 $337,838 $900,901 $ Number of observatory nodes 1 1 1 days Observatory node installation time 1 1.5 2 days Observatory node installation cost $40,000 $60,000 $160,000 $ Return to port $96,525 $150,150 $300,300 $

TOTAL COST $1,992,209 $2,981,215 $8,817,057 $

DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee Report page 26 of 30 09/15/03 SCENARIO 2: Transit to mid ocean, recover 1500 km of cable, transit 1000 nmi to new shore landing, pull cable ashore, re-lay to new site deploy 1 observing node at the end of the cable from the cable ship

Most Optimistic Most Likely Most Pessimistic Cable Ship Transit distance 2000 2000 2000 km Cable Ship Transit cost $96,525 $150,150 $300,300 $ Cable location and recovery time 0.5 0.5 1 days Splice time 0 0.5 1 days Locate, recover, splice cost $20,000 $40,000 $160,000 $ Length of cable to recover 1500 1500 1500 km Recovery rate 1.8 1.3 0.9 km/hour Expected number of breaks 1 2 3 each Number of overlaying cable crossing 1 2 3 each Recovery cost $1,468,889 $2,243,077 $6,995,556 $ Distance to new shore landing 1000 1000 1000 n mi Transit to new shore landing cost $64,350 $75,075 $150,150 $ Time to pull cable ashore 1 1.5 2 days Cost to pull cable ashore $40,000 $60,000 $160,000 $ Length of cable to deploy 1500 1500 1500 km Deployment rate 9.25 7.4 5.55 km/hour Deployment cost $270,270 $337,838 $900,901 $ Number of observatory nodes 1 1 1 days Observatory node installation time 1 1.5 2 days Observatory node installation cost $40,000 $60,000 $160,000 $ Return to port $96,525 $150,150 $300,300 $

TOTAL COST $2,096,559 $3,116,290 $9,127,207 $

DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee Report page 27 of 30 09/15/03 8.6. Appendix 6 – Potentially Available Spare Cables Cable Type1 Storage Location Length (km) Storage Required(CuFt) System Owner SL-DA2 Guam 0.968 93 GPT SL-FBP3 Guam 40.410 1503 GPT SL-FBP Guam 40.425 1504 GPT SL-DA Honolulu 3.826 368 HAW-4 SL-FBP Honolulu 3.661 136 HAW-4 SL-FBP Honolulu 3.435 128 HAW-4 SL-LW4 Honolulu 18.788 306 HAW-4 SL-SA5 Honolulu 4.963 325 HAW-4 SL-LW Portland 4.671 76 HAW-4 SL-LW Portland 5.505 90 HAW-4 SL-DA Baltimore 7.455 723 TAT-10 SL-SPA6 Baltimore 36.523 1370 TAT-10 SL-SPA Baltimore 38.383 1439 TAT-10 SL-SPA Baltimore 37.854 1420 TAT-10 SL-SPA Baltimore 39.014 1463 TAT-10 SL-LWA7 Baltimore 5.12 277 TAT-11 SL-LWA Baltimore 9.924 535 TAT-11 SL-SPA Baltimore 16.341 613 TAT-11 SL-SPA Baltimore 37.559 1409 TAT-11 SL-SPA Baltimore 38.945 1460 TAT-11 SL-SPA Baltimore 38.509 1444 TAT-11 SL-SA Baltimore 10.327 683 TAT-9 SL-SPA Baltimore 18.322 687 TAT-9 SL-SPA Baltimore 17.66 662 TAT-9 SL-SPA Baltimore 38.749 1453 TAT-9 SL-SPA Baltimore 18.034 676 TAT-9 SL-DA Baltimore 5.704 553 TAT-9 SL-LW Honolulu 10.99 179 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 10.195 166 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 6.191 101 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 5.736 93 TPC-3

1 All cables contain 6 fibers 2 Double Armor 3 Fishbite Protected (Same as SPA) 4 Lightweight Deep Water 5 Single Armor 6 Special Application (Same as FBP) 7 Light Wire Armor

DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee Report page 28 of 30 09/15/03 SL-DA Honolulu 2.778 267 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 27.858 454 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 14.062 229 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 26.456 431 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 5.804 95 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 9.705 158 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 7.871 128 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 12.159 198 TPC-3 SL-LW Honolulu 10.052 164 TPC-3 SL-SA Honolulu 2.146 141 TPC-3

Note: Possibilities for less expensive cable storage include: Baltimore Cable – Place the cable pans onto a coastal barge and anchor the barge in an unused corner of the harbor. Guam Cable – Move the cable pans to a more economical site on the waterfront. If a facility in Guam can't be found, the Jones act requires a US flag ship be used if the cable is to be off loaded at a US port. Such ships rarely call at Guam and consequently consider using a US flag tug and barge to transport the pans to a US port like North Tongue Point in Oregon (see below). Alternatively, use a non-US flag ship to transport the cable pans to a non-US port such as Victoria or Vancouver, British Columbia. Honolulu Cable – The University of Hawaii is currently discussing the possibility of taking over the existing Sand Island cable depot. Portland Cable – A very large waterfront facility at North Tongue Point (http://www.northtonguepoint.com/) is very well suited to storing many, many pans of cable.

DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee Report page 29 of 30 09/15/03 8.7. Appendix 7 – Committee Membership and Acknowledgments The committee members are: • Dr. Jack Sipress, Chair, AT&T (Retired), Tyco (Retired) • Dr. Fred Duennebier, University of Hawaii • Dr. Robert Gleason, AT&T (Retired), Tyco (Retired) • Mr. Gene Massion, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute • Dr. Peter Mikhalevsky, Science Applications International Corporation

This report was sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Committee support was provided by Dr. William Fornes of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education. This committee builds on work done previously by NRC committees, the SCOTS Committee, the DEOS Steering Committee, and by several individuals, particularly Rhett Butler (IRIS), N. Rondorf (SAIC), and Mark Tremblay (Tyco, retired). The committee would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Robert Boone, Jr. (AT&T, retired), Tien Nguyen (Tyco, retired) and William Sirocky (Tyco, retired). Their research and efforts and willingness to share their ideas and information have made our task far easier.

DEOS Cable Re-Use Committee Report page 30 of 30 09/15/03