Dr. MCLELLAND. Mr. Chairman, there are two reports you have mentioned simultaneously. One was a drilling vessel recommendation which was followed later by a second report from Brown & Root entitled "Engineering Plan on Phase II of the Moho Project." There are two separate reports. The other thing is that in the 2-month period you referred to, it was when we were consultants to Brown & Root. At a later date, we were then adviser to the National Science Foundation for a period of 10 months. Mr. LENNON. Since you are on your feet, Dr. McLelland, at the time you filed Technical Report No. 5, you were with the Ocean Sience & Engineering Co.; right? Dr. MCLELLAND. That is right. I was in charge of the group of people Mr. LENNON. You were under contract with the National Science Foundation? Dr. MCLELLAND. That is right. Mr. LENNON. And prepared this technical report at their instance and request? Dr. MCLELLAND. That is right. Mr. LENNON. Is that right or not? Dr. MCLELLAND. That is true. Mr. LENNON. That finishes that. Go right ahead. Mr. KEITH. Has there been any change in policymaking personnel since the revelations contained in this report were made known to Brown & Root? Dr. TONKING. In policymaking personnel? Mr. KEITH. Yes. The leadership in Brown & Root which filed this report--which was commented on so critically by this Ocean Science & Engineering Co. Dr. TONKING. You want to know if we have remained stagnant in our staffing? Is that what you mean? Mr. KEITH. I don't know that the Ocean Science & Engineering people were qualified, but they were chosen by the National Science. Foundation to review your report, and they were most critical of it. I would like to know if there have been some changes in your staff, so the direction in which the firm was moving to resolve this problem had been changed as a result of the critical nature of the review? Dr. TONKING. We have expanded our naval architecture and marine engineering group. The path we have followed was initiated by this report that you are reading. This was a very novel divergence from the conservatism of naval architecture, going from a ship's hull to a platform. This established the path and we have gone from there. We have modified this platform concept to our present preliminary design. Mr. KEITH. Is there any other agency of the National Science Foundation that has recently reviewed your progress since this Technical Report No. 5? Is there a Technical Report No. 6 from the National Science Foundation? Dr. TONKING. Yes; I believe there were 10 or 12 of them. Mr. KEITH. When is the next one due? Dr. TONKING. This group is no longer under contract with the National Science Foundation. Mr. KEITH. When is the National Science Foundation going to next review your progress and make a report available to this committee? Dr. TONKING. You will have to ask them, sir. Mr. LENNON. This was a negotiated contract between Brown & Root and the National Science Foundation? Dr. TONKING. Yes Mr. LENNON. It was a negotiated contract? Dr. TONKING. Yes. Mr. LENNON. What is the date of the contract? When was the contract formally entered into between the National Science Foundation and Brown & Root, Inc.? Dr. TONKING. We worked first on a letter of intent which I believe is dated March 19, 1962, as I recall. Then a definitive contract was signed in June of 1962. Mr. LENNON. For the benefit of the committee, there is found in the hearing of June 25 of this year the agreement between the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Research Council on the Amsoc Committee, and the scientists' objective of phase II of Project Mohole. In a letter by Dr. Frederick Seitz, President of the National Academy of Sciences, signed by Dr. Allen Waterman, Director, there is also found in the hearings of that date the article III of the contractual-formal contractual agreement between Brown & Root and National Science, article III entitled "Scope of Work," and I think it would be well for me to read at this point the concluding paragraph so we might clarify some of the things in my mind. I read: It may prove desirable to expand this broad scope of work in the future in order to include other geophysical surveys, additional shallower holes in other selected oceanic or continental areas, concurrent oceanographic, geophysical, or meteorological programs or more complete analyses of the data, either by the prime contractor or under his sponsorship. If such is deemed advisable by the Foundation, either because such additional work is directly related to the Mohole venture, to take advantage of the unique deepwater site, for administrative ease or for other reasons, it would be accomplished through subsequent agreement with the contractor. Such additional programs would be conducted on a noninterference basis with the basic Mohole programing and funding. I think it necessary to call that to the members' attention, because I believe it would clarify the running discussion of differences between the Amsoc Committee and the prime contractor, Brown & Root. They are apparently under a hard and fast contract with the National Science Foundation for the basic Mohole project, and these other related matters in which Amsoc is interested, in the intermediate stage, the intermediate drilling here, there, and yonder, and these other phases of geophysical surveys, oceanographic, geophysical, and meteorological programs, are not tied to this contract. So I can understand, I believe, why Brown & Root is living up to its contract. Now, whether there was a mistake made by the National Science Foundation in writing this provision into the contract, I am not in a position to say, but the cold fact remains that it is in this contract, and while my sympathy was with the original projected views of the Amsoc Committee, this contract pushes that out, but says that if there is any supplemental work done in connection with the ultimate objective of the Mohole, it must be done through an agreement with this prime contractor, or under his sponsorship, if that is what the Foundation feels like, but it would be accomplished if done by Brown & Root through a subsequent agreement of the contractor, and not this particular contract. Maybe our feeling about this matter should be directed, not toward the prime contractor, but toward the National Science Foundation, and with that I'd like to announce that Dr. Leland J. Haworth, Director of the National Science Foundation, will be here Tuesday, November 12, at 10 o'clock. He tells me his statement will be substantially that that he gave to the Subcommittee on Appropriations of the Senate, and which will take in some 2 hours-plus to read, which means we won't be able to stay here after 12 o'clock and will have to have him back another time. I therefore urge the members of the subcommittee who are here today to be present next Tuesday at 10 o'clock, and to insist that their friends and colleagues on this subcommittee avail themselves of hearing his testimony, because that is the real essence of this hearing. The contract having been signed and the language having been included that I just read, then it would seem to me, gentlemen, that we ought to direct our searching attention to why it was done this way. Now, we can't do anything about it, maybe, but the Appropriations Subcommittee might. Are there any other questions, gentlemen? Mr. CASEY. I think this: I would like to seek permission for them to put a statement in the record differentiating between the so-called Texas tower and the floating platform. Mr. LENNON. Without objection it will appear at this point. (The information requested follows:) TEXAS TOWERS V. DRILLING PLATFORM The so-called Texas towers consist of three-legged fixed structures, of which three were erected off the east coast of the United States between 1954 and 1957. The one designated "No. 4," located about 80 miles off the coast of New Jersey, collapsed in January 1961, with a loss of 28 lives. These towers consisted of a triangular platform 155 feet on each side weighing about 5,500 tons supported by three legs which, in tower No. 4, were 12% feet in diameter. The water depth in the location of No. 4 was 185 feet and the lower side of the platform was 67 feet above mean water level, resulting in a total column height of 252 feet. Each leg was embedded in concrete to form a rigid attachment to the sea bottom. The Mohole drilling platform is a free-floating vessel consisting of an upper hull, six columns, and two lower hulls. The upper hull is 234 feet by 279 feet in extent and weighs about 7,800 tons fully equipped. It is supported by six columns each 31 feet in diameter. These, in turn, rest on the lower hulls which are 35 feet in diameter and 370 feet in length. The length of the column from the top of the lower hull to the underside of the upper hull is 87 feet. The total height of the platform from keel to top of the upper deck is 145 feet. The only similarities between these two structures are that they both incorporate platforms elevated above the sea surface and that they are supported by columns. The Mohole platform as a free-floating vessel will yield to the action of waves in contrast to the fixed Texas tower structure which was stationary and had to resist the waves' full impact. The Mohole platform has a high degree of mobility so that, with adequate warning, it could avoid severe storm areas. The Mohole platform also has capability to change its elevation above the water level to eliminate danger of impact of waves on the platform deck, even if waves exceed extreme design height. The Mohole platform will be constructed entirely at the shipyard with no underwater assembly or welding. The structure will be entirely welded and is subject to the most rigid inspection. The vessel can be drydocked for underwater examination or repair. In contrast, the Texas towers were erected in deep water with part of the assembly work at the site. There are many additional details of structure, design, and behavior in which the fixed Texas tower structure differs from the free-floating Mohole platform, but it is hoped that the few examples sighted above will serve to point out the fallacy of direct comparison. A. C. MCCLURE, Naval Architect. Mr. CASEY. As to the report of the Ocean Science Co.--what is the formal name Mr. LENNON. Ocean Science & Engineering. Mr. CASEY. Ocean Science & Engineering. I would like to state this, Mr. Chairman: In my questioning of Dr. McLelland, one of the officers of the Ocean Science & Engineering Co., Dr. McLelland stated that he had no knowledge of them being considered in the team with any prime contractor, and Mr. Bauer, our very able assistant to the subcommittee here, has, in his file, copies of correspondence he obtained in August 1961, from Mr. Willard Bascom, who is also an officer of this company. I think the company was formed about February 1961, or perhaps February 1962. I am not sure about that, but anyway-I believe it is said here it was formed in 1962 Mr. LENNON. In the interests of time, are you making a requestMr. CASEY. I am making a request that a copy of the correspondence furnished to Mr. Bauer by Mr. Bascom, showing a letter to Dr. William Benson, stating that they had been approached by those proposing to be prime contractors, along with a memorandum which was evidently sent out by Mr. Bascom to companies considering prime contract bids on Mohole, in which he calls attention to the fact that they would like to be part of this program, be entered in the record. Mr. LENNON. Without objection it will be entered in the record. (The material mentioned follows:) Dr. WILLIAM BENSON, Washington, D.C. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, DEAR BILL: In the last few weeks the Amsoc technical staff received many tentative proposals and job offers from various companies that are interested in becoming Mohole prime contractors. We have tried to discourage all comers from making us specific offers, and have answered them uniformly. We state our position as follows: We are not committed to any company nor will we make any commitments for at least 30 days-until the proposals are in and we have had a chance to consider them. At that time we will decide which bidder is best from our point of view. Although our criteria for making that decision may be different from yours (because we have personal preferences about whom we will work for, where we will live, what our future will be in the company, etc.), I have hopes that our selection and that of the Science Foundation will coincide. In the meantime we will continue work on the phase 1 report and take some vacations. We do not plan to discuss our ideas about how the project should be conducted in the future with any of the prospective contractors. May I add that we deplore the idea of extending the time permitted for the preparation of proposals which was specifically stated in the NSF invitation to bid of July 27. You will recall that the 30-day limit was decided in Barron's office by a group of us after considering a range of 20 to 45 days. In our view the bidders' briefing went very well, and we heard many favorable comments about your chairmanship. Sincerely, WILLARD BASCOM, Director, Mohole Project. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE AMSOC COMMITTEE-MOHOLE PROJECT, MEMORANDUM To: Companies considering prime contract bids on Mohole project. From: Williard Bascom. Engineering and scientific studies of problems relating to drilling the Mohole have been going on for over 2 years. In the main these studies and the basic engineering design of the experimental drilling have been made by the technical staff of the Amsoc Committee of the National Academy of Sciences. The deep-water drilling was primarily managed by this group; the drilling and procurement contracts let by the National Science Foundation named Williard Bascom as the Government's technical representative. It is assumed that most companies who wish to be considered for the job of prime contractor would want to employ this group and make maximum use of its experience and management capability. Therefore this statement of the capabilities of the present staff has been prepared to assist the planning of prospective prime contractors. There are several classes of association with the project, and although the individuals are loosely connected with each other by usual administrative standards, there is an exceedingly high esprit de corps and they regard them. selves as a team. There are permanent Academic staff members, borrowed members, and continuing consultants as follows: Willard Bascom, project director for National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Jack I. McLelland, chief engineer of project, National Academy of Sciences. E. E. Horton, engineer. F. Lampietti, engineer. P. Johnson, naval architect. H. E. Ohanian, electronics engineer. G. Savage, engineer. R. Snyder, physicist. John Marriner, consulting naval architect (Craig Shipbuilding, Long Beach, Calif.) Robert Taggart, consulting naval architect and subcontractor, responsible for building maneuvering controls. In addition, there are persons and companies who have contributed substantially and whose experience and know-how should be tapped again, if possible. These include engineers and scientists, such as Don Woodward, Arthur Lubinski, William Riedel, Richard Von Herzen, James Dean, who have been closely associated with the project for periods of several months, while being paid by their own companies or universities and companies, such as Christensen Diamond Products and International Drilling Machines, who have contributed engineering studies. Further, we have used the services of top consulting engineers, such as S. Hoerner, Jan Leendertse, T. Vreeland, and D. Savitsky. And, of course, the four technical advisory panels of the Amsoc Committee on Site Selection, Scientific Objectives & Measurements, Drilling Techniques, and Ship Design are established to review and comment upon the staff work. W.B. WILLARD BASCOM, PROJECT DIRECTOR, MOHOLE PROJECT-NOVEMBER 7, 1916, NEW YORK, N.Y. Studied engineering and geology at Colorado School of Mines, 1938-41 (no degree). Worker as a mining engineer in Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, and New York, 1941-45. Research engineer on the Waves project, University of California at Berkeley, 1945-51, directing a field party studying beaches, waves, and shorelines. Consultant and panel member (underwater swimmers) NAS-NRC Committee on Amphibious Operations, 1949-53. Lecturer, U.S. Navy post graduate school courses in oceanography, 1951 and 1952. |