Deepwater Horizon Response Alternative Response Technologies - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Deepwater Horizon Response

Alternative Response Technologies Evaluation System

Definitions: ¡

ARTES: Alternative Response Technology Evaluation System (a NOAA evaluation tool) ART: Alternative Response Technology (traditionally means response technologies, other than mechanical cleanup methods, that can be employed to address an oil spill.

• Dispersants & other chemical countermeasures (OSCAs)
• In-situ, or “controlled” burning

During the Deepwater Horizon response, the volume and variety of innovations generated by responders, vendors, and the general public needed to be effectively managed.

Framework for the Use of ARTs Traditional Spill Deepwater Horizon ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

— ART technical specialist

works within Planning Section

— Dispersant and In-Situ

burn staffed in both Planning and Operations sections

— Vendors suggest products

and services for use; all ARTs are funneled through the ART specialist

— Separate ARTES program

may not be established

— Scope and magnitude

usually within limited jurisdiction, one RRT

— Typically the spill is not a

continuous release

— Declared a Spill of National

Significance -- several Incident Command Posts and an Unified Area Command

— Unified Command implements

rigorous ARTES Program to meet needs and expectations.

— Dispersants and In-Situ Burn

had their own teams, outside ARTES technology review

— Two RRTs, policies not

identicial

— Scope and duration of

• perations led to changing
• perational needs, and public

expectation that all resources be brought to address the spill.

Missions for Alternative Response Technologies Evaluation System (ARTES)

— Provide a mechanism for the evaluation and use of

appropriate technologies, new, improved and emerging, to address operational needs in spill response.

— Establish a system to gather and categorize new

ideas from public.

— Institute technical review teams to evaluate and

rank technologies within specific categories.

— Prioritize technologies to address operational

needs.

— Establish and implement testing protocols. — Conduct tests and provide feed-back to

Command.

— Continue to improve and refine the process. — Coordination with the Interagency Alternative

Technology Assessment Program (IATAP) – a parallel government system.

ARTES Organizational Elements

— Database management and coordination — Triage

Primary, Secondary, Tertiary

— Houma ARTES Team

USCG, CA OSPR, WA DOE, organized under the unified ICP

— High Interest Technology Test “HITT” team

BP team with USCG representation

— Strike Teams as needed

Bioremediation, Sand Treatment

— Liaison Officers

ICP Houma and Mobile, Unified Area Command, IATAP

Project ¡Sources ¡

— ARTES database – direct submissions & BP call center — Operations & field-derived — VIP submissions – inputs received at Unified Area

Command and Incident Commanders

— “Open House” meetings held at parishes

All ideas were directly or indirectly submitted to ARTES database for tracking and scoring

¡

Process of Technology Review and Evaluation

— Develop systematic approach to collect and work

with new ideas.

— Develop systematic approach to evaluate and

score the ideas.

— Prioritize ideas based on current and future

• perational needs.

— Field test ideas. — Feed back ideas into Operations.

Products, ¡Services ¡& ¡Equipment ¡Database ¡

— Products, services and equipment were placed in a

parallel database that was available to BP Logistics Section as an alternative sourcing tool

Classify / Re

• Classify

Stage 2 Classification Escalate? Escalate Feasible Not Proven Feasible Proven HITT Team Planning / Logistics / Testing Email Back to Respondent Proposal : Not Possible Not Feasible Already Considered Stage 1 Preliminary Evaluation Stage 2 Classification NO Dispersents Sorbants Mechanical Skimming Biorestoration YES Stage 3 Technical Review by Classification Technical Review by Classification Operations Go/No Go Sucessful Available Options Updated Document Closing Response To Vendor YES NO Stage 4 Technical Review Operations

Alternative Response Technology Triage Process

¡

Source Proposal Not Possible Not Feasible Already Considered Email Back To Respondent Prioritization

Stage 1 Process: Preliminary Evaluation

— ARTES triage process shows

all inputs coming from the

• data. But many more sources
• f inputs

— Unified Area Command. — Political and Media — Liaison and Local/State Reps. — Operations — Vendors and Innovators

Classify / Re

• Classify

Escalate? Email Back to Respondent Proposal : Not Possible Not Feasible Already Considered Stage 1 Preliminary Evaluation NO YES

Stage 2 Process: Classification

— Once and idea is determined

possible or feasible, classification

• ccurs in stage 2.

— A feed-back loop was created for

reviewers if it is determined a technology has been misclassified.

— Categories have been revised as

review has continued.

Stage 2 Classification Stage 2 Classification Dispersents Sorbants Mechanical Skimming Biorestoration YES C Source

Stage 3 Process: Technical Review by Classification

— This is the process for review

by a technical review committee.

— Specific criteria are develop

and each technology/idea is scored.

— Prioritization is based on the

critical nature of operational needs.

— Regulatory Evaluation. — If proposal is basic research &

not an operational need, may feed into the IATAP process.

— Results from stage 3 will be

forwarded to Louisiana Governor’s office.

Escalate Feasible Not Proven Feasible Proven by Classification Technical Review by Classification Proposal Not Possible Not Feasible Already Considered Email Back To Respondent Prioritization

Stage 4 Process: Technical Review by Operations

— High Interest Technology team

(HITT) testing as well as testing and observation from Group Houma.

— Document all test results and

provide feedback to the submitter as well as Operations sections, and Area Command

— Appropriateness for response — Capabilities — Limitations

HITT Team Planning / Logistics / Testing Operations Go/No Go Sucessful Available Options Updated Document Closing Response To Vendor YES NO

Submission ¡Status ¡

Current

• Total number of ART Submissions to the Database

122,870

• Number of Submissions for Source Control

79,498

• Number of Submissions for Oil Spill Response

43,372

• For the Spill Response Submissions:
• Records in Stage 1 & Stage 3 Review

14

• Submissions Field Tested and Recommended for Use

23

• Submissions Field Tested But Not Recommended for Use

33

• Remaining Planned Field Tests (most highly ranked candidates in Stage 3)

26

• Submissions Advanced to Stage 3, No Field Test Planned

160

HITT Team Tests and Trials

— Beach Cleaning - 3 technologies — Separation and Skimming - 10 technologies — Shoreline Protection - 3 technologies — Boom and Sorbants - 14 technologies — Other (radar, sensors, etc.) 8 technologies

Best ¡Prac:ces ¡in ¡Opera:ons ¡

— Used to capture “grass-roots” equipment and

practices that underwent field review

— BP Best Practices person in Operations

Notable ¡Projects ¡

— Did we discover any silver bullets? — Significant effort to confirm or deny the application of

new approaches

— Described the capabilities and limitations of various

practices in an environment suitable for rapidly assembling experts and regulators in a field environment

— Many projects will move ahead with further research

and refinement

Rigid ¡Pipe ¡

Boom ¡

Sorbent ¡and ¡Solidifier ¡ Biofilter ¡

A ¡WHALE ¡

Oil ¡Skimmers ¡

Bluewave ¡Marine ¡ Tar ¡Ball ¡Skimmer ¡ Big ¡Gulp ¡

Low ¡Pressure ¡Marsh ¡Flusher/Grapnel

¡

Large ¡Scale ¡Ini:a:ve ¡

Sand ¡Treatment ¡System ¡Review ¡

— After bulk oil removed, sand treatment became a priority — Balance local resident demands for action with the need to properly

evaluate the response technologies for this response

— ARTES took the lead in compiling an inventory of treatment options and

helped lead an Area-wide discussion to address the needs of stakeholders and resource trustees

Other ¡Technologies ¡Reviewed ¡

— Water ¡surface, ¡water ¡column ¡or ¡buried ¡oil ¡detec:on ¡ ¡

— Fluorometers, ¡spectrometers, ¡sonar ¡buoys ¡

— Oiled ¡boom ¡collec:on ¡

— ¡Rollers, ¡cleaners, ¡compactors, ¡incinerators ¡

— Tar ¡ball ¡collectors ¡and ¡siPers ¡

— Water ¡surface, ¡sandy ¡beach ¡

— Oil-­‑stained ¡sand ¡cleaners ¡

— Warm ¡water ¡and/or ¡chemical ¡washing ¡

— Sediment ¡reloca:on ¡ ¡

— Surf ¡washing ¡

Addi:onal ¡Value ¡Added ¡by ¡ARTES ¡

— While ARTES is not meant to be

an thorough, exhaustive Test & Evaluation process, it has proven to identify or resolve major fatal flaws in submissions “as-is”

— Equipment deployed in the marine

environment can have adverse implications on wildlife

• ARTES helped several projects negotiate environmental permitting issues

and thereby reducing liability to the operation in the “field-testing” of new ideas

• Example - Federal wildlife trustees were consulted (under Endangered

Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act requirements). Best management practices were applied to tarball net trawls and rigid pipe boom.

Future ¡Efforts ¡

— Continue to support remaining testing, BioChemical Strike Team

(BCST), and sand and marsh cleanup efforts

— Debrief and package the ARTES concept for future use in future

large spills

— Transition elements of ARTES projects to BP’s new company, the

Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, to advance spill response technology

— Some projects that were more conceptual may be selected by EPA

and USCG for future R & D projects

Some ¡Lessons ¡Learned ¡About ¡ARTES ¡During ¡the ¡ Deepwater ¡Horizon ¡Response ¡

The ARTES team was able to provide:

— A focus on technology review and interactions with new product vendors — A dedicated team with the ability to liaison with all other ICS entities — The necessary discipline to enter everything into a single database and

tracking system

— Critical feedback to submitters, earning trust and reducing impact to

Operations/Logistics by providing a single point of contact

— Timely testing via a collaboration between a technical review team and

an output-oriented test team

— ARTES is a new concept; better marketing of this tool within the

response will greatly improve effectiveness

— Important to build on lessons learned via future ICS training and a

ready-to-go database solution