Deepwater Horizon Response

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 operations led to changing operational 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 operational 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 ProvenFeasible Proven

HITT Team Planning / Logistics / Testing

Email Back to Respondent

Proposal:Not PossibleNot Feasible

Already Considered

Stage 1Preliminary Evaluation

Stage 2Classification

NO

Dispersents

Sorbants

Mechanical

Skimming

Biorestoration

YES

Stage 3 Technical Review by Classification

Technical Review by

Classification

OperationsGo/No Go

Sucessful

Available Options

Updated

Document

Closing Response To Vendor

YES

NO

Stage 4Technical Review

Operations

Alternative Response TechnologyTriage Process

Source

ProposalNot PossibleNot Feasible

Already Considered

Email BackTo Respondent

Prioritization

Stage 1 Process: Preliminary Evaluation

� ARTES triage process shows all inputs coming from the data. But many more sources of inputs �  Unified Area Command. �  Political and Media �  Liaison and Local/State Reps. �  Operations �  Vendors and Innovators



Escalate? Escalate





Already Considered



NO

Dispersents

Sorbants

Mechanical

Skimming

Biorestoration

YES


Technical Review by

Classification

OperationsGo/No Go

Sucessful

Available Options

Updated

Document


YES

NO


Operations


Source


Already Considered


Prioritization

Stage 2 Process: Classification

� Once and idea is determined possible or feasible, classification occurs 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.



Escalate? Escalate





Already Considered



NO

Dispersents

Sorbants

Mechanical

Skimming

Biorestoration

YES


Technical Review by

Classification

OperationsGo/No Go

Sucessful

Available Options

Updated

Document


YES

NO


Operations


Source


Already Considered


Prioritization

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? Escalate





Already Considered



NO

Dispersents

Sorbants

Mechanical

Skimming

Biorestoration

YES


Technical Review by

Classification

OperationsGo/No Go

Sucessful

Available Options

Updated

Document


YES

NO


Operations


Source


Already Considered


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



Escalate? Escalate





Already Considered



NO

Dispersents

Sorbants

Mechanical

Skimming

Biorestoration

YES


Technical Review by

Classification

OperationsGo/No Go

Sucessful

Available Options

Updated

Document


YES

NO


Operations


Source


Already Considered


Prioritization

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

Documents

Deepwater Horizon Response