U.S. NAVY SALVAGE REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON ... - ESSM
U.S. NAVY SALVAGE REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON ... - ESSM U.S. NAVY SALVAGE REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON ... - ESSM
Chapter 5: Operations used alternative ways to anchor the boom ends. One strategy was to tie off booms to existing well heads, as documented in the East Bay Booming Operations image below (Figure 5-17). A second strategy used to defer anchor requirements was employed when deploying boom at the Biloxi Marsh Project. Pilings were driven every 500 feet and used to anchor the boom. As a result, more anchors and mooring chain were available than were ultimately needed. 5-5 Decontamination Figure 5-17. Booming Operations off of East Bay, LA on June 22, 2010 demonstarting use of well heads as anchoring point for boom. Decontamination of oil fouled equipment was necessary before removing that gear from deployed status. The USCG established and managed the decontamination process that proved effective although somewhat slow. After SUPSALV’s MARCO skimmer was overturned on 15 June, SUPSALV began the process of returning the vessel to the Cheatham ESSM Facility for refitting. After salvaging the boat and returning it to port, it was discovered that no decontamination system or procedures had been implemented. SUPSALV performed the decontamination based on its own procedures with Coast Guard approval. Once implemented by the UAC, Resolve Marine and others provided decontamination services for the ICS. The system was effective but the nature of the activity slowed the overall redeployment process. When possible, equipment that was returned to Gulfport was decontaminated by ESSM staff at the State Pier. Figure 5-18 is a picture of SUPSALV material staged for cleaning at the Theodore / Resolve Marine Decontamination Facility. 5-20
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response Figure 5-18. SUPSALV equipment staged for decontamination inside Decontamination Pool No. 1 at Theodore, Alabama. 5-6 Houston Engineering Support and Underwater Survey In addition to the Beach and Gulf Water Operations, SUPSALV supported the ICS from the Houston ICP. The original Coast Guard tasking requested “immediate support in following areas: oil spill control and recovery equipment, as well as operating personnel and additional salvage, diving, ROV services and consultation may be required as situation develops”. This section describes SUPSALV’s support of the Houston well containment mission as well as SUPSALV’s support for Department of Interior and Department of Justice. 5-6.1 Houston Task, Manning, Coordination SUPSALV was tasked with supporting the Unified Incident Command - Source Control in Houston, TX. Vice Admiral Kevin M. McCoy, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, tasked the Director of Ocean Engineering, SEA 00C, CAPT Patrick Keenan and Deputy Director, SEA 00CB, Michael Dean, to support the DWH response from the BP Crisis Center, in Houston. These two senior engineers rotated on site for the entire length of the oil spill. There were three principal reasons for deploying SUPSALV to the Crisis Center. They included: 1. Since the response had been federalized, the U.S. Navy wanted to assign engineering assistance to BP in the event there were avenues of additional assistance the Navy could provide during the source control process. The two primary tasks at the BP Crisis Center were well head closure and oil collection and containment at the well head. Supervisor of Salvage (SUPSALV) senior engineer, Michael Dean, (00CB) was assigned because of his extensive underwater ship husbandry experience and because he is the Navy’s 5-21
- Page 1: SH285-AA-RPT-010 0910-LP-111-8218 U
- Page 5 and 6: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 7 and 8: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 9 and 10: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 11 and 12: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 13 and 14: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 15: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 18 and 19: Chapter 2: Command and Organization
- Page 20 and 21: Chapter 2: Command and Organization
- Page 22 and 23: Chapter 2: Command and Organization
- Page 24 and 25: Chapter 2: Command and Organization
- Page 26 and 27: Chapter 3: Tasking and Funding 6/09
- Page 28 and 29: Chapter 3: Tasking and Funding Pict
- Page 30 and 31: Chapter 4: Mobilization Class V ski
- Page 32 and 33: Chapter 5: Operations Figure 5-1. O
- Page 34 and 35: Chapter 5: Operations • DWH oil w
- Page 36 and 37: Chapter 5: Operations 5-2 Near Shor
- Page 38 and 39: Chapter 5: Operations Resource Coor
- Page 40 and 41: Chapter 5: Operations Figure 5-9. V
- Page 42 and 43: Chapter 5: Operations The VOSS crew
- Page 44 and 45: Chapter 5: Operations Figure 5-13.
- Page 46 and 47: Chapter 5: Operations Figure 5-14.
- Page 48 and 49: Chapter 5: Operations Ship Island,
- Page 52 and 53: Chapter 5: Operations Remotely Oper
- Page 54 and 55: Chapter 5: Operations 5-6.2 Evidenc
- Page 56 and 57: Chapter 5: Operations Figure 5-21.
- Page 59 and 60: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 61 and 62: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 63: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Respons
- Page 66 and 67: Chapter 7: Lessons Learned • MARC
- Page 68 and 69: Chapter 7: Lessons Learned unaware
- Page 70 and 71: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 72 and 73: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 74 and 75: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 76 and 77: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 78 and 79: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 80 and 81: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 82 and 83: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 84 and 85: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 86 and 87: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 88 and 89: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 90 and 91: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 92 and 93: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 94 and 95: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 96 and 97: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
- Page 98 and 99: Final Report, SONS Deepwater Horizo
Chapter 5: Operations<br />
used alternative ways to anchor the boom ends. One strategy was to tie off booms to existing<br />
well heads, as documented in the East Bay Booming Operations image below (Figure 5-17). A<br />
second strategy used to defer anchor requirements was employed when deploying boom at the<br />
Biloxi Marsh Project. Pilings were driven every 500 feet and used to anchor the boom. As a<br />
result, more anchors and mooring chain were available than were ultimately needed.<br />
5-5 Decontamination<br />
Figure 5-17. Booming Operations off of East Bay, LA on June 22, 2010<br />
demonstarting use of well heads as anchoring point for boom.<br />
Decontamination of oil fouled equipment was necessary before removing that gear from<br />
deployed status. The USCG established and managed the decontamination process that proved<br />
effective although somewhat slow. After SUPSALV’s MARCO skimmer was overturned on 15<br />
June, SUPSALV began the process of returning the vessel to the Cheatham <strong>ESSM</strong> Facility for<br />
refitting. After salvaging the boat and returning it to port, it was discovered that no<br />
decontamination system or procedures had been implemented. SUPSALV performed the<br />
decontamination based on its own procedures with Coast Guard approval. Once implemented<br />
by the UAC, Resolve Marine and others provided decontamination services for the ICS. The<br />
system was effective but the nature of the activity slowed the overall redeployment process.<br />
When possible, equipment that was returned to Gulfport was decontaminated by <strong>ESSM</strong> staff at<br />
the State Pier. Figure 5-18 is a picture of SUPSALV material staged for cleaning at the<br />
Theodore / Resolve Marine Decontamination Facility.<br />
5-20