U.S. NAVY SALVAGE REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON ... - ESSM

U.S. NAVY SALVAGE REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON ... - ESSM U.S. NAVY SALVAGE REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON ... - ESSM

06.01.2015 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!