Notice of Availability for GENWEST EDRC Study and the National Academy of Sciences Letter Report (on the GENWEST Study); Comment Request, 45832-45837 [2014-18608]
Download as PDF
45832
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
[OMB Control Number 1615–0057]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Application of Certificate of
Citizenship, Form N–600; Extension,
Without Change, of a Currently
Approved Collection
ACTION:
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) invites
the general public and other Federal
agencies to comment upon this
proposed extension of a currently
approved collection of information. In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the
information collection notice is
published in the Federal Register to
obtain comments regarding the nature of
the information collection, the
categories of respondents, the estimated
burden (i.e. the time, effort, and
resources used by the respondents to
respond), the estimated cost to the
respondent, and the actual information
collection instruments.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until
October 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: All submissions received
must include the OMB Control Number
1615–0057 in the subject box, the
agency name and Docket ID USCIS–
2006–0023. To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the
following methods to submit comments:
(1) Online. Submit comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at
www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID
number USCIS–2006–0023;
(2) Email. Submit comments to
USCISFRComment@uscis.dhs.gov;
(3) Mail. Submit written comments to
DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and
Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20529–2140.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Comments
Regardless of the method used for
submitting comments or material, all
submissions will be posted, without
change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov,
and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it
public. You may wish to consider
limiting the amount of personal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Aug 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
information that you provide in any
voluntary submission you make to DHS.
DHS may withhold information
provided in comments from public
viewing that it determines may impact
the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information,
please read the Privacy Act notice that
is available via the link in the footer of
https://www.regulations.gov.
Note: The address listed in this notice
should only be used to submit comments
concerning this information collection.
Please do not submit requests for individual
case status inquiries to this address. If you
are seeking information about the status of
your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case
Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/
Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National
Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
should address one or more of the
following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Extension, Without Change, of a
Currently Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Application for Certificate of
Citizenship.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: N–600;
USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
households. USCIS uses the information
on Form N–600 to make a determination
that the citizenship eligibility
requirements and conditions are met by
the applicant so that a certificate of
citizenship can be generated.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated total number of
respondents for the information
collection N–600 is 57,000 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
1.6 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total estimated annual
hour burden associated with this
collection is 91,200 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public
burden (in cost) associated with the
collection: The estimated total annual
cost burden associated with this
collection of information is $6,982,500
If you need a copy of the information
collection instrument with instructions,
or additional information, please visit
the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
https://www.regulations.gov. We may
also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of
Policy and Strategy, Regulatory
Coordination Division, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529–2140,
Telephone number 202–272–8377.
Dated: July 31, 2014.
Samantha Deshommes,
Supervisory Economist, Regulatory
Coordination Division, Office of Policy and
Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014–18543 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
[Docket ID: BSEE–2014–0006; 14XE8370SD
ED1OS0000.JAE000 EEGG000000]
Notice of Availability for GENWEST
EDRC Study and the National Academy
of Sciences Letter Report (on the
GENWEST Study); Comment Request
ACTION:
Notice.
The Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is
inviting you to provide comments on
the GENWEST Systems, Inc., Effective
Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC) Study,
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Letter Report summarizing its peer
review of the GENWEST Study, and
comments provided by BSEE regarding
each document.
Background: EDRC is a calculation
method established within BSEE’s and
the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG)
regulations to assign an oil recovery
capability value to oil skimming
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Notices
equipment. Although the EDRC
methodology was finalized in the early
1990’s and has been an integral
component of industry response
planning and readiness for the past 20
years, the methodology came under
heavy scrutiny in the wake of the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This
spurred an open debate and ongoing
dialogue on how to best improve the
EDRC planning standard. In late 2011,
BSEE contracted with GENWEST
Systems Inc. to evaluate the EDRC
methodology and to develop
recommendations for improving the
planning standard for the mechanical
recovery of oil on water. GENWEST’s
final report produced the concept of
Estimated Recovery System Potential
(ERSP), an oil encounter rate-based
calculator that evaluates mechanical
recovery equipment as a complete
system as opposed to focusing on an
individual component such as a
skimmer or an intake pump. Shortly
thereafter, BSEE contracted the National
Research Council’s Ocean Studies Board
to conduct an independent, third party
peer review of the ERSP methodology.
The resulting National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) Peer Review Letter
Report validated the ERSP standard as
a sound methodology and a significant
improvement over EDRC. The peer
review also identified a number of areas
for further consideration where ERSP
might be improved. BSEE is continuing
to develop and refine the ERSP
methodology, with the intent of
evaluating ERSP as a potential revision
to BSEE’s oil spill response plan (OSRP)
regulations. This notice provides a high
level summary of some of the key
elements of both documents, as well as
BSEE comments regarding each
document. It also includes BSEE’s
response to recommendations in the
NAS Letter Report. While the
development of a new planning
standard for calculating the mechanical
recovery of spills continues to undergo
additional research and refinement, this
notice provides an early opportunity for
public viewing and comment on the
GENWEST EDRC Study and NAS Letter
Report documents which are available
in the regulations.gov docket ID: BSEE–
2014–0006 and on the BSEE Web site at
https://www.bsee.gov/Research-andTraining/Oil-Spill-Response-Research/
Projects/Project-673/, as well as an
opportunity to comment on the BSEE’s
responses to the findings and
recommendations contained in each
document.
DATES: You must submit comments by
October 6, 2014. The BSEE may not
fully consider comments received after
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Aug 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
this date. While BSEE does not intend
to publish another notice in the Federal
Register solely to respond to comments
submitted to this specific request, all
comments received will be posted in the
docket and considered as inputs into the
ongoing analyses regarding the effort to
improve the existing EDRC planning
standard, and will become part of the
official agency record for this project. As
such, the contents of any comments
received may be used and/or cited, as
appropriate, in the preambles of future
BSEE rulemaking documents that would
implement an updated mechanical oil
recovery planning standard as part of
BSEE’s OSRP regulations.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
and additional materials by any of the
following methods.
• Electronically: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search for
box, enter BSEE–2014–0006, then click
search. Follow the instructions to
submit public comments and view
supporting and related materials
available for this notice.
• Email: oilspillresponsedivision@
bsee.gov or mail or hand-carry
comments to the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, Oil Spill
Response Division, 381 Elden Street, HE
3327, Herndon, Virginia 20170,
Attention: Mr. John Caplis. Please
reference GENWEST EDRC Study and
the National Academy of Sciences Letter
Report in your comments and include
your name and return address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
John Caplis, Oil Spill Response
Division, 703–787–1364, john.caplis@
bsee.gov to request additional
information about this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Current EDRC Planning
Standard: The current EDRC planning
standard was developed as part of a
negotiated rulemaking process involving
Federal and state government, industry,
and non-governmental organizations
following the passage of the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 10,
1–380, Aug 18, 1990, as amended). This
regulatory methodology was intended to
quantify the amount of oil spill response
equipment (i.e., skimmers) needed by
plan holders for an effective response to
their worst-case discharge (WCD) spill
scenario. The formula for EDRC has not
changed since its adoption in 1992:
EDRC = T × 24 hours × E
In this formula, ‘‘T’’ is a skimmer’s
throughput (or recovery) rate in ‘‘barrels
per hour’’ and ‘‘E’’ is an efficiency factor
that was set at 20 percent (or 0.2).
In practice, the method has been
applied as the hourly throughput rate
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45833
(as determined by the manufacturer’s
assigned nameplate recovery rate)
multiplied by 24 hours and then
discounted by a 20 percent efficiency
factor. The result is an estimate of the
number of barrels (bbls) of oil that can
be recovered in any daily operational
period. If a skimmer requires a pump
that determines the throughput of
fluids, the pump capacity becomes the
determining factor in assigning an EDRC
value to a piece of skimming equipment.
The 20 percent efficiency (de-rating)
factor was determined through
consensus by an Oil Spill Response Plan
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee. The de-rating factor
accounts for a mix of environmental and
operational considerations (such as
temperature, sea state, oil viscosity,
hours of daylight, the presence of
debris, and the ability to separate oil
and water) that would limit or reduce
the effectiveness of a skimmer’s
capability to recover oil over a 24-hour
operational period. There are other
critical influences on mechanical
recovery that were not incorporated into
the EDRC calculation. Some of the most
important factors omitted include oil
encounter rate (i.e., the rate at which a
skimmer is able to access spilled oil),
onboard storage capacity, and human
factors (proficiency in skimmer
operation).
Observations and Criticisms of EDRC
During the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill:
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill
dramatically highlighted how
mechanical recovery systems can be
significantly limited by low encounter
rates. Emanating from a well nearly a
mile below the ocean surface, the
spilled oil surfaced over a wide
geographical area and had already
thinned much in terms of oil thickness.
The oil slick that was available for
recovery was widely discontinuous, had
a large, expanding areal footprint, and a
rapidly diminishing surface thickness.
An unprecedented quantity of
skimmers, boom, and other types of
spill response equipment were cascaded
in from across the United States, as well
as from other nations, resulting in a
massive amount of offshore mechanical
recovery capability that was used during
the response. Despite this effort, the
aforementioned factors worked against
the mechanical recovery task forces
operating offshore—reducing their
overall effectiveness in encountering,
containing and recovering the oil. As a
result, significant amounts of shoreline
oiling occurred across the Gulf of
Mexico. Both government and industrysponsored lessons learned reports
identified the performance and
effectiveness of skimming systems as a
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
45834
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Notices
focal point in their observations and
findings.
The National Commission on the BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling’s Final Report, BP
Deepwater Horizon Incident Specific
Preparedness Review (ISPR) Final
Report, and Joint Industry Oil Spill
Preparedness and Response Task Force
(JITF) Second Progress Report all
highlight the limitations of the EDRC
methodology, and recommend
improvement of the mechanical
recovery planning standard. The
National Commission report states that
EDRC should be revised to encourage
the development of more efficient
systems. The BP Deepwater Horizon
ISPR Report points out that the total
EDRC for equipment used on-scene
during the spill far exceeded BP’s
mandated OSRP requirements.
However, this extensive armada of
mechanical recovery equipment did not
recover oil quantities that corresponded
to their aggregated EDRC values. The
ISPR Report recommends that the
regulations be revised to include a
reliable, dynamic efficiency measure
that accurately reflects the limitations of
encountering significant volumes of oil
on the water, and also should encourage
more research and development to
improve the effectiveness of skimmer
systems. The JITF Second Progress
Report states that government and
industry must recognize the limitations
of existing mechanical recovery
equipment, and pursue incentives to
improve boom and skimmer designs,
especially in the offshore environment.
Furthermore, the JITF also recommends
that the government revisit the EDRC
regulations in order to determine if
improvements to the planning standard
are necessary.
The EDRC Study: Through a
competitive procurement, BSEE
initiated a third party, independent
research contract to:
(1) Evaluate existing EDRC
methodologies,
(2) examine de-rating in order to
identify the key variables that impact
skimming system recovery rates,
(3) develop recommendations for an
improved mechanical recovery planning
standard, and
(4) create a user-friendly, computerbased planning tool based on those
recommendations.
GENWEST Systems, Inc., a private
sector information management and
environmental services consulting firm,
was awarded the research contract in
September 2011 and completed its final
project report in December 2012.
The capstone of the GENWEST report
is a new methodology and computer-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Aug 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
based planning tool for estimating
mechanical oil recovery capability
called the ERSP calculator. Based on
algorithms similar to those within the
GENWEST developed Response Options
Calculator, the ERSP calculator is an oil
encounter-rate based planning tool that
measures the performance of an entire
mechanical recovery skimming system.
The ERSP calculator addresses the
effect of encounter rate on a skimmer
through three key variables: The swath
width of the skimming system
configuration, the speed of advance of
the skimming system relative to the
motion of the oil slick, and the
thickness of the oil being collected. The
calculator uses three different nominal
oil thicknesses that decrease with time
over a 3-day period in order to model
the reduced amounts of oil available to
a skimming system due to the effects of
spreading. The selection of the nominal
oil thickness values (0.1 inch for Day 1,
0.05 inch for Day 2, and 0.025 inch for
Day 3) are based on the results of over
400 computer simulations of oil
spreading where temperature, wind,
discharge volume, and oil type were
varied in different combinations. The
three resulting thicknesses that were
selected are representational values that
are reasonably acceptable across a wide
range of scenarios. The calculator
enables the plan holder to input
customized values for both the swath
width and the speed of advance for a
skimming system, which are then used
to estimate areal coverage for a recovery
system during an operational period.
The calculator then applies the nominal
oil thicknesses to the areal coverage
achieved in order to estimate the oil
encountered.
The next steps in the ERSP
methodology apply the ‘‘recovery’’
parameters of the skimming system to
the amount of the oil encountered.
These parameters include an estimate of
the oil recovered compared to the total
volume of the fluids recovered (i.e., the
oil/water recovery ratio otherwise
referred to as the system’s Recovery
Efficiency), an estimate of the oil
removed compared to the oil
encountered (i.e., the effectiveness of
the containment elements of the
skimming system as opposed to
entrainment of the oil, referred to as
Throughput Efficiency), the skimmer
nameplate recovery rate, the amount of
onboard fluid storage, decanting or oil/
water separation abilities, intake and
offload pump rates, and offloading set
up and transit times. The application of
the ‘‘encounter rate’’ and ‘‘recovery’’
system variables, when applied to the
available oil thicknesses for each
operational period, create estimates of
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the system’s effective recovery
potentials for Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3
of a spill. If a skimming system’s
configuration remains fixed over time,
then the recovery potential of the
system will decrease from day to day as
the oil available for skimming also
decreases; however, a skimming
system’s configuration can often be
adjusted during subsequent operational
periods to maintain or minimize the loss
of recovery potential.
The National Academy of Sciences
Letter Report: The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) is a nonprofit, selfperpetuating society of scholars
dedicated to the furtherance and use of
science and technology for the general
welfare. Under the charter granted to it
by Congress, the Academy has a
mandate to advise the Federal
government on scientific and technical
matters. The National Research Council
was organized by the NAS as the
principal operating agency for the
Academies in providing services to
government, the public, and the
scientific communities. In the spring of
2013, BSEE contracted the National
Research Council’s Ocean Studies Board
to conduct an objective technical
evaluation of the GENWEST EDRC
Report and the ERSP methodology. The
Ocean Studies Board assembled an ad
hoc study committee of five subject
matter experts that completed and
delivered their Peer Review Letter
Report in November of 2013.
The Letter Report concluded that the
ERSP methodology was sound and a
substantial improvement over the
current EDRC methodology. While the
committee cited many improvements,
they felt that the greatest strength of the
new ERSP methodology was its
evaluation of the entire skimming
system as a whole as opposed to any
single part of it.
The committee’s most significant
concerns regarding the ERSP’s
methodology focused on the nominal oil
thicknesses selected by the GENWEST
team. These thicknesses were meant to
be representative of the ‘‘thickest’’ oil
available during each operational
period. The ERSP methodology assumes
that a skimming system will be able to
operate in oil at these nominal thickness
values for the entire time it is skimming
during the operational periods on the
first three days. The committee,
however, felt that the real distribution of
thick oil will be discontinuous, or
patchy, and that the ERSP model should
address this factor in its calculations.
The Letter Report also goes on to suggest
that some field observations for slick
thicknesses are generally less than those
used by the ERSP calculator. The study
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Notices
committee concluded that the
GENWEST thicknesses are likely to
overestimate actual encounter rates and
would provide an overly optimistic
assessment of a skimming system’s
actual recovery potential. The
committee recommended applying a
‘‘patchiness de-rating factor’’ to the
encounter rate calculation, and also
suggested adding the ability to enter
different oil thickness values into the
calculator. Encounter rates would then
be adjusted for the discontinuous nature
of the thick oil patches, and more
customized thicknesses could be
entered into the calculator based on the
circumstances of the release scenario
and the particular properties of the plan
holder’s oil type.
The committee also recommended
that regulators work with the GENWEST
team to develop a more detailed user
manual that would further explain the
ERSP calculator assumptions, provide
additional guidance to users on the
selection of certain input values, and
would provide default values for some
of the more uncertain or unknown
parameters. The committee also
recommended the use of the American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standard F2709–08, as the
means to determine the Nameplate
Recovery Rate value in the ERSP
calculator. Finally, the committee
recommended a broader approach of
considering all potential response
options in future rulemakings.
BSEE Comments Regarding the
GENWEST Study: BSEE believes the
GENWEST EDRC study provides a solid
foundational work for building an
improved mechanical recovery planning
standard. The ERSP methodology has
necessarily sacrificed the increased
accuracy of a more complex and
customizable model in order to create a
simple, accessible planning tool that is
applicable across a wide range of
planning scenarios. In striking this
important balance, the ERSP
methodology successfully addresses
many of the issues identified concerning
EDRC, and also incorporates some key
compromises into its assumptions and
algorithms that BSEE will have to
examine carefully. BSEE submits the
following statements for public review
and comment regarding its assessment
of the ERSP calculator and the
GENWEST EDRC Study:
ERSP Creates Incentives for More
Effective Skimming Systems: The ERSP
methodology is a practical approach to
evaluating mechanical oil recovery
systems that includes incentives for
improving system performance. The
ERSP calculator rewards recovery
systems that maximize encounter rate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Aug 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
and minimize skimming downtime
during offloading periods. The
calculator provides plan holders and Oil
Spill Removal Organizations (OSROs)
with a very useful tool for assessing and
comparing different configurations for
almost any type of skimming system.
Plan holders can input different values
into the calculator for many of the
recovery system’s variables, such as
swath width, speed, decanting, onboard
storage, and pump rates, in order to
explore the resultant effects on
encounter rate and recovery potential.
Plan holders and OSROs will be able to
identify the parameters that will best
increase a system’s recovery potential,
and should be able to use this
information to guide their design,
investment, and operational deployment
decisions.
The calculator’s algorithms will
encourage plan holders and OSROs to
acquire and configure skimming
systems with higher areal coverage rates
(through increased swath widths or
increased speeds of advance relative to
the motion of the oil), higher nameplate
capacities and recovery efficiencies, and
more effective collection and
containment arrangements that limit the
entrainment of oil. The calculator will
also create incentives for developing
skimming systems that have increased
onboard storage, faster oil transfer rates,
and effective decanting capabilities.
ERSP Challenges in the Nearshore
and Inshore Operating Environments:
ERSP algorithms and operating
incentives are well suited for offshore
skimming operations, but are less so for
the nearshore and inland operating
environments. Decanting in the offshore
environment provides a tremendous
advantage that maximizes the use of
onboard storage and reduces offload
times. However, decanting is not
realistic for many nearshore and inshore
scenarios. In more confined, shallow
areas, skimming systems with large
swath widths and large onboard or
tethered storage solutions are likely to
be ineffective. Advancing skimmers
used in nearshore areas will still require
high recovery efficiencies; however,
shallow drafts and maneuverability now
become more important than large
swath widths and bulky onboard storage
arrangements. As a result, many
nearshore skimming systems are likely
to have ERSP potential values
significantly below their EDRC ratings,
despite being optimally configured for
their operating environments.
Mechanical recovery in inshore areas is
even more disassociated with many of
the incentives of the ERSP calculator, as
mechanical recovery in these settings
often relies on deflection and collection
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45835
booming and stationary skimming
arrangements.
While ERSP may still be a useful
measure of potential in the nearshore
area, limits may be necessary on the use
of certain ERSP variables, such as swath
width and decanting. It may also be
necessary to consider a mixture of
different equipment rating schemes and
requirements for mechanical recovery in
these operating environments. The
rating of skimming systems and the
reviews of OSRPs in these operating
areas may require a more scenario-based
approach than regulators have used in
the past.
ERSP Emphasizes a Rapid Response
Capability: As the calculator applies
substantially decreasing oil thicknesses
over the first 3 days of a spill, the ERSP
methodology creates a powerful
incentive for skimming systems to arrive
onsite as quickly as possible. The
calculator clearly demonstrates that
plan holders and responders will reach
a point of diminishing returns for
bringing in additional mechanical
recovery equipment as time progresses
and oil becomes less available for
skimming. While this circumstance is
somewhat mitigated during a sustained
release such as a well blowout (where
there may be fresh, thick, concentrated
oil available each day), the fact remains
that mechanical recovery equipment
performs at its highest recovery
potential in the earliest hours of a spill
when encounter rates can be
maximized.
ERSP Does not Address Staging,
Mobilization, or Transit Times: While
the ERSP methodology emphasizes a
rapid response, it does not factor into its
calculations the time it takes to mobilize
and deliver a mechanical recovery
system to the site of a spill. GENWEST,
at the direction of BSEE, used a fixed
operational period of 12 hours for the
EDRC Study, and did not incorporate
the effects of equipment mobilization
and delivery times on recovery
potentials. The ERSP calculator does,
however, have an input variable for
each day’s ‘‘operating period’’, which
could be reduced to account for these
factors related to response time.
The OSROs and plan holders could
adjust the operating period accordingly
if BSEE provides guidance on how to
account for each mobilization factor.
The BSEE currently does not factor
response times into its regulations and
currently does not require adjustments
to EDRC values based on mobilization
times. Additional guidance and
regulations may be needed in order to
adequately account for mobilization
times when inputting the operational
period into the ERSP calculator.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
45836
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Notices
ERSP Calculations Assumes the Use
of Best Practices and Best Commercially
Available Technology: In the selection
of representative oil thicknesses for each
operational period, the ERSP calculator
assumes that operators will be using the
best technologies commercially
available, such as remote sensing tools,
as well as operational best practices, in
their skimming activities. This is
especially important for ensuring
operator proficiency, and for
identifying, tracking, and keeping
recovery systems in thick oil
continuously during skimming
operations. If operators do not employ
such technology and best practices, then
the ERSP calculator is likely to provide
an overstated recovery potential for a
system. The calculator does not include
any built in incentives for the use of
these critical best practices and
technologies. Creating these incentives
or requirements may therefore have to
be addressed through regulatory
requirements, industry standards, and
recommended practices.
BSEE Comments Regarding the NAS
Letter Report: The BSEE agrees with the
NAS Letter Report findings that the new
approach for evaluating mechanical
recovery equipment, Estimated
Recovery System Potential (ERSP), is
basically sound and an improvement
over methods currently employed by
BSEE and USCG oil spill response
planning regulations. The BSEE also
acknowledges each of the insightful
recommendations offered for possible
improvement in the NAS Peer Review
Letter Report, and has carefully
considered their potential for improving
the existing EDRC and proposed ERSP
methodologies. As stated earlier in this
document, BSEE believes that the ERSP
methodology has necessarily sacrificed
a degree of accuracy associated with a
more complex and customizable model
in order to create a simple, accessible
planning tool that is applicable across a
wide range of planning scenarios. In
striking this important balance, the
ERSP methodology successfully
addresses many of the issues concerning
EDRC, but also incorporates some key
compromises into its assumptions and
algorithms. The NAS Letter Report
identifies some of these compromises as
shortfalls, and provides several
recommendations that would increase
the accuracy of the ERSP calculator, but
would also significantly increase the
complexity of using the calculator.
BSEE carefully weighed these
sometimes opposing factors when
evaluating the NAS recommendations,
and ultimately placed a premium on
ensuring the calculator remained a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Aug 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
simple, useful planning tool that is best
suited to the needs of plan holders and
government reviewers. Where BSEE
could not fully address the NAS’s
concerns or suggested improvements
with changes to the ERSP calculator
itself, BSEE will work to address the
issues where possible through other
associated processes such as potential
changes to the OSRP regulations. As
such, BSEE provides the following
comments with regard to the NAS
recommendations:
Using a ‘‘System of Response
Options’’ Approach: The NAS
recommends BSEE consider adopting a
systems approach in the OSRP
regulations that incorporates other
response options in addition to
mechanical oil recovery capabilities.
BSEE fully agrees with this statement
and will be conducting further studies
to explore the development of
additional planning tools and potential
requirements for other response options
such as dispersants and in situ burning.
Using an ASTM Standard to Estimate
Nameplate Recovery Rate and Recovery
Efficiency of a Skimming System: The
NAS recommends that the nameplate
recovery rate input parameter for a
skimmer be generated through the use of
operational testing using a standard
such as ASTM F2709–08. The NAS also
recommends that the input value for
skimmer Recovery Efficiency (RE) could
be generated by using ASTM F2709–08
or a similar standard. While BSEE
would agree with the suggestion to use
ASTM standards whenever appropriate,
it should be noted that the ASTM
F2709–08 standard tests a skimming
system’s performance in ideal
conditions to determine a skimmer’s
nameplate recovery rate, and does not
account for the effects of sea state or
other operating conditions that may
reduce a system’s effectiveness and
efficiency. ASTM F2709–08 does offer
the promise as a low cost, easily
replicated test for producing Nameplate
Recovery Rate input values. As this
testing method provides an assessment
of optimal recovery rates measured
under ideal skimming conditions, BSEE
has been in discussions with members
of the ASTM F20 Committee on how to
best apply the existing standard or with
regard to possible adjustments to the
F2709–08. BSEE will continue to
discuss and evaluate the practicality of
using ASTM 2709–08, or of developing
a new or revised standard that would
complement the use of ERSP with
ASTM.
Developing More Guidance on
Selecting Input Values and a More
Detailed ERSP User Manual: The NAS
recommends developing a more detailed
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
user manual that provides the logic
behind the default values for certain
parameters, and provides additional
guidance for selecting and entering each
of the user-defined inputs. BSEE agrees
that additional information in a more
detailed user manual would be
beneficial to both response plan holders
and government reviewers. BSEE will
implement this recommendation to
provide more background information
on ERSP assumptions and any specified
default values, and develop additional
guidance on the selection of userdefined input variables in a more
detailed user manual.
Reducing Oil Thickness Values to
Account for the Discontinuous Nature of
Oil Slicks: The NAS recommended
adjustment of the ERSP methodology to
account for the discontinuous nature of
oil slicks, specifically as it relates to a
skimming system’s ability to
continuously encounter oil for removal.
Additionally, NAS reviewers observed
that the representative oil thickness
values chosen by GENWEST are higher
than those gathered during field
observations from actual spills or
laboratory tests. The NAS concluded
that the lack of a spatial element for the
patchiness of oil slicks along with the
current values chosen for oil thicknesses
in the ERSP calculator would overstate
oil encounter rates and recovery
potential values, especially on Day 2
and Day 3 of a spill. The BSEE
acknowledges the discontinuous nature
of most oil spills as well as the fact that
choosing a set of oil thickness values
that adequately represent actual
encounter rates over a wide range of
scenarios is a very important but
extremely challenging aspect of
developing the ERSP calculator. The
BSEE discussed this process at length
with the GENWEST study team, and
believes the values selected for oil
thicknesses by the GENWEST team are
valid planning values that adequately
cover the very wide range of variables
involved across a very broad set of
industry response plans, and do not
need to be further adjusted. The
GENWEST study team ran over 400
modeling simulations varying for oil
type, spill size, and ambient conditions
such as wind and temperature in order
to generate the distribution of expected
thickness values. GENWEST informed
BSEE that they factored in the
discontinuous nature of oil slicks in
their modeling when they selected the
thickness values. GENWEST also
commented that the thickness values
were selected with a bias toward
responding to a very large worst case
discharge (WCD) spill volume, which
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Notices
would increase the thickness values
over those measured during smaller
controlled discharges and spills of
opportunity. BSEE agrees with these
statements and believes the thickness
values selected by GENWEST are valid
for addressing response planning to a
WCD as required under the OPA.
Incorporating Multiple Oil Thickness
Scenarios Into the ERSP Calculator: The
NAS recommends developing several
planning scenario options that would
allow plan holders to fine tune and
customize their oil thickness values
based on their oil type and facilityspecific parameters. This would allow a
plan holder to tailor their ERSP
calculations for their specific
operational conditions (such as a
sustained subsea loss of well control of
medium crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico
or a well with heavy crude in the
Arctic). While these recommendations
may improve the accuracy of individual
plan holders’ specific ERSP
calculations, BSEE believes the
significant increase in complexity
associated with using this approach far
outweighs the minimal gains in
accuracy that might be realized for an
individual plan holder’s ERSP values.
At this time, BSEE does not plan to
incorporate multiple scenarios that
would require the customized inputs for
oil thickness values to be estimated or
selected based upon a plan holder’s oil
type, environmental operating
conditions, and discharge scenarios.
Assigning Uncertainty Values to ERSP
Input Values: The NAS suggests adding
the ability for users to input uncertainty
values attached to user-selected inputs,
and that additional guidance in the user
manual should be developed to guide
users on how to interpret and use the
outputs that would result. The end
result of using these uncertainty values
would be to create a probability range of
ERSP outcomes rather than a singularly
defined number, which the NAS
believed would provide additional
clarity on the accuracy of the ERSP data
generated. BSEE does not believe it is
necessary for users to develop and input
uncertainty data, as this may
unnecessarily complicate the use of the
calculator tool, and would not result in
additional information that is necessary
for developing and/or reviewing
effective OSRPs.
Additional Public Review: The NAS
recommended the calculator
methodology be exposed to an
additional round of public review by a
broad range of subject matter experts.
Currently, BSEE relies on the NAS
Letter Report itself as the primary means
for subjecting the ERSP study to a
rigorous ‘‘expert’’ assessment. However,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Aug 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
BSEE fully acknowledges the value of
additional public review of critical
documents such the EDRC Study. BSEE
believes publishing this Federal
Register notice that announces the
results of both the EDRC Study and NAS
Letter Report (as well as BSEE’s analysis
and response to these documents), and
providing an opportunity for public
review and comment, successfully
meets the intent of the NAS
recommendation. Additionally, if any
portion of the ERSP methodology were
to be incorporated into a future Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), there
would be another opportunity, in
addition to this Federal Register notice,
for public review and comment.
Public Availibility of Comments:
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment including your
personal identifying information may be
made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
all documents submitted will be listed
in the index, some information may not
be publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
may be publicly available only in hard
copy. Otherwise, publicly available
docket materials are available
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov.
Dated: July 29, 2014.
David M. Moore,
Chief, Oil Spill Response Division.
[FR Doc. 2014–18608 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45837
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–ES–2014–N166; 41910–1112–
0000–F2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Receipt of Application for
Incidental Take Permit; Availability of
Proposed Low-Effect Habitat
Conservation Plan; City of Deltona,
Volusia County, FL and Adventist
Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., Orange
County, FL
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of receipt; request for
comment/information.
AGENCY:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), have received
applications from the City of Deltona
and Adventist Health System/Sunbelt,
Inc. (applicants) for incidental take
permits under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The City
of Deltona has applied for modification
of an ITP (ITP; modification
#TE28377B–1), and Adventist Health
System/Sunbelt, Inc. has applied for a
10-year incidental take permit (ITP;
#TE41877B–0).
We request public comment on the
permit applications and accompanying
proposed habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), as well as on our preliminary
determination that the plan qualifies as
low-effect under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To
make this determination, we used our
environmental action statement and
low-effect screening form, which are
also available for review.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments by
September 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to review the
applications and HCPs, you may request
documents by email, U.S. mail, or
phone (see below). These documents are
also available for public inspection by
appointment during normal business
hours at the office below. Send your
comments or requests by any one of the
following methods.
Email: northflorida@fws.gov. Use
‘‘Attn: Permit number TE28377B–1’’ as
your message subject line for the City of
Deltona and ‘‘Attn: Permit number
TE41877B–0’’ for Adventist Health
System/Sunbelt, Inc.
Fax: Field Supervisor, (904) 731–
3045, Attn.: Permit number TE28377B–
0 or TE41877B–0.
U.S. mail: Field Supervisor,
Jacksonville Ecological Services Field
Office, Attn: Permit number TE28377B–
0 or TE41877B–0, U.S. Fish and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Agencies
- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
- Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45832-45837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18608]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
[Docket ID: BSEE-2014-0006; 14XE8370SD ED1OS0000.JAE000 EEGG000000]
Notice of Availability for GENWEST EDRC Study and the National
Academy of Sciences Letter Report (on the GENWEST Study); Comment
Request
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is
inviting you to provide comments on the GENWEST Systems, Inc.,
Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC) Study, National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) Letter Report summarizing its peer review of the GENWEST
Study, and comments provided by BSEE regarding each document.
Background: EDRC is a calculation method established within BSEE's
and the United States Coast Guard's (USCG) regulations to assign an oil
recovery capability value to oil skimming
[[Page 45833]]
equipment. Although the EDRC methodology was finalized in the early
1990's and has been an integral component of industry response planning
and readiness for the past 20 years, the methodology came under heavy
scrutiny in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This
spurred an open debate and ongoing dialogue on how to best improve the
EDRC planning standard. In late 2011, BSEE contracted with GENWEST
Systems Inc. to evaluate the EDRC methodology and to develop
recommendations for improving the planning standard for the mechanical
recovery of oil on water. GENWEST's final report produced the concept
of Estimated Recovery System Potential (ERSP), an oil encounter rate-
based calculator that evaluates mechanical recovery equipment as a
complete system as opposed to focusing on an individual component such
as a skimmer or an intake pump. Shortly thereafter, BSEE contracted the
National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board to conduct an
independent, third party peer review of the ERSP methodology. The
resulting National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Peer Review Letter Report
validated the ERSP standard as a sound methodology and a significant
improvement over EDRC. The peer review also identified a number of
areas for further consideration where ERSP might be improved. BSEE is
continuing to develop and refine the ERSP methodology, with the intent
of evaluating ERSP as a potential revision to BSEE's oil spill response
plan (OSRP) regulations. This notice provides a high level summary of
some of the key elements of both documents, as well as BSEE comments
regarding each document. It also includes BSEE's response to
recommendations in the NAS Letter Report. While the development of a
new planning standard for calculating the mechanical recovery of spills
continues to undergo additional research and refinement, this notice
provides an early opportunity for public viewing and comment on the
GENWEST EDRC Study and NAS Letter Report documents which are available
in the regulations.gov docket ID: BSEE-2014-0006 and on the BSEE Web
site at https://www.bsee.gov/Research-and-Training/Oil-Spill-Response-Research/Projects/Project-673/, as well as an opportunity to comment on
the BSEE's responses to the findings and recommendations contained in
each document.
DATES: You must submit comments by October 6, 2014. The BSEE may not
fully consider comments received after this date. While BSEE does not
intend to publish another notice in the Federal Register solely to
respond to comments submitted to this specific request, all comments
received will be posted in the docket and considered as inputs into the
ongoing analyses regarding the effort to improve the existing EDRC
planning standard, and will become part of the official agency record
for this project. As such, the contents of any comments received may be
used and/or cited, as appropriate, in the preambles of future BSEE
rulemaking documents that would implement an updated mechanical oil
recovery planning standard as part of BSEE's OSRP regulations.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and additional materials by any of
the following methods.
Electronically: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. In the
Search for box, enter BSEE-2014-0006, then click search. Follow the
instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and related
materials available for this notice.
Email: oilspillresponsedivision@bsee.gov or mail or hand-
carry comments to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, Oil Spill Response Division, 381 Elden
Street, HE 3327, Herndon, Virginia 20170, Attention: Mr. John Caplis.
Please reference GENWEST EDRC Study and the National Academy of
Sciences Letter Report in your comments and include your name and
return address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Caplis, Oil Spill Response
Division, 703-787-1364, john.caplis@bsee.gov to request additional
information about this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Current EDRC Planning Standard: The current EDRC planning
standard was developed as part of a negotiated rulemaking process
involving Federal and state government, industry, and non-governmental
organizations following the passage of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of
1990 (Pub. L. 10, 1-380, Aug 18, 1990, as amended). This regulatory
methodology was intended to quantify the amount of oil spill response
equipment (i.e., skimmers) needed by plan holders for an effective
response to their worst-case discharge (WCD) spill scenario. The
formula for EDRC has not changed since its adoption in 1992:
EDRC = T x 24 hours x E
In this formula, ``T'' is a skimmer's throughput (or recovery) rate
in ``barrels per hour'' and ``E'' is an efficiency factor that was set
at 20 percent (or 0.2).
In practice, the method has been applied as the hourly throughput
rate (as determined by the manufacturer's assigned nameplate recovery
rate) multiplied by 24 hours and then discounted by a 20 percent
efficiency factor. The result is an estimate of the number of barrels
(bbls) of oil that can be recovered in any daily operational period. If
a skimmer requires a pump that determines the throughput of fluids, the
pump capacity becomes the determining factor in assigning an EDRC value
to a piece of skimming equipment.
The 20 percent efficiency (de-rating) factor was determined through
consensus by an Oil Spill Response Plan Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee. The de-rating factor accounts for a mix of environmental and
operational considerations (such as temperature, sea state, oil
viscosity, hours of daylight, the presence of debris, and the ability
to separate oil and water) that would limit or reduce the effectiveness
of a skimmer's capability to recover oil over a 24-hour operational
period. There are other critical influences on mechanical recovery that
were not incorporated into the EDRC calculation. Some of the most
important factors omitted include oil encounter rate (i.e., the rate at
which a skimmer is able to access spilled oil), onboard storage
capacity, and human factors (proficiency in skimmer operation).
Observations and Criticisms of EDRC During the Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill: The Deepwater Horizon oil spill dramatically highlighted how
mechanical recovery systems can be significantly limited by low
encounter rates. Emanating from a well nearly a mile below the ocean
surface, the spilled oil surfaced over a wide geographical area and had
already thinned much in terms of oil thickness. The oil slick that was
available for recovery was widely discontinuous, had a large, expanding
areal footprint, and a rapidly diminishing surface thickness. An
unprecedented quantity of skimmers, boom, and other types of spill
response equipment were cascaded in from across the United States, as
well as from other nations, resulting in a massive amount of offshore
mechanical recovery capability that was used during the response.
Despite this effort, the aforementioned factors worked against the
mechanical recovery task forces operating offshore--reducing their
overall effectiveness in encountering, containing and recovering the
oil. As a result, significant amounts of shoreline oiling occurred
across the Gulf of Mexico. Both government and industry-sponsored
lessons learned reports identified the performance and effectiveness of
skimming systems as a
[[Page 45834]]
focal point in their observations and findings.
The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling's Final Report, BP Deepwater Horizon Incident
Specific Preparedness Review (ISPR) Final Report, and Joint Industry
Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Task Force (JITF) Second Progress
Report all highlight the limitations of the EDRC methodology, and
recommend improvement of the mechanical recovery planning standard. The
National Commission report states that EDRC should be revised to
encourage the development of more efficient systems. The BP Deepwater
Horizon ISPR Report points out that the total EDRC for equipment used
on-scene during the spill far exceeded BP's mandated OSRP requirements.
However, this extensive armada of mechanical recovery equipment did not
recover oil quantities that corresponded to their aggregated EDRC
values. The ISPR Report recommends that the regulations be revised to
include a reliable, dynamic efficiency measure that accurately reflects
the limitations of encountering significant volumes of oil on the
water, and also should encourage more research and development to
improve the effectiveness of skimmer systems. The JITF Second Progress
Report states that government and industry must recognize the
limitations of existing mechanical recovery equipment, and pursue
incentives to improve boom and skimmer designs, especially in the
offshore environment. Furthermore, the JITF also recommends that the
government revisit the EDRC regulations in order to determine if
improvements to the planning standard are necessary.
The EDRC Study: Through a competitive procurement, BSEE initiated a
third party, independent research contract to:
(1) Evaluate existing EDRC methodologies,
(2) examine de-rating in order to identify the key variables that
impact skimming system recovery rates,
(3) develop recommendations for an improved mechanical recovery
planning standard, and
(4) create a user-friendly, computer-based planning tool based on
those recommendations.
GENWEST Systems, Inc., a private sector information management and
environmental services consulting firm, was awarded the research
contract in September 2011 and completed its final project report in
December 2012.
The capstone of the GENWEST report is a new methodology and
computer-based planning tool for estimating mechanical oil recovery
capability called the ERSP calculator. Based on algorithms similar to
those within the GENWEST developed Response Options Calculator, the
ERSP calculator is an oil encounter-rate based planning tool that
measures the performance of an entire mechanical recovery skimming
system.
The ERSP calculator addresses the effect of encounter rate on a
skimmer through three key variables: The swath width of the skimming
system configuration, the speed of advance of the skimming system
relative to the motion of the oil slick, and the thickness of the oil
being collected. The calculator uses three different nominal oil
thicknesses that decrease with time over a 3-day period in order to
model the reduced amounts of oil available to a skimming system due to
the effects of spreading. The selection of the nominal oil thickness
values (0.1 inch for Day 1, 0.05 inch for Day 2, and 0.025 inch for Day
3) are based on the results of over 400 computer simulations of oil
spreading where temperature, wind, discharge volume, and oil type were
varied in different combinations. The three resulting thicknesses that
were selected are representational values that are reasonably
acceptable across a wide range of scenarios. The calculator enables the
plan holder to input customized values for both the swath width and the
speed of advance for a skimming system, which are then used to estimate
areal coverage for a recovery system during an operational period. The
calculator then applies the nominal oil thicknesses to the areal
coverage achieved in order to estimate the oil encountered.
The next steps in the ERSP methodology apply the ``recovery''
parameters of the skimming system to the amount of the oil encountered.
These parameters include an estimate of the oil recovered compared to
the total volume of the fluids recovered (i.e., the oil/water recovery
ratio otherwise referred to as the system's Recovery Efficiency), an
estimate of the oil removed compared to the oil encountered (i.e., the
effectiveness of the containment elements of the skimming system as
opposed to entrainment of the oil, referred to as Throughput
Efficiency), the skimmer nameplate recovery rate, the amount of onboard
fluid storage, decanting or oil/water separation abilities, intake and
offload pump rates, and offloading set up and transit times. The
application of the ``encounter rate'' and ``recovery'' system
variables, when applied to the available oil thicknesses for each
operational period, create estimates of the system's effective recovery
potentials for Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3 of a spill. If a skimming
system's configuration remains fixed over time, then the recovery
potential of the system will decrease from day to day as the oil
available for skimming also decreases; however, a skimming system's
configuration can often be adjusted during subsequent operational
periods to maintain or minimize the loss of recovery potential.
The National Academy of Sciences Letter Report: The National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
scholars dedicated to the furtherance and use of science and technology
for the general welfare. Under the charter granted to it by Congress,
the Academy has a mandate to advise the Federal government on
scientific and technical matters. The National Research Council was
organized by the NAS as the principal operating agency for the
Academies in providing services to government, the public, and the
scientific communities. In the spring of 2013, BSEE contracted the
National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board to conduct an objective
technical evaluation of the GENWEST EDRC Report and the ERSP
methodology. The Ocean Studies Board assembled an ad hoc study
committee of five subject matter experts that completed and delivered
their Peer Review Letter Report in November of 2013.
The Letter Report concluded that the ERSP methodology was sound and
a substantial improvement over the current EDRC methodology. While the
committee cited many improvements, they felt that the greatest strength
of the new ERSP methodology was its evaluation of the entire skimming
system as a whole as opposed to any single part of it.
The committee's most significant concerns regarding the ERSP's
methodology focused on the nominal oil thicknesses selected by the
GENWEST team. These thicknesses were meant to be representative of the
``thickest'' oil available during each operational period. The ERSP
methodology assumes that a skimming system will be able to operate in
oil at these nominal thickness values for the entire time it is
skimming during the operational periods on the first three days. The
committee, however, felt that the real distribution of thick oil will
be discontinuous, or patchy, and that the ERSP model should address
this factor in its calculations. The Letter Report also goes on to
suggest that some field observations for slick thicknesses are
generally less than those used by the ERSP calculator. The study
[[Page 45835]]
committee concluded that the GENWEST thicknesses are likely to
overestimate actual encounter rates and would provide an overly
optimistic assessment of a skimming system's actual recovery potential.
The committee recommended applying a ``patchiness de-rating factor'' to
the encounter rate calculation, and also suggested adding the ability
to enter different oil thickness values into the calculator. Encounter
rates would then be adjusted for the discontinuous nature of the thick
oil patches, and more customized thicknesses could be entered into the
calculator based on the circumstances of the release scenario and the
particular properties of the plan holder's oil type.
The committee also recommended that regulators work with the
GENWEST team to develop a more detailed user manual that would further
explain the ERSP calculator assumptions, provide additional guidance to
users on the selection of certain input values, and would provide
default values for some of the more uncertain or unknown parameters.
The committee also recommended the use of the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard F2709-08, as the means to
determine the Nameplate Recovery Rate value in the ERSP calculator.
Finally, the committee recommended a broader approach of considering
all potential response options in future rulemakings.
BSEE Comments Regarding the GENWEST Study: BSEE believes the
GENWEST EDRC study provides a solid foundational work for building an
improved mechanical recovery planning standard. The ERSP methodology
has necessarily sacrificed the increased accuracy of a more complex and
customizable model in order to create a simple, accessible planning
tool that is applicable across a wide range of planning scenarios. In
striking this important balance, the ERSP methodology successfully
addresses many of the issues identified concerning EDRC, and also
incorporates some key compromises into its assumptions and algorithms
that BSEE will have to examine carefully. BSEE submits the following
statements for public review and comment regarding its assessment of
the ERSP calculator and the GENWEST EDRC Study:
ERSP Creates Incentives for More Effective Skimming Systems: The
ERSP methodology is a practical approach to evaluating mechanical oil
recovery systems that includes incentives for improving system
performance. The ERSP calculator rewards recovery systems that maximize
encounter rate and minimize skimming downtime during offloading
periods. The calculator provides plan holders and Oil Spill Removal
Organizations (OSROs) with a very useful tool for assessing and
comparing different configurations for almost any type of skimming
system. Plan holders can input different values into the calculator for
many of the recovery system's variables, such as swath width, speed,
decanting, onboard storage, and pump rates, in order to explore the
resultant effects on encounter rate and recovery potential. Plan
holders and OSROs will be able to identify the parameters that will
best increase a system's recovery potential, and should be able to use
this information to guide their design, investment, and operational
deployment decisions.
The calculator's algorithms will encourage plan holders and OSROs
to acquire and configure skimming systems with higher areal coverage
rates (through increased swath widths or increased speeds of advance
relative to the motion of the oil), higher nameplate capacities and
recovery efficiencies, and more effective collection and containment
arrangements that limit the entrainment of oil. The calculator will
also create incentives for developing skimming systems that have
increased onboard storage, faster oil transfer rates, and effective
decanting capabilities.
ERSP Challenges in the Nearshore and Inshore Operating
Environments: ERSP algorithms and operating incentives are well suited
for offshore skimming operations, but are less so for the nearshore and
inland operating environments. Decanting in the offshore environment
provides a tremendous advantage that maximizes the use of onboard
storage and reduces offload times. However, decanting is not realistic
for many nearshore and inshore scenarios. In more confined, shallow
areas, skimming systems with large swath widths and large onboard or
tethered storage solutions are likely to be ineffective. Advancing
skimmers used in nearshore areas will still require high recovery
efficiencies; however, shallow drafts and maneuverability now become
more important than large swath widths and bulky onboard storage
arrangements. As a result, many nearshore skimming systems are likely
to have ERSP potential values significantly below their EDRC ratings,
despite being optimally configured for their operating environments.
Mechanical recovery in inshore areas is even more disassociated with
many of the incentives of the ERSP calculator, as mechanical recovery
in these settings often relies on deflection and collection booming and
stationary skimming arrangements.
While ERSP may still be a useful measure of potential in the
nearshore area, limits may be necessary on the use of certain ERSP
variables, such as swath width and decanting. It may also be necessary
to consider a mixture of different equipment rating schemes and
requirements for mechanical recovery in these operating environments.
The rating of skimming systems and the reviews of OSRPs in these
operating areas may require a more scenario-based approach than
regulators have used in the past.
ERSP Emphasizes a Rapid Response Capability: As the calculator
applies substantially decreasing oil thicknesses over the first 3 days
of a spill, the ERSP methodology creates a powerful incentive for
skimming systems to arrive onsite as quickly as possible. The
calculator clearly demonstrates that plan holders and responders will
reach a point of diminishing returns for bringing in additional
mechanical recovery equipment as time progresses and oil becomes less
available for skimming. While this circumstance is somewhat mitigated
during a sustained release such as a well blowout (where there may be
fresh, thick, concentrated oil available each day), the fact remains
that mechanical recovery equipment performs at its highest recovery
potential in the earliest hours of a spill when encounter rates can be
maximized.
ERSP Does not Address Staging, Mobilization, or Transit Times:
While the ERSP methodology emphasizes a rapid response, it does not
factor into its calculations the time it takes to mobilize and deliver
a mechanical recovery system to the site of a spill. GENWEST, at the
direction of BSEE, used a fixed operational period of 12 hours for the
EDRC Study, and did not incorporate the effects of equipment
mobilization and delivery times on recovery potentials. The ERSP
calculator does, however, have an input variable for each day's
``operating period'', which could be reduced to account for these
factors related to response time.
The OSROs and plan holders could adjust the operating period
accordingly if BSEE provides guidance on how to account for each
mobilization factor. The BSEE currently does not factor response times
into its regulations and currently does not require adjustments to EDRC
values based on mobilization times. Additional guidance and regulations
may be needed in order to adequately account for mobilization times
when inputting the operational period into the ERSP calculator.
[[Page 45836]]
ERSP Calculations Assumes the Use of Best Practices and Best
Commercially Available Technology: In the selection of representative
oil thicknesses for each operational period, the ERSP calculator
assumes that operators will be using the best technologies commercially
available, such as remote sensing tools, as well as operational best
practices, in their skimming activities. This is especially important
for ensuring operator proficiency, and for identifying, tracking, and
keeping recovery systems in thick oil continuously during skimming
operations. If operators do not employ such technology and best
practices, then the ERSP calculator is likely to provide an overstated
recovery potential for a system. The calculator does not include any
built in incentives for the use of these critical best practices and
technologies. Creating these incentives or requirements may therefore
have to be addressed through regulatory requirements, industry
standards, and recommended practices.
BSEE Comments Regarding the NAS Letter Report: The BSEE agrees with
the NAS Letter Report findings that the new approach for evaluating
mechanical recovery equipment, Estimated Recovery System Potential
(ERSP), is basically sound and an improvement over methods currently
employed by BSEE and USCG oil spill response planning regulations. The
BSEE also acknowledges each of the insightful recommendations offered
for possible improvement in the NAS Peer Review Letter Report, and has
carefully considered their potential for improving the existing EDRC
and proposed ERSP methodologies. As stated earlier in this document,
BSEE believes that the ERSP methodology has necessarily sacrificed a
degree of accuracy associated with a more complex and customizable
model in order to create a simple, accessible planning tool that is
applicable across a wide range of planning scenarios. In striking this
important balance, the ERSP methodology successfully addresses many of
the issues concerning EDRC, but also incorporates some key compromises
into its assumptions and algorithms. The NAS Letter Report identifies
some of these compromises as shortfalls, and provides several
recommendations that would increase the accuracy of the ERSP
calculator, but would also significantly increase the complexity of
using the calculator. BSEE carefully weighed these sometimes opposing
factors when evaluating the NAS recommendations, and ultimately placed
a premium on ensuring the calculator remained a simple, useful planning
tool that is best suited to the needs of plan holders and government
reviewers. Where BSEE could not fully address the NAS's concerns or
suggested improvements with changes to the ERSP calculator itself, BSEE
will work to address the issues where possible through other associated
processes such as potential changes to the OSRP regulations. As such,
BSEE provides the following comments with regard to the NAS
recommendations:
Using a ``System of Response Options'' Approach: The NAS recommends
BSEE consider adopting a systems approach in the OSRP regulations that
incorporates other response options in addition to mechanical oil
recovery capabilities. BSEE fully agrees with this statement and will
be conducting further studies to explore the development of additional
planning tools and potential requirements for other response options
such as dispersants and in situ burning.
Using an ASTM Standard to Estimate Nameplate Recovery Rate and
Recovery Efficiency of a Skimming System: The NAS recommends that the
nameplate recovery rate input parameter for a skimmer be generated
through the use of operational testing using a standard such as ASTM
F2709-08. The NAS also recommends that the input value for skimmer
Recovery Efficiency (RE) could be generated by using ASTM F2709-08 or a
similar standard. While BSEE would agree with the suggestion to use
ASTM standards whenever appropriate, it should be noted that the ASTM
F2709-08 standard tests a skimming system's performance in ideal
conditions to determine a skimmer's nameplate recovery rate, and does
not account for the effects of sea state or other operating conditions
that may reduce a system's effectiveness and efficiency. ASTM F2709-08
does offer the promise as a low cost, easily replicated test for
producing Nameplate Recovery Rate input values. As this testing method
provides an assessment of optimal recovery rates measured under ideal
skimming conditions, BSEE has been in discussions with members of the
ASTM F20 Committee on how to best apply the existing standard or with
regard to possible adjustments to the F2709-08. BSEE will continue to
discuss and evaluate the practicality of using ASTM 2709-08, or of
developing a new or revised standard that would complement the use of
ERSP with ASTM.
Developing More Guidance on Selecting Input Values and a More
Detailed ERSP User Manual: The NAS recommends developing a more
detailed user manual that provides the logic behind the default values
for certain parameters, and provides additional guidance for selecting
and entering each of the user-defined inputs. BSEE agrees that
additional information in a more detailed user manual would be
beneficial to both response plan holders and government reviewers. BSEE
will implement this recommendation to provide more background
information on ERSP assumptions and any specified default values, and
develop additional guidance on the selection of user-defined input
variables in a more detailed user manual.
Reducing Oil Thickness Values to Account for the Discontinuous
Nature of Oil Slicks: The NAS recommended adjustment of the ERSP
methodology to account for the discontinuous nature of oil slicks,
specifically as it relates to a skimming system's ability to
continuously encounter oil for removal. Additionally, NAS reviewers
observed that the representative oil thickness values chosen by GENWEST
are higher than those gathered during field observations from actual
spills or laboratory tests. The NAS concluded that the lack of a
spatial element for the patchiness of oil slicks along with the current
values chosen for oil thicknesses in the ERSP calculator would
overstate oil encounter rates and recovery potential values, especially
on Day 2 and Day 3 of a spill. The BSEE acknowledges the discontinuous
nature of most oil spills as well as the fact that choosing a set of
oil thickness values that adequately represent actual encounter rates
over a wide range of scenarios is a very important but extremely
challenging aspect of developing the ERSP calculator. The BSEE
discussed this process at length with the GENWEST study team, and
believes the values selected for oil thicknesses by the GENWEST team
are valid planning values that adequately cover the very wide range of
variables involved across a very broad set of industry response plans,
and do not need to be further adjusted. The GENWEST study team ran over
400 modeling simulations varying for oil type, spill size, and ambient
conditions such as wind and temperature in order to generate the
distribution of expected thickness values. GENWEST informed BSEE that
they factored in the discontinuous nature of oil slicks in their
modeling when they selected the thickness values. GENWEST also
commented that the thickness values were selected with a bias toward
responding to a very large worst case discharge (WCD) spill volume,
which
[[Page 45837]]
would increase the thickness values over those measured during smaller
controlled discharges and spills of opportunity. BSEE agrees with these
statements and believes the thickness values selected by GENWEST are
valid for addressing response planning to a WCD as required under the
OPA.
Incorporating Multiple Oil Thickness Scenarios Into the ERSP
Calculator: The NAS recommends developing several planning scenario
options that would allow plan holders to fine tune and customize their
oil thickness values based on their oil type and facility-specific
parameters. This would allow a plan holder to tailor their ERSP
calculations for their specific operational conditions (such as a
sustained subsea loss of well control of medium crude oil in the Gulf
of Mexico or a well with heavy crude in the Arctic). While these
recommendations may improve the accuracy of individual plan holders'
specific ERSP calculations, BSEE believes the significant increase in
complexity associated with using this approach far outweighs the
minimal gains in accuracy that might be realized for an individual plan
holder's ERSP values. At this time, BSEE does not plan to incorporate
multiple scenarios that would require the customized inputs for oil
thickness values to be estimated or selected based upon a plan holder's
oil type, environmental operating conditions, and discharge scenarios.
Assigning Uncertainty Values to ERSP Input Values: The NAS suggests
adding the ability for users to input uncertainty values attached to
user-selected inputs, and that additional guidance in the user manual
should be developed to guide users on how to interpret and use the
outputs that would result. The end result of using these uncertainty
values would be to create a probability range of ERSP outcomes rather
than a singularly defined number, which the NAS believed would provide
additional clarity on the accuracy of the ERSP data generated. BSEE
does not believe it is necessary for users to develop and input
uncertainty data, as this may unnecessarily complicate the use of the
calculator tool, and would not result in additional information that is
necessary for developing and/or reviewing effective OSRPs.
Additional Public Review: The NAS recommended the calculator
methodology be exposed to an additional round of public review by a
broad range of subject matter experts. Currently, BSEE relies on the
NAS Letter Report itself as the primary means for subjecting the ERSP
study to a rigorous ``expert'' assessment. However, BSEE fully
acknowledges the value of additional public review of critical
documents such the EDRC Study. BSEE believes publishing this Federal
Register notice that announces the results of both the EDRC Study and
NAS Letter Report (as well as BSEE's analysis and response to these
documents), and providing an opportunity for public review and comment,
successfully meets the intent of the NAS recommendation. Additionally,
if any portion of the ERSP methodology were to be incorporated into a
future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), there would be another
opportunity, in addition to this Federal Register notice, for public
review and comment.
Public Availibility of Comments: Before including your address,
phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information
in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including
your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at
any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although all documents submitted will be
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, may be publicly available only in hard copy.
Otherwise, publicly available docket materials are available
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov.
Dated: July 29, 2014.
David M. Moore,
Chief, Oil Spill Response Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-18608 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P