Energy issues
Elsewhere in this issue, I mention a BSEE (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, a division of the U.S. Department of Interior) meeting that I attended in November. Beyond that meeting, I attended a Halliburton Cementing Forum that also had a BSEE speaker.
In the first meeting, BSEE asked for industry input for their BAST (Best Available, Safest Technology) Determination Process. The bureau has determined to focus on a number of objectives within the program, including:
- Compliance with its statutory mandate;
- Focus on technological solutions to safety issues;
- Focus on safety-critical issues (i.e., components);
- Establish performance levels, based on evaluation of available technology (after evaluation, each company must decide how to meet the performance levels established by BSEE);
- Conduct consistent and verifiable testing to monitor performance levels;
- Create a transparent process;
- Foster stakeholder engagement;
- Ensure that the program satisfies cost/benefit analyses.
As publicly stated, under its mandate, the BSEE BAST process will not result in:
- Prescriptive technologies;
- An automatic phase-out of existing technologies;
- An automatic review of existing systems and technologies.
But if BSEE is not creating a prescriptive offshore safety and environment regime, and if they are not creating regulations, what the heck are they doing? The easy answer is that they are creating industry standards, and doing it quite reasonably, I might add. The BSEE BAST assessment is kicked off by an identified safety issue. The bureau then conducts an assessment to determine if a BAST Determination (BD) is required. The BD examines technology failures, improvements in safety (can they happen?), available technology with a proven track record, the extent to which BSEE resources can address the issues, and an initial economic feasibility study, to make sure that the BD would produce a recommendation that is economically feasible.
So far, so good. But it gets better. To complete Stage 1 of the BAST assessment, BSEE then crafts a technology improvement objective (TIO), establishes a scope of work, issues public notices requesting comments (that is where industry gets to weigh in for the first time), and selects a qualified third party (QTP) to conduct the BAST assessment in Stage 2. QTPs can be either the Ocean Energy Safety Institute, a standards development organization, a certifying entity or a national or private laboratory. When the QTP steps in to manage the scope of work through the formation of Technical Workgroups (TW), BSEE takes a back seat. The scope or work, including oversight of third-party testing/statistical analysis, contains a provision to consult with industry about the identified problem and reasonable, safe solutions.
Let’s stop and catch our breaths. BSEE has a remit under the BAST Determination Process to identify safety, environmental and health issues offshore. Once an issue is identified, public, government, academic and industry input is sought to determine the scope of work required to mitigate the health, environmental or safety issue. BSEE then reaches out to qualified organizations to manage the scope of work. Once you get past the rhetoric, and plethora of acronyms, it is a fairly simple concept.
After the qualification process described above, the real Stage 2 work begins. Technical Workgroups (TW) develop Functional (Operational) Requirements (FoR) that will determine specifics of the solution to the offshore issue. These include:
- Physical requirements, including dimensional and/or weight constraints;
- Environmental conditions that have to be taken into account at the surface, in the water column and in the subsurface;
- Maintenance concerns, such as high maintenance requirements and accessibility;
- Quality issues, including design parameters and quality control, determined in conjunction with standard organizations, such as the National Association of Corrosion Engineers.
The final task of Stage 2 is the establishment of Performance Levels (PLs). The PL specifies how well a technology executes its intended function, as determined through testing and/or evaluation of operational history. The PL must be repeatable and reproducible.
The results of testing and analysis carried out in Stage 2 are then submitted to a Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) in Stage 3 that is consistent with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provision, requiring that new technology meets economic feasibility standards. If the BSEE director determines that implementation of the proposed PL meets BCA requirements, the agency then solicits comments through another public notice that includes the proposed technology improvement objective, PL and BAST implementation schedule (estimated at two years between final BAST draft and implementation).
After evaluation of public input, BSEE decides whether or not to implement the BAST determination. If implemented, operators will be required to use technology that meets specified PL for new and, wherever practicable, existing operations. Operators may request a waiver of new BAST requirements for existing operations by submitting appropriate documentation to BSEE.
While BSEE’s implementation of a BAST program is not without issues (such as inclusion of human factor issues) it is not prescriptive regulation of the sort that we have had in the past. And, it includes provisions for industry input. I urge all who can provide input to do so. 
