pogo-wh-letter-20110125-attachment-a

8/7/2019 pogo-wh-letter-20110125-attachment-a

1/9

Attachment A


2/9

ments - follow up and a request10843To: Stephen E Hammond From: [email protected]: 08101/2010 01:59PMcc: "bill lehr , "mark w miller" , "Mark K Sogge", "Sky Bristol" , "sean k o'brien"


3/9

Comments - follow up and a request10844SteveStephen E. HammondUS G eological SurveyChief Em ergency Operations Office,National Geospatial ProgramReston, VA703-648-5033 (w

-x)[email protected] wrote:To: "Stephen E Ham mond" From: [email protected]: 07/31/2010 10:10PMcc: "mark wmark.w.mil [email protected]>, "bi ll lehr" < bill .lehr@noa a.gov >, "Sky Bristol", "Mark K Sogge" . "sean k o'brien"


4/9

Budget - EPA Comme nt s - fo l low up an d a r eques t10845Decision - Based on how NOAA is developing a commmunication product with the WH, the dispersion types(Natural & Chemical) will not be combined. We appreciate the case for combining them however the goal is toshow chemical dispersion as part of the Federal response to the spill.Suggestion 3 - if no estimate can be made of biodegradation at least have a robust discussion about it both interms of oil that will remain in marshes to be biodegraded and in terms of our expectations and evidence of thedispersed oil subsea.Decision- NOAA is in general agreement that more is needed here. They indicated that they tried to make thisexplanation as robust as p o s s i b le . W e b e l ie v e t h a t a s e c o n d d o c u m e n t w i ll b e p r e p a r e d i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e t h a taddresses biodegradation as the primary focus. It will include as much as it can on biodegradation rates.Suggestion 2 - clear up the dissolution and dispersion potential confusion with some additional explanation.Decision - There is agreement on this yet we have found it difficult to describe in a short paragraph. We'd liketo ask you to provide a short write-up that we can consider for thsi explanation in the oil budget tool.We are working to get tell toll updated by this evening. Any feedback you can offer quickly is greatlyappreciated.Steve

Stephen E. HammondUS Geological SurveyChief Emergency Operations Office,National Geospatial ProgramReston, VA703-648-50331 1 1 1 4 F . F A . 1 1 4 1 1 , 1 4 p l i t

ax )----Forwarded by Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI on 07/31/2010 07:24PM To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGSDate: 07/31/2010 04:19PMSubject: Fw: Oil Budget - EPA CommentsForgot to cc you...Markorwarded by Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI on 07/3112010 03:19 PM From:ark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOlTo:ky Bristol/RGIO/USGS/DOI@USGSDate:7/31/2010 03:16 PMSubject:w: Oil Budget - EPA CommentsHi Sky,

/27/2010 2:22 PM


5/9

ments - follow up and a . request10846I just got the ch ance to read through this. These chan ges are clearly within the decision dom ain of Bil l Leh r andthe USCG, rather than USGS.I see that Bil l was referred to in Bob 's email , but was not cc'ed on the m essage s. A logical nex t step is to getthis feedback to h im. Do you p refer to do that , or ha ve me take lead on i t?

arkMark SoggeDeputy Cha ir, NIC Flow Rate Tech nical GroupChief of Staff, USG S Western Reg ion2255 Gem in i D ri ve , Flagstaff, AZ 86001FAX: [email protected]

Forwarded by Mark K Sogge/DO/USG S/DOI on 07/31/2010 03:12 PMFrom: Marcia K McNutt/DO/USGS/DOITo:[email protected] , [email protected] , Heather R. [email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] [email protected] , [email protected],.gov, richard.r.windgrove@no aa.govCc:ark K Sogge/DO/USG S/DOL [email protected]: 07/31/2010 10:56 AMSubject: RE: Oil Budget - EPA Com ments

Bob -Thanks for these very helpful and constructive points. I Will pass these on to M ark Sogge and Sky Bristol to takeinto account in the nex t i teration of the tool. We are h appy to fol low the lead of NO AA and E PA as to h ow to dealwith wha t we agree are a lot of poorly constrained areas currently with wh at was ha ppening to the oi l in thesubsurface. I think your point about the low flow rates result ing in low dispersant apolication is a good one,

although in my conversations w ith BP and the ROV pilots it seems that the efficiency of dispersant applicationaccounts for everything. For example, surface dispersant application on a thin sh eet of oil has one rate ofefficiency which is low, Very h igh rates of dispersion w ere seen by the pilots wh en they were able to putdispersion w ands directly into concentrated oil plumes such as inside the end of the broken riser or a narrow jetfrom the kill line.Marcia

k_s4s-ks4s14..ssussu..s4sussi,t._54st-csst.4.ssDr. Marcia K. McNuttDirector, U.S. Geological Survey12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 100

/27/2010 2:22 PM


6/9

ments - follow up and a request10847Reston , VA 20192(703) 648-7411 (off ice)703 648-4454 faxw w w . u s g s . g o v

k..S.S145.514S4SkSS14.54 ,S14.54S14.54 .514.5 SkS4.5

From: Perc iasepe.Bob@epamai l .epa.gov [ ma i Ito: [email protected]: Saturda y, Ju ly 31, 2010 9:12 AMTo j ane- l ubchenco@noaa .gov ; "Z icha l , Heather R-" IlliaMir7 f"777 :A . - -"OConnor, Rod"; Marcia K McNutt ; dav [email protected] i .gov;111111111111111111.1111111111111111MM, Seth Oster ; "Smith, Sean";Lar ry.Rob [email protected] ; anastas .pau [email protected] ; "A llen , Thad ADM"; r i che rd:r .w indgrove@no aa .gov

ubject : i u ge t -m m e n t sJane and Marcia:After last evening's "5 o'clock call" Jane followed up quickly to get EPA access to theinformation and model work that has been used to develop the oil budget. I mentioned onthe call last night that Lisa and 1 were not comfortable with some of the disticnctions andomissions in the budget. With Jane's help our science team was able to review materialsand discuss with NOAA's Bill Lehr into the night. Here are our comments summarized byme from Paul Anastas, Al Venosa and Greg Williams:High Points:-- The physically dispersed versus chemically dispersed has a logical basis, however, that isdifferent from saying it is accurate. It is reasonable to say that too little dispersant wasapplied when the flow rate was thought to be lower and therefore not all of the oil waschemically dispersed. That which was not chemically dispersed would be at least partiallynaturally dispersed and there is research (for example from Norway) that looked at deepwater natural dispersion. The percentages are very rough and should not beconsidered accurate . W e still do not believe we should in a public document try todistinguish between naturally and chemically dispersed oil in the ocean.These calculationsare extremely rough estimates yet when they are put into the press - which we want tohappen - they will take on a life of their own. We should combine these two categories.-- I believe there will be confusion between dispersion (natural and them) with dissolutionand evaporation as they are used in some of the charts.-- Finally, no biodegradation rates are used at all which is a tremendous limitation. We havemade a decision during this ongoing event to enhance dispersions with chemicals to reduceoil particle size and make it more bio available. We have evidence of biological activity through dissolved oxygen levels indicative or aerobic digestion and some researchers haveseem oil droplets in zooplankton. Biological digestion and metabolism is what we wereseeking.

/27/2010 2:22 PM


7/9

omments - follow up and a request10848Paul and Al can provide details from the science team to Bill Lehr at NOAA, but for nowbased on these and after consultation with Paul, EPA suggestes in the interest of gettingthese out this weekend that we:1) combine natural and chemical into one catgory of dispersed oil on charts and in narrative.

2 ) clear up the dissolution and dispersion potential confusion with some additionalexp l a na t i o n .3) if no estimate can be made of biodegradation at least have a robust discussion about itboth in terms of oil that will remain in marshes to be biodegraded and in terms of our.expectaions and evidence of the dispersed oil subsea.

Remember Admiral Allen's three battle objectives were:Stop the leak- - keep i t o f f t he sh o r e , a nd-- clean up what gets to the shore.

I think the information in the oil budget will show success.

Bob PerciasepeDeputy Administrator( o ) + 1 2 02 5 64 4711( c ) + 1 202 3 68 8 19 3

/27/2010 2:22 PM


8/9

and NOA A on potential changes to T0849Subject: Re: Need feed back from US CG and NOM on potential changes to oil budget toolFrom: Mark Miller Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:21:20 -0400To: Sky Bristol CC: Stephen E Hammond Tomo rrow morning is great. We h ave received strong pushback from W H o n the cum ulativetotal used in our graph ic being mo re that the off icial 4.93 M b bls. With the f low rate pressrelease looking like it wil l go out on T uesday that means our document won 't go out unti lWedne sday so tom orrow m orning if possible is great- How.will you ha ndle the report? Wouldit have only one se t of graphics?MarkSky Bristol wrote:

We have it on the list to produce a third report from the direct "governm ent estimates." IHowever, we'll need to address that first thing tomorrow if that is okay. We don't have Ithe staffing today.An alternative if available would be to have A ntonio or one of the NIST g uys run the Rprogram directly with the latest spreadsheet. That won't get you the same report yousee on the Web, but you'd have the numbers.Sent f rom my iPhoneOn Aug 1, 2010, at 13:27, Mark M iller wrote:

Sky,.I was w ondering how difficult would it be for you to do a one off Report that ha djust the flowrates and n ot the +1- 10 % in it?MarkSky Bristo] wrote:

Mark,Please add Steve Hammond to the list of executive sponsors in the creditsfor the Oil Budget To ol if it 's not too late to get any ch anges into that

d o c u m e n t . I 'l l b e u p d a t in g t h e W e b s i t e v e r s io n o f t h e s e i n t h e A b o u t p a g e t omatch w hat I sent.Inland recovery someho w did not m ake it into the printed report. I added thatas a task for the n ext "cleanup" version.

Thanks.


9/9

om U SCG and N OA A on potential changes toci tn 0 cr,

Sky [email protected]: 303-202-4151.(

pogo-wh-letter-20110125-attachment-a

Documents