Hurricane Ike: Response Information; Port Arthur, TX

Source report excerpt: “SSC Port Arthur Evening Report: 1900h, 22Sep08 by Jim Jeansonne The combined ESF-10 Port Arthur Branch transitioning to EPA data base. Focus of operations is for sites causing transportation issues and other hazards. Port Arthur Branch continuing to deal with pollution response for Jefferson and Orange Co., but may take on another county. Smaller operational effort here than in Houston Potential ISB issue in J.D. Murphree WMA – See separate status update on hotline prepared for FOSC. Housing situation for any new NOAA personnel - no change – Trailers, shared by up to 4 CG, provide your own linen, towels and other housekeeping items. Hotel space in area is being investigated, but apparently […]”

Source report excerpt: “SSC Port Arthur Evening Report: 2200h, 20Sep08 by Jim Jeansonne Levine and Jeansonne attended initial meeting of EPA, USCG, TGLO, and TCEQ to stand up the ESF10 response function out of Port Arthur. Discussion included delineating boundaries, identifying GPS coordinate usage, ICS designations, tracking system and coordinate system, ISB in two parts of the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area, Hazmat staging and temporary storage location, CP resources list and needs, and meeting schedule. Port Arthur CP will be coordinating pollution response for Jefferson and Orange Co., TX only (as of this time). CP is located in the Target Store parking lot near the Sector Port Arthur HQ near 2901 […]”

Source report excerpt: “SSC Port Arthur Evening Report: 2300h, 21Sep08 by Jim Jeansonne, SSC EPA, USCG, TGLO, and TCEQ continuing to sort out roles and responsibilities as they stand up the combined ESF-10 Port Arthur Branch. Discussions included delineating boundaries, assessment/ops teams makeup and which contractors would be the OSRO. EPA (Eric Delgado) is the FOSC, CG (Lt Pete Zauner, Strike Team rep) is Deputy. Port Arthur Branch coordinating pollution response for Jefferson and Orange Co., TX only. Branch attempting to transition from separate CG and EPA databases to EPA database, and finding challenges in doing so (to prevent loss of operational picture that CG is familiar with). Branch isn’t using a full […]”

Source report excerpt: “SSC Port Arthur Evening Report: 2130h, 23Sep08 by Jim Jeansonne Port Arthur Branch still in transition to EPA data base. Focus of operations is for sites causing transportation issues and other hazards. Not yet any significant removals in sensitive habitats. Port Arthur Branch continuing to deal with pollution response for Jefferson and Orange Co. A semi-formal Environmental Unit/Science Team was established today to provide Port Arthur (Bravo) Branch command consensus opinions from all resource stakeholders regarding environmental and resource protection issues. This includes end point sign-offs for cleanup. NOAA Science Team continuing to provide command post with situational awareness […]”

Source report excerpt: “SSC Port Arthur Evening Report: 2130h, 24Sep08 by Jim Jeansonne Port Arthur Branch priority is to clear pollution cases by direct removal or to refer incident to State authority for action. There is still assessment, but most oil pollution has probably been identified, and cleanup is proceeding. Environmental Unit has established a cleanup end-point process based on the one previously developed by Charlie Henry (and appropriate agency reps, and updated for the Ike incidents in TX by Ed Levine. The EU signed off on one incident today, Jack’s Shrimp Docks. Several others are to be evaluated in the next few days by a designated team that will represent the appropriate natural resource […]”

Source report excerpt: “NOAA attended the 0700 Operations meeting at the command post. Field teams were briefed before deploying to the field for assessments. Mr Jeansonne departed with the teams to assess Bessie Heights. Mr Benggio remained at the command post and met with the USCG, EPA and State OSCs to discuss short and long term NOAA support roles and functions. The operations in Port Arthur are identified in the IAP produced in Pasadena as an operational branch under the Pasadena Unified Command. As such, the Port Arthur Branch does not have an identified Planning section or Environmental Unit although they are performing functions of both. NOAA, USCG, EPA AND State agreed on a plan to begin systematically […]”

Source report excerpt: “SSC Port Arthur Evening Report: 2000h, 25Sep08 by Jim Jeansonne Port Arthur Branch is now handling 3 counties in TX: Orange, Jefferson, and Chambers. Environmental Unit has made good progress today in establishing a sound process and policy for protecting sensitive resources and established cleanup end- points based on the previous work by the NOAA SSC and team. Jeansonne participated in the site assessment of the Bessie Heights facility, hoping to sign off on it, but it was not ready. It is expected to be ready in about 3 days. NOAA Science and Information Management Team better integrating with the EPA GIS-Data Management team (Westin). Housing situation for NOAA personnel – This evening […]”

Source report excerpt: “NOAA reviewed and updated all SCAT information to date and met with Assessment teams to review, confirm and correct any uncertainties and discrepancies. The SSC briefed teams on today's assignments to RR Marine, Hope, and PHi. Tomorrow teams will conduct more assessment work at Hope, Square Mile and R&R Marine. A representative from J.D. Murphree Wildlife refuge and FWS is expected to be on scene tomorrow to help with assessments. Currently there are 8 active sites still being cleaned and monitored,12 cases awaiting assessment and SCAT documentation and 34 closed incident cases. NOAA has coordinated with JD Murphree Wildlife Refuge, USFWS, and SHPO to assess any risk to natural, historic, […]”

Source report excerpt: “NOAA surveyed Square Mile Energy site adjacent to the JD Murphree State Wildlife Refuge along with SCAT team members from State TGLO, the refuge, USCG, and USFWS. There were a few small discrete areas of an orangeish emulsified product and some parafin residue in a drainage ditch, but other than some banding on vegetation, no other pollution. The assessment team agreed that no response actions were advisable given the amount of product observed and the lack of threat to any wildlife or habitat in the area. We discussed the need for any marsh burns needed to remove pollution. Earlier, this had been discussed and a draft burn plan had been started. At this time, it was agreed that no burning […]”

Source report excerpt: “Bravo Branch in Port Arthur Tx is currently still involved in active response, obtaining assessment information and/or signoffs for closure on eight sites. All but three four of these sites should be relatively straight forward cases. The most heavily impacted case is the HOPE pump jack site. RR Marine has three separate vessel incidents. Two of those are relatively straight forward and one will require salvage operations in order to address the pollution risk. Petrogas will need another thorough assessment and PAPCO Clam Lake/ICW area will need more assessment once the bridge to those areas reopens. It is anticipated that all necessary assessment for these sites will be accomplished by the […]”

Source report excerpt: “NOAA assisted with two field assessments today along with USFWS, TGLO, and USCG: 1. HOPE On the over flight of 30 SEPT, recoverable quantities of light crude were observed in the marsh pond SW of the tank farm at the Houston Oil Production Enterprises (HOPE) site. On 1 OCT, NOAA accompanied USCG FOSCR, TGLO and USFWS to HOPE facility and consulted with RP and OSRO on clean up tactics. The agreed upon response strategy involves staking a line of absorbent boom to contain oil along the SW shoreline of the pond and placing absorbent pads inside of boom to facilitate passive recovery of oil. Boom will be deployed by jon boat with minimal to no impact on the marsh. OSRO will check pads and […]”

Source report excerpt: “NOAA is assisting with further assessment at PAPCO with USCG, TGLO, AND USFW. Assessments yesterday were incomplete due to limited access. Some roads are still flooded and the oil and sheen to the south of the primary release site is in wetlands requiring access by boat. There is at least one ongoing active release in the area but the pipe is under water. When the field team returns, we will assess additional assessment needs. We are considering more aerial survey of PAPCO as well as trying to obtain vertical mapping photography of the area. An aerial mapping company in Houston has been identified and can support the photography needs if the UC determines it is needed. Pasadena is also […]”

Source report excerpt: “NOAA SSC met with EPA lead, Nancy Jones last night to discuss NOAA support to EPA for continued EPA response actions. Ms Jones informed the SSC that she had discussed with the Pasadena EPA leads her recommendation to develop an IAG with NOAA to have NOAA SSC support during the remaining EPA response actions especially related to the recovery of orphaned containers in wetlands. The SSC called the regional SSC, C. Henry to inform him of this request as a heads up. This morning the SSC, went in the field with the USCG lead for Bravo Branch and two other USCG petty officers to look at remaining active responses in the zone. 1. We visited Petrogas which was signed off yesterday. The only issue […]”

Source report excerpt: “Bravo Branch in Port Arthur is downsizing ESF10 removal activities as pollution cases are all signed off with the exception of a few minor monitoring and passive collection issues. USCG Strike Team members are shifting focus towards support of EPA's orphaned container recovery operations. The NOAA Scientific Support Team will demob tomorrow. All pollution case files and other documentation is now being managed by the local MSU with Strike Team assistance. NOAA Personnel on scene: Bradford Benggio, SSC William Holton, Info Mgt Spec.”