[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1521-1522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00148]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

[Docket ID BSEE-2020-0015; 21XE8370SD//EEGG600000//ED1OS0000.ERD000]


Notice of Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 
Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Safety 
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is conducting an independent 
external peer review of a recent study titled, OSRR 1063: Bureau of 
Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Report: Computational Fluid 
Dynamics (CFD) Model for Predicting Wellhead Oil-Burning Efficiency at 
Bench and Intermediate Scales: Interim Report (July 30, 2020). This 
peer review will aid BSEE gather input from the scientific community on 
the technical methodologies and results in this interim final report. 
Background information on BSEE's Oil Spill Response Research (OSRR) 
1063 study is provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. 
Information regarding BSEE's peer-review process is available at: 
https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/research/peer review.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 
February 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on this notice by either of the following 
methods listed below:
    <bullet> Electronically go to http://www.regulations.gov. In the 
Search box, enter BSEE-2020-0015 then click search. Follow the 
instructions to submit public comments and view all related materials. 
We will post all comments.
    Written comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2021. 
Relevant public comments within the BSEE Charge for the scope of this 
peer review (outline below) and directly addressing the scientific and 
technical issues in BSEE's 13 Charge Questions (outlined below) will be 
provided to the peer reviewers. BSEE may not be able to fully consider 
comments submitted after February 8, 2021.
    Submit your comments, identified by name, contact (phone, and/or 
email) by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Mail: Karen N. Stone, Program Manager, U.S. Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Oil Spill 
Preparedness Division, Response Research Branch, 45600 Woodland Road, 
VAE-OSPD, Sterling, VA 20166.
    Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3952584b5c57174a4d56575c795b4a5c5c175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abc0cad9cec585d8dfc4c5ceebc9d8cece85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>. Do not submit information considered 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute to BSEE electronically 
through email. Please contact the BSEE staff listed under the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for special instructions before 
submitting comments considered to be CBI or otherwise protected.
    To provide public involvement in this peer-review process, BSEE is 
announcing and inviting written public comments on the scientific and 
technical merit of the interim OSRR 1063 report. The interim OSRR 1063 
report is available on BSEE's OSRR website located at: https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/research/oil-spill-preparedness/oil-spill-response-research.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen N. Stone, Program Manager, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Response Research Branch, 
45600 Woodland Road, VAE-OSPD, Sterling, VA 20166.
    Telephone number: (703) 787-1810.
    Email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#32595340575c1c41465d5c5772504157571c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bad1dbc8dfd494c9ced5d4dffad8c9dfdf94ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BSEE Charge for the Scope of This Peer Review

    In order to focus the peer-review process effectively on the 13 
Charge Questions, BSEE has carefully defined the scope of this peer 
review for the Interim report of the BSEE Study titled, OSRR 1063: 
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Report: 
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Model for Predicting Wellhead Oil-
Burning Efficiency at Bench and Intermediate Scales: Interim Report 
(July 30, 2020). Written comments should stay within the BSEE Scope 
defined below.
    The scope of this peer review focuses only on the scientific and 
technical merit of the assumptions, inputs, methodologies, modeling 
with experimental validation, and results for the BSEE study titled, 
OSRR 1063: BSEE Report: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Model for 
Predicting Wellhead Oil-Burning Efficiency at Bench and Intermediate 
Scales: Interim Report (July 30, 2020). This peer review is scientific 
and technical in nature and includes reviewing the methods, 
assumptions, data quality, the strengths of any inferences made, and 
the overall strengths and limitations of the study. The peer-review 
scope includes the material, fabrication, computations, testing, 
engineering factors, modeling with experimental validation, results, 
and final recommendations generated from the OSRR 1063 study.
    The following are considered Out-of-Scope for this peer review and 
will not be considered during this peer-review process:
    <bullet> General comments related to intentional wellhead ignition 
as a primary response method, because this peer review is focused only 
on the methods and approach for predicting wellhead burn efficiency at 
the bench and intermediate scales.
    <bullet> Comments on, or suggestions for, alternate modeling 
methods to predict wellhead burn efficiencies except for comments on 
any omissions or errors identified in the specific methods used for 
modeling and experimental validations of the model in the OSRR 1063 
study referenced above because this peer review focuses on the research 
already completed for this OSRR 1063 study.
    <bullet> Comments related to BSEE policies, decisions, or current 
or proposed BSEE regulations.
    Public comments should focus on the scientific and technical merit 
of the OSRR 1063 study and be organized under BSEE's 13 Charge 
Questions.

BSEE Charge Questions

    1. Were the objectives of the study clearly defined? If not, what 
are your recommendations for improving the description of this study's 
objectives?
    2. Were the assumptions regarding wellhead conditions and two-phase 
wellbore flow (including film thickness and instability, liquid 
entrainment, and

[[Page 1522]]

droplet diameter and its influence on wellhead ejection behavior) 
adequately characterized? Were there any apparent strengths, 
weaknesses, omissions, or errors? Provide an explanation for your 
answers.
    3. Was the physical model for multi-phase flow adequately developed 
to capture the liquid droplet phase and the gas-phase flow field? Were 
the soot and radiation models adequately characterized? Were Lagrangian 
droplet dynamics and thermophysics adequately incorporated into the 
model? Were there any apparent strengths, weaknesses, omissions, or 
errors? Provide an explanation for your answers.
    4. Does the droplet injection model adequately simulate realistic 
diameters and velocities of two-phase, high-speed flows that would 
occur during a wellhead blowout event? Were there any apparent 
strengths, weaknesses, omissions, or errors? Provide an explanation for 
your answers.
    5. Does the validation process capture the controlling physical 
properties to a sufficient level of accuracy, including transport and 
boundary conditions at the bench- and intermediate-scales for both gas-
phase and two-phase turbulent spray? Were there any apparent strengths, 
weaknesses, omissions, or errors? Provide an explanation for your 
answers.
    6. Were the phase doppler anemometry and diffuse back-light 
illumination imaging diagnostic methods (6.1.1 and 6.1.2 below) for the 
droplet behavior measurements appropriately designed, clearly 
described, and adequate to capture droplet behavior for the Gas Phase 
and Two-Phase Spray Flame? Were there any apparent strengths, 
weaknesses, omissions, or errors? Provide an explanation for your 
answers.

6.1.1. Phase Doppler Anemometry
6.1.2. Diffuse Back-Illumination Imaging

    7. Were the diagnostic methods (7.1.1 and 7.1.2 below) for the 
temperature measurements appropriately designed, clearly described, and 
adequate to capture temperature for the Gas Phase and Two-Phase Spray 
Flame? Were there any apparent strengths, weaknesses, omissions, or 
errors? Provide an explanation for your answers.

7.1.1. Coherent Anti-Stokes Raman Spectrometry-based Thermometry (CARS)
7.1.2. 3-Color High-Speed Pyrometry

    8. Do the results adequately characterize evidence of the droplet 
characteristics, including droplet breakup, the droplet size 
(diameter), droplet speed, and the duration of a droplet in fire 
(bench- and intermediate-scales)? Does the research product accurately 
expand predictions of droplet diameters beyond current limited 
validated ranges? Were there any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 
omissions, or errors? Provide an explanation for your answers.
    9. Does the research product accurately characterize the impact of 
two-phase flow regimes (bubble, slug, and churn) on the effluent plume 
(bench- and intermediate-scales)? Were there any apparent strengths, 
weaknesses, omissions, or errors? Provide an explanation for your 
answers.
    10. Does the research product adequately address how the wellbore 
flow would influence the ejected spray plume behavior, which directly 
influences how the oil and gas burns and how much will either fall back 
to the surface or remain vapor? Were there any apparent strengths, 
weaknesses, omissions, or errors? Explain your answers.
    11. Does the research product accurately predict the length of fire 
plume, location of flame anchoring, height of flame, width/angle, 
expansion, etc.? Were there any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 
omissions, or errors? Explain your answers.
    12. Does the research product determine the primary mechanism 
driving burn efficiency?
    13. Were the conclusions based on the OSRR 1063 study findings in 
the report logical and appropriate based on the results? What other 
conclusions related to the study were made and are appropriate? Are 
there any additional study findings or conclusions that could be drawn 
from the study? Provide an explanation for your answers.

Background on OSRR 1063 Study

    BSEE oversees oil spill planning and preparedness for oil and gas 
exploration, development, and production facilities in both state and 
Federal offshore waters of the United States. BSEE's Oil Spill 
Preparedness Division (OSPD) is responsible for promulgating 
regulations pursuant to BSEE's delegated authority under the Clean 
Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
1321), and implementing those regulations (30 CFR part 254).
    To receive the necessary approvals under 30 CFR part 254, operators 
of oil and gas facilities operating seaward of the coastline must 
demonstrate that they are prepared to respond to a loss of well control 
event and a ``worst case'' discharge release (30 CFR 254.26; 
254.51-.53). For decades, intentional wellhead ignition has been viewed 
as a possible source control method for well-head blowouts in ice-bound 
environments. BSEE is researching this response method to better 
understand its efficiencies and limitations in the North Slope area of 
Alaska. As part of this review process, BSEE contracted the U.S. Naval 
Research Laboratory (NRL) to first conduct a review of an interested 
party's report and related scientific literature and provide 
preliminary technical guidance on the feasibility of wellhead burning 
as a mitigation method. The review suggests scientific evidence is 
lacking to fully support claims that wellhead burning would be highly 
efficient and would result in little to no unburned oil fallout for the 
proposed project. BSEE then contracted NRL to conduct a scientific 
research project. The research project's primary objective was to 
develop a CFD model of wellhead burning validated with experimental 
data at multiple scales. BSEE is seeking an independent peer review of 
the interim final NRL report for this research program titled OSRR 
1063: BSEE Report: CFD Model for Predicting Wellhead Oil-Burning 
Efficiency at Bench and Intermediate Scales: Interim Report (July 30, 
2020).
    BSEE considers this study to be a highly influential scientific 
assessment.

Scott A. Angelle,
Director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-00148 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>