Appendix to “Committed” Factual responses to PB advertisements ...
Appendix to “Committed” Factual responses to PB advertisements ...
Appendix to “Committed” Factual responses to PB advertisements ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Appendix</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>“Committed”</strong><br />
<strong>Factual</strong> <strong>responses</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>PB</strong> <strong>advertisements</strong> by Ballengée et al.<br />
(B. Ballengée with A. Ballengée, P. Henken, M. Madden, and G. Wilson)<br />
Date: 20 April 2012<br />
Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York, NY<br />
1
Response meta-categories<br />
1. DWH, “MACONDO PROSPECT” DISASTER BACKGROUND………………...…………….3-6<br />
2. HELPING COMMUNITIES..…...………………………………………………..………………..7-13<br />
3. WILDLIFE…………..………………………………………………………………….………….14-27<br />
4. CLEANUP…………………………………………………………………………………………28-39<br />
5. ECONOMY………………………………………………………………………………………..40-41<br />
6. SEAFOOD SAFETY……………………………………………………………….…………….42-45<br />
7. CLEAN BEACHES…………………………………………………………….…………………46-50<br />
8. THE FUTURE OF ENERGY…………………………………………………………………….51-52<br />
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………53-58<br />
SELLECTED ARTICLES & REPORTS<br />
2
1- Deep Water Horizon, “Macondo Prospect” Disaster Background<br />
“The amount of <strong>to</strong>tal oil spilled from the two events was approximately 750,000 barrels<br />
for the EV and approximately 4,350,290 barrels for the DH spill. This means that the DH<br />
oil spill was more than 6 times greater than the EV spill […]. Comparing the area covered<br />
by the two spills, the DH spill was approximately 28,900 square miles or 2.5 times larger<br />
in size than the EV spill, approximately 11,000 square miles […]” (Belanger et al., 2010)<br />
“The clean-up operation will continue for months, but it's mostly PR — only a small<br />
fraction of the oil will actually be removed.” (Goodell, 2010)<br />
“According <strong>to</strong> the government’s estimates, by the time the well was sealed months later,<br />
over 4 million barrels of oil had spilled in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Long viewed strictly as environmental disasters, major oil spills can be hazardous <strong>to</strong><br />
human health, beyond direct fatalities or injuries. Many Gulf Coast residents have<br />
3
complained of respira<strong>to</strong>ry problems and headaches, and depressive illness has<br />
skyrocketed.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Offshore-rig accidents occur frequently (the British website ‘Oil Rig Disasters’ lists<br />
more than 150 offshorerig mishaps, not all drilling-related, over the last fifty years), but<br />
the blowout-prevention technologies that failed on the Deepwater Horizon have kept<br />
most offshore oil rigs from releasing more than a trivial amount of oil.” (Green et al.,<br />
2010)<br />
“The Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990, which prescribed pro<strong>to</strong>cols for responding <strong>to</strong> oil<br />
spills, was written in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill and with the expectation<br />
that tanker spills were the main risk <strong>to</strong> be managed.” (Green et al., 2010)<br />
“Over the last sixty years, there have been ten offshore-drilling accidents that released<br />
more than 5,000 <strong>to</strong>ns of oil in<strong>to</strong> ocean waters. During this same period, there have been<br />
seventy-two oil spills from tanker accidents that released 5,000 <strong>to</strong>ns of oil or more—<br />
usually a lot more. In other words, for every offshore-drilling accident, there are seven<br />
major tanker spills and numerous tanker accidents of smaller size. (Almost unnoticed by<br />
the media, a tanker collision in the last week of May near Singapore released about 2,000<br />
<strong>to</strong>ns of oil.)” (Green et al., 2010)<br />
“Although, as the NAS report states, ‘no spill is entirely benign,’ it adds that ‘there is no<br />
correlation between the size of a release and its impact. Instead, as in the real estate<br />
maxim, it’s all about ‘location, location, location.’ Sometimes small spills have large<br />
effects on local wildlife, and large spills can have minor effects. […] ‘The actual impact<br />
of the oil may be more complex than we realize if it interacts with spatially or temporally<br />
constrained phenomena.’” (Green et al., 2010)<br />
“From the Gulf floor <strong>to</strong> the interior marshes, BP’s oil remains. BP’s criminal negligence<br />
has laid 2 inches of degraded oil on the seafloor for twenty six miles around the<br />
Macondo wellhead, and decades will pass before we know the full impact of the loss of<br />
these deepwater ecosystems upon our coastal waters. But the oil remains even on the<br />
coast, and there are no easy methods for removing it.” (Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2010a)<br />
“There is a law. In fact, there are three laws that, jointly and severally, should have<br />
anticipated and provided measures <strong>to</strong> prevent and cope with the explosion of the drilling<br />
rig Deepwater Horizon. Instead, we have 11 deaths, 17 serious injuries, the release of an<br />
American record 2.6 million gallons of oil, an equivalent record for chemical dispersants,<br />
months of Mutt ‘n’ Jeff <strong>responses</strong>, enormous corporate losses, and the ensuing pain of<br />
the Gulf Coast region. Regula<strong>to</strong>ry programs under the National Environmental Policy Act<br />
(NEPA), the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act (OCSLA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA)<br />
each require the consideration of worst-case situations. The latter two go further in<br />
4
equiring plans <strong>to</strong> minimize such possibilities and <strong>to</strong> respond effectively <strong>to</strong> them when<br />
they occur.” (Houck 2010)<br />
“To place this in perspective, the amount of oil released was roughly equivalent <strong>to</strong> the<br />
<strong>to</strong>tal amount of the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill occurring every 3–64 days (based upon<br />
the largest <strong>to</strong> smallest Deepwater Horizon spill estimates, respectively)” (Kelley, 2010)<br />
“Methane was the most abundant hydrocarbon released during the 2010 Deepwater<br />
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Beyond relevancy <strong>to</strong> this anthropogenic event,<br />
this methane release simulates a rapid and relatively short-term natural release from<br />
hydrates in<strong>to</strong> deep water. Based on methane and oxygen distributions measured at 207<br />
stations throughout the affected region, we find that within ~120 days from the onset of<br />
release ~3.0 Å~ 1010 <strong>to</strong> 3.9 Å~ 1010 moles of oxygen were respired, primarily by<br />
methanotrophs, and left behind a residual microbial community containing<br />
methanotrophic bacteria. We suggest that a vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom<br />
respired nearly all the released methane within this time, and that by analogy, largescale<br />
releases of methane from hydrate in the deep ocean are likely <strong>to</strong> be met by a<br />
similarly rapid methanotrophic response.” (Kessler et al., 2011)<br />
“Oceanic CH4 has been implicated in ancient climate change […] however, little is<br />
known about potential future impacts. Importantly, for oceanic CH4 <strong>to</strong> directly impact<br />
climate, CH4 must enter the atmosphere without first being consumed by microbes in<br />
the ocean.” (Kessler et al., 2011)<br />
“On 20 April 2010, a violent and tragic CH4 discharge severed the Deepwater Horizon rig<br />
from its well. Two days later, the burning rig sank, and oil and gas began spewing in<strong>to</strong><br />
the deep Gulf of Mexico at depths of ~1.5 km until 15 July, when the well was effectively<br />
sealed. Estimates of the oil emitted during the 83 days of this disaster range from 4.1 Å~<br />
106 <strong>to</strong> 4.4 Å~ 106 T 20% (uncertainty) barrels. The corresponding emission of methane<br />
(CH4) could be as great as 1.25 Å~ 1010 moles or as low as 9.14 Å~ 109 moles […],<br />
depending on uncertainties in the gas-<strong>to</strong>-oil ratio and net oil emission.” (Kessler et al.,<br />
2011)<br />
“Taken <strong>to</strong>gether, the tracking of a hydrocarbon intrusion layer throughout the northern<br />
Gulf of Mexico, the paucity of CH4 in the affected waters a month or more after the<br />
hydrocarbon emissions had ceased, the magnitude of the DO anomaly relative <strong>to</strong><br />
emitted hydrocarbons (Table 1), and the prevalence of a methylotrophic microbial<br />
community […] suggest that CH4 emitted from the Deepwater Horizon event was<br />
quantitatively consumed by August 2010. Given the slow rates of methanotrophy<br />
observed near the wellhead in June 2010, we suggest that a bloom of methanotrophic<br />
bacteria occurred in these waters sometime between the end of June and the beginning<br />
of August 2010 and that it likely occurred after affected waters had flowed away from the<br />
5
wellhead. This assertion is supported by previous observations that rates of<br />
methanotrophy increased as C2H6 was depleted in the hydrocarbon intrusions.”<br />
(Kessler et al., 2011)<br />
“It happens. It’s happened before. It will happen again. And it’s happening right now. So,<br />
you know, and obviously they didn’t have any backup plan. It’s as if having poked 30,000<br />
holes in<strong>to</strong> the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico and have 5,000 rigs operating, it never<br />
occurred <strong>to</strong> them <strong>to</strong> say, ‘Oh, what if oil starts coming out of one of those holes, like it<br />
has in other places at other times?’ They were completely unprepared. They don’t have<br />
the equipment. They don’t have booms that can work in open water. And what the<br />
obvious take-home message is, we don’t know how <strong>to</strong> do this. We can poke the hole. We<br />
don’t know how <strong>to</strong> deal with some things that we know happen, because they’ve<br />
happened. But people have not developed the technology or warehoused the <strong>to</strong>ols or<br />
created booms that work in ocean swell conditions or any of that stuff. We’re trying <strong>to</strong><br />
wring the last drops out of a depleting resource.” (Safina, 2010a)<br />
"Between April 22 and July 15, 2010, it is estimated that 250 million gallons of crude oil<br />
were discharged from the Deepwater Horizon well and 1.84 million gallons of Corexit<br />
9500 and 9527, <strong>to</strong>xic oil dispersant products, were applied, making the largest<br />
percentage of the oil unrecovered, with unknown long-term environmental impacts. "<br />
(Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
6
2- “Helping Communities”<br />
“Revenue losses from fisheries in Louisiana alone are estimated <strong>to</strong> be between $100–<br />
200 million (IEM, 2010). Tourism brings in an estimated $20 billion <strong>to</strong> the Gulf region<br />
(EPA, 2011), and huge losses are expected in the foreseeable future due <strong>to</strong> avoidance of<br />
areas impacted by the Deepwater Horizon disaster.” (Abbriano et al., 2011)<br />
“Though Gulf Coast providers would treat patients’ symp<strong>to</strong>ms, they were unwilling <strong>to</strong><br />
draw any connection between the symp<strong>to</strong>ms and the cause. In this atmosphere of<br />
evasion, one doc<strong>to</strong>r from coastal Alabama actually sought Sciencecorps out. “My<br />
patients are getting really sick,” he said, and he felt sure it was linked <strong>to</strong> the oil and<br />
dispersants. He was eager <strong>to</strong> work with Sciencecorps, but after a few weeks he suddenly<br />
withdrew, saying he couldn’t be involved in the project.” (Alvar, 2011)<br />
“What’s notable is the absence of doc<strong>to</strong>rs’ voices. The media quotes individuals, not<br />
groups like the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), the Louisiana Bucket<br />
Brigade, Boat People SOS and Guardians of the Gulf, all of whom are working <strong>to</strong><br />
organize the thousands of people who are sick along the coast. Unless they are placed<br />
in context, individuals’ s<strong>to</strong>ries of persistent neurological, respira<strong>to</strong>ry, and<br />
gastrointestinal issues, while important <strong>to</strong> hear, only reinforce that these are ‘individual’<br />
problems.” (Alvar, 2011)<br />
“We see this in the behavior of the Coast Guard, the cozy relationship between the<br />
regula<strong>to</strong>rs and the regulated (remember the Minerals Management Service cocaine<br />
parties?), the slow reaction <strong>to</strong> the spill, the unwillingness <strong>to</strong> enforce regulation, and in<br />
the National Institute of Environmental Health Services’ belated, cutesily-named “GuLF”<br />
study of cleanup workers. By waiting six months <strong>to</strong> start the data collection NIEHS has<br />
ensured the results will be flawed, something the study’s designers have already<br />
admitted. The study was designed <strong>to</strong> be defective.” (Alvar, 2011)<br />
"For decades, African American and Latino communities in the South became the<br />
dumping grounds for all kind of wastes ― making them ‘sacrifice zones.’ Nowhere is this<br />
scenario more apparent than in Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley,’ the 85-mile stretch along the<br />
Mississippi from Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rough <strong>to</strong> New Orleans. Gulf Coast residents, who have for<br />
decades lived on the fenceline with landfills and waste sites, are asking why their<br />
communities are being asked again <strong>to</strong> shoulder the waste disposal burden for the giant<br />
BP oil spill. They are demanding answers from BP and the EPA in Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC and<br />
the EPA Region 4 office in Atlanta and EPA Region 6 office in Dallas ― two EPA regions<br />
that have a legacy of unequal protection, racial discrimination, and bad decisions that<br />
have exacerbated environmental and health disparities." (Bullard, 2010)<br />
7
"Government officials estimate that the ruptured well leaked between 94 million and 184<br />
million gallons of oil in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf. However, not much attention has been given <strong>to</strong> which<br />
communities were selected as the final resting place for BP’s oil-spill garbage." (Bullard,<br />
2010)<br />
“During the active cleanup phase, NIOSH conducted a series of Health Hazard<br />
Evaluations, and a variety of symp<strong>to</strong>ms in workers were reported [...] Chemical induced<br />
symp<strong>to</strong>ms in cleanup workers commonly include upper respira<strong>to</strong>ry tract illnesses, throat<br />
and eye irritation, headaches, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting.” (Goldstein et al., 2011)<br />
“Calls <strong>to</strong> mental health and domestic violence hotlines in the Gulf area have increased<br />
since the oil spill, in keeping with reports of increased domestic violence, mental illness,<br />
and substance abuse after other disasters.” Goldstein et al., 2011)<br />
“As BP and EPA implemented the waste directives, environmental justice activists<br />
argued that BP was dumping the debris disproportionately in poor and non-white<br />
communities. Residents of Harrison County, Mississippi fiercely opposed the disposal of<br />
oiled waste in their Pecan Grove landfill, and BP agreed not <strong>to</strong> use it. Environmental<br />
justice advocate and scholar Robert Bullard contended that the racial makeup of<br />
Harrison County was a fac<strong>to</strong>r, and EPA objected <strong>to</strong> BP’s decision. The Federal On-Scene<br />
Coordina<strong>to</strong>r instructed BP <strong>to</strong> follow the approved waste plan, noting that “[a]llowing one<br />
community <strong>to</strong> reject acceptance of waste… may complicate remaining waste disposal<br />
efforts.” BP began <strong>to</strong> use the site for waste staging, though not for disposal.” (Graham et<br />
al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Eventually, BP established a verification process that prioritized boats registered with<br />
the state before March 2010 and that accepted only one boat per owner. The group that<br />
may have lost out the most on the program was the large population of Vietnamese-<br />
American fishermen. Many had arrived in the region as refugees and struggled with the<br />
lack of Vietnamese-language training.” Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,<br />
2011)<br />
“Almost three quarters of respondents who believed they were exposed <strong>to</strong> crude oil or<br />
dispersant also reported experiencing symp<strong>to</strong>ms. Nearly half of all respondents<br />
reported an unusual increase in health symp<strong>to</strong>ms – coughing, skin and eye irritation,<br />
headaches – consistent with chemical exposure. Also consistent with exposure was the<br />
sudden onset of these symp<strong>to</strong>ms. Coastal residents reported sudden onset symp<strong>to</strong>ms<br />
that quickly subsided, consistent with chemical exposure. Anxiety and mental health<br />
problems were associated with the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill, and health care<br />
providers might face a similar situation on the Gulf Coast.” (Louisiana Bucket Brigade,<br />
2011a)<br />
8
“There are few treatment options. Almost a third (31.1%) of respondents used over-thecounter<br />
medicine “more often than usual.” Medical treatment options are limited<br />
because there are few known medical providers in the region trained <strong>to</strong> diagnose and<br />
treat chemical exposure. More than half of the respondents had health insurance (54%),<br />
yet relatively few sought treatment for symp<strong>to</strong>ms (31%) or exposures (14.8%).”<br />
(Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011a)<br />
“Of those surveyed, 44% said that the livelihood of the primary provider in the home had<br />
been impacted.” (Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011a)<br />
“Many people in coastal parishes need economic assistance but are not receiving it.<br />
Nearly a quarter reported needing but not receiving economic assistance due <strong>to</strong> lost<br />
income.” (Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011a)<br />
“The majority of respondents in the three communities surveyed between September 6<br />
and Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1 – 64% – expressed concern about seafood contamination.” (Louisiana<br />
Bucket Brigade, 2011a)<br />
“In signing BP claims contracts, individuals have given up their rights <strong>to</strong> independently<br />
or collectively pursue BP for potentially more money than they would receive through<br />
the claims process. The claims process in many cases encourages residents <strong>to</strong> settle<br />
claims payments because of the immediate necessity of financial support for job loss.<br />
As Kenneth Feinberg is now required <strong>to</strong> state that he is a contrac<strong>to</strong>r of BP, it is urged<br />
that there be an appeals process involving local Gulf Coast representation.” (Louisiana<br />
Bucket Brigade, 2011a)<br />
“In an under-the-radar release of new test results for its Gulf of Mexico oil spill workers,<br />
BP PLC is reporting potentially hazardous exposures <strong>to</strong> a now-discontinued dispersant<br />
chemical - a substance blamed for contributing <strong>to</strong> chronic health problems after the<br />
Exxon Valdez clean up - among more than 20 percent of offshore responders.” (Schor,<br />
2010 cited in Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011a)<br />
“One of the chemicals of concern is 2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol, a chemical in dispersant. While BP<br />
eventually phased out use of the chemical, clean-up workers were exposed. During the<br />
clean up, BP offered consistent assurances of worker safety despite their internal<br />
knowledge of use of 2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol. BP did conduct sampling during clean up <strong>to</strong><br />
determine if workers were exposed. ‘However, the company’s continued use of bar<br />
graphs that encompass ranges of exposures - without including where and under what<br />
conditions the Gulf tests are performed - left several occupational safety experts with<br />
more questions than answers.’ ” (Schor, 2010 cited in Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011a)<br />
9
“Environmental groups and residents argue BP has yet <strong>to</strong> fulfill its financial and legal<br />
obligations. More than 500,000 Gulf residents have claimed compensation from a $20<br />
billion fund set up by BP. But a large number of the claims have not yet been settled.<br />
Maritime life and communities in the area remain devastated.” (Safina, 2011b)<br />
“Corexit Dispersant Ingredients Have Not Been Fully Disclosed.<br />
On June 8th, US EPA provided a list of chemicals they stated were in the two Corexit<br />
products used <strong>to</strong> date. Companies are not required <strong>to</strong> list all ingredients in their<br />
products, or <strong>to</strong> provide detailed information on those that they do list. They can claim<br />
ingredients are "proprietary" <strong>to</strong> avoid disclosure. Ingredients in a product may be listed<br />
as a group rather than a single chemical.<br />
For example, the group "petroleum distillates, hydrotreated light" is listed on the MSDS<br />
for Corexit 9500. There are hundreds of chemicals within this group. Similarly, "organic<br />
sulfonic acid salts" are listed as an ingredient, but these may include many potential<br />
organic components. Without specific information, it isn't possible <strong>to</strong> fully assess short<br />
or long-term human health hazards or ecological effects.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“Residents who live and work on the water, particularly people in fishing communities<br />
and the first responders <strong>to</strong> the BP oil disaster, are increasingly falling ill. They are being<br />
ignored by the BP Victim’s Compensation Fund and denied health claims by Kenneth<br />
Feinberg and the GCCF. These victims are being dismissed and <strong>to</strong>ld <strong>to</strong> seek help<br />
elsewhere, without any referrals, suggestions, or support.” (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
“Hundreds of fishermen were hired <strong>to</strong> attach booms <strong>to</strong> their shrimp boats in place of<br />
nets and then drive their boats directly through the BP Deepwater Horizon oil/dispersant<br />
slicks <strong>to</strong> corral and collect the <strong>to</strong>xic substances. Some vessels worked the In-Situ Burns<br />
and burned the oil, while others collected the absorbent boom, bagged it, loaded it on<br />
their boats, and hauled it in. Fishing vessels were also used, after dispersant had been<br />
sprayed, <strong>to</strong> “mix” it with the oil by running the vessel back and forth through the<br />
oil/dispersant. During the heaviest flows of the disaster, many VOO workers anchored<br />
their vessels each night and slept where they worked, often waking at night <strong>to</strong> the<br />
spraying of Corexit and having their cabins filled with the smell of petroleum. Of all the<br />
responders working the spill, these fisherman had the highest potential for exposure <strong>to</strong><br />
<strong>to</strong>xic air pollutants. In addition <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>xicity of crude oil, they were exposed <strong>to</strong> the<br />
added danger posed by the application of dispersant chemicals.” (Waterkeeper Alliance,<br />
2011)<br />
"Even before oil began <strong>to</strong> wash ashore across the northern Gulf of Mexico, Save Our<br />
Gulf Waterkeeper organizations began receiving calls from Gulf Coast residents with<br />
health complaints. These residents were experiencing a wide range of symp<strong>to</strong>ms and<br />
were often unable <strong>to</strong> find relief with their local medical providers. In the early days of the<br />
BP oil disaster the most commonly received health complaints were severe head- aches,<br />
10
nausea, vomiting, cough, sinusitis, and difficulty breathing. People with existing<br />
breathing issues, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),<br />
were having increased difficulty controlling their symp<strong>to</strong>ms, required more medication,<br />
and experienced an increased need for medical treatment.” (Waterkeeper Alliance,<br />
2011)<br />
"In the following weeks and months more and more cleanup workers, fishermen and<br />
community members experienced health problems that they believed might be related <strong>to</strong><br />
the BP oil disaster. Symp<strong>to</strong>ms commonly reported <strong>to</strong> Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers<br />
expanded <strong>to</strong> include skin irritation and sores, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat,<br />
nausea, diarrhea, numbness of the extremities, s<strong>to</strong>mach cramps/abdominal pain,<br />
dizziness, confusion, depression, coughing, shortness of breath/difficulty breathing, and<br />
chest pains. These individuals also were often unable <strong>to</strong> get relief or satisfac<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
diagnosis from their local health care providers. " (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
“In the wake of the BP oil disaster, thousands of Gulf cleanup workers and residents<br />
have reportedillnesses, with symp<strong>to</strong>ms as tame as headaches or as violent as bloody<br />
s<strong>to</strong>ols and seizures.” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
“From July <strong>to</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2010, LABB and Tulane University's Disaster Resiliency<br />
Leadership Academy performed 934 health surveys of residents in Terrebonne,<br />
Jefferson, Plaquemines and St. Bernard parishes at seven survey sites. The results<br />
show three-quarters of respondents reported an increase in coughing, eye irritation,<br />
headaches and sinus irritation. Grand Isle resident Betty Dowd, who suffers a persistent<br />
cough, says its residents need blood work ‘<strong>to</strong> find out what exactly is causing these<br />
problems — whether it's BP or not, we just need <strong>to</strong> know where it's coming from.’”<br />
(Woodward, 2011)<br />
“The National Institute of Health (NIH) began its ‘Gulf Long-Term Follow-Up Study for Oil<br />
Spill Clean Up Workers and Volunteers’ (GuLF Study) <strong>to</strong> follow the health of 55,000<br />
cleanup crew members over 10 years. It's the largest study <strong>to</strong> moni<strong>to</strong>r the disaster, but it<br />
won't be treating its participants. [...] GuLF Study leader Dr. Dale Sandler says the<br />
illnesses ‘need <strong>to</strong> be taken seriously.’” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
“Months later, Bayhi still hasn't been paid for his work as a Vessels of Opportunity<br />
participant, a sum he says is $255,000. He's visited hospitals for severe abdominal pains,<br />
but he doesn't have health insurance, and no insurance provider will take him on, he<br />
says. He lost his home, and he and his family — his wife and his 2- and 3-year-old<br />
daughters — now live with his wife's grandmother. The family visited Grand Isle beaches<br />
in August, where his kids swam in the water and played in the sand. ‘My little girls now<br />
have more <strong>to</strong>xins in their blood than I have. That hurts more. I blame myself,’ he says,<br />
11
fighting back tears. ‘I let them go and swim and play in the beach, but at the same time<br />
those sons of bitches said it was safe.’” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
“Matherne was an engineer on a support boat near the Deepwater rig when it exploded<br />
and says crews sprayed dispersants directly on <strong>to</strong>p of him. Matherne wasn't provided a<br />
respira<strong>to</strong>r. Since May 30, 2010, he's suffered paralysis, impaired vision, severe<br />
headaches, and he frequently coughs up blood. ‘I don't know why things are happening<br />
like this,’ he says through tears in a YouTube video dated March 25. ‘It seems <strong>to</strong> get<br />
worse every day. ... It's driving me crazy. ... I prayed that God last night would let me die.<br />
I'm tired of suffering, and tired of watching my family suffer.’” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
“LEAN started receiving health complaints from Gulf workers and residents in the<br />
explosion's aftermath. The group purchased $10,000 worth of respira<strong>to</strong>rs (about 200) and<br />
protective gear for oil cleanup responders, but BP wouldn't allow the workers <strong>to</strong> use<br />
them, she says. Stuart Smith, the group's at<strong>to</strong>rney, argued that the Master Vessel<br />
Charter Agreement, a contract <strong>to</strong> hire fishermen <strong>to</strong> perform cleanup operations for BP,<br />
didn't account for the health and safety of the workers.” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
“Others have come forward, like 22-year-old Paul Doom from Navarre, Fla., who says he<br />
swam in the Gulf last summer and now experiences daily seizures and is in a wheelchair<br />
following a stroke, yet the hundreds of doc<strong>to</strong>rs he has seen can't explain why, he says.”<br />
(Woodward, 2011)<br />
“Douglas Blanchard, a third-generation fisherman (‘I got my degree on the back deck of<br />
a shrimp boat,’ he says), was hired <strong>to</strong> handle dispersants, but he says he wasn't allowed<br />
<strong>to</strong> use a respira<strong>to</strong>r. ‘They never gave us no nothing <strong>to</strong> breathe, no protection,’ he says. ‘It<br />
was a bad smell — it'd burn your nose, your eyes, your throat, headaches. Take pills like<br />
they're candy, all day.’ He was flown via helicopter <strong>to</strong> West Jefferson Medical Center in<br />
Marrero where he says he was scrubbed with soap by workers clad in hazmat suits.<br />
‘Afterward, they <strong>to</strong>ld us it's not harmful,’ he says. ‘We made good money, but the<br />
money's not worth it.’” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
“What puzzles Robichaux and others, however, is that many blood screenings show no<br />
sign of chemicals despite the patients' illnesses. Commercial fisher and marine<br />
<strong>to</strong>xicologist Riki Ott believes chemicals may have ‘parked’ in fatty tissue, and other tests<br />
are necessary. ‘If you go get a blood test now, it might not show any oil in your blood,’<br />
she says. ‘It's not a clear reflection of what's in your body.’” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
“Science knows precious little about the human hazards of exposure <strong>to</strong> crude oil. oil.<br />
Researchers have a better understanding of oil’s perils for pelicans and marshlands of<br />
the Louisiana bayou.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
12
“In the short term, the health effects have been most obvious among the thousands of<br />
workers scrambling <strong>to</strong> contain and now clean up the spill. They’ve worked in brutal heat<br />
for months, face <strong>to</strong> face with the primal sludge, in conditions <strong>to</strong>o steamy for many <strong>to</strong><br />
wear full protective gear. They’ve experienced respira<strong>to</strong>ry problems, skin irritation and<br />
plenty of heat stress. Much less clear is the impact the chemical cocktail in Gulf crude<br />
will have on the public in years <strong>to</strong> come.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
“At congressional hearings in Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC, and an Institute of Medicine conference<br />
convened in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the oil still flowed, experts expressed<br />
frustration that they know little about the health risks of a substance that courses so<br />
ubiqui<strong>to</strong>usly through daily life.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
“Much rides on what is found. Unlike in the Exxon Valdez aftermath, when recovery<br />
payments stretched out over decades of litigation and awards ultimately were slashed<br />
by the US Supreme Court, BP LLC agreed <strong>to</strong> set up a US$2-billion fund for Gulf<br />
residents, businesses and the environment. Physical ailments now and in the future<br />
qualify for compensation.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
“Mental health suffering, however, an inevitable consequence of the disaster, yet one<br />
that is difficult <strong>to</strong> quantify, might be frozen out of the fund. Kenneth Feinberg, the blunt<br />
independent arbiter of the fund, says mental health might be a step <strong>to</strong>o far.” (Woodward,<br />
2010)<br />
“Grounded fishermen, owners and employees of shuttered businesses and other<br />
residents close <strong>to</strong> the crisis have been exhibiting signs of acute anxiety, depression,<br />
increased and excessive drinking, and suicidal ideation, Louisiana state counselling<br />
teams reported.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
“Researchers at the New Orleans conference heard evidence that cleanup workers in<br />
Spain’s far smaller 2002 spill, from the sinking of the tanker Prestige , suffered DNA<br />
damage, although of a kind that reversed itself.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
“Still, uncertainties persist, from fumes in the air, tar balls on beaches, chemical<br />
dispersants used on the slick, contaminants consumed by sedentary sea life that could<br />
not get out of the way, and more.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
“We don’t have the world’s literature here that’s able <strong>to</strong> tell us what happens when<br />
there’s this much oil around populated sites […] As we’ve said all this afternoon, we just<br />
really do not know a lot of things here. And the only way <strong>to</strong> find out is <strong>to</strong> be able <strong>to</strong><br />
study.”(Howard cited by Woodward, 2010)<br />
13
3- “Wildlife”<br />
“Like the phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n, many zooplank<strong>to</strong>n species are sensitive <strong>to</strong> the chemicals found<br />
in the oil. Copepods in direct contact with the spill were likely <strong>to</strong> experience increased<br />
mortality and decreased feeding and reproduction (Suchanek, 1993), potentially allowing<br />
blooms of phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n […]. Tolerance <strong>to</strong> oil varies by species, and a study of GoM<br />
zooplank<strong>to</strong>n communities found that mortality tended <strong>to</strong> be more dependent upon<br />
exposure time than concentration of oil […], though the highest oil concentrations led <strong>to</strong><br />
the highest mortalities (50% after 50 hours; Lee and Nicol, 1977). Copepods may also be<br />
able <strong>to</strong> sense and avoid oiled areas (Seuront, 2010), thus reducing their contact and<br />
potential mortality […]. The same may not be true of Atlantic bluefin tuna larvae. PAHs<br />
are known <strong>to</strong> be highly <strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> larval herring, <strong>to</strong>psmelt, minnow, and salmon (Petersen<br />
and Kristensen, 1998; Heintz et al., 1999; Couillard et al., 2005). Toxic effects include<br />
hemorrhages, spinal deformities, growth retardation, and death (Billiard et al., 1999;<br />
Carls et al., 1999).” (Abbriano et al., 2011)<br />
“While larvae of different fish species exhibit variable sensitivities <strong>to</strong> PAHs, deformities<br />
and/or death are probable for larvae that come in<strong>to</strong> direct contact with the oil.” (Abbriano<br />
et al., 2011)<br />
“However, the literature is inconclusive as <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>xicological effects of dispersant on<br />
bacteria, with studies showing both growth enhancement and retardation (Mulkins-<br />
Philips and Stewart, 1974; Bruheim et al., 1999; Garcia et al., 2001). Still, key<br />
investigations have cautiously concluded that chemical dispersants are appropriate for<br />
enhancing microbial degradation (National Research Council, 2005).” (Abbriano et al.,<br />
2011)<br />
“By late May, SAH-degrading bacteria, particularly the order Oceanospirillales (Hazen et<br />
al., 2010) had increased <strong>to</strong> the point that they represented over 90% of the bacteria<br />
inside the plume compared <strong>to</strong> only 5% in samples acquired outside the plume […].<br />
Following the bloom of Oceanospirillales, another γ-proteobacteria from the genus<br />
Cycloclasticus known <strong>to</strong> degrade SAHs and PAHs bloomed in late June (Kasai et al.,<br />
2002; Valentine et al., 2010). Respiration rates due <strong>to</strong> the degradation of SAHs were<br />
measured <strong>to</strong> be ~ 1 μM O2 d–1 (Camilli et al. 2010), accounting for ~ 70% of the lowoxygen<br />
anomaly associated with the main plume (Valentine et al., 2010). Models of<br />
oxygen depletion due <strong>to</strong> bacterial respiration predicted hypoxia would occur within a few<br />
hundred kilometer radius of the wellhead at depths greater than 1,000 m (Adcroft et al.,<br />
2010). Though measurements showed oxygen drawdown, there was no evidence of<br />
hypoxia (Kessler et al., 2011).” (Abbriano et al., 2011)<br />
“Biodegradation by bacteria can also incorporate chemically dispersed oil in<strong>to</strong> the food<br />
web. Graham et al. (2010) showed a decrease in the δ13C of the small suspended<br />
14
particles (including phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n) and mesozooplank<strong>to</strong>n after the spill <strong>to</strong>ward the δ13C<br />
value of the local crude oil. This decrease implies uptake and transfer of components of<br />
the oil through the plank<strong>to</strong>nic food web. Bioaccumulation of hydrocarbons at the base of<br />
the food web could increase exposure of higher-trophic-level organisms, with potentially<br />
delayed negative effects (Wolfe et al., 1998).” (Abbriano et al., 2011)<br />
“The mixture of crude oil and Corexit has been found <strong>to</strong> be more <strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n<br />
and fish larvae than oil alone (Hsiao et al., 1978: a mixture of four different oils;<br />
Middaugh and Whiting, 1995: WSF of No. 2 Fuel Oil). Acute <strong>to</strong>xicity tests on the larval<br />
stages of several invertebrates indigenous <strong>to</strong> the GoM, such as shrimp, oysters, and<br />
crabs, showed that mixtures of the GoM oil from different wells and Corexit were about<br />
as <strong>to</strong>xic as the WSF of the oil alone (Fucik et al., 1994).” (Abbriano et al., 2011)<br />
“In some experiments, increases in <strong>to</strong>xicity could be attributed <strong>to</strong> the chemical<br />
properties of dispersants, which can affect the cellular membranes of plank<strong>to</strong>nic<br />
organisms by increasing permeability <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>xic chemicals, disrupting respiration, and<br />
causing membrane lysis (Singer et al., 1991)” (Abbriano et al., 2011)<br />
“As the oil makes its way up the food chain, its effects on Atlantic bluefin tuna larvae<br />
remain unclear. While contact with the oil probably resulted in larval mutation or death,<br />
the boom-and-bust cycles in the microbial loop may have led <strong>to</strong> increases in the main<br />
prey sources of these larvae, namely heterotrophic microplank<strong>to</strong>n (Llopiz et al., 2010;<br />
Nakagawa et al., 2007). Therefore, for the Atlantic bluefin tuna, being in the right place at<br />
the right time may prove <strong>to</strong> be the deciding fac<strong>to</strong>r for the population.” (Abbriano et al.,<br />
2011)<br />
“Specialists within the diverse bacterial communities exhibited rapid boom-and-bust<br />
cycles, showing signs of returning <strong>to</strong> background levels as early as 60 days after the<br />
blowout. Although<br />
individual phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n species may have experienced relative mortality or enhanced<br />
growth, the direct negative effects of oil were probably largely offset by a decrease in<br />
predation. Dispersion and degradation of oil in surface seawater, high rates of<br />
reproduction of marine plank<strong>to</strong>nic organisms, and circulation and mixing in the ocean<br />
may also have contributed <strong>to</strong> rapid recovery of phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n populations within weeks<br />
<strong>to</strong> months. […] Lastly, Atlantic bluefin tuna would likely suffer significant mortality with<br />
direct oil contact, but secondary effects such as an increase in food supply are still <strong>to</strong> be<br />
determined.” (Abbriano et al., 2011)<br />
“The 2010 BP oil spill that spewed from a broken well on the Gulf of Mexico seafloor<br />
damaged coral as far as seven miles (11 kilometers) away […] They found that coral<br />
along the seafloor near the well was covered with some sort of brown material and<br />
15
appeared <strong>to</strong> show signs of tissue damage. A survey of coral 12 miles (20 kilometers)<br />
from the Macondo well showed no such damage.” (AFP, 2012)<br />
“More study is needed <strong>to</strong> determine if the coral will recover, but the findings so far<br />
suggest that there was a serious impact on deep sea animal life around the broken well,<br />
said lead researcher Charles Fisher, a professor of biology at Penn State University.”<br />
(AFP, 2012)<br />
“Although not as clear as that observed for birds and turtles, the data obtained for<br />
mammals suggest an exponential increase in mortality and an exponential daily<br />
mortality rate” (An<strong>to</strong>nio et al., 2011)<br />
“As a consequence of the oil spill, there was increasing mortality of vertebrates, whose<br />
carcasses started <strong>to</strong> be reported after the 38th day (May 28). In our analysis we<br />
considered the first 140 days reporting period. The highest impact during this period<br />
was recorded for birds, with an exponential increase in the cumulative number of<br />
carcasses […]. Consequently, the daily mortality rate (RB = dB/dt) was also an<br />
exponential function.” (An<strong>to</strong>nio et al., 2011)<br />
“The most visible and immediate impact of oil on wildlife is its adhesion <strong>to</strong> organisms,<br />
especially after the sludge washes ashore. However, other dangerous impacts are<br />
related <strong>to</strong> mutagenic and/or carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present in<br />
the oil […] and sub-lethal effects such as physiological or endocrine disruptions”<br />
(An<strong>to</strong>nio et al., 2011)<br />
“As an example, a regional abundance estimate shows a decrease in the number of<br />
sperm whales at the site nearest <strong>to</strong> the DWH (9 mi away) which exceeds statistical<br />
uncertainties and can be accepted as an existing trend. The use of acoustic data <strong>to</strong><br />
extract information about environ-<br />
mental fac<strong>to</strong>rs, such as anthropogenic noise level or food call densities, that may<br />
contribute <strong>to</strong> the explanation of existing trends is also discussed.” (Sidorovskaia et al.,<br />
cited in Baumann-Pickering, 2011)<br />
“In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon (DH) oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico vented oil<br />
uncontrollably for 90+ days. This ‘persistent’ spill resulted in oil washing up daily on the<br />
shoreline of numerous Gulf of Mexico states, and created an oil spill lasting 30 times<br />
longer and 5 times larger than the ‘rapid’ 1989 Exxon Valdez (EV) spill. There is ongoing<br />
controversy regarding the effect of oil spills on seabird population, with few<br />
opportunities <strong>to</strong> analyze its daily effect.” (Belanger et al., 2010)<br />
“Analyzing daily seabird collection data between days 38-138 after the DH spill, the dead<br />
bird collection average (48.2+35.5/day) was significantly (p
collection average (20.8+27.0/day). Data also shows a significant reduction in daily intake<br />
of live seabirds after day 110, while the daily dead bird intake saw a significant<br />
increase. Between days 110 <strong>to</strong> 138, live seabird collections only rose by 206 compared<br />
<strong>to</strong> the dead bird collection of 1834. The EV spill yielded 600+ live birds and 35,000 dead<br />
ones while the DH spill had 2053 live birds but only 7726 dead ones.” (Belanger et al.,<br />
2010)<br />
“The <strong>to</strong>tal number of live seabirds recovered from the EV spill was approximately 1,630<br />
birds while 2,080 birds from the DH spill were captured (Table 1). The number of live<br />
recovered seabirds from the DH spill was only approximately 22% more than the EV spill<br />
despite the fact that the DH spill was 2.5 times bigger in area covered and had<br />
approximately 6 times more oil spilled. There were 35,000 dead seabirds collected<br />
during the EV spill but only 7,726 from the DH spill (Table 1). This demonstrates an<br />
unexpected greater number of casualties (4.5 times) from the EV spill than the DH spill<br />
despite more oil being spilled or covering a larger area in the Gulf of Mexico.” (Belanger<br />
et al., 2010)<br />
“In 2010, Tan et al published that there was a strong correlation between oil spill size<br />
and number of sea bird casualties despite the DH spill being 5 times smaller in spill size.<br />
This data reveals that after 110 days of a ‘persistent’ spill, collecting live birds<br />
significantly decreases while the number of dead birds increases. Also, there were a<br />
significantly lower number of dead birds collected during the ‘persistent’ DH spill than<br />
the ‘rapid’ EV spill. This study reveals the first concrete evidence suggesting ‘persistent’<br />
oil spills may have a greater environmental impact than ‘rapid’ spills, and immediate<br />
reaction is required <strong>to</strong> lessen the number of seabird casualties.” (Belanger et al., 2010)<br />
"For example, the BP spill may have had a substantial impact on Atlantic bluefin tuna<br />
(Thunnus thynnus), because it occurred during spawning. The spill could have affected<br />
20% of the 2010 bluefin larvae (2). But the impact of that loss is difficult <strong>to</strong> assess<br />
because bluefin migration paths, reproductive habits, and early life his<strong>to</strong>ry are<br />
inadequately resolved (3). At the ecosystem level, long-term effects of food web<br />
alteration by oil or dispersants could suppress wildlife populations." (Bjorndal et al.,<br />
2011)<br />
"Integrate demography with abundance trends for multiple life stages and determine<br />
environmental effects on those parameters. Both demographic and abundance data are<br />
essential <strong>to</strong> diagnose causes of population declines. Even for high-profile megafauna,<br />
<strong>to</strong>o little is known about abundance of different life stages and key demographic rates:<br />
survival, breeding and recruitment probabilities; growth rates; and age at maturity.<br />
17
These strongly influence how perturbations like the BP spill will affect population<br />
growth” (Bjorndal et al., 2011)<br />
“Most of these animals are long-lived and can move thousands of kilometers between<br />
seasons and life stages. Often, there is only an estimate of abundance for one easily<br />
observed life stage. This is analogous <strong>to</strong> estimating human population trends by<br />
counting women in maternity wards. Useful data would emerge, but if the children were<br />
decimated by disease, this mortality would not be detected in the maternity ward for<br />
decades. Sea turtles provide a striking example of this problem […]" (Bjorndal et al.,<br />
2011)<br />
"Improve assessment <strong>to</strong>ols for evaluation of anthropogenic impacts on populations by<br />
fostering interdisciplinary research among fisheries science, marine ecology, and<br />
conservation biology and by funding opportunities for student training and continuing<br />
education for managers in the quantitative sciences. The Bering Sea Project is an<br />
excellent" (Bjorndal et al., 2011)<br />
"[…] species recovery plans often list many variables scientists could measure but do<br />
not prioritize which variables <strong>to</strong> measure and with what precision. As in medicine, you<br />
cannot efficiently produce a diagnosis and cure by measuring everything or ordering<br />
every test. We must identify and measure the most predictive variables first." (Bjorndal<br />
et al., 2011)<br />
“The oil spill poses acute, immediate threats <strong>to</strong> marine life, while many climate change<br />
impacts develop gradually over long periods of time. This difference can make<br />
connections between the two difficult <strong>to</strong> see. Marine organisms and ecosystems are<br />
already subject <strong>to</strong> multiple stresses, including climate-related changes in seawater<br />
chemistry and temperatures, plus <strong>to</strong>xic pollution, overfishing, and habitat destruction.<br />
These combined stresses can amplify the harmful effects of contact with oil. A great deal<br />
is known about the impacts of oil and <strong>to</strong>xic chemical dispersants on marine life in<br />
coastal and surface waters, but relatively little is known about the impact on ecosystems<br />
at the depth of the leaking wellhead (roughly 5,000 feet).” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“Fossil fuel use is changing seawater chemistry, stratification, temperatures, and<br />
oxygen supply at unprecedented rates. These changes suggest that the impacts on<br />
biodiversity will probably be severe. But their potential impacts on marine life and<br />
ecosystems continue <strong>to</strong> be assessed, and it is not clear how ecosystems are responding<br />
thus far.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“Oceanographer Jon Kessler of Texas A&M University has suggested that the crude<br />
spilling from the well contains unusually high levels of methane; as much as 40 percent,<br />
which compares <strong>to</strong> 5 percent in typical oil deposits. Kessler said, “This is the most<br />
18
vigorous methane eruption in modern human his<strong>to</strong>ry.” While the impact of high methane<br />
levels is not fully known, there are concerns that the methane could potentially suffocate<br />
marine life by creating low-oxygen dead zones.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“Oil and dispersant chemicals can be harmful or lethal <strong>to</strong> marine organisms, depending<br />
on many fac<strong>to</strong>rs including the type of contact (inhalation, ingestion, or external contact),<br />
duration and intensity of the contact, life stage and health of the organisms, and the<br />
particular combination of oil and chemical dispersants. Toxic affects are often caused by<br />
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in dispersants and dissolved oil. PAHs can kill<br />
fish, mammals, and aquatic invertebrates directly through smothering and other physical<br />
and chemical mechanisms. Even if they are not fatal, PAHs can damage DNA and cause<br />
cancer; liver, kidney, and brain damage; reproductive and developmental problems; and<br />
immune system impairment in fish and other organisms. PAHs that accumulate in<br />
invertebrates can be passed <strong>to</strong> marine mammals and fish when they consume prey.<br />
When sea turtles and marine mammals surface in or near an oil slick <strong>to</strong> breath, they can<br />
inhale volatile petroleum compounds that can irritate or injure respira<strong>to</strong>ry tracts and lead<br />
<strong>to</strong> inflammation or pneumonia. Swallowing petroleum and dispersants in prey or<br />
seawater can cause gastrointestinal inflammation, ulcers, bleeding, and diarrhea and<br />
can impair the animal’s ability <strong>to</strong> digest and absorb food. External contact with oil and<br />
dispersants can cause irritation, burns <strong>to</strong> mucous membranes of eyes and mouths, and<br />
increased susceptibility <strong>to</strong> infection. Sea turtles are especially vulnerable <strong>to</strong> inhalation<br />
and ingestion damage because they do not move away from oil slicks the way large<br />
mammals and fish do, and turtles eat indiscriminately in the presence of oil. In fact,<br />
turtles favor the highly productive surface convergence zones, where oil can also<br />
accumulate, and this behavior puts them at risk. Four of the five sea turtle species in the<br />
Gulf are already endangered, and the fifth is listed as threatened.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“Chemical dispersants are applied directly <strong>to</strong> the oil slick, which cause tiny dispersan<strong>to</strong>il<br />
droplets <strong>to</strong> separate from the slick and mix in<strong>to</strong> the water column, where bacteria and<br />
other microscopic organisms can degrade the oil more quickly. This process reduces<br />
the size and volume of the surface slick because the tiny droplets are <strong>to</strong>o small <strong>to</strong> refloat<br />
<strong>to</strong> the surface. As of May 24, BP had applied between 800,000 and one million gallons of<br />
the dispersant Corexit, including more than 50,000 directly at the wellhead on the<br />
seafloor. According <strong>to</strong> the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this volume of<br />
dispersant was approaching a world record. Additionally, the EPA has identified Corexit<br />
as a causal agent in health problems experienced by cleanup workers following the<br />
Exxon Valdez spill, and Corexit is banned as an oil spill dispersant in the United<br />
Kingdom. The EPA considers Corexit an acute health hazard, and the manufacture states<br />
that it is harmful <strong>to</strong> red blood cells, the kidneys, and liver and is irritating <strong>to</strong> the eyes and<br />
skin. On June 29, the Louisiana state health department reported 162 illnesses believed<br />
<strong>to</strong> be oil-dispersant related, 128 of them involving rig and clean-up workers. On May 7,<br />
several Louisiana state agencies sent a letter <strong>to</strong> BP outlining concerns about the impact<br />
19
of Corexit on fisheries, wildlife, and public health. On May 19, the EPA directed BP <strong>to</strong><br />
select less <strong>to</strong>xic alternatives <strong>to</strong> Corexit within twenty-four hours. BP refused <strong>to</strong> comply<br />
with the EPA order, claiming that no EPA-approved dispersants meet the directive’s<br />
criteria for effectiveness, availability, and lower <strong>to</strong>xicity. Controversy continues <strong>to</strong><br />
surround the potential environmental and public health impacts of Corexit and whether<br />
alternative dispersants could be more effective, less <strong>to</strong>xic, and readily available.”<br />
(Bowman, 2010)<br />
“World-record amounts of chemical dispersants have been used on the sea surface and<br />
at the wellhead. The dispersants are <strong>to</strong>xic, but the impact of their use in such large<br />
quantities is unknown.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“The Gulf of Mexico has exceptionally high marine biodiversity, with 15,419 recorded<br />
species, of which 10% (1511) are endemic (Felder and Camp 2009). This diversity is<br />
partly attributable <strong>to</strong> the Gulf ’s geographic position within the transition zone between<br />
temperate and tropical waters. Some threatened species in the Gulf (e.g., whale shark,<br />
Rhincodon typus ; loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta ) occur globally but have significant<br />
populations, spawning aggregations, or nesting sites in the Gulf region. Therefore,<br />
greater threats in this region may have implications for the species’ global survival.<br />
Other species (e.g., Kemp’s ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempii ; the western Atlantic<br />
population of bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus ) breed only in the Gulf, and oil spill<br />
damage exacerbates previously existing threats <strong>to</strong> these species.” (Campagna et al.,<br />
2011)<br />
“Given the many threats facing the Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem in the 1980s, when<br />
Congress established the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in 1990, it explicitly<br />
provided that ‘[n]o leasing, exploration, development or production of minerals or<br />
hydrocarbons shall be permitted within the Sanctuary.’ Nevertheless, oil spills such as<br />
the Deepwater Horizon threaten this intended legal protection by exposing the sanctuary<br />
<strong>to</strong> oil-related damage, despite the prohibition on drilling within the sanctuary itself. As<br />
the state of Florida more generally learned as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster,<br />
prohibitions on oil and gas exploration and drilling provide rather flimsy ecological<br />
protections when other political entities sharing the same waters make different<br />
decisions regarding the desirability of offshore platforms.” (Craig, 2010)<br />
“Unfortunately, comprehensive data on conditions before the spill—the natural “status<br />
quo ante” from the shoreline <strong>to</strong> the deepwater Gulf—were generally lacking. Even now,<br />
information on the nature of the damage associated with the released oil is being<br />
realized in bits and pieces: reports of visibly oiled and dead wildlife, polluted marshes,<br />
and lifeless deepwater corals. Moreover, scientific knowledge of deepwater marine<br />
communities is limited, and it is there that a significant volume of oil was dispersed from<br />
the wellhead, naturally and chemically, in<strong>to</strong> small droplets. Scientists simply do not yet<br />
20
know how <strong>to</strong> predict the ecological consequences and effects on key species that might<br />
result from oil exposure in the water column, both far below and near the surface.”<br />
(Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“The oil that made landfall was fairly “weathered,” consisting of emulsions of crude oil<br />
and depleted of its more volatile components. More than 650 miles of Gulf coastal<br />
habitats— salt marsh, mudflat, mangroves, and sand beaches— were oiled; more than<br />
130 miles have been designated as moderately <strong>to</strong> heavily oiled. Louisiana’s fragile delta<br />
habitats bore the brunt of the damage, with approximately 20 additional miles of<br />
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida shorelines moderately <strong>to</strong> heavily oiled. Light oiling<br />
and tar balls extended east <strong>to</strong> Panama City, Florida. Except for occasional tarballs,<br />
Deepwater Horizon oil never reached Texas or the <strong>to</strong>urism centers along the southwest<br />
Florida coast.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Few beachgoers realize that millions of microscopic organisms live in the Gulf’s soggy<br />
sands between high and low tide. By comparing samples taken before and after beaches<br />
were oiled, Holly Bik of the University of New Hampshire’s Hubbard Center for Genome<br />
Studies, <strong>to</strong>gether with scientists at Auburn University and the University of Texas, hopes<br />
<strong>to</strong> determine the impact on this understudied community of sediment-dwelling<br />
microfauna.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Oyster mortality observed in the highly productive areas of Barataria Bay and Bre<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Sound, estuaries that flank the lower Mississippi River, appear <strong>to</strong> be due, in large part, <strong>to</strong><br />
the flood of fresh water introduced through river diversions in what many believe was a<br />
futile attempt <strong>to</strong> keep oil from entering the estuarine areas. Beyond their commercial<br />
import, oysters are a keys<strong>to</strong>ne species—an organism that exerts a shaping,<br />
disproportionate influence on its habitat and community. A single adult oyster can filter<br />
more than one gallon of water per hour, effectively removing impurities— including oil—<br />
from the water column. Oyster reefs established on an estuary’s muddy bot<strong>to</strong>m can<br />
increase the surface area fiftyfold, creating intricate habitats for crabs, small fish, and<br />
other animals, which in turn sustain larger species.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service, 2011)<br />
“In September 28 testimony before the Commission, Jane Lyder, Deputy Assistant<br />
Secretary of the Department of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, said that<br />
‘With more than 60 percent of the data verified, the three most affected [bird] species<br />
appear <strong>to</strong> be Brown Pelicans, Northern Gannets, and Laughing Gulls.’” (Graham et<br />
al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“One hundred mammals were collected dead, though only four of those were visibly<br />
oiled. Most of the marine mammal mortalities were bottlenose dolphins. Also among the<br />
dead was one juvenile sperm whale; it was found floating more than 70 miles from the<br />
21
source of the spill, reportedly unoiled. More than 600 dead sea turtles were collected.”<br />
(Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Many large fish species are dependent on the health of the estuarine and marine<br />
habitats and resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)<br />
noted that species with ‘essential fish habitat’ near the oil spill include scalloped<br />
hammerhead, shortfin mako, silky, whale, bigeye thresher, longfin mako, and oceanic<br />
whitetip sharks; and swordfish, white marlin, blue marlin, yellowfin tuna, bluefin tuna,<br />
longbill spearfish, and sailfish. Other important Gulf fish include red snapper, gag<br />
grouper, gray triggerfish, red drum, vermilion snapper, greater amberjack, black drum,<br />
cobia and dolphin (mahimahi); coastal migra<strong>to</strong>ry open-water species, such as king and<br />
Spanish mackerel; and open-water sharks.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,<br />
2011)<br />
“Oil constituents can be transferred through the food chain: heavier hydrocarbons can<br />
be passed from water <strong>to</strong> phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n and then <strong>to</strong> zooplank<strong>to</strong>n, or from sediments <strong>to</strong><br />
polychaete worms and eventually <strong>to</strong> fish. Because animals that are several steps up the<br />
food chain, like small fish, have the capability <strong>to</strong> metabolize hydrocarbons fairly rapidly,<br />
their preda<strong>to</strong>rs will actually not accumulate much from eating them. Accordingly,<br />
bioaccumulation of <strong>to</strong>xic oil components does occur in fish, but biomagnification, with<br />
increasingly higher concentrations in animals at each level, does not occur.” (Graham et<br />
al./ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“It would be impossible <strong>to</strong> sample and assess each of the thousands of marine fish and<br />
other species inhabiting the open-ocean water column.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“In September 28 testimony before the Commission, Jane Lyder, Deputy Assistant<br />
Secretary of the Department of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, said that<br />
‘With more than 60 percent of the data verified, the three most affected [bird] species<br />
appear <strong>to</strong> be Brown Pelicans, Northern Gannets, and Laughing Gulls.’ She added that<br />
‘The fall migration is underway. Songbirds and shorebirds began their migration <strong>to</strong> the<br />
Gulf coast in July. Waterfowl began arriving in late August and early September. We<br />
know there are significant impacts <strong>to</strong> marsh and coastal wetland habitats along sections<br />
of the Louisiana coast, particularly near Grand Isle, Louisiana. We are continuing <strong>to</strong><br />
moni<strong>to</strong>r what the full impact will be <strong>to</strong> migra<strong>to</strong>ry birds and other wildlife.’ The potential<br />
impact on marine mammals and sea turtles is harder <strong>to</strong> assess.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish<br />
and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was unprecedented in <strong>to</strong>tal loading of petroleum<br />
hydrocarbons accidentally released <strong>to</strong> a marine ecosystem. Controversial application of<br />
chemical dispersants presumably accelerated microbial consumption of oil components,<br />
22
especially in warm Gulf of Mexico surface waters. We employed δ13C as a tracer of oilderived<br />
carbon <strong>to</strong> resolve two periods of iso<strong>to</strong>pic carbon depletion in two plank<strong>to</strong>n size<br />
classes. Carbon depletion was coincident with the arrival of surface oil slicks in the far<br />
northern Gulf, and demonstrated that subsurface oil carbon was incorporated in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
plank<strong>to</strong>n food web.” (Graham et al., 2010)<br />
“Carbon iso<strong>to</strong>pic depletion in mesozooplank<strong>to</strong>n and suspended particulate samples<br />
throughout the water column […] indicates trophic transfer of oil carbon in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
plank<strong>to</strong>nic food web. A similar response found in benthic communities around natural<br />
seeps suggests that carbon iso<strong>to</strong>pic shifts in the plank<strong>to</strong>n fractions are likely due <strong>to</strong> the<br />
duration and magnitude of depleted carbon released in<strong>to</strong> the system. These data provide<br />
strong evidence that labile fractions of the oil extended throughout the shallow water<br />
column during northward slick transport and that this carbon was processed relatively<br />
quickly at least two trophic levels beyond prokaryotic hydrocarbon consumers given our<br />
understanding of microbial-zooplank<strong>to</strong>n trophic linkages.” (Graham et al., 2010)<br />
“The amount of Corexit 7664 used in the clean-up of spilled oil was “non-<strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> marine<br />
fauna” in amounts below 10,000 p.p.m (parts per million). The manufacturer states that<br />
the “marine fauna” tested were shrimps and fish, and that results on other marine life<br />
(barnacles, limpets, periwinkles, and <strong>to</strong>pshell) were unavailable.” (Griffith, 1969)<br />
“The Irish Fisheries Leaflet no. 6 determined that the amount of Corexit exposure<br />
necessary <strong>to</strong> debilitate these species (render them <strong>to</strong>o weak <strong>to</strong> connect <strong>to</strong> surfaces or<br />
reattach) was 8,000 p.p.m.” (Griffith, 1969)<br />
“In July, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) released a new<br />
water quality report, which includes the list of water bodies that the state considers<br />
‘impaired.’ This list is important because it is the basis upon which LDEQ develops their<br />
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans, which, as EPA is fond of saying, is basically a<br />
pollution ‘diet’ that determines how much pollution must be removed from the water in<br />
order for it <strong>to</strong> be considered not impaired. [...] the Dead Zone in the Gulf is a reoccurring<br />
and urgent problem. Yet, in the recently released impaired waters list, LDEQ is<br />
suggesting that the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River do not need <strong>to</strong> be put on one of<br />
these “pollution diets” for Dead Zone-causing nitrogen and phosphorous.“ (Gulf<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2010b)<br />
“According <strong>to</strong> NOAA, between November, 2010 and May, 2011, there have been at least<br />
238 cetacean strandings, of which 96% were dead. Samples and specimens are turned<br />
over <strong>to</strong> the government under a controversial pro<strong>to</strong>col that shuts out and angers many<br />
marine experts.” (Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2011a)<br />
23
“Although snail densities did not vary between oiled and control sites, crab burrows<br />
were suppressed at oiled sites. Previous studies have shown that oil exposure<br />
negatively affects intertidal crabs. In New England, exposure <strong>to</strong> oil led <strong>to</strong> shallower<br />
burrows and, over time, <strong>to</strong> lower population densities of Uca fiddler crabs.” (McCall et<br />
al., 2012)<br />
“Mesozooplank<strong>to</strong>n (>200 μm) collected in August and September of 2010 from the<br />
northern Gulf of Mexico show evidence of exposure <strong>to</strong> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons<br />
(PAHs). Multivariate statistical analysis revealed that distributions of PAHs extracted<br />
from mesozooplank<strong>to</strong>n were related <strong>to</strong> the oil released from the ruptured British<br />
Petroleum Macondo-1 (M-1) well associated with the R/V Deepwater Horizon blowout.<br />
Mesozooplank<strong>to</strong>n contained 0.03–97.9 ng g−1 of <strong>to</strong>tal PAHs and ratios of fluoranthene <strong>to</strong><br />
fluoranthene + pyrene less than 0.44, indicating a liquid fossil fuel source. The<br />
distribution of PAHs isolated from mesozooplank<strong>to</strong>n extracted in this study shows that<br />
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill may have contributed <strong>to</strong> contamination in the northern<br />
Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.” (Mitra et al., 2012)<br />
“Oil spill resulted in dramatic effects on fish species in Louisiana marshes…Despite low<br />
concentrations of oil constituents in Gulf of Mexico waters from the Deepwater Horizon<br />
spill, fish were dramatically affected by <strong>to</strong>xic components of the oil. […] Gene<br />
expression in tissues of the fish studied--in this case killifish--was predictive of oil spill<br />
<strong>responses</strong> such as developmental abnormalities and death…It also indicated impairment<br />
of fish reproduction…Fish gill tissues, important for maintaining critical fish body<br />
functions, appeared damaged and had altered protein expression…These effects<br />
persisted long after visible oil disappeared from a marsh's surface…Developing fish<br />
embryos exposed <strong>to</strong> field-collected waters had similar cellular <strong>responses</strong>…A major<br />
message of the previous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska…is that sublethal biological<br />
effects, especially those linked with reproduction, are most predictive of the long-term<br />
effects of oil in many fish species” (National Science Foundation, 2011)<br />
“Oil mitigation measures (release of Mississippi River water through diversions) likely<br />
increased the noxious and harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and fish kill problems <strong>to</strong> the<br />
east of the Mississippi River delta where there was also visible oil.” (Rabalais, 2011)<br />
“By the end of the year, some impacts had been noted such as the 1,500 km of oiled<br />
shoreline habitats; the numbers of oiled or dead birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals;<br />
days of lost income due <strong>to</strong> fishing closures; loss of rental income for beachside<br />
property; or other visible and tangible signs. But considerable effort continues on the<br />
assessment of damages, and relevant research programs are underway. It will be years<br />
before the agreed-upon estimate of how much oil and gas spewed from the well is<br />
established, a comprehensive picture of the fate of the oil is drawn, broader<br />
24
environmental and social impacts are documented, and economic damages summed.”<br />
(Rabalais, 2011)<br />
"As bird protection they’re pointless, because birds fly, and the whole idea behind<br />
booms―that oil floats―is defeated by dissolving the oil in<strong>to</strong> the water with dispersants,<br />
creating a <strong>to</strong>xic brew." (Safina, 2010c)<br />
"While labora<strong>to</strong>ry tests show dispersants, oil, and a mixture of the two kill fish, fish<br />
larvae, and shrimp, sedentary creatures are perhaps most at risk from these substances.<br />
Oysters and coral reefs―and the people and other wildlife that depend on them―are<br />
essentially defenseless." (Safina, 2010c)<br />
“Animals that breathe at the surface, like dolphins, whales, and sea turtles, are<br />
especially vulnerable <strong>to</strong> oil in the water. Whale sharks, the world’s largest fish, often use<br />
a mode of feeding that almost seems designed <strong>to</strong> skim floating oil from the surface. […]<br />
During an aerial survey in June, Hurricane Creekkeeper John Wathen and author David<br />
Helvarg pho<strong>to</strong>graphed a sperm whale and dolphins swimming through long floating<br />
streaks and dark, discolored slicks of oil, and another pod of dolphins in distress, with<br />
several dead and dying members.” (Safina, 2010c)<br />
“The Kemp’s ridley is the world’s most endangered sea turtle. In the 1980s its numbers<br />
were so low that several experts feared it was doomed <strong>to</strong> extinction. Exhaustive<br />
conservation efforts brought it back from the brink and put the species on firmer footing.<br />
The number of nesting females, which lay eggs on only a few Gulf of Mexico beaches,<br />
rose from fewer than 300 in 1985 <strong>to</strong> approximately 5,500 in 2009. Breeding adults,<br />
juveniles, and hatchlings are highly vulnerable <strong>to</strong> oil slicks.” (Safina, 2010c)<br />
“But the blowout is only the most acute threat <strong>to</strong> the people and wildlife who rely on the<br />
Gulf’s seashore and seafood. The same fossil fuels are causing temperatures <strong>to</strong> rise,<br />
melting Arctic ecosystems, and killing coral reefs. On <strong>to</strong>p of that, they’re acidifying the<br />
world ocean so rapidly that it is already affecting the growth of shellfish and corals.“<br />
(Safina, 2010c)<br />
“Kemp's Ridley turtle is the smallest marine turtle in the world, and endangered<br />
throughout its range. It's only known breeding habitat is along the coasts of Texas and<br />
Mexico; as the young leave the beach, however, they'll enter the loop current and be<br />
carried out <strong>to</strong> the Atlantic, most likely through the oil slick, ‘potentially poisoning a<br />
generation of those turtles,’ according <strong>to</strong> Douglas N. Rader, the chief ocean scientist for<br />
Environmental Defense Fund.” (Shapley, 2010)<br />
“Not only commercial species of fish, but other species are at risk from the BP Gulf Oil<br />
Spill, including gulf sturgeon, a threatened species.” (Shapley, 2010)<br />
25
“[…] the Gulf of Mexico is a tremendous engine of life and also a tremendous<br />
concentration zone, where animals from the whole open Atlantic Ocean funnel in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
Gulf for breeding and millions of animals cross the Gulf and concentrate there on their<br />
northward migration and then fan out <strong>to</strong> populate much of North America and the<br />
Canadian Arctic, the East Coast, the Canadian Maritimes. So it’s a real hotspot, and it’s a<br />
terrible place <strong>to</strong> foul.” (Safina, 2010a)<br />
“The Gulf is the hourglass pinch-point for millions of migrating creatures that funnel<br />
in<strong>to</strong>, breed in, migrate through and then fan out of it <strong>to</strong> populate an enormous area of the<br />
continents and coasts. Anything that affects living things inside the Gulf affects living<br />
things far outside it.” (Safina, 2010b)<br />
“BP had a federally approved Gulf of Mexico spill response plan that explained what it<br />
would do for walruses and sea lions—creatures that don't live in the Gulf of Mexico.”<br />
(Safina, 2011a)<br />
“However, at one site 11 km southwest of the Macondo well, coral colonies presented<br />
widespread signs of stress, including varying degrees of tissue loss, sclerite<br />
enlargement, excess mucous production, bleached commensal ophiuroids, and<br />
covering by brown flocculent material (floc). On the basis of these criteria the level of<br />
impact <strong>to</strong> individual colonies was ranked from 0 (least impact) <strong>to</strong> 4 (greatest impact). Of<br />
the 43 corals imaged at that site, 46% exhibited evidence of impact on more than half of<br />
the colony, whereas nearly a quarter of all of the corals showed impact <strong>to</strong> >90% of the<br />
colony. Additionally, 53% of these corals’ ophiuroid associates displayed abnormal color<br />
and/or attachment posture.” (White et al.,2012)<br />
“Observations of recently damaged corals and the presence of Macondo well oil on<br />
corals indicates impact at a depth of 1,370 m, 11 km from the site of the blowout. This<br />
finding provides insight in<strong>to</strong> the extent of the impact of the spill, which is significantly<br />
complicated by physical mixing processes and fractionation of the oil constituents.<br />
Because deep-water corals are sessile and release mucous that may trap material from<br />
the water column, these corals may provide a more sensitive indica<strong>to</strong>r of the impact<br />
from petroleum hydrocarbons than marine sediment cores and may record impacts from<br />
water masses passing through a community, even if no deposition <strong>to</strong> the sediment<br />
occurs.” (White et al., 2012)<br />
“The data suggest the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impacted a community of deep-water<br />
corals near the Macondo well. The numerous apparently healthy deep-water coral<br />
communities in other parts of the GoM may indicate that the localized impact in MC 294<br />
found <strong>to</strong> date, is not part of a much larger, acute, GoMwide event. However, life in deepwater<br />
coral ecosystems is known <strong>to</strong> operate at a slow pace. Consequently it is <strong>to</strong>o early<br />
26
<strong>to</strong> fully evaluate the footprint and long-term effects of acute and subacute exposure <strong>to</strong><br />
potential waterborne contaminants resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.”<br />
(White et al., 2012)<br />
“The biological consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are unknown…Remote<br />
sensing and analytical chemistry identified exposures, which were linked <strong>to</strong> effects in<br />
fish characterized by genome expression and associated gill immunohis<strong>to</strong>chemistry,<br />
despite very low concentrations of hydrocarbons remaining in water and tissues.<br />
Divergence in genome expression coincides with contaminating oil and is consistent<br />
with genome <strong>responses</strong> that are predictive of exposure <strong>to</strong> hydrocarbon-like chemicals<br />
and indicative of physiological and reproductive impairment. These data suggest that<br />
heavily weathered crude oil from the spill imparts significant biological impacts in<br />
sensitive Louisiana marshes.” (Whitehead et al., 2011)<br />
.<br />
“Coastal salt marsh habitats are dynamic and stressful, where changes in environmental<br />
parameters, such as temperature, hypoxia, and salinity, can continuously challenge<br />
resident wildlife. Although the physiological consequences of oil exposures are typically<br />
studied in isolation, it is reasonable <strong>to</strong> predict that exposure <strong>to</strong> oil may compromise the<br />
ability of resident organisms <strong>to</strong> adjust physiologically <strong>to</strong> natural stressors.” (Whitehead<br />
et al., 2011)<br />
“Our data reveal biologically relevant sublethal exposures causing alterations in<br />
genome expression and tissue morphology suggestive of physiological impairment<br />
persisting for over 2 mo after initial exposures. Sublethal effects were predictive of<br />
deleterious population-level impacts that persisted over long periods of time in aquatic<br />
species following the Exxon Valdez spill and must be a focus of long-term research in<br />
the Gulf of Mexico, especially because high concentrations of hydrocarbons in<br />
sediments may provide a persistent source of exposures <strong>to</strong> organisms resident in<br />
Louisiana marshes.” (Whitehead et al., 2011)<br />
27
4- “Cleanup”<br />
“[…] analysis and testing of five of the post-landfall <strong>to</strong>xic samples utilizing Toxicity<br />
Identification Evaluation techniques indicated that ammonia, and <strong>to</strong> a lesser extent<br />
metals, contributed <strong>to</strong> most, if not all, of the observed <strong>to</strong>xicity in four of the five samples.<br />
Results of one sample […] indicated evidence that ammonia, metals, and non-ionic<br />
organics were contributing <strong>to</strong> the observed <strong>to</strong>xicity.” (Biedenbach 2011)<br />
“Technical Group initially put the volume at 12,000 –19,000 barrels per day. Based on<br />
additional<br />
video evidence, however, this group revised its estimate on June 10 <strong>to</strong> 25,000 – 30,000<br />
barrels (1.1– 1.3 million gallons) per day with a lower limit set at 20,000 barrels per day. .<br />
At this rate, the Gulf spill would be releasing the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spill<br />
every 8 –10 days. This quasi-official figure has been revised upward again <strong>to</strong> 35,000 –<br />
60,000 barrels (1.5 – 2.5 million gallons) per day. On June 20, an internal BP document,<br />
which was released by Congress, stated that the flow rate could be as high as 100,000<br />
barrels (4.2 million gallons) per day.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notes that a crude oil<br />
slick “weathers” as volatile compounds evaporate and the remaining oil mixes with<br />
seawater <strong>to</strong> form a sticky emulsion that can look like chocolate pudding. As waves tear<br />
the slick in<strong>to</strong> smaller patches The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<br />
(NOAA) notes that a crude oil<br />
slick “weathers” as volatile compounds evaporate and the remaining oil mixes with<br />
seawater <strong>to</strong> form a sticky emulsion that can look like chocolate pudding. As waves tear<br />
the slick in<strong>to</strong> smaller patches they often form coin-sized tar balls that can become crusty<br />
on the outside, but remain soft and sticky inside. The federal chemical hazard<br />
assessment team for oil spills notes that the type of oil leaking from the Deepwater<br />
Horizon well is a heavier blend than most of the oil drilled off Louisiana. The oil is rich in<br />
asphalt-like substances and emulsifies easily in<strong>to</strong> a sticky form that no longer<br />
evaporates as quickly as regular oil, does not rinse off easily, cannot be eaten by<br />
microbes easily, and does not burn as well as regular oil. This type of oil renders many<br />
of the best response strategies less effective.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“Material Safety Data Sheet for Low Sulfur Diesel<br />
BP Oil Company<br />
Date of issue 06/25/2004.<br />
MSDS# 0000001799 (NAP)<br />
Emergency overview: WARNING!<br />
28
COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID AND VAPOR.<br />
VAPOR MAY CAUSE FIRE.<br />
ASPIRATION HAZARD.<br />
Harmful or fatal if liquid is aspirated in<strong>to</strong> lungs.<br />
MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION.<br />
Do not ingest. If ingested do not induce vomiting. Avoid contact with skin and clothing.<br />
Keep away from heat, sparks and flame. Keep container closed. Use only with<br />
adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Prolonged or repeated contact<br />
can defat the skin and lead <strong>to</strong> irritation and/or dermatitis.<br />
Ecological information Eco<strong>to</strong>xicity: No testing has been performed by the manufacturer.<br />
Environmental precautions and clean-up methods: For large spills dike spilled material<br />
or otherwise contain material <strong>to</strong> ensure runoff does not reach a waterway. Place spilled<br />
material in an appropriate container for disposal. Minimize contact of spilled material<br />
with soils <strong>to</strong> prevent runoff <strong>to</strong> surface waterways.”<br />
(BP Oil Company, 2004)<br />
“One major effect of oil is narcosis, a reversible anesthetic effect caused by the oil<br />
partitioning in<strong>to</strong> cell membrane and nervous tissue, causing central nervous system<br />
dysfunction.” (Chen et al., 2011)<br />
“As a result, oil that coated beaches on the Mexican and Texas coasts wiped out local<br />
coastal fauna such as crabs and mollusks. Unusually large plank<strong>to</strong>n blooms were<br />
observed in oil-contaminated areas, which indicated possible eutrophication or a<br />
decrease in zooplank<strong>to</strong>n (their primary preda<strong>to</strong>r) caused by oil <strong>to</strong>xicity.” (Chen et al.,<br />
2011)<br />
“By early June, scientists working in the Gulf had detected two extensive plumes deep<br />
under the surface of the Gulf, ‘most likely a haze of oil droplets, natural gas and the<br />
dispersant chemical Corexit, 210,000 gallons of which had been mixed in<strong>to</strong> the jet of oil<br />
streaming from the sea floor. This oily haze could prove <strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> coral reefs.’ One of the<br />
plumes was 200 cubic miles in size—one-half the size of Lake Erie—and extended for<br />
about 22 miles from the Deepwater Horizon site. These plumes are highly unusual<br />
compared <strong>to</strong> surface oil spills, and a great deal of uncertainty remains regarding how<br />
they are currently behaving or will behave in the future. Nevertheless, the plumes<br />
already threaten deepwater coral reefs lying outside the Flower Garden Banks National<br />
Marine Sanctuary, some of which are just 20 miles northeast of the Deepwater Horizon<br />
site.” (Craig, 2010)<br />
“A full accounting of the oil released will be required in order <strong>to</strong> fully understand the<br />
environmental and ecological impacts of this disaster. One method for determining this<br />
29
volume is <strong>to</strong> measure the flow at the discharge sites and integrate these measurements<br />
over time. We used optical plume velocimetry (OPV) <strong>to</strong> estimate the mean velocity of<br />
fluids issuing from the well with videos from before and after the removal of the<br />
collapsed riser pipe from the blowout preventer.” (Crone et al., 2010)<br />
“In the study of fluid dynamics, spatial crosscorrelation methods (e.g., particle image<br />
velocimetry) are often used <strong>to</strong> calculate the image velocity field. However, such methods<br />
can yield velocities that are significantly lower than expected with this kind of flow. OPV<br />
was developed for measuring flow rates in seafloor hydrothermal systems and uses<br />
temporal instead of spatial cross-correlation.” (Crone et al., 2010)<br />
“Assuming the fraction of liquid oil in this fluid was 0.4 (6), we estimated the average<br />
flow rate after riser removal <strong>to</strong> be 9.3 × 103 and 5.8 × 104 barrels/day (1.7 × 10−2 and 1.1 ×<br />
10−1 m3/s) for the lighter and darker flows, respectively, or 6.8 × 104 barrels/day (1.2 ×<br />
10−1 m3/s) <strong>to</strong>tal. Our analysis frombefore riser removal yielded a flow rate of 5.6 × 104<br />
barrels/day (1.0 × 10−1 m3/s). Because leaks at the kink above the blowout preventer<br />
were not included, this <strong>to</strong>tal is likely an underestimate. Thus, we cannot say with<br />
certainty that flow rates increased after riser removal.” (Crone et al., 2010)<br />
“Assuming a constant flow rate and subtracting the 804,877 barrels of oil (127,965 m3)<br />
collected at the seafloor (7), we estimated that the <strong>to</strong>tal oil released from the Deepwater<br />
Horizon leak was 4.4 × 106 T 20% barrels (7.0 × 105 m3). This estimate may be refined if<br />
additional video allows the temporal variability <strong>to</strong> be assessed or the flow from the<br />
secondary leaks <strong>to</strong> be added. Despite the uncertainties, it is clear that this oil release<br />
exceeds the Exxon Valdez spill by about an order of magnitude, with flow rates at least<br />
one order of magnitude higher than initially reported.” (Crone et al., 2010)<br />
“BP has aerially sprayed or otherwise released over two million gallons of COREXIT as<br />
the primary dispersant in the spill’s cleanup. BP and contrac<strong>to</strong>rs have reassured<br />
cleanup crews that COREXIT is as safe as Dawn dishwasher soap. However, the<br />
manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) included in the manual indicate that<br />
the dispersants utilized contain hazardous ingredients such as 2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol,<br />
petroleum distillates, and sulfonic acids. The specific petroleum distillates and sulfonic<br />
acids within COREXIT EC9257A and EC9500A have never been disclosed <strong>to</strong> the public.”<br />
(GAP & LEAN, 2012)<br />
“despite reassurances of the dispersant’s harmless nature, the manual lists the<br />
following symp<strong>to</strong>ms of exposure for COREXIT EC9527A and/or COREXIT EC9500A:<br />
Injury <strong>to</strong> red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver; Irritate the upper respira<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
tract; Central nervous system effects; Nausea; Vomiting; Anesthetic or narcotic effects;<br />
Defat and dry the skin, leading <strong>to</strong> discomfort and dermatitis; Chemical pneumonia if<br />
aspirated in<strong>to</strong> lungs following ingestion. The MSDSs for COREXIT indicate that no<br />
30
<strong>to</strong>xicity studies have been conducted on this product. Further, the potential human<br />
hazard is “High” for COREXIT EC9527A, and there is an “Immediate (Acute) Health<br />
Hazard” for COREXIT EC9500A.” (GAP & LEAN, 2012)<br />
“The oil spill dispersants, Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 have low <strong>to</strong> moderate <strong>to</strong>xicity <strong>to</strong><br />
most aquatic species in labora<strong>to</strong>ry tests. Toxicity estimates are significantly affected by<br />
test variables such as species, lifestage, exposure duration, and temperature. Aquatic<br />
<strong>to</strong>xicity data generated from spiked, declining exposures (107 min half-life) are more<br />
reflective of actual dispersant use conditions. Decisions <strong>to</strong> use oil spill response<br />
chemicals should not be based solely on aquatic <strong>to</strong>xicity. Fac<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> consider include<br />
product effectiveness, <strong>to</strong>xicity of dispersed oil, species/habitats requiring priority<br />
protection, and recovery potential of sensitive habitats and populations. An<br />
environmental risk assessment approach is recommended where dispersant <strong>to</strong>xicity<br />
data generated under environmentally relevant exposures are compared <strong>to</strong> estimated<br />
environmental concentrations of dispersants.” (George-Ares et al., 2000)<br />
“Acute aquatic <strong>to</strong>xicity is typically expressed by LC50 and EC50 endpoints. The LC50 is<br />
the concentration causing mortality in 50% of test organisms in a specified time period<br />
(typically 48 or 96 h). The EC50 is the concentration causing a specific effect (e.g.,<br />
decreased algal growth or inhibition of animal mobility) in 50% of the test organisms at a<br />
specified time period. Decreasing LC50 or EC50 values indicate increasing <strong>to</strong>xicity.<br />
Corexit 9527 has low (LC50 or EC50 > 100 ppm) <strong>to</strong> moderate (LC50 or EC50 P 1 <strong>to</strong> 100<br />
ppm) acute <strong>to</strong>xicity <strong>to</strong> most aquatic organisms in labora<strong>to</strong>ry tests. The review of the<br />
Corexit 9527 <strong>to</strong>xicity data covered 28 reports and 37 aquatic species. These data are<br />
summarized in Table 1. Toxicity (24±96 h LC50 or EC50) values ranged from 1.6 <strong>to</strong> >1000<br />
ppm. Lifestages investigated were zoospores, embryos, larvae, postlarvae, juveniles,<br />
and adults.” (George-Ares et al., 2000)<br />
‘Labora<strong>to</strong>ry test methods are not harmonized among regula<strong>to</strong>ry agencies of different<br />
countries. Some countries compare aquatic <strong>to</strong>xicities of dispersant <strong>to</strong> that of oil and<br />
dispersed oil (National Research Council, 1989). Other countries only evaluate<br />
dispersant <strong>to</strong>xicity, because their regula<strong>to</strong>rs wish <strong>to</strong> compare <strong>to</strong>xicity among<br />
commercially available dispersants. The acute <strong>to</strong>xicities of currently marketed<br />
dispersants are typically lower than those of crude and refined oils (National Research<br />
Council, 1989; Lewis and Aurand, 1997). In the field, the key concern is not the potential<br />
for adverse effects of the dispersant, but effects of dispersed oil. These concerns must<br />
be evaluated in light of a variety of considerations (Lewis and Aurand, 1997).” (George-<br />
Ares et al., 2000)<br />
“Much public attention has been focused on the fate and <strong>to</strong>xicity of the unprecedented<br />
release of over a million gallons of dispersant. Dispersants are surfactants that help <strong>to</strong><br />
disperse the oil by lessening the tension of the oil–water interface. Information provided<br />
31
on the manufacturer’s material safety data sheet for Corexit 9500, the major dispersant<br />
used in the Gulf spill, states that the surfactant consists of 10 <strong>to</strong> 30% light-weight<br />
petroleum distillate, 1 <strong>to</strong> 5% propylene glycol, and 10 <strong>to</strong> 30% proprietary organic sulfonic<br />
acid salt. Some aquatic safety information about Corexit 9500 had been obtained<br />
previously by the manufacturer. After the spill, additional studies were rapidly performed<br />
by the EPA, which publicly identified the proprietary salt as dioctyl sodium<br />
sulfosuccinate, a commonly used s<strong>to</strong>ol softener. Secrecy about this generic drug<br />
appeared <strong>to</strong> contribute <strong>to</strong> public concern, despite the fact that the exposure of humans<br />
through use of the dispersant was trivial as compared with the usual prescribed doses.”<br />
(Goldstein et al., 2011)<br />
“The Deepwater Horizon blowout produced the largest accidental marine oil spill in U.S.<br />
his<strong>to</strong>ry,2 an acute human and environmental tragedy. Worse still, […] it occurred in the<br />
midst of environmental disasters related <strong>to</strong> land-based pollution and massive<br />
destruction of coastal wetlands—chronic crises that proceed insidiously and will require<br />
not months but decades of national effort <strong>to</strong> address and repair.” (Graham et al./U.S.<br />
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“The highly visible damage <strong>to</strong> wildlife aside, public and scientific concern about the<br />
Deepwater Horizon spill—at unprecedented water depths— has for some time focused<br />
on the impacts of an invisible subsurface “plume,” or more accurately “clouds” of<br />
minute oil droplets moving slowly over the seabed. As of November 2010, three<br />
independent, peerreviewed studies confirmed the presence of a deepwater plume of<br />
highly dispersed oil droplets and dissolved gases at between 3,200 and 4,200 feet deep<br />
and extending for many miles, primarily <strong>to</strong> the southwest of the wellhead. How will such<br />
substances affect the deepwater environment? One concern centered on decomposition<br />
and the resulting depletion of the oxygen supply on which aquatic species depend. […]<br />
The degradation rates are sufficient <strong>to</strong> reduce the dissolved oxygen concentrations in<br />
the plume, but not <strong>to</strong> harmfully low levels associated with dead zones, where aquatic<br />
species cannot survive. […] These findings do not rule out potential impacts of<br />
deepwater oil and dispersant concentrations on individual species. Chemical analyses<br />
of water samples taken from the established deepwater plume in May 2010 suggest that<br />
hydrocarbon concentrations were high enough at the time <strong>to</strong> cause acute <strong>to</strong>xicity <strong>to</strong><br />
exposed organisms, although concentrations declined over several miles from the well<br />
as the plume mixed with the surrounding water.” (Graham et al./ U.S. Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service, 2011)<br />
“Even before they were certain that oil was spilling in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf, responders had readied<br />
planes full of dispersants <strong>to</strong> use in a potential response. Dispersants include surfactants<br />
that break down oil in<strong>to</strong> smaller droplets, which are more likely <strong>to</strong> dissolve in<strong>to</strong> the water<br />
column.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
32
“Faced with what one Coast Guard captain called a ‘tradeoff of bad choices’ between<br />
spraying chemicals on the water or watching more oil reach the shore, responders<br />
would wield dispersants in the battle against oil for the next 12 weeks, using novel<br />
methods and unprecedented volumes.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,<br />
2011)<br />
“Using dispersants has several potential benefits. First, less oil will reach shorelines<br />
and fragile environments such as marshes. Second, animals and birds that float on or<br />
wade through the water surface may encounter less oil. Third, dispersants may<br />
accelerate the rate at which oil biodegrades. Finally, responders <strong>to</strong> an oil spill can use<br />
dispersants when bad weather prevents skimming or burning. But dispersants also pose<br />
potential threats. Less oil on the surface means more in the water column, spread over a<br />
wider area, potentially increasing exposure for marine life. Chemically dispersed oil can<br />
be <strong>to</strong>xic in both the short and long term. Moreover, some studies have found that<br />
dispersants do not increase biodegradation rates— or may even inhibit biodegradation.”<br />
(Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Coordina<strong>to</strong>r, BP and its contrac<strong>to</strong>rs applied 14,654 gallons of the dispersant Corexit on<br />
the surface during the week of April 20 <strong>to</strong> 26. […] From April 27 <strong>to</strong> May 3, responders<br />
applied 141,358 gallons <strong>to</strong> the surface.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,<br />
2011)<br />
“Moreover, the required testing is limited <strong>to</strong> acute (short-term) <strong>to</strong>xicity studies on one<br />
fish species and one shrimp species; it does not consider issues such as persistence in<br />
the environment and long-term effects.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,<br />
2011)<br />
“Environmental groups pressured Nalco, the company that manufactures Corexit, <strong>to</strong><br />
disclose its formula. Although it had given the formula <strong>to</strong> EPA during the prelisting<br />
process, Nalco declined <strong>to</strong> make the formula public, citing intellectual property<br />
concerns. This decision did not reassure the citizens of the Gulf.” (Graham et al./U.S.<br />
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“EPA expressed frustration that BP sought regular exemptions, and it repeatedly asked<br />
for more robust explanations of why BP could not use mechanical recovery methods,<br />
such as skimming and burning, instead of dispersants. Coast Guard responders, who<br />
viewed dispersants as a powerful <strong>to</strong>ol <strong>to</strong> protect the coastline, wondered why EPA<br />
wanted <strong>to</strong> cast aside the advance planning that went in<strong>to</strong> the preauthorization of surface<br />
dispersant use.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“A year and a half in<strong>to</strong> the BP oil drilling disaster, res<strong>to</strong>ration seems <strong>to</strong> come <strong>to</strong>o slow.<br />
Even as we see oil uncovered by successive s<strong>to</strong>rms, the Coast Guard has declared the<br />
33
Gulf coast ‘clean,’ Congress has yet <strong>to</strong> act <strong>to</strong> direct BP's fines <strong>to</strong> the Gulf, and we rely on<br />
the laws written after Exxon-Valdez with Alaskans in mind <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re the Gulf of Mexico.”<br />
(Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2011b)<br />
“From British Petroleum <strong>to</strong> our federal, state and local government and on down, no one<br />
seems <strong>to</strong> have made a plan for how <strong>to</strong> quickly plug a deepwater well, how <strong>to</strong> efficiently<br />
capture the huge quantities of oil spewing in<strong>to</strong> our Gulf, or how <strong>to</strong> protect and prevent<br />
oil from reaching our coasts.” (Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2010a)<br />
“During the height of the drilling disaster, the state of Louisiana received an emergency<br />
permit <strong>to</strong> dredge up sand offshore and build 20-foot wide, 6-foot high sand barriers along<br />
our coast outside of the barrier islands. The stated purpose of these berms is <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>p the<br />
oil from getting in<strong>to</strong> the marshes, but little <strong>to</strong> no oil has washed up on them, several sea<br />
turtles have been killed in the dredging process, and multiple coastal scientists have<br />
spoken out against the project. Despite these concerns, the state is pushing <strong>to</strong> expand<br />
the projects, and the construction would stretch well in<strong>to</strong> next year!” (Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
Network, 2010b)<br />
“A project that we have successfully avoided (twice!) in the past two months is what BP<br />
calls ‘surf washing.’ This is where you push the “stained” oily sand back in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf <strong>to</strong><br />
let the waves clean it up. Despite BP’s attempts <strong>to</strong> get two emergency permits (one for<br />
Grand Terre and one for Grand Isle), both request were withdrawn due <strong>to</strong> concerns from<br />
GRN, our conservation partners, and federal agencies.” (Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network,<br />
2010b)<br />
“Back in August, the federal government released a very rosy report estimating that<br />
three quarters of the oil from BP’s drilling disaster was gone due the federal response,<br />
evaporation, natural degradation and other fac<strong>to</strong>rs. This report immediately unleashed a<br />
wave of criticism from independent scientists, and skeptical Gulf citizens who<br />
contended that there was still a lot of oil out there threatening Gulf communities and<br />
ecosystems. It’s hard not <strong>to</strong> be a little skeptical when two months since the well was<br />
capped, scientists continue <strong>to</strong> discover significant amounts of oil in the ecosystem, and<br />
oil and tar balls continue <strong>to</strong> wash-up on Gulf of Mexico shores.” (Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
Network, 2010b)<br />
“The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has led <strong>to</strong> the use of >1 M gallons of oil spill<br />
dispersants, which are mixtures of surfactants and solvents. Because of this large scale<br />
use there is a critical need <strong>to</strong> understand the potential for <strong>to</strong>xicity of the currently used<br />
dispersant and potential alternatives, especially given the limited <strong>to</strong>xicity testing<br />
information that is available. In particular, some dispersants contain nonylphenol<br />
ethoxylates (NPEs), which can degrade <strong>to</strong> nonylphenol (NP), a known endocrine<br />
disrup<strong>to</strong>r.” (Judson et al., 2010)<br />
34
“The massive oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico has<br />
led <strong>to</strong> the use of correspondingly large volumes of the oil spill dispersant Corexit 9500<br />
(Nalco Energy Services, L.P., Sugar Land, TX). In excess of 1.5 M gallons of dispersant<br />
have been released in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf as of June 26, 2010. Oil spill dispersants are complex<br />
mixtures of two basic components. The first is comprised of one or more surfactants<br />
that can emulsify oil. The second is a hydrocarbon-based solvent mixture that helps<br />
break up large clumps of high molecular weight, more viscous oil. There is limited<br />
information on the potential of dispersants <strong>to</strong> cause acute or long term <strong>to</strong>xicity in<br />
aquatic species or humans.” (Judson et al., 2010)<br />
“This means that the Deepwater Horizon spill rivals the second-largest known<br />
environmental oil release in global his<strong>to</strong>ry (Camphese Explora<strong>to</strong>ry Blowout, 1979), and<br />
may perhaps be even larger than current estimates indicate.” (Kelley, 2010)<br />
“NALCO MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET for COREXIT® EC9527 A<br />
Prepared By : Nalco Energy Services, L.P., Product Safety Department<br />
Date issued : 05/11/2010<br />
Version Number : 2.0”<br />
**EMERGENCY OVERVIEW** WARNING: Eye and skin irritant. Repeated or excessive<br />
exposure <strong>to</strong> bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol may cause injury <strong>to</strong> red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or<br />
the liver. Combustible. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally.<br />
Use with adequate ventilation. Wear suitable protective clothing . Keep container tightly<br />
closed. Flush affected area with water. Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of<br />
ignition - No smoking. May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions.<br />
SKIN CONTACT:<br />
Can cause mild <strong>to</strong> moderate irritation.<br />
INGESTION:<br />
Not a likely route of exposure. Large quantities may cause kidney and liver damage.<br />
INHALATION :<br />
Not a likely route of exposure. Aerosols or product mist may irritate the upper<br />
respira<strong>to</strong>ry tract.<br />
SYMPTOMSOFEXPOSURE:<br />
Acute: Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea,<br />
vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects.<br />
Chronic : Repeated or excessive exposure <strong>to</strong> bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol may cause injury <strong>to</strong> red<br />
blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver.<br />
35
AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS:<br />
Skin contact may aggravate an existing dermatitis condition.<br />
HUMAN HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION:<br />
Based on our hazard characterization, the potential human hazard is: High<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS: Do not contaminate surface water.”<br />
ECOTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS :<br />
No <strong>to</strong>xicity studies have been conducted on this product.”<br />
(NALCO, 2010a)<br />
“NALCO MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET for COREXIT® EC9500 A<br />
Prepared By : Nalco Energy Services, L.P., Product Safety Department<br />
Date issued : 05/11/2010<br />
Version Number : 2.0<br />
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS : Exposure guidelines have not been established<br />
for this product.<br />
TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: No <strong>to</strong>xicity studies have been conducted on this<br />
product.<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD AND EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION: Based on our hazard<br />
characterization, the potential environmental hazard is: Moderate”<br />
(NALCO, 2010b)<br />
“Spills in enclosed spaces or within biologically complex or fragile ecosystems may<br />
increase exposure <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>xic hydrocarbons in oil compared <strong>to</strong> spills in areas where<br />
dispersion and weathering effects may reduce the amount of oil and lower <strong>to</strong>xicity<br />
levels. There is no doubt, however, that the massive volume of oil released by the BP<br />
Deepwater Horizon well increased the potential for large-scale impacts.” (Rabalais, 2011)<br />
“[…] the dispersant is a <strong>to</strong>xic pollutant that has been applied in the volume of millions of<br />
gallons and I think has greatly exacerbated the situation. I think the whole idea of using a<br />
dispersant is wrong, and I think it’s part of the whole pattern of BP trying <strong>to</strong> cover up and<br />
hide the body. They don’t want us <strong>to</strong> see how much oil, so they’ve taken this oil that was<br />
concentrated at the surface and dissolved it. But when you dissolve it, it’s still there, and<br />
it actually gets more <strong>to</strong>xic, because instead of being in big blobs, it’s now dissolved and<br />
can get across the gills, get in<strong>to</strong> the mouths of animals. The water below the floating oil<br />
was water. Now it’s this <strong>to</strong>xic soup. So I think that in this whole pattern of BP trying <strong>to</strong><br />
36
not let people know what’s going on, the idea of disperse the oil is a way of just hiding<br />
the body. But it actually makes the oil more <strong>to</strong>xic, and it adds this incredible amount of<br />
<strong>to</strong>xic pollutant in the dispersant itself.” (Safina, 2010a)<br />
“Dispersant, which is <strong>to</strong>xic by itself, also makes the petroleum more <strong>to</strong>xic. Instead of<br />
remaining concentrated at the surface, dispersed oil pollutes the entire water column.<br />
Instead of evaporating, the <strong>to</strong>xic components remain in the water. And because it's<br />
dissolved, it passes more easily across gills and in<strong>to</strong> digestive systems. Plank<strong>to</strong>nic<br />
animals become disoriented or die.” (Safina, 2010b)<br />
“I was very critical of dispersants as a response, partly because they exemplified the<br />
lack of real preparation, their chemical components were being kept secret, and they<br />
served BP's interests in hampering understanding of the amount of oil leaking. Legal<br />
liability is based on how much oil enters the environment. This gives an oil company<br />
strong incentive <strong>to</strong> minimize or hide the amount of oil. Critics used the analogy of<br />
putting the perpetra<strong>to</strong>r in charge of securing and cleaning up a crime scene.” (Safina,<br />
2011a)<br />
“Oil spill impacts can occur by 1) physical contact (oiling), 2) <strong>to</strong>xicity, and 3) loss of food<br />
web niches. Some of the effects of this spill are visible – 1866 dead oiled birds, 463 sea<br />
turtles, 59 dolphins, one sperm whale (DH Response Report July 14). Many scientists<br />
suspect that the worst of the impacts on the Gulf are yet <strong>to</strong> come and will not be<br />
apparent without deliberate tracking and scientific assessment.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on April<br />
20, 2010, BP has applied almost two million gallons of dispersants, both on the surface<br />
and beneath Gulf waters. Government officials acknowledge that the quantity and<br />
manner in which dispersants have been applied in the Gulf are unprecedented. The<br />
application of dispersant at the source of the discharge, 5,000 feet under the surface of<br />
the water, is also unprecedented. At a Senate hearing on June 15, 2010, EPA<br />
Administra<strong>to</strong>r, Lisa Jackson stated, “In the use of dispersants we are faced with<br />
environmental tradeoffs.” In fact, the use of dispersants does not represent a sciencebased,<br />
quantifiable “tradeoff” but rather amounts <strong>to</strong> a large-scale experiment on the Gulf<br />
of Mexico ecosystem that runs contrary <strong>to</strong> a precautionary approach, an experiment<br />
where the costs may ultimately outweigh the benefits.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“Moreover, this ‘trade-off’ has been confounded by the lack of a vigorous,<br />
technologically adequate effort <strong>to</strong> collect crude oil from the surface. Berms and booms<br />
quickly proved <strong>to</strong> be ineffective in this deepwater system. As a result, crude oil has<br />
penetrated 30 miles in<strong>to</strong> the coastal wetlands of Louisiana and has reached the shores<br />
of other Gulf states.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
37
“We believe that Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave health<br />
risks <strong>to</strong> marine life and human health, and threaten <strong>to</strong> deplete critical niches in the Gulf<br />
food web that may never recover.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“The rig’s Macando well spewed as much as 700 million litres before a temporary plug<br />
finally worked in mid-July.” (Woodward, 2010)<br />
“The oil is not gone, and long-term impacts are still unknown… three-fourths of the oil is<br />
still lingering on the bot<strong>to</strong>m of the Gulf of Mexico, creating an unprecedented and<br />
unknown new environmental reality for the Gulf Coast. Oil is also still along the coastal<br />
areas in the form of tar balls, strings, and mats as well as in subsurface sandy beach<br />
areas.” (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
“After the Macondo well was capped, many along the Gulf Coast asked the question,<br />
“Where did the oil go?” In the report Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget<br />
released in August 4, 2010, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<br />
(NOAA) estimated that a large part of the oil discharged in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf of Mexico by the<br />
Deepwater Horizon spill was gone. However, just weeks later, a NOAA official conceded<br />
that three-fourths of the oil discharged in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf were still lingering in the<br />
environment, either as hydrocarbons in dispersed form or possibly evaporated in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
atmosphere.” (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
“Those of us on the Gulf Coast who are moni<strong>to</strong>ring the ongoing oil impacts know that<br />
the oil is not gone. Yet BP is spending large amounts of money <strong>to</strong> convince the rest of<br />
the nation that the oil is gone. Throughout most of 2010 and 2011, it has been evident<br />
that BP is running a public relations campaign, more than a recovery effort. During the<br />
height of the disaster, BP officials prevented journalists and residents from taking<br />
pho<strong>to</strong>s and videos of oil washing ashore and prohibited cleanup workers from wearing<br />
important protective gear. Meanwhile, between April 2010 and July 2010 BP more than<br />
tripled the amount spent on public relations in the same period the previous year. There<br />
is little question that the objective of this deluge of money was <strong>to</strong> combat growing public<br />
image problems.” (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
"For instance, Dr. Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia researcher collecting data in<br />
the area in September 2010 and again in February 2011, confirmed lingering plumes of<br />
oil and methane, and also found patches of oil up <strong>to</strong> 2 inches thick on the Gulf floor that<br />
stretched as far as 70 miles away from the wellhead. Other researchers, such as Dr.<br />
Terry Hazen at Berkeley Lab, maintain that due <strong>to</strong> a significant bloom of a previously<br />
unknown species of microbe in the area of the plume, a large portion of this oil had been<br />
consumed by midsummer of 2010." (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
38
"The nearshore, ‘visible’ oil has largely been identified and remediated where this was<br />
determined <strong>to</strong> be possible in the judgment of Unified Command. Residuals of oil remain,<br />
especially in environmentally sensitive areas where cleanup is considered high risk in<br />
terms of benefits versus impact. Far less is known about the ‘invisible’ oil. There are<br />
almost no baseline data about life in the mid-depth and deep-water zones, where the<br />
bulk of the Gulf’s food web resides, and where many commercially important species<br />
spawn. This makes it difficult <strong>to</strong> draw conclusions with relatively limited sampling in a<br />
body of water as vast as the Gulf.19 Reports have been conflicting. " (Waterkeeper<br />
Alliance, 2011)<br />
39
5- “Economy”<br />
“Despite the closure of economically important fisheries and the potential public health<br />
risks <strong>to</strong> coastal communities, many people in the Gulf States remain strongly committed<br />
<strong>to</strong> deepwater oil exploration. This irony demonstrates how important fossil fuels are <strong>to</strong><br />
regional economies and how entrenched they are in American lifestyles.” (Bowman,<br />
2010)<br />
“With regard <strong>to</strong> NEPA specifically, some MMS managers reportedly ‘changed or<br />
minimized the [MMS] scientists’ potential environmental impact findings in [NEPA]<br />
documents <strong>to</strong> expedite plan approvals.’ According <strong>to</strong> several MMS environmental<br />
scientists, ‘their managers believed the result of NEPA evaluations should always be a<br />
‘green light’ <strong>to</strong> proceed.’ In some cases, there may also have been built-in employee<br />
financial incentives that ‘dis<strong>to</strong>rt[ed] balanced decision-making’ <strong>to</strong> the extent that<br />
‘[e]mployee performance plans and monetary awards [were] . . . based on meeting<br />
deadlines for leasing or development approvals.’” (Graham et al./ U.S. Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service, 2011)<br />
“That BP agreed <strong>to</strong> place in escrow a $20 billion fund <strong>to</strong> help address financial losses, at<br />
President Obama’s urging, indicates the magnitude of the economic impact from the<br />
loss of control of this one deepwater well. […] Coastal <strong>to</strong>urism and commercial fisheries<br />
generate more than $40 billion of economic activity annually in the five Gulf States.”<br />
(Graham et al./ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“The Gulf of Mexico produces nearly three-quarters of all U.S. shrimp, valued at $366.6<br />
million in 2008, or more than half the value of all Gulf of Mexico fisheries. It produces<br />
more than two-thirds of all U.S. oysters, valued at more than $60 million. It produces<br />
about 30% of all crabs, valued at nearly $40 million. Forty-two species of finfish (like red<br />
snapper), as well as sharks, draw out 3.2 million anglers every year. This entire industry<br />
is threatened, as the oil affects some species in spawning, some in juvenile stages ...<br />
and some on the plate, as consumers shy away from Gulf species they fear could be<br />
tainted.” (Shapley, 2010 )<br />
“The present value of <strong>to</strong>tal revenues that would be lost in the commercial fishing sec<strong>to</strong>r<br />
over the next 7 years, due <strong>to</strong> the DH well blowout, is estimated <strong>to</strong> be in the range of<br />
US$0.5–2.7 billion..” (Sumaila et al., 2012)<br />
“The present value of losses in the recreational fishing sec<strong>to</strong>r are estimated <strong>to</strong> be<br />
US$1.4–2.4 billion in <strong>to</strong>tal revenues” (Sumaila et al., 2012)<br />
“Overall, the present value of (midpoint) losses in <strong>to</strong>tal revenues, <strong>to</strong>tal profits, wages,<br />
and economic impact from the three sec<strong>to</strong>rs considered here are about US$3.7 (Florida),<br />
40
US$1.9 (Alabama), US$1.2 (Mississippi), and US$8.7 (Louisiana) billion over the next 7<br />
years, respectively. The likely largest losses can be expected from the commercial<br />
fisheries, while the recreational fishing sec<strong>to</strong>r may account for slightly more than a third<br />
of such losses. Furthermore, the region may lose over 22 000 jobs in fisheries-related<br />
sec<strong>to</strong>rs.” (Sumaila et al., 2012)<br />
“Many local fishermen have tried <strong>to</strong> recoup their losses by lining up <strong>to</strong> sign contracts<br />
with BP, who needs people with boats and knowledge of the area <strong>to</strong> help in the clean-up<br />
effort […]” (Martin, 2010)<br />
“[…] even though the current rate of Louisiana <strong>to</strong>urism seems relatively unaffected by<br />
the spill, there does exist a perception among meeting and travel planners that this area<br />
of the globe should be avoided for a few years <strong>to</strong> come. In response <strong>to</strong> this perception<br />
Louisiana, along with the other affected states, have begun aggressive <strong>to</strong>urism<br />
marketing campaigns funded by BP aimed at alleviating global <strong>to</strong>urist anxiety”<br />
(Robinson, 2010)<br />
“The one sec<strong>to</strong>r of Mississippi <strong>to</strong>urism that affected during this crisis has been the<br />
charter boat fishing industry. This area of commerce has seen a drop in revenue of “over<br />
90%” when compared <strong>to</strong> the 2009 statistics […]. This type of highly-stressed business<br />
environment, where sales literally disappear overnight, is an unsustainable situation for<br />
any business. Without significant financial support, by the government and BP, many of<br />
these boat owners may be forced <strong>to</strong> scull their ships and seek other areas of<br />
employment.” (Robinson, 2010)<br />
“Hanks (2010) stated that a current report released by ‘Moody’s…recently warned of<br />
strains on tax revenue for local governments across the Gulf if property values take a<br />
dive because of oil contamination.’” (Robinson, 2010)<br />
41
6- “Seafood Safety”<br />
“NOAA notes, for example, that as white shrimp reach adulthood they begin migrating<br />
out<br />
of inshore waters in the early spring, while young brown shrimp migrate during the<br />
summer and fall, when the oil slick might reach them. Blue crab, which are the region’s<br />
most economically valuable crab species, reach peak spawning season in August and<br />
September, and their eggs and larvae settle in estuaries, where they reach harvestable<br />
size in the spring. Oiling of the estuaries could be lethal <strong>to</strong> these species. And juvenile<br />
fish that rely on floating sargassum mats would be affected if the mats encounter the oil<br />
slick.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“The coating of marine rocks with oil interferes with arsenic absorption and may<br />
increase<br />
arsenic levels in seafood.” (Goldstein et al., 2011)<br />
“By late September, when nearly 32,000 square miles of the Gulf were still closed <strong>to</strong><br />
fishing, government officials made strong statements about the safety of seafood caught<br />
in reopened areas. ‘The shrimp, fish, and crabs are perfectly safe <strong>to</strong> eat,’ claimed Bob<br />
Dickey, Direc<strong>to</strong>r of Seafood Science and Technology at the FDA. Bill Walker, Executive<br />
Direc<strong>to</strong>r of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, pronounced that ‘based on<br />
credible scientific data collected using federally-approved sampling and analytical<br />
techniques, Mississippi seafood has been safe and healthy <strong>to</strong> eat throughout the<br />
entirety of this event.’ NOAA Administra<strong>to</strong>r Jane Lubchenco stated, ‘I have confidence in<br />
our pro<strong>to</strong>cols and have enjoyed Gulf seafood each trip I’ve made <strong>to</strong> the region.’”<br />
(Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Most commercial Gulf seafood species seem <strong>to</strong> have emerged from the oil spill without<br />
any clear evidence of taint or contamination. The real impact here is the reputational<br />
damage <strong>to</strong> Gulf seafood as a safe brand. Continued government testing, improvements<br />
in public outreach, and a coordinated marketing campaign may be needed <strong>to</strong> expedite<br />
its recovery. After several requests over several months, BP relented in early November<br />
and agreed <strong>to</strong> give Louisiana $48 million and Florida $20 million for seafood testing and<br />
marketing. As of early December, BP is considering a similar request from Alabama.”<br />
(Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“States on the Gulf Coast have closed many fishing areas because of the oil spill.”<br />
(Shapley, 2010)<br />
“Crude Oil & Corexit Combined Are More Toxic Than Either Alone. The combination of<br />
Corexit and crude oil can be more <strong>to</strong>xic than either alone, since they contain many<br />
ingredients that target the same organs in the body. In addition, Corexit dispersants<br />
42
facilitate the entry of oil in<strong>to</strong> the body, in<strong>to</strong> cells, which can result in damage <strong>to</strong> every<br />
organ system (Burns and Harbut, 2010).“(Shaw, 2010)<br />
“Exposure <strong>to</strong> chemicals in crude oil and dispersants can occur through skin contact,<br />
inhalation of contaminated air or soil/sand, and ingestion of contaminated water or food.<br />
These can occur simultaneously.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“Chemicals in crude oil and dispersants can cause a wide range of health effects in<br />
people and wildlife. Crude oil has many highly <strong>to</strong>xic chemical ingredients, including<br />
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), that can damage every system in the body.<br />
These include: respira<strong>to</strong>ry system, nervous system, including the brain, liver,<br />
reproductive/urogenital system, kidneys, endocrine system, circula<strong>to</strong>ry system,<br />
gastrointestinal system, immune system, sensory systems, musculoskeletal system,<br />
hema<strong>to</strong>poietic system (blood forming), skin and integumentary system, disruption of<br />
normal metabolism.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“Damage <strong>to</strong> these systems can cause a wide range of diseases and conditions. Some<br />
may be immediately evident, and others can appear months or years later. The<br />
chemicals can impair normal growth and development through a variety of mechanisms,<br />
including endocrine disruption and direct fetal damage. Some of the chemicals, such as<br />
the PAHs, cause mutations that may lead <strong>to</strong> cancer and multi-generational birth defects<br />
(Burns and Harbut, 2010). Of note, benzene, a human carcinogen, is a VOC that is<br />
released by crude oil (CDC, 1999). It is not known what additional VOCs (if any) are<br />
added <strong>to</strong> the crude oil mix by dispersants, due <strong>to</strong> a lack of disclosure about dispersant<br />
ingredients.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“The properties that facilitate the movement of dispersants through oil also make it<br />
easier for them <strong>to</strong> move through cell walls, skin barriers, and membranes that protect<br />
vital organs, underlying layers of skin, the surfaces of eyes, mouths, and other<br />
structures.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
Potential human health effects include burning skin, difficulty breathing, headaches,<br />
heart palpitations, dizziness, confusion, and nausea — which have already been<br />
reported by some workers — as well as chemical pneumonia and internal bleeding.<br />
noticed than more serious effects that don't have obvious signs and symp<strong>to</strong>ms - lung,<br />
liver and kidney damage, infertility, immune system suppression, disruption of hormone<br />
levels, blood disorders, mutations, and cancer. Coastal communities could also<br />
experience more extreme health consequences, including long- term neurological<br />
effects on children and developing fetuses, and hereditary mutations. As of June 21, the<br />
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals reported 143 cases of illness ‘believed <strong>to</strong><br />
be related <strong>to</strong> oil exposure’, including 108 response workers (mostly men) and 35 coastal<br />
residents (two-thirds women) (http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/). The most common<br />
43
symp<strong>to</strong>ms were headache, nausea, throat irritation, vomiting, cough and difficulty<br />
breathing.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers have collected and analyzed more than 100 samples of<br />
aquatic organism tissue, soil, and water from Gulf of Mexico coastal areas from<br />
Louisiana <strong>to</strong> Florida. We found petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in all of the areas<br />
that were sampled and in the tissue of many of the seafood species. The data that we<br />
collected also lead us <strong>to</strong> believe that Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH)<br />
contamination in some seafood species may be increasing over time.” (Waterkeeper<br />
Alliance, 2011)<br />
“The BP oil spill of 2010 resulted in contamination of one of the most productive<br />
fisheries in the United States by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs, which<br />
can accumulate in seafood, are known carcinogens and developmental <strong>to</strong>xicants. In<br />
response <strong>to</strong> the oil spill, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) developed risk<br />
criteria and established thresholds for allowable levels [levels of concern (LOCs)] of<br />
PAH contaminants in Gulf Coast seafood. […] The FDA LOCs significantly underestimate<br />
risk from seafood contaminants among sensitive Gulf Coast populations by failing <strong>to</strong> a)<br />
account for the increased vulnerability of the developing fetus and child; b) use<br />
appropriate seafood consumption rates; c) include all relevant health end points; and d)<br />
incorporate health-protective estimates of exposure duration and acceptable risk. For<br />
benzo[a]pyrene and naphthalene, revised LOCs are between two and four orders of<br />
magnitude below the level set by the FDA. Comparison of measured levels of PAHs in<br />
Gulf seafood with the revised LOCs revealed that up <strong>to</strong> 53% of Gulf shrimp samples were<br />
above LOCs for pregnant women who are high-end seafood consumers.” (Rotkin-Ellman<br />
et al., 2012)<br />
"The FDA Gulf seafood risk assessment […] contains numerous assumptions that are<br />
inconsistent with the FDA’s own prior practice and with risk assessment guidelines<br />
produced by other authoritative entities, including the National Research Council (NRC),<br />
the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),<br />
and the California EPA. Each of these assumptions would tend <strong>to</strong> result in an<br />
underestimate of risk for a significant fraction of the exposed population." (Rotkin-<br />
Ellman et al., 2012)<br />
"The FDA assumed that each consumer eats a daily average of 49, 12, or 13 g of fish,<br />
oysters, or shrimp/crab, respectively. The FDA derived this consumption rate from the<br />
90th percentile reported in the 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination<br />
Survey (NHANES) for nationwide seafood consumption […]. Populations living along the<br />
Gulf Coast have a rate of seafood consumption higher than the rest of the nation […].<br />
For example, surveys of New Orleans, Louisiana, residents and recreational anglers in<br />
Louisiana found high-end consumers reporting shrimp intakes of 65.1 and 55.5 g/day,<br />
44
espectively […], which is significantly higher than the FDA’s estimate of 13 g/day."<br />
(Rotkin-Ellman et al., 2012)<br />
"The FDA did not assess whether exposures in Gulf seafood could pose an increased<br />
risk of cancer from naphthalene. Because PAHs are a mixture of multiple compounds,<br />
small exposures <strong>to</strong> multiple PAHs can add up <strong>to</strong> significant cancer risks. By omitting<br />
naphthalene from its cancer risk assessment, the FDA ignored the potential cumulative<br />
effect of exposures <strong>to</strong> multiple carcinogens." (Rotkin-Ellman et al., 2012)<br />
"The risk assessment methods used by the FDA <strong>to</strong> set safe exposure levels for Gulf<br />
Coast seafood after the oil spill do not incorporate current best practices and do not<br />
protect vulnerable populations." (Rotkin-Ellman et al., 2012)<br />
"Health advisories targeted at high-end consumers would better protect vulnerable<br />
populations such as pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, and children.<br />
" (Rotkin-Ellman et al., 2012)<br />
"These results call in<strong>to</strong> question the efficacy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s<br />
seafood testing and their proclamation that Gulf seafood was and continues <strong>to</strong> be safe<br />
for regular consumption. Based on our test results, we consider the “all clear” for<br />
consumption of Gulf seafood <strong>to</strong> have been premature and based on flawed levels of<br />
concern. It is imperative that in-depth independent scientific analysis of Gulf seafood<br />
species and ecosystems be undertaken. Also, Gulf Coast commercial fishing families<br />
must not bear the burden of this disaster." (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
“Working with LEAN and Smith is a team of researchers and scientists across the Gulf<br />
Coast led by environmental scientists and <strong>to</strong>xicologists William Sawyer and Marco<br />
Kal<strong>to</strong>fen. The team has collected seafood samples for safety tests and sent blood work<br />
<strong>to</strong> Metametrix, a clinical labora<strong>to</strong>ry in Duluth, Ga. Results from one patient's volatile<br />
solvents blood screening show higher-than-average levels of ethylbenzene and xylene,<br />
two compounds present in oil. According <strong>to</strong> Metametrix, adverse effects that can follow<br />
exposure <strong>to</strong> the compounds include "brain fog," hearing loss, headache and fatigue;<br />
continued exposure <strong>to</strong> xylene can affect kidneys, lungs, heart and the nervous system.<br />
The patient's blood work also showed the presence of hexane, 2-Methylpentane and 3-<br />
Methylpentane and isooctane — compounds present in oil and gas.” (Woodward, 2011)<br />
45
7- “Clean Beaches”<br />
“The Deepwater Horizon incident is the latest in a series of significant oil spills that has<br />
plagued the Gulf of Mexico in the past three decades. In many of these cases, sensitive<br />
areas, such as marshes, have not been cleaned due <strong>to</strong> concerns that clean-up efforts<br />
would cause more damage than the spilled oil.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“The Gulf of Mexico shoreline hosts more than half of the coastal wetlands in the lower<br />
48 states, and Louisiana hosts 40 percent on its own. These wetlands and estuaries,<br />
which alreadyreceive upstream pollution from a watershed encompassing most of the<br />
central United States,provide erosion protection and vital habitats <strong>to</strong> many fish and<br />
shellfish species at some point during their lifecycles. But the wetlands have been<br />
disappearing at a very high rate for the past 50 years. More than one million acres of<br />
wetlands were lost in the last century, and 90 percent of those losses occurred in<br />
Louisiana. The impact of the oil spill on wetlands will depend on how much oil comes<br />
ashore and how long it stays. If oil rests on vegetated coastal shorelines and kills roots,<br />
for example, marsh soils will weaken and be susceptible <strong>to</strong> even faster erosion from<br />
waves and s<strong>to</strong>rms.” (Bowman, 2010)<br />
“The Gulf States supply one-third of the nation’s seafood harvest, and every habitat is<br />
important <strong>to</strong> such a highly productive region. All coastal habitats are potentially<br />
susceptible <strong>to</strong> oiling: from floating sargassum mats that provide nursery habitats <strong>to</strong><br />
deep and shallow coral nurseries <strong>to</strong> mangroves, sandy bot<strong>to</strong>m, muddy bot<strong>to</strong>m, marshes,<br />
submerged vegetation, bays, lagoons, and sandy beaches where turtles lay their eggs.”<br />
(Bowman, 2010) <br />
“The Loop Current provides an extraordinary mechanism for distributing oil throughout<br />
the Gulf of Mexico—<strong>to</strong> the eastern Gulf by the Loop Current, <strong>to</strong> the western Gulf by<br />
eddies that spin off from the Loop Current, and <strong>to</strong> the Atlantic Coast as the Loop Current<br />
feeds through the Florida Straits <strong>to</strong> the Gulf Stream” (Coleman et al., 2010)<br />
“The combined effects of oil alone and oil in concert with dispersants (NRC 2005) has<br />
the capacity <strong>to</strong> affect every life stage of the three fish species discussed here (Goliath<br />
Grouper, Red Grouper, Tilefish)—either directly by distribution throughout their habitat<br />
or indirectly through trophic interaction.” (Coleman et al., 2010)<br />
“To date, tar balls have been found in the Florida Keys, but none have been linked <strong>to</strong> the<br />
Deepwater Horizon disaster. Should BP-linked oil ever be found in either sanctuary,<br />
however, BP faces liability under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act—a fact of which<br />
federal government at<strong>to</strong>rneys are well aware.” (Craig, 2010)<br />
46
“The Gulf ecosystem, a unique American asset, is likely <strong>to</strong> continue silently washing<br />
away unless decisive action is taken <strong>to</strong> start the work of creating a sustainably healthy<br />
and productive landscape. No one should be deluded that res<strong>to</strong>ration on the scale<br />
required will occur quickly or cheaply.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,<br />
2011)<br />
“Evidence suggests that the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill will be severe and<br />
long lasting. A study in Science examining the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill<br />
showed ecosystem damages that persisted for fourteen years.The widespread use of<br />
chemical dispersants and the large amount of oil apparently suspended below the ocean<br />
surface are raising important questions that will take some time <strong>to</strong> study and answer.”<br />
(Green et al., 2010)<br />
“It has been over 14th months since the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank in the<br />
Gulf, yet much oil remains in coastal areas. As the temperature heats up along the coast,<br />
once buried and submerged oil is resurfacing in impacted areas already declared “NFT”<br />
or “No Further Treatment” by BP and the Unified Command. In other areas, BP<br />
contrac<strong>to</strong>rs are using controversial techniques such as marsh raking <strong>to</strong> remove huge<br />
chunks or delicate marsh grass <strong>to</strong> get at the buried oil.” (Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network,<br />
2011a)<br />
“A significant portion of oil from the recent Deepwater Horizon (DH) oil spill in the Gulf of<br />
Mexico was transported <strong>to</strong> the shoreline, where it may have severe ecological and<br />
economic consequences.” (Kostka et al., 2011)<br />
“Twenty-four bacterial strains from 14 genera were isolated from oiled beach sands and<br />
confirmed as oil-degrading microorganisms. Isolated bacterial strains were primarily<br />
Gammaproteobacteria, including representatives of genera with known oil-degraders<br />
(Alcanivorax, Marinobacter, Pseudomonas, Acine<strong>to</strong>bacter). Sequence libraries<br />
generated from oiled sands revealed phylotypes that showed high sequence identity (up<br />
<strong>to</strong> 99%) <strong>to</strong> rRNA gene sequences from the oil-degrading bacterial isolates. The<br />
abundance of bacterial SSU rRNA gene sequences was approximately 10 times higher in<br />
oiled (0.44 – 10.2 x 107 copies g-1) vs. clean (.024 – 1.4 x 107 copies g-1) sand.” (Kostka<br />
et al., 2011)<br />
“Community analysis revealed a distinct response <strong>to</strong> oil contamination, and SSU rRNA<br />
gene abundance derived from the genus Alcanivorax showed the largest increase in<br />
relative abundance in contaminated samples. We conclude that oil contamination from<br />
the DH spill has a profound impact on the abundance and community composition of<br />
indigenous bacteria in Gulf beach sands, and our evidence points <strong>to</strong> members of the<br />
47
Gammaproteobacteria (Alcanivorax, Marinobacter) and Alphaproteobacteria<br />
(Rhodobacteraceae) as key players in oil degradation there.” (Kostka et al., 2011)<br />
“The blowout of the Deepwater Horizon (DH) drilling rig resulted in the world’s largest<br />
accidental release of oil in<strong>to</strong> the ocean in recorded his<strong>to</strong>ry. The equivalent volume of<br />
approximately 4.9 million barrels of light crude oil were discharged in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf of<br />
Mexico from April <strong>to</strong> July, 2010 […], and the <strong>to</strong>tal hydrocarbon discharge was 40 %<br />
higher if gaseous hydrocarbons are included. A large amount of the discharged oil was<br />
transported <strong>to</strong> the surface and reached the shoreline. Although cleanup efforts have<br />
remained aggressive, a substantial portion of the oil remains trapped in coastal<br />
ecosystems, especially in benthic areas.” (Kostka et al., 2011)<br />
“Marine sands act as efficient biocatalytic filters that play an important role in the<br />
biogeochemical cycles of carbon and nutrients in shallow Gulf waters. Marine sands in<br />
the Gulf are covered with biofilms of highly diverse microbial communities, and bacterial<br />
abundance in sands exceeds that of the overlying seawater by orders of magnitude.<br />
Enhanced porewater exchange in highly permeable marine sands stimulates microbial<br />
metabolism through the delivery of growth substrates and the removal of waste<br />
products.” (Kostka et al., 2011)<br />
“Similar <strong>to</strong> the microbially-mediated breakdown of natural organic matter,<br />
biodegradation mediated by indigenous microbial communities is the ultimate fate of the<br />
majority of oil hydrocarbon that enters the marine environment. Hydrocarbon-degrading<br />
microorganisms are ubiqui<strong>to</strong>us in the marine environment, and biodegradation was<br />
shown <strong>to</strong> be successful in naturally remediating oil contamination associated with<br />
several spills that impacted shorelines predominated by permeable marine sediments.<br />
(Kostka et al., 2011)<br />
“Contamination of beach ecosystems by oil has the potential <strong>to</strong> cause severe<br />
environmental and economic consequences in the Gulf region. The risk of accidental oil<br />
discharge <strong>to</strong> the marine environment will remain high for the foreseeable future as<br />
increased economic pressure <strong>to</strong> access new oil reserves in deep marine waters will<br />
require less tested technologies. Although technologies for oil drilling have advanced<br />
rapidly in recent decades, strategies <strong>to</strong> respond <strong>to</strong> oil spills and <strong>to</strong> assess environmental<br />
impacts of oil contamination have lagged behind.” (Kostka et al., 2011)<br />
“Chemical analysis revealed petroleum hydrocarbon (C8-C40) concentrations ranging<br />
from 3.1 <strong>to</strong> 4500 mg kg-1 in Pensacola Beach sands. All beach sand samples analyzed<br />
contained detectable oil hydrocarbon concentrations. At the lower range of<br />
contamination detected by chemical analysis (< 10 mg kg-1), oil was not observed<br />
visually […].” (Kostka et al., 2011)<br />
48
“In oiled sands that were analyzed for hydrocarbon content, bacterial rRNA gene<br />
abundance was approximately 10 times higher in oiled (0.44 – 14.2 x 107 copies g-1) vs.<br />
clean (0.024 – 1.57 x 107 copies g-1) sand. Alcanivorax spp. were not detected with qPCR<br />
methods in the clean sands used for MPN enumeration, but were detected in Pensacola<br />
Beach sands without visible oil contamination. Alcanivorax were more abundant in sand<br />
samples with visible oil contamination (0.27 – 2.77 107 copies g-1) than in sands without<br />
visible oil contamination (0.12 – 8.9 x 105 copies g-1). Differences in <strong>to</strong>tal bacterial and<br />
Alcanivorax gene abundances between oiled and non-oiled sands are both statistically<br />
significant, as assessed by a t-test on log280<br />
transformed data (P
“Dispersants applied by BP have resulted in widely disseminated undersea plumes of<br />
oil, confirmed by NOAA on June 8.<br />
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/government-confirms-undersea-oil-ingulf-<br />
of-mexico.html). Samples were collected by scientists from University of South<br />
Florida on the MV Weatherbird II and tested by NOAA's lab. Subsequently, the plumes<br />
have migrated outward from the discharge source and over time are likely <strong>to</strong> travel with<br />
prevailing currents <strong>to</strong> the Florida Keys, Cuba, Mexico, and the eastern seaboard of the<br />
US. The vast quantities of dispersed oil in these plumes can enter the marine food chain<br />
and bioaccumulate in animal tissue, potentially impacting marine ecosystems over many<br />
years and over a broad geographical area.” (Shaw, 2010)<br />
“BP’s Public Relations Machine: The great disappearing oil trick: now you see it now you<br />
don’t! Through a strategic and very expensive public relations campaign, BP has<br />
managed <strong>to</strong> magically convince much of the country in<strong>to</strong> believing the oil is gone. The<br />
reality is the oil is not gone, and the long-term impacts are still largely unknown. Leading<br />
scientific studies demonstrate that three-fourths of the oil still lingers on the bot<strong>to</strong>m of<br />
the Gulf of Mexico, creating an unprecedented and unknown new environmental reality<br />
for the Gulf Coast.” (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
50
8- “The Future of Fuel”<br />
“Beyond liability, however, the oil spill’s threat <strong>to</strong> the Flower Garden Banks and Florida<br />
Keys National Marine Sanctuaries highlights just how economically and ecologically<br />
valuable the Gulf of Mexico’s marine resources actually are, despite the development<br />
and commercial exploitation of the Gulf, and despite significant degradation in certain<br />
areas. Indeed, the very existence of those sanctuaries and the multiple other MPAs in<br />
the Gulf gives testament <strong>to</strong> both the truly destructive potential of oil spills in the Gulf<br />
and the inherent dangers of deepwater drilling in ecologically productive marine<br />
regions.” (Craig, 2010)<br />
“The costs from this one industrial accident are not yet fully counted, but it is already<br />
clear that the impacts on the region’s natural systems and people were enormous, and<br />
that economic losses <strong>to</strong>tal tens of billions of dollars.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Scientific understanding of environmental conditions in sensitive environments in deep<br />
Gulf waters, along the region’s coastal habitats, and in areas proposed for more drilling,<br />
such as the Arctic, is inadequate. The same is true of the human and natural impacts of<br />
oil spills.” (Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“More broadly, the disaster in the Gulf undermined public faith in the energy industry,<br />
government regula<strong>to</strong>rs, and even our own capability as a nation <strong>to</strong> respond <strong>to</strong> crises.”<br />
(Graham et al./U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011)<br />
“Any attempt <strong>to</strong> estimate the <strong>to</strong>tal amount of human-caused oil pollution in the Gulf of<br />
Mexico is hampered by three problems: 1) failure <strong>to</strong> report spills; 2) non-reporting of<br />
spill amounts; and 3) underreporting of spill amounts […] In addition <strong>to</strong> the lack of<br />
reporting, chronic underreporting of oil spills makes it impossible for the public and<br />
decision makers <strong>to</strong> understand the true scope of pollution caused by oil and gas<br />
exploration and production. NRC (National Response Center) reports lacking estimates<br />
of the amount of oil spilled are common. Between Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1, 2010 and September 30,<br />
2011 a <strong>to</strong>tal of 2903 oil or refined petroleum (e.g. diesel fuel) spills were reported in the<br />
Gulf region. Seventy-seven percent (2221) of those reports did not include an estimate of<br />
the quantity of oil spilled. Forty-five percent (1311) identify a suspected responsible<br />
party – a strong indica<strong>to</strong>r that those reports were submitted by the actual polluters – and<br />
of those, nearly half (620) do not include any spill amount.” (Gulf Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Consortium,<br />
2011)<br />
“The facts are that deepwater drilling is a new and inherently risky operation, pushing<br />
the envelope of technology and engineering.9 Sea-floor <strong>responses</strong>, when things go<br />
wrong, are described as “open heart surgery at 5,000 feet, in the dark.” The risks<br />
51
magnify with ocean depth, some exceeding 10,000 feet, <strong>to</strong> environments that human<br />
beings cannot even access <strong>to</strong> see, can manipulate only with probes and robots, and <strong>to</strong><br />
temperatures that freeze even gasses and render the management of fluids and<br />
machinery an order of magnitude more challenging.” (Houck, 2010)<br />
“On May 18, 2010, the CEQ announced a 30-day review of NEPA policies regarding OCS<br />
drilling in the Gulf. The public comments were predictable, and, <strong>to</strong> some extent, a replay<br />
of the l986 comments many years earlier. Industry claimed that the Deepwater Horizon<br />
blowout was an anomaly, it had the situation in hand, it was already burdened with a<br />
plethora of regulations, the only problem was implementation; environmental groups, of<br />
course, urged opposite conclusions. The outcome of this inquiry is pending, but it is<br />
also by its very nature quite limited. OCS drilling is the tip of the iceberg, a dangerous tip<br />
<strong>to</strong> be sure, but much the same can be said for coal mining, oil shale, tar sands, natural<br />
gas fracturing, renewed nuclear energy development, and similar ventures that ignore<br />
worst cases at their (and our) peril. Nor is the worst-case doctrine limited in any logical<br />
sense <strong>to</strong> energy development, with major decisions involving bioengineering,<br />
genetically modified crops, endocrine disrup<strong>to</strong>rs, and ecosystem modifications ahead.<br />
OCS is currently on the table, which is a good start. Worst case belongs back on the<br />
table as well.” (Houck, 2010)<br />
“Louisiana refineries have averaged more than one accident a day for the last six years.<br />
We chose this focus because more than 90 schools and 200,000 people reside within<br />
two miles of a refinery in Louisiana. Children, teachers, administra<strong>to</strong>rs and community<br />
members are affected by accidents and <strong>to</strong>xic emissions on a daily basis.” (Louisiana<br />
Bucket Brigade, 2011b)<br />
“Planned maintenance resulted in the release of sulfur dioxide. The refinery report<br />
states this release was al- lowed due <strong>to</strong> a negotiated consent decree with EPA. Total<br />
emissions: 73.2 <strong>to</strong>ns (146,565 pounds).” (Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011b)<br />
“Where Do We Go from Here? Creating an Action Plan for Recovery & Preventing Future<br />
Spills: After a short off-shore oil drilling mora<strong>to</strong>rium, permits are being issued with no<br />
significant technological procedures adopted <strong>to</strong> prevent future spills of this magnitude<br />
from happening again. The BP oil disaster proved that the industry and the federal and<br />
state government agencies regulating and moni<strong>to</strong>ring these permits were not, and are<br />
still NOT prepared for oil spills of National Significance. Lessons not learned are bound<br />
<strong>to</strong> happen again. Save Our Gulf believes that comprehensive long-term environmental<br />
moni<strong>to</strong>ring will be essential <strong>to</strong> understanding, protecting, and res<strong>to</strong>ring the Gulf Coast<br />
ecosystem going forward.” (Waterkeeper Alliance, 2011)<br />
52
REFERENCES:<br />
Abbriano, R.M., Carranza, M.M., Hogle, S.L., Levin, R.A., Netburn, A.N., Se<strong>to</strong>, K.L., Snyder, S.M.,<br />
SIO280, Franks, P.J.S., 2011, ‘Deepwater Horizon oil spill: A review of the plank<strong>to</strong>nic response,<br />
Oceanography 24(3):294–301,<br />
http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2011.80.<br />
AFP, 2012, ‘BP Oil Spill Devastated Seafloor Coral: Coral along the seafloor as far as seven miles<br />
from the well show signs of damage’, Discovery News,<br />
http://news.discovery.com/earth/bp-oil-spill-damage-<strong>to</strong>-corals-120328.html<br />
Alvar, P.M., ‘Treating the Symp<strong>to</strong>ms’, The Raging Pelican Journal of Gulf Coast Resistance<br />
http://ragingpelican.com/treating-symp<strong>to</strong>ms/<br />
An<strong>to</strong>nio, J.F., Mendes, R.S., and Thomaz, S.M., 2011, ‘Identifying and modeling patterns of<br />
tetrapod vertebrate mortality rates in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill’, Aquatic Toxicology Volume 105,<br />
Issues 1-2<br />
Baumann-Pickering S. & Roch M.A., 2011, ‘Animal Bioacoustics: Long-Term Acoustic Moni<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
of Animals II’, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 130, No. 4, Pt. 2, Session 4pAB<br />
Belanger, M., Tan, L., Askin, N., Wittnich, C., 2010, ‘Chronological effects of the Deepwater<br />
Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill on regional seabird casualties’, Journal of Marine Animals and<br />
Their Ecology 3(2):10-14.<br />
Belter, C., 2012, Deepwater Horizon: A Preliminary Bibliography of Published Research and<br />
Expert Commentary, US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration, NOAA Central Library<br />
Biedenbach, JM, Carr, RS., 2011. Sediment pore-water <strong>to</strong>xicity test results and preliminary <strong>to</strong>xicity<br />
identification of post-landfall pore-water samples collected following the Deepwater Horizon oil<br />
release, Gulf of Mexico, 2010. US Geological Survey Open-File Report no. 2011-1078.<br />
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1078/<br />
Bjorndal, K.A., Bowen, B.W., Chaloupka, M., Crowder, L.B., Heppell, S.S., Jones, C.M., Lutcavage,<br />
M.E., Policansky, D., Solow, A.R., Withering<strong>to</strong>n, B.E., .2011, ‘Better Science Needed for<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration in the Gulf of Mexico’, Science, Vol 331.<br />
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6017/537<br />
Bowman, T., 2010, Climate Change & the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Bowman Global Change.<br />
BP Oil Company, 2004, Material Safety Data Sheet for Low Sulfur Diesel, Date of issue<br />
06/25/2004, MSDS# 0000001799 (NAP)<br />
Bullard, R.D., 2010, BPS Waste Management Plan Raises Environmental Justice Concerns.<br />
53
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/bp’s-waste-management-plan-raises-environmental-justiceconcerns/<br />
Campagna, C., Short, F.T., Polidoro, B.A., McManus, R., Collette, B.B., Pilcher, N.J., Sadovy de<br />
MitchesoN, Y., Stuart, S.N., and Carpenter, K.E., 2011, ‘Gulf of Mexico Oil Blowout Increases Risks<br />
<strong>to</strong> Globally Threatened Species’, BioScience, May 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 5 pp. 393-397<br />
Chen, J., and Denison, M.S., 2011, ‘The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Environmental Fate of the Oil<br />
and the Toxicological Effects on Marine Organisms’, The Journal of Young Investiga<strong>to</strong>rs Volume<br />
21, Issue 6.<br />
Coleman, F.C., Koenig, C.C., 2010. ‘The Effects of Fishing, Climate Change, and Other<br />
Anthropogenic Disturbances on Red Grouper and Other Reef Fishes in the Gulf of Mexico’,<br />
Integrative and Comparative Biology, volume 50, number 2.<br />
Craig, R.K., 2010, ‘The Gulf Oil Spill and National: Marine Sanctuaries’, Environmental Law<br />
Reporter, 40 ELR 11074<br />
Crone T.J., Tols<strong>to</strong>y M., 2010, ‘Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil leak’, Science, Vol. 330, 634<br />
GAP (Government Accountability Project) & LEAN (Louisiana Environmental Action Network),<br />
2012, Letter <strong>to</strong> Honorable Stanley Sporkin<br />
http://www.whistleblower.org/s<strong>to</strong>rage/documents/GAPLEANletter.pdf<br />
George-Ares, A. & Clark, J.R., 2000. ‘Aquatic <strong>to</strong>xicity of two Corexit dispersants’, Chemosphere,<br />
40, pp 897-906.<br />
Goldstein, B.D., Osofsky, H.J., Lichtveld, M.Y., 2011, ‘The Gulf Oil Spill’, The New England Journal<br />
of Medecine, 364;14<br />
Goodell, J., 2010, ‘The Poisoning’, Rolling S<strong>to</strong>ne, August 5,2010 issue.<br />
http://www.rollings<strong>to</strong>ne.com/politics/news/the-poisoning-20100721<br />
Graham, B., Reilly, W.K., Beinecke, F., Boesh, D.F., Garcia, T.D., Murray, C.A., Ulmer, F., 2011,<br />
2011 Essential Guide <strong>to</strong> the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Report of the<br />
Presidential Commission, Plus Gulf Coast Recovery Planning and Resource Guides, Bird Care<br />
Response Plan, U.S. Government, National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill<br />
and Offshore Drilling, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Progressive Management<br />
Graham, W.M., Condon, R., Carmichael, R., D’Ambra, I., Patterson, H.K., Linn, L.J., and<br />
Hernandez F.J., 2010. Oil carbon entered the coastal plank<strong>to</strong>nic food web during the Deepwater<br />
Horizon oil spill, Environmental Research Letters 5.<br />
Green, K., and Hayward, S., 2010, The Dangers of Overreacting <strong>to</strong> the Deepwater Horizon<br />
Disaster, AEI<br />
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/natural-resources/the-dangers-ofoverreacting-<strong>to</strong>-the-deepwater-horizon-disaster/<br />
54
Griffith D.G., 1969, Investigations in<strong>to</strong> Corexit - A New Oil Dispersant, Department of Agriculture<br />
and Fisheries. Irish Fisheries Leaflet No. 6, Fisheries Research Centre, Castlerock, Ireland<br />
Gulf Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Consortium, 2011 “Gulf Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Consortium Report on Activities from April<br />
2011 <strong>to</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2011”<br />
http://waterkeeper.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/24733<br />
Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2010a, Wave Maker’s News, Volume V, Issue II<br />
Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2010b, Wave Maker’s News, Volume V, Issue III<br />
Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2011a, ‘On-Going Impacts from BP’s Oil and Toxic Dispersants’, Gulf<br />
Currents, Summer 2011<br />
http://healthygulf.org/files_reports/publications/gulf_currents/2011/Gulf_Currents-<br />
Summer_2011_Vol_15_Iss_2.pdf<br />
Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration Network, 2011b, Wave Maker’s News, Volume VI, Issue IV<br />
Houck, O.A., 2010, ‘Worst Case and the Deepwater Horizon Blowout: There Ought <strong>to</strong> Be a Law’,<br />
Environmental Law Reporter. 40 ELR 11033<br />
Judson, R.S., Martin, M.T., Reif, D.M., Houck K.A., Knudsen, T.B., Rotroff D.M., Xia, M., Sakamuru,.<br />
S., Huang, R., Shinn, P., Austin, C.P., Kavlock, R.J., Dix, D.J., 2010, ‘Analysis of eight oil spill<br />
dispersants using rapid, in vitro tests for endocrine and other biological activity’, Environ Sci<br />
Technol, 44(15): 5979-5985.<br />
Kelley, T.R., 2010, ‘Environmental Health Insights in<strong>to</strong> the 2010 Deepwater Horizon (BP) Oil<br />
Blowout’, Environmental Health Insights 2010:4 61–63<br />
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2934613/<br />
Kessler, J.D. et al., 2011, ‘A Persistent Oxygen Anomaly Reveals the Fate of Spilled Methane in<br />
the Deep Gulf of Mexico’, Science, Vol 331<br />
Kostka, J.E., Prakash, O., Overhol, W.A., Green, S., Freyer, G., Canion, A., Delgardio, J., Nor<strong>to</strong>n,<br />
N., Hazen, T.C., Huettel, M., 2011, Hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria and the bacterial community<br />
response in Gulf of Mexico: Beach sands impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Appl.<br />
Environ. Microbiol. doi:10.1128/AEM.05402-11<br />
Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011a. The BP Oil Disaster: Results from a Health and Economic<br />
Impact Survey in Four Coastal Louisiana Parishes.<br />
http://www.labucketbrigade.org/article.php?id=716<br />
Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2011b, Common Ground III : Why Cooperation <strong>to</strong> Reduce Accidents at<br />
Louisiana Refineries is Needed Now<br />
http://labucketbrigade.org/article.php?id=981<br />
Martin, C.,, 2010, ‘Oil spill ramifications pour in’, Current Biology, Volume 20, Issue 10.<br />
55
McCall, B.D., Pennings, S.C., 2012, ‘Disturbance and Recovery of Salt Marsh Arthropod<br />
Communities following BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. 2012’, Plos One, Volume 7, Issue 3,<br />
e32735.<br />
Mitra, S., Kimmel, D.G., Snyder, J., Scalise, K., McGlaughon, B.,D. Roman, M.R., Jahn, G.L.,<br />
Pierson, J.J., Brandt, S.B., Mon<strong>to</strong>ya, J.P., Rosenbauer, R.J., Lorenson, T.D., Wong, F.L., Campbell,<br />
P.L., 2012, ‘Macondo-1 well oil-derived polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mesozooplank<strong>to</strong>n<br />
from the northern Gulf of Mexico’, Geophysical Research. Letter, 39, L01605,<br />
doi:10.1029/2011GL049505.<br />
NALCO, 2010a, Nalco Material Safety Data Sheet for COREXIT® EC9527 A, Nalco Energy Services,<br />
L.P., Product Safety Department, Date issued : 05/11/2010, Version Number : 2.0<br />
NALCO, 2010b, Nalco Material Safety Data Sheet for COREXIT® EC9500 A, Nalco Energy Services,<br />
L.P., Product Safety Department, Date issued : 05/11/2010, Version Number : 2.0<br />
National Science Foundation, 2011, ‘Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Spill Effects on Fish<br />
Revealed’, Press Release 11-206<br />
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121786<br />
Rabalais, N.N., 2011, ‘Annual Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture: Troubled waters of the Gulf<br />
of Mexico’, Oceanography 24(2):200–211, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2011.44.<br />
Reeves, J., 2011, ‘BP Oil Spill Not Breaking Down On Gulf Of Mexico Floor, Study Finds’,<br />
Huffing<strong>to</strong>n Post<br />
http://www.huffing<strong>to</strong>npost.com/2011/09/20/bp-oil-spill-study_n_972219.html<br />
Robinson, R.A. Jr., The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster: A case study on the projected economic<br />
impact on <strong>to</strong>urism among the Gulf States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, UNLV<br />
Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Caps<strong>to</strong>nes, Paper 566.<br />
Rotkin-Ellman, M., Wong, K.K., and Solomon, G.M., 2012, Seafood Contamination after the BP Gulf<br />
Oil Spill and Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment, Environ<br />
Health Perspectives, Volume 120, Number 2<br />
Safina, C., 2010a, ‘Renowned Marine Biologist Carl Safina on the BP Oil Spill’s Ecological Impact<br />
on the Gulf Coast and Worldwide’ Democracy Now<br />
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/expert_ecological_impact_of_spill_could<br />
Safina, C., 2010b, ‘We are all Gulf victims now’, CNN Opinion<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/03/safina.gulf.wildlife.impact/index.html<br />
Safina, C., 2010c, ‘Toxic Brew’, Special Report: The BP Gulf Oil Disaster, Audubon Magazine.<br />
September 2010.<br />
http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/features1009/specialreport-oilspillmarinelife.html<br />
56
Safina, C., 2011a, ‘The 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Well Blowout: A Little Hindsight’, PLoS Biology,<br />
Volume 9, Issue 4, e1001049<br />
Safina, C., 2011b, ‘“A Sea in Flames": Ecologist Carl Safina on First Anniversary of Deepwater<br />
Horizon Oil Rig Blowout’, Democracy Now.<br />
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/20/a_sea_in_flames_ecologist_carl<br />
Schor, E., 2010, ‘New BP Data Show 20% of Offshore Responders Exposed <strong>to</strong> Chemical That<br />
Sickened Valdez Workers’, The New York Times: Greenwire.<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/09/09greenwire-new-bp-data-show-20-of-gulf-spillresponders-e-82494.html<br />
Shapley, D., 2010, ‘BP Gulf Oil Spill Maps’, The Daily Green<br />
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bp-gulf-oil-spill-map-0517<br />
Shaw, S.D., 2010, Consensus Statement: Scientists oppose the use of dispersant chemicals in the<br />
Gulf of Mexico, Marine Environmental Research Institute.<br />
http://www.meriresearch.org<br />
Sidorovskaia, N., Ackleh, A.S., Ma, B., Tiemann, C., Ioup, G.E., and Ioup, J.W., 2011, ‘Long-term<br />
acoustic moni<strong>to</strong>ring of marine mammal response <strong>to</strong> the 2010 oil spill in the Northern Gulf of<br />
Mexico’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(4):2537<br />
Sumaila, U.R., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Dyck, A., Huang, L., Cheung,W., Jacquet, J., Kleisner,<br />
K., Lam, V., McCrea-Strub, A., Swartz, W., Watson R., Zeller, D., and Pauly. D., 2012, ‘Impact of the<br />
Deepwater Horizon well blowout on the economics of US Gulf fisheries, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.<br />
Vol. 69.<br />
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011 Essential Guide <strong>to</strong> the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico<br />
Oil Spill: Report of the Presidential Commission, Plus Gulf Coast Recovery Planning and<br />
Resource Guides, Bird Care Response Plan, U.S. Government, National Commission on the BP<br />
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Progressive Management<br />
Waterkeeper Alliance/ Save our Gulf, 2011, State of the Gulf: A Status Report from the Save Our<br />
Gulf Waterkeepers in the Wake of the BP Oil<br />
http://saveourgulf.org/updates/state-gulf-released-gulf-coast-waterkeepers<br />
White, H.K., Hsing, P.Y., Cho, W, Shank, T.M., Cordes, E.E., Quattrini, A.M., Nelson, R.K., Camilli,<br />
R., Demopoulos, A.W.J., German, C.R., Brooks, J.M., Roberts, H.H., Shedd, W., Reddy, C.M.,<br />
Fisher, C.,R. 2012. ‘Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in<br />
the Gulf of Mexico’, PNAS 2012 :1118029109v1-201118029.<br />
Whitehead, A., Dubansky, B., Bodinier, C., Garcia, T., Miles, S., Pilley, C., Raghunathan, V., Roach,<br />
J., Walker, N., Walter, R.B., Rice, C.D., Galvez, F., 2011, Genomic and physiological footprint of the<br />
57
Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes, Proceedings of the National Academy of<br />
Sciences of the United States of America. doi/10.1073/pnas.1109545108.<br />
Woodward, A., 2011, ‘Gulf Coast Syndrome’, Gambit: Best of New Orleans.<br />
http://www.bes<strong>to</strong>fneworleans.com/gambit/gulf-coast-syndrome/Content?oid=1686262<br />
Woodward, C., 2010, ‘Gulf oil spill exposes gaps in public health knowledge,’ CMAJ, 182(12),<br />
Canadian Medical Association,<br />
58
• The blowout killed 11 workers at sea; their families will never be the same.<br />
• Approximately 170 million gallons of oil was spilled in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf – fifteen times the<br />
size of the Exxon-Valdez disaster (note: the <strong>to</strong>tal output of oil was estimated <strong>to</strong><br />
be 205.8 million gallons +/- 10%. However, because some of the oil was<br />
siphoned <strong>to</strong> boats, only approximately 170 million gallons entered and<br />
contaminated the environment).<br />
• 650 miles of coastline were oiled (note: an estimated 126 miles were moderately <strong>to</strong><br />
heavily oiled).<br />
• Oil settled in<strong>to</strong> wetlands and estuaries around the Gulf Coast, some of the most<br />
diverse and productive ecosystems anywhere, killing marsh grass, accelerating<br />
erosion and damaging the cradle of the Gulf, the place young fish, shrimp and<br />
crabs rely on in the earliest part of their lives.<br />
• By the government's own reckoning, removal (i.e., burning and skimming) got rid of<br />
just 8% of the oil from the BP blowout. That leaves approximately 92%<br />
contaminating the environment, where it evaporated, dispersed or dissolved in<br />
the water, floated <strong>to</strong> the surface, smothered coastal wetlands, beaches and<br />
estuaries or sank <strong>to</strong> the bot<strong>to</strong>m of the sea.<br />
• 87,000 square miles – approximately 35% - of American Gulf waters had <strong>to</strong> be closed<br />
<strong>to</strong> fishing – putting thousands of watermen out of work.<br />
• Arguably a year’s worth of revenue was lost for many people in fisheries and <strong>to</strong>urism<br />
industries (the oil spill overlapped with their main seasons).<br />
• Residents along the coast - particularly fishermen who rely on the ocean for their<br />
livelihoods - have also suffered severe anxiety and social stress. Experts have<br />
observed that the social-fallout from man-made disasters is often more severe<br />
and long-lasting than that of natural disasters (for numerous reasons man-made<br />
disasters results in more social division).<br />
• The oil killed wildlife - birds by the thousands, dolphins and whales, fish and hundreds<br />
of endangered sea turtles. And that's just the acute impacts that officials were<br />
able <strong>to</strong> observe.<br />
◦ Approximately 6000 dead birds were collected in and around the spill this<br />
spring and summer with the true death <strong>to</strong>ll likely <strong>to</strong> be much higher (and<br />
yet <strong>to</strong> be estimated). The cause of death is still being determined for<br />
some fraction of these birds.<br />
◦ Approximately 600 sea turtle carcasses were found, a spike in mortality many<br />
times higher than usual. Approximately half of the deaths are believed <strong>to</strong><br />
be related <strong>to</strong> the oil spill. 278 loggerhead turtle nests were relocated.<br />
◦ As many as 100 marine mammals were found dead. The cause of death is still<br />
being investigated. However, many more are believed <strong>to</strong> have gone<br />
uncounted as dead marine mammals sink out of sight quickly.<br />
Lisa Sua<strong>to</strong>ni, PhD<br />
senior scientist<br />
NRDC<br />
phone (203) 777-8989/(212) 727-4549<br />
cell 646-234-3036<br />
fax (212) 727-1773
Oceanography<br />
THE OffICIAL MAGAzINE Of THE OCEANOGRAPHY SOCIETY<br />
CITATION<br />
Rabalais, N.N. 2011. Twelfth Annual Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture: Troubled waters of<br />
the Gulf of Mexico. Oceanography 24(2):200–211, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2011.44.<br />
COPYRIGHT<br />
This article has been published in Oceanography, Volume 24, Number 2, a quarterly journal of<br />
The Oceanography Society. Copyright 2011 by The Oceanography Society. All rights reserved.<br />
USAGE<br />
Permission is granted <strong>to</strong> copy this article for use in teaching and research. Republication,<br />
systematic reproduction, or collective redistribution of any portion of this article by pho<strong>to</strong>copy<br />
machine, reposting, or other means is permitted only with the approval of The Oceanography<br />
Society. Send all correspondence <strong>to</strong>: info@<strong>to</strong>s.org or The Oceanography Society, PO Box 1931,<br />
Rockville, MD 20849-1931, USA.<br />
DOwNLOADED fROM www.TOS.ORG/OCEANOGRAPHY
TwelfTh ANNuAl RogeR ReVelle commemoRATiVe lecTuRe<br />
Troubled waters<br />
of the gulf of mexico<br />
The Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture Series was created by the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academies in honor of<br />
Dr. Roger Revelle <strong>to</strong> highlight the important links between ocean sciences and public policy. Nancy Rabalais, the twelfth annual lecturer,<br />
spoke on March 29, 2011, at the Baird Audi<strong>to</strong>rium, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural His<strong>to</strong>ry.<br />
iNTRoDucTioN<br />
The gusher has ended, but before it did,<br />
an estimated 206 million gallons of crude<br />
oil and methane gas escaped from the<br />
Macondo well in lease block Mississippi<br />
Canyon 252. We know it better as the<br />
BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill that<br />
resulted from a series of mechanical<br />
and safety failures leading <strong>to</strong> an explosion,<br />
the deaths of 11 workers, and the<br />
largest accidental oil spill in his<strong>to</strong>ry. The<br />
well was in the northern Gulf of Mexico<br />
in 1,500 m of water, not the deepest<br />
in this petroleum production frontier,<br />
but in an otherwise blue-water, pristine<br />
ocean home <strong>to</strong> deepwater corals and<br />
pods of sperm whales, and one of two<br />
spawning areas for Atlantic bluefin tuna.<br />
Satellite images of black oil at the surface<br />
marred this picture as the oil continued<br />
<strong>to</strong> spew from the ocean bot<strong>to</strong>m and<br />
spread in<strong>to</strong> the northern Gulf of Mexico.<br />
Innumerable lives were affected—from<br />
microbes <strong>to</strong> humans—and the world<br />
was transfixed by the continuous images<br />
of oil and gas blowing from the Gulf<br />
bot<strong>to</strong>m while technology raced <strong>to</strong> catch<br />
200<br />
Oceanography | Vol.24, No.2<br />
up with Mother Nature.<br />
In addition <strong>to</strong> being the center for oil<br />
and gas production in the United States,<br />
the northern Gulf of Mexico provides<br />
essential resources and services <strong>to</strong> the<br />
region and the nation: transportation,<br />
marine fisheries, <strong>to</strong>urism, recreation,<br />
and shipping and navigation. But the<br />
focused resource use by so many sec<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
has not come without cost. Although the<br />
region has been altered many times by<br />
natural forces, in modern times, human<br />
activities have reshaped the delta and<br />
degraded water quality, causing major<br />
losses of wetlands and creating the<br />
largest hypoxic zone in the United States.<br />
When the spill began in spring 2010,<br />
water-quality problems from excess<br />
nutrients already existed, triggering a<br />
world-class “dead zone” that expanded<br />
in size and severity throughout the<br />
summer. The immediate and dramatic<br />
insult inflicted by the spill’s intensity<br />
garnered global attention, highlighting<br />
not only the spill but the many existing<br />
stressors that already threatened this<br />
valuable ecosystem.<br />
By NANcy N. RABAlAis<br />
oilmAggeDoN<br />
On April 20, 2010, something went<br />
terribly wrong with the drilling of<br />
the BP Macondo well by the drilling<br />
platform Deepwater Horizon 80 km<br />
southeast of the Mississippi River delta<br />
in 1,500 m of water. The exact details are<br />
still under investigation, but there were<br />
several unexpected events, technological<br />
and mechanical failures, failed safety<br />
precautions, and human error in diagnosis<br />
and action. There was an explosion,<br />
the drilling rig caught fire, burned for<br />
two days, and then sank in<strong>to</strong> the depths<br />
of the Gulf of Mexico, leaving an uncontrolled<br />
gushing of oil from a broken<br />
casing and several leaks in associated<br />
underwater pipes.<br />
By the time the broken well was<br />
successfully capped on July 15 (about<br />
three months later), it was estimated<br />
that 206 x 106 gallons (780 x 106 liters)<br />
Nancy N. Rabalais (nrabalais@lumcon.<br />
edu) is Executive Direc<strong>to</strong>r and Professor,<br />
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium,<br />
Chauvin, LA, USA.
Millions of gallons<br />
0 50 100 150 200<br />
Deepwater Horizon<br />
Ix<strong>to</strong>c I<br />
Amaco Cadiz<br />
Torrey Canyon<br />
Sea Star<br />
Prestige<br />
Metula<br />
Exxon Valdez<br />
H. Katrina & Rita<br />
Argo Merchant<br />
Ekosk oil eld<br />
Santa Barbara<br />
New Orleans<br />
Buzzards Bay<br />
North America seeps<br />
Global seeps<br />
NA exploration & production<br />
Global exploration & production<br />
NA transportation<br />
Global transportation<br />
NA consumption<br />
Global Consumption<br />
figure 1. Volume estimates for oil spills in millions of gallons per event<br />
(above the dashed orange line; compiled from multiple sources) and<br />
oil reaching the sea in millions of gallons per annum (below the dashed<br />
orange line; compiled from National Research council, 2003). The National<br />
Research council (2003) estimates are for: North American seeps, of which<br />
two-thirds are in the gulf of mexico, followed by global seeps; global<br />
exploration and production, which would include well blowouts such as<br />
Deepwater horizon, ix<strong>to</strong>c i, santa Barbara, and ekofisk; NA transportation,<br />
which includes cargo losses through accidents in North America,<br />
e.g., Exxon Valdez; similar losses in global transportation, e.g., Prestige; and<br />
consumption losses in North America and global, which include atmospheric<br />
deposition of fossil fuel burning, au<strong>to</strong>mobile exhaust on<strong>to</strong> roadways,<br />
and oil and grease runoff in<strong>to</strong> gutters. Based on data from National<br />
Research Council, 2003; N.N. Rabalais, LUMCON<br />
of oil and gas had escaped from the<br />
ocean floor. This accidental oil spill<br />
is the largest in his<strong>to</strong>ry (Figure 1),<br />
exceeded only by the amount of oil<br />
released during the 1972 Gulf War,<br />
estimated at 242–462 x 106 gallons<br />
(916–1,749 x 106 liters). By comparison<br />
(per event)<br />
(per annum)<br />
<strong>to</strong> Exxon Valdez, the BP Deepwater<br />
Horizon spill is almost 20 times larger.<br />
The volumes of oil released are headline<br />
makers, but caution should be taken<br />
in inferring impacts based on the spill<br />
size alone (National Research Council,<br />
2003). Spills in enclosed spaces or within<br />
biologically complex or fragile ecosystems<br />
may increase exposure <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>xic<br />
hydrocarbons in oil compared <strong>to</strong> spills in<br />
areas where dispersion and weathering<br />
effects may reduce the amount of oil<br />
and lower <strong>to</strong>xicity levels. There is no<br />
doubt, however, that the massive volume<br />
of oil released by the BP Deepwater<br />
Horizon well increased the potential for<br />
large-scale impacts.<br />
The northern Gulf of Mexico is not<br />
only a center of industrial extraction of<br />
oil and gas but also the site of natural<br />
hydrocarbon seeps, which occur along<br />
the slope edge and escarpment and<br />
account for two-thirds of the North<br />
American seeps in Figure 1. Gulf seeps<br />
amount <strong>to</strong> about 40 × 106 million gallons<br />
(151 x 106 liters) per year (National<br />
Research Council, 2003), which is a<br />
substantial amount of oil released in<strong>to</strong><br />
the environment. However, seeps occur<br />
over a large area, are not continuous, and<br />
the oil that reaches the surface or the<br />
beaches is highly weathered. Seeps also<br />
support a community of microorganisms<br />
that live off the hydrocarbons, and these<br />
microbes can help biodegrade oil from<br />
accidental spills such as the Deepwater<br />
Horizon. In contrast, a spill, or gusher,<br />
is a finite input (volume) over a shorter<br />
period (single event <strong>to</strong> months) of a<br />
range of hydrocarbon components (not<br />
weathered and inclusive of the more<br />
<strong>to</strong>xic forms). The BP Deepwater Horizon<br />
spill entered the open Gulf of Mexico<br />
and began <strong>to</strong> move primarily northward,<br />
threatening the eastern edge of the<br />
Mississippi River Delta, Bre<strong>to</strong>n Sound,<br />
and Chandeleur Sound by early May<br />
2010. By early July, oil had spread across<br />
the northern Gulf of Mexico coastline<br />
from Galves<strong>to</strong>n, TX, <strong>to</strong> Panama City, FL,<br />
and across over 10,000 km2 in the open<br />
Oceanography | June 2011 201
figure 2. The moderate Resolution imaging spectroradiometer<br />
(moDis) on NAsA’s Terra satellite captured this image of<br />
sunlight illuminating the lingering Deepwater horizon oil slick<br />
off the mississippi Delta on may 24, 2010. Source: http://www.<br />
flickr.com/pho<strong>to</strong>s/gsfc/4638932803/sizes/l/in/pho<strong>to</strong>stream;<br />
NASA Goddard Center<br />
northern Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2). In<br />
2010, the Loop Current did not move as<br />
far northward as possible, which resulted<br />
in good news for the Gulf, as the oil was<br />
not entrained and sent along the west<br />
Florida shelf on<strong>to</strong> reef tracks or in<strong>to</strong><br />
the Atlantic Ocean.<br />
During the spill, people became aware<br />
of the many oil and gas platforms in the<br />
northern Gulf of Mexico; in fact, there is<br />
a web of oilfield drilling and production<br />
platforms that includes many deepwater<br />
wells and pipelines connected <strong>to</strong> shore.<br />
The infrastructure extends inshore as a<br />
maze of pipeline canals, access canals,<br />
and navigation channels that dice up the<br />
fragile delta landscape.<br />
The short-term and long-term impacts<br />
of the oil gusher (not a leak, not a spill,<br />
not an incident) are still unknown.<br />
Immediate attention was focused on how<br />
the oil spill was affecting oceanic ecosystems,<br />
plank<strong>to</strong>n communities, deep-sea<br />
benthos, deepwater corals, mesopelagic<br />
fishes, marine mammals and turtles, and<br />
fishery resources. As the oil moved on<strong>to</strong><br />
202<br />
Oceanography | Vol.24, No.2<br />
the fragile, coastal wetlands (seagrass<br />
and mangrove habitats), concern grew<br />
for these biogenically structured systems<br />
that provide so many ecosystem services,<br />
such as nursery grounds for commercially<br />
important fishes and crustaceans,<br />
sediment stabilization, filtering of<br />
contaminants and nutrients, and habitat<br />
for recreational activities, such as fishing<br />
and hunting. The more visible coastal<br />
oiling in the form of black oil on sandy<br />
beaches threatened the nearshore pelagic<br />
and intertidal communities as well as<br />
curtailed <strong>to</strong>urism. The environmental<br />
and human impacts are being documented,<br />
and these assessments will likely<br />
continue for a decade or more.<br />
The Big muDDy<br />
The Mississippi River system has long<br />
dominated the geological and biological<br />
landscape of the northern Gulf of<br />
Mexico. The watershed encompasses<br />
41% of the lower 48 United States<br />
(~ 3.2 x 106 km2 ), surpassed in size<br />
only by the Amazon and Zaire Rivers<br />
figure 3. intersection of sediment-laden<br />
mississippi River plume with blue water of the<br />
gulf of mexico. Petroleum production platform<br />
seen in the distance (left). N.N. Rabalais, LUMCON<br />
(Milliman and Meade, 1983; Meade,<br />
1996). The river’s length and its freshwater<br />
and sediment discharge rank<br />
among the world’s <strong>to</strong>p 10 rivers. The<br />
annual average freshwater discharge<br />
of 580 km3 enters the northern Gulf of<br />
Mexico through two main distributaries:<br />
the birdfoot delta southeast of the city of<br />
New Orleans, Louisiana (Figure 3), and<br />
the Atchafalaya River delta ~ 200 km<br />
<strong>to</strong> the west on the central Louisiana<br />
coast (Meade, 1995).<br />
Sediment deposition and accumulation<br />
are essential for maintaining the<br />
delta <strong>to</strong> offset natural subsidence and<br />
prevent drowning of wetlands. Over tens<br />
of thousands of years, the flow of sediment-laden<br />
freshwater created a series<br />
of delta lobes that prograded, subsided,<br />
and switched across the northern Gulf<br />
coastal landscape, establishing a deltaic<br />
plain that eventually formed the current<br />
birdfoot delta about 1,000 years ago
(Penland et al., 1988). Substantial inputs<br />
of river sediments sustained the wetlands<br />
across the coast. Over two centuries,<br />
transformation <strong>to</strong> a primarily agricultural<br />
landscape, with water systems engineered<br />
for drainage of agricultural lands,<br />
navigation, and flood control, has altered<br />
the river basin landscape, changed flow<br />
regimes, and reduced the suspended<br />
sediment load. The changes have lessened<br />
the buffering capacity of the watershed<br />
against pollutants and contributed<br />
<strong>to</strong> the loss of landforms in the watershed<br />
and at the coast (Boesch et al., 1994;<br />
Turner and Rabalais, 2003). Watershed<br />
manipulations along with natural deltaic<br />
processes and intense human development<br />
of the coastal zone have resulted in<br />
over 5,000 km2 of coastal lands lost since<br />
the 1930s (updated from Barras, 2006).<br />
The “Big Muddy” is not as sedimentladen<br />
as it was ca. 1700, according <strong>to</strong><br />
estimates of Meade (1995); presently, the<br />
sediment load is roughly half its former<br />
size. During the twentieth century, the<br />
hydrology of the vast Mississippi River<br />
system was greatly altered by locks,<br />
dams, reservoirs, earthwork levees,<br />
channel straightening, and spillways for<br />
purposes of flood protection, navigation,<br />
and water supply. The largest decrease<br />
in suspended sediments occurred after<br />
1950, when the natural sources of sediments<br />
in the drainage basin were cut off<br />
from the Mississippi River mainstem<br />
by the construction of large reservoirs<br />
on the Missouri and Arkansas Rivers<br />
(Meade and Parker, 1985; National<br />
Research Council, 2007).<br />
In addition, landscape changes across<br />
the middle of the country since the 1800s<br />
have altered the ability of the Mississippi<br />
River Basin <strong>to</strong> assimilate excess nutrients<br />
(Turner and Rabalais, 2003). Vast areas<br />
Roger Revelle<br />
For almost half a century, Roger Revelle<br />
was a leader in the field of oceanography.<br />
Revelle trained as a geologist at Pomona<br />
College and the University of California,<br />
Berkeley. In 1936, he received his PhD<br />
in oceanography from the Scripps<br />
Institution of Oceanography. As a young<br />
naval officer, he helped persuade the Navy <strong>to</strong> create the Office of Naval<br />
Research (ONR) <strong>to</strong> support basic research in oceanography and was<br />
the first head of ONR’s geophysics branch. Revelle served for 12 years<br />
as the Direc<strong>to</strong>r of Scripps (1950–1961, 1963–1964), where he built up a<br />
fleet of research ships and initiated a decade of expeditions <strong>to</strong> the deep<br />
Pacific that challenged existing geological theory.<br />
Revelle’s early work on the carbon cycle suggested that the sea could<br />
not absorb all the carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels.<br />
He organized the first continual measurement of atmospheric carbon<br />
dioxide, an effort led by Charles Keeling, resulting in a long-term<br />
record that has been essential <strong>to</strong> current research on global climate<br />
change. With Hans Suess, he published the seminal paper demonstrating<br />
the connection between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide<br />
and burning of fossil fuels. Revelle kept the issue of increasing carbondioxide<br />
levels before the public and spearheaded efforts <strong>to</strong> investigate<br />
the mechanisms and consequences of climate change.<br />
Revelle left Scripps for critical posts as Science Advisor <strong>to</strong> the<br />
Department of the Interior (1961–1963) and as the first Direc<strong>to</strong>r of<br />
the Center for Population Studies at Harvard (1964–1976). Revelle<br />
applied his knowledge of geophysics, ocean resources, and population<br />
dynamics <strong>to</strong> the world’s most vexing problems: poverty, malnutrition,<br />
security, and education.<br />
In 1957, Revelle became a member of the National Academy<br />
of Sciences <strong>to</strong> which he devoted many hours of volunteer service.<br />
He served as a member of the Ocean Studies Board, the Board<br />
on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and many committees.<br />
He also chaired a number of influential Academy studies on<br />
subjects ranging from the environmental effects of radiation <strong>to</strong><br />
understanding sea level change.<br />
Pho<strong>to</strong> credit: SIO Archives, UCSD<br />
Oceanography | June 2011 203
of the Mississippi River basin prairies<br />
and forests were converted <strong>to</strong> cropland<br />
and other agricultural uses as European<br />
settlement expanded westward. By 1920,<br />
large areas of virgin forests were reduced<br />
<strong>to</strong> remnant forests (Greeley, 1925). The<br />
river basin has also accommodated the<br />
drainage and conversion of millions of<br />
acres of wetlands, as over one half of the<br />
original wetland ecosystems has been<br />
converted <strong>to</strong> other land uses (Prince,<br />
1997; Figure 4).<br />
DeAD ZoNes<br />
Since the middle of the twentieth<br />
century, the Mississippi River has<br />
transported anthropogenic nitrogen<br />
and phosphorus in such quantities that<br />
it now induces a zone of hypoxia (lowoxygen<br />
water conditions) that is the<br />
second largest human-caused coastal<br />
hypoxic area in the world (Rabalais et al.,<br />
204<br />
9<br />
8<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
Remaining wetlands (millions of acres) 10<br />
0<br />
Minnesota<br />
Wisconsin<br />
Iowa<br />
Oceanography | Vol.24, No.2<br />
Illinois<br />
WETLAND LOSS<br />
42 46 89 85 87 81 72 59 59 46<br />
Missouri<br />
2007). This “poster child” for deteriorating<br />
coastal water quality is popularly<br />
referred <strong>to</strong> as the “dead zone,” a term<br />
that originated with trawler fishermen<br />
who would drag the bot<strong>to</strong>m with their<br />
nets and not capture any shrimp when<br />
the oxygen was below 2 mg l –1 (Renaud,<br />
1986). “Normal” oxygen levels are two <strong>to</strong><br />
three times greater.<br />
Low-oxygen values are of concern<br />
because of detrimental effects <strong>to</strong> marine<br />
life, biodiversity, commercial and<br />
recreational fisheries, trophic dynamics,<br />
energy flow, and ecosystem functioning<br />
(Rabalais and Turner, 2001; Díaz and<br />
Rosenberg, 2008; Levin et al., 2009; Ekau<br />
et al., 2010; Rabalais et al., 2010). Sharks<br />
and rays will swim away from water<br />
with dissolved oxygen less than 3 mg l –1 ;<br />
demersal fishes, crabs, and shrimp will<br />
attempt <strong>to</strong> move away from oxygen<br />
concentrations less than 2 mg l−1 ; and<br />
Kentucky<br />
Arkansas<br />
Tennessee<br />
Mississippi<br />
Louisiana<br />
figure 4. wetland loss in the mississippi River mainstem states. Percent loss is shown<br />
across the <strong>to</strong>p of the his<strong>to</strong>gram. Values are millions of acres of wetlands remaining,<br />
ca. 1980s. Based on data from Dahl (1990)<br />
few marine animals survive in prolonged<br />
exposure <strong>to</strong> oxygen concentrations<br />
below those levels.<br />
The northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic<br />
area is large, at times extending from<br />
the Mississippi River birdfoot delta<br />
on<strong>to</strong> the upper Texas coast and in<strong>to</strong><br />
the Mississippi Bight east of the delta<br />
(Figure 5). The size has averaged<br />
13,825 km2 in mid summer between<br />
1985 and 2010 and has been as large as<br />
22,000 km2 (updated from Rabalais et al.,<br />
2007). Seasonal hypoxia arises from<br />
the high productivity of surface waters<br />
fueled by nutrients from the Mississippi<br />
watershed, coupled with stratification,<br />
in which the warm, less-saline surface<br />
waters overlay the colder, saltier deep<br />
waters with little mixing (Committee on<br />
Environment and Natural Resources,<br />
2000; Science Advisory Board, 2007;<br />
Rabalais et al., 2007; Turner et al., 2007;<br />
Kemp et al., 2010). Nutrients stimulate<br />
the growth of phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n, creating<br />
large blooms in surface waters. The<br />
excess organic matter from these blooms<br />
rains down in<strong>to</strong> deeper waters where<br />
it is consumed (oxidized) by organisms,<br />
thereby depleting the deep waters<br />
of dissolved oxygen. These conditions<br />
are found in many coastal areas where<br />
hypoxia is getting worse or where<br />
hypoxia has only recently been observed<br />
(Díaz and Rosenberg, 1995, 2008).<br />
The severity and extent of hypoxic<br />
events are primarily influenced by<br />
stream flows, nutrient runoff from agriculture<br />
and urban centers, and precipitation.<br />
Because the amount of freshwater<br />
delivered <strong>to</strong> the northern Gulf of Mexico<br />
affects both the nutrient loads and the<br />
strength of stratification, variability<br />
or long-term trends in river discharge<br />
influence the extent and severity of
figure 5. Distribution of bot<strong>to</strong>m-water dissolved oxygen content on the louisiana-Texas continental shelf in July 2006. This distribution is typical of years without<br />
disruption of hypoxia by hurricanes or tropical s<strong>to</strong>rms or anomalous winds and currents. hypoxia also occurs intermittently east of the mississippi River but in<br />
small areas (Rabalais et al., 2007). N.N. Rabalais, LUMCON; Funding: NOAA, CSCOR<br />
hypoxia. On a multicentury time scale,<br />
discharge has been relatively stable<br />
from 1820–1992 (Turner and Rabalais,<br />
2003; Turner et al., 2007). In contrast,<br />
Mississippi River nutrients, especially<br />
nitrate-nitrogen have changed dramatically<br />
during the last century, with an<br />
acceleration of these changes since the<br />
1950s (Turner and Rabalais, 1991), due<br />
primarily <strong>to</strong> an increase in concentration<br />
coincident with the increase in application<br />
of artificial fertilizers. Smaller<br />
fractions arise from human sewage, nonagricultural<br />
fertilizer use, and precipitation<br />
(Goolsby et al., 1999; Alexander<br />
et al., 2008). Changes in both nitrogen<br />
and phosphorus lead <strong>to</strong> stimulation of<br />
phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n growth in the offshore<br />
waters. While the overall change in the<br />
development and extent of hypoxia is<br />
due primarily <strong>to</strong> the nitrogen load of the<br />
river, the Science Advisory Board (2007)<br />
of the US Environmental Protection<br />
Agency concluded that both nitrogen<br />
and phosphorus reductions (about 45%)<br />
were necessary <strong>to</strong> mitigate the occurrence<br />
of hypoxia on the northern Gulf<br />
shelf. The Science Advisory Board<br />
(2007) further recommended that<br />
nutrient reductions be targeted at those<br />
areas in the watershed where the yields<br />
of nitrogen and phosphorus were the<br />
highest, corresponding <strong>to</strong> the Corn Belt<br />
(Alexander et al., 2008).<br />
All lines of evidence point <strong>to</strong> increased<br />
nutrients, primarily in the last half of<br />
the twentieth century, as the initiating<br />
fac<strong>to</strong>r for hypoxia on the shelf and its<br />
worsening since then. Alternative causal<br />
hypotheses for the dead zone include<br />
broad-scale landscape changes in the<br />
watershed and hydrological changes<br />
along the river. For the most part, these<br />
alterations (Turner and Rabalais, 2003)<br />
occurred well before the advent of<br />
increased nutrient loads, and are not<br />
coincident in time with the development<br />
and worsening of hypoxia. The watershed<br />
is less capable of removing nutrients, but<br />
the consensus for mitigating excess nutrients<br />
is <strong>to</strong> reduce them as close <strong>to</strong> their<br />
sources as possible (Science Advisory<br />
Board, 2007). However, actions taken<br />
<strong>to</strong> manage the distribution of river flow<br />
through the Mississippi-Atchafalaya<br />
deltaic plain in the future, especially as a<br />
mechanism for coastal res<strong>to</strong>ration, could<br />
be of major consequence <strong>to</strong> the development<br />
and distribution of hypoxia on<br />
the continental shelf and eutrophication<br />
of ambient receiving waters (Ren et al.,<br />
2009). Further, the inputs of terrestrial<br />
carbon from the watershed or loss of<br />
carbon from deteriorating wetlands along<br />
the coast have been ruled out as contribu<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
<strong>to</strong> the carbon loading that leads <strong>to</strong><br />
hypoxia (Eadie et al., 1994; Turner and<br />
Rabalais, 1994; Turner et al., 2007; Das<br />
et al., 2010). Nutrient stimulation via<br />
Oceanography | June 2011 205
upwelled waters, atmospheric deposition<br />
on<strong>to</strong> the Gulf, and groundwater inputs is<br />
unlikely or limited (Rabalais et al., 2007).<br />
oilmAggeDoN AND<br />
DeAD ZoNes<br />
The northern Gulf of Mexico dead zone<br />
received much media attention in 2010<br />
for several reasons:<br />
1. It was above average in size, severity,<br />
and persistence (http://www.<br />
gulfhypoxia.net), consistent with<br />
higher-than-normal Mississippi<br />
River flows in spring and summer<br />
(→ stronger stratification → greater<br />
nutrient loads → higher carbon fixation<br />
and carbon flux)<br />
2. There were areas of lower oxygen<br />
associated with the BP Deepwater<br />
Horizon oil spill at 1,100–1,200-m<br />
depth where the subsurface oil<br />
plume was observed (Joint Analysis<br />
Group, 2010, but see Camilli et al.,<br />
2010), but never near approaching<br />
hypoxia or even the natural lowoxygen<br />
area at 500–800-m depth<br />
(Rabalais et al., 2002)<br />
3. Oil mitigation measures (release of<br />
Mississippi River water through diversions)<br />
likely increased the noxious<br />
and harmful algal blooms, hypoxia,<br />
and fish kill problems <strong>to</strong> the east of<br />
the Mississippi River delta where there<br />
was also visible oil<br />
4. Typical shelf hypoxia overlapped with<br />
the distribution of emulsified oil on<br />
the water surface during the three<br />
months of oil gushing (recent work of<br />
the author and colleagues)<br />
5. The media really wanted <strong>to</strong> link the oil<br />
spill <strong>to</strong> the formation of hypoxia on<br />
the continental shelf<br />
By many analyses <strong>to</strong>o detailed <strong>to</strong><br />
outline here, there is little indication<br />
206<br />
Oceanography | Vol.24, No.2<br />
that the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill<br />
contributed <strong>to</strong> shelf hypoxia in 2010.<br />
Rather, the usual suites of conditions<br />
that lead <strong>to</strong> hypoxia were in force. In<br />
addition, the discharge of the Mississippi<br />
River in 2010 was well above average,<br />
with three peaks in spring and aboveaverage<br />
flow from July <strong>to</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber,<br />
extending the conditions of hypoxia<br />
formation and maintenance much later<br />
in<strong>to</strong> the “hypoxia year” (recent work<br />
of the author and colleagues). Still,<br />
the media rightly focused attention<br />
on the northern Gulf of Mexico dead<br />
zone as an environmental problem<br />
caused by humans over a half century<br />
of willfully ignoring the downstream<br />
fate of pollutants, especially nutrients<br />
from excess fertilizer. The Oil Spill<br />
Commission (2011) also recognized the<br />
dead zone as an issue that needed <strong>to</strong> be<br />
addressed by the Gulf Coast Ecosystem<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force (Presidential<br />
Executive Order, 2010).<br />
VANishiNg lANDs<br />
Slow-moving, still waters meandering<br />
in bayous through quiet swamps and<br />
expansive wetlands teeming with fish<br />
and wildlife is the often-conjured<br />
landscape of coastal waters across the<br />
northern Gulf of Mexico. The earliest<br />
aerial pho<strong>to</strong>graphs of coastal Louisiana<br />
would support that vision and showed<br />
vast expanses of wetlands (equal <strong>to</strong><br />
85% of the <strong>to</strong>tal land area; Baumann<br />
and Turner, 1990) and an interwoven<br />
network of natural channels. Eighteen<br />
percent of the coastal land present<br />
in the 1930s (3,954 km2 ) was lost by<br />
1990 (Britsch and Dunbar, 1993), and<br />
70% of this land loss occurred in the<br />
deltaic plain. The coast-wide land-loss<br />
rate peaked in the 1960s and 1970s<br />
(104 km2 yr –1 ), slowed (62 km2 yr –1 )<br />
between 1990 and 2000 (Barras, 2006),<br />
and was on a trajec<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>to</strong> be only<br />
10 km2 yr –1 at the turn of the century<br />
(Turner, 2009) until Hurricanes Katrina<br />
and Rita in 2005 converted 513 km2 of<br />
land <strong>to</strong> open water (Barras, 2006).<br />
Manipulation of the coastal landscape<br />
began as soon as European settlers<br />
arrived, with construction of levees<br />
and draining of swamps <strong>to</strong> create land<br />
for cities and agriculture, ditching<br />
of wetlands for mosqui<strong>to</strong> control,<br />
cutting of cypress trees, dredging of<br />
navigation routes, and dynamiting of<br />
channels for fur trapping. By 1915,<br />
agricultural impoundments across the<br />
Louisiana coast captured 452 km2 of<br />
former wetlands (Turner and Streever,<br />
2002). Several large impoundments<br />
(Delta Farms, The Pen, and Big Mar)<br />
in the deltaic plain are now open water<br />
following soil compaction and levee<br />
failures. Since the late 1930s, the water<br />
levels of 3,400 km2 of coastal wetlands<br />
and open waters have been managed<br />
by water-control structures and manmade<br />
levees <strong>to</strong> control salinity, enhance<br />
vegetation, mitigate land loss, or improve<br />
wildlife habitat (Boyer, 1997). Rather<br />
emergent plant cover was sometimes<br />
reduced behind the weirs (Turner et al.,<br />
1989), and the management practices<br />
were causally related <strong>to</strong> increased land<br />
loss or were of no benefit (Boyer, 1997).<br />
Most wetland losses in Louisiana<br />
have resulted from submergence, as<br />
accretion of new soil and organic plant<br />
material is unable <strong>to</strong> keep pace with the<br />
relative sea level rise because of altered<br />
hydrology, lack of mineral sediments,<br />
and deteriorated landscapes that do not<br />
support continued growth of marshes.<br />
Dredging of canals for oil and gas
ecovery efforts began in the 1930s and<br />
peaked in the 1960s. Direct removal of<br />
sediments over that period is equivalent<br />
<strong>to</strong> 1,017 km2 (Britsch and Dunbar, 1993)<br />
and an equal area of spoil banks on the<br />
adjacent wetlands (Figure 6; Baumann<br />
and Turner, 1990). A much larger indirect<br />
impact from canals and dredged<br />
spoil deposits, demonstrable at several<br />
temporal and spatial scales, is inferred<br />
from close correspondence between<br />
land-loss rates in the deltaic plain and<br />
dredging (Turner, 2009). There are<br />
plausible cause-and-effect explanations<br />
for these relationships that are related <strong>to</strong><br />
the loss of accumulated organic matter<br />
and plant stress that accompanies altered<br />
hydrology (Swenson and Turner, 1987;<br />
Turner, 1997, 2004).<br />
Until completion of the levee system<br />
along the lower Mississippi River,<br />
seasonal overbank flooding provided<br />
river sediment input <strong>to</strong> the coastal<br />
landscape, but extensive river control<br />
was completed before the dramatic land<br />
losses began. The drop in suspended<br />
sediment supply is consistent with the<br />
completion of a series of dams and<br />
reservoirs on the Missouri River in 1950<br />
(Turner and Rabalais, 2003; Blum and<br />
Roberts, 2010). As described below,<br />
high rates of localized subsidence in<br />
the deltaic plain can be attributed <strong>to</strong><br />
oil and gas extraction (Mor<strong>to</strong>n et al.,<br />
2005). Except for the current birdfoot<br />
and Atchafalaya-Wax Lake deltas, the<br />
deltaic plain as a whole is in retreat<br />
(Penland et al., 1988; Blum and Roberts,<br />
2009). Although some of the causes are<br />
natural fac<strong>to</strong>rs, most of the deterioration<br />
has been due <strong>to</strong> human activities,<br />
which disrupted river flows and<br />
altered hydrology. As with mitigation<br />
of nutrients, the causes of ecosystem<br />
figure 6. canals dredged for drilling platforms and access <strong>to</strong> well heads from a natural channel. more<br />
dredged access canals can be seen in the background. N.N. Rabalais, LUMCON<br />
change and the processes underlying it<br />
are essential knowledge in res<strong>to</strong>ring or<br />
mitigating coastal land loss (National<br />
Research Council, 2008).<br />
PeTRoleum iNDusTRy<br />
DeVeloPmeNT<br />
The 1930s marked the birth of the petroleum<br />
industry in the bays and wetlands<br />
of Louisiana when drilling in the<br />
wetlands began from submergible barges<br />
(Priest, 2007). A free-standing structure<br />
that produced oil in the open Gulf<br />
was installed in 1938 a mile and a half<br />
offshore of Cameron, LA. The first recognized<br />
offshore platform was installed<br />
in 1947 in Kerr-McGee’s Ship Shoal<br />
Block 32 in 6 m of water. Afterward,<br />
there was a wave of open-water developments,<br />
with technological advances<br />
moving wells beyond 20-m depth in<br />
the 1960s (Priest, 2007). By 2007, there<br />
were nearly 4,000 active platforms<br />
servicing 35,000 wells and 29,000 miles<br />
(46,671 km) of pipeline on the continental<br />
shelf waters of Louisiana and<br />
Texas (Priest, 2007), providing close <strong>to</strong><br />
one-third of the US oil and gas production.<br />
Although reserves are becoming<br />
depleted and redrilling wells is not<br />
always profitable, work continues in the<br />
nearshore and continental shelf waters of<br />
the northern Gulf.<br />
The flat coastal landscape, with its<br />
many bayous and natural waterways,<br />
coupled with advancing technology <strong>to</strong><br />
access reservoirs of oil and natural gas<br />
along with onshore facilities that could<br />
be built close <strong>to</strong> the sources helped<br />
the initial expansion of the industry.<br />
As oil was discovered and produced,<br />
access canals were cut through marshes,<br />
navigation channels were dredged,<br />
thousands of miles of pipeline were laid<br />
<strong>to</strong> consolidate and transport the oil and<br />
natural gas inland, and seismic vehicles<br />
crisscrossed the landscape looking for<br />
more oil. Supportive and protective<br />
Oceanography | June 2011 207
governments facilitated oil and gas<br />
expansion in coastal Louisiana. Facilities<br />
were built <strong>to</strong> separate the petroleum<br />
or natural gas from highly saline and<br />
contaminated waters that were brought<br />
<strong>to</strong> the surface along with the oil and<br />
gas from the deep geologic formations.<br />
These waters were held in pits awaiting<br />
evaporation of the water, which would be<br />
followed by scooping out the remaining<br />
contaminants for transfer elsewhere<br />
inland, or the contaminated waters were<br />
discharged in<strong>to</strong> local waters. Discharge<br />
of the contaminated waters is no longer<br />
legal within the coastal zone (since<br />
1999), but offshore production platforms<br />
routinely separate waters from the petroleum<br />
products and discharge them at sea<br />
within regula<strong>to</strong>ry limits.<br />
Since the mid-1980s, exploration<br />
for oil and gas has extended in<strong>to</strong> everdeeper<br />
waters of the Gulf of Mexico,<br />
defined as 200 m or more by the<br />
Deepwater Oil and Gas Royalty Relief<br />
208<br />
Oceanography | Vol.24, No.2<br />
Act. Extraordinary technological developments<br />
allowed the industry <strong>to</strong> drill<br />
for oil at great depths, efforts that were<br />
rewarded by yields that exceeded shelf<br />
wells by an order of magnitude. There<br />
are approximately 7,310 active leases<br />
in the US Gulf of Mexico Exclusive<br />
Economic Zone, and 58% of them are<br />
in deep water (Nomack, 2010). The BP<br />
Deepwater Horizon drilling platform<br />
in 1,500 m of water was not the first<br />
exploration and production venture in<strong>to</strong><br />
the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico and<br />
not the deepest. In 2007, the Minerals<br />
Management Service (now Bureau of<br />
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation<br />
and Enforcement) reported 15 rigs<br />
drilling for oil and gas in water depths of<br />
1,500 m or more (Nomack, 2010).<br />
Petroleum exploration and production<br />
infrastructure (shipyards, tank<br />
farms, fabrication yards, ports, transportation<br />
centers, and related businesses)<br />
dot the coast. Major industrial<br />
figure 7. eroded wetlands surrounding pipeline canals and dredged access canals in the lafitte oil field<br />
in the Barataria estuary, southeastern louisiana. N.N. Rabalais, LUMCON<br />
installations were built <strong>to</strong> support the<br />
discovery, extraction, production, transport,<br />
and refining of petroleum products.<br />
Economic benefits, employment opportunities,<br />
and improved social support<br />
systems were also generated in its wake.<br />
The petroleum enterprise reshaped the<br />
coastal landscape and altered the social<br />
substance as well.<br />
The maze of canals, channels, and<br />
pipeline crossings have scarred the<br />
coastal landscape and contributed,<br />
among other fac<strong>to</strong>rs, <strong>to</strong> massive erosion<br />
and drowning of marshes (Figure 7).<br />
The fractured coast is less able <strong>to</strong> protect<br />
people and infrastructure, including<br />
that of the petroleum industry, in the<br />
face of severe hurricanes such as Ivan<br />
in 2004, Katrina and Rita in 2005,<br />
and Ike in 2008. Shrimp production<br />
across the northern Gulf of Mexico is<br />
intimately linked with the acreage of<br />
coastal wetlands (Turner, 1977), and it<br />
is clear that the bountiful fisheries of<br />
the northern Gulf of Mexico depend<br />
on coastal wetlands for survival. A fine<br />
friction between the petroleum industry<br />
and the fishing industry holds <strong>to</strong>gether<br />
the economy and culture of the region.<br />
Oil and gas coexist with crabbing and<br />
recreational fishing, but the essence of<br />
the landscape has changed, dramatically<br />
endangering both.<br />
ResToR ATioN of A<br />
DAmAgeD ecosysTem<br />
The oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon<br />
spill s<strong>to</strong>pped flowing on July 16, 2010,<br />
after almost three months. By the end<br />
of the year, some impacts had been<br />
noted such as the 1,500 km of oiled<br />
shoreline habitats; the numbers of oiled<br />
or dead birds, sea turtles, and marine<br />
mammals; days of lost income due <strong>to</strong>
fishing closures; loss of rental income<br />
for beachside property; or other visible<br />
and tangible signs. But considerable<br />
effort continues on the assessment of<br />
damages, and relevant research programs<br />
are underway. It will be years before<br />
the agreed-upon estimate of how much<br />
oil and gas spewed from the well is<br />
established, a comprehensive picture<br />
of the fate of the oil is drawn, broader<br />
environmental and social impacts are<br />
documented, and economic damages<br />
summed. It may be years—decades<br />
or longer—before effects on fisheries<br />
resources or sensitive populations are<br />
fully determined. And, we must consider<br />
that we may never know the levels of<br />
exposure <strong>to</strong> oil or whether suspected<br />
impacts are at all related <strong>to</strong> the spill.<br />
The federal and state trustees<br />
charged with assessing and res<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
oil-damaged natural resources issued<br />
a Notice of Intent on September 29,<br />
2010, <strong>to</strong> conduct res<strong>to</strong>ration planning.<br />
This action means the government<br />
found evidence of oil damage <strong>to</strong> natural<br />
resources that warrants a formal Natural<br />
Resource Damage Assessment in which<br />
the oil spill’s impact will be quantified.<br />
This work, in turn, will form the basis<br />
for a financial claim against the responsible<br />
parties—BP and other companies—for<br />
the cost of res<strong>to</strong>ring natural<br />
resources and lost uses <strong>to</strong> their pre-spill<br />
conditions. In addition, President<br />
Obama issued an Executive Order<br />
(Presidential Executive Order, 2010)<br />
for a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
Task Force <strong>to</strong> develop a res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
strategy that addresses environmental<br />
degradation in the Gulf of Mexico before<br />
the oil disaster. Thus, the ills suffered<br />
by the coastal landscape and coastal<br />
waters through decades of human<br />
mismanagement become a broader<br />
focus and an opportunity for res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
of a deteriorating landscape. The Oil<br />
Spill Commission (2011) recommended<br />
that long-term res<strong>to</strong>ration efforts have<br />
the ability <strong>to</strong> set binding goals and<br />
priorities, allocate funding in a way that<br />
addresses the relative res<strong>to</strong>ration needs<br />
of individual states, balance the roles<br />
and interests of state and federal governments,<br />
ensure that decisions are made<br />
efficiently and quickly, incorporate good<br />
science without unduly slowing valuable<br />
projects, and incorporate meaningful<br />
public input. The Commission recommended<br />
that Congress establish a joint<br />
state-federal council similar <strong>to</strong> the<br />
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council<br />
<strong>to</strong> ensure an effective res<strong>to</strong>ration effort.<br />
gRAND chAlleNge<br />
AND oPPoRTuNiTies<br />
With the creation of the Gulf Coast<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force, President<br />
Obama committed <strong>to</strong> a vision of res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
that reaches far beyond our usual<br />
understanding. The vision encompasses<br />
remediating the short- and long-term<br />
impacts of the BP Deepwater Horizon<br />
oil spill on ecological and social systems<br />
and strives <strong>to</strong> “right the wrongs” of<br />
multidecadal mismanagement and<br />
abuse by humans unwittingly, but also<br />
willingly, destroying the environment<br />
that provided them with their ecological<br />
and economic support. Among the<br />
“wrongs” <strong>to</strong> be addressed are the longterm<br />
failures in water quality that lead<br />
“The TRAgeDy of uNiNTeNDeD coNsequeNces<br />
hAs DoNe much To DegRADe The gulf ecosysTem<br />
oVeR The lAsT ceNTuRy, AND The chAlleNge of The<br />
fuTuRe is To ANTiciPATe AND AVoiD AcTioNs ThAT<br />
mAy Do moRe hARm ThAN gooD.<br />
”<br />
<strong>to</strong> and support the “dead zone” in the<br />
Mississippi River-influenced Gulf of<br />
Mexico (National Research Council,<br />
2007) and the deteriorating wetlands and<br />
altered landscapes of the coastal zone.<br />
The challenge is daunting but accompanies<br />
a rare opportunity <strong>to</strong> address<br />
the long-standing and critical needs<br />
of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem in an<br />
integrated manner. The idea is <strong>to</strong> form<br />
partnerships among the federal government<br />
agencies, states, communities,<br />
academia, industry, and stakeholders<br />
across the diverse, culturally rich region.<br />
The plan should not only correct obvious<br />
impacts (impaired habitat, fishery<br />
resources, and community infrastructure)<br />
but also support the res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
of “resilient, healthy Gulf of Mexico<br />
ecosystems that support diverse economies,<br />
communities, and cultures of the<br />
region” (Mabus, 2010).<br />
Oceanography | June 2011 209
210<br />
Habitat, resource, and social<br />
goals include:<br />
• Healthy and resilient coastal wetland<br />
and barrier shoreline habitats<br />
• Healthy, diverse, and sustainable<br />
fisheries<br />
• Adaptive and resilient coastal<br />
communities, with more sustainable<br />
s<strong>to</strong>rm buffers<br />
• Healthy and well-managed<br />
inland habitats, watersheds, and<br />
offshore waters<br />
These goals are “Grand Challenges” <strong>to</strong><br />
say the least. As we move forward, a few<br />
guiding principles should be employed:<br />
• Res<strong>to</strong>ration should be ecosystembased.<br />
The Gulf coast ecosystem does<br />
not have state boundaries and is an<br />
interconnected system.<br />
• Maintain conceptual vision. What is a<br />
healthy and resilient Gulf ecosystem<br />
that supports living resources and<br />
sustained human uses?<br />
• Consider climate change. Recognition<br />
that coastal lands and resources are<br />
subject <strong>to</strong> the effects of changing<br />
climate, particularly sea level rise.<br />
• Take a tactical approach. With<br />
large, but fixed, funding, address<br />
areas and issues of systemic<br />
environmental degradation.<br />
• Practice adaptive management. Be<br />
prepared <strong>to</strong> adapt res<strong>to</strong>ration plans<br />
in response <strong>to</strong> moni<strong>to</strong>red results of<br />
clearly stated project endpoints.<br />
• Expect nonlinearity. Be prepared for<br />
elusive, slow, or unexpected results.<br />
And one last principle: Exercise caution.<br />
The tragedy of unintended consequences<br />
has done much <strong>to</strong> degrade the Gulf<br />
ecosystem over the last century, and the<br />
challenge of the future is <strong>to</strong> anticipate<br />
and avoid actions that may do more<br />
harm than good.<br />
Oceanography | Vol.24, No.2<br />
RefeReNces<br />
Alexander, R.B., R.A. Smith, G.E. Schwarz,<br />
E.W. Boyer, J.V. Nolan, and J.W. Brakebill.<br />
2008. Differences in phosphorus and nitrogen<br />
delivery <strong>to</strong> the Gulf of Mexico from the<br />
Mississippi River. Environmental Science and<br />
Technology 42:822–830.<br />
Barras, J.A. 2006. Land area change in coastal<br />
Louisiana after the 2005 hurricanes: A series<br />
of three maps. US Geological Survey Open-File<br />
Report 2006-1274.<br />
Baumann, R.H., and R.E. Turner. 1990. Direct<br />
impacts of outer continental shelf activities<br />
on wetland loss in the central Gulf of<br />
Mexico. Environmental Geology and Water<br />
Resources 15:189–198.<br />
Blum, M.D., and H.H. Roberts. 2009. Drowning of<br />
the Mississippi Delta due <strong>to</strong> insufficient sediment<br />
supply and global sea-level rise. Nature<br />
Geoscience 2:488–491.<br />
Boesch, D.F., M.N. Josselyn, A.J. Mehta, J.T. Morris,<br />
W.K. Nuttle, C.A. Simenstad, and D.J.P. Swift.<br />
1994. Scientific assessment of coastal<br />
wetland loss, res<strong>to</strong>ration and management in<br />
Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research, Special<br />
Issue 20:1–103.<br />
Boyer, M.E. 1997. The effect of long-term marsh<br />
management on land-loss rates in coastal<br />
Louisiana. Environmental Management<br />
21:97–104.<br />
Britsch, L.D., and J.B. Dunbar. 1993. Land-loss<br />
rates: Louisiana Coastal Plain. Journal of<br />
Coastal Research 9:324–338.<br />
Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger,<br />
B.A.S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey,<br />
C.P. McIntyre, S.P. Sylva, and J.V. Maloney.<br />
2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport<br />
and biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon.<br />
Science 8:201–204.<br />
Committee on Environment and Natural<br />
Resources. 2000. Integrated Assessment of<br />
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.<br />
National Science and Technology Council,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC.<br />
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United<br />
States: 1780s <strong>to</strong> 1980s. US Department<br />
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC.<br />
Das, A., D. Justić, and E. Swenson. 2010. Modeling<br />
estuarine-shelf exchanges in a deltaic estuary:<br />
Implications for coastal carbon budgets and<br />
hypoxia. Ecological Modeling 221:978–985.<br />
Díaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 1995. Marine benthic<br />
hypoxia: A review of its ecological effects and<br />
the behavioral <strong>responses</strong> of benthic macrofauna.<br />
Oceanography and Marine Biology<br />
Annual Review 33:245–303.<br />
Díaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead<br />
zones and consequences for marine ecosystems.<br />
Science 321:926–929.<br />
Eadie, B.J., B.A. McKee, M.B. Lansing, J.A. Robbins,<br />
S. Metz, and J.H. Trefry. 1994. Records of<br />
nutrient-enhanced coastal productivity in sediments<br />
from the Louisiana continental shelf.<br />
Estuaries 17:754–765.<br />
Ekau, W., H. Auel, H.-O. Pörtner, and D. Gilbert.<br />
2010. Impacts of hypoxia on the structure<br />
and processes in pelagic communities<br />
(zooplank<strong>to</strong>n, macro-invertebrates and fish).<br />
Biogeosciences 7:1,669–1,699.<br />
Goolsby, D.A., W.A. Battaglin. G.B. Lawrence,<br />
R.S. Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper,<br />
D.R. Keeney, and G.J. Stensland. 1999. Flux<br />
and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi-<br />
Atchafalaya River Basin, Topic 3 Report for the<br />
Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Gulf<br />
of Mexico. National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration Coastal Ocean Program,<br />
Decision Analysis Series No. 17. National<br />
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<br />
Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD.<br />
Greeley, W.B. 1925. The relation of geography <strong>to</strong><br />
timber supply. Economic Geography 1:1–14.<br />
Joint Analysis Group, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.<br />
2010. Data available at http://ecowatch.ncddc.<br />
noaa.gov/JAG/data.html and http://ecowatch.<br />
ncddc.noaa.gov/thredds/catalog_dwh.html.<br />
Kemp, W.M., J.M. Testa, D.J. Conley, D. Gilbert,<br />
and J.D. Hagy. 2009. Temporal <strong>responses</strong> of<br />
coastal hypoxia <strong>to</strong> nutrient loading and physical<br />
controls. Biogeosciences 6:2,985–3,008.<br />
Meade, R.H., ed. 1995. Contaminants in the<br />
Mississippi River, 1987–1992. US Geological<br />
Survey Circular 1133, US Department of the<br />
Interior. US Geological Survey, Denver CO.<br />
Meade, R.H. 1996. River-sediment input <strong>to</strong> major<br />
deltas. Pp. 63–85 in Sea-level Rise and Coastal<br />
Subsidence: Causes, Consequences and Strategies.<br />
J.D. Milliman and B.U. Hag, eds, Kluwer<br />
Academic Publishers.<br />
Meade, R.H., and R. Parker. 1985. Sediment<br />
in rivers of the United States. Pp. 49–60 in<br />
National Water Summary 1984. US Geological<br />
Survey Water Supply Paper No. 2275.<br />
Milliman, J.D., and R.H. Meade. 1983. World-wide<br />
delivery of river sediment <strong>to</strong> the ocean. Journal<br />
of Geology 91:1–21.<br />
Mor<strong>to</strong>n, T.A., J.C. Bernier, J.A. Barras, and<br />
N.F. Ferina. 2005. Rapid Subsidence and<br />
His<strong>to</strong>rical Wetland Loss in the Mississippi Delta<br />
Plain: Likely Causes and Future Implications.<br />
US Geological Survey Open-File Report<br />
2005–1215. U.S. Government Printing Office,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC.<br />
Levin, L.A., W. Ekau, A. Gooday, F. Jorrisen,<br />
J. Middelburg, C. Neira. N.N. Rabalais,<br />
S.W.A. Naqvi, and J. Zhang. 2009. Effects of<br />
natural and human-induced hypoxia on coastal<br />
benthos. Biogeosciences 6:2,063–2,098.<br />
Mabus, R. 2010. America’s Gulf Coast: A Long Term<br />
Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon<br />
Oil Spill. Report <strong>to</strong> President Barack Obama.
Available online at: http://www.res<strong>to</strong>rethegulf.<br />
gov/release/2010/09/28/america%E2%80%99sgulf-coast-long-term-recovery-plan-afterdeepwater-horizon-oil-spill<br />
(accessed<br />
May 2, 2011).<br />
Nomack, M. 2010. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico oil<br />
reserves and production. In Encyclopedia of<br />
Earth. C.E. Cleveland, ed., National Council<br />
for Science and the Technology, Washing<strong>to</strong>n,<br />
DC. Excerpts available online at: http://www.<br />
eoearth.org/articles/view/158852/ (accessed<br />
May 2, 2011).<br />
National Research Council. 2003. Oil in the Sea:<br />
Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies<br />
Press, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC.<br />
National Research Council. 2007. The Mississippi<br />
River and the Clean Water Act: Progress,<br />
Challenges, and Opportunities. National<br />
Academies Press, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC.<br />
National Research Council. 2008. First Report<br />
from the NRC Committee on the Review of the<br />
Louisiana Coastal Protection and Res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
(LACPR) Program. National Academies Press,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC.<br />
Oil Spill Commission. 2011. Deep Water: The Gulf<br />
Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling.<br />
Recommendations of the National Commission<br />
on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and<br />
Offshore Drilling, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C. Available<br />
online at: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov<br />
(access May 2, 2011).<br />
Penland, S., R. Boyd, and J.R. Suter. 1988. The<br />
transgressive depositional systems of the<br />
Mississippi deltaic plain: A model for barrier<br />
shoreline and shelf sand development. Journal<br />
of Sedimentary Petrology 58(6):932–949.<br />
Presidential Executive Order. 2010. Establishing<br />
the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task<br />
Force. Executive Order No. 13554, 75 Fed. Reg.<br />
62313–62317, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 8, 2010.<br />
Priest, T. 2007. Extraction not creation: The his<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
of offshore petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
Pp. 227–267 in Business His<strong>to</strong>ry Conference.<br />
Oxford University Press.<br />
Prince, H. 1997. Wetlands of the American Midwest.<br />
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.<br />
Rabalais, N.N., and R.E. Turner, eds. 2001. Coastal<br />
Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and<br />
Ecosystems. Coastal and Estuarine Studies 58,<br />
American Geophysical Union, Washing<strong>to</strong>n,<br />
DC, 454 pp.<br />
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and D. Scavia.<br />
2002. Beyond science in<strong>to</strong> policy: Gulf of<br />
Mexico hypoxia and the Mississippi River.<br />
BioScience 52:129–142.<br />
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, B.K. Sen Gupta,<br />
D.F. Boesch, P. Chapman, and M.C. Murrell.<br />
2007. Characterization and long-term trends of<br />
hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Does<br />
the science support the action plan? Estuaries<br />
and Coasts 30:753–772.<br />
Rabalais, N.N., R.J. Díaz, L.A. Levin, R.E. Turner,<br />
D. Gilbert, and J. Zhang. 2010. Dynamics and<br />
distribution of natural and human-caused<br />
coastal hypoxia. Biogeosciences 7:585–619.<br />
Ren, L., N.N. Rabalais, W. Morrison,<br />
W. Mendenhall, and R.E. Turner. 2009.<br />
Nutrient limitation on phy<strong>to</strong>plank<strong>to</strong>n growth<br />
in upper Barataria Basin, Louisiana: Microcosm<br />
bioassays. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 958–974.<br />
Renaud, M. 1986. Hypoxia in Louisiana coastal<br />
waters during 1983: Implications for fisheries.<br />
Fishery Bulletin 84:19–26.<br />
Science Advisory Board. 2007. Hypoxia in the<br />
Gulf of Mexico: An Update. US Environmental<br />
Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board<br />
(SAB) Hypoxia Panel Draft Advisory Report.<br />
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/<br />
sab/pdf/11-19-07_hap_draft.pdf (accessed<br />
May 2, 2011).<br />
Swenson, E.M., and R.E. Turner. 1987. Spoil banks:<br />
Effects on a coastal marsh water level regime.<br />
Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 24:599–609.<br />
Turner, R.E. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and<br />
commercial yields of penaeid shrimp.<br />
Transactions of the American Fisheries<br />
Society 106:411–416.<br />
Turner, R.E. 1997. Wetland loss in the northern<br />
Gulf of Mexico: Multiple working hypotheses.<br />
Estuaries 20:1–13.<br />
Turner, R.E. 2004. Coastal wetland subsidence<br />
arising from local hydrologic manipulations.<br />
Estuaries 27:265–273.<br />
Turner, R.E. 2009. Perspective. Doubt and the<br />
values of an ignorance-based world view<br />
for res<strong>to</strong>ration: Coastal Louisiana wetlands.<br />
Estuaries and Coasts 32:1,054–1,068.<br />
Turner, R.E., J.W. Day Jr., and J.G. Gosselink. 1989.<br />
Weirs and their effects in coastal wetlands<br />
(exclusive of fisheries). Proceedings of the<br />
Louisiana Geological Survey/US Fish Wildlife<br />
Service. Marsh Management Symposium<br />
Biological Report 89(22):151–163.<br />
Turner, R.E., and N.N. Rabalais. 1991. Changes<br />
in Mississippi River water quality this century<br />
and implications for coastal food webs.<br />
BioScience 41:140–147.<br />
Turner, R.E., and N.N. Rabalais. 1994. Coastal<br />
eutrophication near the Mississippi river delta.<br />
Nature 368:619–621.<br />
Turner, R.E., and N.N. Rabalais. 2003.<br />
Linking landscape and water quality in<br />
the Mississippi River basin for 200 years.<br />
BioScience 53:563–572.<br />
Turner, R.E., N.N. Rabalais, R.B. Alexander,<br />
G. McIsaac, and R.W. Howarth. 2007.<br />
Characterization of nutrient, organic carbon<br />
and sediment loads from the Mississippi River<br />
in<strong>to</strong> the northern Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries and<br />
Coasts 30:773–790.<br />
Turner, R.E., and B. Streever. 2002. Approaches <strong>to</strong><br />
Coastal Wetland Res<strong>to</strong>ration: Northern Gulf<br />
of Mexico. S<strong>PB</strong> Academic Publishing bv, The<br />
Hague, 147 pp.<br />
Oceanography | June 2011 211
STATE OF THE GULF<br />
A Status Report from the Save Our<br />
Gulf Waterkeepers in the Wake of<br />
the BP Oil Disaster<br />
September 2011<br />
Waterkeeper Alliance<br />
Save Our Gulf<br />
Apalachicola Riverkeeper<br />
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper<br />
Emerald Coastkeeper<br />
Galves<strong>to</strong>n Baykeeper<br />
Louisiana Bayoukeeper<br />
Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper<br />
Mobile Baykeeper
Thank you <strong>to</strong> everyone<br />
who has s<strong>to</strong>od by the<br />
Gulf Coast Waterkeeper<br />
organizations over the<br />
past year.<br />
Acknowledgments<br />
Thank you <strong>to</strong> all the contribu<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> this publication:<br />
Renee Blanchard<br />
Justin Bloom<br />
Casi Callaway<br />
Tammy Herring<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Chasidy Hobbs<br />
John Hoving<br />
Tracy Kuhns<br />
Marylee Orr<br />
Designer: Thinka<br />
Michael Orr<br />
Paul Orr<br />
Tom Quinn<br />
Janelle Robbins<br />
Mike Roberts<br />
Jamie Rodgers<br />
Nicole Spade<br />
Wilma Subra<br />
Dan Tonsmeier<br />
Robin Rickell Vroelgop<br />
John Wathen<br />
Charlotte Wells<br />
Dean Wilson<br />
Marc Yaggi<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 3<br />
Contents<br />
Introduction<br />
Seven Key Findings<br />
National Importance of the Gulf Coast<br />
Timeline of the BP Oil Disaster and Community Response<br />
The Ongoing BP Oil Disaster<br />
Creating an Action Plan for Recovery<br />
Offshore Drilling Mora<strong>to</strong>rium<br />
Where Did the Oil Go?<br />
Growing Public Health Concerns<br />
BP’s Public Relations Machine<br />
Citizen Environmental Moni<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
Results of Save Our Gulf Sampling<br />
Examination of Government Sampling<br />
Where Do We Go from Here?<br />
New Gulf of Mexico Oil Spills<br />
The Importance of Citizen Involvement<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration and Holding BP Accountable<br />
A Sustainable and Resilient Gulf Coast<br />
Notes
4 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 5<br />
Over a year later, our environment and<br />
our communities continue <strong>to</strong> see impacts on<br />
a daily basis. Across the Gulf Coast oil<br />
continues <strong>to</strong> wash ashore along beaches<br />
and wetlands. Local and state economies and<br />
household budgets are still suffering, and<br />
health impacts, potentially from exposure<br />
<strong>to</strong> the mixture of crude oil and <strong>to</strong>xic<br />
dispersant, are being reported.<br />
Introduction<br />
On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon exploded and<br />
the lives of eleven people were lost. Nine days later oil<br />
began <strong>to</strong> hit the wetlands of coastal Louisiana. Between<br />
April 22 and July15, 2010, it is estimated that 250 million<br />
gallons of crude oil were discharged from the Deepwater<br />
Horizon well and 1.84 million gallons of Corexit 9500 and<br />
9527, <strong>to</strong>xic oil dispersant products, were applied, making<br />
the largest percentage of the oil unrecovered, with<br />
unknown long-term environmental impacts.<br />
Our nation has never seen an environmental disaster of<br />
this magnitude. Over a year later, our environment and<br />
our communities continue <strong>to</strong> see impacts on a daily basis.<br />
Across the Gulf Coast oil continues <strong>to</strong> wash ashore along<br />
beaches and wetlands. Local and state economies and<br />
household budgets are still suffering, and health impacts,<br />
potentially from exposure <strong>to</strong> the mixture of crude oil and<br />
<strong>to</strong>xic dispersant, are being reported.<br />
This State of the Gulf report documents the current<br />
conditions of the Gulf Coast from the perspective of seven<br />
members of the Waterkeeper Alliance. The initiative Save<br />
Our Gulf is made up of the seven Waterkeeper organizations<br />
in the Gulf Coast region that continues <strong>to</strong> be directly<br />
impacted by the BP oil disaster: from west <strong>to</strong> east they<br />
are Galves<strong>to</strong>n Baykeeper, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper,<br />
Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper, Louisiana Bayoukeeper,<br />
Mobile Baykeeper, Emerald Coastkeeper and<br />
Apalachicola Riverkeeper.<br />
In addition <strong>to</strong> explaining the government’s response, BP’s<br />
actions, and the continuing calls for help by communities<br />
working <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re the Gulf Coast’s natural resources, the<br />
report also discusses what still needs <strong>to</strong> be done, from<br />
creating a Regional Citizens Advisory Council <strong>to</strong> securing<br />
appropriate environmental res<strong>to</strong>ration projects and<br />
building more sustainable communities.<br />
The main section of this report details the results of the<br />
Save Our Gulf Environmental Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Project, including<br />
oyster tissue sampling from Louisiana <strong>to</strong> Florida. Save<br />
Our Gulf Waterkeepers are committed <strong>to</strong> continuing its<br />
Environmental Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Project over the coming years.
6 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 7<br />
Seven Key Findings<br />
1<br />
Long-term environmental moni<strong>to</strong>ring is essential.<br />
Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers have collected and analyzed more than 100 samples of aquatic organism tissue,<br />
soil, and water from Gulf of Mexico coastal areas from Louisiana <strong>to</strong> Florida. We found petroleum hydrocarbon<br />
contamination in all of the areas that were sampled and in the tissue of many of the seafood species. The<br />
data that we collected also lead us <strong>to</strong> believe that Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination in<br />
some seafood species may be increasing over time. In light of these results we believe that comprehensive<br />
long-term environmental moni<strong>to</strong>ring is essential <strong>to</strong> understanding, protecting, and res<strong>to</strong>ring the Gulf Coast<br />
ecosystem in the wake of the BP oil disaster.<br />
2<br />
The BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster is<br />
an ongoing disaster.<br />
The oil is not gone, and long-term impacts are still unknown.<br />
If past oil spills are used as a barometer, we can fully<br />
expect the Gulf Coast <strong>to</strong> suffer continued environmental<br />
degradation for decades. Leading scientific studies are<br />
showing that three-fourths of the oil is still lingering on the<br />
bot<strong>to</strong>m of the Gulf of Mexico, creating an unprecedented<br />
and unknown new environmental reality for the Gulf Coast.<br />
Oil is also still along the coastal areas in the form of tar<br />
balls, strings, and mats as well as in subsurface sandy<br />
beach areas. Our governmental and community leaders<br />
must work in concert <strong>to</strong> find long-term, sustainable<br />
solutions for recovery and res<strong>to</strong>ration.<br />
3<br />
The BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster<br />
is a national disaster.<br />
The Gulf Coast serves as a resource for the entire nation.<br />
The Gulf of Mexico has one of the most productive fisheries<br />
in the world, providing more than two-thirds of the nation’s<br />
shrimp and oysters along with four of the <strong>to</strong>p seven fishing<br />
ports by weight. There are over 5 million acres of coastal<br />
wetlands along the Gulf, which is about half of the coastal<br />
wetlands in the United States. If the Gulf Coast collapses<br />
and these resources are lost, it will have negative consequences<br />
for the entire nation. 1<br />
The BP oil disaster also proved that the industry and federal<br />
and state governments and agencies are not prepared for<br />
Oil Spills of National Significance. Deficiencies in regulations<br />
and enforcement continue <strong>to</strong> threaten communities<br />
and ecosystems across the nation. At a minimum, Oil Spill<br />
Commission recommendations must be implemented in<br />
order <strong>to</strong> ensure a higher level of safety in offshore drilling.<br />
4<br />
There are growing public health concerns on the Gulf Coast.<br />
While setting up pathways <strong>to</strong>ward ecosystem res<strong>to</strong>ration,<br />
the government continues <strong>to</strong> ignore citizens’ calls for<br />
action on public health. Currently there is no government<br />
forum for those suffering from and concerned about<br />
short- and long-term health impacts. The impacts extend<br />
along the entire Gulf of Mexico states and consist of<br />
current and ex oil clean up workers and coastal communities.<br />
The people of the Gulf Coast are still in need of<br />
proper diagnosis, treatment, and medical moni<strong>to</strong>ring. Our<br />
health, economy, and environment are interconnected<br />
and solutions must reflect this.<br />
5<br />
Citizens’ participation must be placed at the highest<br />
priority for appropriate res<strong>to</strong>ration.<br />
To ensure responsible and adequate recovery and res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
for sustainable and resilient communities, public<br />
participation must be included in all decision making.<br />
A Citizen Advisory Council has been added <strong>to</strong> provide input<br />
<strong>to</strong> the federal res<strong>to</strong>ration efforts, and now a Regional<br />
Citizen Advisory Council (RCAC) must be established,<br />
funded, and given decision-making authority for the Gulf<br />
Coast. An RCAC should be charged <strong>to</strong> help moni<strong>to</strong>r<br />
industry compliance, governmental oversight, and scientific<br />
research in the years following the nation’s largest<br />
environmental disaster, thus protecting our environment,<br />
communities and economies from additional oil pollution.<br />
6<br />
Dedicate Clean Water Act penalties <strong>to</strong> the Gulf Coast<br />
for environmental res<strong>to</strong>ration.<br />
Impacted communities need leadership from their<br />
congressional delegations <strong>to</strong> ensure that Clean Water<br />
Act penalties resulting from the BP oil disaster are<br />
dedicated <strong>to</strong> the Gulf Coast for environmental res<strong>to</strong>ration.<br />
The Gulf of Mexico is a major economic engine for the entire<br />
country, and its res<strong>to</strong>ration must be adequately funded.<br />
7<br />
The Gulf Coast must res<strong>to</strong>re and rebuild sustainably.<br />
The past seven years have been tumultuous for the Gulf<br />
Coast. Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, Rita, Ike and Gustav and<br />
now the BP oil disaster have devastated both important<br />
natural resources and local economies. In our changing<br />
times and climate, the Gulf Coast must show leadership<br />
by rebuilding, recovering, and res<strong>to</strong>ring sustainability.<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ring wetlands, oyster reefs, and natural flow regimes<br />
can build resiliency back in<strong>to</strong> our coastal communities.<br />
We have an opportunity <strong>to</strong> make fundamental changes <strong>to</strong><br />
the way we have cared for our environment and natural<br />
resources, and we must not let the lessons of this disaster<br />
or the gateway <strong>to</strong> change be lost.
8 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 9<br />
National Importance of the Gulf Coast<br />
While the BP oil disaster is no longer on the nightly news or making<br />
national headlines, it continues <strong>to</strong> be an unfolding disaster that will<br />
have significant national consequences for years <strong>to</strong> come. The health<br />
of the Gulf of Mexico and its coastal areas is extremely important for<br />
our nation’s economy and environmental well-being. The four largest<br />
industries—oil, <strong>to</strong>urism, fishing and shipping—create economic<br />
activity of nearly $156 billion on the Gulf Coast each year. 2 The Gulf<br />
Coast boasts more than 50% of U.S. oil and gas reserves and has ten<br />
of the nation’s fourteen largest ports; it is the largest supplier of the<br />
nation’s seafood—40% of all seafood consumed in the lower 48 states<br />
and 83% of the nation’s shrimp and oyster landings, providing 885,000<br />
seafood-related jobs; and it has record population growth. 3 Tourism<br />
represents a $33 billion industry along the Gulf Coast, providing more<br />
than 620,000 jobs.<br />
The national environmental significance of the Gulf Coast is hard <strong>to</strong><br />
deny. The Gulf of Mexico itself is 600,000 square miles and covers<br />
1,631 miles of U.S. shoreline. The diversity and complexity of this<br />
region make it one of the most productive bodies of water and<br />
wetland systems in the nation. According <strong>to</strong> the Environmental<br />
Protection Agency, “the Gulf of Mexico yields more finfish, shrimp,<br />
and shellfish annually than the south and mid-Atlantic, Chesapeake,<br />
and New England areas combined.” 4 The marshes, swamps, and<br />
barrier islands that extend from Texas <strong>to</strong> Florida lend strategic<br />
protection against severe s<strong>to</strong>rms while providing shelter and food<br />
<strong>to</strong> a large cross-section of wildlife, including migra<strong>to</strong>ry birds. Those<br />
coastal wetlands are needed <strong>to</strong> keep our nation and communities<br />
environmentally sustainable.<br />
In spite of these significant natural resources and their contribution<br />
<strong>to</strong> the United States, Gulf Coast communities have suffered cumulative<br />
impacts of an oil pollution legacy that has plagued the region for<br />
nearly a century. Despite legislation, most oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico<br />
go without penalty, financially incentivizing careless oil discharges<br />
in<strong>to</strong> our environment. In March 2011, Bloomberg Business and<br />
Financial News published an investigation showing that only one in<br />
a hundred oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico results in a penalty. 5 In a<br />
similar CBS investigation it was found that in 2009 alone there were<br />
6,500 leaks, spills, fires, and explosions at oil and gas facilities<br />
nationwide, and more than 7,450,000 gallons of oil were discharged<br />
in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana. 6 This lax governmental enforcement<br />
puts communities across the nation in jeopardy of suffering additional<br />
Spills of National Significance. Comprehensive industry reform<br />
that prevents further oil pollution is desperately needed <strong>to</strong> protect<br />
communities and the environment.<br />
The lack of both national enforcement and resources dedicated<br />
<strong>to</strong> environmental protection and res<strong>to</strong>ration have led <strong>to</strong> additional<br />
156<br />
billion dollars is created by the<br />
four largest industries—oil,<br />
<strong>to</strong>urism, fishing and shipping–on<br />
the Gulf Coast each year. 2<br />
50%<br />
of U.S. oil and gas reserves is from<br />
the Gulf Coast<br />
620<br />
thousand jobs are provided by the<br />
Gulf Coast <strong>to</strong>urism industry—a $33<br />
billion industry.<br />
significant detrimental impacts <strong>to</strong> the Gulf Coast<br />
and its marine environment. Over the his<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
of the regional watershed programs, the Chesapeake<br />
Bay Region has received over $480 million<br />
and the Great Lakes region over $1 billion,<br />
compared <strong>to</strong> the Gulf Region being funded at just<br />
over $86 million. According <strong>to</strong> the Gulf of Mexico<br />
Foundation, an estimated 50% of the Gulf Coast’s<br />
inland and coastal wetlands have been lost, and<br />
up <strong>to</strong> 80% of the Gulf’s sea grasses have been<br />
lost in some areas.<br />
The Gulf of Mexico is home <strong>to</strong> 24 endangered<br />
and threatened species and critical habitats.<br />
Relative sea level rise impacts along the Gulf<br />
Coast have been higher than average due <strong>to</strong> local<br />
land subsidence and an increasing amount of<br />
water in the sea. Additionally, the Gulf of Mexico<br />
serves as the drainage basin for more than two<br />
thirds of the land area of the United States,<br />
receiving all the pollution that flows downstream,<br />
which results in the well-known dead zone.<br />
Without the proper funding and protections in<br />
place, we stand <strong>to</strong> lose the ecological diversity<br />
and economic productivity that the Gulf provides<br />
<strong>to</strong> the region and the nation.<br />
Timeline of the BP Oil Disaster<br />
and Community Response<br />
March 31, 2010<br />
President Obama<br />
announces the<br />
opening of the<br />
eastern Gulf of<br />
Mexico for offshore<br />
drilling.<br />
April 23, 2010<br />
April 12, 2010<br />
Hallibur<strong>to</strong>n runs<br />
second set of<br />
tests on a new<br />
cement blend on<br />
the Deepwater<br />
Horizon rig, finding<br />
it unstable.<br />
U.S. Coast Guard makes the decision<br />
<strong>to</strong> suspend the rescue effort for the<br />
11 missing rig workers. White House<br />
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs states,<br />
“I doubt this is the first accident that<br />
has happened and I doubt it will<br />
be the last.” BP CEO Tony Hayward<br />
arrives on the Gulf Coast, mobilizing<br />
senior management in what is already<br />
being called potentially the largest<br />
crisis the company has seen since<br />
a fire that killed 15 people in a Texas<br />
refinery in 2005.<br />
April 18, 2010<br />
Hallibur<strong>to</strong>n runs<br />
another test on<br />
cement blend on<br />
the Deepwater<br />
Horizon rig but<br />
does not send<br />
results <strong>to</strong> BP<br />
until 6 days after<br />
blowout.<br />
April 25, 2010!<br />
U.S. Coast Guard,<br />
based on underwater<br />
camera<br />
footage, reports<br />
that 1,000 barrels<br />
a day are being<br />
discharged. An oil<br />
sheen covering<br />
600 square miles<br />
lies about 70<br />
miles south of<br />
the Mississippi<br />
and Alabama<br />
shoreline.!<br />
April 20, 2010<br />
The first explosion<br />
occurs at 9:49 pm at the<br />
Deepwater Horizon rig,<br />
also known as the<br />
Macondo well, or MC252.<br />
A short time later a second<br />
explosion occurs;<br />
11 people are reported<br />
missing and 17 injured.<br />
April 26, 2010<br />
The Wall Street Journal states, “The<br />
fallout for BP and the oil industry<br />
could largely depend on the spill’s<br />
severity and the extent of its ecological<br />
impact. . . . The job of shutting off the<br />
well is made all the more difficult<br />
by its location. Much of the critical<br />
equipment is under almost 5,000 feet<br />
of water on the seafloor. A well in<br />
such deep water was unthinkable in<br />
prior decades, but the industry has<br />
pushed the technological envelope<br />
in recent years in its search for new<br />
sources of oil and natural gas.”<br />
April 22, 2010<br />
The rig sinks<br />
and reports of<br />
a 5-mile-long<br />
oil slick begin<br />
reaching the U.S.<br />
Coast Guard.<br />
Coast Guard Petty<br />
Officer Ashely<br />
Butler estimates<br />
the leak <strong>to</strong> be<br />
8,000 barrels of<br />
oil a day.
10 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 11<br />
April 27, 2010<br />
The oil is sighted<br />
20 miles off<br />
the coast of<br />
Louisiana.<br />
Mineral<br />
Management<br />
Service approves<br />
two relief wells.<br />
May 3<br />
BP says<br />
it will<br />
pay<br />
for all<br />
cleanup<br />
costs.<br />
May 11, 2010<br />
May 4, 2010<br />
Transocean, BP,<br />
and Hallibur<strong>to</strong>n<br />
executives testify<br />
before Congress<br />
about the series<br />
of events that led<br />
<strong>to</strong> the two rig<br />
explosions and<br />
the discharging<br />
oil. All three<br />
executives pin<br />
liability on one<br />
another.<br />
April 28, 2010<br />
Waterkeeper<br />
Alliance learns<br />
the true scope of<br />
the oil disaster as<br />
an environmental<br />
disaster unlike<br />
any the nation<br />
has ever seen.<br />
Louisiana Environmental Action<br />
Network (LEAN) and Lower<br />
Mississippi Riverkeeper (LMRK)<br />
received and began distributing<br />
protective gear <strong>to</strong> the fishermen <strong>to</strong><br />
utilize during cleanup activities.<br />
The protective gear consisted of<br />
half face respira<strong>to</strong>rs with organic<br />
cartridges, goggles, gloves and<br />
sleeve protec<strong>to</strong>rs. LEAN and LMRK<br />
have continued <strong>to</strong> provide protective<br />
gear <strong>to</strong> fishermen and individuals<br />
going in<strong>to</strong> the polluted areas.<br />
May 14, 2010<br />
Tracy Kuhns and<br />
Mike Roberts<br />
from Louisiana<br />
Bayoukeeper are<br />
featured on Time.<br />
com <strong>to</strong> tell the<br />
s<strong>to</strong>ry of Barataria<br />
Bay during the<br />
height of the BP<br />
oil disaster.<br />
May 14, 2010<br />
April 28, 2010<br />
Oil begins reaching Louisiana<br />
marshes as governor declares<br />
a state of emergency.<br />
White House press briefing<br />
includes all departments<br />
charged with some portion of<br />
the BP oil disaster. It is clearly<br />
stated that BP is in charge of<br />
the operation, will pay for all<br />
clean up, and that discharge<br />
amounts will change as the<br />
days go by and more information<br />
comes <strong>to</strong> light.<br />
May 5, 2010<br />
Waterkeeper<br />
Alliance and<br />
Gulf Coast<br />
Waterkeepers<br />
launch Save Our<br />
Gulf Initiative<br />
including website<br />
<strong>to</strong> provide up <strong>to</strong><br />
date information<br />
on the BP oil<br />
disaster.<br />
May 6, 2010<br />
During a moni<strong>to</strong>ring flight Atchafalaya<br />
Basinkeeper, Dean Wilson, finds<br />
subsurface oil going in<strong>to</strong> Barataria<br />
Bay for the first time. Also he finds<br />
a line of surface oil about 2 miles<br />
offshore along Grand Isle, Louisiana.<br />
He immediately notifies Louisiana<br />
Bayoukeeper and his native Louisiana<br />
Atakapa-Ishak Tribe friends. The oil<br />
is coming!<br />
April 30, 2010<br />
President Obama<br />
suspends new<br />
drilling offshore<br />
until the cause<br />
of the disaster<br />
is known.<br />
Galves<strong>to</strong>n Baykeeper<br />
partners<br />
with Sierra Club<br />
Lone Star <strong>to</strong> host<br />
a press event at<br />
the Reliant Center<br />
in Hous<strong>to</strong>n <strong>to</strong><br />
demand a<br />
mora<strong>to</strong>rium on<br />
offshore drilling.<br />
May 19, 2010<br />
May 10, 2010<br />
Oil cleanup<br />
workers demand<br />
more protective<br />
gear and express<br />
concerns about<br />
health problems.<br />
May 1, 2010<br />
Mobile Baykeeper’s<br />
Casi Callaway,<br />
appearing on<br />
CNN, expresses<br />
her community’s<br />
concerns of the<br />
serious potential<br />
for destruction of<br />
vital fisheries and<br />
warning about the<br />
dangerous impacts<br />
associated with<br />
use of chemical<br />
dispersants.<br />
A Temporary Restraining<br />
Order, was brought by<br />
a team of lawyers led by<br />
at<strong>to</strong>rney Stuart Smith on<br />
behalf of LEAN and United<br />
Commercial Fishermans<br />
Association, requiring BP<br />
<strong>to</strong> provide Vessel Of<br />
Opportunity (VOO) clean up<br />
workers with safety gear.<br />
May 20, 2011<br />
EPA demands that<br />
BP use less <strong>to</strong>xic<br />
dispersants <strong>to</strong><br />
break up oil in the<br />
Gulf of Mexico.<br />
May 23, 2010<br />
Louisiana<br />
Bayoukeeper,<br />
Tracy Kuhns,<br />
records oil<br />
flowing in<strong>to</strong><br />
Barataria<br />
Bay, LA.<br />
June 3, 2010<br />
Kindra Arnesen of Venice,<br />
Louisiana, wife of a<br />
cleanup worker, tells<br />
CNN reporter that Gulf<br />
Coast residents are<br />
scared <strong>to</strong> speak up about<br />
the growing public<br />
health concerns and the<br />
rules against the use<br />
of adequate protective<br />
gear while working <strong>to</strong><br />
clean up the oil for BP.<br />
June 30<br />
BP CEO Tony<br />
Hayward<br />
relinquishes<br />
oversight of<br />
cleanup and oil<br />
containment <strong>to</strong><br />
Robert Dudley.<br />
May 28, 2010<br />
President Obama<br />
visits Louisiana<br />
and states that if<br />
the latest attempt<br />
<strong>to</strong> cap the well<br />
failed, experts will<br />
intervene.<br />
July 2, 2010<br />
May 29<br />
June 14, 2010<br />
Oil<br />
washes<br />
ashore<br />
on<br />
Alabama’s<br />
beaches.<br />
President Obama<br />
visits Alabama,<br />
Mississippi and<br />
Florida and calls<br />
BP reckless in<br />
White House<br />
address.<br />
Hurricane Creekkeeper John<br />
Wathen and Waterkeeper<br />
Alliance Founder and<br />
President Robert F Kennedy<br />
Jr. appear on MSNBC<br />
Countdown with Keith<br />
Olberman <strong>to</strong> speak the truth<br />
about the continuing BP oil<br />
disaster.<br />
May 30<br />
Latest<br />
attempt<br />
<strong>to</strong> cap<br />
the well<br />
fails.<br />
June 14, 2010<br />
May 31, 2010<br />
A new attempt<br />
<strong>to</strong> cap the well<br />
begins, involving<br />
slicing the <strong>to</strong>p off<br />
the leaking<br />
pipe and siphoning<br />
oil in<strong>to</strong> a container<br />
on the surface.<br />
Apalachicola Riverkeeper<br />
volunteers and Department<br />
of Agriculture and<br />
Consumer Services<br />
employee collects seven<br />
oyster samples from<br />
summer and winter oyster<br />
bars covering the breadth<br />
of Apalachicola Bay’s<br />
oyster harvesting areas.<br />
July 3, 2010<br />
Galves<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Baykeeper<br />
responds <strong>to</strong><br />
reports of oil<br />
washing ashore<br />
on Bolivar P<br />
eninsula.<br />
July 10, 2010<br />
June 1, 2010<br />
Save Our Gulf<br />
officially launched<br />
by Waterkeeper<br />
Alliance and seven<br />
Gulf Coast<br />
Waterkeeper<br />
organizations.<br />
June 15, 2010<br />
Marylee Orr,<br />
Executive Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
of Louisiana<br />
Environmental<br />
Action Network,<br />
speaks <strong>to</strong><br />
MSNBC’s Keith<br />
Olberman about<br />
the emerging<br />
public health crisis<br />
on the Gulf Coast<br />
resulting from the<br />
BP oil disaster.<br />
June 2, 2010<br />
Florida officials<br />
confirm oily sheen<br />
within 10 miles of<br />
Pensacola Beach.<br />
June 17<br />
BP CEO Tony<br />
Hayward testifies<br />
before Congress.<br />
He apologizes for<br />
the oil disaster.<br />
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, in partnership<br />
with Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper,<br />
goes in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf with Drew Wheelan of<br />
the American Birding Association<br />
<strong>to</strong> moni<strong>to</strong>r the effects of oil on colonies<br />
of breeding seabirds. Government<br />
creates rules with huge fines for getting<br />
close <strong>to</strong> the boom around islands,<br />
making it very difficult <strong>to</strong> document<br />
oiled birds in breeding colonies. There<br />
are no bird rescuers in the area. All<br />
Royal Tern chicks in the colony on<br />
Queen Bess appear <strong>to</strong> be dead.<br />
July 16<br />
BP CEO<br />
Dean<br />
Wilson,<br />
AtchafalayaBasinkeeper,<br />
becomes<br />
a<br />
certified<br />
bird<br />
rescuer.
12 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 13<br />
July 15, 2010<br />
Macondo<br />
well is<br />
finally<br />
capped.<br />
August 26, 2010<br />
Lower Mississippi<br />
Riverkeeper<br />
makes a sampling<br />
trip <strong>to</strong> the<br />
southern Bre<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Sound area in<br />
Plaquemine<br />
Parish, Louisiana.<br />
Soil samples are<br />
taken.<br />
Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 8, 2010<br />
Atchafalaya<br />
Basinkeeper<br />
samples the<br />
Atchafalaya River<br />
Delta for blue<br />
crab and snails<br />
July 21, 2010<br />
Community<br />
outrage over<br />
the use of <strong>to</strong>xic<br />
dispersants<br />
continues <strong>to</strong><br />
bubble over<br />
within the Gulf<br />
Coast.<br />
Sept 19<br />
The<br />
government<br />
states<br />
the<br />
Macondo<br />
well has<br />
been<br />
permanently<br />
sealed.<br />
Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 13, 2010<br />
Earthjustice submits a letter of intent <strong>to</strong><br />
sue the U.S. Environmental Protection<br />
Agency on behalf of Alaska Community<br />
Action on Toxics, Cook Inletkeeper, Florida<br />
Wildlife Federation, Gulf Res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
Network, Louisiana Shrimp Association,<br />
Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper Alliance.<br />
This is a result of EPA failing <strong>to</strong> publish a<br />
schedule identifying the waters in which<br />
dispersants, other chemicals, and other<br />
spill mitigating devices and substances<br />
may be used.<br />
July 26, 2010<br />
Galves<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Baykeeper hosts<br />
the protest event<br />
Hands Across the<br />
Sand: Yes <strong>to</strong><br />
Clean Energy, No<br />
<strong>to</strong> Offshore<br />
Drilling<br />
September 27, 2010<br />
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus<br />
releases res<strong>to</strong>ration and<br />
recovery report stating that<br />
Clean Water Act monetary<br />
penalties resulting from the<br />
BP oil disaster should return<br />
<strong>to</strong> Gulf Coast, and proposing<br />
the formation of a Gulf Coast<br />
Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task<br />
Force.<br />
July 27, 2010<br />
Robert Dudley is<br />
announced as<br />
replacing CEO BP<br />
Tony Hayward as<br />
of Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1.<br />
Sept 30, 2010<br />
Emerald<br />
Coastkeeper<br />
collects second<br />
set of samples of<br />
oysters in local<br />
fishing and<br />
swimming<br />
locations.<br />
Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 26, 2010<br />
Lower Mississippi<br />
Riverkeeper<br />
makes a sampling<br />
trip <strong>to</strong> western<br />
Bre<strong>to</strong>n Sound<br />
area in St.<br />
Bernard Parish,<br />
Louisiana and<br />
collects Redfish,<br />
shrimp, crab and<br />
oyster samples.<br />
August 2, 2010<br />
Lower Mississippi<br />
Riverkeeper<br />
makes its first<br />
sampling trip.<br />
Water, soil, crab<br />
and oyster<br />
samples are<br />
taken from the<br />
Big Oyster Bayou<br />
area in Terrebonne<br />
Parish,<br />
Louisiana<br />
Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1, 2010<br />
Emerald<br />
Coastkeeper<br />
collects third<br />
set of samples<br />
of oysters in<br />
local fishing<br />
and swimming<br />
locations.<br />
Nov 10, 2010<br />
Tar ball sample<br />
collected by<br />
Apalachicola<br />
Riverkeeper<br />
OSPREY project<br />
volunteer on<br />
Carrabelle Beach,<br />
Florida.<br />
August 9, 2010<br />
Emerald<br />
Coastkeeper<br />
collects first<br />
round of samples<br />
of oysters in local<br />
fishing and<br />
swimming<br />
locations.<br />
Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 5, 2010<br />
President Obama<br />
announces<br />
formation of the<br />
Gulf Coast<br />
Ecosystem<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task<br />
Force, with EPA<br />
Administra<strong>to</strong>r<br />
Lisa Jackson as<br />
chair.<br />
Dec 21, 2010<br />
Apalachicola<br />
Riverkeeper<br />
OSPREY project<br />
volunteers return<br />
<strong>to</strong> oyster bar<br />
sampling sites<br />
from June <strong>to</strong><br />
resample, and<br />
include an<br />
additional site<br />
where local<br />
oystermen had<br />
reported seeing<br />
suspected oil<br />
product.<br />
January 11, 2011<br />
Oil Spill<br />
Commission<br />
Report is<br />
released.<br />
Timeline Sources<br />
Jan 11, 2011 – Mar 3, 2011<br />
Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper<br />
makes an on-thewater<br />
patrol <strong>to</strong> the Bre<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Island area in Plaquemines<br />
Parish, Louisiana, in<br />
response <strong>to</strong> reports of oil<br />
sheen sightings in Bre<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Sound. Long trails of heavily<br />
oiled sand and scattered<br />
tarballs are found spread<br />
along the center of Bre<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Island.<br />
March 3, 2011<br />
Mobile Baykeeper<br />
collects water<br />
samples at the<br />
public beach in<br />
Fort Morgan,<br />
Alabama, and<br />
water and<br />
sediment samples<br />
in Fairhope,<br />
Alabama.<br />
March 16, 17, and 18, 2011<br />
Emerald Coastkeeper<br />
collects fourth, fifth and<br />
sixth sets of oyster samples<br />
in local fishing and<br />
swimming locations.<br />
April 22, 2010: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/22/coast-guard-oil-rig-that-exploded-has-sunk/<br />
April 23, 2010: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704627704575204590586862162.html<br />
April 26, 2010: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704627704575204590586862162.html<br />
April 28, 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/29/gulf-oil-spill-larger-estimated<br />
April 29, 2010: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-bp-oil-spill-gulf-coast<br />
April 30, 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/30/oil-spill-reaches-us-coastline<br />
May 3, 2010: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704093204575215981090535738.html<br />
May 6, 2010: http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-sierra-club-protests-oil-conference-s<strong>to</strong>ry,0,882437.s<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
May 11, 2010: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704879704575236553480511416.html<br />
May 14, 2010: http://saveourgulf.org/updates/louisiana-bayoukeeper-featured-time<br />
May 19, 2010: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/in_the_bayou_health_concerns_g.html<br />
May 20, 2010: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/epa_demands_bp_use_less_<strong>to</strong>xic.html<br />
May 25, 2010: http://saveourgulf.org/updates/louisiana-bayoukeeper-finds-sludge-beach<br />
June 3, 2010: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/03/gulf.fishermans.wife/index.html<br />
June 15, 2010: http://leanweb.org/our-work/water/bp-oil-spill/health-crisis-unfolding-in-the-gulf<br />
March 24, 2011<br />
Mobile Baykeeper<br />
collects water<br />
samples at Helen<br />
Wood Park on the<br />
western shore of<br />
Mobile Bay near<br />
the mouth of Dog<br />
River as well as<br />
sediment samples<br />
at the public<br />
beach on Dauphin<br />
Island.
14 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 15<br />
The Ongoing BP Oil Disaster<br />
The BP oil disaster is considered the worst environmental disaster<br />
our country has ever seen. Though none nearly as large, previous<br />
oil spills in the U.S. provide us important lessons from which we<br />
must learn, the most famous is the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska<br />
in 1989. Unfortunately, the Valdez spill taught us that the Gulf<br />
Coast stands at the very beginning of a developing disaster. For<br />
instance, it was more than four years after the Alaska spill that the<br />
salmon and herring s<strong>to</strong>cks in the area crashed. It <strong>to</strong>ok ten years<br />
for salmon s<strong>to</strong>cks <strong>to</strong> recover, and herring s<strong>to</strong>cks remain depleted<br />
over twenty years later. We will not know for many years the true<br />
cost <strong>to</strong> our Gulf communities, our economy, and our environment.<br />
We must be vigilant in mitigating long-term impacts by dedicating<br />
resources <strong>to</strong> environmental moni<strong>to</strong>ring and management.<br />
Creating an Action Plan for Recovery<br />
In the wake of the disaster, President Obama appointed<br />
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus <strong>to</strong> develop a long-term plan for<br />
Gulf Coast res<strong>to</strong>ration. After a series of public listening<br />
sessions, Secretary Mabus released a report with recommendations<br />
critical <strong>to</strong> the recovery of the Gulf Coast.<br />
Mabus Report and National Commission on Deepwater<br />
Horizon Oil Spill<br />
The “Mabus Report” determined that in order <strong>to</strong> fund<br />
needed res<strong>to</strong>ration, a “significant amount” of all BP fine<br />
dollars should be dedicated <strong>to</strong> Gulf Coast recovery efforts.<br />
He urged Congress <strong>to</strong> pass legislation <strong>to</strong> this effect, placing<br />
the funds in a Gulf Coast Recovery Fund managed by the<br />
Gulf Coast Recovery Council. He determined that local<br />
communities must lead their own recovery and suggested<br />
citizen stakeholders play a critical role in the Gulf Coast<br />
Recovery Council <strong>to</strong> ensure that local concerns were<br />
addressed. On July 22, 2011, legislation was introduced<br />
in the Senate requiring that 80% of the Clean Water Act<br />
penalties return <strong>to</strong> the region. At the time of printing,<br />
congressional negotiations were still under way <strong>to</strong> pass<br />
a bill in both chambers.<br />
The second finding in the Mabus Report was the need for<br />
long-term ecosystem res<strong>to</strong>ration. He recommended the<br />
formation of a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force<br />
(GCERTF), not only <strong>to</strong> address damage caused by the oil<br />
disaster but also <strong>to</strong> address the longstanding ecological<br />
decline of the region. On Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 5, 2010, the GCERTF was<br />
created by executive order.<br />
In addition <strong>to</strong> these findings, the Mabus Report recommended<br />
that federal efforts should address the needs<br />
for moni<strong>to</strong>ring of the presence of oil, dispersants, and<br />
other <strong>to</strong>xic agents in seafood and <strong>to</strong> lead research on<br />
the long-term effects of oil spills on the environment and<br />
human health. These recommendations have yet <strong>to</strong> be fully<br />
addressed. Legislation in the Senate would create, among<br />
other things, a fisheries endowment and Centers of<br />
Excellence in each of the five Gulf states <strong>to</strong> conduct longterm<br />
research, but no mechanism is currently in place<br />
<strong>to</strong> address the human health component.<br />
Besides appointing Secretary Mabus <strong>to</strong> address the issue<br />
of recovery and res<strong>to</strong>ration, on May 21, 2010, President<br />
Obama created by executive order the National Commission<br />
on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling,<br />
generally known as the Oil Spill Commission. Its charge<br />
was <strong>to</strong> examine the “relevant facts and circumstances<br />
concerning the root causes of the Deepwater Horizon<br />
explosion, fire and oil spill and develop options <strong>to</strong> guard<br />
against, and mitigate the impact of, any oil spills associated<br />
with offshore drilling in the future.”<br />
The Oil Spill Commission released its final report<br />
on January 11, 2011, with seven categories of<br />
recommendations:<br />
1 Improving the safety of offshore operations<br />
2 Safeguarding the environment<br />
3 Strengthening oil spill response, planning, and capacity<br />
4 Advancing well-containment capabilities<br />
5 Overcoming the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon spill<br />
and res<strong>to</strong>ring the Gulf<br />
6 Ensuring financial responsibility<br />
7 Promoting congressional engagement <strong>to</strong> ensure responsible<br />
offshore drilling.<br />
The recommendations pointed <strong>to</strong> a lax regula<strong>to</strong>ry and<br />
enforcement atmosphere that eventually led <strong>to</strong> the nation’s<br />
worst environmental disaster. Save Our Gulf believes that at<br />
a minimum, recommendations by the Oil Spill Commission<br />
be implemented.
16 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 17<br />
“Despite the administration's never-again<br />
rhe<strong>to</strong>ric and avowed commitment <strong>to</strong><br />
reform, Interior continues <strong>to</strong> kow<strong>to</strong>w <strong>to</strong><br />
offshore drillers. Congress has been even<br />
more derelict in its duty. The House<br />
introduced eighty-four bills in response<br />
<strong>to</strong> the BP spill. It passed just two of them.<br />
They both died in the Senate. As a result,<br />
America is not meaningfully safer from a<br />
petro-catastrophe <strong>to</strong>day than it was on the<br />
eve of the BP blowout.” -Tim Dickinson, Rolling S<strong>to</strong>ne<br />
http://www.rollings<strong>to</strong>ne.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/bp-blowout-birthday-this-absolutely-could-happen-again-<strong>to</strong>morrow-20110420]<br />
Offshore Drilling Mora<strong>to</strong>rium<br />
In the aftermath of the 1969 blowout of the<br />
offshore rig Platform Alpha, off the coast of Santa<br />
Barbara, California, a mora<strong>to</strong>rium on offshore<br />
drilling was put in<strong>to</strong> effect, but the majority of the<br />
Gulf of Mexico region was exempted. That<br />
exemption highlights how the oil and gas industry<br />
wields more power over governmental regulations<br />
and enforcement in the Gulf than elsewhere<br />
in the country. On March 31, 2010, President<br />
Obama stated he would end the mora<strong>to</strong>rium still<br />
in effect off America’s Atlantic coast and parts of<br />
Alaska. He promised that this expansion of U.S.<br />
offshore drilling would include ways <strong>to</strong> protect<br />
our environment, stating, “Oil rigs generally don’t<br />
cause oil spills.”<br />
On May 11, 2010, just twenty days after the<br />
Deepwater Horizon exploded and an estimated<br />
250 million gallons of oil began discharging in<strong>to</strong><br />
the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration<br />
issued a mora<strong>to</strong>rium on all deepwater explora<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
activity. 7 The ban impacted 36 rigs exploring oil<br />
and gas reservoirs in water deeper than 500 feet.<br />
The vast majority of rigs extracting oil and gas<br />
were not affected, but concerns about possible<br />
economic ripples were heard throughout the<br />
region. The temporary ban on deepwater explora<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
drilling was lifted a month early on Oc<strong>to</strong>ber<br />
13, 2010, before the 2010 midterm elections and<br />
prior <strong>to</strong> the release of the Oil Spill Commission’s<br />
report. Since the ban was lifted, permits are<br />
being released at a much slower pace, with the<br />
first post-disaster deepwater drilling permit<br />
issued on February 28, 2011. 8<br />
Discovered and then made painfully clear during the BP oil disaster<br />
was the federal government’s inability <strong>to</strong> inspect sufficiently the<br />
numerous wells under their jurisdiction for safety compliance. There<br />
were complex failures in the lead-up <strong>to</strong> the BP oil disaster. Three<br />
of the largest contributing fac<strong>to</strong>rs are lack of government regulation,<br />
inadequate safety requirements, and industry’s technological<br />
advancements allowing deeper drilling without overhauling and<br />
modernizing their pro<strong>to</strong>cols for spill response.<br />
Having watched the permitting process for decades, many<br />
environmental groups and community organizations consider<br />
drilling permits <strong>to</strong> have been handed out <strong>to</strong>o easily, leaving<br />
many Gulf Coast communities referring <strong>to</strong> themselves as a “sacrifice<br />
zone.” When pushed about <strong>to</strong>o little oversight and <strong>to</strong>o much oil<br />
pollution, industry executives have repeatedly stated that environmental<br />
degradation is nothing more than a justified impact relative<br />
<strong>to</strong> the economic benefits the region enjoys.<br />
In response <strong>to</strong> concerns over permitting, Mobile Baykeeper has<br />
reviewed several oil drilling and exploration permit requests made<br />
<strong>to</strong> the Board of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement<br />
(BOEMRE) and the Alabama Department of Environmental<br />
Management (ADEM) over the past year. Written comments were<br />
submitted on three separate occasions requesting a public hearing<br />
due <strong>to</strong> serious concerns about proposed projects’ potential for direct<br />
and indirect impacts <strong>to</strong> water quality, wetlands, and wildlife habitat<br />
in light of the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. On both Alabama<br />
projects the request was denied and permits were approved. The<br />
status of comments regarding drilling off the coast of Louisiana<br />
is still pending.<br />
In addition, Mobile Baykeeper has submitted written requests urging<br />
the Branch of Environmental Assessment <strong>to</strong> analyze the long-term<br />
impacts from the recent disaster thoroughly; <strong>to</strong> assess the real costs<br />
<strong>to</strong> the public resulting from offshore drilling implementation of the<br />
Oil Spill Commission’s recommendations; and <strong>to</strong> allow ample public<br />
input in future drilling decisions.
18 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 19<br />
Where Did the Oil Go?<br />
After the Macondo well was capped, many along the Gulf Coast asked<br />
the question, “Where did the oil go?” In the report Deepwater<br />
Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget released in August 4, 2010,<br />
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)<br />
estimated that a large part of the oil discharged in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf of Mexico<br />
by the Deepwater Horizon spill was gone. 9 However, just weeks later,<br />
a NOAA official conceded that three-fourths of the oil discharged in<strong>to</strong><br />
the Gulf were still lingering in the environment, either as hydrocarbons<br />
in dispersed form or possibly evaporated in<strong>to</strong> the atmosphere. “The<br />
spill is far from over,” admitted Bill Lehr, senior scientist with NOAA’s<br />
Office of Res<strong>to</strong>ration and Response, when questioned during testimony<br />
before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee. 10<br />
Concerns linger over the unknowns about what has transpired on<br />
the Gulf of Mexico bot<strong>to</strong>m and in its depths due <strong>to</strong> the BP oil disaster.<br />
Many along the Gulf Coast want <strong>to</strong> assume the substances will<br />
continue <strong>to</strong> degrade as the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem physically,<br />
chemically and biologically processes an unprecedented volume of<br />
crude oil, the equivalent of 18 Exxon Valdez spills. The <strong>to</strong>xicity of the<br />
mixture is particularly troubling because of the unprecedented use<br />
of large quantities of dispersants, applied both at the wellhead and on<br />
the surface. This discharge is a new concoction that was infused in<strong>to</strong><br />
warm Gulf waters, under pressure, at depths of nearly a mile.<br />
Over the past year, the oil tracking effort has been undertaken<br />
primarily by three different groups of investiga<strong>to</strong>rs, each with<br />
their own strengths and approaches. The groups can be loosely<br />
categorized as (1) officials under Unified Command—the rapid<br />
response coordination of BP, plus the federal and state agencies,<br />
(2) independent research scientists, and (3) non-governmental<br />
organizations (NGOs) and local citizens.<br />
1<br />
Unified Command – Operation Science Advisory Team (OSAT)<br />
In early August of 2010, after the final dissipation of surface oil from<br />
the capped well, the focus of Unified Command’s sampling turned<br />
<strong>to</strong> cleanup and determining the locations where actionable oil<br />
remained in the Gulf; where “oil removal actions are feasible and<br />
consistent with net environment benefit.” 11 For the first time, the<br />
sampling included analysis of water and sediment for the presence<br />
of dispersant compounds as well as PAH compounds and metals. 12<br />
OSAT surveys in the fall of 2010 obtained screening samples for<br />
analysis of oil, dispersant, and metals in water<br />
and sediments. 13 The findings discuss a significant<br />
amount of remaining oil found in varying<br />
states of weathering:<br />
"The residual oil evaluated in this report<br />
contained high molecular weight hydrocarbons<br />
including the more <strong>to</strong>xic PAHs that are<br />
recalcitrant <strong>to</strong> weathering and microbial<br />
biodegradation.” 14<br />
Report findings include 1,426 <strong>to</strong>xicity tests<br />
performed on various water, sediment, and<br />
marine species at 647 nearshore locations after<br />
August 3; and they indicate that "significant<br />
effects" were observed in samples from 18% of<br />
the sediment test locations and in samples from<br />
13% of the water sampling locations. These<br />
post-August 3 results compared pre-impact<br />
sampling from 104 locations with a post-impact<br />
size of 137 tests. The graphics in OSAT’s follow-up<br />
Eco<strong>to</strong>xicity Report demonstrate an increase in<br />
the amount of significant effects in <strong>to</strong>xicity tests<br />
for "matched" locations. 15<br />
2<br />
Independent Research Scientists<br />
The independent research scientists include<br />
many individuals from research institutions,<br />
including but not limited <strong>to</strong>:<br />
University of South Florida<br />
Mote Marine Lab<br />
Florida State University<br />
Berkeley Lab<br />
University of Georgia<br />
Texas A&M University<br />
Louisiana State University<br />
Georgia Institute of Technology<br />
National Aquarium Conservation Center<br />
Mississippi State University<br />
There is some disagreement within the ranks of the independent<br />
researchers as <strong>to</strong> the fate of the oil and methane<br />
dispersed at the MC252 wellhead. 16 For instance, Dr.<br />
Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia researcher<br />
collecting data in the area in September 2010 and again<br />
in February 2011, confirmed lingering plumes of oil and<br />
methane, and also found patches of oil up <strong>to</strong> 2 inches thick<br />
on the Gulf floor that stretched as far as 70 miles away<br />
from the wellhead. Other researchers, such as Dr. Terry<br />
Hazen at Berkeley Lab, maintain that due <strong>to</strong> a significant<br />
bloom of a previously unknown species of microbe in the<br />
area of the plume, a large portion of this oil had been<br />
consumed by midsummer of 2010.<br />
3<br />
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and<br />
Local Citizens<br />
Due <strong>to</strong> the legal nature of the Natural Resources Damage<br />
Assessment (NRDA) process, scientific data are being held<br />
until the government is able <strong>to</strong> build a strong enough case<br />
against BP <strong>to</strong> prove the true scope of environmental<br />
damage. This will take several years. Meanwhile, while all<br />
parties remain in a vacuum as regards <strong>to</strong> reliable data,<br />
early res<strong>to</strong>ration projects will be funded via a billion-dollar<br />
agreement from BP <strong>to</strong> jumpstart the recovery of the<br />
region’s economy and ecology. Over the past year, Save Our<br />
Gulf Waterkeepers have conducted an environmental<br />
moni<strong>to</strong>ring project from Louisiana <strong>to</strong> Florida in an attempt<br />
<strong>to</strong> address the information vacuum on the scope of<br />
ecological impacts from the BP oil disaster. The results<br />
of these tests are presented in the Citizen Environmental<br />
Moni<strong>to</strong>ring section of this report.<br />
During the year following the BP oil spill, communities<br />
along the Gulf Coast came <strong>to</strong> realize that each step of the<br />
res<strong>to</strong>ration process must be watched and thoroughly<br />
vetted carefully. Waterkeeper Alliance has built relationships<br />
with scientists and institutions as they also attempt <strong>to</strong><br />
understand better the long-term ecosystem consequences<br />
of this disaster. The seven Gulf Coast Waterkeepers are<br />
in accord that long-term environmental moni<strong>to</strong>ring is<br />
essential <strong>to</strong> understanding, protecting, and res<strong>to</strong>ring the<br />
Gulf Coast ecosystem.<br />
Inconclusive Results<br />
The information flow regarding the fate of the oil has<br />
slowed considerably since January 2011, because the<br />
pre-assessment phase of the Natural Resource Damage<br />
Assessment process ended, and the damage assessment<br />
phase began. In July 2010 Unified Command, in its<br />
commitment <strong>to</strong> a Joint Assessment Team approach<br />
<strong>to</strong> determining ecosystem damages, agreed <strong>to</strong> share<br />
pre-assessment data collection duties and findings<br />
with both the Responsible Party, BP, and the public.<br />
However, in the damage assessment phase, any findings<br />
that may be used “<strong>to</strong> build a legal case against BP” are<br />
confidential and will not be shared. 17<br />
Independent research scientists grew significantly more<br />
guarded in interviews about their Gulf research work<br />
beginning in February 2011. 18 Some of these researchers<br />
are submitting research proposals through a new study<br />
consortium, the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. This<br />
entity was set up <strong>to</strong> study and moni<strong>to</strong>r the long-term<br />
effects of the oil spill and its potential impacts on the<br />
environment and human health. On August 31, 2011<br />
$112.5 million of the pledged $500 million was awarded<br />
<strong>to</strong> eight research consortia.<br />
The nearshore, “visible” oil has largely been identified<br />
and remediated where this was determined <strong>to</strong> be possible<br />
in the judgment of Unified Command. Residuals of oil<br />
remain, especially in environmentally sensitive areas<br />
where cleanup is considered high risk in terms of benefits<br />
versus impact. Far less is known about the “invisible”<br />
oil. There are almost no baseline data about life in the<br />
mid-depth and deep-water zones, where the bulk of the<br />
Gulf’s food web resides, and where many commercially<br />
important species spawn. This makes it difficult <strong>to</strong> draw<br />
conclusions with relatively limited sampling in a body of<br />
water as vast as the Gulf. 19 Reports have been conflicting.<br />
Long-term studies are needed <strong>to</strong> understand fully the<br />
<strong>to</strong>xicity effects in humans and wildlife, and whether overall<br />
environmental background levels of PAHs have been<br />
elevated by this spill event. If the fate of the Gulf is similar<br />
<strong>to</strong> that of Prince William Sound, the site of the Exxon<br />
Valdez spill, these residual impacts may be persistent;<br />
time will tell. Long-term moni<strong>to</strong>ring is the only way <strong>to</strong><br />
know the full impacts on the Gulf of Mexico and its<br />
natural resources due <strong>to</strong> the large amounts of oil and<br />
dispersants released through this event.
20 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 21<br />
Growing Public Health Concerns<br />
Even before oil began <strong>to</strong> wash ashore across the<br />
northern Gulf of Mexico, Save Our Gulf Waterkeeper<br />
organizations began receiving calls from<br />
Gulf Coast residents with health complaints.<br />
These residents were experiencing a wide range<br />
of symp<strong>to</strong>ms and were often unable <strong>to</strong> find relief<br />
with their local medical providers. In the early<br />
days of the BP oil disaster the most commonly<br />
received health complaints were severe headaches,<br />
nausea, vomiting, cough, sinusitis, and<br />
difficulty breathing. People with existing breathing<br />
issues, such as asthma and chronic obstructive<br />
pulmonary disease (COPD), were having increased<br />
difficulty controlling their symp<strong>to</strong>ms, required<br />
more medication, and experienced an increased<br />
need for medical treatment. 20<br />
Louisiana Bayoukeeper began receiving reports<br />
from fishermen experiencing severe headaches,<br />
nausea, vomiting, cough, sinusitis, difficulty<br />
breathing and severe fatigue. In addition, some<br />
reported flu-like symp<strong>to</strong>ms so severe that they<br />
had <strong>to</strong> throw their anchors and remain in a bunk<br />
for days before recovering enough <strong>to</strong> come<br />
home. They were strong, healthy men accus<strong>to</strong>med<br />
<strong>to</strong> putting in long, laborious hours fishing. The<br />
fishermen and other fishing community members<br />
continue <strong>to</strong> suffer from these and many other<br />
health problems. In mid-May officials in Louisiana<br />
recognized that the BP oil/dispersant might<br />
inundate inland fishing grounds. The Louisiana<br />
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries chose <strong>to</strong><br />
grant an emergency early opening of the brown<br />
shrimp fishing season. Inland fishermen, whose<br />
vessels were ready early, made the opening.<br />
The In-Situ Burns were taking place in the Gulf.<br />
Prevailing winds began blowing out of the<br />
south-southeast. The air in the fishing grounds<br />
and communities became thick with the smell<br />
of petroleum.<br />
Very early in the BP oil disaster, veterans of<br />
the Exxon Valdez disaster reached out <strong>to</strong> the<br />
communities of the Gulf Coast, warning<br />
communities of the dangers they encountered<br />
during cleanup; they hoped those impacted<br />
could learn from their mistakes, and they implored Gulf Coast<br />
cleanup workers <strong>to</strong> use all applicable safety gear.<br />
The best information resource became the fishermen hired <strong>to</strong> work<br />
on the “Vessels of Opportunity” or VOO program conducting oil<br />
disaster response. By early May, those fisherman began learning<br />
through BP's Master Vessel Charter Agreement that according <strong>to</strong><br />
their BP superiors, they would be fired if seen using a respira<strong>to</strong>r or<br />
any safety equipment not exclusively provided by BP.<br />
Hundreds of fishermen were hired <strong>to</strong> attach booms <strong>to</strong> their shrimp<br />
boats in place of nets and then drive their boats directly through the<br />
BP Deepwater Horizon oil/dispersant slicks <strong>to</strong> corral and collect the<br />
<strong>to</strong>xic substances. Some vessels worked the In-Situ Burns and<br />
burned the oil, while others collected the absorbent boom, bagged it,<br />
loaded it on their boats, and hauled it in. Fishing vessels were also<br />
used, after dispersant had been sprayed, <strong>to</strong> “mix” it with the oil by<br />
running the vessel back and forth through the oil/dispersant. During<br />
the heaviest flows of the disaster, many VOO workers anchored their<br />
vessels each night and slept where they worked, often waking at<br />
night <strong>to</strong> the spraying of Corexit and having their cabins filled with the<br />
smell of petroleum. Of all the responders working the spill, these<br />
fisherman had the highest potential for exposure <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>xic air pollutants.<br />
In addition <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>xicity of crude oil, they were exposed <strong>to</strong> the<br />
added danger posed by the application of dispersant chemicals. 21<br />
Despite all the warnings and previous bad experiences, reports<br />
of cleanup workers experiencing health problems emerged with<br />
increasing frequency.<br />
In the following weeks and months more and more cleanup workers,<br />
fishermen and community members experienced health problems<br />
that they believed might be related <strong>to</strong> the BP oil disaster. Symp<strong>to</strong>ms<br />
commonly reported <strong>to</strong> Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers expanded <strong>to</strong><br />
include skin irritation and sores, irritation of the eyes, nose and<br />
throat, nausea, diarrhea, numbness of the extremities, s<strong>to</strong>mach<br />
cramps/abdominal pain, dizziness, confusion, depression, coughing,<br />
shortness of breath/difficulty breathing, and chest pains. These<br />
individuals also were often unable <strong>to</strong> get relief or satisfac<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
diagnosis from their local health care providers.<br />
Communities are finding that local health professionals lack training<br />
and knowledge about the health impacts of exposure <strong>to</strong> both<br />
dispersants and crude oil. 22 Similarly, there is a lack of information<br />
on the long-term health consequences of these <strong>to</strong>xins, both<br />
individually and in combination. Lack of adequate health insurance<br />
and fears that private insurers and Medicaid will refuse <strong>to</strong> pay for<br />
tests and visits <strong>to</strong> doc<strong>to</strong>rs contribute <strong>to</strong> the lack of even primary care.<br />
Over the period since such problems arose, communities have<br />
repeatedly asked state and federal decision makers <strong>to</strong> address their<br />
health concerns appropriately. To date no public forum or task force<br />
has been set up specifically <strong>to</strong> address the public health concerns<br />
arising from the BP oil disaster. With no alternative, concerned<br />
community members have been attending government ecosystem<br />
res<strong>to</strong>ration forums and BP claims meetings <strong>to</strong> express their anger<br />
and frustration over the lack of government action.<br />
In a report released on July 27, 2011, the environmental justice<br />
advocacy group Advocates for Environmental Human Rights stated<br />
that Kenneth Feinberg, government appointed administra<strong>to</strong>r of BP<br />
Victim Compensation Fund, has denied all health claims submitted<br />
by Gulf Coast residents. Mr. Feinberg, who led claims for Vietnam<br />
veterans over exposure <strong>to</strong> Agent Orange and also worked with 9/11<br />
first responders, allowed health claims <strong>to</strong> be paid during those two<br />
processes. 23 But over and over again during the BP oil disaster,<br />
community members have been <strong>to</strong>ld <strong>to</strong> seek help elsewhere, without<br />
any suggestion about where <strong>to</strong> go. This situation is leading <strong>to</strong> sustained<br />
frustration at both the community and government levels. It is<br />
also leading <strong>to</strong> significant fear, stress, and mental health problems<br />
in communities throughout the Gulf Coast. 24<br />
A Groundswell of Support for Public Health Help<br />
In an effort <strong>to</strong> find some help, people with health<br />
problems have been finding their way <strong>to</strong> community<br />
groups and non-profit organizations. It<br />
has been extremely difficult for organizations<br />
that work primarily on environmental issues <strong>to</strong><br />
try <strong>to</strong> become a source of answers and advocacy<br />
for those who have become ill and who have<br />
nowhere else <strong>to</strong> turn.<br />
While the exact short- and long-term impacts<br />
of the BP oil disaster on Gulf Coast residents’<br />
health are currently unclear, Save Our Gulf<br />
Waterkeepers continue <strong>to</strong> receive health<br />
complaints from Gulf Coast residents fourteen<br />
months after the well was capped. Residents<br />
who live and work on the water, particularly<br />
people in fishing communities and first responders<br />
<strong>to</strong> the BP oil disaster, are falling ill. At the<br />
time of writing, Gulf Coast communities remain<br />
without adequate diagnosis or treatment for<br />
these health concerns.<br />
On May 24, 2011, members of 154 environmental, fishing, chemical reform, and community groups sent<br />
a letter <strong>to</strong> the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Human and Health Services<br />
demanding the following:<br />
• Comprehensive res<strong>to</strong>ration. Our health, economy, and environment are interconnected and solutions<br />
must reflect this.<br />
• A Gulf Coast Health Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force that includes community members with decision-making<br />
authority <strong>to</strong> address our long and short-term health needs.<br />
• The implementation of the Oil Spill Commission Report Recommendations on health. The Oil Spill<br />
Commission stated that EPA should develop distinct plans and procedures <strong>to</strong> address human health<br />
impacts during a Spill of National Significance (See pages 38–39).<br />
• The publication of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) type documents containing lists of potential<br />
synergistic health effects of exposure <strong>to</strong> the combination of oil, dispersants, oil and dispersants combined,<br />
any natural and/or bioengineered bacteria, and any other chemical or “natural” product used in response<br />
<strong>to</strong> the BP spill.<br />
EPA responded with a written letter on August 26, 2010 acknowledging the connection between public health<br />
and the health of the ecosystem, but offering little in answers <strong>to</strong> the letter’s demands.
22 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 23
24 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 25<br />
BP’s Public Relations Machine<br />
"The single message that has been delivered, requested, begged from every type of community<br />
leader, whether industry or environmentalist, health official or real<strong>to</strong>r, is tell us the truth<br />
about what's happening. The one thing BP has fought from the beginning is letting the public<br />
know the truth." —Casi Callaway, Mobile Baykeeper<br />
Those of us on the Gulf Coast who are moni<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
the ongoing oil impacts know that the oil is not<br />
gone. Yet BP is spending large amounts of money<br />
<strong>to</strong> convince the rest of the nation that the oil is<br />
gone. Throughout most of 2010 and 2011, it<br />
has been evident that BP is running a public<br />
relations campaign, more than a recovery effort.<br />
During the height of the disaster, BP officials<br />
prevented journalists and residents from taking<br />
pho<strong>to</strong>s and videos of oil washing ashore and<br />
prohibited cleanup workers from wearing important<br />
protective gear. Meanwhile, between April<br />
2010 and July 2010 BP more than tripled the<br />
amount spent on public relations in the same<br />
period the previous year. There is little question<br />
that the objective of this deluge of money was<br />
<strong>to</strong> combat growing public image problems.<br />
The money spent was also a tactic <strong>to</strong> combat<br />
its own glaring mistakes in its oil spill response<br />
plan. BP received considerable criticism for<br />
the details in this plan, and the federal government<br />
in turn received considerable criticism<br />
for approving it. Most famously, BP included the<br />
walrus as a species that would potentially be<br />
impacted in a Gulf spill, although the walrus of<br />
course is an animal of the far northern seas and<br />
does not occur in the Gulf region or anywhere<br />
nearer than Alaska, Canada and Greenland.<br />
Besides saturating traditional media sources,<br />
the company was quick <strong>to</strong> leverage a sophisticated<br />
social networking strategy. On popular<br />
internet search engines, BP purchased search<br />
terms related <strong>to</strong> the oil disaster. This resulted<br />
in BP-sponsored websites rising <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>p of<br />
internet searches on sites like Google and Yahoo,<br />
meaning that more legitimate news s<strong>to</strong>ries<br />
were less likely <strong>to</strong> reach the public. This is an<br />
effective tactic commonly used by corporations and non-profits alike,<br />
but it comes with extra criticism when used in the midst of a disaster<br />
felt by millions of people in need of quality and unbiased information.<br />
Corporate public relations tactics such as those seen during the<br />
height of the BP oil disaster serve the purpose of “re-creating” the<br />
disaster narrative. The objective was <strong>to</strong> make the oil disaster “disappear”—<strong>to</strong><br />
make it seem smaller and less devastating than it was.<br />
In effect, manipulating internet messages in this way was an attempt<br />
<strong>to</strong> wipe from the minds of all those not actually on the front lines<br />
the fact that a disaster even exists.<br />
In early July 2011 the American Petroleum Institute released a report<br />
detailing a decline in the number of offshore-related jobs since<br />
the BP oil disaster and attacking the slower pace at which deepwater<br />
drilling permits were being issued <strong>to</strong> energy companies. 25 The institute’s<br />
push for business as usual is not surprising when one notes<br />
that energy business analysts have forecast offshore operations and<br />
maintenance expenditures of more than $330 billion over the next<br />
five years. That is a large reason <strong>to</strong> scare people away from looking<br />
at the very real problems connected <strong>to</strong> deepwater extraction.<br />
Reports of this kind make headlines. They are part of an organized<br />
effort <strong>to</strong> deflect the attention of elected officials and the public from<br />
problems connected <strong>to</strong> deepwater extraction; systemic problems<br />
that have not been rectified since the oil disaster began.<br />
“The huge amount of BP money going <strong>to</strong> scientists all over the<br />
Gulf of Mexico is not only a threat <strong>to</strong> independent research on the<br />
effects of the oil spill, but also a threat <strong>to</strong> independent science<br />
that is essential <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>pping illegal activities that destroy wetlands<br />
as well as the misspending of res<strong>to</strong>ration funds.” —Dean A. Wilson,<br />
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper<br />
Citizen Environmental<br />
Moni<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
On August 2, 2010, while Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper<br />
Paul Orr was en route back from documenting oiled<br />
shoreline on the western edge of Terrebonne Parish,<br />
Louisiana, he was shown an oyster reef by a local fisherman<br />
who from time <strong>to</strong> time gathered oysters from the<br />
reef <strong>to</strong> bring back <strong>to</strong> his family as a treat. The oyster<br />
reef was a mile and a half up Big Oyster Bayou, well away<br />
from the Gulf shoreline and more than 170 miles from<br />
the site of the Deepwater Horizon well. There was no sign<br />
of oil anywhere in the area. The oysters looked perfect<br />
and smelled perfect; <strong>to</strong> all intents and purposes they were<br />
perfect oysters that any oyster lover would have been<br />
excited <strong>to</strong> consume. Orr <strong>to</strong>ok a sample of the oysters.<br />
The labora<strong>to</strong>ry reported back that the oyster sample<br />
contained 9,780 mg/kg of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons<br />
and 0.016 mg/kg of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons<br />
(PAHs). According <strong>to</strong> the Agency for Toxic Substances and<br />
Disease Registry, PAHs may reasonably be considered<br />
carcinogens. People who that have inhaled or <strong>to</strong>uched<br />
mixtures of PAHs and other chemicals over long periods<br />
of time have developed cancer. 26 It was an eye-opening<br />
experience for the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper and<br />
demonstrated that the information coming from the<br />
government was inadequate and that additional independent<br />
testing was greatly needed. This s<strong>to</strong>ry would repeat<br />
itself as the Save Our Gulf environmental moni<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
project tested seemingly perfect seafood organisms and<br />
received lab reports of high levels of petroleum hydrocarbons<br />
in the samples. In an effort <strong>to</strong> gain some concrete<br />
data on what impacts the BP oil disaster has been having<br />
on our Gulf Coast ecosystems and communities, the Save<br />
Our Gulf Waterkeepers made it a priority <strong>to</strong> conduct<br />
environmental testing.<br />
Beginning in August 2010 Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers<br />
launched an environmental sampling effort under the<br />
supervision of Wilma Subra, a MacArthur Award-winning<br />
chemist. One hundred samples of soil, water and seafood<br />
organisms were collected along the northern Gulf shore,<br />
from the central Louisiana coast <strong>to</strong> Apalachicola Bay,<br />
Florida. It was decided early in the project <strong>to</strong> focus on the<br />
testing of seafood organisms. This maximizes the expenditure<br />
of resources, as these organisms tend <strong>to</strong> accumulate<br />
materials from the environment and also have the<br />
greatest potential <strong>to</strong> impact human populations directly<br />
with contamination. Samples were collected using<br />
best practice sampling methods and were analyzed by<br />
EPA-certified labora<strong>to</strong>ries for components of crude oil<br />
and oil spill dispersants.<br />
Significant levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs)<br />
and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found<br />
in many of the samples taken during the Save Our Gulf<br />
environmental moni<strong>to</strong>ring project. TPH is defined as the<br />
measurable amount of petroleum-based hydrocarbon<br />
in an environmental media. PAHs are a specific kind of<br />
hydrocarbons that occur in crude oil and can be dangerous<br />
<strong>to</strong> human health.<br />
These results call in<strong>to</strong> question the efficacy of the U.S.<br />
Food and Drug Administration’s seafood testing and their<br />
proclamation that Gulf seafood was and continues <strong>to</strong> be<br />
safe for regular consumption. Based on our test results,<br />
we consider the “all clear” for consumption of Gulf<br />
seafood <strong>to</strong> have been premature and based on flawed<br />
levels of concern. It is imperative that in-depth independent<br />
scientific analysis of Gulf seafood species and<br />
ecosystems be undertaken. Also, Gulf Coast commercial<br />
fishing families must not bear the burden of this disaster.<br />
BP must compensate our Gulf Coast commercial fishing<br />
families for all losses resulting from the BP oil disaster,<br />
for as long as full recovery takes.
26 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 27<br />
Results of Save Our Gulf Sampling<br />
Hundreds of different PAHs commonly occur as mixtures in the environment, and <strong>to</strong>xicological<br />
data available on these mixtures are limited. Most studies focus on individual PAHs, and<br />
therefore assessing cumulative risks for more than one PAH is a challenge. However, based<br />
on the available <strong>to</strong>xicological data, some PAHs have been classified as probable or possible<br />
carcinogens. Naphthalene is not currently listed as a probable or possible carcinogenic PAH<br />
(cPAH), although recent studies by the National Toxicology Program have concluded that there<br />
is clear evidence of its carcinogenic effects in animals. 27<br />
A summary of the tissue samples collected by Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Lower Mississippi<br />
Riverkeeper, Emerald Coastkeeper, and Apalachicola Riverkeeper are presented below.<br />
For results from all samples taken by Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers, see associated document<br />
“Save Our Gulf Environmental Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Project Results June 2010 – August 2011”.<br />
Summary of Results: Lower Mississippi<br />
Riverkeeper Sampling<br />
In response <strong>to</strong> the BP Oil Disaster, Lower Mississippi River<br />
Keeper (LMRK), Louisiana Environmental Action Network<br />
(LEAN), and Subra Company have performed moni<strong>to</strong>ring,<br />
sampling and analysis of the environment and seafood<br />
organisms in the estuaries and wetlands of coastal Louisiana<br />
from Atchafalaya Bay eastward <strong>to</strong> the Louisiana /<br />
Mississippi state line. Soil samples and aquatic tissue<br />
samples from all areas sampled contained Alkylated PAHs<br />
and Oil Range Organic Petroleum Hydrocarbons.<br />
Soil samples contained 6 <strong>to</strong> 89 individual Alkylated<br />
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Total<br />
Petroleum Hydrocarbons up <strong>to</strong> 11,600 mg/kg (1.16%)<br />
which corresponded <strong>to</strong> the fingerprint of the BP Louisiana<br />
Sweet Crude. All of the areas sampled had soil/sediments<br />
contaminated with Alkylated PAHs and Oil Range Organic<br />
Petroleum Hydrocarbons.<br />
Oyster samples have contained up <strong>to</strong> 8,815 <strong>to</strong> 12,500 mg/kg<br />
Oil Range Organic Petroleum Hydrocarbons. The oyster<br />
samples have also contained up the 4 Alkylated PAHs,<br />
Fluoranthene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, and Pyrene<br />
in concentrations of 1.4 <strong>to</strong> 63 ug/kg. Blue crab samples<br />
have contained up <strong>to</strong> 2,230 <strong>to</strong> 3,583 mg/kg Total Petroleum<br />
Hydrocarbons and up <strong>to</strong> 4 Alkylated PAHs, Fluoranthene,<br />
Naphthalene, Phenanthrene and Pyrene in concentrations<br />
from 84.6 <strong>to</strong> 162 ug/kg. Shrimp samples have contained<br />
up <strong>to</strong> 8,356 mg/kg Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and 5<br />
Alkylated PAHs, Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Naphthalene,<br />
Phenanthrene and Pyrene up <strong>to</strong> 69.4 ug/kg.<br />
Summary of Results: Emerald Coastkeeper Sampling<br />
Every six months Emerald Coastkeeper is collecting<br />
oysters inland of Perdido and Pensacola, <strong>to</strong> moni<strong>to</strong>r<br />
whether these stationary species are accumulating the<br />
most harmful components of dispersed oil, PAHs, along<br />
with dispersant compounds. The goal of this study is<br />
<strong>to</strong> have a long-term data set <strong>to</strong> determine whether these<br />
species are accumulating <strong>to</strong>xins associated with hydrocarbon<br />
contamination (not <strong>to</strong> determine whether these<br />
species are safe <strong>to</strong> eat).<br />
None of the four dispersant compounds tested was found<br />
during the fall 2010 event. However, one of the compounds<br />
tested for in spring 2011, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, was found<br />
in every sample. According <strong>to</strong> EPA, this chemical is a<br />
common food and pesticide additive. However, also according<br />
<strong>to</strong> the EPA, for marine/estuarine fish, the acute <strong>to</strong>xicity<br />
estimates range from 6.5 <strong>to</strong> 19.5 parts per million; for<br />
mysid shrimp, acute <strong>to</strong>xicity is estimated <strong>to</strong> be 3.4 ppm;<br />
and for algae, 14.6 ppm. 28 Concentrations found during our<br />
spring 2011 sampling event were much higher than these<br />
<strong>to</strong>xicity estimates, ranging from 40.5 ppm <strong>to</strong> 69.0 ppm.<br />
PAH concentrations in oysters increased from the fall<br />
2010 sampling <strong>to</strong> the spring 2011 sampling inside Perdido,<br />
Pensacola, and Destin passes (Figures 1–4). Anthracene,<br />
chrysene (a cPAH), fluoranthene, fluorene, phenathrene<br />
and pyrene increased at all three locations; naphthalene<br />
(also a cPAH) and anthracene increased at Perdido and<br />
Destin. Results are in fact magnitudes less than FDA levels<br />
of concern and therefore are far below even the most<br />
conservative risk assessments. However, despite the fact<br />
that the increased concentrations are well below FDA<br />
levels of concern, the fact that PAH concentrations have<br />
increased is troubling.<br />
Summary of Results: Apalachicola Riverkeeper Sampling<br />
Apalachicola Riverkeeper obtained oyster samples from<br />
a representative number of summer and winter harvesting<br />
areas in June 2010 and repeated that sampling plan again<br />
in December 2010. The purpose of this moni<strong>to</strong>ring project<br />
is <strong>to</strong> have a long-term data set <strong>to</strong> determine whether<br />
these species are accumulating <strong>to</strong>xins associated with<br />
hydrocarbon contamination. Samples were sent <strong>to</strong> Pace<br />
labora<strong>to</strong>ries for analysis <strong>to</strong> detect the presence and<br />
amount of PAH, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon and select<br />
dispersant constituents.<br />
Our results, obtained in mid-January, showed PAHs below<br />
the FDA set Levels of Concern for both the June and<br />
December sampling data sets. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon<br />
levels in the oyster tissue dropped between June and<br />
December, with no dispersant compounds noted in either<br />
analysis data set. Testing was conducted in seven locations<br />
within Apalachicola Bay. Concentrations of PAHs found<br />
during the June 2010 sampling event ranged from 1.36ppb<br />
<strong>to</strong> 14.49ppb. Concentrations of PAHs found during the<br />
December 2010 sampling event ranged from 0.54ppb<br />
<strong>to</strong> 4.82ppb.
28 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 29<br />
1000<br />
900<br />
800<br />
700<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
Graph 1. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon results from four samples collected by Atchafalaya Basinkeeper (10/8/10), Apalachicola Riverkeeper<br />
(6/14/10), Emerald Coastkeeper (3/18/11), and Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper (10/26/10) respectively<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS<br />
LA Snail<br />
10/8/2010<br />
Napthalene<br />
LA Shrimp<br />
10/26/2010<br />
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS<br />
Fluorene<br />
Anthracene/<br />
Phenanthrene<br />
Pyrene<br />
FL Oyster<br />
3/18/2010<br />
Graph 2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons of four samples collected by Atachalfaya Basinkeeper (10/8/10), Apalachicola Riverkeeper<br />
(6/14/10), Emerald Coastkeeper (3/18/11), and Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper (10/26/10)<br />
Fluoranthene<br />
Chrysene<br />
FL Oyster<br />
6/14/2010<br />
Total PAH<br />
TPH C10–C28<br />
(ppm)<br />
TPH C12–C36<br />
(ppm)<br />
LA Snail 10/8/10<br />
LA Shrimp 10/26/10<br />
FL Oyster 3/18/10<br />
FL Oyster 6/14/10<br />
Examination of Government Sampling<br />
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) established levels of<br />
concern specifically for the unprecedented Deepwater<br />
Horizon disaster and will not necessarily be applicable after<br />
all fisheries closed due <strong>to</strong> oil contamination are reopened<br />
for safe harvest. In developing the parameters for levels of<br />
concern (LOCs), adjustments for smaller individuals,<br />
children, and pregnant women were not taken in<strong>to</strong> account.<br />
The seafood consumption rates of Gulf Coast communities<br />
also were not taken in<strong>to</strong> account. Residents of the Gulf<br />
Coast tend <strong>to</strong> consume far more seafood than was taken<br />
in<strong>to</strong> consideration. In particular, many of the lower-income<br />
coastal communities rely on subsistence fishing as a way<br />
<strong>to</strong> supply a significant portion of their dietary requirements.<br />
A study published by the journal Environmental Health<br />
Perspectives <strong>to</strong>ok a close look at the testing done in<br />
the Gulf and compared it <strong>to</strong> that in other oil spills and <strong>to</strong><br />
the science on oil-spill contamination. 29 Some of the<br />
noteworthy findings include:<br />
1 Gulf seafood should be tested for heavy metals.<br />
2 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed a higher<br />
level of contamination <strong>to</strong> be considered “safe” after the<br />
BP disaster than following other oil spills.<br />
3 A long-term comprehensive testing plan is needed that<br />
covers all types of seafood, includes an adequate number<br />
of samples from all impacted areas, and measures all of<br />
the relevant contaminants (PAHs, metals, and dispersant<br />
chemicals).<br />
4 Improvements are needed in community engagement<br />
and communication.<br />
5 Guidelines should be developed <strong>to</strong> standardize seafood<br />
safety assessments and make them more protective<br />
of health.<br />
The graphs on the left show the four samples one from each program that <strong>to</strong>ok tissue sampling. These samples are representative of the<br />
hydrocarbon contamination that was found by the Save Our Gulf moni<strong>to</strong>ring project. These sample results are below current FDA levels of<br />
concern. The Atchafalaya Basinkeeper snail sample "LASnail 10/8/2010" was taken on Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 8, 2010 in Atchafalaya Bay. The Lower<br />
Mississippi Riverkeeper shrimp sample "LAShrimp 10/26/2010" was taken Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 26, 2010 in Bre<strong>to</strong>n Sound. The Emerald Coastkeeper<br />
oyster sample "FLOyster 3/18/2011" was taken March 18, 2011 in Pensacola Bay. The Apalachicola Riverkeeper oyster sample "FLOyster<br />
6/14/2010" was taken on June 14, 2010 in Apalachicola Bay. For a more detailed look at the Save Our Gulf moni<strong>to</strong>ring project results see<br />
document, "Save Our Gulf Environmental Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Project Results June 2010 – August 2011"
30 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 31<br />
Where do we go from here?<br />
The BP oil disaster made it clear that res<strong>to</strong>ring the Gulf Coast<br />
region includes holding the oil and gas industry accountable for<br />
environmental damages and creating a resilent Gulf Coast.<br />
The people of the Gulf Coast find themselves at a crossroads;<br />
continue with business as usual or make fundamental changes<br />
<strong>to</strong> the way we care for our environment and natural resources.<br />
New Gulf of Mexico Oil Spills<br />
The BP oil disaster was not the first oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico<br />
and it hasn’t been the last. In an effort <strong>to</strong> raise awareness of chronic<br />
and new oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, Waterkeeper Alliance has<br />
partnered with SouthWings and SkyTruth <strong>to</strong> form the Gulf Moni<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
Consortium. SkyTruth is a non-profit organization that reads satellite<br />
images twice daily for oil pollution, and SouthWings is a non-profit<br />
that provides skilled pilots and aerial education <strong>to</strong> promote conservation.<br />
The Gulf Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Consortium is a rapid response alliance<br />
that collects information by space, air, and water, and analyzes and<br />
publishes images and other data, in order <strong>to</strong> bring truth <strong>to</strong> oil pollution<br />
incidents that occur in the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
The initiative is solely a fact-finding mission, an innovative partnership<br />
that is systematically moni<strong>to</strong>ring oil pollution in the Gulf with<br />
satellite images and mapping, aerial reconnaissance and pho<strong>to</strong>graphy,<br />
and on-the-water observation and sampling. This unique effort led<br />
by three non-profit organizations will collect and publish images,<br />
observations, and sampling data from the Gulf so as <strong>to</strong> be able <strong>to</strong><br />
respond rapidly <strong>to</strong> reported and suspected oil pollution incidents.<br />
The design of the Gulf Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Consortium is such that SkyTruth<br />
will moni<strong>to</strong>r satellite imagery and National Response Center data <strong>to</strong><br />
identify possible spills. SouthWings will provide flyovers <strong>to</strong> confirm<br />
and document the spills. And Waterkeeper organizations will visit the<br />
sites by boat for on-the-water documentation and <strong>to</strong> take samples.<br />
Instances of the discharge of oil in<strong>to</strong> Gulf waters reported <strong>to</strong> the National Response Center<br />
(NRC) from September 12, 2010, through September 12, 2011, are as follows:<br />
Discharge Type<br />
Minimum Estimated Volume<br />
(gallons)*<br />
The Gulf Moni<strong>to</strong>ring Consortium has already put<br />
its model in<strong>to</strong> practice on two oil pollution incidents.<br />
On June 8, 2011, SkyTruth noticed reports<br />
of a sizeable oil slick near Venice, Louisiana, and<br />
spread the word via its blog and <strong>to</strong> other members<br />
of the consortium. On June 10, 2011, South-<br />
Wings flew an air patrol <strong>to</strong> the area, discovered a<br />
long oil slick coming from a well in Bre<strong>to</strong>n Sound,<br />
and reported this <strong>to</strong> the authorities. On June 17,<br />
2011, the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper made an<br />
on-the-water patrol <strong>to</strong> the well site <strong>to</strong> document<br />
the status of the well, where the leak proved<br />
<strong>to</strong> have been s<strong>to</strong>pped. The other incident is an<br />
ongoing discharge of crude oil at the site of an<br />
oil rig that was damaged during Hurricane Ivan<br />
in 2004. Due <strong>to</strong> the combined capabilities of the<br />
three organizations, we have been able <strong>to</strong> gather<br />
information consistently on this ongoing violation<br />
of the Clean Water Act.<br />
Oil pollution in the Gulf of Mexico is routine,<br />
but the new attention is shining a light on the<br />
impacts <strong>to</strong> this important natural resource.<br />
This raised consciousness must result in<br />
systemic changes that prevent future oil spills.<br />
Total Incident Count<br />
Total Count of Unknown<br />
Volume Incidents**<br />
Fuel 286,138.4407 218 63<br />
Mechanical 1,583.290405 249 54<br />
Oil 2,243,371.426 2096 1,060<br />
* Many NRC reports only include an estimated sheen size of discharges. From these reports SkyTruth estimates the possible volume of discharge size.<br />
SkyTruth also reads satellite images of the areas where oil discharges are reported and estimates the size of volume. These numbers represent<br />
reported oil volumes as well as SkyTruth’s estimated volume size of sheen reports.<br />
** Unfortunately, reports of discharges of an unknown volume are fairly common in NRC data. Reporting such as this leads <strong>to</strong> the inability <strong>to</strong><br />
understand the full scope of oil pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. This situation leaves environmental law enforcement officers without recourse<br />
<strong>to</strong> assign appropriate accountability <strong>to</strong> responsible parties.
32 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 33<br />
The Importance of Citizen Involvement<br />
From the beginning of the BP oil spill disaster, BP has worked <strong>to</strong> exclude<br />
community representatives from access <strong>to</strong> information and from involvement in<br />
protection and cleanup, and the company has worked <strong>to</strong> separate the community<br />
from the very waterways we know and love. Citizens could have been BP’s best<br />
asset <strong>to</strong> protect and clean up waterways and shorelines, but instead we were<br />
excluded from the process. Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers and other community<br />
leaders are demanding citizen involvement at every stage of the process; from<br />
res<strong>to</strong>ration planning <strong>to</strong> oversight of drilling permits.<br />
Citizens Advisory Council<br />
After spending a year working <strong>to</strong> achieve citizen involvement,<br />
coastal residents had their first vic<strong>to</strong>ry. On May 6,<br />
2011, at the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force<br />
meeting in Mobile, Alabama, Gulf Coast communities were<br />
informed that a Citizens Advisory Council would be added<br />
<strong>to</strong> the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force. At<br />
this time neither the charge of this council nor which<br />
stakeholders will represent impacted communities has<br />
been determined specifically, but the general responsibility<br />
is <strong>to</strong> oversee implementation of res<strong>to</strong>ration planning. Save<br />
Our Gulf Waterkeepers’ names have been submitted for<br />
seats at this table, and we look forward <strong>to</strong> reporting on<br />
their involvement.<br />
Regional Citizens Advisory Council<br />
There is a critical need <strong>to</strong> establish a Gulf of Mexico Regional<br />
Citizens Advisory Council that includes involvement of citizen<br />
representatives from the most vulnerable and heavily<br />
impacted communities. The formation of Regional Citizens<br />
Advisory Council (RCAC) allows for citizens <strong>to</strong> have oversight<br />
influence in areas heavily impacted by the oil industry.<br />
The Alaska Oil Spill Commission stated that complacency<br />
by the oil industry and federal and state of<br />
ficials was the causal fac<strong>to</strong>r leading <strong>to</strong> the Exxon Valdez<br />
oil disaster in 1989, according <strong>to</strong> a brief prepared for Louisiana<br />
Bayoukeeper by Joseph Hor<strong>to</strong>n of Bos<strong>to</strong>n College Law<br />
School, Land and Environmental Law Program. 30 The brief<br />
recommends: “Representation of industry and agencies<br />
on any RCAC should be avoided as breaching the separate<br />
independent watchdog role of an RCAC, and representation<br />
of municipalities directly dependent upon oil industry<br />
payrolls should be limited <strong>to</strong> non-voting membership in<br />
order <strong>to</strong> prevent undue political pressures from affecting<br />
the actions of the council. RCACs should provide institutionalized<br />
protection for members who publicly express<br />
critical or dissenting views of the council, oil industry,<br />
and/or government regula<strong>to</strong>rs.”<br />
Dr. John Devens, executive direc<strong>to</strong>r of the Prince William<br />
Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, stated in Community<br />
Involvement versus Big Oil: A Case Study of the<br />
Policy Process: “When the oil spill hit, there was a lack of<br />
local involvement in decision making about the cleanup<br />
and a general lack of good information about how events<br />
were unfolding. Local individuals had <strong>to</strong> be hired and<br />
trained before a sufficient cleanup effort could even begin,<br />
and precious cleanup time was lost. It became painfully<br />
Dr. Devens lists a number of lessons learned that should be noted by communities<br />
looking <strong>to</strong> create their own RCAC. Several key points stand out:<br />
Citizens are more effective if they have a formal relationship with those in<br />
decision-making authority.<br />
Citizen advisory groups should be mandated by a federal or state statute.<br />
All affected stakeholder groups should be represented on the council.<br />
Concerned citizens should have the opportunity <strong>to</strong> participate in<br />
a meaningful way.<br />
Sufficient funding is essential.<br />
evident that the proper time for planning and training is not<br />
after an oil spill has already occurred but before, and that<br />
local people should be involved in that process.” 31<br />
Too often, dedicated citizens are placed on Citizen Advisory<br />
Committees <strong>to</strong> fulfill agency requirements, but representatives<br />
are given little responsibility or ability <strong>to</strong> make real<br />
contributions in the decision-making process. Practical,<br />
local knowledge is discounted or ignored as anecdotal. Elected<br />
officials, agency staff, scientists, academics and others<br />
often feel they know what is best for impacted communities<br />
and produce plans with little or overly controlled input from<br />
vulnerable and impacted citizens. Relegating stakeholder<br />
comment <strong>to</strong> an afterthought results in community opposition<br />
<strong>to</strong> policy and slows the implementation process.<br />
The key <strong>to</strong> seating a truly representative Gulf of Mexico<br />
Regional Citizens Advisory Council is for it <strong>to</strong> be made up of<br />
citizens from vulnerable and heavily impacted communities<br />
across the Gulf of Mexico. The council must be composed<br />
of voting and non-voting members and must include at<br />
least one voting member who resides in each of the coastal<br />
political subdivisions directly impacted by the Deepwater<br />
Horizon disaster across the states of Louisiana, Mississippi,<br />
Alabama, and Florida.
34 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 35<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration and Holding BP Accountable<br />
The federal government has taken steps <strong>to</strong> address future<br />
res<strong>to</strong>ration efforts along the Gulf Coast. The Gulf Coast<br />
Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force (GCERTF) was created<br />
by Executive Order 13554 on Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 5, 2010 <strong>to</strong> coordinate<br />
intergovernmental implementation of res<strong>to</strong>ration, support<br />
the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, present<br />
<strong>to</strong> the President a Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration Strategy, engage local stakeholders <strong>to</strong> inform<br />
the work of the Task Force, provide leadership and coordination<br />
of research needs in support of res<strong>to</strong>ration planning<br />
and decision making, and prepare a biennial update<br />
for the President on progress <strong>to</strong>ward the goals of Gulf<br />
Coast res<strong>to</strong>ration.<br />
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force Starts Work<br />
Environmental Protection Agency Administra<strong>to</strong>r Lisa Jackson,<br />
a Gulf Coast native, was named chair of the GCERTF.<br />
Between November of 2010 and August of 2011, the task<br />
force has had five meetings scheduled on the Gulf Coast<br />
from Florida <strong>to</strong> Texas. These are working meetings open <strong>to</strong><br />
the public. They were set up for transparency and include<br />
sessions <strong>to</strong> collect stakeholder input from a spectrum<br />
of people from fishermen <strong>to</strong> hotel owners <strong>to</strong> members of<br />
the regulated community.<br />
The task force has used the listening sessions <strong>to</strong> enable<br />
the community <strong>to</strong> answer the following main questions<br />
about res<strong>to</strong>ration:<br />
Are these the right goals: Enhance Community Resilience,<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>re and Conserve Habitat, Res<strong>to</strong>re Water Quality, Replenish<br />
and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources?<br />
What are the critical actions or major outcomes that need<br />
<strong>to</strong> be accomplished as part of this strategy in order <strong>to</strong><br />
achieve the overarching goals?<br />
What new programs and actions (state, federal and private)<br />
are needed?<br />
What key policy changes will improve the processes<br />
necessary <strong>to</strong> support res<strong>to</strong>ration?<br />
What would "success" look like, and how should it be<br />
measured and reported?<br />
In coordination with partner organizations across the Gulf<br />
Coast, members of Save Our Gulf have organized and<br />
succeeded in pushing for a matrix that prioritizes how<br />
res<strong>to</strong>ration projects are defined and for creation of a Citizen<br />
Advisory Council. Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers will continue<br />
working <strong>to</strong> ensure that only the best environmental<br />
projects rise through the process for both permitting<br />
and funding.<br />
Holding BP Accountable through the Natural Resources<br />
Damage Assessment Process<br />
In addition <strong>to</strong> presidential executive orders and immediate<br />
action taken by the Environmental Protection Agency and<br />
the U.S. Coast Guard in response <strong>to</strong> oil pollution, there<br />
exists a legal process for the government <strong>to</strong> hold polluters<br />
accountable for res<strong>to</strong>ration of the ecosystem damaged by<br />
the responsible parties.<br />
Section 1006(e)(1) of the Oil Spill Pollution Act requires<br />
a Natural Resources Damage Assessment in the case of<br />
a discharge of oil. This is a legal process that holds an oil<br />
polluter liable <strong>to</strong> fund ecosystem res<strong>to</strong>ration. The process<br />
has three phases: preliminary assessment, injury assessment/res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
planning, and res<strong>to</strong>ration implementation.<br />
The NRDA public scoping period for the BP oil disaster<br />
ended on May 18, 2011. The trustees are now compiling<br />
comments and have begun drafting the Preliminary<br />
Environmental Impact Statement, commonly referred <strong>to</strong><br />
as PEIS. A first draft is expected <strong>to</strong> be available for public<br />
review and comment in early 2012. 32 Through the NRDA<br />
process, NOAA, the Department of the Interior, and other<br />
federal trustees as well as co-trustees established in each<br />
state “conduct studies <strong>to</strong> identify the extent of resource<br />
injuries, the best methods for res<strong>to</strong>ring those resources,<br />
and the type and amount of res<strong>to</strong>ration required.” 33<br />
Knowing the breadth and depth of the impacts <strong>to</strong> every<br />
area is a key component <strong>to</strong> ensuring that the NRDA process<br />
is complete. Mobile Baykeeper and the local organization<br />
Alabama Coastal Foundation joined forces <strong>to</strong> create the<br />
Volunteer Field Observer Program. Using the expertise at<br />
Waterkeeper Alliance and the dedication of the Save Our<br />
Gulf Waterkeepers, the two organizations researched the<br />
NRDA processes and defined pro<strong>to</strong>cols for volunteers <strong>to</strong><br />
collect data in a proper manner that could be useful in the<br />
NRDA process. Volunteers have collected data across the<br />
Gulf Coast, ranging from location of pollution outfall lines<br />
<strong>to</strong> recording of oil washing ashore. The ultimate goal of<br />
the data collection is <strong>to</strong> create a pic<strong>to</strong>rial review of the Gulf<br />
Coast that can be compared over the duration of the oil<br />
disaster and can show if problems are being properly recorded<br />
and then addressed. SaveOurGulf.org/observations<br />
is the website that houses the data collected. The challenges<br />
with NRDA include ensuring that the best data are carefully<br />
collected over a long period of time. While there is a critical<br />
need for funding, we need <strong>to</strong> ensure we clearly understand<br />
all the problems created by this oil disaster, and it<br />
is imperative that federal and state agencies take the time<br />
needed <strong>to</strong> understand all the impacts fully.<br />
Once the data are collected and we move <strong>to</strong>ward res<strong>to</strong>ration,<br />
the process becomes one of tracking <strong>to</strong> ensure that the best<br />
projects receive <strong>to</strong>p priority. NRDA funds can only be used<br />
for ecosystem res<strong>to</strong>ration of areas, species, and habitats<br />
specifically impacted by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil<br />
disaster. Because we cannot replace an oiled brown pelican,<br />
alternatives must be found, such as creating new habitat,<br />
or res<strong>to</strong>ring marshland that fosters the growth or provides<br />
healthy breeding grounds for pelicans. Essentially, our<br />
federal agencies and the responsible parties negotiate the<br />
price of the pelican and find ways <strong>to</strong> spend the money such<br />
that it supports healthy pelicans in the future.<br />
While studies are underway <strong>to</strong> understand the scope of<br />
the damage done, communities are vigilantly holding the<br />
government and industry accountable for all damages<br />
done by this disaster. In July of 2011, as a result of outrage<br />
by Gulf Coast shrimpers, NOAA was forced <strong>to</strong> retract
36 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 37<br />
“When you cut your finger, the place <strong>to</strong> put the Band-aid is on your finger.<br />
When an oil company damages the Gulf of Mexico with a major oil spill, the<br />
place <strong>to</strong> put the ensuing Clean Water Act fine obviously is in the states along<br />
the Gulf." –Charlotte Wells, Galves<strong>to</strong>n Baykeeper<br />
statements that a dramatic rise in sea turtle<br />
deaths earlier in the year was a result of<br />
fishermen not being in compliance with equipment<br />
regulations. The sea turtle deaths spiked<br />
prior <strong>to</strong> shrimping season, and NOAA’s own<br />
figures confirm that large numbers of Gulf<br />
shrimpers do comply with requirements for<br />
turtle-protecting devices. As a result, the agency<br />
has changed its position and decided not <strong>to</strong><br />
impose emergency measures on the shrimping<br />
industry. Science has shown that petrochemical<br />
compounds have neurological impacts on<br />
marine animals even when no visible oil is<br />
detected. 34 Full ecosystem res<strong>to</strong>ration depends<br />
on the follow-through of sound science and<br />
a comprehensive NRDA process.<br />
On April 21, 2011, in an unprecedented move<br />
<strong>to</strong>ward res<strong>to</strong>ration, NRDA trustees and BP<br />
announced $1 billion <strong>to</strong> fund early Gulf Coast<br />
res<strong>to</strong>ration projects. 35 It <strong>to</strong>ok NOAA and state<br />
trustees three months <strong>to</strong> negotiate this early<br />
settlement. The $1 billion paid by BP will be taken<br />
out of the final amount owed by the company<br />
at the end of the NRDA process. The distribution<br />
breakdown was agreed as follows: (1) each of<br />
the five states will select and implement $100<br />
million worth of projects, (2) Federal Resource<br />
Trustees, NOAA, and Department of Interior<br />
will oversee $200 million worth of projects, and<br />
(3) the remaining $300 million will be used for<br />
projects selected by NOAA and the Department<br />
of the Interior from proposals submitted by the<br />
state trustees.<br />
Early and emergency res<strong>to</strong>ration is extremely important <strong>to</strong> the<br />
long-term recovery of the Gulf Coast. BP and other companies being<br />
held responsible for the oil disaster will owe billions of dollars for<br />
res<strong>to</strong>ration and punitive damages. The particulars of the settlement<br />
will take years <strong>to</strong> negotiate. Having the opportunity <strong>to</strong> begin res<strong>to</strong>ration<br />
projects now will give coastal areas a better chance at full recovery.<br />
As with all res<strong>to</strong>ration projects, it is important that pet projects with<br />
political ties are not shepherded in under the guise of early res<strong>to</strong>ration.<br />
Citizen oversight and submitting project comments during public<br />
comment periods is extremely important in this process.<br />
The Clean Water Act<br />
The purpose of the Clean Water Act is <strong>to</strong> “prohibit the discharge<br />
of <strong>to</strong>xic pollutants in <strong>to</strong>xic amounts, provide financial assistance for<br />
public wastewater treatment, develop area wide waste treatment<br />
management plans, invest in technology sufficiently <strong>to</strong> result in<br />
elimination of discharges, and develop and implement programs for<br />
the control of nonpoint sources of pollution in an expeditious manner.” 36<br />
The more universal description of the Clean Water Act’s purpose is<br />
<strong>to</strong> protect or res<strong>to</strong>re America’s waterways <strong>to</strong> being fishable, swimmable<br />
and drinkable. The BP oil disaster is clearly in violation of<br />
this critical law that protects our waterways.<br />
The Clean Water Act has been an important <strong>to</strong>ol for defending local<br />
watersheds across the country since its inception almost forty years<br />
ago, but what it does not ensure is that the penalties resulting from<br />
pollution be returned <strong>to</strong> the area that suffered the pollution. Organizations<br />
across the Gulf Coast are mobilizing their families, neighbors<br />
and supporters <strong>to</strong> contact their congressional delegation <strong>to</strong> pass<br />
comprehensive legislation dedicating the penalties from the BP oil<br />
disaster <strong>to</strong> the Gulf Coast for res<strong>to</strong>ration. It is currently estimated that<br />
the fines will run between $5 billion and $22 billion. Those funds<br />
would not make a dent in the federal treasury, but an investment of<br />
that size in the natural resources of our coastal communities could<br />
make an immense difference for our families, our finances and our<br />
quality of life.<br />
On May 12, 2011, Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers sent a letter <strong>to</strong> the entire Gulf<br />
Coast congressional delegation. Our letter asked for leadership in ensuring that<br />
Clean Water Act penalties resulting from the BP oil disaster return <strong>to</strong> the Gulf<br />
Coast. Our letter asked that any legislation passed include the following:<br />
1 Dedicate Clean Water Act penalties resulting from the BP oil disaster <strong>to</strong> Gulf Coast<br />
ecosystem recovery.<br />
2 A matrix or prioritization <strong>to</strong>ol must be developed <strong>to</strong> ensure that funds are spent on<br />
the best projects and that projects with long-term sustainability and resilience as<br />
their basis will rise <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>p.<br />
3 An equitable distribution of funds must go <strong>to</strong> Gulf Coast states based on<br />
environmental and economic impact and with strict oversight by the Gulf Coast<br />
Eco-system Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force.<br />
4 A Regional Citizens Advisory Council must be created and included in decision<br />
making <strong>to</strong> guide the res<strong>to</strong>ration of the Gulf Coast and future oil and gas activity.<br />
5 Legislation must ensure that local communities are able <strong>to</strong> compete for jobs<br />
and contract opportunities by giving preference <strong>to</strong> the utilization of local workers,<br />
small businesses and institutions while providing funding for training and<br />
workforce development, especially for vulnerable coastal communities and<br />
workers impacted by the oil disaster.<br />
The Senate has put forward a bill, SB 1400, that answers only a portion of our<br />
requests. At the time of printing this report, neither the U.S. House of<br />
Representatives nor the U.S. Senate had voted on a bill <strong>to</strong> dedicate these<br />
Clean Water Act penalties <strong>to</strong> the Gulf Coast.
38 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 39<br />
A Sustainable and Resilient Gulf Coast<br />
Hurricanes Ivan, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Gustav in<br />
2004–2008 destroyed communities and displaced residents,<br />
forcing many along the Gulf Coast <strong>to</strong> make a difficult choice:<br />
<strong>to</strong> rebuild from the ground up or not <strong>to</strong> return home. Juxtaposed<br />
with these natural disasters are the human-induced<br />
ones. A decades-long legacy of oil pollution can be seen in<br />
the unnatural canals of the Atchafalaya Basin, in the high<br />
asthma rates of communities like Hous<strong>to</strong>n, Texas, and the<br />
constant stream of oil leaks and spills in the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
The economic, environmental, and social impacts of these<br />
s<strong>to</strong>rms and oil pollution are the reason many consider the<br />
Gulf Coast a sacrifice zone. The BP oil disaster is the latest<br />
in a string of devastating events <strong>to</strong> hit the Gulf Coast in<br />
the past six years. As has been reiterated throughout this<br />
report, the opportunity <strong>to</strong> learn the lessons of sustainability<br />
and resiliency cannot be lost in the aftermath of<br />
the BP oil disaster.<br />
The Gulf Coast must show leadership in sustainability in<br />
order <strong>to</strong> thrive as a region in the wake of these events. The<br />
green economy is a growing economic sec<strong>to</strong>r nationally.<br />
By investing in a green economy on the Gulf Coast, the<br />
region has a chance <strong>to</strong> lead the nation in innovation while<br />
mitigating climate change impacts <strong>to</strong> the area’s already<br />
vulnerable geographic position.<br />
Gulf Coast states can learn lessons from states that are<br />
prioritizing the development of the green-collar sec<strong>to</strong>r.<br />
For instance, according <strong>to</strong> the recent report “Many Shades<br />
of Green: Diversity and Distribution of California’s Green<br />
Sec<strong>to</strong>r,” by the non-profit Next 10, green collar jobs in<br />
California grew three times faster than <strong>to</strong>tal employment<br />
from January 2008 <strong>to</strong> 2009. 37 The report also highlights<br />
that manufacturing jobs represent only 11% of the state’s<br />
employment, while representing more than 26% of green<br />
economy employment. Globally between 2007 and 2009,<br />
$1 trillion was invested in green technology. This new level<br />
of green investment proves that early adopting inves<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
and entrepreneurs are leading governments in investments<br />
in solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean/hydro energy efficiency<br />
and in agriculture related <strong>to</strong> the green economy. 38<br />
It is estimated that in the BP oil disaster the cleanup<br />
costs alone reached $5 million a day; investments in wind<br />
energy at that rate would result in the ability <strong>to</strong> power<br />
900 homes each day. 39<br />
The Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers see the Gulf<br />
Coast cities and <strong>to</strong>wns as the future leaders<br />
in sustainability for our country. The tragic<br />
events that have hit our shores over and over<br />
again must not defeat our communities; they<br />
must instead help us reevaluate how we<br />
design our cities, construct our buildings, build<br />
our local economies, care for our wetlands,<br />
and invest in a more sustainable future.
40 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 41<br />
Notes<br />
1. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program Resources, http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html.<br />
2. “Gulf Economy Worth Over $230 Billion,” CNN Money, May 30, 2010, http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/30/news/economy/gulf_economy/index.htm.<br />
3. U.S. Census, Census Bureau Report Documents Rapid Expansion of Gulf Coast Population in Recent Decades, May 26, 2010, http://www.census.gov/<br />
newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb10-76.html.<br />
4. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Facts, http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html.<br />
5. Ben Wells, Aaron Kuriloff, and Charles Babcock, “Built <strong>to</strong> Spill,” Bloomberg.com, http://www.bes<strong>to</strong>fneworleans.com/gambit/built-<strong>to</strong>-spill/<br />
Content?oid=1608991.<br />
6. Armen Keteylan, CBS News, April 12, 2011, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20054042-10391695.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody<br />
7. Greenwire: “Obama <strong>to</strong> Extend Deepwater Drilling Mora<strong>to</strong>rium,” New York Times, May 5, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/<br />
gwire/2010/05/27/27greenwire-obama-<strong>to</strong>-extend-deepwater-drilling-mora<strong>to</strong>rium-8011.html?pagewanted=all.<br />
8. “U.S. Approves First Deepwater Permit Since BP Spill,” Times Picayune, February 28, 2011, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.<br />
ssf/2011/02/us_approves_first_deepwater_oi.html.<br />
9. NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey, , Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget, August 4, 2010, http://www.res<strong>to</strong>rethegulf.gov/release/2010/08/04/federal-science-report-details-fate-oil-bp-spill.<br />
10. “BP Oil Spill: Scientist Retracts Assurances of Successful Clean Up,” Guardian, August 19, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/<br />
aug/19/bp-oil-spill-scientist-retracts-assurances.<br />
11. Cover letter <strong>to</strong> OSAT-1 report, p. 2, points B and C, ,December 17, 2010, signed by RADM P. F. Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard (emphasis added).<br />
12. OSAT-1, <strong>Appendix</strong>: OSAT Team Memorandum #3, p. xxxviii.<br />
13. Operation Science Advisory Team (OSAT-1) Unified Area Command, Summary Report of Sub-Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and Dispersant Detection:<br />
Sampling and Moni<strong>to</strong>ring, December 17, 2010.<br />
14. Operation Science Advisory Team (OSAT-2) Gulf Incident Management Team, Summary for Fate and Effects of Remnant Oil in the Beach Environment,<br />
February 10, 2011, p. 19.<br />
15. OSAT Eco<strong>to</strong>xicity Addendum, July 7, 2011, pp. 18–20.<br />
16. American Association for the Advancement of Science Lecture, February 19, 2011, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireS<strong>to</strong>ry?<br />
17. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administra<strong>to</strong>r, “Lessons Learned from the Gulf,” Conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2010,<br />
http://www.sej.org/sites/default/files/webform/conf10/FriAftPlenary.mp3.<br />
18. Dr. Ian MacDonald and Dr. Jim Gelsleichter, FSU Coastal and Marine Lab, May 12, 2011, conversations with Apalachicola Riverkeeper.<br />
19. Dr. Felicia Coleman, “Deepwater Horizon Spill and the Future of Oil Development in Florida,” FSU Coastal and Marine Lab Lecture, September 9,<br />
2010.<br />
20. Mayo Clinic, COPD, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/copd/DS00916.<br />
21. Unified Command Center Meeting between U.S. Coast Guard and Louisiana Shrimp Association, reporting dispersant spraying in areas of VOO<br />
cleanup workers, July 3, 2010.<br />
22. Jeremy P. Jacobs, Greenwire: “Questions Longer about Effects of Oil Spill, Chemicals on Gulf Coast Residents,” New York Times, April 21, 2011,<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/21/21greenwire-questions-linger-about-effects-of-oil-spill-ch-46883.html?pagewanted=all.<br />
23. Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, “The Human Right <strong>to</strong> Health Denied: Fineberg’s Rejection of BP Illness Claims Breaks with Past Practices,”<br />
July 27, 2011, p. 3.<br />
24. WWLTV (New Orleans), Oil Spill Brings Spike in Depression across Gulf Coast, Says Survey, September 28, 2010, http://www.wwltv.com/news/Oilspill-brings-spike-in-depression-across-Gulf-Coast-says-survey-103920274.html.<br />
25. “Res<strong>to</strong>ring Gulf Drilling <strong>to</strong> Pre-spill Levels Could Create 190,000 jobs,” Hous<strong>to</strong>n Chronicle, July 2011, http://blog.chron.com/txpo<strong>to</strong>mac/2011/07/<br />
study-res<strong>to</strong>ring-gulf-drilling-<strong>to</strong>-pre-spill-levels-could-create-190000-jobs/.<br />
26. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/<strong>to</strong>xfaqs/TF.asp?id=121&tid=25.<br />
27. Http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/pahmemo.html.<br />
28. Http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/hexanol.pdf.<br />
29. Julia M. Gohlke, Dzigbodi Doke, Meghan Tipre, Mark Leader, and Timothy Fitzgerald, “A Review of Seafood Safety After Deepwater Horizon,” Environmental<br />
Health Perspectives, February 2011, http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103507.<br />
30. Joseph Hor<strong>to</strong>n, Citizen Watchdogs: Insulating Regional Citizen Advisory Councils, Bos<strong>to</strong>n College Law School, Land and Environmental Law Program,<br />
November 2010.<br />
31. John Devens, PWS-RCAC, Community Involvement versus Big Oil: A Case Study of the Policy Process, PWS-RCAC 11-15, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 26, 2000, http://<br />
www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0027400.pdf.<br />
32. Http://www.gulfspillres<strong>to</strong>ration.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Public-DWH-PEIS-Scoping-Review-Document1.pdf.<br />
33. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Process, http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/about/nrda.html.<br />
34. Waterkeeper Alliance Press Release, August 22, 2011, http://saveourgulf.org/updates/gulf-coast-waterkeepers-praise-noaa-decision-favor-shrimpers-t.<br />
35. Gulf Coast Ecosystem Res<strong>to</strong>ration Task Force Press Release, April 21, 2011, http://www.res<strong>to</strong>rethegulf.gov/release/2011/04/21/nrda-trustees-announce-1-billion-agreement-fund-early-gulf-coast-res<strong>to</strong>ration-proj.<br />
36. Gayle Killiam, “The Clean Water Act Owner’s Manual,” River Network, 2005, p. 13.<br />
37. Next 10, Many Shades of Green: Diversity and Distribution of California’s Green Sec<strong>to</strong>r, http://www.next10.org/next10/publications/green_jobs/2011.<br />
html.<br />
38. Tracy de Morseela, “Over $1 Trillion Invested in Green Since 2007,” Green Economy Post, http://greeneconomypost.com/over-1-trillion-invested-ingreen-since-2007-6922.htm.<br />
39. Greenpeace, Offshore Disaster: Economic Costs of the BP Deepwater Horizon (fact sheet), 2011, http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/resource-database/offshore-disaster-economic-impacts-of-the-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill.<br />
40. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program Resources, http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html.
42 Waterkeeper Alliance // Save Our Gulf<br />
State of the Gulf // September 2011 43<br />
Save Our Gulf Waterkeepers<br />
Save Our Gulf is a coalition of Waterkeepers brought <strong>to</strong>gether in the wake of the BP oil disaster <strong>to</strong><br />
lead the fight <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re and protect local watersheds, coastal communities and the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
We hold polluters and decision makers accountable and promote the sustainability of our communities.<br />
Our vision is for all communities <strong>to</strong> have waterways that are swimmable, drinkable and fishable.<br />
Save Our Gulf is made up of the following seven Waterkeepers located on the Gulf Coast coordinated<br />
by one Waterkeeper Alliance staff member based in New Orleans, Louisiana.<br />
Apalachicola Riverkeeper Dan Tonsmeire is based in Apalachicola, Florida. The Apalachicola<br />
Riverkeeper moni<strong>to</strong>rs the Apalachicola from the Florida/Georgia line downstream 108 miles<br />
<strong>to</strong> the estuary and bay on the Gulf. Particular attention is paid <strong>to</strong> reductions in life-sustaining<br />
fresh water, loss of floodplain habitat, point and non-point source pollution,<br />
and explosive growth and development in this region.<br />
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Captain Dean A. Wilson is based in Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, Louisiana.<br />
The Atchafalaya Basinkeeper works <strong>to</strong> protect deep swamps, wetlands and cypress forests in<br />
southern portions of the state.<br />
Emerald Coastkeeper Jamie Rodgers is based in Pensacola, Florida. The Emerald<br />
Coastkeeper serves the watershed in northwest Florida, working <strong>to</strong> respond <strong>to</strong> citizen<br />
reports of pollution and adverse environmental impacts from the Alabama/Florida<br />
state line <strong>to</strong> Perdido Bay and from Panama City <strong>to</strong> West Bay.<br />
Galves<strong>to</strong>n Baykeeper Charlotte Wells is based in Seabrook, Texas. The Galves<strong>to</strong>n Baykeeper<br />
keeps the bay vital and vibrant for all who enjoy it and make their livelihoods through it.<br />
Louisiana Bayoukeeper is based in Barataria, Louisiana, where Tracy Kuhns and Mike Roberts<br />
work closely with coastal communities in coastal Louisiana's bayou country <strong>to</strong> promote sustainable<br />
management of its local waterways and natural resources.<br />
Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper Paul Orr is based in Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, Louisiana. The<br />
Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper works <strong>to</strong> preserve and res<strong>to</strong>re the ecological integrity<br />
of the Mississippi River Basin and the surrounding waterways in Louisiana.<br />
Mobile Baykeeper, Casi Callaway is based in Mobile, Alabama. Mobile Baykeeper provides<br />
citizens a means <strong>to</strong> protect the beauty, health and heritage of the Mobile Bay watershed and<br />
Alabama's waterways and coastal communities. Priorities of the organization are clean water,<br />
clean air and healthy people along with responsible government and a healthy economy.<br />
Waterkeeper Alliance is a global environmental movement uniting more<br />
than 190 Waterkeepers around the world and focusing citizen advocacy<br />
on the issues that affect our waterways, from pollution <strong>to</strong> climate change.<br />
Waterkeeper Alliance is the voice for the world’s waters.
44<br />
17 Battery Place Suite 1329<br />
New York, NY 10004<br />
212.747.0622<br />
(main) www.waterkeeper.org<br />
www.saveourgulf.org
HISTORY:<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
The Macondo prospect is located on Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico in a water depth of<br />
4,993 feet.<br />
BP submitted Application for Permit <strong>to</strong> drill on February 23, 2009. MMS approved BP exploration Plan on April<br />
16, 2009.<br />
09/29/2009 BP contracted with Schlumberger <strong>to</strong> perform logging while drilling, measuring while<br />
drilling, and directional drilling services on the Transocean Marianas semisub.<br />
10/07/2009 ‐10/31/2009 Schlumberger crew performs logging, measuring, and drilling services for BP.<br />
ENI hired the Marianas from Transocean at USD 565,000/day and rehired <strong>to</strong> BP at USD 446,000/day at a net<br />
loss of USD 120,000/day. Did ENI know the rig was going <strong>to</strong> blow <strong>to</strong> have this crazy deal?<br />
ENI's Mission: We are a major integrated energy company, committed <strong>to</strong> growth in the activities of finding,<br />
producing, transporting, transforming and marketing oil and gas.<br />
Tony Hayward sold his 220,000 BP shares on Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 28, 2009. On November 27, 2009, Byron E Grote another<br />
BP Direc<strong>to</strong>r sold 150,000 of his BP share holding.<br />
10/31/2009 ‐11/02/2009 Schlumberger crew departs Transocean Marianas in advance of approaching<br />
Hurricane Ida. Several days later drilling commenced, but was halted on November 8, 2009, when the<br />
Marianas semisub sustained damage from Hurricane Ida.<br />
11/26/2009 Transocean <strong>to</strong>ws Transocean Marianas <strong>to</strong> shipyard for repairs. Transocean Marianas does<br />
not return <strong>to</strong> MC252.<br />
BP leased another rig, the Deepwater Horizon semisub <strong>to</strong> complete drilling operations on the well. The<br />
Deepwater Horizon semisub commenced operations on February 2, 2010 and then terminated drilling at a<br />
depth of just over 18,000 feet. BP contracted with Hallibur<strong>to</strong>n <strong>to</strong> perform logging while drilling, measuring<br />
while drilling, directional drilling services and cementing on the Transocean Deepwater Horizon. BP contracted<br />
with Schlumberger <strong>to</strong> provide wireline open and cased hole services.<br />
03/10/2010 Schlumberger crew arrives on Transocean Deepwater Horizon <strong>to</strong> perform a wire line cased<br />
hole service for BP. Specifically, the drilling pipe in the wellbore stuck during drilling. BP requests<br />
Schlumberger <strong>to</strong> try <strong>to</strong> determine where the drilling pipe was stuck in the well bore so the drilling pipe<br />
above that point could be removed. And then Schlumberger crew performs wireline cased hole logging<br />
service <strong>to</strong> identify free drilling pipe for pipe retrieval. During the performance of this service, the <strong>to</strong>ol<br />
used by Schlumberger becomes lodged and is abandoned. BP reimburses Schlumberger for the cost of<br />
the <strong>to</strong>ol.<br />
1
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
03/13/2010 Schlumberger crew departs Transocean Deepwater Horizon.<br />
04/05/2010 Schlumberger crew arrives on Transocean Deepwater Horizon <strong>to</strong> perform wire line open<br />
hole logging and testing services for BP. BP informs Schlumberger crew that drilling activities are not<br />
yet completed and sends crew home. Schlumberger leaves the next day.<br />
04/08/2010 Schlumberger crew returns <strong>to</strong> Transocean Deepwater Horizon <strong>to</strong> perform wire line open<br />
hole logging and testing services for BP. Specifically, BP contracted with Schlumberger <strong>to</strong> perform an<br />
evaluation of the formation characteristics for porosity and permeability, and <strong>to</strong> gather fluid pressures<br />
and samples.<br />
04/10/2010‐04/15/2010 Schlumberger crew performs wire line open hole logging and testing services<br />
for BP. Schlumberger crew deports Transocean Deepwater Horizon.<br />
04/18/2010‐04/19/2010 Schlumberger wire line cased hole crew arrives on Transocean Deepwater<br />
Horizon. Specifically, BP contracted with Schlumberger <strong>to</strong> be available <strong>to</strong> perform a cement bond log<br />
and set a bridge plug and/or cement retainer, should BP request those services. Schlumberger is an<br />
extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on<br />
safety and train their workers <strong>to</strong> shut down unsafe operations.<br />
04/20/2010 Hallibur<strong>to</strong>n was informed at 7:00 AM that their CBL (Cement Bond Log) was not needed<br />
while the report said they had a meeting at 7:30 AM for discussion and only after the discussion, they<br />
decided the CBL was not needed. At 7 AM Schlumberger gets out <strong>to</strong> the Deepwater Horizon <strong>to</strong> run the<br />
CBL, and they find the well still kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation.<br />
Schlumberger orders the "company man" (BP's man on the scene that runs the operation) <strong>to</strong> dump kill<br />
fluid down the well and shut‐in the well. If the CBL was run, they could not have proceeded with<br />
replacing the heavier drilling mud with lighter seawater. The company man refuses. Schlumberger in<br />
the very next sentence asks for a helo <strong>to</strong> take all Schlumberger personnel back <strong>to</strong> shore. The company<br />
man says there are no more helos scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you're here <strong>to</strong> do a<br />
job, now do it). Schlumberger gets on the horn <strong>to</strong> shore, calls Schlumberger's corporate HQ, and gets a<br />
helo flown out there at Schlumberger's expense and takes all Schlumberger personnel <strong>to</strong> shore at 11<br />
AM.<br />
TRANSOCEAN TURNOVER:<br />
2004 version of the Floating Operations Manual, Transocean outlines specific policies for taking over drilling<br />
operations from another rig. The manual states:<br />
The purpose of this document is <strong>to</strong> give the Rig Manager and Offshore Personnel guidance for<br />
information gathering and documentation needed prior <strong>to</strong> moving on<strong>to</strong> an existing wellhead. This is of<br />
2
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
particular importance when moving on<strong>to</strong> a wellhead that the rig did not set, or has been away from for<br />
an extended period of time.<br />
Increasingly, our rigs are being called on <strong>to</strong> perform operations on wells that were drilled by other rigs<br />
or opera<strong>to</strong>rs, or wells that we have not been on for some time. This experience has highlighted the<br />
importance of evaluating what condition the wellhead and well below it are in, prior <strong>to</strong> commencing<br />
operations.<br />
04/21/2010 21:21 DWH reported listing. Salvage & Emergency Response Team engaged.<br />
04/22/2010 10:22 BP reported DWH sank ‐ There is a time discrepancy when matched up with<br />
time‐stamped pho<strong>to</strong>s showing DWH sinking at approximately 5:30 PM<br />
07/09/2010 Email <strong>to</strong> Thomas Jefferson at NOAA.<br />
3
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Bk Lim will be publishing his latest article soon regarding the Wells, Seafloor condition and DWH. Please go <strong>to</strong><br />
his website at: http://bklim.newsvine.com/<br />
INSURANCE<br />
BP P.L.C. can look <strong>to</strong> its captive insurer, Jupiter Insurance Ltd., for up <strong>to</strong> $700 million in coverage of losses from<br />
the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is self‐insured.<br />
4
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUEL SPENDING, SUPPLY, ACQUISITION, AND POLICY<br />
ANTHONY ANDREWS<br />
Specialist in Energy and Energy Infrastructure Policy, September 22, 2009<br />
This report summarizes DOD’s fuel purchases over the current decade (FY2000 through FY2008);<br />
Table 5. Top U.S. Fuel Suppliers <strong>to</strong> DOD FY 2003 ‐ FY2008<br />
Supplier $ million % Supplier $ million %<br />
FY2003 FY2006<br />
Exxon Mobil 729 13.6 BP 1,190 9.2<br />
Shell 538 10.0 Exxon Mobil 1,178 9.1<br />
BP 442 8.2 Shell 1,151 8.9<br />
Valero 314 5.8 Valero 661 5.1<br />
2,023 37.6 Refinery Associates 576 4.4<br />
4,756 36.7<br />
FY2004 FY2007<br />
Shell 1,068 17.2 Shell 2,108 17.2<br />
BP 602 10.0 Valero 1,027 8.4<br />
Valero 334 5.5 Exxon Mobil 1,019 8.3<br />
Exxon Mobil 275 4.5 BP Corp 961 7.8<br />
2,279 37.2 5,115 41.7<br />
FY2005 FY2008<br />
BP 1,604 14.9 Shell 1,715 12.1<br />
Exxon Mobil 1,024 9.5 BP 1,523 10.7<br />
Shell 1,004 9.3 Valero 1,044 7.4<br />
Valero 564 5.2 Exxon Mobil 836 5.9<br />
4,196 38.9 5,118 36.1<br />
Source: DESC Fact Book (2003 – 2008).<br />
Exxon Mobil $ 5,061,000<br />
Shell $ 7,584,000<br />
BP $ 6,322,000<br />
Valero $ 3,944,000<br />
Refinery Associates $ 576,000<br />
Total $23,487,000<br />
5
NECROPSIES<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
The Guardian ‐ Deepwater Horizon oil spill: turtle deaths soar amid fight <strong>to</strong> save wildlife May 3, 2010<br />
Dr Moby Solangi, the institute's direc<strong>to</strong>r, said necropsies would be carried out <strong>to</strong> see whether the turtles'<br />
deaths had anything <strong>to</strong> do with the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig and the 220,000 gallons of oil<br />
that are still being spewed in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf each day. A team of vets would be looking <strong>to</strong> see if the animals had<br />
respira<strong>to</strong>ry problems associated with inhaling oil fumes, or had consumed fish contaminated with oil.<br />
Solangi said that until the results of the necropsies were known it would be impossible <strong>to</strong> tell whether the<br />
turtles had been killed by oil. He pointed out, however, that the number of deaths was much greater than<br />
normal, even at a time of year when sea turtles tend <strong>to</strong> come in closer <strong>to</strong> shore and are sometimes found<br />
washed up dead on the beach.<br />
Pre‐DWH Strandings<br />
6
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Why is there such a big secret <strong>to</strong> the public <strong>to</strong> know what these numbers are? Obviously the reports are available.<br />
7
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
8
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
9
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
10
NOAA DWH Turtle Data<br />
April 26, 2010 through Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 31, 2010<br />
Louisiana = 143<br />
Mississippi = 322<br />
Alabama = 133<br />
Florida = 89<br />
Offshore = 1<br />
688<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
11
NECROPSIES ‐ FAST FORWARD<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Dead dolphin found on Deer Island<br />
01/09/2012 8:27 AM CST By Meggan Gray<br />
GULFPORT, MS (WLOX) ‐<br />
Another dead dolphin has been spotted in South Mississippi. A WLOX viewer sent us pictures of the animal<br />
Monday morning.<br />
Jon Higginbotham said he and a friend came across the dolphin Sunday evening on Deer Island while out on<br />
the water. Higginbotham reported it <strong>to</strong> the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Gulfport. Executive<br />
Direc<strong>to</strong>r for IMMS, Dr. Moby Solangi tells WLOX News they did receive that report. He said IMMS plans <strong>to</strong><br />
send a crew out Monday afternoon <strong>to</strong> collect samples from the dolphin.<br />
01/11/2012 Dead Dolphin Panama City, Florida<br />
01/11/2012 Dauphin Island fish show up with lesions, BP spill link questioned<br />
More than half the fish caught Monday by Press‐Register reporters in the surf off Dauphin Island had bloody<br />
red lesions on their bodies. Fishing along an uninhabited portion of the barrier island during a trip <strong>to</strong> survey<br />
beaches for tarballs, the newspaper caught 21 fish, 14 of them with lesions. Of those fish, eight had lesions a<br />
quarter of an inch across or smaller, while 6 had much larger blemishes. Most of the fish were whiting, a small<br />
species common <strong>to</strong> the surf zone throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Whiting grow <strong>to</strong> about 2 pounds and are<br />
ubiqui<strong>to</strong>us in the surf year round, commonly found inside the first sand bar near breaking waves.<br />
A 12‐pound black drum also exhibited lesions. Scientists contacted by the newspaper noted that whiting<br />
spend their lives close <strong>to</strong> shore in the area most affected by the Gulf oil spill. Buried mats of oil persist in the<br />
surf zone along the Mississippi and Alabama coasts and tarballs remain common on the beach. BP crews<br />
working at the water’s edge on Mississippi’s Petit Bois Island — adjacent <strong>to</strong> Dauphin Island — collect about<br />
250 pounds of tarballs per day, company officials said Tuesday.<br />
01/12/2012 Charles Taylor from Bay St Louis, MS. Another dead dolphin surrounded by IMMS checking it out.<br />
Loggerheads and Kemp Ridleys are washing up in South Wales; these are warm water turtles. This started right<br />
after Christmas 2011 and the second one was found on January 3, 2012. People don't know what <strong>to</strong> do with<br />
them. They are either dead or suffering from the cold water.<br />
USF study finds more sick fish in oil spill area than rest of Gulf of Mexico<br />
01/14/2012 Craig Pittman<br />
A government‐funded survey of the entire Gulf of Mexico last summer found more sick fish in the area of the<br />
2010 oil spill than anywhere else, according <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>p University of South Florida scientist in charge of the<br />
project.<br />
12
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
"The area that has the highest frequency of fish diseases is the area where the oil spill was," said Steve<br />
Murawski, an oceanographer who previously served as the chief fisheries scientist of the National<br />
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.<br />
That doesn't necessarily mean the red snapper and other fish with nasty skin lesions were victims of the<br />
Deepwater Horizon disaster, he said. That same area has lots of oil rigs, leaky pipelines and even natural oil<br />
vents in the sea floor that could be the source of any contamination that has affected the fish.<br />
"Even if the disease is from oil," he said, "it's another step <strong>to</strong> show it's from the oil spill."<br />
But the USF findings, announced at a scientific conference this month, have been hailed as a big step forward<br />
by researchers from other institutions pursuing similar studies.<br />
"We still are seeing sick fish offshore and the USF survey confirmed our findings of 2 <strong>to</strong> 5 percent of red<br />
snapper being affected," James Cowan, an oceanography professor at Louisiana State University, said in an<br />
email <strong>to</strong> the Tampa Bay Times.<br />
In addition, Cowan said, labora<strong>to</strong>ry studies of those sick fish "are beginning <strong>to</strong> trickle out that show that<br />
chronic exposure <strong>to</strong> oil and dispersant causes everything from impacts <strong>to</strong> the genome <strong>to</strong> compromised<br />
immune systems. Similar findings … are being found in shrimps and crabs in the same locations."<br />
While Murawski is cautious about saying there's a connection, Cowan, who has been studying fish in the gulf<br />
for 25 years, said, "I absolutely believe these things are connected <strong>to</strong> the spill."<br />
There are signs the lesions may be spreading. According <strong>to</strong> Will Patterson of the University of South Alabama,<br />
"they're now showing up in fish being caught in the surf here in Alabama." Patterson said he plans <strong>to</strong> do some<br />
scientific sampling of the surf fish this coming week.<br />
The USF scientists plan a second survey of the gulf next month, and also plan <strong>to</strong> check whether the sick fish<br />
they have caught suffer from immune system and fertility problems. Their goal, according <strong>to</strong> Ernst Peebles,<br />
another USF scientist working on the study, is <strong>to</strong> be able <strong>to</strong> report something definite by April 20, the second<br />
anniversary of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion.<br />
One problem with the USF study, though, is that nobody made a similar gulf‐wide survey of fish health prior <strong>to</strong><br />
the disaster, Peebles and Murawski said. Without a baseline study, it's hard <strong>to</strong> say what's normal.<br />
They have found more sick fish than what they would expect based on previous studies, Peebles said, but the<br />
earlier studies <strong>to</strong>ok place in colder waters.<br />
However, what started the investigation were reports from longtime commercial fishermen that they were<br />
pulling in fish with skin problems like they'd never seen before.<br />
13
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion killed 11 workers. Two days later oil began spewing from a pipe a mile<br />
beneath the surface, and BP and its partners were not able <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>p it until July.<br />
Before BP could cap the well, 5 million barrels of oil gushed in<strong>to</strong> the gulf. The company sprayed 1.8 million<br />
gallons of chemical dispersant <strong>to</strong> prevent it from reaching shore, but 2.5 million pounds of it washed up on<br />
Florida's beaches and in its marshes. Cleanup crews are still picking up tar balls from the beaches of Alabama<br />
and Mississippi.<br />
In late 2010 and early 2011, fishermen working the area the spill had reported finding red snapper and<br />
sheepshead with lesions, fin rot and parasite infections. On some of them, the lesions had eaten a hole<br />
straight through <strong>to</strong> the muscle tissue.<br />
A few fishermen brought their suspect catch <strong>to</strong> scientists. When the scientists cut them open, they found the<br />
fish also had enlarged livers, gallbladders, and bile ducts — indications their immune systems may have been<br />
compromised by oil.<br />
So last summer, with funding from NOAA and cooperation from the state's marine science labora<strong>to</strong>ry in St.<br />
Petersburg, the USF scientists chartered fishing boats from Madeira Beach and Panama City and set out <strong>to</strong><br />
cover the entire gulf. They dropped their lines about 600 feet deep — the spill began at 5,400 feet — and<br />
caught about 4,000 fish.<br />
Southern Offshore Fisheries Association president Bob Spaeth helped set up the voyage, and wasn't surprised<br />
by its results.<br />
His big worry is not that a percentage of the fish got sick, he said, but that the size of the fish population may<br />
have been reduced. That could lead federal regula<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> reduce how many fish they're allowed <strong>to</strong> catch. "If<br />
you reduce our quota," he said, "we'll be out of business."<br />
In the meantime, there have been other signs something unusual might be going on in the northern part of<br />
the gulf. More than 600 dolphins have stranded along the gulf beaches over the past two years, which in some<br />
areas is 10 times more than normal, according <strong>to</strong> NOAA scientist Erin Fougeres. So far 10 have tested positive<br />
for a bacterial infection called Brucella, which the scientists believe may be a sign that the oil spill harmed the<br />
dolphins' immune system.<br />
The USF survey included some disquieting results for Florida anglers who think they don't have <strong>to</strong> worry about<br />
the northern gulf where the spill occurred. Peebles' lab examined the ear bones of the fish caught in the gulf,<br />
because those bones contain clues <strong>to</strong> the fish's life.<br />
"I see fish caught off this coast," Peebles said, "who spent the early part of their lives up there."<br />
14
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Stranded dolphin found dead days after rejoining pod<br />
01/16/2012 Wendy Vic<strong>to</strong>ra / Daily News<br />
A spotted dolphin that beached itself at Gray<strong>to</strong>n Beach on January 7 washed up dead less than a week after<br />
being released by bystanders who tried <strong>to</strong> care for it.<br />
Two local men spotted the dolphin, which makes it home in offshore waters, floating upside down in shallow<br />
waters. They righted it, called for help and tried <strong>to</strong> keep it calm until a marine mammal stranding team could<br />
arrive.<br />
But when the dolphin seemed <strong>to</strong> recover and began struggling with the men, they guided it back out in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
Gulf of Mexico and watched it rejoin its pod and swim away.<br />
On Friday, it washed up in a state of advanced decomposition, according <strong>to</strong> a press release from Steve<br />
Shippee, Marine Mammal Stranding Team Coordina<strong>to</strong>r for the Emerald Coast Wildlife Refuge.<br />
15
Where is the dolphin on FL FWC?<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
16
NOAA WEBSITE<br />
Total in 2010 = 260<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
17
Total strandings for 2011 = 490<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
18
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
19
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
12/09/2011 BAY ST. LOUIS — MS Business Journal<br />
The Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission has received a $509,000 settlement with BP. Port and<br />
harbor direc<strong>to</strong>r Jack Zink says the commission has agreed not <strong>to</strong> sue BP over the 2010 oil spill. Zink tells the<br />
Sea Coast Echo the damage did not come from the oil, but rather from activity at the Stennis Airport. The<br />
commission runs the airport. In the weeks and months following the oil spill, Zink says planes carrying disperse<br />
materials <strong>to</strong> the site flew in and out of the airport.<br />
He says the planes caused damage <strong>to</strong> the runway and taxi areas of the airport. Zink says the money will be<br />
used <strong>to</strong> repair the damage at the airport.<br />
DISPERSANT PROGRAM<br />
Sept 01, 2011 Second Amended Cross‐Claims of Defendant Hallibur<strong>to</strong>n Energy Services, Inc.<br />
Item 19 Cross Defendant Marine Spill Response Corporation ‐ MSRC<br />
Item 22 Cross Defendant Lynden, Inc. ‐ Lynden Air Cargo, Inc. (leased aircraft <strong>to</strong> Clean Caribbean Americas)<br />
Item 23 Cross Defendant Dynamic Aviation Group<br />
Item 24 Cross Defendant International Air Response, Inc.<br />
CCA ‐ Clean Caribbean Americas (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)<br />
Sprayed 360,000 gallons of Corexit EC9500A dispersant at a calibrated dosage. This accounted for more than<br />
one third of the <strong>to</strong>tal dispersant sprayed by all aircraft during the entire incident.<br />
The Spanish oil company Repsol plans <strong>to</strong> drill an explora<strong>to</strong>ry well in 5,600 feet of water about 22 miles<br />
north of Havana.<br />
http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/coast-guard-plans-<strong>to</strong>-use-dispersants-if-cuban-drilling-producesoil-spill/1207054<br />
Coast Guard plans <strong>to</strong> use dispersants if Cuban drilling produces oil spill<br />
Craig Pittman, Tampa Bay Times<br />
December 21, 2011<br />
As Cuba prepares <strong>to</strong> begin allowing a Spanish company <strong>to</strong> drill for oil less than 100 miles from the Florida Keys<br />
next year, U.S. Coast Guard officials say they have learned from the Deepwater Horizon disaster and will be<br />
prepared should a spill occur.<br />
"We will attack it quickly, aggressively and as far from our shores as we can," Rear Adm. William Baumgartner<br />
<strong>to</strong>ld reporters during a news conference Tuesday.<br />
20
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Attacking an offshore spill from Cuba would include flying out <strong>to</strong> the scene and spraying dispersants such as<br />
Corexit on any oil slick, <strong>to</strong> break it up and make it degrade more quickly, Baumgartner said.<br />
"We will use every <strong>to</strong>ol at our disposal," said the admiral who commands the 7th Coast Guard District,<br />
headquartered in Miami. "Aerial dispersants are going <strong>to</strong> be an effective <strong>to</strong>ol. Undispersed oil is more<br />
damaging <strong>to</strong> natural resources than dispersed oil."<br />
The use of Corexit during last year's Deepwater Horizon cleanup — sprayed from above as well as underwater<br />
— proved <strong>to</strong> be controversial, especially after scientists from the University of South Florida and other<br />
institutions reported finding underwater plumes of dissolved oil droplets they feared would affect marine life.<br />
Environmental activists are already questioning whether using such dispersants would be a good idea. They<br />
noted the proximity of sensitive areas such as the Dry Tortugas National Park, the Florida Keys National<br />
Marine Sanctuary, the National Key Deer Refuge and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park.<br />
"Just because it disappears doesn't mean it's not there," said Jonathan Ullman of the Sierra Club's South<br />
Florida office.<br />
David Guggenheim of the Ocean Foundation, a marine scientist who has explored Cuba's undersea world,<br />
warned that dispersants should not be used lightly because there are still questions about the health effects<br />
from spraying Corexit during Deepwater Horizon.<br />
Baumgartner said his goal in blocking the spread of a spill is not <strong>to</strong> protect Florida <strong>to</strong>urist‐attracting beaches so<br />
much as it is <strong>to</strong> protect natural areas that are important <strong>to</strong> marine life, particularly coral reefs, mangroves and<br />
sea grass beds.<br />
He said he expects the currents that flow through and near the Keys — the gulf's Loop Current, the Florida<br />
Current and the Gulfstream — will help buffer Florida from contact with most of any oil that might be spilled<br />
in Cuban waters.<br />
But he conceded eddies are likely <strong>to</strong> break off and carry some of the oil close enough <strong>to</strong> taint the shore. That's<br />
why he wants <strong>to</strong> attack it before it ever arrives.<br />
In addition <strong>to</strong> dispersants, Baumgartner said he would use skimmer boats, booms and controlled burns <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>p<br />
the spill. However, a report on the Deepwater Horizon cleanup found that those <strong>to</strong>ols did little <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>p BP's<br />
spill, with only five percent of the oil burned and three percent skimmed off the surface.<br />
Cuban officials are just as concerned over a potential spill, the admiral said. Two weeks ago, he sat down with<br />
officials from Cuba, Jamaica, the Bahamas and Mexico <strong>to</strong> run an exercise in what <strong>to</strong> do should there be a spill.<br />
Jamaica and the Bahamas are also looking in<strong>to</strong> allowing explora<strong>to</strong>ry drilling.<br />
21
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
"Everyone is planning for the worst case, but hoping for the best," said Henry "Skip" Przelomski, vice president<br />
of Clean Caribbean & Americas, a Fort Lauderdale‐based cooperative run by nine oil companies that is licensed<br />
<strong>to</strong> help clean up any spill in Cuban waters.<br />
Przelomski said one option being considered is <strong>to</strong> spray dispersant underwater, just as in Deepwater Horizon.<br />
But at this point no company is licensed <strong>to</strong> take that action in Cuba, he said.<br />
Cuba has agreed <strong>to</strong> let a Spanish company, Repsol, drill explora<strong>to</strong>ry wells about 22 miles north of Havana,<br />
which means they will be 70 miles south of the Keys. Repsol's safety record is spotty. In 2008, its operation in<br />
Ecuador experienced a crude oil spill near the Yasuni National Park in a rainforest area. In 2009, another spill<br />
occurred in Ecuador's Amazon region after a rupture in a pipeline.<br />
Repsol is bringing in an Italian‐owned, Chinese‐made drilling rig, the Scarabeo‐9, which U.S. officials are<br />
scheduled <strong>to</strong> inspect next week. It is expected <strong>to</strong> start drilling in January.<br />
Currently, Cuba gets its oil from Venezuela and relies on sugar, nickel mining and <strong>to</strong>urism for its economic<br />
wellbeing. But sugar production and the price of nickel have fallen. Meanwhile, its <strong>to</strong>urism industry has been<br />
sputtering — so now the Cubans are ready <strong>to</strong> consider drilling.<br />
The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated Cuba's offshore fields hold 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion<br />
cubic feet of natural gas and said the area has "significant potential.'' The first block Repsol is expected <strong>to</strong><br />
explore lies under 5,600 feet of water — 600 feet deeper than where BP's Deepwater Horizon well exploded in<br />
April 2010.<br />
Baumgartner and Capt. John Slaughter, his head of planning, said the main lesson they learned from<br />
Deepwater Horizon was <strong>to</strong> do a better job of coordinating with state and county emergency officials, who<br />
complained repeatedly about being ignored during last year's cleanup.<br />
The admiral said he has personally briefed Gov. Rick Scott and talked with state and county officials about his<br />
contingency plans for any Cuban incident.<br />
MSRC ‐ N117TG (International Air Response owner) Foreign Non‐Profit established in MS in 1993 with<br />
headquarters in Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC<br />
801,575 gallons of dispersant applied<br />
Reconfigured Aircraft in Coolidge, AZ with STC SA5088NM and STC SA4850NM (Supplemental Type Certificate)<br />
N7199S ‐ Beechcraft King Air 90 (twin turbo‐prop)<br />
22
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
23
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
US Pollution: MSRC – Agreement Concerning Use of Dispersants<br />
August 2011<br />
Dear Sirs,<br />
Members will be aware that United States Coast Guard regulations now require vessel response plans for tank<br />
vessels <strong>to</strong> include an oil spill response organization (“OSRO”) capable of applying dispersants by air as part of a<br />
clean up operation. Pending finalization of the fine detail of the regulations and their implementation however<br />
both main OSRO’s – NRC and MSRC – received permission <strong>to</strong> have their cus<strong>to</strong>mers’ plans continue without a<br />
dispersant capability for a period of six months. That period expires on 22 August 2011 and from which date<br />
opera<strong>to</strong>rs of tank vessels must include a dispersant capability in their plans.<br />
On 10 August 2011 and unfortunately without prior notice <strong>to</strong> the International Group, MSRC issued notice <strong>to</strong><br />
its cus<strong>to</strong>mers that they are amending their service agreement <strong>to</strong> include a “dispersant addendum”. They have<br />
requested that the addendum be signed forthwith by all tank vessel opera<strong>to</strong>rs who cite MSRC as OSRO in their<br />
plans and also cautioned that the addendum would need <strong>to</strong> be signed by opera<strong>to</strong>rs of other vessel types on an<br />
ad hoc basis if and when the Federal authorities require the application of dispersants in a spill from a non‐<br />
tank vessel. This action is said <strong>to</strong> have been taken in reaction <strong>to</strong> law suits issued against MSRC and others in<br />
the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon event, where claimants are alleging adverse health effects of<br />
exposure <strong>to</strong> dispersant chemicals. The defendants are seeking shelter under the “responder immunity”<br />
principles of OPA ‘90 but have yet <strong>to</strong> perfect such defenses and hence the new addendum.<br />
The Managers are concerned however that the terms of the Addendum are widely drafted and include a full<br />
indemnity in favor of MSRC for injury and illness claims arising out of an oil spill event after a dispersant has<br />
been used. These terms would fall outside of Club cover.<br />
The International Group is in urgent discussion with MSRC in an effort <strong>to</strong> have the addendum changed. A<br />
further Notice will be issued as soon as possible <strong>to</strong> update Members on the outcome of those discussions and<br />
the position on Club cover. In the interim, and as recently confirmed by MSRC in their message of 15 August<br />
2011, Members are strongly advised not <strong>to</strong> sign the addendum – it is reiterated that doing so may give rise <strong>to</strong><br />
liabilities that fall outside of Club cover. The Managers are not presently aware of any such issues with NRC.<br />
Yours faithfully<br />
For: West of England Insurance Services (Luxembourg) S.A.<br />
24
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
PRESENTATION: Sept 14, 2011, MSRC Aerial Dispersant Program Update – Tim Spoerl, MSRC<br />
Mr. Spoerl provided the membership with an overview of the MSRC dispersant program as it was applied<br />
during the Deepwater Horizon response from April 22, 2010 <strong>to</strong> September 9, 2010. (And we were <strong>to</strong>ld they<br />
quit spraying in July 2010!)<br />
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3<br />
A%2F%2Fwww.nrt.org%2Fproduction%2FNRT%2FRRT3.nsf%2FResources%2FSep2011ppt%2F%24File%2F2011<br />
‐09‐<br />
14_TS_Presentation.ppt&ei=BE0nT4zhG5G4twfE1pmFAg&usg=AFQjCNHytbXC8zGE7pd8_LHvnzHPPb9LLw&sig<br />
2=CxSB4l30MFv7AiHPgwh1fw<br />
25
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Why would the MSRC aircraft have spray wands? Certainly not <strong>to</strong> put out fires. They have been s<strong>to</strong>ck piling the<br />
corexit at Stennis in one month from 11,000 gallons <strong>to</strong> 16,009 gallons. Their <strong>to</strong>tal (MSRC) is now 104,659.<br />
These hangars are leased at Stennis and these companies pay for each cycle (<strong>to</strong>uch and go). It is their private<br />
property. The hangar is their private property. The runways are used and paid by them for each takeoff and<br />
landing.<br />
MSRC paid a hefty dollar <strong>to</strong> be on that block list, even though the FAA dismantled the program in November.<br />
The FAA has Aircraft N117TG on their block list and flights cannot be followed on Flightaware.<br />
26
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
December 5, 2011 ‐ Aviation Week FAA Reverses Course On BARR Program<br />
FAA has rescinded its controversial policy that essentially dismantled the Block Aircraft Registration Request<br />
(BARR) program. In a statement released Dec. 2, FAA says that, effective immediately, general aviation and<br />
charter opera<strong>to</strong>rs will be able <strong>to</strong> request that their aircraft registration numbers be withheld from near real‐<br />
time flight tracking programs without submitting a certified security concern.<br />
“Owners and opera<strong>to</strong>rs seeking <strong>to</strong> have their aircraft tail number blocked from these data feeds can now<br />
submit a blocking request directly <strong>to</strong> the FAA without stating a reason for the request,” the agency says. “The<br />
FAA has already begun receiving requests under the new appropriations language and is processing them.”<br />
FAA had restricted use of BARR at the behest of the Department of Transportation, saying the move was part<br />
of a government transparency effort. AOPA and NBAA, which had administered the program on behalf of FAA<br />
for about 3,000 opera<strong>to</strong>rs, had argued that the restrictions jeopardized the security and privacy of general<br />
aviation operations.<br />
WATER SAMPLES<br />
An analyte is a chemical substance that is the subject of chemical analysis. MDL is Method Detection Limit.<br />
27
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
28
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Offshore ‐ Deepwater Sediment Sampling 10‐9‐2010 through 10‐23‐2010 ‐ Examples<br />
PCBs ‐ 65 detections which are above ug/kg limits on 4 different vessels, all at different coordinates of<br />
longitude/latitude.<br />
Arsenic ‐ 133 detections which are above ug/kg limits on 4 different vessels, all at different coordinates of<br />
longitude/latitude.<br />
Barium ‐ 286 detections which are above ug/kg limits on 4 different vessels, all at different coordinates of<br />
longitude/latitude.<br />
Total PAH ‐ 116 detections which are above ug/kg limits on 4 different vessels, all at different coordinates of<br />
longitude/latitude.<br />
The highest detection was the vessel Gyre at lat 28.7423, long ‐88.36221 on Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 17, 2010. The MDL is<br />
0.080 and the result was 47,558.760.<br />
40,825 Analytes were shown as detected and above the MDL limit.<br />
Thank you <strong>to</strong> Emerald Coast Surfrider for their continued moni<strong>to</strong>ring and testing of our beaches !<br />
Oil is still being seen.<br />
Tar balls are still washing up on our beaches, tar mats are along the shorelines.<br />
Susan B. Forsyth ‐ Real problem is, how can we be assessing for damages when there is still oil washing ashore,<br />
and like here in Wal<strong>to</strong>n County, we have buried oil along the beach and new tar balls hitting the beaches <strong>to</strong>o.<br />
No one is studying the long‐term, chronic effects this is having day after day, week after week, month after<br />
month.<br />
RADIOACTIVITY<br />
New Orleans at<strong>to</strong>rney Stuart Smith has practiced law for nearly 25 years, litigating against oil companies and<br />
other energy‐related corporations for damages associated with radioactive oilfield waste, referred <strong>to</strong> within<br />
the oil and gas industry as technologically enhanced radioactive material (TERM). The waste product is also<br />
known as naturally occurring radioactive material, or NORM. The two acronyms TERM and NORM describe a<br />
substance that exists naturally in trace amounts – in soil and rocks, for example – and as such poses little<br />
29
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
health risk <strong>to</strong> humans. However, when the substance – primarily made up of radium‐226 and radium‐228 –<br />
becomes concentrated through industrial processes, like oil production, it takes on <strong>to</strong>xic qualities. Exposure <strong>to</strong><br />
radium is known <strong>to</strong> cause a variety of illnesses, including cancer. Radium exposure can have significant impact<br />
on the human body, and the damage can be particularly acute because radium is chemically similar <strong>to</strong> calcium<br />
‐ and as such is frequently absorbed by bones after entering the body.<br />
Smith has had many cases for damages tied <strong>to</strong> NORM contamination, some of which include Chevron, Ashland<br />
Oil, ExxonMobile (which resulted in a verdict of $1.056 Billion. Smith is currently representing the Louisiana<br />
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) as well as commercial fisherman and charter boat captains, whose<br />
livelihoods have been damaged by the DWH oil spill.<br />
I highly recommend our listeners <strong>to</strong> visit LEAN's website at LEANWEB.ORG. Marylee Orr is the executive<br />
direc<strong>to</strong>r.<br />
HEALTH OF THE GULF COAST<br />
Science of the Spill: Presentations on Emerging Impacts of the BP Oil Disaster<br />
On December 5th, 2011, The Sierra Club, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, the Steps Coalition and<br />
Mississippi Coalition for Vietnamese‐American Fisher Folk and Families sponsored an educational forum <strong>to</strong><br />
discuss the BP Oil Disaster and its impacts <strong>to</strong> our environment and communities, and how Gulf Coast<br />
researchers are addressing these concerns.<br />
Science of the Spill highlighted three Gulf Coast‐based researchers, Dr. Scott Milroy, Wilma Subra and Dr. Ed<br />
Cake, who are tracking impacts of the BP oil disaster on blue water, fisheries, coastal wetlands and public<br />
health. The forum provided citizens the opportunity <strong>to</strong> ask the scientists questions related <strong>to</strong> their research<br />
and the ongoing impacts related <strong>to</strong> the oil disaster.<br />
Held at the Biloxi Civic Center, 580 Howard Ave (Bellman and Howard) Biloxi, Mississippi<br />
http://leanweb.org/our‐work/water/bp‐oil‐spill/science‐of‐the‐spill‐presentations‐on‐emerging‐impacts‐of‐<br />
the‐bp‐oil‐disaster<br />
SEAFOOD SAFETY<br />
Heather Reed of Ecological Consulting Services is testing for 60 chemical compounds, the state only asks for 13. This is<br />
the crux of this entire disaster. The state of FL is not testing <strong>to</strong> standards which you would need for finding Crude Oil<br />
Compounds. This has been our dilemma‐and why we finally are using forensics testing models.<br />
Florida Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services Bureau ‐ Summary of FL PAH Analyses ‐ If the level of concern is<br />
below the ppm, the spreadsheet shows
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
31
BIOREMEDIATION<br />
OSE II (Oil Spill Eater II) http://osei.us/<br />
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
This product has not been preapproved by the EPA; they made their first request in February 1990 and their<br />
latest request in July 2011. Because of this no contrac<strong>to</strong>r would buy or stage the product. So if no one stages<br />
OSE II then it is not readily available for spills. Consequently, when an emergency spill occurred there was<br />
never enough OSE II on hand <strong>to</strong> address the spill, until recently. OSE II is now s<strong>to</strong>cked in their Dallas<br />
warehouse <strong>to</strong> address approximately 1 million gallons of spilled oil.<br />
BIOREMEDIATION, INC. http://www.bioremediationinc.com/s<strong>to</strong>re/cleaning/maintenance/cat_33.html<br />
An Environmental Solution <strong>to</strong> Pollution!<br />
Bioremediation products have been successfully used in Plants, Refineries, Decontamination and Cleaning,<br />
Line Cleaning, Emergency Spill Response, Wastewater Treatment, Marine Barges, Water and Soil Remediation,<br />
Machine Shop Parts Washers, and in Fuel Service Areas and Equipment Wash Areas.<br />
Bioremediation Products have been successfully used <strong>to</strong> clean Gasoline, Diesel, Crude Oils, Creosote, PCP,<br />
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Fats, Grease, Glycols, PNA, Phenols, Benzene and Benzene Compounds (BTEX),<br />
32
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
Sulphur Containing Compounds, Solvents, Amines, MTBE, Ace<strong>to</strong>ne and Paint Sludge, Pipeline Condensation,<br />
DMF (dimethylformanide), Polyurethane Resin Wastes, AN (acrylonitrile), and many other complex organic<br />
compounds.<br />
OPFLEX ‐ Scott Smith http://opflex.com/site<br />
Opflex booms, mops, sweeps, pads, mitts and environmental indica<strong>to</strong>rs were tested in the real world, not in a<br />
lab, on the oil sheen subsurface plumes and affected wildlife on the gulf coast POST BP oil spill. Opflex proved<br />
so effective that BP purchased 2 million square feet of Opflex material for use in the clean up. Opflex also<br />
cleans up PCBs.<br />
Recently I had a gentlemen personally contact me regarding his product. It contains 11 essential oils and the<br />
cost is $20 a gallon. The key <strong>to</strong> this product is the benzene test. There are 7 rings that bind everything<br />
<strong>to</strong>gether. Once an incorrect product is used, the bind is broken and sets the PCBs free.<br />
Explanation of PCB "Descrip<strong>to</strong>rs"<br />
Congener descrip<strong>to</strong>rs give a shorthand notation for geometry and substituent positions. The twelve congeners<br />
that display all four of the descrip<strong>to</strong>rs are referred <strong>to</strong> as being "dioxin‐like", referring both <strong>to</strong> their <strong>to</strong>xicity and<br />
structural features which make them similar <strong>to</strong> 2,3,7,8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin (2378‐TCDD)[1]. Individual<br />
congeners are identified by the number and position of the chlorine a<strong>to</strong>ms around the biphenyl rings.[2]<br />
CP0 / CP1<br />
These 68 coplanar congeners fall in<strong>to</strong> one of two groups. The first group of 20 congeners consists of those<br />
with chlorine substitution at none of the ortho positions on the biphenyl backbone and are referred <strong>to</strong> as CP0<br />
or non‐ortho congeners. The second group of 48 congeners includes those with chlorine substitution at only<br />
one of the ortho positions and are referred <strong>to</strong> as CP1 or mono‐ortho congeners.<br />
4CL<br />
These 169 congeners have a <strong>to</strong>tal of four or more chlorine substituents, regardless of position.<br />
PP<br />
These 54 congeners have both para positions chlorinated.<br />
2M<br />
These 140 congeners have two or more of the meta positions chlorinated.<br />
SUMMARY ON BIOREMEDIATION<br />
Testing needs <strong>to</strong> include the PCB bind so that the rings are not broken and released via aerosol or in the water.<br />
33
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
http://osei.us/tech‐library‐pdfs/2011/OSEI%20Manual_FINAL‐2011.pdf Page 96<br />
34
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
NASA Data Strengthens Reports of Toxic Rain on the Gulf Coast From BP Spill<br />
March 7, 2011<br />
The Chief Mission Coordinating Scientist on the NASA remote sensing mission <strong>to</strong> the BP oil spill in the Gulf Of<br />
Mexico was Ira Leifer, Ph.D from University of California Santa Barbara. Dr. Leifer has been working with<br />
natural oil spills and natural methane bubble flows for the last decade. He is in the process of publishing<br />
analysis of some of the government data collected during the spill. The analysis is based on openly‐available<br />
airborne and satellite NASA data, recently published NOAA airborne data, and airborne and boat‐based data<br />
collected over the Gulf and analyzed by Dr. Leifer's team. Other official air quality data, has been unavailable<br />
<strong>to</strong> scientists, the media, or the general public until recently.<br />
The data being released, which was collected by the NASA missions <strong>to</strong> the Gulf, shows that the <strong>to</strong>xic<br />
compounds released from the BP spill became airborne, and significant quantities were brought onshore by<br />
precipitation, thereby exposing coastal populations <strong>to</strong> chemical poisoning. This represents something new and<br />
unique not observed in previous oil spills. It helps explain why there were numerous reports by people living<br />
along the Gulf Coast that it was raining oil and dispersant during the summer months.<br />
I think it is important <strong>to</strong> establish for the record that the unique aspect of this [BP blowout] is that the volatiles<br />
were continuous, it was not a one‐day exposure. The chronic nature of the spill and the therefore chronic<br />
nature of its health impact is a pretty unique aspect of this event. The reason I think it's important <strong>to</strong> call it<br />
unique is that it gives a way <strong>to</strong> explain why various government agencies using pro<strong>to</strong>cols developed for a<br />
single coast spill didn't get it right because it's not the same. I think it's important <strong>to</strong> give the people we really<br />
want <strong>to</strong> take responsibility a way of saying ah, yes, you're right and jump on the bandwagon with us. We need<br />
NIH <strong>to</strong> fund a 50 <strong>to</strong> 60 million dollar study because this is something that had never happened before.<br />
The data we collected in the atmosphere shows a very high hydrocarbon load and we were able <strong>to</strong> identify<br />
more than 100 compounds in it. Many of them have health implications. There were large amounts of them<br />
and they have similarities <strong>to</strong> gasoline. In that regard the modeling I did seems <strong>to</strong> suggest that there are<br />
reasons for concern. There are reasons <strong>to</strong> do additional research.<br />
Considering <strong>to</strong>xic compounds ‐ realistically they are probably all <strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> some extent. But for so many<br />
compounds I do not think the studies have been done <strong>to</strong> say what precisely the threats are ‐ it's a mixture. The<br />
way we did the measurements we had evacuated stainless steel 1 liter cylinders opened up <strong>to</strong> very gradually<br />
and gently allow air <strong>to</strong> enter in<strong>to</strong> the container and then sealed. These were collected on a boat and also in<br />
NOAA airplanes and then analyze by a scientist Don Blake at his labora<strong>to</strong>ry at UC Irvine. The concentrations of<br />
any one compound were very low in the parts per billion (P<strong>PB</strong>) or even less. But many of these concentrations<br />
were at sea and this is a good comparison, higher.<br />
This is what is being experienced or observed and breathed by people on site. The response workers were not<br />
wearing a mask [respira<strong>to</strong>r].<br />
35
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
People in the Gulf of Mexico were not warned that the air was going <strong>to</strong> be bad and they had clean air in much<br />
of the area right before the spill. It is a very different kind of situation than people who chose <strong>to</strong> go and try <strong>to</strong><br />
make money in Mexico City. A lot of people in the Gulf live there because they enjoy the Gulf and they didn't<br />
want <strong>to</strong> move Los Angeles or New York City or the big American polluted environments ‐‐ they chose <strong>to</strong> stay<br />
where the environment is pretty clean.<br />
In terms of the health implications for coastal communities I think there are two things. I have classified there<br />
being three different approaches by which atmospheric phenomenon related <strong>to</strong> the oil spill can cause health<br />
effects. One is the volatiles just breathing the stuff a long way from the incident site. A second one is aerosol,<br />
so when oil comes up on the beaches as the wave breaks there is aerosol generated in the air, and that can be<br />
breathed by people. The last one which we discovered is the rain. I will add a fourth one which is dispersants.<br />
Clearly, spraying dispersants near populated areas is a bad idea. If dispersants are aerosolized that is a bad<br />
thing as well. With regards <strong>to</strong> the volatiles there are two things the main thing is that volatiles can go a long<br />
way on the wind. I did some simple calculations of quantities and exposures in coastal communities. What I<br />
saw according <strong>to</strong> OSHA rules absolutely no problem. If one assumes the volatiles can be health effect modeled<br />
as gasoline exposure there is a potential ‐ the dosage rates were high enough for there <strong>to</strong> be problems. When<br />
I did it for healthy adults it seemed worth looking at, but who knows. The big worry is pregnant women and<br />
the elderly ‐‐ at risk populations. In that regard, at‐risk populations, the levels seem <strong>to</strong> suggest there could be<br />
really severe concern for the health‐related impacts. What that implies is that it really needs <strong>to</strong> be studied and<br />
looked at. The [published] literature is for people exposed long term <strong>to</strong> gasoline.<br />
The other way is the aerosols. The aerosolization are really tiny droplets smaller than a hair but still pretty<br />
large, and they cannot stay airborne for very long before they will fall back down <strong>to</strong> the ground. Maybe a<br />
couple of miles inshore. So you would expect people right near the beach would be at risk from aerosol<br />
related problems. But once you got 5 <strong>to</strong> 10 miles onshore it would go back <strong>to</strong> people just breathing and<br />
smelling fumes rather than the aerosol component. Aerosols and their effects are a little uncertain, exactly<br />
what it is going <strong>to</strong> do. We know that aerosolization in past spills always cause a lot of people <strong>to</strong> get sick. In this<br />
spill, probably the same. They are droplets that are large enough that if they get in<strong>to</strong> your lungs your body can<br />
potentially remove them, or maybe not because they are tar so it may get stuck in there. I do not know of<br />
literature in detail on this in the U.S., there may be overseas. If you breathe in aerosols of oil do you cough<br />
them out and get rid of them within a month or do they stay in your body for years? That is a very important<br />
distinction.<br />
What you would expect <strong>to</strong> see is that people within close proximity <strong>to</strong> the beach ‐‐ with a mile or two ‐‐ would<br />
have symp<strong>to</strong>ms different from people ten miles from the beach. And when I say beach it is also shoreline.<br />
The last one is the rain. That is a completely new phenomenon that has not been reported. People at<br />
California Oil Spill who have done testing on burning have never seen anything like that. But you don't have<br />
102% humidity in California. There is no precedent in past oil spills <strong>to</strong> consider <strong>to</strong> know that this is a problem<br />
and what its effects are.<br />
I know there were clouds filled with hydrocarbons. This is from the remote sensing data showing that a cloud ‐<br />
‐ maybe it is 1/2 mile thick ‐‐ had about .1 or .2mm of oil equivalent in it spread out through the whole thing.<br />
36
RADIO SHOW TRANSCRIPT<br />
TRISHA JAMES AND PROOF NEGATIVE ON FREEDOMIZER RADIO<br />
JANUARY 18, 2012<br />
When it rains, whatever is in it is going <strong>to</strong> come down, that is just how clouds work. I don't have<br />
documentation on the rain. On the other hand there are quite a few anecdotal reports of people saying it's<br />
raining oil. What was missing was any explanation of how that could be happening, a scientific mechanism.<br />
What my data does is that it elucidates the mechanism scientifically so we can explain exactly how this could<br />
happen. It goes from speculation that just have been a water spout and it pushed the oil up in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
atmosphere and then somehow it came down in Alabama <strong>to</strong> actually a very clear connection that can both be<br />
studied from the remote sensing data we have and also from people's observations. This would be a cause for<br />
concern in the future and burning oil from spills as <strong>to</strong> whether or not it's a good idea.<br />
For myself there are two. To improve the atmospheric model. But more <strong>to</strong> the point the most important link<br />
that needs <strong>to</strong> be made at this point is that chronic gasoline exposure is a good health model of exposure <strong>to</strong> the<br />
BP oil spill fumes. Secondly <strong>to</strong> try and get a better understanding ‐‐ which seems <strong>to</strong> be impossible ‐‐ what is<br />
known about the airborne impacts of the oil spills in the last 10 years around the world. We live in a global<br />
world and society, it is silly for us not <strong>to</strong> learn from the experiences of our friends in Europe who have also<br />
experienced oil spills in recent years and documented widespread health impacts. As Americans, if we can<br />
learn from them we can avoid the mysterious Gulf Coast Health Syndrome appearing five years from now that<br />
nobody figures out what it is until 10 years from now with a lot of people getting sick and very ill in the<br />
interim.<br />
CURRENT HEALTH ISSUES ON THE GULF COAST<br />
Women are unable <strong>to</strong> conceive, women are having miscarriages<br />
People are sick with numerous symp<strong>to</strong>ms associated with a <strong>to</strong>xic environment<br />
People are dying from cancer<br />
Doc<strong>to</strong>rs are not able <strong>to</strong> help; they can only treat the symp<strong>to</strong>ms<br />
De<strong>to</strong>x clinics are not readily available<br />
VOC Testing is expensive and many cannot afford it<br />
CDC ‐ No current database<br />
Florida Dept. of Health ‐ No current database<br />
37
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia], [Ashley McCrea-Strub] at 14:43 12 July 2011<br />
Feature:<br />
FISHERIES RESEARCH<br />
Potential Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Commercial<br />
Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico<br />
A. McCrea-Strub<br />
Postdoc<strong>to</strong>ral Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University<br />
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada<br />
E-mail: a.strub@fisheries.ubc.ca<br />
K. Kleisner<br />
Postdoc<strong>to</strong>ral Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University<br />
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada<br />
U. R. Sumaila<br />
Associate Professor, Direc<strong>to</strong>r of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit,<br />
Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,<br />
Vancouver, BC, Canada<br />
W. Swartz<br />
Ph.D. Student, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of<br />
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada<br />
R. Watson<br />
Senior Research Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University<br />
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada<br />
D. Zeller<br />
Senior Research Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University<br />
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada<br />
D. Pauly<br />
Professor, Principal Investiga<strong>to</strong>r, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre,<br />
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada<br />
ABSTRACT: Given the economic and social importance of fisheries<br />
in the Gulf of Mexico large marine ecosystem (LME), it is imperative<br />
<strong>to</strong> quantify the potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon<br />
oil spill. To provide a preliminary perspective of the consequences of<br />
this disaster, spatial databases of annual reported commercial catch<br />
and landed value prior <strong>to</strong> the spill were investigated relative <strong>to</strong> the<br />
location of the fisheries closures during July 2010. Recent trends<br />
illustrated by this study suggest that more than 20% of the average<br />
annual U.S. commercial catch in the Gulf has been affected by<br />
postspill fisheries closures, indicating a potential minimum loss in annual<br />
landed value of US$247 million. Lucrative shrimp, blue crab,<br />
menhaden, and oyster fisheries may be at greatest risk of economic<br />
losses. Overall, it is evident that the oil spill has impacted a highly<br />
productive area of crucial economic significance within the Gulf of<br />
Mexico LME. This study draws attention <strong>to</strong> the need for ongoing<br />
and thorough investigations in<strong>to</strong> the economic impacts of the oil spill<br />
on Gulf fisheries.<br />
Introduction<br />
The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling<br />
rig on April 20, 2010, initiated the world’s largest known<br />
332<br />
Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org<br />
Impac<strong>to</strong> potencial del derrame<br />
petrolero Deepwater Horizon en las<br />
pesquerías comerciales del Golfo de<br />
México<br />
RESUMEN: En virtud de la gran importancia económica<br />
y social que tiene la actividad pesquera en el gran<br />
ecosistema marino (GEM) del Golfo de México, es indispensable<br />
cuantificar los potenciales impac<strong>to</strong>s del derrame<br />
petrolero Deepwater Horizon. Con la finalidad de<br />
tener una perspectiva preliminar de las consecuencias de<br />
este siniestro, se investigaron da<strong>to</strong>s espaciales anualizados<br />
de la captura comercial y valor desembarcado antes<br />
del derrame en relación a la localización de las vedas<br />
espaciales durante julio de 2010. Las tendencias actuales<br />
que se ilustran en este trabajo sugieren que más del<br />
20% de la captura comercial anual promedio en la parte<br />
del golfo correspondiente a los EEUU, ha sido afectada<br />
por vedas establecidas después del derrame, lo que indica<br />
una pérdida mínima en valor de desembarque de<br />
$247 millones de dólares. Las pesquerías más rentables<br />
como el camarón, cangrejo, sábalo y ostión pueden estar<br />
en riesgo de sufrir pérdidas económicas. En general, se<br />
vuelve evidente que el derrame ha impactado un área altamente<br />
productiva de primera importancia económica<br />
dentro del GEM del Golfo de México. La presente contribución<br />
llama la atención en la necesidad de desarrollar<br />
investigaciones vigentes y profundas sobre los impac<strong>to</strong>s<br />
económicos del derrame petrolero en las pesquerías<br />
del golfo.<br />
accidental oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem<br />
(LME), a region valued for its high productivity and<br />
lucrative fisheries (Adams et al. 2004; Sherman and Hempel<br />
2008). Estimates of the quantity of oil, natural gas and associated<br />
methane, and chemical dispersants released as a result of<br />
this calamity have been plagued by uncertainty. The U.S. Government–appointed<br />
team of scientists—the Flow Rate Technical<br />
Group—estimated that a <strong>to</strong>tal of 4.9 million barrels of oil<br />
was released from the Macondo well, 1 though an independent<br />
study suggested that the amount was between 4.16 and 6.24<br />
million barrels (Crone and Tols<strong>to</strong>y 2010). According <strong>to</strong> British<br />
Petroleum’s (BP) records, approximately 1.8 million gallons 2<br />
1 “U.S. Scientific Teams Refine Estimates of Oil Flow from BPs Well Prior <strong>to</strong><br />
Capping”, August 2, 2010, http://www.res<strong>to</strong>rethegulf.gov/release/2010/08/02/<br />
us-scientific-teamsrefine-estimates-oil-flow-bps-well-prior-capping<br />
2 “One Year Later Press Pack”, April 4, 2011,<br />
http://www.res<strong>to</strong>rethegulf.gov/release/2011/04/10/one-year-later-press-pack
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia], [Ashley McCrea-Strub] at 14:43 12 July 2011<br />
of dispersant was applied at the site of the leak, as well as the<br />
sea surface, though the validity of this amount has been questioned.<br />
Complex oceanographic processes have made it difficult<br />
<strong>to</strong> determine the current and future distribution of these<br />
substances from the surface <strong>to</strong> the sea floor and the duration<br />
of their persistence in the marine environment. With no clear<br />
picture yet, there is no immediate answer <strong>to</strong> questions concerning<br />
short- and long-term impacts on habitats and marine organisms<br />
in the path of this disaster.<br />
Uncertainty regarding the extent of damage <strong>to</strong> the Gulf<br />
of Mexico and the capacity for species and associated markets<br />
<strong>to</strong> recover is particularly troubling for commercial fisheries.<br />
Though it is difficult <strong>to</strong> predict the impacts of an oil spill of this<br />
magnitude on the future of fisheries in the region, we can infer<br />
possible effects by investigating broader patterns. This study<br />
presents an analysis of the prespill spatial distribution of commercial<br />
fisheries catch and landed value in the Gulf of Mexico<br />
LME relative <strong>to</strong> the postspill fisheries closure in an effort <strong>to</strong><br />
evaluate potential economic losses.<br />
Methods<br />
To understand the ecological and economic implications<br />
of fisheries on a global scale, the Sea Around Us Project in<br />
the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia has<br />
developed and maintains databases of spatially allocated fisheries<br />
data (Watson et al. 2004; Pauly 2007; Sumaila et al. 2007).<br />
These global databases of catch and corresponding landed value<br />
were utilized in this study. Commercial landings statistics,<br />
reported <strong>to</strong> the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization<br />
(FAO) by national (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration [NOAA]) fisheries management entities,<br />
include the taxonomic identity of the catch, the reporting<br />
year, the country reporting the catch, as well as the FAO statistical<br />
area from which the catch was taken. Compiled catch<br />
data extending from 1950 <strong>to</strong> 2005 have been allocated by the<br />
Sea Around Us Project <strong>to</strong> a system of rectangular spatial cells<br />
measuring 0.5° latitude by 0.5° longitude according <strong>to</strong> a rulebased<br />
procedure. Information regarding the biological distribution<br />
of the reported taxa (including depth and latitudinal<br />
limits, proximity <strong>to</strong> critical habitat, and primary productivity),<br />
as well as fishing patterns and access agreements of the reporting<br />
country were used <strong>to</strong> restrict and prioritize those cells from<br />
which the catch was most likely <strong>to</strong> have originated. This process<br />
enables the production of maps illustrating the catch rate<br />
(<strong>to</strong>ns per square kilometer per year) by taxonomic group and<br />
region (e.g., exclusive economic zone [EEZ], LME, high seas<br />
area) from 1950 <strong>to</strong> 2005.<br />
Ex-vessel price information (i.e., the price that fishers receive<br />
when they sell their catch) has been compiled according<br />
<strong>to</strong> taxa, year, and country and assigned <strong>to</strong> all landings records<br />
in the global catch database. To allow comparisons across<br />
countries, prices were converted <strong>to</strong> U.S. dollars for all years<br />
using official currency exchange rates and converted <strong>to</strong> real<br />
values using consumer price index (CPI) data. Prices were then<br />
multiplied by spatially allocated landings data <strong>to</strong> facilitate the<br />
visualization of spatial and temporal trends in landed value.<br />
For the purpose of this study, the catch and landed value<br />
databases were queried <strong>to</strong> investigate recent patterns in the<br />
Gulf of Mexico LME. For each of the 606 spatial cells within<br />
this LME, average annual taxon-specific <strong>to</strong>tal catch and landed<br />
value was computed for the period extending from 2000 <strong>to</strong><br />
2005. The location of the fisheries closure (as of July 22, 2010)<br />
in relation <strong>to</strong> georeferenced average annual catch and landed<br />
value was investigated <strong>to</strong> provide clues regarding potential economic<br />
losses <strong>to</strong> commercial fisheries in the region (Figure 1).<br />
Spatial cells were proportionally allocated <strong>to</strong> six zones (i.e., the<br />
commercial fisheries closure within the United States EEZ, the<br />
remaining portion of the U.S. EEZ open <strong>to</strong> commercial fishing,<br />
the Mexican EEZ, the Cuban EEZ, and two high seas areas),<br />
and <strong>to</strong>tal catch and landed value statistics were computed<br />
for each. Additionally, the average annual catch and landed<br />
value of the five most valuable species in the U.S. EEZ during<br />
2000–2005 (i.e., brown shrimp [Farfantepenaeus aztecus],<br />
white shrimp [Li<strong>to</strong>penaeus setiferus], blue crab [Callinectes sapidus],<br />
Gulf menhaden [Brevoortia patronus], and Eastern oyster<br />
[Crassostrea virginica]) were calculated for each zone (Table 1).<br />
Detailed data for each spatial cell used in this analysis are available<br />
on the Sea Around Us Project website. 3 Discrepancies between<br />
annual catch and landed value statistics reported here<br />
and those reported by national fisheries management entities<br />
likely result from over- or underallocation <strong>to</strong> spatial cells as<br />
well as differences in pricing methodologies.<br />
Results and Discussion<br />
Over 100 species of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and other<br />
invertebrates, primarily inhabiting the highly productive<br />
continental shelf area, are commercially fished in the Gulf of<br />
Mexico. During 2000 <strong>to</strong> 2005, <strong>to</strong>tal annual reported commercial<br />
landings within the entire LME averaged approximately<br />
850,000 <strong>to</strong>ns, producing approximately US$1.38 billion in<br />
annual landed value (Table 1). The largest proportion of this<br />
catch and landed value (77% and 74%, respectively) originated<br />
within the 200 nautical mile limit of the U.S. EEZ, followed<br />
by landings and associated landed value within Mexican waters<br />
(22% and 26%, respectively; Figure 1). The composition<br />
of the <strong>to</strong>tal annual catch within the LME was dominated by<br />
Gulf menhaden (52%), and the remaining annual catch came<br />
from Eastern oysters (13%), brown shrimp (5%), white shrimp<br />
(4%), and blue crab (4%). Due <strong>to</strong> high consumer demand and<br />
associated prices, landings of brown and white shrimp generated<br />
the greatest landed value (17% and 16% of the annual <strong>to</strong>tal<br />
within the LME, respectively), followed by blue crab (15%),<br />
Gulf menhaden (12%), and Eastern oysters (8%; Table 1).<br />
3 http://www.seaaroundus.org<br />
Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 333
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia], [Ashley McCrea-Strub] at 14:43 12 July 2011<br />
On May 2, 2010, twelve days following the explosion of<br />
the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, the U.S. National Oceanic and<br />
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as the states of<br />
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, began <strong>to</strong> declare<br />
portions of federal and state waters closed <strong>to</strong> commercial fishing<br />
in an effort <strong>to</strong> protect seafood safety and ensure consumer<br />
confidence. 4 As of July 22, 2010, over 10% of the <strong>to</strong>tal surface<br />
area of the Gulf of Mexico LME and approximately 24% of<br />
the U.S. Gulf EEZ and terri<strong>to</strong>rial state waters were closed <strong>to</strong><br />
commercial fishing operations. During 2000 <strong>to</strong> 2005, habitats<br />
located within the boundaries of the closed area yielded commercial<br />
catches comprising approximately 17% of the <strong>to</strong>tal annual<br />
<strong>to</strong>nnage and 18% of the <strong>to</strong>tal annual value of reported<br />
landings within the Gulf of Mexico LME (Figure 1).<br />
The visible extent of the oil spill and resultant closures<br />
indicates that consequences will be greatest for U.S. fisheries.<br />
On average, 22% of the annual U.S. commercial catch in the<br />
4 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon_oil_spill.htm<br />
334<br />
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of the average (2000–2005) annual landed value of reported commercial fisheries catches in the<br />
Gulf of Mexico LME. The area closed <strong>to</strong> commercial fishing (including both federal and state within the U.S. EEZ as of July 22,<br />
2010) accounts for approximately 18% of the <strong>to</strong>tal value of landings within the LME. The remainder of the U.S. EEZ still open<br />
<strong>to</strong> fishing accounts for 56%, and Mexican waters account for 26% of <strong>to</strong>tal landed value. Less than 0.1% of the annual landed<br />
value is derived from the two high seas areas and Cuban waters.<br />
Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org<br />
Gulf and 24% of the corresponding annual landed value were<br />
derived from the area closed <strong>to</strong> fishing, representing a potential<br />
minimum annual loss of $247 million. Though the majority<br />
of U.S. catch within the boundaries of the fisheries closure<br />
was composed of Gulf menhaden, landings of brown and white<br />
shrimp generated the greatest value (12% of the annual U.S.<br />
<strong>to</strong>tal in the Gulf), followed by blue crabs (4%), Gulf menhaden<br />
(3%), and eastern oysters (1%; Table 1). Economically<br />
valuable invertebrate fisheries may be most at risk due <strong>to</strong> the<br />
fact that relatively sessile, benthic organisms are likely <strong>to</strong> suffer<br />
higher initial rates of mortality and exhibit long recovery times<br />
as a result of exposure <strong>to</strong> oil-saturated habitats compared <strong>to</strong><br />
more mobile fish species (Teal and Howarth 1984; Carls et al.<br />
2001; Culbertson et al. 2007, 2008a).<br />
This study does not pretend <strong>to</strong> address the full range of<br />
biological and economic consequences of the Deepwater Horizon<br />
oil spill on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. It is assumed<br />
here that the effects of the spill will be confined spatially <strong>to</strong>
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia], [Ashley McCrea-Strub] at 14:43 12 July 2011<br />
TABLE 1. Average (2000–2005) annual commercial fisheries catch and landed value by zone within the Gulf of<br />
Mexico LME, including <strong>to</strong>tal and taxa-specific estimates (BS = brown shrimp, WS = white shrimp, BC = blue crab,<br />
GM = Gulf menhaden, EC = Eastern oyster).<br />
the extent of the fisheries closures within U.S. waters and will<br />
only last one year. However, the Gulf of Mexico LME is a hydrographically<br />
dynamic system, and the existence of a large<br />
subsurface oil plume provides evidence that impacts are likely<br />
<strong>to</strong> extend beyond the visible surface boundaries (Camilli et al.<br />
2010). Most marine organisms, including those mentioned here,<br />
exhibit daily and seasonal, small- and large-scale migrations<br />
both laterally and vertically. Species may be directly impacted<br />
by physical contact with contaminants, as well as indirectly affected<br />
via the fouling of important nursery and spawning habitats<br />
and trophic interactions (Jackson et al. 1989; Peterson et<br />
al. 2003). The ability of critical coastal habitats, including salt<br />
marshes and mangroves, <strong>to</strong> act as long-term reservoirs of oil due<br />
<strong>to</strong> buried hydrocarbon deposits can extend exposure and subsequent<br />
biological recovery times by up <strong>to</strong> 40 years (Culbertson<br />
et al. 2007, 2008a, 2008b). The capacity of habitats and species<br />
<strong>to</strong> recover from the effects of oil, methane, and dispersants may<br />
have already been compromised due <strong>to</strong> preexisting sources of<br />
stress, including nutrient-laden freshwater discharge from the<br />
Mississippi River resulting in periodic oxygen-depleted “dead<br />
zones” (O’Connor and Whitall 2007; Rabalais et al. 2007), as<br />
well as bycatch and habitat destruction due <strong>to</strong> extensive trawling<br />
(Vidal-Hernandez and Pauly 2004; Wells et al. 2004). Additionally,<br />
impacts on ecosystems and reductions in the quantity<br />
and quality of fisheries resources translate <strong>to</strong> a variety of economic<br />
impacts, including losses in revenue, profit, wages, and<br />
jobs. Therefore, the possible future loss <strong>to</strong> commercial fisheries<br />
in the United States is suggested as a minimum estimate and<br />
provides a preliminary perspective given pre–oil spill trends.<br />
This analysis includes only reported commercial landings; illegal,<br />
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing as well as lucrative<br />
recreational fishing is not considered.<br />
Catch (1,000 <strong>to</strong>ns) Landed value (US$1,000,000)<br />
Zone Area<br />
(1,000<br />
km2 )<br />
Total BS WS BC GM EO Total BS WS BC GM EO<br />
U.S.,<br />
open<br />
550 513 29 25 20 343 51 767 175 152 134 126 47<br />
U.S.,<br />
closed<br />
167 147 10 10 6 93 16 247 57 64 39 34 15<br />
Mexico 741 191 1 1 6 9 45 358 5 3 29 3 45<br />
Cuba 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0<br />
High<br />
Seas<br />
Total<br />
LME<br />
36 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0<br />
1,550 852 40 35 32 445 111 1,376 219 219 202 163 106<br />
Despite limitations associated with the spatial resolution<br />
of the databases, this study indicates that the oil spill is clearly<br />
impacting an area of crucial economic importance within the<br />
Gulf of Mexico. Continued analyses such as those presented<br />
here should shed light on an uncertain future.<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
This contribution is part of the Sea Around Us Project, a collaboration<br />
between the Pew Environmental Group and the University of<br />
British Columbia.<br />
References<br />
Adams, C. M., E. Hernandez, and J. C. Ca<strong>to</strong>. 2004. The economic<br />
significance of the Gulf of Mexico related <strong>to</strong> population, income,<br />
employment, minerals, fisheries and shipping. Ocean & Coastal<br />
Management 47:565–580.<br />
Camilli, R., C. M. Reddy, D. R. Yoerger, B. A. S. Van Mooy, M. V.<br />
Jakuba, J. C. Kinsey, C. P. McIntyre, S. P. Sylva, and J. V. Maloney.<br />
2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation<br />
at Deepwater Horizon. Science Express 330:201–204<br />
Carls, M. G., M. M. Babcock, P. M. Harris, G. V. Irvine, J. A. Cusick,<br />
and S. D. Rice. 2001. Persistence of oiling in mussel beds<br />
after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Marine Environmental Research<br />
51:167–190.<br />
Crone, T. J., and M. Tols<strong>to</strong>y. 2010. Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of<br />
Mexico oil leak. Science 330:634.<br />
Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, Y. S. Olsen, and C. M. Reddy. 2008a.<br />
Effect of field exposure <strong>to</strong> 38-year-old residual petroleum hydrocarbons<br />
on growth, condition index, and filtration rate of<br />
the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa. Environmental Pollution<br />
154:312–319.<br />
Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, E. E. Peacock, C. M. Reddy, A. Carter,<br />
and R. VanderKruik. 2007. Long-term biological effects of petroleum<br />
residues on fiddler crabs in salt marshes. Marine Pollution<br />
Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 335
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia], [Ashley McCrea-Strub] at 14:43 12 July 2011<br />
Bulletin 54:955–962.<br />
Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, M. Pickart, E. E. Peacock, and C. M. Reddy.<br />
2008b. Long-term consequences of residual petroleum on salt<br />
marsh grass. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1284–1292.<br />
Jackson, J. B. C., J. D. Cubit, B. D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H. M.<br />
Caffey, R. L. Caldwell, S. D. Garrity, C. D. Getter, C. Gonzalez,<br />
H. M. Guzman, K. W. Kaufman, A. H. Knap, S. C. Levings, M.<br />
J. Marshall, R. Steger, R. C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Ecological<br />
effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian coastal marine<br />
communities. Science 243:37–44.<br />
Pauly, D. 2007. The Sea Around Us Project: Documenting and communicating<br />
global fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. Ambio<br />
34:290–295.<br />
Peterson, C. H., S. D. Rice, J. W. Short, D. Esler, J. L. Bodkin, B. E.<br />
Ballachey, and D. B. Irons. 2003. Long-term ecosystem response<br />
<strong>to</strong> the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302:2082–2086.<br />
Sherman, K., and G. Hempel, edi<strong>to</strong>rs. 2008. The UNEP Large Marine<br />
Ecosystem Report: a perspective on changing conditions in<br />
LMEs of the world’s regional seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report<br />
and Studies No. 182, United Nations Environment Programme,<br />
336<br />
Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org<br />
Nairobi, Kenya.<br />
Sumaila, R., A. D. Marsden, R. Watson, and D. Pauly. 2007. A global<br />
ex-vessel fish price database: construction and applications. Journal<br />
of Bioeconomics 9:39–51.<br />
Teal, J. M., and R. W. Howarth. 1984. Oil spill studies: a review of<br />
ecological effects. Environmental Management 8:27–44.<br />
Vidal-Hernandez, L., and D. Pauly. 2004. Integration of subsystem<br />
models as a <strong>to</strong>ol <strong>to</strong>ward describing feeding interactions and fisheries<br />
impacts in a large marine ecosystem, the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
Ocean and Coastal Management 47:709–725.<br />
Watson, R., A. Kitchingman, A. Gelchu, and D. Pauly. 2004. Mapping<br />
global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish and Fisheries<br />
5:168–177.<br />
Wells, R. J. D., J. H. Cowan, and W. F. Patterson. 2008. Habitat use<br />
and the effect of shrimp trawling on fish and invertebrate communities<br />
over the northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf.<br />
ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:1610–1619.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Introduction<br />
Impact of the Deepwater Horizon well blowout on<br />
the economics of US Gulf fisheries<br />
U. Rashid Sumaila, Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor, Andrew Dyck, Ling Huang,<br />
William Cheung, Jennifer Jacquet, Kristin Kleisner, Vicky Lam,<br />
Ashley McCrea-Strub, Wilf Swartz, Reg Watson, Dirk Zeller, and Daniel Pauly<br />
Abstract: Marine oil spills usually harm organisms at two interfaces: near the water surface and on shore. However, because<br />
of the depth of the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon well blowout, deeper parts of the Gulf of Mexico are likely impacted.<br />
We estimate the potential negative economic effects of this blowout and oil spill on commercial and recreational fishing, as<br />
well as mariculture (marine aquaculture) in the US Gulf area, by computing potential losses throughout the fish value chain.<br />
We find that the spill could, in the next 7 years, result in (midpoint) present value losses of <strong>to</strong>tal revenues, <strong>to</strong>tal profits,<br />
wages, and economic impact of US$3.7, US$1.9, US$1.2, and US$8.7 billion, respectively. Commercial and recreational<br />
fisheries would likely suffer the most losses, with a respective estimated US$1.6 and US$1.9 billion of <strong>to</strong>tal revenue losses,<br />
US$0.8 and US$1.1 billion in <strong>to</strong>tal profit losses, and US$4.9 and US$3.5 billion of <strong>to</strong>tal economic losses.<br />
Résumé : Les déversements de pétrole en mer nuisent généralement aux organismes à deux interfaces, soit près de la surface<br />
de l'eau et sur la côte. Cependant, à cause de la profondeur à laquelle s'est produite l'éruption de Deepwater Horizon<br />
en avril 2010, les zones plus profondes du golfe sont vraisemblablement affectées. Nous estimons les effets économiques négatifs<br />
potentiels de cette éruption et du déversement de pétrole sur les pêches commerciales et sportives, ainsi que sur la mariculture<br />
(aquaculture marine) dans la région du golfe aux É.-U., en calculant les pertes potentielles dans l'ensemble de la<br />
chaîne de valeur des poissons. Nous trouvons que le déversement pourrait, dans les 7 prochaines années, entraîner des pertes<br />
en valeur actuelle (point milieu) de revenus <strong>to</strong>taux, de profits <strong>to</strong>taux et de salaires et un impact économique de respectivement<br />
3,7, 1,9, 1,2 et 8,7 milliards de $US. Les pêches commerciales et sportives subiraient vraisemblablement les pertes les<br />
plus élevées, avec des pertes <strong>to</strong>tales de revenu respectives de 1,6 et 1,9 milliards $US, des pertes de profit <strong>to</strong>tal de 0,8 et de<br />
1,1 milliards $US et un impact économique <strong>to</strong>tal de 4,9 et de 3,5 milliards $US.<br />
[Traduit par la Rédaction]<br />
On 20 April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon (DH), an oil rig<br />
leased by British Petroleum (BP), exploded in the Gulf of<br />
Mexico (GOM) and began leaking oil from the seabed at a<br />
depth of over 1500 m. On Monday, 1 August 2010, the US<br />
government stated that BP’s ruptured well had gushed an estimated<br />
4.9 million barrels of oil (780 million L), making it<br />
the largest accidental marine oil spill in US waters (Levy<br />
and Gopalakrishnan 2010; Urriza and Duran 2010). In contrast,<br />
the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, a major disaster in US<br />
his<strong>to</strong>ry, amounted <strong>to</strong> less than 0.5 million barrels (80 million<br />
L). Given the likely economic and legal repercussions<br />
of this major pollution event, a rapid first-order estimation of<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
the likely economic losses due <strong>to</strong> the oil leaks is required.<br />
Here, we present such a preliminary estimate using a <strong>to</strong>pdown<br />
approach <strong>to</strong> set a baseline for future, hopefully more<br />
detailed, comprehensive economic assessments.<br />
Besides obvious environmental effects, oil spills can have<br />
extensive socio-economic, psychological, and even cultural<br />
impacts, including effects on marine resource use and livelihoods<br />
(e.g., fisheries) and public health (Anonymous 1989;<br />
1990a; Palinkas et al. 1993). Impacts on marine ecosystems<br />
can persist for extended periods and stem directly from the<br />
destruction of habitats, death and pollution of plants and animals,<br />
and changes <strong>to</strong> food web structure and function. For<br />
example, the environmental and economic effects of the<br />
1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska,<br />
Received 24 November 2010. Accepted 7 Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjfas on xx February 2012.<br />
J2011-0046<br />
Paper handled by Associate Edi<strong>to</strong>r Terrance Quinn III.<br />
U.R. Sumaila, A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, A. Dyck, L. Huang,* J. Jacquet, K. Kleisner, V. Lam, A. McCrea-Strub, W. Swartz,<br />
R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,<br />
Canada.<br />
W. Cheung. † School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom.<br />
Corresponding author: U. Rashid Sumaila (e-mail: r.sumaila@fisheries.ubc.ca).<br />
*Present address: Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, 341 Mansfield Road, Unit 1063, Monteith Room 345, S<strong>to</strong>rrs, CT<br />
06269-1063, USA.<br />
† Present address: Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.<br />
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69: 1–12 (2012) doi:10.1139/F2011-171 Published by NRC Research Press<br />
1
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
were still being felt in the early 2000s (Graham 2003). The<br />
impacts on marine ecosystems translate in<strong>to</strong> impacts on the<br />
economy and livelihoods, including commercial fisheries,<br />
recreation, mariculture (marine aquaculture), <strong>to</strong>urism, and energy<br />
markets. Fish caught from contaminated areas or neighboring<br />
locations will raise concerns about food safety. These<br />
effects call for actions <strong>to</strong> mitigate, recover, and prevent the<br />
incidence of oil spills, which are costly <strong>to</strong> society.<br />
The coast of the GOM is made up largely of saltwater<br />
marshes, mangroves, wetlands, and estuaries, which are important<br />
nursery and foraging areas for many marine species.<br />
Within these ecosystems, there are over 15 000 species of<br />
fauna and flora (Felder and Camp 2009), including whales,<br />
turtles, manatees, sharks and other fishes, shrimps, crabs,<br />
mollusks, birds, seagrasses, and mangroves. Many of these<br />
species are highly valued by commercial and recreational<br />
fisheries, including brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus),<br />
blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), eastern oyster (Crassostrea<br />
virginica), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), Gulf menhaden<br />
(Brevoortia patronus), and bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus).<br />
Additionally, one of only two existing Atlantic bluefin<br />
tuna spawning grounds is located in the GOM. Large-scale<br />
pollution events, such as the DH spill, can result in impacts<br />
that are both direct (e.g., acute-phase mortality) and indirect<br />
(e.g., bioaccumulation through the food web). Indirect effects<br />
have been shown <strong>to</strong> persist for decades (Graham 2003).<br />
Long-term studies on salt marsh habitat following the<br />
Florida barge spill in Wild Harbor, Massachusetts, USA, in<br />
1969 demonstrate the persistence and impacts of oil within<br />
sediments (Culbertson et al. 2007, 2008a, 2008b). Buried hydrocarbons<br />
result in the destruction of seagrass root structure<br />
and subsequent losses of grass cover and increased erosion<br />
even 40 years later (Culbertson et al. 2008a).<br />
Within tropical ecosystems, mangroves are considered <strong>to</strong><br />
be among the most susceptible <strong>to</strong> impacts from oil spills<br />
(Shigenaka 2002). Studies of mangrove habitats after the<br />
1986 spill of 50 000 barrels from the Galeta near the Panama<br />
Canal demonstrate the influence of sediments acting as longterm<br />
reservoirs of oil (Burns et al. 1993). The persistence of<br />
the oil was unexpected because of relatively warm tropical<br />
waters, which were thought <strong>to</strong> increase the rate of breakdown<br />
of the hydrocarbons. Short-term effects included dead mangroves<br />
along 27 km of coastline even 1½ years after the spill<br />
(Jackson et al. 1989) and the deterioration of surviving mangroves<br />
up <strong>to</strong> 6 years after the spill (Burns et al. 1993). Longterm<br />
effects were not only apparent in the mangroves themselves,<br />
but also detected in the species found associated with<br />
the root structure (i.e., bivalves).<br />
Coral reefs are one of the most diverse marine ecosystems<br />
and host highly complex communities (Haapkyla et al. 2007).<br />
Besides obvious lethal effects of oil, sublethal effects such as<br />
reduced reproductive efficiency have also been demonstrated<br />
(Loya and Rinkevich 1980). Haapkyla et al. (2007) reviewed<br />
the impacts of oil and oil spills on corals and found that corals<br />
were negatively impacted, leading <strong>to</strong> decreases in coral<br />
cover, growth, reproductive output, and species diversity.<br />
Only in two cases were no or only minor effects found, these<br />
being the Arabian Gulf field experiment in 1989 (LeGore et<br />
al. 1989) and oil spills in the Arabian Gulf related <strong>to</strong> the Gulf<br />
War in 1991 (Downing and Roberts 1993; Price 1998).<br />
Unlike the visually obvious and immediate effects on birds<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
2 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 69, 2012<br />
and mammals, the effects of oil on fisheries can be more difficult<br />
<strong>to</strong> detect, though they are no less devastating. Oil<br />
spreads through the marine ecosystem and damages coastal<br />
areas important as nurseries for juvenile fish and shrimp. Oil<br />
and hydrocarbons are taken up by plank<strong>to</strong>n and other<br />
surface-dwelling species that link <strong>to</strong> aquatic food chains.<br />
Thus, oil moves through the food web and accumulates in<br />
food fishes, posing serious health concerns for consumers.<br />
Almost immediately following the DH spill, the region’s key<br />
shrimp and oyster fishing areas were officially closed. According<br />
<strong>to</strong> the US National Marine Fisheries Service, 70% of<br />
the commercially caught shrimp and oysters in the US come<br />
from the GOM (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration 2010).<br />
Several studies have examined the effects of oil on fish and<br />
invertebrate species. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in<br />
1989 had notable effects on important fish species, such as<br />
Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus<br />
gorbuscha), including premature hatching, reduced<br />
growth rates, morphological and genetic abnormalities, and<br />
increased mortality (Bue et al. 1998; Rice et al. 2001). Adult<br />
Pacific herring showed evidence of liver lesions and increased<br />
disease due <strong>to</strong> depressed immune function (Moles et<br />
al. 1993; Carls et al. 2001). These effects contributed <strong>to</strong> increased<br />
natural mortality in adult Pacific herring over a 5year<br />
period (Thorne and Thomas 2007). Research on biomarkers<br />
of hydrocarbon exposure in nine species of pelagic<br />
and demersal fish showed that 10 years after the Exxon Valdez<br />
spill, signs of exposure were still present (Jewett et al.<br />
2002). Consequences have been shown <strong>to</strong> be more severe for<br />
invertebrates because of their sessile nature and close association<br />
with contaminated habitats, including declines in abundance,<br />
growth rate, and condition (Culbertson et al. 2007,<br />
2008a). Sediments and intertidal mussel beds (Mytilus trossulus)<br />
showed evidence of contamination 6 years after the Exxon<br />
Valdez oil spill and were a source of chronic<br />
contamination for preda<strong>to</strong>ry species (Carls et al. 2001).<br />
In addition <strong>to</strong> direct effects on individual species, food<br />
web interactions allow for the propagation of negative impacts<br />
<strong>to</strong> higher trophic levels. The impact of the Tsesis oil<br />
spill on benthic organisms in the Baltic Sea in 1977 resulted<br />
in food chain transfer of oil <strong>to</strong> flounder (Platichthys flesus;<br />
Elmgren et al. 1983).<br />
The magnitude and duration of impacts will depend on the<br />
scale of the spill, the type of hydrocarbon, and the characteristics<br />
of the marine environment. Benthic and relatively sessile<br />
organisms (e.g., crabs, clams, mussels, and shrimps)<br />
suffer high initial mortalities, displacement, or contamination<br />
(becoming unmarketable) of up <strong>to</strong> 100% (Teal and Howarth<br />
1984). Mobile fish species are generally subject <strong>to</strong> lower initial<br />
mortality rates, although those can quickly rise in large<br />
spills. For example, the 1979 Ix<strong>to</strong>c I blowout, previously the<br />
largest accidental oil spill in his<strong>to</strong>ry, is estimated <strong>to</strong> have<br />
caused 50%–70% fish mortality in adjacent coastal regions<br />
(Jernelov and Linden 1981).<br />
There are many studies that examine the initial impacts of<br />
oil spills on species, yet few consider the time scale for marine<br />
organisms <strong>to</strong> recover from exposure. Recovery time is<br />
dependent on the length of exposure, water temperature,<br />
oceanographic features of the region, mobility, and on<strong>to</strong>genetic<br />
stage of the species, as well as species-specific life his-<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
<strong>to</strong>ry traits (e.g., feeding and reproductive patterns). The ability<br />
of critical habitats <strong>to</strong> act as long-term reservoirs of oil can<br />
extend exposure and subsequent recovery times. While habitat<br />
recolonization can begin within 3 <strong>to</strong> 6 months, it generally<br />
takes at least 1 year for pollutant concentrations in marine organisms<br />
<strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> prespill conditions (Teal and Howarth<br />
1984). This assumes that the spill has ended and most oil<br />
cleaned up, so the minimum duration of impacts can be well<br />
over 1 year. In fact, oil concentrations in sediment, where it<br />
is most persistent, have been detected up <strong>to</strong> 40 years after a<br />
spill (Culbertson et al. 2008a). All of these effects depend <strong>to</strong><br />
a great extent on the type of ecosystem affected. In tropical<br />
systems like the GOM, impacts can be exacerbated by a<br />
high proportion of mangroves and marshes, which capture<br />
and retain oil for prolonged periods, affecting organisms that<br />
depend on these habitats for food, reproduction, and shelter<br />
(Jackson et al. 1989).<br />
There are numerous economic assessments of oil spills,<br />
which can be adapted for the current assessment. Cohen<br />
(1995) estimated the social costs (i.e., cost <strong>to</strong> society as opposed<br />
<strong>to</strong> private cost <strong>to</strong> a firm or an individual) of the 1989<br />
Exxon Valdez spill for the years 1990 and 1991 by examining<br />
the revenue difference between actual fisheries catches with<br />
and without the spill. García-Negro et al. (2009) studied the<br />
economic impact of the 2002 Prestige oil spill on the affected<br />
coastline in Spain, investigating the fisheries landings before<br />
and after the accident. The McDowe Group used business<br />
surveys <strong>to</strong> determine the economic effect of the Exxon Valdez<br />
spill on Alaska’s <strong>to</strong>urism industry (Anonymous 1990b). A<br />
study by Advanced Resources International provided estimates<br />
of economic impacts for many oil spill accidents by dividing<br />
spills in<strong>to</strong> three types: tanker, pipeline, and offshore<br />
platform, and determined the cost for clean-up, oil losses, environmental<br />
and resource damage per gallon (1 gallon =<br />
3.785 L) of oil spilled <strong>to</strong> be US$260, US$1.71 and<br />
US$9.91–19.81, respectively (Anonymous 1993). Clean-up<br />
costs and environmental damage from tanker spills are highly<br />
variable, but can be particularly high if the spill occurs in remote<br />
and environmentally sensitive areas, as has occurred in<br />
the past. Offshore facilities have a relatively good safety record,<br />
so spill effects are more poorly defined. However, large<br />
blowouts close <strong>to</strong> sensitive coastal areas such as marshland or<br />
reefs can lead <strong>to</strong> substantial ecological and economic damages<br />
(e.g., Ix<strong>to</strong>c I, 1979; Union Platform A, 1969); the DH<br />
blowout is unfortunately one such case.<br />
An important consideration in this study is the potential<br />
market recovery times (i.e., the time required for market conditions<br />
for the affected fish species <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> prespill levels)<br />
of commercially important species in the GOM. There is<br />
a distinct difference between ecological and market recovery<br />
times. As mentioned above, ecological recovery can take decades,<br />
especially for organisms associated with sediments such<br />
as crustaceans and mollusks. Market recovery time, on the<br />
other hand, depends on the length of fisheries closures after<br />
a spill, public perceptions of seafood safety, and the degree<br />
of tainting (both visible and with respect <strong>to</strong> taste and smell<br />
of seafood; Moller et al. 1999).<br />
The oil industry typically <strong>to</strong>uts the quick recovery of organisms<br />
<strong>to</strong> an “untainted state” as evidence of the safety of<br />
seafood after an oil spill (e.g., Moller et al. 1999). However,<br />
after the Exxon Valdez spill, fisheries for salmon, herring,<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
Sumaila et al. 3<br />
crab, shrimp, rockfish, and sablefish were closed, with some<br />
commercial fisheries remaining closed through 1990. Herring<br />
and salmon species in the region have never fully recovered<br />
ecologically or economically. One of the main reasons for<br />
this is the public perception of contamination from seafood<br />
(see http://useconomy.about.com/od/suppl1/p/Exxon_Valdez_<br />
Oil_Spill_Economic_Impact.htm).<br />
Materials and methods<br />
The GOM ecosystem supports considerable commercial<br />
and recreational fisheries, as well as mariculture, all of which<br />
are affected by spilled oil. To provide a broad picture of the<br />
economic effects of the spill on these three sec<strong>to</strong>rs, we estimate<br />
the potential losses in (i) <strong>to</strong>tal revenues; (ii) <strong>to</strong>tal profit<br />
(payment <strong>to</strong> capital plus resource rent); (iii) wages (payments<br />
<strong>to</strong> labor); (iv) number of jobs; and (v) economic impact<br />
throughout the wider economy. To provide conservative estimates<br />
of the economic effects of the oil spill, we use estimates<br />
of market recovery time rather than longer ecological<br />
recovery time horizons.<br />
Total revenue is the product of ex-vessel price and catch in<br />
the case of commercial fisheries; the <strong>to</strong>tal expenditure in the<br />
case of recreational fisheries; and the product of ex-farm<br />
price and production quantity in the case of mariculture. Total<br />
profit is the sum of normal profit and resource rent. Normal<br />
profit (payment <strong>to</strong> capital) is the opportunity cost of the<br />
capital invested <strong>to</strong> run fisheries or mariculture. Resource rent<br />
is payment <strong>to</strong> the “owners” of marine resources (i.e., the<br />
American people in the case of commercial and recreational<br />
fisheries). Wages (payments <strong>to</strong> labor) are the amounts earned<br />
by people who expend their labor, skills, and expertise in the<br />
sec<strong>to</strong>r. The added value or impact through the fish value<br />
chain is the indirect economic effects of fisheries and mariculture<br />
because of their impact on activities such as boat<br />
building or maintenance, equipment supply, and the restaurant<br />
sec<strong>to</strong>r (Pontecorvo et al. 1980).<br />
We assume that each economic indica<strong>to</strong>r is related <strong>to</strong> landings<br />
(L) in the following manner:<br />
ð1Þ <strong>to</strong>tal revenue ¼ L p<br />
ð2Þ normal profit ¼ L p<br />
ð3Þ wages ¼ L w<br />
ð4Þ rent ¼ L p L c<br />
ð5Þ impact ¼ L p M<br />
where p, p, w, and c represent price, profit, wages, and costs,<br />
respectively, per <strong>to</strong>nne. The parameter M represents the economic<br />
impact multiplier for fisheries of the US as estimated<br />
by Dyck and Sumaila (2010).<br />
The present value of each indica<strong>to</strong>r i over time t is expressed<br />
as<br />
ð6Þ PVi ¼ XT<br />
d<br />
t¼0<br />
t iXi;t where X i,t represents economic indica<strong>to</strong>r i at time t =0… T,<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Fig. 1. Spatial distribution of the annual average landed value of the <strong>to</strong>tal commercial fisheries catch in the US Exclusive Economic Zone in<br />
the Gulf of Mexico (averaged for the 2000–2005 period). The area closed <strong>to</strong> commercial fishing (as of 22 July 2010) includes both federal<br />
waters and portions of western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana state waters.<br />
and the parameter d is the discount fac<strong>to</strong>r determined using<br />
the appropriate rate of discount applicable <strong>to</strong> the US. The discount<br />
fac<strong>to</strong>r is calculated using a real discount rate of 3.0%.<br />
Modeling oil spill impacts<br />
We use the Sea Around Us Project (http://www.seaaroundus.<br />
org) global grid-map system of half degree latitude by half<br />
degree longitude cells of spatially assigned annual commercial<br />
catch (Watson et al. 2004) and landed values of catch<br />
(http://feru.org; Sumaila et al. 2007) taken by US fisheries in<br />
the US Gulf Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We then overlay<br />
on this landed value map the area of the GOM that was<br />
closed <strong>to</strong> fishing at its largest extent (as of 22 July 2010), including<br />
federal and state waters (Fig. 1). Using this combination<br />
of spatial data, we calculate the likely proportion of<br />
landed value that is immediately unavailable <strong>to</strong> the fishing<br />
sec<strong>to</strong>r. This approach has also been applied in McCrea-Strub<br />
et al. (2011).<br />
As foreign fishing vessels have been prohibited from operating<br />
within the US EEZ since 1991, fisheries closures are<br />
also assumed only <strong>to</strong> impact US fisheries. However, the<br />
GOM is a dynamic system, and oil and dispersants have not<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
4 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 69, 2012<br />
been confined <strong>to</strong> the sea surface, with subsurface plumes<br />
(50–1200 m) having been documented (Camilli et al. 2010).<br />
Most marine organisms, including those mentioned here, exhibit<br />
daily and seasonal, small- and large-scale migrations<br />
both laterally and vertically. Marine organisms may be directly<br />
impacted by physical contact with contaminants as<br />
well as indirectly affected via the fouling of important nursery<br />
and spawning habitats as well as food chain interactions.<br />
Therefore, it is unlikely that the effects of the spill will be<br />
spatially and temporally restricted <strong>to</strong> closed area boundaries<br />
and closure duration.<br />
Estimates of loss in commercial, recreational, and mariculture<br />
fisheries are dependent on the combination of initial<br />
mortality of fish species due <strong>to</strong> the oil spill as well as the<br />
continued economic unmarketability that can result when<br />
consumers believe marine products from the GOM are less<br />
desirable because of real or perceived pollutants. In the case<br />
of the Exxon Valdez spill, full market recovery of the <strong>to</strong>urism<br />
and sport fishing sec<strong>to</strong>r in Alaska is reported <strong>to</strong> have occurred<br />
within 2 years after cleanup (Anonymous 1993); in<br />
the case of the Amoco Cadiz spill in Brittany, <strong>to</strong>urism activities<br />
returned <strong>to</strong> prespill levels 1 year after cleanup (Grigalu-<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Table 1. Assumed impact gradient (%) for species group – state combinations<br />
in the area open <strong>to</strong> fishing (Area B) in the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
Group<br />
Florida<br />
(west) Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas<br />
Mollusks 30 45 50 50 0<br />
Crustaceans 30 45 50 50 0<br />
Benthic fishes 15 23 25 25 0<br />
Pelagic fishes 6 9 10 10 0<br />
Table 2. Estimated annual catch and catch values before the Gulf of Mexico oil<br />
spill in the areas closed and open <strong>to</strong> fishing as of 22 July 2010.<br />
nas et al. 1986). The market “recovery” times used for recreational<br />
fisheries are shorter than for commercial fisheries<br />
because of the inherent differences between recreational and<br />
commercial fishing, with the latter catching fish for consumption,<br />
while recreational fishers are not motivated by this<br />
fac<strong>to</strong>r alone and are likely <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> fishing sooner (Arlinghaus<br />
2006; Fedler and Dit<strong>to</strong>n 1986). Finally, we assume impact<br />
gradients in the currently closed area for the second and<br />
third years <strong>to</strong> be 50% and 25%, respectively, because we expect<br />
the impact of the spill <strong>to</strong> fade away with time (Table 1).<br />
Commercial fishing<br />
Using the spatial catch and value data displayed (Fig. 1),<br />
we estimate the average annual catch and landed values taken<br />
before the oil spill (2000–2005) within areas closed <strong>to</strong> fishing<br />
(Area A) and open <strong>to</strong> fishing (Area B; Table 2) by major<br />
species groups (see below for details on species groups). We<br />
Closed area (A) Open area (B)<br />
Value<br />
Value<br />
Group Catch (t) (million US$) Catch (t) (million US$)<br />
Mollusks 13 357 13.4 52 219 53.3<br />
Crustaceans 21 938 99.3 73 608 334.2<br />
Benthic fish 2 648 7.8 10 825 30.7<br />
Pelagic fish 79 869 22.8 331 405 94.7<br />
Total 117 813 143.3 468 058 513.0<br />
Table 3. Assumed initial unmarketability and market recovery time for key marine taxonomic<br />
groups targeted by commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
Group Includes<br />
Initial<br />
unmarketability (%)<br />
Market recovery<br />
time (years)<br />
Mollusks Clams, mussels, oysters 100 1–6 a,b<br />
Crustaceans Shrimp, crabs, lobsters 100 1–7 b,c<br />
Benthic fish Soles, flounders, rockfish 50 1–2 b,d,e,f<br />
Pelagic fish Tunas, sharks, jacks, mullets 10–30 0.16–1 b,g,h<br />
Note: Initial mortality also includes displacement or contamination <strong>to</strong> unmarketable levels. Recovery time<br />
refers <strong>to</strong> a return <strong>to</strong> prespill biomass and begins once all visible oil has been cleaned or dissipated.<br />
a Jackson et al. 1989.<br />
b Teal and Howarth 1984.<br />
c Teal et al. 1992.<br />
d Jernelov and Linden 1981.<br />
e Elmgren et al. 1983.<br />
f Lee and Page 1997.<br />
g Grigalunas et al. 1986.<br />
h Cedre 2008.<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
Sumaila et al. 5<br />
assume that the economic indica<strong>to</strong>rs are affected differently<br />
in open versus closed areas as described below.<br />
We use the equation below <strong>to</strong> estimate the loss in landings<br />
arising from areas closed (C closed ) and open (C open ) <strong>to</strong> fishing:<br />
ð7Þ lossg;s ¼ C closed<br />
g;s þ Mg;s Ag;s C open<br />
g;s<br />
where the indices g and s refer <strong>to</strong> species groups and states,<br />
respectively. The matrix M represents the initial mortality of<br />
marine species groups due <strong>to</strong> the oil spill, and A denotes the<br />
proportion of landings for a given species group – state combination<br />
affected by the oil. For simplicity, the loss is assumed<br />
<strong>to</strong> be experienced throughout the length of the market<br />
recovery time, t ∈ [1, T], for a given species group. A range<br />
of estimated recovery times (Table 3) are used <strong>to</strong> compute a<br />
range of estimates of the present value of each economic indica<strong>to</strong>r<br />
calculated by substituting the loss in landings, loss g,s,<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Table 4. Preoil spill mariculture production in the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
Production value Employment<br />
State Product Production (t) (million US$) (jobs)<br />
Alabama Shrimps 100 0.7 10<br />
Florida Clams 7 030 10.3 210<br />
Louisiana Oysters 51 400 41.5 250<br />
in<strong>to</strong> eqs. 1–5, summing across species groups and states, and<br />
using eq. 6 <strong>to</strong> compute the present value of economic effects.<br />
Employment data for commercial fisheries in the Gulf are<br />
from National Marine Fisheries Service (2010). We collect<br />
direct, indirect, and induced employment data by state. By<br />
considering indirect and induced employment, we include<br />
jobs that are supported by marine fisheries throughout the region’s<br />
economy. We estimate potential employment loss by<br />
assuming that a reduction in the value of marine landings<br />
will be followed by a proportional change in the number of<br />
workers employed.<br />
Recreational fisheries<br />
To estimate the economic indica<strong>to</strong>rs for recreational fisheries,<br />
we rely on surveys undertaken by the US Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service (Anonymous 2006b), which reports the<br />
number of recreational fishers (resident and nonresident) by<br />
state, as well as the expenditures by anglers. Under the assumption<br />
that the percentage of resident anglers has remained<br />
constant since 2006, we calculate the <strong>to</strong>tal number of resident<br />
anglers based on 2009 population projections (http://www.<br />
census.gov). We use the ratio of resident <strong>to</strong> nonresident anglers<br />
<strong>to</strong> estimate the <strong>to</strong>tal number of anglers per state and<br />
the <strong>to</strong>tal number of fishing trips. With regard <strong>to</strong> Florida’s<br />
west coast, we use the proportion of recreational fishing that<br />
takes place along the west coast (Steinback et al. 2004).<br />
To estimate the <strong>to</strong>tal expenditure (or <strong>to</strong>tal revenues generated<br />
by the sec<strong>to</strong>r) and the economic impact, we use reported<br />
expenditures (Steinback et al. 2004) converted <strong>to</strong> 2010 dollars<br />
based on the US consumer price index (http://www.bls.<br />
gov/CPI). These expenditures include payments for fishingrelated<br />
items (gear, tackle, etc.) and travel costs <strong>to</strong> the fishing<br />
locations, including private, guided, and charter fishing trips.<br />
We exclude expenditure on durable items (i.e., second<br />
homes), assuming that these will not be substantially affected.<br />
We make the strong assumption that recreational fishing<br />
will continue in the area open <strong>to</strong> fishing (Area B) at the<br />
prespill level. For the closed area (Area A), first year economic<br />
effects of the spill are based on the spatial extent of<br />
the fishing closures (Fig. 1). The resource rent and profit<br />
share of <strong>to</strong>tal revenue is estimated by summarizing the literature<br />
on the <strong>to</strong>pic (Carter 2003; Marshall and Lucy 1981; Galeano<br />
et al. 2004).<br />
Losses due <strong>to</strong> the oil spill are then calculated using the following<br />
equation:<br />
ð8Þ losss;t ¼ 1 P closed<br />
t Xs<br />
where losss,t is the change in an economic indica<strong>to</strong>r, Xs,for state s at time t. The parameter Pclosed t represents the percen-<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
6 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 69, 2012<br />
Total 58 530 52.5 470<br />
Note: Production values adjusted <strong>to</strong> 2010 US$.<br />
tage of waters in the GOM closed <strong>to</strong> fishing at time t. At the<br />
time of writing, 24% of American waters in the GOM are<br />
closed <strong>to</strong> recreational fishing. We assume that the percentage<br />
of waters unavailable <strong>to</strong> recreational fisheries will decrease <strong>to</strong><br />
zero after 3 years, with their share in the second and third<br />
years being 12% and 6%, respectively. Present values of loss<br />
for each of the economic indica<strong>to</strong>rs (except for employment)<br />
are estimated using eq. 6.<br />
The economic impact of changes in <strong>to</strong>tal revenue due <strong>to</strong><br />
the oil spill is estimated using eq. 9 (see <strong>Appendix</strong> A for<br />
more on impact multipliers):<br />
ð9Þ impact ¼ X<br />
s PVs Ms<br />
where PV s is the present value of <strong>to</strong>tal revenue in a given<br />
state s, and M s is the state-specific economic multiplier as reported<br />
by Steinback et al. (2004). Employment is calculated<br />
based on information from Steinback et al. (2004), and it is<br />
assumed <strong>to</strong> change in proportion <strong>to</strong> changes in losses associated<br />
with the oil spill.<br />
Mariculture<br />
Mariculture in the GOM is focused on invertebrate species,<br />
particularly oysters. According <strong>to</strong> the 2005 US Census of<br />
Aquaculture (Anonymous 2006a), Louisiana accounts for the<br />
largest share in mariculture production (51 400 <strong>to</strong>nnes of oysters<br />
worth US$37 million in 2005) in the US, with further<br />
contributions from Florida (7000 <strong>to</strong>nnes of clams worth<br />
US$9 million) and Alabama (100 <strong>to</strong>nnes of shrimp worth<br />
US$630 000; Table 4). No mariculture has been reported for<br />
Texas.<br />
Owing <strong>to</strong> the fact that mariculture in Florida, Louisiana,<br />
and Alabama is primarily for crustaceans and mollusks, we<br />
assume that the impacts of the spill on mariculture will be<br />
similar <strong>to</strong> those on commercial fisheries for crustaceans and<br />
molluscs, namely that the contamination will result in zero<br />
market recovery.<br />
Based on the location of the current closure, we assume<br />
that 100% of mariculture operations in Louisiana and Alabama<br />
and 10% of operations in west Florida are affected.<br />
Moreover, since oyster mariculture occurs in 2-year cycles<br />
from seeding <strong>to</strong> harvesting, we assume that the exposure <strong>to</strong><br />
the spill will result in 3 years of lost oyster harvest (2010,<br />
2011, and 2012). However, assuming that sufficient oyster<br />
larvae can be recruited from uncontaminated broods<strong>to</strong>cks in<br />
2011, we expect the industry <strong>to</strong> recover in early 2013. Here,<br />
we focus solely on the impact due <strong>to</strong> loss of harvest and<br />
ignore the potential long-term losses from a decrease in demand<br />
due <strong>to</strong> consumer fears over residual contamination<br />
risks.<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
From our estimates of lost revenue, we compute the profit<br />
and wages lost. The cost structure of mariculture operations<br />
in the GOM region was not available <strong>to</strong> us; we therefore use<br />
information from oyster farming in Virginia (Lip<strong>to</strong>n et al.<br />
2006) <strong>to</strong> estimate the potential loss in profit (∼47%) and<br />
wages (∼20%) from <strong>to</strong>tal revenue. Because of the nature of<br />
mariculture (i.e., requiring input by opera<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> generate harvest),<br />
we assume that all of the profit is return <strong>to</strong> capital with<br />
no resource rent. As in commercial fisheries, the present<br />
value of the lost revenue, profit, and wages are calculated using<br />
eq. 1.<br />
We assume the current level of output from mariculture <strong>to</strong><br />
be similar <strong>to</strong> that reported in the 2005 US Census of Aquaculture<br />
(Anonymous 2006a), converted <strong>to</strong> 2010 US$ equivalent<br />
(Table 4). The employment figures are estimated from<br />
the state <strong>to</strong>tal using the ratio of mariculture farms <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>tal<br />
number of aquaculture farms in each state (Anonymous<br />
2006a).<br />
The economic impact of losses in <strong>to</strong>tal mariculture revenue<br />
is estimated by adapting eq. 5 <strong>to</strong> mariculture production,<br />
changing it <strong>to</strong><br />
ð10Þ impact ¼ PVrevenue M<br />
where PV revenue is the present value of loss due <strong>to</strong> the oil<br />
spill, and M is the economic input–output multiplier from<br />
Dyck and Sumaila (2010).<br />
Results<br />
Table 5. Predicted present value losses in economic indica<strong>to</strong>rs for commercial fisheries over the next 7 years in<br />
the US Gulf of Mexico area due <strong>to</strong> the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.<br />
Revenues Total profits<br />
Group<br />
(million US$)<br />
a Wages Economic impact Employment<br />
(million US$) (million US$) (million US$) (jobs)<br />
Crustaceans 360–2307 155–987 79–507 1114–7151 —<br />
Mollusks 53–297 67–369 53–297 165–920 —<br />
Benthic Fish 22–43 18–35 2–4 68–133 —<br />
Pelagic fish 35–58 26–43 8–14 106–176 —<br />
Total 470–2705 266–1434 142–822 1453–8380 5250–8758 b<br />
a This is the sum of normal profits (payment <strong>to</strong> capital) and resource rent (payment <strong>to</strong> resource owners).<br />
b Employment data are available only by state, not species. This number represents <strong>to</strong>tal employment loss for all of the US<br />
Gulf states. To produce a range, we calculate 7000 (±25%).<br />
Table 6. Predicted present value loss in economic indica<strong>to</strong>rs for US Gulf states’ recreational fisheries.<br />
Commercial fisheries<br />
The present value of <strong>to</strong>tal revenues that would be lost in<br />
the commercial fishing sec<strong>to</strong>r over the next 7 years, due <strong>to</strong><br />
the DH well blowout, is estimated <strong>to</strong> be in the range of<br />
US$0.5–2.7 billion (Table 5). The equivalent losses in <strong>to</strong>tal<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
Sumaila et al. 7<br />
Total revenues Total profits Wages<br />
Economic impact Employment<br />
State<br />
(million US$) (million US$) (million US$) (million US$) (jobs)<br />
Florida 994–1 656 542–903 378–630 1 772–2 953 7 650–12 750<br />
Alabama 111–185 60–100 38–64 195–325 900–1 500<br />
Mississippi 59–98 32–53 17–28 119–198 375–625<br />
Louisiana 278–464 152–253 95–159 473–788 2 025–3 375<br />
All states 1 442–2 404 786–1 310 528–881 2 558–4 264 10 950–18 250<br />
profits, wages, and <strong>to</strong>tal economic impact are estimated at<br />
US$0.3–1.4, US$0.1–0.8, and US$1.5–8.4 billion, respectively.<br />
By far the largest losses are incurred among fishers<br />
targeting crustaceans such as shrimps, who would experience<br />
nearly 85% of the <strong>to</strong>tal estimated economic impact (Table 5).<br />
In addition, between 5000 and 9000 jobs may be lost by<br />
commercial fisheries in the US Gulf region (Table 5).<br />
Recreational fisheries<br />
The present value of losses in the recreational fishing sec<strong>to</strong>r<br />
are estimated <strong>to</strong> be US$1.4–2.4 billion in <strong>to</strong>tal revenues,<br />
US$0.7–1.3 billion in <strong>to</strong>tal profits, US$0.5–0.8 billion in<br />
wages, and US$2.5–4.2 billion in economic impact (Table 6).<br />
The recreational fishing sec<strong>to</strong>rs in Florida and Louisiana are<br />
predicted <strong>to</strong> suffer the largest impacts, with Florida accounting<br />
for most of the expected losses (Table 6). Between<br />
11 000 and 18 000 jobs may also be lost in this sec<strong>to</strong>r (Table<br />
6). Note that no losses have been predicted for Texas.<br />
Mariculture<br />
For the three mariculture states, Florida, Alabama, and<br />
Louisiana, the <strong>to</strong>tal loss in revenue is estimated <strong>to</strong> be<br />
US$94–157 million, with an economic impact of about<br />
US$293–488 million (Table 7). We estimate a loss of<br />
US$44–73 million in <strong>to</strong>tal profit and US$19–31 million in<br />
wages. The sec<strong>to</strong>r may lose well over 210 jobs, both fulland<br />
part-time (Table 7). Overall, the majority of economic<br />
losses will occur in oyster mariculture (Table 7).<br />
Overall, the present value of (midpoint) losses in <strong>to</strong>tal revenues,<br />
<strong>to</strong>tal profits, wages, and economic impact from the<br />
three sec<strong>to</strong>rs considered here are about US$3.7, US$1.9,<br />
US$1.2, and US$8.7 billion over the next 7 years, respectively<br />
(Table 8). The likely largest losses can be expected<br />
from the commercial fisheries, while the recreational fishing<br />
sec<strong>to</strong>r may account for slightly more than a third of such<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
8 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 69, 2012<br />
Table 7. Predicted present value losses in economic indica<strong>to</strong>rs for US Gulf mariculture.<br />
Revenues Normal profits Wages<br />
Economic impact Employment<br />
Group (million US$) (million US$) (million US$) (million US$)<br />
a<br />
(jobs)<br />
Crustaceans 1.5–2.5 0.7–1.2 0.3–0.5 4.7–7.8 8–13<br />
Mollusks 92–154 43–72 18.5–30 287.8–479.8 203–338<br />
All species 94–157 44–73 19–31 293–488 211–351<br />
a 25% error ranges on the median assumed.<br />
Table 8. Predicted (midpoint) present value losses in economic indica<strong>to</strong>rs for all affected US Gulf states for commercial<br />
and recreational fisheries and mariculture sec<strong>to</strong>rs combined.<br />
Total revenues Total profits Wages Economic impact Employment<br />
Sec<strong>to</strong>r<br />
(million US$) (million US$) (million US$) (million US$) (jobs)<br />
Commercial fisheries 1 577 823 469 4 888 7 000<br />
Recreational fisheries 1 949 1 062 715 3 457 14 900<br />
Mariculture 129 61 26 399 280<br />
Total 3 655 1 946 1 210 8 744 22 180<br />
losses. Furthermore, the region may lose over 22 000 jobs in<br />
fisheries-related sec<strong>to</strong>rs (Table 8).<br />
Discussion<br />
We focus exclusively on the potential economic impacts of<br />
the DH well blowout on commercial and recreational fisheries,<br />
as well as mariculture in US Gulf waters, and find that<br />
the impacts are quite significant. The blowout could, over the<br />
next 7 years, result in (midpoint) lost revenue, profit, wages,<br />
and <strong>to</strong>tal economic impact with a present value of US$3.7,<br />
US$1.9, US$1.2, and US$8.7 billion, respectively. We also<br />
find that over 22 000 jobs in the GOM economy may be<br />
lost. Therefore, our analysis suggests that the spill will result<br />
in considerable loss of income <strong>to</strong> households and businesses<br />
in the Gulf states because of losses in wages and profits, respectively.<br />
Our estimates include downstream and upstream<br />
indirect and induced economic impact <strong>to</strong> industries such as<br />
boat building, the restaurant sec<strong>to</strong>r, and fuel suppliers.<br />
However, there are other potential economic impacts not<br />
covered here (see e.g., Boyd 2010), including (i) clean-up<br />
cost; (ii) value of lost oil; (iii) natural and environmental<br />
damage beyond fisheries impacts; (iv) other direct use impacts<br />
such as bird watching and other non-fish <strong>to</strong>urism (Oxford<br />
Economics (2010) suggests a potential loss in US<br />
<strong>to</strong>urism revenues at over US$22 billion); and (iv) non-use existence<br />
and option values. Additionally, 11 people died in the<br />
explosion and 17 were injured. These are unrecoverable<br />
losses <strong>to</strong> affected families and the US at large.<br />
Even for the sec<strong>to</strong>rs we study, our estimates are not complete.<br />
For instance, we do not consider consumer impacts<br />
through increases in fish prices due <strong>to</strong> reduced supply caused<br />
by the spill. Also, we focus on the short-term (up <strong>to</strong> 7 years)<br />
impacts and losses, thereby ignoring long-term effects. Some<br />
unintended consequences of the spill may also exist (e.g., the<br />
potential benefits of a forced fishing mora<strong>to</strong>rium may help<br />
rebuild some s<strong>to</strong>cks in the medium <strong>to</strong> long term). Furthermore,<br />
a potential spill injury <strong>to</strong> the Gulf fisheries can arise<br />
in response not <strong>to</strong> actual contamination by oil but over public<br />
perception of potentially contaminated fish that can lead <strong>to</strong><br />
closures so that demand remains high for other fishes or the<br />
same fishes from other areas, thereby affecting the economics<br />
of Gulf states fisheries. For instance, US demand for shrimp<br />
from Thailand increased right after the oil spill. Having said<br />
the above, it is worth noting that one consequence of the reduction<br />
in shrimping effort due <strong>to</strong> the oil spill is reduction in<br />
bycatch of groundfish species, which is a positive for fisheries<br />
targeting these species, and could mitigate the losses<br />
calculated in this contribution.<br />
It is important for the reader <strong>to</strong> note that we used a number<br />
of models, each with underlying assumptions, which may affect<br />
the accuracy of our results, and this is the reason why our<br />
estimates have ranges. For example, the input–output analysis<br />
applied in this paper is not without criticism (e.g., Christ<br />
1955; de Mesnard 2002); it is well known that input–output<br />
analyses rely on the stability of technical coefficients, which<br />
may not hold when used in forecasting situations that are<br />
greatly different than those described by the respective input–<br />
output table used. Furthermore, input–output analysis is fairly<br />
data intensive — a fac<strong>to</strong>r that can be problematic when studying<br />
regions with scattered high-quality data sources. These<br />
caveats notwithstanding, we believe that our findings, which<br />
are different from those presented by the Feinberg Commission,<br />
are likely more accurate because of the passage of time<br />
and the thoroughness of the review process.<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
Support for this study was provided by the Global Ocean<br />
Economics Project at the Fisheries Economic Research Unit,<br />
funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts of Philadelphia, USA,<br />
as well as the Sea Around Us Project, collaboration between<br />
The University of British Columbia and the Pew Environment<br />
Group.<br />
References<br />
Anonymous. 1989. The Exxon Valdez oil spill: a report <strong>to</strong> the<br />
President [online]. National Response Team. Government Printing<br />
Office, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C. Available from http://www.epa.gov/<br />
aboutepa/his<strong>to</strong>ry/<strong>to</strong>pics/valdez/04.html [accessed June 2011].<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Anonymous. 1990a. Economic, social, and psychological impact<br />
assessment of the Exxon Valdez oil spill: a report <strong>to</strong> the Oiled<br />
Mayors Subcommittee: Alaska Conference of Mayors. Impact<br />
Assessment, Inc., La Jolla, Calif.<br />
Anonymous. 1990b. An assessment of the impact of the Exxon<br />
Valdez oil spill on the Alaska Tourism industry: Phase I, initial<br />
assessment. McDowe Group, Inc. A report <strong>to</strong> Pres<strong>to</strong>n, Thorgrimson,<br />
Shidler, Gates and Ellis, Seattle, Wash.<br />
Anonymous. 1993. Economic impacts of oil spills: spill unit costs for<br />
tankers, pipelines, refineries, and offshore facilities. A report by<br />
Advanced Resources International, Inc. <strong>to</strong> US Department of<br />
Energy, Office of Domestic and International Energy Policy,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C.<br />
Anonymous. 2006a. Census of aquaculture 2005 [online]. Vol. 3.<br />
Special Studies Part 2 AC-02-SP-2. US Department of Agriculture,<br />
National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C. Available<br />
from http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=AC02SP2<br />
[accessed June 2011].<br />
Anonymous. 2006b. National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlifeassociated<br />
recreation [online]. FHW/06-NATUS. Department of<br />
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and US Department of<br />
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C. Available<br />
from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf [accessed<br />
June 2011].<br />
Arlinghaus, R. 2006. On the apparently striking disconnect between<br />
motivation and satisfaction in recreational fishing: the case of<br />
catch orientation of German anglers. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage.<br />
26(3): 592–605. doi:10.1577/M04-220.1.<br />
Boyd, J.W. 2010. How do you put a price on marine oil pollution<br />
damages? Resources, 175: 21–23.<br />
Bue, B.G., Sharr, S., and Seeb, J.E. 1998. Evidence of damage <strong>to</strong><br />
pink salmon populations inhabiting Prince William Sound, Alaska,<br />
two generations after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Trans. Am. Fish.<br />
Soc. 127(1): 35–43. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1998)1272.0.CO;2.<br />
Burns, K.A., Garrity, S.D., and Levings, S.C. 1993. How many years<br />
until mangrove ecosystems recover from catastrophic oil spills?<br />
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26(5): 239–248. doi:10.1016/0025-326X(93)<br />
90062-O.<br />
Camilli, R., Reddy, C.M., Yoerger, D.R., Van Mooy, B.A.S., Jakuba,<br />
M.V., Kinsey, J.C., McIntyre, C.P., Sylva, S.P., and Maloney, J.V.<br />
2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation<br />
at Deepwater Horizon. Science, 330(6001): 201–204. doi:10.<br />
1126/science.1195223. PMID:20724584.<br />
Carls, M.G., Babcock, M.M., Harris, P.M., Irvine, G.V., Cusick, J.A.,<br />
and Rice, S.D. 2001. Persistence of oiling in mussel beds after the<br />
Exxon Valdez oil spill. Mar. Environ. Res. 51(2): 167–190. doi:10.<br />
1016/S0141-1136(00)00103-3. PMID:11468815.<br />
Carter, D.W. 2003. 2003 Gulf of Mexico red snapper rebuilding plan:<br />
economic analysis of the recreational sec<strong>to</strong>r. Working Paper Series<br />
SEFSC-SSRG-03. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast<br />
Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Fla.<br />
Cedre. 2008. Amoco Cadiz [online]. Centre de Documentation, de<br />
Recherche et d’Experimentations sur les Pollutions Accidentelles<br />
des Eaux, Brest, France. Available from http://www.cedre.fr/en/<br />
spill/amoco/amoco.php [accessed July 2010; updated 29 February<br />
2008].<br />
Christ, C.F. 1955. A review of input-output analysis [online]. In<br />
Input–output analysis: an appraisal. Prince<strong>to</strong>n University Press,<br />
Prince<strong>to</strong>n, N.J. pp. 137–182. Available from http://www.nber.org/<br />
chapters/c2866.<br />
Cohen, M.J. 1995. Technological disasters and natural resource<br />
damage assessment: an evaluation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.<br />
Land Econ. 71(1): 65–82. doi:10.2307/3146759.<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
Sumaila et al. 9<br />
Culbertson, J.B., Valiela, I., Peacock, E.E., Reddy, C.M., Carter, A.,<br />
and VanderKruik, R. 2007. Long-term biological effects of<br />
petroleum residues on fiddler crabs in salt marshes. Mar. Pollut.<br />
Bull. 54(7): 955–962. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.02.015.<br />
PMID:17448504.<br />
Culbertson, J.B., Valiela, I., Olsen, Y.S., and Reddy, C.M. 2008a.<br />
Effect of field exposure <strong>to</strong> 38-year-old residual petroleum<br />
hydrocarbons on growth, condition index, and filtration rate of<br />
the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa. Environ. Pollut. 154(2):<br />
312–319. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.10.008. PMID:18045755.<br />
Culbertson, J.B., Valiela, I., Pickart, M., Peacock, E.E., and Reddy,<br />
C.M. 2008b. Long-term consequences of residual petroleum on<br />
salt marsh grass. J. Appl. Ecol. 45(4): 1284–1292. doi:10.1111/j.<br />
1365-2664.2008.01477.x.<br />
de Mesnard, L. 2002. Note about the concept of net multipliers.<br />
J. Reg. Sci. 42(3): 545–548. doi:10.1111/1467-9787.00271.<br />
Downing, N., and Roberts, C. 1993. Has the Gulf War affected coral<br />
reefs of the Northwestern Gulf? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 27: 149–156.<br />
doi:10.1016/0025-326X(93)90019-G.<br />
Dyck, A.J., and Sumaila, U.R. 2010. Economic impact of ocean fish<br />
populations in the global fishery. J. Bioeconomics, 12(3): 227–<br />
243. doi:10.1007/s10818-010-9088-3.<br />
Elmgren, R., Hansson, S., Larsson, U., Sundelin, B., and Boehm, P.D.<br />
1983. The “Tsesis” oil spill: acute and long-term impact on the<br />
benthos. Mar. Biol. 73(1): 51–65. doi:10.1007/BF00396285.<br />
Fedler, A.J., and Dit<strong>to</strong>n, R.B. 1986. A framework for understanding<br />
the consumptive orientation of recreational fishermen. Environ.<br />
Manage. 10(2): 221–227. doi:10.1007/BF01867360.<br />
Felder, D.L., and Camp, D.K. (Edi<strong>to</strong>rs). 2009. Gulf of Mexico:<br />
origin, waters, and biota. Vol. 1. Biodiversity, Texas A&M<br />
University Press, College Station, Texas, USA.<br />
Galeano, D., Langenkamp, D., Levantis, C., Shafron, W., and<br />
Redmond, I. 2004. Economic value of charter and recreational<br />
fishing in Australia’s eastern tuna and billfish fishery. ABARE<br />
eReport 04.10. Prepared for the Fisheries Resources Research<br />
Fund, Canberra, Australia.<br />
García-Negro, M.C., Villasante, S., Carballo-Penela, A., and<br />
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, G. 2009. Estimating the economic impact<br />
of the Prestige oil spill on the Death Coast (NW Spain) fisheries.<br />
Mar. Policy, 33(1): 8–23. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.011.<br />
Graham, S. 2003. Environmental effects of Exxon Valdez spill still<br />
being felt [online]. News report. Scientific American, 19 December<br />
2003. Available from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.<br />
cfm?id=environmental-effects-of.<br />
Grigalunas, T.A., Anderson, R.C., Brown, G.M., Jr, Congar, R.,<br />
Meade, N.F., and Sorensen, P.E. 1986. Estimating the cost of oil<br />
spills: lessons from the Amoco Cadiz incident. Mar. Resour. Econ.<br />
2(3): 239–262.<br />
Haapkyla, J., Ramade, F., and Salvat, B. 2007. Oil pollution on coral<br />
reefs: a review of the state of knowledge and management needs.<br />
Vie Millieu, 57(1/2): 91–107.<br />
Jackson, J.B.C., Cubit, J.D., Keller, B.D., Batista, V., Burns, K.,<br />
Caffey, H.M., Caldwell, R.L., Garrity, S.D., Getter, C.D.,<br />
Gonzalez, C., Guzman, H.M., Kaufmann, A.H., Levings, S.C.,<br />
Marshall, M.J., Steger, R., Thompson, R.C., and Weil, E. 1989.<br />
Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian coastal<br />
marine communities. Science, 243(4887): 37–44. doi:10.1126/<br />
science.243.4887.37. PMID:17780421.<br />
Jernelov, A., and Linden, O. 1981. Ix<strong>to</strong>c I: a case study of the world’s<br />
largest oil spill. Ambio, 10(6): 299–306.<br />
Jewett, S.C., Dean, T.A., Woodin, B.R., Hoberg, M.K., and<br />
Stegeman, J.J. 2002. Exposure <strong>to</strong> hydrocarbons 10 years after<br />
the Exxon Valdez oil spill: evidence from cy<strong>to</strong>chrome P4501A<br />
expression and billiary FACs in nearshore demersal fishes. Mar.<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Environ. Res. 54(1): 21–48. doi:10.1016/S0141-1136(02)00093-4.<br />
PMID:12148943.<br />
Lee, R.F., and Page, D.S. 1997. Petroleum hydrocarbons and their<br />
effects in subtidal regions after major oil spills. Mar. Pollut. Bull.<br />
34(11): 928–940. doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(97)00078-7.<br />
LeGore, S., Marszalek, D.S., Danek, L.J., Tomlinson, M.S.,<br />
Hofmann, J.E., and Cuddebak, J.E. 1989. Effect of chemically<br />
dispersed oil on Arabian Gulf corals: a field experiment. In<br />
Proceedings of the 1989 International Oil Spill Conference, San<br />
An<strong>to</strong>nio, 13–16 February 1989. American Petroleum Institute,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C. pp. 375–381.<br />
Levy, J.K., and Gopalakrishnan, C. 2010. Promoting ecological<br />
sustainability and community resilience in the US Gulf Coast after<br />
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Journal of Natural<br />
Resources Policy Research, 2(3): 297–315. doi:10.1080/<br />
19390459.2010.500462.<br />
Lip<strong>to</strong>n, D.W., Kirkley, J., and Murray, T. 2006. A background<br />
economic analysis for the programmatic environmental impact<br />
statement regarding the res<strong>to</strong>ration of the Chesapeake Bay oyster<br />
fishery using the non-native oyster Crassostrea ariakensis. Final<br />
report <strong>to</strong> the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,<br />
Annapolis, Md.<br />
Loya, Y., and Rinkevich, B. 1980. Effects of oil pollution on coral<br />
reef communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 3: 167–180. doi:10.3354/<br />
meps003167.<br />
Marshall, A.R., and Lucy, J.A. 1981. Virginia’s charter and head boat<br />
fishery: analysis of catch and socioeconomic impacts. Special<br />
report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 253.<br />
Virginia Sea Grant Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,<br />
College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va.<br />
McCrea-Strub, A., Kleisner, K., Sumaila, U.R., Swartz, W., Watson,<br />
R., Zeller, D., and Pauly, D. 2011. Potential impact of the<br />
Deepwater Horizon oil spill on commercial fisheries in the Gulf of<br />
Mexico. Fisheries, 36(7): 332–336. doi:10.1080/03632415.2011.<br />
589334.<br />
Moles, A.D., Rice, S.D., and Okihiro, M.S. 1993. Herring parasite<br />
and tissue alterations following the Exxon Valdez oil spill.<br />
Proceedings of the 1993 Oil Spill Conference. American<br />
Petroleum Institute, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C. pp. 325–328.<br />
Moller, T.H., Dicks, B., and Goodman, C.N. 1989. Fisheries and<br />
mariculture affected by oil spills. In Proceedings of the 1989<br />
International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, 8–<br />
11 March 1999. American Petroleum Institute, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C.<br />
pp. 693–699.<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Seafood Industry Impact<br />
search routine of the Interactive Fisheries Economics Impacts<br />
Tools [online]. Available from https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/apex/<br />
f?p=160:7:1836673894606153 [accessed 31 January 2012].<br />
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010. Fish<br />
s<strong>to</strong>cks in the Gulf of Mexico [online]. Fact sheet. Available from<br />
http://gulfseagrant.tamu.edu/oilspill/facts_fishs<strong>to</strong>cks.htm [accessed<br />
July 2010].<br />
Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on<br />
<strong>to</strong>urism [online]. US Travel Association. Available from http://www.<br />
ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_<br />
Oxford_Economics_710.pdf [accessed June 2011].<br />
Palinkas, L.A., Downs, M.A., Petterson, J.S., and Russell, J.S. 1993.<br />
Social, cultural, and psychological impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil<br />
spill. Hum. Organ. 52: 1–13.<br />
Pontecorvo, G., Wilkinson, M., Anderson, R., and Holdowsky, M.<br />
1980. Contribution of the ocean sec<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong> the United States<br />
economy. Science, 208(4447): 1000–1006. doi:10.1126/science.<br />
208.4447.1000. PMID:17779011.<br />
Price, A.R.G. 1998. Impact of the 1991 Gulf War on the coastal<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
10 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 69, 2012<br />
environment and ecosystems: current status and future prospects.<br />
Environ. Int. 24(1–2): 91–96. doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(97)00124-4.<br />
Rice, S.D., Thomas, R.E., Carls, M.G., Heintz, R.A., Wertheimer, A.<br />
C., Murphy, M.L., Short, J.W., and Moles, A. 2001. Impacts <strong>to</strong><br />
pink salmon following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: persistence,<br />
<strong>to</strong>xicity, sensitivity, and controversy. Rev. Fish. Sci. 9(3): 165–211.<br />
doi:10.1080/20016491101744.<br />
Shigenaka, G. 2002. Oil <strong>to</strong>xicity. In Oil spills in mangroves. Office of<br />
Response and Res<strong>to</strong>ration, NOAA Ocean Service, NOAA, Seattle,<br />
Wash. pp. 23–35.<br />
Steinback, S., Gentner, B., and Castle, J. 2004. The economic<br />
importance of marine angler expenditures in the United States<br />
[online]. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Professional Paper<br />
NMFS 2, La Jolla, California. Available from http://spo.nwr.noaa.<br />
gov/pp2.pdf [accessed 18 July 2011].<br />
Sumaila, U.R., Marsden, A.D., Watson, R., and Pauly, D. 2007. A<br />
global ex-vessel fish price database: construction and applications.<br />
J. Bioeconomics, 9(1): 39–51. doi:10.1007/s10818-007-9015-4.<br />
Teal, J.M., and Howarth, R.W. 1984. Oil spill studies: a review of<br />
ecological effects. Environ. Manage. Health, 8(1): 27–44.<br />
Teal, J.M., Farring<strong>to</strong>n, J.W., Burns, K.A., Stegeman, J.J., Tripp, B.W.,<br />
Woodin, B., and Phinney, C. 1992. The West Falmouth oil spill<br />
after 20 years: fate of fuel oil compounds and effects on animals.<br />
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 24(12): 607–614. doi:10.1016/0025-326X(92)<br />
90281-A.<br />
Thorne, R.E., and Thomas, G.L. 2007. Herring and the “Exxon<br />
Valdez” oil spill: an investigation in<strong>to</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical data conflicts.<br />
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65(1): 44–50. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsm176.<br />
Urriza, M.S.G., and Duran, R. 2010. The Gulf oil spill: we have been<br />
here before. Can we learn from the past? Journal of Cosmology, 8:<br />
2026–2028.<br />
Watson, R., Kitchingman, A., Gelchu, A., and Pauly, D. 2004. Mapping<br />
global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish Fish. 5: 168–177.<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> A. More on input–output models<br />
As a primary industry (i.e., activities focusing on extracting<br />
or processing natural resources, such as energy, minerals,<br />
and in this case food, for use elsewhere in the economy),<br />
fishing is the beginning of a productive value chain in an<br />
economy. The economic multiplier is used in fisheries research<br />
<strong>to</strong> emphasize that the industry has many linkages<br />
throughout the economy. Such multipliers are a fac<strong>to</strong>r by<br />
which we can multiply the value of final demand for an economic<br />
activity’s output <strong>to</strong> obtain its <strong>to</strong>tal contribution <strong>to</strong> economic<br />
output, including activities directly and indirectly<br />
dependent on it.<br />
More specifically, the multipliers used in this study are<br />
taken from Dyck and Sumaila (2010). The model configurations,<br />
presented in this reference, are briefly described below.<br />
The method developed by Nobel laureate, Wassily Leontief,<br />
known as input–output analysis, is a tried and tested approach<br />
<strong>to</strong> analyzing the structure of the economy. Beginning<br />
as early as the late 1940s, Leontief used his method in a<br />
number of applications, including the well-known analyses<br />
of the potential economic impact of disarmament for the<br />
United States of America and tests of the Heckscher–Ohlin<br />
theory now known as the “Leontief Paradox” (Leontief<br />
1953; Leontief et al. 1965). The definitive source on input–<br />
output methodology, his book on the subject is a collection<br />
of his earlier works and serves as an excellent foundation for<br />
using input–output analysis (Leontief 1966). There are, how-<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
ever, several additional sources for readers who are interested<br />
in the methodology as applied <strong>to</strong> fisheries (Heen 1989;<br />
Hoagland et al. 2005; Jin et al. 2003; Leung and Pooley<br />
2001; Roy et al. 2009).<br />
Input–output analysis uses interindustry transaction data <strong>to</strong><br />
compute a technical coefficient matrix, A, which is composed<br />
of entries ai,j summarizing the output from industry i<br />
required <strong>to</strong> produce a unit of output for industry j. We compute<br />
this technical coefficient matrix for every maritime<br />
country of the world, expressing the economy of each country<br />
as a system of linear equations summarized by the following<br />
equation:<br />
ðA:1Þ Ax þ d ¼ x<br />
where A is the matrix of technical coefficients describing input<br />
requirements for each sec<strong>to</strong>r, x is a vec<strong>to</strong>r of sec<strong>to</strong>r inputs,<br />
and d is a vec<strong>to</strong>r of final demand. The above equation<br />
then simply states that the sum of intermediate demand (Ax)<br />
and final demand (d) is equal <strong>to</strong> supply (x). It is then a simple<br />
problem of linear algebra <strong>to</strong> solve for the vec<strong>to</strong>r of inputs<br />
(x) required <strong>to</strong> satisfy a given final demand vec<strong>to</strong>r (d) using I<br />
as the identity matrix. This solution is expressed as<br />
ðA:2Þ x ¼½I AŠ 1 d<br />
We note that the vec<strong>to</strong>r x represents <strong>to</strong>tal output supported<br />
by the demand vec<strong>to</strong>r d. It is important <strong>to</strong> keep this measure<br />
of economic activity separate from other measures such as<br />
value-added, which subtracts the value of inputs from the<br />
value of output. It is worth noting that it is not appropriate<br />
<strong>to</strong> make comparisons between estimates using input–output<br />
analysis and measures of value-added such as gross domestic<br />
product (GDP).<br />
Type I & II output multipliers<br />
Given the solution in eq. A.2 above, we calculate the<br />
change in output with respect <strong>to</strong> final demand. To do this,<br />
we take a partial derivative of eq. A.2 with respect <strong>to</strong> final<br />
demand (d):<br />
ðA:3Þ<br />
dx<br />
1<br />
¼½I AŠ<br />
dd<br />
Equation A.3 describes a new relationship that proves <strong>to</strong> be<br />
very useful in macro-economic analysis. The right-hand side<br />
of this equation, [I – A] –1 , is also denoted as L –1 ,asitis<br />
commonly called the Leontief inverse or multiplier matrix.<br />
This square matrix is of such interest because each entry (denoted<br />
l i,j) describes the marginal inputs required from sec<strong>to</strong>r i<br />
when the output of sec<strong>to</strong>r j increases by one unit.<br />
We calculate industry multipliers by computing the column<br />
sum of the Leontief inverse matrix L –1 as M ¼ X N<br />
j¼1 Li;j<br />
where M is a row vec<strong>to</strong>r of Type I industry output multipliers.<br />
Each entry, M j, in this row vec<strong>to</strong>r is an output multiplier<br />
that allows us <strong>to</strong> compute the direct and indirect output<br />
required <strong>to</strong> support a unit of output for industry j. For example,<br />
in a sec<strong>to</strong>r with a multiplier of 1.5, we would estimate<br />
that US$100 in final demand from this sec<strong>to</strong>r supports US<br />
$150 of activity throughout the economy.<br />
As we have shown, for a given economy with n industries,<br />
one calculates the Leontief inverse using a n × n technical<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
Sumaila et al. 11<br />
coefficients matrix as described above. Multipliers calculated<br />
in this way account for the direct and indirect output supported<br />
by a given industry. In addition <strong>to</strong> these multipliers,<br />
often called Type I, a second set of multipliers, called Type II,<br />
may also be calculated. The advantage <strong>to</strong> using Type II multipliers<br />
is that they account for indirect as well as induced effects<br />
that occur, for example, when additional demand for a<br />
given sec<strong>to</strong>r increases household incomes that induce demand<br />
for additional output. With Type I multipliers, household<br />
consumption is part of the final demand sec<strong>to</strong>r and<br />
therefore assumed <strong>to</strong> be exogenous; with Type II multipliers,<br />
we treat household consumption as endogenous by adding it<br />
as an additional intermediate sec<strong>to</strong>r in the technical coefficients<br />
matrix A. When computing Type II output multipliers,<br />
a technical coefficients matrix with endogenous households<br />
will be (n +1)×(n + 1) in dimension. Summing the multiplier<br />
matrix L –1 over n output sec<strong>to</strong>rs will produce Type II<br />
output multipliers that include the induced effect of endogenizing<br />
households without confusing output and income,<br />
which would occur if we added the last row of the multiplier<br />
matrix — also known as the income effect.<br />
Researchers have adopted approaches <strong>to</strong> account for direct<br />
and indirect effects of fisheries in literature. A considerable<br />
amount of this previous work using economic impact methodology<br />
has been done for the USA (e.g., Seung and Waters<br />
2006). Several methods used in such studies <strong>to</strong> analyze the<br />
economic impacts of fishing including input–output modeling,<br />
social accounting matrix (SAM) modeling, econometric<br />
input–output (EC-IO) modeling, fisheries economic assessment<br />
models (FEAM), and computable general equilibrium<br />
(CGE) models. Each of these techniques has its merits and<br />
demerits, which have been discussed in the literature at<br />
length (Loveridge 2004; Radtke et al. 2004).<br />
Of these models, the input–output technique is well used<br />
in the study of fisheries, likely because of the relative ease<br />
of computation and accessibility of results (Bhat and Bhatta<br />
2006; Hoagland et al. 2005; Leung and Pooley 2001). Results<br />
from an input–output study can be used <strong>to</strong> predict the<br />
outcome of a marginal change in demand for a particular<br />
good, and they can easily be interpreted and used in a practical<br />
manner.<br />
For further reading on input–output tables, refer <strong>to</strong> references<br />
listed below.<br />
References<br />
Bhat, M.G., and Bhatta, R. 2006. Regional economic impacts of<br />
limited entry fishery management: an application of dynamic<br />
input–output model. Environ. Dev. Econ. 11(6): 709–728. doi:10.<br />
1017/S1355770X06003238.<br />
Dyck, A.J., and Sumaila, U.R. 2010. Economic impact of ocean fish<br />
populations in the global fishery. J. Bioeconomics, 12(3): 227–<br />
243. doi:10.1007/s10818-010-9088-3.<br />
Heen, K. 1989. Impact analysis of multispecies marine resource<br />
management. Mar. Resour. Econ. 6(4): 331–348.<br />
Hoagland, P., Jin, D., Thunberg, E., and Steinback, S. 2005.<br />
Economic activity associated with the northeast shelf large marine<br />
ecosystem: application of an input–output approach. Sustaining<br />
large marine ecosystems: the human dimension. Elsevier,<br />
Amsterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 159–181.<br />
Jin, D., Hoagland, P., and Dal<strong>to</strong>n, T.M. 2003. Linking economic and<br />
ecological models for a marine ecosystem. Ecol. Econ. 46(3): 367–<br />
385. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.06.001.<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 121.223.166.191 on 02/26/12<br />
For personal use only.<br />
Leontief, W. 1953. Domestic production and foreign trade: the<br />
American capital position re-examined. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc.<br />
97(4): 332–349.<br />
Leontief, W. 1966. Input–output economics. Oxford University Press,<br />
New York.<br />
Leontief, W., Morgan, A., Polenske, K., Simpson, D., and Tower, E.<br />
1965. The economic impact — industrial and regional — of<br />
an arms cut. Rev. Econ. Stat. 47(3): 217–241. doi:10.2307/<br />
1927706.<br />
Leung, P., and Pooley, S. 2001. Regional economic impacts of<br />
reductions in fisheries production: a supply-driven approach. Mar.<br />
Resour. Econ. 16(4): 251–262.<br />
Loveridge, S. 2004. A typology and assessment of multi-sec<strong>to</strong>r<br />
regional economic impact models. Reg. Stud. 38(3): 305–317.<br />
doi:10.1080/003434042000211051.<br />
Oosterhaven, J., and Stelder, D. 2002. Net multipliers avoid<br />
exaggerating impacts: with a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch<br />
transportation sec<strong>to</strong>r. J. Reg. Sci. 42(3): 533–543. doi:10.1111/<br />
1467-9787.00270.<br />
Pagination not final/Pagination non finale<br />
12 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 69, 2012<br />
Pontecorvo, G., Wilkinson, M., Anderson, R., and Holdowsky, M.<br />
1980. Contribution of the ocean sec<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong> the United States<br />
economy. Science, 208(4447): 1000–1006. doi:10.1126/science.<br />
208.4447.1000. PMID:17779011.<br />
Radtke, H.D., Carter, C.N., and Davis, S.W. 2004. Economic<br />
evaluation of the northern pikeminnow management program.<br />
Report prepared for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission,<br />
Portland, Ore.<br />
Roy, N., Arnason, R., and Schrank, W.E. 2009. The identification of<br />
economic base industries, with an application <strong>to</strong> the Newfoundland<br />
fishing industry. Land Econ. 85(4): 675–691.<br />
Seung, C.K., and Waters, E.C. 2006. A review of regional economic<br />
models for fisheries management in the U.S. Mar. Resour. Econ.<br />
21(1): 101.<br />
Steinback, S., Gentner, B., and Castle, J. 2004. The economic<br />
importance of marine angler expenditures in the United States<br />
[online]. NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 2. US Department of<br />
Commerce, La Jolla, Calif. Available from http://spo.nwr.noaa.<br />
gov/pp2.pdf [accessed 18 July 2011].<br />
Published by NRC Research Press
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
COMMENTARY<br />
Seafood Contamination after the BP Gulf Oil Spill and Risks <strong>to</strong><br />
Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
Miriam Rotkin-Ellman 1 , Karen K. Wong 2 , Gina M. Solomon 1,2<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
1 Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California, USA, 2 Department of Medicine, University<br />
of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA<br />
Abstract<br />
Background: The BP oil spill of 2010 resulted in contamination of one of the most productive fisheries in<br />
the United States by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs, which can accumulate in seafood,<br />
are known carcinogens and developmental <strong>to</strong>xicants. In response <strong>to</strong> the oil spill, the U.S. Food and Drug<br />
Administration (FDA) developed risk criteria and established thresholds for allowable levels [levels of<br />
concern (LOCs)] of PAH contaminants in Gulf Coast seafood.<br />
Objectives: We evaluated the degree <strong>to</strong> which the FDA’s risk criteria adequately protect vulnerable Gulf<br />
Coast populations from cancer risk associated with PAHs in seafood.<br />
Discussion: The FDA LOCs significantly underestimate risk from seafood contaminants among sensitive<br />
Gulf Coast populations by failing <strong>to</strong> a) account for the increased vulnerability of the developing fetus and<br />
child; b) use appropriate seafood consumption rates; c) include all relevant health end points; and d)<br />
incorporate health-protective estimates of exposure duration and acceptable risk. For benzo[a]pyrene<br />
and naphthalene, revised LOCs are between two and four orders of magnitude below the level set by the<br />
FDA. Comparison of measured levels of PAHs in Gulf seafood with the revised LOCs revealed that up <strong>to</strong><br />
53% of Gulf shrimp samples were above LOCs for pregnant women who are high-end seafood<br />
consumers.<br />
Conclusions: FDA risk assessment methods should be updated <strong>to</strong> better reflect current risk assessment<br />
practices and <strong>to</strong> protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children.<br />
Keywords: BP oil spill, children’s health, Deepwater Horizon, Food and Drug Administration, Gulf of Mexico, PAHs, polycyclic<br />
aromatic hydrocarbons, risk assessment, seafood.<br />
Citation: Rotkin-Ellman M, Wong KK, Solomon GM 2012. Seafood Contamination after the BP Gulf Oil Spill and Risks <strong>to</strong><br />
Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment. Environ Health Perspect 120:157-161.<br />
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103695<br />
Received: 18 March 2011; Accepted: 03 Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2011; Online: 12 Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2011<br />
Address correspondence <strong>to</strong> M. Rotkin-Ellman, 111 Sutter St., 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 USA. Telephone: (415)<br />
Page 1 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
875-6100. Fax: (415) 875-6161. E-mail: mrotkinellman@nrdc.org<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
M.R.E. and G.M.S. are employed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. The<br />
authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.<br />
The Gulf of Mexico is a very productive fishery, comprising the majority of domestic shrimp (60%) and oyster<br />
(70%) production (Louisiana Seafood Promotion & Marketing Board 2010). During the BP Deepwater Horizon<br />
oil spill, > 200 million gallons of oil poured in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf of Mexico, followed by 1.8 million gallons of<br />
dispersants intended <strong>to</strong> break down the oil in<strong>to</strong> droplets (Repanich 2010).<br />
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the agency responsible for determining seafood safety. In<br />
response <strong>to</strong> the oil spill, the FDA, working with the states and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration (NOAA), initially closed approximately 37% of the Gulf of Mexico (225,290 km 2 ) <strong>to</strong><br />
commercial and recreational fishing (NOAA 2010). Reopening of these areas was conducted on a rolling<br />
basis, using a two-phase testing regime consisting of organoleptic testing, in which experts sniff pieces of<br />
seafood for oil taint, and chemical analysis for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (FDA 2010a). PAHs<br />
are found in crude oil and have the potential <strong>to</strong> accumulate in aquatic organisms, presenting a health risk via<br />
ingestion of contaminated seafood (Yender et al. 2002). Crustaceans and mollusks, such as shrimp, crab,<br />
and oysters, are especially likely <strong>to</strong> be contaminated because of reduced rates of biological clearance of PAHs<br />
in these species (Law et al. 2002). The FDA tested for the presence of 13 PAHs selected on the basis of<br />
known carcinogenicity or other health effects, including stunted growth, anemia, and kidney disease. The<br />
FDA also calculated allowable thresholds [levels of concern (LOCs)] for PAHs in each specific type of Gulf<br />
seafood.<br />
The FDA allowed most Gulf fisheries <strong>to</strong> reopen during the summer and fall of 2010 based on measured PAHs<br />
in seafood below the LOCs, although public confidence in Gulf seafood was slow <strong>to</strong> rebuild (Marcus 2011).<br />
The adequacy of the policy decision <strong>to</strong> resume commercial fishing hinged on the accuracy of FDA’s<br />
assumptions in calculating the LOCs and on the rigor of the seafood moni<strong>to</strong>ring program. By critically<br />
evaluating the FDA’s risk assessment and moni<strong>to</strong>ring practices, we aimed <strong>to</strong> determine the adequacy of<br />
public health protection in this particular case and <strong>to</strong> identify any broader improvements that may be needed<br />
<strong>to</strong> risk assessment practices and food safety determinations at the FDA.<br />
Objectives<br />
We evaluated the degree <strong>to</strong> which the FDA’s procedures for determining the safety of Gulf seafood after the<br />
BP oil spill (FDA 2010a) reflect current risk assessment practices and protect vulnerable populations. We<br />
focused on cancer risk associated with shellfish consumption, calculated revised LOCs designed <strong>to</strong> be<br />
protective of vulnerable populations, and compared them with the FDA LOCs as well as with measured<br />
concentrations of PAHs in Gulf shellfish.<br />
Page 2 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
Discussion<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
The FDA Gulf seafood risk assessment (FDA 2010a) contains numerous assumptions that are inconsistent<br />
with the FDA’s own prior practice and with risk assessment guidelines produced by other authoritative<br />
entities, including the National Research Council (NRC), the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S.<br />
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the California EPA. Each of these assumptions would tend <strong>to</strong><br />
result in an underestimate of risk for a significant fraction of the exposed population. The questionable<br />
assumptions include six main issues: a) high consumer body weight, b) low estimates of seafood<br />
consumption, c) failure <strong>to</strong> include a cancer risk assessment for naphthalene, d) failure <strong>to</strong> adjust for early-life<br />
susceptibility <strong>to</strong> PAHs, e) short exposure duration, and f!) high cancer risk benchmarks. Taken <strong>to</strong>gether,<br />
these flaws illustrate a failure <strong>to</strong> incorporate the substantial body of evidence on the increased vulnerability<br />
of subpopulations <strong>to</strong> contaminants, such as PAHs, in seafood.<br />
High consumer body weight. For derivation of all LOCs, the FDA assumed a body weight of 80 kg (176 lb).<br />
Although the FDA’s body weight assumption is reasonable for some segments of the population, close <strong>to</strong><br />
75% of the female population in the United States weighs < 80 kg, and the average body weight of a 4- <strong>to</strong><br />
6-year-old child is 21.6 kg (McDowell et al. 2008). In a follow-up risk assessment conducted for an additional<br />
oil spill–related contaminant, the FDA acknowledged that using a lower body weight (60 kg) offered greater<br />
health protection (Bolger 2010). The U.S. EPA publishes age group–specific body weights for use in risk<br />
assessments (U.S. EPA 2011), based on the broad scientific understanding that children have increased<br />
susceptibility <strong>to</strong> ingested contaminants because of their high food intake in proportion of their body weight<br />
(NRC 1993). Because acceptable intake of contaminants is calculated as a fraction of body weight, using an<br />
inflated assumption in a risk assessment is systematically underprotective of the entire population that<br />
weighs below the level used in the calculation.<br />
Low estimate of seafood consumption. The FDA assumed that each consumer eats a daily average of 49, 12,<br />
or 13 g of fish, oysters, or shrimp/crab, respectively. The FDA derived this consumption rate from the 90th<br />
percentile reported in the 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for<br />
nationwide seafood consumption (FDA 2010a). Populations living along the Gulf Coast have a rate of seafood<br />
consumption higher than the rest of the nation (Mahaffey et al. 2009). For example, surveys of New Orleans,<br />
Louisiana, residents and recreational anglers in Louisiana found high-end consumers reporting shrimp intakes<br />
of 65.1 and 55.5 g/day, respectively (Anderson and Rice 1993; Lincoln et al. 2011), which is significantly<br />
higher than the FDA’s estimate of 13 g/day. Federal and international agencies, including the U.S. EPA and<br />
the WHO, have identified the need <strong>to</strong> protect high-end and subsistence fishing communities from<br />
contaminants in seafood by accounting for increased consumption rates. These agencies recommend using<br />
local studies and/or the 95th–97th percentile of national consumption surveys (U.S. EPA 2000; WHO 2008),<br />
in contrast <strong>to</strong> the 90th percentile used by the FDA. To protect subsistence adult consumers, the U.S. EPA<br />
recommends fish consumption rates ranging from 142.4 g/day (general population) <strong>to</strong> 170 g/day (Native<br />
Americans) (U.S. EPA 2000), which is 2.9–3.5 times higher than the FDA estimate of 49 g/day. Similarly, the<br />
95th percentile fish consumption rate reported in Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks (Institute of<br />
Medicine 2007) is equal <strong>to</strong> 155 g/day—3.2 times higher than the FDA assumption. The FDA also failed <strong>to</strong><br />
Page 3 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
account for the possibility that consumers may eat a combination of various types of seafood when they<br />
calculated consumption rates and LOCs for shrimp, oysters, crab, and fish separately.<br />
Failure <strong>to</strong> consider the cancer risk from naphthalene. Naphthalene was one of the most frequently detected<br />
PAHs in Gulf seafood tested after the spill and was the most prevalent PAH in the oil itself (FDA 2010a; FDA,<br />
unpublished data). Despite the fact that naphthalene poses a health risk due <strong>to</strong> both carcinogenic and<br />
noncarcinogenic health effects, the FDA established the LOC in Gulf seafood based solely on noncancer<br />
effects (FDA 2010a). Naphthalene is listed in the 12th Report on Carcinogens [National Toxicology Program<br />
(NTP) 2011] (which the FDA has endorsed) as reasonably anticipated <strong>to</strong> be a human carcinogen based on<br />
dose-related rare nasal and respira<strong>to</strong>ry neuroblas<strong>to</strong>mas and adenomas in male and female rats, and on lung<br />
tumors in female mice. Inhalation has been associated with cancer of the larynx in humans, and ingestion<br />
was associated with human colorectal cancer in one study (NTP 2011). Naphthalene is also listed by the<br />
State of California as known <strong>to</strong> cause cancer, with sufficient evidence <strong>to</strong> determine a cancer potency fac<strong>to</strong>r of<br />
0.12 per mg/kg-day, which defines the relationship between exposures and cancer risk [Office of<br />
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2005].<br />
The FDA did not assess whether exposures in Gulf seafood could pose an increased risk of cancer from<br />
naphthalene. Because PAHs are a mixture of multiple compounds, small exposures <strong>to</strong> multiple PAHs can add<br />
up <strong>to</strong> significant cancer risks. By omitting naphthalene from its cancer risk assessment, the FDA ignored the<br />
potential cumulative effect of exposures <strong>to</strong> multiple carcinogens.<br />
Failure <strong>to</strong> include early-life vulnerability. The FDA conducted a single risk assessment for adults and did not<br />
evaluate potential increased risks <strong>to</strong> the developing fetus or child, yet exposure <strong>to</strong> PAHs during pregnancy<br />
causes genetic damage <strong>to</strong> the developing fetus (Harper et al. 1989; Orjuela et al. 2010). Most PAHs are lipid<br />
soluble and therefore cross the placenta (Calabrese 1978; Shendrikova and Aleksandrov 1974). PAHs have<br />
also been observed in human breast milk (Del Bubba et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2008). Animal studies have<br />
found that ingestion of PAHs during pregnancy results in much greater genetic damage in the fetus than in<br />
the mother (Harper et al. 1989). Children exposed prenatally <strong>to</strong> PAHs have statistically significant increases<br />
in DNA aberrations in specific chromosomes, low birth weight, and intrauterine growth restriction (Choi et al.<br />
2006; Dejmek et al. 2000; Orjuela et al. 2010; Perera et al. 2003, 2005).<br />
The increased vulnerability of the developing fetus and child <strong>to</strong> geno<strong>to</strong>xins and carcinogens has been widely<br />
recognized. In March 2005, the U.S. EPA released the Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility<br />
from Early-Life Exposure <strong>to</strong> Carcinogens (U.S. EPA 2005), which presented age-dependent adjustment<br />
fac<strong>to</strong>rs (ADAFs). ADAFs adjust the slope fac<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> account for differences in carcinogen potency by age<br />
groups, based on data from animal studies of cancer potency in early-life stages compared with adult<br />
animals (U.S. EPA 2005). The U.S. EPA methods also use different rates of exposure according <strong>to</strong> age,<br />
accounting for the relative difference in intake between children and adults. The U.S. EPA did not include<br />
ADAFs for prenatal exposures, but did acknowledge that the available data support increased prenatal<br />
susceptibility (U.S. EPA 2005). In California, the OEHHA, under the California EPA, accounts for childhood<br />
exposures in its risk assessment methods and provides an adjustment fac<strong>to</strong>r [age sensitivity fac<strong>to</strong>r (ASF)]<br />
for prenatal exposures (OEHHA 2009). The FDA did not incorporate any of this information in<strong>to</strong> its calculation<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
Page 4 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
of the LOCs.<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
Short exposure duration and less-protective cancer risk benchmarks. The FDA LOC incorporates a duration of<br />
exposure of only 5 years and an acceptable rate of cancer of 1 cancer in 100,000 people. However, based on<br />
prior experience from oil spills, PAHs are detectable in shellfish for up <strong>to</strong> 13 years after oil contamination,<br />
and there is evidence of ongoing DNA damage from PAHs in marine life after that time (Bejarano and Michel<br />
2010; Thomas et al. 2007). There is considerable variation in the half-life of PAHs, depending on the<br />
structure of the compound and environmental conditions. However, using an average value recommended by<br />
the California EPA for PAHs in soil (570 days), approximately 10% of the contamination would be expected <strong>to</strong><br />
remain after 5 years, and < 2% would remain after 10 years (OEHHA 2000). FDA risk assessments<br />
conducted for prior oil spills, such as the Exxon Valdez, used more conservative and health-protective values<br />
for these parameters: a 10-year exposure duration and an acceptable cancer risk level of 1 in 1 million<br />
(Bolger and Carring<strong>to</strong>n 1999).<br />
Revised risk assessment and LOCs. We used published sources <strong>to</strong> estimate exposure scenarios for three<br />
populations vulnerable <strong>to</strong> PAH contamination in Gulf Coast seafood: a woman (or small man), a pregnant<br />
woman (prenatal exposure <strong>to</strong> < 10 years of age), and a child (2–12 years of age). See Table 1 and<br />
Supplemental Material, pp. 2–3 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103695) for a description and comparison<br />
of the exposure and risk profiles. Using the vulnerable population risk profiles, the FDA LOC equation (adult<br />
scenario), and the U.S. EPA/California EPA ADAFs/ASFs and risk calculation methods (child and pregnant<br />
woman scenarios), we derived revised LOCs for benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), one of the most potent PAHs, and for<br />
cancer risk from naphthalene in individual types of seafood and for a combined cumulative shellfish-rich diet.<br />
Consistent with FDA methods, we used <strong>to</strong>xic equivalencies <strong>to</strong> translate the LOC for BaP <strong>to</strong> other (non-<br />
naphthalene) carcinogenic PAHs detected in seafood (see Supplemental Material, Table 1).<br />
Table 1.<br />
Parameters <strong>to</strong> estimate cancer risk due <strong>to</strong> PAHs in Gulf seafood: FDA versus vulnerable-<br />
populations method.<br />
Recalculating LOCs, including the fac<strong>to</strong>rs omitted by the FDA, resulted in significantly lower numbers (Table<br />
2). Most notably, the revised LOCs for naphthalene in shellfish using the pregnant woman scenario are four<br />
orders of magnitude smaller than the FDA values (FDA 2010a). At the LOCs set by the FDA, we calculated<br />
cancer risks of 4,094 and 20,214 per million people for a combined high-shellfish diet for the woman and<br />
pregnant woman scenarios, respectively (Table 3). Although the combined high-shellfish diet scenario<br />
represents the sum of individual shellfish consumption rates, it is consistent with estimates of high-end<br />
shellfish consumption [see Supplemental Material, p. 4 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103695)]. These<br />
risks greatly exceed the FDA risk threshold of 1 in 100,000 (or 10 in 1 million) and indicate that the FDA<br />
LOCs are <strong>to</strong>o high <strong>to</strong> be protective of vulnerable subpopulations.<br />
Page 5 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
Table 2.<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
Comparison of FDA published LOCs for PAHs in Gulf seafood and revised LOCs calculated for<br />
vulnerable populations.<br />
Table 3.<br />
Cancer risks (excess risk per million people) calculated for vulnerable Gulf Coast populations<br />
at the LOCs set by the FDA for the Gulf Coast after the BP oil spill.<br />
Table 4.<br />
Calculated cancer risks (excess risk per million people) based on mean (95% CI) detected PAH levelsa in<br />
Gulf shellfish tested after the BP oil spill.<br />
Health risks associated with Gulf Coast shellfish tested after the oil spill. Although the volume of testing was<br />
low, government moni<strong>to</strong>ring of PAH levels in Gulf seafood enables a rough calculation of the cancer risk<br />
associated with measured levels of PAHs in Gulf shellfish for populations of concern. The FDA based the<br />
reopening of coastal (state) waters <strong>to</strong> commercial shellfish harvesting on a <strong>to</strong>tal of 80, 37, and 92 samples of<br />
shrimp, oysters, and crab, respectively (FDA 2011). The NOAA analyzed an additional 122 shrimp samples<br />
before reopening offshore (federal) waters (NOAA 2011). Subsequently, both the FDA and NOAA have<br />
conducted follow-up testing of seafood collected in reopened Gulf waters for shrimp (n = 155), crab (n =<br />
34), and oysters (n = 3).<br />
The NOAA initially used gas chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy-mass spectropho<strong>to</strong>metry (GC/MS) with low detection limits, but<br />
the alkyl naphthalenes were omitted, thereby underestimating <strong>to</strong>tal naphthalene concentrations. Subsequent<br />
NOAA testing and all FDA testing used a more-rapid high-performance liquid chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy method (HPLC)<br />
with fluorescence detection, with a higher detection limit. We analyzed the data published on the FDA and<br />
NOAA web sites as of 10 June 2011 (FDA 2011; NOAA 2011). In addition, the Natural Resources Defense<br />
Council conducted a shrimp-sampling project in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, and the Mississippi Sound near<br />
Pass Christian, Mississippi, in December 2010 using the GC/MS analytical method, but including alkyl<br />
naphthalenes. Our project, although covering only two specific locations of concern, collected 4–9 samples<br />
per 100-mile 2 sampling grid, greatly exceeding the sampling density the FDA reported for state waters.<br />
We used the revised risk assessment methods <strong>to</strong> evaluate the levels of carcinogenic PAHs detected in<br />
shellfish after the oil spill. For the seven PAHs with established <strong>to</strong>xicity equivalents, we calculated <strong>to</strong>tal BaP<br />
equivalents <strong>to</strong> enable comparison with the LOC and <strong>to</strong> calculate <strong>to</strong>tal cancer risk. Detection frequencies and<br />
concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs varied between the analytes, types of shellfish, testing methods, and<br />
agency data sets [see Supplemental Material, Table 2 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103695)]. To<br />
calculate cancer risk at the levels detected in Gulf shellfish, we combined results generated using comparable<br />
analytical methods (FDA and NOAA data sets). To evaluate a worst-case scenario, and in light of high<br />
Page 6 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
analytical limits of detection, we calculated cancer risks based on detected values and 10-year exposure<br />
duration. (See Supplemental Material for more information on our data analysis methods.)<br />
Based on the mean of the detected PAH concentrations in shellfish, cancer risks for the woman and<br />
pregnancy scenarios were 0.008 and 4.2 in 1 million, respectively, from <strong>to</strong>tal BaP equivalent concentrations<br />
and 0.5 and 3.9 in 1 million from naphthalene. Combined cancer risk from all PAHs, including naphthalene,<br />
was highest for the pregnancy scenario at 8.1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3, 12.9] in 1 million (Table<br />
4). When we compared measured PAH levels (using the HPLC method) with the revised LOCs in shellfish<br />
using the pregnancy scenario, we found that 0–27% exceeded the revised LOCs set for consumption of one<br />
type of shellfish (shrimp, crab, or oysters) and 17–55% exceeded the LOC for consumption of combined<br />
shellfish types. In contrast, a much smaller number of shrimp samples (2–8%) had PAH concentrations that<br />
exceeded the revised cumulative exposure LOCs for the adult woman scenario [see Supplemental Material,<br />
Table 3 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103695)]. Levels of naphthalene and BaP equivalents measured in<br />
our pilot shrimp-sampling project were lower than values reported using the HPLC method in the FDA and<br />
NOAA data sets, and only 1 of 13 samples exceeded any of the relevant LOCs (see Supplemental Material,<br />
Table 3). Notably, using revised risk calculations and the pregnancy scenario, the revised LOCs for BaP in<br />
shrimp and <strong>to</strong>tal shellfish are below the limit of detection for BaP using the HPLC method (0.39 ppb). The<br />
LOC for naphthalene in shrimp for the pregnant woman scenario is below the limit of quantification of the<br />
HPLC method (15.0 ppb) (FDA 2010b).<br />
Taken <strong>to</strong>gether, these findings demonstrate that the FDA’s conclusion that there were no risks <strong>to</strong> Gulf<br />
populations from oil spill–related contaminants in seafood missed some exposures of concern, particularly for<br />
pregnant women who are high-end seafood consumers. Additionally, the use of the HPLC-fluorescence<br />
analytical method, although improving the speed of analysis, may have missed low levels of PAH<br />
contamination of public health relevance for vulnerable populations.<br />
Conclusions<br />
Environmental risk assessment requires the use of scientifically founded assumptions and appropriate default<br />
estimates about the exposed population, the intensity and duration of exposure, and the dose–response<br />
relationship. The risk assessment methods used by the FDA <strong>to</strong> set safe exposure levels for Gulf Coast<br />
seafood after the oil spill do not incorporate current best practices and do not protect vulnerable populations.<br />
The FDA’s conclusions about risks from Gulf seafood should be interpreted with caution in coastal populations<br />
with higher rates of seafood consumption and in vulnerable populations such as children, small adults, and<br />
pregnant women. Our analysis demonstrates that a revised approach, using standard risk assessment<br />
methods, results in significantly lower acceptable levels of PAHs in seafood and identifies populations that<br />
could be at risk from contaminants in Gulf Coast seafood. Health advisories targeted at high-end consumers<br />
would better protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, women who may become pregnant,<br />
and children. Our approach did not address infant exposure <strong>to</strong> PAHs via maternal seafood consumption and<br />
lactational transfer. The NRC (2008) found up <strong>to</strong> 50-fold interindividual variability in cancer risk and<br />
recommends incorporation of estimates of uncertainty, as well as population risk distributions, in<strong>to</strong> future<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
Page 7 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
risk assessments. Improved public health protection from contaminants in food will require reforming FDA<br />
risk assessment practices.<br />
Supplemental Material<br />
(238 KB) PDF.<br />
References<br />
Anderson AC, Rice JC.<br />
1993. Survey of fish and shellfish consumption by residents of the greater New Orleans area. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol<br />
51(4):508–514.<br />
Bejarano AC, Michel J.<br />
2010. Large-scale risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in shoreline sediments from Saudi Arabia:<br />
environmental legacy after twelve years of the Gulf war oil spill. Environ Pollut 158(5):1561–1569.<br />
Bolger M 2010. Memorandum from M Bolger, Chemical Hazards Assessment Staff, Office of Food Safety, Food and Drug<br />
Administration, <strong>to</strong> D Kraemer, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Levels of Concern (LOC)s for Select Gulf<br />
Seafood Species. Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSa fety/Product-SpecificInformation/Seafood<br />
/UCM231697.pdf [accessed 20 June 2011]<br />
Bolger M, Carring<strong>to</strong>n CD<br />
1999. Hazard and risk assessment of crude oil in subsistence seafood samples from Prince William Sound: lessons learned<br />
from the Exxon Valdez. In: Evaluating and Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross Cultural Context: Lessons<br />
Learned from Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (Field LJ, Fall JA, Nighswander TS, Peacock N, Varanasi U, eds). Pensacola, FL: Society<br />
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 195–204.<br />
Calabrese E<br />
1978. Pollutants and High Risk Groups: The Biological Basis of Increased Human Susceptibility <strong>to</strong> Environmental and<br />
Occupational Pollutants. New York:John Wiley and Sons.<br />
Choi H, Jedrychowski W, Spengler J, Camann DE, Whyatt RM, Rauh V, et al.<br />
2006. International studies of prenatal exposure <strong>to</strong> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fetal growth. Environ Health<br />
Perspect 114:1744–1750.<br />
Dejmek J, Solanský I, Beneš I, Lenícek J, Šrám RJ.<br />
2000. The impact of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fine particles on pregnancy outcome. Environ Health Perspect<br />
108:1159–1164.<br />
Del Bubba M, Zanieri L, Galvan P, Donzelli GP, Checchini L, Lepri L.<br />
2005. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and <strong>to</strong>tal fats in human milk. Ann Chim 95(9–10):629–<br />
641.<br />
FDA (Food and Drug Administration) 2010a. Pro<strong>to</strong>col for Interpretation and Use of Sensory Testing and Analytical<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
Page 8 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
Chemistry Results for Re-Opening Oil-Impacted Areas Closed <strong>to</strong> Seafood Harvesting Due <strong>to</strong> the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.<br />
Available: http://www.fda.gov/food/ucm217601.htm [accessed 14 December 2011]<br />
FDA (Food and Drug Administration) 2010b. Labora<strong>to</strong>ry Information Bulletin: Screen for the Presence of Polycyclic Aromatic<br />
Hydrocarbons in Select Seafoods Using LC-Fluorescence. Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceRese<br />
arch/UCM220209.pdf [accessed 15 December 2011]<br />
FDA (Food and Drug Administration) 2011. Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Reopening of Closed Waters Information by State.<br />
Available: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Produ ct-SpecificInformation/Seafood/ucm221959 .htm [accessed 10 June<br />
2011]<br />
Harper BL, Ramanujam VM, Lega<strong>to</strong>r MS.<br />
1989. Micronucleus formation by benzene, cyclophosphamide, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzidine in male, female, pregnant<br />
female, and fetal mice. Tera<strong>to</strong>g Carcinog Mutagen 9(4):239–252.<br />
Institute of Medicine<br />
2007. Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks (Nesheim MC, Yaktine AL, eds). Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC: National Academies<br />
Press.<br />
Kim SR, Halden RU, Buckley TJ.<br />
2008. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in human milk of nonsmoking U.S. women. Environ Sci Technol 42(7):2663–2667.<br />
Law RJ, Kelly C, Baker K, Jones J, McIn<strong>to</strong>sh AD, Moffat CF.<br />
2002. Toxic equivalency fac<strong>to</strong>rs for PAH and their applicability in shellfish pollution moni<strong>to</strong>ring studies. J Environ Monit<br />
4:383–388.<br />
Lincoln RA, Shine JP, Chesney EJ, Vorhees DJ, Grandjean P, Senn DB.<br />
2011. Fish consumption and mercury exposure among Louisiana recreational anglers. Environ Health Perspect 119:245–<br />
251.<br />
Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board 2010. Seafood Jobs. Available:<br />
http://louisianaseafood.com/seafood_jobs [accessed 25 November 2010]<br />
Mahaffey KR, Clickner RP, Jeffries RA.<br />
2009. Adult women’s blood mercury concentrations vary regionally in the United States: associations with patterns of fish<br />
consumption (NHANES 1999–2004). Environ Health Perspect 117:47–53.<br />
Marcus MB 2011. Gulf Seafood Safety Concerns Consumers. USA Today: 23 May. Available:<br />
http://yourlife.usa<strong>to</strong>day.com/fitness-foo d/safety/s<strong>to</strong>ry/2011/05/Gulf-seafood-safe ty-concerns-consumers/47507778/1<br />
[accessed 15 December 2011]<br />
McDowell MA, Fryer CD, Ogden CL, Flegal KM<br />
2008. Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2003–2006. National Health Statistics<br />
Reports, No. 10. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.<br />
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 2010. Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill: Size and Percent Coverage<br />
of Fishing Area Closures Due <strong>to</strong> BP Oil Spill. Available: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ClosureSizeand PercentCoverage.htm<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
Page 9 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
[accessed 15 December 2011]<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 2011. Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill: Federal Fisheries Closure<br />
and Other Information. Available: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_hori zon_oil_spill.htm [accessed 20 June 2011]<br />
NRC (National Research Council)<br />
1993. Pesticides in the Diet of Infants and Children. Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC: National Academies Press.<br />
NRC (National Research Council)<br />
2008. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC: National Academies Press.<br />
NTP (National Toxicology Program) 2011. 12th Report on Carcinogens. Research Triangle Park, NC:National Toxicology<br />
Program. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth /roc12.pdf [accessed 15 December 2011]<br />
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment)<br />
2000. Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and S<strong>to</strong>chastic Analysis. <strong>Appendix</strong> G: Chemical Specific Soil<br />
Half-Lives. Sacramen<strong>to</strong>, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency.<br />
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment)<br />
2005. No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for the Proposition 65 Carcinogen Naphthalene. Naphthalene NSRL. Sacramen<strong>to</strong>,<br />
CA: California Environmental Protection Agency.<br />
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment)<br />
2009. In Utero and Early Life Susceptibility <strong>to</strong> Carcinogens: The Derivation of Age-at-Exposure Sensitivity Measures.<br />
Sacramen<strong>to</strong>, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency.<br />
Orjuela MA, Liu X, Warbur<strong>to</strong>n D, Siebert AL, Cujar C, Tang D, et al.<br />
2010. Prenatal PAH exposure is associated with chromosome-specific aberrations in cord blood. Mutat Res 703(2):108–114.<br />
Perera FP, Rauh V, Tsai WY, Kinney P, Camann D, Barr D, et al.<br />
2003. Effects of transplacental exposure <strong>to</strong> environmental pollutants on birth outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ<br />
Health Perspect 111:201–205.<br />
Perera F, Tang D, Whyatt R, Lederman SA, Jedrychowski W.<br />
2005. DNA Damage from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons measured by benzo[a]pyrene-DNA adducts in mothers and<br />
newborns from Northern Manhattan, the World Trade Center Area, Poland, and China. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev<br />
14:709–714.<br />
Repanich J 2010. The Deepwater Horizon Spill by the Numbers. Available: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/<br />
energy/coal-oil-gas/bp-oil-spill-statist ics [accessed 30 November 2010]<br />
Shendrikova IA, Aleksandrov VA.<br />
1974. Comparative penetration of polycyclic hydrocarbons through the rat placenta in<strong>to</strong> the fetus. Bull Exp Biol Med<br />
77(2):169–171.<br />
Thomas RE, Lindeberg M, Harris PM, Rice SD.<br />
2007. Induction of DNA strand breaks in the mussel (Mytilus trossulus) and clam (Pro<strong>to</strong>thaca staminea) following chronic<br />
field exposure <strong>to</strong> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the Exxon Valdez spill. Mar Pollut Bull 54(6):726–732.<br />
Page 10 of 11
Environmental Health Perspectives: Seafood Contamination after the BP …Risks <strong>to</strong> Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment<br />
3/15/12 8:46 AM<br />
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish<br />
Advisories. Volume 2. Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits—Third Edition. EPA 823-B-00-008. Available:<br />
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/ fishshellfish/techguidance/risk/volume2_ index.cfm [accessed 15 December 2011]<br />
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life<br />
Exposure <strong>to</strong> Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_sup plement_final.pdf<br />
[accessed 14 December 2011]<br />
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2008. Child-Specific Exposure Fac<strong>to</strong>rs Handbook. Available:<br />
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordispl ay.cfm?deid=199243 [accessed 15 December 2011]<br />
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Exposure Fac<strong>to</strong>rs Handbook, 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-090/0S2F.<br />
Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisp lay.cfm?deid=236252 [accessed 21 December 2011]<br />
WHO (World Health Organization) 2008. Highest Reported 97.5th Percentile Consumption Figures (Eaters Only) for Various<br />
Commodities by the General Population and Children Ages 6 and Under. GEMS/Food for the Codex Committee on Pesticide<br />
Residues and the Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues. Available: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/en/ac<br />
ute_hazard_db1.pdf [accessed 16 December 2011]<br />
Yender R, Michel J, Lord C 2002. Managing Seafood Safety After an Oil Spill. Seattle, WA:Hazardous Materials Response<br />
Division, Office of Response and Res<strong>to</strong>ration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available:<br />
http://response.res<strong>to</strong>ration.noaa.gov/boo k_shelf/963_seafood2.pdf [accessed 14 December 2011]<br />
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695<br />
Page 11 of 11
July 16, 2010<br />
CONSENSUS STATEMENT:<br />
Scientists oppose the use of dispersant chemicals in the Gulf of Mexico<br />
Statement drafted by Dr. Susan D. Shaw, Marine Environmental Research Institute, www.meriresearch.org<br />
We oppose the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf, and urgently recommend an immediate halt<br />
<strong>to</strong> their application. We believe that Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave<br />
health risks <strong>to</strong> marine life and human health, and threaten <strong>to</strong> deplete critical niches in the Gulf food<br />
web that may never recover.<br />
We urge federal and state agencies <strong>to</strong> fund independent research immediately <strong>to</strong> produce<br />
transparent, timely information that will inform us about the damage <strong>to</strong> the ecosystem and protect<br />
the health of Gulf response workers, residents, and wildlife.<br />
Background<br />
Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, BP has<br />
applied almost two million gallons of dispersants, both on the surface and beneath Gulf waters. Government<br />
officials acknowledge that the quantity and manner in which dispersants have been applied in the Gulf are<br />
unprecedented. The application of dispersant at the source of the discharge, 5,000 feet under the surface of<br />
the water, is also unprecedented.<br />
By enhancing the amount of oil that physically mixes in<strong>to</strong> the water column, dispersants reduce the amount<br />
of oil that reaches shoreline habitats. Although called for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as a <strong>to</strong>ol for<br />
minimizing the impact of oil spills, chemical dispersants are controversial (NRC, 2005) because of the <strong>to</strong>xicity<br />
of dispersed mixtures and their potential negative impacts on ocean life. Another point of controversy is that<br />
once oil is dispersed in deep water, it cannot be recovered. Oil, when combined with dispersants in the<br />
water column is more <strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> marine species than either oil or dispersant alone.<br />
At a Senate hearing on June 15, 2010, EPA Administra<strong>to</strong>r, Lisa Jackson stated, “In the use of dispersants we<br />
are faced with environmental tradeoffs.” In fact, the use of dispersants does not represent a science-based,<br />
quantifiable “tradeoff” but rather amounts <strong>to</strong> a large-scale experiment on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem<br />
that runs contrary <strong>to</strong> a precautionary approach, an experiment where the costs may ultimately outweigh<br />
the benefits.<br />
Moreover, this “trade-off” has been confounded by the lack of a vigorous, technologically adequate effort <strong>to</strong><br />
collect crude oil from the surface. Berms and booms quickly proved <strong>to</strong> be ineffective in this deepwater<br />
system. As a result, crude oil has penetrated 30 miles in<strong>to</strong> the coastal wetlands of Louisiana and has reached<br />
the shores of other Gulf states.<br />
Dispersants applied by BP have resulted in widely disseminated undersea plumes of oil, confirmed by NOAA<br />
on June 8. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/government-confirms-undersea-oil-in-gulfof-mexico.html).<br />
Samples were collected by scientists from University of South Florida on the MV<br />
Weatherbird II and tested by NOAA's lab. Subsequently, the plumes have migrated outward from the<br />
discharge source and over time are likely <strong>to</strong> travel with prevailing currents <strong>to</strong> the Florida Keys, Cuba, Mexico,<br />
and the eastern seaboard of the US. The vast quantities of dispersed oil in these plumes can enter the marine<br />
food chain and bioaccumulate in animal tissue, potentially impacting marine ecosystems over many years and<br />
over a broad geographical area.
Corexit Dispersants Used in the Gulf<br />
Two dispersants, Corexit 9500 and 9527A, produced by Nalco of Naperville, Illinois, have been used in the<br />
Gulf (http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/). Although listed among EPA-approved<br />
dispersants, Corexits are oil industry-insider products, and are ranked by the EPA as more <strong>to</strong>xic and less<br />
effective than other approved dispersants, which has raised questions about their use in the Gulf (Scarlett et<br />
al 2005). A comprehensive report on the health hazards of crude oil and the known ingredients of Corexits is<br />
available at: http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards.htm.<br />
Corexit 9527A contains 2-BTE (2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol), a <strong>to</strong>xic solvent that ruptures red blood cells, causing<br />
hemolysis (bleeding) and liver and kidney damage (Johanson and Bowman, 1991, Nalco, 2010). Both Corexit<br />
dispersants contain petroleum solvents that mix with the crude oil mass and move through it, thus increasing<br />
the uptake of oil by organisms (NRC, 2005, Nalco, 2010).<br />
The properties that facilitate the movement of dispersants through oil also make it easier for them <strong>to</strong> move<br />
through cell walls, skin barriers, and membranes that protect vital organs, underlying layers of skin, the<br />
surfaces of eyes, mouths, and other structures.<br />
Crude Oil & Corexit Combined Are More Toxic Than Either Alone<br />
The combination of Corexit and crude oil can be more <strong>to</strong>xic than either alone, since they contain many<br />
ingredients that target the same organs in the body. In addition, Corexit dispersants facilitate the entry of oil<br />
in<strong>to</strong> the body, in<strong>to</strong> cells, which can result in damage <strong>to</strong> every organ system (Burns and Harbut, 2010).<br />
Exposure <strong>to</strong> chemicals in crude oil and dispersants can occur through skin contact, inhalation of<br />
contaminated air or soil/sand, and ingestion of contaminated water or food. These can occur simultaneously.<br />
Chemicals in crude oil and dispersants can cause a wide range of health effects in people and<br />
wildlife. Crude oil has many highly <strong>to</strong>xic chemical ingredients, including polycyclic aromatic<br />
hydrocarbons (PAHs), that can damage every system in the body. These include:<br />
respira<strong>to</strong>ry system nervous system, including the brain<br />
liver reproductive/urogenital system<br />
kidneys endocrine system<br />
circula<strong>to</strong>ry system gastrointestinal system<br />
immune system sensory systems<br />
musculoskeletal system hema<strong>to</strong>poietic system (blood forming)<br />
skin and integumentary system disruption of normal metabolism<br />
Damage <strong>to</strong> these systems can cause a wide range of diseases and conditions. Some may be immediately<br />
evident, and others can appear months or years later. The chemicals can impair normal growth and<br />
development through a variety of mechanisms, including endocrine disruption and direct fetal damage. Some<br />
of the chemicals, such as the PAHs, cause mutations that may lead <strong>to</strong> cancer and multi-generational birth<br />
defects (Burns and Harbut, 2010). Of note, benzene, a human carcinogen, is a VOC that is released by crude<br />
oil (CDC, 1999). It is not known what additional VOCs (if any) are added <strong>to</strong> the crude oil mix by dispersants,<br />
due <strong>to</strong> a lack of disclosure about dispersant ingredients.<br />
Potential human health effects include burning skin, difficulty breathing, headaches, heart palpitations,<br />
dizziness, confusion, and nausea — which have already been reported by some workers — as well as<br />
chemical pneumonia and internal bleeding (Burns and Harbut, 2010, US EPA 2010). These are more often<br />
2
noticed than more serious effects that don't have obvious signs and symp<strong>to</strong>ms - lung, liver and kidney<br />
damage, infertility, immune system suppression, disruption of hormone levels, blood disorders, mutations,<br />
and cancer. Coastal communities could also experience more extreme health consequences, including longterm<br />
neurological effects on children and developing fetuses, and hereditary mutations. As of June 21, the<br />
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals reported 143 cases of illness "believed <strong>to</strong> be related <strong>to</strong> oil<br />
exposure", including 108 response workers (mostly men) and 35 coastal residents (two-thirds women)<br />
(http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/). The most common symp<strong>to</strong>ms were headache, nausea, throat irritation,<br />
vomiting, cough and difficulty breathing.<br />
Corexit Dispersant Ingredients Have Not Been Fully Disclosed<br />
On June 8th, US EPA provided a list of chemicals they stated were in the two Corexit products used <strong>to</strong> date.<br />
Companies are not required <strong>to</strong> list all ingredients in their products, or <strong>to</strong> provide detailed information on<br />
those that they do list. They can claim ingredients are "proprietary" <strong>to</strong> avoid disclosure. Ingredients in a<br />
product may be listed as a group rather than a single chemical.<br />
For example, the group "petroleum distillates, hydrotreated light" is listed on the MSDS for Corexit 9500.<br />
There are hundreds of chemicals within this group. Similarly, "organic sulfonic acid salts" are listed as an<br />
ingredient, but these may include many potential organic components. Without specific information, it<br />
isn't possible <strong>to</strong> fully assess short or long-term human health hazards or ecological effects.<br />
Toxic Impacts on Marine Life<br />
Oil spill impacts can occur by 1) physical contact (oiling), 2) <strong>to</strong>xicity, and 3) loss of food web niches. Some of<br />
the effects of this spill are visible – 1866 dead oiled birds, 463 sea turtles, 59 dolphins, one sperm whale (DH<br />
Response Report July 14). Many scientists suspect that the worst of the impacts on the Gulf are yet <strong>to</strong><br />
come and will not be apparent without deliberate tracking and scientific assessment.<br />
Since the 1970s, it has been known that application of dispersants <strong>to</strong> oil spills increases <strong>to</strong>xicity by increasing<br />
oil and hydrocarbon exposure <strong>to</strong> water column species. A review of the literature by Dye et al (1980) reported<br />
that "virtually every author who has investigated the <strong>to</strong>xicity of oil-dispersant mixtures reports dramatic<br />
increases in mortality compared <strong>to</strong> oil or dispersant alone, indicating the existence of supra-additive synergy."<br />
Today, many scientists are concerned about the likelihood of severe, acute impacts on a wide range of Gulf<br />
species that are now being exposed <strong>to</strong> Corexit and oil in the water column. For vulnerable species such as<br />
seagrass, corals, plank<strong>to</strong>n, shrimp, crabs, and small fish, acute effects can be lethal, particularly during the<br />
spring spawning season (Ibemesim et al, 2008, Barron et al, 2003, Rho<strong>to</strong>n et al, 1998, Bhattacharyya et al 2003,<br />
Chapman et al 2007, Anderson et al, 2009, Couillard et al, 2005, Ramachandran et al, 2004, Fisher et al, 1993,<br />
Gulec et al, 1997). Coral larvae are extremely sensitive <strong>to</strong> the combined effects, with 0% fertilization rates in<br />
the presence of dispersant and dispersed oil, compared with 98% fertilization in the presence of oil alone<br />
(Negri and Heyward, 2000, Shafir et al, 2007, Epstein et al 2000).<br />
As plumes of dispersed oil form in the water column, globules of oil and dispersant envelop and kill floating<br />
plank<strong>to</strong>n, fish eggs and larvae – and everything else at sensitive life stages. Planktivorous species like herring<br />
and whale sharks indiscriminately feed on these globules and may break the oil down <strong>to</strong> more <strong>to</strong>xic byproducts.<br />
Already, vast numbers of bot<strong>to</strong>m-feeders and filter-feeders have been decimated in heavily oiled<br />
areas such as Louisiana’s Barataria Bay (Shaw, CNN 2010). Depletion of these critical niches in the food<br />
web can set the stage for “trophic cascades,” causing the collapse of higher organisms (Peterson et al.<br />
2003).<br />
At the <strong>to</strong>p of the food web, large fish (amberjacks, tuna, grouper) and marine mammals are exposed <strong>to</strong> oil<br />
and dispersant through feeding on contaminated fish. Air-breathing animals like dolphins and sperm whales<br />
are exposed <strong>to</strong> volatile petroleum fumes every time they surface for air - and taking oil in<strong>to</strong> the blowhole can<br />
3
cause chemical pneumonia and liver and kidney damage. Skin contact with Corexit and oil can cause ulcers<br />
and burns <strong>to</strong> membranes of the eyes and mouth. Corexit 9527, which was used in the Gulf until supplies ran<br />
out in May, contains the <strong>to</strong>xic solvent, 2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol, that ruptures red blood cells, causing animals <strong>to</strong><br />
undergo hemolysis (internal bleeding) (Burns and Harbut, 2010, Nalco 2010). Fishermen in the Gulf have<br />
reported that dolphins spouting oil from the blowhole have approached their boats (Shaw, TEDXOilSpill,<br />
2010). These dolphins are likely suffocating from petrochemical solvent-related burning of lung membranes<br />
(“chemical pneumonia”) and thus are dying before our eyes. As scientists, the question is, how will we know?<br />
Finally, dispersing oil at depth means that a significant volume of oil is not able <strong>to</strong> be recovered at the surface.<br />
This dispersed oil can enter the marine food chain at many points and bioaccumulate in animal tissue,<br />
potentially impacting marine ecosystems over many years and over a broad geographical area.<br />
Scientists Express Concerns<br />
On July 10, 2010 the journal Nature reported concerns expressed by scientists about the implications of the<br />
use of dispersants (Nature News, July 10, 2010). David Valentine, a geomicrobiologist at the University of<br />
California, Santa Barbara, described BP’s use of dispersants as “an experiment that’s never been performed<br />
before – <strong>to</strong> dump that much of an industrial chemical in<strong>to</strong> the ocean.”<br />
Susan Shaw, a marine <strong>to</strong>xicologist and direc<strong>to</strong>r of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, responded <strong>to</strong><br />
the EPA’s announcement on 30 June that its initial round of <strong>to</strong>xicity testing on eight dispersants, including<br />
Corexit 9500 found no "biologically significant" endocrine-disrupting effects on the small estuarine fish and<br />
mysid shrimp tested. "We already know that dispersants are less <strong>to</strong>xic than oil if you compare the two," says<br />
Shaw. "But because Corexit contains a petroleum solvent, we're actually putting petroleum solvent on <strong>to</strong>p of<br />
a petroleum spill. So it's increasing the hydrocarbons in the water column." Furthermore, says Shaw, the<br />
dispersant can increase the <strong>to</strong>xicity of the oil for those marine organisms that encounter it. "It's like a delivery<br />
system," says Shaw. "The [dispersed] oil enters the body more readily and it goes in<strong>to</strong> the organs faster."<br />
Dispersion is thought <strong>to</strong> speed up oil degradation because tiny droplets can be more readily metabolized by<br />
oil-eating microbes. Samantha Joye, a biogeochemist at the University of Georgia in Athens disagrees: "It<br />
assumes that the dispersant doesn't impact the microbial community, and we have no idea if that's true or not.<br />
There's just as good a chance that this dispersant is killing off a critical portion of the microbial community as<br />
it is that it's stimulating the breakdown of oil."<br />
Federal Agencies Need <strong>to</strong> Fully Disclose Test Results<br />
Although EPA has listed extensive sampling and analysis plans on the federal spill website, they have not<br />
provided most of the results that they have. They do not describe the chemicals that people are inhaling, nor<br />
do they warn people that many volatile organic chemicals from crude oil can have serious long term health<br />
consequences, including cancer.<br />
Similarly, NOAA has been accused of “hoarding” its Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) data<br />
on the extent and effect of undersea oil plumes. Despite early urgent warnings from independent scientists<br />
that oil suspended in the water column is likely killing wide swaths of sea life, NOAA was slow <strong>to</strong> send out<br />
research vessels <strong>to</strong> probe the extent of the problem. To date, very little of the NRDA data has been released<br />
<strong>to</strong> researchers, presumably because of pending litigation. However, the raw data is being immediately turned<br />
over <strong>to</strong> the Joint Incident Command, and thus <strong>to</strong> the lead defendant, BP.<br />
4
The Need <strong>to</strong> Know<br />
Beyond the 11 men who were killed in the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, the human <strong>to</strong>ll of the Gulf oil<br />
spill is unknown. In past disasters, inadequate public information and protections have caused serious health<br />
problems among responders and local communities that were poorly informed about hazards.<br />
To mitigate past and future damage <strong>to</strong> human and wildlife populations as well as the ocean ecosystem, it is<br />
critical that the federal government and state agencies provide the results of their air, water, seafood,<br />
and other testing <strong>to</strong> the public as soon as the information becomes available.<br />
Withholding information, however well-intentioned, is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. Testing<br />
results must be made available as quickly as possible <strong>to</strong> enable Gulf officials, response workers, and individual<br />
citizens <strong>to</strong> make informed decisions regarding potential health risks and the best courses of action.<br />
We urge federal agencies <strong>to</strong> provide the following <strong>to</strong> ensure the best possible health for<br />
people and wildlife in the Gulf Region:<br />
1. An immediate halt <strong>to</strong> the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly the application of<br />
dispersants at depth.<br />
2. Full disclosure of all the chemical ingredients in the Corexit formulations and full <strong>to</strong>xicity data on these<br />
chemicals in combination with oil – this information should be posted on a website and should include<br />
studies submitted by the manufacturers <strong>to</strong> EPA, not meaningless summaries.<br />
3. A federal site that provides adverse effects information from the previous uses of Corexit dispersants. This<br />
should cover environmental media, wildlife, and human populations. This information was collected after<br />
Corexit 9527 was used in the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.<br />
4. Access <strong>to</strong> the extensive moni<strong>to</strong>ring data that EPA and NOAA have collected documenting what chemicals<br />
are in the air and water and their observed adverse impacts. Only limited summary data have been provided<br />
<strong>to</strong> the public.<br />
5. Funding for independent research on short-term and long-term impacts; money that is available <strong>to</strong><br />
qualified researchers NOW, not months later (as in the Exxon Valdez spill) when exposure has lessened and<br />
impacts will be difficult, if not impossible, <strong>to</strong> document.<br />
5
References<br />
Anderson, B.S., Arenella-Parkerson, D., Phillips, B.M., Tjeerdema, R.S., Crane, D., 2009. Preliminary investigation of the effects<br />
of dispersed Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil on developing <strong>to</strong>psmelt embryos, Atherinops affinis. Environmental Pollution 157,<br />
1058-1061.<br />
Barron, M.G., Carls, M.G., Short, J.W., Rice, S.D., 2003. Pho<strong>to</strong>enhanced <strong>to</strong>xicity of aqueous phase and chemically dispersed<br />
weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil <strong>to</strong> Pacific herring eggs and larvae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry<br />
22, 650-660.<br />
Bhattacharyya, S., Klerks, P.L., Nyman, J.A., 2003. Toxicity <strong>to</strong> freshwater organisms from oils and oil spill chemical treatments<br />
in labora<strong>to</strong>ry microcosms. Environmental Pollution 122, , 205-215.<br />
Burns, K. and Harbut, M.R., 2010. Gulf Oil Spill Hazards, Sciencecorps, Lexing<strong>to</strong>n, MA, June 14, 2010. Available at<br />
http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards.htm<br />
Chapman, H., Purnell, K., Law, R.J., Kirby, M.F., 2007. The use of chemical dispersants <strong>to</strong> combat oil spills at sea: A review of<br />
practice and research needs in Europe. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 827-838.<br />
Couillard, C.M., Lee, K., Légaré, B., King, T.L., 2005. Effect of dispersant on the composition of the water-accommodated<br />
fraction of crude oil and its <strong>to</strong>xicity <strong>to</strong> larval marine fish. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24, 1496-1504.<br />
Deepwater Horizon Response Consolidated Fish & Wildlife Report July 14, 2010. Available at:<br />
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/.<br />
Dye, C.W., Frydenborg, R.B., 1980. Oil dispersants and the environmental consequences of their usage: A literature review.<br />
Technical Series. State of Florida - Department of Environmental Regulation.<br />
Epstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, et al. 2000. Toxicity of third generation dispersants and dispersed Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea coral<br />
larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(6), 497-503.<br />
Fisher, W.S., Foss, S.S., 1993. A simple test for <strong>to</strong>xicity of Number 2 fuel oil and oil dispersants <strong>to</strong> embryos of grass<br />
shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 385-391.<br />
Gulec, I., Holdway, D.A., 1997. Toxicity of dispersant, oil, and dispersed oil <strong>to</strong> two marine organisms. 1997 International<br />
Oil Spill Conference, pp. 1010-1011.<br />
Ibemesim, R.I., Bamidele, J.F., 2008. Comparative <strong>to</strong>xicity of two oil types and two dispersants on the growth of a<br />
seashore grass, Paspalum vaginatum (swartz). International Oil Spill Conference - IOSC 2008, Proceedings, pp. 875-880.<br />
Johanson, G., Boman, A., 1991. Percutaneous absorption of 2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol vapour in human subjects. British Journal of Industrial<br />
Medicine 48, 788-792.<br />
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health, 2010. Oil Spill Health Effect Summary: MS Canyon 252<br />
Oil Spill Surveillance Report Week 24 06/13/2010 <strong>to</strong> 06/19/2010. Available at http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/.<br />
NALCO 2010. Material Safety Data Sheet Corexit EC9500A.<br />
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9500A_MSDS.539287.pdf<br />
NALCO 2010. Material Safety Data Sheet Corexit EC9527A.<br />
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9527A_MSDS.539295.pdf<br />
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 2005. Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. Available at:<br />
http://www.hap.edu/catalog/11283.html<br />
Negri, A.P., Heyward, A.J., 2000. Inhibition of fertilization and larval metamorphosis of the coral Acropora millepora<br />
(Ehrenberg, 1834) by petroleum products. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41, 420-427.<br />
Peterson, C.H., Rice, S.D., Short, J.W., Esler, D., Bodkin, J.L., Ballachey, B.E., Irons, D.B., 2003. Long-term ecosystem<br />
response <strong>to</strong> the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302, 2082-2986.<br />
Ramachandran, S. D., Hodson, P.V. Khan, C.W. Lee, K. 2004. Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by fish exposed <strong>to</strong> crude oil.<br />
Eco<strong>to</strong>xicology and Environmental Safety 59(3), 300-308.<br />
Rho<strong>to</strong>n, S.L., Perkins, R.A., Richter, Z.D., Behr-Andres, C., Lindstrom, J.E., Braddock, J.F., 1998?. Toxicity of dispersants and<br />
dispersed oil <strong>to</strong> an Alaskan marine organism. International Oil Spill Conference, pp. 8485-8488<br />
Scarlett, A., Galloway, T.S., Canty, M., Smith, E.L., Nilsson, J., Rowland, S.J., 2005. Comparative <strong>to</strong>xicity of two oil dispersants,<br />
Superdispersant-25 and Corexit 9527, <strong>to</strong> a range of coastal species. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24, 1219-<br />
1227<br />
Shafir, S., Van Rijn, J., Rinkevich, B., 2007. Short and long term <strong>to</strong>xicity of crude oil and oil dispersants <strong>to</strong> two representative<br />
coral species. Environmental Science and Technology 41, 5571-5574.<br />
Shaw, S.D. 2010. Imperiled Gulf: A Marine Toxicologist’s Perspective. TEDXOIlSpill, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC, June 28.<br />
http://www.tedxoilspill.com/<br />
Shaw, S.D. 2010. CNN Live Rick’s List, New Orleans, July 9<br />
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service: Agency for Toxic Substances and<br />
Disease Registry 1999 Toxicological profile for <strong>to</strong>tal petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Atlanda GA. Available at:<br />
<br />
U.S Environmental Protection Agency 2010. Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (EGBE) (CAS No. 111-76-<br />
2) Washing<strong>to</strong>n DC Available at <br />
Consensus Statement drafted by Dr. Susan D. Shaw, Marine Environmental Research Institute, www.meriresearch.org July 16, 2010<br />
6
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Residual<br />
Tar Product Sourced from Crude Oil Released during the Deepwater<br />
Horizon MC252 Spill of National Significance<br />
James H “Rip” Kirby III,<br />
University of South Florida, Dept of Geology, 4202 E Fowler Ave, SCA 528, Tampa, FL 33620<br />
jkirby@usf.edu<br />
ABSTRACT<br />
Crude oil product washed ashore in the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) starting in<br />
late April 2010. Field expeditions in May 2010 were conducted <strong>to</strong> baseline the pristine<br />
conditions of the beaches were done prior <strong>to</strong> arrival of crude oil product. Field work <strong>to</strong><br />
collect tar product samples for a trend analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons<br />
(PAH) concentration levels started in late March 2011 and ended in November 2011. Six<br />
sample sets were collected approximately at one month intervals and submitted for<br />
analysis. A <strong>to</strong>tal of 71 samples were tested. Tests for 38 different PAH analytes were<br />
done on 48 samples. Oil range organics (ORO) tests were done on 23 samples.<br />
Compared <strong>to</strong> the Immediately Dangerous <strong>to</strong> Life or Health (IDLH) or carcinogenic<br />
exposure limit for PAH analytes listed as coal tar derivatives, 90% of the positively<br />
identified analytes exceeded the IDLH limit. The use of ultraviolet light equipment in<br />
the field showed distinct fluorescent <strong>responses</strong> <strong>to</strong> illumination by a 370nm UV light<br />
source. UV light equipment was found <strong>to</strong> be very efficient in identifying tar product on<br />
the beach for evaluating the visual level of contamination on the beach. Fluorescent<br />
<strong>responses</strong> from tar product found in the field and labora<strong>to</strong>ry created tar product were<br />
measured by fluorometry equipment. The collection area was between Waveland, MS<br />
and Cape San Blas, FL. Most sampling efforts centered on the AL and NW FL<br />
Panhandle shorelines.<br />
Keywords: Tar product, Macondo, oil pollution, dispersant, Corexit®, fluorescence, UV<br />
light, beach, swash zone, plunge step, contaminated sediment, <strong>to</strong>xicants, PAH<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Shortly after the accidental sinking of the MDV Deepwater Horizon (DWH) and<br />
subsequent release of crude oil in<strong>to</strong> the waters of the GOM, the USCG declared the<br />
accident a Spill of National Significance (SONS), the first ever declaration for an oil spill.<br />
On May 10-11, 2010, the author and a team of geologists conducted a beach front study<br />
on behalf of private property owners in Wal<strong>to</strong>n County, FL and Destin, FL <strong>to</strong> determine<br />
a baseline for the exact level of any contamination that may have been present prior <strong>to</strong><br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 1 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
the expected arrival of crude oil from the SONS accident site. Results were conclusive<br />
that no contamination was present. This comports with the physical inspections<br />
conducted by geologists moni<strong>to</strong>ring the NW Florida panhandle coastline since August<br />
2004 as part of the USF Coastal Research Lab’s hurricane impact studies. Prior <strong>to</strong> the<br />
arrival of crude oil along the coastline of the northern GOM in Alabama and NW<br />
Florida, no physical signs of oil pollution were encountered.<br />
USCG and other agencies collected crude oil and weathered tar product from the<br />
coastal zone. Tests by the EPA and USGS established fingerprint techniques and<br />
standards for identifying contaminants as being sourced from the DWH accident site.<br />
The samples collected for this study were not fingerprinted for identifying the source of<br />
the tar product collected. Samples were collected <strong>to</strong> determine the level of <strong>to</strong>xic PAH<br />
material contained in those samples. The UV signature of the tar sample was used <strong>to</strong><br />
visually identify the probability of the sample as having been treated with Corexit®<br />
brand dispersants. Determining the <strong>to</strong>xicity of tar product was the main focus of this<br />
research effort. Identification of the provenance of tar product was not part of this<br />
sample collection and analysis effort.<br />
The contamination from crude oil and subsequent tar product it created negatively<br />
affected the <strong>to</strong>urism industry and the fishing industry, both economically and<br />
environmentally. The determination of the <strong>to</strong>xicity of tar product remaining in the<br />
environment and whether there is any extraordinary affect of Corexit® brand<br />
dispersants on the behavior of the resulting tar product provides information that links<br />
the economic and environmental aspects <strong>to</strong>gether. Tourism in the northern GOM<br />
declined sharply following the SONS event. Maritime fishing areas were closed down<br />
during the clean up response effort. These industries have begun <strong>to</strong> recover<br />
economically, but the environmental damage from persistently <strong>to</strong>xic PAH levels in tar<br />
product is still being studied and is not fully unders<strong>to</strong>od.<br />
Results of current field work show that the swash zone is a major area where tar<br />
product is concentrating. Field investigations in the affected area (Figure 1) conducted<br />
after crude oil arrived in the coastal zone of the northern GOM showed a pattern of<br />
shoreline concentration along the plunge step (Figure 2) that forms during certain wave<br />
conditions. Specifically when a plunge step forms at the base of the wave run-up slope,<br />
tar product in the form of small flakes <strong>to</strong> large tar patties, are frequently found mixed<br />
in<strong>to</strong> the shell debris at the base of the plunge step. This was observed in several<br />
different locations along northern GOM coastal beaches whenever a plunge step formed<br />
in the swash zone.<br />
The plunge step area forms in response <strong>to</strong> low energy, small wave conditions that<br />
are continuous over 2-4 tidal cycles. Once formed, the plunge step maintains its<br />
geomorphic shape until higher energy, larger waves flatten the swash zone beach face<br />
and its attendant plunge step. During the destruction of the plunge step, field<br />
investigations did not find tar product <strong>to</strong> be present in high volumes in the sediment of<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 2 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
the area where the plunge step previously existed. Observations indicate that any<br />
weathered tar product sequestered in the plunge step area was remobilized in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
long shore swash zone and likely moved landward at high tide <strong>to</strong> be stranded in the<br />
back beach wrack line area.<br />
During the collection time period, which roughly coincided with the annual<br />
hurricane season, tar product collected by researchers and trained volunteers was found<br />
during daylight and at night. Night operations used UV light sources that would cause<br />
the tar product <strong>to</strong> fluoresce a distinct yellow-orange color (550-630nm wavelength).<br />
Clean glass bottles were used <strong>to</strong> hold the samples until processed for lab analysis.<br />
Containers were s<strong>to</strong>red in cold s<strong>to</strong>rage at 38°F or less in a dedicated refrigera<strong>to</strong>r while<br />
being held for processing. Processing involved examining the samples under controlled<br />
conditions using ambient and UV light sources, recording imagery of the fluorescent<br />
signature or lack thereof, and documenting the date, time, and location of the collected<br />
specimen on a chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy receipt. Samples were packed in coolers surrounded by<br />
bagged ice and shipped overnight via FedEx <strong>to</strong> the lab in Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA.<br />
The lab analyzed the samples for PAH analytes (see lab reports in the appendix)<br />
using method SW 8272-Modified by Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries. Data was<br />
reported in both PDF and comma delimited formats. The PDF files are attached in the<br />
appendix and represent the official certified reports. The comma-delimited format was<br />
used for processing data found in the tables in this report. All the data was processed<br />
through a combination of FileMaker Pro v8.5 and MS Excel spreadsheet software<br />
programs.<br />
During the research effort, the use of ultraviolet light from handheld equipment<br />
allowed weathered tar product <strong>to</strong> be easily detected at night. The UV light source<br />
wavelength was 365-370nm. The same light source was used in the lab <strong>to</strong> distinguish<br />
fluorescent signatures of labora<strong>to</strong>ry created tar product from crude oil and dispersant<br />
products supplied <strong>to</strong> the USF Coastal Research Lab by BP and Nalco.<br />
FINDINGS<br />
1. Tar product is being remobilized along the shorelines of the northern GOM when<br />
higher energy wave sets eroded and redeposit beach sediment.<br />
a. Field investigations have shown that low energy conditions will create plunge<br />
step morphology that effectively concentrates tar product and shell debris at its<br />
base. Tar product will adhere <strong>to</strong> the shell material.<br />
b. Low energy wave conditions that help create plunge step morphology result from<br />
what is generally regarded as “good weather” for recreational activities on the<br />
beach. In response <strong>to</strong> such conditions, visi<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> the beach tend <strong>to</strong> increase in<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 3 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
number. More people at the beach means a higher probability of human contact<br />
with tar product found in the plunge step area.<br />
2. Weathered tar product sourced from crude oil dispersed with Corexit® brand<br />
chemical dispersants were found <strong>to</strong> have PAH concentrations consistently in excess<br />
of the IDLH limits (80mg/m³) as stated in the NIOSH/OSHA Occupational Health<br />
Guidelines for Chemical Hazards and published in the NIOSH Pocket Guide <strong>to</strong><br />
Chemical Hazards, 2007 (third printing).<br />
a. From March <strong>to</strong> November, 2011, weathered tar product samples were collected for<br />
analysis. The collection area ranged from Cape San Blas, FL <strong>to</strong> Waveland, MS.<br />
There were 26 primary sample collection sites (Table 1). When primary sites<br />
displayed wider contamination levels, sub-sampling was done at that primary<br />
site. An additional 6 sub-sampling variations occurred <strong>to</strong> make a <strong>to</strong>tal of 32<br />
sample locations. Most samples were collected along beaches in Alabama and NW<br />
Florida counties of Escambia and Wal<strong>to</strong>n. Of the 32 collection sites, only 3 were<br />
found <strong>to</strong> be free of PAH contamination. Of those 32 collection sites, 26 had<br />
contamination levels in excess of the IDLH for PAH analytes (Table 2).<br />
b. Seventy one samples were collected at roughly one month intervals and sent <strong>to</strong><br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ry, a certified analytical lab in Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA.<br />
Twenty three were ORO tests and 48 were PAH tests. The analytical reports are<br />
included in the appendix. Of the 48 samples submitted for PAH analysis, 90% of<br />
these returned detection values of PAH analytes at concentration levels that<br />
exceeded the IDLH (Table 3).<br />
3. Published scientific documentation shows that microbial degradation<br />
(biodegradation) of crude oil is the natural and primary remediation path for crude<br />
oil that can’t be physically or chemically removed from the environment.<br />
a. The life cycle of weathered tar product created from crude oil sources that pollute<br />
shorelines downdrift of oil spill incident locations is well known. Wilcock et al,<br />
(1996) reported:<br />
i. The main influence on PAH persistence is biological degradation by bacteria,<br />
fungi and physical weathering<br />
ii. Biodegradation of PAHs with fewer than four rings readily occurred in the<br />
first month. Compounds with higher molecular weights persisted much<br />
longer, in some cases greater than 200 weeks.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 4 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
iii. Total concentrations of PAH mass rapidly declined during the first few days<br />
after application with a reported 38% loss during the first tidal cycle. After<br />
that, levels declined slowly and consistently finally yielding an approximate<br />
half-life of 200 + 100 days.<br />
b. The data reported by Wilcock et al, (1996) did not mirror the reported data on the<br />
samples collected for analysis along the northern GOM coast. The high<br />
concentration levels of PAH analytes remained consistent throughout the sample<br />
collection time period. The only difference between the two situations was that<br />
PAH compounds studied by Wilcock et al, (1996) had not been treated with<br />
Corexit® dispersant.<br />
c. The study by Wilcock et al, (1996) is one of many that support the concept of<br />
biological degradation of weathered crude oil product in coastal zone<br />
environments as a primary mechanism for the remediation of crude oil pollutants<br />
that contaminate shorelines. They also reported that areas with higher levels of<br />
pollution from more frequent incidents of spills likely have “microbial adaption”<br />
evident that result in more rapid biological degradation of the hydrocarbon<br />
pollutants from those more frequent incidents. Given the lack of oil spill impacts<br />
on the coastlines of NW Florida and the rare oil spill frequency on Alabama<br />
beaches, it is doubtful that any natural selection favoring bacteria that are more<br />
<strong>to</strong>lerant of <strong>to</strong>xic oil concentrations and more aggressive in consumption<br />
capabilities has occurred.<br />
4. Corexit® dispersant is <strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> the two main species of bacteria known <strong>to</strong> biodegrade<br />
crude oil in situ.<br />
a. Hamden and Fulmer (2011) of the US Naval Research Labora<strong>to</strong>ry in Washing<strong>to</strong>n<br />
DC, published an article titled the Effects of Corexit® EC9500A on bacteria from a<br />
beach oiled by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Their results found that, at concentrations<br />
that did not pose a significant hazard <strong>to</strong> adult test organisms, “...dispersants may<br />
be highly <strong>to</strong>xic <strong>to</strong> communities directly involved in natural hydrocarbon<br />
bioremediation.” They concluded that “The results of the current study<br />
demonstrate that microbial populations are susceptible <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>xicity from the use of<br />
COREXIT® EC9500A when applied at prescribed concentrations.”<br />
b. Given the estimate by Wilcock et al, of less than a year for microbial degradation<br />
<strong>to</strong> remove crude oil with low molecular weights from the environment in warm<br />
water environments, the persistency of <strong>to</strong>xic PAH levels supports the conclusion<br />
by Hamden and Fulmer on the negative impact of Corexit® on microbial<br />
populations that biodegrade oil product in situ. In addition, large tar product<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 5 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
remobilization events now occur along the affected coastline. If microbial<br />
degradation were occurring on the schedule and scale that was predicted by<br />
Wilcock et al,, these remobilization events would be decreasing in severity and<br />
volume instead of continuing at a fairly constant level.<br />
5. Corexit® brand dispersants used in the oil spill clean up response create a discernible<br />
fluorescent signature when illuminated by 370nm UV light.<br />
a. The author confirmed that field work showing different levels of fluorescent<br />
response from weathered tar product was created by the presence, or lack, of<br />
Corexit® brand dispersants, specifically Corexit® 9500A and Corexit® 9527A<br />
(Figure 3). In labora<strong>to</strong>ry experiments, a red shift was confirmed in crude oil<br />
product that had been exposed <strong>to</strong> Corexit® brand dispersants and allowed <strong>to</strong><br />
weather in controlled conditions. By positively identifying residual tar product as<br />
containing Corexit® dispersant through the correlation of its fluorescent response<br />
<strong>to</strong> illumination by UV light and its relative ratio of Corexit® brand dispersant <strong>to</strong><br />
crude oil, the author provides a <strong>to</strong>ol for identifying tar product as having high<br />
probabilities of <strong>to</strong>xic levels of PAH compounds that need physical removal.<br />
b. Field use of the UV light showed that it was an effective <strong>to</strong>ol <strong>to</strong> identify tar<br />
product when used in low ambient light conditions such as early evening and<br />
night operations. It easily allowed identification of tar product without additional<br />
special equipment.<br />
6. Corexit® brand dispersants used in the oil spill clean up response could provide a<br />
mechanism for leaching of PAH compounds found in weathered tar product in<strong>to</strong><br />
lower layers of beach sediment. The probable mechanism is the hydrophilic property<br />
of the dispersant that is attracted <strong>to</strong> water percolating through a sediment layer<br />
containing contaminants affected by Corexit® brand dispersants. Supporting this<br />
hypothesis is a Gas Chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy Mass Spectrometric result from a field analysis<br />
of contaminated sediment in samples recovered from trenches on the beach of Orange<br />
Beach, AL. It showed the presence of the same PAH compounds in upper and lower<br />
layers of sediment. The lower layer was supposedly clean and free from<br />
contamination.<br />
a. In Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2010, the author identified highly contaminated layers of beach<br />
sediment (Figure 4) that included oil coated sand grains and surface residual tar<br />
product. These layers were identified using UV light <strong>to</strong> create a fluorescent<br />
response that matched previous samples of contaminated sediment found at<br />
locations reported by the USCG <strong>to</strong> contain crude oil product from the DWH spill.<br />
Characteristics of the depositional layering of the oil coated sand grains indicate<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 6 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
eolian transport and deposition in the upper 20cm of the active surface in the back<br />
beach area. Eolian deposition is the most reasonable deposition conclusion where<br />
wave run up does not occur unless s<strong>to</strong>rm conditions are present. Larger, residual<br />
tar product was likely buried in this layer by vehicular and beach cleaning<br />
equipment.<br />
b. The presence of Corexit® dispersant in the tar product was confirmed by positive<br />
fluorescent signatures produced by the contaminated sediment when illuminated<br />
by a 370nm wavelength high intensity UV lamp (Horizon 1 in Figure 4).<br />
However, the lower, contaminated layer (Horizon 2 in Figure 4) did not provide a<br />
fluorescent signature as did the overlying, contaminated layer. This lack of visual<br />
fluorescent response initially led <strong>to</strong> classification of the lower layers as “visually<br />
free of contamination.” Later, the presence of the oil related hydrocarbon<br />
compounds in Horizons 1 and 2 was confirmed by Gas Chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy Mass<br />
Spectrometric methods (Figure 5). The implication is that while the presence of<br />
contamination can be visually confirmed with UV light methods, the lack of a<br />
fluorescent signature does not guarantee a contaminant-free surface or sub-surface<br />
layer that is being illuminated by UV light. It is unknown as <strong>to</strong> why this difference<br />
in fluorescence exists.<br />
7. Corexit® brand dispersants used in the oil spill clean up response increased the<br />
penetration of PAH compounds in<strong>to</strong> the beach sediment which could lead <strong>to</strong> the<br />
contamination of groundwater sources.<br />
a. In 2012, Zuijdgeest et al, while investigating the effect on groundwater<br />
contamination from leached hydrocarbons treated with Corexit® brand<br />
dispersants, concluded that “the application of dispersants <strong>to</strong> oil slicks near shores<br />
with sandy beaches can increase the penetration of PAHs in<strong>to</strong> the beach, which<br />
could lead <strong>to</strong> the contamination of groundwater if concentrations are sufficiently<br />
high.”<br />
b. The conclusions of Zuijdgeest et al, comport with the Gas Chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy Mass<br />
Spectrometric data of the author on the presence of hydrocarbons in lower layers<br />
of beach sediment at Orange Beach, AL and physical observations in the field.<br />
c. Physical observations from the field included the “sniff” test. When crude oil<br />
contaminants first arrived on shore, trenching operations at Orange Beach, AL<br />
conducted <strong>to</strong> find buried tar product and oil released vapors from the buried<br />
contaminants. At times, the odor was strong enough <strong>to</strong> warrant the use of<br />
appropriate PPE filter masks <strong>to</strong> avoid inhaling fumes. Even though no visual<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 7 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
evidence of contamination was present in the lower layers of these trenches, the<br />
odor released from lower layers was obvious as trench sediment was removed.<br />
8. Field observations show that wet skin dermal contact with tar product created from<br />
weathered dispersed crude oil results in immediate absorption in<strong>to</strong> the skin. In this<br />
regard, tar product derived from weathered crude oil dispersed with Corexit® brand<br />
dispersants behaves as though it contains a built-in absorption accelerant. The dermal<br />
absorption is not visible under ambient light conditions, but will show up as a<br />
fluorescent signature in response <strong>to</strong> 370nm UV light illumination of the skin surface.<br />
a. In August 2011, the author found that wet skin contact with residual tar product<br />
created from dispersed crude oil resulted in immediate dermal absorption of the<br />
fluorescing material directly in<strong>to</strong> wet skin. This was not adherence <strong>to</strong> the skin, it<br />
was absorption. No tar product was found stuck <strong>to</strong> the skin surface and nothing<br />
was able <strong>to</strong> be wiped off the skin on<strong>to</strong> another material, such as a paper <strong>to</strong>wel or<br />
rag. Figure 6 shows the area of skin where fluorescing material absorbed under<br />
ambient light conditions. Figure 7 shows the same scene under UV light<br />
conditions. Each fluorescing spot represents an individual absorption event.<br />
Contamination via dermal absorption while in contact with submerged sediments<br />
in the swash zone (Figure 8) had been discounted as highly improbable by the<br />
Florida DOH early in the health threat assessment efforts. It is obvious from visual<br />
evidence in Figures 6 and 7 that wet skin dermal absorption is not only possible,<br />
but rapid and highly efficient. It is important <strong>to</strong> emphasize these points.<br />
i. No tar product was seen attached <strong>to</strong> the legs of the subject during field work.<br />
ii. All contact was done while kneeling on the bot<strong>to</strong>m in shallow water in front<br />
of the plunge step while gathering sediment samples for analysis.<br />
iii. No residue could be removed by wiping a secondary material on the skin<br />
surface. Nothing was adhering <strong>to</strong> the skin that could be physically detected.<br />
iv. No skin samples or biopsies were collected. The only evidence of possible<br />
contamination is the visual detection using UV light <strong>to</strong> fluoresce material that<br />
was absorbed in<strong>to</strong> the skin.<br />
b. Moody, et al, (1995) found that detergents and strong soaps will create additional<br />
forcing mechanisms for the absorption of benzo[a]pyrene across a dermal<br />
boundary. Essentially, the dispersant bound <strong>to</strong> the hydrocarbon operates like a<br />
detergent by accelerating wet skin dermal absorption rates.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 8 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
c. The exact level of <strong>to</strong>xicity in the fluorescing material of the <strong>to</strong>xic tar product is<br />
unknown. However, it is known that the tar product encountered during this wet<br />
skin dermal absorption event included PAH concentration levels that exceeded<br />
the IDLH limits listed on page 74 of the NIOSH Pocket Guide To Chemical<br />
Hazards (2007). For PAH compounds, these fac<strong>to</strong>rs ranged from 110% <strong>to</strong> 2,863% of<br />
the 80mg/m³ carcinogenic limit listed therein.<br />
d. Because of this event. the author contacted two highly qualified <strong>to</strong>xicology<br />
researchers and the FL DOH state <strong>to</strong>xicologist <strong>to</strong> obtain expert opinions on the<br />
likelihood of this absorption mechanism representing a human health risk. Both<br />
independent experts recommended a <strong>to</strong>xicology study be conducted <strong>to</strong> determine<br />
what level of enhanced absorption might result from the presence of Corexit®<br />
dispersant bound <strong>to</strong> hydrocarbon molecules in tar product found in coastal beach<br />
sediments. The FL DOH state <strong>to</strong>xicologist reviewed the information provided and<br />
decided the current model was adequate <strong>to</strong> assess risk and <strong>to</strong>ok no further action.<br />
e. As noted by the various health agencies, avoiding contact with tar product is the<br />
best way <strong>to</strong> prevent contamination. In the case of workers who are involved in<br />
collecting samples or cleaning beaches, appropriate safety precautions <strong>to</strong><br />
minimize and preclude direct contact with tar product should be taken. People<br />
who have been trained in HAZWOPR safety classes should be alerted <strong>to</strong> the fact<br />
that tar product sourced from crude oil treated with Corexit® brand dispersant<br />
will rapidly absorb through a wet skin dermal boundary. Wet skin is not simply<br />
created from swimming, but the use of protective gloves also prevents<br />
perspiration from evaporating. This situation creates wet skin and during the<br />
removal of gloves, inadvertent contact with tar product affected by Corexit®<br />
brand dispersant could easily result in an absorptive event. Risk reduction from<br />
this chronic exposure scenario should be included for HAZWOPR training.<br />
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH<br />
The presence of Corexit® brand dispersant in tar product found on beaches in the<br />
northern GOM is no longer in doubt. Use of Corexit® brand dispersants should be<br />
halted immediately for any and all open water applications. The results of using<br />
Corexit® dispersant are simply unknown at the present time and their effects on the<br />
environment are clearly more widespread in the Gulf of Mexico than previously<br />
thought. Other non-<strong>to</strong>xic dispersants are on the approved National Contingency Plan<br />
(NCP) list for use in clean up operations and, based on labora<strong>to</strong>ry testing <strong>to</strong> date by the<br />
author, are more effective than Corexit® at creating non-<strong>to</strong>xic dispersed oil. Moreover,<br />
models for dermal <strong>to</strong>xicity assessment using hydrocarbon product treated with<br />
dispersant have not yet been evaluated or made known <strong>to</strong> the scientific community and<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 9 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
the effects of exposure over the long term are yet <strong>to</strong> be determined. Given the unknown<br />
<strong>to</strong>xicity and potential for dermal absorption of tar product created from crude oil<br />
dispersed with Corexit® brand dispersants, it is highly recommended that an<br />
immediate examination of this rapid absorption contamination vec<strong>to</strong>r through wet skin<br />
be started. Because <strong>to</strong>xicology studies are beyond the scope of this research effort, it is<br />
hoped by the author that this early release of findings will prompt such an effort <strong>to</strong><br />
occur sooner rather than later.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
The presence of Corexit® brand dispersant treated crude oil as provenance for<br />
weathered tar product can be determined by examining its fluorescent response <strong>to</strong><br />
370nm wavelength UV light. The fluorescent response, or signature, of the tar product<br />
shifts <strong>to</strong>ward red as the amount of dispersant increases. Thus, higher ratios of<br />
dispersant <strong>to</strong> crude oil used during clean up operations can be subjectively determined.<br />
Published research confirms that microbial degradation of tar product is inhibited by<br />
the presence of Corexit® dispersant still bound <strong>to</strong> its molecular structure. Finding tar<br />
product using UV light is a proven solution <strong>to</strong> improving physical removal methods. In<br />
addition, removal of tar product weathered from crude oil dispersed with Corexit®<br />
dispersants would lower the number of contact events and thus reduce human health<br />
and safety risks for recreational water activities at beaches. Toxicology studies <strong>to</strong><br />
determine effects of Corexit® dispersant on dermal absorption rates of carcinogenic<br />
PAHs through wet skin are needed <strong>to</strong> assess risk <strong>to</strong> human health and safety.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
This research was funded primarily by the Surfrider Foundation from financial<br />
support by Patagonia, O'Neill, Norcross Foundation, and individual donors. The USF<br />
Coastal Research Lab provided assistance and equipment. ARA/Vertek provided<br />
equipment and expertise. The numerous volunteers supporting this ongoing project<br />
are gratefully acknowledged and three of them, Jane Kirby, Michael Sturdivant, and<br />
Susan Forsyth, deserve individual honors for going above and beyond the call of duty<br />
in supporting the author’s research. BP P.L.C. and Ecolab-Nalco are acknowledged for<br />
providing crude oil and dispersant product <strong>to</strong> conduct the research. Congressman Jeff<br />
Miller (FL-1) and his staff helped <strong>to</strong> expedite the receipt of necessary products from BP<br />
P.L.C. and Ecolab-Nalco.<br />
COPYRIGHT NOTICE<br />
Analytical Reports require written request and permission from The Surfrider Foundation <strong>to</strong> be copied. Contact the<br />
author <strong>to</strong> coordinate this request. All other material may be reproduced for academic and research purposes with<br />
appropriate citation.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 10 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
FIGURES AND TABLES<br />
Figure 1. Area of operations ranged from Cape San Blas, FL <strong>to</strong> Waveland, MS. The predominant areas<br />
observed were in Orange Beach, AL, Pensacola Beach, FL, Navarre Beach, FL, along with various beaches<br />
in Okaloosa County and Wal<strong>to</strong>n County, FL. Graphic adapted from Google Earth.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 11 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Figure 2. The plunge step is a feature located at the base of the wave run-up slope and is generally<br />
formed in response <strong>to</strong> low energy wave conditions that continue over 2-4 tidal cycles. During this<br />
formation period, the increasing slope and height of the plunge step causes slightly negatively buoyant<br />
material <strong>to</strong> accumulate at the base until a higher energy wave arrives with enough force <strong>to</strong> lift the<br />
material on<strong>to</strong> the wave run-up slope. Tar product is negatively buoyant enough <strong>to</strong> be trapped at the base<br />
of the plunge step along with shell material and other beach debris. Graphic adapted from Encyclopedia<br />
of Coastal Science, 2005, p. 145, Figure B22.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 12 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Figure 3. Crude oil treated with dispersant and allowed <strong>to</strong> weather in labora<strong>to</strong>ry controlled conditions<br />
displayed a red shift of 60nm when illuminated by a 370nm UV light source. This red shift is easily<br />
discerned by the human eye. Field use of the UV light showed that operations conducted after the sun<br />
sets allowed the UV light <strong>to</strong> effectively fluoresce tar product without confusion with other materials that,<br />
under ambient light conditions, could easily be mistaken for tar product. Inspections conducted after<br />
clean up efforts also proved that beaches cleaned during daylight operations did not remove all the tar<br />
product present that could be easily removed.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 13 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Figure 4. Panel “A” - Ambient light imagery of a trench wall dug <strong>to</strong> 75cm below grade. The tan layer is<br />
the contaminated layer that is fluorescing in Panels “B” and “C”. The orange and yellow fluorescent<br />
signature (Horizon 1) indicates contamination by weathered crude oil likely mixed with some unknown<br />
amount of Corexit© brand dispersant during the clean up response. Panel “C” shows the expected<br />
fluorescent response color (violet-purple) of supposedly uncontaminated sand (Horizon 2) below the<br />
contaminated layer. As the GCMS results show in Figure 5, the same contamination in the upper layer is<br />
present in the lower sediments that did not fluoresce.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 14 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Figure 5. Fluorescent signatures indicated contaminated sediment. Sediment below the<br />
contaminated layer did not fluoresce. However, when examined by GCMS equipment,<br />
contamination signatures matched. This indicated that PAH compounds were leaching from the<br />
higher layers in<strong>to</strong> the lower layers. Given the fluorescent color of the contaminated layer, it was<br />
highly likely that the crude oil product had been mixed or treated with Corexit© dispersants<br />
prior <strong>to</strong> making landfall and weathering on the beach. The presence of dispersant bound <strong>to</strong> the<br />
crude oil would make it easier for water percolating downward <strong>to</strong> attach and create a micelle<br />
that could be moved more easily through the water saturated sediment pore spaces during times<br />
of heavy rainfall.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 15 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Figure 6. Ambient light shows no sign of contaminated skin.<br />
Figure 7. UV light shows numerous spots of contamination absorbed in skin.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 16 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Figure 8. Working conditions where the contamination occurred at the west end area of Pensacola Beach.<br />
Bot<strong>to</strong>m contact was constant, but generally less than a minute at any single spot as the sampling team<br />
worked along 200m of shoreline.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 17 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Location<br />
Number<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
17<br />
15<br />
16<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
Google Earth<br />
Latitude (°N)<br />
Google Earth<br />
Longitude (°W) Location Description and Remarks<br />
30.260800 89.403783 Waveland MS - pocket beach; 30° 15.648'N 89° 24.227'W<br />
30.241866 87.721753 Gulf Shores, AL - 30.241866°N 087.721753° W<br />
30.308912 87.372325<br />
30.309523 87.369237<br />
PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R46 - fore beach high water line -<br />
tar balls standed in sand at the end of the wave run up line<br />
PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R47 - mid beach shell debris wrack<br />
line<br />
30.310774 87.363065 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R49 - fore beach shell debris line<br />
30.311425 87.359986<br />
PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R50 - high water wrack line; tar<br />
balls with embedded shell debris<br />
30.313324 87.350726 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R53 - back beach wrack line<br />
30.315202 87.341468<br />
PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R56 - back beach wrack line tar<br />
balls<br />
30.316452 87.335294 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R58 - back beach tar balls<br />
30.324810 87.313411<br />
28.047300 87.216367<br />
30.324767 87.183300<br />
PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R66 - swash zone and plunge step<br />
tar balls<br />
N 28° 2.838' W 87° 12.982' - Offshore, approx 11 miles NE of DWH accident site-<br />
surface oil<br />
FT PICKENS - EAST END, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AREA - 30° 19.486'N<br />
87° 10.998'W"<br />
30.795833 87.166667 WEST END OF P'COLA BEACH, FL - 30° 19' 28.75" N 87° 10' 53.08''W<br />
30.330489 87.141441<br />
30.371807 86.913659<br />
30.377267 86.875550<br />
30.379957 86.860358<br />
30.391050 86.634317<br />
Pcola Bch, FL (Casino Beach due south of the water <strong>to</strong>wer) -N 30.330489° W<br />
087.141441°<br />
N 30° 22’21” W 86°54’50” - Navarre Beach - west end public access at unpaved<br />
prkng lot<br />
N 30° 22.636' W 86° 52.533' - NAVARRE BEACH, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS<br />
AREA<br />
N 30° 22’49” W 86° 51’ 45” - Navarre Pier - east side beach area due south of<br />
picnic lanai area<br />
OK Island - near shore bot<strong>to</strong>m sampling site - due south of the Eglin-western OK<br />
Island boundary<br />
30.403983 86.618017 N 30° 24.239' W 86° 37.081’ - The Boat Marina (oily debris in ICW)<br />
30.383550 86.451683 N 30° 23.013' W 86° 27.101' - Henderson Beach SP<br />
30.368167 86.324467<br />
EAST END OF SAN DESTIN BEACH; boundary with Topsail Hill SP; N 30°<br />
22.090' W 86° 19.468'<br />
30.355541 86.265623 Stallworth Lake outfall -30.354632° 086.263097°<br />
30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples<br />
30.352150 86.251167<br />
DUNE ALLEN BEACH, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AREA - 30° 21.129' N 86°<br />
15.070' W<br />
30.329581 86.172940 West end of Gray<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL - 30° 19' 38"N 86° 10' 26"W<br />
29.724380 84.980860 N 29.72438° W 84.98086° - Appalachicola Bay area<br />
Table 1. Summary of primary collection sites for tar product samples. In addition <strong>to</strong> these 26 primary sites, 6<br />
sites adjacent <strong>to</strong> the most contaminated sites were sampled when conditions warranted. Google Earth was<br />
used as a universal geocoord reference genera<strong>to</strong>r. The local description and remarks are copied from the<br />
Chain of Cus<strong>to</strong>dy forms and show the wide variety of GPS settings used by volunteer workers.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III Page 18 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Line<br />
No.<br />
Google Earth<br />
Latitude (°N)<br />
Google Earth<br />
Longitude (°W)<br />
Location Description and Remarks - 26 Sites with Positive Detects<br />
1 30.260800 89.403783 Waveland MS - pocket beach; 30° 15.648'N 89° 24.227'W 0 10 10<br />
2 30.241866 87.721753 Gulf Shores, AL - 30.241866°N 087.721753° W 0 6 6<br />
3 30.309523 87.369237 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R47 - mid beach shell debris wrack line 0 2 2<br />
4 30.310774 87.363065 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R49 - fore beach shell debris line 0 2 2<br />
5 30.313324 87.350726 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R53 - back beach wrack line 0 2 2<br />
6 30.315202 87.341468 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R56 - back beach wrack line tar balls 0 2 2<br />
7 30.316452 87.335294 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R58 - back beach tar balls 0 2 2<br />
8 30.324810 87.313411 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R66 - swash zone tar balls 0 4 4<br />
9 30.324810 87.313411 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R66 - plunge step tar balls 0 3 3<br />
10 28.047300 87.216367 N 28° 2.838' W 87° 12.982' - Offshore, approx 11 miles NE of DWH accident site- surface oil 0 22 22<br />
11 30.324767 87.183300 FT PICKENS - EAST END, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AREA - 30° 19.486'N 87° 10.998'W" 1 4 4<br />
12 30.330489 87.141441 Pcola Bch, FL (Casino Beach due south of the water <strong>to</strong>wer) -N 30.330489° W 087.141441° 0 6 6<br />
13 30.330700 87.140917 Pcola Bch, FL (Casino Beach due south of the water <strong>to</strong>wer) -N 30° 19.842' W087° 8.455' 0 4 4<br />
14 30.371807 86.913659 N 30° 22’21” W 86°54’50” - Navarre Beach - west end public access at unpaved prkng lot 1 10 10<br />
15 30.403983 86.618017 N 30° 24.239' W 86° 37.081’ - The Boat Marina (oily debris in ICW) 1 0 0<br />
16 30.383550 86.451683 N 30° 23.013' W 86° 27.101' - Henderson Beach SP 1 0 0<br />
17 30.368167 86.324467 EAST END OF SAN DESTIN BEACH; boundary with Topsail Hill SP; N 30° 22.090' W 86° 19.468' 1 4 4<br />
18 30.354632 86.263097 Stallworth Lake outfall -30.354632° 086.263097° 0 5 5<br />
19 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.112' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples - swash zone 1 30 30<br />
20 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples -SL001 0 10 10<br />
21 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples -SL002 0 7 7<br />
22 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples -SL003 0 6 6<br />
23 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples -SL004 0 9 8<br />
24 30.352150 86.251167 DUNE ALLEN BEACH, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AREA - 30° 21.129' N 86° 15.070' W 1 1 1<br />
25 30.329581 86.172940 West end of Gray<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL - 30° 19' 38"N 86° 10' 26"W 0 13 13<br />
26 29.724380 84.980860 N 29.72438° W 84.98086° - Appalachicola Bay area 0 22 22<br />
Sub<strong>to</strong>tals 7 186 185<br />
Line<br />
No.<br />
Google Earth<br />
Latitude (°N)<br />
Google Earth<br />
Longitude (°W)<br />
Location Description and Remarks - 29 Collection Sites for "J" Detects<br />
1 30.260800 89.403783 Waveland MS - pocket beach; 30° 15.648'N 89° 24.227'W 0 3 3<br />
2 30.241866 87.721753 Gulf Shores, AL - 30.241866°N 087.721753° W 0 2 2<br />
3 30.309523 87.369237 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R47 - mid beach shell debris wrack line 0 2 2<br />
4 30.310774 87.363065 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R49 - fore beach shell debris line 0 1 1<br />
5 30.315202 87.341468 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R56 - back beach wrack line tar balls 0 1 1<br />
6 30.316452 87.335294 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R58 - back beach tar balls 0 2 2<br />
7 30.324810 87.313411 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R66 - swash zone tar balls 0 2 0<br />
8 30.324810 87.313411 PERDIDO KEY - GINS, Johnson Beach; CSM R66 - plunge step tar balls 0 2 2<br />
9 28.047300 87.216367 N 28° 2.838' W 87° 12.982' - Offshore, approx 11 miles NE of DWH accident site- surface oil 0 2 2<br />
10 30.324767 87.183300 FT PICKENS - EAST END, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AREA - 30° 19.486'N 87° 10.998'W" 0 8 8<br />
11 30.330489 87.141441 Pcola Bch, FL (Casino Beach due south of the water <strong>to</strong>wer) -N 30.330489° W 087.141441° 0 4 4<br />
12 30.330489 87.141441 Pcola Bch, FL (Casino Beach due south of the water <strong>to</strong>wer) -N 30.330489° W 087.141441° 0 2 2<br />
13 30.32725 87.119503 PensacolaBch002 30° 19.635'N 87° 07.171'W - 14th street dive site 1 2 0<br />
14 30.371807 86.913659 N 30° 22’21” W 86°54’50” - Navarre Beach - west end public access at unpaved prkng lot 0 2 2<br />
15 30.372533 86.875750 NavarreBch001 30° 22.352'N 86° 52.545'W - nearshore dive site (60') 1 0 0<br />
16 30.379957 86.860358 N 30° 22’49” W 86° 51’ 45” - Navarre Pier - east side beach area due south of picnic lanai area 0 1 1<br />
17 30.403983 86.618017 N 30° 24.239' W 86° 37.081’ - The Boat Marina (oily debris in ICW) 1 10 10<br />
18 30.388683 86.613200 OK Island - near shore bot<strong>to</strong>m sampling site - 004 1 0 0<br />
19 30.368167 86.324467 EAST END OF SAN DESTIN BEACH; boundary with Topsail Hill SP; N 30° 22.090' W 86° 19.468' 0 4 4<br />
20 30.347705 86.266352 Stallworth001 30° 20.860'N 86° 15.984'W - nearshore SCUBA sample 4 0 0<br />
21 30.351867 86.261050 Stallworth Swash Zone - sand bar samples - N 30° 21.112' W086° 15.663' 0 26 22<br />
22 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples - SL001 0 3 0<br />
23 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples - SL002 0 4 0<br />
24 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples - SL003 0 1 1<br />
25 30.354583 86.261050 N 30° 21.275' W086° 15.663' - Stallworth area beach samples - SL004 0 1 0<br />
26 30.352150 86.251167 DUNE ALLEN BEACH, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AREA 30° 21.130'N 86° 15.100'W 1 5 0<br />
27 30.352150 86.251167 DUNE ALLEN BEACH, FL; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AREA - 30° 21.129' N 86° 15.070' W 0 8 3<br />
28 30.329581 86.172940 West end of Gray<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL - 30° 19' 38"N 86° 10' 26"W 0 3 0<br />
29 29.724380 84.980860 N 29.72438° W 84.98086° - Appalachicola Bay area 0 4 4<br />
Sub<strong>to</strong>tals 9 105 76<br />
Summary - Out of 32 <strong>to</strong>tal locations, there were only 3 where PAH analytes were NOT detected during 6 months<br />
of moni<strong>to</strong>ring.<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III Page 19 of 21<br />
ORO<br />
hits<br />
ORO<br />
hits<br />
ORO<br />
hits<br />
PAH<br />
hits<br />
PAH<br />
hits<br />
PAH<br />
hits<br />
No. Hits<br />
> IDLH<br />
No. Hits<br />
> IDLH<br />
No. Hits<br />
> IDLH<br />
Grand Totals 16 291 261<br />
Table 2. Summary of location and counts for PAH and ORO detects from sample population. Note that of the 32 locations, only 3 did not prove <strong>to</strong> be contaminated. Those 3 sites<br />
were nearshore bot<strong>to</strong>m sediment sites accessed by SCUBA teams. Of the 29 terrestrial locations, 26 contained contamination levels in excess of the IDLH for PAH analytes. Positive<br />
detects are concentration levels that exceed the labora<strong>to</strong>ry's reporting detection limit (RDL) for equipment and procedures used in the analysis. "J" detects are concentration levels that<br />
exceed the labora<strong>to</strong>ry's method detection limit (MDL) for equipment and procedures used in the analysis, but did not exceed the RDL. "J" detects are considered <strong>to</strong> have a larger<br />
margin of error than positive detects. Both are considered <strong>to</strong> be positive indica<strong>to</strong>rs of the presence of analytes detected at that concentration level.
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
Parameter (Total Samples per<br />
Parameter = 48)<br />
Positive<br />
Detects<br />
Count<br />
Count of<br />
Positive<br />
Detects ><br />
IDLH<br />
Percentage of<br />
Total Samples<br />
with Positive<br />
Detects<br />
Minimum<br />
Level<br />
Detected<br />
(ppb)<br />
Chrysene 30 27 62.500% 1.1300<br />
C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 29 29 60.417% 279.0000<br />
C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 29 29 60.417% 309.0000<br />
C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 25 24 52.083% 1,080.0000<br />
C1-Chrysenes 21 20 43.750% 2.1000<br />
C2-Chrysenes 19 18 39.583% 2.3900<br />
Benzo(e)pyrene 13 8 27.083% 1.1500<br />
C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13 13 27.083% 195.0000<br />
C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 9 9 18.750% 3,070.0000<br />
C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 9 9 18.750% 1,690.0000<br />
C2-Fluorenes 9 9 18.750% 3,320.0000<br />
C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 9 9 18.750% 97.9000<br />
Phenanthrene 9 7 18.750% 21.8000<br />
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 3 14.583% 1.7700<br />
Pyrene 7 4 14.583% 8.1100<br />
C3-Chrysenes 6 6 12.500% 185.0000<br />
C3-Fluorenes 6 6 12.500% 292.0000<br />
C1-Fluorenes 5 5 10.417% 1,210.0000<br />
Benzo(a)anthracene 4 2 8.333% 0.7730<br />
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4 1 8.333% 1.8200<br />
Fluoranthene 4 1 8.333% 0.9570<br />
Benzo(a)pyrene 3 2 6.250% 1.7500<br />
C2-Naphthalenes 3 3 6.250% 60,400.0000<br />
C3-Naphthalenes 3 3 6.250% 158,000.0000<br />
C4-Naphthalenes 3 3 6.250% 129,000.0000<br />
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 2 4.167% 302.0000<br />
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2 2 4.167% 291.0000<br />
Fluorene 2 2 4.167% 5,160.0000<br />
1-Methylnaphthalene 1 1 2.083% -<br />
2-Methylnaphthalene 1 1 2.083% -<br />
Acenaphthene 1 0 2.083% -<br />
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 1 2.083% 422.0000<br />
Naphthalene 1 1 2.083% 771.0000<br />
Perylene 1 1 2.083% 8,840.0000<br />
2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0 0 0.000% -<br />
Acenaphthylene 0 0 0.000% -<br />
Anthracene 0 0 0.000% -<br />
C4-Chrysenes 0 0 0.000% -<br />
Oil Range Organics (23 <strong>to</strong>tal<br />
samples tested) 16 2 69.565% 2,650.0000<br />
Maximum<br />
Level<br />
Detected<br />
(ppb)<br />
74,600.00<br />
690,000.00<br />
580,000.00<br />
390,000.00<br />
159,000.00<br />
194,000.00<br />
16,700.00<br />
255,000.00<br />
199,000.00<br />
305,000.00<br />
246,000.00<br />
237,000.00<br />
108,000.00<br />
1,910.00<br />
50,400.00<br />
155,000.00<br />
242,000.00<br />
136,000.00<br />
36,100.00<br />
Max % of<br />
Carcinogenic<br />
IDLH Level<br />
(80ppb)<br />
93250%<br />
862500%<br />
725000%<br />
487500%<br />
198750%<br />
242500%<br />
20875%<br />
318750%<br />
248750%<br />
381250%<br />
307500%<br />
296250%<br />
135000%<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III Page 20 of 21<br />
262.00<br />
450.00<br />
14,100.00<br />
198,000.00<br />
360,000.00<br />
263,000.00<br />
7,430.00<br />
4,920.00<br />
26,000.00<br />
22,300.00<br />
25,100.00<br />
34.00<br />
422.00<br />
771.00<br />
8,840.00<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-<br />
15,900,000.00<br />
2388%<br />
63000%<br />
193750%<br />
302500%<br />
170000%<br />
45125%<br />
328%<br />
563%<br />
17625%<br />
247500%<br />
450000%<br />
328750%<br />
9288%<br />
6150%<br />
32500%<br />
27875%<br />
31375%<br />
Table 3. Parameter Count of Detects and Percentages of IDLH Exposure Limits. ORO Target Clean Up Level is 1,800,000 ppb.<br />
Only 23 samples of ORO sediment were collected vs 48 for other analytes. The IDLH limit for these PAHs is 80ppb.<br />
43%<br />
528%<br />
964%<br />
11050%<br />
0%<br />
0%<br />
0%<br />
0%<br />
883%
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
References and Literature Cited<br />
1. Northern Gulf of Mexico. (2012). N 30° 20' W086° 53', Sea Level. Image 2012<br />
TerraMetrics, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO. Google Earth Image.<br />
[Accessed April 10, 2012]. Available from: http://www.google.com/earth/<br />
index.html.<br />
2. SCHWARTZ, MAURICE L. (ed). (2005). Encyclopedia of Coastal Science. Netherlands:<br />
Springer. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3880-1_31, p. 145, Figure B22<br />
3. Wilcock, R. J., Corban, G. A., Northcott, G. L., Wilkins, A. L. and Langdon, A. G.<br />
(1996). Persistence of polycyclic aromatic compounds of different molecular size and<br />
water solubility in surficial sediment of an intertidal sandflat.. Environmental<br />
Toxicology and Chemistry. 15, pp.670-676.<br />
4. Richard P. Moody, Brita Nadeau, Ih Chu (1995). In vivo and in vitro dermal absorption of<br />
benzo[a]pyrene in rat, guinea pig, human and tissue-cultured skin. Journal of Derma<strong>to</strong>logical<br />
Science. 9, pp.48-58.<br />
5. Leila J. Hamdan, Pres<strong>to</strong>n A. Fulmer (2011). Effects of COREXIT® EC9500A on bacteria<br />
from a beach oiled by the Deepwater Horizon spill. AQUATIC MICROBIAL ECOLOGY. 63,<br />
pp.101-109.<br />
6. Alissa Zuijdgeest, Jack Middelburg, Markus Huettel (2012). Application of Corexit 9500A as<br />
used in response <strong>to</strong> the Deepwater Horizon spill leads <strong>to</strong> higher PAH mobility and<br />
degradation in saturated Pensacola Beach sands – an experimental study. In: NAC11, 29<br />
March 2012, Koningshof, Veldhoven, Netherlands. Theme: Marine Geosciences poster.<br />
7. NIOSH POCKET GUIDE TO CHEMICAL HAZARDS; DHHS (NIOSH) Publication<br />
No. 2005-149; Sept 2007<br />
8. Operational Science Advisory Team, Summary Report For Fate And Effects Of<br />
Remnant Oil Remaining In The Beach Environment, Dec 17, 2010; Annex F: Human<br />
Health Considerations<br />
9. USCG Commandant, ADM R.J. Papp, Jr., Cover Memorandum, dated MAR 18 2011,<br />
for the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Incident Specific Preparedness Review<br />
(ISPR), Final Report, January 2011<br />
10. ExxonMobil Oil Spill Dispersant Guidelines, Copyright 2008 ExxonMobil Research<br />
and Engineering Company; Table 14.2, p. 102<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III! ! ! ! ! Page 21 of 21
Findings of Persistency of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Saturday, April 14, 2012<br />
APPENDICES<br />
Chemical Analysis Reports<br />
by<br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries Ba<strong>to</strong>n<br />
Rouge, LA<br />
PURPOSE: To Determine PAH Analyte Trends Along The Florida-<br />
Alabama-Mississippi Coastal Environs and Beaches Derived From Oil<br />
Product Contaminant Samples<br />
Samples Collected By The Surfrider Foundation Local Chapter<br />
Volunteers And Coastal Geologist James H. Kirby III From March<br />
Through November 2011<br />
Copyright 2012 - All Rights Reserved by James H Kirby III
PAH Analyte Trends - March <strong>to</strong> November 2012<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> 1<br />
Report Date 04/18/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211041525<br />
Report of Certified Lab Results for Surfrider Foundation! January 25, 2012
ANALYTICAL RESULTS<br />
PERFORMED BY<br />
GULF COAST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.<br />
7979 GSRI Avenue<br />
Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA 70820<br />
Report Date 04/18/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211041525<br />
*211041525*<br />
Deliver To The November 9th Group, LLC<br />
630 Fairway Ave. NE<br />
Fort Wal<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL 32547<br />
850-862-7134<br />
Attn James Kirby<br />
Project State of the Beach<br />
NELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER 01955<br />
DOD ELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER ADE - 1482
Client: Surfrider Foundation Report: 211041525<br />
CASE NARRATIVE<br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries received and analyzed the sample(s) listed<br />
on the sample cross-reference page of this report. Receipt of the sample(s) is documented<br />
by the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. This applies only <strong>to</strong> the sample(s) listed in this report.<br />
No sample integrity or quality control exceptions were identified unless noted below.<br />
SEMI-VOLATILES GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY<br />
In the SW-846 8015B analysis, samples 21104152502 (STALLWORTH-001) and 21104152503 (DUNE<br />
ALLEN BEACH-003) had <strong>to</strong> be diluted <strong>to</strong> bracket the concentrations within the calibration range of the<br />
instrument. The recovery for the surrogate is reported as diluted out.<br />
MISCELLANEOUS<br />
Sample 21104152502 (STALLWORTH-001) was received outside the 14-day holding time for ORO. The<br />
client authorized the labora<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>to</strong> proceed with the analysis. The sample is for a non-regula<strong>to</strong>ry purpose.
Sample analysis was performed in accordance with approved methodologies provided by the<br />
Environmental Protection Agency or other recognized agencies. The samples and their corresponding<br />
extracts will be maintained for a period of 30 days unless otherwise arranged. Following this retention<br />
period the samples will be disposed in accordance with GCAL's Standard Operating Procedures.<br />
Common Abbreviations Utilized in this Report<br />
ND Indicates the result was Not Detected at the specified RDL<br />
DO Indicates the result was Diluted Out<br />
MI Indicates the result was subject <strong>to</strong> Matrix Interference<br />
TNTC Indicates the result was Too Numerous To Count<br />
SUBC Indicates the analysis was Sub-Contracted<br />
FLD Indicates the analysis was performed in the Field<br />
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit<br />
MDL Method Detection Limit<br />
RDL Reporting Detection Limit<br />
00:00 Reported as a time equivalent <strong>to</strong> 12:00 AM<br />
Reporting Flags Utilized in this Report<br />
J Indicates an estimated value<br />
U Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected<br />
B (ORGANICS) Indicates the analyte was detected in the associated Method Blank<br />
B (INORGANICS) Indicates the result is between the RDL and MDL<br />
Sample receipt at GCAL is documented through the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. In accordance with<br />
NELAC, this report shall be reproduced only in full and with the written permission of GCAL. The results<br />
contained within this report relate only <strong>to</strong> the samples reported. The documented results are presented<br />
within this report.<br />
This report pertains only <strong>to</strong> the samples listed in the Report Sample Summary and should be retained as<br />
a permanent record thereof. The results contained within this report are intended for the use of the client.<br />
Any unauthorized use of the information contained in this report is prohibited.<br />
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the NELAC standard and terms and conditions of the<br />
contract and Statement of Work both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions in the<br />
case narrative. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package and in the<br />
computer-readable data submitted has been authorized by the Quality Assurance Manager or his/her<br />
designee, as verified by the following signature.<br />
Estimated uncertainty of measurement is available upon request. This report is in compliance with the<br />
DOD QSM as specified in the contract if applicable.<br />
Robyn Migues<br />
Technical Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
GCAL REPORT 211041525<br />
THIS REPORT CONTAINS _______ PAGES.<br />
Labora<strong>to</strong>ry Endorsement
Report Sample Summary<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152501 EAST FT PICKENS-002 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
21104152502 STALLWORTH-001 Solid 03/15/2011 19:30 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
21104152503 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-003 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
21104152504 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-002 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
GCAL Report 211041525
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152501 EAST FT PICKENS-002 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 41300 13600 1950 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152502 STALLWORTH-001 Solid 03/15/2011 19:30 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 15900000 1540000 221000 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152503 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-003 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 8000000 1360000 196000 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152504 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-002 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2650J 13600 1960 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211041525
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152501 EAST FT PICKENS-002 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/16/2011 13:50 454429 3550B 1 04/18/2011 10:32 SMH 454567<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 41300 13600 1950 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1660 1510 ug/Kg 91 27 - 129<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041525
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152502 STALLWORTH-001 Solid 03/15/2011 19:30 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/16/2011 13:50 454429 3550B 100 04/18/2011 11:43 SMH 454567<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 15900000 1540000 221000 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 27 - 129<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041525
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152503 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-003 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/16/2011 13:50 454429 3550B 100 04/18/2011 12:02 SMH 454567<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 8000000 1360000 196000 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1660 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 27 - 129<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041525
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152504 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-002 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/16/2011 13:50 454429 3550B 1 04/18/2011 11:25 SMH 454567<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2650J 13600 1960 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1450 ug/Kg 87 27 - 129<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041525
General Chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 454567 Client ID MB454429 LCS454429 LCSD454429<br />
Prep Batch 454429 GCAL ID 938331 938332 938333<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 04/16/2011 13:50 04/16/2011 13:50 04/16/2011 13:50<br />
Analytical Date 04/18/2011 09:38 04/18/2011 09:56 04/18/2011 10:14<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 1910U 1910 66700 51800 78 47 - 120 50700 76 2 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1470 88 1670 1490 89 27 - 129 1590 95<br />
Analytical Batch 454567 Client ID EAST FT PICKENS-002 938309MS 938309MSD<br />
Prep Batch 454429 GCAL ID 21104152501 938334 938335<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type SAMPLE MS MSD<br />
Prep Date 04/16/2011 13:50 04/16/2011 13:50 04/16/2011 13:50<br />
Analytical Date 04/18/2011 10:32 04/18/2011 10:50 04/18/2011 11:08<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 40200 1900 66400 94200 81 47 - 120 99900 90 6 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1510 91 1660 1500 90 27 - 129 1410 85<br />
GCAL Report 211041525<br />
RPD<br />
Limit<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
PAH Analyte Trends - March <strong>to</strong> November 2012<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> 2<br />
Report Date 04/28/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211041526<br />
Report of Certified Lab Results for Surfrider Foundation! January 25, 2012
ANALYTICAL RESULTS<br />
PERFORMED BY<br />
GULF COAST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.<br />
7979 GSRI Avenue<br />
Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA 70820<br />
Report Date 04/28/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211041526<br />
*211041526*<br />
Deliver To The November 9th Group, LLC<br />
630 Fairway Ave. NE<br />
Fort Wal<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL 32547<br />
850-862-7134<br />
Attn James Kirby<br />
Project Surfrider State of the Beach<br />
NELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER 01955<br />
DOD ELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER ADE - 1482
CASE NARRATIVE<br />
Client: The November 9th Group, LLC Report: 211041526<br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries received and analyzed the sample(s) listed<br />
on the sample cross-reference page of this report. Receipt of the sample(s) is documented<br />
by the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. This applies only <strong>to</strong> the sample(s) listed in this report.<br />
No sample integrity or quality control exceptions were identified unless noted below.<br />
No anomalies were found for the analyzed sample(s).
Sample analysis was performed in accordance with approved methodologies provided by the<br />
Environmental Protection Agency or other recognized agencies. The samples and their corresponding<br />
extracts will be maintained for a period of 30 days unless otherwise arranged. Following this retention<br />
period the samples will be disposed in accordance with GCAL's Standard Operating Procedures.<br />
Common Abbreviations Utilized in this Report<br />
ND Indicates the result was Not Detected at the specified RDL<br />
DO Indicates the result was Diluted Out<br />
MI Indicates the result was subject <strong>to</strong> Matrix Interference<br />
TNTC Indicates the result was Too Numerous To Count<br />
SUBC Indicates the analysis was Sub-Contracted<br />
FLD Indicates the analysis was performed in the Field<br />
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit<br />
MDL Method Detection Limit<br />
RDL Reporting Detection Limit<br />
00:00 Reported as a time equivalent <strong>to</strong> 12:00 AM<br />
Reporting Flags Utilized in this Report<br />
J Indicates an estimated value<br />
U Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected<br />
B (ORGANICS) Indicates the analyte was detected in the associated Method Blank<br />
B (INORGANICS) Indicates the result is between the RDL and MDL<br />
Sample receipt at GCAL is documented through the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. In accordance with<br />
NELAC, this report shall be reproduced only in full and with the written permission of GCAL. The results<br />
contained within this report relate only <strong>to</strong> the samples reported. The documented results are presented<br />
within this report.<br />
This report pertains only <strong>to</strong> the samples listed in the Report Sample Summary and should be retained as<br />
a permanent record thereof. The results contained within this report are intended for the use of the client.<br />
Any unauthorized use of the information contained in this report is prohibited.<br />
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the NELAC standard and terms and conditions of the<br />
contract and Statement of Work both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions in the<br />
case narrative. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package and in the<br />
computer-readable data submitted has been authorized by the Quality Assurance Manager or his/her<br />
designee, as verified by the following signature.<br />
Estimated uncertainty of measurement is available upon request. This report is in compliance with the<br />
DOD QSM as specified in the contract if applicable.<br />
Robyn Migues<br />
Technical Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
GCAL REPORT 211041526<br />
THIS REPORT CONTAINS _______ PAGES.<br />
Labora<strong>to</strong>ry Endorsement
Report Sample Summary<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152601 EAST FT PICKENS-001 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
21104152602 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-001 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
21104152603 EAST FT PICKENS-003 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
21104152604 WAVELAND-001 Solid 03/16/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
21104152605 STALLWORTH-002 Solid 03/15/2011 19:30 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152601 EAST FT PICKENS-001 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1280J 6600 1180 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 7730 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 3070J 6600 967 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 3780J 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 5690J 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4210J 6600 967 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13500 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 4130J 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 7220 6600 967 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 12400 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 5340J 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1380J 6600 1220 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152602 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-001 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.773J 4.12 0.728 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.77J 4.12 0.597 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.485J 4.12 0.477 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.13J 4.12 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.957J 4.12 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152603 EAST FT PICKENS-003 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1.15J 4.11 0.733 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 2.10J 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 2.39J 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.24J 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152604 WAVELAND-001 Solid 03/16/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1910J 7460 1080 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 2270J 7460 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 22000 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8120 7460 1090 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152604 WAVELAND-001 Solid 03/16/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 33900 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 13300 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 10600 7460 1090 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 73300 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 8400 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 14200 7460 1090 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 49000 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 15500 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 2400J 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152605 STALLWORTH-002 Solid 03/15/2011 19:30 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1190J 5890 854 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1140J 5890 1050 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 10000 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4130J 5890 863 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 7900 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 7090 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4630J 5890 863 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 27100 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 3940J 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 7620 5890 863 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 19600 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 7450 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152601 EAST FT PICKENS-001 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/18/2011 15:00 454563 3550B 100 04/26/2011 11:07 DLB 455114<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 520U 6600 520 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 592U 6600 592 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 578U 6600 578 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 642U 6600 642 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 650U 6600 650 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1100U 6600 1100 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1170U 6600 1170 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1130U 6600 1130 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 957U 6600 957 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1280J 6600 1180 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1400U 6600 1400 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 766U 6600 766 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 7730 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 3070J 6600 967 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 815U 6600 815 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 3780J 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 5690J 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4210J 6600 967 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 815U 6600 815 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 753U 6600 753 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13500 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 4130J 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 7220 6600 967 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 815U 6600 815 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 753U 6600 753 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 12400 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1380U 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 753U 6600 753 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1450U 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 5340J 6600 1380 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1580U 6600 1580 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 967U 6600 967 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 815U 6600 815 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1240U 6600 1240 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 753U 6600 753 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1350U 6600 1350 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1450U 6600 1450 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1380J 6600 1220 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152602 DUNE ALLEN BEACH-001 Solid 04/11/2011 19:53 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/18/2011 15:00 454563 3550B 1 04/25/2011 16:52 DLB 455017<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.324U 4.12 0.324 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.369U 4.12 0.369 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.360U 4.12 0.360 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.400U 4.12 0.400 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.405U 4.12 0.405 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.688U 4.12 0.688 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.773J 4.12 0.728 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.704U 4.12 0.704 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.77J 4.12 0.597 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.735U 4.12 0.735 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.871U 4.12 0.871 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.485J 4.12 0.477 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.12 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.603U 4.12 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.508U 4.12 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.906U 4.12 0.906 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.12 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.603U 4.12 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.508U 4.12 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.469U 4.12 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.906U 4.12 0.906 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.12 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.603U 4.12 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.508U 4.12 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.469U 4.12 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.906U 4.12 0.906 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.12 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.469U 4.12 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.906U 4.12 0.906 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.13J 4.12 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.986U 4.12 0.986 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.957J 4.12 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.508U 4.12 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.774U 4.12 0.774 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.469U 4.12 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.843U 4.12 0.843 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.906U 4.12 0.906 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.758U 4.12 0.758 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.3 8.85 ug/Kg 66 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.3 8.08 ug/Kg 61 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.3 9.59 ug/Kg 72 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.3 7.71 ug/Kg 58 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152603 EAST FT PICKENS-003 Solid 04/10/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/18/2011 15:00 454563 3550B 1 04/25/2011 17:36 DLB 455017<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.323U 4.11 0.323 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.369U 4.11 0.369 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.359U 4.11 0.359 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.399U 4.11 0.399 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.405U 4.11 0.405 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.687U 4.11 0.687 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.726U 4.11 0.726 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.702U 4.11 0.702 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.596U 4.11 0.596 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1.15J 4.11 0.733 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.869U 4.11 0.869 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.476U 4.11 0.476 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 2.10J 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.602U 4.11 0.602 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.507U 4.11 0.507 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.904U 4.11 0.904 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 2.39J 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.602U 4.11 0.602 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.507U 4.11 0.507 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.468U 4.11 0.468 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.904U 4.11 0.904 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.859U 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.602U 4.11 0.602 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.507U 4.11 0.507 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.468U 4.11 0.468 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.904U 4.11 0.904 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.859U 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.468U 4.11 0.468 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.904U 4.11 0.904 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.24J 4.11 0.859 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.984U 4.11 0.984 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.602U 4.11 0.602 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.507U 4.11 0.507 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.772U 4.11 0.772 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.468U 4.11 0.468 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.841U 4.11 0.841 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.904U 4.11 0.904 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.757U 4.11 0.757 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.3 8.68 ug/Kg 65 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.3 8.03 ug/Kg 60 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.3 9.62 ug/Kg 72 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.3 12 ug/Kg 90 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152604 WAVELAND-001 Solid 03/16/2011 19:45 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/18/2011 15:00 454563 3550B 100 04/26/2011 14:05 DLB 455114<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 587U 7460 587 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 669U 7460 669 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 653U 7460 653 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 725U 7460 725 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 735U 7460 735 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1250U 7460 1250 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1320U 7460 1320 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1280U 7460 1280 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1910J 7460 1080 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 2270J 7460 1330 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1580U 7460 1580 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 865U 7460 865 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 22000 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8120 7460 1090 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 921U 7460 921 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 33900 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 13300 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 10600 7460 1090 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 921U 7460 921 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 850U 7460 850 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 73300 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 8400 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 14200 7460 1090 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 921U 7460 921 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 850U 7460 850 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 49000 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1560U 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 850U 7460 850 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1640U 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 15500 7460 1560 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1790U 7460 1790 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 1090U 7460 1090 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 921U 7460 921 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1400U 7460 1400 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 850U 7460 850 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1530U 7460 1530 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 2400J 7460 1640 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1370U 7460 1370 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21104152605 STALLWORTH-002 Solid 03/15/2011 19:30 04/15/2011 09:10<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
04/18/2011 15:00 454563 3550B 100 04/26/2011 15:33 DLB 455114<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 464U 5890 464 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 528U 5890 528 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 515U 5890 515 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 573U 5890 573 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 580U 5890 580 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 985U 5890 985 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1040U 5890 1040 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1010U 5890 1010 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1190J 5890 854 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1140J 5890 1050 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1250U 5890 1250 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 683U 5890 683 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 10000 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4130J 5890 863 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 727U 5890 727 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 7900 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 7090 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4630J 5890 863 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 727U 5890 727 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 671U 5890 671 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 27100 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 3940J 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 7620 5890 863 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 727U 5890 727 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 671U 5890 671 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 19600 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1230U 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 671U 5890 671 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1300U 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 7450 5890 1230 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1410U 5890 1410 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 863U 5890 863 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 727U 5890 727 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1110U 5890 1110 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 671U 5890 671 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1210U 5890 1210 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1300U 5890 1300 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1080U 5890 1080 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 174 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 174 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 174 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 174 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 455017 Client ID MB454563 LCS454563<br />
Prep Batch 454563 GCAL ID 938911 939129<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS<br />
Prep Date 04/18/2011 15:00 04/18/2011 15:00<br />
Analytical Date 04/25/2011 14:39 04/25/2011 15:23<br />
Matrix Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.456U 0.456<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.359U 0.359<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.315U 0.315<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.350U 0.350 13.3 8.83 66 50 - 150<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.394U 0.394<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.389U 0.389<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.669U 0.669<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.586U 0.586<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.737U 0.737<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.707U 0.707<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.580U 0.580<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.464U 0.464<br />
GCAL Report 211041526
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 455017 Client ID MB454563 LCS454563<br />
Prep Batch 454563 GCAL ID 938911 939129<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS<br />
Prep Date 04/18/2011 15:00 04/18/2011 15:00<br />
Analytical Date 04/25/2011 14:39 04/25/2011 15:23<br />
Matrix Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.714U 0.714<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.684U 0.684<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.819U 0.819<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.752U 0.752<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.958U 0.958<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.846U 0.846<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 9.68 73 13.3 8.93 67 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 11.2 84 13.3 8.89 67 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 9.88 74 13.3 9.44 71 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 8.98 67 13.3 7.77 58 43 - 111<br />
Analytical Batch 455017 Client ID EAST FT PICKENS-003 938316MS 938316MSD<br />
Prep Batch 454563 GCAL ID 21104152603 938914 938915<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type SAMPLE MS MSD<br />
Prep Date 04/18/2011 15:00 04/18/2011 15:00 04/18/2011 15:00<br />
Analytical Date 04/25/2011 17:36 04/25/2011 18:19 04/25/2011 19:03<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.00 0.349 13.3 8.18 61 50 - 150 8.07 61 1 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 8.68 65 13.3 8.23 62 20 - 97 9.04 68<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 8.03 60 13.3 8.27 62 22 - 98 8.12 61<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 9.62 72 13.3 8.99 67 51 - 120 8.93 67<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 12 90 13.3 12.2 92 43 - 111 14.7 110<br />
GCAL Report 211041526<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
PAH Analyte Trends - March <strong>to</strong> November 2012<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> 3<br />
Report Date 07/27/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211060827<br />
Report of Certified Lab Results for Surfrider Foundation! January 25, 2012
ANALYTICAL RESULTS<br />
PERFORMED BY<br />
GULF COAST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.<br />
7979 GSRI Avenue<br />
Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA 70820<br />
Report Date 07/27/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211060827<br />
*211060827*<br />
Deliver To The November 9th Group, LLC<br />
630 Fairway Ave. NE<br />
Fort Wal<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL 32547<br />
850-862-7134<br />
Attn James Kirby<br />
Project Surfrider State of the Beach<br />
NELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER 01955<br />
DOD ELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER ADE - 1482
CASE NARRATIVE<br />
Client: The November 9th Group, LLC Report: 211060827<br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries received and analyzed the sample(s) listed<br />
on the sample cross-reference page of this report. Receipt of the sample(s) is documented<br />
by the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. This applies only <strong>to</strong> the sample(s) listed in this report.<br />
No sample integrity or quality control exceptions were identified unless noted below.<br />
SEMI-VOLATILES MASS SPECTROMETRY<br />
In the SW-846 8272 Modified analysis, samples 21106082701 (004008-TAR BALLS), 21106082702<br />
(003988-TAR BALLS), 21106082704 (003973-SURFACE), and 21106082708 (003968-DUNE SCARP)<br />
had <strong>to</strong> be diluted <strong>to</strong> bracket the concentration of target compounds within the calibration range of the<br />
instrument and <strong>to</strong> eliminate interference that affected the recoveries of the internal standards. This is reflected<br />
in elevated detection limits. The recoveries for the surrogates are reported as diluted out.<br />
In the SW-846 8272 Modified analysis, samples 21106082703 (004011-HBSP), 21106082707 (004007-<br />
FLOTSAM), and 21106082708 (003968-DUNE SCARP) had <strong>to</strong> be diluted <strong>to</strong> eliminate interference from<br />
non-target background that may have affected the recoveries of the internal standards. This is reflected in<br />
elevated detection limits. The recoveries for the surrogates are reported as diluted out.<br />
SEMI-VOLATILES GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY<br />
In the SW-846 8015B ORO analysis, sample 21106082709 (003968-DUNE SCARP) had <strong>to</strong> be diluted <strong>to</strong><br />
bracket the concentration within the calibration range of the instrument.<br />
MISCELLANEOUS<br />
All samples were received outside the specified holding times for the requested methods.
Sample analysis was performed in accordance with approved methodologies provided by the<br />
Environmental Protection Agency or other recognized agencies. The samples and their corresponding<br />
extracts will be maintained for a period of 30 days unless otherwise arranged. Following this retention<br />
period the samples will be disposed in accordance with GCAL's Standard Operating Procedures.<br />
Common Abbreviations Utilized in this Report<br />
ND Indicates the result was Not Detected at the specified RDL<br />
DO Indicates the result was Diluted Out<br />
MI Indicates the result was subject <strong>to</strong> Matrix Interference<br />
TNTC Indicates the result was Too Numerous To Count<br />
SUBC Indicates the analysis was Sub-Contracted<br />
FLD Indicates the analysis was performed in the Field<br />
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit<br />
MDL Method Detection Limit<br />
RDL Reporting Detection Limit<br />
00:00 Reported as a time equivalent <strong>to</strong> 12:00 AM<br />
Reporting Flags Utilized in this Report<br />
J Indicates an estimated value<br />
U Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected<br />
B (ORGANICS) Indicates the analyte was detected in the associated Method Blank<br />
B (INORGANICS) Indicates the result is between the RDL and MDL<br />
Sample receipt at GCAL is documented through the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. In accordance with<br />
NELAC, this report shall be reproduced only in full and with the written permission of GCAL. The results<br />
contained within this report relate only <strong>to</strong> the samples reported. The documented results are presented<br />
within this report.<br />
This report pertains only <strong>to</strong> the samples listed in the Report Sample Summary and should be retained as<br />
a permanent record thereof. The results contained within this report are intended for the use of the client.<br />
Any unauthorized use of the information contained in this report is prohibited.<br />
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the NELAC standard and terms and conditions of the<br />
contract and Statement of Work both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions in the<br />
case narrative. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package and in the<br />
computer-readable data submitted has been authorized by the Quality Assurance Manager or his/her<br />
designee, as verified by the following signature.<br />
Estimated uncertainty of measurement is available upon request. This report is in compliance with the<br />
DOD QSM as specified in the contract if applicable.<br />
Robyn Migues<br />
Technical Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
GCAL REPORT 211060827<br />
THIS REPORT CONTAINS _______ PAGES.<br />
Labora<strong>to</strong>ry Endorsement
Report Sample Summary<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082701 004008-TAR BALLS Solid 05/22/2011 20:41 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082702 003988-TAR BALLS Solid 05/01/2011 09:00 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082703 004011-HBSP Solid 04/20/2011 08:00 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082704 003973-SURFACE Solid 06/08/2010 14:45 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082705 003998-TRENCH WALL Solid 05/22/2011 19:45 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082706 004001-HBSP Solid 05/22/2011 09:10 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082707 004007-FLOTSAM #1 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082708 003968-DUNE SCARP Solid 05/22/2011 21:21 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082709 003968-DUNE SCARP Solid 05/22/2011 21:21 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
21106082710 004002-FLOTSAM #2 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082701 004008-TAR BALLS Solid 05/22/2011 20:41 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 5500 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1730J 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 3580 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 19400 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 16200 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3860 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082702 003988-TAR BALLS Solid 05/01/2011 09:00 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 36100 9470 1670 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 14100 9470 1620 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 16700 9470 1690 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 7430J 9470 2000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 159000 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 199000 9470 1390 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 60300 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 313000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 194000 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 305000 9470 1390 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 134000 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 73400 9470 1080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 690000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 155000 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 237000 9470 1390 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 199000 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 211000 9470 1080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 580000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 165000 9470 1080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 255000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 60300 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4920J 9470 2270 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 5160J 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 8840J 9470 1940 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 58500 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 50400 9470 1750 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082704 003973-SURFACE Solid 06/08/2010 14:45 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 22300 3650 287 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082704 003973-SURFACE Solid 06/08/2010 14:45 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 25100 3650 327 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 70200 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 59600 3650 534 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 136000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 390000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 70000 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 75200 3650 534 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 246000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 198000 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 508000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 37900 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 80600 3650 534 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 242000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 360000 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 314000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 263000 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 112000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 44300 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 26000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 771J 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 108000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 8150 3650 672 ug/Kg<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 10400J 36500 6510 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082706 004001-HBSP Solid 05/22/2011 09:10 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 540000 228000 32800 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082707 004007-FLOTSAM #1 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 215J 937 166 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 268J 937 160 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 461J 937 136 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 302J 937 198 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082707 004007-FLOTSAM #1 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 262J 937 109 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 294J 937 196 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 291J 937 224 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 450J 937 137 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 422J 937 176 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 212J 937 173 ug/Kg<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 486000 312000 44700 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082708 003968-DUNE SCARP Solid 05/22/2011 21:21 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 3770 2790 583 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1080J 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1690J 2790 408 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4590 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4390 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4150 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 2820 2790 583 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082709 003968-DUNE SCARP Solid 05/22/2011 21:21 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 89900 27000 3880 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082710 004002-FLOTSAM #2 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 43000J 84700 12200 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082701 004008-TAR BALLS Solid 05/22/2011 20:41 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 50 07/12/2011 18:40 DLB 460584<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 237U 3010 237 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 270U 3010 270 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 263U 3010 263 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 293U 3010 293 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 296U 3010 296 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 503U 3010 503 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 532U 3010 532 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 514U 3010 514 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 436U 3010 436 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 537U 3010 537 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 636U 3010 636 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 349U 3010 349 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 5500 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 441U 3010 441 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1730J 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 3580 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 441U 3010 441 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 343U 3010 343 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 19400 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 629U 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 441U 3010 441 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 343U 3010 343 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 16200 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 629U 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 343U 3010 343 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 662U 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3860 3010 629 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 720U 3010 720 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 441U 3010 441 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 566U 3010 566 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 343U 3010 343 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 616U 3010 616 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 662U 3010 662 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 554U 3010 554 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 100 07/13/2011 12:36 DLB 460843<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 743U 6020 743 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 743U 6020 743 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082701 004008-TAR BALLS Solid 05/22/2011 20:41 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 100 07/13/2011 12:36 DLB 460843<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 743U 6020 743 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 743U 6020 743 ug/Kg<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082702 003988-TAR BALLS Solid 05/01/2011 09:00 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 100 07/12/2011 21:33 DLB 460584<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 746U 9470 746 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 850U 9470 850 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 829U 9470 829 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 921U 9470 921 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 933U 9470 933 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1580U 9470 1580 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 36100 9470 1670 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 14100 9470 1620 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1370U 9470 1370 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 16700 9470 1690 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 7430J 9470 2000 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1100U 9470 1100 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 159000 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 199000 9470 1390 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 60300 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 313000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 194000 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 305000 9470 1390 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 134000 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 73400 9470 1080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 690000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 155000 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 237000 9470 1390 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 199000 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 211000 9470 1080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 580000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1980U 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 165000 9470 1080 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 255000 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 60300 9470 1980 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4920J 9470 2270 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 1390U 9470 1390 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 5160J 9470 1170 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1780U 9470 1780 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 1080U 9470 1080 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 8840J 9470 1940 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 58500 9470 2080 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 50400 9470 1750 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 190 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 190 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 190 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 190 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082703 004011-HBSP Solid 04/20/2011 08:00 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 50 07/12/2011 19:23 DLB 460584<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 233U 2960 233 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 265U 2960 265 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 259U 2960 259 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 287U 2960 287 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 291U 2960 291 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 494U 2960 494 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 522U 2960 522 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 505U 2960 505 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 428U 2960 428 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 527U 2960 527 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 625U 2960 625 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 343U 2960 343 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 618U 2960 618 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 433U 2960 433 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 365U 2960 365 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 650U 2960 650 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 618U 2960 618 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 433U 2960 433 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 365U 2960 365 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 337U 2960 337 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 650U 2960 650 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 618U 2960 618 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 433U 2960 433 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 365U 2960 365 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 337U 2960 337 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 650U 2960 650 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 618U 2960 618 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 337U 2960 337 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 650U 2960 650 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 618U 2960 618 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 708U 2960 708 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 433U 2960 433 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 365U 2960 365 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 556U 2960 556 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 337U 2960 337 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 605U 2960 605 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 650U 2960 650 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 544U 2960 544 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082704 003973-SURFACE Solid 06/08/2010 14:45 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 50 07/12/2011 20:06 DLB 460584<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 22300 3650 287 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 25100 3650 327 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 319U 3650 319 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 355U 3650 355 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 359U 3650 359 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 610U 3650 610 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 645U 3650 645 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 70200 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 59600 3650 534 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 136000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 390000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 70000 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 75200 3650 534 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 246000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 198000 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 508000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 37900 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 80600 3650 534 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 242000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 360000 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 314000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 762U 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 263000 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 112000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 44300 3650 762 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 534U 3650 534 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 26000 3650 451 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 771J 3650 416 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 108000 3650 803 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 8150 3650 672 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 500 07/14/2011 12:46 DLB 460845<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 6240U 36500 6240 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5290U 36500 5290 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 10400J 36500 6510 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 7720U 36500 7720 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4230U 36500 4230 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 8740U 36500 8740 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082704 003973-SURFACE Solid 06/08/2010 14:45 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 500 07/14/2011 12:46 DLB 460845<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6860U 36500 6860 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 7470U 36500 7470 ug/Kg<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082705 003998-TRENCH WALL Solid 05/22/2011 19:45 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/08/2011 16:30 457988 3550B 1 06/10/2011 19:58 SMH 458248<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2020U 14100 2020 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1650 1230 ug/Kg 75 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082706 004001-HBSP Solid 05/22/2011 09:10 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/12/2011 16:15 458261 3550B 1 06/13/2011 13:04 SMH 458374<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 540000 228000 32800 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 25000 21600 ug/Kg 86 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082707 004007-FLOTSAM #1 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/30/2011 10:20 459676 3550B 10 07/13/2011 11:53 DLB 460843<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 73.8U 937 73.8 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 84.1U 937 84.1 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 82.0U 937 82.0 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 91.1U 937 91.1 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 92.3U 937 92.3 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 157U 937 157 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 215J 937 166 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 268J 937 160 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 461J 937 136 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 167U 937 167 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 302J 937 198 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 262J 937 109 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 196U 937 196 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 137U 937 137 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 116U 937 116 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 206U 937 206 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 196U 937 196 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 137U 937 137 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 116U 937 116 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 107U 937 107 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 206U 937 206 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 196U 937 196 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 137U 937 137 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 116U 937 116 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 107U 937 107 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 206U 937 206 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 196U 937 196 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 107U 937 107 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 206U 937 206 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 294J 937 196 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 291J 937 224 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 450J 937 137 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 116U 937 116 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 422J 937 176 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 107U 937 107 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 192U 937 192 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 206U 937 206 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 212J 937 173 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 40 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 40 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 40 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 40 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082707 004007-FLOTSAM #1 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/08/2011 16:30 457988 3550B 1 06/10/2011 19:22 SMH 458248<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 486000 312000 44700 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 5000 4070 ug/Kg 81 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082708 003968-DUNE SCARP Solid 05/22/2011 21:21 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 50 07/12/2011 20:50 DLB 460584<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 220U 2790 220 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 250U 2790 250 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 244U 2790 244 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 271U 2790 271 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 275U 2790 275 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 466U 2790 466 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 493U 2790 493 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 3770 2790 583 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 408U 2790 408 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 344U 2790 344 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1080J 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 583U 2790 583 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1690J 2790 408 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 344U 2790 344 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 318U 2790 318 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4590 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 583U 2790 583 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 408U 2790 408 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 344U 2790 344 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 318U 2790 318 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4390 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 583U 2790 583 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 318U 2790 318 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4150 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 2820 2790 583 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 408U 2790 408 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 344U 2790 344 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 318U 2790 318 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 613U 2790 613 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 514U 2790 514 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 182 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 500 07/14/2011 13:29 DLB 460845<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 4770U 27900 4770 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4040U 27900 4040 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 4980U 27900 4980 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5900U 27900 5900 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3230U 27900 3230 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6680U 27900 6680 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082708 003968-DUNE SCARP Solid 05/22/2011 21:21 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:00 457991 3550B 500 07/14/2011 13:29 DLB 460845<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 5240U 27900 5240 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 5710U 27900 5710 ug/Kg<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082709 003968-DUNE SCARP Solid 05/22/2011 21:21 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/09/2011 10:30 457988 3550B 2 06/10/2011 20:16 SMH 458248<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 89900 27000 3880 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1660 1240 ug/Kg 75 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21106082710 004002-FLOTSAM #2 Solid 05/12/2011 14:30 06/07/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
06/11/2011 08:40 458143 3550B 1 06/13/2011 13:23 SMH 458374<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 43000J 84700 12200 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1650 1640 ug/Kg 99 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211060827
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 460584 Client ID MB457991 LCS457991 LCSD457991<br />
Prep Batch 457991 GCAL ID 954980 954981 954982<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 06/09/2011 10:00 06/09/2011 10:00 06/09/2011 10:00<br />
Analytical Date 07/12/2011 15:47 07/12/2011 16:30 07/12/2011 17:13<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.456U 0.456<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.359U 0.359<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.315U 0.315<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.350U 0.350 13.3 7.54 57 50 - 150 7.45 56 1 40<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.394U 0.394<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.389U 0.389<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.669U 0.669<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.586U 0.586<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.737U 0.737<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.707U 0.707<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.580U 0.580<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.464U 0.464<br />
GCAL Report 211060827<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 460584 Client ID MB457991 LCS457991 LCSD457991<br />
Prep Batch 457991 GCAL ID 954980 954981 954982<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 06/09/2011 10:00 06/09/2011 10:00 06/09/2011 10:00<br />
Analytical Date 07/12/2011 15:47 07/12/2011 16:30 07/12/2011 17:13<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.714U 0.714<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.684U 0.684<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.819U 0.819<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.752U 0.752<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.958U 0.958<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.846U 0.846<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 7.36 55 13.3 7.93 59 20 - 97 7.76 58<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 7.81 59 13.3 5.76 43 22 - 98 9.64 72<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 8.15 61 13.3 7.49 56 51 - 120 7.54 57<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 7.12 53 13.3 7.52 56 43 - 111 9.78 73<br />
Analytical Batch 460584 Client ID MB459676 LCS459676 LCSD459676<br />
Prep Batch 459676 GCAL ID 963023 963024 963025<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 06/30/2011 10:20 06/30/2011 10:20 06/30/2011 10:20<br />
Analytical Date 07/12/2011 13:35 07/12/2011 14:19 07/12/2011 15:03<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
% R RPD<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.454U 0.454<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.358U 0.358<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.314U 0.314<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.454U 0.454<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.454U 0.454<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.454U 0.454<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.349U 0.349 13.3 7.92 60 50 - 150 10.1 77 24 40<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.393U 0.393<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.388U 0.388<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.492U 0.492<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.492U 0.492<br />
GCAL Report 211060827<br />
RPD<br />
Limit<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 460584 Client ID MB459676 LCS459676 LCSD459676<br />
Prep Batch 459676 GCAL ID 963023 963024 963025<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 06/30/2011 10:20 06/30/2011 10:20 06/30/2011 10:20<br />
Analytical Date 07/12/2011 13:35 07/12/2011 14:19 07/12/2011 15:03<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.492U 0.492<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.492U 0.492<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.877U 0.877<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.877U 0.877<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.877U 0.877<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.877U 0.877<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.877U 0.877<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.667U 0.667<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.584U 0.584<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.735U 0.735<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.584U 0.584<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.584U 0.584<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.584U 0.584<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.833U 0.833<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.833U 0.833<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.833U 0.833<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.833U 0.833<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.833U 0.833<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.705U 0.705<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.578U 0.578<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.462U 0.462<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.712U 0.712<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.682U 0.682<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.816U 0.816<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.750U 0.750<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.955U 0.955<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.843U 0.843<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 6.57 49 13.3 6.99 53 20 - 97 10.3 78<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 7.57 57 13.3 7.05 53 22 - 98 11 84<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 7.21 54 13.3 7.63 57 51 - 120 10.7 81<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 6.01 45 13.3 7.94 60 43 - 111 11.7 89<br />
GCAL Report 211060827<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
General Chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 458126 Client ID MB457988 LCS457988 LCSD457988<br />
Prep Batch 457988 GCAL ID 954970 954971 954972<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 06/08/2011 16:30 06/08/2011 16:30 06/08/2011 16:30<br />
Analytical Date 06/09/2011 12:34 06/09/2011 13:28 06/09/2011 13:46<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 1900U 1900 66400 47600 72 47 - 120 57400 86 19 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1400 84 1660 1310 79 67 - 120 1480 89<br />
Analytical Batch 458126 Client ID 106041IDW1 954134MS 954134MSD<br />
Prep Batch 457988 GCAL ID 21106072001 954973 954974<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type SAMPLE MS MSD<br />
Prep Date 06/08/2011 16:30 06/08/2011 16:30 06/08/2011 16:30<br />
Analytical Date 06/09/2011 17:38 06/09/2011 17:56 06/09/2011 18:13<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 13100 1880 65800 55800 65 47 - 120 52600 60 6 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1640 1350 82 67 - 120 1280 77<br />
Analytical Batch 458344 Client ID MB458143 LCS458143 LCSD458143<br />
Prep Batch 458143 GCAL ID 955882 955883 955884<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 06/11/2011 08:40 06/11/2011 08:40 06/11/2011 08:40<br />
Analytical Date 06/12/2011 10:15 06/12/2011 11:09 06/12/2011 11:27<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 1880U 1880 65800 52400 80 47 - 120 54000 81 3 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1460 89 1640 1550 94 67 - 120 1530 92<br />
GCAL Report 211060827<br />
RPD<br />
Limit<br />
RPD<br />
Limit<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
General Chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 458344 Client ID 106058IDW1 955832MS 955832MSD<br />
Prep Batch 458143 GCAL ID 21106102002 955885 955886<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type SAMPLE MS MSD<br />
Prep Date 06/11/2011 08:40 06/11/2011 08:40 06/11/2011 08:40<br />
Analytical Date 06/12/2011 12:38 06/12/2011 12:56 06/12/2011 13:50<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 5810 1910 66700 57500 78 47 - 120 56300 76 2 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1620 97 67 - 120 1540 93<br />
Analytical Batch 458374 Client ID MB458261 LCS458261 LCSD458261<br />
Prep Batch 458261 GCAL ID 956359 956360 956361<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 06/12/2011 16:15 06/12/2011 16:15 06/12/2011 16:15<br />
Analytical Date 06/13/2011 12:11 06/13/2011 12:29 06/13/2011 12:47<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 1910U 1910 66700 48000 72 47 - 120 46400 70 4 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1500 90 1670 1540 92 67 - 120 1490 89<br />
GCAL Report 211060827<br />
RPD<br />
Limit<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
PAH Analyte Trends - March <strong>to</strong> November 2012<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> 4<br />
Report Date 07/27/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211070813<br />
Report of Certified Lab Results for Surfrider Foundation! January 25, 2012
PAH Analyte Trends - March <strong>to</strong> November 2012<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> 5<br />
Report Date 08/12/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211072028<br />
Report of Certified Lab Results for Surfrider Foundation! January 25, 2012
ANALYTICAL RESULTS<br />
PERFORMED BY<br />
GULF COAST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.<br />
7979 GSRI Avenue<br />
Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA 70820<br />
Report Date 08/12/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211072028<br />
*211072028*<br />
Deliver To The November 9th Group, LLC<br />
630 Fairway Ave. NE<br />
Fort Wal<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL 32547<br />
850-862-7134<br />
Attn James Kirby<br />
Project Surfrider SOTB - July 2011<br />
NELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER 01955<br />
DOD ELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER ADE - 1482
CASE NARRATIVE<br />
Client: The November 9th Group, LLC Report: 211072028<br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries received and analyzed the sample(s) listed<br />
on the sample cross-reference page of this report. Receipt of the sample(s) is documented<br />
by the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. This applies only <strong>to</strong> the sample(s) listed in this report.<br />
No sample integrity or quality control exceptions were identified unless noted below.<br />
MISCELLANEOUS<br />
The samples were received at the labora<strong>to</strong>ry at a temperature of 13.9ºC. All ice in the cooler had melted.<br />
The client was contacted and authorized the labora<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>to</strong> proceed with the analyses.<br />
The analysis of several samples by SW-846 8272 was added after expiration of the 14-day holding time.
Sample analysis was performed in accordance with approved methodologies provided by the<br />
Environmental Protection Agency or other recognized agencies. The samples and their corresponding<br />
extracts will be maintained for a period of 30 days unless otherwise arranged. Following this retention<br />
period the samples will be disposed in accordance with GCAL's Standard Operating Procedures.<br />
Common Abbreviations Utilized in this Report<br />
ND Indicates the result was Not Detected at the specified RDL<br />
DO Indicates the result was Diluted Out<br />
MI Indicates the result was subject <strong>to</strong> Matrix Interference<br />
TNTC Indicates the result was Too Numerous To Count<br />
SUBC Indicates the analysis was Sub-Contracted<br />
FLD Indicates the analysis was performed in the Field<br />
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit<br />
MDL Method Detection Limit<br />
RDL Reporting Detection Limit<br />
00:00 Reported as a time equivalent <strong>to</strong> 12:00 AM<br />
Reporting Flags Utilized in this Report<br />
J Indicates an estimated value<br />
U Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected<br />
B (ORGANICS) Indicates the analyte was detected in the associated Method Blank<br />
B (INORGANICS) Indicates the result is between the RDL and MDL<br />
Sample receipt at GCAL is documented through the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. In accordance with<br />
NELAC, this report shall be reproduced only in full and with the written permission of GCAL. The results<br />
contained within this report relate only <strong>to</strong> the samples reported. The documented results are presented<br />
within this report.<br />
This report pertains only <strong>to</strong> the samples listed in the Report Sample Summary and should be retained as<br />
a permanent record thereof. The results contained within this report are intended for the use of the client.<br />
Any unauthorized use of the information contained in this report is prohibited.<br />
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the NELAC standard and terms and conditions of the<br />
contract and Statement of Work both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions in the<br />
case narrative. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package and in the<br />
computer-readable data submitted has been authorized by the Quality Assurance Manager or his/her<br />
designee, as verified by the following signature.<br />
Estimated uncertainty of measurement is available upon request. This report is in compliance with the<br />
DOD QSM as specified in the contract if applicable.<br />
Robyn Migues<br />
Technical Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
GCAL REPORT 211072028<br />
THIS REPORT CONTAINS _______ PAGES.<br />
Labora<strong>to</strong>ry Endorsement
Report Sample Summary<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202801 000822-BOT SED 60 Solid 07/12/2011 14:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202802 000787-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 16:05 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202803 000815-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 16:10 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202804 000796 BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202805 000817-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:20 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202806 000821-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:25 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202807 000761-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202808 000805-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202809 000758-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:20 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202810 000757-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:25 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
21107202811 000803-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202801 000822-BOT SED 60 Solid 07/12/2011 14:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 5450J 17900 2570 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202802 000787-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 16:05 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 6750J 35900 5150 ug/Kg<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.80J 10.8 1.57 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 1.95J 10.8 1.58 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202804 000796 BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 9380J 17100 2450 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202805 000817-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:20 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 5340J 17500 2520 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202806 000821-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:25 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 11700J 17400 2490 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202807 000761-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 4340J 17100 2460 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202811 000803-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2700J 16600 2390 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202801 000822-BOT SED 60 Solid 07/12/2011 14:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/31/2011 08:30 462382 3550B 1 08/10/2011 10:59 DLB 463127<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.421U 5.35 0.421 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.480U 5.35 0.480 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.468U 5.35 0.468 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.520U 5.35 0.520 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.527U 5.35 0.527 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.895U 5.35 0.895 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.946U 5.35 0.946 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.915U 5.35 0.915 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.776U 5.35 0.776 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.955U 5.35 0.955 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.13U 5.35 1.13 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.621U 5.35 0.621 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1.12U 5.35 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.784U 5.35 0.784 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.661U 5.35 0.661 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.18U 5.35 1.18 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1.12U 5.35 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.784U 5.35 0.784 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.661U 5.35 0.661 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.610U 5.35 0.610 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.18U 5.35 1.18 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1.12U 5.35 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.784U 5.35 0.784 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.661U 5.35 0.661 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.610U 5.35 0.610 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.18U 5.35 1.18 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1.12U 5.35 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.610U 5.35 0.610 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.18U 5.35 1.18 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.12U 5.35 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.28U 5.35 1.28 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.784U 5.35 0.784 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.661U 5.35 0.661 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.01U 5.35 1.01 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.610U 5.35 0.610 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1.10U 5.35 1.10 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.18U 5.35 1.18 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.986U 5.35 0.986 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 8.87 ug/Kg 67 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 8.86 ug/Kg 67 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 7.5 ug/Kg 57 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 10.8 ug/Kg 82 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202801 000822-BOT SED 60 Solid 07/12/2011 14:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 20:53 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 5450J 17900 2570 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1350 ug/Kg 81 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202802 000787-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 16:05 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/31/2011 08:30 462382 3550B 1 08/10/2011 11:42 DLB 463127<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.850U 10.8 0.850 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.969U 10.8 0.969 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.944U 10.8 0.944 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 1.05U 10.8 1.05 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 1.06U 10.8 1.06 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1.81U 10.8 1.81 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.91U 10.8 1.91 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.85U 10.8 1.85 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.80J 10.8 1.57 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1.93U 10.8 1.93 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2.28U 10.8 2.28 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.25U 10.8 1.25 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 2.26U 10.8 2.26 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1.58U 10.8 1.58 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 1.33U 10.8 1.33 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2.37U 10.8 2.37 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 2.26U 10.8 2.26 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1.58U 10.8 1.58 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 1.33U 10.8 1.33 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 1.23U 10.8 1.23 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2.37U 10.8 2.37 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 2.26U 10.8 2.26 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1.58U 10.8 1.58 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 1.33U 10.8 1.33 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 1.23U 10.8 1.23 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2.37U 10.8 2.37 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 2.26U 10.8 2.26 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 1.23U 10.8 1.23 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2.37U 10.8 2.37 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 2.26U 10.8 2.26 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.59U 10.8 2.59 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 1.95J 10.8 1.58 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 1.33U 10.8 1.33 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.03U 10.8 2.03 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 1.23U 10.8 1.23 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 2.21U 10.8 2.21 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 2.37U 10.8 2.37 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1.99U 10.8 1.99 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.3 11.7 ug/Kg 88 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.3 11 ug/Kg 83 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.3 9.94 ug/Kg 75 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.3 14.5 ug/Kg 109 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202802 000787-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 16:05 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 21:11 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 6750J 35900 5150 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1350 ug/Kg 81 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202803 000815-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 16:10 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 21:29 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 3040U 21200 3040 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1470 ug/Kg 88 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202804 000796 BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/31/2011 08:30 462382 3550B 1 08/10/2011 12:26 DLB 463127<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.402U 5.10 0.402 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.458U 5.10 0.458 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.446U 5.10 0.446 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.496U 5.10 0.496 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.502U 5.10 0.502 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.853U 5.10 0.853 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.901U 5.10 0.901 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.872U 5.10 0.872 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.739U 5.10 0.739 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.910U 5.10 0.910 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.08U 5.10 1.08 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.591U 5.10 0.591 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1.07U 5.10 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.747U 5.10 0.747 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.630U 5.10 0.630 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.12U 5.10 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1.07U 5.10 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.747U 5.10 0.747 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.630U 5.10 0.630 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.581U 5.10 0.581 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.12U 5.10 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1.07U 5.10 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.747U 5.10 0.747 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.630U 5.10 0.630 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.581U 5.10 0.581 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.12U 5.10 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1.07U 5.10 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.581U 5.10 0.581 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.12U 5.10 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.07U 5.10 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.22U 5.10 1.22 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.747U 5.10 0.747 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.630U 5.10 0.630 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.959U 5.10 0.959 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.581U 5.10 0.581 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1.04U 5.10 1.04 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.12U 5.10 1.12 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.939U 5.10 0.939 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 9.22 ug/Kg 70 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 10.1 ug/Kg 76 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 8.83 ug/Kg 67 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 14.4 ug/Kg 109 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202804 000796 BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 17:54 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 9380J 17100 2450 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1410 ug/Kg 85 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202805 000817-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:20 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/31/2011 08:30 462382 3550B 1 08/10/2011 13:10 DLB 463127<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.411U 5.22 0.411 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.468U 5.22 0.468 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.457U 5.22 0.457 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.508U 5.22 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.514U 5.22 0.514 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.873U 5.22 0.873 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.922U 5.22 0.922 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.892U 5.22 0.892 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.757U 5.22 0.757 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.932U 5.22 0.932 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.10U 5.22 1.10 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.605U 5.22 0.605 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.644U 5.22 0.644 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.644U 5.22 0.644 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.644U 5.22 0.644 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.25U 5.22 1.25 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.644U 5.22 0.644 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.981U 5.22 0.981 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1.07U 5.22 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.962U 5.22 0.962 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 10.8 ug/Kg 82 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 10.7 ug/Kg 81 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 9.41 ug/Kg 71 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 14 ug/Kg 106 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202805 000817-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:20 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 18:12 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 5340J 17500 2520 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1440 ug/Kg 86 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202806 000821-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:25 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/31/2011 08:30 462382 3550B 1 08/10/2011 13:53 DLB 463127<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.410U 5.21 0.410 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.467U 5.21 0.467 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.456U 5.21 0.456 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.506U 5.21 0.506 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.513U 5.21 0.513 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.871U 5.21 0.871 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.920U 5.21 0.920 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.891U 5.21 0.891 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.755U 5.21 0.755 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.930U 5.21 0.930 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.10U 5.21 1.10 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.604U 5.21 0.604 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.21 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.763U 5.21 0.763 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.643U 5.21 0.643 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.21 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.21 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.763U 5.21 0.763 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.643U 5.21 0.643 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.594U 5.21 0.594 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.21 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.21 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.763U 5.21 0.763 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.643U 5.21 0.643 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.594U 5.21 0.594 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.21 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.21 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.594U 5.21 0.594 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.21 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.09U 5.21 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.25U 5.21 1.25 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.763U 5.21 0.763 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.643U 5.21 0.643 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.979U 5.21 0.979 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.594U 5.21 0.594 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1.07U 5.21 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.15U 5.21 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.960U 5.21 0.960 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 10.9 ug/Kg 82 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 10.7 ug/Kg 81 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 9.36 ug/Kg 71 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 13.8 ug/Kg 104 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202806 000821-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:25 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 18:30 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 11700J 17400 2490 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1660 1430 ug/Kg 86 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202807 000761-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/31/2011 08:30 462382 3550B 1 08/10/2011 14:37 DLB 463127<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.411U 5.22 0.411 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.469U 5.22 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.457U 5.22 0.457 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.508U 5.22 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.514U 5.22 0.514 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.873U 5.22 0.873 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.923U 5.22 0.923 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.893U 5.22 0.893 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.757U 5.22 0.757 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.932U 5.22 0.932 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.10U 5.22 1.10 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.606U 5.22 0.606 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.645U 5.22 0.645 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.645U 5.22 0.645 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.645U 5.22 0.645 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.09U 5.22 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.25U 5.22 1.25 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.765U 5.22 0.765 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.645U 5.22 0.645 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.982U 5.22 0.982 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.595U 5.22 0.595 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1.07U 5.22 1.07 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.15U 5.22 1.15 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.962U 5.22 0.962 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.3 9.05 ug/Kg 68 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.3 8.92 ug/Kg 67 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.3 7.47 ug/Kg 56 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.3 11.6 ug/Kg 87 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202807 000761-BOTTOM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 09:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 18:48 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 4340J 17100 2460 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1640 1260 ug/Kg 77 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202808 000805-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:15 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 19:06 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2420U 16900 2420 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1660 1460 ug/Kg 88 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202809 000758-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:20 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 19:24 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2460U 17100 2460 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1660 1400 ug/Kg 84 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202810 000757-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:25 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 20:17 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2430U 16900 2430 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1640 1480 ug/Kg 90 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202811 000803-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/31/2011 08:30 462382 3550B 1 08/10/2011 15:21 DLB 463127<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.390U 4.95 0.390 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.445U 4.95 0.445 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.434U 4.95 0.434 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.482U 4.95 0.482 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.488U 4.95 0.488 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.829U 4.95 0.829 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.876U 4.95 0.876 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.847U 4.95 0.847 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.718U 4.95 0.718 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.884U 4.95 0.884 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.05U 4.95 1.05 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.575U 4.95 0.575 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1.04U 4.95 1.04 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.726U 4.95 0.726 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.612U 4.95 0.612 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.09U 4.95 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1.04U 4.95 1.04 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.726U 4.95 0.726 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.612U 4.95 0.612 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.565U 4.95 0.565 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.09U 4.95 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1.04U 4.95 1.04 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.726U 4.95 0.726 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.612U 4.95 0.612 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.565U 4.95 0.565 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.09U 4.95 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1.04U 4.95 1.04 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.565U 4.95 0.565 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.09U 4.95 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.04U 4.95 1.04 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.19U 4.95 1.19 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.726U 4.95 0.726 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.612U 4.95 0.612 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.931U 4.95 0.931 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.565U 4.95 0.565 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1.01U 4.95 1.01 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.09U 4.95 1.09 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.913U 4.95 0.913 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 9.28 ug/Kg 70 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 8.32 ug/Kg 63 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 7.63 ug/Kg 58 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 11 ug/Kg 83 43 - 111<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21107202811 000803-BOTTEM SED 30 Solid 07/12/2011 12:30 07/20/2011 09:05<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
07/25/2011 14:30 461885 3550B 1 07/26/2011 20:35 SMH 462140<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 2700J 16600 2390 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1670 1450 ug/Kg 87 67 - 120<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211072028
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 463127 Client ID MB462382 LCS462382 LCSD462382<br />
Prep Batch 462382 GCAL ID 974741 974742 974743<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 07/31/2011 08:30 07/31/2011 08:30 07/31/2011 08:30<br />
Analytical Date 08/10/2011 08:48 08/10/2011 09:32 08/10/2011 10:15<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.456U 0.456<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.359U 0.359<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.315U 0.315<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.350U 0.350 13.3 10.4 78 50 - 150 9.16 69 13 40<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.394U 0.394<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.389U 0.389<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.669U 0.669<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.586U 0.586<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.737U 0.737<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.707U 0.707<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.580U 0.580<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.464U 0.464<br />
GCAL Report 211072028<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 463127 Client ID MB462382 LCS462382 LCSD462382<br />
Prep Batch 462382 GCAL ID 974741 974742 974743<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 07/31/2011 08:30 07/31/2011 08:30 07/31/2011 08:30<br />
Analytical Date 08/10/2011 08:48 08/10/2011 09:32 08/10/2011 10:15<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.714U 0.714<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.684U 0.684<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.819U 0.819<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.752U 0.752<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.958U 0.958<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.846U 0.846<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 10.9 82 13.3 10.5 79 20 - 97 10.5 79<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 11 83 13.3 11.2 84 22 - 98 9.57 72<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 9.5 71 13.3 10.9 82 51 - 120 9.51 71<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 11.6 87 13.3 12.2 92 43 - 111 10.1 76<br />
Analytical Batch 463127 Client ID 000803-BOTTEM SED 30 970634MS 970634MSD<br />
Prep Batch 462382 GCAL ID 21107202811 974744 974745<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type SAMPLE MS MSD<br />
Prep Date 07/31/2011 08:30 07/31/2011 08:30 07/31/2011 08:30<br />
Analytical Date 08/10/2011 15:21 08/10/2011 16:05 08/10/2011 16:49<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
% R RPD<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.00 0.347 13.3 9.88 74 50 - 150 8.21 62 18 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 9.28 70 13.3 10.8 81 20 - 97 8.94 67<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 8.32 63 13.3 9.08 68 22 - 98 8.15 61<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 7.63 58 13.3 8.47 64 51 - 120 7.37 55<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 11 83 13.3 13.2 99 43 - 111 11.1 84<br />
GCAL Report 211072028<br />
RPD<br />
Limit<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
General Chroma<strong>to</strong>graphy Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 462140 Client ID MB461885 LCS461885 LCSD461885<br />
Prep Batch 461885 GCAL ID 972581 972582 972583<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 07/25/2011 14:30 07/25/2011 14:30 07/25/2011 14:30<br />
Analytical Date 07/26/2011 14:00 07/26/2011 14:54 07/26/2011 15:12<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 1880U 1880 65800 52800 80 47 - 120 56000 85 6 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1460 89 1640 1430 87 67 - 120 1490 91<br />
Analytical Batch 462140 Client ID 106052IDW1 972351MS 972351MSD<br />
Prep Batch 461885 GCAL ID 21107230701 972584 972585<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type SAMPLE MS MSD<br />
Prep Date 07/25/2011 14:30 07/25/2011 14:30 07/25/2011 14:30<br />
Analytical Date 07/26/2011 15:30 07/26/2011 15:48 07/26/2011 16:42<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8015B<br />
Units<br />
Result<br />
ug/Kg<br />
RDL<br />
Spike<br />
Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
GCSV-00-44 Oil Range Organics 4130 1880 65600 57000 81 47 - 120 63900 90 12 40<br />
Surrogate<br />
84-15-1 o-Terphenyl 1640 1410 86 67 - 120 1650 99<br />
GCAL Report 211072028<br />
RPD<br />
Limit<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
PAH Analyte Trends - March <strong>to</strong> November 2012<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> 6<br />
Report Date 10/18/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211093016<br />
Report of Certified Lab Results for Surfrider Foundation! January 25, 2012
ANALYTICAL RESULTS<br />
PERFORMED BY<br />
GULF COAST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.<br />
7979 GSRI Avenue<br />
Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA 70820<br />
Report Date 10/18/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211093016<br />
*211093016*<br />
Deliver To The November 9th Group, LLC<br />
630 Fairway Ave. NE<br />
Fort Wal<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL 32547<br />
850-862-7134<br />
Attn James Kirby<br />
Project Surfrider State of the Beach<br />
NELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER 01955<br />
DOD ELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER ADE - 1482
Client: Surfrider Foundation Report: 211093016<br />
CASE NARRATIVE<br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries received and analyzed the sample(s) listed<br />
on the sample cross-reference page of this report. Receipt of the sample(s) is documented<br />
by the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. This applies only <strong>to</strong> the sample(s) listed in this report.<br />
No sample integrity or quality control exceptions were identified unless noted below.<br />
SEMI-VOLATILES MASS SPECTROMETRY<br />
In the SW-846 8272 Modified analysis, samples 21109301608 (005374), 21109301601 (005335),<br />
21109301602 (005363), 21109301603 (005361), 21109301605 (005337), 21109301604 (005320),<br />
21109301606 (005333), 21109301607 (005342), 21109301609 (005329) and 21109301610 (005340) had <strong>to</strong><br />
be diluted <strong>to</strong> eliminate interference from non-target background. This is reflected in elevated detection limits.<br />
The recoveries for the surrogates are reported as diluted out.
Sample analysis was performed in accordance with approved methodologies provided by the<br />
Environmental Protection Agency or other recognized agencies. The samples and their corresponding<br />
extracts will be maintained for a period of 30 days unless otherwise arranged. Following this retention<br />
period the samples will be disposed in accordance with GCAL's Standard Operating Procedures.<br />
Common Abbreviations Utilized in this Report<br />
ND Indicates the result was Not Detected at the specified RDL<br />
DO Indicates the result was Diluted Out<br />
MI Indicates the result was subject <strong>to</strong> Matrix Interference<br />
TNTC Indicates the result was Too Numerous To Count<br />
SUBC Indicates the analysis was Sub-Contracted<br />
FLD Indicates the analysis was performed in the Field<br />
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit<br />
MDL Method Detection Limit<br />
RDL Reporting Detection Limit<br />
00:00 Reported as a time equivalent <strong>to</strong> 12:00 AM<br />
Reporting Flags Utilized in this Report<br />
J Indicates an estimated value<br />
U Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected<br />
B (ORGANICS) Indicates the analyte was detected in the associated Method Blank<br />
B (INORGANICS) Indicates the result is between the RDL and MDL<br />
Sample receipt at GCAL is documented through the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. In accordance with<br />
NELAC, this report shall be reproduced only in full and with the written permission of GCAL. The results<br />
contained within this report relate only <strong>to</strong> the samples reported. The documented results are presented<br />
within this report.<br />
This report pertains only <strong>to</strong> the samples listed in the Report Sample Summary and should be retained as<br />
a permanent record thereof. The results contained within this report are intended for the use of the client.<br />
Any unauthorized use of the information contained in this report is prohibited.<br />
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the NELAC standard and terms and conditions of the<br />
contract and Statement of Work both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions in the<br />
case narrative. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package and in the<br />
computer-readable data submitted has been authorized by the Quality Assurance Manager or his/her<br />
designee, as verified by the following signature.<br />
Estimated uncertainty of measurement is available upon request. This report is in compliance with the<br />
DOD QSM as specified in the contract if applicable.<br />
Robyn Migues<br />
Technical Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
GCAL REPORT 211093016<br />
THIS REPORT CONTAINS _______ PAGES.<br />
Labora<strong>to</strong>ry Endorsement
Report Sample Summary<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301601 005335 Solid 09/11/2011 00:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301602 005363 Solid 09/11/2011 22:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301603 005361 Solid 09/23/2011 22:00 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301604 005320 Solid 09/29/2011 15:44 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301605 005337 Solid 09/29/2011 15:44 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301606 005333 Solid 08/30/2011 10:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301607 005342 Solid 08/30/2011 11:14 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301608 005374 Solid 08/30/2011 11:45 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301609 005329 Solid 08/30/2011 12:15 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
21109301610 005340 Solid 09/01/2011 09:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301601 005335 Solid 09/11/2011 00:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 796J 3050 544 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 9900 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 22700 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 6370 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 40100 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 25700 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 6200 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 2360J 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301602 005363 Solid 09/11/2011 22:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 6280 3680 769 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 3840 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13900 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 10300 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3740 3680 769 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301603 005361 Solid 09/23/2011 22:00 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 952J 4000 714 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 9900 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15700 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 6320 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 34200 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 24100 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 6690 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1580J 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301604 005320 Solid 09/29/2011 15:44 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1040J 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1250 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 345J 1200 176 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 380J 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301606 005333 Solid 08/30/2011 10:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 58.4J 86.9 15.5 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 602 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 238 86.9 12.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 531 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 493 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 256 86.9 12.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1500 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 265 86.9 12.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1360 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 744 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 334 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 21.8J 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 22.6J 86.9 16.0 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301607 005342 Solid 08/30/2011 11:14 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8.22J 42.7 6.19 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 15.6J 42.7 7.63 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.17J 42.7 4.96 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 165 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 99.6 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 137 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 330 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 309 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 195 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 88.3 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 8.11J 42.7 7.87 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301608 005374 Solid 08/30/2011 11:45 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 125J 452 80.6 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 970 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 492 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 780 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2070 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2290 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 579 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301609 005329 Solid 08/30/2011 12:15 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 22.5J 46.5 8.31 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 186 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 65.7 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 179 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 96.1 46.5 6.82 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 279 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 97.9 46.5 6.82 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 326 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 199 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 97.6 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301610 005340 Solid 09/01/2011 09:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 37.0J 45.7 8.15 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 410 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 144 45.7 6.69 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 365 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 348 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 184 45.7 6.69 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 208 45.7 5.64 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1100 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 185 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 227 45.7 6.69 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 292 45.7 5.64 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 994 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 461 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 256 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 24.1J 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 15.8J 45.7 8.42 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301601 005335 Solid 09/11/2011 00:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 100 10/12/2011 15:13 DLB 466969<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 240U 3050 240 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 273U 3050 273 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 266U 3050 266 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 296U 3050 296 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 300U 3050 300 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 509U 3050 509 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 538U 3050 538 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 521U 3050 521 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 442U 3050 442 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 796J 3050 544 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 644U 3050 644 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 353U 3050 353 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 9900 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 446U 3050 446 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 376U 3050 376 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 22700 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 6370 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 446U 3050 446 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 376U 3050 376 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 347U 3050 347 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 40100 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 637U 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 446U 3050 446 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 376U 3050 376 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 347U 3050 347 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 25700 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 637U 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 347U 3050 347 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 670U 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 6200 3050 637 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 729U 3050 729 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 446U 3050 446 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 376U 3050 376 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 573U 3050 573 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 347U 3050 347 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 624U 3050 624 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 2360J 3050 670 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 561U 3050 561 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 20.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 20.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 20.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 20.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A WET WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301602 005363 Solid 09/11/2011 22:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 100 10/12/2011 15:56 DLB 466969<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 290U 3680 290 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 330U 3680 330 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 322U 3680 322 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 358U 3680 358 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 363U 3680 363 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 616U 3680 616 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 651U 3680 651 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 629U 3680 629 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 534U 3680 534 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 657U 3680 657 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 779U 3680 779 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 427U 3680 427 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 6280 3680 769 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 539U 3680 539 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 455U 3680 455 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 3840 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 769U 3680 769 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 539U 3680 539 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 455U 3680 455 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 420U 3680 420 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13900 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 769U 3680 769 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 539U 3680 539 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 455U 3680 455 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 420U 3680 420 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 10300 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 769U 3680 769 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 420U 3680 420 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 810U 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3740 3680 769 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 882U 3680 882 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 539U 3680 539 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 455U 3680 455 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 692U 3680 692 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 420U 3680 420 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 754U 3680 754 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 810U 3680 810 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 678U 3680 678 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 24.5 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 24.5 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 24.5 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 24.5 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A WET WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301603 005361 Solid 09/23/2011 22:00 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 100 10/12/2011 16:40 DLB 466969<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 315U 4000 315 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 359U 4000 359 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 350U 4000 350 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 389U 4000 389 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 394U 4000 394 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 669U 4000 669 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 707U 4000 707 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 684U 4000 684 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 580U 4000 580 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 952J 4000 714 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 846U 4000 846 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 464U 4000 464 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 9900 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 586U 4000 586 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 494U 4000 494 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15700 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 6320 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 586U 4000 586 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 494U 4000 494 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 456U 4000 456 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 34200 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 836U 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 586U 4000 586 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 494U 4000 494 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 456U 4000 456 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 24100 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 836U 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 456U 4000 456 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 880U 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 6690 4000 836 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 958U 4000 958 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 586U 4000 586 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 494U 4000 494 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 752U 4000 752 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 456U 4000 456 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 819U 4000 819 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1580J 4000 880 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 737U 4000 737 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 26.7 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 26.7 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 26.7 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 26.7 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A WET WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301604 005320 Solid 09/29/2011 15:44 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 10 10/12/2011 18:08 DLB 466969<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 94.8U 1200 94.8 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 108U 1200 108 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 105U 1200 105 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 117U 1200 117 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 119U 1200 119 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 201U 1200 201 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 213U 1200 213 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 252U 1200 252 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 176U 1200 176 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 149U 1200 149 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1040J 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 252U 1200 252 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 176U 1200 176 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 149U 1200 149 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 137U 1200 137 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1250 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 252U 1200 252 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 176U 1200 176 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 149U 1200 149 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 137U 1200 137 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 265U 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 252U 1200 252 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 137U 1200 137 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 265U 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 252U 1200 252 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 345J 1200 176 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 149U 1200 149 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 137U 1200 137 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 380J 1200 265 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 222U 1200 222 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 20 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 20 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 20 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 20 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 20 10/13/2011 10:58 DLB 467045<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 412U 2410 412 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 349U 2410 349 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 430U 2410 430 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 509U 2410 509 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 279U 2410 279 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 577U 2410 577 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301604 005320 Solid 09/29/2011 15:44 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 20 10/13/2011 10:58 DLB 467045<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 453U 2410 453 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 493U 2410 493 ug/Kg<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301605 005337 Solid 09/29/2011 15:44 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 10 10/12/2011 17:24 DLB 466969<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 527U 6690 527 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 600U 6690 600 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 585U 6690 585 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 651U 6690 651 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 659U 6690 659 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1120U 6690 1120 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1180U 6690 1180 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1140U 6690 1140 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 970U 6690 970 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1190U 6690 1190 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1410U 6690 1410 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 776U 6690 776 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1400U 6690 1400 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 980U 6690 980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 826U 6690 826 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1470U 6690 1470 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1400U 6690 1400 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 980U 6690 980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 826U 6690 826 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 763U 6690 763 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1470U 6690 1470 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1400U 6690 1400 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 980U 6690 980 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 826U 6690 826 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 763U 6690 763 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1470U 6690 1470 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1400U 6690 1400 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 763U 6690 763 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1470U 6690 1470 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1400U 6690 1400 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1600U 6690 1600 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 980U 6690 980 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 826U 6690 826 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1260U 6690 1260 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 763U 6690 763 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1370U 6690 1370 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1470U 6690 1470 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1230U 6690 1230 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 222 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 222 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 222 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 222 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301606 005333 Solid 08/30/2011 10:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 20 10/13/2011 12:26 DLB 467045<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 6.84U 86.9 6.84 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 7.80U 86.9 7.80 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 7.60U 86.9 7.60 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 8.45U 86.9 8.45 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 8.56U 86.9 8.56 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 14.5U 86.9 14.5 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 15.4U 86.9 15.4 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 14.9U 86.9 14.9 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 12.6U 86.9 12.6 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 58.4J 86.9 15.5 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 18.4U 86.9 18.4 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10.1U 86.9 10.1 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 602 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 238 86.9 12.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 10.7U 86.9 10.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 531 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 493 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 256 86.9 12.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 10.7U 86.9 10.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 9.90U 86.9 9.90 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1500 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 18.2U 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 265 86.9 12.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 10.7U 86.9 10.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 9.90U 86.9 9.90 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1360 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 18.2U 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 9.90U 86.9 9.90 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 744 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 334 86.9 18.2 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 20.8U 86.9 20.8 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 12.7U 86.9 12.7 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 10.7U 86.9 10.7 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 16.3U 86.9 16.3 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 9.90U 86.9 9.90 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 17.8U 86.9 17.8 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 21.8J 86.9 19.1 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 22.6J 86.9 16.0 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301607 005342 Solid 08/30/2011 11:14 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 10 10/13/2011 13:10 DLB 467045<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 3.36U 42.7 3.36 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 3.83U 42.7 3.83 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 3.74U 42.7 3.74 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 4.15U 42.7 4.15 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 4.21U 42.7 4.21 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 7.14U 42.7 7.14 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 7.55U 42.7 7.55 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.31U 42.7 7.31 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8.22J 42.7 6.19 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 15.6J 42.7 7.63 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9.04U 42.7 9.04 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.17J 42.7 4.96 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 165 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 6.26U 42.7 6.26 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 5.28U 42.7 5.28 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 99.6 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 137 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 6.26U 42.7 6.26 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 5.28U 42.7 5.28 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 4.87U 42.7 4.87 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 330 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 8.93U 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 6.26U 42.7 6.26 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 5.28U 42.7 5.28 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 4.87U 42.7 4.87 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 309 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 8.93U 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 4.87U 42.7 4.87 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 195 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 88.3 42.7 8.93 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 10.2U 42.7 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 6.26U 42.7 6.26 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 5.28U 42.7 5.28 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8.03U 42.7 8.03 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 4.87U 42.7 4.87 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 8.75U 42.7 8.75 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 9.40U 42.7 9.40 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 8.11J 42.7 7.87 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.1 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.1 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.1 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.1 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301608 005374 Solid 08/30/2011 11:45 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 100 10/12/2011 13:04 DLB 466969<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 35.6U 452 35.6 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 40.5U 452 40.5 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 39.5U 452 39.5 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 43.9U 452 43.9 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 44.5U 452 44.5 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 75.5U 452 75.5 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 79.8U 452 79.8 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 77.2U 452 77.2 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 65.5U 452 65.5 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 125J 452 80.6 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 95.5U 452 95.5 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 52.4U 452 52.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 970 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 66.2U 452 66.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 55.8U 452 55.8 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 492 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 780 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 66.2U 452 66.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 55.8U 452 55.8 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 51.5U 452 51.5 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2070 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 94.4U 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 66.2U 452 66.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 55.8U 452 55.8 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 51.5U 452 51.5 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 2290 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 94.4U 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 51.5U 452 51.5 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 99.3U 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 579 452 94.4 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 108U 452 108 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 66.2U 452 66.2 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 55.8U 452 55.8 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 84.9U 452 84.9 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 51.5U 452 51.5 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 92.5U 452 92.5 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 99.3U 452 99.3 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 83.2U 452 83.2 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301609 005329 Solid 08/30/2011 12:15 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 10 10/13/2011 13:53 DLB 467045<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 3.66U 46.5 3.66 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 4.18U 46.5 4.18 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 4.07U 46.5 4.07 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 4.53U 46.5 4.53 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 4.58U 46.5 4.58 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 7.78U 46.5 7.78 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 8.22U 46.5 8.22 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.96U 46.5 7.96 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.75U 46.5 6.75 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 22.5J 46.5 8.31 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9.84U 46.5 9.84 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.40U 46.5 5.40 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 186 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 6.82U 46.5 6.82 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 5.75U 46.5 5.75 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 65.7 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 179 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 96.1 46.5 6.82 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 5.75U 46.5 5.75 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 5.30U 46.5 5.30 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 279 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 9.73U 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 97.9 46.5 6.82 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 5.75U 46.5 5.75 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 5.30U 46.5 5.30 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 326 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 9.73U 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 5.30U 46.5 5.30 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 199 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 97.6 46.5 9.73 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 11.1U 46.5 11.1 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 6.82U 46.5 6.82 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 5.75U 46.5 5.75 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8.75U 46.5 8.75 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 5.30U 46.5 5.30 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 9.53U 46.5 9.53 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 10.2U 46.5 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 8.57U 46.5 8.57 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21109301610 005340 Solid 09/01/2011 09:30 09/30/2011 09:15<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
10/05/2011 14:10 466478 3550B 10 10/13/2011 14:38 DLB 467045<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 3.60U 45.7 3.60 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 4.10U 45.7 4.10 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 4.00U 45.7 4.00 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 4.44U 45.7 4.44 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 4.50U 45.7 4.50 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 7.64U 45.7 7.64 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 8.07U 45.7 8.07 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.81U 45.7 7.81 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.62U 45.7 6.62 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 37.0J 45.7 8.15 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9.66U 45.7 9.66 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.30U 45.7 5.30 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 410 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 144 45.7 6.69 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 5.64U 45.7 5.64 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 365 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 348 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 184 45.7 6.69 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 208 45.7 5.64 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 5.21U 45.7 5.21 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1100 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 185 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 227 45.7 6.69 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 292 45.7 5.64 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 5.21U 45.7 5.21 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 994 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 9.55U 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 5.21U 45.7 5.21 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 461 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 256 45.7 9.55 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 10.9U 45.7 10.9 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 6.69U 45.7 6.69 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 5.64U 45.7 5.64 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8.59U 45.7 8.59 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 5.21U 45.7 5.21 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 9.35U 45.7 9.35 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 24.1J 45.7 10.0 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 15.8J 45.7 8.42 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.3 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211093016
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 466903 Client ID MB466478 LCS466478 LCSD466478<br />
Prep Batch 466478 GCAL ID 992988 992989 992990<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 10/05/2011 14:10 10/05/2011 14:10 10/05/2011 14:10<br />
Analytical Date 10/12/2011 10:52 10/11/2011 19:28 10/11/2011 20:12<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.456U 0.456<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.359U 0.359<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.315U 0.315<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.350U 0.350 13.3 9.20 69 50 - 150 8.53 64 8 40<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.394U 0.394<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.389U 0.389<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.669U 0.669<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.586U 0.586<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.737U 0.737<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.707U 0.707<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.580U 0.580<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.464U 0.464<br />
GCAL Report 211093016<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 466903 Client ID MB466478 LCS466478 LCSD466478<br />
Prep Batch 466478 GCAL ID 992988 992989 992990<br />
Prep Method 3550B Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 10/05/2011 14:10 10/05/2011 14:10 10/05/2011 14:10<br />
Analytical Date 10/12/2011 10:52 10/11/2011 19:28 10/11/2011 20:12<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.714U 0.714<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.684U 0.684<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.819U 0.819<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.752U 0.752<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.958U 0.958<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.846U 0.846<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 9.43 71 13.3 11.3 85 20 - 97 10.7 80<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 7.49 56 13.3 11.9 89 22 - 98 10.1 76<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 10.4 78 13.3 11.8 89 51 - 120 10.6 80<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 6.82 51 13.3 14.4 108 43 - 111 11.5 86<br />
GCAL Report 211093016<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
PAH Analyte Trends - March <strong>to</strong> November 2012<br />
<strong>Appendix</strong> 7<br />
Report Date 12/19/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211111116<br />
Report of Certified Lab Results for Surfrider Foundation! January 25, 2012
ANALYTICAL RESULTS<br />
PERFORMED BY<br />
GULF COAST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.<br />
7979 GSRI Avenue<br />
Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA 70820<br />
Report Date 12/19/2011<br />
GCAL Report 211111116<br />
*211111116*<br />
Deliver To The November 9th Group, LLC<br />
630 Fairway Ave. NE<br />
Fort Wal<strong>to</strong>n Beach, FL 32547<br />
850-862-7134<br />
Attn James Kirby<br />
Project Surfrider State of the Beach<br />
NELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER 01955<br />
DOD ELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER ADE - 1482
Client: Surfrider Foundation Report: 211111116<br />
CASE NARRATIVE<br />
Gulf Coast Analytical Labora<strong>to</strong>ries received and analyzed the sample(s) listed<br />
on the sample cross-reference page of this report. Receipt of the sample(s) is documented<br />
by the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. This applies only <strong>to</strong> the sample(s) listed in this report.<br />
No sample integrity or quality control exceptions were identified unless noted below.<br />
SEMI-VOLATILES MASS SPECTROMETRY<br />
In the SW-846 8272 Modified analysis, samples 21111111601 (1365-DA 001-TAR BALLS), 21111111604<br />
(1335-FP001-TAR BALLS), 21111111606 (0460-R49-TAR BALLS) 21111111608 (1341-R58-TAR<br />
BALLS), 21111111609 (1347-R56-TAR BALLS), 21111111610 (0454-R66 PLUNGE STEP), 21111111611<br />
(1329-R66A-TAR BALLS), 21111111613 (1351-R53-BLACK JELLY BEAN), 21111111614 (0463-R47-<br />
TAR BALLS), and 21111111615 (0438-R48R51-TAR BALLS) had <strong>to</strong> be diluted <strong>to</strong> eliminate interference<br />
from non-target background. Samples 21111111610 (0454-R66 PLUNGE STEP), 21111111611 (1329-<br />
R66A-TAR BALLS), and 21111111613 (1351-R53-BLACK JELLY BEAN) required additional dilutions<br />
for compounds associated with failed internal standards in the lower dilution. The dilution are reflected in<br />
elevated detection limits. The recoveries for the surrogates are reported as diluted out.<br />
In the SW-846 8272 Modified analysis, the recovery for the surrogate Acenaphthylene-d8 is outside the<br />
control limits for sample 21111111607 (0458-R46-TARBALLS WITH SAND). All other surrogate<br />
recoveries are acceptable.
Sample analysis was performed in accordance with approved methodologies provided by the<br />
Environmental Protection Agency or other recognized agencies. The samples and their corresponding<br />
extracts will be maintained for a period of 30 days unless otherwise arranged. Following this retention<br />
period the samples will be disposed in accordance with GCAL's Standard Operating Procedures.<br />
Common Abbreviations Utilized in this Report<br />
ND Indicates the result was Not Detected at the specified RDL<br />
DO Indicates the result was Diluted Out<br />
MI Indicates the result was subject <strong>to</strong> Matrix Interference<br />
TNTC Indicates the result was Too Numerous To Count<br />
SUBC Indicates the analysis was Sub-Contracted<br />
FLD Indicates the analysis was performed in the Field<br />
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit<br />
MDL Method Detection Limit<br />
RDL Reporting Detection Limit<br />
00:00 Reported as a time equivalent <strong>to</strong> 12:00 AM<br />
Reporting Flags Utilized in this Report<br />
J Indicates the result is between the MDL and RDL<br />
U Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected<br />
B Indicates the analyte was detected in the associated Method Blank<br />
Sample receipt at GCAL is documented through the attached chain of cus<strong>to</strong>dy. In accordance with<br />
NELAC, this report shall be reproduced only in full and with the written permission of GCAL. The results<br />
contained within this report relate only <strong>to</strong> the samples reported. The documented results are presented<br />
within this report.<br />
This report pertains only <strong>to</strong> the samples listed in the Report Sample Summary and should be retained as<br />
a permanent record thereof. The results contained within this report are intended for the use of the client.<br />
Any unauthorized use of the information contained in this report is prohibited.<br />
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the NELAC standard and terms and conditions of the<br />
contract and Statement of Work both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions in the<br />
case narrative. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package and in the<br />
computer-readable data submitted has been authorized by the Quality Assurance Manager or his/her<br />
designee, as verified by the following signature.<br />
Estimated uncertainty of measurement is available upon request. This report is in compliance with the<br />
DOD QSM as specified in the contract if applicable.<br />
Robyn Migues<br />
Technical Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
GCAL REPORT 211111116<br />
THIS REPORT CONTAINS _______ PAGES.<br />
Labora<strong>to</strong>ry Endorsement
Report Sample Summary<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111601 1365-DA 001-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 00:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111602 0486 -DA 002-SAND-CARB HOLE Solid 11/04/2011 01:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111603 0471-NB001-SAND Solid 11/03/2011 18:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111604 1335-FP001-TAR BALLS Solid 10/15/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111605 0457-<strong>PB</strong>001-WEST-SAND Solid 11/03/2011 21:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111606 0460-R49-TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:20 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111607 0458-R46-TARBALLS WITH SAND Solid 11/03/2011 08:45 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111608 1341-R58-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 09:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111609 1347-R56-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 08:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111610 0454-R66 PLUNGE STEP Solid 11/04/2011 11:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111611 1329-R66A-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111612 1339-R66B-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111613 1351-R53-BLACK JELLY BEAN Solid 11/03/2011 21:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111614 0463-R47- TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
21111111615 0438-R48R51-TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111601 1365-DA 001-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 00:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1890J 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 6520 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 5560J 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3140J 6270 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111602 0486 -DA 002-SAND-CARB HOLE Solid 11/04/2011 01:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.13J 4.11 0.727 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.75J 4.11 0.704 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.40J 4.11 0.597 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.82J 4.11 0.477 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.43J 4.11 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111606 0460-R49-TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:20 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4500 3070 675 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 5940 3070 675 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 2530J 3070 641 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111608 1341-R58-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 09:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1790J 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 8070 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 7490 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3610J 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111609 1347-R56-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 08:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 7190 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111609 1347-R56-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 08:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 6610 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 2640J 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111610 0454-R66 PLUNGE STEP Solid 11/04/2011 11:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15600 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 4810J 7650 944 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 36300 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 25800 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 4040J 15300 3200 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111611 1329-R66A-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 156000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 472000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 368000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 212000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111612 1339-R66B-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 34.0J 70.4 6.85 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 15.8J 70.4 10.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111613 1351-R53-BLACK JELLY BEAN Solid 11/03/2011 21:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 88600 60200 13200 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 132000 60200 13200 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111614 0463-R47- TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Summary of Compounds Detected (con't)<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 25900J 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 51200 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 36500 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 7370J 31500 6590 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111601 1365-DA 001-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 00:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 16:09 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 493U 6270 493 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 562U 6270 562 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 548U 6270 548 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 609U 6270 609 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 617U 6270 617 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1050U 6270 1050 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1110U 6270 1110 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1070U 6270 1070 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 909U 6270 909 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1120U 6270 1120 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1330U 6270 1330 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 727U 6270 727 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1310U 6270 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 918U 6270 918 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 774U 6270 774 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1890J 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1310U 6270 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 918U 6270 918 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 774U 6270 774 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 714U 6270 714 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 6520 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1310U 6270 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 918U 6270 918 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 774U 6270 774 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 714U 6270 714 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 5560J 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1310U 6270 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 714U 6270 714 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3140J 6270 1310 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1500U 6270 1500 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 918U 6270 918 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 774U 6270 774 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1180U 6270 1180 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 714U 6270 714 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1280U 6270 1280 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1380U 6270 1380 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1150U 6270 1150 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111602 0486 -DA 002-SAND-CARB HOLE Solid 11/04/2011 01:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 1 12/07/2011 20:43 JEW 470615<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.324U 4.11 0.324 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.369U 4.11 0.369 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.360U 4.11 0.360 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.400U 4.11 0.400 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.405U 4.11 0.405 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.688U 4.11 0.688 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.13J 4.11 0.727 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.75J 4.11 0.704 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.40J 4.11 0.597 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.734U 4.11 0.734 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.870U 4.11 0.870 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.82J 4.11 0.477 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.11 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.603U 4.11 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.508U 4.11 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.905U 4.11 0.905 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.11 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.603U 4.11 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.508U 4.11 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.469U 4.11 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.905U 4.11 0.905 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.11 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.603U 4.11 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.508U 4.11 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.469U 4.11 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.905U 4.11 0.905 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.860U 4.11 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.469U 4.11 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.905U 4.11 0.905 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1.43J 4.11 0.860 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.985U 4.11 0.985 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.603U 4.11 0.603 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.508U 4.11 0.508 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.773U 4.11 0.773 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.469U 4.11 0.469 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.842U 4.11 0.842 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.905U 4.11 0.905 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.758U 4.11 0.758 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.2 12.2 ug/Kg 92 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.2 11.3 ug/Kg 86 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.2 10.2 ug/Kg 77 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.2 8.93 ug/Kg 68 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111603 0471-NB001-SAND Solid 11/03/2011 18:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 1 12/07/2011 21:27 JEW 470615<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.319U 4.05 0.319 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.363U 4.05 0.363 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.354U 4.05 0.354 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.394U 4.05 0.394 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.399U 4.05 0.399 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.677U 4.05 0.677 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.716U 4.05 0.716 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.692U 4.05 0.692 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.587U 4.05 0.587 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.723U 4.05 0.723 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.856U 4.05 0.856 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.470U 4.05 0.470 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.846U 4.05 0.846 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.593U 4.05 0.593 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.500U 4.05 0.500 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.891U 4.05 0.891 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.846U 4.05 0.846 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.593U 4.05 0.593 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.500U 4.05 0.500 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.462U 4.05 0.462 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.891U 4.05 0.891 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.846U 4.05 0.846 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.593U 4.05 0.593 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.500U 4.05 0.500 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.462U 4.05 0.462 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.891U 4.05 0.891 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.846U 4.05 0.846 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.462U 4.05 0.462 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.891U 4.05 0.891 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.846U 4.05 0.846 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.970U 4.05 0.970 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.593U 4.05 0.593 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.500U 4.05 0.500 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.761U 4.05 0.761 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.462U 4.05 0.462 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.829U 4.05 0.829 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.891U 4.05 0.891 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.746U 4.05 0.746 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.1 9.87 ug/Kg 75 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.1 7.55 ug/Kg 58 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.1 8.72 ug/Kg 66 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.1 5.88 ug/Kg 45 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111604 1335-FP001-TAR BALLS Solid 10/15/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 19:46 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 495U 6290 495 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 564U 6290 564 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 550U 6290 550 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 611U 6290 611 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 619U 6290 619 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1050U 6290 1050 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1110U 6290 1110 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1070U 6290 1070 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 911U 6290 911 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1120U 6290 1120 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1330U 6290 1330 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 729U 6290 729 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1310U 6290 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 921U 6290 921 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 776U 6290 776 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6290 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1310U 6290 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 921U 6290 921 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 776U 6290 776 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 717U 6290 717 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6290 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1310U 6290 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 921U 6290 921 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 776U 6290 776 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 717U 6290 717 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6290 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1310U 6290 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 717U 6290 717 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6290 1380 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1310U 6290 1310 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1510U 6290 1510 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 921U 6290 921 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 776U 6290 776 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1180U 6290 1180 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 717U 6290 717 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1290U 6290 1290 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1380U 6290 1380 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1160U 6290 1160 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111605 0457-<strong>PB</strong>001-WEST-SAND Solid 11/03/2011 21:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 1 12/07/2011 22:11 JEW 470615<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.322U 4.09 0.322 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.367U 4.09 0.367 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.358U 4.09 0.358 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.398U 4.09 0.398 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.403U 4.09 0.403 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.685U 4.09 0.685 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.724U 4.09 0.724 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.700U 4.09 0.700 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.594U 4.09 0.594 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.731U 4.09 0.731 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.866U 4.09 0.866 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.475U 4.09 0.475 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.856U 4.09 0.856 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.600U 4.09 0.600 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.506U 4.09 0.506 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.901U 4.09 0.901 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.856U 4.09 0.856 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.600U 4.09 0.600 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.506U 4.09 0.506 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.467U 4.09 0.467 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.901U 4.09 0.901 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.856U 4.09 0.856 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.600U 4.09 0.600 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.506U 4.09 0.506 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.467U 4.09 0.467 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.901U 4.09 0.901 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.856U 4.09 0.856 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.467U 4.09 0.467 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.901U 4.09 0.901 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.856U 4.09 0.856 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.980U 4.09 0.980 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.600U 4.09 0.600 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.506U 4.09 0.506 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.770U 4.09 0.770 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.467U 4.09 0.467 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.838U 4.09 0.838 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.901U 4.09 0.901 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.754U 4.09 0.754 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 13.3 9.37 ug/Kg 70 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 13.3 10.3 ug/Kg 77 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 13.3 10.2 ug/Kg 77 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 13.3 9.32 ug/Kg 70 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111606 0460-R49-TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:20 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 50 12/12/2011 09:18 JEW 470897<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 241U 3070 241 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 275U 3070 275 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 268U 3070 268 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 298U 3070 298 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 302U 3070 302 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 513U 3070 513 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 542U 3070 542 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 524U 3070 524 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 445U 3070 445 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 547U 3070 547 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 648U 3070 648 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 356U 3070 356 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 641U 3070 641 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 449U 3070 449 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 379U 3070 379 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 675U 3070 675 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 641U 3070 641 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 449U 3070 449 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 379U 3070 379 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 350U 3070 350 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4500 3070 675 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 641U 3070 641 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 449U 3070 449 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 379U 3070 379 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 350U 3070 350 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 5940 3070 675 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 641U 3070 641 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 350U 3070 350 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 675U 3070 675 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 2530J 3070 641 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 734U 3070 734 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 449U 3070 449 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 379U 3070 379 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 576U 3070 576 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 350U 3070 350 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 628U 3070 628 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 675U 3070 675 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 565U 3070 565 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111607 0458-R46-TARBALLS WITH SAND Solid 11/03/2011 08:45 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 1 12/07/2011 16:19 JEW 470615<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 4.81U 61.1 4.81 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 5.48U 61.1 5.48 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 5.34U 61.1 5.34 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 5.94U 61.1 5.94 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 6.02U 61.1 6.02 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 10.2U 61.1 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 10.8U 61.1 10.8 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 10.4U 61.1 10.4 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8.86U 61.1 8.86 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 10.9U 61.1 10.9 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 12.9U 61.1 12.9 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 7.08U 61.1 7.08 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 12.8U 61.1 12.8 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8.95U 61.1 8.95 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 7.54U 61.1 7.54 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13.4U 61.1 13.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 12.8U 61.1 12.8 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8.95U 61.1 8.95 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 7.54U 61.1 7.54 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 6.96U 61.1 6.96 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13.4U 61.1 13.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 12.8U 61.1 12.8 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8.95U 61.1 8.95 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 7.54U 61.1 7.54 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 6.96U 61.1 6.96 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13.4U 61.1 13.4 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 12.8U 61.1 12.8 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 6.96U 61.1 6.96 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13.4U 61.1 13.4 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 12.8U 61.1 12.8 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 14.6U 61.1 14.6 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 8.95U 61.1 8.95 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 7.54U 61.1 7.54 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 11.5U 61.1 11.5 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 6.96U 61.1 6.96 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 12.5U 61.1 12.5 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 13.4U 61.1 13.4 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 11.3U 61.1 11.3 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 205 ug/Kg 103* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 194 ug/Kg 97 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 172 ug/Kg 86 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 151 ug/Kg 76 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111608 1341-R58-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 09:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 15:25 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 476U 6040 476 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 542U 6040 542 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 528U 6040 528 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 587U 6040 587 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 595U 6040 595 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1010U 6040 1010 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1070U 6040 1070 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1030U 6040 1030 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 876U 6040 876 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1080U 6040 1080 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1280U 6040 1280 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 701U 6040 701 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1790J 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 688U 6040 688 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 8070 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 688U 6040 688 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 7490 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 688U 6040 688 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1330U 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 3610J 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1450U 6040 1450 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1140U 6040 1140 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 688U 6040 688 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1240U 6040 1240 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1330U 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1110U 6040 1110 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111609 1347-R56-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 08:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 14:40 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 476U 6040 476 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 542U 6040 542 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 529U 6040 529 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 588U 6040 588 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 595U 6040 595 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1010U 6040 1010 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1070U 6040 1070 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1030U 6040 1030 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 876U 6040 876 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1080U 6040 1080 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1280U 6040 1280 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 701U 6040 701 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1330U 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 689U 6040 689 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 7190 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 689U 6040 689 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 6610 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1260U 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 689U 6040 689 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1330U 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 2640J 6040 1260 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1450U 6040 1450 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 885U 6040 885 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 746U 6040 746 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1140U 6040 1140 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 689U 6040 689 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1240U 6040 1240 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1330U 6040 1330 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1110U 6040 1110 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111610 0454-R66 PLUNGE STEP Solid 11/04/2011 11:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 16:53 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 602U 7650 602 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 686U 7650 686 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 669U 7650 669 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 744U 7650 744 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 753U 7650 753 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1280U 7650 1280 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1120U 7650 1120 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 944U 7650 944 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15600 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1120U 7650 1120 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 4810J 7650 944 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 872U 7650 872 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 36300 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1120U 7650 1120 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 944U 7650 944 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 872U 7650 872 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 25800 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 872U 7650 872 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1680U 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 1120U 7650 1120 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 944U 7650 944 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 872U 7650 872 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1680U 7650 1680 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1410U 7650 1410 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 235 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 235 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 235 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 235 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 200 12/09/2011 09:33 JEW 470787<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 2700U 15300 2700 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 2620U 15300 2620 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2220U 15300 2220 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 2730U 15300 2730 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3230U 15300 3230 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1770U 15300 1770 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 3200U 15300 3200 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 3200U 15300 3200 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 3200U 15300 3200 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 3200U 15300 3200 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 4040J 15300 3200 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3660U 15300 3660 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111610 0454-R66 PLUNGE STEP Solid 11/04/2011 11:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 200 12/09/2011 09:33 JEW 470787<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2880U 15300 2880 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 3130U 15300 3130 ug/Kg<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111611 1329-R66A-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 19:02 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 5000U 63500 5000 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 5700U 63500 5700 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 5550U 63500 5550 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 6170U 63500 6170 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 6250U 63500 6250 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 10600U 63500 10600 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 9300U 63500 9300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 7840U 63500 7840 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 156000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 9300U 63500 9300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 7840U 63500 7840 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 7240U 63500 7240 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 472000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 9300U 63500 9300 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 7840U 63500 7840 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 7240U 63500 7240 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 368000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 7240U 63500 7240 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 212000 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 9300U 63500 9300 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 7840U 63500 7840 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 7240U 63500 7240 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 14000U 63500 14000 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 11700U 63500 11700 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 200 12/09/2011 11:02 JEW 470787<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 22400U 127000 22400 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 21700U 127000 21700 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 18400U 127000 18400 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 22700U 127000 22700 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 26900U 127000 26900 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 14700U 127000 14700 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 26500U 127000 26500 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 26500U 127000 26500 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 26500U 127000 26500 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 26500U 127000 26500 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 26500U 127000 26500 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 30400U 127000 30400 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111611 1329-R66A-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 200 12/09/2011 11:02 JEW 470787<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 23900U 127000 23900 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 26000U 127000 26000 ug/Kg<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111612 1339-R66B-TAR BALLS Solid 11/04/2011 10:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 1 12/07/2011 22:55 JEW 470615<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 5.55U 70.4 5.55 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.32U 70.4 6.32 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 6.16U 70.4 6.16 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 34.0J 70.4 6.85 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 6.94U 70.4 6.94 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 11.8U 70.4 11.8 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 12.4U 70.4 12.4 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 12.0U 70.4 12.0 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 10.2U 70.4 10.2 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 12.6U 70.4 12.6 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 14.9U 70.4 14.9 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8.17U 70.4 8.17 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 14.7U 70.4 14.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 10.3U 70.4 10.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 8.70U 70.4 8.70 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15.5U 70.4 15.5 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 14.7U 70.4 14.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 10.3U 70.4 10.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 8.70U 70.4 8.70 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 8.03U 70.4 8.03 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15.5U 70.4 15.5 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 14.7U 70.4 14.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 10.3U 70.4 10.3 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 8.70U 70.4 8.70 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 8.03U 70.4 8.03 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15.5U 70.4 15.5 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 14.7U 70.4 14.7 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 8.03U 70.4 8.03 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 15.5U 70.4 15.5 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 14.7U 70.4 14.7 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 16.9U 70.4 16.9 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 15.8J 70.4 10.3 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 8.70U 70.4 8.70 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 13.2U 70.4 13.2 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 8.03U 70.4 8.03 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 14.4U 70.4 14.4 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 15.5U 70.4 15.5 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 13.0U 70.4 13.0 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 158 ug/Kg 79 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 146 ug/Kg 73 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 148 ug/Kg 74 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 128 ug/Kg 64 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111613 1351-R53-BLACK JELLY BEAN Solid 11/03/2011 21:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 17:36 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 4740U 60200 4740 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 5400U 60200 5400 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 5260U 60200 5260 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 5850U 60200 5850 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 5930U 60200 5930 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 10100U 60200 10100 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8810U 60200 8810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 7430U 60200 7430 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13200U 60200 13200 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8810U 60200 8810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 7430U 60200 7430 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 6860U 60200 6860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 88600 60200 13200 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8810U 60200 8810 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 7430U 60200 7430 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 6860U 60200 6860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 132000 60200 13200 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 6860U 60200 6860 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13200U 60200 13200 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 8810U 60200 8810 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 7430U 60200 7430 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 6860U 60200 6860 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 13200U 60200 13200 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 11100U 60200 11100 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 200 12/09/2011 10:17 JEW 470787<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 21300U 120000 21300 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 20600U 120000 20600 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 17400U 120000 17400 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 21500U 120000 21500 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 25400U 120000 25400 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 14000U 120000 14000 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 25100U 120000 25100 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 25100U 120000 25100 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 25100U 120000 25100 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 25100U 120000 25100 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 25100U 120000 25100 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 28800U 120000 28800 ug/Kg<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111613 1351-R53-BLACK JELLY BEAN Solid 11/03/2011 21:30 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 200 12/09/2011 10:17 JEW 470787<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 22600U 120000 22600 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 24600U 120000 24600 ug/Kg<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111614 0463-R47- TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:00 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 50 12/09/2011 15:25 JEW 470787<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 2480U 31500 2480 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 2830U 31500 2830 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 2760U 31500 2760 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 3070U 31500 3070 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 3110U 31500 3110 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 5280U 31500 5280 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 5580U 31500 5580 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 5390U 31500 5390 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4570U 31500 4570 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 5630U 31500 5630 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6670U 31500 6670 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3660U 31500 3660 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 6590U 31500 6590 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4620U 31500 4620 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 3900U 31500 3900 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 25900J 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 6590U 31500 6590 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4620U 31500 4620 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 3900U 31500 3900 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 3600U 31500 3600 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 51200 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 6590U 31500 6590 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 4620U 31500 4620 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 3900U 31500 3900 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 3600U 31500 3600 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 36500 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 6590U 31500 6590 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 3600U 31500 3600 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 6940U 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 7370J 31500 6590 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7560U 31500 7560 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 4620U 31500 4620 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 3900U 31500 3900 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 5930U 31500 5930 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 3600U 31500 3600 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 6460U 31500 6460 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 6940U 31500 6940 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 5810U 31500 5810 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 Diluted Out ug/Kg 0* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GCAL ID Client ID Matrix Collect Date/Time Receive Date/Time<br />
21111111615 0438-R48R51-TAR BALLS Solid 11/03/2011 09:15 11/11/2011 08:40<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch<br />
11/22/2011 07:20 469322 3550C 100 12/08/2011 18:19 JEW 470697<br />
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 492U 6250 492 ug/Kg<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 561U 6250 561 ug/Kg<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 547U 6250 547 ug/Kg<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 608U 6250 608 ug/Kg<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 616U 6250 616 ug/Kg<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 1050U 6250 1050 ug/Kg<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1110U 6250 1110 ug/Kg<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 1070U 6250 1070 ug/Kg<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 907U 6250 907 ug/Kg<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 1120U 6250 1120 ug/Kg<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1320U 6250 1320 ug/Kg<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 725U 6250 725 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 1310U 6250 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 916U 6250 916 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 772U 6250 772 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6250 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 1310U 6250 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 916U 6250 916 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 772U 6250 772 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 713U 6250 713 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6250 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 1310U 6250 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 916U 6250 916 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 772U 6250 772 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 713U 6250 713 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6250 1380 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 1310U 6250 1310 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 713U 6250 713 ug/Kg<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1380U 6250 1380 ug/Kg<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 1310U 6250 1310 ug/Kg<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1500U 6250 1500 ug/Kg<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 916U 6250 916 ug/Kg<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 772U 6250 772 ug/Kg<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1180U 6250 1180 ug/Kg<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 713U 6250 713 ug/Kg<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 1280U 6250 1280 ug/Kg<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1380U 6250 1380 ug/Kg<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 1150U 6250 1150 ug/Kg<br />
CAS# Surrogate Conc. Spiked Conc. Rec Units % Recovery Rec Limits<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 200 37.8 ug/Kg 19* 20 - 97<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 200 26300 ug/Kg 13200* 22 - 98<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 200 242 ug/Kg 121* 51 - 120<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 200 22300 ug/Kg 11200* 43 - 111<br />
RESULTS REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS<br />
GCAL Report 211111116
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 470375 Client ID MB469322 LCS469322 LCSD469322<br />
Prep Batch 469322 GCAL ID 1006924 1006925 1006926<br />
Prep Method 3550C Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 11/22/2011 07:20 11/22/2011 07:20 11/22/2011 07:20<br />
Analytical Date 12/06/2011 14:55 12/06/2011 15:38 12/06/2011 16:21<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.456U 0.456<br />
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.359U 0.359<br />
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.315U 0.315<br />
GCSV-08-01 C2-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-02 C3-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
GCSV-08-03 C4-Naphthalenes 0.456U 0.456<br />
7297-45-2 2-Methylnaphthalene-d10 0.350U 0.350 13.3 11.1 83 50 - 150 11.8 89 6 40<br />
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.394U 0.394<br />
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.389U 0.389<br />
86-73-7 Fluorene 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-04 C1-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-05 C2-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
GCSV-08-06 C3-Fluorenes 0.494U 0.494<br />
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-07 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-08 C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-09 C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
GCSV-08-10 C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 0.880U 0.880<br />
120-12-7 Anthracene 0.669U 0.669<br />
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.586U 0.586<br />
129-00-0 Pyrene 0.737U 0.737<br />
GCSV-08-11 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-12 C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
GCSV-08-13 C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 0.586U 0.586<br />
218-01-9 Chrysene 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-14 C1-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-15 C2-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-16 C3-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
GCSV-08-17 C4-Chrysenes 0.836U 0.836<br />
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.707U 0.707<br />
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.580U 0.580<br />
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.464U 0.464<br />
GCAL Report 211111116<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
GC/MS Semi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary<br />
Analytical Batch 470375 Client ID MB469322 LCS469322 LCSD469322<br />
Prep Batch 469322 GCAL ID 1006924 1006925 1006926<br />
Prep Method 3550C Sample Type Method Blank LCS LCSD<br />
Prep Date 11/22/2011 07:20 11/22/2011 07:20 11/22/2011 07:20<br />
Analytical Date 12/06/2011 14:55 12/06/2011 15:38 12/06/2011 16:21<br />
Matrix Solid Solid Solid<br />
SW-846 8272 Modified Solid<br />
Units ug/Kg Spike<br />
Result RDL Added<br />
Result<br />
%R<br />
Control<br />
Limits % R<br />
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.714U 0.714<br />
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.684U 0.684<br />
77392-71-3 Perylene 0.819U 0.819<br />
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.752U 0.752<br />
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.958U 0.958<br />
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.846U 0.846<br />
Surrogate<br />
93951-97-4 Acenaphthylene-d8 11.7 88 13.3 12.1 91 20 - 97 10.8 81<br />
1719-06-8 Anthracene-d10 10.1 76 13.3 8.17 61 22 - 98 9.57 72<br />
1718-52-1 Pyrene-d10 11.3 85 13.3 12.1 91 51 - 120 10.4 78<br />
63466-71-7 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 8.38 63 13.3 12.4 93 43 - 111 10.8 81<br />
GCAL Report 211111116<br />
Result<br />
% R RPD<br />
RPD<br />
Limit
Online article and related content<br />
current as of August 20, 2010.<br />
Correction<br />
Citations<br />
Topic collections<br />
Subscribe<br />
http://jama.com/subscribe<br />
Permissions<br />
permissions@ama-assn.org<br />
http://pubs.ama-assn.org/misc/permissions.dtl<br />
Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill<br />
Gina M. Solomon; Sarah Janssen<br />
JAMA.<br />
published online Aug 16, 2010; (doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254)<br />
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/jama.2010.1254v1<br />
Contact me if this article is corrected.<br />
Contact me when this article is cited.<br />
Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Public Health; Public Health, Other<br />
Contact me when new articles are published in these <strong>to</strong>pic areas.<br />
Email Alerts<br />
http://jamaarchives.com/alerts<br />
Reprints/E-prints<br />
reprints@ama-assn.org<br />
Downloaded from<br />
www.jama.com by guest on August 20, 2010
COMMENTARY<br />
Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill<br />
Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH<br />
Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH<br />
THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO POSES DIRECT<br />
threats <strong>to</strong> human health from inhalation or dermal<br />
contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and<br />
indirect threats <strong>to</strong> seafood safety and mental health.<br />
Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil<br />
spills <strong>to</strong> appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients<br />
who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wherever a major<br />
oil spill occurs.<br />
The main components of crude oil are aliphatic and aromatic<br />
hydrocarbons. 1 Lower-molecular-weight aromatics—<br />
such as benzene, <strong>to</strong>luene, and xylene—are volatile organic<br />
compounds (VOCs) and evaporate within hours after the<br />
oil reaches the surface. Volatile organic compounds can cause<br />
respira<strong>to</strong>ry irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression.<br />
Benzene is known <strong>to</strong> cause leukemia in humans,<br />
and <strong>to</strong>luene is a recognized tera<strong>to</strong>gen at high doses. 1 Highermolecular-weight<br />
chemicals such as naphthalene evaporate<br />
more slowly. Naphthalene is listed by the National Toxicology<br />
Program as “reasonably anticipated <strong>to</strong> cause cancer<br />
in humans” based on olfac<strong>to</strong>ry neuroblas<strong>to</strong>mas, nasal tumors,<br />
and lung cancers in animals. 2 Oil can also release hydrogen<br />
sulfide gas and contains traces of heavy metals, as<br />
well as nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)<br />
that can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas<br />
is neuro<strong>to</strong>xic and has been linked <strong>to</strong> both acute and chronic<br />
CNS effects; PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens.<br />
1 Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated<br />
with cardiac and respira<strong>to</strong>ry symp<strong>to</strong>ms and premature<br />
mortality. The Gulf oil spill is unique because of the<br />
large-scale use of dispersants <strong>to</strong> break up the oil slick. By<br />
late July, more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant had<br />
been applied in the Gulf. Dispersants contain detergents,<br />
surfactants, and petroleum distillates, including respira<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
irritants such as 2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol, propylene glycol, and<br />
sulfonic acid salts.<br />
Acute Health Effects From Oil and Dispersants<br />
In Louisiana in the early months of the oil spill, more than<br />
300 individuals, three-fourths of whom were cleanup workers,<br />
sought medical care for constitutional symp<strong>to</strong>ms such<br />
as headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respira-<br />
<strong>to</strong>ry distress, and chest pain. These symp<strong>to</strong>ms are typical<br />
of acute exposure <strong>to</strong> hydrocarbons or hydrogen sulfide, but<br />
it is difficult <strong>to</strong> clinically distinguish <strong>to</strong>xic symp<strong>to</strong>ms from<br />
other common illnesses. 1<br />
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set up<br />
an air moni<strong>to</strong>ring network <strong>to</strong> test for VOCs, particulate<br />
matter, hydrogen sulfide, and naphthalene. A Centers for<br />
Disease Control and Prevention analysis of the EPA data<br />
concluded: “The levels of some of the pollutants that<br />
have been reported <strong>to</strong> date may cause temporary eye,<br />
nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are<br />
not thought <strong>to</strong> be high enough <strong>to</strong> cause long-term<br />
harm.” 3 Data posted on BP’s Web site suggest that air<br />
quality for workers offshore is worse than on land. Local<br />
temperatures pose a risk of heat-related illness, which is<br />
exacerbated by wearing coveralls and respira<strong>to</strong>rs, implying<br />
a trade-off between protection from chemical hazards<br />
and heat.<br />
Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting<br />
in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some<br />
individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction,<br />
erythema, edema, burning sensations, or a follicular<br />
rash. Some hydrocarbons are pho<strong>to</strong><strong>to</strong>xic.<br />
Potential Long-term Health Risks<br />
In the near term, various hydrocarbons from the oil will contaminate<br />
fish and shellfish. Although vertebrate marine life<br />
can clear PAHs from their system, these chemicals accumulate<br />
for years in invertebrates. 4 The Gulf provides about<br />
two-thirds of the oysters in the United States and is a major<br />
fishery for shrimp and crab. Trace amounts of cadmium, mercury,<br />
and lead occur in crude oil and can accumulate over<br />
time in fish tissues, potentially increasing future health hazards<br />
from consumption of large fin fish such as tuna and<br />
mackerel.<br />
Health Effects From His<strong>to</strong>ric Oil Spills<br />
After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a <strong>to</strong>tal of 1811<br />
workers’ compensation claims were filed by cleanup<br />
workers; most were for acute injuries but 15% were for<br />
Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of California-San Francisco,<br />
and Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California.<br />
Corresponding Author: Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine,<br />
UCSF, and Natural Resources Defense Council, 111 Sutter St, 20th Floor, San Francisco,<br />
CA 94104 (gsolomon@nrdc.org).<br />
©2010 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. (Reprinted) JAMA, Published online August 16, 2010 E1<br />
Downloaded from<br />
www.jama.com by guest on August 20, 2010
COMMENTARY<br />
respira<strong>to</strong>ry problems and 2% for dermatitis. 5 No information<br />
is available in the peer-reviewed literature about<br />
longer-term health effects of this spill. A survey of the<br />
health status of workers 14 years after the cleanup found<br />
a greater prevalence of symp<strong>to</strong>ms of chronic airway disease<br />
among workers with high oil exposures, as well as<br />
self-reports of neurological impairment and multiple<br />
chemical sensitivity. 6<br />
Symp<strong>to</strong>m surveys performed in the weeks or months<br />
following oil spills have reported a higher prevalence of<br />
headache, throat irritation, and sore or itchy eyes in<br />
exposed individuals compared with controls. Some studies<br />
have also reported modestly increased rates of diarrhea,<br />
nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, rash, wheezing,<br />
cough, and chest pain. 7 One study of 6780 fishermen,<br />
which included 4271 oil spill cleanup workers, found a<br />
higher prevalence of lower respira<strong>to</strong>ry tract symp<strong>to</strong>ms 2<br />
years after oil spill cleanup activities. The risk of lower<br />
respira<strong>to</strong>ry tract symp<strong>to</strong>ms increased with the intensity of<br />
exposure. 8<br />
A study of 858 individuals involved in the cleanup of<br />
the Prestige oil spill in Spain in 2002 investigated acute<br />
genetic <strong>to</strong>xicity in volunteers and workers. Increased DNA<br />
damage, as assessed by the Comet assay, was found in volunteers,<br />
especially in those working on the beaches. 7 In<br />
the same study, workers had lower levels of CD4 cells,<br />
IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, and interferon compared with their<br />
own preexposure levels.<br />
Studies following major oil spills in Alaska, Spain, Korea,<br />
and Wales have documented elevated rates of anxiety,<br />
depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological<br />
stress. 9 A mental health survey of 599 local residents 1<br />
year after the Exxon Valdez spill found that exposed individuals<br />
were 3.6 times more likely <strong>to</strong> have anxiety disorder,<br />
2.9 times more likely <strong>to</strong> have posttraumatic stress disorder,<br />
and 2.1 times more likely <strong>to</strong> score high on a depression<br />
index. 10 Adverse mental health effects were observed up <strong>to</strong><br />
6 years after the oil spill.<br />
Approach <strong>to</strong> Patients<br />
Clinicians should be aware of <strong>to</strong>xicity from exposures <strong>to</strong> oil<br />
and related chemicals. Patients presenting with constitutional<br />
symp<strong>to</strong>ms should be asked about occupational exposures<br />
and location of residence. The physical examination<br />
should focus on the skin, respira<strong>to</strong>ry tract, and<br />
neurological system, documenting any signs that could be<br />
associated with oil-related chemicals. Care consists primarily<br />
of documentation of signs and symp<strong>to</strong>ms, evaluation <strong>to</strong><br />
rule out or treat other potential causes of the symp<strong>to</strong>ms, removal<br />
from exposure, and supportive care.<br />
Prevention of illness from oil and related chemicals on<br />
the Gulf Coast during the cleanup period includes proper<br />
protective equipment for workers and common-sense precautions<br />
for community residents. Workers require proper<br />
training and equipment that includes boots, gloves, coveralls,<br />
and safety glasses, as well as respira<strong>to</strong>rs when potentially<br />
hazardous levels of airborne vapors, aerosols, or particulate<br />
matter exist. Workers should also take precautions<br />
<strong>to</strong> avoid heat-related illness (rest breaks and drinking sufficient<br />
fluids). All worker injuries and illnesses should be<br />
reported <strong>to</strong> ensure proper tracking.<br />
Community residents should not fish in off-limit areas<br />
or where there is evidence of oil. Fish or shellfish with an<br />
oily odor should be discarded. Direct skin contact with contaminated<br />
water, oil, or tar balls should be avoided. If community<br />
residents notice a strong odor of oil or chemicals<br />
and are concerned about health effects, they should seek refuge<br />
in an air-conditioned environment. Interventions <strong>to</strong> address<br />
mental health in the local population should be incorporated<br />
in<strong>to</strong> clinical and public health response efforts.<br />
Over the longer term, cohort studies of Gulf cleanup workers<br />
and local residents will greatly enhance the scientific data<br />
on the health sequelae of oil spills.<br />
Published Online: August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254<br />
Financial Disclosures: None reported.<br />
Additional Contributions: We thank Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, MPH, Staff Scientist,<br />
Natural Resources Defense Council; Kathleen Navarro, BS, University of California-<br />
Berkeley; and Diane Bailey, MS, Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council,<br />
for their assistance with the literature review.<br />
REFERENCES<br />
1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile<br />
for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and<br />
Human Services, Public Health Service; 1999.<br />
2. National Toxicology Program. Naphthalene. Report on Carcinogens. 11th ed.<br />
Research Triangle Park, NC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health<br />
Service; 2005. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s116znph<br />
.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2010.<br />
3. US Environmental Protection Agency. Odors from the BP Oil Spill. http://epa<br />
.gov/bpspill/odor.html. Accessed June 7, 2010.<br />
4. Law RJ, Hellou J. Contamination of fish and shellfish following oil spill incidents.<br />
Environ Geosci. 1999;6(2):90-98.<br />
5. Gorma RW, Berardinelli SP, Bender TR. HETA 89-200 and 89-273-2111, Exxon/<br />
Valdez Alaska Oil Spill. Health Hazard Evaluation Report. Cincinnati, OH: National<br />
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1991.<br />
6. O’Neill AK. Self-Reported Exposures and Health Status Among Workers From<br />
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Cleanup [master’s thesis]. New Haven, CT: Yale University;<br />
2003.<br />
7. Rodríguez-Trigo G, Zock JP, Isidro Montes I. Health effects of exposure <strong>to</strong> oil<br />
spills [in Spanish]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2007;43(11):628-635.<br />
8. Zock JP, Rodríguez-Trigo G, Pozo-Rodríguez F, et al; SEPAR-Prestige Study Group.<br />
Prolonged respira<strong>to</strong>ry symp<strong>to</strong>ms in clean-up workers of the Prestige oil spill. Am<br />
J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(6):610-616.<br />
9. Sabucedo JM, Arce C, Senra C, Seoane G, Vázquez I. Symp<strong>to</strong>matic profile and<br />
health-related quality of life of persons affected by the Prestige catastrophe. Disasters.<br />
2010;34(3):809-820.<br />
10. Palinkas LA, Petterson JS, Russell J, Downs MA. Community patterns of psychiatric<br />
disorders after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150<br />
(10):1517-1523.<br />
E2 JAMA, Published online August 16, 2010 (Reprinted) ©2010 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.<br />
Downloaded from<br />
www.jama.com by guest on August 20, 2010
BOLD = HIGHEST PERCENTAGE IN CATEGORY<br />
PRE AND POST DWH DISASTER HEALTH SURVEY<br />
MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 29, 2012<br />
BY T. JAMES<br />
1 = NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER; 2 = OCCASIONALLY, BUT IS NOT SEVERE; 3 = OCCASIONALLY, BUT IS SEVERE;<br />
4 = FREQUENTLY, BUT IS NOT SEVERE; 5 = FREQUENTLY, BUT IS SEVERE<br />
PRE DWH<br />
DURING DWH<br />
POST DWH<br />
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5<br />
Head - Headaches 39.1 41.3 13.0 4.3 2.2 10.8 18.9 27.0 18.9 24.3 11.4 40.0 11.4 17.1 20.0<br />
Head - Faintness 60.9 26.1 8.7 2.2 2.2 16.7 16.7 19.4 30.6 16.7 28.6 37.1 8.6 17.1 8.6<br />
Head - Dizziness 54.3 23.9 17.4 4.3 0.0 13.9 25.0 11.1 22.2 27.8 22.9 34.3 11.4 14.3 17.1<br />
Head - Insomnia 52.2 15.2 13.0 0.0 19.6 19.4 8.3 8.3 22.2 41.7 20.0 17.1 8.6 11.4 42.9<br />
Eyes - Watery or Itchy 54.3 26.1 10.9 6.5 2.2 16.7 8.3 16.7 22.2 36.1 22.9 28.6 14.3 8.6 25.7<br />
Eyes - Swollen, reddened or sticky eyelids 71.7 10.9 10.9 4.3 2.2 27.8 22.2 2.8 19.4 27.8 40.0 17.1 8.6 11.4 22.9<br />
Eyes - Bags or dark circles under eyes 58.7 21.7 0.0 6.5 13.0 25.7 20.0 8.6 14.3 31.4 14.3 37.1 5.7 14.3 28.6<br />
Eyes - Blurred or tunnel vision 69.6 10.9 6.5 4.3 8.7 30.6 19.4 16.7 13.9 19.4 37.1 14.3 14.3 5.7 28.6<br />
Ears - Itchy Ears 69.6 17.4 2.2 8.7 2.2 30.6 41.7 13.9 8.3 5.6 41.2 26.5 8.8 11.8 11.8<br />
Ears - Ear aches, ear infections 68.9 20.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 47.2 30.6 8.3 5.6 8.3 58.8 11.8 11.8 5.9 11.8<br />
Ears - Drainage from Ears 78.7 6.4 10.6 2.1 2.1 58.3 22.2 8.3 8.3 2.8 60.0 17.1 11.4 5.7 5.7<br />
Ears - Ringing in Ears, hearing loss 56.5 17.4 10.9 6.5 8.7 27.8 27.8 11.1 11.1 22.2 40.0 11.4 2.9 14.3 31.4<br />
Nose - Stuffy Nose 22.2 46.7 4.4 17.8 8.9 11.1 19.4 11.1 19.4 38.9 8.6 28.6 5.7 28.6 28.6<br />
Nose - Sinus problems 19.6 41.3 13.0 13.0 13.0 8.3 16.7 8.3 19.4 47.2 8.6 25.7 5.7 22.9 37.1<br />
Nose - Hay Fever 47.8 30.4 10.9 8.7 2.2 45.7 20.0 0.0 17.1 17.1 54.3 11.4 5.7 8.6 20.0<br />
Nose - Sneezing Attacks 46.7 37.8 6.7 6.7 2.2 31.4 11.4 17.1 25.7 14.3 31.4 17.1 14.3 22.9 14.3<br />
Nose - Excessive Mucous Formation 39.1 39.1 4.3 6.5 10.9 16.7 8.3 11.1 19.4 44.4 22.9 20.0 8.6 17.1 31.4<br />
Mouth/Throat - Chronic Coughing 55.3 19.1 6.4 10.6 8.5 13.9 16.7 11.1 19.4 38.9 22.9 20.0 14.3 11.4 31.4<br />
Mouth/Throat - Gagging, frequent need <strong>to</strong> clear throat 64.4 13.3 6.7 4.4 11.1 11.4 22.9 11.4 22.9 31.4 26.5 17.6 8.8 17.6 29.4<br />
Mouth/Throat - Sore Throat, hoarseness, loss of voice 63.6 22.7 0.0 6.8 6.8 13.9 19.4 16.7 22.2 27.8 22.9 22.9 5.7 20.0 28.6<br />
Mouth/Throat - Swollen or discolored Tongue, Gums, Lips 84.8 4.3 0.0 8.7 2.2 58.3 13.9 5.6 2.8 19.4 65.7 11.4 2.9 2.9 17.1<br />
Mouth/Throat - Canker Sores 80.0 17.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 55.6 22.2 13.9 2.8 5.6 65.7 17.1 5.7 5.7 5.7<br />
Skin - Acne 63.0 21.7 4.3 10.9 0.0 48.6 22.9 14.3 8.6 5.7 55.9 23.5 11.8 0.0 8.8<br />
Skin - Hives, rashes, dry skin 65.2 13.0 4.3 13.0 4.3 25.0 22.2 2.8 16.7 33.3 25.7 20.0 8.6 14.3 31.4<br />
Skin - Hair Loss 70.2 10.6 2.1 12.8 4.3 40.0 20.0 5.7 8.6 25.7 37.1 28.6 5.7 5.7 22.9<br />
Skin - Flushing, Hot flashes 58.7 19.6 4.3 6.5 10.9 33.3 16.7 8.3 13.9 27.8 34.3 20.0 8.6 14.3 22.9<br />
Skin - Excessive Sweating 68.9 17.8 2.2 2.2 8.9 30.6 19.4 13.9 5.6 30.6 42.9 11.4 0.0 22.9 22.9<br />
Heart - Chest Pain 64.4 15.6 4.4 6.7 8.9 36.1 11.1 16.7 5.6 30.6 34.3 20.0 14.3 20.0 11.4<br />
Heart - Irregular or skipped Heartbeat 61.7 21.3 6.4 6.4 4.3 41.7 13.9 22.2 5.6 16.7 45.7 14.3 11.4 5.7 22.9<br />
Heart - Rapid or Pounding Heartbeat 68.9 11.1 11.1 6.7 2.2 22.2 13.9 25.0 16.7 22.2 22.9 22.9 17.1 14.3 22.9<br />
Lungs - Chest Congestion 52.2 30.4 6.5 2.2 8.7 19.4 16.7 11.1 22.2 30.6 25.7 20.0 17.1 8.6 28.6<br />
Lungs - Asthma, Bronchitis 57.4 21.3 6.4 8.5 6.4 30.6 19.4 5.6 11.1 33.3 41.2 5.9 14.7 17.6 20.6<br />
Lungs - Shortness of Breath 61.7 19.1 10.6 6.4 2.1 11.4 22.9 5.7 17.1 42.9 20.0 20.0 20.0 17.1 22.9<br />
Lungs - Difficulty Breathing 74.5 10.6 6.4 4.3 4.3 11.4 17.1 5.7 28.6 37.1 25.7 11.4 22.9 22.9 17.1<br />
Digestive Tract - Nausea, Vomiting 67.4 26.1 4.3 0.0 2.2 31.4 20.0 17.1 8.6 22.9 41.2 23.5 11.8 11.8 11.8<br />
Digestive Tract - Diarrhea 56.5 30.4 2.2 6.5 4.3 25.0 27.8 2.8 13.9 30.6 31.4 31.4 2.9 20.0 14.3
BOLD = HIGHEST PERCENTAGE IN CATEGORY<br />
PRE AND POST DWH DISASTER HEALTH SURVEY<br />
MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 29, 2012<br />
BY T. JAMES<br />
1 = NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER; 2 = OCCASIONALLY, BUT IS NOT SEVERE; 3 = OCCASIONALLY, BUT IS SEVERE;<br />
4 = FREQUENTLY, BUT IS NOT SEVERE; 5 = FREQUENTLY, BUT IS SEVERE<br />
PRE DWH<br />
DURING DWH<br />
POST DWH<br />
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5<br />
Digestive Tract - Constipation 67.4 21.7 4.3 4.3 2.2 50.0 27.8 2.8 11.1 8.3 51.4 22.9 8.6 8.6 8.6<br />
Digestive Tract - Bloated feeling 50.0 21.7 4.3 17.4 6.5 30.6 25.0 2.8 16.7 25.0 17.6 29.4 11.8 17.6 23.5<br />
Digestive Tract - Belching, Passing Gas 58.7 28.3 2.2 8.7 2.2 27.8 30.6 5.6 25.0 11.1 28.6 28.6 14.3 17.1 11.4<br />
Digestive Tract - Heartburn 58.7 28.3 6.5 2.2 4.3 30.6 27.8 13.9 11.1 16.7 34.3 31.4 5.7 8.6 20.0<br />
Digestive Tract - Intestinal / S<strong>to</strong>mach Pain 63.0 19.6 8.7 6.5 2.2 30.6 25.0 11.1 5.6 27.8 34.3 25.7 8.6 14.3 17.1<br />
Joints / Muscles - Pains or Aches in Joints 37.8 31.1 11.1 4.4 15.6 25.0 19.4 11.1 16.7 27.8 14.3 20.0 11.4 25.7 28.6<br />
Joints / Muscles - Arthritis 48.9 24.4 11.1 6.7 8.9 37.1 14.3 11.4 11.4 25.7 37.1 20.0 0.0 8.6 34.3<br />
Joints / Muscles - Stiffness or Limitation of Movement 51.1 26.7 6.7 6.7 8.9 20.0 25.7 11.4 8.6 34.3 28.6 17.1 8.6 11.4 34.3<br />
Joints / Muscles - Feeling of Weakness or Tiredness 45.7 28.3 4.3 6.5 15.2 8.3 5.6 8.3 27.8 50.0 11.4 14.3 2.9 25.7 45.7<br />
Joints / Muscles - Pain or Aches in Muscles 45.7 30.4 8.7 8.7 6.5 22.2 19.4 8.3 22.2 27.8 14.7 14.7 8.8 17.6 44.1<br />
Weight - Binge Eating / Drinking 76.1 13.0 0.0 2.2 8.7 52.8 25.0 5.6 11.1 5.6 62.9 17.1 5.7 5.7 8.6<br />
Weight - Craving certain Foods 52.2 30.4 4.3 6.5 6.5 47.2 27.8 5.6 8.3 11.1 54.3 20.0 8.6 5.7 11.4<br />
Weight - Excessive Weight 69.6 19.6 0.0 4.3 6.5 41.7 25.0 5.6 2.8 25.0 42.9 14.3 11.4 5.7 25.7<br />
Weight - Water Retention 60.0 24.4 4.4 2.2 8.9 41.7 22.2 11.1 8.3 16.7 45.7 14.3 11.4 11.4 17.1<br />
Weight - Underweight 89.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 75.0 8.3 11.1 2.8 2.8 82.9 8.6 2.9 2.9 2.9<br />
Weight - Compulsive Eating 80.4 10.9 4.3 2.2 2.2 63.9 16.7 5.6 5.6 8.3 71.4 11.4 5.7 2.9 8.6<br />
Energy / Activity - Fatigue, sluggishness 43.5 30.4 2.2 8.7 15.2 8.3 8.3 11.1 16.7 55.6 2.9 17.1 14.3 20.0 45.7<br />
Energy / Activity - Apathy / Lethargy 45.7 30.4 2.2 4.3 17.4 11.1 8.3 11.1 19.4 50.0 8.6 20.0 14.3 14.3 42.9<br />
Energy / Activity - Hyperactivity 73.9 17.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 77.8 11.1 2.8 5.6 2.8 68.6 11.4 5.7 0.0 14.3<br />
Energy / Activity - Restlessness 54.3 28.3 6.5 2.2 8.7 33.3 13.9 16.7 13.9 22.2 22.9 28.6 14.3 14.3 20.0<br />
Mind - Poor Memory 51.1 25.5 2.1 4.3 17.0 14.3 14.3 17.1 5.7 48.6 5.7 34.3 11.4 14.3 34.3<br />
Mind - Confusion, poor Comprehension 68.1 12.8 2.1 8.5 8.5 19.4 33.3 8.3 8.3 30.6 14.3 37.1 14.3 8.6 25.7<br />
Mind - Difficulty in making Decisions 66.0 12.8 6.4 8.5 6.4 25.0 22.2 13.9 11.1 27.8 20.0 31.4 14.3 11.4 22.9<br />
Mind - Stuttering or Stammering 83.0 8.5 2.1 2.1 4.3 50.0 19.4 5.6 11.1 13.9 45.7 31.4 8.6 5.7 8.6<br />
Mind - Slurred Speech 83.0 4.3 4.3 6.4 2.1 61.1 13.9 2.8 11.1 11.1 62.9 20.0 5.7 2.9 1.6<br />
Mind - Learning Disabilities 87.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 6.5 65.7 8.6 8.6 2.9 14.3 62.9 14.3 11.4 0.0 11.4<br />
Mind - Poor Concentration 58.7 21.7 2.2 4.3 13.0 13.9 25.0 13.9 13.9 33.3 17.6 26.5 11.8 8.8 35.3<br />
Mind - Poor Physical Coordination 73.9 8.7 8.7 2.2 6.5 22.2 33.3 13.9 8.3 22.2 20.6 32.4 2.9 17.6 26.5<br />
Emotions - Mood Swings 56.5 28.3 2.2 2.2 10.9 30.6 22.2 11.1 5.6 30.6 20.0 28.6 11.4 11.4 28.6<br />
Emotions - Anxiety, Fear, Nervousness 45.7 30.4 8.7 2.2 13.0 22.2 11.1 11.1 11.1 44.4 14.3 31.4 8.6 11.4 34.3<br />
Emotions - Anger, Irritability, Aggressiveness 50.0 32.6 0.0 6.5 10.9 22.2 19.4 16.7 13.9 27.8 28.6 22.9 11.4 14.3 22.9<br />
Emotions - Depression 41.3 32.6 10.9 4.3 10.9 19.4 19.4 8.3 13.9 38.9 17.1 28.6 5.7 22.9 25.7<br />
Other - Frequent Illness 76.1 10.9 4.3 0.0 8.7 31.4 11.4 14.3 17.1 25.7 40.0 17.1 2.9 20.0 20.0<br />
Other - Frequent or Urgent Urination 60.9 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 34.3 17.1 2.9 14.3 31.4 40.0 22.9 5.7 14.3 17.1<br />
Other - Genital Itch or Discharge 76.1 17.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 77.1 11.4 2.9 5.7 2.9 74.3 17.1 0.0 5.7 2.9
PRE AND POST DWH DISASTER HEALTH SURVEY<br />
MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 29, 2012<br />
BY T. JAMES
PRE AND POST DWH DISASTER HEALTH SURVEY<br />
MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 29, 2012<br />
BY T. JAMES
PRE AND POST DWH DISASTER HEALTH SURVEY<br />
MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 10, 2012<br />
BY T. JAMES<br />
PERCENTAGE RATE BY RESPONSES YES NO<br />
Are you currently using prescription drugs?<br />
Do you currently use or within the last 6 months had you regularly used<br />
54.3 45.7<br />
<strong>to</strong>bacco products?<br />
Do you have strong negative reactions <strong>to</strong> caffeine or caffeine containing<br />
51.4 48.6<br />
products? 20.0 80.0<br />
Do you commonly experience "brain fog," fatigue or drowsiness?<br />
Do you develop symp<strong>to</strong>ms from exposure <strong>to</strong> fragrances, exhaust fumes or<br />
90.9 9.1<br />
strong odors? 80.0 20.0<br />
Do you feel ill after you consume small amounts of alcohol?<br />
Do you have a his<strong>to</strong>ry of significant exposure <strong>to</strong> harmful chemicals such as<br />
52.9 47.1<br />
herbicides, insecticides, pesticides, or organic solvents? 17.1 82.9<br />
Do you have an adverse or allergic reaction when you consume sulfite<br />
containing foods such as wine, dried fruit, salad bar vegetables, etc.? 20.6 79.4<br />
PREVIOUS PERSONAL HISTORY YES NO<br />
Environmental and/or Chemical Sensitivities 25.7 74.3<br />
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 8.6 91.4<br />
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity 17.1 82.9<br />
Fibromyalgia 17.1 82.9<br />
Parkinson's Type Symp<strong>to</strong>ms 2.9 97.1<br />
Alcohol or Chemical Dependence 8.6 91.4<br />
Asthma 25.7 74.3
PRE AND POST DWH DISASTER HEALTH SURVEY<br />
MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 29, 2012<br />
BY T. JAMES<br />
DOB GENDER DOB GENDER<br />
01/1967 Female 03/1953 Female 26 Females<br />
03/1973 Male 12/1957 Female 10 Males<br />
02/1941 Male 01/1965 Female 14 No Response<br />
07/1951 Female 03/1961 Female<br />
10/1975 Female 05/1962 Female<br />
02/1974 Female 01/1963 Female<br />
10/1956 Male 08/1953 Male<br />
06/1963 Female 06/1971 Female<br />
01/1959 Female 09/1972 Female<br />
09/1961 Female 01/1969 Male<br />
08/1956 Female 12/1965 Female<br />
07/1967 Male 12/1974 Female<br />
03/1965 Male 06/1964 Male<br />
08/1951 Female 04/1957 Female<br />
04/2010 Female 06/1977 Male<br />
09/1943 Male 09/1955 Female<br />
01/1995 Female 11/1954 Female<br />
07/1959 Female<br />
COMMENTS<br />
NO money for doc<strong>to</strong>rs with no jobs down here due <strong>to</strong> DWH<br />
Destin condo - back <strong>to</strong> LA, nervous system issues, 4th time, intestinal issues with dizziness<br />
Sick in May 2010, now dental issues and pancreatic tumor<br />
Always very tired, difficult <strong>to</strong> do this survey<br />
Dizzy, spilling things, lost sense of direction, following instructions difficult<br />
Capt. Of a shrimp boat, exposed 04/22/2010, please help us asap<br />
Almost died from mystery illness<br />
7 benign colon polyps removed, new "spot" being watched from mammogram in early 2011, anal and<br />
vaginal bleeding - post menopausal for 13 years.<br />
I now expec<strong>to</strong>rate phlegm since 12/2010. Asthmatic episodes are now daily. Cannot afford meds.<br />
First skin burns and rashes, irritated eyes, nose and mouth. Later developed chest and throat<br />
congestion, persistent coughing and then earaches, headaches. Profound grief, uncontrollable crying -<br />
all out of my character. Minor PTSD now, have gained weight<br />
I have developed an au<strong>to</strong> immune disorder. My spine is arthritic and I have degenerative disc disease<br />
with fatigue. I worked cleaning condos during the oil spill.<br />
I had my appendix removed
Honorable Stanley Sporkin<br />
BP America Ombudsman<br />
BP America Ombudsman Program<br />
1130 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C. 20036<br />
Attn: Billie Garde, Esq., Deputy Ombudsman<br />
Dear Judge Sporkin:<br />
Government Accountability Project<br />
1612 K St. NW Suite 1100<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC 20006<br />
Louisiana Environmental Action Network<br />
162 Croydon Ave<br />
Ba<strong>to</strong>n Rouge, LA 70806<br />
March 2, 2012<br />
This letter seeks your explanation for the enclosed resource manual provided by an anonymous<br />
Government Accountability Project (GAP) client on the Deepwater Horizon spill cleanup. We write <strong>to</strong><br />
seek your explanation for apparent contradictions between British Petroleum (BP) statements <strong>to</strong> the<br />
public and its employees, compared <strong>to</strong> the “Deepwater Horizon MC252, Vessels of Opportunity Near<br />
Shore Oil Recovery Groups, Vessel Captains Hazard Communication, Resource Manual.” The Louisiana<br />
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) has been actively moni<strong>to</strong>ring BP’s cleanup efforts since the spill,<br />
and GAP has been conducting a whistleblower investigation since last August.<br />
Because the apparent contradictions concern matters of the highest public significance, we are publicly<br />
posting the manual, this query and any response you provide.<br />
Under the United States OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, all employers are required <strong>to</strong> provide<br />
"information <strong>to</strong> their employees about the hazardous chemicals <strong>to</strong> which they are exposed, by means of a<br />
hazard communication program, labels and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets, and<br />
information and training." 1 The anonymous whistleblower shared that this resource manual was removed<br />
from all job sites.<br />
To illustrate our concerns, BP has aerially sprayed or otherwise released over two million gallons of<br />
COREXIT as the primary dispersant in the spill’s cleanup. BP and contrac<strong>to</strong>rs have reassured cleanup<br />
crews that COREXIT is as safe as Dawn dishwasher soap. However, the manufacturer’s Material Safety<br />
Data Sheets (MSDS) included in the manual indicate that the dispersants utilized contain hazardous<br />
ingredients such as 2-bu<strong>to</strong>xyethanol, petroleum distillates, and sulfonic acids. The specific petroleum<br />
distillates and sulfonic acids within COREXIT EC9257A and EC9500A have never been disclosed <strong>to</strong> the<br />
public.<br />
1 See 29 CFR 1910.1200<br />
Similarly, BP and contrac<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong>ld cleanup workers that special protective clothing and equipment was<br />
unnecessary. Further, both of our organizations have received numerous reports that when cleanup<br />
workers sought additional Personal Protective Equipment such as respira<strong>to</strong>rs that LEAN donated, they<br />
were threatened with termination. By contrast, the resource manual indicates that anyone exposed <strong>to</strong> the<br />
dispersant should “[w]ear suitable protective clothing.”<br />
We also are concerned that despite reassurances of the dispersant’s harmless nature, the manual lists the<br />
following symp<strong>to</strong>ms of exposure for COREXIT EC9527A and/or COREXIT EC9500A:<br />
Injury <strong>to</strong> red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver<br />
Irritate the upper respira<strong>to</strong>ry tract<br />
Central nervous system effects<br />
Nausea<br />
Vomiting<br />
Anesthetic or narcotic effects<br />
Defat and dry the skin, leading <strong>to</strong> discomfort and dermatitis<br />
Chemical pneumonia if aspirated in<strong>to</strong> lungs following ingestion<br />
The MSDSs for COREXIT indicate that no <strong>to</strong>xicity studies have been conducted on this product. Further,<br />
the potential human hazard is “High” for COREXIT EC9527A, and there is an “Immediate (Acute)<br />
Health Hazard” for COREXIT EC9500A.<br />
We write <strong>to</strong> request verification of the enclosed document’s authenticity. If it is genuine, we think it only<br />
fair <strong>to</strong> seek BP’s explanation for the apparent contradictions. If statements <strong>to</strong> the public and work force<br />
cannot be reconciled, we seek your explanation for BP’s repeated denials of any intentional action that<br />
could have threatened public health and safety.<br />
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Tom Devine, Legal Direc<strong>to</strong>r Marylee Orr, Executive Direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
Government Accountability Project Louisiana Environmental Action Network
CREDIT: B. E. WITHERINGTON<br />
ECOLOGY<br />
Better Science Needed for<br />
Res<strong>to</strong>ration in the Gulf of Mexico<br />
Karen A. Bjorndal, 1 * Brian W. Bowen, 2 Milani Chaloupka, 3 Larry B. Crowder, 4 Selina S. Heppell, 5<br />
Cynthia M. Jones, 6 Molly E. Lutcavage, 7 David Policansky, 8 Andrew R. Solow, 9<br />
Blair E. Withering<strong>to</strong>n 10<br />
The 2010 BP Deepwater<br />
Horizon oil spill in the<br />
Gulf of Mexico (GoM) has<br />
damaged marine ecosystems and<br />
jeopardized endangered and commercial<br />
species under U.S. jurisdiction<br />
(see the figure). Agencies<br />
that manage protected species—including<br />
the U.S. National<br />
Marine Fisheries Service and the<br />
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—<br />
are tasked with recovering these<br />
populations. But many populations<br />
have not been adequately<br />
assessed, so recovery cannot be<br />
measured. Achieving mandated<br />
recovery goals depends on understanding<br />
both population trends<br />
and the demographic processes<br />
that drive those trends. After the<br />
1989 Exxon Valdez Alaskan oil spill, evaluations<br />
of effects on wildlife were ambiguous,<br />
in part because limited data on abundance<br />
and demography precluded detection<br />
of change (1). Sadly, the situation in the GoM<br />
is similar more than 20 years later. As concluded<br />
in the National Commission report on<br />
the BP spill (2) released 11 January, “Scientists<br />
simply do not yet know how <strong>to</strong> predict<br />
the ecological consequences and effects on<br />
key species that might result from oil exposure…”<br />
We argue that scientists know how <strong>to</strong><br />
make these assessments, but lack critical data<br />
<strong>to</strong> achieve this goal.<br />
For example, the BP spill may have had<br />
1 Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research and Department<br />
of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL<br />
32611, USA. 2 Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University<br />
of Hawaii, Kaneohe, HI 96744, USA. 3 Ecological Modelling<br />
Services Pty. Ltd., University of Queensland, St. Lucia,<br />
Queensland 4067, Australia. 4 Center for Marine Conservation,<br />
Duke University Marine Lab, Beaufort, NC 28516,<br />
USA. 5 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State<br />
University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. 6 Center for Quantitative<br />
Fisheries Ecology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk,<br />
VA 23529, USA. 7 Large Pelagics Research Center, Department<br />
of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts,<br />
Amherst, Gloucester, MA 01930, USA. 8 National<br />
Research Council, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC 20001, USA. 9 Marine<br />
Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,<br />
Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA. 10 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation<br />
Commission, Melbourne Beach, FL 32951, USA.<br />
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: bjorndal@ufl .edu<br />
A dead juvenile Kemp’s ridley sea turtle<br />
(Lepidochelys kempii). It was recovered from an oil<br />
line within the BP spill area, 115 km ESE from Venice,<br />
Louisiana, 6 June 2010.<br />
a substantial impact on Atlantic<br />
bluefi n tuna (Thunnus thynnus),<br />
because it occurred during<br />
spawning. The spill could<br />
have affected 20% of the 2010<br />
bluefin larvae (2). But the<br />
impact of that loss is diffi cult <strong>to</strong><br />
assess because bluefin migration<br />
paths, reproductive habits,<br />
and early life his<strong>to</strong>ry are inadequately<br />
resolved (3). At the ecosystem<br />
level, long-term effects<br />
of food web alteration by oil<br />
or dispersants could suppress<br />
wildlife populations (1, 2).<br />
Tens of millions of dollars<br />
from BP intended <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re<br />
wildlife populations and ecosystems<br />
have already been disbursed<br />
(4, 5), and hundreds of<br />
millions more are at risk of being distributed<br />
without a clear strategic plan <strong>to</strong> ensure that<br />
projects improve our understanding of population<br />
dynamics and the impacts of proposed<br />
management actions (4). In contrast, strategic<br />
national research plans for key marine<br />
species and ecosystems could guide research<br />
efforts <strong>to</strong> provide the data required <strong>to</strong> assess<br />
populations and design recovery strategies<br />
<strong>to</strong> address environmental insults before the<br />
next crisis occurs. Broad policies such as the<br />
POLICYFORUM<br />
In the wake of the BP oil spill, U.S. agencies<br />
need research plans <strong>to</strong> collect data that will aid<br />
in managing and assessing marine species<br />
and ecosystems.<br />
ASSESSING SEA TURTLE POPULATIONS<br />
In the United States and much of the world, sea<br />
turtle populations are moni<strong>to</strong>red almost exclusively<br />
by counting nests on beaches ( 27). Adult<br />
females take decades <strong>to</strong> reach sexual maturity,<br />
do not nest every year, and are a small fraction<br />
of any sea turtle population ( 10). Florida hosts<br />
the largest nesting aggregation of loggerhead<br />
sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Atlantic,<br />
and nesting has been moni<strong>to</strong>red consistently<br />
since 1989 (fi g. S1). Until 1998, nest numbers<br />
increased. But the available data did not<br />
permit a determination of which, if any, management<br />
actions were responsible. After 1998, numbers<br />
plummeted, and by 2006, had declined by 43% ( 27).<br />
Many fac<strong>to</strong>rs could account for this decline, but the specifi<br />
c cause(s) could not be determined. Therefore, developing<br />
effective management plans remains an elusive<br />
goal. Likewise, the long-term effects of the BP oil spill<br />
on this and other sea turtle species cannot be evaluated.<br />
Nest counts in the United States continue <strong>to</strong> provide<br />
essential data for population assessments, but critical<br />
data gaps, especially in demographic parameters, exist<br />
( 28). This need not be the case. Australian researchers<br />
have 30 years of data on sex- and age-class–specifi c<br />
abundance and demographic parameters for loggerheads<br />
on the southern Great Barrier Reef (sGBR) ( 29)<br />
that allowed the steep decline in turtle abundance during<br />
the 1980s and 1990s in the sGBR <strong>to</strong> be attributed<br />
<strong>to</strong> two of many potential hazards: predation by foxes<br />
on the coastal nesting beaches and incidental capture<br />
in coastal trawl fi sheries. Both hazards have now been<br />
miti gated by government agencies, resulting in an<br />
apparently recovering s<strong>to</strong>ck ( 30).<br />
new U.S. National Ocean Policy (6) are not<br />
intended <strong>to</strong> provide specifi c guidance. And<br />
species recovery plans often list many variables<br />
scientists could measure but do not prioritize<br />
which variables <strong>to</strong> measure and with<br />
what precision (7). As in medicine, you cannot<br />
effi ciently produce a diagnosis and cure<br />
by measuring everything or ordering every<br />
test. We must identify and measure the most<br />
predictive variables fi rst.<br />
It is not <strong>to</strong>o late <strong>to</strong> invest funds from BP<br />
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 331 4 FEBRUARY 2011 537<br />
Published by AAAS<br />
on February 4, 2011<br />
www.sciencemag.org<br />
Downloaded from
POLICYFORUM<br />
538<br />
<strong>to</strong> support teams of experts <strong>to</strong> develop effective<br />
strategic plans that identify, prioritize,<br />
and provide methodologies for collecting<br />
essential data ( 8). The plans will vary among<br />
species and ecosystems because our current<br />
knowledge varies widely. But the following<br />
seven elements should be included in most,<br />
if not all, plans.<br />
Integrate demography with abundance<br />
trends for multiple life stages and determine<br />
environmental effects on those parameters.<br />
Both demographic and abundance data are<br />
essential <strong>to</strong> diagnose causes of population<br />
declines. Even for high-profi le megafauna,<br />
<strong>to</strong>o little is known about abundance of different<br />
life stages and key demographic rates:<br />
survival, breeding and recruitment probabilities;<br />
growth rates; and age at maturity. These<br />
strongly infl uence how perturbations like the<br />
BP spill will affect population growth ( 9).<br />
Most of these animals are long-lived and<br />
can move thousands of kilometers between<br />
seasons and life stages. Often, there is only<br />
an estimate of abundance for one easily<br />
observed life stage. This is analogous <strong>to</strong> estimating<br />
human population trends by counting<br />
women in maternity wards. Useful data<br />
would emerge, but if the children were decimated<br />
by disease, this mortality would not be<br />
detected in the maternity ward for decades.<br />
Sea turtles provide a striking example of this<br />
problem (see text box).<br />
Emphasize analyses of cumulative effects.<br />
Too often, individual threats (e.g., pollution,<br />
fi sheries bycatch, or habitat loss) are<br />
addressed separately, not as cumulative<br />
effects ( 10). A recent controversy over the<br />
suggestion that fisheries’ bycatch of seabirds<br />
could be mitigated by removing egg and<br />
chick preda<strong>to</strong>rs could not be resolved without<br />
understanding demography and cumulative<br />
effects ( 11). Management priorities for<br />
multiple threats can be set by assessing the<br />
relative impact of each threat on population<br />
growth rate ( 12).<br />
Elucidate links among and within populations<br />
with new <strong>to</strong>ols in genetics, statistical<br />
models, and tracking ( 13– 15). Compared<br />
with terrestrial systems, oceans have greater<br />
rates of import and export, genetic exchange,<br />
and dispersal among life stages ( 16). Knowledge<br />
of linkages can identify human actions<br />
that may disrupt important connections<br />
within and among populations and amplify<br />
an environmental insult ( 17). For example,<br />
linkages would reveal the geographic extent<br />
of bluefi n tuna populations affected by the oil<br />
spill at their GoM spawning grounds ( 18).<br />
Revise the permitting processes that now<br />
hinder peer-reviewed studies of critical processes<br />
and management alternatives for<br />
protected species, such as impacts of petroleum<br />
on sea turtles ( 19). Prolonged reviews<br />
and restrictions on scientifi c research arising<br />
from unproven conservation concerns may<br />
actually impede conservation efforts ( 20,<br />
21). The process should be expedited without<br />
compromising legislative mandates.<br />
Encourage data sharing. Because of<br />
proprietary issues, many databases in the<br />
United States useful for population assessments<br />
are diffi cult <strong>to</strong> access. Critical data<br />
held by individuals are at risk as data owners<br />
retire or die. Because these data were<br />
collected under past environmental conditions<br />
and population densities, they cannot<br />
be replaced by new research. Incentives <strong>to</strong><br />
increase data sharing, such as making it a<br />
requirement of funding, permits, or publication,<br />
should be developed ( 22).<br />
Improve assessment <strong>to</strong>ols for evaluation<br />
of anthropogenic impacts on populations by<br />
fostering interdisciplinary research among<br />
fi sheries science, marine ecology, and conservation<br />
biology and by funding opportunities<br />
for student training and continuing education<br />
for managers in the quantitative sciences<br />
( 23). The Bering Sea Project is an excellent<br />
example of such a program ( 24).<br />
Prioritize investments. Although diffi cult<br />
<strong>to</strong> set, priorities should be provided <strong>to</strong> direct<br />
funding <strong>to</strong> address long-term population<br />
management needs. This specifi c guidance,<br />
which will vary among species and ecosystems,<br />
is lacking in other plans and policies.<br />
Having funding priorities in place for key<br />
species and ecosystems will allow effi cient,<br />
strategic use of funds that become available<br />
after a crisis.<br />
With a growing human population and<br />
continuing habitat degradation ( 25, 26), our<br />
ability <strong>to</strong> assess and understand changes in<br />
marine wildlife and ecosystems becomes ever<br />
more important. The United States needs strategic<br />
national research plans for key marine<br />
species and ecosystems based on evaluation<br />
of cause and effect and on integrated moni<strong>to</strong>ring<br />
of abundance and demographic traits. We<br />
know how <strong>to</strong> create these research plans—<br />
what is needed now is the political will and<br />
leadership <strong>to</strong> do so and <strong>to</strong> fulfi ll our responsibilities<br />
under the U.S. Endangered Species,<br />
Marine Mammal Protection, and Magnuson-<br />
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management<br />
Acts. Agencies should focus resources<br />
and expertise on research that identifi es why<br />
populations change and that enables modeling<br />
future impacts. In the wake of the BP oil<br />
spill, the need for this policy shift is as clear<br />
as it is compelling. The largest offshore oil<br />
spill in U.S. his<strong>to</strong>ry should provide the impetus<br />
and opportunity <strong>to</strong> effect this policy shift.<br />
4 FEBRUARY 2011 VOL 331 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org<br />
Published by AAAS<br />
References and Notes<br />
1. R. T. Paine et al., Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27, 197 (1996).<br />
2. B. Graham et al., National Commission on the BP Deepwater<br />
Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (Commission,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC, 2011); www.oilspillcommission.<br />
gov/fi nal-report.<br />
3. B. Galuardi et al., Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67, 966<br />
(2010).<br />
4. Funds from BP include $500 million <strong>to</strong> Gulf of Mexico<br />
Research Initiative; >$8 million <strong>to</strong> National Fish and<br />
Wildlife Foundation Recovered Oil Fund for Wildlife; and<br />
undetermined millions through NOAA’s Damage Assessment,<br />
Remediation, and Res<strong>to</strong>ration Program;<br />
www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=<br />
2012968&contentId=7062936.<br />
5. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, www.nfwf.<br />
org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Charter_Programs_<br />
List&CONTENTID=18320& TEMPLATE=/<br />
CM/ContentDisplay.cfm.<br />
6. Ocean Policy Task Force, Final Recommendations of<br />
the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, July 19, 2010<br />
(White House Council on Environmental Quality, Washing<strong>to</strong>n,<br />
DC 2010); www.whitehouse.gov/administration/<br />
eop/oceans/policy.<br />
7. J. M. Hoekstra et al., Ecol. Appl. 12, 630 (2002).<br />
8. Funds not yet disbursed include $450 million through<br />
the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative and undetermined<br />
millions through National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration’s (NOAA’s) Damage Assessment,<br />
Remediation, and Res<strong>to</strong>ration Program.<br />
9. S. S. Heppell, H. Caswell, L. B. Crowder, Ecology 81, 654<br />
(2000).<br />
10. M. Chaloupka, in Loggerhead Sea Turtles, A. B. Bolten,<br />
B. E. Withering<strong>to</strong>n, Eds. (Smithsonian Books,<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC, 2003), pp. 274–294.<br />
11. M. Finkelstein et al., PLoS ONE 3, e2480 (2008).<br />
12. A. B. Bolten et al., Front. Ecol. Environ 28, (2010).<br />
10.1890/090126<br />
13. K. A. Selkoe, R. J. Toonen, Ecol. Lett. 9, 615 (2006).<br />
14. B. M. Bolker, T. Okuyama, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten,<br />
Mol. Ecol. 16, 685 (2007).<br />
15. J. L. Nielsen et al., Eds., Tagging and Tracking of Marine<br />
Animals with Electronic Devices, vol. 9 of Reviews:<br />
Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries<br />
(Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2009).<br />
16. M. H. Carr et al., Ecol. Appl. 13, (suppl. 1), 90 (2003).<br />
17. A. L. Harrison, K. A. Bjorndal, in Connectivity Conservation,<br />
K. R. Crooks and M. A. Sanjayan, Eds. (Cambridge<br />
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006), pp. 213–232.<br />
18. P. Lehodey, R. Murtugudde, I. Senina, Prog. Oceanogr.<br />
84, 69 (2010).<br />
19. M. E. Lutcavage, P. Plotkin, B. E. Withering<strong>to</strong>n, P. L. Lutz,<br />
in The Biology of Sea Turtles, P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick, Eds.<br />
(CRC Press, Boca Ra<strong>to</strong>n, Florida, 1997), pp. 387–409.<br />
20. B. W. Bowen, J. C. Avise, Science 266, 713 (1994).<br />
21. B. W. Bowen, W. N. Witzell, NOAA Tech. Memo.<br />
NMFS-SEFSC 396, 1 (1996).<br />
22. J. L. Contreras, Science 329, 393 (2010).<br />
23. A. M. Ellison, B. Dennis, Front. Ecol. Environ 8, 362<br />
(2010).<br />
24. Bering Sea Project, http://bsierp.nprb.org/index.html.<br />
25. J. B. C. Jackson et al., Science 293, 629 (2001).<br />
26. O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. F. Bruno, Science 328, 1523<br />
(2010).<br />
27. B. E. Withering<strong>to</strong>n et al., Ecol. Appl. 19, 30 (2009).<br />
28. National Research Council, Assessment of Sea-Turtle Status<br />
and Trends: Integrating Demography and Abundance<br />
(National Academies Press, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, DC, 2010).<br />
29. C. J. Limpus and M. Chaloupka led the data collection<br />
and analyses summarized in ( 10).<br />
30. M. Chaloupka, N. Kamezaki, C. Limpus, J. Exp. Mar. Biol.<br />
Ecol. 356, 136 (2008).<br />
31. N. Baron and M. Wright of COMPASS and A. B. Bolten of<br />
the University of Florida made valuable comments.<br />
Supporting Online Material<br />
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/331/6017/537/DC1<br />
10.1126/science.1199935<br />
on February 4, 2011<br />
www.sciencemag.org<br />
Downloaded from
Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 2026-2028.<br />
JournalofCosmology.com, June, 2010<br />
The Gulf Oil Spill:<br />
We Have Been Here Before. Can We Learn<br />
From the Past?<br />
Commentary<br />
M. S. Goñi Urriza, Ph.D., and R. Duran, Ph.D.,<br />
Equipe Environnement et Microbiologie – UMR CNRS IPREM 5254, Université<br />
de Pau et des Pays de L’Adour BP1155 - 64013 Pau cedex, France.<br />
Abstract<br />
The the worst "oil spill" in the his<strong>to</strong>ry of America began on April 20, 2010, causing<br />
death along the ocean surface and beneath the sea. This commentary briefly<br />
reviews the consequences of other major oil disasters on marine and ecosystem<br />
health.<br />
Keywords: Deepwater Horizon, Oil Spill, Louisiana, New Orleans, Gulf of<br />
Mexico, Gulf Stream, Undersea Oil Plumes, Tracking, Modeling<br />
Oil spills at sea are among the most spectacular and dramatic polluting events<br />
which threaten wildlife, livelihoods and regional economies. The April 20, 2010<br />
Deepwater Horizon oil well blow out and massive amounts of oil and gas which<br />
are spewing out in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf of Mexico is one of the more recent disasters that is<br />
drastically affecting the marine and coastline ecosystems. This has happened once<br />
before in 1979 with the Ix<strong>to</strong>c I disaster when 1 500 000 <strong>to</strong>ns of oil spilled in<strong>to</strong> the<br />
sea and washed <strong>to</strong> shore along the Gulf Northwest coast. The best predic<strong>to</strong>r of the<br />
future is sometimes the past, and the experience with the 1979 disaster can provide<br />
lessons as <strong>to</strong> what is and will continue <strong>to</strong> occur in the Gulf of Mexico and US<br />
coastlines following the April 20 oil spill, where, as of June 10, 2010, oil continues<br />
<strong>to</strong> flow in<strong>to</strong> the gulf in amounts of around 40,000 barrels a day. These lessons<br />
already learned could help minimize the impact of the pollution.<br />
The first and most spectacular effects of massive oil spills are most evident when<br />
oil arrives on the coastlines, covering the beaches, plants, sea birds, aquatic
mammals and dead fish washing <strong>to</strong> shore covered with oil. How much death might<br />
the April 10 blowout cause? In 1999 the Erika oil tanker sank off the coast of<br />
France, causing one of the worst environmental disasters in the his<strong>to</strong>ry of Europe.<br />
Over 20,000 <strong>to</strong>nes of fuel oil spilled in<strong>to</strong> the ocean, killing more than 150 000 birds<br />
representing 65 species along 400 Km of coastlines (Laubier, 2007). Unfortunately,<br />
the deadly impact is not limited <strong>to</strong> birds and fish, but <strong>to</strong> the environment.<br />
Crude oils and petroleum are mixtures containing thousand of different molecules<br />
among which hydrocarbon compounds are dominant. Once in the water the fate of<br />
the oil dependis on its own properties (e.g., light vs heavy crude) and on physicalchemical<br />
parameters. As oil spreads along the water surface it undergoes a<br />
weathering due <strong>to</strong> wind, ocean waves and swell and heat and sun-induced<br />
evaporation. In consequence, the oil is transformed and undergoes physicalchemical<br />
modification, dispersion, emulsification, dissolution and sedimentation.<br />
For example, hydrocarbons are transformed by both biological reactions and<br />
pho<strong>to</strong>oxidation, leading respectively <strong>to</strong> their mineralization or <strong>to</strong> compounds<br />
resistant <strong>to</strong> degradation.<br />
These modified petroleum and the hydrocarbon molecules are transported <strong>to</strong> coastal<br />
ecosystems which also react differently, due <strong>to</strong> their own unique characteristics,<br />
e.g. beaches, estuaries, mudflats, marshlands, mangroves. They are also dispersed<br />
in a variety of ways: the water column, the sea bed and the sediments, thereby<br />
affecting organisms all along the food chain.<br />
When oil seeps beneath the surface it sedimentation such that oil is trapped in<br />
anoxic layers which prevent it from undergoing biotic or abiotic degradation<br />
(Garcia de Oteyza & Grimalt, 2006). This creates pollutant reservoirs that will for<br />
years menace and damage the ecosystem when released in the water column due <strong>to</strong><br />
biotic and abiotic reworking of the sediments.<br />
Residual contamination was detected in the Prince William Sound ecosystem<br />
(Alaska) seventeen years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Harwell & Gentile, 2006)<br />
and thus the potential <strong>to</strong>xic effect of this residues is under debate (Deepthike et al.<br />
2009). During the accident in 1989, there were anecdotal reports of respira<strong>to</strong>ry,<br />
nervous system, liver, kidney, heart and blood disorders, including the killing of<br />
fish eggs.<br />
The <strong>to</strong>xicity of hydrocarbons and petroleum derived compounds depends on the<br />
nature of the hydrocarbons, the poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are the most<br />
<strong>to</strong>xic and persistent components in coastal sediments (Menzie et al. 1992). It has<br />
been demonstrated that below 10 mg/L of hydrocarbons the food chain is polluted<br />
resulting in fecundity decreases and apparition of genetic anomalies while over 10<br />
mg/L plank<strong>to</strong>n, mollusks, crustaceans, gastropods, worms, larva and fishes will be<br />
destroyed(Hyland & Schneider, 1976). These impacts have been observed during
the previous Erika and Sea Empress oil spills (Law & Kelly, 2004; Bocquené et al.<br />
2004).<br />
At sub-lethal levels these hydrocarbons can be bio-accumulated through the food<br />
chain as has been demonstrated for the Erika oil spill. These hydrocarbons were<br />
transferred from mussels <strong>to</strong> mammals by ingestion and resulted in geno<strong>to</strong>xic<br />
damages <strong>to</strong> liver cells (Lemière et al. 2004). Human health was also directly<br />
impacted. Cy<strong>to</strong>genetic damages and alterations in hormonal status was directly<br />
attributed <strong>to</strong> the 2002 Prestige oil spill (Pérez-Cadahía et al. 2007), after the<br />
Prestige oil tanker sank off the Galician coast.<br />
The oil <strong>to</strong>xicity is increased by the application of dispersant, during cleanup<br />
operations. These oil dispersants have high <strong>to</strong>xicity and can dissolve hydrocarbons<br />
resulting in enhancing its bioavailability (Ramachandran et al. 2004).<br />
Oil spills change the structure of microbial communities, such that microorganisms<br />
able <strong>to</strong> digest hydrocarbons become dominant (Bordenave et al. 2007), and deplete<br />
ocean waters of oxygen thereby killing oxygen dependent life forms. For example,<br />
oil dispersants destroyed microbial mats which structure guarantees fundamental<br />
functions in the ecosystem including oxygen production by pho<strong>to</strong>synthetic<br />
cyanobacteria and sulfur recycling by Sulfur-Oxidizing bacteria (Duran & Goñi,<br />
2010).In mangroves, microbial communities play a key role in dinitrogen fixation<br />
maintaining the balance of C:N:P ratio necessary for organic matter mineralization<br />
including oil biodegradation (Taketani et al. 2009), these microbes are also<br />
impacted by the oil and the <strong>to</strong>xic dispersants. Oil perturbation of microbial<br />
communities could break the fragile balance in the ecosystem resulting on<br />
important damages similar <strong>to</strong> dystrophic crisis.<br />
Considering the current estimation, as of June 1, 2010, of more than 240 000 <strong>to</strong>ns<br />
of oil having so far flowed from the broken oil well at the bot<strong>to</strong>m of the gulf, this<br />
oil spill is now among the <strong>to</strong>p10 of the worst oil spills in the his<strong>to</strong>ry of this planet,<br />
with the Ix<strong>to</strong>c I and the 1991 Arabian Gulf spills being considered as the largest<br />
and worst of them all. However, whereas the Ix<strong>to</strong>c I oil spill blow out in the Bay of<br />
Campeche of the Gulf of Mexico, occurred at depths of 50 m (160 ft) deep and was<br />
eventually contained, the oil blow out off the coast of Louisiana has taken place at a<br />
depth of 5,000 ft and as of June 15, 2010, is still pouring around 40,000 barrels of<br />
oil a day in<strong>to</strong> the gulf. The 1991 Arabian Gulf <strong>to</strong>ok place on land, was purposeful,<br />
but was also eventually brought under control. Thus, the April 10 gulf disaster has<br />
the potential <strong>to</strong> become the worst oil spill in the his<strong>to</strong>ry of this planet.<br />
Marine currents will carry the petroleum from the April 20 blowout ashore and will<br />
impact several thousand Km of US coasts from Louisiana <strong>to</strong> Florida. The proximity<br />
of the loop current and its connection with the Gulf Stream and given that oil<br />
continues <strong>to</strong> gush in<strong>to</strong> the gulf, leads <strong>to</strong> the possibility of a worst scenario with oil
carried in<strong>to</strong> the Atlantic Ocean affecting the East coast of Florida and reaching the<br />
North Atlantic Ocean (Vanvleet et al. 1983).<br />
Although the current oil spill still limited <strong>to</strong> the US coasts of the Gulf, this accident<br />
is already entering in his<strong>to</strong>ry because it is injuring an unprecedented large variety<br />
of ecosystems characterized by their unique biodiversity and richness.<br />
The Deepwater Horizon blow out in the Mexico Gulf will have unprecedented<br />
ecological impact and will damage more than 12 hectares of highly productive and<br />
sensitive coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and marshes in preserved areas as<br />
diverse as Louisiana’s Bayous in fresh water, black and white mangroves along the<br />
Louisiana and Florida coasts. These ecosystems, impossible <strong>to</strong> cleanup with the<br />
classic mechanical procedures, will suffer from the oil spill, and it may be hundreds<br />
of year before these ecosystems recover.<br />
Oil will persist for long periods due <strong>to</strong> the vegetation density and slow degradation<br />
in anaerobic sediments. The oil will also asphyxiate mangrove trees, perturb<br />
microbial communities and disrupt the ecological stability affecting animals and<br />
microbes throughout the food chain for decades in<strong>to</strong> the future. If oil continues <strong>to</strong><br />
flow in<strong>to</strong> the Gulf in<strong>to</strong> late August as predicted, it will become the worst and<br />
possibly the most far reaching of any previous oil disaster in the his<strong>to</strong>ry of this<br />
planet.<br />
References<br />
Bocquené, G., Chantereau, S., Clérendeau, C., Beausir, E., Ménard, D., Raffin, B.,<br />
Minier, C., Burgeot, T., Pfohl Leszkowicz, A., Narbonne, J.F. (2004) Biological<br />
effects of the "Erika" oil spill on the common mussel (Mytilus edulis). Aquatic<br />
Living Resources 17: 309-316.<br />
Bordenave, S., Goñi-Urriza, M.S., Caumette, P., Duran, R. (2007) Effects of heavy<br />
fuel oil on the bacterial community structure of a pristine microbial mat. Appl.<br />
Environ. Microbiol. 73: 6089-6097.<br />
Pérez-Cadahía, B., Lafuente, A., Cabaleiro, T., Pásaro, E., Méndez, J., Laffon, B.<br />
(2007). Initial study on the effects of Prestige oil on human health. Environment<br />
International 33: 176–185.<br />
Deepthike, H.U., Tecon, R. Vankooten, G., Van der Meer, J.R., Harms, H., Wells,<br />
M., Short, J. (2009) Unlike PAHs from Exxon Valdez crude oil, PAHs from Gulf<br />
of Alaska coals are not readily bioavailable. Environmental Science and<br />
Technology. 43, 5864–5870
Duran, R., Goñi Urriza, M.S. (2010) Impact of Pollution on Microbial Mats.<br />
Microbes and Communities Utilizing Hydrocarbons, Oils and Lipids - Chapter 53<br />
in K. N. Timmis (ed.), Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology,<br />
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. pp 2339-2348.<br />
Garcia de Oteyza, T., Grimalt, J. (2006) GC and GC-MS characterization of crude<br />
oil transformation in sediments and microbial mat samples after the 1991 oil spill in<br />
the Saudi Arabian Gulf coast. Environmental Pollution. 139: 523-531.<br />
Harwell, M.A., Gentile, J.H. (2006) Ecological significance of residual exposures<br />
and effects from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Integrated environmental assessment<br />
and management 2 (3), pp. 204-246.<br />
Hyland, J.L., Schneider, E.D. (1976) Petroleum hydrocarbons and their effects on<br />
marine organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems. In: Sources, effects<br />
and sinks of hydrocarbons in the aquatic environment. American Institute of<br />
Biological Sciences, Washing<strong>to</strong>n, D.C., 463.<br />
Laubier, L. (2007) La marée noire de l’Erika. Quelles conséquences écologiques?<br />
Institut océanographique éditeur, Paris-Monaco. pp 118.<br />
Law, R.J. and Kelly, C. (2004) The impact of the "Sea Empress" oil spill. Aquatic<br />
Living Resources 17: 389-394.<br />
Lemière, S., Cossu-Leguille, C., Chaty, S., Rodius, F., Bispo, A., Jourdain, M.J.,<br />
Lanhers, M.C., Burnel, D., Vasseur, P. (2004) Geno<strong>to</strong>xic and CYP 1A enzyme<br />
effects consecutive <strong>to</strong> the food transfer of oil spill contaminants from mussels <strong>to</strong><br />
mammals. Aquatic Living Resources 17: 303-308.<br />
Menzie, C.A., Po<strong>to</strong>cki, B.B., San<strong>to</strong>dona<strong>to</strong>, J. (1992) Exposure <strong>to</strong> carcinogenic<br />
PAHs in the environment. Environmental Science and Technology. 26: 1278-1284.<br />
Ramachandran, S.D., Hodson, P.V., Khan, C.W., Leeb, K. (2004) Oil dispersant<br />
increases PAH uptake by fish exposed <strong>to</strong> crude oil. Eco<strong>to</strong>xicology and<br />
Environmental Safety 59 : 300- 308.<br />
Taketani, R.G., dos San<strong>to</strong>s, H.F, van Elsas, J.D., Rosado, A.S. (2009)<br />
Characterisation of the effect of a simulated hydrocarbon spill on diazotrophs in<br />
mangrove sediment mesocosm. An<strong>to</strong>nie van Leeuwenhoek. 96:343–354<br />
Vanvleet, E.S., Sackett, W.M., Weber, F.F., Reinhardt, S.B. (1983) Input of pelagic<br />
tar in<strong>to</strong> the NorthWest Atlantic from the gulf loop current – chemical<br />
characterization and its relationship <strong>to</strong> weathered Ix<strong>to</strong>c-i oil. Canadian Journal of<br />
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40: 12-22.