|
Laboratory
Tests
Samples
for laboratory testing were collected at four different times
by three different entities. On 28 August four samples were
taken by Ryan Environmental working for the well operator.
These locations were called "Above Spill," "Spill/Bad
Area," "Ahead of Last Booms," and "Below
Last Booms." On 2 September a sample was collected by
Downstream Strategies working for Louanne Fatora, a local
property owner. Two samples were collected by Ryan Environmental
on 1 October. A further set of samples were collected by West
Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection.
All
of these test results, as they are made available, are organized
on an Excel table that can be downloaded.
Elevated
chloride was noted in the August and September samples. The
lowest chloride was found in the the Ryan "Above the
Spill" sample -- 46 mg/l. Earlier DEP sampling had found
the average concentration of chloride in the creek to be 11
mg/l, though much higher concentrations had been found in
the creek and tributaries (average of 61 mg/l). This area
has historically had a lot of oil and gas activity. The highest
concentration of chloride was found on 2 September -- 168
mg/l. This is below the EPA's and state's chronic maximum
of 230 mg/l, at which effects on aquatic life become pronounced.
None
of the testing found the presence of volatile organic compounds
such as benzene or toluene above laboratories' detection limits.
What
laboratory testing of the Ryan samples did find was elevated
TPH (Total Petroleum Compounds). TPH -- Gasoline Range Organics
(GRO) was not found. Higher range Diesel Range and Oil Range
Organics were found. The combined TPH in Ryan's "Spill/Bad
Spot" sample was an extremely high 9150 mg/l. Above the
last booms it had dropped to 3.98 mg/l.
Testing
also included metals such as iron, manganese and sodium, but
testing for heavy metals was not done.
Ryan's
"post-remediation" tests in October were for locations
above the first boom and below the last boom. Chloride had
increased to about 183 mg/l for these samples but TPH for
both samples was not detected.
A
concern of ours is that the testing locations and other details
are extremely vague. The depth at which the water sample taken
can be important. And for a situation like this, we believe
that testing of sediments should be done to get a more accurate
reflection of what happened. We also believe that soil from
the creek bank that showed contamination should have been
tested.
If
the spill had occurred some weeks previous, testing the current
water contamination concentrations would not give any indication
of just how bad the spill had been.
Complicating
an analysis of the data is the lack of knowledge of just what
the spill consisted of or if it was a short-term or long-term
event. If material remained in the pit or source, that should
have been tested for a wide range of substances to better
understand where the focus for remediation should have been.
Go
to the next page -- The Office of Oil and Gas' Final Report.
The
Spill at Buckeye Creek
Background |
Photos, part 1| Photos, part 2|
Photos, part 3| Photos, part 4
Timeline | Laboratory
Tests | Conclusions
|
