E-Tech - Resurgence Report On Husky Spill - Sept 1 2016

Independent
dependent Primary Assessment of Husky Energy Oil Spill

into North Saskatchewan River
September 1st, 2016
This report
ort is the result of collaboration between Idle No More, the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs, the Council of Canadians
Canadians, the National Aboriginal Peoples
People Circle, the
Public Service Alliance of Canada (Prairie Region), and others, in response to the lack of
independent information surrounding the July 20th, 2016 Husky Energy oil spill. The
following chapters cover basic information on oil spills in waterways, potential risks to
health and ecology, interpretation of lab results, and recommendations for future
actions and monitoring.
E-Tech
Tech International (etechinternational.org) is a non
non-profit
profit based in Santa Fe, New
Mexico that has provided
d technical advice to Latin American communities affected by
existing or potential industrial projects since 2003. We are a small group of scientists
and engineers based in various cities across the US and Canada. Resurgence
Environmental (RE) is a technic
technical
al collective that provides consulting services to
communities in Canada and is an extension of EE-Techs
hs work and purpose. RE is made
up of engineers and scientists based in BC. Our team recently spent four days travelling
the length of the spill along the North Saskatchewan River,, speaking with residents, and
collecting some sediment samples at strategic locations.
1. Background
On July 20th, 2016,, approximately 250,000 liters of crude oil spilled from a Husky Energy
(Husky) pipeline into the North Saskatchewan River, about 75km upstream from
Paynton Ferry.. The affected region is part of the traditional territory of the Nehiyaw
(Cree) people. The spill occurred just upstream from the Tobey Nollet Bridge near the
city of Lloydminster and flowed past tthe
he cities of North Battleford (NB) and Prince Albert
(PA), forcing NB, PA,, and the Cree community of James Smith to take emergency
measures in order to protect their water supply. The delayed response by Husky allowed
the oil to travel more than 500 km on the surface of the North Saskatchewan River to
Cumberland Lake (CBC News, July 28th, 2016).
th
Figure 1: Oil slick on the surface of the North Saskatchewan River, July 29 , 2016. Photo: Jason Franson (Canadian Press)
Husky has not been open with technical information during the spill response. Despite
the fact that they have taken thousands of water samples, the public still has not had
access to any of the lab results. Instead, residents have had to trust Huskys own
summaries of exceedances of allowable contaminant limits and cleanup efforts. They
have not taken any samples beyond Prince Albert, about 375 km downstream, even
though contamination has been reported more than 500 km downstream. Huskys
updates are available at www.huskyenergy.com.
One major flaw in Huskys sampling program is that they are only analyzing water. As
discussed in section 3 of this report, the separation of diluted crude into its lighter and
heavier components causes some of the contaminants to end up attached to suspended
river sediments and deposited on the river bottom, especially as time goes on. Husky is
missing a major part of the contamination in not sampling sediments and could be
leaving behind a toxic legacy for years to come.
The Saskatchewan governments Water Security Agency is conducting its own sampling,
which includes sediments. In their latest update dated August 23rd (www.wsask.ca), they
do provide results that show exceedances of the toxic chemicals 2-Methylnaphthalene
and Phenanthrene (of the PAH group) in sediments at three different locations. Their
results also show exceedances of toxic chemicals in water, including Toluene (BTEX
group), Pyrene, Benzo(a)Pyrene
)Pyrene, and Fluoranthene (PAH group). This calls into question
Huskys
s decision not to sample sediments and also their
ir sampling methodology for
water, since none of Huskys water samples are showing exceedances for toxic
chemicals.
The E-Tech/RE team conducted
ducted its own sampling of sediments at strategic locations
along the North Saskatchewan River on August 16th and 17th, 2016. Although funding
limited us to nine sediment samples, we were able to confirm the presence of toxic
toxi
chemicals at the Cecil Ferry (20
20 km downstream of the City of Prince Albert)
Albert and at
Tobey Nollet Bridge near the spill site. At the Cecil ferry we found Toluene (BTEX group),
Phenanthrene, Chrysene, and 2
2-Methylnaphthalene (PAH group). Not surprisingly, at
Tobey Nollet Bridge where cru
crude
de oil is still visible on the banks, we found hydrocarbons
of various weights and several PAHs. We chose to focus on river sediments because it is
likely that contaminants will accumulate there as time goes on and it will be more
difficult to find contamination
nation on the water surface. Details of our sampling
ing can be
found in section 5. Figure 2 below shows the points where sediments were sampled by
E-Tech/RE.
Figure 2: Sediment samples taken at locations with red triangles. Image: Google Earth
Due to the slow response by Husky and lack of

transparency during the containment and cleanup
process, the James Smith Cree Nation has decided to
take its own mitigation measures (Figure 3) and conduct
its own sampling. They have expressed that their way of
life has been impacted by the spill and that contaminants
have been found in lake sturgeon spawning grounds
(www.jamessmithcreenation.com).
As a Sovereign Nation, we
have taken it upon ourselves
to take action and clean our
river.
-James Smith Cree Nation
Figure 3: James Smith Cree Nation residents using their own spill mitigation measures. Photo: James Smith Cree
2. Huskys Inadequate Response

The most critical component for mitigation of damage due to an oil spill is a quick
response. Husky did not react to the July 20th spill until fourteen hours after the pipeline
began to leak, allowing the oil to travel much further downstream and in greater
quantities than if they had reacted within a reasonable timeline. Oil booms, which are
used to stop floating oil from migrating, were deployed at North Battleford and Prince
Albert three days after the spill occurred (huskyenergy.com). The booms should have
been placed upstream of water supply intakes immediately after the spill. Although
booms can stop oil that is floating on the waters surface, they are completely useless
for oil that has been submerged by turbulence in the water or by clinging to sediment
particles in the water. The North Saskatchewan River is heavily loaded with sediment
and highly dynamic, making it more likely that oil would cling to particles and
submerge. In the case of submerged oil, other measures need to be taken to stop the
migration of oil. These include sorbent-filled cages, and sediment basins (discussed in
section 2.1). The delayed response by Husky was a lost opportunity. In the first few
hours of the spill, the oil could have been recovered mostly from the water surface.
Instead, the lighter components had time to evaporate, leaving behind heavier
components that could submerge and sink to the bottom of the river. Now the
communities and regulators have a difficult choice of attempting to remove the
contaminant by dredging or other means (a huge disturbance in itself) or leave behind
contaminants that can resurface for many years. Had husky enacted surface and
subsurface mitigation measures immediately after the spill, the oil would not have
impacted the water supply of North Battleford, Prince Albert, and the James Smith Cree
and the spill would have been contained within a few kilometers of the pipeline break.
Husky has provided very little information regarding a cleanup strategy. Updates on the
website indicate that some of the mitigation and cleanup methods used include booms,
low pressure washing, vegetation trimming and raking, and removal of debris.
(www.huskyenergy.com). It is critical that Husky release details on their boom placement
strategy so that the effort and efficiency can be assessed. Clean up is focused on the
first 40 km downstream of the spill in the area labeled Division 1 on Huskys sampling
map, even though contaminants have been found much further downstream.
Air monitoring should have been in place in the first few days after the spill, when toxic
and carcinogenic components are evaporating in large quantities, putting the health of
workers and residents at risk. There is no indication that Husky Energy conducted any air
quality monitoring.
2.1 Lessons from the Enbridge spill into the Kalamazoo River
On July 26th, 2010, diluted bitumen spilled from an Enbridge pipeline in Michigan and
impacted the Kalamazoo River. Although the spill was larger than the Husky spill, it
does have important similarities in the type of oil spilled and the type of affected
waterway. The lighter constituents evaporated quickly and a large portion of the oil then
became submerged. This is very likely the same mechanism that is acting in the North
Saskatchewan River right now. The USEPA, after dealing with the Kalamazoo spill
concluded that submerged oil should be immediately and aggressively contained to
prevent a lengthy and difficult cleanup (www.epa.gov). In the case of the Kalamazoo
River, the following measures were taken in an effort to capture the submerged oil:
Gabion baskets (wire cages) filled with sorbent material were placed at various
points along the river to capture submerged oil and oil-covered sediment
Underflow dams and hay bales were installed at smaller sections of stream flow
Sediment basins were constructed to remove sediment in tributaries of the
Kalamazoo River
Surface booms with X-Tex sediment curtains were used to capture oil while
allowing water to pass through
The USEPA also notes that the measures to capture submerged oil are most effective in
water temperatures of more than 16 C, which means Husky has a limited window to
initiate these measures before the river cools or freezes. The sorbent-filled gabion
baskets were found to be the most effective at the initial stages. They worked best in
areas of slow flow, which is also where oily sediment tends to settle. The booms with XTex sediment curtains were also effective but are meant for use in slow flow areas
(www.epa.gov).
Some techniques were used at the Enbridge Kalamazoo spill to recover oil that was
already at the bottom of the river; however, these methods need to be considered
aggressive to local ecology and so should only be used with caution. These
methods should also be combined with monitoring of physical-chemical and biological
conditions. Air quality also needs to be monitored since disturbing the oil could release
toxic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). These methods were combined with surface
retrieval methods to capture the oil as it was being released from the river bottom. The
following bottom-retrieval methods were used at Kalamazoo:
Hydraulic Flushing using pressurized river water to stir up shallow bottom

sediments
Aeration using pressurized air to stir up shallow sediments
Manual agitation using raking to stir up shallow sediments
Dredging, which removes the contaminated sediment for treatment at a separate
location
As mentioned, these agitation techniques can have an ecological cost due to the
sediment disturbance, and the capturing of released oil is not always successful since oil
that is not captured immediately after agitation eventually gets deposited downstream.
These methods should only be applied with a full understanding of the potential
ecological impacts and in areas where rising oil can be easily contained. Hydraulic
(suction) dredging was most effective in recovering river bottom contaminants since it
doesnt depend on capturing oil after disturbance but actually removes the
contaminated sediment from the site directly. In the case of the Kalamazoo River,
recovery of submerged oil continued over the spring and summers of the following two
years since the warm waters make for the most efficient recovery (www.epa.gov).
Husky and Saskatchewan government agencies need to determine those areas
(depositional, low flow) where submerged oil has been and will continue to be
deposited in order to prioritize recovery areas. This prioritization must also consider
areas of ecological sensitivity and of high risk to human health.
Huskys latest website update dated August 31st, 2016 informs that cleanup has been
suspended due to high water levels in the North Saskatchewan River. This will result in
more oil sinking to the bottom of the river as any oil that is still in the water column will
stick to more sediment at the banks as the river rises, becoming heavy enough to sink.
3. Properties and Behavior of Oil
The oil that was spilled from the Husky pipeline is a diluted crude oil called HLU
Blended LLB Heavy Crude Oil from the Lloydminster oilfields (see Appendix 1 for the
Material Safety Data Sheet for this oil). This is a heavy crude oil- a raw form of oil that is
later refined into diesel, fuel oils and other petroleum products. It is so heavy and thick
that in order to pump it through pipelines it is mixed with 'diluents', which are typically
condensed forms of natural gas (a product of fracking).
Diluted crude oils contain many toxic chemicals including a range of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs); benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes (BTEX); heavy
metals, and hydrogen sulfide. The BTEX group is the most volatile and is therefore more
of a concern for short-term toxicity while it is evaporating from the spill surface. The
PAH group is heavier and is more likely to cling to sediments and cause long-term
human health and ecological impacts (National Academies Press, 2016). The potential
ecological and health effects of these chemicals are discussed in the following section.
Figure 4: Behavior of oil in a river after a spill. Source: National Academy of Sciences
Oil spilled into the environment undergoes physical and chemical changes that are
collectively known as weathering (Figure 4 above). These processes occur at different
rates depending on the type of oil spilled, water temperature, and other factors, but
they begin as soon as oil is spilled and usually proceed most rapidly immediately after
the spill. The most important weathering process is evaporation, which accounts for the
greatest losses of material. Over a period of several days immediately following the
Husky oil spill of July 20th, the diluents and lighter components of the oil (10 to 40% of
the original volume) would have spread out on the surface of the river and travelled
quickly downstream, evaporating rapidly in the air. These lighter, more volatile diluents
and components of crude oil tend to be visible as surface films or sheens. As oil, sulfur,
and heavy metals get mixed

into the water column by
waves and wind, thick brown
foam- sometimes known as
'chocolate mousse'- can form.
This process is known as
emulsification (Figure 5). The
delayed reaction by Husky
was a lost opportunity to
capture oil on the surface and
has now become a much
more complicated problem of
recovering oil below the
surface. Once at the bottom
of the riverbed, components
of the oil including PAHs, can
Figure 5: Emulsified oil near the Tobey Nollet Bridge: Photo: R. Segovia
bind with the sediment and
remain there for many years, or, as with the asphalt-like components of the crude oil,
form into thick chunks and 'tar balls'. Submerged oil can be difficult, risky and resource
intensive to extract, and can be re-released unpredictably from the sediment or river
bottom over time in dynamic rivers like the North Saskatchewan with freezing, thawing,
shifting ice, strong winds and waves, and flooding events.
Photooxidation occurs when
spilled oil is exposed to sunlight
and forms covalent bonds with
oxygen. This is a concern
because sunlight exposure has
been shown to make some
chemicals, such as PAHs, much
more toxic to living things.
Heavier components of crude
oil do not evaporate or dissolve
readily in water and tend to
weather very slowly. Initially,
the heavier components of the
oil would have floated down
the river and stuck (adhered) to
the shoreline rocks and
Figure 6: Adhesion of crude oil on plants near Tobey Nollet Bridge, Aug 15th
Photo: R. Segovia.
vegetation, as seen in Figure 6. Diluted heavy crude oil is more adhesive than other oils,
which means that it is more likely to stick to soil and vegetation than lighter crude oils
(National Academies Press, 2016). The day after the spill, the river height increased
several feet, exacerbating the problem and leaving a greater area on the banks covered
in the more adhesive and heavier crude.
Certain components of crude oil are also soluble. Through the dissolution process these
toxic chemicals can be absorbed by organisms in the water and sediments, as we will
discuss in the following section.
Natural Attenuation can be the method of choice for many oil companies after a disaster
because it implies the least amount of work and the lowest cost. It basically assumes
that nature will take care of the mess and degrade the contaminants over time. In
reality, Natural Attenuation only eliminates a small percentage of the contamination
through weathering and microbial activity and the rest of the contaminants remain toxic,
even when they become invisible. Relying on Natural Attenuation is not an excuse for a
do-nothing approach, but should be combined with constant and long-term monitoring
to assure that exposure pathways to humans and ecosystems are minimized. It requires
continuous sampling and vigilant observation of the contaminated site and
surroundings. The microbial activity and weathering that allow for Natural Attenuation
works best at low contaminant concentrations and in the presence of air (oxygen
specifically). Microbial activity in anaerobic conditions, as are present at the bottom of a
river, happens at a much slower pace (National Academies Press, 2016). Natural
Attenuation should only be considered the final step after all other effective remediation
techniques have been applied.
4. Ecological and Human Health Risks of Hydrocarbon Exposure
Health impacts from crude oil exposure can come from inhalation, ingestion and skin
contact. Exposure through inhalation typically occurs in the first few days of the oil spill,
as the lighter and more volatile components rapidly evaporate and release high airborne
levels of toxic components within the first 24-48 hours. These can include Benzene,
Toluene, and hydrogen sulfide, known carcinogens with a range of detrimental health
effects (See Appendix #2 for links to fact sheets health and environmental impacts of
each of the toxins found in the crude oil). This impacts the health and safety of the
emergency responders as well as the surrounding communities and wildlife if inhaled or
ingested. Husky should have initiated air monitoring programs to ensure worker and
community health and safety. Communities near the river should have been warned
about the public health dangers of the oil spill immediately following the spill. Children,
pregnant women and individuals with compromised immune systems should have been
advised to leave the area if possible during the first several days to decrease their
exposure to these Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Short-term (acute) exposure to

these compounds can cause vomiting, flu-like symptoms, fatigue, and skin rashes. Longterm exposure can cause various types of cancers and damage to organs and the
nervous system (USEPA).
Aquatic animals or other animals in direct contact
I saw foam coming down the
with the water and sediments can be exposed to
river. The birds, the
contaminants after an oil spill, putting them at risk of
deereverything disappeared
serious health effects and death. Submerged oil can
have developmental impacts leading to abnormalities
after the spill. The river was
in newly born aquatic species such as benthic
dead for 10 days. Fishermen
(sediment dwelling) insects and fish. As discussed
are seeing sturgeon
earlier, some of the PAHs (including Pyrene) and
swimming much shallower
heavy metals found in crude oil tend to stick to
than before.
sediment and settle at the bottom of rivers. This
creates a constant exposure pathway for bottom
-Ferryman at Cecil Ferry
dwelling creatures or those fish that feed on them.
Biomagnification of chemicals occurs up the food
chain, when small creatures containing a particular concentration of contaminants are
eaten by larger organism and those are then eaten by even larger organisms,
multiplying the concentration of persistent contaminants in the animals body.
Bioaccumulation is a component of the Biomagnification process and consists of the
accumulation of contaminants that are not processed by the body of a single organism.
The longer the exposure to the contaminant, the higher the concentrations of
accumulated contaminants in the animal or plant.
Oiled birds make for the most dramatic imagery in the media and are therefore a high
priority for oil companies dealing with a spill; however, the largest impact to the river
ecosystem is invisible and comes in the form of contamination of the organisms living in
the sediments, which are the lifeblood of the river ecosystem. Without these organisms
the food web collapses and the fish die. Assuring a suitable habitat for benthic creatures
needs to be a priority for cleanup plans in the North Saskatchewan River.
5. E-Tech/RE Sediment Sample Results
As mentioned previously, we took nine sediment samples at strategic points along the
North Saskatchewan River on August 16th and 17th, 2016. Although this represents a
limited scope of sampling, it serves as an important first step in prioritizing areas of
concern. For the analysis of these samples we used ALS Laboratories, a well-known and
reputable lab. The raw lab results are in Appendix 4 and include the quality control
procedures and analysis types used for each sample. This detail of procedural
information has not been provided by anyone else conducting sampling on the North
Saskatchewan River. The sample locations are shown on the map in Figure 2.
In order to maximize resources, it is common to take composite samples at a site,
which means sediments are collected in a pattern around a particular area (10 meter by
10 meter grid, for example) and then combined in a single bucket before placing in the
appropriate containers. This allows for more area to be examined for the presence of
contaminants. The disadvantage is that we do not know the maximum concentrations
found at a site since scoops of lower concentration are being mixed with scoops of
higher concentration. If lab analysis were unlimited then each area scooped would be a
single sample and we would have a better idea of the distribution of contaminant
concentrations at a site. Not all contaminants found exceeded the allowable limits for
the protection of aquatic life, but if many samples had been taken rather than a
composite, some of those points would likely exceed the allowable limits. Limited
resources also implied that we could not access all the areas where contaminants are
likely to be deposited with sinking sediments, such as in small bays and islands.
Two composite sediment samples were taken at the Cecil Ferry terminal. The results
show that there is a definite presence of contaminants in the sediments near the
Cecil Ferry, 20km downstream of Prince Albert. With information from locals we were
able to determine where the contaminants had come through and were likely
depositing. All the contaminants found are of serious concern for human and ecological
health and included Toluene (BTEX group), Phenanthrene, Chrysene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene
(PAH group). Links to information on the health impacts for each particular compound appear in
Appendix 2.
We did not find contaminants further down stream in areas such as Cumberland Lake and
Codette Lake, although this does not discard the possibility that the contaminants have travelled
that far, since we were only able to collect a single sample at each site and did not have access
to areas of interest such as where the mouth of the North Saskatchewan River enters the Lakes.
We found many contaminants from the PAH group and other hydrocarbon weights at the Tobey
Nollet bridge in concentrations above the allowable limits for the protection of aquatic life. This
level of contamination was expected since crude oil was visible with the naked eye.
Contaminants included the range of hydrocarbon (TPH) weights from C5 to C60 (indicating the
number of carbons in the molecule), and many PAHs including Phenanthrene, Pyrene,
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Fluoroanthene, Flourene, Indeno(1,2,3-
cd)Pyrene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene. Although it is not surprising to find this many

contaminants at a site with visible crude oil, the results are important because the PAH group of
chemicals are very persistent in the environment and are good indicators for determining the
source of contamination. In this case, all the PAHs found at Cecil Ferry were also present
near the spill site at Tobey Nollet Bridge, leaving little doubt that the contamination at
Cecil Ferry is a result of the Husky spill, about 400km upstream.
All the samples were taken using standards of professional practice (Figure 7). The
equipment was rinsed with distilled water in between sites and with the water in the
area being sampled upon arriving at each site. The bottles, preservatives, and coolers
were provided by the lab and the samples were stored according to specified
procedures. See Appendix 3 for photos of the sampling procedures.
Figure 7: Sampling sediment for BTEX. Photo: E-Tech
With additional funds we would like to continue the sampling of strategic points,
including several points upstream of the spill to determine the conditions of the North
Saskatchewan River before the spill. We would also like to take more samples as far as
Cumberland Lake, getting access to those points where submerged oil is more likely to
have deposited such as the delta at the mouth of the North Saskatchewan River. As time
goes on, contaminants that have reached the bottom of the river will make their way
further downstream and sampling deep sediments will become more important.
Partnering with universities to conduct low cost sampling will allow us to take many
more samples, using a certified lab only after having many more clues and mapping the
path of contamination based on the university analyzed samples.
6. Infrastructure Maintenance: Preventing Future Spills
One important aspect of this spill that cannot be overlooked is the need for improved
maintenance of the pipelines in Saskatchewan. Considering the state of technology in
materials engineering, geotechnical engineering, and pipeline design, this type of pipe
break should never take place. If future spills are not prevented then the cleanup of the
current spill becomes meaningless.
Pipelines are inspected in many ways, including manually using Ultrasonic Thickness
Gauges, where individual points are checked to determine how much of the original
pipe thickness still remains. A more thorough inspection of pipe thickness is done using
intelligent pigs, which are sensors that travel inside the pipe and record pipe thickness
in order to determine the degree of deterioration.
Just as important as the pipe thickness is the support that holds the pipe in place. If the
pipe is allowed to sink and flex due to unstable soil then ruptures can happen even
when the pipe thickness is adequate. Supports must be connected to stable bedrock or
suitable soil that will not experience compaction and subsidence over time. Saturated
soils and wetlands are not suitable for proper support of pipeline structures.
Husky Energy needs to publicize its maintenance records, inspection records, and age of
every length of pipe to determine if there are other sections of pipe that are in danger
or leaking or bursting.
7. Monitoring Contamination and Cleanup

At a government or corporate level, monitoring of the July 20th, 2016 spill needs to
continue for a minimum of two years. This needs to include water and sediment samples
tested for BTEX, PAHs, and heavy metals at a minimum. Ecological monitoring needs to
greatly increase in order to capture the long-term impacts to the ecosystem. This can
include macroinvertebrate sampling, lab analysis of fish organs, plant diversity and
abundance sampling at the river banks, and any other indicators appropriate to the
North Saskatchewan River. As cleanup operations continue, there needs to be
verification sampling after each stage of cleanup to ensure the effectiveness of
remediation.
On a community level, E-Tech has trained local indigenous monitors in Peru and
Ecuador in order to document the effects of crude oil extraction and mining practices on
water quality, soil quality and ecology (Figure 8). In Peru, the local monitors are
overseeing the remediation of four decades of hydrocarbon contamination. Using the
wealth of historical and traditional knowledge of the people in an affected area,
community monitors (or citizen scientists) can systematically document changes in the
soil and water, changes in migration patterns and animal behaviors, impacts to human
health, impacts on traditional harvesting, fishing, and hunting practices, changes in
water quality, evidence of contamination, and improvements during cleanup.
Figure 8: Community monitoring projects in Peru. Photo: R. Segovia
Most community monitoring can be done with simple tools such as smartphones and
GPS units, but can also include water quality probes, manual soil augers, sampling for
lab analysis, and training for biological indicators if the funding is available. Community
monitoring can be a way to turn a tragedy into something positive, as it brings a fresh
appreciation for the water and soil that we depend on, and can be a way for youth to
connect to forgotten local knowledge.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations

1. Huskys late reaction to the July 20th, 2016 oil spill (14 hour delay)
allowed time for the spill to travel much further downstream then if they
had reacted immediately. It also allowed time for the heavier components
of the diluted crude oil to attach to sediment particles and submerge into
the water column and to the bottom of the North Saskatchewan River.
Recommendations: Lessons should be taken from the Kalamazoo River spill
in Michigan and submerged oil should become a recovery priority. Some
methods found to be effective in the Kalamazoo River included Gabion
Baskets filled with sorbent material and sediment basins to slow sediment
migration. Hydraulic dredging was found to be effective in recovering oil
once it reached the river bottom. Any recovery process should go through
an ecological impact analysis since some methods can be too aggressive
for sensitive ecosystems. Husky needs to start taking sediment samples
along the river bed since the problem is quickly shifting from surface
contamination to submerged contamination.
2. Husky Energy has not been transparent with its sampling data or
cleanup plans.
Recommendations: Local residents need to demand full access to the raw
data from Huskys sampling program and a detailed cleanup strategy. The
cleanup strategy should include reasoning for boom numbers and
placement, techniques for dealing with submerged oil, and monitoring
strategy for the next two years. Husky needs to sample water and
sediment downstream of Prince Albert, where they have set their current
sampling limit.
3. Husky Energy did not warn residents of the health risks associated with
evaporating BTEX-group chemicals and other volatile compounds that are
present in peak concentrations in the first 48 hours after a spill. Husky

should have warned residents (especially children and pregnant women) to
stay away from the river immediately after the spill.
Recommendation: Local residents should demand information about the
potential dangers of the exposure to volatile compounds and the
continued health risks associated with the more persistent chemicals such
as the PAH group of chemicals.
4. E-Tech/RE samples showed the presence of BTEX chemicals and PAHs at
the Tobey Nollet Bridge and the Cecil Ferry downstream of Prince Albert.
The specific PAHs found at Cecil Ferry were all found near the spill site at
Tobey Nollet Bridge, indicating that the hydrocarbons at Cecil Ferry are
very likely the result of the July 20th Husky spill.
Recommendation: Additional sampling should be conducted upstream of
the spill in order to determine pre-spill conditions within the North
Saskatchewan River. Sampling should also be done at Cumberland Lake at
the mouth of the North Saskatchewan River where contaminated sediment
is likely to submerge.
5. Infrastructure improvements need to be a priority in order to prevent
further spills. Husky should disclose all of its pipeline inspection data, its
pipeline maintenance schedule, and the ages of all sections of pipeline. Soil
stability also needs to be considered an integral component of pipeline
stability and geotechnical data near pipeline supports should be provided
by Husky.
6. The James Smith Cree Nation needs to be supported in its effort to
mitigate and monitor the damage to their traditional territory. Funds
should be made available to communities interested in conducting their
own mitigation and monitoring efforts. E-Tech/RE can assist in training
local environmental monitors.
For any questions regarding this report, please contact Ricardo Segovia at
segoviacaminando@gmail.com or at (604) 704-1232.
Ricardo Segovia
Hydrogeologist
E-Tech International / Resurgence Environmental
Danielle Stevenson
Remediation Specialist
Resurgence Environmental
Leila Darwish
Remediation Specialist
Resurgence Environmental
References
CBC News (2016). Husky admits crews missed leak night of Saskatchewan oil spill. Available at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/husky-oil-spill-government-july-28-update1.3699007
Husky Energy (2016). Saskatchewan Pipeline Incident Updates. Available at:
http://huskyenergy.com/news/saskatchewan-updates.asp
James Smith Cree Nation (2016). James Smith Cree Says Our Waters Are Priceless. Available at:
http://www.jamessmithcreenation.com/news/index.html
National Academies Press (2016). Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study
of Environmental Fate, Transport, and Response. Available at:
http://www.nap.edu/read/21834/chapter/1
USEPA (2016). FOSC Desk Report for the Enbridge Line 6B Oil Spill. Marshall, Michigan. Available
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/enbridge-fosc-report20160407-241pp.pdf
Water Security Agency (2016). Surface Water Quality Verification Dataset - Summary North
Saskatchewan River Release. Available at:
https://www.wsask.ca/Global/About%20WSA/News%20Releases/Water%20Quality%20Sampling
%20-%20Aug.%2025/WSA%20Surface%20Water%20Quality%20Monitoring%20Table.pdf
Water Security Agency (2016). Sediment Quality Verification Dataset - Summary North
Saskatchewan River Release. Available at:
https://www.wsask.ca/Global/About%20WSA/News%20Releases/Water%20Quality%20Sampling
%20-%20Aug.%2025/WSA%20Sediment%20Quality%20Monitoring%20Table.pdf
Appendix 1: Material Safety Data Sheet for Crude Spilled into N. Sask. River
Material Safety Data Sheet for HLU Blended LLB Heavy Crude Oil:
https://huskyenergy.msdsbinders.com/CustomBinder/ViewMsds/2e12540d-7507-44cd-96fc96d9fe74464b/20457/HLU%20Blended%20LLB%20Heavy%20Crude%20Oil%20%20Husky%20Oil%20Operations%20Limited%20(Husky%20Oil%20Marketing%20Company)
Appendix 2: Fact Sheets on Toxins Found in the Oil Spilled:

Properties of Crude Oil Spilled: http://www.crudemonitor.ca/crude.php?acr=LLB
Benzene https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts3.pdf
Tolulene https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts56.pdf
Ethylbenzene https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts110.pdf
Xyrene https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts71.pdf
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts69.pdf
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts123.pdf
Appendix 3: Photographs from the Preliminary Assessment (Aug 14th to 17th)
Oil sheen on the banks near Tobey Nollet Bridge. Photo R. Segovia
Clockwise from top left: 1. Taking coordinates at each sampling point. 2. Measuring
pH/conductivity/temp. 3. Sampling sediment at Codette Lake. 4. Cleaning equipment with distilled water.
Photos: E-Tech International
Accumulation of chocolate mousse (emulsified crude oil) at Cecil Ferry. Photo: R. Segovia
Appendix 4: E-Tech/RE Sediment Samples Lab Results from ALS Global
CASH CLIENTS - SASKATOON

ATTN: RICARDO SEGOVIA
Black Sheep Environmental Consulting
108-775 east 7th avenue
VANCOUVER BC V5T 1P3
Date Received: 18-AUG-16

Report Date: 26-AUG-16 10:03 (MT)
Version:
FINAL
Client Phone: 604-704-1232
Certificate of Analysis
Lab Work Order #: L1815245
Project P.O. #:
NOT SUBMITTED
Job Reference:
C of C Numbers:
Legal Site Desc:
14-489456
____________________________________________
Lyndsay Hinrichsen
Account Manager
[This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written authority of the Laboratory.]
ADDRESS: #819-58th St E., Saskatoon, SK S7K 6X5 Canada | Phone: +1 306 668 8370 | Fax: +1 306 668 8383
ALS CANADA LTD
Part of the ALS Group
A Campbell Brothers Limited Company
ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT
Sample Details/Parameters
L1815245-1
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 2 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
TL1
R. SEGOVIA on 16-AUG-16 @ 09:30
Matrix:
SOIL
BTEX, F1-F4 and SK Reg. PHCs.
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
Surrogate: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene
Surrogate: 3,4-Dichlorotoluene
CCME Total Hydrocarbons
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
Total Hydrocarbons (C6-C50)
Extractable Hydrocarbons. Tumbler/GC-FID
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
Chrom. to baseline at nC50
Surrogate: 2-Bromobenzotrifluoride
Miscellaneous Parameters
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
2-methylnaphthalene
B(A)P Total Potency Equivalent
IACR (CCME)
Surrogate: d10-Acenaphthene
Surrogate: d10-Phenanthrene
Surrogate: d12-Chrysene
<0.0050
<0.050
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
104.4
119.1
78.5
0.0050
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
<30
<30
<50
<50
<50
<50
10
10
30
30
50
50
50
50
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
<50
<100
YES
98.2
50
100
0
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
21.0
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.020
<0.15
91.2
86.5
87.2
* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0040
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.020
0.15
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-2
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 3 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
BS1
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0050
<0.050
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
95.0
115.0
87.3
0.0050
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
<30
<30
<50
<50
<50
<50
10
10
30
30
50
50
50
50
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
<50
<100
YES
89.8
50
100
0
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
49.5
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.020
<0.15
83.2
82.1
82.8
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0040
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.020
0.15
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-3
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 4 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
CL1
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0065
<0.050
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
95.3
105.4
95.5
0.0065
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
<30
<30
<50
<50
<50
<50
10
10
30
30
50
50
50
50
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
<50
<100
YES
91.9
50
100
0
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
57.5
<0.020
<0.010
<0.020
<0.010
<0.020
<0.0080
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.010
<0.020
<0.020
<0.21
81.7
80.6
81.8
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.0080
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.21
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-4
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 5 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
COD1
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0050
<0.050
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
104.9
89.7
93.4
0.0050
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
<30
<30
<50
<50
<50
<50
10
10
30
30
50
50
50
50
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
<50
<100
YES
72.0
50
100
0
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
19.4
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.020
<0.15
91.8
91.0
91.4
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0040
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.020
0.15
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-5
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 6 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
CF1
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0057
0.080
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
79.0
107.1
90.1
0.0057
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
<30
<30
<50
<50
<50
<50
10
10
30
30
50
50
50
50
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
<50
<100
YES
90.6
50
100
0
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
57.2
<0.020
<0.010
<0.020
<0.010
0.035
<0.0080
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.023
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.010
0.034
<0.020
0.22
86.6
87.1
85.8
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
DLHM
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.0080
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.21
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-6
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 7 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
CF2
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0050
0.314
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
96.2
96.5
90.3
0.0050
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
<30
<30
<50
<50
<50
<50
10
10
30
30
50
50
50
50
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
<50
<100
YES
94.5
50
100
0
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
49.2
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0050
0.013
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.011
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0050
0.014
<0.020
<0.15
89.5
90.2
91.4
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0040
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.020
0.15
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-7
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 8 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
TN1
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0050
<0.050
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
93.0
108.2
84.3
0.0050
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
360
360
4120
4120
1770
6250
10
10
300
300
500
500
500
500
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
500
1000
0
-
mg/kg
mg/kg
1970
4900
NO
N/A
DLHC
DLHC
DLHC
DLHC
DLHC
SDO:RNA
37.6
<0.010
<0.075
<0.010
<0.010
0.667
<0.025
0.194
0.043
0.053
0.234
<0.090
<0.020
<0.060
0.130
0.187
0.031
<0.013
0.053
0.053
0.74
76.7
78.2
77.1
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.010
0.075
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.025
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.090
0.020
0.060
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.013
0.010
0.043
0.47
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-8
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 9 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
TN2
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0050
<0.050
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
95.5
101.5
76.4
0.0050
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
460
460
4680
4680
2010
7150
10
10
300
300
500
500
500
500
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
500
1000
0
-
mg/kg
mg/kg
2230
5700
NO
N/A
DLHC
DLHC
DLHC
DLHC
DLHC
SDO:RNA
36.8
<0.010
<0.13
<0.010
<0.014
1.09
<0.068
0.416
0.105
0.135
0.322
<0.17
<0.060
<0.12
0.353
0.264
0.062
<0.031
0.063
0.111
1.55
71.9
70.7
63.2
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
DLCI
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.010
0.13
0.010
0.014
0.010
0.068
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.17
0.060
0.12
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.031
0.010
0.088
0.97
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245-9
Sampled By:
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
L1815245 CONTD....
PAGE 10 of 12
Version: FINAL
Analyzed
Batch
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
R3532964
BF1
Matrix:
SOIL
CCME BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
F1 (C6-C10)
F1-BTEX
F2 (C10-C16)
F2-Naphth
F3 (C16-C34)
F3-PAH
F4 (C34-C50)
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
% Moisture
CCME PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Quinoline
Acenapthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoroanthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
IACR (CCME)
<0.0050
<0.050
<0.010
<0.10
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
113.9
101.7
95.6
0.0050
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.050
0.050
0.050
70-130
70-130
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
<10
<10
<30
<30
<50
<50
<50
<50
10
10
30
30
50
50
50
50
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
<50
<100
YES
91.3
50
100
0
70-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
30.7
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.020
<0.15
89.7
89.0
91.2
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
22-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
R3533862
1.0
22-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
R3531547
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.0040
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0050
0.010
0.020
0.15
60-130
60-130
60-130
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
%
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
23-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
25-AUG-16
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
R3533719
L1815245 CONTD....
Reference Information
PAGE 11 of 12
Version: FINAL
Sample Parameter Qualifier Key:

Qualifier
Description
DLCI
Detection Limit Raised: Chromatographic Interference due to co-elution.
DLHC
Detection Limit Raised: Dilution required due to high concentration of test analyte(s).
DLHM
Detection Limit Adjusted: Sample has High Moisture Content
SDO:RNA
Surrogate diluted out:% recovery not available
Test Method References:

ALS Test Code
ETL-BTX,TVH-CCME-SK
Matrix
Soil
Test Description
Method Reference**
CCME BTEX
CCME CWS-PHC, Pub #1310, Dec 2001
Fraction F1, C6 - C10 Hydrocarbons, is determined by extracting a 5 gram soil sample with methanol, separating the methanol from the soil, then
adding the methanol extract to a purge-and-trap unit for release of volatile organics. The volatile organics are separated by gas chromatography using a
100% poly(dimethylsiloxane)column, with BTEX components quantified by MSD and the F1 range quantified using a flame ionization detector.
Note: The result of a BTEX analysis is subtracted to give the final result.
Reference: Modified EPA SW846 Methods 5030/ 8260, CCME CSW PHC Dec 2000
ETL-TVH,TEH-CCME-SK
Soil
CCME CWS-PHC, Pub #1310, Dec 2001
Analytical methods used for analysis of CCME Petroleum Hydrocarbons have been validated and comply with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC.
Hydrocarbon results are expressed on a dry weight basis.
In cases where results for both F4 and F4G are reported, the greater of the two results must be used in any application of the CWS PHC guidelines and
the gravimetric heavy hydrocarbons cannot be added to the C6 to C50 hydrocarbons.
In samples where BTEX and F1 were analyzed , F1-BTEX represents a value where the sum of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and total Xylenes has
been subtracted from F1.
In samples where PAHs, F2 and F3 were analyzed, F2-Naphth represents the result where Naphthalene has been subtracted from F2. F3-PAH
represents a result where the sum of Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Phenanthrene, and Pyrene has been subtracted from F3.
Unless otherwise qualified, the following quality control criteria have been met for the F1 hydrocarbon range:
1. All extraction and analysis holding times were met.
2. Instrument performance showing response factors for C6 and C10 within 30% of the response factor for toluene.
3. Linearity of gasoline response within 15% throughout the calibration range.
Unless otherwise qualified, the following quality control criteria have been met for the F2-F4 hydrocarbon ranges:
1. All extraction and analysis holding times were met.
2. Instrument performance showing C10, C16 and C34 response factors within 10% of their average.
3. Instrument performance showing the C50 response factor within 30% of the average of the C10, C16 and C34 response factors.
4. Linearity of diesel or motor oil response within 15% throughout the calibration range.
PAH-CCME-CL
Soil
CCME PAHs
EPA 3570/8270-GC/MS
This analysis is carried out using procedures adapted from "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" SW-846, Methods 3570 & 8270, published by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The procedure uses a mechanical shaking technique to extract a subsample of the
sediment/soil with a 1:1 mixture of DCM and acetone. The extract is then solvent exchanged to toluene. The final extract is analyzed by capillary
column gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detection (GC/MS). Surrogate recoveries may not be reported in cases where interferences from
the sample matrix prevent accurate quantitation.
PREP-MOISTURE-SK
Soil
% Moisture
CWS-PHC DEC 2000
The weighed portion of soil is placed in a 105 C oven overnight. The dried soil is allowed to cooled to room temperature, weighed and the % moisture
is calculated.
Reference: ASTM D2216-80
TEH-TMB-SK
Soil
CWS-PHC DEC 2000 (SOIL)
This analysis is carried out in accordance with the "Reference Method for the Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil - Tier 1
Method, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, December 2000." For C10 to C50 hydrocarbons (F2, F3, F4) and gravimetric heavy
hydrocarbons (F4G-sg), a subsample of the sediment/soil is extracted with 1:1 hexane:acetone using a rotary extractor. The extract undergoes a silicagel clean-up to remove polar compounds. F2, F3 & F4 are analyzed by on-column GC/FID, and F4G-sg is analyzed gravimetrically.
** ALS test methods may incorporate modifications from specified reference methods to improve performance.
L1815245 CONTD....
Reference Information
PAGE 12 of 12
Version: FINAL
Test Method References:

ALS Test Code
Matrix
Test Description
Method Reference**
The last two letters of the above test code(s) indicate the laboratory that performed analytical analysis for that test. Refer to the list below:
Laboratory Definition Code
Laboratory Location
SK
ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA
CL
ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA
Chain of Custody Numbers:

14-489456
GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMS
Surrogates are compounds that are similar in behaviour to target analyte(s), but that do not normally occur in environmental samples. For
applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. In reports that display the D.L. column, laboratory
objectives for surrogates are listed there.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram based on dry weight of sample
mg/kg wwt - milligrams per kilogram based on wet weight of sample
mg/kg lwt - milligrams per kilogram based on lipid-adjusted weight
mg/L - unit of concentration based on volume, parts per million.
< - Less than.
D.L. - The reporting limit.
N/A - Result not available. Refer to qualifier code and definition for explanation.
Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory.
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.
Analytical results in unsigned test reports with the DRAFT watermark are subject to change, pending final QC review.
Quality Control Report

Report Date: 26-AUG-16
Workorder: L1815245
Black Sheep Environmental Consulting 108-775 east 7th avenue
Client:
Contact:
RICARDO SEGOVIA
Test
Matrix
Reference
Result
ETL-BTX,TVH-CCME-SK
Soil
L1815245-2
<0.0050
<0.0050
Toluene
<0.050
<0.050
Ethylbenzene
<0.010
<0.010
Xylenes
<0.10
<0.10
o-Xylene
<0.050
m+p-Xylene
Styrene
TVH: (C6-C10 / No BTEX Correction)
Batch
Page 1 of 7
Qualifier
Units
RPD
Limit
Analyzed
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
23-AUG-16
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
23-AUG-16
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
23-AUG-16
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
23-AUG-16
<0.050
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
23-AUG-16
<0.050
<0.050
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
23-AUG-16
<0.050
<0.050
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
23-AUG-16
<10
<10
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
23-AUG-16
R3532964
WG2371263-1
Benzene
WG2371263-3
Benzene
DUP
LCS
105.2
70-130
23-AUG-16
Toluene
96.7
70-130
23-AUG-16
Ethylbenzene
103.2
70-130
23-AUG-16
Xylenes
100.3
50-150
23-AUG-16
o-Xylene
98.7
70-130
23-AUG-16
m+p-Xylene
101.9
70-130
23-AUG-16
Styrene
91.7
50-150
23-AUG-16
92.7
70-130
23-AUG-16
<0.0050
mg/kg
0.005
23-AUG-16
Toluene
<0.050
mg/kg
0.05
23-AUG-16
Ethylbenzene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
23-AUG-16
Xylenes
<0.10
mg/kg
0.1
23-AUG-16
o-Xylene
WG2371263-2
Benzene
MB
<0.050
mg/kg
0.05
23-AUG-16
m+p-Xylene
<0.050
mg/kg
0.05
23-AUG-16
Styrene
<0.050
mg/kg
0.05
23-AUG-16
<10
mg/kg
10
23-AUG-16
Soil
PAH-CCME-CL
Batch
R3533719
WG2375513-7
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
DUP
L1815245-1
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
<0.0050
<0.0050
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Quinoline
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Acenapthylene
<0.0050
<0.0050
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Phenanthrene
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16

Workorder: L1815245
Page 2 of 7

Client:
Contact:
RICARDO SEGOVIA
Test
Matrix
Reference
Result
PAH-CCME-CL
Soil
Units
RPD
Limit
Analyzed
L1815245-1
<0.0040
<0.0040
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Pyrene
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
RPD-NA
mg/kg
Benzo(a)anthracene
<0.010
<0.010
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Chrysene
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Benzo(a)pyrene
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Fluoroanthene
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Fluorene
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
Batch
Qualifier
R3533719
WG2375513-7
Anthracene
DUP
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
<0.0050
<0.0050
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
2-methylnaphthalene
<0.010
<0.010
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
50
25-AUG-16
WG2375513-4
Naphthalene
ALS PHC1 RM DA
119.2
60-130
24-AUG-16
Acenapthene
100.1
60-130
24-AUG-16
Acenapthylene
95.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
Phenanthrene
98.7
60-130
24-AUG-16
Anthracene
96.8
60-130
24-AUG-16
Pyrene
93.8
60-130
24-AUG-16
108.5
60-130
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)anthracene
91.1
60-130
24-AUG-16
Chrysene
98.8
60-130
24-AUG-16
92.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
97.9
60-130
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)pyrene
87.2
60-130
24-AUG-16
Fluoroanthene
93.7
60-130
24-AUG-16
Fluorene
94.5
60-130
24-AUG-16
93.6
60-130
24-AUG-16
105.8
60-130
24-AUG-16
2-methylnaphthalene
125.9
60-130
24-AUG-16
ALS PHC1 RM DA
120.2
60-130
25-AUG-16
WG2375513-8
Naphthalene
IRM
IRM

Workorder: L1815245
Client:
Contact:
RICARDO SEGOVIA
Test
Matrix
PAH-CCME-CL
Soil
Batch
Page 3 of 7
Reference
Result
Qualifier
Units
RPD
Limit
Analyzed
R3533719
WG2375513-8
Acenapthene
ALS PHC1 RM DA
92.9
60-130
25-AUG-16
Acenapthylene
90.1
60-130
25-AUG-16
Phenanthrene
90.3
60-130
25-AUG-16
Anthracene
92.3
60-130
25-AUG-16
Pyrene
87.6
60-130
25-AUG-16
114.1
60-130
25-AUG-16
Benzo(a)anthracene
86.0
60-130
25-AUG-16
Chrysene
93.0
60-130
25-AUG-16
87.6
60-130
25-AUG-16
94.4
60-130
25-AUG-16
Benzo(a)pyrene
84.0
60-130
25-AUG-16
Fluoroanthene
87.6
60-130
25-AUG-16
Fluorene
88.1
60-130
25-AUG-16
87.0
60-130
25-AUG-16
114.6
60-130
25-AUG-16
2-methylnaphthalene
117.9
60-130
25-AUG-16
98.4
50-130
24-AUG-16
Acenapthene
95.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
Quinoline
WG2375513-1
Naphthalene
IRM
LCS
98.4
60-130
24-AUG-16
Acenapthylene
95.5
60-130
24-AUG-16
Phenanthrene
98.5
60-130
24-AUG-16
Anthracene
97.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
Pyrene
100.4
60-130
24-AUG-16
93.6
60-130
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)anthracene
99.6
60-130
24-AUG-16
Chrysene
103.7
60-130
24-AUG-16
97.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
102.6
60-130
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)pyrene
96.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
Fluoroanthene
99.3
60-130
24-AUG-16
Fluorene
100.3
60-130
24-AUG-16
89.4
60-130
24-AUG-16
97.6
60-130
24-AUG-16

Workorder: L1815245
Client:
Contact:
RICARDO SEGOVIA
Test
Matrix
PAH-CCME-CL
Soil
Batch
Page 4 of 7
Reference
Result
Qualifier
Units
RPD
Limit
Analyzed
R3533719
WG2375513-1
LCS
2-methylnaphthalene
97.1
60-130
24-AUG-16
WG2375513-5
Naphthalene
90.8
50-130
24-AUG-16
Acenapthene
88.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
Quinoline
89.2
60-130
24-AUG-16
Acenapthylene
88.5
60-130
24-AUG-16
Phenanthrene
89.2
60-130
24-AUG-16
Anthracene
88.9
60-130
24-AUG-16
Pyrene
92.9
60-130
24-AUG-16
83.1
60-130
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)anthracene
98.6
60-130
24-AUG-16
Chrysene
102.4
60-130
24-AUG-16
96.7
60-130
24-AUG-16
100.2
60-130
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)pyrene
94.6
60-130
24-AUG-16
Fluoroanthene
91.7
60-130
24-AUG-16
Fluorene
LCS
92.4
60-130
24-AUG-16
81.8
60-130
24-AUG-16
90.0
60-130
24-AUG-16
2-methylnaphthalene
90.3
60-130
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Acenapthene
<0.0050
mg/kg
0.005
24-AUG-16
Quinoline
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Acenapthylene
<0.0050
mg/kg
0.005
24-AUG-16
Phenanthrene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Anthracene
<0.0040
mg/kg
0.004
24-AUG-16
Pyrene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)anthracene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Chrysene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)pyrene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
WG2375513-2
Naphthalene
MB

Workorder: L1815245
Client:
Contact:
RICARDO SEGOVIA
Test
Matrix
PAH-CCME-CL
Soil
Batch
Page 5 of 7
Reference
Result
Qualifier
Units
RPD
Limit
Analyzed
R3533719
WG2375513-2
Fluoroanthene
MB
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Fluorene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.0050
mg/kg
0.005
24-AUG-16
2-methylnaphthalene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
89.3
60-130
24-AUG-16
89.8
60-130
24-AUG-16
83.3
60-130
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Acenapthene
<0.0050
mg/kg
0.005
24-AUG-16
Quinoline
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Acenapthylene
<0.0050
mg/kg
0.005
24-AUG-16
Phenanthrene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Anthracene
<0.0040
mg/kg
0.004
24-AUG-16
Pyrene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
WG2375513-6
Naphthalene
MB
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)anthracene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Chrysene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Benzo(a)pyrene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Fluoroanthene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
Fluorene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
<0.0050
mg/kg
0.005
24-AUG-16
2-methylnaphthalene
<0.010
mg/kg
0.01
24-AUG-16
75.3
60-130
24-AUG-16
67.9
60-130
24-AUG-16
70.6
60-130
24-AUG-16
PREP-MOISTURE-SK
Soil

Workorder: L1815245
Client:
Contact:
RICARDO SEGOVIA
Test
Matrix
PREP-MOISTURE-SK
Soil
Batch
Reference
Result
L1815245-2
49.5
Qualifier
Units
RPD
Limit
Analyzed
48.3
2.5
20
23-AUG-16
100.5
90-110
23-AUG-16
<1.0
23-AUG-16
R3531547
WG2371259-1
% Moisture
DUP
WG2371259-3
% Moisture
LCS
WG2371259-2
% Moisture
MB
Soil
TEH-TMB-SK
Batch
Page 6 of 7
R3533862
WG2371261-1
DUP
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
WG2371261-4
IRM
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
WG2371261-3
LCS
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
WG2371261-2
MB
TEH (C11-C22)
TEH (C23-C60)
L1815245-2
<50
<50
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
25-AUG-16
<100
<100
RPD-NA
mg/kg
N/A
40
25-AUG-16
ALS PHC2 RM
91.0
70-130
25-AUG-16
109.5
70-130
25-AUG-16
106.9
70-130
25-AUG-16
112.7
70-130
25-AUG-16
<50
mg/kg
50
25-AUG-16
<100
mg/kg
100
25-AUG-16

Workorder: L1815245

Client:
Contact:
Page 7 of 7
RICARDO SEGOVIA
Legend:
Limit
DUP
RPD
N/A
LCS
SRM
MS
MSD
ADE
MB
IRM
CRM
CCV
CVS
LCSD
ALS Control Limit (Data Quality Objectives)

Duplicate
Relative Percent Difference
Not Available
Laboratory Control Sample
Standard Reference Material
Matrix Spike
Matrix Spike Duplicate
Average Desorption Efficiency
Method Blank
Internal Reference Material
Certified Reference Material
Continuing Calibration Verification
Calibration Verification Standard
Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
Sample Parameter Qualifier Definitions:

Qualifier
Description
RPD-NA
Relative Percent Difference Not Available due to result(s) being less than detection limit.
Hold Time Exceedances:

All test results reported with this submission were conducted within ALS recommended hold times.
ALS recommended hold times may vary by province. They are assigned to meet known provincial and/or federal government
requirements. In the absence of regulatory hold times, ALS establishes recommendations based on guidelines published by the
US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, or Environment Canada (where available). For more information, please contact ALS.
The ALS Quality Control Report is provided to ALS clients upon request. ALS includes comprehensive QC checks with every analysis to
ensure our high standards of quality are met. Each QC result has a known or expected target value, which is compared against predetermined data quality objectives to provide confidence in the accuracy of associated test results.
Please note that this report may contain QC results from anonymous Sample Duplicates and Matrix Spikes that do not originate from this
Work Order.
ALS Sample ID:

Client ID: TN1
L1815245-7
2000
1800
1600
Response - MilliVolts
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2.0
2.5
Printed on 8/25/2016 2:49:46 PM
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Time - Minutes
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
ALS Sample ID:

Client ID: TN2
L1815245-8
2000
1800
1600
Response - MilliVolts
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2.0
2.5
Printed on 8/25/2016 2:49:49 PM
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Time - Minutes
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5

E-Tech - Resurgence Report On Husky Spill - Sept 1 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

E-Tech - Resurgence Report On Husky Spill - Sept 1 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-Tech - Resurgence Report On Husky Spill - Sept 1 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Independent

dependent Primary Assessment of Husky Energy Oil Spill

Due to the slow response by Husky and lack of

2. Huskys Inadequate Response

Hydraulic Flushing using pressurized river water to stir up shallow bottom

and heavy metals get mixed

exposure to these Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Short-term (acute) exposure to

cd)Pyrene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene. Although it is not surprising to find this many

Figure 7: Sampling sediment for BTEX. Photo: E-Tech

6. Infrastructure Maintenance: Preventing Future Spills

7. Monitoring Contamination and Cleanup

Figure 8: Community monitoring projects in Peru. Photo: R. Segovia

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

present in peak concentrations in the first 48 hours after a spill. Husky

Appendix 2: Fact Sheets on Toxins Found in the Oil Spilled:

Appendix 3: Photographs from the Preliminary Assessment (Aug 14th to 17th)

Appendix 4: E-Tech/RE Sediment Samples Lab Results from ALS Global

CASH CLIENTS - SASKATOON

Date Received: 18-AUG-16

Client Phone: 604-704-1232

Part of the ALS Group

A Campbell Brothers Limited Company

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

Sample Parameter Qualifier Key:

Detection Limit Raised: Chromatographic Interference due to co-elution.

Detection Limit Adjusted: Sample has High Moisture Content

Surrogate diluted out:% recovery not available

Test Method References:

CCME CWS-PHC, Pub #1310, Dec 2001

CCME Total Hydrocarbons

CCME CWS-PHC, Pub #1310, Dec 2001

CWS-PHC DEC 2000

Extractable Hydrocarbons. Tumbler/GC-FID

CWS-PHC DEC 2000 (SOIL)

Test Method References:

Laboratory Definition Code

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA

Chain of Custody Numbers:

Quality Control Report

TVH: (C6-C10 / No BTEX Correction)