Drilling Mud "STP" Questions for Alameda Power

"Did anyone at AMP question why CTI's bid showed a substantially shorter duration than others?"

Suspect #2 in my search for the cause of the 2015 Seabird Massacre is a 2014 horizontal directional drilling (HDD) project to lay power conduit to Coast Guard Island from Alameda under the Estuary downstream from where a plume of greyish-tan sludge was reported prior to the massacre of hundreds of seabirds by a mysterious grey goo clinging to their bodies, causing death by hypothermia.

Laboratory analysis by California Fish and Wildlife of the Mystery Goo matches a type of oily "STP"-like* drilling mud additive that accelerates the rate of penetration (ROP) in earth-boring projects such as this drilling mud nightmare.

Drilling mud nightmare

Following is a list of questions I submitted today to Alameda Power about the 2014 CGI conduit drilling project.

"Previously asked:
1. Dates drilling began and ended.
2. What type drilling mud and drilling mud additives were used.

Additional:
3. Please enumerate if exceptions were made to generally-accepted engineering standards for environmental protection.
4. Were exceptions made to City standards for bidding? If so, how were they justified?
5. What, if any, previous experience did California Trenchless Inc (CTI) have with directional drilling projects of this type and scale?
6. How did CTI control and dispose of waste drilling mud? (The on-line contract documents specified a "mud pit" for retaining waste drilling mud, but there was none observed during the several days I watched the drilling during my daily walks.)
7. What geological data did CTI and AMP use to ensure environmental safety, e.g., the nature and composition of the subterranean geologic formation?
8. Did CTI or AMP do post-project testing for drilling mud leakage? If so, what were the results?
9. What level of on-site supervision did AMP have throughout the project? (The drilling was only yards away from AMP's headquarters.)
10. How otherwise did AMP assure themselves of contract compliance?
11. Did AMP perform on-site testing regarding environmental risks such as frac-out and waste mud leakage and disposal?
12. Do AMP and CTI have insurance coverage for environmental risk?
13. Did anyone at AMP question why CTI's bid showed a substantially shorter duration than others? (The use of a drilling mud additive would have accelerated the ROP [rate of penetration], reducing cost by speeding up the project, but would also increase environmental risk.)

Some of the information may not be readily available and can be provided later, but please provide what you can early next week.

I live nearby and am available should my assistance be needed.

Thanks again for your cooperation."

We will get to the bottom of this.

*STP is a popular additive for motor oil that is advertised to reduce friction.

Stagnant Lagoons Cause Problems

"... a mixture of non-petroleum-based fats or oils. Non-petroleum oils include synthetic oils, such as silicone fluids, tung oils, and wood-derivative oils such as resin/rosin, animal fats and vegetable oils."

(Below is my opinion piece from the April 9 issue of The Alameda Sun points an accusing finger at Alameda's finger lagoons as the cause of the Bay Area's Seabird Massacre of 2015.)

Built more than fifty years ago, Alameda's Finger Lagoons that stretch from Court Street to Westline Drive have evoked mystic phrases like, "Venice of California." They border some of Alameda's nicest homes. On Google Maps, they look like a thin blue cutworm crawling across the city's main island.

But beauty and cach'e come at a price. The lagoons can be an attractive nuisance. Recently a man was seen dumping a tub of soiled cat litter over the railing of his second floor balcony.

The Finger Lagoons have aesthetic appeal, but for some they have become an ecological nightmare. Global warming has turned stagnant bodies of water into algae farms. Algae love still water, heat and bright sunlight. Last year was the hottest on record in Northern California, with a record number of sunny days as well.

By contrast, the tree-shaded lagoons on Bay Farm Island were designed with 1970s  technology. No fingers impede flow. An aeration system keeps the water oxygenated. The aging lagoons on Alameda Island are not aerated and have little shade. With no aeration system, algae growth in these older lagoons must be controlled with chemicals. It's these chemicals I have a problem with.

Over the past ten years, signs have been posted at Alameda's beaches warning not to go into the water. Some unknown hazard makes peoples' legs sting. Could the mysterious source of that sting be chemicals released from the lagoons?

Our beaches are covered with sand reclaimed from just offshore. Was that sand tested for toxins first? Are tiny children and  mothers safe in that sand?

Last October I observed someone in a Clean Lakes, Inc. truck taking a water sample from a lagoon. According to its web site, Clean Lakes is a global expert in "clarifying" inland waterways with toxic agricultural chemicals. A city engineer told me the company was essentially a lagoon janitorial service. Good thing I'm not that gullible.

The same engineer said the lagoon dredging solids were dumped "at Alameda Point on a toxic hot spot." Well, what about the liquids? You know the ones that went out that pipe into San Francisco Bay?

Last October I observed a plume of grey sludge and debris in San Leandro Bay that I suspect came from dredging the lagoons. This will be hard to prove, but Cal Fish and Wildlife said they would send someone out to take samples. I filed a complaint with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

We will get to the bottom of this.

Maybe those 1950s-era lagoons should be filled in, made into a park.

#   #   #

City Council Presentation - April 7, 2014

Below is a link to the six-minute presentation by April Squires and I to the Alameda's City Council on our concerns about the October toxic spill. Our presentation begins about 6:28 into the clip.

Click Here for a Video Transcript of City Council Presentation

We also supplied a .pdf file containing my photo essay and a Powerpoint file with many other details. This file is available free upon request.

With this formal presentation, the city staff and council members are on record as having been duly and thoroughly informed of a serious environmental threat affecting not just a few hundred birds, but the community served by the council and the entire Bay Area populace whose lives are potentially affected by toxic emissions into our delicate ecosystem.


Below is a full transcript of our six minute presentation:

ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING

APRIL 7, 2015

Section 1 - Comments by April B. Squires

 Around 4 o'clock on the afternoon of October 12,  2014, I watched a floating expanse of grayish-brown sludge enter San Leandro Bay from the direction of Alameda's Otis Street Bridge. The plume moved slowly and curled around the eastern tip of Alameda Island, then entered the Oakland-Alameda Estuary. Mr. Heying and I continued watching, following the plume from a footpath on the Oakland side of the estuary. Around 5:30PM we observed the plume from directly above on the Fruitvale Bridge. 

By that time the plume extended from San Leandro Bay westward past the Park Street bridge.  It was greyish-brown and had a thick, gel-like, almost foamy consistency unlike anything I had ever seen. The plume was about fifteen feet wide and maybe 20 foot long segments, imbedded with some clumps of grass with roots attached and other debris, including straws, paper cups and pieces of wood. There were occasional breaks in the plume where there was a thin oily sheen.

Around 6 PM Mr. Heying borrowed my cell phone and called 911. I listened as he was first connected with CHP, then the Alameda Fire Department. I heard him describe the sludge and tell the other party that he would remain in the area at the Nob Hill parking lot and be available by cell phone if he was needed. I heard him give his cell phone number so he could be contacted. Mr. Heying told me, "They said they would send a truck.”

Because it was getting dark and cold, Mr. Heying and I had coffee at Peet's at Nob Hill Grocery, sitting where we could see the Fruitvale Bridge, expecting to hear a siren. After about an hour, when there was no siren or fire truck, I left and Mr. Heying said he would return to the bridge and try again.

Issues that concern me going forward:

1. The insufficient response resulting from two 911 calls.  I learned that it is likely that response is inadequate because there is no protocol in place for first-responders in pollution cases that are not petroleum-based.

2. That the City of Alameda should establish its own protocol to protect the marine life we all enjoy as well as public safety of residents and visitors who enjoy the beaches.  The mayor should create a commission and a citizen advisory committee.

3. That the proposed SB 718 by California state senators Mark Leno and Lori Hancock delineates procedures to report pollution events, identify causes, hold accountable polluters and create and promote citizen reporting and involvement.  The mayor should ensure that the City’s protocol is integrated with the senate bill.

Section 2 - Comments by Monty J Heying

 I investigated the plume that Ms. Squires and I observed, and here some of my facts and conclusions.

 Facts:

1. Alameda's finger lagoons underwent extensive dredging during the first two weeks of October, 2014.
2. Dredging solids from these lagoons were dumped in a toxic "hot spot" at Alameda Point, and the residual liquids were released through the lagoon portal into San Francisco Bay.
3. Two months later a "Grey Mystery Goo" killed and injured hundreds of seabirds along the shores of Alameda, San Leandro and Hayward, and a bird rescue non-profit's budget has been drained.
4. Chemical analysis by Cal Fish and Wildlife has not ruled out lagoon dredgings as the source of the Mystery Goo.*
5. Cal Fish and Wildlife took samples from near the lagoon portal to test and compare with the Mystery Goo.
6. I saw an employee of Clean Lakes, Inc.* taking a lagoon water sample.
7. Per their web site, Clean Lakes uses toxic agricultural chemicals to "clarify" inland waterways. One such product is “…absorbed and trans-located by aquatic plant foliage, interfering with plant metabolism." Another is "…a contact herbicide effective against a broad range of aquatic plants." Clean Lakes also uses surfactants, which are chemical compounds that can emulsify dissolved and undissolved solids and render them floatable. (Image 1kc)
8. Degradation of marine habitat near the lagoon portal is evident. (Images 1y & 1zz)
9. Here is a photo showing a foaming agent, a possible surfactant, in the lagoons. Notice the grey fringe where the white foam meets the water as if a chemical change is taking place. (Image 1kc)

  

*Rinderneck quote: "...  silicone fluids, tung oils, resins or rosin oils, animal fats, and edible or inedible seed oils from plants"

Conclusions:

1. The timing, flow direction and content of the October sludge plume are consistent with Alameda's lagoon dredging and the Mystery Goo.
2. Additional sampling and analysis are required to prove linkage between the Goo and the lagoons.
3. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent of environmental damage and the  risk of relying on toxic chemicals to maintain the aging finger lagoons.
4. We need further study to determine the extent to which a new era of catastrophic environmental risk to the marine ecosystem of San Leandro Bay has been brought about by changes in tidal currents due to drought-related sediment build-up.

#   #   #

*Clean Lakes, Inc.'s web site.

 ARI is another company specializing in inland waterway clarification: ARI's web site