EMMA BRADFORD, ET AL.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL.
FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
CALCASIEU, NOS. 2007-2492, 2007-2498, 2007-2519, 2007-2911,
2007-3324, 2007-2921, 2007-3482, 2007-3394, 2007-2919,
2007-2610, 2007-2521, 2007-2625, 2007-2515, 2007-2507,
2007-2915, 2007-2598, 2007-2511, 2007-3332, 2007-2929,
2007-2603, 2010-922, 2007-2932, 2007-2497, 2007-3337,
2007-2516, and 2007-2502 HONORABLE SHARON D. WILSON, DISTRICT
Marion Gray, III, Ashley E. Bane, Fowler Rodriguez, COUNSEL
FOR: Other - Louisiana Surplus Lines Association.
E. Landry, Kevin Paul Fontenot, Scofield, Gerard, Pohorelsky,
Gallaugher & Landry, COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant -
CITGO Petroleum Corporation.
Albert Patrick, III Donahue, Patrick & Scott, COUNSEL
FOR: Defendant/Appellee - R & R Construction, Inc.
T. Watson, Jake Buford, Baggett, McCall, Burgess, Watson
& Gaughan, COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellee - Emma
Marshall Joseph Simien, Jr. Simien Law Firm, COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - CITGO Petroleum Corporation.
Matthew David Monson, The Monson Law Firm, LLC, COUNSEL FOR:
Other - Louisiana Surplus Lines Association.
Richard E. Wilson, Somer G. Brown, Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel
& Wilson, LLC, COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellee - Emma
Isenberg, Joshua O. Cox, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman, Freeman
& Sarver, L.L.C., COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant -
CITGO Petroleum Corporation.
Heath Savant Donohue Patrick, PLLC, COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellee - R & R Construction, Inc.
composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R.
Cooks, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.
ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE.
Petroleum Corporation (CITGO) appeals the trial court's
judgment in favor of twenty plaintiffs on the issue of
causation. It also appeals the trial court's judgment in
favor of thirteen plaintiffs on the issue of symptom duration
following exposure to CITGO's chemical spill and release.
Finding no error or manifest error in the trial court's
judgment, we affirm.
(1) whether the trial court manifestly erred in finding that
the twenty plaintiffs at issue established causation between
their injuries and CITGO's slop oil spill and air release
on June 19, 2006; and
(2) whether the trial court manifestly erred in awarding
damages for symptoms of thirteen plaintiffs beyond the
duration of that suggested by the medical testimony.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
facts of the spill and air release are well-documented, as
several cases have come before this appellate court and the
Louisiana Supreme Court. See, e.g., Arabie v. CITGO
Petroleum Corp., 10-244 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/27/10), 49
So.3d 529, aff'd on liability and causation,
rev'd on punitive damage issue, 10-2605 (La.
3/13/12), 89 So.3d 307 (referred to as Arabie I);
Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 15-324 (La.App. 3
Cir. 10/7/15), 175 So.3d 1180, writ denied, 15-2040
(La. 1/8/16), 184 So.3d 694 (referred to as Arabie
II); and Cormier v. CITGO Petroleum
Corp., 17-104 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/17), __So.3d__, 2017
19, 2006, following a local flash flood, CITGO's
Calcasieu Parish Refinery released four million gallons of
slop oil and seventeen million gallons of wastewater into the
Calcasieu River, contaminating over 100 miles of coastline
with toxic liquids and mousse-like substances that emitted
toxic fumes in addition to being toxic upon contact. The
spill was the result of the failure and overflow of
CITGO's closed-system, waste-water treatment unit. The
overflow was described as a catastrophic event and an
environmental disaster by CITGO's own representatives.
The clean-up of the spill lasted for approximately six
months, from June to December, 2006.
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on slop oil from March 2006
ranks it as a chronic health and fire hazard. The MSDS states
that the oil is extremely flammable and poisonous, and it
contains Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) gas which may be
fatal if inhaled. It can enter the lungs and cause damage. It
is harmful or fatal if swallowed. Slop oil contains above di
minimus levels of benzene, a known cancer hazard which can
cause leukemia and other blood disorders, H2S,
xylene, toluene, n-hexane, and ethylbenzene. Benzene,
toluene, and xylene are volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
VOCs are chemicals that evaporate from a solid or liquid form
at room temperature; long-term exposure can cause damage to
the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system; short-term
exposure can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation,
headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, fatigue, loss of
coordination, allergic skin reactions, nausea, and memory
impairment. Pursuant to CITGO's MSDS, slop oil
also contains hexane, heptane, octanes, nonane, and
trimethylbenzenes. Slop oil and/or its components are listed
on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory.
June 19, 2006, CITGO's steam lines became submerged and
the facility released H2S and sulfur dioxide (S02)
from sixty stacks in illegal concentrations for a full day,
approximately twelve hours. The wind was blowing from the
southeast toward the north and northwest, then calming for
parts of the day, allowing the toxic emissions to release
into the surrounding community.
plaintiffs in these consolidated cases live, work, and
socialize in the areas around the CITGO facility. They
asserted various injuries as a result of their exposure to
the toxic chemicals in the slop oil and wastewater spills and
in the air emissions emanating from the CITGO facility on
June 19, 2006. The trial court found in favor of thirty-four
of the thirty-six plaintiffs, and made awards in accordance
with the court's assessment of the evidence. CITGO
appeals the parts of the judgment awarding damages to
twenty-two of those plaintiffs. CITGO has stipulated to
liability, and its appeal is based upon causation and
duration of damages only.
appellate court may not set aside a trial court's
findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless
it is clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, Through DOTD,
617 So.2d 880 (La.1993); Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d
840 (La.1989). A two-tiered test must be applied in order to
reverse the findings of the trial court: (a) the appellate
court must find from the record that a reasonable factual
basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court; and
(b) the appellate court must further determine that the
record establishes that the finding of the trial court is
clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). Mart v. Hill,
505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987).
where the appellate court believes its inferences are more
reasonable than the fact finders, reasonable determinations
and inferences of fact should not be disturbed on appeal.
Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978).
Additionally, a reviewing court must keep in mind that if a
trial court's findings are reasonable based upon the
entire record and evidence, an appellate court may not
reverse said findings even if it is convinced that had it
been sitting as trier of fact it would have weighed that
evidence differently. Housely v. Cerise, 579 So.2d
973 (La.1991). The basis for this principle of review is
grounded not only upon the better capacity of the trial court
to evaluate live witnesses, but also upon the proper
allocation of trial and appellate functions between the
respective courts. Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d
first contends that the trial court manifestly erred in
awarding damages to twenty plaintiffs "without expert
testimony establishing that they actually had been exposed to
harmful chemicals released by CITGO."
personal injury suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of
proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 94-2603
(La. 2/20/95), 650 So.2d 757. A cause is a legal cause in
fact if it has a proximate relation to the harm which occurs.
Butler v. Baber, 529 So.2d 374 (La.1988). "A
proximate cause is generally defined as any cause which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient,
intervening cause, produces the result complained of and
without which the result would not have occurred."
Sutton v. Duplessis, 584 So.2d 362, 365 (La.App. 4
Cir.1991). The test for determining the causal relationship
between an accident and injury is whether the plaintiff
proved through medical testimony that it is more probable
than not that the subsequent injuries were caused by the
accident. Maranto, 650 So.2d 757. If there is more
than one cause of injury, "a defendant's conduct is
a cause-in-fact if it is a substantial factor generating
plaintiff's harm." Rando v. Anco Insulations,
Inc., 08-1163, p. 31 (La. 5/22/09), 16 So.3d 1065, 1088.
Causation is an issue of fact subject to the manifest error
standard of review. Id.
of causation in toxic tort cases has two components, general
and specific. Pick v. American Medical Systems,
Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1151, 1164 (E.D. La.1997).
"General causation" refers to whether a substance
is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in the
general population, while "specific causation"
refers to whether a substance caused a particular
individual's injury. Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine,
Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff
cannot sustain his or her burden of proof with general
causation proof alone; the plaintiff must also establish
specific causation. See Berzas v. Oxy USA, Inc., 29,
835 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/24/97), 699 So.2d 1149.
various federal cases, CITGO asserts that expert testimony is
required to prove both general and specific causation in
toxic tort cases. But the cited cases only establish that
expert testimony on causation is required. See Atkins v.
Ferro Corp., 03-945 (M.D. La. 2/11/08), 534 F.Supp.2d
662 (the expertise of plaintiff's only expert was in
weather and climate); Seaman v. Seacor Marine
L.L.C., 08-30911 (5th Cir. 4/30/09), 326 Fed.Appx. 721
(plaintiff's medical causation expert was disqualified);
Allen v. Pennsylvania. Eng. Corp., 96-30209 (5th
Cir. 12/31/96), 102 F.3d 194 (plaintiff's experts failed
the Daubert analysis).
Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 15-6394 (E.D.
La. 3/6/17), 2017 WL 889083, *2-3 (footnote omitted),
Louisiana's middle district federal court stated as
Several of the defendants argue that William Bell does not
offer sufficient specifics or detail in his deposition
testimony to conclude that he was exposed to asbestos in or
on the defendant's products. But the Fifth Circuit
"has inferred proximity to products from purely
circumstantial evidence similar to the evidence in this
case." See Slaughter v. S. Talc Co., 949 F.2d
167, 172 (5th Cir. 1991). "In Whatley v. Armstrong
World Industries, 861 F.2d 837 (5th Cir. 1988), for
instance, [the Fifth Circuit] upheld a jury's allocation
of fault for plaintiff's asbestos-related injury, even
though there was no direct evidence that the plaintiff had
worked with the defendants' products." Id.
Except with respect to York International Corporation and
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, there is sufficient
evidence in the record to create a genuine material fact
dispute as to the extent of William Bell's exposure to
each defendant's products. The causation issue is best
left for trial, where the jury can decide for itself the
extent of William Bell's exposure and the jury can
benefit from detailed expert testimony from both sides
regarding the nature of asbestos exposure.
There is one additional causation issue worth addressing with
respect to expert testimony. IMO Industries, Inc. argues that
a plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof on causation in a
toxic tort case without expert testimony as to specific
causation. . . . But the cases cited by IMO Industries . . .
only establish that expert testimony on causation is
required-not that an expert opinion as to specific causation
is required. See, e.g., Seaman v. Seacor Marine
L.L.C., 326 Fed.Appx. 721, 729 (5th Cir. 2009)
("And, without admissible expert evidence in this
toxic-tort case, Seaman cannot prove causation.").
IMO Industries essentially alleges that if an expert cannot
render a reliable opinion as to specific causation, then a
jury cannot find that the plaintiff proved specific causation
as a matter of law. But that is incorrect. The standard for
offering an opinion as an expert is wholly distinct from the
standard by which a jury must judge the plaintiff's case.
Expert testimony regarding general causation combined with
specific evidence regarding the nature of the decedent's
exposure may be sufficient to permit the jury to conclude
that a particular defendant's product was a substantial
factor in causing William Bell's mesothelioma.
contrary to CITGO's assertions, the plaintiffs in this
case provided expert testimony establishing general causation
and provided medical testimony establishing specific
Barry Levy, an occupational and environmental health
physician and epidemiologist with thirty-five years of
experience, established general causation in this case via
his prior depositions and trial testimony submitted into
evidence at the trial of these consolidated cases. Dr. Levy
received a Bachelor of Science degree summa cum laude from
Tufts College, a Master of Public Health degree from the
Harvard School of Public Health, and a Doctor of Medicine
degree from Cornell University Medical College. He has worked
as a Medical
for the Centers for Disease Control, for which he received
the U.S. Public Health Service Commendation Medal. He founded
and directed the Occupational Health Program at the
University of Massachusetts Medical School. Dr. Levy has
written more than 150 journal articles and book chapters and
edited thirteen books, including five editions of the
textbook now entitled "Occupational and Environmental
Health: Recognizing and Preventing Disease and Injury"
and two editions of the book "Preventing Occupational
Disease and Injury." Dr. Levy has clinically evaluated
thousands of individuals who had developed, or were at risk
of developing, a wide range of adverse health effects as a
result of environmental and/or occupational exposure to
M. Parker III, a Certified Industrial Hygienist, also
established general causation. Mr. Parker has a Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering from Virginia Military Institute
(VMI) and a Masters in Aerospace Operations Management from
the University of Southern California. He was Chief, Military
Public Health, Occupational Medicine Services Section, and
Chief, Bio- environmental Section, while in the Air Force,
and has been Manager, Industrial Hygiene for Shell and
Tenneco. Mr. Parker was also Adjunct Assistant Professor of
Industrial Hygiene, Environmental Sciences, School of Public
Health, University of Texas, Houston. He is a retired Colonel
in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. Since 2004, he has been the
Partner and Chief Executive Officer of Caliche, Ltd., a
consulting firm. He has published numerous articles
throughout his career on industrial hygiene, toxic exposure,
health and safety.
Parker opined on the failure of CITGO to warn the community
and the likelihood of the plaintiffs' exposure to both
volatile and non-volatile chemicals contained in the slop oil
and in the air release. In reaching his opinion, Mr. Parker
considered the depositions of the plaintiffs, numerous CITGO
documents, correspondence with the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ), regulations of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response, and Standard Operating
Safety Guides by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for Hazardous Waste. He also explained OSHA regulations
regarding respiratory protection, numerous depositions of
CITGO employees and fact witnesses, photographs, maps,
CITGO's internal call logs and monitoring practices, and
CITGO's MSDS documents on slop oil and S02. Based on
these documents, a review of scientific literature, and his
vast experience as an Industrial Hygienist, Mr. Parker opined
that CITGO's and LDEQ's air monitoring data were
inconsistent with first hand observations obtained from fact
witnesses as well as documents provided by CITGO. He
testified to the unsafe concentrations of toxic chemicals
spilled and released on June 19, 2006, and to the symptoms
and health effects that occur in people who are exposed to
Robert Looney, a physician with more than fifty years of
experience, established specific causation for a number of
the plaintiffs. He practices general medicine and
occupational and environmental medicine at Health Associates
of Lake Charles and is the Chairman of the Occupational
Medicine Department. Dr. Looney holds professional
memberships in the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, the Southeastern Occupational and
Environmental Medicine and the American Board of Medical
Review Officers. His experience diagnosing patients and
providing treatment for their symptoms and illnesses
associated with the petro-chemical industry is extensive. Dr.
Looney is and has been the Medical Examiner for Dyn-McDermott
Strategic Oil Storage since 2004. In the past, he has been
Medical Director for P.P.G. Industries, Hercules, Inc.,
Boeing Aircraft, and Amoco Oil. Dr. Looney also examined and
treated approximately 300 ethylene dichloride exposure
patients in Lake Charles.
Steve Springer, a board certified physician in Family
Practice, also established specific causation for the
plaintiffs who he examined or ran tests on. He is the sole
proprietor of Springer Family Medical Clinic. Dr. Springer
has seen hundreds of chemical exposure patients. Dr. Springer
was the Family Medicine Chief at Christus St. Patrick
Hospital from 2006 to 2008 and is presently the Medical
Director of Christus St. Patrick Hospital Diabetes Education
to Slop oil
on Symptoms of Exposure
MSDS states that breathing the gas or vapor from slop oil may
cause severe nose, throat, respiratory tract, and lung
irritation, respiratory paralysis, and death; symptoms
include coughing, choking, or shortness of breath.
Additionally, inhalation may cause central nervous system
depression with symptoms including nausea, headache,
dizziness, fatigue, drowsiness or unconsciousness. It can
cause eye irritation with tearing, redness, stinging or
burning and can cause swelling of the eyes with blurred
vision. Skin contact can cause skin irritation with redness,
itching, burning or swelling of the skin and may cause
harmful effects in other parts of the body. Ingesting slop
oil can cause stomach or intestinal upset with pain, nausea
and/or diarrhea. If the material gets into the lungs during
swallowing or vomiting, it can cause lung damage, possibly
leading to chronic lung dysfunction or death.
MSDS states that exposure to slop oil may cause damage to the
blood, kidneys, lungs, liver, mucous membranes, heart,
lymphatic system, peripheral nervous system, upper
respiratory tract, immune system, skin, auditory system, bone
marrow, central nervous system eye, lens or cornea, and
Barry Levy testified regarding numerous epidemiology studies
involving people who worked around oil spills, people who
lived in the vicinity of oil spills, and people who
participated in the clean-up of oil spills. Residents of
Karachi, Pakistan were the subject of a study on health
effects of exposure to the crude oil spill from the Tasman
Spirit. Dr. Levy explained the association between the
residents' exposure and their symptoms of skin
irritation, nausea, headaches, dizziness, irritability,
weakness of arms and legs, fever, loss of appetite, fatigue,
eye, and respiratory symptoms. Studies also showed related
exacerbation of asthma, vertigo, headache, back and leg
pains, and psychological ailments.
respiratory problems of one or two years showed up in the
study of the Prestige oil spill, and a follow-up to the study
showed five years of symptoms. Dr. Levy explained that for
various reasons, including but not limited to genetics and
underlying diseases, people react differently to chemical
exposure. Thus, an important factor regarding duration of
symptoms is individual susceptibility. The conclusion was
that even short periods of exposure to oil sediments could
have detrimental health effects. Other studies addressed
psychological injuries such as depression and anxiety.
of the CITGO Spill
Significant Events Report indicates that closures of the Ship
Channel increased northward and southward each day after the
spills on June 19 and June 20. The report log for 7:35 p.m.
on June 23 states that the Captain of the Port increased the
safety zone at 4:00 p.m. to what appears to be the final,
official, northern and southern parameters of the spill zone
for prohibiting marine traffic. The northern parameter was
Channel Light 116 just south of Coon Island, which is north
of the I-210 Bridge; and the southern parameter was Channel
Light 52 south of Calcasieu Lake, also known as Big Lake. The
Intracoastal Canal was closed from Calcasieu Lock to mile
marker 242. The report states that this was necessary because
heavy currents from recent rains sped the oil into both lakes
and because the concentration of fumes from oil could cause
nausea, headaches, dizziness, and could make travel
hazardous. Finally, at 7:39 p.m. on June 23, CITGO made what
appears to be its first public announcement, stating that the
spill may irritate upper airways and cause mild nausea in
"sensitive individuals, " but with no long term
effects. It warned the public to stay away from the oil
oil is an amber to dark amber liquid which has an odor of
rotten eggs if H2S is present. Industrial
Hygienist Frank Parker characterized the slop oil as the
refinery's "garbage dump." He testified that it
probably contains hundreds of chemicals. CITGO's
toxicologist, Mr. Washburn, stated that slop oil also
contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Mr. Parker
testified that because slop oil is a mixture of chemicals,
there are no published exposure limits. However, the
components have published limits. The primary release hazards
in slop oil include benzene, and the acid gas, hydrogen
is a carcinogenic that causes blood abnormalities and central
nervous system depression. CITGO's MSDS indicates that up
to ten percent of slop oil is benzene. CITGO argued that the
benzene had evaporated within the first twenty-four hours of
the spill. Mr. Parker testified that this is not correct. He
testified that benzene does not attach to water molecules or
become absorbed in water. It remains benzene and combines
with wind and water to form mousse-like clumps which sit
partially on top and partially submerged in the water. When
it is disturbed, for example by boats or vacuum trucks or
other clean-up activities, droplets of mist containing all of
the chemicals are released anew. Thus, he testified that
CITGO's position that the hazardous materials were
liberated or evaporated early in the spill is incorrect. Mr.
Parker explained that this is borne out in the data and
documentation showing high peak days later on. On June 22,
2006, a ship called the Sea Bolt Trader recorded a benzene
level of nine parts per million (9ppm). One of CITGO's
toxicologists found a benzene reading of 11ppm. Mr. Parker
testified that the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for
benzene is 1ppm. Dr. Levy testified that the American
Petroleum Institute issued a document in 1948 that said
no exposure to benzene is safe. Mr. Parker confirmed
that if one smells benzene, you are already unquestionably
1997 MSDS indicates that up to five percent of slop oil is
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (also PAHs) which cause
photosensitivity and eye irritation; if inhaled, it can cause
irritation with cough and bronchitis. Xylene also irritates
eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. CITGO's 1997 MSDS and
its March 2006 MSDS state that up to three percent of slop
oil is hydrogen sulfide/ H2S. It can irritate the
eyes at 4ppm. Olfactory fatigue occurs rapidly at 50ppm; thus
odor is not a reliable warning property. It can irritate the
respiratory tract with possible pulmonary edema at levels
above 50ppm. The 1997 MSDS states that H2S is
severely toxic at 200ppm and can cause bronchitis at 250ppm,
but the March 2006 MSDS states that the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has determined that
levels above 100ppm are immediately dangerous to life and
health (IDLH). Exposure to H2S can cause loss of
consciousness, depressed respiration, and death at 500ppm.
March 2006 MSDS states that even sub-acute exposure to low
levels of H2S can produce eye irritation,
watering, light sensitivity and corneal opacity, bronchitis,
pulmonary edema, nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, lung
cavity formation and chronic lung dysfunction. The organs or
organ systems that may be aggravated by significant exposure
to this material or its components include skin, respiratory
system, peripheral nervous system, central nervous system,
blood-forming system, and auditory system.
show that on July 3, 2006, two weeks after the spill, heavy
oil was still around Calcasieu Refinery. Documents prepared
by one of CITGO's industrial hygienists, Mr. Melancon,
shows peak levels of H2S around July 4, 2006.
12, 2006 damage assessment report by Lisa DiPinto, Ph.D.
states that airboat surveys identified shorelines and marshes
with "extensively oiled sediments" which she
characterized as having "PAH odor, sheen when probed,
surface and/or buried oil layer in trenches." Michael
Lee is one of the plaintiffs in this case whose awards are
not being appealed, but it is noteworthy that Dr. Levy
related his symptoms to slop oil exposure at Calcasieu
Refinery beginning on July 17, 2006.
addition to previously discussed occurrences, CITGO's
Significant Events Report contained numerous comments and
complaints, some of which are summarized below:
June 21, 2006
• Oil on property of homeowner on Port Street near Moss
• CII Carbons sent folks home sick from potential
• One admitted to Lake Charles Memorial with chest
June 22, 2006
• Oil on property at Port Road address in Sulphur.
June 23, 2006
• Odor and Oil on Property Road address in Carlyss;
reported to 911; Local Fire Department responded and
registered high benzene levels.
• Prien, Moss, and Calcasieu Lakes all closed to
• Heart patient sick for two days.
• Two Hydrochem employees taken for evaluation and
urinary phenol testing.
• First public service announcement: smell may irritate
upper airway and cause mild nausea in sensitive individuals;
no long term effects; stay away from oil spill.
June 24, 2006
• Oil in Lagoon and dead turtle at Keel Road, north end